Coal

[Bob Wallace]

More from CoalWire

Slovenian police raise further queries about coal plant expansion: Leaked details of a Slovenian police investigation into Alstom’s €1.4 billion (US$1.6 billion) 600 MW expansion of the Sostanj plant found that it was €500 million (US$586 million) more expensive than equivalent plants the company built elsewhere. The expansion was originally estimated to cost €700 million (US$820 million) and was commissioned in 2015. In October 2014 Slovenian police charged 10 people associated with the project of defrauding electricity consumers of an estimated €284 million (US$333 million). A Slovenian TV station alleges that documents obtained as part of the investigation indicate Alstom allocated €3 million (US$3.5 million) for kickbacks associated with the project.

Bribes could help explain why large uneconomical thermal plants are being built.  There's a saying - "Large projects create the opportunity for large bribes".

[Shared Humanity]

https://www.reuters.com/article/column-russell-lng-asia/column-lng-starts-rally-early-and-its-mainly-china-russell-idUSL3N1SZ1LF

LAUNCESTON, Australia, May 28 (Reuters) - The slack period for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in top consumer Asia is usually the shoulder season between winter and summer, or March to May, but this pattern hasn’t really repeated this year.

China’s LNG imports rose 58 percent to 15.8 million tonnes in the first four months of this year compared to the same period a year earlier, according to customs data.

Once this pipeline is completed in 2019, you can expect LNG spot prices to drop dramatically as China finally has access to much cheaper natural gas from Russia.

https://ig.ft.com/gazprom-pipeline-power-of-siberia/

Since the U.S. depends on LNG (expensive compared to pipelines) to export our abundance of fracked natural gas, this will drive U.S. gas prices down fast.

[numerobis]

I'm aware of a handful of coal plants that China has been building/helping to build outside of China.  I hadn't heard the reason why, it seems out of line with China's goal of fighting climate change.

I wonder if the number is significant or just a few 'special needs' exceptions.

I suspect they don’t care that much about climate change. Coal burned in China leads to demonstrations, which they do care about. Coal plants built elsewhere leads to pollution elsewhere, which they don’t care about. It also leads to powerful industrialists getting richer, which they’re likely happy to support.

[TerryM]

Once this pipeline is completed in 2019, you can expect LNG spot prices to drop dramatically as China finally has access to much cheaper natural gas from Russia.

https://ig.ft.com/gazprom-pipeline-power-of-siberia/

Since the U.S. depends on LNG (expensive compared to pipelines) to export our abundance of fracked natural gas, this will drive U.S. gas prices down fast.

I expect that China views present LNG purchases as a short time solution to be utilized until the Russian pipeline is complete. Neither China or Europe wants to be paying a premium for using LNG if piped NG is available.
LNG is a much dirtier fuel than NG because of the energy spent in liquefying and regassifying the product and this also precludes LNG from ever being able to compete economically with NG.

Russia is building an LNG plant to minimize transportation costs to Japan. This is going to make shipping LNG across the Pacific far less profitable. Only three shipments of American LNG have been sold to Europe this year as Russia's Gazprom now supplies a record of nearly 40% to that market. With Nord Stream II going ahead and the Power of Siberia pipeline to China nearing completion, the future of America's LNG's expansion is very much in doubt.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Russia-Just-Won-Big-In-The-European-Gas-War.html
Terry

[Sleepy]

LNG imports become hot business
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201805/15/WS5afa26faa3103f6866ee857a.html

Under a policy to encourage the use of gas for heating instead of burning coal to combat air pollution, the country's LNG demand is expected to nearly double to 68 million metric tons per year by 2023 from the 2017 figure and exceed that of Japan, the world's biggest consumer, before 2030, according to S&P Global Platts Analytics.

While the industry was surprised by China's rapidly growing thirst for natural gas, energy companies are already taking action to leverage the bullish long-term picture painted by the government.

CNOOC Gas and Power Group, a unit of China National Offshore Oil Corp, imported more than 20.46 million tons of LNG in 2017, accounting for 54.7 percent of the country's total import.

[Bob Wallace]

I'm aware of a handful of coal plants that China has been building/helping to build outside of China.  I hadn't heard the reason why, it seems out of line with China's goal of fighting climate change.

I wonder if the number is significant or just a few 'special needs' exceptions.

I suspect they don’t care that much about climate change. Coal burned in China leads to demonstrations, which they do care about. Coal plants built elsewhere leads to pollution elsewhere, which they don’t care about. It also leads to powerful industrialists getting richer, which they’re likely happy to support.

China's president has made some very strong statements about China's concern over climate change and their desire to be a world leader on fighting climate change.  China has recognized that they would be one of the countries most hurt by a warming climate.

March 2018

China reached its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal last year, its government said.

Xie Zhenhua, China’s special representative for climate change, gave the update Monday at the country’s Green Carbon Summit, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency.

China had targeted a reduction of its carbon dioxide emissions as a unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.

Xie said at the event that China last year achieved a 46 percent reduction under 2005 levels. Year-over-year, the nation reduced its carbon intensity by 5.1 percent.

Xie credited the reduction to an emissions trading system China’s communist government instituted starting in 2011 in certain provinces.

China has been criticized by leaders of many nations, including the United States, for trying to avoid its responsibility to reduce emissions. It is the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, and its economy is second only to the United States.

China pledged under the 2015 Paris agreement only to stop increasing its emissions by 2030. Officials said they would work to reduce emissions before that point, but it made no commitment on that front in the nonbinding accord.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/380437-china-says-it-has-met-2020-climate-goal

A few years back China said that they thought they would be able to hit peak coal consumption by 2015.  Later they said that it would more likely be 2017.  If BP's numbers are correct it looks like China might have reached peak coal in 2014.

China managed to separate coal consumption and GDP growth in 2007.

[Sleepy]

Dramatic surge in China carbon emissions signals climate danger
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/05/30/china-co2-carbon-climate-emissions-rise-in-2018/

Led by increased demand for coal, oil and gas, China’s CO2 emissions for the first three months of 2018 were 4% higher than they were for the same period in 2017, according to an Unearthed analysis of new government figures.

Analysts have suggested the country’s carbon emissions could rise this year by 5% — the largest annual increase in seven years, back when the airpocalypse was at its peak.

[Bob Wallace]

I find this part of the Greenpeace article interesting.

China’s coal use remains well below its peak in 2013. Total CO2 emissions could be lower or higher depending on which time series you look at.

Note though that there are major uncertainties about short-term data – calculating back from recently published data, coal output in 2016-2017 seems to have been recently revised down by 5-10%, without explanation, which means that the recent increase is just coal demand reaching the level that we thought it was on in 2016. The revisions mean that the statistics initially understated how fast coal use and emissions were falling.

[Sleepy]

Another take on the greepeace article in Reply #1107

https://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-kicks-on-why-chinas-emissions-have-not-yet-peaked-51479/

Summary: CO2 emissions likely to rise >5% this year

Access to China’s statistics has greatly improved in the past couple of years. The mark of a good analyst, economist or statistician is to know what statistics to focus on, and of course they are all released with a lag.

Looking at the numbers suggests that:

1. CO2 emissions will rise in China by more than 5% in 2018 due to the pull through impacts of China construction growth;
2. China coal consumption will rise this year keeping coal prices high even if domestic production increases;
3. Wind, PV and Nuclear have gained electricity market share, but because of a hydro down turn, the second one in the past few years, thermal electricity share is at least as high as 3 years ago.
4. As long as this state of affairs continues, coal-fuelled electricity plants are unlikely to feel excessive profit pressure. Capacity utilization will likely stay around 50% this year.

It’s beyond obvious that China arguably holds the fate of global of warming in its hands. China is more or less the place where about 30% of annual carbon emissions originate.

The arguments around  responsibility are more subtle, since China exports huge amount of product and its share of cumulative emissions are smaller.

In the end, though these arguments about blame are pointless. If the world is to limit warming, emissions sourced in China will have to fall sharply.

Because China has a command economy, one where the commands seem to be effective, it can be argued that if China wants to, it will be able to implement an effective policy. It just comes down to where it fits in = Xi Jinping’s priority list.

[Bob Wallace]

It’s beyond obvious that China arguably holds the fate of global of warming in its hands. China is more or less the place where about 30% of annual carbon emissions originate

I guess the other 70% is of no consequence....

[Sleepy]

Further crossposting, also adding this quote to be somewhat on topic (Coal->Steel) (from the PDF in the link below):

Given that low-carbon energy will not solve the problem of CO 2 emissions from materials, other measures are needed. On the supply side, a broad range of options have been proposed, from hydrogen-based steelmaking to new routes for plastics synthesis, but all are at early stages of development. Another option that is often discussed is to deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS) – which also lags far behind the levels of deployment required for a 2°C scenario. Both will likely be needed to bring industry in line with the goal of net-zero emissions, but they will not suffice.

The circular economy – a powerful force for climate mitigation
https://www.sitra.fi/en/publications/circular-economy-powerful-force-climate-mitigation/

This report investigates how a more circular economy can contribute to cutting CO2 emissions. It explores a broad range of opportunities for the four largest materials in terms of emissions (steel, plastics, aluminium, and cement) and two large use segments for these materials (passenger cars and buildings).

The key conclusion is that a more circular economy can make deep cuts to emissions from heavy industry: in an ambitious scenario, as much as 296 million tons CO2 per year in the EU by 2050, out of 530 Mt in total – and some 3.6 billion tonnes per year globally. Making better use of the materials that already exist in the economy thus can take EU industry halfway towards net-zero emissions. Moreover, doing so often is economically attractive. Initiatives for a more circular economy therefore deserve a central place in EU climate and industrial policy.

PDF in the link.

[Sleepy]

Let's hope the dormant capacity is never used.
https://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BoomAndBust_2018_r6.pdf

As shown in Figure 3, lifetime carbon dioxide emissions from currently operating coal plants along with coal plants under construction and in pre-construction development far exceed the available carbon budgets for international climate goals at the current level of operating hours per year. The figure assumes that 34% of proposed coal plant projects will be implemented, corresponding to the average rate in the 2010–2017 period (see Table 2), and that the plants will be retired at age 40 (or in five years if already 40 or older). As calculated by Climate Analytics (2016), the global coal plant budgets from 2017 to 2050 for 1.5°C and 2.0°C are 117 and 207 Gigatonnes (Gt), respectively.

[Sciguy]

Coal's future in Europe is bleak:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/06/11/uneconomic-coal-could-be-squeezed-out-of-european-union-power-markets-by-2030/#756be7d14179

Deteriorating economics and stronger climate policies are squeezing European Union coal generation like a vise grip, closing power plants and threatening huge stranded asset costs.

