Learning from the Cows (Free Energy – w/ Photo)
Traveling from Southern California to Texas in behalf of the “Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates” thread, this scene was come upon:
If the railroads lined their right-of-ways with solar panels, strung catenary and otherwise electrified, wouldn’t they in essence operate without fuel costs?
Without a method for storing energy for use during hours of darkness (or periods of less than ideal daylight), there would be times when all would shut down.
Of course, if you could harvest the methane the cows generate, you could run generators at night…
A landfill near here is using the methane generated by said landfill to run gensets. Some such installations use the waste heat from the gensets to heat and aircondition greenhouses - something like 20% of the tomatoes in NY come from such a hot house.
I’m not going to look for information on how many solar panels it would take to power a locomotive - someone else can do that math.
And yes, it will be expensive to build out.
tree68 (4-13):
It would seem during nighttime hours energy could be gotten from local power generating plants, and during the day power given back on a reciprocating basis.
But, how much energy could be produce by solar panels on the right-of-way would be the key, and seemingly would dictate whether the concept is a gold mine or totally impractical.
Best,
K.P.
It would also be affected by how much real estate along the ROW is owned by the RR. Aren’t most ROW’s only 100 ft wide or less? Then you have to string all of those panels together. Truely distributed generation but a problem to maintain and manage. Though I suspect that much of the the Sunset route land would not be prohibitly expensive to acquire unless it is federal and that might by politically unatainable. Of course, if you are electrifying the track, you might consider it.
I’m sure Elan Musk (Tesla) might be interested in a new customer for his Nevada battery plant.
Sunlight may be free, but turning into energy and putting it to use requires a massive investment in infrastructure. It costs more than energy produced by fossil fuels. However, while it is not justified on the basis of a cost reduction, it is justified by the claim that it saves the planet.
I’m sure the planet will be here long after humanity has obliterated themselves.
Many signal installations in ‘off the grid’ areas are already solar powered, with mixed reliability results.
Why then do I see railroads using solar panels to power their signals, replacing miles of power lines and poles that previously delivered energy generated by fossil fuels?
[quote user=“Norm48327”]
I’m sure the planet will be here long after humanity has obliterated themselves.
[/quote
George Carlin once said, “The planet will be fine, it’s the people who are f#@%&ed”.
Solar!
Solar is becoming widely used.
An installation at Serrano High School near railroading’s Cajon Pass (CA):
Solar installation at Metrolink’s City of Industry (CA) commuter train stop on Brea Canyon Road:
Much of that solar, however, is taxpayer funded. But, given time, prices with something new historically in most industries plummet.
Again, IF (“If”) enough juice can be extracted from solar to move freight trains, and the installation price plummets, undoubtedly railroads will see solar to power trains makes sense. On the other hand if a solar paneled tower as high as the moon is needed to move a train, forget it. But, again, is there potential with solar in railroading, or is it a lost cause? That has to be answered! Anyone know?
You only need to know two things… how many Watts can you get out of a square foot of solar panel and how many Watts does it take to move a train. Divide the power needed by the power available per square foot and that will tell you how many square feet of solar panel you need. Divide that by the length of all the railroads to know how wide the panels must be. Of course this assumes you can get the power from all along the line to the trains moving along that line with no loss in the transmission to get from the most distant solar cells to the train using that power.
I spent considerable time in the electric industry. What most people don’t know is that solar is very expensive from a capital standpoint per kilowatt hour and not yet efficient, and the panels degrade in efficiency about 2-3% per year. And then there are cloudy and snowy days when output drops dramatically. Right now there is a role for solar in some smaller applications, but the average lay person does not have knowledge of the massive demand for electricity and how expensive it is for the infrastructure needed for that electricity to magically appear when you flip the switch. Maybe someday solar panels and large battery technology will advance to the point where they can run a house on sunny days, and we should keep working toward that. But it is not there yet. And even with massive government subsidies, the power output often does not generate enough to cover capital costs. Sun Edison is the largest solar developer in the world and in spite of massive government subsidies they are going to declare bankruptcy within a month or so.
Meanwhile, man is like a grain of sand on the beach in relation to the universe and all creation. Many people don’t realize that the earth does not travel around the sun on rails, and the tilt of the earth in relation to the sun is not fixed. Even the smallest deviation in those, or a period of massive solar flares, will change the climate dramatically and there is nothing we can do about it. Also, as the earth slows its rotation, over the millenia, days will get longer and hence hotter, and nights will get longer and hence colder.
The fact that we are here at all, on this tiny spec of rock hurtling through the vastness of the cosmos, is truly miraculous.
=
When people say “Save the planet” they actually mean “keep the planet configured to support human habitation”.
Given the state of humanity today, I sometimes wonder if the planet is worth saving.
The planet is worth saving because it supports life forms. Some of the life forms may not be worth saving, however.
The point is that although there is a trend toward using solar, it is not being done because it the lowest cost option. It is being done out of a sense of obligation to fight climate change. This obligation requires paying a higher price for energy than what would be the case with fossil fuel energy.
Even at that, there are factors that blur the actual cost of solar energy. One big one is government subsidies which offset the actual user cost. Another factor is the life of solar panels. Putting solar on your rooftop does not immediately show the cost effectiveness. It is deceptive to deem solar cost effective simply because you have completely offset your normal electric bill for an arbitrary period of time.
A rooftop solar installation may cost $40,000. It requires maintenance, and eventual replacement. You have to factor that entire cost against the amount of money you save during the life of the installation. And because the solar trend is just beginning, the life of the panels is a complete unknown at this time.
The installation may appear to be very cost effective with an assumed life expectancy of say 40 years. However, the trend has pushed panel manufacturing into China, and a lower quality is therefore anticipated. If it turns out that the panel life is only say 12 years, the installation may be far less than cost effective.
I recently calculated that a ‘reasonably sized’ solar panel installation for my sub-1000 sq-ft house would run about $7500 without subsidy. At our high Cali electric rates the payback period still was at least 20 years for my small consumption.
I did not figure it was worth the cost as a) the panel company may not be in business to fix premature failure, b) no installations are designed for easy removal / replacement when roof work is necessary, c) the panels cannot power high power appliances like ovens, water heaters, etc. Backup battery power adds another ~50% cost increase due to safety related electrical equipment, not to mention the square footage to house them.
Solarvoltaic energy is fine for special cases like remote RR signaling power, but is just so much political correctness for ‘saving the planet’. High power consuming businesses can justify the ROI and write alternate energy installs off as a capital investment, but I cannot. Changing cultures to stabilize resource demand and human population should be top priority but is not very likely.
Actually, trading the short-term operating cost of buying fuel for the long-term one of amortization (repayment) of the large capital investment in the solar (photovoltaic) panels and the supporting inverters, instrumentation & controls, collection, transmission, and distribution equipment, etc.
Kind of like the geothermal - more correctly, ground source heat pump - that heats and cools my house. As our energy consultant said, we paid for our fuel up front, when we bought the unit. Actually, the cost of the water-to-water heat pump was comparable to any other heating and cooling equipment; the difference in cost was mainly the cost of the 2 vertical wells 250 ft. deep and piping, about $7,700. We’ve been here over 7 years now, and keep track of our electric usage pretty closely (local power co. uses smart meters). We figure the system paid for those wells a year or two ago, mainly from the cheaper heating than oil, electric resistance heat, or an air-to-air heat pump, and an air conditioner - estimated at $1,000 to $1,5000 per year.
OK, all that said, let’s turn to the subject at hand:
[quote user=“Semper Vaporo”]
You only need to know two things… how many Watts can you get out of a square foot of solar panel and how many Watts does it take to move a train. Divide the power needed by the power available pe
On snow days, rain days and cloudy days the solar panels will not operate at peak efficiency, and of course they produce zero at night. They also do not produce at peak efficiency unless they are directly facing the sun. If you go to sun-following panels, capital costs go up dramatically as does ongoing maintenance. In winter months the days are shorter and nights are longer. Battery storage would have to be massive, and in winter months you have fewer hours to charge your batteries during the day for the longer nights. If you are going to connect to the grid for dark hours power instead of batteries, you need 100 percent of those capital costs and pay demand charges for something that is only used part time, in addition to your solar infrastructure which is also only used part time. Many factors to consider.
Paul D. North Jr. (4-15):
Hi, Paul!
Did I understand you correctly that a catenary scheme would indeed work?
Of course, the investment would be the offsetting worry. However, say BNSF’s southern Transcon was electrified, with 75-100 trains a day. (UP could not come close.) If the government contributed 50-75% of the initial cost to demonstrate that it would work and / or to beef up the economy, etc., it seems BNSF would jump at the opportunity!
What do you think, Paul?
On the other hand, if I misinterpreted your calculations and conclusions, I guess this thread can go the way of cows …
Take care,
K.P.