Main Line Electrifications

[Leon Silverman]

Michael Sol complains about missing the analysis of NOT changing.
My engineering mathematics training included a technique called "Curve fitting" where you take a number of simingly unrelated data points and generate a mathematical formula for a curve that will predict other points on that curve or graph.
This is a very useful tool. However, if a data point is left off the curve, it will not effect the final formula. Consequently, I am frequently suspect of "mathematical Proofs".
The points generated by not changing were ignored and therefor had no effect on the figures generated. The results may not have been accurate, but they provided justification to the the people who didn't want to change anyway.

[TH&B]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The problem with electrification isn't the transmission of the electricity. The problem is that you have to change engines ...
How much do you think that problem costs?


The costs would be as high as cascading train delays caused by power not being available on time at power change points. This is a commun problem on European railways where different electrifications meet. This can somtimes be solved with the added costs of supplying extra engines or dual purpose engines.

In Skandinavia some freight rail service failed to materialize due in part for the very expensive charges for use of expensive dual electrics from Sweden to Germany though Denmark wich uses a different "better" power source. Some trains where then run using diesels through out wich is discouraged by long tunnels and most traffic ends up on the hiway. I don't know how things are by now.

So to the answer for how expensive? Loosing the bussiness can be the cost.

Stations where they exchange power are a rail fans dream, but a railroads nightmare.

How did the MILW handle this? The "gap" must have been a problem.

[Murphy Siding]

I still wonder why the first leg of the route out of the Powder River Basin couldn't be electified as far as the first crew change point?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Anyway, the main point was that the financial risks of electrification are too great. The projected ROI was fantastic, on the order of 32% for the UP. But, the costs were all up front and the payback was years in the future. The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years. Sensativity analysis showed great risks if everything didn't go as planned.

Costs of any project are almost always up front. Something doesn't sound right here.

"The company would have a negative cash flow for 9-10 years." Guess what the negative cash flow period is for a new road diesel. Does Withun say? Isn't that important to know?

What was the risk analysis of staying with the same system, based on the well known historical trends that diesel fuel costs always trend up, while electric power costs almost always trend down?

This is the part that is usually missing: the analysis of the risk of not changing.

In 1970, electric power price per kilowatt hour averaged 8 cents in the US. In places like Montana with abundant Hydroelectric resources, the price was closer to 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Diesel fuel was less than 8 cents per gallon.

This year, electric power costs are at 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour in Montana (industrial), and range from 2.39 cents in Washington state (industrial) to 7 cents in Eastern states.

Diesel fuel has gone up from 8 cents per gallon in the early 1970s to $1.17 for railroads in 2004 to $2.19 this year. While we happen to think it's just awful, this isn't that far off the historical trend that has existed since WWII and, indeed, confirms that trend.

How does Withun deal with that historical probability in his analysis? I am curious.

Given that the historical trends have been well defined and accepted -- Bonneville Power Administration noted and recognized them, in fact emphasized them, in a railroad electrification proposal made to the Milwaukee Road and several other Western railroads (GN, NP, UP, and SP) in the early 1950s -- I have an impression from the description of the Withun article that it is likely that the real "risk" factor was not assessed. The question is interesting enough that I will get the paper and read it.

This is a standard business school problem: to do a risk analysis for the change, but not for staying the same. A single risk or sensitivity analysis is fairly meaningless without the corresponding risk analysis. It is the comparison of risks that is important, not "a" single risk.

After all, the risk of the staying the same is high. Most businesses ultimately fail when they stay the same, not when they change.

Best regards, Michael Sol

It's not that the costs were upfront. It's that they were so large and upfront.

It was a "bet the compny" proposition with a reasonable chance that they could loose. All the analysis came down indicating the risk was too great. Claiming the analysis were wrong, every one of them, is a road to nowhere. A way needs to be found to mitigate the risk.

This wasn't a case of one management team arriving at the wrong conclusion, something that does happen. There were numerous independant electricfication studies done. Not one of them produced an electrification project.

