In 2011, the United States spent more on renewable energy than China, beating China’s “clean energy” investment for the first time since 2008. In 2011, the United States spent a total of $55.9 billion of government and private funds on “clean energy” projects, a 33 percent increase from 2010, compared to China’s $47.4 billion, 1 percent higher than in 2010.

The higher U.S. “clean energy” investment was due to federal government support that included the Treasury Department’s 1603 cash grant program that expired at the end of December 2011, paying as much as 30 percent of the project’s development and construction cost, and the Production Tax Credit offering 2.2 cents a kilowatt-hour for wind production over the next ten years for wind power operational by the end of this year.

The Federal Financing Bank completed 13 loans worth $10.1 billion for “clean energy” projects, according to a study of the industry’s top 20 lenders by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.[i] And, budget experts estimate that the production tax credit cost taxpayers about $1 billion a year.

There is no guarantee these subsidies will pan out. Last year, three U.S. solar companies, including Solyndra, benefiting from U.S. government loans, went bankrupt, in part due to increasing competition from Chinese manufacturers. Besides these solar companies, Ener1, a battery maker that had received a $118 million government grant went bankrupt as well.

Global Investment

Globally, renewable energy investment rose 5 percent to a record $260 billion in 2011 driven by a surge in solar developments and the increased spending in the United States. New spending on solar energy increased 36 percent to $136.6 billion in 2011, almost twice what was spent on wind power ($74.9 billion).[ii]

Clean energy investment in Europe rose 3 percent to $100.2 billion, driven by solar installations in Germany and Italy and offshore wind in the North Sea. The largest renewable investment growth was in India, whose investment rose 52 percent to $10.3 billion. Brazil increased its renewable investment by 15 percent to $8.2 billion.

In 2009, the financial crisis curbed lending and global renewable energy investment increased by only 1 percent. In 2010, however, global renewable energy investment increased 31 percent, reaching $247 billion. The slower growth in 2011 was in part due to European countries reducing their guaranteed rates for electricity produced from renewable technologies so that electricity prices would not continue to surge due to their renewable pricing policies.

China’s Non-Fossil Fuel Expectations

China plans to obtain 11.4 percent of its electricity from non-fossil fuels by 2015, up from 8.4 percent in 2010. This plan is part of China’s goal to reduce carbon intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product) by 17 percent in 2015. While some countries are dubious regarding nuclear power, China sees it as a safe, reliable, and mature source of energy and is including nuclear production in its 2015 goal.[iii]

Chinese manufacturers are undercutting European and U.S. manufacturers in solar and wind technology markets. Supposedly, China is not just manufacturing wind turbines for export to U.S. and European markets, but it is also building the units to generate electricity in China. Let’s see how much those wind units are contributing to China’s electricity needs.

China’s Wind Energy Market

As of the end of 2010, China led the world in installed wind capacity, with the United States a fairly close second. By the end of 2010, China had installed 44,773 megawatts of wind turbines, compared to 40,267 megawatts installed in the United States. The irony is that with 11 percent more wind capacity than the United States had in 2010, China produced only about half the amount of electricity from wind that the United States produced.

In 2010, China produced 50.1 billion kilowatt hours of wind powered electricity while the United States produced 94.65 billion kilowatt hours from wind energy.[iv]  That lower amount of wind generated electricity for China is due to its transmission system not being able to handle the growth in wind capacity. Past statistics have shown that only about 30 percent of China’s wind units are connected to the grid. While China may have improved on this low number of wind units integrated with its electricity grid, the country clearly has still not solved the problem.

Source: International Energy Agency, IEA Wind 2010 Annual Report, July 2011

Conclusion

Globally, renewable investment in 2011 was at its highest level; with investment in solar energy almost double that of wind. The United States led the world in renewable investments due to government incentives including the Treasury’s 1603 grant program that expired at the end of 2011, costing taxpayers over $10 billion.

China’s renewable investment in 2011 was lower than that of the United States (by 15 percent) for the first time since 2008.  While China’s renewable investments have been higher in the past than that of the United States and while China had more installed wind capacity at the end of 2010 than the United States, it is having trouble reaping their benefits. China generated about half the amount of electricity from wind in 2010 that the United States generated because it has not been able to fully integrate its wind units with its electricity grid. The “clean energy” race that many administration officials and Congressmen feel the United States is losing with China may just be a “tug of war”.

Other highlights[iii] are:

• Fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy, supplying 78 percent of world energy use in 2035.
• Petroleum and other liquid fuels remain the largest energy source worldwide, but its projected share decreases from 34 percent in 2008 to 29 percent in 2035.
• Natural gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel with consumption increasing at 1.6 percent per year, reaching 169 trillion cubic feet by 2035, an increase of 52 percent from 2008 levels. Unconventional sources of natural gas (shale gas, tight gas, and coal bed methane) factor prominently in the forecast, particularly for the United States, Canada, and China.
• World coal consumption increases at a rate of 1.5 percent per year, reaching 209 quadrillion Btu in 2035, 50 percent higher than 2008 levels. China accounts for 76 percent of the projected net increase in world coal use.
• Renewable energy is the fastest growing energy source, increasing by 2.8 percent per year. But even at this growth rate, its share of total energy use grows from just 10 percent in 2008 to 15 percent in 2035.

• Electricity is the fastest growing end-use fuel, increasing at 2.3 percent per year between 2008 and 2035. Within the generation sector, renewable fuels grow the fastest at 3.0 percent per year, followed by natural gas at 2.6 percent, nuclear fuel at 2.4 percent and coal at 1.9 percent.

• Transportation energy use increases at 1.4 percent per year.  Its share of total petroleum consumption increases from 54 percent in 2008 to 60 percent in 2035. Transportation energy demand is projected to account for 82 percent of the total increase in world petroleum demand.
• Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are expected to be 43 percent higher in 2035, increasing from 30.2 billion metric tons in 2008 to 43.2 billion metric tons in 2035. The majority of the increase is from energy consumption in developing countries, particularly countries in Asia.

