Plentiful Coal - Not Peak Oil - Is Greatest Global Warming Threat

By Jeff St. John

No matter when you believe global oil production will reach its peak and begin its inevitable decline, don't believe it will help humanity stop the burning of fossil fuels that contribute to global climate change.

Why? Coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, is far more plentiful than oil is or ever will be. Turning to coal as a replacement transportation fuel would lead to an even greater amount of greenhouse-gas emissions, and thus a greater threat of global climate change.

That's the view of scientists who discussed the relationship between "peak oil" and climate change Wednesday at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco. The gathered scientists are seeking to predict what could happen after global oil production reaches its peak oil point – the maximum level of global oil production, which some studies say is decades away, and others say is happening right now.

"Will the end of oil usher in a century of coal, or will it usher in a transformation to low-carbon technologies?" asked Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University. "If we don't electrify or otherwise transform our transportation sector, the need for liquid fuels could lead to an increase in coal liquefication."

Making liquid transportation fuel from coal is a well-known process – Nazi Germany used coal-to-liquid fuels to power its war machine. But not only is coal a dirtier fuel than oil from a greenhouse-gas emissions perspective, making it into liquid fuel also involves the use of additional energy, making it "a double whammy" for global warming, Caldeira said.

The problem becomes more pressing given that burning coal for electricity production and other purposes is already expected to be the major contribution to future greenhouse gas emissions, said Pushker Kharecha, an associate research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

"Coal to liquids must not be used as large scale substitutes for dwindling oil and gas" when those become scarce, "unless all such emissions form them are captured and stored," he said. But capturing, or sequestering, carbon from coal plants is still far from mass adoption (see Canada to Beat U.S. to Carbon Storage and Vattenfall to Trap Carbon Emissions).

Preventing more emissions is critical, Kharecha said, because the levels of carbon dioxide that currently exist in the atmosphere are already higher than they should be to combat global warming, according to a paper published a few weeks ago Kharecha co-wrote with James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a well-known climate change scientist.

The paper argues that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels need to be brought down to 350 parts per million, rather than the more common target of 450 parts per million, Kharecha said. Current levels are about 385 parts per million, he said.

"Returning carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million by this century is still feasible," he said. But a key part of getting there would be to phase out all emissions from coal by 2030, he said.

That "will take Herculean efforts, really," including a massive shift to renewable energy sources in the short term and an increase in the use of nuclear power, as well as carbon sequestration for remaining coal-fired power plants, in the longer-term, he said.

It will also require a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, he added – a concept that has met with resistance from industries that prefer cap-and-trade systems to reduce emissions (see Carbon Tax a Better Idea? and U.N. Climate Talks Pose Big Impact on Greentech).

Thus, in terms of their effects on global warming, "oil and gas by themselves don't have enough carbon to take us into the dangerous zone for very long, because they just peter out," Kharecha said. "But that's assuming we do something about coal."

Comments

[Prudent Man...:]

I was in McMurdo Sound Antarctica in 1955 with Adm. Byrd and in Baffin Bay in 1954 to study climate change as nature, in its infinite wisdom, was changing the ice flow. The rate of change has not changed and anyone who claims differently either want a government grant, want to make money from the ignorant, has a political agenda or is just plain dumb.

Politicians and invesment bankers always need a cause or crisis. (See JFK on the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.)

Coal was used in heating and transporting most everything forty years ago. Obviously, if those who think things are worse now they are looking in the wrong direction. The fact is things are better than they were fifty years ago but there is no political or financial profit in telling the truth, especially in government and Wall Street.

2008 Dec 18 01:01 PM

[longoil:]

Carbon taxes are a terrible idea. There are simple a tax on existing technology and don't encourage long term solutions based on new technology. A better approach to give tax breaks to those who implement alternative energy projects like wind, solar, etc.

There is many issues with carbon taxes:

1) How do you police compliance outside of North America and Europe ?
I find hard to believe countries like China and Russia will allow inspectors to roam freely around the country doing on-site audits.

2) The tiered structure in the Kyoto protocol is a recipe for failure. The USA argues it should not be subject to stricter standards than third world countries and there should one standard for all nations. Third world nations argue that the US has enjoyed slack emissions standards for the last 100 yr which contributed to its present high standard of living and third world nations should be allowed to follow the same evolutionary path. The problem is both groups are right.

3) There are many potential scams revolving around the carbon credits system. A classic one is a power plant that applies for permits to build a new coal fired electricity plant with the intention of never building it. Then turns around later and says they decide to shelf it and gets paid from the carbon tax fund.

2008 Dec 18 03:00 PM

[epeon:]

First, is there global warming? I have looked extensively at the data and the best answer I get is maybe. Maybe because the data we have of changes in temperature over the last century are suspect. The data of temperature change beyond that we know only in vague terms. For example, we do now that there was a medieval warming period from roughly 900 to 1300 AD. We also know that there was a "little ice age" from 1500 to about 1900.

Secondly, does man have anything to do with global warming? There was no a significant contribution to global warming from man during the medieval warming period, yet it did get warmer. The same can be said for the "little ice age." So, does man have anything to do with it, or is man's contribution significant?

The carbon dioxide theory is simple, straightforward, and suggestive. But, it really doesn't fit the data. So, the best answer I have is this: we do not know. Are we really willing to contort the world economy causing massive upheavals for a maybe? I wouldn't.

2008 Dec 18 03:51 PM

[Luciano:]

Global warming is a fraud perpetrated by liberal political cronies and those who are supported by them. Real scientist who study the climate and those who are in related fields are fleeing en mass from the global warming dogmatists. The evidence that we're in a long range global cooling mode is great and growing while much of the evidence for global warming is manufactured, very short range and conviniently ignoring the mass of historical data that contradicts global warmists. So please take off the blinders and study what others have to say without smugness or selfrighteousness. If you and your croud insist on the path you're on the future you will impose on people will be dark, cold, hungry and hopeless. Carbo dioxide is plant food not a pollutant and studies done near volcanos that emit large amounts of CO2 show that plants grow faster and are mere desease resistant.

2008 Dec 18 04:50 PM

[derryl:]

"Carbon Trading Market May Reach $1 Trillion"

I read that headline in the Financial Post sometime this past year. If anyone wants to know what motivates the global warmers to ignore climate science and screech MELTDOWN!, that trillion dollar plum probably provides the answer.

2008 Dec 18 07:35 PM

[Freedoms Truth:]

"The rate of change has not changed and anyone who claims differently either want a government grant, want to make money from the ignorant, has a political agenda or is just plain dumb."

I agree, and so does the temperature trend. 2008 was colder than 8 of the previous 11 years. You know how the lying media presented that fact? "2008 was 9th warmest year on record".
Except we had a PDO warming trend that just flipped last year.

Global warming is overhyped bad science. There is a big hidden agenda of social(ist) engineers and wannabe carbon traders. Its a scam!

2008 Dec 18 11:36 PM

[Freedoms Truth:]

"The carbon dioxide theory is simple, straightforward, and suggestive. But, it really doesn't fit the data. So, the best answer I have is this: we do not know. Are we really willing to contort the world economy causing massive upheavals for a maybe? I wouldn't."

Actually, the 'straightforward' Co2 impact on climate estimation would give you only 1.2C warming with a doubling of Co2, and that would happen at a logarithmic rate, meaning we have to increase to 550ppm from current 390ppm to equal the impact of the CO2 put since start of industrial revolution.

The dirty secret of the bogus IPCC estimates is that they have 'gamed' the models to create a 4X feedback so instead of 1.2C, they (eg Hansen of NASA GISS) get 4C impact. ONly with those higher sensitivities can they estimate a list of horribles happening to the world..
. yet its a fraud, disproven ALREADY by the non-rise of temperature in recent years and the fact that 60 years of temperature data shows about 0.4C rise so far. the SIMPLE reason is that 0.4C of 30% rise in CO2 that was OBSERVED, if extrapolated, takes us to the 1.2C climate sensitivites number. the models created a dubious feedback quantity that does NOT show up in temperature data. Data and exagerrated models dont match!

