Railway Electrification
peter wezeman
electricity from renewable resources is used for most purposes. To this
end, we are researching electric cars, electrified highways, and aircraft
powered by hydrogen. At the present time, electrified railways are the
only established technology to use electricity to move large quantities
of goods or large numbers of people long distances.
I am interested in any comments about the desirability of electrifying
railways in the United States, plans for financing the same, strategies
for incorperating electrification gradually, and any related matters.
Thank you,
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
John Albert
<< I am interested in any comments about the desirability of electrifying
railways in the United States, plans for financing the same, strategies for
incorperating electrification gradually, and any related matters.>>
It isn't going to happen. At least not on any freight railways. Simply too
expensive. It's cheaper to run diesel.
On standard passenger railroads? Again, probably not going to happen.
Outside of the Northeast Corridor, the traffic densities are high enough to
support or justify the high initial costs of electrification.
On high-speed rail lines? Well, yes, there you _could_ see electrification,
if any of these are ever constructed in the United States. And therein lies
the catch: I believe we will not see _any_ construction of high-speed rail
projects for years to come, if ever. Again: the cost is simply prohibitive.
And states in which such lines _might_ be feasible - such as California -
will by then be in such financial crises (as California is in TODAY) that
such expenditures will seem but luxurious fantasies.....
- John
bras...@despammed.com
peterw...@hotmail.com (peter wezeman) wrote:
> I am interested in any comments about the desirability of electrifying
> railways in the United States, plans for financing the same, strategies
> for incorperating electrification gradually, and any related matters.
Both Union Pacific and Burlington Northern actually looked at
electrification in recent years. I would suggest contacting them for some
detailed information on why they decided not to do what they were talking
about.
The Union Pacific plan would have involved lines the Blue Mountains of
Oregon and some suggested new tunnels there.
The Burlington Northern (now Burlington Northern Santa Fe) project would
have involved lines around the Cascade Tunnel that are currently capacity
limited due to diesel exhaust in the 8 mile tunnel. For them, it was
cheaper to reactivate a parallel, longer route, than to electrify the line
in question.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
David Eerdmans
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in article
<slrnc345d7.lbn...@odysseus.Zierke.com>...
>
> 5) In Europe, combination power lines are common. On one side, the
> catenary pole will be higher, carrying a 110 kV or 132 kV long
> distance line. NIMBY problems aren't outruled.
I think this is the same thing, on the NEC:
http://images.nycsubway.org//i20000/img_20430.jpg
They're even higher than any caternary pole I've seen in Europe...
Regards,
David
John McCoy
news:7c5510c.04021...@posting.google.com:
> I am interested in any comments about the desirability of electrifying
> railways in the United States,
Almost certainly the huge capital cost of railway electricifiction
means it will not happen in the US (unless the government decides
to fund it for political, not economic, reasons).
The railroads will most likely move from the current diesel-electric
locomotives to fuel-cell-electric locomotives eventually, using
basically the same technologies proposed for automobiles, only on
a larger scale.
John
Adam H. Kerman
>1) In Europe, fuel is far more expensive, but electric power is cheaper
> than in the USA.
Electricity is cheap? You have a higher share of hydro power generation than
we do?
Silas Warner
Well, some, mostly in the Alps. In France, it's nuclear. In
Britain and Scandinavia, it's gas. (The huge North Sea fields
produce very little oil and lots of gas.) Wind and other
renewables are expected to become significant, especially in
northern latitudes. But they aren't yet. So, lots of energy
mut not much in the form of diesel oil.
Silas Warner
Gordon Reeder
> Many people believe that we will eventually have a sustainable economy
For a case history of an electrification that
was done, Research the electrification of the
NEC from New haven to Boston.
--
Just my $0.02 worth. Hope it helps
Gordon Reeder
greeder
at: myself.com
bras...@despammed.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> 1) In Europe, fuel is far more expensive, but electric power is cheaper
> than in the USA. Basic requirement is either more expensive fuel, or
> cheaper electricity, or both.
> If this happens, you don't have to bother about financing. The Class
> 1s would happily do that.
The cost of electricity here depends a lot on who you are.
Railroads will not electrify if they have to pay standard utility rates
for power.
On the other hand, if railroads here in the Pacific Northwest could work
out the same sweetheart deal that the aluminum plants here had with the
Bonneville Power Administration, then we would probably see major railroad
electrification efforts here tomorrow.
In recent years, however, various aluminum plants here have figured out it
was more profitable to go out of business and sell their power quota
rather than actually use the power. So, I doubt we will ever see any
other bulk power deals like those made in the northwest in years past.
Buss Error
> Many people believe that we will eventually have a sustainable economy
I don't really know a whole lot about electrifying a ROW, but I do know
that someone has modified a fuel cell system to use natural gas or butane.
Perhaps a locomotive with a huge fuel cell in a trailing unit? One of the
great expenses in fuel cells is the Palladium in them, and IIRC the
machining required. I know a few years ago the Palladium market was very
unsettled, with prices in the USD 1,400 per troy ounce. I think the normal
price is around USD 300/TrOz, tonight the fix is at USD 247bid and 257ask.
/<rist
> 1) In Europe, fuel is far more expensive, but electric power is cheaper
> than in the USA. Basic requirement is either more expensive fuel, or
> cheaper electricity, or both.
> If this happens, you don't have to bother about financing. The Class
> 1s would happily do that.
>
> 2) Electrifying is most cost-effective, if you have lots of trains.
A lot of the electrification in Europe wasn't done for economic reasons. I
know of case in Belgium where electrifying a branch seeing only one train
every two hours was done mostly to buy votes...
In Switzerland there are also strategic reasons for electrification. Coal
shortages in WWI almost brought the rail network in Switzerland to a stand
still. Thus it was decided to electrify. So they did. With the exception of
a few industrial lines the _entire_ rail network in Switzerland is
electric.
Krist
James Robinson
>
> The railroads will most likely move from the current diesel-electric
> locomotives to fuel-cell-electric locomotives eventually, using
> basically the same technologies proposed for automobiles, only on
> a larger scale.
Don't be so sure of that. Certainly railroads would take advantage of
any technology breakthroughs on the automotive side, but fuel cells
aren't yet anywhere near being economic. The cost of the fuel and
relative inefficiency of fuel cells being the two biggest hurdles.
The biggest problem today is where you get the hydrogen at a reasonable
cost. It is something like six times the cost of energy in other forms.
