Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal For the record, it is technically cheaper to process strip-mined PRB coal into a higher BTU/low moisture product than it is to mine Eastern US underground coal. The reason is that PRB coals are so cheap to begin with relative to Eastern coals, that the added costs of processing PRB coals into higher value coal products is still less expensive than raw Eastern coals. The big problem with such synthetic coals is an inability to transport the product in regular coal gons due to spontaneous combustion of the product. If and when that problem is ever worked out, "value-added" PRB coal products will be less expensive per mmBtu than Appalachian coals. [/quote] That might be true at the mine head but it is hardly true when you factor in the delivery cost. My son works at a power plant in Ohio. The Wyoming coal is substantially more expensive on a per ton basis than is the local Ohio and West Virginia coal. When you consider per BTU the Wyoming coal is outrageously expensive. The PRB coal is only used to bring the total sulfer content down to legal limits. If it were not for the regulations, the power company would not bother with it. Additionally, the Wyoming coal very often is already on fire when it arrives at the power plant. The first thing the employees must do is spread it out and douse it with water. Only then can it be put into the feed bins. That simply adds more expense to the use of the Wyoming coal, which of course causes the electric rates to be just that much higher. [/quote] Yes, I did address spontaneous combustion of syncoal, and I am aware that some lignites will combust if transported in open air gons. What is striking is the delivered cost of PRB coal to Eastern power plants vs the mine mouth cost. Transportation costs now constitute over half the total delivered cost, sometimes as much as 2/3 of the total cost. Whether the DM&E project will bring down some of this obscene profiteering remains to be seen. So, if we can get true competitive rail rates for unit trains of Western coal and coal products, and if the syncoal folks can eliminate the problem of spontaneous combustion, it is possible that Western Syncoal will be cheaper than most Eastern coals on a $$/mmBtu basis. Consider the ACCP Syncoal project out of Montana. They claimed they could process 8,800 Btu Montana coal (most of which is still just sitting in the ground due to it's higher sodium content) into 12,000 btu syncoal for around $30 to $40 a ton. Even with transportation costs that double that price to Eastern power plants, the 12,000 Btu Syncoal will be more cost effective than 15,000 Btu Appalachian coal, soley due to the inherently lower sulfer content. The Syncoal also has the added plus of having most of the mecury removed during the process. Here is the official feds NETL summary and link: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coal_and_power_systems/cctc/summaries/rsbud/adcconvdemo.html There's also the CENfuel coal product, which is a chemical conversion of raw coal to synthetic coal, but last I heard they were focussing on the carbon black market. There's also FX(?) a type of synthetic coal currently being marketed, but they are pretty closed lipped about their product. But of the three synthetic coal products mentioned, the ACCP syncoal is the least costly to produce, and would work great in steam locomotive applications. But again, the product does easily self combust, so it can't be transported in open air gons for long distances.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag