Ashley Madison

Coal emissions on pace for record-setting 2022

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
14,024
2,263
113
Ghawar
11/21/2022

Global emissions associated with coal burning are on track to hit a new record in 2022, underscoring the challenge of phasing out the world’s most carbon-intensive fuel.

Coal generation needs to fall precipitously for the planet to have a chance at reaching net-zero emissions. But 2022 has seen rising coal generation in Europe and India, as both regions struggled with the fallout of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Global coal generation likely would be even higher if not for an economic lull in China, the world’s largest coal market. The United States is the sole major economy to continue to see sharp declines in coal use.

The figures highlight a difficult truth for the world’s climate efforts: While the fuel’s decline in the United States and Europe over the last decade has generated a tidal wave of headlines, global coal use has remained largely flat due to a growing fleet of coal plants in Asia.

“Global coal use and emissions have essentially plateaued at a high level, with no definitive signs of an imminent reduction,” the International Energy Agency concluded in a report released this month. Climbing coal use in 2022, the agency added, is “a worrying sign of how far off track the world is in its efforts to put emissions into decline towards net zero — especially the narrow but achievable goal of doing so by 2050.”

Coal is the leading source of carbon dioxide emissions globally. In 2022, coal is on track to produce 15.1 billion metric tons of CO2, compared with 12.1 billion tons for oil and 7.9 billion tons for natural gas, according to the Global Carbon Project, an academic initiative. The previous record for coal emissions of slightly more than 15 billion tons was set in 2014.

That has made the fuel a target of international climate efforts. Nearly 200 countries agreed to phase out coal at global climate talks in Scotland.

Those efforts were always going to be difficult. Global coal capacity has doubled in the last two decades, with the majority of new plants built in Asia, according to IEA. Today, the average age of a coal plant in China is 13 years, while the average coal facility in Vietnam is 8 years old.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made the task more difficult. European coal generation was up 8 percent through September compared to the same time last year, according to Ember, a clean-energy think tank. The spike represented a reversal from the steady declines in coal use Europe has posted over the last decade, and came as the continent rushed to replace gas shipments from Russia.

Europe also has looked to liquefied natural gas to fill that gap, pushing up LNG prices globally. The impact has been felt in nations such as India, where high gas prices forced the world’s second largest coal burner to double down on the fuel. Indian coal generation is up 9 percent through September, according to Ember.

India’s coal binge has even created an opportunity for U.S. coal miners. Pennsylvania-based Consol Energy Inc. told investors it was bullish on exports to India, where the company’s coal is being burned in the industrial sector.

“There’s still strong demand coming out of India,” Bob Braithwaite, a Consol executive, told financial analysts in a recent earnings call. “I still think that long-term that is certainly where the majority of our exports will end up going.”

Even so, global coal use this year could have risen even more had China — which accounts for 55 percent of the world market — not encountered a slowdown in its construction and real estate sectors.

Electricity demand has been relatively weak as a result, though coal generation did climb in recent months to help offset a fall in hydro output stemming from a historic drought, said Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.

What happens next in China will determine the trajectory of the coal industry globally. China has 196 gigawatts of coal capacity in various stages of development — nearly as much as remains in the United States today.

But there are signs change is afoot. Though Chinese electricity demand has grown less this year, it is still up. And most of that demand has been met by renewables. Reuters recently reported that renewables met almost 75 percent of additional electricity demand so far this year.

“In a more structural sense, we’ve been on a long, bumpy plateau since 2013, and it will take further acceleration in clean energy investment to turn this into a structural decline,” Myllyvirta said. “That acceleration is now definitely happening in China and starting to happen elsewhere as well in response to the sky-high prices. Once the expansion of clean energy manufacturing that is currently in the works comes online, there’s no going back.”

Indeed, nowhere is coal’s decline more evident than in the United States. Other large economies such as Japan and South Korea have posted slight declines in coal generation this year, but those pale in comparison to the 10 percent drop in U.S. coal generation through September, according to Ember’s figures.

The drop is especially notable as it comes at a time when coal companies are generating mountains of cash. A run-up in coal prices has padded miners’ balance sheets, enabling them to pay down debt and plow money back to shareholders in the form of share buybacks.

