Coal

[Sciguy]

China's electricity production increased by 4.6% in October compared to October 2019.  Yet China's coal imports are down 46.6% from October 2019 and domestic production only rose by 1.4%.  Measured against September, China's coal production is down by 0.9%.

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2160133-chinas-october-coal-output-points-to-domestic-shortage?backToResults=true

The drop in Chinese coal imports is hitting Australia and Indonesia coal producers hard.

https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/australian-coal-wins-attention-but-indonesian-exports-to-china-have-fallen-the-most/



Somehow, China is managing to increase their electricity production while decreasing their imports and domestic production of coal.

It may have something to do with the fact that renewables are less expensive than coal.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/electricity-mix-in-china-january-september-2020

Renewable energy costs have dropped so much that China could generate more than 60% of it's electricity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/08/10/plummeting-renewable-energy-battery-prices-mean-china-could-hit-62-clean-power-and-cut-costs-11-by-2030/?sh=773a4d861519

Aug 10, 2020
Plummeting Renewable Energy, Battery Prices Mean China Could Hit 62% Clean Power And Cut Costs 11% By 2030
Silvio Marcacci

China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, and is building the most power plants of any country in the world, making its decarbonization paramount to preventing dangerous climate change. But the costs of wind, solar, and energy storage have fallen so fast that building clean power is now cheaper than building fossil fuels – a lot cheaper.

New research shows plummeting clean energy prices mean China could reliably run its grids on at least 62% non-fossil electricity generation by 2030, while cutting costs 11% compared to a business-as-usual approach. Once again, it’s cheaper to save the climate than destroy it.

[Sigmetnow]

Alabama, U.S.

Tennessee Valley Authority (@TVAnews) 12/3/20, 9:55 AM
Boom! The final 1,000' stack that once served the retired Widows Creek Fossil Plant near Stevenson, AL, was safely imploded earlier today. The removal of the old plant, which was idled in 2014, is about 90% complete. The site is being prepared for future economic redevelopment. 

➡️ https://twitter.com/tvanews/status/1334511473901641728
30 sec video at the link.

[interstitial]

Decker coal mine files for bankruptcy. Wyoming
https://trib.com/buisness/energy/more-than-75-employees-laid-off-as-decker-coal-mine-owner-files-for-bankruptcy

They were behind a failed lawsuit attempt to force Washington state to allow a coal export terminal. A permit application was rejected because plan didn't include sufficient pollution protection for the port facility. Several coal mines have attempted to open a coal export terminal on the western coast of US.
They produced  709,000 tons of coal in third quarter this year down 42% from third quarter last year. The article is in denial about the future of coal.


from elsewhere 25% of Wyoming economy is directly employed by coal oil natural gas and minerals. Most likely over half of the economy is supported by fossil fuels. 33163 workers employed in energy (2019) out of 549914 population. Fossil fuel extraction pays well individual median income 89000 (2018) Campbell county Wyoming compared to 33706 (2020) national average. Wyoming produces about a third to half of US coal(2019). Clearly they will fight to keep those jobs but demand continues to fall.
 

[interstitial]

US capacity factor or why coal bankruptcies will continue until all coal plants closed or capacity factor goes above 50%

[interstitial]

A Reminder of where coal capacity is. 72.8% of capacity is in China, US and India. In the US coal is shrinking. In India coal is still growing but there is significant pushback. With new government not in coals pocket and realization how bad air pollution is because of Covid 19 change may happen. China claims to be concerned about pollution but new coal capacity is increasing at a rapid rate. The counter argument is capacity factor at coal plants continues to fall and renewables are also expanding quickly.  So quickly the argument goes that fossil fuels will be displaced. The new 5 year plan was supposed to stop all new coal construction but they continue to expand quickly and that may be put off for another five years.  In the end actions speak loader than words and Chinese coal plants can single handedly blow past any climate change carbon goals. Coal plant construction and operations seem to help regional administrators reach employment and economic goals even if they don’t make money. In the end I don’t know enough about Chinese politics to understand how this will likely play out. It sounds a lot like western governments agreement on the Paris climate accord. They claim the lofty goal in the long term but mostly ignore what it takes to get there in the short term. More of the action in decarbonization is happening because of economics than politics. Economies of scale in my opinion would not have been achieved without the politics and government money.

[gerontocrat]

China claims to be concerned about pollution but new coal capacity is increasing at a rapid rate. The counter argument is capacity factor at coal plants continues to fall and renewables are also expanding quickly.  So quickly the argument goes that fossil fuels will be displaced. The new 5 year plan was supposed to stop all new coal construction but they continue to expand quickly and that may be put off for another five years.  In the end actions speak loader than words and Chinese coal plants can single handedly blow past any climate change carbon goals. Coal plant construction and operations seem to help regional administrators reach employment and economic goals even if they don’t make money.

In the end I don’t know enough about Chinese politics to understand how this will likely play out.

Nobody knows enough about Chinese politics to understand how this will likely play out?

I have one guess - imports from Australia + Indonesia will be the first to be hit to allow some reduction in coal use without hammering Chinese internal employment until.......

[gerontocrat]

Meanwhile.... Alberta continues

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/15/alberta-canada-coal-rush-mining-exports
As oil prices languish, Alberta sees its future in a 'coal rush'
At least six new or expanded mines could be built as a new conservative provincial government aims to increase coal production for export

With the price of Western Canadian oil languishing around $35 a barrel and Canadian oil sands companies hemorrhaging both workers and money, the province of Alberta sees its future in another fossil fuel: coal.

A “coal rush” in the province could see at least six new or expanded open-pit coal mines built up and down the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, mostly by Australian companies. Together, these projects could industrialize as much as 1,000 sq km of forests, waterways and grasslands, an area the size of Vancouver Island.

