I saw a show that talked about new strip mining operations and what strict regulations they are held to. In most modern cases, the land is unusable for any purpose except mining. After the mine is played out, the land is reclaimed and filled in and replanted making it highly sought after for farm land or housing developments. This isn't how it always was, but I'm glad it's the way it is now.
Now if we can just get the environmentalists to lay off the B.S. about coal and global warming we'll all be better off.
Some "Inconvinient Truths"
The two principle sources of the energy that lifts our life style above pre-industrial levels (Hard, mean, solitary, brutish and short) are petroleum based transportation and electricity. In the US, the largest source of electrical energy is coal generation. The only viable non-poluting alternative sources of generating electricity are hydro which are already all in use (and which some some enviro-wackos in the PacNW not to knock holes in!) and nuclear. Who stands in the way of nuclear? Why, it's those same enviro-wackos.
This orchestrated hysteria over anthrogenic global warming ignores two inconvenient truths. If the Earth hadn't been naturally warming for the last 20 or 30 thousand years, the northen quarter of the country would now be under a sheet of ice. Inconvenient truth no 2 (both puns intended) Mars is experiencing comprable warming and shrinkage of polar ice caps w/o any anthrogenic input (unless you count NASA's Mars Rover which is, after all, solar powered). Let's see now, what common source of heat is shared by both Earth and Mars? Oh yes, the Sun.
According to AAR .....................
"Railroads are already the cleanest, most environmentally friendly mode of surface transportation, on average three times cleaner than trucks."
http://www.aar.org/Index.asp?NCID=3948
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
I suppose while we're at this, we could question autoracks, lumber-laden flatcars, and any number of other revenue-generating loads that trains have hauled. No mules either, since they were put to use to questionable purposes over the millenia. No TV sets, no telescopes or metal observatory domes, no steeples, ...heck, the ethical modeller really has no recourse except to the model of a pristine forest....oh, and we'll add a nice little lake, too.
Okay, that went from the sublime to the ridiculous, but I hope it illustrates that the premise is a bit silly, or at least, its effect will be arbitrary and relegate every one of us to a place of our chosing on a continuum, and which we will all be required to defend ad nauseum, ad infinitum, on other threads over the next couple of centuries.
No, thanks.
Edit - Shawnee, I regret not at least welcoming you as Chuck did. I apologize, and hope you won't take my sentiments as a rejection of you. Not at all!
tomikawaTT wrote:Here's a quick touchstone to determine the hypocracy level of an 'enviromentalist.' Ask him if he has air conditioning. (Hard to run an air conditioner without electricity!)
Here's a quick touchstone to determine the hypocracy level of an 'enviromentalist.' Ask him if he has air conditioning. (Hard to run an air conditioner without electricity!)
But what if it's solar powered?
You know I would wonder if by this logic passenger travel is the most "unethical" of all to model. After all, you're transporting the very polluters themselves, people haha!
I'll personally tell you that I see my share of politics in the news, at work and at my fair university. I'm keeping my layout a politically-correct-free-zone. I'm going to put whatever kind of trains I like and are prototypical on it. There aren't any coal trains on my line but there are a few lumber ones, and I don't give it a second thought, but that's me.
Now if you'd like some things to ease your mind when it comes to railroading think about this:
Most lumber is now farmed not cut from old growth trees.
The burning of coal by powerplants is now cleaner and far more effecient than it has ever been thanks to new technologies.
Nuclear matterials carried by train are held in fortified containers and are garded very well. (they are also some really cool modeling too thanks to the special conditions which their transportation requires)
Just imagine how many trucks even a single intermodal train takes off the interstates.
Cheers!
~METRO
A provocative start on the forum ... hope that you're not a troll
As a non-American I could look at all sorts of things that have been done in/by the US and think "No way"! Against that since starting in American Railroads I've learnt a huge amount of things about America and Americans... including that they are pretty much like other humans on the planet (despite some of the things that some people say). Did you know for example that they're not all like George W, the Clintons or "The West Wing"? That's just for starters. Also there's nice ones. nasty ones and everything in between.
Hope that you have a good model railroading time here.
Having read and researched considerably the subject of mining in Illinois during the early part of the 20th Century, I have found myself increasingly drawn to this fascinating industry. Has there ever been the time when mining was not at the center of some sort of social controversy? You think of the history of child labor laws in the West, the birth and growth of the labor unions, the constant flood of immigrants to the US to work in these places, and of course environmental issues. Consider that this industry powered the industrial revolution and had a huge impact on the development of the very trains that we love. The world would not be the place we live in now without it. With all its failings I happen to think we live in an amazing time. However, my real fascintation has been with the people.
When a young man in the late 1890's walked away from his home in Italy, Ireland, Poland, Croatia and the rest of the Austrian Empire, or any other European nation was a life in the deep mines of the US what he had in mind for his future? Was life so bad in the homeland that they were willing to risk their lives everyday in poor work conditions with virtually no access to health-care for the inevitable problems they would have?
In the last 2 years I have followed the path of one such man from a hilltop village in Croatia, via Rotterdam, Ellis Island, to Illinois, where he died 30 years later crushed in the mine. A US citizen at the end. For me modelling mining is more about offering a tribute to these people that did something to try and better their future and in doing so contributed to the fabric of this great country.
There will always be controversy over this industry. Just Google "long-wall mining" to see that even current underground extraction methods have plenty of issues as well. Looking at what long-wall can do to the surface, I am somewhat surprised that strip mining followed by careful environment reconstruction afterwards is not the preferred method of the environmentalists.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
I guess I ought to aplogize for starting on the forum in a controversial way, and I don't want to be labeled a "wacko". I'm actually quite reasonable.
I acknowledge that in general, railroads are more efficient than ever, and are increasingly taking trucks off the road, which is a good thing indeed. I also think rail passenger travle is on a major comeback in this energy-challenges age, and that's overdo as a more efficient means. It's not the railroad that i took issue with, but who they serve, and abet. Not that business ought to or can have a conscious. But I look at those NS and CSX traveling through central VA in a new light.
I didn't get my info from greenpeace, but from a a great variety of sources, both local appalachia, fed, newspapers, even the site of Massey Energy. Although the last was obviously a PR gloss.
All I'm saying is that we're naiive if we think that strip mining is "better" these days, that the land is returned to garden form and is highly sought after for farming and parks. It's a permanent scar on the land, unusable for agriculture for the most part, as far as I have read. The coal companies have no more interest in returning the land to usable form than they have they absolutely must, and the fed management of the result is lame. I guess places like Southern West Virginia have a history of being taken advantage of.
With Mountaintop removal it's actually worse than ever! The "valley fills" they do stuff streams and clearly alter the natural environment..they're basically destroying mountains. They are not returning the mountain to its natural form. They plant the land with fast growing, inexpensive invasive plants not native to the region, which spread throughoutr adjacent land..all sort os ancillary problems like that. The feds enable this...current administration changed the definition of "waste" to "fill" and green lighted valley fills instead of mountaintop reconstruction...after massive campaign contributions by the likes of Massey. But I guess that's the way it works.
I'm independent politically, and actually a realist, not a enviro-wacko...but it seems to me that this is quite a silent crime, little media coverage of it outside the confines of a few Appalachian newspapers. Perhaps this isn't the forum for this, and I aplogize...but i guess model railroading added to my awareness...and that's a good thing. Funny how that works.
Strip mining would indeed take too much room for a model railroad. There's a point in that.
Hmm..The info I've seen says the reclaimed land is highly sought after by farmers and ranchers because of the rich layer of top soil that is put down. The feds are pretty stricked about this.(now)
You want to see somthing sad, look at mining practices in China and Russia.
If you have personal convictions against something, then you don't have to model it on your layout.
That being said, you have to ask yourself what are the problems with coal mining? Are they unique to the particular company and geographic region you mentioned, or is it pretty much universal all over the country/world? Is there any example of an acceptable process in practice in the US or in the world? The reality is that we get a lot of our energy from coal that is mined in the US. So then the question becomes, is there any way to mine the coal that is cost effective and environmentally friendly? I suspect that if you ask enough people, you will eventually get an answer of "no."
The reality is that you can argue that anything we humans do has a negative impact on the environment in some way. There's no shortage of reasons to feel guilty about just about anything. In 100 years, when we've switched to all solar and wind power, people will be arguing that all the windmills are interrupting the migration patterns of an endangered species, and all the solar panels are cluttering up the view of nature.
I understand people may have concerns about some aspects of the coal industry and its practices, but it's hard to be anti-coal power because most of us benefit from it in one way or another. Coal power may have some bad secondary effects, but what are the realistic alternatives? At some point, you have to have a certain degree of acceptance of environmental degradation in exchange for a cheap, plentiful energy source. Just how much you are willing to tolerate depends on the person.
