Just when you thought coal would save you from Peak Oil. (cue evil laughter) Bwahahaha! </evil>Discovery News wrote:Coal Supply May Be Vastly Overestimated
Michael Reilly, Discovery News
May 11, 2009 -- Forget peak oil -- a series of new estimates of the world's coal supply suggests reserves may be vastly overestimated, and if the planet isn't running on a majority of alternative energies within the next few decades, we could be facing an unprecedented global energy crisis.
On the flip side, a dwindling supply of coal could also throw the breaks on global warming, some argue.
Common knowledge about coal is that major producing nations like China, the United States and Australia, have enough to last hundreds of years, far beyond the reach of oil, which may already be in its twilight years. But worldwide coal production could plateau as early as 2025, according to one new estimate, and a growing group of scientists are concerned that fossil fuel supplies may begin dwindling by mid-century.
Last year, David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology analyzed the coal production patterns of five regions around the world -- eastern Pennsylvania, France, Germany's Ruhr Valley, the United Kingdom and Japan -- each of which was producing at less than a tenth of its peak levels.
He found that each of the depleted regions followed a rough bell curve of production; initial production was followed by a steep ramp-up, a plateau near peak levels, and then a consistent decline.
When he applied the same formula to coal data from around the world, the results were startling: the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's maximum estimate for extractable coal is about 3,400 billion tons. Rutledge's calculations suggest just 666 billion tons.
The problem with the IPCC estimate is that it lumps coal "reserves" which are easy to mine with coal "resources," which may be impossible to mine. And Rutledge's study shows that, historically, national governments in the five regions have overestimated their reserves by a factor of four on average.
"These appraisals are large-scale issues," he said. "But they're done by governments. What's the incentive for governments not to give a number that is too high?"
James Murray of the University of Washington agrees. In a talk being presented later this month at the American Geophysical Union Joint Assembly, he plans to call for a re-evaluation of IPCC emissions scenarios, all 40 of which overstate humanity's ability to emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, according to Rutledge's numbers.
The committee's projections call for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to approach 500 parts per million by 2050, if emissions continue on their current trend. But Rutledge's work suggest that even if humans burn all the coal and oil we can get our hands on, we won't be able to push CO2 past 450 ppm. Oil sands and other unconventional fossil fuels probably won't add much to that total.
Murray and Rutledge diverge on the question of climate effects, though. Using IPCC models, Rutlgedge argues that global temperatures won't get higher than 2 degrees Centigrade (3.6 Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, at the lower end of what scientists think might spark "dangerous" climate change.
"We're still going to have global warming, and it's a serious threat," Murray said. "I have no doubt the IPCC dramatically underestimates climate sensitivity."
Regardless of climate impacts, the concern over looming energy scarcity may be more acute than ever.
"I think we'll see peak coal somewhere between 2025 and 2035," Richard Heinberg of the Post Carbon Institute in California said. "This has huge economic implications. Without growth in our energy supplies, it's very difficult to see how we're going to grow the economy."
Okay, serious discussion. If these estimates, and the estimates of peak oil hold any water, this implies that both Peak Oil and Peak Coal will occur pretty much back-to-back. This would seem to only increase the urgency behind the need to transition away from fossil fuels.
