This is progress?

OK - a comment (about trains)
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_125.shtml
"Braking energy can be stored as gravitational energy by driving the
vehicle up a ramp whenever you want to slow down. This gravitational
energy storage option is rather inflexible, since there must be a ramp
in the right place. It’s an option that’s most useful for trains, and
it is illustrated by the London Underground’s Victoria line, which has
hump-back stations. Each station is at the top of a hill in the track.
Arriving trains are automatically slowed down by the hill, and
departing trains are accelerated as they go down the far side of the
hill. The hump-back-station design provides an energy saving of 5% and
makes the trains run 9% faster."

Australia has a great number of level crossings. Now, I realise this
is more expensive than putting a red light camera on the crossing
but...
Some of the level crossings are very close to stations. It occurs to
me that if you DID make an overland hump-back station in order to get
the benefits listed above, you really could let the cars go underneath
the station, in which case we'd lose at least one level crossing per
station, possibly more. NB: getting rid of a crossing is only a bonus
- not the reason for having hump-backed stations in itself.

I suppose the $ value of doing it would be the fuel and time saved, as
in the quote, + (average deaths per year on the crossings you got rid
of multiplied by a $ value for each life) + $ car and train damage,
insurance claims + stoppage time from accidents, police and amulance
etc) + savings from servicing the level crossing(s), less the cost of
maintaining the flyover. I wonder if the $ value could work as a
significant chunk of the cost (especially since the federal govt.
would chip in because it's changed into an environmental issue, not
strictly transport any more).

Many objections such as there are 300 level crossings and only 150
stations, might be cheaper to use regenerative breaking, need
completely different rolling stock etc. but probably not the most hare-
brained idea ever in this forum (I've only had a double!)

 

News to me,
they are used everywhere here in Melbourne to promote whatever sponsor
is spruked whenever a major event is on.

 

CrazyCam wrote...

It's a relative term. No fossil fuel is clean. And a lot of renewable energy
ain't that clean, either, particularly the hydro sets that draw on the grid to
pump the water back up the hill for use the next day using, yep, you guessed it,
low cost coal fired base load energy...

 

Well, that kind of set up isn't real renewable energy.

The water being pumped up hill, is just acting as a big energy store,
"holding" energy that would otherwise leak out of the system unused.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I think vehicles have come further in the last ten years than in the
previous 30.

You poor bastard.

Theo

 

The first ones imported to Aus were 1100s at 36hp, the 1200s were
40hp, hence 30Kw.

Theo

 

The 149 Red motor in the EH was advertised as 100hp. OK, 2.5litre.

Theo

 

I recall having a discussion with someone about a decade ago about why
pumping the water back up into the Tassie highlands didn't create
extra energy. OK - there is a case for low power use periods to chuck
the water back up there but I bet the infrastructure requirements
would use more carbon to set up. This guy couldn't get his head around
the idea that eternal free energy simply does not exist. He really
believed that setting a power station at the bottom of a hill with no
exit and using the power generated to pump all the water back up the
hill would work and have excess electricity. I gave up . . . off ya go
matey. Build one. I'd like my own perpetual motion machine. It would
be cool.

 

The 149 Red motor in the EH was advertised as 100hp. OK, 2.5litre.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wiki backs you up.
Gawd that's far higher than I ever thought. I thought the 161 was
aproaching 100hp and the 186 about 120 so I figured a 173 (or 179) would be
the 75kw mark but I see the daggy low-comp 173 is 112bhp (84kw).

 

I recall reading an article in New Scientist a few years ago that
presented an argument that even Hydro power isn't that clean due to
the carbon release in the flooded areas. I can't recall the exact
logic of it but it seemed sensible at the time.

 

It may surprise some to learn that world wide, failures in hydro electric
schemes have killed and injured more people than nuclear failures (including
Chernobyl) over the same period (see analysis of relative safety of
generating alternatives in the Switowski report 2006)

Oh, and each year particles generated from coal fired power stations kill or
hasten the demise of about 2 million people in OECD countries on a recurring
basis (WHO figures - current figures for China not available); coal is
anything but clean.

Popularly perceived measures of safety and risk are entirely unreliable -
Switowski's report is remarkable in its objectivity on that score and well
worth a read if you can get a copy (does not seem to be published in full on
the net AFAIK).

Not seeking to re-open the nukes for peace debate, but ZS is to be thanked
for a work of rational analysis.

On current technologies, we need and will need more dark satanic mills in
some form to produce reliable levels of base load electricity; the
cleanliness and safety issues really come down to how much we are prepared
to pay for that cleanliness and safety.

Funny that with all our human inventiveness and demonstrated need we really
have come up with no better form of storing energy than a container
positioning electrodes in a toxic electrolyte or variants thereon.

We don't need to kill all the lawyers; its just that we could do with a lot
of smarter engineers instead.

Best, andrew

 

Federation square and the southbank precinct are public walkways so
wouldn't they be classified as footpaths/walkways?
Interesting conundrum.

 

Wow! A coal-fired hydro system. I'm gob-smacked, stunned, speechless.
Do they encourage you to pay a "Green" premium on that? Is this what
Gerry pays extra for to pump water up the hill to his house?

Theo

 

Be careful not to mix your motor generations there Clem.
149 and 179 came with the EH at 100 and 115 bhp, the 161 and 186 are
also a pair, on the HR I think, still the red motor. 173 and 202 were
next in a different (blue) block. They made the Blue engine with a
longer crank because they bored the Red so far that the pistons got
too close together. The final version of the 202 (3.3 L) was so
choked with environmental crap that it only made 105 bhp.

Theo

 

theo wrote:

Hang on, Theo, I thought _I_ paid for the water being pumped up to
Gerry's place.

...and I still reckon he owes me a beer or two because of that.

As a like minded cynic, yup, I expect they do want folk to pay the
"green" premium price, too.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

The 173 and 202 from 1971 were also red motors, the blue versions coming
in 1980 with the introduction of the VC Commodore. Bore/stroke remained
the same but blue motors had improvements to induction, crank and rods.

The final version of the 202 also came in a black version with fuel
injection that made 140hp (the earlier 186S made 145hp) but was killed
off by the switch to unleaded fuel in 1986.

 

Sorry, yes you do. Gerry pays extra on his power bill so he can have
green emails pumped up his hill.

Sad, isn't it?

Theo

 

To be fair, though, an accumulation lake does make a better sink for
excess electricity than streetlights staying on after dawn and
thousands of PC's in offices being left on outside of working hours.

 

I've definitely seen them on the southbank walkway as well as crossing
over Princes bridge we've even gotten free drinks as one of their
promotions.
I'd suspect then that they are inadvertently breaking the law.

 

CrazyCam wrote...

Back on topic, sorta. Next time you're touring around the Snowies and you see
the Snowy Hydro logos outside of the Tumut Stations and where it says "renewable
energy", stop and think about the pumped storage sets, Tumut 3, I think it is.

Dunno how hydro is renewable when it hasn't been raining for yonks.