It's OK to cry. (Powell, Basin: credit, house, tax)

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

China puts a new coal-fired power plant into service every week. They need coal.

Yes, they do.

But they're not gonna' get it shipped out of the West Coast of the USA thanks to the greenies out there fully supported by the EPA and every other alphabet agency that the Fed and State can bring to bear. It's more than an economic issue, it's a political issue to them in the guise of environmental concern ... and they've got the press, the government, and the public on their side. With the statutes allowing them to challenge and block the use of the ports and the land side facilities needed to implement a major coal shipping point, it's all stacked onto their side.

Worst of all, the statutes allow them to cover their legal fees at public expense ... so, in essence, the producers here in Wyoming get to assist in paying for the challenges to their operations.

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

Yes, they do.

But they're not gonna' get it shipped out of the West Coast of the USA thanks to the greenies out there fully supported by the EPA and every other alphabet agency that the Fed and State can bring to bear. It's more than an economic issue, it's a political issue to them in the guise of environmental concern ... and they've got the press, the government, and the public on their side. With the statutes allowing them to challenge and block the use of the ports and the land side facilities needed to implement a major coal shipping point, it's all stacked onto their side.

Worst of all, the statutes allow them to cover their legal fees at public expense ... so, in essence, the producers here in Wyoming get to assist in paying for the challenges to their operations.

China may very well bring pressure. They do own rather a large amount of US debt and they can threaten to drop the dollar as their reserve currency. Would they? I don't know but they really need coal.

It might also be possible to ship from Canada. Canadians enjoy sticking their finger into the US government's eye.

It's interesting that easterners don't object to our coal making a cross country trip. I guess they like turning on the lights.

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by Eoin (pronounced Owen)

Apologies I've maybe expressed myself badly. What I mean is, from some background reading it appears that as older coal power plants are reaching or nearing the end of their service lives, energy companies have been replacing them with natural gas fired power plants which are cheaper to run, primarily because natural gas is cheaper to buy, cheaper to transport via pipeline and doesn't require storage by power companies buying the stuff.

If (hypothetically) the effect of this switch to natural gas meant that the demand for coal made mining in Wyoming unprofitable, and led to widespread mine closures over a short space of time, with associated knock on affects on the railroads and ancillary workers; would you vote for a politician who promised to try and secure federal funding to keep mines open but running at a loss for the short to medium term, in order to allow Wyoming's economy and workers time to diversify? (Something like Obama did with General Motors, except for Wyoming's coal industry?)



Sure, that does sound like an extraordinary waste of public money.

Eoin

Nothing, EVER, goes down in price. Right now, Coal is the cheapest energy one can work with. If a coal fired power plant needs to be replaced, an entire plant has to be built, so then the electric companies raise the price to pay for the new plant, regardless of how much fuel is going to cost to run it. It always works that way. A brand new plant come on line, just a couple years ago. Larger, much more energy efficient, and my electric rate alone, went up 33% last year is one single increase. The newspapers said that the electrical company was going to seek a 33% increase for untility rates in order to pay for this new plant. Ok, I can understand cost of building, but the idea was much more efficient. It stands to reason that the cost of power should go down after it fires up. You know it's not going to happen.

So I guess I don't understand your question about replacing plants with "much cheaper plants". They may be cheaper, but that doesn't transmit to the end user.

I say again, subsidies do not work. The cost of coal is cheap. If we build a new power plant, build it to burn coal. Wyomings coal, when burnt, exceeds the federal governments standards for clean air, even with very minimul scrubbers in the stacks.

The other thing, that nobody has mentioned is the mass number of people that use coal in their home furnaces. What do they do? Do they go out and purchase a multi thousand dollar furnace and then spend even more getting gas lines piped in? I live in a town that does not have natural gas lines. We are actually 20 miles from the nearest gas line, so it's either coal, wood, propane, or electric. Right now the big house has a $2000 coal burning stove. So does the shop. There is nothing, on the market, that is cheaper. If you gave me, free of charge, new furnaces, my bill would still triple next year.

Also, you mentioned storage. Right now, coal is stored on the ground. Doesn't require tanks that have to be inspected, guaged, monitored 24/7. Tanks and pipeline might be more convienient, but not cheaper. Wyoming is full of hard working individuals that do not spend thousands of hours trying to figure out how to save 3 minutes. We dig in and get it done.

[snofarmer]

.....Wyoming's coal production accounted for almost 40% of the nation's total coal production.
What region of the world supplies 10.6
quadrillion BTU’s of energy per year to the
United States, constituting 10% of the total
U.S. energy consumed annually?
http://www.coloradopetroleumassociat...esentation.pdf

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

Wyoming supplies 60% of the Nations energy and a very large portion of that is Coal. He has stated that a priority of his is to eliminated Coal Fired Electrical Plants.

Let's keep this discussion on how it effects Wyoming, or I will have to move the thread to the P&OC Forum.

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

It's interesting that easterners don't object to our coal making a cross country trip. I guess they like turning on the lights.

A very valid observation ...

Until continuing foolish energy decisions result in real consequences for the PC/Greenie crowd, they will persist in their delusions that their actions have no adverse effects. Once the currently forecast brown- (and possible black-) outs start in their power supply, the may want to revisit abandoning the most reliable reasonably priced uptime power source that is here now and available.

A real-world scenario in the near term Wyoming could be a reduction in employment, shut-downs of unprofitable mines, and lost leases as a result. Which then leads to a difficult to overcome regulatory stonewall and businesses unable to get back on line ... the workers will have moved on, the infrastructure to operate and support the coal biz may be weak, and it could take a long time, if at all ... to restore this energy source.

This situation is a really big deal. I'm hearing a lot of concern and bad projections from players at all level of the coal industry in this state who are now moving into a "how do we close down shop" mentality without losing their shirts. I flew over a bunch of the mines/man-camps in the Gillette area yesterday, and it wouldn't take much for those places and towns like Wright to be devastated with only modest reductions now in coal production. One engineer I spoke with voiced a concern that if the company he is working for now folds, he doesn't have a job market left in the region ... so he'll be heading overseas again for work. Once he's gone, he's gone, and that scenario could conceivably take place for numerous others. It will not be easy to bring that level of experience back to the area if the coal demand comes back up.

[Wm Jas]

We already have all the rail we need. Just need to be able to load it on ships fast enough. Heard the good news just a few days ago that Vancouver may be the answer to the dock space that we need. Serves the blue states of the left coast right.

[Gunluvver2]

Natural Gas can be made from COAL. There was a project near Coalstrip, Montana that was doing just that until the EPA and numerous environmental lawsuits crippled it and then when the Bekaan field started producing all the investors went away.

The process involved injecting steam in to coalbeds and then collecting the natural gases created. It will probably make a big comeback eventually. not only will Wyoming benefit from this technology but all of the other COAL states will. Ironically it may be some of the Eastern states like PA and Ohio that will receive the most benefits.
GL2

[snofarmer]

It is not WY coal but the local power company owned by Allete inc owns their own coal train to hail coal from MT to Duluth mn to be burned in their own power plant.

We have a coal dock in town, the destination of a lot of WY coal.
Nearly 20 million tons of low-sulphur coal from Montana and Wyoming get transported by water each year to feed utilities and manufacturing plants on the Lower Great Lakes.

[Eoin (pronounced Owen)]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

Nothing, EVER, goes down in price. Right now, Coal is the cheapest energy one can work with. If a coal fired power plant needs to be replaced, an entire plant has to be built, so then the electric companies raise the price to pay for the new plant, regardless of how much fuel is going to cost to run it. It always works that way. A brand new plant come on line, just a couple years ago. Larger, much more energy efficient, and my electric rate alone, went up 33% last year is one single increase. The newspapers said that the electrical company was going to seek a 33% increase for untility rates in order to pay for this new plant. Ok, I can understand cost of building, but the idea was much more efficient. It stands to reason that the cost of power should go down after it fires up. You know it's not going to happen.

So I guess I don't understand your question about replacing plants with "much cheaper plants". They may be cheaper, but that doesn't transmit to the end user.

I accept that for consumers, energy prices rarely decrease, but historically that's been down to demand for electricity rising in line as suppliers ability to produce it. (Albeit since the financial crisis demand has dropped for the first time since records began.) Forbes have done a good article on the gas/coal competition, noting that because of shale gas exploitation ramping up supply, the price of natural gas has fallen as much as 85% in the past 4 years. Forbes also noted that the value of coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana/Wyoming has dropped 45% in the past 12 months because of reduced demand due to energy companies switching to natural gas. (Article link at foot of page.)

I'm not trying to tell you your business here, I was just interested in seeing the opinions of people from Wyoming on the election, my interest was taken by the coal/gas competition which has played such a significant role in my own country, it's always interesting to see if others would go about things differently.

I say again, subsidies do not work.

In this case you appear to echo the philosophy of our then Prime Minister!

Thanks for your answers.

Eoin

Shale Gas Takes On Coal To Power America's Electrical Plants - Forbes

[juneaubound]

I heard from somebody I know in Powell whose son is serving in the military in Afghanistan. He did not (and neither did anyone else in his unit) receive a ballot, and therefore did not vote in this election.

I don't know how widespread that issue is, but it is unconscionable that an American citizen (who is serving this country in that desert crap-hole) was not afforded the opportunity to have his voice heard.