walkitout (walkitout) wrote,
walkitout
walkitout

climate change, coal, capacity

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/09/16/16climatewire-big-coal-carriers-navigate-a-risky-climate-tr-5184.html

And railroads, of course.

10 years of planning, poof! There won't be yet-another-line into Powder River after all, apparently. The article is long, and largely focused on the intersection of possible climate change legislation, railroads (and their capacity) and coal (and power demands). Great stuff: who hired which lobbyists, that rail doesn't want to kill any climate bill, just make sure it works for them, uncertainty in terms of power plants will be built works in favor of rail, cause they can just wait to build a line to serve one until after building it actually starts, etc. Concluding with a line which is exactly what I thought when I started the article: coal going away isn't necessarily bad for railroads and there are other things that might switch from truck to railcar (or at least intermodal) in a post-climate-change-law world. I can't help but think that losing the high-volume/low-pay coal shipping in favor of higher margin intermodal or other high value freight could only be good for railroads.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments