RZD International to help build rail line to one of the world’s largest coal deposits

 

News article: RZD International to help build rail line to one of the world’s largest coal deposits

Under the agreement, RZD International – a special purpose engineering company established within the Russian Railways Holding, in partnership with a Russian design institutes, will provide technical consulting services on the implementation of the Tavantolgoi–Dzunbayan railway construction project, as well as recommendations on the organisation of construction and the organisation of train movement along the 414km-long line.

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
We as a country and dark on coal and it provides us all with so much revenue.  We talk about stopping coal projects whilst other countries are opening world sized mines for coal.

RZD International to help build rail line to one of the world’s largest coal deposits

Sponsored advertisement

  coit Locomotive Driver

Location: Weston,NSW
Did you notice it's coking coal for steel making, not thermal coal for power stations?
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Did you notice it's coking coal for steel making, not thermal coal for power stations?
coit

Not sure it really matters the point is why is it when we try and do the same in Australia there are lots of detractors?
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Did you notice it's coking coal for steel making, not thermal coal for power stations?

Not sure it really matters the point is why is it when we try and do the same in Australia there are lots of detractors?
bevans
Maybe it's because we're the world's largest coal exporter and that we should probably stop doing that before we totally f*ck up our planet's atmosphere by selling so much cheap coal for other countries to burn?
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

Indonesia is in fact the world's largest coal exporter, more than twice the tonnage of all Australian coal exports, and all of it for thermal power plants. Australia (almost entirely Queensland) is the world's largest exporter of coking coal (for steel production), and could no doubt be impacted by the development of large scale coking coal deposits closer to its principle North Asian markets.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
LD,
Our coal is of much higher quality than Indonesia, and many other countries.
So, using our coal is better for the environment than using Indonesian coal.  
If we stop selling our coal, you might as well close the country.   If it wasn't for coal, our balance of payments would be very much in the red.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Indonesia is in fact the world's largest coal exporter
Sulla1
Australia is the world's largest coal exporter by sales value ($47 billion in 2018), over double that of Indonesia ($20 billion).

As for making pedantic distinctions between coking/metallurgical and thermal coal: the carbon content of coking coal ends up in the atmosphere as CO2 just the same.

Our coal is of much higher quality than Indonesia, and many other countries.
So, using our coal is better for the environment than using Indonesian coal.  
Donald
It's better still for the environment if we leave our coal in the ground un-exported. Doing something "just because other countries do it" is a pathetic excuse. If we stop exporting our 'high quality' coal then coal prices will rise and those importing countries will find alternatives to using it.

If we stop selling our coal, you might as well close the country. If it wasn't for coal, our balance of payments would be very much in the red.
Donald
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Indonesia is in fact the world's largest coal exporter
Australia is the world's largest coal exporter by sales value ($47 billion in 2018), over double that of Indonesia ($20 billion).

As for making pedantic distinctions between coking/metallurgical and thermal coal: the carbon content of coking coal ends up in the atmosphere as CO2 just the same.

Our coal is of much higher quality than Indonesia, and many other countries.
So, using our coal is better for the environment than using Indonesian coal.  
It's better still for the environment if we leave our coal in the ground un-exported. Doing something "just because other countries do it" is a pathetic excuse. If we stop exporting our 'high quality' coal then coal prices will rise and those importing countries will find alternatives to using it.

If we stop selling our coal, you might as well close the country. If it wasn't for coal, our balance of payments would be very much in the red.
LancedDendrite
1) The value of our coal is nearly double that of Indo because its mostly coking coal which is not easily replaced.

2) Countries that are still required to burn coal for power because like Australia they have few other viable alternatives are actually switching to burning higher grade coal to reduce their foot print or as in the case of the Netherlands replacing older coal power stations with new because they burn less coal / MW produced and thus doing what they can to reduce.

3) Price is not the only factor, otherwise Vic would be a major coal exporter.

4) 2-3B people reliant on coal for energy can not just change to something over night else because its no longer fashionable, even in Australia the closure of our coal power stations at end of life is a period exceeding 25 years.

