Recent Posts
- Is the oil tide turning?
- Run your car on natural gas?
- More wisdom from T. Boone Pickens
- So, where does that leave us?
- Replacing oil 4: Designer bugs
- Replacing oil 3: Algae diesel
- Replacing oil 2: Biodiesel
- Replacing oil 1: Ethanol from Brazil
- 3.6 billion gallons per day
- China's new slogan
Recent Comments
- John Rezabek on 3.6 billion gallons per day
- Patrick Rafter on Go to a virtual trade show & conference
- Bubba210 on Where your gas money goes
- Mark on GM acknowledges painful reality
- Qukler on I am not a socialist
Most Commented On
- Chinese pharma plants go un-inspected? (2)
- I am not a socialist (2)
- 3.6 billion gallons per day (1)
- Go to a virtual trade show & conference (1)
- Where your gas money goes (1)
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Blog
The search for energy efficiency, part 1
February 12, 2008
Thinking about the conversation on hybrid car efficiency mentioned yesterday got me thinking about experiments with steam locomotives in the 1920's and 30's. (Stick with me here.) The thermal efficiency of a typical locomotive of that era was very low. I don't have exact figures, but I suspect reaching 20% would have been exceptional. Given the small boilers and non-condensing engines, the amount of unrecovered heat would be horrendous.
Railroad men at the time were concerned about fuel economy, and they wanted to test concepts that are part of standard steam plant designs to this day. (This web site gives some interesting examples.) The concept of gaining efficiency through higher boiler pressures, compound engines, and more efficient valve gear did, in fact, cut coal consumption, in some cases dramatically. The experiments certainly made for some interesting looking motive power.
The downside was maintenance. A steam locomotive was a maintenance intensive machine under the best circumstances, but adding more cylinders, booster engines, higher pressure steam handling, made it a nightmare. Savings from reduced fuel costs evaporated in the engine house and depression-era cash flow put an end to the experiments. Had the cost of coal doubled, the situation might have changed dramatically and changed people's thinking. More to come.
Posted by Peter Welander on February 12, 2008 | Comments (0)