If it was to be made using hydrolysis, the cost is so high that the
railroads would be far better off using the electricity directly to
power locomotives instead. If you start with natural gas, which many
proponents are pushing, the efficiency of the process is so poor, that
the railroads would be better off simply burning the gas in a diesel
engine, rather than extracting the hydrogen and passing it through a
fuel cell.
The technology needs a major breakthrough before those economic
realities change.
Jeff nor Lisa
> I am interested in any comments about the desirability of electrifying
> railways in the United States, plans for financing the same, strategies
> for incorperating electrification gradually, and any related matters.
Virtually all U.S. railroads are electrified. That is,
they almost all use electric propulsion.
The issue isn't using electric propulsion, but rather how that
electricity is generated and distributed.
U.S. freight railroads almost all generate the electricity right
on board the locomotive with a diesel engine. Some passenger
networks generate electricity at stationary power stations
and transmit to trains by a power distribution network.
Over the years, the cost of onboard diesel generators has
declined due to increased efficiencies. The cost of stationary
generators and a power distribution network is generally
higher than onboard generation and its advantages do not
outweigh onboard generation.
If for some reason the cost of fuel for onboard generation
(ie diesel fuel) skyrockets in cost, AND alternative fuels
for stationary generation remain cheap, then it may be
cheaper to use distributed electricity.
However, when one fuel jumps up in price, other fuels tend
to get expensive too. That is, if for some reason everyone
abandoned oil as a fuel and switched to coal, the demand for
coal would force an increase in the price of coal.
The Pennsylvania Railroad did a cost analysis of using oil
instead of coal to fuel its locomotives. Oil had some
cost advantages at the time. But the Pennsy found that
its large consumption would end up driving the cost of
oil higher, eliminating any advantage.
I recommend "When the Steam Railroads Electrified" by
William Middleton for more information.
peter wezeman
locomotive being developed for the Army. Does anyone know how the
efficiency and cost of using electricity to produce hydrogen for
fuel cells is expected to compare to direct electrification? One
obvious advantage is the possibility of producing hydrogen at
off-peak rates for use throughout the day. Would it be possible
to electrolyze water on board the train for regenerative braking?
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
peter wezeman
I had heard of this being done during the recent California energy
debacle when the price of electricity spiked to ridiculous levels.
I had not known that it had continued.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Adam H. Kerman
>The cost of electricity here depends a lot on who you are.
>Railroads will not electrify if they have to pay standard utility rates
>for power.
Hehe. With the minor exception of the St. Paul's experience which paid well
above market...
Some have suggested that railroad electrification could be accomplished if done
by the power companies and not by the railroads, that they would erect and own
the infrastructure, maintaining everything with the possible exception of the
tensioning and repair of the catenary and messenger wires and actual power
supervision in day-to-day train operations.
Philip Nasadowski
James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
> Don't be so sure of that.
I wouldn't even consider it as a route. Not now, not for a *long* time.
> Certainly railroads would take advantage of
> any technology breakthroughs on the automotive side, but fuel cells
> aren't yet anywhere near being economic. The cost of the fuel and
> relative inefficiency of fuel cells being the two biggest hurdles.
Also - FCs don't like the cold, don't last long, are large, delicate,
and made of expensive materials. They burn out rather quickly, they
cost a LOT to replace. For all the hoopla, a number of large scale FC
generating facilities have come and gone - they're not repaired after
large failures because it's not worth the money. Nobody's yet to
demonstrate a FC car that drives like a car, and has trunk space (among
other things - most prototypes aren't reliable, can't run in freezing
weather, and don't move very well anyway). Given that a number of
manufacturers are starting to show regular engines modded for hydrogen
(which isn't that great either, but a fraction of the cost and
functional - today), I expect within a few years, the fuel cell
car/truck/bus/whatever hype will have gone away.
> The biggest problem today is where you get the hydrogen at a reasonable
> cost. It is something like six times the cost of energy in other forms.
> If it was to be made using hydrolysis, the cost is so high that the
> railroads would be far better off using the electricity directly to
> power locomotives instead. If you start with natural gas, which many
> proponents are pushing, the efficiency of the process is so poor, that
> the railroads would be better off simply burning the gas in a diesel
> engine, rather than extracting the hydrogen and passing it through a
> fuel cell.
This is why it'll never work in cars. We'd be blowing through more oil
and not getting much out of it. Solar and other means of elctrolysis
are a joke - neither wind nor solar power's very reliable (if it's
cloudy, or not windy, for example), both have their problems (wind farms
are noisy, ugly, take up space, kill some migrating birds, are
maintenance hogs, solar cells are horrifically inefficient, pricy, and
require lots of fun chemicals to make them)
> The technology needs a major breakthrough before those economic
> realities change.
It has for a few decades. There hasn't been one, yet.
John McCoy
> John McCoy wrote:
>>
>> The railroads will most likely move from the current diesel-electric
>> locomotives to fuel-cell-electric locomotives eventually, using
>> basically the same technologies proposed for automobiles, only on
>> a larger scale.
>
> Don't be so sure of that. Certainly railroads would take advantage of
> any technology breakthroughs on the automotive side, but fuel cells
> aren't yet anywhere near being economic. The cost of the fuel and
> relative inefficiency of fuel cells being the two biggest hurdles.
Well, I consider it a certainity that the diesel-electric locomotive,
when it's replaced, will be replaced by some other form of self-
powered locomotive. You won't see any large implementations of
traditional electrifications.
Of currently known technologies, fuel cells seem most likely to
me to eventually be developed to the point of being practical.
That's not so say it will, just that it's got the highest potential
amoung those currently being worked on.
> The technology needs a major breakthrough before those economic
> realities change.
True - but that's true whether you're looking at it for autos,
locomotives, or most anything else.
John
bras...@despammed.com
> > In recent years, however, various aluminum plants here have figured out it
> > was more profitable to go out of business and sell their power quota
> > rather than actually use the power. So, I doubt we will ever see any
> > other bulk power deals like those made in the northwest in years past.
>
> I had heard of this being done during the recent California energy
> debacle when the price of electricity spiked to ridiculous levels.
> I had not known that it had continued.
Continued only in that during the Enron energy distribution crisis (AKA,
the California Energy Shortage) the vast majority of the aluminum pot
lines in the Pacific Northwest simply closed. There was also an effort by
various powers that be to increase the rates charged by the Bonneville
Power Administration.
