Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe,
Thank you for helping me make my point and that was: discussions about the superior technology (economically speaking) show the the better one isn't always the one empbraced by the multitudes. prop vs jet / steam vs diesel. And it is continually in flux.
Before this discussion goes off into a tangent about glass cockpits vs steam-gages, I'm going to move on and leave Mr. Sol to continue the good fight against those whose mind is already made up.
YoHo1975 wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: 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. As near as I can figure, as with my comment about Water Sources, nobody in this thread as thought about this or cares to. In fact, some of the comments dismissing the reasons for Railroads to switch to Diesel in the first place imply a wilful ignorance of the ancillary costs of Steam engines.
Murphy Siding wrote: 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.
As near as I can figure, as with my comment about Water Sources, nobody in this thread as thought about this or cares to. In fact, some of the comments dismissing the reasons for Railroads to switch to Diesel in the first place imply a wilful ignorance of the ancillary costs of Steam engines.
Posted: 3/18:
The water has to come from somewhere, if it's not there, then you have a very expensive problem to solve. The diesel fuel is pumped out of the ground in a desert on a different continent, subject to political upheavals, moves by pipeline, then ship, then pipeline, then often by truck .... And you say water is the problem?
The water has to come from somewhere, if it's not there, then you have a very expensive problem to solve.
The diesel fuel is pumped out of the ground in a desert on a different continent, subject to political upheavals, moves by pipeline, then ship, then pipeline, then often by truck ....
And you say water is the problem?
Posted 3/19:
However coal fired steam has one side effect no one has mentioned. Coal especially the low BTU coal of powder river coal produces ash. Now all locos had ash pans and they had to be dumped. This kind of falls into the category of "oh yeah, what about ...".OK. The inventory costs of diesel fuel run about 10% of the price of the fuel itself. That's not chicken feed: the transportation, storage, maintenance, and inventory costs of the diesel fuel supply for railroads is a significant cost: $810 million in 2006 for the U.S. rail industry. That is a significant on-going infrastructure cost before a drop of fuel ever even gets in the locomotive.On top of that, "storage" is a notoriously fickle process for diesel fuel. I live within catapault distance of two major disasters where the railroad fuel storage tanks leaked, and the railroad is now on the bucket for tens of millions of dollars of cleanup costs for contaminated soil and contaminated ground water, with the cleanup efforts stretching out for years. And of course engine oil from the diesel engines is considered a "hazardous waste".
However coal fired steam has one side effect no one has mentioned. Coal especially the low BTU coal of powder river coal produces ash. Now all locos had ash pans and they had to be dumped.
This kind of falls into the category of "oh yeah, what about ...".
OK. The inventory costs of diesel fuel run about 10% of the price of the fuel itself. That's not chicken feed: the transportation, storage, maintenance, and inventory costs of the diesel fuel supply for railroads is a significant cost: $810 million in 2006 for the U.S. rail industry. That is a significant on-going infrastructure cost before a drop of fuel ever even gets in the locomotive.
On top of that, "storage" is a notoriously fickle process for diesel fuel. I live within catapault distance of two major disasters where the railroad fuel storage tanks leaked, and the railroad is now on the bucket for tens of millions of dollars of cleanup costs for contaminated soil and contaminated ground water, with the cleanup efforts stretching out for years.
And of course engine oil from the diesel engines is considered a "hazardous waste".
On 4/25, this pointed out that the "infrastructure problem" is not hypothetical, it is here, and it is for diesel fuel:
"But there's another side to this story: A global diesel shortage is developing. While many assume that the US doesn't consume diesel, they're incorrect. While gasoline may be the fuel of choice for passenger cars, distillates power jet airplanes, trucks and railway locomotives. Diesel demand in America is actually growing more rapidly than demand for gasoline.""To make demand even more difficult to meet, consider that more stringent environmental regulations are making it increasingly difficult to refine diesel fuels." "For the US, the growing diesel fuel shortage won't be as easy to fix as the gasoline shortage. The US won't be able to import diesel fuel from Europe as it does with gasoline because Europe just doesn't have sufficient capacity to meet its own demand. This is good news for US refiners in the long term. Because of lack of capacity and little competition from imports, US refiners should earn high margins for processing the fuel."http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gue/2006/0915.html
"To make demand even more difficult to meet, consider that more stringent environmental regulations are making it increasingly difficult to refine diesel fuels."
"For the US, the growing diesel fuel shortage won't be as easy to fix as the gasoline shortage. The US won't be able to import diesel fuel from Europe as it does with gasoline because Europe just doesn't have sufficient capacity to meet its own demand. This is good news for US refiners in the long term. Because of lack of capacity and little competition from imports, US refiners should earn high margins for processing the fuel."
