 |
Re: Humboldt Eastern Railroad-Hydrogen? Why not an atomic reactor-at least we know how to do that....
Author: BOB2
Date: 09-17-2018 - 07:41
What a load of rubbish and feel good nonsense, especially from the guy he's conned a the Chamber....
Back in the 60's, an old acquaintance I knew up at the Jet Propulsion Lab, "Bad" Brad Hauser, did work on a design for an atomic powered locomotive, using a submarine sized reactor..... While this was well before FRA crash tests and standards, upon further reflection, they concluded that while we could easily power traction motors with an on-board atomic reactor, it would probably not be a good idea.
I sat on a committee that funded a bunch of research at the Southwest Research Institute, down in San Antonio to work on early "clean" locomotive technology, which resulted in today's Tier 3 and Tier 4 technologies, which included looking at "far out" stuff like hydrogen fuel cells. I also worked with SunLine Transit on a proposed bus tracking "ITS" project back when they were doing one of the hydrogen powered bus demonstrations, and the very successful hythane demonstration that they did.
So I am very familiar with the present state of the economics and cost effectiveness of hydrogen as a heavy duty fuel. And, I wouldn't buy what these folks are claiming, and want someone to pony up $10 million in "seed" money for....the current state of the art for hydrogen locomotives is in no way economically viable.
There is no traffic base for even a a Tier 3 or 4 locomotive hauled train, as this port offers no locational advantage, and there are a dozen other cheaper ways to add 4 double stack train a day, to a about a dozen other existing routes, from existing ports, without the need to spend $10 billion to do it. And, Alf if right, even if there were ever to be the need to move 4 container trains a day out of the Port of Eureka, it would be way cheaper to rebuild the NWP.
Is it a "swindle"? I can't say, as I can't read their minds...., nor have I been presented any such evidence, as a trial juror.
Is it a "pipe dream" from consuming too much Humboldt "whacky tobacky"? I don't know that, but I guess I can't rule that out after reading this, either....
I can say that this proposal does sounds like a lot of BS, and sure smells like a lot of BS, to me. But, of course, that's what I thought when I saw the early planning work on the CHSRA's "runaway money train" fiasco, too. So maybe they're onto something here?
Back in the 60's, an old acquaintance I knew up at the Jet Propulsion Lab, "Bad" Brad Hauser, did work on a design for an atomic powered locomotive, using a submarine sized reactor..... While this was well before FRA crash tests and standards, upon further reflection, they concluded that while we could easily power traction motors with an on-board atomic reactor, it would probably not be a good idea.
I sat on a committee that funded a bunch of research at the Southwest Research Institute, down in San Antonio to work on early "clean" locomotive technology, which resulted in today's Tier 3 and Tier 4 technologies, which included looking at "far out" stuff like hydrogen fuel cells. I also worked with SunLine Transit on a proposed bus tracking "ITS" project back when they were doing one of the hydrogen powered bus demonstrations, and the very successful hythane demonstration that they did.
So I am very familiar with the present state of the economics and cost effectiveness of hydrogen as a heavy duty fuel. And, I wouldn't buy what these folks are claiming, and want someone to pony up $10 million in "seed" money for....the current state of the art for hydrogen locomotives is in no way economically viable.
There is no traffic base for even a a Tier 3 or 4 locomotive hauled train, as this port offers no locational advantage, and there are a dozen other cheaper ways to add 4 double stack train a day, to a about a dozen other existing routes, from existing ports, without the need to spend $10 billion to do it. And, Alf if right, even if there were ever to be the need to move 4 container trains a day out of the Port of Eureka, it would be way cheaper to rebuild the NWP.
Is it a "swindle"? I can't say, as I can't read their minds...., nor have I been presented any such evidence, as a trial juror.
Is it a "pipe dream" from consuming too much Humboldt "whacky tobacky"? I don't know that, but I guess I can't rule that out after reading this, either....
I can say that this proposal does sounds like a lot of BS, and sure smells like a lot of BS, to me. But, of course, that's what I thought when I saw the early planning work on the CHSRA's "runaway money train" fiasco, too. So maybe they're onto something here?
