New Chinese Coal Plants Equal All those in U.S.A

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-building-new-coal-plants-equal-to-entire-us-capacity_2679901.html

China Building New Coal Plants Equal to Entire US Capacity

 

 

[nsdp + 449]

Ron you better look at the average number of hours per year and average revenue per hour of operation before you get too carried away. Average time on line is less than 50% for all coal plants. Break even is 79-81% for economics. The plants represent sunk costs and they only operate when the power price is more than the cost of fuel less shutdown costs. Most of the new projects were committed to construction 8 years ago when coal was the cheapest source. China is shutting down coal plants that are 20 years old because they are not efficient enough or low enough pollution to be worth keeping. New plants are brought on line to cut air pollution two ways. The new units use 8300-8500 btu's/mwh vs 9300btu's mwh for pre 2005 units. And they have better pollution controls. China has only one city in the top 100 most polluted in the world now unlike 2008 where people had to wear masks during the Beijing Olympics. Only the newest plants stay on line year round.

City of San Antonio has a coal plant it brought on line in 2009 that is one of the 5 cleanest and most efficient coal plants in the US. Power prices annually are such that it operates only 5 months a year and loses $33million in cash and $100 million per year when capital costs are depreciated. https://sanantonioreport.org/coal-plant-losing-money-but-cps-energy-is-keeping-it-for-now/ Right now at 2230 hours that plant is losing $40/mwh($3600 gross/hour) because the grid price is $18.78. Breakeven is $58/mwh. There are no longer enough hours in the day in ERCOT at rates above $80/mwh to breakeven on a daily basis, But the cost of shut down and restart 3 or four days later is high enough to make it less of a money loss to stay on line losing money until about the 15-20th of September. After then it won't be profitable long enough to run again until the last week of December at the earliest.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Yet China is still the largest user of coal in the world, followed by India. America has won the struggle to reduce pollution by using more natural gas than any other large country. Europeans were afraid to frack so lost out on their own cheap natural gas so they are stuck with wind farms in some formerly scenic areas. I am against coal and pro natural gas. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

11 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Yet China is still the largest user of coal in the world, followed by India.

In fairness those countries have loads of people and are less developed.

Leaders lead; the winner of a race should not slow down just because the competition is lagging.

Set the highest standards, don't lower yours to match theirs.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I agree with your statement. I am anti coal. I just think the best answer is natural gas for advanced countries. I don't know that there has been any real change in Chinese and Indian air pollution. I hope their lungs don't hurt like mine did, with exertion, in smogville Los Angeles. back in the fifties. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

and you still haven't made a point. Building new coal plants only matters if they are operated and the capacity factor is dropping in China. I am not defending the Chinese, I suspect they will be the laggards and the rest of the world needs to be in a position to shame them. Losing face is the greatest motivator in Asia. The real question is if natural gas is so wonderful why aren't they adopting more of it?

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The real question is if natural gas is so wonderful why aren't they adopting more of it?

Isn't coal still cheaper in China?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Strangelovesurfing said:

Isn't coal still cheaper in China?

I'm sure it is. it was a question for Ron because he supports gas so much.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

What matters is how much coal they use not how many plants they build. They have been claiming that the new coal plants are replacing the old low efficiency plants. https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%20half%20century,percent%20of%20China's%20energy%20use.

China’s heavy use of “subcritical” coal plants has exacerbated the issue, since such plants are notorious for burning coal in a dirty and inefficient manner. Efforts have been made to clean up coal production by renovating old coal-burning facilities, and some Chinese sources estimate that China will possess the world’s largest high-efficiency coal power system by 2020. By 2019, ultra-low emissions technology was incorporated into 80 percent of China’s coal-fired energy capacity, and more low emission plants are set to be built in 2020. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Now, now, Mr. McKinsey ... you might want to be a little cautious  as your (accurate) referenced data is touting the positive effects of HELE coal plants (High Efficiency Low Emission).

The Japanese have been making extremely rapid advances in this field utilizing approaches such as finely pulverized coal, oxygen-rich 'air' in the combustion chambers, ultra high pressures, etc.

 

Pretty impressive stuff ... all the more so as advances in material technology are further enabling catalytic processes to capture just about all the emissions coming out the stack.

 

Cost of natgas versus coal is - as usual - a determinant factor in fuel use.

Despite probably having the largest shale gas resources in the world, it does not seem likely that the Chinese will significantly  expand production in the near future.

Price of piped natty from Siberia is said to be about $6/mmbtu at the border ... significantly higher when shipped south. This opens the door for LNG imports as a viable competitor. The recent statement from Tellurian that they could operate in an environment of $5/mmbtu sales price should rock the energy world, if the statement proves to be accurate.

