My goodness that thing is ugly. Looks like some of the worse Australian or EMD export designs, or perhaps an FM end-cab unit that got squashed.
Hopefully its performance will more than make up for that!
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude My goodness that thing is ugly. Looks like some of the worse Australian or EMD export designs, or perhaps an FM end-cab unit that got squashed. Hopefully its performance will more than make up for that!
LOL.. I would expect a cabless remote unit to be an option in the future.
It won't have 99% active use time - unless it can recharge the batteries in a time frame equivalent to pumping fuel into a diesel-electric.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD It won't have 99% active use time - unless it can recharge the batteries in a time frame equivalent to pumping fuel into a diesel-electric.
Cover it with solar panels?
SD60MAC9500LOL.. I would expect a cabless remote unit to be an option in the future.
I've used one of those already.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer or any other railroad, company, or person.
I think the Joule was designed as a 'world locomotive' of sorts, made to fit restrictive loading gage -- compare its external dimensions to, say, a MRS-1. I don't see it as dramatically ugly, just unfamiliar, in the way a class 66 is.
There is no particular reason why fairly rapid recharge (on the order of 20 minutes or so between 20 to 80%) could not be arranged. If you have sufficient current capability, multiple connections to cell strings in the battery, and really good smart cooling. I am not of the opinion the Joule is equipped for the full level of cooling to do this repeatedly, although it certainly could be (with circulating liquid cooling and bigger radiator capacity) so I suspect the idea is an extended runtime followed by off-peak recharge over a longer interval, something I suspect many types of switching or terminal operation could be made to support.
For extended 24-hour service you'd need distributed charging infrastructure, or some sort of onboard charging arrangement (if not in fact a full hybrid). If that is not clear to Progress/EMD now, it will be in time.
How long is the crew's lunch break?
MidlandMike BaltACD It won't have 99% active use time - unless it can recharge the batteries in a time frame equivalent to pumping fuel into a diesel-electric. How long is the crew's lunch break?
We get 25 minutes
zugmann SD60MAC9500 LOL.. I would expect a cabless remote unit to be an option in the future. I've used one of those already.
SD60MAC9500 LOL.. I would expect a cabless remote unit to be an option in the future.
What's your verdict on their operation?
SD70Dude BaltACD It won't have 99% active use time - unless it can recharge the batteries in a time frame equivalent to pumping fuel into a diesel-electric. Cover it with solar panels?
Solar panels lose power generation capacity when it is cloudy.
My Holiday Inn Engineering degree leaves me to doubt that solar panels can generate enough 'recharge power' to keep the unit(s) working during long term 'gray days'. There are numerous locations around the country where a Sunny Day is the exception, not the rule. Additionally taggers love 'fresh canvas'; to work solar panels would not like a coat of tagger paint.
BaltACD SD70Dude BaltACD It won't have 99% active use time - unless it can recharge the batteries in a time frame equivalent to pumping fuel into a diesel-electric. Cover it with solar panels? Solar panels lose power generation capacity when it is cloudy. My Holiday Inn Engineering degree leaves me to doubt that solar panels can generate enough 'recharge power' to keep the unit(s) working during long term 'gray days'. There are numerous locations around the country where a Sunny Day is the exception, not the rule. Additionally taggers love 'fresh canvas'; to work solar panels would not like a coat of tagger paint.
True about efficiency dropping without Sun light. Though this unit will be operating in Sou Cal. So solar panels would work in this regard. Over 300 days of sunshine, or better per annum.
BaltACDSolar panels lose power generation capacity when it is cloudy.
My Holiday Inn Engineering degree leaves me to doubt that solar panels can generate enough 'recharge power' to keep the unit(s) working during long term 'gray days'.
The graffiti is little problem. These panels can be faced with hard-surface glass. Or a modern silane hydrophobic coating, whether or not Californians have kittens over ODTS. Whatever spray paint fails to adhere could be removed with simple solutions -- applied by the culprits you catch with your orbiting drones...
Solar and Wind Powered? :) They will run great during when the Santa Ana winds come again!
Could see a application where you have some areas with 3rd rail or overhead lines to power and charge.
Nothing is absolute. The solar panels don't have to supply all the power. If they supply a "trickle" charge, they would extend the time between charging from a plug-in source or from third rail or catenary on part of the track.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of CovingtonThe solar panels don't have to supply all the power. If they supply a "trickle" charge, they would extend the time between charging from a plug-in source or from third rail or catenary on part of the track.
Increasing the effective runtime by a few minutes is not worth the expense and complexity; neither is the likely saving of the 'free power' per kWh before the debt service on the solar arrangement and its maintenance is paid off.
I presume you have seen the relevant parts of "Planet of the Humans" -- there are some sensible criticisms of the general picture there in this link, but you still have enormous mismatch in cost/benefit for onboard panels, and perhaps even for solar-cell fields connected to some set of distributed charging points.
Note how carefully the subject of rare-earth elements in high-performance thin-film photovoltaics is avoided even though the technologies are named.
Personally, I continue to think that if net-carbon-neutral technology is important in American practice, we should value liquid carrier fuels above fancy low-carbon or 'free renewable' approaches. Especially if we want locomotives that actually work reliably at rational cost, both in operation and 'net' of welfare-economic concerns.
Again, this would be an ideal service for the Oxford Catalytics direct-steam cycle. If we could get around the TATP issue...
Overmod If indeed they can on even bright sunny days. That's a LOT of area required. For grins, we can let Erik gin up figures with current tech (no pun intended) for exactly how much it would have to be. Especially given the required voltage and overall current required.
If indeed they can on even bright sunny days. That's a LOT of area required. For grins, we can let Erik gin up figures with current tech (no pun intended) for exactly how much it would have to be. Especially given the required voltage and overall current required.
