# Portugal's 11 Megawatt Solar Electric Plant Goes Online



## Mo Heat (Mar 28, 2007)

Government subsidies made it possible. Seems like we should shift all petroleum (and other questionable) subsidies to alternative energy to stimulate more of this type construction. We probably would if we (or the Legislators) were serious about alternative energy sources, which probably says a lot.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2849214220070328

Anybody see Bill Bradley on MTPress last Sunday? I liked his idea of taxing things we want to discourage and subsidizing those we want to encourage. Hasn't that always been a primary (or at least a secondary) purpose of taxation (sin taxes, etc.)? Somewhere along the line, that tax philosophy seems to have been forgotten. I also liked his idea of a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline, but I think he proposed using it to cut general spending, which always seems to create one more pool of dollars for additional spending. With gasoline seemingly headed for $3 a gallon in the next couple years, an additional dollar a gallon would be a $4 a gallon gas price. That should cut down on Sunday driving and encourage daily trip consolidations, as well as a much more serious interest in high milage (or electric, etc.) vehicles. Unfortunately, it would likely just be more money for our elite legislators to blow on pet projects. Something's got to give!

Anybody see the 60 Minutes (I think) blurb on that Senator / Doctor that is unilaterally trying to cut pork barrel bill add-ons by calling Senators out on the Senate floor? Man, does that get them steamed! We need more guys like that. I think there is one other from Wyoming. Unfortunately, my MO Senator, Kitt Bond, was bashing the good Doctor, who has also pledged to serve a couple terms and go home.


----------



## Andre B. (Mar 28, 2007)

Mo Heat said:
			
		

> Seems like we should shift all petroleum (and other questionable) subsidies to alternative energy to stimulate more of this type construction. We probably would if we (or the Legislators) were serious about alternative energy sources, which probably says a lot.



I think all to often some of these Government funded alternate energy projects are really something like this.
We need a 20 million dollars to rediscover what cost our great grand father a 1000 dollars to discover but we were not smart enough ask him about it while he was alive.

Not PV but an example of some alternate energy in 1913.
http://www.nelmes.fsnet.co.uk/paxman/suctngas.htm


> At the present time we have producers working very successfully both at home and abroad with fuels of such varieties as wood refuse, tan bark refuse, cocoanut shells, chips, shavings, &c. Whilst these plants provide power without incurring any fuel costs, they afford at the same time a suitable means of destroying refuse, which in many trades so often proves an encumbrance. In the case of a plant for wood refuse, it is possible to obtain one brake-horse-power-hour for a consumption of 2½ to 3½ lbs. of fuel, depending upon the percentage of moisture present.



What is needed to get serious about alternate energy sources is gasoline and diesel at $8 or $10 a gallon.


----------



## webbie (Mar 28, 2007)

When I was just in the Bay area I noticed a lot of areas where it said "high wind warning" especially around the northern bay. No windmills in sight...and the areas are already developed and semi-industrial.

I would love to see a massive wind farm and PV effort, and also small scale water projects. Even seasonal (spring/snow melt) generation projects would be useful if we can produce the generation equipment cheap enough. 

And then, of course, we want some small scale wood burning gasification electric generators. Now THAT would be an OK OWB.

In WWII Ford bragged that you basically fed raw material into one end of the River Rouge plant and bombers came out the other end....down to the rubber in the tires!

What about some massive new factories powered by solar, water and wind that produce MORE solar, water and wind machines? When you look around you can see so much energy....just a matter of harvesting a small % of it.


----------



## DiscoInferno (Mar 28, 2007)

Mo Heat said:
			
		

> Anybody see the 60 Minutes (I think) blurb on that Senator / Doctor that is unilaterally trying to cut pork barrel bill add-ons by calling Senators out on the Senate floor?



I assume that was Tom Coburn, R-OK (an Ob-Gyn).  He's one of the few small-government "true believers" in Congress.  (A bit of a nut job on other issues, IMNSHO, but I do like him for calling out the rest of congress.)  Not sure how safe his job is considering he refuses to get pork for his own state as well.


----------



## keyman512us (Mar 29, 2007)

(a clip...not to single you out or anything MO...but you "opened it for discussion")
To quote MO:





> I also liked his idea of a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline, but I think he proposed using it to cut general spending, which always seems to create one more pool of dollars for additional spending. With gasoline seemingly headed for $3 a gallon in the next couple years, an additional dollar a gallon would be a $4 a gallon gas price. That should cut down on Sunday driving and encourage daily trip consolidations, as well as a much more serious interest in high milage (or electric, etc.) vehicles. Unfortunately, it would likely just be more money for our elite legislators to blow on pet projects. Something’s got to give!



I think you are not alone in this view...alot of people probably have the same idea (I do) ...the only problem is when the "cheerleaders get involved" (like our 'counterparts over in a certain other forum I'm not going to name). Anyway it could never happen (currently) in this country...unless we ALL demanded more ACCOUNTABILITY from our elected officials. By accountability I mean "Yeah..Mr X I'll support the idea and support you...as long as the money gets spent where it should be spent...not on Corporate welfare not on 'tax breaks' to companies that have no desire to invest in new ideas (i.e. the future of our great nation)...catchy little sound bites aren't going to cut it...the money goes into SMALL BUSINESS not plagued with the mentality of why bother 'fixin it'...we're making money...and ohhh yeah while your at it I want the US energy policy to be revamped with extended range price controls set forth by a commitee of 'the average Mr and MRs John Q taxpayer!"
"We The People" demanded just such things in the past with "Trust Busting". Standard Oil...being front and center the biggest offender...The little guy being "The Railroads"...which suffered for thirty years like a starving dog tied to a post that "People just forgot about". Until the Staggers Act of 1980...but by then it was too late they went bust...30 years of unfair government imposed restrictions...while this country spent BILLIONS of your tax dollars unfairly "Helping the competition" under the guise of "for the people" (The interstate highway system of this country is by far the worst example of "lynch mob mentality" at it's finest) and what happened to the great railroad backbone of this country? It got swallowed up for pennies on the dollar by greedy bankers...many of whom are direct decendants of the robber barons that upset the people in the first place.

Sorry for the rant...something has to change! But change it wisely...after spirited discussion...and in unity.

No repeats of the 1970's folks...The other side has a better stratedgy...and a better hand. As opposed to a "tax" I would propose a "Competitive Competition Clause Levy". A committee (made of 3 members per state with no political or economic interest other than survival) reviews the numbers and starts with a levy of $1 gallon "Phased in over 60 days". This money is to be placed in a "trust" with up to 50% allowed to go out into the market in the form of low interest loans to "startup companies". An additional 10% to be provided to "other interests at market rates...backed by a 20% interest in their corporate holdings. The remaining 40% to be held to offset conventional supply if need be. This of course would be backed by a process that would not let "conventional energy" drop below limits: In theory:
If gas hits $4.00/gallon tommorow...next week it can't go back to $2.00 when someone figures out "table top fusion" but can't get it to market. The vision: A level playing field...No repeat of the 1970's (or 80's) when our "Friends from OPEC" decided to squash alternatives by flooding the market with cheap oil. People have had "better ideas" for over 30 years...but as long as the golden rule applies (he who has the gold makes the rules)...The little guy that invests his whole life into trying to make other peoples lives better...gets priced out of competition...

The little guy can fight back...he just has to do it smarter.

My favorite saying..."If you Bought it...A truck brought it" yeah thanks for destroying my country and making me pay for it!

.....May the Rock Island Line R.I.P.

American hallmark: "Hard work...a solid plan...and a desire...beats all...someday it comes full circle when you earn it!"

I've got nothing against the men and women that are the backbone of trucking (and it's current importance to the US economy)...but your industry became what it is today not by hard work fair competition and a sound business plan..but because the people paid for it! The future is bright for the concept of trucking...keep this thought in mind...it is a source of hope:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiTbaM0bdZg


----------



## cbrodsky (Mar 29, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> When I was just in the Bay area I noticed a lot of areas where it said "high wind warning" especially around the northern bay. No windmills in sight...and the areas are already developed and semi-industrial.
> 
> I would love to see a massive wind farm and PV effort, and also small scale water projects. Even seasonal (spring/snow melt) generation projects would be useful if we can produce the generation equipment cheap enough.



I know they have a big one on the freeway that goes east from Oakland - about 30 minutes away if I recall correctly.  It is a rather ugly area out there so I guess it was an easy sell.

I am not so convinced I'd want them everywhere... as you say, there are plenty of unattractive places they can go.  But if they start going up on scenic ridges and mountains, it'll cause the kind of backlash that has been observed in parts of NY.

-Colin


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 29, 2007)

Most wind generators I ever saw in my life:  on I-10 about 200 miles from El Paso, TX and heading west....I counted over 300 but many were NOT turning.........


