tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post1026996289508504737..comments2023-03-13T01:06:40.269-07:00Comments on BountifulEnergy: Peak coal is not imminentTomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-71952937688894125172011-10-05T23:10:23.281-07:002011-10-05T23:10:23.281-07:00gJ:
Sorry I haven't posted. I've been bus...gJ:<br /><br />Sorry I haven't posted. I've been busy and I only attend to this blog occasionally.<br /><br />However I just posted a new article about thermodynamics, and I intend to post a few more articles fairly soon.<br />-johnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-67082659489452672672011-10-03T15:42:21.350-07:002011-10-03T15:42:21.350-07:00You've not posted in for quite a few months no...You've not posted in for quite a few months now - is this because, contrary to what the 'debunking' blogsphere wants to believe, reality is pushing us forcibly down that rabbit hole and we're seeing our world for what it really is?greenJamienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-76383900343753005712011-09-06T05:53:33.773-07:002011-09-06T05:53:33.773-07:00http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/coal/centra...http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/coal/central-appalachian-coal.html<br /><br />Another international coal trading exchange. So according to your argument in this post:<br /><br />A) Coal is traded internationally.<br />B) Coal reserves are therefore in decline. <br />C) Therefore, peak coal is imminent or past.<br /><br />Man up and confess you mistakes Tom...Carl Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14996675724594344358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-4148997803739342942011-06-15T13:06:19.766-07:002011-06-15T13:06:19.766-07:00Anon:
"Educate yourself or at least research ...Anon:<br /><i>"Educate yourself or at least research something first.<br />You look just as bad as the dumb "doomsayers" your all hot for."</i><br /><br />Anon, I remind you once again to post only civil and appropriate messages here.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-66510538172747860742011-06-15T13:05:12.663-07:002011-06-15T13:05:12.663-07:00Anon:
"US Energy Information Administration p...Anon:<br /><i>"US Energy Information Administration projects world coal production to increase through 2030."</i><br /><br />How does this contradict what I said.<br /><br /><i>"Believing it is in 2025 is Energy Watch Group as well as the Institure for Energy."</i><br /><br />No. They said that it would peak in 2025 <i>at the earliest</i>, and possibly much later.<br /><br /><i>"Your economic views are appalling as your obviously taking no research into any of your rants."</i><br /><br />I've read those forecasts before, as they are all found in the wikipedia article on peak coal (in fact it appears you're quoting from wikipedia). <br /><br /><i>"taking a few minutes to simply type your post heading of peak coal showed"</i><br /><br />When I type the post heading into google, I find a rash of experts who claim that peak coal is very distant. Extremely few of them claim that peak coal is imminent.<br /><br />In fact there is only study claiming that peak coal is imminent, by Patzek and Croft. That study alone has caused this flurry about peak coal. <br /><br />Even that study acknowledges that the <i>conventional view</i> among experts is that coal will last 200-400 years--something which it calls a "myth".<br /><br />The study by Patzek and Croft is drastically mistaken, in my opinion. It contains serious errors (IMO) which invalidate its conclusions. Specifically, it performs a multi-Hubbert cycle approach. But a multi-hubbert cycle is drastically inappropriate because it will treat reductions in coal output imposed by demand or political considerations as a lack of coal <i>in the ground</i>. For example, if <i>demand</i> for coal falls in a certain region (for example, in the US, because we aren't building many new coal power plants) then the multi-Hubbert analysis would wrongly conclude that coal had peaked <i>in the ground</i>, when it is actually nowhere close to that. As a result, any kind of curve-fitting (including Hubbert analysis) is totally useless as a method of predicting peak coal, unless demand is increasing exponentially and there are no political barriers to its extraction. Since neither condition is satisfied for coal, Hubbert linearization and gaussian distributions of extraction are totally useless to predict the peak of coal, or its future extraction.<br /><br />For example, coal in the western united states peaked in the early 20th century because of <i>political considerations</i>, then declined gradually thereafter, then shot upwards massively after the clean air act of 1970. Patzek and Croft's method would have wrongly assumed that coal had peaked because of limited availability in the ground. Their method of curve-fitting would have been off by a factor of 100x or more in this case. Any method which is off by that much in <i>previously existing cases</i> is not a reliable guide to future coal extraction.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-35170275344941683302011-06-11T22:24:51.147-07:002011-06-11T22:24:51.147-07:00Research in 2009 by the University of Newcastle in...Research in 2009 by the University of Newcastle in Australia concluded that global coal production could peak sometime between 2010 and 2048.<br /> US Energy Information Administration projects world coal production to increase through 2030.<br />Believing it is in 2025 is Energy Watch Group as well as the Institure for Energy.<br /> Your economic views are appalling as your obviously taking no research into any of your rants.<br /> taking a few minutes to simply type your post heading of peak coal showed far more information opposing your idea with some actual evidence and little assumption or point of view opinion as you place within your posts. <br />Educate yourself or at least research something first.<br />You look just as bad as the dumb "doomsayers" your all hot for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-33664580541967115492011-04-19T05:54:50.469-07:002011-04-19T05:54:50.469-07:00"The planet can't handle perpetual econom...<i>"The planet can't handle perpetual economic growth and the economy can't work without it. It's a major conundrum, but one that must be resolved if we hope to sustain an ever-advancing civilization."<br /><br />Tim Jackson, economics commissioner at the U.K.'s Sustainable Development Commission, has studied this problem in depth. He can't say a fully formed alternative [steady state] economic model is readily available,"</i><br /><br />Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/prosperity+possible+without+growth/4638651/story.html#ixzz1JyMbqk6j<br /><br />Tom,<br /><br />Rather than tilting at windmills with this irrational debunking of hard science nonsense, how about contributing to the creation of the next, and desperately needed, steady state economic paradigm?<br /><br />Cheers & Cheerio,<br /><br />Freewheelin' FranklinCarl Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14996675724594344358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-54856927844590402802011-04-14T12:37:15.523-07:002011-04-14T12:37:15.523-07:00Babun:
"I think coal is basically going to fo...Babun:<br /><i>"I think coal is basically going to follow the path of oil, only half a century or a century later (assuming we don't do any of those fantastic energy breakthroughs)."</i><br /><br />This definitely seems plausible to me. I wouldn't be surprised if peak coal hit before the close of the 21st century. I also grant that coal could follow a trajectory similar to that of oil except 50-100 years behind.<br /><br />The main thing which I think could disrupt that prediction, is if countries make a serious effort at some point to reduce carbon emissions. In that case there could be "demand destruction" before we reach the peak of coal. Demand destruction may not seem likely right now, but people may become more sensitive to c02 emissions in the latter half of the 21st century when they really start seeing the damaging effects of climate change.<br /><br />Personally I'm much more worried about the ice sheets on Greenland disintegrating, than about peak coal. With peak coal, we'll know decades in advance, and supplies of coal will decline gradually (as they have with oil), and we have many obvious alternatives, albeit more expensive. If Greenland starts disintegrating, on the other hand, then we have 20 years to evacuate all major coastal cities (which means most major cities worldwide).<br /><br />Climate change will be a much more severe problem than peak coal, IMO. Peak coal might even benefit us.<br /><br />-tomTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-3821329361081677232011-04-14T12:20:12.137-07:002011-04-14T12:20:12.137-07:00Carl:
"How I love it when you censor reality....Carl:<br /><i>"How I love it when you censor reality... As I post I see you are deleting even more comments. What's up Tom? Reality got you down?"</i><br /><br />I haven't deleted any comments in a long time. Furthermore, I haven't deleted any comments for this post ever. Perhaps some users deleted their own comments or something?<br /><br />Were some of your posts deleted?<br /><br />I checked the spam filter and it said that nothing had been filtered.<br /><br />-tomTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-73931914622573803122011-04-13T14:20:42.202-07:002011-04-13T14:20:42.202-07:00Jay Wee is apparently taking a permanent vacation ...Jay Wee is apparently taking a permanent vacation since totally debunking peak oil...you know with oil being currently $126 a barrel and rising....he sure showed us...Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850363957756283810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-58505040475017617472011-04-12T09:07:42.275-07:002011-04-12T09:07:42.275-07:00...yah. TKECF is a real buy right now....yah. TKECF is a real buy right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-39099617257719113122011-04-12T07:48:45.803-07:002011-04-12T07:48:45.803-07:00"Furthermore, nobody had bothered to search f..."Furthermore, nobody had bothered to search far-flung places for oil yet,"<br /><br />Apparently the Australian 'Outback' is excepted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-91349505897206856132011-04-12T07:42:53.476-07:002011-04-12T07:42:53.476-07:00BTW - I got Jay Wee to wise up, I'll get you t...BTW - I got Jay Wee to wise up, I'll get you too.<br /><br />Cheers~<br /><br />CarlCarl Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14996675724594344358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-64571830817056023532011-04-12T07:40:59.971-07:002011-04-12T07:40:59.971-07:00Dear Tom,
How I love it when you censor reality. ...Dear Tom,<br /><br />How I love it when you censor reality. Cheers freak economic, China has created the international coal market...<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/12/china-australia-mining-iron-coal<br /><br />Cheers & cheerio,<br /><br />Freewheelin' Franklin<br /><br />PS - As I post I see you are deleting even more comments. What's up Tom? Reality got you down?Carl Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14996675724594344358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-63704179468456405102011-04-07T12:23:43.456-07:002011-04-07T12:23:43.456-07:00In fact, China tripled its rate of domestic coal p...<i>In fact, China tripled its rate of domestic coal production over the last 15 years which suggests that it's not even approaching peak coal within its own territory. If China isn't facing a local peak of coal, then the United States certainly isn't, since the U.S. has twice the reserves as China and a far lower rate of extraction.</i><br /><br />How does tripling ones production suggest that you aren't about to hit peak coal? If you look at reported reserves, there is definately reason to assume that China might be close to peak coal. Also the absolutely stunning demand growth suggests it will be hit even sooner. China became a net importer of coal in 2009 and is likely to continue being one in the future. This means coal trade will get more common soon enough.<br /><br />I don't really disagree with the main point that peak coal is far off, but with the current prices the peak is definately within the horizons, which means coal is bound to get a lot more expensive during our lifetimes. How prices affect recovery is also a big question. USGS research in the gillette coal field seems to suggest coal reserves are very reactive to prices, but this seems to be pretty much the only authoritative research on the subject, and it's only one coal field.<br /><br />I think coal is basically going to follow the path of oil, only half a century or a century later (assuming we don't do any of those fantastic energy breakthroughs).Babunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-57261889090946793102011-03-31T09:08:25.608-07:002011-03-31T09:08:25.608-07:00Ooh more vaporware posts at dieoffdebunked.
Remi...Ooh more vaporware posts at dieoffdebunked. <br /><br />Reminds me of this: <br />http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-03-29/Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850363957756283810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-65091381396829048942011-03-08T17:20:22.950-08:002011-03-08T17:20:22.950-08:00Tom,
If energy is bountiful and ever increasingly...Tom,<br /><br />If energy is bountiful and ever increasingly so, then why are you clutching at coal [with this once again profoundly flawed analysis]?<br /><br />PS - 119 Years. <br /><br />Coal has peaked and the day of complete depletion pegged. <b>"There is enough coal to last us around 119 years at current rates of production."</b> http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/<br /><br />Read between the lines you bright little economist you. "At current rates of production" implies current rate of consumption as well. In reality, demand increases while production decreases - meaning we have much less than 119 years of coal - bountiful energy boy.<br /><br />Please do your homework and open up your mind a wee bit.<br /><br />~Freewheelin' Franklin'Carl Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14996675724594344358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-63530019834094907102011-03-07T11:37:39.303-08:002011-03-07T11:37:39.303-08:00Tom,
We're going to end up with a transition ...Tom,<br /><br />We're going to end up with a transition to cleaner forms of energy anyway. Right now wind is already competitive in certain markets with coal and solar is within spitting distance of being competitive in a smaller section of markets.<br /><br />What the lack of shortage of coal does is give us a chance to continue with battery development.<br /><br />Right now the main reason we don't switch is quite simply cost. IF the cost of solar and/or wind PLUS storage were close to that of electricity produced by coal then we'd switch overnight. It's a no-brainer.DBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07695268078574303413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-20715190423885103912011-03-04T21:34:00.614-08:002011-03-04T21:34:00.614-08:00Anon:
