Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008

From: daestrom (daestrom_at_NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com)
Date: 08/16/04 

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:20:17 GMT

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:bofTc.27270$a65.1160570@news20.bellglobal.com...
> daestrom wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> > news:BBGSc.24631$Mq1.1393875@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >>> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> >>> news:TevSc.14860$a65.713212@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >>>> Even a single car ( 24 passenger weighing 7 tons ) can have a
> >>>> variation from +400 kw draw to -380 kw ( if regenerative braking is
> >>>> used to save 40% of power demands) See Figure 3.2 at
> >>>> http://www.monorails.org/pdfs/Magnemotion.pdf While passenger
> >>>> trains have lighter weight, the higher speed and acceleration
> >>>> compared to freight more than compensates. Just think what the
> >>>> draw would be for a simple 7 car passenger train ( Acela is 3 to
> >>>> 10 cars) with weights of about 65 tons per car
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=1_0&lang=en&file=/en/1_0/1_10/1_10_2_2.jsp%3Fmenu%3D1_1
> >>>>
> >>>> It would probably have a erratic draw of about +/- 6 megawatts and
> >>>> if you have more than one active on a track....
> >>>
> >>> Acela draws a peak of 9.2MW during accelerationm but during
> >>> deceleration it feeds a similar amount of power back into the grid;
> >>> average consumption is probably under 3MW. With states like
> >>> California having a total power output in the tens of GW, this is a
> >>> rounding error even with dozens of trains running.
> >>
> >> I was being conservative. You are just illustrating the large demand
> >> loads and surges that are produced by electic trains. And the
> >> 'average' is like saying that my feet are in the freezer while my
> >> head is in the oven but 'on average' I'm comfortable.
> >>
> >> The large VARIATIONS in load are the problem for the grid, you
> >> dim***. You cannot suddenly 'switch on' 9 MW without having it
> >> noticed and the power grid is NOT designed for such rapid changes in
> >> demand and surge. It requires a lot more 'spinning reserve' that
> >> adds costs wiithout producing revenues as well major control systems
> >> to keep the grid stable.
> >>
> >
> > 9 MW is *not* that huge a problem for a grid load here in US. Many
> > large industrial centers have single motors running in this range.
> > An aluminum can manufacturing plant I know of has over a half-dozen
> > 2500 hp motors (1.86 MW). When starting, they draw about 5 times
> > that for each one when starting.
>
> Sure. And you flip the switch on and off all day? Now try flipping the
> switch on a hundred such plants at odd and random intervals, some of which
> will coincide... Are you getting a clue yet? You have to keep a large
amount
> of extra power ready on line that does NOT get paid for. No power
suppliers
> are happy with that if nothing else. Ninety megawatts on average of
> 'spinning reserve' burning fuel and not producing revenue except for a few
> demand peaks, will get you a problem because the power producers will tell
> you to *** yourself sideways.

Guess again. Such industrial installations pay the utility for each demand
peak *and* for the privilage of being able to 'flip the switch'. Even if
they don't 'flip the switch', the power supplier collects a hefty fee for
making it available.

Some types of generation *loves* this arrangement. They get paid for being
available, yet burn little fuel. Equipment wear is also lower. Some NG
plants in NY are doing EXACTLY this since the price of NG has been climbing.
They are seeking out such 'standby service' arrangements because they gain
significant revenue and are not as exposed to the volitility of NG prices.

Guess you don't know jack about the power market in the US.

>
> >
> > Yes, it requires special service from the utility and the demand
> > charges can be pretty bad, but the 'grid' doesn't mind very much at
> > all when they start up.
>
> Maybe you are a bit unclear on the concept of railroads. There is more
than
> one train in service. And they start and stop all day long. There is
> already one area converted to use the grid, so it is possible. What I was
> saying is that the ordinary grid, expecting fairly slow and level load
> surges is not ready for iit and thus any expansion of the electric train
> service outside of the NEC would take a lot of money to adapt the power
> grid.
>

Guess you are the one that is unclear about railroads in the US. Cross
continent frieght does *not* 'start and stop all day long'. Hundreds of
miles of open plain one day, barely 200 miles of mountain division the next.
Stop just long enough to add helpers and switch crews (once in the morning,
and once in the evening). Starting is also 'softer' than many industrial
settings. Engineer can 'notch up' a multi-unit consist over several
minutes. Once at full power, will run that way until reach the speed limit
for the division (can be 15 minutes, or even 30 minutes to get up to speed).
Then run 'at speed' for almost the entire day.

The 'ordinary grid' in the US handles load shifts in the 10's of thousands
of MW every day. NY alone swings about 10,000 MW:
http://currentenergy.lbl.gov/ny/

Yes, it would require some lines from primary transmission to dedicated
sub-stations along the railroad. But it isn't some giant leap of technology
or capacity. Maybe your European grid can't handle this??

> > That's one interpretation. There are others.
>
> Oh, right. The reason that America hasn't progressed is that everyone
hates
> the U.S and they are SOOOO hard done by and nobody love them and ....

No, you didn't read any of that in *my* post. You're just jumping to
conclusions and putting out your silly misconceptions of what American's
think or say.

>
> Sorry. I tell it like it is. America the incompetent, and anti-social.

Anti-social, perhaps. Incompetent, that's a bit of an exageration since we
'incompetent' Americans have accomplished quite a few things in every decade
since the 1800's. Just as European's have (when they weren't fighting and
killing each other).