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 29, 2007)

Mo Heat said:
			
		

> Government subsidies made it possible. Seems like we should shift all petroleum (and other questionable) subsidies to alternative energy to stimulate more of this type construction. We probably would if we (or the Legislators) were serious about alternative energy sources, which probably says a lot.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2849214220070328
> 
> ...



I think someone in the article got carried away when they said:

"But as far as we know -- thanks to great Portuguese sunshine and high technology -- this plant right here in Serpa is expected to produce the most power -- more than 20 gigawatt-hours per hour," Walsh said..........

If it produces 11 Mega Watts then it's output in 1 hr is 11 Mega Watt hrs/hr, not the 20 Giga Watts stated....20 Giga Watts is 20,000 Mega Watts which is 20 conventional large power plants........no way......


----------



## webbie (Mar 29, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Most wind generators I ever saw in my life:  on I-10 about 200 miles from El Paso, TX and heading west....I counted over 300 but many were NOT turning.........



Denmark has thousands off the coast and they are all turning!

I agree with NY that you don't want to put them all along treed ridges and mountains - and the air flow is messed up there anyway. The coasts are ideal, as well as the "bare" unpopulated hills at certain places in the west. Since they are usually sited all together (in a pass, for instance), it does not mess up the view as much. Also, we have to decide if an oil refinery would look worse! If we want the energy, we have to get it somewhere.


----------



## Mo Heat (Mar 29, 2007)

keyman512us said:
			
		

> (a clip...not to single you out or anything MO...but you "opened it for discussion")
> 
> The little guy being "The Railroads"...which suffered for thirty years like a starving dog tied to a post that "People just forgot about". Until the Staggers Act of 1980...but by then it was too late they went bust...30 years of unfair government imposed restrictions...while this country spent BILLIONS of your tax dollars unfairly "Helping the competition" under the guise of "for the people" (The interstate highway system of this country is by far the worst example of "lynch mob mentality" at it's finest) and what happened to the great railroad backbone of this country? It got swallowed up for pennies on the dollar by greedy bankers...many of whom are direct decendants of the robber barons that upset the people in the first place.



Cool video. I didn't realize you could move trucks like that.

Not to pick on you or the railroads, everything really depends on your perspecitive after all. If you're a RR man you feel as you do, if you're a Linux or other OS buff you probably dislike MS, if you are a trucker you probably dislike the oil companies.

And I'm not biased against RR's either. I have a genuine RR pocket watch and my grandfather's brass locker tag as important mementos (see: photo). Both my grandfathers were RR men. One a section foreman, the other something below that. My uncle and dad worked summer RR jobs. I received a Lionel electric diesel model 'O' train when I was two and still have it today. I love trains and RR's, but... The RR's are not without sin. They made their own bed. AND... They colluded with Rockefeller to create perhaps the most powerful virtual monopoly in America's history, excluding Microsoft that is. 

Heres' an excerpt from Stanford edu link: 

http://cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/Projects/corporate-monopolies/development_rrmon.html

_With these huge stores of capital, the railroad companies were able to finance political campaigns through whatever and whomever was needed in government. With this control in Washington, there was no way to stop the overwhelming control of this industry over society. The entire nation was subject to the whims of this monopoly._

and

_Though this initial legislation and controlling bodies were mainly ineffectual, the incredibly hazardous effects of monopolies were certainly realized. The actions of the railroad companies dictated how nearly every citizen in the West (and a majority in the East) performed their businesses and lived their lives. They were powerless to avoid this conglomeration (or conspiracy) of individual companies.
_
RR's had a virtual monopoly. That is, not one company, but a collusion of RR companies and other vertically and horizontally integrated industries related to the RR's, all working together to squash anyone who opposed them.

But I do agree that GM did the same thing by getting their chairman (or a director, I don't remember which) appointed as Ike's Secretary of Transportation. He's the guy that proposed and sold the Interstate Highway system as a national defense project. He of course, didn't care much for RR's. He was a car man.

Power seems to be abused by all who have it. I even noticed when I had a little that it somewhat corrupted me... until it was taken away and I could see what had happened. It's a weird thing. And that is why our Constitution was such a wonderful document, when it was still the law of the land. It has since been largely usurped by powerful interests for their own benefit and largely to the detriment of "the little guy" like RR's.


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 29, 2007)

Ok Mo....nobody but an engineer would notice this...clicked on your "my ride" photo and I see a dangerous duo......a motorcycle and in lower left-hand corner a case of Bud....LOL...


----------



## keyman512us (Mar 29, 2007)

Mo...

I'm not saying they ("the railroads") were snow white...The "charachters" along the history timeline were both good and bad...but the turn this country took in the 1950's cost this country far more than it has saved. Personally, I think the miles after miles of track that have been torn up over the last forty years is pure waste. I'm surprised there are no federal programs to "bank" these (future) potentially viable lines...abandonments are still widespread.

Nice timepiece MO...thanks for sharing the story on it...treasure it!


----------



## Burn-1 (Mar 29, 2007)

keyman512us said:
			
		

> ...I'm surprised there are no federal programs to "bank" these (future) potentially viable lines...abandonments are still widespread.



Keyman those abandonments in most states are banked. Track can be taken up but easements are still in place and corridors are put to use as trails for the interim. 

Railbanking


----------



## Mo Heat (Mar 29, 2007)

keyman512us said:
			
		

> Nice timepiece MO...thanks for sharing the story on it...treasure it!



Key, Here's a RR trivia question for you.

Whats the unique difference between an old mechanical railroad pocket watch carried by all RR men and a typical mechanical pocket watch from the same period that would be carried by an average Joe? 

I'm not talking about jewels or accuracy. And quartz movements hadn't yet been invented. Pocket watches were commonly carried by men through the 50's, but RR pocket watches had one unique characteristic found on almost no other watch. It was of vital importance to the timely and safe functioning of a RR.


----------



## Mo Heat (Mar 29, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> Ok Mo....nobody but an engineer would notice this...clicked on your "my ride" photo and I see a dangerous duo......a motorcycle and in lower left-hand corner a case of Bud....LOL...



As an enlightened sage once said to me, "Once you set foot upon the path, you see it everywhere." 

You're on your way, Cast.


----------



## DiscoInferno (Mar 30, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> I think someone in the article got carried away when they said:
> 
> "But as far as we know -- thanks to great Portuguese sunshine and high technology -- this plant right here in Serpa is expected to produce the most power -- more than 20 gigawatt-hours per hour," Walsh said..........
> 
> If it produces 11 Mega Watts then it's output in 1 hr is 11 Mega Watt hrs/hr, not the 20 Giga Watts stated....20 Giga Watts is 20,000 Mega Watts which is 20 conventional large power plants........no way......



I think they must have meant per year.  It would be bizarre to talk about units of GWhr/hr, which as you point out, is just GW.  But at 11MW you would get 20GWhr in 1818 hours, or an average of 5 hours a day for 365 days.


----------



## Mo Heat (Mar 30, 2007)

Mo Heat said:
			
		

> Whats the unique difference between an old mechanical railroad pocket watch carried by all RR men and a typical mechanical pocket watch from the same period that would be carried by an average Joe?



Anyone... anyone... Bueller?


----------



## DiscoInferno (Mar 30, 2007)

Mo Heat said:
			
		

> Mo Heat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, wikipedia says that 1893 standards included:


> "...open faced, size 16 or 18, have a minimum of 17 jewels, adjusted to at least five positions, keep time accurately to within 30 seconds a week, adjusted to temps of 34 to 100 °F. have a double roller, steel escape wheel, lever set, regulator, winding stem at 12 o'clock, and have bold black Arabic numerals on a white dial, with black hands."


and that


> Additional requirements were adopted in later years in response to additional needs; for example, the adoption of the diesel-electric locomotive led to new standards from the 1940s on specifying that timekeeping accuracy could not be affected by electromagnetic fields.



Is it in there somewhere?


----------



## keyman512us (Mar 30, 2007)

> keyman512us - 29 March 2007 02:39 PM
> Nice timepiece MO...thanks for sharing the story on it...treasure it!
> 
> Key, Here’s a RR trivia question for you.
> ...



 Ceritified Movement?  MO you sneaky clever man you...lol I'm guessing that was the "trivia question" you were hinting at. Certified/precision movement is what your hinting at? Or the fact "certain roads'.." (SP for example) had a specific (internal) department for certifing the manufacturer, type of movement, date made...and when it was "certified" by the company...said form being required to be carried "on your person" at all times...yup lotsa history in these regards. But then again look at what it brought: Standardized Time, lives are "on the line"..."runs like clock work" etc.
..There's a 'local' in these here parts...from 'The Ham'...(Ashburnham MA) that is a proffessor at Fitchburgh state college that did a nice article in 'Trains' magazine a few years back that went into "vast detail" and was very informative on the subject.
A "railroad timepiece" (Hamilton was a 'favorite' among the 'men of iron') was the basic foundation...and the 'Form-19' was the order. Still used today...but 'train orders' (Form 19's) aren't as critical as they once were.

