How wind can power the world's mass transit

george matthews wrote:wind systems found in Kenya

George, you might be interested to hear that wind power has expanded in Kenya since your day. There are some quite spectacular wind turbines in the Ngong Hills these days - I see them regularly as I drive that way - and far more than there were just a few years ago. There are also plans to build more in Kajiado County, I understand. I live in that county on a ridge overlooking the Great Rift Valley and the winds at night are really regular and strong - I think it is something to do with the difference in temperatures between the valley and the ridge. But as I have said before, Kenya's greatest potential source of renewable energy is geothermal, and that is being expanded.

Many European wind farms are now offshore, with pretty constant and very strong winds. But as you say, wind is not the only renewable energy source. As per the UK statistics I quoted a couple of posts back, while a little more than 50% of electricity is still generated by fossil fuels and nuclear, that leaves an impressive amount generated by renewable sources, with a massive 24.3% from solar on some days.

johnthefireman wrote:

george matthews wrote:wind systems found in Kenya

George, you might be interested to hear that wind power has expanded in Kenya since your day. There are some quite spectacular wind turbines in the Ngong Hills these days - I see them regularly as I drive that way - and far more than there were just a few years ago. There are also plans to build more in Kajiado County, I understand. I live in that county on a ridge overlooking the Great Rift Valley and the winds at night are really regular and strong - I think it is something to do with the difference in temperatures between the valley and the ridge. But as I have said before, Kenya's greatest potential source of renewable energy is geothermal, and that is being expanded.

Many European wind farms are now offshore, with pretty constant and very strong winds. But as you say, wind is not the only renewable energy source. As per the UK statistics I quoted a couple of posts back, while a little more than 50% of electricity is still generated by fossil fuels and nuclear, that leaves an impressive amount generated by renewable sources, with a massive 24.3% from solar on some days.

I used to visit Rusinga Island and became acquainted with the wind regime there. At night, and in the early morning, there was a gentle wind from the east, caused by the land cooling down and the lake staying the same temperature. With some friends we travelled by sailing boat from Homa Bay to Rusinga under the moon. The journey was fairly slow but very enjoyable. We left Homa Bay at about midnight with some food. The boat took us to the western end of the island by about sunrise. I can't remember the exact time when the wind reversed direction - probably about 11.00 - but for the rest of the day a quite strong west wind blew to the east, used by the sailing boats travelling to Kisumu and the other towns along that stretch of the lake.

I have long been aware that if a series of modern wind generators could be erected in that area Kenya could gain a large amount of its energy needs. The West Wind towards Kisumu would be very suitable to add to the grid. Probably the East wind at night would not contribute much.

BTW this evening there was an interesting discussion on BBC Radio 4 about renewable energy. One topic aired was Batteries. It seems there are some important new storage devices which will be very useful for storing wind energy and other renewable sources which have intervals of no power. I think the prospects for non-carbon energy are looking very good. I was disappointed that there was no mention of biogas, which I have used and promoted in Kenya and Nigeria. I think there are huge possibilities of this method - energy from farms. Probably not for rail transport - though Sweden has used it in a rail car. I hear that biogas is spreading well in Kenya. Have you come across it?

Was there any actual point in those long rambling posts about how cute wind power is?? You can talk about how lovely it is until you're blue in the face. It still does not and never will be a meaningful contributor to bulk power generation. Seven percent. Every wind turbine could disappear tomorrow and nobody would notice. They are insignificant, expensive, and impractical. And they certainly do not power anyone's railroad despite the headlines from your echo chamber.

MCL1981 wrote:Was there any actual point in those long rambling posts about how cute wind power is?? You can talk about how lovely it is until you're blue in the face. It still does not and never will be a meaningful contributor to bulk power generation. Seven percent. Every wind turbine could disappear tomorrow and nobody would notice. They are insignificant, expensive, and impractical. And they certainly do not power anyone's railroad despite the headlines from your echo chamber.

I don't know why you are posting this nonsense. Wind generators are becoming cheaper every year. They are highly practical and there are a huge number already operating - even in California. And where they supply the power in grid systems their output certainly contributes to rail power. I don't know why you call them "cute". The proper word is "practical".

If the United States persists in denying the need to decarbonise its economy, I think the European Union will enact tariffs to reflect that.

I think the point is really about renewable energy sources in general, of which wind is only one. They include wind, solar, hydro, waves, geothermal, biomass and probably others. As those statistics from UK demonstrate, they can already contribute a significant percentage of electricity capacity, and are increasing all the time.

johnthefireman wrote:I think the point is really about renewable energy sources in general, of which wind is only one. They include wind, solar, hydro, waves, geothermal, biomass and probably others. As those statistics from UK demonstrate, they can already contribute a significant percentage of electricity capacity, and are increasing all the time.

Indeed. My main work has been with biogas, which I think will have a useful effect, mainly in tropical areas. I would think biogas can be effective for less money than wind power and so can benefit more people. And it doesn't increase atmospheric carbon. However, I don't expect to see it benefit railways, whereas wind will have some benefit for railways, at least in some areas. That is despite the Swedish experience with a biogas powered railcar.

But I have noticed there are still large numbers of people in the US, from their president down, who don't yet appreciate the need to reduce carbon emissions. They have among the world's lowest proportion of electrification of their fairly sparse railway systems.

I agree that the headline is a bit misleading, after all some Dutch trains are diesel! It partly depends how you define 'commuter'.
Ignoring that, obviously you cannot distinguish the method of production of individual electrons within the grid. However the fact that the railways have contracted with a supplier to put in as much wind generated electricity as they use, means that they are not causing non-renewable energy to be used. They might get a bit of coal generated electricity to their trains, but that just means the wind generated electricity gets used elsewhere.

george matthews wrote:I don't know why you are posting this nonsense.

Because here in reality, it is not nonsense.

MODS NOTE< Lets have both sides use less emotive language , and stick to the 'facts". Obviously , peoples opinion of what the "facts" are is different, and that's o.k, just keep it civil.

talltim wrote:I agree that the headline is a bit misleading, after all some Dutch trains are diesel! It partly depends how you define 'commuter'.
Ignoring that, obviously you cannot distinguish the method of production of individual electrons within the grid. However the fact that the railways have contracted with a supplier to put in as much wind generated electricity as they use, means that they are not causing non-renewable energy to be used. They might get a bit of coal generated electricity to their trains, but that just means the wind generated electricity gets used elsewhere.

There are some less active Dutch rail lines which are still diesel powered. But only rather few. And as it is more than ten years since I was last in the Netherlands I am not sure how many non-electric routes there still are.

johnthefireman wrote:Indian Railways’ first solar plants launched

A major news item here today is the report of the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2016. So Indian Railways installation of solar electricity is news of a useful development. The point about wind and solar power is that there are several non-carbon sources of energy. As they increase supplying the grids of various countries they will all feed into rail energy. Even in the US there are increasing non-carbon sources, despite the hostility of some politicians. Fortunately a decentralised political system allows many sources of economic decision making whether certain politicians approve or not.

Do you even read these things beyond the BS headlines? They put some solar panels on the roof of a building. It powers some of one station at some times of some days. It is not powering the railroad in any way at all. It's a total joke.

Do you even read these things beyond the BS headlines? They put some solar panels on the roof of a building. It powers some of one station at some times of some days. It is not powering the railroad in any way at all. It's a total joke.

Why do you think it is a joke? Surely if anybody or any institution is using renewaable energy to produce some (however small) percentage of its energy needs, that is a little less CO2 being released, and is a step in the right direction? Nobody is expecting renewables to replace fossil and nuclear overnight, but the percentage is slowly and inexorably increasing.