Why Isn't Steam Making a Comeback?

[beaulieu]

Not yet mentioned are particulates and SO2, The coal fired locomotive would probably be required to have a desulphurization system and some type of particulate filter. With the arrival of Tier 3 emissions railroad diesel fuel will have to be Ultra-low sulphur. Presumeably steam locomotives would have to control SO2 emissions as well. Also while steam locomotive particulates are larger than those produced by diesels, they would have to be controlled. A final point not yet mentioned is the coal supply, while there is an abundance of coal in the US, miners are in short supply, and coal prices have roughly doubled in the past year.

[KCSfan]

 This thread seems to be merely a rehash/continuation of the other thread.....

That was not the intent of this thread. Please read my prior message.

   As far as the question at the heart of this thread it should really be asked of decision makers in the railroad industry, it cannot be answered by debate among railfans...

In fact some of the people (RWM for one) who read and post messages on these forums are industry insiders and have some knowledge of the thinking of the decision makers.

Mark

[selector]

Well. 

Such passion. 

I wonder if the rephrased question, by carnej1, might be a good starting point to get us going again?   KCS?  Would you like another crack at your question? 

 

[KCSfan]

Well. 

Such passion. 

I wonder if the rephrased question, by carnej1, might be a good starting point to get us going again?   KCS?  Would you like another crack at your question? 

I have no problem with that suggestion. I phrased my original topic heading as I did because I wanted it to be a companion, follow up of the "Could Steam Make a Comeback" thread.

Mark

[choochoobuff]

Yes, if the right people wanted it to.

[Anonymous]

I started this topic to keep the replies from getting lost in the never ending thread of a similar name. On that other thread steam locomotives have been proclaimed to be superior to diesels in the following aspects:

1. Lower operating costs (primarily coal vs diesel fuel price differential)

2. Lower initial captial cost per equivalent hp

3. Superior performance (more hp at higher speeds where it is needed)

4. Longer service life

5. Lower repair costs

6. Easier on trackage (resulting in reduced MOW expense)

I personally am not convinced of the validity of all these claims (particularly 5 & 6), but for purposes of this discussion let's assume all are valid. The $64 question then becomes, why aren't the railroads jumping on the bandwagon and at least seriously studying the use of steam locomotives as a replacement for diesels on some of their routes where the supposed benefits would be greatest? A corrolary question is, why hasn't some firm recognized the market potential and stepped forward to design and build a truly modern steam demonstrator for actual in-service trials?

Mark

As to the question of this thread, assuming that the six advantages of steam listed in the first post are true, there is one probable explanation of why a switch to steam has not yet happened.  That is that none of the advantages or all of them combined are enough to offset the cost and risk of developing viable steam locomotives, and the cost of marketing and selling the concept to the industry, which I suspect would be highly resistant and skeptical of such a radical change.  For one thing, if the railroads convert to steam, the diesel locomotive industry goes away, and there is no going back to it without a huge penalty. 

Since advantages #2-6 are not increasing, they will never alone be enough to prompt a return to steam.  But advantage #1 is increasing as oil prices rise.  So, if it were not for advantage #1, I speculate that the answer to the question of the other thread, Could steam make a comeback? would be no.  But I think the whole world is rapidly heading into uncharted territory in regard to energy cost, and regulation of energy production and usage, and so no change in energy usage seems too radical to contemplate.

[MichaelSol]

   The whole probably with the arguement is that supports have really only looked at the price of coal vs. oil and not really much beyond that. 

Then you haven't read anything that has been posted the past five weeks, or are just trying to start the whole argument all over again. There's no point in that unless you actually have something new to offer.

Admittedly, the topic is tiresome when people offer 1) opinions without facts, 2) bias without premise, 3) conclusions without analysis, 4) economic answers without a single number in sight, and 5) self-gratifying observations that everything is self-evident notwithstanding published statistical evidence to the contrary.

Sir, why don't really say what's on mind?  In my opinion, from the tone of your response I can tell you are dying to say a few choice words to me.  I appologize for not reading the 35 pages of the last thread and it's my opinion.   

Then don't lecture anyone that you feel "it hasn't been discussed" and then acknowledge you haven't lifted a finger to know what was actually discussed.

