Odd topic of the day: Return to steam possible?

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

So my wife and I entered a rather long and protracted debate about the lack of oil and the future of cars last night.

This is what we came to as a conclusion: The days of cheap petro is over. With China’s industrialization, and entrance into the modern world, the oil demand will always exceed supply. If we continue to pump oil at the current rate, mathematical forcast predict that in 10 years, gas will be ~$15.00-$18.00/gallon (based on todays prices, not including predicted inflation)

Then we started to think about alternative energy sources.

Batteries don’t have much energy life, take a long time to recharge, contain toxic chemicals, and have a finite life expectancy before they have to be replaced.

Fuel cells are delicate, and the hydrogen to power them takes up more space than gasoline, and is a lot more dangerous to store.

There really isn’t enough farm land to supply every vehicle for alternative fuel substitutes (ie: bio-diesal) from common crops like soy.

So what does this have to do with the return of steam trains? Following the predictions of fuel cost, transportation cost using diesel engines would skyrocket for both trucks and diesel engines. Could coal fed steam be the logical alternative?

While not as cheap as diesal trains by a long shot today, what about 10 years from now when that diesel does cost $15/gallon?

There are plenty of boiler fed cargo ships still around today. So it is still somewhat a viable option cost wise to operate this way.

I’m not saying that it IS going to happen. Just an interesting “what could” happen.

I usually sit in the MRR forums, but I thought this topic of better interest here.

2

Nice as it might be to dream about this, it ain’t gonna happen, Infrastructure, maintenance, and manpower are still going to be a problem, just as they were 60 years ago (not to mention the EPA having a collective coronary). Besides, if oil prices rise that much, coal will suddenly become more popular and ITS price will go up too. What will likely happen is: electrification (even with ITS infrastructure costs), and coal gasification (which we should probably have been pursuing anyway).
Maybe we’ll get our heads out of the sand and do something with electricity from NUCLEAR (horrors!). We need to realize there’s only SO MUCH fossil stuff to burn…

3

Fuel cell technology is not 100% dependant upon using hydrogen for fuel,…in fact there are municipal utioities coupled to city sewage plants that burn methane liberated from the solids.

The biggest problem with the idea of using fuel cells for transportation is that in order for the maximum efficiency of the cycle to be exploited, you have to use the heat produced efficiently in addition to the use of the electricity produced… Last I checked, which was 3 years ago, the energy output of most conventional fuel cells was 40% electricity, and 60% heat.

So, PERHAPS a steam fuel cell hybrid might make sense (some day) with the heat by product used to create steam to run turbine generators?

4

Don:
You haven’t looked too closely at those boiler-fed cargo ships. They are still oil fired, just like your Union Pacific Challengers and Big Boys.
Coal can be converted to fuel that can be used by diesels and possibly gasoline engines, but it is expensive to produce. When the cost of refined crude oil reaches a point where it relatively less expensive to refine coal rather than crude oil, then the cross-over will occur. A synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel can be distributed from the same infrastructure. Converting to gaseous fuels, like hydrogen or propane, requires the construction of an entirely different type distribution infrastructure along with installation of a high pressure, different type of fuel tank on the vehicles using these fuels.
Boiler systems, regardless of the fuel used to fire them, have a distinct disadvantage over internal combustion engines. They cannot be quickly shut down or started up from a dead cold start. This is why the steam powered automobiles virtually disappeared at the start of the 20th century once the electric starter was invented.
Also, a blown internal combustion engine is generally an inconvenience. A blown boiler usually results in fatalities and damage to surrounding structures in addition to the room or vehicle carrying the boiler.

5

Most sorry to take exception to your post but I worked in the steamship industry for many, many years. What you posted about the ships is incorrect as the steamship lines for many years have built & operated “motor” vessels. The type of steamship you rrefer to in your post like the steam engine is long gone as a means of transporation. [:p][:D][:)]

[quote]
Originally posted by DigitalGriffin

6

Steam will come back as soon as pigs learn to fly.

7

Based on the numerous threads that have discussed this topic in the past year, the answer to the question is a resounding “No.”

8

Conversion of coal->oil requires a special type of oil laden shale. It also requires a special refinary to which there is only one I know of in California.

The question becomes: Would conversion of coal->oil->diesel->power as efficient as coal->power cost wise? (even with additional crew and water towers)

Electric power is fine for local rides and passenger trains. But I don’t think it would work for long distance cargo hauls across mountains and deserts where a constant supply of MEGAWATTS is necessary.

I don’t think steam will come back as we knew it. Steam would come back as a more modern version with increased efficiency and lower pollution.

Is startup/shutdown times for trains really an issue? The last of the old stanley steamers had flash point boilers that produced steam in < 2 minutes. This was way before the end of steam. I imagine using battery power drivers or electric rail pickup wouldn’t be out of the question until the boiler gets up to steam.

