.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Interesting that they "plan" on returning #3463 to service. Would where they are planning to operate it? Surely not on BNSF.
Here's a primer on torrified biomass: https://www.canadianbiomassmag...on-technologies-2728
Heat-treated wood pellets that you can store outside like coal - water doesn't affect it, they say. Maybe you'll see some restored steamers of the future burning it, but I imagine the spark-arresting gear would be busy. I can't see mounting an modern electrostatic precipitator on a locomotive.......
Interesting...
Hot Water posted:Interesting that they "plan" on returning #3463 to service. Would where they are planning to operate it? Surely not on BNSF.
Why would they not want to run on BNSF,its not like the Topeka line is that busy nor is the Atchison line.The BNSF Transcon runs via Ottawa.The big qustion would be where to work on 3463.
The Topeka sub is very busy, they run transcon traffic on it almost every day. It's like directional traffic via Newton most of the time. It's like a safety valve for the Emporia Sub. Any little thing going on over there, which is almost daily, the re-routes fleet over the Topeka Sub. CTC is currently being installed on it tight now, and is nearly complete. As for the Atchison district, it was pulled up decades ago.
Firewood posted:Here's a primer on torrified biomass: https://www.canadianbiomassmag...on-technologies-2728
Heat-treated wood pellets that you can store outside like coal...
I just don't get it. You're heating this wood material "at high temperatures." How much energy is being expended to create this material? To get how much (energy) out of it?
Seems like charcoal has more calorific value than the biomass, and uses a similar process to make.
And why would we want to be using any type of substitute coal, when oil has far more benefits?
It's been six hours! I know, not a lot. But surly someone can school me about the energy that's apparently required to create this new energy source!
Please, someone, explain.
There more info on the CSR website. It's basically creating a product from unwanted agricultural products that burns like coal, but without the harmful pollution of coal.
Nice engine. I have the MTH model. Glad CSR plans to restore it and not let it rot away or get cut up.
Whether it works out or not, from reading the description this fuel could be carbon neutral, since the material they are using is from agriculture waste, and as long as the energy source used to heat it is not based on fossil fuels like coal, oil or gas but it is something like nuclear power, hydro power, wind power or solar, then it would be truly carbon neutral, something coal is not, plus likely a lot cleaner.
Personally, kind of reminds me of the "super fuel" Doc Brown creates in "Back to the Future III" to try and get the engine to go 88 mph *lol*.
smd4 posted:Firewood posted:Here's a primer on torrified biomass: https://www.canadianbiomassmag...on-technologies-2728
Heat-treated wood pellets that you can store outside like coal...
I just don't get it. You're heating this wood material "at high temperatures." How much energy is being expended to create this material? To get how much (energy) out of it?
Seems like charcoal has more calorific value than the biomass, and uses a similar process to make.
And why would we want to be using any type of substitute coal, when oil has far more benefits?
Good question. I suppose in traditional coal-burning applications you could substitute some form of coke or charcoal, as many areas in Europe did years ago when they created "smokeless" zones. I guess the research umbrella allows the locomotive to be preserved and used as a test-bed something like the experimental aircraft groups. Whether anything comes of it or not is another story: traditional steamers are too inefficient and emissions-unfriendly to be taken seriously any more. Maybe there is a tourist railroad angle, but that might be a pretty limited market. Yes, I'd imagine the carbon neutrality would allow some offsets to an operator using such fuels.
I doubt very much anyone is going to find a way to make a steam engine work as a true working engine (meaning in revenue service), with all the modern materials and controls and such, it still is going to be less efficient then a diesel, that is thermodynamic law at work. If they wanted carbon neutral, probably would be better to produce oil from genetically modified algae, or to use biofuel derived from vegetable oil (like when they use used fryer oil in diesel cars). I often wondered that if Tesla's vision had worked/could work if we would have had electric power locomotives getting their power beamed to them, that likely would be the cleanest way to go (assuming the power source itself was clean, which it could be).....anyway, back to the main thread, I think this sounds to me more like a way to have fuel in coal burning applications that doesn't have the pollution or carbon problems coal does.
My guess is, the BTUs of this "miracle fuel" just won't be enough to power a steam locomotive.
