This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Coal - The Ignored Juggernaut
Submitted by PeakProsperity.com contributing editor Gregor Macdonald
Coal - The Ignored Juggernaut
Oil, natural gas, and alternatives dominate the headlines when it comes to energy. But there's a big and largely-overlooked revolution occurring with the energy source likely to become the most preferred fuel for a world in economic decline: coal.
The United States coal sector has been hit very, very hard this spring. Demand has been crushed by over 10%, as warm weather and bountiful supplies of cheap natural gas have induced power plant operators and all other users where possible to switch away from domestic coal. The rapid change in fortune has sent the stock prices of big, listed names such as Peabody and Arch down by double digit percentages, as the Dow Jones US Coal Index has fallen below 160 from above 225 at the start of 2012.
From Bloomberg:
Central Appalachian thermal coal futures, the U.S. benchmark, averaged $60.20 during the first quarter, down from an average of $73.58 in the year ago period and down from a high of $143.25 in July 2008. “It’s like a perfect storm,” Mann said. “The three main challenges are the really mild winter, a lethargic economy and on top of that, with gas prices being so low, those utilities that can burn gas have opted to burn gas instead of coal because gas is so cheap.” Cheap gas has undercut power producers’ revenues because it drives down wholesale electricity prices, squeezing margins for plants that run on nuclear, renewable and coal power. Moody’s Investors Service changed its outlook for the U.S. coal industry to “negative” from “stable” on May 7, citing weak prices and a drop in power demand, and said it expects a 5 percent decline in prices for coal deliveries in 2013. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the industry to see a 10.9 percent decline in coal consumption this year and Moody’s expects U.S. coal demand from power plants to plunge by 100 million tons by 2020, the ratings company said in the report.
(Source)
Given the rather weak near-term and long-term outlook for US coal demand, it’s not surprising that within such a capital-intensive business, a number of smaller coal producers were hit recently with bankruptcy rumors. Indeed, even large cap names like Arch Coal have seen an escalation of concern over debt levels. Accordingly, many have concluded that coal -- in an era of solar, wind, and natural gas -- has finally displaced itself due to its problematic extraction, distant transportation, and overall costs. Is coal finally going away as an energy source?
Not a chance.
Indeed, everything currently unfolding for coal in the United States is precisely what is not unfolding for coal globally. Prices to import natural gas to most countries via LNG remain sky-high, easily protecting coal’s cost advantage. And the demand for coal in the developing world remains gargantuan. Accordingly, just as with oil, lower US demand simply frees up supply to elsewhere in the world.
The global coal juggernaut rolls onward.
Soaring US Exports
In the same way that falling US oil consumption has freed up global supply, so now is US declining coal demand freeing up production for export. Last year marked a twenty-year high in US coal exports:
For the full year of 2011, the US exported 107,259 thousand short tons of coal. This was the highest level of coal exports since 1991. More impressive: exports recorded a more than 25% leap compared to the previous year, 2010. (see data here, opens to PDF). Additionally, this was also a dramatic breakout in volume from the previous decade, which ranged from 40,000 – 80,000 thousand short tons per annum.
(Source)
The United States remains a large consumer of coal, and currently places second, behind China, in the top global users, which I call the Coal 7: China, USA, India, Japan, Russia, South Africa, and Germany. Accordingly, this means that the US, which currently consumes about 15% of total global demand, is about to become a marginal new source of global supply.
Although most grades of coal are still trading at a cheaper price level than a similar equivalent amount of BTUs sourced from natural gas, the all-in costs of burning coal in the United States given our regulatory framework is now higher than burning natural gas. In one sense, this is not a new story. Indeed, the advent of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and the historic wave of pollution regulations set the United States on a course away from coal and towards natural gas over 40 years ago. Even the coal industry is eager to advertise the long decline of coal-fired pollution (as a portion of the whole) in the United States, which is due overall to an increase in emissions control, but is mostly the result of the rise of natural-gas-fired power since the early 1970s.
Global Coal Picture
What has changed, however, is that 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.
Coal Hunger: It’s Not Just China
Coal consumption in the robust Indian economy has grown rapidly in recent years, averaging 8.5% per year in 2006-10 according to EIA data, including growth of 10.8% in 2010. Although we have slightly reduced our 2012-13 growth forecasts for India in light of global developments, the economy is still expected to grow by around 8% per year. Coal consumption is therefore expected to continue to rise strongly, boosted by the long-term plan to increase thermal power-generation capacity in an effort to increase access to electricity in rural areas. In its new five-year plan for the period 2012-17 the Indian government envisages that the rate of annual demand growth could stay at around 8%.
(Source: World Coal: The IEU’s Monthly Outlook, via The Economist Intelligence Unit)
2008 saw the crossing of a major milestone in humanity’s march towards industrialism, when, for the first time ever, more than 50% of the world’s population became urban.
This great migration from the countryside to the cities, which is happening in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, is a primary driver for coal demand, as millions of new city dwellers take their place in the power grid. This recent table of projected urban population growth rates from the Economist, in its piece on Emerging Market Cities, demonstrates that an enormous phase of change still lies ahead:
The world continues to marvel at the growth rates seen in Chinese cities, like Shanghai, which is expected to add over 200,000 new residents per year in the 15-year period from 2010 to 2025. Such a pace will grow the Shanghai population from its 2010 level of 16.6 million residents to at least 19.6 million residents. However, the growth rates of urbanization are even faster in emerging mega-cities such as Kinshasa, Lagos, Karachi, Dhaka, Mumbai, and of course, Delhi. As Mike Davis writes in his terrific book, Planet of Slums:
Ninety-five percent of this final buildout of humanity will occur in the urban areas of developing countries, whose populations will double to nearly 4 billion over the next generation…The scale and the velocity of Third World urbanization, moreover, utterly dwarfs that of Victorian Europe. London in 1910 was seven times larger than it had been in 1800, but Dhaka, Kinshasa, and Lagos today are each approximately forty times larger than they were in 1950.
(Source)
Despite the fact that the developing world has indeed increased its demand for oil, thus taking nearly 100% of the supply freed up by weak OECD economies, the economies of the developing world are largely running not on liquid BTUs, but rather on BTUs from coal.
Coal’s versatility, in that it can be stored cheaply and transported via ship, rail, truck, or in smaller quantities by small personal transport, makes it the logical energy choice for the developing world. (This is not to say that wind and solar do not also make sense in non-OECD nations. Indeed, the fast pace of growth in renewables in the developing world is astonishing as well). Most important is that the cheap price of coal, especially when burned without environmental regulations, aligns with developing world wages.
For those concerned with climate change, this is, of course, terrible news. However, many of the world’s international organizations, from the International Energy Agency in Paris to various OECD policy-making groups, remain very focused on making sure that developing world nations get access to electricity. There is a strong view and strong agreement among Western policy makers that working to ensure that the world’s poor have access to electricity is the most transformative action to pull humanity out of poverty. Surely this is why the World Bank has been investing heavily in coal-fired power production. From World Bank Invests Record Sums in Coal, via The Ecologist.
(Source)
Rebounding Into Coal
The financial crisis period of the past five years has served to highlight the new and constant restraint that oil prices place on the world economy. What’s over now is the fast growth made possible by cheap, liquid BTU (oil). But this is precisely why the economies of the non-OECD continue to increase their coal consumption, and why the world economy -- when it advances -- rebounds into coal.
There are enough BTUs from natural gas and coal to fund global economic growth for years to come. If natural gas from North America was exportable right now, then world prices for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) would be much lower than the $14-$18 level seen from Europe to Asia. Instead, North American natural gas remains landlocked and will remain so until export facilities are completed. This makes for a highly irregular pricing landscape in natural gas, in which Americans pay $2.50 for a million BTUs of natural gas, while heavy importers like Japan can pay as much as $17.00 per million BTUs. Accordingly, it is coal and not natural gas that provides the converged pricing to the world market. And with thermal coal trading around $2.50 - $3.50 per million BTUs, the continuing transition to coal is unstoppable.
In Part II: Coal is the Fuel for a World in Decline, we explain that a series of ongoing financial crises only accelerates the transition to coal as the obvious energy source in a time a declining wealth. As the world gets poorer, with higher-income OECD economies set to converge with lower-income non-OECD economies, coal remains the cheapest form of globally traded BTUs, adding low-cost power to economies under pressure. Finally, using the just released data from the BP Statistical Review, we update the latest forecasts on the future crossover point, when coal regains its number one position from oil and once again becomes the primary energy source of the world.
Click here to read Part II of this report (free executive summary; paid enrollment required for full access).
»
- 25492 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
It is all about dT/dt....
If you keep your fossil collection in your gas tank, they're not so useless.
You know this HOW exactly? Our ability to detrmine atmospheric CO2 concentrations does not provide that much resolution at that time frame.
ASSumptions are not the way to make policy.
His GIGO models told him so..
Could you provide something of substance to the discussion?
Go and educate yourself about the known mass extinctions and get back to us...
My fuck Cliffie, every time you show up I feel like I have give a freshman science class...
Before typing random crap here, why don't you look it up first....
Pretend you are a little higher and a little mightier. Maybe that will convince everyone that you are an authority.
You mean like you just did...
oh damn.
Hell Tmos we all never made it out of Mississippi primary school, this flakkie fella well, he's a bonfide authoritah, you hear, BONAFIDE authoritah.. Now you bow down and live in a hut, don't know how to live like that, well no worries flakkie man has all the answers on how we all should live. He is kind enough to use the guns of the state to enforce his benevolence, isn't that nice..
u should try and live upto to your avatar and calm yourself with some chardonnay; flak is too ahead of the curve for u to catch up with using bogeyman tactics. Mississippi burning and obscurantist yearnings...
"obscurantist" We have a winner most self congratulatory moron leftist award has been snatched off the shelf by Falak. How special lets give Falak a great big hand, he learned a new word today..
Tell us Falak what do you like to do on your days away from the institute?
" I like to bike to the park breathing real shallow like to minimize my carbon footprint" How does that work for you? " I have only fallen off my pink safety bike and dinged my helmet from lack of oxygen once or twice"
Prefer single malt, Chardonnay is for men who pee sitting so their wife doesn't berate them, find a mirror... My comments render pellucidity of reason, I'm conservative I live in the real world of men that are just about fed up.
300 million years ago co2 levels were ~1500 ppm.
Al Gore took those readings personally?
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal ! Monedas 1929 Monedas is the Saudi Arabia of Comedy Jihad
carbon particles, sulphur and carbon dioxide emissions. Smog and fog. The worst fossil solution of them all. A small step forward for the coal industry a giant step back for mankind. Nineteenth century blues for twentyfirst century crisis shoes of head up the ass global civilization. Aren't we lazy snails looking for rat's faeces to gobble.
Even Peanut Carter said lets go to synfuels. Too modern for these energy sector shills, now scrambling to make two ends meet.
Coal is not a fossil .... it is compressed green fern tendrils with a little pond scum ! Coal is green ! Monedas 1929 Comedy Jihad Dare To Live Free And Let Live Free
you're killin me ,infidel
Big coal rapes the citizens of the U.S. - again
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/29/508585/blm-auctions-720-mill...
What about the natural juggernaut?
http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000043/0/36917/daily-news-artic...
- El Hierro 'grows' by 5cm due to fresh magma
Fears continue to grow that an eruption could take place in the near future, following another 60 tremors yesterday.
http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000043/0/36905/daily-news-artic...
