A way to reduce oil usage.

[vsmith]

But if the you-know-what keeps hitting the fan in the Middle East we have no choice left but a crash course in coal and nuclear plant construction. They might be our only option if the Saudi's ever shut us off again or are shut off by terrerists or an Muslin Extremist governments. Remember WE are NOT loved where our oil comes from...

Coal plants can be bult realatively fast, as can natural gas plants, but the nat gas reserves in the US will only go so far and coal would be restrictive in many areas, Nuclear has to have a year round water source, and wind generator are terrain driven, Solar can is no good where the sun dont shine, so all are problematic.

I see a balanced need for all of these in the future. I personally believe the Gov should be doing everything it can, to be installing solar panels on the roof of every large commercial building and residence in the US, it wouldnt solve all our problem but it would sure take a big chunk out of our daily usage, lowering the demand on power plants, and helping the average consumer by making him part of the power grid...but our Gov is in the backpockets of Big Oil, so dont expect a single finger to be lifted until the oil flow is blocked and we are backed up around the block again like in '73. Our Gov never seems to learn from the mistakes of the past and have allowed the US, the last Superpower, to become an major oil addict that will suffer enormously if the drug supply is cut off, and we, as a nation, have to kick the habit, so to speak. Of course, then it will probably be too late...Got Fire Wood?

[Big_Boy_4005]

NOW THIS IS AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION!!!!!

Maybe there is a way to make a gradual transition here. Diesels already have electric motors in them. If the railroads started now, slowly building out with the electrification, they might be able to retrofit part of the fleet to pantographs, while still using diesel backup from the same locomotives. Even if 3 or 4 units were MU'ed together, they might be able to draw all of their power through a single contact of the wire, though this might require special wiring and connectors on the locos.

Didn't EMD have a hybrid diesel electric a long time ago??

Recently the local utility company here announced plans to convert 3 local coal fired plants to natural gas. They said it would be cheaper than retrofitting with extra pollution control equipment. Who the hell are they trying to fool??? All that does is tighten the natural gas market, meaning higher home heating costs for everyone, TALK ABOUT STUPID!!!! Well at least from the consumer's side it is.[swg]

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

But if the you-know-what keeps hitting the fan in the Middle East we have no choice left but a crash course in coal and nuclear plant construction. They might be our only option if the Saudi's ever shut us off again or are shut off by terrerists or an Muslin Extremist governments. Remember WE are NOT loved where our oil comes from...

Coal plants can be bult realatively fast, as can natural gas plants, but the nat gas reserves in the US will only go so far and coal would be restrictive in many areas, Nuclear has to have a year round water source, and wind generator are terrain driven, Solar can is no good where the sun dont shine, so all are problematic.

I see a balanced need for all of these in the future. I personally believe the Gov should be doing everything it can, to be installing solar panels on the roof of every large commercial building and residence in the US, it wouldnt solve all our problem but it would sure take a big chunk out of our daily usage, lowering the demand on power plants, and helping the average consumer by making him part of the power grid...but our Gov is in the backpockets of Big Oil, so dont expect a single finger to be lifted until the oil flow is blocked and we are backed up around the block again like in '73. Our Gov never seems to learn from the mistakes of the past and have allowed the US, the last Superpower, to become an major oil addict that will suffer enormously if the drug supply is cut off, and we, as a nation, have to kick the habit, so to speak. Of course, then it will probably be too late...Got Fire Wood?

contray to populer belief...we have masive oil reserves in this country.(ALASKA)... the problem is getting to them...that is why we import oil form the middeast..becouse its cheeper....
also most of the demistic oil that the US produses goes to JAPAN.... becouse japan has no oil reserves of its own.... they have to import oil.... so in short...the US companies here pump the oil...and sell it to japan for a profit ....they make more per berral to export it to japan then they would make to sell it here in the US.....
csx engineer

[csxns]

The best way to reduce oil usage is get rid of the trucks and airplains and let it be just rail.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxns

The best way to reduce oil usage is get rid of the trucks and airplains and let it be just rail.

would be nice...but thats a pipe dream brother
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

uprr and or cnw thought about electrofying chicago to north platte neb main a few years ago . up has lots of coal at powder basin , could build massive power plant there to power main line.

[Anonymous]

how about solar collectors in dessert to power the lines. no polution no waste. sun is free indeed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Didn't EMD have a hybrid diesel electric a long time ago??

Don't forget about the green goat, it's a hybrid switcher ready to roll!

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jesus1st

how about solar collectors in dessert to power the lines. no polution no waste. sun is free indeed

Solar collectors are very expensive, use scarce materials, need be kept clean for maximum efficiency, do not work at night, require a huge amount of land, often too far from the user, and have a potentionally devastating effect on the environment under and immediately around them.

Vsmith's suggestion to place solar collectors on commercial, and residential building to supplement the power grid has merit. There are or have been tax rebates from the government and rebates from utility companies to encourage individuals and companies to to this.

[jchnhtfd]

Interesting thoughts, guys and gals! Really needs to be some combination of the above (how's that for waffling, eh?[:)]). There are some areas where electrification makes sense -- lots of heavy traffic between two clearly defined crew and engine change points or terminals. But the comments on expense outline the problem there. Too, there are a number of things which can be done to minimise fuel use in the engines; one is to shut down when you are tied up, which is easy to do in the summer (or the south) and is being done more and more. In the winter, there has to be provision for keeping the engine warm -- but that's being added to some engines.

One thing to remember is that a modern diesel -- and it doesn't matter whether it's EMD or GE, guys[8D]! -- is astonishingly efficient in the measure which really counts: source to wheel efficiency, as well as being very clean, and the addition of Green Goat (hybrid) type technology to switching type operations is also a big improvement (doesn't help on line hauls) and we'll see more of it.

EMD did make a dual electric/diesel: the FL9. Still do, for that matter (brain fade -- I forget the model number[:)]) -- for use in the New York, NY commuter trade.

Energy source for electric power? It will be a while before fuel cells are really practical -- and their source to wheel efficiency is no better than a straight or hybrid diesel anyway; the advantage is in slightly lower pollutants. Solar, hydro, wind? Fine so long as there is a conventional (coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear) plant available to pick up at night, or when the wind stops, or the water freezes. Clean coal in fixed installations has a lot to be said for it -- but it's kind of complicated. The tendency to switch to natural gas fired power plants from coal is, at least in the eastern US and Canada, driven more by air pollution requirements and expenses than anything else...

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by jesus1st

how about solar collectors in dessert to power the lines. no polution no waste. sun is free indeed

Solar collectors are very expensive, use scarce materials, need be kept clean for maximum efficiency, do not work at night, require a huge amount of land, and have a potentionally devastating effect on the environment under and immediately around them.

True, but peak energy demand is during daylight hours, so the nighttime use is not an issue. Why build in the enviromentally sensitive desert? We already HAVE a vast amount of wasted space on the roof tops of every building from coast to coast. Place a modest solar array on these asphalt deserts, and at 10watts per square foot (avg current output) of solar panels, you can see where this could add up. I've delt with solar PV architectural design and cansee the full potential for this form of generaltion. it wouldnt solve all our problems but it would add power to the grid especially during peak load hours and take the burden off the power plants. Solar panels now are such as to be integrated almost invisably with the buildings architecture, or flat, hidden on the roof tops. This stuff is turning up big time in Europe, especially in northern Europe. The technology IS here, the will to use it in any large way in the US hasnt arrived yet...the power companies and the oil companies dont want it (cuts into their profits if YOUR generating power) and are fighting to keep YOU out of THEIR business. Thats what I find sad.

[DSchmitt]

Vsmith:

I agree that solar power on building has merit. I was revising my previous post to say that while you were writing your answer.

The government has provided tax incentives for solar power on buildings, and power companies (PG&E for instance) has provided rebate programs and published literature promoting solar power.

