Sure. We need to be clear: we have two separate problems: climate change, and liquid fuels, not a general problem of peak energy. If wind and natural gas are inadequate, we have more than enough coal to keep the lights (and whatever else we want to power with electricity) on during a transition (for better or worse). See Are we running out of coal? and Are we running out of coal? - part 2
You might ask:
During a transition to what?
Wind would be the biggest, with (in rough descending order) nuclear, solar, hydro and others.
how long it would take?
However long we choose - we could do it in 20 years if we want, or we could do it in 50. 50 years would be no more expensive than BAU, but terrible for AGW mitigation.
What would be the cost of both producing those renewables
For wind: about $7/average watt capex, giving about $.07/KWH wholesale cost, or about $.12/KWH retail. That's a little more expensive than old, dirty coal plants, but it's competitive with any form of new generation (including new coal, even without sequestration). We can see in Germany and Japan that $.12/KWH is more than cheap enough to support a strong economy.
What would be the cost of converting everything that now uses oil to use those renewables?
Very little, if we did it through attrition. An EREV like the Chevy Volt will cost about the same as the average new US vehicle, with large volume production, and reduce liquid fuel consumption by 90% (that's the range that biofuels can scale to - ethanol production is about 10% of gasoline volume right now).
Don't you have to add in the cost of all those batteries and inverters?
Like the Prego commercial, "that's in there". In other words, wind power costs include inverters and transmission, and EREV costs include batteries.
The wind doesn't blow all the time
Actually, it does, somewhere. It just takes some geographic diversity to take advantage of that fact, and a moderate amount of long-distance transmission.
the sun shines only in the daytime.
Isn't it convenient that's when we use the most?
The transition target has to be vastly scalable
Which wind is.
but cost less than existing energy sources, else the effort to switch alone will cause significant disruption.
Not if the transition is long enough. We could transition over 30 years, and that's more than enough time to amortize the capex of existing generation. Personal vehicles, of course, last a much shorter time: we can replace about 10% of VMT per year with no pain at all.
How could we replace about 10% of VMT per year - wouldn't that require new car sales of 25M per year (50% more than the all time record)?
The thing you have to keep in mind is that some vehicles travel many more miles than other: Commercial vehicles like taxis drive much more, and newer personal vehicles drive more. Vehicles less than 1 year old account for roughly 10% of US Vehicle Miles travelled.
An aggressive transition to electric would accelerate that tendency, both in terms of sales and in terms of preferential usage of new vehicles. After all, what difference is there between current new vehicles and those from 50 years ago, when automatic transmissions were introduced? Sure, electronic stability control and ABS are nice, but 95% of new vehicle sales come from a desire for the latest fashion - that's part of why people can so easily defer purchases during times of uncertainly, like the last 2 years.
Any transition to more expensive energy, which is the only reasonable expectation, will cause significantly greater pain.
A little, but we see in Japan and Germany that electricity twice as expensive as that in the US can easily support a strong economy.
Can renewables really make up the difference?
There's at least 5x as much easily usable wind resource as we need, and 1,000x as much solar.
But a great acceleration would be necessary.
That's the thing - it wouldn't. First, wind is already "here" - it provided 42% of new generation in the US last year. 2nd, we have enough coal to cover any transition (unless, of course, we want to do something about climate change, as we should - but that's a different problem).
can we afford wind?
An investment of about $2.6k in wind power per vehicle could provide all the "fuel" needed for personal transportation (13k miles per year/4miles per KWH/8760 hours per year x $7 per watt = $2,597). For 100k miles, that's about $.03/mile, much less than gas or diesel. It will be easy and cheap to power EREV/EVs (either bicycles or Volts). As this article stresses, that's the big kahuna.
That assumes $2 per nameplate watt, at 30% capacity factor. The US has more than enough of that, at that price, to supply 200% of our current electricity consumption. Heck, either N. Dakota or Texas alone could provide 30-50%.
What role do you see conservation, efficiency and simple doing without playing in your future scenario?
Really, we haven't converted to a renewable electricity economy already because it would hurt the careers and investments of too many people. When we get to the "tipping point" where the overall society demands solutions to AGW and PO, we'll move very quickly to EREV/EVs and wind power - there will be some temporary personal conservation on the way, but that won't be the primary thing.
Heck, why do without when you can just buy an EREV/EV?
if we put all our energy into producing enough solar and wind energy to power a world of Prius cars and don't have enough resources to upgrade the grid or supply charging stations we have wasted our remaining fossil fuel resources.
So manufacturing wind/solar might use so much resources that we wouldn't have enough to upgrade the grid or supply charging stations? The answer: we have more than enough energy to do both. First, manufacturing (of solar panels, wind turbines, grid equipment or charging stations) mainly uses electricity, and we have plenty of that from coal (see how useful it is to deal with things one at a time?), if needed. 2nd, wind has a very high E-ROI, meaning that it will pay for itself. 3rd, HEVs don't need grid upgrades or charging, and the grid is just fine as it is for a pretty large buildup of EREV/EVs.
Isn't the statistic that matters how much of our current FF fired electrical generation has been replaced by wind or any other source?
No, it really doesn't. Nobody's retiring generation at the moment, unless it's seriously functionally obsolete. People often get confused by that point, but it's a red herring.
There is a difference between having enough power, and decarbonizing our power. We should decarbonize our power, but that's very different from the premise that we're running out of energy.
We are at least as dependent upon FF for for energy today as we were 5 years ago. And possibley more so. Isn't that the big issue?
That's the issue for decarbonizing. But it's not the issue for our economy running out of power We have plenty of coal - enough to bake the planet. Will we do so? I'm afraid we probably will...but we won't run out of electricity.
But isn't our economy going to grind to a halt because of oil scarcity?
No. The food-and-goods freight transport network of the modern world uses about 25% of oil consumption in the US. Light vehicles overall account for 45% of oil consumption: their utilization could be doubled with carpooling in a matter of months, freeing up whatever fuel was needed by the freight network.
What about historical examples of societies that didn't recover well from economic transitions, like the US South after the Civil War?
I don't think the South is a very useful model for most of the world. It might be a good model for oil exporters.
First, it needs to be said that the South lost the first modern war of total destruction. 30% of all white males aged 18-40 were killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). There are usually more injuries than deaths: very likely only 20% of the white adult males were left healthy at the end of the war. Both ex-masters and ex-slaves were left without financial, industrial or technological capital with which to rebuild. Transportation, industry and even agriculture were laid waste - think of Sherman's march to the sea: everything was systematically destroyed.
