An article in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/business/21coal.html?ex=1340164800&en=557631a9160ed13b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) (6-21-07) was about a report from the National Academy of sciences that coal reserves will last only 100 years at current rates of consumption.
"With domestic production of oil, gas and uranium far below peaks, coal has been promoted by elected officials and energy experts as the only bright spot in the national fuel supply picture. But as Congress considers billions of dollars in aid for projects to make gasoline and diesel substitutes from coal, and to build coal-fired plants that would capture their own carbon emissions, the study said that estimates of coal reserves were unreliable.""The federal government spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to research ways to use coal cleanly and tens of millions on miner safety. But the committee said more research was needed to find better ways to mine coal, to estimate reserves and to store carbon dioxide captured from plants. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a major factor contributing to climate change, scientists say."
The 100 year estimate is based on current consumption. Coal usage may increase if it's turned to as petroleum becomes more difficult to obtain. Or usage may decrease if limits on carbon dioxide emissions are mandated by governments.
dauphin
06-20-07, 11:53 PM
wondering which scientist's say that...
ericy
06-21-07, 07:16 AM
wondering which scientist's say that...
The point really was that previous estimates were really more seat-of-the-pants. The study that the NYT article talked about was requested by Congress.
There is an important caveat when they talk about coal consumption. They always add the qualifier "at current consumption rates". But consumption rates aren't constant - historically they have been steadily increasing from year to year, and if you take that into account, you find that the number of years worth of coal that we have is considerably less than the amount of time if you assume constant rates of consumption.
The point really was that previous estimates were really more seat-of-the-pants. The study that the NYT article talked about was requested by Congress.
There is an important caveat when they talk about coal consumption. They always add the qualifier "at current consumption rates". But consumption rates aren't constant - historically they have been steadily increasing from year to year, and if you take that into account, you find that the number of years worth of coal that we have is considerably less than the amount of time if you assume constant rates of consumption.
that talks about this very issue.
This study did NOT assume current rates of consumption. They clearly understand the consumption issue that you point out.
--Consumption of coal may increase at faster rates if people use coal as a replacement for dwindling oil supplies.
--Consumption may decline, or increase at slower rates, if governments restrict carbon emissions in order to battle climate change.
One conclusion of the study is that we need to think very carefully (= $ for research) about coal production and usage rates.
ericy
06-21-07, 08:14 AM
This study did NOT assume current rates of consumption. They clearly understand the consumption issue that you point out.
--Consumption of coal may increase at faster rates if people use coal as a replacement for dwindling oil supplies.
--Consumption may decline, or increase at slower rates, if governments restrict carbon emissions in order to battle climate change.
One conclusion of the study is that we need to think very carefully (= $ for research) about coal production and usage rates.
This study didn't - sorry if I implied that they did. I used the word "they" to refer to general discussion in the media instead of this study in particular. I guess my excuse is that I still hadn't had my morning cup of joe when I wrote that :D.
Roody
06-21-07, 08:52 AM
This study didn't - sorry if I implied that they did. I used the word "they" to refer to general discussion in the media instead of this study in particular. I guess my excuse is that I still hadn't had my morning cup of joe when I wrote that :D.
Yes, many of the erroneous conclusions about scientific data are the fault of journalists and politicians rather than scientists. We've seen a lot of that with the global warming issue too.
The best thing, as you probably know, is to try to read the original journal articles, although that's hard if you don't have a scientific education. Second best is to read the interpretations of data written by panels of scientists. In this case, you can download the report at the web site of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer).
pedex
06-21-07, 09:11 AM
US production of coal BTU wise peaked almost 10 years ago
vulpes
06-21-07, 09:24 AM
Another interesting aspect of the gasification and liqufaction of coal as a replacement for petroleum and natural gas is that these processes release a lot of CO2 that would contribut to global warming if not proerly sequestered. And the sequestering process adds a lot of cost. This, in turn, means that the price of oil and gas will have to be that much higher for these processes to be economically feasible and environmentally safe at the same time.
wahoonc
06-21-07, 09:45 AM
Another interesting aspect of the gasification and liqufaction of coal as a replacement for petroleum and natural gas is that these processes release a lot of CO2 that would contribut to global warming if not proerly sequestered. And the sequestering process adds a lot of cost. This, in turn, means that the price of oil and gas will have to be that much higher for these processes to be economically feasible and environmentally safe at the same time.
That is generally true of most oil fuel substitutes...anytime we have to produce something there is going to be some sort of by product. What they need to do is find a use for CO2 they we could make mega bucks selling it.;)
Aaron:)
hotwheels
06-21-07, 10:08 AM
Nuclear, lets face it, it's time.
vulpes
06-21-07, 11:07 AM
Nuclear, lets face it, it's time.
But what do we do with the spent fuel and other radioactive waste that remains deadly for centuries before the half life renders it safe? Maybe we build the space elevator of carbon fiber to lift it into orbit and then propel it toward the sun?
Nightshade
06-21-07, 11:26 AM
Nuclear, lets face it, it's time.
Nope, sorry. At present consumption rate about 60 yrs worth
of ore left to mine.
all this fuss about coal/nuclear is foolish anyway. As long as
politicians have a way out they will never fund development
of new tech to avoid the old ways we have now.
pedex
06-21-07, 03:50 PM
Nope, sorry. At present consumption rate about 60 yrs worth
of ore left to mine.
all this fuss about coal/nuclear is foolish anyway. As long as
politicians have a way out they will never fund development
of new tech to avoid the old ways we have now.
technology isnt the problem, nor is it the solution
we have a social problem, and it has a social solution not a technological one, all technology does is hide it for awhile longer and in the end make the underlying problem much bigger
crtreedude
06-21-07, 04:01 PM
Isn't it strange that I can sit here in Costa Rica and type a message to you and actually communicate with people all over the world, yet in offices all over the world, people commute into an office so they can do the same exact thing instead of doing it from home, thereby wasting a valuable, unrenewable resources.
That to be seems to be the problem. With all the technology to make it to where a huge percentage of people never even need to start their gas guzzler - we still do the daily commute creating traffic snarls and deaths on the highway and consuming huge amounts of fuel.
Technology HAS cured the problem to a large degree - we are too much like mindless robots to use it. It isn't about transportation but removing the need to travel to work.
Am I missing something here?
wahoonc
06-21-07, 04:28 PM
Isn't it strange that I can sit here in Costa Rica and type a message to you and actually communicate with people all over the world, yet in offices all over the world, people commute into an office so they can do the same exact thing instead of doing it from home, thereby wasting a valuable, unrenewable resources.
That to be seems to be the problem. With all the technology to make it to where a huge percentage of people never even need to start their gas guzzler - we still do the daily commute creating traffic snarls and deaths on the highway and consuming huge amounts of fuel.
Technology HAS cured the problem to a large degree - we are too much like mindless robots to use it. It isn't about transportation but removing the need to travel to work.
Am I missing something here?
I have pointed this out to my company several times. I do telecomute on a fairly regular basis. I live about 45 miles from my office and am quite often at offsite locations. Unfortunately(in some ways) our company is run by people from a previous century. They insist that we can't function effectively if we aren't "in the office" regardless if I physically interact with someone there on not. What really cracks me up is when the guy in the office next to me emails me a question and then wants to know if we can set up a one on one:rolleyes:
Aaron:)
pedex
06-21-07, 04:46 PM
Am I missing something here?
yep you are
what has technology ever done with respect to man's husbanding of available resources? nothing, not a damn thing, and therein lies the crux of our problem(s)
all the tech in the world does not cure our problem of outstripping the available resources, just hides it for awhile or in many cases just allows us to take a bad situation and make it bigger, the same underlying problem still exists
technology is a tool, not a solution, and as such it can help especially with efficient use of available resources, but it does not in any way solve the problem of too many people and not enough resources or the unrealistic thought that infinite growth on a finite planet can go on forever........until we either learn that lesson or resign ourselves to cyclical collapses periodically not much will change, nature inevitably will step in, it always does
acroy
06-22-07, 08:29 AM
technology is a tool, not a solution, and as such it can help especially with efficient use of available resources, but it does not in any way solve the problem of too many people and not enough resources or the unrealistic thought that infinite growth on a finite planet can go on forever........until we either learn that lesson or resign ourselves to cyclical collapses periodically not much will change, nature inevitably will step in, it always does
thus the need to expand - to the stars :D
there's a whole friggin Universe out there, and all we can see is our own little backyard.
