<DrumBeat: February 18, 2007The Oil DrumDrumBeat: February 19, 2007>

44 comments on Getting plowed also happens to coal

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Seth on February 18, 2007 - 11:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

EROEI on coal--that's a great question. EROEI literally varies from mine to mine, but some rough averages that I came up with, assuming that the coal is used to generate electricity (current average conversion factor of 32.5%)--which 90% of coal consumed in the US goes towards:

This does not include transmission losses. Mining energy figures from the Industrial Technologies Program Mining: Energy Analysis Average energy potential for various coal types:

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ericy on February 19, 2007 - 9:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What are the actual inputs in this case? How much is just electricity (which is sort of interesting in itself in that some fraction of the coal that we mine gets burned to mine more coal), and what fraction is diesel fuel and other forms of energy?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 19, 2007 - 1:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Using your input numbers I'm coming up with totally different results for the EROEI. For example Appalachia Northeast Bituminous:

Energy Inputs (per ton)
Mining: 325,000 BTU
Transportation: 339.1x900 = 305,109 BTU
Total: 630,109 BTU

Energy Output: 24mln.x0.3254 = 7.8 mln. BTU

EROEI = 7,800,000 / 630,109 = 12.4 : 1

This is 4 times higher than your number (2.84). Am I missing something?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Seth on February 19, 2007 - 1:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Christ, that was a bad mistake, eh? Thanks for catching that--the first round of reviews did not. The updated numbers have been changed in the original post. That dramatically alters the EROEI. Looks like transportation distances trumps all for its impact on returns.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 19, 2007 - 2:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thus using electrified railroads (instead of diesel-electric locos) will be crucial. The "rule of thumb" is that electrification saves x2.5 on the plains and x3 in the mountains or "conjested, urbanized areas" (measured in BTUs). Part of this comes from not using a small, isolated diesel generating plant vs. more efficient centralized generation and regenerative braking.

IMHO, the latest GE locos cut this advantage somewhat (they may use 20% less diesel). Using coal (less efficient than NG combined cycle) to generate marginal power for railroads will cut it a bit more. OTOH, wind is the source of 44% of the new generation MWh in the US this year (per other TODer whose 2006 #s I reviewed).

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on February 19, 2007 - 3:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Don't feel too bad - think about this quote from the Post - 'In a typical year, the plow will deliver 4 million tons of coal, or enough to fill 350 rail cars.' When thinking about coal, thousands of tons is a good measure - an old collier that could carry 11,500 tons was a good sized ship. Though I can imagine a train carrying that capacity, a single rail car is difficult to grasp, especially after watching a coal train pass slowly along the river we were swimming in last summer (feeds the James - can't remember the river's name) on its way to Hampton Roads, Virginia - at one time (mid-1980s as a quick recollection), the world's largest coal port.

Nobody at the Post blinked an eye, even though coal is part of its regional coverage - Virginia is a coal state involved in world trade, while West Virginia remains an industrial region.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 19, 2007 - 4:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks for bringing up these numbers, the math error is not that essential compared to that.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on February 19, 2007 - 5:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I simply noticed another glaring mistake, having a lot of experience reading the Washington Post, and his work was good.

Everyone makes mistakes, which is why many eyes looking is good.

Sometimes, I think a lot of people miss the various facts about Virginia and Hampton Roads - not only is the world's largest naval port there, one of the world's most important coal ports shares the same general space.

Energy is not the only use for coal - its role in steel production is fairly critical, and what comes from Appalachia is truly a world class resource still, and generally, it is not burned merely for electricity. This use is not exactly CO2 neutral, but it is much less damaging than burning coal for A/C or Internet access or refrigeration or cooking, or as wasteful - once created, steel is fairly easy to reuse.

One reason Germany retains a coal industry is the fact that German 'Steinkohle' is also useful in steel production - the lignite/brown coal areas have been pretty much retired ('Stillgelegt' - 'left in stillness' is one literal translation).

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 20, 2007 - 10:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think you need to double-check the facts about Germany's coal industry:

http://www.cslforum.org/germany.htm

Germany has significant recoverable coal reserves, estimated (as of January 2005) at about 7.5 billion short tons, or about 0.7% of the world total. Most of this is lignite (or "brown coal") and is located in the region around the Rhine river and in the Halle Leipzig and Lower Lausitz regions of former East Germany. Most of Germany's coal production is lignite; Germany is by far the world's greatest lignite producer. Overall, Germany ranks seventh worldwide in coal production (and first in the EU) and fourth worldwide in coal consumption (and first in the EU), accounting for about 4.2% of the total world annual coal production and about 5.0% of the total world annual coal consumption. Annual production and consumption both dropped considerably over the first half of the 1990s, largely due to restructuring that occurred following the integration of former East Germany into Germany. Coal presently accounts for about 23% of all energy consumed in Germany, and about three-quarters of coal usage in Germany is for electric power production.

Several facts paint the exact picture of the Germany electricity generation future:
1) Germany uses primarily lignite for baseload electricity generation
2) Wind and solar power do not displace baseload generation. They tend to displace hydro and NG
3) Germany is phasing out its nuclear plants and it looks like is committed to insist on this madness
4) Currently Germany imports nuclear electricity from France, but it is doubtful this will be able fill the gap for much longer. All indications are that France will be too busy saving the ass of its northern neighbour.

Does this picture need any comments?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on February 20, 2007 - 10:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Your facts are correct, but what I was trying to say was that the German Steinkohle industry still exists in subsidized form in part because of metallurgical coal (which is one reason why Hampton Roads is such a major coal port). Though I believe that cheaper Chinese imports have led to a serious decline in German production/use of domestic coal/coke in steel production over the last decade. (Some of the old coking plants were exported to China in the 1990s.)

As for the lignite/brown coal, the decline was related to major reductions in the mining of East Germany's very poor quality brown coal (if there is such a thing as sub-lignite, it would fit - I have also read descriptions of it as being one step up from peat) - obviously, other mines with higher quality lignite supply major amounts of coal for power.

The confusion is understandable - what I was trying to express is that coal is not only burnt for electricity, it also has major role in steel production, and much of the coal exported from Appalachia fits more into this framework than electric generation, at least into the early 1990s.

Obviously, Germany burns a lot of coal - that fact was in no sense meant to be obscured, however, it was merely that metallurgical coal / coke / etc. is also a high value use for coal - and German mines receive support in part due to their historical relationship to the German steel industry.

Germany will have a very hard time reducing its reliance on coal, no question. But major amounts of coal will still be mined as long as steel is used, a fact that tends to be a bit obscured in some of these discussions.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.