The impact of slavery on human capital may have been the worst: slavery left a cultural heritage of passivity and violent authoritarianism (classism, racism, sexism, domestic violence, etc, etc) for both ex-masters and ex-slaves that cannot be underestimated (as discussed above regarding West Point traditions). To work (especially with your hands) was dishonorable for ex-masters, and to think and take responsibility for oneself was terrifying for people who had been publically tortured and killed for centuries, and who now faced a similar lynching campaign. The lack of more practical human capital can't be underestimated: ex-slaves didn't know how to read and write, how to run their lives (handling money, land titles, etc), how to raise their children or relate to spouses, etc, etc.
2nd, the South was a commodity exporter, like Russia and Saudi Arabia today. It was devastated by the "resource curse". "During the time of the Civil War, there was a dramatic slowdown in British cotton demand. As the textile industry matured, its rapid replacement of traditional methods naturally slowed. While the industry was still growing, its rate of growth slowed to match the relatively natural growth of population and incomes. The drop in demand growth, coupled with the tremendous cotton supply coming from the Southeastern states, led to falling prices. As poor conditions persisted for South Carolina’s cotton producers, no viable alternative crop could be found. The now relatively stagnant cotton economy remained until the end of the 19th century, as industrialization reached the state."
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/teams/ced/lgp-reports/Economy.PDF
All in all, the South had a uniquely frozen culture, due to the violence, abuse and misinformation required to maintain a slave society, and the "resource curse" created by it's dependence on a single export commodity (cotton) in a single industry (agriculture). Despite the availability of capital from the North, the South was in a uniquely unfavorable position for adaptation to a new world. It may be a model for oil exporters like Russia and KSA, but not for dynamic, educated countries in the OECD.
Wouldn't affluent people used to a consumerist lifestyle have comparable problems to face new realities?
OECD economies show a much greater ability to change. Look at Japan post 1870. Look at Germany and Japan post-WWII. Look at the US post-WWII. Look at the world car industry, which is gearing up to produce EVs, something which they found anathema only 5-15 years ago.
----------
Didn't it take a couple of generation for horse transportation to be replaced by street cars and ICE vehicles?
Yes, and difficulty of the transition contributed at least a bit to the Depression. The difference: hybrids, EREVs and EVs are being built by the same companies that built ICE vehicles, operate the same way, cost the same over their life-cycle, and need very little new infrastructure (90% of US vehicle owners have access to off-street parking, and more than 50% have private garages). The difficulty of the transition is orders of magnitude smaller.
--
Doesn't an energy transition require heavy investment which is not easily forthcoming under crisis conditions?
On the one hand, that's assuming the premise that Peak Oil will cause economic crisis. On the other, it's precisely under crisis conditions when investment is easiest - look at WWII: the US Depression ended because the war provided a good excuse for massive governmental spending and investment.
---------------------
The most important element of a transition from oil is the electrification of transportation. Surprisingly, the first part of the EV revolution has been here for years, in the form of the Prius. The Prius cuts fuel consumption by 50% (50MPG vs the US fleet average of 22MPG), in the US hybrids are 3% of new sales, and there are more than 1,000,000 on the road.
And now, the Leaf and the Volt are coming out, and it is really clear that we have all the technology we need, we just need to use it.
Showing posts with label Coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coal. Show all posts
October 24, 2009
Will Chinese fossil fuel consumption grow? Part 3
As I've noted before - many are concerned that growing fossil fuel consumption in China will necessarily dramatically increase world CO2 emissions, while competing for oil with western importers, and setting the stage for economic volatility when it's coal runs out.
So, what's China doing?
"China has also begun to see energy efficiency and renewable energy as ingredients for the type of modern economy it wants to build, in part because it would make the nation's energy sources more secure.
"We think this is a new business for us, not a burden," said Gan Zhongxue, who left a job as a top U.S. scientist for the giant ABB Group to head up research and development at ENN, the Langfang company that made its fortune as the dominant natural gas distributor in 80 Chinese cities. "
---------------
"China has taken significant steps in the past five years. It removed subsidies for motor fuel, which now costs more than it does in the United States; its fuel-efficiency standard for new urban vehicles is 36.7 miles per gallon, a level the United States will not reach for seven years. It has set high efficiency standards for new coal plants; the United States has none. It has set new energy-efficiency standards for buildings. It has targeted its 1,000 top emitters of greenhouse gases to boost energy efficiency by 20 percent. And it has shut down many older, inefficient industrial boilers and power plants. "
source
So, what's China doing?
"China has also begun to see energy efficiency and renewable energy as ingredients for the type of modern economy it wants to build, in part because it would make the nation's energy sources more secure.
"We think this is a new business for us, not a burden," said Gan Zhongxue, who left a job as a top U.S. scientist for the giant ABB Group to head up research and development at ENN, the Langfang company that made its fortune as the dominant natural gas distributor in 80 Chinese cities. "
---------------
"China has taken significant steps in the past five years. It removed subsidies for motor fuel, which now costs more than it does in the United States; its fuel-efficiency standard for new urban vehicles is 36.7 miles per gallon, a level the United States will not reach for seven years. It has set high efficiency standards for new coal plants; the United States has none. It has set new energy-efficiency standards for buildings. It has targeted its 1,000 top emitters of greenhouse gases to boost energy efficiency by 20 percent. And it has shut down many older, inefficient industrial boilers and power plants. "
source
September 11, 2009
How expensive is the wind power needed to eliminate Chinese coal??
Previously, I asked How expensive is the wind power needed to eliminate coal in the US??
Well, China's emissions are just as high.
What would it cost in China?
It turns out: not much, in the grand scheme of things. Only about 7.5 cents per KWH http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23460/
This is only $90B per year for 10 years, which really isn't much, expecially given that other power sources wouldn't be much cheaper.
Well, China's emissions are just as high.
What would it cost in China?
It turns out: not much, in the grand scheme of things. Only about 7.5 cents per KWH http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23460/
“Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Barren, windy stretches of the Tibetan plateau and grasslands in northeastern China hold untapped value in a country searching for more energy and cleaner air.
China, the biggest polluter from burning fossil fuels, has enough wind-energy potential to generate seven times its current power consumption, said Michael McElroy, a researcher at Harvard University. To develop that capacity and meet rising demand would cost about $900 billion, he wrote in a study published yesterday in Science.”
March 14, 2009
How expensive is the wind power needed to eliminate coal??
In my previous post, I said we could build enough wind capacity to replace coal for $400 billion. Coal supplies half our electricity - can we really do that?
Sure. Here's how I came up with that number:
The US generates about 50% of our electricity from coal, which amounts to an average of 220 gigawatts. Wind, on average, produces power at 30% of it's nameplate rating, so we'd need about 733GW of wind. Wind costs about $2/W, so that would cost about $1,466 billion. Transmission might raise that about 10%, to about $1,613 billion.
Now, roughly 50% of coal plants need to be replaced in the next 20 years, so about 50% of the $1.6T coal replacement investment is needed anyway; new coal plants are just as expensive per KWH as wind, so that half, or $800B of the investment can be eliminated from our considerations.
Coal plants cost about $.035/KWH to fuel and operate, which is about 50% of the cost of wind. That's an expense that we'll have either way, so we can eliminate 50% of the remainder, which is about $400B: all told, we can discount the wind investment by 75%!
Wind's intermittency is often raised as another source of cost: I address that here.
--------
So, that gives us a cost of roughly $400B, or $40B per year for 10 years. That's about 5% of US manufacturing (less than the currently idle manufacturing capacity!), and .3% of GDP.
A bargain.
Sure. Here's how I came up with that number:
The US generates about 50% of our electricity from coal, which amounts to an average of 220 gigawatts. Wind, on average, produces power at 30% of it's nameplate rating, so we'd need about 733GW of wind. Wind costs about $2/W, so that would cost about $1,466 billion. Transmission might raise that about 10%, to about $1,613 billion.
Now, roughly 50% of coal plants need to be replaced in the next 20 years, so about 50% of the $1.6T coal replacement investment is needed anyway; new coal plants are just as expensive per KWH as wind, so that half, or $800B of the investment can be eliminated from our considerations.
Coal plants cost about $.035/KWH to fuel and operate, which is about 50% of the cost of wind. That's an expense that we'll have either way, so we can eliminate 50% of the remainder, which is about $400B: all told, we can discount the wind investment by 75%!
Wind's intermittency is often raised as another source of cost: I address that here.
--------
So, that gives us a cost of roughly $400B, or $40B per year for 10 years. That's about 5% of US manufacturing (less than the currently idle manufacturing capacity!), and .3% of GDP.
A bargain.
Would dramatically reducing CO2 emissions be expensive?
No, surprisingly enough.
The British Stern report projected a cost of 1% of GDP per year, and later Stern revised that to 2%. I think that's too high. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on some kind of authority to figure this out - at least for the US, I think we can do the calculations ourselves.
Most CO2 emissions in the US come from coal - a solution that eliminates coal and a large % of oil consumption will get us most of the way.
Well, replacing coal with wind in the US would only have a net cost of about $400 billion*. Light vehicle transportation accounts for 45% of US oil consumption - replacing it wouldn't cost anything at all, if you include all costs and savings over the vehicle lifecycle**.
$400B divided into a $14T economy is 3%. Over 20 years, that's only .15% per year. Not much, really.
*, ** I'll show the calculations for this on following days.
The British Stern report projected a cost of 1% of GDP per year, and later Stern revised that to 2%. I think that's too high. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on some kind of authority to figure this out - at least for the US, I think we can do the calculations ourselves.
Most CO2 emissions in the US come from coal - a solution that eliminates coal and a large % of oil consumption will get us most of the way.
Well, replacing coal with wind in the US would only have a net cost of about $400 billion*. Light vehicle transportation accounts for 45% of US oil consumption - replacing it wouldn't cost anything at all, if you include all costs and savings over the vehicle lifecycle**.
$400B divided into a $14T economy is 3%. Over 20 years, that's only .15% per year. Not much, really.
*, ** I'll show the calculations for this on following days.
March 12, 2009
Does Peak Oil mitigation hurt Climate Change?
No, probably not. Here's a conversation I had recently:
Randall Parker said :
Nick G,
Peak Oil versus AGW: Peak Oil has the advantage of causing a shorter term necessity with personal direct feedbacks. When the oil production starts the big decline people will have to come up with solutions. Their choices will be so stark and immediate that they'll act, invest, move, research, insulate, cut back. Each person will see immediate costs and benefits for their own decisions.
I am thinking that, however, Peak Oil helps with AGW in two ways:
1) Peak Oil will accelerate the shift to electric cars. Electricity has many ways to get generated, some much cleaner than others. That shift makes it easier because the cost differences btw the dirtier and cleaner ways to generate electricity aren't huge and they are narrowing.
2) We will do more insulating and have more incentives to develop more efficient ways to use energy.
My guess is that domestic opposition to coal plants will stop coal's growth in the US and then we will use less oil. So the US CO2 production trend will start going downward (if it isn't already trending downward). It is Asia that will keep producing more and more CO2 emissions.
I replied:
Randall,
I agree with your thoughts on Peak Oil versus AGW.
A few more:
"the cost differences btw the dirtier and cleaner ways to generate electricity aren't huge and they are narrowing"
1) There's some indication that new coal has overall costs similar to or higher than wind! Some proposed coal plants in the US (not sequestering carbon, but cleaning up all other index pollutants, like mercury) have capital costs around $2.5/W, which gives overall costs of $.08-.09/KWH, which is higher than wind: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/4/123223/5089 . On the one hand, some of this may have been a temporary capex cost problem, due to a construction bubble, but on the other, this is an "overnight" cost, which doesn't include the cost of the construction period, which is much longer for coal than for wind (or nuclear). In any case, it kind've looks like coal is no longer the cheap option.
2) There is a plausible argument that the swing night-time electricity producer for the near-term will be coal (which has spare night-time capacity, and lower fuel costs than gas), and that therefore new demand, like electric vehicle (EREV/PHEV/EVs), will be mostly supplied by coal. Coal, as we all know, produces twice as much CO2 per BTU as oil. Conversely, electric vehicles are 6x as efficient as your average light vehicle, and 3x as efficient as a Prius. Therefore, it looks like EV's will still produce less CO2 than ICE's.
3) Demand Side Management of electric vehicle charging (and, later, V2G) provides, in effect, almost free storage to wind power. Wind and EV's are synergistic. More electric vehicles supports a higher grid market share for wind power.
"It is Asia that will keep producing more and more CO2 emissions."
The faster we deploy new, cheaper renewable power and electric vehicles, and the sooner we achieve economies of scale, the sooner those things can move to Asia and displace coal. We've said that before...but it's worth saying again.
I think we agree that there isn't a significant conflict between solving PO and solving climate change, and that in fact solutions for one are generally helpful for the other.
The one exception may be a move from oil-fired electrical generation to coal: the US has phased out oil-fired generation (for all but 3% of the market - the remainder is in odd places like Hawaii), but very roughly 25% of world oil consumption is for electrical generation. I kind've think that move won't happen very much, however, as 1) coal isn't really cheap, as we saw above; 2) much of the world's coal is in the US, which probably won't be excited about large coal exports; 3) many countries will put at least a small implicit price on the emissions (both index and CO2); and 4) wind and solar tend to have lower incremental costs and shorter lead times, which helps off-set their higher capital costs.
Randall Parker said :
Nick G,
Peak Oil versus AGW: Peak Oil has the advantage of causing a shorter term necessity with personal direct feedbacks. When the oil production starts the big decline people will have to come up with solutions. Their choices will be so stark and immediate that they'll act, invest, move, research, insulate, cut back. Each person will see immediate costs and benefits for their own decisions.
I am thinking that, however, Peak Oil helps with AGW in two ways:
1) Peak Oil will accelerate the shift to electric cars. Electricity has many ways to get generated, some much cleaner than others. That shift makes it easier because the cost differences btw the dirtier and cleaner ways to generate electricity aren't huge and they are narrowing.
2) We will do more insulating and have more incentives to develop more efficient ways to use energy.
My guess is that domestic opposition to coal plants will stop coal's growth in the US and then we will use less oil. So the US CO2 production trend will start going downward (if it isn't already trending downward). It is Asia that will keep producing more and more CO2 emissions.
I replied:
Randall,
I agree with your thoughts on Peak Oil versus AGW.
A few more:
"the cost differences btw the dirtier and cleaner ways to generate electricity aren't huge and they are narrowing"
1) There's some indication that new coal has overall costs similar to or higher than wind! Some proposed coal plants in the US (not sequestering carbon, but cleaning up all other index pollutants, like mercury) have capital costs around $2.5/W, which gives overall costs of $.08-.09/KWH, which is higher than wind: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/4/123223/5089 . On the one hand, some of this may have been a temporary capex cost problem, due to a construction bubble, but on the other, this is an "overnight" cost, which doesn't include the cost of the construction period, which is much longer for coal than for wind (or nuclear). In any case, it kind've looks like coal is no longer the cheap option.
2) There is a plausible argument that the swing night-time electricity producer for the near-term will be coal (which has spare night-time capacity, and lower fuel costs than gas), and that therefore new demand, like electric vehicle (EREV/PHEV/EVs), will be mostly supplied by coal. Coal, as we all know, produces twice as much CO2 per BTU as oil. Conversely, electric vehicles are 6x as efficient as your average light vehicle, and 3x as efficient as a Prius. Therefore, it looks like EV's will still produce less CO2 than ICE's.
3) Demand Side Management of electric vehicle charging (and, later, V2G) provides, in effect, almost free storage to wind power. Wind and EV's are synergistic. More electric vehicles supports a higher grid market share for wind power.
"It is Asia that will keep producing more and more CO2 emissions."
The faster we deploy new, cheaper renewable power and electric vehicles, and the sooner we achieve economies of scale, the sooner those things can move to Asia and displace coal. We've said that before...but it's worth saying again.
I think we agree that there isn't a significant conflict between solving PO and solving climate change, and that in fact solutions for one are generally helpful for the other.
The one exception may be a move from oil-fired electrical generation to coal: the US has phased out oil-fired generation (for all but 3% of the market - the remainder is in odd places like Hawaii), but very roughly 25% of world oil consumption is for electrical generation. I kind've think that move won't happen very much, however, as 1) coal isn't really cheap, as we saw above; 2) much of the world's coal is in the US, which probably won't be excited about large coal exports; 3) many countries will put at least a small implicit price on the emissions (both index and CO2); and 4) wind and solar tend to have lower incremental costs and shorter lead times, which helps off-set their higher capital costs.
February 24, 2009
Are we running out of coal (part 2)?
Again, for better or worse, the news is that we are not.
A recent report by the US Geological Survey looks at the recoverable reserves of the Gilette field in Wyoming, currently the largest producer in the US.
It found that at current low prices, about $10/ton, that only about 6% of the coal in the field could be economically produced.
On the other hand, if the minemouth cost of coal rose to $30/ton, the retail cost of coal-fired electricity would increase only 10%*, but economically-recoverable coal reserves would increase six times. At $60/ton, 77 billion tons would become economic, enough to singlehandedly maintain US coal consumption for about 75 years. And, that's without Montana coal (Powder River), or the Illinois basin, which I discussed previously.
A spirited discusion of the report can be found here (you'll have to watch out for the tone of pessimism, which is endemic on the site).
Aren't you just taking the USGS at face value?
Not at all - I look at the detail from the USGS, the EWG, Rutledge, industry reports, etc, etc. Ultimately, I find that there really isn't disagreement on the facts, just the interpretation. Those who see coal as peaking are looking at demand for coal, in the context of cheaper and better alternatives. See more discussion of this below.
Will Peak Oil make diesel too expensive to transport coal?
No.
A $100/bbl increase in the cost of oil would increase the cost of transporting a ton of coal by $100/bbl x 1bbl/42 gal x 2.65 gal/ton** = $6.3/ton. That's a 3% increase in the cost of electricity, which means that railroads will be easily be able to out-bid other potential users, like trucks.
Coal transportation by rail can also be converted in a relatively straightforward manner to use electricity instead of diesel, meaning that reduced oil supplies are highly unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the ability of the US to transport coal.
We're going to have to make a conscious decision to eliminate coal - it's not going to run out, and make the decision for us.
What about this report?
"Despite significant uncertainties in existing reserve estimates, it is clear that there is sufficient coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030. Further into the future, there is probably sufficient coal to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of consumption. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years. A combination of increased rates of production with more detailed reserve analyses that take into account location, quality, recoverability, and transportation issues may substantially reduce the number of years of supply." From Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy
There's no real disagreement here - what disagreement there is, comes from a different frame of reference.
1st, they say "it is clear that there is sufficient coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030". I would argue that's probably all we need, for the transition to renewables.
2nd, they say "there is probably sufficient coal to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of consumption". I would argue that's certainly all we need, for the transition to renewables (or fusion, for that matter - in 100 years things will be very different).
Finally, they say that there are risks beyond 100 years: the coal is there, but that 1) the US might dramatically increase it's rate of consumption - I think that's highly unlikely, 2) other issues may get in the way. Well, if we really were to face a situation where our economy's collapse could be prevented by digging up our national parks...the national parks wouldn't stop us.
All in all, I'd say that report supports the perspective that in the US, there's no realistic prospect of inadequate electricity caused by real, physical limitations.
*Electricity in the US is about $0.10/kWh, and US coal generates about 2,000kWh/ton. That gives a retail price of electricity of $200 per ton of coal used, so a cost of $10/ton for coal represents only 5% of the overall retail price.
**Rail transportation is about 440 ton-miles/gallon on average, and coal is at minimum 500 tm/gallon. Coal trains are probably even more fuel efficient, because the ratio of load to tare weight is greater than most other rail freight (particularly intermodal). 600 tm/g might be a good estimate. Low-sulfur coal in the US travels roughly 1,000 miles before being used (high sulfur coal travels much less).
Fuel consumption is driven by 1) acceleration and climbing; 2) drive-train friction; 3) wheel friction; 4) wind friction. 1 and 3 will rise (and fall) with weight, but not the others. If coal trains weigh much more, and will be substantially more efficient on average. Conversely, dead-head trains on the return trip from the power plant to the coal mine would consume less fuel, but the decline won't be 100%.
If the industry stat is 440m/g, we can assume that coal gets at least 600 miles/gallon one way (1.52 gallons per 1k miles). The empty train might use 50% as much the industry average for fuel on the dead-head leg (or, in effect, 880m/g, or 1.14 g/kmile). 1.52 + 1.14 = 2.65 gallons for the 2,000 mile roundtrip.
The 440m/g industry stat must include dead-heading: IIRC coal is roughly 1/3 all US train traffic, and it's not the only freight with this problem, so the above calc (which allocates this overhead cost only to coal) is conservative.
A recent report by the US Geological Survey looks at the recoverable reserves of the Gilette field in Wyoming, currently the largest producer in the US.
It found that at current low prices, about $10/ton, that only about 6% of the coal in the field could be economically produced.
On the other hand, if the minemouth cost of coal rose to $30/ton, the retail cost of coal-fired electricity would increase only 10%*, but economically-recoverable coal reserves would increase six times. At $60/ton, 77 billion tons would become economic, enough to singlehandedly maintain US coal consumption for about 75 years. And, that's without Montana coal (Powder River), or the Illinois basin, which I discussed previously.
A spirited discusion of the report can be found here (you'll have to watch out for the tone of pessimism, which is endemic on the site).
Aren't you just taking the USGS at face value?
Not at all - I look at the detail from the USGS, the EWG, Rutledge, industry reports, etc, etc. Ultimately, I find that there really isn't disagreement on the facts, just the interpretation. Those who see coal as peaking are looking at demand for coal, in the context of cheaper and better alternatives. See more discussion of this below.
Will Peak Oil make diesel too expensive to transport coal?
No.
A $100/bbl increase in the cost of oil would increase the cost of transporting a ton of coal by $100/bbl x 1bbl/42 gal x 2.65 gal/ton** = $6.3/ton. That's a 3% increase in the cost of electricity, which means that railroads will be easily be able to out-bid other potential users, like trucks.
Coal transportation by rail can also be converted in a relatively straightforward manner to use electricity instead of diesel, meaning that reduced oil supplies are highly unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the ability of the US to transport coal.
We're going to have to make a conscious decision to eliminate coal - it's not going to run out, and make the decision for us.
What about this report?
"Despite significant uncertainties in existing reserve estimates, it is clear that there is sufficient coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030. Further into the future, there is probably sufficient coal to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of consumption. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years. A combination of increased rates of production with more detailed reserve analyses that take into account location, quality, recoverability, and transportation issues may substantially reduce the number of years of supply." From Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy
There's no real disagreement here - what disagreement there is, comes from a different frame of reference.
1st, they say "it is clear that there is sufficient coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030". I would argue that's probably all we need, for the transition to renewables.
2nd, they say "there is probably sufficient coal to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of consumption". I would argue that's certainly all we need, for the transition to renewables (or fusion, for that matter - in 100 years things will be very different).
Finally, they say that there are risks beyond 100 years: the coal is there, but that 1) the US might dramatically increase it's rate of consumption - I think that's highly unlikely, 2) other issues may get in the way. Well, if we really were to face a situation where our economy's collapse could be prevented by digging up our national parks...the national parks wouldn't stop us.
All in all, I'd say that report supports the perspective that in the US, there's no realistic prospect of inadequate electricity caused by real, physical limitations.
*Electricity in the US is about $0.10/kWh, and US coal generates about 2,000kWh/ton. That gives a retail price of electricity of $200 per ton of coal used, so a cost of $10/ton for coal represents only 5% of the overall retail price.
**Rail transportation is about 440 ton-miles/gallon on average, and coal is at minimum 500 tm/gallon. Coal trains are probably even more fuel efficient, because the ratio of load to tare weight is greater than most other rail freight (particularly intermodal). 600 tm/g might be a good estimate. Low-sulfur coal in the US travels roughly 1,000 miles before being used (high sulfur coal travels much less).
Fuel consumption is driven by 1) acceleration and climbing; 2) drive-train friction; 3) wheel friction; 4) wind friction. 1 and 3 will rise (and fall) with weight, but not the others. If coal trains weigh much more, and will be substantially more efficient on average. Conversely, dead-head trains on the return trip from the power plant to the coal mine would consume less fuel, but the decline won't be 100%.
If the industry stat is 440m/g, we can assume that coal gets at least 600 miles/gallon one way (1.52 gallons per 1k miles). The empty train might use 50% as much the industry average for fuel on the dead-head leg (or, in effect, 880m/g, or 1.14 g/kmile). 1.52 + 1.14 = 2.65 gallons for the 2,000 mile roundtrip.
