QUOTE: Originally posted by underworld A fuel cell is a device that generates hydrogen. A vehicle that requires a "fill up" of hydrogen is just a hyrogen fueled vehicle. underworld [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick That train that blew up Denver... could we send one to New Jersey?[}:)] More seriously, I'm still holding out for the time when the price of diesel fuel makes a new coal burning steam locomotive a realistic possibility. I know it's just a dream, but it's MY dream and I'm sticking with it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jason1 From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Submarines by Michael Dimercurio: Prompt Critical Rapid Disassembly... [snipped] They can indeed explode.
Originally posted by up829 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply BentnoseWillie Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Nova Scotia 825 posts Posted by BentnoseWillie on Friday, April 1, 2005 8:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Storing hydrogen in solid state takes enourmous amounts of presssure, and if the container is breached you have hydrogen gas instantly. I was under the impression that fuel cell technology involved bonding hydrogen to another substance in a true solid to avoid pressure vessels altogether. Did I err? B-Dubya -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inside every GE is an Alco trying to get out...apparently, through the exhaust stack! Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Friday, April 1, 2005 9:26 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod 88gta350, would you care to comment on the recent records set by TMI unit 1 -- which should shut up many armchair critics... both of nuclear technology's reliability, and of the ex-GPU's ability to build a quality plant. For those that don't know, in 2003 TMI Unit 1 set a world record for longest continous run by a PWR(It was Unit 2 that had the accident in '79). It was a breaker to breaker run between refuelings, which means it ran continously for about 18 months without any unplanned shutdowns. This is a relatively rare occurance in the nuclear industry, as even the smallest problems can cause SCRAMS. Keep in mind that nuclear plants need offsite power to run, so if they lose power for whatever reason, the reactor SCRAMS. A surge in the tranmission grid can trip breakers, even the smallest vibration in a pump or motor can be detected and cause a SCRAM. In 2004 we set a site record (not sure how it relates to other plants) of about 4 REMS of exposure to site employees. GPU sold TMI-1 in 2000 to Exelon, which is the largest operator of nuclear plants in the country. Because they have so many plants, Exelon has a huge knowledge base of experience to pull from and can implement some great best-practice policies. Of course, problems still occur, pumps and motors fail, breakers trip, valves stick, but Exelon's focus on preventative maintainance and the expeerience they have in nuclear power allows them to reduce these problems aand deal with them very effectively when they do occur. If a problem occurs, it's cause and solution is quickly distributed to every other plant in the fleet so that the problem can be looked for in those other plants, and a solution quickly applied if the problem is found/occurs. We have our next refueling outage this fall and we are on course to have another breaker to breaker run. The nuclear industry in general has made great strides in recent years, (and Exelon is continuoslly cited as one of the best operators in the country) but of course there are still improvements to be made. The Davis-Bessie ordeal is one example. But I would have no problem living near one of these plants, and I certainly don't have any problem working there. As for TMI-2, that was in commercial nuclear power's infancy, and I don't think the industry had enough respect for the power they were dealing with. An unfortunate series of events came together for that accident, and young, inexperienced operators were overwhelmed. I'm confidant the lessons learned from that accident and the 25+ years of operations since, and all the training they now go through, have all but eliminated the chances of an accident like that happening again. The nuclear industry has to make sure it never gets overconfidant again. Was that what you were looking for overmod, or did you want something else in an answer? Dave M Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, April 1, 2005 9:39 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by BentnoseWillie QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Storing hydrogen in solid state takes enourmous amounts of presssure, and if the container is breached you have hydrogen gas instantly. I was under the impression that fuel cell technology involved bonding hydrogen to another substance in a true solid to avoid pressure vessels altogether. Did I err? well, BW, yes -- but I can see quite easily how, so don't be upset! The fuel cell itself is a device which takes a fuel (usually hydrogen, but it doesn't have to be) and an oxidizer (usually oxygen naturally present in the air -- but again, it doesn't have to be) and allows them to combine in such a way that, during the combination, the electrons involved in the reaction have to go through a wire, rather than just zip from atom to atom. Then you take the wire and cut it, and connect the cut ends to an electrical device (such as a light bulb, cell phone -- or electric motor) and presto! Electric power. The chemical reactions are exactly the same as if you were to burn the fuel in an engine, but they take place at a much lower temperature and the energy released shows up as electric current, rather than heat. The 'exhaust' from a fuel cell is exactly the same compound or compounds that would be generated by the using the same fuel in an engine (OK, guys -- don't get picky; the higher temperatures in an engine do generate some side products which fuel cells don't); for a fuel cell running on hydrogen and oxygen, the 'exhaust' is water vapour. Where the bonding of hydrogen to something (a metal) to avoid the use of pressure vessels gets involved is in the technology needed to store the hydrogen (which will later be used as a fuel). One of the approaches is to combine the hydrogen with certain metals, which produces a more or less stable group of compounds called metal hydrides, which don't have to be stored under pressure but which can be persuaded to give up the hydrogen later, fairly easily. Metal hydride storage is quite feasible. It is also quite heavy... Overmod, your comments on nuclear power are wonderful, as usual! As you point out, there are a number of reactor designs which have better emergency characteristics than the GE BWRs; one of my favourites has always been the CANDU design -- but I'm biased! BTW, my dad worked on the CANEL project in the 50s, which investigated nuclear power for very long range aircraft. My recollection of that reactor agrees with your description. The thing actually did fly, in a modified B-36. The B-36 was a bit of a dog anyway (even with the 4 jet engines on later models) and the weight of the reactor -- which didn't power it, just along for the ride -- made it pretty close to useless. Jamie Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Friday, April 1, 2005 10:56 AM Dave and Overmod - thank you for your posts. My Dad Worked for Westinghouse - Bettis Atomic Power Lab outside of Pittsburgh for over 40 years. He was there from the beginning till he retired. He built reactors for many subs and was Chief Test Engineer for the 1969 Refueling of the Enterprise and then ran the office at Ingall's Shipbuilding in Pascagoula from 1970-1975. He was always fustrated with people who have no freaking clue talking about nucs. As I do. Nucs are safe. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 1, 2005 1:02 PM I wanted to thank everyone for their imput on this matter. I am humbled by all the knowledge that has come out of this inquiry. Thank again. Easter Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Friday, April 1, 2005 1:11 PM up829, interesting thought about rocket fuel. Did you know that the 'original' fuel for internal-combustion motors was... gunpowder? Unfortunately, most if not all solid rocket fuels have drawbacks to their use as railroad fuels, either for internal or external-combustion power. In order to achieve high specific impulse, most of these fuels have burn speeds that are up in the detonation range -- this is why RDX, for example, makes a good element in them. Unfortunately, this isn't a characteristic you can use to good effect to generate torque rather than thrust -- and even if you could control the resulting flow of gas into a turbine, the metering and control of ignition would be, in a word, difficult. Some of these fuels have downright nasty combustion products -- take the perchlorate/aluminum fuel used in SRBs, for example. Not, perhaps, in the same league as nitrogen tet/asymmetrical hydrazine... but still, not something the EPA is likely to sanction, no matter how politically correct they may be about CO2 emissions... ;-} High energy at light loads translates into a need for very precise metering of fuel feed. This is already unlikely to be mechanically simple with solid fuel, even if slurried in a carrier or dissolved (in acetone, perhaps!) -- remember that you need positive isolation of the burning fuel to prevent detonation through the feed lines (remember, this stuff contains its own "primary and secondary air"...) There could be the usual drawn-out discussion about safety and stability of locomotive fuel in typical kinds of accident... or sabotage. Personally, I would not want high-energy propellants in the equivalent of Run 8, or even idling away, anywhere near me... Something else, though, is that the cumulative tonnage of available propellant (high-energy though it may be) is probably inadequate to handle the amount of demand that would result from a major substitution of existing fuel requirement. You might convert the gallons of diesel currently consumed by railroads into a weight, and then compare this (on a fair delivered-horsepower basis) with the amount of available... or cost-effectively produceable... rocket fuel. My guess is that you'd use up any effective stockpile with remarkable speed, and then find that it's much too expensive to produce the high-energy fuel just for railroad purposes. Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Friday, April 1, 2005 1:16 PM So far, everything discussed here for trains would give me a high pucker factor if I had to be around it. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply Sterling1 Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Traveling in Middle Earth 795 posts Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, April 1, 2005 2:27 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Additional reason not to try... Reactors do not run by themselves, they need the constant attention of a highly trained, and very highly paid group of folks to keep them running...so your crew cost would so far exceed any savings in fuel as to make it useless. Two, reactors require an on hand, dependable and constant supply of water... if you have a worst case accident, a Loss Of Coolant Accident, (LOCA)you can draw upon that supply to keep the reactor cooled and stable. In the case of land based reactors, you will note they all have either a man made lake or reservoir, or immediate access to a large, natural lake or body of water, for just that reason. With a mobile reactor, such as those found in submarines, well, they do happen to be surrounded by water, so using sea water, although not a first choice, is always a option. Last, can you name one single insurance company which would underwrite such a machine? And before you decide we are condemming your idea out of hand... Several major contractors did a few feasiblity studies on just such a concept, along with a nuc powered plane...and decided it was a no go idea. We had a very interesting and detailed thread going about two years ago on just this very concept...several forum members, with many, many degrees in several different applications, also came to the conclusion that it just was not a good, workable idea... Ed I asked a friend about a US Navy experiment where they had one cruiser (I think) powered by nuclear reactor. Result: expensive in fuel and cleanup costs and no one really wanted it to be in other countries' ports. Nuclear is expensive and yes there are problems with it, I just wonder why it's even suggested as a fuel source for locomotives. "There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.] Reply Sterling1 Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Traveling in Middle Earth 795 posts Posted by Sterling1 on Friday, April 1, 2005 2:38 PM From what I remember from reading pamphlet published by a power company who had a nuclear plant in the vicinity, the reactors used for making electricity use a low percentage of enriched uranium about 3 to 4 percent when compared to atomic bomb close to 100 percent enriched. Nuclear reactors tend to make everything in their presence have increased radioactivity that means the unit can't be used anymore after a certain period of time because of the radioactive hazard. The unit in this case a locomotive would have to be carefully disposed of and the parts i.e. that would have been sold for scrap value would be valueless. In any case nuclear power plants for locomotives are needless. Green Goats and Green Kids are better. "There is nothing in life that compares with running a locomotive at 80-plus mph with the windows open, the traction motors screaming, the air horns fighting the rush of incoming air to make any sound at all, automobiles on adjacent highways trying and failing to catch up with you, and the unmistakable presence of raw power. You ride with fear in the pit of your stomach knowing you do not really have control of this beast." - D.C. Battle [Trains 10/2002 issue, p74.] Reply 88gta350 Member sinceNovember 2002 From: US 592 posts Posted by 88gta350 on Friday, April 1, 2005 3:03 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 Nuclear reactors tend to make everything in their presence have increased radioactivity that means the unit can't be used anymore after a certain period of time because of the radioactive hazard. Unless an accident occurs that spreads contamination where it's not planned for or wanted, radioactivity doesn't shorten a plant's lifespan. Nuclear plants are made up of millions of parts: wires, tubes, valves, breakers, pumps, switches, etc. When those individual parts reach the end of their lifespans, they can be replaced, usually without even shutting down the reactor. There are so many redundant systems in these plants, they can run on an alternate system while the primary is being repaired/replaced. Some maitainance and repairs can only be done while the plant is shutdown, that's why they have refueling shutdowns every other year. Not only to refuel, but to perform maintainance. As I said, unless an accident were to occur that made some part of the plant uninhabitable, radioactivity would not shorten it's life. Initial liscences for nuclear reactors were 40 years. That means many plants are reaching the end of that time frame in the next 1-10 years. They can apply for a 20 year extension if they can show they can reliably and safely operate the plant that long, without adverse environmental impact. So far every plant that has applied for an extension has received it. The extensions are good for 20 years. Dave M Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 1, 2005 3:19 PM First off, unless it can be proven that a locomotive powered by a nuclear reactor is completely, 100% failsafe, I think the chances of us seeing one are slim at best. As soon as the word nuclear gets mentioned, the anti-nuclear groups will start screaming, and unfortunately they have all the power in this country. Not only that, nothing is 100% failsafe. However, the main thing that will probably kill this concept will be politics. Reply Edit Supermicha Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Germany 357 posts Posted by