Electroliner 1935 Voldamort
Voldamort
How dare you speak our Dark Lord's name.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Overmod Just as a note: this is the 'real' first best use of that 'battery road locomotive' now going for test; it will not be wasted on you that its dedicated running consist is like a large, better-constructed version of the one-unit hybrid locomotive, with the added flexibility of using the battery part separately controlled if that becomes desired. And yes, hybrid pairs and triples are likely to become a 'next big thing' in practical road power, "at long long last".
Just as a note: this is the 'real' first best use of that 'battery road locomotive' now going for test; it will not be wasted on you that its dedicated running consist is like a large, better-constructed version of the one-unit hybrid locomotive, with the added flexibility of using the battery part separately controlled if that becomes desired.
And yes, hybrid pairs and triples are likely to become a 'next big thing' in practical road power, "at long long last".
GECX 2010 has the ability to temporarily increase it's rating from 4400HP to 6000HP with the energy recaptured from DB. The current BP44C4 does not provide that it's just one way to reduce fuel use.. GECX 2010 has the ability to "boost" it's motors for acceleration, and use the additional power for grades.. The most convenient way to reduce emissions is to get avg speed up turning equipment faster.
SD60MAC9500 Overmod Just as a note: this is the 'real' first best use of that 'battery road locomotive' now going for test; it will not be wasted on you that its dedicated running consist is like a large, better-constructed version of the one-unit hybrid locomotive, with the added flexibility of using the battery part separately controlled if that becomes desired. And yes, hybrid pairs and triples are likely to become a 'next big thing' in practical road power, "at long long last". GECX 2010 has the ability to temporarily increase it's rating from 4400HP to 6000HP with the energy recaptured from DB. The current BP44C4 does not provide that it's just one way to reduce fuel use.. GECX 2010 has the ability to "boost" it's motors for acceleration, and use the additional power for grades.. The most convenient way to reduce emissions is to get avg speed up turning equipment faster.
Completely wasted, I guess, is that rairoads and manufacturers have concluded that 4000-4400 HP is the max usable for 6 axles......
I think GE made a mistake in not pushing the hybrid locomotive as a way of increasing capacity of very llong tunnels, e.g. BNSF's Cascade tunnel. By running the prime movers at half power, and using batteries to get back the other half, there would significantly less exhaust fumes and radiator heat to deal with.
Given the hindisght of the last ten years, GE would have been better off using Lithium batteries instead of the high temperature metal halide batteries they were working on.
Erik_MagGiven the hindsight of the last ten years, GE would have been better off using Lithium batteries instead of the high temperature metal halide batteries they were working on.
And then we take up the merry world of potential wreck damage consequences...
One of the 'first best uses' of dual-mode-lite electrification is to string wire in tunnels, using whatever current and tension the clearances and available power including wayside storage will permit. This minimizes the amount of actual emission in the tunnel, or can theoretically reduce emission in the 'parts' of a tunnel most difficult or longest to clear, even if it is not sufficient to allow combustion engines to be idled/isolated or indeed shut down while that part of the power on a given train is traversing the bore.
(Incidentally a hydrogen locomotive has the advantage that its 'tunnel pollutant' is largely heat. Against this though are the explosive limits of hydrogen in an enclosed space, should there be leakage... and a combined lithium and hydrogen fire started in a tunnel might add a new chapter to the annals of epic rail disasters. I don't say this to be alarmist, just to note that cheap PSR-style maintenance priorities and freight-horsepower concentration of hydrogen fuel don't make for good safety just as GPU-style priorities and poor implementation of equipment didn't leading up to TMI.
The Coradia hydrogen cell trainsets are performing from Bremerhaven to Cuxhaven to Buxtehude, as well as a battery-powered trainset somewhere near Lake Constance. I believe the former have been in service around one year,the latter two years, both by Bombardier. Italy is also ordering the hydrogen trainsets and infrastructure.
And others are developing fuel cell trains,such as Hyundai and Cummins:
https://www.cummins.com/new-power/applications/trains
I have no doubt that Cummins will be in the forefront of expanding their equipment into what the Canadian government is calling for. They can recognize the similarities and differences needed to implement a high-horsepower powertrain instead of recharge of light BEV railcars, and I wouldn't hesitate to say "if anyone can do it right, they can".
The key to meaningful zero-carbon here, though, remains the production and supply infrastructure, which Cummins might help define but likely could not finance. It remains to be seen how much the government of Canada will put up to achieve what is necessary for their zero-carbon vision -- and whether the successors to the current government continue to pay for that rather than a carbon-neutral alternative that is orders of magnitude less expensive per ton-mile and more flexible.
