Oil Firing

That may be the question - but it needs answering properly and intelligently, not in "we've always done it this way" terms. It also needs answering in terms of volume and cost, as the answer may not be the same mix as today.

As for quality, notice that I've not said anything about where it should be produced. There's a whole different set of questions about where things are made, and what the trade offs are between getting stuff done locally and importing it

 

David, do you own and drive, or have you ever driven a motor car?

 

I don't understand the this question. I'm not aware of ethylene being the basis of glycol but ethylene glycol is most definitely used as an anti-freeze solution. I have never heard of it being used as a fuel but would like to know more.

To forestall your next question, yes I own and drive a car, was a mechanic for twenty-five years and have an honours degree in automobile engineering, but am always keen to increase my knowledge base.

 

Glycol will certainly burn. However, using it as a fuel to get rid of waste bumps into two immediate problems. One is that it will come diluted with water. The bigger one is that the volumes of waste you’d have available will be too low to make it viable to manage the inevitable issues you’d encounter going from idea to robust process.

Tom

 

Many things will burn but that doesn't make them suitable for use as fuels, hence "I have never heard of it being used as a fuel." I'm not sure how much of it you'd need to take a 300 ton train ten miles or so, or where you'd get it from. Personally, I can't see it catching on.

 

Yes, but it isn't a diesel (actually a petrol hybrid) and I'm not an expert on diesels - in truth I know next to nothing about them other than was taught in heat engines class 60 odd years ago.
The question was about diesels not small petroleum powered cars

 

Ethylene glycol is a hydrocarbon with two alcohol (OH) bonded to it. Pure EG has similar ignition temperature to Jet A1/Kerosene/diesel. I know it is used in antifreeze, but questioned if it is diluted with water. I believe Omaha has 2 liquid fuel takes, so different fuels could be used. If the antifreeze is not contaminated, and you chose to replace in your diesel fleet once a year, you may have enough for filling one or two tanks. That could save a bit of cash on the normal liquid fuel. Many questions to answer before you know if it could be done. It is an idea to consider, but I suspect that water contamination will probably mean this will not happen.

 

It is a very long time since I made up any ethylene glycol-based antifreeze, and if I remember correctly it was only about 10/v/v in water - if memory serves me correctly that would be about 20% proof, which I don't believe is regarded as flammable - I don't think anyone would try to burn anything containing so much water!. Neat ethylene glycol probably could be used as fuel, but I wonder how its price and taxation status would compare with oil.

 

The point I was trying to make, but made so much better here!

 

Ethylene glycol is very hygroscopic and thus absorb water readily. Unless you are careful with storage, it will quickly gain a significant water content, which isn't good for combustion.

 

Agree only to a limited extent. The idea of keeping open one small European mine to supply high-quality coal for heritage steam engines is attractive. And given the popularity of heritage steam with the general public, the argument is surely winnable that retaining one small heritage sector, whose machines rather occasionally burn a little coal, is an utterly negligible factor in the fight against climate change. We are winning that argument at the moment.

However, that leaves two reasons against. The first is fire risk from coal fired locomotives (working hard, as we always like to demonstrate). The other and even greater issue is economics. How much would such a supply from one European mine cost, especially after transport costs are added?

I’m not going to comment on the utility of such a mine for steel production as I don’t know who is right on that one! (Though I suspect that if no coal at all was available, the existing electric furnace technology could be modified to produce steels of all required qualities; though it might cost more of course).

Generally some of the debate up-thread is missing the economic factor. Yes, oil firing can be made to work (and indeed has certain advantages besides the fire-risk thing). Its trials, followed by abandonment (at any scale) in the UK was all driven by economics - the cost of the fuel, plus in the fifties, Governmental balance of payments considerations when all oil fuel had to be imported. In that earlier era, plentiful coal supplies were being mined in the UK; such coals were available not far from the points of use; and the railways were well set up with all the necessary infrastructure to transport and use coal. Another consideration at Government level (also a PR concern for railway companies) was the need to support jobs in the UK mining industry.

 

I don't profess to be an expert on coal firing, oil firing or whatever, but it's very apparent that the use of coal for anything at all will disappear, apart from those countries that will continue to to use it for the foreseeable future to generate unlimited amounts of cheap electricity for the benefit of their own countries-but that arguement is for another day. However, I would like to throw this into the ring-what about using LPG to fire steam locomotives??Reasonably easily stored, easily controlled, clean burning- (no smoke) -yes boilers would have to be modified a bit and tendrers modified to include an LPG tank. So, come on, you experts, would LPG firing be feasible?