It would be my guess that many (most?) would convert to natural gas when that time came.
Was that a deliberate choice in the line location? Build the line on one side of the (then) economical limit of the field and let the mines start at the other side and work their way toward the Joint Line? (Would seem to save on spur extentions as the mines played out.) Or was it just how the location played out topographically?
In order to understand why the Joint Line is where it is, it helps to study geological maps of the PRB, because like all geology, it doesn’t lay out in neat rectangles and slices. The coal seams are actually quite uniform in the PRB relative to many fields, but over the large distances we’re discussing (2,000 square miles in the Gillette Field) there is a lot of variablility in seam thickness, depth of overburden, absence of the economically important Upper Wyodak (Anderson) seam itself, plus watercourses cutting down through the seam, areas of clinker, gas wells that are in the way, and so forth.
The location of the Joint Line was a balance between:
- Optimization of the coal resource
- First cost
- Operating cost
- Land acquisition requirements
- Permitting requirements
- Estimates of future coal values
- Estimates of future mining costs
- Estimates of future regulatory actions
No one wants to build a rail line where it will eventually be in the way. But no one wants to let perfect get in the way of good enough, either. When one looks at this problem from the perspective of the time when it was planned, no one was quite sure what kind of mining rate the PRB would ultimately obtain, nor the duration of the market demand. It would have been pretty foolish to build an expensive line that never got in the way of any of the coal resource, only to have the demand for that coal resource cease long before the coal mining encountered the location where a less-expensive rail line could have been cons
Thanks RWM I have traveled the area since the PRB was first built and have marveled at the size of it since it’s humble beginnings.
Here in California we have another problem. The enviromentalists successfully shut down Rancho Seco a Nuclear Power plant and have blocked the Auburn Dam project as well.
So the answer in California was to turn to Wind Generators and Solar fields such as constructed in the Mojave desert.
Now we have a problem with the wind generators. There is a suit before the courts that has twice been delayed that says the wind generators are killing hundreds of migrating birds along the Pacific flyway. The suit wants to shut down all wind generators in the state for six to eight weeks in the spring and six to eight weeks in the fall during the annual bird migration. I don’t know what side I personally stand on having recently watched the Sand Hill Cranes arrive for the winter from as far away as Siberia and Alaska I must say I was very impressed with these magnificent flyers arrival. They winter in the Delta area and are magnificent to see. I have also witnessed power company officials in jeeps on the Altamont Pass picking up dead birds beneath the wind generator towers. In this way the bird watchers can not get an accurate count of the numbers being killed. There also many roaming Coyotes eating the dead birds as well. It will be interesting to see how the suit will play out in the very Liberal California courts. The power companies argue that the loss of all California wind generators for six to eight weeks in the spring and six to eight weeks in the fall.
There is a growing argument to reinstate the Rancho Seco Nuclear plant that supposedly is just mothballed whatever that means and build additional Nuclear plants in the State for the much needed power the state consumes. If there should be a government push for electrification of the major RR arte
The true cost of coal for energy purposes is only now being revealed in terms of damage to the environment and adjustments that we will have to make as a result of global warming. These are large costs which have only recently come to light and which are only now being factored into the cost equation of coal. Once the extent of these costs are more fully understood other energy sources like nuclear will become that much more attractive by comparison…It’s hard for anyone to say what the next 30 years will bring although there’s general consenus now that pumping CO2 into the air through combustion is warming the planet. That fact combined with the finite supply of thermal coal available suggests that we need to look elsewhere for our energy needs in 30 to 50 years when energy demands will have increased exponentially. Any recent develops in nuclear fusion? Maybe fusion can become viable over the next 50 years…
No apology needed. I kinda like long-winded explanation. [^]
+1 [what Murphy said]
Thanks once again, Railway Man [bow] for sharing your expertise and insights, and summarizing those years of observations and thought - and the dynamics of the coal and mining businesses, too - so succinctly (yes - esp. when compared to the volume of material that the rest of us would have to plow through to maybe arrive at the same level of understanding). That’s one of the things that makes this railroad business so fascinating - almost inevitably, you wind up involved with the affairs of the shipping and receiving industries as well. It’s hard to think of a better way to learn about economics and business on many different levels.
