Power Plants On Rails for California

SoCalChris writes "According to this article on Wired.com, the Sierra Railroad is planning to use diesel train locomotives to produce power for California. Each of the 48 engines are expected to produce 2.1 megawatts of power for a thousand hours each year. Another key advantage to this plan is that since the "PowerTrains" are mobile, they can be taken to the areas that need power the most, so it doesn't have to be routed across the state through our power grid."

Comments

Ice Storm

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Montreal, and during the 1999 Ice Storm that knocked out power to almost 300,000 people many communities that had access to the railway used diesel train locomotives to produce electricity for there area.

Re:Ice Storm

[aron_wallaker]

IBM has a chip packaging plant in Bromont, Quebec. As part of their disaster recovery planning they had an agreement to lease a locomotive in case of a prolonged power outage - especially in the winter when cold temperatures could damage the equipment. So the ice storm hits, knocks out power and phone lines all over the place, their locomotive shows up and they connect it to run power into the chip plant - not to try to run the plant mind you, just to keep it heated....except once they got that accomplished they realized they had enough excess energy to run the grid for most of the town. (!)

You want good will from local government/townspeople ? Try heating their houses for a couple of weeks in the middle of winter. :)

Or they could build nuclear plants

[ObviousGuy]

Despite the doom and gloom prophecies of the anti-nuke crowd, nuclear power generation has proved itself the least environmentally impacting electricity generating method time and again. Canada and France (while certainly not governmental systems to model) have come up with a system of genericized nuclear breeder facilities that provide clean, cheap power to their respective countries.

It's sad that Germany has made the decision to kill more birds and disrupt weather patterns with their latest misguided policies. And it's sad that the radical left in California has blocked nuclear power plant construction in their state.

A diesel train to generate electricity? Why not just legalize tobacco again and ruin everyone's lungs?

Re:Or they could build nuclear plants

[MillionthMonkey]

Actually- I believe I heard this idea floated during the power crisis here last summer- there were tentative plans to park a nuclear submarine in a harbor and run power cables from its reactor to help meet demand during peak hours. I think this is a much better idea than putting a nuclear reactor on a train, since we already have years of experience with nuclear reactors in submarines. Also, there is a train track near my backyard.

Re:Or they could build nuclear plants

[Waffle Iron]

Many people think that only Luddites could oppose more nuclear power because they're afraid of technology. I'm not afraid of technology, I'm afraid of the ineffectiveness of a handfull donut-eating security guards at each of hundreds of sites. Carefully read this and this and then think again about your plan to save a few German birds.

We did this in Montreal during the Ice Storm

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in 98, we had a good ice storm that blacked out the whole city for a while. CP brought in some locomotives to provide power for the neediest (ie frozen).

Locomotives are big.

Re:This has to be inefficient

[spike hay]

They are extremly inefficient, and burn DIESEL!

When tuned properly, a diesel engine is just as clean as gasoline. Plus diesel is more efficient, so you get more power per gallon. (Diesel powered small cars get much better mileage than their gas counterparts)

Is your need for air conditioning SO great that you have to have 48 diesel engines running YEAR ROUND and polluting the earth to ONLY produce 2.1 megawatts each?

It will only produce as much pollution as a few semi trucks put together.

Desperation has driven them off the rails

[Mandelbrute]

Why does Sierra Railroad have such excess capacity

I'm not sure that they do - but if the power authority is desperate enough to use locomotives I don't think they care about lost freight capacity.

In my state (not in the USA) the stop-gap measure was old jet engines burning kerosine (or some similarly expensive fuel). Like California there was no excuse for it to happen, just incredibly stupid and short sighted actions on the part of those in control.

NYC proposed the same thing here

[Jack_Frost]

A number of gas turbine plants scattered about Manhattan. The plants are small (relatively... only a block in size) and produce maybe 100 megawatts (don't quote me on the exact number). Oh... and they're really loud.

Re:This has to be inefficient

[CokeBear]

Ever stop to wonder about why EVERY proposed source of power is opposed by the hard Greens?

I have never heard an environmentalist opposed to solar or wind power. Come to think of it, I have never heard anyone strongly opposed to solar and wind power, except people whose livelihood depends on the continued consumption of non-renewable resources.

Energy efficiency?

[WIAKywbfatw]

You would think that after the rolling black/brownouts they've experienced in the last year or so that Californians would be more conscientious of the need to conserve energy wherever possible.

But, from what my friends in SF and LA tell me, the average Joe is still getting through as much power as before, if not more, despite the rise in the price of electricity.

Any /. readers from California reading this who care to offer a first hand perspective? Are you using just as much energy as before the current crisis? Have you taken any measures to cut down on your consumption? What's your local government doing to promote energy efficiency?

Some detailed on the ground information would be appreciated.

Re:Energy efficiency?

[JohnsonWax]

I'm in SoCal, and there are a number of people/groups making a concerted effort to reduce power usage. I've reduced power usage in my office by about 25%. Little things - lower power computers and LCDs (long live energy efficient PowerPC), lighting changes (often no lights during summer), having printers and copiers go to standby quickly. They add up, and don't significantly impact the office function.

Local government does nothing to promote energy efficiency. There's no incentive for them to do so. State does a little, but it's pointless, IMO.

