Not for everywhere, but much of long-haul trucking is getting coverage.
Posted on 10/09/2013 7:18:36 AM PDT by thackney
Maybe a small diameter natural gas line could be run along the tracks with mini gas transfer valves every 100 feet. With computers involved, mini refills could complete in a millisecond. It could even work for trucks and cars on the highway.
You try it first.
Fuels other than diesel are very problematic. Some years ago they tried locomotives fueled with gasoline. They gave off so much heat they looked like a volcano. I saw a great picture of one that parked under a concrete bridge and melted it.
However, the zinger about diesel engines is that, the hotter they get, the more efficient they get. Diesel semi trucks used to have the problem of “running away”, in which just a tiny amount of residual fuel reacted with extremely hot air resulting in the engine running out of control. It was running almost entirely on heated air.
In turn this points to a possibility for an advanced diesel engine. If the engine is made from advanced ceramics, that can handle much hotter temperatures than steel, and are otherwise harder than steel, you might be able to create a “controlled” run-away engine, vastly more efficient.
All you had to do was mention BNSF, and anything involved is warren buffett trying corner a market, and and using his government pull to destroy any competition. Union Pacific has NG powered locomotive for some time now. The reason for not using LNG for road locomotives is problems with fueling stops. Diesel fuel is stable, easy to transport, has simple storage and handling requirements, and has high energy density. Whenever you hear of an EPA mandate, think of it as simple economic warfare, and the party that buys the most government influence, wins. Buffett’s bnsf just won a huge contract to haul oil from wyoming, and his boy barry played a big part in that by not allowing a certain pipeline to be built.
LNG is natural gas, taken to pure methane, then chilled to -260°F. To use it in an engine or burner, they then heat it up, back to a vapor.
Use natural gas. It is the same thing with out the expensive, chilling and thawing steps.
This isn't just my opinion, although I have worked on LNG fueling station for buses before.
LNG HAS A PROVEN SAFETY RECORD
http://www.lngfacts.org/about-lng/safetysecurity/
Not for everywhere, but much of long-haul trucking is getting coverage.
Thats the problem, I live in a rural area that does not have natural gas lines. The choices are wood, pellets, elect, propane, oil.
Well, the heating system exist. Just a plain Natural Gas furnace.
Your problem (cost) will be the storage, refrigeration and vaporization system, along with the delivery.
Essentially, the development of steam locomotive technology ended in the 1950s. Such an idea may or may not be feasible today but because of the greens no one will ever even consider it.
How is that trucks can use LNG but residential furnaces can’t?
Thank you.
A residential furnace could us it, if you set up the same fuel tank and vaporization system on the trucks.
One of the problems is the down time of your furnace. A vehicle tank is designed to insulate and contain the rising pressure from heat for 5 days. As long as they are running before then, no problems and no venting.
Fracking may have changed that and separated the price of natural gas from oil so that even as oil prices climb the price of natural gas may not. So now seems to be the time to pursue the idea.
Would probably require some sort of auxiliary power to accelerate from a stop, though.
That’s why all the stops would have to be rebuilt
on grades.
And the move to ethanol was a good one when corn was cheap.
Yep, but now the government is trying to prop the industry up with subsidies. If they would stop that it might make the move to LNG or CNG even more practical.
Sadly, the government will never let it happen, but with all of the coal reserves we have, and power plants converting to natural gas the price of coal would be set to drop compared to diesel again. Steam locomotives were often running at high speed with passenger trains like the Hiawatha (speedometer topped out at 120 engineers often had it on the peg) and could not possibly be more expensive than some of the high speed boondoggles proposed. Well, that's my fantasy anyways.
Would be a BIG boom if it derails :/
Trains routinely transport LNG tank cars, as well as transporting gasoline and other flammables. How is it more dangerous to use LNG rather than just transport it?
BTW, here's what it would look like:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.