Why haul the coal from the Powder River Basin by rail when you could build a power plant right there

[Anonymous]

Seems it would be cheaper to build power plant right there and feed into the grid. With Power Plant Deregulation I could see this happening. There a5re power plants is southern OH near the mines

[dldance]

Getting permits for long distance, high voltage power lines is almost as fun as getting permits to build a new nuke plant!

dd

[Anonymous]

Build them over the railroad lines and Electricfy UP and BNSF at the same time..

[edblysard]

Raymond, Paul, Cleve...whoever you are,

You can't just build a power generating station, then plug it into the national power grid, and go"hey, who wants to buy my electricity?"

It dosnt work like that, there is only so much capacity the grid can handle.
Where were you when the east coast went dark two years ago?

Some stations are run at less than 100% capacity on purpose, the grid can't take it, and you can't store it like oil, or coal.

And that to the cost mentioned above, no one would take on the liability or the cost.

Ed

[Anonymous]

You build power plants where they work best, not what is convient. in this case, the basin is to far away from the grid (read population centers) to justify a plant there, it's much cheaper to ship to coal by train than to try and distrubute the power from there.

Now take this thread to an Electrical Power Company Forum, this is a trains forum.

[Anonymous]

Can't we all just get along?
And for one thing.....I must agree with edblysard for one thing.
His statement is very true.

[Anonymous]

Also, as MWH has stated, there is not enough water in the region to support power plants.

[JoeKoh]

CR
one more thing to go with the comments above. Ohio coal and Virginia region coal have a higher sulphur content than powder river coal.Therefore powder river coal is needed to reduce acid rain.
stay safe
Joe

[adrianspeeder]

Shoot, I thought it was a OK question. Some reasons why it wouldnt work were given and there are a few more along with some reasons why it would work. Oh wait i didnt see who posted. Never mind, I'm gonna stay out.

Adrianspeeder

[miniwyo]

Ther is a reason things are like they are. It is in Wyoming and we like to do things however we want.

No seriously, You all are forgetting about a coal fired plant in Glenrock Wy, the Dave Johnston powerplant. It is 140 miles from the north end of the basin

[daveklepper]

Look, sure it is a train forum, but if the power plant is located at the mine, the railroad doesn't get to haul the coal and loses revenue. That is a railroad matter. So stop picking on the guy. It was a legitimate and thoughtful question and the kind that should indeed be encouraged.

[Anonymous]

Actually the power loss is considerable.... For example there are three major types of power transmission lines in the United StatesL 465 Megawatts, 356 Megawatts, and 138 Megawatts.....a Megawatts being equal to a thousand kilowatts.... Except for the west coast and along the upper Midwest to Northeast corridor there aren't any 465 Megawatts DC lines in the rest of America..... These are really big wires usually with A frame type towers.....useful for transmitting power from the Pacific Northwest to California and along the southern Great Lakes from the Chicago area to the New York City area....capable of pushing power up to 700 miles or so from power plant to customers..... The use of DC helps to cut down power loss.....

In other areas of the United States the largest power lines are the 356 Megawatt AC lines, usually 3 twin medium gauge wires in comparison the the huge 465 lines with 3 twin wires on each side of the tower vertically or 3 twin lines horizontally....These are capable of moving juice about 350 miles..... The 138 Megawatt AC lines are the 3 median gauge wires not twined useful for pushing power around 130 miles or so....

In America except for California and the grid of the Upper Midwest to northeast, power plants circle major cities in rings..... The larger cities of over 500,000 have power plants up to 350 miles away, the smaller cities have power plants up to 130 miles away....the reason why there are a large number of the AC power lines.... Its only the huge population states of California, Illinois, and the New York area and its NEC where there aren't enough power plants have the Huge DC line become necessary.....with which the larger megaplexes receive power from power plants up to 700 miles away..... in a power sharing arrangement....

Notice that in the most of the states west of I-35 and I-29 up the central part of the United States, many of these states don't even have or need a 356 line....with its smaller population a power plant a hundred miles away will do.....Keep in mind most electric companies in most of America are state based or city based.... Arkansas P&L or Oklahoma P&L, or Austin P&L.....

Texas has 356 lines as does the east coast all the way down to Florida, but many areas in the South, and in the southern Midwest and in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee don't need the 356 lines either..... However, they do have a few to share power from one electic grid to another....

In Wyoming, there is no need to push power over 130 miles, and therefore no power grid to move any juice a long ways to say Chicago, much less Kansas City or Omaha...

The huge DC line mentioned above is very expensive..... No power company earns much income if any transmitting power..... Power companies earn income by selling power to its local customers.... Most state PUCs are relunctant to give the power companies any income from its transmission capabilities in a move to reduce electricity costs.... In fact power companies don't break even on a huge transmission line until 40 years or more have passed.....and therefore are very relunctant to build them, and the main reason why our electric grid is mostly antiquated or to say not up to date.....

In the Dallas area DP&L has merged with other regional companies to form TXU....strong in the north central area of Texas.... There are only 7 major power lines feeding the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex area.....of 356 Megawatts.... The metroplex would go black if say three of these seven links went down......as there isn't enough generating capability within a hundred miles of Dallas to supply its power needs. TXU has four major coal plants plus one nuclear plant supplying its base load needs. There are a number of gas plants however that supply the peak load needs of varying capacities....

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Raymond, Paul, Cleve...whoever you are,

You can't just build a power generating station, then plug it into the national power grid, and go"hey, who wants to buy my electricity?"

It dosnt work like that, there is only so much capacity the grid can handle.
Where were you when the east coast went dark two years ago?

Some stations are run at less than 100% capacity on purpose, the grid can't take it, and you can't store it like oil, or coal.

And that to the cost mentioned above, no one would take on the liability or the cost.

Ed

I'm not sure how long distance we're talking about but Ontario supplies power from Niagara Falls and has sold power to New York State, Pennsylvania and Quebec. I also have a feeling Ohio. I know our lines are interconnected hence that wierd blackout that happened with Ontario, Quebec and a good chunk of North Eastern U.S.

To Cleveland Rocks

Moving power around that much is not cost effective because of its inability to maintain voltage of long distances. If you look at my thread about the Railroads helping the U.S to stay Energy independant (something like that), I call for electrification......BUT......I suggest that maybe to put a windturbine or solar panel modual per block as so each block is energy dependant and won't interfere (pardon my spelling BTW) with the surrounding city's power.

What you are suggesting is rather flawed because it is more cost effective to move the fuel to the power source than use more fuel to enhance the charge to a distant customer. You would end up needing to run more short distance coal trains to enhance the charge not to mention you would have to add more transformer or what ever (not an electrician) to keep the wiring at the end closest to the plant from overloading so the wiring at the end can get a normal charge.

I hope people kind of understand what I mean....

[Overmod]

Now THAT is an interesting thing... Ontario selling hydro power to Quebec? That would tell somebody all they really need to know about the business economics of AC power transmission vs. generating effectiveness...

In the United States at least, the windturbines/solar panels etc. would only require a few standardized characteristics to connect to the power grid (won't discuss the technical details here). Under PURPA the local utility HAS to accept that power, and compensate the 'generator' for it (at what used to be substantially higher-than-baseline rates). It's a bit more complicated to sync to power-grid frequency when synthesizing AC from a DC source like photovoltaics, but generated power from wind turbines can be sync'd almost 'by default'.

Be aware that the very existence of coal trains, and the nonexistence of extensive plant development and long-line construction in Wyoming, is evidence that good people have 'run the numbers' correctly to determine what is most economically feasible. Politics, in this case, translate directly into economics. (Perhaps in a real sense everything else, including stranded risk, does too!)

I might add that the immense flexibility provided by PRB unit trains is difficult to match with a fixed power-generating infrastructure -- the coal trains are hardly limited to being 'shuttle operations' to a particular facility, but can be redirected to many locations served by rail trackage. I doubt you'll see a cost-effective slurry-pipeline network to match that capability any time soon... ;-}

[Junctionfan]

I think it would be more environmentally risk free if a coal train hauls the coal instead of a pipeline of coal slurry. Coal spills require a shovel to clean up; what kind of problem do you get with a slurry?

[Anonymous]

Okay but is that not why they have substations? There are other ways of transmiting power such as Microwave tubes,High pressure water pipe lines linked to turbines at the other end. Fiberoptic Laser Light Tubes that would boil water at the other end. Granted this is all Popular Mechanics stuff but hey it could work.

[Bergie]

If you noticed that this topic shorter, it did. I cleaned up all the garbage (and associated contributions).

Lay off the name calling and personal attacks.

Bergie

[V]

[ChuckCobleigh]

Cost of transportation is probably significantly less by rail.

To deliver X MWH of energy to the customers generating in the West and delivering to the Midwest, the provider must build a significantly larger power plant plus transmission facilities. It's not just lines and towers, but switching, voltage adjustment and circuit protection at periodic distances and hiring the people to man and maintain the facilities. Not only that, you are burning more coal to deliver the same number of MWH to the customers. And finally, you subject yourself to property taxation and local regulation and all the other crap along the way that is a significant drain on resources and manpower.

There just cannot be a business case for that scheme.

On the other hand, you use the railroad, and you don't have to go into the capital markets to build all of the crap you would have to, buy less coal to burn, build smaller power plants when you add capacity, don't hire a bunch of lawyers and accountants to deal with all of the governmental entities with hands reaching into your pockets and don't hire the people needed to take care of all the extra generation and transmission infrastructure.

Sounds to me like a win-win situation for the power utilities.

And it's all about transportation costs and who does it best.

[Anonymous]

Now you have Power Generating Companies(PGC) and You now have Power Transmision Companies(PTC) who ship the juice for the PGCs. If it were feasable UP could get into the PTC buisness useing there Railroad Right Of Ways under a sub company. The Oil Companys have divested themselves of there pipelines to third party operaters. IF more Railroads would get into the PTC Buisness(The Only one right now is Amtrak) then they could electrify. Commuter Rail Routes and Future High Speed Rail could team up with PGCs and PTCs for Sharing Right Of Way.

[Anonymous]

Read This................http://www.localpower.org/pdf/Transforming%20Electricity%201017.pdf

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Clevelandrocks

Okay but is that not why they have substations? There are other ways of transmiting power such as Microwave tubes,High pressure water pipe lines linked to turbines at the other end. Fiberoptic Laser Light Tubes that would boil water at the other end. Granted this is all Popular Mechanics stuff but hey it could work.

Too high tech maybe; may not be cost effective yet. We haven't progressed enough yet......patience. Perhaps in the future but not now. For the moment, the status quo works.

[Anonymous]

One other thing. Some coal plants buy their coal off market, and depending on currency fluctuations and the like, you can often purchase low sulpher coal from places like Indonesia cheaper than PRB. So in addition to locating a coal fired plant close to the intended end users, it also makes sense to locate a coal fired plant where multi-modal trade lanes converge.

[mudchicken]

P.T. Barnum was right.....We just went through the same issues on Friday in another thread. Those with an "agenda" just do not get it.

And as far as erecting power lines on railroad rights-of-way, BAD IDEA frought with pitfalls you clearly are not aware of.

Ed, Mark, dd, jay and dave....I agree and thanx for trying. Bergie, thanx for whatever got bleeped.

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Anonymous]

After a half dozen trips to the Powder River area, it always struck me as interesting that the line that originates all of this coal for electrical generation, was not itself, electrified.

Its interesting that its cheaper to drill oil in Saudi Arabia, transport it half way around the world, refine it and ship it to Alliance Nebraska to fuel locomotives, vs. using an electrified line and electric locomotives (ala Black Mesa and Lake Powell). [?][%-)]

(Geez, as soon as I hit submit, some goons from OPEC or who knows where will probably be at my front door [:0][xx(][:0])

I guess the issue of having to cut-off the electric locomotives and replace them w/ standard diesel power wherever the elec line ends would be a hassle, but then again, trains fuel and get new crews at Alliance.

I guess the heads at Fort Worth worked the math and the math doesn't work. [D)]

[edblysard]

Muddy one...

If ya keep on knocking, someone will eventualy answer the door.....if there is anybody home, that is....
Ed[:D]

[Anonymous]

If one did decide to generate all electricity centrally, the distribution network would have to be scaled up several times in capacity, more lines, bigger lines, more and bigger switchgear, All of which would have to be maintained at considerable cost. Much more cost effective to let the railroads allow their physical plant to deteriorate thru neglect, than to have your own power lines do so.

Plus, in addition to the power loss problems outlined by others, there are several advantages to distributed networks. If, in example, all the power consumed in the North East were generated in Wyoming , look at all the points of possible failure created between the two. One good Tornado in Illinois or Indiana and the rest of the upper mid west and all of New England goes dark? How would THAT be a good idea?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Electrification of the PRB lines would be a very capital-intensive project in a period when there are lots of other projects that would have a higher priority for capital, such as the ongoing double-tracking of segments of BNSF's Transcon line, double tracking of UP's Sunset Route, etc. Also, operational flexibility would be hamstrung by the need to maintain an additional fleet of locomotives that would be tied to the catenary.

[oltmannd]

I always thought it was because they couldn't figure out how to keep the electrons from leaking out of the hopper cars.....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

P.T. Barnum was right.....We just went through the same issues on Friday in another thread. Those with an "agenda" just do not get it.

And as far as erecting power lines on railroad rights-of-way, BAD IDEA frought with pitfalls you clearly are not aware of.

Ed, Mark, dd, jay and dave....I agree and thanx for trying. Bergie, thanx for whatever got bleeped.

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

The PRR electification project of the 1930s placed high tension power distribution along the ROW. In fact, it's on the top of the catenary poles. No real issues with this arrangement, that I'm aware of....

[mudchicken]

Huge issue(s) if the power line is owned or operated by someone other than the railroads. Would make the ruckus with a limited number of fiber optic cables on RR R/W's pale in comparison.