Home
http://www.hcn.org/articles/the-wests-coal-giant-is-going-down/print_view

The smokestacks of the Navajo Generation Station rise 775 feet from the sere landscape of the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona, just three miles away from the serpentine, stagnant blue wound in sandstone known as Lake Powell. Red rock cliffs and the dark and heavy hump of Navajo Mountain loom in the background. Since construction began in 1969, the coal plant and its associated mine on Black Mesa have provided millions of dollars to the Navajo and Hopi tribes and hundreds of jobs to local communities, as well as electricity to keep the lights on and air conditioners humming in the metastasizing cities of Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Yet they’ve also stood as symbols of the exploitation of Native Americans, of the destruction of the land, and of the sullying of the air, all to provide cheap power to the Southwest.

But coal power is no longer the best energy bargain. And on Monday the plant's four private utility owners, led by the Salt River Project, voted to shut down the plant at the end of 2019, some 25 years ahead of schedule. When the giant turbines come to a halt and the towers topple in the coming years, the plant will become a new symbol, this one of a transforming energy economy and an evolving electrical grid that is slowly rendering these soot-stained, mechanical megaliths obsolete.

[Linked Image]

Here’s what you need to know about the plant, the mine and the coming closure:

The closure will deeply wound local economies, particularly in Page, LeChee, Kaibeto and Kayenta.

• 935 — Full-time employees in 2014 of Navajo Generating Station, the Kayenta Coal Mine on Black Mesa, which exists only to fuel the plant, and the 78-mile electric railroad that carries coal from the mine to the plant.

• 90 — Percent of those workers that are Native American.

• $141,500 — Average payroll expenditure per employee (wages, salaries, benefits, etc.)

In addition to these jobs, both mine and plant have contractors for various purposes and each of the power plant’s three units requires a major overhaul every three years, which temporarily employs an additional 400 or more people. These are highly coveted jobs here on the Navajo Nation, which deals with high unemployment and chronic poverty.

2. The operating budgets of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi tribe will take a severe beating.

Both the Hopi and Navajo tribes got the short end of the stick — a royalty rate of just 3.3 percent — when Peabody Coal first got the leases to mine Black Mesa in the 1960s. The attorney representing the Hopi tribe, John Boyden, was actually on Peabody’s payroll at the time, and managed to get a sham tribal government to sign over mining rights against the objections of traditional Hopis, as chronicled by writer and law professor Charles Wilkinson. The mines — Black Mesa and Kayenta — forced families to relocate, destroyed grazing land, dried up springs and wrecked ancestral Hopi shrines and other sites.

The tribes fought back and eventually negotiated better terms. Both tribes now rely heavily on royalty and lease payments from the mine and the power plant, even as tribal members fight against the polluting and water-gulping ways of plant and mine.

• $54 million — Total annual royalties, bonus payments and water-use fees paid to the Hopi tribe and the Navajo Nation as of 2015 by the owners of both the Navajo Generating Station and the Kayenta Coal Mine. The Hopi tribe depends on these payments for more than 80 percent of its total budget. This amount would have gone up considerably after 2019.

• $1.7 million — Approximate amount donated yearly by Peabody Western Coal Company and Salt River Project — the plant’s operator — on local scholarships and charity.

• $9.9 million — Cost of electricity purchased by the Kayenta Coal Mine yearly from the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority.

Prior to Monday's announcement, the plant's owners and the Navajo Nation were refashioning the lease, which runs out in 2019, to make it more favorable for the tribe. Peabody also hoped to expand the mine.

3. The air (and water and land) will be a lot cleaner without Navajo Generating Station, one of the biggest polluters in the West.

• 20 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent — Amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the power plant (carbon dioxide) and the mine (methane) each year.

• 8.6 million metric tons CO2 — Amount of greenhouse gases emitted yearly by a natural gas plant generating the same amount of electricity as the Navajo Generating Station. This does not account for leaks during natural gas production, processing, transportation and storage.

• 472, 4370, 259 — Pounds of mercury, selenium and arsenic, respectively, that spew from the power plant’s smokestacks each year. These elements are toxic to wildlife and humans and have shown up in relatively high concentrations in fish in the Grand Canyon and the San Juan River upstream from Lake Powell, as well as in precipitation at Mesa Verde National Park. Natural gas combustion emits only negligible amounts of these elements.

• 1.3 million — Tons of coal combustion waste produced by the plant each year, about 75 percent of which is disposed of nearby, with the rest sold for use in other applications.

4. The plant lies at the heart of the water-energy nexus.

Both the Kayenta Mine and the Navajo Generating Station use large amounts of water. The Bureau of Reclamation owns a large share of the plant, and uses most of its electricity to run the pumps for the Central Arizona Project, which delivers Colorado River water to Arizona cities.

• 1,200 acre feet — Amount of groundwater the mine draws from the Navajo Aquifer each year. (Prior to the 2005 closure of the Mohave Generating Station, another 3,000 acre feet was used to slurry the coal 273 miles from the mine to the plant, drying up important springs in the area).

• 28,000 acre feet (9 billion gallons) — Amount of water drawn from Lake Powell each year for steam generation and cooling at the plant. This is all consumptive use, meaning none of this water is returned to the source.

• 3 million megawatt-hours — Amount of electricity the CAP uses to lift, transport and deliver 1.6 million acre feet of Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson annually. (Enough to power about 240,000 Arizona homes for one year).

5. Economics, not the so-called war on coal or federal environmental protections, is the primary factor shutting down the plant.

Salt River Project officials have been very clear on this point. They note that it’s now cheaper for them to buy power for their 1 million customers from other sources than it is to generate power at Navajo, thanks mostly to low natural gas prices. A November 2016 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that the Central Arizona Project pays about 15 percent more for electricity from the power plant — of which it is part owner — than it would if it bought power wholesale from the Mead trading hub located near Las Vegas.

None of this will change even if President Donald Trump rolls back the Clean Power Plan or other regulations put in place by the Obama administration. In fact, if a drill-heavy energy policy is put into place, it will increase natural gas supplies, thus increasing the spread between natural gas and coal. Having said that, California’s move away from coal power lowers the value of the plant’s power, and the requirement that the plant install nitrous oxide-reducing equipment increases costs — so environmental protections do play a role, albeit a smaller one than economics.

6. It’s a sign of the times.

Although it’s happening slowly, the electrical landscape is evolving. The days of vertically integrated utilities that own huge, centralized power stations and their own balkanized grids are giving way to a new era in which utilities purchase power generated by smaller plants that are connected to larger, regional grids.

California’s independent grid operator has already joined up with NV Energy, PacifiCorp and other Western utilities to form an energy imbalance market, which allows the utilities to share generators — be they wind, solar, natural gas or coal — to “balance” their grids in real time, rather than having to rely only on their own generators. These utilities are hoping to expand this market and then take it to the next level of a regional, integrated grid in coming years. The closure of Navajo Generating Station adds new urgency to this effort.

7. What’s next?

The decision to close the plant came as a surprise. Until several weeks ago, the plant’s owners were negotiating a new lease with the Navajo Nation and considering shutting one of three units and replacing it with other energy sources. Meanwhile, the mine was looking to expand. Outright closure this soon was not on anyone’s radar, so there is no firm transition plan in place. The Bureau of Reclamation and Peabody are looking for ways to keep the plant running beyond 2019, but they'd have to do it without the other owners and against economic headwinds.

When the Mohave Generating Station and the Black Mesa Mine closed in 2005, environmentalists and tribes pushed the California Public Utilities Commission to create a revolving “just transition” fund with money earned from the sale of sulfur dioxide credits from the shuttered plant. The fund, the value of which dwindled as sulfur credit prices fell, is supposed to help develop renewable energy on the reservations.

There are little or no such credits available for Navajo Generating Station, however, so that approach won’t work here. The owners of the plant could work with the tribes to replace some of the lost electricity generation by building new solar, wind or other plants on the reservations, where there is ample potential for renewable energy development. Two major transmission systems are associated with the plant, and could be taken over by the tribes to move solar or wind power to the south and west. The water rights could be turned over to the tribes, for use in agriculture or other purposes.

Jonathan Thompson is a contributing editor at High Country News. He is currently writing a book about the Gold King Mine spill. Follow @jonnypeace
Originally Posted by Sycamore


the coal plant and its associated mine on Black Mesa have provided millions of dollars to the Navajo and Hopi tribes.

Yet they’ve also stood as symbols of the exploitation of Native Americans,


Exploiting somebody doesn't cost millions of dollars.
Don't worry,

Trump will save it.
Quote
The attorney representing the Hopi tribe, John Boyden, was actually on Peabody’s payroll at the time, and managed to get a sham tribal government to sign over mining rights against the objections of traditional Hopis, as chronicled by writer and law professor Charles Wilkinson.




I'm betting the "sham" tribal government was drunk on T bird. grin
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Don't worry,

Trump will save it.

from the article....
Quote

Salt River Project officials have been very clear on this point. They note that it’s now cheaper for them to buy power for their 1 million customers from other sources than it is to generate power at Navajo, thanks mostly to low natural gas prices. A November 2016 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that the Central Arizona Project pays about 15 percent more for electricity from the power plant — of which it is part owner — than it would if it bought power wholesale from the Mead trading hub located near Las Vegas.

None of this will change even if President Donald Trump rolls back the Clean Power Plan or other regulations put in place by the Obama administration. In fact, if a drill-heavy energy policy is put into place, it will increase natural gas supplies, thus increasing the spread between natural gas and coal.
Coal has a tough row to hoe. Given the cost of scrubbing requirements and other coal based overhead, natural gas has become increasingly more cost efficient and will most likely continue do so if production increases as it appears will happen. And Peabody is still trying to come out of bankruptcy. Back in the summer of 2008 before yall's socialist wannabe dicktater got elected stock hit over $1300. It broke way down but came back to over $1100 about 3 years later before being beaten down for good by the sworn enemy of capitalism. At one point the stock sold for, so sad, as low as 55 CENTS a share. It closed today at $2.75 and that's in a game of musical chairs. Common stock will be worthless at exit. Some folks still believe there will be some bones tossed to common shareholders and are gambling on the outcome. Anybody caught holding when the music stops is sucker bait. Perhaps there is a way negotiable to bring the coal industry back; never count Trump out. But looks to me to be a dubious possibility unless alternative energy sources (natural gas now, enhanced nuclear possibilities?) somehow loose the cost/kw advantage. YMMV

Chart
Any time you're mining, you're putting yourself out of business.

Peabody has had a lot of ownership changes in the last 40 years.

But the Black Mesa/Kayenta Mine complex was/is an amazing setup. One mine had a 273 mile long slurry line to one power plant, the other had a 21 mile overland conveyor to a silo that feeds a 3 trips a day train that makes a 78 mile one way run to the other power plant.

Sycamore

Yeah, they can do some engineering. Used to live very close to some company land a conveyor crossed carrying coal from mine to washer. Ran maybe 20 miles or so. I grew up hunting that land mostly for turkey. That dang line could start up at the worst times. Can't remember the name given to it but recall a bunch of us teenagers would drive out to a night time overlook to watch the biggest drag line in the US operate. Least, that's what we told the girls. ;)grins
Originally Posted by Sycamore
Any time you're mining, you're putting yourself out of business.

Peabody has had a lot of ownership changes in the last 40 years.

But the Black Mesa/Kayenta Mine complex was/is an amazing setup. One mine had a 273 mile long slurry line to one power plant, the other had a 21 mile overland conveyor to a silo that feeds a 3 trips a day train that makes a 78 mile one way run to the other power plant.

Sycamore



If we cut off welfare to low income dimocraps they wouldnt keep jacking up the population that requires more electricity.

Dimocrap programs boost anti-earth population growth, an anathema to Ma Natures health, but very necessary for larger dimocrap voting constituancys.
There will be a lot more drunk Indians without those jobs.
Originally Posted by Sycamore

from the article....
Quote


None of this will change even if President Donald Trump rolls back the Clean Power Plan or other regulations put in place by the Obama administration. In fact, if a drill-heavy energy policy is put into place, it will increase natural gas supplies, thus increasing the spread between natural gas and coal.


And there is the right answer, the proper way forward.
Originally Posted by hanco
There will be a lot more drunk Indians without those jobs.


