It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Limitedclear wrote: passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years. So why are we so dependant on oil. Al - in - Stockton And how much of our country would become uninhabitable from the accidents and waste?There have been quite a few more than you think...I'm not ready to glow in the dark just yet, thanks. LC
passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years. So why are we so dependant on oil. Al - in - Stockton
On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years.
And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years.
So why are we so dependant on oil.
Al - in - Stockton
And how much of our country would become uninhabitable from the accidents and waste?
There have been quite a few more than you think...
I'm not ready to glow in the dark just yet, thanks.
LC
Which is obviously why the entire nation of France is a lifeless, radioactive wasteland..after all they get about 80% of their power from Nuclear plants (and have for decades) so they must have disasters all the time, right?
I get interesting reactions from friends who are left leaning and anti- nuclear when I mention that fact, they are constantly wondering why the US can't be more like Europe. But when I point out Europe's success with Nuclear power they get flustered...
Many pro-nuke folks I know don't like to cite the French example because of "Francophobia"...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
TimChgo9 wrote:Why is it, in these forums, that someone who speaks up about excercising their freedoms, as laid down by our Founding Fathers, and our Constitution, regarded as some sort of freak?
Why is it, in these forums, that someone who speaks up about excercising their freedoms, as laid down by our Founding Fathers, and our Constitution, regarded as some sort of freak?
Give me old fashioned lighbulbs.. or give me death.
Although I would love to get HID lighting on locomotives. The new container picker-uppers have them..
Cheese wrote: Hello,Recently I've been pondering the future of railroads whenever I found spare time to do so. With gas prices what they are, more people are talking about rail transit and its got me thinking.Oil prices are not only affecting the roads, but could we see the day when its more economical for a railroad to operate Coal fired steam rather than diesels, like the Crab Orchard & Egyptian Railroad did in the 1980's?Could railroads once again be the top choice of transportation as they had been?What do you think will happen?Cheese
Hello,
Recently I've been pondering the future of railroads whenever I found spare time to do so. With gas prices what they are, more people are talking about rail transit and its got me thinking.
Oil prices are not only affecting the roads, but could we see the day when its more economical for a railroad to operate Coal fired steam rather than diesels, like the Crab Orchard & Egyptian Railroad did in the 1980's?
Could railroads once again be the top choice of transportation as they had been?
What do you think will happen?
Cheese
Spend sometime searching about how energy works, life after peak oil, global economy, how oil and money are connected, upcoming economic collapse.... The railroads arent gonna pull out of it eather, too late in the game, all though we will be the last ones who fall.
Note to the mods, think we can have just one topic about oil, energy, global warming and the railroads.
Also, the other bothersome thing, is the fact that any thread that starts out, like this one, or others having to do with discussions of steam power, or fuel costs, or things like that always wind up, at some point, being about Global Warming? Can't we just stick to the topic? The thread gets sidetracked, and then hijacked by zealots on both sides, who are trying to prove a point. Soon the discussion gets lost, and then we are beset with another thread full of insults, flames, and political posturing, and it is soon locked, yet another victim of the GW/AGW zealots who populate this forum.
My views on Global Warming are known only to family and friends.... God forbid I post them here, and get labeled an Anti Global Warming "brown shirt"...... It's insanity.....
wsherrick wrote:If that's so then you need to be the first one to get on it pal.If you can't see the end result of this chain of events then it's too bad. If the Government decides what kind of light bulb you can or can not have, then; what else will they decide to control, "for our own good?"It's not just about light bulbs. It's the much larger picture of what such regulation and control represents. It should be fairly obvious to see.
If that's so then you need to be the first one to get on it pal.
If you can't see the end result of this chain of events then it's too bad. If the Government decides what kind of light bulb you can or can not have, then; what else will they decide to control, "for our own good?"
It's not just about light bulbs. It's the much larger picture of what such regulation and control represents. It should be fairly obvious to see.
Dude.. if you want to sit in your cave taking every single piece of vomit that worldnet daily presents as "news" go right ahead. You know how well the government is at keeping big secrets - like the eliminatiopn of all non-CFL light bulbs. Just wait until the CFL police (in their Toyota Priuses with LED light bars) come knocking on your door...
