Paul_D_North_Jr Murphy Siding Reading the article suggest they will need about 34 miles of track, 34 miles of catenary, 140 locomotives and 140 loaded flatcars. Can you get that for $55 million? What does an electric locomotive cost? A miles of track? A mile of catenary? No way. Recognizing that this will be low-speed and hence the track and catenary need not be too sophisticated, here's a WAG estimate: 34 mi. track @ $1M = $34M 34 mi. catenary @ $0.5M = $17M 140 locos @ $2M (biggest unknown) = $280M 140 cars @ $0.1M = $14M Total: $345M Even if the locos were half the cost of current diesels, they alone would be $70M. - Paul North.
Murphy Siding Reading the article suggest they will need about 34 miles of track, 34 miles of catenary, 140 locomotives and 140 loaded flatcars. Can you get that for $55 million? What does an electric locomotive cost? A miles of track? A mile of catenary?
No way. Recognizing that this will be low-speed and hence the track and catenary need not be too sophisticated, here's a WAG estimate:
34 mi. track @ $1M = $34M
34 mi. catenary @ $0.5M = $17M
140 locos @ $2M (biggest unknown) = $280M
140 cars @ $0.1M = $14M
Total: $345M
Even if the locos were half the cost of current diesels, they alone would be $70M.
- Paul North.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
First, I want to say that to use a downward train to move another train upward is not rational. It is like a dog chasing its tail. A waste. Secondly the locomotives are relatively basic. Nowhere nearly as complex as Amtraks sprinters. If you look at page 23 of the document,
http://s3.amazonaws.com/siteninja/multitenant/assets/20325/files/original/141212_ARES_POD_update.pdf
you will see that they are proposing three phase locomotives. Not quite sure how that works in the end yards but otherwise, makes sence since this is what the power grid is.
The Ludington Pumped Storage Plant is a hydroelectric plant and reservoir in Ludington, Michigan. It was built between 1969 and 1973 at a cost of $315 million At night, during low demand for electricity, the turbines run in reverse to pump water 363 feet (111 m) uphill from Lake Michigan into the reservoir.The power plant consists of six reversible turbines that can each generate 312 megawatts of electricity for a total output of 1,872 megawatts. As the power grid in the area of Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois had a lot of base load Nuclear Generation, and base load coal generation, it made economic sense to use the capacity of the base load generation to fill the reservoir at night and then meet part of the daytime peak with the stored energy in the reservoir. I believe it had an efficiency of about 70%.
The ARES plan is small in comparison (50 MW) for an estimated cost of 55 mil. But pumped hydro storage is not feasable in the desert. I do like that they are "thinking outside the box" here and wish them well.
Semper Vaporo I can see it now... there will be 20 total cars in the system... at any one point there might be 10 at the bottom of the hill, waiting for a surplus of energy in the grid to enable them to be sent to the top; and 10 at the top waiting for a deficit of energy in the grid to cause them to be sent to the bottom to replenish that deficit. At some point there will be a surplus, so a car is engaged to move to the top, but the energy required will cause a deficit, which will cause one at the top to be released to make up for it. ...
I can see it now... there will be 20 total cars in the system... at any one point there might be 10 at the bottom of the hill, waiting for a surplus of energy in the grid to enable them to be sent to the top; and 10 at the top waiting for a deficit of energy in the grid to cause them to be sent to the bottom to replenish that deficit.
At some point there will be a surplus, so a car is engaged to move to the top, but the energy required will cause a deficit, which will cause one at the top to be released to make up for it.
...
A train at the bottom would not be sent up to the top unless thre was enough surplus power to do so on its own.
Euclid ... ... There are two possible reasons why the energy produced does not match the energy demand. One is that demand varies, and the other is that production varies. Fossil fuel energy must address only a variation of demand, and do so by intentionally increasing or decreasing production. Renewable energy must address a variation of demand as well as a natural variation of production. So to address that dual variation of renewable energy, it must be intentionally stored in times of low demand when excess is available for storage. ...
There are two possible reasons why the energy produced does not match the energy demand. One is that demand varies, and the other is that production varies. Fossil fuel energy must address only a variation of demand, and do so by intentionally increasing or decreasing production. Renewable energy must address a variation of demand as well as a natural variation of production. So to address that dual variation of renewable energy, it must be intentionally stored in times of low demand when excess is available for storage.
Without storage, you have to build enough fossil fuel plants to cover peak demand. At times of slack demand, they are operating less efficently, and are a waste of assets. As it has been pointed out before, some conventional electric generating companies have operated storage facilities for decades. Furthermore, peak demand is during daylight, which is optimal for solar generation, especially when there are demand spikes cause by air conditioning.
