Coal

[Bob Wallace]

, will be capped at 2,500 MW of capacity, still leaving out around 7,500 MW of thermal power capacity

That suggests we will soon be hearing about India starting to close coal plants.

When India hits peak coal and consumption starts declining that will be another milestone to celebrate.  Keep the good news flowing.

[numerobis]

What I’m not clear on is whether the plants would close (negative gross profit), or merely go bankrupt (gross profit but not enough to pay interest).

Either way, banks will reduce lending to coal plants.

[Sigmetnow]

Of course they are. 

DOE looking 'very closely' at Cold War-era law to boost coal, nuclear production
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/386891-doe-looking-very-closely-at-using-cold-war-era-law-to-boost-coal

[Sciguy]

Every time they update the estimates of the number of coal plants that will be retired over the next decade, the number increases.  Here's the latest: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/05/09/coal-collapsing-faster-under-trump-wind-solar-gas-to-benefit/#15be95235ee4

“The real story I believe is in coal retirements," said Bruce Hamilton, a director in the energy practice at Navigant, which has modeled every coal plant in the U.S. and projected 73 gigawatts will retire in the next 10 years.

"That’s more than twice what we projected last year at this time. It’s more than we had two years ago when the Clean Power Plan was in the assumptions."

The projection changed in part because of more announced retirements, Hamilton said, "but more importantly, the fundamentals of the economics of coal have gotten worse, with costs going up, while the competition for coal—that is, gas, wind and solar—has all gotten cheaper. So it’s getting to the point where huge swings are forecast. You can see it will be throughout the decade."

[Sciguy]

Of course they are. 

DOE looking 'very closely' at Cold War-era law to boost coal, nuclear production
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/386891-doe-looking-very-closely-at-using-cold-war-era-law-to-boost-coal

It's amazing how quickly they abandon the "free market" philosophy when their political interests are threatened.  Meanwhile, here's how their efforts have gone so far:


https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Coal-Is-Losing-Ground-Despite-Trumps-Promises.html

So, the demise of coal is merely a matter of time, and it seems unstoppable despite efforts by the Department of Energy to support the crumbling segment. The latest here was Secretary of Energy Rick Perry’s call for modular coal projects “that provide stable power generation with operational flexibility, high efficiency, and low emissions.”

Stability of power generation was what kept coal going in the face of oncoming—still expensive at the time—renewables traffic. But then the shale revolution unearthed billions upon billions of cubic feet of cheap natural gas—this was the beginning of the end for coal. What’s more, gas has the additional attraction of lower carbon emissions, even though the U.S. emissions total has not changed much as gas replaces coal because of the sheer amount of new gas capacity that is being brought online.

Now renewables are becoming cheaper, too, and energy storage is about to solve the problem of intermittent solar and wind generation, leaving coal on the ropes it would seem. The EIA in its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook forecasts that coal production will fall by 3 percent to 751 million tons this year as a result of a 4-percent decline in local demand, most of it coming from the power generation sector. But exports will also decline, by 9 percent.

The demise of coal is slow, but it seems unstoppable. There is just nothing working for coal, except perhaps clean coal technologies, which are, alas, too expensive for the time being to have a chance at competing with gas and renewables.

[Bob Wallace]

Cheap wind and solar are tearing apart coal's ability to make an adequate average return on energy produced.  Some coal plants are closing because it's too expensive to upgrade them to meet pollution standards and others because they are efficient to operate in today's market.

The same thing is happening to nuclear.  The more inefficient plants (about 60% of the US fleet) can't compete on the market.  The other 40% may run into problems if a large repair is needed.

[Sigmetnow]

Under Trump, coal’s rate of collapse to be ‘more than twice’ what analysts previously projected

Despite President Trump’s repeated promises to resuscitate the collapsing U.S. coal industry, top energy-industry analysts project a faster than expected pace of coal plant retirements in the coming years.

Over the next decade, 73 gigawatts of coal will retire — representing one quarter of current U.S. coal capacity — according to Bruce Hamilton, a Director in Navigant Consulting’s Energy Practice, which has analyzed every U.S. plant.

“That’s more than twice what we projected last year at this time,” Hamilton said at the American Wind Energy Association’s Windpower 2018 conference Tuesday, Forbes reports. “The economics of coal have gotten worse,” he explained, “with costs going up, while the competition for coal — that is, gas, wind and solar — has all gotten cheaper.”

Yet, Navigant’s coal forecast was conservative compared to that of other speakers. For instance, Dan Shreve, a partner at MAKE Consulting, forecast that coal retirements over the next decade could hit 80-90 GW.

And Max Cohen, an Associate Director at IHS Markit, said they are projecting “about 100 Gigawatts of coal retirements. That’s about a third of the fleet.” ...

https://thinkprogress.org/the-economics-of-coal-have-gotten-worse-under-trump-bca9a7841fea/

[numerobis]

A quarter of capacity in a decade sounds not far from just normal replacement for plants that were built to last 40 years before refurbishment. Hopefully we do better.

[Bob Wallace]

I get the feeling that those making predictions are not taking into account the age of US coal plants. 



Note that the graph was prepared four years ago.  A vast majority of our coal plants are over 40 years old and coal plants don't survive in great numbers past 50 years. 

These old dogs are going to break down more frequently than when new.  That means that higher operating costs as those repairs have to be paid off.  And that pushes the plant closer to bankruptcy. 

Additionally, the cost of wind and solar will continue to fall.  Cheaper wind and solar make it harder for coal plants to earn enough to stay in business.

And there are essentially no new coal plants coming along to take their place.

[numerobis]

Hot on the heels of small modular nuclear, the DOE is now interested in small modular coal:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/plant-of-the-future-doe-seeks-info-on-small-modular-coal/523084/

[Bob Wallace]

Hot on the heels of small modular nuclear, the DOE is now interested in small modular coal:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/plant-of-the-future-doe-seeks-info-on-small-modular-coal/523084/

It's going to take years to undo the damage Trump is doing.  I am starting to think that the US will never fully recover.  We're going to lose any technological edge we had and that's about the only thing we've got going other than corn and soybeans....

[rboyd]

Hot on the heels of small modular nuclear, the DOE is now interested in small modular coal:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/plant-of-the-future-doe-seeks-info-on-small-modular-coal/523084/

It's going to take years to undo the damage Trump is doing.  I am starting to think that the US will never fully recover.  We're going to lose any technological edge we had and that's about the only thing we've got going other than corn and soybeans....

And the Chinese government will be happy getting its commodity food stuffs from the US, in return for solar panels, wind turbines, high speed trains, and electric vehicles ..... In a decade or so they may have no need for anything else, including US fossil fuels.

[Sigmetnow]

”For one thing, the solar farm is designed to use rubble from reclamation to flatten out its own contours. For another, repairing the high wall involves more blasting, too close to allow the fragile panels to be installed until after it's over.”

Solar Plans for a Mined Kentucky Mountaintop Could Hinge on More Coal Mining
Plans for the state’s largest solar farm are stuck in limbo while a coal giant, once run by West Virginia’s governor, drags its feet on required reclamation.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17052018/kentucky-fuel-coal-mining-solar-power-bent-mountain-jim-justice-edf-renewables-berkeley-energy-group

[Bob Wallace]

Interesting read about the coal industry today in the Casper (WY) Star Tribune -

If Oregon, Washington and California ditch coal, it may leave Wyoming’s largest utility, and its customers, holding a bag they don’t want to carry, officials told lawmakers Monday.

Wyoming is the largest coal producing state in the country, but it is also both a user and exporter of coal power. Early retirements of coal plants have put pressure on Wyoming’s mines in recent years, but with many utilities and electricity cooperatives still receiving the biggest chunk of their power from coal, early retirements were a distant risk to coal mining.

A disheartening presentation from Rocky Mountain Power on Monday at the Joint Corporations Committee meeting in Lander showed how fraught with complications coal-fired power may become right at home.

Oregon recently decided that its rate payers must be free of both the costs and the benefits of coal-fired power by 2029, part of a push to combat climate change by depressing the use of fossil fuels like coal. Oregon customers are paying off their share of PacifiCorp’s – Rocky Mountain Power’s parent company — coal depreciation at an accelerated clip in order to be coal free. Both Washington and California have shown signs of taking similar steps, said Jeff Larsen, senior vice president of strategic business planning for Rocky Mountain Power.

That could leave states like Wyoming bearing a higher burden of responsibility for keeping the company’s coal plants operating than their portion of the PacifiCorp system warrants. Wyoming only accounts for 15 percent of PacifiCorp’s $4.7 billion annual costs.

http://trib.com/business/energy/as-west-coast-shuns-coal-states-like-wyoming-will-face/article_b9eba459-4a77-51f7-acc6-5e58cbfc58a7.html#utm_source=trib.com&utm_campaign=%2Femail-updates%2Fdaily-headlines%2F&utm_medium=email&utm_content=9C38B3F2BFBB8DCD70F6096693CD1DD79C29B7E0

Read past the whining over West Coast states no longer wanting coal-electricity.  Pay attention to the flop sweat over WY losing 85% of its coal market.

[sidd]

The Powder River coal mines are a modern mordor. The sooner they close, the better.that stretch of I-90 between Rozet and Gillette is a good example of wasteland.

sidd

[Shared Humanity]

While the long term future for coal is bleak and we will likely see a slow, steady decline of coal consumption world wide from this point forward, the market approach is far too slow to save us.

https://www.ft.com/content/82f9087c-9cdd-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946

[Bob Wallace]

While the long term future for coal is bleak and we will likely see a slow, steady decline of coal consumption world wide from this point forward, the market approach is far too slow to save us.

https://www.ft.com/content/82f9087c-9cdd-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946

It would be helpful if you were to specify what you mean by "save us".

Saving, IMHO, is a continuum from where the climate was 50 or so years ago to extreme climate change that would likely kill off a large percentage of the population and send the rest of us to live out the hot parts of the year underground.  Coming out only to grow our cereal and root crops before retreating back underground to our artificial light 'salad farms'.

[TerryM]

While the long term future for coal is bleak and we will likely see a slow, steady decline of coal consumption world wide from this point forward, the market approach is far too slow to save us.

https://www.ft.com/content/82f9087c-9cdd-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946

Would an international coal tax of substance be feasible, with some portion of the proceeds going to the developing world, (who aren't responsible for getting us into this mess). It could be collected from the mines, the shippers, or the ultimate users, and would need to be enough to discourage everyone from having anything to do with coal.


The market on steroids!
Terry


Mushrooms Bob, don't forget delicious nutritious mushrooms.

[Bob Wallace]

International anything is a hard reach.

On a state or national level we could (and should) see carbon taxes.

Just charge the utility a penny per kWh, or whatever amount works, for each kWh of electricity they produce with fossil fuels. 

Take that revenue and give consumers a per kWh discount. 

No change to consumers' electricity bills.  Tips the balance toward low carbon generation.

[TerryM]

BC - British Columbia, has a program along those lines, but I'm unfamiliar with the details.
Terry

[JimD]

ROFL

This coal power plant is being reopened for blockchain mining
The now shuttered coal-fired power station on Australia's east coast will offer cheap power prices to blockchain operators...

...World mining of bitcoin (probably the most well-known blockchain application) currently uses about as much power as the country of Singapore.

IOT Group and Hunter Energy want to get around that, offering cheaper power to companies in the blockchain field and hopefully enticing international operations to base their operations in Australia.

According to a spokesperson from Hunter Energy, it expects roughly 5% of the energy from the power plant will be used for blockchain related processes.

Hmm wonder what the other 95% is going to be for. 

Real life is so much better than the movies. Popcorn pls!

https://www.cnet.com/news/australian-coal-power-plant-reopened-blockchain-bitcoin-applications/

[Shared Humanity]

It would be helpful if you were to specify what you mean by "save us".

Save us from a temperature increase of greater than 2C which would be catastrophic.

We are running out of carbon budget and CO2 emissions, despite all the hoopla, are at best flat. We have, at most, 3 decades to eliminate most CO2 emissions and that can only be accomplished if we are aggressively reducing these emissions right now.

[Shared Humanity]

While the long term future for coal is bleak and we will likely see a slow, steady decline of coal consumption world wide from this point forward, the market approach is far too slow to save us.

https://www.ft.com/content/82f9087c-9cdd-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946

Would an international coal tax of substance be feasible, with some portion of the proceeds going to the developing world, (who aren't responsible for getting us into this mess). It could be collected from the mines, the shippers, or the ultimate users, and would need to be enough to discourage everyone from having anything to do with coal.


The market on steroids!
Terry


Mushrooms Bob, don't forget delicious nutritious mushrooms.

I believe taxes on energy sources that begin to capture the true costs of pollution (CO2 emissions) is a powerful intervention that should be put in place immediately. This tax should be worldwide and, in order to soften the impact on the global economy, the money should be returned in such a way as to encourage sustainable development.

[JimD]

SH

I just dropped in and have not been following this discussion, but I assume you are just talking in a utopian sense??

There is zero chance of your global tax being implemented any time in the next 15 years at best as I am sure you know.  Most likely never before there is substantial collapse as global politics and security concerns will outweigh any such types of cooperation.  On top of that there is no such thing as sustainable development with any thing even close to the current global population.

In the meantime the US is training the Ukrainians for an invasion of the East to try and solidify our recent coup there and the Russians will respond to that - as we want them to.  Our leaders are doing everything they can to find an excuse to hit the Iranians militarily (and are certain to hit them economically) so we can expect the Middle East to deteriorate even further - if not descend into complete chaos.  Afghanistan will continue for years most likely and then there is the fluid situation with NK (which may have the highest chances of some kind of improvement).  The Europeans (if they actually have enough courage) must at this time start walking away from US dominance and that will lessen cooperation on items like global taxes and dealing with climate change as they will be stepping outside the US Empire umbrella and will have to devote more energy and wealth to getting by without us.  Or will they double down on being the cast of characters who help keep this train running.  The time is close where it is either stick with us or move on.  What are they going to do? Global cooperation? What is India going to do?  China? Are they not going to put their interests first? When times get tough how often does anyone sacrifice for strangers and competitors?

[Bob Wallace]

It would be helpful if you were to specify what you mean by "save us".

Save us from a temperature increase of greater than 2C which would be catastrophic.

We are running out of carbon budget and CO2 emissions, despite all the hoopla, are at best flat. We have, at most, 3 decades to eliminate most CO2 emissions and that can only be accomplished if we are aggressively reducing these emissions right now.

OK, sounds like your 2C is about my "10".  A decreased size population living much of the year underground or in highly insulated buildings.  Much of our fresh food grown indoors. 

Yes, three decades.  I'm not worried about cars and light trucks.  In three decades I expect almost no ICEVs in operation except for classic car parades.  Three decades of 2% transition from FF to RE would get the US to ~zero carbon electricity.  Plus some more to replace disappearing nuclear and to cover EV charging.

If you do not attend to the rapidly dropping cost of onshore wind, offshore wind, solar, and storage you'll give yourself a serious sad.  Look at the trends, not in the rear view mirror.

[Bob Wallace]

Is it this sentence that you claim is "incredibly disingenuous and manipulative"?

Three decades of 2% transition from FF to RE would get the US to ~zero carbon electricity.  Plus some more to replace disappearing nuclear and to cover EV charging.

In 2017 the US generated 62.8% of its electricity from fossil fuels. 

Three decades = 30 years.

30 years x a 2% transition from fossil fuels to renewables = 60%.  Just about 62.8%.

Nuclear hovers around 20%.  20% / 30 = 1.5% per year.

What about those numbers is  "incredibly disingenuous and manipulative"?

[Bob Wallace]

OK, in one post I stated

The US increased its percent of electricity product with wind and solar by 1.7% in 2017.  In 2017 the US generated 62.8% of their electricity with fossil fuels.  At that rate it would take 36.9 years to replace all fossil fuel electricity with renewable energy.  2055.

And in another post I stated

Three decades of 2% transition from FF to RE would get the US to ~zero carbon electricity.  Plus some more to replace disappearing nuclear and to cover EV charging.

1.7% is history (the number which I soon after corrected is actually 2.2%).

At the rate of switching 1.7% per year it would take us close to 40 years.

If we raised that rate to 2% it would take about 30 years.

There is no inconsistency there.  What we did in 2017 does not determine what we will do in 2018, 2025, or 2030. 

In 2013 we transitioned 0.6%.
In 2014 0.4%.
In 2015 0.5%.
In 2016 1.2%.
In 2017 2.2%.

Detect a pattern there?  Able to put that together with the continuing decrease in wind and solar costs?  Capable of thinking forward?

I do think I see where things went astray.  You seem to take my "if we only do what we did last year" 2055 as some sort of prediction on my part.  I didn't pick up on that because I have no expectation that the rate of installing wind and solar won't increase.  And I do not expect much demand increase over time other than what EVs will need.  (And part of that will be come from ceasing oil extraction, refining, and distribution.)

[Sigmetnow]

Longread on the personal effects of two coal power plant closings in the U.S. midwest.

”Whereas coal mines have been shedding jobs for decades, coal-fired plants are experiencing their biggest crisis right now, squeezed by both competition from cheap natural gas and government constraints on their copious carbon emissions. At least 14 coal-fired plants are scheduled to close this year alone, many in remote places where they’re the big employer in the area.”

 Forced to Choose Between a Job — and a Community
As the largest employer in Adams County, Ohio, closes its coal-fired power plants there, politicians and companies have thrown up their hands. Families know that finding work means leaving the place they know.
https://www.propublica.org/article/adams-county-ohio-coal-forced-to-choose-between-a-job-and-a-community

[sidd]

Thanks for the article. I know people down by the river there, tho they dont work for the coal plants, they'll get smacked pretty hard by the taxes goin up an local business closing. Those fly ash ponds are horrible and one day they'll pour into the ohio river and the rich guys in cinci will get mad.

dont surprise me that sherrod was not minded to keep the plants open, but portman is from southern ohio. Those plants needed to go. But those blighted lands will remain and the people sink into even worse poverty.

sidd

[Shared Humanity]

World wide coal production is down and it could be that peak coal has passed.

[Bob Wallace]

World wide coal production is down and it could be that peak coal has passed.

Some people are disputing the drop of coal use in China.  Best we wait for another year or two before getting too excited. 

But I'm somewhat excited.  The Chinese government had earlier said that they expected to hit peak coal in the 2015  to 2017 range. So far China has done a good job of exceeding its five year plans for wind and solar.

[numerobis]

I suspect China's numbers must not be too far off the mark: air quality has improved.

They burn essentially all the coal they produce (plus what they import) so improved air quality is a good proxy for reduced coal production.

[Bob Wallace]

The percentage of electricity produced by coal continues its downward march in the US.  There was a small bounce back up in the summer of 2017 due to higher NG prices (IIRC).

[Sciguy]

I posted a link to this article in the renewables thread, but it has major implications for coal use too: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-20/storage-will-be-the-next-biggest-thing-in-energy

Here are the relevant sections for coal:

As a result, the cost of new-build renewables has been sinking. The highest-cost solar and wind projects in the U.S. will now produce electricity at least as cheaply as the lowest-cost coal plants, according to a report last year by Lazard Inc.

In Australia, that price differential means one of the world’s largest coal exporters is unlikely ever to build another generator powered by the stuff, Catherine Tanna, managing director of EnergyAustralia Pty, told a Bloomberg Invest conference in Sydney Wednesday. By the early 2020s, renewables will have gotten so cheap that it will be more cost effective to build them than to operate even an existing coal or nuclear plant, Jim Robo, CEO of Florida-based NextEra Energy Inc., said during an investor call in January.

[Sciguy]

A new form of "clean coal" in the works?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2018/05/31/could-clean-coal-actually-become-a-reality/2/#17fbdbe768bb

Some excerpts:

Through a process called chemical looping, researchers believe they have found a way to use coal without generating significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). According to Dr. Liang-Shih Fan, distinguished university professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, he and his team have been able to use a process called coal-direct chemical looping to burn coal without emitting pollution.

Chemical looping burns fossil fuels and biomass in pressurized reactors without oxygen in the air. Metal oxide in the reactor provides oxygen for the combustion, which then “loops” the gases through different chambers, producing heat. At a basic level, the method burns oxygen, while holding onto carbon, and the heat generated during the combustion enables steam turbines to generate electricity. The process is capable of converting fuels into energy or other chemical products, while emitting less than one percent of the CO2 the fuels would otherwise produce.

And it even has a way of making the coal burning plants generate money from the byproducts of combustion:

To create value, the process not only converts fuels into energy, but can also create secondary products by recycling the byproducts of traditional power generation. What would otherwise be wasted can now be sold, potentially making the process more energy and financially efficient.

[Richard Rathbone]

A new form of "clean coal" in the works?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2018/05/31/could-clean-coal-actually-become-a-reality/2/#17fbdbe768bb

Some excerpts:

Through a process called chemical looping, researchers believe they have found a way to use coal without generating significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). According to Dr. Liang-Shih Fan, distinguished university professor in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, he and his team have been able to use a process called coal-direct chemical looping to burn coal without emitting pollution.

Chemical looping burns fossil fuels and biomass in pressurized reactors without oxygen in the air. Metal oxide in the reactor provides oxygen for the combustion, which then “loops” the gases through different chambers, producing heat. At a basic level, the method burns oxygen, while holding onto carbon, and the heat generated during the combustion enables steam turbines to generate electricity. The process is capable of converting fuels into energy or other chemical products, while emitting less than one percent of the CO2 the fuels would otherwise produce.

And it even has a way of making the coal burning plants generate money from the byproducts of combustion:

To create value, the process not only converts fuels into energy, but can also create secondary products by recycling the byproducts of traditional power generation. What would otherwise be wasted can now be sold, potentially making the process more energy and financially efficient.

All its doing is shifting where the CO2 is emitted away from where the coal is consumed. e.g. methanol is synthesised from coal and then burnt for energy somewhere else. Its entirely possible that a lot of the other pollution from direct combustion of coal is avoided, but the claim that it generates energy without CO2 is specious.

[Bob Wallace]

Contemplate the cost of all that hardware.

Contemplate the $0.026/kWh cost of fuel for coal plants.

Contemplate the cost of both wind and solar soon being $0.02/kWh or lower.

Relax.

[Sleepy]

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

[Bob Wallace]

Let's hope China continues on their current path.



Coal consumption seems to have peaked and started to decline. 

[jacksmith4tx]

Let's hope China continues on their current path.



Coal consumption seems to have peaked and started to decline.

Bob,
"China’s coal purchases from the US could triple in value in 2018 to about $1.3bn, according to Michelle Leung, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence."
China just slammed the brakes on their solar power policy and made an offer to buy billions in US coal to help lower the trade deficit so we will have to wait till 2020 to see that graph will still be trending down.
The more important issue does this indicate a change in China's climate policy? Sure looks like it.

[Sciguy]

Even in China, solar is cheaper than coal:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/chinas-green-shift-is-positioning-it-to-overtake-u-s-in-energy-technology-and-security/

Matthews argues that massive Chinese adoption of solar panels is the major cause for the rapid decline in their price since 2012, and that this price drop will continue. Likewise, he argues that for all the hype about China building new nuclear plants, it has in fact put most of its eggs with regard to new energy generation in the wind power basket.

New solar power bids are now being occasionally let for less than 3 cents a kilowatt hour. Coal is at least 5 cents a kilowatt hour, if you don’t count its environmental damage. If you take that into account, it is likely closer to 80 cents a kilowatt hour. With regard to China, the Brookings study notes, “In the most recently concluded Third Photovoltaic venture base bidding in China, the bid price for electricity continuously came in new lows. For example, the last two bids for cities Golmud and Delingha, both in Qinghai, came in at 0.31 RMB per kWh, which is even lower than the 0.3247 RMB per kWh price for on-grid desulfurized coal-fired electricity.” Even today, Chinese solar is cheaper than coal, and the competitive advantage of solar will only increase over the next decade.

Matthews further makes an important set of arguments about China’s green shift and global power. By generating its own electricity through renewables and by switching in a big way to electric cars, China is preparing for a vast reduction in its imports of hydrocarbons. In turn, that move makes China less vulnerable to hydrocarbon blackmail or blockade and increases its energy security.

But hey, don't listen to respected news sources or find your own data.  Just follow Trump's tweets and you'll be well informed.

[Sciguy]

Let's hope China continues on their current path.



Coal consumption seems to have peaked and started to decline.

Yes, it appears to have peaked in 2013 and is expected to collapse around 2030:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/with-china-in-the-lead-new-obstacles-to-climate-progress-emerge

China is also pulling back on dirty fuel. Coal in particular. After a decade-long surge – during which the stories of China building two new coal-fired power plants a week were entirely true – the country’s coal burning peaked in 2013.

While new coal plants are still being built to replace old ones, Beijing does not want more coal capacity overall. In January 2017 alone, the government cancelled planned coal plants with a combined capacity of 130 GW. They would have added 23 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere during their lifetime.

Analysts calculate that Chinese coal consumption could decline by as much as 50 percent by 2030, as older coal plants close and are largely not replaced. After that, it may collapse altogether, as energy prices reach a tipping point beyond which it is cheaper to shut existing coal plants early and replace them with new solar.

[Shared Humanity]

Let's hope China continues on their current path.



Coal consumption seems to have peaked and started to decline.

Bob,
"China’s coal purchases from the US could triple in value in 2018 to about $1.3bn, according to Michelle Leung, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence."
China just slammed the brakes on their solar power policy and made an offer to buy billions in US coal to help lower the trade deficit so we will have to wait till 2020 to see that graph will still be trending down.
The more important issue does this indicate a change in China's climate policy? Sure looks like it.

This decision is driven by international relations. China will import more U.S. coal while reducing purchases elsewhere. Our 'orange shitgibbon' of a president can then declare victory for the poor downtrodden in the U.S. while handing out tax cuts to the rich.

[Bob Wallace]

There's going to be a problem getting that coal to China.  Most West Coast ports do not allow coal to be shipped through them.

The coal industry has been trying for years to get a Washington, Oregon or NorCal port to accept coal without success. 

Perhaps China appeased the Toddler in Chief with the idea of purchasing US coal knowing that the US couldn't deliver.  And assuming that fairly soon Toddler would forget all about this idea and start tantruming about something else.

[Bob Wallace]

China is preparing for a vast reduction in its imports of hydrocarbons. In turn, that move makes China less vulnerable to hydrocarbon blackmail or blockade and increases its energy security.

It also keeps more of China's money inside China.

[be cause]

bbc world service was recently reporting China was busy building coal fired power stations around the world to convert raw materials eg copper ore before importing them . This would change the graph appearance if counted ... b.c.

[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.

[Sleepy]

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.

[Bob Wallace]

LNG gives China the immediate benefit of being able to close more coal plants and decrease their air pollution problem.

And adding more NG will make it easier to incorporate larger amounts of wind and solar to their grids.

[Bob Wallace]

Six years ago port operators at the world’s largest coal export terminal in Newcastle, Australia argued they needed approval for the T4 terminal with a capacity for another 120 million tonnes a year. In the last week they axed the project, conceding global demand had fallen.

In Japan, Sumitomo has dropped its plan to use coal as a fuel in a small plant it proposed.

Elsewhere, in some of the few countries with plans for many new coal plants there are signs of a shift too. In Turkey a public opinion poll has revealed overwhelming support for clean energy and negligible support for coal. In Vietnam, a new report has charted how 30,000 megawatts (MW) of new plants proposed to be built by 2030 could be scrapped and electricity demand growth still met. In Indonesia, a privately owned power producer has complained of how hard it is becoming to finance coal plants. This coincides with Indonesia’s publicly owned utility PLN seeking to raise funds for new coal projects.

CoalWire weekly newsletter.