Heck, Mr. McKinsey, your apparent receptivity to HELE coal plants (or at least a seemingly sympathetic response) might lead one to wonder if you will now promote these new, magnificent coal burners as a solution for California's power problems?

Curious minds wants ta kno.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marcin2 + 725]

20 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Yet China is still the largest user of coal in the world, followed by India. America has won the struggle to reduce pollution by using more natural gas than any other large country. Europeans were afraid to frack so lost out on their own cheap natural gas so they are stuck with wind farms in some formerly scenic areas. I am against coal and pro natural gas. 

I always write the same on any thread that is about:

1.Why China uses coal and United States uses natural gas for electricity generation ?

2. How long coal will be top source of electricity in China ?

ad1. China 7,500 TWh and US 4,400 Twh of electricity generation. China 70% more.

China still has relatively high growth of electricity generation, will be 200% of US in 2023-2024.

US is the largest consumer and producer of natural gas.

There is not enough known resources of natural gas on the planet Earth for China to switch to coal from natural gas.

ad2. At least next 50 years, cause only alternative technology known is nuclear power.

And nuclear power is still too risky, too complicated and too expensive for densely populated China.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Sorry Marcin but you have no idea of the immense resources of natural gas around the world or the methane hydrates which are much higher. Please do some research of your own. I have written the facts many times!

[Marcin2 + 725]

18 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

and you still haven't made a point. Building new coal plants only matters if they are operated and the capacity factor is dropping in China. I am not defending the Chinese, I suspect they will be the laggards and the rest of the world needs to be in a position to shame them. Losing face is the greatest motivator in Asia. The real question is if natural gas is so wonderful why aren't they adopting more of it?

 

Calling from planet Earth: Not enough known resources of natural gas on our planet for China to switch electricity generation from coal to natural gas.

[Marcin2 + 725]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Sorry Marcin but you have no idea of the immense resources of natural gas around the world or the methane hydrates which are much higher. Please do some research of your own. I have written the facts many times!

You are right it is probably very simple, but I do not know.

Please tell me how, using what known resources you can supply China with additional 1,500 billion m3 of natural gas.

Current global production is 4,000 billion m3 including US the largest producer with 920 billion m3 of natural gas.

You have 20 years and 5 trillion dollars, what would you do ?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

13 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

 

Calling from planet Earth: Not enough known resources of natural gas on our planet for China to switch electricity generation from coal to natural gas.

You need to direct that to the gas heads on this forum not me. I couldn't care less because there is definitely enough sunshine and wind to replace China's coal usage.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

36 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

 

Heck, Mr. McKinsey, your apparent receptivity to HELE coal plants (or at least a seemingly sympathetic response) might lead one to wonder if you will now promote these new, magnificent coal burners as a solution for California's power problems?

Curious minds wants ta kno.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I am not receptive at all to coal plants of any kind. I am just playing along on Ron's coal thread that he was so excited about. The future will likely be a 100% green US and Europe who will then need to shame China into getting rid of  coal. Loss of face is a huge motivator in Asia.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

You are right it is probably very simple, but I do not know.

Please tell me how, using what known resources you can supply China with additional 1,500 billion m3 of natural gas.

Current global production is 4,000 billion m3 including US the largest producer with 920 billion m3 of natural gas.

You have 20 years and 5 trillion dollars, what would you do ?

The Chinese and India have chosen the dirty path, they know all their options and do their own research. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

57 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

 

Calling from planet Earth: Not enough known resources of natural gas on our planet for China to switch electricity generation from coal to natural gas.

You are ignorant of the facts. Do some of your research. I am tired of doing it for you.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 9/3/2020 at 2:19 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

and you still haven't made a point. Building new coal plants only matters if they are operated and the capacity factor is dropping in China. I am not defending the Chinese, I suspect they will be the laggards and the rest of the world needs to be in a position to shame them. Losing face is the greatest motivator in Asia. The real question is if natural gas is so wonderful why aren't they adopting more of it?

Also many of these new coal plants replaced older less efficient plant. 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 9/2/2020 at 8:54 PM, ronwagn said:

I agree with your statement. I am anti coal. I just think the best answer is natural gas for advanced countries. I don't know that there has been any real change in Chinese and Indian air pollution. I hope their lungs don't hurt like mine did, with exertion, in smogville Los Angeles. back in the fifties. 

