Coal - What are the ramifications?

nth · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 1973

Coal is a great short term solution when combined with pumping CO2 into the ground if the CO2 stays in the ground.
US has a lot of bad quality coal. There are many mines that been shut-in due to bad quality of coal. There are also known areas that are not mined. We are not running out of coal anytime in my lifetime.

As a pessimist, I can say if we use coal to replace oil, we will need to find a replacement for coal in a few decades, so cannot be a long term solution. Also, coal production is more energy intensive than oil. So energy prices will continue to increase if we switch to coal. The price will not drop at all if demand does not let up.

Without dramatic technological breakthrough, I fail to see energy prices going down without demand destruction.

nethawk

There's no doubt that CO2 emissions need to be cut - dramatically. This is going to limit coal's use, unless a really good way to store carbon is developed.

Carbon Sequestration is less proven than most renewable options, yet people worried about money and cost of everything (like those on Fox News Channel) are always touting it (or at least just "clean coal", I've never heard the words "climate change" uttered on there).

We burn about 1 billion tons of coal per year in the U.S. to make half of our electricity (~1.5 PWh). The concept of electricity from coal hasn't changed much in 120 years, and it is only about 35% efficient. A billion tons to meet only a fraction (albeit a somewhat large one, larger than say wind or biomass) of our energy needs.

IGCC plants, which gasify coal and burn the syngas in a combined cycle plant, are about 50% efficient - not counting grid losses. So the theory is to combine IGCC with sequestration, and you have a clean-coal plant. IGCC works, we know that...but some estimates say that separating the CO2 from the nitrogen, water, and other gases may eat up to 20% of the power plant's output. There goes the efficiency gain from combined cycle. We're back to 30%.

It seems almost unimaginable to be able to store the CO2 GAS resulting from combustion of billions of tons of coal, year after year. We'll fill up the nearby geologic formations, and we'll have to pipe this waste product farther and farther away for storage. I'm picturing it now - putting CO2 from burnt U.S. coal into depleted Saudi oil wells...no way that is sensible.

We won't really be able to capture CO2 when we're burning coal derived fuels in vehicles, ships and airplanes.

We need a little bit of everything, including coal. These two problems - peak oil and climate change, converging at once, are certainly bigger than any other problem we've ever had to deal with.

Tanada

gary_malcolm

Thanks all for keeping this thread working.

I quite agree with Monte Quest that Power Down matched with a changed environmental paradigm is the only real answer to the myriad of problems associated with the changes to the Carbon economy that come with the expansion of our energy sources. Replacement on nearly every level turns from one disaster to another. That's the only 'fix'.

However, this will not happen. I believe every piece of burnable Carbon will be consumed in our vast 6.5 Billion member overreach. Much like the Easter Islanders frequently mentioned on this site we have passed the point where we can build canoes to pale off to the mainland. We're stuck... and soon the nightmares that are already spreading across the face of the world will drag us kicking and screaming to a sustainable level. It won't be nice.

The real ramification of continued and increased coal usage is that it puts us farther out onto the ledge we have built for ourselves.

G
_________________
Gary Malcolm

US Empire

There is no alternative source for our gluttony. Power down or die.