Conclusion

Forecasts by government agencies indicate the fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant source of energy well into the future. While renewable energy increases at a faster rate than other fuels, its contribution will remain a small share of total energy requirements by 2035.

Department of Defense’s Energy Policy

Tom Hicks, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy in the U.S. Navy, said that the rising price of oil “dramatically impacts the military.” For every $1 a barrel increase in oil, the Navy and Marine Corps pay more than $30 million. So, it is no surprise that the U.S. military would like to find a more economic source of petroleum products.

Currently, there is a Congressional ban on the Pentagon’s using high-carbon alternative fuels. Section 526 of the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 blocks the Department of Defense from using coal-to-liquid fuels because the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from those fuels would be much larger than the GHG emissions from conventional petroleum. That puts a damper on Air Force plans to certify planes to run on synthetic fuels from coal, natural gas and biomass. While there are ongoing efforts in Congress to repeal this law, no repeal has been enacted as of yet.

For the past few years, the military has promoted alternative fuels from biomass, but so far these fuels are very, very expensive.  According to Undersecretary of the Air Force, Erin Conaton, biomass fuel is about 10 times the cost of military aviation jet fuel.[ii] Since the Energy Information Administration reports kerosene-based jet fuel to sell for just over $3 per gallon[iii], jet fuel from biomass according to this account would cost around $30 per gallon. Other estimates are much larger. For example, a blend of 50 percent camelina-based biofuel[1] purchased for the Air Force and Navy last year was reported costing $65 a gallon, making a 100 percent biofuel around $130 per gallon.[iv] Regardless, whether the cost is 10 times or 40 times higher, proponents of biomass fuels would like us to believe that costs can get down to $2 per gallon, but when and how are still an issue

China’s Coal-to-Liquids Project

China, unlike the United States military, has no problem  getting its petroleum products from coal. China’s largest coal producer, the Shenhua Group, is reaping huge profits from a coal-to-liquids project completed in late 2008 in North China. In just the first 3 months of this year, their profits reached more than 100 million yuan or $15.38 million from production of 216,000 tons of refined oil products. The project located in Inner Mongolia is the world’s first large coal-to-liquids plant. Last year, it operated for 5,000 hours and produced 450,000 tons of oil products. It is expected to reach one million tons of annual capacity.[v] With profits of that magnitude in only two years of operation, China has proven that coal-to-liquids is a lucrative business.  Meanwhile, the United States is shut out of that market for military use when it has the largest coal reserves in the world.

China’s Growing Use of Imported Coal

While China ranks third in coal reserves, behind the United States and Russia, its coal is low quality containing sulfur, fly ash and dust. Starting this July, China plans to blend cleaner burning imported coal with its domestic coal in six massive silos being constructed near an industrial port in northeastern China. The blended coal will meet tighter environmental regulations and burn more efficiently than domestic coal since it is of higher quality.[vi]

China’s Need for Coal is Enormous

China has been faced with electric power shortages since April due to high demand, high coal prices, and a drought in southern China causing low hydroelectric output. Precipitation in April was 50 percent less than the average level of past years, resulting in a 20-percent reduction in hydroelectric power generation growth. And, coal prices have doubled in the past five years in China, reaching $130 a ton for coal with high heat content. Statistics from the China Electricity Council indicate that electricity demand is already 12 percent higher than last year having reached 1,090 billion kilowatt-hours during the first four months of this year.[vii]

While China has more hydroelectric and wind generating capacity than any other country in the world, those power sources are reliant on water and wind availability and have not been able to fill the increase in China’s electricity demand. Unlike the United States, China does not mind satisfying its electricity demand with reliable coal generation, which represents 73 percent of China’s total generating capacity, and produced a whopping 83 percent of its generation last year.[viii]

According to the director of the power industry department of the China’s National Energy Administration, China is constructing 180 million kilowatts of new coal fired plants. In responding to the power shortages, he said, “The government will speed up the examination and approval of these projects and put them into use ahead of schedule.”

China is the world’s largest coal producer and consumer, consuming 3.5 times as much coal as the United States.[ix] And, rather than consuming U.S. coal at home, U.S. coal producers are looking to sell their coal to Asian markets since U.S. laws and regulations are either slowing or derailing new growth here.

Conclusion

China is on a fast track to meet its electricity demand, but not through hydroelectric power or wind power, where it leads the world in capacity, but through coal-fired generation. China is now the home of the world’s largest coal to liquids plant that is reaping in the profits. Yet, the United States fails to learn from China’s lead. The United States has banned the use of coal-to-liquids technology because the greenhouse gas emissions over its life cycle will exceed those of conventional oil. This is despite coal to liquids costs estimated at $45 to $65 per barrel.[x] Thus, U.S. military establishments will either continue to pay for imported crude oil or invest in biofuel technologies that have a long way to go before they will ever become competitive with conventional sources.

According to the recently released BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the United States ranked number one in 2010 as the largest user of non-hydro renewable technologies in the world, far above the next largest users—Germany, Spain, and China. The U.S. share of world renewable energy consumption was 25 percent in 2010, followed by Germany at 12 percent, and Spain and China with 8 percent each. The Obama Administration and others would like us to believe that the United is losing the race for so-called green technology to China, but the energy statistics for 2010 do not match the claims.

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2011.pdf

China consumed more energy than any other country in 2010 increasing its energy consumption 11.2 percent over its 2009 levels and consuming 20.3 percent of the world’s total energy consumption in 2010. It increased its coal consumption by 10.1 percent and accounted for 48.2 percent of the world’s coal consumption. Its consumption of oil increased by 10.4 percent and its consumption of natural gas increased by 21.8 percent, keeping China in its number one rank as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions in the world. According to the BP statistical review, globally in 2010, carbon dioxide emissions grew at their fastest rate since 1969.

Other results from the BP statistical review for 2010 regarding the global energy system are:

Total Energy

• Total global energy consumption increased 5.6 percent, the largest rate of increase since 1973 with total energy consumption surpassing its previous peak reached in 2008.
• Energy intensity defined as energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product grew at its fastest rate since 1970.

