58 comments on Are Reserves of the Largest US Coal Field Overstated by 50%?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
58 comments on Are Reserves of the Largest US Coal Field Overstated by 50%?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”
—George Eliot
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Coal is such a fascinating issue. I used to live in coal country (Indiana) and worked with the Indiana Geological Survey on the Indiana Energy Report. I had many discussions with other geologists there about the future of coal in Indiana and nationwide, and the consensus (on their side) was that it was inconceivable that there could ever be a limitation on coal extraction in the US provided strong coal prices. When we wrote the report, we were not permitted to speak ill of coal, nor were we allowed to even mention the words "climate change".
Economics are important, and I think it's very useful to view coal reserves through an economic lens. I wish we did the same for oil and gas, as it might prevent the likes of Colin Campbell et al. from prematurely forecasting near term world oil peaks over and over and over again and creating an opportunity for skeptics to turn Hubbert's depletion theories into a joke.
But, if the economics of extraction matter to the extractive process, then of course they matter to us as well. If it takes skyrocketing coal prices to keep US coal extraction rates (i.e. supply) rising, then what good is domestic coal as a source of "energy security"?
Beyond issues of how many years we'll be extracting coal, it seems to me that not all of those years will be on the upslope of coal's depletion cycle. We'll be able to grow coal supply for a certain number of years (maybe many, many not), then we'll see a plateau for a certain number of years, then a decline. We'll certainly be extracting coal 250 years from now, but will it offer a substantial enough and cheap enough supply of energy to matter?
Just thinking out loud...
It may be that coal at $14 dollars is so cheap, and such a small part of the total cost of electricity, that it doesn't matter. Multiplying the price by 2, 3, or 4 may not be a big issue. The bigger issue may be the availability of diesel for its entire role in the supply chain.
Another issue will be the financial picture. If some of the intermediaries in the wider system (from extraction to delivery) go bankrupt because of debt problems, how will this affect supply? If people are unable to pay their electric bills because they are out of work, what impact will this have? If we have hyperinflation or deflation, what will this do to our current system?
This is a quantitative question, so it's easy enough to get a rough answer by doing a little simple math. The answer boils down to "unlikely to be a problem".
Electricity in the US is roughly $0.10/kWh, and US coal generates about 2,000kWh/ton. Multiplying those tells us that the retail cost of electricity is $200 per ton of coal consumed, so a minemouth cost of $10/ton for coal represents only 5% of the overall retail price.
If the minemouth cost of coal rose to $30/ton, the retail cost of coal-fired electricity would increase only 10%, but economically-recoverable coal reserve would increase six times.
Based on this report, any reasonable discussion of ultimately-recoverable US coal reserves should use a figure of somewhere around 60bst. The headline figure of 10bst is useful for economic planning in the coal industry, but is not a reasonable estimate of long-term coal availability.
Most likely not.
Rail transportation is about 440 ton-miles/gal, and low-sulfur coal in the US travels roughly 1,000 miles before being used. Dividing these tells us that transporting US coal requires roughly 2.3 gal/ton.
Accordingly, each $100/bbl increase in the cost of oil will increase the cost of transporting a ton of coal by $100/bbl * 1bbl/42 gal * 2.3gal/ton = $5.50/ton, or about 3% of the retail price.
Coal transportation is much less sensitive to the price of oil than many other areas (particularly air and personal-vehicle travel), and can be converted in a relatively straightforward manner to use electricity instead of diesel, meaning that reduced oil supplies are highly unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the ability of the US to transport coal.
At certain point, the coal can be used as the fuel for transportation or be converted for diesel.
Does anyone know the EROI of Fischer-Tropsch diesel?
The efficiency of converting coal gas or natural gas into diesel via F-T is apparently about 66%. I'm not sure if "coal gas" refers to gasified coal, but I would imagine CTL efficiency is in roughly the same ballpark.
For comparison, refining oil into gasoline is roughly 80% efficient, so the difference is actually not that huge. (From the first link, the pollution created is about the same.)
This is an average for all rail transportation. Coal trains are probably even more fuel efficient, because the ratio of load to tare weight is greater than most other rail freight (particularly intermodal). 600 gtm/g might be a good guess.
And your right, of course, that rail can transition to electricity with existing proven technology. And thus be powered by coal. Indeed, if it really comes down to it, we can go back to coal-powered steam engines.
None of this is good news for those concerned about carbon emissions, of course.
Pitt, the EIA conversion table only calculates the (thermal) energy content of coal but does not consider conversion losses in the power plant. A conventional coal power plant only converts about a third of the thermal energy into electricity. So you should get only about 667 kWh of electricity per ton of coal.
Sorry..er..this is wrong.
A ton of coal has ~21000000 Btus or 6150 kwh of primary energy in it.
1/3 of that is 2000 kwh per ton of electricity. Most experts use 2000 kwh(electricity) per ton.
Coal is about 60 % carbon so you multiply .6 x 3.66=2.2 tons of CO2 per ton of coal--the EPA uses 2.1-2.3tCO2 and they use .712 tCO2 per Mwh of grid electricity(which is 70% fossil): .7 x 2.1 tCO2/x 2 Mwh ton=7.35 t CO2 per 10000 kwh.
Okay, you win. Thanks.
Gail,
It's easy to get carried away with the thesis that since oil is presently used for every aspect of industrial production, as we start to run out of oil, all industry will stop.
In the case of coal mining, transport, burning in power plants and distribution of electricity oil use is very small and can be easily replaced. Probably the largest use presently is for rail transport of coal.
All rail transport uses less than 1% of oil, and this can be replaced by electric trail, gas turbine trains or direct injection of coal in existing(modified) diesel engines. Before 1930, all coal was moved by coal-burning steam engines, but it seems simpler to use existing diesels with coal-powder/water fuels. This report is a good up to date summary of direct injection of coal in diesel engines.
http://www.ccsd.biz/publications/files/TA/TA%2074%20Efficient%20use%20of...
I think flexibility will be key going forward. If there is more than one option, it is likely that something will work.