Another thing to consider about electrification is how long the routes are viable. Think of the heavy duty main lines of 3040 years ago. Many are still that way, but many have been abandoned. Most prominently is the old PRR west of Alliance (for most purposes). Look even at the Powder River Basin. Could the increased construction costs of electrification have been paid off before the route lost its viability?
The PRR studied electrification to death over several decades between WW One and the Korean War. Yes, the electrifications of the 1915 era and then 1931-7 (probably) saved them from bankruptcy then and preserved its fabled dividend record. The 1930's electrification happened in part because the Depression had reduced costs so much. For much detail on the PRR and electrification see Michael Bezilla's book on the PRR's experience with electrification. You'll read that the 1931 choice was between building the "Relief Line" across NJ and electrifying the main line New York-Washington (adding Phillly-Harrisburg came a few years later once they saw how well that was working). In 1946-9 the choice was between electrifying the Middle Division and Dieselizing the entire system--Dieselization won as they were going to have to do that aways. In a nutshell the perfecting of the Diesel made electrification non-competitive and future changes in traffic confirmed the choice. I dont' have the time now to brainstorm on charging battery locomotives--I have suspicions that the heavy weight of batteries may turn out to be a big plus for tractive effort of battery locos--someone I hope is doing this. Right now a lot of "talk" about future Mainline Electrification is much Environmentalist "Hokum" akin to the economic and racial theories running around loose 80-90 years ago: ultimately insanely deadly pernicious dead-ends. The one truly positive thing the PRR's 1930's electrification did unexpectedly was win WW Two for us: the PRR in 1930-1 had worked out traffic projections for their system for ten-year intervals until 1982. Their traffic projections for January 1982 were on them in Janaury 1942--and two years later traffic was double that! So think people, THINK!
david vartanoff At least a few heavy interurban lines (often owned by electric utilities) co-located transmission lines w/ their rail holdings. The Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee comes to mind.
At least a few heavy interurban lines (often owned by electric utilities) co-located transmission lines w/ their rail holdings. The Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee comes to mind.
Mr. Cain, your 100 mile charging segment would have a few problems with the usual mishaps like a hot box or derailment while occupying the charging site. Tying up the 100 miles until problems resolved.
I do not see this happening without regulation.
Probably with a start in Southern California.
Not viable as elimination of diesels on mainlines is the objective.
I don't think I've ever seen a locomotive do a spin before...
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...
If battery development is slow have a lash up of diesel-electric- diesel. Use electric to power all 18 axels when all 18 axel power is needed and on the relative flat have diesels provide all traction power.
Same effect refueling not needed as often.
JoeBlow North American railroads will electrify when someone develops a battery that is more user friendly than diesel engines and the current battery tech available. The same reasons (faster/easier refueling, longer distances between stops, less maintenance, high energy density than diesel fuel, etc) that caused diesel to replace steam.
North American railroads will electrify when someone develops a battery that is more user friendly than diesel engines and the current battery tech available.
The same reasons (faster/easier refueling, longer distances between stops, less maintenance, high energy density than diesel fuel, etc) that caused diesel to replace steam.
Read this link by Jim Blaze. It lays out the best path forward for electrification.
https://www.railwayage.com/news/dont-dismiss-freight-rail-electrification/
MidlandMike That was a 2005 study, while others have pointed out that wind construction has become more efficent.
That was a 2005 study, while others have pointed out that wind construction has become more efficent.
I would doubt that there would be more than modest improvements in material requirements for wind power in the last 15 years. For a given wind velocity, the thrust against the turbine is going to be directly proportional to the power prooduced. This thrust is then going drive the amount o steel needed for the supporting pylon along with the concrete in the base to counter overturning moment.
As I mentioned before, this does not include the amount of materials for the energy storage to make 100% renewable electricity feasible.
Erik_Mag MidlandMike Great, now how much steel, copper and concrete does it take to build a thermal power plant? From a paper on the UC Berkeley NE department website "05-001-A_Material_input.pdf" with steel in metric tons per average MWe and concrete in cubic meters per average MWe (Mega Watt electric) Plant type Steel ConcreteGT-CC 3.3 27Nuclear 40 90Coal 98 160Wind 460 870 GT-CC = Gas Turbine Combined Cycle NB: I got my master's degree from Cal's NE department, but that was over two decades before the above paper was written.
MidlandMike Great, now how much steel, copper and concrete does it take to build a thermal power plant?
Great, now how much steel, copper and concrete does it take to build a thermal power plant?
From a paper on the UC Berkeley NE department website "05-001-A_Material_input.pdf" with steel in metric tons per average MWe and concrete in cubic meters per average MWe (Mega Watt electric)
Plant type Steel ConcreteGT-CC 3.3 27Nuclear 40 90Coal 98 160Wind 460 870
GT-CC = Gas Turbine Combined Cycle
NB: I got my master's degree from Cal's NE department, but that was over two decades before the above paper was written.
That was a 2005 study, while others have pointed out that wind construction has become more efficent. It would be interesting to see a more recent comparison. Of course this says nothing of the fuel usage over the life of a thermal electric power plant.
Modern dual-mode-lite is just like the FLXdrive demonstrator with the HVAC transversion installed; while it is possible to build this with 'just' electrical equipment, you have the same issues with that unit as straight AC (needs to be expensively switched/cabled in or out of consist at ends of electrified district, or run merely as a road slug). In some cases that could be justified, but I think it would be wiser whether 'homemade' or bought new to have the battery and electric equipment co-designed so that the one can easily be installed to supplement the other as desired, and all computers programmed to recognize what is present and use it most effectively.
I still think the most effective power intertie will be at DC-link voltage; this is higher than most present road-slug connections, but I see little application of hybrid power to DC-motored units preferentially, while some DC-to-DC transversion followed by modulation at 600V might be arranged for DC motoring.
The conversion of individual AC locomotives to dual-mode-lite directly (through installation of power pickups and transversion/rectification to DC link) is likely for a later stage in electrification, where the islanding has become more extensive. Here you will still have some of the prime movers idling or on the line for operational reasons, including partial traction power or pollution abatement, as you don't have a traction battery to get across the gaps in the electrification that remain non-cost-effective to span, or areas where the electrification is off. (I may be paranoid but I suspect there will be many times that the grid will be stressed to the point it is 'better' to run trains with their own, oerhaos by then zero-net-carbon, power than to preclude power to utility customers or BEV charging infrastructure. Dual-mode-lite either in consist or in individual locomotives gives this automatically, even to the extent the 'mix' of onboard and external power could be adjusted from an outside authority with no change in practical train handling (and no consequence on railroad operations if utility SCADA ir whatever is successfully hacked, but that's another discussion).
Just as a note, in the specific case of Horse Shoe: this is a very late validation of the original 'design principle' of compressing the severe gradient of an Allegheny crossing into minimal distance. Retaining straight-electric helper 'modules' that could plug into traction-motor-level circuits would remain an attractive option for so short and specialized an operation, even if the comparative advantage of snapping over helping applies less in this modern PSR world. However, as NS transitions away from DC units, and uses AC more on Horse Shoe where its advantages are more obvious, the idea of tying to DC link here, too, become attractive, even if make-and-break connections in the 1200-1500V range are involved.
Such construction would, of course, be in common with the wiring to be used for FLXdrive-style dual-mode-lite...
Erik_MagI'd wonder if thermoelectric generators might be a bit more practical (think size)
I have been following butanol and ABE over the years, along with bio-H2O2 with solar concentration -- of course if you were a rogue nation intent on terrorism this is a sort of Manhattan Project -- and there are some interesting technologies, one involving green electricity to assist the biology, that are said to be compatible with modern ethanol production. Again the great advantage is in distribution and compatibility, which, as in the case of hydrogen carrier, factors measurably into the delivered price and availability.
daveklepper Run-through? Diversion?
Run-through? Diversion?
Wind turbine generators are actually motor generators uch like hydro plants. If the wind mill is stopped the grid starts up the windmill until it is in sync . As the windmill is accelerating the prop angle is adjusted to have minimual air friction. Once the props are in sync then the blade angle changes to have the wind start giving thrust to the generator. The motoring then changes to generating.
I'd wonder if thermoelectric generators might be a bit more practical (think size), though may not wring out as much energy as Rankine cycle bottoming would. One advantage of any bottoming cycle is reducing the exhaust temperature.
Is biobutanol any easier to produce than ethanol? OTOH, a gas turbine should be able to burn any reasonably clean vegetable oil, though alcohols are probably cleaner burning than oils.
Personally if you're going after the carrier market putatively served at a blue-hydrogen price point, you should ramp up biobutanol (perhaps via ABE -- not the Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton ABE!) as that is a higher-net-energy fuel that is pipeline-distribution capable.
Ceramic Solar turbines with magnetic bearings in shock-absorbing modular sleds is a solution that's largely worked out. You can even steam-bottom for that GTCC long-Rankine-efficiency cachet.
Another way of doing "zero" net carbon would be ethanol in either a large mixture engine (anyone have a spare Wasp Major lying around?) or a gas turbine. With the latter, having batteries on board would help as the turbine could be run flat when running with power not needed for traction used for recharging the batteries. A turbine would also allow for more battery weight.
CSSHEGEWISCHMixed fleets (electric and diesel) lead to underuse of power.
As noted, the 'real' use of the FLXdrive locomotive is not as a pure battery-electric, but as a component in a hybrid consist. I think it makes sense that, for early electrification stages, it makes sense to add catenary/third-rail capability to such units, and run the resulting hybrid consists as dual-mode-lite with boosting.
The next-stage alternative would be to implement dual-mode-lite conversion of some of the AC fleet, taking advantage of the marked economies over what dual-mode-lite conversion entailed in the early '80s. This requires only a stable and clean provision of DC-Link wattage to a locomotive's traction inverter system, with the remainder of the 'investment' in control, computer, and other equipment remaining as it is, and suitable for electrified or standalone operation... and tolerant of necessary interruptions in electrical infrastructure (e.g. the low-bridge issue for OHLE or the long-frog issue for conventional third rail) or power provision.
