Coal use growing world wide

[Lord of Planar]

Because total energy use is growing faster than the green energy production. It has double the renewable energy production than the next largest country ( US)

You mean it has nothing to do with cost?

Isn't green energy now cheaper? You guys keep telling us that.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

You mean it has nothing to do with cost?

Isn't green energy now cheaper? You guys keep telling us that.

Hydro is cheaper, solar and wind are getting closer. Add in the environmental costs and they are much cheaper. In 2014, many northern Chinese cities had extremely high levels of particulates in the air. You could not see across the street because of the pollution. Generally from coal being burned to provide heat ( steam for radiant heating

 

[longview]

Unfortunately, the easiest way to make the cost of B become to to or lower than the cost of A is simply taxing and/or regulating A enough to make that happen.

I realize that is not your desired result, but that ‘solution’ appears likely to happen. This regulating can take many forms, one of which is simply placing restrictions on where mining can take place. Taxing not only (artificially) raises the price of A, it allows using that revenue to subsidize B (artificially) lowering its price.

The artificial increase in A, would only affect transition where the law was in effect!
B will become less than A, on it’s own as the price of oil increases!

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because total energy use is growing faster than the green energy production. It has double the renewable energy production than the next largest country ( US)

With the push in China for electric cars expect electricity usage to increase even more

I would have expected China to move faster on making nuclear power plants

People need to understand

About half of the people in China have living standards comparable to parts of Eastern Europe or above. The other half live in rural and or agricultural areas with poor living standards. That half does not use much energy, as they improve their lifestyles they will use more electricity.

The same goes for India, but a much larger population live in rural and or agricultural areas. It has an even higher potential for increased energy usage than China at this point

In other (and fewer) words, “green” energy supply can’t keep up with total energy demand even in the nation with the best ”green” energy production.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The artificial increase in A, would only affect transition where the law was in effect!
B will become less than A, on it’s own as the price of oil increases!

That might matter in situations where B can replace A without changing (replacing?) the device(s) using that energy source. While my (electric) toaster does not care what made it’s power, my IC powered lawnmower can’t use either source of fuel. I could replace my $2K IC lawnmower with a $3K battery lawnmower, but that ‘transition’ would take longer than my (remaining) lifetime to save any money.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

In other (and fewer) words, “green” energy supply can’t keep up with total energy demand even in the nation with the best ”green” energy production.

Not so far at least

Heck China uses about 30% of the world’s electricity per year

It’s renewable energy would cover the electricity demands of Japan, Brazil and Canada

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That might matter in situations where B can replace A without changing (replacing?) the device(s) using that energy source. While my (electric) toaster does not care what made it’s power, my IC powered lawnmower can’t use either source of fuel. I could replace my $2K IC lawnmower with a $3K battery lawnmower, but that ‘transition’ would take longer than my (remaining) lifetime to save any money.

Or go green and get a push mower for $200.

 

[longview]

That might matter in situations where B can replace A without changing (replacing?) the device(s) using that energy source. While my (electric) toaster does not care what made it’s power, my IC powered lawnmower can’t use either source of fuel. I could replace my $2K IC lawnmower with a $3K battery lawnmower, but that ‘transition’ would take longer than my (remaining) lifetime to save any money.

The man made carbon neutral fuels are drop in replacements for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, actually any hydrocarbon.

 

[ecofarm]

Unfortunately, the easiest way to make the cost of B become to to or lower than the cost of A is simply taxing and/or regulating A enough to make that happen.

I realize that is not your desired result, but that ‘solution’ appears likely to happen. This regulating can take many forms, one of which is simply placing restrictions on where mining can take place. Taxing not only (artificially) raises the price of A, it allows using that revenue to subsidize B (artificially) lowering its price.

Industrial agriculture (a leading consumer of oil) and oil production are only viable as a result of subsidy. The fix is already in.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Or go green and get a push mower for $200.

I did that, but for about $300. I have replaced my IC powered push mower, chainsaw, string trimmer and ‘leaf’ blower with Echo 58v battery powered equipment. I did get some “chump change” from selling the old IC equipment, but not enough to cover the replacement cost of one Echo 58v battery.

It is not practical to use a 21” push mower to cut the 3 acres which I normally maintain.

 

[bubbabgone]

For the sake of argument lets say mans use of fossil fuel is warming the planet and the results will be catastrophic for humanity. Now lets say Biden and democrats succeed in virtually eliminating fossil fuels in America. Would that change anything?

"China, the world’s top coal consumer, is in dire need of more supply and is willing to pay any price — a move that threatens to leave less fuel for energy-starved rivals.
With winter on the way for the northern hemisphere and natural gas prices at record levels, economies across the globe are competing for a finite supply of coal. At the center of the scramble is China, where stockpiles are low and demand is at an all-time high.

The dirtiest fossil fuel, which was struggling against cleaner energy sources, is now seeing its biggest comeback ever, complicating international climate talks set to begin in just a few weeks.
China will expand coal procurement at "any price to ensure heating and power generation in winter,” the China Electricity Council said in a statement Monday. While more than 90% of the fuel the country uses is mined locally, it’s difficult to raise local output at short notice.
European coal has risen to a 13-year high, and Australian Newcastle coal has surged by 250% from last September to within range of the record set in 2008. Chinese thermal coal futures on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange rose as much as 3.6% Wednesday to reach an intraday record for a third straight session."

Coal prices rising worldwide as China struggles to meet its growing demand

The dirtiest fossil fuel, which was struggling against cleaner energy sources, is now seeing its biggest comeback ever, complicating climate talks just weeks away.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Since existing CO2 takes a very long time to dissipate enough in the atmosphere to make a difference, the answer is no.
If humans reduced their fossil fuels CO2 emissions to zero today it would be many decades before it made any noticeable difference ... if at all because of natural warming and cooling contributors.

 

[KingLeo]

A bit deceiving claim.
China and India account for about 65% of all coal use worldwide, and they have increased usage.
The rest of the world, not so much.

 

[iguanaman]

If a problem exist with extra CO2, the only way to solve it is to address the cause of the emissions!
We emit CO2 because of our demand for energy.
Until we have a way to carry energy in a package equal or better than the energy density we get from fossil fuels, and for lower costs!
Only when a viable replacement that cost less is available, will the global demand shift!

So in other words we can forget about reducing carbon emissions entirely. It is a pipe dream. It will always be cheaper to dig energy from the ground than to make it ourselves. Energy that "grows on trees" is the cheapest energy. A world-wide tax on carbon emissions is the only way to make green energy cheaper. That will give us a more accurate cost of fossil energy vs renewables.

 

[longview]

So in other words we can forget about reducing carbon emissions entirely. It is a pipe dream. It will always be cheaper to dig energy from the ground than to make it ourselves. Energy that "grows on trees" is the cheapest energy. A world-wide tax on carbon emissions is the only way to make green energy cheaper. That will give us a more accurate cost of fossil energy vs renewables.

That is your opinion!
I know the price curves are already in motion.
Oil and fuel products made from oil are increasing in price, while the cost to make the fuel products from atmospheric CO2, water, and electricity, is declining. The break even price point could be as low as $70 a barrel, or as high as $95 a barrel.
No tax is necessary, as the curves will cross on their own.

 

[iguanaman]

That is your opinion!
I know the price curves are already in motion.
Oil and fuel products made from oil are increasing in price, while the cost to make the fuel products from atmospheric CO2, water, and electricity, is declining. The break even price point could be as low as $70 a barrel, or as high as $95 a barrel.
No tax is necessary, as the curves will cross on their own.

In the United States, production costs are $36 a barrel -- still below the trading price.
Those findings are from Rystad Energy's UCube database, which has information from roughly 6,500 oil and gas fields around the world.
Of course, it's hard to make money when the cost of producing oil is higher than the sales price.
It's no secret that many major energy companies have already announced a range of cut backs in high-cost countries.
On the other side of the coin, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait can pump a barrel of oil for less than $10, on average. Iraq can produce oil for about $10.70 per barrel.
https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/what-it-costs-to-produce-a-barrel-of-oil

The Saudi's can produce a barrel of oil for less the $10. There is no way synfuel will ever be near the cost of production of fossil fuels. We will burn every drop in the ground first unless we add the true costs of the fossil carbon that is released.

Setting the right carbon price will therefore efficiently align the costs paid by carbon users with the true social opportunity cost of using carbon. By raising relative demand for clean energy sources, a carbon price would also help to align the market return to clean-energy innovation with its social return, spurring the refinement of existing technologies and the development of new ones. And it would raise the demand for mitigation technologies such as carbon capture and storage, spurring their further development. If not corrected by the appropriate carbon price, low fossil fuel prices are not accurately signaling to markets the true social profitability of clean energy. While alternative estimates of the damages from carbon emissions differ, and it is especially hard to reckon the likely costs of possible catastrophic climate events, most estimates suggest substantial negative effects.

https://blogs.imf.org/2015/12/02/the-price-of-oil-and-the-price-of-carbon/

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

If willing to pay almost any price, why not export American coal to China?

Democrats have made it difficult to mine coal at all in America

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

In the United States, production costs are $36 a barrel -- still below the trading price.
Those findings are from Rystad Energy's UCube database, which has information from roughly 6,500 oil and gas fields around the world.
Of course, it's hard to make money when the cost of producing oil is higher than the sales price.
It's no secret that many major energy companies have already announced a range of cut backs in high-cost countries.
On the other side of the coin, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait can pump a barrel of oil for less than $10, on average. Iraq can produce oil for about $10.70 per barrel.
https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/what-it-costs-to-produce-a-barrel-of-oil

The Saudi's can produce a barrel of oil for less the $10. There is no way synfuel will ever be near the cost of production of fossil fuels. We will burn every drop in the ground first unless we add the true costs of the fossil carbon that is released.