Alberta has eight operating coal mines and more than 91bn tonnes of mineable coal, but until recently, Alberta had a restrictive coal-mining policy that’s been in place for 44 years to protect drinking water for millions of people. In 2015 the previous Alberta government announced a plan to eliminate coal-fired electricity by 2030, a goal Canada’s federal government embraced three years later to help fulfill Canada’s greenhouse-gas-reduction commitments to the Paris Agreement.

Canada, along with the United Kingdom, also launched the Powering Past Coal Alliance at the 2017 UN Climate Change Conference to accelerate the phase-out of coal-fired power plants worldwide.

Yet despite the commitment to eliminate coal-fired electricity, the new conservative provincial government has pulled out all the stops to increase coal production for export.

It rescinded the 1976 coal mining policy without public consultation, after spending months wooing Australian coal companies. It also reduced the corporate tax rate from 10 to 8%, axed provincial parks in coal-rich areas, offered one percent royalties (Australia’s is a minimum of seven), and passed legislation to fast-track project approvals.

“Through this approach we are striking the balance of ensuring strong environmental protection with providing industry with incentive to increase investment” in export coal production, Alberta environment minister Jason Nixon said in a press release announcing the coal policy repeal.

The new mines are mostly meant to supply coking, or metallurgical, coal used to make steel. Steelmaking accounts for 4.8% of global industrial carbon emissions. Unlike the market for coal used in power plants, which is beginning to crumble, coking coal is in high demand, particularly in China, which produces almost half of the world’s steel. Coking coal is expected to remain profitable in the near future as the Chinese economy rebounds from the Covid pandemic.

“It’s all pretty shocking,” said Katie Morrison, conservation director of the southern Alberta chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. “The government is saying this is going to be the next economic boon for the province, but it’s just another boom-and-bust economy. And there’s a good chance [the mines] will go bust before they ever clean up their mess, and the public will be left with the clean-up costs.”

[kassy]

They always go bust before they clean up their mess since you can plan for that.

So can the central government say don´t do that or are they unlikely to do so?

[interstitial]

They always go bust before they clean up their mess since you can plan for that.

So can the central government say don´t do that or are they unlikely to do so?

In general to prevent that there is sometimes a push to require companies set aside money for cleanup. Companies wait for a little while and reduce it to a token amount or get the requirement changed or lifted entirely. Or they get the rules changed so they can spend it. Funds were supposed to be set aside to clean up oil wells. The original requirement may have been sufficient but that never lasts.

[interstitial]

I don't know why Canadian politicians would even consider opening a coal mine now.  The only growth market is China and they indicated they are working towards severely reducing or eliminating energy imports. China indicated they will do that by increasing domestic coal production and increasing renewable energy. This is even stupider than US politicians pushing new LNG infrastructure for exports. The coal market is already collapsing especially import markets, the LNG market is oversupplied but demand hasn't peaked yet. Hopefully it will soon. Generally the public in British Columbia, the Canadian province with access to the Pacific, has fought hard to resist its ports from being used for fossil fuels. Hopefully they will shut down this absurdity as well.

[crandles]

They always go bust before they clean up their mess since you can plan for that.

So can the central government say don´t do that or are they unlikely to do so?

In general to prevent that there is sometimes a push to require companies set aside money for cleanup. Companies wait for a little while and reduce it to a token amount or get the requirement changed or lifted entirely. Or they get the rules changed so they can spend it. Funds were supposed to be set aside to clean up oil wells. The original requirement may have been sufficient but that never lasts.

Where are the auditors requiring adequate provision for liabilities like clean up costs to be built up over the period of time the oil wells are generating profits?

Well if this is tipping the company into negative assets, should the company go bankrupt immediately? That would ensure there isn't enough provided for. So in such a situation, there can be a pressure to understate such liabilities for the moment in the hope better times come which will allow more of a liability provision to be built up.

Do you want stricter rules that would make companies go bankrupt sooner?

If better times are a real possibility then some turning blind eye to underestimates in such calculations may be sensible. If the reality is that better times are not coming then the government left with such liabilities perhaps should be able to pursue the auditors but the auditors limit their liability to the shareholders as a body however and wherever they can.

Meanwhile directors want their salary and bonuses to continue so they continue putting lower estimates into clean up cost calculations.

Perhaps a different liability provision requiring full provision the moment you start would help but this might mean many projects never get started because it would be too big a hit on profits. That isn't what the government has wanted in the past want gdp increases now and problems in more than 20 years time have little if any meaning to politicians that won't be in power then. Perhaps with new ff projects soon disappearing it would be sensible to be brought in for this sector? Then what about nuclear?

Lots of different groups with different priorities. Perhaps a required ff extraction industry insurance to pay for clean up where companies go bust would work better? Think it would need rapidly increasing premiums over next couple of decades. If that kills off the sector earlier so much the better?

[interstitial]

At the end of the day a good deal is a good deal for everyone involved. If a deal doesn't get done because it can't fund its own cleanup that is a win.

[gerontocrat]

They always go bust before they clean up their mess since you can plan for that.

So can the central government say don´t do that or are they unlikely to do so?

In general to prevent that there is sometimes a push to require companies set aside money for cleanup. Companies wait for a little while and reduce it to a token amount or get the requirement changed or lifted entirely. Or they get the rules changed so they can spend it. Funds were supposed to be set aside to clean up oil wells. The original requirement may have been sufficient but that never lasts.

Coal Oil and Gas companies are usually required to set aside realistic funds for end of life cleanup costs. Ideally these should be real funds from cash transfers and locked up until needed, e.g. in escrow.

In many states in the USA lobbysists persuaded State Legislatures to pass laws that reduced the required value of these funds and, more importantly, allowed the funds to be paper funds only. So when the company goes bust or is sold on, there is no actual cash to carry out clean-up - hence the multiplicity of superfund sites.

