Time is up for coal: environmental analyst - Reuters

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Time is up for coal: environmental analyst
Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:27pm EST

By Steve James

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States should leave its
estimated 200 years' supply of coal in the ground and invest
in wind farms and solar technology for its power-generating
needs, a leading environmental analyst said on Thursday.

Wall Street, politicians and public opinion have all turned
so dramatically against coal in the last year over climate
concerns that it is probably "the beginning of the end of
the coal industry," said Lester Brown.

He claimed in a conference call with reporters that efforts
to clean up coal and develop carbon sequestration technology
to prevent emissions from coal-fired power plants were too
far off and would be more expensive than investing in energy
efficiency and alternative power sources.

"Carbon sequestration has been something the coal industry
has leaned on to avoid facing the full force of the climate
concerns and will probably not be a viable option," said
Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit
environmental organization.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1445731320080214

[4dsc]

1. Peak coal coming soon

The United States is the world's second-largest producer, surpassing the two next important producer states (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Its reserves are so large that America has been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal". The US has already passed its peak of production for high-quality coal (from the Appalachian Mountains and the Illinois basin) and has seen production of bituminous coal decline since 1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has more than compensated for this.

Taking reserves into account, the EWG concludes that growth in total volumes can continue for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of energy content US coal production peaked in 1998 at 598 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe.

http://www.energybulletin.net/29919.html

[Massacure]

11. This may be true but,

The remaining coal in the United States has more energy than the sum of all of the remaining oil and natural gas supplies in the world.

I remember reading this in a textbook for a class I'm taking.

[GliderGuider]

2. Good show, Lester!

Of all the environmental spokespersons out there, I've always held Lester Brown in high regard. He's right on the money about coal. I hope the general sentiment can be turned against coal - it is one technology that we absolutely have to stop, for the sake of the whole damn planet.

[izquierdista]

3. How to save time

Don't wait several million years for plant matter to get buried and turn into coal. Burn what's already on the surface of the Earth.

[phantom power]

4. Yeah, what could go wrong?

[pscot]

5. Note the absence of trees

n/t

[phantom power]

6. Yes, exactly. And the absence of people.

[Kolesar]

7. A place like Ohio is always going to need coal w/sequestration or nuke plants

We went a whole week without *any* sun this month. Wind can only provide 10%-30% of our electricity. Bio-gas can do a bit, but not a lot. We have scant new hydro resources. Efficiency might eliminate 30% of the load. There is still a huge gap to be made up.

Then will arrive the electric vehicles that motorists want to charge.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Deep Geothermal could be viable

But it's not as "sexy" as wind or solar power, which look so good in corporate greenwash ads. So the money being invested in the technology is still insufficient to provide any significant new primary energy.

Four kilometers down, it's hot enough to flash-boil water. The energy carried in the pressurized steam can be used to do a great deal of work -- like turning turbines. But you can't see it, and the power plant would look like any other factory, so it's not going to receive much attention until the first deep-geo plant runs a town or a small city in some cold area like Nunavut or Alaska.

--p!

[Kolesar]

10. The nearest geothermal resources are under the Allegeny Mtns of Pennsylvania

According to a map in Home Power magazine last year.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Anywhere you can sink a pipe

At 4 km down, it's pretty much 200C everywhere. But as far as I know, there are no large-scale DGT (my acronym) plants in operation, mainly proof-of-concept plants, like the hundred-kilowatt solar demonstration models that are often posted about here.

The more "traditional" geothermal energy production uses sources that are close to the surface. Those sources are relatively rare, but the technology is well-explored -- especially in Iceland.

Right now, nuclear energy is a much more mature technology, and it's a lot safer than its reputation suggests, but a lot of people fear it. Developing DGT could result in the quick development of a proven technology with a potential similar to nuclear power.

I also support wind and solar technological development, but I am convinced that they have been oversold in an effort to greenwash the power industries. DGT avoids the biggest problems of solar and wind, intermittancy and the need for energy storage technologies, which are still expensive and inefficient.

--p!

[Kolesar]

14. Sounds like a diamond mine at five miles down from what I recall

The workers really sweat it out. I was thinking of obvious geothermal resources like near a volcanic region, or this "other" resource that I saw in a map in Homepower magazine.

Otherwise, I think you have a realistic account of what is happening.

[speedbird]

9. South Africa is experimenting with reducing coal use

my prediction is that
S.A. will reduce its
coal use by 100% over the
next five years

[NickB79]

13. And it's population as well, most likely

Though I hope not as drastically as 100%.

[NNadir]

15. That will give them plenty to ship to their anti-nuke German pals.

I really, really, really can't seem to get it through thick heads that solar and wind are not now, never have been and probably never will be "alternatives to coal."

I don't know why I even bother now.

[speedbird]

16. not really

nothing new supply needed, for S.A. to go 'off-grid'.

the power plants simply pull the plug.

everybody wins!
power plants --> zero fuel bill
consumers --> zero electric bill

[NNadir]

17. Oh bullshit.

Do you know the per capita income of South Africa?

I hate this "let them eat cake" crap.

[speedbird]

18. nort sure what the number is, but.

but their GDP will surely go
down as coal electric plants
go off-grid.