China Ramps Up Coal Fired Energy Production

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/21/greta-who-china-ramps-up-coal-fired-energy-production/

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Is-Chinas-Clean-Coal-A-Lie.html

This information needs maximum exposure throughout the world. It is one of the reasons we should reduce our trade with China and other countries that continue to burn coal while severely repressing their people in dictatorships. My concern is with real air pollution, not carbon dioxide. RCW

[Marcin + 519]

Ron,

This is a great idea to stop using coal. We only need to increase oil output by 50% to about 145 million bbl/d and also natural gas output by 50% to about 6,000 billion cubic meters and we can all forget about coal.

But wait a moment, It is technically impossible in the next 20 years, not enough crude oil and natural gas.

So until we discover 10 next Gwadars and 10 next South Pars/North Dome fields we need to accept the fact that coal is irreplaceable.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Marcin
typo

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

24 minutes ago, Marcin said:

This is a great idea to stop using coal. We only need to increase oil output by 50% to about 145 million bbl/d and also natural gas output by 50% to about 6,000 billion cubic meters and we can all forget about coal.

But wait a moment, It is technically impossible in the next 20 years, not enough crude oil and natural gas.

So until we discover 10 next Gwadars and 10 next South Pars/North Dome fields we need to accept the fact that coal is irreplaceable.

With respect, I think it is quite possible to replace coal with natural gas. They were paying to have it removed in the Permian. True, it's difficult to ramp up LNG oceanic transport but we're not the only country with NG: Putin is building the Nord Stream 2 to Germany and an LNG pipeline down the entirety of Pakistan; Qatar is the capitol of NG. Ron is right, carbon dioxide isn't the problem, it's sulfur. All one has to do is to study history. The Great Smog of London was in the early fifties. England was still reeling from the war and was exporting its low-sulfur coal (anthracite) and burning its high-sulfur coal (lignite). When the wind stopped blowing for a long stretch, the smog killed off thousands. Some university (I think Texas A&M) has studied this in the lab and found that the SOX levels would have been murderous. I have been pretty excited about this IMO2020 thing, but it won't do its job as long as China keeps adding scads of coal-burning utility plants. I suspect Xi knows this and is doing this to "fight back" against the trade war. Well, whatever, it's going to backfire, because while it will affect us all due to SOX entering the trade winds, it'll hit China hardest--watch their morbidity and mortality rate climb with the increase in coal usage. They recently cut off most EV subsidies too, which probably means they're getting tight on money. No matter how much little Greta and Miley Cyrus and Jane Fonda travel about preaching the evils of oil and gas (mostly leaving out coal), this whole environmental thing will revolve around the economy. Right now the US is flush with money. I'm not wishing for one but some day we'll have another worldwide recession. When that happens, people are going to use the most economical fuel available. That could easily be natural gas. In the process, the stainless steel Tesla pickup truck will likely go the way of the dinosaurs. Right now, the trade war should revolve almost entirely around the US supplying China with sweet crude (low in sulfur) and natural gas. It's just outright crazy how this sulfur oxide thing never enters most conversations on "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" and "poisons from fossil fuel." It's always about the carbon dioxide, which does some harm due to carbonaceous particles in the air (heart attacks and strokes go up with the carbon particle count), but it's really the sulfur that is wreaking havoc. 

[Marcin + 519]

1. Coal consumption 2018 was 3.8 billion tons of oil equivalent. The hypothetical growths of output  (by about 50%) of each of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are needed to substitute coal. If we assume coal substitution only by natural gas, we need additional 4,400 billion cubic meters of production, which is more than twice the current level of about 3,900 billion cubic meters.

I am ignorant in natural gas extraction so I do not know what is the potential for increase of production. If anybody here can somehow argue that 8,300 billion meters of output is possible, I am of course more than happy to get rid of coal (at least for 30 years until current natural gas reserves are depleted, but who knows what improvements are possible, recent innovation in shale is optimistic).

2. As far as I know desulfurization is mandatory in China, norms are similar to Western, but I am not an expert, have not seen it on the ground there.

Desulfurization is very expensive. You are adjusting efficiency of the process, in order to be just below norms, even that technically emissions could be mucht lower. The bags with gypsium in wet process are expensive.

So maybe you and Ron are right. I do not know what is regulatory environment in China so what I write in the next sentence is pure speculation. Potentially with lax regulatory environment, it is potentially much cheaper to "convince" official that everything is in line with emission norms than actually use the desulfurization installation.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Marcin
typo

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, Marcin said:

Ron,

This is a great idea to stop using coal. We only need to increase oil output by 50% to about 145 million bbl/d and also natural gas output by 50% to about 6,000 billion cubic meters and we can all forget about coal.

But wait a moment, It is technically impossible in the next 20 years, not enough crude oil and natural gas.

So until we discover 10 next Gwadars and 10 next South Pars/North Dome fields we need to accept the fact that coal is irreplaceable.

Meanwhile we are flaring great amounts of natural gas and not using many sources from new finds worldwide. We have also not touched methane hydrates from coastal areas which actually have far more methane than natural gas on land masses. 

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/09/wasted-gas-levels-worldwide-reach-record-high-enough-to-heat-every-home-in-uk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_gas_fields

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_natural_gas Another large source China should be using and it is domestic!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

Edited November 24, 2019 by ronwagn
added reference

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Russia, Qatar and the US could easily replace all the coal with natural gas. 

No matter where you go--east Permian, Delaware, SCOOP/STACK, Niobrara/Codel, Bakken, Haynesville/ Marcellus--there is a humongous amount of natural gas pure enough to burn straight out of the pipe, coming from the shale fields. In fact, there is so much that it has log-jammed virtually every basin producing LTO. The dry gas fields like Haynesville have this stuff in vast quantities. 

The major problem has been transportation. When the big natural gas terminals were built, they were to IMPORT natural gas--the United States had a shortage. Blackstone backed the venture by Cheniere to build these giant importation terminals, only to realize to their great and utter dismay that while the terminals were being built the hydraulic fracturing of shale in the Haynesville had resulted in voluminous natural gas finds (by Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward of Chesapeake). It's almost the only venture that Blackstone lost money on. The guy promoting all this was the same guy who owned Metzalunna, the Italian restaurants in Aspen and LA. So here they were with these multibillion-dollar terminals and--suddenly--all the natural gas the US needed-----the terminals were useless. No lesser person that Audrey McClendon called up the guy and said, hey, why don't you just turn them around, make them export terminals? The guy said it's not that easy, they have to be revamped. So Aubrey, ever the visionary, suggested he go back to Blackstone. They'd been burned once so they took a pass. Still, he got his backers and now we have exportation LNG terminals. But not enough to do the job and the ships for this are very expensive to outfit. That's the reason it's been so difficult to compete with Putin, who is building the Nord Stream 2 to Germany, laying down pipe to Turkey, and along the spine of Pakistan. 

And yes, the methane hasn't even been exploited. It is everywhere. 

NG is low in sulfur (the devil gas), clean-burning, and much more plentiful than coal. The reason Xi is pushing coal is to fight back against the trade war and also because China has almost no natural gas. Some of this stuff is just logistical but much of it is so political that it'll make you want to go bang your head against the wall. Here is China promoting EV's and acting all climate-friendly, yet building all these new coal-fired utility plants. In other words, they're charging their EV's with electricity ginned out by lignite coal that has the most sulfur content of anything but bitumen.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Meanwhile this story tells what their end goals really are. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7716441/Chinese-spy-lifts-lid-Chinas-foreign-intervention-efforts-defecting-Australia.html

[Hotone + 412]

On 11/24/2019 at 12:24 PM, ronwagn said:

My concern is with real air pollution, not carbon dioxide. RCW

Real air pollution only affects China (doesn't affect me), carbon dioxide affects the whole world since it contributes to climate change. 

