Shouldnt railways do more to generate various forms of power ?

[edwin_m]

Or, looking at it another way: HS2 plans to install tunnel cooling systems.

Many tunnels have tunnel cooling systems. The difference here is that they plan to make use of the excess heat rather than just dumping it into the atmosphere.

 

[najaB]

Many tunnels have tunnel cooling systems. The difference here is that they plan to make use of the excess heat rather than just dumping it into the atmosphere.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think this is a great idea. But it's easy to spin this as HS2 being altruistic, where they're actually being pragmatic.

 

[edwin_m]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think this is a great idea. But it's easy to spin this as HS2 being altruistic, where they're actually being pragmatic.

Yes, they have to cool the tunnel anyway, but I don't think we can begrudge that they will make a bit of cash selling off the heat while also helping the environment. What's not to like?

 

[plarailfan]

Just a few observations }-
Biomass looks to have a lot of potential for generating electricity. Maybe we could grow our own supply in Wales / Scotland ? and send it by electric powered train to the power station(s) ? More Drax style operations and more rail freight business...
London Transport had their own power station at lillie bridge.
I think we have a good mixture of energy in the UK, with nuclear, wind, coal, wave, solar, etc. If one source goes into disarray, hopefully the remaining options will keep us going.
With increasing population, more power and energy will be required in the future, with more demand for food and water distribution and more transportation systems will be required (new roads / rail links).

 

[HSTEd]

Given the record of private Vs public sector investment, it's entirely reasonable to contend that what you're actually saying here is that the private sector is not stupid enough to invest in nuclear.

Or it's simply because the very high rates of return commanded by private investors make it impossible for things like nuclear to compete?

When you need 10% real return on capital invested, you are nto going to go for the 60 year lifespan nuclear station at £5000/kW, you go for the OCGT at £300/kW. Or the CCGT at £1500/kW.
It's the same reason tidal and geothermal are going nowhere.
THey require decades long investments that only the state can feasibly do.

It won't by definition be large quantities, because you say yourself that the capacity is only needed for a relatively small number of days, rather than running baseload (which drove a coach and horses through the wholesale-market business case for conventional generation). .

Only for a small number of days, but once you have effectively driven all of the baseload out of the market, you could quite easily end up with a situation where you have 50-60GWe of very low efficiency open cycle gas turbines burning gas in a way that we could never imagine today.
Instead of 60% efficient, try 30%.

 

[option]

As has already been said, NR can't generate traction power, as they don't have anywhere to put the sorts of equipment required.
However, power for stations, control centres, depots etc could be partly provided by solar pv, & it would increase the resilience of those bits of infrastructure. Combined with more efficient energy usage, eg led lighting, more efficient display screens, back office equipment etc, + more use of natural light, self-generated power could be a reasonable chunk.


eg. West Mids control centre, roof area of 1400m2
~ 700 panels (248.5 kWp)
Annual PV energy = 235347 kWh
£105000 for panels + £22500 for inverters, + cabling & fitting (10%) = £140,000
I have no idea what NR are paying per kWh, even if it was as low as 5p/kWh, that one roof would be ~£11k of electricity per year

Moor St station 650m2
Birmingham International 3000m2
Coventry 2000m2