I have just started reading the New Trains magazine and a thought occured to me. Where are the railroads going to get the electric power for the proposed expansion of electrified operations.The power grid is strained now and we are told we have to cut back on power use.New power plants would have to be built,and there is always opposition to this,even with solar or wind power. Do we really want to see every hillside covered with giant windmills,or entire deserts blanketed with solar collector panels? The chances of getting a nuclear plant built are close to zero. Ecologists don't want dams built, and even traditional power plants cause some pollution.We will need more power,but where will it come from?
espeefoamerI have just started reading the New Trains magazine and a thought occured to me. Where are the railroads going to get the electric power for the proposed expansion of electrified operations.The power grid is strained now and we are told we have to cut back on power use.New power plants would have to be built,and there is always opposition to this,even with solar or wind power. Do we really want to see every hillside covered with giant windmills,or entire deserts blanketed with solar collector panels? The chances of getting a nuclear plant built are close to zero. Ecologists don't want dams built, and even traditional power plants cause some pollution.We will need more power,but where will it come from?
Rather than big powerplants, what about building a series of these units along the tracks connected to natural gas pipelines for fuel, go for a combined cycle unit for highest efficiency. The link takes you to a medium sized unit, you can go larger or smaller.
Gas Turbine Power
There you go using common sense and logic to solve another pie in the sky solution. The sad fact is that the electricity has to come from something and a turbine on the roof of the lead unit is not going to generate as much electricity as the drag effect it is going to create let alone power a locomotive so we are left with traditional methods. Unfortunately all the power required is going to pollute the atmosphere more than if you just burned diesel in the engine. Why? Because to make electricity you need to create steam and to do that you need to burn a fuel. Then you pass the steam through a turbine to turn a generator to make the power. Each step has losses so you lose some of the heat burning the fuel. You lose some of the energy in the steam. you lose some of the energy in turning the turbine. You lose some of the energy in the generator. And you lose some of the energy transmitting it to the locomotive. So which is the least polluting? Burning the fuel directly in the lcocmotive and it alway will be unless we can use nuclear but right now if you wanted to build a nuclear power plant it takes about twenty years and over thirty federal agency permits to even start one. Oh and about a billion dollars to get that far.
ndbprrThere you go using common sense and logic to solve another pie in the sky solution. The sad fact is that the electricity has to come from something and a turbine on the roof of the lead unit is not going to generate as much electricity as the drag effect it is going to create let alone power a locomotive so we are left with traditional methods. Unfortunately all the power required is going to pollute the atmosphere more than if you just burned diesel in the engine. Why? Because to make electricity you need to create steam and to do that you need to burn a fuel. Then you pass the steam through a turbine to turn a generator to make the power. Each step has losses so you lose some of the heat burning the fuel. You lose some of the energy in the steam. you lose some of the energy in turning the turbine. You lose some of the energy in the generator. And you lose some of the energy transmitting it to the locomotive. So which is the least polluting? Burning the fuel directly in the lcocmotive and it alway will be unless we can use nuclear but right now if you wanted to build a nuclear power plant it takes about twenty years and over thirty federal agency permits to even start one. Oh and about a billion dollars to get that far.
No, no, no, not mounted on the locomotive, but rather set down lineside powering electrification. Being lineside they can take advantage of combined cycle efficiencies, a pipeline for fuel supply, less pollution from using Natural Gas, and easy to use Hydrogen for fuel if that develops. Just not building the really big powerplants.
espeefoamer I have just started reading the New Trains magazine and a thought occured to me. Where are the railroads going to get the electric power for the proposed expansion of electrified operations.The power grid is strained now and we are told we have to cut back on power use.New power plants would have to be built,and there is always opposition to this,even with solar or wind power. Do we really want to see every hillside covered with giant windmills,or entire deserts blanketed with solar collector panels? The chances of getting a nuclear plant built are close to zero. Ecologists don't want dams built, and even traditional power plants cause some pollution.We will need more power,but where will it come from?
The Nuclear option?
80% of France is Nuclear Powered, there answer to the 1970s oil embargo. China is building or planning 60 new Nuclear Power Plants. In the U.S.A. 50% of our power is by burning Coal, 20% Nuclear. All our Aircraft Carriers and Submarines are nuclear powered without problems. The "Three Mile Island" accident did what it was supposed to do, contain the damage and radiation. The Russian accident at Chenobyl involved a type of reactor not used in the west.
The Coal option?
In West Virginia, the first "Clean Coal" plant, Mountaineer Power, is coming on-line. It is being built by Alstom, the French company that built the TGV Bullet Trains. Maybe they are looking for new customers.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
DMUinCT The Nuclear option? 80% of France is Nuclear Powered, there answer to the 1970s oil embargo. China is building or planning 60 new Nuclear Power Plants. In the U.S.A. 50% of our power is by burning Coal, 20% Nuclear. All our Aircraft Carriers and Submarines are nuclear powered without problems. The "Three Mile Island" accident did what it was supposed to do, contain the damage and radiation. The Russian accident at Chenobyl involved a type of reactor not used in the west.
This is the only option that makes any sense at all; either technically, financially or environmentally. The Federal government needs to get its head out of the sand and move such an initiative forward; it's the only way it can happen. Don't know that I'll live long enough to see it,, but I can always hope!