At the same time, foreign competition also caused the bottom to drop out
of their marketalbe price.
I think only one plant near Goldendale, WA remains in partial capacity
operation. The rest of the 10-15 aluminum plants in Oregon and Washington
have been closed in the past 5-7 years.
They published a rate scale in the newspaper here during the Enron power
problem, and it seems like BPA was charging some of the aluminum plants a
tiny fraction per megawatt hour compared to everyone else. On the other
hand, their power consumption could rival that of the city utility
companies, which is why the aluminum plants bought their power directly
from the BPA at bluk discount.
James Robinson
>
> Well, I consider it a certainity that the diesel-electric locomotive,
> when it's replaced, will be replaced by some other form of self-
> powered locomotive. You won't see any large implementations of
> traditional electrifications.
You might, it all depends on the overall cost of the energy. If
electrical power is cheap, and the Feds give tax breaks for the
infrastructure, the railroads very well might decide to electrify.
> Of currently known technologies, fuel cells seem most likely to
> me to eventually be developed to the point of being practical.
> That's not so say it will, just that it's got the highest potential
> amoung those currently being worked on.
As I said in the previous post, the cost of the hydrogen is way to
high. Remember that electrical power can now be generated at fairly
high efficiency, and given that the railroads use a lot of power,
anything less efficient will not pass the economic test. Right now,
fuel cells are something like 1/3 the efficiency of the latest design
power plants, if you include the cost of making the hydrogen in the
first place. With that kind of cost, the railroads would easily pick
electrification, if they had no other choice.
> > The technology needs a major breakthrough before those economic
> > realities change.
>
> True - but that's true whether you're looking at it for autos,
> locomotives, or most anything else.
There are better alternatives today that don't require any
breakthroughs. Synthetic fuels, or nuclear generation are two
examples. Any other choice would have to beat them for overall cost,
and fuel cells are nowhere near doing that.
Greg Gritton
Jeff nor Lisa wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Virtually all U.S. railroads are electrified. That is,
> they almost all use electric propulsion.
>
>
> The issue isn't using electric propulsion, but rather how that
> electricity is generated and distributed.
>
> U.S. freight railroads almost all generate the electricity right
> on board the locomotive with a diesel engine. Some passenger
> networks generate electricity at stationary power stations
> and transmit to trains by a power distribution network.
>
> Over the years, the cost of onboard diesel generators has
> declined due to increased efficiencies. The cost of stationary
> generators and a power distribution network is generally
> higher than onboard generation and its advantages do not
> outweigh onboard generation.
>
> If for some reason the cost of fuel for onboard generation
> (ie diesel fuel) skyrockets in cost, AND alternative fuels
> for stationary generation remain cheap, then it may be
> cheaper to use distributed electricity.
>
> However, when one fuel jumps up in price, other fuels tend
> to get expensive too. That is, if for some reason everyone
> abandoned oil as a fuel and switched to coal, the demand for
> coal would force an increase in the price of coal.
>
While this may be somewhat true in the short term, it isn't
necessarily true in the long term. There is a lot smaller
reserve of oil worldwide then coal. Thus, a scenario similar
to the following is likely:
* Maximum oil production is reached. Demand continues to
increase, resulting in significant price increases.
(Significant because demand is inelastic.)
* Some switching of fuels occurs. For example, natural gas is
used in some places instead of oil.
* These alternative fuels also increase in price.
* Some switching to electicity also occurs. The railroads are
one of the most likely groups to switch, since they don't
require a technological breakthrough to use electricity instead
of oil, just changed economics (or a forward looking policy).
* Electricity price increases with increasing demand.
This price increase is sustained over a few years.
* New power plants are constructed. They could be coal, or nuclear,
or wind, or solar, or geothermal, or something else, or combinations
of the above.
* The price of electricity comes down, although it may always be
higher than what it is today.
* Electrification continues.
The above is just one plausable scenario. It assumes no technological
breakthroughs and some rationality on the part of the players involved.
It also assumes that the U.S. economy hasn't been reduced to third world
status by then, there havn't been major (WWW-III) style wars, no radical
new energy sources, nor draconian environmental regulations that would
prevent any new power plants from being constructed. It also assumes
that the railroads still exist. There are a lot of ways this could go
wrong (or right but different in the case of a technological
breakthrough). It does mean that we will have some hard times for our
economy, which could be alleviated with some foresight, but our
government has been showing a starteling lack of foresight lately.
In fact, the opposite is true, be have been mortgaging our future to
pay for today's excesses at an increasingly rapid rate.
Sincerely,
Greg Gritton
RJ
> Silas Warner schrieb:
>
>
> > Well, some, mostly in the Alps. In France, it's nuclear. In
> > Britain and Scandinavia, it's gas.
>
> Norway's electricity is about 98% hydro, or some figure like that.
>
> While the USA and Canada would never switch on the Niagara Falls, the
> Norwegians do that: In summer, waterfalls are switched on for the
> tourists. In winter, they need more energy.
In fact, they do nearly the same thing at Niagara Falls, without
diverting all the water. The water that goes over the falls is for
show, and they take the rest of it for power generation. I think they
steal more water at night when nobody is looking.
Robin Payne
"/<rist" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:c0vaf2$1c69dm$1...@ID-203068.news.uni-berlin.de...
> A lot of the electrification in Europe wasn't done for economic reasons. I
> know of case in Belgium where electrifying a branch seeing only one train
> every two hours was done mostly to buy votes...
Another point to bear in mind about this sort of situation is if you are
running a mostly electrified system, it can often be economically sensible
to fill in the gaps so that you can get a unified system. Having a couple
of diesel trains to run a once every two hour branch line where all the
other trains are electric is just silly, the saving of unifying the fleet
and not having to keep diesel maintenance facilities may make it worth while
to do such things. An example from the UK might be the Lymington branch in
Hampshire
Robin
John McCoy
> As I said in the previous post, the cost of the hydrogen is way to
> high. Remember that electrical power can now be generated at fairly
> high efficiency, and given that the railroads use a lot of power,
> anything less efficient will not pass the economic test. Right now,
> fuel cells are something like 1/3 the efficiency of the latest design
> power plants, if you include the cost of making the hydrogen in the
> first place. With that kind of cost, the railroads would easily pick
> electrification, if they had no other choice.
