So will it be the Emperor Coal?
Posted by Heading Out on March 13, 2007 - 11:30am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: china, coal, greenhouse gas, history, mining students, polar bears, pollution, sequestration, social conditions [list all tags]
I must begin by stating that I really don’t think I am that old! Why, you might ask, do I need to say that? Well, I have just finished reading “Coal – a Human History”, which, as I mentioned at the time, was recommended by Tim Appenzeller during his talk on coal, at the Emerging Technologies Summit in Santa Barbara last month. The presentations for which have now been posted, and the DVD’s will follow soon. Since I have also just finished Big Coal by Jeff Goodell, and Time had an article on Chinese coal it seemed a good time to revisit the subject. Particularly since there were a couple of papers at the Summit that spoke to one of Jeff Goodell’s issues.
So why do I need to start by commenting on my age? Well it is because I can remember the smogs of England before the Clean Air Act came in, I can light not only a coal fire (piece of cake) but also a coke fire (you try!), I have lain on my back to hand-load coal in a seam that was, at the time, some 20 inches high, I have “black-leaded” a stove, and holystoned a curb after shoveling coal into the “coal hole”. Which made reading the book, by Barbara Freese, to some degree a voyage down Memories Lane. And, I must admit, that, not having learned my lesson, this will be, not only a book review, but also a comment on where I think folks are making a bit of a mistake in remaining complacent about the future of the world energy supply, particularly as it relates to the old King of the fuel business.
It is interesting to look with the view from today, back on the contemporary comments as coal progressed from individual use into the power source that it has become. In Coal, Barbara Freese quotes the first observers of locomotives in 1830 as seeing “a huge monster in mortal agony, whose entrails are like burning coals.” Well, having seen a replica of Locomotion #1 (1825) toddling around the track at the Beamish museum it seemed like a small, almost toy-like artifact, so much has perspective changed. However we also no longer have the open carriages where, as she notes, “some of the more safety conscious railways had their passengers travel with buckets of sand in their laps to pour on each other after they caught fire.” This was from the flying embers landing in the carriages as the train reached speed.
Beamish lies in the lands of the Prince Bishops, and, as the book notes, much of the early development of mining in the UK was under church control. The NCB film Nine Centuries of Coal begins with women gathering coal that has washed ashore along the Northumbrian Coast, and carrying it to Tynemouth Priory, hence the name “sea coal”. Although the passage of time shifted ownership to the Crown. King Charles the Second, for example, allowed the Duke of Richmond to charge a shilling (20 shillings to a pound, and this was before the time of dollars) per chauldron (28 cwts) on all the coal shipped from Newcastle.
From the beginning coal use was a hard choice between the pollution that it generates, and the heat and power that it provides. The smogs and fogs that came with its widespread use persisted into the 1960’s and I can remember being in one so thick I could not see my hand in front of my face. But it also powered the Industrial Revolution, and provided an industry that, in the end, brought people through the initial traumas of the early industrial cities into the more healthy conditions of today.
That passage was not without many struggles, the book notes that a study had shown that it takes about an hour a day to tend a coal stove properly on the one hand, and there were the much greater social upheavals that embroiled nations in the conflicts between labor and management on the other. It was, I think in this latter aspect that I was a little disappointed that more was not made of the struggles that occurred. The stories of the Molly Maguire, The Ludlow Massacre and the social hardships of running families in small communities might have been more fully covered in a book that includes – a human history – in it’s title. In the latter regard, for example, my Great Grandmother had not only her husband, but also six sons work in the mine on shifts, and so throughout the week, she would be constantly getting one up, preparing his sandwiches, cooking for his supper, cleaning his gear, and helping with his bath, all at intermittent hours of the day, in an overlapping cycle so that she slept in the chair by the fire, and only saw her bed at weekends. My father said that she died of overwork. It was a common lifestyle of the time. The book does, however, speak to the difference between coal and oil. It differentiates between the glamour of oil, and the “bleak images of soot-covered coal miners trudging from the mines, supporting their desperately poor families in grim little company towns.” Coal has never had much respect as a fuel, and the book, in its evolution of the history, recognizes the impact that this has had, not just on the fuel, but also those that mine it.
Big Coal, on the other hand, is a more contemporary story, with the author visiting some of the mines, both the underground in the East, and the large open pit mines of Wyoming. He has the most fun riding the trains that carry Western coal out of the mining district and up onto the High Plains, as they carry the coal all across the country. But he also saw the pride and camaraderie that exist among miners. The spirit that can enliven a group struggling together in a physically demanding job, day after day, with the always-present danger of something going wrong. He describes some of the problems that led to the Quecreek Disaster and that it was one of those miners whose spirit so caught his attention.
Big Coal goes beyond just the mining however, to look also at the politics both of marketing the fuel, and of sustaining the share that coal has in the fuels portfolio, by looking at the politics of the power generation. And here there is some information from the Summit that is pertinent. In discussing the big problems of the gases and particles that come from a power station stack, he notes the difficulties in cleaning up the stack gases. Frank Alix discussed the use of ammonia as a means of getting not only the SO2, the NOX, the PM and Hg from the stack, but also in removing the CO2, in a form that can then be sequestered. Unfortunately, in a dash of reality (and as I commented at the time) while he can remove the gas at $15 a ton, Sally Benson also had done the cost calculations that showed that the sequestration costs could almost double electricity costs, and this led to some discussion in the audience, as to whether this would be publically acceptable, the consensus seeming to be not.
Both authors write about the problems that greenhouse gases are creating for the environment. Jeff Goodell is, however, willing to acknowledge the existence of the Oregon Petition signed by 17,000 “scientists” questioning the impact of GHG on global warming. However, he quickly points out that a check by Scientific American showed that only perhaps 200 of them were climate researchers. That in itself is a bit of a relief, since I was beginning to think that dissent on this topic had been banned by Papal Bull.
I would however quibble that if, as is the case, there is geological evidence (the ice cores mentioned in the National Research Council Report on Surface Temperature Reconstruction that show that Greenland was over one deg C warmer a thousand years ago; historical documents – Bardson’s contemporary comments about wheat growing in Greenland ; and archaeological records where they are digging though the permafrost to uncover the homes of the Greenland Vikings. and that just last week the Telegraph had a story that polar bears seem to be thriving as the arctic warms up, that this, collectively, seems to suggest that perhaps the discussion is too restricted if only confined to climate scientists. The information from those with expertise in the above disciplines might have a pertinent and valid point of view. The exact cause of the polar bear increase seems to be of some debate, conservationists feel that they should get some of the credit, but it is at the point that the Alaskan government is questioning their being put on the endangered species list and where their hanging onto iceberg shards has been recognized to be a standard practice while they look for lunch – as might have been known when the photo was used.
However, in dealing with numbers, there is a much more critical one that the book brings up, and that will likely lead to a more detailed post of how true they are (closer than you might like) and that relates to the actual coal reserves that exist. The book notes that the first survey of coal reserves was in 1909 when 2 USGS employees estimated the US held about 3 trillion tons of which about 2 trillion was considered mineable. This study was not superseded until 1974 when Paul Averitt, also of the USGS, did a more detailed study, that brought the practical number down to 483 billion tons of “reserve base” with about 50% of that being recoverable. However, in 1986 the USGS did a detailed study of the Matewan coalfield in south-eastern Kentucky and looked in more detail at the geological constraints that would better define true reserves. From this they concluded that the amount that could be recovered was more likely no more than 30% of the base.
In 1989 this study was updated with the help of the US Bureau of Mines (the agency that was eliminated in the last Administration) who brought a more realistic cost evaluation, from which it was concluded that the more realistic recovery percentages would be in the 5 – 20% range, and that, for places such as the Powder River Basin (where all the coal is currently strip mined for supply as low-sulfur coal to much of the US) may ultimately recover only 11% - given that most of the reserve base lies underground where it can no longer be easily stripped (in much the same as the oil sands of Alberta must ere too long also go underground).
These are worrisome numbers since, regardless of whether the GHG issue is resolved, there has always been this sense that if we gulped hard and accepted the cost (either in health, global warming or clean-up) there would be enough coal to get us through until the magic real answer arrived. Perhaps that is not going to be true, and the limitations of government to control some of these issues is becoming clearer.
Both the authors had been to China, and commented on the primitive nature of the coal mines outside the large industrial sites. Barbara Freese has a very good chapter on how mining arose in China and her visit to a small mine in the Ordos region of Inner Mongolia. Jeff Goodell was in Unumqi, in Xinjiang also in Western China but down closer to the India border but was more involved with the carbon capture theme by that time in the book. Both however tell an engrossing tale about the growth of Chinese mining. It is underlined, with an indication of the problems that the government of that country has in managing the coal industry, by last week’s Time article . Noting that 5,000 miners died in accidents in that country last year, officially, the problems go back to those with which I began this post. Whether in the mines of America and Europe early in the last century, or in China today, the power of the coal owners, and the dreadful working conditions that they impose on their miners, has not changed much. The need for the coal, and the money that can be made does not improve the conditions for many of the small, often illicit mines in the hinterland, and only the owners and the local and bribed officials get rich. It is a condition that the central government cannot, as yet change, but which takes time.
In the United States the laws have been changed to significantly improve mine working conditions and to enforce good practice, and in the main, the industry has benefited well from this. It is however critical that regulations to ensure that the mines are run well, and that the land is properly reclaimed after use, be in place and enforced. This means that an educated workforce and management be in place.
Jeff Goodell notes that in 2004 there were less than 100 mining graduates in the Universities of the United States, and 65,000 who graduated with a law degree. So I suppose that we will get the laws and regulations, the problem is getting those that are useful and pertinent. Chris Bise , who provided the information to him on the Mining Schools has just moved to West Virginia to take over the Department there, as the previous head retired. The number of experienced faculty is getting significantly lower, as his generation start to retire, and one occasionally wonders where the technologies that we will soon need to expand the reserve base beyond that low number might come from. But as I said, that is likely the topic for another post, and ultimately maybe a change in the name of this site to The Coal Bin, or some such, within the decade.



In a word? Yes. King Coal will become Emperor Coal, and its migration to dictatorial status is well underway. It took China roughly 20 years to double their coal consumption from 1980 to 2000. They will nearly double that again by sometime this year, if they've not already. As an aside, China's crashing coal exports in the past 7 years have been a handy, back-door shorthand as to their total rising energy needs, and have been a reliable guide to the trend in their oil consumption.
GeoHive is a nice site:
http://www.xist.org/charts/en_coalcons.aspx
The FT in August of 2004 did a large piece on pan-Asia coal consumption, and the slated per annum buildout of coal fired electrical plants. They pegged that number at 1000 new plants over a 10 year period. That seemed extraordinary at the time, but lo and behold, the number for 2006 came in at 100. I remember doing a rough estimate of the Market Cap of the entire listed Coal Sector on US exchanges in 2003. It was barely pushing 12 billion. That quadrupled over 3 years into the highs of last Summer (2006).
I concluded after attending the recent ASPO meeting in Boston that coal was fated to be an interesting area, because it presented so many problems. Coal is a squeaky wheel indeed, and will only get louder.
What would China have done so far, without its coal, and how many of the 1000 slated coal fired plants will be built across Asia, before newer pollution-inhibiting technologies are integrated, not to mention gassification? My view is that Asia is reaching so hard for the coal, that all these Joint Venture Coal projects underway in CTL and Gassification will still be spitting out more data than product, as demand to burn coal the old-fashtoned way continues apace.
Anglo-American/Shell JV in Australia
http://www.monashenergy.com.au/
Gregor
Matt Simmons has a new presentation on coal:
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Peabody%20Energy.pdf
Thanks I hadn't seen it.
HO
My dad used to be baffled and bemused by our use of coal (anthracite) here on our little farm in Maine. He remembers being a kid in Ohio in the 40s and shoveling ash and tending the coal furnace. He said coal was 50 cents a ton then! Now we pay circa $300.00/ton!
Why do we use this "dirty fuel?" How else can you use an 1885 Cyrus Carpenter set range, with double ovens and water front? The only other option is wood, which is just too much work.
Five tons of coal gets us through five months of winter, providing the heat for half the house, all our hot water (hence, the water front), and all our cooking. Ash pan has to be emptied daily. Cans of ash go to the landfill or into a big hole in the woods out back left by loggers from the 40s. It gives us utter independence from The Grid and keeps us at home.
I'm alright Jack!...and isn't this just the problem worldwide. Everyone wants to just have it better for themselves without thinking about the general condition. So I'll just burn some coal and let others worry about the waste products and their effects.
Unlike you, of course, who are so virtuous that you waste nothing and pollute not a whit.
You apparently didn't hear that we're virtually off the grid (THE COAL HOG) and that we burn anthracite, which burns clean.
But who cares? What are you going to do, sic your minions on me?
Off the grid but still on the internet. That coal burning computer must be quite an innovation. Tell us about it.
Is it really too difficult for someone to understand that you can have internet connectivity and not be connected to the power grid at all yourself?
Or is it better to latch onto an opportunity to let the lizard brain run wild in an effort to smash another tribal member's reputation in order to further your own social fitness and inclusion?
