DOCSLIB.ORG

Australia, Climate Change and the Coal Industry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Australia, Climate Change and the Coal Industry Dr Adam Lucas Science & Technology Studies Program University of Wollongong 1. International context for GHG emission reduction 2. Coal & climate change in Australia 3. Coal consumption in Australia 4. Coal mining’s contribution to Australia’s economy 5. Global trends in coal production & consumption, 1980-2010 6. Australian coal production, 1910-2010 7. Coal reserves & ‘peak coal’ 8. Australia’s role in coal export trade, 1900-2010 9. Australia’s coal trade with Asia & Europe, 1970-2010 10. Conclusion INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT FOR GHG EMISSION REDUCTION Current CO2 level → COAL AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN AUSTRALIA Per capita GHG emissions (2006): Australia – 28.1 tonnes US – 20.6 tonnes UK – 11.0 tonnes OECD average – 14.4 tonnes World average – 6.6 tonnes Fugitive CO2e emissions from coal mining, 1990-2009 CO2e emissions from electricity generation by fossil fuels, 1990-2009 http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/03_2013/nggi-quarterly-2010-dec.pdf ¡ Australian domestic emissions around 1.8% of global emissions, with 0.3% of world population. ¡ Domestic & overseas consumption of Australian coal responsible for more than 2% of global emissions. ¡ Black coal export emissions 130% of domestic emissions. ¡ Coal industry responsible for 3.6% of GDP (historic high). ¡ If coal export emissions added to domestic emissions, total contribution to global CO2 emissions in excess of 4.3%. ¡ Plans to triple or even quadruple coal export volumes over next 10 yrs: Australia’s total contribution to global GHG emissions will grow to around 9% to 11% by 2020, discounting export LNG & CSG. ¡ Australia uses twice as much coal to generate electricity than world average. ¡ Third highest in world as proportion of total electricity generating capacity: § between 80% & 84% of Australia’s electricity comes from coal-fired power stations; § less than 70% of China’s electricity comes from coal; § around 50% of US electricity comes from coal; § only 40% of world electricity generated by coal; § Poland & South Africa only countries using more coal to generate electricity. ¡ Produce 33% of national emissions (50% in NSW). ¡ 24 coal-fired power stations produce 97% of locally generated coal emissions (15 in NSW). ¡ Responsible for emitting 190 million tonnes of CO2 annually: § equivalent to 40 million cars § 3 x size of Australia’s car fleet § 1/4 of China’s total car fleet in late 2008. 900 800 TOTAL DOMESTIC EMISSIONS 700 (incl. LULUCF) 600 Domestic fossil electricity generation 500 Domestic black coal-fired 400 electricity generation Coking coal exports 300 200 Thermal coal exports 100 Total coal exports 0 1. Destruction of native vegetation, waterways & wildlife habitats by open-cut mining developments & operations. 2. Unintentional fracturing of bedrock by longwall drilling beneath waterways & water catchment areas. 3. Contamination of rivers & estuaries by mine tailings & saline wastewater from coal-fired power stations. 4. Inadequate industry investment in housing & social infrastructure for coal mine workers & their families. 5. Higher risk of cancer & respiratory disease for: § coal miners & coal mining communities from inhaling & ingesting mine tailings & coal dust, § populations living close to coal-fired power stations from inhaling waste & flue gases & air- borne particulates. Kjellstrom, et al., 2002; Lockwood, et al., 2009; Biegler, 2009; ATSE, 2009; Castleden, et al., 2011; Fowler & Cronau, 2012; Munro, 2012. COAL CONSUMPTION IN AUSTRALIA 5000000 4500000 Railways 4000000 Gas Electricity Generation 3500000 Metal processing & trades 3000000 Textiles 2500000 Coke 2000000 Food Processing 1500000 Cement 1000000 Hospitals Bunkers (shipping) 500000 Brick & Pottery 0 1943 1945 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 40000 35000 Electricity 30000 Generation Iron & Steel 25000 Industry