More information here: http://www.keloland.com/news/article/other/the-pathfinders-past
And here: http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMAT1J
Norm
RME Murphy Siding Sioux Falls, S.D. I really don't know if they ever really fired it up. Omigod, Pathfinder. Yes, they fired it up; no, they never ran it at rated power; yes, that was a really fortunate thing. Think nuclear superheater using 93% enriched uranium (that's weapons-grade to laymen) with 1960s control modality. Not quite as shudderworthy as the Soviet nuclear superheater with carbon moderation, but definitely not something you want in your back yard.
Murphy Siding Sioux Falls, S.D. I really don't know if they ever really fired it up.
Omigod, Pathfinder. Yes, they fired it up; no, they never ran it at rated power; yes, that was a really fortunate thing. Think nuclear superheater using 93% enriched uranium (that's weapons-grade to laymen) with 1960s control modality. Not quite as shudderworthy as the Soviet nuclear superheater with carbon moderation, but definitely not something you want in your back yard.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid ... But the larger point in terms of supply/demand, cost effectiveness is this: In a free market solution, a cost/benefit consideration is made based on what the market is willing to pay for the benefit. Over the last century, coal fired plants provided power at a price that consumers accepted. ... So now, the cost/benefit analysis of renewable energy gifts its promoters with the advantage of no limit on the cost side of the cost/benefit analysis. The rail borne storage solution is an essential part of renewable energy, so it too is unconstrained by cost consideration.
...
But the larger point in terms of supply/demand, cost effectiveness is this: In a free market solution, a cost/benefit consideration is made based on what the market is willing to pay for the benefit. Over the last century, coal fired plants provided power at a price that consumers accepted.
So now, the cost/benefit analysis of renewable energy gifts its promoters with the advantage of no limit on the cost side of the cost/benefit analysis. The rail borne storage solution is an essential part of renewable energy, so it too is unconstrained by cost consideration.
In the last 10 years only a quarter of the proposed coal fired power plants were built, and over a hundred were cancelled. Only a handful are still on the drawing board. You seem to think that this was totally because of some political mandate, however, half the states are fighting it, and the Supreme Court has yet to decide. The politics is actually behind the times, as the free market (such as it is) investors have already put their money on gas fired and renewables. As I said before, the free market will weed out the more costly methods of power storage. If the cost of renewables gets out of hand, democratic societies will decide what level of cost/benefit they will bear. That an essential system is built "unconstrained by cost consideration" is not behavior that I have ever observed.
RME Murphy Siding Let me rephrase that perhaps. The story that is told, is that it was built in the 50's as some sort of demonstrator type project, to explore the feasibility of small scale nuclear power plants. Wasn't this the reactor system that used the organic coolant, which turned into ghastly sludge when it was irradiated? Piqua, Ohio?
Murphy Siding Let me rephrase that perhaps. The story that is told, is that it was built in the 50's as some sort of demonstrator type project, to explore the feasibility of small scale nuclear power plants.
Wasn't this the reactor system that used the organic coolant, which turned into ghastly sludge when it was irradiated? Piqua, Ohio?
Murphy SidingLet me rephrase that perhaps. The story that is told, is that it was built in the 50's as some sort of demonstrator type project, to explore the feasibility of small scale nuclear power plants.
Electroliner 1935 Murphy Siding Our town had an atomic power plant built in the 1950's for use during peak demand. I doubt that your nuclear plant was built as a peaking plant. All those that I am aware of are operated as base load, which is the environmental and economic reasons for that mode of operation. For physical reasons, nuclear plants don't like to have variations in their load. And since their fuel is being consumed with time, the cost is lowest if they run at rated output. Also, as the initial investment is greater than any other type of generating plant, the ecomomics require maximum output to recover the investment. Remember that the cost of generation is return on investment, plus maintenance, plus cost of fuel. In the case of a storage plant, hydro, rail, or battery, the fuel cost is the difference between what the off peak electric rate and the peak electric rate. As said in a movie, "SHOW ME THE MONEY"
Murphy Siding Our town had an atomic power plant built in the 1950's for use during peak demand.
