garyla wrote: Tell us about "Carbon Belch Day"!
Tell us about "Carbon Belch Day"!
http://www.carbonbelchday.com/
Would I be doing my part if, for that one day, my household electric meter ran as fast as that of a certain former Vice President?
As far as electricity use goes, that's probably more significant in the Midwest and East Coast where we burn mostly coal for generation. You guys out West get most of your electricity from hydropower, right?
My take is that we should all do what we enjoy for that one day without being guilt-tripped into activity reductions by the National Socialists of Environmentalism. Take a long drive in your biggest SUV and enjoy railfanning in the countryside. Have a backyard BBQ using a charcoal grill. Drink some beer and have a belching contest.
But keep the Prius in the garage.
edblysard wrote: And just to let the rest of you guys know, the ACE 6000 experiment was underwritten by the coal industry, as were most of the "studies" quoted elseware...not the most un-biased source of documentation...in the case of the ACE 6000, it was a matter of defining the results wanted, then reverse engineering the design and concept...back when it was first purposed, the major player countries seemed to be headed full bore towards nuclear power for their electricity needs, and the coal industry was simply trying to invent a new need and new customers for its product.
And just to let the rest of you guys know, the ACE 6000 experiment was underwritten by the coal industry, as were most of the "studies" quoted elseware...not the most un-biased source of documentation...in the case of the ACE 6000, it was a matter of defining the results wanted, then reverse engineering the design and concept...back when it was first purposed, the major player countries seemed to be headed full bore towards nuclear power for their electricity needs, and the coal industry was simply trying to invent a new need and new customers for its product.
I suppose it actually is a revelation to some that the coal industry finances studies that relate to coal. I suppose the poster would be shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that GM financed dieselization studies. Does that mean those were wrong, too?
This isn't news: studies are financed by people or organizations interested in the outcomes. Who in the h*** would put up cold hard cash to finance a study they had absolutely zero interest in? Odd to some, apparently, but this exactly how corporations do research to advance their businesses. All of them. It's part of the concept of investment.
And yes, in engineering "defining the results first" happens to be how its done. That's the first step: define what you want.
I don't have a big SUV anymore, but maybe a desert roadtrip (to chase trains) in my 4x4 F-250 would suffice.
I'm ready!
MichaelSol wrote:And yes, in engineering "defining the results first" happens to be how its done. That's the first step: define what you want.
Leading to my favorite, albeit astonishingly accurate buzzword: top-down-design.
Even though it is an accurate concept, it rates as a buzzword because most people using it are clueless to its real meaning. etc.
If there is a real possibility for steam to make a comeback in railroading on a larger scale, why does the coal-industry not finance designing, building and testing of a modern steam-engine? Not a remake of a 1950s design, of course, a really modern state-of-the-art steam-engine. Profiting of the work of Porta, Wardale and other engineers (if there patents have already expired).
If the coal-industry does not act this way, my conclusion is they see better business opportunities elsewhere (coal-fired power-plants, conversion from coal to fuel, investing their profits from mining operations in new nuclear power-plants etc.) As a railfan, I would like to see big steam on regular trains, but in life, not all dreams come true. :-(
BTW: Forget nuclear-power-engines for the next few-decades. Shielding the reactors from the environment is too heavy and too large for any locomotive. Besides, a reactor does not propel anything. You need in addition a steam-turbine to drive the axles or a generator, and steam-turbines work best at continuous full-rating, not the typical load on a railroad.
martin.knoepfel wrote: If the coal-industry does not act this way, my conclusion is they see better business opportunities elsewhere (coal-fired power-plants, conversion from coal to fuel, investing their profits from mining operations in new nuclear power-plants etc.)
If the coal-industry does not act this way, my conclusion is they see better business opportunities elsewhere (coal-fired power-plants, conversion from coal to fuel, investing their profits from mining operations in new nuclear power-plants etc.)
Well, now, think about this for a second. The key to unlocking motive is "competitive advantage."
Why would the rail industry invest in a new motive power type when it can pass through costs to customers? It would make the investment if it meant that it could lower its operating costs, lower rates, become more competitive against its peers, and attract more traffic. But, for an industry pretty much maxed out, there is no ability to raise profits by attracting more traffic because there is nowhere to put that traffic: there is absolutely zero competitive advantage in making an investment in lowering costs at this point in time when those costs are already simply passed through.
Similarly, the coal industry is pretty much running at capacity. Where is the competitive advantage, then, to creating new uses for coal for an industry already scrambling to keep up?
Is Exxon financing studies for new ways to use oil?
MichaelSol wrote:Why would the rail industry invest in a new motive power type when it can pass through costs to customers? It would make the investment if it meant that it could lower its operating costs, lower rates, become more competitive against its peers, and attract more traffic. But, for an industry pretty much maxed out, there is no ability to raise profits by attracting more traffic because there is nowhere to put that traffic: there is absolutely zero competitive advantage in making an investment in lowering costs at this point in time when those costs are already simply passed through.Similarly, the coal industry is pretty much running at capacity. Where is the competitive advantage, then, to creating new uses for coal for an industry already scrambling to keep up?Is Exxon financing studies for new ways to use oil?<>
<>
When supply exceeds demand, promote demand. When demand exceeds supply, promote capacity. Unless government gets involved. Econ 101.
Even if they are runnig at capacity, railroad have an interest in cutting costs because the rates they can quote do not depend on the costs they have to cover but on demand for their services (and of course of the prices competitors quote). There is only one connection between production-costs and the rates. If the costs are constantly higher than the rates you get, you have to susidize the railroad from other sources of revenue (mining, for example) or on the long run, the company faces bankcruptcy.
For coal-mines, the situation is not so different although you can import coal (unlike transportation services). Because it takes years to develop new mines, higher demand translates into higher prices.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.