Coal

[b_lumenkraft]

Problem with those studies is that they are distant future scenarios based on certain assumptions without backing from real world data.

I provided a link from Frauenhofer Institut. Frauenhofer is applied science. They do nothing else than evaluate technologies and research for what branch of the economy it might bring efficiency gains. They are the ones you want to listen to. And they clearly state that with today's technologies you can go 100% renewable and that it's not even more expensive and the only thing that needs to happen to make it true is the political will. So, you are drop dead wrong with this one.

It is almost impossibly difficult to predict which technologies will prevail over others.

This is not the question. Everything will serve our energy need as pointed out! But if we don't go the renewable path, we will kill our planet!

Climate change is not caused by lack of renewable energy but too much CO2e in the atmosphere.

WOW! *speechless*

[bluice]

Before we conclude this discussion and move to other topics I want to ask you one question: If going 100% renewable and zero emission with no additional cost is possible already, why is NOBODY doing it? It’s like a free lunch.

[b_lumenkraft]

How we got here is obvious. Oil, coal and gas were cheaper, that's it. Do i really have to explain that to you? Not sure if trolling, to be honest.

[bluice]

How we got here is obvious. Oil, coal and gas were cheaper, that's it. Do i really have to explain that to you? Not sure if trolling, to be honest.

Ok, I’m done.

If you consider challenging your dogmas is trolling, it’s better we finish here. Have a great weekend.

[rboyd]

Comments of Euan's figures:

• He finds a small number of very short periods (3/4 in a year, lasting around a day) when wind is low across all of the countries he is looking at. This is the kind of shortfall that batteries, interconnectors and demand management are very good at covering. We even have (I think I've mentioned this before) plenty of underused natural gas plants if all else fails.
• His figures are from 2013. Since then, wind power has increased massively, which all things being equal will tend to reduce fluctuations.
• Almost all wind power was onshore in 2013, whereas now a significant proportion is offshore. Offshore has a much higher capacity factor, and hence fewer periods of very low generation.
• Italy, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Poland and all other countries in eastern/south-eastern Europe were not included in his analysis. Greater geographical spread will generally reduce fluctuations. Italy had decent wind on the day he focuses on: https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/italy/rome/historic?month=2&year=2013. As did Portugal.
• We're facing a climate emergency. If in the worst case scenario we had to do without all non-essential electricity use for 3 days a year, that wouldn't be the end of the world.

Check out the Nature Climate Change paper that I referenced, much more thorough (and peer reviewed of course) and concludes that only the Balkans and part of the Mediterranean could provide the balancing required.

I wish that there was the sense of urgency required for people to accept that electricity would not automatically be there when required. The last time that was the case in the UK was the miners strike at the beginning of the 1970s and that was with only multi-hour rolling blackouts. The government was kicked out of office as a result. If only one country (or even the EU28) did this they would also suffer a severe economic penalty versus the non-complying countries, such as the US.

[rboyd]

Coal India, that produces 80% of India's coal, plans an 8% production increase for the new fiscal year

Coal India targets more than 8 per cent growth in production at 660 million tonnes in 2019-20 compared to 607 million tonnes in the last fiscal and plans a capital expenditure of Rs 10,000 crore in the current fiscal, according to sources.

Renewable Energy Growth Unlikely To Keep Up With India Coal Imports, Says Fitch

India is expected to maintain the current level of thermal coal imports as the country’s energy demand is likely to increase, ratings agency Fitch Ratings Inc. said in a report. Growth in renewable energy capacity may not be able to keep pace, it said.

"Fitch expects India to maintain its level of thermal coal imports," the ratings agency said. Domestic output of dry fuel and logistics bottlenecks in coal transportation will also affect supply of coal to the market, it said.

“Indian coal imports increased by about 2 percent year-on-year in the nine months to March 2019,” it added. India’s thermal power plant utilisation increased in the second half of 2018 “driven by higher electricity demand and lower capacity addition,” it said.

State-owned power utilities led the growth in thermal electricity generation, Fitch said adding that the utilisation of the central government-owned and private sector plants increased slightly.

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/coal-india-aims-8-growth-production-plans-capex-rs-10000-crore-fy20/story/353990.html

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/renewable-energy-growth-unlikely-to-keep-up-with-india-coal-imports-says-fitch

[Sciguy]

Before we conclude this discussion and move to other topics I want to ask you one question: If going 100% renewable and zero emission with no additional cost is possible already, why is NOBODY doing it? It’s like a free lunch.

Open your eyes, it's already happening.

In the US, utilities are closing coal power plants and natural gas peakers and replacing them with renewables with battery storage.  That's because it costs less to build the new renewable power plants than it does to continue running a coal plant or a natural gas peaker.  And there are fewer and fewer combined cycle natural gas power plants in the planning and permitting phase because the projected point when renewables with battery storage will be cheaper than a natural gas power plant is now years less than the time required to pay off the investment in the power plant.

China, India and Vietnam seem to be the only countries where there is a continued demand for new coal plants.  That's because they have large populations that still aren't connected to the grid so they'll use any energy source that someone will sell them.  Even there though they'll stop building out coal plants within a few years because they're too expensive to run compared to renewables.

[bluice]

That’s great, but U.S. co2 emissions are rising.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/1/8/18174082/us-carbon-emissions-2018

[Sciguy]

Despite the brief uptick last year, US carbon emissions are well below their peak, and expected to decline further as more renewables are deployed.



The above graph is from the US EPA's website.  Here's a link to an independent source on US carbon emissions:

https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

U.S. net emissions declined 12 percent from 2005 to 2017 due to a range of market- and policy-related factors. Electric power sector emissions fell 27 percent as a result of a shift from coal to natural gas, increased use of renewable energy, and a leveling of electricity demand. Improved vehicle efficiency helped reduce transportation-related emissions by nearly 6 percent, although transportation emissions have been increasing since 2012.

[Sciguy]

And current projects for renewables along with planned retirements for coal indicate that coal's share of electricity generation will continue to decline.

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/eia-forecasts-renewables-will-be-fastest-growing-source-of-electricity-generation/

EIA forecasts renewables will be fastest growing source of electricity generation

By Michelle Froese | January 24, 2019

EIA expects non-hydroelectric renewable energy resources such as solar and wind will be the fastest growing source of U.S. electricity generation for at least the next two years. EIA’s January 2019 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) forecasts that electricity generation from utility-scale solar generating units will grow by 10% in 2019 and by 17% in 2020.

Solar is the third-largest renewable energy source in the United States power sector, having surpassed biomass in 2017. The U.S. electric power sector plans to add more than 4 GW of new solar capacity in 2019 and almost 6 GW in 2020, a total increase of 32% from the operational capacity at the end of 2018. Because of this increase, solar is forecast to contribute slightly more than 2% of total utility-scale generation in 2020.

Even with the growth from renewable energy sources, fossil fuels will still provide most of the electricity generated in the United States. Coal and natural gas combined provided 63% of electricity generation in 2018 and EIA forecasts that they will provide 61% in 2020.

The EIA forecasts consistently underestimates the growth of renewables, so expect a higher share for renewables and a lower share for fossil fuels than stated above.

(Notice the dip in hydropower from 2017 through 2018.  There was an extended drought in the western US at that time which limited generating capacity.  The area has seen much better rainfall this year and so the share of hydropower will also increase in 2019.)

[Archimid]

GE bet on fossil fuels, lost nearly $200B in misjudging renewable energy transition, study says

https://electrek.co/2019/06/06/ge-renewable-energy-transition/

General Electric’s profitability collapse over the past few years can be largely attributed to the company’s inability to judge the accelerating pace of the global energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables, a new study claims.
 
The analysis comes from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which says that “GE made a massive bet on the future of natural gas and thermal coal, and lost,” concluding:

GE destroyed an almost unprecedented US$193 billion (bn)1 or 74% of its market capitalization over 2016-2018.

Crossposted from the Gas and Oil Thread.

[interstitial]

Before we conclude this discussion and move to other topics I want to ask you one question: If going 100% renewable and zero emission with no additional cost is possible already, why is NOBODY doing it? It’s like a free lunch.

It is helpful to note just how recently renewable prices have changed from being more expensive then conventional energy to less expensive. I can't put an exact date on this transition because different markets vary with different restrictions and contractors. Sometime around 2018 for earlier markets until 2020 renewables have become or will soon become cheaper than coal and other traditional generation. Recently a California utility put out for bid two natural gas peaker plants. After some pushback they put out their requirements and made the bid technology neutral. They got a solar plus battery bid that was cheaper than the peaker plants and they don't have to buy fuel.

IRENA report from march in 2018

This conclusion pairs with a March report which found that in the US alone, constructing new wind and solar projects would be cheaper than continuing to run 74 percent of existing U.S. coal plants as of 2018.

Utilities in the U.S. IDK about other countries are bureaucratic and make decisions slowly. A short term plan for most businesses is a quarter for a utility it is 10 years. A long term plan is at least 50 years and sometimes 100+ years. Utilities with little pressure to consider CO2 emissions will take a few years to respond to these very recent price changes. Actually most utilities are slow to respond to this.

[b_lumenkraft]

I agree Interstitial, obviously.

The market forces are now dictating a transition, but as you correctly pointed out it's a slow process still.

We need politics to speed up this process. A 30 years transition might be economically feasible, but it's not ecologically possible. We need to do this in 10 years. We gotta hurry. Without the political push and governmental financing, the market will not save us.

