The imminent reality of peak oil production should be clear to all by now.
Now some very serious people are suggesting that there is a lot less accessible coal out there than most folks believe. If we are nearing peak coal (and peak oil), then we would need to embrace the rapid transition to a clean energy economy almost as urgently as we need to embrace it to avoid destroying the climate.
Let’s start with the U.S. Geological Survey’s stunning 131-page analysis from December, “Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserves in the Gillette Coalfield, Powder River Basin, Wyoming” [big PDF]:
The Gillette coalfield, within the Powder River Basin in east-central Wyoming, is the most prolific coalfield in the United States. In 2006, production from the coalfield totaled over 431 million short tons of coal, which represented over 37 percent of the Nation’s total yearly production.
The “total original coal resource in the Gillette coalfield” without applying any restrictions, “was calculated to be 201 billion short tons.” Then USGS subtracts out the inaccessible coal, and then mining and processing losses, which leaves 77 billion tons, and finally:
Coal reserves are the portion of the recoverable coal that can be mined, processed, and marketed at a profit at the time of the economic evaluation. With a discounted cash flow at 8 percent rate of return, the coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is 10.1 billion short tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total) for the 6 coal beds evaluated.
Ouch! And this analysis was done at a time of soaring coal prices.
The National Research Council’s Committee on Coal Research, Technology, and Resource Assessments to Inform Energy Policy wrote in a 2007 report:
Present estimates of coal reserves are based upon methods that have not been reviewed or revised since their inception in 1974, and many of the input data were compiled in the early 1970s. Recent programs to assess reserves in limited areas using updated methods indicate that only a small fraction of previously estimated reserves are economically recoverable.
The NRC, however, decided not to seriously downgrade the very optimistic estimates still out there, certainly not by as much as the 2008 USGS report suggests may be warranted. Its press release states:
It is clear that there is enough coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030, and probably enough for 100 years, the committee said. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply for the next 250 years.
The “probably enough” claim does not appear to be based on any rigorous analysis, and the Committee itself called for a major 10-year assessment effort.
The group Clean Energy Action will be coming out soon with a mine-by-mine assessment that has been reported to conclude we have far less than a 100-year supply, perhaps as little as 10 to 20 years. I will blog on that when it hits the streets.
The Energy Watch Group, an independent group of scientist who investigate energy issues initiated by a German member of parliament, published a 2007 study [PDF] that found the data on coal reserves around the country are very poor, but estimates appear to dropping, in some cases sharply:
The timeline analyses of data performed here suggest that on a global level the statistics overestimate the reserves and the resources. In the global sum both reserves and resources have been downgraded over the past two decades, in some cases drastically.
The most dramatic example of unexplained changes in data is the downgrading of the proven German hard coal reserves by 99 percent (!) from 23 billion tons to 0.183 billion tons in 2004. The responsible German administration1 did not publish any explanation, and thus the downgrading went unnoticed in spite of the intensive public debate of the future of coal production in Germany. The World Energy Council briefly notes in its “2004 Survey of Energy Resources”: “Earlier assessments of German coal reserves (e.g. end-1996 and end-1999) contained large amounts of speculative resources which are no longer taken into account”. Thus, large reserves formerly seen as proven have been reassessed as being speculative.
Also the German lignite reserves have been downgraded drastically, which is noteworthy because Germany is the largest lignite producer world-wide.
Poland has downgraded its hard coal reserves by 50 percent compared to 1997 and has downgraded its lignite and subbituminous coal reserves in two steps since 1997 to zero.
The Group has equally pessimistic conclusions about American coal reserves:
The USA, being the second largest producer, have already passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming more than compensated for this decline in terms of volume and—according to its stated reserves—this trend can continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due to the lower energy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy has already peaked 5 years ago—it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed. Also specific productivity per miner is declining since about 2000.
Right now, I’m not certain there is enough hard data to draw a firm conclusion on this issue. Also, the amount of economically recoverable coal in this country and around the world clearly depends on the price of coal, which, until recently, had been soaring.
If the nations of the world get serious about avoiding catastrophic global warming, then we will either need to start reducing global coal-use pretty sharply starting around 2020 (if your target is 450 ppm) or immediately (if your target is 350 ppm). Such sharp reductions, which must begin before coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to be practical and affordable on a large scale (see here), would inevitably lead to sharp declines in the price of coal.
