Yes, coal could be back on the front burner, along with oil and gas…why do I say this? President-elect Trump as already said he wants Palin on his Cabinet, as either Interior Secretary or in charge of the DoE(Energy), though not the EPA(that might go to an oil executive).
Guess we’ll see…
That’s assuming Mrs. Palin really wants to leave Alaska for the DC swamp. She might, but somehow I doubt it.
What do I think about Sarah Palin? Assuming anyone cares what I think I like Sarah, she’s a lot of fun and I think her hubby’s a lucky man to have her, but as far as I’m concerned she’s a cheerleader, and not a leader. A leader doesn’t walk away from an elected post when things get a little hot.
Mrs. Palin, you’ve got to show me something before I picture you in a high government slot. You just haven’t done it yet.
I may have missed something, but I thought demand for coal was falling since the price of oil and natural gas had fallen, and these fuels were easier to handle as well as being regarded as “cleaner”.
Whoever the Republican Administration appoint to energy roles, all they can change is aspects of regulation. The choice of fuel is made by the energy supplier or user, and will be based on price and availability.
M636C
I would think that price would be affected by regulation.
Shhhh…you’re ruining the narrative! There will be coal. And coal miners! And jobs! It’s going to be awesome!
Those are certainly factors, but it’s possible to regulate something out of existance by enabling it’s competitors and/or imposing stringent regulations on it.
And remember what the late Mr. Jim McClellan said: “Coal is the new cigarettes, it makes the government feel good by stamping it out.”
But nobody is suggesting that cigarettes are a good thing, even if there might be an upturn in the US tobacco industry were there to be government promotion of smoking as a pastime.
There are documented problems from the burning of coal in urban areas, regardless of any involvement in global warming, whether or not it is occurring.
I would be surprised if many power stations wanted to change back to coal having recently paid to convert to natural gas, for example.
While this isn’t quite the thread to start a discussion, the most obvious regulation that could affect the railroads directly would be deferring to the future Tier 4 emission requirements for railroad locomotives.
This would allow EMD to restart production of locomotives with the 710G engine, for example. GE could build the ES series, which h
[(-D]
Smoking and coal are BAD… but pot is good and will be the next cash cow governments are going to milk.
But marijuana doesn’t move in unit trains……yet. [:-^]
“Ridin’ that train, high on…” Whoops, never mind!
Well, it might, but not as manifested cargo…
Was it tacked on marijuana shipments that were to be tracked by those illegal readers?
Hey, I just remembered something about Sarah Palin.
Back when she was governor (governoress?) of Alaska a good friend of mine met her on a Ducks Unlimited sponsored fishing trip. It was a “meet-and-greet” with the group that was small enough so she could spend some time with them.
Mrs. Palin handed out Alaska Railroad pins to the group, of all things. Not to be outdone, when he got home one of the first things my buddy did was send her a Jersey Central pin! He got a nice “thank you” note back from her too.
By the way, he said the fishing was fantastic!
Think maybe Sarah’s a closet railfan?
Good combo of products - coal and marijuana.
I’ve been to the PRB, and I saw very few workers using huge machinery to extract and move the large volumes of coal out. Only a return to pre-natural gas consumption would bring back jobs, and then just a pittance IMO.
Interesting article from the WSJ about deregulated coal vs. natural gas from the utilities point of view:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cheap-gas-tests-trumps-promise-to-revive-coal-1479080359
Subscription required.