Posted on 10/09/2013 7:18:36 AM PDT by thackney
Good point. ;')
I don’t think it one LNG tanks is a greater hazard than everything else being hauled by train.
good point..
The problem with LNG is the need for a cyrogenic system to retain the fuel load without loss to boiling while on standby. The draw on a tank from engines operating reduces the temperature of the liquid stored, just as a propane tank forms ice when using a gas grill. The weight factor is a non-issue for railroad use but a severe problem for a small vehicle. A great deal of research devoted to engineered materials that adsorb hydrogen at low pressure may apply to practical storage of NG for automobile use allowing a range increase. Fuel cells using reformed natural gas would add additional benefits.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/basics.html
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-projects/low-pressure-material-based-natural-gas-fuel-system
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130921-bnl.html#more
“In the United Sates, the National Steam Propulsion Company (NSPC) was formed in 1982 to reintroduce the coal fired steam locomotive back on to the railways of America. The main idea was the use of already existing diesel engine chassis to build the new steam engines. This method would make it easier for the railway to use existing facilities and maintenance operations without having to create too many new specialised processes. This would give the steam locomotive a bigger chance of success through being easily operable on the present railway. The locomotive would use a patented ‘Wormser Fluidised Combustion Boiler’ which would enable boiler pressure capacity in the range of 1000PSI. This boiler would allow the use of even low grade coal with high sulphur content to be burnt and still meet the environmental limits of the time. It was calculated that such a locomotive could give thermal efficiencies of approximately 18%. But with experience, time and more developments this thermal efficiency could be raised to around 27% in the later versions. The prototype of this kind of locomotive which was first made was called the CE-635 and was rated at 3500 horsepower. Effectively these engines would become desirable because they allowed higher savings on costs over their life-cycle as compared to the diesel while at the same reuse of chassis became a suitable way of recycling existing material.”
http://straction.wordpress.com/modern-steam/
That would also lessen wear on the brakes.
Some long years back when I lived in the Boston area, a tank car of a high volatile liquid overturned and caused the evacuation of a rather densely populated suburban area. An LNG explosion would cause that same effect, I think.
Much obliged. Too many Hollywood movies I guess.
That map is for the lng truck market. I know exactly where one of those stations is located, not too far from where I live. Weight to volume for energy density, and for thermal efficiency in an IC engine, diesel wins. It’s the only fuel that can run under a wide air/fuel ratio without overheating, or destroying an engine due to detonation. The only impediment is politics, period!
The most important feature of fuel is cost. That is why there is a continuous growth of LNG as transportation cost. LNG has more energy per unit weight. It is more than politics. It can be a smart business decision for some uses.
Pressure, baby, pressure.
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.
