Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Coal  (Read 582383 times)

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #250 on: August 31, 2014, 06:30:30 PM »
Yes, there are some promising sounds coming out of China lately.

Of course, they are still burning nearly half of all coal burned in the world.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #251 on: August 31, 2014, 07:02:14 PM »
"Of course, they are still burning nearly half of all coal burned in the world."

You just found Waldo!!!

If China, which burns about half of all coal consumed in the world, has stopped increasing their coal use and started to reduce use (yes, yet to be confirmed) then we have turned a very major corner.

First you have to slow down going in the wrong direction.  Then you have to stop going in the wrong direction.  Finally you get to reverse direction.  But  you've got to slow and stop first.

Some of the other larger coal users (US, Germany) have already started cutting usage.  China is "half the world", if China has reversed direction that is incredible news. 

Again, for all you who wear the goggles of skepticism, we'll have to wait a couple of years to see if this is a real happening.  Just saving you some keyboard time.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #252 on: August 31, 2014, 07:52:38 PM »
"we'll have to wait a couple of years to see if this is a real happening"

Here, we can agree. And, yes, a reduction in the rate of increase is better than in increase in the rate of increase. Of course, we are still left with increase.

I am also happy to announce that the rate at which I am being stabbed to death seems to be not increasing quite at an exponential rate anymore. This is quite fortunate, and much better than an increase in the rate of increased stabbing, since my assailant will obviously have to first slow down his rate of stabbing before he finally stops and then starts wrapping up my blood-gushing rash of stabbing.  ;D :P

I will say that, in theory, since nearly 80% of all coal that is mined is produced by just five countries/entities--China, US, India, EU, Australia--it should (again, in theory) be possible for them to come up with some kind of treaty. It should be easier to get an agreement between five than between all countries on the planet.

Should I add 'in theory' again? There are problems with all of these, but right now the government of Australia seems particularly unlikely to sign on to any such agreement.

Meanwhile, the stabbings continue!

Global CO2 emissions reach 36 billion tonnes this year, driven by China and coal
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1360022/global-co2-emissions-reach-36-billion-tonnes-year-driven-china-and-coal

This for 2013, of course. Has anyone seen preliminary estimates for this year, yet?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 08:05:55 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #253 on: August 31, 2014, 08:36:21 PM »
"Of course, we are still left with increase."

Please show me where, exactly, this increase will take place.  If the largest coal consumers are cutting back that means that the countries that now consume 1% or less would have to really step up use in order to just replace what the US, Germany, Australia and China will not be burning.

China 49.5% in 2012, the US 11.1%, India 10%, Germany 3%, Australia 1.6%.  Those countries account for 75.2% of the coal burned in 2012.  All have either cut coal consumption since then or are working at cutting. 

Who is going to fill in and expand coal consumption?  The countries that now burn 0.1%? Or 0%.  Where is this growth happening?  What countries are building the 200 new coal plants needed to replace the 200 plants the US is in the process of closing?  Who is replacing the 7.9 GW of coal capacity Germany is right now closing?

New builds will have to replace and exceed.  What are those countries?  What numbers do we have that supports the claim of "still left with increase"?


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #254 on: August 31, 2014, 08:44:33 PM »
Here's a ranked list of coal consuming countries in 2012.  The percentage of world coal consumed is listed for each.  (Anyone know how to make columns line up/format?)

When several of the big boys are cutting back where is the action going to pick up that overrides that cut back and increases burn rates?

China   49.5
United States   11.1
India   10.0
Russia   3.4
Germany   3.3
Japan   2.5
South Africa   2.5
Poland   1.8
Korea, South   1.7
Australia   1.6
Kazakhstan   1.2
Ukraine   1.0
Indonesia   0.9
Taiwan   0.9
Greece   0.9
United Kingdom   0.8
Czech Republic   0.6
Canada   0.6
Thailand   0.5
Bulgaria   0.5
Romania   0.5
Spain   0.3
Brazil   0.3
Malaysia   0.3
Italy   0.3
Vietnam   0.3
Mexico   0.3
Philippines   0.2
France   0.2
Israel   0.2
Hong Kong   0.2
Netherlands   0.2
Hungary   0.2
Mongolia   0.1
Chile   0.1
Slovakia   0.1
Pakistan   0.1
Slovenia   0.1
Finland   0.1
Colombia   0.1
Denmark   0.1
Austria   0.1
Portugal   0.1
New Zealand   0.0
Belgium   0.0
Uzbekistan   0.0
Sweden   0.0
Iran   0.0
Ireland   0.0
Argentina   0.0
Bangladesh   0.0
Croatia   0.0
Egypt   0.0
Norway   0.0
Guatemala   0.0
Lithuania   0.0
Latvia   0.0
Honduras   0.0
Venezuela   0.0
Luxembourg   0.0
Panama   0.0
Nicaragua   0.0
Jamaica   0.0
Uruguay   0.0
Paraguay   0.0

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #255 on: September 01, 2014, 12:51:33 AM »
Here's a recent take by Robert Rapier:

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/07/30/king-coal-deposed-in-west-but-reigns-in-east/

Quote
So if you live in the West, and you tend to get your news sources from the West, you might believe that global coal consumption is on the decline.

But you would be very wrong...

...coal’s gains in the developing world are shocking...

...The global coal markets are the story of skyrocketing consumption in the Asia Pacific region that far more than offsets the consumption declines in the West.

But, on the other hand:

Quote
...China, which has only enough reserves for 31 years of production at its 2013 consumption rate.

So, yeah, at some point, China is going to have to scale way back on its dependence on coal or become completely dependent on the US, Russia and Australia (few others have the reserves to come anywhere close to slaking China's currently enormous appetite for coal).

I'm sure they will want to paint this necessity as a virtue. And it may in fact be. 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 12:59:06 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #256 on: September 01, 2014, 04:44:11 AM »
OK, digging into the BP database on coal.  BP doesn't report a flattening of coal consumption of coal in China in 2013 as does the Greenpeace report.  Here's what BP has to say about coal in 2013...

"China recorded the weakest absolute growth since 2008 but the country still accounted for 67% of global growth. India experienced its second largest volumetric increase on record and accounted for 21% of global growth. "

Greenpeace was using domestic production data (down 1.8%) and "The growth of imports ground almost to a halt" to derive their flat growth in 2013.  The do caution "there is uncertainty over the changes in coal stockpiles - running down stockpiles could have enabled consumption to grow while production and imports declined - stockpiles are reported to be high and increasing, making it very likely that consumption did indeed drop."

http://m.greenpeace.org/eastasia/high/news/blog/chinas-coal-use-might-just-have-dropped-first/blog/50204/

So let's assume BP has better data and China did not plateau out in 2013, just showed "weakest absolute growth since 2008".

Average annual percentage increase for the ten years prior to 2013 (2003 - 2012) was 9.9%  The annual percentage in 2013 fell to 3.7%. 

Now let's go on to the rest of the world....

25 countries consumed less coal in 2013 than 2012.  A total reduction of 28.4 million tonnes oil equivalent.

12 countries were unchanged 12 to 2013.

25 countries increased consumption from 2012 to 2013 for a total of 131  million tonnes oil equivalent .   Only three countries - China, the US and India account for 84% of all increased consumption.   Take out the 'big three' and there was a small decrease in coal consumption for the rest of the world.  Hardly

China has stated they are working to reduce coal use and China appears to be slowing.

The US is in the process of closing 200 coal plants.  It's hard to see how the US would burn more coal in the future with fewer places to burn it.

India is less far along on cutting coal, but that is their intent.

« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 04:50:29 AM by Bob Wallace »

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #257 on: September 01, 2014, 06:08:05 PM »
"The US is in the process of closing 200 coal plants."

Do you have a (non-rightwing/industry) source for that? There are indeed lots of rabid Pro-Industry and rightwing sources that shout about this, naming it a 'war on coal.' But I can only find one independent source for it--http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/utilities-firstenergy-coal-idINL1N0G60S820130805

The first sentence of which is:
Quote
U.S. power companies have shut or converted over 15,000
megawatts (MW) of coal-fired power plants since 2009 and have plans to shut or
convert nearly 36,000 MW over the next 10 years or so.

So they are in fact not all being shut. And presumably a large number of these have outlived their usable lifespan and would need to be shut down in any case.

Kind of thin thread to hang the future of the planet on, imvho.

Thanks to tireless work by the Sierra Club and others, about 100 (iirc) proposed coal plants have been stopped. That is a good thing.

Note that the BP report shows an increase in US coal consumption. I was frankly surprised by that. I do wonder if anybody really has accurate data in this areas, at least data that is accessible for free by plebes like us.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 06:18:56 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #258 on: September 01, 2014, 08:09:09 PM »
Here's an EIA report from 2012 stating 175 closures from 2012 to 2016.  175 plants for 27 GW.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7290

And here's an EIA report from 2014 stating 60 GW closures from 2012 to 2020 but no number of plants is specified.  That's more than twice the capacity stated in the 2012 report.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15491

Then there's this further EIA publication from this year.

"At the end of 2012 there were 1,308 coal-fired generating units in the United States, totaling 310 GW of capacity. In 2012 alone, 10.2 GW of coal-fired capacity was retired, representing 3.2% of the 2011 total. The table below shows the progression of coal-fired generating unit retirements between 2010 and 2012. Units that retired in 2010, 2011, or 2012 were small, with an average size of 97 megawatts (MW), and inefficient, with an average tested heat rate of about 10,695 British thermal units per kilowatthour (Btu/kWh). In contrast, units scheduled for retirement over the next 10 years are larger and more efficient: at 145 MW, the average size is 50% larger than recent retirements, with an average tested heat rate of 10,398 Btu/kWh."

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15031

A 60 GW reduction is about 20% of US capacity.  Given that the plants most likely to be closed first are likely smaller (less efficient, older) plants the number of plant closures is likely higher than 20% of the total.  20% of 1308 = 262.

As to "converted".  Some have been converted to biomass.  Some to natural gas.  They've been closed in terms of coal burning plants.  The hardware has been used for a different purpose.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #259 on: September 01, 2014, 08:16:05 PM »
"Note that the BP report shows an increase in US coal consumption. "

NG prices went up and that resulted in an increase in coal consumption.  Combined fossil fuel use (coal and NG) was down by a 1.3% market share 2012 to 2013.  Down by 1.8% in terms of total generation for the same period.

We saw the same thing happen in Germany.  The fuel market will change the mix while overall use falls.


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #260 on: September 01, 2014, 09:30:26 PM »
Here's something interesting from one of the right-wing publications reporting on a coal industry association - the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a partnership of industry groups.

Quote
In September, ACCCE estimated that more than 200 coal-fired generating units — more than 31,000 megawatts of power — would be shut down across 25 states due to EPA regulations and other factors inducing cheap natural gas.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/report-epa-rules-to-shut-down-more-than-280-coal-fired-units/#ixzz3C5rvzVns

31,000 MW, 31 GW is about half of the 60 GW the EIA says will be closed by 2020.  If, using the ACCCE math, 31 GW = >200 plants, then how many plants would have to be closed in order to add up to 60 GW?


Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2546
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Coal
« Reply #261 on: September 02, 2014, 12:06:46 AM »

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #262 on: September 02, 2014, 04:49:43 AM »
"31,000 MW, 31 GW is about half of the 60 GW the EIA says will be closed by 2020."

Good catch. That's funny. Kind of.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #263 on: September 02, 2014, 06:44:53 AM »
EIA - 189 US plants planned for closure 2013 - 2017.  24.4 GW.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_05.html

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #264 on: September 02, 2014, 11:03:37 PM »
Thanks for the link. I wish it were higher yet!

Meanwhile:  (Thanks to Keith_McClary at POForums for this link and quote):

Existing power plants will spew 300 billion more tons of carbon dioxide during use


 
Quote
   Assuming these stations will operate for 40 years, the power plants constructed globally in 2012 alone will produce about 19 billion tons of CO2 during their existence, the researchers project.

    "Bringing down carbon emissions means retiring more fossil fuel-burning facilities than we build," said Steven Davis, assistant professor of Earth system science at UCI and the study's lead author. "But worldwide, we've built more coal-burning power plants in the past decade than in any previous decade, and closures of old plants aren't keeping pace with this expansion."
    "Far from solving the climate change problem, we're investing heavily in technologies that make the problem worse," he added.

    According to the study, the CO2 emissions that will come from existing power plants represent a substantial portion of the emissions budget that would keep global temperatures from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius relative to the preindustrial era – the current international target.
   
Power plants now operating in the U.S. and Europe account for about 11 percent and 9 percent of committed emissions, respectively, but these commitments have been steady or declining in recent years.

Increasing worldwide commitments, therefore, reflect the rapid growth of China's power sector since 1995, as well as new facilities in such developing countries as India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Plants in China and India represent 42 percent and 8 percent of committed future emissions, respectively.

    About two-thirds of these emissions from the power sector are due to coal-burning stations. The share of commitments related to natural gas-fired generators – which emit less CO2 per unit of energy than coal – has escalated from about 15 percent in 1980 to 27 percent in 2012, as more such plants are being put into use.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-coal-dominance-vivid-climate-accounting.html
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #265 on: September 02, 2014, 11:45:50 PM »
Quote
Assuming these stations will operate for 40 years


That appears to be a bad assumption.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #266 on: September 07, 2014, 03:38:30 PM »
Bob will like this one:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/china-coal-carbon-emissions-17985

China May Be Ready to Kick its Coal Habit
Small Signs Indicate Change

Quote
Greenpeace, the environmental NGO, said in a recent analysis of China’s coal sector that growth in coal imports, which had been going up at an annual rate of between 13 percent and 20 percent in recent years, has come to a virtual halt.

Meanwhile, the official Xinhua news agency says Beijing – a city of nearly 12 million people – will ban the sale and use of coal in its six main districts by 2020.

Coal-fired factories and power plants around the Chinese capital are being shut down and replaced by natural gas facilities. Coal generated 25 percent of Beijing’s energy in 2012, and the aim is to bring that figure down to less than 10 percent by 2017. Other cities and regions are following Beijing’s lead.

Just how meaningful these cutbacks in coal use are is difficult to gauge. Air pollution – much of it caused by the burning of low-grade thermal coal − is not only a big environmental issue in China but also a political one as well.|

China’s leaders have promised a population increasingly angry about the low quality of the air they breathe and the water they drink that the government is determined to tackle pollution.

A coal-fired power station at Yangzhou in China’s central Jiangsu province. Latest figures indicate that change is on the way for China. 

