Could steam make a comeback?

[VAPEURCHAPELON]

 I notice that none other than Ross Rowland appears to be posting on these forums (see the "Yellow Ribbon Express Update"  in the Steam & Preservation forum). I wonder if he could be persuaded to join in this discussion?

Why do you think he should? 

[CopCarSS]

Why do you think he should? 

Between his experience with various large steam locomotives and his involvement in the American Coal Enterprises project, I'd think he'd be a pretty good authority to weigh in on the subject. Do you think otherwise?

[tattooguy67]

Actually Bucyrus there is or was no intent on my part to second guess the railroads decision to switch from steam to diesel power, the title of the thread is "could steam make a comeback?", not "did the railroads make a huge mistake in swtching in the first place", the reason i posted it was the rising price of oil and diesel fuel, now i will grant you that the way it is used is a subset ? inherant in the original post title, but no i am not nor was i intending this to become a post about the right or wrong of the switch over. As far as the depressing comment goes it was in answer to the pollution aspect of coal mining techniques of long ago being sited as a reason we could not do this now with new techniques, and as far as sarcasm and aspersions i was trying to point out that there really is no need for either, i was starting to see more harsh words and snarky sarcasm then is needed to have this or any other discussion.

Chuck

[wsherrick]

 I notice that none other than Ross Rowland appears to be posting on these forums (see the "Yellow Ribbon Express Update"  in the Steam & Preservation forum). I wonder if he could be persuaded to join in this discussion?

Why do you think he should? 

I know Ross Rowland personally.  I have been in the cab with him many times as his fireman and sometimes he has been my fireman too. He firmly believes in steam power and in the conversations we have had that I can openly discuss, believes that steam could return. I never said it to him but I think he made an error when he didn't listen to Porta and Wardale when they designed the ACE engine, but you live and learn. Maybe he will chime in.

BTW There is the, "Law of the Cab,"  It is an almost sacred rule.  Converstions in the Locomotive Cab are Sub Rosa.

[Anonymous]

Actually Bucyrus there is or was no intent on my part to second guess the railroads decision to switch from steam to diesel power, the title of the thread is "could steam make a comeback?", not "did the railroads make a huge mistake in swtching in the first place", the reason i posted it was the rising price of oil and diesel fuel, now i will grant you that the way it is used is a subset ? inherant in the original post title, but no i am not nor was i intending this to become a post about the right or wrong of the switch over. As far as the depressing comment goes it was in answer to the pollution aspect of coal mining techniques of long ago being sited as a reason we could not do this now with new techniques, and as far as sarcasm and aspersions i was trying to point out that there really is no need for either, i was starting to see more harsh words and snarky sarcasm then is needed to have this or any other discussion.

Chuck

Thanks for your explanation Chuck.  I see what you meant.  When I saw the title of the thread, the first thing that came to my mind was coal-burning steam returning because of the high price of oil.  However, if the point is substituting coal for oil, then the consideration of other forms of coal fired motive power naturally arises. 

Then as a backdrop, since dieselization, there have been people who at least suspect that the continuation of the use and development of steam would have been economically better than switching to diesels notwithstanding the runaway oil prices of today.  Since the point of railroad dieselization, there has been a lot of advancement in the steam combustion art in power production and even in locomotives specifically.  So aside from the cost advantage of coal over oil, there are those who believe in the application of modern steam motive power, and feel that railroads would have developed it to their advantage had they not abandoned steam in favor of diesels.    

So, with that backdrop, in my opinion, the question of whether steam could make a comeback implies to some, the question of whether or not the railroads made a mistake by scrapping steam in the first place.  This thread has touched on all these issues, and I think that it is natural enough that it has.

[wsherrick]

One underlying (and generally unsaid) theme that I've discerned throughout this thread is an oversupply of wishful thinking and the belief in the various postings that railroad management in the 1950's made a major mistake in dieselizing.  Steam traction has not been a significant part of American railroading for almost 50 years now and a return to it would be unlikely.  I've also noticed that the environmental factors that are more prominent now than they were in the past have still not been addressed.

