A way to reduce oil usage.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

To Big_Boy_4005

Actually man caused global warming is an assumption that has no basis in fact. Man caused sourses of heat are a very small percentage of the total. The computer models are frauds which predict only what their users want them to. They do not work.

The sun does not burn consistantly. An almost perfect correlation has been found between the temperature of the Earth and activity of the sun which we can not control.

I do agree ,however, that we need to find more efficient, less destructive way of obtaining the energy we need.

Small portable hydrogen generators are an interesting idea, but as you recognize still need input of energy. The further you have to transmit electricity the greater the loses. Of course there are costs to transportation of energy no matter how you do it. This does not solve the problem of pollution and destruction of the environment. Perhaps the use of solar at the point of use (home or work, not on the vehicle) could work . If the solar cells were small enough and efficient enough to use on a vehicle, it would be more efficient to use the electricity to run an electric motor than to produce hydrogen ( this is a goal worth working for).

With regard to global warming, I would agree, that the use of fossil fuels has created only a tiny blip in temperature when viewed on a geologic time scale. Natural fluctuation due to solar activity is much greater on that scale, causing ice ages and such.

There are really three different problems at work here when it comes to energy.

• Transmission
• Storage
• Source

Transmission is the job of electricity, bringing energy where we need it. While there will be some loss over distance, by generating it closer to the point of use, we can cut much of that loss. It was actually George Westinghouse who employed Nikola Tesla, that gave us the electrical system we have today. That's the same George Westinghouse that gave us air brakes, smart guy![swg] Edison may have invented the light bulb, but he didn't bring us electricity, even though he tried.

Storage may best be done by converting electricity to hydrogen, not by using batteries. By simply taking excess electricity and converting it to hydrogen, it can be stored for use later and burned to turn a generator, turning it back to electricity for distribution. Vehicles with internal combustion engines would need only minor modification to run on hydrogen, as it makes a practical energy source for mobile applications needing power.

Source is the key to the whole deal. How do we make electricity?? As we have discussed there are many ways. Fossil fuels are non-renewable, and will all run out eventually. We need to ween ourselves from dependance on them. Nuclear is OK, though there is the waste issue. As Vsmith said solar and wind are good clean options, and throw hydro in as well. These three sources have a lot of things in common, but maybe the most over looked is

THE SUN

.[:0][;)]Solar is direct. Wind is caused by the weather, which is driven by the sun. Hydro is sneaky, the sun is actually lifting the water, and then we use gravity to spin the generator.

If we were smart, we would set aside the short term economic issues and get busy. The US needs a new business to get into anyway, why not become the world leaders in

ENERGY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY!

Wouldn't it be nice to tell OPEC where to stick it's oil????[:0][:0][:D][:D][^][^][^]

[Anonymous]

Help me understand how people who aren’t highly paid by oil and coal companies still believe global warming is a hoax? The Pentagon is planning for global warming caused wars, insurance companies are raising rates in areas that will be flooded by global warming. NASA is planning to terraform Mars with greenhouse gasses.

Google on “global warming” with some of these phrases “famine”, “hurricanes”, “gulf stream”, “mass extinction”, “sea level”, “glaciers”. It’s enough to ruin your day.

[DSchmitt]

To Big_Boy_4005

Actually man caused global warming is an assumption that has no basis in fact. Man caused sourses of heat are a very small percentage of the total. The computer models are frauds which predict only what their users want them to. They do not work.

The sun does not burn consistantly. An almost perfect correlation has been found between the temperature of the Earth and activity of the sun which we can not control.

I do agree ,however, that we need to find more efficient, less destructive way of obtaining the energy we need.

Small portable hydrogen generators are an interesting idea, but as you recognize still need input of energy. The further you have to transmit electricity the greater the loses. Of course there are costs to transportation of energy no matter how you do it. This does not solve the problem of pollution and destruction of the environment. Perhaps the use of solar at the point of use (home or work, not on the vehicle) could work . If the solar cells were small enough and efficient enough to use on a vehicle, it would be more efficient to use the electricity to run an electric motor than to produce hydrogen ( this is a goal worth working for).

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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

For coal slag piles, the only solution there is to dig it all up and rebury it safely, Yeah, I know, who's going to pay for that? I dont know, probably you and me. But thats what needs to be done.

Regarding Nukes, my concern isnt about radiation around the plant, its about what to do with the radioactive waste we already have, The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is an industry joke, its not ready, wont be for for years, and once there they are already saying that there is still a hazard of contamination, guess which city is closest to it?
Viva Las Vegas!

Nukes are too problematic and no one wants to figure out how to fix those problems, waste, containment, security, transportation, all lead me to feel that nukes are far to big of a headache.

Coal or Gas plants can control pollution far better, coupled with wind where applicable, and solar on every rooftop we could put a big dent in our energy diet. I'm not against exploration in our own country, Alaska, Canada, Mexico all have reserves, but the oil companies tend to ride roughshod over too many issues to get what they want. I'd like to see a more "long term" vision from these guys. They only seem to see the next profit statement (looked at gas prices lately?). So I dont trust them.

And dont trust ANYONE who tells you degregulation of the power companies is a good idea, just look at how bad we here in California got violated by the out of state companies like Enron.

Electrify all the railroads where applicable, it works in Europe, and Japan. and better Diesels for the wide open west.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

I wondered when someone would mention Hydrogen.[:)] It has good potential as a fuel for self contained vehicles. Despite its bad rep (the Hindenberg), it is probably not really any more dangerous than gasoline.

One thing holding up its use is there is no infrastructure to "produce" and transport it in the quantities needed.

Its real draw back is the cost. More energy is available from a gallon of oil, a ton of coal, or even a cord of wood than is used to obtain and process them for use. While it is the most common element, Hydrogen is not free. It must be separated from other elements (usually oxygen in the form of water) at a cost in energy that is more than the energy obtained from the Hydrogen. That is you get more usable energy buring processed oil (gasoline) in your car than you will get from the hydrogen "produced" using the same amount of oil.

Currently the only way "produce" the quanity needed and to reduce the cost of Hydrogen to an economicly viable level is to use nuclear energy to produce the power (electricty) needed to separate the elements. Solar, wind, oil, coal , hydro all cost too much.

Although centalized power plants are more efficient than large numbers of gasoline and diesel prime movers, neither using electricity directly or burning Hydrogen will have much real impact on pollution and environmental damage if burning oil or coal is used to generate the power.

What follows is some outside the box thinking that has been rattling around in my head for almost 20 years.

Maybe the secret for hydrogen is not to try and seperate large quantities and then distribute it. Maybe what we really need is a small portable hydrogen generator. Imagine adding water to your car, then plugging it into an electrical source. Then as you drive some of the engines motion would go back into re-generating hydrogen by supplying electricity to the hydrogen generator. The exhaust, which is pure water could also be collected and reused.

This is not a perpetual motion machine, and would require the addition of electricity and water on a regular basis, but if the hydrogen generator was in the vehicle, it could be re-fueled at home or anywhere that has electricity and water.

This entire discussion about alternative forms of energy is really more about storing and transporting energy in different forms, than it is about the source of the energy itself. It becomes applicable to the railroads when we want to break free from diesel.

Electricity is the easiest way transport energy, and should be considered the most basic form. Electricity is not practical for all applications, though in the case of the railroads, it is the most practical, if we would choose to harness it.

What method we choose to create electricity is a different story. The bottom line here is:

ALL of our energy comes from one source!!!

A huge fusion reactor located 93,000,000 miles away,

THE SUN!!!!!!

Fossil fuels are nothing more than stored solar energy. We have discovered that burning this former biological material releases that energy, but there are two problems.