BUT:
Quote
Yet coal-fired power plants are still being built at a considerable pace, and many more are planned.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #267 on: September 07, 2014, 05:51:06 PM »
Greenpeace reached that conclusion by looking at Chinese coal production and import data.  They apparently failed to include coal burned from stockpiles. 

Check my comment of September 01, 2014, 04:44:11 AM, a few comments up the page.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #268 on: September 09, 2014, 02:09:55 PM »
Turning point?
Massachusetts prosecutor drops charges against coal protestors, expresses grave concern about climate change, and plans to join the climate March in New York later this month!!!

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/lobster-boat-blockade-dismissed-18002
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #269 on: September 09, 2014, 04:49:02 PM »
(Somle of) What the District Attorney said:

Quote
The decision that Assistant District Attorney Robert Kidd and I reached today was a decision that certainly took into consideration the cost to the taxpayers in Somerset, but was also made with our concerns for their children, and the children of Bristol County and beyond in mind. Climate change is one of the gravest crises our planet has ever faced. In my humble opinion, the political leadership on this issue has been gravely lacking. I am heartened that we were able to forge an agreement that both parties were pleased with and that appeared to satisfy the police and those here in sympathy with the individuals who were charged. I am also extremely pleased that we were able to reach an agreement that symbolizes our commitment at the Bristol County District Attorney's Office to take a leadership role on this issue.
http://m.thenation.com/blog/181525-charges-were-just-dropped-against-these-climate-activists-most-stunning-way
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #270 on: September 09, 2014, 05:05:36 PM »
Oregon says a big heck no to Big Coal port that would export coal to Asia.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024340270_coalterminalxml.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #271 on: September 09, 2014, 09:09:10 PM »
Thanks for the links, Sig. It's nice to see glimmers of hope and resistance, even though in the big picture, total emissions and atmospheric levels continue to increase:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/09/3564900/wmo-climate-change-co2-report/

U.N. Scientists See Largest CO2 Increase In 30 Years

Quote
Some scientists say the 2°C increase could happen if average carbon concentrations reach 405 ppm...

Oops. We're basically there already.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #272 on: September 12, 2014, 01:16:16 AM »
Some news from the world of coal...

Quote
Coal miner New World Resources (NWR), controlled by Czech billionaire Zdenek Bakala, has secured the support of bondholders for a restructuring plan that will help it avoid bankruptcy.

"The company has received an overwhelming degree of support for the transaction: 99.4% in value of the holders of secured notes and 95.3% in value of the unsecured noteholders present and voting at the meetings," NWR said in a statement on its website on August 29.

The deal, which is still conditional on courts' approval, will reduce NWR's outstanding debt by EUR 325mn to EUR 500. It includes raising a total of EUR 185mn via a EUR 118mn rights issue, a EUR 32mn placing and a EUR 35mn credit facility.

Loss-making NWR has been hit by falling coal prices and weak demand from its steel industry customers. The miner posted a seventh consecutive loss in Q2 of EUR 30.2mn, narrower than in the same period of 2013 when it had a loss of EUR 319.1mn.

http://bankruptcy.einnews.com/article/222464652/a3UWz1ruNJ61OCQI


Quote
The US Energy Information Administration Tuesday lowered its estimates for coal-fired electricity generation in 2014-2015, while natural gas and renewables were revised higher.

The EIA's updated forecasts were included in its September Short Term Energy Outlook.

Coal-fired electricity generation for all sectors, including residential, commercial, and industrial, was revised 0.8% lower to 4.502 million MWh/d from 4.541 million MWh/d in 2014, and 0.6% lower to 4.374 million MWh/d from 4.398 million MWh/d in 2015.

Natural gas-fired generation was revised 0.4% higher to 2.995 million MWh/d in 2014, and 0.3% higher to 3.112 MWh/d in 2015.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/washington/coal-fired-power-generation-in-us-revised-lower-21204700



Quote
Poland's state-owned coal mines produced 34.1 million mt of hard coal in the first half of the year, down 7.6% year on year, the Ministry of Economy said in a report released Tuesday.

The mines also made a net loss of Zloty 772.3 million ($237.2 million) in the period due to falling prices and rising costs, the report said.

Europe's thermal coal market was characterized by "low demand, high levels of stockpiled coal and strong competition from alternative energy sources (above all renewable energy and natural gas)," which led to the lowest weekly coal price index in four years, the report said.

Thermal coal production in Poland in January-June totaled 28.45 million mt, down 8% year on year, while coking coal production fell 5.6% to 5.66 million mt.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/warsaw/poland-h1-hard-coal-output-falls-76-on-year-ministry-26876730

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #273 on: September 15, 2014, 11:14:58 PM »
More on the EIA report that was mentioned in Bob's second link above:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/coal-power-shows-zero-growth-in-2014-report-shows-18025

Coal Power Shows [Essentially] Zero Growth in 2014

Quote
New natural gas-fueled power generators are quickly coming online across the country as the U.S. continues its move away from coal.

Natural gas produced from the U.S. fracking boom is fueling many new power plants nationwide, and it is often seen as a more climate-friendly alternative to coal-fired power plants because it emits relatively little carbon dioxide. Natural gas distribution systems, however, leak methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

The U.S. added nearly 2,200 megawatts of natural gas power generating capacity in the first six months of 2014, up 60 percent over the same period in 2013, according to the EIA report.

Solar is growing fast, too, as more than 1,100 megawatts of new solar power generating capacity came online in the first six months of 2014, up 70 percent over the same period last year.

New wind power capacity grew less than half as much as solar early this year. Wind farms added 675 megawatts of wind power capacity in that time, all from new wind turbines built in California, Nebraska, Michigan and Minnesota.

It is no longer at all clear (to me, at least) that fracked gas is environmentally better than mined coal wrt to GW or other issues. But at least NG plants have the advantage (as I understand it) to be relatively easily turned on and off quickly, so in that sense, if perhaps in no other, NG could be playing a crucial and necessary roll as a transition fuel.

But I'd be happy to be corrected with those more fully on top of these issues.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 11:33:36 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #274 on: September 16, 2014, 12:53:01 AM »
Ifwe regulate and enforce regulations then methane leaks can be held to a small amount.

And that would mean that every every MWh of electricity generated with NG would release only 50% as much CO2 as a MWh generated with coal.  A 50% cut in GHG emissons would be a major step forward.  (Reread the very first sentence before continuing.)

Gas plants have low capital costs and come on line very rapidly.  They give grid operators the security they desire in keeping the grid running 24/365.

Now, fracking.  I honestly don't know how bad the problem is or is not.  Is fracking any worse than mountain top removal/open pit coal mining, coal pollution and coal ash dumps?  If it's not significantly worse then that's an environmental wash.  If data shows that drilling/fracking casues a lot more damage then that tips the scale the other direction.  But we'd still need to consider climate change vs. fracking damage.  It's not a simple thing.

Then there's the fact that NG plants can be turned on and off quickly.  That cannot be done with coal.  If the wind is going to be blowing hard for a couple of hours gas plants would close down but coal plants would sell electricity at a loss in order to avoid closing down. 

Storage is expensive.  Right now.  Storage prices will almost certainly drop.  Storage is starting to replace gas generation for short term peaking.  As the price of storage drops more will get added to the grid in amounts justified by storage's ability to take business away from gas.

If we had only coal then we would have to get the price of wind/solar/storage down to where coal would be forced to shut down for long periods of time and that would be well into the future.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #275 on: September 16, 2014, 01:56:09 AM »
NPR (National Public Radio) just ran a story that it has been confirmed that methane found in three household wells has been determined to be due to leaks in natural gas well casings.

In 2012 the US had 482,822 natural gas wells.  If the number of leaking wells is 3/482,822 then we have a problem incredibly smaller than the 1.4 million acres of mountain top removal.  Over 500 mountains have been flattened for coal.

We need data to put things in perspective. 

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Coal
« Reply #276 on: September 16, 2014, 04:23:01 AM »
I didn't hear the story, but as you presented it, that sounds a bit more like anecdote than 'data.'

And if you are saying that NG would be better if it were regulated more, it seems to me that the same could be said about coal.

But yeah, it's hard to top mountain top removal for shear blatant nastiness.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 04:28:24 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #277 on: September 16, 2014, 05:02:49 AM »
A MWh of electricity generated with coal releases 2x as much CO2 as a MWh of electricity generated by natural gas.

Coal does not "leak" into the atmosphere.  Natural gas/methane does.

Control the leaks and we could cut our coal CO2 emission levels 50% by switching to natural gas.

Now, we need to get close to zero GHG emissions but we don't have a magic button to push in order to get there in one move.  We'll have to go through a  series of steps.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #278 on: September 16, 2014, 06:02:08 PM »
Here's more on the reports that found "the chemical fingerprint of the methane at high levels in drinking water was the same as natural gas in deeper formations".  In one case, the numbers were 2 out of 20 homes. 
(Yet I still prefer fracking, with more safeguards for the environment, over coal.)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gas-wells-drinking-water-contamination-20140915-story.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #279 on: September 16, 2014, 07:38:51 PM »
Quote
NPR (National Public Radio) just ran a story

First, it was a BBC story and not NPR.  (One of our public stations plays BBC news and the NPR.)

Second, I wasn't paying close attention.  I'm not sure how I ended up with "three wells", it was "113 wells in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania and 20 in the Barnett shale in Texas".

The findings were that when methane has been found in water supplies it's come from well problems, not from fracking. 

""In about half the cases we believe the contamination came from poor cementing and in the other half it came from well casings that leaked."

Cement is used in the oil and gas extraction industry to fill the spaces between the well casing and the sides of the well.

In one case the methane was linked to the failure of an underground well. In none of the investigated wells was there a direct link to fracking."

"They also point to the pressure that drillers are under to finish and move on to the next site. The historically low price of gas could also be affecting spending on well integrity as profit margins shrink.

The scientists believe that most of the problems they have identified can be resolved with better enforcement of existing regulations.

"You need strong rules and regulations on well integrity," said Prof Jackson.

"You need generous setbacks that protect homes and schools and water sources from drilling, sometimes farther than the drillers would want. You need enough inspectors on the ground to keep people honest and you need separation between the industry and the inspectors and you don't always have that in the US."


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29206704

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #280 on: September 17, 2014, 07:54:57 AM »

Quote
The headlines this morning were impressive. “China dumps our dirty coal,” trumpeted the Sydney Morning Herald, in response to news that China was looking to impose import rules that could disqualify much of Australia’s coal because it was of such lousy quality.
...
Whether these rules prove to be so damaging or not, it is yet another development that has underlined the fact that the reign of coal is in terminal decline. China has signalled that it will cap coal consumption and cease to be an importer, as it focuses on cleaner generation. India is baulking at the infrastructure nightmares of coal and focusing on a “saffron revolution” instead, boosting solar. The US is likely to scrap one quarter of its coal generation within the next five years.

As Goldman Sachs said in a report just a few months ago, the window for profitable capital spending in new thermal coal mining and infrastructure capacity “has closed.” Numerous other reports from leading investment banks have supported that view. Even the International Energy Agency has questioned the wisdom of more coal investment.

... pushed on by a powerful mining lobby, international investors have already fled the scene. As this graph below shows, listed coal investments have been a disaster over the last few years.

The top graph shows the Bloomberg Coal Index, an average of 40 stocks, has slumped two thirds since 2011. The second graph shows how that same index has compared to the broader benchmark, the MSCI World Index. It highlights, perfectly, the disconnect between coal and the global economy. Divestment decisions by large pension funds are just a matter of common sense.





Quote
As we reported on Wednesday, the coal industry is on a terminal decline, and Big Oil will soon follow. It is not just battling falling market prices, the higher costs of extraction, and the likelihood of tighter climate rules, it is also losing out to new technologies – wind and solar in particular.

As French broking firm Kepler Chevreux pointed out, $100 billion invested in either solar or wind energy will actually deliver more net energy to consumers than $100 billion invested in oil. And it will be cheaper. Within 10 years, Kepler Chevreux says, the global energy markets will be radically different.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/

As a Deutsche Bank executive said a couple years back - Coal is a dead man walking.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #281 on: September 22, 2014, 08:01:23 PM »
Gloomy financial write-up for coal ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds -- an index fund that is traded directly on the Exchange).  Goldman Sachs downgraded Peabody, the largest US coal producer, to "Sell" last week.

Quote
China, the world's largest coal producer as well as consumer, is the main driver of the global coal market. Though coal production in China dropped 1.4% annually in the first eight months of the year, it has risen 40% since 2000 and thus still facing a supply glut given the declining demand.

This is especially true as China is on track to decrease its consumption of coal gradually from 69% in 2011 to 65% in 2017, 63% in 2020 and 55% in 2040, as per the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In addition, the Chinese government has put a ban on the sales or import of coal with 40% or more of ash content and 3% or more of sulfur content effective next year. Since China accounts for about one-fourth of Australia's coal exports, the move will hit most Australian miners, pushing down the prices of coal further.

Further, rising export volumes from Indonesia, Columbia, Russia and other coal producing countries are exerting downward pressure on prices and making the coal export market highly competitive (read: Indonesia ETFs Set to Climb Higher).

Apart from weak global industry fundamentals, the negative outlook is confirmed by a sluggish outlook for Peabody – the largest U.S. coal producer and a bellwether for the space. This is especially true as Goldman Sachs (GS) downgraded Peabody to ‘Sell’ from ‘Neutral’ last week, citing persistent pressure on the global coal markets.
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/147954/black-days-ahead-for-coal-etfs
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Coal
« Reply #282 on: September 22, 2014, 08:23:50 PM »
The linked reference indicates that as coal-fired power plants last an average of 40 years, the current world construction of power plants represents a commitment to future CO₂ emissions that have not been fully captured in prior CO₂ emission projections:

Steven J Davis and Robert H Socolow, (2014), "Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions", Environ. Res. Lett. 9 084018, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084018


http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/8/084018/article


Abstract: "The world not only continues to build new coal-fired power plants, but built more new coal plants in the past decade than in any previous decade. Worldwide, an average of 89 gigawatts per year (GW yr–1) of new coal generating capacity was added between 2010 and 2012, 23 GW yr–1 more than in the 2000–2009 time period and 56 GW yr–1 more than in the 1990–1999 time period. Natural gas plants show a similar pattern. Assuming these plants operate for 40 years, the fossil-fuel burning plants built in 2012 will emit approximately 19 billion tons of CO2 (Gt CO2) over their lifetimes, versus 14 Gt CO2 actually emitted by all operating fossil fuel power plants in 2012. We find that total committed emissions related to the power sector are growing at a rate of about 4% per year, and reached 307 (with an estimated uncertainty of 192–439) Gt CO2 in 2012. These facts are not well known in the energy policy community, where annual emissions receive far more attention than future emissions related to new capital investments. This paper demonstrates the potential for 'commitment accounting' to inform public policy by quantifying future emissions implied by current investments."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #283 on: September 22, 2014, 08:59:21 PM »
The coal plants built in Germany and China have been "supercritical" plants.  They produce more electricity using less coal and releasing less emissions.  They are replacing inefficient coal plants.

