Learning from the Cows (Free Energy -- w/ Photo)
Traveling from Southern California to Texas in behalf of the “Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates” thread, this scene was come upon:
If the railroads lined their right-of-ways with solar panels, strung catenary and otherwise electrified, wouldn’t they in essence operate without fuel costs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Without a method for storing energy for use during hours of darkness (or periods of less than ideal daylight), there would be times when all would shut down.
Of course, if you could harvest the methane the cows generate, you could run generators at night...
A landfill near here is using the methane generated by said landfill to run gensets. Some such installations use the waste heat from the gensets to heat and aircondition greenhouses - something like 20% of the tomatoes in NY come from such a hot house.
I'm not going to look for information on how many solar panels it would take to power a locomotive - someone else can do that math.
And yes, it will be expensive to build out.
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...
tree68 (4-13):
It would seem during nighttime hours energy could be gotten from local power generating plants, and during the day power given back on a reciprocating basis.
But, how much energy could be produce by solar panels on the right-of-way would be the key, and seemingly would dictate whether the concept is a gold mine or totally impractical.
Best,
K.P.
K. P. HarrierBut, how much energy could be produce by solar panels on the right-of-way would be the key,
It would also be affected by how much real estate along the ROW is owned by the RR. Aren't most ROW's only 100 ft wide or less? Then you have to string all of those panels together. Truely distributed generation but a problem to maintain and manage. Though I suspect that much of the the Sunset route land would not be prohibitly expensive to acquire unless it is federal and that might by politically unatainable. Of course, if you are electrifying the track, you might consider it.
I'm sure Elan Musk (Tesla) might be interested in a new customer for his Nevada battery plant.
Sunlight may be free, but turning into energy and putting it to use requires a massive investment in infrastructure. It costs more than energy produced by fossil fuels. However, while it is not justified on the basis of a cost reduction, it is justified by the claim that it saves the planet.
I'm sure the planet will be here long after humanity has obliterated themselves.
Norm
Many signal installations in 'off the grid' areas are already solar powered, with mixed reliability results.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidSunlight may be free, but turning into energy and putting it to use requires a massive investment in infrastructure. It costs more than energy produced by fossil fuels
Why then do I see railroads using solar panels to power their signals, replacing miles of power lines and poles that previously delivered energy generated by fossil fuels?
[quote user="Norm48327"]
[/quote
George Carlin once said, "The planet will be fine, it's the people who are f#@%&ed".
Solar!
Solar is becoming widely used.
An installation at Serrano High School near railroading’s Cajon Pass (CA):
Solar installation at Metrolink’s City of Industry (CA) commuter train stop on Brea Canyon Road:
Much of that solar, however, is taxpayer funded. But, given time, prices with something new historically in most industries plummet.
Again, IF (“If”) enough juice can be extracted from solar to move freight trains, and the installation price plummets, undoubtedly railroads will see solar to power trains makes sense. On the other hand if a solar paneled tower as high as the moon is needed to move a train, forget it. But, again, is there potential with solar in railroading, or is it a lost cause? That has to be answered! Anyone know?
You only need to know two things... how many Watts can you get out of a square foot of solar panel and how many Watts does it take to move a train. Divide the power needed by the power available per square foot and that will tell you how many square feet of solar panel you need. Divide that by the length of all the railroads to know how wide the panels must be. Of course this assumes you can get the power from all along the line to the trains moving along that line with no loss in the transmission to get from the most distant solar cells to the train using that power.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
I spent considerable time in the electric industry. What most people don't know is that solar is very expensive from a capital standpoint per kilowatt hour and not yet efficient, and the panels degrade in efficiency about 2-3% per year. And then there are cloudy and snowy days when output drops dramatically. Right now there is a role for solar in some smaller applications, but the average lay person does not have knowledge of the massive demand for electricity and how expensive it is for the infrastructure needed for that electricity to magically appear when you flip the switch. Maybe someday solar panels and large battery technology will advance to the point where they can run a house on sunny days, and we should keep working toward that. But it is not there yet. And even with massive government subsidies, the power output often does not generate enough to cover capital costs. Sun Edison is the largest solar developer in the world and in spite of massive government subsidies they are going to declare bankruptcy within a month or so.
Meanwhile, man is like a grain of sand on the beach in relation to the universe and all creation. Many people don't realize that the earth does not travel around the sun on rails, and the tilt of the earth in relation to the sun is not fixed. Even the smallest deviation in those, or a period of massive solar flares, will change the climate dramatically and there is nothing we can do about it. Also, as the earth slows its rotation, over the millenia, days will get longer and hence hotter, and nights will get longer and hence colder.
