# Coal exports could block passenger-rail expansion



## CHamilton (May 14, 2012)

Coal exports could block passenger-rail expansion



> For more than a decade, state rail planners worked on plans for high-speed Amtrak from Portland to Vancouver, B.C. and a freight rail plan based on statements from the BNSF railroad that it saw no big changes ahead....
> 
> About three years ago... the world woke up to China and India growing like crazy —and it was all based on burning coal. Suddenly America’s coal giants had a market to replace the U.S. coal plants that were being shut down to combat global warming. The coal giants could sell their coal to Asia.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tumbleweed (May 14, 2012)

I guess that is called progress...


----------



## George Harris (May 14, 2012)

There is a considerable lack of connection between the panic mode tone of the article and any sort of pracitcal reality. If thre is anything about a "South Bellingham Siding" in the appendix to the state rail plan, my search of the document did not find it. If anybody thinks the current BNSF alignment is usable by high speed rail, they better learn a few things about practical speeds on curves, both with and without tilting trains. Adding a second or even third main to the existing alignment is hardly going to destroy downtown Bellington.

I have no idea where the author of this article is getting his information, but a look at a may might be a good start for a reality check.

Incidentially, any significant increase in traffic out of Wyoming Powder River basin woudl require construction of a parallel tunnel to the Cascade Tunnel. That will be the big bucks, not some track improvements along the coast.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 14, 2012)

George Harris said:


> There is a considerable lack of connection between the panic mode tone of the article and any sort of pracitcal reality. If thre is anything about a "South Bellingham Siding" in the appendix to the state rail plan, my search of the document did not find it. If anybody thinks the current BNSF alignment is usable by high speed rail, they better learn a few things about practical speeds on curves, both with and without tilting trains. Adding a second or even third main to the existing alignment is hardly going to destroy downtown Bellington. I have no idea where the author of this article is getting his information, but a look at a may might be a good start for a reality check. Incidentially, any significant increase in traffic out of Wyoming Powder River basin woudl require construction of a parallel tunnel to the Cascade Tunnel. That will be the big bucks, not some track improvements along the coast.


I'm new to this issue but I did see "Bellingham Siding Extension" listed on pages 83, 104, & 152 of the Washington State Long-Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades published in February 2006. The reference to high speed rail appears to be a "best case" plan from 1993 before being scaled back to a less costly and more freight focused plan featuring far more modest speed improvements. It would seem that the risk of these developments is that taxpayers could end up paying hundreds of millions into a line that is dominated by commercial traffic and primarily benefits one of the richest freight railways in the world. That seems like an issue worthy of taxpayer concern to me.


----------



## George Harris (May 14, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> I did see "Bellingham Siding Extension" listed on pages 83, 104, & 152 of the Washington State Long-Range Plan for Amtrak Cascades published in February 2006.


OK. What I was reading was the Appendices to the Washington State Freight Rail Plan dated 2009. Guess I better dig up your reference when work does not interfere.


----------



## Anderson (May 14, 2012)

Well, mark this down as a second case of this...CSX more or less killed off some talk of a commuter rail operation on the Peninsula when demand for coal shipments shot through the roof, and as I recall they're even looking at re-double-tracking the Peninsula Subdivision to deal with the demand since juggling coal trains and sidings has apparently gotten to be a real pain in the rear for them.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 14, 2012)

This kinda stinks because UP already has bad relations with Amtrak, and it looks like BNSF will be clashing with Amtrak soon as well. Meanwhile, China and India suffer from growing pollution.


----------



## CHamilton (May 15, 2012)

Keep in mind that Washington and Oregon's DOTs are the ones who are paying the bills for the Cascades service, so Amtrak's role is somewhat secondary. WSDOT is already pressing BNSF to improve the mudslide situation, and the states are going to need to approve building coal export terminals. The Bellingham project is being questioned by such pro-business outlets as the Seattle Times, so it's not a done deal. Neither are a terminal in Longview, WA, and a similar project in St. Helens, OR. After all, the Pacific NW is downwind of China and India, so the more coal they burn, the more we'll feel the effects of their pollution. But if BNSF wants to serve coal export terminals, I imagine that they will try to keep the states happy regarding passenger rail.


----------



## caravanman (May 15, 2012)

It is not just the pollution from burning coal that you need to worry about, or do most Americans still not believe in global warming?

Ed


----------



## Ryan (May 15, 2012)

caravanman said:


> or do most Americans still not believe in global warming?


Sadly, no:






http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx


----------



## jis (May 15, 2012)

Interestingly, per-capita and per unit GDP energy consumption remains pretty low in India in spite of all this.


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2012)

Ryan said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > or do most Americans still not believe in global warming?
> ...


Ok, the polling geek in me is just _screaming _at how bad that question is. Let's parse it out, shall we?

"Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime?"

There are a couple of questions rolled in there:

1) Do you believe in global warming? If yes, continue. If no, answer no.

2) Do you believe that global warming is a serious problem? If yes, continue. If no, answer no.

3) Do you believe that global warming will, in the medium to long term, seriously impact the standard of living in the US? If yes, continue. If no, answer no.

4) Do you believe that you will live long enough to see that impact play out in a meaningful way? If yes, answer yes. If no, answer no.

Simply put, anybody over the age of about 60-65 is probably justified in answering no simply because they won't be here for _that_ long. If you don't expect a serious impact from global warming in the next 25 years and you don't expect to live more than another 25 years, then the answer to that question is "no". Moreover, if you believe that there will be a substantial impact globally...but that the US will come out more or less unscathed (i.e. no major crop failures or food shortages) and that the main impact you will face will be warmer weather and more mosquitoes, that's also grounds to answer no.

So...that's a bad, bad question in my opinion. That's not to say that it isn't indicative of an anti-global warming trend, but the question seems to be almost rigged to generate a negative response when you actually think about it.


----------



## tricia (May 15, 2012)

jis said:


> Interestingly, per-capita and per unit GDP energy consumption remains pretty low in India in spite of all this.


Last week, I heard a talk in Charleston, WV, by activists fighting ill effects of coal on local communities in India (similar in many ways to what folks living near coal operations in Appalachia experience; the talk was at a meeting of The Alliance for Appalachia). One speaker noted that the per-capita and per-unit-GDP figures you're thinking of are very much skewed by the fact that the VAST majority of Indians use very little energy at all. Overall coal use in India has increased a great deal in recent years, though, with economic benefits accruing to a relatively small minority of wealthy and middle-class Indians, costs to less-wealthy folks living near where the coal is burned or mined. (For example of the latter: fishermen living and working near a coal-fired plant find that they can no longer dry their fish for sale in distant markets, as the drying fish gets covered with airborme coal ash. Ditto folks who extract salt from seawater for a living.)

It's perhaps worth noting here, coming back to the US, that stopping proposed coal-export terminals is a high priority for a wide range of environmental activists in the US, not just global-warming activists but also folks fighting large-scale strip mining. Given recent successes with stopping proposed coal-fired power plants, the proposed terminals discussed in this thread certainly shouldn't be considered a done deal.

Sorry if what I'm posting here is too "political." If we're going to have this discussion at all, I thought sharing this info would be helpful.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 15, 2012)

caravanman said:


> It is not just the pollution from burning coal that you need to worry about, or do most Americans still not believe in global warming?


American scientists were among the very first people on earth to recognize global warming all the way back in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The American public is another story entirely. To be perfectly frank I still cannot explain what most Americans think about global warming because it honestly makes no sense to me. In general they see no cause to substantially change anyone's lifestyle and are becoming more and more convinced that global warming is either a hoax or a worldwide conspiracy meant to harm American business and damage American interests. And yet if you try telling some of these same people that crop circles weren't caused by aliens or that the Mayan calendar doesn't predict the end of the world or that ghosts aren't real they simply cannot believe it.



jis said:


> Interestingly, per-capita and per unit GDP energy consumption remains pretty low in India in spite of all this.


It really doesn't matter if a given pollution level was caused by ten million people or ten billion people. The result will still be the same.



Anderson said:


> Ok, the polling geek in me is just _screaming _at how bad that question is.  Let's parse it out, shall we?


The polling geek in me is wondering if you even bothered to click the link already provided and *quoted in your own post?*


----------



## henryj (May 15, 2012)

In all these discussions about global warming, acute water shortages, deforestation, extinction of different species, no one ever mentions that maybe it is all caused by TOO MANY PEOPLE. Maybe population control is the real answer to all these problems. You think? Natural selection will eventually take care of it if we just keep on like we are. And when the next ice age comes the earth will only support a few billion so most of will have to 'leave' anyway. Why don't we just talk about trains on here. Solving the worlds problems won't bring about more train service.


----------



## cirdan (May 15, 2012)

henryj said:


> In all these discussions about global warming, acute water shortages, deforestation, extinction of different species, no one ever mentions that maybe it is all caused by TOO MANY PEOPLE. Maybe population control is the real answer to all these problems. You think? Natural selection will eventually take care of it if we just keep on like we are. And when the next ice age comes the earth will only support a few billion so most of will have to 'leave' anyway. Why don't we just talk about trains on here. Solving the worlds problems won't bring about more train service.


Er no, because train services generally require a minimum population density before they make sense. that's why there is more train service in the NEC states than in much of the rest of the US. That's why countries like Japan have so many trains whereas countries like Australia have comparatively few. Decreasing population would therefore mean significantly less reasons to have trains. Solving the world's problems means fewer trains.


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2012)

Looking over what's in there, there's actually an interesting arguable disconnect: As of 2010, 63% of people believe that global warming will have effects within their lifetime...but only 32% think it will affect them. Of course, pointing to the series of questions, this suggests that either people think the US is immune (and in the medium term, there's some suggestion that the US and Canada might actually benefit from longer growing seasons) or that they're just not going to be affected personally (i.e. heads in the sand).

For what it's worth, I'll stand by the question being relatively useless when compared to the other questions in thre. The "generally exaggerated" question and/or the "When will the effects be felt" question would be better. Also, pulling the 2012 poll instead of the 2010 poll (link below) would offer some fun tidbits (such as a clear show of how partisan affiliations and views on the topic tend to split things).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Global-Warming-Views-Steady-Despite-Warm-Winter.aspx

Finally, to bring this around to a railroad-related topic, on the partisan affiliation front I'd note that this is the same sort of trouble we're having: Lots of issues becoming entangled with partisan identity. Some years ago, when talking with friends, I referred to "red truth" and "blue truth" (i.e. that frames of reference were becoming distorted to the point that it seems like a lot of people aren't living in the same worlds). That annoying tendency makes an appearance here: From all appearances, 2/3 of Republicans believe one set of data, 2/3 of Democrats believe another set of data, and independents split right down the middle. Other questions show partisan splits ranging from 25% to 45%.

Without getting into who is right or who is wrong, this makes a nice illustration of how tangled up a lot of issues (rail funding being one of them) have gotten with partisan affiliation/identity.


----------



## George Harris (May 15, 2012)

To me "global warming" is essentially a side show to the main issue, which is consumption of non-renewable resources and per capita consumption in total. Why do I say sideshow? Because the defined source of global warming, if global warming is real at all, is consumption of non-renewables, and this will eventually end because we will run out of things to burn. It is in the same realm as something said by some in the medical field, "All bleeding will eventually stop." That is, you either get it stopped or else the patient runs out of blood and dies.

We need to get serious about developing energy from renewables, and I do not mean such essentially "botique" sources as wind and solar. We are sitting on easily accessible hot rocks in many places and doing nothing with them. Let's start building geothermal plants. As an example, Hawaii should not need to burn any oil or other "fossil fuels" at all. They could generate all the electricity they could possibly use of the volcanos, and given the size of the islands, go to 100% electric cars.

100% renewable may not be practical everywhere, but that does not mean that it should not be done to the greatest extent practical.

Getting back to trains, electric trains with power from geothermal plants would be the way to fly wherever it can be done.


----------



## cirdan (May 15, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > caravanman said:
> ...


nevertheless, the recent inrease that the graph shows is still worrysome..


----------



## dlagrua (May 15, 2012)

First off I'd like to add a personal experience to the discussion about coal. When oil prices went wild I switched over to heating my home with hard Anthracite coal. If you open the door to my multi-fuel furnace and look at the coal fire it burns with a blue flame, the same as gas. Hard Anthracite coal burns very clean as no smoke is even present coming out of the chimney. This is the coal that was used to heat most homes back in the 40's and 50's. On the other hand, soft Bituminous coal burns dirty (but hotter) and emits black soot from the chimney. This is the coal once used by the railroads and is used in power plants. The smoke can be scrubbed from the chimney but the process is expensive. In summation, there is clean burning coal and coal that burns dirty. If we are so concerned with global warming it makes no difference if dirty coal is burned in the USA or in Asia

Now how does this relate to passenger rail? I have no idea. In the golden days of passenger rail coal was the largest commodity shipped by the freight end of the business. During that period passenger trains ran well and on time. I can only assume that because the USA has lost so many routes and thousands of mile of trackage, the overall capacity of each RR has declined. The RR's may no longer have the capacity to increase their freight tonnage capacity while at the same time accommodating Amtrak. The nations rail system was allowed to deteriorate and now we pay the price. In the last 60 years many large and regional RR Companies have gone under and in some cases all of their track pulled up and right of ways were abandoned. One such line that was liquidated in its entirety was the NY, Ontario and Western RR.


----------



## John Bredin (May 15, 2012)

*George Harris*, I generally agree wholeheartedly with your post -- I believe in anthropogenic global warming* but your point is well-taken that addressing the 800-pound gorilla that we've based our modern economy and society primarily on non-renewable energy sources would also address AGW and pollution issues.

That said, I would have to tweak



George Harris said:


> We need to get serious about developing energy from renewables, and I do not mean such essentially "botique" sources as wind and solar


 by adding a big ONLY at the end. 
I firmly dispute the idea that wind power is merely "boutique". To bring this back to trains, a trip along the Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle route between Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis passes multiple vast wind farms on both sides of the line with hundreds if not thousands of turbines a-spinning away. That's not hippy-dippy "off the grid" powering a farm or house, that's a utility-scale power-a-city -- or power-an-electrified-railway  -- level of power generation. California is big in wind-power, but so is Texas, and few people have accused Texas or Texans of engaging in anything "boutique". :giggle:

And while I agree that solar is "boutique" in the sense that it's small-scale and it's unlikely that a subway system or an intercity electric railway would be powered by utility-level solar facilities, solar makes a real contribution when rooftop solar panels reduce millions of householders' use of heating fuel or grid electricity to heat hot water for consumption and home-heating.

Moreover, while geothermal is definitely a promising piece of the puzzle -- why burn fuel to boil water to turn a turbine when the Earth will do it for you  -- it's not as potentially ubiquitous as in Hawaii, the Pacific Northwest, or similar volcanically-active areas. Geothermal has its place in the renewable energy mix, but so do wind, solar, hydroelectric,** tide, and, some would say, nuclear.

*"I believe in global warming" sounds like it's wholly a matter of personal faith, like "I believe in Judaism" vs. "I believe in Christianity". AGW is a theory that can be proven or disproven with data and facts, it's existence or non-existence isn't dependent on the results of a vote or an opinion survey.

**Although it's unlikely that more dams will be built in the developed world, it (1) is good to see that China, India, and other developing nations are in the dam-building business and not just slaking their growing energy demand with coal :blink: , and (2) would be nice to have a countervailing or balancing voice to the pressure/advocacy to eliminate dams.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (May 15, 2012)

henryj said:


> In all these discussions about global warming, acute water shortages, deforestation, extinction of different species, no one ever mentions that maybe it is all caused by TOO MANY PEOPLE. Maybe population control is the real answer to all these problems. You think? Natural selection will eventually take care of it if we just keep on like we are. And when the next ice age comes the earth will only support a few billion so most of will have to 'leave' anyway. Why don't we just talk about trains on here. Solving the worlds problems won't bring about more train service.


Population control isnt really the issue, at least not in first world countries, where birth rates are very low.

Gotta figure out how to stop the third worlders from breeding. Its keeping them in poverty.


----------



## George Harris (May 15, 2012)

John Bredin said:


> *George Harris*, I generally agree wholeheartedly with your post -- I believe in anthropogenic global warming* but your point is well-taken that addressing the 800-pound gorilla that we've based our modern economy and society primarily on non-renewable energy sources would also address AGW and pollution issues.
> 
> That said, I would have to tweak
> 
> ...


What are the percentages of the total electricity consumption being met by wind and solar? That may not be a totally fair question, so maybe is should be rephrased into the trends in development and reasonably achievable capacity. If these have any potential individually or combined to be about 10% of the total, I will withdraw the "boutique" comment.

There is a lot more available geothermal than Yellowstone and Hawaii. Whereever you have any form of hot spring activity it says you have a close to the surface hot spot - middle of Arkansas for example. Maybe it is just a personal obsession with me, but I feel like a lot of the push toward wind and solar could in terms of developing usable kilowatts be more productively applied in pushing geothermal.

As to the eliminate dam fad: I feel like we are dealing in a logic-free zone there.


----------



## Ispolkom (May 15, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> I can only assume that because the USA has lost so many routes and thousands of mile of trackage, the overall capacity of each RR has declined.


The good old days were, well, not so efficient. In 1944, the height of World War 2, railroads carried 746 billion ton-miles of freight. Now that number is perhaps twice that. It's best to do a bit of research, rather than assume.



> There is a lot more available geothermal than Yellowstone and Hawaii. Whereever you have any form of hot spring activity it says you have a close to the surface hot spot - middle of Arkansas for example. Maybe it is just a personal obsession with me, but I feel like a lot of the push toward wind and solar could in terms of developing usable kilowatts be more productively applied in pushing geothermal.


They are all boutique energy sources. While there are hot springs across the country, they are rarely in places where electricity is needed, and nobody wants a high-tension line across their property to get power from its source to where it's needed. If you want electricity in large quantities, in arbitrary areas, you have to burn coal, natural gas, or uranium. Each have their own problems.

Oh, and *Shawn Ryu*, "breeders"? Ick.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (May 15, 2012)

Well when people give birth they are breeding arent they?

People are animals too.


