Stop the Coal Trains
Everybody knows that coal trains are bad for our health, our economy, and our planet. So how do we stop them?
COAL CARS SPEW DUST AS THEY RUMBLE DOWN THE TRACKS 500 pounds to a ton of coal can escape from a single car.
Tools
You might have heard the talk: Coal interests are pushing to make the Pacific Northwest a 24-hour conveyor belt linking coal mines in Montana and Wyoming with Asian markets clamoring for cheap, dirty power. The most urgent fight is currently taking place just north of Bellingham at Cherry Point, the site of a proposed coal-export terminal that would be the largest in North America.
Why should someone in Seattle care about a coal terminal 100 miles north of the city? Because coal combustion is the leading human-caused increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is largely responsible for global warming. Because shipping dirty coal to China while piously shutting down the last coal-fired power plant in Washington State (as the state is doing) would simultaneously mock and cheapen our forward-thinking, tree-humping pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent by 2050. And because there is not just one but five coal terminals—five!—currently proposed in the Northwest, each of which could bring 1.5-mile-long coal trains rumbling through our region daily, blocking traffic, interfering with other business at Seattle's port, and leaving clouds of coal dust in their wake.
Stranger Personals
State and federal agencies are currently wrapping up a three-month public comment period to determine which environmental, economic, and health impacts should be studied before issuing or denying the Cherry Point terminal's permits. Thousands of Washington residents have flocked to seven scheduled public meetings held around the state to oppose the proposal, 10,000 have submitted comments to the state Department of Ecology, 25,000 have submitted comments to the Army Corps of Engineers, and more than 40,000 people have signed a petition that's been sent to the state's land commissioner.
And yet, a lot of people still don't know about the issue, don't understand it, or don't have an opinion. Not having an opinion on coal is like not having an opinion on climate change. And this isn't just an environmental issue. It's an economic issue. It's a health issue. It's an issue of priorities. Here's all you need to know before the public comment period ends on January 21.
In February 2011, international shipping- terminal firm SSA Marine applied for permits to build a $500 million coal-export terminal outside Bellingham at Cherry Point, right next to a state-protected aquatic reserve and smack on top of a Native American burial ground (more on that later). The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would occupy nearly 1,500 acres of land, about 100 acres of which would be converted into a large open-air coal stockyard with stunning panoramic views of the Strait of Georgia and its closest neighbor, the state aquatic reserve, home to more than 300 blue heron nests and a metric fuckton of fish.
Roughly five million tons of coal is currently transported through Washington State each year to Canadian ports. This translates to about six coal trains per day (three full, three empty). The Gateway Pacific Terminal would dwarf that, shipping out 48 million tons of coal annually, circuitously hauled from sprawling strip mines in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Montana and Wyoming. Calls to the company behind the Gateway Pacific Terminal were not returned, but the facts of its proposal are well known. Each day, 18 trains (nine full, nine empty), stretching 1.5 miles long each, would complete the journey to the Washington Coast, trundling at average speeds of 35 miles per hour through Spokane and the Columbia River Gorge, and up the coast through Longview, Tacoma, Seattle, Edmonds, Everett, Mount Vernon, and Bellingham, and back. Each train would delay traffic at railway crossings five minutes on average. (Gateway Pacific Terminal estimates delays at four minutes, while other groups have estimated seven minutes.) According to a city-commissioned traffic impact study, traffic along Seattle's waterfront could be cumulatively delayed between one and three hours each day, significantly impacting commuter traffic, emergency vehicle response times, and freight operations at the Port of Seattle.
"It would create a wall along our waterfront," said Mayor Mike McGinn. "The data suggests there will be more frustrations, with more bikers, drivers, and pedestrians 'shooting the gap' to get across—which means the potential for more accidents."
Coal cars are typically uncovered, constantly spewing dust as they rumble down the tracks. As BNSF Railway acknowledged in a startlingly frank 2011 coal dust fact sheet, "The amount of coal dust that escapes from PRB coal trains is surprisingly large... from 500 lbs to a ton of coal can escape from a single loaded coal car." According to BNSF, as much as 3 percent of the coal loaded into a coal car can be lost in transit: "In many areas, a thick layer of black coal dust can be observed along the railroad right of way and in between the tracks." Aside from the health risks of inhaling coal dust, the railway explains that accumulated coal dust on tracks may cause derailments. At least 22 coal trains jumped the tracks in the United States in 2012.
Coal proponents argue that the dust can be mitigated by installing new, better coal chutes and applying "topper agents" to the coal cars. But there's another risk when shipping PRB coal: It's notoriously spontaneously combustible.
"Operators familiar with the unique requirements of burning PRB coal will tell you that it's not a case of 'if' you will have a PRB coal fire, it's 'when,'" notes a 2003 article published by the coal industry group Utility FPE Group Inc. The article continues, "Although prevention is cheaper than repairing fire and explosion damage, its costs always seem difficult to justify."
"Spontaneous combustion of coal is a well-known phenomenon, especially with PRB coal," states an industry research paper called "PRB Coal Degradation—Causes and Cures." "This high-moisture, highly volatile sub-bituminous coal will not only smolder and catch fire while in storage piles at power plants and coal terminals, but has been known to be delivered to a power plant with the rail car or barge partially on fire."
It's probably inaccurate to picture mile-long flaming coal train cars inching across the state, says the Northwest environmental research organization Sightline Institute: "The threat is likely to be more insidious—slowly smoldering coal that is perhaps emitting noxious gases into neighboring communities. Yet the severity and toxicity of these gases are largely unknown."
Some of the worst health effects would be felt in the communities surrounding Cherry Point. The terminal's port would be large enough to berth three cargo ships at once. Coal would be conveyed from the 100-acre coal stockyard along a 1,250-foot trestle linking ships to shore. Heavy machinery would troll the coal piles, continuously rotating them to discourage combustion, kicking up even more coal dust with each turn.
Common sense and science tell us that working with coal will shorten your life span. The US Department of Labor links coal dust to pneumoconiosis, regular bronchitis, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, "rapidly developing lung damage," and premature death in exposed workers. It's also been known to cause lymphoma and adrenal tumors in test animals.
But alarmingly, very little research has been done on the nonoccupational environmental health effects of coal dust on people. Here's what we do know: Coal dust contains concentrations of heavy metals including arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium. Furthermore, rainwater runoff from coal stockpiles can leach into the soil and contaminate groundwater that people and animals drink.
"We're concerned about increased air pollution and the effects it can have on patients," testified Dr. Melissa Weakland at a public hearing on the Gateway Pacific Terminal held in Seattle's convention center on December 13. Speaking on behalf of the Washington Academy of Family Physicians, Dr. Weakland also echoed concerns about delays in emergency response time, heavy metal poisoning, pulmonary problems, and cancer. "Many health specifics in this proposal are left unanswered," Dr. Weakland said.
The Seattle public hearing was the last of seven held around the state. The meetings were crowded, tense, and predominantly packed with protesters—including heavy hitters like Seattle mayor Mike McGinn, a handful of Tacoma and Seattle city council members, King County executive Dow Constantine, and state representatives Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34) and Reuven Carlyle (D-36). But the most moving testimony came from a 12-year-old.
"I appreciate the natural wonders of this state," testified Rachel Howell of Queen Anne to a packed convention center ballroom. "I like salmon. I like oysters. Global warming is threatening salmon and oysters. I like to ski at Snoqualmie Pass. In my lifetime, I will not be able to ski at Snoqualmie Pass because of global warming. This is the future you're creating for us, and this is not the future we want. It's pretty simple, even I understand: If you make coal more available, more people will use it."
We can't fight global warming by exporting our carbon: It's an issue that's simple enough for a 12-year-old to understand. The rest of us? That remains to be seen.
Lobbying in support of the coal terminal is the Alliance for Northwest Jobs & Exports, a pro-coal group formed last July to counter all of the bad press about heron habitat, heart disease, and spontaneous combustion. The Alliance is composed of 54 organizations representing almost 400,000 employees in Washington, Oregon, and "around the country," according to spokeswoman Lauri Hennessey. The group has downplayed health and statewide environmental concerns.
"It's impossible to consider the cumulative impact of coal trains; it's purely speculative," said labor union representative and Alliance member Herb Krohn at the December 13 public meeting. "Coal is a naturally occurring mineral, the coal dust discharged is minimal, and this argument that it impacts health is specious at best."
Hennessey would not address specific environmental or health risks raised by citizens directly, saying only: "If people have concerns, they should write those concerns in." If the government's environmental impact study sees fit to address those concerns, "we'll do whatever mitigation is necessary," she adds.
Meanwhile, the group is purported to have spent $1 million in television ads in the Northwest to transform coal trains into huggable, huffing economic engines (Hennessey would neither confirm nor deny the amount spent, only calling it "sizable"). They claim the terminal will bring in $25 million in new tax revenue once built, as well as 4,400 new jobs, most of which would be two-year construction jobs. Gateway Pacific Terminal has promised the project would create 294 to 430 permanent local jobs.
But critics say that the job numbers don't take into account the many careers the Cherry Point coal terminal would destroy.
"Anyone who claims that this massive coal project is about jobs had better learn to subtract," testified Pete Knutson, a 40-year career fisherman, owner of the Loki Fish Company based out of Ballard, and a commissioner on the Puget Sound Salmon Commission (WSDA). "We have 15,000 fishery jobs in Puget Sound; now our marine livelihoods are at stake. A job is not necessarily a livelihood. We're weighing jobs based on the one-time exploitation of a fossil fuel versus livelihoods based on a sustainable resource. We have a moral obligation to reject this proposal."
Cargo operations at the Port of Seattle would also be threatened, both from the increased traffic through Sodo and from competition for scarce rail capacity. Washington's freight rail system is already pushing its limits—18 additional coal trains a day would drive up prices for other shippers.
Opposition to the terminals is mounting: More than three dozen cities, counties, and ports, close to 600 health professionals, 220 faith leaders, and more than 450 local businesses have either voiced concern or come out against coal export off the West Coast. Many tribal governments, including the Lummi Nation, have also organized to oppose coal export after terminal contractors were issued a cease-and-desist order in June 2011 for bulldozing sacred Lummi burial grounds without permits.
"Cherry Point is flagged as a cemetery. That's not oral history, that's fact," Lummi Nation spokesman Jay Julius says. "That is our Jerusalem. That is our holy ground."
Three dozen municipalities, including the Seattle City Council, have passed symbolic resolutions in outright opposition to the proposals or at the very least demanding that state and federal agencies execute a full, comprehensive environmental impact study (EIS) on the cumulative impacts of coal trains and exports.
"I'm here speaking on behalf of dozens and dozens of state officials who've all called for a comprehensive, cumulative impact analysis to this proposal," testified Representative Carlyle at the December 13 Seattle hearing. "That means a thorough, data driven analysis of the economic externalities of this proposal—the transportation, the health, the safety impacts that our communities will face. We're asking you to acknowledge that most communities don't have the resources to do their own economic analysis. It's critical that this EIS be thorough, be data driven, and recognize the profound implications on our quality of life."
Interstate commerce laws prevent local authorities from outright blocking coal trains from passing through their jurisdictions, so the only way to stop the trains is to stop the terminals. But the path to blocking the Gateway Pacific Terminal and other terminal proposals in Longview, Washington, and Boardman, St. Helens, and Coos Bay, Oregon, is murky. Each terminal is being pushed by separate coal interests and each faces its own timeline and permitting process for approval. Opponents fear that if one proposal goes through, the amount of coal they plan on shipping will increase exponentially to meet market demands.
"The coal industry has already lied about the amount of coal they were planning on shipping out of Longview," says Krista Collard, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club. "When that was discovered, they had to pull permit applications and refile." A spokesperson for Millennium Bulk Terminals, the organization behind the Longview proposal, didn't respond to a request for comment.
In order to proceed with the coal terminals, companies must first secure development permits from local county councils, aquatic lease permits from public lands commissioner Peter Goldmark, and approval for the projects from the state Department of Ecology and federal Army Corps of Engineers. The biggest challenge, opponents say, is to orchestrate killing all five of the proposals at once—not just the terminal at Cherry Point.
"It's not about one entity, it's about the big picture," explains Kimberly Larson, a spokeswoman for Climate Solutions, which is working with the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to organize Northwest opposition efforts in both Oregon and Washington. "They're all in play at the same time, and that's why it's important to show the collective resistance across the region. If one goes through, it will affect all of us." For instance, coal trains headed to Oregon would still trundle through Spokane and the Columbia River Gorge, impacting communities along the way and clogging Washington's freight rail system. You can help Climate Solutions and the Sierra Club by writing letters opposing the terminals to Commissioner Goldmark (cpl@dnr.wa.gov), the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Ecology (eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment), as well as to your state, county, and city representatives.
Protesters already helped kill one coal terminal last summer, slated for Grays Harbor. "After hearing from the community, the terminal said that they wanted to ship friendlier, healthier items than coal out there," Collard explains.
