# Which steamer burns hotter, oil or coal?



## rrman987

Assuming same engines but one burns coal and other oil, who has the hotter fiirebox? I realize that coal type, how coal is spread, drafting etc is a factor. I was curious if there has been studies that say one way or other. AND which gives more miles per load (more bang for the bucks)? 
Yes I know apples and oranges.


----------



## sjm9911

I have no clue, but would guess it would need the same amount of heat to produce steam. The diffrence would be in amount of material used to produce the heat. And the delivery method. I would assume oil would be easier and faster , plus less messy. Just a guess. Thats why home heating moved to oil from coal. Plus no shoveling, or conveyor belts in the basement.


----------



## MidwestMikeGT

This might help:

Heat values for fuels


----------



## rrman987

MidwestMikeGT said:


> This might help:
> 
> Heat values for fuels


Interestiing that coal is approximately half of diesel fuel


----------



## MidwestMikeGT

rrman987 said:


> Interestiing that coal is approximately half of diesel fuel


Yes, coal is a solid with a density slightly heavier than water and diesel is only 0.85 kg/l, which is lighter than water. Therefore, for every liter volume of coal or diesel, you can get 1 kg of coal and only 0.85 kg of diesel. In other words, for each kilogram, you have 1 liter of coal or 1.17 liter of diesel. Also, coal combusts at 2500C while diesel combusts at 210C. Hence, a lot more energy is used to burn coal for energy.

Drats!!! I am sounding like my phys-chem professor!!! Arrrrrrrrrgh!!!!


----------



## Old_Hobo

In other words, diesel/oil is way more efficient, and cleaner burning, than coal…..so why is coal still mined?


----------



## SF Gal

Coal is still mined because the world is a energy economy, for over 150 years now.
The world will "NEVER" have enough oil to suppliment coal. 
I do believe Locomotive designers saw diesel was more efficient and easier to ship and store, hence the diesel era when America transitioned to diesel fuels in locomotives.
So sad to see how our current administration is causing weakness in our ecomonic might with their woke agenda.
We do know how to scrub the soot coal produces and we should be "ALL IN" for all kinds of energy to make our nation strong again. 
With our government pushing electric vehicles, you are going to see electricity prices going through the roof. 
You will not be able to afford to run a refrigerator, let alone air conditioning soon, if we do not rely on coal. 
I say that because as of September 2017, there are two new reactors under construction, while 39 reactors have been permanently shut down. 
Make no mistake, coal is here to stay if representatives from West Virginia and Tennessee have anything to say about it.
Until Fusion becomes a reality, look to be dependant on all forms of energy unless we revert back to how the Amish Faith works and lives.


----------



## timlange3

Coal burns hotter than oil.


----------



## sjm9911

Old_Hobo said:


> In other words, diesel/oil is way more efficient, and cleaner burning, than coal…..so why is coal still mined?


Cost.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn

10 reasons why coal is a good energy source:  There are competing opinions on which is the absolutely cheapest source of energy, one being solar. Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA. Of course, the IEA been steeped in politics, it's pretty hard to take their word at face value. Also, Two thirds of all solar panels are made in China, hardly the place we want to be counting on for our energy needs! The folks pushing solar and wind fail to account for the times that the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. We need a balanced energy policy, not one that will bankrupt the country.


----------



## Old_Hobo

I understand many electricity plants are converting from coal fired to natural gas….up here anyway….


----------



## sjm9911

Because people think coal is dirty. Same reason we haven't built a nuclear plant since the 1970s. The technology and reward is great but people think its an environmental disaster.


----------



## ncrc5315

Coal is my cheaper, therefore cheaper to produce power with. Converting coal plants to natural gas, is why my heating bill doubled from last winter, even though I used slightly less gas this winter than last winter.


----------



## SF Gal

Coming back from the hobby shop today, I got stopped by a coal train.
8 SD70 Diesel Union Pacific locomotive with a consist going about 30 miles per hour took 20 minutes to clear the crossing heading into Chicago.