First, contrary to CSX engineer's belief, releasing this energy created by the Sun millions of years ago does cause global warming. Second, contrary to popular scientific belief, this effect will not bring on the end of the world, because one day it will stop, and

WE WILL RUN OUT!!!

We need to learn to live on the sun's energy we recieve today, and not rely on the energy stored in the past!!!

Energy wise speaking, mankind is unemployed, and going through it's savings, fast on its way to bankruptcy and permenant ruin.

Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ptt100

Not true csx engineer.

If the coal is extracted by the room and pillar method, the excess waste is still brought to the surface and dumped--just like it was 100 years ago. After the mining is complete, the underground rooms fill up with ground water. The water then dissolves various heavy metals and sulfur from the rock strata found around coal reserves making the water both toxic and acidic. Eventually the mine water ( we're talking about billion and even trillions of gallons or polluted water) fills the mine and burst into surface streams. Instant enviromnmental destruction!!!! In the future, the supports holding the rooms give way causing sinkholes and subsidence, Suface buildings and roadways are damaged/destroyed at the taxpayers expense. While it MAY be true that the mines are under strick rules while actually mining the stuff, they just walk away after the coal has been extracted. The only thing the government can do is default on the small bond they posted. Again, the taxpayers are left holding the bag.

Longwall method: A large machine the size of a football field cuts miles long panels from the coal seam. The machine is too large to move around surface objects, so anything above the mine (your house, public roads, public utilities, streams, etc) gets instantly destroyed by the immediate 4-8 foot subsidence from removing the coal seam. Longwall mining fractures ALL the rock strata above the coal seam, allowing ground water to enter the previously sealed coal strata, and you guessed it: acid mine drainage!!

Cut and Fill Method: Coal companies use this method in hilly/mountainous terrain. Basically, they just remove the top of the hill/mountain, push it it the adjacent valley-often time covering streams-extract the coal, AND just walk away from the mess in the valley!! Again, you just exposed rock strata the was protected from the elements. The rain and snow will disolve acidic minerals from the exposed strata and pollute the local streams.

Remember, this crap IS STILL BEING ALLOWED TO BE DONE TODAY in the name of "cheap" coal. I'm from coal country too. I have had many relatives work (and die) in the coal mining industry. I see this stuff hapening all the time, destroying some of the most beautiful country in the USA.

Oh yea, then the stuff makes its way to some mid-western power plant, which has "purchased" pollution control "credits" from the Feds basically allowing them to ignore EPA regs. They burn the crap 24/7 releasing a witches brew of toxins and radioactivity (a lot more radioactivity than any nuke plant) into the air, which them turns into ACID RAIN in the eastern states.

Man, you got to love the coal industry. They are just one gaint Weapon of Mass Destruction. We should just unlease the coal industry on Bin Laden, he wouldn't stand a chance.

And you foamers want to bring back the steam locomotive. Unbelievable.

well..if your so for clean power...then unplug your computer.... disconect the power line from the pole.... rip all the wires out of the house..through all your modern day electrical appliances out the window.... get a few bee hives to use the wax to make candles....and cook over an open harth fire place burning wood in your living room.... get ride of your car...buy a horse and buggy....
AND LIVE LIKE THE AMISH
you want to talk about the draw backs to something...well..look at all the good that it dose for you...and in my book..many of the goods out way most of the bads..... you want to say to me that mineing is bad.... then dont suport it... you can live back in the early 18th centery...i myself am going to stay right here in the 21st...even with all the problems you say with mineing coal to make my life convenant....
csx engineer

[DSchmitt]

I wondered when someone would mention Hydrogen.[:)] It has good potential as a fuel for self contained vehicles. Despite its bad rep (the Hindenberg), it is probably not really any more dangerous than gasoline.

One thing holding up its use is there is no infrastructure to "produce" and transport it in the quantities needed.