Mike
Electrical power - for railroads or any other purpose - will be built out to meet the demand. Whether it's nuclear, from spaceborne powersats or generated by stuffing all the stray dogs into giant hamster wheels, it will be made available.
As for the argument that there are no 'green' gains to be made by removing the diesels from individual locomotives - bullfeathers. I've seen more smoke coming out of a single unit than Los Angeles would tolerate at the stack of the biggest fossil fuel power plant in Southern California. When it comes to thermal efficiency, bigger is almost always better.
As for the argument that a natural gas fired plant would HAVE to be a steam generator - natural gas will burn in Otto cycle engines (like the one in your rubber-wheeler) or in properly-modified gas turbines. Using it directly in a true diesel is tricky, but can be done. If efficiency is the name of the game, the engineers and the folks with the checkbooks will come up with the solution that will have the lowest cost over the expected life of the project. Since I haven't crunched the numbers, I won't guess which will win out.
IMHO, the biggest problem with massive electrification will involve protecting the catenary systems from copper wire 'collectors.'
Chuck
tomikawaTT Electrical power - for railroads or any other purpose - will be built out to meet the demand. Whether it's nuclear, from spaceborne powersats or generated by stuffing all the stray dogs into giant hamster wheels, it will be made available.
Espeefoamer asked a very relevant question regarding the new issue of Trains, and it is one that the magazine didn't attempt to answer. In the current political climate it seems like only "green" power sources are to be built, but trains want to run when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
The issue did mention the possibility of putting new transmission lines in existing rights of way, but what are those lines to be fed by? Were I a railroad thinking about electrification, I'd want a really solid answer to that question. An assertion that the power will be made available just isn't enough.
tomikawaTTIMHO, the biggest problem with massive electrification will involve protecting the catenary systems from copper wire 'collectors
Would it be possible, while the catenary is being strung, to keep it live when no one is working on it? Warning signs should be posted.
Johnny
DeggestytomikawaTTIMHO, the biggest problem with massive electrification will involve protecting the catenary systems from copper wire 'collectors Would it be possible, while the catenary is being strung, to keep it live when no one is working on it? Warning signs should be posted. Johnny
Yes they are always powered up except when repairs are needed.
creepycrankInstead of a small power plant next to the track why don't they put a diesel generator on each locomotive? Oh they already do that. Is this what they call circular logic?
Of course they might have to pull a "Tender" along behind to collect the soot and possibly the CO2 that the diesel puts out so that they can sequester it.
beaulieu Deggesty tomikawaTTIMHO, the biggest problem with massive electrification will involve protecting the catenary systems from copper wire 'collectors Would it be possible, while the catenary is being strung, to keep it live when no one is working on it? Warning signs should be posted. Johnny Yes they are always powered up except when repairs are needed.
Deggesty tomikawaTTIMHO, the biggest problem with massive electrification will involve protecting the catenary systems from copper wire 'collectors Would it be possible, while the catenary is being strung, to keep it live when no one is working on it? Warning signs should be posted. Johnny
Dakguy201 tomikawaTT Electrical power - for railroads or any other purpose - will be built out to meet the demand. Whether it's nuclear, from spaceborne powersats or generated by stuffing all the stray dogs into giant hamster wheels, it will be made available. Espeefoamer asked a very relevant question regarding the new issue of Trains, and it is one that the magazine didn't attempt to answer. In the current political climate it seems like only "green" power sources are to be built, but trains want to run when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. The issue did mention the possibility of putting new transmission lines in existing rights of way, but what are those lines to be fed by? Were I a railroad thinking about electrification, I'd want a really solid answer to that question. An assertion that the power will be made available just isn't enough.
Briefly stated, when reality meets political posturing, reality wins.
If the 'green movement' interferes with people being able to power all their 'toys,' the politicians who espouse that movement will be looking for honest work after the next election.
Note that I am not averse to responsible stewardship of Starship Earth. There are plenty of environmentally acceptable ways to generate lots of electrical power. As a Nevada resident, I would not be averse to carpeting a couple of hundred square miles of desert with solar collectors. We have lots of desert.
Dakguy201Espeefoamer asked a very relevant question regarding the new issue of Trains, and it is one that the magazine didn't attempt to answer. In the current political climate it seems like only "green" power sources are to be built, but trains want to run when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. The issue did mention the possibility of putting new transmission lines in existing rights of way, but what are those lines to be fed by? Were I a railroad thinking about electrification, I'd want a really solid answer to that question. An assertion that the power will be made available just isn't enough.
Electrical power will be as readily available as oil. There was a lot of media attention about the new oilfield discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, after drilling in very deep water 7k feet down. The media made it sound like this would last for years. Then a comment made by a reader pointed out that if BP was correct about how much oil was down there it would be enough to meet the US demand for 300 days at current consumption rates. It also isn't likely that the same people who want green power generation won't allow drilling for oil of California coast or the Alaska Wildlife Refuge either.
beaulieu Rather than big powerplants, what about building a series of these units along the tracks connected to natural gas pipelines for fuel, go for a combined cycle unit for highest efficiency. The link takes you to a medium sized unit, you can go larger or smaller. Gas Turbine Power
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.