----------



## henryj (May 15, 2012)

Global warming is not only a hoax, it has spawned a multi-billion dollar industry and now feeds on itself. The earth is actually spiralling increasingly into a period of glaciation. Every 100,000 years or so it enters a warm period such as we have now, but this only lasts 15-20 thousand years. We have been in this one just about that long. The real question is whether man has produced enough Co2 to counter the next glaciation. And if it has, how long can we hold off glaciation. A few hundred years at best. Then it's going to get real cold. lol. You can forget about Canada, New York, Chicago, the NEC and any thing else up there because it's going to be under thousands of feet of ice and all those people are going to be headed south. Unfortunately, the earth will no longer be able to produce enough food to keep them all alive. We will be tearing down those fences on the Mexican border so we can go further south. The only viable rail routes, if railroads still exist, will be those in the south and southwest. I wish I could come back in a few hundred years and see how you guys handled it. hboy:


----------



## JayPea (May 15, 2012)

George Harris said:


> As to the eliminate dam fad: I feel like we are dealing in a logic-free zone there.



I agree. There are four dams on the Snake River in my neck of the woods, the closest about 20 miles away, that have been targeted by environmentalists as necessary for removal. That talk has quieted down some, but there is still some talk about it. They claim they are not necessary. And that they are harming the salmon population. They neglect to mention that due to advances in technology involving fish ladders, the numbers of salmon on the rivers have been growing by leaps and bounds. And their hue and cry about helping the environment ignores the fact that the dams provide an inland port at Lewiston, ID, nearly 400 miles from the Pacific. The dams provide water transportation for barges that transport grain to Portland. Without the dams, there would be many thousands of truckloads on the roads, tearing up the roads and creating that much more pollution. A lot of the rail lines in this area have been abandoned and the rails pulled up so that wouldn't help, either. The dams also provide irrigation water, badly needed in this area, where there are places in which the annual precipitation is less than 10 inches a year. And that's not even mentioning the amount of electricity generated by these dams. Still, with all that, there is still the occasional call to breach these dams.


----------



## SP&S (May 15, 2012)

In Oregon there is serious resistance to the coal export plans. It's not only at the grass roots level but also in the esteemed halls of government in Salem. I think it is safe to say that if it not rejected outright it will be tied up in the courts for many years.

Politics aside and without even arguing about climate change, is it not a good thing to spew less crud into the atmosphere? Would it really hurt anything to try to be better stewards of the earth?


----------



## George Harris (May 16, 2012)

Ispolkom said:


> They are all boutique energy sources. While there are hot springs across the country, they are rarely in places where electricity is needed, and nobody wants a high-tension line across their property to get power from its source to where it's needed. If you want electricity in large quantities, in arbitrary areas, you have to burn coal, natural gas, or uranium. Each have their own problems.


Suggest that you google geothermal energy potential sources or similar terms. You will see that there is a lot more potential that just next door to hot springs. As to power lines? They have to be there for any power plant regardless of source of power for it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 16, 2012)

SP&S said:


> In Oregon there is serious resistance to the coal export plans. It's not only at the grass roots level but also in the esteemed halls of government in Salem. I think it is safe to say that if it not rejected outright it will be tied up in the courts for many years.


It may be tied up in courts for years but eventually the export system _will_ be built. If you don't believe me just try looking for a list of substantial American environmental successes over the last thirty years or so. If you dig deep enough you'll find that many of them were nothing more than temporary reprieves and were eventually reversed or undone by later court rulings, retroactive legislation, or lack of funding. In other cases environmental protocols were simply ignored altogether, such as what happened during Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There's nothing quite as rewarding as making a terrible situation even worse by turning the Gulf of Mexico into the world's largest science fair experiment.


----------



## George Harris (May 16, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> If you don't believe me just try looking for a list of substantial American environmental successes over the last thirty years or so.


A temendous amount of cleanup of air and water don't count?


----------



## SP&S (May 16, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't believe me just try looking for a list of substantial American environmental successes over the last thirty years or so.
> ...


Well: locally the Willamette River is no longer toxic; and nationally the Cuyahoga river no longer catches fire, and you can walk out of LAX without your eyes burning. Score three for us environmental wackos  .

But, sadly, if you look at the last thirty years Texas Sunset has a point here. The biggest environmental gains were made before the Reagan era, but it's been tough work since then. But just because it's hard doesn't mean you stop trying, and it doesn't mean you wont succeed.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 16, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't believe me just try looking for a list of substantial American environmental successes over the last thirty years or so.
> ...


Air and water are cleaner today precisely because of environmental successes that were won _*prior*_ to the last thirty years. Back during Nixon and Carter administrations the environmental movement was still winning new protections. Since then the core of the environmental regulation movement has been weakened almost to the point of irrelevance. With the start of the Ronald Reagan era most environmental protections have either stagnated or been rolled back. Some have been dismantled entirely. Even though the last thirty years have produced some of the most active and fruitful environmental research most of it has been ignored by American law. In other words, the more we learn about how the environment works and what is likely to disrupt it the less we're doing to actually heed those warnings.


----------



## RRUserious (May 19, 2012)

Great topic. Touches on so many things. Even railroads are connected to everything else, it seems. One thing about population. China has done more than practically any government to deal with its own problem. Who else has ORDERED families to limit themselves to one child. The blind guy who the whole world is weeping about was a protester against a highly responsible Chinese policy. Now the USA is giving him a home. And some of our most vociferous political factions are treating large families as some sort of human right. Once again, the USA can't wait to stick its head where the sun don't shine.

But even with its policy of one child, China is a time bomb. As it creates expectations for a much more materialistic life for its citizens, it could become a giant resource vacuum on the global scale, and the buying power it has can bulldoze every wish people in other countries have. Including a clean environment. Without adding one more to its population.

One question I do have. Wouldn't coal be loaded in Portland and Seattle? Are they really planning to load freighters in Bellingham? I've seen that harbor and it doesn't look that expandable to me. Isn't the buildup of rail more an issue for existing deepwater ports?


----------



## CHamilton (May 20, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> One question I do have. Wouldn't coal be loaded in Portland and Seattle? Are they really planning to load freighters in Bellingham? I've seen that harbor and it doesn't look that expandable to me. Isn't the buildup of rail more an issue for existing deepwater ports?


Yes, coal would be loaded in smaller ports -- Bellingham and Longview, WA, and St. Helens, OR, have all been proposed. In Seattle, the commissioners of the Port of Seattle are elected, and know that approving a coal terminal would not be politically acceptable to their constituents. I assume the same is true in Portland. And as I said in my earlier post, there is considerable opposition even the smaller ports.

In addition, even if such a terminal was approved and built, there's nowhere to add significant rail capacity anywhere near the Port of Seattle. I think that's true for the Port of Portland as well.


----------



## CHamilton (May 20, 2012)

The Seattle Times has a good article on the state of the controversy.



> With the Northwest poised to become the country's leading coal-export region, fights are emerging on several fronts.
> 
> On the table are proposals to capitalize on Asia's thirst for cheap energy by building a half-dozen terminals in Washington and Oregon that would export coal from the Rockies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 20, 2012)

Smart business plan. Work toward several smaller projects at once and even if the usually powerless green movement somehow gains significant traction with one or more plans you'll still end up with other options for bringing the coal to market. There is virtually no way all six projects will be scrapped. _Viva polución!_


----------



## Anderson (May 20, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> The Seattle Times has a good article on the state of the controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On the one hand, I will admit that I have a certain disinterest in the environmental side of things. On the other hand, what I see are _wonderful_ arguments for state-funded improvements to limit or eliminate grade crossings and for a push for subsidized electrification. An export tax on coal might not be a bad idea, either, to be honest...but I look at that from a perspective of:

A) Preserving resources;

B) Raising revenue; and

C) Squeezing China for revenue.

For me, the environmental arguments are more or less incidental.

Edit: And of course, the idea comes to mind of using the export tax to pay for the electrification....


----------



## jis (May 20, 2012)

US imposing an export tax on Coal or any other raw material would be somewhat embarrassing after having forced China through the WTO to drop its export taxes on raw materials, and that effort was led by the US and Europe.


----------



## RRUserious (May 20, 2012)

What concerns me is the idea that huge infrastructure projects will be abandoned long before they are useless, simply because I don't see coal as an energy source with a long future. Why not put the SAME investment into some other opportunity that we know we'll need a hundred years from now?


----------



## Anderson (May 20, 2012)

jis said:


> US imposing an export tax on Coal or any other raw material would be somewhat embarrassing after having forced China through the WTO to drop its export taxes on raw materials, and that effort was led by the US and Europe.


If the whole US/Europe-China relationship wasn't so full of hypocrisy, I'd care one way or another. However...well, let's just say that it's not like the Chinese haven't introduced the pot to the kettle more often than not.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (May 20, 2012)

Coal exports are going to happen. Coal trains may increase. Amtrak trains probably won't increase, but expansion is all about money. It all depends on how much money the freight railroads demand, and the amount Amtrak can pay.

BTW, some Chinese dude told me that rural residents can have multiple children. Can't confirm.


----------



## Anderson (May 20, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Coal exports are going to happen. Coal trains may increase. Amtrak trains probably won't increase, but expansion is all about money. It all depends on how much money the freight railroads demand, and the amount Amtrak can pay.
> 
> BTW, some Chinese dude told me that rural residents can have multiple children. Can't confirm.


At the risk of yet another topic derail...the one-child policy has become very much hit-or-miss in places.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (May 20, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> BTW, some Chinese dude told me that rural residents can have multiple children. Can't confirm.


