RT and many others report that China's coal consumption dropped for the first time in this century. These reports echo an analysis produced by Lauri Myllyvirta and Greenpeace International for the first half of this year:
China’s coal use doubled in the past 10 years, causing more than half of rapid global CO2 growth over the period, bringing the country’s per capita emissions at par with the EU and culminating in the current air pollution crisis.
[...] China’s coal consumption was seems to have dropped in the first half of 2014. The growth of imports ground almost to a halt, while domestic production dropped by 1.8% [in Chinese]. While there is uncertainty over the changes in coal stockpiles - running down stockpiles could have enabled consumption to grow while production and imports declined - stockpiles are reported to be high and increasing, making it very likely that consumption did indeed drop.
[...] Two easy short-term explanations have been offered for the slowing coal demand. The first is that China’s economic growth is slowing and coal consumption growth will resume when the economy picks up. However, there are signs that the link between coal consumption and economic growth has changed substantially. In the first five years of the century, coal use and GDP grew almost hand in hand. In the second half of last decade, while coal consumption growth remained incredibly fast, a gap opened between the growth rates of coal and GDP, widening in the first years of this decade. Finally, in the first half of 2014, the Chinese economy registered a year-on-year growth rate of 7.4% while coal consumption remained stable.
I hope that we are just witnessing the peak coal consumption in China.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday August 21 2014, @11:15PM
A six month blip doesn't make a trend.
(Score: 1) by subs on Thursday August 21 2014, @11:55PM
It's not a blip. Their coal use increase (first derivative) has been steadily declining (second derivative negative) since ~2007. There are several possible explanations (any combination of which is also possible), such as a slowing of the energy use by energy-intensive industry, switching to other fuels or more efficient energy use by the existing infrastructure, just to name a few. Overall, it's a very positive development.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khchung on Friday August 22 2014, @01:36PM
And don't forget the contribution from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam [wikipedia.org], which provide clean energy equivalent of 18 coal power plants, or 3% of China's consumption.
(Score: 1) by subs on Friday August 22 2014, @02:27PM
Comparing hydroelectric dams with traditional fueled power plants is not quite an honest comparison. For one, dams are extremely impacting on the surrounding environment, often times far in excess of what any nuclear disaster can do (Chernobyl's exclusion zone, except for a few hotspots, is overall quite fine). The Three Gorges dam has a reservoir of >1000km^2 - you'd be able to construct a lot more than 18 coal (or any other fuel) power plants in that area. For example, the Three Gorges construction project, according to Wikipedia, displaced some 1.4 million people permanently from their homes - making Fukushima's 150000 seem laughable in comparison (Fukushima had a combined electrical capacity of 1/5 of Three Gorges, so even adjusting for capacity, Three Gorges is 2x as expensive in terms of human displacement) - and that's when it all goes right, not when it all goes wrong (like the famous Banqiao dam failure).
On balance, overall, I think hydro is still worth pursuing, mainly because of all the long-term environmental benefits of avoided CO2 emissions from its operation and the ability of dams to operate for over 100 years, but its cons must be considered honestly just as much as its pros. For one, I've never heard anybody talk about the costs of decommissioning a hydro dam after 100-200 years, or what happens in the long run when the dam will require significant repairs or even complete reconstruction - do we then pump the entire reservoir dry to tear it all down and kill everything that lived in there? These are not easy questions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khchung on Saturday August 23 2014, @02:25AM
The topic is coal consumption (and obviously the subsequent CO2 release), so comparing power generated is the relevant comparison.
The question on decommissioning is a complete strawman. At least do your homework. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity [wikipedia.org] America already had 200 dams in 1889, over 100 years ago. Why aren't we seeing the massive decommissioning problems there? Maybe you've never heard about people talking of decommissioning a hydro dam after 100-200 years because they simply don't need to do that? How about you give us an example of the a dam getting decommissioned?
Furthermore, you seemed set on highlighting only the downside of the dam (you have to pick on one of the cleanest renewable?). Do you know that particular dam also helped prevent floods that regularly kills thousands and affect millions of people downstream every few years (and have been for the past 2000+ years)? The Wikipedia page have concrete numbers based on the water volume increased in the dam, compared to the water volume flowed through the same area during previous flood, showing that the dam had already prevented a few floods that would have been worse than the one happened before the dam was built.
Even if the dam can't generate a single watt of electricity, it would be quite a debate if we should displace a million people from their homes if it could save thousands of lives every few years.
(Score: 1) by subs on Saturday August 23 2014, @01:32PM
The question on decommissioning is a complete strawman.
Are you in all honesty claiming that hydroelectric dams last forever? Don't accuse others of not doing their homework when it is obviously you who hasn't [waterpowermagazine.com]. Here's the money quote:
The arguments for planning the removal of dams are cogently summarised by John Seebach of American Rivers: “Dams are tools, but like all tools, they eventually wear out and stop serving a useful purpose: even a revenue-generating benefit like hydro power doesn’t always outweigh the cost associated with a dam’s environmental impacts or public safety hazards. When these costs begin to outweigh the benefits, it’s time to take a serious look at decommissioning. Removal should always be an option in relicensing, but since many of our hydro dams are still quite functional and produce benefits that are deemed worth the costs, it’s not going to be a serious option in the majority of hydro licensing cases.
