ARE STEAMERS BETTER, ENVIRONMENTALLY?

To give you an idea where we are going, in front of my house in PA the road carries about 6 wind turbine fan blades a day. 70ft long headed for new wind farms here.

Electricity is probably the way to go, with the maglev principal.

I happen to live about 35 miles from what is know as the largest windfarm in the world, located in Sweetwater, Texas. This place can produce enough electricity to power the Dallas- Fort Worth metroplex and have some left over but the problem is, getting the electricity to them. Due to the power grid not being capable of handling it, it is going to cost in the millions of $'s to get it upgraded.

IMHO, electricity would be a viable option but getting it to the distribution points is another problem.....
 
Cost is no problem. Obama has committed billions to upgrade power to more efficient means, including distribution.

The only businesses that are hiring around here are the wind turbine manufacturers and coal mines.
 
Cost is no problem. Obama has committed billions to upgrade power to more efficient means, including distribution.

The only businesses that are hiring around here are the wind turbine manufacturers and coal mines.


That was the way it was here, until they finished. Now they have "skeleton crews" out there. Laid-off over 300 in the last 4 months.
 
Whatever the verdict is, it doesn't really matter, because all this "environmentally friendly" stuff is just political BS.

Coal is the answer! It burns cleaner than oil, and with more energy, or at least anthracite has more. We have plenty of it to last quite a bit into the future.

For those who say coal is a non-renewable resource, you should know that they made it in a lab in about 20 minutes.
 
To answer the question of of your thread, of course not. They are terrible for the envoirnment. Huge billows of noxious smoke? I'll stick to electric trains thanks.:o

cam

The trains themselves might not make any pollution, but what's making that power? Most of the time it would still be coal. Instead of the trains themselves polluting, you'd have several big sources instead.
 
For those who say coal is a non-renewable resource, you should know that they made it in a lab in about 20 minutes.

Might you want to back this up?

I know that it is in fact possible to produce petroleum from products headed for the landfill. It's called Thermodepolymerization or TDP. Basically, speeding up the natural process of heat and compression.

Cheers,
John
 
The trains themselves might not make any pollution, but what's making that power? Most of the time it would still be coal. Instead of the trains themselves polluting, you'd have several big sources instead.

Touche, but we can still find better ways then steam trains...steam trains were also killed off becuase they were way too difficult and expensive to maintain. Diesel and Electric power fixed that.:cool:

cam
 
Regarding coal resources, most of the coal seams here in PA are only 10% used up. Wifey has a 168 acre farm with 5 coal seams underneath, they have only dug out the opencast ones so far. Plenty left for the next 3-400 years.

Maybe fuel the powerstations with all the tyres off all the clunkers that Obama is scrapping by the million !!!
 
This might be just a tad off topic: But in Shamoken, and Carbon County Pa areas they have found that perviously thought unusable waste (coal slag & shale) is now burnable. Now they have high tech mobile steam generating plants that are incinerating the waste coal piles & trash, and are turning it into steam, and are producing electricity. But it is expensive, and requires super technology to burn this byproduct...and it has no use in steam locomotives.
 
Touche, but we can still find better ways then steam trains...steam trains were also killed off becuase they were way too difficult and expensive to maintain. Diesel and Electric power fixed that.:cool:

cam

Would you care to back up your claim concerning the difficulty and expense in maintaining a steam locomotive? For about the past two years until my move to the U.S., I sometimes worked on an East German class 50.35, a decapod of good size and power. I can honestly say that this locomotive was not very difficult to maintain. Steam locomotives do have certain advantages when it comes to repair and upkeep. Nearly all the moving parts are on the outside making their replacement, lubrication and repair not particularly difficult, unless of course the engine has inside cylinders. Perhaps the most difficult to maintain part of a locomotive is its boiler and the bits on top of it. In the case of a broken regulator shaft for instance, well, that's not something you can repair while the locomotive is heated up. Nevertheless, should a locomotive have a problem, failure or so otherwise mechanical defect that prevents it from running properly, it can almost always limp back to a locomotive yard where the necessary repairs can be carried out.

The most tedious, time-consuming and expensive part of maintaining a steam locomotive is an overhaul. In Germany this is done every 8 years. Back in the day, an overhaul took about two months tops, nowadays it can take over a year (depending on how badly the engine is wanted back by whoever owns it). The current cost for a complete overhaul for a mainline steam locomotive can easily be up to 500,000 Euro, depending on the locomotive and the overhaul shop itself. With this obvious exception - which mind you is also required by diesels and electrics, maintaining a steam locomotive in regular use usually doesn't cost much more than maintaining a comparative diesel or electric. In fact, depending on the build quality and reliability of the locomotive, it could well be cheaper than a diesel or electric. In any case, having worked on a steam locomotive myself, along with some diesel locomotives and railbuses, I can honestly say that I'd much rather work on a steam locomotive. It's simpler, easier, and often less time-consuming.



As to the topic of the environmental friendliness of locomotives, I'll throw in a few words as well. A locomotive is only as environmentally friendly and efficient as the amount of fuel it uses that is actually burned completely. Ever seen an Alco or an older British diesel spewing smoke? That is unburnt fuel and the various chemical resultants of incomplete combustion. Ever seen a steam locomotive with black smoke coming out of the smokestack? That's the result of fuel that isn't completely burnt. Ever seen a steam locomotive running with nothing coming out of the smokestack except pure, white steam, or better still, nothing but heat waves? That locomotive is burning its fuel efficiently and hopefully nearly completely. In all reality, if a locomotive is burning its fuel completely, and I mean completely, then the only chemical resultants should be CO2 (and water vapor, if it's a steam locomotive). Lastly, in this regard, an electric locomotive is only as efficient and environmentally friendly as the power source which electrifies the catenary.


WileeCoyote:D
 
...except that it would come down as acid rain, which could eventualy lead the earth to be like venus, so acidy that nothing can be present there except rocks and dirt...

Sorry, this is Complete Bull. Mother Earth will always Correct itself to Maintain a Balance.

And As for Steam... It is DEFINITELY More Efficient. Please, all, get a good Read of this British Article

Steam_IS_Best_Article_Pt__1_by_steamby51.jpg


Steam_IS_Best_Article_Pt_2_by_steamby51.jpg


Steam_IS_Best_Atcl__Conclusion_by_steamby51.jpg
 
Correction, Mother Earth TRIES to correct the balance.

As to scanning humongus nearly fifty year old newspaper articles and posting them as proof, I read that the Martians landed and now half of the female population are bearing their children :confused:
When you want to prove something make the statement and back it up with proof, like this,
..........................................................................................
Quoted from here ... http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/heinberg_museletter190

The advantages of internal combustion engines are such that a diesel locomotive uses only one-fifth the energy (in kilocalories) that a coal-powered steam engine needs to pull the same train. Moreover, oil-burning systems generally require less attention and burn cleaner than solid-fuel systems, as anyone will attest who grew up with a coal furnace in the basement. As a result, oil and gas generate from 1.3 to 2.45 times the amount of economic value per kilocalorie that coal does.
.....................................................................................

The use of steam locomotives goes a lot further than just the coal, with diesel if the loco is required at 6am the crew will sign on at 5:50am check and start the loco and be ready to go at 6am, with steam someone has to light then tend the fire until it is up to working pressure, can't remember just how many hours it takes but its a lot more than 10min :hehe:
Then there is the transport of the fuel, diesel loco's use a lot less tonnage of fuel per ton/mile than steam, so coal has to be distributed in a lot more places than diesel, a diesel will easily do 500 miles on a tankful, steam can only dream of that distance between fuel stops, so that means more infrastructure and workers to support the steam loco's.

With electric power a lot of people forget (or do not know) the impact that generating that power can have on the environment, nice clean hydro-power, but Hydro means flooding a valley :eek: and what about down river, a lot of rivers have an ecology that depends on regular flooding and/or drying up to survive, but a dam for hydro-power stops this and instead makes a steady flow (for reference google the Murray River in Australia).
Wind and solar power, what about those nice balmy summer nights, no wind, no sun, no power.

In my opinion REPEAT my opinion, nuclear power is the cleanest, safest* practical power that is available at this time.

* yes safest, nuclear power generation has only had two accidents, Long Island with no injuries and Chernobyl, yes a lot of people died and were radiated, but how many people have died in coal mines or by the pollution that burning coal generates, not only that but coal fired power stations release the natural radiation that is in coal, don't believe that one, then find a study of the higher incidence of cancer around coal fired power stations.

Now where did I put that step ladder so I can get of this soapbox :hehe: :hehe:

Cheers David
 
Hmmm - that article may have been something like right at the time, when British locomotive builders were experimenting with many different diesel designs, and steam was a mature technology, but it's simply not true now. The vast majority of the articles arguments are outdated and biased. I'm not surprised you had to go back half a century to find an article supporting your point of view...

Interesting that the author couldn't really fault electric traction either...

Paul
 
Mother Earth will always Correct itself to Maintain a Balance. Yes but that can take a very long time and Mother Earth does not care if Humans are around by then.
 
In my opinion REPEAT my opinion, nuclear power is the cleanest, safest* practical power that is available at this time.

Wrong. If you get a Sewing-Needle sized Pin-hole in the Reactor, In several days, every Person and Every little Critter in a 50 mile radius DIES from Irradiation.

Logically, the Safest and Most Powerful form of Energy is Fusion. They Only Bad thing to it is, we Haven't Harnessed it yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactors
 
Wrong. If you get a Sewing-Needle sized Pin-hole in the Reactor, In several days, every Person and Every little Critter in a 50 mile radius DIES from Irradiation.

Logically, the Safest and Most Powerful form of Energy is Fusion. They Only Bad thing to it is, we Haven't Harnessed it yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactors

First of all, would it not make sense that a nuclear power plant might have several radiation detection systems? Not only that, but all personnel wear badges which are tested to ensure that they do not come in contact with more MilliREM then is safe. Third, if you are so concerned about radiation, you should take a look at MRI and Xray before coming here complaining about nuclear power. Lastly, do you use Wikipedia for your school research? I sure hope not.

Source of my information: taken from several pages of notes taken while listening to an expert in the field of nuclear physics at my own school.

Cheers,
John
 
Back
Top