- El Hierro volcano fears confirmed
The noticeable increase in seismic activity this week on El Hierro has led the local authorities to activate contingency measures in anticipation of a possible undersea eruption.
What happens if it erupts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwyXyssXC5s
(tsunami on all the east coast of the Americas and the west coast of Spain/Portugal/Africa/Southern part of France/UK...bullish.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SYRIA_DIPLOMACY?SITE=AP&SECTIO...
- Mood pessimistic on Syria peace plans
The envoy warned the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - that if they fail to act at the talks hosted by the United Nations at its European headquarters in Geneva they face an international crisis of "grave severity" that could spark violence across the region and provide a new front for terrorism.
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/45048-iran-calls-for-extraordinary-op...
- Iran Calls for Extraordinary OPEC Meeting
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/30/iran-deploy-submarines-cas...
- Iran to deploy submarines in Caspian Sea
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0628/China-starts-...
- China starts 'combat ready' patrols in disputed South China Sea
http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/6697
- Inside China: PLA says war with U.S. imminent
http://www.imemc.org/article/63809
- Israel Army Asks For Extensive Deployment On Egyptian Border
- Syria massing troops near Turkish border say rebels (DPA)
http://www.rt.com/news/line/2012-06-28/
- No coordinated draft resolutions for Syria conference – Russian FM
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm
- Now, click over to the US Navy site and note that eight US aircraft carriers have hurriedly left port and are now standing off US shores. Why my this be of interest? Although I don't have any more facts that what's in the media report, it is entirely possible that following an attack on Iran by Israel, and/or Western intervention is Syria, that tensions could escalate and they might include reprisal terrorist attacks on targets of opportunity inside the US by sleeper cells, or agents who have walked in via the still porous Mexican border, kept that way by neutering the good efforts of Border Patrol.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146
- Aircraft Carriers:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - 5th Fleet
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) - Pacific Ocean
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - 5th Fleet
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Yellow Sea
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) - Atlantic Ocean
http://www.rt.com/news/pakistan-consider-us-enemy-940/
- 3 in 4 Pakistanis now consider US an enemy as resentment grows
http://rt.com/politics/putin-military-force-russia-961/
- Russia won’t allow threats against it – Putin
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100168059/turkey-asks-nat...
- Turkey asks Nato about a no-fly zone as Syria makes it clear that it's ready to fight dirty
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=275630
- IDF ups Syria border defenses, prepares for refugees
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/157320#.T-421ReP0R9
- Turkey Placing Aircraft on Syrian Frontier
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=275662
- Barak vows to prevent nuclear Iran at pilots' graduation
- Iran massing troops and missile systems in the UAE islands occupied Logta
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-ships-missiles-hormuz/2012/06/29/i...
- Iran to Equip Gulf Ships With Missiles
- #Jordan forces on alert. Plans to coordinate w/ Saudi troops arriving sooner or later next week at latest.
The path this is all taking is quite worrying.
Thank you for pointing out some real problems, instead of a bunch of con artists making up the co2 scam to steal our money and freedom.
Thats right, because your grandkids don't matter...
Oh, BTW, Global warming from anthropogenic C02 was first predicted in 1896....by one of those "liberal" Nobel laureates...
My grandkids matter. I do not want to stick them with huge tax bill and see them lose their freedoms to support your grandchildren. Go fuck yourself.
My, what a snappy comeback...
What freedoms?
What tax bill?
Do you only talk in vague soundbites? In the "old days' people like you were referred to as "Dittoheads".... There are now called "Muppets"....
Ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don't tell him about Arrhenius, he'll blame him for the CO2 scam.
The most immediate gain on CO2 reduction would be to go against the environmentalists and re-institute controlled burns in our National Forests. Ask anybody in Colorado or New Mexico who had their house burnt down last week.
Global warming proponents don't want to pick the low hanging fruit that would accomplish painless CO2 reduction, they really only want to go after things that are most painful to people and make them suffer. In that respect, they don't care about their grandchildren, children or even their fellow humanity.
THERE WILL BE NOTHING LEFT of VIctoria in australia if the ponzi masters decide to 'export the coal' from the people of Victoria AUSTRALIA.
TOOMUCH LAPHROAIG.COM
THERE WILLYOURE ASNSWER LIE
So instead of saving our natural resources and stockpiling them, we decide to export more gasoline than we consume, more coal, and soon natural gas. All the while making Americans compete for resources that rightfully belong to them. Americans should be enjoying record low rates for gas, electricity, and water. Instead prices are rocketing ever higer due to our centralized Government/Economic complex. One real consumer of a commodity must compete with thousands of speculators for a contract. The consumer wants the price of the contract to be as low as possible, the specultors want whatever they buy to go up in value. When it seems that the rest of the owrld is willing to pay a higher price, the speculators get their way.
Why? So Wall Street can make more money trading futures contracts. So Wall Street and the zombie corporations can keep the outsourcing of America going strong. Unless drastic measures are taken our country is dead. By 2020 America will no longer exist. The entire country will resemble South Africa.
The only way to bring America back is to screw the rest of the world and place a 75% export tax on commodities, including corn and wheat. Sure China will dump treasuries, so what. Without US coal, US gasoline, and the billions of gallons of water they are stealing from America, their country is toast. When China's toast, the financialized American economy is dead as well. We could then start rebuilding a productive economy. Instead we're selling off our future so the Wall Street class can make ever bigger bonuses.
I'll be sure to cry a tear for Mexico when they can no longer purchase gasoline from America. I'll be happy when Japan has to figure out how to run their economy without US.
Does anyone think for a second, if China had the resources of the mainland USA, that they would be exporting the amount of commodities we do? Not a chance in hell.
That gasoline that we export comes from crude oil that we import...
Facts are not important Flak, you know better.
Please cut Flak some slack. He is working on the Sabbath.
Is there some sort of ADL exemption for working on the Sabbath to protect The Tribe's ability to steal from the Gentiles?
Now that is fucking hilarious given my avatar...
So, I can assume that aside from being a disingenuous narcissist, that you are also a bigot?
You can assume any fucking thing you care to, and no doubt you will considering the bullshit you've posted for the last year. As the tried and true principle goes, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
As far as your "fucking hilarious" avatar is concerned, we both know that, like Mossad, deception is your primary stock in trade.
Facts are not important, its what you deduce from them is whats important.
Don't be surprised if zealots in the green lobby look to carbon tax coal exports to prevent the Third World economies from polluting the planet.
If it were all about economics, then we would be using nat gas as a transportation fuel much more than we are.
some interesting arbs4caloric abs to munch
different sources of BTUs? and the prices go up and down?
ever since that old trickster prometheus fashioned us from clay and gave us fire: if you can't burn the one you love burn the one you're with
when TSHTF, people go ape-shit and defoliate everything like carpenter ants so they have something with which to burn themselves and each other
altho deserts may develop "naturally" most of the time we help them along pretty amazingly; libya has a ton of water; what must it have once been? where there were more trees there may now be only grass; so people burn dried animal pies; india ever have more trees? brazil? CA? the early kings harvested lebanon's magnificent cedars; now we have an artillery range!
with fricking fracking we are actually turning the most precious resource we have for life on earth (water itself) into a desert; water, itself, near fuK_u, is a fuking desert; toke-you is a nukuler desert-in-the-making-as-we-watch; fresh water, the seas~~what fun! we hadta get some super-smarts to burn that nukuler! especially since the by-products ALL = desert; the brainiacs who came up with fracking rocks for goo&gas while exporting coal are gonna make us all fabulously wealthy, especially if we happen to own any fresh water which hasn't been desertified yet when the nannies realize what they've done!
peak prosperity from energy arbs! Yay!
OMGosh! how could i ferget the Gulf? fergive me, BiCheZ!
I don't give a fuck about AGW.
What the hell is wrong with Clean Air???
Look at that map in the link below sent to me by a friend who lives in some of the highest priced real estate in west St. Louis County. Unfortuately, when they bought thier home, they failed to notice it was just over the bluff from one of the dirtiest coal plants in the U.S.
They're paying top dollar to get poisioned...and they now understand why their kid has asthma.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/state-pressed-to-monitor-so-pollution-near-coal-plants/article_b013624a-c0a0-11e1-b8f1-0019bb30f31a.html#ixzz1zBRnqyQx
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/state-pressed-to-monitor-so-pollution-near-coal-plants/article_b013624a-c0a0-11e1-b8f1-0019bb30f31a.htmlNothing new here: we've known this since Nat R was told to go into coal post-Atticus
The problem with this is that Shale Gas - which is what has massacred US Coal demand - IS NOT JUST A US PHENOMENOM.
Traditional natural gas production requires a number of criteria to be met. You must have sufficient deposits of hydrocarbons in the area (source rock), there must be a large underground open space in the area where a reservoir can form, and you must have sufficient permeability in the rocks in between the source rock and the reservoir to allow the hydrocarbons to flow from A to B. You also need sufficient pressures and temperatures to cause that flow and finally sufficient pressure to allow the reservoir to produce.
With shale gas, all you need is sufficient source rock to make the economics of fraccing work. As it turns out the existence of large amounts of source rock is the LEAST challenging requirement for traditional natural gas production. The existence of a reservoir of sufficient size, sufficient permeability of surrounding rock and sufficient natural pressure and temperature are far more rare.
Thus, by reducing the number of criteria from 5 to 1 you increase the number of productive locations multi-fold. For example, in 2011 the EIA increased its estimate of recoverable shale reserves in the US from 353tcf to 862tcf. This number likely has nowhere to go but up as we discover more locations and as the cost to produce continues to fall. BTW this estimate of US shale reserves compares to EIA estimates of 245tcf of natural gas in 2008, before shale became such a huge deal. At that time the EIA thought total GLOBAL gas reserves were around 6,000tcf – with 70% of that number being in Russia and the Middle East.
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
Looking at the above the EIA estimates that KNOWN US shale reserves could increase total US gas reserves by more then 4x. Looking at the 34 areas the EIA analyzed – shale reserves could increase total reserves in those areas by 6.2x. Apply this to global reserve estimates of 6,600 TCF and you get 41,000 TCF of potential global gas reserves! In 2010 the globe consumed 113tcf of natural gas = 362 years of supply.
Now for the kicker. The US began commercial production of shale gas as early as 1976. It took 30 years to perfect the technology – horizontal drilling rigs, PADD drilling sites, multi-stage fraccing, new proppants, coiled tubing ETC… Only when this was all put together did shale gas production go from a fraction of a percentage of US production to over 15%.
But this technology is now readily available to be used anywhere in the world. The shale gas boom that happened in the US is coming to the globe, and instead of taking 30-40 years, it will take 5 years or less.
This is BAD news for global thermal coal demand. MET coal is a different story. But the MET coal story isn’t any better. The reason for this is the difference between a consumable commodity and a capital investment commodity. Thermal coal is burned to make power. Once that power is used – you need to burn more coal to produce power then next day. But MET coal is used to make steel to build infrastructure. We all know that the urbanization of China has driven global steel demand through the roof. But at some point China will go from needing steel to build entirely new cities – to a maintenance level needed for repair and replacement. In 2001 China consumed 170mm tons of steel. In 2010 that rose to 576mm tons. This compares to the US, EU and Japan using 256mm tons. I have no idea when China will be done with consuming ever greater and greater amounts of steel to “grow” – but when it does, their consumption of steel and thus MET coal will fall 50%!
Coal?
Seriously, you "might" want to look at water:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=electricity-generation-...
Coal-, nuclear- and natural gas- powered plants are also thirsty, in need of water to cool their generators. These energy facilities are the fastest-growing users of freshwater resources and already account for more than half of all fresh surface water withdrawals from rivers. That is more than any other economic sector, including agriculture, write the authors.
"Burning Our Rivers," a new report by the River Network, found that it takes about 40,000 gallons of water to meet the average American household's energy needs, which is five times more than the amount of water used directly in that home.
The Pacific Ocean has some if you're looking for it. Ocean water works for cooling adiabatic expansion engines. There's no need to use freshwater sources, unless those are the only source of a lower temperature reservoir. River water that is used for cooling is mostly returned to the river.
You are a genius surf. I didn't know all the power plants were located on the Pacific, or that we could pipe ocean water to them all and that this would prevent toxins being added to water or settle the hydro evaporation issue.
You might want to read that article before sounding like a moron.
They're not all located on the Pacific. But they are located where they can be cooled. The amount of cooling necessary is a result of the size of the power plant. It's just an engineering problem. They can be made smaller and if they're small enough, they don't even need to have a source of water. Some power plants are air cooled. They can also use ground water, effectively using the earth as their temperature reservoir. They can even use sewer effluents.
I stopped reading the Scientific American after their explanations of the building collapses on 9/11 and I no longer subscribe to it. They're just a high brow version of Popular Mechanics.
Exactly what toxins are added to the water that is used for cooling? Why is it necessary to add toxins to water in order to raise its temperature. Who's sounding like a moron?
FYI - the California Nuclear Power plants (Diablo Canyon and San Onofre) are both located on the Pacific Ocean and are cooled by seawater. In fact Diablo Canyon has had to be taken offline twice because the cooling intakes got blocked - once with seaweed and another time with jellyfish.
BTW - the coastal location is precisely why people are concerned about a tsunami.
The cooling issue is an engineering problem. Jelly fish and seaweed are just maintenance issues of which there are many. River water cooled nuclear power plants are taken off line due to low water in the river -- in the summer when the demand is highest due to A/C. The power plants are too large and too concentrated. This is the big issue with Fukushima. If they were smaller and not all concentrated in one area, there wouldn't be the problem there now. The reasons are primarily economic, but also political (NIMBY).
Tsunami danger is also just an engineering problem as are earthquakes and hurricanes. The danger can be reduced. It costs money, just like having more but smaller plants.
Serf: Water IS a fucking problem. It is NOT an engineering problem, it is an entire system that was built with no fucking PhD's taking into account population.
Water may be a fucking problem with you. I suggest you see a urologist. Maybe he can do something about your no-fucking PhD's while he's at it.
Water can be transported. Water can be desalinated. Electricity can be transported. Electricity can be generated closer to where its consumed. There's lots of options. It is an engineering problem. And it's also a political and economic problem. And it's also a matter of who is going to get how many dollars, either by hook or by crook (more often by crook).
clueless fucking moron
clueless fucking moron
With your superior debating skills, you will now advance to the top and your next opponent will be the Debating Rabbi, Flakmeister.
You lucky devil. Or poor bastard as the case may be.
Don't give up your day job, if any.
go buy some bottled water you fucking momo
go buy some bottled water you fucking momo
The Jooze sold you some overpriced shares in a "can't lose" water company, eh?
Again. If you believe global warming is a lie, then you have to believe the Republicans are the last political party in the whole fucking world to defend "freedom" (aren't they the only mainstream political party in the world to deny climate science?), and the US the last country to do so (the biggest obstacle to getting an international emission reduction treaty). Almost as if the whole fucking world was your "NWO", except the US? Don't make my ass laugh, please.
Most of the world sees through this fraud. Canada for example, did not renew kyoto.
Anyways, I apologize if I offended your green religion. If you want to pay taxes to al gore, go ahead, you have my permission.
Canada, a vassal of the US...
And BTW, who would want to ratify Kyoto if the major polluters don't? It's simple politics. Nothing about science here...
Al Gore? You gotta be kidding me. And now who do you think you're paying taxes to in the form of the externalities of the oil and coal industry? Good serf, avoiding Al Gore, paying the Kochs.
A commonwealth of the crown is a vassal of the US now?
Don't they bend to accomodate US interests all the time?
A vassal of a vassal. Does that make Canada a vassal squared?
Canada didn't renew Kyoto because they got busy making a killing in tar sands. They chose short term money over long term stability, and it was a pragmatic decision. Implying that they decided it was a fraud that changed their minds is dishonest.
yes, I love the logic that not renewing kyoto proves the environmental question. You honor I did not renew my drivers license therefore I could not have been driving on the night in question.
even your logic is coercive
climate "science" needs moparty ratification? rilly?
who not just publish the experiments, measurements, and results with the stats for the most critical hypotheses and let people duplicate them and come aboard?
oh! that's right! you tried that & it didn't work...
hey! good luck to ya!
Climate Science doesn't require political parties confirmation. But the idea that the whole world's political body except for the Republicans support climate science should tell you something...
Helluva coincidence, huh?
China and Russia do not believe it - they are refusing to pay the EU Cap and Trade gouge on Air Travel.
Putin said that if AGW was real it was beneficial to Russia because it would open more land to farming. And then they had a 40ºC summer in Moscow and the whole country was set on fire...
And China will refuse as long as the US refuses. It says it over and over again during climate summits: without the US in we can't reduce emmissions. Game theory.
good post yes and in the meantime china is manufacturing wind and solar and diverting water like there no tomorrow.
Good post. What is more, while they are selling the US all the wind and solar components, domestically, they are developing the next generation of nuclear power plants. They even have Bill Gates interested.
<--< catholic?
<--< lutheran?
let's vote and decide what is really behind ach-tongue's politics of lies and coercive "olitical" power, ok?
What the hell are you talking about? Im neither of those two BTW.
don't you understand?
these are your criteria for truth, not mine!
we shall vote and then we shall know what is going on with y-o-u; just like gaia!
you may vote if you wish or continue to abstain; i am doing this so you will understand yourself better; and that's no bullshit!
plus: you will see what we have decided for y-o-u; and it will be TRUE! "Spritiual Science" is infallible!
Hm, I support the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. On the other hand, "spiritual science" seems to be what deniers are clinging to.
You're not understanding what Pi-Rat is telling you. It's ok though, the indoctrination is hard to break out of. You will get it eventually.
well at least you're thinking about my approach to you, so thanks
you also call people who don't agree with your appraoch deniers
you do realize that we are questioning the conclusions b/c the approach is suspect do you not? [almost in a religious sense]
we have enuf trouble with authority figures running around telling us they can fix stuff that IS broken; it seems this whole political thing is designed to slip in there with all the "buzz words" to make people in political PARTIES get on board and vote er in! you go ahead if you wish, altho this IS a rad approach to power and money and "credit"
even slewie can see the rad here, ok? i like new ideas! maybe if you'd be willing to let authentic minted gold and silver coinage circulate freely world-wide at no disadvantage to the carbon credits, green stamps, bit-shit and or other "legal tender" we could talk, ok?
but you also may be wrong; and i mean scientifically; people who are able to realize they may be mistaken about something do not usually behave quite so dogmatically toward others, politically
they are a generally bit more tolerant of their fellow comrade BiCheZ
some of us would like to use some REAL money UNTAXED here, and we aren't confusing that with carbon credits quite yet, ok?
This time I called it through the approach. But I call "deniers" and I call them wrong because I believe in science and the scientific community. It may be my bad, poor me who believes science can explain reality with a great degree of certainty. Guess then I should take your message, try those "new ideas" which are not scientific.
The political aspect is just another sign. Remember when the US and its acolytes said all those things about Iraq and Saddam, WMD and whatever? Most of the world was against that too. Now you have most political parties supporting the science behing AGW, except the Republicans and the US establishment. And you don't think that's at least kinda suspicious? Or are you actually willing to admit the US and the Republicans are the last defenders of freedom in the whole wide world?
I never talked about monetary systems. I don't even think it has anything to do with the science of AGW. I don't support cap & trade, not only because the guy who invented it said it wouldn't work with carbon, not only because that would give the banks more paper to shuffle and more environments to destroy; but also because I don't believe every problem has a market solution.
I like new ideas too. But when they're based on something sound. Not every new idea is better. You got Scientology. That's kinda new too. And damn it's so wrong. And not every new idea, every new general idea, trumps over science. And while the peer reviewed science keeps telling you that there's a high level of certainty about the truth of AGW, you seem to prefer "new" ideas which are not based on science and believe they trump over science. I wish I could say that's a new idea in itself, but it isn't. I still remember Galileo...
i'll answer my self so we don't end up ||
ok and thanks again; so the next point is obviously "belief" in the scientific community may not be scientific b/c a scientific consensus is a dangerous thing in the hands of demagoguery and modern MSM propaganda opinion-management
a scientific consensus is not PROOF any more than paper gold is real gold or a broke counterparty is gonna pay you b/c she sez so
this is the error in thought: the fact that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum doesn't prove anything except that 80% of dentists are pretty clueless, which we already knew
In things which you can't prove by yourself you have no choice but to believe. I'm not a climatologist. I have to believe the scientific community because I believe in science. I don't believe myself so smart or knowledgeable as to whether I can prove climate models or what have you. So I have to accept science. The best I can do is to know whether they followed the basics of a scientific method.
I'm not sure what you mean by MSM in this case. I'm talking about the reports that come out from the scientific community which say that as far as today's science knows, there's a high chance that AGW is real. That's as good as science can get. And considering I believe the scientific method, I believe in peer reviewed science, I have to take that. If it was about the lies of the MSM I would be more suspicious of AGW denial, which makes it very much into the American MSM narrative. I'd rather trust the scientific community than Fox News, if you get what I mean.
If scientific consensus on a hard science like climatology is not proof of anything, that means the earth can be flat, sustained by two turtles, it has 5000 years, and the 2nd coming is near...
All those who denied Galileo also thought similarly as you put it. Nothing that doesn't come from God and the Bible is true.
Economics is not a hard science. And I don't know what science there's behind the dentists recommendations. If they have made the experiments with control groups, peer reviewed and replicable. AFAIK sugar raises acidity, which makes teeth spongy. But I'm not sure Aspartamus is better than sugar as for overall health...
"In things which you can't prove by yourself you have no choice but to believe" Wow, that is some industrial strength stupid right there.. No wonder we are soooo screwed...
Can you prove mathematically that the quarks that make your floor won't dissappear any time now? Can you prove that the car you're driving won't have a blown tire and hurl you down a cliff? No, you have to trust both. Can you actually understand climate models?
Don't infect me with your ridiculous shit you fool.. Can you chemically prove in your kitchen that arsenic will kill you if ingesting it? No, I didn't think so, so eat it and report back.. Damn your dumb, you don't have the sense of a newborn kitten.
Barack is right big change is coming. Fools like you will no longer be able to forestall your Darwinian moment of truth through the complexity of modern society which acts like a buffer from normal consequences for the truly stupid among us.
Fuck you assholes are needy, demanding, bitches. You can't make any sort of logic rational comment, and everything is coercion.
I tell you what is coercion: paying the externalities of the oil/gas and coal industries.
lots of hard consonant cuss words certainly prove you're the mature one under control.
Every heard of the broken clock? Perhaps that is why the Republicans got it right.
The Sheissekopf Parties (both in the US and Europe) only support the Anthropological Global Warming Fraud because they see it as an easy way to raise taxes, not because they believe that it is actually occurring.