Metallurgical 20000 Coke (other) Railways & Gas 15000 Works Cement Industry 10000 5000 Other Consumers 0 TOTAL 1974 1970 1978 1950 2010 1958 1954 1982 1962 2002 1990 1986 1998 1994 1966 2006 80000 70000 60000 New South Wales 50000 Victoria Queensland 40000 South Australia 30000 Western Australia 20000 Tasmania 10000 AUSTRALIA 0 1974 1970 1978 1950 2010 1958 1954 1982 1962 2002 1990 1986 1998 1994 1966 2006 80000 70000 Electricity 60000 Generation Iron & Steel 50000 Industry Metallurgical 40000 Coke (other) Railways & Gas 30000 Works Cement 20000 Industry Other 10000 Consumers 0 TOTAL 1974 1970 1978 1950 2010 1958 1954 1982 1962 2002 1990 1986 1998 1994 1966 2006 60000 40000 20000 50000 30000 10000 70000 0 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 AUSTRALIA South Australia New South Wales Western Australia Queensland WA Electricity 7% SA Steel Industry Other 2006 8% 1% SA Electricity 5% NSW Electricity 41% Qld Electricity 34% NSW Steel Industry 4% COAL MINING’S CONTRIBUTION TO AUSTRALIA’S ECONOMY PERCEPTION REALITY ¡ Mining contributes 35% of ¡ Mining contributed 11.3% of GDP. GDP in 2011/12 (100 yr record). ¡ Mining industry employs ¡ Mining industry employed around 16% of Australia’s 1.9% of workforce in 2010/11: workforce. (100 yr record). ¡ Australia’s mining assets ¡ Australia’s mining assets 83% 53% controlled by foreign controlled by foreign companies. companies. Sources: Australia Institute, June 2011; DIICCSRTE, 2013 Source: ABS Yearbook 1988 100 120 60 40 80 20 0 1980-81 1982-83 1984-85 1986-87 1988-89 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 Manufacturing Agriculture Mining Coal Services 160 140 100 120 60 40 80 20 0 1977-78 1979-80 Coal export revenueaverage, 1980-2010: 10.13% 1981-82 Coal mining % of GDP, 1980-2010: 2–4%p.a. Coal mining %ofGDP, 1983-84 1985-86 1987-88 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1999-00 2001-02 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 Mining Agriculture Manufacturing Coal 60000000 40000000 20000000 50000000 30000000 10000000 70000000 0 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 Metallurgical TOTAL Steaming Australian coal industry employed more than 54,000 people at height of mining boom, compared with: § Bunnings hardware - 30,000 people; § McDonald’s restaurants - 75,000 people; § Great Barrier Reef tourism - 60,000 people; § Australian tourism industry – 500,000 people; § Australian agricultural industry – 300,000 people. Kennett Government sacked 50,000 public servants, 1992-1994; Howard Government sacked 25,000 public servants, 1996-1998; Howard Govt oversaw 108,000 jobs lost in manufacturing, 1996-2007 ― Australia 45,000 ― NSW ― QLD 40,000 ― SA 35,000 ― WA ― TAS 30,000 ― VIC 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1975 1915 1935 1970 1955 1925 1910 1930 1950 1965 2010 1985 1945 1995 1920 2005 1980 1940 1960 1990 2000 20000 30000 10000 25000 15000 5000 0 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Victoria Tasmania New South Wales Australia Western Australia Queensland 20000 30000 10000 25000 35000 15000 5000 0 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Tasmania South Australia New South Wales Australia Western Australia Queensland ¡ BHP-Billiton (UK-Australia) ¡ Rio Tinto (UK-Australia) ¡ Xstrata (Switzerland) ¡ Anglo American (UK) § responsible for more than 75% of the country’s coal production & exports. § None of these companies are majority Australian owned, so most of their profits go offshore. § According to Australian Greens, 71% of mining profits go overseas. § According to Australia Institute, 83% of mining profits go overseas. Black Coal Revenue Black Coal Subsidies & Externalities Royalties to state $1.6 billion Direct government $1.7 billion governments subsidies Wages & salaries $2.692 billion Indirect infrastructure $1.1 billion subsidies in NSW Employer superannuation & $314 million Indirect infrastructure $1.1 billion (?) workers compensation subsidies in Qld Purchase of goods & $3.298 billion Climate change & health $2.6 billion materials effects Repairs & maintenance $1.156 billion Water consumption unknown Freight & cartage $1.738 billion Pollution of waterways unknown Contracts & commissions $3.21 billion Undermining waterways unknown & aquifers Motor vehicle running $40 million Destruction of native unknown expenses habitats & ecosystems Rent, leasing & hiring $309 million Inadequate housing & unknown services social infrastructure Operating profit before tax $9.998 billion Structural distortions unknown created by mining boom Total annual revenue $29.9 billion Total annual More than subsidies & externalities $6.5 billion Estimate of coal mining revenue which Estimate of coal mining’s direct economic remained in Australia benefit to Australia Less than $9.36 billion $2.86 billion 2005-06 Support for: Million Australian dollars Coal 1,091 - 1,866 Oil 3 Gas 120 Total fossil Fuels 1,214 - 1,989 Renewable Energy & 110 - 119 Energy Efficiency Source: C. Riedy, Energy & Transport Subsidies in Australia, Institute for Sustainable Futures, 2007. GLOBAL TRENDS IN COAL PRODUCTION & CONSUMPTION 1980-2010 Country Coal Production Global Share of Total (millions of short tons) Production 1. China 3,362.1 43.8% 2. United States 1,072.8 14.0% European Union 739.9 9.6% 3. India 611.4 8.0% 4. Australia 440.1 5.7% 5. Indonesia 332.4 4.3% 6. Russia 327.1 4.3% 7. South Africa 272.6 3.5% 8. Germany 203.7 2.7% 9. Poland 148.3 1.9% 10. Kazakhstan 111.9 1.5% Source: US Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, “Coal: Production, 2009”. Sources: US Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, “Coal: Production,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HELE Coal Technology Roadmap -- Process
    HELE Coal Technology Roadmap -- Process Keith Burnard Energy Technology Policy Division International Energy Agency IEA, Paris, 8-9 June 2011 © OECD/IEA 2010 IEA Technology Roadmaps To date: Biofuels; Buildings; CCS; CSP; Cement; E&PIH Vehicles; Nuclear; Smart Grids; SPP; Wind © OECD/IEA 2010 Key technologies for reducing energy-related CO2 emissions 2 60 Baseline emissions 57 Gt 55 End-use fuel and electricity Gt CO Gt efficiency 38% 50 End-use fuel switching 15% 45 40 Power generation efficiency and 35 fuel switching 5% 30 Nuclear 6% 25 Renewables 17% 20 15 BLUE Map emissions 14 Gt CCS 19% 10 5 0 2010 Perspectives Technology Energy IEA 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 source: Analysis underpins development of technology roadmaps. © OECD/IEA 2010 The role of coal in meeting recent growth in energy demand World's Average Annual Growth Rates in Primary Energy Increase in PrimaryDemand Energy between Demand, 2000 and 2000 2008-08 5.58% Coal/peat 140 % = average annual rate of growth Oil 130 3.05% Gas 2.8% 120 2.52% Nuclear 110 1.38% 0.68% Hydro index: 2000=100 index: 100 Renewables 90 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Demand for coal has been growing faster than any other energy source and is projected to account for more than a third of incremental global energy demand to 2030. © OECD/IEA 2010 … and in meeting recent growth in electricity generation The growth in electricity from coal over the past decade represents almost half of total growth © OECD/IEA 2010 Annual hard coal consumption 3500 Mt 3000 2500 2000 China
    [Show full text]
  • “Peak Coal” Mean for International Coal Exporters? a Global Modelling Analysis on the Future of the International Steam Coal Market
    What does “peak coal” mean for international coal exporters? A global modelling analysis on the future of the international steam coal market 2018 Authors Franziska Holz (DIW Berlin) Ivo Valentin Kafemann (DIW Berlin) Oliver Sartor (IDDRI) Tim Scherwath (DIW Berlin) Thomas Spencer (TERI, IDDRI) COAL TRANSITIONS www.coaltransitions.org What does “peak coal” mean for international coal exporters? A global modelling analysis on the future of the international steam coal market A project funded by the KR Foundation Authors Franziska Holz1, Ivo Valentin Kafemann1, Oliver Sartor2, Tim Scherwath1, Thomas Spencer2,3 1DIW Berlin, 2IDDRI, 3TERI Cite this report as Holz F., Kafemann I. V., Sartor O., Scherwath T., Spencer T.