I assume this only applies in non-built up areas, but have I got this about right--Europe (or anywhere) could plant these windmills every two or three km along its rail tracks and have a large part of its rail infastructure powered by wind? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Or build an EPR. :) Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
A high speed international rail network run on nothing more offensive, polluting, or dangerous than windmills. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
(Facilities growing up around the windmills...new towns linked to renewable energy...transport to the next windmill guaranteed....)
A european project tying together the various groups in Europe (I think I'm still on topic), reducing emissions, creating better public transport, reducing plane travel, tying us physically to our neighbours (psychological difference between a journey on train and a journey by car or air)...
(So many technical issues to solve. Massive injections of finance to universities, a boom in post-graduate work...) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
There are already a lot of wind farms in Spain, Denmark or Northern Germany. Here is the first of about two dozen I encountered en route to Berlin last week (hope it loads, trying out new image hosting site):
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
How about transmission losses, by the way? And autonomy? And avoiding buying power at the marginal price, and having the possibility of feeding into the grid? Also, having the windmills spaced 2.5Km apart all along the line means the intermittency is largely averaged out.
Are there not practical advantages to such a scheme?
I'm still thinking there should be a windmill at the centre of every roundabout. And don't tell me it's ugly: in the US midwest people don't complain about their town's water towers. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
Where have I contradicted that?
Also, having the windmills spaced 2.5Km apart all along the line means the intermittency is largely averaged out.
Maybe along the Transsiberian. For any railway within the EU, the distances are too small, thus intermittance will be a factor; though fortunately, it is just railways that have a quite large share of hydropower. Balancing across the entire railway network of the EU has no plus compared to balancing with the rest of the grid.
The advantage of putting turbines along the railway may be that they could be erected on railway right-of-way, sparing land purchase costs. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In any case, the factor of at least 6 in energy consumption per passenger-km between planes and trains boggles the mind. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
To recapitulate: because you have to consider territories affected in a half kilometre radius anyway, and because the site of the best wind is not necessarily along the railway, and because you have long transmission distances along the railway line anyway, railway-feeding wind farms might as well be built as normal wind farms somewhere near the line. Railways might opt to build wind farms, and use as much electricity as their wind farms produce, thus not having to spend on buying net electricity elsewhere, but that net zero would cover having to get electricity from the grid and sending surplus to the grid depending on intermittance. It's best if what they buy is regenerative energy too, and it's best anyway if non-rail users have regenerative sources too, so why not cut it short and create a wind-et-al-fed grid which feeds rail too. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
