HSR

[WALTER BREWER]

Brazil-CA  HSR comparison.

 

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002455-private-investors-shun-brazil-high-speed-rail-bid

 

Walt Brewer

[Jerry Roane]

Walt

That is an interesting route.  I cruised it on maps.google.com.  There is a mountain range that would destroy railroad profits to try to build along the edges of hills with cut and fill.  A poor man's approach would be to build dual mode to the mountain and from the mountain but make them drive on the mountain road.  Using the 80-20 rule just build the profitable part with relatively flat land and easy right of way if the government is parsing it out and then where it is expensive punt and use the highway that is already built.  Some would complain that I would be choking the highway through the mountains but I bet if you do a car count on the mountain road is has minimal traffic on a 24/7 basis.  This is just a guess and I could be very wrong on that assumption but most highway roads I have driven in America are basically empty compared to 2000 cars per lane-hour.  

124 million for guideway would make the high speed train estimates look crazy.  Of course looking at TriTrack petite monorail by the high speed rail lobby seems crazy so we are even.  That would be 18,000 passengers per hour or if you double track then 36,000 passengers per hour.  The soccer match would blow the capacity of a double track but then again it blows the capacity of all modes of transportation.  The rolling stock on a line this long would be quite a chunk of change.  At 138 following distance to max out the line with 1.3 passengers per car would take 47,443 cars at retail $10,000 each or 475 million dollars worth of cars to pack it out.  

$343 each way trip with quite a few airplanes serving this route would the the competing mode.  Our energy cost would be $15.50 per trip.  Our total consumer cost would be $77.50 counting all the things that roll into car ownership.  (insurance, finance, taxes, wear on the car, etc.) 

An appropriate toll might be $12 each way.  The trip time would beat the air plane at 1 hour and 43 minutes unless Brazil has no TSA screeners.  Comparing $89.50 to $343 Perhaps I could raise the toll to $265.50 to make it fair.  I am sure the high speed railroad guys would do you a solid.

Jerry Roane   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[eph]

I think you're on to something with the 80 - 20 rule.  Along the same lines of thought, why build a transportation system to cater to particular events like FIFA world cup and Olympics where once the events are done, the system will remain in disuse (probably more than 80% of the time)?  Wouldn't temporary solutions make more sense for the big events - like borrowing buses/coaches and using bigger planes?  Then you can build the transit system to accommodate the expected daily/weekly traffic and maximize return on investment.

F.

[Jerry Roane]

F.

I absolutely agree.  There is no need to build a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  This is where school buses shine.  While the sports event needs travelers the school buses are parked at the barn.  Raise revenue for the schools by charging outrageous rates for the use of these assets.  Pay the bus driver 5 times his/her salary and pay the school the cost of the bus for this big event.  Everyone wins to mimic a TV fallen star.  Winning!

On the political side though these useless events break out the public piggy bank.  It is a feather in the cap of the politician who "brings" an event to their town.  Just like the TOD myth these guys think they are creating GDP and hotel revenue.  Tourist money is free money right?  Of course the tourist had to come from somewhere.  Their city is poorer in the interest of the host city but who ever looks at the whole?  Only looking at the host city for the one weekend it looks great.  Looking at the empty city the day after --- not so much but that is not remembered.  That is just normal.  Hotels are the least eco friendly way to live even though they are urban of all urban environments.  

One other shot at urbanism from Jack's post the other day.  If underground mains waste as much power as Jack's post (have not been able to find his data on the web) then urban living with its underground power is very energy wasteful.  Perhaps the energy equation is backwards for urban life.  I doubt all this.  I am just pushing it out for discussion.  Is urban living with tight utilities more energy abusive to the planet than normal living?  If there a study available that compares urban energy of a family of four in both these settings accounting for well-to-wheels energy.  (I use the well-to-wheels term loosely)  

Jerry Roane 

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:26 AM, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I think you're on to something with the 80 - 20 rule.  Along the same lines of thought, why build a transportation system to cater to particular events like FIFA world cup and Olympics where once the events are done, the system will remain in disuse (probably more than 80% of the time)?  Wouldn't temporary solutions make more sense for the big events - like borrowing buses/coaches and using bigger planes?  Then you can build the transit system to accommodate the expected daily/weekly traffic and maximize return on investment.

F.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/IK_K5IgX0kYJ.

