[dolanbaker]

China to shut down two coal mines EVERY DAY

China's appetite for coal is insatiable.

Of the 2.9 billion tonnes of global coal demand growth since 2000, China accounted for 2.3 billion tonnes or 82%.

China now accounts for 47% of global coal consumption – almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined.

But even as the country burns coal at an astonishing rate, it is working hard at cleaning up the industry.

The Chinese government will close at least 2,000 small coal mines over the next two years, the State Council said in a statement on Saturday.

China has some 12,000 operating coal mines and the closures will target coal mines with annual output of less than 90,000 tonnes and those with substandard quality coal or have bad safety records.

The new rules also tighten approval rules for new coal mines and introduces a ban on construction of coal mines with annual capacity of less than 300,000 tonnes. Mines with annual capacity of less than 900,000 tonne with low-quality coal and safety problems will also not be approved.

The latest initiative follows rapid progress in consolidating the industry in 2012.

mining

Sounds just like what happened in the UK in the mid 1980s, all the smaller mines were closed down, but by then there were very few large (producing) mines left.

[ROCKMAN]

DB - I wonder if the closures are being pushed by the bigger operators. I recently discovered that the smaller Chinese refiners were at a huge disadvantage to the very big national companies as a result of gov't policies deigned to do just that. The changes might be more inspired by politics than ecology.

[Graeme]

Demand for coal will be driven by China and India

For most of the past decade, one of the most widely held assumptions in the energy world has been that demand for coal will keep on rising, fuelled by China’s soaring thirst for power as its population leaves the countryside for the cities in large numbers.


Yet more recently there have been signs that King Coal’s rise may not be as relentless as predicted. While there is a general consensus that demand for thermal coal, used in power generation, is slowing, there are a growing number of market watchers who suggest that demand may peak as early as the next decade.

They point to several factors, from a slowdown in China’s economy to competition from shale gas and stringent environmental regulations that discourage investment in coal-fired power plants. Only real progress in carbon capture and storage technology will secure the long-term future for coal, they say.

“The window for profitable investment in coal mining is closing,” said analysts from Goldman Sachs in July.

FT

[sparky]

.
Thermal coal is only one use , another is making steel ,
The trade in coking coal is following the Steel making trend , up

[Graeme]

That's not true. Thermal and coking coal have the same geologic origin, and the demand for steel is falling.

[Graeme]

U.S. coal-fired power plants scheduled to shut

U.S. power companies have shut or converted about 16,000
megawatts (MW) of coal-fired power plants since 2009 and have plans to shut or convert more than 38,000 MW over the next 10 years or so.

Cheap natural gas prices and strict environmental rules have made coal the
more expensive option in some areas.

Eventually, the switch away from coal may shut 60,000 MW to 100,000 MW of
power generation across the country, according to industry estimates.

In 2012, low gas prices from record shale production depressed power prices
to at least 10-year lows, making it uneconomic for generators to install new
environmental controls on their oldest and smallest coal plants.

Those controls are needed to keep the units compliant with federal
environmental rules proposed since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.

There are about 318 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power plants in the United
States, about 30 percent of the nation's 1,051 GW generation fleet.

The share of generation fueled by coal in 2013 is expected to rise to 39.7
percent from 37.4 percent in 2012, then rise to 40.5 percent in 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) short-term energy outlook
in October.

Coal produced over half of the nation's power as recently as 2003.

EIA projected the share of generation fueled by gas in 2013 will average
about 27.4 percent, down from 2012's average of 30.4 percent on forecasts that higher gas prices will prompt generators to burn more coal.

In 2014, EIA projects gas used in power generation will slip to 26.6
percent.

The following lists the U.S. coal plants expected to shut over the next
decade or so.

reuters

With clean energy already beating dirty coal, the Environmental Protection Agency has announced it will, finally, begin regulating climate pollution from power plants. (Electric power plants emit about 2.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year, or roughly 40 percent of the nation's total emissions.) The agency rolled out the standard for new plants last month: the rule, like the laws in California, Washington, and Oregon, doesn’t pick fuels, it simply requires emissions limits using current technology, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS). EPA expects to release a rule for existing plants in June of 2014. NRDC’s analysis suggests that significant reductions can be made at low cost through increased cost-effective investment in clean energy: in many states, that is already underway.

nrdc

[Graeme]

Uncertainty and Investment: The Real Danger to the Coal Industry

Supporters of coal have called the planned new rules from the EPA on CO2 emissions from coal-fired power generation a war on coal and have pledged to fight the rule-making process. It is true that there will almost certainly not be a new coal-fired electric generating station built in the U.S. for at least the next several years, but the hiatus won’t be caused by any specific rule. The real danger to the coal industry is uncertainty.

