Coal Boom in Asia is Real and a Long Trend

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

9 hours ago, tldpdb1 said:

Yeah you said it,  Peer reviewed Science is Hogwash....where's your Data?

Well, lets look at your "god".  My sister was getting her PHD in Neurology found out that well over 50% of everything published was 100% LIES(ran out of $$$ to test more while trying to get her PHD).  It was so bad she got her professor fired for blatant corruption as well.  Why?  To become tenured and stay tenured, you must graduate your students and bring in grant $$$.  To graduate, they must pass their thesis.....  So lie lie lie lie, and you graduate.  To bring in $$$, lie lie lie lie lie, and bring in the $$$. 

Others have published that well over 75% are complete lies. 

Most telling, should you wish to open your ears, is that his comment was targeting the social sciences which have nothing to do with actual science who in the western world have turned 100% Marxist.  Which is humorous as China is supposedly "Communist"... No, it is just an oligarchy and serfs as it has been for at least 2000 years. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

That's the definition of conservatism.  Western leftists ignore necessity, which is why everything they touch turns to destitution. 

Read about all the coal plants being built in SE Asia.  US coal production is expected to stay steady in the face of declining domestic consumption; that can only happen if there are exports. 

Why is SE Asia burning coal?  Because it's cheap. 

It is cheap, because vast majority of population in SE Asia lives in Giant cities right on the coast making shipping costs for importation of coal LOW.  Much cheaper to ship COAL than NG and oil is way too expensive.  That and SE Asia is in the tropics which means Wind power is an obscene joke and sun is likewise a joke due to clouds and super high humidity. 

[tldpdb1 + 24]

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/coal-lignite/coal-production-data.html

Here is the World data per country to 2017 Click on each Country to see it's Production.  Chinas Coal Production is Scheduled to be Flat to falling a little the Next 5 years.   The Big increases will come From India who like China has a fast growing economy, very little Oil and Gas and a lot of Coal.

more data

https://www.iea.org/coal2018/

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

23 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Above some percentage of generation, renewables hit a brick wall of additional costs.  That's where your "slow and steady" will grind to a halt. 

 This is tru to some extent, but only an extent. The best example is that there are now zero subsidy offshore windfarms (which are far more expensive than onshore) being built. This was unthinkable even 5 years ago. This is a fact. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Japan is the world’s third-largest coal-importing country

Japan imported more than 210 million short tons (MMst) of coal in 2018, making it the world’s third-largest coal-importing country after only India and China. Japan continues to use steam coal to fuel one-third of its electricity generation and metallurgical coal for raw steel production.

Japan imports nearly all (99%) of the coal it consumes. Australia is Japan’s primary coal supplier, supplying 128 MMst, or 61%, of Japan’s demand in 2018. Indonesia (32 MMst), Russia (21 MMst), the United States (13 MMst), and Canada (9.6 MMst) accounted for another 35% of total coal imports. U.S. thermal coal exports to Japan increased by 20% in 2018, and 2019 exports as of March are already 38% higher than in all of 2018.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics

Coal accounts for about one-third of Japan’s electricity generation. In 2018, Japan’s utilities produced an estimated 317 billion kilowatthours of electricity at more than 90 coal-fired power plants. Coal’s share of electricity generation in Japan was higher in 2018 than it was before the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. In 2010, coal accounted for 25% of Japan’s electricity generation, and nuclear generation accounted for 29%.

Before 2011, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) had planned to reduce coal’s generation share by more than half by 2030, intending for nuclear power to offset coal plant retirements. The plan included increasing the nuclear generation share in Japan’s electricity mix to 50% by 2030. However, as a result of the Fukushima accident and subsequent suspension of Japan’s nuclear fleet, METI now projects a future energy mix of 20% to 22% nuclear, 22% to 24% renewables, 26% coal, and 27% natural gas through 2030.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau; Japan Ministry of Finance; Global Trade Tracker

Japan’s utilities plan to construct 20 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired electric power generation capacity in the next decade. The scope of development will depend on how many suspended nuclear reactors resume operation. Increased competition in Japan’s electricity market may also have an effect as new non-coal entrants compete for market share.

