From IEA (correction – all sources are International Energy Agency):
First, up to 2020:
Source: IEA, accessed 11/26/2023.
Then, 2021-2023, from the IEA Coal Update (July 2023):
Source: EIA (July 2023).
From the July report.
…overall global coal demand is expected to remain flat at around 8 388 Mt (+0.4%) in 2023. Whether coal demand in 2023 grows or declines, will depend on weather conditions and on the economies of large coal consuming nations.
After three very particular years, with the Covid-19-induced shock in 2020, the strong post-pandemic recovery in 2021, and the first truly global energy crisis after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, markets returned to more recognisable patterns in 2023:
So coal demand is up relative to 2020 (a year of the pandemic), but flat going into 2023, at least according to the forecast. What the first figure demonstrates is that overall coal consumption has been trending down. Moreover, demand is forecast to be flat in 2024.
Little CoRev was enraged that you looked at US coal consumption. Why? Because little CoRev got caught lying about this. So little CoRev decided he meant global coal consumption and threw out a lot of disinformation about that. I tried to counter each and every one of his distortions but better to do this all at once as you have done.
Of course this will not stop CoRev from lying and changing the subject. That is what he do.
FYI – under the other thread CoRev just remanded me that the source he misrepresented is a biased source and that we should trust EIA over the sources he has relied on.
Of course when he reads this post – little CoRev will flip flop and accuse the good folks at EIA of being Biden Communists!
Your source looks to be IEA (International Energy Agency) rather than EIA (Energy Information Administration) as currently cited.
Anonymous: Yes! I’ve corrected. Thanks.
Correctly citing data sources is so hard!? BTW, the 2nd IEA figure confirms my contention that coal use has been rising (world-wide). Projections are not data.
BTW, real data as provided by The World in Data: https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/World-Electricity-1700996876.7661.jpg?fit=1244%2C741&ssl=1 refutes the IEA 1st figure of total coal use. You’ve already admitted that IEA is probably biased. “While IEA projections (displayed in this post) do exhibit bias, Liao et al. (2016) show that up to that date, most of the bias was due to upwardly biased GDP forecasts, which are a key input into the projections.”
BTW, I think this is an important statement in the Liao paper: ” Ignoring the catch-up effect of acquiring rapid economic growth in developing countries such as China will lead to huge mistake in predicting global energy demand.” This importance is critical in your analysis by ignoring China and India in coal consumption and focusing on the US, will lead to huge mistake in predicting global energy demand.
Admitting a source is biased, and that bias know since at least 2016 (Liao), and then using this data as a refutation when it actually shows confirmation (the 2nd IEA figure) appears to be a confirmation of personal bias, or just plain cognitive dissonance.
This example would be interesting if/when presented to your class.
I’m waiting for you apology for misrepresenting my comment.
“Projections are not data.”
Except under the original post some stupid jerk named CoRev kept abusing projections in lieu of historical data. Dude – you are the most two faced liar in the history of time.
‘I think this is an important statement in the Liao paper’
I doubt you read that paper. I know you did not understand it. BTW – did Mary Rosh help with that cherry picking?
Ahhh – little CoRev wants an apology. OK – we are all so sorry that you are the dumbest and most dishonest troll ever.
World coal consumption is up.
https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal-demand-set-to-remain-at-record-levels-in-2023
And looking at the thread where Corev commented, I don’t see him referring to US coal. And the context above was global petroluem production. So it would seem like global production/consumption is more relevant than a regional market. And petroleum (and coal) are rather easily traded (not like natural gas or electricity), so there is a global supply/demand situation.
In any case, since it’s ambiguous , it would be more gracious to assume global.
P.s. Fereidun Fesharaki refers to the “Golden Age of Coal”, riffing on IEA’s famous “Golden Age of Gas”. And it’s amazing how many people in the US, are not aware of record global coal production.
“After three turbulent years marked by the Covid-19 shock in 2020, the strong post-pandemic rebound in 2021 and the turmoil caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, coal markets have so far returned to more predictable and stable patterns in 2023.”
Go back to 2014 dumbass. I guess the morons like you would be defending little CoRev.
Addendum: Or at a minimum, you ought to have referred to both global and US markets and discussed the two.
As it is, your previous post looks like a gotcha criticism, callout thread. And one where you were not aware of the global trend (before just looking it up).
Hey dumbass – Dr. Chinn has. Try paying attention – geesh.
Fascinating. Everyone besides fossil fuel industry lobbyists knows that coal – especially – is a terrible energy source with massive external costs. Both China (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/numbers-behind-chinas-renewable-energy-boom-2023-11-15/ ) and India (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/india-investment-renewables-green-energy/ ) are increasing their investment in renewable energy.
Let’s remember how this discussion got statred. CoRev made some claims – mostly mistaken – while doing his usual school yard taunting of people who want to avert climate disaster. The taunt is CoRev’s substance, not the assertion of fact. That’s why he is willing to misstate the facts. He carries on about how he “meant” a different set of facts and insists we are to blame for not guessing which facts he “meant” when he didn’t really mean any particularfacts; he didn base his claim on particular facts. He pretended to a set of facts so that he could issue his school yard taunts.
He let slip his actual goal in comments to the prior post when he assured us that there are people reading here who will take his verbal frenzy to heart and ignore actual facts. CoRev is in the tired old business of science denial. In that line of work, casting doubt on the truth is the core of the effort. So what if the actual facts show one’s position to be utter baloney? Most people don’t rely on primary sources for information. Most people rely on others for their understanding of how the world works. CoRev wants to make sure some of those people believe that climate science is bunk, never mind the science.
CoRev’s intended audience is people who are influenced by school yard taunting. We know taunting works; faux news and Trump are where they are because taunting works. (Speaking of which, where’s Johnny?)
For those who want to look beyond bad-faith nonsense, here’s a look at some of the financial issues raised by climate-change-induced damage:
https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/the-investment-climate/
The gist is that we are relying on financial market models to think about climate risk, financial markets to manage it, when financial models and markets are not equipped for the job. This is much more important than anything CoRev has to say, the very kind of thing CoRev’s nonsense is meant to keep us from thinking about.
‘CoRev’s intended audience is people who are influenced by school yard taunting.’
Exhibit – Anonymous. But he’s been a MAGA troll for a while.
Off topic, but pretty important –
South Korea, Japan and China prepare to restart summit meetings after a 4-year pause:
https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/15067281
The pause was probably, at least initially, due to Covid. The article speculates that the Biden/Xi meeting makes the resumption of trilateral meetings possible.
There have been other indications, aside from the Biden/Xi meeting, that Xi is having second thoughts about his international position. One gauge of his seriousness is his behavior regarding Taiwan.
As noted in an earlier comment (which Johnny tried to obscure with links and word salad) the “better relations with China” candidates for Taiwan’s presidency have failed to join forces, leaving the path fairly clear for the re-election of President Tsai. She favors maintaining what she has called the “status quo” between China and Taiwan – a status quote which assures freedom and democracy for Taiwanese. Tsai has said regarding the so called 1992 Consensus that “no such consensus exists” and that the idea of the Consensus promotes the “One China Policy” which she and her party oppose.
As I noted a while back, China has said regarding the election, set for January 13, that it represents a choice between peace and war. One of our regulars – Johnny or ltr, can’t remember which – insisted that was not the case and demanded evidence. Here ya go, straight from the government’s own website. Chen Binhua (spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of China’s State Council) said that:
“Currently, Taiwan is facing the choice of two paths, peace and war, prosperity and decline, and two prospects. We hope that Taiwan compatriots will stick to their national interests, adhere to the “1992 Consensus”, oppose “Taiwan independence”…”
http://www.gwytb.gov.cn/xwdt/xwfb/wyly/202311/t20231124_12583827.htm
(through Google translate)
The January election and preparations for the Summit seem likely to overlap. Intimidation or reconcilliation? Let’s see.