Coal

[Sciguy]

Interesting article on the economics of coal vs renewables in China.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=347.1300;last_msg=196099

The majority of electricity in China is still derived from coal generating stations, and the International Energy Agency says the country will still be the largest consumer of coal through 2023. China’s booming (until recently) economy has been powered by access to abundant low cost electricity and most of that has come from coal powered plants.

Data released by the National Energy Administration on April 15 showed China’s investment in thermal energy during the first quarter of 2019 fell by 30% compared to a year ago. By contrast, spending on hydro power and wind power projects rose 48% and 30%, respectively. Coal mining stocks fell in Shanghai on the news. China Coal Energy shares were down 3.5%, while Yanzhou Coal Mining lost 2.9%.

[Sciguy]

This article sums up the fate of coal in the USA.  It conveniently ignores that natural gas has basically put coal on life support, renewables are taking the blame for pulling the plug.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/A-Wave-Of-Clean-Energy-Policies-Are-Killing-Coal.html

Washington State just passed a bill requiring 100 percent clean and renewable electricity by 2045, while also completely eliminating coal-fired power by 2025. New Mexico passed a similar bill that calls for 100 percent clean energy by 2045. Along with previously passed 100 percent clean energy mandates in California and Hawaii, there are now four states with such laws on the books.

Nevada’s Governor just signed into law a bill that would require 50 percent renewable energy by 2030. Maryland is moving forward on similar legislation – 50 percent by 2030.

There are countless policies at the municipal level that also push the envelope. Notably, New York City just passed a law aiming to slash emissions from buildings by 40 percent by 2030. Buildings are responsible for nearly three-quarters of the city’s emissions. New York’s effort targeting commercial buildings has been called “unprecedented.”

Most states have renewable portfolio standards in some form, requiring utilities to generate or procure a portion of electricity from renewable or otherwise low-emissions sources. At the start of the year, there were 29 states plus the District of Columbia that that had renewable portfolios in place, according to the EIA. States with legally binding requirements accounted for 63 percent of electricity retail sales in 2018, the agency said. At present, there is no federal requirement for renewable energy, although that is something that is gaining a bit of traction in Congress.

Looking forward, the battle between fossil fuels and clean energy on the U.S. grid is already won. Solar and wind will capture the majority of new capacity additions for at least the next two years, according to the EIA, a trend that should only accelerate over time. Utility-scale solar will grow by 10 percent this year and another 17 percent in 2020, while wind will expand by 12 percent and 14 percent in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Natural gas generation will also grow, but coal-fired power plants will continue to close, as they have for the last decade.

For years, renewables fought with coal and gas over which was cheaper in terms of new additions. But renewable energy is increasingly the cheapest option even when compared to existing coal-fired power plants. In other words, it is increasingly cheaper to build new solar and wind than it is to simply operate an existing coal plant.

The energy transition, in many respects, is inevitable. The question is just how quickly it will unfold. The ratcheting up of renewable portfolio standards will accelerate the changeover.

[Sigmetnow]

U.S.

Close Coal Plants, Save Money: That's an Indiana Utility's Plan. The Coal Industry Wants to Stop It

When Indiana's third-largest utility analyzed the economics of its power plants last year, it decided it was time for a big shift—away from the coal power that had long sustained the business and toward renewable energy.
The coal plants simply weren't paying off anymore. In fact, shutting them down would save about $4 billion over 30 years.

But the utility, NIPSCO, knew it would face a fight. Indiana is second only to Texas in generating electricity from coal, and the state has several coal mines and politically connected coal companies.

Coal interests launched a campaign to try to stop NIPSCO's plan and hired former Trump administration EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt as a lobbyist to persuade the legislature to intervene. But this fight, so far, isn't going as the coal industry had hoped. Many of the state's institutions, including legislators and even the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, have resisted coal's aggressive push.

Through it all, NIPSCO and its president, Violet Sistovaris, have not wavered.

"Our conclusions were solely driven by economics and driving for more affordable rates for the state and ultimately for lower-cost energy for customers," Sistovaris said. ...

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26042019/coal-power-plant-shut-down-cost-saving-renewable-energy-indiana-nipsco-vectren-pruitt

[rboyd]

This article sums up the fate of coal in the USA.  It conveniently ignores that natural gas has basically put coal on life support, renewables are taking the blame for pulling the plug.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/A-Wave-Of-Clean-Energy-Policies-Are-Killing-Coal.html

So much sloppy/rose tinted glasses journalism in this area. Fracked NG is as bad as coal, so no climate benefit apart from the small amount of coal replaced with renewables. The problem is that such journalism puts most people in a happier mood rather than realizing where we really are.

Globally coal use will probably stabilize or show small growth over the next few years, due to China, India and Indonesia etc. Compared to them the remaining coal use in the EU28 and USA is pretty small and therefore any cuts there easily offset by Asian growth. May not be good news for Australia though, as China is expanding its coal mining capacity.

https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/coal/indias-thermal-coal-consumption-to-reach-1076-mt-by-2022-23-crisil/65475033

https://www.worldcoal.com/power/22112018/coal-to-remain-king-in-indonesia-for-now/

http://www.mining.com/web/indonesias-push-electrification-impact-domestic-coal-report/

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11107-China-s-coal-consumption-on-the-rise

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/1820312-viewpoint-china-coal-supply-may-increase-in-2019

[Sciguy]

Given that solar and wind are now cheaper than coal, when do you think the last new coal power plant will be built?  How long do you think it will be until the last coal power plant is retired?

In the US, it's difficult to foresee any coal power plants operating after 2030.  There is a strong economic motivation for utilities to shut down operating coal power plants as soon as there is enough solar or wind power to replace them.  Most of the EU is in the same position or will be within a few years.

Once you get to a critical number, there won't be enough demand for coal to keep the coal mines operating and to keep the coal trains running.  But we have fewer than 60,000 coal miners in this country.

In China and India with millions of miners, it seems the Governments are inclined to support coal until the labor force can be shifted to other industries.  So it may take a while longer to make the transition.  But I doubt it will lag by much more than a decade.  Some EU countries, like Poland, are more reliant on coal to so there timeline may be closer to China's than the US.  Many other lesser developed countries, such as Indonesia and Vietnam, will follow the China timeline.

So I would guess that the last new coal power plant will be built around 2025 and the last operating coal power plant will be retired in 2050.

[Shared Humanity]

Once you get to a critical number, there won't be enough demand for coal to keep the coal mines operating and to keep the coal trains running.  But we have fewer than 60,000 coal miners in this country.

If there is any demand for coal, there will be some mining to provide it.

[Tor Bejnar]

Coal continues to be a 'required' commodity for the making of steel from iron ore.  So even after "all" coal mines that produce fuel for electricity generation are closed, there will still be some coal mined.

[Sciguy]

Coal continues to be a 'required' commodity for the making of steel from iron ore.  So even after "all" coal mines that produce fuel for electricity generation are closed, there will still be some coal mined.

Nope.  There are ways to make steel without using coal, and at least a couple of companies are on the verge of making them competitive in cost with current steelmaking processes.

https://www.ssab.com/company/sustainability/sustainable-operations/hybrit

HYBRIT - Toward fossil-free steel

In 2016, SSAB, LKAB and Vattenfall joined forces to create HYBRIT – an initiative that endeavors to revolutionize steel-making. HYBRIT aims to replace coking coal, traditionally needed for ore-based steel making, with hydrogen. The result will be the world’s first fossil-free steel-making technology, with virtually no carbon footprint.

The steel industry is one of the highest CO2-emitting industries, accounting for 7% of CO2 emissions globally. A growing global population and an expanding urbanization are expected to trigger a rise in global steel demand by 2050. The carbon footprint in the steel industry is thus a challenge for Europe and the rest of the world.

This is why, in 2016, SSAB, LKAB (Europe’s largest iron ore producer) and Vattenfall (one of Europe’s largest electricity producers) joined forces to create HYBRIT, an initiative that endeavors to revolutionize steel making. HYBRIT aims to replace coking coal, traditionally needed for ore-based steel making, with hydrogen. The result will be the world’s first fossil-free steel-making technology, with virtually no carbon footprint.

Sweden has unique conditions for this kind of project, with good access to fossil-free electricity, Europe’s highest-quality iron ore and a specialized, innovative steel industry. HYBRIT has also started to investigate the possibilities of broadening the project to include Finland.

A pre-feasibility study was conducted 2016-2017. The conclusion is that fossil-free steel, given today’s price of electricity, coal and cost of CO2 emissions, would be 20-30% more expensive. With declining prices in electricity from fossil-free sources and increasing costs for CO2 emissions through the European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS), the pre-feasibility study considers that fossil-free steel will, in future, be able to compete in the market with traditional steel.

http://fortune.com/2019/01/09/boston-metal/

A venture capital firm led by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has invested in a startup that is trying to significantly cut carbon emissions from steel manufacturing.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures led a $20 million funding round in Boston Metal, which is developing a process to reduce carbon emissions in steel making by using electricity instead of traditional pollution-heavy techniques.

Boston Metal uses a process called metal oxide electrolysis, which allows pure metals to be produced without carbon emissions. The only byproduct is oxygen.

The process uses a “soup of oxides,” Carneiro told Fortune. “Depending on the metal you want to produce, you have a different soup of oxides.”

The other oxides in the mixture must be relatively stable so that when electricity is introduced to the electrolytic cell—the container in which the metal is reduced—the desired metal pools in a pure liquid form at the bottom. The cell is tapped every so often to extract the metal, the hole is plugged, and the process continues.

[rboyd]

There has been a huge coal plant building program in the past decade plus in China, India and Indonesia (the latter still building, as with SE Asia), and elsewhere. A lot of spare capacity that can be used to increase coal consumption without the need for new coal plants.

In the end coal plants provide a quick way to deliver very large amounts of baseload power on a small footprint  for fast growing nations, especially when that coal is a local resource and is mined underground (i.e. no need to pay for imports and small surface footprint). Solar and wind are not baseload power, but variable power, and therefore comparing costs is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

We are at least a decade, if not two, away from having the scale of battery implementations (excluding the hydro batteries) to be able to stand in for the periods of low/no light and low/no wind (just look at the grid-level battery industry forecasts). Therefore non-variable sources will be paid a premium over variable ones for a good while to come.

P.S. Currently looking out the window at a cloudy, rainy, windless day in Southern Ontario. The "batteries" here are nuclear and hydro (could be much more if we built proper interconnects to Quebec and Manitoba). The kilowatt hours to power Ontario for just a day of such weather are 10's of times what will be feasible within the next decade. Its the nuclear and hydro which allowed for the retirement of coal and gas, together with falls in electricity use due to deindustrialization and more efficient devices (e.g. fridges).

Quebec has massive hydro already in place, plus a very large possible wind resource. So Ontario could use that instead of spending $30 billion+ "refurbishing" the old crappy Candu reactors, but the local politicians seem to unconditionally love the local nuclear industry.

Most countries/regions do not have a good size of hydro resource, and therefore need something else to provide the backup. Interconnects with other regions can help, but there are periods when large regions (e.g. Northern Europe) are dark (its called winter and night) and not very windy. Places like Denmark and Germany benefit from interconnects with countries that have large amounts (on a relative basis) of fossil fuel and/or nuclear capacity and/or hydro.

[rboyd]

Coal continues to be a 'required' commodity for the making of steel from iron ore.  So even after "all" coal mines that produce fuel for electricity generation are closed, there will still be some coal mined.

Nope.  There are ways to make steel without using coal, and at least a couple of companies are on the verge of making them competitive in cost with current steelmaking processes.

https://www.ssab.com/company/sustainability/sustainable-operations/hybrit

Quote from the article:

To be able to carry out the HYBRIT initiative, however, significant national contributions are still required from the state, research institutions and universities. There has to be good access to fossil-free electricity, improved infrastructure and rapid expansion of high voltage networks, research initiatives, faster permit processes and the government’s active support for the pilot and demonstration facilities and long-term support at EU level.

They are still at quite an early stage, with a transition once commercially proven taking decades in the absence of a "war like" effort to force through the required changes.

[Sciguy]

Battery costs  have come down even faster than wind and solar costs.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/29/trump-wrong-about-wind-power-electricity-battery-storage-226755

But now another technology revolution is underway that could help solve that problem: an electricity storage boom. The cost of lithium-ion batteries has plunged 85 percent in a decade, and 30 percent in just the past year, so utilities across the U.S. have started attaching containers full of them to the grid—and they’re planning to install far more of them in the coming years. Electricity has always been the toughest commodity to manage, because unlike water, grain, fuel or steel, it has been largely impossible to store for later use. But that is changing fast, and even though the dramatic growth of batteries on the grid will be invisible to most Americans, it has the potential to transform how we produce and consume power, creating more flexible and resilient electricity systems with less waste, lower costs and fewer emissions.

Overall, the consultancy Wood Mackenzie expects U.S. storage additions to double in 2019, triple in 2020 and increase 13-fold over the next five years, which would store enough electricity to power more than 5 million homes. The forecasters at Bloomberg New Energy Finance expect more than $600 billion in global investment in battery storage by 2040. The storage boom, like so many green trends in America, first took hold in California, but Ravi Manghani, the head of energy storage research at Wood Mackenzie, says it is spreading much faster than anyone expected, ending the era when power had to be distributed and used the instant it was generated.

“Every time we do a new forecast, we have to revise it up for deployment and down for cost,” says Ravi Manghani, head of energy storage research at Wood Mackenzie. “We’ve been proven wrong again and again.”

A 13-fold increase in 5 years!  And an acknowledgement that they often underestimate the  growth rates and cost reductions.

Shah says the spectacular growth in storage built by utilities alongside solar plants might eventually be dwarfed by homes and businesses installing “behind-the-meter” battery units to store solar power from their rooftops; last year, 15,000 individual battery storage units like the Tesla PowerWall were installed in the U.S., still a tiny slice of the market but a fivefold increase over the previous year. Utilities are also building batteries alongside wind farms, storing excess nighttime generation for use during morning peaks when families are getting ready for work and school. The Southwest Power Pool, which runs the grid serving 14 states in the windy and predominantly Republican middle of the country, now has 5 gigawatts worth of storage projects in its queue, nearly four times the current U.S. total.