Setting the right carbon price will therefore efficiently align the costs paid by carbon users with the true social opportunity cost of using carbon. By raising relative demand for clean energy sources, a carbon price would also help to align the market return to clean-energy innovation with its social return, spurring the refinement of existing technologies and the development of new ones. And it would raise the demand for mitigation technologies such as carbon capture and storage, spurring their further development. If not corrected by the appropriate carbon price, low fossil fuel prices are not accurately signaling to markets the true social profitability of clean energy. While alternative estimates of the damages from carbon emissions differ, and it is especially hard to reckon the likely costs of possible catastrophic climate events, most estimates suggest substantial negative effects.

https://blogs.imf.org/2015/12/02/the-price-of-oil-and-the-price-of-carbon/

No matter how expensive you make fossil fuel with taxes it won’t solve the demand issue. So called green energy just can’t supply what the world needs now much less in the near future. All a carbon tax would do is wreck our economy as others thrive.

 

[longview]

In the United States, production costs are $36 a barrel -- still below the trading price.
Those findings are from Rystad Energy's UCube database, which has information from roughly 6,500 oil and gas fields around the world.
Of course, it's hard to make money when the cost of producing oil is higher than the sales price.
It's no secret that many major energy companies have already announced a range of cut backs in high-cost countries.
On the other side of the coin, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait can pump a barrel of oil for less than $10, on average. Iraq can produce oil for about $10.70 per barrel.
https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/what-it-costs-to-produce-a-barrel-of-oil

The Saudi's can produce a barrel of oil for less the $10. There is no way synfuel will ever be near the cost of production of fossil fuels. We will burn every drop in the ground first unless we add the true costs of the fossil carbon that is released.

Setting the right carbon price will therefore efficiently align the costs paid by carbon users with the true social opportunity cost of using carbon. By raising relative demand for clean energy sources, a carbon price would also help to align the market return to clean-energy innovation with its social return, spurring the refinement of existing technologies and the development of new ones. And it would raise the demand for mitigation technologies such as carbon capture and storage, spurring their further development. If not corrected by the appropriate carbon price, low fossil fuel prices are not accurately signaling to markets the true social profitability of clean energy. While alternative estimates of the damages from carbon emissions differ, and it is especially hard to reckon the likely costs of possible catastrophic climate events, most estimates suggest substantial negative effects.

https://blogs.imf.org/2015/12/02/the-price-of-oil-and-the-price-of-carbon/

The only price that matters, is how much the refinery pays for it’s raw material(oil) or harvesting the carbon and hydrogen !

 

[longview]

No matter how expensive you make fossil fuel with taxes it won’t solve the demand issue. So called green energy just can’t supply what the world needs now much less in the near future. All a carbon tax would do is wreck our economy as others thrive.

I agree, I do not see how we can move to where a point of sustainability energy, without nuclear power filling the gap!

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

A bit deceiving claim.
China and India account for about 65% of all coal use worldwide, and they have increased usage.
The rest of the world, not so much.

China is building new coal power plants worldwide

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

I agree, I do not see how we can move to where a point of sustainability energy, without nuclear power filling the gap!

I’m an old time enviro and as such have always been anti nuke. Bad enough we have a small country size trash island in the ocean. Do we also need countless barrels of nuclear waste building up? People complain about us leaving the next generation a huge debt but that’s nothing compared to leaving the next 100 generations our nuclear waste.
I say drill and mine until something better comes along

 

[longview]

I’m an old time enviro and as such have always been anti nuke. Bad enough we have a small country size trash island in the ocean. Do we also need countless barrels of nuclear waste building up? People complain about us leaving the next generation a huge debt but that’s nothing compared to leaving the next 100 generations our nuclear waste.
I say drill and mine until something better comes along

I think man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels will fill the gap, but we do not yet have enough carbon free electricity available to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels.

 

[bluesmoke]

It’s hard to assert that placing restrictions on US fossil fuel use make sense when you are supporting foreign (especially Chinese) use of them.

That's not what I'm saying. As usual, you twist my words. I'm asking the question, though somewhat facetiously, if it would be good business for coal producers to sell coal to China based on the assumption China in so much need for more coal they are willing to pay higher prices. Of US coal production, 12% are exported. You didn't give any response that resembled a forthright answer to my question. As usual.

 

[bluesmoke]

Democrats have made it difficult to mine coal at all in America

The US is the 4th leading producer of coal, the top 3 being in Asia. The US has the #1 proven coal reserves in the world, by far. In terms of "to difficult to mine coal", US coal reserves are classified as economically extractable at the time of classification, after considering environmental, legal, and technological constraints. Your claim does not apply. If US coal companies can get the right price from China, they should have no problem exporting coal to China.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

The US is the 4th leading producer of coal, the top 3 being in Asia. The US has the #1 proven coal reserves in the world, by far. In terms of "to difficult to mine coal", US coal reserves are classified as economically extractable at the time of classification, after considering environmental, legal, and technological constraints. Your claim does not apply. If US coal companies can get the right price from China, they should have no problem exporting coal to China.

You confirm what I said when you said:

"after considering environmental, legal, constraints".


Chainsawmassacre said:
Democrats have made it difficult to mine coal at all in America