"Contradiction" has nothing to do with it. A considered opinion is worth its weight in gold; one that pretends to know something, without having admittedly read anything, is something else. It seems like the thread author tried to make that clear when he asked that a particular assumption be respected ....

 

[MichaelSol]

The last thing I wanted to do when I posed this question was to start another steam vs diesel debate!!! That has been and continues to be thoroughly discussed on the other thread which is its right place.

The following quote from my original message sets forth what I hoped would be a groundrule for discussions on this thread. "I personally am not convinced of the validity of all these claims" (of steam's superiority over diesel), "but for purposes of this discussion let's assume all are valid." To the extent possible please try to keep this assumption in mind when you frame your replies. Many thanks -

Mark 

Mark- some topics seem to light up some of the posters. 

It certainly lit up you; offering strong opinions about what should be answered and not answered, based on your preconceived notions. What have you ever actually offered on this subject, but sarcasm? The topic itself seems to light you up, but not enough to do any homework. That's the problem ...

As Mark suggested, "consider it true" and go from there.

You couldn't do that .... you never can, to the point of lecturing people on what questions they should and should not answer. Because you know ..., right?

Some people take the time and trouble to examine issues. They don't just make stuff up, whether its about UP, hazmat, or EH Harriman. You make stuff up, and often refuse to acknowledge any alternative, nor with the benefit of an argument to support it. I find the attitude reprehensible; and as this thread shows, a compulsion to argue something different, and even when the thread author politely asks to go somewhere else, you simply can't even respect that minimal request .... because of your personal, unsubstantiated, "feelings"  that ... "light you up", even as you seem to be unable to find anything, anything at all, factually to say on the topic ....

 

[Andrew Falconer]

Steam Turbines in power plants generate electricity.

The electricity is sent through power lines to centenaries.

The centenaries send the electricity down the pantographs to the traction motors

The traction motors move the trains.

That is the only economically feasible way to use steam for a railroad.

Andrew

[wsherrick]

Steam Turbines in power plants generate electricity.

The electricity is sent through power lines to centenaries.

The centenaries send the electricity down the pantographs to the traction motors

The traction motors move the trains.

That is the only economically feasible way to use steam for a railroad.

Andrew

I think not.

[railcar]

This talk about a steam comeback is a waste of time.

Never going to happen.No savings for the railways.

[vsmith]

Oh God are we going to get another 36 pages of "Tastes Great-Less Filling" ???

[edblysard]

Ok,

If I read the original question correctly...the poster was asking why steam locomotives are not being currently evaluated for general use by railroads.

He did not specify that the locomotives had to be fueled by coal, but simply be "steam" locomotives.

There is, right now, a tremendously efficient steam turbine/electric power plant in use...it re-condenses both sides of the heat exchange loop, has a proven track record, and is in daily use, 24/7.

The US Navy uses these GE power plants in the Seawolf and the Los Angeles class attack submarines.

They are compact, engineered to run over 6 months in continuous service, able to distill raw water into usable water for the clean side of the loop, and can propel a huge vessel through a dense medium at 28 knots submerged.

The reactor, heat exchanger, turbine and alternator would fit easily on the frame of a SD70.

Here is why this type, and any other steam powered locomotive will not run on US main line.

Ask anyone who ever wore the Dolphins what the most closely guarded and secure room in the boat is...you might guess the reactor chambers, but you would be mistaken...it is the steam room.

Not because of the fear of sabotage, but because when a steam boiler/heat exchanger or steam turbine fail, they often fail catastrophically.

 

Fact...trains derail, have head on and rear end collisions, and generally make a pretty big mess when these things happen.

Fact...when a diesel engine fails, the failure rarely causes catastrophic results...a thrown rod or blown piston is not such a horrendous event, and can be repaired at almost any shop on any railroad.

Have a steam boiler fail, and the results can kill people.

Note the reluctance of most railroads to allow steam excursions on their property, because the liability insurance is out of sight...it is not because they doubt the expertise of the crews running the locomotive, but because insurance companies recognize that accidents do happen, and when a steam boiler is involved, people often get killed, so they refuse to underwrite the trip, or set rates no one can or will pay.

That is not to say every steam failure is lethal, but the risk is greater than that of a failure in a diesel engine.

