Coal to the rescue (Midwest: homes, gated, living in)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The decision by the FERC doesn't seem like it will do the coal industry many favors going forward. I'm not sure if the decision is enough to set-back the current rebounding momentum of the industry but I guess time will tell.
The real impact comes from the new direction of the current administration. The courts are bound to render decisions based upon the law, but the regulations of the EPA is where the direction of the industry will react and adjust. Having a lessened regulatory burden will take time to implement the changes in the energy industry ... it's an expensive and time consuming process.
Of local note to me is that my T&D co-op company, High West Energy ... had forecast in 2015 huge increases of energy costs each year for the following 3 years based upon the projections of Tri-State Energy (our energy generator) for compliance with EPA regulations. We got those compounded rate increases in 2016 & 2017. HWE just sent out their 2018 rate sheet and it didn't have the 2018 forecast rate increase. They were able to "hold the line" because the forecast increased energy costs have been rolled back for 2018, directly attributed to the lessened regulatory compliance costs. This is a huge result from the new administration/EPA policies.
Sunsprit, why does Wyoming continue to shun wind energy options?
Don't know where you're getting this misinformation. On the books right now are substantial NEW wind energy projects, with construction already or planned this year to start.
The amount of energy that could be created would be a boom to the state and the need for coal would still have a place. Is it rooted in the fear of the unknown and newness?
Sorry, but this is just more of the same nonsense you've pursued. A very FALSE PREMISE. Wyoming has some of the highest wind energy density in the USA, but it's to the point that most of the equipment hasn't been developed to deal with the higher wind velocities that present. I've seen the damage to equipment here ... blown off blades, overheated generators and similar equipment failures because the industry hasn't built much equipment that can deal with our conditions. But it's slowly coming around and improved equipment with better uptime and durability is showing up.
With the vast open spaces and wind energy available, Wyoming has most certainly embraced that technology. What remains, however, is the development and construction of the Transmission infrastructure to efficiently and cost effectively deliver that energy to the end users out of the state.
As I've mentioned in so many other threads, I'm a private pilot/aircraft owner that travels this region extensively at a couple thousand feet above ground level. On a typical recreational trip such as SE Wyoming to Saratoga (one of my favorite destinations for a good soak), I get to see hundreds of wind generators in operation. There are many of these wind farms that won't be seen if you're driving around the state on the main highways ... because they are remote from those roads. Unless you take the back roads to those sites, you wouldn't know that they're there, they're that far from the general landscape. Head up by Rock River through to Arlington area and there's a couple thousand wind generators, for example.
From what you posted, it sounds like Wyoming is looking more into oil and fracking in what I assume is a hedge bet in case the coal industry doesn't recover to the levels being projected.
I believe you've got a wrong perspective on this. It isn't a "hedge". Wyoming is looking to provide energy to satisfy the demands of the market. If oil/fracking helps meet that demand, as it has for awhile in this state, then it will pursue that. Of course, at the same time, other extractive industries continue production and seek increased economic growth ... along with the supporting industries that facilitate that activity.
Again, what presents here and is so widely ignored is that 50% of Wyoming is public lands (mostly Federal) which preclude the use of those lands for development by gov't policy. IOW, many places that could be efficiently developed for energy use ... either by production or part of the energy transmission business have been taken off the table. IF you want Wyoming to be a source of energy, then you've got to allow effective transmission of that power to the end users. But what we've got is a denial of those lands for some of the most efficient transmission lines routes. Can't have your cake and eat it too, right? Excoriate Wyoming for not being a big enough renewable energy producer but then deny it the ability to deliver the power so generated doesn't equal Wyoming not embracing renewable energy production ... you have to look at the whole picture.
The Obama administration was particularly aggressive about shutting down energy development in this state with the shut-down of oil leases on federal lands. We saw the immediate and direct results in towns such as Rawlins when the federal leases were stopped by that administration; formerly a booming area, Rawlins economy cratered when the energy business shut down a few years ago. You couldn't have found a more dramatic example of how effective that administration was in destroying lives/local economies intentionally ... and it was but one of the areas in Wyoming so affected. One can look at Gillette for another example of the administration's destruction, or Casper.
