Coal

[gerontocrat]

Adnani Coal is an albatross that will sink Adnani group. They have learned nothing from the coal experience in the USA.

sidd

Adani expects to sell the to coal back home (India).
India (like China) has made promises about winding down coal use, but.......

[gerontocrat]

Adnani Coal is an albatross that will sink Adnani group. They have learned nothing from the coal experience in the USA.

sidd

Adani expects to sell the to coal back home (India).
India (like China) has made promises about winding down coal use, but.......

And more on Adani. Read the second bit - it tells you why Adani wants the Aussie coal mines so much and what they do back home in India to fix that part of the supply chain. Isn't it great living in the Global Village.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/01/carmichael-mine-federal-election-rail-access-native-title

Carmichael mine: federal election, rail access and native title stand in the way
Adani’s plans to get started quickly on a scaled-down version of its Queensland mega-mine still face numerous obstacles. The Indian mining giant Adani could be left in limbo until September – well after the federal election – before learning whether its controversial Carmichael coal project will be allowed to access the Queensland freight rail network. Adani announced on Thursday it would self-finance the Carmichael mine and that construction would begin “imminently”. But the company still has to gain several regulatory approvals and negotiate access for its coal trains to use the Aurizon network.

The Queensland premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, reacted to Adani’s announcement with scepticism. “We will believe it when we see it,” she told the ABC on Friday.

Relations between Adani and the Queensland government have become uneasy in recent months. The parties have not yet signed a royalty agreement and Guardian Australia understands talks about royalties have not resumed since the first half of the year. Adani is understood to be nervous about the prospect of Labor winning next year’s federal election and subsequently imposing roadblocks or winding back approvals, and the company is eager to get the construction of Carmichael past a point of no return before that occurs.

https://www.indiaspend.com/taking-over-fertile-land-for-adani-group-from-protesting-farmers-jharkhand-government-manipulates-new-law-meant-to-protect-them/

Taking Over Fertile Land For Adani Group From Protesting Farmers, Jharkhand Government Manipulates New Law Meant To Protect Them

Godda, Jharkhand: Soon after police personnel drove up in a convoy of vehicles that Friday, August 31, 2018, “Adani ke log (Adani’s people)” arrived with earthmoving equipment, recounted Adivasi (tribal) and Dalit villagers in Mali, in this lush eastern corner of Jharkhand.

“There were eight to 10 police for each of us villagers,” said Sita Murmu, a wiry farmer in her 40s from the Santal community, one of India’s largest indigenous tribes, describing the attempt that followed to take over the villagers’ farmlands, abutting a clutch of mud and brick homes.

These fertile, multi-crop lands are their only source of livelihood, and the villagers were shocked when the earthmovers began uprooting valuable palm trees and bulldozing the young paddy stalks, laboriously sown weeks ago.

“We begged Adani’s people to stop,” said Santali farmer Anil Hembrom. “But they said our land was theirs now, that the government had given it to them.”

Villagers said they made urgent phone calls for help to Godda’s deputy commissioner (DC) and the superintendent of police (SP). “The SP told us, ‘Go to the local thaana (police station) and lodge a complaint,’” they recalled. “We told him, ‘how can we lodge a complaint at the thaana, when the police from there are here with Adani.’” The DC too ignored their pleas, villagers said, recalling, “She said, ‘Your money (compensation for the land) is lying in the government office. Go, take it.’”

Meanwhile, Adani personnel were casting concertina wire to fence off the land, and a farm pond. Santalis bury their dead on their land, and the earthmovers dug up this clan’s burial site too, the farmers recalled. Witnessing the destruction, women farmers fell at the feet of Adani’s personnel, pleading with them to spare their land. They wept as they said they could not survive without it.

Onlookers filmed these scenes on their cellphones, and the story was picked up by a Godda-based Hindi news outlet but found no mention in India’s legacy media.  Alarmed by the women’s protests, the Adani team and the police eventually aborted the land acquisition attempt that day.

The villagers’ battle against the Adani Group began in 2016, when Mali, 380 km east of state capital Ranchi, and nine other villages around it became contested territory. That was when Adani Power (Jharkhand) Limited, a subsidiary of the Adani Group, told Jharkhand’s BJP-ruled government that it wanted to build a coal-fired plant on over 2,000 acres of land—private farms and commons—in these villages, according to official documents reviewed by IndiaSpend.

The Adani Group is led by Gautam Adani, one of India’s richest and most powerful tycoons. Its proposed 1,600 megawatt (MW) plant in Godda is to be fuelled with Australian and Indonesian coal imports. When complete—the commissioning year is 2022—it will sell all the electricity via high-tension lines to Bangladesh. The proposal for the plant came in August 2015, following a visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Bangladesh. Adani was among the industrialists accompanying Modi, and the agenda featured power transmission.

But forcible takeover of land for the plant—as several farmers in Mali, and surrounding villages like Motia, Nayabad and Gangta are experiencing—was meant to be relegated to the past with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (the LARR Act). Parliament passed the LARR Act in September 2013 unanimously, an acknowledgement that the 1894 Land Acquisition Act , in force for 123 years, needed to be scrapped.

[Sigmetnow]

Oh, Poland!

Poland Literally Filled an International Climate Change Conference With Coal

International climate talks are off to an inauspicious start in Poland.

They began on Sunday in Katowice, a small city in the heart of Polish coal country, and are already a strong contender for the most tone-deaf meeting in 24 iterations of the UN climate change conference known as the conference of the parties (COP). After picking coal companies to sponsor the talks, the Polish government decided to deck the halls of its exhibition center with piles of coal in a move that is beyond parody.

