Like all graphs and figures, there are many ways to interperate them.
I remember reading many years ago of a comparison between Electric and Diesel Locomotives.
The graphs clearly showed that an Electric Loco was much better than a similar Diesal and I dont doubt the figures are still relevant today.
This particular comparison was part of a campaign to get support to Electrify a section of line.
Many many years later out came another comparison extolling the virtues of Diesals over spending on Electrification.
Overhead wiring also limits height of loads and clearance.
I dont know much about '3rd Rail' as to its efficiency regarding high speed/heavy load trains.
Based on the fact that no railway I have ever read about uses '3rd Rail' except in suburban areas makes it a useable option it seems.
However like all good presentations it sort of missed some other essential details like the TOTAL costs between the two.
Excluding general track upgrades to cater for load/speed capacity, Electric traction requires major capitol outlay for the overhead wiring and substations whereas a Diesal is ready to go work on existing lines.
The same I see applies to Nuclear/Solar power.
Nuclear has the still bugbear of Radiation and waste disposal but it is available continuously 24 hours a day.
Coal and Gas fired power stations are the same.
Solar still doesnt work when the sun sets and untill they overcome that I cant see how they can genuinely compare one methord against the other.
I am of course deliberately ignoring Wind,Hydro or Tidal methords and just compairing Solar and Nuclear as though they were the only two options available.
I would love to see Solar Power be the power generation of choice but I would not be adverse to continuing investigations into the use of Nuclear power.
And YES, if they proposed a Nuclear Generator in 'My Back Yard', providing every possible safety precaution is taken, I would support it.
Bookmarks