Thermal efficiency of a typical light-water nuclear power plant is around 35% (the rest of the heat is lost to the environment), whereas a supercritical coal plant can achieve 44%. Gas turbines are in the 40% range with some recent designs pushing 46%. Combined-cycle gas turbine designs that presently are in the R&D stage are seeking to obtain 60%+ thermal efficiency.
RWM
oltmanndschlimm rrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp. Carnot efficiency cannot be exceeded (kinda like the speed of light for heat engines), so there has to be waste heat from a nuclear plant. Everyone had this in HS Physics, right?
schlimm rrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp.
rrnut282Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson.
Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp.
Can't I eggagerate for effect a little?
BNSFwatcher As to why the 'solons' consider hydro a non-renewable resource, I don't know.
One reason is if dams are deemed a non-renewable resource, they can feel good about pressing for dam-razing to restore rivers to their pre-dam, idyllic state. That the properly-maintained dams provide fossil fuel-less electricity at low cost to many people including themselves no longer causes dissonance in their minds.
carnej1 The objection to Hydro seems to stem from the immense construction projects, Dams and resevoirs, necessary to make it work..of course here in the Northeast we are more than happy to purchase every hydroelectrically generated kilowatt our friends north of the border (Quebec Hydro) can send us... What Maglev are you referring to?
The objection to Hydro seems to stem from the immense construction projects, Dams and resevoirs, necessary to make it work..of course here in the Northeast we are more than happy to purchase every hydroelectrically generated kilowatt our friends north of the border (Quebec Hydro) can send us...
What Maglev are you referring to?
Quebec Hydro does pump out a lot of energy from the James Bay area, that is for sure. The issue there is the huge lakes and dams that reside in and around the area. Of course, it is not as bad as what some 'environmentalists' say they are. I do think that the issue clouds what happened to many of the Cree people's situatiion though.
The Mag-Lev issue is a whole other critter altogether. The story I got is one involving a plan some people threw together to get a magnetic levitational HSR system that could 'potentially'(?) save energy by creating a field around the rails(again:?). I may have buggered up the thing here but there we are. If anyone can throw some light here----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Article about BNSF electrification in Railway Age:
http://www.railwayage.com//content/view/931/121/
Quote from the article:
“The economics of cap and trade could tilt in the railroads’ favor. As well, future carbon restrictions affecting railroads could justify the high cost of electrification and locomotive acquisitions.”
The author seems to be finding benefit for the railroads in the upcoming carbon caps by this tortured logic:
Right now, the cost of electrification is too high for the railroads. So if the government makes a carbon cap law that forces the railroads to electrify, despite that fact that they cannot afford it, that is a good thing because it allows them to have something that they cannot afford.
Perhaps the author believes that the higher cost is not a burden on the railroads because they can simply pass it on to the customers. However, if this were true, the railroads would have no reason to not electrify right now. They could simply raise their rates to pay for electrification.
creepycrankThe Long Island Railroad can make a claim, at least partially, to running on renewable energy. This is how it goes: several branches are electrified and they buy their power from LIPA which in turn buys power from the garbage incinerators at Roosevelt Field and in Suffolk County{ I can't remember where). So they have been using the most reliable renewable energy source- garbage, for almost 30 years now. Its solved the land fill or transport our trash to the moon problem very neatly and is profitable too.
There was an attempt to have an energy from waste power plant for a local hospital here in London ON not too long ago which got shut down due to the air borne pollutants found coming out of the station. Even though the stack had all the latest equipment on it and the plant was not 'burning' toxic waste materials there was just enough to close it down. Maybe differing standards exist for these things---it did work in generating a lot of energy though
Just a reminder. We need to keep this thread focused on railroads please. If it turns to heavy political content, it tends to go downhill. Thanks. Back to the topic at hand. Haven't we been through this a couple times before? After the 1973 (?) gas shortage, folks got on the bandwagon about ridding our country of foreign dependance on oil. Remember all the ugly solar panels tacked onto houses? Despite all the big talk, we back to the same place around 1980. Folks got on the bandwagon to rhetoric and nowhere again. Act 3 came with hurricane Katrina. Same bandwagon, same big talk. What makes this time any different?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Just a reminder. We need to keep this thread focused on railroads please. If it turns to heavy political content, it tends to go downhill. Thanks. Back to the topic at hand. Haven't we been through this a couple times before? After the 1973 (?) gas shortage, folks got on the bandwagon about ridding our country of foreign dependance on oil. Remember all the ugly solar panels tacked onto houses? Despite all the big talk, we back to the same place around 1980. Folks got on the bandwagon to rhetoric and nowhere again. Act 3 came with hurricane Katrina. Same bandwagon, same big talk. What makes this time any different?
Any time that one gets working papers coming out of sources such as recently posted one always runs the risk of a politics getting played out. It does tend to wear thin.
There was another period in the early 1990's that sorta had the same thing going on. And how about that "Back To The Land" movement? Just fun stuff
My feeling is that there is really not that big of a difference between now and whatever there was back then. The only difference is that the media seems to play up the paranoia gambit by talking up the so called Global Climate Change-----BTW, IIRC wasn't there in the mid '70's a pile of warnings about the coming "Ice Age"?
As a gesture in furtherance of the public good, Murphy and I volunteer personally to pay the bill to electrify all the routes routinely used by Amtrak in South Dakota.
Dakguy201 As a gesture in furtherance of the public good, Murphy and I volunteer personally to pay the bill to electrify all the routes routinely used by Amtrak in South Dakota.
Subject: Railroads. Q: why doesn't South Dakota have ANY Amtrak service? To be fair-and-balanced, I can ask the same about Wyoming.
I do think SD could support a tri-weekly accomodation, consisting of six baggage cars and a rider coach. It would be full of DBs of old geezers that tipped-over-wicked when hearing the room rates at the Rapid City "Econo Lodge".
Of course, your references to the "Gas Shortage of 1973" is a-political. I happen to remember it occuring in 1979, but that would be political. Yeah, President Bush caused "Hurrimicane Katrina".
Lighten up!
Bill
BNSFwatcher Subject: Railroads. Q: why doesn't South Dakota have ANY Amtrak service? To be fair-and-balanced, I can ask the same about Wyoming. I do think SD could support a tri-weekly accomodation, consisting of six baggage cars and a rider coach. It would be full of DBs of old geezers that tipped-over-wicked when hearing the room rates at the Rapid City "Econo Lodge". Of course, your references to the "Gas Shortage of 1973" is a-political. I happen to remember it occuring in 1979, but that would be political. Yeah, President Bush caused "Hurrimicane Katrina". Lighten up! Bill
Murphy SidingAfter the 1973 (?) gas shortage,
Yes, you are right about that year. One event sticks in my mind--we took a trip, going by rail from Jackson, Miss., to Chicago, on to Albuquerque, and then back, retracing the route. Before we left, a friend hoped that we would not have any trouble getting gas. I think that I told her that we were not worried, since we were going by train. In 1079, we were living in Utah, not Alabama.
Johnny
Deggesty Murphy SidingAfter the 1973 (?) gas shortage, Yes, you are right about that year. One event sticks in my mind--we took a trip, going by rail from Jackson, Miss., to Chicago, on to Albuquerque, and then back, retracing the route. Before we left, a friend hoped that we would not have any trouble getting gas. I think that I told her that we were not worried, since we were going by train. In 1079, we were living in Utah, not Alabama. Johnny
I remember a whole pile of shortage situations back in the '70's. Taking a trip anywhere involved checking ahead the day before to see whether there was gas at some locations. It was getting kind of tedious as well watching the cars getting weirder looking every year----until one found-----"the K car"---ohno ohno
Here is an article by someone who advocates the steel interstate concept of rail electrification, but opposes HSR for a variety of reasons. He believes the best solution to mass transit is to get people to stop moving around so much.
He refers to the $8 billion for HSR as an earmark, and he laments,
“We are planning to spend $8 billion so that people who already travel more than they should can do it faster and easier.”
While the inherent low friction of rail make it the transportation champion of energy efficiency, that virtue begins to disappear as the speed goes up. The author claims that electrified passenger trains running between 140 and 220 mph on electricity from fossil fuels produce more CO2 emissions than airplanes.
http://www.prorev.com/2009/02/high-speed-high-cost-high-income-rail.html
Bucyrus He believes the best solution to mass transit is to get people to stop moving around so much.
This specifically is in reference to the issue of urban development and the idea that we needed to radically 'cleanse' what some planners called 'urban blight' or 'cancerous growths' or such--referring to older more settled neighbourhoods that were a mix of residential/light-heavy industrial/commercial/retail. Now, with the single use zonal system in place since the 1970's we now have whole neighbourhoods which are seperated by a network of highways and arterial roads from anything resembling retail ( giant hypertrophied 'Power Centers being one example) or commercial ( strip plazas out in the middle of nowhere). Toronto, which is about an hour and a half from where I live shows this beautifully----some urban planners view some neighbourhoods as problematic--Kensington Market being one mentioned---yet everything in that part of TO is within walking distance to each other. The 'planned' neighbourhoods OTOH do not even have a variety store within the residential fortress walls---one neighbourhood, in which a friend lives in, has no retail within a 25km radius---which makes for a nice drive.
Basically, however, I see where this is coming from---there is/are a pile of issues around transportation that needs to be looked into----piecemeal---with no centrally planned 'systems'-----look what centrally planned urban planning got us
Some (though not all) of the opposition to electrification, HSR, etc. here sounds a bit like the opposition to the the Industrial Revolution's innovations (water-powered mills, steam power, etc) by the the original saboteurs - they would stick their wooden shoes (sabots) into the powered looms to wreck them. If there are measures that can be taken that could reduce our reliance on oil from the Mideast, even at a fairly high price, I think we would all benefit. Besides, it really does sound like electrification by private rails will happen.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Some (though not all) of the opposition to electrification, HSR, etc. here sounds a bit like the opposition to the the Industrial Revolution's innovations (water-powered mills, steam power, etc) by the the original saboteurs - they would stick their wooden shoes (sabots) into the powered looms to wreck them. If there are measures that can be taken that could reduce our reliance on oil from the Mideast, even at a fairly high price, I think we would all benefit. Besides, it really does sound like electrification by private rails will happen.
Those people trying to sabotage the industrial revolution were resisting the threat that it posed to manual labor. This sweeping energy / transportation policy we are discussing is a public sector proposal, thus entirely different than the industrial revolution. I don’t think there is any analogy between the resistance to the industrial revolution and those who resist this public sector energy / transportation proposal.
Not to be taken literally. It is a metaphor or symbol for opposition to inevitable progress.
schlimmIf there are measures that can be taken that could reduce our reliance on oil from the Mideast, even at a fairly high price, I think we would all benefit.
Can I interpret that as you being in favor of building more nuclear power plants, allowing utilities to study clean coal technology funded by a surcharge on electric rates, open up more drilling for oil in the western states and offshore, and removing barriers to oil shale development? Because all of those things would make a huge difference in our imported oil needs, especially when compared to the effect of rail electrification.
If you are opposed to the above programs, how is that opposition not like what you are referring to in your post?
I think we would all benefit from the projects I listed.
Visit look4trains.com
htgguyCan I interpret that as you being in favor of building more nuclear power plants, allowing utilities to study clean coal technology funded by a surcharge on electric rates, open up more drilling for oil in the western states and offshore, and removing barriers to oil shale development?