Now my 'trivia question to you MO': In railroad terms there are colorfull sayings part of our everyday life...some aren't.... like "Joining the birds..." What is meant by the saying: "..(to)Put er' in the 'big hole'" ??? Why is it signifigant...and why is it 'dreaded'???

"Key ain't 'wet behind the ears' when it comes to 'choo-choo's'...you gonna have to get up pretty early in the morning to 'stump him'....when it comes to railroads" lol


----------



## keyman512us (Mar 30, 2007)

Interesting article in regards to time:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5748/

Good article on the #4 which started the whole thing:

http://www.pocketwatcher.org/category/railroad_grade/

I think this is written by the same guy:

http://www.pockethorology.org/Railroad/Railroad.htm

Probably the best written article:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohwcl/localarticles/timebegan.htm

MO? To "Trully answer your question": Stamping "Raillroad standard", the fact the 12 o'clock, is under the winder, and on and on...were you hinting to the fact the glass has to be removed to access the set lever (can't inadvertantly change the time)?

Did you ever "talk shop" with them(your grandfathers')???...Forget the questions above...thats the ops side of the house...track work? Here's a good one...what is the "definition" of "wide gauge"? 

Along with the watch? Do you have one of the "library cards" issued by the RR he worked for? (The 'pocket certificate' if required???)

Were you looking for the answer "leverset" so it can't be accidentally changed?
http://www.timemachinewatch.com/setwatch.htm


----------



## Andre B. (Mar 30, 2007)

DiscoInferno said:
			
		

> I think they must have meant per year.  It would be bizarre to talk about units of GWhr/hr, which as you point out, is just GW.  But at 11MW you would get 20GWhr in 1818 hours, or an average of 5 hours a day for 365 days.



That sounds about right for a nontracking system.

I wonder how the numbers work out for a tracking system?

On small home systems it is usually better to just add a panel or two for more power.
Then as the size of the system grows it seems it is better to have a tracking system, but on very large systems they go back to stationary mounts.
I am guessing that with very large systems the cost of the land is a much bigger factor and tracking systems need more space between rows to avoid shadows.


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 30, 2007)

DiscoInferno said:
			
		

> castiron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, you do have to talk about MW-hrs/hr to be meaningful...here's why......I can generate 11 MW-hrs (an energy term) using a bicycle driven generator.....I generate a few watts output and I take decades to do it, ending up with 11 MW-hrs of energy produced. I cannot however, generate 11 MW (an instantaneous power term)......... side note...when they "read your power meter" they're actually reading your "energy meter". 

Kilo watts or Mega Watts is a "power" term and is an "instantaneous" term...that is, you can either generate 11 MW (in this solar example) or you can't and it has nothing to do with time. It's like a car engine...it can either produce 100 HP or it can't and it has nothing to do with time. Now, when we multiply "time" by Mega-watts or HP, we get an "energy" term of MW-hrs but it helps to know the time over which it was generated. Put another way, I can erect one, 100 watt solar panel and with light shining say 10 hrs per day, I can also generate 20,000 Mega-watt hours of energy....but it will take me about 20 million days to do so......so we have to know the time over which the energy is generated.

You're correct that the 20,000MW-hrs is energy over a year....


----------



## DiscoInferno (Mar 30, 2007)

castiron said:
			
		

> DiscoInferno said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed, but as the time period gets smaller then the average and instantaneous values converge.  Here an hour is a "short" time over which one might expect instantaneous power to be relatively constant, so GWhr/hr and GW are essentially the same.  That's why I said it was bizarre to use those units (and what indicated that it was a typo).  GWhr/year, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense because obviously the instantaneous power varies a lot over a year (or even a day). 

All of which would have been simplified if they hadn't decided to base our standard unit of electrical energy (W-hr) on a power over time but rather than on a true energy unit like the Joule.  (1W=1J/s, 1kW-hr=3.6MJ)

Did you inadvertantly edit my quote?  I had units of 20GWhr but in the quote it's (incorrectly) 20GW.


----------



## Mo Heat (Mar 30, 2007)

keyman512us said:
			
		

> Ceritified Movement?  MO you sneaky clever man you...lol I'm guessing that was the "trivia question" you were hinting at. Certified/precision movement is what your hinting at? Or the fact "certain roads'.." (SP for example) had a specific (internal) department for certifing the manufacturer, type of movement, date made...and when it was "certified" by the company...said form being required to be carried "on your person" at all times...yup lotsa history in these regards.



Nope. Nope. Nope. But you nail it in your next post. I'll reply there.



> Now my 'trivia question to you MO': In railroad terms there are colorfull sayings part of our everyday life...some aren't.... like "Joining the birds..." What is meant by the saying: "..(to)Put er' in the 'big hole'" ??? Why is it signifigant...and why is it 'dreaded'???



Never heard it, but I'll guess. Either a big maintenance with "big hole" being the pit under the train where the repair man accessed the undercarriage, or more likely, a decommissioning of an engine, always a 'dreaded' time for RR folks.


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 30, 2007)

DiscoInferno said:
			
		

> castiron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Must have gone up there to copy the line and rubbed out the "hr" part...sorry........also went back and hit "quote" to see if the software failed to copy it but it does copy what you originally had so I must have "fat-fingered" it...LOL

as for the units....all the same to me....one is power (instantaneous....i.e., Watts or J/sec) and one is energy (W-hr or J)


----------



## Mo Heat (Mar 30, 2007)

keyman512us said:
			
		

> MO? To "Trully answer your question": Stamping "Raillroad standard", the fact the 12 o'clock, is under the winder, and on and on...were you hinting to the fact the glass has to be removed to access the set lever (can't inadvertantly change the time)?



Yep. To me, opening the watch to reset the time was something I'd never seen on other watches and IMO this is a unique feature.

I liked those articles. Defining "a RR watch" gets pretty complicated, but aside from accuracy, jewels, made in America, and the other thing, all of which could probably be said of other time pieces, the "lever set" seems the most unusual to me as a life long watch owner.



> Did you ever "talk shop" with them(your grandfathers')???...Forget the questions above...thats the ops side of the house...track work? Here's a good one...what is the "definition" of "wide gauge"?



Never talked much shop. Too bad. My family has a storied past and I think it was sometimes easier just to keep things in the present than to risk navigating the more interesting waters of our past that might inadvertently lead to "difficult topics". I was also mostly separated from that side of my family for the greater part of my life, so conversations were few and far between. I reconnected with an uncle about 7 yrs back and I try to get him talking about the RR's on occasion. I like the RR term "milk run", that stopped at most depots to deliver milk (or mail I suppose), as opposed to the "express run" that didn't. 

Wide guage? I always thought of the wide guage as wider than the narrow guage. I believe the RR standardized on the wide guage (or one of them) when interest grew to interconnect lines. Only narrow mountain lines retained narrow guage tracks, and that was out of necessity as there was no room for a wider bed. The guage being some sort of bar of certified width that fit between the tracks.



> Along with the watch? Do you have one of the "library cards" issued by the RR he worked for? (The 'pocket certificate' if required???)



Never heard of that, and many other RR things. BTW, both grandfathers worked for the Kansas City Southern IIRC. If I got that wrong, then it is probably the Missouri Pacific, but I think it was the Kansas City Southern.



> Were you looking for the answer "leverset" so it can't be accidentally changed?
> http://www.timemachinewatch.com/setwatch.htm



Yes. That's what I was looking for. Man, I can't believe all the different people I meet here on hearthnet. And everyone seems to know more about things than Mo.


----------



## keyman512us (Mar 31, 2007)

MO: 





> Now my ‘trivia question to you MO’: In railroad terms there are colorfull sayings part of our everyday life...some aren’t.... like “Joining the birds...” What is meant by the saying: “..(to)Put er’ in the ‘big hole’” ??? Why is it signifigant...and why is it ‘dreaded’???
> 
> Never heard it, but I’ll guess. Either a big maintenance with “big hole” being the pit under the train where the repair man accessed the undercarriage, or more likely, a decommissioning of an engine, always a ‘dreaded’ time for RR folks.



