If the above link doesn’t work, you might try this one.
https://thinkprogress.org/fossil-fuels-are-dead-says-rail-baron-b177af077344
I am surprised that Mr. Harrison takes that position in this highly political debate. If he knows coal will die, but he does not know when, why bail out right now while there is coal traffic to haul? His announced position is just adding to the politics of killing off coal by regulations sooner rather than later.
He’s only not buying new equipment, NOT getting out of the business.
It may be his intention to “send a message.” Given his stating that he didn’t figure to be around long, though, I’m not sure what purpose this serves, unless it is somehow intended to boost stock prices…
I think Mr. Harrison has to take position. For CSX it is not a political but an economical decision. And he doesn’t bail out he just doesn’t invest in new equipment for coal transport anymore.
From my outside view not regulations kill coal but economics. With an abundance of cheap gas why burn coal for power?
And emission regulations are necessary . How far they have to go is another question.
Regards, Volker
He might have to buy new equipment, the Surface Transportation board is now watching CSX, they have been getting complaints left and right from CSX customers, some of them coal producers that are getting terrible or no servicee. There will still be coal busines for many yeas to come long after Hunters short sighted attempt to destroy CSX. The coal business is currently expanding and reopening mines, the economy as whole is growing again at a decent rate, Hunter picked a lousy time to implement severe cutbacks. CSX should be doing the opposite ramping up service.
The CSX still has equipment and it was enough to handle much higher coal traffic in former years.
Regards, Volker
Thanks! I forgot Financial Times is subscriber access.|
The coal that CSX originated/shipped is less “clean” than Powder Ridge, etc. EHH is just making a business decision based on long-term trends and prognosis.
To your second point, I believe anti-CO2 regulations are going farther than necessary.
To your first point, this is the argument of the people who are driving the anti-CO2 regulations. They cover their tracks by claiming that it is not they who are killing coal, but rather, it is pure economics.
But the truth is that regulations influence the economics. President Obama promised to kill coal and he carefully explained that he would do it with regulations.
Of the many resources which show it’s as much to do with policy as price, there’s this:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29952
Key excerpt:
“Without the Clean Power Plan, there is less incentive to switch from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar. In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019 and retains that position through 2032, longer than in the Reference case, which includes the Clean Power Plan. Electricity generation from renewable sources remains below coal-fired electricity generation through 2040. Fewer coal plants are retired, and as a result, natural gas and renewable capacity additions are lower compared with the Reference case.”
And to understand one of the major forces working behind the scenes:
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002
Note that Sierra Club is not content with merely ending coal. They’ve already targeted natural gas as well.
Ha! Folks are fighting wind around here with a vigor that makes anti-coal people look positively lazy.
Problem is, he is not making sound business decisions, much of CSX is in melt down mode right now.
The question is asked: “What will replace coal?” I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption. Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills. There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity.
It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage. There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half.
You can contribute by permanently unplugging your computer and returning to the dark ages before the internet. Please do.
Do we need personal attacks that contribute nothing to the subject being discussed?
It has been mostly natural gas that is replacing coal, wind power farms are popping up in many places, there are also new clean coal technologies still being developed.
Norm,
I am going to switch over to diesel computers.
Solar and wind and other renewable sources now supply one quarter of the world’s electricity needs. CSX can read the writing on the wall. Clean energy is gaining momentum exponentially, from one year to the next. In April England announced that for the first time since the 19th century no coal was burned to produce energy. We’re living in times of massive change and upheaval, the likes of which haven’t been seen since the first industrial revolution. I only wish I wish I could live another hundred years to see what the world will be like then.
James,
If I may add to what you said, natural gas does currently have the advantage, but how long will that last and at whose expense? As is usual, I suspect the expense will be borne by the consumer. Costs have relegated home heating oil to the back burner now that less expensive options are available.
Wind and solar power are only viable with subsidies, and as a result of the mandate for Michigan to make 10% of electric generation mandatory I have seen a 40% increase in my electric rates over the past year.
Coal is one of our vast resources and I support every effort within reason to make it as clean as we reasonably can. OTOH, green plants need Carbon Dioxide to grow and if we eliminate it from the atmosphere the greenery, including food sources, will suffer and food shortages will become the norm.
I have long been of the opinion Global Warming/Climate Change is a scam to benefit the likes of Al Gore and other elites while leaving the masses to pay for their privileges. It is beyond the pale to think humanity plays a mojor role in doing so.
I also think academics have deserted their mission to give true information to the public so they can make a rational decision either in agreement or in conflict with what they say we should believe. Universities have failed their students in many ways, leaving the latter deep in debt while reaping the rewards of their efforts. Research shows the GW data has indeed been fudged and only shows their biases.
Sorry to get political but that is what I’ve seen happening over the last few decades.