Global coal use to soar without climate policies, EIA says

Climate Progress

The Federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its 2013 International Energy Outlook yesterday, and the picture it paints of coal use is not pretty. Furthermore, the overwhelming bulk of the increase will come from the developing world.

shutterstock

If business as usual continues for the world’s climate policy, the EIA’s mid-range projections show consumption of coal — the dirtiest fossil fuel in terms of carbon emissions — increasing by over a third by 2040. It nearly doubles by that time under the worst case scenarios. Specifically, the EIA’s “Reference Case” projects global coal consumption jumping from 147.4 quadrillion Btu of energy in 2010 to 219.5 in 2040. That’s despite coal dropping slightly, from 28 to 27 percent, as a share of the world’s overall energy supply.

energy consumption graph

 

But looking across the range of scenarios the EIA lays out, coal consumption could only reach 182.2 quadrillion Btu by 2040 — or go as high as 297.3 quadrillion Btu.

What the EIA’s interactive tables also reveal is that virtually all this increase in consumption will come from China, India, and the developing world. Under every scenario, the United States’ coal consumption plateaus around 22 quadrillion Btu between 2010 and 2040. The advanced countries as a whole stop at 44.8 quadrillion Btu total in 2010, then stay flat or decrease slightly. Meanwhile, China, India, and the other developing countries in Asia rocket from 88.4 quadrillion Btu in 2010 to 156.8 quadrillion under the Reference Case — or 231.6 quadrillion under the worst case scenario. Russia and the other developing European, the Middle East, Central and South America, and Africa all see jumps of varying degrees as well.

At around 20 quadrillion Btu of consumption in 2040, America will remain the third biggest user of coal in the world. The onus remains on us to throw everything we’ve got at renewables, regardless of what the rest of the world is doing.

This story

Comments

10 responses to “Global coal use to soar without climate policies, EIA says”

  1. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    So I guess the EIA doesn’t believe China’s plans to cap coal use?

  2. Thylacine Avatar
    Thylacine

    If the EIA projection is correct, we are in for a bleak second half of this century.

  3. Bob_Wallace Avatar
    Bob_Wallace

    Let’s look at coal consumption by country for the major coal users and see what the likelihood of increased use might be.

    #1 China. Consumed 50.2% of the world’s total coal consumed in 2012.

    China has capped coal use starting in 2015 and set the cap at the 2011 level. In 2011 China burned 1760.8 million tons “oil equivalent”. That rose 6.4% in 2012. The amount could rise for another year or two but all that extra over-cap amount will have to be dropped.

    China has allowed more coal burning for a limited time while it brings lower carbon generation online. And China has announced that it is very serious about stopping growth in greenhouse gas emission by (hopefully) 2025. China has a history of meeting its clean energy goals early.

    #2 US. Consumed 11.7% of world total in 2012.

    The US has roughly 100 coal plants scheduled for early closure with some already closed. It’s possible that new EPA regulations will close over 100 more. The US has basically quit building new coal plants.

    Hard to burn more coal when you don’t have the capacity.

    #3 India. 8% of the world total in 2012.

    India has just announced a carbon tax on coal with the proceeds to go to solar. This is a thumb on the scale that will most likely reduce their coal consumption.

    #4 Japan. 3.3% of world consumption in 2012.

    Japan is considering construction of some new coal plants to replace existing nuclear plants. They are going to have to decide whether to go this route and abandon their CO2 commitments or whether to put more effort into solar, offshore wind and geothermal.

    #5 Russia. 2.5% of 2012 world total.

    Who knows? Tsar Putin is a loose canon.

    #6 South Africa. 2.4% of 2012 world total.

    South Africa has major plans to install more renewables. A quick search found that SA has built no new coal plants in the last 15 years and a planned one has been “delayed”.

    #7 South Korea. 2.2% of 2012 world consumption.

    South Korea has given the go ahead for eight new coal plants to be built by 2027. This would increase their capacity by 8,000 megawatts. This would bring their total capacity to 30,080 megawatts. That’s a 36% increase in a 2.2% world share, a 0.8% increase for the world.

    #8 Germany. 2.1% of the 2012 world consumption.

    Germany is currently completing construction of 11.3 GW of new coal capacity. When they are fully operational 18.5 GW of existing, less efficient coal plants will be closed. The new plants will be much more efficient and they will be capable of load-following, so the 39% reduction in capacity will actually be a larger reduction in coal consumption.

    That’s 82.4% of the world’s coal consumption in 2012. South Korea and Japan might go up a bit, it looks like other countries are more likely to drop consumption levels.

    So this coming increase in world coal use, where’s it going to be happening? It looks like possible generation capacity increases in South Korea and Japan will more than be offset by capacity decreases in the US and Germany. And China is going to make a large consumption cut.

    Is it likely that a small user country is likely build a lot more coal plants and pay for imported coal? (Remember shipping costs.) Or are they likely to look to renewables which will be faster and cheaper?

    Even Australia which produces 6.3% of the world’s coal and burns only 1.3% is cutting consumption.

    http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statistical-review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf

    For the EIA’s predictions to become true then one must assume China is lying. China has a strong record of exceeding its wind capacity growth and has made some very strong statements about lowering their greenhouse emissions as quickly as possible.

