Appalachian Coal Decline?

 Business isn't like it should be to say the least here on the Pokey. One mine after another is idling or flat out closing.

 Rumors have been floating around for some time that where the coal business is so far off, the Pocahontas Division might be split three ways,Lake will take Portsmouth,Ohio to Williamson,WV west,Virginia Division east out of Williamson,and the Central Division  part of the old Virginian lines .

 The main line mixed freight and other bulk commodities will still flow thru these main lines on the former N&W and on the former C&O lines thru most of the Appalachians.

 Good news ,the NS has invested millions in all new signals and PTC here on the Pokey. That gives a vote of confidence for the main lines still being an artery for traffic.

 Only time will tell if coal will rebound,because it depends on a lot of factors.How well the steel industry does and if over seas power plants need our coal,EPA  .

 But until natural gas supply weakens or the powers that be shift more to cleaner coal technology ,it's pretty much stagnate as far as any good news for coal .

 We were just discussing this at work the other day. What happens when there's not enough coal mined for the remaining coal power plants in this country ? Rolling black outs or what ? Can natural gas,solar or wind farms make up the difference ?

Keep in mind that the trains run from Montana to Pittsburgh with low sulfur/low BTU coal everyday. It will take some time to convert power plants to natural gas. So there would be a further decline.  We continue to drill wells, here in Southwest, PA, and we are now seeing piping infra-structure.

Very good piece of info Collin. We were discussing this at our club meeting the other day. Ernie Clay's kid was running from Clifton Forge to Richmond, got cut off, then transferred to Louisville, and running to Nashville for CSX, just to keep a job.

It's like I told his dad, any job is better than "NO Job".....................Brandy!  

mackb4,

Your final question is a good one. I think the clean dreamers think they can, but somewhere reality will smack them. The clean power isn't at 60hz anyway, so it's a pain in the &^% and it isn't enough and never will be enough.

My son-in-law works on nukes. They are refitting the newer ones to increase the generation capacity by 30%. Still, that won't make up for the coal-fired generation that's going away.

Well, we still have more natural gas than we are using. Lots of pipe to haul. 

if humans manage to survive another few centuries, i sometimes wonder what the future opinion will be regarding the current generations and how they managed in a handful of decades to burn through energy and raw material resources which took the earth eons to create.

glad i won't be around for the next dark age.

Trying to remain objective here, but the volume of coal production is not currently linked to availability. There is in excess of another 100 years of known resources available. Is it an indefinite resource? No. But we're not "running out" any time soon.

I do have every expectation that we will see rolling black-outs within our lifetimes.

actually i've heard at current rate of depletion it's more like a 400 year reserve.

so if it doesn't affect our lifetimes, who cares, right?

Works for me.  By the way, what is the life-span in years of all that nuclear waste produced by those "clean" nuclear power plants? 

True, Hot Water, true.

While they don't destroy the atmosphere, the waste is here forever. 700 billion to 4.5 billion years. You know what that can do, Fukushima.

ANYTHING that relies on pulling resources from the earth is a nonsustaining source of power including oil, gas, coal and uranium.  we currently have the technology to tap every sustainable power source (solar, wind, water, tidal), but as long as it remains cheaper to mine natural resources, alternative methods have no chance of dominating the market.

i also find it pretty ironic that the one seemingly inexhaustible element in the universe, hydrogen, has been almost completely ignored as a zero emission fuel in favor of battery powered cars which, of course regularly need that fossil fuel generated injection from the local power plant, but make us all feel so good about being kind to the environment.

have a nice day...gary

How much energy does it take to produce and make hydrogen useable, i.e. compress it to liquid? 

I haven't studied hydrogen.  The largest source may be by separating water into oxygen and hydrogen.  This requires electrical power.  It may take more power to do this than you get out.

Also, hydrogen is very volatile.  Remember the Hindenburg.  Transportation and storage may be a problem.  I know it can be liquified but again that takes power.  

There are probably many good reasons that hydrogen is not considered a viable fuel source.

NH Joe

 Prius owners got an internet clip from Toyota, on their Hydrogen fuel cell car.  

Mirai   Looks real to me.

Joe, you are spot-on. Electrolysis is the current technology to separate the Oxygen from Hydrogen molecules. It does take more energy to break the bond than the energy content of the Hydrogen molecule. Put it into an automobile and you're carrying a high pressure cylinder around with you.

Set electrolysis aside. If someone invents a process to separate these molecules sans another energy source, will be memorialized on the order of Edison or Westinghouse. 

We had a big problem here in Northeast Pa in 1959 killing the industry in the whole Wyoming valley.  A greedy company was robbing pillars under the Susquahanna River and broke through the river bed.  The Erie railroad made a spur out to the hole and pushed gondola car and box car after box car into the hole.  My great Uncle was an engineer on the detail.  He said they would push lines of gondola cars off the spur and it would just suck them in like a sink drain.  Look it up , there are fantastic pics of it as well as its story.  There are bore holes drilled all over the valley to relieve the pressure .  They are still flowing to this day.  It is called   " The Knox Mine Disaster"

Glenn

wow, so many knee-jerk reactions....

of course hydrogen isn't free.  i didn't list it as a sustainable resource, but it is probably the cleanest burning, moderately high energy fuel known.  it's exhaust is little more than water vapor.  what is the power trade-off in producing hydrogen from water vs the exploration, drilling, transporting, refining and again transporting of hydrocarbon fuels?

and no, i'm not advocating the return of zeppelins using hydrogen for lift.  comparing the Hindenburg design to modern fuel cell technology ludicrous.

but to the original point, it's just a shame to see so much coal needlessly go up in smoke for merely the sake of extending the life of jobs in a dying industry for generating power when the only thing not changing that practice is greed.

 It's only a dying industry to those who oppose it and to those that look at natural gas as a viable means to power the grid.

 People are being blindsided by the natural gas industry as gas being a cheaper,cleaner way of energy.

 My neighbor who use to work for Addington Resources attended an energy seminar in which the EPA attended and admitted that natural gas made a larger carbon footprint than coal did when burnt at power plants.

 And what is n.g. touted as being "the cleaner alternative" ?

 And some of the larger n.g. suppliers such as Chesapeake Energy have already asked the perspective states they service for sur-charges for "their" extra cost of installing new,and upgrading existing gas lines.I know they already done this in West Virginia.

 So yes,it may be dying to others,but when it also means thousands of jobs losses there's another point to argue about feasibility.

 And western coal most always has to be blended with Appalachian coal to meet emission levels mandated by the EPA.

A coal dock we service here out of Kenova,WV (NS) is trying to get a new contract with Duke Energy that blends western coal with Appalachian coal. We have loaded two trains already and I haven't heard the results yet .

I doubt Appalachian coal will turn around as long as schools teach children that increased carbon dioxide levels will cause global warming and other catastrophes.  I do know that while the last decade has seen fewer east coast hurricanes than normal, most people believe the opposite.  Even the Weather Channel.  So no turn around for coal for reasons other than economics or industry.

Nathan

Schools teach that because it is overwhelmingly backed up by the available scientific data.

Railroads are still hauling a bunch of coal.

Jeff C 

Models do not predict an increase in the number of hurricanes with global warming. Rather, they predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes: NOAA Study

But they probably didn't tell you that on Fox News, so you're not going to believe it.

So the mainlines are not what is being considered as a spin off?  The C&O and N&W are main east - west arteries.  I think the C&O is getting PTC too and new signals?  What about the Clinchfield?  I haven't been up that way in a while.

Um, yes they have predicted, years ago that the number of hurricanes would increase as well as the intensity of them;

.

Future generations won't be angry about that. What they'll hate about us is how we destroyed the biodiversity of the planet for millions of years, causing hundreds of thousands of species of plants and animal life to go extinct, killed the coral reefs and oceans, and put untold amounts of land underwater. Not to mention causing the human catastrophe of billions of people displaced and fighting their way into other countries to escape conditions that no longer support the growth of food and provisions for fresh water. And they will not believe that it could have been possible for some people to deny it was happening.

An interesting note here.  When you burn natural gas or any of the hydro-carbons that are part of the basic fuel chain. Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane, Pentane, etc.  You get carbon dioxide and water.  Burn coal, you get carbon dioxide and may be water.  Those gases/liquids that come out of the ground also have contaminants, Sulfur, Nitrogen, etc.  Some of it is termed "Sour" and can  be extremely dangerous at the well head.  Presently there is a lot of Methane, that is vented or burned off at the well head because there is just no place to put it in the current supply system  IMO this new found wealth has it's own set of problems. IMO.  I really don't see a Coal versus Gas issue. It appears all fossil fuel energy sources are going to produce Carbon Dioxide when burned, which appears to be the chief component of the Green House effect/Global Warming. 

As the western forest fire season winds down, you would also be concerned about the CO2 and Carbon that these huge fires dump to the atmosphere.  

I could be wrong and often.

Mike CT  

Mike you guys are right. Since starting in the refining industry in the late 60's, I 've see a myriad of changes in the firing equipment both boiler, and process heaters, as well as, flare stacks. Even the latest of the "Buck Roger's" stuff leaves the foot print, because it's all carbon driven. For years the driver of change, was to make the process better manageable, as well as, higher efficiency, thus more profit for the company lowering over head. Those items save dollars back in the company kitty to help pay the big bonus to the corporate heads, and stock holders. The "buck" has always driven change in this country and will always do so.