I don't think a diesel purchase involves much negative cash flow. GE will finance its equipment. The diesel locomotive will begin to produce revenue ton miles almost as soon as it arrives on the property. That revenue will offset the finance charges. And diesels can be bought incramentally on shorter lead times that electrification. There's more certainty in the projections with the shorter time frames. Remember, if the projections about diesel fuel costs, electricity costs, etc. ten years out are wrong, the company will be destroyed. They're risking "other people's money" on what will happen ten years from now. Not exactly a prudent thing to do.

Why don't we quit arguing over old analysis and try to come up with a way to reduce the risks of electrification? I think that's the key.

There is a need to:

1) convert existing diesel electrics to also operate as straight electrics - reducing the capital costs greatly.

2) deal with the electric current in a way that doesn't require rebuilding of the entire signal system. Including grade crossing protection.

3) assure an uninteruptable adequate power supply

4) keep "pet" projects such as open access, Amtrak, lower freight rates for farmers, etc. out of the process.

Do these four things and the risks of electrification will be reduced significantly. Will they be reduced enough to justify it, who knows?

Your #4 is inconsistent with #'s 1, 2, and 3. If you want the taxpayers to aid in funding such an enterprise, you'll have to accept conditions to that aid. Otherwise, you better let the stock and bond holders know that they will be footing the bill.

And by "taxpayers aid", we mean anti-trust exemption as well as direct subsidy.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Isambard

Can anyone comment regarding potential electrification of Canadian railway mainlines in view of climbing diesel fuel rates and increasing traffic density e.g. the Quebec City-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor corridor or the Calgary-Vancouver or Edmonton -Vancouver routes? Viable propositions or pipe dreams?

I don't think there is any chance at all of the Canadian Railways electifing their mainlines, at least until an American railroad has done it first and the new freight electrics are proven. CN has such a flat route through the Rockies that it is not necessary. CN does not even need AC traction locomotives. Canadian Pacific strung a quarter mile of catenary in Rogers Pass in 1972 to test it in winter conditions. This is just west of the west end of the Mount MacDonald tunnel. I don't know if it is still in place. I can't see CP being a leader in electification.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I still wonder why the first leg of the route out of the Powder River Basin couldn't be electified as far as the first crew change point?

For electification to pay for itself long hauls are necessary. The longer the better. I believe the place to start would be the first crew change point. I would think the loading loops should be the last place to be electified. Some of the Powder River mines shut down for periods which would waste the investment. Logically the place to start would be with Union Pacific from Bill to North Platte.

[gfjwilmde]

I grew up in New York City and Amtrak was in it's infancy when i was finishing junior high school. I had bought a book when Amtrak was in it's fifth year. In it was a photo of an ex NYC(Cleveland Terminal) electric unit pulling a reinstated New York-Chicago train up the Park Ave. viaduct past 125th station in Harlem. When i used to hang out in Grand Central Station in Manhattan, I seldom seen any of these heavy units doing any kind of road work. They were basically there to switch the station after trains had arrived or before departures. Although the engine change was in Croton-Harmon, NY(a mere 30+ miles north of the city), the sight to see such an old engine still being used to haul the mix of various streamlined cars was somewhat impressive to me. At the time, they were said to be the oldest units Amtrak was using to haul trains. I often wonder what the railroading landscape would have looked like if the freight railroads(especially the eastern one's) would have had a different view when the demise of steam engines was at hand and the need for new powerful locomotives were at stake. I also believe that Amtrak's decision to charge Conrail more money to use it's mainline and it's catenary system hastened the demise of RF&P's Pot Yard. Without the need to change from electric to diesel and back again, there was no need to classify trains there anymore. I worked with an oldtimer when I first started with Amtrak in Washington, DC., whom recalled the engine house and servicing tracks being full of Conrail's electric(G's, E33's & E44's). Many of those trains(& engines) were destined for Enola Yard which too was partly electrified. The few trains(he said) that were heading towards the northeast, often ran with diesels instead of electrics because of the high trackage(& catenary) utilization fees Amtrak were charging. The concept worked for many years, but as always, greed gets in the way.



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
[For electification to pay for itself long hauls are necessary. The longer the better. I believe the place to start would be the first crew change point. I would think the loading loops should be the last place to be electified. Some of the Powder River mines shut down for periods which would waste the investment. Logically the place to start would be with Union Pacific from Bill to North Platte.