I doubt that these immoral & unethical practices are confined to Republican controlled States. You will also find similar practices everywhere in the world where the fossil fuel and mining companies operate. But do your investigations from a distance - several hundred environmental activists are murdered every year, mostly involved in fossil fuel, forestry and mining. The companies might not play for keeps but they hire people who do.

Some say (including me) that this is one reason Cost-Benefit Analysis - so fashionable in the 1960's and 70's, is out of favour. Identifying the full costs and benefits to society of projects exposes the hidden costs and hidden benefits which are far more likely to favour "green" projects than those favoured by legacy industries and finance that still mostly control the world economy.

[Grubbegrabben]

The new mines are mostly meant to supply coking, or metallurgical, coal used to make steel. Steelmaking accounts for 4.8% of global industrial carbon emissions. Unlike the market for coal used in power plants, which is beginning to crumble, coking coal is in high demand, particularly in China, which produces almost half of the world’s steel. Coking coal is expected to remain profitable in the near future as the Chinese economy rebounds from the Covid pandemic.

They better hurry then. The steel industry is investing in new technology to go fossil free.

"HYBRIT stands for Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking Technology. The objective is to have a completely fossil-free process for steel making by 2035"

https://www.lkab.com/en/about-lkab/technological-and-process-development/research-collaborations/hybrit--for-fossil-free-steel/

[Sigmetnow]

Dec 18, 2020
The three stacks at the retired Navajo Generating Station power plant near Page, Arizona, U.S., were demolished today.
1 minute video.

[Sciguy]

Pakistan is cancelling 27 GW of planned coal plants and building renewables instead.

https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/pakistan-raises-eyebrows-dropping-plans-new-coal-p/

Pakistan raises eyebrows by dropping plans for new coal plants

18 December 2020 | By GCR Staff

In a surprise move, Pakistan has abandoned plans to build 27GW of coal power plants between 2030 and 2047, and will invest in renewable energy instead.

Some $6bn of plants under construction will be completed, but no new projects will be undertaken.

Pakistan had based its energy strategy on the discovery, in the early nineties, of a huge coal deposit beneath the Thar desert in Sindh Province. The country has just begun to exploit this with a Chinese-financed coal mine and 330MW power plant, completed last year.

Over the last five years, Pakistan has built 18 wind power projects generating 937MW, six solar power projects producing 418MW. However, wind, solar, hydro and nuclear make up only 36% of the energy mix, and the remainder is produced by fossil fuels – mainly natural gas.

[gerontocrat]

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

US Coal production, though well down on 2019, has stabilised from July to November at around 45 million tons per month.

Coal consumption has dropped sharply in September. This is due to a very large fall in use of coal for electricity, which in the previous two months came from drawdown of coal stocks amounting to 20 million tons.

This thread has seen a good few announcements of US coal plant and mine closures. It will be interesting to see the impact on production and consumption over the coming months.

[Sigmetnow]

Pakistan signals coal power exit, in potential model for China’s belt and road
Imran Khan announced his government would not approve any more coal power plants and pivot to renewables, contrary to the grid operator’s forecast of a coal boom
Dec 16, 2020

Pakistan’s prime minister has called a halt to a Chinese-backed coal power boom, in a pivot to renewables that could inspire others in China’s orbit – if put into action.

On Saturday, Imran Khan told a virtual gathering of global leaders: “We have decided we will not have any more power based on coal”.

Simon Nicholas, an energy finance analyst with Ieefa, said: “On the face of it, this is a highly significant statement for Pakistan, which was until now intending to exploit its domestic coal reserves.” The Pakistani Alliance for Climate Justice and Clean Energy (ACJCE) said the announcement was “a step in the right direction”.

Plants under construction are expected to be completed, but the announcement pours cold water on the national grid operator’s projections of a significant expansion of coal power. As recently as April, the National Transmission and Despatch Company forecast 27GW of coal power capacity would be added between 2030 and 2047, bringing the total to 38GW. “This [plan] will now need to be re-written,” Nicholas said. ...

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/12/16/pakistan-signals-coal-power-exit-potential-model-chinas-belt-road/

[Sciguy]

The global coal industry is relying on new power plants in Asia to make up for the demand loss caused by the retirements of coal fired power plants in the US and Europe.  In 2020, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam cancelled 45 GW of planned new coal plants.  This is in addition to the 27 GW cancelled by Pakistan, noted above.  More plants were deferred until the 2030s and with the growth of renewables, those plants will probably not be built.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Will-Asia-Actually-Fuel-A-Comeback-In-Coal.html

Will Asia Actually Fuel A Comeback In Coal?
By Felicity Bradstock - Jan 05, 2021

According to a report published by Global Energy Monitor (GEM), large emerging Asian economies Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam cancelled as much as 45GW of coal power during 2020. While coal appeared the obvious answer for short-term energy supply across Asia, the experience of the energy sector in 2020 has made many look towards renewables for the future of energy.

While many suggested a ‘renaissance’ of the coal industry throughout 2020, this is looking evermore doubtful. Several big funds are moving away from coal, including Australia’s biggest super fund, AustralianSuper, and Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global; which has a tight cap on its coal investments.

In addition to a reduction in financing from major funders, energy companies are themselves hinting at a movement away from coal. Glenmore, the western world’s biggest coal producer, stated plans for a “managed decline of its coal business” and net-zero emissions by 2050 in its annual investor update. This suggests a gradual but eventual shift away from coal.

Generally, despite optimism for a coal comeback throughout 2020, the realities of 2021 suggest otherwise. Pressure to invest more heavily in renewables and the lack of economic incentive to develop the coal industry further means that the coal era may be coming to an end.

[interstitial]

I think China has found a way to increase renewable energy in a way that is more palatable internally than having the goal of increasing renewable energy. They are making a push to reduce dependence on energy imports. With about 20 gw per year increase in PV production capacity planned by the end of next year China expects to add more renewable energy. In addition to making the country stronger economically using more PV cells supports the renewable energy industry. Partially they plan on developing more domestic coal mines. In the short term China coal prices are on the rise as state coal enterprises are not allowed to buy from Australia. Deliveries from Mongolia and Russia have increased. In the long term this is supposed to reduce overall coal use but will likely make coal harder to completely get rid of in the long term. 

[Sciguy]

At one point in the last decade, there were six planned coal export terminals on the US west coast.  None of them have been built.  Five of the six have already been cancelled.  The sixth one was cancelled last week.

https://www.ft.com/content/1e4890c9-8ef1-41f6-a057-a92f9ae5fcb1

US coalminers’ Asia ‘pipe dream’ evaporates
Collapse of west coast port project deals blow to hopes of an export-driven recovery
Gregory Meyer 1/11/21


   Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
   https://www.ft.com/content/1e4890c9-8ef1-41f6-a057-a92f9ae5fcb1

   US coal miners’ last-ditch hope for shipping big volumes to Asia has crumbled as the developer of a sprawling export terminal abandons its project on the Pacific coast.

The Millennium Bulk Terminal would have loaded 44m metric tonnes a year of thermal coal for export to electric utilities — a potential boost for producers reeling from the decline of coal-fired power generation in the US.

But the project’s bankrupt owner on Saturday pulled the plug, making it the last of more than half a dozen proposed west coast coal ports never to be built. “It’s the end of the pipe dream that Asia can save the US coal industry,” said Clark Williams-Derry, analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a research group that favours clean energy.

The Millennium project’s current owner, the mining company Lighthouse Resources, filed for bankruptcy protection in December. The company on Saturday relinquished the site to land owner Northwest Alloys, a subsidiary of the aluminium maker Alcoa. Alcoa said it would evaluate plans for the location, making no mention of coal.

[Sciguy]

In the US, utilities keep advancing the planned retirement dates of coal plants.  That's because it's more expensive to burn coal than to build new solar or wind plants.

https://trib.com/business/energy/another-coal-plant-to-retire-early-wyomings-biggest-utility-delays-discussion-on-coal/article_86b30bab-c537-50f8-a833-e4c7faa7f375.html

Another coal plant to retire early; Wyoming's biggest utility delays discussion on coal
Camille Erickson Jan 8, 2021

nother coal-fired power plant will retire earlier than originally planned just south of Wyoming’s border.

The Hayden Generating Station in northwest Colorado will join dozens of other coal units in closing early to save ratepayers money on electricity and meet new climate protocols.

Utility company Xcel Energy announced this week it plans to close Unit 2 of its Hayden Generating Station by 2027, about three years earlier than previously planned. Unit 1 would be retired by 2028, instead of in 2036. Together, the units have 441 megawatts of generating capacity. The Colorado-based Twentymile mine supplies the plant with coal.

Though a minority owner, PacifiCorp reported it would save ratepayers $81 million if it shuttered the Hayden units early.

The move to retire the facilities sooner than originally planned is part of a growing effort by utilities to lower carbon emissions and transition to lower-cost energy sources. Xcel aims to slash its carbon emissions from electricity to zero by 2050.

[gerontocrat]

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

Monthly US Coal production has not gone down in the 6 months from July to December 2020.
After burning a lot of coal for electricity in Jul to Sep and thus reducing stocks production is once again MORE than consumption + exports,  i.e. stocks grew in October.

The 12 month trailing average of production and consumption continues the downward trend.
Will we see the Biden Effect in 2021, or will it just be a case of coal winding down as the money men walk away?

[gerontocrat]

X-post from "Biden's Presidency..

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/coal-wins-curious-reprieve-in-bidens-assault-on-climate-change-2021-01-28/rep_id:3650

Coal wins curious reprieve in Biden’s assault on climate change

President Joe Biden enlisted the entire US government in the fight against climate change on Wednesday, even telling the Central Intelligence Agency to consider global warming a national security threat.

Yet he left out coal -- the fossil fuel most widely blamed for global warming -- when he froze the sale of leases to extract oil and gas from federal land.

It was a conspicuous omission for a president who has vowed to make the electric grid carbon-free by 2035 and who has said the world’s “future rests in renewable energy.”

“This order should have included all fossil fuel extraction on public lands,” said Mitch Jones, policy director at the environmental group Food and Water Watch, who called the decision to leave out coal both “a disappointment” and “scientifically unsound". “For years we’ve been force fed the false idea that fracked gas -- fracked methane -- is cleaner than coal, but, now, coal gets a pass?” Jones said. “The fight against climate change demands that we remain vigilant against all fossil fuel extraction.”

White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy said coal leasing will still get a review as part of a broad analysis of fossil-fuel leasing. But unlike oil and gas development on federal land, which Biden promised to target when running for president, a pause on selling coal rights “was not part of the commitments on the campaign.”

Administration officials had planned to include coal in the order but the decision was made to leave it off the list by Monday afternoon, according to three people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named describing internal deliberations.

One factor in the White House’s decision was how it would affect litigation over then-President Donald Trump’s reversal of an earlier Obama-era moratorium. Conservation groups and Native Americans last year filed a fresh challenge of the Trump administration’s coal leasing restart, arguing the government did not sufficiently evaluate the environmental harm of the move. That case is still pending before a federal district court in Montana.

It’s not clear that a coal directive from the White House would have interfered with the ongoing litigation. And while federal coal sales have waned along with demand for the fossil fuel, the government has continued issuing new and modified leases, said Earthjustice attorney Jenny Harbine.

“It’s really important that this administration stop issuing leases that allow for infrastructure commitments for the next 20 years on federal coal when it’s completely avoidable and completely unnecessary,” Harbine said.

Coal is politically treacherous terrain. Just ask former President Barack Obama, who for years was accused of leading a “war on coal” by advancing policies limiting mining techniques and power-plant pollution.

