Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Natural Gas Locomotives May Prove Cheaper, Cleaner
AP via ABC News ^ | January 23, 2014 | JOSH FUNK

Posted on 01/27/2014 5:08:39 AM PST by thackney

The diesel-burning locomotive, the workhorse of American railroads since World War II, will soon begin burning natural gas — a potentially historic shift that could cut fuel costs, reduce pollution and strengthen the advantage railroads hold over trucks in long-haul shipping.

Rail companies want to take advantage of booming natural gas production that has cut the price of the fuel by as much as 50 percent. So they are preparing to experiment with redesigned engines capable of burning both diesel and liquefied natural gas.

Natural gas "may revolutionize the industry much like the transition from steam to diesel," said Jessica Taylor, a spokeswoman for General Electric's locomotive division, one of several companies that will test new natural gas equipment later this year.

Any changes are sure to happen slowly. A full-scale shift to natural gas would require expensive new infrastructure across the nation's 140,000-mile freight-rail system, including scores of fueling stations.

The change has been made possible by hydraulic fracturing drilling techniques, which have allowed U.S. drillers to tap into vast deposits of natural gas. The boom has created such abundance that prices dropped to an average of $3.73 per million British thermal units last year — less than one-third of their 2008 peak.

Over the past couple of years, cheap gas has inspired many utilities to turn away from coal, a move that hurt railroads' profits. And natural gas is becoming more widely used in transportation. More than 100,000 buses, trucks and other vehicles already run on it, although that figure represents only about 3 percent of the transportation sector.

The savings could be considerable. The nation's biggest freight railroad, Union Pacific, spent more than $3.6 billion on fuel in 2012, about a quarter of total expenses.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; lng; naturalgas; trains
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 01/27/2014 5:08:39 AM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

Why liquified? Compressed NG works well and there is plenty of room for storage even on an adjacent car.


2 posted on 01/27/2014 5:15:01 AM PST by HChampagne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HChampagne

Because CNG requires not only more space, but heavier cars to contain the pressure. More mass required to be moved to provide the same fuel.


3 posted on 01/27/2014 5:19:22 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HChampagne

More info at:

Natural gas fuels:
CNG and LNG
http://www.agilityfuelsystems.com/why-natural-gas/lng-vs-cng.html


4 posted on 01/27/2014 5:22:22 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HChampagne

Volumetric (Vehicle range) reasons. Compressed natural gas is still 1000 times the volume of it’s liquid counterpart.


5 posted on 01/27/2014 5:26:00 AM PST by Freeport (The proper application of high explosives will remove all obstacles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

In Russia you may easily convert any vehicle using internal combustion to either natgas or propane for $200-1500. There is an industry since 1980s. I think 9 in 10 commercial vehicles are natgas powered there.


6 posted on 01/27/2014 5:36:09 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Operators of Great Lakes steamships are taking a hard look at converting to CNG. Shell has indicated a willingness to locate a fueling station at Sarnia for Lake Erie bound trade.
7 posted on 01/27/2014 5:40:45 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks ("Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Meanwhile out here in rural USA we are stuck using propane(and getting skinned alive).


8 posted on 01/27/2014 5:45:22 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
As long as the transition happens where economically feasible, without government mandates or taxpayer funds, I don't have a problem with it.

9 posted on 01/27/2014 5:53:03 AM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Since the engine only drives a generator, this may be a splendid idea. I wonder what the range of such a setup (one engine and one tank car) would be.


10 posted on 01/27/2014 5:55:49 AM PST by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

It doesn’t require much modification to allow a diesel to run mostly on natural gas. You just can’t run only on nat gas without a spark plug.


11 posted on 01/27/2014 5:56:12 AM PST by Boiler Plate ("Why be difficult, when with just a little more work, you can be impossible" Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

http://www.westport.com/news/2013/cn-railway-orders-four-lng-tenders-westport-launches-new-product-serve-natgas-needs-railroad-market

Putting the LNG on a Westport LNG Tender, rather than simply replacing the diesel fuel tanks on existing locomotives, offers a number of advantages:

More than 10,000 gallons LNG capacity—provides longer range than a diesel locomotive, reducing the need for LNG refuelling infrastructure and refuelling stops

Intelligent fueling controls will allow tenders to supply fuel to natural gas locomotives from virtually any manufacturer, reducing operational complexity and investment in different proprietary fuel supply solutions

Each tender can support two locomotives, reducing the capital investment required to move to LNG

Utilizes an industry standard vehicle design and 40’ LNG ISO tank, which minimizes cost and will allow production volumes to be rapidly increased as the industry migrates to LNG


12 posted on 01/27/2014 5:59:00 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HChampagne

Typically for freight locomotives, the preferred natural gas medium is liquid natural gas (LNG). Due to its density, five times more LNG can be stored in the same size container than compressed natural gas (CNG), saving valuable space and making refueling less frequent.

http://www.energyconversions.com/tender.htm


13 posted on 01/27/2014 5:59:15 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Keystone will reduce rail demand by about 20%! (NOT) Sorry Mr. Buffett!


14 posted on 01/27/2014 6:01:18 AM PST by WellyP (question!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freeport
Compressed natural gas is still 1000 times the volume of it’s liquid counterpart.

Of course it depends on how much compression, but it is going to be more like 2~5 times, not 1,000 for typical transportation-type storage tanks.

15 posted on 01/27/2014 6:02:31 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Operators of Great Lakes steamships are taking a hard look at converting to CNG.

I think that will be LNG, not CNG on the ships.

Shell to Build LNG Fuel Plants in U.S., Canada
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324539404578340720866319476

16 posted on 01/27/2014 6:04:10 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Same reply as the other thread for the readers of this thread

I think that will be LNG, not CNG on the ships.

Shell to Build LNG Fuel Plants in U.S., Canada
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324539404578340720866319476


17 posted on 01/27/2014 6:05:51 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Sorry, I mixed up threads. Too many open windows...


18 posted on 01/27/2014 6:06:42 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thackney

And then new locomotives can replace the heavy reciprocating engine with a lighter turbine, and save even more fuel.


19 posted on 01/27/2014 6:17:15 AM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I am not quite understanding this,having just read an article about how natural gas is expected to be increasing in cost. Being just a consumer heating with natural gas,maybe this cost increase was directed at us?? Or maybe the article I read was completely wrong?


20 posted on 01/27/2014 6:17:31 AM PST by oldtech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

burning both diesel and liquefied natural gas...
Now with bigger explosions when the train derails!


21 posted on 01/27/2014 6:17:59 AM PST by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldtech
I am not quite understanding this,having just read an article about how natural gas is expected to be increasing in cost.

Even factoring in a likely price increase, the price differential is enough, and the supply is stable enough, to warrant consideration.
22 posted on 01/27/2014 6:59:21 AM PST by Dr. Sivana ("We are not sluts."--Sandra Fluke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thackney; central_va

Following up on C_A’s question, what would it take for rural propane suppliers to switch over to offering LNG?


23 posted on 01/27/2014 7:02:42 AM PST by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

A couple of Great Lakes iron ore freighters are being converted to LNG. And of course LNG carrying ships have used LNG as a fuel for their engines.


24 posted on 01/27/2014 7:07:14 AM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

And everyone thought that these unit crude oil trains were rolling bombs?

These fuel tenders of LNG will be right next to the power... no “cover cars” as all railroads require for other Hazmat.

I invite everyone to search the web for the term “BLEVE”.


25 posted on 01/27/2014 7:15:25 AM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
"In Russia you may easily convert any vehicle using internal combustion to either natgas or propane for $200-1500."

Maybe so, but that only works for carbureted engines. All locomotives in the US are diesels. It's far more complicated to burn natural gas in a diesel engine. For one, simply injecting natural gas instead of diesel fuel, produces much soot. That's right, soot. Diesel fuel disperses quite evenly in a cylinder. Gas vapors do not. This produces uneven burning, and hence soot. I'll dare to bet that there are no production conversions from liquid diesel fueled engines to natural gas fueled engines, other than an engine replacement.

26 posted on 01/27/2014 7:44:17 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boiler Plate
"It doesn’t require much modification to allow a diesel to run mostly on natural gas."

I disagree completely. Diesel engines run at much higher compression ratios than carbureted engines (22:1 vs. 10:1). Changing compression ratios requires major engine changes, including among other things, crankshafts, pistons, and camshafts.

27 posted on 01/27/2014 7:49:13 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig
"then new locomotives can replace the heavy reciprocating engine with a lighter turbine, and save even more fuel."

Locomotives need weight in order to provide traction to start and accelerate the train. They would need to add ballast to compensate for a lighter engine. They already have sandboxes to distribute sand to the tracks in order to enhance friction. This is not good to use regularly since it wears out the tracks and tires. (I know, I know, railroads don't use tires. Actually, though, they do. It's just that the tires are made of steel.)

28 posted on 01/27/2014 7:55:31 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Regular v8 KamAZ diesel.
http://m.youtube.com/results?q=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B7%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%83&sm=3
These guys can put it on Dodge RAM too.


29 posted on 01/27/2014 8:02:03 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

If you live in rural America your problems are not important or do not exist to the power structure, NOBODY is talking about the “propane problem”. It is a big deal in my life, and millions of others that use propane. We are being literary skinned and nobody in the MSM or anyone else talks about it. But bless it if somebody doesn’t get their EBT card on time, that is national news and a “travesty”.


30 posted on 01/27/2014 8:18:38 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Can you say BOOM!


31 posted on 01/27/2014 8:53:25 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

We don’t have to convert EVERYTHING! Some things work well just the way they are. Sometimes just tinkering around the edges is enough.


32 posted on 01/27/2014 8:58:23 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I used to have a propane heated house and I understand your pain. I think your best options (other than moving) are supplemental wood fueled heating, and getting a 1000 gal tank and filling in summer and avoiding all cold weather fills.


33 posted on 01/27/2014 9:05:35 AM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Natural gas "may revolutionize the industry much like the transition from steam from wood burning, then coal burning, to diesel,"...
34 posted on 01/27/2014 9:28:16 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

Most of the early changes will be retrofitting existing engines with additional fuel system. It will be far cheaper than new engines.

I don’t know if the vibration of the locomotive will work out to an economic solution with a turbine in the long term.


35 posted on 01/27/2014 10:31:16 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oldtech

I believe that even a doubling of natural gas prices (from recent increases) when purchasing in industrial sized volumes, would be significantly cheaper than diesel.


36 posted on 01/27/2014 10:33:00 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thackney

yet another boon pickens scam?


37 posted on 01/27/2014 10:34:55 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: minnesota_bound

LNG will not burn or explode. It first has to be warmed to a vapor, then mixed approximate 10 to 1 with air before it will ignite. By then the majority has risen up far above the ignition sources. LNG is a very safe fuel, when used outdoors.


38 posted on 01/27/2014 10:35:05 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

LNG is not going to be a good source for a residential customer. It must stay refrigerated at all time to -260°F.

In a system that NEVER stops consuming significant volumes, autorefrigeration takes place as the boil off consumes heat in the tank.

But this would not be the case for residential user. You need a ratio of consumption to tank volume that consumes the tank in hours, possible a few days, not several months.


39 posted on 01/27/2014 10:38:34 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

LNG will not ignite. See above post for more info.


40 posted on 01/27/2014 10:39:26 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
In Russia you may easily convert any vehicle using internal combustion to either natgas or propane for $200-1500. There is an industry since 1980s. I think 9 in 10 commercial vehicles are natgas powered there.

The price of natural gas conversion here, likely contains a built-in premium to cover future liability suits.

41 posted on 01/27/2014 10:42:08 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Nope.


42 posted on 01/27/2014 10:42:49 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
I invite everyone to search the web for the term “BLEVE”.

Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion

43 posted on 01/27/2014 2:18:34 PM PST by BlueMondaySkipper (Involuntarily subsidizing the parasite class since 1981)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Info I really did not want to hear, but that’s what I gets for asking the guy who knows.

Propane is like poor cell signals, one of those bitter-sweet worthwhile prices to pay for Country Living.

Guess I’ll just have to keep plugging for a local CNG filler-er-up station for my F150.


44 posted on 01/27/2014 2:50:06 PM PST by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thackney
LNG is not going to be a good source for a residential customer. It must stay refrigerated at all time to -260°F.

Absorbned Natural Gas (ANG) technology is beginning to look promising, at least for transportation applications. Some napkin calculations seem to indicate that this may also find itself in residential households for backup storage.

Capacity is still and will remain an issue until this administration is removed from office.
45 posted on 01/27/2014 3:07:40 PM PST by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thackney
More than 10,000 gallons LNG capacity

The only things I would worry about is that full tenders being pulled to remote rail yards might be a prime target for bad folks. There might also be full tenders sitting in remote yards too.

46 posted on 01/27/2014 3:17:05 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
And everyone thought that these unit crude oil trains were rolling bombs?

As if there were no propane trucks -- or other CNG and LNG trucks -- on the nation's highways...

47 posted on 01/27/2014 3:37:06 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Google: lng explosions
Click on images.....
Looks like one big accident waiting to happen.
Here is a tanker in Boston harbor
http://fnnc.org/pix/lng-tanker-in-boston-565x274.jpg


48 posted on 01/27/2014 4:50:16 PM PST by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

It might have been more accurate for me to say “replace the inefficient reciprocating diesel with a turbine...”

While the turbine might be more complex, I have to think it would be cleaner and less maintenance-intensive than the diesels are today. They might have to add extra iron to the locomotive frame, but that actually might help, since they don’t have a big lump of iron in the form of the engine block perched way up high anymore; they can shift the weight distribution more effectively. There would be more room for braking radiators and the like.


49 posted on 01/27/2014 7:32:56 PM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Doesn’t most of that vibration come from the diesel engine? Besides, if a turbine can survive in an Abrams, it should have no problem in a locomotive.


50 posted on 01/27/2014 7:34:48 PM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson