The same can be said for people who have little sensitivity for others. Perhaps, it is more desirable to inform rather than criticize.
I you would like an exercise in absurdity just read what you wrote: “If you don’t know, don’t post.” If you don’t know, maybe you don’t know that you don’t know…you don’t.
I have been non-PC all my life, I don’t plan on changin now. I have sensitivity for those who do not know and ask a question, I have none for those who are clueless and post absurd and completely incorrect information. I have a very low tolerance for stupidity.
I am aware of the resistance to the whole Yucca Mountain project. I know someone very well who’s company is involved in the railroad construction (as well as one of the sections of the Phoenix light rail project) and the latest I heard was it’s still a go.
from The Las Vegas Review-Journal Mar-6,05
Western Shoshones file Yucca lawsuit: Tribes cite 1863 treaty in claiming land cannot by used for waste repository
A contingent of Western Shoshones played what Yucca Mountain, Nevada nuclear waste project opponents consider their ace in the hole Friday: a lawsuit based on an 1863 treaty that the tribes say doesn’t allow building a repository on their native land.
It is the first time the Ruby Valley Treaty, authorized by Civil War Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, has been used in a case that targets Yucca Mountain, said Reno attorney Robert Hager, who represents the Western Shoshone tribes.
“I have always felt the Western Shoshone have the best claim to stop Yucca Mountain,” Hager said, flanked by tribal leaders outside Lloyd George U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas where the case was filed.
Yucca Mountain is a sacred site for Western Shoshones.
Hager said the tribes want to hold the departments of Energy and Interior accountable for the contractual agreement that specifies how their 93,750-square-mile swath across parts of Nevada, California, Utah and Idaho should be used.
The agreed uses do not include a disposal site for highly radioactive waste or a railroad to deliver waste to the mountain, which the federal government intends to do by submitting a repository licence application to regulators by the end of this year.
The lawsuit, with a motion for an injunction to stop the project, names Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Interior Secretary Gale Norton as defendants.
A spokesman for the Energy Department’s Office of Repository Development in Las Vegas had no comment on the lawsuit.
The mountain 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas is the planned site for a repository to entomb 77,000 tons of spent reactor fuel and deadly defense wastes. The repository sits on land covered by the treaty, an eight-part pact with the Western Shoshones that w
Thanks for the information Chad Thomas.
To clarify matters some I’ll explain my a little. Some of my information I get through the media the other info I get from my Dad. He works for the company involved in the Yucca Mountain railroad project but in a different office and department within the company. The regional hq that covers Nevada is in the same office though. I have never worked because of health issues so I have no first hand knowledge of the corporate world. Every so often the company has a meeting to inform employees of what is going on in other departments of the company and major projects. That’s where I found out the company was involved this close to the project. I am unaware of how old my information is. I first heard several months ago.
I understand emotions can run high on a matter such as this. I’m far enough away I think I look at it as something interesting and worth following. Whatever happens in the end and however it’s resolved I hope it never turns violent. I really hope nobody is killed. My Dad has told me about the protests he had to drive through while working on a nuclear plant in the 1970s.
More on topic I think that nuclear plants providing the power for electrifried railroad lines is a good solution. I would think the power needed for the lines would need to be steady and putting waste, safety concerns, etc. aside a nuclear plant is a good choice for a steady, constant output. What I would worry more about now, after reading the most recent issue of Trains, is the age and shape of the infrastructure in the NE corridor.
Even if nuclear waste were safe enough to use as baby food (imagine changing that diaper!) small nukes in locomotive still have to deal with condensors. And condensors have never been successfull long-term in land based locomotive applications. Sea based, yes - so a nuclear container ship is feasible. The cooling side of the power equation is just as important as the heating side.
dd
During the early stages of the cold war the USAF did some research on nuclear reactors for airplanes. (Luckly, locomotives don’t fall out of the sky) however, I believe that the AF discontinued the research due to a wide varied of issues including safety issues. Given the current reglatury enviorment could you imagine the size of that nuclear powered loco? New heavier track would have to be laid and special cooridors for it’s use determined and the haz mat teams beefed up where ever this thing went. Granted it would be a looker!