The problem with pollution can be solved, and indeed even the US with coal units made in the 1950s has reduced very much the Pollution problem, with modern lean burn vertical tube tower boilers, very high combustion temperatures, and all the precipitators, srubbers, soot removal, and selective catalytic reduction (also a new requirement for CCGTs) the pollution can be kept to a minimum, in some cases the NOx emissions of coal are lower than Natural gas (lower combustion temps) 

Problem with relying on a single fuel energy source, is that you are at the mercy of price fluctuation on that single source, Xi-Jinping is not a dumbass Ocasio cortez style politician, is a Petrochemical Engineer, and he surely knows one or two things about fuels and electricity, he like all of China, doesn't care about what the rest of the word thinks, he doesn't care about climate, he doesn't care about the green movements, he cares about the short term stability of the country and about making china the biggest economy Before 2029 and Making China the global Hegemon by mid century, at any cost. And looking at the numbers bituminous coal has historically been priced at 50U$D/Ton, while Natural gas is historically price at around 200U$D/Ton, in the USA, not imported. The fuel costs of an AUSC unit is 10U$D/MWh, while the fuel cost for a CCGT is 20U$D/MWh

what china is doing it is retiring old aging coal fleets that are generally subcritical and under 500MWe and replacing them with new fancy >1100MWe Ultra Supercritical double reheat units, that get gross efficiencies of 57%, and nets of 48-50% compared with the US 32,% you can't rely on a single fuel and expect that things will always going to go well, electricity doesn't need to work most of the times, but ALL THE TIME.

China, all of china with 1.3 billion people has 100,000Km of NatGas pipeline, Texas is by far the largest natural gas producer in the US, has 90,000KM of pipelines, and they struggle in winter when everybody wants to turn up the gast stoves, Because natural gas for heating always gets priority over gas for electricity. Natural gas is useful for many many things, coal is only useful for electricity

Because electrical natural gas gets lower priority on cold days than heating, natural gas plants in many part of the USA tend to run out of fuel in winter, in the northeast when such thing happen they generally switch to oil, collect oil all year to burn in a few days, because oil is easy to store, it conserves it shape, in a container, without compressing it to 300 bar or freezing it up to -170C, coal is solid, you can leave it under a tent, is not going to go anywhere, it a solid.

 Co2 Emission are a problem, or at least that's what greenies say, global warmins is real, some countries will benefit some will not the earth was much warmer in the Eocene, is not the end of the world.  However some of the saving by lower direct co2 emissions are offset by methane emission from the well to the turbine injectors, over a 20 year period CH4 is 80 times worse than CO2 and over a 100 year period is 28 times worse.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 9/3/2020 at 5:00 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

No, I am not receptive at all to coal plants of any kind. I am just playing along on Ron's coal thread that he was so excited about. The future will likely be a 100% green US and Europe who will then need to shame China into getting rid of  coal. Loss of face is a huge motivator in Asia.

That's not gonna happen, possibly ever, question, ¿if Solar energy was so good, why china that manufactures these solar panels doesn't replace coal plants with solar? The solar industry in china is a job creation business, centered in Xinjiang, if they ever decide that solar needs a day of reckoning they will.

Common, avantgrid has revenues over 360U$D/MWh that are paid someway or the another by the taxpayer or the consumer , for some weird strange reason Orsted keeps the costs of their wind farms a secret, and has revenues per MWh in the offshore sector close to 400U$D/MWh, in denmark with highest electricity prices in the world wind is 8% of primary energy consumption, and if you want to electrify everything you have to produce the same in electricity as primary energy, because efficiency has never, and will never reduce energy consumption. Vermont pays 220U$D/MWh to wind and solar developers in production credits, government schemes that are too complicated for average joe to understand, so he believes solar and wind are the cheapest source when they bid the electricity sale price

Edited April 9, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 9/2/2020 at 1:55 PM, nsdp said:

Ron you better look at the average number of hours per year and average revenue per hour of operation before you get too carried away. Average time on line is less than 50% for all coal plants. Break even is 79-81% for economics. The plants represent sunk costs and they only operate when the power price is more than the cost of fuel less shutdown costs.

 

On 9/6/2020 at 2:05 AM, NickW said:

and you still haven't made a point. Building new coal plants only matters if they are operated and the capacity factor is dropping in China.

Guys - that's quite right but as I've pointed out before on this forum, Chinese binge building of coal power plants which is still going on has nothing to do with future demand or supply of coal, or anything sensible like that. Its driven by internal political considerations. A feature of the Chinese one party system is that the country binge builds certain assets. Every local party boss has to build a power plant in his province  because they are being built elsewhere. A while back it was dams, as well as wind turbines, convention centres and blast furnaces. The main point I think is that the present obsession with coal power makes a nonsense of activist claims that the Chinese care about the environment, or would be in a position to do anything about promises to limit emissions. The central government frequently seems to lose control of its regional governments.     

