[dashster]

.
After a few horrible incidence of smog in China big cities

A few? It seems that smog regularly hits Beijing like a fog. My brother was there and he said he was driving down a road and suddenly a skyscraper would appear out of nowhere as it had been completely obscured by the smog.

[dashster]

The thing I don't understand is why China is supposed to have started using so much more coal after they joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. I could swear, in the USA anyway, we were already buying tons and tons of stuff from China before 2001 and didn't need any WTO agreement for that to increase.

But the Wikipedia article on China and the World Trade Organization does have a quote that shows to me anyway, how stupid it was to "open up" China to world trade as Nixon first started doing when he was in office in the early 1970's.

The United States acted as a dominant power in the international economy and strongly supported an open system. They had a great interest in China because it was one of the fastest growing markets for U.S. goods and services. U.S. imports from China almost doubled within five years from $51.5 billion in 1996 to $102 billion in 2001

Businessmen and politicians talked about China as a billion consumers, and ultimately, for the US they became a billion workers. Rather than creating jobs for US workers, trade with China eliminated them. And we are now in an unsustainable situation - goods in from China, dollars out from America. And in addition to losing jobs to China (and India), we now have them bidding oil away from us in the marketplace.

[dashster]

The fall in coal use was driven by a variety of interlinking factors including:
1. A record increase in low-carbon power capacity.
2. The implementation of ambitious coal reduction targets.
3. Slower growth in heavy industry.
4. Improvements in efficiency.
5. Greater use of natural gas.
6. Better than usual conditions for hydropower.

I don't see how #3 gives a drop.

There is another possibility for a Chinese reduction in coal usage - Peak China Coal. The Energy Watch Group has previously predicted Peak China Coal for 2015. The EIA predicts 2030.

[kublikhan]

I don't see how #3 gives a drop.

Others have noted a discrepancy here as well:

Something doesn't quite add up with China's rising steel production, but falling coal output and imports so far this year. China's raw steel output was up 2.7%. However, imports of metallurgical, or coking, coal used to make steel were down 12.6%. Total coal production in China in the first seven months of the year was down 1.45%. What isn't clear is the breakdown of thermal to coking coal within those broader production figures. This means that while overall coal output is lower in 2014, it may be that coking coal's share of this has risen relative to thermal coal, which would offer an explanation for the mismatch between rising steel output and lower domestic coal output and imports.

However, a closer examination of the figures shows that coking coal output would have to have made major gains to account for the discrepancy. It's entirely possible that this is indeed the case, given the additional coking coal mine capacity that has been added.

The only other plausible explanation is that coking coal demand has been partially met from reducing stockpiles. Greater efficiencies at steel plants is also a possibility, but this would likely have made only a marginal difference to consumption of coking coal.

What is most likely is that the additional coking coal demand has been met from domestic sources, despite seaborne prices falling to their lowest level in seven years.

China steel output growth doesn't gel with coking coal

It's also possible that the "growth" number for China's steel industry may be cooked a bit. Sources say Chinese steel demand actually fell last year:

We must put this decline in the context of a significant fall in growth in the industrial drivers of coal consumption. This is most noticeable in steel, which is the biggest source of coal consumption outside of the electricity sector. World Steel Association estimates for 2014 indicate that after 3 decades of year on year growth, China’s steel production did not increase last year.

Officially, China claims that crude steel production increased by 1.2%. This is growth, but still, it’s the slowest growth in over 30 years. In addition, reports indicate that China’s demand for steel actually fell last year, and that it is being forced to increase exports to make up for the shortfall in national demand.

These low steel, electricity and cement growth figures imply that China’s industrial growth, and probably GDP, is lower than officially stated. But, again, the reliability of GDP figures has long been questioned.

So, can we take seriously claims that coal consumption in China has peaked or is about to? Almost certainly not. The peak coal thesis appears to rest on a single data point, and this data point rests largely on China’s industrial growth slowing massively. And who is going to bet that China’s economy continues to slump?

But more importantly we must look to what China is still doing: building huge numbers of coal power plants. As Armond Cohen has calculated, the majority of new electricity generating infrastructure built in China last year were coal power plants. China opened 47.3 GW of new coal power plants last year.

This is not the behaviour of a country that is going to peak coal use any time soon. If the majority of new power plants China built last year will burn coal, then talk of an imminent peak in Chinese coal use is little more than wishful thinking.

Peak coal in China? Not so fast

[GoghGoner]

Yes, China still has growth but they are growing much slower than before. It doesn't take near as much resources to grow slower than it does to grow faster. They are still moving "forward" just more like a turtle than a hare.

[kublikhan]

Businessmen and politicians talked about China as a billion consumers, and ultimately, for the US they became a billion workers. Rather than creating jobs for US workers, trade with China eliminated them. And we are now in an unsustainable situation - goods in from China, dollars out from America. And in addition to losing jobs to China (and India), we now have them bidding oil away from us in the marketplace.

Well it if helps think of it this way: All those factories in China churning out goods for americans are running on Chinese coal. They are getting all of the pitfalls of this: smog, rapidly depleting coal reserves, etc. While the US gets shiny new products without those pitfalls. Next to all of the energy that coal provides, China outbidding the US on oil is small potatoes.

How significant is China’s share in global coal production and consumption?

China’s share in global coal production is almost four times that of Saudi Arabia’s production of oil. China’s share in global coal consumption is more than twice that of the demand for oil in the United States.

FAQs: Coal

[dashster]

Well it if helps think of it this way: All those factories in China churning out goods for americans are running on Chinese coal. They are getting all of the pitfalls of this: smog, rapidly depleting coal reserves, etc. While the US gets shiny new products without those pitfalls. Next to all of the energy that coal provides, China outbidding the US on oil is small potatoes.

,
They also are getting all the economic benefits of producing and selling stuff. I would rather have the economic benefits. Although, having said that, if we actually were producing stuff, the elite would be lobbying even harder for more legal and illegal immigrants as they would be upset at having to pay more than minimum wage and having to do a little work to hire people. So temporarily exporting jobs, while hurting workers, probably saved us some population growth.

China could end up being the canary in the coal mine. If they peak in coal production and suffer from it, it might get the rest of the world, including the US double-checking their fossil fuels. That is, the EIA would stop counting coal resources as reserves, and politicians would hesitate to lump natural gas reserves and resources together in order to get a big number.

[ROCKMAN]

And while it's fun to pick on China for its coal imports lets not forget that Japan and the EU each import about the same amount of coal. And lets not forget that as of 2011 the US was the 4th largest coal exporter on the planet. And while China has significantly increased its coal consumption in recent years, as of 2012 the rest of the world still burned as more coal then China.

If we're talking about "coal guilt" there's more then enough to spread around to others then just the Chinese.

[kanon]

Since Chinese statistical reports may not be reliable, I thought maybe satellite measurements of air pollution might be a good indicator or coal burning. This article is from 2012, but it does have a trend line graph.

Figure 2. Nine-year time trend of average annual PM 2.5 concentration data for selected provinces and municipalities in China.

[ROCKMAN]

kanon - I can't find the link right now but I recall that China was shutting down plants in those urban areas and building new ones in less populated regions. The big issue was expanding their grid to transmit that electricity from those areas back to the big cities. Last I saw China was still building about 50 new coal fired plants per year.

[kanon]

I was thinking there might be other indirect measurements that would be more reliable than economic statistics, but I haven't had luck with pollution or health indicators. It seems the long-term effect of PM-2.5 exposure is a shortening of life span by various causes and ". . . There is no clear, direct evidence identifying which of the many sources of PM are responsible for the effects and, in particular, to what extent these effects are caused by PM from long-range transport of pollution. . . ." Health Risks, p. 95

Rockman: Perhaps you refer to the Action Plan on Prevention and Control of Air Pollution, described here. I can't find details that count the move of coal plants away from urban areas in China. There is a "plant tracker" at www.endcoal.org

This link How much coal is left worldwide? says there are 109 years of coal left -- down from the 200 years I often heard in the past. However, it is pointed out that these reserve figures are suspect here as China continues to have 114.5 Gt of coal reserves since 1992. The article discusses a number of possible indicators of "peak coal" and I think it would be valuable to get some follow up on the items discussed there.

While I am skeptical there is a "peak coal" situation unfolding in China right now, I do not think it is analogous to "peak oil" at any rate, because we do not yet seem to have reached physical extraction constraints. This article seems to jump to peak coal conclusions with scanty evidence. It could be the case, but it seems more likely to be a brief dip instead of a trend change because there are so many new coal plants being built. A better set of reasons for peak coal in China is presented in China Coal Use Can Peak this Decade: What Did the IEA Miss? and from this follow-up:

The conventional assumption in power business is that once a coal-fired power plant or other capital-intensive generating asset gets built, it will run pretty much at full steam for 40 years or more. Even if there is overcapacity at the moment, demand growth will raise utilization and the existing capacity will crowd out future investment.

However, this is not how things work in China. The government is not going to scrap the internationally pledged 15% non-fossil energy target for 2020 because of excess coal-fired capacity. Rather the overcapacity will lead to losses for power generators and will be eliminated by closing down older plants, as has happened with coal mining, steel and cement already.

Therefore, continued investment in coal-fired power plants does not mean locking in more coal-burning. It does, however, mean massive economic waste, and a missed opportunity to channel the investment spending into renewable energy, enabling even faster growth. Furthermore, the underutilized coal-fired capacity can exacerbate the conflict between coal and variable renewable energy in the grid, as grid operators are known to curtail renewable power in favor of coal.

Hence, investment in coal-fired power plants needs to be rapidly scaled back by restricting approvals and finance for new coal. The first step has already been taken with China banning new coal power plants in its three key economic regions, home to one third of currently operating coal-fired capacity.

But going back to the chinese-coal-monster article, it is possible that the concern over pollution and promotion of renewables is also a response to peak coal, without admitting the peak.

[kublikhan]

But going back to the chinese-coal-monster article, it is possible that the concern over pollution and promotion of renewables is also a response to peak coal, without admitting the peak.

If you are suggesting concern over pollution and the promotion of renewables is just a smokescreen to cover the fact that the world can no longer ramp up coal production, I do not think this is the case. Major coal exporters ramped up production capacity in order to fuel China's growing coal appetite. However the Chinese demand was not there and there was a major oversupply of coal. Prices crashed. The only supply side problem in the coal market is oversupply and cheap coal.

[dashster]

This link How much coal is left worldwide? says there are 109 years of coal left -- down from the 200 years I often heard in the past. However, it is pointed out that these reserve figures are suspect here as China continues to have 114.5 Gt of coal reserves since 1992.

I think a country with the most suspect reserves could be the United States. The "109 years" article has a table of proved reserves and says "Proved coal reserves are determined by the technical and economical feasibility of recovery ". However, the EIA admits that what they are calling reserves is not actually reserves per the standard definition:

“The usual understanding of the term “reserves” as referring to quantities that can be recovered at a sustainable profit cannot technically be extended to EIA’s estimated recoverable reserves because economic and engineering data to project mining and development costs and coal resource market values are not available”

The other thing is that if BP says there are 109 years of coal, then from what we have seen, you don't actually have 109 years of current-usage production. At some point you will have a peak in production if you keep trying to use it at same or larger amounts. I would like to see BP make a prediction for the peak.

[kanon]

The other thing is that if BP says there are 109 years of coal, then from what we have seen, you don't actually have 109 years of current-usage production. At some point you will have a peak in production if you keep trying to use it at same or larger amounts. I would like to see BP make a prediction for the peak.

I would add there is a quality issue as well as quantity. According to wikipedia the energy content of the coal is lessening. It appears that one must consume more coal each year just to maintain the same heat/electricity energy.

Over the years, the average energy content per ton of coal mined in the US has declined as mining shifts to coals of lower rank. Although the tonnage of coal mined in the United States reached its latest peak in 2008, the peak in terms of coal energy content occurred in 1998, at 598 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe, or about 4% lower.

While kublikhan makes a good point that production was increased recently, I am not sure how much credence to give price and mining statistics. It seems to me the global trade network creates the possibility of shifting depletion consequences so that we have apparent abundance. Probably there is no smoke screen hiding peak coal, but I wish we had better information and a better measuring rod. IMHO coal is just as important to BAU as oil.

