Trains.com

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

17077 views
405 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: US
  • 377 posts
Posted by jsanchez on Friday, July 28, 2017 11:59 AM

It has been mostly natural gas that is replacing coal, wind power farms are popping up in many places, there are also new clean coal technologies still being developed.

James Sanchez

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Friday, July 28, 2017 11:57 AM

   Do we need personal attacks that contribute nothing to the subject being discussed?

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Friday, July 28, 2017 11:45 AM

Euclid

The question is asked:  “What will replace coal?”  I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption.  Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills.  There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity. 

It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage.  There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half.

You can contribute by permanently unplugging your computer and returning to the dark ages before the internet. Please do.

Norm


  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, July 28, 2017 11:41 AM

The question is asked:  “What will replace coal?”  I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption.  Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills.  There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity. 

It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage.  There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half. 

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: US
  • 377 posts
Posted by jsanchez on Friday, July 28, 2017 11:08 AM

Problem is, he is not making sound business decisions, much of CSX is in melt down mode right now.

https://www.stb.gov/stb/docs/NonDocumentedPublic_Correspondence/2017/STB%20to%20CSX%20Harrison%20July%202017.pdf

James Sanchez

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,019 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, July 28, 2017 10:27 AM

Bruce Kelly
...or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar.

Ha!  Folks are fighting wind around here with a vigor that makes anti-coal people look positively lazy.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • 602 posts
Posted by Bruce Kelly on Friday, July 28, 2017 10:15 AM

Of the many resources which show it's as much to do with policy as price, there's this:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29952

Key excerpt:

"Without the Clean Power Plan, there is less incentive to switch from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar. In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019 and retains that position through 2032, longer than in the Reference case, which includes the Clean Power Plan. Electricity generation from renewable sources remains below coal-fired electricity generation through 2040. Fewer coal plants are retired, and as a result, natural gas and renewable capacity additions are lower compared with the Reference case."

And to understand one of the major forces working behind the scenes:

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Note that Sierra Club is not content with merely ending coal. They've already targeted natural gas as well.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, July 28, 2017 10:12 AM

VOLKER LANDWEHR
From my outside view not regulations kill coal but economics. With an abundance of cheap gas why burn coal for power?

And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question.

To your second point, I believe anti-CO2 regulations are going farther than necessary.

To your first point, this is the argument of the people who are driving the anti-CO2 regulations.  They cover their tracks by claiming that it is not they who are killing coal, but rather, it is pure economics. 

But the truth is that regulations influence the economics.  President Obama promised to kill coal and he carefully explained that he would do it with regulations. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, July 28, 2017 9:48 AM

K. P. Harrier

If the above link doesn't work, you might try this one.

https://thinkprogress.org/fossil-fuels-are-dead-says-rail-baron-b177af077344

 

Thanks!   I forgot Financial Times is subscriber access.|

The coal that CSX originated/shipped is less "clean" than Powder Ridge, etc. EHH is just making a business decision based on long-term trends and prognosis.

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

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 28, 2017 9:39 AM

jsanchez
He might have to buy new equipment, the Surface Transportation board is now watching CSX, they have been getting complaints left and right from CSX customers, some of them coal producers that are getting terrible or no servicee.

The CSX still has equipment and it was enough to handle much higher coal traffic in former years.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: US
  • 377 posts
Posted by jsanchez on Friday, July 28, 2017 9:36 AM

He might have to buy new equipment, the Surface Transportation board is now watching CSX, they have been getting complaints left and right from CSX customers, some of them coal producers that are getting terrible or no servicee. There will still be coal busines for many yeas to come long after Hunters short sighted attempt to destroy CSX. The coal business is currently expanding and reopening mines, the economy as whole is growing again at a decent rate, Hunter picked a lousy time to implement severe cutbacks. CSX should be doing the opposite ramping up service.

 

James Sanchez

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 28, 2017 9:35 AM

I think Mr. Harrison has to take position. For CSX it is not a political but an economical decision. And he doesn't bail out he just doesn't invest in new equipment for coal transport anymore.

From my outside view not regulations kill coal but economics. With an abundance of cheap gas why burn coal for power?

And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,019 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, July 28, 2017 9:31 AM

Buslist
He's only not buying new equipment, NOT getting out of the business.

It may be his intention to "send a message."  Given his stating that he didn't figure to be around long, though, I'm not sure what purpose this serves, unless it is somehow intended to boost stock prices...

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Friday, July 28, 2017 9:20 AM

Euclid

 

I am surprised that Mr. Harrison takes that position in this highly political debate.  If he knows coal will die, but he does not know when, why bail out right now while there is coal traffic to haul?  His announced position is just adding to the politics of killing off coal by regulations sooner rather than later.

 

 

 

He's only not buying new equipment, NOT getting out of the business.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, July 28, 2017 8:56 AM

 

I am surprised that Mr. Harrison takes that position in this highly political debate.  If he knows coal will die, but he does not know when, why bail out right now while there is coal traffic to haul?  His announced position is just adding to the politics of killing off coal by regulations sooner rather than later.

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2003
  • 7,968 posts
Posted by K. P. Harrier on Friday, July 28, 2017 8:11 AM

If the above link doesn't work, you might try this one.

https://thinkprogress.org/fossil-fuels-are-dead-says-rail-baron-b177af077344

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
CSX CEO says it will buy no more cars or locomotives for dying coal transport
Posted by schlimm on Friday, July 28, 2017 7:37 AM

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.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

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