 

So, we have a steam system that is proven to function under the most extreme conditions, but let's assume that the primary fuel for any of the proposed locomotive is coal.

To address the posters original question as to why these locomotive are not being produced and running rings around the current motive power.

1: The infrastructure to supply the fuel no longer exist, is cost prohibitive to rebuild, and would require a railroad to run way too many non revenue "fuel trains" to supply the need, even with the "efficient" steam locomotives discussed in the other thread.

2: Even with all the most modern techniques and materials, advanced computers and all that, steam plants require constant watch and maintenance, and the skills required to provide that no longer are common, the labor cost to retrain or hire new would be phenomenal.

You can't just stop, tie it down and flip it over to isolate, then get in the cab and drive away from a steam locomotive, no matter how modern it is.

3: Again, even with the modern materials and engineering, steam locomotives would require many purpose built or specialized parts, unique to each individual locomotive...there would be no shake the box and parts swapping, which is quite common with diesels, so a force of machinist and the associated shops and re tooling would be required, again, the cost to re-train, train new or hire out would be out of sight.

Same applies to spare or replacement parts, I doubt if GE or GM plans on re-tooling a plant or two to produce crank pins or boiler flues, so ....

4: From the operational point of view, you would have to revamp the entire system...not going to happen anytime soon, way too much invested in the current system, which, if profits are used as a benchmark, seems to function quite well.

5: No matter how efficient you make it, a steam locomotive will smoke...imagine a ACE 6000 running through yuppieville...all the tree huggers would leap into their bio diesel Volvos, head down to the Whole Earth Grocery/Deli for a all bran muffin and a cup of real herbal tea, and have a group hissy fit about the dirty locomotives...if whistle bans seem silly, let your imagination run with this one!

 

It boils down to this...like the flying car, the personal hover craft, the Segway personal transporter, the Jet Pack and the computer controlled highway...you can accomplish the concept, but it really has no serious end user or real world application.

 

And just to let the rest of you guys know, the ACE 6000 experiment was underwritten by the coal industry, as were most of the "studies" quoted elseware...not the most un-biased source of  documentation...in the case of the ACE 6000, it was a matter of defining the results wanted, then reverse engineering the design and concept...back when it was first purposed,  the major player countries seemed to be headed full bore towards nuclear power for their electricity needs, and the coal industry was simply trying to invent a new need and new customers for its product.  

 

Last, if a steam locomotive, be it coal fired, nuclear powered, solar or bio diesel fired, was so cost efficient and powerful as purported, then railroads would be crawling all over the idea...trust me, every railroad management team I have ever dealt with are so cheap and tight with money that their pocket change squeaks when they walk...if steam was all of that, I would be shoveling coal instead of lining switches.

Railroads are pretty happy with what they have, it works, and can be tweeked as needed to keep the EPA happy, so the odds of any Class 1 swapping to steam as a motive power are about the same as my winning the up coming presidential election.

[nanaimo73]

Fact...trains derail, have head on and rear end collisions, and generally make a pretty big mess when these things happen.

Have a steam boiler fail, and the results can kill people.

I have read of quite a few steam locomotive derailments where the boiler did not fail. However, the crew was scalded to death by escaping steam.

I'm not sure a steam locomotive could be produced which would be as safe to operate as a diesel.

[erikem]

There is, right now, a tremendously efficient steam turbine/electric power plant in use...it re-condenses both sides of the heat exchange loop, has a proven track record, and is in daily use, 24/7.

The US Navy uses these GE power plants in the Seawolf and the Los Angeles class attack submarines.

They are compact, engineered to run over 6 months in continuous service, able to distill raw water into usable water for the clean side of the loop, and can propel a huge vessel through a dense medium at 28 knots submerged.

The reactor, heat exchanger, turbine and alternator would fit easily on the frame of a SD70.

Here is why this type, and any other steam powered locomotive will not run on US main line.

Ask anyone who ever wore the Dolphins what the most closely guarded and secure room in the boat is...you might guess the reactor chambers, but you would be mistaken...it is the steam room.

Not because of the fear of sabotage, but because when a steam boiler/heat exchanger or steam turbine fail, they often fail catastrophically.

A couple of points:

1. A ship (or sub) has access to a large amount of cooling water which makes operation of a steam turbine much more practical. While it is possible to use an air cooled condenser, that condenser will probably be larger and less efficient than one aboard a vessel.
2. While a reactor vessel from a sub could fit on a locomotive frame, I don't think the radiation shield would fit within AAR clearance limits.

I've read enough reports about how far a boiler can travel after a boiler explosion to seriously question running large numbers of steam powered trains per day in an urban environment. One workaround would be redesigning the boiler to be more like a Vapor-Clarkson steam generator - FWIW, the steam generator design for the High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors looked very much like a scaled up Vapor-Clarkson steam generator.

I do think you have a good point about considering the safety aspects. 

[Anonymous]

But boiler explosions were not a show stopper up to the time steam ended, so why would they be so now?  Compared to the number of boiler explosions in the 1800s, the problem seemed to have been brought under control by the end of steam.  Besides, there are plenty of other potential explosive calamities that freight trains can produce, yet society lives with the risk.

[cordon]

The June 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics discusses saving the SS United States, billed as the world's fastest ship.  Her original steam turbines could generate 240,000 shaft horsepower, but one of the difficulties cited with restoration is "swapping the ship's steam turbines for diesel engines."  I can accept that steam turbines are probably the best way to use the energy from a nuclear reactor, and we have seen reference in earlier posts to existing nuclear submarine power plants.  But there must be something we are missing that dictates that diesel engines should replace steam turbines for non-nuclear installations.  Somewhere along the way someone has decided that even a modern steam turbine is not as good as a modern diesel engine, at least for ships.  

All modern steam engines are closed cycle with respect to the water, so water usage is not an issue. 

I offer that steam won't work well for locomotives if it doesn't work well for ships.  That seems to close the case.

 

 

 

[daveklepper]

It is not enough that fuel costs for steam are lower than those for diesel.   There are also the following factors:   maintenance, infrastructure, and the investment and planning and lead time required.   Again, possibly GE and even EMD and Motive Power, may be doing behind-the-scenes engineering right now.   And you and I may not know anything about it.   So why isn't steam replacing diesel now?   Because four or five years ago there was no economic incentive to start the research and engineering required.   Is there now?   I think you would get the usual public relations answer from all major builders. something like:

Our research people are always exploring different technologies, but for the forseeable future we are commited to the manufacture, sales, and service of diesel-electric locomotives.

Independent of what ever they are doing and plan to do.

[Modelcar]

.....Regarding the possibilities of boiler explosions....That release of power is way beyond control and when it happens.....anything in it's way will be in trouble.  I have been right to the site of a large steam engine {B&O}, that had a boiler explosion just a few hours before.  What destruction...!  What was left was the massive frame, cylinders, wheels and rod assemblies, etc....That's all...!!  No boiler or cab in sight.

On the other hand...I've always wondered when viewing photos of a steam engine that has derailed and rolled down an embankment and it might be laying on it's side and no explosion....??  It makes me wonder why when the crown sheet is possibly exposed in such a maneuver the boiler doesn't fail and explode....

[MerrilyWeRollAlong]

Perhaps the Chinese could help us for once <---sarcasm.  They're a country whose been holding on to steam with mainline steam dying within the last year or two.  Even though oil wasn't as expensive as it is today, they decided to switch to diesel instead of sticking to coal.  Considering some of China's sketchy labor practices, they could mine the coal and run the trains at "slave" wages yet they decided to purchase diesels (some from EMD).  I believe they have just as much coal as we do yet as far as I know, they don't seem to be pushing new steam locomotive technology.  They seem to be looking at investing in high speed electrified trains and some maglev technology.  Based on what I have read, there are still a few mainline steam enginers deadlined around the country and I'm sure there are still some steam servicing facilities that haven't been dismantled yet.  They probably could easily relight the fireboxes again but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that.  I'm not much of a fan of their government, but perhaps they could shed some light as to why they have moved away from steam.

[nanaimo73]

How modern are the 3 Chinese 2-10-2 locomotives that were brought over? Would one of them make a suitable upgrading project?