“It gives you an idea of the magnitude of interest,” says Bruce Rew, vice president for operations. “We’ve got lots of wind, and storage will help us manage it.”

[rboyd]

I answered this on the renewables thread, i.e. 13 * a really really small number (when compared to global electricity usage) is still a really small number.

All growth rate forecasts should be combined with the base from which the growth is forecast from, otherwise they are next to meaningless if not misleading.

[Sciguy]

Japan is cancelling many of the coal fired power plants it planned to build after the Fukishima disaster.

https://www.reuters.com/article/japan-coal/japanese-utilities-turn-away-from-coal-plans-amid-green-energy-boom-idUSL3N2280MH

TOKYO, April 29 (Reuters) - Japanese utilities are turning away from new coal-fired power projects in the country amid tighter environmental regulations and increasing demand for greener energy from their key customers.

Osaka Gas last week pulled out of plans to build a 1.2 gigawatt coal-fired project, which followed the cancellation in January of a 2 GW coal power station by Kyushu Electric Power , Tokyo Gas and Idemitsu Kosan.

In December, Chugoku Electric Power and JFE Steel scrapped plans to build a 1.07 GW station.

These moves come as renewable energy is on the rise in Japan and elsewhere, and as the government brings in stricter regulations on new coal-fired power plants.

They also come as some investors around the world have been pressuring companies to divest coal-related assets and pushing banks to stop financing such projects.

[crandles]

The cost of lithium-ion batteries has plunged 85 percent in a decade, and 30 percent in just the past year

I couldn't see a reference source for this claim. Do you know where they get this from?

I would guess the 85% comes from

https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-battery-prices/

In December 2018, BloombergNEF published the results of its ninth Battery Price Survey, a series that begin in 2012 looking back at data from as early as 2010. The annual price survey has become an important benchmark in the industry and the fall in prices has been nothing short of remarkable: the volume weighted average battery pack fell 85% from 2010-18, reaching an average of $176/kWh.



(never mind this being 8 years not 10.)

but that doesn't seem to support 30% in past year

see also
https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-battery-prices/
for answers to comments like
“Current prices are far lower than this in reality.”
“Current prices are far higher than this in reality.”
“Batteries will fall much faster than you are forecasting.”
“Battery prices are increasing, not falling.”
“What comes after lithium-ion?”

[rboyd]

India accounts for more than a quarter of net global primary energy demand growth
between 2017-2040 and 42% of this new energy demand is met through coal, meaning CO2 emissions roughly double by 2040. BP

Ok its BP, but even if they are off by quite a bit, it means that India's col consumption will keep rising for a long time.

Robust growth in prosperity and population size drives a massive increase in India’s primary energy consumption, which expands by 1.2 billion tonnes of oil equivalent or 156% by 2040, making India by far the largest source of energy demand growth in the outlook.

India’s population increases by more than 267m, and the economy nearly trebles in size, meaning income per capita roughly doubles. This growth in absolute terms means India’s share of global primary energy demand jumps from 6% today to 11% by 2040.

India’s total net CO2 emissions roughly double to 5Gt by 2040, meaning India’s share of global emissions increases from 7% today to 14% by 2040.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2019-country-insight-india.pdf

[Sigmetnow]

UK Coal (@UK_Coal) 5/6/19, 5:17 AM
Last Week's GB National Grid #Coal generation

Coal Generation : 6.30 GWh (0.12%)
GB Generation 5.23 TWh
Time with no Coal Generation: 148 hours, 40 minutes

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1125328662323187712
First image below.

———
From April 22:

4/22/19, 12:18 PM
This #Coal-free run ended at 90 Hours 45 Minutes.
This is a modern record for Great Britain
Generation during this time was met by: Gas 42%, Nuclear 23%, Wind 12%, Solar 11%, Imports 7%, Biomass 4%, Large Hydro 1%, Storage 0%

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1120361362717384704
Second image below. Others at the link.

Edit: ———

UK Coal (@UK_Coal) 5/6/19, 8:02 PM
GB National Grid: #Coal is currently generating 0.00GW (0.00%) out of a total of 24.59GW
Continuous hours without coal: 131

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1125551342070661120

[Sigmetnow]

Morten Lund (@mortenlund89)5/8/19, 9:00 AM
ZERO watts of electricity was generated by coal the last week on the UK grid

     UK Coal (@UK_Coal) 5/8/19, 8:26 AM
     Great Britain's record #Coal free run has now passed one week. #CoalFreeWeek

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1126101089340874752
Chart at the link.

[NeilT]

I saw that.  It's not uncommon, today, for the UK to be very low coal at this time of year.  Checking Gridwatch and comparing year on year shows it is quite similar.  It also shows that when we had the major winter storms last year, coal was the energy backstop used to meet the demand.

More interesting is that it was only 2 years ago that the UK had one day without coal.  To years later and one week. Perhaps in another two years we'll see one month or more.

[Sigmetnow]

I saw that.  It's not uncommon, today, for the UK to be very low coal at this time of year.  Checking Gridwatch and comparing year on year shows it is quite similar.  It also shows that when we had the major winter storms last year, coal was the energy backstop used to meet the demand.

More interesting is that it was only 2 years ago that the UK had one day without coal.  To years later and one week. Perhaps in another two years we'll see one month or more.

Still going!  (Eastern U.S. time zone)

UK Coal (@UK_Coal)
5/8/19, 12:02 PM
GB National Grid: #Coal is currently generating 0.00GW (0.00%) out of a total of 37.09GW
Continuous hours without coal: 171
https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1126155322907942916

UK Coal (@UK_Coal)
5/8/19, 8:28 AM
Generation during this #CoalFreeWeek was met by: Gas 45%, Nuclear 21%, Wind 11%, Imports 10%, Biomass 6%, Solar 6%, Large Hydro 1%, Storage 0%
We will provide a further update at the end of the run.
https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1126101572348522496

Images below.

[NeilT]

Perhaps something to get used to.

[BeeKnees]

Whilst the UK continues to import biomass from the US and burn it in coal power stations I find it hard to find any joy in this achievement. 
There is too much evidence that the imported wood isn't as renewable as claimed, pollutes through transportation, produces less energy than coal and the emissions may not be less harmful than the fuel it has replaced.

[NeilT]

These imports account for around a quarter of UK bioenergy
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-uk-should-move-away-from-large-scale-biomass-burning

Scotland also has an action plan for Biomass fuel production.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/biomass-action-plan-scotland/pages/9/

Whilst Drax is important for energy production, it is only 6% of UK generating capacity and it burns almost all of the imported Biomass.

It is important to get off coal first.  Then local production of Biomass fuels can follow.  There is, however, a cost picture here and it comes from economies of scale.  The UK is one of the higher density populations in the EU and only Scotland has the space for the scale of crops for Biomass.  Still it is a far cry from the landmass available for crop growth available in the US or Canada.

[be cause]

here in Norn' Ireland we have had the farce of HRI .. farmers being subsidised to burn pelleted trees from the USA .. while all support for biomass production locally was abandoned .. willow production here has stopped .. grubbed out or growing into inpenetrable thickets . Same fuel as Drax .. where the local coal is now being exportrd to India .. and the yUKky govt . waves it's green credentials .. b.c.

[NeilT]

If we want to talk Hypocrisy; Scotland, having met the Paris accord targets long ago and going much, much, further; whilst continuing to pump oil and gas to be burned for fuel.....  Banning FF vehicles from 2030, whilst expecting that petrochemical revenues will continue to bolster the economy for the foreseeable future.

It is a bit similar to Norway.

[Sleepy]

... and Sweden.
https://www.ivl.se/toppmeny/pressrum/nyheter/nyheter---arkiv/2019-05-08-forbud-mot-bensin--och-dieselbilar-kraver-nya-beslut-i-eu.html

In 2030, it will no longer be permitted to sell new petrol and diesel cars in Sweden according to the Government's January agreement.
...
Sweden is currently prevented both from banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and to directly prohibit the sale of gasoline and diesel.  It is linked to harmonized EU rules that ensure the functioning of the EU internal market, more specifically the rules for type approval of cars and fuel quality, says Åsa Romson.

Pdf at the link, in Swedish as well.

We are all hypocrites.

[Tor Bejnar]

Alas, my government is not hypocritical:  The U.S.ofA. denies AGW and supports coal, gas and oil, even Canadian oil sands, all it can.  So, let's hear it for hypocrisy!

[NeilT]

So, let's hear it for hypocrisy!

True, hypocrisy with at least some solid action is better than denial with no action.

Not good.  Just better.

[NeilT]

Coal continues flat for the UK.

It is useful, however, to contrast France.

[rboyd]

We will most probably soon have a non-hypocritical government in Canada, given the current polls. The "Progressive" Conservatives. The PC are already in power in Alberta (kicking out the super-hypocritical NDP that supported the expansion of the Tar Sands), Manitoba, Ontario (Liberals embedded with the nuclear industry), PEI, and New Brunswick. Plus a different, but very conservative, party in Saskatchewan.