Confounded conference goers have been tweeting images and videos of the coal display as well as coal-related tchotchkes, including coal soap (it’s clean coal, get it?). A coal miner band greeted attendees after they walked in from air thick with coal-fire power plant haze. And in his opening remarks, Polish President Andrzej Duda said that coal “does not contradict the protection of the climate and the progress of climate protection.”

Look, I get it. Poland mines a lot of coal. It gets 78 percent of its power from coal. It has a vested interest in keeping coal alive from an economic and political standpoint, and this conference gives the government a chance to lay that vision out.

But in a world governed by uncompromising physics, burning coal is just not viable any longer. It is among the most carbon-polluting forms of energy. The bombshell Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released earlier this year shows that to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius without overshooting, coal use will have to fall 97 percent by 2050.

If the world is serious about climate change, coal needs to be treated as a dead man walking. That means focusing on just transitions for miners and coal plant operators, in addition to rapidly phasing out the use of coal. ...

https://earther.gizmodo.com/poland-literally-filled-an-international-climate-change-1830820392/

Cross-posted from Paris Agreement thread.

[TerryM]

Any number of Polish jokes could follow, but I'd rather point out that the IPCC is 3% off in their call to reduce the usage of coal, they're also off by about 30 years.
Terry

[sidd]

Going ... going ...

"2018 would see the lowest U.S. coal consumption since 1979, as well as the second-greatest number on record of coal-fired power plants shutting down."

"Ironically, the new tax law approved by the Republican-controlled Congress has encouraged coal plants to close, as utilities use a provision that allows them to accelerate depreciation costs for closing plants"

https://apnews.com/2b47b6773d6d4e6aae638610180c1f98

sidd

[vox_mundi]

42% of Global Coal Power Plants Run at a Loss, Finds World-First Study
https://www.carbontracker.org/42-of-global-coal-power-plants-run-at-a-loss-finds-world-first-study/

Carbon Tracker has carried out the first global analysis of the profitability of 6,685 coal plants worldwide, representing 95% (1900GW) of all operating capacity and 90% (220GW) of capacity under construction, and has published the results in a new coal power economics portal.

- 42% of global coal capacity is already unprofitable because of high fuel costs; by 2040 that could reach 72% as existing carbon pricing and air pollution regulations drive up costs while the price of onshore wind and solar power continues to fall; any future regulation would make coal power still more unprofitable;

- it costs more to run 35% of coal power plants than to build new renewable generation; by 2030 building new renewables will be cheaper than continuing to operate 96% of today’s existing and planned coal plants.

- China could save $389 billion by closing plants in line with the Paris Climate Agreement instead of pursuing business as usual plans; the EU could save $89 billion; the US could save $78 billion; and Russia could save $20 billion.

- Consumers and taxpayers are keeping coal profitable in [many] regulated markets by picking up the bill to support uneconomic coal plants.

The report warns that utilities and their shareholders are exposed to stranded asset risk in liberalised markets, such as much of Europe and parts of the US, where power generators are subject to competition. Coal plants will be forced to shut unless they can secure government subsidies or a delay or reduction in environmental regulations. 

[TerryM]

Is there any organization devoted exclusively to ending coal generation worldwide?
We've pushed (successfully at times) to end specific diseases around the world even as we fight against the spread of all diseases.


When behind on our bills it's common to go after the debts with the highest interest, or most obnoxious terms. Coal certainly fits the bill as being the worst offender WRT greenhouse gas and other pollutants emitted while generating electricity.


It's a low hanging fruit that is seldom profitable without subsidies, is far dirtier than wood oil or gas, and probably has no support outside the few that are invested.


Any politician that had a hand in closing the local coal plant might expect high praise from such an organization, and probably financial help in jurisdictions where this would be legal. As they succeeded in eliminating coal from more and more regions, the pressure would be increased on those still holding out.


As an Ontarian I'm very proud of the fact that we burn no coal, even though we not long ago had the largest coal generating facility in North America. If Canada could ween itself from coal it might count somewhat against the horrors of our tar sands projects, and allow Canadians to hold their heads a little higher.


What I'm suggesting though is an advocacy network beyond borders, that focus's exclusively on eliminating coal.
Terry

[oren]

While the economics of coal plants in developed countries will facilitate closing of most of such plants unless heavily supported by politics, it seems to me the story is different in developing countries, especially in Asia, that are building a big bunch of new coal plants in an effort to ramp up total electricity production. I guess there the economics are different - either through less strict environmental demands on the plants, cheaper costs, or something else I'm probably missing.

[SteveMDFP]

Is there any organization devoted exclusively to ending coal generation worldwide?
We've pushed (successfully at times) to end specific diseases around the world even as we fight against the spread of all diseases.


When behind on our bills it's common to go after the debts with the highest interest, or most obnoxious terms. Coal certainly fits the bill as being the worst offender WRT greenhouse gas and other pollutants emitted while generating electricity.
 

I've been thinking about this:  how do citizens most effectively act to green our grids?
In the States, these plants are mostly operated by regulated utilities, with much of the regulation coming from local or state governments.

Many such governments have citizens advisory boards to give public input on relevant matters.  Many who read this forum may have the ability to serve on such boards.  Often, seats go vacant.

Citizens advisory boards, I know from personal experience, are often rubber-stamps for officials.  Occasionally, a given board may go off the rails into crazy irrelevance.  But persistence can pay off with serious considerations of thoughtful proposals.

Apart from standing advisory boards, there are often opportunities to attend public hearings, make public statements.  There's also direct contact with the elected officials responsible for the regulatory frameworks the utilities operate under.

"Think globally, act locally."

[Tor Bejnar]

Weather Underground (Cat 6) has an article on coal.
Coal Fights for Life as UN Holds Climate Meeting in Poland’s Coal Country
  Bob Henson  ·   December 5, 2018, 4:25 PM EST

One little piece that jumped out at me (distressingly - emphasis added):

The oil giant BP estimated that coal use rose about 1% in 2017, as reported by Carbon Shift in June. It’s not yet clear whether this represents a one-year blip or a larger trend, although there are hints of the latter (see embedded tweet below). Another distressing and not-unrelated factoid: global emissions of carbon dioxide rose about 1.6% in 2017, according to BP, after three years of flat or falling emissions accompanied by global economic growth.

[P-maker]

Tor,

Although Denmark's coal consumption dropped 25 % last year, the country has none-the-less decided to spend a couple of billion USD on a new gas pipeline from Norway to Poland. This will keep the electricity prices up in Poland for a number of decades. Had the money instead been invested in power lines from Scotland/Norway to Poland, the effect could have been that cheap wind and hydro-generated electricity would most likely have out performed the Polish coal plants for 95 % of the time.

I also believe this is the third time the Polish coal industry is sponsoring a COP in Poland. At least, this time it is out in the open.

[vox_mundi]

While the economics of coal plants in developed countries will facilitate closing of most of such plants unless heavily supported by politics, it seems to me the story is different in developing countries, especially in Asia, that are building a big bunch of new coal plants in an effort to ramp up total electricity production. I guess there the economics are different - either through less strict environmental demands on the plants, cheaper costs, or something else I'm probably missing.

To paraphrase the movie: There Will Be Blood - 2007

Daniel Plainview: Drainage Levarage, Eli! Drained dry, I'm so sorry.

Debt Trap: China Overloading Poor Nations with Debt - China’s Debtbook Diplomacy
https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/coal/chinas-unbridled-export-of-coal-power-imperils-climate-goals/66968289

... A quarter of coal plants in the planning stage or under construction outside China are backed by Chinese state-owned financial institutions and corporations, according to research by IEEFA, an energy finance think-tank based in Cleveland, Ohio.

Remove India from the picture, and the share of coal development supported by China rises to above a third.

In Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines, for example, electricity generation shot up more than 20 percent from 2014 to 2017—triple the global average—with China-backed coal powering a significant part of the increase.

China is not alone in peddling the most carbon-intensive of fossil fuels beyond its borders.

As of last month, South Korea and its export credit agencies were positioned to back 12 GW of coal-fired power abroad, and Japan was behind another 10, according to a research note from Han Chen, international energy policy manager at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

During the 2013-2018 period, South Korea and Japan financed 8 GW and 20 GW, respectively.

But their shares were dwarfed by China's, whose financing covered as much power generation as Japan and South Korea combined. The three East Asian rivals supported 90 percent of the 135 GW built since 2013 or in the pipeline.

Chinese banks and investment agencies have committed more than $21 billion (18.5 billion euros) to developing 31 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity in a dozen countries, and an additional $15 billion is on offer to support projects that would generate 71 GW in 24 nations, for a total of more than 101 GW.

Many of the recipients of China's largesse—Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal, Zimbabwe and half a dozen others—currently have little or no coal-fired power, and no coal to fuel future plants.

They will owe on loans on stranded assets.

[Alexander555]

Why do these african countries don't go for wind and solar ? Or  is the grid not stable enough maybe, or maybe the lack of a grid.

[vox_mundi]

Why do these african countries don't go for wind and solar ? Or  is the grid not stable enough maybe, or maybe the lack of a grid.

Bribery? Corruption?

[ASILurker]

Chinese banks and investment agencies have committed more than $21 billion (18.5 billion euros) to developing 31 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity in a dozen countries, and an additional $15 billion is on offer to support projects that would generate 71 GW in 24 nations, for a total of more than 101 GW.

Many of the recipients of China's largesse—Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal, Zimbabwe and half a dozen others—currently have little or no coal-fired power, and no coal to fuel future plants.

They will owe on loans on stranded assets.

How about this groundbreaking 2013 Paper in its Conclusions pg 34?

Chinese Renewable Energy Technology Exports: The Role of Policy, Innovation and Markets
Jing Cao and Felix Groba,

The  results  highlight  that importing  country per  capita  income has a  significant positive  effect  on  solar  PV  and  WETC  imports  from  China.  The  growth  of  Chinese  per capita income also has a significant effect on exports. This is in line with the general trade literature   showing   that   trade   increases   with   country   income.   It   also   supports   the   environmental   Kuznets   curve   hypothesis   arguing   that demand  for   (and   supply   of) environmental   goods   increases   with   income.   Additionally,   the   area   of   importing countries, seen as a proxy for economic mass and also for renewable energy potential, has a significant effect.

 https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.414422.de/dp1263.pdf

I cannot see the basis in the article for assuming these high efficiency/low pollution coal plants will be stranded? In 10-20 years coal will incredibly cheap for them, as the developed world abandons it. These new power stations will likely last well past 2050.

I am confused how "overseas investments" and "overseas aid" can be morphed into "largesse" so easily? Is it only because it's "China" and not Germany, Canada, the UK or the USA doing that investment, aid and development - then it's little suspicious?

Like I cannot point to where Germany, Canada, the UK or the USA or anyone else is Investing and providing Aid for building 101 GW of renewable energy in developing nations? I believe it is happening like this with coal fired plants because there are genuine logical reasons for this, yet the article appears to ignore those completely.

China, the #1 deploying nation of cutting edge renewable & nuclear energy technology in the world today? That China?
China, the #1 builder / exporter of Solar & a major Wind (WETC) to the developed world? That China?
China, the #1 nation for closing the most old high GHG (high SO2) emitting coal fired power plants on earth this century? That China?

Now about that 101 GW number itself. Context matters. We are not speaking about Annapolis, Zurich, Dresden, Miami or Tokyo cities. Right? We're speaking about extremely low GDP per capita under-developed relatively high-population countries that are extremely under-serviced by basic electricity supply to begin with.

There's another critical point about that 101 GW - it's a drop in the bucket globally - almost a irrelevant small fraction of the total. The article is also inaccurate because it has ignored all the new Coal fired power plants being financed and built by Chinese companies in EUROPE !!! 

(I believe) this story is a bit of a beat up - biased handwaving (?) and possibly it's Click Bait.

For a more balanced perspective? Include the following and the bigger picture overall:
- In 2009, there were 1436 coal-powered units at the electrical utilities across the US, with a total nominal capacity of 338 GW[8] (compared to 1024 units at nominal 278 GW in 2000).[9] (wiki)
- The richest nation on earth cannot afford to get by without coal.   
- The USA added 60 GW +400 plants of NEW Coal Fired capacity in the first decade this century.
- The nations listed in the article probably added next to none.
- From 2013-2016 China added 42.4 GW of carbon free Hydro power to their network. Add in the 3 Gorges Dam in 2008 brings it to 65 GW of new clean energy.
- The nations in the article added none.
(those numbers are via wiki for ease)

Check this site: note those states that export Coal Fired power to other states
https://www.eia.gov/state/index.php
See: WV, ND, WY, TX, KY, IL, AL, GA, PN for example. FL runs on Natural Gas. Can't they afford solar or wind?

This China? - In 2015, global new installed wind power capacity reached 63.01GW, up 22.41% YoY, refreshing new installed wind power capacity records again. China continues to lead the global wind power market with new installed capacity of 30.75GW in 2015 (~50% of global) and the first worldwide ranking for six consecutive years.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-and-china-wind-turbine-industry-report-2016-2020-300358792.html

Just a little anecdotal background fwiw. Of course building renewable would be better in countries that already had a modern-day functioning power grid, with base-load dispatchable power in place and operating. I think in the west we often take too much for granted when judging what's going on in our poorest developing nations.

If interested, have a skim of this wiki page and see what's it really like there. Note the MW outputs and those surviving on really small diesel generators. The data shocked me when I first saw what the reality was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Africa

Cheers

[TerryM]

Lurk
I'm zealous in my hatred for coal plants, yet see the logic in what you are saying.
Damn it.
Terry

[wdmn]

The U.S. has been so terrible that it's really not saying much to say that China's done better than the U.S. on coal, and it certainly isn't getting us any closer to where we need to be.

China has higher emissions per capita than the EU, and they also have way more people.

Land use changes have been a major contributor to climate change, so in more than one way population size has been/will be determinative of what happens. As gluttonous as Canada and the U.S. have been, Asia emits more than twice as much as North America (or Europe) did at peak consumption.

China is also being less than honest about their domestic use of coal:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/26/satellite-images-show-runaway-expansion-of-coal-power-in-china

The U.S. has a total nominal capacity of 338 GW from coal as Lurk states, but China has 259 GW from coal just "in the pipeline."

graph source: https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1071725897689038848

[Neven]

You can buy a new Chinese SUV, Van or small Truck for less than half the price from a US car retailer already.

I will buy two SUVs, if you don't mind, Mr Jevons! 

[FrostKing70]

Lurk,

I agree with almost everything you posted above, with the exception of one:

"The richest nation on earth cannot afford to get by without coal."

I believe the richest nation on earth can afford to get by without coal, but chooses not too!

FK

[Sigmetnow]

U.S.

A Coal Ash Spill Made These Workers Sick. Now, They're Fighting for Compensation.
After a big jury verdict, the Kingston workers now have to tie each illness to toxics in the coal ash. It has parallels to the 9/11 recovery crew cases.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122018/toxic-coal-ash-spill-illness-verdict-kingston-tennessee-cleanup-workers-compensation

[sidd]

Gift that keeps on giving:

"Groundwater is contaminated at 11 out of 12 Georgia coal plant sites ... coal ash ponds being closed are violating requirements that waste not be in contact with groundwater ... [sites across the U.S are] leaking above health standards at 95% of the sites ..."

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nearly-all-georgia-coal-plants-report-groundwater-pollution-near-ash-ponds/544293/

Coal might be dying, but it will kill living things long after the coal burners and coal mines are all shut down.

sidd

[Sigmetnow]

U.S.:  An Epidemic Is Killing Thousands Of Coal Miners. Regulators Could Have Stopped It

The toxic mine dust that causes severe disease isn't coal dust alone. It includes silica, which is generated when miners cut sandstone as they mine coal. Many coal seams in central Appalachia are embedded in sandstone that contains quartz. And when quartz is cut by mining machines, it creates fine and barbed particles of silica dust — fine enough to be easily inhaled and sharp enough to lodge in lungs forever.

In the past 30 years, the biggest coal seams were mined out in Appalachia, leaving thinner seams coursing through sandstone.

"All the good seams were gone because there were hardly no solid seams of coal left," the 54-year-old Kelly remembered. "And there [was] more rock in the coal."

The silica dust that resulted from cutting that rock was far more dangerous than coal dust alone. Silica is "somewhere around 20 times more toxic and can cause disease much more rapidly," said Laney. ...

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/675253856/an-epidemic-is-killing-thousands-of-coal-miners-regulators-could-have-stopped-it

[kassy]

EU coal subsidy phase-out 'completely inconsistent with Paris deal'

Marathon negotiations ended early on Wednesday with a benchmark CO2 emissions standard of 550 grams per kWh for all European power plants by 2025. But coal-dependent Poland secured a loophole allowing countries another year to negotiate new “capacity mechanisms” that would be exempted from the deadline.

It could allow subsidies to keep unprofitable coal plants running until 2035, five years beyond a projected cut-off for meeting the Paris goals.

...

“It appears to be a de facto rejection of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finding that coal needs to exit the power sector rapidly. In the EU this means by 2030.”

etc

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/19/eu-coal-subsidy-phase-out-completely-inconsistent-paris-climate-deal

[Sigmetnow]

OUC CANCER LAWSUIT: Lawsuit says OUC polluted nearby neighborhoods with cancerous toxins, possibly impacting 30,000

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. - Attorneys for 30,000 residents who live in the Avalon Park area of Orange County filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday, alleging the Orlando Utilities Commission polluted their neighborhood with cancerous toxins from a nearby power plant.

After months of investigations and testing of soil samples in the Avalon Park area, lawyers who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Stoneybrook East, Avalon Park and Eastwood residents claim coal ash from the nearby OUC power plant has created a cancer cluster.

“The numbers we are seeing and the rise in the elevation [of] exceedingly rare cancer cases in children is just blowing up here,” said attorney Leslie Kroeger. ...

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/30-000-residents-say-ouc-polluted-their-neighborhood-with-cancerous-toxins/892116969

[Sigmetnow]

China:

Dalian coke slumps over 4 pct as demand concerns bite
* More mills to halt operation near year-end -analysts
* Tangshan saw PM2.5 up 46.8 pct in Nov from last Year
* China Q4 business confidence index lowest since Q2 2017 -c.bank survey

BEIJING, Dec 25 (Reuters) - Dalian coke futures fell more than 4 percent on Tuesday to their lowest in three-weeks, hit by concerns over waning demand as more steel mills halt operations for maintenance amid stringent environmental measures.

Cities in northern China are scrambling to step up anti-pollution measures, including asking industrial plants to cut additional output, to ensure they meet the 2018 air quality targets.

Top steelmaking province Hebei’s average concentration of lung-damaging small particulate matters, known as PM2.5, in all 11 cities in the region rose drastically in November compared to the same month last year, according to a statement from the Hebei Environment Protection Bureau on Monday. ...

https://www.reuters.com/article/asia-ironore/dalian-coke-slumps-over-4-pct-as-demand-concerns-bite-idUSL3N1YU13Y

[Sigmetnow]

EU:  In late-night talks, negotiators agreed to end backdoor subsidies to coal generators, with some leeway for the most coal-dependent member state

EU reaches coal subsidy phase-out deal - with caveat for Poland

...the new electricity market design for the first time places a limit on coal subsidies by introducing a CO2 emissions performance standard of 550g per kilowatt hour on all new power plants.

The 550 rule is the cornerstone of the agreement, and effectively rules out state aid for coal. The standard will start applying for all new power stations as soon as the regulation enters into force, and as of 1 July 2025 for existing generation facilities.

“Subsidies to coal for existing plants won’t be allowed anymore in Europe after mid 2025,” Marcellesi said, calling the early end date of coal aid “a victory” and “a good signal for the ecologic transition”. ...

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/12/19/eu-reaches-coal-phase-deal-caveat-poland/

[vox_mundi]

Trump EPA Says Mercury Limits On Coal Plants Too Costly, Not 'Necessary'
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/28/679129613/trump-epa-says-mercury-limits-on-coal-plants-too-costly-not-necessary

... The National Mining Association welcomed the move, calling the mercury limits "punitive" and "massively unbalanced."

... In its new proposal, the EPA estimates (using industry figures) that cost at $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually and the benefits at just $4 million to $6 million a year.

By contrast, the Obama administration had calculated an additional $80 billion in health benefits because particulate matter and other toxic pollutants are also reduced when utilities limit mercury. It said those "co-benefits" included preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths each year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/climate/mercury-coal-pollution-regulations.html

[Sigmetnow]

U.S.:

More coal plants shut down in Trump’s first two years than in Obama’s entire first term
As a result, U.S. coal use dropped 4 percent in 2018 to a level not seen since 1979.
https://thinkprogress.org/more-coal-plants-shut-down-in-trumps-first-two-years-than-in-obamas-entire-first-term-e6b72f354330/

[TerryM]

U.S.:

More coal plants shut down in Trump’s first two years than in Obama’s entire first term
As a result, U.S. coal use dropped 4 percent in 2018 to a level not seen since 1979.
https://thinkprogress.org/more-coal-plants-shut-down-in-trumps-first-two-years-than-in-obamas-entire-first-term-e6b72f354330/

Sig
In the very early 50's coal may still have been burned for transportation, and apparently much more was used for this purpose than for generating electricity, which was a big surprise to me.
Any idea what coal was being used for in the 60's that consumed so much of it?


I assume that most recent coal usage has been steel production when not used to generate electricity. Are there other uses that I'm unaware of?


Thanks
Terry

[gerontocrat]

Sig
In the very early 50's coal may still have been burned for transportation, and apparently much more was used for this purpose than for generating electricity, which was a big surprise to me.

Any idea what coal was being used for in the 60's that consumed so much of it?

Thanks
Terry

In the UK, gas used for domestic cooking and heating and by industry was produced from coal. The by-product was coke. In the 1970s there was a huge project nationwide to convert to natural gas as the North Sea oil and gas fields were fully developed. Natural gas is odourless (unlike coal gas), so a stink is added.