[Anonymous]

Perhaps the Chinese could help us for once <---sarcasm.  They're a country whose been holding on to steam with mainline steam dying within the last year or two.  Even though oil wasn't as expensive as it is today, they decided to switch to diesel instead of sticking to coal.  Considering some of China's sketchy labor practices, they could mine the coal and run the trains at "slave" wages yet they decided to purchase diesels (some from EMD).  I believe they have just as much coal as we do yet as far as I know, they don't seem to be pushing new steam locomotive technology.  They seem to be looking at investing in high speed electrified trains and some maglev technology.  Based on what I have read, there are still a few mainline steam enginers deadlined around the country and I'm sure there are still some steam servicing facilities that haven't been dismantled yet.  They probably could easily relight the fireboxes again but there doesn't seem to be any sign of that.  I'm not much of a fan of their government, but perhaps they could shed some light as to why they have moved away from steam.

The thought of China occurred to me as well.  I would not be surprised if China is the first to develop high tech steam locomotives.  In the meantime, they had nothing to lose by dieselizing.  They probably intend to build all our diesel locomotives one day soon, so dieselizing their railroads would be valuable experience for that manufacturing objective.  For transportation, China probably wants to use as much oil as they can get their hands on while saving their coal for their exploding electrical demand.  I have heard that they are in the process of building 562 new coal fired power plants at the rate on one every five days. 

[MichaelSol]

A final point not yet mentioned is the coal supply, while there is an abundance of coal in the US, miners are in short supply, and coal prices have roughly doubled in the past year.

On 3/19, I wrote:

"Synfuels generally cost as much as diesel; the price differential has never been sufficient to promote commercial production and for so long as there is a reasonable link between mineral coal and oil costs, it never will. PRB coal was $6 a ton; now its in the $14 range -- it has doubled in price but continues to maintain almost a lock step advantage over oil. But that cost will continue to drive synfuel prices up even as the cost advantage of mineral coal will continue to exist compared to the price of oil."

[MichaelSol]

So why isn't steam replacing diesel now?   Because four or five years ago there was no economic incentive to start the research and engineering required.   

And that's pretty much it. It is a surprisingly hard concept to grasp, particulary for those for whom all answers are self evident without any need to think at all about anything. Markets change, and there have been few changes in the economy as dramatic as the recent run-up in the price of oil. The question is, will it last?

There has to be a pretty long lead time on major technological changes involving entire industries, and while an analyst might reach one answer at $130 a barrel, he may reach a different answer at $40 a barrel. And both costs are within recent historical experience. I think a rational manager necessarily errs on the conservative side in terms of contemplating changes since change costs money and capital is dear at a time when capital budgets are insufficient to meet current challenges.

The discussion itself offers a different perspective; on the nature of how people think and what they use to make decisions. And here, it covers the gamut from near complete idiocy to some pretty sharp stuff.

My interest stems strictly from the perspective of financing, and how an industry really hamstrung itself in terms of utilizing debt, rather than ongoing income, to finance change. Had nothing to do with Steam or Diesel-electrics per se as motive power types, except that the short economic service life combined with the high debt service payments incurred really bolloxed the rail industry at a critical time.

And, for an industry that historically focused on the ratio of revenue to fixed charges, and then increased the fixed charges by a good 40% in most cases to finance Dieselization, there is a current generation of clueless wonders that gets positively agitated at any suggestion that there was a problem there that caused a long, dry harvest of barren regrets ...

Like credit card debt, it became self-perpetuating and the industry groaned and sagged as each ratchet of interest rate -- 1%, 5%, 10%, finally 14% -- escalated the financial burden of Dieselization over the following 20 years even as the original operating savings obtained not only vanished with rising fuel costs, but now represents a substantial operating cost penalty over the replaced Steam system even as the substantially higher financing charges incurred with Dieselization became a permanent feature of railroad expense.

And for those points most strongly favoring Dieselization at the time -- operating cost savings -- the fact that those points are now factually flipped upside down has an odd effect on the clueless wonders: the very arguments that favored dieselization then, are not valid arguments for a change now!