The IPCC models are to 'climate science' what the rating agencies and their AAA stickers on CMBS were to the housing bubble: Perpetuating a fraud by using the bogus veneer of authority to 'validate' corrupt and wrong asertions.

The best thing we could do is stop the global warming nonsense in its tracks.

2008 Dec 18 11:45 PM

[The Proclaimer:]

Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge of the truth. We need more people like you to step up to the plate. Please check out this amaizing but true Clean Coal / Hydrocarbon process AND help us spread the great news. This process has two independent confirmations from a well known and respected University. This discovery destroys carbon dioxide by converting it to carbon fibers and other industrial valuable materials. It is more than an economical solution to GHG's. This process makes carbon fibers so economical that even extruding I beams will be common place. It would take volumns to cover all the possibilites.

Check it out at www.faqs.org/patents/a...

Qualified Investors welcome. [e-mail]


On Dec 18 01:01 PM PrudentMan, CFA wrote:

> I was in McMurdo Sound Antarctica in 1955 with Adm. Byrd and in Baffin
> Bay in 1954 to study climate change as nature, in its infinite wisdom,
> was changing the ice flow. The rate of change has not changed and
> anyone who claims differently either want a government grant, want
> to make money from the ignorant, has a political agenda or is just
> plain dumb.
>
> Politicians and invesment bankers always need a cause or crisis.
> (See JFK on the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.)
>
> Coal was used in heating and transporting most everything forty years
> ago. Obviously, if those who think things are worse now they are
> looking in the wrong direction. The fact is things are better than
> they were fifty years ago but there is no political or financial
> profit in telling the truth, especially in government and Wall Street.

2008 Dec 19 07:07 AM

[The Proclaimer:]

Oh Yeah ! Almost forgot to mention that This process also makes it possible to economically burn Hydrogen to generate power!

The Carbon Revolution Is Here!

2008 Dec 19 07:15 AM

[john s. gordon:]

lucian - sure plants grow well near active volcanos but it's not the CO2 its the trace mineral nutrients that get burped out with the ash,
> jack

2008 Dec 19 09:05 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

So Vattenfall is going to trap coal emissions, are they. Isn't that wonderful. When they deregulated the electric market in Sweden, Vattenfall headed for Germany and soft-coal heaven. In case your German is rusty, let me note that Vattenfall has often been accused in the German press of being an environmental offender. Moreover, this 'future gen' thing involving the 'trapping' of coal evaluations won't be fully evaluated (by them) for from 10 to 20 years.

Personally, I don't care about this, but I don't remember any protests from Vattenfall's executive suite when the know-nothings in this country (Sweden) closed two nuclear facilities. Why should they protest? Their allegiance is to Deutschmarks and not to Sweden, and they understood that those closures would be the best thing for their bottom line. Why? Well, supply down price up. Even if the Swedish government is hazy on that point, the Vattenfall executives seemed to have learned it.

Ferdinand E. Banks

2008 Dec 19 10:44 AM

[Erich J Knight:]

Now that Carbon will have a price;
Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!

The IBI Announces Success in Having Biochar Considered as a Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Tool;
POZNAN, Poland, December 10, 2008 - The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) announces that the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has submitted a proposal to include biochar as a mitigation and adaptation technology to be considered in the post-2012-Copenhagen agenda of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A copy of the proposal is posted on the IBI website at
The International Biochar Initiative (IBI).

Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration, Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

Below is an important hurtle that has been overcome in certification in the EU. Given that their standards are set much higher than even organic certification in the US, this work should smooth any bureaucratic hurtles we may face.

EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests
Subject: Fwd: [biochar] Re: GOOD NEWS: EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests successfully completed


Doses: 400 kg / ha – 1000 kg / ha at different horticultural cultivars

Plant height Increase 141 % versus control
Picking yield Increase 630 % versus control
Picking fruit Increase 650 % versus control
Total yield Increase 202 % versus control
Total piece of fruit Increase 171 % versus control
Fruit weight Increase 118 % versus control
HOMEPAGE 3R AGROCARBON: 3ragrocarbon.com

The Biochar provisions by Sen.Ken Salazar ( AND now Secretary of Interior!) in the 07 & 08 farm bill,
biochar-internatio...

NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems.
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...

The many new university programs & field studies, in temperate soils; Cornell, ISU, U of H, U of GA, Virginia Tech, New Zealand and Australia.

Glomalin's role in soil tilth, fertility & basis for the soil food web in Terra Preta soils.

Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?

This is a Nano technology for the soil that represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.

Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.


Also:

October 28, 2008

U.S. Department of Agriculture to Evaluate CQuest™ Biochar

Non-Funded Cooperative Agreement Signed

The objective of the biochar research is to quantify the effects of amending soils with CQuest™ Biochar on crop productivity, soil quality, carbon sequestration and water quality. Field trials will involve incorporation of biochar in replicated field plots and on-farm strip trials with monitoring of crop yields, soil quality, water quality, emissions of greenhouse gasses, and soil carbon sequestration. Laboratory studies will involve amending soils with biochar and quantifying changes in soil quality and microbial activity during incubations.

Biochar will be shipped from Dynamotive's West Lorne facility to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) locations in Iowa, South Carolina, Idaho, Washington, and other ARS locations. Initial results are expected during the 2009 growing season.

dynamotive.com/en/...

2008 Dec 19 11:08 AM

[john s. gordon:]

capture/sequestration - the futuregen project (mattoon IL) was all the rage in november 2007 but has since been discarded due to inability to control costs (remember we had speculative excess in steel & cement prices @ that time).

since then a 600 MW project has been proposed by edison intl at the old barstow site of the texaco gasifier/combined cycle demonstration. they feel they have the right kind of saline aquifer to absorb the CO2/
> jack

2008 Dec 19 11:10 AM

[The Proclaimer:]

Questions to ask about Global Warming.

1) What is the optomum CO2 content of the atmosphere?

2) What is the effect on Global Warming of the Trillions of BTU's
released into the Enviroment each year? Remember that it takes
60% more BTU's to produce electricy from Nuclear than Fossil.

3) Do we really want to waste 40% of the energy generated just
to capture CO2?

4) Do we really want to take the chance storing CO2 under the ground?

5) Now that the Carbon Revolution is here, How much CO2 will NOT be
released by driving electric cars. Remember that now it is possible to
generate power by burning Hydrogen. Hey! Just thought about it,
There now can be a source of FREE pure water for steam generators
There are a bunch or Corporations paying big bucks for Ultra
pure water.

6) How long can I make this list?

2008 Dec 19 11:18 AM

[The Proclaimer:]

Thanks for sharing. Need a source of economical NANO Carbons? Do you need them conductive or non-conductive? Need soft or hard?

Check this out www.faqs.org/patents/a...


On Dec 19 11:08 AM Erich J. Knight wrote:

