A way to reduce oil usage.

Trains Magazine General Discussion
21

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 availab

22

[quote]
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, cle

23

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.

24

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.

25

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…

26

…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.

27

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

28

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.

29

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.

30

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

31

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?

32

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]

33

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 he

34

The best way to reduce oil usage is get rid of the trucks and airplains and let it be just rail.

35

would be nice…but thats a pipe dream brother
csx engineer

36

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.

37

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

38

Don’t forget about the green goat, it’s a hybrid switcher ready to roll!

39

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.

40

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…