23,969
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Two recent Several analyses of coal reserves have concluded that published figures are too high.
SW: →Are Published Reserve Figures Overstated?: Patzek/Croft study
==Are Published Reserve Figures Overstated?==
'''Energy Watch Group:''' In 2007, Energy Watch Group, a private research group initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell, completed an analysis of worldwide reserve figures.<ref>[http://www.peakoil.net/files/EWG-Coalreport_10_07_2007.pdf "Coal: Resources and Future Production,"] Energy Watch Group 3/07</ref> The study concluded that "data quality of coal reserves and resources is poor, both on global and national levels." Although published reserve figures were lowered by 50 percent between 1980 and 2005, the study argued that the worldwide reserve estimates still appeared to be too high. In a number of countries, careful evaluation of published reserve figures had resulted in a downgrading of those figures, in several cases by 99 percent. For example:
| align="right" | 100%
|}
'''Patzek/Croft Study:''' In a peer-reviewed article published in the journal Energy, two researchers - Tadeusz Patzek, a University of Texas engineering professor, and Greg Croft, a St. Mary's College of California earth science professor - write that the world will hit "peak coal" production in 2011 or shortly thereafter, and then mining would begin a long, steep decline. The authors believe the 7 billion tons of coal the world is now mining and burning each year is as high as it can get, due to harder to reach coal reserves and rising demand. The study was funded through a University of California, Berkeley graduate student fellowship.<ref name="pr">Patrick Reis, [http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/29/29greenwire-study-worlds-peak-coal-moment-has-arrived-70121.html "Study: World's 'Peak Coal' Moment Has Arrived"] NY Times, Sep. 29, 2010.</ref>
The pair's prediction is based on the "[[Oil depletion|Hubbert Cycle]]," the resource-depletion theory that American geophysicist M. King Hubbert used in the 1950s to correctly forecast that U.S. oil production would [[peak oil|peak]] two decades later. Patzek predicts coal will peak not because supplies are running out but because the remaining deposits are increasingly difficult to mine. Alaska's North Slope, for example, has coal reserves that rival those of the continental United States, but turning that coal into energy would be practically impossible, Patzek argues: "It would take 10 or 11 of the largest coal terminals on the Earth operating 24-7, 365 to load ships above the Arctic Circle during the polar night." Russia, China and other energy consumers face similar logistical difficulties with coal, and while global supplies are set to trail off, the stage is set for demand to spike, Patzek said. U.S. consumers use slightly less than 1 billion tons of coal annually, the Chinese use an estimated 3.5 billion tons, and emerging energy giants like India and Indonesia are steadily using more.<ref name="pr"/>
Patzek and Croft's peak-coal prediction is being contradicted by government economists and industry groups. The federal [[Energy Information Agency]] estimates the United States alone has
about 260 billion tons of recoverable coal, enough to support current consumption levels for at least two centuries, said George Warholic, an EIA coal economist. And the [[National Mining Association]] said the United States is sitting on enough recoverable coal to power the country for the next 440 years.<ref name="pr"/>
The researchers and agencies are making forecasts using different methodologies. The Hubbert cycle analysis looks at past production trends to predict future results. EIA and the mining trade group prefer to measure current consumption rates against estimated future reserves. Jerry Taylor, a resource economist and senior fellow at the libertarian [[CATO Institute]] said much of the disparity comes because there are too many variables contributing to coal production to make precise predictions. New mining technology could boost production by making previously untouchable reserves cheap to recover, Taylor said. Alternatively, coal production would drop if an influx of cheap oil and natural gas curbed demand, he said, pointing to the boost in [[natural gas]] drilling due to [[hydraulic fracturing]].<ref name="pr"/>
The researchers are also skeptical about emissions from burning fossil fuels causing catastrophic [[climate change]]: they accept the science connecting human greenhouse gas emissions to [[global warming]], but think the remaining accessible fossil fuel stores only contain enough carbon to raise global temperatures by about 0.8 degrees Celsius, said Croft. (It should be noted that the scientific consensus is the earth has already warmed 1 degree Celsius, and many climate scientists like [[James Hansen]] believe any additional increase could set into motions feedbacks toward warming beyond human control.) Therefore, Croft said, he advocates not a [[cap-and-trade]] law for carbon emissions and investment in [[carbon capture and storage]], but instead incentives for [[renewable energy]] and possibly a [[carbon tax]] to promote efficiency.<ref name="pr"/>
Barbara Freese, a senior coal policy analyst for the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]], said she could not judge whether the peak-coal prediction was accurate without more analysis but that the study should prompt policymakers to question some of their assumptions about the fossil fuel: "We spend a lot of time talking about whether we can rely on renewables and efficiency and whether that's practical and affordable, but we've kind of given a pass to coal proponents. We need to see evidence that we have the economically recoverable reserves."<ref name="pr"/>
==Coal reserves and climate change==
