Part 1 noted that the U.S. Geological Survey’s stunning December report found
The coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is 10.1 billion short tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total).
Although the report didn’t get much media attention, it was a shocker because the Gillette field, within Wyoming’s Powder River Basin “is the most prolific coalfield in the United States” and in 2006 provided “over 37 percent of the Nation’s total yearly production.”
Now Clean Energy Action has issued a new report, Coal: Cheap and Abundant ... Or is it? that goes beyond the analysis in the USGS study and concludes:
It appears that rather than having a “200 year supply of coal,” the United States has a much shorter planning horizon for moving beyond coalfired power plants. Depending on the resolution of geologic, economic, legal and transportation constraints facing future coal mine expansion, the planning horizon for moving beyond coal could be as short as 20-30 years.
A top priority of Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the Obama administration must be a detailed mine-by-mine analysis to resolve the issue of the U.S. coal resource. The imminent reality of peak oil production should be clear to all by now (see here). If we are running short of coal, the urgency of jumpstarting the transition to a clean energy economy is all the greater—and the possibility that coal with carbon capture and storage will be a major contributor to greenhouse gas reductions would be greatly diminished.
Clean Energy Action notes:
The United States uses about 1.1 billion tons of coal a year with over 450 million tons of that coal coming from Wyoming. In 2007, the combined production of the next top six producing coal states (West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Montana, Texas and Colorado) was approximately equal to the coal produced in Wyoming, the top state.
In West Virginia, we are already destroying 20 tons of mountain to get one ton of coal—up from 10 tons only a short time ago. The CEA report warns Wyoming mines are facing a similar loss of productivity:
The major mines in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming (e.g. the “Fort Knox” of U.S. coal) have less than a 20 year life span, and coal mines in other parts of the United States are also likely to be playing out in the next 20 years. Future coal mine expansions are highly uncertain as these expansions will face very serious geologic, economic, legal and transportation constraints. Importantly, the federal government owns essentially all of the coal in the western United States, and future coal mine expansions in western states will have to comply with a host of federal laws.
As noted in Part 1, the Energy Watch Group, an independent group of scientist who investigate energy issues initiated by a German member of parliament, published a 2007 study that found
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.
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, see here) or immediately (if your target is 350 ppm, see here). 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.
But if we are going to see peak coal any time in the next few decades, then, as noted, the entire coal with carbon capture and storage (aka “clean coal”) effort will be fruitless.
Part 3 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 Flat
spaceshaper Posted 5:56 am
12 Feb 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 6:25 am
12 Feb 2009
We are a period in time with this new administration where we can get Mountain Top Removal Stopped.
You will not only save the Mountains, Valleys and streams of southern Appalachia you will increase the price of coal per ton by driving the Eastern Coal Corporations underground where it is far more expensive to mine. All alternative energy sources are more expensive at present than coal. I feel with the new push for alternative energy especially the money earmarked for research and development of alternative fuels in the economic recovery plan, economy of scale will drive the prices lower for solar and wind. We need to give the alternatives the further advantage by making coal more expensive to mine.
Most of the rules and regulation changes needed to stop MTR will simply be repealing the rule and reg changes made to The Surface Mine and Reclamation Act of 1977 and the rule and reg changes he made to EPA especially the ones that pertain to the clean water act and the preservation of clear water streams. George Bush made the most of these changes over his 8 years reign of environmental terror. The 1977 Surface Mine Act called for putting the mountains back on the original contour. Blowing the tops of mountains off and pushing them over into valleys and covering up streams was not allowed.
By the way MTR is just a form of strip mining of which conventional strip mining in deciduous mountain forest is hideous and destructive enough in and of itself. MTR is what we call miser strip mining because the coal corporations are so damn cheap they don't even want to put the overburden back on the original contour and spray a little weed mix on it. If they are allowed to conventional strip they will if forced to because this is still cheaper than conventional underground mining. An argument could be made for stopping all stripping of coal in deciduous forest mountain lands. It is almost as environmentally destructive as MTR. They may call putting the overburden back in the hole, striking it off flat and spraying a little weed mix on it reclamation out in the Powder River Basin plains area. Its predominately flat or gentle rolling hills grass land when they start and looks almost the same when they flatten it back out and put some weed seed back on it. It may come closer to reclamation on flat prairie land but in the Eastern Appalachian Mountains those forest don't just spring back as quick as grass grows.
Stop MTR you save the mountains and get the added benefit of raising the price of coal. Stop all Appalachian Mountain stripping and you raise the price even further. Take advantage of this Peak Coal thing to make the Alternative fuels more cost competitive.
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
Sean Casten Posted 7:56 am
12 Feb 2009
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:55 am
12 Feb 2009
Despite some reports that coal is running out in the Powder River area, there is plenty of found coal but it is not accessible due to federal permitting regulations - but that does not mean that when existing surface mines play out, the coal will stop. Why are you kidding yourselves?
It is funny to see wise old environmentalists squirm when they have to redefine "peak oil" or "peak coal" based upon current technology and price, and say "well the peak passed several years ago." No reputable scientist would ever touch such a political football although Mr. Romm is fearless nonetheless. Which says to me that it is the political journalism talking rather than pure science.
No offense and I hate coal with a passion and wish it would go away. But cost and "easy" removal are not reasons why it should go away. Don't fool yourselves, the amount of coal could actually grow for many decades. There's a reason why I say this and I don't mean to offend anybody, but as the economy comes back we'll be in a need for base load generation power.
It turns out that wind power, solar, and all the alternates have only been taking the slack out of growth - until the economic malaise that is - and has not been able to significantly push back on coal and natural gas usage at electrical generation stations very much. I'm just telling the facts folks, and I hope that isn't true in 30 years.
But what happened with Germany and the EU trading program for CO2 is almost a time-bomb. Sure, Germany made huge strides in clean energy. It sold the CO2 credit to coal-powered industries THAT INCREASED CO2 emissions overall. Bummer!
So be careful about predicting oil, natural gas, or coal into the future because supply, demand, price, and easy availability mean nothing. The "Economics 101" approach to such industries simply will not work. Peak theory is a joke. We have to be realistic and no amount of arm-waving and shouting is going to make a jot of difference. Perhaps I am a pessimist, but it is not looking good. Look at China is you want to know your future, maybe learn the language too.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:16 pm
12 Feb 2009
They do MTR for purely econmic reasons, cost per ton cheaper than conventional strip and way cheaper than underground mining. I look at the spot market for coal and watch the new long term contracts.
I am not saying that stopping MTR will have a devestating economic effects on the coal industry. Just another nail in the coffin and one you can nail in fairly easy. Just some tweaking of the Surface Mine Act that was screwed with by or for the coal lobby. Making conventional strip mining illegal will have a serious impact on the Eastern Coal market and I am only talking about the Eastern Coal Market. I will get some figures on the cost per ton for underground mining. I will tell you now that the cost per ton for Powder River strip coal is 5 times cheaper to mine than the Eastern underground method and in most cases does not have to be washed.
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
johnmcc793 Posted 11:59 pm
12 Feb 2009
When the acid rain program was added to the Clean Air Act, the SO2 trading mechanism made it possible for eastern coal boilers equipped to burn only hard eastern coal to switch from western KY and southern Il high sulfur coal to the very low sulfur content coal of eastern KY and Appalachia.
1.2 pounds of SO2 per million btu of heat became the prized commodity among mine owners and their "compliance coal" customers.
We can thank Environmental Defense Fund for the SO2 trading program and the "unintended conseuence" of creating a "compliance coal" market for MTR coal in Appalachia.
Back when the acid rain program was being debated (I was there) Chairman Henry Waxman proposed legislation to "buy" SO2 scrubers for the nation's 50 largest SO2 emitting plants. EDF thought that was an expensive and silly idea and went for the quick fix...unintended consequences and all.
Look it up. The history of MTR is writen in the Clean Air Act. Gets complicated but the truth is important.
John McCormick
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:29 am
13 Feb 2009
At any rate George Bush wrote in some more midnight rule changes just before he left office that effects mining. Look at how it relates to mining within 100 feet of streams. If you can't mine near a stream it stands to reason you can't cover one up. It was an administrative rule change.
Even if it comes down to Environmental Defence Fund supporting, establishing or maintaining MTR it would be no different making administrtive rule changes or reversing administrative rule changes than it would to EPA or the Surface Mine Act. There is enough language in either that can be changed to stop MTR without going through the full legislative process that can be time consuming and corporate lobby controlled.
Going on the precept that this administration may be more inclined to make some of these rule and reg changes I feel the timing is right to put pressure on them to do so.
