Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 16, 2014
China Bans Use of Coal With High Ash or Sulfur to Fight Smog
China will ban sales and imports of coal with high ash or sulfur in a move to promote cleaner types of the fuel and improve the nation’s air quality.
Coal with ash content of more than 40 percent and sulfur of more than 3 percent is banned from sales and imports into China starting Jan. 1, according to a regulation posted on the website of the National Development and Reform Commission yesterday. Lignite containing ash of more than 30 percent and sulfur of more than 1.5 percent is also prohibited. Other limitations involve coal with chemical content such as mercury and arsenic.
China, the world’s largest consumer of coal, is restricting the dirtiest grades to fight pollution. It will encourage imports of higher-quality supplies after smog worsened in Shanghai and Beijing and sparked social unrest in Maoming and Hangzhou. The nation depends on coal for about 65 percent of its energy.
“The regulation is mainly to promote use of cleaner coal and will affect low-quality coal’s flow into China, especially low-heating value coal from Indonesia and coal with arsenic content from Australia,” Winston Han, a Beijing-based analyst with the China Coal Transport and Distribution Association, said by phone today. The nation’s coal imports will fall as much as 15 percent to less than 300 million metric tons this year, Han predicted.
Separately, China has asked coal importers including power utilities and coal miners to reduce coal imports by 40 million tons from September to December, according to CCTD. National coal imports may fall “significantly” in the fourth quarter.
Coal used in some coastal and developed regions including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou should have ash content of less than 16 percent and sulfur of less than 1 percent, according to the regulation.
Lignite transported from port of entry to the consuming area is required to have heating value higher than about 3,946 kilocalories per kilogram, sulfur less than 1 percent and ash less than 20 percent.
11 Comments on "China Bans Use of Coal With High Ash or Sulfur to Fight Smog"
Kenz300 on Tue, 16th Sep 2014 12:28 pm
China has had a come to Jesus moment this past year with dealing with their air pollution problems.
In the past few years China has accelerated their interest in all alternative energy sources . This past year they increased their planned targets for wind, solar and biofuels even more.
Most recently they are beginning to focus on their coal consumption problems. Coal is a big contributor to the pollution problems.
They are also aware of their oil imports and have begun a push to electric vehicles. If they are successful it will jump start the worlds transition to electric transportation.
China’s energy consumption patterns are changing….
rockman on Tue, 16th Sep 2014 2:30 pm
“China’s energy consumption patterns are changing….” Not really: China is burning more coal this year than last year. They are also expected to burn more coal next year then this year. And the IEA predicts they’ll be burning considerably more coal by 2025 then they are today. They might be burning “cleaner coal” (whatever the hell that is) and burning more coal in rural areas and less near urban centers. But every knowledgeable source is predicting a continued dependence upon coal for energy by China.
The only “good news” is that China’s rate of increase in coal consumption has decreased. But they are still increasing the amount of coal they burn y-o-y. And that’s a cold, hard FACT that can’t be denied.
Paul Herman on Tue, 16th Sep 2014 2:31 pm
Interesting that the US is trying to cut back on coal burning, but the railroad behind my house still has trainloads of coal heading west regularly. I’m in N California along the UP Railroad. Seems like the US government should restrict sales of coal to Asia, don’t you think?
Oh, that’s right, some coal companies are making money. Much more important that the climate crisis, I suppose.
Perk Earl on Tue, 16th Sep 2014 5:41 pm
P.H., just ignore all that coal bustling past your domicile via train to be loaded on to ships to be burned somewhere else. Those emissions are not ours – lol. That’s in someone else’s atmosphere.
/sarc off
rockman on Tue, 16th Sep 2014 7:07 pm
Paul – “…some coal companies are making money”. You do realize that the gov’t is collecting huge royalties on all that coal passing by you house? The gov’t owns 570 million acres of coal leases. Yes…the coal mining companies are making $million but are also investing $millions. OTOH the US gov’t isn’t spending a dime to create their income. Between 2002 and 2012 the feds collected almost $7 BILLION in coal royalties. Whose position would you rather hold?
Paul Herman on Tue, 16th Sep 2014 8:05 pm
Perk Earl, I’ll give it a go on the just ignoring part. Actually, you can glean a lot about what is going on in the world by watching the trains that go past my place. It’s a major rail route.
Rock, thanks for pointing out that Uncle Sam has a piece of the game too. I was aware of that, but didn’t know the numbers. I enjoy reading your perspective on all this…
Makati1 on Tue, 16th Sep 2014 9:16 pm
Interesting that the US uses more coal than India with 1/4th the population.
US: 312,000,000 people.
India: 1,236,000,000 people.
Coal use, per capita, is equal in the US and China. If those factories came back home, so would the pollution and the need for more coal. Oh, that’s right! Their air is our air, so it IS coming back. Now if the jobs would only return.
rockman on Tue, 16th Sep 2014 10:10 pm
Paul – And in case you weren’t aware the gov’t isn’t going to let those stubborn west coasters hurt the cash cow by resisting the expansion of coal export terminals out there. The POTUS has given orders to expedite the approval for the expansion of coal export terminals on the Texas coast. Needless to say the largest coal consuming state by far has no problem with the plan.
So now instead of burning a little diesel on those short hulks to the west coast trains hauling the coal to the Texas coast will burn a lot more along with the ships that will have to sail further to reach Asia. Which turns out to be a win/win for Texas: we get the jobs and taxes while creating a bigger demand for our refined products.
A match made in heaven. Or hell depending on how one views climate change.
Davy on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 6:57 am
I think we best not worry about the export of American coal. It is not that significant in the big picture. We need coal and we need a healthy coal industry. BAU has a few short years of life left. Part of BAU’s health is related to the solid percentage of grid power coal delivers. When BAU takes the plunge we are going to need every source of power that offers relative economic efficiency. Coal’s contribution is going to fall significantly along with other sources as the economy tanks and liquid fuels become scarce. Coal will still remain an important source of power by necessity and relative economic efficiency. Let’s face it without electricity games over. Liquid fuels need electricity also just as electricity needs liquid fuels. Coal is essential to this equation just as liquid fuels are essential. It is too bad we are so close to the danger point with AGW. This danger point is actually very close to the point where BAU is untenable. Will 5 years more of BAU tip us over with AGW? I am convinced it is vital we have 3-5 years more BAU to mitigate and adjust to a significant drop in economic levels that will occur when BAU fractures and destroys our complex global arrangement. This resulting arrangement will end significant coal exports and greatly limit coal usage. Many coal plants are not economic in a fuel scarcity environment and many exports are not economic with fuel scarcity. So much industry will be shut in from lack of markets, lack of resources, lack of money, and lack of necessity that electricity consumption will nose dive and coal will follow. Whole segments of the population and economy will be triaged out in irrational abandonment of the randomness of descent but also the resulting decisions of TPTB to concentrate emergency services that will be in short supply. AGW folks I am not sure this will happen soon enough to lower carbon emissions from the point of no return. Personally I think we cross that point 10 years ago. I will say this the faulty cornucopian analysis across the board of carbon emissions along with energy use climbing does not add up when we review PO dynamics, financial bubbles, and overshoot issues. Anyone claiming consumption of anything other than body bags by 2030 will be exponentially higher is BAU delusional. I cannot predict the when, where, and how of descent. I cannot predict the degree and duration of this descent. But I can say this that the science does not add up for exponential growth of BAU here on out. Descent shows up in any solid transparent multidisciplinary analysis I see.
synapsid on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 4:20 pm
Makati,
The kicker is that about a quarter of those 1.2 billion Indians have no access to electricity; the plan is to change that, with coal a favored energy source.
Heavens, I just noticed that the number of Indians with no access to electricity is about equal to the population of the US.
If India’s electrification is carried out and Indian industry picks up, there will be a large increase in coal use in the country. Good news for many of the people there, but at a price in CO2 emission.
In the longer term (maybe not so long), India faces a frightening problem with availability of water–one small aspect of that is that coal-fired power plants use a lot of water.
Davy on Wed, 17th Sep 2014 6:04 pm
Indian coal has poor production locations is another big problem for growth.