Global investment in coal up 10%

[brenthutch 384]

Nearly $150 billion invested in new production?  Hardly looks like a “dead end” energy source now does it?

“About 40 GW of new coal plants were approved in 2022 -- the highest figure since 2016 -- with almost all of these being in China which is focusing on energy security after many regions in the country faced blackouts in the recent past.

The report noted that robust coal demand and high prices during the energy crisis in 2022 are also feeding through into higher global investment. Coal investment had increased to $135 billion globally in 2022, up 20% on year, and is expected to rise to $150 billion in 2023.”

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/052623-global-investment-in-coal-to-rise-10-in-2023-to-150-billion-iea#:~:text=Investment in global coal production,the International Energy Agency said.
 

 

[billvon 2,402]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Nearly $150 billion invested in new production?  Hardly looks like a “dead end” energy source now does it?

A dead end energy source in a dead end country.  In China it doesn't matter how many people you kill; the government sees that as an acceptable tradeoff.

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

A dead end energy source in a dead end country.  In China it doesn't matter how many people you kill; the government sees that as an acceptable tradeoff.

Don’t forget India

“India is expected to produce 1,255 terawatt-hours (tWh) of power using coal in 2023-24, the official said, compared with 1,180 tWh of power from coal this fiscal year.”

[billvon 2,402]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Don’t forget India

No worries!  Which will you be moving to?

[brenthutch 384]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

No worries!  Which will you be moving to?

No need to move.  All of their CO2 makes it over here for my tomatoes plants to enjoy.

[Phil1111 911]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Nearly $150 billion invested in new production?  Hardly looks like a “dead end” energy source now does it?

“About 40 GW of new coal plants were approved in 2022 -- the highest figure since 2016 -- with almost all of these being in China which is focusing on energy security after many regions in the country faced blackouts in the recent past.

The report noted that robust coal demand and high prices during the energy crisis in 2022 are also feeding through into higher global investment. Coal investment had increased to $135 billion globally in 2022, up 20% on year, and is expected to rise to $150 billion in 2023.”

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/coal/052623-global-investment-in-coal-to-rise-10-in-2023-to-150-billion-iea#:~:text=Investment in global coal production,the International Energy Agency said.
 

 

Did you ever learn about stranded assets at that school you went to?

[JoeWeber 2,304]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Did you ever learn about stranded assets at that school you went to?

I think he was home schooled by Ayn Rand. He'll recall from back when he had a manifest job at now the closed Skydive Happy Valley that I pointed out that his employers business, because it was in rented space on a Federally funded airport, was subsidized by the US taxpayer. Oh no!, I was told in no uncertain I have an MBA terms: those are "sunk costs".  

[ryoder 1,390]

25 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I think he was home schooled by Ayn Rand.

Bwahahaha!!!

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Did you ever learn about stranded assets at that school you went to?

Yes, but according to the IEA, the demand for fossil fuels will remain strong for the next several decades.  

[brenthutch 384]

45 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I think he was home schooled by Ayn Rand. He'll recall from back when he had a manifest job at now the closed Skydive Happy Valley 

Manifest? You flatter me, I was the janitor and refueling guy. 

[JoeWeber 2,304]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yes, but according to the IEA, the demand for fossil fuels will remain strong for the next several decades.  

Several decades? That's tomorrow not forever. But as ever, the conservative viewpoint as exemplified by thought leader Brent is: as long as I get mine now all is right in the world. Thinking back a bit I now see why you teach your kids to build tree branch shelters in the forest. Like a good dad, you want the best for them when it all goes to hell.

[billvon 2,402]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Yes, but according to the IEA, the demand for fossil fuels will remain strong for the next several decades.  

It will remain strong for the next century or so even as the demand for combustion fuel declines.  They are a key industrial feedstock and are used in everything from paints to lubricants to rope to clothing to pesticides to fertilizers to steel manufacture.  Which is the best possible reason to not burn them all as fast as we can.