Four Locomotives in front, three in the middle and one on the end.
Yes, coal is still king no matter what the battery hauling petal pushers claim that thier vehicle energy burns clean.
*What a bunch of do-do....!!!!!*


----------



## Jscullans

As far as coal for energy goes I think coal firing is a great idea if done correctly. If you could go and make coal as clean as natural gas then that’s a fantastic idea. If ol Elon can make those battery banks work like his rockets then solar or wind or hydroelectric would be the way to go in my opinion (I am no tree hugger I promise) but renewable energy is a big thing for the long run. As far as diesels go I wish that the government would let the world get rid of def at least in the off-road applications because they can’t make enough parts to keep that pile of garbage system running and let a diesel run as originally designed. I personally believe in my lifetime I’ll see the end of diesels on the main lines and they’ll all be electric. Now that I’ve said that I believe coal has more btu than bunker c fuel oil but it’s heavier and takes up more volume when crushed than oil does being a liquid and being able to take the shape of the tank. So it’s a catch 22. At the end of the day the railroads burned what was readily available in their territories and if both were available than they probably used their cheapest option


----------



## Old_Hobo

Jscullans said:


> If you could go and make coal as clean as natural gas then that’s a fantastic idea


If only indeed…..


----------



## Madman

SF Gal said:


> Coal is still mined because the world is a energy economy, for over 150 years now.
> The world will "NEVER" have enough oil to suppliment coal.
> I do believe Locomotive designers saw diesel was more efficient and easier to ship and store, hence the diesel era when America transitioned to diesel fuels in locomotives.
> So sad to see how our current administration is causing weakness in our ecomonic might with their woke agenda.
> We do know how to scrub the soot coal produces and we should be "ALL IN" for all kinds of energy to make our nation strong again.
> With our government pushing electric vehicles, you are going to see electricity prices going through the roof.
> You will not be able to afford to run a refrigerator, let alone air conditioning soon, if we do not rely on coal.
> I say that because as of September 2017, there are two new reactors under construction, while 39 reactors have been permanently shut down.
> Make no mistake, coal is here to stay if representatives from West Virginia and Tennessee have anything to say about it.
> Until Fusion becomes a reality, look to be dependant on all forms of energy unless we revert back to how the Amish Faith works and lives.


*I fear this could get too close to politics. Instead of spending money on fossil fuels, we need to be putting that money into renewable energy. Make no mistake, when the price of fossil fuel gets to a certain point, we will see more effort put into wind, water & solar energy.*


----------



## sjm9911

Madman said:


> *I fear this could get too close to politics. Instead of spending money on fossil fuels, we need to be putting that money into renewable energy. Make no mistake, when the price of fossil fuel gets to a certain point, we will see more effort put into wind, water & solar energy.*


Or the converse, when solar , and such becomes cheaper for the masses and dosen't rely on fossil fules then we will have a new energy source. Unfortunately, nuclear is out , but is the most efficient so far. Nothing has come close. Wind is next to useless at the moment, no longevity, not making enough power , peices that aren't recycleable. Solar , as proved in California dosent work in high demand and at night. Battery storage power, while getting better, is large, costly, and also non recyclable. Water disrupts too many things environmentally and for drinking. So, going back to sci fi writing of the 1960s , untill you get a power source that is cheap, readily avaliable and dosen't cause future problems, were stuck with what we got. You also have to not rush into stuff you don't know long term effects of. We, as humans, cause more damages fixing crap that should have just be left as is. I agree, fossil fules are a thing of the past, but that isnt in my lifetime, and isnt near where it needs to be yet.


----------



## scenicsRme

Please! I worked in the nuclear energy field, and can say it is man's greatest folly, bar none. Cheap? No!, the real costs have been buried, both figuratively and actually by the government. They want the nuclear reactors built and running because they are easily repurposed into producing nuclear weapons. Since we put treaties in place preventing stockpiling of nuclear weapons, the country that can produce them quickly has the upper hand.Sooner or later that cost will rear up it's ugly head. We have already seen the tip of the iceberg at Chernobyl and Japan (not to mention by pure luck just barely missing out on the incomprehensibly largest disaster in world history in our own country at Three Mile Island).
Coal is by far the largest reserve of energy in the world. Shutting down coal as an energy source would decimate the world economy in just a few decades.


----------



## sjm9911

If you worked in the industry, you would know like 25 percent of Europe gets power from nuclear plants , and 20 percent of the usa for electricity is from the same, even though we havent built a new plant since the late 60s. History has shown us chernobyl was porly built and maintained. Its safer now then in the past. Thats why Europe is still building plants.


----------



## Madman

sjm9911 said:


> Or the converse, when solar , and such becomes cheaper for the masses and dosen't rely on fossil fules then we will have a new energy source. Unfortunately, nuclear is out , but is the most efficient so far. Nothing has come close. Wind is next to useless at the moment, no longevity, not making enough power , peices that aren't recycleable. Solar , as proved in California dosent work in high demand and at night. Battery storage power, while getting better, is large, costly, and also non recyclable. Water disrupts too many things environmentally and for drinking. So, going back to sci fi writing of the 1960s , untill you get a power source that is cheap, readily avaliable and dosen't cause future problems, were stuck with what we got. You also have to not rush into stuff you don't know long term effects of. We, as humans, cause more damages fixing crap that should have just be left as is. I agree, fossil fules are a thing of the past, but that isnt in my lifetime, and isnt near where it needs to be yet.


It's a catch-22 scenario. I agree that we will not see some other form of energy, on any kind of large scale, in our lifetimes. However, like so many other things that have eclipsed their former rival, some new form of energy will only take hold when it is cost effective for the consumer. 

ScenicsRme's statements are enlightening and educational. I never thought about nuclear power plants that way. But if I think about the plant at Limerick, Pa, the money that went into building it would allow you and me to live like billionaires. Some of my co-workers worked on the building of the plant. The stories they used to tell me about methods and materials they worked with would bankrupt any normal construction site. I agree with sjm9911 about nuclear power. While efficient my not be the correct term, I do believe it puts out the most energy of any type of fuel, fossil or renewable.


----------



## sjm9911

Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close


Nuclear energy has the highest capacity factor of any energy source, and it's not even close.




www.energy.gov


----------



## HD FLATCAR

sjm9911 said:


> Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close
> 
> 
> Nuclear energy has the highest capacity factor of any energy source, and it's not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.energy.gov


REMEMBER THREE MILE ISLAND....


----------



## kiwitommo

rrman987 said:


> Assuming same engines but one burns coal and other oil, who has the hotter fiirebox? I realize that coal type, how coal is spread, drafting etc is a factor. I was curious if there has been studies that say one way or other. AND which gives more miles per load (more bang for the bucks)?
> Yes I know apples and oranges.


There are quite a few examples of the same class of steam locomotive burning different fuels, UP’s Challengers and FEF’s spring to mind. Clearly the same overall heat is needed to produce the same amount of steam, however there are differences in how the two different fuels burn. Coal will be evenly distributed across the entire grate whereas the oil burner produces it‘s heat in a much smaller but more intensely concentrated area. The actual calorific value for a pound of oil is higher than for a pound of coal. Fuel choice was determined by cost and availability. One thing I can say with certainty is that a coal burner smells much nicer than an oil burner!


----------



## Madman

HD FLATCAR said:


> REMEMBER THREE MILE ISLAND....


I remember it well. We had no clue, at the time, how disasterous it could have been. Three Mile Island is about a hundred miles from us here in South eastern Pa., and even though we were glued to the news, I don't think it really sank in until many years later.


----------



## Old_Hobo

Sorry to burst any bubbles, but 100% wind and solar are an unattainable dream…..when there is no wind, and the sun doesn’t shine, we will have to rely on the natural gas and coal fired back-up systems, which will need to be built regardless, as we cannot rely on wind and solar to work 100% of the time….probably more like 50%….and of course, wind mills and solar panels don’t last forever, and will have to be disposed of when they are done, where and how does that happen?

So we will need to double the energy producing sources, because no one will want to go without life sustaining energy…..a vicious circle…..


----------



## JeffHurl

I believe that someday, wind, water & sun will all be harnessed on massive scales to split water into Oxygen and Hydrogen using simple hydrolysis. Then those 2 simple elements will be turned back into water as the hydrogen is burned for energy consumption. Today, that process isn't in place, mostly because it's easier to just burn fossil fuels like man has been doing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

A lot of people say that hydrogen isn't a viable fuel alternative. I call BS on that. Number 1, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in our solar system. Number 2, there has never been much demand for Hydrogen, as it's a gas which is harder to store and distribute than a liquid. The lack of demand has kept development in the "maybe later" category. Number 3, the people telling us Hydrogen isn't a viable alternative are saying that because they currently make a boat load of money producing petroleum based fuels, and have more boat loads of money invested in harvesting more fossil fuels tomorrow.

Mark my words (although not many of us will still be around by then), Hydrogen will be the fuel of the future, and it will be produced, distributed and used at a fraction of the economic costs we see today. Moreover, the climate impact is minimal, other than the geographic footprint of the hydrolysis processing plants.

I also believe that, so long as mankind doesn't blast itself to death in some stupid war, we will eventually have these hydrolysis plants on nearby planets like Mars, to produce fuels to support Intra-Solar system space travel.