Your arguement is entirely falacious, given that the railroads
currently choose to use diesel locomotives, even to the extent
of dismantleing electrifications in some cases, and that diesel
locomotives are likewise far lower in efficiency than the latest
design powerplants.
I beleive your understanding of costs, both in respect of railroad
operations and in respect of fuel cells, is rather lacking.
John
Philip Nasadowski
John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I beleive your understanding of costs, both in respect of railroad
> operations and in respect of fuel cells, is rather lacking.
RR operations? io can believe it. fuel cells? He's pretty much on the
money. They're sinkholes for research dollars and little more. For the
billions sunk into FC research, there's yet to be any market success,
and the 'car of the future' that FC companies keep showing around are so
pathetic, they won't sell, even with the $30,000 government subsidy
they'll need to be even remotely competitive with cars. Right now, a
kilowatt of FC power is over $1,000. For a car, you reallistically need
100 or so Kw. You do the math.
Your next car will have an engine like your current one. It may have a
hybrid boost, it may run on something else, but it won't have a fuel
cell.
The public's not going to spend $50,000 on a car with the performance of
an early 80's toyota, the reliability of a late 70's detroit car, the
maintenance costs of a Ferarri, and the fuel avilability of a diesel VW
Rabbit.
Or, as one person I know points out, whatever replaces the traditional
IC engine can't be 'almost as good', it's got to be a *lot* better.
There's been plenty of 'killer engines' in the past, so far, only the
Wankel has had any degree of success.
Ob rail content: I always wondered why nobody ever tried to make a
diesel wankel for rail use. It'd be very light, simple, and compact...
bras...@despammed.com
Nasadowski <nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> wrote:
> Ob rail content: I always wondered why nobody ever tried to make a
> diesel wankel for rail use. It'd be very light, simple, and compact...
Generally, the higher the power and larger the engine, the higher the
compression ratio. The Wankel already has, as one of its primary
concerns, the sealing around the combustion chamber. The high compression
ratios in railroad use would increase those problems.
Also, there is a practical limitation on how much compression can be
obtained in the Wankel rotating chamber. I think the compression ratio
used in current railroad diesel engines may be somewhat beyond that range.
James Robinson
>
> Or, as one person I know points out, whatever replaces the traditional
> IC engine can't be 'almost as good', it's got to be a *lot* better.
> There's been plenty of 'killer engines' in the past, so far, only the
> Wankel has had any degree of success.
What? An engine that self-destructs in under 50,000 miles? You haven't
been talking to many Mazda owners. Ever follow an old RX-7 in traffic
and smell the exhaust?
I admit that Mazda has improved things by going to nitrite steel
casings, but there is still the problem with apex seal wear, which has
never really been overcome.
> Ob rail content: I always wondered why nobody ever tried to make a
> diesel wankel for rail use. It'd be very light, simple, and compact...
Let's see. Mercedes developed a diesel Wankel as a potential way of
meeting emission regulations. They dropped it after sinking in millions
of R&D bucks when they couldn't figure out a way to get the rotor seals
to last any length of time. Do you really think a scaled-up version, to
the horsepower required for locomotive application, would work any
better?
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > As I said in the previous post, the cost of the hydrogen is way to
> > high. Remember that electrical power can now be generated at fairly
> > high efficiency, and given that the railroads use a lot of power,
> > anything less efficient will not pass the economic test. Right now,
> > fuel cells are something like 1/3 the efficiency of the latest design
> > power plants, if you include the cost of making the hydrogen in the
> > first place. With that kind of cost, the railroads would easily pick
> > electrification, if they had no other choice.
>
> Your arguement is entirely falacious, given that the railroads
> currently choose to use diesel locomotives, even to the extent
> of dismantleing electrifications in some cases, and that diesel
> locomotives are likewise far lower in efficiency than the latest
> design powerplants.
In the first place, we were talking about hydrogen fuel cells, which use
energy that is at least 5 times the cost of any other commonly used
energy source, and there is no sign of that changing in the near
future. That economic reality will keep fuel cells or any
hydrogen-powered equipment confined to niche applications, where energy
cost is secondary, such as for emergency power, or where low exhaust
emissions are critical. Railroads simply use too much energy for that
difference in cost to be swept under the rug.
As far as a comparison between diesel and electric power sources,
current diesel-electrics are about 40% efficient, while the national
power grid in the US is about 32% efficient, not counting distribution
losses. Since railroads avoid the capital and maintenance cost of the
catenary, you can see why railroads historically lost interest in
electric power, even though the primary energy source for electricity
(mostly coal) is less expensive per BTU than diesel fuel.
As far as the efficiency of new combined cycle power plants, they are
now claiming a bit above 50% overall efficiency. This leap in efficiency
might get railroads to look at electric power again, but only if the
cost of the power is low enough that the savings will pay for the huge
capital investment needed to install the infrastructure needed for
electrification (catenary, substations, modified signaling, etc.). The
capital cost of these new plants is quite high, and that has to be
recovered in the rates they charge for power. Diesel might still be
lower cost alternative, even at somewhat lower efficiency.
While fuel cells are something like 70% efficient, the problem is in the
cost of the hydrogen to feed them. That high cost blows the overall cost
of the power the railroad needs out of the ballpark in comparison to the
alternatives.
> I beleive your understanding of costs, both in respect of railroad
> operations and in respect of fuel cells, is rather lacking.
Time will tell, won't it?
John McCoy
>
> In the first place, we were talking about hydrogen fuel cells,
No, we were not. We were talking about the potential for the
railroads to electrify. I stand by my assertion that there is
extremely little likelyhood of that, barring the government
choosing to subsidize it for political reasons.
I expect the diesel-electric to stay with us for many more
years. When it's replaced, I expect it to be with a fuel
cell type engine, simply because, of technologies currently
being developed, that one has the most potential to be
successful. You appear to beleive fuel cells technology will
never advance beyond it's current state, which I think is an
unrealistic position.
Certainly it's possible that some other technology will
arise to make fuel cells irrelevant. Perhaps we'll eventually
understand photosynthesis well enough to have highly efficient
solar cells, and our locomotives will be literally green.
John
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
>
> No, we were not.
We most certainly were. Your earlier statement that "The railroads will
most likely move from the current diesel-electric locomotives to
fuel-cell-electric locomotives eventually ..." was the entry to discuss
fuel cells. You offered them as an alternative to electrification, and
I was addressing that suggestion.
