Why would you do this ?

[Samilcar]

Another thing to think of, most Western U.S. coal mines are in the Rocky Mountains. In shipping these long coal trains to points east, it's almost all downhill. Considering trains with their steel wheels are very low rolling resistance, and wind resistance is mostly negated by the hopper cars following each other closely in one long line, it's probably very fuel efficient to ship this way.

Of course, these long coal trains have to return back uphill, but they're empty at that point.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

Coal is often shipped not just by train, but also barge. The Ohio , Mississippi and Missouri rivers are used in its transportation.

I've never heard that coal is shipped on roads. I seriously doubt it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+coal+transportation

 

[Shannow]

One of the stations that I work at had 10,000 tonnes of coal delivered a day by truck for decades...most of it is still delivered by truck, but on private haul roads where axle loading doesn't apply....but the mine is only 10km away, not half a country.

edit...was looking at the first link on the google last night...$10/tonne average for the country, 10,000 tonnes per day...$100,000 additional operating cost per station per day is extraordinary

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
.$100,000 additional operating cost per station per day is extraordinary


Not if you don't pay the bill and are assured a "reasonable" ROI.

 

[BrianWC]

Our nearest power plant sits literally right on top of a big seam of soft lignite coal that has been worked for near 20 years now. It still has to be loaded onto rail but it's really just a mile or so trip. We also have a mix of plants run off natural gas. Every time we get a spike in our bill, we're told it's b/c the coal plant was down for maintenance and the company had to shift to exclusively gas...

Perhaps it's a question of reliability? The more transmission lines..the more chance there is for a problem??? I can remember back in the 80's, half my parish (county) was out of power for 3 days b/c of some drunk driver wiping out a major tranmission line...

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Perhaps it's a question of reliability? The more transmission lines..the more chance there is for a problem???


I would think that from some strategic standpoint you would want decentralized power production, but the fuel transmission lines (rail) are just as vulnerable as wire hanging from a tower. I guess you would have some lead time before you ran out of fuel on hand.

 

[BrianWC]

Yeah, everytime I see a coal car on rail, it's one of several dozen.

 

[wannafbody]

Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: wannafbody
I think the US is a might bit bigger than the land down under.


That's accurate except for the spelling.

Australia is about 80% as large as the lower 48 states.

That's cool. I didn't realize Australia was that large.

 

[labman]

Open a new coal mine, and you may only need right of way for a short rail spur. Right away for a long transmission line could be a huge hassle.

 

[tom slick]

Just adding some maps for the sake of discussion

 

[oilyriser]

How good are state of the art coal burners, in terms of uptime and maintenance costs, vs the old 40% plants?

 

[Silk]

The only other coal fired power station in NZ,which was decommissioned in 1991 used a twin aerial ropeway to bring coal about 10km.

Does seem strange to build in on going transportation of fuel costs when building a power station.The aerial ropeway lasted the life of the station,and with the present station,it's conveyor system will last twice the design life of the station (extended with a 385MW gas upgrade).

 

[XS650]

Tom, I combined your maps.

There is some corrolation

 

[crinkles]

Originally Posted By: XS650
Tom, I combined your maps.

There is some corrolation


+1 other than the eastern seaboard

they may be doing it to give civil engineers jobs.

 

[tom slick]

The east coast is the oldest and most densely populated area of the US. I wonder if those coal plants have been there for a long time.

More maps for comparison

Nuclear power plants. Diablo Canyon is in my backyard.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
How good are state of the art coal burners, in terms of uptime and maintenance costs, vs the old 40% plants?


The new stuff going in in Australia is designed less reliable than the stuff in the 70s and 80s...no redundancy.

Of the older stuff, we've got a couple of 80s era units with better than world class reliability, and a couple of 70s (50s design) in the low to mid 30s efficiency wise which is nearly twice as reliable now than it was in 1976.

The new 50% plus thermals are pushing metallurgy with 30MPa steam, 730C steam temperatures...their maintenance requirements are probably higher than the 80s and 90s stuff.

 

[crinkles]

how efficient is nuclear??

I may be in the minority, but, i think it is a great power source.

 

[Shannow]

crinkles, the Rankine cycle (the one that steam power stations use) has an efficiency that is determined by the top temperature reached by the steam, and the bottom temperature that waste heat can be discharged to the environment.

For decades "standard" steam conditions were 538C (1000F)...recently this has gone to 730 plus (not standard, but available commercially).

Nukes are at a distinct disadvantage, because water at high temperatures carry very high pressures, and Reactors aren't that flash when running on steam.

So they typically run with "wet" steam, or steam with fairly low levels of superheat.

That brings their thermal efficiency way down, below modern thermal....but they make up for it in size, with nukes as big as 1750MW being made.

Would be good if some of the nukes guys could chime in.

Oz needs nukes. It's hypocritical of us to dig it up and sell it, but have "moral" objections to it's use here.

 

[crinkles]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Oz needs nukes. It's hypocritical of us to dig it up and sell it, but have "moral" objections to it's use here.


true, and if we have moral objections using it here, we should (and i gather many people do) have moral objectives to mining it and having it used elsewhere, because there all still *people* there using it.

i am a supporter of nuclear power stations. they just need to be run properly, and the waste pumped deep, deep into the earth. in other words a big can of worms. there's no way "alternative" energies will ever supply significant power AND reduce GHG at the same time. my MIL's partner works for a hippy alternative energy place and they do good stuff, but small stuff. which I guess is good too if you can make the power on-site to some extent.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, crinkles, small stuff is just fine unless you're married to ever expanding consumption as being some goal one would want to mindlessly drive toward. It's fine if you've got nothing better to do.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my comfy chair, but I think I could do everything that I currently do consuming a fraction that I currently do.

Eventually, if I live long enough, I'll have to.