(06-06-2011 10:48 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 10:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You could not run a high speed train along 90 between Rockford and Chicago, it's a pipe dream when you consider that no US highway is 'straight enough' for a high speed train to run over any true stretch of distance.

Those areas between the interstate highways are used by public safety officers like police and ambulances to cross at a certain point to help with accidents.. run a trin through there and the response time for highway accidents and for cities along 90 go way up.

You could run a low speed rail way there, but even then the construction cost would be astronomical. How many overpasses would have to be destroyed and rebuilt just to accommodate the tracks?

I like metro community rails, most big cities have the vestigial railways to accommodate it and it does not need to be high speed to be effective but high speed rail beyond the Boston-DC corridor is nothing but a pipe dream (not that what they have can truly be called high speed)

Obviously you are an expert on high speed trains and Illinois highways.

I probably have more experience than you in such areas. While my Systems Engineering work now is mostly computer related I stated out on civil works projects for the corps.

But, for the sake of making look even more the fool let's pretend I don't know spit about highways or trains.

1) What part of my post was incorrect?

2) Why does the NY to DC 'High Speed' Rail have to slow down several times along its journey, in fact it hardly tops out along the trip.

3) What is the longest true straight away along 90 in your proposed Illinois route and what would oyu do with all the overpasses.

4) Do you honestly think any route of sufficient length would not be subject to endless eminent domain suits and then, after the land is taken, environment impact studies..

(06-06-2011 11:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I probably have more experience than you in such areas. While my Systems Engineering work now is mostly computer related I stated out on civil works projects for the core.

Corps?

Quote:But, for the sake of making look even more the fool let's pretend I don't know spit about highways or trains.

1) What part of my post was incorrect?

2) Why does the NY to DC 'High Speed' Rail have to slow down several times along its journey, in fact it hardly tops out along the trip.

Which is one reason why I can't figure why people keep defending passenger rail along the eastern corridor. The alternatives beat it.

(06-06-2011 11:34 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 11:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I probably have more experience than you in such areas. While my Systems Engineering work now is mostly computer related I stated out on civil works projects for the core.

Corps?

Quote:But, for the sake of making look even more the fool let's pretend I don't know spit about highways or trains.

1) What part of my post was incorrect?

2) Why does the NY to DC 'High Speed' Rail have to slow down several times along its journey, in fact it hardly tops out along the trip.

Which is one reason why I can't figure why people keep defending passenger rail along the eastern corridor. The alternatives beat it.

Year the Corps, My wifes pregnancy has me a bit short of sleep but I did work for USACE far several years during the Clinton Administration.

I think it *can* work between Boston and DC I do not know enough about the economics of Air Travel to know if it will ever be cost effective.

BullinExile.. plenty of land to make it work once you get out of Chicago. If you've driven down 90, you know the amount of farm land there, even with the build up of places like Schaumburg and Hoffman Estates, there's still a lot of room to make stuff happen.

I don't know if there's a need for it, or if it's a good use of funds, but I don't think the logistics of it would be a major problem.

(06-06-2011 10:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree with him that there is global warming going on....Humans causing it?..Not so much.

Agreed. I'm also not sold that switching to solar and wind would be any better for the environment. Sure, it may cut down on CO2 in the atmosphere, but there is that law of unintended consequences that always seems to get in the way.

(06-06-2011 01:39 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 10:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree with him that there is global warming going on....Humans causing it?..Not so much.

Agreed. I'm also not sold that switching to solar and wind would be any better for the environment. Sure, it may cut down on CO2 in the atmosphere, but there is that law of unintended consequences that always seems to get in the way.

I think solar has great potential as the efficiency of the PV's approach 70%. There have been lots of promising breakthroughs in the past decade. Thin film photovoltaics seem very promising if they can increase the efficiency of them. The technology and infrastructure for storing solar energy would also have to be addressed. I am for anything that will help. I don't believe though that any one technology will be the answer.

I have a friend in Raleigh that installed a TF unit between the grooves in a metal roof on one of his barns. The TF strips were daisy chained to a converter and during the day they produce an excess of current and make his meter run backwards on this building that has limited current usage. It will however take about 10 years to pay back his investment. Currently these panels are less than 50% efficient. Imagine what 70% to 80% efficiency could produce.

(06-06-2011 02:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have a friend in Raleigh that installed a TF unit between the grooves in a metal roof on one of his barns. The TF strips were daisy chained to a converter and during the day they produce an excess of current and make his meter run backwards on this building that has limited current usage. It will however take about 10 years to pay back his investment. Currently these panels are less than 50% efficient. Imagine what 70% to 80% efficiency could produce.

Solar on top of buildings I think is a legitimate solution (and almost cost effective enough now). Huge farms in the desert is where I'm skeptical... only because of the costs for transmission, maintenance, and the issues that the native wildlife could have due to the panels.

