So dry (Score: 2, Informative) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2016-05-01 20:49 (#1CEV7) Interesting. It's essentially a dry version of an old technology. Quite likely cheaper and more environmentally friendly to boot. Re: So dry (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2016-05-02 23:02 (#1CJRH) Plus you don't have to worry about the rail cars evaporating. Re: So dry (Score: 1) by olof@pipedot.org on 2016-06-15 07:09 (#1H883) This seems like a very large investment for a very small gain.Maintenance is not free, land is not free, having parallel tracks requiring weed control, etc.Most areas don't have large areas of land available for free, especially those areas where people actually live.Would be slightly impressive if the train cars actually went somewhere and transported something useful, like water.Smarter electricity use and a better grid, capable of transferring power from where it is produced to where is it needed, would do the same more robustly, and probably cheeper too. Re: So dry (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2016-06-16 01:51 (#1HBD7) Maintenance is not free, land is not free, having parallel tracks requiring weed control, etc.Maintenance on a rarely-used train would just be a few hours once per year. Land is extremely cheap a couple hours outside of most any city, and the grid has no problem moving power that distance with minimal loss. Train tracks sprawling across the planet seem to be just fine without active weed control...Would be slightly impressive if the train cars actually went somewhere and transported something useful, like water.I they were hauling water up-hill, then unloading it, you'd completely defeat the purpose of this system. A water pump would surely be more efficient, anyhow.Smarter electricity use and a better grid, capable of transferring power from where it is produced to where is it needed, would do the same more robustly, and probably cheeper too.Energy storage like this is very much a critical feature of any smart grid. Wind and solar power aren't necessarily producing the most power when demand is highest, and peaking plants have always been very expensive.Businesses and the public have been largely resistant to changing their energy use patterns. Perhaps the notification and metering technology isn't there yet, or perhaps the incentives aren't significant enough, but either way, controlling "electricity use" doesn't seem to be a viable alternative.
Re: So dry (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2016-05-02 23:02 (#1CJRH) Plus you don't have to worry about the rail cars evaporating. Re: So dry (Score: 1) by olof@pipedot.org on 2016-06-15 07:09 (#1H883) This seems like a very large investment for a very small gain.Maintenance is not free, land is not free, having parallel tracks requiring weed control, etc.Most areas don't have large areas of land available for free, especially those areas where people actually live.Would be slightly impressive if the train cars actually went somewhere and transported something useful, like water.Smarter electricity use and a better grid, capable of transferring power from where it is produced to where is it needed, would do the same more robustly, and probably cheeper too. Re: So dry (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2016-06-16 01:51 (#1HBD7) Maintenance is not free, land is not free, having parallel tracks requiring weed control, etc.Maintenance on a rarely-used train would just be a few hours once per year. Land is extremely cheap a couple hours outside of most any city, and the grid has no problem moving power that distance with minimal loss. Train tracks sprawling across the planet seem to be just fine without active weed control...Would be slightly impressive if the train cars actually went somewhere and transported something useful, like water.I they were hauling water up-hill, then unloading it, you'd completely defeat the purpose of this system. A water pump would surely be more efficient, anyhow.Smarter electricity use and a better grid, capable of transferring power from where it is produced to where is it needed, would do the same more robustly, and probably cheeper too.Energy storage like this is very much a critical feature of any smart grid. Wind and solar power aren't necessarily producing the most power when demand is highest, and peaking plants have always been very expensive.Businesses and the public have been largely resistant to changing their energy use patterns. Perhaps the notification and metering technology isn't there yet, or perhaps the incentives aren't significant enough, but either way, controlling "electricity use" doesn't seem to be a viable alternative.
Re: So dry (Score: 1) by olof@pipedot.org on 2016-06-15 07:09 (#1H883) This seems like a very large investment for a very small gain.Maintenance is not free, land is not free, having parallel tracks requiring weed control, etc.Most areas don't have large areas of land available for free, especially those areas where people actually live.Would be slightly impressive if the train cars actually went somewhere and transported something useful, like water.Smarter electricity use and a better grid, capable of transferring power from where it is produced to where is it needed, would do the same more robustly, and probably cheeper too. Re: So dry (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2016-06-16 01:51 (#1HBD7) Maintenance is not free, land is not free, having parallel tracks requiring weed control, etc.Maintenance on a rarely-used train would just be a few hours once per year. Land is extremely cheap a couple hours outside of most any city, and the grid has no problem moving power that distance with minimal loss. Train tracks sprawling across the planet seem to be just fine without active weed control...Would be slightly impressive if the train cars actually went somewhere and transported something useful, like water.I they were hauling water up-hill, then unloading it, you'd completely defeat the purpose of this system. A water pump would surely be more efficient, anyhow.Smarter electricity use and a better grid, capable of transferring power from where it is produced to where is it needed, would do the same more robustly, and probably cheeper too.Energy storage like this is very much a critical feature of any smart grid. Wind and solar power aren't necessarily producing the most power when demand is highest, and peaking plants have always been very expensive.Businesses and the public have been largely resistant to changing their energy use patterns. Perhaps the notification and metering technology isn't there yet, or perhaps the incentives aren't significant enough, but either way, controlling "electricity use" doesn't seem to be a viable alternative.
Re: So dry (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2016-06-16 01:51 (#1HBD7) Maintenance is not free, land is not free, having parallel tracks requiring weed control, etc.Maintenance on a rarely-used train would just be a few hours once per year. Land is extremely cheap a couple hours outside of most any city, and the grid has no problem moving power that distance with minimal loss. Train tracks sprawling across the planet seem to be just fine without active weed control...Would be slightly impressive if the train cars actually went somewhere and transported something useful, like water.I they were hauling water up-hill, then unloading it, you'd completely defeat the purpose of this system. A water pump would surely be more efficient, anyhow.Smarter electricity use and a better grid, capable of transferring power from where it is produced to where is it needed, would do the same more robustly, and probably cheeper too.Energy storage like this is very much a critical feature of any smart grid. Wind and solar power aren't necessarily producing the most power when demand is highest, and peaking plants have always been very expensive.Businesses and the public have been largely resistant to changing their energy use patterns. Perhaps the notification and metering technology isn't there yet, or perhaps the incentives aren't significant enough, but either way, controlling "electricity use" doesn't seem to be a viable alternative.