carnej1 wrote: |
It's interesting that many of the people posting on this thread seem to be accepting the following 2 prepositions: 1. A diesel engine can only be economically and efficiently operated on fuel derived from Petroleum. and 2. There is no economical way to produce fuels suitable for use in a diesel engine from sources other than petroleum. |
|
On March 11, I posted as follows:
"... if "modern" steam could reach 12% efficiency, the adjusted cost per useful 100,000 BTU's would be $1.52 coal vs. $8.21 diesel fuel. At those prices, arguments about the evolution of the Diesel-electric start to give way entirely to the fundamental economics of the cost of fuel: Steam wins.
"Now, conversion of mineral coal, at delivered cost to a conversion plant, to a liquefaction or gasification process, plus delivered costs of the resulting product to the user?
"If there is a 40% loss in the conversion process, then the ultimate efficiency of the mineral coal is brought back down to 7.2% rather than 12% at the locomotive. If the delivered cost of coal was $42, and the delivered cost of the end product of liquefaction incurred a similar delivery cost, the resulting cost of 100,000 BTUs of liquefied or gassified coal is about $6.82, compared to the equivalent power derived from burning mineral coal directly at $1.52. What's the point of that if the whole purpose is to achieve maximum economic efficiency?"
You can convert coal to liquid fuel at a cost cheaper than diesel fuel, at a given minimum, permanent, cost of oil. When the cost of conversion yields a product higher than the cost of oil, the investment in liquified conversion facilities is entirely at risk. Below that level, it is cost effective for those uses that require diesel fuel. But, that doesn't mean it is cost effective compared to mineral coal, and it isn't.
This discussion is a little like ethanol -- what's the point of taking significant energy content out of coal, and increasing the cost of the resulting energy over the cost of coal, if you can use the coal directly? Most diesel fuel applications can't use coal directly and so there is a logic behind the proposition, but that specifically isn't true with railroads which have more experience than any other mode with steam operation and used steam with great success and for which there is a well-developed statistical record that offers a genuine comparison, rather than speculative analysis.