IIRC, battery capacity on the Joule is 2.4MWhr and for solar recharging plan for 4 hours of full sunlight per day (maybe 6 hours with tracking panels). This implies 600kW worth of solar panels and with the best panels good for maybe 20W per square foot, we're looking at 30,000 square feet (~3/4 acre).
I would assume optimal use for the Joule would be one shift per day allowing 12 to 16 hours for recharging.
While waiting my occasional injection of fission products this morning, it occurred to me that the present renewable energy push resembles the nuclear weapons programs of the 40's and 50's. That is a mad push to get things done but little attention paid to waste disposal.
Erik_MagWhile waiting my occasional injection of fission products this morning, it occurred to me that the present renewable energy push resembles the nuclear weapons programs of the 40's and 50's. That is a mad push to get things done but little attention paid to waste disposal.
Waste disposal -- my state is now having an issue with used windmill blades.
The 20-year-old windmill blades are now worn out and being replaced. However, no landfill wants them. They are very difficult to break apart and crush. They cannot be recycled or buried.
There is one landfill about 50 miles from me that now is taking some of the blades to just store them until someone figures out what to do with them.
York1 John
York1The 20-year-old windmill blades are now worn out and being replaced. However, no landfill wants them. They are very difficult to break apart and crush. They cannot be recycled or buried.
Just toss them next to the casks at all the decommisioned nuclear plants - since we never figured out what to do with those.
zugmann York1 The 20-year-old windmill blades are now worn out and being replaced. However, no landfill wants them. They are very difficult to break apart and crush. They cannot be recycled or buried. Just toss them next to the casks at all the decommisioned nuclear plants - since we never figured out what to do with those.
York1 The 20-year-old windmill blades are now worn out and being replaced. However, no landfill wants them. They are very difficult to break apart and crush. They cannot be recycled or buried.
Dump them in the Arctic Ocean, to make artificial icebergs and save the Polar Bears!
I should note that this suggestion is exactly as serious as my earlier remark about the locomotive solar panels.
Are worn out solar panels recyclable?
BaltACD Are worn out solar panels recyclable?
I haven't heard much about any success in recycling used solar panels, the expense of the solar cells is more in the processing than the raw materials.
Aparently some work is being done on making wind turbine blade from thermoplastics instead of thermosetting plastics to facilitate recycling of the materials.
As for wind turbines with non-recyclable blades, I'd reckon the volume of the blades for a 5MW turbine is probbably close to the volume of spent fuel for a thirty year run of a 1,000MW nuclear plant. Of course the spent fuel has to be disposed a -um- bit more carefully... As for other materials, I would expect that a MW-hr from a wind turbine would require more steel and concrete than a MW-hr from a nuclear plant.
BaltACDAre worn out solar panels recyclable?
Dump them there, too.
just watching a "this old house". They showed a 5 MW vertical wind turbine that had full out put at 20 MPH. Much better visually than windmills.
With the 815MW expansion of geothermal, CA's geothermal generation will be about equal to the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona.
The great thing about geothermal is that the power output is fairly constant and does not stop when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing. It also doesn't have the visual impact of large scale solar farms or wind turbien farms.
Erik_Mag With the 815MW expansion of geothermal, CA's geothermal generation will be about equal to the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona. The great thing about geothermal is that the power output is fairly constant and does not stop when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing. It also doesn't have the visual impact of large scale solar farms or wind turbien farms.
Not so fast. In 2007 the solid wastes from these tiny plants was 54,000 metric tons. I say tiny in reference to their output, rarely over 50MW. Their pysical size however is roughly equal to a 250-300MW gas fired steam plant.
The wastes include ,If I remember correctly 4 radionucleides in the total of 80 or so hazardous materials. I worked in the Brawley field around 2009-2010 and they had at least 50 tractors and trailers hauling the wastes to landfills. The visual impact is OK, y'see, if it's someone elses problem.
tdmidget Not so fast. In 2007 the solid wastes from these tiny plants was 54,000 metric tons. I say tiny in reference to their output, rarely over 50MW. Their pysical size however is roughly equal to a 250-300MW gas fired steam plant. The wastes include ,If I remember correctly 4 radionucleides in the total of 80 or so hazardous materials. I worked in the Brawley field around 2009-2010 and they had at least 50 tractors and trailers hauling the wastes to landfills. The visual impact is OK, y'see, if it's someone elses problem.
FWIW, most of California's geothermal power comes from the Geysers geothermal plant, which generates a lot less waste than the Brawley plant. The radionuclides are normally occuring radioactive material (NORM) - I would suspect the radiation levels around that waste would be lower than standing by the pallet of potassium chloride water softening pellets at Home Depot.
I would also expect the geothermal power generated from frac'd rocks to produce a lot less waste than the Brawley plant.
50MW from the Brawley plant is about what 30 to 40 5MW wind turbines would produce on average, or on the order of 250 acres worth of solar panels. This does not include the energy storage required for wind and solar.
tdmidgetNot so fast. In 2007 the solid wastes from these tiny plants was 54,000 metric tons...
The working fluid as I recall is isopentane (2-methylbutane) which boils in the high 80-degree F range; I don't know how this increases with pressure. I'd assume there are valid reasons for selecting this over, say, 2-methylpentane (one more carbon in the chain, with a slightly higher condensation phase-change temperature).
The wastes include, if I remember correctly, 4 radionuclides in the total of 80 or so hazardous materials.
I assume the exchangers are made to be easy to turbine with low downtime -- but I also suspect that California has a whole bunch of applicable regulations for how you prepare and execute such operations and what to do with the tools and 'materials' involved.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.