That's the sort of victory coal train opponents hope to achieve throughout the Northwest. "We share a vision for a better future," testified King County executive Dow Constantine at Seattle's public hearing on the Cherry Point terminal. "Our vision doesn't include 18 trains a day pulling those coal cars through the heart of Washington. This isn't just a regional issue; it's a global issue and a generational issue. In Washington, we have done away with coal-fired plants, but shipping overseas will overwhelm the gains we've made here at home."
A 12-year-old couldn't have said it any better. ![]()
2
(should we keep a tally of how many news stories/investigations that started at The Stranger or Slog which was then "picked up" by Seattle Times, KOMO, etc.?)
Keep up the fight!
These coal export terminals are a lose/lose proposition for residents of the Northwest even if you ignore the disastrous effects on the global climate.
7
Please comment on this project at http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-i… by January 21. Your comment is possibly even more important than your vote in the 2012 election because the committee has to read each comment and respond to each of your concerns before determining whether to allow this project. If you raise a new issue, the committee is legally obligated to consider that issue. Even if you think you have the same ideas that everyone else does, your comment is very important because the more people who speak up against the coal trains the more power local government organizations and politicians will have to stand up against the big coal companies.
You do not have to be 18 years old to comment. If you are a teacher (or if you know a teacher), you can ask each student in your entire class to comment for a homework assignment. If you are a parent you can ask your child to comment. This is our chance and the clock is ticking. Speak now (by January 21) or forever hold your breath.
Coal is backwards, proven to cause lung cancer (black lung), and
you are absolutely spot on, @4 nonotford!!
The idiotic coal train proposal would not only completely destroy what makes Washington State such a desirable place to live, but only "benefits" the Koch brothers and their greedy profit lusting ilk. As for "Good Jobs Now", don't anybody be fooled! Has anyone besides me noticed that the number of "promised" permanent jobs has dwindled down to 200? Like such "jobs" would really boost our economy, while emergency crews and others are left stuck at railroad crossings. how many corpses would the fire, police, and aid cars end up transporting instead to the morgue, provided they can get there?
The coal train idea is a catastrophe of biblical proportions (yes, think about all the increased burning of fossil fuels when we really SHOULD be focusing on saving our planet) straight out of a 1970s disaster movie. We cannot let this happen!
15
17
And yes, I'm sure a coastal coal terminal will help the economies of Montana and Wyoming, but it won't do jack-shit for us in Seattle except hurt our own economy.
Maybe these freeloading coal states should put some skin in the game and pay for all the infrastructure changes needed to deal with three hours of coal traffic running through Seattle every day, rather than expecting Seattle to do that.
And maybe these freeloading states should also pay for the extra maintenance on Washington rail lines due to these heavier, more frequent trains, and reimburse us for being the bottleneck in our own rail commerce
It's only good for the economy of Montana and Wyoming if someone else is responsible for the economic consequences along the route. If they had to pay the true cost of getting coal to the coast, they'd lose their shirts.
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r…
Coal dust is not toxic and covering the tracks for thousand of miles. I commute to work on a train every day. Coal trains us the same track. I have never seen a speck of coal dust in the station or coming off the trains as they past. The only people that have every had a problem with coal dust are coal miners and modern mining procedures that use water to keep the dust down have greatly reduces that problem.
There also seem to be a lot of selfish attitudes that think there little inconvenience by a train is more important that the thousand of lives that will be helped by the jobs created. But that is a trait of the liberal mindset isn't it.
Let the trains roll.
20
But putting that aside, I strongly oppose the trains because of the damage they will do and the dangerous risks they will pose locally in Western Washington, all along the proposed rail route.
Given all the street level rail crossings north of Seattle, the daily passage of these trains will have a huge negative impact on North Sound commuters as traffic patterns become permanently disrupted (whether you're alone in a car or in a crowded public transit bus, you'll be stuck waiting for a mile long train to clear a crossing at a speed of 25-30 MPH). In some areas, this will back traffic up to I-5 and on I-5, as arterial streets and roads serving the Interstate are blocked by the trains.
Frustrated drivers will increasingly try to beat the train at crossings, leading to an increase in train vs. vehicle accidents. This type of accident is always a major derailment risk. The constant danger of mudslides along a stretch of the rail corridor in Snohomish County also poses a high risk for derailment in the Everett area.
You want to bring this closer to home? Just think about a coal train derailment occurring above Golden Gardens spilling tons of coal onto the beach and polluting Shilshole Bay. That should be enough to make your blood boil.
A coal train can lose 25% of the load? Anyone believe it?
2. This smells like Frasier Crane's toilet backed up because he ate at that new vegan place. SHIT STINKS. a.k.a you can't have your cake and eat it too. Stopping trains that connect to the most efficient places, strangles the hope for better country wide transportation.
3. Stopping coal trains hurts another part of this country, a cleaner part of this country. For example: http://www.homes.com/listing/174577061/4…
you stop coal trains, my hometown becomes a ghost town.
funny name, You assume they aren't mining this off their own land? The states dig, and mine, Washington does not. Is that not fair? Larger cities get to use the offspring that coal produces(your galoshes and raincoats). Communication is key here...maybe a 30/40/50 year plan?
Seattle likes to bitch about traffic. STOP DRIVING.
permanent "jobs" at the start, is now saying that only 200 will be permanent. Meanwhile, many OTHER existing jobs (i.e., trucking) stand to be lost BECAUSE of projected increases in traffic congestion, and in the fishing industry once our waterways are permanently polluted.
You obviously don't live near train tracks like I do, either. I am not selfish, I am only making sense!
Coal is an outdated 19th century dinosaur that should be made extinct!
@26 & @33: Did you recently pick your nose, find a 5 lb. bugger, and it turned out to be your brain?
There is nothing in the world that "everybody knows" and and that kind of annoying presumptuousness drives me crazy.
Articles like this without proper compromise or will to listen to any other point of view are frustrating.
Yet those same Seattleites don't seem to care much about the interdependence of the PNW on the (coal-spewing) Chinese economy generally. Our port does the most trade with China out of any port in the US -- those goods are linked to more burning coal than will ever be shipped out of these terminals. But when we shut down that port, all The Stranger did was bitch and moan. So when WE ultimately go out on the streets, blockade the rails, and actually dent these company's profits, will you just call us violent, smelly protestors who don't really know what they're talking about?
Problems are not solved in environmental-review board rooms. That's just where they keep the green paint.
On the other hand, I know China's demand for energy is insatiable, and they will get American coal, one way or another. If not via Cherry Point, then from somewhere else.
If we hadn't mortgaged our future to the Chinese, we might have some say in the matter. But considering they hold trillions of our American Dollars, they will buy what they want. Or they will invade us....eventually.
Hope you like that new Iphone 5! We just went a bit more in debt to the Hammer and Sickle as a result of your purchase.
http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=1…
"The problem that faces our societies is that we have developed industries and policies that were appropriate at a certain moment, but now start to reduce human welfare, like for example the oil and car industry. Their political and financial power is so great and they can prevent change. It is my expectation that they will succeed. This means that we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change."
Acknowledge this and give up the un-winnable battles: the coal will get to China and it will be burned there, regardless of our local protests. Re-focus your energy to do something more useful, like preparing yourself (and your children!) for a comprehnsive reduction in living standards.
(P.S. - you won't need an iGadget or NBA tickets for that)
The Koch brothers ad nauseum WANT us to kowtow to the Chinese, because destroying every remaining natural resource left in the United States would make THEM richer.
That DOESN'T mean we suddenly "have" to export coal.
@40 & @42: Sorry, you're not taking me down with you! Washington State is still my beloved home since birth, and I will protest until I'm in my grave.
(click on the "Historic" tab on that page)
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to come from the burning of fossil fuels: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc…
(click on the "Historic" tab on that page)
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to come from the burning of fossil fuels: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc…
Factors that NEED to be considered when looking at the COMPLETE picture in this argument include: the fact that China and India are going to not just continue to use vast amounts of coal now, but will increase their consumption of the energy source for the next several decades, regardless of where the coal comes from; coal mined in the United States is extracted in a more environmental manor than in places like China, Mongolia, and other countries where environmental standards are much lower; the extraction and exporting of coal will have some kind of positive economic impact in various places in the United States.
Once the (potentially) positive aspects have been properly and fairly laid out, only then can people balance those against the (potential) costs and decide in favor or against an issue. Refusing to even attempt a balanced argument shows not just poor analytic and debate skills, but immaturity as well (look at most of the comments for this article to see even "better" examples of this kind of self-righteous pigheadedness).