"Should we be cheered or depressed tha...Anon:<br /><br /><i>"Should we be cheered or depressed that peak coal is not imminent?"</i><br /><br />Personally, I'm depressed about it. If coal peaked, then it would force a transition to cleaner forms of energy. The transition to cleaner forms of energy wouldn't cause major disruption to industrial civilization, and wouldn't cost very much more than we're paying now.<br /><br />We need to move off coal ASAP. What's lacking is political will. Peak coal would get around the lack of political will.<br /><br />Regrettably, we appear to have vast amounts of coal. <br /><br />-tomTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-48013392915088367112011-03-04T06:06:45.596-08:002011-03-04T06:06:45.596-08:00"What I meant was that coal, when used for en..."What I meant was that coal, when used for energy, is just a heat source which could in theory be replaced by other heat sources such as burning woody biomass, solar thermal, etc."<br /><br />You could say the same thing about oil, natural gas, ie, any fossil fuel. "Peak coal is not imminent." The mining of coal is destroys environments and kills miners slowly with lung disease and quickly with cave-ins. The burning of coal releases all sorts of toxins into the air.<br /><br />Should we be cheered or depressed that peak coal is not imminent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-51020953142801251292011-03-03T17:47:28.694-08:002011-03-03T17:47:28.694-08:00Anon:
I definitely grant that point. I spoke too ...Anon:<br /><br />I definitely grant that point. I spoke too quickly. Coal is used to make some chemicals from coal tar, and is used for activated carbon filters, and can be used to make plastics etc (although this isn't done often at present). Coal has uses other than energy.<br /><br />What I meant was that coal, when used for energy, is just a heat source which could in theory be replaced by other heat sources such as burning woody biomass, solar thermal, etc. Those heat sources could even be used for the production of cement etc.<br /><br />-tomTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-694923593189099892011-03-03T15:03:31.201-08:002011-03-03T15:03:31.201-08:00Peak Water?
http://dieoffdebunked.blogspot.com/20...Peak Water?<br /><br />http://dieoffdebunked.blogspot.com/2011/03/dieoff-by-peak-water.htmlDBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07695268078574303413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-58497138030026061352011-03-02T13:52:44.628-08:002011-03-02T13:52:44.628-08:00Coal is a heat source, nothing more. It's conv...Coal is a heat source, nothing more. It's converted into electricity using a heat engine."<br /><br />Coal can be converted into a lot of useful things. It's just very dirty and hard to extract without destroying mountains and human lives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-36629363331066933422011-02-28T19:09:13.439-08:002011-02-28T19:09:13.439-08:00Anon:
I'm not disputing that coal is environm...Anon:<br /><br />I'm not disputing that coal is environmentally very destructive. I agree with you on that point. I beleive we must transition away from coal burning fairly quickly (within in the next 2 decades), and I personally favor a heavy re-investment in nuclear power as a replacement.<br /><br />The only reason I didn't address the environmental effects of coal was because I was trying to stick to a fairly narrow topic of peak coal and when it will occur, leaving aside its environmental consequences. All I'm arguing here is that we don't face energy collapse or severe energy shortage. I'm not endorsing the view of "drill, baby, drill" or anything like that.<br /><br />Coal is a heat source, nothing more. It's converted into electricity using a heat engine. It could be replaced by other heat sources, like solar thermal or nuclear. Coal isn't essential to modern civilization, and we should repalce it for environmental reasons.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005412100005882053.post-80809562865218959192011-02-28T19:02:52.268-08:002011-02-28T19:02:52.268-08:00Weaseldog:
I don't see any reason to believe ...Weaseldog:<br /><br />I don't see any reason to believe that extraction of coal from Alaska's north slope would be rate-limited. I grant that Alaskan coal production would have to shut down part of the year because of the winters there. But I don't see why they couldn't mine more coal the rest of the year to compensate. Granted it would require large ships and shipping terminals, etc, but this involves technology which is already understood.<br /><br />Even if coal mining were limited to a slow rate, despite large resources, that would mean that coal wouldn't follow a "hubbert curve" at all but might plateau for a very long time or would deplete extremely slowly. This would give us a lot of time (perhaps centuries) to transition to alternatives. In other words, a low rate of production would not push back the peak, but it would attenuate the decline.<br /><br /><i>"you may be millionaire, but if the payout is $2k / month you won't live like one."</i><br /><br />That's true, but you won't ever, ever experience a collapse either.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396160316791132955noreply@blogger.com