 |
Re: India's plan A is to buy "clean" (er) coal from Australia....
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-15-2019 - 12:43
Why Australian coal? Because it is higher btu lower sulfur, and thus, compared to most of the domestic coal, is in fact "cleaner". But, natural gas is still about half to 2/3rd's less CO2, than even this "cleaner" coal.
On a cost per btu equivalence and kwh produced, gas is still winning, over coal everywhere it is readily available, which is in most of the developed world. In the emerging economies one has to remember that many of these coal power plants constitute significant investments in still relatively poorer nations, that sill have many "years" of active service left, and they don't have the luxury of shutting them down, nor the capital to replace or upgrade them to natural gas.
China was "on track" as late as 2016, to buy more US western "clean" export coal, because of the high pollution levels (especially sulfur dioxides)from much dirtier domestic coal....to reduce such "health" impacting pollution around at least some of their major cities. But, things changed....
Of course there's coal, and then there's coal. Not all coal is created equal. We have some perfectly awful low grade coal right here in CA that was once mined here, and powered the early steam boats and trains, because there was "nuttin" else locally any better to burn (which is one of the reasons that the CP/SP used so much wood early on).
One of the first things the UP-CP transcon going through the coalfields of Wyoming brought to CA was better quality coal, after 1869. And, it was cost of transporting all of that coal, that made SP one of the first to try out oil fired steam engines on a large scale. But, of course, most of the NorCal real rails and railfans on here, know that story.
And, when it comes to "clean" coal, don't forget the famous slogan: Ride the Route of the Phoebe Snow....and arrive clean, on the Anthracite line....
On a cost per btu equivalence and kwh produced, gas is still winning, over coal everywhere it is readily available, which is in most of the developed world. In the emerging economies one has to remember that many of these coal power plants constitute significant investments in still relatively poorer nations, that sill have many "years" of active service left, and they don't have the luxury of shutting them down, nor the capital to replace or upgrade them to natural gas.
China was "on track" as late as 2016, to buy more US western "clean" export coal, because of the high pollution levels (especially sulfur dioxides)from much dirtier domestic coal....to reduce such "health" impacting pollution around at least some of their major cities. But, things changed....
Of course there's coal, and then there's coal. Not all coal is created equal. We have some perfectly awful low grade coal right here in CA that was once mined here, and powered the early steam boats and trains, because there was "nuttin" else locally any better to burn (which is one of the reasons that the CP/SP used so much wood early on).
One of the first things the UP-CP transcon going through the coalfields of Wyoming brought to CA was better quality coal, after 1869. And, it was cost of transporting all of that coal, that made SP one of the first to try out oil fired steam engines on a large scale. But, of course, most of the NorCal real rails and railfans on here, know that story.
And, when it comes to "clean" coal, don't forget the famous slogan: Ride the Route of the Phoebe Snow....and arrive clean, on the Anthracite line....