And you know the debate is thoroughly corrupted when you ask for actual facts to back up a broad assertion, and all you get back, as demonstrated on this thread, is the little boy posture with the chin stuck out and the defiant retort: "I don' hafta!" or "He don' hafta'!" Those conversations raise psychological questions, frankly, rather than contribute to any actual ideas as to where the industry or markets may be heading. And rest assured, yesterday's "market" will answer little about tomorrow's "market", and the circumstances of 50 years ago will provide little assistance in determining the best course of action ten years from now. You can't answer tomorrow's questions with yesterday's answers, but that's the best that some folks here can muster.

Well, if these forums can be useful case studies, where the knowledgeable contributions of many can truly educate, the cause will surely be lost when clowns like that try and take charge of the debate, so as to shut it down because it offends their deepest prejudices about steam or diesel or rowboats or some such stuff.

As you point out, there is quite a lead time on technological research, and the incentive simply wasn't there five years ago, and perhaps not even two years ago. The "incentive" is certainly here now because the numbers, all across the board, work so strongly in favor the Steam technology as frozen at 50 years ago, compared to the Diesel-electric of today, that there can be little doubt that "modern" Steam -- or coal-fired power -- whatever it looks like, would be head and shoulders above current systems from both a capital and an operating cost perspective.

But the industry went through this before, when oil prices had a similar bubble, 1978-1980. Young people might get excited about it, but the greybeards are not going to get too worked up about it until the market stabilizes at prices that can be confidently apprised as "permanent."

That hasn't happened yet, and it may not happen in the forseeable future.

 

[MichaelSol]

.....Regarding the possibilities of boiler explosions....That release of power is way beyond control and when it happens.....anything in it's way will be in trouble. 

Well, we've punished ourselves enough over nuclear reactor "accidents" that had little, and now have less, likelihood of ever happening, and hamstrung our energy "policy" or lack thereof. This is a different day and age.

[Norman Saxon]

It's a rhetorical question, in that we can ask the same thing about other "obvious" situations:

Why isn't the US building more nuclear power plants?

Why isn't the US building CTL plants?

Why isn't the US offering financial aid for new transcon railroads?

Why isn't the new WTC building up yet?

The answer, such as one exists for all these questions, is that such new projects take time, lots of time - decades in some cases, just to get off the drawing board, out of the public hearing rooms, through the voter initiative process, past the frivolous lawsuits, etc etc etc.  The question them becomes "is it worth going through all this BS?"

Maybe you should revist this thread in ten years, maybe by then something might have happened on the steam locomotive front!

Nope.  People move pretty fast when there's money to be made.

The examples you cite involve government medling.  Building a freaking steamboat to push barges on the Mississippi would be done toot suite if'n somebody could make some money doing it.  It's not being done because it doesn't make economic sense at this time.

Ten years out, who knows.

Well, it does make economic sense at this time.  It's not being done because it takes time to do so, as I cited.  If long term price trends hold out, someone somewhere will begin offering some type of coal fired powerplant for transportation, at least in the railroad and watercraft arenas.  That is, unless the US government doesn't do something incredibly stupid to shut down such enterprise.  The ironic thing about this coal vs diesel fuel debate is that we may end up having to keep far dirtier diesel engines as status quo rather than evolve into coal fired engines simply because the coal fired engine emits more CO2.

PS - June 12 is "Carbon Belch Day".  We should all make sure to make our carbon footprint as gigantic as possible, if only to send a message to the Flat Earthers that dominate our US Senate.

[garyla]

Tell us about "Carbon Belch Day"!

Would I be doing my part if, for that one day, my household electric meter ran as fast as that of a certain former Vice President?

[MichaelSol]

  The ironic thing about this coal vs diesel fuel debate is that we may end up having to keep far dirtier diesel engines as status quo rather than evolve into coal fired engines simply because the coal fired engine emits more CO2.

Well, as evidence begins to accumulate that we may, in fact, actually be entering period of global cooling, I am wondering if the same people who declared "we need to take action" to prevent warming will turn around and advocate putting more CO2 into the air to "prevent" cooling.

[Norman Saxon]

A final point not yet mentioned is the coal supply, while there is an abundance of coal in the US, miners are in short supply, and coal prices have roughly doubled in the past year.

