Maybe they could put solar panels on a 2 mile long train, instead of the tunnel. What happens when it rains?
Richard
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
While I applaud the effort, I think this is ridiculous. Two miles of solar panels?? No matter how they wrap it, twist it, or spin it, nothing compares to good old fossil fuels. Gasoline, Diesel, Coal---that's where our efficient power comes from that runs the world. Not to mention hydro and nuclear. We need to keep inventing, discovering, and trying----but when I see something like this, I just roll my eyes. So many negatives here.
MargaretSPfan Member # 3632
posted
I agree with Smitty. And -- just exactly how are all those solar panels going to be made and transported to the site without using any fossil fuel? And just how will trains be powered when night falls or it is overcast?
We need really good, practical solutions to our energy needs.
DeeCT Member # 3241
posted
Would have been useless here in the Northeast this past winter. Week after week after week the sky was grey and the sun did not even peek out.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
Solar panels still generate power on cloudy days. A quick Google suggests the carbon footprint is small so after a few years these things should start to pay back - both in terms of financial cost and environmental cost. Every little helps, as they say.
As for how trains would be powered at night: the normal electricity grid. Just like a regular house with solar panels.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
We forget the other solar power actually is solar power: Hydroelectric. How do you think the water gets to the higher elevation so it can run downhill to spin the turbine? Evaporation from lower elevations to form clouds to drop water at higher elevations. But then we have these silly people, and yes I think they are truly silly, that want to destroy dams that have been built for both hydropower and for irrigation. The other idiocy I have heard of late was that water used for hydro ceased to be available for irrigation. Last I heard running water through a turbbine did not destroy the water. If it leaves it at too low an elevation, then maybe yes it becomes unavailable for irrigation, but then most crops being irrigated, or cities using the water are located at lower elevations, anyway.
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
I'm not an electrical engineer but I've always wondered if a small wind turbine system could be designed that sits on top of a train and generates energy from the movement of the train. A train moving at a fairly constant 100mph might be able to generate a significant amount of energy if the turbine system could be designed so that it's lightweight, compact and aerodynamically efficient.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I would bet that many passenger and freight trains, in the future, will run on liquefied natural gas (LNG). The freights claim they could save billions by switching to LNG.
Richard
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: I'm not an electrical engineer but I've always wondered if a small wind turbine system could be designed that sits on top of a train and generates energy from the movement of the train. A train moving at a fairly constant 100mph might be able to generate a significant amount of energy if the turbine system could be designed so that it's lightweight, compact and aerodynamically efficient.
It would be pointless. Don't know how to explain it in simple terms, but it would not reduce the energy required to drive the train. Whatever it would contribute would be less than the additional energy required to push the train that had it on it.
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: I'm not an electrical engineer but I've always wondered if a small wind turbine system could be designed that sits on top of a train and generates energy from the movement of the train. A train moving at a fairly constant 100mph might be able to generate a significant amount of energy if the turbine system could be designed so that it's lightweight, compact and aerodynamically efficient.
I'm not an engineer or expert in any way, so this is my very non-educated opinion of this. I don't think it will work very well because we already have "ram air" systems in work today on all commercial airplanes. Every airplane that Boeing and Airbus builds (plus many, many others) have a little door that opens up underneath the plane (just like landing gear---but much smaller), and a "fan on a stick" comes out. Because of the airplane flying and moving forward, of course there is wind. The wind spins this little turbine (fan on a stick) and it provides only enough power to run the absolutely necessary systems in the cockpit to operate the airplane safely. In other words, it provides power to the cockpit instruments in case of a total loss of power. It does not provide power, or air conditioning, or anything like that to the passengers (there are backup batteries for some of those functions). So I guess my point is that an airplane moves through the air much faster than a train, and they are only able to harness a small amount of power from their turbine system. I would think on a train, it would barely be noticeable (if at all).
posted