Science Panel Finds Fault with Estimates of Coal Supply

[Simplicius]

From the New York Times.

WASHINGTON, June 20 — The United States may not have nearly as much coal as is popularly believed, and mining the remaining resources may be more dangerous for workers and the environment than current operations, the National Academy of Sciences said in a report Wednesday.

With domestic production of oil, gas and uranium far below peaks, coal has been promoted by elected officials and energy experts as the only bright spot in the national fuel supply picture. But as Congress considers billions of dollars in aid for projects to make gasoline and diesel substitutes from coal, and to build coal-fired plants that would capture their own carbon emissions, the study said that estimates of coal reserves were unreliable.

“There is probably sufficient coal to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of consumption,” the study said. “However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years.”

The 250-year estimate was made in the 1970s and was based on the assumption that 25 percent of the coal that had been located was recoverable with current technology and at current prices, said one member of the study group, Edward S. Rubin, a professor of environmental engineering and science at Carnegie Mellon University.

But he said that more recent studies by the United States Geological Survey showed that at least in some areas, only 5 percent of the coal was recoverable with today’s technology and at current prices. The 100-year forecast was based on current consumption rates, about 1.1 billion tons a year. By 2030, the rate of coal consumption could be 70 percent higher or 50 percent lower than it is now, the study found.

The impact of carbon constraints, if the government imposes them, are not clear, members of the study program said. The new report, which was requested by Congress at the urging of senators from two coal-producing states, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, raises the possibility that taxes on carbon dioxide emissions will sharply lower the demand for coal.

It also points out that mining will increasingly occur above or below seams that have already been excavated, raising questions about safety and the disruption of underground water flows.

The federal government spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to research ways to use coal cleanly and tens of millions on miner safety. But the committee said more research was needed to find better ways to mine coal, to estimate reserves and to store carbon dioxide captured from plants. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a major factor contributing to climate change, scientists say.

Didn't see this posted, thought it might be germane.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's quite germane, in of that it could potentially mean the closing of another door when Peak Oil hits (meaning, of course, shifting heavily to coal for electrical power once oil starts getting in short supply).

[Pelranius]

Well, we'll just have to look harder at fuel cells, renewable energy and nuclear power, at least until someone makes fusion workable (which I am rather skeptical of at the moment)

[Edi]

Well, we'll just have to look harder at fuel cells, renewable energy and nuclear power, at least until someone makes fusion workable (which I am rather skeptical of at the moment)

You're actually assuming that any of those are an answer, but they are not.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Well, we'll just have to look harder at fuel cells, renewable energy and nuclear power, at least until someone makes fusion workable (which I am rather skeptical of at the moment)

I refer you to the numerous Peak Oil threads on this board for detailed refutation of this. I'll briefly summarize:

Fuel Cells -- No. A fuel cell is nothing more than a battery. Hydrogen costs more energy to extract from water or hydrocarbons than you get back when you combine it with oxygen.

Renewable Energy -- No. Renewable energy sources don't have anywhere near the return on investment that fossil fuels do. (Read: If you invest a certain number of joules of energy in the production of a energy resource, the return on investment is the number of joules you can expect to get out of that resource. The return on investment for crude oil is disgustingly high. The return on investment for renewable/alternative energy resources is depressingly close to unity. But at least they're not less than unity, like a hydrogen economy would be.) The short of it is that either you have to dramatically expand the production of alternative energy source to keep up with demand (but it's already too late to do so,) or you accept a dramatically lower utilization of energy in society.

Nuclear -- No. We need to build thousands of nuclear powerplants to offset the loss of fossil fuels. There simply isn't enough time, and public perception of nuclear power is almost overwhelmingly negative in many places.

Fusion -- It's fifty years off today, it was fifty years off fifty years ago too. It's not going to show up in time, or in enough quantity to save anyone's bacon, except far off in the future.

[Lord Zentei]

Well, we'll just have to look harder at fuel cells, renewable energy and nuclear power, at least until someone makes fusion workable (which I am rather skeptical of at the moment)

Try oil shale instead.

And even though there is less coal than anticipated, does not mean it cannot bridge the gap to the nuclear age.

[Zixinus]

Nuclear -- No. We need to build thousands of nuclear powerplants to offset the loss of fossil fuels. There simply isn't enough time, and public perception of nuclear power is almost overwhelmingly negative in many places.

Don't forget the uranium supply (breeder reactors can help with that, I know) and lack of engineers who know the field. Because I doubt that there are enough nuclear engineers that can work thousand power plants.

And even though there is less coal than anticipated, does not mean it cannot bridge the gap to the nuclear age.

Future generations are going to look cross-eyed at the nuclear hysteria movement and some will disbelieve that it even existed (despite the problems first generation reactors had), and name Chernobyl a fraud (some say it was sabotage). I'd pay to see a debate based on this.

[Gil Hamilton]

Fuel Cells -- No. A fuel cell is nothing more than a battery. Hydrogen costs more energy to extract from water or hydrocarbons than you get back when you combine it with oxygen.

Which is actually true of alot of things, which are basically glorified batteries. Fuel cells have other problems, like energy density of hydrogen and that storing it is a real pain in the ass, but there are ways to make it economic in certain situations. Iceland, for instance, is currently in the process of converting a lot of their surface fishing fleet to fuel cells, because they've got abundant geothermal energy which they use to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. Of course, that doesn't help many other places, but as it is, I understand that Iceland is setting up to try and be a major exporter of hydrogen fuel. Not enough to save the world, but it's a start.

Renewable Energy -- No. Renewable energy sources don't have anywhere near the return on investment that fossil fuels do. (Read: If you invest a certain number of joules of energy in the production of a energy resource, the return on investment is the number of joules you can expect to get out of that resource. The return on investment for crude oil is disgustingly high. The return on investment for renewable/alternative energy resources is depressingly close to unity. But at least they're not less than unity, like a hydrogen economy would be.) The short of it is that either you have to dramatically expand the production of alternative energy source to keep up with demand (but it's already too late to do so,) or you accept a dramatically lower utilization of energy in society.

Isn't this another situationally useful thing as well? I mentioned that Iceland is pretty well off because basically they can temperature differential their way to basically free energy, for example, do to there location.

Places like the Appalachian mountains here in Pennsylvania have been generating plenty of energy, enough to make it profitable and advertise as a green alternative, with wind power. Which, incidently, is really cool to see when you drive through there to see all the massive fields of windmills.

And I really don't see why Southern California and the various surrounding deserts can be loaded with solar fields and temperature differential power. Death Valley would be a good candidate for that.

No, I'm not arguing that it will provide power for everywhere, but for everyone saying that renewable power isn't the answer or our salvation from the end of fossil fuels, I don't see any reason why locally areas can be powered by renewable resources where ever possible.

Nuclear -- No. We need to build thousands of nuclear powerplants to offset the loss of fossil fuels. There simply isn't enough time, and public perception of nuclear power is almost overwhelmingly negative in many places.

No doubt, no doubt. But we can start, can't we? It's better than saying "Well, we're fucked."


Seriously, I wonder if when they were setting up agriculture back in prehistory, a bunch of hunter gathers were sitting around and one of them, named Valdemerket, stood up and went "We can't possibly switch to an agriculture economy to feed everyone, even though we've run out of megafauna to hunt! This report says that we'll have to dedicate ALL of our population to farming! And that's hard work! Besides, most of this land isn't arable! We'll have to like dig ditches and shit to bring water to all the area we'd need to farm! Hundreds of them! We'll never be able to do that, it will take ALL of us! We're fucked! Fucked I say!"

Then another hunter gather stood up, this one Marinahotep, began her preamble with "Oh we can do it, and what's more, everything that is happening just happens to support my own personal political theories. Let me explain why..."

Note, the above two paragraphs are humor and half of which is an excuse to say "Valdemerket" and "Marinahotep". But, serious, things are going to be hard, but if we constantly repeat that we are screwed and don't try anything, we might as well just put a gun in our mouth and evacuate the back of our heads.

[Pelranius]

It's irritated me that the Chinese are the only ones putting serious effort into pebble bed reactors. Given the apparently improved safety features of those things, you'd think the US energy companies would have caught on to them.

[Lord Zentei]

It's irritated me that the Chinese are the only ones putting serious effort into pebble bed reactors. Given the apparently improved safety features of those things, you'd think the US energy companies would have caught on to them.

They are wary of the public phobia for nuclear power in general, I suspect. What is really needed is someone to undertake major PR championing of nuclear power, but no one wants to be the one to break the ice in that regard.

[K. A. Pital]

What is really needed is someone to undertake major PR championing of nuclear power, but no one wants to be the one to break the ice in that regard.

Taking up unpopular in public, but energy-wise projects has not been one of the strong sides of America. That covers both energy production and energy consumption. Thus it requires a person whose dedication comes from something else - perhaps from the conviction that people are going to be fucked if they don't shift over to nuclear.

[Guardsman Bass]

Fuel Cells -- No. A fuel cell is nothing more than a battery. Hydrogen costs more energy to extract from water or hydrocarbons than you get back when you combine it with oxygen.

Which is actually true of alot of things, which are basically glorified batteries. Fuel cells have other problems, like energy density of hydrogen and that storing it is a real pain in the ass, but there are ways to make it economic in certain situations. Iceland, for instance, is currently in the process of converting a lot of their surface fishing fleet to fuel cells, because they've got abundant geothermal energy which they use to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. Of course, that doesn't help many other places, but as it is, I understand that Iceland is setting up to try and be a major exporter of hydrogen fuel. Not enough to save the world, but it's a start.

