It's not affecting the price of <electricity>, just the price of the
<fuel> used to make it... :) (Word of Rod, apparently.)
I'll add that coal will probably go up some too if oil prices stay high
-- I've not looked at markets recently so don't know what its done so
far but as you point out, fuel prices tend to track.
I do agree oil will come back down fairly near pre-Katrina levels at
least and I tend to think Steve Forbes is right that it will fall over
the next year.
You would be surprised. It takes diesel to run the equipment to mine
the coal, and diesel to run the trains to transport the coal to market,
and diesel to distribute the coal to local jobbers. Of course, the
price of coal is determined by mining and transportation costs, so DUH!
Nope. I've been watching it for the best part of half a century now.
Wrong with open cut coal mines with associated power stations.
Those are mostly electrically powered. Even with underground
mining, the strip mining machinery is electrically powered as well.
In spades with the coal washing and movement of the coal to the
power station on conveyer belts etc.
The most efficient power stations are sited at the coal mine.
Basically because its a lot cheaper to move the electricity
over fractional MV power lines than to move the coal around.
What was clearly being discussed was ELECTRICAL
POWER COSTS. No 'local jobbers' involved with those.
Not necessarily with transportation or the mining.
Not in the states you haven't. No one gives a shit about something you
Coming from a family that has worked in both deep and strip mines, you
are full of shit. Draglines, front-end loaders, rock trucks run on
diesel. Most on-site conveyers at strip mines run on diesel engines.
Even many underground operations use diesel shuttle cars. I hauled
diesel to strip mines for years. What's your real-world experience?
Only in your drug induced world, wanker. Strip mine and deep mines are
located where the coal is, power plants are located where there is
water for cooling. Has nothing to do with what's most efficient.
The power company isn't going to absorb the cost of coal
transportation, douchbag. The coal doesn't fly through the air to the
generating station by some magic power. The local generating station
has over 100 trucks per day hauling coal to it. Trucks owned by coal
companies and owner-operators. Trucks who's fuel cost has tripled in
the last few years. I've also hauled enough diesel into the fly ash
disposal area of the generating station to know what goes on there.
Again, your real-world experience is?
Wrong. As always.
And even with dinosaur operations that still use oil in those
areas, even someone as stupid as you should be able to
work out that its a tiny part of the power station's costs,
so even a doubling of the price of oil wont have much effect
on the cost of the electricity, let alone double it, fuckwit.
Right again, I know the most efficient ones dont run on diesel engines.
Only in fucked dinosaur operations.
Yep, ALL of ours are.
And many are, fuckwit. ALL of ours are.
Coal aint just used in power stations, fuckwit.
Yes, we haul quite a bit of coal by train, but thats
for export, and the cost of the fuel to haul it is a tiny
part of the total costs of the coal mining export operation.
And the price of the coal they get has sweet fuck all to do
with the cost of oil, its driven by entirely different factors.
And we just happen to be the biggest
coal exporter in the entire world too.
Yep. In any efficient operation, anyway.
And the cost of the fuel in those trucks
is a tiny part of the cost of the coal anyway.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to compare the volume
of coal coming out of the mine and the volume of diesel that goes into
the mine to produce that vastly greater volume of coal too.
In spades with coal trains, even someone as stupid as you should
be able to compare the size of the diesel tank on the engines with
the volume of coal in the train as well, if someone was actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
Not in a single one of our efficient coal mines, fuckwit.
You're lying about there not being any of those there, fuckwit.
AGAIN, you're lying about there not being any of those there, fuckwit.
Wrong again. We've got enough of a clue to organise coal
mining efficiently, unlike you stupid clowns that cant even
manage to organise the aftermath of a hurricane effectively.
Done like a fucking dinner, as always.
Not necessarily--there are some "mine-mouth" plants, certainly, and they
were built there as you noted--because that's where the coal was and
they were at least reasonably well located to where power was/is
needed. Utah Huntington, for one where we had online analyzer at the
mine exit checking the ash content down the mountain ahead of the
TVA, otoh, has one of the most-effecient plants in the US (Bull Run) and
59 total and not a one of them is situated any where near the mine.