An advantage in this scenario is that zero-net-carbon (via B100 biodiesel) is a near-immediate benefit, and conversion of existing locomotives to hydrogen fuel-cell generation 'slots right in' to most of the operating paradigms of dual-mode-lite (as well as permitting seamless consists of hydrogen and combustion power that benefit from intermittent electrification).
charlie hebdoI would tend to trust the figures of the people directly involved.
https://docs.wind-watch.org/Copper%20use%20in%20wind%20farms.pdf
where he estimated roughly ⅓ of a metric ton per MW for the generator, but only slightly less for the interconnection cables within the tower, and three times that for the transformer capacity.
If this is taken as reasonably accurate proportion, then a wind turbine (taken as an installation, not a machine) with 800# of copper in the generator might have considerably more copper necessary for the turbine 'as a whole' to be placed on line. This (as also noted in the thesis) does not involve the copper necessary to connect wind turbines in a farm to 'the grid'.
I had thought, naively, that wind turbines did not attempt to 'natively' synchronize to grid frequency, and that the AC from the alternator was transverted and filtered (perhaps with large inductors to keep current constant) using the powerline as the frequency and phase reference. That in part was why I thought permanent-magnet excitation was a major component of turbine design. It does seem attractive to me that, for control and stability of generated frequency well inside what a control system for blade feathering or braking would provide, a Scherbius drive would be appropriate, even if it requires a wound rotor structure.
charlie hebdo Well the numbers I found from some copper manufacturers trade group are clearly much lower than the numbers the engineering folks show. I would tend to trust the figures of the people directly involved. Others may not.
Well the numbers I found from some copper manufacturers trade group are clearly much lower than the numbers the engineering folks show. I would tend to trust the figures of the people directly involved. Others may not.
By the way, you don't trust the numbers from the Wikipedia article? The world's most reliable information source?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Oh yeah? You're also eating pizza from the wrong end. Check out this You Tube where John McEnroe shows mild-mannered Pete Sampras how this is done.
Pizza Hut Stuffed Crust Pizza Large $9 99 - Bing video
That is based on the premise that the Class I's will shed every last branch line, either to abandonment or shortline operators. Mixed fleets (electric and diesel) lead to underuse of power.
I wonder if Class I railroads might consider electric if they continue on the path towards being only long haul railroads, shedding branch and short haul activities to shortlines.
In such a scenario I could see the mains being electricified while the feeder lines from shortlines continuing to be diesel or battery powered.
That all said, with so many perfectly functional diesels sitting idle, I also don't see this happening any time soon, if ever.
Paul Milenkovic "The copper usage intensity of renewable energy systems is four to six times higher than in fossil fuel or nuclear plants. So for example, while conventional power requires approximately 1 tonne of copper per installed megawatt (MW), renewable technologies such as wind and solar require four to six times more copper per installed MW. This is because copper is spread over much larger land areas, particularly in solar and wind energy power plants,[16] and there is a need for long runs of power and grounding cables to connect components that are widely dispersed, including to energy storage systems and to the main electrical grid."
"The copper usage intensity of renewable energy systems is four to six times higher than in fossil fuel or nuclear plants. So for example, while conventional power requires approximately 1 tonne of copper per installed megawatt (MW), renewable technologies such as wind and solar require four to six times more copper per installed MW. This is because copper is spread over much larger land areas, particularly in solar and wind energy power plants,[16] and there is a need for long runs of power and grounding cables to connect components that are widely dispersed, including to energy storage systems and to the main electrical grid."
The figures that STCO posted for steel in a wind turbine was about what I remembered for a 3 to 5MW wind turbine. Plugging the numbers in for a 3MW turbine (1 x 3 x 5) yields 15 tonnes. I was SWAG'ing 10 to 20 tons of copper for a 5MW turbine.
I remember being surprised at how much copper was used in a wind turbine when searching for data on the amount of material used.
The other eye opener is the amount of concrete used (recollection was 1200 tons) for the above turbine. Having looked over foundation data for self supporting (i.e. unguyed) radio towers, this was no surprise. A wind turrbine mast would make for a more than adequate support for a full sized 160M rotary dipole antenna.
Overmod Incidentally, Paul can check this, but I think a considerable reduction in copper has resulted from the adoption of high-strength magnets in the turbine generator design, at the cost of some high-wind operability.
Incidentally, Paul can check this, but I think a considerable reduction in copper has resulted from the adoption of high-strength magnets in the turbine generator design, at the cost of some high-wind operability.
I'm not too sure about that, NdFeB magnets are good for about a Tesla or so. MW class alternators usually run over a Tesla, so the savings in copper would be in the rotor windings. A supercon magnet sigificantly reduce the aount of copper needed, but even 77K HTS would be impractical in a wind turbine.
An article that appeared on the Electronic Design website about a month ago stated that the doubly fed generator was the most common as it allowed for a +/-30% variation in rotor speed while still maintaining synchronism with the grid. A doubly fed alternator is effectively a Scherbius drive operated as a generator instead of a motor.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.