Oil

• Global oil consumption grew at 3.1 percent, 2.7 million barrels per day, reaching a world record level of consumption at 87.4 million barrels per day. Oil consumption growth at 3.1 percent in 2010 was the largest percentage increase since 2004.
• China’s oil consumption grew by 860,000 barrels per day, 10.4 percent.
• Global oil production increased by 2.2 percent, 1.8 million barrels per day, lagging behind the increase in consumption. OPEC production increased by 960,000 barrels per day, 2.5 percent, and non-OPEC production increased by 1.9 percent.
• Growth in non-OPEC oil production was led by China, Russia, and the United States, each with an increase of over 200,000 barrels per day more than oil production in 2009. While the Obama Administration’s moratorium on offshore drilling caused lower U.S. offshore production, total U.S. oil production increased by 242,000 barrels per day, 3.2 percent, due largely to oil production increases from shale oil and shale gas liquids on non-federal lands.

Natural Gas

• Global natural gas consumption grew by 7.4 percent, the largest increase since 1984. The United States led the world in increased natural gas consumption due to low prices from shale gas production.
• Global natural gas production grew by 7.3 percent, with the largest increases in Russia, the United States, and Qatar. The United States remained the world’s largest natural gas producer with 19.3 percent of the world’s production followed by Russia with 18.4 percent.
• Liquefied natural gas shipments increased by 22.6 percent and commanded 30.5 percent of global natural gas trade.

Coal

• Coal consumption grew by 7.6 percent, the fastest global growth since 2003, and accounted for 29.6 percent of world energy consumption. China increased its coal demand by 10 percent, consuming 48.2 percent of the world’s coal demand, over 3 times the amount of coal that the United States consumed in 2010. The United States’ share of the world’s coal consumption in 2010 was 14.8 percent.
• Global coal production increased by 6.3 percent, led by China’s increase of 9 percent.

Hydroelectric power

• Global hydroelectric output increased by 5.3 percent. China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of hydroelectric power with a 21 percent share. It increased its hydroelectric output by 17 percent in 2010.

Nuclear

• Global nuclear output grew by 2 percent, with France’s output increasing 4.4 percent. France generates about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

Non-hydroelectric renewables

• Global biofuels production increased by 13.8 percent, 240,000 barrels per day, led by the United States (140,000 barrels per day) and Brazil (50,000 barrels per day).
• Global renewable power (non-hydrolectric) grew by 15.5 percent. Wind power increased by 22.7 percent with the largest increases in China and the United States, which together represented almost 70 percent of the growth. Non-hydroelectric renewables supplied 1.8 percent of total global energy consumption.

Comparison of Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, United States and China, 2010

(Share of Total Country Consumption)

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2011.pdf

Conclusion

2010 was a banner year for energy consumption in the world arena. All fuels saw increased consumption. China led the world in energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. China consumed over 48 percent of the world’s coal consumption in 2010, and increased its use of all fuels. While China is the world leader in wind capacity, its non-hydro renewable consumption represents only 8 percent of the world’s total. The United States ranked first in non-hydroelectric renewable consumption in 2010, consuming 25 percent of the world’s total. The United States is not losing the race for green technology, as these statistics clearly indicate. Its consumption of non-hydroelectric renewable energy was more than twice that of Germany and more than three times that of Spain and China, countries that ranked two, three, and four in non-hydroelectric renewable consumption in 2010.

Speculators are characterized as cogs in the Wall Street greed machine who seek to make a quick buck off betting on oil commodity futures, an idea that many are all too happy to entertain in this post-financial meltdown age. However, the argument that speculative activity has caused this most recent escalation in gas prices ignores the fact that there has been speculation on commodities for centuries, and as Stossel writes, the players are “no more greedy or clever than they have been all along.”

The answer is, in fact, much more simple than politicians want you to believe as they lay blame at the feet of oil companies and speculators. It’s a straightforward matter of supply and demand. World crude oil and liquid fuels consumption grew to the highest level ever in 2010, with 86.7 million barrels per day (bpd) consumed in total. Most of the increase can be attributed to countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—China, Brazil, and those in the Middle East—where rapid economic growth and quality of life improvements have led to increasing amounts of energy being used. Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said growth in worldwide oil demand is exceeding growth in new supplies by 1 million bpd per year, with much of the new demand coming from China. Factor in Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production restraints that seek to maintain favorably high oil prices, anticipated losses in Gulf of Mexico production, and recent global disruptions, it is unsurprising that oil commodity prices have spiked.

Furthermore, the U.S. Federal Reserve’s second round of inflationary monetary policy (QE2) has prompted investors to flee a devalued dollar in favor of non-income generating real assets, like oil and precious metals, and makes crude cheaper for investors using foreign currencies. As in 2008, when the first round of the Fed’s inflationary monetary policies began, oil prices have steadily risen since Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s announcement that the easy money policies may continue past the end of QE2 this June.

Speculators are merely a symptom of oil spikes, not the cause. Birol, in an interview with CNNMoney, said, “Speculators are only responding to what is going on in the markets… We don’t see enough oil in the markets. The major driver is supply and demand.” Furthermore, speculation even serves as a stabilizing function in a market that would otherwise be exceedingly volatile. In his op-ed, Stossel writes:

“Speculators help keep prices stable. When they foresee a future oil shortage—that is, when prices are lower than anticipated in the future—speculators buy lots of it, store it and then sell it when the shortage hits. They know they can charge more when there’s relatively little oil on the market. But their selling during the shortage brings prices down from what they would have been had speculators not acted.”

To reinforce the point that speculation is a legitimate economic function and that federal intervention would ultimately prove to be worse than the status quo, Stossel cites the 1958 Congressional action to ban speculation on onion prices. That’s right, Congress passed a law, amid mass public outcry, to ban speculative activity on the price of onions. The end result? Onion prices are actually some of the most volatile of all goods, and a study by the Financial Times found that the ban actually did the opposite of the intended effect.

