What Do You Think Of Running Over The Road Trucks On Steam Engines Heated By Coal???

Question

A Friend Of Mine Think This Is The Way To Go For Tractor Trailers He Said We Have Lots Of Coal To Use. He Disagrees With Me On Electric and Hydrogen Powered Trucks.

He is A 56 Year Old Mechanic I Think He Has Been Sniffing Gas Fumes Out In His Garage For Way Too Many Years.

Tell Him What You Think And I Will Forward This To Him

Answer 1

I think it would be cool. Just think if you ran out of fuel you could just go get a dead tree or some paper garbage and get to the next coal depot.

Answer 2

no need to put steam engines in them. diesel fuel & gasoline can be made from coal & we have more coal than most of the worlds countrys.

the U.S. air force is currently planing to to obtain 1/2 of their jet fuel from American coal by the year 2020 to reduce their dependence on foregn oil.

Answer 3

While I like the idea of running an engine on alternative fuels, I do not believe this to be a viable or practical solution.

While some of the obstacles such as the feeding of the fuel and extraction of the ashes could be automated, the size and weight of the equipment required is not practical for mobile applications.

The high pressures required for steam production would require the boiler to be made out of thick(and very heavy) steel.

You also need to have a condenser to turn the spent steam back to water to feed back into the boiler.

Since you can not reconvert all of the steam back to water, you would also need to carry a large tank of water to keep the boiler topped up all the time.

As water weighs 8 lbs./US gallon or 10 lbs./Imperial gallon, This is a huge weight to consider which is not a payload, yet would require extra power just to move it.

So I think your friend should consider some of these things.

As a side note in closing I think that there were a few valid reasons that early locomotive steam engines converted to oil use in favor of coal.

1) To keep the coal boiler stoked required several men, with the strength of an ox. It was not only a very dirty and difficult job which was unappreciated, but was also quite dangerous.

When more steam was required, the faster the feeding had to happen.

2) Liquid fuel could be fed to the boiler as demand required with nearly instant results,(compared to coal feeding) and the fire could be stopped simply by shutting off the fuel supply.

With coal the fuel would still be burning even when the engine no longer required it, so it was not only easier to control but was more efficient.

If your friend knows something that has changed, or has valid answers to any of the points I've mentioned. I would like to know about it.

I do have to say that your friend is right to disagree with you about the viability of hydrogen and electric powered trucks however.

Until, nuclear fusion is properly developed, hydrogen(although  clean) currently requires much more energy to produce than the energy that you can extract in the combustion process.

However when cheap hydrogen production is possible then it would be the answer to many of our current energy requirements.

As far as electric use is concerned, the major drawbacks in it's use are the weight of the batteries, the efficiency of batteries, and recharge times .

Although major advancements are being made in new battery designs, much more has to be done yet!

A standard Lead-Acid battery is not only very heavy, but is only about 10% efficient.

For every watt of energy  required, you need to put 10 watts in. This is not at all realistic, or sensible, however I do believe that in another 10 to 20 years this will change.

Cheers

Answer 4

Trucks get paid for hauling tons of merchandise, not tons of fuel.  Coal is HEAVY!  Where will the ashes go?  Then not only do you haul the coal for free, you have to haul the ashes for free too.

Answer 5

thats cool dude

Answer 6

Ok, using coal is not the way to go. It is pollution and make people sick. I don't know why you are against new energy sources but.. its stupid, relying on coal.. All I gotta say.

(To your friend).

Answer 7

well anything to get rid of these gas prices , and so we can s***w our government outta the money they take everyyear from me for there own pleasure

Answer 8

Coal powered huh?  Excuse me while I laugh HAHAHAHA. lol. Gotta be a reason that trains don't still run on that.  Oh and not to mention all the heat that electric companies get for using coal.

It may be abundant but efficient??  I think not.  Hybrid those muthatruckas!

Answer 9

arghh..! it's not economical! why? you have to build automobiles as sturdy as the steam engine locomotives as they were designed before. you also have to carry with you  cart of coal. and imagine driving with you a oven or furnace burning, it would be very hot! and it will not address the problem in the ever skyrocketing prices of oil. coal is also an expensive fuel. it is being dug deep under just above where you can extract some petroleum or crude oil. and coal burning is not good for your health either. coal particles can cause respiratory tract damages.

Answer 10

Do U think that the environmentalist would let U burn coal in a truck and they would not let them burn it in a power generator plant,where they have scrubbers to clean up the air.

Answer 11

You both should have listened a bit better in science class.  What they told you there is that it's cheaper, cleaner, and far more efficient to convert coal into electric power at the mine and then send this via long-distance power lines to anyone who needs it.  Then you can use it to power trains--that is, electric locomotives--which are generally how freight is moved in Europe and a lot of the rest of the world.  

Like your friend, I rather wish that steam-powered over-the-road vehicles were practical.  He's correct in recognizing that there is indeed a lot of coal, and that steam engines are inherently good for heavily-loaded vehicles.  It's been theorized that small flash boilers fed with powdered coal might make steam trucks viable, but it has been tried again and again.  Coal is not such a clean fuel, especially when it's burned in a furnace as small as you'd need in a truck.  Boilers are still extremely troublesome: even the ones in big power plants are forever developing tube leaks, scale, and every other malady associated with that class of troublesome devices.  You're also forever having to deal with the lubricant for the engine: unless you're going to use a steam turbine, you have to have the cylinder lube in the steam, and then it has to be separated out.  This is what ultimately doomed the old Stanley Steamer, an otherwise marvelous car.  

As for steam locomotives, they got pretty good.  They were equipped with automatic stokers very early on, and many ran on powdered coal or oil toward the end of their run.  Thus firing the boiler ceased to be a problem in maybe 1900.  But even at that, the old engineers who worked on them--and I talked to some of them--do not miss the old steam locomotives at all.  The machines were dangerous to work on, requiring someone to stay with them at all times unless the fire was drawn and the pressure released.  The furnace and boiler required constant maintenance, with a major cleaning done at the end of each run, which is why they had those huge roundhouses.  

If you want to use coal--and it's a viable technology--go to electric locomotives, or electrified trackless road vehicles, which take their power from overhead lines but run on rubber tires over the regular roads.

Answer 12

steam engines are high - torque (like diesels) which makes them suitable for pulling heavy loads.

coal has a high energy content, which would make it much more practical to carry than batteries. can you imagine the battery required to power a semi truck? batteries don't last forever, and they're a toxic mess. Hydrogen powered vehicles are a farce, even for autos :

http://www.recoverybydiscovery.com/hydro...

    liquid fuels are most practical for mobile uses, because they're easy to handle - a tank and a pump. Coal should be used in power plants, they can use larger, more efficient boilers, and scrubbers to remove acidic fumes. cheap coal fired electricity  would make electric home heating more attractive, freeing up natural gas for mobile uses. Speed limit reductions would save a lot of fuel, and extend our supply.

       But a coal -fired semi would be more economical than hydrogen or electric, even if you figure in the cost of a guy to shovel the coal in. If we use up all the oil without creating an alternative, at least for shipping, I wouldn't be very surprised to see coal powered trucks.  More likely is coal being made into liquid fuels - but you lose a lot in the conversion. and create a lot of CO2 - if we are forced to sequester the CO2, that would make the conversion even more wasteful.

here's a steam powered vehicle link

http://www.stanleysteamers.com/index.htm...