Railroads' role in helping U.S. achieve energy independence

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain


I don't see all this ingenuity as coming out of diversity. I see it as the fruit of freedom.
Thank you for your observations.

Without the blessings of liberty and freedom diversity of thought is difficult at best. From those blessing comes the flowering of intelect and the acceptance of many voices. From the voices comes immagination and from that comes ideas. IT is a complement to this forum that good and in many ways honorable conversation is expressed. In short, freely expressed ingenuity has the same mother and father as diversity.

[daveklepper]

For those who want it. The Pipes article on Saudi Arabia is in the December 2004 issue of The American Legion Magazine.

[Anonymous]

crazytechie:No doubt as to your scope of reading or study, after I have taken some time to digest this evidently rich meal and smoke it over a bit we'll talk. From first look it seems that California Atomics has indeed been working on its 1980's theory. My only suggestion for further consideration would be the use of the He reactor system you mention being used in a manufacturing process for making SRC or even the production of synthetic gasoline, heating and fuel oil. Socially and Economicly this might prove to actually be doable in that great tradition of American Diversity toward a common goal that has baffled other countries and our enemies for over two centuries. This is what makes us a great country. Thought like this should certianly be encouraged and continued - talk with you later - Roy

[Anonymous]

I submit that we do not live in the "Information Age' or the 'Knowlege Economy;' but instead in the Energy Age; energy production and consumption technologies form the foundation of our economy, and access to (and dependance on) energy defines the levels of civilization across the globe.

Nuclear power, be it fission or eternally 'just 20 years away' fusion, is simutaneously attractive and dangerous because of the energy density of the fuel. Britain, France and Japan have had enormous success with their power reactor programs, mainly because they use breeder reactors that produce fuel as they run, and can reprocess fuel to largly eliminate the high-level waste stream. I think everyone here can see and agree that any real approach to long-term energy independance will need a nuclear component. (that leaves out the whole 'political wil'l issue. . .)
Nuclear power has gotten a bad rap all over the world because of some poor decisions by a few sets of people running a few early-design reactors. Reactors are designed to be safe. . . and as we learn more about the physics, we can design safer reactors. what is harder to do is train the panic reaction out of the operators-- in many cases (chernobyl, TMI) what would have been a costly and embarrassing outage was turned into a disaster though human over-intervention. think about the early application of steam to railroading. Plenty of dumb ' Aw, $#!+' moments there, too.
We tend to hear about the oopses; big events make spashy headlines and sell newspapers, but good judgement is expected, common, and thus rarely reported. In the nuclear industry, as in the rail industry (and most others, too) the vast majority of bad (or good!) event outcomes can be laid to the feet of some human-- at some point in the chain of planning, design, adherence to design intent, diligence in maintenence or just plain judgement once the 'event' starts-- the decisions we make determine if we go home unsung heroes or to the grave as reviled goats.

People fear what they don't understand, and nuclear physics is not an intuitive subject. There is HUGE quanitities of wrong and willfully misleading information available, and as in any case where emotions run high, the facts get lost in the noise.
(as an example of how wrong and misleading things can get around nuclear power; I once had a conversation with an otherwise rational and well-informed freind who was convinced that the electric current in her wall sockets would release radioactivity into her house if her power company used a reactor to supply power to the grid. Convincing her otherwise was an exercise in patience and high-school physics.)

Helium-cooled pebble-bed (Gen IV) reactors have considerable potential for the safe and rapid expansion of fission as a primary energy source.They can be used as an industrial heat-source or as a supply of rotating shaft mechanical work using the hot-section technologies of aircraft engines. If the coolant disappears, they stop. no fuss, no melting, no drama. And helium is unique because it 's chemically inert, doesn't capture neutrons, and doesn't form a radio-isotope. In short, an ideal reactor coolant. A standardized design helium-cooled reactor could be placed pretty much anywhere a modern boiler set can be built-- cogenerarion, distributed peaker plants, industrial process heat. you'd trade having to build emissions -control equipment for a few lifts of concrete as neutron shielding in the physical construction of the equipment, but that's pretty much it. The NIMBY politics would be much worse, of course, but with patience, time and education, we might be able to changeTHAT.