[BenB]

Check out the Nature Climate Change paper that I referenced, much more thorough (and peer reviewed of course) and concludes that only the Balkans and part of the Mediterranean could provide the balancing required.

I have now. So, if the Balkans and Mediterranean provide the necessary balancing, that's what we use. Without having checked, I imagine their grids are linked to e.g. the UK's. Certainly Spain and Portugal are/will be (new HVDC interconnectors are being built/planned between France and Spain, which will massively increase capacity). But France is linked to Germany, is linked to Austria and Hungary (I guess), is linked to Romania and Slovenia (probably), etc. If they aren't, they can be.

Even then, output isn't uniform. However, as they state in the paper, solar is negatively correlated with wind, so using both is better than using either individually. And then you have hydro, which is totally despachable, demand management, batteries, etc. Solar in Morocco/Algeria with interconnectors, perhaps. Trying to solve the problem with one technology alone will never work. As the paper itself says: Further studies are required for designing an optimally balanced electricity system, considering also other generation types, storage, transmission, demand, and costs.

[Shared Humanity]

The whole endless growth based economic system might have to change, but I have never heard a credible idea how to pull that off.

BAU will impose a very credible way of doing just that. Nature always has the last word. Her methods may seem unnecessarily cruel but they will prove to be highly effective.

[magnamentis]

The whole endless growth based economic system might have to change, but I have never heard a credible idea how to pull that off.

BAU will impose a very credible way of doing just that. Nature always has the last word. Her methods may seem unnecessarily cruel but they will prove to be highly effective.

first thing and that would work is to prohibit interest and especially interest on interest.

it has to be the other way areound, parked money has to lose value. think it to the end and i'm sure you'll ultimately agree, even though for most this sounds as a strange approach. the forced growth is mostly if not solely due to interest on capital and even worse interest on interest.

BTW @bluice well said about the dogmas and especially if those dogmas are aggressively based on illusions. it's very easy to say stop driving while if there would be a full stop out of the blue or within very short time we would have a very polluting and killing war.

this is just one simple statement, the topics are all to entwined and complicated but if  a drug addict stops out of the blue to consume he can/will die, such things, that doing the right thing too fast kills, do really exist and idealism does not produce any good. so many forget the last few disasters that were based on idealism or at least fueled by such illusions, i.e. the USSR and many more.

[sidd]

overview of international coal shipments:

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/deteriorating-us-coal-exports-threaten-rail-and-ocean-shipping-demand

sidd

[sidd]

Greenlight for Adani mine:

https://in.reuters.com/article/australia-coal-adani-ent/adani-wins-green-light-for-long-awaited-australian-coal-mine-idINKCN1TE0C0

sidd

[BenB]

Another coal-fired power station will close earlier than planned, because it is losing (a lot of) money:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-48628334

Quote:

Energy firm SSE has announced it is closing its last coal-fired station - the Fiddler's Ferry site near Warrington, Cheshire.

The company said the plant, which employs 158 people, will close on 31 March 2020 and it was beginning a consultation with trade unions.

SSE said the station's losses were "unsustainable".

[gerontocrat]

A cartoonist's view of the Adani coalmine, Aussieland.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/14/adani-it-all-looks-dodgy-as-hell-and-none-of-it-has-been-explained-properly

[Sciguy]

Adani still has hurdles to clear.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-13/adani-mine-approval-still-big-questions-remain/11205280

Adani can clear the land that is home to the endangered southern black-throated finch.

It can lay asphalt for its huge trucks, set up power and sewage and water treatment plants, and the buildings from which its mine managers will call the shots.

It can dig up and stockpile the earth that now sits on its coal pits and excavate the entrances to its underground mines.

And it can sink bores deep underground to suck out the water in its coal seams, leaving the black stuff dry for the digging.

But the Queensland environment department said today it was satisfied Adani had identified the "main" source of the springs and would accept "further work ... to identify any potential contribution from other aquifers".

It has forced Adani into two years of extra groundwater, earth and possibly seismic testing.

Adani can begin box cut mining but not underground mining until the tests are completed.

Adani also sought to turn another defeat into victory. No bank will touch it. So it cut its plan for initial output to 10-15 million tonnes a year, and announced it would pay for the mine itself.

This still begs questions:
•Will billionaire owner Gautam Adani plough more than a quarter of his reported $7 billion fortune into an Australian venture when he could buy similar coal cheaper from Indonesia?
•Will Adani's plan to burn Australian coal to sell power to Bangladesh (at almost double the going rate in India) come off?

But Bloomberg commentator David Fickling has predicted Adani could make twice as much buying Indian government bonds.

And two other potential monkey wrenches remain.

One wildcard is if traditional owners who oppose the mine win a pending Federal Court appeal ruling about Adani's Indigenous Land Use Deal.

That would send Adani back to the drawing board trying to win over an Indigenous representative group split 6-6 down the middle. It may never get that deal again.

Another wildcard is the protest movement that used the Maules Creek mine as a dress rehearsal for the Carmichael mine. Their blockades managed to delay the NSW project by a decade.

What will the world's appetite for thermal coal be like in ten years?

[Sciguy]

Here's a positive feedback we can embrace: as US coal production and exports decline, rail freight and maritime shipping also decline, lowering diesel fuel consumption.

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/deteriorating-us-coal-exports-threaten-rail-and-ocean-shipping-demand

On June 6, the U.S. Census Bureau released coal export data through the month of April. According to a compilation of that data provided to FreightWaves by S&P Global Platts, 30.2 million metric tons of coal were exported during the first four months of this year, down 12.7 percent year-on-year. Outbound met coal volumes were down 10.8 percent and steam coal exports were down 13.8 percent.

The export pullback appears to be having a negative effect in the rail sector. According to data from the Association of American Railroads, 1.7 million carloads of coal were loaded in the U.S. between January 1 and June 1, down 4.7 percent year-on-year.

In the first four months of this year, long-haul exports to the top four Asian destinations totaled 10.8 million tons, down 2.5 million tons or 19 percent, whereas shorter-haul exports to the top 13 Atlantic Basin and Mediterranean destinations (in Europe, South America and North Africa) totaled 16.5 million tons, down 570,512 tons or 3 percent.


The much steeper drop to Asia was driven by volume declines to India, South Korea, and China (which instituted a retaliatory tariff on U.S. coal last year), partially offset by a jump in volume to Japan.

[Sciguy]

Coal has been the first choice for developing (and fairly developed countries, such as South Korea) to bring electricity to people who don't have it until recently.  As the above story on Vietnam noted, that is changing in Asia as renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels now.

And the following story from Kenya shows that it's changing in Africa too.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/17/kenya-slowly-warms-to-solar-as-two-new-solar-projects-launch/

In November 2018, Kenya commissioned its first commercial-scale solar power plant, the 54.6 MW Garissa Solar Power Plant. It will sell its electricity to Kenya Power, the major distributor of electricity in Kenya. This solar farm is now the largest in East and Central Africa. It will supply about 2% of Kenya’s electricity needs which currently hovers around 2,370 MW.

The success of the Garissa Plant has led two the development of other solar projects which are now under construction. A new 40 MW project in Eldoret, near my home, and a 50 MW project in Nandi County. I expect that this will be the beginning of many more solar projects connected to the grid. First they can be done quickly and the price is relatively cheap for Kenya at 5.5 cents per kWh. For comparison, geothermal power is 8 cents per kWh, the Lake Turkana Wind Farm at 8.5 cents, the planned coal power plant at 7.5 cents, and diesel generators at 20 cents or higher. Only old hydropower at 3 cents per KWh is lower, but this is because they were mostly built in the 1980s and have long since paid off their capital costs. Any new hydropower is going to be much higher and with excess capacity now in Kenya, all future hydropower developments have been put on hold.

Breaking news: On Tuesday, June 12th, Kenya’s Energy Principal Secretary, Joseph Njoroge, announced that, due to excess capacity in Kenya, the 1,050 MW Lamu Coal Power Station and a planned 150 MW gas peaker plant will be delayed 4 or 5 years until electricity demand increases. In my opinion these two plants will never be built. Hurrah, a win for our side.

[sidd]

I've been watching this case for a while. Adani aint the only ones accused here, a whole buncha indian billionaires stand to lose. But the customs and revenue services have ferocious teeth too.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/adani-firm-trying-to-impede-our-probe-dri-tells-bombay-high-court-5791596/

sidd

[silkman]

It's small beer in the global context but the UK continues to eliminate coal from it's electricity generation mix:

"A decade ago, coal plants generated almost a third of the UK’s electricity, but in the first half of this year they have provided only 3%."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/21/zero-carbon-energy-overtakes-fossil-fuels-as-the-uks-largest-electricity-source

Embedded in this data is the "carbon free" fudge of Drax which runs on US derived biomass but it's a sea change from our historic dependence on coal. Credit where credit is due I suppose.

[Bob Wallace]

US derived biomass is fine by me if it is to be used as a bridging energy source.  It's hard to imagine that wind and solar won't be cheaper than imported biomass.  Ceasing to add newly extracted carbon to the mix is a positive step.  Biomass can help keep the lights on while more renewable capacity is installed and more transmission lines built.

[silkman]

It's certainly better than coal, Bob and I agree that as a bridging strategy, it's a step in the right direction.

But is timber logged from forests in the SE of the USA really renewable? And the cost in carbon and pollution from shipping it across the Atlantic is considerable.

Hopefully, as you suggest, as we get a more flexible grid with the storage capability to address peaks and troughs (V2G, Jim?), we'll be able to replace Drax with power generated locally from the nearby North Sea.

[Bob Wallace]

It's certainly better than coal, Bob and I agree that as a bridging strategy, it's a step in the right direction.

But is timber logged from forests in the SE of the USA really renewable? And the cost in carbon and pollution from shipping it across the Atlantic is considerable.

Hopefully, as you suggest, as we get a more flexible grid with the storage capability to address peaks and troughs (V2G, Jim?), we'll be able to replace Drax with power generated locally from the nearby North Sea.

The forests are renewable, with a caveat.  What we're finding with timber harvest is that removing a lot of the mass from old growth takes away nutrients for the regrowing forests.  At least for a couple of generations growth tends to slow. 

In the past the US harvested huge amounts of trees for pulp - paper manufacturing.  Now paper use is greatly diminished.  It may be that what is going to Europe as wood chips is largely what is not being used for paper.  I know that here my county we closed two very large pulp mills because the market for pulp shrunk drastically.  But we're on the wrong coast to ship pellets to Europe.

My attitude is that when one is fighting an existential war, which is approximately what our climate change problem is, some eggs are going to get broken.  If the cost of cutting CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is somewhat slower growth in tree plantations over the next decade or two that's a small price to pay.

The carbon emissions from harvesting, processing, and shipping should be calculated in.  Obviously, they will lower the gain.

[Tom_Mazanec]

EPA gives coal plants a reprieve:
https://www.apnews.com/d48562a8d7ee4df1bceec0990205e5b3

[Bob Wallace]

EPA gives coal plants a reprieve:
https://www.apnews.com/d48562a8d7ee4df1bceec0990205e5b3

1.5 years of this crap left.  Unless we screw up and make it 5.5 years.

[b_lumenkraft]

All these wind turbines (upper right) are really ruining the landscape!!



Context: Massive protest against coal power in Germany at the moment >> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sonnenseite.com%2Fde%2Fpolitik%2Fanti-kohle-protest-im-rheinland.html

[gerontocrat]

Sometimes one hopes for a humongous tipping point to scare the people who presume to govern us shitless.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nations-triple-coal-power-subsidies-climate-crisis
G20 nations triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis
Major economies pledged a decade ago to phase out all aid for fossil fuels

G20 nations have almost tripled the subsidies they give to coal-fired power plants in recent years, despite the urgent need to cut the carbon emissions driving the climate crisis.

The bloc of major economies pledged a decade ago to phase out all fossil fuel subsidies.

The figures, published in a report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and others, show that Japan is one of the biggest financial supporters of coal, despite the prime minister, Shinzo Abe, having said in September: “Climate change can be life-threatening to all generations … We must take more robust actions and reduce the use of fossil fuels.” The annual G20 meeting begins in Japan on Friday.

China and India give the biggest subsidies to coal, with Japan third, followed by South Africa, South Korea, Indonesia and the US. While the UK frequently runs its own electricity grid without any coal power at all, a parliamentary report in June criticised the billions of pounds used to help to build fossil fuel power plants overseas.

[Sciguy]

The finances for the Adani mine were weak to begin with.  This wont help.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-coal-coaltrans/lower-for-longer-supply-glut-in-focus-as-asias-biggest-coal-meet-begins-idUSKCN1TP0BF

JUNE 23, 2019 / 9:32 PM / 2 DAYS AGO
Lower for longer: Supply glut in focus as Asia's biggest coal meet begins
Melanie Burton, Fransiska Nangoy

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - Slowing economic growth in China is weighing on demand expectations for thermal coal in the world’s biggest market for the fuel, while global moves toward cleaner energy are compounding problems arising from a glut in supply.

Prices for benchmark premium Australian coal out of Newcastle hit their weakest since September 2016 last week at $70.78 per ton and are likely to fall further given a slowing global economy.

In top consumer China, factory activity weakened in April and May, hit hard by a bruising trade war with the United States. That accounts for some, but hardly all, of the 4.9% fall in China’s coal-fired power generation in May compared with the year before, said analyst Helen Lau at Argonaut in Hong Kong.

“Weak consumption of thermal coal is mainly because of increasing competition from hydro and other clean energy,” she said in a report.

China’s wind-generated power grew 5.6 percent in the first five months of the year, hydroelectric power grew 12.8 percent, compared with 0.2 percent growth in LNG and coal combined, according to Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).

A prolonged period of low thermal prices may signal that the global economy is decarbonizing - that is, moving away from carbon-based fuels to renewables such as solar and wind power - at a faster rate than expected, said CBA analyst Vivek Dhar.

This may hurt Australia the most because developed countries, which can afford to pay more for the high-energy, less-polluting coal it produces, are decarbonizing at the fastest rates, Dhar said.

[vox_mundi]

US Insurer Chubb to Stop Investing In or Selling Policies to Coal Firms
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/01/chubb-no-longer-invest-insurance-coal-firms

Chubb will become the first US insurer to turn its back on the global coal industry by beginning to phase out its coal investments and insurance policies within the next three years.

Chubb has ruled out selling new insurance policies to companies which build or operate coal power plants, or those which generate more than 30% of their revenue from coal mining or supplying coal-fired electricity.

It will also stop investing in these companies because of their contribution to the global climate crisis.

Chubb said its existing investments and insurance policies with coal-powered companies and miners would be phased out by 2022.

-----------------------------

Not a heart breaker for Chubb, just BAU and green-washing ...

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2018, the United States generated about 4,178 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity at utility-scale facilities. About 62.7% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 27.4% attributed from coal.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

[Bob Wallace]

It's business as usual for a major insurance company to decide insuring coal plants is no longer a good business practice?  Please give us the long term history of insurance companies deciding to not insure coal operations.  For it to be BAU then it has to have been an ongoing practice.  Otherwise it's BNLU - business not like usual.  A new development.

In 1973 80.6% of US electricity was generated with fossil fuels.  By 2010 this fell to 70.0%.  In 2017 fossil fuels produced 62.8% of US electricity. 

In 2007 coal hit peak use for electricity generation at 2,016,456 million kilowatt hours.  In 2017 coal was used to generate 1,207,901 million kilowatt hours of electricity.  A 40% decrease over ten years.

Business as usual in the US is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used for electricity generation and to reduce the proportion of coal used as part of that fossil fuel use.

[vox_mundi]

Bob, look at the numbers.

They said they'd stop insuring power companies only if they exceeded 30% of revenue derived from coal.

Coal only supplies 27.4 % of the power in the US. It supplies even less of the revenue.

Ergo; a very small minority of power companies will be affected by this policy change.

I'm all for eliminating coal as a power source, but if they were serious they'd cut off insurance to coal plants. Period!

Linking policy to revenue (net or gross?) and percentages gives them too much wiggle room while at the same time looks like positive P.R.

[Bob Wallace]

Bob, look at the numbers.

They said they'd stop insuring power companies only if they exceeded 30% of revenue derived from coal.

Coal only supplies 27.4 % of the power in the US. It supplies even less of the revenue.

Ergo; a very small minority of power companies will be affected by this policy change.

I'm all for eliminating coal as a power source, but if they were serious they'd cut off insurance to coal plants. Period!

Linking policy to revenue (net or gross?) and percentages gives them too much wiggle room while at the same time looks like positive P.R.

I see it as a step along the path to a fossil fuel free future. 

The camel's nose under the tent, a small leak in the dike, the first stone falling that presages an avalanche. 

As frustrating as it can be, major changes only very rarely happen in one large step.  Change tends to happen in successive approximations with a fair amount of back and forthing along the way.  Cul de sacs are sometimes entered, missteps taken, but gradually we get from point A to point B.

If an insurance company has decided that coal is a very risky business that's a positive step.  They are saying, IMO, that if your company has more than 30% of its business future tied up in coal you stand a good chance of failing and they aren't going to risk their money on you.

[Sciguy]

Bob, look at the numbers.

They said they'd stop insuring power companies only if they exceeded 30% of revenue derived from coal.

Coal only supplies 27.4 % of the power in the US. It supplies even less of the revenue.

Ergo; a very small minority of power companies will be affected by this policy change.

I'm all for eliminating coal as a power source, but if they were serious they'd cut off insurance to coal plants. Period!

Linking policy to revenue (net or gross?) and percentages gives them too much wiggle room while at the same time looks like positive P.R.

They aren't issuing any new policies for any coal power plants.

They're ending all existing policies for any coal power plants or coal mining by 2022.

No insurance policies from Chubb if you derive more than 30% of your revenues from coal.  There are large companies in this category, Arch, Cloud Peak, Peabody, Murray, etc...

The information about companies that get less than 30% of their revenue from coal power plants or coal mining gives those companies three years to divest from the coal related businesses if they still want to get insurance from Chubb.

The significance of the story is that a company that does a lot of business in the US is finally joining the European insurers in divesting from coal.  This article from March 2019 explains the issue.

https://poweringpastcoal.org/insights/policy-and-regulation/companies-reduce-exposure-to-coal-as-climate-risks-increase

European insurers in particular are moving away from insuring coal projects and the companies behind them. Since 2015, some 17 major insurance companies have divested from coal, withdrawing an estimated $30 billion from the sector, according to the Unfriend Coal campaign.

More than 100 financial institutions globally have introduced policies to restrict funding for coal, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Since 2013, coal exit announcements have occurred at a rate exceeding one per month from banks and insurers with over $10 billion of assets under management, according to a reportfrom the institute.

