Western Railroad Discussion > Wyoming coal region faces discouraging future

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/09/16/Wyoming-coal-region-faces-discouraging-future/5081567052791/

 

Despite all the claims that "coal use is doomed" there is far too much coal "energy" available to be ignored. Technology will prevail, and at some point (and in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger) "KING COAL" says: "I'll be back!" 

dash944cw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Despite all the claims that "coal use is doomed"
> there is far too much coal "energy" available to
> be ignored. Technology will prevail, and at some
> point (and in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger)
> "KING COAL" says: "I'll be back!" 

What do you mean by 'technology will prevail'?

Posted from Android

Scrubbers or newer equipment to clean the air

fredstout Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scrubbers or newer equipment to clean the air

Unproven and/or too expensive, in the case of carbon dioxide. There's no point trying any more with coal when there are much more viable alternatives, such as gas and with renewables increasing all the time. The ship has sailed for coal.

Posted from Android

Consider Texas, home of the oil industry.  In 2018 30% of power was carbon-free; wind with a lot more solar coming on-line.  And they have some of the lowest residential electricity rates in the nation.  They also closed more coal fired power plants than any other state by far.  If they can do it.......

One of the earlier articles about the plight of Wyoming's coal mines mentioned the gift of wind. Wyoming is already exporting a substantial amount of electricity.  And collecting the equivalent of severance taxes.

But, relatively few jobs are required for an ongoing basis.

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fredstout Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Scrubbers or newer equipment to clean the air
>
> Unproven and/or too expensive, in the case of
> carbon dioxide. There's no point trying any more
> with coal when there are much more viable
> alternatives, such as gas  . . .
>
> Posted from Android

You'd better go read your chemistry book.   The last time that I checked, natural gas--methane--had a chemical formula of CH4.  Oxidize (burn) methane and the formula is CH4 + O2 = CO2 and H2O.  Doesn't matter if you burn coal or natural gas, you're gonna get CO2 (carbon dioxide).  In fact, burn any carbonaceous fuel--coal, gas, petroleum, wood, horse manure, etc., etc.-- and you're gonna get CO2.  Hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear don't produce CO2 directly, but they all have significant environmental challenges that, of course, the alt-fuel fanboys are loathe to talk about.  There's no free lunch . . .

It's ok, I have a chemistry PhD, but thanks for the advice. There are many types of coal, but generally coal has the highest level of CO2 emission of the fossil fuels, per kW. But it's very hard to get a free lunch, as you say.

Posted from Android

WW Wrote:
> You'd better go read your chemistry book.   The
> last time that I checked, natural
> gas--methane--had a chemical formula of CH4. 
> Oxidize (burn) methane and the formula is CH4 + O2
> = CO2 and H2O.  Doesn't matter if you burn coal
> or natural gas, you're gonna get CO2 (carbon
> dioxide).  In fact, burn any carbonaceous
> fuel--coal, gas, petroleum, wood, horse manure,
> etc., etc.-- and you're gonna get CO2.  Hydro,
> solar, wind, and nuclear don't produce CO2
> directly, but they all have significant
> environmental challenges that, of course, the
> alt-fuel fanboys are loathe to talk about. 
> There's no free lunch . . .

The difference is natural gas doesn't produce mountains of ash and a bunch of heavy metals going up the stack.  Add in the factor that natural gas is cheaper, and coal is done.

And gas produces less CO2 than coal. Yes, it's still a fossil fuel.

Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

radar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The difference is natural gas doesn't produce
> mountains of ash and a bunch of heavy metals going
> up the stack.  Add in the factor that natural gas
> is cheaper, and coal is done.

Sounds to me like they'll be able to start removing some of the tracks of that four-track main that runs through a portion of the Powder River Basin.   I guess we can expect to see a lot of branch lines in CSX and NS territory abandoned as many of them had only coal mines as shippers.   

It was fun while it lasted, but it sounds like the party's over.  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/19 00:34 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

A little early to declare it's over. However the fat lady has now risen from her seat, is clearing her throat and making her way to the stage. She'll be singing the final song soon enough.

   Ross Rowland

in addition to the low cost and RELIABILITY of coal, the ISSUES (costs, environmental, etc.) with solar panel disposal AND the removal of wind turbines after they are decommissioned COULD help a future demand for coal.........

66
 

Make no mistake, I'm not a natural gas hater.  Natural gas is ideally suited to many very important uses--home heating, fertilizer production, many industrial uses, etc.--and that is what our reserves should be used for.  Coal is a much more suitable fuel for base load electricity generation.  Power plants are large single-point emission sources, and those are the most efficient when it comes to effective emission control.  Alt-fuels--hydro, wind, solar, and--yes--natural gas--can be very effective fuels to  use in "peak shaving" electricity generation.  That said, it is my unshakable belief that it is absolutely foolhardy to deplete our natural gas reserves for use in base load power plants.  The folly of that policy may take a decade or two to become apparent in the political fog that is everywhere today, but when the folly does become apparent, it will be painful and ugly. 

Don't worry, we'll be able to mine the atmosphere of gas giant planets and moons for methane. ;-)

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't worry, we'll be able to mine the atmosphere
> of gas giant planets and moons for methane. ;-)
...or a couple of hours after the burrito wagon comes around. Just sayin'        ):^o 

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in addition to the low cost and RELIABILITY of
> coal, the ISSUES (costs, environmental, etc.) with
> solar panel disposal AND the removal of wind
> turbines after they are decommissioned COULD help
> a future demand for coal.........
>
> 66
>  
Bury them in the closed coal mines.

TODAY'S cost to remove a "decommissioned" wind turbine is $200,000.00.  it is going to be very expensive to remove ALL of them...........

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in addition to the low cost and RELIABILITY of coal, the ISSUES (costs, environmental, etc.) with solar panel disposal AND the removal of wind  turbines after they are decommissioned COULD help a future demand for coal.........
>

Yea, I saw that article that breathlessly screamed that it was a crisis for wind turbines that they need replacing after a decade or two and that a landfill didn't want to take them because in raw form they take up too much space.

Can you imagine the ridicule I'd get if I said automobiles were in crisis because they need to be replaced every decade or two and landfills didn't want to take them?

OTOH  It will be interesting to see how this project pans out:

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-09-10/ladwp-votes-on-eland-solar-contract


Under the 25-year deal with developer 8minute Solar Energy, the city would buy electricity from a sprawling complex of solar panels and lithium-ion batteries in the Mojave Desert of eastern Kern County, about two hours north of Los Angeles. The Eland project would meet 6% to 7% of L.A.'s annual electricity needs and would be capable of pumping clean energy into the grid for four hours each night.The combined solar power and energy storage is priced at 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour — a record low for this type of contract, city officials and independent experts say, and cheaper than electricity from natural gas.

Brian



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/19 10:59 by choodude.