Comments on: WSJ front-page shocker: “U.S. Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal,” warns rosy U.S. coal estimates “may be wildly overconfident” http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:37:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: John Hollenberg http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-72472 John Hollenberg Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:58:09 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-72472 One other aspect of how "safe" coal is--coal ash is considered so toxic that: "the Department of Homeland Security has told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that her committee can't publicly disclose the location of coal ash dumps across the country". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/coal-ash-spills-too-dange_n_214739.html One other aspect of how “safe” coal is–coal ash is considered so toxic that:

“the Department of Homeland Security has told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that her committee can’t publicly disclose the location of coal ash dumps across the country”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2009/ 06/ 12/ coal-ash-spills-too-dange_n_214739.html

]]> By: John Hollenberg http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70718 John Hollenberg Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:12:38 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70718 > Check David Rutledge’s essay on Peak Coal over on TheOilDrum. Don’t recall what he gets. 600 ppm CO2 max? No, he gets 460 ppm in 2070. Here is the link: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697#more > Check David Rutledge’s essay on Peak Coal over on TheOilDrum. Don’t recall what he gets. 600 ppm CO2 max?

No, he gets 460 ppm in 2070. Here is the link:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697#more

]]> By: Omega Centauri http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70683 Omega Centauri Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:09:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70683 This study (according to some of the good folks over at the oildrum) assumed that coal could only be mined profitably at current market prices. Unfortunately if prices rise, the amount of available coal goes up. Also it only covers bituminous coal, not the lower quality brown coal. Also there are other technologies, such as coal to gas, which have been proposed for deposits too deep to mine. I don't think we are out of the woods yet. This study (according to some of the good folks over at the oildrum) assumed that coal could only be mined profitably at current market prices. Unfortunately if prices rise, the amount of available coal goes up. Also it only covers bituminous coal, not the lower quality brown coal. Also there are other technologies, such as coal to gas, which have been proposed for deposits too deep to mine. I don’t think we are out of the woods yet.

]]> By: darth http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70639 darth Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:28:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70639 Check out the comments on the WSJ page - mostly deniers and nuke industry shills. Mostly along the lines of "if those pesky environmentalists went away, we could mine all the coal and burn it as dirty as we need to - and build tons of nukes as well" Oh yes and the usual "warming is natural, CO2 increase follows temp increase and the last 10 years have been cooling". We still have a long way to go to convince people. Check out the comments on the WSJ page – mostly deniers and nuke industry shills. Mostly along the lines of “if those pesky environmentalists went away, we could mine all the coal and burn it as dirty as we need to – and build tons of nukes as well”

Oh yes and the usual “warming is natural, CO2 increase follows temp increase and the last 10 years have been cooling”. We still have a long way to go to convince people.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70576 David B. Benson Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:58:52 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70576 Check David Rutledge's essay on Peak Coal over on TheOilDrum. Don't recall what he gets. 600 ppm CO2 max? If so, fairly bad. :-( Check David Rutledge’s essay on Peak Coal over on TheOilDrum. Don’t recall what he gets. 600 ppm CO2 max?

If so, fairly bad. :-(

]]> By: Rick Covert http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70473 Rick Covert Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:49:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70473 I made this point several months ago with one of the good folks over at the cleanmpg.com website that coal reserves have been deeply discounted and he went into total denial mode. He told me that all we needed to do was wait until the price of coal went up then that coal would be economically viable. I reminded him that the US economy was built and grew exponentially on the availability of cheap energy, namely coal and oil, but he would not budge. I even mentioned the new projects being planned with Concentrated Solar Thermal and he again thought it was a flight of fancy like IGCC plants. Even providing links to current working CSP would not convice him. He believed that a carbon cap and trade system would raise his electric bills $130 more per month. That is where some people are that in face of all evidence they want to do more of the same. Isn't that the definition of insanity? I made this point several months ago with one of the good folks over at the cleanmpg.com website that coal reserves have been deeply discounted and he went into total denial mode. He told me that all we needed to do was wait until the price of coal went up then that coal would be economically viable. I reminded him that the US economy was built and grew exponentially on the availability of cheap energy, namely coal and oil, but he would not budge. I even mentioned the new projects being planned with Concentrated Solar Thermal and he again thought it was a flight of fancy like IGCC plants. Even providing links to current working CSP would not convice him. He believed that a carbon cap and trade system would raise his electric bills $130 more per month.

That is where some people are that in face of all evidence they want to do more of the same. Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

]]> By: SecularAnimist http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70301 SecularAnimist Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:51:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70301 "K L Reddington" wrote: <i>"We have plenty of coal and we enjoy the fishing in the strip mine pits."</i> Whoever you are, it is not nice to steal Mr. Reddington's handle and use it to post insultingly stupid comments in his name. If you want to parody the inanities of so-called "conservatives" that's fine, but make up your own handle. “K L Reddington” wrote: “We have plenty of coal and we enjoy the fishing in the strip mine pits.”

Whoever you are, it is not nice to steal Mr. Reddington’s handle and use it to post insultingly stupid comments in his name. If you want to parody the inanities of so-called “conservatives” that’s fine, but make up your own handle.

]]> By: Wonhyo http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70293 Wonhyo Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:31:04 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70293 The Oil Drum has an interesting hypothesis that we have to reserve some of our remaining fossil fuels to build up a self-sustaining renewable energy infrastructure: http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/5457 This should not be a surprise to CP readers, but the time frame is pretty urgent. TOD estimates oil will have zero net energy by 2019 and the other three fuel sources (coal, gas, uranium) by 2051-2053. The latest USGS study seems to confirm the urgency of the coal situation, adding to peak oil. TOD, using Australia as a case study, estimates that 9% of GDP must be devoted to building up a renewable energy infrastructure, if Australia is to successfully replace fossil fuels with renewables before fossil fuels run out. Failure is a one-way street, because once fossil fuels run out, we will not have the energy to build a renewable infrastructure. I'd like to see someone apply this analysis to the U.S. What percentage of our GDP do we need to devote to renewable energy development to beat the zero net return on fossil fuel? The Oil Drum has an interesting hypothesis that we have to reserve some of our remaining fossil fuels to build up a self-sustaining renewable energy infrastructure:

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/5457

This should not be a surprise to CP readers, but the time frame is pretty urgent. TOD estimates oil will have zero net energy by 2019 and the other three fuel sources (coal, gas, uranium) by 2051-2053. The latest USGS study seems to confirm the urgency of the coal situation, adding to peak oil.

TOD, using Australia as a case study, estimates that 9% of GDP must be devoted to building up a renewable energy infrastructure, if Australia is to successfully replace fossil fuels with renewables before fossil fuels run out. Failure is a one-way street, because once fossil fuels run out, we will not have the energy to build a renewable infrastructure.

I’d like to see someone apply this analysis to the U.S. What percentage of our GDP do we need to devote to renewable energy development to beat the zero net return on fossil fuel?

]]> By: Jay Alt http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70183 Jay Alt Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:48:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70183 KL Reddington writes: Coal to liquid technology is used by SASOL, and (natural) gas to liquid technology is used by SASOL and PetroSA to produce liquid fuels. [link omitted] Exciting technology. - - - - - - - - It can be much more exciting than you realize. The South African SASOL plant is the largest single source of CO2 on the face of the earth. KL Reddington writes:
Coal to liquid technology is used by SASOL, and (natural) gas to liquid technology is used by SASOL and PetroSA to produce liquid fuels.

[link omitted]

Exciting technology.
- – - – - – - -
It can be much more exciting than you realize. The South African SASOL plant is the largest single source of CO2 on the face of the earth.

]]> By: Alternative Energy http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/#comment-70117 Alternative Energy Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:54:52 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=7652#comment-70117 If we're going to keep up with current energy consumption...do we have any other choice currently, other than to keep burning coal? We seem to think we're technologically advanced, but are we? It's 2009 and we're still burning black gunk out of the ground (whether it's coal or oil) for energy? Can't we do better? If we’re going to keep up with current energy consumption…do we have any other choice currently, other than to keep burning coal? We seem to think we’re technologically advanced, but are we? It’s 2009 and we’re still burning black gunk out of the ground (whether it’s coal or oil) for energy? Can’t we do better?

]]>