However, U.S. companies AIG, Liberty Mutual, Chubb and Berkshire Hathaway continue to insure coal projects around the world, which demonstrates that the divestment movement has some way to go. AIG declined to comment on coal investment for this research.

The 40 largest U.S. insurers hold more than $450 billion in coal, oil, gas and electric utility stocks and bonds, according to Insure Our Future, a campaign against U.S. companies insuring and investing in coal and tar sands projects. U.S. insurers continue to financially prop up the coal industry, despite paying out in claims as a result of extreme weather events exacerbated by a changing climate. Wildfires in Northern California generated $12.6 billion in insurance claims in 2017, and that year’s hurricane season accounted for more than $200 billion in damages, according to an announcement from the campaign in September.

[Bob Wallace]

There's trouble in coal mining city....

In another sign of coal’s precipitous decline, the owner of two Wyoming mines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Monday in the Southern District of West Virginia, joining a growing list of coal companies with ties to the Equality State in bankruptcy proceedings.

Blackjewel LLC operates Eagle Butte and Belle Ayr, two mines in the Powder River Basin. Blackjewel CEO Jeffery Hoop bought the Wyoming coal mines two years ago from Contura Energy Inc. Another of Hoop's companies in the case, Revelation Energy LLC, operates mines in Appalachia.

Blackjewel owns and operates the two mines in Campbell County, but Contura still holds the mine permits. Due to concern over Blackjewel's existing assets, the state delayed approval of the transfer.


Blackjewel is the fifth coal producer in Wyoming to file for bankruptcy in recent years. Bristol, Tennessee-based Alpha Natural Resources filed for bankruptcy in 2015, followed by top-producing Peabody Energy and Arch Coal in 2016. Westmoreland Coal, which operates the Kemmerer Mine in southwest Wyoming, filed for bankruptcy in October.

The out-of-state company's filing comes less than two months after Cloud Peak Energy, a coal giant that operates two of its own Wyoming mines, declared bankruptcy. Cloud Peak owns the Antelope and Cordero Rojo mines in the Powder River Basin.

https://trib.com/business/energy/owner-of-two-wyoming-coal-mines-files-for-bankruptcy/article_773100d1-b5b4-57d8-af49-842518b9e219.html#utm_source=trib.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail-updates%2Fbreaking&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=9c38b3f2bfbb8dcd70f6096693cd1dd79c29b7e0

[KiwiGriff]

Renewables Outpaced Coal In US For First Time In April

CleanTechnica is a little late with this story, but as the old expression goes, “Better late than never. (Almost no one knows the rest of that famous adage is “But better never late.) So here’s the news. According to the Energy Information Administration, in April renewables accounted for 23% of the total supply of electricity in the United States while the amount from coal was only 20%. The IEA defines renewables as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/07/01/renewables-outpaced-coal-in-us-for-first-time-in-april/

[Bob Wallace]

Banks refused to loan  Eagle Butte and Belle Ayr mines the money they needed to keep operating during their bankruptcy proceedings.  The mines were closed and workers sent home.

These were the fourth- and sixth-largest producing coal mines in the nation.  Not some little coal mine tucked away in some corner.

[Shared Humanity]

There's trouble in coal mining city....

In another sign of coal’s precipitous decline, the owner of two Wyoming mines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Monday in the Southern District of West Virginia, joining a growing list of coal companies with ties to the Equality State in bankruptcy proceedings.

Blackjewel LLC operates Eagle Butte and Belle Ayr, two mines in the Powder River Basin. Blackjewel CEO Jeffery Hoop bought the Wyoming coal mines two years ago from Contura Energy Inc. Another of Hoop's companies in the case, Revelation Energy LLC, operates mines in Appalachia.

Blackjewel owns and operates the two mines in Campbell County, but Contura still holds the mine permits. Due to concern over Blackjewel's existing assets, the state delayed approval of the transfer.


Blackjewel is the fifth coal producer in Wyoming to file for bankruptcy in recent years. Bristol, Tennessee-based Alpha Natural Resources filed for bankruptcy in 2015, followed by top-producing Peabody Energy and Arch Coal in 2016. Westmoreland Coal, which operates the Kemmerer Mine in southwest Wyoming, filed for bankruptcy in October.

The out-of-state company's filing comes less than two months after Cloud Peak Energy, a coal giant that operates two of its own Wyoming mines, declared bankruptcy. Cloud Peak owns the Antelope and Cordero Rojo mines in the Powder River Basin.

https://trib.com/business/energy/owner-of-two-wyoming-coal-mines-files-for-bankruptcy/article_773100d1-b5b4-57d8-af49-842518b9e219.html#utm_source=trib.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail-updates%2Fbreaking&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=9c38b3f2bfbb8dcd70f6096693cd1dd79c29b7e0

Small victories and very necessary. Unfortunately, bankruptcy does not destroy the assets. When these companies exit bankruptcy after reorganizing, mining will continue. If they do not exit bankruptcy, then another company will obtain these mining rights for pennies on the dollar.

