6 Ways to Fight Climate Change

[WayneMechEng + 89]

On 5/3/2019 at 10:34 PM, Jan van Eck said:

I don't think you have to go with LNG for locomotives.  Remember in the old days of steam that steam engine pulled a "tender" filled with the consumable fuel, coal, and the consumable water.  You could easily put a CNG tank car behind the locomotive, then yet another one behind that, or three, and hook them up to the engine.  Pulling an empty car is hardly a burden on the RR train. That would save the cost and hassle of going to a liquid state.  Also, remember that a gas-driven diesel still needs a small "starting charge" of diesel to fire it up.  That small charge ignites on the compression, and its fire ignites the gas charge.  Without that, the gas will not ignite on the top of the compression stroke  😊

I love trains and have a model railroad.  However, I have a different view point.

After steam was king, overhead electric was tried by the Great Northern and The Milwaukee Road.  Then diesel was found to be more economical for the long distances covered by western railroads.  Also, water was not needed.  Each time energy is converted from one type to another their is an energy loss.  Third rail electric is efficient in the east where less expensive hydro power is helped by imports from Quebec.

Fuel safety is another issue.  Can LNG or CNG explode like the high vapor pressure (HVP in pipeline codes) Bakkan crude did in the Lac Megantic tradgedy?  (Tank cars were not rated for the lighter HVP crude although lack of braking was the trigger.)

Trump is currently changing the regulation that prevents shipment of LNG by rail in the US.  It is currently acceptable in Canada.

My opinion is that the current diesel electric engines are the most efficient motive power and certainly more efficient per ton mile transported than trucking.  If LNG or CNG were better overall considering safety, the railroads would be the first to convert, as happened with the sad demise of the beautiful steam locomotives.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

16 minutes ago, WayneMechEng said:

If LNG or CNG were better overall considering safety, the railroads would be the first to convert, as happened with the sad demise of the beautiful steam locomotives.

Not quite.  The current US RRs have a huge capital investment in their diesel fleet, plus lots of refuelling infrastructure.  All that is a write-off and becomes a capital loss on their balance sheets if the fleet goes to CNG.  Yes, you can refit a diesel to LNG, but you lose quite a bit of power in the process.  So the more logical approach is to purchase new engines set up specifically for LNG.

LNG is perfectly safe if you store it in a tank car under about 250 psi, if that tank is filled with anhydrous iron oxides.  What happens is that the gas will adsorb  (note that this is adsorb, not absorb) onto the surfaces of the iron filings.  if you puncture the tank and put a live flame to the hole, all you get is a soft hiss and soft flame at the cut point.  You do not, ever, get an explosion.  The gas releases from the filings in a slow fashion as the pressure drops away. At least, that is the case with pure hydrogen gas, and I am assuming that nat gas will follow the same profile. unfortunately you are going to have to pull a number of those tank cars behind the diesels, and operationally that makes the power unit section longer and heavier.  The RRs are likely unwilling to do that. Cheers. 

P.S.  The western RRs could in theory go to electric, using windmill parks as power sources, with the power running both on an overhead and on parallel wires.  The rail track thus becomes the corridor for electric power from the Western windmills to the cities of the Midwest, such as Chicago. It is an intriguing possibility as then, after the capital costs are eaten, the RRs have very cheap motive power plus pick up some coin from the sale of power to urban distributors.  Whether or not anybody will ever go there is anybody's guess. Cheers.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Jan van Eck
added PS

[WayneMechEng + 89]

I need to defer to process engineers for the reasoning on the safety aspects presented.  Regulations need changing to allow the use of natural gas in any form.

Capital investment is needed by the RR's to change locomotive power to electric or otherwise.  And then their source of electricily must be produced with a smaller carbon footprint than at present. 

RR transport is more efficient that trucking.  Spending resourses to investigate  trucking fuel efficiency could result in savings.  But alas, the flexibillity of trucks to deliver directly to big retailers (like Costco) can't be matched by the RR's.  That is why the trucking industry took market share from the RR's starting in the 50's.   (Let's not forget the Eisenhower Interstate System which subsidized highways.)

Diseel fuel has an edge orver gasoline for fuel efficientcy.  Efficientcy is important for the end cost to consumers.

One fact of crude oil fractionation is that light gases, gasoline, diesel, jet fuels, plus tars are products in a run.  Percentages can be tweeked in various ways.  Refinerries would need major modifications to change the proportions of those products.   Reducing the demand for only diesel fuel is problematic economically. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, WayneMechEng said:

I love trains and have a model railroad.  However, I have a different view point.

After steam was king, overhead electric was tried by the Great Northern and The Milwaukee Road.  Then diesel was found to be more economical for the long distances covered by western railroads.  Also, water was not needed.  Each time energy is converted from one type to another their is an energy loss.  Third rail electric is efficient in the east where less expensive hydro power is helped by imports from Quebec.

Fuel safety is another issue.  Can LNG or CNG explode like the high vapor pressure (HVP in pipeline codes) Bakkan crude did in the Lac Megantic tradgedy?  (Tank cars were not rated for the lighter HVP crude although lack of braking was the trigger.)

Trump is currently changing the regulation that prevents shipment of LNG by rail in the US.  It is currently acceptable in Canada.

My opinion is that the current diesel electric engines are the most efficient motive power and certainly more efficient per ton mile transported than trucking.  If LNG or CNG were better overall considering safety, the railroads would be the first to convert, as happened with the sad demise of the beautiful steam locomotives.

In winter large quantities of Kerosene are added to diesel to stop it gelling up so potentially it is ignitable 'with a match' and burn very hot indeed. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 5/4/2019 at 2:25 AM, markslawson said:

Rasmus - I don't disagree with your post and I'm well aware of companies that have four day working weeks and the like, and I'm glad you found some compromise in your life, but it doesn't really change what I said. I gather from your post that you have a full time job and your wife works part time.. that's quite common. You go places on bicycles. That's good but again unless there is serious mass adoption of such practices and not just by the elite (that's you, although you may not realise it) then nothing has changed. For every one of you would there be 100 in Denmark who want to take their holidays in Germany and France and drive there? The problem has never been behaviour of the few but behaviour of the masses. However, it sounds like you have a nice lifestyle. 

Mark,

I agree that lack of mass adoption is the challenge. The point I was trying to make is that it is quite possible to have a satisfying life consuming a little less and a little different. I believe that government should do more to incentivize healthier choices. I know this this a dangerous path to travel, because government should not over-regulate... But it should be possbible to find a balance. 

[WayneMechEng + 89]

On 5/5/2019 at 8:10 PM, Jan van Eck said:

 

On 5/5/2019 at 7:54 PM, WayneMechEng said:

If LNG or CNG were better overall considering safety, the railroads would be the first to convert, as happened with the sad demise of the beautiful steam locomotives.

Not quite.  The current US RRs have a huge capital investment in their diesel fleet, plus lots of refuelling infrastructure.  All that is a write-off and becomes a capital loss on their balance sheets if the fleet goes to CNG.  Yes, you can refit a diesel to LNG, but you lose quite a bit of power in the process.  So the more logical approach is to purchase new engines set up specifically for LNG.

LNG is perfectly safe if you store it in a tank car under about 250 psi, if that tank is filled with anhydrous iron oxides.  What happens is that the gas will adsorb  (note that this is adsorb, not absorb) onto the surfaces of the iron filings.  if you puncture the tank and put a live flame to the hole, all you get is a soft hiss and soft flame at the cut point.  You do not, ever, get an explosion.  The gas releases from the filings in a slow fashion as the pressure drops away. At least, that is the case with pure hydrogen gas, and I am assuming that nat gas will follow the same profile. unfortunately you are going to have to pull a number of those tank cars behind the diesels, and operationally that makes the power unit section longer and heavier.  The RRs are likely unwilling to do that. Cheers. 

 

Good thoughts.  I believe write-offs are still a negative for an economy.  Lost tax revenue at least. I always wondered if the related "restructuring costs" were a tax dodge.  It could take over a decade to change all locomotives.  What small fraction of CO2 is saved?

H2 molecule is very small so forces itself into steel at above around 100 psi partial pressure.  Piping codes warn of hydrogen embrittlement.  There is no similar restriction in piping codes for CH4.  Not safe to assume similar behavior.  I would recommend discussing with a materials engineer.  Still probably safe enough.