Article

2005-05-25 China-Japan-Koreas

China's coal shortage to hit 330 million tons by 2010

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-25 01:24|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Of course we could sell them coal. Or, with a different emphasis, we could sell them coal... if we wanted.

Posted by .com 2005-05-25 02:11|| 2005-05-25 02:11|| Front Page Top

#2 China produces twice as much coal as the US. China's only hope for abundant energy is to go nuclear in a BIG way.

Posted by ed 2005-05-25 02:29|| 2005-05-25 02:29|| Front Page Top

#3 Doesn't change my statement - we have reserves to burn, lol - and they burn a lot of coal because they're a third-world industrial midget.

Posted by .com 2005-05-25 02:48|| 2005-05-25 02:48|| Front Page Top

#4 Well, I have to eat my words somewhat. So do you, if Encarta is correct. I was using the DOE/EIA charts and devining that, indeed, our use was falling, and so were exports as others switched to Kyoto-friendly energy sources. We could export more - were there buyers - a lot more. It's clear that they have fewer options, given the prices and investment (both $ and time) requirements of alternatives.

Then I hit Encarta. 2005 Comparison of Producers and Consumers which shows were are actually very close to China in both categories.

Time is on nobody's side, of course, in the need move to nuclear power. But we can manage it more easily, economically, than they can - if the special interest eco-dicks don't find anough Clinton judges to stop us.

Posted by .com 2005-05-25 03:12|| 2005-05-25 03:12|| Front Page Top

#5 The issue is not reserves. Lots of places have big coal reserves. Its the infrastructure required to get it out the ground and to where its needed that takes time, and time is what China doesn't have. The same (time) argument applies to nuclear.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-25 03:13|| 2005-05-25 03:13|| Front Page Top

#6 Yup, it's about that time of year for the power outages to start again. Of course, the reason isn't insufficient coal, it's insufficient generating capacity. Or, more correctly, that too many factories were allowed to start when it was well-known that there wasn't enough power for them all.

Posted by gromky 2005-05-25 04:29|| 2005-05-25 04:29|| Front Page Top

#7 Tell me again who's responsible for global warming (or cooling, I forget which)? And I'm sure all the Chinese plants have scrubbers and burn only clean coal. When does Greenpeace intend to demonstrate in Tianamen Square?

Posted by Matt 2005-05-25 08:33|| 2005-05-25 08:33|| Front Page Top

#8 Grom, you speaking of us or China (I assume China). I see this (power) much in the same light as I see our use of gasoline. It's not so much the raw inputs' supply (coal and oil in these cases), as it is our generating capacity! For example (in oil/gasoline), I keep this chart I found in the Atlanta paper last June which shows the Proven oil reserves worldwide and then U.S. refinery capacity & # of refineries, and here's what I see:

* We have only about 50% of the refineries in 2002 (153) that we did in 1970 (276).
* Our production capacity has gone up from 1970 (12.02 million bpd) to 2002 (16.79 million bpd), but it actually peaked in 1981 (18.62 million bpd).

So, I guess one could argue that while we've shut down refineries, we've increased capacity (arguing for increased efficiency/larger refineries). However, since we now have fewer/larger refineries, any time just a handful go offline for maintenance, it causes a HUGE effect in bpd capacity, thus driving up prices. I think we may be in a better position for generating electricity, but there still aren't many new power plants being built. I know my Reps. (GA) are very interested in nuclear power again, so maybe it's time to get investing into that (we haven't built a new nuke plant since late 70's). This country's in for a RUDE awakening soon if we don't start looking at other production options very soon! Then, we'll see mass shunning of the greenies! Heck, I work for EPA, and many people around here are interested in nuke power again (the younger and very older workers, not the 60's generation kids).

Posted by BA">BA 2005-05-25 08:34|| 2005-05-25 08:34|| Front Page Top

#9 .com I like the way you think ...

Posted by Edward Yee">Edward Yee 2005-05-25 08:36|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2005-05-25 08:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Establishing a department of Health, Education and Welfare certainly improved all three areas as did establishing a department of Energy. That's why Bush didn't want to establish a Department of Homeland Security, but the donks did. We'll know we're in trouble when the Feds establish a Department of Sex.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-05-25 08:47|| 2005-05-25 08:47|| Front Page Top

#11 Mrs. D: Better than a Dept. of nuclear sex, eh?

Posted by BA">BA 2005-05-25 08:49|| 2005-05-25 08:49|| Front Page Top

#12 Yeah, talking about China. It's been cool so far this year, which is nice. Temperature in the 60s and 70s all month. It's when all the air conditioners start that the power outages really get going. The government's got it all down, they tell factories when they'll have the power off and everything. They've even got these little portable stoplights that they put in intersections when they cut the power...in America, AFAIK they won't cut off power to stoplights unless it's a real blackout, caused by weather or whatnot.

Posted by gromky 2005-05-25 09:44|| 2005-05-25 09:44|| Front Page Top

#13 China doesn't have a coal shortage any more than the US has a shortage of cheap toys. It's simple economics - either pay more or import the good when domestic sources can't fill the need at current prices. What China has is an inability to supply enough cheap coal from domestic sources. When other countries have this "problem", they import it from other countries or pay more. When countries like China talk about "shortages", I start worrying about what they might do to alleviate these "shortages". That's what's so worrying about the rapid expansion of the PLA.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-25 09:59|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-25 09:59|| Front Page Top

#14 No blood for Coal!

Posted by mmurray821 2005-05-25 10:39|| 2005-05-25 10:39|| Front Page Top

#15 Mrs. Davis - I thought they already did that.

It's the Oval Office - but only when a DimmocRat is President. ;-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2005-05-25 11:22|| 2005-05-25 11:22|| Front Page Top

#16 Lots of coal in TN. Most mining stopped in late '80 's and early '90 because no demand. Small town I'm from lost couple million per year in coal taxes. Not counting all the good paying jobs. Maybe would could get back some of the trade deficit.

Posted by Michael_in_TN 2005-05-25 13:28|| 2005-05-25 13:28|| Front Page Top

#17 Zhang, as a general rule I'd agree with you, but China is an exception becuase of the size and speed at which their demand is increasing relative to the speed at which supply can come online and distribution infrastructure built.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-25 17:18|| 2005-05-25 17:18|| Front Page Top

#18 Well, building more coal infrastructure means more employment, which in some regions of China is still a problem...

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-05-25 21:48|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-05-25 21:48|| Front Page Top

#19 In China building more coal infrastructure means more dramatic mine collapses with dozens or hundreds trapped below, and no way to rescue them. Plus more raw coal brought up betweentimes, of course.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-05-25 23:16|| 2005-05-25 23:16|| Front Page Top

#20 I imagine they'll eventually go to large open-pit mines the same as a lot of other countries have.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-05-25 23:17|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-05-25 23:17|| Front Page Top

17:28 Liverpool !!!
17:06 VOTE
16:49 DEMOCRAT
23:58 Minni Mullah
23:52 Sobiesky
23:50 Angie Schultz
23:45 trailing wife
23:42 Tom Dooley
23:37 trailing wife
23:30 Tom Dooley
23:26 Minni Mullah
23:25 Sobiesky
23:21 trailing wife
23:20 badanov
23:17 Phil Fraering
23:17 Minni Mullah
23:16 trailing wife
23:14 mojo
23:07 Anonymoose
23:07 mom
23:07 BH
23:05 trailing wife
23:05 Anonymoose
23:03 trailing wife