[kiwichick]

@ dohboy

it's summer down here; g is probably working the barbie

[dohboi]

Thanks for the reminder--hard to imagine for us up here right now, with the temperature about -20 C (-4 F)!

[dohboi]

True, economic growth slowed. But it didn't reverse.

Growth was down to about 7.4%, the lowest since 1990, but still insanely higher than most other large economies. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/ ... 4920150120

It seems that steel production in particular, which uses a lot of coal, was down, and that might account for it. Maybe the building boom is over, or on hold?

[vtsnowedin]

Why is cement shown as CO2 emission? Wouldn't the coal or other fuel used to fire the kilns be already counted in their totals?

[Tanada]

Why is cement shown as CO2 emission? Wouldn't the coal or other fuel used to fire the kilns be already counted in their totals?

This is one of those stats that drives me buggy. To make cement powder you roast Silica slag and Calcium Carbonate. The Calcium Carbonate reduces to create Lime which releases CO2. CaCO3+heat=CaO+CO2. What they fail to take into account is after the cement is mixed with other ingredients to make Concrete the CaO in the cement starts absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere reversing the process to create CaCO3. That is where much of the strength of Concrete comes from, the cement binds the sand and aggregate together in a matrix of CaSiO2 and CaCO3. Somewhere on the order of 90 percent of the CO2 released in the roasting process will eventually be reabsorbed over the lifetime of the concrete.

[kublikhan]

There were 6 reasons sited for the reduction in coal use:

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.
Only one of these six factors – high hydropower utilization rates – is a yearly fluctuation, the rest potentially reflecting long term structural shifts.

China’s new energy targets suggest that the build of new solar and wind projects will will remain at 2014 levels until 2020 and beyond, as will the increase in the use of gas at the expense of coal. And china’s coal reduction targets just got tougher as the government announced absolute caps will be set for coal consumption in two key economic regions, the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta.

Industry slowing
China’s leadership is also engaged in a conscious policy to rebalance the economy that has become overly reliant on large investment projects and heavy industry. As a result, the steel industry association said that China’s steel consumption has “already entered a period of peaking”.

Together, these factors will very significantly constrain coal use. With full implementation of the targets China has set for 2020, it’s expected that coal demand will peak and decline during this decade.

China’s coal consumption fell in 2014

[ROCKMAN]

Yes indeed...great news: China producing and consuming only 260% more coal today then they were in 2000. Mother Earth thanks them. LOL.

[sparky]

.
After a few horrible incidence of smog in China big cities , China is going all out for Nuclear
it is seen as non polluting power of the future and a solid industry for internal and the export market

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Count ... ear-Power/
http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/why-chin ... ear-power/

the expansion of the park of Nuclear plants is going ahead , while the use of the very dirty Chinese coal is curtained
it was used mostly for local power generation ,as it was too dirty to use easily for coking and steel making
the central committee was also concerned with the horrific casualty rate in the Chinese mining industry
a large number of small unsafe mines have been closed

[ROCKMAN]

Sparky - So far all the stats are saying is that China is using alternatives to SUPPLIMENT coal for the most part...not replace it. Maybe in time they start burning significant less coal. But that hasn't happened yet. Even if they've stopped expanding coal they're still burning more then during the vast majority of the coal age. IOW the situation won't change until the situation changes.

[kublikhan]

Move over China, India set to be biggest coal importer:

coal – specifically the power-generating variety – has turned out to be the real surprise commodity of 2015. The benchmark thermal export price from Australia's port of Newcastle is up 22% in a month and on Monday scaled $70 a tonne for the first time in nearly six months.

The rally in thermal coal (metallurgical continues to languish in the low $90s) also come despite Chinese coal imports falling sharply in January on the back Beijing's crackdown on the commodity through tough emissions regulations and newly-imposed import tariffs.

According to CRU India will requiring an additional 136 million tonnes of imports by 2019. The majority of this import growth is expected to materialise over the next three years as significant coal-fired capacity comes on stream, and CRU expects India to replace China as the world's largest import market by 2015-2016.

There is a dire shortage of infrastructure on the sub-continent and the population is urbanizing rapidly, the same conditions that were present before the Chinese economic boom set off a commodity supercycle.

Coal price rally with legs as India overtakes China

[ROCKMAN]

dohboi - I would call it a fluke since it's a very minor change. Could be up and down like this for years. Just a guess but China may be using alternatives to SUPPLIMENT coal for the most part...not replace it. Maybe in time they start burning significant less coal. But that hasn't happened yet. Even if they've stopped expanding coal they're still burning more then during the vast majority of the coal age. IOW the situation won't change until the situation changes.

Similar to what has happened with the big wind power build out in Texas: it hasn't reduced out coal burning but has supplemented it.

[dohboi]

Thanks for the thoughts, ROCK. I am skeptical that the numbers are even right. But as they stand they do seem to show not just a supplement but a replacement of coal with alternatives. Otherwise, wouldn't coal be up or flat rather than down.

One year of anything is not, I think, anything to get too excited about one way or the other.

But I find it hard to get around the points kub cited on the related thread over in the Current Events forum:

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.

Only one of these six factors – high hydropower utilization rates – is a yearly fluctuation, the rest potentially reflecting long term structural shifts.

wrt #3, the specific area that is high coal use that has declined is the production of Pig iron. As China's economy matures, is it possible that it is starting to use more recycled scrap iron and less Pig iron?

I do think it is important to keep in mind that even if China has reductions like this for many years ahead, it is likely to be the biggest user of coal in the world (by a lot) for a long time. Engineering News Record has China at 700,000 MW of coal as of 2013.

http://www.engineerlive.com/content/17341

US has about 300,000 MW as of 2011 or so.

India is likely to start gobbling up whatever coal is on the global market that China stops using.

[PrestonSturges]

There's always been a discrepancy between claims that China has large reserves of coal and other reports that it has only very small amounts. Similarly, some people say the US has 400 years worth of coal, and other people say we have a 20 year supply. Considering that we have already strip mined an area the size of Delaware, 20 sounds more realistic.

[ROCKMAN]

Not sure how much coal the US has but Texas has more than 100 years of proven lignite reserves based on current consumption. And we're not cutting that consumption with our wind power build out...just supplementing it. But we're also building a $500+ million GHG sequestration system for the second largest US source of GHG: a plant burning lignite and NG.

[dohboi]

"we're also building a $500+ million GHG sequestration system for the second largest US source of GHG: a plant burning lignite and NG."

It's expensive, so it must be effective, right?

[ROCKMAN]

dohboi - Yes...very effective. And that $500 million is just for the infrastructure. I haven't seen an estimate of the operating costs but those will probably significant. And it will be effective given the real motivation behind the project. Not so much to do with preventing GW as avoiding a huge battle with the federal govt. The feds have been threatening to shut down the Texas coal burning utilities due to our "export" of CO2 to neighboring states. Given the fed monitors and threat of closure I'm will to bet expectations will be met. And once more Texas has another "biggest" bragging right. LOL. Not bad for the largest oil producer in the country as well as the largest al burner, eh?:

A few details: What will eventually be the world's largest carbon capture facility has started construction near Houston, Texas. The Petra Nova system will collect carbon dioxide leaving an existing coal plant by spritzing the plant's exhaust with a chemical solvent. The purified carbon dioxide then gets compressed into a liquid and piped 80 miles away to an active oil field. Once there, the carbon dioxide gets piped underground, where it helps force oil to the surface. So, yes, Petra Nova captures carbon dioxide to help people mine ever more oil, which creates its own emissions once it's burned to make electricity.

Projects similar to Petra Nova, in the U.S. and elsewhere, have been stymied by their high costs, Yale Environment 360 reports. Petra Nova's engineers hope the system will eventually pay for itself because it's linked to increased oil production. That, in turn, could encourage other companies to adopt the technology and improve it.

[kublikhan]

There's always been a discrepancy between claims that China has large reserves of coal and other reports that it has only very small amounts. Similarly, some people say the US has 400 years worth of coal, and other people say we have a 20 year supply. Considering that we have already strip mined an area the size of Delaware, 20 sounds more realistic.

I'll see if I can clear up the confusion. The US mines about a billion tons of coal per year. The US has a demonstrated reserve base of about 480 billion tons of coal. 480 billion base / 1 billion per year = 480 years of coal left. Thats where the 400+ year figure comes from. However this is incorrect because we won't be able to mine 100% of that coal.

