I’ve got mine right here. Also check out the History Channel soon with railroad and coal related programs. Here are some videos from them. http://tinyurl.com/5vuk58
Electrification would cost money–what do you bet they decide instead to put one of those smaller units (about 6.5x20 feet) inside a locomotive hood? Repeat a few thousand times. Not sure what the weight would be, but if it’s totally infeasible, Plan A would still be there.
I’d like to see something more concrete about the design (other than the concrete used for shielding) before I’d believe that any reactors will actually be built. The bit about the reactor based on a design used by students also makes me wonder - though it is possible that they could be talking about the uranium plus zirconium hydride fuel elements used in the TRIGA.
The real threat to coal trains would be mass orders of more conventional sized plants, i.e. on the order of 1,000MWe. That ain’t happened yet, and it would take a couple of decades before nuclear could seriously reduce the demand for coal based electric generation.
Greyhounds: What led you to check-out that left wing rag called the Grauniad anyhow? [:D]
I bet it’s about as likely as new mainline steam power in North America…however, there are a couple of firms trying to develop small modular reactors for use as commercial ship powerplants so technically it might be feasible…
I favor more use of nuclear power including developing newer safer reactors but the American public would have a cow over nuclear locomotives (and airliners, ect.)…
Putting a modular reactor in a ship is much easier than putting one in a locomotive. Number 1 issue is trying to fit a reasonable size core and an effective neutron/gamma shield in a locomotive. Another advantage of ship vs loco for a nuclear plant is access to lotsa seawater for the condensers. Yet one more advantage of being on a ship is the ocean makes for a good source of emergency core cooling water.
I’d also wonder about how many decades it would take getting a mobile reactor licensed by the NRC.
I remember reading an article dated 1965 that told of the wonders television would hold. In less than five years, a huge screen less than 2" thick would be hanging on the wall in most households. Of course, NBC’s peacock would glow in “living color.”
It took a little longer than projected and not with the technology described in the article.
I completely agree with you about the difficulty of putting any type of reactor into a locomotive. As a “what if” thought experiment though note that the proposed MPB minireactors I mentioned are not supposed to be liquid cooled nor would they use steam turbine systems to generate power. Instead the goal is to use helium as a coolant/working fluid and low pressure gas turbines to turn the generators. I realize that type of a system is a long way from commercialization (and as I stated I don’t expect to see them in RR use)…
I’m afraid coal trains face a more immediate challenge than proposed mini-nuclear reactors. Obama has stated one of his goals is to bankrupt the coal industry. Presumably he was referring to carbon taxes to reduce greenhouse gas production. If he succeeds, and it becomes cost prohibitive to generate electricty with coal, say goodbye to a large number of coal trains. Hopefully, saner proposals will derail this idea. The biggest problem with “alternative energy” generation is the wind doesn’t blow nor does the sun shine 24/7 at one location. Some existing plants will have to remain to fill in when the wind dies down.
Ahhh, a revival of the HTGR-GT (High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor - Gas Turbine) concept. With a small reactor (small in terms of power output) and graphite core, a loss of coolant accident (actually loss of pressure) can be handled by keeping the outside of the pressure vessel cool. Problem is that a graphite moderated core tends to be much bigger than a light water moderated core, which makes it even less likely to fit in the outline of a locomotive.
There’s been quite a lot of work on gas turbine technology since I first heard about the HTGR-GT’s back in the 1970’s, so it is quite possible that the modular unit may get better thermal efficiency than an equivalent sized steam plant.
Coal will not die until it runs out. At the rate we are using it now, we have enough to last us 200 years so technically, if those things go into use, It may not help the industry but it will make those coal reserves last that much longer.