New coal plant development also depends on whether the Japanese government will grant environmental approvals to planned coal-fired power projects, given the country’s intention to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions levels by 26% by 2030. The environmental approvals will depend on several factors, including the plant’s proximity to population centers and the pace of Japan’s CO2 emissions reduction efforts.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on International Energy Agency data

The Japanese government has promoted the development of more efficient coal-burning technologies, such as ultra-supercritical coal-fired power (USC) plants, in an effort to meet environmental goals. USC plants emit less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity generation than traditional coal-fired plants, although their emissions are still nearly double that of natural gas plants.

METI is currently recommending that 50% of all coal-fired electricity generation come from USC plants by 2030, and investors in Japan have begun to limit coal financing to high-efficiency coal projects instead of traditional designs.
Source: EIA

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 This is tru to some extent, but only an extent. The best example is that there are now zero subsidy offshore windfarms (which are far more expensive than onshore) being built. This was unthinkable even 5 years ago. This is a fact. 

Let's put your statement into perspective:
1)  These are being built where wholesale electricity prices are artificially inflated by reliance on renewables.  Would offshore wind still be viable without that inflation? 
2)  The countries relying on a high percentage of renewables import base load power when the wind doesn't blow.  Coal, gas, and nuclear are still carrying the weight of renewables.
3)  Were transmission upgrade costs factored included in the cost of these projects? 
4)  Were electricity import costs factored into the cost of these projects? 

[NickW + 2,714]

52 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Let's put your statement into perspective:
1)  These are being built where wholesale electricity prices are artificially inflated by reliance on renewables.  Would offshore wind still be viable without that inflation? 
2)  The countries relying on a high percentage of renewables import base load power when the wind doesn't blow.  Coal, gas, and nuclear are still carrying the weight of renewables.
3)  Were transmission upgrade costs factored included in the cost of these projects? 
4)  Were electricity import costs factored into the cost of these projects? 

Coal and Gas don't pick up the tab for externality costs (mainly health impacts) so its swings and roundabouts in this regard. 

Still as the is OP.Com fairy land emissions from FF will have no impact on health. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

1)  These are being built where wholesale electricity prices are artificially inflated by reliance on renewables.  Would offshore wind still be viable without that inflation?

They are being built by private entities, so these must be happy with the returns on their investments

 

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

3)  Were transmission upgrade costs factored included in the cost of these projects? 

Yes. 

 

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

2)  The countries relying on a high percentage of renewables import base load power when the wind doesn't blow.  Coal, gas, and nuclear are still carrying the weight of renewables.

 

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

4)  Were electricity import costs factored into the cost of these projects? 

don't understand the relevance

-----------------------------

Why are you not willing to accept that CAPEX for offshore wind have decreased massively to the point where increasingly subsidies are no longer needed? If investors are not happy returns they would not invest. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 6/18/2019 at 12:25 PM, Wastral said:

Well, lets look at your "god".  My sister was getting her PHD in Neurology found out that well over 50% of everything published was 100% LIES(ran out of $$$ to test more while trying to get her PHD).  It was so bad she got her professor fired for blatant corruption as well.  Why?  To become tenured and stay tenured, you must graduate your students and bring in grant $$$.  To graduate, they must pass their thesis.....  So lie lie lie lie, and you graduate.  To bring in $$$, lie lie lie lie lie, and bring in the $$$. 

Others have published that well over 75% are complete lies. 

 Most telling, should you wish to open your ears, is that his comment was targeting the social sciences which have nothing to do with actual science who in the western world have turned 100% Marxist.  Which is humorous as China is supposedly "Communist"... No, it is just an oligarchy and serfs as it has been for at least 2000 years.  

This, except I meant all academic fields.  The graduate students I worked with were computer scientists, and they estimated that 75% of their academic field was garbage. 

The rule is that academia is corrupt & incompetent.  The exceptions are fields that can be held legally liable for their results.  E.g. Professional Engineers and Medical Doctors have a difficult time hiding their failures.  Even those fields have their issues though. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

6 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

They are being built by private entities, so these must be happy with the returns on their investments

 

Yes. 

 

 

don't understand the relevance

-----------------------------

Why are you not willing to accept that CAPEX for offshore wind have decreased massively to the point where increasingly subsidies are no longer needed? If investors are not happy returns they would not invest. 

I'm not willing to accept it because:
1)  Subsidy and regulation created an environment of high electricity prices.  Without that, these projects would not be economical.
2)  The cost doesn't factor in all the other things that must be built to sustain intermittent power, such as backup generation and electricity imports. 
3)  Renewables still haven't proven they can be incorporated into the grid at high percentages without extenuating circumstances.  E.g. Norway has enough cheap hydro to back up wind power - a feat that can't be reproduced elsewhere - and Germany has incredibly high electricity prices. 

What's been demonstrated is niche cases where external costs were ignored.  I'm not impressed. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

5 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

1)  Subsidy and regulation created an environment of high electricity prices.  Without that, these projects would not be economical.

This makes no sense in this context. All it would mean is that the ROI would be higher on FF power-generating assets. Investors are not altruistic - if they have a choice between 10% and 15 % return they will take the 15 %... 

5 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

2)  The cost doesn't factor in all the other things that must be built to sustain intermittent power, such as backup generation and electricity imports. 

I don't understand your point. 

Renewables in europe are being built either as new generating capacity or as replace for old capacity being phased out. It co-exists FF power gen assets. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I'm not willing to accept it because:
1)  Subsidy and regulation created an environment of high electricity prices.  Without that, these projects would not be economical.
2)  The cost doesn't factor in all the other things that must be built to sustain intermittent power, such as backup generation and electricity imports. 
3)  Renewables still haven't proven they can be incorporated into the grid at high percentages without extenuating circumstances.  E.g. Norway has enough cheap hydro to back up wind power - a feat that can't be reproduced elsewhere - and Germany has incredibly high electricity prices. 

What's been demonstrated is niche cases where external costs were ignored.  I'm not impressed. 

1. A significant proportion of that regulation is pollution control. Do you want a scenario where all emission control regulation is removed?

A complete absence of pollution abatement measures will reduce the cost of electricity. The knock on costs are damage to health (often irreversible) , damage to the local and regional environment, and global environment.

3. 23% of Germany's electricity cost are general taxes. Additionally they is a renewables tax on each unit of electricity which is falling each year

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power

4. A number of European countries are demonstrating otherwise.

 

Whatever your objections to renewables (echoed by yesterdays men on this site )  populations generally support the growth and deployment of renewables which includes an acceptance that some additional costs are a consequence of that.

 

A few examples:

Support for onshore wind (UK)  >70%

https://www.renewableuk.com/news/426069/Latest-official-poll-shows-public-support-for-onshore-wind-stays-at-record-high-.htm

USA - generally support for renewables over FF - >70%

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13705-018-0152-5

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

The rule is that academia is corrupt & incompetent.  The exceptions are fields that can be held legally liable for their results.  E.g. Professional Engineers and Medical Doctors have a difficult time hiding their failures.  Even those fields have their issues though. 

All true, for Engineers.  M.D.'s do have this ability to hide their failures, because their failures are all dead. 

Died from "something else."  Who is going to dispute that?

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

9 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This makes no sense in this context. All it would mean is that the ROI would be higher on FF power-generating assets. Investors are not altruistic - if they have a choice between 10% and 15 % return they will take the 15 %...  

I don't understand your point. 

Renewables in europe are being built either as new generating capacity or as replace for old capacity being phased out. It co-exists FF power gen assets.  

 

If you don't understand those two points, you don't understand how electricity markets work.  It isn't as simple as you claim. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

7 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

All true, for Engineers.  M.D.'s do have this ability to hide their failures, because their failures are all dead. 

Died from "something else."  Who is going to dispute that?

Fair point.  That would explain why doctors are the leading cause of unnatural death in the US.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

If you don't understand those two points, you don't understand how electricity markets work.  It isn't as simple as you claim. 

enligthen me.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

13 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

All true, for Engineers.  M.D.'s do have this ability to hide their failures, because their failures are all dead. 

Died from "something else."  Who is going to dispute that?

I would completely disagree, doctors arent given enough credit for what they do, and most drs spend more than half their lives without making a lot of $$ either. They are a very strong spirited, one of the most sincere, ethical, honest, hard working group of people on the planet, the likes of which are difficult to find. There are bad apples and bad actors and characters in each and every profession and there are some greedy and assholish and arrogant ones in the medical field as well. But overall what drs day in and day out is remarkable, the dedication and sacrifice and the amount of learning and continued education to be on top of things everyday ..... People die , no Dr is above nature and life cycle, people die, sometimes by human error, or series of human errors , sometimes they just die , is it that more people lead better and healthier lives because of drs and the medical field?

In the US and probably in most of the Western world and maybe other parts of the globe, people have this issue with drs, oh my such and such is a dr and they are out to fleece me, oh they make to much $$$, there was also a movement in the US a while ago to curb the pay for drs... yet no such thing for so called Hollywood celebs who get paid tens of millions of $$$ for acting, yet these folks are put on a holier than thou pedestal.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

38 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

and there are some greedy and assholish and arrogant ones in the medical field as well

Well, I sure hope you feel better after that rant.  

As to your specific quote above, moving past the greedy part, the second two characteristics are quite prevalent inside medicine.  One of the problems inside medicine is that the patient is not the customer, in the USA.  The customer is some insurance company.  The net result is that the patient suffers,  There is no obvious solution for this, including single-payer. It is one of the headache issues of US medicine. 

All that said, if a physician screws it up, the patient is the one who ends up dead, not the physician.  So yes, physicians bury their mistakes.  And a lot more than you might think. Figure four million a year.  I would suggest that mis-diagnosis is the largest single cause, followed by inappropriate treatment protocols. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[D Coyne + 305]

On 6/17/2019 at 7:12 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Asian culture is a very wide term. 

try to research what is happening in the power markets in Taiwan, Japan and Korea... Probably China, too, but I don't know that much about that. 

Consider the following report

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

The charts below give the unsubsidized levelized cost of wind and solar compared with coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 6/20/2019 at 9:01 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Well, I sure hope you feel better after that rant.  

As to your specific quote above, moving past the greedy part, the second two characteristics are quite prevalent inside medicine.  One of the problems inside medicine is that the patient is not the customer, in the USA.  The customer is some insurance company.  The net result is that the patient suffers,  There is no obvious solution for this, including single-payer. It is one of the headache issues of US medicine. 

All that said, if a physician screws it up, the patient is the one who ends up dead, not the physician.  So yes, physicians bury their mistakes.  And a lot more than you might think. Figure four million a year.  I would suggest that mis-diagnosis is the largest single cause, followed by inappropriate treatment protocols. 

Jan,

I would disagree on the prevalence of the "arrogance or tendency to be assholes" of physicians, I know many and have found the opposite to be true compared to people in general or to most on this board.  No physician is perfect, no doubt mistakes are made on occasion.  

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

The researchers caution that most of medical errors aren’t due to inherently bad doctors, and that reporting these errors shouldn’t be addressed by punishment or legal action. Rather, they say, most errors represent systemic problems, including poorly coordinated care, fragmented insurance networks, the absence or underuse of safety nets, and other protocols, in addition to unwarranted variation in physician practice patterns that lack accountability.

In 2013, the rate of deaths due to medical errors according to an extrapolation by the study was about 7 of 1000 people hospitalized.  Other studies have disputed the methodology of the paper which assumes in every case that a medical error is made that the cause of death was the medical error.  In most cases any minor medical errors are unimportant in the final outcome, the patient would have died in any case (with or without any medical errors).  When this and the fact that the study used an over 65 cohort in their study is accounted for the rate falls by about a factor of 10.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

5 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Jan,

I would disagree on the prevalence of the "arrogance or tendency to be assholes" of physicians, I know many and have found the opposite to be true compared to people in general or to most on this board.  No physician is perfect, no doubt mistakes are made on occasion.  

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

The researchers caution that most of medical errors aren’t due to inherently bad doctors, and that reporting these errors shouldn’t be addressed by punishment or legal action. Rather, they say, most errors represent systemic problems, including poorly coordinated care, fragmented insurance networks, the absence or underuse of safety nets, and other protocols, in addition to unwarranted variation in physician practice patterns that lack accountability.

