global coal consumption has advanced by over 50% in the past decade

[phantom power]

...coal is the preferred energy source of the developing world.

In addition, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has shifted its manufacturing to the developing world over the past few decades, coal has been the cheap energy source that has powered the rise of such manufacturing, especially in Asia. Accordingly, the extraordinary increase in global coal consumption the past decade is partly due to the OECD offshoring its own industrial production. How are most consumer goods made? Using electricity in developing world manufacturing centers, generated by coal.

Only a very small portion of the global public is aware that global coal consumption has advanced by over 50% in the past decade. According to data from the just-released BP Statistical Review, from 2001 through 2011, global consumption of coal rose an astonishing 56%. Using the energy unit Mtoe (million tonnes oil equivalent), global coal consumption rose 1,343 Mtoe, from 2,381 to 3,724 Mtoe. And this trend shows no sign of slowing down.

Additionally, this advance contrasts greatly with the flattening of global oil production and thus the slowdown in global oil consumption. Oil's price revolution has killed a great deal of oil demand. But few are aware that while oil has fallen as a portion of primary world energy supply, coal has stormed to prominence. This is why the export of US coal, and world trade in coal, still has room to run.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/78984/coal-ignored-juggernaut

[GliderGuider]

1. This is why rooftop solar in Germany doesn't mean anything in the big picture.

The developing nations are being very reasonable, though. It's not just that they want the right to scarf down their piece of the consumption pie a la mode, they even feel a deep responsibility to contribute their fair share to the atmospheric garbage dump in the process. So when we all fry/drown/starve we won't have to point our fingers just at the Benighted States of America. Everybody will have an engraved invitation to the pity party.

[kristopher]

2. That isn't true - "Cheap Coal Is Dead. Long Live Renewable Age (Part 1)"

"...In March, the power generating arm of India’s largest conglomerate, the Tata Group, announced that it was shifting its investment strategy from coal-fired thermal plants to wind and solar renewable projects. Coal projects, Tata said, were becoming “impossible” to develop, and investment in them had stopped.

With this declaration, one of Asia’s biggest energy players confirmed an emerging reality. The U.S., Europe, Russia, Australia and Japan all had created modern consumer economies dependent on abundant, cheap fossil-fuel energy. In the 21st century that is no longer viable; the high-carbon growth path is closing...."

Cheap Coal Is Dead. Long Live Renewable Age (Part 1)
By Carl Pope, Bloomberg
June 20, 2012

"Sustainable Energy for All" is the main theme for this week's Rio+20 United Nations gathering in Brazil. The challenge of making energy both accessible and sustainable has grown more complicated in the past year or so, and also more exciting. These are tough times for coal and other high-carbon sources of energy, while the news about clean energy is more promising.

In March, the power generating arm of India’s largest conglomerate, the Tata Group, announced that it was shifting its investment strategy from coal-fired thermal plants to wind and solar renewable projects. Coal projects, Tata said, were becoming “impossible” to develop, and investment in them had stopped.

With this declaration, one of Asia’s biggest energy players confirmed an emerging reality. The U.S., Europe, Russia, Australia and Japan all had created modern consumer economies dependent on abundant, cheap fossil-fuel energy. In the 21st century that is no longer viable; the high-carbon growth path is closing.

The reason is cost. Oil has long been expensive, because low-cost oil producers such as Saudi Arabia have learned to demand high prices by limiting supplies and refusing to sign long-term price agreements. Coal had always been different — traded locally, on both long-term concessions and short-term spot contracts. Two years ago, China and India could supplement their domestic coal supplies with imports from Indonesia, Australia and South Africa. Some of the cheapest coal mines serving China in 2010 were in Indonesia, where India’s Adani Power Ltd. and Tata were purchasing coal mines and building their own shipping and port facilities to ensure they could supply a wave of huge new power projects.

Geologically Abundant

While coal is geologically more abundant than oil, cheap coal, close to population centers, is not. The biggest ....

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/cheap-coal-is-dead-long-live-renewable-age-part-1??cmpid=GeoNL-Thursday-June21-2012

[GliderGuider]

3. I'll believe it when I see it.

I've always said that I'll believe that renewables are winning the fight when I see the evidence of it in the CO2 data. So far - no joy, no joy.

[NickB79]

4. What's the lifespan on a new coal-fired plant?

How many of the brand-new coal-fired plants that were built in the past decade will be closing down anytime soon? Even if we stopped building ANY new coal-fired plants today, the massive build-out we just saw, with hundreds of billions of dollars sunken into them, pretty much ensures they'll be operating for decades.

And while it's better than nothing, if we don't start actively CLOSING thousands of coal-fired plants already in operation, the build-out in renewables won't prevent us from hitting 4C or more of warming by 2100.

[kristopher]

5. Renewables Make German Power Market Design Defunct, Utility Says

The term "market design" being referenced in the title means "centralized thermal", the design built around coal and nuclear. So this is a description of renewable energy in the first and most critical stage of putting fossil fuel generation out of business as a new "market design" centered around distributed renewables takes form.

If you are serious about climate change, this is what you've been waiting to see happen.

Renewables Make German Power Market Design Defunct, Utility Says
By Rachel Morison, Bloomberg
June 26, 2012

LONDON -- Electricity generation from renewable energy in Germany is reducing power prices and has left the country with a market whose design no longer works, according to Stadtwerke Leipzig GmbH.

Renewable generation, such as wind and solar, receives support from the German government in the form of a feed-in tariff, or FIT. Because there are no costs associated with the wind and sunshine, renewables have a generating margin of zero, as well as legally mandated priority access to the grid. As a result, fossil fuel-fired plants are generating for fewer hours and selling their power at cheaper prices, making them less profitable.

“As long as renewables have zero margin costs, the market design we have doesn’t work,” Jens Teresniak, team manager for business development and market analysis at Stadtwerke Leipzig, said in an interview in Leipzig on June 21. “Capacity markets could be a solution.”

So-called capacity markets allow utilities to fix prices for guaranteed backup power supply in advance, boosting margins for gas and coal electricity plants as renewables output rises. German policy makers are considering how to ensure there are enough round-the-clock plants to keep the lights on when nuclear reactors are phased out and renewables output falls short.

Merit Order

Increasing supply of renewable energy is one of the main reasons electricity prices in Germany have declined, Teresniak said....

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/renewables-make-german-power-market-design-defunct-utility-says?cmpid=SolarNL-Thursday-June28-2012

[joshcryer]

10. That's an epic piece of greenwashing if I've ever seen it.

Don't even get me started that was the epic fail of Rio+20.

[kristopher]

14. India's largest energy company drops coal and that's greenwashing?

You have a very peculiar way of looking at things.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Largest private generating company; 2.5% of the total generating capacity

Tata Power (BSE: 500400) is India’s oldest and largest private sector electric utility company with an installed generation capacity of over 5000 MW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Power

The electricity sector in India had an installed capacity of 202.98 Gigawatt (GW) as of May 2012, the world's fifth largest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India

[kristopher]

17. Do you think the economics of coal are better for the other companies?

That's not very likely, is it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. They may well be better for public generators

who get preference from the state-run coal mining sector:

With a severe shortage of domestic coal supply as the state-run monopoly Coal India is unable to increase output, private utility Tata Power is scouting for coal mines overseas, particularly in Indonesia and South Africa, a senior company official said today.

"Given the demand for the fuel for our Power plants and shortage of domestically produced coal, we have to depend on imports. We are looking at Indonesia and South Africa for acquiring coal mines," Tata Power Executive Director (Operations) S Padmanabhan told in an interview here.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-27/news/32441278_1_coal-mines-mundra-umpp-tata-power-executive-director

As the 2nd Wikipedia article said, there are 2 state run generators bigger than Tata.

Even if India could improve its ports and already stretched railways, and adapt its power plants to burn alien coal, can it afford to import so much? Coal prices have soared in recent years (the benchmark price is some 50% above its average in 2009), partly due to Chinese demand. Indonesia has imposed new rules that hamper foreign mine owners from exporting coal at below market rates. So, adjusted for quality, foreign coal is perhaps four times pricier than the local stuff. The cost of shopping abroad could be as much as $20 billion by 2017—or 1% of today’s GDP.
...
“I can see if someone is sleeping on the job,” boasts Arup Roy Choudhury, the chairman of NTPC, the country’s biggest electricity generator. In the floor above his office in Delhi a CCTV studio allows him to spy on his empire. He can zoom in on a giant construction site in Mouda, near those mines in Nagpur, where in March a new plant will fire up, fuelled by coal produced by Coal India. NTPC is likely to get the coal it needs partly because it is state-owned and big.

Another power firm in the same state with a new plant coming on line in March expects to get only half the fuel originally promised by Coal India. Private-sector firms with plants coming on line often assume they will be last in the queue for domestic fuel. If they substitute imported coal for domestic coal they worry that they may not be allowed to pass on the costs and that if they are, the electricity boards won’t be able to pay.



http://www.economist.com/node/21543138

[kristopher]

19. That information argues against your proposition

It describes a condition of shortage and escalating prices that isn't expected to improve.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. My 'proposition' is that Tata is 2.5% of the market

and so its announcement that it won't seek to develop new coal plants does not move a large part of the Indian generating sector (and note it's still looking for new coal sources). The articles make it clear this is because it has to look outside India, where the prices are higher. If you want to argue about future coal generation in India, you need to find what the state-run mining and generating companies are planning.

[kristopher]

22. I understood your meaning - the conclusion isn't correct.

As your sources note and you repeat, the economics of both domestically produced and imported coal show that expansion of any coal generation is going to incur steadily increasing costs for fuel. Meanwhile the action by Tata shows that when those economics are weighted against the rapidly declining costs of renewables, the results favor moving away from coal to renewables. No matter whether the state agencies are better positioned at the moment, the problem they face isn't one that time will fix.

[joshcryer]

25. The shortage is because India isn't exploiting their own reserves to their maximum.

And it looks like their shortage was artificial, with one company not producing as effectively as they could. Their mines were deallocated and given to the other more efficient companies: http://business-standard.com/india/news/coal-india-gets-ntpcs-de-allocated-coal-mines/176572/on

[kristopher]

26. The shortage isn't "artificial"

Private companiesobviously aren't developing those mines for a reason - the coal from them would be too expensive. That it requires the deep pockets of a state company to exploit means their choices are narrowing and the competitive position of renewables is steadily improving.
Your article supports the position that coal is on its way out.

[XemaSab]

28. What year do you expect coal to be gone as a global energy source?

By "gone" let's say at 10% of the coal-generated power that's produced today, making it a niche player.

2020? 2050? 2100? 2150? Some other date?

Please supply facts and figures to back up your assertion. Note well that "facts and figures" doesn't mean copypasta from that same article you've posted three times already.

[happyslug]

43. 2150 is what Hubbert called the date for "Peak Coal" 2025 according in Energy Watch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal

Hubbert's paper on Fossil fuel production, Go to page 21 to see his estimate on coal production, This paper is dated 1956

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

In that 1956 Paper, Hubbert made two observations, first oil production in the lower 48 states would peak about 1970 as would Natural Gas production that was tied in with oil production.

Since the 1970s (and due to the Natural Gas crisis of the 1970s), natural gas production has separated from oil production. This has lead to increase Natural gas production. This was a concept Hubbert seems to have missed, but so did most people, my Father talked about his relative of the 1930s, "Coal Oil Johnny" who operated in Pennsylvania. "Coal Oil Johnny" would drill for oil, but find Natural Gas. Oil would have made his rich in the 1930s, Natural gas just paid for the next drilling site. That is how Natural Gas and Oil were related prior to the 1970s, Natural Gas was a by product of oil drilling. No one drilled for Natural Gas.

Thus a huge error on the Part of Hubbert as to Natural Gas, for Natural Gas can exist below 20,000 feet. At 20,000 feet the natural heat of the earth converts oil to Natural Gas. We could drill to 20,000 by 1937, thus Hubbert estimate as to oil was spot on. His estimate on Natural Gas was off.

Unlike Natural Gas, coal reserves were well known by 1956, thus Hubbert's estimate of 2150 for peak coal is still a good estimate. One problem with 2150 is that Coal is looking to be a replacement for oil, something Hubbert did not really count on (Hubbert relied on Nuclear power to replace oil in the 1956 paper).

Thus Energy Watch gives an estimate of 2025 in 2007
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

The USA, being the second largest producer, already passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming more than compensated for this decline in terms of volume and – according to its stated reserves – this trend can continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due to the lower energy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy already peaked 5 years ago – it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed. Also specific productivity per miner has been declining since about 2000.

[joshcryer]

32. Then why did the Indian government take away that companies rights to mine?

Because they were not developing the mine.

I know capitalists think that other capitalists will do what's best for the market, but sometimes, well, lots of times they do what's best for their own profit.

[joshcryer]

24. India is not reducing their coal consumption.

Tata Power even signed on to research nuclear plants.

They (Tata Group) presumably dumped coal from their portfolio because India's coal isn't as profitable.

Tata Group (who Tata Power is a subsidiary of) is a conglomerate that wants to make profit.



edit: lol, Tata Power is on full steam ahead with regards to coal, kristopher:

India grapples with coal shortages
Amid India's ongoing domestic coal shortage, Tata Power, the country's largest private power producer, said it is eyeing coal mines abroad for fuel security.

"We are already scouting for coal mines overseas," said Tata Power Executive Director for Operations S Padmanabhan, Press Trust of India reports. He said the company was looking at Indonesia and South Africa for acquisitions.

"Given the demand for the fuel for our power plants and the shortage of domestically produced coal, we have to depend on imports," Padmanabhan said.

The company also aims to produce 50 million metric tons of coal annually by 2020 to ensure fuel security, he said.

So, not only is it greenwashing, it's patently misleading and false. Amusing to say the least. That 50 million metric tons is on top of the tens of millions India Coal and the other coal producers in India produces, btw.

[kristopher]

27. "India grapples with coal shortages"

And those shortages are only getting worse. Tata is leaving coal behind for a reason.
"Some analysts say India's coal shortage for the current fiscal year could be more than twice as large as it was two years ago."

As I said, you have a peculiar style of reasoning and I have to say, it isn't very effective if you think this is "greenwashing".

[joshcryer]

33. India has close to 270 billion tons of coal.

The shortages are are not due to a lack of coal, nor are they due to coal being "too expensive," as I established they are going to expand their coal production.

It's greenwashing to take a factually untrue statement and make it seem as if India is cutting back on coal.

They're simply not.

[XemaSab]

12. How much of a dent do your solar panels make

in your overall power consumption, including driving?

[Systematic Chaos]

13. In the meantime, I'm still sitting here waiting for more than a few token rooftop solar panels...

...in the most McMansion-y of the McMansion districts, and the UNLV solar...thing...I live next to, here in Las Fucking Vegas.

I'm also waiting for the energy efficient air conditioning units on top of my 30+ year old apartment buildings, so that our summer electric bills don't triple from $100 to $300 per month just to keep it 80 degrees in our apartment, never mind 72 or 75. Because surely by now those units up there have, you know, depreciated to the point where they could be written off and replaced.

So, pray tell, where is the massive solar renaissance here in what should be a prime desert location? Will we be seeing that before Lake Mead completely dries up?

[David__77]

29. Well then we better hope the US rescinds the "punitive" tariffs against Chinese PV companies.

All those tariffs are going to do is stunt the growth of PV installations in the US, while they take off elsewhere.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. I must disagree

First, rooftop solar in Germany means that the Germans can burn that much less coal.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, rooftop solar in Germany means lower costs for solar in the developing world.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/developing-countries-will-be-a-booming-solar-market-industry-panelists-say/

[font face=Serif]October 28, 2009, 3:31 pm

[font size=5]Developing Countries Will Prove a Booming Solar Market, Industry Panelists Say[/font]

By TODD WOODY

[font size=3]By 2020, the world’s biggest potential solar markets will be found in the developing world, areas largely ignored by solar industry today, according to executives working to bring renewable energy to rural regions.

