charlie hebdo If you understood JPS1's posts, you would realize gas prices were dropping long before Obama or the Green agenda. Climate change is science-based for many years, with years of data to support what is now obvious to any sensate creature, not just another ridiculous Trump campaign promise/lie.
If you understood JPS1's posts, you would realize gas prices were dropping long before Obama or the Green agenda. Climate change is science-based for many years, with years of data to support what is now obvious to any sensate creature, not just another ridiculous Trump campaign promise/lie.
But the popular myth is that coal was just chugging along minding its own business when super hero natural gas sprung upon the scene as the much cheaper alternative to coal. These market conditions do not not just come out of nowhere. They reflect human nature and beliefs about the future.
As I understand it, you currently have coal-burning power plants on the eastern seaboard who are having Powder River Basin coal sent to them by rail, rather than using the closer Appalachian coal, because the Powder River coal is the only coal available to them that can meet federal and state clean air regulations when burned. I suppose the government could change the regulations to allow more pollution so the eastern coal could be used more. Guess in an election year, a politician would have to decide if campaigning to add more coal jobs wouldn't open them up to attacks on the increased pollution it would cause.
Obama promoted policies to move us away from a future where climate change would be irreversible, Euclid. Irreversible. Could not be fixed. Using less and less coal is part of that equation. It's not like Obama hated the mineral or the people who mined it. He wanted our future to be something we could live in.
Euclid charlie hebdo If you understood JPS1's posts, you would realize gas prices were dropping long before Obama or the Green agenda. Climate change is science-based for many years, with years of data to support what is now obvious to any sensate creature, not just another ridiculous Trump campaign promise/lie. I do understand JPS1's posts. I did not say that the fall of gas prices was entirely caused by politics. Instead, I said that the gas price drop was a relatively minor secondary effect of Obama's war on coal, which was an all out concerted effort to kill coal, as Obama clearly stated. Part of that effect was to raise the price of coal. But the popular myth is that coal was just chugging along minding its own business when super hero natural gas sprung upon the scene as the much cheaper alternative to coal. These market conditions do not not just come out of nowhere. They reflect human nature and beliefs about the future.
I do understand JPS1's posts. I did not say that the fall of gas prices was entirely caused by politics. Instead, I said that the gas price drop was a relatively minor secondary effect of Obama's war on coal, which was an all out concerted effort to kill coal, as Obama clearly stated. Part of that effect was to raise the price of coal.
1. Sequence sequence sequence.
2. Green folks don't think natural gas is the answer to reduced carbon-based emissions. They see it at best as a transitional fuel and object strongly to fracking, which was the main reason why natural gas costs dropped because of a hugely increased supply.
jcburns It's not like Obama hated the mineral or the people who mined it. He wanted our future to be something we could live in.
I did not say he hated coal (as the mineral). I only said he wanted to kill coal (as the fuel).
wjstix As I understand it, you currently have coal-burning power plants on the eastern seaboard who are having Powder River Basin coal sent to them by rail, rather than using the closer Appalachian coal, because the Powder River coal is the only coal available to them that can meet federal and state clean air regulations when burned.
We began mixing Powder River coal with lignite in the early 1990s to comply with EPA requirements for coal fired power plants. If I remember correctly, the rail transportation charge per ton to get it to Texas was more than the cost at the mine site.
JPS1 wjstix As I understand it, you currently have coal-burning power plants on the eastern seaboard who are having Powder River Basin coal sent to them by rail, rather than using the closer Appalachian coal, because the Powder River coal is the only coal available to them that can meet federal and state clean air regulations when burned. We began mixing Powder River coal with lignite in the early 1990s to comply with EPA requirements for coal fired power plants. If I remember correctly, the rail transportation charge per ton to get it to Texas was more than the cost at the mine site.
Transportation, mine to user, has nearly always been a bigger cost in the use of coal than the cost of the coal itself.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD JPS1 wjstix As I understand it, you currently have coal-burning power plants on the eastern seaboard who are having Powder River Basin coal sent to them by rail, rather than using the closer Appalachian coal, because the Powder River coal is the only coal available to them that can meet federal and state clean air regulations when burned. We began mixing Powder River coal with lignite in the early 1990s to comply with EPA requirements for coal fired power plants. If I remember correctly, the rail transportation charge per ton to get it to Texas was more than the cost at the mine site. Transportation, mine to user, has nearly always been a bigger cost in the use of coal than the cost of the coal itself.
Trains ran a very good special issue on coal about 8-12 years ago. Among other things it contained a article on the Powder River Basin coalfield's history, and compared the qualities of various kinds of coal found across North America.
Wyoming coal is almost the worst quality (above only lignite), with a fairly low heating value and a high ash content. But it contains almost no sulphur and is incredibly cheap to mine, as 50' thick seams are found very close to the surface.
The first thing the Clean Air Acts cracked down on were sulphur oxide emissions, which cause acid rain. Power plant operators found that they could avoid installing expensive scrubbers by switching to the Wyoming coal, despite having to pay more to ship it and burn a larger amount of coal to generate the same amount of electricity.
If I recall the article correctly, Colorado coal (Unita basin) seemed to be the best stuff, with low ash and sulphur contents as well as a very high heating value. But it is far more expensive to mine.
This comparison holds true for western Canada as well, our prairie coal seems comparable to Wyoming's, and is only burned locally. The higher quality stuff found along the Rocky Mountains is much better quality but is far more difficult and expensive to mine, with thinner seams that require much blasting to get at. This stuff is exported through the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver, and some is shipped east via Thunder Bay, or even by rail all the way to American steel mills in winter.
Several Alberta and B.C. export mines have temporarily closed due to the low world coal prices accosiated with a slow economy, and two others (Cardinal River, near Cadomin, AB, and Coal Mountain, at Corbin, BC) have permanently closed due to exhausting their economically recoverable coal deposits.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACD Transportation, mine to user, has nearly always been a bigger cost in the use of coal than the cost of the coal itself.
That was not true in the case of the lignite coal we mined in east Texas. The power plants were located within spitting distance of the open pit mines. It was the ability to co-locate the power plants and mines that made the lignite coal, sometimes referred to as brown coal, economically feasible.
JPS1 BaltACD Transportation, mine to user, has nearly always been a bigger cost in the use of coal than the cost of the coal itself. That was not true in the case of the lignite coal we mined in east Texas. The power plants were located within spitting distance of the open pit mines. It was the ability to co-locate the power plants and mines that made the lignite coal, sometimes referred to as brown coal, economically feasible. As time when on we opened mines that require movement of the coal to the power plants. To do so we built a railroad at two of our plant sites. But the distances were less than 8 to 10 miles. As an aside, one of the preceding commentators noted that coal produces a lot of ash, which has to be gotten rid of. We made money off of it. We were able to sell it to folks that could use it to help make roadway materials and, if I am not mistaken, pressboard.
As I said - nearly always - NOT always. Yes there are ultimate users that are co-located very near the mines that supply the user. In addition to users located a distance from the mines in the USA, there is still a business in the US exporting coal to foreign destinations - for both steam and metallurgical uses.
JPS1 As an aside, one of the preceding commentators noted that coal produces a lot of ash, which has to be gotten rid of. We made money off of it. We were able to sell it to folks that could use it to help make roadway materials and, if I am not mistaken, pressboard.
The power plants out here also sell ash, for use in making concrete. Much of it is shipped by rail, in covered hoppers.
But this was not always the case, and I am not sure if the plants are able to sell 100% of the ash they produce. At least once of the Edmonton-area plants (Sundance, now converted to gas firing) disposed of their ash by dumping it back into old mine pits. An adjacent plant (Keephills, still coal-fired for now) uses a large ash lagoon, whose dike has been slowly collapsing for a number of years, requiring continuous maintenance.
Did the revenue earned from your ash sales overcome the cost of installing and maintaining the electrostatc precipitators and other ash handling infrastructure?
You can see the large ash lagoon north of the plant here:
JPS1As an aside, one of the preceding commentators noted that coal produces a lot of ash, which has to be gotten rid of.
Larry 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...
I work at a paper mill in northern Wisconsin. We put in a large gas fired package boiler and a smaller back-up boiler several years ago because CN jacked up the carload prices of delivered coal to the point it was not economical to run our coal cyclone boiler year round.
Management wants to convert our cyclone boiler to gas but our area has a volume constraint issue. We can't run our gas boilers in the winter because they draw more than the combined towns in the area. We are working with our gas supplier to get more volume but it takes a lot of time and money. Due to new EPA regs we're no longer allowed to sell our ash as filler to the local blacktop plant and now have to pay to landfill it.
Having said that, management still wants to convert fully to gas. This will get 24 truckloads off the highway and provide cleaner emssions. CN doesn't want to handle carload traffic and our rail line will either be sold or scrapped.
SD70Dude Did the revenue earned from your ash sales overcome the cost of installing and maintaining the electrostatc precipitators and other ash handling infrastructure?
As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling and required infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
JPS1As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
Fly ash by itself is harmful to humans because of arsenic and trace heavy metals.......is it not? I understand it's use is beneficial to concrete but there is also an environmental reason why they mix it with concrete.
EuclidI read them both. I quoted JPS1, so I read his post very carefully. You have your opinion. I have mine. Midland Mike has his. Cheap gas is a market force, and so is expensive coal. Without the poltical promise to end coal by the rasing the cost of new regulations, coal would have been less expensive. So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal.
Gas became cheap because of technological advances in seismics, lateral drilling, and fracking. The oil & gas industry also pervasively regulated.
Coal was already heavily invested when the bottom started falling out. There would be no incentive for further investment when much of their present investment was stranded.
If there are government incentives to cut back on coal fired generation, then market forces of lower demand will drive down the price of coal.
CMStPnP JPS1 As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
CMStPnP JPS1 As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact. Fly ash by itself is harmful to humans because of arsenic and trace heavy metals.......is it not? I understand it's use is beneficial to concrete but there is also an environmental reason why they mix it with concrete.
JPS1 As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
+1 Spot on!
JPS1 CMStPnP JPS1 As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
+1 Beautifully said.
Midland Mike: That settles the economic and technological questions.
As a retired employee of an electric utility, I concur with what JPS1 has said. It (the utility) started out with coal generation. The plants were small and local and then over time grew bigger and bigger. Coal to the plants came in cuts (10-30) 40 ton cars. Then we got to unit trains (110 cars) and then we built a mine mouth plant (It was less costly to send the energy by transmission line). But the coal we had been burning was high sulphur. Rather than install scrubbers, it was less expensive to change to western low sulphur (Wyoming) coal. Also, as electric load is variable, a daily cycle with low demand at night with it increasing in the morning and peaking in the afternoon. It also has seasonal cycles (some areas are summer peaking [air conditioning]and others are winter peaking [heating] and this influences the generation mix. Older coal plants are less efficient than newer larger units. So the bigger efficient units run as base load and and the older units are brought on line as the load increases And bigger units are harder to vary their output to follow load. So utilities need a mix of units to generate the power to follow the load. Gas as noted in previous posts had higher costs and the supply was limited. I remember when there were gas post lamps at houses and then there was a gas shortage. They got removed fairly quickly. There have been oil shortages also. The utility where I worked installed gas units that were low initial cost but high fuel cost. So they were used for the peak load days when people would turn the airconditioner on. Fracking has created a glut of gas available and it has caused a deep drop in gas price. Supply and demand is very evident in the cost of fuels. I have seen gluts and shortages and it will be interesting to see where this current cycle goes.
charlie hebdo Midland Mike: That settles the economic and technological questions.
MidlandMike Euclid Without the poltical promise to end coal by the rasing the cost of new regulations, coal would have been less expensive. So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal. If there are government incentives to cut back on coal fired generation, then market forces of lower demand will drive down the price of coal.
Euclid Without the poltical promise to end coal by the rasing the cost of new regulations, coal would have been less expensive. So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal.
How can a President’s promise to force coal out of business by razing its price-- then have the effect of lowering the price? That makes no sense. The move kills the coal industry. Once that happens, there is no price.
Where is your evidence of coal prices being driven down, as you say?
Natural falling demand will lower prices, but killing demand by regulation will not lower the price. It just makes the price moot. The President even said that the new regulations will raise the cost of coal, and thus making it unattractive for investment, and thus destroying the coal industry. So then coal is destroyed by its rising cost of production. This government interference overrides any natural economic market force that normally raises demand as its price falls.
For example, if government were to ban coal, the demand for coal would soar, but that would not lead to the prosperity of the coal industry as rising demand normally does in a free market. There can be no natural economic prosperity in a business that has been banned by government. A falling price of coal is moot if the product has been banned.
rrnut282 charlie hebdo Midland Mike: That settles the economic and technological questions. Really? This is the same, lame, arguement used to support climate change. Two people agree with you, so no more information is needed.
Really? This is the same, lame, arguement used to support climate change. Two people agree with you, so no more information is needed.
Mike is an expert on the carbon-based industries. Electroliner worked in the electric industry for many years and is also expert. Are you?
Thousands of researchers in climatological sciences and our militaries accept AGW as fact. What are your creds?
charlie hebdoElectroliner worked in the electric industry for many years and is also expert.
AH. I can't be an expert. I am not that far from the office.
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid Without the poltical promise to end coal by the rasing the cost of new regulations, coal would have been less expensive. So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal. If there are government incentives to cut back on coal fired generation, then market forces of lower demand will drive down the price of coal. How can a President’s promise to force coal out of business by razing its price-- then have the effect of lowering the price? That makes no sense. The move kills the coal industry. Once that happens, there is no price. Where is your evidence of coal prices being driven down, as you say? Natural falling demand will lower prices, but killing demand by regulation will not lower the price. It just makes the price moot. The President even said that the new regulations will raise the cost of coal, and thus making it unattractive for investment, and thus destroying the coal industry. So then coal is destroyed by its rising cost of production. This government interference overrides any natural economic market force that normally raises demand as its price falls. For example, if government were to ban coal, the demand for coal would soar, but that would not lead to the prosperity of the coal industry as rising demand normally does in a free market. There can be no natural economic prosperity in a business that has been banned by government. A falling price of coal is moot if the product has been banned.
As best as I can tell, you seem to have been conflating the price of coal (eg. at the minehead) with the costs of burning coal for power generation, including things like stack scrubbers. The cost of coal production has been affected for decades by mine safety and environmental regulations. If you know of something from the Obama era that increased the cost of production more than incremntally, please reference it.
I do remember proposed regulations that were a jump in air quality standards for power plants. This would certainly be a disincentive to burn coal. My recollection also is that these regulations were rolled back in the Trump era, but it has not stemed the tide of coal fired plant shut-downs.
charlie hebdoMike is an expert on the carbon-based industries.
Thanks, I was a career geologist in the oil & gas industry, but my knowledge of coal is only cross-professional interest. The interest actually came about as much so as a railfan.
The move away from coal happened at least thirty years ago. I wrote of this in another thread a while back. My first job was with a world-wide consulting firm in 1990. In July 1990, the head of the EPA Global Change Division gave a company-wide presentation about global warming. As I wrote in that post, I expected the effort to focus on nuclear power. Instead, the plan was to shift from coal to natural gas, increase energy efficiency, and to increase renewables. Nuclear power was relegated to a mere footnote. I cannot remember the details of how each of these would be achieved, but I was flabbergastered that nuclear wasn't the primary means of reducing CO2 emmisions. I still feel the same in 2020.
I pretty much feel the same way about nuclear with respect to CO2 reduction, requires a lot less resources per effective kW of capacity that almost all of non-fossil fuel alternatives.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.