Peak coal, the other bad news

[TravisW]

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

3. a/ The "we have coal for the next 500 years" claim is bullshit

Again, Peak Coal, like Peak Oil, is a theoretical issue, and we can solve it by theoretical means. Purified (or relatively purified as is the case with most coal these days) carbon is just like a battery. It has a store of potential energy released when it reacts with other elements. As long as we have carbon, we can make coal because we have energy from the sun to use in the chemical reaction. Thermal Depolymerization works the same way. However, if the carbon is being used for power generation, it makes more sense to just switch over to solar and cut out the middle man.

TL;DR: Coal and Oil are stores of energy from the sun. We can make both with energy from the sun, but it's cheaper not to.

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).

That isn't quite how it works, but your argument is sound.

4. There is no such a thing as clean coal. Coal is fucking dirty.

Wind farms kill birds. Dams kill fish. Tidal energy destroys ecosystems.

Carbon is carbon. It's an element just like anything else, and if necessary we can come up with controls for it should it's products be (allegedly) radioactive. Likewise, if it has any problems (as do wind farms, hydroelectric dams, and tidal energy) we can work around those too, if the economics are there.

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...

Energy is energy. We can burn coal, generate energy, and power light bulbs to grow algae for oil to be used in planes. Again, this is if the economics are there.




And now we reach the fun part; despite my arguments *for* coal, I am not an advocate. The economics to make coal a cleaner technology are not as alluring as the naturally cleanliness of Natural Gas (which will serve us as a bridge-fuel until alternative energies kick in). We could theoretically use coal in thermal depolymerization in order to generate oil for airplanes, but I think the most economical way to go is solar. All energy on earth is derived from the earths internal reactions (IE geothermal energy) and the sun. Solar has virtually no impacts on the environment and is the most abundant energy on earth.

I believe coal, however, will serve it's purpose as a useful fuel in economies already built around it (such as some areas of the United States, particularly the East Coast) and perhaps parts of Russia and Europe, but I think it would be much more economical for developing nations such as China to invest in more sustainable infrastructure that won't become obsolete in the next 100-300 years.

[Syzygys]

Oh boy, another one join the fracas...

[FONT="Arial"]
Again, Peak Coal, like Peak Oil, is a theoretical issue,

If FACTS are theories... wait, they are not!!!

it makes more sense to just switch over to solar

Why are we switching? Oh yes, because peak coal..

Wind farms kill birds. Dams kill fish.

Relevance? But anyway, I would prefer to kill animals then breath in coaly air...

By the way I couldn't help to notice, you are not really arguing against peak coal...

[Stoniphi]

VAWT wind farms don't kill anything yet still produce the desired electricity.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...mb=wS8DpzvS6M7

[KilljoyKlown]

VAWT wind farms don't kill anything yet still produce the desired electricity.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...mb=wS8DpzvS6M7

Very nice display. I was viewing all of the pictures and saw one that I saw on a TV program about small personal vertical axis wind turbines.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonf...gy/3997173670/

These vertical axis wind turbines work in very low wind speeds from any direction and because they sit on a magnetic bearing they are totally silent when operating, which is important to homeowners and neighbors alike.

[Carcano]

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...

The Nazis were already producing aviation fuel from coal back in the 1930s...using the Bergius process.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process

[billvon]

[FONT="Arial"]
Again, Peak Coal, like Peak Oil, is a theoretical issue, and we can solve it by theoretical means. Purified (or relatively purified as is the case with most coal these days) carbon is just like a battery. It has a store of potential energy released when it reacts with other elements. As long as we have carbon, we can make coal . . . .

True. But that's an odd thing to say. It's like saying "as long as we have hydrogen we can make methane." Sure, that's true as well. But an odd thing to say since we in fact make most of our hydrogen _from_ methane.

Currently coal is our primary source of carbon.

Wind farms kill birds. Dams kill fish. Tidal energy destroys ecosystems.

And solar kills. The waste from broken panels is very slightly toxic. Installers will fall off roofs and die. Mining to get aluminum ore is somewhat polluting, and making the aluminum takes a tremendous amount of (often dirty) energy.

The question is - which method kills the _least_?

Likewise, if it has any problems (as do wind farms, hydroelectric dams, and tidal energy) we can work around those too, if the economics are there.

Agreed. If we do 100% capture of exhaust (sequestration) - we could make it pretty clean.

[spidergoat]

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 economics, as you say, aren't there, and never will match that of a product we simply can pump from the ground.

[Trippy]

Mining to get aluminum ore is somewhat polluting, and making the aluminum takes a tremendous amount of (often dirty) energy.

Not to mention the amount of CO₂ given off by the electrodes during its manufacture.

[TravisW]

If FACTS are theories... wait, they are not!!!

True but we haven't truly established that we're at Peak Coal yet. More over, my use of the word "theoretical" wasn't meant to discredit the legitimacy of the issue. My point was that the issue can be solved using theoretical means (IE using Thermal Depolymerization to solve Peak Oil probably won't happen, but it works IN THEORY). I was a bit ambiguous here. I apologize.

Why are we switching? Oh yes, because peak coal..

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone. The iron age didn't end because we ran out of iron. Likewise, we are not switching from coal because there is too little of it, but because we have found a replacement which is more efficient and more economically viable. The quantities of coal available to us are by and large irrelevant.

Relevance? But anyway, I would prefer to kill animals then breath in coaly air...

My point was the windfarms and hydroelectric dams have trade offs, just like coal. We could remedy each and every one of them if we chose to, but we don't because it doesn't make economic sense. Given enough capital, it would be easy to make a zero emissions coal plant, but it's way more profitable to just burn the coal and sell the power.

By the way I couldn't help to notice, you are not really arguing against peak coal...

As I said, I am not really an advocate of coal, I just believe that you are really exaggerating the issue with unsubstantiated claims (such as that coal cannot be clean). I prefer Liquid Natural Gas as an alternative to coal, as it's a completely renewable resource and will serve to bridge the gap between our currently combustion based infrastructure to the mostly electrical infrastructure of tomorrow.

[TravisW]

Agreed. If we do 100% capture of exhaust (sequestration) - we could make it pretty clean.

Sequestration is just burying the problem. I prefer the cogeneration method wherein the scrubbed Co2 is used to provide nutrition to algal farms which can then be used for algal oil (to be used as fuel) or for sustenance.

Of course, the issue you get there is that the algae is basically just a big solar panel, so it probably makes more sense in the long run to build solar plants. Still, it could be a viable solution as it uses the infrastructure we already have, plus it's a lot more applicable in Northern countries which don't get as much sunlight.

[TravisW]

The economics, as you say, aren't there, and never will match that of a product we simply can pump from the ground.

The economics may not be present but if we do keep using oil (we won't, the market demand for it will be reduced as the price goes up), we could make that oil go on indefinitely by recycling it using TD.

Again, the issue is theoretical. We won't use TD on an economic scale because it will just be cheaper to throw up solar panels or a wind farm here or there.

[spidergoat]

Can we talk about reality and not what is possible in a laboratory in a small scale? Peak oil and coal are not theoretical.

[Trippy]

Can we talk about reality and not what is possible in a laboratory in a small scale? Peak oil and coal are not theoretical.

A Thermal Depolymerization plant in Carthage, Missouri took 270 tons per day of turkey offal and 20 tons per day of hog lard and converted it into 500 barrels per day of API 40+ crude oil. Cost of production was 80 USD/Barrel.

The same company was looking at expanding, but as of Feb 2009 appears to have gone bankrupt (they had a failed IPO and there were numerous complaints and litigation relating to odour).

There are also related processes - Thermochemical conversion and Hydrothermal Liquifaction. There's a plant operated by EnerTech in Rialto (presumably Rialto, California) that is capable of processing 683 tons per day of wet solid biowaste and a demonstration plant in the Netherlands running at 64 tons per day.

These are full scale industrial processes, not laboratory experiments, nor are they theoretical exercises, they're every bit as real as peak oil and peak coal. Moreover, unlike my suggestion of reprocessing landfill waste, they use sustainable waste streams - people will always need to eat and poop. It is simply then a question of scale, and where they draw their energy from.

[TravisW]

Peak oil and coal are not theoretical.

They are theoretical. Although they can physically occur, we do not know that they have.

[billvon]

They are theoretical. Although they can physically occur, we do not know that they have.

Peak oil did indeed happen here in the US in the 1970's. Production has been, on average, declining ever since.

[TravisW]

Peak oil did indeed happen here in the US in the 1970's. Production has been, on average, declining ever since.

If we're talking in terms of production, yeah, that's quantifiable. I was under the impression we were speaking more in terms of the exhaustion of world wide reserves, which we don't have the geological data to determine.

[spidergoat]

That's what peak oil means, the peak of production.

[billvon]

If we're talking in terms of production, yeah, that's quantifiable. I was under the impression we were speaking more in terms of the exhaustion of world wide reserves, which we don't have the geological data to determine.

No, peak oil means "peak production" after which it irreversibly declines. We'll never run out of oil (or coal) - the remaining fuel will just become too costly to recover.

[TravisW]

No, peak oil means "peak production" after which it irreversibly declines. We'll never run out of oil (or coal) - the remaining fuel will just become too costly to recover.

You can't say the decline is irreversible. If we didn't have access to the steam technology for the asthabasca oil sands, we would be unable to produce it but it would still be there.

[spidergoat]

But it wouldn't make a difference in the peak of oil production. The production of oil from tar sands is difficult and slow compared to light sweet crude.