Not a Drop of Coal to Spare
Posted March 25, 2009 in Solving Global Warming
With the Coal-to-Liquids conference kicking off today in Washington, D.C., I think it's worth adding another point to my previous argument against the notion of converting coal into liquified transportation fuel to offset petroleum.
According to the latest U.S. Department of Energy calculations, if the industry were allowed to grow in line with projections of U.S. coal reservers, liquid coal would consume 58 million of coal per year by 2015. This would require the U.S. to actually import coal for domestic energy use.
How is this possible given industry's claim that America is the "Saudi Arabia of coal?" First of all, the 250 years of supply touted by industry is based on a government report written more than 35 years ago; more recent research on our country's coal reserves points to a drastically shorter time span.
According to a National Academy of Sciences report in 2007, "it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years."
The report concludes that after factoring in rising coal production rates, financing costs, coal quality, transportation costs, and other environmental and economic considerations, there is probably only sufficient economic reserves of coal -- the portion that can be mined, processed, and marketed at a profit -- left to meet the nation's energy needs for the next 100 years at current consumption rates.
While 100 years of supply might still sound like a pretty long time, at current prices that number could fall to just 75 years if we take into account the 0.8 percent rise per year in coal consumption predicted by the Energy Information Agency. The figure falls to just 50 years supply under the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition's production goal of 300,000 barrels per day by 2015 (and a subsequent growth rate of 5% per year).
If realistically we might have only 50 years worth of coal in America, why in the world would we want to waste what's left on a zany scheme to fill our gas tanks with liquid coal?
The above analysis was conducted by my colleague Andy Stevenson. To learn more, check out NRDC's new fact sheet on this issue.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Laurence Aurbach — Mar 25 2009 03:27 PM
300,000 barrels per day is a drop in the bucket compared to the US daily consumption of 20.6 million barrels per day of petroleum products. And if that 300,000 barrels per day is compounded annually at 5 percent for 50 years, then at the end of that half-century we'll be producing 3.4 million barrels per day from coal.
So by 2065 our coal supply will be providing 17 percent of our liquid fuel demand. (Actually, it would be less than that because demand is projected to increase.) And then we will be out of profitable coal for all purposes. And we will have used that coal in the most environmentally destructive manner imaginable, especially in regards to CO2 emissions. This does not sound like a wise plan.
Tony Williams — Mar 28 2009 07:22 PM
50 years of coal is a great idea compared to the less than 20 years of oil that we would otherwise use.
Tony Williams — Mar 28 2009 07:25 PM
Also, in 50 years we, hopefully, will not be needing any more coal as we will have moved on to other technologies. Meanwhile the coal would have allowed us to help solve our balance of payments problems and create numerous American jobs.
Laurence Aurbach — Mar 29 2009 08:09 PM
Unlimited years of solar and wind is an even greater idea. Instead of waiting until 2065, let's move on to clean energy technologies today. The world is racing towards green tech; we can move backwards to more polluting, environmentally destructive tech, or we can join the competition and work to regain our position as world leaders in renewable energy. The latter path will create more opportunities for international investment, partnerships and jobs.