If a person wants to be anti-coal, then that's fine. But they have to completey divorce themselves from it. That means disconnecting the main power feed to your house and installing a bunch of solar panels on the roof. What about the company you work for? Where do they get their power from? Might have to look for another place to work. How about the stores you shop at?
Otherwise, one can just come to the realization that coal is a dirty, but necessary, business, and the best we can do is to demand that it is conducted as best as possible to preserve the environment within reason. (And like it or not, money does play a large part in that equation.) Try to work with the coal companies to help them, rather than criticizing them at every turn. Meanwhile, continue to advocate development of "clean" energy sources, while trying to be as energy efficient as possible.
Just my
Dan Stokes
My other car is a tunnel motor
stokesda wrote: ...The reality is that you can argue that anything we humans do has a negative impact on the environment in some way. There's no shortage of reasons to feel guilty about just about anything. In 100 years, when we've switched to all solar and wind power, people will be arguing that all the windmills are interrupting the migration patterns of an endangered species, and all the solar panels are cluttering up the view of nature..Just my
...The reality is that you can argue that anything we humans do has a negative impact on the environment in some way. There's no shortage of reasons to feel guilty about just about anything. In 100 years, when we've switched to all solar and wind power, people will be arguing that all the windmills are interrupting the migration patterns of an endangered species, and all the solar panels are cluttering up the view of nature..
I wonder about wind powered generation. If you use blades to rob the wind of kinetic energy, what will the effect be over time and distance? Huge wind farms here and there will have to have an effect that we haven't anticipated, and then we'll jump on the Oh-My-God-the SKy-is-Falling bandwagon once more.
Why don't we just go nuclear and get on with it?
I digress.
I remember reading (in Trains, I think) that back in the late 80s or early 90s a large coal mining operation was considering building a coal "pipline" through the Blue Ridge mountains. The railroads and the "environmentalists" joined forced to defeat the project.
The railroads objected to it because it would mean lost revenue for them.
The "environmentalist" objected because of the "damage" it would cause to the environment.
As the saying goes, "politics makes strange bedfellows".
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
I guess I'm an "enviro-wacko" so maybe it's time for my
Now, I'm kinda new around these parts, but it is disturbing to find so many throwing around insulting words that only fragment people and create animosity.
And since I am a "wacko", it bothers to me see so much mistrust and misunderstanding. While I can't speak for all wackos, it might interest you to know that neither myself, nor many other wackos I know are completely against human use of natural resources. I understand the need for raw materials, and I am aware of how the world goes 'round. And I firmly believe that it is possible for industry and "enviros" to work together. In fact, that's the only way. Making enemies of each other accomplishes nothing. It becomes a war of who is right and who is wrong instead of focusing on the real goal of living in and maintaining a healthy environment (which really shouldn't be controversial at all).
It also isn't hypocritcal to have legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of industry while still benefiting from coal, oil, etc. The key for myself and other wackos is recognize the impacts that we all have and to take as many steps as possible to reduce that impact. Mostly through trying to live life as efficiently as possible by not wasting energy or resources. For instance:
I live very close to work, on purpose, so it is easy for me to either walk or bike to work. My house is in an older, established neighborhood, close to the bus line and very close to shopping and entertainment. I use energy-efficient CFC bulbs in my house. I try to buy locally produced food as much as possible to cut down on energy it takes to transport food thousands of miles. I buy my electricity from a co-op that does supply fossil fuel energy, but also promotes the use of renewable and sustainable resources as much as possible. Hopefully, with enough support, they can start to have an even bigger impact in moving towards renewables.
I still drive a car, I live in a normal house, I have a normal job. Does that make me a hypocrite because I don't live in a tree and worship the sun?
But this forum really isn't the place for such discussions or debates.
To answer the original posters question...I don't think that including elements of real life that are objectional to you is necessarily a bad thing. You aren't promoting mining, you are just creating a slice of reality. Like it or not, strip mines exist. In fact, modeling such things can have a positive effect. Doing the research to accurately portray such a scene will increase your own knowledge of energy issues, and a model of the scene might even help to educate others. So many people are unaware about where energy comes from. Flip the switch and the light magically appears. Who thinks about the destruction of the landscape with a strip mine when they sit down to watch American Idol?
Another alternative would be to model the future. Try to think ahead about what things will be like in a post-cheap-energy world. Maybe coal traffic will be greatly reduced, but perhaps railroad traffic would increase. Trains are currently the most efficient use of dwindling and polluting resources. Maybe those coal trains will be replaced with an increase in passenger traffic because it is too expensive to drive cars and fly in airplanes.
Environmental wackoism is only a restriction for those without an imagination!
Thanks for your thoughtful response, millrace. I would normally agree that there is room for eveyone if we all agree to get along....but the premise is false. There simply isn't enough room for "all of us" because as we find ways to accommodate all the apparent problems, we make it convenient and more comfortable for more of us to be there. In other words, population growth takes place after major advances in techonoloogy and in science, not the least of which are medicine and food production.
This is so clearly evident that one would have to be an imbecile to deny it. Look at our record since 1950; as we shipped our WWII technology around the world to third world countries, we encouraged unbridled population growth. It isn't our mining that is killing us, ....we, all 6 billion of us, growing at 10,000 souls each minute (okay, and losing 8000), are spilling into the comfort zone we make for ourselves with each new advance in thinking.
If we could find a way to convince the populations to keep to a size of between 500M and 1B, we would probably be able to save the planet with all of our documentaries and angst...but not the way we are going about it now.
selector wrote: stokesda wrote: ...The reality is that you can argue that anything we humans do has a negative impact on the environment in some way. There's no shortage of reasons to feel guilty about just about anything. In 100 years, when we've switched to all solar and wind power, people will be arguing that all the windmills are interrupting the migration patterns of an endangered species, and all the solar panels are cluttering up the view of nature..Just my I wonder about wind powered generation. If you use blades to rob the wind of kinetic energy, what will the effect be over time and distance? Huge wind farms here and there will have to have an effect that we haven't anticipated, and then we'll jump on the Oh-My-God-the SKy-is-Falling bandwagon once more.Why don't we just go nuclear and get on with it?I digress.
Can't use wind. I hear California wants to ban wind turbines because birds fly into them and die.
loathar wrote: Can't use wind. I hear California wants to ban wind turbines because birds fly into them and die.
..and into glass windows in hi-rises everywhere, into my radiator rarely, and so on. Like stokedsa and I opine, humans are the worse thing to happen to the planet...and we are growing in number. And will continue to grow until some horrible stasis is reached, or until we populate another planet someplace.
Oh well, at 55 I have stopped having kids, so I am no longer part of the problem....
Wow, lemme get the popcorn... ...this is gonna be good!
You all know me as a meteorologist, so my concerns about climate change have been touted before, and so I won't rehash them here.
Nevertheless, I forecast a runaway thread!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
All this talk of coal trains & nobody posted any pics ?? I'm ashamed of you guys !... lol. Here ya go !
...and don't get me started on food production. The energy (emissions-wise) that it takes to produce a dozen eggs, a pound of bacon, or beef, and cheese is far more than a single car generates in a day. Ruminants and their belches and other-enders contribute far more to global warming than do the cars...well,...add all the bottom scum and burping ponds all over the world, and we have a serious problem. Stop raising cattle and pigs, and drain all the ponds. Now that's an "inconvenient" truth.
Help...!
Since WWII, America has replaced 1,000's of miles of railways with 10,000's of miles of highways. (Don't forget all those giant airports, too.) Resulting impacts include environmental concerns and dependance on foreign oil. Each year 100's of billions of dollars go to highways and airports while Amrtak is being cut to zero. Now, future generations will pay the price.
Did we learn from the 1973 Arab oil embargo? No.
Have we learned from the 2005 oil price surge? Apparently not.
You know, that is true...about highways and smog and gas guzzling that could be avoided with better passenger train service...seems to me to be thr right time to turn the pendulum back towards encouraging passenger train travel. Does anyone know if any of the prez candidates have a policy stance on that in view of the need for a comprehensive energy policy? I know that McCain was once a vehement critic of Amtrak...has he turned around?
I guess the coal trains would cause passenger train delays. Or is that the other way around?
galaxy wrote: There have been several threads along this line and as always there are the BELIEVERS and the NONBELIEVERS. Never the twain shall meet. Unfortunately.To those who say we are NOT polluting the atmosphere, whether contributing to global warming, or not: let me tape a hole to your car's exhaust pipe, put a bag over your head, tape it down at your neck and shove the hose in there. THEN lets see how soon you decide we are polluting the environment. That or you pass out, whichever comes first. I am severely asthmatic. Cloudy and/or rainy days are the worst for me. We recently stopped by a railyard recently on such a day. The exhaust from the standing idling locos and the locos working burned our eyes, throats, and made me choke badly. I decided then that I could never really do the engineer/conductors job under those conditions. All locos were running, even those without crews.First Lady went to the Midway Islands just past Hawaii. The sea birds there were suffering and dying. With a prod, they opened up the bellies of some of those newly decayed. They were full of plastic cig lighters, toothpaste caps and other such stuff. Any dead bird they picked to open was the same way. They were starving all while eating these things not knowing it was not food. Food for them is scarcer and scarcer. The next time a garbage barge comes back empty with an alibi that they "sold it off to some S. Am. country for $50.00". Think about that. I never did buy that story. Plastic-type items will float in the oceans, not sink 100's 1000's of feet down.A team of oceanographers have determined that there may not be anymore seafood to be had. We are over-harvesting and polluting the water too much. This can happen by 2040.A team of over 1000 scientists from many different countries worldwide have come to the conclusion Al Gore has been pushing. Al Gore has been vindicated. They say by as soon as 2080 food could be scarce, and not clean fresh water available for the growing populations.I lived on an island once. One took all one's trash to the disposal center. ALL TRASH had to be sorted out by kind and disposed of in the bins. cans here, bottles there, newspaper over there, yard waste way over on the other side. Most everything except "gooey household food trash" had a place to go and was sold off to recyclers. This was mid-late 80's. True, once a month they did a controlled 6 hour burn to reduce further the growing pile of stuff not recyclable, but by today's standards they did extremely well. I obviously fought for and dutifully recycle where I live now. There is no reason anyone can't. The County's first 3 years of recycling they expected to reduce the amout of waste going to the landfill by about 25-30%. Instead after just 2 years of operating, they found that the amount of waste going to the landfill was reduced by nearly 80%. Amazing difference!Solar panels have come a long way. Scientists think they can come further. You don't have to do the whole roof. You local solar dealers may have a minimum to purchase, but you can all more as time and money allow. One may even be eligible for tax breaks. Yes, I have air conditioning for my health. But a little sun to run it helps on top of the fact that energy star appliances save electricity when running. If solar were added to everything, it can certainly help. Wind is also improved. Wind may pick up what the sun isn't providing.My vehicle does run on E85 fuel. That is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. It is basically the reverse of premium gas. There are several companies here in Upstate NY that will produce all manners of biofuels. Biofuels burn cleaner and reduce the co2 emissions. Brazil changed 75% of its cars from gasoline to E85 in just 3 years. Can we do something? Toyota did not stick its head in the sand and was ready to roll with a hybrid. Hybrids may not be quite all they are cracked up to be, but show that we can do better.I recently read the environmentalists are after the 150 steam locomotives that do operate here in the US. 150 only? Some are being converted from coal to oil as it burns cleaner. For just 150, I think we could leave them alone, but those who live near their overnight moorings, and those who live near the routes they occasionally run are complaining.I have some ornamental plants, some tropical plants. I already decided plants should do double duty. Grow and eat or bear fruit, if possible. I can have fresh stuff in the winter with the help of grow lights- 20 watts. 7 watt seedling heaters do help. 81 watts all told. A little more than a 75 watt incandescent light bulb. Not bad. All other bulbs here are full-spectrum compact flourescent 14 watt bulbs. Puts out like a 100 incandescent. My starter plants will be well on their way when spring starts. Outdoor crops will carry into the fall, then new growth inside. Nothing like fresh stuff from your own growing.More animal species are well on their way to extinction at the hand of mankind. Elephants, who have for many years been, and others like Tigers. Recently Nat'l Geographic had an article that 12 species of frogs in the rainforest were extinct now, and 2 others in serious trouble. If it weren't for forest restoration projects and zero-harvesting (you plant a new tree for each you cut down, and alternate-harvesting (you take out one tree in 2 or 3, leave the rest), or combination of those, we would have striped the land along time ago, as did England a few hundred years ago. We are stripping the earth of its animalkind and vegetation. We are stripping it of its air and sealife. We are polluting its freshwaters. This, WE are doing and are solely responsible. The thing is, we have know-how. We have abilities. We can do better. We can make a difference. We can improve. We are guardians of this planet whether you belive in a diety or not. Why should'nt we? I have NO kids, nieces, nephews or grandkids. So why should I care? Because I care about the earth, and future human generations, thats why.
There have been several threads along this line and as always there are the BELIEVERS and the NONBELIEVERS. Never the twain shall meet. Unfortunately.
To those who say we are NOT polluting the atmosphere, whether contributing to global warming, or not: let me tape a hole to your car's exhaust pipe, put a bag over your head, tape it down at your neck and shove the hose in there. THEN lets see how soon you decide we are polluting the environment. That or you pass out, whichever comes first. I am severely asthmatic. Cloudy and/or rainy days are the worst for me. We recently stopped by a railyard recently on such a day. The exhaust from the standing idling locos and the locos working burned our eyes, throats, and made me choke badly. I decided then that I could never really do the engineer/conductors job under those conditions. All locos were running, even those without crews.
First Lady went to the Midway Islands just past Hawaii. The sea birds there were suffering and dying. With a prod, they opened up the bellies of some of those newly decayed. They were full of plastic cig lighters, toothpaste caps and other such stuff. Any dead bird they picked to open was the same way. They were starving all while eating these things not knowing it was not food. Food for them is scarcer and scarcer. The next time a garbage barge comes back empty with an alibi that they "sold it off to some S. Am. country for $50.00". Think about that. I never did buy that story. Plastic-type items will float in the oceans, not sink 100's 1000's of feet down.
A team of oceanographers have determined that there may not be anymore seafood to be had. We are over-harvesting and polluting the water too much. This can happen by 2040.
A team of over 1000 scientists from many different countries worldwide have come to the conclusion Al Gore has been pushing. Al Gore has been vindicated. They say by as soon as 2080 food could be scarce, and not clean fresh water available for the growing populations.
I lived on an island once. One took all one's trash to the disposal center. ALL TRASH had to be sorted out by kind and disposed of in the bins. cans here, bottles there, newspaper over there, yard waste way over on the other side. Most everything except "gooey household food trash" had a place to go and was sold off to recyclers. This was mid-late 80's. True, once a month they did a controlled 6 hour burn to reduce further the growing pile of stuff not recyclable, but by today's standards they did extremely well.
I obviously fought for and dutifully recycle where I live now. There is no reason anyone can't. The County's first 3 years of recycling they expected to reduce the amout of waste going to the landfill by about 25-30%. Instead after just 2 years of operating, they found that the amount of waste going to the landfill was reduced by nearly 80%. Amazing difference!
Solar panels have come a long way. Scientists think they can come further. You don't have to do the whole roof. You local solar dealers may have a minimum to purchase, but you can all more as time and money allow. One may even be eligible for tax breaks. Yes, I have air conditioning for my health. But a little sun to run it helps on top of the fact that energy star appliances save electricity when running. If solar were added to everything, it can certainly help. Wind is also improved. Wind may pick up what the sun isn't providing.
My vehicle does run on E85 fuel. That is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. It is basically the reverse of premium gas. There are several companies here in Upstate NY that will produce all manners of biofuels. Biofuels burn cleaner and reduce the co2 emissions. Brazil changed 75% of its cars from gasoline to E85 in just 3 years. Can we do something? Toyota did not stick its head in the sand and was ready to roll with a hybrid. Hybrids may not be quite all they are cracked up to be, but show that we can do better.
I recently read the environmentalists are after the 150 steam locomotives that do operate here in the US. 150 only? Some are being converted from coal to oil as it burns cleaner. For just 150, I think we could leave them alone, but those who live near their overnight moorings, and those who live near the routes they occasionally run are complaining.
I have some ornamental plants, some tropical plants. I already decided plants should do double duty. Grow and eat or bear fruit, if possible. I can have fresh stuff in the winter with the help of grow lights- 20 watts. 7 watt seedling heaters do help. 81 watts all told. A little more than a 75 watt incandescent light bulb. Not bad. All other bulbs here are full-spectrum compact flourescent 14 watt bulbs. Puts out like a 100 incandescent. My starter plants will be well on their way when spring starts. Outdoor crops will carry into the fall, then new growth inside. Nothing like fresh stuff from your own growing.
More animal species are well on their way to extinction at the hand of mankind. Elephants, who have for many years been, and others like Tigers. Recently Nat'l Geographic had an article that 12 species of frogs in the rainforest were extinct now, and 2 others in serious trouble. If it weren't for forest restoration projects and zero-harvesting (you plant a new tree for each you cut down, and alternate-harvesting (you take out one tree in 2 or 3, leave the rest), or combination of those, we would have striped the land along time ago, as did England a few hundred years ago.
