For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Oct 26, 2004 Posts: 305 Location: US Empire
Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:57 am Post subject: Coal - What are the ramifications?
I was discussing the peak over Christmas dinner with my aunt. Her take was quite interesting. She claims that the US is the 'Saudi Arabia' of coal and that when oil edges up to $75 a barrel, the coal industry will take over our energy market.
I've read some posts on this forum referring to the correlated pollution/environmental impact of massive coal usage but I've never known those issues to stop a determined capitalist!
My questions are:
1. What are the state and value of US coal reserves?
2. What are the possiblities of turning a petroeconomy to a coal economy?
3. Can this extend the energy Peak? If so how long?
4. What are the economic ramifications?
5. What are the Political ramifications?
If any group can take a swing at this it's this one! As always I would love MonteQuest to weigh in.
Thanks _________________ Gary Malcolm
US Empire
There is no alternative source for our gluttony. Power down or die.
Table IX shows the expiration times (EET) of the high and the low estimates of U.S. coal reserves for various rates of increase of the rate of production as calculated from the equation for the EET [Eq. (6)]. If we use the conservative smaller estimate of U.S. coal reserves we see that the growth of the rate of consumption will have to be held below 3 % / yr if we want coal to last until our nation's tricentennial. If we want coal to last 200 years, the rate of growth of annual consumption will have to be held below 1 % / yr!
One obtains an interesting insight into the problem if one asks how long beyond the year 1910 could coal production have continued on the curve of exponential growth at the historic rate of 6.69 % / yr of Fig. 4. The smaller estimate of U.S. coal would have been consumed around the year 1967 and the large estimate would have expired around the year 1990. Thus it is clear that the use of coal as an energy source in 1978 and in the years to come is possible only because the growth in the annual production of coal was zero from 1910 to about 1972!
1. What are the state and value of US coal reserves?
Total proven world reserves of coal are estimated to total almost one trillion tons and are projected to last over 200 years at current rates of consumption. The US has about 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. According to the EIA figures, we can see that we have 255 years of coal remaining in the year 2000 given our current rate of consumption. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90-120 years. However, if we look back in history, we see that there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by, our coal consumption increases and we see that the projection becomes meaningless. And if we suddenly move to a bigger reliance on coal, and coal liquidfaction for gas, then this estimate would surely drop dramatically.
Coal peak projections:
Hubbert Model Peak 2032
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2004 Peak 2060
Flat gas consumption and greater coal consumption Peak 2053
Flat gas consumption and synfuels from coal to replace oil Peak 2035
2. What are the possibilities of turning a petroeconomy to a coal economy?
Large scale applications of the Fischer-Tropsch process (coal to petro) have existed in only a few countries like Germany during WWII, and South Africa since the 1960s. The process is 2:1, coal to motor fuel, approximately. Hydrogen production would require an even greater consumption of coal. From what I have read on the subject so far, coal liquefaction would seem to be regarded as a medium to long term prospect for any significant energy production. The lead time to ramp up for any significant production is years, if not decades away. Liquid Coal http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic280.html
3. Can this extend the energy Peak? If so how long?
How long? And to what end? Long enough to make the consequences of peak oil even more dire? There is no techno-fix or energy fix to the peak oil problem. It is one of world view, and exponential growth in a finite world. The above peak projections show that coal will not give us much more time.
4. What are the economic ramifications?
Not sure. To date, where coal liquefaction technology has developed, pure economics have been a secondary consideration. Hitler used it to wage war and South Africa used it to offset the consequences of apartheid.
5. What are the Political ramifications?
Not sure here either. Increased use of coal would contribute to global warming on an unknown scale. The ravage of the environment to strip the coal would increase especially given the mindset of the current administration.
New coal plants bury 'Kyoto'
Quote:
The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn't gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.
As burning coal (even "cleanly") is virtually certain to trigger runaway global warming and climate change, whether it delays the oil/gas peak is virtually certain to be a moot point!
As coal is absolutely the WORST greenhouse gas fuel, it is also the one that is most easily targeted to reduce CO2 emissions. It therefore makes sense that its use should diminish, rather than increase.
If the USA decides otherwise, it may find itself under economic threat. Why? Well, let me cite a feature that was introduced in the Montreal Protocol. In effect, it stated that signatory states could not import goods containing controlled substances or were made with the help of controlled substances from non-signatory countries. As yet, an analogic clause is not included in the Kyoto Protocol, which enters into force in February but, if the USA or any other country INCREASES their emissions by the undue extra use of coal, then it is foreseeable that the Parties to the Protocol, which include the whole of the EU, Russia, Canada and Japan plus about 30 other large emitters, will decide to introduce an amendment to forbid the import of goods from non-signatory countries which have required the use of GHGs in their manufacture or transport. This would kill the US economy stone dead, as there is not a single product that would be not be sanctioned. Perhaps this thought should be entertained, because it is certain that the signatories will not allow the non-signatories to cock a snook at them. You can expect increasingly severe regulation in the future, as the present Protocol is inadequate in its measures to make a significant improvement of climate change. _________________ Devil
Joined: Nov 09, 2004 Posts: 1223 Location: Big Rock Candy Mountain
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:06 pm Post subject:
New coal burning electric plant is firing up next week-just 10 miles from my place-thankfully downwind. Foisted on us as a "co-gen" operation, wood: 5%, coal 95%. We have mountains of coal here in MT so could theoretically revert back to a lovely 19th century smoke-belching civilization. The coal arrives in trains pulled by diesel-electric engines. We used to have an electric railroad but it was torn down decades ago. When I start seeing Chinese steam locomotives I'll know someone's taking PO seriously. And we have SO MUCH untapped wind.
It seems like Coal is the short-term answer to Peak Oil. The world plenty of coal available, and it will last us over a hundred years. If we can liquify all that coal to oil, then our problems are really solved, at least until 2100.
We also have plenty of tar sands ahd shale oil. If we can figure out how to convert that to oil, we can extend peak oil another 100 years.
Looks good, folks.
I'm sure within 200 years, mankind will come up with new technologies (nano, bio, fusion) to solve peak oil.
Joined: Oct 26, 2004 Posts: 305 Location: US Empire
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 9:46 am Post subject:
dontworryaboutpeakoil wrote:
It seems like Coal is the short-term answer to Peak Oil. The world plenty of coal available, and it will last us over a hundred years. If we can liquify all that coal to oil, then our problems are really solved, at least until 2100.
Maybe... (skeptical)
dontworryaboutpeakoil wrote:
We also have plenty of tar sands and shale oil. If we can figure out how to convert that to oil, we can extend peak oil another 100 years.
I think you need to read 'High Noon for Natural Gas' because you sound almost hysterically uninformed. _________________ Gary Malcolm
US Empire
There is no alternative source for our gluttony. Power down or die.
We also have plenty of tar sands ahd shale oil. If we can figure out how to convert that to oil, we can extend peak oil another 100 years.
"Dont worry",
See MonteQuest's post above before such statements.
BTW I voted for 10 years, and who really knows how fast we can "blow up mountains " and extract the coal (how its done in the US of A).
As quick as we can make TnT...then what after we take all the coal close to the surface...1000 meter mines like the Ukraine? Y'all know that's slower ouput than a South Carolinian Speaks.
We need MASSIVE amounts of coal to offset the oil....
Coal has a peak as well.
my kids (grandkids?) had better be smart and strong worriors, or else... _________________ Eickhorn Daggers!
www.pistolanddagger.com
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2330 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:34 am Post subject:
From what I understand, the biggest market for Anthracite right now is for use in large scale water filtration. Bitumous coal is preferred for electric generation because it is cheaper and has higher BTU potential. Anthracite is best for home heating as it burns relatively clean.
In the Northeast, coal was used for home heating almost exclusively, today that figure is less than 1%. People now use electricity, oil and gas for home heating. In eastern PA, Anthracite is the absolutely cheapest fuel for home heating, so why the change? Because coal is dirty, requires tending even in stokers and takes up a lot of room. Most of the older houses around here have coal shanties in the basement which were generally an 8' x 8' room filled to a depth of about 4'. Coal makes a lot of ash that needs to be emptied every two days or so. Heat exchangers have to cleaned more often with coal because of the increased sulfur content. Coal boilers are less efficient than oil or especially gas because the exhaust gas being primarily CO2, contains little water vapor, which aids in heat exchange.