The 440m/g industry stat must include dead-heading: IIRC coal is roughly 1/3 all US train traffic, and it's not the only freight with this problem, so the above calc (which allocates this overhead cost only to coal) is conservative.
February 21, 2009
Would eliminating coal be difficult?
No.
We'd need only about $1.6T of wind investment to completely replace coal in the US, and power all light vehicles.
How did I come up with that? Well, we generate about 50% of our electricity from coal, 220 gigawatts. Wind, on average, produces power at 30% of it nameplate rating, so we'd need about 733GW of wind. Wind costs about $2/W, so that would cost about $1,466 billion. Transmission might raise that about 10%, to about 1,613 billion.
That's actually in the ballpark of the cost of the status quo, all told, given how expensive coal plants are to build ($4-$7/W), and the cost of fueling them. It's less than the cost of the Iraq war, all told.
That's only 73GW per year over 10 years. That's quite comparable to the average amount of generation the US installs every year right now. We built about 8.5GW last year in wind alone, IIRC, and expanding that to 73GW wouldn't be that big of a deal.
No big deal at all.
If we were to go to a 100% electric economy wouldn't we need 5 to 10 times as much electrical generation?
Not really. Electrifying all light vehicles, which account for 45% of US oil consumption, would only require an increase in generation of about 17% (220M vehicles x 12K miles/vehicle x .25KWH/mile = 75GW) in overall generation (450GW).
Wind, on average, produces power at 30% of its nameplate rating, so for light vehicles we'd only need 250GW of wind (75GW/30%). Wind costs about $2/W, so that would cost about $500 billion. Transmission might raise that about 10%, to about $550 billion. That's only $50B/yr for 11 years.
PHEV/EV's won't cost any more than existing light vehicles - the average light vehicle in the US costs $28K, and you could certainly add a plug and a much larger battery for $4k.
The same thing applies to air-source heat pumps for space heating.
Electricity is much more efficient than oil and gas.
We'd need only about $1.6T of wind investment to completely replace coal in the US, and power all light vehicles.
How did I come up with that? Well, we generate about 50% of our electricity from coal, 220 gigawatts. Wind, on average, produces power at 30% of it nameplate rating, so we'd need about 733GW of wind. Wind costs about $2/W, so that would cost about $1,466 billion. Transmission might raise that about 10%, to about 1,613 billion.
That's actually in the ballpark of the cost of the status quo, all told, given how expensive coal plants are to build ($4-$7/W), and the cost of fueling them. It's less than the cost of the Iraq war, all told.
That's only 73GW per year over 10 years. That's quite comparable to the average amount of generation the US installs every year right now. We built about 8.5GW last year in wind alone, IIRC, and expanding that to 73GW wouldn't be that big of a deal.
No big deal at all.
If we were to go to a 100% electric economy wouldn't we need 5 to 10 times as much electrical generation?
Not really. Electrifying all light vehicles, which account for 45% of US oil consumption, would only require an increase in generation of about 17% (220M vehicles x 12K miles/vehicle x .25KWH/mile = 75GW) in overall generation (450GW).
Wind, on average, produces power at 30% of its nameplate rating, so for light vehicles we'd only need 250GW of wind (75GW/30%). Wind costs about $2/W, so that would cost about $500 billion. Transmission might raise that about 10%, to about $550 billion. That's only $50B/yr for 11 years.
PHEV/EV's won't cost any more than existing light vehicles - the average light vehicle in the US costs $28K, and you could certainly add a plug and a much larger battery for $4k.
The same thing applies to air-source heat pumps for space heating.
Electricity is much more efficient than oil and gas.
June 20, 2008
Are we running out of coal?
One could ask several questions related to coal.
First, why ask the question? Don't we want to reduce or eliminate coal because of climate change?
Yes, we do. For better or worse, however, it's important to be realistic about the availability of coal. If we're not running out of it, we have to make a conscious decision to eliminate it, not rely on geological limits. Also, it's good to know whether or not we'll face energy shortages due to coal scarcity. If not, we have more options - if we face an emergency, we will have the option of using coal. Of course, that may be expensive and difficult to do without excessive CO2, but options are usually good to have. In that vein, we should note that if we have coal to spare it's actually easier to sequester CO2 - sequestration consumes a fair amount of energy, and if things are tight it will be much harder to pay for something whose necessity isn't obvious to all .
So, do we face limits on our coal production, as a practical matter?
No. Coal is unlike oil - we have enormous reserves, we know where they are, and in many cases there is no significant increasing marginal cost to their extraction, except for temporary costs of expansion.
Do higher energy prices raise the costs of extracting fossil fuels?
It depends on the individual case. Coal has a high E-ROI. For instance from a recent survey by Heinberg ( from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4061 ): "Consider the case of Massey Energy Company, the nation’s fourth-largest coal company, which annually produces 40 million tons of coal using about 40 million gallons of diesel fuel—about a gallon per ton" .
That's a very high E-ROI: a gallon of diesel is about 140K BTU's, and a ton of coal is very roughly 20M (see http://www.uwsp.edu/CNR/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm ), so that's an E-ROI about 140:1! Now, diesel costs very roughly 10x as much per BTU (reflecting it's scarcity premium), so the cost ratio isn't quite as favorable, but it's still well above 10:1. So, the price of diesel rises by $1 (roughly 25%), and the cost of coal rises by $1, or very, very roughly 2% - not a big deal. Also, we should note that coal mining (and transportation) is often electric even now (especially underground), and that it's pretty amenable to further electrification - in other words, coal mining can power itself using a small fraction of it's production.
Will higher coal prices make a substantially larger fraction of the coal available for extraction?
Yes, but only slightly higher prices are needed. Here's what Heinberg has to say: "if Montana and Illinois can resolve their production blockages, or the nation becomes so desperate for energy supplies that environmental concerns are simply swept away, then the peak will come somewhat later, while the decline will be longer, slower, and probably far dirtier.". The Montana "production blockages" he talks about are relatively trivial, and Illinois doesn't really have them. The pollution he refers to is CO2 and sulfur - the sulfur costs about 2 cents/KWH to scrub, and the CO2 might cost out at $80/ton of CO2, which IIRC would add about $30/ton of coal, should we choose to internalize this cost.
Illinois coal simply couldn't compete with Powder River coal with a 2 cent premium for sulfur scrubbing - it's as simple as that. UK and German coal became a bit more expensive, and they couldn't compete with cheap oil.
The same general rule applies to US, UK and European coal: only under Business As Usual is coal declining - people who say otherwise are misinterpreting the data. I discussed this at length with one the often-quoted authors on this subject, David Rutledge, and we came reasonably close to some kind of agreement on this. If there are serious energy shortages, the old reserve numbers will apply, for better or worse.
So, would a doubling in coal prices substantially increase recoverable coal reserves?
Yes. Now, "recoverable" is tricky: the normal distinction used by the USGS is "economically recoverable" - that includes economic assumptions, and Illinois coal (and much other coal in the world), at a slightly higher cost as discussed above, is currently uneconomic. But, that's under Business As Usual - if we have a true energy scarcity, Illinois coal will very, very quickly become economic.
What about the "Law of Receding Horizons"?
That applies only to low E-ROI sources of energy. Coal is high E-ROI, unlike Canadian bitumen (tar sands) or Colorado kerogen (oil shale). I would note that the importance of this "law" has been enormously exaggerated, as it's confused with temporary capex issues and scarcity premia, which are allocating temporarily scarce capital resources.
More coal gets extracted from the ground each year as measured in tons, but hasn't the quality declined so much that net energy content is lower now than 10 years ago?
Powder River coal is lower energy density (sub-bituminous), but it's sufficiently cheaper to mine that the difference doesn't matter. Again, this is a purely economic shift from Illinois coal, which is higher energy density (bituminous). This shift has caused endless confusion to analysts unfamiliar with the coal industry (OTOH, people inside the industry understand this).
Aren't coal prices rising?
In many cases, this is due to the temporary costs of expansion. Oil & gas are much more expensive per BTU due to a scarcity premium, and so demand has increased for coal. Most coal is on long-term contract, not on the higher spot market (unlike oil). But it's important to be clear that in many places, like the US, the long-term marginal cost of extraction isn't really increasing, as it is for oil.
Should we build new coal electrical generation plants?
Yes. I used to think that we should only build new plants if they included sequestration. Lately, I've started to think that that's unrealistic, given the glacial pace of development for sequestration. At the moment, much of our marginal generation comes from the very dirtiest, least efficient coal plants. It's unlikely that we'll be able to build enough wind and solar generation to replace all coal and natural gas plants for at least 25 years. New wind production will largely eliminate natural gas consumption before it affects coal. The marginal cost of NG KWH's is much greater than for coal, plus it's much easier to finetune NG production around wind's variations. Even at night, long-distance transmission will allow heavy NG users to preferentially buy wind-power (whose marginal cost will always be lower). In other words, an area with excess wind production which has zeroed out it's NG will sell the excess before turning down coal production.
Consideration should probably be given to building new, efficient coal plants to replace the least efficient coal plants - that would substantially reduce emissions, because coal will be around for a while. Now, that wouldn't make sense if we can get behind Al Gore's challenge to eliminate all CO2 emitting generation in 10 years. Gore's proposal gets it just right, but will require a lot of education and selling to the public.
Consideration should probably be given to building new, efficient coal plants to replace the least efficient coal plants - that would substantially reduce emissions. These might include underground coal gasification , which would also expand usable coal resources. Now, that wouldn't make sense if we can get behind Al Gore's latest challenge to eliminate all CO2 emitting generation in 10 years. Gore's proposal gets it just right, but will require a lot of education and selling to the public.
Is Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) feasible?
Yes, but projects tend to be large and expensive, and would be CO2 intensive. That means that investors would like federal loan guarantees, but that such guarantees are unlikely. Nevertheless, CTL is cost-effective even with fairly high carbon taxes, with oil prices at anything like the current level , and projects are slowly moving ahead . The best path would be CTL with CO2 sequestration - this would deserve guarantees.
Is oil-shale feasible?
With oil over $100/barrel, the answer is almost certainly yes. There's something like a $50T incentive there for exploitation, and somebody could make something work. In that way its similar to the Bakken basin, which may have 400B barrels of true oil, though much, much less is economically recoverable right now.
Kerogen has the advantage of not needing hydrogenation (which is needed for both tar-sands and CTL), which requires expensive natural gas or a combination of added energy and water (also a significant cost).
On the other hand Green River kerogen (mis-named oil shale) is low density, and a pain to dispose of after burning (it expands). That's why even low-value coal is more attractive for burning (which is what the Estonians do with it). That's also why retort conversion to oil (the conventional method) is unattractive, and why Shell is considering in-situ conversion instead.
Further, kerogen requires a lot of energy to upgrade - the Shell process looks very much like a very slow, inconvenient method of converting electricity to oil (kind've like ethanol, except ethanol mostly uses natural gas). All in all, it's not going to happen cheaply or at large volumes any time soon.
I wouldn't reject it, as it is extremely valuable to have diversity in energy supply, but it would be much better to concentrate on electrifying our vehicles ASAP. In other words, we can't let it distract us from the main and best solutions available to us, which are, unfortunately, inconvenient for oil & gas and car companies.
First, why ask the question? Don't we want to reduce or eliminate coal because of climate change?
Yes, we do. For better or worse, however, it's important to be realistic about the availability of coal. If we're not running out of it, we have to make a conscious decision to eliminate it, not rely on geological limits. Also, it's good to know whether or not we'll face energy shortages due to coal scarcity. If not, we have more options - if we face an emergency, we will have the option of using coal. Of course, that may be expensive and difficult to do without excessive CO2, but options are usually good to have. In that vein, we should note that if we have coal to spare it's actually easier to sequester CO2 - sequestration consumes a fair amount of energy, and if things are tight it will be much harder to pay for something whose necessity isn't obvious to all .
So, do we face limits on our coal production, as a practical matter?
No. Coal is unlike oil - we have enormous reserves, we know where they are, and in many cases there is no significant increasing marginal cost to their extraction, except for temporary costs of expansion.
Do higher energy prices raise the costs of extracting fossil fuels?
It depends on the individual case. Coal has a high E-ROI. For instance from a recent survey by Heinberg ( from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4061 ): "Consider the case of Massey Energy Company, the nation’s fourth-largest coal company, which annually produces 40 million tons of coal using about 40 million gallons of diesel fuel—about a gallon per ton" .