Pertinent to your comment, an announcement from one of our top research facilities (hardly just some "trendy" news:
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2020/12/21/improved-hydrogen-fuel-production/
Having read through the article, I'm not quite what the advancement buys with the exception of providing hydrogen for fuel cells. I would imagine that in most cases, there would be more useful energy fromthe original alcohol.
The one advantage of hydrogen over batteries is a quicker "fill-up", otherwise batteries are a cheaper means of storing electrical energy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926337320303908
A technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells.
With the few have discussions on using alernatives to diesel/electric when those hear about EMD's FL9 technology. If those discuss stringing out cateraies when more discussions on whom is to pay for setting up the lines or where the power is to come from as what to do in an outage.
charlie hebdoA technology to use far less platinum in fuel cells.
A different promising method for reasonably prompt hydrogen release is to form nanoparticles of solid NaBH4 with a thin coating of carbon and nickel as a less-expensive catalyst, which in a surplus of water has the same 3D effective geometry without difficulty in release of the gas from the catalyst 'framework'.
One problem in both cases is that a significant amount of water over "stoich" is required for this process of hydrogen liberation to work properly (in part this relates to proper working conditions for the carrier after hydrogen has been liberated), and even on a mobile platform the size and weight of a locomotive this constitutes a sizable weight that largely remains with the spent boron tetrahydroxide. This can function effectively as ballast, but requires a larger volume; it should be pumpable for weight distribution. I assume at least some of the water resulting from fuel-cell generation will also be recovered in this volume, to the extent it is not lost as vapor.
I have my doubts that NaBH4 will be an entirely safe carrier fuel in these applications, since even small leaks in moist atmosphere will produce exothermic hydrogen at a high enough rate to reach explosive limit in confined spaces. Carrying a large required volume of water almost guarantees a great deal of fun in a wide range of potential accident conditions, possibly involving a repeated generation of largely invisible flame at elevated temperature. I am not sure how this can be practically mitigated on a cost-effective locomotive of practical size, but it's certainly worth discussing and testing.
Predictable response to the various ongoing research projects of actual experts.
OM has a good point, what works nicely on a small scale may be a real bear to work on a large scale. Similarly, a chemical process that is relatively safe on a small scale may be a major hazard on a large scale.
mkwelbornjrThe pressure is a political agenda.
Any national program will usually find itself between competing political agendas. Some agendas are based in scientific evidence, and some are based on preserving status quo and coporate profits.
mkwelbornjrIts funny that few even know coal plants exist...they are usually surrounded by lush wilderness...
Is it those few people, or the coal plants that are surrounded by lush wilderness?
mkwelbornjrIn a modern coal plant 99.9% of the waste is reused for gypsum.
Not even close. The Sulfur can be recycled into gypsum. What about ash, mercury, NOX, and of course CO2.
Every human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again. There will always be some waste from living life. A modern coal plant can be highly clean burning. The mercury can be trapped and contained. To squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd. Next up...only one kid per family to reduce global warming. Windmills create widespread visible pollution. Whats the point of saving land if you are going to clutter it with manmade object.
The most efficient process for the lowest cost will always win out.
.
YoHo1975Would it not be entirely plausible to have a set of locomotives where power was provided by diesel only when absolutely required and otherwise ran on overhead generation and battery?
Now it could be argued, and perhaps sensibly, that full dual-mode (where the power when drawing from external sources is much higher than that fir constant-horsepower sizing of the electrical drive) makes sense at a certain level of 'penetration' of electric supply, for example on grades currently requiring helpers or in services where higher speed would be required. But I think for a considerable time the same premise Conrail applied to the original dual-mode-lite (which was, sensibly, that you assign a given diesel consist rating to a given train and the consist behaves the same if on electric power) would be the most cost-effective for general operation. That imposes no requirement for operating electrical supply at any point, but seamlessly accommodates any level of implementation, specifically 'punctate' electrification where there are a great many interruptions in physical supply or changes in infrastructure, for example if using 50kV overhead in areas with many low overhead clearances.
And yes, it also seamlessly encompasses any desired percentage of zero-carbon generation instead of 100% internal-combustion power.
Our regional landfill burns the methane produced in gensets which feed the grid.
Another such landfill is using the waste heat from the gensets to heat/cool greenhouses in which some one fifth of NYS's hothouse tomatoes are grown.