Okay. As much as I dislike the recent "stay on topic" stuff going on here, this is ridiculous, and genuinely should not really be discussed here. However, that "Chinese dude" was right. The "quota" is 1 per woman in "urban settings" and up to 3 in "rural settings."


----------



## RRUserious (May 21, 2012)

Living as I do in a region that has just imposed a tax to build a stadium for very rich football owners, I hope this whole "get rich from coal" thing isn't just another thing loaded on the back of the average American to make it possible for a tiny elite to become more wealthy. That's how it tends to happen.


----------



## RampWidget (May 21, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> Living as I do in a region that has just imposed a tax to build a stadium for very rich football owners, I hope this whole "get rich from coal" thing isn't just another thing loaded on the back of the average American to make it possible for a tiny elite to become more wealthy. That's how it tends to happen.


I think mine workers and the people employed by other businesses in mining communities might look at it differently.


----------



## RRUserious (May 21, 2012)

Have you ever seen Rocky Mountain coal mining? No people with shovels going down in mines. Ginormous machines scraping away at mountains, turning them into holes. Believe me, they've got it overcapitalized to insure the money doesn't spread very far. Yeh, there are a few people living there making high-skilled wages running the machines, but not like in Appalachia. Now with exporting, they will (if they get their way) create an eyesore visible from the moon to ship to Asia to burn and pollute the skies, at the expense of people everywhere and the enrichment of a tiny few capitalists who own the machines. They will of course say its "jobs" just like the real estate frenzy that leaves the world teetering on the brink of bankruptcy was "jobs". Jobs on Wall Street.


----------



## CHamilton (May 21, 2012)

Hmm.

Chinese buyers default on coal, iron ore shipments



> SHANGHAI/SINGAPORE, May 21 (Reuters) - Chinese buyers are deferring or have defaulted on coal and iron ore deliveries following a drop in prices, traders said, providing more evidence that a slowdown in the world's second-largest economy is hitting its appetite for commodities.
> 
> China is the world's biggest consumer of iron ore, coal and other base metals, but recent data has shown the economy cooling more quickly than expected, with industrial output growth slowing sharply in April and fixed asset investment, a key driver of the economy, hitting its lowest in nearly a decade.
> 
> Coal and iron ore prices could fall further before recovering towards the tail end of the second quarter, traders say, sparking more defaults or deferred deliveries.


----------



## RampWidget (May 21, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> Have you ever seen Rocky Mountain coal mining? No people with shovels going down in mines. Ginormous machines scraping away at mountains, turning them into holes. Believe me, they've got it overcapitalized to insure the money doesn't spread very far. Yeh, there are a few people living there making high-skilled wages running the machines, but not like in Appalachia. Now with exporting, they will (if they get their way) create an eyesore visible from the moon to ship to Asia to burn and pollute the skies, at the expense of people everywhere and the enrichment of a tiny few capitalists who own the machines. They will of course say its "jobs" just like the real estate frenzy that leaves the world teetering on the brink of bankruptcy was "jobs". Jobs on Wall Street.


I do understand that mining has evolved, and is not as labor-intensive as it used to be. My point is that there are still wage-earning people operating those machines, working people that maintain them, working people that build them. Not to mention the jobs held by the working-class people employed by the stevedoring companies, tugboat operators, barge lines, and freight railroads. Of course these jobs are not nearly as numerous as they once were, whether the mine is in Wyoming, Southern Illinois, Alabama, Kentucky, or West Virginia. But they are jobs, decent paying jobs, that also have an added benefit of being available to some folks that may not have the benefit of a college education.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 21, 2012)

RampWidget said:


> I do understand that mining has evolved, and is not as labor-intensive as it used to be. My point is that there are still wage-earning people operating those machines, working people that maintain them, working people that build them. Not to mention the jobs held by the working-class people employed by the stevedoring companies, tugboat operators, barge lines, and freight railroads. Of course these jobs are not nearly as numerous as they once were, whether the mine is in Wyoming, Southern Illinois, Alabama, Kentucky, or West Virginia. But they are jobs, decent paying jobs, that also have an added benefit of being available to some folks that may not have the benefit of a college education.


Managing our skills and burdens so that we can continue to evolve as necessary to cope with ever changing opportunities and demands is what rises us above the rest of the animal kingdom. Our diplomas, degrees, and certifications are not what define us. They, like our careers themselves, are merely a means to an end that we alone define. Tying yourself to a single path for success is the surest way I know to court self-inflicted failure. That is not to say that I do not feel compassion and concern for those who are forced to change anyway, but I will save my pity for those who were never even offered the opportunities many of us have long since taken for granted.


----------



## RRUserious (May 21, 2012)

Every single activity that destroys an economy or environment has "real jobs" associated with it. If the owners have any say, they are jobs in Asia or Latin America where people are not so demanding. I really think people who drag this red herring in should do a bit of research about the jobs. And what percentage of company costs actually go to them. If "jobs" is dragged into it as some sort of hole card every time, then the destruction of the planet is guaranteed. Here's a comparison for you. If we left the Rockies alone, how many jobs get lost compared to leaving the bankers alone and creating a global crisis. "Jobs" was the argument that lifted all controls on banking so that we've gone through the deepest recession in years. If you think people with jobs would disagree, then you must take the next logical step to say the whole argument of "burdensome regulations" is something jobholders wouldn't agree with having seen what happens when you gut them like happened back in the early part of the last decade. We need to take all that history to heart before we weep too many tears about mining jobs. The worst proposal for wage earners will be dressed up as some sort of a gift. A Trojan Horse to get inside the fortress and sack and burn.


----------



## Ziv (May 21, 2012)

Chinese families may be able to have a second, or even a third child, if they live in the country, but it isn't a sure thing. I was walking through the Forbidden City and suddenly the crowd, mainly Chinese folks, just flowed to one side. I thought it was going to be a celebrity or a politician so I followed them to see what the fuss was. I looked over the balcony and saw what the crowd was giggling and talking about. It was a pair of twin girls, around 3 years old. It was like Kim Kardashian was chatting up Chris Christie. EVERYONE was entranced.

I have heard that the one child policy is history, but what I saw in Beijing makes me wonder if exceptions are few and far between.


----------



## RRUserious (May 21, 2012)

Not sure where the World Factbook gets its data, but it says the population growth rate is 0.481 which in a normal country wouldnt even be replacement. The 2012 estimated growth rate in the United States is 0.899. Our position in the world is 125th. China's population growth is 152nd.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (May 22, 2012)

> What are the percentages of the total electricity consumption being met by wind and solar? That may not be a totally fair question, so maybe is should be rephrased into the trends in development and reasonably achievable capacity. If these have any potential individually or combined to be about 10% of the total, I will withdraw the "boutique" comment.
> 
> As to the eliminate dam fad: I feel like we are dealing in a logic-free zone there.


Last I looked Iowa is at 21% of power from Wind !

http://www.senate.iowa.gov/democrats/17-20-percent-of-iowa-electricity-from-wind/


----------



## Anderson (May 22, 2012)

Peter KG6LSE said:


> > What are the percentages of the total electricity consumption being met by wind and solar? That may not be a totally fair question, so maybe is should be rephrased into the trends in development and reasonably achievable capacity. If these have any potential individually or combined to be about 10% of the total, I will withdraw the "boutique" comment.
> >
> > As to the eliminate dam fad: I feel like we are dealing in a logic-free zone there.
> 
> ...


I think "regionally effective" should be distinguished from "boutique". Wind and solar have places in certain regions (as does geothermal, which Iceland has managed very well), but they're not universal power sources...but then again, nothing really is.


----------



## RRUserious (May 22, 2012)

Coal is "universal". Wherever you use it, it will be dirtier than anything else you can find. We've been using combustion since our cave-dwelling days. It constantly amazes me how people still think it is the only "practical" form of energy. How many other aspects of cave-dwelling technology are given such reverence?


----------



## Anderson (May 22, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> Coal is "universal". Wherever you use it, it will be dirtier than anything else you can find. We've been using combustion since our cave-dwelling days. It constantly amazes me how people still think it is the only "practical" form of energy. How many other aspects of cave-dwelling technology are given such reverence?


Yes, but coal (and oil, natural gas, etc.) can run into supply chain bottlenecks (as noted in this thread) or trouble disposing of refuse. There are probably cases where coal doesn't make much sense...just like there are places that solar or wind don't make sense.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (May 22, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I think "regionally effective" should be distinguished from "boutique". Wind and solar have places in certain regions (as does geothermal, which Iceland has managed very well), but they're not universal power sources...but then again, nothing really is.


This is so true ! \\ There is no "One " Solution . But many smaller ones

Peter


----------



## RampWidget (May 22, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> Every single activity that destroys an economy or environment has "real jobs" associated with it. If the owners have any say, they are jobs in Asia or Latin America where people are not so demanding. I really think people who drag this red herring in should do a bit of research about the jobs. And what percentage of company costs actually go to them. If "jobs" is dragged into it as some sort of hole card every time, then the destruction of the planet is guaranteed. Here's a comparison for you. If we left the Rockies alone, how many jobs get lost compared to leaving the bankers alone and creating a global crisis. "Jobs" was the argument that lifted all controls on banking so that we've gone through the deepest recession in years. If you think people with jobs would disagree, then you must take the next logical step to say the whole argument of "burdensome regulations" is something jobholders wouldn't agree with having seen what happens when you gut them like happened back in the early part of the last decade. We need to take all that history to heart before we weep too many tears about mining jobs. The worst proposal for wage earners will be dressed up as some sort of a gift. A Trojan Horse to get inside the fortress and sack and burn.