The fact that we are here at all, on this tiny spec of rock hurtling through the vastness of the cosmos, is truly miraculous.
=
Norm48327 I'm sure the planet will be here long after humanity has obliterated themselves.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetWhe people say "Save the planet" they actually mean "keep the planet configured to support human habitation".
Given the state of humanity today, I sometimes wonder if the planet is worth saving.
Norm48327 Phoebe Vet Given the state of humanity today, I sometimes wonder if the planet is worth saving.
Phoebe Vet
The planet is worth saving because it supports life forms. Some of the life forms may not be worth saving, however.
The point is that although there is a trend toward using solar, it is not being done because it the lowest cost option. It is being done out of a sense of obligation to fight climate change. This obligation requires paying a higher price for energy than what would be the case with fossil fuel energy.
Even at that, there are factors that blur the actual cost of solar energy. One big one is government subsidies which offset the actual user cost. Another factor is the life of solar panels. Putting solar on your rooftop does not immediately show the cost effectiveness. It is deceptive to deem solar cost effective simply because you have completely offset your normal electric bill for an arbitrary period of time.
A rooftop solar installation may cost $40,000. It requires maintenance, and eventual replacement. You have to factor that entire cost against the amount of money you save during the life of the installation. And because the solar trend is just beginning, the life of the panels is a complete unknown at this time.
The installation may appear to be very cost effective with an assumed life expectancy of say 40 years. However, the trend has pushed panel manufacturing into China, and a lower quality is therefore anticipated. If it turns out that the panel life is only say 12 years, the installation may be far less than cost effective.
EuclidA rooftop solar installation may cost $40,000.
I recently calculated that a 'reasonably sized' solar panel installation for my sub-1000 sq-ft house would run about $7500 without subsidy. At our high Cali electric rates the payback period still was at least 20 years for my small consumption.
I did not figure it was worth the cost as a) the panel company may not be in business to fix premature failure, b) no installations are designed for easy removal / replacement when roof work is necessary, c) the panels cannot power high power appliances like ovens, water heaters, etc. Backup battery power adds another ~50% cost increase due to safety related electrical equipment, not to mention the square footage to house them.
Solarvoltaic energy is fine for special cases like remote RR signaling power, but is just so much political correctness for 'saving the planet'. High power consuming businesses can justify the ROI and write alternate energy installs off as a capital investment, but I cannot. Changing cultures to stabilize resource demand and human population should be top priority but is not very likely.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
K. P. Harrier[snipped - PDN] . . . If the railroads lined their right-of-ways with solar panels, strung catenary and otherwise electrified, wouldn’t they in essence operate without fuel costs?
Kind of like the geothermal - more correctly, ground source heat pump - that heats and cools my house. As our energy consultant said, we paid for our fuel up front, when we bought the unit. Actually, the cost of the water-to-water heat pump was comparable to any other heating and cooling equipment; the difference in cost was mainly the cost of the 2 vertical wells 250 ft. deep and piping, about $7,700. We've been here over 7 years now, and keep track of our electric usage pretty closely (local power co. uses smart meters). We figure the system paid for those wells a year or two ago, mainly from the cheaper heating than oil, electric resistance heat, or an air-to-air heat pump, and an air conditioner - estimated at $1,000 to $1,5000 per year.
OK, all that said, let's turn to the subject at hand:
Semper VaporoYou only need to know two things... how many Watts can you get out of a square foot of solar panel and how many Watts does it take to move a train. Divide the power needed by the power available per square foot and that will tell you how many square feet of solar panel you need. Divide that by the length of all the railroads to know how wide the panels must be. Of course this assumes you can get the power from all along the line to the trains moving along that line with no loss in the transmission to get from the most distant solar cells to the train using that power.
A typical solar panel in a residential application is about 3' x 6' = 18 sq. ft, will produce about 300 watts (0.3 KW) in full sunlight hours (about 15% efficient), or 16.7 watts per sq. ft., or about 60 sq. ft. per KW. 1 horsepower is 746 say 750 watts, so about 45 sq. ft. of panel is needed to produce that.
(Said panel costs about $1,000 to $1,200 installed. Let's figure about $1,500 to cover some of that accessory/ supporting equipment, which is a cost of about $5.00 per watt = $5,000 per KW. Now I'm not going into the cost aspect tonight - maybe another time - but this is more just for perspective.)
