"New Power Plants Fueled by Coal Are Put on Hold"

[eastside]

One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal.  The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal.  Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners.  However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.

NY Times Story

That idea has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum before.  The problem with siting the generating plant at the source of the coal is that it also requires copious amounts of water, something that is scarce in Wyoming and the Four Corners.

Of all the issues it discusses, the article doesn't mention that availability of water as a problem.  In this case, also stated in the article, the power plants are to be sited on the San Juan River.  So either the Navajos figure there's enough water or they haven't availed themselves to infinite wisdom of this forum.  It does say, however, that potential water pollution is an issue.

[Anonymous]

 

Didn't all the political parties scream for increase use of coal, to help lower our dependence on imported fuels a year ago?

One did, but the other one considers all fossile fuels to be "unsustainable."  Their solution is to add taxes that raise the price on all energy in order to force us to conserve.  And in the process, they get more revenue to expand the government to better shape our lives into a more progressive vision.  It's a win-win propostion (for them). 

[Anonymous]

Regarding the coal industry, the individual power companies have begun utilizing recent very large rate increases by the railroads for their IRR calculations for new power plant construction. The size of many of the recent rate increases has taken the power generation industry by surprise, as the cost of transporting coal, in particular Powder River Basin coal, now exceeds the cost of the coal itself by 2-3x. The transportation cost of coal is becoming the single most important factor in evaluating the potential of new power plants and their locations, and even though most power rates are still cost-based, the sharp rise in transportation costs, coupled with rapid changes in transportation costs, have made it difficult at best to justify to investors and lenders a long term investment based upon unpredictable and rapid cost changes.

One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal.  The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal.  Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners.  However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.

NY Times Story

Eastside, you're not getting it.

It's the combination of sharp increases in rail rates for coal, plus the political idiocy of demonizing carbon-based fuelstocks, that will kill the coal-fired generation sector.  Certainly, the railroads are explicity responsible for the former, and they share an implicit responsibility for the lack of support for those who are trying to expose the global warming fraudmongers for what they are. 

The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry.  Utilities will simply gravitate toward nuclear and natural gas, with token acceptance of so-called "renewables".  Remember, most utilities are regulated, with guaranteed 10% markups more or less, and they will simply take advantage of higher cost energy generation to increase their gross revenues (Hey, which is better - 10% markup of $28/Mwh power which results in $2.80 of profit per Mwh, or a 10% markup of $60/Mwh power which results in $6.00/Mwh of profit?  Memo to utilities - just keep quiet about global warming fraud and reap the benefits!)  Thus, it is incumbent among coal haulers and petroleum users to stand up and grow a spine in the face of this seemingly omnipotent scam.

[eastside]

Regarding the coal industry, the individual power companies have begun utilizing recent very large rate increases by the railroads for their IRR calculations for new power plant construction. The size of many of the recent rate increases has taken the power generation industry by surprise, as the cost of transporting coal, in particular Powder River Basin coal, now exceeds the cost of the coal itself by 2-3x. The transportation cost of coal is becoming the single most important factor in evaluating the potential of new power plants and their locations, and even though most power rates are still cost-based, the sharp rise in transportation costs, coupled with rapid changes in transportation costs, have made it difficult at best to justify to investors and lenders a long term investment based upon unpredictable and rapid cost changes.

One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal.  The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal.  Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners.  However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.

NY Times Story

Eastside, you're not getting it.

Not getting what?  I'd say you haven't read the Times article.  What I wrote isn't my opinion, it's simply a summary of what's in the NY Times article.  So you can infer nothing from it.

The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization there.  Mind documenting the source of those assertions?  It's not obvious to me who the two biggest losers after coal will be, even that there will be big losers.  How about oil, or tour operators to Vanuatu?   I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming.  Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation. 

[Anonymous]

I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming.  Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation. 

