Update on UP coal turbines

[Anonymous]

I think low-sulfur coal is a non-issue here. Low-sulfur coal was broadly available when the UP tried its coal turbine. What was uncommon was sulfur dioxide emissions regulations, until the Clean Air Act of 1970. As early as the 1920s, according to Coal Age, low-sulfur coal was almost universal in metallurgical and industrial uses, and where economically possible, everyone preferred low-sulfur coal even for stove and stoker fuel. Most of the coal mined on the N&W, C&O, B&O, PRR, etc., in the steam era was low-sulfur coal. Now it's mostly mined out.

UP's own coal mines in Southern Wyoming, in the Hanna and Hams Fork basins, produce low-sulfur coal. Hanna coal is higher in BTUs than Powder River Basin coal (I suspect PRB coal is what you're thinking about) but is more costly to mine because of a higher stripping ratio and undesirable geology. If you recall, in the late 1970s UP shipped a lot of utility coal east from the Hanna Basin, over Sherman Hill, and a lot west, too. But then the PRB came on line and the Hanna mines closed.

This is a total digression here, but the coal resources of the PRB were mapped and understood by the 1920s. But it was low-BTU, high-moisture content, high-ash content coal, located a long, long way away from population centers, so no one bothered to mine it in quantity until the 1970s. Five factors led to its exploitation: (1) clean air legislation; (2) greatly lowered rail haulage costs; (3) depletion of cheaply recoverable reserves closer to population centers; (4) a population shift from the Northeast to the South and West, and (5), an explosion of demand for electricity to power air conditioners, irrigation pumps, etc.

I presume (without digging into the files) that UP was burning either Hanna or Kemmerer coal in the coal turbine. I can't imagine them buying coal produced on the D&RGW or Utah Railway for this project, but who knows?

I suspect the ash content of the coal was the major factor in blade erosion. But I don't know -- maybe coal is just too abrasive, period. Maybe even zero-ash, zero-sulfur coal would erode turbine blades at an unacceptable rate.

[Anonymous]

I think low-sulfur coal is a non-issue here. Low-sulfur coal was broadly available when the UP tried its coal turbine. What was uncommon was sulfur dioxide emissions regulations, until the Clean Air Act of 1970. As early as the 1920s, according to Coal Age, low-sulfur coal was almost universal in metallurgical and industrial uses, and where economically possible, everyone preferred low-sulfur coal even for stove and stoker fuel. Most of the coal mined on the N&W, C&O, B&O, PRR, etc., in the steam era was low-sulfur coal. Now it's mostly mined out.

UP's own coal mines in Southern Wyoming, in the Hanna and Hams Fork basins, produce low-sulfur coal. Hanna coal is higher in BTUs than Powder River Basin coal (I suspect PRB coal is what you're thinking about) but is more costly to mine because of a higher stripping ratio and undesirable geology. If you recall, in the late 1970s UP shipped a lot of utility coal east from the Hanna Basin, over Sherman Hill, and a lot west, too. But then the PRB came on line and the Hanna mines closed.

This is a total digression here, but the coal resources of the PRB were mapped and understood by the 1920s. But it was low-BTU, high-moisture content, high-ash content coal, located a long, long way away from population centers, so no one bothered to mine it in quantity until the 1970s. Five factors led to its exploitation: (1) clean air legislation; (2) greatly lowered rail haulage costs; (3) depletion of cheaply recoverable reserves closer to population centers; (4) a population shift from the Northeast to the South and West, and (5), an explosion of demand for electricity to power air conditioners, irrigation pumps, etc.

I presume (without digging into the files) that UP was burning either Hanna or Kemmerer coal in the coal turbine. I can't imagine them buying coal produced on the D&RGW or Utah Railway for this project, but who knows?

I suspect the ash content of the coal was the major factor in blade erosion. But I don't know -- maybe coal is just too abrasive, period. Maybe even zero-ash, zero-sulfur coal would erode turbine blades at an unacceptable rate.

