Showing posts with label Illinois. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illinois. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Tech Talk - Coal mining continues to produce

Sadly I was away from home last week to attend a family funeral in Northumberland where, for the past nine generations including mine, our family have been miners. The funeral was for my father’s sister, Linda, who had documented early life in the mining village of Ashington in her books “A Tune for Bears to Dance To,” and “The Pit Village and the Store.” The latter was made into a docu-drama for British Channel Four television. The hotel at which we stayed was next to the Woodhorn Mining Museum which has been built around the colliery offices from the old mine. The rest of the property has been turned into a nature park – with a little twist.


Figure 1. Part of the old mine site, now the Queen Elizabeth II Country Park, with a 40 acre lake. Note the wind turbines in the background – all but one of the 14 were turning during my stay. (Hotel on the right)

The site is also now home to considerable bird life – including over three dozen swans that I counted as I meandered around the lake.


Figure 2. Some of the birds on the lake at Woodhorn

Much of this part of Northumberland has changed considerably since the time – over 50 years ago – that I was an Indentured Apprentice in the National Coal Board working at Seghill Colliery, though on day release once a week to Ashington Technical College. One of the greater changes is illustrated in the background to a painting of my father that my aunt painted.


Figure 3. My Dad as Undermanager at Ashington (note the yard stick, the safety lamp is hidden by the coat). (Linda McCullough-Thew)

The large mounds are the pit heaps which were scattered all around the road as the bus carried me from Newcastle to the pit. They are all gone now, and the land is restored and, as the pictures above testify, now visually contaminated by the latest form of energy generation, though that doesn’t seem to worry the red squirrels and the geese.


Figure 4. Pit heap dominating the miners houses (Sunderland Public Library)

I thought of that as the recent reports on the devastation that mining creates are once again headlining the problems as new and enlarged lignite mines are developing in Europe. The transition to mining lignite, which contains considerable quantities of water and is a geological precursor to the black bituminous and anthracite coals that are preferred, is coming because it is considerably cheaper than alternate sources and nations have it at hand, instead of having to spend currency on importing alternate and increasingly expensive fuels from elsewhere. The reason that lignite is attractive is that the black coal seams that used to be mined in much of Europe have been mined out at currently economic depths, and lignite – even though less energy intense – has become an economically viable alternative.

To mine the surface deposits Europeans rely on the Bucketwheel Excavator (video here) with one machine replacing 40,000 men with picks and shovels (the way I was initially taught to mine). The overlying rock and soil (overburden) is first removed and stored, and then, once the coal has been removed, the land is restored with very stringent requirements for the condition of that restoration, so that in many cases the stone walls around the fields are replaced and the appearance of the land is similar to what was there before.

At present surface mining is becoming the dominant method for coal production. The thick seams in Wyoming and Montana have huge reserves, and the coal is very simple to mine and remove. Once mined it is trucked away from the machines and loaded into rail cars which then carry the coal around the nation. Because this coal has a low sulfur content it has proved competitive even against the more local coals of the East, which must often now be expensively mined from the underground. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted two counties in Wyoming now account for 40% of the US coal mined, while underground mines are closing in Appalachia.

After seeing a drop in coal production of around 9% as coal fired power plants were replaced by natural gas in the 2011 to 2013 time frame, the EIA is now projecting that US coal demand will increase by 3.6% this year, as natural gas prices rise. This will be followed by a 2.5% decline in 2015 as the new EPA regulations bite harder in driving the closure/transition of power plants. However US natural gas prices continue to be much lower than those in most of the rest of the world, and thus, as the WSJ notes , overall coal production in the USA is likely to stabilize around current levels for the next three decades, while domestic demand reduction is offset by increasing demands for coal from other countries which will continue to find it a cheaper alternative.

Much of the alternative replacement fuels for coal (and in some cases nuclear) are presumed to be from the increased levels of shale gas that are being produced in the United States, and which are projected to become domestic sources of fuel in many other countries around the world , including Europe. However while the plans and actions to close coal fired power plants proceed apace the rate and scale at which alternate sources of energy, particularly European shale gas, will appear are much less certain.

And in the interim, as coal mines have found better ways of processing the coal to meet power station demands, the potential for growth still exists, as the recent example in the Illinois Basin shows, where Sunrise Coal are planning to open a new underground mine in Vermillion IL this year, producing around 3 million tons of coal a year. The mine will use room and pillar mining to ensure that there is no surface ground subsidence, which can be a problem in the Illinois Basin.

And those who anticipate that China and India will reduce coal demand in order to overcome the problems that they have with air pollution, should remember that air pollution in the UK was at least as bad in the early 1060’s but by changing the way in which coal was burned the air was cleaned, and Britain continues to rely on coal for a significant portion of its electrical power.

Read more!

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Temperatures in the Flat Middle of the USA

Last week I noted the curious drop in temperature along the Eastern Seaboard in the period from around 1950 to 1965. The question then arises as to whether there are other pieces of information in the data that I have accumulated, and so, out of curiosity, today I will look at the strip of states in the middle of the country and compare their average temperature with that of the East Coast. (Checking to see if my memory that there wasn't quite the same drop is, in fact, true).

I am trying to stay away from mountains in this strip, so I will pick Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. And, while there are some hills in the selection, just for simple characterization I am going to call these the “Flat Mid States.”

Interestingly all these months since I first looked at Arkansas, there is still a problem downloading the data for Rohwer from the USHCN, so I used the GISS values instead (recognizing that they are a little manipulated, but since I am averaging over 15 stations, reckoning that the “adjustment” won’t make that much difference.)