Far from dragging a red herring, I already know something about the jobs, and the people who work them. You make an impassioned presentation, but without any facts to back it up.

Here are those real jobs you so callously imply don't exist: Coal industry in the USA = 550,000 jobs. (U.S. Energy Information Administration).

I think many of those 550,000 employed by the mining industry would say yes, they have a "real job." And "real families" as well.

By the way, most Wyoming coal (1,115,350,000 tons in 2011) originates mostly from that part of Powder River Basin east of the Rockies, not the Rockies themselves.


----------



## JayPea (May 27, 2012)

Here's an article from today's Spokane _Spokesman-Review_ that adds fuel to the fire, so to speak.........


----------



## caravanman (May 27, 2012)

Wow!

I missed all the responses to my "global warming" question 'till today! One interesting item recently about population is that the one child per family law means that the population of China is ageing rapidly. By that I mean that the (relativly) fewer "one child" people have to look after both parents as they age. I understand that some factory bosses are already finding it hard to recruit enough staff at economic wages to keep up production and are thinking of outsourcing production to India, etc...

It always seems mad to me that the only way for the world to "not be in recession" is for people to buy/use/consume more new items that we don't really need, at a faster and faster rate, rather than repairing stuff and so conserving dwindling raw materials.

Well done everyone on the topic so far, most of you get high marks for sensible input, with one or two exceptions 

Ed


----------



## oldtimer (May 27, 2012)

JayPea said:


> Here's an article from today's Spokane _Spokesman-Review_ that adds fuel to the fire, so to speak.........



The article has a photo that is captioned "empty boxcars" waiting for a coal load!


----------



## JayPea (May 27, 2012)

oldtimer said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an article from today's Spokane _Spokesman-Review_ that adds fuel to the fire, so to speak.........
> ...



That was the first thing I noticed before even reading the article. Kinda hard to load coal into boxcars, I'd think. And unloading coal from boxcars might be a challenge too.


----------



## CHamilton (May 30, 2012)

Seattle City Council opposes coal-export terminals in state



> The Seattle City Council unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday opposing the development of coal-export terminals in the state after raising concerns about increased train traffic and potential harm to health and the environment.
> 
> The vote came as the federal government is reviewing the first of at least six port facilities proposed in Washington and Oregon to ship coal from the Powder River basin of Montana and Wyoming to hungry markets in Asia.
> 
> If all the terminals are built, at least 100 million tons of coal a year could be carried in trains through the Northwest before being shipped to Asia.


----------



## EMDF9A (May 30, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Seattle City Council opposes coal-export terminals in state
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have emailed the Seattle City Council and told them how disappointed I am in their votes. I'm REALLY going to have to look closely at the ballot in November.

On a local forum for Seattle's KOMO TV, it was suggested that perhaps the former NP line from Renton to Monroe be restored (It was severed a few years ago when WSDOT took out a tunnel to wided I-405) and move the coal traffic out of downtown Seattle and up the East Side to Monroe, connect with the Steven's Pass line into Everett & then North to Cherry Point. Yeah, it might cost a little to upgrade the line for coal traffic & build a bridge, but it would be a great alternative. Coal could travel into Western WA via the little used Stampede line or up from the Columbia River on the Pt Defiance line, avoid downtown Seattle... and off to China or Korea, WSDOT, the local cities & BNSF would have to come to an agreement on who pays for what... but it CAN be done.


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 26, 2012)

Here's a good overview, with a nice map, of the current status of coal-export rail terminals.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/24/06-24-coal-routes/


----------



## E Runs (Jun 27, 2012)

_The Quest_ by Daniel Yergin is an excellent book for anyone looking to learn more about world energy production/comsumpton/markets.


----------



## Nathanael (Jun 28, 2012)

> Wind and solar have places in certain regions (as does geothermal, which Iceland has managed very well), but they're not universal power sources...but then again, nothing really is.


Solar is essentially universal; very few people live in places which are too dark for reliable solar (Barrow, Alaska? Spitsbergen?).

It's still expensive. But that's all; there are no *technical* obstacles to powering the entire world with solar. (There are with wind.) Expensive, clean solar vs. dirty and polluting coal; it's a societal choice.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 15, 2012)

RailAmerica shelves plans for Hoquiam coal export terminal



> Plans for one of the half-dozen coal export facilities proposed in the Pacific Northwest have been shelved. RailAmerica will no longer pursue construction of a facility that was expected to handle 5 million tons of coal per year out of the Port of Grays Harbor.


----------



## JayPea (Aug 15, 2012)

A couple of months ago, a poster on one of the Spokane news station's Facebook site posted an article about the possibility of build coal exporting centers in the Pacific Northwest. And, based on the figures from the article (I wish I could find it but am unable to do so) this poster calculated that for Spokane, it would mean *3,000 to 5,000* coal trains through Spokane......*per day!!!!!! :* :blink:  :lol: :lol: :lol: After an emergency call to my local medical supply store for emergency oxygen due to having almost suffocating from laughing so hard, I pointed out, using his same figures, that BNSF would either have to have 7 to 11 sets of tracks all the way though Washington to handle that many trains, or run at speeds of 375 to 625 MPH to do so. This was all done using the article's figures for estimated speed and length of the trains. And this was just for trains running constantly through Spokane, end to end or side by side, without let up. And when I posted all this "information" back on the Facebook page, the OP had the gall to be insulted!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Insulted, I tells ya!!!!


----------



## rrdude (Aug 15, 2012)

JayPea said:


> A couple of months ago, a poster on one of the Spokane news station's Facebook site posted an article about the possibility of build coal exporting centers in the Pacific Northwest. And, based on the figures from the article (I wish I could find it but am unable to do so) this poster calculated that for Spokane, it would mean *3,000 to 5,000* coal trains through Spokane......*per day!!!!!! :* :blink:  :lol: :lol: :lol: After an emergency call to my local medical supply store for emergency oxygen due to having almost suffocating from laughing so hard, I pointed out, using his same figures, that BNSF would either have to have 7 to 11 sets of tracks all the way though Washington to handle that many trains, or run at speeds of 375 to 625 MPH to do so. This was all done using the article's figures for estimated speed and length of the trains. And this was just for trains running constantly through Spokane, end to end or side by side, without let up. And when I posted all this "information" back on the Facebook page, the OP had the gall to be insulted!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Insulted, I tells ya!!!!


Plz send me a link to that FB page, I could use a good laff today, and I laffed some just READING your account!


----------



## CHamilton (Sep 20, 2012)

Portland City Council passes resolution against coal trains



> Portland's City Council voted 3-0 Wednesday to oppose coal trains running through town until the Army Corps of Engineers fully evaluates the impacts of exporting coal to Asia through the Northwest.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 20, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Portland City Council passes resolution against coal trains
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Over the last few years, increasing coal exports through the Port of Duluth have been in the local news. Possibly encouraging BNSF to upgrade some rails in NODAK. Possibly part of the EB route. Just another point of view. Admit that a few hundred added trains per day anywhere would be unlikely.


----------



## montana mike (Sep 20, 2012)

Given the explosion in natural gas availability and the rapid change over by a number of utilities from coal to NG the likelihood of such increases is becoming less and less with each passing month. My local BNSF contact says they expect coal tonnage to decrease in the coming years, not increase. Now, on the flip side, since the oil pipeline was blocked the number of oil tankers is skyrocketing, especially from ND to the east and south


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 20, 2012)

montana mike said:


> Given the explosion in natural gas availability and the rapid change over by a number of utilities from coal to NG the likelihood of such increases is becoming less and less with each passing month. My local BNSF contact says they expect coal tonnage to decrease in the coming years, not increase. Now, on the flip side, since the oil pipeline was blocked the number of oil tankers is skyrocketing, especially from ND to the east and south


For sure - we see several unit trains of crude through MSP every day now and expect more. I'm personally very happy about the declining price of natural gas also.

At a guess - more pipeline capacity will be happening any year now.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 4, 2012)

Bellingham becomes ground zero in debate on coal exports



> Five ports proposed for Washington and Oregon could ship as much as 140 million tons of coal, mostly from the Rockies, where it could travel by rail through communities such as Seattle, Spokane and Eugene before being loaded onto ships bound for Asia.
> 
> The Cherry Point marine terminal would be the largest coal-export port in the U.S., exporting up to 54 million tons of bulk commodities, mostly coal.
> 
> With so much at stake, critics and supporters have intensified their pitches in recent weeks.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 5, 2012)

Seattle: more coal trains would increase delays



> A new city of Seattle report finds that an increase in coal trains through the city would increase delays at railroad crossings and affect emergency response times.
> 
> ...
> 
> The report commissioned by the city estimated that gates would be down at railroad crossings an additional 31 to 83 minutes each day in 2015, and an additional 67 to 183 minutes in 2026. The study says the proposed coal trains would impact emergency vehicle trips to and from the waterfront.