When we have exhausted all possible administrative rule changes to correct the environmental damaging way coal is mined then we can go back to looking for some fell swoop legislation to stop all stripping, especially in deciduous mountain regions that can't recover from the effects of it.
I may be confusing everyone with my theory of taking little bits out of the problem of coal. Doing the doable and expedient first, or what is within the realm of possiblity. Celebrating each little win knowing we are chipping away at the perceived invincibility of coal and changing minds and opinions about it during the process.
Let's change the discussion then to is it within the realm of possibility to go through the langualge of EPA, Surface Mine Act of 77, the Environmetal Defence Fund language and the Clean Water Act provisions of the EPA and see if only administrative changes can stop MTR.
I know for a fact that MTR was not allowed under the original Surface Mining Act and adminsitrative changes are what weakened that Act that now allows MTR.
Really a discussion on which Governing Body allowed the change to MTR is irrelevant. The question of the day is can we get the practice stopped with just administrative changes in the language of all the relevant governing bodies that regulate how coal is strip mined?
Then the question would be why are we not doing it with an administration that was advertised to be more environmentally friendly?
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
johnmcc793 Posted 1:47 am
13 Feb 2009
Returning strip mined lands to approximate orignial contour was the foundation of reclamation requirements for strip coal mines.
We assumed, at the time -- 1971-1976 --, that thin mountain seams would not be economically attactive for huge shovels and drag lines. The acid rain section of the CAA changed that as my previous post has stated.
Coal boilers are designed around coal characteristics, heat and ash content, grindability, btu content to a lesser degree.
Western low sulfur subbituminous has a lower Btu content and eastern boilers that shifted to western coal had to be extensively modified to accommodate the change in ash melting temperature and likely ash fouling in the boiler bottom.
To eliminate MTR, the electric power market for that "compliance coal" would be hard pressed to find a low sulfur content substitute and would have to comply with the CAA using a scrubber to trap the SO2 where the low sulfur coal emitted just enough SO2 to meet the CAA requirement.
That is the crux of the problem...substituting the MTR coal with deep mined WV, KY and VA low sulfur coal or importing it from Columbia and other international sources. WY coal will not cut it.
This has been a heartbreak for those of us who worked a decade to regulate stip mining only to find that it has been gutted the way West Virgnia has. Undoing MTR will bascially require a rewrite of the CAA acid rain program and capitalizing many billions of dollars of SO2 control equipment on plants 30 to 50 years old.
John McCormick
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 3:57 am
13 Feb 2009
And thanks for the obvious hard work your have put into this effort. I got a glimmer of hope still from your assessment. I am not thrilled about the Columbia coal but if the underground coal in Ky. And W.Va., meets the requirements at least it would provide some work into the coal mining communities. With the hand full of strip miners we employ the environmental damage is not worth the few jobs strip mining creates. You probably already know that most of the coal and coal corporations are not Kentucky based so most of the money goes out of state. We mined it for almost a hundred years by underground methods and I know that they are not completely environmentally friendly but anything would be better than MTR.
If Obama's administration is really serious about alternative energy they will have to give the alternatives a chance to compete. Raising the price of coal gradually in increments would seem the way to get the cost of coal and the alternative energy sources on an even playing field. Given the fact that 50% of our power generation comes from coal I know no one will want to completely unravel the coal infrastructure.
Once the alternatives get a foothold I am hoping the Obama administration knows the only way to take full advantage of alternatives and advance their use is to make them competitive with coal.
Stopping MTR would be a good place to start. Stopping all stripping on deciduous mountain forest would be the next. I would then go to stopping stripping on all the federal lands out west with the last effort being the total elimination of strip mining for coal. In increments as the economy allows.
I realize also the peripheral industry surrounding coal. From Caterpillar that makes the giant earth moving equipment and others to the transportation system that supports coal. It will be hard cutting into coal production in a time of economic recovery.
It seems I may be a little self serving at times going on about only the MTR mining and stopping it first. It is only that it is more visible at the present and evokes some strong emotions. I see it as the Achilles Heel for the Coal Corporations right now. Regular or conventional strip mining does not look much better before reclamation and would be the next obvious place to start. The media attention and the public learning curve would be best served by going after the deciduous forest stripping next. I don't think there is an OPEC type collaboration with the coal industry so I would like to see it attacked in segments in different regions.