> We were talking about the potential for the
> railroads to electrify. I stand by my assertion that there is
> extremely little likelyhood of that, barring the government
> choosing to subsidize it for political reasons.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Electrification has many operating and financial
shortcomings, plus a number of advantages, but is a readily applicable
technology, and implementation can begin relatively quickly. Little R&D
or risk is involved. It is strictly an economic issue, driven by the
cost differential of the various available energy sources. The
government can encourage it by investment tax credits without subsidy,
by forcing up the price of competitive energy sources through such
things as carbon taxes, or by direct subsidy.
> I expect the diesel-electric to stay with us for many more
> years. When it's replaced, I expect it to be with a fuel
> cell type engine, simply because, of technologies currently
> being developed, that one has the most potential to be
> successful.
Certainly, anything can happen, and I would never say that fuel cells
won't ever be economically competitive, but there is also is no
guarantee that diesel-electrics will be replaced at all. They are
fairly efficient, will burn a variety of fuels, and lend themselves well
to railroad operations.
> You appear to beleive fuel cells technology will
> never advance beyond it's current state, which I think is an
> unrealistic position.
No, I fully believe that fuel cell technology will improve, and the cost
of the cells themselves will drop significantly. They do have a long way
to drop, though, given that the capital cost of a fuel cell generator is
now about 30 times the price of the diesel engine/alternator on a
locomotive, plus it has about 1/3 the life.
My problem is with the cost of the fuel to feed the fuel cells. Right
now, a natural gas fuel cell is only about 35% efficient, if you look at
the overall thermal efficiency. You can burn the same gas in a combined
cycle power plant at efficiencies approaching 60%. That efficiency gap
goes a long way to paying for catenary for an electrified railroad.
Will fuel cells ever close that gap? Perhaps, but turbine generators and
diesel engines are a moving target as well.
> Certainly it's possible that some other technology will
> arise to make fuel cells irrelevant. Perhaps we'll eventually
> understand photosynthesis well enough to have highly efficient
> solar cells, and our locomotives will be literally green.
Or perhaps inexpensive nuclear or fusion power will become socially
acceptable, as it is in France.
As a side note, there was a railway energy conference in Paris earlier
this month, attended by manufacturers and railroads from around the
world. There were a couple of papers on the future of fuel cells, and
how they might be used on a railroad. None of the railroads were
seriously considering them for use on locomotives in their planning
horizons. They only considered them for use in some niche applications,
like backup power.
Philip Nasadowski
James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
> They do have a long way
> to drop, though, given that the capital cost of a fuel cell generator is
> now about 30 times the price of the diesel engine/alternator on a
> locomotive, plus it has about 1/3 the life.
Realistically, most large FC installations last about 2 - 3 years before
failing for various reasons.
> Will fuel cells ever close that gap? Perhaps, but turbine generators and
> diesel engines are a moving target as well.
Maybe, maybe not. At the cost/size/life points they're hitting now,
there's no real incentive to research them, because even if they
improved 50%, they'd still be far far far far from comercial
application. There's been lots of FC vehicles waved around, big PR
bonanza's for 'the first car getting filled with hydrogen', etc etc etc,
but so far, nothing that's been of any real substance.
> Or perhaps inexpensive nuclear or fusion power will become socially
> acceptable, as it is in France.
Save for a few NIMBY groups, it pretty much is already. And, GE and
Westinghouse already have approved designs, ready to order. Most
people's fear of nuclear comes from watch "The China Syndrome' on late
night TV too many times....
Steve Kraus
> Generally, the higher the power and larger the engine, the higher the
> compression ratio.
Are you saying one of those giant, low-RPM power plant or ship engines,
bigger than many houses, has a higher compression ratio than the typical
locomotive engine? Or that the latter has a higher CR than a truck/bus
engine?
bras...@despammed.com
Kraus <scr...@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote:
Generally, I think you will find that is the case. You will probably find
some exceptions. Also, you may find that overall compression is somewhat
higher in the smaller engines when you start factoring in the turbocharger
and so forth.
Example: early 1980's diesel engines for automotive use:
Cummins V-785-C, c/r = 15.9
GMC DH478, c/r = 17.5
Deutz F6L-714 c/r = 17.8 (the highest on the list I have), most being
15 or 16.
Early 1980's diesel engines for locomotive use:
Electro-Motive 12-645, c/r = 20.0
Compression ratios have increased over the years so that I am certain they
are higher than in the list I have.
You must also remember that the fuel used in the very largest of diesel
marine engines is Bunker C. In order to get that stuff to burn, the
compression ratio must be very high, in order to get the temperature in
the cylinders up high enough.
In any event, with the compression ratios used in those medium and very
large engines, it would be very difficult to get the seals to work in the
Wankel design, which is the primary point of the original post.
John McCoy
85BB44.114...@reader3.news.rcn.net:
> In article <4036D375...@212.com>,
> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
>> Or perhaps inexpensive nuclear or fusion power will become socially
>> acceptable, as it is in France.
>
> Save for a few NIMBY groups, it pretty much is already.
The problem with fission is, from a rational perspective, what
do you do with the leftovers? That's the question that's always
been sitting, unanswered, over fission power. Even if the spent
fuel repository in Nevada comes into existance, it doesn't address
the tons and tons of radioactive plumbing, etc, that are left when
the reactor reaches the end of it's design life.
Now, if fusion could be made to work, we might literally have
electricity too cheap to meter. But they've been working on
that a lot longer than fuel cells, with markedly less progress.
John
James Robinson
>
> Steve Kraus wrote:
> >
> > Are you saying one of those giant, low-RPM power plant or ship engines,
> > bigger than many houses, has a higher compression ratio than the typical
> > locomotive engine? Or that the latter has a higher CR than a truck/bus
> > engine?
>
> Generally, I think you will find that is the case.
They tend to be all over the map, with some variation depending on
whether they are two or four stroke, have a turbo or blower, are direct
or indirect injection, and the RPM. The most common range is between 16
and 25.
> You will probably find some exceptions. Also, you may find that
> overall compression is somewhat higher in the smaller engines
> when you start factoring in the turbocharger and so forth.