Personally: Given the Hobsons' Choice of having a natural-gas fueled aeroderivitive turbine (about as clean and efficient as combustion technologies get) or a GenIV Fission reactor for a neighbor, I'd take the Nuke.

BUT: I have heard estimates that even at current rates of use/loss, it is likely that usable reserves of helium will run out before proven reserves of liquid hydrocarbon.
Sobering.
But again, the current (Gen II+ and Gen III) breeder reactors have an enviable safety record, and their users have not turned out to be bad global citizens (on a relative scale <G>) with either waste or 'loose nukes' However: I have heard estimates that total world proven reserves of uranium (in Joules of extractable thermal energy) are only approximately three times the US reserves of coal.
Sobering again.

so we turn to the 'renewables.'
biomass: workable to a point-- energy agricuture for the economy will compete with food and housing agriculture for land and water resources- water that is suitable for industry, agriculture or drinking is a shrinking resource, too. Add to that: in the industrialized world, farmland is currently mostly a tool for converting fossil hydrocarbon to edible hydrocarbon. we use hydrocarbon as energy to prepare the land and pump irrigation water, as feedstocks to make fertilizers and pesticides, burn more to harvest, process and ship food, use still more feedstocks to flavor, color, package and preserve it, and yet more energy to keep it cool, and finally to prepare it, we consume more fossil energy. . . . even afterwards we use fossil hydrocarbon to power the dishwashers and the garbage trucks to clear away what we don't eat. there's a lot of fossils in that bottle of designer water or bowl of low-calorie microwave popcorn!

Solar: sits idle for 75% (or more during periods of bad weather) of total (calender) time. (unsufficient solar flux to generate useful power, even using Gen III GeAs cells) But it's clean, quiet and scalable. Look to solar to be the power of choice for moon colonies or other long-duration space missions. Mirror concentration using alumized mylar is feasable in micro-g out to about the orbit of Jupiter. Solar power might also be a good source of low-grade industrial process heat.

Wind: aside from the problem of birds getting chopped up, there are relatively few places with the sort of sustained moderate winds that make good generation candidates. maintainance intensive, prone to damage during storms. The wind farm I pass occasionally has about a 10% total availablity rate. (%turbines x %time)

Hydro has been covered by others.

Geothermal- good spots are rare, (and usually in remote spots of great beauty and volcanic danger) and the water involved often becomes too mineral laden to be useful and must be discarded or purified, leading to disposal problems.

Tidal- See wind, water, plus unknown environmental effects from ocean current disruption and greater saltwater intrusion into inland waterways.

Space-based solar - VERY big capital outlay, plus the potential for weaponization of the transmission system. (can be engineered around; might be moot if we build a 'beanstalk', which by the way, would REALLY be a railroad into space. )

I've often wondered, and finally calculated: aside from issues of taste and digestablity, you could run an average human adult on about 2 shot-glasses of diesel fuel a day, from an energy content standpoint. To create and deliver an average meal to the average American consumer's table takes close to a gallon of diesel, total fossil expenditure.


Like I said: the Energy Age.

Several posters have pointed out that railroads generate a lot of car-mile billing for coal haulage-- i would submit that even in an entirely nuclear-powered future, there would stll be a lot of coal ton-miles to be hauled-- in addition to agriculture, (see above) steelmaking, the chemical (PLASTICS!) industries, the textile(dye) industry and even some medicines require long-chain hydrocarbon as a feed-stock. The US places high in the list of nations with large known reserves of coal, so when the wells DO dry out, we're going to be sitting pretty. . . If we don't burn it all first.