From 50% to 60% of the containers that come by sea to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are destined for delivery in Southern California. SoCal is an enormous market for manufactured goods from Asia. That part of the traffic gets delivered mostly by truck and doesn't hit the RRs.
So if you are shipping that much stuff to SoCal in the first place, it makes sense to add the stuff for Middle America and get the benefit of economy of scale.
Jack
zugmann wrote: wsherrick wrote: If you want to buy those bulbs good for you. That's fine. I fully support the FREEDOM you have to choose the product you want in your dwelling.I CHOOSE not to have those bulbs. I shouldn't have to justify my choice to anybody and no one should assume the power to tell me what kind of lighting or anything else I want in my house.Where does this stop? Are the authorities going to ration how much heat you are allowed per day? How many miles you can drive per month or year? Are they going to tell you that you can't have a fireplace or cook out in your yard with a grill? Perhaps the clothes you wear have artificial fibers in them that cause global warming. Are the Global Warming Fascists going to dictate what we will wear?Where does this stop? How much longer are we as a free people with the right to self determination going to put up with this garbage?Are we going to hand over our basic rights because it is just too inconvenient?Sometimes I wonder. Pssst... there's a train with a white boxcar stopping at your town. You're invited to check it out.. don't be late...
wsherrick wrote: If you want to buy those bulbs good for you. That's fine. I fully support the FREEDOM you have to choose the product you want in your dwelling.I CHOOSE not to have those bulbs. I shouldn't have to justify my choice to anybody and no one should assume the power to tell me what kind of lighting or anything else I want in my house.Where does this stop? Are the authorities going to ration how much heat you are allowed per day? How many miles you can drive per month or year? Are they going to tell you that you can't have a fireplace or cook out in your yard with a grill? Perhaps the clothes you wear have artificial fibers in them that cause global warming. Are the Global Warming Fascists going to dictate what we will wear?Where does this stop? How much longer are we as a free people with the right to self determination going to put up with this garbage?Are we going to hand over our basic rights because it is just too inconvenient?Sometimes I wonder.
If you want to buy those bulbs good for you. That's fine. I fully support the FREEDOM you have to choose the product you want in your dwelling.
I CHOOSE not to have those bulbs. I shouldn't have to justify my choice to anybody and no one should assume the power to tell me what kind of lighting or anything else I want in my house.
Where does this stop? Are the authorities going to ration how much heat you are allowed per day? How many miles you can drive per month or year? Are they going to tell you that you can't have a fireplace or cook out in your yard with a grill?
Perhaps the clothes you wear have artificial fibers in them that cause global warming. Are the Global Warming Fascists going to dictate what we will wear?
Where does this stop? How much longer are we as a free people with the right to self determination going to put up with this garbage?
Are we going to hand over our basic rights because it is just too inconvenient?
Sometimes I wonder.
Pssst... there's a train with a white boxcar stopping at your town. You're invited to check it out.. don't be late...
wsherrick wrote:If you want to buy those bulbs good for you. That's fine. I fully support the FREEDOM you have to choose the product you want in your dwelling.I CHOOSE not to have those bulbs. I shouldn't have to justify my choice to anybody and no one should assume the power to tell me what kind of lighting or anything else I want in my house.Where does this stop? Are the authorities going to ration how much heat you are allowed per day? How many miles you can drive per month or year? Are they going to tell you that you can't have a fireplace or cook out in your yard with a grill? Perhaps the clothes you wear have artificial fibers in them that cause global warming. Are the Global Warming Fascists going to dictate what we will wear?Where does this stop? How much longer are we as a free people with the right to self determination going to put up with this garbage?Are we going to hand over our basic rights because it is just too inconvenient?Sometimes I wonder.