There are options.
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...
RKFarmsWhat actually is "most efficient" when the external costs of destruction of environment by coal mining and burning are not considered? ...... On the other hand, windmills only take about 1/3 of an acre out of production for each installation, and the visual pollution is a very subjective thing.
......
On the other hand, windmills only take about 1/3 of an acre out of production for each installation, and the visual pollution is a very subjective thing.
Did a quick back of the envelope calculation and 1/3rd of an acre of a Powder River coal seam would be equal to what a 5MW wind-turbine can produce in 30 to 40 years. For the wind turbine we need to calculate the amount of damage from making the concrete, steel, copper and rare earths. IIRC, the wind turbine industry uses about a half billion dollars worth of lubricating oil each year. We also need to add in the costs of the back-up generation to handle wide-spread calm periods.
TANSTAAFL
Erik_Mag We also need to add in the costs of the back-up generation to handle wide-spread calm periods.
One of our local amateur radio repeaters is completely off the grid, relying on solar panels, a small wind turbine, and batteries to provide 24/7 power for the repeater.
We're into the time of the year when the operator of the repeater occasionally has to trek in to the repeater site with a generator to charge the batteries, as wind and solar can't keep up.
mkwelbornjrEvery human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again.
The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space. Carbon isotope studies show the CO2 to be from fossil fuels. As a geologist I am aware of past climate extremes. Are you aware that they were mass extinction events. Luckily the present climate change could be mitigated by reducing carbon burning.
mkwelbornjrTo squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd.
How would replacing coal burning plants with solar and other new technologies "squelch all modern existence" ? Who said anything about meat?
MidlandMike The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space.
The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space.
Water vapor is an even more important "green house gas" (GHG) than CO2 due to a higher concentration (up to 5% for wv, versus 0.04% for CO2) in the lower atmosphere and broader IR lines. The uncertainty of how much warming is caused by increased CO2 is driven in large part by how much the water vapor fraction changes with increasing CO2. Much of the remaining uncertainty is how cloud formation will be affected along with thunderstorms.
Keep in mind that Mars has more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth, but it doesn't have the water vapor or other GHG's that are present in the Earth's atmosphere. Venus is literally sitting under an ocean's worth of CO2.
IMHO, the best way to de-carbonize electricity production is to switch to a combination of nuclear and roof top solar + batteries.
MidlandMike mkwelbornjr Every human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again. The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space. Carbon isotope studies show the CO2 to be from fossil fuels. As a geologist I am aware of past climate extremes. Are you aware that they were mass extinction events. Luckily the present climate change could be mitigated by reducing carbon burning. mkwelbornjr To squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd. How would replacing coal burning plants with solar and other new technologies "squelch all modern existence" ? Who said anything about meat?
mkwelbornjr Every human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again.
mkwelbornjr To squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd.
Thanks Mike for injecting some facts into to thread.
The unspoken part of the crisis is over- population. This factor requires more energy, food and water. Producing meat, as opposed to vegetables and fruits requires more of the above. Many areas of the oceans have been over-fished, such as the North Sea. Solutions to all of these except energy are not on the horizon.
charlie hebdo MidlandMike mkwelbornjr Every human emits CO2. Its normal. The earth warms because every rotation is slightly closer to the sun. We have had historical warm and ice ages. The deserts in the USA were once at the bottom of an ocean. I would expect in a million years for us to go through that cycle again. The earth is warming presently because increasing CO2 is traping heat trying to radiate back into space. Carbon isotope studies show the CO2 to be from fossil fuels. As a geologist I am aware of past climate extremes. Are you aware that they were mass extinction events. Luckily the present climate change could be mitigated by reducing carbon burning. mkwelbornjr To squelch all modern existence and even to the point of getting rid of meat etc to prevent global warming is absurd. How would replacing coal burning plants with solar and other new technologies "squelch all modern existence" ? Who said anything about meat? Thanks Mike for injecting some facts into to thread. The unspoken part of the crisis is over- population. This factor requires more energy, food and water. Producing meat, as opposed to vegetables and fruits requires more of the above. Many areas of the oceans have been over-fished, such as the North Sea. Solutions to all of these except energy are not on the horizon.
"Clean Meat" appears to be on the horizon:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-grown-meat/
Consumer acceptance might be a problem. But maybe just the worry that it might be in the food supply, indistinguishable from real meat, will discourage consumers from eating real meat, and thus satisfy the green goal of reducing meat consumption.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.