Spot electrification would work for select segments of track (upgrades, tunnels) if the electrical engineers can figure out a way to incorporate the bi-powered FL9 concept into the mix. Could New Haven's 600v work with multiple units and with adaquate power? What about a connection that takes in 3600v, converts a portion of that to the specs of diesel traction motors and spits out the rest via the dynamic brake grids?

[nanaimo73]

I still think the SD60MAC killed electrification for 30 years.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

As has been brought up earlier, dual-mode sounds nice on paper for short electric zones in a diesel world but a dual-mode locomotive would be more expensive and that extra investment would spend a lot of time not justifying its existence and earning a return. As I pointed out earlier, dual-mode locomotives are still tied to the electric zone, it's just not as obvious.

If dual-mode is such a great idea, why didn't PRR or NYC order any dual-mode power after the FL9 proved itself?

[ndbprr]

For additional lines to be electrified the overriding cost will be the power cost. Without cheap guaranteed power no industry or givernment can afford to take the risk with the capital. Since nuclear is frowned upon thanks to our doomsayers and greenies. That leaves only two sources of power that are cheap. Wind and hydroelectric. Wind probably can't generate enough and the enviro people would have a cow over more dams and pristine wilderness demands so don't look for anything in North America ever IMHO.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

As has been brought up earlier, dual-mode sounds nice on paper for short electric zones in a diesel world but a dual-mode locomotive would be more expensive and that extra investment would spend a lot of time not justifying its existence and earning a return. As I pointed out earlier, dual-mode locomotives are still tied to the electric zone, it's just not as obvious.

If dual-mode is such a great idea, why didn't PRR or NYC order any dual-mode power after the FL9 proved itself?

[:D] "Reliable FL9" is an oxymoron!

The REAL question is why did the NH go back for seconds.....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The problem with electrification isn't the transmission of the electricity. The problem is that you have to change engines or have special engines that are very expensive.

Dave H.

Agreed that locomotive productivity is part of the puzzle. But...

The real issue is what's the cost to deliver HP to the rear coupler of the locomotive consist. - including capital, energy, maintenance and locomotive ownership costs.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

QUOTE: Originally posted by rpwood

1. With the price of petroleum fuels and products going up, am wondering if anyone has heard any rumblings from any railroad corporate HQs about considering electrifying main lines?

No. There are no rumblings.

QUOTE: 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.?

No. Traffic levels will not rise enough to pay for electricification, not unless the government radically changes tax law (that is, subsidize the installation costs).

QUOTE: 3. Which road(s) would benefit the most?

Better way to phrase this would be, "Which railroads would puni***heir equity holders the worst by doing this?"

QUOTE: 4. Where would potential electrifications be most likely?

Any place the taxpayer can be gulled into paying for it.

QUOTE: My own observations and opinions on the subject are:
- This is probably a subject kept on the back burner in all Class 1 HQ's, and is dusted off in times such as these. However, I have not seen or heard of any accounts that any RR is considering such topics at this time.

No, it's not kept on the back burner. It's not even in the dustiest box in the dimmest recess of the oldest warehouse. This is a very capital-intensive industry already; why make it worse?

QUOTE: It would make sense to electrify mainly in mountainous regiions where railroads now expend more fuel to move the same tonnage of freight than across the plains or flatlands. Thus all North American Class 1's could benefit. to some degree, and stem initial installation costs by electrifying only the sections which now cost the greatest amounts to transit. To me this would include any main lines spanning the Appalachan's in the east and the Rockies in the west.

Perhaps, but this is like giving someone the choice of walking the plank over 20 fathoms of water or 200 fathoms of water.

Nobody on this RR even whispering about electrification. Capacity issue are being addressed by adding/lengthening sidings, a bit of double track here and there, better trains dispatching and train control systems, more efficient network design, intermodal terminal expansion, etc.

[Anonymous]

1. Making assertions about the lacking qualities of a dual mode locomotive based on the 50 year old technology of the FL9 is like saying the diesel-electric locomotive is only good for yard work (based on the original usage). Surely even the electrical engineering field has evolved over the past half century.