Where does that leave railroads? they're fastest mode of transportation that can directly benefit from nuclear power, through the use of existing, tested technology: Pan on Caternary central electric power. Half the infrastructure is in place: the rails and roadbed; and individual routes can be converted with relative ease. (expense is a different issue)

I personally favor AC transmission for *motive* power, for a reason that noone else has mentioned: HVDC arcs (50+ volts) don't self-quench- once the ionized path is established, it perpetuates until the charge is fully depleted. think of a jacobs' ladder- the spark forms where the conductors are close, but once established, the arc can travel considerable distances and around objects placed in the way. AC is less of a safety and fire hazard. DC is probably better for long-wire use for reasons others have adequately explained.

to add to the issue: 2004 will go down in history as the first year that the US energy importation was #2 in the world-- we might even have been outstripped in total energy consumption. Keep your heads up though-- we still lead on a per-capita basis. <G>

Trivia note: 60Hz is about the 'sweet spot' for causing maximum electrical harm to mammillian tissue with minimum current. Oops. I wonder if Tesla and Westinghouse had known, they would have changed things?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

There are a number of safe nuclear options that are being developed, and they would require the power to be used by electricity. Some have the potential to really bring down electric power costs greatly. This can explain why GM is pushing Hydrogen and fuel cells. Battery use of this cheap electricity would be far more efficient and practical. Range? Poor range with electric cars? Instead of a slow overnight charge just to go 250 miles, you simply pull up to a filling station, your spent but rechargeable battery is slid out and a freshly charged one is lid in, and off you go for another 250 miles. With today's technology. So, I am writing the GM CEO asking, that on the basis of the very thorough evaluation of fuel cells and Hydrogen by the City College of NY Physics Department, that the 500 engineers he has working on Hydrogen - fule cell cars be reassigned to something useful. I'll try and make the letter polite.

Of course if any of these nuclear power generation systems have practical breakthroughs soon, it good really spur railway electriciation and a rteal modernization of the nations power network.. That would also solve the railway capacity problem. But what about the loss of coal revenue? Hauling nuclear waste instead? To the safe sites? But some of these systems have very little waste,m the radioactivity gets all used up usefully!

For one website that may occasionally enlighten on nuclear power, try www.mit.edu

A very eloquent and well written arguement. I do however recommend that you revisit the economic purpose of the railroad. While you are doing this also consider such small things as the economics of scale, profitability of cargo hauled, and the need for a viable product for capital invested. I also would like to hear about the profitability of hauling nuclear waste, being somewhat small in volume when compared to that of coal with present models of volume in this service would be interesting to hear. If I am reading you correctly, your entry would probably cause even more unemployment in the coalfields and with railroad labor. Your arguements also do not give consideration of some very expensive capital currently in place and mostly only partialy paid for with electric utilities that primarily use coal for baseload requirements in their franchise areas (which are mostly in the Midwest and Southeast.). This makes your arguement sound at best a bit naive and a worst somewhat narrow in scope and sectional in its view. Would you please expand your entry to address these matters.

[daveklepper]

Again, I wi***o note here that GM will have hybrid technology available on "some of our most popular models."

[daveklepper]

There are a number of safe nuclear options that are being developed, and they would require the power to be used by electricity. Some have the potential to really bring down electric power costs greatly. This can explain why GM is pushing Hydrogen and fuel cells. Battery use of this cheap electricity would be far more efficient and practical. Range? Poor range with electric cars? Instead of a slow overnight charge just to go 250 miles, you simply pull up to a filling station, your spent but rechargeable battery is slid out and a freshly charged one is lid in, and off you go for another 250 miles. With today's technology. So, I am writing the GM CEO asking, that on the basis of the very thorough evaluation of fuel cells and Hydrogen by the City College of NY Physics Department, that the 500 engineers he has working on Hydrogen - fule cell cars be reassigned to something useful. I'll try and make the letter polite.

Of course if any of these nuclear power generation systems have practical breakthroughs soon, it good really spur railway electriciation and a rteal modernization of the nations power network.. That would also solve the railway capacity problem. But what about the loss of coal revenue? Hauling nuclear waste instead? To the safe sites? But some of these systems have very little waste,m the radioactivity gets all used up usefully!