I haven't taken a stand for or against the issue yet because it is very hard to find reliable and balanced information for either side. This article certainly did nothing to change that.
this is inaccurate. first let me say that i agree with the argument that we should not burn this coal, and i share the concerns about global warming voiced in this article. i also think that some of the research done in writing this article is good. but these numbers are inaccurate, and, to be honest, even though they weren;t central to the arguments in this article, their inaccuracy made me question (even as a 'sympathizer') the other figures and statistics that you cite.
it is more accurate to say that there were about 500 coal trains in 2012 sent to roberts bank, BC from the powder river basin, with the spring creek mine in wyoming the biggest contributor. this is the only source of coal coming through washington to be exported at roberts bank. thats about 4 loaded trains every 3 days, or a bit less than 3 per day if you count the empty trains (which dont come through seattle). so you are off by a factor of 2+.
maybe you mis-estimated the tons of coal that each coal train carries, or you just have bad numbers on the total annual tonnage itself.
as a journalist you know as well as i that any slight factual errors can bring other things you are saying into question, especially when it comes to skeptics and/or people who are on the fence.
PS there were about 175 coal trains sent to the Centralia steam plant in 2012, or about 1 every other day. but of course you were talking specifically about coal sent to Canada.
In terms of impact on our local environment and our daily lives (and not giving a rat's patoot about about quality of life anywhere BUT here), the whole proposal is either, at worst, a strong negative or, at best, a neutral for the overwhelming majority of Washingtonians.
If interstate commerce cannot be impeded and the coal facilities are not opened in WA, where will they open? Ans: British Columbia, which has way less environmental regulation than the USA, for both it's land and Puget Sound. This little piece of information is well known among planners, but utterly neglected in print thus far.
Translation: The coal trains will travel through Seattle regardless of whether "we" (the people) want them too or not. And, the only way we, US citizens, can maximize the regulatory safety to both the region and the Sound is insure that terminals are built in the USA and fall under US regulations, which are far stricter than those in B.C.
Sure, coal is terrible. We can all agree on that; however, when Miss Madrid starts addressing the reality of the situation instead of a shameless emotional plea with no analysis of the "what if's" perhaps people might take heed. Miss Madrid: What is your plan to stop the coal from being transported through Seattle and shipped via B.C.?
50
54
http://coalexportaction.org/
I don't care if China and Southeast Asia are so dependent on coal "they'll go elsewhere" to get it, or, that if coal isn't exported from Cherry Point in Whatcom County, Canada will get the revenue, not us! Oh, darn! This isn't being "NIMBY"---it's preserving what's left of our planet by using good, common sense!
Just say "NO!" to coal.
56
I wouldn't mind exporting Rush Limbaugh and the Koch brothers
one way to Asia, but that would REALLY cause an unbearable global stink.
You only know the things she wants you to know.
I know she's having a fit,
She doesn't like me a bit,
No bird of grace ever lit on Auntie Grizelda.
62
You can't just pick out bits of data and opinion from your sources without giving the context, or telling the whole story in the sentences that surround your cherry-picked quote.
First off, we all agree that coal burning for power is neanderthalic at best. Asia, however, will get their coal, regardless of what we do in our state. It just wouldn't ship out of Washington - we just pass the issue on to someone else's backyard.
Secondly, getting Asia to accept, buy and use lower-sulfur coal(aka "clean coal", as the coal lobby has deviously named it) is a first step of many to make long-term changes in their energy policies. No it's not ideal, but there's also no magic wand or Sustainable Energy Fairy that will bring about this change overnight.
The crux of my issue with this borderline hack job of an article, is the data from the "coal industry group" Utility FPE Group Inc. If you spend 60 seconds on their website, you will see that they are a BUSINESS that sells abatement materials and products to the companies dealing with coal delivery and storage. Risk Engineering, as UFPEG proudly claims as their business, depends on making the case that a RISK EXISTS. Much of the data that they give to prove risk is misleading and in some cases just plain false.
1) Only very rarely does coal spontaneously combust in hopper cars - regardless whether it's smoke or fire. Coal itself is actually NOT easily ignited. If coal sits for a long time, there is some risk, but when a load of coal is put into a hopper, it's commonly out of that car in less than 7 days. The only cases I've heard of coal loads on fire on a railroad have been caused by external sources... i.e. forest fires or field burning depositing embers; or from a "hot box" - where brakes on a railroad car lock up and start smoldering or even catch fire.
It's like worrying about car fires in downtown Seattle. Yes, I'm sure it happens... but it's really not something worth worrying about.
2) Coal dust in a standard hopper dissipates within the first 50 miles of transit. Coal hoppers are not "constantly spewing dust", as stated. It's not even really an issue anymore, as most of the bigger railroads are now spraying their coal loads with a surfactant that cuts down on coal dust emissions by 80-90%. The issue with coal dust destabilizing the railroad's roadbed is true - so the railroads have a vested interest to make sure this is addressed. But the only place where coal dust interaction with a roadbed has caused derailments is in Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin itself.
Other points that are made by Ms Madrid:
- Washington's freight rail system will not be "clogged". They have adequate capacity for these proposed trains, plus some.
- Impact for most communities in Eastern Washington will be minimal. For instance, all existing and proposed coal trains move through Spokane, where the impact to traffic is exactly zero. There are no grade crossings within Spokane city limits that this train will impact, and only 4 total that it will impact within the Spokane metro area.
- Impact to Seattle traffic will only apply to trains that are not routed through Stevens Pass. I don't know the proposed distribution of these trains, but they have 3 potential routes to the Puget Sound from Spokane.
- Claims about fishing being harmed - at least for Cherry Point - are new to me, and from what I can find, unfounded. The Wa Dept of Fish & Wildlife does not list the Whatcom County coast as a recognized "fishing ground", and there are no public objections to Cherry Point from fishermen that I can find. As for the other locations, I did not research those, and wouldn't doubt there would be impact.
- And yes, this will create a bunch of local jobs... not just for the coal terminals, but for the railroads, their subcontractors and infrastructure companies they do business with.
I guess my main point in all this is that to make MEANINGFUL CHANGE, adopting a NIMBY attitude does not help in this case. The coal will just go elsewhere to export - probably California. The countries of Eastern Asia will not suddenly say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't import coal after all" - they will just decide not to get it from the US, and instead get it from countries with a perhaps dodgier set of regulations on coal export.
I'd encourage our state to increase taxes on coal exports - if that is possible - as an initial step. And secondly, our Federal government needs to step in and impose a tariff on exports to countries without environmental controls and protections around the continued use of coal-fired energy production.
I acknowledge that as a progressive, and also a railroad proponent and railfan, I walk this weird tightrope of dichotomy. I've tried to give facts in my post, and not opinion. Facts are the progressive's best friend - facts need to be of utmost importance in our arguments, and I'd very much like to be corrected if any of my "facts" are incorrect.
You can't just pick out bits of data and opinion from your sources without giving the context, or telling the whole story in the sentences that surround your cherry-picked quote.
First off, we all agree that coal burning for power is neanderthalic at best. Asia, however, will get their coal, regardless of what we do in our state. It just wouldn't ship out of Washington - we just pass the issue on to someone else's backyard.
Secondly, getting Asia to accept, buy and use lower-sulfur coal(aka "clean coal", as the coal lobby has deviously named it) is a first step of many to make long-term changes in their energy policies. No it's not ideal, but there's also no magic wand or Sustainable Energy Fairy that will bring about this change overnight.
The crux of my issue with this borderline hack job of an article, is the data from the "coal industry group" Utility FPE Group Inc. If you spend 60 seconds on their website, you will see that they are a BUSINESS that sells abatement materials and products to the companies dealing with coal delivery and storage. Risk Engineering, as UFPEG proudly claims as their business, depends on making the case that a RISK EXISTS. Much of the data that they give to prove risk is misleading and in some cases just plain false.
1) Only very rarely does coal spontaneously combust in hopper cars - regardless whether it's smoke or fire. Coal itself is actually NOT easily ignited. If coal sits for a long time, there is some risk, but when a load of coal is put into a hopper, it's commonly out of that car in less than 7 days. The only cases I've heard of coal loads on fire on a railroad have been caused by external sources... i.e. forest fires or field burning depositing embers; or from a "hot box" - where brakes on a railroad car lock up and start smoldering or even catch fire.
It's like worrying about car fires in downtown Seattle. Yes, I'm sure it happens... but it's really not something worth worrying about.
2) Coal dust in a standard hopper dissipates within the first 50 miles of transit. Coal hoppers are not "constantly spewing dust", as stated. It's not even really an issue anymore, as most of the bigger railroads are now spraying their coal loads with a surfactant that cuts down on coal dust emissions by 80-90%. The issue with coal dust destabilizing the railroad's roadbed is true - so the railroads have a vested interest to make sure this is addressed. But the only place where coal dust interaction with a roadbed has caused derailments is in Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin itself.
Other points that are made by Ms Madrid:
- Washington's freight rail system will not be "clogged". They have adequate capacity for these proposed trains, plus some.
- Impact for most communities in Eastern Washington will be minimal. For instance, all existing and proposed coal trains move through Spokane, where the impact to traffic is exactly zero. There are no grade crossings within Spokane city limits that this train will impact, and only 4 total that it will impact within the Spokane metro area.
- Impact to Seattle traffic will only apply to trains that are not routed through Stevens Pass. I don't know the proposed distribution of these trains, but they have 3 potential routes to the Puget Sound from Spokane.
- Claims about fishing being harmed - at least for Cherry Point - are new to me, and from what I can find, unfounded. The Wa Dept of Fish & Wildlife does not list the Whatcom County coast as a recognized "fishing ground", and there are no public objections to Cherry Point from fishermen that I can find. As for the other locations, I did not research those, and wouldn't doubt there would be impact.
- And yes, this will create a bunch of local jobs... not just for the coal terminals, but for the railroads, their subcontractors and infrastructure companies they do business with.
I guess my main point in all this is that to make MEANINGFUL CHANGE, adopting a NIMBY attitude does not help in this case. The coal will just go elsewhere to export - probably California. The countries of Eastern Asia will not suddenly say "Hey, maybe we shouldn't import coal after all" - they will just decide not to get it from the US, and instead get it from countries with a perhaps dodgier set of regulations on coal export.
I'd encourage our state to increase taxes on coal exports - if that is possible - as an initial step. And secondly, our Federal government needs to step in and impose a tariff on exports to countries without environmental controls and protections around the continued use of coal-fired energy production.
I acknowledge that as a progressive, and also a railroad proponent and railfan, I walk this weird tightrope of dichotomy. I've tried to give facts in my post, and not opinion. Facts are the progressive's best friend - facts need to be of utmost importance in our arguments, and I'd very much like to be corrected if any of my points are incorrect.
No way to delete one, eh?
I would ask what are the economics of sending coal to China? What are the alternatives for China? In terms of social justice I would think it better for China to buy from the US its coal. Better standards. And we should go there have pay to help them build higher quality power plants. They won't do it on their own.
Increased rail traffic seems to be a poor argument to me. That is what the tracks are there for.
I live next to the I-5 and am always cleaning a lot of black soot out of the apartment. I am guessing that driving all these automobiles in a crowded urban area produces a lot more pollution in one day than the trains would produce in one year.
So all I really got out of the article was that people are upset and a bit hysterical about coal trains.
Alternatives for china include mining and burning far worse locally mined(in china) coal. worse working conditions as well. Powder River Basin has high safety standards. I've seen such a drop in new employees at these mines, along with more regulations, that it is obvious the industry is shrinking. Hopefully with these discussions, coal industry can invest in making the current coalbeds last twice as long as they proudly proclaim. That means alternative energy needs to be rooted in the same land that this coal is coming from, and coal can gradually find its way off the top of the pile.
71
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-i…
[You can send your own as well. Why not do it today or tonight; on your own, with a friend, whatever. Just get to it. Yes, Seattle –This is an official call to action.]
I hope to spend my final days in this splendid complexity of human and animal life that is Seattle. It is utterly confounding that a bulk coal conveyance facility site would be under consideration in such fragile ecological environments as is represented from the Oregon coast to Cherry Point, Washington. Contingency and mitigation plans are all well and good, but the historical hazard event record does not bode well for coal production, transportation, storage, nor combustion as fuel.
The various applicants for coal-loading and transportation facilities have abjectly failed to allay the well-founded concerns of current (and future generations) of people living in the debris field (fallout!) zones of the available rail rights-of-way, and fail to garner confidence that sufficient mitigation measures would (or could) be designed and implemented. Of course, when I say "sufficient", I refer to sufficient with respect to the people in the wake of the coal trains –not the coal operators and principals who would substantially profit from the misery of the coal's effects per se.
The "benefits" alluded to by the coal operators, i.e., tax base increases, jobs, etc., are a red herring, given that the vast degradation of natural resources along all rail rights-of-way could not possibly be compensated by the most optimistic estimates of employment as projected by any of the plans under consideration.
It is patently foolish to suggest that renewable resources such as the fishing industry (necessary for much of human life) should be subjugated in favor of the mass extraction and transportation of toxic, non-renewable fossil fuel.
By any objective analysis, the risks-to-benefits are non-commensurate and asymmetric to the point of idiocy, except to those who would personally stand to gain, or those who refuse to observe the dangers, be their motive greed for money or any other.
75
"Increased rail traffic seems to be a poor argument to me. That is what the tracks are there for.
I live next to the I-5 and am always cleaning a lot of black soot out of the apartment."
Monty Python auditions are long past, but this would have been great Graham Chapman material.
78







RSS
Comments (79) RSS