A few thoughts that need fleshing out.
For battery locomotives like Flxdrive,
how long to charge?
If you have a terminal with 20 trains in and out a day, what does your charging facility look like?
How much power does it consume?
How much to build that facility?
How does it effect your fleet utilization? How many more sets of power do you need to allow for charging time. Are you going to cut and couple your flxdrive into a new consist each trip or do the diesels have to join it during charging time?
What is lifecycle cost of batteries? How long until they are at 80% of new? How much are new ones?
For electrification, make sure you factor in
Reduction in transit times due to short time and continuous higher HP per locomotive. This increases car and locomotive productivity.
Reduction in shop time due to no engine to maintain and service. Reduced end of trip servicing time.
Cheaper energy capture and storage at wayside rather than on-board. Don't need expensive, high energy density batteries.
Overall:
The RRs have done a great job over the past 30 years of concentrating traffic on mainlines and sluffing off the rest. This is how you win the RR game, generally. This plays into the hands of electrification. You run trains back and forth on these high density, electrified lines like streetcars (litterlly and figuratively). Sweep out the cab and back the power goes on the next train.
On the lower density lines, use whatever power best suits: Diesels, hybrids, fuel cell, don't care. It's low density, low energy consumption, low utilization service. It's nickels and dimes, comparitively.
Where will the electric power come from? It's fungible. The RRs don't really need to care much, but it looks like a lot of the future is going to be wind/solar/storage/transmission. I only wonder if we have the span of attention to make sure it's built out so that we have the overall reliability we have now (Texas excluded!)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ccltrains Electric locomotives do not pollute but what about the power plants generating the juice? A 20 year payout is absurd for a knowledgable management. Back when I was gainfully employed (up to 2006) we would strive for a three year payout for small projects and a seven year payout for large projects. Look at the noise about electric cars. If a significant percentage of the cars are electric there will not be enough electrical capacity to charge them. This requires building more power plants that run on coal, natural gas, and oil. How well do the solar and wind farms work on a calm night about midnight. People in southern Arizona are installing solar panels on their roof. With a seven year payout and a life expectancy of 10 years I do not think it is a good investment and personally will not be doing it.
Electric locomotives do not pollute but what about the power plants generating the juice? A 20 year payout is absurd for a knowledgable management. Back when I was gainfully employed (up to 2006) we would strive for a three year payout for small projects and a seven year payout for large projects. Look at the noise about electric cars. If a significant percentage of the cars are electric there will not be enough electrical capacity to charge them. This requires building more power plants that run on coal, natural gas, and oil. How well do the solar and wind farms work on a calm night about midnight. People in southern Arizona are installing solar panels on their roof. With a seven year payout and a life expectancy of 10 years I do not think it is a good investment and personally will not be doing it.
#2 The life expectancy of today’s solar panels is better than 80% power at 30 years and probably better than 60% at 60 years. Today’s solar panels produce more power, some are over 500 watts. Solar panels can be purchased for about 48 cents a watt on up. In china the cost is around 20 cents a watt for the good bifacial perc monocrystalline panels. Bifacial solar panels allow you to capture reflected sunlight on the back of the panel, and are used on flat roofs and ground mounts.
#3 The inverters will need to be replaced at 10 to 15 years due mainly to heat deterioration, but they are cheap and easy to change.
#4 Utility solar farms are popping up in the Midwest from about 100 MW to 300 MW. This could be sized as appropriate for power needed for railroad usage. A 200 MW farm would have about 600,000 solar panels on 2000 acres and pays the county, local schools, and township road crews $1.8 million each year. From the leased land, the farmers receive nearly $2.0 million each year. The solar panels are put in north to south rows and fitted with solar trackers. There are some experiments to locate near old coal fired plants and use molten salt to heat the water for the steam turbines, thus supplying electricity in the night. The same could be done with wind farms.
Cute analysis. Now give me numbers for the acreage of solar panels, inverters, and deployed distributed energy storage needed for the farms to supply current baseline load for an electrified system of American railroads (conservatively rated using diesel rather than continuous-electric HP, e.g. the operating assumption for dual-mode-lite).
I don't expect the result to look at all sanguine.
A difficulty with the molten-salt approach is the very high superheat needed for the 'legacy' turbines. It is better suited to the type used for PWR/BWR nuclear, but there are other issues involved with their reuse.
I have not seen discussion of solar used for finishing superheat instead of just baseline steam generation -- that might be an interesting avenue to pursue in replacing thermal with 'renewable' power.
Gramp charlie hebdo Some people just refuse to accept reality. Time will tell. Meanwhile enjoy the lusher environment. There's such a thing as natural variation when it comes to climate. Just as there's such a thing as human lust for power.
charlie hebdo Some people just refuse to accept reality.
Some people just refuse to accept reality.
Time will tell. Meanwhile enjoy the lusher environment. There's such a thing as natural variation when it comes to climate. Just as there's such a thing as human lust for power.
