I am not interested in a left wing/right wing whizzing match, but does anyone have a feel for what the Obama regime's professed desire to limit carbon emissions may be, and what effect it could have on steam locomotives burning coal, wood, or oil. Don't just knee jerk say that "we're historical", because we just may discover that to certain elements of our new governing class, that most all history prior to last Tuesday is meaningless and without merit enough to preserve and glorify.

And before you say "nuttin", just remember that the California air quality board forced the owner of an Advance Steam tractor to convert it from solid fuel to propane or he couldn't run it on his farm.

Food for thought, and just so I can qualify for some tree hugging credentials, IMHO the destruction of the Amazonian rainforest and its conversion to agricultural use contributes far more to the effects of carbon on the atmosphere than if we were using coal like it was 1945.

Since Obama plans on basically shutting down all the coal power plants by making it impossible for them to afford all the fees he has planned, what will keep the coal mines open for business. If he is going to attach fees to the use of coal for power plants, my guess is he will do it to all coal user indiscriminately. Once he gets done with coal he will go after oil and then any other carbon based fuel that is burned or combusted.

In regards to the Amazon Rain Forest. If Obama and the rest of the green knuckle heads would look at the use of corn to make ethanol relative to the growth of the deforestation of the rain forest, they would immediately ban the use of the ethanol and shut down all the plants in the US. The loss of the low cost grains we used to produce has forced other countries to replace the grains with home grown ones.

The whole green thing is just the flavor of the moment and is lining the pockets of certain individuals. Politicians should stay out of science. They can't make rational decisions about running our country, why should we expect them to make rational decisions about science.

My father is a geologist. I grew up around geologists and scientist. The earth has been warming up ever since the last ice age. The earth is always going through warming and cooling cycles. The scientists who are on the green kick are just looking to get funding for their pet projects and the green thing is an easy source to get funding at this time. America needs to wake up to this foolishness and let the politicians know that we want them out of science until there is proof not just speculation and projects looking for funding.

Now I will get off my soap box and hope we have not seen the last coal burners run in this fair country of ours.

Gee, Jim, you do pretty well tip your political cap in spite of yourself.....

It seems to me that your question involves apples, oranges, and maybe more fruits than you intended to have a go at. Whatever the position of the Obama "regime" may be on railway preservation issues, (by which you are perhaps asking us to speculate on EPA enforcement policy under the incoming administration, or perhaps on whether the FRA will lurch to the left), your California Air Quality Board example would seem to have little to do with it.

What were the California standards at issue, and were they violated? That's essentially a yes or no question. To frame it more in railway preservation terms, operating a steam locomotive on a tourist railroad in complete accordance with all applicable FRA regulations could nevertheless violate a state anti-smog statute or local smoke ordinance. Then there's always the possibility of a common-law nuisance being proven - most ordinary people prefer not to coexist with unreasonable amounts of coal smoke, no matter how much you, me or other readers of this forum might think everyone should like it.

Without wishing to be especially partisan either, may I ask what exactly is the basis for your statement that "we just may discover that to certain elements of our new governing class, that most all history prior to last Tuesday is meaningless and without merit enough to preserve and glorify?" I can't recall either party's candidates taking such a position in any of the speeches I listened to. Mind you, if instead of 'Railway Preservation News" this was 'Science Museum News' my sense would be that we just dodged a bullet....

GJC

Amazing...I didn't know that dead British locomotive designers frequented this board and were allowed to communicate with the living. ;)

I was just making the universal observation, and fairly established practice by all political and economic philosophies from Communist to Capitalist that the Victor gets to write history. Given the background of all involved, the industrial revolution and the machines that spawned it may well be seen as nothing more than complicated devices that enslaved men and scarred the world, despite the fact it allowed an expected lifespan (and quality thereof) double and even triple that of the previous era.

Now if they want to really reduce oil consumption, there was a designer named Porta..............

You do realize, of course, that Obama is one guy. He said he wanted to do a lot of things during the campaign, but he would have to gain the agreement of at least 50 senators and 218 Congressmen in order to ban the mining and burning of coal. How long do you think that would take? And if even it became so, implementing a complete ban on the use of coal would take 25 or 30 years, because that's how long it would take to build enough nuclear/oil/natural gas/solar/tidal/wind generating facilities to equal the output of today's coal-fired power stations.

Besides which, banning the use of a handful of coal-burning steam locomotives is so far down on the list of priorities and important issues that it will never, ever rise to the level of notice necessary to enact a ban. Our beloved locomotives will wear out, and we will all be long in our graves long before it happens.

The New Yorker published a detailed piece on the options for controlling carbon emissions, which is worth reading (February 25, 2008, pp. 44-53).

The options essentially are:

1) command and control, regulating use of fuels. Not discussed in the article much, if at all. Perhaps impractical, just like the examples presented here.

2) a tax on carbon. This would add expense to the fuels, but not explicitly prohibit them.

3) a cap and trade system. Under this system existing emitters would be grandfathered with certificates giving rights to pollute, which would be tradeable. Over time, the certificates would lose value by regulatory fiat, requiring either reduction in emissions or purchase of rights from others. Free-marketers generally promote this idea as an alternative to "regulation". A similar system has existed for years to control sulphur emissions from power plants (acid rain). Of course, it is impractical to manage small emitters (home heating, automobiles) with this scheme.

Under a cap and trade system, the possibility exists to create carbon "credits" by paying someone to remove carbon from the atmosphere. An example of which would be to re-forest land in the tropics or Amazon. This is controversial because it is considered "Carbon Colonialism", effectively paying a region or culture to remain undeveloped, to support another developed culture. However, the cap and trade system does create a free-market, entrepreneurial environment that supports innovation and technology to address this problem. The New Yorker piece explains all of this in detail.

Under either scheme 2 or 3, there may be more expense for steam locomotive operations, but no prohibition.

Imagine this: under cap and trade, you could argue that the undeveloped scenic forest next to your rail line balances the carbon emissions of your train. You have an incentive to prevent development along the line while supporting the train operation.

Even ignoring the greenhouse issues, there are severe air pollution issues due to the growing global population and use of coal. The Beijing Olympic Games are an obvious case study in the problems of air pollution.

My circle of friends includes far too many chemists and physicists to stay out of this conversation.

In the grandest scheme of thing, both coal and oil are far too valuable as petrochemical sources to ever set a match to.

Unfortunately for the Chernobyl-fearing Sierra-Club-like masses, the ONLY option at the moment that adequately replaces coal/oil for power generation is nuclear power. That, or reducing the American/Western standard of living catastrophically,

Lessee, can we fuel PRR 1361 with spent nuclear reactor rods?

just curious, how much stuff do you think is pumped into the atmosphere by all your computers (especially those of you that leave them running all the time so they can defrag or just because you don't like waiting for the boot-up).

How much is made by the green politicians with private jets.

How much by the degrading plastic dishes in landfills provided to be used once at places like Boston Market.

Anyways, I think the new regime (and I'm close enough to Philly to know that's merited) is already in plac and we know how they accomodated the Delta Queen.

I agree with the statement regarding the delta queen. This congress has already made their position known. They bend to the lunacy of their special interest groups.

People in our society run to the emotion of the moment. I bet Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank while flying around in private jets and having a line of limos idling outside the convention center to keep them cool while he gives an hour long speech inside.

Once again, if we did not have global warming we would still be caught in the last ice age. The earth heats and cools, expands and contracts in cycles. Volcanic activity happens. Yes we do add to it. We also assign way to much credit to ourselves with the influence we have over the climate and our ability to change it.

What happens if we go into a period of global cooling? Will chicken little start running around shouting that we are responsible for that?

Unfortunately America voted in an imbalance of power this election cycle. In two years it will probably right itself with a major change in congress much like what happened after the first two years of the Clinton presidency. Hunker down for the next two years and hope not too much damage happens till then.

I'm confused...how is the "new regime," which has yet to be sworn in, responsible in any way for the woes of the Delta Queen?? (or am not reading your statement correctly...)

I've been reading a bit about physics and energy lately. Coal isn't an option, it is a necessity. We have an adequate domestic supply to continue to allow us to squander it relatively inexpensively for several centuries, as we have done with our less voluminous oil supply for several decades. We can convert coal to fuel oil - but the private sector won't invest in building the plants to do so while OPEC can simply increase production and lower prices for as long as it takes for the new plants to go bankrupt - which leaves a federal guarantee for subsidy and profitability, or simple governmental ownership of the plants. Not bloody likely in the US now...........

China and India are as insatiably addicted to oil as we are, and have coal as well.....but they don't care about pollution while they play development catch-up. It's simply too expensive.

Solar is great for heating water, but conversion to electricity nowhere near cost effective, nor do we have batteries to effectively store it and release it. Wind and tidal is sort of amorphous, and dependent on location. Geothermal could help us conserve in climate control consuption, but as of yet isn't cost effective either.

I'm going to do a bit of studying on Global Warming and see if I can better understand what's really going on.......if anything.

If we really wanted to constructively change things, we'd need to start taxing our fuel to pay for rebuilding our nation back into what it was in 1910 - no suburban sprawl, streetcar and transit systems, minimal private car operation required or condoned, but with modern conservation measures incorporated into our operating energy systems. Are we all willing to make that trade?

dave

Firstly in the interest of full disclosure I want to state that until this election I have been a lifelong Republican and this was the first election since I started voting in 1960 that I cast my vote for the Democratic candidate. I also contributed to and served as a volunteer worker for the Obama/Biden campaign. I did so as I felt strongly that the Republican party was badly off course and that we needed a national house cleaning and change of direction. To be fully honest I had some misgivings until I viewed the Couric interview with Sarah Palin. Then, my misgivings turned into determination.

From my involvement with the campaign I believe that there is a reasonably good probability that the following will result from the change in national leadership in areas that we here on RyPN care about;

1. Energy-- I believe that the new administration will make establishing a national long term energy policy a #2 priority right below calming down the financial mess. My best guess is that once it goes through the sausage making process in the Congress that all forms of energy will have a place at the table. Coal will probably finally get the funding necessary to build several carbon sequestering demonstrator plants and the cap and trade program will be adopted in such a form to allow currently operating coal fired plants to remain economically viable, and for the intermediate term (15-25 years) new coal fired (non-sequestering) plants feasible.

It is a near certainty that the revised EPA regs governing emmissions will continue to be based on output (megawatts) and thus individual units below a certain power threshold will continue to be unregulated. This would include all coal burning steam locomotives as we know them.

2. Transportation- I believe that in large part as an outgrowth of the attention to the energy issue mass transit will end up with a much friendlier reception in the next several Congresses. Amtrak and matching funding for the states will most likely be major beneficiaries. The bill that Pres. Bush just signed into law dramatically increasing Amtrak's next 5 year allocation is an early clear indicator of this trend.

V.P. elect Biden is an Amtrak regular user and an oft spoken supporter of rail in general and Amtrak in particular. I have reason to believe that the new administration will be appointing persons to the Amtrak BOD who are both rail knowledgeable and pro-Amtrak.

3. Historic Preservation- I think that the new CEO and his Mrs. are going to turn out to be good friends of the museum community in general. They have been supporters of the Chicago Museum of Science&Industry and he clearly is an avid student of history and has demonstrated his love for and importance of celebrating and honoring our historical past.

All in all I'm optimistic that looking back in a few years we'll be pleased with the results of this years decision by the nation??

Time will tell.

Ross Rowland

This idea to drastially reduce carbon emissions will affect everything, and anything that produces an amount that the new kids in charge deem to be excessive or unneeded could be verboten. Look at it like this, they have already stated that they intend to tax the carbon emissions of coal, to the point of bankrupting anyone who burns it in a power plant...that in turn causes the mines to either shut down, or if everyone is taxed in this way, coal would just be too high to buy. If you think coal is expensive now, just wait till carbon taxes hit. Not to mention your electric bill.

I fear they will try to control every type of combustion that releases CO2 into the atmosphere...remember there are EPA regulations and guidelines on woodstoves-where and what type can be produced and used-so there is already a precedent on cellulose use. I don't know what they will do about the CO2 that is produced by humans, but another messianic leader that came on to the world stage from nowhere and was duly elected by a slim majority of the disenfranchised in 1932 demonstrated how to deal with the opposition and large numbers of CO2 emitters....

BTW Ross, I agree fully with the Republicans becoming lost balls in tall weeds..when they got in power they were more interested in enriching themselves than responsible governing (most of them I run into seem to be more committed to the idea of power, and that being in the GOP was their path to it, rather than a real pursuit of conservitism)

Anyhow, since you have worked closely helping get Obama the Merciful and Just in power, any chance oil consumption could be reduced by clean coal modern reciprocating steam power?...............

By "new regime" I think he means that some of the wacky ideas that Congressmen have been promoting for years but have been powerless to act on - until now. When you listen to Obama talk about making coal impossible to use the next line of questions is really interesting. The reporter points out that if coal is more or less banned that electric bills will skyrocket and he basically says "yeah so what - people will just have to use less". There is a detachment from consequences that is going to burn a lot of people who didn't pay attention to what this guy is all about.

My fear is what Congressman Oberstar will be able to turn into law. He truly hates the railroad industry as it exists today and has talked about how it needs to be more like the "European" model - I assume he means nationalization. Buckle up folks, its going to be a really bumpy ride.

I hope Ross is right. My gut feeling is the administration will go for the emotion of the moment and throw the baby out with the bath water. The imbalance of power will have no checks and balances. People have to wake up and understand that new technologies cannot be legislated. just because a group of ignorant politician say it is so does not make it so. Hitler's group believed that if you say a lie long enough and loudly enough it will become the truth. We need to fund new technology development, but we have to fund it properly. We must fund private sector development. it will be the most efficient and will produce something viable. We also need to re-educate people about fuels like coal. Coal can be used. People need to be trained that it is not the evil bad thing that the green crowd wants it to be. There are clean coal technologies and they can be improved further. I have worked in the development of many new technologies and the improvement of others. I have a great appreciation for what Americans can do if the politicians get out of the way and let people dream and create. I fear that we won't get this opportunity with to much regulation and taxation that a big government will bring.