Instead of trying to meddle with the market, Washington should focus on removing the roadblocks to domestic energy exploration to give America more leverage in the oil game. When President Bush finally lifted the U.S. embargo on its own offshore oil in July 2008, the price of oil dropped $9.26 per barrel while he was giving the speech. Crude oil traders and speculators believed that oil supplies would increase in the future, reducing prices. However, it is interesting to note that the market had a fairly apathetic response to President Obama’s recent proposals to increase domestic production.

The only marginal decrease in oil prices since the President’s announcement is indicative that players in the market do not anticipate that the proposals—which are simply reversals of policies implemented during the Obama Administration—will significantly increase the supply of oil. To impact oil prices on the scale of what happened when the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) moratorium was lifted in 2008, the Administration will need to adopt an energy policy that includes exploration in ANWR, more of the OCS, and more than the current 3 percent of onshore federal lands that are available for leasing. Until the Administration takes these major steps to produce more oil at home, its recriminations against speculators and shadowy market manipulators hold little water.

President Obama continues to tout his support for moving to a “clean” energy economy, confidently asserting in his State of the Union Address and subsequent speeches around the country, that his administration’s program of subsidies, government grants and tax breaks for green energy technologies will, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and thus improve the United States’ national security.

Unfortunately, the President is wrong.  The U.S.’s thoughtless embrace of green energy technologies is likely to make the country worse off geopolitically.

The United States imports all rare earth elements, principally from China

As a paper released by the National Center for Policy Analysis notes, key components of every green energy technology, wind turbines, solar cells, energy efficient lighting, batteries, you name it, have components that require a small class of minerals known as the rare earth elements, and other rare minerals.  Despite their name, these elements are rather abundant in the Earth’s crust, but they are rarely found in economically exploitable concentrations.  The exception to this generality is found in the People’s Republic of China.

Indeed, with 96 percent of the global market, China has a de facto monopoly on these rare elements.

By contrast, the world’s oil market is diverse, with dozens of countries producing oil for export.  In 2009, the United States imported oil or oil products from 90 different countries.

Recently, China has proven willing to their near monopoly on the rare earths to extract favorable political outcomes from foreign nations.

In September 2010 a Chinese trawler collided with a Japanese coast guard vessel in a disputed portion of the East China Sea.  The captain of the fishing boat was arrested by the Japanese.  When Japan refused to release the Captain, China retaliated by first limiting and eventually halting exports of rare earth elements to Japan.  Japan eventually relented and sent the captain home.

Closer to home, production of photovoltaic cells for energy relies on the rare element tellurium. However, the only tellurium mine that exists on Earth is in China, which is increasingly dominating the market for solar manufacturing.   Whereas, in 2003, China produced only one percent of the world’s solar panels by 2009 its share had grown to 38 percent – and in 2010 its share rose to 43 percent. Over the same time period, the U.S.’s share of world  solar panel production fell from accounted for 14 percent in 2003, to just four percent today.

Similarly, rare earths are essential to the newest generation of batteries — critical for fuel efficient hybrid and electric vehicles, and the magnets used in wind turbine production.  This means that U.S. auto companies and wind turbine manufacturers like GE are, in part, placing their hopes improving their companies’ fortunes on China’s good will.

Sadly, this dependence on China is driven purely by politics not consumer demand. Absent huge government subsidies, grants and mandates, green energy, being more expensive and less reliable than traditional energy production, would not be so much in demand, and thus China would not be in the catbird seat.

The push to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy technologies brings to mind the old saying, “out of the frying pan into the fire.”

Introduction

China is currently the largest producer and consumer of coal in the world, outstripping the United States by a factor of more than 3[ii]. In fact China’s growth in coal consumption is so great that it needs to import coal to satisfy its demand even though it ranks third in coal reserves in the world[iii].  China became a net importer of coal in 2009, buying almost 151 million tons[iv] from coal exporting countries, including the United States and Australia. That number is expected to increase substantially in the years to come. The Chinese use coal, the primary fuel spurring its economic growth, in most sectors of the economy, but particularly in the electric power and industrial sectors.  China’s economic growth is so phenomenal that it expects to have 350 million people, more than the entire population in the United States,[v] living in cities that do not yet exist within the next 15 years,[vi] which will require additional electrical capacity of an amount almost equal to the total electrical capacity of the United States.[vii]

Environmentalists in the United States, who have actively worked to stop the construction of new coal-fired plants here in order to lower future greenhouse gas emissions, are now faced with a dilemma. Those same greenhouse gases still will be emitted just elsewhere as the developing world is seeking reliable forms of fossil energy to continue to fuel their economic growth.

China’s Coal Demand

Since 2000, China’s coal consumption has grown by 12 percent per year. The country now consumes 46 percent of the world’s coal consumption, compared with 13 percent for the United States.[viii] In 2009, China’s coal consumption was almost 3.5 billion short tons, up 16 percent from the year before, while the United States consumed 1.0 billion short tons in 2009, down 11 percent from the year before.[ix]

Source: Energy Information Administration, International Statistics

According to data from Daiwa Capital Markets and the U.S. Energy Department, China added about 51 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in 2009,[x] and most likely added about the same amount in 2010. According to calculations based on official data, in the first quarter of 2010, China used coal to generate 86 percent of its electricity.[xi]

According to the general manager of the State Grid Corp of China, generating capacity is expected to reach 1,440 gigawatts by 2015 and 1,760 gigawatts by 2020, 75 percent more than the current capacity in the United States. According to the National Energy Administration in China, generating capacity at the end of 2010 was 950 gigawatts, so China expects capacity to grow by 52 percent over the next five years. China’s thermal capacity, most of which is coal, is expected to increase by between 260 and 270 gigawatts over the next five years.[xii]

The International Monetary Fund expects China’s gross domestic product to grow by 9.6 percent in 2011, needing reliable sources of energy to fuel that growth.[xiii] China’s Energy Research Institute indicates that China will need an additional 2 billion tons of coal over the next 10 years to fuel the country’s industrial development,[xiv] which means that in the next 10 years, China will increase its coal consumption by almost 60 percent.

