Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10483)	3/16/2007 6:19:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 36918

Wharfie, regarding electric trains, and cars. Electrification 110. While it's true that it's much more efficient to generate electricity at power stations than in little diesel engines in cars, trucks or trains, [thermodynamics 101], there are line losses and motor losses to account for. But even with line losses, it's still more efficient to use power stations for energy supply than little engines at the point of use - unless the cost of building the power lines is too high. So yes, electric trains are more economic in many instances, even without thinking about CO2 emissions which might or might not be a good thing [and as you know, I think they are a good thing]. It's a matter of dollars and sense. Simple economic arithmetic for any situation. From a central power station, CO2 can be more easily collected and sequestered using Mq's patented [by Mitsubishi, the bandits] CO2 liquefaction and puddle formation technology than from diesel engines on trains, cars and trucks. But this part was wrong: <Electric railroads are cheaper to operate and can carry more freight because they accelerate and brake faster (and can generate electricity while braking, saving energy) and have no delays for refueling. > Acceleration is not a big deal in railways and is limited by the friction on the rails, which is the same for diesel or electric locomotives. By having motors on more wheels, electric railways could accelerate faster, but that has a cost. Braking isn't faster as that too is limited by friction and brakes are usually on lots of wheels. Also, regenerative braking is disappointingly trivial. One of Mq's inventions is an electric car. I calculated energy gains by regenerative braking and it was so little that I ditched it from my economic calculations. Big variables like battery cost, wind resistance, rolling friction, accoutrements and other matters made the energy saved by braking irrelevant. Which is not to say regenerative braking wouldn't be in my cute little car, because it would, but it would be done for nice, fast, braking, not for energy saving. I expect the same applies to trains, but more so as they go a lot further between brakings and don't go up and down hill so much [as they can't]. Refueling can be done in minutes using dirty great fill points. That's trivial too. Mqurice

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10483)	3/16/2007 6:52:31 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 36918

I think they should be running trains underground in a vacuum replicating pressure at about 40,000 feet. You get airline efficiency in speed and air resistance with much less damage to the environment. You could power the vacuum pumps with nuclear power. Acceleration and de-acceleration would be simple using air and air pockets. Tunnels are sloped up and down between stations to use gravity to stop and start too. I always though it was dumb moving containers one at a time along freeways. Capital and labor intensive.