Posts like this contuine to amaze me.  After all the hard proof, graphs, numbers and comparisons that have been provided from sources which withstand the most acid tests of scrutiny stating the true cost of diesels, then and TODAY.  These proofs have been provided over an over ad nauseum and still statements like the above are made.  I find it ostounding.

 

And posts like this continue to amaze me! None of the die-hard steam proponents has said anything with regard to the solid proofs offered in favor of diesel (see,for example, the link to Al Krug's article in n012944's post from 11:56pm on 04-30-2008). You guys just ignore those posts, I guess because you don't like their findings.

I have an interesting article on the early beginnings of diesel locomotives in the German magazine, "Bahn Extra", Oct./Nov. 2005. The first patented, 2 hp diesel locomotive was built by HANOMAG in 1878. Low horsepower diesels were widespread on narrow gauge industry railroads in Germany by the early 1900s. Diesel-Electric propulsion was successfully and widely employed in DMUs for passenger service prior to WWI. The first standard gauge prototype diesel locomotives experimented with various forms of transmission: direct, pneumatic, electric and hydraulic.

The hydraulic transmission impressed German RR officials the most, which explains why, while the rest of the world phased out steam in favor of DE, Germany's RR developed excellent diesel-hydraulics. Prototype studies performed in 1930 showed that thermal efficiency (fuel consumption in relation to drawbar hp) was an average of 23% in the diesel hydraulic, which beat every form of steam at the time. Remember, please, we are talking about an experimental prototype diesel in 1930, compared to all forms of steam available at the time!

Had WWII not come around, the transition from diesel to steam may have happened even quicker!

I've read his discussion page and I believe he concludes in the final paragraph that all the technical arguments about various types of power are meaningless in the light of the bottom line.  The cheaper form of power is the best, that was his conclusion. That does not contradict anything I or any other rational person has said in this thread. 

You still haven't provided a single piece of data to support your point of view and if this makes you mad when it is pointed out, I can't help that. A brief synopsis of what German's did with early diesels doesn't count.

The main point of Krugg's article is to show how bias can color opinion when based on selective data. 

[rrnut282]

I'd like to add an observation, if I may.  In the airline industry no-one questions that propeller-driven aircraft are more efficient than jet-powered aircraft.  So why have the large airlines exclusively bought jet-powered aircraft and then leave a small city (jerk-water town) to the "puddle-jumpers"?  Because it's percieved that a jet is "modern" and "sexy" and that strokes the ego.  And courtesy of Madison Avenue, we all know sex sells. 

Is there a parallel in the railroad industry?  Were diesel-electrics bought because they were percieved to be "sexy"?  How many railroads boasted they weren't modern?  Not a one.  It doesn't stroke the ego if you're not thought of as the best.  The real advantage of diesel-electrics at the time was the cost of fuel and they were "sexy".  Now after time has passed, that situation has reversed itself. 

Can steam be sexy?  Why not?  In this age of "gotta have the latest and greatest..." steam is percieved as old-fashioned and automatically is not sexy.  Hybrid cars do not provide an increase in efficiency commesurate with their increased cost, yet there is a demand for them.  If coal/steam could be made sexy again, railroad executives will be throwing money at GE and EMD (or the new kid on the block) demanding that they make them.

[Phoebe Vet]

Actually, because of the limitations of propellers, not the turbine engines that power them, fanjet engined airplanes are faster, quieter, and most important fly higher.  It is the higher altitude flight, not the size of the airplane that determines how smooth the ride is.

Even the small airplanes serving most airports commercially are jets today.

[Norman Saxon]

The only emission of note wherein the coal engine produces more than the diesel is CO2, and CO2 is not a pollutant, it is not toxic, it is not dirty, and it is preferable to the emissions of diesel engines.

