Solar Panels

In an effort to "green-up" passenger rail even more than it is said to be, would it be feasible to build solar panels onto the top of passenger rail cars? There is plenty of room on the top and on a sunny day, 10 cars with solar panels might generate a lot of electricity.

Any other ideas?

not even enough power for emergency lighting.
And if the little darlings, find out there is breakable stuff on roof, they will only increase their rock trowing effort.

lattasnipe9 wrote:In an effort to "green-up" passenger rail even more than it is said to be, would it be feasible to build solar panels onto the top of passenger rail cars? There is plenty of room on the top and on a sunny day, 10 cars with solar panels might generate a lot of electricity.

Any other ideas?

Let us outlaw the expression "solar panel" as ambiguous. We are talking about photovoltaic panels - devices that convert sunlight to electricity.

A train uses electricity for traction in the megawatt range. PV produces electricity in range of 100s of watts per square metre (or less). So, no, even if you covered every surface of the train exposed to direct sunlight you would not produce enough electricity even for hotel power.

It is possible to power a boat with PV but not a train. I use some PV to work a water pump that circulates the water in a solar water heater.

It is possible to build large scale PV power generators but they are still rather expensive. The price of PV tends to come down with time and as they produce no carbon dioxide when in use their power will compare well when coal and oil are charged with their carbon price.

DutchRailnut wrote:not even enough power for emergency lighting.
And if the little darlings, find out there is breakable stuff on roof, they will only increase their rock trowing effort.

Eh, I have to disagree on the first part. 8 sq ft can produce about 190 watts.

Figure 60'x6' of roof space (sort of a WAG) and you're generating about 8.5 KW. Let's be conservative and round that down by 1/2 (sub-optimal lighting, etc.) and you're still talking over 4KW. That's 40 100 watt bulbs, which in my experience far exceeds what the current emergency lighting needs are.

And they're designed to handle hail and the like so they're pretty touch.

That said, I can't see the additional cost and maintenance to be worth it.

Well this is how i make my living . The first step is to reduce your power use ( unless your a movie star , then the first step is to carry on using huge amounts of energy and tell everyone youve got a solar panel on your roof ) . once youve got that down to about
20 -25 % of a normal house then you look at solar power .
the situation for amtrak is the same , they have hep and aircon systems that could probably be made 100 % more efficent ( i.e use 1/2 the power they do now ) . that would have a far greater payback than pv panels .
The only reason Amtrak would put pv panels on their trains is "greenwash" . They could then advertise them as "green " trains , but if they really wanted to save energy , then there are far more cost effective ways to do it .

What is the electrical output comparison between a solar/PV panel on the roof, and a wheelset generator?

David Benton wrote:but if they really wanted to save energy , then there are far more cost effective ways to do it .

Lighter trains, regenerative braking.

David Benton wrote:Well this is how i make my living . The first step is to reduce your power use...The only reason Amtrak would put pv panels on their trains is "greenwash" . They could then advertise them as "green " trains , but if they really wanted to save energy , then there are far more cost effective ways to do it .

This is one of the smartest things I've read here on the Amtrak forum.

Thanks, David.

george matthews wrote:Lighter trains, regenerative braking.

The Acelas do have regenerative braking; pretty common technology for electric powered vehicles by now. Still, with technology improvements, they could go for more efficient regenerative braking, lighter vehicles, more efficient engines and heating/cooling systems.

But solar panels on the roof of 150 (or more) mph trains would present maintenance and replacement issues due to dings, damage, and vibration. And they would only supply a small part of the power needed even in full sunshine. Wouldn't be cost effective to put them on unless or until thin film solar panels & the associated inverters & power distribution systems get so cheap and efficient enough to make it no big deal to stick them on the roof. Thin film solar panels on the roof of an electric powered automobile can make sense once the cost is low enough as a electric car has a battery the solar panels can trickle recharge when parked. A train that is always connected to a power grid? Makes more sense to go for non fossil fuel power sources - wind, solar power plants, nuclear, geothermal - for the catenary.

not only ACELA , but HHP-8 and P32acdm have regenerative braking.
The P32acdm uses power to power HEP inverter while braking.

DutchRailnut wrote:not only ACELA , but HHP-8 and P32acdm have regenerative braking.
The P32acdm uses power to power HEP inverter while braking.

and also AEM7AC

This is what we call a "reach" topic, where we try to connect an unrelated topic and make a tenuous connection to something railroad related. Since this is not specific to Amtrak, I'll move it somewhere appropriate.

-otto-

What about using solar thermal collectors to power a large sterling displacement engine connected to the alternator?

Sounds good , as long as you use Flux capacitors in second stage.

RedLantern wrote:What about using solar thermal collectors to power a large sterling displacement engine connected to the alternator?

DutchRailnut wrote:Sounds good , as long as you use Flux capacitors in second stage.

Lets not cheapen the original posters question . Pv power on a train may not be economically feasible at the moment , but its in the ball park . on a new build , it may be worth it , but with a long payback time ( at least 20 years , in todays economic thinking that makes it uneconomic ) . its just that theres many other simpler , cheaper things that amtrak could do first . I would say that would pay for themselves within 2 -3 years .