In this post, I will show that we don't face an imminent energy crisis. The idea of an imminent energy crisis is badly wrong for several different reasons, as I'll show below.
By "energy crisis" I mean running out of energy or some kind of permanent downslope. I am not referring to global warming here, which is a separate issue.
Coal becomes more abundant over time
I pointed out, in an earlier article, that Hubbert curves would never have worked for global oil. This is because the extraction of oil and its growth were curtailed, which renders Hubbert curves invalid from that point on. Hubbert curves require constant drilling effort in order to work. However, the Middle Eastern countries curtailed their oil output, starting in the 1970s, in order to increase prices. From that point forward, Hubbert curves would understate the amount of oil remaining in those countries. Curtailment leads to an imminent peak in extraction, but it pushes the date of exhaustion further into the future. For this reason, Hubbert curves have not worked for Middle Eastern countries.
The situation with coal is similar, but even more so. Coal production in the USA has been curtailed since 1918. As a result, Hubbert curves will drastically underestimate the amount of coal remaining there. This is probably the reason for the vast discrepancy between the USGS estimates of coal and Hubbert curve estimates of the same resource. Hubbert curves will not work in this case, and the USGS estimate is probably right.
In addition to that, the USA has started curtailing coal production even more severely, starting in 2008. This is because of renewables, and also because fracking drove down the price of gas, leading to a shift towards gas for electricity generation. This decline in coal production pushes out the curve of remaining coal far into the future. The area under the curve remains the same, but the curve is much flatter and wider.
Here in the USA, we had more than 270 years of coal remaining, as of 2008, according to the USGS estimates (Hubbert curves will not work in this case and would drastically underestimate the amount). However, the amount of coal produced per year declined by 38% between 2008 and 2016, because of declining demand. Thus, the amount of coal remaining 8 years later, at the new lower rate, was not 270 years, but 424 years. Thus we “gained” an additional 154 years of coal in an 8 year period. The decline in demand flattens the curve of remaining resources and pushes it far out into the future.
As a result, we started off (in 2008) a long way from an energy crisis, and we are going further away from an energy crisis quickly.
We began the transition to renewables long before coal reached a geological peak. This totally changes the long-term trajectory of coal extraction. Even a gradual 0.5% linear transition to renewables, begun long in advance, will totally change the long-term trajectory. It's like a ship crossing the Pacific Ocean, which diverts its course by one degree at the beginning of the trip. That small diversion at the beginning results in a massive change in where the ship ends up at the end. Even a 0.5% sustained annual conversion to renewables, begun this early, implies that the energy crisis is getting further away over time, and the date for exhaustion of coal is receding into the future. A 0.5% linear transition to renewables implies that we gain more than 1 year of coal usage for every year that passes (435*0.005-1 = 1.175). Since we are converting the energy system to renewables at a much faster rate than 0.5% per year, we are getting much further away from an energy crisis over time. The possibility of an energy crisis -- always remote -- has now passed, and stands no realistic chance of ever occurring.
There are also "unconventional" coal resources such as underground seams which could be mined using underground gasification. Even if we did nothing to transition to renewables for centuries, it is entirely possible that those unconventional coal resources would then be extracted, just as horizontal fracking was developed and used when necessary. Thus, the estimate of 435 years, indicated above, could be a massive underestimate even if there were no transition to renewables.
Renewables could replace coal very quickly
Not only is coal super-abundant, but we could transition to renewables quickly at any time.
I pointed out in a subsequent article that renewables have a very short doubling time and can grow exponentially and very quickly. Any country could transition entirely to renewables in less than 40 years, using any plausible estimate of EROI and energy payback time, by diverting only a very small amount of its net energy now. As a result, the United States has vastly more time than required to transition to renewables, and is transitioning much faster than required.
As I pointed out in a previous article, the United States, and all other industrial countries, are curtailing their growth of energy and growth of renewables. This is done for several reasons. First, demand for energy in first world countries is flat. Second, we don't wish to prematurely retire our old energy generators such as gas-fired turbines, before the loan has been paid off. It would be uneconomic and more expensive. However, if we were willing to pay more money, the transition could happen faster than it is happening.
As a result, even a massive shortfall in coal resources, compared to USGS estimates, could be compensated by an increased exponential growth of renewables. It would cause an unfortunate financial loss, and higher electricity rates for consumers, but it would imply only a very temporary shortfall of energy. Even a 95% reduction in ultimately recoverable coal reserves would still cause a shortfall of less than a decade, and not a collapse of civilization.
I must also mention that technology continues advancing. The price of solar panels, for example, has dropped by 90% in just the last 15 years. The remaining coal reserves in the USA (435 years) provide a lot of time for further technological development. It is entirely plausible that electricity from solar panels and batteries will become cheaper over time than thermal energy from coal extracted from the ground. At which point, coal is practically useless anyway. And there are other technological developments which could occur in 435 years. Even fusion could be available before then.
Conclusions
Thus, the idea of an imminent energy crisis is badly wrong, in my opinion, for multiple, overlapping reasons. First, the amount of coal remaining is gigantic, leaving centuries for a transition. Second, the transition is happening far earlier than required, which pushes the end date of coal far into the future, so we are getting further away from an energy crisis over time. Third, we could transition to renewables at any time far faster than is required. Any one of those three things would imply that there is no imminent energy crisis. The United States in particular has a vast excess of energy options for at least centuries, and probably much longer.
Oil is a different matter. Oil is much scarcer than coal or gas. It’s possible to argue that we are underinvesting in upstream oil development, which will cause a shortfall in the future, leading to high oil prices. Energy in general, however, remains extremely abundant far into the future, and probably forever, until civilization ends for some other reason.
Of course, many countries have more limited energy supplies than the USA. However, several other countries have similar excessive energy reserves, such as Australia and Norway. Those countries could sell coal to other countries (such as Japan) as they transition to renewables.