Investing in the electric business is about long stable returns. Electricity assets last a long time, are expensive to install, and are typically expected to provide long-term stable, if modest, returns. Since returns are spread over a long period and are stable, with limited upside (10x returns on energy infrastructure don’t exist) investors and lenders require a quantifiable and manageable amount of risk. Uncertainty in any form makes the quantification and valuation of risk in an electric generation investment much more difficult (or impossible) and severely limits investor interest.


Irrespective of the timing and structure of the final emission rules, the power sector in the U.S. will be permanently altered. It will not be the actual rules, rather this period of uncertainty as the legal and political battles play out, that will make that declining share for coal steeper and permanent. The final version of the rules will likely be of little relevance, as the uncertainty of the rule-making process will immediately frighten away potential investors. This loss of outside capital for large expensive projects will effectively cease all new development of thermal coal generation and will also significantly hamper upgrade investments at existing facilities forcing an acceleration of retirements.

theenergycollective

[John_A]

Coal falls out of favor, and coal companies get into the natural gas business.

PITTSBURGH—Consol Energy Inc. has agreed to sell five Appalachian coal mines to Murray Energy Corp., in a deal valued at $3.5 billion, its biggest step yet in shifting the focus of its business toward natural gas and away from coal.

Consol executives are restructuring their 150-year-old firm to take advantage of the U.S. gas boom, and to steer investment away from coal destined for U.S. coal-fired power plants, which are under pressure to reduce emissions of pollutants and to compete with inexpensive gas.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12085650 ... n-gas.html

Obviously they must have missed Richard Heinberg's latest anti-natural gas rant...amazing that they would bet billions of dollars against him. They must know something he doesn't! About resources. Business. Economics. Supply. Demand. Cost. Prices. Math. History. Gas well production. Coal. Energy.

[Graeme]

Obama Takes 'War on Coal' Global

The Obama administration, after wielding its executive muscle to fight climate-change pollution from U.S. coal plants, is now using its influence to block new coal-fired power plants worldwide.

In September, the Environmental Protection Agency announced draft rules to slash pollution from new U.S. coal-fired power plants—a move that, once finalized, is expected to freeze construction of U.S. coal plants, the chief contributor to carbon pollution. On Tuesday, the Treasury Department detailed its plans for ending U.S. support for public financing of construction of new coal-fired power plants abroad, except under very limited circumstances.

The move comes as one of a series aggressive executive-branch actions being pushed by President Obama as he seeks to fight climate change without help from Congress. For years, Republicans and the coal industry have dubbed EPA regulation a "War on Coal"—and thousands of protesters rallied at the Capitol waving "War on Coal" signs Tuesday just as a senior Treasury Department official was briefing reporters on the administration's plan to take the fight against coal from Washington to the world.

The official made clear that it's the Obama administration's intent to use every tool in its arsenal—both executive authority and its global influence—to push energy companies and investors away from coal and toward more climate-friendly fuel sources, including solar and wind, but also natural gas, which emits about half the carbon pollution of coal.

The U.S., which holds more votes than any other country in approving projects financed by the World Bank and other global financial institutions, can consistently vote against public financing for any new coal project. While the U.S. alone can't veto the projects, with support from a few like-minded governments, it can. And the World Bank, which has also recently reoriented itself toward fighting climate change globally, is expected to be a willing partner in helping the U.S. achieve that goal.

nationaljournal

[John_A]

US Decides That THEY should have our coal...conspiracy to pollute other countries while US corners the market on lower CO2 emissions using clean burning, abundant and domestically available natural gas?

Coal-terminal operator Dominion Terminal Associates, owned by three big mining firms and one of the biggest coal exporters in the U.S., stands at the center of a surprising boom.

For all the troubles of the U.S. coal industry at home, its business with the rest of the world is brisk. Last year, the U.S. set a record for coal exports, with the final tally estimated to top 120 million tons, double what it exported as recently as 2009.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0563979920

[sparky]

.
@ Graeme , thanks for the link ,
I always though the coking/thermal line was associated with hardness

On the Chinese mines closures , very misleading
there is a lot of pits at the village level ,
their productivity and safety is atrocious ,they can't even afford the bribes to stay open

[Graeme]

Shanghai to ban coal by 2017

China's largest city and one of the world's biggest, Shanghai, is set to ban coal burning in just four years, according to a new Clean Air Action Plan. The city-wide ban on coal burning is one effort among many to get Shanghai's infamous smog under control as well as another sign that China has begun to take its pollution problems more seriously.

The ban will require the city's 2,500 coal boilers and 300 industrial furnaces to either shut down or shift to cleaner energy by 2015.

mongabay

[sparky]

.
They could simply use good quality imported coal , their domestic coal is full of sulfur .
scrubbers can be fitted , in four years they can clean up by more than 60% easy

[Graeme]

Peak Coal: Will the US Run Out of Coal in 20 Years or 200 Years?