Trump used that claim on the campaign trail in 2016, highlighting miners in hardhats at his rallies and even pantomiming shoveling it out on stage. The appeal helped him notch big wins in the once reliably Democratic state of West Virginia.

Biden has largely avoided explicit talk about his plans for coal, though he’s repeatedly promised that a wave of clean energy investment can put people to work in high-paying, union jobs installing wind turbines and solar panels.

On Wednesday, Biden emphasized he would seek to “revitalize the economies of coal, oil and gas and power plant communities,” starting by creating jobs reclaiming old mines and revitalizing once-polluted sites.

Coal and its workforce have politically powerful champions, including Senator Joe Manchin, the Democrat from West Virginia, now leading the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Manchin said he expected Biden to keep his pledge to protect the jobs of workers displaced by the shift in energy sources.

“I intend to hold the administration to this while ensuring that the burden of any acceleration in already changing markets is not unduly placed on these communities that powered our nation to greatness,” Manchin said in an emailed statement.

Biden ordered the creation of an interagency working group focused on the coordinating investments and other efforts to assist communities tied to coal, oil and natural gas.

“We’re never going to forget the men and women who dug the coal and built the nation,” Biden vowed. “We’re going to do right by them -- make sure they have opportunities to keep building the nation and their own communities and getting paid well for it.”

[Sciguy]

^^^
In the US it's cheaper to build a new solar farm or wind turbines than it is to operate an existing coal-fire power plant.  And States wont permit new or expanded ports for exporting coal overseas.  So there is no demand for new coal mines.  It's unnecessary to upset voters banning something that won't be built anyway.

[interstitial]

If all coal miners were sent home tomorrow it still only represents about 45000 US workers. That is less than 25% of what it used to be in 1985 (178000). For perspective boeing employed 161000 at the end of 2019. In 2020 it cut 31000 people from its workforce. When a coal mine shuts down it looks more dramatic because the whole town ends up shutting down but in a city people often find work in the same area.


Over half of the employment losses were to worker efficiencies not production declines.

[sidd]

Ain't just the miners, like you said, its often the whole town. And then you have the iron triangle, coal, rails, and coal burners, the last category these days being just the power plants.

So you got miners, railway employees, coal generation employees, and again, closing down a coal power plant can easily blow a town away.

The people in those forsaken places, whose little towns will be obliterated. The mines go away, the industry goes away, slave wages at walmart or the interstate truck stop or the UPS warehouse.

The message they hear is,you can't compete in these times, go off and die quietly, somewhere out of our sight.

I am amazed that for the most part they have.

sidd

[Sigmetnow]

The answer, of course, is to find economic replacements for the vanishing coal business.  The state of West Virginia is in the heart of U.S. coal country — but managed to attract a Hyperloop development center.  Even Elon Musk has been open to some “tri-state area” location for a Tesla gigafactory in the eastern U.S.  Leap-frogging out of old industry and into leading edge has been the savior of many regions.

How West Virginia landed the Virgin Hyperloop project

The Virgin Hyperloop Certification Center, planned for an 800-acre tract that straddles Grant and Tucker counties, is expected to bring thousands of construction jobs and millions of dollars in economic impact to the Mountain State.

WVU’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research predicts the total economic impact of the center’s ongoing operation on the state’s economy will be around $48 million annually. ...

https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/how-west-virginia-landed-the-virgin-hyperloop-project/article_9d8c2700-a5f9-503f-95c0-32841ff75e7e.html

[interstitial]

Its great when a replacement business can be found but usually the answer is for people to move away. Cue the sad music and you have an expose. Coal mining towns were built around the mine They usually are not a good location for other things. Economic disruption is ugly in any industry but it gets outsized attention in rural areas.  Each mine may only have a few thousand workers or less but gets more attention than 31000 Boeing workers. These disruptions are tragic and as a nation we should consider what can be done to make these transitions smoother. We treat these events as if this is the first time anything like this has happened. Overall dragging it out is more damaging to the people involved than just shutting it down.  Coal needs to close and the sooner the better. The disruption is no reason to put it off. For the most part people move away and get other work. Some never recover but balanced against all the damage coal does to peoples health shutting down is the lesser of two evils.

[Sciguy]

The current mine workers can be put to work flooding abandoned coal mines and working on capping them so methane doesn't leak.  A recent study shows that methane emissions from coal mines are much higher than previously estimated and that if the coal mines aren't flooded, the emissions continue long after the mine is closed.

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-methane-emissions-coal-higher-previously.html

January 29, 2021
Methane emissions from coal mines are higher than previously thought

by Tom Rickey, Pnnl, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

The amount of methane released into the atmosphere as a result of coal mining is likely much higher than previously calculated, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union recently.

The study estimates that methane emissions from coal mines are approximately 50 percent higher than previously estimated. The research was done by a team at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others.

The higher estimate is due mainly to two factors: methane that continues to be emitted from thousands of abandoned mines and the higher methane content in coal seams that are ever deeper, according to chief author Nazar Kholod of PNNL.

The study is one of the first to account for methane leaking from old, abandoned mines. Kholod said that when a closed mine is flooded, water stops methane from leaking almost completely within about seven years. But when an abandoned mine is closed without flooding, as many are, methane leaks into the air for decades.

[kassy]

Climate change: Minister rapped for allowing Cumbria coal mine

The government’s climate change advisors have rapped ministers for allowing a new coal mine in Cumbria.

They say the site will increase global emissions and compromise the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets.

They warn the decision could undermine its leadership of the vital COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in November.

The new deep coking coal mine was agreed by Cumbria County Council and the government previously said it did not want to intervene.

...

The government’s chief planning officer Joanna Averley defended Mr Jenrick’s decision not to over-rule their consent for the mine.

She told conference on planning policy arranged by the countryside charity CPRE that the decision was only a local issue.