(2018). What does “peak coal” mean for international coal exporters? A global modelling analysis on the future of the international steam coal market. IDDRI and Climate Strategies. Acknowledgments The project team is grateful to the KR Foundation for its financial support. We would like to thank Roman Mendelevitch, Jesse Burton and Tara Caetano, Frank Jotzo and Salim Mazouz, as well as Fergus Green for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Amit Garg from the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedebad (IIMA) as well as Teng Fei from Tsinghua University for providing input to the scenario assumptions. We acknowledge funding from the KR Foundation. All remaining errors are ours. Contact information Oliver Sartor, IDDRI, [email protected] Andrzej Błachowicz, Climate Strategies, [email protected] Copyright © 2018 IDDRI and Climate Strategies IDDRI and Climate Strategies encourage reproduction and communication of their copyrighted materials to the public, with proper credit (bibliographical reference and/or corresponding URL), for personal, corporate or public policy research, or educational purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Global Coal Markets and Major Demand Trends in Key Regions
    Études de l’Ifri STATUS OF GLOBAL COAL MARKETS AND MAJOR DEMAND TRENDS IN KEY REGIONS Sylvie CORNOT-GANDOLPHE June 2019 Center for Energy The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. ISBN: 979-10-373-0042-3 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2019 Cover: “Large bucket wheel excavators in a lignite (brown-coal) mine after sunset, Germany”. © Shutterstock.com How to cite this publication: Sylvie Cornot-Gandolphe, “Status of Global Coal Markets and Major Demand Trends in Key Regions”, Études de l’Ifri, Ifri, June 2019. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 – Fax : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Author Sylvie Cornot-Gandolphe is an independent consultant on energy and raw materials, focusing on international issues. Since 2012, she has been Associate Research Fellow at the Ifri Centre for Energy. She is also collaborating with the Oxford Institute on Energy Studies (OIES), with CEDIGAZ, the international centre of information on natural gas of IFPEN, and with CyclOpe, the reference publication on commodities.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Coal Production Forecast with Multi-Hubbert Cycle Analysis
    Energy 35 (2010) 3109e3122 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy A global coal production forecast with multi-Hubbert cycle analysis Tadeusz W. Patzek a,*, Gregory D. Croft b a Department of Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of California, Berkeley, Davis Hall, CA 94720, USA article info abstract Article history: Based on economic and policy considerations that appear to be unconstrained by geophysics, the Received 18 August 2009 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) generated forty carbon production and emissions Received in revised form scenarios. In this paper, we develop a base-case scenario for global coal production based on the physical 30 January 2010 multi-cycle Hubbert analysis of historical production data. Areas with large resources but little Accepted 5 February 2010 production history, such as Alaska and the Russian Far East, are treated as sensitivities on top of this base- Available online 15 May 2010 case, producing an additional 125 Gt of coal. The value of this approach is that it provides a reality check on the magnitude of carbon emissions in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. The resulting base-case is Keywords: fi Carbon emissions signi cantly below 36 of the 40 carbon emission scenarios from the IPCC. The global peak of coal fi IPCC scenarios production from existing coal elds is predicted to occur close to the year 2011. The peak coal production Coal production peak rate is 160 EJ/y, and the peak carbon emissions from coal burning are 4.0 Gt C (15 Gt CO2) per year.
    [Show full text]
  • THE END of COAL: How Should the Next Government Respond?
    THE END OF COAL How should the next government respond? THE END OF COAL: How should the next government respond? Contents Executive summary i by Tim Hollo The structural decline of coal markets 1 by Tim Buckley The end of coal—international pressure 13 by Julie-Anne Richards Managing the closure of coal-fired power stations in Australia 23 by Dr Nick Aberle Communities in transition—reflections from the coal face 32 by Dr Amanda Cahill New economy, new democracy and coal mine rehabilitation 37 by Drew Hutton Two-way streets and revolving doors—disentangling governments from fossil fuels 42 by Charlie Wood The end of coal: How shoud the next government respond? Published in 2016 by: The Green Insitute. www.greeninstitute.org.au This work is available for public use and distribution with appropriate attribution, under the Creative Commons (CC) BY Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. ISBN: 978-0-9580066-3-7 Design: Sharon France, Looking Glass Press. Cover image: Coal CC by attribution—Flickr, Bart Bernardes THE END OF COAL: How should the next government respond? Coal—for decades one of the “certainties” of Australian politics—is in terminal decline. This economic, environmental and geopolitical fact is now beyond dispute. Whoever wins the coming Federal Election will have no choice but to deal with the beginning of the end of coal, with power stations and mines closing and companies walking away or going bankrupt. Yet the issue is barely on the political agenda. This collated paper is an attempt to bring the issue to the attention of our
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Mining and Health in Central Appalachia from 2000 to 2010. James Kent Pugh University of Louisville
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 5-2014 Down comes the mountain : coal mining and health in central Appalachia from 2000 to 2010. James Kent Pugh University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Pugh, James Kent, "Down comes the mountain : coal mining and health in central Appalachia from 2000 to 2010." (2014). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1162. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/1162 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The nivU ersity of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The nivU ersity of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOWN COMES THE MOUNTAIN: COAL MINING AND HEALTH IN CENTRAL APPALACHIA FROM 2000 TO 2010 By James Kent Pugh B.A., Berea College, 2012 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts Department of Sociology University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky May 2014 DOWN COMES THE MOUNTAIN: COAL MINING AND HEALTH IN CENTRAL APPALACHIA FROM 2000 TO 2010 By James Kent Pugh B.A., Berea College, 2012 A Thesis Approved on April 7, 2014 by the following Thesis Committee: _______________________________ Robin S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wintertime Aerosol Dominated by Solid Fuel Burning Emissions Across Ireland
    Wintertime aerosol dominated by solid fuel burning emissions across Ireland: insight into the spatial and chemical variation of submicron aerosol Chunshui Lin1,2,3, Darius Ceburnis1, Ru-Jin Huang1,2,3*, Wei Xu1,2, Teresa Spohn1, Damien Martin1, Paul 5 Buckley4, John Wenger4, Stig Hellebust4, Matteo Rinaldi5, Maria Cristina Facchini5, Colin O’Dowd1*, and Jurgita Ovadnevaite1 1School of Physics, Ryan Institute’s Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies, National University of Ireland Galway. University Road, Galway. H91 CF50, Ireland 2State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology and Key Laboratory of Aerosol Chemistry and Physics, Chinese 10 Academy of Sciences, 710061, Xi’an, China 3Center for Excellence in Quaternary Science and Global Change, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China 4School of Chemistry and Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland 5Istituto di Scienze dell’Atmosfera e del Clima, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 40129, Bologna, Italy 15 Correspondence to: Ru-Jin Huang ([email protected]) and Colin O’Dowd ([email protected]) Abstract. To get an insight into the spatial and chemical variation of the submicron aerosol, a nationwide characterization of wintertime PM1 was performed using an Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM) and Aethalometer at four representative sites across Ireland. Dublin, the capital city of Ireland, was the most polluted area with an average PM1 -3 -3 -3 concentration of 8.6 μg m , ranging from <0.5 μg m to 146.8 μg m in December 2016. The PM1 in Dublin was mainly 20 composed of carbonaceous aerosol (organic aerosol (OA) + black carbon (BC)) which, on average, accounted for 80% of total PM1 mass during the monitoring period.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Coal Futures
    AUSTRALIAN COAL FUTURES CAN CHINA AND INDIA PROMOTE RECOVERY IN AUSTRALIA’S COAL EXPORT INDUSTRY TO 2020? Commissioned by: David Mee Date of Submission: 7 November 2016 Submitted by: Nathaniel Groeneveld UQ Supervisor: Peter Knights STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY I hereby declare that this final thesis is my own work and that it contains, to the best of my knowledge and belief, no material previously published or written work by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been submitted for another course, except where due acknowledgement is made in the report. Signed, Nathaniel Groeneveld ii ABSTRACT The declining price of seaborne coal since 2011 has placed enormous pressure on the Australian coal industry, slashing profits and forcing mine closures. This report aims to determine whether Australian exporters can expect a recovery in seaborne price and demand in the period to 2020. It was determined that demand from China and India would be the most important variable in determining seaborne price. Both countries are major importers pushing towards changing their energy mix. They also have access to low cost domestic coal supply and are looking for greater energy security in a tense political climate. With the viability of the Australian industry hinged on these two countries, two key drivers within China and India were found to determine their demand for coal. These were: growth in renewable energy; and availability of domestic coal. From these, a matrix of four possible export futures was produced, based on outcomes of either growth outperforming expectation or stagnation in each of the drivers. This model is based on the original scenario planning model employed by Royal Dutch Shell from late 1960’s, adjusted to allow an accurate representation of possible scenarios for Australian coal towards 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook for Methane Control in Mining
    IC 9486 Information Circular/2006 TM Handbook for Methane Control in Mining Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Information Circular 9486 Handbook for Methane Control in Mining By Fred N. Kissell, Ph.D. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Pittsburgh Research Laboratory Pittsburgh, PA June 2006 ORDERING INFORMATION Copies of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) documents and information about occupational safety and health are available from NIOSH–Publications Dissemination 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45226–1998 FAX: 513–533–8573 Telephone: 1–800–35–NIOSH (1–800–356–4674) e-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cdc.gov/niosh This document is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted. ————————————————————— Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to Web sites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these Web sites. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006–127 CONTENTS Page About this handbook ......................................................................... 1 Acknowledgments ........................................................................... 1 Chapter 1.—Facts about methane that are important to mine safety, by F. N. Kissell ........................ 3 Chapter 2.—Sampling for methane in mines and tunnels, by F. N. Kissell ............................... 27 Chapter 3.—Methane control at continuous miner sections, by F. N. Kissell, C. D. Taylor, and G. V.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOBAL COAL: the ACCELERATION of MARKET DECLINE © Martin D
    REVIEW OCTOBER 2015 GLOBAL COAL: THE ACCELERATION OF MARKET DECLINE © Martin D. Vonka / shutterstock.com Wind turbine , renewable energy source This literature review captures the state-of-play of the global coal and renewable energy markets on the basis of over 130 studies and articles that were published between September 2014 and August 2015. It consists of key highlights, an executive summary, tables of main coal countries globally, and summaries of all the considered studies and articles (global and per key country). An earlier literature review 2013-2014 showed that the global coal market became bearish around 2012. This new study of literature indicates that the decline is structural. Meanwhile, investments in renewable energy re-increased – leading to record power capacity additions in 2014 that surpassed power capacity additions from all fossil fuels combined. Fossil fuels are losing the race against renewables, with coal as the principal victim. © DmyTo / Shutterstock.com Coal mining harvester while working at a depth of about 700 meters underground CONTENTS Highlights 11 Executive Summary 13 Introduction 13 The game changer: Chinese coal consumption dropped in 2014 13 The EU and USA: towards the end of coal 14 Coal mines on the verge of the abyss 15 Utility death spiral: thermal coal reaches retirement age 17 Renewables on the rise 18 Coal divestment spreading to mainstream financial institutions 19 Main coal countries globally 21 Producers 21 Consumers 21 Exporters 22 Importers 22 What is new in the global market? 25 Policy
    [Show full text]
  • The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies
    GLOBAL ECONOMY & DEVELOPMENT WORKING PAPER 73 | MAY 2014 Global Economy and Development at BROOKINGS THE NET BENEFITS OF LOW AND NO-CARBON ELECTRICITY TECHNOLOGIES Charles R. Frank, Jr. Global Economy and Development at BROOKINGS Charles R. Frank, Jr. is a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Acknowledgements: The author is indebted to Claire Langley, Ricardo Borquez, A. Denny Ellerman, Claudio Marcantonini, and Lee Lane for their helpful suggestions in the preparation of this paper. I would also like to acknowledge the contribu- tions made by participants in a roundtable discussion of an earlier draft of this paper chaired by Kemal Derviş of the Brookings Institution. Abstract: This paper examines five different low and no-carbon electricity technologies and presents the net benefits of each under a range of assumptions. It estimates the costs per megawatt per year for wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, and gas combined cycle electricity plants. To calculate these estimates, the paper uses a methodology based on avoided emissions and avoided costs, rather than comparing the more prevalent “levelized” costs. Three key findings result: First—assuming reductions in carbon emissions are valued at $50 per metric ton and the price of natural gas is $16 per million Btu or less—nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle have far more net benefits than either wind or solar. This is the case because solar and wind facilities suffer from a very high capacity cost per megawatt, very low capacity factors and low reliability, which result in low avoided emissions and low avoided energy cost per dollar invested. Second, low and no-carbon energy projects are most effective in avoiding emissions if a price for carbon is levied on fossil fuel energy suppliers.
    [Show full text]
  • Why There Will Be No Peak Coal in the Foreseeable Future
    Open Journal of Geology, 2012, 2, 57-64 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojg.2012.22006 Published Online April 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojg) Why There Will Be No Peak Coal in the Foreseeable Future Thomas Thielemann1, Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer2 1Coal Mining, RWE Power AG, Essen/Cologne, Germany 2General Economic Policy/Science, RWE AG, Essen, Germany Email: [email protected] Received January 10, 2012; revised February 22, 2012; accepted March 19, 2012 ABSTRACT Hard coal and lignite—also referred to here jointly as coal—play a central role in the worldwide supply of humanity with primary energy. As a fossil energy carrier, coal is one of the finite natural resources. The reach of the world’s coal reserves is significant, and coal has the potential to cover some of the global energy and raw-material needs at least into the 22nd century. Precondition for this is a sustainable energy policy, i.e. an equal-ranking view of the goals of environ- mental and climate compatibility (sustainability), security of supply and competitiveness (affordability). The focus of developments is on resource efficiency and energy savings to obtain more modern and more efficient coal-based power plants. Greater use of coal translates into higher CO2 emissions. So if we are to achieve the climate-protection goals of limiting the rise in temperatures and reducing the CO2 content in the Earth’s atmosphere, the launch of CCS technology is recommended. Within the scope of the climate-protection debate, a discussion is also underway about an alleged drying up of coal availability in the short term (under the heading of “peak coal”).
    [Show full text]