"Last year, China consumed as much coal as the rest of the world, but if it hadn't made all these efforts, it would have been much worse," said Jennifer Turner, director of the China Environment Forum. She said that the smog that has overtaken many parts of the country in recent months has given China's Ministry of Environmental Protection a foot in the door in regulating coal-fired power plants and will allow it to develop a framework to control greenhouse gases and pollutants together.
"The 'Airpocalypse' could be the best thing that's happened, in that it has started a different kind of conversation about the cost of coal," Turner said. "It's a good thing. Especially when you control them together, it raises the cost of coal, which is a good thing."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add Commentlets sell them ours at a massive profit with 100% of the monies going to pay down the debt. Unfortunately our leaders from both parties would probably spend it like drunkin sailors on unneeded things so why bother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut China is still building coal plants. So they will need more. It is such an enormous demand that even though China has large coal reserves they must also import an enormous amount. The pollution no only affects China’s cities but they are devastating the environment of Mongolia to satisfy their need. Coal mining requires enormous amounts of water and China will soon run up against a very difficult limiting factor of not enough water. I expect when that happens China will simply import more coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for not finding enough coal…the world has coal to spare. China will not have any trouble finding enough coal.
The air and water pollution might have begun a conversation but that conversation is long overdue. I have seen articles talking about China’s abysmal air quality and the devastating health effects going back to about 2006. So don’t worry about a coal shortage for China but you might begin to worry about China having a shortage of healthy people.
Good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe headline is misleading (a norm for SA).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAustralia and Canada have almost unlimited coal reserves....much of it already and 'will be' destined for the China market.
What? the rich will pocket it while jacking up the prices on us Americans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not "our" coal; not a publicly owned asset. Are you one of those that thought that oil prices were supposed to go down because of a US invasion on Iraq, or the construction of Keystone XL?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cost of US coal reaching China is 6 cents a kwh for the fuel alone. Chinese wind and solar starts at twice that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the cost of Chinese nuclear heading to a penny a kwh, imported coal is no competition cost wise but provides a short bridge to the nuclear future. The new state of the art HTGR reactor promising costs of a penny a kwh is under way for 2017 service with 70% of its output reserved for synfuel production.
China's wind/solar industry is an utter failure outside of its great success selling to suckers in the west. The few remaining projects are there for the sole purpose of keeping party stalwarts in business. Only hydro has growth potential. The pragmatic Chinese look at cost/benefits alone holding no truck for the silly dreams of a ultra expensive dysfunctional world powered by warm sunbeams and cool breezes to drives these worthless technologies in the west.
Sources? Where are you getting the info about Chinese wind power going for $0.12 a kWh? Since all wind farms are different, this blanket assertion of yours SMACKS of ignorance and regurgitation of simplified, easily digestible talking points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it's funny that you bring up Chinese nuclear power...they're STRUGGLING to bring nuclear from 1% of their electricity supply to 6%...BY 2020!!! Now how is that going to have ANY meaningful impact? And that's great if a SINGLE RESEARCH reactor puts out some synfuels...HOPEFULLY in 2017. However, displacing coal power instead of gasoline use would be a better alternative, right?
I'm always excited when our Sault, the SCIAM trolling queen, with laughable claims of an MSEE decides to comment on another subject it knows nothing about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rare time Sault uses a source other than its fevered imagination, it turns out it couldn't or didn't read it.It even tells us I said Chinese solar was 12 cents a kwh but not a word was in my comment. More fevered imagination, mixed with some St Paddy's day cheer?
Its a production reactor - the research reactor ran for quite a few years and led to the new synfuel machine. Yup it will be hard struggle to go from none to 100% but the French did it and so did Ontario in the 80's so I'm sure with Chinese early success's they will have no problem beating those numbers. Remember the Chinese are decades ahead of the West - masters of high tech modular civil construction - 99% of a modern nuke. They can build a 30 storey hotel in two weeks that takes years in the west. They own the world on high speed rail.
In its abysmal ignorance, the Sault is unaware that coal and gasoline are both as awful as air pollution and GHG spewers. You need to get rid of both.
If I were the Chinese, I would move the coal from the point of extraction to the power production plants via
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscoal fired steam locomotives.
At the same time I would develope power production facilities much closer to the points of extraction.
Meanwhile, as a long term goal, I'd bump up rate of
bringing nuclear plants on line to eventually replace the coal nightmare, and build all future development as green as possible while pursuing R&D on alternatives to both. In addition, I would build a lot more rail line
to cut down the use of trucks on highways, using them for more local deliveries.