[Bob Wallace]

Small victories and very necessary. Unfortunately, bankruptcy does not destroy the assets. When these companies exit bankruptcy after reorganizing, mining will continue. If they do not exit bankruptcy, then another company will obtain these mining rights for pennies on the dollar.

The important part you seem to be missing is that demand for coal is rapidly decreasing which is what is forcing these companies into bankruptcy.

Yes, they may go through the bankruptcy process and shed outstanding obligations like loans, employee retirement accounts, and shareholder value, and then come back into operation.  But if they come back meaner and leaner, able to sell coal at a lower price, all that will do is to force a higher cost producer out of business.

Coal companies are playing a game of musical chairs with the chairs being rapidly snatched away.

[gerontocrat]

Worse than that described above. Most US States hve not demanded that coal companies put real ring-fenced cash to one side for clean up costs. They just make a book entry. So when they go bust there is no money.
The gamblers who buy the remains left over from  bankruptcy will not pick up that liabiliy.

And it is not just the USA but worldwide.
And it is not just coal.
And it is not just fossil fuel industries.
Add nuclear.
Add steelworks, cement works, chemical works etc etc etc etc

Guess who does and will pay.ad infinitum.

[Tor Bejnar]

Following Geron's comment, I'm reminded not to live down wind or down stream of 'any of the above'.  "No such place," you say?  Rats; so much for my survival plan.

[bligh8]

 Two more producers go bankrupt with 1,800 jobs lost

"Two more mining companies go down, ending nearly 2,000 jobs in four states. Expert: "The market has spoken"

"The coal industry was rocked by two massive bankruptcy filings this week that have put nearly 2,000 jobs at risk in Virginia, Kentucky, Wyoming and West Virginia.
Revelation Energy LLC., a West Virginia-based company that employs about 1,100 people in West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of West Virginia, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported. Cumberland, Kentucky, Mayor Charles Raleigh told the outlet that the company has already shut down its nearby mines and workers were told not to show up for work.

President Trump has not commented on the rash of recent coal producer bankruptcies, which have not been saved by his promises to save and revive the industry. Despite Trump's declaration that “coal is back” as recently as last year, U.S. coal consumption has fallen to its lowest level since 1978, according to the Department of Energy. "

"“The fate of coal has been sealed, the market has spoken. The trend is irreversible now, the decline of coal is unstoppable despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric,” Michael Webber, an energy expert at the University of Texas, told The Guardian. “Trump has made a promise that will be broken, which is a tragedy for coalminers who were told they don’t need to get other jobs or get new skills. They have been sent the wrong signal and now there are lay-offs.”

bligh

[Tor Bejnar]

Only?

U.S. coal consumption has fallen to its lowest level since 1978

I won't be really pleased until that's "1938".  And I hope to see "1838" - which would mean reporting is still 'a thing' and we got serious about AGW during my lifetime.

[bligh8]

This is just for US consumption.

[bluice]

It appears that that as an era of coal ends in China, Beijing is simply looking to sell off overstock and shift labor needs abroad while strategically placing itself in a powerful position to drive Kenya’s market for energy and transport.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/09/when-coal-came-to-paradise-china-coal-kenya-lamu-pollution-africa-chinese-industry-bri/

Chinese coal industry is finding new markets in the developing world by building and financing coal plants. This is terrible news because these countries will be locked to fossil fuel use for decades to come.

[rboyd]

India plans $330 billion renewables push by 2030 without hurting coal

India said on Thursday it needs $330 billion in investments over the next decade to power its renewable energy dream, but coal would remain central to its electricity generation.

The energy guzzling country wants to raise its renewable energy capacity to 500 Gigawatts (GW), or 40% of total capacity, by 2030. Renewables currently account for 22% of India's total installed capacity of about 357 GW.

The investment estimate reflects the magnitude of financial challenges facing one of the world's most important growth markets for renewable energy, with government data indicating a growth slowdown in private and capital investments in the year ended March 2019.

India, which receives twice as much sunshine as European countries, wants to make solar a cornerstone of its renewable expansion, but also wants to make use of its cheap and abundant coal reserves, the fifth-largest in the world.

The annual economic survey warned India against abruptly halting coal-based utilities, citing risks to its banking sector and the stability of the electricity grid.

"It may not be advisable to effect a sudden abandonment of coal based power plants without complete utilization of their useful lifetimes as it would lead to stranding of assets that can have further adverse impact on the banking sector," the survey said.

https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/business/india-plans-330-billion-renewables-push-by-2030-without-hurting-coal-329644/