Oh, I forgot this is trains.com. A fantasy world where mercury and PAHs from burning coal are not major pollutants. Silly me. I guess the EPA is fooled too. I must of imagined all the dead streams in PA, WVA, OH, and KY from acid mine drainage. No way mining could ever hurt the environment. And what about all the farmers in southwestern PA who lost their water supplies permanently due to aquifer damage from long wall mining. I guess they are just imagining that also. And all those historical structures destroyed from underground mining- ah, who needs history anyway.

The other thing interesting about this thread--how many "new" posters popped up who sound like the same parrot.


I guess somebody forgot to tell Honda that the technology to make super clean diesels is years away:


HONDA DIESEL 2009

I'll break this down for you in the simplest terms possible.

Here's the reason that coal burned in a modern external combustion engine results would result in cleaner emissions than diesel fuel being burned in a modern compression-ignition engine:  The fire in the external combustion engine is constant, while the fire in the compression-ignition engine is instantaneous.  Not every bit of volatile material can combust in that brief instant, so we have to either try to reburn it or clean the exhaust post combustion before it is emitted from the tailpipe.  But with the external combution engine's constant fire, every bit of volatile material can burn with proper draft sequence as explained by Mr. Sol and Wsherrick.

Now do you understand?  By that same token, it is likely a modern reciprocating steam engine that used diesel fuel would burn cleaner than a modern diesel-electric.  In other words, it's the method of combustion that is key, not necessarily the fuel source.

Oh, and that Honda i-DTEC?  Certainly cleaner than current diesel engine offerings, but still dirtier than a modern external combustion chamber.  Nice try though.

The only way to really clean a compression-ignition engine is to rid the fuel of aromatics before combustion, and the only way to do that is via FT synthesis.  And since coal is cheaper than petroleum by a long shot, if you're going to use the FT process, you're going to use coal unless you're a fatalist.

[rrnut282]

Phoebe,

If you missed my point, a similar sized jet burns more fuel than one with props.  Their block to block times on short to medium stage lengths are within minutes of each other.  Even if it is a regional jet, it is less efficient.  The only reason the airlines are buying them is the flying public has a perception that jets are better, right or wrong.  Mostly wrong.  They will take an out of the way routing to avoid prop flights.  Airlines live and die by the load factor, so they buy jets to sell tickets.  Their big problem is they can't pass these increased costs on to the consumers.

[Anonymous]

Is there a parallel in the railroad industry?  Were diesel-electrics bought because they were percieved to be "sexy"?  How many railroads boasted they weren't modern?  Not a one.  It doesn't stroke the ego if you're not thought of as the best.  The real advantage of diesel-electrics at the time was the cost of fuel and they were "sexy".  Now after time has passed, that situation has reversed itself. 

I think your observation has a lot of validity.  After the war ended and we entered the 1950s, it seemed to me that the country was suddenly swept up in the need to be modern.  One might think that such an important decision as all railroads making a sea change in motive power would have been driven solely by engineering and economics, but I think emotion also played a sizable role as you suggest.  The collective psyche of the railroad industry may have even felt a bit of an inferiority complex as it entered this suddenly modern marketing era with dirty, black steam locomotives.

[YoHo1975]

Phoebe,

If you missed my point, a similar sized jet burns more fuel than one with props.  Their block to block times on short to medium stage lengths are within minutes of each other.  Even if it is a regional jet, it is less efficient.  The only reason the airlines are buying them is the flying public has a perception that jets are better, right or wrong.  Mostly wrong.  They will take an out of the way routing to avoid prop flights.  Airlines live and die by the load factor, so they buy jets to sell tickets.  Their big problem is they can't pass these increased costs on to the consumers.

 

Uh, don't prop engines burn 125 Octane Unleaded versus JP-5 which is essentially Kerosene? JP-5 is significantly Cheaper. Or are you referring to TurboProps which have a limited top speed and are noisey? 

[rrnut282]

The ones I worked around all burned Jet-A just like their cousins, which made it easier (cheaper) to inventory, store, and deliver, especially at the smaller airports.  So, yes, I am referring to turbo-props.  As for their speed, the new turbo-props aren't really slower, that's just the perception.  Sounds just like the steam vs. diesel discussion we're having here. 

Perception is reality, facts notwithstanding.

[GP40-2]

l'll break this down for you in the simplest terms possible.

Here's the reason that coal burned in a modern external combustion engine results would result in cleaner emissions than diesel fuel being burned in a modern compression-ignition engine:  The fire in the external combustion engine is constant, while the fire in the compression-ignition engine is instantaneous.  Not every bit of volatile material can combust in that brief instant, so we have to either try to reburn it or clean the exhaust post combustion before it is emitted from the tailpipe.  But with the external combution engine's constant fire, every bit of volatile material can burn with proper draft sequence as explained by Mr. Sol and Wsherrick.

Now do you understand?  By that same token, it is likely a modern reciprocating steam engine that used diesel fuel would burn cleaner than a modern diesel-electric.  In other words, it's the method of combustion that is key, not necessarily the fuel source.

Oh, and that Honda i-DTEC?  Certainly cleaner than current diesel engine offerings, but still dirtier than a modern external combustion chamber.  Nice try though.

The only way to really clean a compression-ignition engine is to rid the fuel of aromatics before combustion, and the only way to do that is via FT synthesis.  And since coal is cheaper than petroleum by a long shot, if you're going to use the FT process, you're going to use coal unless you're a fatalist.

I'll break this down for you in the simplest terms possible:

The amount of pollution any engine makes is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the amount of fuel it burns.

Even assuming that all the changes you guys propose making to "modern" steam, (which only has anecdotal evidence of working on an actual locomotive) the steam locomotive still has to burn over 4 times the amount of fuel to generate the same power as a modern turbo-diesel. Throw in compound turbocharging, and it goes past 5 times the amount of fuel for a given HP output.

You also completely ignored the fact that fluid bed combustion of coal INCREASES the CO2 output (the politicians will love you for that when they pass carbon taxes), mercury, and PAH's.

Nice try though with your short sighted explanation.

[selector]

We aren't by any chance forgetting that we were discussing the best steam production available today (which would still be resident in a single engine) against how many diesel units capable of moving the same tonnage?  If a single fireboxed modern equivalent Big Boy would burn x volume of (name the fuel) per ton mile, what would that be in whatever is coming due in the next generation of motive power?  And how would the pollutants compare?

[GP40-2]

[...but let me ask you this, do you think it would be better to try and use modern technology in mining and the manufacture of a new generation steam locomotive to move goods around the country using a cheap abundant source of fuel...

All the nasty stuff I mentioned, such as farmers permanently losing their ground water supply, collapse of historical structures, streams and creeks simply vanishing due to cracked bedrock strata, aquifers poisoned by acid bearing rock, etc is due to the MOST MODERN of mining techniques--Long Wall Mining. Coal is only "cheap" now because all the environmental issues are simply ignored for future generations to deal with.

[selector]

[...but let me ask you this, do you think it would be better to try and use modern technology in mining and the manufacture of a new generation steam locomotive to move goods around the country using a cheap abundant source of fuel...

All the nasty stuff I mentioned, such as farmers permanently losing their ground water supply, collapse of historical structures, streams and creeks simply vanishing due to bedrock strata, aquifers poisoned by acid bearing rock, etc is due to the MOST MODERN of mining techniques--Long Wall Mining. Coal is only "cheap" now because all the environmental issues are simply ignored for future generations to deal with.

You have a good point there.....