just as man 2,000 years ago would have a hard time even imagining our current ability to travel, communicate, etc, I expect (and hope) mankind a few thousand years from now will look back on this time period as just the first few weak steps towards a galactic society :)
there's a helluva lot of resources out there.... not sure why so many people are stuck looking in their own backyard, maintaining the staus quo, never shooting for the stars, advocating population control, abandoning progress....
we have a lot of room, and time, to grow. our own sun will only last the next 6 billion years or so - but there's other suns out there :D
cheers
vulpes
06-22-07, 08:16 PM
thus the need to expand - to the stars :D
there's a whole friggin Universe out there, and all we can see is our own little backyard.
just as man 2,000 years ago would have a hard time even imagining our current ability to travel, communicate, etc, I expect (and hope) mankind a few thousand years from now will look back on this time period as just the first few weak steps towards a galactic society :)
there's a helluva lot of resources out there.... not sure why so many people are stuck looking in their own backyard, maintaining the staus quo, never shooting for the stars, advocating population control, abandoning progress....
we have a lot of room, and time, to grow. our own sun will only last the next 6 billion years or so - but there's other suns out there :D
cheers
Given the current state of affairs and the prodpects for that changing, i.e. global warming, deforestation, the death of the oceans due to the chemicals washed into them, etc., etc, etc., I don't know what makes you think this world (as we know it) will last another hundred years much less a thousand. I just hope I'm wrong.
JeffS
06-22-07, 10:21 PM
there's a helluva lot of resources out there.... not sure why so many people are stuck looking in their own backyard, maintaining the staus quo, never shooting for the stars, advocating population control, abandoning progress....
People advocating a sustainable lifestyle are for anything but the status quo.
If we were living for the quality of lives of our great grandchildren instead of the next paycheck, or the next quarterly earnings report things would surely be much different than they are today.
If you were stranded on an island with a limited amount of food, would you try to make it last, or throw a feast, assuming the rescue planes would show up before you starved?
vulpes
06-23-07, 04:55 AM
People advocating a sustainable lifestyle are for anything but the status quo.
If we were living for the quality of lives of our great grandchildren instead of the next paycheck, or the next quarterly earnings report things would surely be much different than they are today.
If you were stranded on an island with a limited amount of food, would you try to make it last, or throw a feast, assuming the rescue planes would show up before you starved?
Good analogy. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. :beer:
crtreedude
06-23-07, 05:04 AM
A very good book on this topic is "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
I honestly think we now are at a time we will either change our way or relating to the world or collapse and die back. Why should we be any different? There are very few pockets of untouched resources waiting to be exploited. Society based on exploting non-renewable resources is doomed to a short life expectancy.
vulpes
06-23-07, 05:32 AM
A very good book on this topic is "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
I honestly think we now are at a time we will either change our way or relating to the world or collapse and die back. Why should we be any different? There are very few pockets of untouched resources waiting to be exploited. Society based on exploting non-renewable resources is doomed to a short life expectancy.
Unfortunately, and at risk of sounding like an "apocaphile", I'm afraid that we have already passed the tipping point. The Earth's ecosystem is so large and has so much inertia that inputs to the system take a very long time to manifest the concomittant outputs, probably at least 30 years. That means the effects of what we are doing today in terms of carbon emissions, deforrestation, pollution, etc. will not be manifest for another few decades. And that the climate change and other effects we are seeing today are the result of what we were doing a few decades ago. I also think that the changes to the system accelerate as they accumulate. For example, as the Earth warms due to the greenhouse effect, more greenhouse gases will be released in the form of methane that has been trapped for millinia in methane hydrate deposits in permafrost, lake beds, and on the sea floor causing exceleration of the warming.