Railroads' role in helping U.S. achieve energy independence

[Junctionfan]

I know. This will of course be a real bummer on the railroads and railfans who like to see coal train but as much as I don't like it, if coal power fumes are causing harmful pollutants than I must think of others and say, what else can we use as power? I am glad than this clean coal technology is going on well but what happens to us when we have used up all conviently located coal deposits? Coal is not a practical renewable resources as it takes millions of years to renew as opposed to wind, solar, ethanol, and things like that. Mind you, what about a unit ethanol train (ADM tanks or MCP tanks)

Anyways, what about a wind turbine per block. Anything including the CTC signals that needs power, gets its own wind turbine or solar modual or something like that. All power imput is controlled by the railroad and excess power can be sold by the railroad, to the cities. Would something like this work?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I know.



Anything including the CTC signals that needs power, gets its own wind turbine or solar modual or something like that. All power imput is controlled by the railroad and excess power can be sold by the railroad, to the cities. Would something like this work?

That is an astoundingly great idea, One problem The admendments to the Utility Holding Acts of 1934 amended in1939. This act as amended had much to do with the demise of the Baltimore and Annapolis Interurbans forbidding the very idea that you are placing forward. F.D. Roosevelt and his New Deal Crowd pretty much put an end to that idea. By the way its a good idea. Then utilities would be allowed to keep the heat rates up in their reactors and power boilers, transmission scheduleing would be greatly simplified and interstate transmission between utilities more efficent.

[Junctionfan]

Ontario passed a bill under the conservatives to allow similar things to happen. Brock University for example, has its own power plant and sell excess power to the city of St.Catharines which in turn lowers its property taxes.

Is this amendment eradicatable? Would this be something politically reasonable because think how much revenue Amtrak's NEC could muster.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Ontario passed a bill under the conservatives to allow similar things to happen. Brock University for example, has its own power plant and sell excess power to the city of St.Catharines which in turn lowers its property taxes.

Is this amendment eradicatable? Would this be something politically reasonable because think how much revenue Amtrak's NEC could muster.

To answer your question, yes it is changeable and can be vacated by an act of congress. The problem is that to do this would involve many private and public vested interests that have grown up over the past 60 or so years and have become quite happy with the status quo. To make such a change would require a very large dose of political courage, a gracious plenty of economic persuasion, a large helping of pure salemanship rivaling Ben Feldman or P.T. Barnum and a passion for change on the order of the desire to live free. Railroads and legal monopolies what a natural partnership.

[Overmod]

Junc: The sale of railroad-generated power is clearly possible under the provisions of PURPA -- I have no idea why the precedent mentioned by piouslion would apply to the situation you mentioned. Of course, the rail-generated power would have to be 'sold' to electric utilities (the situation is a bit more complex under deregulation, but not effectively different) but most railroads would have little desire to become regulated utilities anyway.

Unless things have radically changed, the price which utilities pay for qualified NUG power is substantially above baseline 'market' rate, intentionally set up to make investment in alternative power and cogen more attractive.

[Junctionfan]

Well if they can sell it, maybe they can store it as back up power if there is a generation problem or it can be distributed through out the system where needed.

[jchnhtfd]

Mudchicken's third point -- why do people think a power plant is cleaner than a good modern locomotive? -- is exactly why I mentioned earlier that the whole notion of electrifying anything much more than extremely high-density routes is, at best, debatable. The cost/benefit ratio just isn't there. There are a few applications, and long distance rail is one of them in my opinion, where the continued use of liquid fossil fuel as the energy source (read: diesel engines) is fully justified. Hybrids, e.g. the green goats, in yard work; straight diesel road engines. If one works the numbers, it works. The other place, incidentally, is in air transportation. It's a bear to run an airplane off a catenary or with an extension cord... and hydrogen tanks are too heavy to be an option.

ps -- Junctionfan -- Trent University in Peterborough ON also generates its own power and sells to the grid -- hydroelectric plant on the Otonabee River

[Junctionfan]

I wonder how many universities and colleges do the same thing? Obviously it is more cost effective than to get it from the OPG or they would have. That's why I advocate using things like solar panel moduals or wind turbines, something that is clean and gives enough juice just to power a block not the entire system plus maybe sell extra juice to the power company (I originally thought city but I have been corrected (thankyou jchnhtfd)). Wind turbines and solar panels do not cause pollution nor do they require a lot of maintainance I would say.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Junc: The sale of railroad-generated power is clearly possible under the provisions of PURPA -- I have no idea why the precedent mentioned by piouslion would apply to the situation you mentioned. Of course, the rail-generated power would have to be 'sold' to electric utilities (the situation is a bit more complex under deregulation, but not effectively different) but most railroads would have little desire to become regulated utilities anyway.

Unless things have radically changed, the price which utilities pay for qualified NUG power is substantially above baseline 'market' rate, intentionally set up to make investment in alternative power and cogen more attractive.

A point well made sir, in the case you mentioned on the sale of NUG power the cost would be higher than that of base load costs and price of a major utility's generating capasity. The precedent I used was only to point out the starting point of the community of interests that would be line up against such a program. I in no way wi***o demini***he clear thought that was exspoused in the thread. In truth I think it is a great idea that Junctionfan makes for a good position. Thanks for expanding the thread - Roy

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I wonder how many universities and colleges do the same thing?

Junctionfan,

I don't have exact numbers, but all the universities at which I studied - or at which I have been employed - have had their own power plants. Keep in mind that a university is a huge endeavor, and it requires a lot of electricity for all the classrooms, teaching and research labs, offices, eateries, etc., to run. Most could not operate by plugging into the local utility alone.

Michael

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

oltmannd:

I was able to ride one of your SEPTA trains a couple weekends ago. I was in Philly for a scientific conference, and I took the train from Pennsylvania Convention Center out to the airport. I talked to a British colleague who said he rode the train in from the airport and liked it a whole lot -- SEPTA gets high marks from the international train-riding community.

Hey everybody, did you know you could fly into Phily, a $5.50 train ride leaves just outside baggage claim every half hour and can take you to Amtrak station where you can hop on the NEC? Trying doing anything that cool anywhere else. I hope the service holds together after the big cost crunch situation by the end of the year.

By the way, I remember riding a Silverliner MU car from Metro Park, NJ to Trenton about 20 years ago (a commuter train on the NEC), and I remember the acceleration and traction motor gearing to be streetcar/electric trolley bus kind of fast -- the SEPTA MUs run smooth but I didn't notice the same rush of adrenelin. Does SEPTA run the same kind of MU over its entire network or is it a mix of Diesel and electric like NJT? Who makes your MU cars these days now that Budd is out of the business?

Best kept secret in Philly! Ironically, everytime SEPTA has a budget crunch, they say the Airport line is 1st to go! It has the most political leaverage, I think.

The coolest service was, when, for a short time in the early 90s, Amtrak and Midway did a code share for service to Atlantic City from the airport. I often think the NJT should start their AC runs from the airport.

SEPTA's Silverliners are/were identical to the NJT Arrows of the same vintage except the SEPTA cars had blended braking. The Silverliner IVs I used to ride to Marcus Hook each day moved out pretty well and would creep up on 100 mph thru Riley Park each day.

Neither NJT nor SEPTA have purchased MUs lately - since the mid 70s. They've purchased Bombardier coaches. NJT has purchased quite a bit of equipment. SEPTA, hardly any. So, SEPTA is still primarily MUs from the 60s and 70s while NJT is primarily loco hauled coaches from the 80s and 90s.

[Junctionfan]

Niagara College (Glendale Campus) which was built recently, does not have a powerplant but the Welland Campus I am sure does. Welland Campus was built a long time ago.

[TH&B]

quote by jctfan;

" That's why I advocate using things like solar panel moduals or wind turbines, something that is clean and gives enough juice just to power a block not the entire system plus maybe sell extra juice to the power company"

I've seen solar panels at power switches and signals. I imagine though it is self contained and not conected to the"grid" , but it is reliable and didn't fail in the blackout.

[Junctionfan]

When I said grid or meant it, I meant that the railroad can control it and shut it down if necessary to. Each block is self dependent so if one block fails, the others are self contained but maybe able to share power from neighbouring blocks if needed.

[Anonymous]

After all of this discussion is all said and done, As a member of the forum I wi***o pose the question of: How can current available technology be used to promote energy independance and at the same time give the railroads more business in the transportation of profitable freight and materials?

[Junctionfan]

I'm not sure it's possible without shooting themselves in the foot in terms of effecting profits from coal and fossil fuels of which coal is their more profitable commodities.

Electrification is the closest I would say that the railroads could do. Using my ideas, this would quell the those pesky environmentalist and still be cheap for the railroad.