In the last days of C&O steam they experimented with steam powered turbines to generate electricity. It was a massive failure mostly because they couldn’t make the turbines efficient enough.

Improvements in coal burning technology has advanced considerably since the 40’s. Look at how much the efficiency of coal burning power plants has increased since then. Precrushing coal, drying coal, and increasing the efficiency of turbine design leds to dramatic increases in power output from the same coal.

So what are the other negatives? Just food for thought guys. Like I said before, “I’m not saying it will happen. It just may happen.”

Anybody here a thermodynamic or plant systems engineer? Exactly how much energy can we extract from a pound of coal?

~Don

9

It’d be a nice idea, but it ain’t gonna happen. Only real cost effective fuel for a steam locomotive would be coal. And a coal burning steam engine won’t be happening anytime soon. Mainly, you have the EPA and the environmental groups to deal with, and they’ve got our country in a stranglehold. Even if the EPA would by some miracle approve it, the environmental groups would challenge the ruling in court and get it overturned eventually.

10

Conversion of coal->oil requires a special type of oil laden shale. It also requires a special refinary to which there is only one I know of in California.

IIRC there are a couple in Canada.

The question becomes: Would conversion of coal->oil->diesel->power as efficient as coal->power cost wise? (even with additional crew and water towers)

NO

Electric power is fine for local rides and passenger trains. But I don’t think it would work for long distance cargo hauls across mountains and deserts where a constant supply of MEGAWATTS is necessary.

Not really, with modern switching gear and a decent power dispatch system like most of the major utilities have this would not be a problem. You could get more out of what you have.

Improvements in coal burning technology has advanced considerably since the 40’s. Look at how much the efficiency of coal burning power plants has increased since then. Precrushing coal, drying coal, and increasing the efficiency of turbine design leds to dramatic increases in power output from the same coal.

Yes, but the equipment to do this takes up quite a bit a space, something a power plant has plenty of while an engine does not.

11

So what are you going to do when you have a loaded consist going down a mountain and you loose your juice? [:0]

12

It’s not the steam but the fuel used to generate it that is the issue up here in the Adirondacks. After many hundreds of thousands of acres burnt in the early 1900s largely due to locomotives, it’s unlikely the Park Agency would ever let a wood or coal fired locomotive in area again.

Wayne

13

Put the brakes on if need be. Air brakes are a mechanical system and require no juice.

14

It maybe"a mechanical system" but doesn’t something have to generate the air?
Gasoline,oil,diesel,electric,Wind Power ?

C & O,N & W, Pennsy all tried for ‘steam-turbine-electrics’;
didn’t work at that time,not sure it would work now.

15

Once you have your pressure up, if the power goes off, all you need to do is put the brakes on. With the positive pressure system, when you let the air out, the brakes go on. Then when power is restored, you just pump the brakes off.

16

Still need a supply of some kind to get the air pressure there.

17

What’s the issue with the air? Westinghouse got his patent for air brakes around 1870. It’s not like one would have to reinvent the wheel.

Wayne

18

Jeez, what is this?

You don’t need “special” anything to perform coal gasification and fuel synthesis. Not particularly new concept (cf. Fischer-Tropsch), but of course much innovation and use of modern technology and methods. The only thing holding the technology back was low fossil-oil supply cost. Note the historical record of SASOL (in South Africa).

There was quite a bit of interesting behind-the-scenes activity in gasification/synthesis over the past four or five years – and yes, you can expect effective plant capitalization, construction, and operation with great speed once oil prices reach critical levels – the working “number” for diesel being somewhere around $2.40 per gallon exclusive of road tax.

Short, crisp answer: do NOT expect the price of fuel to climb much beyond that level, pretty well regardless of what happens in China, Europe, etc.

Breakeven economics for appropriate-scale biodiesel with necessary additives/structuring is in the same general ballpark.

Now, it would be possible to develop a locomotive fuel for external combustion that is less refined than typical locomotive diesel. But when you factor in the additional capital and maintenance costs for a separate family of motive power, the ‘savings’ don’t look quite so good. (I think the UP experience with “heavy oil” locomotives in the '50s would repeat in that scenario – let alone experience with more exotic forms of prime mover.) There’s also the issue of cumulative markets for the synfuel. Diesel is also used in trucks and automobiles… and home-heating furnaces with a different additive/structure mix. You’d have to do marketing, coordinated development, etc. for fuels “other than diesel” – not impossible, just extremely, extremely unlikely.

One other small note: Hydrogen is imho best utilized as an agent to perform gasification/synthesis, at or near the point where the hydrogen is generated. (There’s a variety of reasons for this.) It’s a

19

“Conversion of coal->oil requires a special type of oil laden shale. It also requires a special refinary to which there is only one I know of in California.”

That is not correct.

Any type of coal or coal related product (mining waste, slate, shale) can be easily converted into synthetic diesel. The Germans did it in WW2 for fuel for their tanks.

Like Overmod said, the only thing that has prevented it in the past was the break even point.