A few weeks ago I mentioned a study showing that coal reserves are not nearly as extensive as the "200-year supply" invoked by coal boosters.
Now Richard Heinberg brings word of another study that reaches substantially similar conclusions. The main thrust is that the quality of easily accessible coal is declining and that prices are almost certain to go up, and soon. An interesting correlate -- which hadn't really occurred to me, but makes sense -- is that rising coal prices are going to make it less likely for carbon sequestration to catch on.
Heinberg's conclusion is worth reading in full:
Taken together, the EWG and IFE reports deliver a shocking message. For a world already concerned about future oil supplies, uncertainties about coal undercut one of the primary strategies -- turning supposedly abundant coal into a liquid fuel -- that is being touted for maintaining global transport networks. The sustainability of China's economic growth, which has largely been based on a rapid upsurge in coal consumption, is thrown into question. And the ability of the US to maintain its coal-powered electricity grids in coming decades is also cast into doubt.
As noted in MuseLetter #179, if future coal supplies are dramatically reduced this could be very good news for the global climate; however, that benefit would be tempered significantly if higher coal prices discourage the adoption of carbon sequestration technologies.
In summary, we now have two authoritative studies reaching largely consistent conclusions with devastating implications for the global economy. Surely these studies deserve follow-up reviews of the data by the IEA and the DoE. If the EWG and IFE conclusions hold, the world will need to respond quickly and with an enormous shift of investment capital in the directions of energy conservation and of developing renewable sources of electricity. Climate concerns are already drawing some nations in these directions; however, even the nations leading such efforts may not be proceeding nearly fast enough. For China and the United States, the world's two most coal-dependent countries, the message could not be clearer: whether or not global climate concerns are taken seriously, it is time to fundamentally revise the current energy paradigm.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Threaded
amazingdrx Posted 3:31 am
13 May 2007
Stop mining coal and leave it underground as a backup source of natural gas when natural gas runs short.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:21 am
13 May 2007
I have looked at the Energy Watch Group (EWG) study, "Coal: Resources and Future Production", and do not reach the same conclusions. To be sure, they make some observations that have been known by people working in the coal business for along time, but have not been known to the general public -- namely, that the coal "resource" and "reserve" numbers reported by the World Energy Council and thus by BP do not behave like the resource and reserve numbers for oil.
But the authors seem perplexed by that, and draw conclusions as if the numbers SHOULD change over time in the way that the numbers for oil should. Why they don't would take a lot of time and space to explain.
Where I agree with the EWG is that the reserves (properly, the "reserve base") for western European countries, like Germany, have for political reasons (subsidies!) been way over-estimated for years, and not lowered as coal in those countries became less profitable to mine. So, no surprise, when Germany finally owned up to the fact that its hard coal cost up to three times the world price to produce, it sharply revised its reserve numbers downward.
And I agree that there are plenty of coal deposits in other countries, like the United States, that will be rendered inaccessible for all practical purposes because of land-use changes -- e.g., houses being built over coal seams.
But ... but.
The EWG point to the fact that the enormous numbers for coal resources (which, I would argue, should instead be called the coal endowment), which work out at roughly 1000 times current production, seem divorced from the much smaller "reserve" numbers, which seem to have been revised downwards in most countries. But they then conclude (p. 5) that therefore only "reserve" data are of practical relevance, not "resource" data. That stance, I would argue, is too severe. And it ignores possible discovery and development (i.e., work to improve the probability of existence) of new deposits in Latin America and Africa.
By the way, there is a typo in the WEG study. On page 11 they speak of the coal resource base as being 4.5 billion tonnes of coal equivalent. What they meant, I'm sure (as in their graph) is 4,500 billion tonnes of coal equivalent.
Note that the authors of the new study discussed by Richard Heinberg, "The Future of Coal" (by B. Kavalov and S. D. Peteves of the Institute for Energy) did not undertake the same kind of quantitative analysis as did the EWG. As Heinberg points out, "no quantitative analysis of reserves for individual nations here. Instead, the focus is on foreseeable challenges to coal supply, and how these will likely affect cost--and hence the attractiveness of coal vis-à-vis other energy sources."
He also quotes this from the study:
The world consumes much more hard coal than brown coal and the gap is growing continuously. In addition, the preference is naturally for coal that is easier (and cheaper) to recover. Without a corresponding increase in hard coal reserves, which will most likely be more difficult and more expensive to exploit than hard coal deposits in the past, the world is going to run out of higher-quality coal much earlier than it will of lower-quality coal ... .
Um, yes. No surprise here. That mining generally progresses from less difficult to more difficult deposits is one of those fundamental rules. And yes, all else equal, as the industry mines out the best, closest and highest-quality deposits, production costs go up. Both of these are Economic Geology 101, as it were.
But it works the other way, also. As the prices of substitutes for coal (oil and natural gas for power generation) rise, deposits previously uneconomical to mine become economical.
Finally, technology doesn't stand still. Engineers continue to look for ways to increase automation in underground coal mines, including possibly using robotic systems. In-situ gasification of coal seams is near to being applied commercially. Numerous coal seams are already being tapped for their methane.
If coal's energy can be exploited with these kinds of technologies, does that make the coal any less a resource? Not in my book.
---------------------------
It is certainly reasonable to predict that coal production will peak within the next 20 years -- but because of policies, not because of scarcity.
Which brings me back to the basic point. If you want coal production to decline, stress the environmental problems associated with coal, not its depletion. If there is a market for coal, it -- or something derived from it -- will be produced.
And therein lies the problem for the climate and the world, I should think: not that coal's production will peak, but that there is a very strong possibility that it won't peak ... at least not for some time to come.
Permalink
theBike45 Posted 8:29 am
13 May 2007
significant price infations are unlikely. How anyone can have doubts about a natural resource whose reserves have been estimated in terms of multiple CENTURIES is quite a mystery. I think there's more politics than reality in that phoney
concern. A lot of the coal inflation had nothing to do with coal inflation and a lot to do with lack of rairoad transport. Regardless, only nuclear is cheaper than coal, and coal is a lot cheaper than everything else. Oil is out of sight and natural gas is being stretched as well. Reduction of 90%+ of coal carbon, coupled with more nuclear power, is the only conceivable and feasible method of reducing carbon emissions in any significant (and cost effective) fashion. Alternative energies are hopelessly inefficent, except things lie Enviromission type solar towers and possibly geothermal hot rock, and Seadog type wave energy technology, those among the few reliable and controllable alternatives. Wind power is a big joke that only the true believers and truly gullible can take seriously.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:21 am
13 May 2007
Not using energy is less than zero cost. Shutting down coal is imperative.
Americans do not need more energy.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 11:28 am
13 May 2007
The finite nature of all the fossil fuels and the inevitable increase in GHG and then AGW, and the problems with other technologies, reinforce, at least for electricity, but even secondarily for transportation, the value of photovoltaic. Even with conversion efficiency of 5-10% they are cost-effective, and some are up in the 15-20% range. They can now be made integral to the roof material or rolled out onto the surface.
PV uses free limitless clean sustainable energy. It sounds corny I admit it, but go out on a sunny day, and hold your face up to the free energy! PV technology has been around for 50 years. What is the hold up?
If we are smart we could prevent the economic displacement of fossil fuels workers by building (or reopening) factories in coal and oil communities, fill each factory roof with the first 3,000 PV panels from each factory, and then put them on every roof in every local community. Once that is done we export the HELL out of them.
It would be a long time before we reach Peak PV, and it would be a happier historical footnote.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:48 pm
13 May 2007
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:32 pm
13 May 2007
"with clean coal coming more and more online"
"only nuclear is cheaper than coal"
"Reduction of 90%+ of coal carbon, coupled with more nuclear power, is the only conceivable and feasible method of reducing carbon emissions in any significant (and cost effective) fashion."
In the context of CO2 emmisions, what is clean coal?
And if you're talking about CCS, how in the world do you know what the costs will be?
Since when has nuclear ever been cheaper than coal?
I think you broadly underestimate the costs associated with nuclear and carbon capture.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electri ...
http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes2.png
Meanwhile you broadly over estimate the costs of solar PV, solar thermal, and hot dry rock geothermal.
All of which are gearing up to start commercializing their tech mainstream in 2008.
Nuclear and Coal w/ CCS? What 10 years before we even would see any results from either. How is it even possible for you to know where renewables will be in 10 years from now (Much less 3 years from now).
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:40 pm
13 May 2007
And since it's not such an apparent arguement it's probably counter-productive to use it.
The real answer is that virtually any renewable, particularly Thinfilm CIGS Solar Panels, and HDR Geothermal could beat out the unsubsidized cost of Nuclear and Coal IGCC w/ CSS in a heartbeat.
And do it much quicker, cleaner, and safer.
While probably boosting our economy with branching innovations and new jobs.
Permalink
aussie2010 Posted 7:46 pm
15 May 2007
Permalink