The symbolic beginning of the end for EU coal generation came in April when the United Kingdom, birthplace of the coal-fired Industrial Revolution, ran without coal for 55 hours then for another 76 hours a week later – the longest stretch since the 1880s in the world’s 5th-largest economy.

Coal power is still running in many EU nations, but it could be rendered completely uneconomic – and obsolete – as soon as 2030. Forward-looking utilities and investors are planning accordingly, but how the EU power sector responds as a whole will determine if countries and their consumers are shouldered with billions in sunk costs.

Eleven EU nations have either closed their coal fleets or have announced they will shutter all coal generation by a specific date, including France by 2023, Italy and the UK by 2025, and the Netherlands (home to Europe’s three newest coal plants) by 2030. These nations have 35.5GW operating coal, roughly 22% of total EU generation. Germany, Europe’s largest coal user with 50.4GW, will set an end date for coal power in 2019.

While the cost of coal power keeps getting more expensive, the price of renewable energy keeps getting cheaper. The levelized cost of energy for solar and wind fell below coal in 2017, making wind and solar the cheapest option for new generation, and reshuffling the power mix: The EU’s use of coal for power declined for the fifth consecutive year and was passed by renewables.

[Bob Wallace]

In the same vein from last December -

Over half of EU coal plants are now losing money and ...

Stricter air pollution rules and higher carbon prices are set to push even more plants into unprofitability, according to the analysts Carbon Tracker, with 97% of the plants losing money by 2030. Furthermore, rapidly falling renewables costs are on track to make building new wind and solar farms cheaper than continuing to run existing coal plants by the mid 2020s.

...

Coal in Europe is in a “death spiral”, according to Carbon Tracker, with seven nations including the UK already having announced the end of coal power by 2030 or earlier. At the UN climate change summit in November, the launch of a new alliance of 19 nations committed to phasing out coal rapidly was greeted as a political watershed. “The time of coal has passed,” said the UK’s climate minister Claire Perry.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/death-spiral-half-of-europes-coal-plants-are-losing-money

[Sleepy]

They are moving to Turkey.
https://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/turkey/

https://www.env-health.org/resources/press-releases/article/new-toolkit-puts-spotlight-on-coal
From the PDF:

Energy and electricity generation in Turkey is still dependent on fossil fuels with 33.8% of the total electricity generated from coal and 67% from fossil fuels in 2016. over the last ten years, coal-based power generation doubled and fossil fuel-based power generation increased by 150%.

In addition to the growth in electricity generation and installed electricity capacity, per capita energy consumption is also increasing in turkey. Between 2006 and 2016, the total installed capacity increased nearly 2.5-fold and climbed to 78.5 GW; the per capita consumption of energy has had an increasing trajectory since 2001, for instance, the per capita energy consumption increased by 7.47% between 2013-2015, in just two years. this development stands in contrast to the strategies developed to increase the efficiency of activities to tackle climate change and to protect the environment, which are set out in turkey’s Energy Efficiency Strategy Document.

Moreover, turkey aims to increase the share of coal in the electricity production. As of the end of 2016, the coal-based installed electricity capacity of turkey was 17.3 GW. ın addition to this, 65 units of new coal-fired power plants with a capacity of 69.5 GW are planned to be built (in planning or under construction). this increase is nearly equivalent to turkey’s total installed capacity of 78.5 GW in 2016.

One of the milestones of the turkish coal-dominant electricity production plan is the increase in the lignite coal-powered electricity generation to promote the use of local, lignite coal. While local coal yielded 36 GWh of electricity generation in 2014, it is projected that this generation will double in 2019 with an output of 60 GWh. Coal sites within the scope of this goal include konya-karapınar, Afşin Elbistan, Eskişehir Alpu, Afyon Dinar, tekirdağ-Çerkezköy and İstanbul-Çatalca, Manisa-Soma and Malatya.

[Bob Wallace]

Before you get too excited about increased coal consumption is a specific country it might be a good idea to find out how large a player they are.

In 2016 Turkey was responsible for 1.03% of the world's coal consumption.

The trip to zero coal will not be a nice smooth straight line.  Use will bounce up a here and there from time to time.

[Sleepy]

They are moving to Turkey.
https://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/turkey/

https://www.env-health.org/resources/press-releases/article/new-toolkit-puts-spotlight-on-coal
From the PDF:

Energy and electricity generation in Turkey is still dependent on fossil fuels with 33.8% of the total electricity generated from coal and 67% from fossil fuels in 2016. over the last ten years, coal-based power generation doubled and fossil fuel-based power generation increased by 150%.

In addition to the growth in electricity generation and installed electricity capacity, per capita energy consumption is also increasing in turkey. Between 2006 and 2016, the total installed capacity increased nearly 2.5-fold and climbed to 78.5 GW; the per capita consumption of energy has had an increasing trajectory since 2001, for instance, the per capita energy consumption increased by 7.47% between 2013-2015, in just two years. this development stands in contrast to the strategies developed to increase the efficiency of activities to tackle climate change and to protect the environment, which are set out in turkey’s Energy Efficiency Strategy Document.

Moreover, turkey aims to increase the share of coal in the electricity production. As of the end of 2016, the coal-based installed electricity capacity of turkey was 17.3 GW. ın addition to this, 65 units of new coal-fired power plants with a capacity of 69.5 GW are planned to be built (in planning or under construction). this increase is nearly equivalent to turkey’s total installed capacity of 78.5 GW in 2016.

