A way to reduce oil usage.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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!

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[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

[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 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

[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]

[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?

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

electrifing the right of ways would be a major cost to the carriers....look at that amount of money it would cost to build the power plants to make the electricity.... the cost to build sub stations along the right of way.... the cost to put up suport structers that hold the wires...just stringing the wires.... and the BIG ONE.... haveing to buy an all new fleet of just electric locomotives...or spend big bucks to convert existing power over to all electric power.... the over all costs would be astromoical.... the only way the rail roads would bite on that idea would be if the goverment where to put up the capital for the eletrifcation prosses.... not to mention the cost that would be lost profits in haveing to buy and ship coal to the power genorating stations...... and the added costs of haveing to have people out to repair the wires....it be reguler maintances...or in the case of bad weather....trees and what not bringing down the lines....along with the reguler day to day maintances expences with just keeping the rails maintained....
so bottom line....
eletrifcation.....cost to much to impliment.....
possable solution...... an all together differnt approch..... possably the fuel cell?
but untill their is a major brakethough in some form of power genoration system that you would be able to use on a singal locomotive unit... the deseil will be king...even if the price of fuel keeps climeing....in short..the carriers are pushing for more fuel conservation efferts from the engineers..... like useing the dynamic brakes more and strech braking less.... shutting down units that are not needed for power....and if your stoped someplace for a while..shutting down units untill your ready to go.....
csx engineer

True, and you also have the environmental costs of the mining operations needed to supply the materials needed for the electrification.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
shutting down units that are not needed for power....and if your stoped someplace for a while..shutting down units untill your ready to go.....

That's something that I have noticed at roberts bank where I go train watching.
They used to leave the yard engines and run-through power running ALL THE TIME, lately (especially in the warmer months) I notice that they seem to be shutting down everything when it isn't in use (except the BNSF units for some reason? - they don't come around to often anyway).

Lots of times now I see the yard engine start-up and go, with no warm up or anything, it certainly is a big difference even from just a few years ago when nothing was shut down, ever.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Lets all remember that Coal is 10 times more polluting than diesel ever was. The solution is simple, more efficient diesel motors, more efficient generators, and more efficient traction motors.

Or go even further, electrify the ROW's and use electric engines. This is a very feasable option in most urban and suburban areas. If we are faced with reduced oil consumption and the possible increase in Nuke or Coal power plants, then it is to me logical that we should utilize the power in the most efficient way possible, that to me is to ge electric, with centralized powerplants where pollution can be easiest to control.

Diesel will still rule most of the wide open spaces where electrification would be more problematic, but why there hasnt been more elctrification on the east coast south, and midwest is a surprise to me. Guess everyone just got too used to those low oil prices for the last few years..

Yes, centralized power plants, would be the most efficient way to use coal. The best place for the plant would be at the mine, which is already being done in some cases, provided it is close enough to the user to minimnize power loss in transmission. You still have the environmental problems from the mining operations, however.

[csxengineer98]

electrifing the right of ways would be a major cost to the carriers....look at that amount of money it would cost to build the power plants to make the electricity.... the cost to build sub stations along the right of way.... the cost to put up suport structers that hold the wires...just stringing the wires.... and the BIG ONE.... haveing to buy an all new fleet of just electric locomotives...or spend big bucks to convert existing power over to all electric power.... the over all costs would be astromoical.... the only way the rail roads would bite on that idea would be if the goverment where to put up the capital for the eletrifcation prosses.... not to mention the cost that would be lost profits in haveing to buy and ship coal to the power genorating stations...... and the added costs of haveing to have people out to repair the wires....it be reguler maintances...or in the case of bad weather....trees and what not bringing down the lines....along with the reguler day to day maintances expences with just keeping the rails maintained....
so bottom line....
eletrifcation.....cost to much to impliment.....
possable solution...... an all together differnt approch..... possably the fuel cell?
but untill their is a major brakethough in some form of power genoration system that you would be able to use on a singal locomotive unit... the deseil will be king...even if the price of fuel keeps climeing....in short..the carriers are pushing for more fuel conservation efferts from the engineers..... like useing the dynamic brakes more and strech braking less.... shutting down units that are not needed for power....and if your stoped someplace for a while..shutting down units untill your ready to go.....
csx engineer

[Modelcar]

.....On the "clean coal" question....go to: www.askjeeves.com and give that a try. Simply as the question of "what is clean coal"....It's not polluter propaganda. Hopefully the web site can provide a better answer than I can. I've been around "coal" enough to know there is fact to it.

[vsmith]

Lets all remember that Coal is 10 times more polluting than diesel ever was. The solution is simple, more efficient diesel motors, more efficient generators, and more efficient traction motors.

Or go even further, electrify the ROW's and use electric engines. This is a very feasable option in most urban and suburban areas. If we are faced with reduced oil consumption and the possible increase in Nuke or Coal power plants, then it is to me logical that we should utilize the power in the most efficient way possible, that to me is to ge electric, with centralized powerplants where pollution can be easiest to control.

Diesel will still rule most of the wide open spaces where electrification would be more problematic, but why there hasnt been more elctrification on the east coast south, and midwest is a surprise to me. Guess everyone just got too used to those low oil prices for the last few years..

[Big_Boy_4005]

I still say that rather than dragging coal around and burning it in a bunch of small dirty locomotives, take that same coal and convert it to much more flexible electricity. The polution control equipment is better used in a large generating plant. Heck, if the railroads built their own power plants, they could connect to the grid and sell excess to local utilities. New source of revenue to fund electrification of the railroads.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Why is everyone so hell bent on STEAM. Yeah it is nostalgic, but it is very dirty and impractical too. If the railroads want or need to move forward and away from diesel, I would have to think that electricity would be the way to go. There so many ways to generate electricity, and some are very CLEAN. The secret is the infrastructure, and this would take a large capital investment, but as oil prices get higher, this may become a very realistic option.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Th US has huge coal reserves, but choosing to use coal instead of oil requires careful consideration of the environmental consequences.

Coal does not burn as cleanly as oil. Burning Coal may leave solid residue (ashes) which are a hazardous waste. Both these problems can be solved by technology and at a increased monetary cost.

Less easily solved are the environmental damage caused by mining operations. Both open pit and underground mining have devastating effects on an area.

More use of electricity will work only if vastly increased generation capacity is available. The choises are oil (and natural gas), coal, hydro-electric, wind, solar, nuclear.

Use of oil to generate electricty of course will not save our oil resources. It would actually use more due to the loses in power transmission from the central plant to the user.

Transmission loses are dependent an the distance of the sourse from the user, but of course, not dependent on the method of power generation.

Coal: see above

Most good locations for hydroelectric dams in the US are already being used, and there is strong pressure from the Environmental Movement to not allow any more dams and to remove many existing dams.

Wind generation has so far not proven to be reliable enough and there are only a limited number of places where it is really feasible.. Improved technology will improve the situation someday, but it is still unlikely wind power would be able to supply any significant percentage of even our current need in the foreseeable future if ever.

Solar generation requires expensive somewhat rare elements, is not with current techcnology: reliable enough. It works in the daytime only and in a limited number of areas. The evironmental damage caused by shading large areas with solar collectors must be considered.

Nuclear 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.

Cheer up, D -- at least one us us (me!) agrees with you!

[DSchmitt]

Th US has huge coal reserves, but choosing to use coal instead of oil requires careful consideration of the environmental consequences.

Coal does not burn as cleanly as oil. Burning Coal may leave solid residue (ashes) which are a hazardous waste. Both these problems can be solved by technology and at a increased monetary cost.

Less easily solved are the environmental damage caused by mining operations. Both open pit and underground mining have devastating effects on an area.

More use of electricity will work only if vastly increased generation capacity is available. The choises are oil (and natural gas), coal, hydro-electric, wind, solar, nuclear.

Use of oil to generate electricty of course will not save our oil resources. It would actually use more due to the loses in power transmission from the central plant to the user.

Transmission loses are dependent an the distance of the sourse from the user, but of course, not dependent on the method of power generation.

Coal: see above

Most good locations for hydroelectric dams in the US are already being used, and there is strong pressure from the Environmental Movement to not allow any more dams and to remove many existing dams.

Wind generation has so far not proven to be reliable enough and there are only a limited number of places where it is really feasible.. Improved technology will improve the situation someday, but it is still unlikely wind power would be able to supply any significant percentage of even our current need in the foreseeable future if ever.

Solar generation requires expensive somewhat rare elements, is not with current techcnology: reliable enough. It works in the daytime only and in a limited number of areas. The evironmental damage caused by shading large areas with solar collectors must be considered.

Nuclear 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.

[pmsteamman]

Mr Rowland, why not press it now with all that is going on in the Middle East? Oil is only going to go up and up and up and we dont seem to be making any friends over there. Off the topic though, I grew up watching the Chessie Steam Specials and in my opinion 614 has the best sounding whistle in the world, I have been trying to get that sound for my Live Steamers for a while now.Thank you for letting a little kid see one of the best shows on earth.

[co614]

In the exhaustive studies we did as part of the American Coal Enterprises effort(1980-1986) largely funded by BN and CSX we found that at 80 cents a gallon for #2 diesel fuel vs. $40/ton for 13,000 btu eastern coal that the Ace3000 would reduce the carriers fuel bills by approx. 60%! When you consider that fuel is the rr's second biggest expense item(just below labor) this is a HUGE savings!
Equally significant the same study showed that when ALL costs were included(cost to buy the ACE 3000vs. the diesel, expected usefull life before major rebuild,water treatment plants, fuel shipping and loading, maintenance steamvs.diesel, etc.,etc.,etc.) that the Ace3000 gave the buyer a 300% Better return on investment vs. the diesel.
If that's true then why didn't these two giant coal hauling rr's pony up the relatively small $5o million to build a first proto-type and prove in real service what the computer studies said would happen?? Very simple. On the eve of the go-no-go decision the world price of oil plummeted from $32/barrel to$9/barrel(#2 diesel fuel went from $1.25 to$.50) and all the near term urgency evaporated,AND it would have taken 4-5 years to build/de-bug and start producing new engines in quantity. For corporate leaders who are judged largely on next quarters earnings(and the price of the common stock) 4 to 5years is unthinkable!!!
The reason we stuck with the"old" reciprocating drive system was that we found that 1. it allowed us to get rid of the high voltage electrical system that to this day is the achilles heel of the diesel electric locomotive,(about 60% of all loco. maintenance $'s are spent on the electrical side) and 2. that it allowed the ACE3000 to develope it's peak horsepower output at speed thus giving a far better over the road performance vs. the diesel.
When the world price of oil gets to and stays above $40/barrel(equals about $1.10/#2 diesel fuel) someone will build a successfull coal fired modern steam locomotive for the railroads,the economic(and political) insentives are just too strong for it not to happen! You might not recognize it when it passes you but it will be getting its life energy from our most abundant energy source!
I look forward to the day! Ross Rowland.

[csxengineer98]

its like this....
steam is dead..... even if you where to use a turbin system... you still have to deal with all the suport issues that go with steam power.... ie water fusilitys.... coaling stations... and also..a turbin is a hell of alot more complicated power unit then a good old Desiel engin... useing a closed steam genoration system like the Navy uses on the subs would be impratical simply becouse of the size of the power plant needed ...it would be to big to use on the rail system we have today.... not to mention down time of how long it would take the locomotive from the start of being fired..up to ready for service status......and the big question.... range....how far will you be able to get on a coal fired steam engin.... vers the Desiel...how would you be able to MU the units together to get them to run as 1...like todays power....how are you going to fire them?with an auto stoker? that is only half of it... now you have to have a real fireman back on the trains to manage the firebox... and besides the rail roads will not buy power that if you have to have another engineer to run each engin in a multy unit consist...hell..they want to get ride of as many jobs as possable....
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

So what is "clean coal"? Is this simply polluter propaganda or is there real technology and verified data on how much cleaner it is? Links please.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by leftlimp

With respect to the idea that coal fueled locomotives are a thing of the past, a good analogy to consider is the fuel debate regarding power generation for the nation's electricity grid. Just a few years ago it was thought that coal was a thing of the past, that all new generation would come primarily from natural gas, due to the efficiency of combined cycle technology and the fact that natural gas only cost around $2.00/mmBtu. For "clean coal" technology to compete, the price of natural gas would have to be over $3.50/mmBtu, and that just wasn't going to happen in our lifetimes, right?

Now look at what has changed. Natural gas now costs over $5.00/mmBtu. Coal has once again become the primary fuel feedstock of choice for electricity generation, even with the added costs of clean coal technology and the added capital costs, manpower costs, etc.

Whose to say that the same won't happen in the transportation field? It may not necessarily be rod driven steam, but some new form of coal powered prime movers. If oil prices are projected to stay high for the long term future, a new coversion back to coal may not only become a reality, it may become a necessity!

I remember when I was thinking of converting my car to natural gas a few years ago, still would be cool, but prices sure have skyrocketed since then! Not looking like as good a deal as it was back then.

In relation to steam powered loco's...never say never, ANYTHING can happen.

[Anonymous]

With respect to the idea that coal fueled locomotives are a thing of the past, a good analogy to consider is the fuel debate regarding power generation for the nation's electricity grid. Just a few years ago it was thought that coal was a thing of the past, that all new generation would come primarily from natural gas, due to the efficiency of combined cycle technology and the fact that natural gas only cost around $2.00/mmBtu. For "clean coal" technology to compete, the price of natural gas would have to be over $3.50/mmBtu, and that just wasn't going to happen in our lifetimes, right?

Now look at what has changed. Natural gas now costs over $5.00/mmBtu. Coal has once again become the primary fuel feedstock of choice for electricity generation, even with the added costs of clean coal technology and the added capital costs, manpower costs, etc.

Whose to say that the same won't happen in the transportation field? It may not necessarily be rod driven steam, but some new form of coal powered prime movers. If oil prices are projected to stay high for the long term future, a new coversion back to coal may not only become a reality, it may become a necessity!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
The way we build now it seems that in many new communities the shortest and safest way to walk from one place to another is on the railway tracks, rather than a two- or four-lane hightway with no sidewalks. I wonder how many railfans live in places like that and don't complain.

What's the deal with places being so pedestrian un-friendly.

When I was out in Ontario about a year ago, I didn't have a car so I mostly walked everywhere, there were some places where I would try and go and there wasn't even a way to get there by foot!

I had to get a taxi in some areas so I could cross over highways that didn't have pedestrian overpasses.

You don't realize how dependent we have become with cars until you don't have one yourself, and try and get around!

[TH&B]

Aymen to L5390, it IS safer to walk on the tracks then those multi lane mini freeways all over the place. Maybe not completely safe, but safer non the less.

If you realy want to save on fuel oil, use hydro electric power and/or windmill power and string catenary up along the tracks. This may not be practical everywhere but it can be done in the mountains where trains use a high portion of fuel getting over. It may or may not cost more than oil, but it does save oil and it is not rocket science.
-Don't scrap all our diesels yet, just remove the prime mover and repalce with a transformer and power collecter. To save even more fuel send all the truck traffic by rail this way, now you're realy saving fuel.
-A traditional style steam engine would just use more coal than the oil it would save, and what about water? It consumes that too.