In this case, it seems the answer is quite obvious.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Coal will be king and for precisely this reason. Everyone pisses and moans about the kind of world we will leave "for our children and grandchildren", but nobody ever really gives a crap about future generations. When was the last time a meaningful policy was enacted and followed for the sake of "our children and grandchildren"? It's just another aspect of hypocrisy so prevelant today. Say one thing, do another. Then excuse it with "Do as I say, not as I do." Whatever.
When a family is offered the chance to heat their home for an entire winter at a price significanyly less than what they pay now (for oil or gas), it will be game time. Throw in the argument that since China and India are boosting their use of coal, it doesn't matter what we do with respect to the environment, and it's almost a no-brainer.
Interesting comparison chart here of home heating coal to other fuels. They say one ton of coal equals 8,200 KWh, 306 gallons of propane, or 1.4 cords of dry wood.
If (when) we run short of natural gas, I expect that people will turn to electric heating, since it seems to be readily available and clean. If this electric heat is derived from coal, how much is the equivalent amout of coal to the other calculations, delivered in this roundabout fashion?
If this roundabout approach is used, couldn't we end up with more demand on the grid than it is set up for?
Thanks for that useful link.
I'm not so sure you are free of the Grid because the prices you pay for the coal are tied by the whole economics of substitution; it is not, after all, your coal mine in the back yard which you have kept secret from everyone else. When the Grid gets tight, I'm thinking you will find that coal hard to find.
cfm in Gray, ME
Even in Pennsylvania, people willing to sell good anthracite coal to new customers were already hard to find. We looked into a variety of coal, wood, corn, wood pellet and even rice coal stoves, and found that wood and wood pellets were really the only fuel we could readily buy. We knew people that used coal, but none of the suppliers were interested in new customers.
Thanks for the information HO, always informative. From my research, "The Coal Bin" is prescient. The word from climate scientists is that China's coal burning is already directly impacting weather on the West Coast through heightened levels of particulates (more rain--I didn't think that was possible).
I have to take issue with your description of US coal mining as being under the direction of laws that "significantly improve mine working conditions"--no matter how much pixie dust is sprinkled over coal mining, it will never be a safe activity. I agree that conditions have changed somewhat since the 1970s, but they haven't fundamentally altered the nature of coal mining (not that you were advocating a position like that). Workers have not benefitted from rising coal prices or legislation nearly as much as mine owners.
Two recommendations of further reading/watching for the TOD faithful interested in coal:
(1) An Oscar winning 1976 documentary on coal workers, entitled "Harlan County USA"--one of the best films I've ever seen.
(2) An article by Paul J. Nyden entitled "Rank-and-File Rellions in the Coal Fields, 1964-80" that was published in the 03/07 issue of the Monthly Review--it should be available by the end of the week at: http://www.monthlyreview.org
I have to take issue with your description of US coal mining as being under the direction of laws that "significantly improve mine working conditions"
Depends on how far back you look. In the late 1800's/ early 1900's the US averaged a few thousand coal mining deaths per year, about 100 to 1000x higher than today.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm
And mining is no longer in the top ten most dangerous occupations:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp
Nevertheless, I wouldn't want the job of coal miner.
This issue of "Devon's Paradox" and using up benefits of technology is beautifully (and tragically) illustrated by the history of the Davy Lantern.
Jevon's Paradox ??
Ha! Thanks. I confused it with my DEVON cow!
http://www.domain-b.com/industry/chemicals/20070310_invest.html
I forecast that China will overtake the US in CO2 emissions from energy this year. In 2006, Chinese emissions were about 6% below that of the US, and are expected to rise another 8-10% this year, while the US will probably rise about 0.5%.
Odd reporting on the Chinese CTL plans. Why would a plant in construction today not be ready til 2020? China has on tap already 100 million tonnes of CTL capacity proposals, of which 60 million tonnes alone (requiring about 250 million tonnes of coal) are Shenhua's alone.
China's 90 GW of new coal-fired plants built in 2006 will emit 590 million tonnes of CO2 a year, dwarving the EU Kyoto committment of 300 million tonnes reduction to 2012.
And the US has barely begun to burn the stuff.....
Black Thunder and North Antelope photos taken Tuesday October
17, 2006.
Bill .. thanks for the photos. I grew up near Sudbury Ontario so am used to seeing industrial scale destruction but this is on another level.
Or you can see a Google Map of the location :^)
I had a nice picture of it on Google Earth, but don't know how to post that. The xml for it was sort of long.