Some things that they could do:

1) Solar panels on public buildings. We get 300 days/year of sunshine. Public schools have enormous surface areas and use virtually zero electricity in summer, which could be sold back to the grid. At the current power prices, the ROI wouldn't take long.

2) Fuel cell generators. Due to air quality regulations, California refines a lot of it's own gasoline. The many byproducts of that refining can be used to generate electricity using fuel cells.

3) Provide tax incentives to conserve electricity. The incentive here is through higher electricity costs, but that's a cost not immediately felt. Rebates on more efficient appliances would help encourage people at the time that they purchase to choose a better option. Incentives for home solar units would be good. Those died out with Carter.

The problem is really a cultural one. People in this state take conspicuous consumption to new levels and yet put the green face forward. Giant SUVs, giant TVs, giant refrigerators, and on and on. It's almost a contest to see who can consume the most resources and at the same time bitch and moan about how wasteful the other guy is, or how bad a power plant is for the environment. I'm originally from New York, so I love mass transit, I'm used to goddamn small homes, and walking is a way of life. Even here I sometimes go 8 weeks without gassing up the car (12 gal tank).

I think this state needs a serious priority adjustment. The best thing for all involved would be $5/gal gas, and $300/mo electricity bills. It's not that people should have to spend huge amounts of money, rather, they should consciously consider their actions that will prevent that from happening. It's often surprisingly simple to cut your gasoline and electricity consumption by 25% or 50%, you just need to be motivated to do it. Seriously, my neighbor drives to his mailbox - 100 feet away. It sounds like a comical CA stereotype, but it's true more than you want to know.

Gas and electricity here are cheap. Even at it's peak $2.20 per gallon, gas is far, far less than every other person here pays for water or coffee - usually $2 per shot. Electricity bills are routinely $30-$60/month. When your house costs $400K-$500K, an extra $20/mo is hardly even noticeable. $500/mo would get peoples attention, though. And $200 at the gas station would as well. Even at the peak of the gas price run-up last summer, SUV purchases climbed. An extra $25 at the pump just isn't enough to impact a $45,000 purchase.

Sounds like a good plan to me

[Moonelf]

My father is retired from the Railroad and I remember him telling me one year that for one reason or another (don't recall those details, but if you like I could make them up), the office building in the yard had to cut back on it's electrical use. So they pulled two engines off of some side tracks, pulled them right up next to the building and had the electricians wire them up to the office. They ran them that way for several months.

Did you know...?

[Anonymous Coward]

WindMills produces 1.5Mw with a moderate wind while producing no pollution at all? But US govt is too close to the oil industry to understand that

Re:Cockjockery

[Registered Coward v2]

The descision to deregulate power is a failed experiment yet our plucky leadership in Sac Town don't see it that way, they're rather spend billions dollars bailing out these failed and failing utility companies and their shit management. It is sad watching this all happen.

California never really deregulated the electric power industry, instead they screwed with the market under the guise of deregualtion. For exmple, they:

Capped prices to business users and mandated price cuts to rersidential users (10% - the pols loved to trumpet that), while,

Forbidding companies from entering into long term supply contracts, instead they were forced to by on the spot (right now) or day ahead markets, and,

Did this in a state where the reserve margin (power production capacity above demand) was shrinking and where the ability to move power ointo the state and from the north to the south was severely constrained, and finally,

Forced utilities to meet all demand, no matter what their cost of power was.

So , you've got a place where prices don't rise no matter how much I use and my supplier is forced to buy power at any cost, and its not easy to get more in so supply can keep up with demand at a reasonable price - and people are surprised at what happened? Any power generator in their right mind would look at the market and figure out how to get the highest price for its dollars, the state of CA's desires for cheap power be damned.

What I find funny about all this was people pointed this out before deregulation took hold - but the politicians/utilities/consumer activists all jumped on the bandwagon because they all thought they'd get what they wanted - votes/greater profits/lower prices.

Maybe someone should ask Sen Steve Peace (D- El Cajon) how he feels about being the "Father of deregulation" in CA? Free clue - he's already said it ain't his or the legislature's fault - it's those big bad other guys who are to blame for taking advantage of the rules the legislature created.

Re:Where the hell do YOU live?

[Graymalkin]

I live in another California city where the utilities are municipally owned. Our bills may not be low by any means but even at their peak of the rolling blackouts and overhyped crisis we didn't have it as bad as SCE and PG customers. SCE customers' baseline rate (which SCE is not very up front with) is double what you or I are paying for our base rate. Both PG and SCE have done their best to screw not only their customers but the entire state over with their underhanded power trading practices.

I don't why I said no new power plants have been built, I meant only nuclear plants. There's been something like 13 built in the state this year which amounts to something around 2,000MW of capacity. The lack of nuclear plants was my point, end to end they are much cleaner than coal or oil plants and have a much better track record. New reactor and plant designs have shrunk the size and cost down quite a bit as well as increased the safety margins. The NIMBY folks and Sierra Club terrorists are screwing all of us over blocking these plants.

I say Sac is isolated from the state's problems not to suggest you don't have your share of bums or crime. The legistlation and state government in general is just far removed from anywhere their descisions directly affect. Absurd logging restrictions kill small towns in the northern half of the state while mismanagement of utilities has caused loads of problems in the southern half. Its sad watching this power crap happen because it is causing businesses to avoid staying or moving here.