----------



## Steve Rothstein

kiwitommo said:


> There are quite a few examples of the same class of steam locomotive burning different fuels, UP’s Challengers and FEF’s spring to mind. Clearly the same overall heat is needed to produce the same amount of steam, however there are differences in how the two different fuels burn. Coal will be evenly distributed across the entire grate whereas the oil burner produces it‘s heat in a much smaller but more intensely concentrated area. The actual calorific value for a pound of oil is higher than for a pound of coal. Fuel choice was determined by cost and availability. One thing I can say with certainty is that a coal burner smells much nicer than an oil burner!


One of the other differences between the fuels is how quickly they produce the heat needed. If you are going to need more steam, you need to prepare the coal fire in advance. it takes time for the extra coal to start burning and producing the needed heat. If you use oil or gas, it starts producing the extra heat as soon as the supply is increased. 

I have never tried it, but I understand that operating a coal or wood fired steam locomotive takes a lot more skill than operating the same locomotive with oil or gas fuel.


----------



## Old_Hobo

Anti-gravitational propulsion…..until we have that, we will always be dependant on some un-renewable and expensive energy source…..after all, the energy we use and need is used to propel us against gravity, so….


----------



## vpchianese

I just read through this list. Some of you have great points and some not so great. But it all reminds me of the history we should be aware of. No one likes change. Period. For good or not so good no one likes it. As model RR er's a great number of us like steam locos. But go back and see what the guys and gals had to say about thoses iron horses. Then how about automobiles. They scared all of the horses so they were no good and wouldn't last. I'm from a steel town. When I was a kid I could wash my car at 10 am and then needed to wash it again before going out on a date due to the pollutants they were on it in eight hours. I was worried about my car not my lungs, because I / we didn't know better. So we got the EPA to fix that and "Scrubbing" those furnaces at the mills lead to the steel companies investing in new mills in Japan and closing the mills in NE Ohio. Car pollution was next and that 98 Olds that got 8 miles per gallon was replaced by cars that get 20 mpg. But the car companies had to be forced into to it. Automatic transmissions would never last, nor would Power Steering, A/C, windshield washers, disc brakes etc. But you can't buy a car without them now.

The point being Electric cars and trucks are here to stay kids. Chevy claims 400 miles on their new pickup. Florida Power and Light is running ads that we will have special rates for home night time charging. FPL has solar farms and yse they do generate when it is cloudy, just not as much. Come on down to FL and lay on the beach on a cloudy day. You will still burn if you don't use sunscreen. Clouds don't stop the panel from working just slow them down.


----------



## JeffHurl

400 miles is ok... Until you need to go 450. Until you can fully charge the battery, or swap them for charged ones, within 10-15 minutes, the ICE will remain king of the hill with plug-in EVs relegated to commuter status.


----------



## vpchianese

I don't disagree that is a hold back for some but the newest battery tech seems to say they can recharge in less than 10 minutes up to 90%. If that is true then pull into WaWa, plug in go to the head and come out, unplug and you have 300+ miles more of charge. That is enough until the next pit stop for your bladder. And make no mistake WaWa and others are going to have charge stations. We have several restaurants here in South FL that have charge stations as well as a lot of the hotels. 
In 1935 my grandfather opened a gas station on the East Side of town. There wasn't another for at least five mile in any direction until several years later.


----------



## TundraBoy

JeffHurl said:


> I believe that someday, wind, water & sun will all be harnessed on massive scales to split water into Oxygen and Hydrogen using simple hydrolysis. Then those 2 simple elements will be turned back into water as the hydrogen is burned for energy consumption. Today, that process isn't in place, mostly because it's easier to just burn fossil fuels like man has been doing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
> 
> A lot of people say that hydrogen isn't a viable fuel alternative. I call BS on that. Number 1, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in our solar system. Number 2, there has never been much demand for Hydrogen, as it's a gas which is harder to store and distribute than a liquid. The lack of demand has kept development in the "maybe later" category. Number 3, the people telling us Hydrogen isn't a viable alternative are saying that because they currently make a boat load of money producing petroleum based fuels, and have more boat loads of money invested in harvesting more fossil fuels tomorrow.
> 
> Mark my words (although not many of us will still be around by then), Hydrogen will be the fuel of the future, and it will be produced, distributed and used at a fraction of the economic costs we see today. Moreover, the climate impact is minimal, other than the geographic footprint of the hydrolysis processing plants.
> 
> I also believe that, so long as mankind doesn't blast itself to death in some stupid war, we will eventually have these hydrolysis plants on nearby planets like Mars, to produce fuels to support Intra-Solar system space travel.


Interesting comments on hydrogen. CP Rail is already working on it!
Ballard Fuel Cells To Power CP Hydrogen Locomotive Program (fuelcellsworks.com)


----------



## sjm9911

Unfortunately, the newest tec , isnt installed anyware yet. And charging stations verry across the brands. So, 10 mins isnt going to be the norm. Maybe a hour or so if you find and have a tesla supercharger. Plus the infastruture isnt there for the voltage needed. So, that needs to be fixed first. Then where do you get the power? Lol. In florida, you say you get sun during the day. But most will charge at night. So, there is also no infastruture for that in place. Look at california, you cant even run the ac at night when its hot. Now you want to charge cars. They also had to postpone taking natural gas electric plants off line, they cant keep up with the people now. Thats without everyone having an electric car. Then, you need to get into towing and such, that degrade the millage by 2/3 rds. And the 20 percent redution in batter power when its cold out, so not a problem in florida, but up north it is. So, not there yet, or anytime soon.


----------



## JeffHurl

Yes, it's only a matter of time before the batteries catch up to demand.

Right now, they charge in hours instead of minutes... Lose efficiency when it's cold, lose efficiency with age, cost an arm and a leg to replace, and there isn't a good recycling infrastructure. Some of these new wonder-batteries just catch fire without warning, as has been seen with cell phones and cars.

Yes, those can be addressed with time. And while those are being addressed, the world will probably come to the conclusion that going electric may help some environmental issues, but likely will create or exacerbate others.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti change. Change is inevitable... except from vending machines.


----------



## sjm9911

We create our own problums mostly. Lol. We will see what the strip mining for materials, and the cost of all the burned battery packs and solar panels does to the world. 100 years from now, if were still around, they will be thinking of the next great thing to stave off the electric car problums that will be killing the world! Lol. And the cycle will go on, maybe.......


----------



## Old_Hobo

If they can give “special rates” just for charging cars, then the normal rate they are charging us for essential, life sustaining power use must be too high….


Hmmm….


----------



## MichaelE

Alstom, a world leader in green and smart mobility, has been developing a portfolio of zero-emission mobility solutions for several years and has launched an ambitious battery and hydrogen innovation program. Alstom has been working since 2013 on the launch of a regional train equipped with hydrogen fuel cells. The first two 100% H2 iLint trains entered commercial service in 2018 in Germany and, to date, 41 trainsets have been ordered by two German states and successful trials have taken place in Austria, in the Netherlands, in Sweden and now in France. In Italy, the operator FNM confirmed an order for 14 hydrogen-powered trains at the end of 2020. This year, France also joined the circle of “founding countries” with an order from SNCF for 12 Coradia Polyvalent dual-mode trains (electric/catenary and hydrogen/fuel cell traction) for four French regions (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Grand Est and Occitanie). 

Alstom Hydrogen Train


----------



## rrman987

We have solar panels on roof, our monthly electric bill has been cut to 1/3 or less. What power we don't use is banked by utility against winter time with less sun. 
We plug in our Prius Prime hybrid every time so solar charges batteries, even during cloudy days. Since we drive less than 20-25 miles a day on a full charge, Prius uses only battery power, little or no gas.
I calculated that if gas ever drops below about $2 gallon, I can push a button and Prius will run on gas only, because electricity will now be expensive. But in our area we are $4+ now, so will be a long wait.


----------



## rrman987

MichaelE said:


> Alstom, a world leader in green and smart mobility, has been developing a portfolio of zero-emission mobility solutions for several years and has launched an ambitious battery and hydrogen innovation program. Alstom has been working since 2013 on the launch of a regional train equipped with hydrogen fuel cells. The first two 100% H2 iLint trains entered commercial service in 2018 in Germany and, to date, 41 trainsets have been ordered by two German states and successful trials have taken place in Austria, in the Netherlands, in Sweden and now in France. In Italy, the operator FNM confirmed an order for 14 hydrogen-powered trains at the end of 2020. This year, France also joined the circle of “founding countries” with an order from SNCF for 12 Coradia Polyvalent dual-mode trains (electric/catenary and hydrogen/fuel cell traction) for four French regions (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Grand Est and Occitanie).
> 
> Alstom Hydrogen Train


Why oh why if the US is supposed to be a first world leader, are we so far behind others in transportation technology? Basically politics to build roads, baby, build. Others have light rails to get from A to Z while we do endless feasibility studies then when everything is in place a monkey wrench is thrown in (system must use only turbine and solar no utility yada yada.) Then back we go to, should a new power plant be gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind to power system, and back to square one we go.
My, how far afield this thread has gone from my original inquiry of which gives best steamer bang for the buck.


----------



## HD FLATCAR

rrman987 said:


> "My, how far afield this thread has gone from my original inquiry of which gives best steamer bang for the buck."


Yeh, this thread has really "jumped the tracks"


----------



## vpchianese

Yes it has but it is good to see that it didn't get into political finger pointing.


----------



## JeffHurl

It's funny how the law of averages works...

On average, a person puts 15,000 miles per year on a car. I would also say that on average, a person drives 5 days a week, give or take... That amounts to ~260 days that we use our cars each year.

So... doing the math, the average car travels about 58 miles in total on any given day that the car is actually used. This is in-line with the national average commute time of ~30 minutes, plus a little more for running errands, etc.

Without any other data, I would conclude that an electric car with a 350-400 mile range would be far more than anyone needs... To be honest, if the *only* *reason I needed a car* was to commute and run errands, I would already own a plug-in hybrid. But, I need to tow heavy loads occasionally. And several times each year, I make road trips that are far longer than 400 miles one way, let alone round trip... often spending the night in a little no-tell motel along the way... cheap, convenient and simple.


----------



## vpchianese

We just sold our 44' motorhome. We were full timers for just under 7 years. There is a market that has just been opened up. Tesla didn't want to see their car ever towed, period, end of story. Something Musk insisted on or so I was told. But there are two pickups that are now coming on the market that advertised they can be flat towed, which is the only way to go. We flat towed a Jeep Grand Cherokee for the better part of the six + years. Never a problem. But an electric would have been ideal. When we went someplace we were in a campground and being a larger coach we are alway hooked up to 50A service and when we weren't we had a 10kw generator that supplied over 50A. From the campsite most trips were short. Less than 100 miles in any one direction because if we were going any farther we just moved the coach not the towed.

An electric car or truck would have been ideal. It could charge while being towed or over night. But alas they were not available until now.

One of those companies can hit a home run. Make a deal with Newell or Prevost or even Newmar. Buy a new coach and we will give you a free toad. On these coaches that sell for $1.5-2.6 mil there is plenty of room in the markup for a $70k truck. There is a good marketing plan there for someone to get into. Once they are seen in the upper end campgrounds the keep up with the Jones will take over.


----------



## sjm9911

If the campground can support the extra power. Right now most can't even keep up with the campers they have. Without redoing all the infastruture, it will not be happening. My 30 amp power supply for the camper gets cut off for low voltage like 3 times a year while camping.


----------



## vpchianese

We had very little trouble with 50A. Most of the time it was due to older circuit breakers not the availability of the electric.

Also we didn't fit in some campgrounds that were really old so by default we were in newer campgrounds.


----------



## sjm9911

Its not always the older boxes and the amprage. ( i have had my share of reverse wireing, and surges also) Go to disney when its 100 degrees, everyone has the acs on, more draw. I had low voltage there, and thats a top of the line campground. Sometimes the supply to the campgrounds just can not keep up. But yea, I here you about the older used boxes. Unfortunately, we all have acs, tvs, cooking gagets, ice makes, fridges, phones, pads, awning lights, heaters, water heaters, etc. Lots of stuff to be plugged in that people never had in the past. I for one use the voltage instead of the propane as its easier. People like convince. Plus you wouldn't even know unless you had a ems system. Most people dont. 

On another note , at a state campground a tesla owner rented a spot in a campground to charge for the day across from me.


----------



## sjm9911




----------



## Madman

vpchianese said:


> I don't disagree that is a hold back for some but the newest battery tech seems to say they can recharge in less than 10 minutes up to 90%. If that is true then pull into WaWa, plug in go to the head and come out, unplug and you have 300+ miles more of charge. That is enough until the next pit stop for your bladder. And make no mistake WaWa and others are going to have charge stations. We have several restaurants here in South FL that have charge stations as well as a lot of the hotels.
> In 1935 my grandfather opened a gas station on the East Side of town. There wasn't another for at least five mile in any direction until several years later.



Totally off subject, but I remember when WAWA stores were only in our area around Philly. I must be getting old. As a matter of fact, the architect on a job I was doing never heard of WAWA, and that was in 2000 !


----------



## Steve Rothstein

Madman said:


> Totally off subject, but I remember when WAWA stores were only in our area around Philly. I must be getting old. As a matter of fact, the architect on a job I was doing never heard of WAWA, and that was in 2000 !


That isn't old. I remember when no one in Philadelphia had even heard of Wawa.


----------



## HD FLATCAR

Steve Rothstein said:


> That isn't old. I remember when no one in Philadelphia had even heard of Wawa.


Just out of curiosity.... What is a Wawa??


----------



## Steve Rothstein

HD FLATCAR said:


> Just out of curiosity.... What is a Wawa??


Wawa is a convenience store chain, much like 7-11 but on steroids now. By that, I mean that most of their stores have been enlarged and are more than the traditional C-store.

It started in one of the Philadelphia suburbs (in the 60s, I think) and has grown to cover a lot of the east coast.


----------



## Patrick1544

Where did the OP question get buried in here. I think Coal burns better and you can heat up a Ham sandwich in the cab on the boiler shelf. I wouldn't want Ham and fuel oil flavor on my Ham and Swiss sandwich.


----------



## Madman

Patrick1544 said:


> Where did the OP question get buried in here. I think Coal burns better and you can heat up a Ham sandwich in the cab on the boiler shelf. I wouldn't want Ham and fuel oil flavor on my Ham and Swiss sandwich.



We've moved on to a "Hotter" subject, pun intended.


----------



## Madman

Steve Rothstein said:


> Wawa is a convenience store chain, much like 7-11 but on steroids now. By that, I mean that most of their stores have been enlarged and are more than the traditional C-store.
> 
> It started in one of the Philadelphia suburbs (in the 60s, I think) and has grown to cover a lot of the east coast.


It started as a single store.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wawa_(company)


----------



## Old_Hobo

And here I always thought Wawa was a town in northern Ontario….


----------



## Madman

Old_Hobo said:


> And here I always thought Wawa was a town in northern Ontario….


When I was a teenager, 7-11 was the only game in town as far as convenience stores went. WAWA hadn't yet reached my part of Philly. Slim Jims were ten cents. Tastykake pies and cupcakes were still ten cents but went to twelve cents. Franks soda was great. Yoohoo was advertised by Yogi Berra. Cumberland Farms stores gave 7-11 a run for their money, especially on milk. 

By the way, are we still on which burns hotter.....🔥


----------



## DonW

While I stayed overnight in Wawa and had breakfast there, I have never heard of a store named Wawa.


----------



## NorthwestPennsyGuy

scenicsRme said:


> Please! I worked in the nuclear energy field, and can say it is man's greatest folly, bar none. Cheap? No!, the real costs have been buried, both figuratively and actually by the government. They want the nuclear reactors built and running because they are easily repurposed into producing nuclear weapons. Since we put treaties in place preventing stockpiling of nuclear weapons, the country that can produce them quickly has the upper hand.Sooner or later that cost will rear up it's ugly head. We have already seen the tip of the iceberg at Chernobyl and Japan (not to mention by pure luck just barely missing out on the incomprehensibly largest disaster in world history in our own country at Three Mile Island).
> Coal is by far the largest reserve of energy in the world. Shutting down coal as an energy source would decimate the world economy in just a few decades.


actually there is a kind of nuclear reactor that is cheaper safer and has a higher energy output and it can't be used to make bombs and that is Thorium reactors as thorium is easier to control and its main ore is granite


----------



## sjm9911

NorthwestPennsyGuy said:


> actually there is a kind of nuclear reactor that is cheaper safer and has a higher energy output and it can't be used to make bombs and that is Thorium reactors as thorium is easier to control and its main ore is granite


We moved on to wawa now, you missed the boat with the reactor thing!


----------



## 65446

As to the OP's original question:
The amount of heat needed to boil water is the same = firebox heat the same. The concern is which is the better fuel to do it with ? There's a reason why most steamers had been converted to oil by the end of their era..I've no stats on that..But here's another angle:
Oil burners mean no ash pans to rake out or ash pits to empty = less sooty air in/near yards.. 🛤🏭


----------



## Madman

telltale said:


> As to the OP's original question:
> The amount of heat needed to boil water is the same = firebox heat the same. The concern is which is the better fuel to do it with ? There's a reason why most steamers had been converted to oil by the end of their era..I've no stats on that..But here's another angle:
> Oil burners mean no ash pans to rake out or ash pits to empty = less sooty air in/near yards.. 🛤🏭


But the burning of oil leaves particulate matter in the atmosphere, as does burning coal. Coal soot can be seen, whereas oil soot cannot. But both are equally problematic.


----------



## 65446

So, who's arguing that ?! 
Of course they both create exhaust !..But one, oil, eliminates certain maintenance duties. Thus the two are not 'equally problematic'..


----------



## Madman

Agreed. But look at the jobs that don't exist anymore, with coal, which no one wants to do anyway.....LOL


----------



## 65446

So, what ?! Of what significance does that hold with my statements or the OP's question ?! 
No one here is discussing job loss ! The subject is coal v oil burning steam locomotives.


----------



## Madman

telltale said:


> So, what ?! Of what significance does that hold with my statements or the OP's question ?!
> No one here is discussing job loss ! The subject is coal v oil burning steam locomotives.


Oh, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning LOL I'm simply continuing the conversation, which as most of us know, may veer off in different directions.


----------



## 65446

Your first post, # 17, and your ensuing posts have zero to do with the OPer's title and post #1.
I know there is no forum ruling against that. But I believe it, out of common respect for every OPer we at least try and assist him or her initially before going off on a tangent with our own memories or problems, many a time leaving the OPer in the dust..


----------



## Old_Hobo

I like peanut butter….


----------



## Madman

telltale said:


> Your first post, # 17, and your ensuing posts have zero to do with the OPer's title and post #1.
> I know there is no forum ruling against that. But I believe it, out of common respect for every OPer we at least try and assist him or her initially before going off on a tangent with our own memories or problems, many a time leaving the OPer in the dust..



Along with a few other members, I simply offered not only an opinion and maybe some knowledge, but replied to those members who, like myself, have veered onto another track. So why not admonish any other member who also took the same siding ?

I'm done with this subject. This tit for tat is not doing this forum any justice.


----------



## sjm9911

Old_Hobo said:


> I like peanut butter….


First I found a picture of old when he was a kid.


----------



## sjm9911

Ok so next is, who cares. Really eaither way. This place has a ton less people posting then in the past. It seems a lot of us have gotten old and bitter. Like the stayboff my lawn people. A lot left a while ago, the Im going to take my ball home so no one has fun group. In reality, who cares. Comment as you will, be nice and civil, and threads do go off the rails sometimes. But without posts, goood or bad we dont have a fourm. So play nice people. Me included, sorry old, the I like turtle's is all I though if with the peanut butter coment. 🆒 carry on, have fun!


----------



## OilValleyRy

I think it all comes down to practicality. 
Hypothetically speaking, coal might be less efficient but more abundant/easier to acquire for entity 1, but for entity 2 the opposite may be true.

I don’t believe it is wise to put all eggs in one basket. Not only do I support a diverse portfolio, but I think an entity would be wise to have capacity of 120% in relation to usage. To word it another way, using only 80% of what you can actually store; whether we’re talking a house heated by propane or a nation that runs on dunkin, you need an emergency buffer.

Today I was looking at 3 horse head oil wells near me, all three in the middle of crop fields. Compared to coal, oil wells are very noninvasive. Similarly we have natural gas wells everywhere, if you know how to recognize them. In metro Detroit there is a hotel that has a natural gas well in the middle if its parking lot. It’s fenced off, but, they’re everywhere. Corn fields, church property, parking lots, everywhere. 
Coal requires expansive mines.

They all, except maybe for natural gas, have extremely useful byproducts too. I often think about how different the world would be without things like acetone, asphalt, turpentine, nylon, velcro, and polyester. In fact, if I could listen to one of those activists rant & ask just one question, it would be why are they wearing polyester if they hate fossil fuels? I’m 90% sure I’d get a confused look from them, oblivious to the implications of what they’re pushing.

I’ve said it before; if you want to turn back the Industrial Revolution, 1736 is where you end up. And if you want to live that way, you’re free to right meow. But I kind of like modern advancements such as air bags, seat belts, waterproof roofing, and pharmaceuticals to fight illness. If you hate fossil fuels, stop using a var seat for your kid, a seatbelt for yourself, a padded sofa to sit on, a smartphone to call your friends, etc.


----------



## Old_Hobo

sjm9911 said:


> sorry old, the I like turtle's is all I though if with the peanut butter coment. 🆒 carry on, have fun!


No need to apologize….that was perfect!


----------



## JeffHurl

That Turtle video is always a good one!


----------