... that this, collectively, seems to suggest that perhaps the discussion is too restricted if only confined to climate scientists. The information from those with expertise in the above disciplines might have a pertinent and valid point of view.
Naturally, all disciplines may have pertinent and valid information to add to climate change investigations. However, if you are implying that archeologists, geologists and zoologists have evidence that throws the basic IPCC conclusions into doubt, that is just not the case.
Coby Beck's 'The hockey stick is broken' reviews the Greenland/NAS/paleoclimate debate from a lay perspective; and of course Real Climate has extensive discussions from the scientific perspective. The general conclusion of all proxy reconstructions of recent history: Overall, the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record.
The Alaskan government's questioning of listing polar bears as an endangered species is based purely on financial considerations. Arctic sea ice is disappearing at rates much faster than expected, the threat of extinction is real, and, as the article you linked to points out, "To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant." Note also the recorded increase was relatively small -- 1,300 bears.
I suppose South Florida land is going to be real valuable when it's under a few feet of water too. Global warming skeptics are some of the most assinine people in existence. I'm sure some people reading this will fall into that category, and I'm sorry for being blunt, but you guys deserve the criticism.
It doesn't matter if it was warmer 1000 years ago, 100,000 years ago or a million years ago. All of that is irrelevant to the fact it is getting warmer now. The arctic and antarctic ice sheets are melting, and it's going to be absolutely irrelevant whether people want to believe that green house gasses are causing it or not.
If that's not the cause, then someone had better damn well figure out the real explanation ASAP. Until a better explanation is offered we need to go with the best one available, that it's being caused by GHG.
The world we know today relies on a certain range of temperatures. Sure we can just try to adapt to global warming, but that means accepting the loss of large areas of usable land that are currently only a little bit above sea level.
But that can't be argued against, so it's just ignored. instead the subject is changed to whether it's warmer now than every before. Just like peak oil can't be argued against so skeptics change the subject to "oil running out", which as we all know is not even close to the same thing. Those are just different examples of arguing through obfuscation.
The simple answer is yes, King Coal will definitely make a comeback and in a Big Way. Today, in Britain it was announced that a German company will construct a new coal-fired power station, the first for more than twenty years. This is a sign of the times.
Yes, but RWE did say the 1600 MW plant would be "clean coal", though they haven't yet divulged what abatement or sequestration scheme they will use.
I think they are planning to use Supercritical Steam with provision for carbon capture and storage.
They are betting an economical CSS technology for a conventional coal plant comes along.
They're not doing very well at hedging their bets. Oxygen-blown IGCC would be just as efficient (if not more so), cleaner through better fuel scrubbing, and offers the potential for 100% CO2 separation before combustion via steam-reforming of the syngas. This would work even if the post-combustion capture systems never become viable, and give them a hedge (and huge profit boost) in the event of carbon taxes.
It's a horrendously conservative industry, electric power generation.
There are very few chemical engineers in management or decision making positions.
The chemical industry thinks CO2 is old hat, and gasification is not an overwhelming challenge.
The power industry thinks its Buck Rogers/ Star Wars stuff.
And the one thing which would change that thinking is... industry experience.
We can probably get that established with carrots and sticks. Carrot: subsidize the first few plants, starting now. Sticks: let it be known that carbon taxes will apply to all coal-fired powerplants, starting immediately upon commissioning with those not yet operational and those without full scrubbers and moving to the whole lot over 10 years. That'll get the industry to start building more IGCC plants, and once there are a few out there where engineers can get experience the industry will become a lot more comfortable.
Agreed, there is no Bull against global warming deniers.
But all evidence suggests that it would take a lot more than that to stop some intelligent people who know little about the subject from spouting on about it at every opportunity.
Hey, guess what I read in the telegraph today, Dorothy? Ohh, golly geez, we've been had by all those scientists!
If you are going to raise quibbles, at least give us your research on what are the mainstream answers to those quibbles.
Make the investment and get yourself up to speed on GW, Heading Out, and then you'll have something interesting to say, I'm sure.
I have learned that when I make comments on this subject, I have to give references. They are provided for each topic, including, I would point out, the National Research Council Report which states that your comment is only valid if you accept a restricted definition of recent.
This is the key conclusion from the NAS report:
The farther back one goes in the historical record, the more uncertain the record becomes, and the less statistical confidence can be assigned to research results. The meta-analyses by Mann et al were the first to quantify this effect:
The conclusions of the NAS report echo those results.
Interesting story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1
From the December 2006 Discover:
Can Coal Come Clean?
Coal is still king....