I’ve posted this in the other topics before, but I’ll say it again. There actually were plans to build a nuclear-powered locomotive in the mid-1950’s. This was part of the Utah Project, which worked for ways to develop atomic power. The proposed engine would have looked something like an E unit coupled to a really long B unit. The “A unit” would have had three 3-axle trucks and the “B unit” would have had one 3-axle truck and one 2-axle truck. All the trucks provided traction, except for the 2-axle one at the end, which was just there to support the weight. The whole thing would have been 160 feet long and weighed 396 tons, 359 of which were on the “A unit”. It would have had 9000-12,000hp. The reactor was located in the “A unit” and was protected by 198 tons of armour in case of a derailment. There were also safety measures taken so that the nuclear reaction would automatically stop if there was a derailment. This idea never reached fruition for obvious reasons, one of which was that the cost of this monster over 10 years of use was estimated to be double that of 4 diesel locomotives of equal power.
Here is a site with some information on a condesing nuclear loco…
http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern16.htm
Nuclearwriter, after reading your recommended article with all of the possibilities of the ever shrinking nuclear reactor.Something akin to it would find a use in small and isolated areas of the world where transmission of electricity would be difficult and expensive comes to mind as a real application. However, when you talk about railroads the area of electric traction is where the mini reacor may come into its own as a phased peaking type unit in a given service or division on the railroad or as shared assets between the rail companies and local utilities. A good direction for our discussion, but a subject that still will require some time and patience to come to pass.
OH NO not this topic again!
How long before we get into that mythical ex NW 2-8-8-2 with a bootleg reactor roaming the backwoods of India again. hahahaha
Or shall I revive the Legendary Soviet Atomic “Big Joe” locomotive…heheheee
Last year, Rail History Quarterly (I think) published a research paper into the history of these efforts. It’s fascinating reading. The loco would have been enormously heavy, and to what benefit? Compare this to a nuclear submarine, which is designed to roam the seas self-contained for years at a time, far from ports, hidden from sight. That’s an application that almost demands nukes. But trains operate in the exactly opposite mode. You can’t hide them. They stop frequently to drop or add freight and exchange crews. Far from self-sufficient, they travel within their own supporting infrastructure and pass a diesel tank every 100 miles or so, at least. Leaving aside the many intractable difficulties of a nuclear locomotive, there’s just no benefit I can see…
I had a friend like this guy several years ago. He was a very bright individual, but despised most people because in his book, they were “below him”…
One night for no reason, he stuck a 9mm pistol in his mouth and ended his life.
As for nuclear powered trains. I don’t know about that. Cold fussion maybe-if they ever actually develop it…
trainluver1
How about a solar-powered electric locomotive? There could be an array of photo-voltaic cells all across the top of the locomotives, as well as numerous solar collectors along the right-of-way feeding the power directly into overhead wires. There could also be a connection to the main power grid to be used on cloudy days, and when the trains are not using the power, or if there is an excess of power in the system, the solar power could be sold back to the utility companies.
it takes a lot of solar cells generating milliwatts each to produce the megawatt that a locomotive needs - much more than even the surface area of a DD40.
dd
OK, lets throw some numbers at this and see what happens.
The amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface is roughly 1 horsepower per square yard (it varies quite a bit over the latitudes covered byu the US, but that’s an easy average to work with)
Solar panals are around 10-15% efficient (a 1 square yard panel receiving 1HP of sunlight will produce 1/10th HP of useable electricity)
A modern loco is around 4000 HP, so doing the math means that 40,000 square yards of collecting area are required for each loco you intend to run. That’s 7.5 football fields.
[:D] I was going to throw those numbers, but you beat me to it. But I’d sure like to see a locomotive that size trundling around!!! Let’s see. Assume a 10’6" width for clearances, and restrict ourselves to the top of the thing… that’s about 40,000 feet of locomotive[:)]
Actually, my post was meant rather tongue-in-cheek.
But considering the numbers mentioned, and considering the part of my post where I indicated “line-side solar collectors” maybe, when solar cells become more efficient, it might not be too far-out of an idea.
The thickness required for reactor shielding could not fit into the width or height of a locomotive body. No shielding, no reactor.