According to a Chinese official, the country’s transportation system is the only serious limitation on how fast Chinese power companies can increase their use of coal. China’s main reason in building light-rail systems for passenger traffic is to get that traffic out of the way of coal trains.[xv]

China’s Coal Production

China’s coal production in 2009 was almost 3.4 billion short tons, 44 percent of the world’s total coal production[xvi], and slightly short of its coal demand, requiring it to import coal. While China has 14 percent of global coal reserves[xvii], ranking third in the world, it is having trouble expanding production, mainly due to transportation infrastructure problems.[xviii] Because China’s rail lines are already overburdened by coal transport, it has had to use truck to transport coal from fields in Inner Mongolia to Beijing creating enormous traffic jams as roads need to be repaired from the heavy coal traffic. This past summer, traffic congestion of 100 kilometers (about 60 miles) lasted over a week on a major highway between Inner Mongolia and Beijing.[xix] For this reason, China is contemplating putting limits on coal production of 3.6 to 3.8 billion tons in its next Five Year Plan, which begins this year.[xx] That may, however, only result in greater coal imports.

Source: Energy Information Administration, International Statistics

China’s Coal Imports

China’s net coal imports, its coal imports minus its coal exports, in 2009 were over 112 million tons[xxi] and increased 27 percent to 143 million tons in 2010.  They are projected to increase 63 percent to 233 million tons this year.[xxii] China imports coal for various reasons, including obtaining better quality coal, the proximity of its coal-burning factories to overseas shipments, and the transportation infrastructure problems noted above.

China’s coal contains high amounts of sulfur and is largely untreated resulting in high levels of pollution. Coal from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, for example, is low in sulfur and would allow power plants to burn more without exceeding local pollution limits. Also, much of China’s coal is inland while the coal-burning factories are along its coast where it is often easier to receive shipments from abroad. Obtaining lower-sulfur coal imports would help its pollution problem but only to a very small extent since China’s levels of imports are just a drop in the bucket compared to its own coal production.[xxiii]

The price of export coal has doubled over the past 5 years.[xxiv] Higher prices for export coal have arisen due to a variety of factors, including the increase in coal demand coming primarily from China and India, supply constraints in some coal exporting countries, transportation infrastructure limitations, and weather problems. In the coal exporting countries of Indonesia, Columbia, and Australia, supply disruptions resulted from heavy rain and flooding at mines.  In South Africa, coal export growth has been hampered by a lack of rail capacity.[xxv]

U.S. Coal Exports to China

In the first six months of 2009, the United States exported 2,714 tons of coal to China, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. That figure increased to 2.9 million tons in the first six months of this year—a factor of more than 1000, but a small fraction of China’s total coal imports.[xxvi]

The United States currently exports its coal via Vancouver, Canada, but that route is limited because of large amounts of metallurgical coal exports being shipped out of Canada. Coal exporters in the United States are interested in developing a port in the state of Washington for the export of coal to Asian markets.

Millennium Bulk Ventures is planning to build a coal export terminal in Cowlitz County, Washington, to export Powder River Basin coal, but environmental groups have recently appealed it.  A coalition of five groups filed the appeal, challenging a shoreline development permit issued to the project by Cowlitz County commissioners. The appeal requests that a state environmental impact study be conducted that includes consideration of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the coal shipped overseas and contests a decision to assess planned dredging of the Columbia River. The appeal would push the construction date into late this year, but Millennium Bulk Ventures hope to have it running by 2012.[xxvii] They realize that China will burn coal regardless who exports it, emitting the same amount of greenhouse gases.

Conclusion

China intends to use coal to fuel its power plants and its industrial establishments, regardless of the emissions that result from the combustion of coal because the fuel is both plentiful and reliable. China is already the largest consumer of coal, consuming almost 3.5 billion short tons in 2009, 3.5 times the amount the United States consumes. It is expected to consume an additional 2 billion short tons over the next ten years to fuel new power plants and industrial development- – a 60 percent increase. And, it will most likely need to continue to import coal even though it ranks third in global coal reserves. That means it will continue to increase its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of the actions of other countries.

[i] GreenBeat, Energy secretary Chu declares “Sputnik” moment on green race against China, November, 30, 2010, http://www.venturebeat.com/2010/11/30/what-energy-secretary-chu-says-on-solyndra-the-decline-in-green-investing/

[ii] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=1 and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2

[iii] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=6

[iv] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=3

[v] U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

[vi] Washington Post, China has seen the future, and it is coal, December 30, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122902899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2&cid=regions&syid=1980&eyid=2009&unit=TST

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Bloomberg, Coal Imports May Rise 78% to China, India, Drive Up Prices: Energy Markets, December 14, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/coal-imports-may-rise-78-to-china-india-drive-up-prices-energy-markets.html

[xi] Radio Free Asia, China Mulls Coal Limit, September 7, 2010, http://www.rfa.org/english/energy_watch/coal-09072010113430.html

[xii] Reuters, China power sector to boom as oil sector goes slower, January 6, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7052JT20110106

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Washington Post, China has seen the future, and it is coal, December 30, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122902899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[xvi] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=1&cid=regions&syid=1980&eyid=2009&unit=TST

[xvii] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=6

[xviii] The New York Times, Does China Face A “Peak Coal” Threat, December 14, 2010, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/does-china-face-a-peak-coal-threat/?hp

[xix] AOL News, Coal May Be Behind China’s Monster Traffic Jam, August 25, 2010, http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/25/coal-may-be-behind-chinas-monster-traffic-jam/

[xx] Radio Free Asia, China Mulls Coal Limit, September 7, 2010, http://www.rfa.org/english/energy_watch/coal-09072010113430.html