That's a very high E-ROI: a gallon of diesel is about 140K BTU's, and a ton of coal is very roughly 20M (see http://www.uwsp.edu/CNR/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm ), so that's an E-ROI about 140:1! Now, diesel costs very roughly 10x as much per BTU (reflecting it's scarcity premium), so the cost ratio isn't quite as favorable, but it's still well above 10:1. So, the price of diesel rises by $1 (roughly 25%), and the cost of coal rises by $1, or very, very roughly 2% - not a big deal. Also, we should note that coal mining (and transportation) is often electric even now (especially underground), and that it's pretty amenable to further electrification - in other words, coal mining can power itself using a small fraction of it's production.
Will higher coal prices make a substantially larger fraction of the coal available for extraction?
Yes, but only slightly higher prices are needed. Here's what Heinberg has to say: "if Montana and Illinois can resolve their production blockages, or the nation becomes so desperate for energy supplies that environmental concerns are simply swept away, then the peak will come somewhat later, while the decline will be longer, slower, and probably far dirtier.". The Montana "production blockages" he talks about are relatively trivial, and Illinois doesn't really have them. The pollution he refers to is CO2 and sulfur - the sulfur costs about 2 cents/KWH to scrub, and the CO2 might cost out at $80/ton of CO2, which IIRC would add about $30/ton of coal, should we choose to internalize this cost.
Illinois coal simply couldn't compete with Powder River coal with a 2 cent premium for sulfur scrubbing - it's as simple as that. UK and German coal became a bit more expensive, and they couldn't compete with cheap oil.
The same general rule applies to US, UK and European coal: only under Business As Usual is coal declining - people who say otherwise are misinterpreting the data. I discussed this at length with one the often-quoted authors on this subject, David Rutledge, and we came reasonably close to some kind of agreement on this. If there are serious energy shortages, the old reserve numbers will apply, for better or worse.
So, would a doubling in coal prices substantially increase recoverable coal reserves?
Yes. Now, "recoverable" is tricky: the normal distinction used by the USGS is "economically recoverable" - that includes economic assumptions, and Illinois coal (and much other coal in the world), at a slightly higher cost as discussed above, is currently uneconomic. But, that's under Business As Usual - if we have a true energy scarcity, Illinois coal will very, very quickly become economic.
What about the "Law of Receding Horizons"?
That applies only to low E-ROI sources of energy. Coal is high E-ROI, unlike Canadian bitumen (tar sands) or Colorado kerogen (oil shale). I would note that the importance of this "law" has been enormously exaggerated, as it's confused with temporary capex issues and scarcity premia, which are allocating temporarily scarce capital resources.
More coal gets extracted from the ground each year as measured in tons, but hasn't the quality declined so much that net energy content is lower now than 10 years ago?
Powder River coal is lower energy density (sub-bituminous), but it's sufficiently cheaper to mine that the difference doesn't matter. Again, this is a purely economic shift from Illinois coal, which is higher energy density (bituminous). This shift has caused endless confusion to analysts unfamiliar with the coal industry (OTOH, people inside the industry understand this).
Aren't coal prices rising?
In many cases, this is due to the temporary costs of expansion. Oil & gas are much more expensive per BTU due to a scarcity premium, and so demand has increased for coal. Most coal is on long-term contract, not on the higher spot market (unlike oil). But it's important to be clear that in many places, like the US, the long-term marginal cost of extraction isn't really increasing, as it is for oil.
Should we build new coal electrical generation plants?
Yes. I used to think that we should only build new plants if they included sequestration. Lately, I've started to think that that's unrealistic, given the glacial pace of development for sequestration. At the moment, much of our marginal generation comes from the very dirtiest, least efficient coal plants. It's unlikely that we'll be able to build enough wind and solar generation to replace all coal and natural gas plants for at least 25 years. New wind production will largely eliminate natural gas consumption before it affects coal. The marginal cost of NG KWH's is much greater than for coal, plus it's much easier to finetune NG production around wind's variations. Even at night, long-distance transmission will allow heavy NG users to preferentially buy wind-power (whose marginal cost will always be lower). In other words, an area with excess wind production which has zeroed out it's NG will sell the excess before turning down coal production.
Consideration should probably be given to building new, efficient coal plants to replace the least efficient coal plants - that would substantially reduce emissions, because coal will be around for a while. Now, that wouldn't make sense if we can get behind Al Gore's challenge to eliminate all CO2 emitting generation in 10 years. Gore's proposal gets it just right, but will require a lot of education and selling to the public.
Consideration should probably be given to building new, efficient coal plants to replace the least efficient coal plants - that would substantially reduce emissions. These might include underground coal gasification , which would also expand usable coal resources. Now, that wouldn't make sense if we can get behind Al Gore's latest challenge to eliminate all CO2 emitting generation in 10 years. Gore's proposal gets it just right, but will require a lot of education and selling to the public.
Is Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) feasible?
Yes, but projects tend to be large and expensive, and would be CO2 intensive. That means that investors would like federal loan guarantees, but that such guarantees are unlikely. Nevertheless, CTL is cost-effective even with fairly high carbon taxes, with oil prices at anything like the current level , and projects are slowly moving ahead . The best path would be CTL with CO2 sequestration - this would deserve guarantees.
Is oil-shale feasible?
With oil over $100/barrel, the answer is almost certainly yes. There's something like a $50T incentive there for exploitation, and somebody could make something work. In that way its similar to the Bakken basin, which may have 400B barrels of true oil, though much, much less is economically recoverable right now.
Kerogen has the advantage of not needing hydrogenation (which is needed for both tar-sands and CTL), which requires expensive natural gas or a combination of added energy and water (also a significant cost).
On the other hand Green River kerogen (mis-named oil shale) is low density, and a pain to dispose of after burning (it expands). That's why even low-value coal is more attractive for burning (which is what the Estonians do with it). That's also why retort conversion to oil (the conventional method) is unattractive, and why Shell is considering in-situ conversion instead.
Further, kerogen requires a lot of energy to upgrade - the Shell process looks very much like a very slow, inconvenient method of converting electricity to oil (kind've like ethanol, except ethanol mostly uses natural gas). All in all, it's not going to happen cheaply or at large volumes any time soon.
I wouldn't reject it, as it is extremely valuable to have diversity in energy supply, but it would be much better to concentrate on electrifying our vehicles ASAP. In other words, we can't let it distract us from the main and best solutions available to us, which are, unfortunately, inconvenient for oil & gas and car companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)