The US is in the process of closing down about 200 coal plants.  They will not be replaced with more coal plants.

The US coal fleet is aging out.  It will not be replaced with coal.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #284 on: September 22, 2014, 09:42:47 PM »
Latest coal statistics from (WCA) World Coal Association.

http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #285 on: September 22, 2014, 09:46:42 PM »
2012 data and 2013 estimates.

Might be the latest, but not up to date.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Coal
« Reply #286 on: September 23, 2014, 01:56:38 AM »
2012 data and 2013 estimates.

Might be the latest, but not up to date.

Agreed....just thought I would post some numbers. Looking at the numbers, substantial reductions in coal consumption is a  huge challenge. We need to accelerate our efforts.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #287 on: September 23, 2014, 02:45:32 AM »
Carbon Tracker has a new report out.
"@jackcushmanjr: There are signals that Chinese demand for coal is close to peaking which will cause a seismic shift in the market."

Quote
Is coal a sinking ship?
The current slump in the coal market puts the coal sector in a weak position. Over the last three years the Bloomberg Global Coal Equity Index has lost more than half of its value during a period when the MSCI World Index has increased by over thirty percent.
In the US, recent years have seen 26 companies go bankrupt – including once-major producers such as Patriot Coal Corp. and James River Coal. Remaining listed US coal miners have debt ratings below investment grade. These companies are having to pay more to borrow, on the assumption that the market for their coal will pick up in the near future. This may just be delaying the inevitable, rather than creating value for shareholders.

Structural decline or cyclical downturn
Coal analysts are already questioning whether the current slump in the seaborne coal market is just the bottom of a commodity cycle, or a trough that the sector cannot escape. The decline of demand in key markets has created oversupply, further weakening prices and devaluing assets.
http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CTI-Coal-report-Sept-2014-WEB1.pdf
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

DungeonMaster

  • Administrator
  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 152
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Coal
« Reply #288 on: September 23, 2014, 07:07:23 AM »
Heard in Paris during the Climate Walk:

Leave the oil
In the soil,
Leave the coal
In the hole !
This forum helps me to feel less uncomfortable about "doing something" about the melting Arctic and the warming world.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #289 on: September 23, 2014, 09:19:09 AM »
Bloomberg has a piece up about the Carbon Tracker report. 

In their version they quote Robert E. Murray of Murray Energy who predicts the new EPA regulations  will lead to the closing of 411 plants by 2016, accounting for 100,000 megawatts of capacity.

That's more than twice the number I've heard to date.  We can only hope.

And there's this choice bit...

Quote
Murray said he’s helping to fund Republican Party efforts for the November mid-term elections and that global warming is a hoax.

“The insane, regal administration of King Obama has ignored science, economics, our poorer citizens and those on fixed incomes, our manufacturers, and the constitution, as it has bypassed our Congress,” he said today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-22/coal-mogul-murray-says-more-bankruptcies-probable.html

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #290 on: September 23, 2014, 06:43:05 PM »
Quote
Robert Murray, the founder and CEO of US coal miner Murray Energy, offered a gloomy view of the US thermal coal market at Platts' annual Coal Marketing Days conference in Pittsburgh Monday, saying that anyone who believes the US coal industry is poised for a comeback "doesn't understand the industry."

"There is nothing on the horizon to make me think positive about coal markets in 2015," said Murray, who delivered the keynote address at the event.

"We make our cash flow based on being right, and if anything, there is going to be a continued decline internationally and domestically," Murray said.

A passionate supporter of the US coal industry, Murray said he expects the equivalent of 230 million st of thermal coal production to come offline by 2020 as more coal-fired generating capacity is shut because of environmental regulations.

He said the majority of that shuttered coal production will come from the Powder River Basin, where output will be reduced by roughly 160 million st. He added that Northern Appalachia production is expected to decline 11 million st, while production in the Illinois Basin will decline roughly 30-40 million st.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/pittsburgh/us-thermal-coal-industry-faces-continued-slide-21270220

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Coal
« Reply #291 on: September 24, 2014, 06:20:31 AM »
Schadenfreude is tempting.

I see Goldman Sachs downgrade Peabody, and the first thing i think is that the thieves are telling their victims, ooo sorry, clients, sumpn about sumpn that they cashed out of a while ago, and have already organized a short on.