Plus a rightish-wing government in Quebec, but at least they are not climate deniers. Quebec has huge amounts of hydro electricity, plus huge possibilities for wind - so not in its interests to be climate deniers. They have shut down the only nuclear plant. Hopefully they don't open the floodgates to fracking.

Half of Canadian coal production, mostly for export, comes from British Columbia. A place where fracking for natural gas is also being rapidly expanded. The "progressive" NDP/Green government there does not seem to be bothered by that.

Pretty Boy (Trudeau) stopped the NDP wave last election by making lots of promises he then reneged on, including climate change policies (and the NDP leader royally screwed up big to help him). Job done, so now back to the PC ... A Harper redux.

[b_lumenkraft]

Progressive Conservatives? As in dry water? That's funny.

[Sigmetnow]

New York state on track to be coal-free by 2020

New York state is on track to close its last remaining coal-fired power plants by the end of 2020 after adopting final regulations that require state power plants to meet new, stricter CO2 emissions limits.

The newly adopted requirements will go into effect on June 8. The stringent limits on CO2 emissions will make it virtually impossible for coal plants to continue running within the state after 2020.

Coal is almost dead in New York as it is. It currently makes up less than 1% of energy production in the state, according to a recent report from the New York Independent System Operator.

There are only two remaining coal plants left in the state, and both are owned by Riesling Power. Those plants are managed by Beowulf Energy, which plans to turn the facilities into data centers, Bloomberg reports.

Beowulf Energy’s managing director Michael Enright said in a statement that a proposed transition plan would retire the plants before the emissions deadline “while creating a viable new business and jobs in their place, using renewable energy.” ...

https://electrek.co/2019/05/10/ny-coal-free-2020/


Meanwhile, in the U.K.:

UK Coal (@UK_Coal)
5/9/19, 9:58 AM
This #Coal free run ended at 8 Days 1 Hour 25 Minutes.
This is the longest run without coal for Great Britain since 1882.
Generation during this time was met by: Gas 45%, Nuclear 21%, Wind 12%, Imports 10%, Biomass 6%, Solar 5%, Large Hydro <1%, Storage <1%

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1126486631383478272
Charts at the link.

[Sleepy]

So, let's hear it for hypocrisy!

True, hypocrisy with at least some solid action is better than denial with no action.

Not good.  Just better.

Norway is down 3,5% since 1990.
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/nrmiljo/aar

Edit; changed the link to the English version. And why not add this crosspost as well:

Edward Hanrahan and Kevin Anderson on BBC yesterday, between ~1:15:45-1:20:48:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0004s9n

Short familiar sentences by Kevin Anderson:
30 years have passed.
We have fundamentally failed on climate change and we are passing that legacy onto our children.
Us high-emitters are still trying to find ways so that we can pay other people to compensate for our high-carbon lifestyles.

[Sebastian Jones]

Progressive Conservatives? As in dry water? That's funny.

Look up Teddy Roosevelt early 1900s as one example. It has happened before. There were quite a lot of them during FDRs time as well. History repeats is more than a 'truism' - it actually happens - for good and ill.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is extinct. Many of its members fled to the extreme right wing Reform party or to the separatist Bloc Quebecois just before the 1993 election. Eventually the Reform party absorbed the rump PCs to form the unfortunately named Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CRAP). Clearly finding that this acronym hurt their efforts to be seen as a serious party, they re-named themselves the Conservative Party of Canada- dropping all pretensions to progressiveness, reform or allies.

[rboyd]

Thankyou Sebastian - the Canadian Conservatives have certainly dropped all pretensions to being progressive in any way!

[sidd]

Another one bites the dust: Cloud Peak in bankruptcy

They own some of the Mordor around Gillette. You can see some of the coal mining and burning ops from I-90.

https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/cloud-peak-energy-voluntarily-files-bankruptcy#stream/0

sidd

[sidd]

Coal: Gift that keeps on giving

"391 MW San Miguel coal plant  ... most contaminated in the country"

"coal mine is unregulated by federal CCR rules "

"Duke Energy’s Allen Steam Station in North Carolina and PacifiCorp’s Jim Bridger power plant in Wyoming are the second and third most polluted plant sites in the country"

You can see the deathscape for that last one off I-80.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/toxins-in-the-ground-inside-americas-most-polluted-coal-ash-site-and-indu/551339/

sidd

[Sciguy]

Good news on coal from the US:

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-coal-power-trump.html

Fifty coal-fired power plants have shut in the United States since President Donald Trump came to office two years ago, an environmental organization said Thursday.

The Sierra Club counted 50 closures, along with 51 announcements of closure, since Trump was sworn into office in January 2017.

In total, 289 have closed since 2010, comprising 40 percent of the US's coal power capacity, while an additional 241 plants remain open.