There is nothing natural about the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
MidlandMikeThere is nothing natural about the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Just one Krakatoa...
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...
Mount St Helen when she blew up in 1980 released more co2 into the air that eruption than all of the 70s combined.
Shadow the Cats owner Mount St Helen when she blew up in 1980 released more co2 into the air that eruption than all of the 70s combined.
Citation from reputable journal?
tree68 MidlandMike There is nothing natural about the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Just one Krakatoa...
MidlandMike There is nothing natural about the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Volcanos mainly release water vapor as opposed to CO2. On the linked page about 2/3 way down there is a graph of CO2 atmospheric concentrations and there was no blip at the 1883 eruption:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
Also about 1/3 way down there is a graph showing the 1980 era of Mt. St. Helens, and again no blip.
MidlandMike...there was no blip at the 1883 eruption:
But world temperatures dropped by some 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit due to the aerosols emitted by the volcano.
tree68 MidlandMike ...there was no blip at the 1883 eruption: But world temperatures dropped by some 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit due to the aerosols emitted by the volcano.
MidlandMike ...there was no blip at the 1883 eruption:
For how long? Sorry, but Mike and science are not "disproven" by anecdotal blips and in the case of the cat woman, untruths.
MidlandMike Gramp charlie hebdo Some people just refuse to accept reality. Time will tell. Meanwhile enjoy the lusher environment. There's such a thing as natural variation when it comes to climate. Just as there's such a thing as human lust for power. There is nothing natural about the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Correct. Should be 280ppm. Is currently about 420ppm. We know the increase is man made burning of fossil fuels by isotope ratio. (C14-C12)
I don't pretend to understand the numerous uncontrollable and complex variables in play. I'm just skeptical. Too easy to become enamored with computer modeling. Define "norm".
Historical CO2 numbers over the last 800,000 years from entrained air in glacial ice.
https://www.co2levels.org/#:~:text=Changes%20in%20past%20atmospheric%20carbon,over%20the%20past%20800%2C000%20years
It's us burning stuff. Not natural fluctuations.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
The knowledge has reached the level of "slam dunk." It's bad. It's us. We need to fix it.
Exactly how bad, what, where and exactly when and exactly how to fix the problem we can argue about. That it's a problem? Not debatable anymore.
RRs need to hang the darn wire on the mainlines now, if not sooner.
Yes, the aerosols are mainly SO2 and ash. They have the opposite effect of reflecting sunlight, and lowering the earth's temperature. The effects sometimes last a year or two, but in the Krakatoa mega-event it lasted about 5 years.
Gramp I don't pretend to understand the numerous uncontrollable and complex variables in play. I'm just skeptical. Too easy to become enamored with computer modeling. Define "norm".
I think computer modeling has more to do with what is projected to happen in the future. A look at the existing rising temperature data and corresponding rising CO2 data paints a compelling picture of what is in store for the future.
oltmannd Historical CO2 numbers over the last 800,000 years from entrained air in glacial ice. https://www.co2levels.org/#:~:text=Changes%20in%20past%20atmospheric%20carbon,over%20the%20past%20800%2C000%20years It's us burning stuff. Not natural fluctuations. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans The knowledge has reached the level of "slam dunk." It's bad. It's us. We need to fix it. Exactly how bad, what, where and exactly when and exactly how to fix the problem we can argue about. That it's a problem? Not debatable anymore. RRs need to hang the darn wire on the mainlines now, if not sooner.
It's good to hear a railroader tell it like it is.
MidlandMike The effects sometimes last a year or two, but in the Krakatoa mega-event it lasted about 5 years.
Which, unfortunately, is longer than the attention span of the general public. Nowadays, the return of temperatures to normal would be seen as global warming...
Before we string up all this wire, let's figure out where we're getting the power from. Are we simply moving the pollution source from the locomotives to a power plant somewhere?
It's already been suggested that California doesn't have the power to recharge all the E-cars they want to field.
For that matter, where are we going to get all the wire?
Don't get me wrong - we need to do something, but trading one problem for another isn't the answer.
Where do we get the power? With any fossel-fuel, polution and warming are both easier to control in a large power plant than on relatively small plants.
And there is the real possibility of developments in the nuclear power field to insure much greater safety and reduced disposal problems.
I think we will need to pursue many different types of carbon-less power generation. MIT has built an expermental fusion reactor that produces more power than it uses. I saw a differential ocean water temperature power generator experiment in Hawaii.
Less than 15 years ago most tech companies didn't think the smartphone would ever become a thing. Its hard to predict what new technology will become commonplace.
daveklepper Where do we get the power? With any fossel-fuel, polution and warming are both easier to control in a large power plant than on relatively small plants. And there is the real possibility of developments in the nuclear power field to insure much greater safety and reduced disposal problems.
Alas, there are those who are opposed to virtually every form of power generation. Usually they focus on one thing, but taken together, all forms of generation have their opponents.
Eventually the NIMBYs and BANANAs will have us burning candles again </sarcasm>.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.