A coal fired plant combined with an electric train and transmission losses is more efficient both energy and emissions-wise than the equivalent ICE engines to transport the same people.

I'd be curious to see the back-of-the-napkin math behind this.

Hard to say exactly, but it's not crazy. But I doubt the difference is that large.

Diesel engines for locomotives are likely 40% efficient before accounting for the motor-generator section. A modern a coal fired power plant might be 40-45% efficient. So probably the same based on raw thermal numbers.

I suspect economically the electrification is a win.

Also over the future it's possible to run the electrified trains on electric power from greener sources, like solar and wind. Where diesel would require a big upgrade.

An electric train may require less energy because it doesn't need to move the engine along the track.

It also doesn't need to move the fuel it needs, either. Plus if cleaner fuel becomes available, it can switch as soon as it's hooked to the grid.

Correct. They can also return energy when braking, although it usually helps to have a decent density of trains running at the same time.

The Tesla fans can probably give you the details -- although they're still a little wedded to cars. A coal plant can use filtering much more elaborate than anything a private vehicle can use, so reportedly a Prius (35 MPG) has about the same emissions as a Tesla fueled from an all-coal grid.

I don't disagree with your general point (although I'll quibble a bit about non-carbon emissions; even heavily scrubbed coal emits a lot of heavy metals that aren't present in gasoline).

But what Prius only gets 35 MPG? Did you mean 53MPG? My old Prius with batteries that are getting long in the tooth still gets 40-45 MPG.

"it will be mechanised and rely on locally-produced hydropower to run." according to an older article. Maybe that didn't happen?

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-global-influence-is-gr...

What's the bar for ecological spending? They should use more expensive energy solutions than say America? Why? I'd criticize each American coal plant in turn, before turning to blame 3rd-world development.

I don't know exactly where the bar is, but I would propose that it lies somewhere above the point where going outside makes your eyes and nose burn because the air is so awful.

The US is not some magical pollution-free paradise, but at least the air is comfortably breathable here 365 days a year in most places.

It's amusing when the authorities put out an air quality alert here in the DC area. It's important for sensitive populations, but it's almost impossible for a normal person to even notice the difference. A code red air quality day in DC would be a delightfully clear and clean day in Beijing.

They should use cleaner energy solutions because they're killing a shitload of people right now. Dirty coal is only cheaper if you ignore the costs imposed by the pollution.

And that's the situation in Ethiopia? I'm not sure it is. So again, they're using a cost-sensitive solution with possibly little ecological impact, in comparison to the rest of the world anyway.

The plants aren't built yet, so you wouldn't expect to see their impact yet. If you want to see what it might look like, look at another place where similar things are already built.