Did you really mean to say that re-locating the PRB main line through the coal fields would be a $Trillion dollar proposition
I would like to nominate this for “thread of the year” award. Not only is it interesting to the rail industry, but the discussion on coal operations is very informative and easy to understand.
RWM, thanks for filtering 2000 pages to a few paragraphs. I truly appreciate your effort not only on this topic but others as well.
Was it really 30 years ago when David P. Morgan, in the winds of the energy crises of the 1970’s discussed the PRB coal and told us railfans there was enough low sulpher coal to supply our energy needs for the next 50 years? Time flies.
Where are we now in the world of energy? What is next? The 50 years were to get us to the point where alternative forms would be developed? Have we used those 30 plus years prudently?
When one travels from to Indianapolis on I65 the massive wind farms developed (by Duke Power?) leads to as many questions as answers?
How viable are these to addressing our needs? Can anyone provide information on the power generated vs a coal fired system? How many wind turbines does it take to equal a coal powered unit? Pros and cons?
We seem to have considerable nat gas reserves in the lower 48 states? Will there be a movement from coal to nat gas? What are the ramifications of switching over? BTW, BNSF has a great map entitled “Coal Map” which lists power plants, coal mines, marine terminals and railroad lines.
Call the BNSF investor department for a copy…the investor department will obviously be gone soon.
ed
I can’t answer for RWM’s figure for moving the rail line, as he (and you) are far more qualified than I to toss out cost numbers for railroads.
However, I think what happens 20 to 30 years from now will be largely dependent on how desparately we need the coal to meet our power needs. At this time, I don’t think any possible action would be taken off the table, but when the time comes to make the decision, even an option running a billion or so might be a deal breaker.
One thing that can’t change is the ratio of overburden to recoverable coal. As noted, that goes from 3 to 1 to the range of 6 to 9 to one. In any circumstance, that is a lot of additional dirt to get out of the way to get to the coal. If the cost of moving the overburden is say just $2.00 per ton, adding another $2 to $4 a ton to production cost against a $9 price probably wrecks the operating profit margin.
Sure. But if the dip of that seam of coal is ‘bedded’ pretty much uniformly, then that overburden ratio shouldn’t just jump discontinuously from 3:1 to 6:1 - it should normally progress from 3:1 to 4:1 to 5:1 and then to 6:1, with all the smaller steps or increments between, of course. And I do recognize that where the PRB Line is, its support will probably require that a wide wedge or trapezoid-shaped ‘Chinese Wall’ be left in place - at least 4
Also, the price of coal usage will go up with carbon taxes, reclamation costs, and other environmental costs that have hitherto not been considered. I don’t think we can simply extrapolate cost patterns of the past… the rules of the game will change in a big way for everyone over the next five to ten years.
I think that is very accurate. There is a high probability that the law component of RWM’s three factors mentioned in the second post of this thread will trump the other two components of economy and technology within the next few years, unless the country suddenly veers into another belief system.
Thnik about what is going to replace coal. Wind? Solar? Let’s take a look at where we stand.
In 2007, net electrical generation in the United States was 4,156,745,000 megawatthours. Where did it come from? Well, coal was the biggest source of fuel-just over 48% of generation. Natural Gas and Nukes were around 20% each. “Other Renewables” racked up about 2.5% of the load, with the leader being-not wind, not solar, but wood burning. Solar and wind combined to generate a whopping 0.85% of our electricity in 2007. (Source)
What does that mean, practically? Well, if demand grows at 2% per year, we need to build almost __3 times as much solar and wind generating capacity as existed in 2007-every single year-__in order to not have to build new coal, gas, nuke, wood, hydro, or any other type of plant. Remember, that’s if we keep running every exisitng coal plant. Also, remember that every kilowatt from any new wind or solar generation is substantially more costly than those from any coal, gas, or nuke plant. Take a look at the graph I linked and see what the growth rate of solar and wind generation has been since 1997.