Sure, if they can be done as you say and without excessive environmental destruction. For nuclear, the keys are safe spent fuel storage and competitive costs on construction. Clean coal answers are there, at a price. Oil shale hasn't been competitive since the 70's, as I recall, but I might be wrong on that. I take it you favor increased renewables?
schlimm htgguyCan I interpret that as you being in favor of building more nuclear power plants, allowing utilities to study clean coal technology funded by a surcharge on electric rates, open up more drilling for oil in the western states and offshore, and removing barriers to oil shale development? Sure, if they can be done as you say and without excessive environmental destruction. For nuclear, the keys are safe spent fuel storage and competitive costs on construction. Clean coal answers are there, at a price. Oil shale hasn't been competitive since the 70's, as I recall, but I might be wrong on that. I take it you favor increased renewables?
I'm in favour of all methods being used --- that includes renewables---
I replied that I don’t think there is an analogy between the opposition to the industrial revolution and the opposition to HRS, electrification, etc.
You replied:
“Not to be taken literally. It is a metaphor or symbol for the opposition to inevitable progress.”
My response:
I understand your metaphor, but my point was not about whether you were using a metaphor, or were literally objecting to people putting their shoes in the machinery to stop progress. My point is that there is a big difference between being opposed to progress and being opposed to excessive growth of government.
The traditional opposition to progress is often expressed by people who fear societal change because they have difficulty in changing personally to accommodate it. They may also fear technological progress because its efficiency improvement eliminates certain jobs and careers in which people have stakes. The Luddites are the classic example. I suspect that hardly anybody opposes HSR (and other elements of this new energy / transportation proposal) for this group of reasons. If HSR and were merely a better mousetrap being marketed by private business like new computers or software, I think that the only people opposing it would be those who have an interest in competing forms of transportation.
However, HSR, (to cite one component of rail electrification), is not simply an example of the inevitable technological progress. It is instead, a public sector, publicly funded, government run system of socialized transportation. People fear it because government is known to waste money due to poor oversight, fraud, abuse, and political opportunism. People resist it because they do not want to be taxed for something they don’t need. People are wary of the loss of freedom that tends to come from unbridled government expansion.
The basic topic of this thread is about a broad proposal that includes rail electrification and HSR, among several other things. It is all to be public funded by the government. Assuming that the government will manage the construction and operation of this new infrastructure, it represents a massive increase in socialism. Some people fear that.
Right now, this is all in the preliminary stages. It may or may not develop and be fully executed. It may develop gradually, or it may take off with a bang. The most developed component of the overall proposal is the embryonic, $8 billion HSR proposal. It is purely a public sector proposal, and people oppose it for all of the reasons I have stated. Mostly those reasons can be summarized as resistance to building something we don’t need.
Much of the justification for the need sounds flimsy. I am referring to the need to worry about what people in other countries think of us, for example. One of the major justifications for the $8 billion HSR proposal is that it will create jobs. It is, after all, part of the economic stimulus plan. A lot of people are skeptical of the very premise of the Keynesian economic theory that government spending can stimulate the economy and end a recession.
So, overall, I don’t see any connection between the opposition to HSR and its greater dimensions of nationalized transportation, and the traditional opposition to progress. Moreover, many would argue that these government-spending proposals are not progress.
Bucyrus One of the major justifications for the $8 billion HSR proposal is that it will create jobs. It is, after all, part of the economic stimulus plan. A lot of people are skeptical of the very premise of the Keynesian economic theory that government spending can stimulate the economy and end a recession.
Yes. One of our nephews administers construction projects in our state's DOT. His department had to hire eight people to handle the many project applications from localities around the state that have been trying to get a piece of the stimulus $$ pie. Where is the productivity in that?
Our governor has mandated state employees take furlough days, supposedly to cut costs. A friend who is an hourly worker showed me her work calendar with numerous added overtime hours highlighted. Because of furloughs, her department has had to schedule overtime (time and a half) to cover furloughs. Approximately $10 per hour higher than normal. She likes the extra overtime pay, but also knows the department's annual labor budget was used up over a month ago.