Since all of this came up some years ago, I've always wondered what they're making out of it for themselves. 

EPA ,OSHA, and all the rest have all of the authority in the world, but "Zero Responsibility", when everybody is laid off out of work!..................Brandy! 

Coal, Natural Gas, etc. - they were good ideas - but like all good ideas - they will and should be replaced with better ideas.

Railroads were a new technology in the 1830s when the B&O was established - there was plenty of scoffing, anti-sentiment even as the railroads stretched to the Mississippi by the 1850s - That technology had its flaws - namely cause it was new and no one knew what the hell the we're doing - too many competing lines, no standards, too many hands in the pockets... Hell, Illinois refused to let the Chicago and Illinois build to East. St. Louis cause they feared it would "take their jobs".  People are silly.  Today North America is a powerhouse because of the mass infrastructure built on a technology developed nearly 200 years ago that a bunch of grumpy men discounted.

There are alternatives out there that are in their infancy - Tesla has developed wholed house batteries for storing solar energy.  In Idaho, a government funded research project is developing a means of turning roadways into solar power collectors - if successful, this could destroy the power industry as we know it - North America has more worthless concrete than any continent in the world - imagine if we could harness that by installing solar collectors instead - think about the jobs such an effort would create - here - in the US. It would be like the 1870s all over again.

Am I the only one that sees the irony of the aversion to carbon based energy sources being discussed on the "Real Trains" forum? Wood, Coal, Oil, Gas. All carbon based fuels that built this country and continue to serve a critical role in our national commerce.

And hence the problem with discussing this here. This is a hobbyist forum for the most part, and a majority of us are nostalgic when it comes to trains. We are saddened when any aspect of railroading tradition declines or disappears, regardless of whether the change is a good or bad one. We are biased, whether we realize it or not, or admit it or not. It's like asking a vegetarian his views on hunting. The discussion has a bias built into it. 

 I agree German it's a loss not only of local commerce,family related jobs ,etc but we have all grown up ,at least in my region ,seeing coal train after coal train rolling in and out of the rail yards and for me on both sides of the Ohio River both CSX (C&O),NS(N&W) and it's change we don't want to get accustomed to.

 And I think it's all boils down to the almighty dollar,profit before fact,a veil of trickery that's hocus pocus,here's what the facts are but not what the truth is . And they make everyone believe it .

I have actually been reading some news on other forums that CSX will make an announcement shortly on the Clinchfield Route...like a sale or abandonment.  I would think this would be an important route to keep in place for Ohio traffic headed to the Southeast.  Just 10 years ago the line had 27 trains daily and the lines that were connected to the Clinchfield at Spartanburg SC..CN&L and C&WC underwent major work to make the sidings CTC as the DTC was becoming a bottleneck.  I find it really hard to believe these coal changes caught the railroads off guard.  RR's are really good at being cautious and analyzing the future.   This makes me think something appeared out of the blue to artificially make Appalachian coal undesirable.

Worst case can't Powder River coal be brought through these lines?

My understanding is that the problem is the Appalachian coal doesn't burn as cleanly as Powder River coal. It ends up being cheaper in the long run to transport western coal to an east coast power plant to burn than it would be for them to use local coal that requires expensive special processing or equipment to meet state and federal pollution limiting laws.

I too personally wish the coal burning steam locomotive was still ubiquitous. But there is a problem afoot, and it may have more to do with the fact that there re twice as many of us now as there were in 1955.

actually i've heard at current rate of depletion it's more like a 400 year reserve.

This particular quote kind of grabs. It is possibly a quote from a Senate report to a Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  The problem with it is, of course, "at current rate of depletion".  I won't go into the math, but if you look at current growth rates, and the fact that you simply cannot get 100% of the coal out of the ground, and do the math, the 500 year figure presented to that committee comes down to between 72 and 94 years.

Source - a particularly engaging address by Dr.Albert Bartlett, Arithmetic, Population and Energy.

   Western coal already is mixed with Appalachian coal to meet EPA standards . The western coal will not meet most power plants requirements on b.t.u.'s. But remember Appalachian coal is mostly metallurgical coal ,and is the coal most desired for coke manufacturing in the U.S. .

 CSX announced today the reduction of Erwin, Tennessee operations directly effected by the slow down in the coal fields impacting some 300 jobs,bad news for sure.

CSX Corbin,Ky shops closing. Praying for my fellow railroaders .

         http://www.news4jax.com/news/c...in-kentucky/35943784

  Here's EKB News from Eastern Kentucky with more information about how the down turn in coal is effecting the Big Sandy Division of the CSX. At about the 3:44 mark is were the story starts. Railroad historian/author, Ron Flannery is interviewed in this report.

        http://livestream.com/ekb-tv/events/4444701