Turbocharged engines tend to have a lower compression ratio than either
blown or naturally aspirated engines. With the higher air intake
pressure, they have to compress less, and will still achieve a higher
cylinder pressure. Here is a link to EMD's engine specifications, where
you can see the effect:
http://www.gmemd.com/en/pmi/diesel_engines/models/
> Example: early 1980's diesel engines for automotive use:
>
> Cummins V-785-C, c/r = 15.9
> GMC DH478, c/r = 17.5
> Deutz F6L-714 c/r = 17.8 (the highest on the list I have), most being
> 15 or 16.
>
> Early 1980's diesel engines for locomotive use:
>
> Electro-Motive 12-645, c/r = 20.0
>
> Compression ratios have increased over the years so that I am certain they
> are higher than in the list I have.
According to the specs on the EMD link above, the ratio seems to be
lower on their engines today.
> You must also remember that the fuel used in the very largest of diesel
> marine engines is Bunker C. In order to get that stuff to burn, the
> compression ratio must be very high, in order to get the temperature in
> the cylinders up high enough.
Sulzer and MAN B&W slow speed engines seem to be in the range of 15:1 to
17:1.
> In any event, with the compression ratios used in those medium and very
> large engines, it would be very difficult to get the seals to work in the
> Wankel design, which is the primary point of the original post.
Agreed. That was exactly the problem Daimler Benz had with their diesel
rotary engines, even though they were quite small, being intended for
automotive use. The compression ratio of the Mazda rotary, as an
example, is only 10:1, while diesel engines tend to be about double
that.
Greg Gritton
John McCoy wrote:
>
> The problem with fission is, from a rational perspective, what
> do you do with the leftovers? That's the question that's always
> been sitting, unanswered, over fission power. Even if the spent
> fuel repository in Nevada comes into existance, it doesn't address
> the tons and tons of radioactive plumbing, etc, that are left when
> the reactor reaches the end of it's design life.
>
> Now, if fusion could be made to work, we might literally have
> electricity too cheap to meter. But they've been working on
> that a lot longer than fuel cells, with markedly less progress.
>
> John
Like almost everything nuclear, dealing with the waste is more
of a political problem than a real, technical problem. In Japan
and France, most of the waste is reprocessed to produce new fuel.
Unfortunately, we don't do that in the U.S.
That doesn't take care of all of the waste, and some must still
be stored. But, the quantity of waste you end up, even considering
its toxicity, is very, very small for the amount of energy produced.
A number of storage alternatives are tecnically feasable, with the
selected one, storage in salt caverns away from populated areas,
probably the most reasonable.
But, suppose for a minute, we choose a inferior alternative.
Suppore we choose to grind the waste up into a fine powder and
incenerate it, dispersing it into the atmosphere. This sounds
pretty stupid, and it would be. But, this is exactly what happens
when we burn coal, which supplies the majority of our power.
Typical coal has enough uranium that if it could be extracted and
used in a nuclear power plant, you would get more energy that way
than burning the coal! Yet, when the coal is burned, all of that
"nuclear" waste goes into the atmosphere. But, people don't worry
about it because it is a tiny fraction of the total toxic waste
produced by burning coal.
All energy sources have their drawbacks. But, from an environmental
point of view, the drawbacks of nuclear energy are pretty small compared
to most of the alternatives. Yet, it is the one that the
environmentalists have fought the most adamantly and succesfully!
Finally, should we develop fusion power, it is likely to be a
dissapointment the way fission was. It could be an abundant,
potentially inepensive energy source, but it won't be perfect, and
people are expecting perfection. It will probably produce some
radioactive materials, and may engender the same fear of all things
"nuclear" that people have with fission.
Sincerely,
Greg Gritton
Philip Nasadowski
John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The problem with fission is, from a rational perspective, what
> do you do with the leftovers?
Well, at least for the first 10 or so years, they're stored under water
in the plant (sometimes in the containment, sometimes outside). After
that, you can 'dry store' them in large concrete caskests. The beauty
of the stuff is, it loses radioactivity over time. IIRC, 90% is lost
in the first 10 years, after 100 or 200 years, it's as radioactive as
the orte it was mined from.
It's also not a big amount, and as pointed out, lots of it can be
recovered. The burnup rate on most plants, IIRC, is on the order of 1 -
2%. Reprocessing, or breeders can be done. Neither is technically
perfect (witness Fermi 1, Clinch River, etc), but both still have
development in them (in particular, sodium cooled breeders are probbably
a dead end, since light water ones exist - Shippingport was actually a
light water breeder. I don't know if they're as efficient or useful as
sodium cooled ones, which the DOE's been fixated on anyway, despite
having plenty of nagging problems)
> That's the question that's always
> been sitting, unanswered, over fission power. Even if the spent
> fuel repository in Nevada comes into existance, it doesn't address
> the tons and tons of radioactive plumbing, etc, that are left when
> the reactor reaches the end of it's design life.
Lots of that can be decontaminated, some will eventually get burried.
Right now, utilities can decided what they wqant to do with old plants -
Shippingport was dismantled, Ft St Vrain was (but repowered as a
combined cycle nat gas plant), Piqua (which was tiny anyway) was just
backfilled with sand and concrete and left.
> Now, if fusion could be made to work, we might literally have
> electricity too cheap to meter. But they've been working on
> that a lot longer than fuel cells, with markedly less progress.
IIRC, fusion's getting pretty darn close to self sustaining. Well,
controlled and self sustaining, because the ever popular H bomb is a
fusion device.
Fuel cells aren't going anywhere fast either - they've been a lab
curiosity for a century or so, with only the Apollo program as any real
application.
Robin Payne
"Philip Nasadowski" <nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> wrote in message
news:nasadowsk-5041B...@reader3.news.rcn.net...
> Fuel cells aren't going anywhere fast either - they've been a lab
> curiosity for a century or so, with only the Apollo program as any real
> application.
I suggest you take a look at developments of the past few years in things
like proton exchange membranes, that permit fuel cells to be built without
the serious amounts of precious metals that were necessary for the Apollo
era cells.
Robin
Philip Nasadowski
"Robin Payne" <r...@payne-residence.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I suggest you take a look at developments of the past few years in things
> like proton exchange membranes, that permit fuel cells to be built without
> the serious amounts of precious metals that were necessary for the Apollo
> era cells.
I suggest you look at the $/Kw ratio of them, too. Plus their lifespan
(low), their ability to deal with weather (poor), and their overall
efficiency 9poor)
bras...@despammed.com
> The problem with fission is, from a rational perspective, what
> do you do with the leftovers? That's the question that's always
> been sitting, unanswered, over fission power.