[xxi] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=CH

[xxii] Bloomberg, Coal Imports May Rise 78% to China, India, Drive Up Prices: Energy Markets, December 14, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/coal-imports-may-rise-78-to-china-india-drive-up-prices-energy-markets.html

[xxiii] The New York Times, Booming China is Buying Up World’s Coal, November 22, 2010, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEFDD153FF931A15752C1A9669D8B63&pagewanted=2

[xxiv] The New York Times, Booming China is Buying Up World’s Coal, November 22, 2010, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEFDD153FF931A15752C1A9669D8B63&pagewanted=2

[xxv] Bloomberg, Coal Imports May Rise 78% to China, India, Drive Up Prices: Energy Markets, December 14, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/coal-imports-may-rise-78-to-china-india-drive-up-prices-energy-markets.html

[xxvi] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t7p01p1.html

[xxvii] Platts, Review of Washington state coal terminal permit is a test case: developer, December 15, 2010, http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Coal/6676017

In the United States, environmental and regulatory approvals lengthen the time from initiation of the project until its beginning operation, increasing financing costs and making capital more difficult to obtain. The Energy Information Administration estimates the overnight capital cost for an advanced nuclear reactor, which excludes financing charges and project contingencies[ii], at $5,335 per kilowatt.[iii] The construction costs of nuclear units undergoing the permit process that include these other charges are estimated at around $8,000 to $10,000 per kilowatt.[iv] This means that the fully-loaded capital costs for nuclear plants in the United States could potentially be 200 to 250 percent more expensive than the new Chinese nuclear plants.

China’s Nuclear Program

China is intent on making nuclear power a major contributor to their electricity generation mix in the near future. They currently have 13 nuclear plants in operation, but 25 more facilities are under construction, which equal almost half the total nuclear reactors under construction in the world. With those numbers, they should easily attain their 2020 goal of 40 reactors. Their 2030 goal is more ambitious, wanting to produce more power in 2030 than the United States produces with its 104 nuclear units. “Developing clean, low-carbon energy is an international priority,” says Zhao Chengkun, vice-president of the China Nuclear Energy Association. “Nuclear is recognized as the only energy source that can be used on a mass scale to achieve this.” As such, the Chinese have $511 billion in-hand dedicated to the construction of nuclear reactors.[v]

Is There a Risk?

The Chinese are aiming to enter into the global nuclear marketplace by 2013—just a few short years. With Western know-how being transferred and low-cost manpower, China can become a formidable competitor, as they have become to wind and solar markets. The World Nuclear Association indicates that the Chinese are very quickly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design. That is not surprising, when western nuclear companies provide technical training and related documents to the Chinese. Westinghouse, for example, as part of their contractual agreement with its Chinese customers, turned over more than 75,000 technical documents.

The United States is not the only country working with the Chinese to construct nuclear plants. France, for example, is honchoing a project of third-generation reactors in the Guangdong province, where construction on two European pressurized reactors is underway based on a contract signed in November 2007 with France’s Areva. In fact, work is progressing much better than the company’s other projects due to the experience Areva gained on them and to the 9,000 Chinese laborers on-site, who work 7 days a week at 10-hour shifts. The first reactor should be on-line at the end of 2013 and the second in the fall of 2014. Two more may follow in the future.[vi]

Clearly, western nuclear companies are hoping for a long-term partnership with the Chinese, but, in reality, they may only be gaining near term profits, instead.

New Reprocessing Technology

China just announced that they now have a 3,000 year supply of nuclear fuel having mastered a key technique in the reprocessing of spent uranium. The technology enables recycling of irradiated fuel, producing 60 times more power from a kilo of uranium than they were able to do using current technology and uranium supply. Previously, China estimated that they had less than a 70 year supply of nuclear fuel from reprocessing its 171,400 metric tons of uranium using current technology.[vii] How China’s new reprocessing technology, developed by the China National Nuclear Corporation, compares to reprocessing methods used by countries in the western world is still unclear.

The United States by comparison does not reprocess commercial spent nuclear fuel. While the United States did have a few private reprocessing facilities in the 1960s and 1970s, they were terminated either due to the cost of compliance with regulations, equipment problems and technical failures, or the decision to indefinitely defer the reprocessing of commercial spent nuclear fuel due to proliferation concerns. The decision regarding indefinite deferrals has been reaffirmed under several U.S. presidents in the over 30-year period following the initial decision.

Reprocessing consists of separating and conditioning the components of spent nuclear fuel for recycling. Approximately 97 percent of the used fuel is recyclable when it leaves the reactor—96 percent as uranium and 1 percent as plutonium, leaving 3 percent as non-reusable waste material. As such, reprocessing allows for the conservation of natural uranium resources and reduces both the volume and toxicity of the final waste materials.

Rather than reprocess, the United States opted to store the spent nuclear fuel at a disposal site, with the last attempt being Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Obama Administration, however, has withdrawn the majority of funding for that project, which leaves the United States in limbo regarding the treatment of spent nuclear fuel. [viii]

Conclusion

China is intent on becoming the world leader in nuclear power in just a few decades, generating more nuclear power than the United States by 2030 at much less cost. Their nuclear program has a sizeable number of reactors under construction with speedy approvals, available financing, and a dedicated work force. Their approach is to train their own people and gain expertise from western know-how and technology so that they can become a world competitor beginning in 2013. They have accomplished this feat in other areas. So, why not in nuclear power, too?

[i] Bloomberg, Nuclear Boom in China Sees Reactor Builders Risk Their Know-How for Cash, December 2, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-02/china-nuclear-boom-sees-reactor-builders-risk-know-how-for-cash.html

[ii] The American Association of Cost Engineers defines a contingency allowance as the “specific provision for unforeseeable elements of costs within a defined project scope, particularly important where previous experience has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur.”