Much of it will be left in the ground for various reasons. The EIA estimates we have about 256 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. 256 billion base / 1 billion per year = 256 years of recoverable coal. However this does not take into account economic feasibility. IE, will it be profitable to mine all 256 billion tons of that coal?

Recoverable reserves at currently producing mines is about 20 billion tons. 20 billion / 1 billion per year = 20 years of coal at currently active mines. However this figure only counts currently active mines. If prices rise you can always reopen former mines that were closed or open up new mines. So saying the US only have 20 years of coal left is highly misleading.

Most estimates use proved recoverable coal reserves(the ~200 year figure for the US). So this is probably the best figure to go with.
How large are U.S. coal reserves?
How Much Coal Is Left

China also has large reserves of coal. However they are consuming it much faster than we are. They are producing about 3.5 billion tons per year. But their proven reserve base is only about 100 billion tons. 100 / 3.5 = 29 years of coal left.

China and coal

China is burning through it's coal supply at an alarming rate, six times faster than the US is.

[Subjectivist]

I'll see if I can clear up the confusion. The US mines about a billion tons of coal per year. The US has a demonstrated reserve base of about 480 billion tons of coal. 480 billion base / 1 billion per year = 480 years of coal left. Thats where the 400+ year figure comes from. However this is incorrect because we won't be able to mine 100% of that coal.

Much of it will be left in the ground for various reasons. The EIA estimates we have about 256 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. 256 billion base / 1 billion per year = 256 years of recoverable coal. However this does not take into account economic feasibility. IE, will it be profitable to mine all 256 billion tons of that coal?

Recoverable reserves at currently producing mines is about 20 billion tons. 20 billion / 1 billion per year = 20 years of coal at currently active mines. However this figure only counts currently active mines. If prices rise you can always reopen former mines that were closed or open up new mines. So saying the US only have 20 years of coal left is highly misleading.

Most estimates use proved recoverable coal reserves(the ~200 year figure for the US). So this is probably the best figure to go with.
How large are U.S. coal reserves?
How Much Coal Is Left

China also has large reserves of coal. However they are consuming it much faster than we are. They are producing about 3.5 billion tons per year. But their proven reserve base is only about 100 billion tons. 100 / 3.5 = 29 years of coal left.

China and coal

China is burning through it's coal supply at an alarming rate, six times faster than the US is.

Of course there is always underground coal gasification that has the capacity to make many of the 'uneconomic' deep or thin seams recoverable by combining horizontal drilling with O2 and steam injection for in situ combustion.

underground-coal-gassification-t69418.html

[dohboi]

ROCK wrote: "The purified carbon dioxide then gets compressed into a liquid"

Holy mackerel! What kind of pressure do they put it under to get it into a freakin' liquid state, and what kind of energy toll does that take??

"Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 standard atmospheres (520 kPa)."

Or do you mean they dissolve it in some kind of liquid? Water, presumably?? Any potential problems there??

Further: "Petra Nova captures carbon dioxide to help people mine ever more oil, which creates its own emissions once it's burned to make electricity." Oh, the ironies. But where is it going where it's being used to create electricity? Isn't that a rather...unusual use of oil these days, at least in these United States??

[Tanada]

ROCK wrote: "The purified carbon dioxide then gets compressed into a liquid"

Holy mackerel! What kind of pressure do they put it under to get it into a freakin' liquid state, and what kind of energy toll does that take??

"Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 standard atmospheres (520 kPa)."

Or do you mean they dissolve it in some kind of liquid? Water, presumably?? Any potential problems there??

Further: "Petra Nova captures carbon dioxide to help people mine ever more oil, which creates its own emissions once it's burned to make electricity." Oh, the ironies. But where is it going where it's being used to create electricity? Isn't that a rather...unusual use of oil these days, at least in these United States??

A common air compressor like you use to inflate your tires runs around 9 atmospheres so 5.1 doesn't shall we say, impress me much? Injecting it into water happens at every soda fountain you visit at any restaurant and on a much larger scale at bottling plants all over the world. There are more than enough problems with GHG emissions and Peak Oil, we don't need to borrow ones that are trivial or non-existent.