[Murphy Siding]

     As I read the posts on this thread, I've come to a few conclusions.  I'll agree, that the cost of coal could be less than the cost for diesel fuel, based on the amount of power they would be able to put out.  I'll take it for truth, that the technology is out there, and being used presently, to make coal use less polluting than diesel fuel.  However, I do have to wonder about some other issues I haven't seen addressed.

     Is the cleaning technology presently used only applicable on large scale power plants?  Has it been tried, and is it economical to downsize the technology to a train sized coal fired operation?

     Has anyone compared the total cost of using coal verses diesel?  Would you not have to build coal and water towers, and man them?  How about ash disposal?  Or the fact that the railroads would have to haul and stockpile large quantities of coal (again).  It seems like there would be a big initial investment in infrastructure, and ongoing increased labor costs involved in utilizing that *cheap* coal power.

[erikem]

Also answering Phoebe Vet's question... 

In order to make trains move, it will take energy, to reduce this to the nth degree.  I suppose in time we could power 5K ton trains with mini reactors, but I think it will be an impossible sell to the public.  The only alternative is some form of oxidative fuel, and these days that means carboniferous.  Necessarily, the byproducts are going to make their use increasingly expensive if the veto is provided by the environmentally keen.  As you add cleaning devices or measures, the cost and complexity rise commensurately. 

A locomotive is too small to carry a reactor - or to more accurate, too small to carry a reactor and the associated shielding (hardest shielding problem is some very high energy neutrons, 5 to 15 MeV, that are emitted as part of the fission process - and yes, I do have a degree in Nuclear Engineering).

Would make more sense to use 400 to 1300 MWe reactors and string wires over the tracks. 

[GP40-2]

[...but let me ask you this, do you think it would be better to try and use modern technology in mining and the manufacture of a new generation steam locomotive to move goods around the country using a cheap abundant source of fuel...

All the nasty stuff I mentioned, such as farmers permanently losing their ground water supply, collapse of historical structures, streams and creeks simply vanishing due to bedrock strata, aquifers poisoned by acid bearing rock, etc is due to the MOST MODERN of mining techniques--Long Wall Mining. Coal is only "cheap" now because all the environmental issues are simply ignored for future generations to deal with.

You have a good point there.....

[MichaelSol]

You also completely ignored the fact that fluid bed combustion of coal INCREASES the CO2 output (the politicians will love you for that when they pass carbon taxes), mercury, and PAH's.

Nice try though with your short sighted explanation.

Diesel combustion does all of the above. Specifically, mercury compounds and PAH's are key products of diesel combustion. The primary difference compared to coal combustion is in particle size and carcinogenic gases, where diesel reigns supreme.

The small particles from diesel combustion are dangerous because they are coated with a mixture of chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Why you might mention PAHs in connection with coal combustion, fluidized bed or otherwise, and not mention that it is a current problem with diesel combustion, is a mystery. In addition, diesel fuel combustion produces nitroaromatics, benzene, dioxins, and other toxicants.

One summary: "The particles act like a special delivery system which places these toxic chemicals deep within our bodies. Some asthma medications use the principle of delivering a beneficial drug in a fine inhaled aerosol. Diesel exhaust is like a perversion of a drug delivery system which delivers hazardous toxicants into our lungs. The particles are retained in the body along with the toxic chemical hitchhikers which would otherwise be quickly eliminated. Thus the particles lengthen our exposures to the toxicants in diesel exhaust."

"Many studies have shown that diesel exhaust causes mutations in chromosomes and damage to DNA, processes which are believed to be important in the causation of cancer. There is also overwhelming evidence from studies of workers occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust revealing an increased cancer risk. Most of the over two dozen well-designed worker studies found lung cancer increases in those exposed to diesel exhaust for over a decade. Similar increases in risk are found in studies that controlled for cigarette smoking, as in those where information about smoking was unavailable. A recent analysis shows that consistent findings of an approximately 30 percent increase in risk of lung cancer among diesel exposed workers is highly unlikely to be due to chance, confounders (such as smoking), or bias."

41 constituents of diesel exhaust have been listed by the State of California as Toxic Air Contaminants. These include:

acetaldehyde	inorganic lead
acrolein	manganese compounds
aniline	mercury compounds
antimony compounds	methanol
arsenic	methyl ethyl ketone
benzene	naphthalene
beryllium compounds	nickel
biphenyl	4-nitrobiphenyl
bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate	phenol
1,3-butadiene	phosphorus
cadmium	polycyclic organic matter, including
chlorine	polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
chlorobenzene	and their derivatives
chromium compounds	propionaldehyde
cobalt compounds	selenium compounds
creosol isomers	styrene
cyanide compounds	toluene
dibutylphthalate	xylene isomers and mixtures
dioxins and dibenzofurans	o-xylenes
ethyl benzene	m-xylenes
formaldehyde	p-xylenes

Many of the individual constituents of diesel exhaust are known to produce harmful effects. Benzene, for example, is known to cause disorders of the blood and the blood-forming tissues. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde can cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.Toluene, lead, cadmium, and mercury are known to cause birth defects and other reproductive problems. Dioxins are toxic to the immune system, interfere with hormone function, and are toxic to reproduction. These non-cancer effects of diesel exhaust components can also be serious and damaging. "Exhausted by Diesel: How America's Dependence on Diesel Engines Threatens Our Health." By Gina M. Solomon, Todd R. Campbell, Tim Carmichael, Gail Ruderman Feuer and Janet S. Hathaway. April 1998.

It is expected that the only way that diesel combustion can meet Tier IV standards is by the utilization of expensive catalytic converter technology. The railroads "hope" the technology will be available by 2017. The technology does not currently exist.

By comparison, Tennessee Valley Authority has obtained cleaner results from current fluidized bed coal combustion technology than it can obtain by use of catalytic converters and can meet current emission requirements more stringent than railroads "hope" to be able to meet sometime in the future.

 

 

[wsherrick]

l'll break this down for you in the simplest terms possible.

Here's the reason that coal burned in a modern external combustion engine results would result in cleaner emissions than diesel fuel being burned in a modern compression-ignition engine:  The fire in the external combustion engine is constant, while the fire in the compression-ignition engine is instantaneous.  Not every bit of volatile material can combust in that brief instant, so we have to either try to reburn it or clean the exhaust post combustion before it is emitted from the tailpipe.  But with the external combution engine's constant fire, every bit of volatile material can burn with proper draft sequence as explained by Mr. Sol and Wsherrick.

Now do you understand?  By that same token, it is likely a modern reciprocating steam engine that used diesel fuel would burn cleaner than a modern diesel-electric.  In other words, it's the method of combustion that is key, not necessarily the fuel source.

Oh, and that Honda i-DTEC?  Certainly cleaner than current diesel engine offerings,firebox design before he improved it. but still dirtier than a modern external combustion chamber.  Nice try though.

The only way to really clean a compression-ignition engine is to rid the fuel of aromatics before combustion, and the only way to do that is via FT synthesis.  And since coal is cheaper than petroleum by a long shot, if you're going to use the FT process, you're going to use coal unless you're a fatalist.

I'll break this down for you in the simplest terms possible:

The amount of pollution any engine makes is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the amount of fuel it burns.

Even assuming that all the changes you guys propose making to "modern" steam, (which only has anecdotal evidence of working on an actual locomotive) the steam locomotive still has to burn over 4 times the amount of fuel to generate the same power as a modern turbo-diesel. Throw in compound turbocharging, and it goes past 5 times the amount of fuel for a given HP output.

You also completely ignored the fact that fluid bed combustion of coal INCREASES the CO2 output (the politicians will love you for that when they pass carbon taxes), mercury, and PAH's.

Nice try though with your short sighted explanation.

No, the Gas Producing Firebox has been installed on several locomotives and built new in a batch of 10 Mitsubishi 2-10-2's designed by Dante Porta.  These locomotives had the first design of firebox before it was improved later.

The specs for these engines are amazing and show just how much more potiential exists in a steam locomotive.

Here they are:

Gauge of track: 2'51/2"  (pretty narrow)

Engine weight: 48 tons   (pretty light)

firebox grate area: 22.5 sq. ft. (pretty small)

fuel : Sub Bituminous Coal (lignite) BTU per pound: 10,000 Ash content per pound:14%

(pretty crappy coal) 

Coal consumption per drawbar horsepower/per hour: 2.2 lbs. (not very much)

1,341 drawbar horsepower (astounding for an engine weighing only 48 tons on a 2 ft gauge railroad)

Tonnage rating: 1,500-2000 tons @ 50 MPH. (A whole lot of tons for a 48 ton engine burning 2 pounds of coal per horspower per hour.)

Summery: pulls a whole lot of train, pretty fast with terrible coal for a tiny cost. Just multiply those figures to fit an engine the size of the Challenger.

So I guess that firebox would work pretty well in theory.

 

[GP40-2]

According to Nuclear Engineers I know at Westinghouse, you can now build a modern nuclear power plant CHEAPER than a new coal fired plant of equal wattage.

[MichaelSol]

That "cheap" coal so many of you are enamored with has a lot of spilled blood on it.

I doubt that anything has resulted in as much spilled blood as oil, the "Devil's Excrement."

Sorry about your childhood, but I do think emotional appeals to bias based on past abuses are just that: emotional appeals. And that is whether they be in regard to coal, oil, copper mining, deforestation, pesticides, or any one of dozens of human activities which have exploited the environment and for which the past makes little sense as a basis for future econometric evaluation. Times change. That's the point of the thread.

[GP40-2]

Summery: pulls a whole lot of train, pretty fast with terrible coal for a tiny cost. Just multiply those figures to fit an engine the size of the Challenger.

So I guess that firebox would work pretty well in theory.

 

And the amount of CO2, mercury, and PAHs produced was what?

A turbo-diesel would use between 4 to 5 times LESS fuel to produce the same DBHP. That's a fact, not "theory".

[GP40-2]

Times change.

But, the human and environmental destruction from coal mining hasn't changed.

Or MichaelSol, is it just about whatever happens to be the cheapest thing to do at the moment--future consequences be damned.

[GP40-2]

You also completely ignored the fact that fluid bed combustion of coal INCREASES the CO2 output (the politicians will love you for that when they pass carbon taxes), mercury, and PAH's.

Nice try though with your short sighted explanation.

Diesel combustion does all of the above. Specifically, mercury compounds and PAH's are key products of diesel combustion. The primary difference compared to coal combustion is in particle size and carcinogenic gases, where diesel reigns supreme.

The small particles from diesel combustion are dangerous because they are coated with a mixture of chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Why you might mention PAHs in connection with coal combustion, fluidized bed or otherwise, and not mention that it is a current problem with diesel combustion, is a mystery. In addition, diesel fuel combustion produces nitroaromatics, benzene, dioxins, and other toxicants.

One summary: "The particles act like a special delivery system which places these toxic chemicals deep within our bodies. Some asthma medications use the principle of delivering a beneficial drug in a fine inhaled aerosol. Diesel exhaust is like a perversion of a drug delivery system which delivers hazardous toxicants into our lungs. The particles are retained in the body along with the toxic chemical hitchhikers which would otherwise be quickly eliminated. Thus the particles lengthen our exposures to the toxicants in diesel exhaust."

"Many studies have shown that diesel exhaust causes mutations in chromosomes and damage to DNA, processes which are believed to be important in the causation of cancer. There is also overwhelming evidence from studies of workers occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust revealing an increased cancer risk. Most of the over two dozen well-designed worker studies found lung cancer increases in those exposed to diesel exhaust for over a decade. Similar increases in risk are found in studies that controlled for cigarette smoking, as in those where information about smoking was unavailable. A recent analysis shows that consistent findings of an approximately 30 percent increase in risk of lung cancer among diesel exposed workers is highly unlikely to be due to chance, confounders (such as smoking), or bias."