The reclamation of flat prairie land looks more like reclamation even though we know its never as good as it was before the land was disturbed. With 37% of the coal coming from Powder River that one will be a tough row to hoe.
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
amazingdrx Posted 3:58 am
13 Feb 2009
So coal shortage will boost prices soon? And yet coal to liquid plans are still going forward too.
This is a good argument for conservation of coal as a last ditch emergency power source. Leave it underground, just in case a volcanic or asteroid event throws the climate into catastrophic cooling.
Meanwhile small ditributed smart grid backup generation and renewables are cheaper and more reliable than big centralized coal planrs. These behemoths should be recycled.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 4:20 am
13 Feb 2009
Amazing,
Started looking at some of the long term coal contracts being negotiated with China last summer. This don't bode well for Appalachia as a lot of that coal is going to be MTR coal.
Oh Well! We outsource everything else out to them might as well let them have our mountains also. I am starting to get a little more acclimated to the big plateau behind my house where a valley existed before.
I have a big 102" drain tile behind my house over 400 feet long buried under 1000 ft. of overburden now also. Will make a dandy bomb shelter or shelter from the asteroid strike, if we don't take a direct hit. The air coming out of it with force now is cooler in the summer, natural ventilation and air conditioning. Will also come in handy with the global warming and all.
There is always a bright side, just got to know how to look at any situation.
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
Nickz Posted 11:30 am
13 Feb 2009
I see the same mistake repeatedly, and no one questions it.
It's wishful thinking to suggest that US coal will peak in time to meaningfully reduce coal consumption. We're going to have to make a conscious decision to do so, not rely on geology to do it for us.
Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:42 pm
13 Feb 2009
I figured he would make things so bad we would all need underground shelters sometime soon and naturally (like "Hoovervilles" in the great depression) these would be named for the pint sized cheerleader.
How in the world can MTR to sell coal to China be justified? What goes on in the minds of coal execs and the judges they own? I have a sneaking suspiscion ethanol has replaced most of their neurons.
Wouldn't it be a great idea to administer breathylizer tests to judges, board rooms, and politicians in action? That might revolutionize government and industry.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:05 am
14 Feb 2009
John,
Our forefathers almost got it right but stopped short of a perfect Union. We are told from time to time it is still a work in progress but I fear that a malignancy has permeated the whole organism. Hindsight is always 20/20 and even though Jefferson had a premonition about the influence of the universal corporate, a checks and balance was not in the offering. The tentacles of corporate influence was never more obvious than when the courts made a Napoleonic redneck president who was only a puppet. His strings being pulled by an ex-Halliburton CEO in an undisclosed location.
A 4th. District federal judge in W.Va., has just ruled in favor of MTR over obvious environmental evidence depicting the permanent destruction left in the wake of this type of mining. Of course the W.Va. State judges are famous for taking expensive junkets and vacationing with the coal barons, not excusing themselves from presiding over cases where they have a conflict of interest. Not just a presumption of impropriety but blatant in your face caught on camera, in the media, chumming around the Caribbean with coal moguls, kiss my butt I make the rules here mentality.
I often rant about the corpocracy and am amazed at how blatant corporate lobbyist and corporate influence has become. We hear campaign promises from time to time about lobby reform but as soon as the candidates take power they start handing out plum positions to corporate lobbyist.
Cold cash in the freezer! You can't paint a better picture with words of the best government money can buy!
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
JerryM Posted 6:04 am
14 Feb 2009
We've heard the same BS about oil - "it's gonna run out!" No, it never will. As alternative fuels come on line, demand for oil may decrease in the level of production needed to fuel certain aspects of our economy. But the need for it won't disappear all-to-gether. Even if we've switched (if we ever do) to favor alternative fuels, there will still be some oil pumped for our petrochemical industries, be it crude or oil from marginal oil fields, tar sands or oil shale.
And what about natural gas? Are we about to "run out of gas"?
Duh!
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 9:05 am
14 Feb 2009
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
mlebeau1 Posted 12:00 pm
17 Feb 2009
That is exactly how we got in such a mess and the answer lies in facing that we are close to running out of both cheap dirty energy and in atmosphere to absorb the pollution from using so much of it so quickly.
There are huge economic opportunities in rebuilding our infrastructure to give us plenty of options using less energy. The brute force approach is all used up. It's time to get over looking backwards for answers.
Permalink