[iii] Energy Information Administration, Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, November 2010, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html

[iv] http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/whats-the-price-of-nuclear-power-probably-higher-than-you-think/#more-3539

[v] Bloomberg, Nuclear Boom in China Sees Reactor Builders Risk Their Know-How for Cash, December 2, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-02/china-nuclear-boom-sees-reactor-builders-risk-know-how-for-cash.html

[vi] Guardian, Construction schedule on Chinese third-generation nuclear plants races ahead of European models, December 28, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/28/china-areva-taishan-nuclear-thibault

[vii] Guardian, China claims new nuclear technology, January 3, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/china-claims-new-nuclear-technology

[viii] http://www.masterresource.org/2010/07/spent-nuke-fuel-policy-5/#more-10273

Activists on Trial

Hansen took the stand to declare that carbon dioxide emissions from coal power plants pose a threat to humanity.  A Guardian (U.K.) story summarizes the episode with a sympathetic eye:

Nasa’s top climate scientist Jim Hansen told a jury at the trial of 20 environmental activists that he had begun speaking out about climate change again in the past five years because of his grandchildren.

“I did not want them to say: ‘Pa you understood what was happening but you never made it clear’,” the 69-year-old told the trial last Monday.

The activists were found guilty of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass by the court today, and could now face suspended prison sentences.

Hansen had flown overnight from his home in the US to give evidence about the science of climate change and in particular the threat posed to humanity by the burning of coal at plants such as E.ON’s at Ratcliffe-on-Soar.

…

Hansen, whose speech to Congress in 1988 is seen as pivotal in first bringing climate change to the world’s attention, is well-versed in speaking out against the coal industry. Nottingham is not the first British court where he has given evidence. He testified last year in the case of the “Kingsnorth Six”, who had climbed up E.ON’s coal plant. They also used the climate change defence – that their actions were designed to prevent immediate harm to human life and property from climate change – and were acquitted.

…

In his witness statement submitted for last week’s case, he argues that if the burning of coal continues to grow at its current rate, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will rise to between 500 and 600 parts per million. This is way above the current level – of about 389ppm – and the maximum level considered safe by an increasing number of scientists of 350ppm.

Let’s Count Benefits and Costs of Restricting Coal

It is ironic that someone would travel thousands of miles using transportation which emits large amounts of carbon dioxide to testify about the evils of emitting carbon dioxide. But let’s put that irony aside and for the sake of argument, let’s also put aside the technical issue of whether carbon dioxide emissions pose the threat that Hansen claims. Suppose he’s right. Even so, his position that these particular power plants pose an immediate threat to human life and property doesn’t make sense.

We are not lawyers, but in a commonsense meaning of the terms, coal burning does not pose an “immediate harm to human life and property,” any more than James Hansen could be accused of manslaughter for taking his carbon dioxide emitting trans-Atlantic flight to testify in the case. Even if the underlying climate science were exactly as Hansen describes, it’s still not true that we could point to specific people this year who would die because of any particular coal plant.

Furthermore, even if we broaden the definition and include vague notions of statistical deaths due to the accelerated climate change, then by consistency we would have to quantify the “immediate harm to human life and property” coming from rising energy prices. The more “immediate” the criterion, the worse things will be for the climate activists, because expensive energy hurts now, whereas the vast bulk of avoided climate damages of Hansen’s computer models don’t accrue until decades down the road.

Lest there be any doubt that Hansen’s aggressive climate objectives would impose economic pain, consider this quote from later in the Guardian article:

[Hansen] is scathing about discussions at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen last year and Cancún, which reaches its climax today, over agreeing emissions targets, based on a cap-and-trade system. “Cap-and-trade with offsets will not work. Because by definition they are trying to trick you. By saying you can put a cap on but it’s not going to make energy much more expensive – if it doesn’t make energy much more expensive it’s not going to be effective.”

If we are going to tout the benefits of carbon mitigation strategies (i.e. restricting the use of coal and other fossil fuels), then we should also discuss the costs. Ironically, if we look at the estimates put out by the IPCC itself—which is supposed to represent the “scientific consensus” on climate change—then the case for aggressive government action falls apart.

Thinking on the Margin

Hansen displays more ignorance when he suggests that failure to implement curbs on emissions will hurt a country economically:

“What I realised is that the most important thing is China,” he says, cradling a beer and still wearing his trademark cowboy-style wide-rimmed hat. “They have shot past the US as the biggest emitter by far and they are going to go higher still. It’s to their advantage to put a price on carbon. They stand to suffer more from climate change than most places. They have air and water pollution which is horrendous. They don’t want to follow the path of the US where the country becomes addicted to fossil fuel and has to protect the supply lines around the world. They have taken the right first step. They are now the number one producer of solar cells, wind and nuclear power.”

…

He is less positive about his own country. He points to the legal battle in the US in 2007 over tough new car emission restrictions which demonstrated the susceptibility of federal government to lobbying by big business he says. “The government stood in court alongside the automakers resisting improved vehicle energy efficiency. It’s not democracy the way it was intended to be. It’s money democracy where $1 is what counts rather than one vote.” If the US does not start weaning itself off fossil fuels soon, he believes the country is “headed for second- or third-grade status in decades to come”. [Bold added.]

Again, for the sake of argument, let’s concede that the environmental damage wrought by continued fossil fuel emissions is just as dire as Hansen says. Even so, an individual country prospers to the extent that it can avoid cutting back its own emissions, while other emitters go through the painful withdrawal. Even if we take Hansen’s view of fossil fuels at face value, the situation would be analogous to one baseball team’s players being allowed to use steroids, while every other team had to renounce them. That wouldn’t spell doom for the team in question; they would gain a tremendous advantage over their rivals.

Hansen, however, seems to want it both ways in the quotation above. He has already admitted that reducing emissions to the extent he deems necessary, will require painful increases in energy prices. Therefore, if China does the “responsible” (according to Hansen) thing and weans itself of fossil fuels, while the U.S. “foolishly” (according to Hansen) continues with the status quo, then the U.S. will gain economically relative to China. U.S. businesses and consumers will have access to cheaper energy than their Chinese counterparts, while the possible climatic impacts would not discriminate on the basis of the emitter nation(s).

Even if the alarmists like Hansen are perfectly correct in their warnings, global climate change is a global problem. For a given level of global emissions, the impact on China from climate change will be the same, whether the emissions come from China or from the U.S.

On the other hand, the costs of restraining emissions largely fall on the individual countries imposing them. It is this asymmetry that makes international emission negotiations so difficult. If China or European countries scale back their emissions, they will have to “share” the (theoretical) climate benefits with everybody on Earth, whereas their own people will bear the lion’s share of the sacrifice.

Now it’s certainly true that this outcome could be construed as grossly unfair, from Hansen’s point of view. But if he is going to jet around the world in a carbon-dioxide emitting plane, lecturing governments on how they need to revamp their citizens’ energy system, he should at least understand the very basics of climate change economics. If Hansen wants to appeal to Americans’ sense of fairness or responsibility, his warnings would at least be coherent. But it makes no sense to tell Americans, “We need to seriously raise energy prices, lest we fall behind China economically.”

Source: Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/environment/emissions/carbon/index.html

Shift in Countries Generating Carbon Dioxide Emissions

In 1990, the developed countries produced 65 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Currently, those countries are producing less than 43 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. During that period, the developed countries have cut their emissions by 10 percent while the developing countries have more than doubled their carbon dioxide emissions.[vii] Developing nations were not affected by the recession as much as developed nations, and while making improvements in energy technology, developing nations are still not using energy as efficiently as developed countries.

China’s Dependence on Coal

According to the Energy Information Administration, China consumed 46 percent of the world’s coal consumption in 2009, an amount 3.5 times more than the United States consumed.[viii] In 2009, China became a net importer of coal when it imported 113 thousand more tons than it exported.[ix] While China ranks third to the United States and Russia in coal reserves, it holds only 14 percent of the world’s total.[x] Because of its reserve level and its large coal consumption, China is purchasing coal from Canada, Australia, South Africa, Indonesia, Columbia, and the United States. And, its imports of coal are growing. The United States alone exported over 1,000 times more coal to China In the first 6 months of 2010 (2.9 million metric tons) than it did in the first 6 months of 2009.[xi] These rising imports are to fuel China’s coal consumption that has grown by 180 percent between 2000 and 2009.[xii] This trend of China’s growing coal usage at over 10 percent annually does not bode well for the future of carbon dioxide emissions since China already is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions and coal is the highest in carbon content of the three fossil fuels. 

Source: Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=1&cid=&syid=1980&eyid=2009&unit=TST

In the three years to September 2010, Chinese companies spent $20.96 billion on coal-sector acquisitions overseas.[xiii] For Australia, coal exports to China grew to $5.6 billion in 2009 from $508 million in 2008. Australia’s largest export contract, $60 billion, was signed this summer with China Power International Development to supply coal to power stations in China beginning in 2013. The coal will come from mines in the Australian outback. Colombia, whose coal exports fell in 2008 and 2009 due to the economic recession, is expected to export 10 million tons of coal to Asia this year.[xiv] The United States, who is currently shipping its coal to China via Canadian ports, is contemplating building a port in the state of Washington as China is considering limiting its future growth in coal production to conserve its own coal resources.[xv]

India’s Coal Usage Is Also Growing

India is another emerging customer, whose coal usage is rising and must rely on its growing import market. According to the Energy information Administration, India’s coal consumption has been increasing at 6 percent per year since 2000,[xvi] and its net coal imports in 2009 were 74,000 short tons,[xvii] about two-thirds of China’s level. Although India is endowed with less coal reserves than China, with 7 percent of the world’s total,[xviii] its growing dependence on coal consumption will make it a growing contributor to carbon dioxide emissions.

The Sierra Club, who claims to have blocked 139 proposed coal plants in the United States, is not happy about Asia’s increased coal use. According to David Graham-Caso of the Sierra Club, “We don’t want this coal burned here, but we don’t want it burned at all. This is undermining everything we’ve accomplished.” [xix]

Source: Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=1&cid=&syid=1980&eyid=2009&unit=TST

Conclusion

Regardless of what the developed world does to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the developing countries, particularly China and India, will continue their reliance on coal, the largest fossil fuel emitter of carbon dioxide. And, even if these countries do not have sufficient coal resources of their own, they will import from countries that have the coal resources. Thus, it makes no sense for the American public to be deprived of one of the most efficient sources of electricity: coal. It is time for environmental groups to stop blocking the construction of coal-fired plants in the United States since the coal will only be burned elsewhere.

[i] The Global Project Team was established in 2001 to track global carbon dioxide emissions and to perform research on the earth’s carbon cycle.

[ii]AP News, “Weak world economy reduces carbon pollution”, November 21, 2010, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CARBON_POLLUTION?SITE=FLSTU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Energy Information Administration, U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009: A Retrospective Review, May 5, 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/environment/emissions/carbon/index.html

[v] Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, http://www.eia.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec7_5.pdf and http://www.eia.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_7.pdf

[vi] Energy Information Administration, U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009: A Retrospective Review, May 5, 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/environment/emissions/carbon/index.html

[vii]AP News, “Weak world economy reduces carbon pollution”, November 21, 2010, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CARBON_POLLUTION?SITE=FLSTU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[viii] Energy information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2

[ix] Energy information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=4 and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=3

[x] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, Table 10, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xi] Energy Information Administration, Quarterly Coal Report, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t7p01p1.pdf

[xii] Energy information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2&cid=&syid=2000&eyid=2009&unit=TST

[xiii] The Wall Street Journal, China’s Coal Crisis, November 16, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312504575617810380509880.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[xiv] The New York Times, Nations that Debate Coal Use Export It to Feed China’s Need, November 21, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=4&ref=todayspaper

[xv] The Wall Street Journal, China’s Coal Crisis, November 16, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312504575617810380509880.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[xvi] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2

[xvii] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=4 and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=3#

[xviii] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, Table 10, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xix] The New York Times, Nations that Debate Coal Use Export It to Feed China’s Need, November 21, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=4&ref=todayspaper