Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

And where is the energy to power all of them coming from?

GP is saying that you can approximate the energy going into the system by looking at the electricity consumption of the trains, as all then energy is eventually going to end up as heat.

A heat pump can have a CoP topping out at 5. So 1 unit of energy needed to move 5 units heat out. That means a “net zero” cooling system would consume a minimum of 20% as much energy as the trains themselves. Realistically it’s probably closer to a CoP of 3.5, so 28% more energy. For something like the underground that gonna be a 5-10% increase in there operational costs at a minimum. Where does the funding for all that come from? And that before we even look at the capital costs of heat pumps and various ancillary equipment needed to run them.

As a point of reference TfL underground trains have an average power consumption of 140MW continuous. Now only about 45% of the underground is actually underground, but that’s still 63MW in just the underground parts. At an optimistic CoP of 5, that means 12.6MW of additional energy needed to cool the tunnels using your approach.

Wholesale electricity prices in the UK are something like 7p per kWh. So over a year that’s an additional £17m of electricity, just for cooling.



£17 million doesn't sound that unreasonable for climate control for a system as large as London's


That's £17M of electricity, not including all the equipment, staff, installation costs etc.

To put this in perspective, Sadiq Khan already runs the system at a massive loss. They just about cover their operating costs at the momemt, and rely entirely on grants from the rest of the country to do upgrades of any kind. So cooling efforts have to be very cost efficient. Also the UK grid is very supply constrained. New nukes are being built but there have been the expected massive cost overruns and problems, so any large new energy demands in the UK just aren't happening anytime soon. It's actually been deindustrializing due to very high electricity costs.


TfL spends close to 100% of its income on operating costs. It does not get any other money.


Doing things on a large scale cost money… often more than what taxpayers are willing to bear, are you genuinely confused about that?


Yes doing things at scale does cost lots of money. That often why doing the “obvious” is the wrong approach. When you’re operating at that kind of scale, small savings are still substantial, and scale often makes more innovative, less obvious solutions a better pick. Especially given the cost of exploring those options is so cheap compared to total cost of the project.

Also the underground is funded pretty much entirely by fares paid. Past UK governments have cut any tax payer subsidies for TfL to zero for day-to-day operational costs, and there’s zero indication that’s going to change any time soon.


How is that relevant to my comment?

I didn’t claim all technically possible solutions would be politically acceptable.


I’m pointing out how shallow and unhelpful your comment is. I provided an analysis as to why a seemingly obvious solution has serious problems, you made an unhelpful comment that seems to suggest that commenting on the cost of a project means I’m confused about the political acceptability of a project, rather than the fact I’m trying to demonstrate why the obvious solution might have some problems. Which has nothing to political acceptability, but is simply a comment on the poor value-for-money that specific solution represents.


Are you even replying to the actual comment?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: