Battery powered trains

[NLC1072]

Renewables actually work more efficiently being local to where the power will be used. Another benefit is no need for more pylons everywhere. Plaster all roofs (moving and stationery - south facing ones atleast) with solar panels, small (12inch) turbines everywhere, on every signal and OHLE gantry, for example. Hydro however is the most efficient (and safe*)form of renewable. *lets stop this obsession with nuclear please - to put it EXTREMELY simply, dabbling in all that is one of the dodgiest things we do.
By the way, cheers Nym for the explanation of regenerative braking. I was thinking of the Enviro 400s, guess they're the latter of the two. Could reg. braking be used on trains?

It is on C2C already =)

 

[HSTEd]

Hydrogen Fuel Cells for traction applications are however a dead end.

Once you have hydrogen you can just make methanol using atmospheric carbon dioxide and then either use that or do the Mobil process to produce synthetic liquid fuels with far higher energy density.

Hydrogen has far better uses than simply burning it/fuel celling it.


And nuclear is the future, its the only power technology we have that can produce the vast quantities of electricity required by a modern civilisation, especially one that will have to phase out the use of natural gas for pretty much everything it is currently used for.

Solar and wind just won't cut it.

 

[Nym]

Not to mention that nuclear doesn't require vast massess of rare earth metals (other than unranium and the control systems) to make the electrical side, ya know... work...

 

[NLC1072]

Hydrogen Fuel Cells for traction applications are however a dead end.

Once you have hydrogen you can just make methanol using atmospheric carbon dioxide and then either use that or do the Mobil process to produce synthetic liquid fuels with far higher energy density.

Hydrogen has far better uses than simply burning it/fuel celling it.


And nuclear is the future, its the only power technology we have that can produce the vast quantities of electricity required by a modern civilisation, especially one that will have to phase out the use of natural gas for pretty much everything it is currently used for.

Solar and wind just won't cut it.

But from those diagrams that Nym so kindly provided, we need power stations that can be easily taken in and out of service to cater for rise and fall of demand, so nuclear energy will never be the only answer as you can't simply just turn off a nuclear reactor when not needed and having so much waste energy would be uneconomical. Renewable sources area good way to plug this gap, but I don't see us totally abandoning fossil fuels in the near to medium term future.

 

[Nym]

But from those diagrams that Nym so kindly provided, we need power stations that can be easily taken in and out of service to cater for rise and fall of demand, so nuclear energy will never be the only answer as you can't simply just turn off a nuclear reactor when not needed and having so much waste energy would be uneconomical. Renewable sources area good way to plug this gap, but I don't see us totally abandoning fossil fuels in the near to medium term future.

Unless of course, as I'd mentioned we use H2 plants to smooth the curve, it is possible to ramp nuclear plants slightly, but not enough.

"Renewables" don't plug this gap at all in their current form as the're not predictable, I have covered this in greater detail previously. There needs to be something that can be ramped above the baseline, be that be moving the baseline up with the use of nuclear and leveling demand by ramping H2 (and other fuels from H2) production, or by continued use of OCGT, coal and disel plants to ramp the production curve in line with the demand curve.

If we move onto a model where the production baseline covers the non controllable demand peak, then it's happy days, we can plug the demand drops with a national network of H2 production plants, using this to produce other fuels further up the chain, methane, petrol, paraffin (Jet Fuel), diesel etc. And renewables will play their part if the're predictable enough, and we get some better storage schemes going... But storage takes a shed tonne of land and water.

 

[Class172]

It would also mean we could take an off the shelf EMU and install this kit in one or two of the trailers to have a HEMU (Hydrogen-Electric Multipule Unit).

I don't know why but when I saw 'HEMU' it instantly made me smile.

I am a supporter of hydrogen use in transport; in my opinion we should be putting much more research and money into it than electric technology (by which I refer to cars).

 

[judethegreat]

QUOTE BY NYM:
The problem with local generation is the load profile will not match the generating profile, especially on renewables, hence why all local generation is grid tied, and people have to pay for £3,000 worth of power electronics to connect themselves to the grid and their renewable source.

Remember, turbines would need to be grid tied, and if we slap them on OHLE pylons we'd need to either move to a dirty DC grid (Not gonna happen!) or strap non-standard power electronics onto each one, and then the current phase inbalance problems get made worse by the generators on each phase being different, rather than just loads, that one can plan around easyer.

Nuclear is required in the UK, end of, once we run out of gas for CCGT plants we will need a baseline generating profile from somwhere, tidal and wind can go some way toward this, but the major baseline needs to come from nuclear, coal or CCGT. Until we get massive offshore plants for wind and tidal sorted. Even then, I dowbt we can build enough.

Regenerative braking IS used on trains... A lot of EMUs use this now.

QUOTE ENDS
I know it's different to talking about trains, but I know lots of people who live off the grid but still have enough electricity for their NEEDS (without fuel powered generators). It's about reducing unnecessary consumption. The reason you legally have to be tied in to the grid is because you are not allowed to produce above a certain (low, relative to most households' consumption) amount without selling some to the grid. It's a way of stopping people disconnecting themselves from "the man". Aswell, if the fossil fuel companies hadn't kept their stranglehold on things for decades, all the technologies we talk about would have long been far more advanced than they are currently. Solar is STILL being held back, they've obviously not found a way of making enough money from it yet, hence building coal-fired power stations in India!!!
With all due respect, I think it's very short-sighted, and selfish to future generations/life on this planet, to say we need nuclear, as you acknowledge just for the short term, given it leaves a legacy for tens of thousands of years. I think it would be slightly quicker to sort out wind, solar and hydro provision
Anyway, this should be in the sustainable living thread, I know..
Am enjoying reading about hydrogen, by the way

 

[90019]

But from those diagrams that Nym so kindly provided, we need power stations that can be easily taken in and out of service to cater for rise and fall of demand, so nuclear energy will never be the only answer as you can't simply just turn off a nuclear reactor when not needed and having so much waste energy would be uneconomical. Renewable sources area good way to plug this gap, but I don't see us totally abandoning fossil fuels in the near to medium term future.

Ideally, what we need is more pumped storage hydroelectric plants for when a sudden increase in demand occurs.

 

[Nym]

Ideally, what we need is more pumped storage hydroelectric plants for when a sudden increase in demand occurs.

Indeed, but they take up a hell of a lot of land, are very unpopular and do sod all to increase our baseline.

And remember, the diagram I provides DOES NOT include pumping, it only included metered demand, as this gets the point across better than anything else, use a different datum point, the generated and interconnector demand profile, and it looks very different...

Also, I'm not getting into the political debate or the sustainable living thread, because I really, really, can't be bothered arguing the political toss on these things, like most engineers...

This magical wind power thing has many very significant problems with implementing it, or when it is implemented causing changes to local enviroment. But no-one seems to care about this in the green brigade who sit as anti-nuclear. But unless we're going to change every device and the whole method of operation for the national grid, synchronous turbine driven generation will remain the baseline, and the best choice for the grid. And the best baseline option for this is nuclear, simple as.

Wind has it's place, tidal has it's place, but equally, OCGT, CCGT, Coal and Nuclear have their place. If one can work a heavily rampable production that is needed such as H2 into the grid, then one can begin to move away from the highly rampable, and highly horrible generating sources, such as diesel and OCGT. Once the baseline starts to move up toward the top of the demand curve, we should be able to move away from Coal. And if the known baseline sits above the top of the demand curve we can remove all rampable generating sources. (Provided pumping can provide peak demands, so the baseline can sit below the top end, provided pumping can plug the gap). And using something like H2 production, linked to a grid of Nuclear, wind and tidal stations, will result in a grid that can respond very quickly by changing H2 production, and pumping. And major coal, OCGT and diesel generation will be a thing of the past.

If H2 is then as readily available as it would be in this situation, fuel production could move over to extending H2 chains rather than digging it up, and the UK could once again become a major player in fuel production, provided we can keep building the plants fast enough.

 

[judethegreat]

Hydro, done right, on a large or small local scale is constant, reliable AND PLENTIFUL, without need for storage.

 

[Nym]

Hydro, done right, on a large or small local scale is constant, reliable AND PLENTIFUL, without need for storage.

We don't NEED a constant supply though! We NEED a rampable supply!

And not to mention you could dam every river in the country and not provide enough power...

Local supplies off the grid from Hydro are workable though, but again, like wind, need significant amount of power electronics to work. You can't put a synchronous machine on a river to provide a rampable supply, it just doesn't work without an insanely big mass of water.

 

[NLC1072]

Unless of course, as I'd mentioned we use H2 plants to smooth the curve, it is possible to ramp nuclear plants slightly, but not enough.

"Renewables" don't plug this gap at all in their current form as the're not predictable, I have covered this in greater detail previously. There needs to be something that can be ramped above the baseline, be that be moving the baseline up with the use of nuclear and leveling demand by ramping H2 (and other fuels from H2) production, or by continued use of OCGT, coal and disel plants to ramp the production curve in line with the demand curve.

If we move onto a model where the production baseline covers the non controllable demand peak, then it's happy days, we can plug the demand drops with a national network of H2 production plants, using this to produce other fuels further up the chain, methane, petrol, paraffin (Jet Fuel), diesel etc. And renewables will play their part if the're predictable enough, and we get some better storage schemes going... But storage takes a shed tonne of land and water.

Very good idea, as you have discussed before but I think that we will always need some sort of almost instant on off power plants, and not forgetting that power consumption goes up in the winter, so the peak demand will be lower in the summer, thus leaving you with the predicament of either producing the hydrogen through out the day and more so in the night, or doing as we do now and reducing the power output to the grid.... which is where the fosil fuel power stations come in in the winter to cater for the extra demand. Although I like the idea of parafin etc... just hope we can produce enough!

 

[90019]

Solar is STILL being held back

How is solar being held back? :?

Hydro, done right, on a large or small local scale is constant, reliable AND PLENTIFUL, without need for storage.

Hydroelectric is fine as a supplementary source, but cannot be used as a main source in this country because there is nowhere near the capacity needed available.

Indeed, but they take up a hell of a lot of land, are very unpopular and do sod all to increase our baseline.

I was meaning more as a backup that can be brought into use at short notice.

 

[Nym]

You can turn off nuclear plants for summer (a fair few do anyway for maintenance cycles) but it takes about a week to turn one off, so you can't do daily demand curves, but you can do annual demand curves.

And if H2 storage is big enough, then it is possible to have a lot more produced in summer than winter, but the thing at the moment is, with the move to more high tech and service industries in the UK from baseline production and plant, the summer demand is catching up with winter demand with the widespread use of intergrated HVAC systems.

How is solar being held back? :?

If we're on about PV Cells here, then theres just too much silicon and Gallium Arsenide in them to be viable IMO, indirect solar has more of a future

Hydroelectric is fine as a supplementary source, but cannot be used as a main source in this country because there is nowhere near the capacity needed available.
I was meaning more as a backup that can be brought into use at short notice.

We already have this, it's known as the "Pumping capacity" and yes, I agree we do need hydro storage in our arsenal to tackle the stupid load profile thanks to out 9 - 5 lifestyle.

 

[NLC1072]

Indeed, but they take up a hell of a lot of land, are very unpopular and do sod all to increase our baseline.

And remember, the diagram I provides DOES NOT include pumping, it only included metered demand, as this gets the point across better than anything else, use a different datum point, the generated and interconnector demand profile, and it looks very different...

Also, I'm not getting into the political debate or the sustainable living thread, because I really, really, can't be bothered arguing the political toss on these things, like most engineers...

This magical wind power thing has many very significant problems with implementing it, or when it is implemented causing changes to local enviroment. But no-one seems to care about this in the green brigade who sit as anti-nuclear. But unless we're going to change every device and the whole method of operation for the national grid, synchronous turbine driven generation will remain the baseline, and the best choice for the grid. And the best baseline option for this is nuclear, simple as.

Wind has it's place, tidal has it's place, but equally, OCGT, CCGT, Coal and Nuclear have their place. If one can work a heavily rampable production that is needed such as H2 into the grid, then one can begin to move away from the highly rampable, and highly horrible generating sources, such as diesel and OCGT. Once the baseline starts to move up toward the top of the demand curve, we should be able to move away from Coal. And if the known baseline sits above the top of the demand curve we can remove all rampable generating sources. (Provided pumping can provide peak demands, so the baseline can sit below the top end, provided pumping can plug the gap). And using something like H2 production, linked to a grid of Nuclear, wind and tidal stations, will result in a grid that can respond very quickly by changing H2 production, and pumping. And major coal, OCGT and diesel generation will be a thing of the past.

If H2 is then as readily available as it would be in this situation, fuel production could move over to extending H2 chains rather than digging it up, and the UK could once again become a major player in fuel production, provided we can keep building the plants fast enough.

We just have to make sure that we don't end up shorting ourselves of H2 if we become dependant on it if we raise the baseline and use H2 production as the catalyst for such an event

 

[Nym]

We just have to make sure that we don't end up shorting ourselves of H2 if we become dependant on it if we raise the baseline and use H2 production as the catalyst for such an event

Don't know if it was fully clear or not, but unpredictable renewables do not form part of the basline in any of my models, this is provided by CCGT and Nuclear. The windfarms ramping will provide additional H2 capacity.


Also, I just realised I'm banding round OCGT and CCGT and not realising that not many will know what these are...

Open Cycle Gas Turbine
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

OCGTs are basically jet engines, not that efficent because all the heat is wasted, but easy to ramp up and down.
CCGTs use the heat left over to spin other turbines via a heat exchanger, and now approach 80% efficnency.

 

[NLC1072]

Don't know if it was fully clear or not, but unpredictable renewables do not form part of the basline in any of my models, this is provided by OCGT and Nuclear. The windfarms ramping will provide additional H2 capacity.

Appologies!

 

[90019]

If we're on about PV Cells here, then theres just too much silicon and Gallium Arsenide in them to be viable IMO, indirect solar has more of a future

That was more directed at this comment by judethegreat:

Solar is STILL being held back, they've obviously not found a way of making enough money from it yet

We already have this, it's known as the "Pumping capacity" and yes, I agree we do need hydro storage in our arsenal to tackle the stupid load profile thanks to out 9 - 5 lifestyle.

I know - the point I was originally making was that a few more of them wouldn't go amiss.

 

[HSTEd]

But from those diagrams that Nym so kindly provided, we need power stations that can be easily taken in and out of service to cater for rise and fall of demand, so nuclear energy will never be the only answer as you can't simply just turn off a nuclear reactor when not needed and having so much waste energy would be uneconomical. Renewable sources area good way to plug this gap, but I don't see us totally abandoning fossil fuels in the near to medium term future.

Renewables would be good if they were available on demand. But they are not.
I can't make the wind blow during half time of the world cup second round match when hundreds of thousands of people put the kettle on.

The best alternative is overbuilding nuclear capacity and using what hydro there is for peaking, and then simply demand managing by using the spare electricity for hydrogen electrolysis.

Electrolysis can go from 0-100% and back again in a matter of seconds, especially as these would be high pressure room temperature cells for minimum capital cost and highest cycling ability.

And the hydrogen would be used for coal hydrogenation, fertiliser production, steel production and a host of other industrial bits and pieces rather than used in grid fuel cells which are a terrible idea.

EDIT:

Additionally it appears that the next generation of modular Generation III+ nuclear power plants (the GE-Hitachi ESBWR and the Westinghouse AP1000 being chief amongst them, and maybe including the Enhanced CANDU 6, not the disasterous EPR) will possibly breach the $1500/kW overnight capital cost barrier.

This would potentially make them cheaper to build than CCGT plants, at which point CCGTs are finished.
ASsuming the new "generic" approvals process is properly streamlined.

 

[judethegreat]

How is solar being held back? :?

The most recent example being the government's announcement to reduce either the grants to have panels fitted or the tariffs people receive for selling to the grid. Generally though, panels could be a lot more massly produced thus making them cheaper to buy, aswell as technology making them more efficient.

Hydroelectric is fine as a supplementary source, but cannot be used as a main source in this country because there is nowhere near the capacity needed available.

Ok, fine for what we NEED, produced WHERE it's going to be used. POSSIBLY not enough for the excessive amount we actually use.

 

[Nym]

Sorry, but with China's current policies on rare earth metals like silion, you can't cheaply produce PV cells...!

 

[NLC1072]

Renewables would be good if they were available on demand. But they are not.
I can't make the wind blow during half time of the world cup second round match when hundreds of thousands of people put the kettle on.

The best alternative is overbuilding nuclear capacity and using what hydro there is for peaking, and then simply demand managing by using the spare electricity for hydrogen electrolysis.

Electrolysis can go from 0-100% and back again in a matter of seconds, especially as these would be high pressure room temperature cells for minimum capital cost and highest cycling ability.

And the hydrogen would be used for coal hydrogenation, fertiliser production, steel production and a host of other industrial bits and pieces rather than used in grid fuel cells which are a terrible idea.

