what will replace coal?

[ndbprr]

What I don't think is being taken into account is that CO2 molecules are excellent at bouncing heat very uniformally but the climate people only consider the heat generated from the earth. I guess the solar heat on the backside of the atmosphere isn't reflecting a like amount of heat away from the earth and therefore it balances causing no change at all. But then I don't have millions in government grants to have to justify.

[dakotafred]

ndbprr

Well the greenies don't want fracking, pipelines, tank trains and I assume lng or cng trains so it is somewhat delusionsal to think the permits to do anything other then shut down coal fired plants will be easily obtained and the conversions or replacement plants will not have significant delays like five to ten yearsb or longer. The power industry is on a very ragged edge. Forcing existing power plants to shut down has to result in brown outs or rolling blackouts. Facts are always a problem.

 

Yes, and the Third World living conditions will all have been self-imposed. "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad."

[Euclid]

ndbprr

Well the greenies don't want fracking, pipelines, tank trains and I assume lng or cng trains so it is somewhat delusionsal to think the permits to do anything other then shut down coal fired plants will be easily obtained and the conversions or replacement plants will not have significant delays like five to ten yearsb or longer. The power industry is on a very ragged edge. Forcing existing power plants to shut down has to result in brown outs or rolling blackouts. Facts are always a problem.

I think that is correct.

They will be as opposed to natrual gas as they are to oil and coal.  The only acceptable alternative will be renewables.  That will drive up the price so high and so soon that there won't be any debate about that point.  The high price will kill demand.  This will amount to price rationing of fossil fuels.  This forced conservation will be the primary way we solve the inadequacy of reneable energy to take up the slack after killing coal.  It will start with eye-popping electric bills.    

At the heart of the "green" ideolgy is the belief that the U.S. consumes too much.  They want to roll that back with something they call "degrowth."  Google it.   

[BaltACD]

If Congressional hot air can be harnessed - the Worlds energy source would be solved.

[ndbprr]

Well the greenies don't want fracking, pipelines, tank trains and I assume lng or cng trains so it is somewhat delusionsal to think the permits to do anything other then shut down coal fired plants will be easily obtained and the conversions or replacement plants will not have significant delays like five to ten yearsb or longer. The power industry is on a very ragged edge. Forcing existing power plants to shut down has to result in brown outs or rolling blackouts. Facts are always a problem.

[denveroutlaws06]

natural gas will replacing coal here in CO in few years for Xcel energy power plants.

[dehusman]

If we could harness power from keystrokes, almost any thread about CBR on this forum could replace 2 or 3 coal trains.

[MP173]

The investment bank Barclays had a report out last week downgrading traditional utility companies due to the increase in use of solar panels.  Their report basically indicated this usage is progressing fairly quickly as the cost is decreasing and storage is becoming viable.

Exxon Mobil made a huge investment a few years ago in natural gas, which seemed to be an investment away from coal.

Ed

[oltmannd]

erikem

The "CO2 advantage" of natural gas over coal is even better than what's predicted by the "carbon per BTU". The newest combined cycle plants have thermal efficiency of 60% vs 33% for a typical coal plant.

So, if i did my math right, it's close to a 4:1 advantage and coverting 1/3 of coal generation to natural gas will get us a 25% reduction in CO2 - the 2020 target.

For the railroads, this means coal transport might decline by 33% over the next 6 years.  That's a pretty steep rate of decline. 

[erikem]

oltmannd

What "replaces" coal as source for electricity?  Everything.  Oil, nat'l gas, wind, solar, nuclear, conservation.  But, I'd put most of my money on natural gas.  It has about half the carbon per BTU than coal and we currently have a surplus. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 Wind is interesting because it's already part of the base generating capacity - about 4% if I remember right.  The tricky part about wind and solar is that output varies from minute to minute and you need a way to transport and balance on a grid that wasn't built to do that.  I wonder if doubling or tripling wind and solar output would require some pretty hefty upgrades to the grid?

I also wonder how coal gasification and liquification  factor into the equation? At some point does technology allow for economical and "clean" use of coal?  We have a awful lot of it and those BTUs are just begging to be used...

The "CO2 advantage" of natural gas over coal is even better than what's predicted by the "carbon per BTU". The newest combined cycle plants have thermal efficiency of 60% vs 33% for a typical coal plant. OTOH, an integrated coal gasification plant could improve on the 33% by quite a lot. It's also possible that the gasification process would lead to separation of a significant portion of the CO2, which could be used for such purposes as improving tertiary recovery of oil.

Increasing the amount of electric energy generated from wind and solar will require some means of electric energy storage. California is expecting to have problems with accommodating solar generation by 2020.

- Erik

[henry6]

We cannot ignore the fact that much of Europe and other parts of the world are weaning themselves off coal, oil, even gas (fossil fuels) in favor of thermal, wind, and sun captured energies. The charge in the US is that the petroleum industry money is working hard to maintain itself by ignoring and working to defeat new energy development. I am one who believes the end of the coal, oil, and gas energy cycle is at hand and sooner or later we have to accept that. We cannot accept that by denying it. We must adapt, move away from fossil fuels toward other energy sources and not be forced to make an instant switch...that is the costly way. In these pages our question what replaces coal has to do with what railroads must hone in on, develop, and market to to replace lost coal transit income. And, they have been doing it quite well since the surge of trailers on flatcars in the mid 50's to the stack trains of today. Intermodal will be expanded so much more from where it now is.

[cacole]

tree68

There's a picture in our paper today of a coal-fired power plant, in PA, I think, in which the caption incorrectly labels the condensation (ie, water vapor) coming from the plant's stacks as "smoke."  The fact that the condensation dissipates in-frame is apparently lost on the writer of the story/caption.

That same photo appears in our local newspaper, too.  Propaganda put out by the anti-coal coalition, knowing that John Q. Public doesn't know any difference between steam and smoke.

[oltmannd]

tree68

There's a picture in our paper today of a coal-fired power plant, in PA, I think, in which the caption incorrectly labels the condensation (ie, water vapor) coming from the plant's stacks as "smoke."  The fact that the condensation dissipates in-frame is apparently lost on the writer of the story/caption.

I guess if it were a nuclear plant, it would have been called "mushroom cloud". 

[tree68]

Wind and solar both have their opponents, some as vocal as those opposed to coal.  

We have been going through a very acrimonious discussion in this area about putting in wind power - it caused at least one "summer resident" to change their residence so they could vote "no" on it here.  The wind power company finally threw in the towel.

Ironically, this rivershore community now gets to look out over the river to the wind towers installed in Canada...

Opponents to wind power in general point to the damage to wildlife and to decreased property values.

So far, the main objection to solar seems to deal with the large mirror array installations, which can apparently cook a bird in flight...  I've seen some residential installations, however, that wouldn't help one's property value.

There's a picture in our paper today of a coal-fired power plant, in PA, I think, in which the caption incorrectly labels the condensation (ie, water vapor) coming from the plant's stacks as "smoke."  The fact that the condensation dissipates in-frame is apparently lost on the writer of the story/caption.

[Ulrich]

Thorium nuclear power sounds promising.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

[oltmannd]

Ulrich

Looking further down the line we need to think about what will replace all those Asian imports eventually.... they won't remain cheap forever. 

African imports.

[oltmannd]

Coal IS going away, but slowly.  It will never be completely gone because some amount is needed to make steel.  Quite a bit of what come out of WV for export is met coal, for example.

What "replaces" coal as source for electricity?  Everything.  Oil, nat'l gas, wind, solar, nuclear, conservation.  But, I'd put most of my money on natural gas.  It has about half the carbon per BTU than coal and we currently have a surplus. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11 Wind is interesting because it's already part of the base generating capacity - about 4% if I remember right.  The tricky part about wind and solar is that output varies from minute to minute and you need a way to transport and balance on a grid that wasn't built to do that.  I wonder if doubling or tripling wind and solar output would require some pretty hefty upgrades to the grid?