“The problem with hydro dams is that, even though they’re designed with a non-permanent 100-200 year life span at best, they aren’t planned that way: the question of what to do with them when they’ve outlived their usefulness is one that’s not dealt with seriously during the initial permitting and construction of a dam, which is assumed to be a permanent fixture. As a result, when a dam needs to be removed, the taxpayer is often stuck with the bill, even if the dam was constructed, owned, and operated by private investors who profited from that investment. We need to consider the entire lifecycle of infrastructure when we decide to build it, rather than pushing that cost onto future generations of taxpayers.”
So the problem does exist, it's just that it's so long-term that most people tend not to think about it. What's funnier is that they tend to freak out when they need to wait 30 years before decommissioning a nuclear power plant with a small fraction of the area impact of a dam.
America already had 200 dams in 1889, over 100 years ago. Why aren't we seeing the massive decommissioning problems there?
As I've quoted above, there already have been hydroelectric dam removals and they cost quiet a penny:
Recently, works have commenced to prepare for removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams in Washington State. These dams are relatively tall: the Glines Canyon dam is 64m high, but their power output is small, with a combined total of 28MW. What really sets them apart however is the cost of their removal. A price tag of over US$300M sets a new high-water mark in the price that the nation is prepared to pay to restore it’s rivers.
For the larger units, quite simply, the benefits of using the dam as yet outweigh the costs and risks of maintaing it. However, no structure has infinite lifetime and sooner or later future generations will need to take a serious look at dealing with them. An alternative is of course to just ignore it and wait until the problem takes care of itself [wikipedia.org]. I think we can both agree that that's not very responsible.
Even if the dam can't generate a single watt of electricity, it would be quite a debate if we should displace a million people from their homes if it could save thousands of lives every few years.
At the same time, if energy generation isn't the driver, it would be debatable whether the same effect of flood-prevention or mitigation can't be achieved via some other means (e.g. small-scale barrages) that don't drastically impact wildlife and the environment.
But what's with the butthurt anyway? I already said that "On balance, overall, I think hydro is still worth pursuing". I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm saying we should carefully weigh the pros and cons.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 22 2014, @06:41PM
I see China's large investment in renewables in the news pretty frequently.
One Example:
The good news is that China recognizes its energy problem and is making big bets on renewable energy. According to The Global Status Report, which was released earlier this month by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, China once again led the rest of the world in renewable energy investment in 2013, spending a total of $56.3 billion on wind, solar and other renewable projects. The report stated that China accounted for 61 percent of the total investment in renewables by developing countries, and that China invested more in renewable energy than all of Europe last year.
Maybe it is working?
reference [forbes.com]
(Score: 1) by subs on Saturday August 23 2014, @12:47PM
Up to a certain proportions, intermittent sources work quite fine. I'm hesitant to call them "renewables", because that clumps together a lot of things which are quite dissimilar. Hydro, geothermal and biomass are "renewable", but from a grid planning and scaling perspective are very much unlike wind and solar, which aren't dispatchable and require a great deal of integration effort to get them to work above a certain rather modest proportion (even Germany only generates ~15% from them, the rest being "hard" renewables like hydro and biomass).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday August 21 2014, @11:39PM
'cause they still have air pollution that makes LA seem like fresh mountain air.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by subs on Friday August 22 2014, @12:12AM
A significant portion of the air pollution in China is due to its manufacturing business for overseas export to customers including yourself, so you "own" part of the pollution there. That's not to say that pollution is okay or that the Chinese don't need to clean up their act (they know this better than anybody else), but don't try and put up a smug holier-than-thou pretense.
(Score: 1) by Freeman on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:37PM
You can claim that it's a smug holier-than-thou pretense, but you would be wrong. They have a serious problem and their air pollution Does make LA seem like fresh mountain air. While I don't have first hand experience of the air pollution in China, I have experienced the air pollution in California and that's no joke either. You can also see this article for a better understanding of how true my statements are: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/2-charts-that-put-the-chinese-pollution-problem-in-perspective/360868/ [theatlantic.com] Specifically look at the chart from the WHO regarding Daily Pollution and the top 10 worst China vs US cities.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by subs on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:02PM
I've been to Beijing a couple of years ago, I know the air quality there. At times it's pretty bad due to Beijing's geography, but nowhere as terrible as you think it is. I can assure you though the good people of Beijing know what the deal is and are working furiously on improvements. Anyways, comparing China to the present day US pretty dishonest, since China contains far more heavy industry than the US does, while its environmental regulations were historically quite loose - this is changing fast now, kinda like what happened when the US implemented the Clean air act in the 60s and the Clean water act in the 70s, as China is moving on reducing pollution as well.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Friday August 22 2014, @04:48PM
Insightful and Funny! As a resident of the central valley I never thought I'd be able to drive through LA during the summer and be able to see from one side to the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22 2014, @10:46AM
prolly some meta-coal powerplants -aka- nukes came online (more to come, stay tuned).
obviously they are much better since the occasional off-gasing can't be seen or smelled. so ... "much better".
then again a better, more transparent (less smokey-fog) atmosphere is good for solar arrays too : )