KING COAL: As the world runs out of oil, the prospect of increased use of coal is bade news for the climate.
Image: ©iStockphoto.com/Klaas Lingbeek-van Kranen
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
When will oil production peak and begin to decline? Scientists, engineers and economists have debated the point for years, on the assumption that emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will decline when less oil is burned.
Not so, says Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist with the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, Calif. That assumes society switches to low-carbon fuel. But there's a good chance society will jump to the most abundant fuel around: Coal, which emits 25 to 50 percent more carbon dioxide per energy unit than petroleum, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Therefore, Caldeira said, the more important question - and one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate models - is "will the end of oil usher in a century of coal, or will it usher in a transition toward low-carbon-emitting technologies?"
Speaking Wednesday at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting in San Francisco, Caldeira reported on recent forecasts of how the climate would respond if the world completely stopped using oil today. In the one case, it is replaced with coal-based liquid fuels and in the other with renewable resources, such as wind, solar, or nuclear power.
The results are clear, Caldeira said. If liquefied coal powered the world's vehicles, produced its heating, and generated its electricity, Earth would warm 2º Celsius (3.6º Fahrenheit) by 2042, three years sooner than if society continued to use oil. If, however, society replaces oil with renewable energy, that 2º C rise would occur in 2056, 11 years later than with oil.
The reality, Caldeira said, is that we will never run out of oil. As it becomes scarcer and more expensive to extract, industry will switch to other fuels for economic reasons. The danger is that coal will likely appear to be the cheapest alterative.
So rather than view peak oil as a climate savior, he said, those scientists, engineers and economists should see the end of oil as a "new challenge" to efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
This story originally appeared on www.dailyclimate.org and is authored by Harvey Leifert, who spent nine years as the public information manager of the American Geophysical Union before retiring in 2007. Like many reporters covering the meeting, he is a member of the union, but he is not representing the association nor is he writing about it.
The Daily Climate is the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentIt's already begun. The oil price spike of this year lead to coal-to-liquids being one of the point of Kentucky's state energy plan. Some form of carbon cost has to be implemented before these methods are put into production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...which is why we need a global carbon tax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo even if we switched to renewables, which is impossible because it would take such massive expenditure over such a long time, to produce much less overall energy, but even if we did, we would still be facing global warming. This is obviously because the effects of what we are doing now, and have done in the past take many years to take effect. So, we are toast, no matter what we do. The more I learn about peak oil, and the effect of declining oil extraction on the economy, society, etc, and the impossibility of replacing the lost energy entirely with renewables, the more I am sure that civilisation as we know it, is coming to an end. The one thing that nobody seems willing to discuss seriously is that the main reason of the problem is that we have grown the population to the point where it can only be maintained via artificial systems of food production, which will no longer be available as oil declines. Also, people seem to be unwilling to accept that they are NOT going to be able to replace oil and go on living the same lifestyle. The worlds infrastructure will need almost entirely replacing to operate on any other source of energy even if a full replacement does become available, it is not possible to do that in the time we have left..........NOT POSSIBLE. The largest part of the solution is to do away with what caused the problem in the first place, which is, the fact that we require so much energy in the first place. Serious cuts to personal use are going to be required to leave all the energy and fuel for the essential needs. Either we start now voluntarily, deciding to do away with our hair dryers, hair straighteners, heated rollers, air conditioning, and other completely non-essential luxuries, as well as driving the smallest possible car for our essential transport needs, the word here is essential, recreational driving will be a thing of the past in years to to come. If we don't start intellentially doing these things now, and have some control over the process of powering down, then it will be thrust upon us by force down the road.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI expect that most people, nearly everyone, will go on doing as they always do, and leave the cut backs to someone else. This is why I have no faith at all that we will solve this problem. At the moment, peak oil and the various end of the world as we know it scenarios that walk hand in hand with it, are not taken seriously, and are even talked about like they are some sort of way out, over the top, insane theories. 2 or 3 years and it will be different.
By two or three years time everybody will know the term "Peak Oil" and will know that it is real. I suspect that people will keep using as much energy as they can afford, and are legally allowed to use. There will be no voluntary cuts for most people. People will cut back when they can't afford it, or when rationing forces them too. And they will complain their heads of at either situation. The other thing, I can hear it already, how it is someone elses fault, why didn't anybody do anything about this. Well, why didn't you? Very few people will have the right to complain because very few people are not wasteful in the extreme. Most people think air conditioning is an essential......well I have news for you...........human being got by without it until late 20th century and it is indeed a luxury that we can.......and will live without in the future. Get over it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the relative IR absorption strength of water vapour compared to Carbon Dioxide? We know the relative abundance of Water vapour is vastly higher than that of CO2. My intuition is that the greenhouse effect of H2O is so much greater than that of all other gases, that it swamps any effects from these gases. Thus we would make almost no impact on warming by our emissions. If climate change is happening trhen it is most likely not to be Anthropenic. I am playing devil's advocate here, but would be very interested in the responses of the experts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The results are clear, Caldeira said. If liquefied coal powered the world's vehicles, produced its heating, and generated its electricity, Earth would warm 2? Celsius (3.6? Fahrenheit) by 2042, three years sooner than if society continued to use oil. If, however, society replaces oil with renewable energy, that 2? C rise would occur in 2056, 11 years later than with oil."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I understand correctly, Caldiera's projections assume that there is a basic level of coal production that is maintained regardless of changes in oil production. If coal-to-liquids is used to replace oil, then coal production increases, as do carbon emissions. If renewables replace oil, then carbon emissions from coal continue at present levels.
I think it's important to understand that a particular model of economic activity is assumed implicitly. Thus, regardless of changes in oil production, coal production either continues unaffected, or actually increases. Perhaps this is valid. However, I would think that it is, at a minimum, open to question. One can imagine alternative scenarios. For example, limitations and shortages in oil production could have economic repercusions that are severe enough to undermine the economic base that presently supports coal production at existing levels. Coal production could falter along with other economic activities.
All of this stresses the uncertainties that exist with regard to future carbon emissions in a world subject to the dislocations of oil shortages.
The concept of Clean Coal Technology is seen by its supporters as the silver bullet solution to fears about global warming and climate change posed by plans for a new generation of coal-fired power plants in the UK.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey say the new generating stations will be made significantly cleaner and more efficient than existing plants through the use of state-of-the-art equipment to reduce harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfhur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. In addition, the much-vaunted technique of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) offers the prospect of damaging CO2 gas being stripped out during the coal burning process and dumped underground or beneath the seabed, out of harms way.
Follow the Link:lincenergy.us/
If we implemented a decent 'Polluter Payer' Tax, coal production would rapidly subsidise the research, discovery and implementation of cleaner energy sources, and thereby rapidly make itself redundant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm tired of people yammering about using "full cycle economic costs" when looking at energy projects. They use issues such as environmental damage etc, which are fair enough, but then please don't be hypocritical and make sure you include the downstream benefits to conduct a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, what is the benefit of people not starving due to the fertiilzers that are produced? Not freezing because they can heat their homes? Growing old due to the drugs that are derived from researchers being able to corroborate over the internet, banging away at plastic keyboards and sending digital signals down copper wires coated in even more plastic?
Please save me the histrionics about "Polluter's PAY!" while you have electricity to power your computer and then drive your kids to baseball practice. You are the polluter, I am the polluter, we are all polluters.
Could you please stop referring to nuclear power as a renewable energy source, there is only so much uranium, even less suitable for nuclear power, and we can run out of the stuff! That means its non renewable! Just like oil, coal, and gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this