Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Coal  (Read 174389 times)

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #800 on: July 13, 2017, 07:51:20 PM »
China and India are installing a lot of renewables.  Poland is beginning to.  Progress may be bumpy over the beginning years but as wind, solar and storage costs continue to fall the move away from fossil fuel should accelerate.


numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #801 on: July 13, 2017, 08:15:56 PM »
This think-tank chaired by the PM thinks the Indian government will fail far short in its stated goal for a large fraction of renewables by 2030. Odd.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #802 on: July 13, 2017, 08:41:26 PM »
This think-tank chaired by the PM thinks the Indian government will fail far short in its stated goal for a large fraction of renewables by 2030. Odd.

This is highly representative of the multiple-personality syndrome of most governments. There still seems to be a lack of integration between climate planning, energy planning and business planning within governments. Targets seen as "hard" in one area are seen as "soft" in another of the same government. The Canadian one is the same, where its policies do not match its climate commitments.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #803 on: July 14, 2017, 09:04:01 PM »
EIA estimates that US coal production will increase by 8% in 2017

"EIA estimates that coal production declined by 169 million short tons (MMst) (19%) in 2016 to 728 MMst, the lowest level of coal production since 1978. In 2017, growth in coal-fired electricity generation and exports is expected to lead to an increase of 57 MMst (8%) in total U.S. coal production. Production in the Western region is forecast to increase by 26 MMst. Increases in production from the Appalachian region and the Interior region are expected to be 16 MMst and 15 MMst, respectively. In 2018, total coal production is expected to remain relatively unchanged, with declines in Appalachian region production offset by increases in Interior region and Western region production."

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.cfm

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9100
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #804 on: July 15, 2017, 01:30:29 AM »
The history of solar jobs is not very long, compared to coal mining, but OK. ;)

For First Time in History, Solar Jobs Outnumber Coal Jobs in Virginia
http://wvtf.org/post/first-time-history-solar-jobs-outnumber-coal-jobs-virginia
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #805 on: July 15, 2017, 03:37:35 AM »
Sigm


Any idea whether the new jobs pay as well as coal mining?


Terry

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9100
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #806 on: July 15, 2017, 07:13:23 PM »
Sigm


Any idea whether the new jobs pay as well as coal mining?


Terry

The Harvard Business Review looked at that.
Our results show that there is a wide variety of employment opportunities in the solar industry, and that the annual pay is attractive at all levels of education, with even the lowest skilled jobs paying a living wage (e.g., janitors in the coal industry could increase their salaries by 7% by becoming low-skilled mechanical assemblers in the solar industry). In general, we found that after retraining, technical workers would make more in the solar industry than previously in coal. However, managers and particularly executives would make less.
...
The results of the study show that a relatively minor investment ($180 million to $1.8 billion, based on best and worst case scenarios) in retraining would allow the vast majority of U.S. coal workers to switch to solar-related positions. Of course, training times depend on type of job and prior experience.
...
What If All U.S. Coal Workers Were Retrained to Work in Solar?
https://hbr.org/2016/08/what-if-all-u-s-coal-workers-were-retrained-to-work-in-solar
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

wehappyfew

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #807 on: July 15, 2017, 07:39:49 PM »
Managers and executives make LESS?  Completely non-feasible. Sorry, we will keep supporting the coal industry. Must keep the lobbyist money and kickbacks flowing to the very important legislators and congressmen. Executives who aren't making obscene profits can't maintain the bribe contribution levels.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9100
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #808 on: July 16, 2017, 03:15:52 PM »
"...Duke Energy Corp. has sought permission to have North Carolina consumers pay part of its costs of cleaning up the [coal] waste, which are estimated to total $5.1 billion in North and South Carolina alone."

Coal ash neighbors: Don’t raise rates as pollution lingers
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The nation’s largest electric company wants regulators in North Carolina to force consumers to pay nearly $200 million a year to clean up the toxic byproducts of burning coal to generate power. That doesn’t sit well with neighbors of the power plants who have been living on bottled water since toxic chemicals appeared in some of their wells.
...
https://apnews.com/3e6d28558a914112b1208b005eac14e6/Coal-ash-neighbors:-Don%27t-raise-rates-as-pollution-lingers
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1988
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #809 on: July 16, 2017, 10:00:20 PM »
This just out from Carbon Brief: https://www.carbonbrief.org/seven-charts-show-why-the-iea-thinks-coal-investment-has-already-peaked

"Seven charts show why the IEA thinks coal investment has already peaked"
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #810 on: July 17, 2017, 04:50:10 AM »
The biggest question from the Carbon Brief article:

"Despite the coal plan slowdown, earlier research has suggested that India’s existing coal pipeline could single-handedly jeopardise the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement. As with China, the question remains how many of the planned plants will be built and how many hours they will run."

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #811 on: July 17, 2017, 06:38:39 AM »
India plans on being off coal by 2027.  They recently canceled construction of a very large coal plant.

Will they make it by 2027?  Hard to say, I'd guess they'll miss the target a bit.  But if India gets off coal by 2035 we should be in great shape (when it comes to coal).  Here's who burned coal in 2016 (numbers in MTOE, million tonnes oil equivalent).


The Big Boys
China   1888
India   412
US   358
Japan   120

Over 50 MTOE
Russian Federation   87
South Africa   85
South Korea   82
Germany   75
Indonesia   63

Over 20 MTOE
Poland   49
Australia   44
Taiwan   39
Turkey   38
Kazakhstan   36
Ukraine   32
Other Europe & Eurasia   23
Vietnam   21
Other Asia Pacific   21

Over 10 MTOE
Malaysia   20
Canada   19
Thailand   18
Czech Republic   17
Brazil   17
Philippines   14
United Kingdom   11
Italy   11

Dabblers
Spain   10
Netherlands   10
Other Africa   10
Mexico   10
France   8
Chile   8
China Hong Kong SAR   7
Bulgaria   6
Israel   6
Romania   5
Pakistan   5
Greece   5
Colombia   5
Finland   4
Other S. & Cent. America   3
Austria   3
Slovakia   3
Belgium   3
Portugal   3
Hungary   2
Ireland   2
Sweden   2
Denmark   2
Iran   2
United Arab Emirates   1
New Zealand   1
Argentina   1
Uzbekistan   1
Peru   1
Belarus   1
Norway   1
Bangladesh   1

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #812 on: July 17, 2017, 10:30:58 PM »
India plans on being off coal by 2027. 


No new coal capacity added after 2027, they will not be off coal for a long time after that.

"India does not plan on expanding its coal-fired capacity during 2017-22, according to the Draft National Electricity Plan proposed in December 2016 by the Central Electricity Authority"

Extremely deceiving headlines, endemic in many journalistic work in this area unfortunately.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/if-india-meets-renewables-target-no-more-coal-power-needed-after-2027/articleshow/58431773.cms

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #813 on: July 17, 2017, 10:47:00 PM »
India needs no extra coal power stations until at least 2027, according to the government’s latest draft National Electricity Plan.5

The plan, released by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) for public consultation, makes no room for further generation capacity beyond the 50GW coal fleet that is under construction.

The plan covers two five-year periods beginning in 2017 and 2022. The first period allows for the completion of those plants already being built. But after that, the CEA is planning for zero new thermal power generation before 2027.

This would put India on course to far exceed its pledges to the Paris agreement, said Siddharth Singh, associate fellow at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Delhi.

Narendra Modi’s government has promised to get 40% of  its electricity from non-fossil sources (renewable and nuclear) by 2030, with finance and technology sharing from wealthier countries.

The CEA proposal would mean the non-fossil share would increase to 53% as early as 2027, up from 31% today, without relying on international support.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/12/16/india-to-halt-building-new-coal-plants-in-2022/


In India, where solar photovoltaic prices dropped to a historic low this week, according to a separate analysis by another nonprofit group, Carbon Tracker. Renewable energy is growing so quickly that the nation is on track to be eight years early in reaching its 2030 goal: for clean energy to supply 40 percent of the nation's installed electricity. If the nation's new draft electricity plan is implemented, India will reach 57 percent renewable energy by 2027, the analysts said. India canceleed four coal-fired "ultra-mega" power projects last year, in the face of cheaper renewable energy and slowing of demand growth.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-paris-climate-goals-emissions-coal-renewable-energy



numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #814 on: July 17, 2017, 11:06:51 PM »
No new coal capacity after 2027 means Indian coal use will peak shortly, then stay at level of the second-most in the world, and perhaps decline at a snail's pace as old plants shut down and are replaced by new, more efficient plants.

They might exceed that goal and start shutting down plants early -- would be nice. A large fraction of their capacity is new plants they've recently built, so those will have a strong incentive to be on for a while, if only to repay the lenders.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #815 on: July 18, 2017, 12:14:50 AM »
No new coal capacity after 2027 means Indian coal use will peak shortly, then stay at level of the second-most in the world, and perhaps decline at a snail's pace as old plants shut down and are replaced by new, more efficient plants.

They might exceed that goal and start shutting down plants early -- would be nice. A large fraction of their capacity is new plants they've recently built, so those will have a strong incentive to be on for a while, if only to repay the lenders.

The plan covers two five-year periods beginning in 2017 and 2022. The first period allows for the completion of those plants already being built. But after that, the CEA is planning for zero new thermal power generation before 2027.

Plants now under construction will be completed by 2022.  That's peak coal consumption.  Or not.  The new plants are much more efficient and will allow the closure of inefficient plants.  India's coal use could peak before 2022 as efficient plants replace inefficient plants.

"(S)tay at level of the second-most in the world, and perhaps decline at a snail's pace" assumes that India slows their renewable programs after hitting peak coal.  One can't predict whether or not that will happen.  With the continued drop in the price of solar it's not clear why their solar program would slow.  And India has yet, as far as I can tell, started looking at wind resources above 100 meters.

All the wind maps and information I can find regarding India speaks of 80 meter hub heights.  As we've seen in the US at 140 meter hub heights there are vastly more wind resources with large areas where CFs of 60% should be achievable.   It's going to be interesting to see if India discovers a lot of onshore wind that they hadn't realized was waiting for the harvest.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #816 on: July 18, 2017, 03:09:31 AM »
With no real understanding of the situation, my thought is that any region with a binary climate, ie. one with monsoonal weather and an annual dry season might experience problems with any of the renewable electric generating sources. Hydro fluctuates between too much water and not enough, solar has long periods when it's shaded by thunder heads, followed by months of clear skies, and monthly wind patterns presumably would jump all over the place.
A very different situation than most of the rest of the world where temperature fluctuations make up the primary annual change.
Hydro might be the least effected, but the very advanced Indus Valley Civilization is generally considered to have fallen victim to the flooding, drying up, and constant relocation of their namesake river, rather than raids from outside.


Terry

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #817 on: July 18, 2017, 03:30:46 AM »
Bob: India can grow its share of renewables quite substantially for a long time without reducing its coal use. It's way far back in electricity per capita, and everyone is going to want air conditioning -- particularly as the climate warms up. Also likely they'll want a lot of desalination.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #818 on: July 18, 2017, 08:09:46 AM »
Bob: India can grow its share of renewables quite substantially for a long time without reducing its coal use. It's way far back in electricity per capita, and everyone is going to want air conditioning -- particularly as the climate warms up. Also likely they'll want a lot of desalination.

Then India is going to have to step up its RE programs.  Moving off coal will save them money and clean their air. 

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9100
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #819 on: July 24, 2017, 04:01:58 PM »
Even in fossil-fuel-loving Texas, with its dearth of environmental restrictions... coal isn't economical any more.

Coal power plant lays off dozens, shuts down year-round operations
ANDERSON, Tex. (KBTX) - About seventy employees of the coal-fired electrical plant at Gibbons Creek in Anderson are being laid off.

The Texas Municipal Power Agency is moving to seasonal operations, meaning it will only run during the hot summer months, June through September.

Both TMPA and Bryan Texas Utilities officials say, it's not economical to keep the plant running year round. With the [low price] of natural gas, and the advent of more efficient alternative enrgy sources, they say coal power is just too expensive.

The layoffs at TMPA will begin in October. About 20 employees will remain to run safety operations at the plant over the winter. Then, as June approaches, more will be added back to get the plant up to full operation for the summer.

Bryan, Garland, Denton, and Greenville make up the Texas Municipal Power Agency. The TMPA has been trying to sell this power plant for nearly a year now. BTU officials say, it's not going well, and there are no pending sales nor attractive offers.

The deadline to sell is September 2018. At that point, the TMPA board will have to decide whether to shut down operations at Gibbons Creek completely.

However, Gibbons Creek reservoir will remain open to the public for the time being.
http://www.kbtx.com/content/news/Coal-power-plant-lays-off-dozens-shut-down-winter-operations-435706613.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #820 on: July 25, 2017, 08:42:24 PM »
Robert Murray is the CEO of Murray Energy, America’s largest privately owned coal-mining company.

... at a conference on clean coal, Murray told the press, “Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It’s a pseudonym for ‘no coal.’ It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/25/clean-coal-political-myth-says-coal-company-owner/



Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9100
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #821 on: July 26, 2017, 09:37:35 PM »
U.S.:  Lignite coal is profitable mainly where the mines are co-located with a power plant, eliminating transport costs.  But wind is pressuring even those costs.

Lignite weathers 'war on coal' storm, but pressure from wind is brewing
One of the lowest-quality forms of coal has weathered the past eight years remarkably well despite massive challenges that have affected the industry.

Data compiled by S&P Global Market Intelligence shows that lignite mines across the U.S. produced more than 71.5 million tons of coal in 2016, only a slight decrease from the roughly 72.5 million tons produced in 2009. Over this period, lignite's share of overall U.S. coal production has grown from 6% to 9%.

However, storm clouds may be on the horizon for lignite production in North Dakota, one of the largest producers in the U.S. Lignite coal mined in the state is almost entirely used in mine-to-mouth power plants also in the state, where wind power is gaining prominence. The state installed 603 MW of new wind energy in 2016 alone, giving it a total of 2,846 MW as of July 21, according to a fact sheet published by the American Wind Energy Association. The association said that another 150 MW of wind capacity is under development in North Dakota, while 915 MW is in advanced development. ...
https://www.snl.com/web/client?auth=inherit&sf100684828=1#news/article?id=41381044&cdid=A-41381044-13107
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #822 on: August 03, 2017, 12:12:31 AM »
In a dramatic U-turn, Sri Lanka’s energy regulator has approved a new long-term electricity supply plan that rejects the construction of any new coal plants between now and 2037

After years of historic coal growth, India has been witnessing a dramatic slowdown in consumption since 2015, according to an Energydesk analysis of official data.

Over the past two years the country’s coal use has increased by an average of just 2.2%, a sharp fall from the previous 10 years when annual growth average was over 6%.

These figures would represent record-low growth for this century were it not for 2011, when coal consumption rose by less than 1% — though growth topped 7% the following year.

It’s too early to say whether this latest trend could mark a turning point in India’s energy mix, or if it’s simply a blip brought about by sluggish economic growth, but there are indications it could be the start of a longer decline.

India, the world’s third largest CO2 emitter, is widely seen as the next big coal frontier, with the Modi government planning hundreds of new coal power plants in a move that could singlehandedly jeopardise global climate change targets.

But the coal industry has encountered well-documented troubles in India recently, with power plants running just over half the time due to water shortages and an over capacity crunch while the country continues to grapple with some of the world’s worst air pollution.

Renewables are also increasingly cost-competitive, and last year – for the first time ever – they accounted for more of India’s new power capacity than coal did.

New environmental standards under the European Union’s (EU) Industrial Emissions Directive will force all plants over 50 MW in capacity to comply by 2021 with industry-wide “Best Available Techniques” for the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, mercury and particulate matter. The European Environment Bureau estimates up to 82 per cent of current EU coal capacity fails to meet the standards and faces upgrades which could cost up to US$18.2 billion. It is estimated the new standards will prevent about 20,000 premature deaths a year.

Most likely a number of plants will cost so much to upgrade that they will simply be closed.  That is what is happening in the US.

Wind to take chunk out of US coal demand: Hans Daniels, the CEO of prominent US consultancy Doyle Trading Consultants, told an American Coal Council conference call that the rapid growth in US wind power capacity “has the potential to take away 125 million tons [113 million tonnes] of coal burn.” Daniels said despite the retirement of many old coal plants, many more are vulnerable to slowing electricity demand and expanding renewables and gas generation.

Solar price fall adds extra stress to stranded coal plants: The major Chinese power company, CLP, has noted the rapid price falls in India’s reverse solar auctions is increasing the pressure on stranded coal plants. CLP India’s Managing Director, Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, said state-based distribution utilities only want to buy power from currently stranded coal plants if they could match the latest solar auction price. Mishra predicted existing thermal power plants will come under “severe pressure” when renewables with battery storage becomes competitive.

Some of the news from this week's CoalWire.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9100
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #823 on: August 03, 2017, 06:27:01 PM »
'Fossil fuels are dead,' says CSX railroad chief: no more new trains for coal, ever
Transportation will slowly electrify over the coming decades, while coal's share of electric power generation will wane worldwide.

That's the conclusion of numerous studies and analyses in the automotive, energy, and utility industries.

Now that conclusion has been underscored by the CEO of a company that has profited greatly from coal: the railroad CSX, an amalgamation of lines that includes one founded to haul bituminous coal from the seams of Appalachia.

"Coal has no future," said Hunter Harrison, the chief executive of CSX, in a presentation to industry analysts last week.

And the CEO went further, according to an account in the British Financial Times (subscription required).

"Fossil fuels are dead," he elaborated, following his statement that CSX would buy no more coal-hauling locomotives or other equipment.

The death sentence, he added, is "a long-term view. It’s not going to happen overnight. It’s not going to be in two or three years."

But in Harrison's view, coal is "going away" and will represent a declining portion of the railroad's business into the future.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111824_fossil-fuels-are-dead-says-csx-railroad-chief-no-more-new-trains-for-coal-ever
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #824 on: August 09, 2017, 11:01:00 PM »
Coal dust from mines, power plants and ash dams belonging to the Indian government-owned NLC – formerly known as Neyveli Lignite Corporation – is causing major health problems for the villagers living around the company’s operations in Tamil Nadu, writes Sehr Raheja from the Healthy Energy Initiative in The News Minute.

A federal judge has directed the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to excavate coal ash from leaking unlined pits at its Gallatin power plant in Tennessee and relocate it to a lined pit. The court found the TVA’s coal ash pits, which were built in a porous limestone area, had been polluting the Cumberland River since at least the 1970’s and were in breach of the Clean Water Act. The Cumberland River comprises a major drinking water source for much of the cities of Gallatin and Nashville. The TVA had argued capping the coal ash dams in place would end the pollution but the court rejected this stating it “would amount to nothing less than rolling the dice.” (US News & World Today, Southern Environmental Law Center)

New coal burning by-product found but health impact unknown: Scientists studying pollution from the 2014 Dan River coal ash dam disaster discovered titanium sub-oxides are produced as a by-product of burning coal which contains titanium dioxide. They concluded the titanium sub-oxide particles could be potentially toxic to both aquatic organisms and humans as they “seem to be biologically active” without being exposed to light. In particular, they flagged the potential toxic effects in human lungs. (Bloomberg, Nature Communications)

Study reveals extreme pollution from coal in Chhattisgarh: A study has revealed extreme pollution levels after testing soil, water and air samples from five locations near coal mines, power stations and coal ash dams near the town of Tamnar in Chhattisgarh state. The study found levels were far higher than Canadian standards which are used in India as “guideline values”. In one instance cadmium levels 169 times higher than the recommended level were detected. The study author has called for a moratorium on new mines and power stations and the comprehensive monitoring of current emissions. (Scroll)

Whitehaven Coal documents reveal pollution cover-up: Whitehaven Coal filings to the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority reveal conditions of the company's Environment Protection Licences were breached at all four of its mines. Breaches included dust emissions almost double the national standard, and mining more than 136,000 tonnes of coal than permitted, for which the company was fined just US$12,000 ($A15,000). (ABC News, Environmental Justice Australia)

CoalWire

Non-CO2 pollution is helping to kill coal.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 614
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #825 on: August 16, 2017, 03:04:27 PM »
Coal Plants Might Be Even More Toxic Than We Thought
An environmental disaster in North Carolina reveals that a rare, potentially dangerous compound is abundant in burned coal.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/coal-plants-might-be-even-more-toxic-than-we-thought
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #826 on: August 23, 2017, 04:19:00 AM »
Coal Making A Comeback in 2017 and 2018? Global CO2 Emissions To Go Up in 2017?

Renewables are increasing fast in China, but unable to completely meet the increase needs for electricity. Coal is filling the gap, up 5% y-o-y.

"The share of electricity produced by solar and wind power continued to grow significantly. However, their combined output was “not enough to meet the higher level of growth in power demand, leaving coal power to fill the gap,”"

https://agreenerlifeagreenerworld.net/2017/08/18/is-coal-making-a-comeback-in-china/

In the US the EIA forecast that coal usage will increase in both 2017 and 2018.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.cfm

India's rate of increase in coal use is decelerating, but coal use is still increasing

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/08/02/india-coal-growth-slows/



TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #827 on: August 23, 2017, 12:03:27 PM »
I'd mentioned the shipment of 700,000 tons of coal from the US to Ukraine on another thread. Weaning the Ukraine away from evil Russian NG by supplying mountains of good American coal.


Terry

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #828 on: August 23, 2017, 10:35:21 PM »
Trump Administration rejects coal plant protection plan: The US Department of Energy, with the support of President Donald Trump, has rejected a proposal from Murray Energy to use the emergency provisions in the U.S. Federal Power Act to protect the merchant coal plants of the Ohio-based utility FirstEnergy Solutions. Murray Energy CEO, Bob Murray, wrote that he was “desperate” for the Trump Administration to intervene as the likely bankruptcy of one of his major customers would in turn force the “immediate bankruptcy” of his coal company. Murray was a major donor to the Trump campaign.

Is Trump's wall about finished?  He was going to start building on day one in office.

"Trump Administration axes coal pollution study: A US$1 million National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine study on the public health risks of mountaintop coal mining has been halted just prior to public hearings commencing. The Interior Department directed all work on the project cease pending a budget review. The study was initiated late in 2016 by the Obama Administration after academic studies identified increased risks of cancer and other illnesses among residents living near mountaintop mining sites in West Virginia and Kentucky. (Charleston Gazette-Mail, SNL)"

Oh, he's killing coal science.  Kill knowledge while doing nothing to help coal.  I guess that makes sense in his little twisted mind.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15e10ca45c347ed4


Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9100
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #829 on: August 24, 2017, 12:46:34 AM »
More on the possible Murray Energy bankruptcy with the government's refusal to intervene in FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. looming bankruptcy.  A presidential slap in the face to Robert Murray.

A coal country dispute over an alleged Trump promise unmet
The decision is a rare example of friction between the beleaguered coal industry and the president who has vowed to save it. It also highlights a pattern emerging as the administration crafts policy: The president's bold declarations — both public and private — are not always carried through to implementation.

President Donald Trump committed to the measure in private conversations with executives from Murray Energy Corp. and FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. after public events in July and early August, according to letters to the White House from Murray Energy and its chief executive, Robert Murray. In the letters, obtained by The Associated Press, Murray said failing to act would cause thousands of coal miners to be laid off and put the pensions of thousands more in jeopardy. One of Murray's letters said Trump agreed and told Energy Secretary Rick Perry, "I want this done" in Murray's presence.
...
Murray told the White House that his key customer, Ohio-based electricity company FirstEnergy Solutions, was at immediate risk of bankruptcy. Without FirstEnergy's plants burning his coal, Murray said his own company would be forced into "immediate bankruptcy," triggering the layoffs of more than 6,500 miners. FirstEnergy acknowledged to the AP that bankruptcy of its power-generation business was a possibility.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-rebuffs-coal-industry-ceo-claims-promise-broken-49352445
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #830 on: August 24, 2017, 01:01:08 AM »
The president's bold declarations — both public and private — are not always carried through to implementation.

The president's bold declarations — both public and private — are not always rarely, if ever, carried through to implementation.

Fixed it for you....

miki

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #831 on: August 24, 2017, 03:52:44 AM »
Future energy, present jobs. And no, it's not the US.

https://robertscribbler.com/2017/08/23/china-built-24-billion-watts-of-solar-in-just-two-months-as-trump-attacks-renewables-and-defends-coal/

China Builds 24 Billion Watts of Solar in Just Two Months as Trump Attacks Renewables and Defends Coal.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #832 on: August 24, 2017, 05:27:37 AM »
I'd mentioned the shipment of 700,000 tons of coal from the US to Ukraine on another thread. Weaning the Ukraine away from evil Russian NG by supplying mountains of good American coal.
Terry

Its actually weaning West Ukraine off the much cheaper coal available in the Donbass (East Ukraine).

Adam Ash

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
Re: Coal
« Reply #833 on: August 24, 2017, 12:27:45 PM »
I'd mentioned the shipment of 700,000 tons of coal from the US to Ukraine on another thread. Weaning the Ukraine away from evil Russian NG by supplying mountains of good American coal.
Terry

Its actually weaning West Ukraine off the much cheaper coal available in the Donbass (East Ukraine).

Well its a bright idea to make money for someone isn't it. Get Ukraine to boycot its own coal supply, and replace that coal with more expensive stuff from halfway around the planet. Ask Cui bono. Follow the money to find the clots who thought of it!

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 614
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #834 on: August 24, 2017, 01:50:07 PM »
I'd mentioned the shipment of 700,000 tons of coal from the US to Ukraine on another thread. Weaning the Ukraine away from evil Russian NG by supplying mountains of good American coal.
Terry

Its actually weaning West Ukraine off the much cheaper coal available in the Donbass (East Ukraine).

Well its a bright idea to make money for someone isn't it. Get Ukraine to boycot its own coal supply, and replace that coal with more expensive stuff from halfway around the planet. Ask Cui bono. Follow the money to find the clots who thought of it!

Is it possible for normal trade to happen between West Ukraine and Donbass (East Ukraine) given the recent (and continuing?) little local difficulties?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #835 on: August 24, 2017, 07:02:26 PM »
I'd mentioned the shipment of 700,000 tons of coal from the US to Ukraine on another thread. Weaning the Ukraine away from evil Russian NG by supplying mountains of good American coal.
Terry

Its actually weaning West Ukraine off the much cheaper coal available in the Donbass (East Ukraine).

Well its a bright idea to make money for someone isn't it. Get Ukraine to boycot its own coal supply, and replace that coal with more expensive stuff from halfway around the planet. Ask Cui bono. Follow the money to find the clots who thought of it!

Is it possible for normal trade to happen between West Ukraine and Donbass (East Ukraine) given the recent (and continuing?) little local difficulties?

West Ukraine initiated a trade blockade of East Ukraine in early 2017, before that there was a free flow of goods. Seems they lost control of some of their military groups, which initiated a non-sanctioned blockade which then turned into an official one. The blockade is a direct contravention of the Minsk agreements.

The overall impact is very negative for West Ukraine, and the Donbas will become more integrated with Russia through increased trade. Ukraine could buy cheap coal from Russia, but they would rather cut off their nose ....

Donbas Trade Blockade Poses a Challenge to Ukrainian Authorities

"The trade blockade will result in significant losses to the Ukrainian economy. According to estimates by the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), the pace of economic growth in 2017 will likely slow by 1.3 percentage points to 1.9%. Because of mines in the contested regions of the country, Ukraine’s metallurgy sector, which amounts to 25% of the country’s exports, will be hardest hit at first. A fall in export revenues will deepen the current account deficit and negatively affect currency reserves (NBU already has revised down its forecast in those areas). The hryvnia exchange rate may also further weaken. Consequently, Ukraine’s government will have to carry on with reforms necessary to obtain the next tranches of an IMF credit.