    Or for the countries that burn the other 17% of the world’s coal to start a very aggressive coal plant construction program. Anyone heard anything about countries building a lot of new coal plants? If you ain’t got ’em, you can’t burn ’em.

    1. Keith Avatar
      Keith

      Nice summary Bob. You have to ask what information the experts at EIA base their predictions upon.
      probably the same mentality that has Australia stopping its solar build in 2025 and coal with CCS coming back again….

      1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
        Bob_Wallace

        IIRC the EIA was predicting high PV solar costs when it was clear to many that the rapidly falling price of panels was going to lead to much lower costs.

        Right now they are projecting the LCOE of PV solar in 2018 at $0.144/kWh.

        We’re seeing PPAs right now around $0.10/kWh. (That’s with no subsidies and with real estate and profits included.)

        Panels are being installed in other countries at prices which would create non-subsidized electricity for well under 10c/kWh. 14.4c five years from now? The cost of solar is going to rise?

        I’m thinking that the EIA has decided that it is best to not piss off legislators from fossil fuel states so they lay a ruler on price history and extend the line, then call it a prediction.

        I trust their historical data. But I don’t take their projections seriously.

        1. Keith Avatar
          Keith

          Bob
          I agree with your assessment. Unfortunately this means the politicians are making assessments that have no basis in reality (eg projection that our coal exports are going to double in the future, solar is a short term fix while carbon capture is sorted…). The consequences of making decisions based on poor information are always serious. Today their implications are catastrophic.
          So the issue is how do you get key influencers to pay attention to a truthful assessment of where all of this is going?

          1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            Well, I doubt that these projections are used by our politicians. Unless they cherry-pick them as a way to support an outcome they want.

            We’ve put our elected officials under the control of people who have the money to fund their campaigns. That and the political pressure coming from within their states/districts. Our bad.

            Congress isn’t going to make considered decisions about where best to spend money in order to get us off fossil fuels. They’ll spend some money on efficiency, some to support renewables and some to support fossil fuels and nuclear. Which ever gets them the most campaign money and/or keeps the heat down the most will get the most support. Wind got a nice support boost this last December because it now has political power at the state level.

            Coal will never have to pay for the environmental/health damage it causes. We’ll still have our military in the Middle East “protecting our oil supply” long after we’ve quit importing oil. We’ll fund research on the next big nuclear idea long after the last reactor has been shut down. In fact, we’ll probably have to pay for some of the decommissioning/cleanup because, oops, the money wasn’t all there after all.

            The real decisions are being made at the individual utility level and at the end user level. We’re switching to renewables simply because they are cheaper/will be cheaper than fossil fuels. If a utility can lock down solar at $0.06/kWh for 30 years they’re going to do it. It’s cheaper than purchasing from a gas peaker. And it’s a guaranteed 30 year price, none of the unpredictability of fuel prices. The big role the government will play will be to make it more expensive to pollute/emit greenhouse gases.
            XYZ Utility isn’t looking at that graph and deciding that they better build more coal capacity to keep up with everyone else. They’re looking at the problems of meeting emissions regulations and the high overnight capital/financing costs of a new coal plant vs. the cost of wind/solar/fill-in. They’re looking at how much end-user rooftop solar is coming on line in their area and figuring out how to cover the other demand while making a profit. They’re not going to build an “always-on” thermal plant if 20% or more of their peak hour demand is going away. Not having peak hour profits to cover the late night losses for the thermal plant makes it a non-starter.

            Anyway, that’s my take. I’m sure all utilities won’t be logical. A few will believe that nuclear is too cheap to meter. Some people are slow learners.

            And if we were smart we’d change the way we finance political campaigns.

          2. Keith Avatar
            Keith

            Hi Bob,
            Sounds like you are in the US.

            In Australia, both major political parties are working on the theory that our prosperity for the next 50 years will be based on the sale of coal and gas to China, India & Japan. So we don’t have a plan B for the inevitable collapse of these markets, which the politicians think are only just starting.

            Re renewables, solar & wind are making progress in spite of substantial barriers which Govts are putting in their way (eg wind is largely stopped by crazy requirements about location … you can have a gas well 100 metres from a house, while a windmill needs to be 2000 metres away.. figure that out).

          3. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            Yep. Northern California, just below the Oregon boarder and about 30 miles in from the Pacific.

            I just can’t imagine there will be a significant market for coal even 30 years from now.

            Unless something totally unforeseen happens to cool off the planet there is going to be a huge outcry to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It seems to be getting a bit bad now. In another ten years it should be very clear to most that we’ve screwed up.

            Very short sighted IMO to be counting on continuing fossil fuel profits.

  4. Bob_Wallace Avatar
    Bob_Wallace

    Additionally, does anyone believe that the rate of installing renewables won’t increase as prices drop? And as countries make a more concerted effort to minimize climate change?

    Or that nuclear will increase when it’s decreasing and becoming less affordable due to the dropping price of renewables? For nuclear capacity to be up in 2015 we’d have to be building more than we’re closing now.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.