However, if fuel oil goes above $2/gal and stays there, I'm switching to coal! Coal goes for about $80 - $150 per ton delivered, which is equivalent to about 180 - 200 gallons of oil. That amount is good for at least a solid month in the dead of winter. Right now I use about 688 gallons of oil per year for heat and hot water.
Many of PA's Anthracite mines have been locked up or closed off due to lack of demand. If oil stays high, that might change. Here is one of a few companies that still make coal stoker boilers:
Coal Stoker Boiler DF 520
Outside of eastern PA, coal is probably not practical for home heating.
There is a guy who is building a coal to oil plant in PA with help from GWB:
Ultra Clean Fuels
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject:
Quote:
As the oceans warm, they are less able to absorb CO2.
Warming oceans are more thermally stable. This stability reduces the circulation of nutrients and decreases the biomass of the photoplankton, thus further damaging the ability to absorb CO2.
Ultraviolet radiation from the damaged ozone layer, particularly severe in polar regions, further damages the photoplankton. The net ecosystem balance between respiration (CO2 emitted) and photosynthesis (CO2 used) now tilts toward respiration, and more CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
As the temperature rises, Arctic tundra melts and releases huge amounts of methane. Under certain conditions, wet, flooded soils can release 100 times more methane than dry soils.
At this point, drought in many areas from warming and associated climatic changes further retards photosynthesis.
Changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere deplete the cleansing hydroxyl reservoir that oxidizes methane and other greenhouse gases.
Ozone in the troposphere, a greenhouse gas at lower levels of the atmosphere, is increased as a result of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide from growing automobile exhaust.
The Arctic ice cover begins to thin and retreat. This thinning reduces the albedo (the net reflectivity of the planet), thus leading to further warming.
Finally, huge amounts of methane trapped in the Arctic continental shelf in the form of methane hydrates are released from under the permafrost and in shallow Arctic waters.
This scenario is probably likely if we all the reserves of coal. Scientists predict a 3-5 C degree increase can lead to these events, which is predicted by 2100 assuming business as usual. _________________ Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
This scenario is probably likely if we all the reserves of coal. Scientists predict a 3-5 C degree increase can lead to these events, which is predicted by 2100 assuming business as usual.
Could be MUCH sooner - James Lovelock said this at a recent RSA lecture in London:
"Modellers including me, have
predicted that somewhere between 400 and
600 parts per million of carbon dioxide, the
earth will pass a threshold beyond which
global warming becomes unstoppable. We are
now at 380 parts per million and at the present
rate of increase we reach the border of that
threshold zone 400 parts per million in as
short a time as another seven years."
i.e in seven years we could face the start of a runaway greenhouse effect, which could leave us with a Venutian climate. Therefore coal and all other biofuels are absolutely out of the question in all but the smallest amounts (the best guess is 2.5 tons of CO2 per person per year at current population levels.) Unless of course we remove the CO2 from the emission stacks (and all chimneys!) Even then there are other serious pollutants released from coal like particulates, NOx, SO2 and VOCs.
Joined: Sep 16, 2004 Posts: 4272 Location: Southwest WI
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject:
I'm not worrying about it being 93F instead of 85F this summer (my view of global warming--sorry if you disagree)... i'm more worried about the farking zombie masses tearing down my doors looking for my stash of dark chocolate bars i've hidden for a cold, cloudy, rainy day...
King~some wood burners can burn coal...i'm in the market, so that might be a selling point, although i'm not sure where one buys coal around here ( i do see trains loaded with it coming through here)...
I think if a utility company could trap the emissions somehow(big IF) then i'd be all for it...but then again, its also gotta peak...
sooner or later were all(ok almost everyone) is going to realize that we're screwed one way or another, and if not us, then our kids...we need to change NOW...not 20 years from now...
I'm about ready to get myself a god damn TIPI and live this land how it was live by the real natives...
I'm not worrying about it being 93F instead of 85F this summer (my view of global warming--sorry if you disagree)... i'm more worried about the farking zombie masses tearing down my doors looking for my stash of dark chocolate bars i've hidden for a cold, cloudy, rainy day...
How do you propose stopping those hordes? Will you be living in a tank? Its not the 93F I worry about either - its the 120F+++ that we may get to if we don't stop belching CO2.
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Coal - What are the ramifications?
People really need to read this thread.
MQ _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Next
Page 1 of 8
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