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Yes, but according to the IEA, the demand for fossil fuels will remain strong for the next several decades.  

The stranded assets I was referring to are the brains of people once they become republicans.

[olofscience 422]

Well there's still a bit of good news in that:

Quote

The IEA said that, although producers in the US are looking to expand exports in the face of falling domestic demand, a lack of finance and labor, as well as bottlenecks in the supply chain, have slowed investment and this trend is likely to continue.

It means coal use in the US is falling and will continue to fall.

China being dependent on coal means that they're dependent on Australia - which they don't want given the politics. China doesn't exactly  have a lot of coal under their territory, nor shale gas/oil (which brent thought the europeans had too, but couldn't do the maths properly). So they're also turning to renewables for energy independence.

[brenthutch 384]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

It will remain strong for the next century or so even as the demand for combustion fuel declines.  They are a key industrial feedstock and are used in everything from paints to lubricants to rope to clothing to pesticides to fertilizers to steel manufacture.  Which is the best possible reason to not burn them all as fast as we can.

That report was from the IEA or the International Energy Agency and the demand to which they were referring was for energy and not for feedstocks.

[Phil1111 911]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

Well there's still a bit of good news in that:

It means coal use in the US is falling and will continue to fall.

China being dependent on coal means that they're dependent on Australia - which they don't want given the politics. China doesn't exactly  have a lot of coal under their territory, nor shale gas/oil (which brent thought the europeans had too, but couldn't do the maths properly). So they're also turning to renewables for energy independence.

China actually has a fair amount of coal 4th in the world. They import coking coal from Australia, metallurgical coal for use in their old blast furnaces for the production of steel. Slowly China is moving to steel making using EAF and mini-mills. But poor domestic and export demand has slowed this transition in the last two years.

Controlling pollution in China is a current new priority for XI so renewables has full party push. As does EV building domestically. China to Cut Steel Output For Third Year to Hit Green Goals "Crackdown on property market saps demand for the alloy"

Because local governments have separate agendas and quotas for showing growth. Building thermal plants and steel mills by a local government for which there is no demand. Is often a wasteful cross-purpose for national objectives. China's new coal plants set to become a costly second fiddle to renewables

"China's plans for some 100 new coal-fired power plants to back up wind and solar capacity have sparked warnings that the world's second-biggest economy is likely to end up lumbered with even more loss-making power assets.

Analysts question the logic of policies that intend to reduce the role of the dirtiest fossil fuel but at the same time require more coal-fired power plants to be built - especially given that only a small number of older plants are typically retired each year.

The plans also highlight how local government interests have impeded the development of an effective nationwide power market"

Sounds like stranded assets. Perhaps Brent could go to China as a consultant.

[kallend 1,632]

9 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

China actually has a fair amount of coal 4th in the world. They import coking coal from Australia, metallurgical coal for use in their old blast furnaces for the production of steel. Slowly China is moving to steel making using EAF and mini-mills.

 

EAF is not a replacement for the blast furnace, since it is used to process already reduced iron (from scrap and DRI), not iron ore.  The DRI process uses hydrogen and CO to reduce iron ore, whereas the blast furnace uses metallurgical coke.

 

Drive around any large city and you'll see enough scrap yards to keep us in scrap steel for a long time.  The trouble with scrap steel from junk cars is removing all the other stuff (like copper, tin, antimony and lead) which causes embrittlement if it makes its way into the finished product.

[Phil1111 911]

Just now, kallend said:

EAF is not a replacement for the blast furnace, since it is used to process already reduced iron (from scrap and DRI), not iron ore.  The DRI process uses hydrogen and CO to reduce iron ore, whereas the blast furnace uses metallurgical coke.

 

Drive around any large city and you'll see enough scrap yards to keep us in scrap steel for a long time.  The trouble with scrap steel from junk cars is removing all the other stuff (like copper, tin, antimony and lead) which causes embrittlement if it makes its way into the finished product.

thanks

[brenthutch 384]

6 hours ago, olofscience said:

Well there's still a bit of good news in that:

It means coal use in the US is falling and will continue to fall.

China being dependent on coal means that they're dependent on Australia - which they don't want given the politics. China doesn't exactly  have a lot of coal under their territory, nor shale gas/oil (which brent thought the europeans had too, but couldn't do the maths properly). So they're also turning to renewables for energy independence.

“According to a 2013 study by Germany's Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), there are an estimated 14 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of technically recoverable shale gas reserves in Europe. Poland and France have the largest estimated shale gas resources in the region.

The study, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration, said shale gas reserves amount to 4.2 trillion cubic meters in Poland and 3.9 trillion cubic meters in France. Romania had 1.4 trillion cubic meters, Denmark has 900 billion cubic meters and Germany is estimated to have a reserve of 500 billion cubic meters.

"About 70% of LNG imported into Poland from the US is from shale," Przybyło said. "And this threatens the EU’s CO2 targets. The EU has wandered down a blind alley on the green transition. Basically, it panicked."”

Looks like Europe has plenty of economically recoverable natural gas reserves, which they will need as the green energy transition continues to fail.

[brenthutch 384]

6 hours ago, olofscience said:

. China doesn't exactly  have a lot of coal under their territory,

https://www.worldometers.info/coal/china-coal/

“China holds 149,818 million tons (MMst) of proven coal reserves as of 2016, ranking 4th in the world and accounting for about 13% of the world's total coal reserves of 1,139,471 million tons (MMst).”

China has coal the EU has natural gas and EVs are nowhere close to replacing IC vehicles.  If this were baseball you would have struck out and be sitting back on the bench.

Edited July 6, 2023 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,127]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“According to a 2013 study by Germany's Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), there are an estimated 14 trillion cubic meters (tcm) of technically recoverable shale gas reserves in Europe. Poland and France have the largest estimated shale gas resources in the region.

The study, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration, said shale gas reserves amount to 4.2 trillion cubic meters in Poland and 3.9 trillion cubic meters in France. Romania had 1.4 trillion cubic meters, Denmark has 900 billion cubic meters and Germany is estimated to have a reserve of 500 billion cubic meters.

"About 70% of LNG imported into Poland from the US is from shale," Przybyło said. "And this threatens the EU’s CO2 targets. The EU has wandered down a blind alley on the green transition. Basically, it panicked."”

Looks like Europe has plenty of economically recoverable natural gas reserves, which they will need as the green energy transition continues to fail.

Oh look, Brent thinks these two words mean the same thing. Life must be pretty cool when you can just make shit up.

[billvon 2,402]

27 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Oh look, Brent thinks these two words mean the same thing. Life must be pretty cool when you can just make shit up.

You weren't supposed to notice that.

[olofscience 422]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

You weren't supposed to notice that.

No, brent is like the fish that bites your hook, then you throw it back, then it swallows the hook again.

He's forgotten how he got hammered in the European gas debate and he's sadly trying again. Thanks Phil, I stand corrected on the coal - I thought the australian imports were for energy, which was a mistake.

But China's getting hammered with climate change and pollution - Shanghai's baking in the summer, Beijing and many other cities are choking in pollution. Brent's cheering their coal use but he really has no idea that they're also doing a massive push in renewables. When they fully transition to renewables, he'll have to find some other country to cheer on.

[mistercwood 287]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

No, brent is like the fish that bites your hook, then you throw it back, then it swallows the hook again.

Plenty of people getting baited on these threads, but it's not Brent.... 

[brenthutch 384]

7 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Oh look, Brent thinks these two words mean the same thing. Life must be pretty cool when you can just make shit up.

Technically turns into economically with the passage of a few years. I remember in a geoscience elective I took in the late eighties we learned Marcellus gas, while plentiful and technically feasible to recover it was nowhere near economical. To channel Kamala, what a difference the passage of time makes. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by brenthutch