Stuff undergoing fission is in the process of turning from one substance
into another. The waste problem really depends on the starting material.
Jokes about Chernobyl aside, my impression is that the graphite based
reactors use a chain of reactions that result in very little long term
radioactive waste.
Philip Nasadowski
bras...@despammed.com (bras...@despammed.com) wrote:
> Jokes about Chernobyl aside, my impression is that the graphite based
> reactors use a chain of reactions that result in very little long term
> radioactive waste.
I wasn't aware of any major differences. Though those tend to be
breeders, IIRC, which effectively 'make fuel' (which is a misnomer, I
believe most light water reactors derrive a large amount of power from
plutonium by the end of the fuel's life also). There's also the IFR
concept, where the reactor's fuel would be on site reprocessed into new
fuel (or, effectively sorting out the truely useless wastes). This was
envisioned with a sodium or NaK cooled reactor, which has troubles of
it's own, not suirprisingly from it's quite reactive coolant.
Supposedly, they can also blow up in a big way, though I've read that's
really just an anti nuke myth as opposed to anything real. Certainly
the sodium cooled reactors that HAVE had meltdowns are still there, in
fact, you can tour EBR-I and even stare down at the top of the reactor
vessel. Granted, a football size core (1/2 melted in a 50's accident),
but breeders have tiny cores, IIRC, Fermi 1 (200 or so Mw) was about a
cubic yard in size.
While I'm at it - does anyone know is they ever actually started
construction of the Clinch River Breeder reactor, or was the project
killed before that happened? Googleing reveals nothing but resumes of
people who worked on it, or anti nuke BS
Robin Payne
I was not suggesting that they were brilliant, I was merely pointing out
that the claim you made, namely "Fuel cells aren't going anywhere fast
either - they've been a lab
curiosity for a century or so, with only the Apollo program as any real
application" is somewhat inaccurate. Given that there are fuel cell buses
on the streets of London as we speak, and in other European cities, they
hardly qualify as "a lab curiosity".
Robin
James Robinson
>
> Given that there are fuel cell buses on the streets of London as we
> speak, and in other European cities, they hardly qualify as "a lab
> curiosity".
There have been a few demonstrations of fuel cell buses in North
American cities as well, but the manufacturer readily admits that they
are far from an economic proposition. The demonstrations were mainly to
get people used to the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, to examine the
practicalities, and to stimulate discussion. Beyond a handful of buses
built for some tourist areas, they are really little more than ideas
without a market so far.
John McCoy
23020418...@69-30-9-70.pxd.easystreet.com:
> In article <Xns9496B45C39...@129.250.170.98>, John McCoy
> <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem with fission is, from a rational perspective, what
>> do you do with the leftovers? That's the question that's always
>> been sitting, unanswered, over fission power.
>
>
> Stuff undergoing fission is in the process of turning from one substance
> into another. The waste problem really depends on the starting material.
Well, from an abstract, totally avoiding any practical considerations
point of view. Any useful fissile material produces radioactive
wastes, which after a series of further events (mostly alpha particle
emissions) over an extremely long time become non-radioactive.
> Jokes about Chernobyl aside, my impression is that the graphite based
> reactors use a chain of reactions that result in very little long term
> radioactive waste.
You're only considering the fuel waste there, like most people. The
other problem is that all the structure of the reactor becomes
radioactive over time, and, when it eventually wears out, you have
thousands of tons of radioactive stuff to deal with.
The current plan is usually to fill everything up with concrete,
and hope that holds up & no-one messes with it, which is what they
did with the Chernobyl reactors. Unfortunately that is not working
well at Chernobyl (the building is basically falling apart now),
so that doesn't seem likely to be a workable long-term solution.
John
Philip Nasadowski
John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately that is not working
> well at Chernobyl (the building is basically falling apart now),
> so that doesn't seem likely to be a workable long-term solution.
It worked great at Piqua, Peach Bottom 1, Fermi 1*, and a few other
plants**. IIRC, the Piqua site becomes effectively useful for anything
sometime in another 50 or so years (it was a small reactor, operated
only a few years, and that was in the 60's). As far as dismantlement,
where Shippingport stood I believe is a park now, Ft St Vrain was
repowered with gas. It's up to the utility (well,
NIMBY/activists/politicians around said plant) to decide what route to
take when a plant's reached the end of it's life.
The entombment at Chernobyl was done very quickly to fill a need, not
enclose the plant forever. Remember, the nuclear fuel in it is still
thermally hot (or was in the 90's), thus it has giant holes for cooling.
IIRC, a 'suicide squad' of plant physics people regularly go into the
thing to check up on the stuff in there. One big worry was what
happened to the fuel after the accident, and if it was in a
confirguation that could be, well, bad (not in terms of a nuclear
explosion, just in terms of it going and melting again). The end result
of that search was they found the fuel in a more or less spread out,
soild mass, below the reactor.
* The only comercial breeder run in the US. It surrered a partial
meltdown shortly after opening. Ironically, it was a safety feature - a
zirconium shield plate on the bottom of the reactor - that caused the
incedent by loosening and getting caught up in the flow. Initially, it
was though to have been a beer can (!) that somehow ended up in there.
**EBR-I, which had a partial melt in the 50's. Today, this plant is
open to the public for free tours. If you're ever near Idaho Falls,
it's strongly recommended.
Magnus Homann
> Silas Warner schrieb:
>
>
> > Well, some, mostly in the Alps. In France, it's nuclear. In
> > Britain and Scandinavia, it's gas.
>
> Norway's electricity is about 98% hydro, or some figure like that.
Sweden about 50%, about 40% nucelar ansd the rest is fossile
(imported) Finland has not much hydro. Denmark is fossile. Island... thermal?
Homann
--
Magnus Homann, M.Sc. CS & E
d0a...@dtek.chalmers.se
bras...@despammed.com
<d0a...@licia.dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
> > Norway's electricity is about 98% hydro, or some figure like that.
>
> Sweden about 50%, about 40% nucelar ansd the rest is fossile
> (imported) Finland has not much hydro. Denmark is fossile. Island... thermal?
I've been told that Brazil's electricity is somewhere in the 80% to 90%
hydro range. Furthermore, that this could be made higher if there was
money available to costruct several long distance power lines between a
few of the dams in the north and the industrial centers in the south.