One thing coal companies aren’t doing: Investing in more mining production. What money is being spent is largely being directed toward metallurgical coal used in steel production.

Peabody Energy, long America’s largest miner by tonnage, is spending money on beefing up a metallurgical mine in Australia for coal used in steel production. Consol is opening a small metallurgical mine in West Virginia.

Investments in thermal coal used for power have been limited. Consol is restarting a longwall mining unit at its large Pennsylvania mine, and Alliance Resource Partners LP is investing in some marginal mine upgrades.

“There are no more battles for market share or market supremacy” with natural gas, said Andy Blumenfeld, an analyst who tracks the industry at IHS Markit. “Everyone is looking at their own assets and trying to figure out what they can get out of them.”

The lack of new investment points to a larger challenge for the U.S. coal industry. A decade has passed since the United States last completed a major new coal plant, and the average American coal facility is now around 47 years old, said Paul Lang, CEO of Arch Resources, a St. Louis-based coal company that has long ranked among the country’s largest.

“This thing is heading towards a pretty fast decline rate,” Lang told financial analysts recently. He said the company remains committed to winding down the Black Thunder Mine in Wyoming, the second largest coal mine in America.

“I think we can have, and the industry can have on the thermal side, a very profitable period of time where this coal is going to be needed, and will do very well,” Lang told analysts. “But what we’re not gonna do is invest anything to increase production.”

If the world is to meet its climate goals, others will need to follow suit.

 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
19,045
5,431
113
Lewiston, NY
Didn't need to read the whole article. The first sentence summed things up quite well..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,089
3,635
113
this is just as true
Global emissions associated with coal Fossil Fuel burning are on track to hit a new record in 2022, underscoring the challenge stupidity of expecting the phasing out of the world’s most carbon-intensive fossil fuels.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,455
23,806
113
this is just as true
Global emissions associated with coal Fossil Fuel burning are on track to hit a new record in 2022, underscoring the challenge stupidity of expecting the phasing out of the world’s most carbon-intensive fossil fuels.
This is actually true:
Global emissions associated with fossil fuel burning are on track to hit a new record in 2022, underscoring the stupidity of those who defend the use of fossil fuels in the face of overwhelming evidence of climate change.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,089
3,635
113
climate changes , always has and likely aways will

believing a trace inert gas measured in the parts per million controls the climate is not scientific, that is propaganda

over whelming propaganda is not evidence


1669346665637.jpeg



1669346588077.jpeg
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,455
23,806
113
climate changes , always has and likely aways will

believing a trace inert gas measured in the parts per million controls the climate is not scientific, that is propaganda

over whelming propaganda is not evidence
Here we go again.
Ok, larue.
I know you can't or won't argue science, as we've repeatedly seen over the last week or so.

Since your 'science debate' is now down to memes, here you go.
How can trace amounts have big effects?
Ink in water.

 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
33,986
64,224
113
C'mon now Frank - you know his answer.
Visible light has different properties than the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,455
23,806
113
C'mon now Frank - you know his answer.
Visible light has different properties than the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.
But Valcazar, you can't use actual science in a rebuttal to larue.
He copies and pastes his IR and CO2 nonsense but if you try to debate the science he just runs away.
This is an idiotic meme response to an idiotic meme post, its the only level he seems to understand.

His arguments all come from incredibly wrong, basic errors.
As in, CO2 is a trace gas so how can that do anything?
Or 'water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas' (he can't understand forcing vs feedback)
Or his IR absorption nonsense.

Its all Cliff Clavin arguments.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,089
3,635
113
C'mon now Frank - you know his answer.
Visible light has different properties than the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Visible light does have different frequencies than the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.
And frequency defines the properties of the specific radiation.
this is a fundamental E=hv property of all electromagnetic radiation

so yeah Visible light does have different properties than the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.

300 parts per million ink in water
will reflect more visible light and make the water appear less transparent to visible light but it is not going to heat up the water
and ink contains carbon black pigment


this a very good representation
that little dot of CO2 cannot possibly heat up all the other molecules, and then heat up an exponentially larger number of molecules in the oceans and the land



1669496090984.png

it's not my fault the alarmists cannot process fundamental logic or have trouble conceptualizing molecular collisions
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Valcazar

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,455
23,806
113
300 parts per million ink in water
will reflect more visible light and make the water appear less transparent to visible light but it is not going to heat up the water
and ink contains carbon black pigment
As usual you missed the point.
You claimed trace elements can't make a difference, yet clearly you saw a big difference in water with trace elements of ink, at the same ratios as CO2.

I'm sure you'll also argue that trace elements of say, cyanide, can't harm a human either.

Its a ridiculous and stupid argument, one you keep repeating over and over again because you don't seem to be able to understand how stupid it is.
Carry on.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,089
3,635
113
it is comical to see a scientific illiterate trying to fake scientific understand by making a completely irrelevant comparison between the impact of drops of ink on the clarity of water (liquid) to the impacts of part per million of Co2 on the thermodynamics in our atmosphere (gas)

it truly is like watching a turtle who has been flipped on his back,... amusing for a while, but ultimately to cruel to continue to watch

As explained to the scientific illiterate many times before::
cyanide poisoning is the result of chemical bond formation, which prevents cells from oxygen uptake. Cyanide poisoning is a chemical effect
Absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules does not create or destroy chemical bonds, Absorption of infrared radiation is a physical effect

Chemical effects
determine chemical structure which determines physical properties which determine physical effects

this is why , one of the very first lessons in grade 9 science is DO NOT COMPARE CHEMICAL EFFECTS TO PHYSICAL EFFECTS

It is a shame the scientific illiterate was never able to learn this lesson despite having to repeat the course multiple times before dropping out

the fact the reasons not to make such a foolish comparison have been explained to him on multiple occasions, just highlights his inability to ever learn
it also illustrates how he will never stop pushing false propaganda as he just regurgitates it non-stop without ever thinking about it.
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,455
23,806
113
it is comical to see a scientific illiterate trying to fake scientific understand by making a completely irrelevant comparison between the impact of drops of ink on the clarity of water (liquid) to the impacts of part per million of Co2 on the thermodynamics in our atmosphere (gas)

it truly is like watching a turtle who has been flipped on his back,... amusing for a while, but ultimately to cruel to continue to watch

As explained to the scientific illiterate many times before::
cyanide poisoning is the result of chemical bond formation, which prevents cells from oxygen uptake. Cyanide poisoning is a chemical effect
Absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules does not create or destroy chemical bonds, Absorption of infrared radiation is a physical effect

Chemical effects
determine chemical structure which determines physical properties which determine physical effects

this is why , one of the very first lessons in grade 9 science is DO NOT COMPARE CHEMICAL EFFECTS TO PHYSICAL EFFECTS

It is a shame the scientific illiterate was never able to learn this lesson despite having to repeat the course multiple times before dropping out

the fact the reasons not to make such a foolish comparison have been explained to him on multiple occasions, just highlights his inability to ever learn
it also illustrates how he will never stop pushing false propaganda as he just regurgitates it non-stop without ever thinking about it.
Trace elements, larue.

You're moving the goalposts because you lost the argument that trace elements can have any effects on a larger body, be it the atmosphere or your own body, regardless of whether its chemical of physical trace elements can clearly have massive effect. Instead of admitting that your argument itself is idiotic you tried to move the goal posts and demand I don't argue tacts you don't like because they make you look foolish. Poor you.

What's frigging hilarious is your claims about CO2 and greenhouse gases not having effects on the climate would mean you would fail high school science. Check it out:

In university you would be laughed out all science courses with your CO2 stance.
If you talked to a legit scientist, they'd dismiss you as a moron.

Despite posting here for years on this issue you are still unable to articulate the difference between forcing and feedback effects. That is an incredibly basic concept that you still can't understand.
Your claims about CO2 and IR are just as foolish and its incredibly easy to show.

Here's an IPCC chapter on CO2, IR absorption and climate change. I fully challenge you to read this chapter and point out where you think the science is wrong and provide sources to back up your claim.
But we both know you'll just run away and rant about 'lefties' or 'sheople' on some other thread.

Because you can't understand the science.
Its so easy to show.
Read this and debate the claims, or run away and admit that you are TERB's Cliff Clavin, a blowhard who thinks he knows everything but can't get the basics.

 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts