Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[Datafever]

Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.

 

Advantage - Steam!

Synthetic coal?

The Democracy Now website considers synthetic coal to be a taxpayer ripoff.  Here's what they say -

Here’s how it works: A synthetic coal company buys raw coal. Under IRS rules, the chemical composition of the coal must be changed to qualify it as synthetic fuel. At the synthetic fuel plant that change often consists of spraying diesel fuel or pine tar onto the coal. The company then sells the coal to a user such as a power plant and then claims huge tax credits for manufacturing a synthetic fuel.

The problem is that to qualify for the tax credits, the maker of this so-called “synfuel” don’t have to prove that they are making a better kind of coal, one that burns more efficiently or offers any other benefit. By IRS ruling, they need only to modify the chemical composition of coal.

 

[Anonymous]

Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.

 

Advantage - Steam!

Synthetic coal?

The Democracy Now website considers synthetic coal to be a taxpayer ripoff.  Here's what they say -

Here’s how it works: A synthetic coal company buys raw coal. Under IRS rules, the chemical composition of the coal must be changed to qualify it as synthetic fuel. At the synthetic fuel plant that change often consists of spraying diesel fuel or pine tar onto the coal. The company then sells the coal to a user such as a power plant and then claims huge tax credits for manufacturing a synthetic fuel.

The problem is that to qualify for the tax credits, the maker of this so-called “synfuel” don’t have to prove that they are making a better kind of coal, one that burns more efficiently or offers any other benefit. By IRS ruling, they need only to modify the chemical composition of coal.

Democracy Now?!

Where do you find these wacko groups?

The IRS does not allow simply cosmetic alterations of coal to permit the tax credit, and those that abused the credit are under scrutiny:

http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/press.nsf/pages/861

Real synthetic coal has to be significantly altered from it's ROM state.  The synthetic coals to which I refer (Kfuel http://www.kfx.com/commdevelop.html , Carbonxt http://www.carbonext.com/ ) have moisture content around 6% or less, have had most ash removed, and also have much of the metalic elements removed as well, leaving a product that is mostly volatile carbon.

The point is, for steam locomotive applications, you'd be able to fit a lot more burnable product in the tender using real synthetic coals because you've removed most of the water content and ash, both of which would take up weight and space when using ROM coal.

[Datafever]

Democracy Now?!

Where do you find these wacko groups?

The IRS does not allow simply cosmetic alterations of coal to permit the tax credit, and those that abused the credit are under scrutiny:

http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/press.nsf/pages/861

Real synthetic coal has to be significantly altered from it's ROM state.  The synthetic coals to which I refer (Kfuel http://www.kfx.com/commdevelop.html , Carbonxt http://www.carbonext.com/ ) have moisture content around 6% or less, have had most ash removed, and also have much of the metalic elements removed as well, leaving a product that is mostly volatile carbon.

The point is, for steam locomotive applications, you'd be able to fit a lot more burnable product in the tender using real synthetic coals because you've removed most of the water content and ash, both of which would take up weight and space when using ROM coal.

I'm glad that you found that humorous, futuremodal.  I always find that the liberal press is more interesting to read than the conservative press.  

I noticed from the carbonxt website that they claim that their product is poised to compete with natural gas and raw coal.  They make no mention of it, but may I presume that they are receiving the $27/ton government subsidy on synthetic coal to accomplish that? 

[Anonymous]

Democracy Now?!

Where do you find these wacko groups?

The IRS does not allow simply cosmetic alterations of coal to permit the tax credit, and those that abused the credit are under scrutiny:

http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/press.nsf/pages/861

Real synthetic coal has to be significantly altered from it's ROM state.  The synthetic coals to which I refer (Kfuel http://www.kfx.com/commdevelop.html , Carbonxt http://www.carbonext.com/ ) have moisture content around 6% or less, have had most ash removed, and also have much of the metalic elements removed as well, leaving a product that is mostly volatile carbon.

The point is, for steam locomotive applications, you'd be able to fit a lot more burnable product in the tender using real synthetic coals because you've removed most of the water content and ash, both of which would take up weight and space when using ROM coal.

I'm glad that you found that humorous, futuremodal.  I always find that the liberal press is more interesting to read than the conservative press.  

I noticed from the carbonxt website that they claim that their product is poised to compete with natural gas and raw coal.  They make no mention of it, but may I presume that they are receiving the $27/ton government subsidy on synthetic coal to accomplish that? 

If I was an investor in their product, I would certainly hope that they take advantage of ever tax break they can get.

[carnej1]

  A return to Steam traction is so exceedingly unlikely that debating it seems rather pointless. As far as using coal as a locomotive fuel it does seem that there is serious interest in developing coal to liquids technology i.e  the Fischer-Tropsch process. South Africa has long produced the majority of it's domestic diesel fuel using this method. It's a mature technology having been used extensively by the Germans during the second world war.

  As far as other locomotive uses of coal, a Diesel adapted to burn Natural Gas can also use coal derived producer gas (at reduced power output due to the lower caloric value). I guess if Railpower are able to succesfully build and market the Compressed Integrated Natural Gas (turbine) Locomotive detailed on their website it too could use producer gas. There have been a couple of proposals over the years to develop coal gassification units to act as "tenders" to modified diesel locomotives so it is probably technically feasible (though IMHO unlikely). Maybe bulk gassification with compressed or liquefied fuel tenders would be more practical.

 And of course coal can be used as power plant fuel to generate electricity to power electric locomotives if it's is economical to string up catenary....

 

[vsmith]

[TH&B]

Steam locomotives will never return. It was always clear that the electric traction motor was superior as soon as it was invented. It was just a matter of producing the electricity on board to get away from the overhead wire. You could have a steam generated turbine locomotive I suppose, but what would be the advantage?

[vsmith]

[Datafever]

Vsmith,

I'm not sure what the problem is, but all of your pictures are showing up as broken-image icons for me. 

[vsmith]

Vsmith,

I'm not sure what the problem is, but all of your pictures are showing up as broken-image icons for me. 

[Datafever]

Ah, now for some reason, your "pictures" are all being displayed.  And I'm kind of sorry that I mentioned anything.

[Anonymous]

We see that companies have turned to dieselization becuase:

Lower costs

Better fuel effeciency

MU

other stuff.

In the end steam lost out. But lets bring up the topic if we brought back steam today and applied new steam technologies to it. For instance, (hypotheticly) we have fuel thats clean, we use an engine like a 4-8-4 and itd desingned to produce more steam than it needs. The extra steam in turn goes to the tender and powers a (insert number here) hp engine wich helps it with taking off. This advantage giving the locomotive extra help when needed; this making the engine a good passenger/freight locomotive and the horsepower and efficiency is being used to its full potetnial. And if we can fuse atoms together we can certainetly make a comforitable cab for steam locomotives. 

I see us using steam for long haul runs and diesels for fast freight and yard service and inerurban areas. This is just my thinking. This theory is completely possible. It may be practical. But in the end Im just 14. Im not an experienced railroader.

[Anonymous]

and yes i do agree, seing a coal steam locomotive in practical service again is unlikely.

[wsherrick]

I thought that this might be interesting to be brought up for those who haven't read it and to add to the current discussion concerning modern steam.

[R. T. POTEET]

Now I'm not about ready to wade through 36 pages of responses going back almost a year and a half so if this subject has been touched upon here I am sorry for the repetition.

Following the 1973 Ay-rab oil embargo a group of speculators - I believe the eminent Doyle McCormack was one of these - founded a company with the lofty title American Coal Enterprises with the equally lofty avowed purpose of using modern technology to bring back the steam engine in all of its radiant glory! ACE was going to utilize micro-computer technology to control the fuel-water consumption criteria of a truly modern steam locomotive. They even advanced a design for their first reincarnated steam locomotive. It was - are you sitting down for this? - going to be a cab-forward 4-8-2 with the cab in cab-forward looking suspiciously like the nose of a diesel, particularly a DDA40X diesel. This 4-8-2 would have a condenser in the tender for the purpose of recapturing steam to avoid the necessity of in-transit water stops a la South African Railways crossing the Great Karoo. A microprocessor would make microdecisions and carefully meter water and fuel into the boiler to maximize combustion.

ACE leased C&O 614, hitched up some sort of a dynamometer car, and ran a series of tests in order to test out a few theories - the results were, I understand, relatively impressive. However 614 drew more attention from railfans than from potential investors and when the price of oil dropped from $33.00 to $27.00 a bbl the aspirations of ACE hit the floor with a mighty thud. Oil is now approximately four times what it was in the 1970s but it is still considerably cheaper than coal.

We may well see the development of electrification in areas where it could prove itself to be economical but I'm afraid that the diesel is here to stay and the steam engine is going to remain on the trash heap of history. Lest one think that it is unique in this aspect for fifty years there have been advocates fostering the idea of a return to sail power on the high seas. Next time you take that inter-island cruise out of Honolulu look up and listen to that canvas flapping in the breeze.

[wsherrick]

I can't see into the future as well as others, perhaps it's because my crystal ball is at the cleaners.

[MichaelSol]

Oil is now approximately four times what it was in the 1970s but it is still considerably cheaper than coal.

WOW!

That certainly explains the coal-fired generating plants.

I would appreciate seeing your numbers on that one. I invite your contribution.

[R. T. POTEET]

That certainly explains the coal-fired generating plants.

It really does when you think about this salient point; when the railroads - Uncle John, the Onion Specific, among others - converted their steamers from coal to oil and back and back and back it was not too much of an undertaking because labor was relatively cheap and the units could be sidelined while the work was done. You don't just start pouring oil into a combustion chamber overnight; try sidelining a coal-fired generating plant some time! A lot of these plants continue using coal because the expense of conversion exceeds the value to be gained from the conversion itself.

I used a bad example because my statement regarding the relative prices of coal and oil may not be valid in a $100.00 plus per bbl economy and there is no prediction that it is ever going to go down. In addition to that look at what the increased use of ethanol has done to the price of corn for instance. If you are a corn farmer you are overjoyed by ethanol; if your favorite Saturday evening snack is corn-on-the-cob you are not very likely to enjoy the corn farmers blessings; you are going to have to grease the palm of the corn farmer in order to get him to sell to the food commodity marketplace instead of to the energy companies. The country is capable of importing only so much oil and the conversion of coal-fired generating plants to oil is only likely to cause a shortage and subsequent bidding war for that commodity.

[MichaelSol]

I used a bad example because my statement regarding the relative prices of coal and oil may not be valid in a $100.00 plus per bbl economy and there is no prediction that it is ever going to go down. 

At current prices, at 12% efficiency, the adjusted cost per useful 100,000 BTU's of mineral coal would be $1.52 coal vs. $8.21 diesel fuel at 32% efficiency. The prices are, and have been for quite some time, far apart and getting farther ...