So how much HP does a train need ? We'll consult Al Krug's train performance calculatior, at: http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/RRForcesCalc.html For a hypothetical intermodal train of 100 cars, end area 225 sq. ft. (10+ ft. x 20+ ft.), 3 axles (articulated well cars), 80 trailing tons per car/ well, 0% grade, 0 degree curve, and 40 MPH, click on the Horsepower button and then Calculate, and I get 5493 HP, say 5,500 HP. For 8,000 tons, that's about 0.69 HP per ton. Also, the rolling drag is estimated to be 51,500 lbs., which works out to 6.44 lbs. per ton, or about a 0.32% grade (a typical value).
If we estimate a typical well at 60 ft. long for a 53' container, that's about 80 tons/ 60 ft. = 1.33 tons per ft. From above, we need 0.69 HP per ton, or about 0.92 HP per ft. of train. Since 45 sq. ft. of solar panel produces 1 HP, about 41.4 sq. ft. of solar panel is need per ft. of train.
But wait - the track is not continuously occupied by a solid train. There's a lot of distance between them. At 40 MPH, a 10-mile spacing would be 4 trains per hour / almost 100 trains per day - that's very heavy density (800,000 trailing tons, almost 1 MGT per day). So we'd only need about 1/10 of that area of panels to supply enough juice for trains at 10 miles apart (we'll base this on our train being about a mile long, actually 60 ft. x 100 wells = 6,000 ft., but who's quibbling about such details here ?). So we'd only need about 4.2 sq. ft. of panel width per foot of track, or about 1.4 of the 3-ft. wide panels laid side-by-side the whole length of the track, per the parameters I set forth above. Wow - I would not have guessed that small of an area would do it ! (Anyone please check my math; of course, "Your Mileage [assumptions, rates, etc.] May Vary", but these are simple enough that they can be scaled up and down by simple proportions.)
A rule of thumb here in the NorthEast US (eastern Pennsylvania) is that each day the panels produce about 6 hours equivalent of full sun output, or 1/4 of what 24 hours would need. So if we multiply the 4.2 ft. of panels above by 4 we get a day's worth of electriclty needing about 16.8 feet of panel width per ft. of track, or almost 6 panels wide. Allow about 30 ft. more for the track and some clearance each side - 15 ft. from centerline - and what you have is a little under a 50-ft. wide Right-Of-Way being close to enough for such a scheme.
- Paul North.
P.S. - This is a good example of working through a Fermi (as in Enrico) problem. A few here know what that's about. - PDN.
On snow days, rain days and cloudy days the solar panels will not operate at peak efficiency, and of course they produce zero at night. They also do not produce at peak efficiency unless they are directly facing the sun. If you go to sun-following panels, capital costs go up dramatically as does ongoing maintenance. In winter months the days are shorter and nights are longer. Battery storage would have to be massive, and in winter months you have fewer hours to charge your batteries during the day for the longer nights. If you are going to connect to the grid for dark hours power instead of batteries, you need 100 percent of those capital costs and pay demand charges for something that is only used part time, in addition to your solar infrastructure which is also only used part time. Many factors to consider.
Paul D. North Jr. (4-15):
Hi, Paul!
Did I understand you correctly that a catenary scheme would indeed work?
Of course, the investment would be the offsetting worry. However, say BNSF’s southern Transcon was electrified, with 75-100 trains a day. (UP could not come close.) If the government contributed 50-75% of the initial cost to demonstrate that it would work and / or to beef up the economy, etc., it seems BNSF would jump at the opportunity!
What do you think, Paul?
On the other hand, if I misinterpreted your calculations and conclusions, I guess this thread can go the way of cows …
Take care,
Paul_D_North_JrA typical solar panel in a residential application is about 3' x 6' = 18 sq. ft, will produce about 300 watts (0.3 KW) in full sunlight hours (about 15% efficient), or 16.7 watts per sq. ft., or about 60 sq. ft. per KW. 1 horsepower is 746 say 750 watts, so about 45 sq. ft. of panel is needed to produce that. ... So how much HP does a train need ? We'll consult Al Krug's train performance calculatior, at: http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/RRForcesCalc.html For a hypothetical intermodal train of 100 cars, end area 225 sq. ft. (10+ ft. x 20+ ft.), 3 axles (articulated well cars), 80 trailing tons per car/ well, 0% grade, 0 degree curve, and 40 MPH, click on the Horsepower button and then Calculate, and I get 5493 HP, say 5,500 HP. For 8,000 tons, that's about 0.69 HP per ton. Also, the rolling drag is estimated to be 51,500 lbs., which works out to 6.44 lbs. per ton, or about a 0.32% grade (a typical value).
