Bernd, what gets me is the number of years it takes before a solar panel or a wind turbine has paid back the balance that it cost to make it.   Then it only lasts a couple more years beyond that before it needs replacement?  Hmmm.....

Benny,

Ever check how many wind turbines it takes to replace one coal or nuclear power plant. Wish I could remember the number that was quoted at one time. It was quite high if I remember right.

Bernd

Lemme see. 746 watts = 1 HP, ergo 1500 HP =  1.19 megawatts. At full power, for 3 shifts of 8 hours each, the unit (exclusive of lights and any accessories like A/C) would consume 26,865 MW hours of power or approximately 27 gigawatt hours.

However, the use for which this locomotive is likely to be put is not one that requires continuous maximum power output 24 hours a day. Even a line haul locomotive isn't required to run full out 24 hours/day. As a guess, I'd say that you could comfortably reduce the required power consumption by at least a factor of 20 since the locomotive will no doubt be used in switching service  meaning that the loco will be idle during a considerable portion of its daily duty cycle. In any case, the full power of the locomotive wouldn't be required except under extreme circumstamces/

Mike

EDIT: Whoops. The calculator is really bad at arithmetic. 1.19 MW x 24 = 28.56 MWH. That's nearly 1000 times less than the 27 gigawatt hours mentioned above.

Must have had visions of a bunch of DeLoreans in a parking lot, all waiting to transfer somebody back to the future or forward to the past, or somehing

Running at full power = faster consumption rate...

They could always charge the batteries as they go by running with the brakes on  _[sarcasm]

The thermal efficiency of a steam power plant is better than a diesel engine.  This is tempered by line losses and recharging losses.  If the electricity comes from wind mills, solar arrays, nuclear power, or hydro power, then there are no carbon emissions.

Battery locomotives were common in underground mining.  Again, clean air is important underground.  And if you ever change that lead-acid car battery, you know there is a core charge/refund because lead-acid batteries are recycled.

I did work with the NS steam program during restoration of N&W 611.  It will take a lot of battery powered locomotives to offset the carbon emissions we let loose with that "dirt burner".  But ooh it was glorious!

Let me point out that the wind turbine puts out a carbon foot print, it takes power to make its parts, it takes power to transport the parts, it takes power to assemble the parts and then if the wind don't blow what do you use to power the grid. Same goes for the solar panels and the east coast isn't that sunny. Did you ever look at the toxic materials that are involved with making a solar panel? And where do you put the spent rods from a nuclear power. Granted it's not all carbon.

Bernd

The plan was to build a railroad out to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and store nuclear waste underground there.  Maybe a branch of the Taggart Transcontinental?  Anyway, the citizens of Nevada decided they did not want it after all.

Ahh! the glorious carbon emissions in producing nuclear material during WWII.  The "dirt burners" of the RGS hauling "yellow cake" and smoking it up among the Colorado Rockies.  Yes indeed, all generating facilities create a carbon footprint in their construction.  BNSF uses diesel locomotives to haul windmill parts through Stockton.  After parking a couple of days in the parking lot near the tracks, I find a carbon footprint on my windshield from passing trains.  Certainly a reminder of why the railroads might be interested in battery power to cut down on soot.

Perhaps they had a different reason for using battery power? I remember seeing at the rail museum in Roanoke VA a steam engine that had no boiler. It had a huge tank on the front, and it had to go to a steam house to be recharged with pressurized steam! And it would run for a while and have to return to be recharged with steam. Sounds kind of strange, but the reasoning was that it was being used at a munitions factory, and they couldn't risk any sparks or fire near the material it was moving. Too many flammable fumes or dust around to use a fired boiler. So, I can see a battery powered locomotive being a bit more practical than a steam powered one with no boiler! As long as they keep the sparks in the electric motors concealed, it would run a long time before having to retreat for recharging. And not expose flammable materials or gases to any source of combustion. I don't know if that's why they built this locomotive, but it could be one reason.

Did you know that any form of Dihydrogen monoxide can kill you?

Bernd