> Now that Carbon will have a price;
> Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural
> practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread
> credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural
> poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!
>
> The IBI Announces Success in Having Biochar Considered as a Climate
> Change Mitigation and Adaptation Tool;
> POZNAN, Poland, December 10, 2008 - The International Biochar Initiative
> (IBI) announces that the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
> (UNCCD) has submitted a proposal to include biochar as a mitigation
> and adaptation technology to be considered in the post-2012-Copenhagen
> agenda of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
> A copy of the proposal is posted on the IBI website at
> The International Biochar Initiative (IBI).
>
> Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio
> fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil
> emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
> Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration,
> Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative
> energy cycle.
>
> Below is an important hurtle that has been overcome in certification
> in the EU. Given that their standards are set much higher than even
> organic certification in the US, this work should smooth any bureaucratic
> hurtles we may face.
>
> EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests
> Subject: Fwd: [biochar] Re: GOOD NEWS: EU Permit Authority - 4 years
> tests successfully completed
>
>
> Doses: 400 kg / ha – 1000 kg / ha at different horticultural cultivars
>
>
> Plant height Increase 141 % versus control
> Picking yield Increase 630 % versus control
> Picking fruit Increase 650 % versus control
> Total yield Increase 202 % versus control
> Total piece of fruit Increase 171 % versus control
> Fruit weight Increase 118 % versus control
> HOMEPAGE 3R AGROCARBON: 3ragrocarbon.com/
>
> The Biochar provisions by Sen.Ken Salazar ( AND now Secretary of
> Interior!) in the 07 & 08 farm bill,
> biochar-internatio/...
>
> NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter
> to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central
> technology for carbon negative energy systems.
> arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...
>
> The many new university programs & field studies, in temperate
> soils; Cornell, ISU, U of H, U of GA, Virginia Tech, New Zealand
> and Australia.
>
> Glomalin's role in soil tilth, fertility & basis for the soil
> food web in Terra Preta soils.
>
> Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability,
> food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses
> them all?
>
> This is a Nano technology for the soil that represents the most comprehensive,
> low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.
>
>
> Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put
> it.
>
>
> Also:
>
> October 28, 2008
>
> U.S. Department of Agriculture to Evaluate CQuest™ Biochar
>
> Non-Funded Cooperative Agreement Signed
>
> The objective of the biochar research is to quantify the effects
> of amending soils with CQuest™ Biochar on crop productivity, soil
> quality, carbon sequestration and water quality. Field trials will
> involve incorporation of biochar in replicated field plots and on-farm
> strip trials with monitoring of crop yields, soil quality, water
> quality, emissions of greenhouse gasses, and soil carbon sequestration.
> Laboratory studies will involve amending soils with biochar and quantifying
> changes in soil quality and microbial activity during incubations.
>
>
> Biochar will be shipped from Dynamotive's West Lorne facility to
> Agricultural Research Service (ARS) locations in Iowa, South Carolina,
> Idaho, Washington, and other ARS locations. Initial results are expected
> during the 2009 growing season.
>
> dynamotive.com/en/...

2008 Dec 19 11:31 AM

[auto44:]

The path to reducing energy use, is to reclaim the heat that is produced and not used in both internal and external combustion engines. If you are really serious about this it was well explained in the seventy fifth aniversary issue of popular science written as I remember about the time of the carter administration. You could look it up as Casey Stengle used to say. The largest segment of energy in engine fuel is given off as heat. Farmers have learned to heat their milking pallors with the heat given off while colling off their milk. Effectively manage wasted heat and the kinetic energy of moving vechicles( the energy absorbed by slowing and stopping) and you can probably stop all the caterwalling about global warming.

2008 Dec 19 04:00 PM

[auto44:]

How could all you folks doubt the inventor of the internet? He has made a fortune since leaving office.From.............. CARBON CREDITS.

2008 Dec 19 04:09 PM

[whisperonth...:]

Stop global warming by getting all the global warming idiots to stop breathing. Instant reduction in CO2 emissions.

2008 Dec 19 09:47 PM

[famos:]

Hey Jeff St. John,

I sure was happy to read all the comments. How about you? I bet you enjoyed reading them. We are tired with all the distortions.

Your entire article was an incorrect negative attack, based on out and out lies. Unfortunately, there are too many people like you, with no positive answers, just negativism. Like you're trying to make our country fail. I'd suggest you give up writing, take up another profession. Maybe coal miner or something like that.

2008 Dec 19 10:29 PM

[patio:]

CO2 as a greenhouse gas is laughable, a 5th grade kid is armed with enough science knowledge to dispute.
Why the nomenclature shift, from "man-made global warming" to climate change? Perhaps because climate change is a catch-all term more easily to dupe the public?
Actually, the concern should be global cooling, now that would have deliterious effects, not that we have any influence or control. and that is the next trend, IF solar activity stays low as it has recently.Yes, the sun is the major influencer on climates and weather, as insane as that sounds.

2008 Dec 21 08:24 AM

[speculari:]

Noticed of late that the incoming administration is utilizing the term "climate change" instead of the term "global warming". Could this represent a shift in mood - perhaps even some degree of cognizance that "Fat Albert" has got it all wrong? We'll have to wait I guess, until the recent appointees give us a hint with their first official pronouncements. If the president-elect is the pragmatist he claims to be, he may put the "climate change" issue on the very "back burner" faster than you can say "Maunder minimum"!

2008 Dec 23 09:22 PM