How do you gain water efficency? I would think a Steam Boiler Starves with less water?
Also,on the discussion of what amounts to a steam/electric.
Maybe it was addressed pages back, but it seems to me that this would have advantages in particular in drag operations that currently rate AC power. It would also have advantages in that you could perhaps MU Steam units and legacy diesel units and/or better utilize tools like Locotrol/DPU.
I've often wondered why Diesel electrics don't simply treat the electrical interface as a transmission line and unify that transmission line through all units in a consist.
Then, if you add units that produce the power a different way, you load balance as needed.
Also, in this scenario, you would probably have smalled steam engines.
I don't know, seems like a possibility though I don't know enough to judge.
YoHo1975 wrote: How do you gain water efficency? I would think a Steam Boiler Starves with less water? Also,on the discussion of what amounts to a steam/electric.Maybe it was addressed pages back, but it seems to me that this would have advantages in particular in drag operations that currently rate AC power. It would also have advantages in that you could perhaps MU Steam units and legacy diesel units and/or better utilize tools like Locotrol/DPU. I've often wondered why Diesel electrics don't simply treat the electrical interface as a transmission line and unify that transmission line through all units in a consist. Then, if you add units that produce the power a different way, you load balance as needed.Also, in this scenario, you would probably have smalled steam engines.I don't know, seems like a possibility though I don't know enough to judge.
You can already MU steam and diesels if the steam engine is the lead engine. The steam locomotives on the Grand Canyon Railroad have MU ability as well as the Challenger. If I understand what you're saying.
The reason a modern locomotive would use less water is simply because it is more efficient by more than 100% over traditional steam. It gets more bang for the fuel and water buck so to speak,therefore; a smaller more efficient boiler, firebox, steam circut, valves and cylinders, exhaust system and low friction moving parts would need far less fuel and water to do the same job.
I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...
I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission.
YoHo1975 wrote: I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission.
The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually. Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.
MichaelSol wrote: M636C wrote:The problem with diesel electric locomotives is the axle hung traction motors. These motors rest directly on bearings on the driven axle and the motor mass was effectively unsprung and capable of inflicting severe impact forces at rail joints.This and the overall lower center of gravity of the Diesel-electric, which acted to spread the rail on curves. Steam, because of the higher center of gravity, exerted a substantial downward force or vector on the outer rail on a curve. This acted to hold the rail in place against the angular momentum acting in the horizontal direction; the higher the speed, the greater the force holding the rail in position, and that was also the direction in which the ties and substructure are best designed to absorb that force. The Diesel-electric put a greater percentage of the force vector horizontally against the rail -- the direction most likely to produce movement in the rail.
M636C wrote:The problem with diesel electric locomotives is the axle hung traction motors. These motors rest directly on bearings on the driven axle and the motor mass was effectively unsprung and capable of inflicting severe impact forces at rail joints.
The problem with diesel electric locomotives is the axle hung traction motors. These motors rest directly on bearings on the driven axle and the motor mass was effectively unsprung and capable of inflicting severe impact forces at rail joints.
This and the overall lower center of gravity of the Diesel-electric, which acted to spread the rail on curves. Steam, because of the higher center of gravity, exerted a substantial downward force or vector on the outer rail on a curve. This acted to hold the rail in place against the angular momentum acting in the horizontal direction; the higher the speed, the greater the force holding the rail in position, and that was also the direction in which the ties and substructure are best designed to absorb that force. The Diesel-electric put a greater percentage of the force vector horizontally against the rail -- the direction most likely to produce movement in the rail.
When the Pennsy was testing locomotive designs for the Penn Station electric operations, they found that a high center of gravity reduced lateral loads. The engineers termed it an inverted pendulum. See Middleton's Manhattan Gateway or When the Steam Railroads Electrified.
wsherrick wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission. The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually. Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.
No, but they do have to do with the transmission.
How would you have an anti-slip mech that is by definition a computer control driving an electric motor on a completely mechanical Reciprocating steam engine whose drivers are ganged together?
I mean, maybe it's possible, but I wouldn't think it would be easy. The current system relies on the independence and relative speed of change for individual traction motors.
YoHo1975 wrote: wsherrick wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission. The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually. Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.No, but they do have to do with the transmission.How would you have an anti-slip mech that is by definition a computer control driving an electric motor on a completely mechanical Reciprocating steam engine whose drivers are ganged together?I mean, maybe it's possible, but I wouldn't think it would be easy. The current system relies on the independence and relative speed of change for individual traction motors.
It's fairly simple. If you had an electronic throttle control on the steam engine, then you would have sensors that measured cylinder pressure, RPM,s, ect. when the conditions were right for slipping then the computer would close the throttle valve enough to stop the slip.
carnej1 wrote: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 .
These type of issues are far easier to mitigate in more arid areas like the Powder River basin .
wsherrick wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: wsherrick wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission. The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually. Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.No, but they do have to do with the transmission.How would you have an anti-slip mech that is by definition a computer control driving an electric motor on a completely mechanical Reciprocating steam engine whose drivers are ganged together?I mean, maybe it's possible, but I wouldn't think it would be easy. The current system relies on the independence and relative speed of change for individual traction motors. It's fairly simple. If you had an electronic throttle control on the steam engine, then you would have sensors that measured cylinder pressure, RPM,s, ect. when the conditions were right for slipping then the computer would close the throttle valve enough to stop the slip.
That's really primitive compared to what railroads can do today where wheel slip is on a per axle basis. By ganging the drivers together, you're forced into an all or nothing situation.
Frankly, and again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a bias, I would prefer the granularity of electric transmission with the "proported" (This website isn't exactly a peer reviewed periodical) cleaner more efficent external combustion/Steam Prime mover.
YoHo1975 wrote: wsherrick wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: wsherrick wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: I understand you can mu steam and diesel, but I understand that it's kinda a kludge. For excursion type service it works, but in mainline service...I would assume that you could better tune computer controls and maintain anti-slip and other traction improvment technology by utilizing the electric transmission. The use of these electronics has nothing to do with the source of motive power actually. Anti slip and computerized controls can and probably will be installed on new steam engines when built. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.No, but they do have to do with the transmission.How would you have an anti-slip mech that is by definition a computer control driving an electric motor on a completely mechanical Reciprocating steam engine whose drivers are ganged together?I mean, maybe it's possible, but I wouldn't think it would be easy. The current system relies on the independence and relative speed of change for individual traction motors. It's fairly simple. If you had an electronic throttle control on the steam engine, then you would have sensors that measured cylinder pressure, RPM,s, ect. when the conditions were right for slipping then the computer would close the throttle valve enough to stop the slip.That's really primitive compared to what railroads can do today where wheel slip is on a per axle basis. By ganging the drivers together, you're forced into an all or nothing situation. Frankly, and again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a bias, I would prefer the granularity of electric transmission with the "proported" (This website isn't exactly a peer reviewed periodical) cleaner more efficent external combustion/Steam Prime mover.
It's okay to be biased-at least you admit it.
Guess what those modern motors can go into synchronized slip and thus stall or burn big divots in the rail and flatten their wheels. I'm a locomotive engineer who has experience with both types of power. If and when steam locomotives return, all the required modernization will take out a lot of the skill and experience required to operate them, thus removing much of the pride and the great feeling of accomplishment one gets by learning to run them well.
YoHo1975 wrote:Frankly, and again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a bias, I would prefer the granularity of electric transmission with the "proported" (This website isn't exactly a peer reviewed periodical) cleaner more efficent external combustion/Steam Prime mover.
I'm not sure why my post was quoted above as I don't have any qualms with anything you've said GP40-2. My Peer Reviewed crack was more a general comment on the level of "Fact" being asserted in the thread versus the relative value of any comment on this board. It applies to everyone. There is no review of stated facts, ergo, there are no facts.
I haven't been keeping up on all the different Bio-Diesel stories, does Alga based bio-Diesel still have the higher NOx issues that current Bio has? I remember there was some shortline up in the Central Valley somewhere that was ordered to use Bio-Diesel, but couldn't because it raised their NOx emissions above the limits imposed in the Valley.
Hmm, now I'm gonna have to do some research.
YoHo1975 wrote:I haven't been keeping up on all the different Bio-Diesel stories, does Alga based bio-Diesel still have the higher NOx issues that current Bio has? I remember there was some shortline up in the Central Valley somewhere that was ordered to use Bio-Diesel, but couldn't because it raised their NOx emissions above the limits imposed in the Valley. Hmm, now I'm gonna have to do some research.
YoHo1975 wrote:I'm not sure why my post was quoted above as I don't have any qualms with anything you've said GP40-2...
I'm not sure why my post was quoted above as I don't have any qualms with anything you've said GP40-2...
YoHo1975 wrote: I'm not sure why my post was quoted above as I don't have any qualms with anything you've said GP40-2. My Peer Reviewed crack was more a general comment on the level of "Fact" being asserted in the thread versus the relative value of any comment on this board. It applies to everyone. There is no review of stated facts, ergo, there are no facts.
That's a rather smug statement indeed. A statement made without any, "facts," to support it. The facts that you supposedly dispute are from peer reviewed studies, published statistics from reliable sources and from designers who have applied and tested these concepts sucessfully to locomotives around the World. Which statements do you have an issue with in regard to ther validity? Please be specific.
GP40-2 wrote: Bio-diesel is win-win. Minimal pollutants in diesels with the new exhaust converters, and minimal pollution in an external combustion boiler.
This is an absurd statement, but typical from this individual who seems to have no ability to read and confirm what has been provided here as reference.
Of the three basic types of diesel fuel - #2 diesel, synthetic diesel aka CTL, and biodiesel - biodiesel is by far the worst, both in terms of pollution and energy costs. As per the ethanol promoters, they do not take into account the amount of energy needed in the full production lifespan of biofuels. Again, for the benefit of this particular individual, I'll make it as simple as possible:
In terms of total energy costs per production lifespan, diesel made from petroleum has the lowest energy costs - this is because the hydrocarbon is already in liquid form, needing only refinement.
Diesel made from coal is the next lowest in terms of energy production costs - the hydrocarbon is a solid, thus must be synthesized with h2o to form the usable liquid.
Diesel made from biomass is the most costly to produce - their is no base hydrocarbon to start from, rather just a seed and soil. The hydrocarbon potential must first be formed from the plant's growth spectrum, drawing it's basic energy elements from water in the soil, CO2 from the air, etc. And of course, one must first till the soil, fertilize it, plant the seeds, spread chemicals to prevent weeds and pests, in some cases irrigate the fields, harvest the oil seeds, crush the oil seeds, and then and only then can you start with a basic hydrocarbon that is refined (actually transesterified) into the useful product.
Add to that the fact that using farmland to grow fuel is causing our food prices to rise, and biodiesel is a lose-lose all the way around.
Compared to synthetic diesel made from coal, biodiesel is much dirtier all the way around. Biodiesel produces higher NOX than synthetic diesel or #2 diesel, and still possesses those aromatics that produce the deadliest pollution. Synthetic diesel made from coal has virtually no aromatics.
GP40-2 wrote: YoHo1975 wrote:Frankly, and again, I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a bias, I would prefer the granularity of electric transmission with the "proported" (This website isn't exactly a peer reviewed periodical) cleaner more efficent external combustion/Steam Prime mover. External combustion is not more efficient. It needs more fuel to produce the same power as internal combustion. Regardless, I never said in any of my posts that I was against a return to external combustion if the maintenance costs claimed can be documented. My issue is with certain people who want to combine a return to the less efficient external combustion locomotive with the absurd argument that there is such a thing as "clean" coal and we should be using it only because it is "cheap".
So now the cat is out of the bag. It's not external combustion you object to, it's coal. Coal - the lifeblood of the rail industry, without which most would be bankrupt. Ironic for a supposedly "pro-rail" individual.
So you object to the term "clean coal". I suppose you bathe regularly in tubs of "clean" petroleum. The production of any usable hydrocarbon will result in some forms of uncleanliness. Taking coal out of context in this manner is rather odd.
