Coal: looks kinda hot, but only because America is wearing beer goggles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Energy analyst Richard Heinberg is working on a book about coal, tentatively titled Coal's Future/Earth's Fate, to be published by Post Carbon Press in spring 2009. It's sure to be vital reading for anyone interested in tracking, understanding, and battling the enemy of the human race.

Happily, Heinberg is publishing working drafts of various parts of the book on his website. A few months ago he ran the introduction: "The Great Coal Rush (and Why It Will Fail)." This week, he's got another great one up: "Coal in the United States." It's about coal reserve estimates and how they've been revised downward over time.

While the total quantity of coal produced continues to rise, the amount of energy it feeds into the economy peaked in 1998. That's because the quality of U.S. coal has been declining for a while, as we burn through the good stuff (anthracite and bituminous) and get into the softer, dirtier stuff (sub-bituminous and lignite).

It now appears fairly clear that, depending on whose estimates you believe, production of U.S. coal will peak some time in the next several decades. And if we turn to coal for liquid fuel, or require carbon capture and sequestration (which reduces conversion efficiency), that peak could come much sooner.

What's it all mean? Here's Heinberg's conclusion:

It may be tempting to think of coal as a transitional energy source for the next few decades, while a longer-term energy strategy emerges. But in that case, an important question arises: Will there be sufficient investment capital and technical resources in three or four decades to fund the transition to the next energy source, whatever it may be? By that time (assuming EIA projections are reasonably accurate), demand for energy will be higher. The price of oil, gas, and coal will be higher -- perhaps much higher -- and so the nation will be spending proportionally much more of its GDP on energy than it does now. Meanwhile, the energy cost of building new infrastructure of any kind will be higher. Therefore it is likely that insufficient investment capital will be available for the large number of new energy projects required. The transition if deferred will thus be more expensive and difficult than it would be now. Indeed,

the longer a transition to an ultimate (and sustainable) energy regime is put off, the harder that transition becomes

.

Coal currently looks like a solution to many of America's fast-growing energy problems. However, this is a solution that, if applied on a broad scale, seems certain only to exacerbate the nation's energy dilemma in the long run, as well as contributing to an impending global climate catastrophe.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/29/10387/3547

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

go nuclear.

[Cassie 8]

Speaking as someone whose family used coal for heat at one point of their lives, and had family members who worked in the coal mines... coal is nasty, dirty, smelly, polluting, expensive to mine -- we as a society has been weaning ourselves off of coal for a long time for good reason! There's no reason to go back to it now, other than to delay the inevitable and *gasp* actually look into renewable resources / cut down on consumption of all things in general *gasp*

[dalegg 143]

go nuclear.

This may be a real possiblity. Obama and McCain both seem supportive of nuclear power, and if Gas Prices actually do rise to $7.00/Gal in the next year like some predict, you are going to see a shift in people's attitudes toward electric or fuel cell cars. We are going to need something to run the charging stations for these cars and Nuclear is about the most realistic option.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

go nuclear.

Carbon free. Woot!!!!

[Teacher Mark 53]

go nuclear.

That kind of talk can get you in a whole lotta' trouble in West Virginia right now! My Nieces Husband just started in the mines ($22.50 an hour). Coal has always been boom and bust. Today it's booming.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

go nuclear.

That kind of talk can get you in a whole lotta' trouble in West Virginia right now! My Nieces Husband just started in the mines ($22.50 an hour). Coal has always been boom and bust. Today it's booming.

I'm for clean coal and nuclear (assumed clean unless it's Russian in origin). oh... and solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and monkey power.

We are the Saudi Arabians of coal. Lets use it.

I'm more open minded than any liberal I've met.

Edited June 2, 2008 by LuckyStrike

[Teacher Mark 53]

Speak of the devil. From today's WV Gazette:

June 2, 2008

Clean coal

Little progress yet

West Virginia sorely needs "clean coal" technology breakthroughs to let the state's mammoth energy reserves be burned without harmful pollution - but, so far, prospects keep evaporating.

WEST Virginia sorely needs "clean coal" technology breakthroughs to let the state's mammoth energy reserves be burned without harmful pollution - but, so far, prospects keep evaporating.

American Electric Power originally planned a $1.2 billion "integrated gasification combined cycle" generating plant in Mason County alongside its Mountaineer coal-fired plant. But the estimated cost soared past $2 billion, perhaps heading toward $3 billion. Customers in West Virginia and Virginia would be forced to pay the tab.

Six weeks ago, Virginia regulators vetoed the project, saying the skyrocketing cost "represents an extraordinary risk that we cannot allow the ratepayers of Virginia ... to assume." As a result, plans are in limbo.

The IGCC plant would have turned coal into gas, then burned the gas to drive turbines. The worst pollutant - carbon dioxide, chief suspect as a "greenhouse gas'' responsible for global warming - wouldn't have been captured. But the power utility said such capture might be feasible in the future.

At the adjoining Mountaineer Plant, AEP spent $533 million for scrubbers to remove 98 percent of sulfur dioxide fumes, the chief cause of acid rain, and is paying $70 million more for one of the world's first "sequestration" operations. Carbon dioxide will be captured from smokestacks, compressed into liquid, then pumped 8,000 feet underground for storage in porous rock layers.

However, as reporter Ken Ward Jr. explained, the latter project is only a pilot test. The plant spews 9.3 million tons of CO2 annually, and just 110,000 tons will be sequestered. That's about 1 percent "clean coal," so far.

Meanwhile, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded last year that sequestration is unproven and perhaps decades away from producing tangible benefits. The IPCC, a network of 2,000 international scientists, shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

As we said, West Virginia anxiously waits for scientists to devise methods to remove coal's hurtful side-effects, but it isn't happening fast enough.

A start-up Huntington firm, American Algae Growers Corp., wants to use waste CO2 from power plants to grow huge vats of algae, which can be converted into biodiesel fuel, ethanol, fertilizing compost and other commodities, even food. A few other U.S. plants are attempting this process. This nonpolluting, nature-friendly concept should be explored and promoted.

And don't forget that "clean coal" also means cleaning up ravages, pollution and hazards in regions where mining occurs. Therefore, enforcement of federal and state safeguards must never become lax.

http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/200806010321

Edited June 2, 2008 by WideAwakeInTheUSA