So what happens to the rail industry when we stop using coal?
A lot of coal is exported anyways, so there is still a market for it.
Railroads will be moving more oil and intermodal freight by then to make up for the shortfall.
It's really not something to worry about
>>895154
Golden era will return. As lack of coal suggests completely different economy. Most likely one with less personal transport, more urbanisation (less sprawl) and subsequently, large urban centers connected with plethora of freight carrying rail lines.
And, of course, electrification will be dominant.
>>895180
I can't tell if this is bait or if you think cars in the US use coal instead of petrol.
>>895182
Oil will run out faster then coal. Loss of coal will, invariably, mean either a civilisational collapse ( doubtful ) or entirely different energy source. Thus, different economy.
Just like steam brought railroads, and oil brought cars, new energy source will bring its own changes. My prediction is as good as any.
>>895180
>electrified
No. Most powerplants are coal, so electrification would be much more expensive
>>895154
we continue shipping consumer goods for good goys who keep buying shit they don't need
not to mention oil and petroleum products
and wind turbines and solar panels
and food
until we get teleportation, moving big heavy shit long distances for dirt cheap will continue to be the domain of the rails
>>895207
Most power plants aren't coal. Coal now generates less than 40% of electricity and that percentage is in freefall.
A big thing that people forget that rail moves is products of the chemical industry. Anything from hoppers filled with plastic pellets or vinyl powder, to tank cars filled with chlorine or HCL.
A lot of chemical products companies ship by rail exclusively because it's safer than trucking it and you can carry more product in one car load.
Suffice it to say, railroads aren't going to go bust because coal volumes are slowly dropping. There will always be large amounts of shit that need to be moved to other places, and railroads will be the best way to do that over land.
>>895180
>Electrification tard
Drink some draino, retard.
>>895154
Look at the UK. Europe introduced limits on coal and something like 400 drivers have been fired. The freight industry is collapsing.
>>895207
So you say, that if coal gets outmoded, then whatever electricity was generated from coal is going to be lost, and never, ever replaced by anything?
>>895427
That's been the case for the last five years.
>shut down coal powered powerplants
>don't replace them with any new source of power
>energy becomes scarcer, rates go up
>justasplanned.jpg
>>895154
We'll use them to transport in Syrian immigrants. We'll need a lot of them to turn our monocultural society around.
>>895447
The New Orient Express: Bucharest - Stockholm.
>>895447
Always room in my bunker for you, bro.
>>895441
I can't tell if this is bait or if you're genuinely that fucking retarded. Coal plants are either being replaced or being retrofitted into LNG plants.
>>895535
Look it up, he is right.
>>895587
Except he's wrong. Not who you're talking to btw.
>>895207
That's objectively incorrect. A solid majority of power plants are NOT coal.
Is it necessary to give a fuck how many plants using coal vs LNG, since coal is still the majority by MW/hrs? The objective measure is if more coal plants go down, replaced by LNG which is currently cheap but won't stay so, compared to coal prices which are comparatively stable, then shit will go sideways.
Fun fact, coal is needed to make steel.
Trains, wagons and rails are mostly made of steel.
So as long as there is a rail industry the world will keep using coal.
Also much of your modern world is made of steel.
So we may have to use coal as long as there is a modern world.
>>896227
> since coal is still the majority by MW/hrs
That's not even correct. Why do you keep perpetuating this falsehood?
>>896289
Metallurgical coal for steel making is about a tenth of the volume of thermal coal.
So yes, we will never stop using coal, but it still could end up greatly reduced.
Pretty retarded question. Might as well ask what happens to the railroad industry when an EMP blast destroys the nation's electrical grid.
>>896321
>le ebin bike maymay
Fuck off.
>>895154
we won't
coal is a component in steel manufacturing
>>895154
we won't stop using coal soon enough. As global warming is a self-reinforcing process Earth's average temperature will go up by 6 degrees celsius by 2200. Humans will go extinct along with the vast majority of other animals. Earth will come back to life over the following several thousand years but there's no reason to expect another intelligent, talking, inquisitive species like ourselves to arise.
As there are clearly no civilisations significantly more advanced than our own lying around on other planets (they'd be extremely obvious, even in other galaxies) and Earth was one of the few planets that was able to support complex life at a time in the Universe's history early enough to detect the remnants of the Big Bang, the Universe will never produce anything that succeeds in figuring it all out. Human brains were almost that stroke of luck but ultimately the Universe's only chance to understand itself will be gone within two centuries and will never be replaced.
That's what happens to the rail industry before we stop using coal.
>>896356
What does Enron scamming customers have to do with the number of active power plants in the US?
>>896355
>Thinks the human race will become extinct by a 6 degree rise in temperatures
Talk about delusion.
>>896363
Human-caused climate change believers are basically members of a religious cult at this point.
>>896363
last time global average temperature was that high was around 250 million years ago. The event is known as the Permian–Triassic extinction event, or the Great Dying. 96% of sea creatures and 70% of land-based vertebrates went extinct.
How exactly would you plan on surviving that?
>>896403
It will all work itself out. Scientists are delusional
Signed,
Chevron, Exxon, and all the rest
>>896363
oh my god are you for real right now
>>896434
You are welcome to begin the process towards deindustrialization and lead by example by giving up your energy intensive computer habits and foregoing all evil electricity.
>>896437
>and foregoing all evil electricity.
Fuck you.
>>896438
If you don't live near a "renewable energy" power source, and get your power exclusively from said source, then fuck you. You realize that 7 billion people can't live on wind, solar, and hydro alone, right? So either admit that you want to destroy industrial society or admit that you want 6 billion people to die.
Your fantasy utopia of solar powered bike paths is as unrealistic as Pol Pot's Year Zero. They're both the result of the same flawed logic, though.
As to the OP's question, the complete elimination of coal traffic would negatively impact the railroads, but they would quickly recover and operate as before. Maybe with less employees and less frequent train schedules.
>>896437
electricity isn't evil nor does electricity itself contribute to global warming; burning coal and fossil fuels does. nuclear power is a fantastic alternative. people who are concerned a out global warming aren't suggesting we should de-industrialize, just that we can't continue industrialization in the same manner as we've been going about it
>>896445
>If you don't live near a "renewable energy" power source, and get your power exclusively from said source, then fuck you. You realize that 7 billion people can't live on wind, solar, and hydro alone, right? So either admit that you want to destroy industrial society or admit that you want 6 billion people to die.
you're a fucking idiot
>>896449
Nice rebuttal. Tell me how 7 billion people can live at a decent standard of living without the use of fossil fuels?
>>896358
Enron deliberately shut down power plants in CA to cause the power cost to rise.
oh boy here come the "if you can't fix the problem 1000% RIGHT NOW it's not a problem at all" idiots
>>896453
nobody is saying we have to live exclusivelt on renewable power; the issue is that we need to creaye less co2 by burning less fuels. it doesn't have to be 100% renewable. nuclear power and renewable is a fantastic energy source in many cases and could easily help us reduce our use of fuels with greater adoption. the goal is reduction of co2 emission, which we absolutely need to reduce greatly. it'skit like we can't use coal or fossil fuels at all, we just need to be a hell of a lot smarter about it
>>896445
>So either admit that you want to destroy industrial society or admit that you want 6 billion people to die.
Do you live in one of those areas? If so I wouldn't mind seeing you and your entire family perish while I continue to enjoy my cheap energy and large supply of fresh water.
>>896455
OK? What does that have to do with the number of active power plants in the US? Enron is in example of a company abusing a poor regulatory environment, not an example of an actual power shortage.
>>896457
And yet the biggest opponents of nuclear power are not the evil conservatives but the liberal progressives.
I agree that nuclear power is a necessity but the anti-fossil fuel zealots on the left are usually the same ones that get hysterical when nuclear power is mentioned.
>>896458
And here's a good example of the tolerance of human-caused climate change cultists. Thanks for proving my point.
>>896461
it clearly indicates we need to get rid of the regulation of power
>>896462
>And here's a good example of the tolerance of human-caused climate change cultists. Thanks for proving my point.
Did you honestly think anyone was taking your shitposting seriously at this point?
>>896465
How was what I posted anymore shitposty than the doom porn you posted above? You still haven't outlined a realistic vision of the future that doesn't end with everyone dying, since in your view even if we stopped consuming fossil fuels today the damage has already been done and we are all screwed anyway.
>>896469
>ahhhb doom porn
>we'll all float on OK if we burn moar coal
You have to be more subtle about your bait OP.
>>896473
So you don't actually have anything of value to say. Cool.
And I'm not the OP.
>>896476
>And I'm not the OP.
>>896477
You don't actually know what the term OP refers to, do you?
It's okay, I know it takes awhile to get used to the lingo on this site. I know the place you came from is much different.
>>896292
Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:
Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%
>>896403
>The event is known as the Permian–Triassic extinction event
and it wasn't global warming.
>>895218
Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:
Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%
get to fuck
>>895677
Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:
Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%
>>896487
That proves him correct. Is that what you were trying to do?
>>896482
it probably was global warming but happened naturally. Burning oil and coal is just doing the same thing again artificially.
>>896289
Actually - most steel these days is made in EAFs. Blast furnaces are, obviously, still used, but reprocessing of scrap tends to be more effective these days.
