 |
Re: "Rail energy storage" Peak KWH pricing?
Author: BOB2
Date: 04-22-2016 - 12:28
It's an interesting idea, but sounds expensive for the marginal kilowatts, as choo-cho's themselves ain't that cheap.
We've used off peak nuke power, in the past, to pump water uphill, to release it, to increase peak hydro capacity. And, we have peaker plants, often NG fired turbines. My City is spending a fortune on an "air conditioning" plant, by updating our hopelessly obsolete plant......
When the phony Enron driven energy market price rigging crisis hit CA back in the 2000's, a transit agency I worked with, was the DOE center for hydrogen. They worked with the utility who built peaker plants that ran on hythane, the transit operator made from hydrogen, separated from water, using excess power from off peak windmill generation. They used the hythane in the buses, as well. It was the only "profitable" hydrogen produced, since the "off peak" wind power to separate "water" was essentially free.
Hydro has been pretty well exploited in much of the west, due to the need for agriculture water storage, and there just ain't that many rivers left to dam. Nukes are okay with me, but I think we need to look at the 3rd wave, low impact reactors, that seem to hold more promise than the very costly "mega" sized plants of our youth. Geothermal is being developed, and, wind, and solar costs have fallen to levels in places like Phoenix, with high solar "reliability", and is becoming competitive with marginal peak costs from other sources.
Of course, good old fashioned conservation is still one of the cheapest ways to buy a marginal kilowatt of peak power. As we've seen now with "3rd" wave LED's, yes, you can reduce energy needs for light by as much as 90%...and they give better light. And, proper market pricing of marginal peak and off peak power could even cause you to respond to a proper market signal, by buying one of those Tesla battery packs to store cheaper off peak power, which would reduce peak demand....?
RR electrification is expensive short term, but may be cheaper long term, depending on various "difficult to predict" potential operational and financing assumptions one uses. But, I've worked on about a half a dozen studies looking at this, and for "energy conservation", or for CO2, or other health standard pollutants, it's pretty pricey, compared to other "low hanging" fruit....and, with little benefit to RR stockholders.
Of course, the Bullet Train, electrified or not, is probably one of the worst carbon investments you could possibly make, on a marginal cost per ton of emissions saved, accounting basis.
We've used off peak nuke power, in the past, to pump water uphill, to release it, to increase peak hydro capacity. And, we have peaker plants, often NG fired turbines. My City is spending a fortune on an "air conditioning" plant, by updating our hopelessly obsolete plant......
When the phony Enron driven energy market price rigging crisis hit CA back in the 2000's, a transit agency I worked with, was the DOE center for hydrogen. They worked with the utility who built peaker plants that ran on hythane, the transit operator made from hydrogen, separated from water, using excess power from off peak windmill generation. They used the hythane in the buses, as well. It was the only "profitable" hydrogen produced, since the "off peak" wind power to separate "water" was essentially free.
Hydro has been pretty well exploited in much of the west, due to the need for agriculture water storage, and there just ain't that many rivers left to dam. Nukes are okay with me, but I think we need to look at the 3rd wave, low impact reactors, that seem to hold more promise than the very costly "mega" sized plants of our youth. Geothermal is being developed, and, wind, and solar costs have fallen to levels in places like Phoenix, with high solar "reliability", and is becoming competitive with marginal peak costs from other sources.
Of course, good old fashioned conservation is still one of the cheapest ways to buy a marginal kilowatt of peak power. As we've seen now with "3rd" wave LED's, yes, you can reduce energy needs for light by as much as 90%...and they give better light. And, proper market pricing of marginal peak and off peak power could even cause you to respond to a proper market signal, by buying one of those Tesla battery packs to store cheaper off peak power, which would reduce peak demand....?
RR electrification is expensive short term, but may be cheaper long term, depending on various "difficult to predict" potential operational and financing assumptions one uses. But, I've worked on about a half a dozen studies looking at this, and for "energy conservation", or for CO2, or other health standard pollutants, it's pretty pricey, compared to other "low hanging" fruit....and, with little benefit to RR stockholders.
Of course, the Bullet Train, electrified or not, is probably one of the worst carbon investments you could possibly make, on a marginal cost per ton of emissions saved, accounting basis.