----------



## CHamilton (Nov 26, 2012)

In related news that will affect BNSF's capacity:

Trains delivering oil to Washington refineries



> The oil boom in the Great Plains states is affecting refineries, ports and other businesses in Washington.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## montana mike (Nov 26, 2012)

Realistically--what is safer, a dedicated pipeline than is mostly buried dozens of feet below the surface or 103 car tanker trains? Just an interesting question to consider.


----------



## danball (Nov 26, 2012)

actually, i believe coal is and will be taking a back seat to natural gas thanks to fracking. that would mean fewer coal cars and more gas lines.


----------



## CHamilton (Jan 9, 2013)

A summary of the coal-export terminal controversy.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/stop-the-coal-trains/Content?oid=15701054

For those outside of Seattle, the Stranger is a weekly newspaper that, despite its penchant for four-letter words and questionable taste in advertising, does some good journalism. They don't pretend to be objective, though.


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 1, 2013)

Northwest Railroads Will Need Improvements To Handle Coal Trains


> The five coal export terminals proposed for Washington and Oregon could add dozens of trains a day to Northwest railways.
> 
> Those trains would mean new business for coal companies, railroad companies and the ports. They would create short-term construction jobs and long-term port and railroad jobs. They would generate tax revenue for the states with the ports.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, the last coal shipper has dropped out of plans for the Port of Coos Bay (OR).


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 2, 2013)

Sad as it may be, back in the day, it was common for many of the larger railroads (like the Pennsylvania RR) to have two, three and four track mainlines. Coal was the largest customer for the railroads, Railway Express was on the lines, there were less than carload lot services offered, milk shipments and other food was shipped this way, the USPS was there and many other businesses flooded the rails with traffic. Today many of the main lines that handled the vast freight traffic have been cut back to single track operations. Passenger trains no longer receive priority.

Instead of improving rail service over the last 50 years, the USA walked away from it. Now we are seeing the consequences of drastically shrunken main line trackage, and cut back passenger rail service where late arrivals are common. The freight/passenger logjam on the rails today appears to be a manifestation of this neglect.


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 2, 2013)

Groups to sue BNSF, others over coal in waterways


> SEATTLE —
> 
> Several conservation groups plan to sue Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and top U.S. coal producers, claiming they discharge coal into Washington state waterways in violation of federal law.
> 
> The groups allege the companies discharge coal, coal chunks, coal dust and other pollutants into state waters from rail cars that transport Rocky Mountain coal throughout Washington.


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 3, 2013)

This is not an objective summary by any means, but it includes links to the latest news on coal export projects.

http://daily.sightline.org/2013/04/03/coal-exports-two-weeks-of-good-news/


----------



## Bus Nut (Apr 3, 2013)

George Harris said:


> To me "global warming" is essentially a side show to the main issue, which is consumption of non-renewable resources and per capita consumption in total. Why do I say sideshow? Because the defined source of global warming, if global warming is real at all, is consumption of non-renewables, and this will eventually end because we will run out of things to burn.e done.


No, I'm afraid it's not a sideshow. Unless the world's climate scientists are very, very wrong, aside from the short-term negative effects we are having now (droughts, wildfires, massive storm systems, marine biota die-offs), global warming becomes an acute crisis when our weather system becomes unstable. That means wild swings in annual global mean temperatures until the climate settles into a new equilibrium. CO2 from ice cores shows that it's happened before.

Essentially at some point bedlam will break loose climatewise and that will _become_ the acute crisis. It's one thing to have an economic dislocation due to fuel prices spiking; it's something else entirely when your cereal crops fail two years in a row.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 3, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > To me "global warming" is essentially a side show to the main issue, which is consumption of non-renewable resources and per capita consumption in total. Why do I say sideshow? Because the defined source of global warming, if global warming is real at all, is consumption of non-renewables, and this will eventually end because we will run out of things to burn.e done.
> ...


Call back in about 10 years and let's see if it is still the panic of the day or what the latest panic is at that time. Skim back over the responsible media of the last 100 years or so and see how many "scientific" predictions have actually panned out. The world has been on the verge of mass destruction or mass starvation for various and sundry caused for the last 200 plus years. We are still here.


----------



## KWBud (Apr 4, 2013)

I have tried to hold my tongue, but I do have limits.



Bus Nut said:


> No, I'm afraid it's not a sideshow. Unless the world's climate scientists are very, very wrong, aside from the short-term negative effects we are having now (droughts, wildfires, massive storm systems, marine biota die-offs), global warming becomes an acute crisis when our weather system becomes unstable.


I wonder how many climate conferences you have attended. I have been to a few of these conferences and symposiums and the debate is quite lively and interesting. Scientific opinion on climate change is not nearly as unified as the media would have you believe.



Bus Nut said:


> That means wild swings in annual global mean temperatures until the climate settles into a new equilibrium. CO2 from ice cores shows that it's happened before.


Are you referring to the Younger Dryas stadial? Full on Ice Age conditions followed in just a few years by a relatively mild interglacial temperatures would be devastating, wouldn't it?

Fortunately none of the theorized causes for the Dryas stadials are based on the climate settling into a new equilibrium. Moreover, none of the theories, except for the impact hypothesis, really apply to our present situation. We could possibly be hit by a meteoroid or asteroid with little warning at any time, but that would not be a result of mankind's activities, would it?



Bus Nut said:


> Essentially at some point bedlam will break loose climatewise and that will _become_ the acute crisis. It's one thing to have an economic dislocation due to fuel prices spiking; it's something else entirely when your cereal crops fail two years in a row.


This kind of thinking is probably why so many respondents to the Gallup Poll responded that the "seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated."

As a species, we shouldn't be depleting the Earth's resources and treating the planet as an infinite waste dump. But using climate change as a scare tactic isn't productive either.

Bringing this back to the topic at hand, creating a political environment that encourages the use of public transportation is a good thing.

Also, I would think that loading coal on the East coast would be more economical than shipping it by rail to the West coast. 

--

Bud


----------



## Ryan (Apr 4, 2013)

KWBud said:


> This kind of thinking is probably why so many respondents to the Gallup Poll responded that the "seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated."


I'm sure a Gallup poll in 1300 would have had shown most people beleived the Earth to be flat.
I'm not sure what the layman's opinion on Global Warming has to do with much of anything.


----------



## KWBud (Apr 4, 2013)

Ryan said:


> I'm sure a Gallup poll in 1300 would have had shown most people beleived the Earth to be flat.


All the better for building railroads, right? All those hills do get in the way, don't they?



Ryan said:


> I'm not sure what the layman's opinion on Global Warming has to do with much of anything.


I wonder whether a Gallup poll showing that 67% of Americans supported federal funding of the expansion of Passenger Rail in the US would get any attention in Congress? I'm using the 2010 Gallup Poll to get this number. Public opinion won't change the facts, but it may well change the response. So creating inflated predictions of doom may hurt rather than help.

--

Bud


----------



## CHamilton (May 2, 2013)

Coal trains could derail Marysville's economy


> Marysville runs north-south, through Snohomish County, separated at 16 different points from the economic lifeline of Interstate 5 by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line. These are the tracks that some want to use to ship coal to a proposed new terminal in Bellingham. It would mean thousands of jobs, but at what cost to Marysville?
> ...
> As it stands now, people have to wait through 3 or 4 traffic light cycles when a big trains roll though town. A study by Gibson Traffic Consultants of Everett found an additional 18 coal train crossings would mean an additional two to three hours of sitting in traffic.
> ...
> ...


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 31, 2013)

Officials set 2-year study for coal trains in Washington



> SEATTLE (AP) - A consortium of federal, state and local agencies have decided to prepare a 2-year study on the local and statewide impact of exporting coal through a Whatcom County terminal.
> 
> Wednesday's announcement says the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Whatcom County will study the impact at the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, while the state Department of Ecology will examine the effects of expected rail and vessel traffic, including greenhouse gases, statewide and beyond.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 31, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> Officials set 2-year study for coal trains in Washington
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Studies or calls for studies are usually used as a way to look like you are doing something when you really are not or as a way to interfere with someone doing something you don't like until they either give up or run out of money to start it.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 31, 2013)

From Sightline Institute, which makes no secret of its opposition to the coal trains:

Scope of Gateway Pacific Analysis is Bad News for Coal Industry



> Hot off the presses: the three “co-lead” agencies in charge of reviewing the proposed Gateway Pacific coal export terminal at Cherry Point, Washington have published the scope of their review. The major takeaway is that it’s bad news for the coal industry.
> 
> The industry did win an empty victory with the Army Corps of Engineers, the sole federal agency at the table, which opted for a narrow scope of review. But in the end it doesn’t much matter. One of the other lead agencies, the Washington Department of Ecology, is going to require in-depth analysis of four elements that the coal industry had desperately hoped to avoid [including]...A detailed assessment of rail transportation on other representative communities in Washington and a general analysis of out-of-state rail impacts....
> 
> ...


----------



## Anderson (Jul 31, 2013)

Of course, I have to wonder...assuming that those numbers pan out, how much in haulage fees net of expenses would those one to three hours equal for BNSF? If it's enough, I could see BNSF being inclined to kick in for new bridges, etc. to just circumvent some of the affected grade crossings.