U.S. coal production has peaked, and the miscalculations that have led to estimates of a 200-year supply could create a serious electricity deficit for the nation, according to a new report from advocacy group Clean Energy Action.

“The belief that the U.S. has a ‘200-year’ supply of coal is based on faulty reporting by the EIA,” concludes the report, Warning: Faulty Reporting of U.S. Coal Reserves. “Most U.S. coal is buried too deeply to be mined at a profit and should not be categorized as reserves, but rather as ‘resources.’”

“The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s estimate of the nation’s coal is ‘a faulty fuel gauge’ because the U.S. is rapidly approaching the end of economically recoverable coal,” explained report co-author Leslie Glustrom of Clean Energy Action. “We’re acting like we have a full tank. No one knows exactly when empty will come, but we should be prepared.”

The economic viability of the U.S. coal resource is compromised because “it is buried too deeply and costs too much to mine it,” Glustrom said. Peabody Coal CEO Greg Boyce’s Q3 2013 earnings report call remarks about reduced capital expenditures in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin seem to confirm that coal is becoming “too expensive to mine,” according to Glustrom.

“Nationally, coal production appears to have peaked in 2008 at 1.171 billion tons,” the report states. “U.S. coal production in 2012 had fallen by about 155 million tons to 1.016 billion tons.”

EIA data puts production for the first half of 2013 at 488 million tons, Glustrom added. “We are not even on track to get to a billion tons. That would be back to 1993 levels.”

theenergycollective

[Graeme]

Four Proposed Coal Export Terminals Have Now Failed This Year Due To ‘Diminished’ Market

As coal continues to decline in the U.S., plans to export it to overseas markets are going south. On Tuesday, the Port of Corpus Christi announced that it was ditching plans to build a major coal export terminal there after two years of development, citing a “seriously diminished” international interest in coal. Ambre Energy North America Inc., who entered into the $2.5 million lease in 2011, will pay a one-time fee to cancel it, according to a meeting agenda released today by the Port.
From the agenda:
Over the past four years interest in exporting coal at the Bulk Terminal has gone from no interest to a high of 40 million tons per year and then back to seriously diminished interest. Currently the export coal market has shrunk substantially. The domestic market has seen older coal fired power plants closed with some being refitted to burn natural gas. Wind and solar power driven by regulatory incentives have created additional pressure on coal. The enthusiasm for export terminals among coal producers has diminished.
The announcement is a major victory for environmentalists, and marks the fourth time in 2013 that a proposed coal export terminal has been canceled due to a deteriorating market. Of the proposed terminals still on the table, local opposition to the three remaining projects in the Pacific Northwest continues, as well as to a proposed terminal in Louisiana slated for construction next to a wetlands restoration project.
“This is the third coal export project that has been canceled in this region,” Hal Suter, chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a lifelong Corpus Christi resident told Public Citizen. “Ambre’s failure is a huge relief for Corpus Christi residents and it’s a clear sign of an accelerating shift away from coal. Texans don’t want coal, Gulf states don’t want coal and international markets don’t want it either.”
Indeed, the decision to scrap the project seems almost like deja-vu for the Corpus Christi port. In August, the port announced that it would stop progress on another coal export terminal proposed by New Elk Coal Company, again citing “a decline in the coal market” and “financial difficulties.”
In the Pacific Northwest, energy company Kinder Morgan announced in May that it was dropping plans to build its Port Westward Project near Port of St. Helens, Oregon. That project would have transported 15-30 million tons of coal from Wyoming and Montana to Asian nations. Another proposed terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon, was also shelved in April after its last financial backer dropped out.
While it seems that the companies have largely attributed their decisions to logistics of the site and the coal market, community opposition to many of the proposed terminals environmental groups has played a large role across the country. Before announcing its ultimate closure, New Elk’s terminal was put on hold after grassroots activists rallied against it and Sierra Club released a report in early 2012 called The Port of Corpus Christi Gambles on Coal Export Development.

thinkprogress

More Than 350 U.S. Coal Plants Are No Longer Cost-Effective

Aging and inefficient plants, competing energy sources, and the looming reality of climate change are all catching up with the coal industry.
According to a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, as much as 17 percent of coal-fired power in the United States is already uncompetitive, just compared to natural gas and using mid-range estimates. The report looked at the operating costs for current coal plants, which are older and have largely paid off their capital costs, up against natural gas plants that have also paid off their capital costs. That yielded 353 coal plants that are economically uncompetitive, a total of 59 gigawatts of total electricity-generating capacity. The operating costs in that calculation included all the necessary upgrades to bring the coal plants in line with pollution and carbon dioxide regulations, but even before considering those changes, 23.4 gigawatts worth of coal power is more expensive to operate than natural gas.

thinkprogress