NOPE,NOPE,NOPE! lol
 "(to) Put er' in the big hole"...is railroad slang (Known well by 'Hoggers'-Locomotive Engineers) For the term "Full Emergency Service Brake Application". In other words..."Nailing the brakes". It is a dreaded action...used only in the most dire circumstances...and not without it's own peril. 26L air stands have a feature built into them for quickly instituting this action...and hoggers' have their own trick they use to prevent it...often involving a little wedge or a coin. The 'brass' don't like it...it's against the rules...but a neccesary evil.
This action is dreaded because it can derail the train...nice safety feature huh?
Anyone that knows railroads...knows what it sounds like. Very distinct and can be heard for miles...as irritating as "nails on a chalkboard" becuase it sounds just like that when "the brakes lock up"...take a "listen below"...track men (and anyone that knew anything about RR's) would be running for cover. If I was there and was asked by Fred Roger (and) Andy (The FRA)..."Yup the hogger 'put er' in the big hole":

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1jiI47KAnI

SSShhh! (You just learned about a 'secret') One that could...save your life.


----------



## jjbaer (Apr 12, 2007)

Mo,

New one here.....a moderator (you) hijacking your own thread....LOL....from solar panels to nostalgia, all in the same thread....LOL


----------



## jjbaer (Apr 12, 2007)

Mo Heat said:
			
		

> I also liked his idea of a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline, but I think he proposed using it to cut general spending, which always seems to create one more pool of dollars for additional spending.




You hit the nail on the head....give the crooked SOB's another dollar per gallon revenue stream and they'll go on a shopping spree........this is why we will NEVER be able to balance the budget or reduce the national debt through tax increases.......


----------



## restorer (Apr 22, 2007)

NY Soapstone said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Web,
As an old rocker you should know this one. It's Altamont Pass. Used to travel the 205 several times a year. It's between Livermore and Tracy. It started with a few, old style generators and now must have hundreds. The land is pretty worthless for any productive use, but is a great spot to use it's natural resource. There are also huge farms in Wyoming that cover hundreds of acres.


----------



## berlin (Apr 24, 2007)

11 megawatts?? that's not going to replace anything, why all the interest in a rediculas subsidized 11 megawatt plant?? i could pee on a turbin and generate 11 megawatts, that's nothing. most of our projects out of 100 or so new coal plants coming online will be permitted/ under construction before any new co2 regulation schemes requireing some cap and trade nonsense, so everyone in the green room, ya'll have fun w/ that. i'm happy we pretty much got done what needed to be done... now i'm going to go burn some coal.


----------



## jjbaer (Apr 24, 2007)

berlin said:
			
		

> 11 megawatts?? that's not going to replace anything, why all the interest in a rediculas subsidized 11 megawatt plant?? i could pee on a turbin and generate 11 megawatts, that's nothing. most of our projects out of 100 or so new coal plants coming online will be permitted/ under construction before any new co2 regulation schemes requireing some cap and trade nonsense, so everyone in the green room, ya'll have fun w/ that. i'm happy we pretty much got done what needed to be done... now i'm going to go burn some coal.



Berlin,

Not everyone in the world hogs energy like Americans do........in 2003, Portugal's total installed electrical capacity was only 10 GW so the 11 MW will offset about 1/10th of 1% of their capacity.

http://www.iaea.org/inis/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/PT-elic.html

Also, the per capita electrical usage in Portugal is about 4300 KW-hrs/yr whereas in the USA it's three times that at about 13,000 KW-hr/yr. So.....that 11 Mega-watts that's "not going to replace anything" will really supply 22,500 homes with 100% of their total electrical energy capacity................and there are only 4.3 million households so.....the 11 MW will supply 0.5 % of all households.... not bad for one stinking solar station...

Now, let's compare: there are about 112 million households in the USA so 0.5% of these would be 560,000 households and at 13,000 KW-hrs/yr (1.48KW/hr on average) these 560,000 homes would require about 830 Mega watts.......so...that "little solar plant" in Portugal is equivalent to a mid-sized, 830 MW coal-fired plant here in the USA in terms of providing electricity to the same percent of homes the solar one in Portugal does.........actually it would take about 1.25 of these 830 MW plants because of downtime. And, solar doesn't put any CO or CO2 into the atmosphere like coal does. Let's face it, the only way coal as a power plant fuel source survives the near future is if they start sequestering carbon.........

P.S. I worked as an engineer for a few years at a coal fired power plant and they get coal to burn efficiently by having the largest surface-area-to-volume they can get with a coal particle..... and that means grinding it to the consistancy of face powder...so fine that it got everywhere! I mean it even came into the engineers office through the duct work........and even with electrostatic precipitators, the smokestacks would dump fine particles onto all the cars in the parking lot. So bad in fact that they provided a free, on-site car wash (a basic "n" shaped pipe you drive under that flooded the car with water) for employees to use at the end of the day to rinse the coal and sulphur off their cars.........so.....while coal is abundant and wonderful for power production, as an engineer, I gotta tell you that there has to be a better way to produce electricity and believe me, every engineer who has ever worked at a power plant is either working on this in his/her garage at night and/or brain-storming better ways to do it.....LOL........


----------



## Mo Heat (Apr 24, 2007)

You tell him, Cast. 

And don't forget this little income and expense item that falls off the financial sheets: Once you build a solar power plant, the fuel just comes streaming out of the sky courtesy of Helios' chariot. There are no railroad cars or highway trucks lined up for miles, dumping thousands of tons of coal per day from who knows how far away. That's got to save a few bucks... and it will be for ever more, quoth the coal covered raven. You know you're going to save some serious money anytime you factor the Teamster's Union out of the equation, even if it is only partially, since they probably find a way in the back door somehow. What can I say, I watch the Sopranos!

Check out how much coal is burned by a 500 MW plant from this link:

_For instance, one of our customers operates a 500 MW plant. The boiler servicing the plant consumes 225 tons of coal per hour when operating at full load. This equates to 5,400 tons of coal per day, enough to fill 54 rail cars. Another boiler located at a different 500 MW plant uses 160 tons of coal per hour, which equates to 3,840 tons per day. Less coal is consumed in the second case, since the coal used has a higher energy content._

Good lord, that's a lot of coal! Frightening when you consider that is 40% less coal per day than would be used in the 830 MW power plant in Cast's example.


----------



## berlin (Apr 25, 2007)

cast, for a smart guy who i generally agree with i'm surprised that you buy into some of that nonsense. if there was dust on your cars it was not coming out of the stack unless ya'll were having serious problems but most likely from the handling and processing of the coal itself; which also should not really be happening; i too have more than a little knowlege about coal fired generation. 

btw, i haven't really been online recently but i just got your pm, however as i see you've been posing over at the nepa site and as you are interested in finding out about anthricite equiptment, i feel you may get more complete responses by posting in the general forum over there vs. what i can give you.


----------



## jjbaer (Apr 27, 2007)

berlin said:
			
		

> if there was dust on your cars it was not coming out of the stack unless ya'll were having serious problems but most likely from the handling and processing of the coal itself; which also should not really be happening; i too have more than a little knowlege about coal fired generation.
> .



the coal in the office comes from coal dust in the air in the plant...when you have face powder sized particles it's hard to contain it without it getting into the air.  Most of the stuff on the cars came from either: 1) an "event" where the electrostatic precipitators failed momentarily and the stacks spit out large particles which fell on the cars or 2) the nearby coal house/coal pile/distribution system where the wind or heavy equipment kicked it up and then deposited it onto the cars




			
				berlin said:
			
		

> btw, i haven't really been online recently but i just got your pm, however as i see you've been posing over at the nepa site and as you are interested in finding out about anthricite equiptment, i feel you may get more complete responses by posting in the general forum over there vs. what i can give you.



yes...looking at maybe getting a small coal stove for a second stove but don't know...so I ask questions on the forum for all to respond to and, when I see members who might have eqpt/experience that I might be able to draw from, I PM them directly.  If you care to take a stab at my PM I'd appreciate it.   thanks

BTW....I saw the Gov of (I think) West VA and he was showing a reporter a lump of coal and said coal, as currently used, is NOT in our future but that this same coal using Carbon sequestration, IS in our future......


----------



## keyman512us (Apr 28, 2007)

Sidebar Note:
Cast:


> BTW....I saw the Gov of (I think) West VA and he was showing a reporter a lump of coal and said coal, as currently used, is NOT in our future but that this same coal using Carbon sequestration, IS in our future......



I think the TV clip you are reffering to "might" have been the Gov. from Idaho...Being interviewed by Thomas L. Friedman from the NY times..."does TV show style interviews" on the "Discovery-Times Channel" (Direct TV CH 285?). Newest was "Green-The New Red,White and Blue" Without "spurring" a politics debate (left vs. right, cons. vs lib) I know some might view the NY times as a "slanted media outlet"...it was a "good non-biased program"...worth viewing...for those that might be "channel surfing".


----------

