Peak coal, the other bad news

**Syzygys** · 06-15-12, 02:15 PM

I would like to dedicate this thread to my Republican friends, who when hearing about peak oil, like to bring up coal, specially in the USA. I will be making some less known, but important points:

For starter one might want to check this lecture out, instead of watching Hannity or other idiots:

http://www.albartlett.org/presentati...gy_video1.html

The coal stuff is in part #3...

The main issues with coal as an alternative to oil are:

1. Everything non-renewable is finite, by definition. So sooner or later we will reach peak coal too.

2. We actually already reached peak coal in the USA, by energy volume. There are 3 types of coals, energy rich, average, and energy poor. (so to speak). When coal mining started, obviously they went for the good stuff, the energy rich type. Because of this, coalmining has reached its peak in the late 90s, by energy volume (that is volume multiplied by calorie value). Today we mine more coal per tonage then ever before, but these are the less energy rich types, thus the overall energy is less what we get out of it.

3. a/ The "we have coal for the next 500 years" claim is bullshit. Watch the video in the link. That is only true if we never increase the mining. Between 1970-90 the rate of increase was 2.8%, using that rate we would be out of coal in 140 years.
b/ But wait, there is more! Only half of the proven reserves can be mined, thus that 140 years suddenly becomes 70 years. You heard that right, if we keep the same rate on increased mining, we will be out of coal by 2080....

4. There is no such a thing as clean coal. Coal is fucking dirty. Actually, people living close to coal fueled power plants get more radiation, than the people living next to a nuclear power station.

5. Airplanes don't fly coal powered, nor using electricity. At least not yet, so we might go back to the steamships for transporting products on water, but we won't transport people or products through the air using coal...

**KilljoyKlown** · 06-15-12, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

I would like to dedicate this thread to my Republican friends, who when hearing about peak oil, like to bring up coal, specially in the USA. I will be making some less known, but important points:

For starter one might want to check this lecture out, instead of watching Hannity or other idiots:

http://www.albartlett.org/presentati...gy_video1.html

The coal stuff is in part #3...

The main issues with coal as an alternative to oil are:

1. Everything non-renewable is finite, by definition. So sooner or later we will reach peak coal too.

2. We actually already reached peak coal in the USA, by energy volume. There are 3 types of coals, energy rich, average, and energy poor. (so to speak). When coal mining started, obviously they went for the good stuff, the energy rich type. Because of this, coalmining has reached its peak in the late 90s, by energy volume (that is volume multiplied by calorie value). Today we mine more coal per tonage then ever before, but these are the less energy rich types, thus the overall energy is less what we get out of it.

3. a/ The "we have coal for the next 500 years" claim is bullshit. Watch the video in the link. That is only true if we never increase the mining. Between 1970-90 the rate of increase was 2.8%, using that rate we would be out of coal in 140 years.
b/ But wait, there is more! Only half of the proven reserves can be mined, thus that 140 years suddenly becomes 70 years. You heard that right, if we keep the same rate on increased mining, we will be out of coal by 2080....

4. There is no such a thing as clean coal. Coal is fucking dirty. Actually, people living close to coal fueled power plants get more radiation, than the people living next to a nuclear power station.

5. Airplanes don't fly coal powered, nor using electricity. At least not yet, so we might go back to the steamships for transporting products on water, but we won't transport people or products through the air using coal...

That's not the only problem with coal. Please read the following article. U.S. coal is for sale to the highest bidder, which will drive up local prices. Also it doesn't matter where in the world that dirty coal is burned, we are all going to pay that price.

India, China buying U.S. coal mines, shale gas fields

**quadraphonics** · 06-15-12, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

5. Airplanes don't fly coal powered, nor using electricity. At least not yet, so we might go back to the steamships for transporting products on water, but we won't transport people or products through the air using coal...

Coal can be converted into liquid fuels for stuff like that. It ain't cheap, but it is do-able. Apartheid-era South Africa used to do a lot of this back when they were internationally isolated and having trouble importing liquid fuels.

**Syzygys** · 06-15-12, 06:25 PM

Hm, that is a good point. If we sell our energy, what is it good for?? Hereis a slightly related thing I never understood:

The oil/gasline from Canada to the Gulf. Why let the Canadians sell it to someone else, when we could use probably all of it? Then build the gasline, but only halfway, then distribute it from there, case solved, problems cut in half. (the pipeline's problem)

**Syzygys** · 06-15-12, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by quadraphonics

Coal can be converted into liquid fuels for stuff like that.

I know, I think the Nazis already did that. I don't think we will do that, that would make flying prohibitively expensive. The point was, that oil is not always replaceable, even if it is technically possible...

Personally, I think we will fly less in the future. I am quite statisfied just to watch foreign places, (I have already traveled a lot) I don't really need to go there.... Throw in a couple of viruses, people will stop flying very fast...

**Trippy** · 06-15-12, 07:01 PM

I know there is a porocess for converting Lignite into diesel.

I also think we're probably going to see increasing focus on thermal depolymerization and co-generation.

Or at least I hope we do (as you may have guessed, that's wher emy interest lies).

**Syzygys** · 06-15-12, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Trippy

I know there is a process for converting Lignite into diesel.

Marvelous. So instead of trying to find an alternative resource or solution, we just try to convert anything into oil. Splendid!!!

[2 thumbs up]

**TravisW** · 06-15-12, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

4. There is no such a thing as clean coal. Coal is fucking dirty. Actually, people living close to coal fueled power plants get more radiation, than the people living next to a nuclear power station.

To say that there's no such thing as clean coal is completely inaccurate. Coal can be clean. The reason coal is considered "dirty" is because of the particulate matter it gives off when burned. Clean coal simply filters the particulates and prevents them from becoming airborne. If the plant isn't utilizing carbon capture technology, then of course it will give of Co2 which is supposedly a contributor to global warming.

Originally Posted by Syzygys

5. Airplanes don't fly coal powered, nor using electricity. At least not yet, so we might go back to the steamships for transporting products on water, but we won't transport people or products through the air using coal...

Look up Thermal Depolymerization. We can literally make oil out of old tires. Coal would just be another feedstock, but it's really not necessary given the abundance of polymers we could use.

**Syzygys** · 06-15-12, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by TravisW

Look up Thermal Depolymerization. We can literally make oil out of old tires.

As I already said:

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Marvelous. So instead of trying to find an alternative resource or solution, we just try to convert anything into oil. Splendid!!!

[2 thumbs up]

**Trippy** · 06-15-12, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Marvelous. So instead of trying to find an alternative resource or solution, we just try to convert anything into oil. Splendid!!!

[2 thumbs up]

Well, it does have the advantage of solving two problems at once (landfills become valuable resources), and depending on the waste stream being used, we may also be able to extract valuable metals.

I don't know that it would work well as a permanent solution, however.

**Syzygys** · 06-15-12, 10:33 PM

Just to repeat the point of this thread:

It doesn't matter how long they say a supposed substitute for oil will last, once you apply reality and simple math, it turns out the kids who are born today, will be running out of it in their lifetime...

**Trippy** · 06-15-12, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Just to repeat the point of this thread:

It doesn't matter how long they say a supposed substitute for oil will last, once you apply reality and simple math, it turns out the kids who are born today, will be running out of it in their lifetime...

Agreed.

**Epictetus** · 06-15-12, 11:00 PM

The way I always understood it - the U.S. has/had enough coal for 100,000 years, but it seems that it's just not so. Here are two good sites on that:

World Coal Reserves Could Be a Fraction of Previous Estimates

Quantifying coal: How much is there?

So as London-fog inducing as it sounds, (and that's all London's famous fogs were: coal smoke) it used to be thought that whoever could find a way to liquefy coal would be a billionaire, and all that solid fossil fuel reserve could turn the oil sheiks to paupers, but no...

**Syzygys** · 06-16-12, 04:51 AM

OK, since this coal liquedification (hm, spicy word) keeps coming up, I will address it.

Just because something technologically can be done, that doesn't mean that economically or enviromentally it makes sense. If it is a really dirty process or costs too much money/energy, then we should just forget about it.

Technically we could make gold from other elements. Will we do it? No, because it costs too much. The ROI in turning coal to liquid gasoline is so bad, that I don't want to hear anything about it, ever. People, run the feasibility factor first, then come back to post about it....

Wiki:
"The synthesis of precious metals, a symbolic goal long sought by alchemists, is only possible with methods utilizing nuclear physics, currently involving either nuclear reactors or particle accelerators. Since particle accelerators require huge amounts of energy while nuclear reactors produce energy, production methods using a nuclear reactor are considered more economically feasible. "

**Syzygys** · 06-16-12, 05:06 AM

Although this is kind of offtopic...

Originally Posted by TravisW

To say that there's no such thing as clean coal is completely inaccurate. Coal can be clean.

Noppy nope. Everything is dirty about coal. Mining it, touching it. It is even a 4 letter word, as a mother, I am telling you...

For extra credit: Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

**TravisW** · 06-16-12, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

It doesn't matter how long they say a supposed substitute for oil will last, once you apply reality and simple math, it turns out the kids who are born today, will be running out of it in their lifetime...

That's not at all true. Thermal Depolymerization would solve the issue of Peak Oil indefinitely. I'm quite interested in the math and extensive geological evidence you seem to be in possession of that suggests something to the contrary. Please be so kind as to divulge it.

**Trippy** · 06-16-12, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by TravisW

That's not at all true. Thermal Depolymerization would solve the issue of Peak Oil indefinitely. I'm quite interested in the math and extensive geological evidence you seem to be in possession of that suggests something to the contrary. Please be so kind as to divulge it.

No it wouldn't, although, it might be able to produce an indefinite supply, it's not going to be a sufficiently high amount to be able to solve peak oil.

Even if we include waste streams from wastewater treatment facilities, every time a unit of plastics (for example) get's reprocessed you loose a portion of the carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Also, if we keep burning it in (for example) vehicles, then that proportion will also be lost to the atmosphere.

It's a simple fact of the thermal depolymerization process that a portion of the hydrocarbons released are released as Methane and Ethane, and the best use of these is for co-generation to supply energy for the process.

There are some other things to consider regarding thermal depolymerization that aren't immediately obvious, that I'm going to refrain from going into.

**TravisW** · 06-16-12, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Trippy

No it wouldn't, although, it might be able to produce an indefinite supply, it's not going to be a sufficiently high amount to be able to solve peak oil.

It would solve the issue, though I was somewhat ambiguous; doing so would only work indefinitely if the oil was not used for combustion. I was thinking more in terms of manufacturing. Sorry for the confusion.

**Trippy** · 06-16-12, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by TravisW

It would solve the issue, though I was somewhat ambiguous; doing so would only work indefinitely if the oil was not used for combustion. I was thinking more in terms of manufacturing. Sorry for the confusion.

The only way that can work, given the neccessary losses is if we can incorporate additional streams of carbon into the process, which goes back to what I said about wastewater - including industrial effluent.

**Syzygys** · 06-17-12, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by TravisW

That's not at all true. Thermal Depolymerization would solve the issue of Peak Oil indefinitely. I'm quite interested in the math and extensive geological evidence you seem to be in possession of that suggests something to the contrary. Please be so kind as to divulge it.

The thread is about peak coal. Also I am not familiar with TD, so I am not sure what evidence you want. Watch the linked video lecture for a start...