...
So, ~8 acres of solar panel (330,000 sq ft) per operating train (5500 hp). (trains going up grades require more, those going downhill less).
Power companies probably have spare capacity at night. So it may not be neccessary to store power for night time use.
this may only make sense in climates with abundant subshine (southwest U.S.)
it assumes electricification of rail lines
do the "electified railroads" reduce freight schedules during storms or in winter months when there is less sunshine?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
K.P. -
I would go so far as to say that a conventionally-powered* catenary scheme could work with those BNSF traffic volumes, and its owner's mindset and favorable view towards long-term investments (Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway). Especially in these times of ultra-low interest rates.
*From the grid, generated by any source; or from a 'captive' (railroad owned and operated) natural gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbine, etc. As I recall, natural gas at $2.00 per MBTU is roughly comparable to $2.00 per gallon diesel fuel - both roughly what the market prices are now. At that ratio, and with those BNSF volumes, the catenary cost could be recovered in 6 to 10 years, depending on interest rates and some other variables.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that a solar-powered catenary scheme would work. It's hard to come up with a simple way to express the degree of confidence (or lack thereof) I have in my conclusion. I'd call it a back-of-envelope or napkin type of calculation. Way short of a feasibility study - more like an order-of-magnitude estimate.** Let's say it's comparable to planning a manned trip to Mars - possible based on past experience, but too much for the present state of the art - maybe someday in 20 - 30 years, with lots of money.
**The factor of 4 times the initial width calculation of 4+ ft. = 16+ ft. is intended to allow for night and some sub-par performance. What that tells us is 10 ft. width is not enough, but 1,000 ft. width is probably way too much. Like Goldilocks, the 'just right' estimate will be in the middle, in the range of 100 ft. of width, +100%/ -50% or so.
Let's take a quick look at the financial aspects:
Above I estimated the cost of 1 KW of solar energy panels at $5,000, allowing for some incidentals. Figure that panel will produce 6 KWH per day x 365 days per year = 2,190 KWH per year. At 10 cents per KWHR, that's worth $219 per year. Dividing that into the $5,000 cost results in a 'payback' time frame of about 23 years (lots of issues with that measure, but we'll ignore that for the moment). That's pretty marginal for modern businesses, which usually look for around a 5 to 10 year period to recover their investment. But add in the 50 to 75% government contribution that you postulate, and then the business case starts to look attractive - or at least worth further investigation.
Finally, someone above commented about electric rates and demand charges for nighttime usage. Around here, on the PJM grid (Regional Transmission Operator), there are periodic auctions for both demand charges and usage charges. The usage charges early in the morning (i.e., 2 AM) are shockingly low - often in the 2 cents per KWHR range. sometimes approaching 0 (have to keep those boilers hot and generators turning anyway for the next day's production, even if there's little demand at that time of night). It follows then that the demand charge would be similarly low.
Paul,
Your estimates for PV panel area seem reasonable, 16W/sq-ft is what you would get at local noon assuming a reasonably clear day. This works out to be about 1.5 acres per peak MW - PV takes up a lot of surface area, which is why I prefer talk of rooftop solar versus solar farms.
As for economics, the cost for for the bare PV cells is low enough that the main driver is all of ancillary stuff, mounting and support hardware, inverters, etc.
One other gotcha with solar is that in many areas, the peak demand occurs around or after sunset.
- Erik
How do we know what the operating life of today's solar panels is? As I understand it, their rate of electrical producion declines over time, and finally ceases with complete failure. In the past the technology seemed to yield an operating life that was completly predictable, and was maybe something like 30-50 years.
But now, with the growing solar trend, the manufacturing has gone through a cost reduction phase resulting in a shorter life. I would submit that the average residential customer does not even think about the product life in their investment calculation. They just get their first electric bill with the new solar system, and they are happy that it is lower than before.
In calculations about electrifying railroads with solar panels, what is the assumed life of the panels? What is the rate of performance decline over that life?
Holy ‘Rail’ of Eternal Life
About solar energy panels declining in electrical energy output with their age, a situation comes to mind that may or may not be relevant to that declining life phenomena.
A few decades ago I use to do contract work for this photography portrait outfit. They were known for photos that did not fade in the sunlight. My daughter not too long ago informed me she bought photos in another state that didn’t fade either. So, there is some secret process that prevents fading.