Well, for all practical purposes, unless the railroads electrify they are stuck with using either coal or petroleum. Biodiesel is a fraud - it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than what is derived from it (thus it's production results in more pollution than the production of #2 diesel or synthetic CTL diesel), it cannot be produced in any appreciable quantities, and attempts to do so only result in severe impacts on other aspects of the economy aka food prices.
Other than publicity stunts, no investor-owned railroad is going to go with biodiesel anytime soon.
So the real choices are:
As per the data provided in this thread, coal-fired external combustion is the most cost effective, CTL probably second, electrification third, and retaining the status quo last. Since railroads have oligarchy power and can thus pass on fuel costs to customers, it looks like the status quo will be retained.
With that, I'm done with this thread. Good Day.
Not likely.
For what it's worth, Lehman Brothers are predicting oil will fall in price to $83 a barrel in 2009 and $70 by 2010.
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/money/archives/st/2008/4/25/175710.cfm?s=al&promo_code=6231-1
That's still around $20 a barrel higher than the $50 a barrel equivalent price needed to help CTL be viable without subsidy, and $30 a barrel higher than that needed for external coal combustion viabiltiy.
Norman Saxon wrote: GP40-2 wrote: Bio-diesel is win-win. Minimal pollutants in diesels with the new exhaust converters, and minimal pollution in an external combustion boiler.This is an absurd statement, but typical from this individual who seems to have no ability to read and confirm what has been provided here as reference.Of the three basic types of diesel fuel - #2 diesel, synthetic diesel aka CTL, and biodiesel - biodiesel is by far the worst, both in terms of pollution and energy costs. As per the ethanol promoters, they do not take into account the amount of energy needed in the full production lifespan of biofuels. Again, for the benefit of this particular individual, I'll make it as simple as possible:In terms of total energy costs per production lifespan, diesel made from petroleum has the lowest energy costs - this is because the hydrocarbon is already in liquid form, needing only refinement.Diesel made from coal is the next lowest in terms of energy production costs - the hydrocarbon is a solid, thus must be synthesized with h2o to form the usable liquid.Diesel made from biomass is the most costly to produce - their is no base hydrocarbon to start from, rather just a seed and soil. The hydrocarbon potential must first be formed from the plant's growth spectrum, drawing it's basic energy elements from water in the soil, CO2 from the air, etc. And of course, one must first till the soil, fertilize it, plant the seeds, spread chemicals to prevent weeds and pests, in some cases irrigate the fields, harvest the oil seeds, crush the oil seeds, and then and only then can you start with a basic hydrocarbon that is refined (actually transesterified) into the useful product.Add to that the fact that using farmland to grow fuel is causing our food prices to rise, and biodiesel is a lose-lose all the way around.Compared to synthetic diesel made from coal, biodiesel is much dirtier all the way around. Biodiesel produces higher NOX than synthetic diesel or #2 diesel, and still possesses those aromatics that produce the deadliest pollution. Synthetic diesel made from coal has virtually no aromatics.
Norman Saxon wrote:Diesel made from biomass is the most costly to produce - their is no base hydrocarbon to start from, rather just a seed and soil. The hydrocarbon potential must first be formed from the plant's growth spectrum, drawing it's basic energy elements from water in the soil, CO2 from the air, etc. And of course, one must first till the soil, fertilize it, plant the seeds, spread chemicals to prevent weeds and pests, in some cases irrigate the fields, harvest the oil seeds, crush the oil seeds, and then and only then can you start with a basic hydrocarbon that is refined (actually transesterified) into the useful product.Add to that the fact that using farmland to grow fuel is causing our food prices to rise, and biodiesel is a lose-lose all the way around.
An idea that intrigues me is producing diesel from oils found in algae - and growing the algae in the CO2 rich environment of te stack gases from a coal fired power plant. Not sure of the burning qualities relative to petroleum based or CTL based diesel fuel, but it does sound a lot more sane than dedicating farmland to diesel fuel production.
Norman Saxon wrote:So you object to the term "clean coal"
Norman Saxon wrote:Biodiesel is a fraud - it takes more energy to produce biodiesel than what is derived from it..
