rail and wind...

[Javaman]

Okay, I'm just throwing this out there for critique.

I know putting wind turbines on a vehicle to collect wind as it travels is a very inefficient idea. drag, etc.

How about locating the wind turbines along the rails to take advantage of the wind generated by the passing train?

I know the amount would be small per turbine, but if you have enough of them along the route, would it create a step effect?

Meh, I'm just spit balling, I kind of know my answer already, but I just wanted to see what you all thought.

(Oh and the anti wind folks, please chime in, your screeds are always amusing.)

[kristopher]

1. Cost/benefit fail IMO

[Javaman]

5. yeah, thought as much.

Like I said, just spit balling.

Thanks. :)

[drm604]

2. I would think that the turbines would create some drag on the train

thus negating any energy gained from the turbines. Otherwise you'd be getting something for nothing, wouldn't you? Maybe some one more knowledgeable will chime in.

[The Croquist]

7. I'm betting you are correct

The turbine will slow the wind down putting a little more resistance on the train and increasing the fuel use of the train.
If you weren't paying for the trains fuel you could come out ahead but somebody is footing the bill.

[phantom power]

3. Fun fact: somebody actually did this in an underpass at DTW airport...

put some ducted-turbines along the ceiling that channel wind from passing traffic. Looks like it was an experiment in powering the underpass lighting.

I agree with kristopher, probably not a cost/benefit win.

[Statistical]

4. It would work......

however it wouldn't be economical.

It takes a lot of wind to make a measurable amount of electrical power.

So you have a high fixed cost which is static and amount of revenue (electrical power) is directly related to average sustained wind speeds.

There simply isn't enough wind from trains and not enough trains to make it economical.

You can put a wind turbine just about anywhere on the globe and it will produce energy however the economics comes down to a large fixed cost vs. revenue based on wind speed. Some locations are not economical for wind it doesn't mean there isn't wind energy.

[Ready4Change]

6. NSTAAFL

No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

In short, any energy you harvest has to come from somewhere. In this case, it comes from the train. The most significant amount you could harvest would probably be from sideways air motion, rather than motion along the tracks. Air is moved sideways as the train approaches, then moves sideways again to fill in the vacuum gap where the train was. I suppose this could be collected with bidirectional turbines, creating an alternating current.

But if you significantly harvest this you will have the effect of increasing the pressure ahead of the train, and increasing the vacuum behind, resulting in increased drag and increased load/fuel burn on the train. You would in effect be converting the trains engine into an extremely inefficient generator.

There is a very small amount of energy in the air flow along the tracks after the train passes. But any energy gained from that would be outweighed by the cost of the equipment needed to recover it.

[BeFree]

8. Car and wind maybe?

There are a lot cars moving which disperse a lot of air.

Lots of energy is used/wasted by a car moving air out of its way.

Good thinking!

[Nihil]

9. Depend on what you are intending to do

If you are wanting to supplement the grid then you are SOL as explained
by several people upthread.

If you are wanting to power telemetry or other remote low power load
devices then fine - that sort of thing is in use today in the UK,
not just by railways but also by major roads

I see quite a few such devices every day on my (rail) commute and
drive past other ones when visiting family, etc..

They are usually teamed with a small appropriately-angled PV panel
(and presumably a battery in the equipment cabinet) and make far more
sense than trying to run a dedicated power feed along the road/railway.

:hi: