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.
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.
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
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
charlie hebdo I think you have cause and effect reversed. You seem determined to blame the decline of coal for generation on Greens and politics but completely discount the political impact of Trump bellowing about a coal resurgence and loosening many EPA protections. Yet coal continues in decline because the political impact either way is minor.
I think you have cause and effect reversed. You seem determined to blame the decline of coal for generation on Greens and politics but completely discount the political impact of Trump bellowing about a coal resurgence and loosening many EPA protections. Yet coal continues in decline because the political impact either way is minor.
Well, the political impact can be minor or major. With Trump being pro-coal, the impact was minor and not enough to offset the impact of Obama saying he will regulate the coal market so building new coal plants is not economically feasible. Who is going to take a risk building new coal plants with that cloud hanging over the future of coal economic viability?
And it is not just the two presidents affecting the market of coal. The politics of climate change science has marketed a whole new public consciousness that is convinced that renewable green energy of wind and solar must replace coal or the world will end in a couple hours.
No, coal is dead and it won't come back even if its free. And natural gas is the next fuel to be targeted for the same fate.
charlie hebdo Euclid In what way have I distorted JPS1's remarks? Read the posts of JPS1and Midland.
Euclid In what way have I distorted JPS1's remarks?
Read the posts of JPS1and Midland.
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.
And the resultant shifting of energy consumption to gas, due to the political threat to coal, will increase market for gas. Increasing the market for gas, could attract new investment to raise gas production to keep up with demand. New investment in gas infrastrucure could reduce the price of gas.
The ecnonomic market for fuels is influenced by expectations of supply and demand, and government threats of punitive regulations can influence those expectations. The market forces cannot be separated from government policy.
EuclidIn what way have I distorted JPS1's remarks?
EuclidWhile economics may seem to be the explanation for a downturn in coal, those economics are the result of the political pressure surrounding the public marketing of "green energy."
Market forces were the cause of at least the coal plants replaced by cheap gas.
charlie hebdo Euclid JPS1 My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable. I agree the the fate of coal has little to do with market economics. Instead, it has been killed by regulatory pressure and the "political winds," as you say. Those are the forces that promised to kill coal, and they did. While economics may seem to be the explanation for a downturn in coal, those economics are the result of the political pressure surrounding the public marketing of "green energy." I don't think coal could make a comback now even if it were free. You distorted JPS1's remarks. Politics and Greens were not the reason electric companies have turned to natural gas over coal.
Euclid JPS1 My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable. I agree the the fate of coal has little to do with market economics. Instead, it has been killed by regulatory pressure and the "political winds," as you say. Those are the forces that promised to kill coal, and they did. While economics may seem to be the explanation for a downturn in coal, those economics are the result of the political pressure surrounding the public marketing of "green energy." I don't think coal could make a comback now even if it were free.
JPS1 My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable.
It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable.
You distorted JPS1's remarks. Politics and Greens were not the reason electric companies have turned to natural gas over coal.
A local co-gen here ran their boiler(s) with "fluidized bed," which I believe involves crushing the coal (or petcoke, as they ran a lot of) into relatively fine particles.
They also ran a scrubber on the flue, so smoke out of the stack was extremely rare.
More recently, the plant was changed over to biomass, which put a crunch on the price of firewood, as those seeking to supply said biomass (mostly shredded trees) were shredding whole trees, and not just waste branches from other logging activities.
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...
jeffhergert Alliant Energy had a two unit coal plant outside of Marshalltown IA. They converted both units to gas. There was talk going around for a few years afterwards that they were considering converting one ot the units back to coal. The converted units didn't burn gas as efficiently as coal, making energy production more expensive. They never did convert back. They planned to build a new coal plant but of course ran into a lot of objections. They changed their plan to a gas fired plant and it was built. It had it's objectors too, but not as many. Today it's producing electricity and the old plant has been removed. Jeff
Alliant Energy had a two unit coal plant outside of Marshalltown IA. They converted both units to gas. There was talk going around for a few years afterwards that they were considering converting one ot the units back to coal. The converted units didn't burn gas as efficiently as coal, making energy production more expensive. They never did convert back.
They planned to build a new coal plant but of course ran into a lot of objections. They changed their plan to a gas fired plant and it was built. It had it's objectors too, but not as many. Today it's producing electricity and the old plant has been removed.
Jeff
It seems the issue with gas is heat transfer in the furnace which gets caught in convection. Requiring harder firing of gas to get more BTU's to push steam to it's optimal temp. I would've have liked to seen more research domestically into an OxyFuel coal fired plant. It's always been my thought it's not the fuel it's how you combust it. All fuel is dirty if we really wanna look at the negatives each one carries. It might burn clean doesn't mean it was procured in a clean manner..
jeffhergert It had it's objectors too, but not as many.
Alas, some people think their power comes from some magical fairyland...
We probably have enough hydroelectric power in this area to keep us running - except the major power producer (NY Power Authority) ships most of it to NYC. Several communities in the area have their own dams.
Coal-firing causes a lot more wear and tear on boilers than gas firing, due to the abrasive effects of ash. You also have to maintain exhaust precipitators to capture fly ash, and possibly additional scrubbers if you are burning high-sulphur coal.
The previous centre-left NDP (New Democratic Party) government in Alberta initiated a coal phaseout here, and the power companies are continuing with it even though a centre-right Conservative government with pro-coal leanings is once again in power.
A lot of maintenance jobs have disappeared at our converted power plants.
Natural gas prices crashed about 12 years ago due to the fracking boom, and have never recovered. We had two new coal-fired power plants (Genesee 3 and Keephills 3) planned and built during the time of high gas prices, and several large industrial plants considered converting to coal for heat/steam production. One, Inland Cement in Edmonton, actually did, to the great annoyance of many city residents (their plant is upwind from most of the city).
Even those two newest coal plants are scheduled to be converted to gas by 2030.
Paul Milenkovic With coal, you have a more clear idea of how much of it is in the ground at a given mine. With oil and gas, it is more of a gamble -- you drill a well, it may or may not produce, and when it does, it is uncertain as to how long it produces and in what amount until the supply quits. The resulting wellhead price will then depend on the price of bringing in new wells.
With coal, you have a more clear idea of how much of it is in the ground at a given mine. With oil and gas, it is more of a gamble -- you drill a well, it may or may not produce, and when it does, it is uncertain as to how long it produces and in what amount until the supply quits. The resulting wellhead price will then depend on the price of bringing in new wells.
A good portion of the natural gas in the US comes from Frac'ed wells, where the initial burst of gas production last for a few months. The consequence is that new wells have to be drilled in order to keep production going, which is entails risk, albeit a relatively low risk.
Having dealt with wood heat, oil heat and gas heat, gas is by far the cleanest, with oil smellier and sootier with wood with its stoking and ash disposal yet dirtier yet
Not to mention the amount of carcinogens produced by burning wood.
Paul Milenkovic The preponderence of drug users are introduced to their use by friends who are drug users,
As my father once told me, "Misery loves company."
And oil and gas prices? They've see-sawed back and forth for decades, nothing new about that.
Well said, Paul M. Lots of foolishness get posted uncritically as though it were accepted facts.
charlie hebdo JPS1 jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable. Natural gas also has total cost advantages, right?
JPS1 jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable.
jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff
While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible.
My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back.
Natural gas also has total cost advantages, right?
Natural gas has much more price volatility than coal. It has nothing to do with some monopolist oil and gas companies manipulating its price in the manner of a "first taste is free" drug dealer. The drug dealer who manipulates the price to "get you hooked" is a myth. The preponderence of drug users are introduced to their use by friends who are drug users, who sell the drugs to help bring in money to maintain their own consumption. The amount of sillyness people are willing to believe is without bound.
With coal, you have a more clear idea of how much of it is in the ground at a given mine. With oil and gas, it is more of a gamble -- you drill a well, it may or may not produce, and when it does, it is uncertain as to how long it produces and in what amount until the supply quits.
Natural gas has always fluctuated in price, and the price of natural gas has been a larger share of generating electricity that way because the equipment is lower cost than for a coal power plant.
Coal has generally been lower in price and have a more stable price. The burning of coal has always been a concern because in addition to the most recent concern about climate change, coal has had a whole range of environmental impacts, ranging from the acid rain from the sulfur in coal damaging forests and streams, the mercury in coal getting into the food chain, and the whole problem of ash disposal. This is not to mention the environmental impacts of mining. All of these effects can be remediated to a degree, but all of this costs money.
Having dealt with wood heat, oil heat and gas heat, gas is by far the cleanest, with oil smellier and sootier with wood with its stoking and ash disposal yet dirtier yet -- I can see from the guys running steam farm tractors on coal as "steam and gas engine" or "thresheree" shows that coal is even messier.
I mean, someone links to some financial rag talking about how gas is going to "soar" in price by returning to its price before the virus crisis. That news source also has an agenda -- they are trying to sell people on investing in the gas industry. Suddenly the worried come out that we won't be able to revert to coal use, and the cynics start commenting on how the gas industry is trying to extract monopoly profits.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
BaltACD charlie hebdo JPS1 jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff My former employer - I am retired - has shut down and mothballed half of its coal fired steam electric stations. The others are on or near the chopping block. They are not coming back. It is not just the economics of coal vs alternative fuels or alternative sources, i.e. wind, solar, etc. It is also emotions. The political winds, which are driven by emotions, are blowing against coal. It is unlikely that any new coal fired power plants will be built in Texas, and the push will be to retire the existing ones as soon as practicable. Natural gas also has total cost advantages, right? Until it doesn't.
Until it doesn't.
I take it then, that you agree with the supposition that the closing of coal plants is driven by a misplaced concern of climate change from CO2 emissions? And that keeping coal plants open would be good policy with regard to energy security?
BaltACD jeffhergert Soar? Skyrocket? Yes, I can see it. So what? While some coal plants may be able to be restarted, many others are gone. Replaced by gas plants that can't be easily converted, if at all. The energy companies will just pass on the increased cost as much as possible. Jeff Just like a illicit drug dealer - hook them on the product and raise the price.
Just like a illicit drug dealer - hook them on the product and raise the price.
I take it a person has personal experience on the marketing practices in the sale of "street" drugs?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.