[sparky]

.
A reasonably fresh view from the leading Australian paper , we are the largest coal exporter in the world , china is a very important market
"China may cut coal imports further amid domestic glut"

http://www.smh.com.au/business/china/ch ... z3UDKdDchN

[dohboi]

"China has already exceeded its 2015 "cap" on energy consumption" shows that China's emissions statistic cannot always be relied upon and are subject to revision subject to the objectives of the Communist Party:

https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/201 ... roduction/
: "China has put in place plans to “cap” coal consumption and production in 2020. For whatever reason, this is regularly rendered as “China has plans to peak coal consumption by 2020″. This is not exactly correct. The cap itself can, and probably will, simply increase after 2020.

…

China has already exceeded its 2015 cap on coal production, and it did so two years ago. You won’t know this if you read the BP Statistical Review of World Energy or any other set of published statistics. They still tell you that China produced 3.68 billion tonnes of coal in 2013.
However, buried in a recently published statistical communique from China is the following important note, data have been revised based on the results of the Third National Economic Census. The output of coal in 2013 has been revised from 3.68 billion tons to 3.97 billion tons.
In other words, coal production in 2013 was revised upwards by 7.9%, and by 0.29 billion tonnes. This revision is the equivalent of 1/3 of the annual coal production of America.
And this raises another problem. There is a long history of official manipulation of statistics in China."

[Graeme]

China's CO2 emissions have been plummeting lately. What's going on?

Arguably the most important climate story in the world right now is the question of what's happening in China. A recent analysis by Greenpeace International found that China's carbon dioxide emissions have plunged nearly 5 percent, year over year, in the first four months of 2015:

That's ... unexpected. Ever since 2000, China's CO2 emissions have been rising at a relentless pace, as the country rocketed itself out of poverty by burning billions of tons of coal for electricity, heat, and industry. China is now the world's biggest CO2 emitter, getting two-thirds of its energy from coal, and officials have long assumed emissions would keep rising until 2030 or so. It's a big reason global warming forecasts look so dire.

But suddenly, China's emissions are falling, spurred by a sharp decline in coal use. As Greenpeace's Lauri Myllyvirta explains, China's coal consumption dropped in 2014 for the first time this century. Then, in the first four months of 2015, coal use fell another 8 percent, year on year — which translates to a roughly 5 percent decline in CO2 emissions.

vox

China readies national carbon market to fight climate change

At first, the numbers and company names flashing on a big board in Beijing's financial district suggest a booming market.

A closer look indicates otherwise: The scrolling list rotates the same dozen or so trades, all from last year.

The lights from the Beijing Environment Exchange — one of seven pilot markets in China for trading carbon — raises questions for the country as it prepares for next year's roll-out of a nationwide system that could help the world's biggest emitter of heat-trapping carbon dioxide rein in its emissions.

A successful carbon offset, or "cap-and-trade," market could play a big part in cutting China's emissions — and help the world tackle global warming.

Already launched in Europe, California and a few other spots, such carbon offset markets limit how much carbon can be emitted per year by factories and businesses. They then let those businesses that release less carbon than the cap sell to other companies permissions to emit whatever's left.

So far, the pilots have failed to make a noticeable dent in carbon emissions, with about 978 million yuan, or $158 million, traded since their launch in 2013, compared to the 7.2 billion euros, or about $8 billion, of carbon offsets that were traded in the European market in its first year of operation, 2006. Many companies required to buy carbon credits have waited until the last minute of compliance periods to make their trades, which has raised concerns about low liquidity in the market. Some observers question the reliability of data recording how much companies are emitting.

Chinese officials, however, say the pilot markets aren't meant to significantly cut the country's carbon profile yet. Instead, they say they are learning important lessons from their experiments and will use them in what will soon become the world's biggest carbon offset market.

"China is taking this step to accept its responsibility in stopping climate change," said Zhou Cheng, the Beijing exchange's vice president. "This affects industry in a legal, scientific way, and it lets them form their business plans while looking at carbon emissions too."

AP

[KaiserJeep]

Elementary arithmetic solves the mystery: The downturn in CO2 emissions is a blip caused by the 2012 completion of the Three Gorges Dam. This huge hydroelectric project is the largest power plant in the entire world, at a rated capacity of 22,500 MW. In 2014, the dam set a new high water mark (pun intended) with a record 98.8 TWh.



It is important to understand that the hydropower was only one of the motives for building this huge dam. Other reasons include water for irrigation and flood control of the Yangtse. Likewise the impounded water enables deep draft shipping behind the dam for hundreds of miles.

Do not mistake the momentary downturn in CO2 as a change in policy. China has always paid lip service only to environmental goals. China is the #1 consumer of coal and even with the Three Gorges Dam online, FF's provide 87% of the energy generated in the country. China is maintaining the construction rate of two 600 MW coal power plants per week which has been the norm for the last 7+ years. Likewise the US is building giant collier ships and constructing railroads to supply China's avaricious coal consumption.



If you are a true believer in AGW, there simply is no hope for reducing CO2 emissions in the short or long term. The Three Gorges Dam was proposed in the 1960's and construction began in 1994 and took 20 years to complete. The power produced by Three Gorges Dam is over half of the potential hydropower for the entire area of China, no subsequent hydropower projects will rival this dam.

[ROCKMAN]

KJ - Excellent characterization of the real dynamics at play. Thanks.

And here's another bitter taste of reality for the "King Coal is dead!" crowd:

"The expansion of a terminal along the heavily industrialized Houston Ship Channel normally receives little attention. But Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ plans to refurbish two docks have opened a new front in the fight over coal. Environmentalists are mounting a campaign to stop the projects and a dozen other proposed shipping terminals along the Gulf Coast because the docks, if built to capacity, could export as much as 200 million tons of coal per year from Appalachia and the Rockies to Asia and Europe.

New business: Kinder Morgan launches business to invest in coal: Kinder Morgan says it’s expanding terminal business to include coal because of growing demand. The project would create jobs during construction and to operate the dock, a company spokeswoman said.

The environmental battle comes as the U.S. is using less and less coal because of the rise of cheap natural gas and tougher regulations for air pollution. But overseas demand, particularly in China and India, remains high, and coal companies are moving quickly to open shipping terminals to capitalize on those expanding markets. Despite environmental concerns, coal remains desirable because it is widely available and easy to ship and burn. China alone consumed roughly 3.8 billion tons in 2011, nearly as much as the rest of the world combined, the Energy Information Administration found. “The U.S. coal industry is not going away,” said Kenneth Medlock, senior director of the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University. “It’s just going overseas.” Only limited capacity at U.S. shipping docks has restricted coal exports, prompting the industry push to build more, he said.

So far, the fiercest fights have come in the Pacific Northwest, which offers the most direct path between the coal mines of Montana and Wyoming and Asia But the delivery routes would cross the eco-conscious states of Oregon and Washington, where political leaders have called for deeper-than-usual environmental reviews of proposed coal-export terminals before issuing permits.

{FYI: Coal exports from the Seattle terminals have increased over 1,000% (yes...not 100%...1,000%) in the last 3 years. So while delaying new permits they are exporting as much coal as physically possible. Seattle: "OK folks, keep watching my left hand that's delaying permits for new terminals. And no need to look at my right hand... nothing important happening there". LMFAO }

Coal companies, meanwhile, are looking increasingly to ship their product though Gulf Coast ports. There are plans to build or expand at least 12 terminals from Alabama to Corpus Christi. Houston-based Kinder Morgan is one of the biggest players on the Gulf Coast, proposing a $400 million expansion of three terminals along the Ship Channel and in Louisiana. The company does not mine coal, but would provide the export infrastructure for coal producers, such as Arch Coal and Peabody Energy. To meet their partners’ needs, Kinder Morgan plans to expand two terminals where the Sam Houston Tollway crosses the Ship Channel in east Harris County The company now runs smaller docks at both sites for petroleum coke, a coal-like leftover from nearby refineries.

The project would require an expanded railway system, construction of access roads and additional capacity for coal storage, according to a pending permit undergoing federal review. The company hopes eventually to export 27 million tons of coal each year from its Gulf Coast terminals, including one near New Orleans.

[Synapsid]

RCKMN,

Oh dear, you're doing it again. Been a long time though!

Small point: There are no coal-export terminals in Seattle. That's why there is no coal exported from Seattle, you see.