Murphy SidingReading the article suggest they will need about 34 miles of track, 34 miles of catenary, 140 locomotives and 140 loaded flatcars. Can you get that for $55 million? What does an electric locomotive cost? A miles of track? A mile of catenary?
Semper Vaporo I can see it now... there will be 20 total cars in the system... at any one point there might be 10 at the bottom of the hill, waiting for a surplus of energy in the grid to enable them to be sent to the top; and 10 at the top waiting for a deficit of energy in the grid to cause them to be sent to the bottom to replenish that deficit. At some point there will be a surplus, so a car is engaged to move to the top, but the energy required will cause a deficit, which will cause one at the top to be released to make up for it. That in turn will produce a surplus, so another car at the bottom will be engaged to move to the top, which, you guessed it, causes a deficit to make another one at the top to be released to make up for that deficit. Which, you guessed it again, will cause a surplus that allows another one to be engaged to move to the top, which will ... well, you get the idea. 10 cars going up and 10 cars going down in a never-ending drain on the overall energy in the grid. Just be sure there is a computer involved so that no people are around to see the debacle.
That in turn will produce a surplus, so another car at the bottom will be engaged to move to the top, which, you guessed it, causes a deficit to make another one at the top to be released to make up for that deficit.
Which, you guessed it again, will cause a surplus that allows another one to be engaged to move to the top, which will ... well, you get the idea.
10 cars going up and 10 cars going down in a never-ending drain on the overall energy in the grid.
Just be sure there is a computer involved so that no people are around to see the debacle.
Johnny
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Reading the article suggest they will need about 34 miles of track, 34 miles of catenary, 140 locomotives and 140 loaded flatcars. Can you get that for $55 million? What does an electric locomotive cost? A miles of track? A mile of catenary?
Not to say there's no cost to this. A bit OT, but germane to the discussion is this article that tabulates the overall energy cost of wind turbines.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil
Seems self-evident that you need energy and industrial prowess to build energy-generation infrastucture, but it's not often analyze din such detail.
This rail system seems "better" in that the literally "big iron" part of the system, the locomotives, cars and rail infrastructure are relatively low-tech, relatively "portable" (don't need special transport equipment to tranport any giant turbine blades to the site), etc. so the fossil fuel "carbon footprint" needed to get it up and running and continue running is much less. . It's the control equipment that's "high tech", but computing power is cheap and rugged these days, and the system is meant to respond to demand in an agile fashion.
zugmann Euclid Remember, this railcar system does not produce any energy. It is just another component in the production of renewable energy. Actually this storage system itself will use energy that would not be used without this storage system. When it stores energy and returns it later, it consumes 15% of what it stores, and then return only 85% of what it started with.
Euclid Remember, this railcar system does not produce any energy. It is just another component in the production of renewable energy. Actually this storage system itself will use energy that would not be used without this storage system. When it stores energy and returns it later, it consumes 15% of what it stores, and then return only 85% of what it started with.
I did not mean to suggest that this railcar idea serves no purpose. These are the points I was making in the post that you quoted from:
There may be an implication in this news that some might infer to mean that this railcar system produces free energy to add to the free energy produced by the wind and solar plants. The railcar system does not produce any energy. It only stores energy produced by the wind and solar plants.
There may be an implication in this news that some might infer to mean that this railcar system returns all of the energy that it stores. But it actually consumes 15% of the energy that is put into it for storage, and returns 85% of it.
Renewable energy is not a free market system that lowers consumer cost. It is a mandate that raises consumer cost.
I live in a state that has passed a robust renewable energy mandate. The people who voted for it insist that it will dramatically reduce the cost of electricity, and create many jobs and economic growth. But they offered nothing concrete or even an explanation of how this would happen. I think they are delusional.
tree68 mudchicken I still want to see this magic locomotive that can climb 8% grades by itself, much less pull significant tonnage along with it. The graphic accompanying the article led me to believe that rather than a single train, there would be some number of autonomous cars that would move uphill during energy gluts and then run downhill when energy was needed. I would suppose that the goal would be to have all of them at the top of the hill when demand rose, at which time they could be allowed to run downhill and generate power. Keeping them running in the appropriate direction at the appropriate time would be somewhat complex, but certainly nothing a computer couldn't handle. I think I saw mention of using some to power the others. That would seem to indicate that if there was reserve left when demand dropped that the top cars could be sent back to the top using power generated by the lower cars that were still generating. Thus power drawn from the grid to reposition the cars would be lessened. On the face of it, this sounds like a workable idea, but the devil is always in the details, and I'm no expert on those details. Given the locale, it would seem like adding solar to the mix would be a no-brainer. Maybe even wind.
mudchicken I still want to see this magic locomotive that can climb 8% grades by itself, much less pull significant tonnage along with it.
