Not a Drop of Coal to Spare

With the Coal-to-Liquids conference kicking off today in Washington, D.C., I think it's worth adding another point to my previous argument against the notion of converting coal into liquified transportation fuel to offset petroleum.

According to the latest U.S. Department of Energy calculations, if the industry were allowed to grow in line with projections of U.S. coal reservers, liquid coal would consume 58 million of coal per year by 2015.  This would require the U.S. to actually import coal for domestic energy use. 

How is this possible given the industry's claim that America is the "Saudi Arabia of coal?"  First of all, the 250 years of supply touted by industry is based on a government report written more than 35 years ago; more recent research on our country's coal reserves points to a drastically shorter time span.

According to a National Academy of Sciences report  in 2007, "it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years." 

The report concludes that after factoring in rising coal production rates, financing costs, coal quality, transportation costs, and other environmental and economic considerations, there is probably only sufficient economic reserves of coal -- the portion that can be mined, processed, and marketed at a profit -- left to meet the nation's energy needs for the next 100 years at current consumption rates. 

While 100 years of supply might still sound like a pretty long time, at current prices that number could fall to just 75 years if we take into account the 0.8 percent rise per year in coal consumption predicted by the Energy Information Agency.  The figure falls to just 50 years supply under the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition's production goal of 300,000 barrels per day by 2015 (and a subsequent growth rate of 5% per year).  

If realistically we might have only 50 years worth of coal in America, why in the world would we want to waste what's left on a zany scheme to fill our gas tanks with liquid coal?

The above analysis was conducted by my colleague Andy Stevenson.  To learn more, check out NRDC's new fact sheet on this issue.

This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Comments

[quidam56]

Thanks to THE COAL INDUSTRY, Appalachia is being bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America. Our environment is toxic due to mountaintop removal and strip mining, we can't stand anymore of the progress and prosperity... http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138

[Overtone]

Forget Nuclear and Coal:
Future Cars Can Become Power Plants When Parked!

Revolutionary breakthroughs will make possible the elimination of the need for batteries of every variety. Magnetic generators are expected to replace the need to plug-in a plug-in hybrid. A generator is on the horizon that could eventually demonstrate a compact, inexpensive, capability to end the need to plug-in.

Much more powerful examples will later fit in the space of an engine and gas tank. When that occurs, since no fuel or battery recharge is required, automobile manufacturers may conclude that engines are likely to become obsolete. The market could decide most future cars must be totally electric.

Until now, car ownership has been an expense. A few plug-in hybrids, equipped with a two way plug, can feed power to the local utility while parked. The car’s owner could earn up to $4,000 every year.
Payments to car owner’s using magnetic generators might total $15,000 per year.

When a substantial number of vehicles powered by magnetic generators fill a parking garage, it will have become a multi-megawatt power plant.

The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power whenever needed.

The parked cars, trucks and buses, each become decentralized power plants - a rapid, cost-effective alternative to the many tough and costly challenges of constructing new coal burning and nuclear power generation facilities.