China Promotes Coal-burning Again
By Paul Homewood
From Voice of America:
China is planning to increase coal production by a reported 300 million tons this year. Observers say the government hopes such a plan will renew the country’s slow-growing economy.
However, critics say increasing coal production will hurt efforts to reduce climate-changing carbon emissions.
The amount of the reported increase would represent seven percent of China’s total coal production in 2021 — 4.1 billion tons.
China is one of the biggest investors in wind and solar energy. But recently its leaders called for more coal-burning power after economic growth fell last year. Power shortages caused power failures and factory shutdowns. Russia’s attack on Ukraine added to worries that foreign oil and coal supplies might be disrupted.
Coal is important for “energy security,” government officials said at an April 20 meeting that approved plans to expand production. That information was reported by the business news publication Caixin.
The ruling party also is building power plants to help grow China’s economy.
BTW – we must ignore the commonly made claim that “ China is one of the biggest investors in wind and solar energy”. China is, of course, by a long way the world’s largest consumer of electricity, by nature everything they do is big.. But wind and solar make up less than a tenth of their electricity, tiny by western standards.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“Power shortages caused power failures and factory shutdowns.”! That’s the only thing our idiot MPs need to understand to be the outcome of their Net Zero stupidity. Oh, and that THEY will be entirely responsible.
Coal Production has been the ‘Scape Goat’ for the ‘Man-Made’ climate Change hoards for as long as I can remember. The disgusting effluent from the chimney’s of Coal fired power generating facilities to say the least is poison to the atmosphere and the water we drink !
However let’s take a step back . . . if we can remove 99% of the effluent . . . Is this not ‘Clean Energy’ ? That would make coal burning pretty much the same as burning Gas . . . No??
I have been to a facility that has accomplished this . . . Even the water from the smoke stack scrubbers is recycled into fertilizer and gypsum board . . . Clean Energy !!
Propaganda and the ‘Angry Greenies’ ignores science and what can be done to clean up the environment . . . that, unfortunately, would mean that environmentalists would have to crawl into bed with the Fossil Fuel industry to help them with that clean up and even with the propaganda promoting such a visionary approach to environmental change . . . God help us . . . NOT THAT !! ( just a little sarcasm ) . . .
Beldune New Brunswick, Canada . . .
It is long overdue that humans visit the truth of Science in all of our Environmentalist Narratives. Clean-up the Planet of foul effluent first. Set CO2 on the back burner for now. Our obsession with CO2 is NOT helping the clean-up of the Environment. It is holding back the progress towards cleaning up of the pollution that is truly destroying the Environment on Planet Earth.
The by-products from burning fossil fuels:
1. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
3. Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease
4. Mercury and other heavy metals linked to both neurological and developmental damage
5. Fly ash and bottom ash, that are residues created when power plants burn coal
All are significantly reduced when we invest $800,000 million.
Let’s work smarter, Not Harder . . . Be Visionaries, with a Goal – Clean-up Now!
Flue gas treatment technologies . . .
“Scrubbers is the generic term applied to flue gas treatment processes. There are both liquid, and solid-type gas treatment processes that are a function of the physical and chemical properties of the contaminant being removed. Among others, they include: wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, adsorbents and mercury removal processes that chemically convert volatile elemental mercury in the hot flue gas into solid water-soluble salts that can be collected. There are also variants such as electrostatic precipitators and desulfurizing processes.
The Clean Air Act (USA) requirements have driven development and installation of many technologies to reduce hazardous air pollutants in many industries. Several common approaches for flue gas cleanup applications have been generally described here. Scrubbers of various types are widely used commercially and have been found to be feasible technologies for numerous combustion applications, particularly for coal and oil electric power generation and other heat-dependent applications. Emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides, toxic stable organic chemicals, mercury and particulates can be managed to high degrees of removal.”
https://www.watertechonline.com/wastewater/article/15550703/smokestack-scrubbers-how-they-work-and-why-they-are-used
Solutions . . . Not just finger pointing at the obvious problems . . .
Pages 6,7 & 8 . . .
https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal
“The by-products from burning fossil fuels:
“1. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
“2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
“3. Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease
“4. Mercury and other heavy metals linked to both neurological and developmental damage
“5. Fly ash and bottom ash, that are residues created when power plants burn coal”
Before the UK Coal industry was deliberately destroyed, the then most modern thermal power plants (e.g. Drax) had been fitted with FGD (Flue Gas Desulphurisation) equipment. In addition, the coal from the largest and most modern mine in Europe was comparatively low sulphur.
That improved air quality significantly (whilst saddling the Coal Industry with enormous extra costs, despite which it produced easily the cheapest electricity in the UK. That’s why they dreamed up CCS:- Carbon (Dioxide) Capture & Storage. Which (especially storage) has yet to work on a sensible scale anywhere.
It is true that SO2, NOx, particulates and “Mercury and other heavy metals” are much blamed by GangGreen for all manner of health and environmental impacts. When they have done slagging off Coal, they switch to cars and the alleged 40,000 people a year who dies from car exhausts. It is notable that the wailing and gnashing of teeth about forestry die back “caused by SO2 emissions” turned out to be caused by over-application of fertilisers.
In fact, the factual evidence to support prevailing UK air “pollution” levels causing these health effects and the death of 4 people a year (let alone 40,000) is notable by its absence.
The evidence for the health benefits of face masks is about as convincing.
The inclusion of “5. Fly ash and (furnace) bottom ash” on this list, makes it as plain as a pikestaff that the whole list is nonsense. Both fly ash and furnace bottom ash are useful byproducts especially in concrete technology. They even extract cenospheres from fly ash ponds, which are used for many products including cosmetics and rocket nose-cones. The reduction in the amounts of these byproducts harms the economy.
But, it is the same old GangGreen activist psyentists who keep on spewing the same old lies and grotesque exaggerations.
You can blame Xi Jinping and his merry team for many things. But he’s absolutely right to burn more coal. You think either Xi or Vlad the Bad believe in ruinable energy and the shroud waving of GangGreen? Not a chance. Why shouldn’t every Chinese village have reliable electricity?
Martin Brumby re cenospheres: Years ago I rang a firm selling such as was asked how many truckloads I was looking for? They had special ‘tankers’ that carried (from memory) 6 tons and weren’t interested in any thing smaller.
And cenospheres were used in things like insulating paints, car repair putties, washbasin and bath manufacture.
Coal price is up 278% year on year as of May 4th.https://tradingeconomics.com/commodities
I would be surprised if coal for use in power stations is bought at a spot price
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
Would deep mined UK coal be competitive on price in 2022?