[Jack Slade]

I can provide just a little more info. about underground supply.  It works OK for short distances, because the loss is just less than 5%/mile. It is when you have to pump a lot of energy under ground  or water.  ( Supply to Manhattan Island, etc) that it becomes a major noticeable cost..  This cost is hidden, paid for by the user,  because rates are based on costs+ profit percentage.  Con Edison supplies Manhattan,  and I would think somebody in the Company would answer an inquiry. I will try to Google "Inductive Reactance Losses " to see if I can find something "Official" ,  since that seems to be the only answers some of you seem willing to believe. Some of you may also have online access to University reference libraries.   It is the same with PRT....most of you will believe it only when it comes from somebody  "Official".  Just like my Austrian friend told me up North when I started building my working model.." You can't do that, Jack,  because if that could be done it would have already been done by all the people who are smarter than you". I think that was the greatest compliment I have ever had..   You are correct about HV Direct Current...no fluctuatating field = no losses other than conductor resistance.  It is proposed for the Megawatt transmission for the new Dam in Labrador......to the island of Newfoundland and then on to the Nova Scotia mainland for the bulk of the power.   Jack Slade  --- On Fri, 9/23/11, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Richard Gronning]

Jack;

I had a similar experience. I had been laid off by NWA for a long period of time. I got involved in building musical instruments, especially the ones of historical nature, like lutes. One potential customer didn't buy anything from me because he was from Minnesota and he "knew" that nothing of significance could be built in Minnesota. (One could say that his performances reflected that concept.)

Dick

[eph]

Does anyone know how you capitalize an asset that last centuries or millennia?  Roman viaducts are an example and a tunnel through a mountain range would be a modern example.  Paying down interest on the cost over it's lifetime seems beyond general Return On Investment calculations.  So how can Brazil ask a private (for profit) company to bank-role such a project?  Not that I think HSR would be profitable even over flat land necessarily, but systems here are in the same boat in the viaduct cost respect.


Undergrounding power lines DOES NOT increase energy use, in fact:

Reduced Transmission Losses
Underground extra-high voltage cables generally have more efficient copper conductors and operate at lower temperatures than overhead lines. These properties combine to transmit energy to end users as efficiently as possible, which is especially important for remote renewable and low carbon generators. Reducing these power transmission losses makes a valuable contribution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.europacable.com/default.aspx?ident_id=10&type=1&rubrikID=6#reduce


F.

[Jack Slade]

If this statement is correct then Kirstons training, and mine, was done by people who didn't know what they were talking about,  supplying Vancouver Island with HVDC was an unnecessary waste of money,  and the articles I spent an hour searching on Google yesterday were all wrong,  disproven by one article from Wicki.   Jack Slade

Undergrounding power lines DOES NOT increase energy use, in fact: Reduced Transmission Losses Underground extra-high voltage cables generally have more efficient copper conductors and operate at lower temperatures than overhead lines. These properties combine to transmit energy to end users as efficiently as possible, which is especially important for remote renewable and low carbon generators. Reducing these power transmission losses makes a valuable contribution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.europacable.com/default.aspx?ident_id=10&type=1&rubrikID=6#reduce F.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/rxaK-847IvMJ.

[Daryl Oster]

Does anyone know how you capitalize an asset that last centuries or millennia?

If you look at amortization schedules you will see that the monthly payment approaches the intrest only, and very little goes to the capitalization of the loan. 
If long term infrastructure is not capable of at least recovering: the inflation rate, + O&M, + replacement, then it is a gift to future generations that may not be able to even use it (because new tech makes it obsolete). 

DO

[eph]

Shouldn't there be a cost or benefit to "gifts to future generations"?  A tunnel allowing passage from one area to another would be a benefit/asset past long it's pay-back period.  Nuclear waste would be a liability to future generations.  Neither of these substantial assets and liabilities seem properly monetized in a capitalist/ROI system.  I'm puzzled by this.

F.

[WALTER BREWER]

Having forgotten most exponetial math,I punched 1,000 years at 5% into my handy-dandy business calculator, and indeed got 5%/year carried to 9 places.

For 100 years it is:5.0383138, not very different.

 

This reminds me of one of the unsolved probles for storing nuclear waste with a 2,500 year to safety at Yucca Mountain? What language do you use for the "Keep Out" signs?

 

Walt Brewer

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/-EmwnSqOEhYJ.

[WALTER BREWER]

Should the ancient Egyptians have put a tourist income clause in the original plan?

 

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: eph

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 2:03 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] HSR

Shouldn't there be a cost or benefit to "gifts to future generations"?  A tunnel allowing passage from one area to another would be a benefit/asset past long it's pay-back period.  Nuclear waste would be a liability to future generations.  Neither of these substantial assets and liabilities seem properly monetized in a capitalist/ROI system.  I'm puzzled by this.

F.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/lvD3pV0yt84J.

[eph]

Jack,
It's not a "wicky" article (not that making fun of things disproves them anyway) it is from:
The European Confederation of National Associations
of Manufacturers of Insulated Wire and Cable

Do you seriously think that if the losses in underground cabling could not be mitigated, they would still be installed? People aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are.

Can you please post a credible link that states that undergrounding cables (not necessarily of equal construction or cost) results in significant energy efficiency losses compared to overhead wires?

F.

[Jack Slade]

Anybody who knows much about A/C power knows that resistance is a very small part of the losses.  The main loss is from the fluctating magnetic field,  which increases with higher frequencies,  and it is not a linear increase, Eg:  60-cycle gives more than twice the loss incurred by 30-cycle power.   I don't really care who you quote,  because I don't think you can find anybody who can repeal this Law of Physics.   Jack Slade --- On Sat, 9/24/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] HSR To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/gWQDc5xMfcwJ.

[eph]

I don't see a link, just some unrelated text about higher frequencies (not the case here).

Actually, we just need someone who can see fact from fiction.  Fact is there ARE underground power lines that are just as (or more) energy-efficient as overhead power lines.  They cost more and they aren't bare conductors, but that's not at issue.

F.

On Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:25:21 PM UTC-4, Jack Slade wrote:

Anybody who knows much about A/C power knows that resistance is a very small part of the losses.  The main loss is from the fluctating magnetic field,  which increases with higher frequencies,  and it is not a linear increase, Eg:  60-cycle gives more than twice the loss incurred by 30-cycle power.   I don't really care who you quote,  because I don't think you can find anybody who can repeal this Law of Physics.

Jack Slade --- On Sat, 9/24/11, eph <rhap...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Jack Slade]

You need to find the formulae for calculating both Inductive and Capacitive losses.  While I know there have probably been some engineering improvements through the years,  the basic formulaes have not changed.   What you are quoting as "fact" may have been somebody who got his Dc mixed up with AC,  or maybe you are quoting from an article that was about HVDC.  The last time I got myself into a conversation like this was when I tried to convince a woman who thought aircraft might fall on her when they banked that she was wrong. That was not a success either.    Jack Slade

--- On Sat, 9/24/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/82tY-TrbTmUJ.

[eph]

No, you need to show me the results of real-world situations.  What would you do if someone measured something going faster than the speed of light?

So you compare me to someone who can't be reasoned with.  That's insulting and untrue.  I need more than "cause I said so" to be convinced though.

F.

[Jack Slade]

You do seem ready to accept the word of some unknown person from Europe and ignore mine.   I am not going to post all the links....there are hundreds....but if you enter "  inductive reactance formulaes" into a Google search box you will find them.   Why don't you give me the link to this European expert's statement,  so that I can see what he was talking about.  You may have taken part of a sentence out of context....or he may be a carpenter or bricklayer.   Jack Slade

--- On Sun, 9/25/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] HSR To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/i8eb-7P7xicJ.

[eph]

I posted the link earlier.  I can't find a single website that says "underground power lines are less energy efficient".  In fact, I get stuff like:

Other Paths to Improved Efficiency

The technologies outlined above represent only a few of the many available options for improving energy
efficiency in the T&D system. The Business Roundtable’s Energy Task Force T&D working Group, which ABB
chairs, recently published a list of efficiency-enhancing actions and technologies, some of which include:

• Distributed generation/Microgrids
• Underground distribution lines
• Intelligent grid design (smart grids
via automation)
• Reduction of overall T&D transformer MVA
• Energy storage devices
• Three phase design for distribution
• Ground wire loss reduction techniques
• Higher transmission operating voltages

• Voltage optimization through
reactive power compensation
• Asset replacement schedule optimization
• Distribution loss reduction via distribution
automation
• Power factor improvement
• Load management (e.g., smart metering
or price-sensitive load control)
• Power electronic transformers
http://www04.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/c71c66c1f02e6575c125711f004660e6/64cee3203250d1b7c12572c8003b2b48/$FILE/Energy+efficiency+in+the+power+grid.pdf

The report that states that "Underground distribution lines" use less energy is from:

ABB U.S.

ABB (www.abb.com) is a leader in power and automation technologies that enable utility and industry customers to improve performance while lowering environmental impact.

The ABB Group of companies operates in around 100 countries and employs about 130,000 people. The company's North American operations, headquartered in Cary, North Carolina, employ about 20,000 people in multiple manufacturing, service and other major facilities. Its global headquarters is in Zurich, Switzerland.
http://www.abb.us/cawp/usabb046/2b005e13958f531885256ea10059b07b.aspx?v=1C66&leftdb=global/USABB/USABB046.NSF&e=us&leftmi=6e7769c72cc1012c4125679f004e8f8f

So no, I won't take your word for it over a bunch of people who have built it and tested it and published results on the web about it with their company's reputation at risk.  You just respond with rhetoric.  I've had enough of this.

F.

[Jerry Roane]

F.

This is my realm being an electrical engineer.  I can see the confusion you have reading the accounts of energy dissipated by the Earth on AC power lines.  The explanation is not clear cut unless you look at the problem globally on average.  Other than a nation wide average energy loss to power finding out the energy dissipated from stray fields takes specific line conditions.  No one is going to put up a web site pronouncing how much energy they waste.  The waste side of power monopolies is a top secret secret.  Keep in mind they produce power at crazy cheap prices and the electrical power they waste is not retail but sub-wholesale.  Jack is correct it does take more electrical power to push 60 hertz power down an underground line but if you want a clear answer for just how much that variable is good luck as both you and Jack have found.  You can't get that information without quite a bit of digging and most likely it will take an industry insider to feed you the information you seek.  

The major objection to underground high voltage is cost.  The second consideration is cost and etc.  The wire suppliers charge a significant premium for this cable and the trenching is done piecemeal so naturally the costs are crazy high.  If it were mandated to be underground or in protective metal sleeves the piecemeal nature would go away and the price of this more expensive wire would drop from economies of scale.  It does take more plastic raw material and as you found by accident if they use copper rather than aluminum there is an energy savings as well.  

I will skip the discussion of reactive power because it gets everyone confused.  There are things that can be done to lower the reactive load on the power grid but again they all cost money.  If the focus of the power company was to save energy that would be a move forward and far away from the way it is now.  These entities are a pseudo-monopoly with the utility commission looking over their shoulder supposedly.  This formula has given us the grid as it is and that model has failed us from a pollution and energy perspective.  Dollars drive every decision and there is no dollar penalty yet for screwing up.
  Waste a few gigawatt hours and --- no big deal.  

My point on cost was to look deeper into cost and include the cost of the Bastrop Texas fire into overhead wiring for high voltage.  If you include these "external" costs into the power grid choice then perhaps the cheapest thing to do is the best thing to do.  Protecting wires from trees and lightning is not their priority.  When trees burn down cities or lightning shuts down power those are "acts of God" as if blaming God gets them off the hook for damages their decisions cause.  I hope this helps this discussion as both of you are right about high voltage power transmission.   It just depends on which particular installation you are talking about.  Underground power is more elegant and it does require modern wire not paper and wax or gas filled tubes etc.  We are not discussing the old cables at all so that data has to be tossed from the history of underground power done the old way.  

I don't see DC as being that big of a deal it is saves money over the long haul and it sounds like the over/under ground discussion is about the length of time to payback for each option.  I always lean to long term payback in my view.  Most business in America looks at the next month and that is at the heart of this discussion about whether to underground or put it up where everyone has to look at it and the fire danger it represents in a drought year with high gusty winds.  

Jerry Roane

F.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/srQjTI1LSwwJ.

[Jack Slade]

Those are not links.  I clicked on some of them and nothing happened.  A link looks like this:   http://ca.mc882.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.partner=rogers-acs&.gx=0&.tm=1286835007&.rand=d4ipjqdkch0t8#_pg=compose&&.rand=1628386729&clean&.jsrand=8838195   Jack Slade

-- On Mon, 9/26/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] HSR To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[WALTER BREWER]

We aeronautical engineers are quite stupid about such matters.

But I seem to remember the three terms in the general energy equation, only the resistance one was independent of frequency and the main generator of loses.

However I stumbled across the following, see page 23, that might be helpful.

 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/studies/doc/electricity/2003_02_underground_cables_icf.pdf

 

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: Jerry Roane

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:30 AM

Subject: Re: [t-i] HSR

F.

This is my realm being an electrical engineer.  I can see the confusion you have reading the accounts of energy dissipated by the Earth on AC power lines.  The explanation is not clear cut unless you look at the problem globally on average.  Other than a nation wide average energy loss to power finding out the energy dissipated from stray fields takes specific line conditions.  No one is going to put up a web site pronouncing how much energy they waste.  The waste side of power monopolies is a top secret secret.  Keep in mind they produce power at crazy cheap prices and the electrical power they waste is not retail but sub-wholesale.  Jack is correct it does take more electrical power to push 60 hertz power down an underground line but if you want a clear answer for just how much that variable is good luck as both you and Jack have found.  You can't get that information without quite a bit of digging and most likely it will take an industry insider to feed you the information you seek.  

Etc, etc.

[Michael Weidler]

You don't use a written language.  You use pictograms.

---

From: WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] HSR