The blockade also poses a challenge to Ukraine’s energy security. Every year, Ukraine uses over 9 million tonnes of anthracite coal (a third of its total coal usage), which is extracted in the occupied territories. So, until just the end of 2017, it will need to import 5 million tonnes from another source since, on the day the blockade was authorised, it had only enough for the next 28-60 days. Ukraine Energy and Coal Industry Minister Ihor Nasalyk excluded the possibility the country would import anthracite from Russia, although Ukraine bought some from it at the beginning of 2017. Instead, the additional coal will likely be bought from South Africa and the United States. The first delivery, though, needs to take place in May, so the state of emergency in the energy sector introduced by the Ukrainian government in mid-February will remain for a few more weeks."

https://www.pism.pl/publications/bulletin/no-38-978

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #836 on: August 25, 2017, 07:55:42 AM »
The wisdom of our leader...

“We’ve ended the war on beautiful, clean coal, and it’s just been announced that a second, brand-new coal mine,” said Trump, “where they’re going to take out clean coal — meaning, they’re taking out coal. They’re going to clean it — is opening in the state of Pennsylvania, the second one.”

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #837 on: August 25, 2017, 07:15:24 PM »
So if I wash a piece of coal under my tap its clean coal????

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #838 on: August 25, 2017, 10:53:24 PM »
So if I wash a piece of coal under my tap its clean coal? ???
Nah, you'll just dirty your tap. 8)
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #839 on: August 25, 2017, 11:20:43 PM »
Apparently someone cleaned a hunk of coal and coated it with a clear sealer.  It was then passed around a legislative body so that elected officials could see how clean coal is.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1945
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #840 on: August 25, 2017, 11:54:38 PM »
Apparently someone cleaned a hunk of coal and coated it with a clear sealer.  It was then passed around a legislative body so that elected officials could see how clean coal is.
But... but... That constitutes fraud! Our officials would never fall for such a cheap deception, would they?
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #841 on: August 31, 2017, 06:50:40 PM »

China -

The Ministry of Environmental Protection has unveiled a “battle plan” to cut PM 2.5 air pollution between October 2017 and March 2018 by 15 per cent compared to the year before. The new target will apply to Beijing and 27 other cities in Hebei, Shanxi, Shandong and Henan provinces. Achieving the target will require cuts to steel production, coal power generation and pollution control upgrades on many of the coal plants intending to operate during winter.



Germany -

An estimated 6000 people participated in protests against RWE’s three huge lignite mines and four power plants near Cologne. One group of protestors occupied the rail line used to supply lignite to the Neurath plant. Another group formed a 3000-strong circle around the Hambach mine, which is expanding into a forested area. Consideration of a coal phase-out has been deferred by the centre-right Merkel Government until after the September 24 general election.


A couple items from this week's CoalWire

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #842 on: August 31, 2017, 10:13:22 PM »

China -

The Ministry of Environmental Protection has unveiled a “battle plan” to cut PM 2.5 air pollution between October 2017 and March 2018 by 15 per cent compared to the year before. The new target will apply to Beijing and 27 other cities in Hebei, Shanxi, Shandong and Henan provinces. Achieving the target will require cuts to steel production, coal power generation and pollution control upgrades on many of the coal plants intending to operate during winter.

Accelerated localized global warming due to aerosol reduction! Could also have some important impacts on weather patterns farther away. Will be an interesting experiment to watch. Same thing happened in NA and Europe with the passage of clean air legislation in the 1980/1990's.


Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #843 on: August 31, 2017, 10:21:34 PM »

China -

The Ministry of Environmental Protection has unveiled a “battle plan” to cut PM 2.5 air pollution between October 2017 and March 2018 by 15 per cent compared to the year before. The new target will apply to Beijing and 27 other cities in Hebei, Shanxi, Shandong and Henan provinces. Achieving the target will require cuts to steel production, coal power generation and pollution control upgrades on many of the coal plants intending to operate during winter.

Accelerated localized global warming due to aerosol reduction! Could also have some important impacts on weather patterns farther away. Will be an interesting experiment to watch. Same thing happened in NA and Europe with the passage of clean air legislation in the 1980/1990's.

Less black carbon floating in the atmosphere turning sunlight into heat.  Less settling on snow and ice, lowering albedo and hastening melting.

Increased output from solar panels as more sunshine reaches them.  Thus allowing more reduction in FF use.

Improved health and fewer early deaths for citizens.

Cutting coal use is a mixed blessing.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #844 on: September 01, 2017, 08:44:19 PM »
India coal-fired power station sulfur scrubbers in place by 2023

"The nation’s power industry regulator says a countrywide roll out of equipment to lower sulfur dioxide emissions won’t be completed until 2023. And that’s only one of the the four types of pollutants plants must cap. The Central Electricity Authority has asked for the environment ministry’s December deadline to be extended, according to Ravindra Kumar Verma, chairman of the CEA, which is run by India’s power ministry."

Both India and China driving to cut SO2 emissions, plus the global shipping industry. We could have quite a big drop in SO2 emissions by the mid 2020's.Note that this is SO2 being scrubbed in India, not any other pollutants.

Reduced air pollution fatalities, but a jump in temperatures concentrated in India and China.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #845 on: September 01, 2017, 10:17:19 PM »
India coal-fired power station sulfur scrubbers in place by 2023

"The nation’s power industry regulator says a countrywide roll out of equipment to lower sulfur dioxide emissions won’t be completed until 2023. And that’s only one of the the four types of pollutants plants must cap. The Central Electricity Authority has asked for the environment ministry’s December deadline to be extended, according to Ravindra Kumar Verma, chairman of the CEA, which is run by India’s power ministry."

Both India and China driving to cut SO2 emissions, plus the global shipping industry. We could have quite a big drop in SO2 emissions by the mid 2020's.Note that this is SO2 being scrubbed in India, not any other pollutants.

Reduced air pollution fatalities, but a jump in temperatures concentrated in India and China.

Are you arguing that India and China should keep burning coal?  (I don't think that's the case but it wouldn't be hard to read that into your recent posts.)

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #846 on: September 02, 2017, 01:28:30 AM »
Are you arguing that India and China should keep burning coal?  (I don't think that's the case but it wouldn't be hard to read that into your recent posts.)

The scrubbers allow the coal to continue to be burnt, they simply scrub the exhaust fumes of SO2 while allowing the CO2 to get into the atmosphere. The same effect for low-sulphur bunker fuel for ships.

We need policies that properly integrate local pollution and climate change considerations, otherwise we risk exacerbating climate change in the short term when we may be close to dangerous GMST levels. We should be shutting down coal plants and replacing them with renewables/efficiency, not putting scrubbers on them or replacing them with natural gas plants. Places like India need help from the richer countries to help them do this as fast as possible. The IMO should be putting controls on CO2 and other GHGs, not just cutting SO.

Also, we need to accept the scale of the challenge taking into account CO2e and the aerosol cooling offset. That requires a much faster grow out of renewables, and a drive for efficiency, given the need to increase the levels of electrification.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #847 on: September 02, 2017, 01:36:20 AM »
Cross posted from the United States thread...

Market Dynamics Are Complicated as Coal Battles Natural Gas

The move from coal to gas could be reversed if natural gas prices go up. The previous move from coal to gas resulted in the closing of the most inefficient coal plants, leaving more efficient ones that can compete better with gas. Such plants still have a lot of spare capacity, operating at about 50% - could easily increase output by 40% and still be only at 70% utilization. The price move required to drive a move back to coal may be as little as $0.75/mmbtu.

The see-saw from coal to gas may last for a while until renewables can get enough capacity in place to kill them both off.

"Coal- and natural gas-fired resources are continually competing against one another in day-ahead and real-time wholesale power markets. While unit operational constraints have some effect, these economic tradeoffs primarily distill down to relative fuel costs and operating efficiencies of these respective resources. So, holding relative operating efficiencies constant, as relative coal and natural gas fuel prices change, plant operations will shift."

"During 2016 the Henry Hub natural gas price averaged about $2.50/MMBtu, low enough that a natural gas-fired combined cycle unit would have been cheaper to operate than almost all U.S. coal-fired units. However, an increase in the delivered gas price of $0.75/MMBtu would make the natural gas-fired combined cycle plant costlier and reverse this short-term decision-making.

This relatively small band of potential natural gas price movement is important if we remember that the system has already “wrung out” less-efficient coal-fired resources due to combined regulatory and commodity pricing pressures. The remaining coal-fired fleet can operate at capacity factors of 70% and higher, as it did in 2008. However, as of 2015, the bulk of the U.S. coal-fired fleet was operating at about a 50% capacity factor. Therefore, assuming relatively small movements in natural gas commodity pricing, there is the potential for these plants to burn about 40% to 50% more coal than they did in 2015."

http://www.powermag.com/market-dynamics-are-complicated-as-coal-battles-natural-gas/?printmode=1.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #848 on: September 02, 2017, 04:16:28 AM »
rboyd: installing scrubbers increases the cost of the coal plant, which helps level the playing field.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Re: Coal
« Reply #849 on: September 02, 2017, 05:47:23 AM »
rboyd: installing scrubbers increases the cost of the coal plant, which helps level the playing field.

True, but in the short term it will increase the level of radiative forcing - unless the coal plant burns less coal.