Re: The Futility of Carbon Reduction
Quote:
I want clean air. I don't want to breathe in poison emitted from coal-burning plants and I am going to continue to oppose them.
Then why are you working at cross-purposes with your own goals ... by effectively encouraging the shutting down well scrubbed US coal fired power plants and exchanging them for new unscrubbed Chinese coal fired power plants ?
Quote:
I would bet that the cost of electricity is one of the least significant factors in business decisions to move manufacturing to China. The biggest cost advantage in China is the price of labor. Even if we gave away electricity for free, the cost of manufacturing would still be far cheaper in China than in the US because of labor costs.
The answer to this question is specific to the 'energy intensity' of different types of manufacturing. In the case of raw material processing ( thinking Alcoa aluminum, US Steel, Freeport Copper etc. ) the cost of energy / electricity probably outweighs labor costs.
Quote:
government regulations are bad, so you are going to oppose them no matter how beneficial they are, or how much harm they prevent.
Again I am not against government regulations ... as long as those gov't regulations A. actually achieve their intended result, and B. bear some reasonable cost versus benefit relationship. Unfortunately, in the case of clean air and clean water, the US has no method of stopping the flow of polluted Chinese air and water right back across the US border.
If you truly want to accomplish a positive end result after incurring the additional costs of enacting strict US air quality regulations, about the only way to do this would be for the US gov't to enact monstrous import tariffs on Chinese goods being imported back into the USA for sale which essentially cancel out the advantage of China's lack of environmental regulatory compliance costs. However, this would also ( finally ? ) force US consumers to face the fact that they have successfully 'had their cake and eaten it too' over the past couple of decades. In other words, some Americans have assuaged their own consciences thinking that the enactment of strict US environmental laws has actually reduced global pollution levels ( which it hasn't ), and have also allowed them to think that US environmental compliance costs have little impact on their own standard of living ( which is only true if they have continued access to worldwide products that don't carry such US environmental compliance costs ).
Re: The Futility of Carbon Reduction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
...An old friend from New York recently informed me that, on the highest electricity usage day of this past summer, the amount of power actually provided by NY's recently installed wind farms was only 9% of their rated capacity. The 'negative balance' had to be made up for by cranking up natgas fired turbine generators at a very high cost....
Typically the highest electrical demand in summer (bolstered by air conditioning) is when the wind is low, often accompanied "inversions" which increase ground level airborne pollution. In NYC and surrounds, the make-up power is very likely to be supplied by gas-fired turbines. But in other areas intermediate load units (coal and oil-fired boilers) are used. What the actual mix was on that one particular day, I cannot say. Though if it were vitally important to know this, I do have some useful sources. In terms of CO2, I believe gas-fired turbines are a bit less efficient than the other CO2 producing electric generator prime movers. Still in NYS the majority by far of CO2 produced by electric generation comes from other sources than gas-fired generators. What would be more important than your 9% number is the average output per capacity of installed wind generation year-round.
Re: The Futility of Carbon Reduction
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
Then why are you working at cross-purposes with your own goals ... by effectively encouraging the shutting down well scrubbed US coal fired power plants and exchanging them for new unscrubbed Chinese coal fired power plants ?
Your question is based on stuff you made up, not facts. In the US, dirty coal plants are being replaced by cleaner forms of energy. China is going to continue increasing their power supply regardless of what we do here in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
The answer to this question is specific to the 'energy intensity' of different types of manufacturing. In the case of raw material processing ( thinking Alcoa aluminum, US Steel, Freeport Copper etc. ) the cost of energy / electricity probably outweighs labor costs.
I doubt that very much. How would you know? What is your claim based on?
Do you have any idea of how much it cost to build a new aluminum or steel manufacturing plant? Do you really think Alcoa or US Steel is going to build an entire new plant where they would need to ship the output half-way around the world, just to save a few dollars in electric bills?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
Again I am not against government regulations ... as long as those gov't regulations A. actually achieve their intended result, and B. bear some reasonable cost versus benefit relationship. Unfortunately, in the case of clean air and clean water, the US has no method of stopping the flow of polluted Chinese air and water right back across the US border.
How is water polluted in China going to cross the US border?
China is going to industrialize regardless of what we do. It doesn't matter how clean or how dirty our power-plants are. It's not going to make any difference in China's plan to modernize and industrialize their economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
If you truly want to accomplish a positive end result after incurring the additional costs of enacting strict US air quality regulations, about the only way to do this would be for the US gov't to enact monstrous import tariffs on Chinese goods being imported back into the USA for sale which essentially cancel out the advantage of China's lack of environmental regulatory compliance costs. However, this would also ( finally ? ) force US consumers to face the fact that they have successfully 'had their cake and eaten it too' over the past couple of decades. In other words, some Americans have assuaged their own consciences thinking that the enactment of strict US environmental laws has actually reduced global pollution levels ( which it hasn't ), and have also allowed them to think that US environmental compliance costs have little impact on their own standard of living ( which is only true if they have continued access to worldwide products that don't carry such US environmental compliance costs ).
Again, you're making stuff up. As I said before, China is going to modernize and industrialize their economy, regardless of what we do here. The pollution coming out of China is pollution that is in addition to the pollution coming from here, not instead of the pollution coming from here.
Re: The Futility of Carbon Reduction
Here is a graph showing historical electricity production in the US:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...he_USA.svg.png
Here is a graph showing historical electricity production in China:
http://www.indexmundi.com/blog/wp-co...age-thumb6.png
Notice how electricity production has been increasing in both the United States and China over the past 20 years. There hasn't been any significant drop in electricity production in the US as China's electric supply has been increasing.
Re: The Futility of Carbon Reduction
as to electricity production in the USA, if you check ISO statistics you'll find that industrial electricity consumption has decreased, but that growing demand from air conditioning load has more than offset the decrease in some ISO areas.
http://www.grist.org/phpThumb/phpThu...ig13.jpg&w=615
(snip)"Residential fell by its usual 1-2 percent and has now rebounded, just about all the way to pre-downturn levels. Commercial has fallen and not recovered at all (witness all those empty office buildings and retail spaces). Industrial has collapsed utterly, falling by 14 percent and barely recovering. Maybe we're at the start of a bigger industrial recovery ... or maybe we're at the start of another round of deindustrialization, following on the trends seen in 9/11. As of March of 2010, industrial electricity sales were down to just 25 percent of U.S. electricity purchases."(snip) from
As to your assertions about the relative costs / actual corporate decisionmaking re electricity costs for an Aluminum plant, I suggest that you check out ...
(snip)Energy charges account for 20-25 per cent of production costs of industries such as manufacturers of glass products, pulp and paper, and steel, rising to 40 per cent for aluminium smelters.
Businesses such as Alcoa are therefore highly susceptible to increasing energy prices. Chemical giant Dow is another. (snip) from
(snip)"Alcoa officials said Thursday that they would temporarily lay off 250 employees at the company's Rockdale aluminum smelter and might be forced to close the plant because of an unreliable power supply.
The company will indefinitely shutter three of the smelter's six potlines -- cells used in aluminum production -- said company spokesman Kevin Lowery. The potlines represent about 120,000 metric tons per year of production, according to a company release.
"When you operate an aluminum smelter, you need electricity," Lowery said. "In fact, you need three things: long-term, reliable and competitively priced power."(snip)
(snip)""Our energy costs have spiked to as much as $2,000 to $4,000 per megawatt hour," he said. "Unfortunately, it's just not economically feasible to run the plant that way."
Luminant officials disputed Alcoa's explanation for the layoffs, saying in a written response that they were not to blame.
"Simply put, it appears Alcoa does not like the power prices that the Texas market has produced in some limited instances this year, and instead apparently wants to pay below-market prices and prices lower than provided in the contract Alcoa negotiated with Luminant," according to Luminant.
Hirt said the plant had been paying an average of $40 per megawatt hour. [ = 4 cents per kWh - sic ]
Lowery said that if the power issue wasn't resolved, Alcoa might be forced to close the plant. According to a written release, Alcoa will use "contracted, long-term power" to operate the remaining potlines.
Alcoa's spokesman said the company was in talks with Luminant throughout the day Thursday, prior to announcing the temporarily potline closure.