In 2013, the rate of deaths due to medical errors according to an extrapolation by the study was about 7 of 1000 people hospitalized.  Other studies have disputed the methodology of the paper which assumes in every case that a medical error is made that the cause of death was the medical error.  In most cases any minor medical errors are unimportant in the final outcome, the patient would have died in any case (with or without any medical errors).  When this and the fact that the study used an over 65 cohort in their study is accounted for the rate falls by about a factor of 10.

Far as I am concerned with, a couple Dr.s in the family along with Nurses, anyone over 65-->70+ years old is nothing but a booby trap for any doctor/nurse/hospital and all of their deaths should be removed from 100% of every study regarding "malpractice" or medical "error".  Hell half the time, the patient refuses to take the medicine, takes way too much, demands more medicine not needed for pain etc, do not do the physical therapy, refuses to drink more water, get exercise, etc which lead to massive complications.

Far as I am concerned, best thing that could happen to the western world is to get rid of death health care... oh my bad, "medicare" or other "free"(Stolen from their children, grand children) health "care".  If you have no skin in the game, you will abuse the game.  Singapore has it about right with their health care.  You have to pay 50%.  Forces people to get off their ass and take responsibility for their own life. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

China’s May thermal coal import rises 35% on year as market activity picks up

China imported 20.68 million mt of thermal coal in May, up by about 19.3% from April and 34.8% from a year ago, according to the coal import data released by the General Administration of Customs on Sunday.

According to the data, China imported 9.89 million mt of lignite in May, up 2.49% month on month, while import of bituminous coal was up 40.31% from 7.69 million mt in April to 10.79 million mt in May.

Total coal imports from January to May, including coking coal, was 127.39 million mt, up 5.5% from 120.73 million mt a year ago. Last year, China’s overall coal import was around 281 million mt, with thermal coal accounting for about 74% of the total volume.

“A few power plants had called for tenders in April and there were more deals that month too, so most of the shipments have probably reached China in May,” an east China-based trader said.

“Some power plants are worried that import policy might be tightened later in the year, so they are procuring the cargoes earlier,” the same trader said.

Market activities during mid-March and April had picked up after a major industry event in China in early April. Several trades were reportedly concluded for Australian high-ash 5,500 kcal/kg NAR grade of coal when it hit a multi-year low of around $55/mt FOB Newcastle in mid-March and also amid the prospect of a relaxation of the import curbs on Australian cargoes.

Deals for over 1 million mt of Colombian coal were also reportedly concluded in April, according to market sources.

China’s custom authorities are looking to keep this year’s imports at levels similar to that of last year, but there has been no official announcement with regards to this, industry sources said.

 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

India’s annual coal demand rises 9.1% to nearly 1 bln tonnes

 

India’s annual coal demand rose 9.1% to 991.35 million tonnes during the year ended March 2019, India’s Coal Minister Pralhad Joshi told the country’s parliament.

Coal is among the top five commodities imported by India, one of biggest importers of the fuel despite having the world’s fifth largest reserves.

Consumption by India’s utilities, which accounted for three-fourths of the total demand, rose 6.6% to 760.66 million tonnes, Joshi said in a written response to a question in the upper house of the parliament.

Imports rose to 235.24 million tonnes in 2018-19 from 208.27 million tonnes in 2017-18, Joshi said, adding that domestic supplies rose to 734.23 million tonnes during the year ended March 2019.

India’s supply shortfall more than doubled to 23.35 million tonnes, mainly because of state-run Coal India’s inability to cater to demand from the cement and sponge iron industries.

Demand from the cement sector rose 70% to 37.22 million tonnes while coal demand from the sponge iron industry rose by over two-thirds to 41.33 million tonnes, Joshi said.

A ban on the use of petroleum coke, a dirtier alternative to coal, in some parts of the country, and Coal India’s focus on power sector ahead of the elections amid a promise to electrify all rural households in the country led to a rise in imports.

State-run Coal India is prioritising starting production at mines with a capacity of more than 10 million tonnes per year and improving mechanisation to increase output, Joshi said.

Coal India’s output rose 7% to 606.89 million tonnes in 2018-19, and is targeting a production of 660 million tonnes in 2019-20.
Source: Reuters