But it does reveal the vultures are getting more confident ... next they will go for the innards, the juicy assets. Not the coal, of course, but, for example, the rail lines owned (i was surprised at how much rail infrastructure is actually still owned by the coal companies themselves), the real estate (buncha strip mines have already leveraged ownership of the ridge lines into wind, like you can see in the USA on I81 in PA), lotsa nice juicy bits like a large fraction of transmission infrastucture. And lets not mention some of other scams with PJM and FERC like Reliable Power Pricing (RPR) and Reliable Must Run(RMR) clauses that have locked up MWH hour blocks many years into the future. Those started as insurance for baseload coal and nuke generation for the power companies, but now are valuable assets in play  that the vultures will gorge on. And don't get me started on the Marcellus/Utica plays under the PA coal. This is a multiway knifefight between feds,states,miners,generators,transmission, and banks. In about 7-10 yrs they will unload the coal and natgas carcasses onto US taxpayers for remediation and cleanup. But till then, it's raining money and they're putting out buckets.

Only in America.

sidd

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #292 on: September 25, 2014, 06:23:24 PM »
Quote
It’s widely known that Robert Murray, the founder of the country’s largest privately-owned coal company, likes to use colorful language. And on Monday, the Murray Energy Corp. CEO took his personal hyperbole to new heights, saying proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations will have the effect of permanently destroying the coal industry in the United States.

“It isn’t coming back. It’s permanent,” Murray said at a coal marketing conference in Pittsburgh, repeatedly using the word “destroyed” to describe the state of the industry....

What Murray projects is an eventual decrease in U.S. coal generation from its current rate of 39 percent to between 30 and 34 percent, according to SNL’s report. That means 230 million tons of coal-fired generation lost by 2020, Murray said, and anyone who believes the industry will bounce back is either bad at business or “smoking dope.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/23/3570853/murray-ceo-coal-grandma-is-going-to-be-cold/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #293 on: September 25, 2014, 09:47:35 PM »
Brave decision from the Supreme Court of India against corruption in the coal industry.

Quote
MUMBAI, India — India’s top court on Wednesday canceled years’ worth of coal field leases, a judgment that drew wide attention in a nation with persistent fuel shortages.

The leases, an earlier investigation had found, had been sold below market price and cost the government about $30 billion, a scandal that has added to concerns of corruption and crony capitalism at high levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/business/international/indias-supreme-court-revokes-hundreds-of-coal-concessions.html?_r=1
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #294 on: October 02, 2014, 03:31:18 AM »
"Today, [a US federal court] upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s veto of a permit for one of the largest and most extreme mountaintop removal coal mines ever proposed in Appalachia, the Spruce No. 1 Mine. The court found no merit in the coal industry’s case, and found that EPA’s decision to veto the Clean Water Act permit for this mine was reasonable and fully supported by the scientific record."

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/federal-court-upholds-epa-veto-of-spruce-mountaintop-removal-mine
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Coal
« Reply #295 on: October 03, 2014, 01:26:39 AM »
"The world’s first power station with large-scale carbon capture and storage has been inaugurated in Canada this week."

(Good luck with that.)

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/clean-energy/first-power-station-with-large-scale-carbon-capture-and-storage/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #296 on: October 03, 2014, 02:51:38 AM »
Looking forward to seeing what the $/MWh is going to be.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Coal
« Reply #297 on: October 03, 2014, 05:23:53 AM »
US coal -

Quote
As many as 329 coal-fired power generators in 38 states — representing 58.7 gigawatts (GW) of power capacity — are no longer economically competitive compared to a typical existing natural gas plant. They are ripe for retirement and should be considered for closure.

This 2013 update to the report, Ripe for Retirement: The Case for Closing America's Costliest Coal Plants, also includes a comparison with new wind power facilities and determines that as much as 71 GW of coal-fired generating capacity is uncompetitive with this renewable energy source.

These currently operating, ripe-for-retirement generators are in addition to the 138 coal generators (18 GW) that retired between 2011 and 2013, and the 170 coal generators (35 GW) that have already been announced for retirement as of December 2013. Collectively, these three categories account for more than a third of the country's coal-generating capacity.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/economic-analysis-us-coal-plants.html#.VC4Vx_ldXfJ

Time to crank up the wind and solar some more.  Opportunity rears its head....

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Coal
« Reply #298 on: October 07, 2014, 10:57:29 PM »
Biting the dust:

James River Coal Company (2014 and 2003);
Trinity Coal Corporation (2013);
America West Resources Inc. (2013);
Patriot Coal Corporation (2012);
Americas Energy Company (2011);
Clearwater Resources LP (2009);
Consolidated Energy (2007)

The dates are those of bankruptcy proceedings ...

sidd

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2546
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Coal
« Reply #299 on: October 10, 2014, 08:48:03 PM »
Lab official admits faking coal water quality reports
http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141009/GZ01/141009217/1419

Quote
A Raleigh County man pleaded guilty Thursday to repeatedly faking compliant water quality standards for coal companies, in a case that raises questions about the self-reporting system state and federal regulators use as a central tool to judge if the mining industry is following pollution limits. - See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141009/GZ01/141009217/1419#sthash.iG5NsfbP.dpuf