Perhaps you've ignored or are unaware of the directives of Agenda 21? This was a key policy guidance for the Obama administration at every level of gov't. The goal is to depopulate the region but in actual practice to turn it into a playground for the entitled few. Orwell had a very good grasp of how the elites operate. There's a bigger picture than just looking at local economics here in Wyoming ... and the fly-over country of the region. UN Heritage sites are but a small manifestation of what's really going on.
Actually I was unaware of the high wind problems/damage you mentioned or the exact number of wind turbines in Wyoming. I apologize for implying, if I did, that the state didn't have any or something similar. I knew that there were some wind turbines in Wyoming but not a total. Perhaps I should've mentioned that in my first post. Thanks for the quick explanation of the need for expanded transmission infrastructure to help future growth. I knew that the Federal Government has had a stance against development on government owned land but I didn't know the extent of limiting a transmission line route.
I know that the current administration is wanting to push coal back to the front but the current market conditions are still favoring the cheaper natural gas as the main source of energy production. Along with the number of power companies that have already converted a number of their plants to natural gas. They would need to either recoup that investment or be forced by market manipulation before going back to coal.
Actually I was unaware of the high wind problems/damage you mentioned or the exact number of wind turbines in Wyoming. I apologize for implying, if I did, that the state didn't have any or something similar. I knew that there were some wind turbines in Wyoming but not a total. Perhaps I should've mentioned that in my first post. Thanks for the quick explanation of the need for expanded transmission infrastructure to help future growth. I knew that the Federal Government has had a stance against development on government owned land but I didn't know the extent of limiting a transmission line route.
I know that the current administration is wanting to push coal back to the front but the current market conditions are still favoring the cheaper natural gas as the main source of energy production. Along with the number of power companies that have already converted a number of their plants to natural gas. They would need to either recoup that investment or be forced by market manipulation before going back to coal.
but natural gas plants need pipe lines, transport by rail and truck , you might as well haul coal, it easier to stock pile.
I'm usually not a fan of pipe lines as I would rather see the long-term jobs of hauling materials by rail and truck.
We have substantial natty gas storage facilities in WY. Midstream companies and utilities sign long term
contracts for storage or "park" gas for short term. You cannot transport natural gas via truck or rail.
NGL's-gas byproducts such as butane and propane are trucked, but natty gas must be cryogenically
altered into a liquid form to be transported in containers such as ships, and then reverted into gas form.
Pipelines provide plenty of long-term jobs in the west. Many small ranch operators are able to make it
with the husband going to work at a compressor station while the wife runs the ranch. They will often
home-school so the kids can help on the ranch as well. This has kept young families in agriculture as
the husband's job provides health insurance, retirement, lots of other benefits. The pipeline jobs are
essential to the economies of many small towns in WY, and even more, MT. Not only can the young
people stay home town, but the higher wages provide the spending power to support local businesses.
Like coal we send to power plants across the country, our pipelines carry gas nationwide. From the
Opal hub in southwest WY, the Ruby and Williams Northwest pipelines supply Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Kern River and Questar supply Utah, Nevada and California. From the Wamsutter area,
Southern Star, Kinder Morgan, and Tallgrass ship gas all over the Midwest and east as far as Ohio.
We don't shave off mountains to mine coal. Our coal mines are open pit and the majority are located
out in the Powder River/Thunder basin where you wouldn't know they are there unless you go out to
them. Only WyoDak and Eagle Butte are even near population. They are much safer mines than underground and capable of producing much more coal at lower cost. Coal has all sorts of additional
uses not related to generating electricity. Just try doing without it.
As sunsprit mentioned, the magic windmills don't run when the wind is too strong. In eastern WY,
we generally have either no wind at all or 35 mph plus. 60 isn't unheard of-that's when the semi's
are tipping over on the highways. I read that the wind turbines operate between 12 and 28 mph.
Only certain areas in WY have consistent wind. Wind producers don't want to pay the kind of taxes
our extractive industries pay-which for better or worse, are how we maintain our government and
low tax burden. Wind producers do not pay a prevailing wage that is as high as coal or midstream.
Actually I was unaware of the high wind problems/damage you mentioned or the exact number of wind turbines in Wyoming.
the limitations of the equipment in Wyoming conditions is simply a matter of the smaller marketplace that this area represents to the designer/manufacturers. For the most part, they've been focusing on producing equipment that could efficiently extract energy from the fairly light to moderate winds that prevail in most marketplaces. Bring in Wyoming's 100+ mph winds with sustained instant wind shifts in the gusts of even stronger velocities and the equipment wasn't designed to handle these energy inputs.
A quick search on-line and you'll find pictures of broken blades and blown up generators. Pretty much limited to regions such as Wyoming with the high winds. The breezes we frequently have here would qualify as hurricanes in your part of the USA. Watch the Wyoming road reports and you'll see instances where highways are closed or restricted with 70-80 mph wind gusts ... and that's at ground level. Higher up where the turbines operate, it's even stronger.
As mentioned, I fly over wind farms and frequently see a significant number out of service, blades not turning while the rest of the wind farm is spinning away. And yes, I'm quite aware of the winds aloft when in my plane. For example, last Friday I flew to Saratoga. Got 120 mph over the ground while the plane was flying 150 mph, a significant headwind. Came home and the westerly winds aloft had increased somewhat .... was seeing 195-202! mph over the ground on the GPS. Made for quite a sporting ride in my little bird, seeing the ground zip by so quickly.
I apologize for implying, if I did, that the state didn't have any or something similar.
Your wrote: "Sunsprit, why does Wyoming continue to shun wind energy options? The amount of energy that could be created would be a boom to the state and the need for coal would still have a place. Is it rooted in the fear of the unknown and newness?"
We appear to have a substantial difference in the use of the English language here. Implying? you're kidding me, right?
You not only asserted that Wyoming has and "continue to shun", but then went on to softly assert your perception that us ign'rant peeples out here in Wyoming, hicks that we must be in the light of your beneficent infinite superior wisdom founded in science and reason ... were "rooted in the fear of the unknown". You couldn't have been more directly insulting, but your attitude and point were clearly made.
I'll suggest here that your east coast mindset regarding folk out here might benefit from some real research into the problems of the energy industry instead of your paradigm of who and what presents here. As well, how so many of the problems are the direct intended result of political maneuvers by the intelligentsia from your part of the USA. Again, I'll refer you to Agenda 21 ... which has been the overarching guidance of their activities over the last few decades.
For the most part, Wyoming folk welcome the development of our natural resources. Yes, there's a few NIMBY's here ... but for the most part, with natural resource development being the key to the local economies, Wyoming aggressively seeks to sell what we have to sell. The restrictions upon doing so typically originate back in DC or in the court of public opinion on both coasts with their enclaves of smarter better intentioned folk than the hicks they perceive live here. Primarily, for their own selfish reasons, they'd prefer that Wyoming be constrained to being their recreational playground ... and they sincerely believe that 99% of Wyoming is Yellowstone Nat'l Park type lands, so should be preserved for their use on that basis. Of course, they want the locals to be here to serve their whims at the lowest cost possible when they're here on vacations, but the rest of the time their attitude is "let 'em eat cake" ... instead of having an opportunity to have a more productive economy through industry. Perhaps you don't know that most of Wyoming is not YNP terrain/vistas ... it's a much harsher high altitude plains state for much of the land area. Comes with a different type of harsh beauty that either calls to you ... or doesn't; most people will find they don't like what presents here in comparison to "back home" for climate/terrain/weather patterns/winds, or the vast distances needed for the basics that they require as part of normal living. Such as access to medical, shopping, and entertainment, let alone restaurants or similar businesses catering to disposable income delights.
I knew that there were some wind turbines in Wyoming but not a total. Perhaps I should've mentioned that in my first post. Thanks for the quick explanation of the need for expanded transmission infrastructure to help future growth. I knew that the Federal Government has had a stance against development on government owned land but I didn't know the extent of limiting a transmission line route.
Nor, apparently, were you aware that approx. 50% of the land mass of Wyoming is under such federal control. Since this doesn't happen in the eastern USA, most folk I've met from that area assume that similar control/poliices; ie, none ... are in place out here. Couldn't be further from the truth of the matter.
More specifically, Wyoming's development has been tied to the eastern money'ed set since territorial days. Indeed, I have a "sportsman's gazateer" from the 1880's where the territory hunting and fishing was touted to the "sportsmen" back east, naming locations/guides/encampments accessible to the wealthy folk that could afford the leisure time and journey to enjoy the regional activities. As well, much of Wyoming's early ranching development and tourist industry was spurred on by the Wall Street crowd seeking to acquire huge tracts of land here for private recreational enjoyment ... where a money'ed guy would even put ads in the NYC papers encouraging like minded sportsmen to invest in their recreational lands for private use. Not too dissimilar from the hunting/fishing clubs or lodges in the Adirondacks, vestiges which still exist today of private lands for exclusive use by the gentry (see Adirondacks League or similar outfits in upstate NY).
I know that the current administration is wanting to push coal back to the front but the current market conditions are still favoring the cheaper natural gas as the main source of energy production. Along with the number of power companies that have already converted a number of their plants to natural gas. They would need to either recoup that investment or be forced by market manipulation before going back to coal.
And there may yet be some coal powered projects back on the boards in the changing environment.
A client of mine was the CEO/manager of a design/build company that was in the powerplant biz. Very unhappy at lunch one day, he told me that his career and job were on the line that day. Seems that their most recent big client had thrown in the towel on a coal fired plant here in the face of ever more daunting Obama EPA requirements. They'd already spent $300,000,000 on the design/engineering, EPA compliance, permitting, and legal fees.
What had happened was a well planned project was being squashed by the administration. Every time the engineering/design or permitting was complied with ... at great additional expense ... the EPA and associated agencies would "move the goalposts". So the plant would have to be redesigned and reengineered to achieve compliance. Then they'd have the go-rounds with the EPA again to certify the project again. By the time the next certification phase was approved, NEW requirements were issued by the EPA. Yet more stringent, requiring cutting edge development of technology to comply ... the company repeatedly found the solutions to meet the requirements or new environmental impact studies. Until the last go-round when the EPA came up with yet more stringent requirements which the company could not find solutions to comply.
The only reason that the power company was able to drop $300,000,000 into the project ... only to walk away empty handed ... was that they were a non-profit cooperative and were able to pass those costs on to their rate-payers over the years with increased costs per KWH and demand charges.
Demand charges? maybe you don't have those in WV. There's a base fee based upon the KW rate of use and time of day. For example, my 480v3ph power for my irrigation system has a $500/month "demand charge" for the pleasure of having 40KW of energy available when I want it 24/7. That's exclusive from the KWH cost. In some months of my irrigation season, it's not uncommon for the demand charge to dwarf the energy consumption cost. All it takes is 15 minutes of use in the time frame of a billing month and I've triggered the demand charge for the month. I had two years where my last cutting required that I move my pivot to be able to cut/rake/bale the area underneath the pivot. Ran the pivot a total of less than a 1/2 hour to get the access I needed. Poof! That'll be $500 for the demand charge and $2 for the energy KWH used. Would have been more cost effective to have just left that hay uncut, unharvested from under the pivot ... turned out our cows to graze it.
I can escape the demand charge by going into a restricted time of use to a fraction of the day. Still comes with a $60 meter fee, but I only pay consumption per KWH used. Must sign up in advance for my entire irrigation season, so it's a crap shoot from the beginning. Maybe I'll need to use more hours of irrigation than the limited time allows. Maybe I won't. Some years, it's saved me a few thousand bucks. Some years ... well, it's been more expensive when I had to run during the "off hours" and the KWH billing rate went up 350%.
My point here is that there's many issues affecting energy development and use which aren't commonly revealed in the hysterical press with limited knowledge of how the business really works ... or the political control forces that have their own agenda re population and land use.
There is such a wealth of information to be learned from these continually-evolving forum-threads that a mere 30 minutes-worth of it makes going back an watching & listening to almost anything else coming from the 'talking heads' on ANY of the major news-outlets (on TV) seem like a re-run of Romper-Room, Magic Garden & Sesame Street.
but natural gas plants need pipe lines, transport by rail and truck , you might as well haul coal, it easier to stock pile.
But coal is filthy.
Here in the northeast we're quite sick of coal plants in the midwest and west depositing mercury into our clean waters. Some states are taking the matter to court. You're not going to see new coal plants built in new England, we don't want it. Almost no power in the northeast comes from coal and none in my state. We don't need it either, we have access to hydro power from Quebec.
Here in the northeast we're quite sick of coal plants in the midwest and west depositing mercury into our clean waters. Some states are taking the matter to court. You're not going to see new coal plants built in new England, we don't want it. Almost no power in the northeast comes from coal and none in my state. We don't need it either, we have access to hydro power from Quebec.
the original story was about coal filing the gap during the east recent cold spell as all other sources fell short, including the grid....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
