Bright Futures for Coal

Bob Olson, of the Institute for Alternative Futures, sent the following scenario, inspired by the article also posted below:

Here's a scenario alternative to or variant of The Unholy Trinity.  The Peak Oil alarmists turn out to be right, but presented with a choice between precipitous economic decline and weakening efforts to constrain climate change, the U.S. and China choose to develop coal liquids on a massive scale.  (The U.S. and China are the Saudis of coal, with enough to supply the world with synfuels for a century.)  Of course this turn to coal would be rationalized as a short-term emergency measure.  But coal rather than renewables would get the huge subsidies and soak up the investment money, become more politically powerful than ever, and then maintain its new role.  The major uncertainty in this scenario is how soon the total climate melt-down would occur.  See the article below.

 
Coal is the great danger as 'peak oil' approaches, scientist warns

18 December 2008

By Harvey Leifert
for the Daily Climate

When will oil production peak and begin to decline? Scientists, engineers and economists have debated the point for years, on the assumption that carbon dioxide emissions will decline when less oil is burned.

What fuel society chooses after 'peak oil' is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate models

Not so, says Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist with the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, Calif. That assumes society switches to low-carbon fuel. But there's a good chance society will jump to the most abundant fuel around: Coal, which emits 25 to 50 percent more carbon dioxide per energy unit than petroleum, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Therefore, Caldeira said, the more important question – and one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate models – is "will the end of oil usher in a century of coal, or will it usher in a transition toward low-carbon-emitting technologies?"

Speaking Wednesday at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting in San Francisco, Caldeira reported on recent forecasts of how the climate would respond if the world completely stopped using oil today. In the one case, it is replaced with coal-based liquid fuels and in the other with renewable resources, such as wind, solar, or nuclear power.

The results are clear, Caldeira said. If liquefied coal powered the world's vehicles, produced its heating, and generated its electricity, Earth would warm 2º Celsius (3.6º Fahrenheit) by 2042, three years sooner than if society continued to use oil. If, however, society replaces oil with renewable energy, that 2º C rise would occur in 2056, 11 years later than with oil.

The reality, Caldeira said, is that we will never run out of oil. As it becomes scarcer and more expensive to extract, industry will switch to other fuels for economic reasons. The danger is that coal will likely appear to be the cheapest alternative.

So rather than view peak oil as a climate savior, he said, those scientists, engineers and economists should see the end of oil as a "new challenge" to efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Harvey Leifert is a freelance reporter based in Bethesda, Md. To reach the Daily Climate, contact editor Douglas Fischer at dfischer@dailyclimate.org.