Based on reading the article, it is clear that Romney did nothing but purely political speech that was designed to appeal to as broad of a base as possible. He states that he believes that man made global warming is real; however, he has zero interest in curbing the use of carbon based fuels by stating 1) he opposes a cap and trade system and 2) he wants to see fossil fuels developed. He also wants to see all the green energy initiatives kept in place too. He supports corn based ethanol because he told the Iowa voters. It is commonly known that corn based ethanol is an energy loser considering it takes more energy to make ethanol than it generates in an internal combustion engine.

With Romney, you will get "yes to all", meaning that he likes it if you like it. It's just posturing for the election. Most likely his true views are center left.

(06-06-2011 03:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Based on reading the article, it is clear that Romney did nothing but purely political speech that was designed to appeal to as broad of a base as possible. He states that he believes that man made global warming is real; however, he has zero interest in curbing the use of carbon based fuels by stating 1) he opposes a cap and trade system and 2) he wants to see fossil fuels developed. He also wants to see all the green energy initiatives kept in place too. He supports corn based ethanol because he told the Iowa voters. It is commonly known that corn based ethanol is an energy loser considering it takes more energy to make ethanol than it generates in an internal combustion engine.

With Romney, you will get "yes to all", meaning that he likes it if you like it. It's just posturing for the election. Most likely his true views are center left.

Yea, I think you're right about that. Hard to say what he really thinks, he's talking out both sides of his mouth to sound good to the largest fraction of people he can.

(06-06-2011 01:33 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  BullinExile.. plenty of land to make it work once you get out of Chicago. If you've driven down 90, you know the amount of farm land there, even with the build up of places like Schaumburg and Hoffman Estates, there's still a lot of room to make stuff happen.

I don't know if there's a need for it, or if it's a good use of funds, but I don't think the logistics of it would be a major problem.

I was addressing the "between the divided highway" lunacy earlier up thread..

But yea I've driven that stretch of road quite a few times. You could snatch enough land for a straight run but then you run right back up into lawsuites with land owners and environment advocates..

Environment advocates? I'd assume they're on board, if the idea is to cut down on car traffic between the two cities. And it's not like you're cutting down many forests, it's a bunch of corn fields. It'd be one thing if it was prairie land.

Landowners, you could certainly run into some issues, but the way things are going here, I imagine many of them would be happy to sell some of their land, and really, how wide would it be? Couldn't be more than 50-100 feet wide, right? Not like you're taking up that much of a corn field. And of course they'd have to be paid for their land, but in general, I think the logistics of it are the least of your problems.

It's proving there's a need for it, and proving that it's a financially sound project that will be troublesome. If you have it stop at O'Hare, and turn it North from Rockford and head it straight to Madison, and eventually Minneapolis some day (also, basically all farm fields between both cities) maybe you can put three-four projects in one basket to make it seem more attractive, but even then, I don't know how viable it is financially.

What is truly meant by the energy use statements in the article? Is it strictly all energy use on a per capita basis, or is this broken out by the amount of "residential power" used by every citizen? Also, if you use 20% of the annual energy produced in the world, but you are producing over 20% of the worlds wealth and value, then the argument is framed quite differently, is it not?

(06-06-2011 03:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 02:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have a friend in Raleigh that installed a TF unit between the grooves in a metal roof on one of his barns. The TF strips were daisy chained to a converter and during the day they produce an excess of current and make his meter run backwards on this building that has limited current usage. It will however take about 10 years to pay back his investment. Currently these panels are less than 50% efficient. Imagine what 70% to 80% efficiency could produce.

Solar on top of buildings I think is a legitimate solution (and almost cost effective enough now). Huge farms in the desert is where I'm skeptical... only because of the costs for transmission, maintenance, and the issues that the native wildlife could have due to the panels.

It makes one wonder. People were concerned with the Alaskan pipe line and effects on wildlife. Turns out the effects have been positive.

(06-06-2011 03:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 02:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have a friend in Raleigh that installed a TF unit between the grooves in a metal roof on one of his barns. The TF strips were daisy chained to a converter and during the day they produce an excess of current and make his meter run backwards on this building that has limited current usage. It will however take about 10 years to pay back his investment. Currently these panels are less than 50% efficient. Imagine what 70% to 80% efficiency could produce.

Solar on top of buildings I think is a legitimate solution (and almost cost effective enough now). Huge farms in the desert is where I'm skeptical... only because of the costs for transmission, maintenance, and the issues that the native wildlife could have due to the panels.

There are people marketing those products, but I don't think it's cost effective w/o gov't write offs.

Solar panels are nowhere near 50% efficient. The best lab efficiency I could find was 42.8%. Production grade was 15.6% (http://cleantech.com/news/4864/suntech-s...ncy-record)

Inexpensive mass produced organic based cells are about half of that
http://www.gizmag.com/world-record-effic...ls/17186/.

Also there is a theoretical maximum which is around 67%, less than 70%.

PVs have specific applications, like places where it's nuts to run a distribution line. But, they aren't a viable solution for large-scale production of electricity.