We are stripping the earth of its animalkind and vegetation. We are stripping it of its air and sealife. We are polluting its freshwaters. This, WE are doing and are solely responsible.
The thing is, we have know-how. We have abilities. We can do better. We can make a difference. We can improve. We are guardians of this planet whether you belive in a diety or not. Why should'nt we?
I have NO kids, nieces, nephews or grandkids. So why should I care? Because I care about the earth, and future human generations, thats why.
Where to begin? First of all, carbon monoxide can be deadly in high concentrations but that is not what the global warming fanatics are screaming about. They are talking about CO2 which occurs naturally, is used by every living thing and is NOT a pollutant. This is not the forum debating whether the dangers of global warming is real or imagined. That's almost a moot point because the global waming fear mongers don't want a debate. They want to just tell us the debate is over and we must accept their conclusions if we care about the future of the planet. True science encourages skepticism and critical thinking. Peer review is part of the scientific process, but those pushing the global warming dogma want none of that. That approach harkens back to the time when Galileo was dragged over the coals for daring to challenge church dogma that the earth was the center of the universe. Sorry, but if I'm supposed to accept something without questioning it, it's going to have to come from somebody who has more credibility than the guy who invented the internet.
The "guy who invented the internet" is backed by the vast majority of scientists. Those who have the opposite view are back by a group of talk show hosts and "think tanks" funded by Exxon.
Quoting Shawnee below ......."........seems to me to be thr right time to turn the pendulum back towards encouraging passenger train travel. Does anyone know if any of the prez candidates have a policy stance on that in view of the need for a comprehensive energy policy? "
Before focussing on any individual candidates, we should focus on the two main parties. As far as I can tell, neither party favors intercity rail passenger travel. Both favor airports and highways. Instead of advocating alternative energies for cars, they should favor alternative modes of travel (railroads). Changing to ethanol is already running up food prices. From what I am hearing, ethanol reduces mpg's, and is not economically viable.
Consumtion of fuel for cargo transportation is all but ignored by politicians. Hauling long distance freight by highway is extremely wasteful with regards to fuel consumtion. The folks in Washington could care less.
Let's see; I will be willing to consider global warming as a significant danger when someone explains how we went from the coming ice age in the 70's to global warming now; and why the polar ice caps on Mars are melting if global warming is caused primarily by man.
And I don't like being lectured to by someone (Al Gore ) who lives in a 10,000 square foot house, spends $20,000 per year on electricity and travels by private jet to tout his global warming cause.
There are actually higher priorities -- Economist Bjorn Lomborg makes a persuasive case for prioritizing the world's biggest problems, asking "If we had $50 billion to spend over the next four years to do good in the world, where should we spend it?" (and it's not global warming; I found this thought provoking)
Somebody said they were going to sit back and enjoy the "debate". This probably didn't help!
Oh well; better get back to trains where everyone agrees!
Glenn -- PRR in Georgia
galaxy wrote:...All locos were running, even those without crews.
...All locos were running, even those without crews.
Yeah, thats probably a bad thing, however there are two caveats to a diesel engine:
galaxy wrote:My vehicle does run on E85 fuel. That is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. It is basically the reverse of premium gas. There are several companies here in Upstate NY that will produce all manners of biofuels. Biofuels burn cleaner and reduce the co2 emissions. Brazil changed 75% of its cars from gasoline to E85 in just 3 years. Can we do something? Toyota did not stick its head in the sand and was ready to roll with a hybrid. Hybrids may not be quite all they are cracked up to be, but show that we can do better.I recently read the environmentalists are after the 150 steam locomotives that do operate here in the US. 150 only? Some are being converted from coal to oil as it burns cleaner. For just 150, I think we could leave them alone, but those who live near their overnight moorings, and those who live near the routes they occasionally run are complaining.
I'm none too familiar with e85 fuel, although having seen some of the reports and things about it, I do agree that it is better than gasoline.. not only does it burn cleaner, but also the egine burns it better... or something like that.
I also agree that people should leave the steam locos alone. I mean, if you want to repair a house, and it is of a certain age, you usually have to follow some form of "historic accuracy" code(s) for the city and/or state. Sure these only really cover outward appearances of the house, and sometimes other appearance things, but if we apply that to a steam loco - you *will* change the appearance of the tender (and possibly the locomotive as well) in order to make it an oil-burner.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site