Slashdot Mirror
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."
They need something mobile to counter the rolling blackouts.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Why does it sound like California's energy plan is some crazed mixture of Sim City and an RTS?
:)
"Quick Bob, move those two engines to San Jose quick."
"No, wait, power outage in Anahiem. Undo, undo!"
"I can't move it fast enough!"
"Lasso all the Amtracks and use your hotkeys!!!!"
Look at all of the valuable life skills computer games teach us!
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
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.
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?
I have been pwned because my
Yes, they were designed to produce electricity. Modern diesel locomotives do not couple the diesel engines directly to the drive wheels, but rather use them to turn generators. The electricity produced is then used to run electric motors that power the drive wheels.
It may seem inefficient, but you've got to remember how powerful a locomotive is. Starting a train moving from a dead stop is just not practical using a conventional clutch and transmission. The motor and generator combination provides the same ability to start from a dead stop smoothly and transform torque/speed ratios with fewer moving parts, and much less wear on parts.
And in fact, the motor and generator are not much worse efficiency-wise than the friction losses in the transmission would be. These things are designed for efficiency.
Of course, they don't natively produce power compatable with the power grid, but as the article says, that's easy (and also pretty efficient) to convert with interters.
These trains were built to produce electricity. In fact, all modern locomotives are. the engines are designed to do one thing and one thing only: generate electricity. there are electric motors that do the pushing.
My father was an engineer for Burlington Northern before Santa Fe merged with them, and i remember as a child, going to the engine plant, and actually being INSIDE an engine cylinder - they're massive!
When i asked my dad why they were so big, he said "they need to be, they run all the time and it takes a lot of electricity to pull a train." being a smart lad of 8, i asked "don't the engines push the wheels?" through a lengthy discussion that i repeated with him over the years to get more detail, i learned that the engines produce electricity and the wheels are driven by electric motors.
It turns out that this is more efficient, in money, fuel effeciency, and repair time (imagine replacing the drive train if it were not electrically driven). all you do is replace a motor, instead of a drive shaft and/or transmission. (simplified explanation, of course)
It makes perfect sense for them to do this. Resourcefullness demonstrated brilliantly!
Naikrovek
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.
Reality has a liberal bias
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.