I still want to see this magic locomotive that can climb 8% grades by itself, much less pull significant tonnage along with it.
The graphic accompanying the article led me to believe that rather than a single train, there would be some number of autonomous cars that would move uphill during energy gluts and then run downhill when energy was needed.
I would suppose that the goal would be to have all of them at the top of the hill when demand rose, at which time they could be allowed to run downhill and generate power.
Keeping them running in the appropriate direction at the appropriate time would be somewhat complex, but certainly nothing a computer couldn't handle.
I think I saw mention of using some to power the others. That would seem to indicate that if there was reserve left when demand dropped that the top cars could be sent back to the top using power generated by the lower cars that were still generating. Thus power drawn from the grid to reposition the cars would be lessened.
On the face of it, this sounds like a workable idea, but the devil is always in the details, and I'm no expert on those details. Given the locale, it would seem like adding solar to the mix would be a no-brainer. Maybe even wind.
Clearly stated in the linked document - there will be 12 trains, each with two 220-ton locomotives and seven cars loaded to 150tons/car with rock, soil and construction debris. That gives something better in loco/car weight ratio than the JNR used to have on the Usui grade, which was 6.8%.
At present there is no shortage of sites for solar panel farms, and there are a number of investors ready to build them. Near Pahrump? Good question.
We also have a pair of hot tower solar mirror facilities south of Las Vegas, so there's plenty of power when the sun shines.
Chuck (Southern Nevada resident)
Rube, Goldberg & Western Railroad?
According to the website the railcars themselves will be constructed from retired locomotives so all wheels have traction motors. Presumable there will be a third rail system to power the strings of cars uphill and, via regenerative braking, extract power as they roll downhill.
Note I am not arguing about the practicality of this proposal just repeating what it says on their site...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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...
re: location
Look at page 8 of this document posted on the ARES site:
It's in this area near Pahrump:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1805189,-115.8086406,12z
It looks to be in the middle of nowhere, likely chosen for the natural grade?
re: solar panels
Yes, it would make sense wouldn't it? A couple of the videos and graphics on the website show just that. It doesn't look like that's in the plan for the Nevada installation for now. I suspect that would somewhat complicate the regulation gear for injecting the power into the grid, since there would be two sources. But, what the heck - if the operator has already leased a huge chunk of land and there's little other enviro impact, why not maximize use of the lease?
The pretty picture with the article shows a whole multi-track yard full of movable weights, plus another dozen or so empty tracks off a second lead. So, multiply 17 minutes PER TRAIN by X trains and you have enough stored power for several hours. That's a considerable saving in natural gas, even if it is only as efficient as the gas turbine/steam turbine plants that burn that natural gas.
I'd like to know exactly where this land lease is, and how convenient it is to the UPs LA&SL route.
It also strikes me that the immediately adjacent land might be a logical site for about a gazillion solar panels...
This seems like quite the investment for a power source that's going to provide some peak power for only 17-1/2 minutes per day. (5.5 miles at 19 m.p.h.) Aren't we talking about a $10-$20 million investment?
zugmann Euclid Remember, this railcar system does not produce any energy. It is just another component in the production of renewable energy. Actually this storage system itself will use energy that would not be used without this storage system. When it stores energy and returns it later, it consumes 15% of what it stores, and then return only 85% of what it started with. Electroliner explained this 1000x better than I can a few posts below yours.
Electroliner explained this 1000x better than I can a few posts below yours.
John Kneiling had a great explanation of power plant functions and economics - including diagrams - in this article:
"Coal: Going, Going, Gone - How coal railroads can run downhill at a profit", by Kneiling, John G., from Trains, Oct. 1967, pg. 37 &etc.
Euclid ... Renewable energy is a lot more costly than fossil fuel energy. But people are led to believe that renewable energy is cheaper, under the mistaken premise that solar and wind are free. They overlook the capital cost of plant and equipment, and its replacement cost when it wears out. The intermittent nature of renewables further drives up the plant and equipment cost by requiring systems that will store and release energy to smooth out the intermittent nature of renewable production. This railroad system is one such storage system. ...
