CSX CEO says it will buy no more cars or locomotives for dying coal transport Locked

10957 views
405 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,661 posts
Posted by erikem on Friday, August 11, 2017 11:04 PM

Electroliner 1935

As the song GRANDMA GOT RUN OVER BY A REINDEER, goes, "As for me and Greandma, we believe. Having been to Alaska and Canada and other locations and seen the glaicers melting back up their canyons.

Having been to Glacier Bay and getting the NPS brochure for that park:

Back about 1600AD, what is now Glacier Bay was dry land. The glaciers started advancing about 1600, reached their maximum extant about 1800 and have been retreating since. Same with the glaciers near Juneau, maximum extant around 1800 and retreating since. CO2 levels were not rising significantly before 1950, so something else is primarily responsible for the retreat of the glaciers.

To make things even more interesting, the retreat of the glaciers near Juneau are uncovering tree stumps and these stumps are only a few hundred years old.

Some of the tide gauge data I've seen shows sea levels dropping from the early 19th century to around 1880 and rising since then.

I have no doubt that some of the warming is due to CO2 and other gases with large IR cross sections, but have little doubt that some of the warming is natural variations.

As for New Orleans, 10 inches of rain is a lot and unusual, but not unprecedented. I was also surprised to hear that a large number of the flood control pumps require 25Hz power, and unfortunately all of the 25Hz generators are off line for one reason or another.

  • Member since
    June, 2012
  • 46 posts
Posted by jcburns on Friday, August 11, 2017 11:08 PM

Norm48327

 

IMO schlimm has discredited himself by dismissing other opinions that disagree with him as heresy.

Norm.

I think he isn't saying anything about heresy, he's saying (in a bunch of almost polite ways) you're full of it.

And you're saying he and me and anyone else who speaks up here concerned about climate change--we're full of it.

OK. Got it. You are not changing your mind. Got it. You don't have to do a darn thing to take care of the planet. Gun that diesel down the interstate.

We'll do what we can as you sit on the sidelines and toss in stuff that maybe you heard on Fox News...or worse.

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Saturday, August 12, 2017 4:14 AM

Just for the sake of response, not rejoinder:

schlimm
I am sure among other physicists in her field (which I might add is well-established), disputes are quite harsh.  They certainly are in my fields, clinical psychology and (neuro)psychological assessment.  But I refrain from speaking as anything other than a (sometimes well-read) layperson in most fields, even in other fields of psychology.

I think the issue is more in the way you express the 'speaking ... as a layperson' in ways that arrogantly presume your opinion is not only correct but that opinions that run counter to yours can be belittled.  At least that is the perception a fairly significant number of other posters on this forum seem to have derived over time.  But I would be hypocritical to claim I hadn't done just the same thing, perhaps even more frequently, from time to time in similar circumstances here.  There appear to be differences, however, in how we respond when challenged on that point.

The areas I feel like a fairly knowledgeable amateur in are in history, but I would not presume to be more knowledgeable than an actual historian.

Speaking as someone with some actual training in academic history, you do pretty well, particularly in those areas you have addressed with particular 'rigor' (WW1 aircraft being one area that comes promptly to mind).  What I would observe is this: in your areas of 'specialization' you know more than many "professional" historians who haven't studied that material, and in my opinion you are fully qualified to discuss those subjects, and in fact dispute them, without having to resort to false modesty or 'deference to authority'.  (If there are lacunae due to autodidacticism or other reasons, the reasonable historians I have known would 'bring you up to speed' on what you didn't know rather than cut you off for not being degreed in the specialty.  But perhaps the academics I know aren't representative of the ones you know.)

You doubtless have more well-deserved confidence in yourself to speak in public forums about fields beyond your own.

I was educated in the Western liberal-arts tradition, but right at the tail end of the way it 'used' to be practiced in 'East Coast establishment' universities.  By the time I attended college, things were well into the 'high-school-plus-two-years' followed by 'grad-school-minus-two-years' situation that I think still applies in many colleges; I was lucky enough to work with a number of senior professors who still understood the desirability of giving students a framework of thought and understanding rather than a bundle of doctrine of one sort or another.

One thing valuable about my education is that it specialized, in part, in precisely the genesis and management of various kinds of intellectual study, including as a particular interest the ways in which science can become used for false purposes.  So yes, I don't think it is inappropriate for me to speak 'in public forums' about aspects of 'fields beyond my own' if I have taken reasonable care to understand them.  There are of course very strict limits to which I would criticize the actual work of primary researchers in those fields, let alone consider my opinions 'superior' to theirs; in any case, I have repeatedly pointed out that anything I say is "opinion" subject to individual independent reproduction or confirmation 'on the facts',  and I have (repeatedly!) corrected both opinion and attitude when there is indication I have been mistaken.

I'm not sure why you should take 'polymath' as a pejorative ...

Because, in my opinion, you have repeatedly used it as such.  I am not such a fool as to misunderstand the art of insult in academe; please do not assume that because I don't frequent faculty studies any more I have forgotten the give and take in them.

Any, and all, of my arguments do not stand or fall merely because I express them, or even believe them.  As you have noted, I can certainly do better in expressing them so they are less likely to be interpreted by the unwary as ex cathedra.  But there are, in fact, people who take a wide interest in multiple fields and are at least conversant with their scope and practice, and I consider myself one of those. 

Just because I studied and have used stats does not qualify me, IMO, to critique the research designs of climatologists but I accept your choice.

That is not exactly what I said, is it?  If I have studied and have used computer modeling, I think it does, in fact, qualify me to critique the parts of research designs of climatologists that involve modeling or assumptions used in generating models -- particularly if they can be easily demonstrated to contain problematic assumptions or data by the standards of those skilled in the art of modeling.  You can choose to further dispute this, but I think you will not come off well in the attempt. 

So what is your degree in and current field of research?

Undergraduate: AB, history and philosophy of science.  (I have reasons not to apologize for early specialization in a 'harder' field)

Graduate: joint MBA/SIA (program primarily intended to facilitate international business, but I specialized in aspects of foreign and defense policy instead for personal reasons).

I considered a DBA but I had no interest in academic teaching at that time so did not pursue it.  For personal reasons, I saw little sense in acquiring or stacking other doctoral qualifications, which was probably a mistake in some circles.

I am not doing formal academic research of any kind, and at present am not affiliated with an academic institution.  On the other hand, I am actively involved in a number of private initiatives as a consultant, and oversee others as a director.  If it matters to you, I will be a named PI in a number of upcoming grant proposals, in a range of fields (that probably wouldn't be possible outside a company specializing in technical and management consulting).

 

If at all possible, I would like to redirect this thread away from this whole faux-news hole it's fallen into, and get back onto schlimm's original topic, which is less concerned with climate science than with the 'bleeding-edge' consequences for coal consumption and hence coal transportation on the railroads.  In particular I would like to hear opinions on the division between coal use 'dying off' for financial or operational reasons and coal use being killed off by effective political actions.

I, personally, think there is little if any doubt that there was a concerted effort to 'kill coal' in the Obama administrations.  I fail to see why this is somehow a 'conspiracy' -- it is an appropriate priority for a political organization to take, as are the evolved techniques of 'community organizing' that Obama's administration employed, and that Organizing for Action almost certainly continues to use.  Much of the problem for 'opponents' including those on the right appears to be that they are not competent to build and run comparable organizations, and therefore fall back on the 'shadow government conspiracy' sort of rhetoric -- I see no reason to discuss those responses either in careful detail or some kind of taxonomic precision; they all come more or less under the sour-grapes category.

I do draw the line somewhere before the George Soros - Peabody caper, although that might have been intended to be part of the same sort of strategy as buying up gun manufacturers to close them down or change their operations, in order to further effective gun control.  But again, that's purely my own opinion on political morality, and shouldn't be taken as even particularly critical.

The great unanswered question here is "how much of the anticipated decline in coal transport demand is related to political action or mandates vs. economics."  It will be interesting to see in particular how Trump's version of the EPA affects coal demand over the next three years or so, as that gives us an interesting view of policy change while renewables and alternative fuels continue their existing progression into fossil fuels, and presumably demand for metallurgical coal continues to respond primarily to market forces over that interval.

I wonder if part of the decision Hunter announced involves the idea that private companies should buy and perhaps maintain any physical equipment used for coal transportation to replace the existing coal gons and hoppers when their time comes?  One of the next 'logical' steps toward making CSX 'lean' might be an increased use of outsourcing for capital-intensive or stranded items, just as Amtrak has states financing the cost of some corridor trainsets...

  • Member since
    March, 2008
  • 634 posts
Posted by ruderunner on Saturday, August 12, 2017 5:35 AM

Euclid

 

 
Electroliner 1935
I think we need to stop denying global warming and try harder to understand the resulting weather extremes it is causing.

 

In my opinion, the whole idea of “extreme weather” is a false concept recently created for the sole purpose of selling the theory of destructive manmade climate change. 

Extremes have always been a part of weather, but somehow, we have suddenly been led to believe that there is normal weather and abnormal weather.  And “normal” weather is now being defined as equaling average weather.  So now, any departure from average is considered abnormal or extreme.

While it’s true that the average itself can be said to be normal, that does not mean that the variations that make up the average are abnormal.  

If the average daytime high temperature in Minneapolis on 6/21 is 78 degrees F., that does not mean that that if it actually measures 79 degrees, something is wrong.  Yet that is clearly the message of the newly minted, “Extreme Weather” mantra that is everywhere in media and pop culture. 

I don’t think any weather or climate event can possibly be valid evidence of climate change no matter how far out of average it is.  Yet that is the way it is being packaged and sold. 

We are told climate change is causing the glaciers to melt and the water to rise.  So the cameras show us melting glaciers and flooded waters.  It is always treated as being unpresented to drive home the idea that things used to be normal before man began destroying the planet by causing climate change.  The fact is that the glaciers have always been melting.  That is one of the things that glaciers do.  They are either forming or melting.  So we are told that they are all melting, and one that happens to be in the melting stage is shown to us as the evidence.  As such, there is a theatrical production of climate change that is now part of the culture.

I think there is plenty to doubt before you even get to the science.  

 

 

I wonder if some of the new weather facts are coming to light simply because the world is much better connected than ever before?

We're hearing more stories about floods, extreme temperature etc, that is pretty undeniable. But is it because these things are getting more common or just that we can spread the word faster and farther?

100 years ago (heck even 30 years ago) a flood in Tennessee would have made the local news, but unlikely that anyone in California would have known, even Ohio would have been a stretch. Today though, folks in Australia know about it the same day. What were things like 200 to 2000 years ago?

 

Note, this doesn't just apply to global warming, it's evident in many other things, 

PC, PennCentral or Plywood Contraption? Either way I'm modeling it...

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Saturday, August 12, 2017 7:22 AM

RME/Overmod:  I will leave it at that, except your Ivy League background seems to have left you with a blind spot in regard to expert specialization.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 3,973 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, August 12, 2017 7:45 AM

RME
In particular I would like to hear opinions on the division between coal use 'dying off' for financial or operational reasons and coal use being killed off by effective political actions. I, personally, think there is little if any doubt that there was a concerted effort to 'kill coal' in the Obama administrations. I fail to see why this is somehow a 'conspiracy' --

Killing coal requires the entire destruction of coal’s reputation, so it must be shown that the evils of coal alone are sufficient to cause its demise.  If it is known that coal is also being actively being killed by regulation and politics, then that weakens the case for coal’s bad reputation.  That is why the media is saturated with complete denial that Obama had anything to do with coal’s demise.

Yet, the truth is that whenever a powerful, influential person such as a president of this country begins talking down coal; that alone begins the process of killing coal because the talk alone creates the expectation of a higher price in the future.  

Another way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently.  Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal.

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,836 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:28 AM

Euclid
Another way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently. Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal.

Euclid,

I have been told (anecdotally) that the major cost of coal is the transportation via rail to the generating plants. I don't know if the source was accurate but it said the cost of transporting one hundredd tons of coal was one thousand dollars per 100 ton car.

Pipelines appear to have the advantage in that once the line is in place (at great expense of construction) transporting gas via pipeline is much more cost efficient than transporting coal by rail. Were the generating stations near the source of coal that cost would be far less and of lesser value to the railroads.

Unfortunately, generating electricity require copious amounts of water for steam production that is not available in most areas of coal production. Were there sufficient water near the coal fields of Wyoming it would make sense to build generating plants there and transmit electricity on very high voltage lines to the areas that require and are the heaviest users of the electric energy.

One poster here consistantly pans Trump for his policies yet refuses to acknowledge that Obama had an agenda that was indeed a 'war on coal' that was intended to reverse course toward renewable energy sources that was, from the outset, intended to raise the price of the energy source (electricity) that keeps America on the move and in the process lower our standard of living to that of a third world country.

Could civilised America survive on Obama's plan? Doubtful in my mind. Our society, and that of most of the world is now dependent on the internet where ideas  and information, (some of which are questionable) spread rapidly amongst the populace whether true or not.

I read a variety of news sites and wonder which is posting facts or feeding the mushrooms their natural diet. In my opinion the 'Forth Estate' has sold their readers down the river, disregarding the duties they were charged with in the beginning. Their purpose under the constitution was to challenge government and expose truth. I firmly believe they have forsaken thier mission and have become political in their endeavor to support candidates of their choice. I no longer trust any media to be truthful and I'm willing to research everything I can find to determine which sites are lying to the public.

 

Norm


  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,534 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:35 AM

[quote user="Norm48327"]
Euclid

Another way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently. Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal.
[quote user="Norm48327"]
Euclid
Another way of shifting blame for coal’s demise onto its own reputation is to say that coal cannot compete with natural gas, leaving the impression that coal cannot lower its price sufficiently. Yet part of the reason for coal’s higher price is the growing burden of regulations on coal, which is exactly what Obama promised us near the beginning of his term when he vowed to kill coal.

Euclid,

I have been told (anecdotally) that the major cost of coal is the transportation via rail to the generating plants. I don't know if the source was accurate but it said the cost of transporting one hundredd tons of coal was one thousand dollars per 100 ton car.

Pipelines appear to have the advantage in that once the line is in place (at great expense of construction) transporting gas via pipeline is much more cost efficient than transporting coal by rail. Were the generating stations near the source of coal that cost would be far less and of lesser value to the railroads.

[/quote]

One thing I have never heard discussed about pipelines is the rate structure in transporting a particular shipment.  Pipeline, in many cases, are considered 'common carriers' just like railroads and other forms of transportation.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,836 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:58 AM

BaltACD
One thing I have never heard discussed about pipelines is the rate structure in transporting a particular shipment. Pipeline, in many cases, are considered 'common carriers' just like railroads and other forms of transportation.

Chuck,

Is it the actual cost of transportation or the market price when the product is produced or delivered? 

My understanding of pipelines is that gas is placed in a pipeline with the expectation of a price paid by the end user. I believe it can vary from the date of insertion to the time it is accepted by the utility which is the intended recipient and it may vary from day to day.

Are plugs placed into pipelines that denote which supplier nis supplying gas to each generating plant? I am not privy to that information.

Norm


  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,534 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 12, 2017 10:20 AM

Norm48327
BaltACD

Chuck,

Is it the actual cost of transportation or the market price when the product is produced or delivered? 

My understanding of pipelines is that gas is placed in a pipeline with the expectation of a price paid by the end user. I believe it can vary from the date of insertion to the time it is accepted by the utility which is the intended recipient and it may vary from day to day.

Are plugs placed into pipelines that denote which supplier nis supplying gas to each generating plant? I am not privy to that information.

I know nothing about the operation of pipelines, beyond the knowledge that my father-in-law worked at a Sun Oil distribution center and his work schedule was dependent upon when shipments for his center were due to arrive.  What he had to do to take delivery of the shipment and how the transportation costs were allocated and collected is beyond my knowledge.

The NTSB has a section on pipeline accidents - I have never read through any of the reports.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 286 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Saturday, August 12, 2017 10:21 AM

Norm48327
I have been told (anecdotally) that the major cost of coal is the transportation via rail to the generating plants. I don't know if the source was accurate but it said the cost of transporting one hundredd tons of coal was one thousand dollars per 100 ton car.

Here is a link to railroad transportation cost from coal basin to state:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/transportationrates/pdf/table3cn.pdf it is from this website: https://www.eia.gov/coal/transportationrates/

And here is a link to current coal prices that shows why Powder River Basin coal is economical even at the East Coast: https://www.eia.gov/coal/markets/Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 286 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Saturday, August 12, 2017 11:16 AM

RME
In particular I would like to hear opinions on the division between coal use 'dying off' for financial or operational reasons and coal use being killed off by effective political actions.

I think in the end economical reasons will accelerate the demise of coal. But included are cost caused by regulation starting in the 1970s with the Clean Air Act.

Here is an interesting read about the development of coal including the influence of Clean Air Act regulations.
https://siepr.stanford.edu/research/publications/what-killing-us-coal-industry

The Mercury and and Air Toxic Rule of 2011 was already required in 1990 Amendments of the Clean Air Act. At least the proposed Clean Power Plan had no influence as it hasn't been implemented yet.

It is at least one perspective.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    October, 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,181 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Saturday, August 12, 2017 8:05 PM

For what it's worth, in case no one mentioned it in this thread ( I know I have in others): 

How coal railroads can run downhill at a profit
from Trains October 1967  p. 37

Studying and thinking through the diagrams and graphs in this article taught me a lot about how to do that and understand the facts presented and conclusions that John was reaching.  

- PDN. 

 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 12,534 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:40 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr
For what it's worth, in case no one mentioned it in this thread ( I know I have in others): 
How coal railroads can run downhill at a profit
from Trains October 1967  p. 37

Studying and thinking through the diagrams and graphs in this article taught me a lot about how to do that and understand the facts presented and conclusions that John was reaching.  

- PDN.

Despite the fact that the article is 50 years old and coal is still a commodity that has to be accounted for.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    September, 2011
  • 3,290 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:59 PM

Norm48327

 

 
BaltACD
One thing I have never heard discussed about pipelines is the rate structure in transporting a particular shipment. Pipeline, in many cases, are considered 'common carriers' just like railroads and other forms of transportation.

 

Chuck,

Is it the actual cost of transportation or the market price when the product is produced or delivered? 

My understanding of pipelines is that gas is placed in a pipeline with the expectation of a price paid by the end user. I believe it can vary from the date of insertion to the time it is accepted by the utility which is the intended recipient and it may vary from day to day.

Are plugs placed into pipelines that denote which supplier nis supplying gas to each generating plant? I am not privy to that information.

 

I was involved in the exploration end of the oil&gas industry so my understanding of the natural gas distribution end is more chit-chat over coffee cup type info with those guys.  First, pipeline companies announce their new pipeline plans to guage interest, and not a spade of dirt is turned over until they have "take-or-pay" contracts that bind the gas buyers to take at least a certain volume of gas or pay anyway.  Gas producers have to process the gas so that it is "pipeline grade" before they put it into a sales line.  The price they pay producers varies, sometimes there are allowances for BTU content, sometimes not.  Gas going into the pipeline is metered, as is gas going out at the end user.  With the complex gathering and distribution system, my guess is that the only pigs sent thru the lines are for cleanout/inspection.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 3,973 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, August 13, 2017 7:39 AM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
At least the proposed Clean Power Plan had no influence as it hasn't been implemented yet.

Here is the case against the Clean Power Plan:

https://cei.org/cleanpowerplan?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=CPC&utm_term=CPP&utm_content=Google%20Grants&gclid=Cj0KCQjw8b_MBRDcARIsAKJE7lncir1o6VERFcqr6oJx42tRmtdp6rnqIzdmuKspugC9jt7_1lOSEnIaAu3jEALw_wcB

"The EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan is President Obama’s marquee climate change initiative. Finalized by the administration on August 3, 2015, the Clean Power Plan would expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s power beyond the Clean Air Act, allowing the agency unprecedented authority to centrally plan the electric system as a whole: generation, transmission, distribution, and consumption. This regulation will have a devastating effect on America’s electricity industry, consumers, and the U.S. economy."

 

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 286 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Sunday, August 13, 2017 8:08 AM

Euclid
VOLKER LANDWEHR At least the proposed Clean Power Plan had no influence as it hasn't been implemented yet. Here is the case against the Clean Power Plan:

I just stated that the Clean Power Act had no influence on the demise of coal as it isn't implemented yet and perhaps won't under the current President.

That the CEI is challenging the CPA in court is their right. If the President doesn't stop it we'll see how the courts will rule.

Everything else I read with caution, given the history of the CEI.

  • Member since
    June, 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 2,702 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Sunday, August 13, 2017 8:43 AM

Norm48327
I read a variety of news sites and wonder which is posting facts or feeding the mushrooms their natural diet. In my opinion the 'Forth Estate' has sold their readers down the river, disregarding the duties they were charged with in the beginning. Their purpose under the constitution was to challenge government and expose truth. I firmly believe they have forsaken thier mission and have become political in their endeavor to support candidates of their choice. I no longer trust any media to be truthful and I'm willing to research everything I can find to determine which sites are lying to the public.

Graduates of Liberal Arts Journalism degrees have become increasingly idealogical and take the BS courses in college instead of the more challenging courses that would make them a good journalist.    Hence most graduate with less and less intellect or skill on news reporting and some even have basic issues with grammar and spelling.......pretty confident that is what is happening.    Need to fix this at the college level in the area of required courses AND remove the idealogical BS courses.     It will go a long way towards addressing the media problem in this country.

RME
  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Sunday, August 13, 2017 9:32 AM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
I just stated that the Clean Power Act had no influence on the demise of coal as it isn't implemented yet and perhaps won't under the current President.

In my humble opinion, I think the situation is quite different.  Any utility or component supplier concerned with coal combustion looks well ahead of pending legislation to determine how to allocate capital.  They will consider 'likely legislation' along with other types of risk -- in fact, weight it more strongly since few things are as sure as application of Federal sanctions by acquiescing Federal agencies.  Ask yourself whether Hillary Clinton's administration ... seen as so likely very late in the timeline of planning for new baseline powerplants ... would have continued to implementation of the Clean Power Plan, in ways with significant 'downside' for any utility foolish enough to make plans involving any major reliance on coal-fired generation.

(As a personal preference: I tend to discredit any claim made by a largely polemical organization (as CEI certainly seems to be, judging by the Web pages they put up) until I independently confirm the claim from more neutral or objective sources.  I think H.Landwehr has said much the same thing in more diplomatic language.)  

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,836 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Sunday, August 13, 2017 9:45 AM

CMStPnP
Graduates of Liberal Arts Journalism degrees have become increasingly idealogical and take the BS courses in college instead of the more challenging courses that would make them a good journalist. Hence most graduate with less and less intellect or skill on news reporting and some even have basic issues with grammar and spelling.......pretty confident that is what is happening. Need to fix this at the college level in the area of required courses AND remove the idealogical BS courses. It will go a long way towards addressing the media problem in this country.

It goes much deeper than that. The problem begins in grade school when kids are passed on to the next grade even though they, in reality failed, and, in times of yore, should have/would have been held back. The same happens in high school and at the universities. Educators at all levels have failed to teach students. Can you fault the students for taking the easy courses? It gets them a sheepskin.  There was a day when a four year degree counted for something. Now it is the equivalent of a high school college prep diploma.

The fourth estate has failed the trust put in them by the populace. Instead of news without bias we get, from both sides, only the narrative they wish us to hear. Truth in media began disappearing when Harry Truman was still president. I can understand them posting 'editorial opinion' as such but most reporting is now tainted due to the author/editor offering their opinion as news rather than their personal beliefs.

Another contributing factor is youth who don't care whether they get an education or not.  They can make a tidy living selling drugs on the street, but as one friend who is a DEA agent said, longevity in that business is not to be expected even though the pay is good. If the feds don't 'getcha' the cartels are likely to.

Norm


  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 286 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Sunday, August 13, 2017 11:00 AM

RME
In my humble opinion, I think the situation is quite different. Any utility or component supplier concerned with coal combustion looks well ahead of pending legislation to determine how to allocate capital.

You are right, they look ahead. On the other hand they'll stay with what they have until forces by regulation to do something. They might plan for the upcoming interim steps and the final goal but they haven't changed yet.

The demise of coal until today has nothing to do with the Clean Power Plan in my opinion. Forthcoming losses may well be caused by CPP if it ever gets implemented.

We had a similar situation when the Schroeder (SPD) administration planned to exit nuklear power generation. The utility companies even entered a contract with the government about the timeline of the phaseout till 2022 in June 2000. But they didn't prepare, they gambled that a new CDU-lead government would revise the contract. That happened and the utility relaxed. But then came Fukushima and the government decided they wanted to get out of nuklear power generation within the limits of the old contract. The utilities were caught by surprise being prepared for nothing.

The utilities lost more than 50% of the shareholder value if I recall correctly.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 3,973 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, August 13, 2017 11:59 AM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
 
RME
In my humble opinion, I think the situation is quite different. Any utility or component supplier concerned with coal combustion looks well ahead of pending legislation to determine how to allocate capital.

 

You are right, they look ahead. On the other hand they'll stay with what they have until forces by regulation to do something. They might plan for the upcoming interim steps and the final goal but they haven't changed yet.

The demise of coal until today has nothing to do with the Clean Power Plan in my opinion. Forthcoming losses may well be caused by CPP if it ever gets implemented.

We had a similar situation when the Schroeder (SPD) administration planned to exit nuklear power generation. The utility companies even entered a contract with the government about the timeline of the phaseout till 2022 in June 2000. But they didn't prepare, they gambled that a new CDU-lead government would revise the contract. That happened and the utility relaxed. But then came Fukushima and the government decided they wanted to get out of nuklear power generation within the limits of the old contract. The utilities were caught by surprise being prepared for nothing.

The utilities lost more than 50% of the shareholder value if I recall correctly.
Regards, Volker

 

I am not sure I understand what point you are making.  You are right that the Clean Power Act has not yet been put into action.  But I think the important point is the intended effect of the act, and the fact that it will be put into action if it cannot be stopped on legal grounds. 

And also, while the provisions of that act have not yet had the effects that would flow from it being put into action; the mere existence of the proposed act is having effects right now in discouraging new coal plants with the risk that the act might be put into action in the future. 

So given the intent of the act and the fact that has an effect without being put into action, I don’t think it can be entirely dismissed just because it has not been put into action. 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,836 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Sunday, August 13, 2017 2:18 PM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
You are right, they look ahead.

Volker,

If I should be so audacious as to suggest they not only look ahead but take a look at history. Those who deny history are condemned to make the same mistakes.

Sure, we should look to the future and plan for it but in a reasonable manner and not by the BS fed to us by the doomsayers. The UN has a plan for global governance and those who fall for their propaganda are being sucked in to their lies.

Norm


  • Member since
    February, 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 20,898 posts
Posted by selector on Sunday, August 13, 2017 3:32 PM

......good lord........

  • Member since
    May, 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 11,395 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, August 13, 2017 5:28 PM

I think futures prices in the aluminum foil market just went up.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January, 2002
  • From: On the Ballast.
  • 5,798 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, August 13, 2017 5:32 PM

selector

......good lord........

 

I don't think even he can help some people in this thread.

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer or any other railroad, company, or person.

I occasionally post off-topic remarks.  Adults can handle that.

  • Member since
    September, 2011
  • 3,290 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Sunday, August 13, 2017 8:36 PM

Some people want to single out the environmental movement as the cause of coal's low ebb, however, that gives the environmental groups too much credit.  The real reason is actually the other big bain of environmentalist-- fracking.  If power companies had no other choice besides coal, they would be fighting and winning that battle.  With cheap gas they have an alternative source that's easier to work with.

  • Member since
    March, 2013
  • 633 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Monday, August 14, 2017 2:30 AM

Wow.  Someone's been watching too much Alex Jones...

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    July, 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 1,395 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Monday, August 14, 2017 10:24 AM

   I'm just glad I'm not paranoid.   Anyway, I don't think I am.

_____________

   My mind's made up.   Don't confuse me with the facts.

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, August 14, 2017 2:51 PM

Murphy Siding

I think futures prices in the aluminum foil market just went up.

 

Image result for tin foil hat emoji

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy

Search the Community