[kevarc]

First things first, I am the Safety & Environmental for a utility. We operate 2 gas fired steam plant, 1 dual fueled diesel plant ( this plant uses diesel to start the units and then after reaching operating temps and loads are switched to a 95% gas/5% diesel fuel), and are co-owners of a coal fired plant burning PRB coal. By degree I am a mining engineer, I worked in coal mine in Western PA.

Even a steam fired turbine can be severely damaged due to impurities in the water. Water Quality is much more important in a steam turbine than in a steam engine. In our plants we constantly monitor the make-up water (that is water added to the boiler to make up for losses). This is done to prevent foaming and to prevent wear on the pipes and the turbine itself. You cannot use just any old water in a steam turbine, you will eat it alive. That is what those that tried this in RR applications found out real fast. The maintenance was killing them. Even in a static version like in our plants extreme care is needed to keep them running. To put something like that on a moving platform is asking to spent huge amount of money to keep it running.

Coal has impurities that cause extreme wear of the blades.. Some of the ash is in the form of silica (sand). The other is Iron Sulfide, this is also a highly corrovsive material. Plus also, the regulatory agencies will not just allow you to blow this dust all over the place, a means of collecting will be required, and this is another high expense item.

The low BTU coal from the PRB would limit the the output of the turbine. This coal is low on BTU and high in moisture, two evils for this type of operation. Coal, you pay at the minehead, but you lose a portion before it gets to the plant due to the coal drying out. I can't remember our numbers offhand, but in the thousand miles+ it takes the coal to get to the plant we lose approx 10% of the weight. And you just cannot change type of coal at the drop of a hat. All of this equipment is designed and built to burn a very narrow range of coal. You cannot take a Western PA coal and substitute it for PRB. The hardness and other qualities of the coal call for different types of precessing equipment. This all entails the spending of capital.

Mark
I have to disagree with you about the coal reserves in the east. There is still a good bit there. It was more a matter of mining economics verses it being mined out. There is also a lack of market for the coal. The export market has been hurt by cheaper coals from other countries and the domestic market has been hurt by the closure of steel mills.

SooBlue
Yes they tried a turbine in a bus. But this was not a generator setup, it was a direct drive just like a helicopter. To add the required equipment for electrical output takes up more space than the turbine. This is not including all the other controls required. This all takes space and each presents it's own set of requirements. Most electrical plants need 5 megawatts of power to produce power, i.e. to get the auxilaries running.

[kevarc]

First things first, I am the Safety & Environmental for a utility. We operate 2 gas fired steam plant, 1 dual fueled diesel plant ( this plant uses diesel to start the units and then after reaching operating temps and loads are switched to a 95% gas/5% diesel fuel), and are co-owners of a coal fired plant burning PRB coal. By degree I am a mining engineer, I worked in coal mine in Western PA.

Even a steam fired turbine can be severely damaged due to impurities in the water. Water Quality is much more important in a steam turbine than in a steam engine. In our plants we constantly monitor the make-up water (that is water added to the boiler to make up for losses). This is done to prevent foaming and to prevent wear on the pipes and the turbine itself. You cannot use just any old water in a steam turbine, you will eat it alive. That is what those that tried this in RR applications found out real fast. The maintenance was killing them. Even in a static version like in our plants extreme care is needed to keep them running. To put something like that on a moving platform is asking to spent huge amount of money to keep it running.

Coal has impurities that cause extreme wear of the blades.. Some of the ash is in the form of silica (sand). The other is Iron Sulfide, this is also a highly corrovsive material. Plus also, the regulatory agencies will not just allow you to blow this dust all over the place, a means of collecting will be required, and this is another high expense item.