Luminant's statement said supply interruptions from the Sandow 4 unit had not resulted in unfair power prices for Alcoa. And a provision in Alcoa's contract serves to limit the company's costs of buying power from other suppliers when Sandow 4 is not producing power, the company said.
"Luminant has also offered Alcoa several other options for buying power during those times, but Alcoa has declined to pursue those offers," Luminant said."(snip)
from
In other words, Alcoa's profit margin for this US smelting facility depended on the availability of 4 cent per kWh contracted electricity from a local coal fired power plant. When that coal fired power plant went offline, forcing Alcoa to purchase replacement power at much higher price levels, the facility operated unprofitably.
as part of a long term corporate strategy ...
(snip)A significant milestone was reached today for Alcoa's (NYSE:AA) growth in China with the inauguration of Alcoa Bohai sheet business at its plant in Qinhuangdao, China. Alcoa China now has the capacity to produce the highest quality aluminum sheet for the printing, transportation, electronics and packaging industries. (snip)
and in regard to Alcoa's future direction ...
(snip)"One BRIC at a Time
As in China, materials production and availability lie at the root of overall Russian industrial success. In early June, Site Selection interviewed William O'Rourke, newly appointed president of Alcoa Russia, just after the company had announced its plan to invest more than US$80 million in the Belaya Kalitva and Samara fabricating facilities it had just purchased for $257 million from Russian company RusAl in January. Together with ancillary businesses and some previously operated small businesses, the plants now operate as Alcoa Russia.
The investments are just part of a 2005 global spending plan valued at approximately $2.5 billion, of which $1.6 billion is dedicated to growth projects. Around $37 million will be invested at Belaya Kalitva alone. That plant, which already had begun production to supply North American automakers with forged specialty wheels, will also see improvements to its heat-treated plate and sheet output.
O'Rourke says Alcoa's move to Russia is part of the company's global strategy and vision.
"The BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China - are becoming market forces in the world," he says, and Alcoa intends to capitalize on the opportunity for its customers and for its shareholders. (snip) from
by 'pure coincidence', China, Russia and Brazil all have dirt cheap coal fired power and comparatively lax industrial pollution laws. And the resulting cost savings apparently justify shutting down US based facilities and instead now producing aluminum alloy wheels in Russia for import to North American automakers, to name one specific example. But please feel free to continue to believe that this is not the true factual situation.
circling back on topic, consider the following analysis ...
(snip)"2. We shouldn't be too encouraged by the recent reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions. With the downturn so heavily skewed towards the energy-intensive parts of the economy, and with those parts of the economy being the most subject to global competition, we may simply be offshoring our pollution. Industrial economic activity must become a more important part of an effective energy and climate policy; if it's not, we will simply be transitioning to an economy that is ever more dependent on housing starts and big box retail to sustain its growth.
3. These trends could carry unwelcome political consequences for clean energy generation assets. It's a lot easier to build the "right" generation when it doesn't implicitly require a shutdown of the wrong generation. Absent a rebound in industrial demand, we might be seeing a permanent slowdown in the rate of U.S. electricity demand and a corresponding reduction in the need for new generation construction"(snip)
~
Re: The Futility of Carbon Reduction
According to the following article, electricity represents about 1/3 of the cost of aluminum ingot. The article doesn't state whether or not this includes fixed costs. Based on the statement in the article that "many of the industry’s woes may have as much to do with low plant capacity utilization as they do with low sales prices", I don't think it does. Also the article estimates that plants in China are operating in the red and the cost of production in Australia is cheaper than in China. Regarding Russia, smelters there get their power from massive hydroelectric plants. Therefore, closing an aluminum plant in Texas that gets its electricity from a coal-burning plant and opening a plant in Russia that gets its electricity from a hydroelectric plant will actually reduce pollution!
http://agmetalminer.com/2009/02/26/p...mary-aluminum/
Re: The Futility of Carbon Reduction
Another "I told you so ".