Supermicha on Friday, April 1, 2005 3:47 PM Krauss Maffei from Germany developed a nuclear locomotive in the 1950´s, but a prototype was never built... To many risks as mentioned before... Michael Kreiser www.modelrailroadworks.de Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Friday, April 1, 2005 4:19 PM the cruiser was the Long Beach and the nuc destroyer was the Bainbridge Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Saturday, April 2, 2005 12:55 PM 88, what you said was even more than I was 'fishing' for. Well said. (And well run, too.) If I may humbly suggest, however, there ARE cumulative nuclear effects on the structure of nuclear powerplants -- neutron embrittlement and dissociated-water hydrogen embrittlement of the metals in the primary loop of a PWR being one example. I would like to think that that's what Matt's thinking of, rather than some extrapolation of building shine. Point to remember here is that the original plant engineers understood this, staff has been monitoring it throughout the plants' operating lives, and the decisions to decommission (and yes, whether or not to extend operating licenses) take these factors into account. Never assume, even for a moment, that nuclear people are fools, crooks, or morons. It was my understanding that decommissioning of most of the plants built in the '60s was already scheduled, with the forward-going effects on baseline supply being understood by the generating companies, and in fact some of the earlier plants have already been shut down and their materials either processed or safely stored. Can you tell me which types of plant (e.g., manufacturer or timeframe of construction) were engineered in ways which allow their extended operation -- including the indefinite extensions you mention? (In particular, has it been found that BWRs have greater structural effects than PWRs?) I concur that most of the plant's equipment is not subject to radiation effects -- but the steam cycle in PWRs (and the BWRs I'm familiar with) involves such low levels of superheat/reheat that they are impractical to run with anything other than nuclear reactors. Meanwhile, I also understood that most of the modern nuclear technologies were essentially gas-cooled, and were not restricted to the high-volume-at-low-heat-rise cycle that the water-cooled reactors use. So in a sense Matt's argument about 'valueless' has some validity: not in the nuclear-waste sense, but in the salvage sense... certainly as applied to a hypothetical system that packages a NSSS of required power density within locomotive loading gauge. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 2, 2005 7:37 PM Unfortunately, nuclear fission power probably doesn't have too much of a future for civillian applications in this country anymore. Not because of technological problems or stuff like that, but because of political problems. Getting a new nuclear plant built nowdays would take more than a miracle. We got 2 nuclear plants in wisconsin that have successfully gotten their operating licenses extended. And good thing too: during summer, the power grid here is stretched way too thin. Guy I know used to be chief propulsion officer on a nuclear submarine, and he confirms everything Overmod says about neutron embrittlement and stuff like that. He's told me many things about nuclear reactors, and about what happens if direct sea water was put in a reactor. Reactor vessel and coolant piping will corrode in a matter of hours, perhaps minutes, from chloride stress corrosion cracking, the time depending on the condition of the reactor. And I agree 100% about the embrittlement of the reactor vessel. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 2, 2005 8:05 PM So I'm in my nuclear powered loco at night going the speed of light... If I turn on my headlight will I see it? Or will I just recieve a violation for not having it on already? Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Saturday, April 2, 2005 10:12 PM Toyo: 1) Of course you won't see your headlight -- it's mounted out of sight in front of you... 2) Don't blink -- at the speed of light you only have about 0.042 seconds, max, before you come out from behind the Earth's shadow and it isn't night any more... 3) You will be in violation of FRA regs if the light wasn't on, but you won't receive a violation -- no one can catch you to give it to you, and no information can be passed via radio or other EM. 4) Of course, your locomotive is quite short and pictures of it will probably not pass the railpictures.net (or whatever) editorial guidelines... see if you can find a copy of the film that was made at the Carnegie-Mellon Imaging Systems Lab that shows the effects of lightspeed travel on 'photographs' taken by lineside observers. If you're going slower than lightspeed, you might 'see' illumination from your headlight -- suitably wavelength-shifted, of course... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 3, 2005 3:10 AM If they just had to, the railroads would probably adopt alternative fuel or gas type burning engines-unless a totally new and safe power source is discovered and perfected, like cold fusion. And can you imagine what the appearance of the engine itself might look like. Talk about sci fi... trainluver1 Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 3, 2005 9:44 AM Overmod, I've heard that solid rocket fuel is very hard to throttle or control. Maybe it could be fed into a land-based turbine as a powder somehow. I have no idea of the economics of making the stuff. Regarding nuclear plants, the original Dresden Plants here in Illinois have been decommissioned for quite some time, but I'm not sure why. They were among the very first built and I don't think they generated anywhere near the power the newer plants do. IMHO, the Nuclear Industry needs a massive PR campaign to get going again. Standardized designs and independent operation and oversight by engineers & scientists might help the public get past "The China Syndrome". An explanation of how new materials, technologies, and operating procedures since TMI make plants safer would help too. It seems we learned a lot as a result of TMI, but too few people know about it. Reply Edit Valleyline Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 71 posts Posted by Valleyline on Sunday, April 3, 2005 10:08 AM Back in the late 50's/60's Pratt & Whitney was actively researching and developing aircraft propulsion that would use heat generated by an onboard nuclear reactor. They actually built a separate plant in Connecticut for the project, but it was ultimately shelved. I assume weight was the major factor in its demise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 3, 2005 12:55 PM You can give all the information you like, and still the anti-nuclear people aren't going to listen. It's just a fact with some people; they are so set in their ways that no matter how many facts you give them they aren't going to listen. And that wouldn't be a problem if these people didn't have all the power in this country, but sadly they do. You're not gonna get them to listen to reason in a million years, guaranteed. quote]Originally posted by up829 Overmod, I've heard that solid rocket fuel is very hard to throttle or control. Maybe it could be fed into a land-based turbine as a powder somehow. I have no idea of the economics of making the stuff. Regarding nuclear plants, the original Dresden Plants here in Illinois have been decommissioned for quite some time, but I'm not sure why. They were among the very first built and I don't think they generated anywhere near the power the newer plants do. IMHO, the Nuclear Industry needs a massive PR campaign to get going again. Standardized designs and independent operation and oversight by engineers & scientists might help the public get past "The China Syndrome". An explanation of how new materials, technologies, and operating procedures since TMI make plants safer would help too. It seems we learned a lot as a result of TMI, but too few people know about it.
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Storing hydrogen in solid state takes enourmous amounts of presssure, and if the container is breached you have hydrogen gas instantly.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod 88gta350, would you care to comment on the recent records set by TMI unit 1 -- which should shut up many armchair critics... both of nuclear technology's reliability, and of the ex-GPU's ability to build a quality plant.
QUOTE: Originally posted by BentnoseWillie QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Storing hydrogen in solid state takes enourmous amounts of presssure, and if the container is breached you have hydrogen gas instantly. I was under the impression that fuel cell technology involved bonding hydrogen to another substance in a true solid to avoid pressure vessels altogether. Did I err?
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Additional reason not to try... Reactors do not run by themselves, they need the constant attention of a highly trained, and very highly paid group of folks to keep them running...so your crew cost would so far exceed any savings in fuel as to make it useless. Two, reactors require an on hand, dependable and constant supply of water... if you have a worst case accident, a Loss Of Coolant Accident, (LOCA)you can draw upon that supply to keep the reactor cooled and stable. In the case of land based reactors, you will note they all have either a man made lake or reservoir, or immediate access to a large, natural lake or body of water, for just that reason. With a mobile reactor, such as those found in submarines, well, they do happen to be surrounded by water, so using sea water, although not a first choice, is always a option. Last, can you name one single insurance company which would underwrite such a machine? And before you decide we are condemming your idea out of hand... Several major contractors did a few feasiblity studies on just such a concept, along with a nuc powered plane...and decided it was a no go idea. We had a very interesting and detailed thread going about two years ago on just this very concept...several forum members, with many, many degrees in several different applications, also came to the conclusion that it just was not a good, workable idea... Ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by Sterling1 Nuclear reactors tend to make everything in their presence have increased radioactivity that means the unit can't be used anymore after a certain period of time because of the radioactive hazard.
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979 Seeing as we are talking about exotic fuels, any opinions on using nitromethane for a fuel? Hmmm....... Top Fuel Locomotive..... Interesting.... Randy
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.