41 constituents of diesel exhaust have been listed by the State of California as Toxic Air Contaminants. These include:

acetaldehyde	inorganic lead
acrolein	manganese compounds
aniline	mercury compounds
antimony compounds	methanol
arsenic	methyl ethyl ketone
benzene	naphthalene
beryllium compounds	nickel
biphenyl	4-nitrobiphenyl
bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate	phenol
1,3-butadiene	phosphorus
cadmium	polycyclic organic matter, including
chlorine	polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
chlorobenzene	and their derivatives
chromium compounds	propionaldehyde
cobalt compounds	selenium compounds
creosol isomers	styrene
cyanide compounds	toluene
dibutylphthalate	xylene isomers and mixtures
dioxins and dibenzofurans	o-xylenes
ethyl benzene	m-xylenes
formaldehyde	p-xylenes

Many of the individual constituents of diesel exhaust are known to produce harmful effects. Benzene, for example, is known to cause disorders of the blood and the blood-forming tissues. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde can cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.Toluene, lead, cadmium, and mercury are known to cause birth defects and other reproductive problems. Dioxins are toxic to the immune system, interfere with hormone function, and are toxic to reproduction. These non-cancer effects of diesel exhaust components can also be serious and damaging. "Exhausted by Diesel: How America's Dependence on Diesel Engines Threatens Our Health." By Gina M. Solomon, Todd R. Campbell, Tim Carmichael, Gail Ruderman Feuer and Janet S. Hathaway. April 1998.

It is expected that the only way that diesel combustion can meet Tier IV standards is by the utilization of expensive catalytic converter technology. The railroads "hope" the technology will be available by 2017. The technology does not currently exist.

By comparison, Tennessee Valley Authority has obtained cleaner results from current fluidized bed coal combustion technology than it can obtain by use of catalytic converters and can meet current emission requirements more stringent than railroads "hope" to be able to meet sometime in the future.

 

 

Yep, and the same crap is found in coal and fluid bed combustion increases the emissions of it. Plus you want to use a coal fired locomotive that has to burn 4 to 5 times as much fuel to get the same HP output as a modern turbo-diesel. Oh, goody. Now we can have 4 to 5 times as much of that crap in the air. I wonder what California would think of that?

[MichaelSol]

Yep, and the same crap is found in coal and fluid bed combustion increases the emissions of it.

Which certainly explains why TVA meets emission requirements with fluidized bed, and current diesel locomotives can't, doesn't it? And "that's a real fact, not theory". In any case, diesel exhaust is more lethal, if I can make that "in the simplest terms possible".

[wsherrick]

Summery: pulls a whole lot of train, pretty fast with terrible coal for a tiny cost. Just multiply those figures to fit an engine the size of the Challenger.

So I guess that firebox would work pretty well in theory.

 

And the amount of CO2, mercury, and PAHs produced was what?

A turbo-diesel would use between 4 to 5 times LESS fuel to produce the same DBHP. That's a fact, not "theory".

How much would it weigh.  It would have to be about the size of a GE 44 tonner on 2 ft track.  I don't think so.  I run one of those at work, It can't pull 2000 tons at 50 MPH turbo charged or not.

[GP40-2]

Yep, and the same crap is found in coal and fluid bed combustion increases the emissions of it.

Which certainly explains why TVA meets emission requirements with fluidized bed, and current diesel locomotives can't, doesn't it? And "that's a real fact, not theory". In any case, diesel exhaust is more lethal, if I can make that "in the simplest terms possible".

The a large, complex TVA plant isn't a mobile locomotive. How's that for simple terms.