I agree that the efficiency aspect of rail makes it green, and thus helps it come out a winner.  Light rail in particular is so green it walks on water.  The negative impact of the green movement on rail is the loss of traffic of the things we are told to give up, like coal, and our abundant lifestyle.  But why do you suggest autos?  I cannot think of anything that has a bigger bulls eye on it, and is considered less green than the private automobile. 

[DMUinCT]

 

What State has THE highest Electric rates in the continental 48 states???

I have news for you, it's CONNECTICUT

Who would ever want to put there industry in that state.

[Anonymous]

 

The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization there.  Mind documenting the source of those assertions?  It's not obvious to me who the two biggest losers after coal will be, even that there will be big losers.  How about oil, or tour operators to Vanuatu?   I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming.  Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation. 

Coal represents 40% of railroad ton/miles.  Take that away, and you have massive railroad bankruptcies.  If you think for a moment that railroads *win* with a supposed increase in passenger rail/transit/et al, you're smoking something.  Hauling coal makes money, hauling people makes headaches.

The US auto industry is already losing due to this global warming craze.  The only way US automakers can compete with lower cost producers in Japan et al is to make big vehicles with big markups.  If those new CAFE standards hold true and those California zero emissions mandates become the standard (both are a result of this global warming fraud), the only types of vehicles that will be allowed are the smaller less profitable models, and the US auto industry will cease to exist. 

Mind telling us how you think the US auto industry might *win* as you allege?

Oil is a commodity in short supply, thus reducing the rate of demand via these fix-it schemes only reduces the rate of gradual price increase.  Oil companies will make money no matter what.  The real losers vis-a-vis anti-oil legislation is the US consumer. 

Not sure what your reference to Vanuatu has to do with anything.  How would anti-coal legislation affect them?  As far as I know, they don't have a coal industry there.

[eastside]

I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming.  Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation. 

I agree that the efficiency aspect of rail makes it green, and thus helps it come out a winner.  Light rail in particular is so green it walks on water.  The negative impact of the green movement on rail is the loss of traffic of the things we are told to give up, like coal, and our abundant lifestyle.  But why do you suggest autos?  I cannot think of anything that has a bigger bulls eye on it, and is considered less green than the private automobile.

Sure if cars go to fuel cells, they won't be producing CO2.  Remember I'm merely saying it's not so obvious to me that either rails or the auto industry will be the worst hit of all. I'm not saying they won't suffer ill-effects.  I'd like to know how he's measuring the impact of global warming on industry, whether it's by net income, sales, market capitalization, number of companies in the industry, percentage of GNP, etc.  If you go by sales, then the retail sales industry, which dwarfs autos and rails, would more likely be a bigger loser, but then, I don't know how you could directly measure the effect of global warming on that or any other industry.  Call me a skeptic.

[eastside]

 

The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization there.  Mind documenting the source of those assertions?  It's not obvious to me who the two biggest losers after coal will be, even that there will be big losers.  How about oil, or tour operators to Vanuatu?   I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming.  Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation. 

Coal represents 40% of railroad ton/miles.  Take that away, and you have massive railroad bankruptcies.  If you think for a moment that railroads *win* with a supposed increase in passenger rail/transit/et al, you're smoking something.  Hauling coal makes money, hauling people makes headaches.

The US auto industry is already losing due to this global warming craze.  The only way US automakers can compete with lower cost producers in Japan et al is to make big vehicles with big markups.  If those new CAFE standards hold true and those California zero emissions mandates become the standard (both are a result of this global warming fraud), the only types of vehicles that will be allowed are the smaller less profitable models, and the US auto industry will cease to exist. 

Mind telling us how you think the US auto industry might *win* as you allege?

Oil is a commodity in short supply, thus reducing the rate of demand via these fix-it schemes only reduces the rate of gradual price increase.  Oil companies will make money no matter what.  The real losers vis-a-vis anti-oil legislation is the US consumer.

That's not responding to the question.  You say that rails and autos will be the worst hit of all industries after coal.  To be convincing you have to establish that there aren't other industries which will be worse affected.  Not being convinced, I'm merely supplying counter-examples and counter-reasoning to show that they may not be the worst affected.  As far as I know, no one has published a study showing the possible quatitative effects of global warming down to the industry level -- which would be a scholarly feat.

Not sure what your reference to Vanuatu has to do with anything.  How would anti-coal legislation affect them?  As far as I know, they don't have a coal industry there.

That's a joke on my part.  I guess I should have put a smiley in there since it wasn't obvious enough.  The Vanuatus are a group of low-lying corral atolls in the Pacific Ocean which are a popular tourist destination and are threatened by inundation by rising sea levels, presumably caused by global warming.  Recently a group from there was in Washington to pressure Congress to get a move on to control CO2 emissions.  If they go under there won't be any business for tour operators.  That's one of the few industries obviously affected, and which will be obliterated, by the way, by global warming that I'm aware of!

[rf16a]

I have about had enough of these chicken little, "the sky is falling" environmentalists and their "man is causing global warming" hoax.

Lets get this straight once and for all. The Earth has warmed and cooled over its lifetime all on its own, long before humans existed. Human beings can not cause it and can not stop it.

This global warming frenzy is the latest thing being used by the socialist/communist anti USA, anti capitalist, anti industrialist movement.

What we need to do is to search for and use any energy resource that exists. If there is oil anywhere, drill for it and use it! Use our coal resources, use solar, wind, nuclear, whatever. Let the free market and facts, not socialist propaganda decide the issue.

[Anonymous]

I have about had enough of these chicken little, "the sky is falling" environmentalists and their "man is causing global warming" hoax.

Lets get this straight once and for all. The Earth has warmed and cooled over its lifetime all on its own, long before humans existed. Human beings can not cause it and can not stop it.

This global warming frenzy is the latest thing being used by the socialist/communist anti USA, anti capitalist, anti industrialist movement.

What we need to do is to search for and use any energy resource that exists. If there is oil anywhere, drill for it and use it! Use our coal resources, use solar, wind, nuclear, whatever. Let the free market and facts, not socialist propaganda decide the issue.

Heh.

I dont pay attention to the Global Warming. If the seas rose and submerged cities then it will be a testament to the failure of Government in any society.

Heck a Quasar might open fire some light years away in space and roast this planet and it will all be natural causes. I like to see them legislate that! LOL.

But I do pay attention to the availible power we get and ours is generated by Coal with some nuclear power. I dont have a problem with that. Im waiting for solar to get a little bit cheaper before installing them to reduce my dependance on a Power Grid that is becoming a tool of politics rather than Utility.

The way I see it is many companies claim to be Electric Utilities and shuffle bills monthly into mailings and use the income to cover imported power because these so called utilities dont have a generator to thier name anywhere on thier territory.

[Anonymous]

 

Not sure what your reference to Vanuatu has to do with anything.  How would anti-coal legislation affect them?  As far as I know, they don't have a coal industry there.

That's a joke on my part.  I guess I should have put a smiley in there since it wasn't obvious enough.  The Vanuatus are a group of low-lying corral atolls in the Pacific Ocean which are a popular tourist destination and are threatened by inundation by rising sea levels, presumably caused by global warming.  Recently a group from there was in Washington to pressure Congress to get a move on to control CO2 emissions.  If they go under there won't be any business for tour operators.  That's one of the few industries obviously affected, and which will be obliterated, by the way, by global warming that I'm aware of!

No, it was obvious, just that this ongoing concern about Vanuatu disappearing under rising seas is one of the poster children for exemplifying this GW nonsense.  If you've read Michael Crichton's excellent novel "State of Fear", you'll remember that the plot revolved around Vanuatu suing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide so that their little paradise won't disappear under the sea.  But once the case comes to pre-trial, the researchers discover that the GW claims are nonsense and wouldn't stand up in court, so the GW proponents turn to the creation of man-made disasters to get a public outcry for GW solutions.

Methinks these Vanuatuians are really trying to get some compensatory cash from the US taxpayers under the guise that our CO2 emissions might cause their island to go under.  It's a global scam, this GW idiocy.