For one website that may occasionally enlighten on nuclear power, try www.mit.edu

[Junctionfan]

Well either the taxpayers pay for it or it doesn't get done. That's it in the nutshell. If the goverment and taxpayers want the railroads to help the U.S achieve energy independence than they should pay for it otherwise the shareholders and the board of directors are quite content with the status quo.

As far as coal fuel, coal isn't a renewable resource and so it would be better if it was rationed for chemical production. Coal takes too long to renew so all that basically happens is the increase coal mines which mean increased coal mine depleation leading to increase costs of the coal companies trying to locate new coal deposits sooner.

[techguy57]

QUOTE: If there is one thing I know about this country: that when the desire and the need meet with the purpose and a little fear, Money is rarely a problem.

Roy- I couldn't agree with you more on that. It's how this country was built. Thanks for you input. Keep it coming[:)]

Mike

[Anonymous]

Mike: I could not agree more with you on that point. The work does need to be done. If there is one thing I know about this country: that when the desire and the need meet with the purpose and a little fear, Money is rarely a problem. To your excellent arguement, I will add my -[2c] - Roy

[techguy57]

This has been an interesting discussion thus far but little has been said about the overhaul of the power infrastructure. Obviously given the recent blackout of the east coast this is a major problem that can only be remedied by a major overhaul, and the timing would be in favor of rail electrification, however its difficult to get past the cost issues, especially given that the US is 55 billion in the hole right now. I mean, as I understand it, we are talking about having to build or refit:
1) power plants, lines and the power system as a whole
2) rail lines, engines, and the rail infrastructure
3) bridges, tunnels, grade crossings, etc.

Even if we are just talking about Class I's its a lot of work . And who IS footing the bill? Taxpayers? Good luck selling that!

That being said, I see where there are a lot of positives that could come from this, and I should also clarify that I'd very much be for it. The sad fact is I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Again, just my two cents.

Mike[

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

The easiest way to reduce polutants is to burn cleaner diesel fuel .

[#offtopic]While the idea does have much merit, it still does not address the question of energy independence. Which, correct me if I am wrong, is the topic of this thread. Would not the introduction of a clean synthetic diesel fuel from a coal (domestic[tup]) cracking technology give much the same results[?] With the side effect of giving the railroads increased business for the transport of coal[?].With all due respect of course.[:)]

[TH&B]

The easiest way to reduce polutants is to burn cleaner diesel fuel .

[dldance]

One problem with hydrogen is that the hydrogen molecule is so small that it eventually diffuses through the walls of what ever tank it is held in. Think of how a helium ballon gradually deflates. That diffusion requires hydrogen be held in very heavy walled cylinders. My clients all use liquid hydrogen which is delivered by truck. The light weight of the LH2 truck is about 98% of filled weight.

Thus even though I think the idea of using dynamic braking generated electricity to make hydrogen - the equipment at the present state of the art carries a heavy weight penalty which most likely offsets the energy benefit.

dd

[daveklepper]

Regarding the last, I think you will find that straight hybrid use is more efficient with batteries than trying to make Hydrogen. Everything I've read says any kind of semi-efficient (there really isn't anyvery efficient way) of making Hydrogen requires a continuous process, and that simply is not available from regenerative/dymanic braking.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Here is a link for a more accurate description on Ontario's interest in the technology.

http://www.globaltech.ca/news.htm

BTW-I think I might want to get their calender.[:D]

Thanks for the link. Using hydrogen as an adjuct to standard compression ignition engines makes sense, more sense than trying for sole hydrogen powered vehicles via fuel cells. Now, all we need is someone to combine the hydrogen injection technology with the hybrid vehicle concept!

For diesel electric locomotives, you may not even need to have hydrogen on board at the start, just convert the dynamic brakes into regenerative units and use the electricity generated to convert water (from a tank car) into hydrogen. Question: Could hydrogen created on board during transit be safely and efficiently stored on board? via compression or liquification?

[Junctionfan]

Here is a link for a more accurate description on Ontario's interest in the technology.

http://www.globaltech.ca/news.htm

BTW-I think I might want to get their calender.[:D]

[Junctionfan]

I just heard from the Ontario Legislator that the municipality of Clarington has installed hydrogen fuel injectors on their buses and has been a great success. They figure that in 9-15 months, it will pay for itself from a great decrease in fuel and maintainance. There is great interest in installing the systems on the ambulances and the Ministry of Transportation is considering on installing them on their own vehicles. This will save Ontario taxpayers money as well as increase the bang for the buck for the municipalities' public transportation budget.

If this could work for the EMD and GE locomotives, this would be very helpful for the environment and would (should) save the railroads a tremendous amount of money as well as help the U.S achieve energy independence.

The company that developed the technology that is used by the Clarington municipality is Canadian. I'll try to find some links and more information if you'd like.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1

I wonder how the SRC process compares in fuel cost per kilowatt with Natural Gas(which as everyone here in the Northeast with gas heat is all too aware off, continues to increase in price)? I imagine that this involves some speculation as the process doesn't sound like it's in large enough usage currently to be economically viable.
Another thought, could a gas producer firebox be designed to burn this and provide producer gas for use in a modified diesel or gas turbine? Would this be cost competitive with Diesel fuel for transportation(i.e railroad locomotive) usage? I imagine it wouldn't be TIER 2 compliant................................

The processes are similar, especially when a MHTGCR (Modular High Temprature Gas Cooled Reactor) is involved. Helium being inert is an excellent cooling element, non coorosive and heat friendly. The Germans had the first ones and the Greens got shut down. Gas prices are like the stock market and fluxuate, nuclear has an advantage of being simi-cost specific in its operation, thus a savings in the area of controlable costs.

[carnej1]

I wonder how the SRC process compares in fuel cost per kilowatt with Natural Gas(which as everyone here in the Northeast with gas heat is all too aware off, continues to increase in price)? I imagine that this involves some speculation as the process doesn't sound like it's in large enough usage currently to be economically viable.
Another thought, could a gas producer firebox be designed to burn this and provide producer gas for use in a modified diesel or gas turbine? Would this be cost competitive with Diesel fuel for transportation(i.e railroad locomotive) usage? I imagine it wouldn't be TIER 2 compliant................................

[Junctionfan]

Well as long as the waste and the process isn't too bad for the environment than I'm for it. I don't mind chemicals at all as long as it is done safely and cleanly as to not have another Love Canal.

[Overmod]

Andrew: you might want to distinguish between the steps here:

1) SRC "purification" of coal
2) gasification of "purified" coal (by hydrogenation of the carbon)
3) further synthesis of liquid fuel and other products from the gasification product

with an implied (4) - the provision of the hydrogen used in steps 2 and 3.

The SRC processes essentially use a specialized solvent or mixture to dissolve the carbon in coal, but not the other constituents (particularly sulfur compounds or "ash" content). If you then extract the solvent (best practice involves heating in a vacuum) you are left with relatively pure carbon. In theory, most of the solvent would be recovered (and could be re-used in the process because little degradation would take place) -- in practice, of course, there will be some 'slip' and the solvents would be chosen appropriately.

A safe, if somewhat simplistic, assumption is that, when SRC is burned via pulverized-coal-fired equipment, any residual solvent would essentially be pyrolyzed if not combusted, and any "pollution" generated would be handled by the pollution-control equipment. My understanding is that there won't be enough residual solvent after "proper" SRC processing to pose a contact hazard, or even much of a vapor hazard in vehicles transporting bulk quantities of treated fuel... in any case, the principal solvent advocated in the literature, which is most commonly termed N-methyl pyrrolidone, is supposed to be comparatively benign as far as industrial chemicals go.

If you bone up on modern techniques of gasification, you can judge whether some of the catalysts or processes have waste streams (e.g., spent catalyst) that might pose direct or casual pollution hazards. I can't think of any offhand.

Note that using SRC as a basic stock for synthesis neatly alleviates many of the 'conventional' problems with synthesis processing, particularly those associated with sulfur content.

BTW, I consider much of the 'risk' of benzene (C6H6) to be somewhat exaggerated in the popular press. I'd be more worried about uncooked green beans...

[Junctionfan]

What is the by-product of this coal to fuel process? Is it as deadly as benzene or is it benzene?

[Anonymous]

Patents for the SRC that I have knowlege of are property of the Southern Company, Holding Company for Georgia Power, Alabama Power, Gulf Power, etc et. al., of Atlanta, Georgia. I do know of a test burn at Plant McManus back in 1978 and talk of a possible one at Plant Scherer last time I was in that part of the country. From an air quality point of view this might be a better choice given existing supplies. I am glad that Overmod has responded, Opinions that are from the cutting edge make the discussion all the better and the forum a great place. By the way I stand corrected the proper title is the CANDU reactor

[Overmod]

If I recall correctly, it's CANDU, not CANAC (which is the remote-control box vendor). These are heavy-water-moderated reactors that can use unenriched (natural) uranium for power fission (and some breeding if desired) -- the DU stands for 'deuterium' and 'uranium' respectively.

The use of nuclear process heat for SRC is a good idea (imho) -- but then again, why stop there? The same process heat can be used to perform Fischer-Tropsch gasification and liquid-fuel synthesis once the high-grade carbon has been removed via your cosolvent bath... in fact, I believe the amount of heat needed for N-methyl pyrrolidone separation (at just over 200 degrees C) might even be a bottoming cycle for some of the synthesis operations (or for hydrogen generation for use in this process, which I believe strongly is the 'first best use' for process hydrogen in transportation energy...)

Depends on the cosolvents in your particular SRC process, of course, but I don't think (offhand) that too many of the desirable ones have particularly high boiling points.

My opinion is that, overall, the potential utility (and market acceptance) for synthesis gas and liquid feedstocks/fuels is much higher than for solvent-extracted carbon. Much of this, of course, is synergy that results from the great built-out infrastructure that exists for petroleum hydrocarbons and natural gas, but I would argue that the synergy is no less real because it was developed 'for other reasons'...

Strange you should mention SRC, just as I have my test quantities of NMP arriving for cosolvent testing for locomotive fuels...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I'm not sure it's possible without shooting themselves in the foot in terms of effecting profits from coal and fossil fuels of which coal is their more profitable commodities.

Electrification is the closest I would say that the railroads could do. Using my ideas, this would quell the those pesky environmentalist and still be cheap for the railroad.

I'll explain more if required but I am have to go to a business meeting at my club.

Well said with-in the confines of a present day situaton. Consider if you will the use of nuclear energy much as it is used in your fine country (I believe they are called CANAC reactors). Expand on their use beyond the production of current. Rather that they use the heat for processing dirty coal into solvent refined coal, as I refered to earlier in this and other threads. This process cleans the product for clean qualified burning, keeps railroad busy in expanded areas where current coal supplies are not tier compliant giving employment back to the coalfields of the east and a more massive basis of business for the railroads.

[Junctionfan]

I'm not sure it's possible without shooting themselves in the foot in terms of effecting profits from coal and fossil fuels of which coal is their more profitable commodities.

Electrification is the closest I would say that the railroads could do. Using my ideas, this would quell the those pesky environmentalist and still be cheap for the railroad.

I'll explain more if required but I am have to go to a business meeting at my club.

[Anonymous]

After all of this discussion is all said and done, As a member of the forum I wi***o pose the question of: How can current available technology be used to promote energy independance and at the same time give the railroads more business in the transportation of profitable freight and materials?

[Junctionfan]

When I said grid or meant it, I meant that the railroad can control it and shut it down if necessary to. Each block is self dependent so if one block fails, the others are self contained but maybe able to share power from neighbouring blocks if needed.