I doubt that your nuclear plant was built as a peaking plant. All those that I am aware of are operated as base load, which is the environmental and economic reasons for that mode of operation. For physical reasons, nuclear plants don't like to have variations in their load. And since their fuel is being consumed with time, the cost is lowest if they run at rated output. Also, as the initial investment is greater than any other type of generating plant, the ecomomics require maximum output to recover the investment. Remember that the cost of generation is return on investment, plus maintenance, plus cost of fuel. In the case of a storage plant, hydro, rail, or battery, the fuel cost is the difference between what the off peak electric rate and the peak electric rate. As said in a movie, "SHOW ME THE MONEY"
Murphy SidingOur town had an atomic power plant built in the 1950's for use during peak demand.
EuclidThe fact that storage systems compete against each other is beside the point. No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
I think what Zugman meant was that is the best doublespeak you've done in a long time. 69 words that essentially say nothing because they simply go in a circle. Yep, you'd make a good political speech writer.
As I understand it, each railcar carries a weight. At least some of them, if not all, are powered. There is no separate locomotive per se. The railcars that are powered are said to intend to use stock locomotive power trucks. I assume the rest of the car, which is essentially a flatcar, is custom built for the task. I also assume that only the powered cars will be able to also generate electricity on the downhill run. However, the weight carried on the non-powered, non-generating cars will contribute its energy by being coupled to the powered/generating cars.
I also read that the electricity for this system is handled through rail contact, as opposed to a catenary.
Would this system be regulated as railroad? Or would it just be regarded as plant machinery?
Murphy Siding Something still somewhat unlear in my mind- is the locomotive that rides down the hill producing the juice the same type of locomotive used to take the weighted cars back up the hill?
Something still somewhat unlear in my mind- is the locomotive that rides down the hill producing the juice the same type of locomotive used to take the weighted cars back up the hill?
That's how I interpret it. This would be little different from the Milwaukee (and other electric lines) using regenerative braking - putting power back into the catenary on the downhill which is then used by identical locomotives climbing the hill on the other side.
Or, think dynamic braking, except instead of sending the power generated to resistance grids on the locomotive, it is put back out onto the grid.
While it's possible they would use conventional locomotives as a basis on which to build, unless they left the Diesels there as a backup (a la FL9's), the space where the prime mover and generator (alternator) sit could be filled by ballast and/or power handling equipment.
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...
rrnut282 Euclid, Once again, an idea that uses rail is pooh-poohed by the denizens of a railFAN web-site. Maybe I am confused on the definition of a fan. I think an operation like this would be interesting. The doom and gloom GW crowd gets help when the wind dies down and I get a railroad to observe.
Euclid,
Once again, an idea that uses rail is pooh-poohed by the denizens of a railFAN web-site. Maybe I am confused on the definition of a fan. I think an operation like this would be interesting. The doom and gloom GW crowd gets help when the wind dies down and I get a railroad to observe.
rrnut282I may be way off in left field here, but there are two definitions of political speech and neither is very complimentary.
Rather than "political speech" as such, I interpreted the comment to mean "a political speech," as in writing the same.
Most contain ambiguous statements, presented in a way that allows the listener to interpret them as they will, but hopefully as being complimentary to the speaker...
Murphy Siding Euclid MidlandMike Any method of power storage has to be cost effective, because it is competing against other forms of power storage such as pumped storage. The fact that storage systems compete against each other is beside the point. No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high. I can't conceive how that could be beside the point. Supply/demand & competition. Sounds like a good mix to me. Don't you suppose there has been a need for peak demand electricity since before we had renewable energy? Our town had an atomic power plant built in the 1950's for use during peak demand.
Euclid MidlandMike Any method of power storage has to be cost effective, because it is competing against other forms of power storage such as pumped storage. The fact that storage systems compete against each other is beside the point. No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
MidlandMike Any method of power storage has to be cost effective, because it is competing against other forms of power storage such as pumped storage.
Any method of power storage has to be cost effective, because it is competing against other forms of power storage such as pumped storage.
The fact that storage systems compete against each other is beside the point.
No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
I can't conceive how that could be beside the point. Supply/demand & competition. Sounds like a good mix to me. Don't you suppose there has been a need for peak demand electricity since before we had renewable energy? Our town had an atomic power plant built in the 1950's for use during peak demand.
When I talk about supply and demand, I am not referring to the supply and demand related to the storage of electricity for future demand. Instead, I am referring to supply and demand in the cost/benefit analysis showing what the customer is willing to pay for the benefit of a product.
Both fossil fuel and renewable sources need backup or peaking power. Fossil fuel sources need backup for fluctuation in demand. Renewable source need backup for the same fluctuation in demand. However, renewable sources also need backup for their inherent inability to provide a constant supply. So the need for backup power is fundamentally higher with renewable energy than it is with fossil fuel energy.
This is a major difference between the two sources. Basically both wind and solar require storage unless the users accept the interruption of power during the night and times of no wind; and also in times of unusually high demand.
An alternative to storage for renewable energy would be peaking with fossil fuels, but this is not deemed acceptable because the use of fossil fuel is not acceptable.
But there was a downside that was not readily accounted for in the cost side. Drawbacks such as mine accidents, black lung disease, and air pollution are external costs to coal that are outside of the direct relationship of the consumers’ price for electricity. Detractors of coal consumption said that the true cost of coal has to include these so called, “externalities” or relatively hidden costs to coal combustion.
So the industry responded with cleaning up the pollution, improving mine safety, etc. Then suddenly, the coal opposition claimed to find and prove a new problem with coal combustion that, for practical purposes, is unsolvable. They found a new component of coal pollution. They also found a new consequence of this new pollution, and the consequence is so dire that it must be avoided, no matter what the cost. The new component of pollution is CO2, and the new consequence is manmade climate change. There is no possible compromise with this unprecedented peril other than complete elimination of the use of fossil fuels. Then the only alternative is renewable energy.
rrnut282Once again, an idea that uses rail is pooh-poohed by the denizens of a railFAN web-site. Maybe I am confused on the definition of a fan. I think an operation like this would be interesting. The doom and gloom GW crowd gets help when the wind dies down and I get a railroad to observe.
I think the "pooh-poohing" goes beyond the railroading aspect. I suspect any of us would sit and marvel if we were to watch this system in operation.
The questions all have to do with whether this is a technically viable solution, and chiefly whether this idea can generate sufficient power for a sufficient period of time to make it worthwhile.
There have been some questions as to functional complexity (ie, the turning weights) as well.
A key question is how long this system is expected to produce power each day, and at what times. If it is expected to generate power for, say, four hours straight hours each day, how many "trainsets" will be required? How many will have to headed down the "hill" at one time in order to generate the expected capacity? Can they all be moved to the top of the hill (with enough room to hold them there) in time for the next surge request?
I know that such information can usually be computed - some here have already done so in one way or another. But all of the information we're working on is pretty much based on a press release. It remains to be seen what the engineers actually envision.
I may be way off in left field here, but there are two definitions of political speech and neither is very complimentary.
[new topic]
zugmann Euclid Well, if that is political then renewable energy and this Ares storage concept is political. You can't pick and choose what to dimish on the grounds of it being political. I was talking about your style of writing - not the subject. And don't take it as an insult, for it was not meant as such. If anything, it was a compliment.
Euclid Well, if that is political then renewable energy and this Ares storage concept is political. You can't pick and choose what to dimish on the grounds of it being political.
I was talking about your style of writing - not the subject. And don't take it as an insult, for it was not meant as such. If anything, it was a compliment.
Oh, okay, I see. Thanks for the compliment. I am glad that my comment was understandable.
EuclidWell, if that is political then renewable energy and this Ares storage concept is political. You can't pick and choose what to dimish on the grounds of it being political.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Euclid No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high. You missed your calling writing political speeches. Unless that is what you did for a living?
Euclid No storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
You missed your calling writing political speeches. Unless that is what you did for a living?
Well, if that is political then renewable energy and this Ares storage concept is political. You can't pick and choose what to diminish on the grounds that is political.
