Western Railroad Discussion > Coal: In a Freefall - 2020 Production Down 46.57% from 2014

The first chart produced by the U,S, Department of Labor shows quarterly and annual coal production for 2014 through 2020.
Overall production fell 46,57% from 2014 through 2020.
The second chart compiled from information in Wikipedia shows coal production by state  for 2014 and 20/18.
This chart provides some insight into the states most impacted by the decliune in colal production.
In 2014, the railroads made heavy locomotive purchases in anticipation of the coming of Tier 4 in 2015.
The heavy locomotive purchases from 2014 combined with the decline in coal production since then have combined to create a motive power glut
that is more severe on some roads than others.
Coal tends to run in long cycles,  However, I would expect production to fall further before a turn around, if there ever is one.
ALLEN

 

While coal is far from being completely gone, all one has to do is look at BNSF and UP average coal loads out of the PRB to see the downward spiral of coal. BNSF is running at maybe 45% of volume 15 years ago while UP is at maybe 30%.

Even here in Utah it is noticeable. There are much fewer coal trains on the ex-DRGW. I would be curious to see the numbers, but a 50% drop wouldn’t be surprising at all.

Saw an empty last week headed back to the mountains, might have been from the Verde power plant in Nevada.

Nathan

Posted from iPhone

I wonder how much of the large drop between 2019 and 2020 was the result of COVID having the Country shut down?

cjvrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder how much of the large drop between 2019
> and 2020 was the result of COVID having the
> Country shut down?

While I wouldn't say there was zero impact but I've been watching both BNSF and UP load volumes out if the PRB for the last 10 years and the decline has been fairly steady with very little abrupt rise/fall pattern even in the last year. People still use electricity as business use might have dropped but home/personal use likely increased to compensate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/21 07:44 by AaronJ.

Aaron,

Thank you for the response.  I know in NJ many of the office buildings have gone dark because people moved to working from home.  Definitelty brought down the AC and power loads at those facilites, but you are correct probably were offset by those working or not working sitting at home.

cjvrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aaron,
>
> Thank you for the response.  I know in NJ many of
> the office buildings have gone dark because people
> moved to working from home.  Definitelty brought
> down the AC and power loads at those facilites,
> but you are correct probably were offset by those
> working or not working sitting at home.

You would be surprised at the lack of substantial decrease in power usage in large buildings where a significant of workers are/were working from home. Sure, the lights maybe out, but in probably most cases, nobody manually went around changing AC thermostat or turning them off. Servers were still running requiring normal AC loads. Good chance many computers were still running.

ON THE FLIP SIDE, where I work, our electricity usage and AC work load actually went up, as the doors between the warehouse (which of course is NOT cliament controlled) and the offices are propped open (under covid responce measures) meaning the office AC units are working more.

There was already a trend in the power industry to shift away from coal to natural gas fired plants and wind energy. The pandemic just accelerated the process. Many coal fired power plants were taken off line. 

Bob Perkins

So what's the long-range plan for coal-fired steam on tourist lines?  With the new administration's wishes of 2030 and beyond climate change goals these relics will be stuffed and mounted with some to the re-melter.

What was the high year for Powder River Basin coal?  According to Wikipedia, the mines in the PRB have less than 20 years of economically-feasible life left.

billmeeker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What was the high year for Powder River Basin
> coal?  According to Wikipedia, the mines in the
> PRB have less than 20 years of
> economically-feasible life left.

Most reference 2008 as generally being considered the peak production year in the PRB.

rrman6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what's the long-range plan for coal-fired steam
> on tourist lines?  With the new administration's
> wishes of 2030 and beyond climate change goals
> these relics will be stuffed and mounted with some
> to the re-melter.

Don't be silly.

billmeeker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What was the high year for Powder River Basin
> coal?  According to Wikipedia, the mines in the
> PRB have less than 20 years of
> economically-feasible life left.

According to the excellent recent Trains Magazine article on the topic by Bill Stephens, 2008 was the peak year and had the one day peak ever--90 trains loaded.

JG

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rrman6 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So what's the long-range plan for coal-fired
> steam
> > on tourist lines?  With the new
> administration's
> > wishes of 2030 and beyond climate change goals
> > these relics will be stuffed and mounted with
> some
> > to the re-melter.
>
> Don't be silly.

It's not a "silly" question.  Already, the Durango & Silverton has converted 493 to oil and the C&TS will likely convert 489 to oil. Both railroads rely on the coal mine near Hesperus, Colorado for coal and the envronmentalist whackos that now infest Durango are actively lobbying to see that mine closed.  (For the record, that mine supplies coal to much more than just the railroads, but that doesn't stop the environmentalists from demanding its closure.)  Converting locomotives to oil in very expensive and the oil to fuel them is considerably more expensive than coal.  So, the already financially strapped steam tourist railroads are likely facing some really unpleasant choices pretty soon.  The D&S, in particular, is alreeady hated by the tranplant, trust-funders flooding Durango.  Nothing would make them happier than seeing the D&S right-of-way be a hiking trail.  So, the whole environmental insanity of the current administration very well may destroy what's left of the steam tourist railroad industry in America, amongst a lot of other economic victims of poorly formulated policy only loosely based on any real hard science.  I say this as a conservationist who has spent decades studying both economics and climatology.  By the way, oil-burning steam locomotives are no "clean" panacea.  The most common source of steam locomotive fuel oil these days is used motor oil--oil that just happens to contain a lot of heavy metals and other unsavory stuff.  Diesel fuel (regular or biodiesel) doesn't really contain enough energy per gallon to be very efficient in either operation or cost in steam locomotives.   But, hey, we can't let such "trivial" facts get in the way of the narrative.

WW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exhaustED Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rrman6 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So what's the long-range plan for coal-fired
> > steam
> > > on tourist lines?  With the new
> > administration's
> > > wishes of 2030 and beyond climate change
> goals
> > > these relics will be stuffed and mounted with
> > some
> > > to the re-melter.
> >
> > Don't be silly.
>
> It's not a "silly" question.  Already, the
> Durango & Silverton has converted 493 to oil and
> the C&TS will likely convert 489 to oil. Both
> railroads rely on the coal mine near Hesperus,
> Colorado for coal and the envronmentalist whackos
> that now infest Durango are actively lobbying to
> see that mine closed.  (For the record, that mine
> supplies coal to much more than just the
> railroads, but that doesn't stop the
> environmentalists from demanding its closure.) 
> Converting locomotives to oil in very expensive
> and the oil to fuel them is considerably more
> expensive than coal.  So, the already financially
> strapped steam tourist railroads are likely facing
> some really unpleasant choices pretty soon.  The
> D&S, in particular, is alreeady hated by the
> tranplant, trust-funders flooding Durango. 
> Nothing would make them happier than seeing the
> D&S right-of-way be a hiking trail.  So, the
> whole environmental insanity of the current
> administration very well may destroy what's left
> of the steam tourist railroad industry in America,
> amongst a lot of other economic victims of poorly
> formulated policy only loosely based on any real
> hard science.  I say this as a conservationist
> who has spent decades studying both economics and
> climatology.  By the way, oil-burning steam
> locomotives are no "clean" panacea.  The most
> common source of steam locomotive fuel oil these
> days is used motor oil--oil that just happens to
> contain a lot of heavy metals and other unsavory
> stuff.  Diesel fuel (regular or biodiesel)
> doesn't really contain enough energy per gallon to
> be very efficient in either operation or cost in
> steam locomotives.   But, hey, we can't let such
> "trivial" facts get in the way of the narrative.

There will always be coal available in some form. Sure, in 20 years it might not be possible or economicly feasible to get coal by the train loads, but it will be around. 

https://www.power-eng.com/coal/iea-coal-demand-co2-emissions-rising-in-2021/#gref

hopefully this increase in demand will result in more good paying jobs in the mining and rail sectors here...........

66

The Durango & Silverton didn't do itself any favors with its role in several huge brush fires.

The feds are seeking $25 million from them in penalties for their role in starting the big 416 fire

Posted from Android

Whackos?



WW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exhaustED Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rrman6 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So what's the long-range plan for coal-fired
> > steam
> > > on tourist lines?  With the new
> > administration's
> > > wishes of 2030 and beyond climate change
> goals
> > > these relics will be stuffed and mounted with
> > some
> > > to the re-melter.
> >
> > Don't be silly.
>
> It's not a "silly" question.  Already, the
> Durango & Silverton has converted 493 to oil and
> the C&TS will likely convert 489 to oil. Both
> railroads rely on the coal mine near Hesperus,
> Colorado for coal and the envronmentalist whackos
> that now infest Durango are actively lobbying to
> see that mine closed.  (For the record, that mine
> supplies coal to much more than just the
> railroads, but that doesn't stop the
> environmentalists from demanding its closure.) 
> Converting locomotives to oil in very expensive
> and the oil to fuel them is considerably more
> expensive than coal.  So, the already financially
> strapped steam tourist railroads are likely facing
> some really unpleasant choices pretty soon.  The
> D&S, in particular, is alreeady hated by the
> tranplant, trust-funders flooding Durango. 
> Nothing would make them happier than seeing the
> D&S right-of-way be a hiking trail.  So, the
> whole environmental insanity of the current
> administration very well may destroy what's left
> of the steam tourist railroad industry in America,
> amongst a lot of other economic victims of poorly
> formulated policy only loosely based on any real
> hard science.  I say this as a conservationist
> who has spent decades studying both economics and
> climatology.  By the way, oil-burning steam
> locomotives are no "clean" panacea.  The most
> common source of steam locomotive fuel oil these
> days is used motor oil--oil that just happens to
> contain a lot of heavy metals and other unsavory
> stuff.  Diesel fuel (regular or biodiesel)
> doesn't really contain enough energy per gallon to
> be very efficient in either operation or cost in
> steam locomotives.   But, hey, we can't let such
> "trivial" facts get in the way of the narrative.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whackos?

Just thoughts & opinions of the" free", just as you.   Now explain yours.

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://www.power-eng.com/coal/iea-coal-demand-co2
> -emissions-rising-in-2021/#gref
>
> hopefully this increase in demand will result in
> more good paying jobs in the mining and rail
> sectors here...........
>

Mining isn't the only sector where there are good paying jobs, and rail jobs can result from sectors other than coal mining.... so the obsession with digging black crap out of the ground to result in releasing climate changing gas into the atmosphere seems very strange...

Look at the numbers at the start of this thread - does it look like coal mining in the US is expanding/increasing to create more 'good-paying' jobs?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/21 04:48 by exhaustED.