Just 1 percent of the world’s solar panel production has been installed in developing countries, said Michael Eckhart, the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, during a panel discussion Tuesday at the Solar Power International conference in Anaheim, Calif.

“This is a scandal for our industry and we must find solutions,” said Mr. Eckhart, who has worked on solar projects in Africa and India.

The market in Africa, Asia and Latin America is potentially vast given that nearly 44 percent of the population of the developing world lacks access to electricity, according to Simon Rolland, a policy and development officer for the Alliance for Rural Electrification, based in Brussels.

…[/font][/font]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/bringing-low-cost-solar-to-the-worlds-poor/

[font face=Serif]October 16, 2009, 11:24 am

[font size=5]Bringing Low-Cost Solar to the World’s Poor[/font]

By JEFFREY MARLOW

[font size=1]

An overview of ToughStuff, makers of inexpensive, durable solar panels for low-income people in developing countries. [/font]

[font size=3]For decades, governments and non-governmental organizations have been trying to bring electricity to the world’s poorest and most isolated regions through million-dollar donations and large-scale projects.

A small start-up company, headquartered in the Republic of Mauritius off the southeastern coast of Africa, is pursuing what it considers a different tack: a market-based approach, employing local villagers, selling rudimentary solar panels and focusing on small-scale, personal electricity use.

ToughStuff was founded in 2008 by Andrew Tanswell and Adriaan Mol — two entrepreneurs looking to help low-income families in the developing world. Hoping to avoid the inefficiencies and restrictions of a traditional aid group, they decided to monetize the process.

“If we’re going to reach a lot of people,” said Nick Sowden, the company’s director of business development in the United States, “we need to do that with business. If we had gone the NGO route, it would have taken forever.”

…[/font][/font]

The fact of the matter is, coming into a world with no existing electric grid rooftop solar is a lot easier to install than centralized coal burning power plants.

[TheWraith]

15. And those solar costs are still vastly higher is generally affordable.

While coal is cheap. But those solar panels DO provide Germany with just enough of a greenwashing excuse to feel good about shutting down their nuclear plants--and in the process cranking up dozens of coal fired plants to compensate, because the solar panels aren't doing the trick. Germany is burning MORE coal now than before, not less.

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. “Germany is burning MORE coal now than before, not less.”

You’ve answered the wrong question.

The question you should be answering is, “How much coal would Germany be burning, if they weren’t using solar?”

Then you might ask the question, “Why are they burning more coal?” Or, “Are they emitting more CO[font size="1"]₂[/font]?”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/us-energy-power-co-idUSBRE8470JZ20120508

[font face=Serif][font size=5]European slump leads utilities to burn more coal[/font]

By Henning Gloystein and Jeff Coelho
LONDON | Tue May 8, 2012 8:34am EDT

[font size=4](Reuters) - Europe's economic slump is allowing utilities in some countries to burn increasing amounts of cheap, highly polluting coal for electricity generation and still meet legally binding targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, Reuters research shows.[/font]

[font size=3]The EU's carbon scheme, its main tool to fight global warming, caps CO2 emissions on around 12,000 industrial and power plants in 30 countries and requires them to purchase permits to exceed those caps.

The supply of permits has increased, however, to the equivalent of several hundred million tons of emissions due largely to slowing industrial output. Preliminary EU data suggests emissions in the capped market fell just over 2 percent last year.

…

"These statistics allow us to burn as much coal as we want to without actually raising UK emissions, but in the longer-term it sends out the wrong signal and will mean rising emissions once the economy bounces back," a power trader in London said.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

39. Did you know that Germany is getting rid of coal subsidies? - "Saarland coal exit"

Like here, the German coal mining industry is a strong political force. Or at least, it used to be. This closure is ahead of schedule.