----------



## RRUserious (Jul 31, 2013)

Probably way out of the context of the discussion, but the insatiable appetite of American consumers for crap made by cheap Chinese labor is why China has so much currency with which to buy American coal. People have shrugged for decades now when there were warnings of this Chimerica economy. But over and over we are forced into difficult choices because we simply will NOT break our addiction to China at the retail store. So WHAT if our middle class is bumped from manufacturing into fast food and janitorial jobs? They should have educated themselves more!!! But the merrygoround continues, and it comes back as loss of passenger rail to the cargoes that China wants to buy. When you don't get commuter rail, thank Sam Walton for dragging all retailers to China for sourcing their goods.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 31, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Of course, I have to wonder...assuming that those numbers pan out, how much in haulage fees net of expenses would those one to three hours equal for BNSF? If it's enough, I could see BNSF being inclined to kick in for new bridges, etc. to just circumvent some of the affected grade crossings.


Eliminating the grade crossings in Seattle, especially the ones on "major city streets," would be extremely expensive. I don't have any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if reopening the Eastside line -- even though it would require a replacement for the old Wilburton tunnel under I-90 -- would be cheaper.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 31, 2013)

RRUserious said:


> Probably way out of the context of the discussion, but the insatiable appetite of American consumers for crap made by cheap Chinese labor is why China has so much currency with which to buy American coal. People have shrugged for decades now when there were warnings of this Chimerica economy. But over and over we are forced into difficult choices because we simply will NOT break our addiction to China at the retail store. So WHAT if our middle class is bumped from manufacturing into fast food and janitorial jobs? They should have educated themselves more!!! But the merrygoround continues, and it comes back as loss of passenger rail to the cargoes that China wants to buy. When you don't get commuter rail, thank Sam Walton for dragging all retailers to China for sourcing their goods.


I agree with your Main Point but Sam Walton was Big on Selling American Made Goods! Wal-Mart used to prominently display Signs with American Flags and Slogans saying "American Made!" "Buy American!" etc. When Sam passed and the Bean Counters and the Marketing Hustlers took over Wal-Mart it became the Biggest Retail Business in the World by "Stackin' 'em Deep and Sellin' 'em Cheap!"


----------



## RRUserious (Jul 31, 2013)

And the faithful discount buyers never skipped a beat. Foreign made? Who cares?


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 1, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, I have to wonder...assuming that those numbers pan out, how much in haulage fees net of expenses would those one to three hours equal for BNSF? If it's enough, I could see BNSF being inclined to kick in for new bridges, etc. to just circumvent some of the affected grade crossings.
> ...


More about the Eastside rail corridor. http://www.king5.com/home/East-217875461.html


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 1, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Haha. Take those comments on light rail and imagine how residents would react to oil or coal trains going by their property. I am imagining a tad of local resistance.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 1, 2013)

Tribe plays trump card that could kill coal terminal


> The Lummi Indian Tribe is officially opposing the plan to build a massive coal export terminal near Bellingham. It’s a move that could ultimately terminate the terminal and stop controversial coal trains in their tracks.
> 
> The Lummi say the terminal would destroy their ability to fish native waters as they've done for thousands of years. Merle Jefferson comes from a long line of Lummi fishermen. His father and grandfather worked the waters around the Strait of Georgia for salmon and crab, as do 60 other families today.
> ...
> ...


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 1, 2013)

Treaties been broke before. But it will give a true reading of how much energy corporations control our country.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 20, 2013)

What Coal Trains Would Cost Seattle



> ...The quantified losses to Seattle from traffic congestion, property value losses, emergency response impacts, grade-crossing construction, and other impairments are mind boggling, ranging up beyond $500 million.
> 
> The City also contemporaneously published an addendum I wrote explaining that, while the report shows coal exports would be hugely costly to Seattle, it doesn’t go far enough. The truth is even uglier because the report does not provide any cost estimates for coal dust pollution, nor diesel exhaust from locomotives, nor public health impacts from the noise and vibration caused by coal trains. The report also does not tally the localized cost of impacts from global warming nor of air pollution caused by burning the coal.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Harris (Aug 20, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> What Coal Trains Would Cost Seattle
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!" Sheeesh. Next thing we know solar eclipses and volcanic eruptions will be caused by adding another coal train.


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2013)

We seem to be getting just one side of the story. I have no idea what the other side is, that is being alluded to peripherally through innuendos in these articles.

But one thing is for sure.... even if Seattle completely blocks passage of coal through it, that will not stop the Asian countries from burning this amount of coal. they will just get it from elsewhere or they will get the same coal via a different route.

At the end of the day though BNSF is primarily in the freight transport business, and it is natural for them to try to enhance revenues. It would also be natural for Seattle to try to protect its interests. I think the effect on passenger trains which are willing to pay for the true cost of infrastructure supporting them would be minimal at best. Yes, of course, the hope that the freight companies would not be able to get enough freight traffic to fill up their tracks thus allowing passenger trains to get a cheaper ride, would be entirely thwarted.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 20, 2013)

jis said:


> We seem to be getting just one side of the story. I have no idea what the other side is, that is being alluded to peripherally through innuendos in these articles.


I've been trying to focus on the numbers, but it's been very difficult to find unbiased sources. This issue is so closely intertwined with so many other hot-button issues -- fossil fuels, exports, limited rail capacity, sea-level rise, and so on -- that it's almost impossible to figure out what may really be happening.

Our state's rail advocacy group, All Aboard Washington, has stayed out of the controversy, and I don't blame them. What little passenger rail service we have is completely dependent on the state (to pay for it) and BNSF (to provide the slots), so I think AAWA recognizes that everyone has to play well together if we want to keep the Cascades and Sounder services running. (I'm a member of AAWA, but am not on their board, so I don't speak for the group in any way.)


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 20, 2013)

Can't believe how pathetically nonsupportive for rail Americans are. Imagine debates like this in England or Japan or France. Of course, they get all their fossil fuels by tanker. They certainly can't _export _any. But brainwashing the people with commercial jive is also less successful outside our borders. Our education system fails to teach civics to kids, and the results are painfully obvious in adulthood.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 20, 2013)

George Harris said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > What Coal Trains Would Cost Seattle
> ...


Now George, there are Real Enviromental problems because of Fossil Fuels including frequent Pipeline, Ship and Rail Spills, we all remember the Exxon Valdez up in Alaska and the BP Fiasco in the Gulf, wonder if the people who live there aren"t Concerned, even Worried??  Well all be gone when the Fossil Fuel runs out but our Kids and Grandkids hopefully will be able to maintain our Quality of Life with the help of alternate energy even though it will have to be provided by the Giant Corporations, due to the Huge Expense and the Sheer Number of People in the World!! This isnt a Political Issue, it effects us all!  YMMV


----------



## jis (Aug 20, 2013)

CHamilton said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > We seem to be getting just one side of the story. I have no idea what the other side is, that is being alluded to peripherally through innuendos in these articles.
> ...


It seems to me that the analysis can broadly be separated into three lines with progressively greater distance from immediate issues as one goes down the list:
1. Congestion caused by additional trains on existing infrastructure, which affects access to the waterfront in Seattle absent any mitigation, and also gobbles up track capacity that could potentially be used for passenger rail. The primary focus here should be on discussing reasonable mitigations with BNSF. The City Government needs to be the lead agency for this since as you mention neither the rail advocates nor Amtrak are well positioned to battle this.

2. Effect on the economy short and medium term in terms of jobs and trade income to be balanced against the costs involved. I don;t have unbiased figures nor know where to get such from to form a considered opinion.

3. Long term issues about global warming etc. I am dubious about blocking Coal exports having any effect at all on that. It has to be dealt with at a different level, but at a place where the US has been singularly uncooperative on the world stage. And no it is not just the big bad corporations, it is the big collection of the little people in the US who are equally guilty.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 20, 2013)

Jis, here is a news piece with at least some of "the other side."

Coal train supporters accuse McGinn of burying study



> SEATTLE -- Controversy is brewing over a study just released on the possible effects of coal trains rumbling through Seattle on their way to deliver coal bound for China. The study was released more than a month ago, but the largest supporter of the coal train plan is accusing Mayor Mike McGinn of sitting on the report because it didn't prove to be a slam dunk in his favor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 20, 2013)

The "benefits" are hardly any mystery. I mean every single fossil fuel proposal is about money and jobs. Question is what goes on the altar in appeasing the God of Money and Jobs? And how is the money part divvied up? 99 percent to investors, 1 percent to a few workers who get jobs? I don't think the advocates ever want to address the historical record on such matters.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 21, 2013)

There aren't a whole lot of details in this NY Times piece, but it explains the battle lines between groups on either side of the controversy.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 21, 2013)

jis said:


> We seem to be getting just one side of the story. I have no idea what the other side is, that is being alluded to peripherally through innuendos in these articles.
> But one thing is for sure.... even if Seattle completely blocks passage of coal through it, that will not stop the Asian countries from burning this amount of coal. they will just get it from elsewhere or they will get the same coal via a different route.


It would be "from elsewhere", and don't be so sure about your economic theories.
Most Asian coal burning is coal from... Asia and Australia. Both are slowly getting more expensive. North American coal was looked to as an alternative, but with the transportation costs as they are for the "long" route (via Prince Rupert), it isn't that cost-competitive.

Transportation cost increases feed into the final cost of coal and higher transportation costs can lead countries such as China to put more money into alternatives. (There are some advantages to central planning, and one of them is that there's one guy who can declare that China is going to put money into hydro or solar rather than coal, and when he declares it, it happens. That guy is currently is not stupid and can read prices.)