As if the republicans were the only no-tax party in the world... But you could guess it's the most corporate (including oil/coal/gas industry) funded... Things that make you go hmmm, right?
It's always a conspiracy with you guys isn't it?
I would take that comment seriously if it didn't came from someone who thinks the science behind AGW is a conspiracy...
Right, a majority of people/countries have never been wrong on anything, especially if it's a complex matter.
Well if I have on the balance on one side THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD and on the other side the Republicans. I guess I'll stick with the world.
As if there are no sceptics outside the US. In fact not all sceptics in the US are republicans either.
Yeah, you have clowns everywhere, like "Lord" Monckton. But in most of the world, if not in every other country but the US, nobody takes such people seriously.
Because after all you have the scientific community supporting the idea of AGW. You got most of the world's political body supporting that too. If you don't trust politics, there's science. If you don't trust science, there's politics. If you don't trust them both, well, the earth is flat and 5000 years old... Or everything is a clever ruse by frustrated marxists with the help of Margaret Thatcher to propel world communism through Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, in order for Al Gore to tax you... (damn, there even was a denier movie saying this exact message) Sound science, right?
You'd be by yourself, people out of the US do not buy into the whole Carbon BS story.
I live in Argentina. Everybody here "buys" into the science of AGW. As far as I know from my travels, it's the same in Uruguay, Chile, Brasil, Paraguay and Bolivia.I haven't been there but I also know Japan takes AGW very seriously too. There are many island nations who also seem to take AGW extra seriously.
As for the rest, most if not all of the "serious" denial comes from the US.
yes but we all know there's no one in Japan smarter than nid
Give my best to Christina, the psycho bitch.. All the best folks already left that socialist / fascist shithole.
Republicans tend to talk up freedom in regards to economics. Freer is better. Note that Republicans are all too happy to secretly support environmental regulations when their lobbyists ask them to.
The gulf between preaching and practicing is wider than any ocean.
It's no the only "free"-ish party in the world...
No, democrats preach all about personal freedom, then send people to jail for the rest of their lives for having a ziploc full of mj. Again, the gulf between preaching and practicing is vast.
But hey, some people think that words speak louder than actions. I guess you are one of them.
I said "free-ish party in the world". Democrats are still American IIRC.
And while Democrats might support the science of AGW, in my eyes their credibility is as bad as the Republicans, for the same reasons you expose. The big difference here is that most if not all mainstream political parties in the world support the science behind AGW, except the Republicans. It's either I trust the Republicans against the world, or vice-versa.
And now we just need vehicles that run on coal.
We've already got them. Visit your local GM or Nissan dealer for a Volt or a Leaf. What did you think they run on, magically generated electricity?
When you plug them in to recharge overnight they are using solar power! :-)
This apparent dichotomy is being alleviated somewhat by Night Rider's new car, a tricked-out (actually a special paint job) Chevy Volt. He uses stealth instead of speed and endurance now.
We have them, the coal is just one step removed from the propulsion mechanism. They are called electric cars.
I'm always amazed at the number of people who decide that banning the use of a substance in the USA will somehow affect worldwide consumption. Our little corner of the planet could become totally grown over and uninhabited and have no impact whatsoever on the ecology of the world.
Fantastic, so coal is undervalued like natural gas. How can I buy some?
Remember when Barack Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama what's his name said:
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-warned-his-policies-would-bank...
You dont want start exploiting the next source of energy before you're done with the existing one. Coal will be burnt like there's no tomorrow, once the Big Oil is done with oil and get into coal.
I have had PCX and and ACI on my screens for years....I think I will pass.
Coal and natgas have declined. Oil is declining.
http://bullandbearmash.com/index/oil/daily/
Scarcity of these resources doesn't exist. When there is competition, there is abundance. When there is oligopoly. monopoly, there is scarcity. It's that simple.
very astute remark in an oligopolistic global world since 1928. We've never known a market economy in oil/fossil energy since its inception.
Well, that was fun.
After the whipped cream is gone .... I like to inhale the nitrous and nitric oxide propellant so I can talk in a squeaky liberal voice and cross dress a little ! I believe it increases the oxygen carrying capacity of my hemoglobbin .... and my American blood get's even redder .... if you can imagine that ! Monedas 1929 Comedy Jihad Asbestos Panels In My Fire Retsrdant Shorts
funny that you mention coal. as a child i could remember going downstairs to the celler of my grandparents with two-buckets. yes, the buckets were to be shoveled full of coal and brought upstairs to be unloaded into the coal bin til it was full. my grandparents heated and cooked with that coal-burning stove. of course for my payment my grandmother would make an apple pie for all to enjoy. god, i loved those days,...
Ps. Shanghai's population is 23mil +/+ counting migrant workers
Ps.2 If India gets its act together... there's enough coal there to fuel china's needs also, not to mention the billions in trade
The biggest problem I have with the AGW debate is that its irrellevant.
I have no oppinion if global warming is happening or if it is human caused.
I happen to have VERY strong convictions that the proponents of AGW are full of shit when it comes to predicting the consequences or mandating fixes.
First we have NO idea what the consequences of a 2 degree increase in global temperatures will be. Maybe the whole world turns into a tropical paradise that has 3 growing seasons like parts of Brazil and India. Canada, Greenland and Russia seem to have a lot of land that would become significantly more fertile. And melting the ice caps seems to get us more water that everybody claims is in short supply.
But lets assume the consequences are bad. No one in the AGW mivement has suggested a market based solution that works. They all wNt to pick and choose which technologies the government should back with taxpayer money. So you want to raise my taxes and then give the money to your buddies ala Al Gore. FU. Thats crony capotalisim at its worst. How about we tax carbon consumption and then cut income taxes massively so their is no net growth in Government revenues. AGW will NEVER go for that because other then healthcarr and the coming collapse in SS and Medicare, AGW is their next big opportunity to take my money and insert their regulations up my ass sideways. And GOD fo sideways.