al-in-chgo wrote: Bucyrus wrote: wsherrick wrote: As an aside to this, If we had a free market I wouldn't have to stock up on good old Edison light bulbs because I absolutely HATE those CFL light bulbs and everything they stand for.Me too. I will have to calculate how many incandescent bulbs I will need for the rest of my life and how much space it will take to store them. I'll bet the incandescent bulbs just sell like crazy as the cutoff point approaches. I wonder if the ban will ban owning them or re-selling them. Nobody's trying to ram them down your throat, guys. You'll still be able to get all the indies and specialty bulbs you want for years and years. Neither the big utility companies nor the federal government is putting limits on traditional light bulbs. But I have to put in a word for the CFL's. The newest ones (which my friend Chuck calls the "Dairy Queen type") give a bluer, more realistic light than incandescents, and for 22 watts' worth of power can provide more illumination than a 100-watt light bulb. Go to some place like Menard's or Home Depot and you can see they're not all that much more expensive anymore. Also (with summer coming in, this is particularly important), because they are so much more efficient, they give off less heat (less wasted energy expressed as heat). I have two of them burning right now just behind me on the sofa bench behind where I am typing, and they're more than enough light for me (and I am a person who likes a STRONG reading light!). All for just a bit more than a 40-watt bulb. Yes, I suppose there are a lot of idiots running around trying to "green" things who may overplump for the new bulbs. But to me, saying that one hates CFL's and "everything they stand for" is like saying, "I hate the Internet and everything it stands for." I for one am inclined to say that I take a dim view of trying to save energy by sticking with the incandescents (lol).
Bucyrus wrote: wsherrick wrote: As an aside to this, If we had a free market I wouldn't have to stock up on good old Edison light bulbs because I absolutely HATE those CFL light bulbs and everything they stand for.Me too. I will have to calculate how many incandescent bulbs I will need for the rest of my life and how much space it will take to store them. I'll bet the incandescent bulbs just sell like crazy as the cutoff point approaches. I wonder if the ban will ban owning them or re-selling them.
wsherrick wrote: As an aside to this, If we had a free market I wouldn't have to stock up on good old Edison light bulbs because I absolutely HATE those CFL light bulbs and everything they stand for.
As an aside to this, If we had a free market I wouldn't have to stock up on good old Edison light bulbs because I absolutely HATE those CFL light bulbs and everything they stand for.
Me too. I will have to calculate how many incandescent bulbs I will need for the rest of my life and how much space it will take to store them. I'll bet the incandescent bulbs just sell like crazy as the cutoff point approaches. I wonder if the ban will ban owning them or re-selling them.
Nobody's trying to ram them down your throat, guys. You'll still be able to get all the indies and specialty bulbs you want for years and years. Neither the big utility companies nor the federal government is putting limits on traditional light bulbs. But I have to put in a word for the CFL's. The newest ones (which my friend Chuck calls the "Dairy Queen type") give a bluer, more realistic light than incandescents, and for 22 watts' worth of power can provide more illumination than a 100-watt light bulb. Go to some place like Menard's or Home Depot and you can see they're not all that much more expensive anymore. Also (with summer coming in, this is particularly important), because they are so much more efficient, they give off less heat (less wasted energy expressed as heat). I have two of them burning right now just behind me on the sofa bench behind where I am typing, and they're more than enough light for me (and I am a person who likes a STRONG reading light!). All for just a bit more than a 40-watt bulb.
Yes, I suppose there are a lot of idiots running around trying to "green" things who may overplump for the new bulbs. But to me, saying that one hates CFL's and "everything they stand for" is like saying, "I hate the Internet and everything it stands for." I for one am inclined to say that I take a dim view of trying to save energy by sticking with the incandescents (lol).
carnej1 wrote: oltmannd wrote: My guess is that coal will become the source for liquid transportation fuels. There are a couple technologies for extracting hydrocarbons from coal. The hydrocarbons can then be further refined, and perhaps blended with oil products, to make an array of fuels.So, coal fired steam engines? I doubt it. Coal as a source for diesel fuel. I'd count on it! Oh no, are the "could steam make a comeback" flamewars going to spill over to this thread????? RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!! (to quote Monty Python) As far as I can tell from reading about what's going on in both the RR and coal industries, the use of coal to liquid fuels in locomotives is far more likely to happen than new steam power, at least to North America. That is not my personal "steam vs. diesel" opinion, just my observation of what the industry is doing...
oltmannd wrote: My guess is that coal will become the source for liquid transportation fuels. There are a couple technologies for extracting hydrocarbons from coal. The hydrocarbons can then be further refined, and perhaps blended with oil products, to make an array of fuels.So, coal fired steam engines? I doubt it. Coal as a source for diesel fuel. I'd count on it!