It's a possible replacement fuel, in case you absolutely have to keep some motor vehicles running that can not be replaced by rail or boat (and you don't have a good battery set for an electric car). But I think he was referring to its capability as a power source, for which it is useless since you have to put more energy into it than you get out.

Renewable Energy -- No. Renewable energy sources don't have anywhere near the return on investment that fossil fuels do. (Read: If you invest a certain number of joules of energy in the production of a energy resource, the return on investment is the number of joules you can expect to get out of that resource. The return on investment for crude oil is disgustingly high. The return on investment for renewable/alternative energy resources is depressingly close to unity. But at least they're not less than unity, like a hydrogen economy would be.) The short of it is that either you have to dramatically expand the production of alternative energy source to keep up with demand (but it's already too late to do so,) or you accept a dramatically lower utilization of energy in society.

Isn't this another situationally useful thing as well? I mentioned that Iceland is pretty well off because basically they can temperature differential their way to basically free energy, for example, do to there location.

Places like the Appalachian mountains here in Pennsylvania have been generating plenty of energy, enough to make it profitable and advertise as a green alternative, with wind power. Which, incidently, is really cool to see when you drive through there to see all the massive fields of windmills.

And I really don't see why Southern California and the various surrounding deserts can be loaded with solar fields and temperature differential power. Death Valley would be a good candidate for that.

No, I'm not arguing that it will provide power for everywhere, but for everyone saying that renewable power isn't the answer or our salvation from the end of fossil fuels, I don't see any reason why locally areas can be powered by renewable resources where ever possible.

No one's saying that (in fact, places that are close to potential sources of hydroelectric power are going to be sitting pretty); it's just that you can't base your entire energy use on it. You still need large amounts of continuous power, and the intermittent nature of solar and wind except in certain circumstances and places is not advantageous towards that.

Nuclear -- No. We need to build thousands of nuclear powerplants to offset the loss of fossil fuels. There simply isn't enough time, and public perception of nuclear power is almost overwhelmingly negative in many places.

No doubt, no doubt. But we can start, can't we? It's better than saying "Well, we're fucked."

[/quote]

I'm all game for nuclear. I think Sikon mentioned in one of the earlier Peak Oil threads that a nuclear power plant was actually built in three years, which is exceptionally fast. Still, if you used a template for your reactors, building them all along the same lines like France did while using a tried-and-true design, you could undoubtedly speed things up. Not to mention that if you are stuck in a Long Emergency, then the government could simply say "Matter of State Security!" and build the damn thing while slashing through local NIMBY opposition.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's a possible replacement fuel, in case you absolutely have to keep some motor vehicles running that can not be replaced by rail or boat (and you don't have a good battery set for an electric car). But I think he was referring to its capability as a power source, for which it is useless since you have to put more energy into it than you get out.

That's what I'm saying, though you could no doubt have individual homes set up with solar power and fuel cells to cut their draw from the power grid. I had a science teacher who had that set up before he moved to Pittsburgh, and after the cost of installation, he said he paid very little for electricity.

No one's saying that (in fact, places that are close to potential sources of hydroelectric power are going to be sitting pretty); it's just that you can't base your entire energy use on it. You still need large amounts of continuous power, and the intermittent nature of solar and wind except in certain circumstances and places is not advantageous towards that.

What's the saying? "Think globally, act locally"

I specifically said we couldn't power the entire grid on renewable resources, but we could have specific regions that could very easily be sucking alot of their ergs out of the sun or the mountain winds or temperature differential or what have you.

Iceland is a good example of that. I understand Japan is working toward that as well, since they realize that they have no shortage of renewable power options (both sun and geothermal, Japan is volcanic and some of it is tropical), plus there are places there that are extremely windmill friendly. The rest of their power is increasingly going nuclear and the Japanese legendary capacity to ganbatte through suffering will help too.

I'm all game for nuclear. I think Sikon mentioned in one of the earlier Peak Oil threads that a nuclear power plant was actually built in three years, which is exceptionally fast. Still, if you used a template for your reactors, building them all along the same lines like France did while using a tried-and-true design, you could undoubtedly speed things up. Not to mention that if you are stuck in a Long Emergency, then the government could simply say "Matter of State Security!" and build the damn thing while slashing through local NIMBY opposition.

I agree. Nuclear is a good way to go if we want clean, reliable power. It will be hard work to get all those running and manned, but hey, it's better than crying into our kool-aid about how we are doomed DOOMED!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I've been assuming in all my work that we only have 100 years of coal left in the USA, so it doesn't change anything that I've said, for the record.