I'll explain more if required but I am have to go to a business meeting at my club.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I'm not sure it's possible without shooting themselves in the foot in terms of effecting profits from coal and fossil fuels of which coal is their more profitable commodities.

Electrification is the closest I would say that the railroads could do. Using my ideas, this would quell the those pesky environmentalist and still be cheap for the railroad.

I'll explain more if required but I am have to go to a business meeting at my club.

Well said with-in the confines of a present day situaton. Consider if you will the use of nuclear energy much as it is used in your fine country (I believe they are called CANAC reactors). Expand on their use beyond the production of current. Rather that they use the heat for processing dirty coal into solvent refined coal, as I refered to earlier in this and other threads. This process cleans the product for clean qualified burning, keeps railroad busy in expanded areas where current coal supplies are not tier compliant giving employment back to the coalfields of the east and a more massive basis of business for the railroads.

[Overmod]

If I recall correctly, it's CANDU, not CANAC (which is the remote-control box vendor). These are heavy-water-moderated reactors that can use unenriched (natural) uranium for power fission (and some breeding if desired) -- the DU stands for 'deuterium' and 'uranium' respectively.

The use of nuclear process heat for SRC is a good idea (imho) -- but then again, why stop there? The same process heat can be used to perform Fischer-Tropsch gasification and liquid-fuel synthesis once the high-grade carbon has been removed via your cosolvent bath... in fact, I believe the amount of heat needed for N-methyl pyrrolidone separation (at just over 200 degrees C) might even be a bottoming cycle for some of the synthesis operations (or for hydrogen generation for use in this process, which I believe strongly is the 'first best use' for process hydrogen in transportation energy...)

Depends on the cosolvents in your particular SRC process, of course, but I don't think (offhand) that too many of the desirable ones have particularly high boiling points.

My opinion is that, overall, the potential utility (and market acceptance) for synthesis gas and liquid feedstocks/fuels is much higher than for solvent-extracted carbon. Much of this, of course, is synergy that results from the great built-out infrastructure that exists for petroleum hydrocarbons and natural gas, but I would argue that the synergy is no less real because it was developed 'for other reasons'...

Strange you should mention SRC, just as I have my test quantities of NMP arriving for cosolvent testing for locomotive fuels...

[Anonymous]

Patents for the SRC that I have knowlege of are property of the Southern Company, Holding Company for Georgia Power, Alabama Power, Gulf Power, etc et. al., of Atlanta, Georgia. I do know of a test burn at Plant McManus back in 1978 and talk of a possible one at Plant Scherer last time I was in that part of the country. From an air quality point of view this might be a better choice given existing supplies. I am glad that Overmod has responded, Opinions that are from the cutting edge make the discussion all the better and the forum a great place. By the way I stand corrected the proper title is the CANDU reactor

[Junctionfan]

What is the by-product of this coal to fuel process? Is it as deadly as benzene or is it benzene?

[Overmod]

Andrew: you might want to distinguish between the steps here:

1) SRC "purification" of coal
2) gasification of "purified" coal (by hydrogenation of the carbon)
3) further synthesis of liquid fuel and other products from the gasification product

with an implied (4) - the provision of the hydrogen used in steps 2 and 3.

The SRC processes essentially use a specialized solvent or mixture to dissolve the carbon in coal, but not the other constituents (particularly sulfur compounds or "ash" content). If you then extract the solvent (best practice involves heating in a vacuum) you are left with relatively pure carbon. In theory, most of the solvent would be recovered (and could be re-used in the process because little degradation would take place) -- in practice, of course, there will be some 'slip' and the solvents would be chosen appropriately.

A safe, if somewhat simplistic, assumption is that, when SRC is burned via pulverized-coal-fired equipment, any residual solvent would essentially be pyrolyzed if not combusted, and any "pollution" generated would be handled by the pollution-control equipment. My understanding is that there won't be enough residual solvent after "proper" SRC processing to pose a contact hazard, or even much of a vapor hazard in vehicles transporting bulk quantities of treated fuel... in any case, the principal solvent advocated in the literature, which is most commonly termed N-methyl pyrrolidone, is supposed to be comparatively benign as far as industrial chemicals go.

If you bone up on modern techniques of gasification, you can judge whether some of the catalysts or processes have waste streams (e.g., spent catalyst) that might pose direct or casual pollution hazards. I can't think of any offhand.

Note that using SRC as a basic stock for synthesis neatly alleviates many of the 'conventional' problems with synthesis processing, particularly those associated with sulfur content.

BTW, I consider much of the 'risk' of benzene (C6H6) to be somewhat exaggerated in the popular press. I'd be more worried about uncooked green beans...

[Junctionfan]

Well as long as the waste and the process isn't too bad for the environment than I'm for it. I don't mind chemicals at all as long as it is done safely and cleanly as to not have another Love Canal.

[carnej1]

I wonder how the SRC process compares in fuel cost per kilowatt with Natural Gas(which as everyone here in the Northeast with gas heat is all too aware off, continues to increase in price)? I imagine that this involves some speculation as the process doesn't sound like it's in large enough usage currently to be economically viable.
Another thought, could a gas producer firebox be designed to burn this and provide producer gas for use in a modified diesel or gas turbine? Would this be cost competitive with Diesel fuel for transportation(i.e railroad locomotive) usage? I imagine it wouldn't be TIER 2 compliant................................

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by carnej1

I wonder how the SRC process compares in fuel cost per kilowatt with Natural Gas(which as everyone here in the Northeast with gas heat is all too aware off, continues to increase in price)? I imagine that this involves some speculation as the process doesn't sound like it's in large enough usage currently to be economically viable.
Another thought, could a gas producer firebox be designed to burn this and provide producer gas for use in a modified diesel or gas turbine? Would this be cost competitive with Diesel fuel for transportation(i.e railroad locomotive) usage? I imagine it wouldn't be TIER 2 compliant................................

The processes are similar, especially when a MHTGCR (Modular High Temprature Gas Cooled Reactor) is involved. Helium being inert is an excellent cooling element, non coorosive and heat friendly. The Germans had the first ones and the Greens got shut down. Gas prices are like the stock market and fluxuate, nuclear has an advantage of being simi-cost specific in its operation, thus a savings in the area of controlable costs.

[Junctionfan]

I just heard from the Ontario Legislator that the municipality of Clarington has installed hydrogen fuel injectors on their buses and has been a great success. They figure that in 9-15 months, it will pay for itself from a great decrease in fuel and maintainance. There is great interest in installing the systems on the ambulances and the Ministry of Transportation is considering on installing them on their own vehicles. This will save Ontario taxpayers money as well as increase the bang for the buck for the municipalities' public transportation budget.

If this could work for the EMD and GE locomotives, this would be very helpful for the environment and would (should) save the railroads a tremendous amount of money as well as help the U.S achieve energy independence.

The company that developed the technology that is used by the Clarington municipality is Canadian. I'll try to find some links and more information if you'd like.

[Junctionfan]

Here is a link for a more accurate description on Ontario's interest in the technology.

http://www.globaltech.ca/news.htm

BTW-I think I might want to get their calender.[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Here is a link for a more accurate description on Ontario's interest in the technology.

http://www.globaltech.ca/news.htm

BTW-I think I might want to get their calender.[:D]

Thanks for the link. Using hydrogen as an adjuct to standard compression ignition engines makes sense, more sense than trying for sole hydrogen powered vehicles via fuel cells. Now, all we need is someone to combine the hydrogen injection technology with the hybrid vehicle concept!

For diesel electric locomotives, you may not even need to have hydrogen on board at the start, just convert the dynamic brakes into regenerative units and use the electricity generated to convert water (from a tank car) into hydrogen. Question: Could hydrogen created on board during transit be safely and efficiently stored on board? via compression or liquification?

[daveklepper]

Regarding the last, I think you will find that straight hybrid use is more efficient with batteries than trying to make Hydrogen. Everything I've read says any kind of semi-efficient (there really isn't anyvery efficient way) of making Hydrogen requires a continuous process, and that simply is not available from regenerative/dymanic braking.

[dldance]

One problem with hydrogen is that the hydrogen molecule is so small that it eventually diffuses through the walls of what ever tank it is held in. Think of how a helium ballon gradually deflates. That diffusion requires hydrogen be held in very heavy walled cylinders. My clients all use liquid hydrogen which is delivered by truck. The light weight of the LH2 truck is about 98% of filled weight.

Thus even though I think the idea of using dynamic braking generated electricity to make hydrogen - the equipment at the present state of the art carries a heavy weight penalty which most likely offsets the energy benefit.

dd

[TH&B]

The easiest way to reduce polutants is to burn cleaner diesel fuel .