Mayor: DM&E railroad expansion key to possible power plant
PIERRE – Mayor Dennis Eisnach says the area around South Dakota’s capital city probably would be considered as the site for a proposed new coal-fired power plant only if the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad completes its expansion plan.
The railroad hopes to expand and upgrade its line to haul Wyoming coal to customers in eastern states. The DM&E’s application for a federal loan was rejected, and the company is looking at private financing.
Eisnach said Pierre is one of four sites being considered by Basin Electric as a location for a coal-fired power plant. But he said Basin Electric will consider Pierre only if a ready source of coal is available – and that depends on the DM&E expansion.
Yes, the comments are interesting. “Train wreck” interesting. The commentators seem to be split 50/50 between recognizing the need for new coal generation and the misplaced perception (thank you mainstream media, you bunch of mental midgets![D)]) that wind/solar can replace coal.
Sad but true, it seems at least half the people in this country have it hardwired into their psyche that wind and solar are legit replacements for coal, and only a big conspiracy is keeping wind and solar at bay.
If and when the GOP ever takes back Congress, the first thing they need to do is to come up with a Constitutional amendment for media accountability. Make it a felony to print facile and falacious news items which are based on ignorance or political manipulation of information. If they want to continue to frame such arguments in such a misinformed way, they must first state that such items are commentary, not news. Ditto for junk scientists, who manipulate or falsify data to produce a predetermined result intended for public policy reccomendations.
[sigh]
Back to the DM&E project…
It seems that the DM&E project is not necessarily dead, but I still wonder if and how the DM&E will be able to get some “equalization” aid from the feds to match the historical and current aid given to BNSF and UP. DM&E certainly deserves the same startup footing as BNSF and UP received in past years.
That being said, despite my support for the DM&E expansion, if I was involved in determining potential sites for a new coal fired power plant in SD, I’d still be hesitant to site such a plant in an area captive to one railroad. I’m not sure Basin Electric is wise to limit themselves to DM&E service. What’s to stop DM&E from engaging in captive rate setting same as BNSF and UP? There’s gotta be sites in SD where a power plant could
While I agree that the DM&E deserved equal treatment from the FRA, one ignorant question nags me to post in that someone will enlighten me. By the way, there’s a good article in the current Time Magazine about the state of coal mining in China…which is stuck in the 18th century…If the logistics and cost of transporting \ stock piling coal is taken into account…why don’t the utilities build their generation stations close to the source and move the power generated over the grid network as they already do this routinely anyway…? I keep thinking of the Deseret Railroad operation which is an in house railroad to do same over a comparitively short distance…
Wallyworld - The reason you don’t see a lot of mineside power plants shipping electricity long distances is that you get power line losses the longer you transmit. Secondly, if all PRB coal was burnded mineside and the power shipped via transmission, you’d have transmission lines literally covering thousands of square miles - usually not good for the view! Transmission lines need ROW the same as railroads - at least railroads can ship more than just coal. Thirdly, coal fired power plants need water, and how much water is available in the PRB? Lastly, coal is a market commodity, and power plants tend to purchase coal from more than one source, aka price, coal type, etc. A coal mine will eventually run out before the power plant ends it’s useful service life, so where are you going to get your coal then if you’re mineside?
Spokyone - how long is a “long term contract”? 5 years? 10 years? Eventually, such contracts run out and must be renewed, and that’s typically when the railroad puts the squeeze on the utilities to double or even triple the coal hauling rate (if the plant is captive). The only real source of long term price hedging is competitive rail access.
Better look at that map again. S.D only has one class 1 railroad:BNSF. A new power plant would require water. For DM&E, the only spot online that has it is Pierre. To get a power plant at the water, with a connection to “at least one other class 1” would require DM&E to build to the BNSF line at Mobridge, Yankton, or Ortonville. Could you justify the expense of building such a line?
Depends on what type of water use system for the plant is being proposed. If it’s a modern closed-loop condensing plant (regardless of whether it’s using pulverized coal technology or gasification) it will use nearly 99% less water than a once through cooling system. That means an ability to locate a decent sized power plant (1,000 MW) away from large rivers and lakes. Some such plants can be competitively operated using strictly ground water sources.
There are a handful of such power plants being proposed for the State of Nevada. I’d like to think South Dakota is in a better position water-wise than Nevada.
Yes, closed loop plants are more expensive to build and operate, but so is being captive to one railroad. If we go by the average rail rates of captive vs non-captive power plants, it is probably more profitable to operate a closed loop power plant with competitive rail access than it is to operate a once-through power plant that is captive.
With stricter environmental regs on the horizon, it is likely the closed loop system will become the norm.
I’d like to think that too. However, the state is currently building a pipeline system to provide enough drinking water for the southeast corner of the state.
The grid is already inadequate, moving a substantial amount of the generating capacity to the PRB would require stringing a lot more very high voltage powerline out of the basin.
To add to beaulieu, power plants are located at the most economical place. Location factors include:
– availability and cost of water for cooling (Wyoming has no more)
– cost of transmission line construction (construction is expensive, right-of-way costs are exorbitant, and permitting is very difficult and slow)
– cost of rail transportation
– existing air quality at the location of the power plant (has a big effect on cost of the plant’s emissions-control equipment, which is very very expensive)
– source of coal
– local and state politics (new jobs vs. degraded air quality)
Source of coal is a big deal. Because a power plant is a 50-year-plus operating entity and power plant boilers restricted in the specifications of the coal they can burn, and coal of any particular specification is a finite resource, there has to be enough of the right coal available at a reasonable price for a long time. (Coal specifications include heat content, moisture content, ash fusion temperature, and ash content. Ash fusion temperature is very important; if the ash melts at too low a temperature, it slags and fouls the boiler tubes.)