Putting aside the O.T debates about Global Warming (which prob. will lead to the thread being locked) from what I've read the big issue with older coal fired power plants is the pending Mercury emissions regulations. It is very expensive to retrofit older plants to comply with these. That.combined with the previously mentioned dip in Natural Gas prices, is what driving the changes in the Industry.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Victrola1 The company had announced plans more than five years ago to build a coal fired plant near its Sutherland Generating Station in Marshalltown. But the coal-plant plans, on the cusp of regulatory changes to combat carbon emissions had upset environmental groups, ultimately received mixed support from state regulators. http://thegazette.com/2012/08/02/alliant-seeks-to-build-700-million-power-station/ Here is an example of coal the Union Pacific will not be hauling.
The company had announced plans more than five years ago to build a coal fired plant near its Sutherland Generating Station in Marshalltown. But the coal-plant plans, on the cusp of regulatory changes to combat carbon emissions had upset environmental groups, ultimately received mixed support from state regulators.
http://thegazette.com/2012/08/02/alliant-seeks-to-build-700-million-power-station/
Here is an example of coal the Union Pacific will not be hauling.
My first job as a new conductor back in March 1999 was a call off the extra board to spot a coal train at the Sutherland plant. The plant is on exCGW track, reached by a "new" connection off the exCNW main east of Marshalltown. You had to run around the train and shove it into the plant. One track ends at the Iowa River, and once in a while a couple of cars would get "wet." I never had that problem the times I spotted it, though.
Had the coal plant been built, the plan was to put in a complete loop for unloading trains. The existing plant is or has been under renovation, conversion to gas. There are hoppers still sitting on the tracks there, but I don't think there has been a coal train spotted into it this year, certainly not in the last 6 months.
Jeff
Next to the St.Croix river on the border with Wisconsin is the King power plant in Bayport Mn. It is east of St.Paul by about 15 or so miles. A few years ago they finished a one Billion dollar upgrade of the plant to make less emissions. I think that part of the upgrades were in the scrubbers. Its quite beyond me how you can spend one Billion dollars just to upgrade a power plant. Thats a huge chunk of money. BTW they get their coal delivered there by UP. I think it was up to about 1985 it was delivered there by barges coming up the St.Croix river from the Mississippi.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
carnej1 Putting aside the O.T debates about Global Warming (which prob. will lead to the thread being locked) from what I've read the big issue with older coal fired power plants is the pending Mercury emissions regulations. It is very expensive to retrofit older plants to comply with these. That.combined with the previously mentioned dip in Natural Gas prices, is what driving the changes in the Industry.
I used to date a girl that worked as programmer making the software and a technician that installed air quality monitoring systems in power plants. She was extremely well versed in emissions regulations, on the federal and most states levels. After all, the regs defined the parameters for the detectors. In various discussions about it, the two big ones were mercury and radiological material. Even scrubbed and bagged, there's still more radioactive material released to the atmosphere in a day by a coal fired plant versus a nuclear plant. And a lot more captured material that is radioactive has to be dealt with (a nuclear plant's waste material is more radioactive in total, but comprises a smaller total volume, easing handling and storage).
I could go into a whole big thing about how people go nuts over how much radiation could be released by a nuclear power plant in an accident and don't even seem to bat an eye at how much will be released by coal. But that's off topic.
So, in reading this thread, the overall consensus seems to be that coal is declining because of tightening regulations on emissions of nuclear fallout and mercury, the substitution of lower cost natural gas, and the warm winter.
But, the decline of coal has nothing to do with an intention of reducing CO2.
NittanyLion carnej1: Putting aside the O.T debates about Global Warming (which prob. will lead to the thread being locked) from what I've read the big issue with older coal fired power plants is the pending Mercury emissions regulations. It is very expensive to retrofit older plants to comply with these. That.combined with the previously mentioned dip in Natural Gas prices, is what driving the changes in the Industry. I used to date a girl that worked as programmer making the software and a technician that installed air quality monitoring systems in power plants. She was extremely well versed in emissions regulations, on the federal and most states levels. After all, the regs defined the parameters for the detectors. In various discussions about it, the two big ones were mercury and radiological material. Even scrubbed and bagged, there's still more radioactive material released to the atmosphere in a day by a coal fired plant versus a nuclear plant. And a lot more captured material that is radioactive has to be dealt with (a nuclear plant's waste material is more radioactive in total, but comprises a smaller total volume, easing handling and storage). I could go into a whole big thing about how people go nuts over how much radiation could be released by a nuclear power plant in an accident and don't even seem to bat an eye at how much will be released by coal. But that's off topic.
carnej1: Putting aside the O.T debates about Global Warming (which prob. will lead to the thread being locked) from what I've read the big issue with older coal fired power plants is the pending Mercury emissions regulations. It is very expensive to retrofit older plants to comply with these. That.combined with the previously mentioned dip in Natural Gas prices, is what driving the changes in the Industry.
When I was a grad student in Denver I was sitting in a bar near campus when I got into a conversation about global warming with a guy who happened to be a professor at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden (that big M you can see illuminated on a hillside on Hwy 119 between Boulder and Denver is for CSofM). He was pushing nuclear, which I am opposed to (too complicated to be safe and the consequences are too severe to be worth it, think radioactive Old Faithful if it melts into the water table). Anyway, my off hand remark was "what do you do with the waste?" (which is something else that has never been figured out). He said "put it into old coal mines" because they are already highly radioactive, and he told me why, which is something that has stuck with me: coal seams are like the charcoal filter on your faucet at home, water runs through it and deposits elements like uranium and mercury that it has washed through, and they become highly concentrated in the coal (and obviously fills the air when it is burned). I live near a mega power plant in Florida (but hopefully not much longer) that was featured in Trains a few years back and think about that conversation all the time. At some point, as you say, that feature of coal burning will become as hotly contested as the greenhouse gas emissions. To get back on topic: coal fired power plants are the past, and railroads should be ready for that.
Boyd Next to the St.Croix river on the border with Wisconsin is the King power plant in Bayport Mn. It is east of St.Paul by about 15 or so miles. A few years ago they finished a one Billion dollar upgrade of the plant to make less emissions. I think that part of the upgrades were in the scrubbers. Its quite beyond me how you can spend one Billion dollars just to upgrade a power plant. Thats a huge chunk of money. BTW they get their coal delivered there by UP. I think it was up to about 1985 it was delivered there by barges coming up the St.Croix river from the Mississippi.
A typical coal fired Steam Electric Station (industry term) can easy cost $5 to $7 billion to build. The cost depends to a large extent on the number of and size of the generating units. Accordingly, an upgrade of $1 billion, depending on the nature of the upgrades, is not unreasonable. My company has spent billions upgrading our older coal fired power plants.
The key question is whether the company can earn a return on the investment.
In Texas, where I have lived and worked for most of my life, the market determines whether the company can recover the investment. This is also true the other states that have deregulated generation. Deregulation, by the way, does not mean deregulating health and safety standards. It means deregulating the commercial terms of generating and distributing electric energy.
In those jurisdictions that have not deregulated generation, the company has to convince the regulators to allow the the cost of the upgrades to be passed through to the ratepayers. This is generally a highly political process.
Bucyrus So, in reading this thread, the overall consensus seems to be that coal is declining because of tightening regulations on emissions of nuclear fallout and mercury, the substitution of lower cost natural gas, and the warm winter. But, the decline of coal has nothing to do with an intention of reducing CO2.
Many investors have put their money into renewables which have tax incentives, and avoided coal fired power because if some uncertainties in their future.
MidlandMike Bucyrus: So, in reading this thread, the overall consensus seems to be that coal is declining because of tightening regulations on emissions of nuclear fallout and mercury, the substitution of lower cost natural gas, and the warm winter. But, the decline of coal has nothing to do with an intention of reducing CO2. Many investors have put their money into renewables which have tax incentives, and avoided coal fired power because if some uncertainties in their future.
Bucyrus: So, in reading this thread, the overall consensus seems to be that coal is declining because of tightening regulations on emissions of nuclear fallout and mercury, the substitution of lower cost natural gas, and the warm winter. But, the decline of coal has nothing to do with an intention of reducing CO2.
Well, that sounds like the decline of coal does have something to do with an intention of reducing CO2 if a requirement to reduce CO2 is one of those uncertainties in the future of coal fired power.
DwightBranch ... coal fired power plants are the past, and railroads should be ready for that.
... coal fired power plants are the past, and railroads should be ready for that.
And, nuclear also being off the table, the future is ... ? (And please don't tell me we're going to make up the difference with wind.)
dakotafred DwightBranch: ... coal fired power plants are the past, and railroads should be ready for that. And, nuclear also being off the table, the future is ... ? (And please don't tell me we're going to make up the difference with wind.)
DwightBranch: ... coal fired power plants are the past, and railroads should be ready for that.
The difference will be made up with massive conservation. Smart meters, smart grid, and smart appliances, coupled with conservation pricing (price rationing) will do the trick.
This is ultimately the national energy policy today. How many times have you heard that Americans use too much of the world's energy?
The conservation policy is easy to implement simply by reducing supply.
Bucyrus dakotafred: DwightBranch: ... coal fired power plants are the past, and railroads should be ready for that. And, nuclear also being off the table, the future is ... ? (And please don't tell me we're going to make up the difference with wind.) The difference will be made up with massive conservation. Smart meters, smart grid, and smart appliances, coupled with conservation pricing (price rationing) will do the trick. This is ultimately the national energy policy today. How many times have you heard that Americans use too much of the world's energy? The conservation policy is easy to implement simply by reducing supply.
dakotafred: DwightBranch: ... coal fired power plants are the past, and railroads should be ready for that. And, nuclear also being off the table, the future is ... ? (And please don't tell me we're going to make up the difference with wind.)
And the interesting thing is that with conservation comes even higher prices...as energy companies discover that the price of conservation becomes less profit....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
coal plants converting to natural gas is much cleaner. prices are cheap now. gasoline prices were cheap too 10 years ago.......... look for natural gas to go up up up..... pickups and semi tractors and busses are being built to run on nat gas......as demand increases so does..................
nat. gas cheep now........... so was gasoline 10 years ago..... as demand increases so does price
When the US is is finally forced, kicking and screaming, to sign a treaty limiting its greenhouse gas emissions (likely in response to the demands for ecotariffs on the US by Europeans that would cost roughly the same) the US will likely be limited to producing 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, because we are 5% of the world's population. For two decades the US has been trying to get a treaty in which the starting point is not population, but rather where we were in 1990, when the US produced about 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries such as China that didn't have as many factories or cars in 1990 as we did, and which has over 50% of the world's population but in 1990 was around 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, would never go for it, nor would India, Brazil etc.
So right now the US is producing roughly 25% of the world's greenhouse gases, meaning we will either need to reduce our emissions, or buy the right to emit over that amount in the form of TEPs (transferable emissions permits), sold on the market by countries under their threshold, mainly poor countries like Haiti with not much industrial development. That cost would then be added proportionately to the cost of doing things producing greenhouse gases, such as electricity rates and gasoline prices. There might (and should in my opinion) be some ways to apportion the cost more fairly so that, for example, poor working people who drive little cars to work won't be hit as hard as upper middle class professionals driving what are essentially commercial vehicles as passenger cars. I like the BAT standard (best available technology) for cars, appliances, etc. that place a tariff on relatively less efficient products, something the Japanese already do and which makes more energy efficient (and generally more expensive, think of the cost of putting extra insulation in a refrigerator) products cost the same as less efficient ones. So, if say a pickup truck is going to be used as a car it will need to pay a hefty fine when being registered to make up for its greater emissions relative to say a Prius, unless it is used as a work truck, and work trucks must BE work trucks, with tool boxes or a stakebed in back, not a Z75 or whatever it is called, with leather seats and aluminum wheels being driven by a woman in heels and makeup to her office job, as was ubiquitous in Denver.
As for renewables, Germany for example is up to 25% of its electricity production to non-nuclear renewables, that in a country with a lot of cloudy weather, so it is possible to increase our amount too. The upshot for railroads (to get back on topic) is that while coal transport will be fading away, because steel wheel on steel rail transport is the most efficient, railroads should have an increasing relative price advantage over trucks and passenger cars for transporting normal goods and passengers as these changes take effect.
Gentlemen, you hold out a ridiculous future in which we live with artificial and high-priced scarcity in a world of abundant and cheap energy (cheap, at least, until the politicians get busy with it). Meanwhile putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage with the developing world, which will never agree to such constraints for itself.
And this doesn't even begin to explore the exploding cost to Washington (us), which will be forced to subsidize the energy consumption of more and more people along with their chronic unemployment.
Which is not to say none of this insanity will happen. I'm saying, heaven forfend.
To get back "on topic," I can see a future for the rails hauling sunshine and -- the real subject of speculation here -- moonbeams.
Fred: Apparently in your view, carbon and GCC is some myth or conspiracy? For everyone's sake, it would be nice your fantasy were right, just as it's nice to believe in stuff like the tooth fairy and Old Santa, but reality says differently.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Schlimm: I'm reminded of probably the only useful keepsake from John Connolly's (sp?) 1980 GOP presidential candidacy. He said, "The worst environment I can think of is to be cold, hungry and out of a job."
I don't know if you're old enough to have signed up for the global-cooling certitude of many scientists in the early 1970s, but if you were around, you probably did.
To get back to trains (Mr. Moderator!): If all coal disappears, there will be something else to haul, if there's any economy left. That's the lesson we've learned from the disappearance from the rails of passengers, LCL, livestock, produce (largely), and more. Thanks to deregulation, the near 200-year-old railroad model has proven quite resilient.
dakotafred Gentlemen, you hold out a ridiculous future in which we live with artificial and high-priced scarcity in a world of abundant and cheap energy (cheap, at least, until the politicians get busy with it). Meanwhile putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage with the developing world, which will never agree to such constraints for itself. And this doesn't even begin to explore the exploding cost to Washington (us), which will be forced to subsidize the energy consumption of more and more people along with their chronic unemployment. Which is not to say none of this insanity will happen. I'm saying, heaven forfend. To get back "on topic," I can see a future for the rails hauling sunshine and -- the real subject of speculation here -- moonbeams.
I think you are in denial. Ever see the show on TLC with the morbidly obese persons who have to be removed from their house on a forklift? That is us, and it cannot continue, the chickens have come home to roost.
The developing world will agree to restrict their emissions of greenhouse gases to a level proportional to their percentage of the world's population, just as we must.. 5% for US (300M people), 50% for China (2B people). Europe has already agreed.
dakotafred: We will jettison coal to our sorrow, especially when natural gas reassumes something more like its historical price. As we were hammered over the head with during the energy problems of the 1970s, electrical production is a wasteful application of natural gas, whose efficiency there is only about 35 percent, versus virtually 100 percent in home heating. We have a glut of natural gas now. But a lot of that production is associated with oil drilling, and if the extremists ever succeed in shutting down fracking, hang onto your keister. China would be better advised to clean up its coal plants than to shut them down. If its plants burned as cleanly as most of our newer, bigger ones, they wouldn't have a problem.
We will jettison coal to our sorrow, especially when natural gas reassumes something more like its historical price.
As we were hammered over the head with during the energy problems of the 1970s, electrical production is a wasteful application of natural gas, whose efficiency there is only about 35 percent, versus virtually 100 percent in home heating.
We have a glut of natural gas now. But a lot of that production is associated with oil drilling, and if the extremists ever succeed in shutting down fracking, hang onto your keister.
China would be better advised to clean up its coal plants than to shut them down. If its plants burned as cleanly as most of our newer, bigger ones, they wouldn't have a problem.
I am no expert (and at the risk of getting off topic) but I thought that Natural Gas Gas/Steam Turbine Combined cycle plants were more efficient than that? Is'nt the 35% efficiency rating for Thermal plants; I.E burning the NG to make Steam as can be done in many primarily coal burning plants which are equipped to use both fuels?