How did you know the OP was an Indian? grin
This whole deal has been out on the table for quite some time, the "Decision" made. The timing of the formalization and release of this plan is patently agenda driven. As we all know to well, when everybody involved has their own agenda, it can become hard to see the woods for the trees.
The main and over theme / overriding emphasis of the OP article seems to be on COAL, and it's "enviroquences."... (ENVIROQUENCES) new buzz word, straight off this desk).
I'd note it makes only a few brief comments about another, and perhaps even more complicating issue,...WATER.
Here's some additional commentary that drifted in on my regular E-mail yesterday AM, and a link to it's source article which is WELL worth the read in it's entirety.
Excerpt:
Quote
In 2010, CAP officials reckoned that closing the Navajo plant would have increased the cost of electricity to pump water by 50 to 300 percent and they would lose $US 50 million per year in the sale of surplus power. Surplus power, which is the difference between the federal government’s allocation and what CAP requires, is sold to pay down Arizona’s share of the CAP construction cost. The remaining balance is roughly $US 1.2 billion.

The U.S. natural gas boom, which ramped up just before CAP made its 2010 forecast, flipped the calculations. In a February 16 presentation to the agency’s board, CAP officials estimated that they would have saved $US 38.5 million in energy costs in 2016 by buying power on the market instead of from the Navajo station. Even though surplus power sales would have declined by $US 12 million in this scenario, CAP still would have come out ahead last year from switching energy sources.
The net savings of $US 26.5 million would have been expressed in lower water bills for tribes, farmers, and cities. Farmers buying water from CAP, for instance, pay only the cost of pumping water. In 2016 that rate, including rebates, was $US 57 per acre-foot using Navajo station power. With power purchased on the market, however, CAP figures the charge would have been $US 49 per acre-foot, a savings of 14 percent. One acre-foot is 326,000 gallons.

....and another excerpt:
Quote
Another huge factor is water. The Navajo Generating Station has rights to consume 34,100 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year. The water is withdrawn from Lake Powell and not returned to the river system. The plant, however, does not use the entire allocation. Over the last 15 years, annual use has ranged from 26,000 acre-feet to 29,000 acre-feet.

The water rights are owned by the state of Arizona and could be reallocated if the plant were to close. The existing rights are part of Arizona’s 50,000 acre-foot Upper Colorado River Basin allocation, which restricts the water used to the northeastern corner of the state, Leslie Meyers, manager of Reclamation’s Phoenix office, told Circle of Blue. In practice, that means only on the Navajo Nation.

The above excerpts from:

Link: http://www.circleofblue.org/2017/water-energy/utilities-move-break-arizonas-coal-water-link/

I'm thinking we'd better have a damn well squared away approach as to how this all gets "decided', and by whom. We just SAW what "Native American Environmental Interest Groups" do to water, and water rights. I wouldn't get to warm a feeling knowing that this particular group/tribe of NAs are going to handle it any better.

GTC
Smaller gas turbine powered electric plants are cheaper to build and operate and will soon kill off most coal plants. They can be up and at full power in just a few minutes and then turned off just as quickly. They're very efficient when combined with heat capturing steam generation. The fuel is cheap and clean. Coals' only hope is export sales.
The last place I lived in Alberta, I had a line REAL close, and along with all the neighbors there, paid an "industrial bulk rate" for NG.
It's a WONDERFUL fuel, and I hope we do see the emergence of the "Capstone Turbine" ( one moving part) on both large and small scales as one of the driving forces of another century of greatness.

GTC
The technology and engineering exist to convert the facility to natural gas. It will be a huge mistake to go to solar and windmills. Other nations are moving away from sun and wind as the wild swings in power production is destroying their infrastructure to store power.
Originally Posted by bigwhoop
The technology and engineering exist to convert the facility to natural gas. It will be a huge mistake to go to solar and windmills. Other nations are moving away from sun and wind as the wild swings in power production is destroying their infrastructure to store power.


What we were visualizing in Alberta when I left is apparently now established to some extent,....BIG growing operations under glass and Polymers,...the seedbeds warmed by the exhaust from the NG power gen operations.
GTC
I thought the thrust of the article was:

a) coal is non-competitive with cheap NG for electrical generation at a large scale, and


b) shutting down a big plant and its associated big mine have big consequences for local economies.

Crossfire's link was to a very good article,

http://www.circleofblue.org/2017/water-energy/utilities-move-break-arizonas-coal-water-link/

I recommend anyone with the least interest in the subject take a look.

with an even better picture of the plant. (looking SE, rather than N)

[Linked Image]

Crossfires closing comment was laughable:

Quote

...I'm thinking we'd better have a damn well squared away approach as to how this all gets "decided', and by whom. We just SAW what "Native American Environmental Interest Groups" do to water, and water rights. I wouldn't get to warm a feeling knowing that this particular group/tribe of NAs are going to handle it any better...


You need to do a bit more research on the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the Winters doctrine of 1906, Arizona v. California (1931, 1934, 1936, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1979, 1983, 1984, and 2000)and in general "The Law of the River" as it is known.

My best guess is that following lengthy and expensive adjudication, that Upper Basin AZ water is going to be allocated to The Navajo Tribe of Indians (formal name) and they are going to "lease" it to the highest bidder downstream, probably MWD, but maybe IID.

Or maybe DOI will keep that plant going,through subsidies, in the name of MAGA. And you and I will pay for that, just like the wall.

Savvy?


Sycamore
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Don't worry,

Trump will save it.


the only way Trump (or anyone else) can save coal is to kill the natural gas industry. Currently, natural gas is much cheaper than coal and the economics of coal don't work at current market prices.
"just three miles away from the serpentine, stagnant blue wound in sandstone known as Lake Powell." almost in the first sentence.
I suspect the author of this piece read "the monkey wrench gang" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_Wrench_Gang

always liked his writings.
I was around when that glen canyon dam was first built.
I still have mixed feelings.
but mostly identify with what abbey was conveying in the book.
imagine sycamore read the book too.
That word "wound" caught my eye.
a lot of abbey's quotes on things are really good:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edward_abbey.html

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/234706-desert-solitaire

Water, water, water....There is no shortage of water in the desert but exactly the right amount , a perfect ratio of water to rock, water to sand, insuring that wide free open, generous spacing among plants and animals, homes and towns and cities, which makes the arid West so different from any other part of the nation. There is no lack of water here unless you try to establish a city where no city should be.”
― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness

i think of this a lot when i think of phoenix and tucson
What did I miss. They are working on a new contract with the tribes. The tribes want more. Power Co. doesn't want to pay more. So announce your shutting down. Power play? Just trying to read between the lines.
N.G. i think is just cheaper with less issue.
few years ago the big utility in arizona Arizona Public Service shut down a really old generating station at childs, so a dinky fish could live in peace. Lots of stuff to get them to do that.
what a lot of people don't know is in exchange for doing that, they got permission to put in a N.G. fired generation station in s.w. phoenix.
This is going to be a huge hit on the navajo, and hopi, and related small towns in the north. There are not a lot of jobs up there. The tribes in arizona control a lot of the water rights by the way in arizona, and i can see steady increases coming in the central arizona project canal water as time goes by. Kind of the red man's revenge.
Jonathan Thompson may have taken a tour of some eastern and upper mid-western cities as a preview to form this story. Such shutdowns due to demand/supply, relative costs and eco issues made wastelands - now standing ghost areas - of many sites where industry/jobs once flourished. Not a new story at all - simply different ingredients.
Originally Posted by jerrys
What did I miss. They are working on a new contract with the tribes. The tribes want more. Power Co. doesn't want to pay more. So announce your shutting down. Power play? Just trying to read between the lines.


my thoughts also, could be negotiating tactic. they are expecting the tribes to increase the ask for a) the land, b) the water, c) the coal.

although operating a big ass plant like that in order to lose money on every acre-foot pumped has got to hurt.

buying power off the grid can bite you too, remember the Enron run-up? with those long term delivery contracts when everything was going up?

Sycamore
Originally Posted by CCCC
Jonathan Thompson may have taken a tour of some eastern and upper mid-western cities as a preview to form this story. Such shutdowns due to demand/supply, relative costs and eco issues made wastelands - now standing ghost areas - of many sites where industry/jobs once flourished. Not a new story at all - simply different ingredients.


High County News was started n Wyoming many years ago, pretty much in opposition to a strip coal mine, I think.

It has a very environmental focus/slant/bent whatever you want to call it. It does have interesting stories from across the west.

Page will be semi-deserted seasonal tourist town like Kanab is, without that power plant. Maybe crossed with Winslow, because it will still be a border town with shopping, etc.

Sycamore
Enviros are a substantial player in this, too.
PNM asked to upgrade the scrub systems, and got shut down - because the State regulators said it "cost too much"!
I'll always wonder who got paid under the table and/or what shady backroom dealings led to that whole fiasco.
Originally Posted by djs
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Don't worry,

Trump will save it.


the only way Trump (or anyone else) can save coal is to kill the natural gas industry. Currently, natural gas is much cheaper than coal and the economics of coal don't work at current market prices.


The market will decide coal vs natural gas here in the U.S. - Coal is a money maker when we export it.
Dad helped build that plant and I was out there in '74 during Memorial Day weekend. The plant was still under construction at that time. Went thru the dam at Page, drove over to the north rim of the Grand Canyon, went to Zion National Park, and saw some of the fattest cattle you could ever imagine and there wasn't a blade of grass to be seen.

Sure is a lot different than down here in La.
There is a good story on this subject in the Albuquerque Journal, this morning.
Starts on page B10.
Originally Posted by Oldman03
Dad helped build that plant and I was out there in '74 during Memorial Day weekend. The plant was still under construction at that time. Went thru the dam at Page, drove over to the north rim of the Grand Canyon, went to Zion National Park, and saw some of the fattest cattle you could ever imagine and there wasn't a blade of grass to be seen.

Sure is a lot different than down here in La.

I am old enough to remember page before the bridge over the river was put in, and the grand opening of that bridge. The navajo practiced indiscriminate grazing for sheep, and indiscriminate cutting of trees
for firewood/shelter for many many years. I use to comment driving through the rez to utah you could always tell when you were off the rez, it was like a line in the sand. One side vegetation, the other side nada. Fredonia and then knab sit on a plateau. if you take the other road over to there other than from page, you pass the arizona state buffalo ranch, and where those california condors were released. I was told by a friend, at the time high up in the agricultural depart. of the state, a lot of the available leased and private land traditionally used for cattle was being bought up by environmental groups to run the cattle off the land.
That area known as "the strip" north of the canyon has trophy deer like you wouldn't believe. I have driven that road after dark from the canyon up to fredonia, and all you see are hundreds of eyes lining the highway from the deer. Some mighty content lion up there too. there has been talk of a depravation hunt for buffalo, seems the buff on the state ranch don't respect those wire fences and get out. Talk of issuing tags for them.
Page if i remember correctly has become to some extent a retirement area in some ways, golf courses and the like. This is bound to have an effect as a city where there are few cities to buy stuff at.
Am I the ony one skeptical about the longterm low prices of NG. NG drilling was huge in this state a few years ago. As soon as prices fell, drilling stopped and wells are capped. Supply will be suppressed untill prices go up. Then, slowly, caps will be opened and wells drilled. Call it greed or self preservation. Unlike some here I do not believe in the innate goodness of big oil/gas. Not saying they are bad really, just money driven
a lot of stuff was capped and drilling exploration shut down with the fall in oil/energy prices over the last number of years. I just saw brother in law yesterday,,, who did have a pretty good job in wyoming until the outfit he worked for shutdown. I don't believe it will stay that way forever, and i have already seen some recovery in prices of companies publically traded that focus in this area.
And it is necessary for those companies to keep supply/prices at a certain level. But when I hear how cheap NG is, they are not going to let that stand. Prices will rise untill volume suffers, that will then be the price zone. Nobody would go to work and run at top speed if doing so decreased his paycheck. Big oil is both the Company and the Union, they gots all da marbles.
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
And it is necessary for those companies to keep supply/prices at a certain level. But when I hear how cheap NG is, they are not going to let that stand. Prices will rise untill volume suffers, that will then be the price zone. Nobody would go to work and run at top speed if doing so decreased his paycheck. Big oil is both the Company and the Union, they gots all da marbles.


I don't know the term for it in economics, but to some extent, NG is produced as a secondary product to drilling and fracking for oil.

So you would be correct if most NG is produced by NG only exploration and drilling. I agree that any commodity price is subject to market forces AND manipulation, see my above comments about ENRON.

fuel handling is a big expense, and a liquid or gas beats a solid, everyday. and this plant is 100 miles from the mine. So while NG costs may not stay low, neither will the costs of producing and transporting the coal for this plant.

Sycamore

A couple things come to mind.
1. This article and others allude to coal no longer being economically feasible.
Is that something Obama altered with his EPA? Recall that candidate Obama promised back in 2008 that coal will no longer to be feasible once he had control.
So, what EPA regulations might be rescinded as being prejudicial to coal rather than "necessary"?

2. The abrupt move to close seems to be due to a failure in bargaining a new deal with the local tribes. What percent of the decision is based on this failure rather than the EPA induced economic pressure?

3. Shutting down in 2019 doesn't give any realistic time to replace that facility other than contracting for power from other neighboring sources. Still, NG seems to be a viable alternative.

4. While [bleep] has been a black eye for nuclear power, that plant is very old technology - built with a slide ruler. The president engineering with the nuclear is astounding. The spent rule rods everyone lost sleep over, now housed in Paducah, KY., can be re-used for decades of power. Other methods of extraction of power plus new engineering for cooling is a hallmark to American technology. The problem is people denounce nuclear because of, Chernobyl and [bleep], while understanding nothing of the engineer advancements.
Originally Posted by bigwhoop

4. While [bleep] has been a black eye for nuclear power, that plant is very old technology - built with a slide ruler. The president engineering with the nuclear is astounding. The spent rule rods everyone lost sleep over, now housed in Paducah, KY., can be re-used for decades of power. Other methods of extraction of power plus new engineering for cooling is a hallmark to American technology. The problem is people denounce nuclear because of, Chernobyl and [bleep], while understanding nothing of the engineer advancements.


Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and [bleep] were all built by engineers, and those engineers swore up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards they were safe. Nothing would ever happen.

These new designs are designed by engineers, and they swear up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards they will be safe.

I personally know some of these engineers. They are design-blind, in love with their pet project, and will sharpen the pencil any time their pet gets skewered. The designs will ALWAYS look perfect. On paper. Then a black swan event like the tsunami will hit and we're screwed again.
Market forces really had little to do with the price of coal. Since 2008, it's been politically and legally driven by a multipronged, multimillion dollar "Beyond Coal" campaign.
First, T Boone Pickens and Aubrey MCLendon got in bed with Sierra to promote gas as a "bridge" fuel until the windmills and solar panels would be built (and T Bone had investments in wind, looking for the subsidies and the cash).
But then along came fracking, which made NG look like a long-term play (Marvelous Marcellus) instead of a temporary deal, and the Greens hate all kinds of fossil fuels.
In the meantime, the attacks against permitting new generation of coal by Earthjustice et al put some crazy business risks before the investors. At least an NG plant could be built and the price spikes passed onto consumers. Not true for a failed coal project.
Not building plants means no replacement capacity as older plants are retired, killing the long-term market for coal. Not because of price, but because of political risk, risk which can never be rationalized or dealt with using logic or actual market thinking.

I think it's a shame that the Four Corners plant and mines are being closed down. Those jobs are night and day for those towns, and the plant hasn't had what could be called bona-fide health effects. The water was going to steam, to spin turbines, so what's going to replace that? I understand that NG turbines are combustion turbines, but gas isn't going to be dirt cheap forever.
Quote
• $141,500 — Average payroll expenditure per employee (wages, salaries, benefits, etc.)
So everyone on the payroll has a doctorate? Why?
I remember driving thru Paige in the 90's and thinking about Abby's quote from "Voice Crying in the Wilderness" on the same as I drove thru.
Not sure it was a fair assessment.
Would like to go back to see it again.
Water, Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Open Land, and Politics, all ingredients in what makes the West so interesting.
Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by bigwhoop

4. While [bleep] has been a black eye for nuclear power, that plant is very old technology - built with a slide ruler. The president engineering with the nuclear is astounding. The spent rule rods everyone lost sleep over, now housed in Paducah, KY., can be re-used for decades of power. Other methods of extraction of power plus new engineering for cooling is a hallmark to American technology. The problem is people denounce nuclear because of, Chernobyl and [bleep], while understanding nothing of the engineer advancements.


Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and [bleep] were all built by engineers, and those engineers swore up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards they were safe. Nothing would ever happen.

These new designs are designed by engineers, and they swear up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards they will be safe.

I personally know some of these engineers. They are design-blind, in love with their pet project, and will sharpen the pencil any time their pet gets skewered. The designs will ALWAYS look perfect. On paper. Then a black swan event like the tsunami will hit and we're screwed again.


You aren't a forward thinking person evidently. You don't think engineers can learn from other events and improve on a process or procedure. With thinking like that, we never would have crossed the prairies in buckboards and on foot.
Given the current state of politically correct fervor, I could see the Navajo site become a racial issue as the local tribe(s) suffer great economic loss. Who knows if it is too ate to stop this closure but recall that Trump authored a bill repealing all of the last minute Obama/EPA statutes that specifically put more pressure on the coal industry. The EPA rules were designed to make coal mining all but impossible to occur.
Here is one link to what happened.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...as-last-minute-coal-rule/article/2615022
Not sure I've much to add to this other than opinion, but a lot of the coal versus whatever debate is left field stuff to my eye, and I really don't care squat about local job losses and so forth. Economic enterprise is and always has been an evolutionary process.

Early part of my life we had our ways and means for getting things done, Roy Rogers was king of the west etc....times change, economies change, and uh, we've got a few more people on the block today than back then. Supply/demand meet Necessity, the child of Adversity.

If coal can't keep up, well, bye. If one is disposed to rattle on about economics, make sure you're well informed on the topic first, then with diligence include ALL of the direct and indirect impacts before forming an opinion. Ron Regan put the label on trickle down economics, but there's a ripple effect that is not always positive in the evaluation of business or economic models. Coal has some nasty aspects which carry great costs for mitigation, such as scrubber stacks. They cost a chitt load of money. Lacking same, local residents are beneficiaries of fallout from an emission stream which makes the bold blanch from the implied long term medical expenses which may result. Go ahead and lambast EPA if you wish, but a fundamental tenet of government is the health, safety and welfare. Sometimes they actually pay attention to those affairs.

So bark at me if you wish, or bark at EPA, none of it matters a lot. Follow the dollars, ALL of the dollars, and you will understand why things change as they do. You will understand why we are drifting away from 20th Century methodologies in an effort to power a population that is growing exponentially.

Nukes can work, though past design philosophy could stand improvement. Solar can work, but maybe not the way most envision it. My opinion only, but fossil fuels are too valuable to burn if one takes the long view. Your grandkids will likely see a day when a large segment of their transportation is powered by hydrogen and wonder what we were thinking when we put gas in our cars.

Carry on....
Originally Posted by RickyD
Quote
• $141,500 — Average payroll expenditure per employee (wages, salaries, benefits, etc.)
So everyone on the payroll has a doctorate? Why?


RickyD,

lots of high tech work to be done, lots of overtime required, and very good benefit packages.

structural welders and dragline operators are probably at the top of the scales.

I guess the laborers make $20/hour. most people there have a lot more skills than just a hardworking laborer.

plus, no illegals to drive wages down!

Sycamore





Three letters, LNG...
Typical coal fired power plant wages.
I work in the industry and the only reason cheap gas is competitive is the due to all the crazy environmental regs piled on coal and the difficulty in permiting new super critical boilers.
Originally Posted by Sycamore
Originally Posted by RickyD
Quote
• $141,500 — Average payroll expenditure per employee (wages, salaries, benefits, etc.)
So everyone on the payroll has a doctorate? Why?


RickyD,

lots of high tech work to be done, lots of overtime required, and very good benefit packages.

structural welders and dragline operators are probably at the top of the scales.

I guess the laborers make $20/hour. most people there have a lot more skills than just a hardworking laborer.

plus, no illegals to drive wages down!

Sycamore







You figure 7 to 8 percent for SS and Medicare. $8k plus a year, at least, for insurance. Double it for a family. L&I, 401k, and any other program or payroll tax.....$141k out of the company pocket ain't gonna look like $141k on a pay stub the end of two weeks.

Quote
$141k out of the company pocket ain't gonna look like $141k on a pay stub the end of two weeks.


+1
Supposedly my health insurance alone is $21k, of that I pay $3k, so that looks like $18k per year or $9/hr. It's not on my paycheck. wink
Originally Posted by Dillonbuck
Supposedly my health insurance alone is $21k, of that I pay $3k, so that looks like $18k per year or $9/hr. It's not on my paycheck. wink
It's on your W-2 form. You'll soon be taxed on it.
Originally Posted by Sycamore


Yet they’ve also stood as symbols of the exploitation of Native Americans,



Guess they should have fought harder...
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Sycamore


Yet they’ve also stood as symbols of the exploitation of Native Americans,



Guess they should have fought harder...


Cute, but beneath you.

Sycamore



© 24hourcampfire