GEVO question?

[Anonymous]

What Railroads have or are going to purchase the GEVO's from GE? I really like the look and would love to have one for my Train layout but overland is the only model company making them for right now and man are they high in cost.

[M636C]

Will,

The quick answer is "all of them". GE will only build ES44 (AC and DC) from now on. No more Dash9s or AC4400CWs! So any railroad buying new units from GE will get "GEVO" engined units. So you can presume that BNSF, CSX, NS and UP will all get their choice of AC or DC ES44s, as well as anyone else in the market for new freight units.

Peter

[K. P. Harrier]

Model manufacturers resist the EXPENSE incurred in designing and fabricating something new. They just want to sell what they have. But, eventually market demand so often forces the issue …

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

Will,

The quick answer is "all of them". GE will only build ES44 (AC and DC) from now on. No more Dash9s or AC4400CWs! So any railroad buying new units from GE will get "GEVO" engined units. So you can presume that BNSF, CSX, NS and UP will all get their choice of AC or DC ES44s, as well as anyone else in the market for new freight units.

Peter

And you can blame the EPA for all new change now.

[Anonymous]

I take it you'd rather breathe soot? God must have given you teflon-coated lungs.

OS

[oltmannd]

OS-

Does Tier II cover soot? It thought it was only NOx, but I've been out of the loop on this for several years.

Soot is the next great hurdle for diesels.....

[Anonymous]

No. I was using a term of art. I could have said NOx, and it would have been the same result, but its not a substance that has broad public meaning. Soot is more tangible than a gas. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

OS

[Paul Milenkovic]

About blaming the EPA and telling people to breathe soot.

The EPA, I am sure, has done many good things to improve our lives, environment, and general health. And I am sure there are many conscientious scientists advising or working for the EPA on how to contrinue to do this. Some of the things the EPA does is influenced by the science and by not only understanding the ecology of the natural world, also understanding the ecology of the commercial world -- if you restrict a regulated pollutant, you increase unregulated ones. But not all of it.

I read recently that steam electric power plants started the last century at only a few percent efficiency, peaked at 40 percent about mid century, and declined in efficiency since then -- they at least spend 40 years not getting any better, largely because of sulfer dioxide control centered around concerns about acid rain on lakes, streams, and forests.

As it turns out, coal powerplants are probably responsibile for most of the mercury we eat in fish, but mercury wasnt' really on the radar screen in the way sulfer was. People female dog about mercury from coal-fired electric power, but I don't hear of some rail lines being built out West to bring in low-mercury coal -- I hear that the Eastern high-sulfer coal is lower mercury. Besides, if you are worried about global warming, carbon dioxide is another pollutant -- are we willing to release a little more sulfer to boost efficiency to cut back on CO2?

In the automotive area, NOx has been the sticking point, and it is long believed you could boost auto engine gas mileage (reduce need for foreign oil, reduce global warming), if you tolerated a bit more NOx in trade for reduced CO and HC. But no, the EPA regs are standards, and there is no deviation from them.

A recent environmental "range war" is how a certain President is allowing the EPA to give out some waivers to coal power plants to increase their output without having to go through an entire recertification process. Oh the humanity, at a time when electric rates are going up (here in Wisconsin, where we don't have California-style shenanigans) because the much touted natural gas is really getting in short supply, the idea of a little flexibility in environmental regs to get more output out of existing coal plants is regarded as an environmental crime.

OK, about the locomotives. What percentage of the regulated pollutants are attributable to trains and what percentage to trucks and other sources? Trains are generally more energy efficient than trucks (I am sure you can find some counterexample on account of high tare weights being taken over mountains). Suppose out of "fairness" you regulate the train equally as the truck in terms of NOx per HP/hour. You may be imposing costs on the train that drive traffic over to trucks and result in an increased amount of NOs and certainly an increased amount of CO2.

Maybe there is a case for Tier II controls on Diesel trains. Maybe this is a case of overzealous regulation. Would I rather breathe soot? The City of Madison thinks I should, everytime I drive behind a Madison Metro bus or cross a street as a pedestrian behind one. The City of Madison thinks about a lot of things, how residential streets need speed bumps and traffic circles because it cannot otherwise get residents to not drive so fast, it thinks about having its own minimum wage which is scheduled to ramp up to a healthy differential to Wisconsin and Federal, but it thinks breathing bus soot is just fine -- it could purchase propane buses if there was a question.

Do I like breathing soot? Do I have Teflon lungs? No, but the buses serve a societal function that is traded off against a minor and perhaps difficult-to-quantify effect on health. The traffic restrictor serve a social function, and as to the minumum wage thing, we will see what happens.