If the nation and its citizens are faced with moving a railroad so they can continue to have coal to use for generating electricity, or with freezing in the dark, I’m guessing they will move the railroad. I don’t see where it is feasible that solar and wind generation is going to increase in capacity over 3000 times in
I believe that California has the most wind generators and if the country is lucky that state will keep installing them and eventually fly away and once and for leave the rest of the country to there own devises.
Seriously when I read statements like that above about the actual amount of power produced by wind and solar it concerns me. I for one do not believe that wind and solar are the answer for our future needs. California has kept the coal fired generating stations away and also managed to close a couple of nuclear generating stations. The gas fired power plants are not as economical as they were once expected to be. As I see it that leaves nuclear as the clear alternative although in California nuclear is a very bad word. Unfortunately tidal is also a very expensive proposition and only in Crescent City and Eureka are the high and low tides capable of generating any electricity at all and I might add at great expense. Some half brain even suggested a tidal generating plant could be built under the Golden Gate bridge until it was pointed out what it would cost to put in locks to handle the marine traffic in and out of San Francisco Bay and the size locks that would have to be built for the VLCC tankers that bring oil to the refineries.
In the absence of any other serious proposals I think that as soon as we start building nuclear plants once again the better.
Al - in - Stockton
RWM, you motivated me to do a little digging of my own on this subject. I found this table to be of interest when discussing the subject. One surprising fact (to me, anyway) was the abundance of coal in Montana. Under the “Surface Minable Coal” heading, Estimated Recoverable Reserves (defined by the EIA to be "coal in the demonstrated reserve base considered recoverable after excluding coal estimated to be unavailable due to land use restrictions or currently economically unattractive for mining, and after applying assumed mining recov
Just to set the record straight, this thread and my comments were directed at the subject of the thread, i.e., the current out look on the life of the Powder River Basin.
Also, I do not have an agenda that says that there is a single magic bullet that is solve the whole energy production/consumption issue in a few years, or even decades. What encourages me is that there is an ever growing proportion of the public in the US that will agree that thing need to change and something has to be done. Of course, the way we work, it takes us decades just to decide where to break for lunch. If that is a down side, we can say that there is a lot of work going on developing the ways and means, and we are at least starting to make the changes that seem to be necessary.
[quote user=“htgguy”]
Thnik about what is going to replace coal. Wind? Solar? Let’s take a look at where we stand.
In 2007, net electrical generation in the United States was 4,156,745,000 megawatthours. Where did it come from? Well, coal was the biggest source of fuel-just over 48% of generation. Natural Gas and Nukes were around 20% each. “Other Renewables” racked up about 2.5% of the load, with the leader being-not wind, not solar, but wood burning. Solar and wind combined to generate a whopping 0.85% of our electricity in 2007. (Source)
What does that mean, practically? Well, if demand grows at 2% per year, we need to build almost __3 times as much solar and wind generating capacity as existed in 2007-every single year-__in order to not have to build new coal, gas, nuke, wood, hydro, or any other type of plant. Remember, that’s if we keep running every exisitng coal plant. Also, remember that every kilowatt from any new wind or solar generation is substantially more costly than those from any coal, gas, or nuke plant. Take a look at the graph I linked and see what the growth rate of solar and wind generation has been since 1997.
If the nation and its citizens are faced with moving a railroad so they can continue to have coal to use for generating electricity, or with freezing in the dark, I’m guessing they will move the railroad. I don’t see where it is feasible that solar and wind generation is going to increase in capacity over 3000 times in
Oops. I meant $1 billion. As I consider it tonight, that might be a little low. Grading costs, environmental mitigation, new mine spurs, and writing off the unused and remaining value in the existing line might add another billion or so.
RWM
It would probably be cheaper to tear down the plant and start over. The most efficient steam plants are rated at 40%, GE has single cycle turbines rated at 46% and they’re claiming 60% for combined cycle plants. The other aspect is that a boiler designed for burning natural gas is much larger than one for burning coal due to greatly reduced radiant heat transfer from combustion of natural gas.