[ale] [OT][Way OT] Industrial Power Question

[Jeff Lightner]

A huge portion of our population learned that SUV stands for "Sucks Up
Valuables" during the past couple of years.   It's a big reason you can
buy them dirt cheap now (even more so than most autos).

Speaking of which, I just got a great deal on a new Chrysler (not an
SUV).   The price on the one I was looking at went down by more than
$2000 AND I got 0% financing without having to give back the rebates.


-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
Thompson Freeman
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:32 PM
To: ale at ale.org
Subject: Re: [ale] [OT][Way OT] Industrial Power Question

On 02/06/2009 12:10:00 PM, Jim Kinney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Thompson Freeman
> <tfreeman at intel.digichem.net> wrote:
> >
> > My apologies to those who really don't want to see this.
> > Unfortunately ALE is one place where I can consistently
> > find intelligent technically informed people, so on the
> > chance ...
> >
> > During the era of $4/gallon fuel, I got to blue sky
> > thinking about solar power and transportation.
> > Specifically, rail and/or light rail.
> >
> > If my back-of-the-envelop calculations are anywhere near
> > correct, it is now technically feasible to run a rail
> > transportation system (say like MARTA for instance)
> > entirely from solar power collected from the right of
> way
> > of the tracks and the roofs of the stations.
> >
> > I have recently seen a short article claiming a thermal
> > solar conversion system is economically competitive with
> > more traditional electric generation schemes.
> >
> > For the back of the envelope stuff...
> >
> > My understanding is that current solar collection runs
> > about 1 watt/sq ft of collection area.
> 
> I am seeing 10W/sq ft on most current PV installations.

I was working from memory. That said, 10W/sq ft sounds  
reasonable.
> 
>  To allow for clouds
> > etc, take that to 0.5 watt/sq ft. Lets use a figure of 1
> > horsepower=1kw, which is some 20% high, but keeps the
> > number simple and turns on a light also. The Charlotte
> Lynx
> > system runs vehicles of 780 rated horsepower,
> 
> Reasonable. The modern diesel/electric is 2200 HP. People
> haulers like
> MARTA use bi-directional push-me/pull-me trains. So a
> "short train" (2
> car) is likely around 800 HP (12-15 seconds to 50 mph
> thumnail
> estimate). Let's call it 1kHP for easy round number and
> 1hp=1kw again
> for easy.
> 
> 
>  which means
> > that MARTA may be up to a thousand?? In any event,
> 780x2000
> > suggests Charlotte would need to dedicate 1.5  
> million >sq ft of collection per running vehicle for full  
> power   > usage.

Ok, making the correction puts Charlotte &/or Atlanta in  
the 150,000 - 200,000 sq ft range of collectors per  
operating unit. Which is more better doable.

> And MARTA would need 200k sq ft/train car pair
> (1000hp/pair x 1000W/hp
> = 1,000,000 W/train pair; divide by a 50% collection ratio
> of 5W/ft sq
> = 200,000 ft sq.)
> 
> > Since the vehicles are under full power for only short
> > periods of time that 1.5 million figure is probably a
> > multiple of the required power needs, but I don't have
> the
> > background to make the adjustment. In any event, that
> > figure is approximately a strip 14 miles long by 20 ft
> > wide, or the right of way available to one track of the
> > Lynx line here.
> >
> > The question I have for the bright people here is "Can
> you
> > refine these figures/guesses to something a little more
> > defensible?"
> >
> > I probably should offer to purchase a round of virtual
> beer
> > for the participants...
> >
> > Thanks for the use of bandwidth, and the opportunity to
> > scratch a nagging itch.
> 
> I have always wondered why PV has not been mandated for
> rooftops. It
> just keeps getting better and better.
> The more that is in use, the more research that gets done
> to make it better.
> 
> <tinfoil beanie> of course Exxon, BP, Ford and GM are
> secretly
> assassinating photovoltaic researchers
> worldwide..</tinfoil beanie>

You can take the tinfoil beanie off on this one. Exxon et  
al are not going to really push solar because solar doesn't  
show up even as a rounding error on their business models.  
The bosses are charged with making their 10% profit without  
a whole lot of risk. Risky profit is going to take a much  
higher level of profit to be worthwhile, and most solar  
schemes that I've heard of are going to take 10 years to  
turn their profit. Not exactly a deal maker. Plus a huge  
percentage of our population really really wants to show  
off with a SUV...

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
 
Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
----------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
----------------------------------