[Modelcar]

I tried to help 20 years ago....by buying Solar stock...[Solaron], but we all pretty much know how that industry has done so far....We did have more tax incentives then for solar development but believe many have expired.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

I tried to help 20 years ago....by buying Solar stock...[Solaron], but we all pretty much know how that industry has done so far....We did have more tax incentives then for solar development but believe many have expired.

You are probably correct.

The goverment at all levels could also lead the way by incorporating solar into governnment owned and leased buildings. I don't think it was even consdered during the major reconstruction of a building for a county goverment center near my home or for any of the several new (within last 3 years) govenment building in my community.

Another thought: The trouble with incentives is they cause people to do things that don't make economic sense. I think solar power is border line. It doesn't make sense for large "solar farms" and maybe never well, but is close on a small scale to supplement the power grid uses. Incentives can help here. As other sourses of energy increase in cost and solar technology improves, it will make even more sense.

Is some areas small scale wind generation (not large wind farms) makes sense too.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Actually guys I think there have been a lot of improvements in solar efficeincy and cost over the years. I have looked into it for use on my roof. As energy prices rise, even electric, this will become more practical. There are also tax credits to help offset the cost.

One cool thing about putting photovolteics on your home is, the electric utilities have to buy any excess you produce, same for wind. During the day, you generate at full capacity, and under use, at night you buy back. Even if the sky is cloudy, you are still producing electricity, just not as much.

Solar is certainly not practical for the railroads, but the city of Phonex is a different story. There are probably enough good roof tops in the city to make a real difference. Places like LA, Denver, and a bunch of others, could make a real difference nationally, if roof top solar programs were launched seriously. Think of it, your own personal power plant on your roof.

It would be a DOUBLE BONUS for cooling costs in the summer. The panels would absorb most of the energy keeping it from going into the house and making it easier to cool, and also run your air conditioner. On the hottest of days you might even find yourself staying cool and making money, by selling back excess power. Now wouldn't that be FUN!!!

Energy is a national problem, and even a world problem. The thing is we choose to do nothing until it becomes an economic problem. Wouldn't it be nice to be ahead of the game for once, especially when it comes to the railroads???[swg]

The bottom line in this entire conversation is, America needs to get itself away from the use of fossil fuels ASAP!! And quit letting the oil and power companies run (or is it ruin) our economy.The railroads are just one piece to this big puzzle. I have no clue what the airlines are going to do to solve their problem.

[Anonymous]

Big Boy's right guys. And as we speak there are people a hell of a lot smarter than me trying to come up with alternatives. We're all basing our posts on what we know today, not what someone will come up with after we're all long gone. No form of transportation or industry is going to go backwards, that's for sure.

Nuclear and magnets.

mike

[Anonymous]

If we still have 200 years worth of coal under U.S. soil, why would any rational railroad advocate want to "get away from fossil fuels"? What do you think is providing the main revenue source for Class I's? It's good ol' U.S. coal. The only other significant "domestic" source of power for the future is nuclear (please let go of all the talk of wind and solar power, even if those sources were maxed they would only amount to less than 10% of our total energy needs), and the railroads would go broke if all they had to haul in replacement of coal was uranium.

Coal must be the energy feedstock of choice for the next few centuries to meet future energy needs. Clean coal technologies such as gasification, circulating fluidized bed, or pulverized synthetic coal are not only the way to go for stationary power plants, the technologies are adaptable to small scale needs such as locomotion.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt
[brNuclear is probably the least expensive, cleanest , and safest method of power generation currently available, but I am sure may of you disagree. It may not be politically feasible in the US, although it is widely used by both Japan and France.

to leftlimp

We need to explore many different paths to get the energy we need. Use of coal causes a lot of enviormental problems. More than the use of oil. Look how our use of domestic oil has been curtailed. Do you think a large increase in the exploitation of coal, which is worse environmentally, would fare any better?

[vsmith]

I'll take a coal fired plant over a nuke plant ANY day!