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 21, 2013)

jis said:


> 3. Long term issues about global warming etc. I am dubious about blocking Coal exports having any effect at all on that. It has to be dealt with at a different level, but at a place where the US has been singularly uncooperative on the world stage. And no it is not just the big bad corporations, it is the big collection of the little people in the US who are equally guilty.


The main reason blocking coal exports would have little effect is that the coal would be used domestically. ....Or would it? There are no new coal-burning plants being built in the US.


----------



## jis (Aug 21, 2013)

True, but export of Coal via the Norfolk area port facilities seems to continue unabated to somewhere. Afterall it is those empties that regularly delays the eastbound Cardinal. And shipment of coal to somewhere from Powder River Basin seems not to be easing off appreciably either. So someone continues to use whatever is being produced. So I was wondering whether this whole Seattle thing is merely one of a route selection, and not of actual volume of movement. I doubt that Seattle is the only port capable of exporting Coal on the west coast.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 21, 2013)

Politicians Favorite Words when Running for office: : "Clean Coal!" There is Not such a Thing, a Complete Misnomer! Even Texas is not building anymore Coal Powered Energy Plants, the Governor wanted 24 more and the Republican Legislature Voted it down!

The term "New Speak" was introduced in the Novel "1984"! The above is "New Speak" or as the Mad Hatter said in Alice in Wonderland: "..Up is Down and Down is Up..!"


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 22, 2013)

"Clean Coal" is like "Clean Diesel". Clean diesel differs from conventional diesel basically due to sulphur content. That relates to smog creation. But clean diesel does not emit any less of anything else. "Clean Coal" probably refers to sulphur content, too. I guess if sulphur was the world's number 1 problem, its absence or partial absence would be significant. But decades of catalytic converters have pushed sulphur into a backseat to other emissions. But every word gets picked up and misused. Like "empowering women" by producing their versions of bad products. Like making natural gas "green" by pretending the dirtier stuff will disappear. No, burnt gas will just be COMBINED with all the "pre-green" fuels. Time after time, they are running a scam. And lots of people jump on the bandwagon in hopes of some personal reward.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 29, 2013)

BNSF Railway Co. upgrade to help state compete in exports, officials say
Kristi Pihl, Tri-City Herald



> Adding more jobs and helping the state compete globally for export trade are among the benefits to expanding Washington's rail system to accommodate a proposed increase in coal traffic, officials say.
> "The competition is intense," Richard Davis, president of the Washington Research Council, told about 20 Tri-City leaders Thursday. "We have an opportunity, I think, now to take advantage of a once-in-a-generation expansion of export activity."
> Coal, along with agriculture, already represents a major portion of what is exported from Washington ports, Davis said.
> A rail expansion by BNSF Railway Co. would benefit agriculture and other industries in the state that depend on rail to transport their goods, Davis said. It would help create a faster, more reliable system, he said.
> ...


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 29, 2013)

The Evergreen State, of course, wants ABOVE ALL to insure more coal gets over to the worst polluting countries in the world. It's such a natural fit with their policies like banning plastic bags. These hucksters are used car salesmen in expensive suits.


----------



## CHamilton (Dec 17, 2013)

Board: BNSF can require coal-dust suppression on rail cars




> SEATTLE (AP) - The federal Surface Transportation Board has decided that BNSF Railway can require coal shippers to use certain methods to reduce the amount of coal dust lost from rail cars leaving coal mines in Wyoming and Montana.
> In a decision last Wednesday, the board said shippers challenging the railway's coal-loading rules had not shown the measures were unreasonable.


----------



## Nathanael (Dec 18, 2013)

jis said:


> We seem to be getting just one side of the story. I have no idea what the other side is, that is being alluded to peripherally through innuendos in these articles.
> 
> But one thing is for sure.... even if Seattle completely blocks passage of coal through it, that will not stop the Asian countries from burning this amount of coal. they will just get it from elsewhere or they will get the same coal via a different route.


Actually, this sounds obvious, but it isn't clear at all. Turns out transport costs are a surprisingly large part of the cost of coal.
If this were as dopey as "Port of LA vs. Port of Long Beach", with an obvious, easy alternate route, it would mean nothing. However, there are also fights against a larger coal terminal in Port Rupert, and there are also fights against larger coal terminals in Australia, and so on and so on.

China itself has pulled back on expansions of its coal mines... China is actually shifting away from coal, and small increases in transport costs can accelerate that change.

I certainly don't blame BNSF for advocating for more freight transport, but looking at it holistically, stopping the construction of enough coal terminals does help kill demand for coal.


----------



## Nathanael (Dec 18, 2013)

"However, there are also fights against a larger coal terminal in Port Rupert,"

I meant "Prince Rupert"...


----------



## Nathanael (Dec 18, 2013)

Aargh, responding to months-old posts by accident. Sorry.


----------



## gmushial (Dec 18, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Aargh, responding to months-old posts by accident. Sorry.


That's ok - it's still and maybe even more so a relevant topic: now with the KXL being delayed or maybe not ever being built, and 900,000 bbl/yr of crude are being (or going to be 1Q2014) sent via rail instead [1500 100-tanker-car trains/yr] ... the congestion is only going to get worse.


----------



## CHamilton (May 20, 2014)

Prospects for coal exports dim in the Northwest 


> The Sierra Club's campaign organizer has been fighting to block a slate of proposed Oregon coal export projects. And the Morrow Pacific project looks like it's in trouble. If it fails to win state approval, it's possible that coal exports in the Pacific Northwest will never materialize -- a move that would bruise the domestic coal industry, which is trying to ship to growing Asian markets.
> It's also a place where environmental activists see a chance to have a say on climate policy when lawmakers on the other side of the country have stalled....
> 
> In a recent surprise move, Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber, who is running for a fourth term, said his Department of State Lands would decide by May 31 whether to issue Australian company Ambre Energy a permit it needs to build the terminal.
> ...


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 5, 2014)

China's planned shift off coal puts $21 billion investment at risk: report



> (Reuters) - China's increasing efforts to shift away from coal to cleaner fuels could put annual investments of around $21 billion at risk of being stranded, a research report estimated on Thursday.
> China has relied heavily on coal to fuel its economic growth over the past three decades, and it now burns half the coal that the world consumes each year.
> But a nationwide pollution crisis, increasing water scarcity and growing concerns over climate change mean Beijing wants to shift to cleaner energy sources. Analysts expect China's coal consumption to peak sometime between 2020 and 2030.


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 12, 2014)

Rail industry still benefits from coal even though consumption has fallen


> Coal consumption is down but the prominence of the rail industry hasn't changed, the Energy Information Administration said Wednesday.
> 
> 
> Most of the recent news about rail shipments of fossil fuels has been focused on domestic crude oil, whose increased production caused an 83 percent surge in rail shipments last year compared with the year before.
> ...


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 16, 2014)

This is likely to put a huge dent in coal exports.

Beijing To Ban Coal By 2020





> The Chinese state press agency, Xinhua, has reported that Beijing is looking to ban coal use by 2020 — a massive development in a country known for smoggy cities and developing world energy-usage.
> 
> “Beijing will ban coal sales and use in its six main districts and other regions by the end of 2020 to cut air pollution, local authorities said on Monday,” according to Xinhua...
> 
> ...


----------



## neroden (Aug 17, 2014)

I read a very in-depth analysis of this by a China analyst. Unfortunately I can't find it!

Anyway, here are the background facts:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/09/313747/chinas-new-plan-for-solar-power-supremacy/

The *analysis* that the China analyst made was this. He said that the solar energy guy in the bureaucracy in China had gone to the Central Committee prior to the last five-year plan with a plan to build a huge solar industry and repower the country. They had been skeptical and hadn't believed that it would work (just like everywhere else). But the solar energy guy asked for a mere 10 billion dollars -- and here's the key point -- that was pocket change from the point of view of the Central Committee (they're building gigantic ghost towns -- they're spending huge amounts of money), so they just gave it to him.

Five years later, they're developing the next five-year plan, but this time they *believe* him. (After all, solar is now a huge export industry for China.) So they're going all-in for solar now, putting in over 100 billion dollars.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 17, 2014)

Meanwhile, so-called "clean coal" is in trouble.

Promise of a ‘clean coal’ future far from reality



> FutureGen hopes to remake an aging Illinois power plant into a showcase for “clean coal” by capturing carbon-dioxide emissions and storing those underground. But the troubled effort has come to reflect broader problems in the effort to develop cleaner energy technologies.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 18, 2014)

Oregon Department of State Lands rejects Ambre Energy coal export permit, dealing major blow



> Oregon's Department of State Lands on Monday dealt a serious blow to Ambre Energy's proposed coal terminal, denying a key permit needed for a project to export 8.8 million tons of coal annually to Asia.
> 
> The state agency said despite a two-year review, Australia-based Ambre Energy hadn't done enough to analyze alternatives that would avoid harming tribal fisheries at the Port of Morrow in Boardman, where the company had proposed to build a dock to load coal onto barges.


----------



## CHamilton (Aug 21, 2014)

Everett Herald editorial:

Coal terminals' death rattle


----------



## KwikEddie (Aug 27, 2014)

Where there is a will there is a way.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/08/21/Coal-Terminal-Approved/


----------