[oren]

According to this EIA report, outside the power sector are three roughly equal parts of industrial usage - coke plants,CHP (combined heat and power), and other non-CHP industrial. So you could say coke is about half of non-power usage. There's also some small commercial CHP, and very small commercial non-CHP use.
I couldn't find a breakdown of historical usage by sector.

[Richard Rathbone]

Sig
In the very early 50's coal may still have been burned for transportation, and apparently much more was used for this purpose than for generating electricity, which was a big surprise to me.

Any idea what coal was being used for in the 60's that consumed so much of it?

Thanks
Terry

In the UK, gas used for domestic cooking and heating and by industry was produced from coal. The by-product was coke. In the 1970s there was a huge project nationwide to convert to natural gas as the North Sea oil and gas fields were fully developed. Natural gas is odourless (unlike coal gas), so a stink is added.

Coal was still being burnt directly for domestic heating in the 60s as well as indirectly via towns gas. We were still having coal delivered to the home then. I don't think the local coal merchant closed until the early 70s.

[sidd]

People still have coal heat in Appalachia, i know of a few towns where its  still almost all coal.

sidd

[TerryM]

In retrospect my fathers main factory ran on coal, both for heat and through a steam engine in the basement that drove huge axles hung beneath each ceiling. The axles and machinery were all driven by wide leather belts. The freight elevator was also powered by that steam engine.


That factory either blew up or burned down in 1962.


The houses I lived in up until that time all had large oil tanks buried beneath the yard, but my country grade-school was heated by coal.


Thanks for all the feedback. I'd forgotten my own families use of coal in the 50's.
Terry

[rboyd]

In the UK they used to use "town gas", derived from coal, to heat houses. Then along came North Sea Gas in the 1960s, and that came to an end. There were over 500 huge "gasometers" in cities and towns to hold the coal gas (see link), they are now mostly being torn down and redeveloped.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30405066

Then came "dash for gas" and coal imports (some more expensive than that produced at the UK coal mines - but thats another, very political, story) to finish off the UK coal mining industry. Very soon there may be no coal burnt in the UK to provide heating or power.

[kassy]

Mass pollution at Texas coal plants poses major threat to human health and the environment
New report shows coal ash leaking from 100% of reporting Texas coal plants.

According to a new report published Thursday by the non-profit, non-partisan Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), toxic coal ash pollutants from coal-fired power plants in Texas are leaking into groundwater around the state. Arsenic, cobalt, lithium, and a range of other pollutants are seeping from 100 percent of Texas power plants coal ash sites for which reports are available.

...

in Texas, 13 of 16 reporting coal plants have unsafe levels of arsenic in nearby groundwater, with levels at ten times the EPA Maximum Containment Level amount. Ten plants reported unsafe levels of boron — which is deadly to humans and aquatic life — while 14 reported unsafe levels of cobalt and 11 reported unsafe levels of lithium.

https://thinkprogress.org/texas-coal-ash-polluting-groundwater-f304c328c1cc/

[Sigmetnow]

Around 14 GW of coal was retired in the United States in 2018

US Coal Retirements In 2019 To Hit At Least 6 Gigawatts

The latest S&P Global Market Intelligence data shows that a total of 49 gigawatts (GW) of new power generation capacity will be added in the United States in 2019, but will also see the retirement of nearly 6 GW of coal.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/23/us-coal-retirements-in-2019-to-hit-at-least-6-gigawatts/

[Sigmetnow]

Germany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038

Germany has agreed to end its reliance on polluting coal power stations by 2038, in a long-awaited decision that will have major ramifications for Europe’s attempts to meet its Paris climate change targets.

The country is the last major bastion of coal-burning in north-western Europe and the dirtiest of fossil fuels still provides nearly 40% of Germany’s power, compared with 5% in the UK, which plans to phase the fuel out entirely by 2025.

After overnight talks, the German coal exit commission of 28 members from industry, politicians and NGOs, which has worked since last summer to thrash out a timetable for ditching coal power, agreed an end date of 2038. A review in 2032 will decide if the deadline can be brought forward to 2035. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/germany-agrees-to-end-reliance-on-coal-stations-by-2038

[TerryM]

Germany's ditching of coal will be dependent on the completion of Nord Stream II, at present this is very much anathema to America's expressed wishes. Hopefully Germany will consider her own needs, and the needs of the Paris Accord signatories to be of greater import than the demands of America (and NATO)?


Has Poland given any indication that she'll be giving up increasing coal consumption, even while purchasing high priced, highly polluting LNG from American sources? NSII and South Stream may both be necessary to curb Europe's coal dependency.


Substituting NG for coal is a positive. Substituting coal for fracked LNG from across the world might prove to be a negative WRT greenhouse gases. Increasing coal and/or fracked LNG won't help Europe meet their GHG commitments.
Terry

[Sciguy]

More than half of the USA's coal mines have shut down since 2008:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=347.1200;last_msg=187415

U.S. coal production has declined by more than a third since peaking in 2008, while the number of active coal mines plunged to 671 mines in 2017 from 1,435 mines in 2008, the EIA has estimated.

The U.S. electric power sector accounted for 93 percent of total U.S. coal consumption between 2007 and 2018. But since 2007, coal consumption in the electricity generation sector has declined, due to retirements of coal-fired power plants and lower utilization rates of coal power plants which have been facing growing competition from natural gas-fired power generation and from renewable energy sources. Coal’s market share has shrunk at the expense of natural gas and renewables, the EIA said.

In its latest inventory of electric generators, the EIA said earlier this month that wind, natural gas, and solar capacity will lead the new electricity capacity in the United States in 2019, while coal-fired generation will account for more than half of scheduled capacity retirements.

In 2019, the U.S. electric power sector is expected to add 23.7 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity, while 8.3 GW capacity is planned to be retired. Among the capacity scheduled for retirement, coal will lead with 53 percent of all planned retirements, followed by natural gas with 27 percent, and nuclear with 18 percent.

[FrostKing70]

Terry,

What is the basis for the "highly polluting" statement below?  I thought LNG was one of the cleanest fossil fuels?

"Has Poland given any indication that she'll be giving up increasing coal consumption, even while purchasing high priced, highly polluting LNG from American sources? NSII and South Stream may both be necessary to curb Europe's coal dependency."

FK

[TerryM]

More than half of the USA's coal mines have shut down since 2008:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;topic=347.1200;last_msg=187415

U.S. coal production has declined by more than a third since peaking in 2008, while the number of active coal mines plunged to 671 mines in 2017 from 1,435 mines in 2008, the EIA has estimated.

The U.S. electric power sector accounted for 93 percent of total U.S. coal consumption between 2007 and 2018. But since 2007, coal consumption in the electricity generation sector has declined, due to retirements of coal-fired power plants and lower utilization rates of coal power plants which have been facing growing competition from natural gas-fired power generation and from renewable energy sources. Coal’s market share has shrunk at the expense of natural gas and renewables, the EIA said.

In its latest inventory of electric generators, the EIA said earlier this month that wind, natural gas, and solar capacity will lead the new electricity capacity in the United States in 2019, while coal-fired generation will account for more than half of scheduled capacity retirements.

In 2019, the U.S. electric power sector is expected to add 23.7 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity, while 8.3 GW capacity is planned to be retired. Among the capacity scheduled for retirement, coal will lead with 53 percent of all planned retirements, followed by natural gas with 27 percent, and nuclear with 18 percent.

Locally Ontario went from 25% coal generation in 2003 to 0% in 2014.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal

It can be done.
Terry

[TerryM]

Terry,

What is the basis for the "highly polluting" statement below?  I thought LNG was one of the cleanest fossil fuels?

"Has Poland given any indication that she'll be giving up increasing coal consumption, even while purchasing high priced, highly polluting LNG from American sources? NSII and South Stream may both be necessary to curb Europe's coal dependency."

FK

My understanding is that:
NG is quite clean.
Fracked NG much less so.
LNG multiplies whatever faults that the seed NG possess.


Various sources have found Fracked NG and LNG from natural sources to be as bad or worse than coal.
(no links at his time)


I don't see a problem with NG peaker plants that only operate for a few hours/day. Others eschew any use of ffs.
LNG from a modern wellhead, shouldn't present too much of a problem.
Fracked anything just seems like asking for problems - IMHO


The problem I see looking forward is that European electrical consumption will increase at least as fast as EV's enter the market. Clean and renewable generation must outpace what many think will be an exponential growth in both EV's and E-Trucking or the grids will degrade with a greater percentage of "dirty" electricity being distributed.


Burning wood and/or garbage produces renewable energy, but not necessarily clean energy. I know that in some jurisdictions in the American SouthWest burning wood in your fireplace is illegal.


For some reason Poland takes great pride in her coal industry and prefers Fracked LNG from across the Atlantic to piped NG from Russia. This ideological stance will increase GHG levels unnecessarily, especially as EV's are introduced
Terry

[rboyd]

LNG is bad because:
- 25%+ of the embedded energy is taken up in freezing/transport/unfreezing.
- All natural gas infrastructure is leaky, including the domestic distribution system. New pipes are better, but a lot of old very leaky pipes around. These fugitive leaks are underestimated.
- Fracking has a much higher level of leaks at the well-head, independent assessments have put it at 3% to 9%, way above industry and government assessments. This level of leakage makes NG worse than coal (fracked LNG even worse).

Donald Trump reversed the very soft regulations that Obama had put in place to try to reduce the amount of wellhead leaks at fracking sites. There is also the issue of the old wells, where the casing erodes over time and allows leaks. This could be a huge issue given the number of wells being drilled for fracking. The general infrastructure is also aging, with very little money spent on upkeep. Therefore they will continue to erode, and leak methane.

Coal may emit twice the CO2 of NG when it is incinerated, but the fugitive methane emissions of NG more than offset that. Also, NG does not produce climate-dimming sulphur aerosols. As those aerosols only last weeks/days in the atmosphere, and methane has a 20-year climate impact about 100 times that of CO2, any change from coal to NG has a very strong short-term impact.

Its a great shame that this reality is successfully being ignored by the government, the energy businesses, and the press. We have to keep all fossil fuels in the ground, switching from one to another does not help.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-shale-gas-production-wont-greenhouse.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/climate/methane-leaks.html

https://www.carbonbrief.org/fugitive-emissions-from-shale-gas-our-qa

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-methane/u-s-energy-industrys-methane-gas-emissions-underestimated-by-epa-study-idUSKBN1JH2TP

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/01/05/report-gas-leaks-common-in-massachusetts/

https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps/leaks-problem

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/06/28/Energy-Industry-Legacy/

http://geographical.co.uk/nature/energy/item/2045-gas-leaks-america-s-leaky-wells

https://psmag.com/environment/natural-gas-storage-wells-in-america-are-at-risk-for-a-major-leak

[Sigmetnow]

The logic of keeping coal plants open is getting weaker and weaker:

Trump intervenes in support of coal plant owned by major donor

...And why, pray tell, would Trump take time out of his crushingly busy schedule to lobby the Tennessee Valley Authority in support of a single aging coal plant? Because as Politico reported overnight, the president apparently wants to help one of his top supporters, who’s eager to keep the TVA as a customer.

[Trump’s] missive came just days before the TVA board is slated to vote on the future of Paradise Unit 3, a 49-year-old coal plant that the federally owned utility has said would be too expensive to keep operating.