One of the milestones of the turkish coal-dominant electricity production plan is the increase in the lignite coal-powered electricity generation to promote the use of local, lignite coal. While local coal yielded 36 GWh of electricity generation in 2014, it is projected that this generation will double in 2019 with an output of 60 GWh. Coal sites within the scope of this goal include konya-karapınar, Afşin Elbistan, Eskişehir Alpu, Afyon Dinar, tekirdağ-Çerkezköy and İstanbul-Çatalca, Manisa-Soma and Malatya.

Adding this as well.
‘Turkey has surrendered to energy lobbies,’ says CHP leader Kılıçdaroğlu
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-has-surrendered-to-energy-lobbies-says-chp-leader-kilicdaroglu-129255

Even though Turkey is the seventh largest coal producer in the world, Turkey has been importing coal, the CHP leader recalled. He pointed out the country had an increasing energy expenditure.

“Our country is the fifth biggest natural gas importer in the world. We spent $27 billion in 2016 for energy and an extra burden of $10 billion was laid on the nation in 2017, bringing the total energy cost to $37 billion. In 2018, the energy bill will be much higher,” Kılıçdaroğlu said.

[Sleepy]

This is hard, I've worked in Turkey but never got that languge. 
From June 5, updated on June 6:
http://www.haberturk.com/zonguldak-haberleri/15598248-enerji-ve-tabii-kaynaklar-ve-bakan-berat-albayrak
Giggle translated:

Albayrak stated that they will be exceeding 90 million tonnes this year and that they will sign a record with 100 million tons in 2019. "Our goal is 150-200 million tons.

[numerobis]

Big central plants have much better opportunities for kickbacks.

[Bob Wallace]

Why all this "concern" over Turkey? 

Globally coal is on the decline.  Coal plants are being closed.  Turkey is a tiny player on the coal stage.

This feels like what climate change deniers do when they claim that the planet isn't warming because it was cold one night last winter.

[Shared Humanity]

Why all this "concern" over Turkey? 

Globally coal is on the decline.  Coal plants are being closed.  Turkey is a tiny player on the coal stage.

This feels like what climate change deniers do when they claim that the planet isn't warming because it was cold one night last winter.

As coal demand drops and the prices decline. poorer nations who rely on coal for electricity will be hard pressed to decommission working coal fired plants. This speaks to the need for wealthy countries to pay for the conversion to renewables. Turkey would be just such a country.

[Bob Wallace]

The "poorer"/less developed nations aren't burning coal in any appreciable amount.  They don't have the capacity to burn coal.  They aren't likely to build new coal plants because new coal is really expensive.  It's up there with nuclear.

Take a look at who is burning coal. 2017 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy.

Column 2 - Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent   
Column 3 - Percent Global Coal Consumption

China   1887.6   49.1
India     411.9   10.7
US           358.4   9.3

CIS           157.9   4.1
Japan   119.9   3.1
Russian Federation   87.3   2.3
South Africa   85.1   2.2
South Korea   81.6   2.1
Germany   75.3   2.0
Indonesia   62.7   1.6
Poland   48.8   1.3
Australia   43.8   1.1

Taiwan   38.6   1.0
Turkey   38.4   1.0
Kazakhstan   35.6   0.9
Ukraine   31.5   0.8
Vietnam   21.3   0.6

Malaysia   19.9   0.5
Canada   18.7   0.5
Thailand   17.7   0.5
Czech Republic   16.9   0.4
Brazil   16.5   0.4
Philippines   13.5   0.4

United Kingdom   11.0   0.3
Italy   10.9   0.3
Spain   10.4   0.3
Netherlands   10.3   0.3
Other Africa   10.3   0.3
Mexico   9.8   0.3

France   8.3   0.2
Chile   8.2   0.2
China Hong Kong SAR   6.7   0.2

Bulgaria   5.7   0.1
Israel   5.7   0.1
Romania   5.4   0.1
Pakistan   5.4   0.1
Greece   4.7   0.1
Colombia   4.6   0.1
Finland   4.1   0.1
Austria   3.2   0.1
Slovakia   3.1   0.1
Belgium   3.0   0.1
Portugal   2.9   0.1
Hungary   2.3   0.1
Ireland   2.2   0.1
Sweden   2.2   0.1
Denmark   2.1   0.1

Iran   1.7   0.0
United Arab Emirates   1.3   0.0
New Zealand   1.2   0.0
Argentina   1.1   0.0
Uzbekistan   1.0   0.0
Peru   0.8   0.0
Belarus   0.8   0.0
Norway   0.8   0.0
Bangladesh   0.8   0.0
Other Middle East   0.5   0.0
Egypt   0.4   0.0
Singapore   0.4   0.0
Lithuania   0.2   0.0
Venezuela   0.1   0.0
Switzerland   0.1   0.0
Saudi Arabia   0.1   0.0
Algeria   0.1   0.0

(Sorry for the sloppy columns.)

[Sigmetnow]

Dr. Michael E. Mann:  “... Here in Charleston [West Virginia, U.S.] tonight. We had a great conversation in the heart of coal country. Good people here. They are ready to get past the fake debate about the science. They just want to know how to move forward... ”
https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1006710617758228487

Panel discussion with Michael Mann, David Titley, Judith Curry, and Patrick Moore.

Panelists face off on climate change issues

The panelists tackled climate change, the extent humans affect climate change and what to do about it at “Conversations on Climate Change,” a forum presented by the Charleston law firm Spilman Thomas & Battle.