On 3/19, I wrote:

"Synfuels generally cost as much as diesel; the price differential has never been sufficient to promote commercial production and for so long as there is a reasonable link between mineral coal and oil costs, it never will. PRB coal was $6 a ton; now its in the $14 range -- it has doubled in price but continues to maintain almost a lock step advantage over oil. But that cost will continue to drive synfuel prices up even as the cost advantage of mineral coal will continue to exist compared to the price of oil."

According to most CTL websites, synthetic diesel fuel made from coal can compete with petroleum-derived diesel at $40 - $50 bbl equivalent, inclusive of carbon capture at the plant site.  That means synthetic diesel could be sold for $2.25 - $2.50 a gallon at 15% ROI, if they wanted to sell it that cheap.  Of course, they would sell it for the highest price they could recieve, so although there would be downward pressure on the commercial diesel fuel market with a significant introduction of CTL fuels, we'd still see prices over $3.00 a gallon.  But that's way better than $5.00 or more a gallon.

So you are correct in that synfuels that enter the market will sell at the market price, but if a railroad decided to produce their own CTL fuel internally (an idea BNSF toyed with recently), that's where the savings would come in terms of operating costs of diesel fleets.

That does not in any way diminish the advantages of reciprocating steam over diesel traction.  Remember, the hydrocracking process is just about at it's limit in terms of reducing sufleric compounds.  In order for diesel fuel makers to reduce sulfer below 15 ppm, say if the EPA requires 5 ppm sometime in the near future, even petroleum refiners will have to shift to a synthesis process such as FT in order to meet that requirement.  Because coal will almost assuredly have a significant price advantage over petroleum for the next few eons, that would mean CTL will be cheaper than petroleum synthesis in producing ultra-low (5 ppm) sulfer diesel fuel.

However, because of the inherent advantages of external combustion over internal combustion with regards to fuel flexibility, a reciprocating steam locomotive could concievably burn a mixture of pulverized coal and synthetic fuel oil (say, 50/50), and still be both cleaner in terms of emissions and less costly to fuel up than a diesel locomotive that burned only CTL fuel.

Or, if all forms of transportation are required to include a certain percentage of renewables in the fuel mix, a steamer could mix CTL fuel with sawdust, pulverized straw, pulverized wood waste, e.g. just about anything that can be micronized into small particles, blended with liquid fuel, and then injected into a boiler.

Try that with a compression ingnition engine and see how far you'd get!

For an internal combustion engine to meet that same renewables requirement, it'd have to have it's renewable component liquified first into an alcohol or into biodiesel, a very expensive process as we are experiencing today with this stupid ethanol mandate.

As for potential upward pricing pressure on coal, remember also that nuclear power is now favorable again in regards to electricity generation (a no-brainer in my view), which means coal may see reduced demand from the generation sector sometime in the future.  Thus, it is unlikely we'll ever see coal prices spike even with significant development in the CTL sector............... unless world demand for US coal somehow changes that - it is likely that most developing nations will jump off the global warming bandwagon once the US and Europe have put the final nail in their own coffins vis-a-vis carbon caps, and thus those nations will have no qualms about burning coal for energy needs.

In summary, the external combustion engine's ability to burn liquid and solid concurrently will allow it to maintain lowest fuel cost advantage over internal combustion which requires 100% liquid.  And diesel fuel made from coal will always be cheaper than diesel made from petroleum as long as petroleum prices stay above $50 bbl and/or the EPA lowers allowable sulfer content to the point of requiring synthesis for the production of diesel fuel.

http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/technology.asp

http://www.coalcandothat.com/energy_security_liquids.asp

 

 

[Norman Saxon]

  The ironic thing about this coal vs diesel fuel debate is that we may end up having to keep far dirtier diesel engines as status quo rather than evolve into coal fired engines simply because the coal fired engine emits more CO2.

Well, as evidence begins to accumulate that we may, in fact, actually be entering period of global cooling, I am wondering if the same people who declared "we need to take action" to prevent warming will turn around and advocate putting more CO2 into the air to "prevent" cooling.

Nah, they'll just start claiming that CO2 is causing the cooling too.  Probably they'll claim that CO2 is causing more percipitation, thus causing more floods, hurricanes, etc.  Remember, it's all about climate "change" now caused by man's CO2, not just global warming.

The point is, none of this has anything to do with science.  Science fiction, maybe, but not science.