2. The reason the railroads won't adapt to any large scale electrifications is because there is no competitive incentive to do so. Railroads are natural monopolies, and as such can always pass on the cost of fuel to their captive shippers.

[nanaimo73]

What is the current ([;)]) state of electricty supply in the USA ?
I thought demand has been outstripping capacity for several years and prices are relatively high.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark_W._Hemphill

QUOTE: 2. I know freight traffic levels have been up in the past year, but based on the cyclical nature of the business, would this traffic increase be enough to initially sustain and eventually recover the costs of any such project.?

No. Traffic levels will not rise enough to pay for electricification, not unless the government radically changes tax law (that is, subsidize the installation costs).

Railroads are complaining that certain of their mainlines are at capacity. How traffic levels could raise beyond that, that is, beyond existing capacity, in order to justify electrification, raises an interesting question as to just when electrification can ever be justified.

QUOTE: No, it's not kept on the back burner. It's not even in the dustiest box in the dimmest recess of the oldest warehouse. This is a very capital-intensive industry already; why make it worse?

Class I railroads have been on a capital spending spree, justifiabily so, to add capacity. The problem with capital intensive industries is their inability to adjust to economic downturns. Naturally, the other problem is that the ability to raise capital is limited. There is only so much capital spending that an industry, or a company, can afford. It's probably safe to characterize Class I's right now as "iffy" in terms of whether or not their income, current and future, justifies the expenditures.

Add in electrification costs on top of track capacity projects? Tough to see that happening if the electrification is in addition to existing projects.

However, as both engineers and economists point out, railroad electrification offers an alternative to continuing to expand physical capacity, while at the same time achieving reduced operating costs. In the times of economic downturn, it is the reduced operating costs that will be the payback, not thousands of miles of expensive track capacity.

From "Maximizing the Capacity of Shared Use Rail Corridors," by John A. Harrison, from TR News the national journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, Sept-Oct. 2002, p, 21:

"Line capacity is a function of train acceleration and braking rates, train lengths, safe braking distances and times,train headways—affected by train performance, train length, signal systems, and human factors such as reaction times—and the number of tracks and the spacing of crossovers."
...
"Increasing speed in sidings, reducing siding-to-siding spacing and time, improving train control systems, and adding double track can increase track capacity. Electrification is another way of increasing capacity ..."

At today's fuel/electric power price differential, electrification offers a means of increasing capacity in a capital intensive industry, while reducing operating costs signficantly compared to alternative capital investments which yield no such benefit.

Whether the trade-off of savings against investment costs is justified, and how that compares to the alternatives is, as is usually the case, determined best on the basis of thorough and competent studies. The most recent Class I studies I am familiar with, BN circa 1975, compared 56 cent diesel fuel costs and 17% cost of capital against 8 cents per kwh electric power costs, and it was a close call. But nobody was needing second, third, fourth or fifth mainline tracks then, either.

It would be interesting, I am sure, today with 6% cost of capital, $2.20 cost of fuel against 5 cents/kwh. I would not place a confident bet that the cost savings might not exceed, substantiallly, the cost of capital, while generating an opportunity cost saving by increasing capacity at the same time.

The problem is the problem anytime there is a conventional wisdom in an industry, and surely in an industry where management, simply because of the enormous management demands of running corporations of the size and complexity involved, have little time or enthusiasm for innovation. and certainly without the idea of changing operations dramatically.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[BudKarr]

So much said and so much very well.

The Great Northern entered into the electrification of its Cascade Tunnel in 1909 and continued with it when the longer second tunnel was opened in the late 1920s. This idea is hardly anything new or novel.

The information provided by the gentleman from Switzerland sums up what I was going to provide. Europe and electrification could easily be the model for North America. The idea on this continent is to generate that electricity from as few petroleum based sources as possible.

The technology is there, and take it from someone who has spent an adult lifetime in the operational aspect of the petroleum industry, primarily outside of North America, it can be done.

Good thought provoking subject.

BK

[Anonymous]

Very good discussion on electrification. It appears that HVDC is the way to go, although some will disagree with this assumption. A recent posting summed it up: Why spend money on electrification when it is needed dearly to add double track, longer sidings, etc to increase capacity. There is only so much money in the basement of the railroad's offices. We have found out that the cost of the electrical aspects of our light rail system (catenary, substations, signalling, etc) is equal to the civil (grading) and track laying/ballast. Essentially you can double the cost of a railroad by electrifing (oops-I forgot signalling)

***

[Anonymous]

MichaelSol:

Nice article about HVDC. Note however, that about 90% of all high tension lines (alas in this neck of the woods) are shorter then 400 or so miles. That makes HVDC lose to typical AC transmission costiwse.

[ndbprr]

What is the current () state of electricty supply in the USA ?
I thought demand has been outstripping capacity for several years and prices are relatively high.

Yep! Remember California when Grayout Davis tried to outthink the markets? One other thing. Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources?

[TH&B]

Another way to increase capacity is to run with the type of air brakes used on passenger trains. Passenger trains have more contol, it would make it easier for trains to apply and release quicker so trains would be able to run closer together with more accurate contoled brakes.

One of the biggest reasons for a class one US railroad to NOT electrify is not just cost in itself, but it's the risk. It is a big initial expense that the competeing railroads and truckers may not be paying out. By the time you benefit from it you might be out of bussiness already. I can see why the US won't electrify right now but the future may change.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources?

Well, coal is cheap compared to oil, nuclear power is cheap compared to oil, and hydroelectric is cheap compared to oil. The economically efficient power sources aren't the ones that fit on a locomotive, except for coal and we gave that up. We are using a technology that exploits, at best, 36% of the energy available in the fuel, and avoiding a technology which delivers, even with transmission losses, considerably higher net energy efficiencies of conversion.

The diesel electric locomotive is one of the single least economically efficient energy conversion machines in existence, and we have an important industry which has intentionally made itself completely dependent on it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources?

Well, coal is cheap compared to oil, nuclear power is cheap compared to oil, and hydroelectric is cheap compared to oil. The economically efficient power sources aren't the ones that fit on a locomotive, except for coal and we gave that up. We are using a technology that exploits, at best, 36% of the energy available in the fuel, and avoiding a technology which delivers, even with transmission losses, considerably higher net energy efficiencies of conversion.

The diesel electric locomotive is one of the single least economically efficient energy conversion machines in existence, and we have an important industry which has intentionally made itself completely dependent on it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Okay, say you electrify and are buying the juice at market prices - how long until the project starts turning a profit compared to the alternative of just adding more sidings, etc?

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources?

Well, coal is cheap compared to oil, nuclear power is cheap compared to oil, and hydroelectric is cheap compared to oil. The economically efficient power sources aren't the ones that fit on a locomotive, except for coal and we gave that up. We are using a technology that exploits, at best, 36% of the energy available in the fuel, and avoiding a technology which delivers, even with transmission losses, considerably higher net energy efficiencies of conversion.

The diesel electric locomotive is one of the single least economically efficient energy conversion machines in existence, and we have an important industry which has intentionally made itself completely dependent on it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Coal fired power stations are more efficient than steam locos. The New York and New Haven RR learnt this nearly a 100 years ago. Once the bugs in its pioneering AC electrification had been ironed out, its Financial Director was able to report to Stockholder that they got twice as many drawbar hp per ton of coal burnt in their powerstation than they got for every ton of coal burnt in their steam locos.

The new combined cycle gas power station are even more efficient. In these you run jet engines on natural gas then use the hot exhaust gases to make steam to drive steam turbines. In the last 10 year many coal power stations in Britain have been converted to gas/combined cycle.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

Electricity is made by burning a fuel. between the losses in burning the fuel, the losses in making steam and the losses in making electricity it is without a doubt the highest cost power source going so why not just burn it in a locomotive that doesn't need any outside sources?

Well, coal is cheap compared to oil, nuclear power is cheap compared to oil, and hydroelectric is cheap compared to oil. The economically efficient power sources aren't the ones that fit on a locomotive, except for coal and we gave that up. We are using a technology that exploits, at best, 36% of the energy available in the fuel, and avoiding a technology which delivers, even with transmission losses, considerably higher net energy efficiencies of conversion.

The diesel electric locomotive is one of the single least economically efficient energy conversion machines in existence, and we have an important industry which has intentionally made itself completely dependent on it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Coal fired power stations are more efficient than steam locos. The New York and New Haven RR learnt this nearly a 100 years ago. Once the bugs in its pioneering AC electrification had been ironed out, its Financial Director was able to report to Stockholder that they got twice as many drawbar hp per ton of coal burnt in their powerstation than they got for every ton of coal burnt in their steam locos.

The new combined cycle gas power station are even more efficient. In these you run jet engines on natural gas then use the hot exhaust gases to make steam to drive steam turbines. In the last 10 year many coal power stations in Britain have been converted to gas/combined cycle.

This offers a key point to an industry highly dependent on energy. Electrification always offered the best opportunity to take advantage of the cheapest available source of power. Conventional generating plants continue to make significant strides in energy conversion efficiency, even as various alternatives come and go: coal, natural gas, oil. Only Electrification can take advantage of truly significant alternatives, hydroelectric and nuclear.

The Diesel engine reached its general maximum energy conversion efficiency decades ago, and while significant effort has been put into electronic control of the machines to increase the efficiency of overall energy use of the locomotives, the fundamental efficiency of the engine itself has not significantly changed, even as the technological frontier of energy efficiency of production has advanced significantly over recent decades.

The capital investment argument against Railway Electrification is the identical argument used by the old rust belt industries as their excuse to avoid change. It is at the same time a compelling argument -- the numbers always look daunting for major capital investments -- and a deceptive argument -- it maintains obsolete technologies which ultimately kills those companies reluctant to make the investment.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15
In the last 10 year many coal power stations in Britain have been converted to gas/combined cycle.

Yep, more than a few energy companies here in the US have made the same horrific mistake, e.g. replacing coal fired electricity at .02/kwh with a "new and improved/environmentally friendly" natural gas combined cycle-fired electricity, which unfortunately raised the cost of generation to .20/kwh at today's natural gas prices. Stupid is as stupid does, and all those PC utilities executives who threw away the cheap alternative for the extremely costly alternative should be fired.

The best thing those energy execs could do now is to replace those natural gas plants with coal gasification plants. They may not be able to go back to the .02/kwh price, but at .04/kwh it's still better than those natural gas plants. And if they use the gasification/methanization technology, they can run those plants as peakers, generating electricity at peak electricity demand and pumping out sythetic natural gas into the system when natural gas demand peaks.

[Murphy Siding]

Do they buy that natural gas from open access pipeline companies?[:-,]

[Tulyar15]

Yes, especially Russian ones! (Tony B has just signed a deal with President Putin of Russia. We're going to build a pipeline all the way from Siberia to Britain, now that Britain is no longer self sufficient).

I think we should emulate the Danes. They male 1/3rd of their natural gas from pig's manure; you can make it from human sewage too.!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Do they buy that natural gas from open access pipeline companies?[:-,]

No, they buy that natural gas from natural has producers, who then utilize open access pipelines to deliver the product. The phrasing of your question is like asking if coal burning utilities buy their coal from BNSF (or UP, et al). They don't, they buy the coal from the coal companies. And yes, it is cheaper to ship natural gas via open access pipeline than it is to ship coal via closed access railways, although that is more of an apples to oranges comparison. (Hmmmm, need to figure out the shipping cost on a $$/mmBtu basis, but we do know that rail transportation costs amount from a third to half the delivered cost of coal, and as far as I can tell the transportation costs to ship natural gas amounts to pennies per therm compared to the wellhead price.)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

Yes, especially Russian ones! (Tony B has just signed a deal with President Putin of Russia. We're going to build a pipeline all the way from Siberia to Britain, now that Britain is no longer self sufficient).

I think we should emulate the Danes. They male 1/3rd of their natural gas from pig's manure; you can make it from human sewage too.!

Doesn't Britain still have vast coal reserves? Why denigrate your balance of trade by importing something you can manufacture domestically at a lower price (assuming Russia is selling at market prices)?