Could steam make a comeback?

[MichaelSol]

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.

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]

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.

Diesel particulate size is the key to the problem and is the very significant of many significant differences. Simple enough?

 

[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".

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]

According to Rhodes in his recent paper (often quoted in the thread).  If the entire American Railroad Industry instantly converted to steam now.  They would consume only about 6 or 7% of the total annual production of coal today.  That rate of consumption wouldn't change the overall rate of coal being mined at present.

[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.

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.

[MichaelSol]

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.

 

[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".

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.

So, show me the numbers.

[GP40-2]

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 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?

[wsherrick]

 

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]

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.

[GP40-2]

... 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.

[GP40-2]

According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensively

Oh, brother please show me the actual statistics. I want hard numbers, not giddy cheerleading from two unknowns.

[MichaelSol]

... 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.

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.

 

[YoHo1975]

   

     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.

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. 

[wsherrick]

According to Porta, David Waredale and others who tested this firebox extensively

Oh, brother please show me the actual statistics. I want hard numbers, not giddy cheerleading from two unknowns.

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.

[Flint Hills Tex]

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?

[Phoebe Vet]

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.

[Phoebe Vet]

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.

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.

[MichaelSol]

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.

 

[MichaelSol]

       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? 

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".

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

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.

 

[rrnut282]

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. 

[Phoebe Vet]

... but the windmills are weakening......lol

[KCSfan]

The question, "Could steam make a comeback?, has been answered and the answer is YES. After 500+ posted messages this thread has become just arguments and counter arguments ad naseum. Virtually all that could be said on the topic was said long ago and some recent replies have degenerated into emotionally charged personal attacks on those who have posted opinions and/or facts to support a contrary viewpoint. Neither the steam proponents or the diesel proponents are going to be swayed by arguments from the other camp. I think it's pointless to continue this thread and, like rrnut, I'm moving on to other interests.

Mark

[tattooguy67]

[...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.....

Ok yes again this is a good point, although i wish if you where going to quote me you would use the whole thing, you kind of left out the part about the rising cost of oil/diesel fuel which adds to the context a little, and also when you mention these ecological diasaters i  need a clarification here if you would, are we talking about mines that have been open for a short time, like say the last  5-10 years  causing this kind of trouble?, or are we talking about a mine that has been open for 40-50-60 or more years that is now useing modern technology but in the past used what is now considered bad practices? it makes a huge differance. Also just yesterday i heard one of the oil experts talking about $200 a barrel oil in as little as six months, right now around here diesel is selling for around $4.25 a gallon and gas was going for $3.69 the other day when i filled up, now as far as i can tell the cost of food lags behind the cost of fuel so even if things level out some the cost at the grocery store is still going to rise for a while, as of right now the cost of oil is around $110-$120 a barrel, add $80 or $90 to that and what do you have? are we talking $8-$9 a gallon diesel and $6-$7 a gallon gas?, whats that do to your food costs then? whats the cost of that loaf of bread going to run you then?. And one last thought here, whats the toxic waste output of an oil refinery and how does it compare to the coal mine?.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I would think that the manufacturing capabilities for steam locomotives in this country would have to be revived, virtually from scratch.  It has been pointed out in another thread that there is only one firm that even has the capability to produce large castings, such as for a steam locomotive frame, main and side rods, driving wheel centers, etc.  I'm not sure if there are any firms that could produce any of the other appliances that would be needed. 

Could steam make a comeback?  On a theoretical basis, yes; in the real world, no.

[nanaimo73]

Could steam make a comeback?  On a theoretical basis, yes; in the real world, no.

That pretty well sums it up.

Could steam make a comeback?
A better question would be "When are the mainlines going to be electrified?"

[selector]

Paul, I feel you are discounting the forces of economics somewhat.  If diesel rises to $4.50/gal in short order, and if foodstuffs and other consumables rise concomitantly, someone offering to market much more efficient rail motive power (whatever it may be) is sure to have a sufficient interest to get some capitalization.  And capitalization has always been highly adept at innovation and progress, not to mention elbowing what existed before out of the way.

The funny thing is, in four generations we'll look at whatever solutions we took and shake our heads at our lack of insight.

Hindsight bias.

-Crandell

[carnej1]

[...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.....

Ok yes again this is a good point, although i wish if you where going to quote me you would use the whole thing, you kind of left out the part about the rising cost of oil/diesel fuel which adds to the context a little, and also when you mention these ecological diasaters i  need a clarification here if you would, are we talking about mines that have been open for a short time, like say the last  5-10 years  causing this kind of trouble?, or are we talking about a mine that has been open for 40-50-60 or more years that is now useing modern technology but in the past used what is now considered bad practices? it makes a huge differance. Also just yesterday i heard one of the oil experts talking about $200 a barrel oil in as little as six months, right now around here diesel is selling for around $4.25 a gallon and gas was going for $3.69 the other day when i filled up, now as far as i can tell the cost of food lags behind the cost of fuel so even if things level out some the cost at the grocery store is still going to rise for a while, as of right now the cost of oil is around $110-$120 a barrel, add $80 or $90 to that and what do you have? are we talking $8-$9 a gallon diesel and $6-$7 a gallon gas?, whats that do to your food costs then? whats the cost of that loaf of bread going to run you then?. And one last thought here, whats the toxic waste output of an oil refinery and how does it compare to the coal mine?.

 I believe what GP40-2 is referring to is mountain top removal in the Appalachian mountains which is a fairly modern process (since the 1970's). Basically a mining company builds a road up to the top of a mountain and then surface mines the coal from that area (literally removing the top). The problem is that rainfall will wash sediment and acidic run off down into the valley below. This is a very cost effective way to mine coal as you don't need to do all the underground engineering used in traditional mining and it requires a much smaller workforce. Unfortunately it seems to be extremely difficult to control the run off issues (which are the result of water flowing under gravity) and when the mine tailings get into bodies of water there are very real pollution problems (keep in mind that in many cases these are sources of drinking water).

 These type of issues are far easier to mitigate in more arid areas like the Powder River basin .

[MichaelSol]

I would think that the manufacturing capabilities for steam locomotives in this country would have to be revived, virtually from scratch.  It has been pointed out in another thread that there is only one firm that even has the capability to produce large castings, such as for a steam locomotive frame, main and side rods, driving wheel centers, etc.  I'm not sure if there are any firms that could produce any of the other appliances that would be needed. 

A locomotive, steam or otherwise, is a pretty small piece of equipment compared to the scale of  construction equipment being built these days, and which do, in fact, include the parts named. As to there being only "one firm" capable of making large castings, there are likely more manufacturers with the specific capability of building such machines today than there were during the so-called "Steam Age", and I am thinking of Caterpillar, Komatsu, Terex, CNH Global, Volvo Construction Equipment, Deere & Company, Doosan Group, Hitachi Construction Machinery (Euclid), Bell Equipment, Hyundai, Bucyrus, among others. These are companies routinely making castings up to ten times the size of those required for locomotive-sized machines. Some of these companies routinely make single gears for their big machines that are taller than the largest railroad locomotive.

However, the likely company remains GE because that is a company that retains the idea of "competitive advantage" and the dollars are falling on the side of steam, or at least coal, and at such point in time -- and a few months rise in the price of fuel isn't it -- when the cost differential becomes reasonably permanent, there is no good reason why GE wouldn't begin testing prototypes.

 

 

[YoHo1975]

So, I am to assume based on the dressing down that those costs include labor costs involved and the additional costs absorbed by the community?

The Santa Fe 3751 can go from LA to San Fransico on a single tank of Diesel #3, a distance of roughly 500 miles, but it can only go from LA to Oceanside Ca on a single tank of Water. A distance of about 80 miles. Now perhaps the efficency of water use has been addressed, but I would think that by it's very nature, a Steam engine can't be especially water thrifty.

So where does that water come from? Railroads had horrible problems maintaining usable water sources in the Southwest and elsewhere. Those poor water sources raised maintenence costs and reduced availability. We exist in a world where sprinklers are put on schedules and violators are sometimes fined. Southern California exists purely because of the water it steals from Northern California and Nevada a process that has had severe environmental impacts,

So you're suggesting that once we've found the water, cleaned it for use, placated those we're taking it from and insured limited impact, moved the water from source to processing to storage and created those storage points every what 100 miles? 150? staffed those points, adjusted train scheduling to accomodate rewatering which includes longer times for the train literally, but also longer times for the engineer including dead time, that after we've done all that, it's actually still better than an internal combustion/electric? Notice, I didn't say Diesel, because obviously as has been pointed out in this thread, Foreign purchased oil is merely convient, not the only possible source.