Another thread here has discussion about the governor's agreement that will bring Talgo's to the Chi-Milw. Amtrak route, tilt technology to be used on a straight row. A new firm is to be created to build the equipment in-state. The last time I heard, Super Steel assembles passenger railcars here. A new competitor for an in-state manufacturer?
Now, airlines are going to be "fixed", too. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fixing_airlines
"What a way to run a railroad... "
jclassNow, airlines are going to be "fixed", too. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fixing_airlines
$ 29 - 42 Bil. for a new GPS air traffic control system and the equipment in the planes. It is almost certainly needed, but I wonder if the failing airlines will still be contributing their fair share (35% or $ 10.15 - 14.7 Bil.) for that? But so many are upset that Amtrak might/is getting $8 Bil.?
schlimm jclassNow, airlines are going to be "fixed", too. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fixing_airlines $ 29 - 42 Bil. for a new GPS air traffic control system and the equipment in the planes. It is almost certainly needed, but I wonder if the failing airlines will still be contributing their fair share (35% or $ 10.15 - 14.7 Bil.) for that? But so many are upset that Amtrak might/is getting $8 Bil.?
Yes they are. Last year airlines carried 660 million people on domestic flights. Amtrak carried just over 29 million. That is over 22 time as many passengers, yet they are only looking for under 2 times the amount of money. Seems like more than a fair deal to me.
BTW how much money will Amtrak look for from the goverment to fund the PTC upgrade?
An "expensive model collector"
"For the full year of 2008, the number of scheduled domestic and international passengers on U.S. airlines declined by 3.7 percent from 2007, dropping to 741.4 million, 28.2 million fewer than a year earlier." [BTS]
Sure, but we are talking about upgrading services which would result in a large increase in passengers carried by rail. For example, in 2007 Deutsche Bahn carried 1.835 billion passengers. Admittedly circumstances are different, but it shows the potential is there. And I'm not talking about "little kid waah waah" copying other countries' systems. Frankly, the degree of opposition to improving passenger rail transit here makes me wonder if many of you work for the airlines and trucking concerns, not just opposing a government rail subsidy.
100% in favor of any energy source that can be developed without subsidies. As noted above, clean coal research should be paid for by electric customers. That is the same way wind, solar, ethanol, and any other renewable should be handled. I'm curious about how much wind or ethanol would exist currently if they had to compete in the market? I suspect none.
schlimm "For the full year of 2008, the number of scheduled domestic and international passengers on U.S. airlines declined by 3.7 percent from 2007, dropping to 741.4 million, 28.2 million fewer than a year earlier." [BTS] Sure, but we are talking about upgrading services which would result in a large increase in passengers carried by rail. For example, in 2007 Deutsche Bahn carried 1.835 billion passengers. Admittedly circumstances are different, but it shows the potential is there. And I'm not talking about "little kid waah waah" copying other countries' systems. Frankly, the degree of opposition to improving passenger rail transit here makes me wonder if many of you work for the airlines and trucking concerns, not just opposing a government rail subsidy.
To be fair, let's look at what the numbers indicate. DB carried more than 1.8 billion passengers in 2007. If you used their entire revenue for that year (about 31 billion euros, or 46 billion dollars at current exchange rates-got it from this site), and figured they hauled 312 million tons of railfreight, 1.3 million tons of air freight, 800 million bus passengers, and almost 1.5 million TEU's for FREE the same year, they grossed about $25 per passenger. If they actually charged for their other services the gross income per passenger was MUCH less than $25. What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters.
1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail.
htgguy What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters. 1.8 billion is a whole lot of people, but I think it should be clear that they aren't all racing about Germany on high speed rail.
What it looks like to me, is they hauled a whole bunch of commuters.
Glad you examined their site. I wondered at first about that number too. Of course it includes commuters, although not all the commuter or regional services in Germany (there is some competition). But I and others are talking an integrated transport system including HSR where appropriate and upgrades short of true HSR on other routes. BTW, I wonder how many commuters are carried in the US yearly?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.