The Cog, A Crude Scientific Perspective.
The following was written while off line and I'm not trying to keep the pot stirred up but just trying to add some dimension to the discussion. Take it FWIW.
teejay
I think Mr. Presby should be applauded for addressing the issue of hiker parking in the Cog lot clearly and positively. Further, I welcome the decision of the Cog to convert to cleaner fuel.
However, as it seems we have become more preoccupied here with the "hugely negative impact" of the Cog, I'd like to come to its defense with some crude numbers. I am not an environmental scientist but a chemist so you can judge this with however many grains of salt you care to use.
The Cog is what would be called a "point source" of pollution. It's a slowly moving point that doesn't move very far, but a point. At the point where it is at the time its pollution is significant, and undeniably negative. All of what is spewing out of its stack, with the exception of water vapor and carbon dioxide, is detrimental to the environment to some degree, more or less. It's easy to see the obvious particulate matter and not that difficult to quantify the levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and whatever else coming out of the stack.
According to the Cog's website, the train burns about 1 ton of coal on its trip to the summit. The schedule shows at most, 9 trips per day during the summer season, with many fewer in the off-peak times. For simplification, let's assume it averages 5 trips per day for the roughly 7 months of operation, or approximately 1000 trips per year. It may be more, or less, but if we say the Cog uses 1000 tons of coal per year, the math is simpler.
Now, in perspective, let's shift our attention to a typical coal-burning generating plant somewhere in the Midwest, or anywhere else for that matter. Using current technology it's relatively easy (and cheap) to reduce particulates from the stack's emissions. They sure look clean when all you see on a cold day are a few wisps of water vapor lazily drifting east. Another fact to consider is this. This plant's emissions are blown out into the global environment many hundreds of feet above the "point source". The effects of that particular plant at the ground level immediately adjacent to the plant are negligible. Its contribution to the total environment becomes almost insignificant when measured in total with all the other plants operating.
Here are some numbers I was able to find after a quick Google search. The figures may a bit dated, but this is crude science.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html A typical plant producing 1000 MW per year burns roughly 4 million tons of coal per year. That's about 4000 times more coal than the Cog burns per year. (Simple math). This plant burns as much coal in less than 2 1/2 hours than the Cog does in a year. There are hundreds of these plants. You can do the rest of the math.
Consider this as well. The improvement in air quality in one area of the northeast US directly after the 2003 electricity blackout has been documented.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2004/jul/science/rp_blackout.html (Editorial note: They should have done the same experiment over Kennebunkport the next day.)
What I’ve tried to do here is put into perspective the impact the Cog has on the environment. Locally, at the point, it certainly is hugely negative. You see, hear, smell, taste and touch it. Those immediate effects that are seen as an environmental affront, really pale when measured in the total. The Cog’s attempt to “clean up its act” is certainly a step in the right direction, particularly as it impacts our senses. However, the global consequence is of practically no importance. The most likely impact will be felt by the riders of the Cog when the ticket price is raised to cover the cost of the more expensive fuel.
It’s easy for me to say, as I don’t spend as much time as I would like in the White Mountains, nor have I even hiked Mt. Washington (I‘ve seen, heard, smelled, tasted and touched the Cog, though.), but if that were to change, I still think I could live harmoniously with the Cog and the Auto Road. They’ve been there a long time, they’re a part of the history of this place, and I can accept it. I do on Whiteface in New York. Do you expect to climb to Washington’s summit on a nice summer day and expect to revel in some personal “summit experience”? Not likely. Nor would I on Whiteface. But we have to look at it from the other perspective. Suppose I’m a cotton clad tourist who’s plunked down a fair amount of money on a beautiful day to drive or ride to the top of the highest mountain in the Northeast and I’m sitting out on the deck with my dog (well-behaved, of course, but a dog nonetheless), enjoying the view but not knowing what I’m seeing, eating “boughten” chili, calling home on my cell phone in (insert foreign language of choice) loudly, drinking beer out of a glass bottle and smoking a cigarette while being looked at in contempt by some sweaty fool who, I think, has more patches than good sense who’s walked all the way up and is making me feel that his/her way is more pure, profound or proper. What have you done for
my “summit experience”. C'mon, we can all get along.
Now where was I? Oh, yeah, thank you Mr. Presby. For getting along.
teejay
Okay, I am a geek and was impressed with her knowledge and its depth and details, SO DON'T apologize, I found it VERY interesting as knowledge for the pure sake of knowledge 