Saarland coal exit
by DoDo
Sat Jun 30th, 2012 at 03:43:36 AM EST

Today the last coal mine closes in the German state of Saarland. This is the end of an era, because Saarland was one of the two main high-grade coal regions in post-WWII Germany, alongside the Ruhr Area.
The background of the mine closure is the phasing-out of subsidies for the mining of high-grade coal by 2018 (though the closure in Saarland was accelerated after a 4.7 earthquake in 2008). These coal subventions were fought over hard ever since the first Social Democrat (SPD)–Greens coalition governments in North Rhine-Westphalia state (NRW, 1995) and at federal level (1998). While the Greens could only get the SPD to agree to reductions, in 2007 EU pressure forced the then Grand Coalition (CDU+SPD) federal government to decide for a phaseout by 2018, and again at the behest of the EU, a 2010 revision accelerated the annual reduction of subsidies.

The end of subsidies effectively means the end of coal mining: now only four mines in NRW remain active, of which the first closes at the end of the year, another in three years, and the last two when the subsidies run out. But the defenders of the subventions proved right in one point: coal users just switched to imports (now 80%), which brings additional problems like fine dust pollution in ports. As...

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2012/6/30/34336/6816

This link gives actual production of various fuels through 2011:
http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/componenten/download.php?filedata=1326461230.pdf&filename=BRD_Stromerzeugung1990-2011%2020Dez2011&mimetype=application/pdf

Braunkohle = Brown coal (low quality)
Kernenergie = nuclear



See also:

Coal mining in Germany
Small earthquake in Saarland...
...not many dead. But the industry itself could be a casualty
Feb 28th 2008

...The Saar and Ruhr are Germany's two historic mining areas—mining in Saarland dates back to 1429. But their production has long been uncompetitive and devours subsidies of around €2.5 billion ($3.7 billion) a year. In 2007 the industry and government struck a deal: mining would be phased out by 2014, or 2018 at the latest, unless a review in 2012 showed that the economics had suddenly changed for the better. So the miners of the Saar already looked doomed. They have dwindled from 60,000 in their heyday, producing 17m tonnes a year, to a mere 3,600 producing 3.6m tonnes from one mine at Ensdorf. But sudden closure would still be a shock.
...

http://www.economist.com/node/10766249

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. Yes, I had read that they were

I think a good comparison can be made between Germany (as a single country of the EU) and New Jersey as a single state of the US. Thanks to state policies, solar installations in New Jersey have increased, more companies have entered the market, and competition between them has driven installation prices down.



Unfortunately;

http://www.northjersey.com/news/160110835_Solar_panel_maker_halts_production.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]N.J.'s only solar panel manufacturer ceases production[/font]


Saturday June 23, 2012, 11:07 AM
BY HUGH R. MORLEY
STAFF WRITER
The Record

* N.J. manufacturer says company can’t compete with China.

[font size=3]New Jersey’s largest solar panel manufacturer has ceased production, unable to compete with the influx of low-priced Chinese products flooding the market, a company executive said Friday.

MX Solar USA LLC stopped making panels in May and laid off its few remaining production workers, said Carlo Santoro, the company's director of business development. An earlier layoff cut the bulk of the employees in March, but a small amount of production continued until recently, he said.

"We had to cease production because we were so drastically affected by the Chinese dumping of solar panels," he said. "We can’t make them for what they are being sold for."

…

Yet several panel makers have gone bankrupt in the face of fierce competition from Chinese producers, even as solar panel installers have welcomed the drop in prices that have made their systems more accessible to consumers.

…[/font][/font]

[pscot]

6. And the administration is planning 6 huge coal ports

on the Oregon and Washington coast. So we can export to the Chinese what we aren't able to burn here. We aren't burning the stuff fast enough ourselves, so we're going to enable the worlds biggest greenhouse gas polluter, China. There's advancement for you. We've created an enormous Kervorkian device, and are hellbent on self-immolation.

[joshcryer]

11. We're actually using less coal thanks to wind and efficiency.

But that's not going to stop us from producing it. Since the entire international community has decided to fuck it to the world, well, coal will remain viable.

[XemaSab]

21. We're also using less coal because our economy is in the crapper

and all our jobs are in China and India. Let's not forget that.

[joshcryer]

23. That's true enough.

A lot of people have to turn off their air conditioners to make ends meet.

[happyslug]

44. Peak coal hit the US in 1998, in terms of energy, 2002 in terms of volume

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf


Page 30:

Since 1970 lower quality subbituminous and low qualitiy lignite have been contributing with rising volumes. The growing share of lower quality coal is the reason why total coal production in terms of energy content peaked in 1998 at 598.4 Mtoe and has since declined to 576.2 Mtoe in 2005 in spite of the continuous rise in produced volumes (BP 2006).

On page 32:

Another aspect is the productivity of the US coal industry in terms of produced tons per miner. Until the year 2000, productivity steadily increased for all types of coal produced covering surface and subsurface mining. But since then productivity has declined by about 10% (see the figure below). The decline in productivity can only be explained by the necessity of rising efforts in production. This might be due to deeper digging and/or to a higher level of waste production. Are these already indications for the era of "easy coal" drawing to a close?

On page 34

Even if volumetric production rates can be increased by about 60% until 2070-2080 before decline sets in, the corresponding energy production will increase only by about 45-50% due to the increased share of subbituminous coal and lignite.

[joshcryer]

45. Yeah, I'm quite familiar with that link.

Doesn't mean we're going to stop producing it, we're really just moving to exporting it as we move to other energy sources (wind, solar, and natural gas, which is poised to be a significant contributor in due course).

[eppur_se_muova]

7. Not sure why "advanced" is being used as a synonymn for "increased" here.

Using less coal would be advancing.

[RobertEarl]

9. Yep

We are going backwards if we are using more coal.

[David__77]

30. The growth comes mainly from China's increased use.

China is experiencing TREMENDOUS economic growth, dwarfing what we've seen in the world to date in terms of magnitude in a short time period. The consumption of energy is greatly intensifying.

China might consider quickly building 1,000 nuclear power plants, but it would still increase its consumption of coal in a few years time.

Solar is good partial solution, but won't address the industrial sector very well.

[kristopher]

31. The renewable portfolio includes a lot more than solar.

And renewables are completely capable of running the industrial sector.

Meanwhile, China appears to be scaling back its nuclear program and increasing its already balls-to-the-wall rate of renewable deployment.

[David__77]

34. That's good...

But China would be extraordinary if it could get its portfolio of renewables up to 20% of consumption by the end of the decade - it's very much less than that now. Hydro is also important, but very capital-intensive.

Demand side management will be critical as well. Some simple measures like motion sensors and variable frequency drives on motors could save a LOT of energy.

[joshcryer]

35. India is building out its coal as well. Hundreds of new plants proposed or being built.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Proposed_coal_plants_in_India

[GliderGuider]

36. The non-OECD countries have DOUBLED their coal consumption since 2002

That's an increase of 7.2% per year, with no signs of a slowdown - no matter what the price of coal is doing.

In the same decade, OECD coal consumption stayed virtually flat. In fact, you can see that the 2008 recession cut OECD coal use quite noticeably, while non-OECD use kept right on truckin'.

[GliderGuider]

37. Non-OECD countries are the problem children of the global energy family

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

They are increasing their adoption of non-fossil energy a little faster than the OECD nations, but their consumption of fossil fuels is frankly terrifying. It looks like they're deadly serious about emulating the developed world in all regards - and the whole boom is being driven by coal.

On edit: Here's the breakdown by source:

[joshcryer]

42. Yikes. Look at how gas is far far outpacing renewables.

In both OECD and non-OECD... damn.

[joshcryer]

41. Coal is still extremely cheap and in non-OECD states a coal plant can be built quick.

This is unsurprising, and it's one reason all of these developing states, even the "socialist states" like in Latin America (who you would think were environmentally friendly) aren't wanting to cut back production of fossil fuels. It would hurt their development.

And to be sure it's hard to blame them.