Well I would never claim to be an expert on anything but I am in the energy business. The efficiency of any external combustion process is limited to 35-40%. Combined cycle plants benefit by using the combustion twice. The most common set up is 2 combustion turbines in the neighborhood of 180 mw each. The exhaust goes to heat recovery steam generators (fancy name for a boiler) to produce steam for a steam turbine of as much as 280mw.
I can't say there is no such thing but I have never seen a boiler that could burn gas and coal. They are completely different animals. A gas fired steam plant is a loser even at todays prices. Right up the road from me is a gas fired plant in mothballs. It has not fired up even in this record hot summer.
There is no escaping the laws of supply and demand. On the supply side we have more coal than we know what to do with. Right now demand is down because our economy is in the sewer. IF the economy comes back, where will the energy come from? I might shut a coal plant down right now but I'd have my nuke application submitted first.
People, you're mad. We may be only 5 percent of the head count, but thanks to the American genius we do a much higher percentage of the world's work. (Haven't seen a figure recently, but it used to be around 25 percent.)
In any case: Why should we volunteer for living standards that are a world "average"? Have you ever been to the Third World? Who would volunteer his children and grandchildren for such a thing on the basis of the theory of "man-made" climate change?
(Anyway, if the climate is warming -- from whatever cause -- who cares? Be scared if we're cooling, as we do every 10,000 years or so. There would be a game-changer.)
dakotafred Schlimm: I'm reminded of probably the only useful keepsake from John Connolly's (sp?) 1980 GOP presidential candidacy. He said, "The worst environment I can think of is to be cold, hungry and out of a job."
I don't think you understand that we will not have a choice. Right now 16% of our GDP is derived from exports. What happens if we stomp our feet and say "you can't make me give up my 4WD pickup as a passenger car"? The rest of the world slaps our exports with ecotariffs severe enough that our exports are uncompetitive. The 2007 collapse wiped out about 14% of GDP, what would 16% look like?
DwightBranchWhen the US is is finally forced, kicking and screaming, to sign a treaty limiting its greenhouse gas emissions (likely in response to the demands for ecotariffs on the US by Europeans that would cost roughly the same) the US will likely be limited to producing 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, because we are 5% of the world's population.
The U.S. emits disproportionately more CO2 than many other lesser-developed countries because it has a lager manufacturing base and a higher standard of living. If you force the world to redistribute the right to emit CO2 on the basis of population, there can only be two results.
One is that the U.S. pays what amounts to a gigantic fine for continuing its standard of living and manufacturing. That other is that the U.S. will not pay the fine, and so the U.S. standard of living and manufacturing base will have to fall to reach parity with the rest of the world’s countries.
It always strikes me as such a happy little coincidence that the remedy for MMGW just so happens to require the U.S. giving its wealth away to the lesser-developed countries until we all have the same amount.
Bucyrus DwightBranch: When the US is is finally forced, kicking and screaming, to sign a treaty limiting its greenhouse gas emissions (likely in response to the demands for ecotariffs on the US by Europeans that would cost roughly the same) the US will likely be limited to producing 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, because we are 5% of the world's population. The U.S. emits disproportionately more CO2 than many other lesser-developed countries because it has a lager manufacturing base and a higher standard of living. If you force the world to redistribute the right to emit CO2 on the basis of population, there can only be two results. One is that the U.S. pays what amounts to a gigantic fine for continuing its standard of living and manufacturing. That other is that the U.S. will not pay the fine, and so the U.S. standard of living and manufacturing base will have to fall to reach parity with the rest of the world’s countries. It always strikes me as such a happy little coincidence that the remedy for MMGW just so happens to require the U.S. giving its wealth away to the lesser-developed countries until we all have the same amount.
DwightBranch: When the US is is finally forced, kicking and screaming, to sign a treaty limiting its greenhouse gas emissions (likely in response to the demands for ecotariffs on the US by Europeans that would cost roughly the same) the US will likely be limited to producing 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, because we are 5% of the world's population.
It strikes them as a happy little coincidence that our plan allows us to maintain our standard of living while we expect them to get around on foot or using bikes. The atmosphere can only accept so much greenhouse gas, and it has to be divided somehow, the fairest way is by population.
Dwight: 'Fairest" -- how?
The U.S. works more, harder and smarter, requiring more inputs. How is it 'fair' to punish us by restricting our inputs -- so we can work less, less hard and dumber? Whom does this benefit? Certainly not ourselves -- nor the rest of the world, either, I would think.
You are a 'professional' -- but can you give a good argument why you should be paid more than a 17-year-old working at McDonald's? If so, you might be able to see why the U.S. needs more inputs -- and puts them to pretty good use.
DwightBranchI don't think you understand that we will not have a choice. Right now 16% of our GDP is derived from exports. What happens if we stomp our feet and say "you can't make me give up my 4WD pickup as a passenger car"? The rest of the world slaps our exports with ecotariffs severe enough that our exports are uncompetitive.
So if those countries put an eco tariff on our exports to their country, it would price our goods out of their market. Do you think their citizens would just accept the higher cost goods that would be substituted for ours after the eco tariff makes ours too costly for them?
Can the poor countries really afford to pay more just because they place a tariff on our products?
dakotafred Dwight: 'Fairest" -- how? The U.S. works more, harder and smarter, requiring more inputs. How is it 'fair' to punish us by restricting our inputs -- so we can work less, less hard and dumber? Whom does this benefit? Certainly not ourselves -- nor the rest of the world, either, I would think. You area 'professional' -- but can you give a good argument why you should be paid more than a 17-year-old working at McDonald's? If so, you might be able to see why the U.S. needs more inputs -- and puts them to pretty good use. This is offensive, and I have reported you to the moderators.
You area 'professional' -- but can you give a good argument why you should be paid more than a 17-year-old working at McDonald's? If so, you might be able to see why the U.S. needs more inputs -- and puts them to pretty good use.
This is offensive, and I have reported you to the moderators.
Bucyrus DwightBranch: I don't think you understand that we will not have a choice. Right now 16% of our GDP is derived from exports. What happens if we stomp our feet and say "you can't make me give up my 4WD pickup as a passenger car"? The rest of the world slaps our exports with ecotariffs severe enough that our exports are uncompetitive. So if those countries put an eco tariff on our exports to their country, it would price our goods out of their market. Do you think their citizens would just accept the higher cost goods that would be substituted for ours after the eco tariff makes ours too costly for them? Can the poor countries really afford to pay more just because they place a tariff on our products?
DwightBranch: I don't think you understand that we will not have a choice. Right now 16% of our GDP is derived from exports. What happens if we stomp our feet and say "you can't make me give up my 4WD pickup as a passenger car"? The rest of the world slaps our exports with ecotariffs severe enough that our exports are uncompetitive.
Most US trade is with developed countries, and the Europeans, especially the Germans, take climate change seriously.
DwightBranch Bucyrus:Most US trade is with developed countries, and the Europeans, especially the Germans, take climate change seriously.
Bucyrus:Most US trade is with developed countries, and the Europeans, especially the Germans, take climate change seriously.
Well aren't those developed countries going to get kind of a double whammy when they make big sacrifices in their own standard of living, and then have to pay more for their imports because we won't make sacrifices in ours?
Bucyrus DwightBranch: Bucyrus:Most US trade is with developed countries, and the Europeans, especially the Germans, take climate change seriously. Well aren't those developed countries going to get kind of a double whammy when they make big sacrifices in their own standard of living, and then have to pay more for their imports because we won't make sacrifices in ours?
DwightBranch: Bucyrus:Most US trade is with developed countries, and the Europeans, especially the Germans, take climate change seriously.
Tariffs have a much more nuanced effect on an economy than you would make them out to be. In the case of agriculture it will actually help the Europeans because they will be able to cut their price supports while maintaining a price at which French, German etc. farmers can compete. Anyone who thinks that tariffs are always a loss for an economy had better not look very closely at Taiwan or South Korea.
On your point about whether European citizens would be willing to pay more for their "stuff" in order to protect the environment, I can't speak for them but my guess is yes. They are willing to pay much more for food than if they let their own farmers go out of business (so are the Japanese), and as I said they are much more concerned about global warming than Americans, so I can definitely see a willingness to sacrifice lower prices for a social cause..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.