5) We tried the holier than thou approach with nuclear power and uranium mining, limiting supply because nuclear power is "evil". Yep, that stopped the world building nuclear power stations, not!
  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

Indonesia is in fact the world's largest coal exporter
Australia is the world's largest coal exporter by sales value ($47 billion in 2018), over double that of Indonesia ($20 billion).

As for making pedantic distinctions between coking/metallurgical and thermal coal: the carbon content of coking coal ends up in the atmosphere as CO2 just the same.

Our coal is of much higher quality than Indonesia, and many other countries.
So, using our coal is better for the environment than using Indonesian coal.  
It's better still for the environment if we leave our coal in the ground un-exported. Doing something "just because other countries do it" is a pathetic excuse. If we stop exporting our 'high quality' coal then coal prices will rise and those importing countries will find alternatives to using it.

If we stop selling our coal, you might as well close the country. If it wasn't for coal, our balance of payments would be very much in the red.
LancedDendrite
It's hardly being pedantic separating coking coal and thermal coal in this arguement. The carbon in coking coal mostly ends up in the steel, that's the point of steel making - steel is an alloy or iron and carbon. You cannot make steel without carbon, and unless you want to burn forests for charcoal (which the Romans did, the last time CO2 and other air pollutants spiked in human history), the long term future for steel production requires coking coal, the alternatives are very limited.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
It's hardly being pedantic separating coking coal and thermal coal in this argument. The carbon in coking coal mostly ends up in the steel, that's the point of steel making - steel is an alloy or iron and carbon. You cannot make steel without carbon, and unless you want to burn forests for charcoal (which the Romans did, the last time CO2 and other air pollutants spiked in human history), the long term future for steel production requires coking coal, the alternatives are very limited.
Sulla1
For a bloke who claims to know a lot about coal you sure don't seem to understand what happens to the coal that goes into a blast furnace. 85-90% of the coking coal is used as coke to reduce iron ore, producing pig iron and... CO2. Basic Oxygen Steelmaking (the predominant steel production process) uses oxygen to react with much of the carbon in the pig iron, producing... more CO2. And guess what you use to heat up the coking process to turn all that coking coal into the coke that those processes use?

Coal-free steelmaking is very feasible. Direct Reduced Iron (using clean hydrogen as the reducing agent) for pig iron/liquid steel production. Electric arc furnaces (already responsible for 40% of steel production in 2016) handle the actual steelmaking.

Using coking coal is not an immutable choice. Neither is burning coal for electricity production.
  Big J Deputy Commissioner

Location: In Paradise
It's hardly being pedantic separating coking coal and thermal coal in this argument. The carbon in coking coal mostly ends up in the steel, that's the point of steel making - steel is an alloy or iron and carbon. You cannot make steel without carbon, and unless you want to burn forests for charcoal (which the Romans did, the last time CO2 and other air pollutants spiked in human history), the long term future for steel production requires coking coal, the alternatives are very limited.
For a bloke who claims to know a lot about coal you sure don't seem to understand what happens to the coal that goes into a blast furnace. 85-90% of the coking coal is used as coke to reduce iron ore, producing pig iron and... CO2. Basic Oxygen Steelmaking (the predominant steel production process) uses oxygen to react with much of the carbon in the pig iron, producing... more CO2. And guess what you use to heat up the coking process to turn all that coking coal into the coke that those processes use?

Coal-free steelmaking is very feasible. Direct Reduced Iron (using clean hydrogen as the reducing agent) for pig iron/liquid steel production. Electric arc furnaces (already responsible for 40% of steel production in 2016) handle the actual steelmaking.

Using coking coal is not an immutable choice. Neither is burning coal for electricity production.
LancedDendrite
For bloke that claims that CO2 is important and that burning dollars makes Australia worse than Indonesia then I say you are wrong.

Coal dollar values does not equal CO2 emissions. The raw fact is, Indonesia is exports more coal by tonnes than Australia.

While I understand and agree with your position, on the fact we cannot continue to allow air pollution to grow (forget saying CO2, or you will get the CO2 deniers), don't make crap statements that undermine credibility in the debate.

Australia is the 2nd biggest exporter, full stop. That is a worry for our economy in the medium term.

The real challenge is the consumption of coal. What is your position on China that almost consumes as much coal as the rest of the world?

What do you think they should do?

