I recall an article that I read a few years ago that there was an air base in, I believe, South Dakota, correct me if I am wrong. The need for diesel fuel was met by synthesizing it from coal, the way South Africa does. The base commander said that it was an excellent grade of diesel. In the 19th century gas was likewise produced from coal for street lighting. If technology can be improved to make the process cleaner, might this be another use for coal? That is, economics permitting.
As I recall from military history, Germany developed and used a variety of synthesized fuels in both wars using the Bergius and Fischer-Tropsch pocesses out of necessity. Not sure if either is very cost-effective, but RME and others on here would know.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR From my outside view not regulations kill coal but economics. With an abundance of cheap gas why burn coal for power? And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question. To your second point, I believe anti-CO2 regulations are going farther than necessary. To your first point, this is the argument of the people who are driving the anti-CO2 regulations. They cover their tracks by claiming that it is not they who are killing coal, but rather, it is pure economics. But the truth is that regulations influence the economics. President Obama promised to kill coal and he carefully explained that he would do it with regulations.
VOLKER LANDWEHR From my outside view not regulations kill coal but economics. With an abundance of cheap gas why burn coal for power? And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question.
And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question.
To your second point, I believe anti-CO2 regulations are going farther than necessary.
To your first point, this is the argument of the people who are driving the anti-CO2 regulations. They cover their tracks by claiming that it is not they who are killing coal, but rather, it is pure economics.
But the truth is that regulations influence the economics. President Obama promised to kill coal and he carefully explained that he would do it with regulations.
Electric power companies have been fighting coal burning regulations for years. Nevertheless, when oilfield technological inovations produced a glut of cheap natural gas, the power companies bought all the gas they could handle. The bottom line is the bottom line.
MidlandMikeElectric power companies have been fighting coal burning regulations for years. Nevertheless, when oilfield technological inovations produced a glut of cheap natural gas, the power companies bought all the gas they could handle. The bottom line is the bottom line.
You, I and many others know that to be a fact, but you'll never get folks like Euclid to drop their theory.
"As many know, science is based on a large empirical databases, not anecdotal remarks."
Grammatical error in that statement aside (anyone else spot it?), any study of science that's been etched over a span of several thousand years by human observation and documentation, as well as by geologic record, ought to qualify as a large, empirical database. By comparison, a body of climate data that's framed around records going back only about 125 years or less is the definition of anecdotal.
The Germans synthesized lubricating oils in the First World War, but I don't believe they synthesized fuels at that time. They definately synthesized, let's call it gasolene for simplicity's sake, during World War Two. How cost-effective it was I'm not sure, but it did fit in with the Hitler government's policy of autarchy, that is, trying to make Germany as self-sufficient as possible and reducing imports of strategic commodities such as oil. This is not to say they didn't import oil from countrys such as Romania or even the Soviet Union before the German invasion of 1941. As long as oil was available they took advantage of the availability.
The German synthesized fuel wasn't as good as American gasolene was but it was good enough to get the job done. As a matter of fact US Army personnel were forbidden to use captured German fuel as the lower octane of same would cause knocking, pinging, and engine damage. There was an American tank battalion commander who used captured German fuel to accomplish his mission during the "Battle Of The Bulge" but that's another story. Germans who captured American fuel felt they'd hit the jackpot.
The process for synthesizing fuels from coal has been known in this country since around 1928, but we've never done it as we've never needed to, at least up to now.
As I understand it, South Africa synthesizes both gasolene and diesel fuel using the old German formulas, but updated and "tweaked" a bit. The South Africans started synthesizing fuels back when they were a pariah state due to the policy of apartheid and were facing economic pressure from the rest of the world. They've never looked back and continue to synthesize fuels.
schlimm You, I and many others know that to be a fact, but you'll never get folks like Euclid to drop their theory.
1. There is a 95 percent certainty that human activities contribute to global warming.
2. Carbon dioxide is at an ‘unprecedented’ level not seen for at least 800,000 years.
3. Sea level is set to continue to rise at a faster rate than over the past 40 years.
4. Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been melting and glaciers have receded in most parts of the world.
I don’t care what others think or do regarding climate change. I drive a car that gets 44 mpg, ride public transit whenever I can, live in a 1,200 square foot house, set the temperature at 80 in the summer and 68 in the winter, and recycle everything that can be recycled.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Bruce Kelly Of the many resources which show it's as much to do with policy as price, there's this: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29952 Key excerpt: "Without the Clean Power Plan, there is less incentive to switch from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar. In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019 and retains that position through 2032, longer than in the Reference case, which includes the Clean Power Plan. Electricity generation from renewable sources remains below coal-fired electricity generation through 2040. Fewer coal plants are retired, and as a result, natural gas and renewable capacity additions are lower compared with the Reference case." ...
Of the many resources which show it's as much to do with policy as price, there's this:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29952
Key excerpt:
"Without the Clean Power Plan, there is less incentive to switch from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar. In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019 and retains that position through 2032, longer than in the Reference case, which includes the Clean Power Plan. Electricity generation from renewable sources remains below coal-fired electricity generation through 2040. Fewer coal plants are retired, and as a result, natural gas and renewable capacity additions are lower compared with the Reference case."
...
Please also note in the linked article that the first graph shows the precipitous drop in coal in the last 10 years, before their projected period. Even with no clean power plan, coal is projected to stay flat, with gas losing some to renewables.
In the next graph, they show that a clean plan will have no effect on the projected price of natural gas. The last graphs show that the main driver of fuel choices will be natural gas prices based on production/availability.
Bruce Kelly "As many know, science is based on a large empirical databases, not anecdotal remarks." Grammatical error in that statement aside (anyone else spot it?), any study of science that's been etched over a span of several thousand years by human observation and documentation, as well as by geologic record, ought to qualify as a large, empirical database. By comparison, a body of climate data that's framed around records going back only about 125 years or less is the definition of anecdotal.
Part of that geologic record is CO2 data based on glacial ice cores that go back thousands of years. Present CO2 levels are unprecedented within that time period, and coincide with the industrial revolution.
https://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fcs.trains.com%2Ftrn%2Ff%2F111%2Ft%2F259846.aspx
zardoz 1. Yes, green plants do indeed need carbon dioxide to transpire; however there is zero chance of CO2 being reduced far enough as to starve the flora. Plants did just fine before the arrival of fauna. And if the flora does expire, it won't matter to us, as we humans will be dead as a result long before the plants die. We need the plants much more than they need us.
1. Yes, green plants do indeed need carbon dioxide to transpire; however there is zero chance of CO2 being reduced far enough as to starve the flora. Plants did just fine before the arrival of fauna. And if the flora does expire, it won't matter to us, as we humans will be dead as a result long before the plants die. We need the plants much more than they need us.
From what I've read, plants start having trouble when CO2 drops below 160-180ppm, and growth improves with increasing CO2 levels to past 1,000ppm. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were nominally 280ppm, glacial era CO2 levels were down to 200ppm. Higher CO2 levels allow plants to use fewer stomata, which reduces transpiration, so plants are doing better in arid and semi-arid areas.
On a geologic time scale, the pre-industrial 280ppm CO2 level is only a relatively recent thing (last couple of million years or so). As for the last million years or so, the runaway climate change behavior is seen during glacial episodes with temperatures on a downward trend after a sudden entrance to the glacial period. Warming seems to come as fast as cooling, but temperatures seem to bump up against a strong limiting effect most likely due to large tropical thundershowers (tops on the order of 60,000' or so). The latter is important as water vapor is a much larger source of the "greenhouse effect" than CO2, in part because it is a polar molecule.
Wowee, Mr. Bruce, you spotted a typo? Ain't it grand! [I had changed database to the plural, but neglected to delete the article.] I guess that just made your day! Too bad the rest of your post was not up to such a high level of erudition.
So much credibility given to speculation these days.
[quote user="jcburns"]
Most scientists are smart, precise, and accurate enough to say that mankind is A contributor, not the sole contributor.
That doesn't make that contribution insignificant in any way, however.
We gotta do what we can to reduce our impact. Simple. Sensible. Good for future generations.
Labeling concerned people "gloom and doomers" comes off as an attempt to diminish the truth of their message. I personally think that's short-sighted and selfish.
The effect of humankind on climate is scientifically undeniable.
[/quote
Wow, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
I agreed that man likely does contribute to the problem, and that pollution should be reduced to any practical level possible, but I do acknowledge that there is a point of diminishing returns, where at some point it just is not practical to reduce pollution further, but that sincere efforts should be done to control pollution within practical limits, kinda of sounds like your:
Doesn't it?
There are EXTREMISTS in every topic, I didn't label EVERYONE who claims man is the cause of Global Warming as Gloom and Doomers, but there are Certainly those that fit that description.
I NEVER claimed that mankinds effect on the envinronment was a MYTH, but I do question whether it is a SEVERE as some of the EXTREMISTS claim it is. I doubt that it is as severe as the worst case hand wringers claim, it IS something that we should do what we can about, but I believe the problem is neither non-existant, or the worst case that some claim, but rather somewhere in between.
Short sighted and selfish, well you obviously didn't comprehend my post very well, that and you should probably see your Doctor about assesing your blood pressure meds.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
BaltACD Euclid The only question is whether the pace of the wind-down matches the declaration that CSX will immediately stop buying new rolling stock or locomotives for the coal business. That would require knowing when the coal business will end, and Harrison says he does not know that. To me, this indicates that he expressing an ideological preference rather than a pure business decision. So I expect that he or CSX after him will actually buy new locomotives and rolling stock as needed for the coal business as it continues for some prolonged time, though dying it may be. Pre EHH the CSX mantra was for the 'owners' of the coal to buy the cars for the commoditiy's transportation. Power purchases were designed to be sufficient to move the traffic that was offered by customers. Not buying cars to move coal is one thing. Not buying power to move the traffic that is offered by customers to be moved is a death wish.
Euclid The only question is whether the pace of the wind-down matches the declaration that CSX will immediately stop buying new rolling stock or locomotives for the coal business. That would require knowing when the coal business will end, and Harrison says he does not know that. To me, this indicates that he expressing an ideological preference rather than a pure business decision. So I expect that he or CSX after him will actually buy new locomotives and rolling stock as needed for the coal business as it continues for some prolonged time, though dying it may be.
Pre EHH the CSX mantra was for the 'owners' of the coal to buy the cars for the commoditiy's transportation. Power purchases were designed to be sufficient to move the traffic that was offered by customers.
Not buying cars to move coal is one thing. Not buying power to move the traffic that is offered by customers to be moved is a death wish.
Attempting to get this thread back on track, I see EHH's comments as pure posturing, with the intent to get customers (coal companies in this case, but it can apply to anyone) to purchase more of their own equipment so CSX doesn't have to. The hopper/rotary gon fleet already has a large percentage of privately-owned cars, both by mining or utility companies and leasing outfits like CIT, and the trend has been leaning toward more private, non-railroad ownership. Perhaps locomotives will follow, it's happened before with Detroit Edison.
But another argument against ordering new coal cars is that a glut of them already exist, due to coal's decline over the past 10 years. Many are stored, and some have been sold for other service. In western Canada Sultran (sulphur moving cooperative) has gotten really good deals on hundreds of them over the past few years, and have almost completely replaced their old steel fleet with aluminium ex-coal gons. The latest batch look brand-new, almost like they had never been used (going by build dates stencilled on them they were built at the height of the recession). More than just being cleaned, no dents, scrapes or anything. I wouldn't be surprised if they had been stored for much of their life, for want of coal to haul.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
erikemWarming seems to come as fast as cooling, but temperatures seem to bump up against a strong limiting effect most likely due to large tropical thundershowers (tops on the order of 60,000' or so). The latter is important as water vapor is a much larger source of the "greenhouse effect" than CO2, in part because it is a polar molecule.
The greenhouse effect of water vapor as a natural phenomena is limited as the atmosphere accumulates only a limited amount depending on temperature.
On the other hand the CO2 content in the atmosphere has risen by 35% since industrialization began.
Water vapor plays a role in manmade warming too as higher temperatures allow higher amounts to be accumulated in the atmosphere strengthening global warming.
These effects are included in the climate prognose models.Regards, Volker
challenger3980I NEVER claimed that mankinds effect on the envinronment was a MYTH, but I do question whether it is a SEVERE as some of the EXTREMISTS claim it is. I doubt that it is as severe as the worst case hand wringers claim, it IS something that we should do what we can about, but I believe the problem is neither non-existant, or the worst case that some claim, but rather somewhere in between.
The problem with global warming is, it is a long-term process. We will know who is right, the "believers", "deniers", or the "in-betweens" only when it is too late to change anything.
Sorry, "we" was the wrong word it should read "our successors". Perhaps that makes it easy for "deniers" as they personally won't have to live through all of it.
Though this might not be complete correct either. Here in Germany we have design rainfalls for the design of drainage system. It is a 5 min. rain every 5 years. Currently we have it more than once a year. The same with high water levels of rivers. The levee hight is dimensioned for a high water expected every 100 years. Each year we have a new century high water somewhere.
This month we had rainfalls of 8 inch per day, more than the average rainfall for July.
Each event alone has perhaps happened before. It is the frequency that makes me think.
Is it a result of global warming? I'm not sure, but what if it is?Regards, Volker
Volker modern record keeping of weather overall has only been a science for about 120 years total. The predicting of weather patterns even with modern day tech is still a 1 in 3 chance of getting it wrong. Also just what has the planets population increased since 100 years ago. Now as to burning Fossil Fuels being a cause of Green house gasses yes they do release them. However a volcano like Mt Etna or Kilawhwa still releases more in 2 weeks than the largest coal fired powerplant in 1 year. Also in the 1100's during the dark ages and the height of the Vikings Greenland was clear of ice entirely. So stop saying we are the only cause of climate change in 4.5 Billion years this planet has warmed cooled and will do so again and again. All the Climate Change screaming is for most people around the world is a way for Governments to take more from us in the way of More TAXES. Take the Paris Climate Accord. The USA was hammered in it yet China and India the Largest Polluters in the world were allowed to keep going. Why was that simple we are a fully devolped country they aren't yet our President at the time was to dumb to realize that was the goal.
Also islands sinking is not because the water is rising it is called weathering and erosion and compression. Start reading up on that before making those claims. Water is one of the most powerful agents in this nation. New Orleans was at one time above sea level over time compression of the sediment put it below sea level. So stop with the mantra of islands being swallowed by the sea.
SD70M-2Dude But another argument against ordering new coal cars is that a glut of them already exist, due to coal's decline over the past 10 years. Many are stored....
There is a line of them stored for as far as the eye can see on the Georgetown Railroad, on some of the sidings on the South Orient Railroad, and on some of the sidings on the UP to the Rio Grande Valley.
If CSX or any other carrier gets a significant up tick in coal traffic, it should not have much difficulty coming up with the cars to haul it.
ruderunner Assuming you mean Schlimm, too much chicken little sky is falling. The opposite of Euclid post could be stated as well, "deniers" simply call "truthers" cooky. I'm in between, but it seems that even the In between are called cooks and deniers by the truthers. It seems like the truthers have an all or nothing attitude. I'm simply asking for proof, does that make me evil?
The people who question the climate change agenda conculusions are labeled as deniers when actually, they are agnostic like you are. But the proponents will not tolerate any position except absolute affirmation of their position. They blame people who are not in lockstep agreement, as being part of the cause of the planetary destruction they associate with climate change. If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science.
Bruce,
You and I know that to be a fact, but we will never be able to convince those who can explain the economics of competing fuels with just one sentence. If natural gas is so cheap that it can kill coal, why are electric rates rising so fast as power companies convert from coal to gas? I am all for facts, but I also know how complicated reality is.
One problem with “facts” is determining whether they are facts or just a statement someone claims to be a fact. With any controversial topic, references will provide an endless parade of “facts” on each side of the argument. So you can choose your side and then go shopping for your facts to support it.
Shadow the Cats ownerShadow the Cats owner wrote the following post 1 hours ago: Volker modern record keeping of weather overall has only been a science for about 120 years total. The predicting of weather patterns even with modern day tech is still a 1 in 3 chance of getting it wrong.
I think the conclusions of 90%+ of climatologists has far more value than an opinion based on the agitprop paid for by the Kochs and distributed by their minions and mouthpieces.
VOLKER LANDWEHR. The levee hight is dimensioned for a high water expected every 100 years. Each year we have a new century high water somewhere.
Sounds like a 100 year flood. The term is misunderstood by most people. They think it means a flood that will only happen once in 100 years. It actually means a flood has a 1-percent chance of occurring at a given location in any given year. There are thousands of 100 year floods around the world in any given year.
The 5 min rain in 5 years designed for would have a 20% chance of occuring at a given location in any given year.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
EuclidBruce, You and I know that to be a fact, but we will never be able to convince those who can explain the economics of competing fuels with just one sentence. If natural gas is so cheap that it can kill coal, why are electric rates rising so fast as power companies convert from coal to gas? I am all for facts, but I also know how complicated reality is. One problem with “facts” is determining whether they are facts or just a statement someone claims to be a fact. With any controversial topic, references will provide an endless parade of “facts” on each side of the argument. So you can choose your side and then go shopping for your facts to support it.
Electric rates in my area have increased 40% in the last year alone. I believe most of that increase is due to the mandate to get a percentage of electricity from renewables such as solar and wind power, Neither can stand alone without huge subsidies. Natural gas transported via pipeline certainly saves over the cost of transportation of coal by rail yet that cost differential does not show up in the rates.
And yes, the believers cherry pick and choose their 'facts' just like those in favor of gun control. Not much point in trying to argue with those who think they are of superior knowledge. Their minds are set and can't be changed. Only the annals of history will, in the long run, prove which side was right.
Norm
Norm48327And yes, the believers cherry pick and choose their 'facts' just like those in favor of gun control. Not much point in trying to argue with those who think they are of superior knowledge. Their minds are set and can't be changed. Only the annals of history will, in the long run, prove which side was right.
The non-believers do the same as well. But I'll take the word of a consensus of world-wide scientists over facebook joe 6 pack with (barely) a high school education any day. Or a politician with a degree is political sciences looking to appease his base.
And by the time we "prove" which side was right, I sure as hope it was the side that wasn't predicting some dire consequences. Because by then it's too late, and kind of pointless.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
"But the proponents will not tolerate any position ..."
"If they had their way, it would be illegal to disagree with them. That is their idea of science. "
Um, no. No. None of that is true.
No one's asking for lockstep. Scientists as a whole certainly don't want lockstep. Al Gore does not want lockstep. He wants to make a case for the issue, and I think he's saying that choosing an approach that is more earth-friendly can be good business and is definitely in the direction of "do less harm."
Sounds sensible to me, unless you come from a position where you reject what he has to say because he's a Democrat.
Norm48327Electric rates in my area have increased 40% in the last year alone. I believe most of that increase is due to the mandate to get a percentage of electricity from renewables such as solar and wind power, Neither can stand alone without huge subsidies.
True in Calufornia too. I don't know about other States, but we have a "base line" rate which is reasonably low. Go over the base line and the rates sky rocket. The base line useage is set so low that it is almost impossible not to exceed it by 3 or 4 times which may also incur State mandated penalities.
Norm48327Electric rates in my area have increased 40% in the last year alone.
My bill has stayed flat or slightly decreased since 2011, even though the ComEd delivery and recovery rates have increased. Reason? The energy prices have fallen so much because of the shift to gas.
zugmann Norm48327 And yes, the believers cherry pick and choose their 'facts' just like those in favor of gun control. Not much point in trying to argue with those who think they are of superior knowledge. Their minds are set and can't be changed. Only the annals of history will, in the long run, prove which side was right. The non-believers do the same as well. But I'll take the word of a consensus of world-wide scientists over facebook joe 6 pack with (barely) a high school education any day. Or a politician with a degree is political sciences looking to appease his base. And by the time we "prove" which side was right, I sure as hope it was the side that wasn't predicting some dire consequences. Because by then it's too late, and kind of pointless.
Norm48327 And yes, the believers cherry pick and choose their 'facts' just like those in favor of gun control. Not much point in trying to argue with those who think they are of superior knowledge. Their minds are set and can't be changed. Only the annals of history will, in the long run, prove which side was right.
Three comments:
1. Add - "or a politician with a degree in real estate."
2. Follow the money. Who financially benefits from increasing use of coal, oil and carbon-based energy?
3. Much of the attack on climate science started in the early 2000s when the Koch Bros. began funding 'research' and agitprop through the Heartland Foundation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.