This first article mentions a proposal for an IGCC plant at either Mobridge SD (along the BNSF’s former Milwaukee PCE), or at Huron SD (along the DM&E’s former CNW Colony line). Nothing major here, but it is worth noting that if DM&E’s PRB project does not happen, the plant proponents still might locate at Huron, with coal coming in via BNSF from the north.
Here’s where backdoor lobbying might come into play. (Please note: There will be no labeling of any railroad as being “evil”, okay?) It obviously would be in BNSF’s favor if such a plant were located at Mobridge, since BNSF has full control of the haul from the PRB to Mobridge, while a Huron siting would force BNSF to share revenues with DM&E.
Is it in BNSF’s favor if they subtly lobby in opposition to the DM&E project? Or does the prospect of having another set of tracks in the PRB allow BNSF to potentially buy into the DM&E PRB extension for access between the Orin line and Edgemont?
Hey, more coal plants = benefits for the railroads, right? Not necessarily. In this instance, the article mentions a collection of power plants in the Gillette WY area that get their coal straight from the mine via conveyor belts. No rail.
Is the idea of mineside power plants at least partially a response to railroad pricing abuses? Could be.
Also note that the writer only mentions trucks as the alternative. Dude, what about rail?
Hey Marc, I thought you were headed for the North Sea? Yes, high voltage power lines are just as much disliked as new or upgraded railroad lines. They will face just as much opposition. They also suffer efficiency losses at long distances.
BTW - FM the first mine in what is now the PRB was built to serve a mine mouth Powerplant it still does to this day.
And there isn’t much in the way of population or energy intensive industry around the Powder River Basin. So We will see those coal trains for a long time.
We can usually get away with constructing high voltage power lines more so than railroads can in constructing new rail lines. Most power lines can be strung back along mountain ridges and out of the way places, e.g. out of sight, out of mind, out of NIMBYtchin’ range. Railroads usually need a compatable geography to keep grades and such down to a reasonable level, and that usually means running rails through populated areas.
So the first coal mines didn’t exactly start a rail renessance. When did the Burlington start running coal trains out of the PRB in earnest?
The first PRB coal mine was the NP’s Colstrip mine opened somewhere around 1920 - before that they were getting coal from a mine in Red Lodge. As of 1971, the mine was still using a dragline built in 1923.
I remember seeing a coal train going through Miles City in 1969 - still the NP at the time and the train was hauled by F units (wish I had taken a picture…).
There are a couple of things limiting how much power can be generated by mine mouth plants in the PRB. First is cooling water - the farmers and ranchers don’t look kindly at people grabbing their water. Second is air pollution - visibility in the PRB has declined noticeably over the last few decades.
If you think the routing of high-tension transmission lines can lead to protests, just wait until you hear the squawking about the placement of a new and necessary substation. Commonwealth Edison had to put up with complaints over the placement of a substation to serve several new subdivisions in the southwest suburbs. To minimize transmission losses at lower voltages, the substation needed to be placed close to the new subdivisions, but the local homeowners’ groups wanted it located a few miles away near a county forest preserve.
Even in an area with lots of transmission lines, a new routing for transmission lines or just about anything else will lead to complaints.