This is the norm.
I was just wondering what all this has to do with coal as a home
heating option? It seems to me that in areas where wood is scarce,
coal is still a viable heat source. Are there EPA approved coal
burning stoves? I know the old coal technology was pretty dirty, and
spread sulfur compounds all over. Is coal still viable for home heat?
Nothing. Its a subthread discussing the claim that the price of electricity
will be increasing with the cost of oil. Of course it wont because very
little electricity in the first world comes from oil anymore. It comes from
coal and even when some diesel is used in the coal mining, its a very
small part of the total energy that is turned into electricity.
Sure, and makes a lot more sense than say the
terminal stupidity of burning corn for heating.
It should be feasible to design a decent system for burning it now.
Dunno if that is available commercially tho.
Interesting tidbit re: online coal ash analyzers and power plants--
We had only a few power plants which saw a need for online ash analyzers
as opposed to a very high number of mines, prep plants, loadouts, etc.
Reason--every plant was trying to protect itself from the crappy coal
the mine would try to dump on them if they weren't monitoring it
continuously. Every one of these was a wholly-owned operation--the mine
and power plant were both owned by the same company or holding company.
The mine manager was being evaluated on production, the plant manager on
his different objectives. Same boss in some cases, far different
results of what would generate the most personal gain.
Some ways, mine-mouth plants have built-in inefficiencies, too....
Sometimes known as the law of unforeseen consequences
Sure, but those are clearly a lot less important than the
intrinsic inefficiency of having to cart the coal considerable
distances from the mine to the power plant, rather than
moving the electrical power over the distance instead.
It isn't so "clear" when there's three miles of beltline directly into
the plant that has coal already on it that is far substandard...
Utah Huntington initially put the analyzer on site -- when ash content
exceeded the setpoint, an alarm was raised and a signal was run also
back up the mountain to the mine. It wasn't long before they learned to
run up to the limit and exceed it because by the time the alarm came
they had just gotten rid of the entire volume of product on the
belt--something over three miles.
It took two years and going all the way to the Chairman of the overall
company to get the muscle to move the analyzer to the other end of the
belt. Politics being what it is, the mine managed somehow to reverse
the decision and last I knew the analyzer was back at the plant and the
problem still existed (and I suppose it probably still does).
The result is that the plant doesn't pay much in transportation costs,
but pays heavily in reduced thermal efficiency and excess maintenance
costs on pulverizers, etc. Perhaps the population of plants we saw were
the "odd men out" so to speak, but every one of them had similar
institutional problems regarding the captive customer that were so
entrenched that the mines didn't perform well at all. Those plant
managers would have gladly bought contract coal and had overall better
plant economics by avoiding the thermal derating and excess maintenance
and minimizing forced outage time.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about the various plants, there was one
group that didn't quite fit the mold...SaskPower which was lignite--they
hauled lignite w/ scrapers from the surface mine and one analyzer was at
the storage site pit. A sampling of loads were dumped there and
analyzed that fed back to the mine as a crude "near-real-time"
operations monitor. The problem there was that the lignite ash was
mostly a clay-ish material that was much more difficult to monitor than
typical bituminous coals where the ash is mostly rock and other
contaminants introduced during mining (intrinsic ash is usually not the
Anyway, just commenting that from what I saw from working to keep the
analyzers going for the utilities, the mine-mouth plants had their own
operational problems that traded one problem for another--good site
management over both the mine and the plant simultaneously would have
resolved most of these issues, granted. But for some reason, I never
saw an organization which actually operated that way.
Yes, necessarily with the MOST EFFICIENT power
stations in the sense I was using the word efficient.
And that is the most efficient approach,
transporting the electricity, not the coal.
Using MV transmission lines is very efficient indeed,
the only real downside is that they dont look that great.
Thats is talking about a different efficiency. I was clearly talking
about the efficiency of moving the coal to the power station or
moving the electricity from the power station. Different animal entirely.
Not with the efficiency I was clearly talking about.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.