Do you think that China is going to stop its economic growth? Do you think the Chinese Government hell bent to stay in power will put anything at risk that undermines that stability? So you think despite that China's investment in renewables and new tech will walk away from coal in the next 20 years? It will change the mix, but coal will be there, meaning less imports and more domestic consumption of Chinese coal.

I love utopia, but until that demand changes, are you saying we should stop exporting with a proper transition and hurt our economy, before other countries agree to do so?

Well you you might say, hey someone needs to lead. Well you saw that on a small scale with our car industry where we went, ok stop subsidising the car makers over a decade. Guess what, they closed and those former employees went roughly a third re-employed, a third underemployed and a third unemployed/retired. Not a great result for our economy,when part suppliers that previously exported as well, shut up shop.

At this stage no one has provided a real transitional plan to go off the carbon economy to the green economy, apart from platitudes and idealism.

We need to keep exporting, until governments and industry make some real plans. Unfortunately we will not see that until either there are riots or they get swept out of power by a party with a plan to do so. At this stage I do not see Australians doing this for another decade. We react when there is a real crisis.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
It's hardly being pedantic separating coking coal and thermal coal in this argument. The carbon in coking coal mostly ends up in the steel, that's the point of steel making - steel is an alloy or iron and carbon. You cannot make steel without carbon, and unless you want to burn forests for charcoal (which the Romans did, the last time CO2 and other air pollutants spiked in human history), the long term future for steel production requires coking coal, the alternatives are very limited.
For a bloke who claims to know a lot about coal you sure don't seem to understand what happens to the coal that goes into a blast furnace. 85-90% of the coking coal is used as coke to reduce iron ore, producing pig iron and... CO2. Basic Oxygen Steelmaking (the predominant steel production process) uses oxygen to react with much of the carbon in the pig iron, producing... more CO2. And guess what you use to heat up the coking process to turn all that coking coal into the coke that those processes use?

Coal-free steelmaking is very feasible. Direct Reduced Iron (using clean hydrogen as the reducing agent) for pig iron/liquid steel production. Electric arc furnaces (already responsible for 40% of steel production in 2016) handle the actual steelmaking.

Using coking coal is not an immutable choice. Neither is burning coal for electricity production.
LancedDendrite
the hydrogen option is still at very early stages and along way from roll out so blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces will be around for many many years to come just like coal fired power stations so its currently NOT a "immutable choice" for now.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
At this stage no one has provided a real transitional plan to go off the carbon economy to the green economy, apart from platitudes and idealism.
Big J
What are your criteria to turn an 'idealistic, platitude-filled' imaginary plan into a real one?
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
the hydrogen option is still at very early stages and along way from roll out so blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces will be around for many many years to come just like coal fired power stations so its currently NOT a "immutable choice" for now.
RTT_Rules
Perhaps you should pop over the fence to Abu Dhabi and tell Emirates Steel to their faces that their 3.2 million tonnes per annum capacity Direct Reduced Iron production plant doesn't exist. It's gas-fired but converting to hydrogen firing isn't a massive engineering challenge. The Swedes are building such a plant as we speak, for instance. We're not exactly talking about putting a man on Mars here or converting Victoria's whole rail network to Satan's Gauge here.
  Big J Deputy Commissioner

Location: In Paradise
At this stage no one has provided a real transitional plan to go off the carbon economy to the green economy, apart from platitudes and idealism.
What are your criteria to turn an 'idealistic, platitude-filled' imaginary plan into a real one?
LancedDendrite
Point to me which real world economy that has done this successfully?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
the hydrogen option is still at very early stages and along way from roll out so blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces will be around for many many years to come just like coal fired power stations so its currently NOT a "immutable choice" for now.
Perhaps you should pop over the fence to Abu Dhabi and tell Emirates Steel to their faces that their 3.2 million tonnes per annum capacity Direct Reduced Iron production plant doesn't exist. It's gas-fired but converting to hydrogen firing isn't a massive engineering challenge. The Swedes are building such a plant as we speak, for instance. We're not exactly talking about putting a man on Mars here or converting Victoria's whole rail network to Satan's Gauge here.
LancedDendrite
As I said we are still at the very early stages of the technology and also noting that the UAE doesn't have coal so switching to domestic sources resources where possible in our govt objectives.  Q, where does the H2 come from and have you done the CO2 mass balance on this?

