Causing Trouble On The Railfan Site

[Penn Minuteman]

May I ask a question? It kinda off the wall, but stays with the steam comeback idea.

I read back about a year ago that France inked a 13 billion dollar deal to build the world's 1st fusion reactor.

Now from what I understand of reactors. They all produce heat which is captured by water passing over them which becomes super heated. Once unpressurized the water will turn to steam. Could steam not make a comeback with a fusion reactor heating the water passing around the chamber, then flowing thru turbines to drive the truks before being cooled and cycled back over the reactor?

The tender would just then have 2 tanks, one for holding the hydrogen to be fused and a tank for capturing the helium as a byproduct.

Off the wall, but if France does pull off a hydrogen fusion reactor, all one would need to do is scale it down and the oil powered train would die. would it not?


Penn Minuteman (Bill)

[ostlandr]

It is theoretically possible to build a compact fusion reactor. But given the complexity, the superconducting magnetic coils, the laser triggers, the radiation shielding, the need of a source of heavy hydrogen as fuel- I doubt it would be able to compete with other modes of power on something as small as a locomotive. We have the technology to build a fission powered locomotive today- but the total cost per horsepower-hour would be astronomical.
If we go to a hydrogen economy, it would make more sense to use fusion power plants to produce electricity. Use the electricity to power electric trains, or produce hydrogen for fuel cell powered locomotives. Again, fairly complex and expensive locomotives and fueling infrastructure.

I am working on a device that uses organic technology and solar energy to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and hydrogen from water and combine them into stable, non-toxic hydrocarbon fuel. The device is called a "tree".

All kidding aside, I recruited a couple of my buddies with "P.E." after their name to help write a grant proposal to fund converting a steam locomotive from coal to wood pellets/woodchips for fuel. Probably won't get funded, but if it does this could be a lot of fun. The technology isn't new- they use it for power plants in places like Sweden.

May I ask a question? It kinda off the wall, but stays with the steam comeback idea.

I read back about a year ago that France inked a 13 billion dollar deal to build the world's 1st fusion reactor.

Now from what I understand of reactors. They all produce heat which is captured by water passing over them which becomes super heated. Once unpressurized the water will turn to steam. Could steam not make a comeback with a fusion reactor heating the water passing around the chamber, then flowing thru turbines to drive the truks before being cooled and cycled back over the reactor?

The tender would just then have 2 tanks, one for holding the hydrogen to be fused and a tank for capturing the helium as a byproduct.

Off the wall, but if France does pull off a hydrogen fusion reactor, all one would need to do is scale it down and the oil powered train would die. would it not?


Penn Minuteman (Bill)

[Penn Minuteman]

Yes I understand that the technology would be complex. But the question that needs to be asked is simply 'is our world progressing towards the point where we don't need heavy hydrogen but only normal hydrogen to fuse?'. I do see stronger materials coming out that may withstand the pressure of compressing 2 hydrogen atoms close enough to cause fusion when heated. Instead of going for heavier types of hydrogen which are rare in nature.

Also a fission reactor leaves the unpleasantness of a wreck leaving a wasteland for 50,000 years in that area. Where the 1/2 life of radioactive helium (the byproduct) is around 3 days.

Now you state that just using hydrogen power plants and running on electricity. Ok, you got me there. I can't tell you the 1st thing about electric trains except they go forwards and backwards on command. But from what I understand of motors. A DC Current motor is far more powerful to an AC current motor. The drawback is the fact you can not push DC current down an electric line more than 1/4th to 1/2 mile without a booster station. AC being weaker for driving motors has the advantage you can ship it clear across country on electric lines.

In urban areas, DC powered trains are simple. You already got the power plant within range of the train tracks. But what about when you get to those long open hauls across plains states with 50 miles between cities? Thats alot of booster stations along tracks. WAIT! They are running AC current down the rail lines and converting it to DC at the engine, aren't they? Ok, concede on that point! My apologies. Sometimes I can be a little dense.

Still for long hauls across the wilderness, like a straight line from Vancouver to Quebec. The power lines would add extra cost to maintenance, wouldn't they?

Well, just an off the wall idea. Thank you for replying

Penn Minuteman

[ostlandr]

Hey, if some brilliant scientist makes both internal and external combustion obsolete by inventing a compact, inexpensive fusion power cell that you can drop in place of a fuel cell, good deal. Would add new meaning to the Hummer H3.

Until we get that, if we want to go hydrogen, fuel cells are the way to go. I helped test the Honda FCX prototype. Awesome car, easy to drive and fuel, and hopefully they can get the cost down.

One really handy gadget would be a battery with the same or greater energy density than a tank of petroleum fuel. Then we'd really have something.

Another idea that's been floating around (I did a patent search on it, but somebody beat me to it) is to build hydrogen fuel cell locomotives, and use the energy generated by the traction motors during dynamic braking to make hydrogen that gets pumped back into storage. I'm not talking about perpetual motion here- but even if you could recover 25% of the energy wasted during dynamic braking that would really extend the range of the locomotive and decrease the fuel cost.
For a fuel cell passenger train, if you swapped all the trucks for powered ones, it could accelerate like a rocket, then reclaim energy when it braked for the next station.

For conventional electric trains, as far as maintaining caternary/third rail, one solution to this is to have these passenger trains battery/electric powered and recharge only while they are stopped in stations loading and unloading passengers. The caternary/3rd rail in the station would provide a boost at starting (when current draw is highest) then capacitors are discharged for acceleration, then the battery handles the steady current drain of cruising. Then when the train brakes, the capacitors and battery are recharged. Again, not perpetual motion- you would still need additional energy- but they would be extremely efficient.

Yes I understand that the technology would be complex. But the question that needs to be asked is simply 'is our world progressing towards the point where we don't need heavy hydrogen but only normal hydrogen to fuse?'. I do see stronger materials coming out that may withstand the pressure of compressing 2 hydrogen atoms close enough to cause fusion when heated. Instead of going for heavier types of hydrogen which are rare in nature.

Also a fission reactor leaves the unpleasantness of a wreck leaving a wasteland for 50,000 years in that area. Where the 1/2 life of radioactive helium (the byproduct) is around 3 days.

Now you state that just using hydrogen power plants and running on electricity. Ok, you got me there. I can't tell you the 1st thing about electric trains except they go forwards and backwards on command. But from what I understand of motors. A DC Current motor is far more powerful to an AC current motor. The drawback is the fact you can not push DC current down an electric line more than 1/4th to 1/2 mile without a booster station. AC being weaker for driving motors has the advantage you can ship it clear across country on electric lines.

In urban areas, DC powered trains are simple. You already got the power plant within range of the train tracks. But what about when you get to those long open hauls across plains states with 50 miles between cities? Thats alot of booster stations along tracks. WAIT! They are running AC current down the rail lines and converting it to DC at the engine, aren't they? Ok, concede on that point! My apologies. Sometimes I can be a little dense.

Still for long hauls across the wilderness, like a straight line from Vancouver to Quebec. The power lines would add extra cost to maintenance, wouldn't they?

Well, just an off the wall idea. Thank you for replying

Penn Minuteman

[Penn Minuteman]

Thank you Ostlandr for an intelligent and well thought out reply. You make some valif points. Will have to read up more on what you posted.


Penn MM

[wsherrick]

The only rational alternative for the future of the Railroad industry is to invest in modern steam power. Please review the link below and look at this presentation with the most current available data. Coal is cheap and we have plenty of it and the Railroad Industry is the most efficient way to use it effectively.

http://www.5at.co.uk/John%20Rhodes%27%2 ... tation.pdf