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/8/2021 at 8:35 PM, Sebastian Meana said:

The problem with pollution can be solved, and indeed even the US with coal units made in the 1950s has reduced very much the Pollution problem, with modern lean burn vertical tube tower boilers, very high combustion temperatures, and all the precipitators, srubbers, soot removal, and selective catalytic reduction (also a new requirement for CCGTs) the pollution can be kept to a minimum, in some cases the NOx emissions of coal are lower than Natural gas (lower combustion temps) 

Problem with relying on a single fuel energy source, is that you are at the mercy of price fluctuation on that single source, Xi-Jinping is not a dumbass Ocasio cortez style politician, is a Petrochemical Engineer, and he surely knows one or two things about fuels and electricity, he like all of China, doesn't care about what the rest of the word thinks, he doesn't care about climate, he doesn't care about the green movements, he cares about the short term stability of the country and about making china the biggest economy Before 2029 and Making China the global Hegemon by mid century, at any cost. And looking at the numbers bituminous coal has historically been priced at 50U$D/Ton, while Natural gas is historically price at around 200U$D/Ton, in the USA, not imported. The fuel costs of an AUSC unit is 10U$D/MWh, while the fuel cost for a CCGT is 20U$D/MWh

what china is doing it is retiring old aging coal fleets that are generally subcritical and under 500MWe and replacing them with new fancy >1100MWe Ultra Supercritical double reheat units, that get gross efficiencies of 57%, and nets of 48-50% compared with the US 32,% you can't rely on a single fuel and expect that things will always going to go well, electricity doesn't need to work most of the times, but ALL THE TIME.

China, all of china with 1.3 billion people has 100,000Km of NatGas pipeline, Texas is by far the largest natural gas producer in the US, has 90,000KM of pipelines, and they struggle in winter when everybody wants to turn up the gast stoves, Because natural gas for heating always gets priority over gas for electricity. Natural gas is useful for many many things, coal is only useful for electricity

Because electrical natural gas gets lower priority on cold days than heating, natural gas plants in many part of the USA tend to run out of fuel in winter, in the northeast when such thing happen they generally switch to oil, collect oil all year to burn in a few days, because oil is easy to store, it conserves it shape, in a container, without compressing it to 300 bar or freezing it up to -170C, coal is solid, you can leave it under a tent, is not going to go anywhere, it a solid.

 Co2 Emission are a problem, or at least that's what greenies say, global warmins is real, some countries will benefit some will not the earth was much warmer in the Eocene, is not the end of the world.  However some of the saving by lower direct co2 emissions are offset by methane emission from the well to the turbine injectors, over a 20 year period CH4 is 80 times worse than CO2 and over a 100 year period is 28 times worse.

Coal tailings are still a major problem, and obviously their air is still terrible. You make it sound like there is no issue, but give some good information. The populations of the Third World all suffer from not using cheap natural gas, even though it is more expensive than coal in some areas. It is still the best solution IMHO.

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Coal tailings are still a major problem, and obviously their air is still terrible. You make it sound like there is no issue, but give some good information. The populations of the Third World all suffer from not using cheap natural gas, even though it is more expensive than coal in some areas. It is still the best solution IMHO.

Yes, is true, coal plants produce tailings because of the fly ash, and that fly ash must be disposed from, that an issue they are really toxic, but that can be stored and used in the concrete as a enchanced, concrete mixed with ash is better

A good chunk of the pollution in china and india is not just power generation but industrial coal uses in heating and steel industry, blast furnaces more precisely, which are sectors in which is expensive to put aftertreatment systems like in coal powerplants, on the other hand GE offers a wide array of way to reduce coal pollution at levels even lower than natural gas.

IN the European Union which has stronger pollution standards for powerplants against the USA, the limit of natural gas plants are 50Mg/Nm3 of NOx, 35Mg/Nm3 of SO2, and 5-10Mg/Nm3 of particulate matter, better known as soot, for china the rule of new coal plants that have to operate after 2020 is 50Mg/Nm3 of NOx, 35Mg/Nm3 of SO2 and 10Mg/Nm3 of Soot.

If you want General Electric will offer  you even lower emissions for the aftreatment of coal powerplants, 10Mg/Nm3 of NOx, 15Mg/Nm3 of SO2, and 10Mg/Nm3 of of Soot, 2.5Mg/Nm3 if you use a fabric soot filter.

So yes, electrifying industry and using the coal mainly at the powerplants would eliminate air pollution in china and india

Europe emission limits
China new emissions limits
General electric coal pamphlet.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Thanks, Sebastian. You are really up on the technology. That helps me understand the other side of the story! China uses more concrete than maybe the rest of the world together.  The Chinese and Indians etc. will do whatever is best for them. I just want the world to know what is going on and how the Chinese will benefit from producing Green Products while the world consumes more of them.