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gue/2006/0915.html
Your comments regarding "willful ignorance" are odd, considering that you stated "As near as I can figure, as with my comment about Water Sources, nobody in this thread as thought about this or cares to [regarding infrastructure]", but, in fact, it's been discussed extensively. The "willful ignorance" handicap may be there, but perhaps more accurately with those who have not read the thread.
YoHo1975 wrote:As near as I can figure, as with my comment about Water Sources, nobody in this thread as thought about this or cares to. In fact, some of the comments dismissing the reasons for Railroads to switch to Diesel in the first place imply a wilful ignorance of the ancillary costs of Steam engines.
Now the thread is up to "willful ignorance", eh? I agree, but not in a way you would appreciate.
Posted 2/28:
As a "for example" of the kinds of considerations that go into motive power studies, "water" savings is often cited as a benefit, without recognition of corresponding needs of the diesel-electric locomotive.
A rule of thumb in these kinds of studies is that, in addition to fuel costs, a diesel locomotive consumes substantially more lubricant than a steam engine, running between 10% and 12% of the cost of the diesel fuel consumed, while at the same time using considerably less water than the steam engine.
So, to properly account for the motive power changes, savings in water is, to a large extent, offset by increased charges for lubricants.
On the Milwaukee, which represents a good motive power model because it dieselized more rapidly than its competitors, in 1944 it used $861,039 worth of water, which declined to $158,074 by 1959, two years after dieselization was complete, adjusted for ton-miles.
But, lubricant costs increased from $419,687 to $1,324,196 on an equivalent ton-mile basis.
The cost savings in water of $702,965 were more than offset by the increase in lubrication costs of $904,509.
The difference of $201,544 represents a net loss incurred because of dieselization due to increased lubricant costs over the savings in water costs.
--------------------------------------
The cost differential between the two has increased many times over since that era.
rrnut282 wrote: 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.
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.
Block to block times is a misleading statistic.
On very short routes so much time is spent in the circling low speed approach and departure paths that faster aircraft are not able to take advantage of their higher cruise speeds. Of course flying faster burns more fuel. If a fanjet slows down 200 mph to turboprop speeds, the fuel economy is similar.
If your point was valid then freight airlines would all be turboprop since the packages don't care about "sexy". But if you look you will see that turboprops are used only on very short routes with very small payloads, or into small airports where the jets just don't have enough runway.
FedEx uses Cessna Caravans for short routes, not because they have propellers, but because they are single engine. Now THAT saves money, but the Feds won't permit single engine planes for scheduled transportation of passengers.
Incidentally, short or unimproved field capability is the turboprops primary strong suit. The one thing that propellers do better is acceleration from stop. Fanjets need to get some motion induced airflow through them before they can make full power.
Does anyone in here really think I was advocating individual nuclear reactors on railroad engines? The perception of safety issues alone would kill it. Every city in America would pass a law prohibiting them from passing through town. People are currently trying to stop truck and train shipments of nuclear waste from passing through their towns. It was sarcasm for illustration.
If you read my posts on this thread you will see that what I advocate is electrification.
Now if you want to argue about what kind of fuel to use in the power plants that make the electricity, that is another story.
Bucyrus wrote: rrnut282 wrote: 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.
rrnut282 wrote: 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.
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.
I think that the "sexy" and "modern" was pretty well represented by external form, so whether you had a streamlined diesel or steamer up front didn't matter that much to the public. In fact, the prototype diesel which tested so positively in the 1930 German study by the Landesversuchsanstalt Grunewald, Berlin, was not at all streamlined. It was built on a single frame with a 4-6-4 wheel arrangement, powered bydiesel-pneumatic with 1,200 drawbar-hp. That is to say, the power was transmitted to the wheels using "steam" technology. As I stated, by comparison, the German RR was even more impressed with the performance of hydraulic power transmission.
Since the RR was state owned and operated, they were not worried about competition appearing more modern or sexy. In fact, first generation German diesels were ugly black boxes with a cab at one end. People basically had no choice but to ride the German RR trains, regardless of the motive power. Germany had abundant coal reserves but no domestic oil, yet there was a drive to dieselize. They did it for simple, economic reasons. The reason that German industries had dieselized their factory fleets before WWI was that they did not want to pay for the whole steam infrastructure for what basically amounted to yard movements.
You are welcome to love steam, if you like. It is romantic, powerful, impressive, and wonderful on historic railroads! But for modern applications, leave the steam generator stationary. Electrification is the cleanest way to go! It allows future versatility! It is more economical than either steam or diesel (for example, think about the energy generated by dynamic braking!!!). If you think that overhead caternary is too expensive, what about 3rd rail technology?