Looking at the average plot just averaging the state average values, calculated in earlier posts, one gets, for the homogenized data:

Averaged temperature in the Mid States using state average homogenized temperatures

When one uses the TOBS data, rather than the homogenized values, then the curve changes to

Averaged temperature in the Mid States using state average TOBS temperatures

If I weigh the results by the stations in the state (there are a total of 405 stations in this series), then the result, using TOBS data becomes:

Averaged temperature in the Mid States using state average TOBS temperatures, weighted by number of stations

The effective result of the weighting in the above plot is just to average all the station data. When, however, the area of the states is considered, bearing in mind that apart from Texas they are all much the same size, then the result becomes:

Averaged temperature in the Mid States using state average TOBS temperatures, weighted by state area.

It should be noted that the trend over the range of data is sensibly zero, i.e. there has been no temperature increase on average for these states, over the past 110 years.

The drop in temperature, so clear in the data for the Atlantic States is not as prolonged here, falling from 57.9 deg F in 1954 to 55.1 deg in 1960. Comparing the two plots:

Average temperature in the Flat Mid states (upper green) , relative to those of the Atlantic Shore states (lower red), averaging states weighted by area.

Note that there is a definite rise in temperature along the sea siding states. Also the larger size of Texas tends to give a larger weight to the south here, and thus the overall higher average.

Looking at the individual trends for each state in this set, I have again divided it into two sets to make it easier to distinguish the individual lines.

Average temperatures for the Northern set of states in the Flat Mid region

Note that Wisconsin and Michigan virtually overlap.

Average temperatures for the Southern set of states in the Flat Mid region
Here it is Arkansas and Oklahoma that are almost superimposed.

I will go on to look at other regions and compare them to see how temperature averages differ around the country, but will leave you with the usual comparison.

Difference between the average value for the USHCN homogenized values after the original TOBS values have been subtracted.

Read more!

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Illinois temperature data

Today I am going to return to looking at state temperatures over the past 110 years. It is something that I started doing on Saturdays a while ago, since there has been some debate, in the blog sphere, about the validity of certain choices for stations used in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) network for the United States. In the non-too-distant past they have truncated the number of stations that they use to determine temperature, and I became curious as to why they chose the stations that they did. So, recognizing that it is a long-handed way of doing this, I put together a procedure for looking at individual state data, which now covers a number of states (See the list on the lower right side of the page).

And in that procedure I write the post as I find and evaluate the numbers, so that as I start I don’t actually know what I am going to find. The first step in the process is to download the USHCN data for the sites that they list in Illinois and add them to the spreadsheet. There are 36 sites, and the data is smoothly transferred.

A quick check, and Chiefio states that GISS uses three stations for Illinois, Chicago, Peoria and Moline. Now this immediately gives a problem. Because when you look for Chicago on the GISS site it gives you two alternatives – Midway and O’Hare. The problem is that the data for Midway is from 1880 to 1981, and that for O’Hare is 1958 to 2010. For those not familiar with the city, I seem to recall that Midway actually sits on the lake, while O’Hare is a bit further inland. But being curious I downloaded both sets of data – with the intent of correlating the concurrent years and seeing if there was a correction I could then apply to the O’Hare data to give a full suite of data over the period of interest (1895 to 2008).


Peoria is fine, a full set of data, but Moline is also a problem, since GISS doesn’t have a station there. Hmmm! Odd! Well there is one for Davenport Iowa, which is just across the river, so I’ll use this for now. But then I check on the stations nearest to Davenport and lo! There is a Moline station, but it doesn’t start until 1944. So I’ll patch it and the Davenport data from before that period together. But first a check to ensure that they are similar, over the common period. Looking at both the two Chicago stations and then the Davenport/Moline one. Well it turns out that even though they are close, the two temperatures don’t exactly follow each other directly in either case. I have plotted the differences (Midway – O’Hare, Davenport – Moline) over the common time periods.


There is a very slight trend line increase in difference with time for Chicago, but it is not great, and the average temperature difference in Chicago is that Midway is 1.26 deg F warmer, and Moline is 0.97 deg F cooler than Davenport. It is a bit of a kludge to put the two together, but with that adjustment to allow using a full set of data for the 3 GISS stations, the difference between the GISS stations and the USHCN stations is a fairly consistent (no significant statistical change over time) 1.13 degrees lower. Which is not surprising, really, given that the 3 GISS stations are all located in the Northern part of the state.


As for the state as a whole, looking at the temperature trend for the past 115 odd years we get:


Not a very strong increase in temperature with time, in fact barely significant, and the trend is moving back towards the historical average. (I am beginning to suspect that we might see this in the MidWest states, maybe I should pose it as a hypothesis in the next state I do?)

Well I said that the reason that the GISS averages were low was that they were in the Northern part of the state, which would mean a strong correlation of temperature with latitude. And, as usual, there is.


On the other hand there isn’t much of a correlation with Longitude – not a whole lot of change in the state, going from one side to the other.


And here is the first surprise of the evening, with relatively little elevation change, I didn’t think that there would be much correlation with elevation – Wrong!


So even though the change In height is small, it is consistent with what we saw for states with much greater elevation change out west.

The premise of the next plot was that conditions around stations have deteriorated with time, and that, as a result the standard deviation of the station data would increase with time. With one or two exceptions that hasn’t proved true, but this shows steady improvement – which may be due to the automation of the data gathering.


So now it is time to get the population data (since this is one of the larger disagreements with GISS). I use the information from a Google search, and the city-data values, where available, which in this case is for all the sites in this survey. And, whoops, the second surprise of the night.


This is about the first time that there has not been a good correlation with a log-plot, and perhaps it is because of the geography of the state, where the communities are scattered around the state, with the largest city in the North.
Well I could take out latitude, and see what that did, but since I am just getting back into this, I think, for now, we’ll leave it where it is.

Now which way to go next?

Read more!