I think electrically-powered railroads is a great idea. However, I wouldn’t want to be the one telling the shipper that his delivery will be “next Monday, if the wind blows!”. Utter silliness, and at 52x the cost of hydro power. Jeezum! They don’t even consider hydro power a “renewable”! Solar = silliness, too, as is geothermal.
As far as transmission lines go, did anyone object to the ultra-tall power lines PRR erected in their northeast corridor, in conjunction with the catenary? I wonder why they did that. The New Haven didn’t, even with the same 11,000 volt AC lines. Sorry. Nuclear is “the only way to go!”, with “clean” coal doing the job until then, and beyond.
The New Haven’s 11,000V 25 Hz electrification was based on their own Cox Cob power plant with later supplimentary commercial power added. The PRR wished to use commercial power from the start and did not build their own generating power plant stations.
To tie together internally within its own system and provide redundant sources of supply - those initial transmisison lines were at 132 KV, now 138 KV I believe, but 25 Hz.
Later, I believe Phila. Electric Co. added stubs on top for its 60 Hz. high-voltage transmission line ‘overbuild’, which made those tall towers even taller along certain lines. But I’ll have to look to find any documentation to confirm or refute that thought, or a PECo Transmission & Distribution employee or expert to tell for sure.
I agree on the basic point. I’m sure no one objected to the Swiss Federal Rwys. stringing catenary through the Alps . . .
Here is a link to an interesting blog piece by someone who is espousing rail electrification for non-oil, sustainability reasons similar to the others I have linked.
This author goes into a lot of detail about the logistics of train operations such as getting Rapid Freight Rail trains around the heavy rail trains. He also discusses the diversion of truck traffic to rail. He claims RFR will be faster than trucks door-to-door even if trucks have to haul from origination to the starting rail terminal and from the ending rail terminal to the destination. He advocates three types of rail service operating on the same corridor. The three types of rail operation are:
I, for one, believe that the cost of initial electrification is grossly over-exaggerated. It should be amortized over the life of the railroad. I’d be delighted to hear what the amortized cost of the PRR’s 1930s electrification is.
For as comprehensive and massive as this energy/transportation proposal is, there is still one more major component of it that has not received much attention. That component is energy conservation. In fact, that may be the first component to be implemented because it requires no funding and no time to build.
Conservation may begin as soon as next year after congress passes an energy bill. One of the centerpiece features of this legislation will be cap-and-trade. Without discussing the pros and cons of this curious mechanism, what is objectively clear is that it will raise the cost of energy derived from all non-renewable sources. Therefore it will reduce energy consumption by raising its cost.
Conservation sounds timid, but when driven by price rationing, it will be a very potent component in the campaign for national sustainability. And all it requires is a new law. Just look what happens to driving when gasoline rises to $4 per gallon. Think how much energy could be saved if every household in the U.S. reduced electricity use by 20%. There is easily enough elasticity in consumption for that amount of reduction to occur.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of bnsfwatcher-types out there. They deny global warming as the “ultimate silliness” and label renewables like wind turbine generation as silly, even though Denmark is energy independent in part because 19% of its electrical generation is now by wind. Oddly enough, he sees hydro as acceptable, but not wind or solar.
It is possible to enjoy both people and trains, old and current, as well as appreciate that some advances in rail technology are desirable and necessary.
I’m not so sure myself—the current term used now is Global Climate Change. And there is an over weening amount of fear and paranoia mongering that really has nothing at all to do with the environment but good ol’ business bashing. Not to mention the issue of man being the sole creator of climate change. I wonder what created all the climate changes for the past 4+ billion years of the earth’s existence–
Be that as it may----Hydro power is seen not as renewable because we are now being told that it too is a scarce resource. Then we allow large corporations to buy up and build up bottled water plants in some areas like they are going out of style----
Funny this----
As for the electrification----if we consider the conserving of energy from the individual side then we can also see the intensification of electrification at that end. In other words we cut our usage down to single light in one room with no TV and radio so the big boys can play with their toys------Mag Lev will be next[:-^][swg]
Schlimm: have you checked the tax burden the Danes carry? Outrageous, but the flatulence that they eminate from drinking Akvavit and “Tuborg” chasers negates the “deadly” carbon dioxide elimination from going to wind power. Only a politician could love that!
Our local PP&L (Pennsylvania Power and Light. Yar PA in MT!) is replacing six old water turbines in Great Falls. The one new turbine will produce 70% more electricity than the old ones. Private enterprise at work!
As to why the ‘solons’ consider hydro a non-renewable resource, I don’t know. Have they told Noah to stand down, 'cause it ain’t gonna rain no more? Yar!, I pulled the plug on my TV nine years ago, and only have one task light on. I’m doing my part!
As far as “energy gobblers” go, Mag-Lev wins the prize!
The Long Island Railroad can make a claim, at least partially, to running on renewable energy. This is how it goes: several branches are electrified and they buy their power from LIPA which in turn buys power from the garbage incinerators at Roosevelt Field and in Suffolk County{ I can’t remember where). So they have been using the most reliable renewable energy source- garbage, for almost 30 years now. Its solved the land fill or transport our trash to the moon problem very neatly and is profitable too.
The objection to Hydro seems to stem from the immense construction projects, Dams and resevoirs, necessary to make it work…of course here in the Northeast we are more than happy to purchase every hydroelectrically generated kilowatt our friends north of the border (Quebec Hydro) can send us…
In Germany in 2008, all renewable sources contribute 15.3% of electrical use, wind 6.5% and growing. Nuclear contributes 22%, much of which is exported to France.
In Denmark in 2008, wind was ~20%; they do not generate electricity by nuclear and are an exporter of energy to nearby states.
I was hoping Eric would jump all over that statement, but since he didn’t, I’ll attempt to enlighten (or at least entertain).
Yes, nuclear power plants can dump a large amount of heat, if they want to or are being operated by Homer Simpson. The whole point of most nuclear power plants is to generate heat to boil water to make steam to drive the turbine which turns the generator. Nuclear fuel (enriched uranium) is very expensive to ship, store, install, and remove, so you try not to waste it by dumping heat into the atmosphere without a darn good reason. Do you drive with the clutch in or out??
Well, then I guess Homer must be operating the ComEd plant in Byron, Illinois. You can see the steam clouds from miles away. Also examine cooling ponds near most plants and check the water temp.
Carnot efficiency cannot be exceeded (kinda like the speed of light for heat engines), so there has to be waste heat from a nuclear plant. Everyone had this in HS Physics, right?
The “ultimate silliness” is demanding people change their habits by fiat because there is a “consensus” (not proof) by a few liberal-minded scientist and politicians that they can accurately project the consequenses by comparing 100 years of weather data to a 4 billion year old climate.
Global warming and cooling has been going on since this this planet was formed. Trains hauling coal to power plants all this time hasn’t made the same impact as one medium-sized volcanic eruption. Electrification of the mainlines would be cool, and the railroads would benefit from reduced costs of operation, but I don’t expect others to pay increased taxes for my railroad viewing pleasure.