The low BTU coal from the PRB would limit the the output of the turbine. This coal is low on BTU and high in moisture, two evils for this type of operation. Coal, you pay at the minehead, but you lose a portion before it gets to the plant due to the coal drying out. I can't remember our numbers offhand, but in the thousand miles+ it takes the coal to get to the plant we lose approx 10% of the weight. And you just cannot change type of coal at the drop of a hat. All of this equipment is designed and built to burn a very narrow range of coal. You cannot take a Western PA coal and substitute it for PRB. The hardness and other qualities of the coal call for different types of precessing equipment. This all entails the spending of capital.

Mark
I have to disagree with you about the coal reserves in the east. There is still a good bit there. It was more a matter of mining economics verses it being mined out. There is also a lack of market for the coal. The export market has been hurt by cheaper coals from other countries and the domestic market has been hurt by the closure of steel mills.

SooBlue
Yes they tried a turbine in a bus. But this was not a generator setup, it was a direct drive just like a helicopter. To add the required equipment for electrical output takes up more space than the turbine. This is not including all the other controls required. This all takes space and each presents it's own set of requirements. Most electrical plants need 5 megawatts of power to produce power, i.e. to get the auxilaries running.

[sooblue]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc

First things first, I am the Safety & Environmental for a utility. We operate 2 gas fired steam plant, 1 dual fueled diesel plant ( this plant uses diesel to start the units and then after reaching operating temps and loads are switched to a 95% gas/5% diesel fuel), and are co-owners of a coal fired plant burning PRB coal. By degree I am a mining engineer, I worked in coal mine in Western PA.

SooBlue
Yes they tried a turbine in a bus. But this was not a generator setup, it was a direct drive just like a helicopter. To add the required equipment for electrical output takes up more space than the turbine. This is not including all the other controls required. This all takes space and each presents it's own set of requirements. Most electrical plants need 5 megawatts of power to produce power, i.e. to get the auxilaries running.

Hey Kevarc,[8)]
I forgot all about this thead. [:)]By accident I found it. Thanks for your input.
Sooblue

[sooblue]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc

First things first, I am the Safety & Environmental for a utility. We operate 2 gas fired steam plant, 1 dual fueled diesel plant ( this plant uses diesel to start the units and then after reaching operating temps and loads are switched to a 95% gas/5% diesel fuel), and are co-owners of a coal fired plant burning PRB coal. By degree I am a mining engineer, I worked in coal mine in Western PA.

SooBlue
Yes they tried a turbine in a bus. But this was not a generator setup, it was a direct drive just like a helicopter. To add the required equipment for electrical output takes up more space than the turbine. This is not including all the other controls required. This all takes space and each presents it's own set of requirements. Most electrical plants need 5 megawatts of power to produce power, i.e. to get the auxilaries running.

Hey Kevarc,[8)]
I forgot all about this thead. [:)]By accident I found it. Thanks for your input.
Sooblue

[Anonymous]

I'm not trying to beat this dead horse,but one thing that has not been brought up about turbines and locomotives....and something I have always wondered.......are train movements....slack, coupling, etc hard on turbines?....especialy turning at such high rpm? it seems a "standard" turbine would not fair well in a good 'ol rough joint!!

David Wallace

[Anonymous]

I'm not trying to beat this dead horse,but one thing that has not been brought up about turbines and locomotives....and something I have always wondered.......are train movements....slack, coupling, etc hard on turbines?....especialy turning at such high rpm? it seems a "standard" turbine would not fair well in a good 'ol rough joint!!

David Wallace

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



The gas turbines were regulars at UP's LA east yard,it was one of their turn around points.

I think the title of the video is UP's Mighty Turbines. I will dig it out tomorrow, and see if there is a stock number on it.


I need a view of # 80A & B. I must know more [:p]
Thanks, Sooblue

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



The gas turbines were regulars at UP's LA east yard,it was one of their turn around points.

I think the title of the video is UP's Mighty Turbines. I will dig it out tomorrow, and see if there is a stock number on it.


I need a view of # 80A & B. I must know more [:p]
Thanks, Sooblue