Western Railroad Discussion > World Coal Production: is it going up?

The Wall Street Journal has a piece this morning about the expected rise in world coal production and consumption over the next year. A confluence of events, like low snowfall in the Himalayas and a lower than expected monsoon rainfall, has caused the amount of coal purchasing to increase. (Less alternative hydro) Good news for coal exporters like Australia, US, Canada, etc as Japan, India, Korea, and China increase buying.

Australia, US, and Canada have export grades of coal which contribute less to global pollution than many grades of Indonesian, Indian, Chinese, and South African grades. This is generally good news for US and Canadian railroads and exporters as buyers are under pressure to reduce pollution.


(Should be available on the internet later today. Good news for rails and exporters)

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Wall Street Journal has a piece this morning
> about the expected rise in world coal production
> and consumption over the next year. A confluence
> of events, like low snowfall in the Himalayas and
> a lower than expected monsoon rainfall, has caused
> the amount of coal purchasing to increase. (Less
> alternative hydro) Good news for coal exporters
> like Australia, US, Canada, etc as Japan, India,
> Korea, and China increase buying.

Ironic, since coal is the primary contributor to global climate change. We burn more, that causes more weather disruption, which in turn reduces snowpack and monsoons, so we compensate by burning more coal...which of course....contributes to climate change...and so on.....kinda like a circular firing squad.
>
> Australia, US, and Canada have export grades of
> coal which contribute less to global pollution
> than many grades of Indonesian, Indian, Chinese,
> and South African grades. This is generally good
> news for US and Canadian railroads and exporters
> as buyers are under pressure to reduce pollution.
>
>
> (Should be available on the internet later today.
> Good news for rails and exporters)

Probably not good news for farmers and the millions of Indians who depend on the Ganges for water.

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ironic, since coal is the primary contributor to
> global climate change. We burn more, that causes
> more weather disruption, which in turn reduces
> snowpack and monsoons, so we compensate by burning
> more coal...which of course....contributes to
> climate change...and so on.....kinda like a
> circular firing squad.

I don't buy and never will this theory coal = climate change (what happened to the term Global Warming anyway?). It doesn't explain floods and droughts that have happened over the last 200 years. The Dust Bowl years of the 1930's are a perfect example.

If we're talking about carbon dioxide I'm much more concerned about deforestation and world population growth. We can do something about the former but not much about the later. World population growth is what's creating a need for more coal use, since building a coal fired power plant is, overall, the cheapest and fastest way to bring more electricity on line. I would like to see more solar power used but the problem is (mostly) the amount of land needed to build something big enough to equal the electrical output of a coal fired plant. The economics are not there yet...if they were China would have been more aggressive building solar power.

Instead of trying to fight coal use environmentalists should realize coal is going to be burned. Push the use of low sulfur coal and high tech scrubbers...


Allen

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ironic, since coal is the primary contributor to
> global climate change. We burn more, that causes
> more weather disruption, which in turn reduces
> snowpack and monsoons, so we compensate by burning
> more coal...which of course....contributes to
> climate change...and so on.....kinda like a
> circular firing squad.


Could you please buy a Weather for Beginners book and actually look at it? Because weather patterns have always varied, even long before mankind roamed the earth. Periodic drought is normal, everywhere sooner or later is going to experience drought, and sooner or later is going to experience higher than average rainfall.

Yet every time something changes, someone immediately declares that it is happening because of a rain dance, or a voodoo doll, or a coal plant (based on claimed 'scientific' computer models that all trace back to E. Anglia base data that the authors were forced to admit were massaged/faked for political reasons, while the true believers continue to ignore that man behind the curtain).

And can you (and your fellow travelers) not run to get this post pulled or thread locked because someone dared refute your beliefs? How about just give your best argument and let people decide for themselves?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/14 10:31 by darkcloud.

inexpensive energy is a MUST for a good economy.

so, will the developing countries that use coal fired power plants for their energy and see their economies improve listen to those that say coal is bad for the environment? if coal is so bad for the environment, is anybody prohibiting developing countries from building coal fired power plants?

people that have never had electricity or even inexpensive electricity are not going to want to give up coal fired power plants once they get used to it. people that have just started to experience the growth of well paying middle class jobs directly and indirectly from the energy/transportation sectors are not going to want to give up coal fired power plants.......

66

Nobody ever talks about the greenhouse gases that come from our automobiles. Got to be as least as much as coal. But we all need to drive and enjoy the choices that we get to make when we buy cars.

NYC6001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody ever talks about the greenhouse gases that
> come from our automobiles. Got to be as least as
> much as coal. But we all need to drive and enjoy
> the choices that we get to make when we buy cars.

Good point, although the foul water will probably get us before the foul air does...

NYC6001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody ever talks about the greenhouse gases that
> come from our automobiles. Got to be as least as
> much as coal. But we all need to drive and enjoy
> the choices that we get to make when we buy cars.

Nobody talks about it because it isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. Transportation on a whole, worldwide, accounts for less pollution than energy generation. Of the whole transportation segment, which includes trucks, ships, aircraft, rail, etc., emissions from private cars and light trucks is only a fraction of that. As with all "greenhouse gas" emission statistics, the actual numbers vary quite a bit depending on the source, so I won't use any specific numbers here. Suffice it to say that the total output of all the private cars and trucks in the world is a fraction of the output from energy generation, a fact that most electric car owners don't seem to understand when they mindlessly assume their electric cars are zero-emission vehicles.

Well, for the last 30 years the Powder River basin alone has mined and shipped about a million tons of coal a day. Check the stats in Trains mag a few years back. and that is low sulphur coal. Then you have to add what is mined and burned In the rest of North and South America, Europe, Australia, Africa and Asia every day, a lot of it higher polluting coals, and it seems to me the world is burning 2-3 million tons of coal every day. Maybe someone, like Lackawanna 484, really knows. I wonder what it was back in the 1960s, 50s, 40s and even 1930s when all rail transport was by steam engines or electric largely generated by burning coal. Those statistics may not be available to due the cold war and what Russia, China, etc were burning. But coal is a major commodity for railroads of those countries, and still is.

My unscientific opinion is burning that much coal per day now and for the last generation or more has to have some negative effect on air quality. Sure, volcano eruptions release a lot of stuff too, but they are few and far between, not a steady volume. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I'm not rabid about it. I have investments in all the railroads that haul coal, and oil, and other companies that participate. Just another opinion to chew on.

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ATSF3751 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ironic, since coal is the primary contributor
> to
> > global climate change. We burn more, that
> causes
> > more weather disruption, which in turn reduces
> > snowpack and monsoons, so we compensate by
> burning
> > more coal...which of course....contributes to
> > climate change...and so on.....kinda like a
> > circular firing squad.
>
>
> Could you please buy a Weather for Beginners book
> and actually look at it? Because weather patterns
> have always varied, even long before mankind
> roamed the earth. Periodic drought is normal,
> everywhere sooner or later is going to experience
> drought, and sooner or later is going to
> experience higher than average rainfall.
>
> Yet every time something changes, someone
> immediately declares that it is happening because
> of a rain dance, or a voodoo doll, or a coal plant
> (based on claimed 'scientific' computer models
> that all trace back to E. Anglia base data that
> the authors were forced to admit were
> massaged/faked for political reasons, while the
> true believers continue to ignore that man behind
> the curtain).
>
> And can you (and your fellow travelers) not run to
> get this post pulled or thread locked because
> someone dared refute your beliefs? How about just
> give your best argument and let people decide for
> themselves?
Thank you. The truth finally comes out on Trainorders
Todd, please stop taking the treehuggers side.

Posted from Android

NYC6001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody ever talks about the greenhouse gases that
> come from our automobiles. Got to be as least as
> much as coal. But we all need to drive and enjoy
> the choices that we get to make when we buy cars.

Exactly!

Posted from Android

Does anyone in the USA not have electricity? Yet in India alone there are 30 million without any power.. Coal has a very long life because there is nothing else that can provide power in such needed quanity.
Its a great case of those that have everything by world standards want to set the standards for those that have very little. Aside from that what we have in the world is a population problem and everyone wants electricity, water and food.
Roger Beckett

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ATSF3751 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ironic, since coal is the primary contributor
> to
> > global climate change. We burn more, that
> causes
> > more weather disruption, which in turn reduces
> > snowpack and monsoons, so we compensate by
> burning
> > more coal...which of course....contributes to
> > climate change...and so on.....kinda like a
> > circular firing squad.
>
>
> Could you please buy a Weather for Beginners book
> and actually look at it? Because weather patterns
> have always varied, even long before mankind
> roamed the earth. Periodic drought is normal,
> everywhere sooner or later is going to experience
> drought, and sooner or later is going to
> experience higher than average rainfall.

Not on a scale such as this.
>
> Yet every time something changes, someone
> immediately declares that it is happening because
> of a rain dance, or a voodoo doll, or a coal plant
> (based on claimed 'scientific' computer models
> that all trace back to E. Anglia base data that
> the authors were forced to admit were
> massaged/faked for political reasons, while the
> true believers continue to ignore that man behind
> the curtain).

Not true. Simply not true. The are far more climate models and data that point to the same conclusion that are not "political" in nature. Besides, the data that was supposedly "faked" (your words) was not, but was simply commentary that was "lifted" (illegally) out of context by climate denier hackers, who then posted those comments without the accompanying before and after commentary. Those emails were normal conversations and data review between scientists and were not reflective of some massive conspiracy. But, never let truth get in the way of a good conspiracy that will sell advertising space on right wing media and enrich the imaginations of doubters.

Scientists do look at all outcomes and possibility and have honest discussions amongst themselves. But, the right wing media and climate change critics seized on those emails, took them out of context, and then drew false conclusions in order to further their political agenda. So in that sense you are right about political influence, but not in the way you think. Of course, you will believe what you want, regardless of the facts....or in this case, the lack of them.
>
> And can you (and your fellow travelers) not run to
> get this post pulled or thread locked because
> someone dared refute your beliefs? How about just
> give your best argument and let people decide for
> themselves?


"Fellow travelers"....yawn....oh please, not this commie thing again. Could you be more original next time?

BTW,It's not my belief...it is the common belief, and consensus, of the scientific community. Perhaps you should purchase a "Weather for Beginners" book. The changes taking place are more extreme and on a larger scale then what has been normal in recorded history. I was not just speaking on India, but on a global scale. Open you eyes and take a long look.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/14 06:15 by ATSF3751.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since somebody talked about the Industrial
> Revolution, there is a minority opinion that there
> is a long term global warming trend and that the
> particulate pollution of the Industrial Era and
> the numerous Volcanoes of not too distant past
> slowed down the warming by reducing the sun's
> energy that hits the surface. The recent reduction
> of the particulates in the air is thought to have
> allowed warming to continue. But the numbers were
> not agreeing until the recent discussion about the
> Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean temperatures
> warming at lower depths than had been monitored in
> the past. They had been monitoring the Pacific but
> found it was distributing the heat in more ways
> than could be measured, ie El Nino, La Nina
> distributed the temperatures from the equator to
> the north Pacific.
>
> The theory about the long term warming trend still
> needs more data or rational. They don't know if
> it's limited to the Earth, part of the Sun's
> activity, is the mantle warming up, etc. They
> don't know if it's a short term cycle or long term
> or what. The Ocean warming is thought to be very
> significant, more so than air or ground
> temperature. How much coal would it take to heat
> up the Pacific Ocean?
>
> Have a nice railroadey-kinda day.
>
> btw, my 'Politics' is 'Jobs', may as well go out
> with a full stomach.


Another byproduct of the burning of carbon based fuel is the acidfication of the oceans which may have more significant effects on humankind then climate change may produce.

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (snip)
>
>
> Another byproduct of the burning of carbon based
> fuel is the acidfication of the oceans which may
> have more significant effects on humankind then
> climate change may produce.


That topic is beginning to get significant attention. One aspect is the presence of increased acid levels, the other is the possible solar heating of suspended carbon in the surface sea water.

It's been discussed among fishing experts for a while without conclusion

ATSF3751 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------

> Another byproduct of the burning of carbon based
> fuel is the acidification of the oceans which may
> have more significant effects on humankind then
> climate change may produce.

Why are environmentalists so concerned about this when we need to concentrate on cleaning up the tons of garbage floating out in the middle of the world's oceans?? Something can be done about that NOW...it could take decades to determine whether acidification of the worlds oceans is actually significant or not.

This is why people have a difficult time with the priorities of various environmental organizations around the world. All the time and money spent trying to fight an assumed threat (like so called "climate change") would be better spent fighting a real one, such as ocean trash. 60 Minutes did a story on ocean trash not long ago...



Allen

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ATSF3751 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> > Another byproduct of the burning of carbon
> based
> > fuel is the acidification of the oceans which
> may
> > have more significant effects on humankind then
> > climate change may produce.
>
> Why are environmentalists so concerned about this
> when we need to concentrate on cleaning up the
> tons of garbage floating out in the middle of the
> world's oceans?? Something can be done about that
> NOW...it could take decades to determine whether
> acidification of the worlds oceans is actually
> significant or not.
>
> This is why people have a difficult time with the
> priorities of various environmental organizations
> around the world. All the time and money spent
> trying to fight an assumed threat (like so called
> "climate change") would be better spent fighting a
> real one, such as ocean trash. 60 Minutes did a
> story on ocean trash not long ago...
>
>
>
> Allen

There is no such thing as "so called" climate change, except amongst doubters. It exists in the real world and is recognized as a serious threat by the vast majority of scientists in the area of climatology and in related areas of study. That said, I agree that the problems posed by ocean garbage is serious and should be addressed.
It baffles me why some folks continue to believe the nonsense that climate change is a hoax or some type of conspiracy. I understand some people have jobs dependent on the fossil fuel industry and can appreciate their concerns. But long term changes to how we power our society need not result in the loss of employment, but should instead be looked at as a way to build new industries and develop new technologies (and jobs) that could slowly phase out carbon based resources which ultimately have a limited life span anyway. In the noted words of Frank my auto mechanic "I can change your oil now, or I can change your engine later". Of course I always opt for the first choice. The list of scientists who say climate change is a hoax is shrinking, while those who lean towards, or believe it is a certainty, continues to rise.

ATSF3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no such thing as "so called" climate
> change, except amongst doubters.

I think most people are in favor of clean air and water and a high quality of life. The problem is that to many people, climate change is a religion and they like to conveniently blur the line between naturally occurring climate change and man-made climate change, then attack people who don't share their beliefs by calling all of them "deniers" and accusing them of not caring about the environment. Even those who believe in climate change but don't necessarily attribute it to human activity are labeled "deniers".

I don't think very many people doubt the climate is changing. It always has and always will, even long before humans were part of the equation. What many people take exception to, including a lot of experts in the field, is that it is definitely caused by human activity. The only "evidence" supporting this is computer modeling, which has historically been shown in many scientific studies in all fields of science, to ultimately be flawed.

Too many academic snobs assume they know all the variables to create accurate models. But too often in science, we discover later that they missed or ignored all sorts of critical data and their models and conclusions were way off. The "global warming" believers constantly vacillate to adjust their beliefs when contradictory evidence is introduced. Even the convenient change from calling it "global warming" to "climate change" should alarm people to a hidden agenda.

A little common sense is in order here but until all the political motivation behind the so-called "green movement" is exposed, and concrete scientific evidence supporting one position or the other is uncovered, people will continue to disagree on this. Calling me a "doubter" or "denier" is as easy as me calling you a "mouth-breathing lemming". At the end of the day it serves no purpose.