My guess is that coal will become the source for liquid transportation fuels. There are a couple technologies for extracting hydrocarbons from coal. The hydrocarbons can then be further refined, and perhaps blended with oil products, to make an array of fuels.
So, coal fired steam engines? I doubt it. Coal as a source for diesel fuel. I'd count on it!
Oh no, are the "could steam make a comeback" flamewars going to spill over to this thread????? RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!! (to quote Monty Python)
As far as I can tell from reading about what's going on in both the RR and coal industries, the use of coal to liquid fuels in locomotives is far more likely to happen than new steam power, at least to North America. That is not my personal "steam vs. diesel" opinion, just my observation of what the industry is doing...
As of today, there are no commercial CTL production facilities in the US, nor are there any under construction, nor are there any on the drawing board. This in spite of the fact that the break even point for CTL over petroleum (roughly $35 a barrel) was passed five years ago and may never be seen again.
The reason? Simply put, it's the threat of CO2 regulation.
It may also suprise you that there are more working steam engines in the US today than there were five years ago.
The $64 million dollar question is this: Which technology would result in lower CO2 emissions per unit of work - using coal directly in an external combustion steam engine, or using CTL fuel in diesel electrics? Remember, we're counting all CO2 emissions from the coal mine to the working locomotive unit.
Until and if nuclear power is allowed for the processing of coal into CTL fuels, it may be that the CTL process results in more overall CO2 emissions than using ROM coal in a steam engine.
mudchicken wrote: passengerfan wrote: On the news this AM was a segment on how South Africa has been producing diesel and gasoline from coal for years they actually built a refinery on top of a huge coal mine that occupies nearly ten miles. It is believed that if similar refineries were built here with just our known coal reserves we would be able to supply the nation with gas and diesel for a minimum of fifty years. And if we built fifty nuclear generating plants we could electrify every RR mainline in North America and eliminate diesels from the mainlines altogether. That should be enough left over diesel to supply the trucking industry for at least the next 90 years. So why are we so dependant on oil. Al - in - Stockton There is a pilot coal to diesel conversion plant here in Denver and a K-Fuel plant. The issue has been and will remain economics and how desperate are we?
There is a pilot coal to diesel conversion plant here in Denver and a K-Fuel plant. The issue has been and will remain economics and how desperate are we?
Mudchicken:
The tech has been around for years but never had much of a champion when the oil was easy to get to. We were throwing that idea around when I was with a large southern utility years ago. We started talking about solvent refined coal and were trying to see if anyone wanted to take it to the next step by using the excess heat from our reactors for the refining of coal to liquid fuels. I guess you know how far that went.
As far as the electrification of the railways go: There would have to be a lot of construction and huge up front costs related to building a large group of reactors to successfully electrify the railroads. For that to happen in the next 30 to 50 years would require a visionary with a lot of clout. But to quote an old Southernism "The trouble of it is" There aint any as far as I know of in either industry that would even think of such a thing.
PL
There is a pilot coal to diesel conversion plant here in Denver and a K-Fuel plant. The issue has been and will remain economics and how desparate are we?
Re: CFL vs incandescent
I saw somewhere that a new light bulb base is being planned and may even be in production. It would be my guess that once the new base hits the market, CFL's will change over to the new base. Eventually you won't be able to find any new fixtures with the current screw base and will be forced to use CFL's.
So you might want to figure some spare bases and fixtures into your storage plans. Now's the time to get them, before people start to get wise.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
al-in-chgo wrote: Bucyrus wrote: wsherrick wrote: As an aside to this, If we had a free market I wouldn't have to stock up on good old Edison light bulbs because I absolutely HATE those CFL light bulbs and everything they stand for.Me too. I will have to calculate how many incandescent bulbs I will need for the rest of my life and how much space it will take to store them. I'll bet the incandescent bulbs just sell like crazy as the cutoff point approaches. I wonder if the ban will ban owning them or re-selling them. Nobody's trying to ram them down your throat, guys. You'll still be able to get all the indies and specialty bulbs you want for years and years. Neither the big utility companies nor the federal government is putting limits on traditional light bulbs. I for one am inclined to say that I take a dim view of trying to save energy by sticking with the incandescents (lol).
Nobody's trying to ram them down your throat, guys. You'll still be able to get all the indies and specialty bulbs you want for years and years. Neither the big utility companies nor the federal government is putting limits on traditional light bulbs.
I for one am inclined to say that I take a dim view of trying to save energy by sticking with the incandescents (lol).
Well that is news to me. I must have heard 1000 times that congress has banned the incandescent light bulb by 2014. It is said that they will no longer be on the store shelves. When you say we will be able to get all the incandescent bulbs we want for years and years, how will we do this when congress has banned them and ordered them removed from store shelves?
Regarding what CFLs "stand for," that to me is the most insidious part. I have no problem with people trying to save energy according to their own will, but CFLs stand for telling other people how to live their lives. And they are just the tip of the iceberg. This vision ultimately includes government limits on our use of motor fuel, heating fuel, electricity, water, and waste disposal for starters.
Congress bans incandescent light bulbs:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59298
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Railway Man wrote: I offered a bet in the other thread about steam that I will eat the first ounce of coal from the tender of the first Class I revenue freight, regular everyday service steam locomotive, if the person taking the bet will agree that if this doesn't happen within 10 years, they have to drink an ounce of diesel fuel. I've got no takers so far.
You have no takers because it would take ten years or more just to cut through all the government red tape, and even then they'd probably put the kibosh on serious attempts at coal fired steam locomotive production due to climate fraud. Remember, this is the same government that just banned incandescent lightbulbs, and still to this day won't lift the ban on OCF/ANWR drilling - ".......duuuhhh.....it'd take ten years to get that oil to market anyway, so why start now? Duuuhhhh..........". If ANWR were in any other country, even if it were in Canada, that oil would be flowing today, and it wouldn't have taken them more than a few years to get it into production. The USA is the only country on this planet that has taken such great pains to economically eviscerate itself.
So much for the free market determining production outcomes here in the US of A.
The beauracracy is the only thing keeping you from poisoning yourself, although if you took the pulverized coal dust 1/8 of a teaspoon at a time over the course of several months you might be able to handle it without serious health effects!
Again, if this decision was left up to the free market, we'd have coal-fired steam locomotives in regular revenue service within a few years, based soley on the long term price differential between coal and petroleum.
Or perhaps it is your awareness of the red tape hurdles that prompted you to make this bet?
Railway Man wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: Thanks, that makes sense.I guess we have a different viewpoint up here, with Vancouver and especially Prince Rupert seeing their existance tied to the port.Not sure I follow that. Could you explain?
nanaimo73 wrote: Thanks, that makes sense.I guess we have a different viewpoint up here, with Vancouver and especially Prince Rupert seeing their existance tied to the port.
Thanks, that makes sense.
I guess we have a different viewpoint up here, with Vancouver and especially Prince Rupert seeing their existance tied to the port.
Not sure I follow that. Could you explain?
My posts have to make sense?
I was thinking that the general population up here views taxes spent on infrastructure as a sound investment, and the ports are important to the economy. If some of my tax dollars were going towards dredging or port expansion, it would not bother me at all.
Why is it, with the current rise in fuel prices, many people who are reportedly "in the know" about these things talking about the increase being permanent? On the other hand, there are other sources that I read and listen to that have people, also reportedly "in the know" that the price of oil is "riding a bubble" that is soon to burst, and the prices will moderate.... Now, they didn't say we would be back to 1.10 a gallon for gas, but we would be back to a more "reasonable" price, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Could it be, that with the price of oil being so high, that "cheap imports" may be on the way out?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.