Problem with this is when electricity demand increases it is H2 that gets the short straw, production will have to fall, increasing H2 prices and creating shortages. And we all know who slow politicians are to react to such circumstances, if we became too dependant on H2 in the future and this happened, it would be our own goal of the century... IMO =)

 

[judethegreat]

Ok, nothing's perfect, certainly not electricity...
What is indirect solar, not familiar with that term?

 

[NLC1072]

Ok, nothing's perfect, certainly not electricity...
What is indirect solar, not familiar with that term?

Wind, Tidal, Biomatter etc... things that concentrate the suns power via an indirect means.

 

[Nym]

Wind, Tidal, Biomatter etc... things that concentrate the suns power via an indirect means.

Not in my terms no, they are their respective terms, (and tidal is sod all to do with the sun other than the moon's orbit!)

I'm on about not using PV cells but heated turbines like the spanish plants do...

That make use of helliostats to heat water and drive a turbine in the traditional way...

Such as PS10...

 

[90019]

The most recent example being the government's announcement to reduce either the grants to have panels fitted or the tariffs people receive for selling to the grid.

You do realise that the grant system for PV cells was a joke, right?
For those who couldn't afford them, it made little difference - all it did was reduce the amount that those who could afford them anyway had to pay.

Generally though, panels could be a lot more massly produced thus making them cheaper to buy, aswell as technology making them more efficient.

Not just now they couldn't, for the reasons mentioned by Nym.
There's also a huge amount of work needed to try and increase the efficiency of them, which is currently crap.

Ok, fine for what we NEED, produced WHERE it's going to be used. POSSIBLY not enough for the excessive amount we actually use.

So what do you propose?
A ban on all electricity use that you deem to be excessive?

Regardless, hydroelectric will never have sufficient capacity to supply the country.
Overall, renewables do not provide a reliable enough supply to meet the required demand - or are you quite happy with brownouts and/or blackouts when demand gets too high and things simply cut out?

 

[HSTEd]

Problem with this is when electricity demand increases it is H2 that gets the short straw, production will have to fall, increasing H2 prices and creating shortages. And we all know who slow politicians are to react to such circumstances, if we became too dependant on H2 in the future and this happened, it would be our own goal of the century... IMO =)

In that case the answer is simple.

MORE REACTORS

 

[NLC1072]

Not in my terms no, they are their respective terms, (and tidal is sod all to do with the sun other than the moon's orbit!)

I'm on about not using PV cells but heated turbines like the spanish plants do...

That make use of helliostats to heat water and drive a turbine in the traditional way...

Such as PS10...

Sorry was thinking about wave power... whole different kettle of fish, I remember seeing a long jointed cylinder floating on the waters surface and using the waves power to operate the joints and collect power from them IIRC a couple of years back in the paper about it

Feel silly now!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In that case the answer is simple.

MORE REACTORS

As I said, depends whether the politicians get their fingers out quick enough!

 

[judethegreat]

You do realise that the grant system for PV cells was a joke, right?
For those who couldn't afford them, it made little difference - all it did was reduce the amount that those who could afford them anyway had to pay.

Seems a bit odd that the ConDems chose this one with which to even things out between rich and poor..


Not just now they couldn't, for the reasons mentioned by Nym.
There's also a huge amount of work needed to try and increase the efficiency of them, which is currently crap.

The point was they could have done over the last several decades, as usual economics stopped (and is still stopping) it.


So what do you propose?
A ban on all electricity use that you deem to be excessive?

Regardless, hydroelectric will never have sufficient capacity to supply the country.
Overall, renewables do not provide a reliable enough supply to meet the required demand - or are you quite happy with brownouts and/or blackouts when demand gets too high and things simply cut out?

If your lifestyle is causing harm, you need to change your lifestyle. Period.

 

[Nym]

If your lifestyle is causing harm, you need to change your lifestyle. Period.

Friendly advice on that, don't start on those who proberbly have a much more sustainable lifestyle than yourself

Actual fact, you won't change lifestyles without financial penalties. Simple as.

Such as the whole big cars thing, people will continue to buy big pointless BMW X5s because those who can afford it will sacrifise other things before their stupid cars. Silly ****s will continue to buy new cars and scrap perferctly good old ones. The only thing that can be done to change lifestyles is financial incentive or penalty. Even then, it's damn near impossible.

Just look at what difference Economy7 made...