The
> only thing they are good at these days is warfare and even there only when
> they can run it by pushbutton.

Hmmm.. Europe didn't seem to mind it when we fought it the 'old-fashioned'
way in helping liberate a few countries over there.

Does your country use some of the modern drugs developed to fight cancer,
heart-desease, or other ailments? Who invests more in funding medical drug
research than any other country? Wonder how this 'internet' thing got
started? You're just being ridiculous in your belief that the US is only
good for warfare. It's just the only thing you care to acknowledge. To
acknowledge any of the peaceful accomplishments would tear at the fabric of
your beliefs about us.

> Major inventions sit on the shelf because
> nobody can figure out how to convert them to dollar without taking a risk
of
> some kind or investing real money.
>
> > The difference in very
> > dense population areas with concentrated service needs of EU and JP
> > versus the spread out and diffuse transportation needs of the US is
> > another.
>
> Always one excuse or another. Everyone else had it easy. Only in America
is
> it just TOOO hard. Want some cheese with that whine?
>

Didn't say it was *hard*. Just that your "one answer fits everywhere"
attitude is stupid. "Gee, xx works for us, you yanks are idiots for not
doing the same thing." What a crock. Did you ever think that maybe there
are some valid differences in the geography? Or don't you understand the
relationship between population density and economics of passenger rail?

Maybe if you expand your knowledge about different parts of the world you
could learn some things. You're guilty of the narrow-minded anti-social
nationalistic behavior that the US is often accused of.

>
> > The socialized transportation systems of EU versus free
> > market scheme is another factor.
>
> You mean the cooperation vs capitalism I mentioned..... thanks for
> supporting my point. Someday they will understand that market system do
not
> work well enough to be the only option.
>
> One excellent example of the failure of market systems is the Canadian
West
> where they used to supply the U.S. ONE cow ( one report placed it as
> originating in the U.S. but it was caught in Canada) with BSE and the
entire
> border is closed crippling a multibillion dollar business. That is one
> market failure caused by local cattle interests in the U.S. jacking up
their
> own prices by closing down the borders under cover of an 'overreaction'.

Hmmm, close off a major part of the supply and the price goes up. Yeah, I
can see how a socialist would think that's a 'market failure'.

Yes, I can see how closing the border to a source of a deadly disease is
'overreaction'. I'm sure you actually believe the beef industry actually
conspired to 'plant' a diseased cow in Canada, just for an excuse to rob the
US consumer. Incredible.

>
> Now they have so many excess cattle that they are talking about culling
the
> herds ( throwing them away to support prices ). During all this, the price
> of beef at the supermarket ( which should drastically drop according to
> market theory ) has stay the same or even gone up, and the meat packers
are
> making a fortune buying meat for nothing and selling it at the normal
price.

Let's look a little closer at your 'market failure'. You seem to have
omitted the part where the cost of processing beef has risen. The meat
packers also *lost* a lot of money when the BSE was first discovered. Or
that other countries put up similar import bans on Canadian beef.

> That is the second failure of the marketplace. The markets do not 'adjust'
> to supply/demand when the capitalists don't want them to and can make more
> money keeping the prices high. After all, it forms a sort of monopoly or
> semi-monopoly with very few people controlling the whole industry.

Oh, right. It is easy to blame big, faceless, 'monopolies' with no facts.
Just wave you're hands and scream how 'big business' controls everything and
how it ought to be brought under government control to 'fix' things.

Funny thing is, the market that you say doesn't 'adjust' has seen a lowering
of gasoline price that I pay at the pump now that summer travel demands have
fallen off. That 'non-adjusting' market has driven *down* the price
computers despite the rise in the number of homes that have computers.

>
> Then there is the softwood lumber issue. No matter that Canada wins every
> battle, the U.S. harrasses trade and that gets it freedom from
compettiiton
> even when they inevitalbly lose in the trade panel and at the WHO.

What on Earth does the World Health Organization have to do with lumber?

> What a
> bunch of sucks. Some day they will be brave enough to compete on a level
> playing field, but for now they will just hide behind their borders and
> complain about everyone else having it too easy.
>
> Christ on a crutch. The U.S. was blessed with more natural resources, two
> ocean fronts, access from hundreds of warm water ports to both the
Atlantic
> and Pacific trade, internal waterways that provide cheap bulk shipping to
> half the country, one of the largest proportions of arable land in the
world
> and massive amounts of old growth forest and fishing grounds. Yet all they
> can do is complain about how hard done by they are.

I wrote simply that what works in Europe doesn't necessarily work as well in
the US. All your brain registered was a vague 'whining' noise. Perhaps
your education system doesn't teach critical thinking skills?

You think your European ideas are "God's gift to humanity" or some such
crock. And when it's pointed out that those ideas aren't as useful in the
US, all you hear is 'whining' instead of listening to reasoned debate.
Perhaps your medical system could treat you for your hearing impairment.
But I suppose such non-emergency treatment would put you on a waiting list
for a couple of years.

So, why don't the Europeans run two or three 100-car long coal 'drags' every
day from mines to power plants? One of the advantages of hauling by rail is
the economies of scale. Think about why something that is very effective in
the US wouldn't work as well in Europe, then try putting the 'shoe on the
other foot' for a minute.

daestrom

Loading