I also wonder how coal gasification and liquification  factor into the equation? At some point does technology allow for economical and "clean" use of coal?  We have a awful lot of it and those BTUs are just begging to be used...

I can't imagine any scenario where limits on carbon emissions don't increase the cost of electricity. Nat'l gas is cheaper than coal right now because of where each one is relative to supply and demand.  If you increase the rate of consumption of nat'l gas to offset the reduction in coal, Nat'l gas prices will go up, but coal can't come down below the cost of production.  Also, the cost to raise the capital for new/modified generation plus other infrastructure have to come from someplace!

What are RRs going to do as coal shipments diminish?  Survive quite nicely, I think.  Oil train traffic will grow some, but never to coal train levels.  Basic stuff like steel and autos and minerals and chemicals grow with the economy and population.  Intermodal has kept up a pace about double economic growth for a couple decades now, with no end in sight as truck conversions continue at a pretty good clip.  Overall traffic levels will continue to grow.  Traffic on various lines will change and shift and railroads will accomodate the change.

[Ulrich]

Other freight will replace coal. Looking further down the line we need to think about what will replace all those Asian imports eventually.... they won't remain cheap forever. 

[MP173]

Oil....

"Drill baby drill."

Ed 

[Kyle]

csxns

ndbprr

Higher electricity prices

Obama says they will be lower.

Didn't he say the same about the affordable care act.  He also said you could keep your doctor.  

I bet there are reports in the whitehouse showing banning coal will create high prices, or worse, no power for many Americans.  

[schlimm]

ndbprr

Higher electricity prices, rolling blackouts due to shortages, minimal reduction if any in global polution since India and China are adding one coal fired power plant per week. Oh and a lot of coal going there from here by rail to ports.

China just may be going to start reducing coal use, mostly due to internal popular pressure:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/03/china-pledges-limit-carbon-emissions

[Euclid]

What will replace coal is conservation due to a high price, and a smart meter to shape your habits.

[Overmod]

greyhounds

Wind and Sun my Keester!   What will replace coal?  It's gonna' be banana gas!

But banana gas already has Too Much Carbon Dioxide.  Even before you get to the one inconvenient carbon too much in the formula -- that's more than 6x10e23 extra climate-changing carbons per mole!

Frickin' frackin' methane is a better answer... fastest hydrocarbon known.  (And useful in converting powerplants, too, or so I've been told; it's not just for peaking anymore!)

[greyhounds]

CShaveRR

Wind and sun.

Those ballast cars with solar panels on them will be repurposed for the transportation of both simultaneously. 

 

Wind and Sun my Keester!   What will replace coal?  It's gonna' be banana gas!

Guys, I'm tellin' ya straight, put every dime you've got in to banana gas.  It's the Fuel Of The Future!

Either that or electricity rates will skyrocket and we'll all be poor together.  Somebody once said something like that.

[CShaveRR]

Wind and sun.

Those ballast cars with solar panels on them will be repurposed for the transportation of both simultaneously. 

[edblysard]

As for the Panama Canal traffic, the West Coast traffic will suffer little, if any.

What will transit the canal is the same products that do so now, just in larger quantities, with maybe a small percent of the west coast stuff skipping there and porting on the gulf and east coast.

[henry6]

What will replace coal? As a commodity to be transported? As a fuel for power plants? As an export product? As an environmental hazard? As a billion dollar investment opportunity? Depends on who is asking.

[poppyl]

The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet.

Poppyl

[BaltACD]

Trolls instead of coal.  Simple!

[tree68]

csxns

ndbprr

Higher electricity prices

Obama says they will be lower.

Actually, I believe the quote was "electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket..."

That's enough politics for now.  I'm probably already in trouble with the forum gods...