by mhig9000
I was wondering what the feasibility of putting solar panels between railroad tracks would be. I do realize that Photovoltaic cells arent in anywhere close to the same ballpark as conventional power plants in terms of efficiency, but I see this more as a project for a company willing to pay a lot of money up front to see a good return on investment once the panels pay for their initial cost. I could see this happening given that the concept could be proven and the economics work out, which could definitely be a possibility as the cost of solar panels comes down and the price for electricity climbs which does appear to be the case.
But more to the point, I'm wondering how railroads would react to the idea. Obviously, some sort of agreement would be worked out for the rights to place the panels in exchange for a yearly fee, but how much would a railroad want for the added hassle of having outsiders meddling on their tracks?
And more basically - would they even permit anyone to do this?
How sensitive are the ties and ballast and could the panels be affixed strongly enough to prevent theft or damage?
And then just as far as the basic physical requirements of the system go:
Would track maintenance be significantly affected? I've read that every 3rd or 4th tie is replaced every couplde of years on tracks with wooden ties, but concrete ties last 50 years - could that be a possibility?.
Also there are ballast concerns - how often is ballast replaced and does it require clear access between the rails?
Also, how much clearance is there between the top of the rails and the ties? Would clearance be an issue? Does anything hang below any types of cars or locos? I assume this isnt too much of a problem because switches run between the rails.
Would electric currents running in insulated lines between the tracks disturb the track circuits or cab signals?
Are railroad lines in the southwest located near enough areas connected to the grid to avoid the need to run lines dozens of miles?
And then, of course, there is the matter of direct sunlight, locating it in the southwest is a start, but does anyone know how unobstructed the rail lines are out there as far as sunlight goes? And how often do trains run on the lines and how long are the trains and how fast do they usually travel? I'm trying to figure out the average amount of sunlight the panels would lose per day due to trains traveling over. Ideally they'd be lines that didnt have that much obstruction, although lines that were rarely used would probably not be that great either because the panels would go unmonitored for too long.
Thats it for questions, but in case youre wondering what I see in this far fetched idea:
Benefits to the company who places the panels by using rails:
Plenty of tracks in the Southwest (BNSF and UP) with lots of direct sunlight
Easy acess to the panels (they're right between rails after all)
Tracks are spread out so the panels could tap into the grid where it was convenient and where energy prices were the highest
Im assuming the railroads wouldnt demand too much in "rent" (I don't know this but I'm hoping other posters will set me straight) so land costs would be cheaper than buying a big plot somewhere
Security - with trains running over them all the time it would be easy to find out if panels had been damaged or vandalized without needing to hire security personnel.
Benefits to the Railroads:
Good PR: Most people still think railroads are dirty and not environmentally friendly but could help change that image and spread the word about the efficiency of rail freight.
Money: The "rent" can help to offset the high costs of track maintenance and repair
Safety: The panels could be wired to provide backup power for signals, etc. to provide a fail safe.
So those are just some ponderings ive been having, I'm more interested in hearing about whether you think this could work logistically and getting some of my questions answered rather than whether it would be prudent to implement economically or its impact on energy policy. As you can tell I don't know all that much about railroad infrastructure.
And if you do think this is a good plan please dont steal it, haha.
But more to the point, I'm wondering how railroads would react to the idea. Obviously, some sort of agreement would be worked out for the rights to place the panels in exchange for a yearly fee, but how much would a railroad want for the added hassle of having outsiders meddling on their tracks?
And more basically - would they even permit anyone to do this?
How sensitive are the ties and ballast and could the panels be affixed strongly enough to prevent theft or damage?
And then just as far as the basic physical requirements of the system go:
Would track maintenance be significantly affected? I've read that every 3rd or 4th tie is replaced every couplde of years on tracks with wooden ties, but concrete ties last 50 years - could that be a possibility?.
Also there are ballast concerns - how often is ballast replaced and does it require clear access between the rails?
Also, how much clearance is there between the top of the rails and the ties? Would clearance be an issue? Does anything hang below any types of cars or locos? I assume this isnt too much of a problem because switches run between the rails.
Would electric currents running in insulated lines between the tracks disturb the track circuits or cab signals?
Are railroad lines in the southwest located near enough areas connected to the grid to avoid the need to run lines dozens of miles?
And then, of course, there is the matter of direct sunlight, locating it in the southwest is a start, but does anyone know how unobstructed the rail lines are out there as far as sunlight goes? And how often do trains run on the lines and how long are the trains and how fast do they usually travel? I'm trying to figure out the average amount of sunlight the panels would lose per day due to trains traveling over. Ideally they'd be lines that didnt have that much obstruction, although lines that were rarely used would probably not be that great either because the panels would go unmonitored for too long.
Thats it for questions, but in case youre wondering what I see in this far fetched idea:
Benefits to the company who places the panels by using rails:
Plenty of tracks in the Southwest (BNSF and UP) with lots of direct sunlight
Easy acess to the panels (they're right between rails after all)
Tracks are spread out so the panels could tap into the grid where it was convenient and where energy prices were the highest
Im assuming the railroads wouldnt demand too much in "rent" (I don't know this but I'm hoping other posters will set me straight) so land costs would be cheaper than buying a big plot somewhere
Security - with trains running over them all the time it would be easy to find out if panels had been damaged or vandalized without needing to hire security personnel.
Benefits to the Railroads:
Good PR: Most people still think railroads are dirty and not environmentally friendly but could help change that image and spread the word about the efficiency of rail freight.
Money: The "rent" can help to offset the high costs of track maintenance and repair
Safety: The panels could be wired to provide backup power for signals, etc. to provide a fail safe.
So those are just some ponderings ive been having, I'm more interested in hearing about whether you think this could work logistically and getting some of my questions answered rather than whether it would be prudent to implement economically or its impact on energy policy. As you can tell I don't know all that much about railroad infrastructure.
And if you do think this is a good plan please dont steal it, haha.