The 1,150-megawatt plant gets the bulk of its coal from a subsidiary of Murray Energy, according to data from the Energy Information Administration. Robert Murray, the CEO of the mining company, is a major Trump supporter who has personally lobbied the president to take other actions to help the ailing coal industry, particularly in regions where he sells coal.

Murray is also, the report added, “a prolific GOP donor.” His support included exceedingly generous contributions to a leading pro-Trump super PAC in 2016. ...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-intervenes-support-coal-plant-owned-major-donor


TVA Tells Trump & McConnell To Take A Hike

For its part, the TVA assured the Hater in Chief that in fact it had done its due diligence and decided it had chosen the correct course based on business realities rather than ideological niceties. It said it actually had given “serious consideration to all factors” in making its decision. Some 16.9 GW of coal fired capacity were retired in the US last year, according to S&P. The coal industry is dying and there is nothing those two lunatics in Assington can do to stop the decline. That’s a good thing.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/12/tva-tells-trump-mcconnell-to-take-a-hike/

[Sciguy]

Australian courts are blocking new coal mines:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-08/coal-developers-take-note-climate-change-killed-this-coal-mine?srnd=climate-changed

An Australian court blocked the development of a coal mine because of its potential to contribute to climate change, in a ruling an environment lawyer said could be a turning point for future coal projects, while industry cautioned the decision wasn’t likely to impact new development.

“The construction and operation of the mine, and the transportation and combustion of the coal from the mine, will result in the emission of greenhouse gases, which will contribute to climate change,” Judge Brian Preston said in his appeal judgment.

New coal developments in Australia have been struggling to find willing investors, with a growing number of institutional funds around the world ruling out the fuel as part of tougher social and environmental mandates. India’s Adani Group said last November it would self finance its Carmichael mine in Queensland after failing to secure external backing.

“This has real implications for anyone investing in any projects in Australia that have a significant adverse social impact on the community of which climate change impacts are considered a key impact,” said Martijn Wilder, an environment lawyer at Baker McKenzie who was not involved in the case. It was one of the first times a mine has been rejected on climate grounds, he said.

[Sciguy]

India is considering cancelling up to 96 GW of coal projects:

https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/govt-may-cancel-50-gw-coal-based-power-projects-additional-46-gw-facing-risk-sp-global/67960857

New Delhi: The Indian government might cancel about 50 gigawatt (GW) of coal-based power projects in the near future, according to S&P Global Platts. An additional 46 GW coal-based capacity, currently under construction, is also at risk.

"Over the past couple of years, coal projects of over 37 GW have been deferred with another 13 GW delayed in India and most likely will be cancelled. About 46 GW of coal projects are currently under construction but their future is uncertain," said Bruno Brunetti, power analyst, S&P Global Platts, that provides energy price benchmark assesments.

He also said solar power in auctions conducted in 2018 were as low as Rs 2.4 per kilowatt hour (kWh), equivalent to around $33.6 per megawatt hour (MWh). "This has placed coal newbuilds in a considerably more difficult position, especially given that the bottlenecks in the rail and infrastructure have led to fuel availability issues," Brunetti said in an interview with ETEnergyworld.

The elevated levels of imported coal prices witnessed over the past two years have also contributed in making coal less competitive as a fuel.

[vox_mundi]

Toxic Black Snow Covers Streets in Siberia - video
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/15/toxic-black-snow-covers-siberian-coalmining-region

Residents of a coal mining region in Siberia have been posting online videos showing entire streets and districts covered in toxic black snow that critics say highlight a man-made ecological catastrophe in which British industry is compliant.

In one video, filmed in Kiselyovsk, a town in the Kuzbass region, a woman drives past mounds of coal-coloured snow stretching to the horizon, covering a children’s playground and the courtyards of residential buildings. The scenes in the footage were described as “post-apocalyptic” by Russian media.

... “It’s harder to find white snow than black snow during the winter,” Vladimir Slivyak, a member of the Ecodefense environmental group, said. “There is a lot of coal dust in the air all the time. When snow falls, it just becomes visible. You can’t see it the rest of the year, but it is still there.”

Officials in Mysky, a town in the region, were mocked recently for painting black snow white in an apparent attempt to improve the appearance of a children’s snow-slide.

[sidd]

Stealth coal rescue attempt:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pjm-to-ask-ferc-to-invalidate-its-energy-market-rules-after-stakeholder-imp/548585/

sidd

[kassy]

An interesting way to look at industries?

These Two Industries Literally Kill More People Than They Employ

Michigan Tech computer engineer Joshua Pearce argues the economic benefits of an industry should never outweigh the risks they pose to our lives. And when they do, we need to seriously consider sentencing the industry to economic 'death'.

Pearce recently conducted a study comparing the employment rates in the coal mining and tobacco industries with the risk of mortality each imposed on society.

These case studies form the basis of his argument that the political support for job numbers simply won't wash in the face of an industry's cost to human health.

...

According to the US Energy Information Administration, coal mining provides employment for just under 51,800 people across the nation, a figure that's dropping as profitability steadily sinks in the face of competition and environmental regulations.

In itself, coal mining is far safer today than in the past, where fatalities could be listed in their thousands. Only 15 people lost their lives on the job in 2017, and just 8 the year before that. 

As a fossil fuel, coal's dark side is revealed. Estimates using U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data put the number of premature deaths due to poor air quality from coal combustion in the vicinity of just over 52,000 a year.

That means for every job coal mining provides, it claims a life. More or less.


https://www.sciencealert.com/these-two-industries-literally-kill-more-people-than-they-employ-claim-researchers