China is turning to coal to boost their economy because of the trade war. They should also pull out of the Paris accord just like the USA, until the trade war is over.  That way, the rest of the world will have an interest in pushing both parties to resolve their differences.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Hotone
Addition

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

See interactive graphs showing the massive increase in coal plants in China and the decrease in Europe and N.America

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-coal-power-plants-in-one-map/

I agree with Gerry that its the pollutants from coal that is actually a major threat to life not the Co2

5 hours ago, Hotone said:

Real air pollution only affects China (doesn't affect me), carbon dioxide affects the whole world since it contributes to climate change. 

I beg to differ from your statement above, please see graph below

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, Hotone said:

Real air pollution only affects China (doesn't affect me), carbon dioxide affects the whole world since it contributes to climate change. 

China is turning to coal to boost their economy because of the trade war. They should also pull out of the Paris accord just like the USA, until the trade war is over.  That way, the rest of the world will have an interest in pushing both parties to resolve their differences.

It would be the honest thing to do. Their current course just plays into the worldwide smokescreen. Pun intended. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

See interactive graphs showing the massive increase in coal plants in China and the decrease in Europe and N.America

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-coal-power-plants-in-one-map/

I agree with Gerry that its the pollutants from coal that is actually a major threat to life not the Co2

I beg to differ from your statement above, please see graph below

A very good map! It looks like Mexico City needs to switch to natural gas and electric vehicles ASAP. The map expands if you click on it. A link to it would be helpful.

Edited November 25, 2019 by ronwagn
addition

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Ron try this hope it works

https://waqi.info/

 

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Rob Plant

[Guest]

Pooh bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We sorted it. 

[Hotone + 412]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

It would be the honest thing to do. Their current course just plays into the worldwide smokescreen. Pun intended. 

Yes, China needs to come clean. 😄

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

In fairness India is nearly as bad regarding pollution as China.

The 2 countries with the largest populations have a massive problem on their hands

India seems to get away with it when anyone talks of pollution, it always seems to fall back onto China.

If you look at plastic waste India is in fact a larger polluter of the seas than China

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

https://news.sky.com/story/emissions-need-to-be-slashed-annually-to-make-up-for-years-of-procrastination-un-11870229

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/26/2019 at 11:18 AM, Rob Plant said:

https://news.sky.com/story/emissions-need-to-be-slashed-annually-to-make-up-for-years-of-procrastination-un-11870229

The real problem is not C02 though, it is real pollutants such as particlulates, acid, leavings, and sulfur etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry

Worldwide air pollution https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NwglGIAHP9lCTGgmUxz7sD5l1qUQqN3o0IwwXsqAb1U/edit

Edited November 30, 2019 by ronwagn

[PE Scott + 563]

On 11/25/2019 at 12:27 AM, Hotone said:

Real air pollution only affects China (doesn't affect me), carbon dioxide affects the whole world since it contributes to climate change. 

China is turning to coal to boost their economy because of the trade war. They should also pull out of the Paris accord just like the USA, until the trade war is over.  That way, the rest of the world will have an interest in pushing both parties to resolve their differences.

I think this is often the mentality and why CO2 gets the biggest share of blame - because it's better leverage.

However, I suspect black carbon emissions along sea ice routes and heavy particulates from coal plants probably have a larger global effect than what is being illustrated or even understood. Maybe CO2 is a little harmful, I'm still on the fence. All those other emissions like SOX and NOX are scarier to me. The heavier carbon emissions that blanket the land and deposit pollutants into the soil and water table are of far greater immediate concern imo. There are ways to mitigate a lot of the pollutants from coal by scrubbing the exhaust gasses for example. Call me crazy, but instead of pushing for all renewable energy everywhere, perhaps the world should embrace reality and work with what they've got. Maybe its impractical to produce energy from resources other than coal in certain places, but it's still possible to try to clean up the exhaust and mitigate negative effects to humans and the enviroment.

The idea that the only solution is a moratorium on fossil fuels is impractical. Even if there were definitive evidence that 100% of everyone agreed on supporting AGW, we still would need fossil fuels well into the future. So, time would be better spent learning how to utilize those fuels in the most environmentally conscious way.

Edited November 30, 2019 by PE Scott

[remake it + 288]

5 hours ago, PE Scott said:

The idea that the only solution is a moratorium on fossil fuels is impractical.

???

For a very long time the key proposition has been that a price on carbon would first stimulate investment in and adoption of renewables, and secondly move energy use to the least polluting alternatives (principally natural gas).

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

24 minutes ago, remake it said:

a price on carbon

Bingo!

Fine for Al Gore, Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos to fly around the globe on a daily basis, but they've got to pay for pollution. 

Okay to flare when you simply refuse to wait for a pipeline, but it's going to cost you. 

But I have to chime in here: It's really not about the carbon, but the SOX and NOX. Sure, carbon in heavily encased areas, particularly those prone to temperature inversion, is an important cause of heart attack, asthma and stroke, but the European Union did more harm with their near-mandate of diesel cars than they can ever atone for by instituting some Paris Accord. It's not the cars but the boats burning low-quality bunker fuel. 

But I second your motion. Carbon is an easy thing to tax.

[remake it + 288]

11 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

But I have to chime in here: It's really not about the carbon, but the SOX and NOX. Sure, carbon in heavily encased areas,

Scrubbing technology has been and is being applied by most countries (India not) so there's an easy fix, while many here seem oblivious to what China has mandated to clean their air, back as far as 2013

[Tomasz + 1,608]

I dont want to make you sad but for example Russia actually plans to increase coal production by 50 % in next two decades and sell most of it to emerging Asia = you can read about that in russian strategy for coal industry before 2040.

Its even now one of biggest coal exporters but thats not enough because Russia maybe dont have such a huge oil reserves like KSA or Venezuela and its a problem but apart from gas has a big unused coal reserves on Eastern Siberia or Far East that can be easily transportated to Asia. 

In fact world temperatures going higher rather suits Russia because this process opens north of Russia for agriculture, extractive industries and support North Sea Route which could became alternative for Suez and traditional sea route from China to Europe.

I know Russia signed Paris agreement for climate but its based on 1990 emission statistic so basically Russia can increase Co2 emission substantially higher and still observes terms of Paris agreement.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Tomasz

[PE Scott + 563]

17 hours ago, remake it said:

???

For a very long time the key proposition has been that a price on carbon would first stimulate investment in and adoption of renewables, and secondly move energy use to the least polluting alternatives (principally natural gas).

A carbon tax, absolutely. I don't have as much of an issue with this.

Maybe I missed something or misread along the way, but what I seem to be hearing more of from the likes of AOC, Elizabeth Warren, etc. Is that a tax on carbon isn't enough, all fossil fuels need to be phased out quickly, and industries that cant phase out fossil fuels (airlines) should be replaced with alternatives (high speed rail). That was the mentality I was speaking to. You're right though, there has been some momentum towards a carbon tax previously that would do a better job addressing the issue. To me, I guess it was just unclear whether that had enough momentum to catch on. 

16 hours ago, remake it said:

Scrubbing technology has been and is being applied by most countries (India not) so there's an easy fix, while many here seem oblivious to what China has mandated to clean their air, back as far as 2013

This is actually very surprising to me. It's been about 8 years since I went to China, before 2013. (Beijing, Tianjin, and Shenyang). Last time I was there though, I wouldn't have guessed there was that much effort being put into scrubbing exhaust. The air was gray-black most of the time. Perhaps I underestimated just how much impact 22.5 million people can have in a city. I've never been anywhere else in the world with that kind of population. 

Maybe its better now? I'm sure someone can speak to this or there is something that shows an improvement in air quality since then. Either way, it's good they're scrubbing stuff cleaner now. Funny it wasn't until 2013 that they started, but better late than never. Also, I'm sure that was a huge upfront expense to retrofit that much generation capacity to meet cleaner standards.

17 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

But I have to chime in here: It's really not about the carbon, but the SOX and NOX. Sure, carbon in heavily encased areas, particularly those prone to temperature inversion, is an important cause of heart attack, asthma and stroke, but the European Union did more harm with their near-mandate of diesel cars than they can ever atone for by instituting some Paris Accord. It's not the cars but the boats burning low-quality bunker fuel. 

This basically boils down to how I feel about emissions though. C02 plays second fiddle to those other things, when speaking of coal especially.