(06-06-2011 04:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 03:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 02:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have a friend in Raleigh that installed a TF unit between the grooves in a metal roof on one of his barns. The TF strips were daisy chained to a converter and during the day they produce an excess of current and make his meter run backwards on this building that has limited current usage. It will however take about 10 years to pay back his investment. Currently these panels are less than 50% efficient. Imagine what 70% to 80% efficiency could produce.

Solar on top of buildings I think is a legitimate solution (and almost cost effective enough now). Huge farms in the desert is where I'm skeptical... only because of the costs for transmission, maintenance, and the issues that the native wildlife could have due to the panels.

There are people marketing those products, but I don't think it's cost effective w/o gov't write offs.

I have been in and out of this for a while now because I work on large properties where end use can be pretty restricted (contaminated properties). It's logical that solar guys are trying very hard to get on these sites. But EVERY pro forma I've seen depends heavily on tax incentives to get even close to a reasonable ROI.

(06-06-2011 04:12 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Environment advocates? I'd assume they're on board, if the idea is to cut down on car traffic between the two cities. And it's not like you're cutting down many forests, it's a bunch of corn fields. It'd be one thing if it was prairie land.

Landowners, you could certainly run into some issues, but the way things are going here, I imagine many of them would be happy to sell some of their land, and really, how wide would it be? Couldn't be more than 50-100 feet wide, right? Not like you're taking up that much of a corn field. And of course they'd have to be paid for their land, but in general, I think the logistics of it are the least of your problems.
It's proving there's a need for it, and proving that it's a financially sound project that will be troublesome. If you have it stop at O'Hare, and turn it North from Rockford and head it straight to Madison, and eventually Minneapolis some day (also, basically all farm fields between both cities) maybe you can put three-four projects in one basket to make it seem more attractive, but even then, I don't know how viable it is financially.

Problem is, the government would be forced to apply eminent domain as some of them would not sell. First, the government gives them a lowball offer. Then the landowners have to hire their own appraiser and lawyer at their own cost so they don't get totally ripped off. Then all they get is the going prices which are low right now. Then they're forced to move at their own expense - if there are houses or farms in the way - which they might be since you'd want a straight road for the tracks. You'd have a lot of unhappy people.

(06-06-2011 04:12 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Environment advocates? I'd assume they're on board, if the idea is to cut down on car traffic between the two cities. And it's not like you're cutting down many forests, it's a bunch of corn fields. It'd be one thing if it was prairie land.

Never assume anything about a group that is opposed to wind power if it happens to sit along a migratory path

Quote:Landowners, you could certainly run into some issues, but the way things are going here, I imagine many of them would be happy to sell some of their land, and really, how wide would it be? Couldn't be more than 50-100 feet wide, right? Not like you're taking up that much of a corn field. And of course they'd have to be paid for their land, but in general, I think the logistics of it are the least of your problems.

Umm food prices rising (farm land valuable)and the govt almost never pays the full amount for land seized in the name of civil works.

To both Exile / NIU007, I realize the land is valuable, and I'm not suggesting people are going to be happy about it.

I'm quite sure you'd have people bitching, but it's not like the windmills that Bull mentions didn't just get built in the DeKalb area, right south of there. I'm sure NIU can attest to the public backlash, and yet, there they are.

I'm not saying you won't have people causing a hassle. I'm just saying it's not a big enough of a hassle that it will be the reason it doesn't get built.

I'm not even suggesting I'm an advocate of it, I haven't looked into the financial ramifications of it enough to give a legitimate opinion on if they should be built, I just don't think the logistics of it will be what holds them back. It will come down to if there's a value there (or more to the point, if the government and lobbyists can convince people there's a value to it). The other stuff will be a pain, I'm sure, but not to the point it will stop the project if they get to the point they have the funding to build it.

(06-06-2011 05:01 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 04:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 03:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 02:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have a friend in Raleigh that installed a TF unit between the grooves in a metal roof on one of his barns. The TF strips were daisy chained to a converter and during the day they produce an excess of current and make his meter run backwards on this building that has limited current usage. It will however take about 10 years to pay back his investment. Currently these panels are less than 50% efficient. Imagine what 70% to 80% efficiency could produce.

Solar on top of buildings I think is a legitimate solution (and almost cost effective enough now). Huge farms in the desert is where I'm skeptical... only because of the costs for transmission, maintenance, and the issues that the native wildlife could have due to the panels.

There are people marketing those products, but I don't think it's cost effective w/o gov't write offs.

I have been in and out of this for a while now because I work on large properties where end use can be pretty restricted (contaminated properties). It's logical that solar guys are trying very hard to get on these sites. But EVERY pro forma I've seen depends heavily on tax incentives to get even close to a reasonable ROI.

Yes...Until the efficiency of the PV's gets to 70%, the ROI is not worth it....Maybe in the desert SW but that is about it now. Building an energy efficient home is a much better investment. A real savings for almost any homeowner is to replace an old HVAC system. Last year I replaced mine and went to an 18 seer unit. My monthly electric bill went from $231 to $123(averaged TOU) on 2100 sq/ft. I was astounded that it would have made that much difference. If you have a unit that is 10 years old...get rid of it.