Instead, apparently they are talking about putting several more turbines
into operation at Itipu. Apparently if those turbines are installed Itipu
has a larger generation capacity than China's Three Gorges project is
planned to be. So, probably more of a national pride issue than a
practical matter.
Apparently during the energy shortage in 2001-2002, the dams in the north
of Brazil were spilling all kinds of water over the spillways because
there wasn't the capacity to bring their power down to the south of the
country.
Bad news there in terms of railroad electrification is that the high price
it is sold by the power companies (residential power was running twice
what I pay here in Portland Oregon for it during 2000 - and that doesn't
factor in the relatively low wages the average Brazilian worker makes)
plus the costs of updating the overhead wires, plus the government subsidy
of diesel fuels, means that electric railroads have dropped severely in
milage over the past 10 years or so. It seems like everywhere you go
within 200 miles of São Paulo there are the remains of overhead wire
structures that have been abandoned by the private companies that now
operate the various railroad lines.
Stephen Furley
> John McCoy wrote:
> >
> > The railroads will most likely move from the current diesel-electric
> > basically the same technologies proposed for automobiles, only on
> > a larger scale.
>
> Don't be so sure of that. Certainly railroads would take advantage of
> any technology breakthroughs on the automotive side, but fuel cells
> aren't yet anywhere near being economic. The cost of the fuel and
> relative inefficiency of fuel cells being the two biggest hurdles.
>
> The biggest problem today is where you get the hydrogen at a reasonable
> cost. It is something like six times the cost of energy in other forms.
> If it was to be made using hydrolysis, the cost is so high that the
> railroads would be far better off using the electricity directly to
> power locomotives instead. If you start with natural gas, which many
> proponents are pushing, the efficiency of the process is so poor, that
> the railroads would be better off simply burning the gas in a diesel
> engine, rather than extracting the hydrogen and passing it through a
> fuel cell.
>
> The technology needs a major breakthrough before those economic
> realities change.
Fuel cell vehicles have veen just around the corner since I was a
primary school, getting on for forty years ago; I don't expect to see
it happen in my lifetime.
We have had a handful of expermental fuel cell powered buses in London
for a few months now, but I haven't seen one yet.
Producing hydrogen from natural gas could be a problem for us; we
converted many of our power stations to burn the stuff, and supplies
probably won't last that long.
Peter Niessen
> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote in message news:<40335E1C...@212.com>...
>> John McCoy wrote:
>> >
>> > The railroads will most likely move from the current diesel-electric
>> > locomotives to fuel-cell-electric locomotives eventually, using
>> > basically the same technologies proposed for automobiles, only on
>> > a larger scale.
>>
>> Don't be so sure of that. Certainly railroads would take advantage of
>> any technology breakthroughs on the automotive side, but fuel cells
>> aren't yet anywhere near being economic. The cost of the fuel and
>> relative inefficiency of fuel cells being the two biggest hurdles.
>>
>
> primary school, getting on for forty years ago; I don't expect to see
> it happen in my lifetime.
>
You may want to search google for fuel cell submarine. Apparently fuel
cells have reached a certain maturity. I admit that the operating
conditions in the submarine are different (relatively large amount of
room for the cells and relatively little power needed). Also, the
quoted 1.2 MW power for the PEM-FC locomotive seem a bit weak, but
it's a start. Primarily, I see this technology as a substitute for
combustion engines. For high-power applications like high speed
trains, one might want to stay with overhead electrification because
-They deliver more power per weight locomotives (up to 10 MW)
-You can recuperate when braking (although I don't know how the trade
off with higher motor wear is)
-A big power plant has a higher efficiency and offers easier filtering
of sulfuric and nitrogenous nuisances (although I don't know how this
looks when taking into account that this thing is needed during the
day only. Of course one could built dedicated railway powerplants and
run trains 24h a day)
Cheers, Peter.
Erik Magnuson
> While I'm at it - does anyone know is they ever actually started
> construction of the Clinch River Breeder reactor, or was the project
> killed before that happened? Googleing reveals nothing but resumes of
> people who worked on it, or anti nuke BS
A fair number of the parts were fabricated before the project was killed,
but I don't remember how much, if any construction work was done on site.
While the cancellation was considered to be a setback for the nuclear
industry, it was tempered by the fact that the Fast Flux Test Facility
was completed and operated for over a decade. The FFTF was considered to
be more valuable for FBR design than Clinch River.
Erik
Philip Nasadowski
er...@tfb.com (Erik Magnuson) wrote:
> A fair number of the parts were fabricated before the project was killed,
> but I don't remember how much, if any construction work was done on site.
I'm still curious as to why it took so long and so much effort, when
Fermi unit 1 was basically the same idea, but smaller. Ok, Fermi 1 was
a flop, but still, it actually got built.
> While the cancellation was considered to be a setback for the nuclear
> industry, it was tempered by the fact that the Fast Flux Test Facility
> was completed and operated for over a decade. The FFTF was considered to
> be more valuable for FBR design than Clinch River.
IIRC, EBR-II closed recently, so that was another facility.
David Lesher
>Lots of that can be decontaminated, some will eventually get burried.
>Right now, utilities can decided what they wqant to do with old plants -
>Shippingport was dismantled, Ft St Vrain was (but repowered as a
>combined cycle nat gas plant), Piqua (which was tiny anyway) was just
>backfilled with sand and concrete and left.
Strange word, that "decontaminated"...
You'd think it meant you start with 2 things:
contaminated whatever + uncontained somethingelse
And you:
Shake, {not stir} and get
uncontaminated whatever + uncontaminated somethingelse
A real gain...
But as far as I know, every "decontamination" is really a "contamination
transfer" process leaving you a larger volume of contaminated mass
than you started with. Which then goes where? {We really need a tame
black hole to dump things into..}
Wasn't it Shippingport the containment vessel that was floated down the
Ohio and through the Canal to Hanford? Hardly practical for the commercial
reactors many times that size [Can you say Davis Bessie?]
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Philip Nasadowski
David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> Wasn't it Shippingport the containment vessel that was floated down the
> Ohio and through the Canal to Hanford?
Might have been.
> Hardly practical for the commercial
> reactors many times that size [Can you say Davis Bessie?]
Why? Those vessels weren't built on site. They were generally barged
in.
DB has already begun startup proceedures - they were hung up by a
shutdown caused by three valves not behaving, but it'll probbably be up
and running in a few more weeks.