Norman Saxon wrote:...it cannot be produced in any appreciable quantities, and attempts to do so only result in severe impacts on other aspects of the economy aka food prices...
Norman Saxon wrote:...Coal - the lifeblood of the rail industry, without which most would be bankrupt.
selector wrote:Fifteen thousand gallons of bio-fuel? I wonder how much CO2 that would yield when oxidized?
erikem wrote:An idea that intrigues me is producing diesel from oils found in algae - and growing the algae in the CO2 rich environment of te stack gases from a coal fired power plant. Not sure of the burning qualities relative to petroleum based or CTL based diesel fuel, but it does sound a lot more sane than dedicating farmland to diesel fuel production.
Color me intrigued. At the very least, any bio-fuel is going to spend it's growth period Soaking up CO2 and nice carbon neutral Sunlight. If it's Alga based, then it becomes really intriguing. I'm thinking not just intentional use of waste water plants and such, but ALgea spikes in natural environments and such. Heck, San Francisco's been fussing about the amount of Macro Algea that's been growing in the bay (they blame it partly on the fish keeping hobby, which is bull, but that's neither here nor there) Dredge it up and turn it into fuel. The best part is that if you can manage to reach a critical volume of fuel, then you can essentially turn every single diesel loco in the fleet into an environmentally friendly unit with just a filter swap. Plus, it's soaking up pollutants and cleaning the water. Good stuff.
Plus, you can pull a lot of the refinments needed for T2-T3 out which, at least in the 16-710, have robbed it of some efficency.
GP40-2 wrote:Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.
Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.
I think there is a danger in thinking this way. We keep trying to defer the inevitable, and in so doing we tell ourselves that we have the next best thing to a perpetual motion machine. Such things are the stuff of fancy, and I feel it is fanciful to think that we can rely on algae to provide significant amounts of our enery. The fly in the algae goop is that we use such ideas to increase our footprint on the planet, and within a couple of decades we will be wondering what the next panacea is...and who owns it.
As we lever energy production and consumption (because that is what we are talking about), we increase the numbers of those who rely on it. At some point, I hope, this solution will really be neutral and we'll find a happy balance between our proclivity for procreation and our penchant for living like there is no tomorrow. That means there will come a time when Nature will impose a stasis that does not yet exist. She will insist that our birth rate matches the death rate one for one, and that is the only way we will be able to sustain ourselves energy-wise while we occupy the confines of this planet. IOW, as our numbers continue to rise due to our cognitive advantage over Nature, She will nevertheless impose her own rules on us. We'll need to supply something more than just sunshine. We currently take out something from the equation more than just energy needs. It's called garbage, or waste. We create thousands of tonnes of it every single day. Until we can feed a lot more of what we ship to dumps to the algae, the algae is going to be a short-term solution, if at all.
selector wrote: GP40-2 wrote:Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.I think there is a danger in thinking this way. We keep trying to defer the inevitable, and in so doing we tell ourselves that we have the next best thing to a perpetual motion machine. Such things are the stuff of fancy, and I feel it is fanciful to think that we can rely on algae to provide significant amounts of our enery. The fly in the algae goop is that we use such ideas to increase our footprint on the planet, and within a couple of decades we will be wondering what the next panacea is...and who owns it.As we lever energy production and consumption (because that is what we are talking about), we increase the numbers of those who rely on it. At some point, I hope, this solution will really be neutral and we'll find a happy balance between our proclivity for procreation and our penchant for living like there is no tomorrow. That means there will come a time when Nature will impose a stasis that does not yet exist. She will insist that our birth rate matches the death rate one for one, and that is the only way we will be able to sustain ourselves energy-wise while we occupy the confines of this planet. IOW, as our numbers continue to rise due to our cognitive advantage over Nature, She will nevertheless impose her own rules on us. We'll need to supply something more than just sunshine. We currently take out something from the equation more than just energy needs. It's called garbage, or waste. We create thousands of tonnes of it every single day. Until we can feed a lot more of what we ship to dumps to the algae, the algae is going to be a short-term solution, if at all.
I'm not sure quite what to make of this post.
One of the things that is an advantageof Algae is that we can grow it practically anywhere with any quality water. And it will feed on at least a portion of our garbage. As for the CO2 neutrality of it. Well, The refining process of course may create some, I don't know, but the growth itself versus consumption will largely be neutral as the added energy to grow it is solar. and waste already produced.
In general, seaweed/Kelp has always been the futurist's dream creating foodstuffs and energy. Floating Kelp farms would replace oil derrecks etc etc. It's not a panacea, nothing is, but it has the potential to be less environmentally costly and more landuse friendly than most any other option. We're not looking for an end game, merely the next step.
YoHo1975 wrote: selector wrote: GP40-2 wrote:Algae uses atmospheric CO2 to produce the oil that makes up 50%-60% of their weight. Burning it just replaces the CO2 that it took out of the air to grow. It is a relatively CO2 neutral process.I think there is a danger in thinking this way. We keep trying to defer the inevitable, and in so doing we tell ourselves that we have the next best thing to a perpetual motion machine. Such things are the stuff of fancy, and I feel it is fanciful to think that we can rely on algae to provide significant amounts of our enery. The fly in the algae goop is that we use such ideas to increase our footprint on the planet, and within a couple of decades we will be wondering what the next panacea is...and who owns it.As we lever energy production and consumption (because that is what we are talking about), we increase the numbers of those who rely on it. At some point, I hope, this solution will really be neutral and we'll find a happy balance between our proclivity for procreation and our penchant for living like there is no tomorrow. That means there will come a time when Nature will impose a stasis that does not yet exist. She will insist that our birth rate matches the death rate one for one, and that is the only way we will be able to sustain ourselves energy-wise while we occupy the confines of this planet. IOW, as our numbers continue to rise due to our cognitive advantage over Nature, She will nevertheless impose her own rules on us. We'll need to supply something more than just sunshine. We currently take out something from the equation more than just energy needs. It's called garbage, or waste. We create thousands of tonnes of it every single day. Until we can feed a lot more of what we ship to dumps to the algae, the algae is going to be a short-term solution, if at all. I'm not sure quite what to make of this post.One of the things that is an advantageof Algae is that we can grow it practically anywhere with any quality water. And it will feed on at least a portion of our garbage. As for the CO2 neutrality of it. Well, The refining process of course may create some, I don't know, but the growth itself versus consumption will largely be neutral as the added energy to grow it is solar. and waste already produced. In general, seaweed/Kelp has always been the futurist's dream creating foodstuffs and energy. Floating Kelp farms would replace oil derrecks etc etc. It's not a panacea, nothing is, but it has the potential to be less environmentally costly and more landuse friendly than most any other option. We're not looking for an end game, merely the next step.
Way off topic.
The Anything But Steam mentality is raging full strength. The idea that energy can be grown in a field or a pond in any appreciable amounts to supply a growing, dynamic economy is ridiculous on it's face. Since we have people posting here who refuse to accept the solid evidence that a proven technology (steam) can be adapted for current use which can use any existing fuel economically and then postulate that pond scum or sea weed can produce the billions of gallons of fuel needed to support the current rate of economic production and consumption is amazing to me. Viva the status quo!!!
Again, where are your numbers to support your supposition? How many tons of algae does it take to replace the typical production of an oil well or coal mine. How much energy has to be put into producing it? How much fertilizer? What is the cost of harvesting it and converting it so it can be burned? How quickly can you replace a crop after it is harvested? How long does it take to grow? This from people who have stated that building a water tank for modern steam is prohibitive and impossible?!
What Selector is trying to say is the status quo is not sustainable forever and that there are not enough reasources to sustain the entire human population consuming at a First World level. He is trying to say that there has to be a point of equalibrium somewhere. He is correct in the area that economies must grow to remain dynamic and that takes energy and a lot of it and banking on the idea that these alternative means of energy production will be able to supply the need is unfounded at the least.
Algae for fuel? How would that work? And if its used as a fuel, would'nt it still give off some sort of pollution?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.