Fri, Aug 29, 2014, 11:04 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Energy, LLC (LINE) Message Board

  • rlp2451 rlp2451 Mar 6, 2013 8:12 PM Flag

    WSJ/Buffet: Railroad Tests Switch to Gas

    BNSF Railway plans this year to test using natural gas to power its locomotives.

    Conversion to LNG would cost the company billions of dollars and take years to adopt, not counting the additional infrastructure necessary for the switch.

    I wonder why they're going this route instead of the new NorrisFraud idea to use methanol? Surely that would be a whole lot cheaper...or would it?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Oh yes RLP'D Opinions foolishness.

      Would the final state of a locomotive be spending the energy to keep natural gas at -160c or more compressed natural cars? Of course as a test bed it would be more logical to build a special lng tanker car rather than build six cng cars.

      The most logical final state will be a hybrid diesel/natural gas locomotives. When additional power is required for pulling up grade the energy density of the fuel would be increased. Fuel consumption for a train is not so much the weight but getting the weight from inertia to cruising speed.

      The six to one density of lng to cng is storage density and not usable energy density. It has the advantage of putting more fuel on board which would be beneficial and flexible until the full infrastructure is in place. Not to mention lng is a far greater investment than simple cng.

      Put a simpler way you might be able to understand. You can move a barrel of ethanol around for about $10 in the special tank cars. Real waste on top of everything else for corn ethanol which has not one redeeming benefit.

      Now natural gas has 0.036 methanol ml/j of 15.6. Methanol is converted in dimethyl ether (DME) to be used as a diesel replacement

      But a large part of the reason rails are going straight natural gas is not free market rational economics or the existing technology tree. If progressives has concern for rationality and pragmatic co2 reduction corn ethanol would no longer exist in America.

      So take you bow for the wing monkey dance of the night. LNG for most applications over cng is political not rational. Well know Buffett Progressive rail.

      • 1 Reply to norrishappy
      • You see norris knows all. He knows which is better for the railroads and WB. He must of worked in the R&D department for the rail companies. So we have a person that has certificates in the Railroads. psych, editor and real estate.How does he find time to post 24-7 here with all that he does and knows. Of course now he can tell WB that methanol is better for the rails, verses the direction his R&D depatment said to go. Of course it isn't economical either. WB is one of the smartest investors around and capitalist. Norris well his claim is 21% over 3 years in investing. Hey norris what college degress do you have in railroads and R&D in methanol vs LNG. Besides what you paste here?.

 
LINE
31.72+0.27(+0.86%)Aug 29 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.