Renewable energy is a lot more costly than fossil fuel energy. But people are led to believe that renewable energy is cheaper, under the mistaken premise that solar and wind are free. They overlook the capital cost of plant and equipment, and its replacement cost when it wears out. The intermittent nature of renewables further drives up the plant and equipment cost by requiring systems that will store and release energy to smooth out the intermittent nature of renewable production. This railroad system is one such storage system.
Fossil fuel plants also have huge capital costs, maintenance costs and replacement costs, as well as constant fuel costs, not to mention health and environmental costs. In Germany, where they have greatly increasd renewables, the wholesale price of electricity has been going down for years, although the tax to cover the conversion is high. American renewable construction has been largely financed by private investors taking advantage of tax incentives. One of the reasons that American power rates have not been skyrocketing, is that utilities have largely cancelled plans for billion dollar coal plants.
Here at Hoover, Hydro isn't used for peaking. It's a byproduct of agricultural water distribution, and, like wind or solar, happens when it happens, not when the grid managers would like it. (I was at Hoover Dam this morning, and asked the Ranger at the information desk that specific question.)
Yes, it will cost money to capture and store that power for use when it IS needed. It strikes me that using off-the-shelf railway technology to capture and store it is far more practical than any other system that can meet the realities of life in the Southern Nevada desert. (Priced batteries lately?) What might be useful in a rain forest or in the Frozen North is irrelevant to the present experiment. This might prove to be a mistake - in which case the infrastructure will be recycled elsewhere and we'll have another 'Rails-to-trails' right of way like the one I hiked this morning while looking for signs of the former rail operation at Himix.
Chuck (Clark County, NV, resident)
A couple points. Hydro is used for peaking. What usually occurs is when hydro is not needed the generators are already running at grid frequency. So if power demand increases above base load -- first the grid has a voltage drop that commands the hydro turbine governor to open the pentstock and the turbine that is running changes from a motor to generator.
The weight of the sled cars will indicate that the rail will have to be very heavy rail. ( 141 ? ). There would be no reason to climb the hill at 9% but could climb on a loop at a more useable 1-2 % .
This could mean quite a few ACS-64 type electric motors. Regeneration certainly is a proven technical ability.
This is not free electricity as capital costs and operating costs will be an ongoing expense. Repaying capital and interest.
EuclidRemember, this railcar system does not produce any energy. It is just another component in the production of renewable energy. Actually this storage system itself will use energy that would not be used without this storage system. When it stores energy and returns it later, it consumes 15% of what it stores, and then return only 85% of what it started with.
Which is fine since energy needs are not constant throughout the day.
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
SledDawgAlso, ... no one is coercing anybody to do anything surrounding this project. If these guys didn't think they ultimately could make money with this, they wouldn't be doing it.
If you mean they will make money through the free market economics of offering a better and cheaper product that the public will prefer, I think that assumption is incorrect. They will make money alright precisely because of the coercion that forces the public to buy their more expensive product.
This most certainly is about coercion and regulatory mandates. That is what makes it feasible. Government decides how we all must live and what we must pay to accomplish their vision. The vision starts with the regulatory banning of coal. That is coercion. Listen to Jim Kelly his video on this page:
http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/
He says this: “We believe that ARES is an integral part of state and national energy policy.” He says we all have to pull together and use this technology to fight global warming.
***********************************************
Remember, this railcar system does not produce any energy. It is just another component in the production of renewable energy. Actually this storage system itself will use energy that would not be used without this storage system. When it stores energy and returns it later, it consumes 15% of what it stores, and then return only 85% of what it started with.
The concept information includes the size of a typical plant and the energy storage potential. How many of these plants would the country need for a national system? I would guess that the answer is at least in the thousands.
What would be the average plant cost for land, permits, excavation and grading, track, electric catenary, electric locomotive, ballasted railcars, controls, braking system, storage buildings, ballast weights, ballast weight handling equipment, etc.?
What would be the annual operating cost for operation and maintenance? The system of track and switches will require daily inspection and maintenance. So will the catenary, locomotives, railcars, ballast weight handlers, buildings, and control systems. All of this will require maintenance and repair. Snow will have to be removed. What will be the total downtime per year for this maintenance work?
Renewable energy has absolutely nothing to do with lowering the cost of electricity as a market alternative to fossil fuel energy. That is not its purpose. The purpose is to deliver a form of energy that has been deemed necessary to meet new requirements established by government.
This adds cost to electricity. The added cost will force (coerce) consumers to use less electricity. Today’s $100 monthly electric bill will soon cost $500. Something will have to yield, and it will be in the reduction of consumption. Indeed, consuming less is an intended part of the objective here. Anybody in the renewable energy movement will tell you that we all consume too much of everything.
