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

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/14/04 

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:10:00 -0400

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.

>
> 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.

>
>>> But that takes a
>>> lot more money than Amtrak has available -- they can't even cover
>>> the operating costs of most of their routes, much less pay for
>>> captial improvements.
>>
>> Poor Americans. No stain on HSR but the U.S. will alwasy be defeated
>> on this issue. It takes too many parties cooperating instead of
>> being at each others throats. Ergo the Europeans and Japanese have
>> HSR but the U.S. is stalled in a 'competitive war' with the many
>> parties either competing with rail or who would be affected by the
>> HSR routes.
>>
>
> 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 ....

Sorry. I tell it like it is. America the incompetent, and anti-social. The
only thing they are good at these days is warfare and even there only when
they can run it by pushbutton. 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?

> 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'.

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.
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.

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 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. Europe modernised
despite having it's entire industry smashed flat only fifty years ago. Japan
did the same. The U.S. never even suffered an interuption in postal service.
And don't claim that the U.S. loans did anything but provide a grub stake
that they have paid pack many times. The 'socialist' Europe is showing the
U.S up and the U.S. doesn't like it. Too bad. Get used to it. It isn't
likely to change. The traditions of corporate welfare and rustbelt America
are just too entrenched.

>
> daestrom