But the bi
And god forbid the answer to AGW ends uo being something their mother GIA BS religion doesnt support like GEO engineering. That would be the end of the world.
But the biggest problem is socio-economic. You want the US to signon to something that will set our economy back 30-50 years and require us to spend trillions of extra dollars to generate the same outpit we do today, but even if we hit your 90% reduction targets it will have NO IMPACT on global CO2 output.
This is all about China, India and Africa. As these countries develop, hheir CO2 levels are going to go through the roof, and global CO2 output willg go up even if US Europe and Japan revert to Stone Age levels of energy use. And who are we to tell them they dont have the right to improve their economies like we have. At the same time I have no intention of changing my life so they can live a better one.
This isnt care and share time. This is a global economic competition and if you arent 1st you may as well be last.
If you really believe in AGW and you really understand game theory then you understand that rather then spending trillions of dollars changing our energy grid and subsidizing 3rd world countries to stick to the rules - WE SHOULD USE THAT MONEY BUILDING DAMS AND DYKES AND RELOCATING OUR CITIES INLAND. All the hippy peaceniks I have debated this issue with HAVE NO ANSWER TO THIS DACT. They just say if humans are that "mean and selfish" the world is screwed. Well go read your fing history. Humans are mean and selfish and you cant change that even if we let you institute your 1 world government BS. So lets start planning to deal with the consequences and move on.
"No one in the AGW mivement has suggested a market based solution that works. They all wNt to pick and choose which technologies the government should back with taxpayer money"
That's not quite right. And there are those of us who are concerned about oil depletion as well who see the need for alternative fuel sources. The logical solution is to throw the kitchen sink at the problem until something sticks. The technological leap from where we're at today to something that works and is economical is huge. It will take enormous capital and effort or we as a species will go back to the stone age.
So lets agree - you get to tax all carbon use equally. But you also have to tax all imports based on the carbon used to make and move them. BUT you have to cut marginal income tax rates dollar for dollar. Wed probably end up with 0 income taxes if you set the carbom tax high enough. Now the US government has no extra revenues, so you cant give subsidies to ANY form of energy consumption or production. No solar, nowind, no geo thermal, no reforestration credits, no ethanol NOTHING. And not just no cash subsidies. No rrsearch grants, no loan gaurantres, no utillity requirements. No double jepordy where you restrict oil and gas permits. Straight competition with a carbon tax. And if you tax CO2 consumption you give tax credits to geo engineering that gets rid of CO2 or otherwise reverses global warming. Agree - pure free market competition. No expansion of government. No handouts to politically well connected scientists or investors (Al Gore, Solyndra)
You see Im happy with this becausr even if global warming is BS Ive managed to eliminate all taxes on work and investment and replace them with a massive tax on consumption. As a rich guy that produces more then he consumes - I win. Most supporters of AGW loose HORRIBLY
EDITED
Not all problems have market solutions. If they had, then everything would be monetized.
Now that Ahhnuld Schwartenegger has gone green, the next "Green Terminator" is going to be powered by a windmill in tow, powered by Al Gore blowing!
Don't be fooled guys. This is another "guest post." You know what that means.
What this article doesn't tell you is that the biggest consumer of coal is on the cusp of an epic downturn. That's right, China is actually slowing down. Inventories are hitting records left and right.
The only real question is who's paying for this article placement and why?
There has been no discussion here of the effect of fracking for natural gas in China and India to replace coal consumption. Beginning in a couple of years, natural gas can completely replace coal consumption in those countries within a dozen years. Coal is doomed. The AGW CO2 fretters are going to have to wait two or three decades for the commercialization of thorium, barring destroying the global economy. That's what I see happening.
King Coal.
This article is a breath of fresh air, well, at least from the perspective of telling some straight truth about the role of coal, now, and into the foreseeable future.
There are some, ... ok, many, ... who simply can't face that no matter whatever else is done, or said, or planned, or 'invested in', that coal is still going to be, and will remain a core economic energy resource, now, but also certain to remain a dominant energy source for the rest of this century.
It's time to deal with this, and move on from the ridiculous denial of that reality, and the ceaseless precious bickering and unrealistic blather about humanity being able to kick the coal habit - or to absurdly fantasise to the extent that they suggest that coal is an energy source in decline.
BzzzZZT!
LOL ... wrong!
Coal is going to be more utilised the world over. It's simply too plentiful and too cheap to be economically substituted by something else during this century. It's going to be the energy source that keeps humanity eating, and a going concern, when all else has failed.
Those 'coal-deniers' need to develop some coping skills, and stop pretending that humanity has some imaginary 'other' economically-viable option to turn to.
In the end the economics of energy supply will win, and will win beyond any dispute. Coal is simply too useful, and too easily converted into other really useful stuff, and too abundant, for any other energy source to compete with its market share, and demand, during this century.
Try and suppress coal and everyone will still use it anyway.
So suck it up and learn to cope greentard coal-deniers.
Not long ago I saw news on TV that some entrepreneur had developed a less expensive, more efficient coal fire scrubber. Whoever he tried to sell it to in the US they did not want it. He went to China and they snapped it up.
...
And on a side note I saw a chart on the news that shows 39% of the corn crop in AmeriKa goes for Ethanol. So if you wonder why everything that uses corn sugar in the grocery store just keeps going higher even while transportation costs go down...
Flakemonster, Regional Indian, etc. ! Apparently the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere was no impediment to growing all those tender green fern tendrills and pond scum which it took to make the petroleum ? Coal, Petroleum and Natural Gas are green ! Monedas 1929 I am the Saudi Arabia of Comedy Jihad !