It would seem that the ‘secret process’ could be applied to solar panels that would inhibit the sunlight’s deteriorating effects on them, making replacement of a railroad’s source of so called ‘free energy’ unnecessary because they would be eternal.
Any merit to the concept?
K. P. Harrier Holy ‘Rail’ of Eternal Life About solar energy panels declining in electrical energy output with their age, a situation comes to mind that may or may not be relevant to that declining life phenomena. A few decades ago I use to do contract work for this photography portrait outfit. They were known for photos that did not fade in the sunlight. My daughter not too long ago informed me she bought photos in another state that didn’t fade either. So, there is some secret process that prevents fading. It would seem that the ‘secret process’ could be applied to solar panels that would inhibit the sunlight’s deteriorating effects on them, making replacement of a railroad’s source of so called ‘free energy’ unnecessary because they would be eternal. Any merit to the concept?
Johnny
Perhaps a better solution would be to use wind as your source of electricity. I believe enough wind turbines could be placed along the right of way to provide a substantial amount of the required energy to power (to use the given example) BNSF's Southern Transcon. If high voltage power lines were constructed along with the caternary, the wind farms and solar, if you choose to use it, could all be tied together with feeds from existing power companies for solid 24/7 operation. Excess power could be sold to the grid.
Also of interest was a plan a few years ago to tie the three large power grids (Eastern, Western & Texas) together. The projected tie together point was Clovis NM, the halfway point on the Southern Transcon.
I think it would behoove the railroads to give serious consideration to this before the government shoves it down their throats. The railroads are the biggest single users of petroleum behind the military, and the only transportation form where a tried and perfected alternative to oil exists now.
Expensive....absolutely. However, if the railroads would start the process by publicly developing national standards to begin electrification of major mainlines, they could hold Congress's feet to the fire for grants and/or tax credits to get back some of their investment in PTC.
WM7471Expensive....absolutely. However, if the railroads would start the process by publicly developing national standards to begin electrification of major mainlines, they could hold Congress's feet to the fire for grants and/or tax credits to get back some of their investment in PTC.
Nah - they'll pass a law giving the railroads until 2020 to electrify, then will want to know how come it isn't done...
It might be possible to use the land within the ROW boundary but clear of the tracks, such as the slopes of embankments and cuts, for solar panels. Since this ground surface is not used other purposes solar panels installed there would not divert land from agriculture or other uses.
For the railroads, it would only be sensible from a financial standpoint to install solar panels if there were subsidies to do this, as the cost of photovoltaics is high. The 'juice' generated would be sold to local electricity networks.
The amount of power needed by a train is considerable and if the Class Is did electrify it would probably be on the 50 kV ac system used by the Black Mesa and Lake Power RR and a few other heavy-haulers such as the iron-ore carrying Sishen-Saldanha line in S Africa. The substations to supply this current to the railroads would need to be fed from the highest levels of the electric grid, which are normally at 500 kV. Having a separate electric network to collect solar power exclusively for rail use would be incredibly expensive.
If you book a train ticket on German railways you can, if you wish, pay a small supplement to ensure that all the power used on your journey comes from renewable (mostly wind) sources. There is of course no separate power source but renewable energy suppliers are paid for all the electricity used. A similar mechanism could be used, if desired, by future electrified Class Is to enhance their 'green' credentials.
Explain to me how you think this would work.
What, for example, would 'national standards' be in this context? There is a very well-established set of design options in current European constant-tension practice, for example, and even ignoring current American developments or historical design studies (the Conrail 'dual-mode-lite' systems design from the early '80s being the one that jumps out as most relevant to topic) there is no need -- other than absorbing grant opportunities -- in re-inventing "standards" for some sort of catenary USRA; in any case, my understanding is that standards almost never prescribe either proprietary design content or particular intellectual property unless absolutely required, as opposed to defining 'required parameters' (which in the case of catenary are well known).
Having said that, I would suspect that yes, the Government would produce some sort of camel mandate regarding 'requirements' that contains sweetheart provisions somewhere, and as tree said, we'll start playing that ask-if-I'm-hurting-you-dear-before-she-asks-is-it-in-yet game about implementation timetables whether or not there are operationally cost-effective 'business savings' for railroads from incremental electrification. Etc.
Now, a more interesting question might be how to pay for/have the Government subsidize electrification when ECP braking represents much lower-hanging (and FRA-prioritizable) operating and safety 'improvement' at a massive capitalization level without substantial benefit until reasonable 'pervasive'...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.