Its real draw back is the cost. More energy is available from a gallon of oil, a ton of coal, or even a cord of wood than is used to obtain and process them for use. While it is the most common element, Hydrogen is not free. It must be separated from other elements (usually oxygen in the form of water) at a cost in energy that is more than the energy obtained from the Hydrogen. That is you get more usable energy buring processed oil (gasoline) in your car than you will get from the hydrogen "produced" using the same amount of oil.

Currently the only way "produce" the quanity needed and to reduce the cost of Hydrogen to an economicly viable level is to use nuclear energy to produce the power (electricty) needed to separate the elements. Solar, wind, oil, coal , hydro all cost too much.

Although centalized power plants are more efficient than large numbers of gasoline and diesel prime movers, neither using electricity directly or burning Hydrogen will have much real impact on pollution and environmental damage if burning oil or coal is used to generate the power.

[cstaats]

It is going to come down cold hard cash. What is it going to cost to get a ton of freight over the road. When there is a way to move a ton of freight over the road and it save $$ the roads will do it. The cost of the fuel is only one piece of the equation. The infrastructure, labor, and other costs go into the equation. China and India have cheap labor however that is quickly giving way to savings brought by the diesel. I do not believe we will go back to the future with steam other clean fuels can be used to produce electricity and that is to big an advantage.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Did you ever stop to think that your computer is powered by COAL?

Mine most likely is!! About 5 miles down the road is a power plant, making electricity, some of which I am using now. Three times per week the Union Pacific delivers about 110 carloads of coal to the plant.

Most forms of energy have some kind of drawback. Coal is dirty, and mining it scars the landscape but until we find an alternative, or run out, we're stuck with it. We've come a long way toward making it cleaner, and more efficient.

Hydrogen anyone???

[swg]

[Modelcar]

....CSXengineer.....Quite a coincidence, those wind mills are the very ones I'm talking about. That is, near Somerset, Pa. Some are visible from the turmpike and some are not. Must be near 2 dozen total in the area now...Some are over near Garrett, Pa., just south of the first area. They really aren't installed in "back yards" as such and people seem to accept them very well in the area. Somerset Co. is my home area of many years ago. I suppose the sight is in the eye of the beholder. People that lease the land to set them on are pretty happy with the income but that is another issue. Also, I believe more are planned to be installed in the area. [8D]

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ptt100

Hey leftlimp,

If you think coal mining is so envirnomentally benign, why don't you go to coal country and take a look at all the large mine refuse piles; subsidence damage to steams, surface structures, and public roads; and the wonderful orange acid mine drainage streams which are devoid of life.

Better yet, why don't you donate the estimated $15-20 BILLION dollars needed just to keep the acid mine drainage in check to prevent permanent damage to the public water supply in those areas.

Oh yea, don't count on you buddy's in the coal industry to help out. The just have to post some absurdly low bond (something like $5,000 dollars to mine out thousands of acres), make millions on the coal, then default on the bond and leave the taxpayers stuck with the clean up.

If the coal industry was made to pay for the environmental damage from mining the stuff AND the environmental damage from burning the stuff, it the true price of coal would make middle eastern oil look like a bargan.

first off..... i live in a part of the country where we have all that you are talking about....but let me clue you in on something thier....
the slag piles...orange run off...and eveything else your talking about involved with mineing of coal....was done in the 1800s and early to mid 1900s...befor alot of the envriomental essues with mineing came into being...basicly... your talking about damage that has been done over a 100 years ago..... any mine that is done today...had to follow strict EPA laws regarding mine water drainage...slag pile disposale...and a long list of other restrictions....so your argument about coal mineing damage is based on mineing practaces that where used 100 years ago..not today
csx engineer

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

I agree with vsmith on this. There are actually very few places where the wind blows consistently enough to make large scale wind power generation econimical.

Wind farms require a huge amount of space so that the leading windmills do not "shadow" the ones behind them. There is also a measurable decrease in wind velocity downstream of a working wind farm which may have enviromental effects. Specuation: the wind farms on Altamont Pass might make the Central Valley hotter.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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...

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[vsmith]

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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.