Agree its not overly complex, but not always as straight forward as made out. Some of the crap going on in the aluminium industry right now with RTA's Elysis project for example.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
At this stage no one has provided a real transitional plan to go off the carbon economy to the green economy, apart from platitudes and idealism.
What are your criteria to turn an 'idealistic, platitude-filled' imaginary plan into a real one?
Point to me which real world economy that has done this successfully?
Big J
The one I "llke" is when countries which have had say mostly hydro power for decades and in some cases or many, there were actual protests at the time of installing those hydro resources and now they are used as show pieces for transition to RE!

Take Australia for example
- We all remember the Franklin Dam protests, yet had it been built Tas's limited gas turbine power generation would not exist and Tas would be 100% RE.

- We all remember the ongoing debate of Tassie's Pedder, built before I as born but the ongoing 60min reports over the years about potentially draining back to original levels, even Prince Charles has weighed in and says it should be changed back. Yet to do so would increase Tassie's dependence on gas.

- Likewise the Pieman scheme in Tas

- Likewise the ongoing debate on the Env impact of the Snowy system.

- Overseas we have Costa Rica, beautiful hydro dams in a rain forest, the 3 Gorges Dam in China, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Iceland........all sold as RE on the world stage as the success of these countries reducing or eliminating their dependence on fossil fuels for which the evil fossil fuel dependent countries like Australia should follow.

Could you imagine trying to build any of the hydro dams in Tas and Snowy schemes today? The hydro benchmark of all things RE today, but only if it already exists and you'd be lucky if they are not trying secretly drain it.
  Trans-Siberian Station Master

Location: Krasnoyarsk, Siberia
Indonesia is in fact the world's largest coal exporter
Australia is the world's largest coal exporter by sales value ($47 billion in 2018), over double that of Indonesia ($20 billion).

As for making pedantic distinctions between coking/metallurgical and thermal coal: the carbon content of coking coal ends up in the atmosphere as CO2 just the same.

Our coal is of much higher quality than Indonesia, and many other countries.
So, using our coal is better for the environment than using Indonesian coal.  
It's better still for the environment if we leave our coal in the ground un-exported. Doing something "just because other countries do it" is a pathetic excuse. If we stop exporting our 'high quality' coal then coal prices will rise and those importing countries will find alternatives to using it.

If we stop selling our coal, you might as well close the country. If it wasn't for coal, our balance of payments would be very much in the red.
1) The value of our coal is nearly double that of Indo because its mostly coking coal which is not easily replaced.

2) Countries that are still required to burn coal for power because like Australia they have few other viable alternatives are actually switching to burning higher grade coal to reduce their foot print or as in the case of the Netherlands replacing older coal power stations with new because they burn less coal / MW produced and thus doing what they can to reduce.

3) Price is not the only factor, otherwise Vic would be a major coal exporter.

4) 2-3B people reliant on coal for energy can not just change to something over night else because its no longer fashionable, even in Australia the closure of our coal power stations at end of life is a period exceeding 25 years.

5) We tried the holier than thou approach with nuclear power and uranium mining, limiting supply because nuclear power is "evil". Yep, that stopped the world building nuclear power stations, not!
RTT_Rules

"2) Countries that are still required to burn coal for power because like Australia they have few other viable alternatives are actually switching to burning higher grade coal to reduce their foot print or as in the case of the Netherlands replacing older coal power stations with new because they burn less coal / MW produced and thus doing what they can to reduce."


Stuff Youse All...I'm calling out the "N-word" and switching from Coal to Nuclear Energy - using Thorium Reactors...

Thorium -
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

Thorium could power the next generation of nuclear reactors -
Read more: [color=#003399]https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145535-thorium-could-power-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/#ixzz67gKahzeb[/color]
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
At this stage no one has provided a real transitional plan to go off the carbon economy to the green economy, apart from platitudes and idealism.
What are your criteria to turn an 'idealistic, platitude-filled' imaginary plan into a real one?
Point to me which real world economy that has done this successfully?
Big J
How very Australian of you to refuse to do consider doing anything remotely progressive until someone else has shown you how to do it.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: