Remove ads

A Golden Island To The West — California ISOT from 2018 to 1850

Reader mode
xa na xa said:
(also not sure what you mean by "modern steam designs are pretty damned close to IC engines in effeciency", if you're referring to steam turbines they're for large things like ships)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Steam engines for automobilies and trucks became very effecient as they advanced in technology--they were harmed by two factors.
1. The fact that until the development of flash boilers, they took longer to start than a conventinal car, especially after the development of self-starters.
2. There was never a "Ford" for the steam car market--most steam car producers essentially built them up as artisans, keeping the price far higher than the exponentially cheaper IC models.

Some material is found here.

team-powered and electric cars outsold gasoline-powered ones in many US states prior to the invention of the electric starter, since internal combustion cars relied on a hand crank to start the engine, which was difficult and occasionally dangerous to use, as improper cranking could cause a backfire capable of breaking the arm of the operator. Electric cars were popular to some extent, but had a short range, and could not be charged on the road if the batteries ran low.
Early steam cars, once working pressure was attained, could be instantly driven off with high acceleration; but they typically take several minutes to start from cold, plus time to get the burner to operating temperature. To overcome this, development has been directed toward flash boilers, which heat a much smaller quantity of water to get the vehicle started, and, in the case of Doble cars, spark ignition diesel burners.
The steam car does have advantages over internal combustion-powered cars, although most of these are now less important than in the early 20th century. The engine (excluding the boiler) is smaller and lighter than an internal combustion engine. It is also better suited to the speed and torque characteristics of the axle, thus avoiding the need for the heavy and complex transmission required for an internal combustion engine. The car is also quieter, even without a silencer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The bolded part might make uptime designed steam cars a popular export item--the transmission is hightly complex, while an advanced flash boiler could probably incorporate a lot of down-time goods, eliminating the need to wait for the materials development.
 
Last edited:
Antix_Shadows said:
would this be an electric steam locomotive to be more environmentally friendly than a coal or diesel?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It depends on how the steam powerplant is set up. Modern boilers are quite efficient when it comes to burning the fuel. Look at any fossil fuel powerplant and you won't see any soot clouds, only the steam from the cooling tower.
And no, the most environmentally friendly solution is still the diesel engine. Especially a diesel-electric setup.
 
NuclearBird said:
And no, the most environmentally friendly solution is still the diesel engine. Especially a diesel-electric setup.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are places in the world where national or private rail companies no longer use tracks, and people started using them by powering their carts with small motorcycle engines... and sails.
I'd say that last one is the most environmentally friendly solution.
 
You know, people are getting overwrought about the environment--the vast majority of the environmental damage is in the future--and at this point, you use less environmentally effective tools to bootstrap yourself up to the economic level where you can afford the best environmental tech.

Because of that, currently, the big focus should be on hydro-electric and the development of effective power distribution networks--remember, how small the populations are today, which means that we're not talking about needing Hoover Dam.
 
To get real for a moment, there would actually be something really satisfying to see only the Bear Flag in front of public buildings.
 
Parker Dam was one of the dams brought along with the ISOT.

Hoover Dam was not, but there's already an effort underway to rebuild it, though right now they're still doing the environmental impact assessment.
 
In case anyone cares, there's a set of old pacific rail lines in Brentwood, California. They haven't been reactivated because there's an endangered owl species nesting in them, and the state told them no as a result.
 
Note the environmental impact is something that an, for a while, at least, be soft pedaled. I'm not saying go back to "more smoke the BETTER" or ignore it, but a lot of our modern day practices are driven by the fact that some species are only a few losses from extinction. At this point, simply trying a steady state, where you do no more damage than needed, is likely to be sufficient as well as save time and effort.
 
Fabius Maximus said:
Note the environmental impact is something that an, for a while, at least, be soft pedaled. I'm not saying go back to "more smoke the BETTER" or ignore it, but a lot of our modern day practices are driven by the fact that some species are only a few losses from extinction. At this point, simply trying a steady state, where you do no more damage than needed, is likely to be sufficient as well as save time and effort.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Of course.

Carbon dioxide is at pre-industrial levels, barely above 200 ppm (compared to over 400 ppm today)

Carbon dioxide will not be an issue for many decades to come.

But there is a golden opportunity here to have good standards right from the start.

California can say "you must have this much labour safety to get access to our trade."; "you can't have more than so and so much toxins".

Don't go overboard and try to push ISO9000, but say make a custom-made ISO1850 that's adapted to the conditions of the world at time and establishes best practices for industry and economy; but that is also ambitious about improving quality of life right away.
 
In Europe, you can get the conservative, landowning elites interested in environmental protection. After all, if things go unchanged, their lands will see damage from things like acid rain. If people like the Junker throw their political clout behind it, it's likely to get traction and the industrialists can't move their factories as much as they may want to. And if environmental standards are enforced early on, other things can likely be mitigated as well.

Factories from these days put out a lot of pollution and the up and coming chemical industry? Let's just say that my mom told me what a cleanup for an old gasometer cost and the work it entailed. They wanted to build a parking lot. They had to dig up 10 meters of top soil and cart it of to be recycled and have the pollution washed out. And that was for the parking lot and another 20 meters around the parking lot. The whole shebang cost 6 million €. And they seriously considered just sealing everything up, but the environmental risks were judged as too big, so it had to be sanified.

The old Fewa-Werke? Last I heard mostly sealed. The land is considered lost. The costs of removing the pollution of 100+ years of chemical industry have been judged as prohibitive for any private undertaking. We're talking triple digit millions. Actually sanifying this land? Hazard pay for workers and harsh handling standards, because the stuff that's there? Ridiculously toxic. My mom's colleague put it that way "If you screw up there, you don't need to worry about getting cancer. The toxins will get you first." She showed me pictures of chromium salts blooming on walls they had taken in the early 90ies. Pretty and deadly. The soil? Several meters are thoroughly contaminated.
 
Shaithan said:
In Europe, you can get the conservative, landowning elites interested in environmental protection. After all, if things go unchanged, their lands will see damage from things like acid rain. If people like the Junker throw their political clout behind it, it's likely to get traction and the industrialists can't move their factories as much as they may want to. And if environmental standards are enforced early on, other things can likely be mitigated as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also the industrialists could be shown that safer factories are more efficient factories. A higher initially start-up can be mitigated by a factory that will run longer with less incidents. Also if you treat your workers better they will work harder and be happier. Kellogg tired a six-hour work day and they earned the loyalty of their employees. This only changed when the company left the hands of the Founder but continued on in some departments till the 1980s.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top