Wood-Burning Train: Is It Feasible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ray55
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Train Wood
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility of using wood-burning locomotives for rail transport, exploring the potential for carbon neutrality and cost reduction through the cultivation of trees along railway tracks. Participants examine the energy generation capabilities of wood biomass and the sustainability of such an approach, considering both theoretical and practical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that using land adjacent to railway tracks to grow trees for burning in locomotives could lead to carbon-neutral railways and lower fuel costs.
  • Others argue that the transition from wood and coal to diesel and gas turbines was largely driven by lower labor costs, suggesting economic factors may limit the feasibility of wood-burning trains.
  • A participant mentions ongoing work on eco-friendly steam locomotives, indicating some interest in reviving this technology.
  • Concerns are raised about the sustainability of using 130 acres of trees to supply the necessary energy for a locomotive, with some suggesting that the energy input for growing and processing the trees may exceed the energy output.
  • Calculations presented by participants indicate that the amount of land required to sustainably fuel a single train could be prohibitively large, raising questions about land availability and practicality.
  • Discrepancies in energy calculations are noted, with some participants suggesting that the original figures provided may be inaccurate or misleading.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the assumption that railroad companies own sufficient land for such a project, questioning the practicality of the proposal.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the feasibility of wood-burning trains, with multiple competing views and significant uncertainty regarding sustainability, economic viability, and land use implications.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about energy efficiency, the time required for tree regrowth, and the actual land ownership of railroad companies. The discussion reflects a range of calculations and interpretations of energy production from wood biomass.

Ray55
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I understand a railway locomotive generates about 4 MW of power. Also understand that an area of about 130 acres of trees (high density) can generate 1 MW of power from a wood-biomass based power generator.

As railways normally have a lot of land, can not the land adjoining the tracks be used to grow trees which can then be burned inside the locomotive (a la steam engines) and thus power the train. The waste heat produced by the steam engine can be used by vapor adsorption chillers to provide air-conditioned travel for passengers.

This would make railways carbon-neutral and maybe reduce fuel costs in the long run.

Is this feasible?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Locomotives and ships converted away from coal and wood burning engines mostly because the labor costs were much less with either a diesel or a gas turbine. This is the same reason ships got rid of their sails.
 
Ray55 said:
I understand a railway locomotive generates about 4 MW of power. Also understand that an area of about 130 acres of trees (high density) can generate 1 MW of power from a wood-biomass based power generator.
Are you saying that a plantation of 130 acres of carefully-managed timber can sustainably (year in, year out) supply all the lumber needed for a 1MW wood-burning power station? So it would be converting solar energy into electrical energy?

I think they end up using more energy (fuel) for the planting, cultivating, harvesting machinery and transport, and processing, etc., then the lumber produces. (A similar situation applies to growing sugar cane to produce alcohol to use in place of petroleum-based liquid fuels. When all is said and done, the nett energy balance is a negative. :redface: Only generous government subsidies conceal this sobering fact.)
 
Ray55 said:
I understand a railway locomotive generates about 4 MW of power. Also understand that an area of about 130 acres of trees (high density) can generate 1 MW of power from a wood-biomass based power generator.

As railways normally have a lot of land, can not the land adjoining the tracks be used to grow trees which can then be burned inside the locomotive (a la steam engines) and thus power the train. The waste heat produced by the steam engine can be used by vapor adsorption chillers to provide air-conditioned travel for passengers.

This would make railways carbon-neutral and maybe reduce fuel costs in the long run.

Is this feasible?

This question fails to say how long the 130acres of trees can provide this 4MW of power. There is a very significant difference between Energy and Power and you should always bear this in mind.

To be fair, though, you are in good company. An idiot energy minsister (UK), on the Radio 4 Programme 'Any questions", today was heard to refer to "storing Power" generated by wind turbines. What a pratt. And he's responsible for a vital part of our economy.
 
Ray55 said:
I understand a railway locomotive generates about 4 MW of power. Also understand that an area of about 130 acres of trees (high density) can generate 1 MW of power from a wood-biomass based power generator.
If that was supposed to be 1 MWh, then what it is saying is that a single train would burn 130 acres of wood per hour or if it ran at an average of half power for half the year, a single train would burn 285,000 acres of wood per year. And how long does it take to regrow the wood? 10 years? So to sustainably keep 1 train running, you'd need 2.85 million acres or 4450 square miles, which equates to a coast-to-coast swath of land two miles wide. For one train.
 
russ_watters said:
If that was supposed to be 1 MWh, then what it is saying is that a single train would burn 130 acres of wood per hour or if it ran at an average of half power for half the year, a single train would burn 285,000 acres of wood per year. And how long does it take to regrow the wood? 10 years? So to sustainably keep 1 train running, you'd need 2.85 million acres or 4450 square miles, which equates to a coast-to-coast swath of land two miles wide. For one train.
That's my garden gone, for a start!
 
Hmm...Google: wood is 16 MJ/kg, 700 trees/acre. Assuming the average tree is half a meter in diameter and 10 m high and has a specific gravity of 0.5, that's 39 kg per tree, 28,000 kg per acre or 122 MWh. Assuming 33% efficiency, that's 40 MWh. If it takes 10 years to regrow, that's 4 MWh/ year.

So that's off by a factor of 4 from the OP's factoid, but for pulling the numbers out of the air, I don't think it is too terrible. Wikipedia didn't specify if the wood had been dried, which could explain much of the difference.
 
sophiecentaur said:
That's my garden gone, for a start!
The OP believes the railroad companies own large amounts of land along the tracks. Not large enough, I would think.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
The OP believes the railroad companies own large amounts of land along the tracks. Not large enough, I would think.
Sounds a bit like the Old West and the race from coast to coast!
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
Hmm...Google: wood is 16 MJ/kg, 700 trees/acre. Assuming the average tree is half a meter in diameter and 10 m high and has a specific gravity of 0.5, that's 39 kg per tree,

39kg? :eek:

I think your old abacus is short of a bead or two, Russ.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
13K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
4K