By this summer, coal is on course to provide only 25 percent of the US energy mix from its share of 35 percent in 2015.

US coal production has fallen by a third since its peak in 2008, according to official energy statistics, and more than half of all mines have closed since that time.

[Sciguy]

With renewables being cheaper than coal in India, India's utilities are abandoning coal.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/india-s-largest-power-company-shifts-away-coal

Tomorrow’s energy mix, however, promises to be different. Tata Power, India’s largest integrated power company, has announced that it will not construct any new coal-fired plants. Tata’s shift toward renewable energy mirrors the large-scale transition underway within India’s power sector. Tata’s move is not solely for climate reasons; it's also because coal no longer makes business sense. In India, more than 40 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power plants are financially stressed and new additions at a near halt. Peak coal capacity may be closer than anticipated. 

India’s goal is to install 275 GW of renewable energy by 2027. By the end of 2018, it was over a quarter of the way to that goal. Renewables deliver wholesale electricity at well below 3 rupees per kilowatt-hour, while the average for thermal coal is closer to Rs3.50/kWh. 

A large part of Tata’s thermal capacity is at Mundra, Gujarat, a state on the western coast of India. In the last three financial years, it has consistently reported losses over $110 million; in the first three quarters of 2018/19, those losses reached $191 million. Tata’s plant has also been mired in controversy (see Lakshmi Sarah’s “Coal-Ravaged Indian Fishers Take to the Supreme Court,” in the March/April Sierra).

“Tata invested in a $4 billion, 4 GW stranded asset at Mundra,” says Tim Buckley, a researcher at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). “With the clarity of hindsight, the decision to build a thermal plant reliant on expensive imported coal and the concurrent promise to deliver exceptionally low cost electricity for the next 25 years was entirely flawed and economically unjustified.”

[sidd]

Tata has a lot of heft, might survive. Coal India is another giant, already putting in solar. Coal India is state supported, so i dunno if the planners in New Delhi will allow collapse there.

Adani, however, is quite screwed.

sidd

[rboyd]

Tata will not be constructing any more coal-fired power plants because there has been massive over-building in the past few years resulting in low utilization rates. That does not mean that Tata (and others) will not increase the utilization of their current plants as electricity demand increases (or write off the most loss making to increase the utilization of the rest of the fleet, especially if the debt is held at the divisional rather than the corporate level). This real problem is:

- The marginal cost of burning an incremental tonne of coal in a current coal-fired power station is still very low and the quickest and simplest way to meet fast growing Indian demand is to burn extra coal in the currently under-utilized coal plants
- Coal plants provide reliable base load energy irrespective of the weather / time of day, which increases the worth of the electricity produced (electricity plus premium for reliability) - so straight renewables vs coal price comparisons are not relevant.

Unless the growth in renewables output is greater than the growth in electricity demand the burning of coal will increase for many years to come - as has been pointed out by energy analysts. If India growth slows down then this will be much easier to do.

In India wind is growing very slowly (forecast for 6.5% growth in total capacity this year), and hydro even slower. So its all up to solar and in the first quarter of this year solar delivered 3.4% of all electricity, in a quarter that is usually the best time for solar (clear skies). For the full 2018-2019 fiscal year it generated 2.8% of all electricity (up from 2% the previous year). In 2018 electricity demand grew by 5.6% - twice the overall output of solar.

Even at a continued rate of 50% growth per year, solar would take 5 years (2023) for its growth to offset the overall growth in electricity demand. Government plans envisage a slower growth rate (38GW in 2019 to 100 GW in 2022 capacity), so the crossover point will be hit about 2025. India, short of a very painful growth slowdown/recession, will be increasing its use of coal for a good few years to come.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/17/in-a-first-indias-quarterly-solar-generation-exceeds-10-terawatt-hours/

https://qz.com/india/1519929/india-will-add-a-record-level-of-solar-power-capacity-in-2019/

[rboyd]

Doesn't look like Adani is very screwed, given its ability to service its debts and with its close government ties that allow the company to get licenses for stuff that they nothing about.

At first glance, the net debt to equity ratio of 1 at Adani Enterprises, the flagship company, may appear high to some. Moreover net profit last year plunged to 5.94 billion rupees from 92.53 billion rupees. But interest cover at two times earnings is considered acceptable by analysts, and implies it can comfortably meet its debt obligations. Total gross debt is around 171 billion rupees.

Adani has no experience in the airport sector and the only thing that is known to all is that he knows [Prime Minister Narendra] Modi quite well

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Indian-billionaire-Adani-snaps-up-6-pricey-airport-contracts

[Sciguy]

India is now investing more in solar than in coal.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20052019/india-solar-investment-coal-modi-election-renewable-energy-future

Renewable energy investments in India are outpacing spending on fossil fuel power generation, a sign that the world's second-most populous nation is making good on promises to shift its coal-heavy economy toward cleaner power.

It now has more than 77 gigawatts of installed renewable energy capacity, more than double what it had just four years ago. Additional projects totaling roughly 60 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity are in the works.

In contrast, India's new coal power generation has dropped from roughly 20 gigawatts of additional capacity per year to less than 10 gigawatts added in each of the last three years, said Sameer Kwatra, a climate change and energy policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"There is a realization that renewables are quicker, cleaner, cheaper and also strategically in India's interest because of energy security; it just makes financial sense to invest in renewables," he said.

[sidd]

Re: Adani

They are surviving through political pressure on banks and financiers to keep the money flowing.  I think there are a buncha banks, mostly minnows but some larger ones that might go down if Adani bites it. RBI has been warning lately that they will not step in to rescue. Lets see if Modi gets back in and RBI knuckle under again. Might buy Adani six months to a year. Their australia project is in trouble even if the new government approves, China has already signalled unwillingness to take the coal.

Re: Tata

Tata is taking some big hits. Tata Motor (yes, I know, technically separate from Tata power, but the incestuous nature of Tata crossholdings almost guarantees exposure) just posted 3.6 billion loss on Jaguar-LandRover. But they been around forawhile we shall see.

sidd

[Sciguy]

XCEL energy is planning to close their remaining coal plants a decade early and replace the power with renewables.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/a-major-u-s-utility-is-closing-its-coal-fired-power-plants-a-decade-early

One of the United States’ largest utilities, Xcel Energy Inc., announced it will close its remaining coal-fired power plants in the Upper Midwest a decade ahead of schedule and add 3,000 megawatts of new solar capacity by 2030, E&E News reported. It is the latest step in the utility’s plan to provide 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050.

“This is a significant step forward as we are on track to reduce carbon emissions more than 80 percent by 2030 and transform the way we deliver energy to our customers,” said Chris Clark, president of Xcel’s operations in Minnesota and the Dakotas.

[Sciguy]

The world's largest mining companies are diversifying away from coal mining toward commodities used in renewable energy and electric vehicles.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-22/top-miner-bhp-sees-coal-s-era-ending-in-shift-to-the-battery-age

Thermal coal is seen being phased out ‘sooner than expected’
 
BHP Group, the world’s biggest miner, sees the outlook for thermal coal as challenged and won’t add production as it prioritizes growth in commodities tied to the shift to renewable energy and electric transport.

There’s the prospect that the material will be “phased out, potentially sooner than expected,” Chief Financial Officer Peter Beaven said in an investor presentation on Wednesday. The Melbourne-based producer has “no appetite for growth in energy coal regardless of asset attractiveness,” he said.

BHP follows its biggest competitors Rio Tinto Group and Glencore Plc in questioning the future role of coal used for power generation, as investors press for more action to tackle climate change and tighten restrictions on holding companies that produce the fuel. Rio sold its final coal mines last year, while Glencore said in March it would seek to limit production.

[Shared Humanity]

Most recent annual coal production and consumption numbers.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal.html

[Tor Bejnar]

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal.html

Global coal consumption rose by 1%

 

[Sigmetnow]

UK Coal right now: None!

UK Coal (@UK_Coal)
5/28/19, 9:02 AM
GB National Grid: #Coal is currently generating 0.00GW (0.00%) out of a total of 35.76GW
Continuous hours without coal: 262 (10 Days 22 Hours)

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1133357777571778560


The previous record was set only a few weeks ago:

UK Coal (@UK_Coal)
5/9/19, 9:58 AM
This #Coal free run ended at 8 Days 1 Hour 25 Minutes.
This is the longest run without coal for Great Britain since 1882.
Generation during this time was met by: Gas 45%, Nuclear 21%, Wind 12%, Imports 10%, Biomass 6%, Solar 5%, Large Hydro <1%, Storage <1%

https://twitter.com/uk_coal/status/1126486631383478272
Graphs at the link. (Also upthread. )

[Shared Humanity]

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/coal.html

Global coal consumption rose by 1%

 

The good news is we have probably hit peak coal consumption as coal has not increased over the last 5 years.

[rboyd]

The good news is we have probably hit peak coal consumption as coal has not increased over the last 5 years.

I would disagree, and think that coal will increase at a slow rate as the continuing increases in India, Indonesia and Rest of the World cannot be offset by static China consumption and Europe+North America reductions (the US has already substituted NG for a large amount of coal, and places like the UK have nearly no coal left to cut). Unless we have a good recession, which is an increasing possibility ....

If China EV sales really take off, their coal consumption may actually increase as coal is 60% of electricity production (still good for emissions as the reduction in ICE emissions will be greater than the increased coal emissions at any coal electricity share below 80%).