GP40-2 wrote: wsherrick wrote:According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensivelyOh, brother please show me the actual statistics. I want hard numbers, not giddy cheerleading from two unknowns.
wsherrick wrote:According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensively
Okay, Porta is the guy who invented the firebox. Let's see you produce some numbers. Otherwise go argue with yourself. It's time for you to put up or shut up. I have produced plenty of them as have others and told you where to go look.
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.
In either case, I don't think any of those issues would generate much of an argument and thus, they have no place in here.
IF only we could convert internet arguments into a clean energy source. It would be a utopia.
GP40-2 wrote: MichaelSol wrote:... then having misrepresented the combustion efficiency of fluidized bed in meeting current stringent emissions requirements... Have I MichaelSol? I got my information from the NIH, whose research into the matter DIRECTLY states that over 90% of the PAHs released into the environment comes from the BURNING OF COAL. Not diesel, not gasoline, but COAL. The NIH also concludes that the temperature of fluidized bed coal combustion INCREASES the PAHs that enter the environment. The EPA is looking very closely at the NIH data and is expected to greatly increase the regulation of PAH from coal power plants.
MichaelSol wrote:... then having misrepresented the combustion efficiency of fluidized bed in meeting current stringent emissions requirements...
You are misleading people just to argue.
Vehicle exhaust, including locomotive diesel fuel combustion, is and remains "the main source of PAHs in the environment" notwithstanding that coal provides the bulk of energy produced in the United States. Your statement is factually false.
"Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Emissions in Fly Ashes from an Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustor Using Thermal Extraction Coupled with GC/TOF-MS", Kunlei Liu, Rebecca Heltsley, Daozhong Zou, Wei-Ping Pan, and John T. Riley, 330 Energy & Fuels 2002, 16, 330-337, 2002, American Chemical Society.
GP40-2 wrote:The Morgantown Energy Technology Center has one and only one purpose: to support the coal industry. Period. Have any info from an independent non biased agency?
The literature on fluid bed technology is extensive. I would look, at this point in the conversation, for evidence from you that diesel fuel combustion is as clean by comparison as you are misrepresenting here.
From the earlier post.
The ability of a steam locomotive to burn low grade coal with emissions that are cleaner than a diesels IS ALREADY IN PLACE (I repeat myself here) Again to those who refuse to comprehend that fact I will try to lay it out for you in more detail to see if it helps any.
What about emissions? It seems that to most here that there has to be some sort of Buck Rodgers advance in combustion techniques to control coal smoke. According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensively. "CO and HC emissions virtually disappear and NOX emissions are close to their theoretical minimum". Visible soot and cinder emission vanish as well. Sulpher can be virtually eliminated by combining a calcite-dolomite mixture in with the fuel by mixing it on the coal pile or introducing it in with the underfire steam."
These are statements made by Wardale and Porta after testing this firebox in service. Oil burning steam engines have also been converted with this firebox with the results that the steam locomotive burns diesel fuel much cleaner than the diesel engine does. See the DLM website. So no matter what you burn in the Porta firebox it still comes out cleaner.
Go take a look at the 5at Project site and you find plenty of data there. Of course you won't look for yourself I guess so I'll have to go over to it and copy more information for everyone. I don't mind really. If you don't want to believe the information anyway, there's nothing I nor anyone else can do about that.
MichaelSol wrote:The US Department of Energy has conducted specific studies, and believes that fluidized bed combustion in a locomotive will be 1) cheaper and 2) better able to meet environmental concerns."Conceptual design of a coal-fired fluidized-bed steam locomotive", Csamer, R.P., April, 2001, USDOE Morgantown Energy Technology Center, WV.Abstract: "This paper describes a conceptual design of a coal-fired, fluidized-bed, combustor-based steam locomotive that was developed as an approach to displacing premium fuel (diesel).^This approach draws on relatively mature technology and appears feasible for the near term. Guidelines for the conceptualization are based on two previous designs that are relatively contemporary, and were built and tested during the steam locomotive era. Conclusions of this conceptual design study are summarized as follows: (1) a total conversion from diesel locomotives to coal-fired steam locomotives would displace up to 280,000 barrels of oil per day; (2) a fluidized-bed, steam turbine locomotive has the potential to offer very significantly lower operating costs and environmental burdens than the diesel; (3) fuel operating costs per horsepower hour for three comparably sized systems are as follows: diesel - $.19, fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) condensing steam cycle - $.085, and the FBC noncondensing steam cycle - $.021; (4) a cost estimate to build one commercially proven (post-prototype) coal-fired, fluidized-bed locomotive unit is estimated at $3,400,000; (5) an environmental analysis indicates that effective SO/sub 2/ and NO/sub x/ control is readily attainable with the FBC approach. (6) in general, there are no insurmountable roadblocks to early commercialization of mobile FBC steam generators, based on this analysis; and (7) in addition, the development of an attractive, mobile FBC power system appears to have significant potential for marine applications and industrial steam generators, either for direct heating or cogeneration applications."The cost analysis, note, is based on 2001 differentials between coal and diesel fuel costs.
The US Department of Energy has conducted specific studies, and believes that fluidized bed combustion in a locomotive will be 1) cheaper and 2) better able to meet environmental concerns.
"Conceptual design of a coal-fired fluidized-bed steam locomotive", Csamer, R.P., April, 2001, USDOE Morgantown Energy Technology Center, WV.
Abstract: "This paper describes a conceptual design of a coal-fired, fluidized-bed, combustor-based steam locomotive that was developed as an approach to displacing premium fuel (diesel).^This approach draws on relatively mature technology and appears feasible for the near term. Guidelines for the conceptualization are based on two previous designs that are relatively contemporary, and were built and tested during the steam locomotive era. Conclusions of this conceptual design study are summarized as follows: (1) a total conversion from diesel locomotives to coal-fired steam locomotives would displace up to 280,000 barrels of oil per day; (2) a fluidized-bed, steam turbine locomotive has the potential to offer very significantly lower operating costs and environmental burdens than the diesel; (3) fuel operating costs per horsepower hour for three comparably sized systems are as follows: diesel - $.19, fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) condensing steam cycle - $.085, and the FBC noncondensing steam cycle - $.021; (4) a cost estimate to build one commercially proven (post-prototype) coal-fired, fluidized-bed locomotive unit is estimated at $3,400,000; (5) an environmental analysis indicates that effective SO/sub 2/ and NO/sub x/ control is readily attainable with the FBC approach. (6) in general, there are no insurmountable roadblocks to early commercialization of mobile FBC steam generators, based on this analysis; and (7) in addition, the development of an attractive, mobile FBC power system appears to have significant potential for marine applications and industrial steam generators, either for direct heating or cogeneration applications."
The cost analysis, note, is based on 2001 differentials between coal and diesel fuel costs.
wsherrick wrote: GP40-2 wrote: wsherrick wrote: GP40-2 wrote: wsherrick wrote: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.I didn't ask you, or do I care about weight. I asked you specifically how much pollution this LOCOMOTIVE (Again, LOCOMOTIVE not TVA power plant) makes for its HP output based on its fuel useage.A lot less than the equivilent horspower produced by old johnny diesel.
GP40-2 wrote: wsherrick wrote: GP40-2 wrote: wsherrick wrote: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.I didn't ask you, or do I care about weight. I asked you specifically how much pollution this LOCOMOTIVE (Again, LOCOMOTIVE not TVA power plant) makes for its HP output based on its fuel useage.
wsherrick wrote: GP40-2 wrote: wsherrick wrote: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 wrote: wsherrick wrote: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".
wsherrick wrote: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.
So I guess that firebox would work pretty well in 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.
A lot less than the equivilent horspower produced by old johnny diesel.
GP40-2 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: GP40-2 wrote: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.
MichaelSol wrote: GP40-2 wrote: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".
GP40-2 wrote: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".
Diesel particulate size is the key to the problem and is the very significant of many significant differences. Simple enough?
GP40-2 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: 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.
MichaelSol wrote: Times change.
This is obviously getting emotional for you, since, having first misrepresented the chemical composition of coal combustion compared to diesel, then having misrepresented the combustion efficiency of fluidized bed in meeting current stringent emissions requirements, far more stringent than diesel locomotives can meet, you are now putting words in my mouth I did not say.
MichaelSol wrote: GP40-2 wrote: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: acetaldehydeinorganic leadacroleinmanganese compoundsanilinemercury compoundsantimony compoundsmethanolarsenicmethyl ethyl ketonebenzenenaphthaleneberyllium compoundsnickelbiphenyl4-nitrobiphenylbis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalatephenol1,3-butadienephosphoruscadmiumpolycyclic organic matter, includingchlorinepolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)chlorobenzeneand their derivativeschromium compoundspropionaldehydecobalt compoundsselenium compoundscreosol isomersstyrenecyanide compoundstoluenedibutylphthalatexylene isomers and mixturesdioxins and dibenzofuranso-xylenesethyl benzenem-xylenesformaldehydep-xylenesMany 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.
GP40-2 wrote: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:
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 wrote: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 wrote: 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.
erikem wrote:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.