According to NEWSWEEK, China is NOT going green. One of its major initiatives has backfired. Local officials were cutting off electricity to factories, homes, traffic lights and even hospitals assuming that interruptions would conserve power and lower pollution. Instead factory owners fired up diesel generators whose exhaust is even worse than Chinese power plants.Thanks to increased demand for diesel fuel, long lines developed at filling stations with the resultant increased car exhaust. The Shanghai Daily itself has called these conservation efforts a "green charade". At the recent climate talks in Cancun the Chinese refused to sign on to legally binding emission caps.
At present, half of the world's electricity is generated by coal. China has gone from a coal exporter to an IMPORTER. Her two biggest suppliers are the U.S. and Australia. China continues to export low grade coal and imports low sulphur anthracite. Over the last eight years, coal is the world's fastest growing fuel. China burns half of the world's consumption of 6 billion tons of coal.
According to the latest estimates from climate scientists, in order for the world to stabilize CO2 levels , the U.S. would have to reduce its energy consumption and emission levels to those of KENYA. A 96% reduction.
There are 1.3 billion people in China and according to P.J. O'Rourke : " ... they all want a Buick." Who is going to tell them they can't ? And if a lot of them eventually run on electricity, that juice has to generated somehow. That's right. Coal.
In 15 years , some 350 million Chinese are going to live in cities that do not exist yet. How are those cities going to be powered ? Coal. Btw, one reason China is building so much light rail is to get passenger trains out of the way of freight trains. Many of which haul coal.
Re: The Futility of Carbon Reduction
yup, despite China's lip service to green initiatives, the fact remains that 75% of their domestic electricity supply, and the vast majority of non-electric thermal heating requirements, are fueled by coal ...
from
(snip)"AP SHANGHAI, China — The coldest, snowiest winter in decades has left millions of Chinese without heating and running water, leading the government on Friday to order a suspension of coal exports as the country struggles to meet its power needs.
The Transport Ministry's emergency notice, posted on its Web site, warned of "severe" consequences for failing to comply with the order, which will stay in effect through the Lunar New Year holiday in February and the annual session of the national legislature in early March.
The notice ordered railways and other transport networks to make hauling coal and food a priority over coming weeks. Ocean shippers should stop loading coal for export and divert shipments "for domestic thermal coal requirements," if needed.
It was unclear what amount of coal shipments would be affected for China, the world's biggest coal producer.
The country's economic planning agency on Wednesday ordered utility companies and coal suppliers to cooperate in fighting power shortages that have forced more than a dozen provinces to ration electricity.
Weather conditions cause problems
Chronic wintertime shortfalls of coal, used to fuel three-quarters of China's electricity supply, have been aggravated by unusually heavy snow disrupting transport networks."(snip)
It should also be pointed out that the Chinese don't 'bother' with advanced stack scrubbers for coal fired power plants, and don't require any sort of emissions controls for commercial and residential coal burning.
However, with the extensive flooding in Australia's 'coal' country, this Chinese coal shortage is a short term 'gold mine' for US coal exporters !
However, in a global sense, events in Australia, China, and the US Gulf Coast all emphasize the increasingly risky nature of depending on foreign sources and markets ...
(snip)"There is a significant coal shortage in China, and there is no immediate relief for the problem. China is a major consumer of coal just as its is of crude oil. Demand from the world’s second largest economy by GDP will push up prices. The cost of coal to industry in China is underwritten by the central government. That means China will either have to take larger losses or pass prices on to the private sector.
The coal mine problem in Australia could have an immediate effect on steel prices. The island nation produces about half of the world’s coking cola for the steel industry.
Coal prices have already started to rise, and the expectation is that the increase will accelerate. “The Macquarie Group said the spot price for coking coal was heading from a current level of $US246 ($240) towards $US300 a tonne, and this may be reflected in the next round of quarterly export contracts. The current contract price is $US225,” according to The Australian.
Rarely mentioned in predictions of the price of oil and other commodities are the forces of supply interruption. Every time a large storm blows into the Gulf of Mexico there are concerns that the price of crude will rise. The same is true when there is political turmoil in large oil producers like Nigeria. Wheat prices were affected last year as Russia said its supply was so low that it could not export the grain.
When commodities prices are low, the markets shrug off this kind of news. Now, as many commodity prices head toward records, traders and consumers will be more and more concerned about availability. That means it will not take much more information about potential lack of supply to cause the prices to race higher. (snip)