A way to keep coal trains rolling?
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-06/features/clean-coal-technology/
This process is very similar to that developed by Porta for steam railroad engines and was intended for the ACE project. It’s called a gas producer combustion system. Very low emissions…lower than a comparible diesel based on road tests completed in Germany. Thanks for the post…
GPCS link:
What is the role of the steam being injected into the bottom of the firebed in a GPSC?
Getting the chance to peruse articles such as these leaves me and others in the energy biz in a bittersweet funk. On the one hand, it’s great when state-of-the-art technologies such as IGCC are explained in laymen’s terms that the general public can understand. Such education is paramount if our nation is going to achieve a realistic energy policy. On the other hand, for publications/websites such as Discover to continue to empower the blatant lie of “CO2 = global warming” only serves to drive the stake of ignorance deeper into the nation’s collective POV’s.
Let us make this perfectly clear: Neither increasing atmospheric CO2 nor decreasing atmospheric CO2 (via actionable anthropogenic events) will have any appreciable affect on the earth’s climate one way or the other.
The only credible science-based “cause and effect” scenario involving CO2 and global warming is this: Global warming causes an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, including CO2 - this is irrefutable.
And yes, increasing the consumption of coal will aid railroads.
So now Dave is claiming to be a Climatic Scientist. But he’s made it “perfectly clear” that his “data” is “irrefutable.” Which in plain English means he’s made up his mind, don’t confuse him with the facts. [:D]
Tom
I think Dave’s data/opinion is just as valid as the “Leading Climatic Scientists” that get published or quoted on news programs. Not one of those “experts” has convinced me that humans are at fault for current warming trend. I emphasize, TREND.
Bob, while I happen to have a fairly dim view of man-made global warming (and therefore agree with you on the issue), I have a counter-question:
If I read up on the various locomotive types, is my opinion of them to be held with the same weight as those of engineers who actually work in them day after day?
Yes and let’s not forget that it is the so-called experts who are putting forth their official position that the debate is over and they have won.
On another forum, I had somebody try to tell me that the scientific definition of the word, theory, is different than the dictionary definition. Regarding the scientific definition, he said this:
“This is not some made up definition. And the problem with your definition is that you separate facts and theory, they are not mutually exclusive, and the dictionary definition is not the same as the scientific definition. A theory is an explanation of phenomena that is based on facts seen in computer models, logical expressions, confirmed hypotheses, experiments, etc. Fact and theory aren’t separate in any way. Moreover, all scientific theories must be falsifiable, or they’re not theories at all. You have to understand that theory in colloquial terms and theory in scientific terms are different.”
So I guess that the theory of MMGW must be falsifiable, but until it is, it must be accepted as fact. How convenient. No wonder they think they have won the debate.
You mentioned the unmentionable off topic thread…the death ray is being aimed as I speak. If you want to be off topic for pages and pages…I suspect there is another safer… less apparent thread for that… Global warming is too fraught with “controversy,” although it’s screamingly apparent that railroads depend on it and it’s future profitability / market share hangs in the balance…as a bulk commodity carrier…or motive power choices or rail technology or passenger rail…or historic steam or…or_________(fill in the blank).
DF My debating skills are poor. My reply to your question is this.
I drive a Dodge pickup everyday. I am an expert in this field because this is my third Dodge after owning a Chevy and a Ford in my youth. But if I convince CNN and ABC news that the Ford/Chevy/Dodge debate is over because I have spoken, then even Stevie Wonder can see that something is wrong here.
Most climatologists do not think that the debate is over. There are a few outspoken ones that seem to have a political agenda and get most of the press.
I would venture to say that my opinion on the matter of global warming, and probably yours and futuremodal’s too, comes from information that is published (on the net or otherwise) by climatologists that have differing points of view. In other words, I have not done my own research on the matter, and I am merely picking and choosing the information that happens to suit me best, regardless of what the press is reporting.
Data. You make an excellent point. And I do listen to both sides of the issue. I have a new source. I bought a HDTV and signed up DISH network. They have a HD channel called
EquatorHD with “Greenie” programming and spectacular scenery. They did a show called “Shining Mountains” that has a segment about the CP over the Rockies. An excursion train behind steam was featured.
Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong…
- David Bowie
Two things for Major Tom here:
-
There is no such thing as a “Climatic Scientist”. Try “Climate Scientist”, and no I don’t claim nor ever have claimed to be one.
-
The fact that a warming global surface temperature causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 is basic Scien
[quote user=“futuremodal”]
Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong…
- David Bowie
Two things for Major Tom here:
-
There is no such thing as a “Climatic Scientist”. Try “Climate Scientist”, and no I don’t claim nor ever have claimed to be one.
-
The fact that a warming global surface temperature causes an increase in atmo
Just thought it’s neat that this scrubber technology could economically remove problematic stuff from the stack caused by burning “home-squeezed vegetation”, keep us in electricity, and allow us to continue to watch trains. [:)]
As usual, another topic de-railed while a few argue semantics. Wake me when we’re back on-topic.[zzz]
150 new coal plants on the books. It does not appear we will be experiencing a flood of computers running off blueberries soon.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6881347
STEAM COULD POWER FUTURE CARS
Engineers of IAV Gmbh, Berlin, Germany, presented a paper at the Society of Automotive Engineers’ Conference in Detroit outlining the company’s tests of a new steam engine that produces power with minimal pollution. The engine generates steam by using a porous burner-a block with holes that burns without an open flame. The burner uses natural gas, gasoline or other fuels and can be made in different shapes. IAV engineers used the burner to build a one-liter, three-cylinder steam engine that generates 67 horsepower, 221 lb-ft of torque and gets about 40 miles to the gallon. The engine’s emissions fall well below strictest U.S. standards without using a catalytic converter. The company hopes to place the steam engine in a vehicle within the next few years after it solves problems associated with the process.
Natural Gas Steam Engine
One thing I had assumed (along with many energy experts) was that Eastern Coal would become the preferable feedstock for IGCC plants over PRB coal. Eastern coal has higher BTU’s per ton, but also has higher sulfer content, which is why low-sulfer PRB coal was the coal of choice the last few decades for PC plants. However, gasification removes the sulfer before combustion, so one would logically conclude that Eastern coals would regain their prominence over PRB coals. This in turn would be a major blow to the PRB railroads who have made a mint (and staved off bankruptcy) by hauling Wyoming coal to East Coast power plants.
However, some think that gasification will also favor PRB coals over Eastern coals…
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/03/02/news/wyoming/35-coal.prt
If so, then UP and BNSF (and hopefully, DM&E…somehow…someway…) will stand to gain from a large scale implementation of IGCC plants across the nation.
The story behind IGCC is that you convert coal to a hydrogen-carbon monoxide gas mixture. My parents come from an era and a land where your gas stove used that kind of coal-derived fuel and hence the lore about how toxic that gas was (from the CO) and about people killing themselves that way. With natural gas, the explosive power to human toxicity has been so shifted in the other direction that if you try to end it all with gas, you will end up leveling your neighborhood long before you poison yourself.
Anyway, the idea is that if you convert the coal to gas first 1) the gas is easier to scrub of pollutants than the exhaust from coal combustion in air because of the nitrogen dillution effect, and 2) you can burn the gas in a high efficiency gas turbine followed by a steam-driven waste heat recovery cycle. Yes, it is the idea behind Porta’s gas producer combustion system, complete with water or steam injection, although Porta’s locomotives didn’t have the elaborate scrubbers that the stationary power plant can install. As to the water injection or the oxygen injection, there is probably some optimal combination of coal and these other substances to produce the gas, which is later burned in the gas turbines, but the article is a little sketchy about the exact chemical reactions.
The other story behind IGCC is that electric power utilities are continuing to build coal-fired power plants, and most of them are not IGCC’s but are the conventional coal-fired steam power plants. Electric power utilities are like railroad operating people who don’t want that new-fangled piece of equipment on their division and would like someone else to get the experience finding out whether it works or not. IGCC’s are the truck-engined based DMU’s of electric power generation when everyone else is convinced that heavy, energy consuming locomotives using submarine engines are the way to go. While IGCC’s are still coal fired, if more of them were built
Speaking of layman terms, a hole in the ozone layer makes the earth warm? So if I cut a hole in the roof of my house I can turn off the gas, right?