Of course, if coal and oil are near peak production levels, then we urgently need to jumpstart the transition to a clean energy economy to replace those fossil fuels—almost as fast as that urgent transition is needed to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. And if coal is near peak production levels, then CCS is obviously a much less useful and scalable climate solution.
Part 2 will look at the recent work of Caltech’s David Rutledge on peak coal and its implication for greenhouse gas stabilization efforts.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Comments
View as Threaded
Bart Anderson Posted 10:55 am
07 Jan 2009
As one researches "peak coal," it is astonishing to find how little good data and analysis exist.
Amazing, when one realizes how important this issue is - in terms of both climate change and energy.
BTW, Richard Heinberg has been writing long essays on peak coal, which I believe will be incorporated in an upcoming book. You can see online versions at
http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/archived/2008
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:19 pm
07 Jan 2009
There really is probably 200 years of coal in the US, from a geologic point of view. The question is how much can be extracted at reasonable cost? Pick a number, 20 or 50 years sounds OK to me because we simply cannot know that.
Then as I reflect on the topic, "Peak Anything" in this context means that we'll run out of traditional fuels and have to look for new ones. Isn't that a good thing? Sustainability?
Onward through the fog
Permalink
LPS Posted 1:31 pm
07 Jan 2009
The arguments advanced by EWG and David Rutledge, among others, are compelling.
Permalink
Sharon Astyk Posted 11:01 pm
07 Jan 2009
To me, one of the major issues is that any "shift to another finite resource" strategy is precisely the strategy offered by the baby boomer generation to Gen Xers like me - that is, push the problem of on one's posterity. In 1979, Carter identified Global Warming as a major issue and there was a solid body of research suggesting that we'd hit resource limits within a few decades - and despite the hard work of many boomers to avoid it, the solution we got was "stick the problem with another generation."
Personally, I decline to enact that solution again - to deliver to our children a warmer, poorer world based on the assumption that resource limits shouldn't be considered until we bang hard against them. The idea that one's posterity should endure the hardships the parents are unwilling to endure is one that has to go - simply because it is morally evil.
Sharon
Sharon, with dirt under her fingernails.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 2:01 am
08 Jan 2009
Much of the 200 year coal reserve they are talking about in the Eastern Coal fields is located under the water table. The mining of this coal will require deep or what we call shaft mines. These mines are gassy or what we call hot mines and the danger from methane gas explosions is always present in this type of mining. The cost is prohibitive for this type of mining when the price of a ton of coal drops below $65-$70 s ton. This is the reason Mountain Top Removal has become the popular way of mining for the Coal Corporations.
Experiments have been done in Europe on Coal degasification a process similar to the fracturing of the strata process used for Natural Gas Wells. Liquid Nitrogen is introduced into the coal seam and an explosion cracks the coal seam allowing the Methane Gas to flow into pockets. When the gas is drawn off you have a methane gas free mine. The process may take several years but you have the added advantage of selling the gas from the degasifying process. The Natural Gas Pipe line infrastructure is already in place for transporting the gas to market. Of course the U.S. Coal Corporations are doing nothing in this regard so when the easy coal is gone miners will have to work in dangerous gassy mines while the methane is drawn out through the ventilation system being wasted as a fuel source as it goes into the environment in its raw unburned form.
Our only hope is for a cheap alternative to coal that will make coal even more cost prohibitive to mine. They will mine every last available lump of coal if there is any margin of profit at all because coal reserves are now Taxed in Kentucky and some other states. You pay for the coal you have in reserve even if you do not mine it. With George Bush's midnight rule changes on Mountain Top Removal the coal corporations will have even more incentive over the next 20 years to do Mountain Top Removal Mining.
Our current geological activity in the region is not creating any more Mountain Peaks so I can say with absolute authority we have hit Peak Peaks in E. Kentucky and W. Virginia. Demand has over taken supply since they raped the 1977 Surface Mine Act and Mountain Top Removal has become the predominant type of strip mining in Appalachia. I can definitely say we have hit Peak Peaks and we currently are on the downward side of Peak supply. spiraling down the peak graph as we use up more and more mountain peaks, valleys and fresh water streams.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Ted Nace Posted 5:23 am
08 Jan 2009
Help build CoalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.
Permalink
Darrell Posted 5:42 am
08 Jan 2009
Permalink
flvtoo Posted 11:51 pm
03 Jun 2009
Permalink