She was asked why, given the UK's policies on cutting carbon, Mr Jenrick had not exercised his powers to overrule Cumbria County Council's approval of the mine.

Ms Averley said: "The Secretary of State has to make a judgement based on whether the impacts of the scheme are more than local.

"And in this case, the decision was that this was a decision for local determination, and the application was approved by the local authority… a decision for local democracy."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55871503

What BS. Once again a government that likes to blabber on the international stage but does not act when it needs to.

[SteveMDFP]

The new deep coking coal mine was agreed by Cumbria County Council and the government previously said it did not want to intervene.

I don't disagree with the gist of this post, but I might point out a bit of nuance.  The "coking" implies the intended use is for metallurgical purposes (steel making, mostly) rather than the production of heat/electricity.

With current technology, coke is absolutely essential for steel-making.  We can only reduce the use of coke by reducing steel production.  Unless our climate goals include reduced steel production, then somebody will need to produce the coke.  I don't see that it's better for the coke to come from inside the UK than outside the UK.

Theoretically, it's possible to use hydrogen gas as a reducing agent, rather than carbon from coke.  The whole process would likely need to be carried out in the complete absence of oxygen.  Hydrogen gas heated up to 1000 degrees C (or whatever the temp is) is going to be exceedingly hazardous.

[kassy]

Yes and so the government could have said something along those lines. The domestic use stops in 2035 according to the BBC. Of course the rest can be exported to the EU and that should involve less climate burden then imports from the USA, Canada or Australia which are much further away.

Still not a local choice.

I think that steel making is also one of those techniques that would benefit from redesigning it from the ground up. We use the big power concept of really ancient techniques. There must be a better way to separate the iron from the other stuff.

[sidd]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/

sidd

[Iain]

Have I understood correctly, my reading is that H binds to the O in the Oxide, leaving Fe behind, and H20 emissions boiling off.

Wheras with Coke, O binds to C, product id CO2

Breakthrough.

[Richard Rathbone]

Have I understood correctly, my reading is that H binds to the O in the Oxide, leaving Fe behind, and H20 emissions boiling off.

Wheras with Coke, O binds to C, product id CO2

Breakthrough.

C also binds to Fe to make steel. Its the FeC that makes it steel rather than iron. When run with coke, too much C ends up in the iron so some of it has to be burnt off, but if no carbon was used in making the pig iron there would need to be a carbon adding step rather than a carbon burning step afterwards.

There's no reason it can't be done, but I'm not aware of any serious testing of alternative routes to making steel by adding carbon to iron smelted with H2 rather than burning off the excess left behind from coke smelting.

[gerontocrat]

I was taught that...

The precise amount of carbon added to iron to make steel is critical and cannot be adequately measured in the basic process of making pig-iron using coke, iron ore, limestone. So the process of making steel is to firstly burn off all the carbon in the pig-iron and then add precise amounts of carbon (and other stuff - vanadium, chrome?) to make the sort of steel you want.

Loads of energy.

The link below gives the basic process and notes on alternative methods, that do not include H2 namely,
(1) Electric reduction furnace
(2) Low shaft blast furnace
(3) Sponge iron process.

No (1) looks the best so far to especially if there is deliberate over-production of cheap renewable energy. This may be possible where both wind and sun and maybe hydro is available in large quantities. I quote "This type of furnace can be adopted at places where electric power can be economically and cheaply generated. "

I also had a read of sidd's post above about thyssen-krupp's H2 plant. And I quote

The company intends to commission new steel furnaces in the mid-2020s, that will initially use hydrogen to produce ‘sponge-iron’, that will be separately converted into crude steel using renewably powered electric-arc furnaces.

So even with H2, there is a need for loads of cheap electricity from renwable energy sources - and Germany quite often has excess wind energy that can help.

Like just about everything on reducing CO2 emissions there are doable solutions. But current progress seems to be 25 years to do what needs doing in 10 (max). Like Oliver Twist "please Sir, can I have some more?"

[BeeKnees]

looks like China might be finally about to get tough

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1355465216914427904.html

A SIGNIFICANT move that bears HUGE political implications for China's envi governance, air pollution, & coal development. On Jan 29, the central environmental inspection group (CEIP) released findings on its inspection at the National Energy Administration (NEA). Thread.
Image
CEIP is essentially a tool that Xi Jinping established to ensure his environmental agenda is implemented on the ground. The subjects of the inspection is various govt agencies. The target for this time, NEA, has been engulfed in corruption scandals in recent years.
The report from the NEA inspection is released on the MEE website. It is unusually harsh and critical in its tone - definitely the juiciest and most insightful bureaucratic doc I've seen in years:

中央第六生态环境保护督察组向国家能源局反馈督察情况
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/B501AB7WTt0iUVgADHjcvQ
The report provides a long list of misbehaviors. Only reading original text will do justice, but here are a few big ones: 1) creative interpretation of air pollution regulations - changing low quality coal import "ban" to "limit", changing "shall" to "encourage" in NEA documents.
2) misguidance on coal power base planning - leading up directly to the construction of coal projects that should be banned and regional coal over-capacity.
3) the mentality of ensuring energy security at the expense of envi protection, taking economic and industrial burden as excuse for selective enforcement of envi standards.
Many of these misbehaviors have long been exposed by ENGOs, but falling on deaf ears. It's astonishing, for example, to see NEA approving coal projects when half of them stand idle. Now that CEIP puts it all in front of NEA, I am sure the career of some are doomed, and rightly so
NEA needs to provide a public response to the findings within 30 work days. It will be interesting to see how they plan to change course - that will hopefully have a major impact on China's coal development trajectory & contribute to clean up the sky as well as decarbonization.
Many correctly point out that the effect of China's campaign style inspection is often short lived. But I believe this one is a bit different - it will at least reshape the institutional culture of the NEA and align it with the latest vision on carbon neutrality.
Overall, a move long overdue and should set the record straight for the provinces and industries developing their peaking plans. END.
One addition: the NEA inspection was conducted using previous CEIP guidelines, which does not include climate as an evaluation indicator. As a result, the coal related laments were made on airpollution&overcapacity basis. MEE is now pushing climate into the inspection criteria.

[gerontocrat]

looks like China might be finally about to get tough

CEIP is essentially a tool that Xi Jinping established to ensure his environmental agenda is implemented on the ground. The subjects of the inspection is various govt agencies. The target for this time, NEA, has been engulfed in corruption scandals in recent years.
The report from the NEA inspection is released on the MEE website. It is unusually harsh and critical in its tone - definitely the juiciest and most insightful bureaucratic doc I've seen in years:

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/B501AB7WTt0iUVgADHjcvQ
The report provides a long list of misbehaviors.

Many of these misbehaviors have long been exposed by ENGOs, but falling on deaf ears. It's astonishing, for example, to see NEA approving coal projects when half of them stand idle. Now that CEIP puts it all in front of NEA, I am sure the career of some are doomed, and rightly so

Now that CEIP puts it all in front of NEA, I am sure the career of some are doomed, and rightly so
If the really bad boys  (e.g. taking bribes for project approvals) are lucky, a doomed career is the minimum to expect. Such behaviour is "an economic crime against the State", for which I believe the maximum penalty is still death.

China pays hardball.

[Sciguy]

China will need to cut coal power capacity by 40 per cent by 2030 to meet its goal of peaking emissions by 2030.  They are continuing to add the equivalent of one new large coal power plant to their grid each week.  That means a lot of stranded assets are on the books, mostly funded by local governments.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3120398/how-chinas-coal-power-glut-clouding-its-carbon-zero-ambitions

How China’s coal power glut is clouding its carbon zero ambitions

    By adding the equivalent of one new coal-fired plant a week, China led the world in expansion of electricity from the fossil fuel last year, researchers say
    But the tide could be turning as interest wanes in the sector, according to observers

Echo Xie
4 Feb 2021

Last year, when China pledged to be carbon neutral by 2060, the country built the equivalent of one large coal-fired power plant per week, adding more than three times as much new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined.

In addition, over 73 gigawatts of new coal power projects was proposed in 2020, five times as much as the rest of the world combined.

Chinese officials have stressed the need for greener and cleaner energy for more than a decade, culminating in President Xi Jinping’s carbon neutral pledge at United Nations General Assembly in September.

During the meeting, Xi also upped China’s commitment on peak carbon emissions, pledging to reach the point before 2030, rather than “around 2030” as promised under the Paris Agreement in 2015.

China’s coal power plants are already operating at well below capacity, powered up for 4,216 hours on average in 2020, far lower than their designed 5,500 hours, according to the NEA.

That was making coal less attractive to investors, said Yang Fuqiang, a senior adviser on climate change and energy at the Natural Resources Defence Council’s office in Beijing.

He said there was a high chance that the newly approved coal plants would become “stranded assets”, standing idle as power companies moved to invest in non-fossil energy sources.

“Few companies are interested in investing in coal power plants and banks are reluctant to lend to them. Now only some local governments want to build these plants,” he said.

Many of these plants will have to close if China is to reach its 2060 carbon target.

[kassy]

Pollution from coal power costs Turkey as much as 27% of its total health expenditure – new report

Turkey is pushing ahead with plans to double its coal power capacity with 30 new coal power stations despite major health impacts and costs linked to the country’s existing coal fleet. A new analysis by the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) finds that the health impacts of coal pollution in Turkey currently generate economic costs of up to 10.9 billion EUR (or up to 99.37 billion Turkish Lira) annually, which is equivalent to up to 27% of its annual health expenditure.

https://energyandcleanair.org/pollution-from-coal-power-costs-turkey-as-much-as-27-of-its-total-health-expenditure-new-report/

report:
https://www.env-health.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Chronic-Coal-Pollution-Turkey_web.pdf

[interstitial]

CEO of the country’s largest electricity utility by market value, Jim Robo of NextEra Energy, speaking last week in a conference call with analysts
“There is not a regulated coal plant in this country that is economic today, full period and stop,”

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04022021/inside-clean-energy-coal-power-renewable-utilities/

[interstitial]

Decker coal mine closes in January
https://www.khq.com/regional/montana-coal-mine-closes-amid-decline-in-demand/article_106905fa-c076-58ec-8f80-ee13d0c2163c.html

[Sciguy]

Excluding China, the rest of the world reduced global coal capacity by 17.2 GW.  Unfortunately, China added a net 29.8 GW of coal capacity.

https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/China-Dominates-2020-Coal-Development.pdf

Global Energy Monitor
February 2021

China Dominates 2020 Coal Plant Development
AGGRESSIVE PURSUIT OF COAL PUTS 2060 CARBON-NEUTRAL GOAL AT RISK

● China commissioned 38.4 GW of new coal plants in 2020, over three times the 11.9 GW commissioned in the rest of the world.
● Chinaʼs coal fleet grew by net 29.8 GW in 2020,while in the rest of the world net capacity decreased by 17.2 GW.
● China initiated 73.5 GW of new coal plant proposals in 2020, over five times the 13.9 GW initiated in the rest of the world combined.

[Sciguy]

Another Powder River Basin (USA - Wyoming) coal mine is closing this month.

https://trib.com/business/energy/another-powder-river-basin-coal-mine-will-close-down/article_f314cdac-e1ac-5f9f-8e9b-6340f5cf369b.html

Another Powder River Basin coal mine will close down
Camille Erickson
Feb 9, 2021

Wyoming's Coal Creek mine will begin closing soon, becoming the second Powder River Basin mine to start the process of shuttering this year.