The purpose of the forum, organizers said, was to present a fair conversation about major questions surrounding climate change. Each panelist gave an opening speech and responded to a prepared question, though each was given a different question, and panelists didn’t respond to one another.

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/kanawha_county/panelists-face-off-on-climate-change-issues/article_ef4b03e1-80e6-5b4e-908a-0904f7e6dfc9.html

[TerryM]

Bob
Are the above for all uses of coal, or only for coal>electrical generation?
What definition are they using for CIS - is the Russian Federation being counted twice?


It will be interesting to see what happens in Ontario as the new government takes control. The elimination of coal generation plants was a feather in the cap of the outgoing Liberal government and the incoming Conservatives may feel that firing up a few coal plants will either win them votes or dollars in coming years.


Once inexpensive Russian gas is available throughout China I'd expect them to cut back on imported coal. India will probably utilize even more solar as China decreases her domestic PV and increases exporting at lowered prices. When the Turkish/Russian South Stream is completed the increased transit fees and lowered gas prices may cut into Turkish coal imports just as Nord Stream II may make coal increasingly unattractive in Germany.


China, India and the US together make up ~70% of the problem. We've very little influence over China or India so keeping the pressure on America, and Ontario, may be the best way forward.
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

Are the above for all uses of coal, or only for coal>electrical generation?
What definition are they using for CIS - is the Russian Federation being counted twice?

I believe coal for heat is included in BP's totals.  That means not only space heating but for industrial heat as well.

CIS, as I understand it, is the "...stans" that used to be part of the Soviet Union.  Russia gets its own accounting.

[Sleepy]

Why all this "concern" over Turkey? 

Globally coal is on the decline.  Coal plants are being closed.  Turkey is a tiny player on the coal stage.

This feels like what climate change deniers do when they claim that the planet isn't warming because it was cold one night last winter.

As coal demand drops and the prices decline. poorer nations who rely on coal for electricity will be hard pressed to decommission working coal fired plants. This speaks to the need for wealthy countries to pay for the conversion to renewables. Turkey would be just such a country.

Also SH, all emissions counts from now on, even building renewables.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=true&countryCode=TR
When will we hit what's considered a safe level, 350ppm?

Adding information for Americans who lifted Europe above.
Modern Turkey was founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (born in Salnik, today Greece) who wanted to transform it into a more western country, he died in 1938. Turkey has been a member of the council of Europe since 1949.

Almost two decades has passed since I was there, but I would be surprised if Turkey changed much. Atatürk was everywhere and all in all, it was a crazy place. All I can do is watch, because whatever they do from now on, we will probably be surprised.

[Sigmetnow]

U.S. Interior Department axed health study on coal without clear reason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Interior Department has been unable to adequately explain why it canceled a $1 million study on the public health impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining, the agency’s inspector general office said in a report released on Tuesday.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke canceled the government-funded study on the health impacts of the controversial mining technique used in Appalachia last August as part of what officials said was an agency-wide review of grants in excess of $100,000. The study was by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Mountaintop removal is a form of surface mining in which explosives are used to extract coal from mountaintops and ridgelines. It has raised concern about impacts on rivers and streams, and on human health in surrounding communities.

When the Interior Department was asked by the inspector general to detail the reasons for its decision to cancel the study, it could not produce any evidence of a formal review, the watchdog said in its report. ...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-coal/u-s-interior-department-axed-health-study-on-coal-without-clear-reason-watchdog-idUSKBN1J82Z5

[Bob Wallace]

I've been in Turkey a few times in recent years.  There's a lot of civil stress in the country with a strongman president who appears to be trying to establish himself as 'president for life'.  I.e., the dictator.

He gets a lot of support from rural areas where people are more conservative and is being assisted by the Syrian war next door and a large number of refugees flooding over the border. 

Turkey may take a more conservative, religious turn for the next few years.   And that would probably mean less emphasis on clean energy.  Plus, as Turkey has screwed its chances of joining the EU, Europeans are likely to have less influence in getting Turkey to clean up its grid.

Working to help is the fact that few banks are willing to loan money for new coal plant construction and that number seems to continue to drop.

We're likely to see some countries head in the wrong/fossil fuel direction during this transition period.  Spain and Italy got off track and are now getting back on.  Germany is having trouble closing coal plants but has a new agency being set up to deal with the coal industry's resistance.  And, as we all know, the US is having its own set of problems at the moment.

These things will pass.  The comparative economics of fossil fuels and renewables will overcome political opposition.

[Bob Wallace]

Checking the BP site, they do include the Russian Federation in the CIS group.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/using-the-review/definitions-and-explanatory-notes.html

But they report consumption for each larger country separately.  The "CIS" number should be "CIS less Russian Federation".

[Sigmetnow]

Blackout Threat Rises With Worker Protests Stifling Sout Africa Power Supply

South Africa’s state-owned power utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. said it will start rolling blackouts for the first time since 2015 as protesting workers blockade plant entrances and disrupt distribution networks.

“Acts of intimidation and sabotage have resulted in Eskom being unable to ensure uninterrupted power supply,” Khulu Phasiwe, Eskom’s spokesman, said via his Twitter account on Thursday. Blackouts would occur for about two hours until 8 p.m in Johannesburg, he said.

Eskom, which generates almost all of the nation’s electricity, has stopped all road deliveries of coal after demonstrators blockaded roads, attacked staff and damaged infrastructure, it said in a statement Thursday. Wage talks broke down last week after Eskom, which is working to improve its financial situation under a new board and chief executive officer, insisted it can’t afford pay increases. ...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-14/blackout-threat-rises-as-protests-stifle-s-africa-power-supply


I can’t wait to see the future tiny group of striking solar power plant workers trying to block the sun at the company gates! /s

[Bob Wallace]

BREAKING

Angry solar farm workers storm site holding golf umbrellas and cause a 1% drop in output.

Almost no one works at solar farms once they're online.  How many panels could a couple of people shade?

[TerryM]

But they report consumption for each larger country separately.  The "CIS" number should be "CIS less Russian Federation".

Thanks Bob.


If the US were to curtail their (new) shipments of LNG to Europe and beyond, the then very cheap NG could replace coal at a saving to the utility, their customers, and the environment.


By liquefying the gas and selling it elsewhere higher prices at home are supported and those European customers who pay extra for the privilege of not purchasing the inexpensive Russian piped NG will have less incentive to kill off their coal burning plants.


Russia is currently maxed out on the gas they can supply into Europe, and until Nord Stream II is completed European gas prices are headed upward. Gas from the Netherlands is running out and LNG costs more to produce and ship than piped gas.


Rather than fighting against NS II, and other proposed Russian pipelines Europe should be embracing them as a way to keep their manufacturing costs competitive, as well as keeping residential costs at reasonable levels.
Terry

[numerobis]

Another 500 MW of coal on the chopping block (for 2023):
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/consumers-energy-to-file-plan-for-no-coal-43-renewables/525654/

[Sleepy]

http://www.caneurope.org/energy/coal-phase-out

Phasing out coal is the low-hanging fruit when it comes to scaling up emission reductions in Europe in line with the Paris Agreement. We therefore need to make this a priority in every European country.

But the speed at which coal plants are closed down is not at all sufficient. The rate at which coal emissions must fall every year needs to triple to 8% in order to be in line with keeping global average temperature rise below 2 degrees (see Report: End of an era). With the agreement in Paris to pursue efforts to keep temperature rise to 1.5 degrees this needs to be scaled up even more.

The rush of building new coal-fired power plants in the EU is over (with some notable exceptions such as Poland) and has moved to South East Europe and Turkey. If we are to comply with what was agreed in Paris we cannot afford to build any of these proposed coal plants. South East European countries and Turkey need to turn their back on new coal projects now and start exploring the alternatives.

https://beyond-coal.eu/data/

[Bob Wallace]

Some people expect instant very large scale changes.

They are often disappointed.

[Sleepy]

Rather than fighting against NS II, and other proposed Russian pipelines Europe should be embracing them as a way to keep their manufacturing costs competitive, as well as keeping residential costs at reasonable levels.
Terry

Embracing pipelines?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-pipeline-explosion-rocks-moundsville-area-northern-west-virginia-sends-flames-high-in-air/

NS II was approved by our right wing government back in 2009:
https://www.svd.se/just-nu-presstraff-om-ryska-gasledningen
Five years later they were against it since it was bad for the climate, pushing nuclear instead.
https://www.liberalerna.se/nyheter/tal-av-jan-bjorklund-i-almedalen-3-juli-2016/
And still is:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/flera-partier-kritiserar-nord-stream-2
Now our left wing govenment (with our greens) approve.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nord-stream-2-far-gront-ljus-av-sverige

Nowadays everyone claims to be an environmentalist, they have been that for ever of course, while they continue flying world wide.

Luckily I've never been an environmentalist and there is only one side to take in all of this crap, that is my/our childrens side.

[TerryM]

Sleepy
Even with the occasional blow-out I feel that piped NG is a much cleaner alternative to the coal generating plants operating now, or under construction or consideration in some jurisdictions. If inexpensive, unfracked, uncompressed NG, became widely available, the economic incentives for coal generation would disappear.
Wind, hydro and solar are the future, but eliminating coal, fracked NG, LNG and possibly nuclear should all bring us closer to our goals.
I assume that a coal plant could be converted to a NG facility fairly easily. The result wouldn't be perfect, but it would be much better than continuing to burn coal. Once coal is eliminated we could begin working our way down the list.


Terry
BTW - I fear for Ontario's coal free generation now that Ford has been elected. If we backslide others will follow and we probably will have lost whatever small hope we had for our grandchildren's future.

[Sleepy]

Gas vs Coal is more like beeing stabbed instead of shot. We don't have time.

[sidd]

"I assume that a coal plant could be converted to a NG facility fairly easily. "

Would that were true.

In reality, coal plants are being retired because they are old and decrepit. The boilers and generators are held together with duct tape. Maintenance costs are skyrocketing. 

And they are burning tailings from historic coal operations, and supplementary fuel, like, believe it or not, potato peelings.

Thats one reason why the boilers are worth scrap. the conveyors from tthe tailing piles are worth scrap, the tailing piles are an ecological disaster happening since leachate aint contained, and the whole damn thing is a liability that will keep on giving unto the seventh generation.

I drive past several of those too many times a year. They need to be shut down and cleaned up. The workers need taken care of. I strongly suspect the  places will be shut down, the workers on the street and the ecological impact unchecked.

The utilities are no fools and they are installing natgas peakers as fast as they can get the pipelines and turbines put in. Surprising how hany intersections there are between pipelines and transmission lines.

sidd

[Sleepy]

Howarth 2014 must have been up, in here, somewhere?

[Bob Wallace]

Natural gas is highly dispatchable, coal is not.

Being highly dispatchable, natural gas can serve as an efficient fill in for wind and solar, coal cannot.

25% NG + 75% wind and solar is significantly better than 100% coal.

[Sleepy]

Debunked: The G20 Clean Gas Myth.
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2018/06/debunked_g20_eng_07_web.pdf
Adding Fig5 below.

CONCLUSION

The myth of fossil gas as a “bridge” to a stable climate does not stand up to scrutiny. While much of the debate to date has focused on methane leakage, the data shows that the GHG emissions just from burning the fossil gas itself are enough to overshoot climate goals. We must reduce fossil gas combustion rather than increase it, and the fact that methane leakage will never be reduced to zero only makes this task more urgent.

Expanding the renewable energy sector does not require expanding fossil gas use. Existing gas plants will not be shut down immediately, but storage, demand response, and other grid management solutions will increasingly support renewable energy as fossil gas is phased down.

Despite this, many G20 countries are pushing forward with the development of fossil gas infrastructure, using the myth of gas as a clean energy transition fuel to burnish the endeavor with green credentials. But current plans for fossil gas extraction in G20 countries alone – excluding the rest of the world’s fossil gas fields – risks claiming a huge percentage of the remaining emissions budget, rendering the transition fuel idea a dangerous myth.

There is an urgent need for policymakers and investors to use climate goals as a starting point for decisions around fossil gas, in the G20 process and elsewhere. Rather than searching for ways to justify using the abundant supply that new drilling methods have unleashed, policymakers and investors should consider how much fossil gas is compatible with achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. The answer is the same for fossil gas as it is for coal and oil: We need less, not more.

[numerobis]

sidd: I’m seeing plenty of coal conversions being discussed, so it’s clearly happening. Maybe mostly with newer coal plants?

While converting a coal plant to burning gas works, you get a 40% efficient unit at best. A new CCNG plant gets 60% efficiency. So you’re left with a cheap-to-build, expensive-to-fuel thermal plant.

[Shared Humanity]

If inexpensive, unfracked, uncompressed NG, became widely available, the economic incentives for coal generation would disappear.

And it is this qualifying statement that exposes the risks of relying on NG. U.S. production of natural gas is nothing short of a miracle. We are now self sufficient and will soon become an exporter. This dramatic increase in natural gas production is completely the result of fracking as conventional NG reserves have been on a steady decline for a couple of decades. 60% of U.S. NG production is fracked and this percentage will continue to increase.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=907&t=8

[Shared Humanity]

When will we hit what's considered a safe level, 350ppm?

Hmmmm....let me take a stab at that. Never?

(For all practical purposes as we are on track to easily reach 500 ppm and I have serious doubts that we will ever develop an effective technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. I do believe there will be a concerted effort to reestablish and accelerate natural processes to do this but it will still take centuries.)

[Shared Humanity]

Debunked: The G20 Clean Gas Myth.
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2018/06/debunked_g20_eng_07_web.pdf

Completely in line with my way of thinking. The markets operating efficiently will kill us. And the governments of developed nations will assist in the effort.

But of course, these things take time and we must be practical and methodical in pursuing solutions to this existential crisis because any other approach is hard.

[Bob Wallace]

Long quote but, I think, interesting.

President Donald Trump has ordered a rescue of the nation's struggling coal and nuclear power industries, but that doesn't mean utilities are reconsidering the shutdown of unprofitable plants.

Many power generators contacted said Trump's June 1 announcement hasn't altered their plans to retire old units even as the administration dangles the prospect of using emergency powers to force grid operators to buy power from struggling plants.

"I will tell you it is not a matter of if we are going to retire our coal fleet in this nation, it's just a matter of when," Ben Fowke, Xcel Energy's chief executive officer, said June 6 at a utility trade group conference. The company announced later that day that it would retire two coal-fired units in Colorado and add thousands of megawatts of capacity from renewable power and natural gas.

That trend has been underway for years. Since 2010, nearly 40 percent of the capacity of the nation's fleet of coal-fired power plants has either been shut down or designated for closure, according to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a trade-group that represents coal-fired utilities and mining companies such as Peabody Energy, and Murray Energy.

More than a quarter of U.S. nuclear power plants don't make enough money to cover their operating costs, raising the threat of early retirements, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Trump ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry on June 1 to take immediate action to stem further coal and nuclear plant closures in the name of national security. The Trump administration argues that the loss of coal and nuclear plants is harming the dependability of the U.S. power grid and its ability to recover from storms or cyber attacks.

But utilities are reluctant to reverse course on plans put in motion years ago or to backtrack on pledges to embrace renewable energy. Plant closures that have been worked out under consent decrees to settle environmental lawsuits or in deals with state regulators also can't be easily reversed.

"Once utilities have gone public and announced what they are going to do they may be at the point of no return unless something extraordinary comes up," said James Lucier, managing director of research firm Capital Alpha Partners LLC.

And there is doubt, too, that the administration's use of rarely used emergency authority will withstand court challenges.

"We don't think it's legal," Abe Silverman, head of regulatory affairs for power producer NRG Energy, said in a phone interview. The Energy Department didn't respond to a request for comment.

Among the companies that said they are going forward with plant retirements despite Trump's order is Michigan-based CMS Energy, which announced June 13 it was shutting down two coal-fired units at one of its aging coal plants. The company doesn't intend to change previously announced plans to shut three other coal plants, spokesman Brian Wheeler said. Likewise, utility giant Southern Co. says its plans for future shutdowns won't be impacted by whatever the Trump administration puts forward, Schuyler Baehman, a company spokesman said.

