Some environmentalists who once adamatly opposed nuke energy have recently been coming around (despite the old Fonda film “China Syndrome” (or some such title from circa 1980)). They now support nuke energy; but not all greenys, of course.
So, well, so, what’s this gotta do w/trains???
I’m not sure.
Perhaps you might tell me.
Anyway, my thinking goes that trains are good at transporting bulk. You know, testosterone ball bustin stuff like aggregate, incl. coal; which is a big part of their tonnage.
So, nuke fuel could, in my estimation, provide some haulage, such as waste. But my guesstymate is that that waste wouldn’t amount to a hill O beans compared to black diamonds.
And ethynol? Hmmmmm. Don’t think there’s too much tonnage there as well, as I suppose the ethynol folkks of the good ole bread basket area, would build their refineries close to the vegetable fields, and use trucks.
Sooooooooooooo. What’s the conclusion?
I don’t know.
I’m not the expert but some of you are. I’d place my bets on coal as being good for railroads. Maybe not best for the environment, unless they get some good scrubbers in them thar plants.
Ironically, the movie the “China Syndrome” came out just before the incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. In theory, that’s what could happen. I hope we never get to prove that theory.
Coal is still king, at least for the foreseeable future, as a bulk revenue generator for railroads powering the vast majority of the power grid. It will be some time before enough nuclear plants come on line to make a dent in this traffic considering the regulatory hurdles they must pass. I dont realistically think the federal government can either afford or has the independance from campaign financing, to stem the march toward depletion of natural resources along with the deterioration of the atmosphere. Whether its morally, practically or spiritually right or wrong, this scenario will play out until civilisation transforms-regroups with tougher challenges to face. Our current lifestyle will end not with a bang but as TS Elliott wrote, with a whimper. I am like everybody else I can only take so much reality. The DM&E is placing its bet on coal and its a pretty safe one. I recently read some interesting articles on how wall street views railroad investment and coal and the general read is positive but ironies of ironies- fuel cost increases and capacity bottlenecks are a concern on the near term as well as financial obligations toward employees. CSX seems to be a big deal for wall street types these days. And so it goes.
Gee, no tonnage? The Districts in Minnesota and Iowa alone for UP have on any given day, 200 loads waiting to depart plants. 200 x 131 tons each. While the volume does not hold a match to coal, it sure pays the bills. Average per car for ethanol is $2300 versus $1800 for coal. Last year, Ag Products gained 18% while coal 7%.
Then of course consider the actual stand alone cost for moving the commodities. There is far more cost with coal than ETOH, just in respect to the physical plant alone.