Coal Use To Reach New Peak - And Remain at Near-Record Levels For Years (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0175696113
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/12/18/1914207/coal-use-to-reach-new-peak---and-remain-at-near-record-levels-for-years
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/18/coal-use-to-reach-new-peak-and-remain-at-near-record-levels-for-years
> There has been record production and trade of coal and power generation from coal since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine inflated global gas market prices, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
>
> The IEA said the coal rebound, after a slump during the global Covid pandemic, means consumption of the fossil fuel is now on track to rise to a new peak of 8.77bn tonnes by the end of the year -- and could remain at near-record levels until 2027.
>
> The Paris-based agency blamed power plants for the growing use of coal over the last year, particularly in China which consumes 30% more of the polluting fuel than the rest of the world put together. In developed economies such as the US and the European Union coal power generation has already passed its peak, the IEA said, and is forecast to fall by 5% and 12% respectively this year.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/18/coal-use-to-reach-new-peak-and-remain-at-near-record-levels-for-years
Nuclear fanboys (Score:1)
Well let's take a look at the current state of nuclear power. I keep hearing how it's the liberals, environmentalists, and anti nuke tree huggers that sabotage and balloon the costs.
How about a country like the United Arab Emirates? Surely they won't have any of those people causing problems. Let me introduce you to the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant. It only took 12 years and a mere $32 billion to complete. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Seems like they had quite a struggle getting it operational even with
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
Re:Nuclear fanboys (Score:4, Informative)
Huh? $32B does not seem like a steep price for 5.6 GW of reliable, always available capacity, which the articles notes is nearly a quarter of all demand for the entire nation.
Compare that to something like the [1]Site C hydro megadam [wikipedia.org] in BC, Canada. Started in 2007, will be until 2025 before fully operational, and cost around $16B. Going full bore, it will only add about 8% additional capacity to a single province in the country.
The nuclear plant sounds like a hell of a good deal, and far lower environmental impact too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_C_dam
Around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor (Score:2)
"It takes around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor. That’s the average construction time globally. Reactors can be built very quickly: some have been built in just 3 to 5 years."
[1]https://www.sustainabilitybynu... [sustainabi...umbers.com]
[1] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time
Re: (Score:2)
Name one.
Chinese nuclear plants (Score:3)
[1]https://thebreakthrough.org/is... [thebreakthrough.org]
China is averaging under 7 years.
[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-rate-of-nuclear-construction
Re: Around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor (Score:1)
Windscale?
Re: (Score:1)
Name one? Did you follow the fine link? The linked article made the claim of a nuclear power plant being built in three years in the summary, if that is something you find incredible then perhaps reading beyond the summary would provide answers to your questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey DF! 5.6 GW's of nuclear for 32 billion is a great deal.
Re: (Score:2)
That is insanely cheap. 5.6 GW translates to 49 Billion MWHr in one year ... so amortized over just one year that $32 billion you think is a big number is just $1.50 per MWHr. The cheapest U.S. bulk rates are over an order of magnitude higher than this.
Re: (Score:2)
> pausing US export of LGN
Obvious lie. There was "a temporary pause on pending decisions on exports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to non-FTA countries" (non-Free Trade Agreement countries).
Approved exports continued and "The U.S. is already the number one exporter of LNG worldwide".
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a lie, freezing exports at 2024 levels and preventing the construction of new export terminals is definitely going to cut down on US exports vs where they could have been.
Fox Logic (Score:2)
> It's not really a lie, freezing exports at 2024 levels and preventing the construction of new export terminals is definitely going to cut down on US exports vs where they could have been. [Emph. added]
So Joe is now being bashed for being "America first"?
Biden has restrained oil and gas (Score:2)
>> pausing US export of LGN
> Obvious lie. There was "a temporary pause on pending decisions on exports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to non-FTA countries" (non-Free Trade Agreement countries). Approved exports continued and "The U.S. is already the number one exporter of LNG worldwide".
Yes, drilling approved in the prior Trump administration produced oil and gas under the Biden administration.
Yes, LNG exports approved in the prior Trump administration increased exports.
That fact remains that Biden has done what he could to restrain both oil and natural gas. Despite such a policy position contributing to higher prices and funding Putin's war. Redesignating land with huge reserves as undrillable. Slow walking pipeline permits, particularly the small pipelines that connect drills with thei
Re: (Score:1)
> Obvious lie.
It's a link to the Whitehouse.gov page. Are you saying that the official Whitehouse release is a lie?
Re: (Score:2)
Could just as well be about trade, as it says the existing regulations "no longer adequately account for considerations like potential energy cost increases for American consumers and manufacturers". Don't want to grow export capacity faster than supply and let foreigners increase the energy cost for industry too much.
With mercantilism a nation prefers to export high value goods rather than relatively low value inputs and mercantilism works.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't want to grow export capacity faster than supply and let foreigners increase the energy cost for industry too much.
A hypothetical he works to create by constraining the natural gas supply. He doesn't want to grow capacity at all, he wants to eliminate it.
Re: (Score:2)
> That God that Biden is looking to help by [1] pausing US export of LGN [whitehouse.gov] right now.
A puppet of Putin obviously.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/26/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-temporary-pause-on-pending-approvals-of-liquefied-natural-gas-exports/
Start testing Plan B (Score:2)
Countries do want to hedge their energy sources by having multiple sources, so coal is tempting as a backup to oil and renewables.
Seems we gotta figure out geoengineering; humans bicker too much to prevent.
Apizza! (Score:1)
Gotta keep churning out those beautiful pies!
Still convinced China issues empty coal permits? (Score:2)
For a few years now, we've been assured by many posters that the numerous coal plant permits recently issued in China wouldn't necessarily result in a new coal plant. And yet here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
They might still be right. China's economy is collapsing. They have the same problems everyone does machines are just better than people and they are rapidly taking over jobs. China was able to hold that back with borderline slave labor that kept workers cheaper than machines. The government was also not 110% sure of its grip on power so it didn't want to piss off too many people by taking away their factory jobs
Xi is now the undisputed dictator and basically emperor of China so they don't really need t
Re: (Score:3)
China's economy is collapsing (as are their population numbers), but they still are spending a lot on power generation. And coal is still relatively cheap to install and burn. So as their prospects dim, that's when we should expect Chinese interests to call in those permits and build plants. It's likely already happening. Don't expect the CCP to brag about it, though. They want to talk about their solar installations.
Re: (Score:2)
That's okay. They can always just use up that excess power mining Bitcoin and use the waste heat to generate tsunamis.
Solar supplementing, not displacing, coal in China (Score:2)
If you look at the charts, solar has been growing quickly for years. However all through solar's growth coal continued to grow as well. Just at a slower pace rate, the slow rate it has always grown. Solar is supplementing coal, it is not displacing coal. Coal is still be dug up and burned as fast as can be done. And coal is responsible for 80% of China's CO2 emissions.
Its time, actually long past time, to stop granting waivers in various climate accords and protocols to China.
Re: (Score:3)
> permits recently issued in China wouldn't necessarily result in a new coal plant
The cited article states that coal demand in China "is expected to grow by 1% in 2024". That doesn't mean all the coal plants that got permits will be built.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but old plants may need to be taken offline or rebuilt, etc. A 1% increase is not the direction the CCP would like you to think they're taking.