Even FirstEnergy Solutions, the Ohio-based power generator that requested an emergency bailout for its money-losing plants says it still plans to retire four coal units and three nuclear reactors, said spokesman Thomas Mulligan.

"Certainly I think right now utilities are considering going forward with retirement plans as is," Richard Glick, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in an interview. "It's pure economics. Gas prices are way down, renewable projects are getting much less expensive and they are beating other older technologies out in the markets."

New Jersey-based PSEG Power, for instance, won't halt its move to close Connecticut's last coal-fired power plant by 2021, spokeswoman Melissa Ficuciello said by email. And nuclear plant operator Exelon Corp. said it would move forward with shutting down its 625 megawatt nuclear reactor at New Jersey's Oyster Creek Generating Station, as part of a deal with the state. The reactor, which is the oldest commercial nuclear power plant in America, will permanently shut down this October.

Overall, Moody's Investors Service estimates that the 35 gigawatts of capacity from coal and nuclear plants scheduled to be shutdown in the next five years will be more than made up for by the 104 gigawatts expected from natural gas and renewable projects in the works.

To be sure, others utilities weren't so quick to write it off the Trump administration's plans. And others said they wouldn't be able to make a decision until more details come to light.

Chris Crane, the CEO of Exelon, the country's largest nuclear operator, told Utility Drive on the sidelines of the Edison Electric Institute convention in San Diego earlier this month there's no grid emergency to justify the bailout of coal and nuclear plants. Later at the same conference, he said he wants the Trump administration to act on the plan.

"I don't know how you call it, emergency or non-emergency, but we want action. This administration supports action. We support this administration," Crane said.

A spokesman for the company, Paul Adams, later said in a statement, "We can't speculate on the potential solutions outlined in the leaked draft memo."

Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power said it is likely to seek approval from regulators to shut its three-unit, 1,600 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Conesville, Ohio, if it doesn't qualify for subsidies or "there are not other changes in the market," company spokeswoman Tammy Ridout said in phone interview.

But that doesn't signal a wholesale shift in direction. Plans to close another 450 megawatt coal unit at the company's Northeastern Plant in Oklahoma in 2026 due to a regional haze settlement are proceeding as planned.

AEP has retired 7,200 megawatts of coal power since 2011, and announced plans to invest heavily in natural gas and renewables.

"I think from our perspective we will continue moving toward a clean energy economy," AEP Chairman Nicholas Akins said in an interview. "When you look at the future and the investment potential and the risk associated with these investments by far the best approach is with natural gas, renewables and in fact technology."

https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/06/coal_plants_keep_shutting_down_despite_trumps_order_to_rescue_them.html

In 2016 the US had 305 GW of coal nameplate capacity.  (IEA)

[Sigmetnow]

“Blockbuster” was a big chain with stores where people went to get rental videotapes and DVDs.  It went bankrupt in 2013.

Schwarzenegger mocks Trump on coal, asks if he'll bring back Blockbuster next

(CNN)"The Terminator" has a message for President Donald Trump: Don't go back in time to "rescue the coal industry."

In a video uploaded to Facebook by media company ATTN: on Thursday, former California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger references a popular movie role he played to mock what he describes as efforts to "save an industry that is poisoning the environment."

"So President Trump, I know you really want to be an action hero, right?" Schwarzenegger says, while looking at a Trump bobblehead. "So take it from the Terminator, you're only supposed to go back in time to protect future generations. But your administration attempts to go back in time to rescue the coal industry, which is actually a threat to future generations."

He then compares Trump's attempt to "rescue the coal industry" to rescuing other relics from America's past.

"It is foolish to bring back laughable, outdated technology to suit your political agenda," Schwarzenegger says. "I mean, what are you going to bring back next? Floppy disks? Fax machines? Beanie Babies? Beepers? Or Blockbuster? Think about it. What if you tried to save Blockbuster?" ...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/arnold-schwarzenegger-trump-video-message/index.html

[gerontocrat]

For me, a "must read" from carbonbrief.org, showing how far coal burning has to reduce just to get back to the year 2000.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

Since 2000, the world has doubled its coal-fired power capacity to 2,000 gigawatts (GW) after explosive growth in China and India. Another 200GW is being built and 450GW is planned.

More recently, 200GW has closed due to a wave of retirements across the EU and US. Another 170GW is set to retire by 2030 and 13 of the world’s 77 coal-powered countries plan a total phaseout.

Meanwhile, electricity generated from coal peaked in 2014, so the expanding fleet is running fewer hours than ever. This erodes coal’s bottom line, as does competition from gas and renewables.

The way coal’s next chapter unfolds is key to tackling climate change. All unabated coal must close within a few decades if warming is to be limited to less than 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

To shed light on this story, Carbon Brief has mapped the past, present and future of all the world’s coal-fired power stations. The interactive timeline map, above, shows the plants operating in each year between 2000 and 2017, as well as the location of planned new capacity.

Using data from CoalSwarm’s Global Coal Plant Tracker, it features around 10,000 retired, operating and planned coal units, totalling nearly 3,000 gigawatts (GW) across 95 countries.

[Sigmetnow]

For State of American Coal, Look at West Virginia's Mining Stats
State’s thermal coal-rich northern half is seeing output fall
Production is up in southern counties where met coal abounds
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-05/for-state-of-american-coal-look-at-west-virginia-s-mining-stats