Owner Arch Resources Inc. announced on Tuesday morning it planned to wind down operations at the mine near Gillette and begin cleaning up the site over the next two years, as part of its plan to transition away from thermal coal. 

In October, Arch said it anticipated slashing thermal coal production in half over the next two to three years at its coal mines in the Powder River Basin. The firm went so far as to suggest it would be looking for “an appropriate” buyer for certain assets, and if no buyers are found, significantly scale down production.

The Coal Creek mine produced about 2.1 million tons of its lower heat value coal last year, 73% less than it did in 2018.

[interstitial]

Another Powder River Basin (USA - Wyoming) coal mine is closing this month.

https://trib.com/business/energy/another-powder-river-basin-coal-mine-will-close-down/article_f314cdac-e1ac-5f9f-8e9b-6340f5cf369b.html

Another Powder River Basin coal mine will close down
Camille Erickson
Feb 9, 2021

Wyoming's Coal Creek mine will begin closing soon, becoming the second Powder River Basin mine to start the process of shuttering this year.

Owner Arch Resources Inc. announced on Tuesday morning it planned to wind down operations at the mine near Gillette and begin cleaning up the site over the next two years, as part of its plan to transition away from thermal coal. 

In October, Arch said it anticipated slashing thermal coal production in half over the next two to three years at its coal mines in the Powder River Basin. The firm went so far as to suggest it would be looking for “an appropriate” buyer for certain assets, and if no buyers are found, significantly scale down production.

The Coal Creek mine produced about 2.1 million tons of its lower heat value coal last year, 73% less than it did in 2018.

Another one bites the dust.  




I am sad for the people who will lose their jobs but prolonging economic creative destruction doesn't help.

[Sciguy]

A proposed 1200 MW coal-fired power plant in Turkey has been cancelled.

Turkish plant cancelled

After a six-year campaign by a coalition of NGO groups, the Environmental Impact Assessment  process for the proposed 1200 MW Kahramanmaras Anadolu power station in Turkey’s Elbistan region has been cancelled by the Ministry of Environment. The original environmental assessment for the project was withdrawn by Anadolu Enerji in 2015, due to opposition from the local community. In late 2017 the company resubmitted a new assessment but this too was found to be inadequate by the state water agency because of the plant’s impact on irrigated agriculture. The assessment process was restarted in June 2019 but the company has now abandoned the project. (Bianet)

And Australia is now projecting its power plants will close earlier than planned.

Australian gov't adviser warns coal plants will close earlier than expected: Kerry Schott, the chair of the Energy Security Board, an advisory body for Australian state and federal government energy ministers, has warned Australia’s aging coal fleet may close “four or five years earlier” or even sooner than estimated in its fastest transition scenario. Australian solar and wind capacity has been growing rapidly. “It makes it very difficult for companies that own these plants to justify maintaining them and it also makes it difficult for them to justify keeping them running,” Scott said. Last week, Australia’s largest coal generator, AGL, warned that with wholesale power prices at six-year lows, black coal power generators were “struggling to cover cash costs”. (Australian Financial Review [Paywall])

Both stories are covered by End Coal at this website:

https://endcoal.org/2021/02/coalwire-357-february-18-2021/

[gerontocrat]

Monthly update from the US EIA @ https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

Image is 12 month moving average.

US Coal industry continues to die - slower than required for COP 26?

[Sciguy]

India's coal consumption may have peaked in 2018.

https://electrek.co/2021/02/15/coal-dominates-india-but-the-fossil-fuel-may-have-peaked/

Coal dominates India, but the fossil fuel may have peaked
Michelle Lewis
- Feb. 15th 2021

India’s coal power has continued to decline since reaching a peak in 2018, according to an analysis by independent climate and energy think tank Ember. India’s coal-fired electricity generation fell 5% in 2020 due to significantly reduced annual electricity demand as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown. It is the second consecutive year that coal power has fallen, with coal generation down 8% in 2020 compared to 2018.

With electricity demand projected to grow just 4-5% every year until 2030, the study calculates that there would only be a small (52 TWh) increase in coal-fired generation by 2030. The analysis draws on data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), demonstrating that the IEA’s recent India Energy Outlook 2021 report supports the conclusion that coal power will plateau and could even fall this decade.

This new trajectory puts India on a more climate-friendly pathway, but that is dependent on India delivering its 2022 target for wind and solar, which would require more than double the generation seen in 2020 (118TWh), according to Ember’s report.

[gerontocrat]

In Australia, private companies, local and state governments are doing what the Federal Government should be leading - but is not. So progress is slower than it needs to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/10/yallourn-close-early-victoria-australia-brown-coal-power-stations-giant-battery
Yallourn, one of Australia's last brown coal power stations, to close early in favour of giant battery

Power station produces 13% of Victoria’s and 3% of national emissions and employs 500 people

One of Australia’s dirtiest coal-fired power stations, Yallourn in Victoria’s Latrobe valley, will close four years earlier than scheduled and be replaced, in part, by a grid-scale battery.

EnergyAustralia announced on Wednesday it would shut the 1970s-built, 1,480-megawatt brown coal plant in mid-2028.

There have been several outages at the ageing generator in recent years and a widespread expectation that at least one coal plant would shut early due to an influx of cheap renewable energy making them financially unviable.

About 500 workers at the plant and connected coalmine were told of the decision on Wednesday morning. The company’s managing director, Catherine Tanna, told a subsequent press conference that EnergyAustralia had a plan that was supported by the Victorian government and included a $10m workforce support package.

Climate campaigners said the closure was inevitable, but not soon enough given the scientific evidence about what was needed, and called for a government-supported transition plan for affected Gippsland towns.

Tanna said the company would built a long-duration large battery, with four hours’ storage and maximum power capacity of 350 megawatts, by 2026 to help ensure a secure energy supply when the plant shut. She said it was bigger than any battery now operating, but larger batteries were proposed elsewhere.