[Modelcar]

....I agree with the decades and decades of coal supply under our land it would make sense to put out max. effort in finding ways to use it for clean burning energy. I suppose it really has to be such a large effort that only the government can fund...Too big for priviate Industry. But with the climate in politics in this country and the lack of will to push for such a program....and our spending of so much of our resources in the middle east...I wonder if we'll ever tackle such a project until it is almost too late.

[Anonymous]

Windmills are practical now. They're efficient and there are hundreds of thousands of acres with plenty of wind. We could quickly produce 20% of our electricty by wind if we tried. In Europe, Denmark I think, they are doing just that.

The only drawbacks are they kill birds and people don't want them in their back yards.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Windmills are practical now. They're efficient and there are hundreds of thousands of acres with plenty of wind. We could quickly produce 20% of our electricty by wind if we tried. In Europe, Denmark I think, they are doing just that.

The only drawbacks are they kill birds and people don't want them in their back yards.

They are also limited in the number of places geographicly that they can be installed funtionally and practically. Many are far too close to peoples back yards so rises the NIMBY issue.

[Modelcar]

...The large windmills....How do they kill birds...? I agree they have the potential to really add to our electricity production. The ones in my home area were manufactured in Scandinavia and they don't seem to be objectionable to the surroundings and according to info posted at one of the sites operate in wind from 8 to 55 mph and any wind higher they shut down automatically. They make a slight "gear whine" sound when operating but not anything objectionable. I hope we see more constructed around the country.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...The large windmills....How do they kill birds...? I agree they have the potential to really add to our electricity production. The ones in my home area were manufactured in Scandinavia and they don't seem to be objectionable to the surroundings and according to info posted at one of the sites operate in wind from 8 to 55 mph and any wind higher they shut down automatically. They make a slight "gear whine" sound when operating but not anything objectionable. I hope we see more constructed around the country.

as the blades turn, its turning at up to 50 -70 mph or higher at the blade tips, birds fly into the blade path and are either cold-cocked by the blade or they fly straight into the blade that suddenly swings into its pathway...

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...The large windmills....How do they kill birds...? I agree they have the potential to really add to our electricity production. The ones in my home area were manufactured in Scandinavia and they don't seem to be objectionable to the surroundings and according to info posted at one of the sites operate in wind from 8 to 55 mph and any wind higher they shut down automatically. They make a slight "gear whine" sound when operating but not anything objectionable. I hope we see more constructed around the country.

thats great for you...but i know i dont want to look out my window at the nice sky line of my town...and see 300 foot windmills....its bad enought the sky line is all dotted up with cell phone towers.... thier is a small windmill farm about 50 miles or so outside of pittsburgh....and you can get a great look at it from the PA turnpike....what an eye soure.... sure they might look neat at first...but after a while..the novoly wares off..and they just become an eye sore...
csx engineer

[TH&B]

Another way to reduce fuel consumtion on heavy freifgt trains is to level the grade as flat as possble. Many class 1's are constantly reducing the grade over decades for this reason. The flatter the grade the less you could save by electrifying the line.

But another efficiency from stationary central power plants compared to carrying around a prime mover on the loco is that at the stationary plant the turbines run at peak performing r.p.m. and modern diesels spend alot of time operating at less then peak performance. Stationary plants would have several tubines either on line or with some of them off line, but each one always at peak performance. Straight electrics also always weigh the same for traction purposes as compared to diesels wich run with half empty fuel tanks some of the time <unless it has a fuel tender> The green goat thing intends to save on this by charging the battery banks at a constant efficient r.p.m. and will also have a consistant weight.

Another way to save fuel is to keep train speeds slower and perhaps almost underpowered. Some engineers "drag the brakes" alot wich wastes fuel but is harder to do if you don't have the available power.

Just a few more simple and maybe some more complex ways to save fuel if it matters alot, wich I'd think it does even if fuel is dirt cheap.

[Anonymous]

Regarding coal as being environmentally unfriendly, I think we need to evaluate new coal energy generation based on today's technology, not yesterday's. Today's clean coal technologies render all resulting emissions benign, except of course for CO2. And despite the environmental and political propaganda toward CO2 being THE major cause of global climate change, the amounts of CO2 put into the atmosphere from new coal plants would still be fractional compared to CO2 emissions from all other sources (most of which are natural e.g. mammal exhalation, plant degradation, volcanic activity). And regarding the temporary ecosystem disruptions from mining operations, go visit a reclaimed strip mine and see if you can spot any real environmental degradation compared to unmined surrounding areas.

Regarding wind power, it will never be even close to being a major source of energy, because there is no place on this planet where wind blows 24/7/365. Even the windiest places on earth only blow 30% of the time. It is simply not true to say that wind can provide 20% of the earth's energy needs. The only way wind power can be included in a standard energy grid is for "backup" sources (e.g. hydro, coal, nuclear) instantly available for peak energy demand when the wind isn't blowing (which is most of the time), or for viable energy storage systems to store the wind energy for when it's needed most. Regarding the former, it does beg the observation: If the "backup" energy sources have excess capcity to begin with in order to make up for what wind power lacks, wouldn't it make more sense just to max the energy output from them instead of spending extra capital for the intermittent energy source?

[csxengineer98]

globle warming is a joke....first of all...the US dosnt put nearly as much C02 into the air as say........china... second.... you can not prove globle warming is a man made issue.... even if it is happening.... the planet has been here for what..they say a few billion years.... so i ask you..with man only keeping records for only a few thousand years.... how can we say with out a dought that if globle warming is happeing...that is not a naturel cycle of the planet.....3rd...the climet models that the "resurchers" use to figer globle warming...dont work...to test a computer model..you have to run it backwards and see how much it co-insides with speculated climits over the years.....like when the ice age started..and ended and the over all atmoshperic temprerates....as well as some other climit events that have been speculated over the course of the planets liife cycle....when they do this "test" they are off..way off.... the date dose not support a man made climit change....
4th..evey green plant on the planet uses CO2 to make O2.... CO2 is not a green house gass....its plant food
csx engineer

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I'll take a coal fired plant over a nuke plant ANY day!

Along with the other pollutants, burning coal put radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Coal piles and slag heaps are also radioactive. According this study radiation from cola is only a small percentade of natural background radiation ann not a threat to humam health.
http://www.elaw.org/assets/pdf/FS%2D163%2D97.pdf


There is however actually less radiation from a operating nuclear plant, than a coal burning plant. Many tests outside nuclear plant containment structures have shown no increase in radiation over the natural background..

Another advantage of nuclear is that "breeder reactors" create more fuel.

Radiation exposue, as much a 10 times the normal background, is apparently healthy
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/31/163126.shtml

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

globle warming is a joke....first of all...the US dosnt put nearly as much C02 into the air as say........china... second.... you can not prove globle warming is a man made issue.... even if it is happening.... the planet has been here for what..they say a few billion years.... so i ask you..with man only keeping records for only a few thousand years.... how can we say with out a dought that if globle warming is happeing...that is not a naturel cycle of the planet.....3rd...the climet models that the "resurchers" use to figer globle warming...dont work...to test a computer model..you have to run it backwards and see how much it co-insides with speculated climits over the years.....like when the ice age started..and ended and the over all atmoshperic temprerates....as well as some other climit events that have been speculated over the course of the planets liife cycle....when they do this "test" they are off..way off.... the date dose not support a man made climit change....
4th..evey green plant on the planet uses CO2 to make O2.... CO2 is not a green house gass....its plant food
csx engineer

Right

From satellite measurements, it appears the Earth has warmed slightly in recent years. But there is no proof that man is the cause. There is also no real basis for the speculation that the warming is bad. Both Archaelogical (historic and prehistoric) and historic evidence that the earth has been warmer in the past. These times match up with times of "flowering" civilizations.