"Source: Energy Information Administration, International Data Base, http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=1 and http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2"
"According to the World Coal Association, coal’s global share of primary energy consumption rose to 30.3 percent in 2011 from about 25 percent, where it had been for years, and generated about 42 percent of the world’s electricity. Coal’s global resurgence is due in part to the shale gas boom that lowered natural gas prices, making gas more competitive with coal, and pushing coal prices down on world markets.
Coal’s recent global renaissance, with the world’s highest consumption for the fuel since 1969, is not just due to Asian countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, coal consumption increased by nearly a quarter between the second quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2012. Germany is encouraging the construction of 10 gigawatts of coal-fired generation to replace its nuclear plants and provide back-up power for its wind and solar units, which require backup when the wind isn’t blowing or when the sun does not shine.
Europe overall burned more coal in the past year than any time since it pledged cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. Besides coal’s low cost, the price of carbon permits in Europe is also very low due to their large supply and low demand, making coal an economic choice for electricity generation.[iii] Natural gas prices in Europe are high because of politically expedient deals that coupled the price of Russian gas imports to the price of oil. In contrast, the shale gas boom in the United States decoupled oil and gas prices, driving natural gas down to near record levels.[iv]
Coal’s Future in the United States
Coal generation’s share in the United States has declined from around 50 percent to an estimated 37 percent for 2012. The reasons for its decline are twofold: low-cost natural gas is edging out coal for generation and the Environmental Protection Agency is producing onerous regulations that will retire many old coal-fired power plants and/or add substantial costs for their compliance (Utility MACT), and make it impossible to build new coal-fired power plants with existing technology (Carbon Pollution Standard). To build a new coal-fired plant, carbon capture and sequestration technology will be required, but that technology does not exist on a commercial scale today.
The Energy Information Administration estimates that 175 coal-fired units are scheduled to be shut down between 2012 and 2016—a total of 27 gigawatts of electrical capacity that powers 27 million homes.[v] The Brattle Group in a recent study estimates that between 59 gigawatts and 77 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity is likely to retire rather than be retrofitted with additional environmental equipment.[vi] The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finds 81 gigawatts of shuttered coal-fired capacity to be “likely”.[vii] These units will be replaced with more expensive forms of energy, since any new plant will have to absorb its capital as well as operational costs. Electricity rates will likely skyrocket due to the need to replace the retiring coal-fired capacity with new approved technology.
The closing of these coal-fired power plants threatens thousands of the 555,270 direct and indirect coal-related jobs that pay $36 billion in wages. Coal employees are already entering the ranks of the unemployed in the United States. Alpha Natural Resources is scaling back its coal production and eliminating 1,200 jobs, including 400 jobs that were terminated as a result of immediate mine closures in Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The company indicated that the action was due to “a regulatory environment that’s aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal.” Over 100 coal miners in Boone County, West Virginia, were laid off in November. Ohio American Energy, Inc., announced it would close its coal mining operations in Brilliant, Ohio, citing regulatory actions for the mine’s closure and warning that more layoffs would come. GenOn announced it would shutter 13 percent of its generating capacity by 2015 due to new environmental regulations. First Energy announced the early retirement of six plants located in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland due to the high cost and uncertainty associated with new EPA regulations.[viii]
Conclusion
According to Milton Catelin, chief executive of the World Coal Association, global coal use is likely to continue to increase, and could help to lift people out of poverty. China and India are planning to use coal to do just that. According to the International Energy Agency, coal consumption has increased by 8.4 percent in the developing countries. Other countries see coal as an economic choice with both Germany and the United Kingdom increasing its use. Unfortunately, for Americans – with the largest supplies of coal in the world — new and onerous regulations are forcing the coal industry to lose share in the U.S. electric generation sector, reduce its consumption, and force many Americans into unemployment.
Other countries are using coal to lift their citizens out of poverty,
while the United States is impoverishing its people by criminalizing the use of coal."
======================================
Big banks such as JP Morgan, Citi, Barclays, World Bank, finance worldwide coal expansion:
1/19/12, "More than 1,000 New Coal Plants Planned Worldwide," Damian Carrington, UK Guardian
"More than 1,000 coal-fired power plants are being planned worldwide, new research has revealed.
The huge planned expansion comes despite warnings from politicians, scientists and campaigners that the planet's fast-rising carbon emissions must peak within a few years if runaway climate change is to be avoided and that fossil fuel assets risk becoming worthless if international action on global warming moves forward....
The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China – the world's biggest emitter.
India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building programme in the past decade....
The WRI report also found that, after a slight dip during the economic troubles of 2008, the global coal trade has rebounded and rose by 13% in 2010. A structural shift has moved the bulk of the international coal trade from the Atlantic, serving Europe and the US, to the Pacific.
China became a net importer of coal in 2009 but the biggest changes are
fast-rising imports by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, which all have
large numbers of coal-fired plants but produce virtually no coal of
their own.
However, Germany, the UK and France remain in the top 10 importers, and coal use rose 4% in 2011 in Europe as prices fell and plants due to close under clean air rules use up their allotted running hours. Indonesia and Australia are the largest coal exporters, with the latter planning to triple its mine and port capacity to almost 1bn tonnes a year....
Most new coal-fired plants will be built by Chinese or Indian companies. But new plants have largely been financed by both commercial banks and development banks.
JP Morgan Chase has provided more than $16.5bn (£10.3bn) for new coal plants over the past six years, followed by
Citi ($13.8bn).
Barclays ($11.5bn) comes in as the fifth biggest coal backer and
the Royal Bank of Scotland ($10.9bn) as the seventh.
The Japan Bank for International Co-operation was the biggest development bank ($8.1bn), with
Guy Shrubsole, at Friends of the Earth, said of the WRI report:
"This is a scary number of coal-fired plants being planned. It is clear that the vested interests of coal companies are driving this forward and that
they will have to be reined in by governments."
"This is a scary number of coal-fired plants being planned. It is clear that the vested interests of coal companies are driving this forward and that
they will have to be reined in by governments."
In January, the Bank of England was warned that fossil fuel sub-prime assets posed a systemic risk to economic stability,
because only 20% of the reserves of the top 100 coal and top 100 oil
and gas companies could be burned while keeping the global temperature
rise under the internationally agreed limit of 2C."
.
No comments:
Post a Comment