EuclidNo storage system needs to be cost effective (relative to fossil fuel energy) if it is an accessory to renewable energy because renewable energy does not need to cost effective. This is because renewable energy proponents have set the terms of renewable energy conversion as being that the cost of fossil fuel energy is infinitely high.
Very interesting video about what the Danish are doing to go all renewable fuel. IE, wind, solar, biomass. Conversion of biomass to liquid and gas. Energy storage and peaking are covered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBiB4DaYOM
I await your comments.
Murphy Siding Euclid This Ares concept is unlike anything ever suggested here before. In the cost/benefit analysis for Ares, cost does not matter because the presumed benefit is practically infinite. What is it worth to save the planet and everything living on it? It is easy to think outside the box if cost doesn’t matter. Are you missing the point that the idea is to push the blocks up the hill when there's lots of juice available then push them down the hill when juice is in high demand, and therefore folks are willing to pay more for it? This operation would eliminate the need to build extra powerplants that would only be needed during peak power requirements.
Euclid This Ares concept is unlike anything ever suggested here before. In the cost/benefit analysis for Ares, cost does not matter because the presumed benefit is practically infinite. What is it worth to save the planet and everything living on it? It is easy to think outside the box if cost doesn’t matter.
This Ares concept is unlike anything ever suggested here before. In the cost/benefit analysis for Ares, cost does not matter because the presumed benefit is practically infinite. What is it worth to save the planet and everything living on it? It is easy to think outside the box if cost doesn’t matter.
Are you missing the point that the idea is to push the blocks up the hill when there's lots of juice available then push them down the hill when juice is in high demand, and therefore folks are willing to pay more for it? This operation would eliminate the need to build extra powerplants that would only be needed during peak power requirements.
No, I think the purpose energy storage valid, and essential for renewable energy production.
I was referring to renewable energy as a whole and the presumed need to replace fossil fuel energy with it. This energy storage concept is just an essential facet of renewable energy.
There is no need for renewable energy to be cost effective because the definition of the term is constantly shifting regarding renewable energy. There are sources that say that renewable energy is more costly than fossil fuel energy and sources that say otherwise. But both parties to the debate disagree with the terms of each other’s position. So there is no proof for either position. One has to come to their own conclusion based on the evidence that they see. One piece of evidence is that the free market will always develop and deliver a fulfillment of a need if it is cost effective. A government mandate is not needed for cost effective solutions. Mandates are needed for regulatory solutions that add cost.
In the case of Ares, cost is irrelevant because cost is irrelevant in the production of renewable energy. The reason is that renewable proponents claim that the externalities cost of fossil fuel energy include the complete destruction of the planet and all life on it. For all practical purposes, that means that the cost in infinitely high. Therefore the cost of renewable energy is free to rise almost to that point. So it always wins the cost/benefit analysis in those terms. Of course the terms of that self-annihilation are just a theory embraced by believers.
What this really accomplishes in the big picture is conservation. Renewable energy is deemed virtuous, and will be mandated no matter what it costs. If it turns out that the cost prices it out of the market, then the market will have to choice but to conserve it. So if we don’t save the planet by using green energy, we will save it by using less energy. Price rationing always reduces demand. It is not a far leap in thinking. Everyone that I know who is on this bandwagon believes that we consume far too much.
tdmidget The problem is that it is impossible. To deliver the claimed 668 MW ALL 140 trains have to be in downhill motion at the same time producing almost 7000 HP each. IF that could happen, (and it can't) you would only have that power for 19 minutes. A farce and a way to scam the Government, which is us, out of a fortune. Can you say "Solyndra"?
The problem is that it is impossible. To deliver the claimed 668 MW ALL 140 trains have to be in downhill motion at the same time producing almost 7000 HP each. IF that could happen, (and it can't) you would only have that power for 19 minutes. A farce and a way to scam the Government, which is us, out of a fortune. Can you say "Solyndra"?
The numbers as presented in the video don't seem to add up.
In order to deliver 668 MW, 280 trains would be needed. One hundred forty loaded trains would be decending while 140 unloaded trains are ascending. At the rate of 560 blocks every 20 minutes or so, the 11,400 blocks would be exhausted in just under 7 hours. This does not include the time needed to load and unload the blocks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.