Norm48327 Gee. You mean they are actually going to do this on their own dime and not seek massive federal subsidies? Doubtful. How many of these projects, solar, wind, etc are profitable right out of the box? Not many. Yes, politics will be involved. They will be asking for money.
Gee. You mean they are actually going to do this on their own dime and not seek massive federal subsidies? Doubtful.
How many of these projects, solar, wind, etc are profitable right out of the box? Not many. Yes, politics will be involved. They will be asking for money.
If they ask anyone for money it will probably be NVEnergy, which has a virtual power monopoly here (Nevada) and is, therefore, the only game in town.
We also have another purely local oddity to the power generation scheme - Hoover Dam. Hoover releases water to meet irrigation and downstream distribution requirements, and uses it to spin generators as it goes. Base load? Peak load? It could be a sunny day with gale force winds and hydropower will hit the grid because Calexico is entitled to XXX acre-feet today.
Given the realities of power availability and useage here in Southern Nevada, this is a lot more likely to show an immediate return, and is a LOT quicker and easier to buiid, than almost any other power storage or generation scheme.
My electric bill wishes them well.
SledDawgAlso, too much politics injected into this discussion: no one is coercing anybody to do anything surrounding this project. If these guys didn't think they ultimately could make money with this, they wouldn't be doing it.
Norm
The load on the eletrical grid has a very well known variable cycle and has been defined as base load which is the load that is present between midnight and about six AM. then there is the cyclic load that starts to grow at about 6 am and peaks about 3 pm and declines to zero at midnight. There is also a temperature variable load for heat and air conditioning which of course varies with the time of year and weather. Nuclear plants are optimum for base load. High initial cost, low fuel cost, reliable and most efficient at full load. Coal and oil are generaly used to operate from 20% to 100 % of their capacity. Have carbon and polution issues, lower initial cost than nuclear and higher fuel cost than nuclear. After these come the gas fired combination units that have a gas turbine generator and a heat recovery boiler steam generator. These are good for cycling and have higher maintenance costs, and higher operational costs. So historically, the grid has dispatched the various mix of generation to keep the total cost of electricity as low as possible. Run lowest cost units first, then run units based on cost. It is expensive to to supply that peak kilowatt since you may only need it for five days a year. Would you build a plant that is only needed for five years? These used to be older units in the last years before they are retired.
The wind turbines have no fuel costs, but they are not a secure source of electricity. Ditto for Solar. Some utility's tried a time of day pricing and found that during a heat wave, people would decide to do without air conditioning for the first two days because of the cost and then when they got real hot would say damm it, turn it on creating a extremely sharp needle peak load. Until recently, electric meters were not designed for time of day (TOD) metering. But how the public will accept TOD rates remains to be seen. Will they be willing to shift load to save money? So the utilities had to aggregate the useage and select the sources to keep the rates as low as possible and still make a profit. Its not an easy job. You see the stories about Amtrak pricing based on the demand. Same idea. An empty seat is lost revenue. Additional trains cost more money. Same with airlines and motels. Sorry I'm a little windy here.
So the need for peaking power is real and this is a possible source that sounds promising.
I think some are missing the point of this enterprise, perhaps not understanding the concept of stored energy and "ancillary services" as described on the ARES Nevada project page. It's an attempt to fill a hole in the spectrum of sources feeding the power grid, not a fix for everything.
As far as the infrastructure and comparing it to analogous hydro, I think the point here is that the rail infrastructure is to some extent off-the-shelf, modular and semi-temporary. It's out in the middle of the desert, so there are no mountains to move or rivers to redirect. If it doesn't pan out or become profitable, they can bascially dissassemble it and take it away. Not so easy with a hydro installation. Read the plan.
Has anyone visited the operational test site at Tehachapi?
Also, too much politics injected into this discussion: no one is coercing anybody to do anything surrounding this project. If these guys didn't think they ultimately could make money with this, they wouldn't be doing it.
Here is the stored resouvour at Niagara Falls- BTW the NYC grapevive went through here along the South Shore of Lake Ontario
Norm48327 Railroad cars are 12,000.00 to 50,000.00 per unit now if they had stored cars like grainers or coal cars they might be able to collect the storage and the generating use of these cars Strictly opinion but it sounds a lot like another pie in the sky idea. Lots of drawbacks to running rail cars on a ten percent grade, not to mention the needed infrastructure.
Strictly opinion but it sounds a lot like another pie in the sky idea. Lots of drawbacks to running rail cars on a ten percent grade, not to mention the needed infrastructure.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.