Powering the Tube in the future

this is pretty much what the 'big energy debate' is at the moment.

we draw the power from the NG at the moment and this is exactly what is being talked about now.

LU was powered by Lots Road in Chelsea until 2003 where it was transferred to EDF energy which is a shareholder in Metronet.

If we put in tidal barrages on the Severn that could generate SEVENTY PERCENT 70% of our energy but it would have drastic effects on wildlife and shipping.

I'm not going to cast a vote as nobody quite knows what to do yet.


wind power is all good, but if the wind dies down, you need conventional power stations to back them up and we have exploited it to the most we can.

Hydrogen fuel cells are a good idea, but they require 'electrolysis' to get the H₂ out of the H₂O so we need to have power stations to get the hydrogen for those power stations, it doesn't work. That's why fuel cell buses aren't that great because they use up electricty to produce the enviromentally friendly vehicles.

The other problem is that hydrogen fuel cells chuck out alot of H₂O and this would collect in tunnels which would mean that drainage in tunnels would be needed and condenstation would collect, so you would need windscreen wipers on the whole time. You would also need to put more hydrogen into trains at the depot which would defeat the point of an LU train not having to go back to depots during the day.

Hydrogen also can be very dangerous, remember that airship that blew up? they were filled with Hydrogen which explodes amazingly, it is fun in chemistry, but if there was a fire it is a bomb!

There aren't enough hills in our great land for hydroelectric power and we exploit it at the moment by pumping the water up to a higher level off-peak when there is less demand and more excess electricity, and then during the peak the water runs through the turbines and more power is generated during the peak.

and yes we are on the 'Energy' module of our Physics GCSE!

Admin Comment: I'm not sure I see the point of this poll, but we'll see how it goes....

One or two facts about the barrage:
1. it was first planned just before the Second severn crossing, and was to be incorporated in it. That way it MIGHT have run at a profit as a dual-purpose device. But nothing came of it. No idea how the sums work now, but I suspect that on its own it's not financially viable.

2. Five nuclear power stations is a totally misleading fact put out by the supporters. It only works when the tide is going out, and then the water has to be held in for 6 hours to get enough 'head' to run it properly. Now, for those 6 hours it COULD produce the same as 5 nuclear stations, but that's only a quarter of a day. So for the rest of the day that power still has to be provided by conventional stations - and since it takes an hour or more to 'run one up' and run it down when not needed it makes it even worse. And, the high tide moves on an hour each day, so at some point all this wonderful energy is produced when we are all asleep.....

3. The wildlife/environmental concerns are due to the need to hold back the water for 6 hours after high tide to get the 'head'. These concerns are severe and quite different from the other locations where barrages have been built/planned.

Personally I can't see it happening: otherwise it'd have been put in with the second Severn Crossing.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells.

and they aren't that enviromental - biomass uses large amounts of arable land, and still produces CO2. waste incinerators are similar, though don't use up farmland.

Good to see that Photovoltaic isn't in the poll: solar panels are very costly energy wise to make (and use lots of nasty chemicals). It takes something like 15 years to break even energy wise (due to the sheer amount of energy needed to make them, and their terrible efficency - about 15%). The technology is improving all the time, but at the moment they is still a gimmic for calculators (these solar cells are very cheap - made from leftovers and 3% efficent), local authorities, universities and futuristic houses.

electrolysis is the reaction to get the H from the H₂O

they are making Hydrogen in Japan with spare electricity on the National Grid there.

Biomass is better than just leaving landfill because the methane from landfill is more harmful to the environment left alone instead of being burned, where the CO₂ produced is less harmful.

the water in tube tunnels would be ridiculous and the amount of space used up on very space limited tube trains too high. Hydrogen is very dangerous too, who wants another Hindenburg in a tube tunnel?

it is true ATO, cows and rice fields are some of the world's biggest polluters.

ONE flight to Australia produces the same pollution as a whole season of F1

underwater turbines are still harmful to fish! they are giant wind turnines going up and down and spinning underwater

Put big wind turbines on top of Westminster Station. They'd catch all the hot air produced from across the road, to run not only LU, but the countries energy for life ;D

I still get the impression folks don't understand about hydrogen. The only realistic place it is got from is splitting water. And it takes energy to split water. More energy than released when water is put back together in a fuel cell. As politicians say "a negative benefit"!!

Fuel cells are only of use where there is no other energy source handy (like in a desert) or where lack of polluting exhaust is the overriding consideration (As it could be in cities). Otherwise production of hydrogen (if powered by electricity produced from fossil fuels) is merely using up the world's resources faster.

And the above safety points apply too. There was a serious attempt in the early seventies to power cars by ammonia. It even got as far as a prototype before the thought of a ruptured fuel tank in an accident in an accident was thought of..... . Hydrogen is worse - it creeps through gaps too small for other gases to escape through.

More nuclear power from the national grid, eventualy tidal barrages but forget about Hydroge as you need tanks cooled at -200°C to cool it down so that's not viable.

By an odd coincidence 3 of my teachers have worked in power plants; and they all say without doubt the medium term solution to the worlds growing power crisis is nuclear.

..............................in other words a fast (breeder) reactor. The type that we in the UK developed then the Government stopped due to the cost (not political pressure this time).
But the French didn't stop, so when we eventually get round to wanting fast reactors we will have to buy them from the French who have no qualms about nuclear (as Dunois hinted at above). French aim is to go 100% nuclear asap.

But of course the French don't bother with things like public enquiries.....

Clockwork Trains are the future. Drivers will be issued big keys to wind them up in stations.