Peak Coal This Year?

In August last year, the journal Energy published A global coal production forecast with multi-Hubbert cycle analysis by Tadeusz W. Patzek and Gregory D. Croft. I'll let National Geographic introduce the findings.

A new study seeks to shake up the assumption that use of coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, is bound to continue its inexorable rise. In fact, the authors predict that world coal production may reach its peak as early as next year, and then begin a permanent decline.

The study, led by Tad Patzek, chairman of the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and published in the August issue of Energy, predicts that by mid-century, the world's coal mining will supply only half as much energy as today.

The idea that the world will face "peak coal" as soon as 2011 flies in the face of most earlier estimates and analysis.

The London-based World Coal Institute, an industry group including the largest international coal producers, says "the use of coal will rise 60 percent over the next 20 years," and that "coal will last us for at least 119 years." And the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in its most recent international outlook, projects that coal consumption for electricity will grow more than 50 percent by 2035 unless policies are put in place to stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the Patzek study paints a far different picture—and not because people will use up the last of the coal in the ground. Rather, the world will finish off the coal that is easy to reach and high-quality—the coal that produces a large amount of energy per ton, the new study says. What remains will often be of lower quality, and progressively harder to dig up and bring to where it is used.

The study's prediction for the time of the peak—actually a peak in the energy produced by global coal production—may not turn out to be exactly right, Patzek said. “I’m not saying that on July 1, 2011, there will be a peak."

But the main thrust of the study is stark: “We are near or at the peak right now,” he said.

Economic Costs

If true, this could have a vast impact on the world economy.

Coal-fired power plants supply 40 percent of the world's electricity, and energy for two-thirds of the world's steel production.

"If we are right," Patzek's study said, "major restructuring and shrinking of the global economy will follow."

If true, this could have a vast impact on the world economy. As understatements go, that's right up there with the best of them. Patzek and Croft's Hubbert modeling indicates a peak in the energy obtained from coal in existing mines, so it might be better to call their result "peak exajoules (EJ) from coal". (Read the footnote below.) Here's the abstract and Table 1 from the paper.

Based on economic and policy considerations that appear to be unconstrained by geophysics, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) generated forty carbon production and emissions scenarios. In this paper, we develop a base-case scenario for global coal production based on the physical multi-cycle Hubbert analysis of historical production data. Areas with large resources but little production history, such as Alaska and the Russian Far East, are treated as sensitivities on top of this basecase, producing an additional 125 Gt of coal.

The value of this approach is that it provides a reality check on the magnitude of carbon emissions in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. The resulting base-case is significantly below 36 of the 40 carbon emission scenarios from the IPCC. The global peak of coal production from existing coalfields is predicted to occur close to the year 2011. The peak coal production rate is 160 EJ/y, and the peak carbon emissions from coal burning are 4.0 Gt C (15 Gt CO2) per year. After 2011, the production rates of coal and CO2 decline, reaching 1990 levels by the year 2037, and reaching 50% of the peak value in the year 2047. It is unlikely that future mines will reverse the trend predicted in this BAU scenario.

Click on the image to get a better view

Patzek and Croft's analysis is easily tested. Since this year is the coal energy peak year, it should be easy to confirm or invalidate the Hubbert model as applied to existing coal production by analyzing new production data in 2012, 2013, and so on. I would think a peak should be evident as early as 2015, and certainly by 2020. However, even if the 2011 date is (only) several years or a decade too early, we wouldn't be out of the woods. Rather than assuming we have 119 years of coal left, perhaps it would be better—perhaps it would have been better—for the world's leaders to keep a close eye on coal production.

Unfortunately, the situation is even more complicated than just stated because coal production is very sensitive to global economic conditions, which appear to be very fragile right now, and subject to great volatility. For example, China's bubble may burst. And all things being equal, a peak in energy from coal itself will be very disruptive. Not to mention our obvious troubles with oil.

Let us ponder this grim conclusion—

The most important conclusion of this paper is that the peak of global coal production from the existing coalfields is imminent, and coal production from these areas will fall by 50% in the next 40 years. The CO2 emissions from burning this coal will also decline by 50%. Thus, current focus on carbon capture and geological sequestration may be misplaced. Instead, the global community should be devoting its attention to conservation and increasing efficiency of electrical power generation from coal.

The current paradigms of a highly-integrated global economy and seamless resource substitution will fail in a severely energy constrained world...

There is more to say about "peak coal" than can be said in a single post, so I shall return to this subject soon. In the meantime, you can read the Patzek & Croft paper if you like. I should warn you that it is not valid to simply leap to the conclusion that Patzek & Croft's analysis is correct, and simply assume that the death of human civilizations (in their current form) is imminent. I know that many of you will do just that regardless of what I say.

If Patzek and Croft are indeed correct, and Hubbert modeling does successfully apply to existing coal production, there are two ways to go. If you think life's glass is half empty, you can pretend you are contortionist, bend over, place your head between your knees and, stretching as far as you can, kiss your ass goodbye. If you think life's glass is half full, it's easy to find the bright side—at least you won't have to worry about global warming anymore

And remember this, about life: nobody gets out of here alive.

Footnote — From Patzek and Croft, page 3: To convert the mass of coal of different ranks to the corresponding higher heating values (HHVs), the following averages of the HHV are used: 30 MJ/kg of anthracite, 27 MJ/kg of bituminous coal, 21 MJ/kg of subbituminous coal, and 15 MJ/kg of lignite. These averages are then multiplied by the annual production of coal reported by rank. MJ/kg stands for megajoule per kilogram.

Bonus Video

 

Comments

[John D]

Excellent post Dave. This issue has not shown up on many people's radar. I urge all readers to take the time to watch the bonus video. It is quite eye-opening. One issue not addressed is the fact that Ms. Glustrom mentions that Wyoming's Powder River Basin has a deceptively small reserve, yet we are busy trying to build rail and port facilities in Oregon to haul the coal to the far east.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_exports_from_northwest_United_States_ports

[Morocco Bama]

2050 is going to be an interesting year, for so many reasons, this among them. Anyone care to venture what the "World? will look like in 2050? I'm feeling great about procreating right about now. Hang on to your hats, Earthlings, the ride hasn't even yet begun.

[Bill Hicks]

"I should warn you that it is not valid to simply leap to the conclusion that Patzek & Croft's analysis is correct, and simply assume that the death of human civilizations (in their current form) is imminent. I know that many of you will do just that regardless of what I say."

How about if we just refer to it as Peak Civilization? Because it is pretty clear that the Post World War II global economic model has reched its zenith and is heading into decline. In fact, I would argue that the Peak was in 2008 and we're already on the downslope if still very near the high point.

[Dave Cohen]

Actually, why don't we just wait a few years and see what the coal data is telling us?

Now if only people could learn to delay gratification... ;-)

[Brian]

Dave--

I know this link I'm sending you is off today's topic, but I didn't know how else to reach you. I'd love to get your take on this . . .

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680

[Alexander Ač]

After the oil production of oil peaked in Russia in 1988, also coal production went down... who knows why? :-)

Peak coal is the only way to save climate for future generations... but who cares anyway?

[Morocco Bama]

That was an excellent video, Dave. Well, without all the lights, we'll be able to see the stars again. We have to look on the bright side.

Was it just me, or did the speaker sound like she was gasping for air as though she just ran the Boston Marathon?

[Dave Kimble]

You can compare the results of Patzek and Croft with other scientific papers and articles listed at http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakcoal.htm

To reduce a whole lot of information into a single figure, most of these papers see Peak Coal around 2026, which is still much earlier than any of the IPCC scenarios, bound as they are to use "official" figures from USGS, EIA, IEA, etc.

[Tony]

These sorts of projections have been wrong before... the peak must come eventually, that is a geological fact. Nobody in their right mind would argue that. Nobody in their right mind would argue either that it can keep expanding exponentially. But it is a good idea to be suspicious of claims that put the peak NOW or in the extremely immediate future.

[Morocco Bama]

Why suspicious of such claims? Explain? I'm suspicious of the Ostrich In The Sand retort that says "yeah, yeah, everything has its Peak, but not yet....there's still time....let your children and grandchildren worry about that....in the mean time, keep consuming as though there were no tomorrow, because it's what keeps this prosperous lifestyle afloat."

You know what has no Peak, apparently? Stupidity and Hubris.....the Siamese Twins that are the Hallmark of Civilization. No Peak there. It's a one way graph straight into the Abyss.

[Tony]

Oh it's gonna peak before too long, and everything is decidedly not fine, and the way our civilization works in terms of energy is fundamentally insane. But I'm suspicious of predictions of neat, symmetrical, immediate peaks because the world is just never that SIMPLE. In my experience, people predicting immediate, predictable patterns like this often are ignoring variables that make the reality decidedly messier and more complicated. Nothing more or less; I just don't entirely trust prognostications that clam to be able to pin things down so accurately.

[Morocco Bama]

I'm with you on that, Tony. That's why I studied that graph intensively. The steep decline was unnerving, until I realized the assumptions that come into play, and those assumptions can, and certainly should, be challenged....but not by those, the industry insiders, who want to pretend it's still not here, and it can wait for another day.

I believe I mentioned this before, but I don't see the downside, or the right side of that graph, or any Peak graph other than water & air, playing out all the way to zero production. Something will "give" before then that will put a halt to the production of any further otherwise economically recoverable reserves, and along the way down to that point, there will, more than likely, be significant/substantial dips and inclines....meaning the right side of the Peak curve will be anything but smooth.

Considering that, though, it doesn't change the general outcome, and in that sense, it's not worth wasting time debating over it. To debate the technicalities of when and how only distracts from the 20,000 lb. elephant in the room. And that elephant is what Kuntsler said so well:

*******So we've invested all of our social wealth, all of our capital, in this way of life, and it has no future, and so, you can then define this behaviour as a tremendous misallocation of resources. Perhaps the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world, just in sheer volume of wealth, and sheer volume of stuff that has been constructed that is not going to have a future.

So, having done that, we are now faced with an additional problem, which is the problem that can be stated as 'sunk costs,' or, 'the psychology of previous investment.' And the psychology of previous investment is a fancy way of saying that you put so much of your wealth and your spirit into something, that you can't imagine reforming it, or changing it, or letting go of it. And that's sort of the predicament that we're in.*******

[Tony Weddle]

As we've never had to deal with this sort of peak before, in this sort of global consumer society, I'm guessing that the downslopes of all energy sources will be much steeper due to the impact that a peak will have (or is having) on that global society.

I haven't bought it yet but interested readers might consider Richard Heinberg's recent (2009) book on this subject, "Blackout - Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis".

[Tony Weddle]

Dave's post just appeared on Energy Bulletin (or, at least, I just saw it there). It prompted me to check on energy from US coal over the last couple of decades. The Annual Energy Review came out recently on the the EIA website, so that made it easier than it might otherwise have been. I haven't delved into the data in detail but it seems that the US has been on an undulating plateau in terms of energy from coal for the last 12-15 years. Even in raw tonnage, that seems to be true. That doesn't mean that coal has already peaked but I had thought that the US had been slowly ramping up its coal use. I wonder why it doesn't appear to have actually done so.