By Michael Mielke and Jean Arnold
(Formatting changed from original document)
What follows is Post Carbon Salt Lake’s response to Governor Herbert’s 10-yearStrategic Energy Plan, November 3, 2010 draft (DP). The analysis emphasizes threefailings of the DP. It does not consider the coming oil supply crisis, likely to jolt ourvulnerable transportation system in the ten year horizon of the DP. Then, it fails toplan for the catastrophic effects, seen right around us, of filling our air and waterwith poisonous pollution from burnt fossil fuels. Finally, it fails to appreciate thatour major poison and pollutant, coal, is no longer a viable fuel to depend on forsupply purposes, for price purposes and more. The sensible conclusion is for the DPto explain how we will stop coal. It fails completely in the areas that are mostdamaging to our future.
The oil supply crisis has been predicted, analyzed and anticipated by a growingchorus of warnings these past couple of years. Voices of fear and caution have beenraised by our Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Lloyds of London,Germany’s Future Analysis Department, business planners across Europe, EnergyInformation Agency, among others. Almost every day a credible group presentsanother perspective on the coming oil supply crunch. There are very few credibleenergy analysts, excluding Big Oil and other’s beholding to them or fossil fuels,which are not warning about the coming oil supply crisis.
Right around us, the devastating effects attributable to burning fossil fuels,particularly coal to generate electricity, can be readily seen. From the dead trees tothe melting glaciers to the dirty air in the Wasatch Valley, we cannot escape thedeadly pollution effects brought by burning fossil fuels. Even when we can’t see it,burnt carbon is working its lethal processes. The oceans are going from alkaline toacidic; life on land and in water cannot tolerate acidic oceans. That means us. Theacid comes directly from CO2. Can we here in Utah turn a blind eye to our owndisproportionate pollution effects, robbing our next generations of a livable future?
On the horizon, certainly within the planning horizon of this DP, the end of coal as acheap or reliable source of fuel for generating electricity can be seen. It is clearlyshown below. Utah has abundant wind, solar and geothermal resources.Developing them will create many more jobs than we have in the energy sector nowand keep our energy costs within the state’s economy. To shirk away from facing
the challenges of ending coal and failing to transition to using the abundantresources that our sun supplies will guarantee ruin for the state, not prosperity.
Draft Plan: TRANSPORTATION
Critically, the Draft Plan (DP) does not deal with the coming oil demand/supplycrisis. As was noted in Post Carbon’s October 15th response to the Task Force, thecoming shortage of oil supply is predicted by our own Department of Energy, andthe United States military’s Joint Forces Command concurs with the overallprediction. http://inteldaily.com/2010/04/oil-crash/ (The link supplied is from thisweek, one of many available as substantiation.) Previously shortages of oil supplycompared to demand, shortages much less than anticipated by DOE/DOD, resultedin a tripling of the oil price, what is likely to happen this time?
The immanent crash in oil supply is expected, and the Department of Defensementions it happening as soon as 2015. Shouldn’t the DP then have provisions torespond to this oil crisis? There is some difference of opinion as to whether the oilsupply crash will happen in this next five years, but little dispute that it will happen.
Planning to replace liquid fuels is a lengthy and difficult process, (DOE 2005:http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf ). While the DPpredicts a doubling of vehicle miles driven (VMT) within the next 30 years, but doesnot provide any substantive plan or strategy to explain how these vehicle miles willbe fueled. The DP expects oil supplies to continue to expand dramatically.
What does the DP consider related to Transportation energy needs for Utah? Well,it considers things like Utah’s Clean Fuel Tax and Utah DEQ’s grant and loanprogram. Being generous, these meek efforts will impact less than 1% of increasedvehicle miles. Even more contradictory, despite the massive increase of vehiclemiles predicted, the DP suggests changing traffic flow, reducing unnecessary travel,education, encouraging behavior change (all pg 21), and other “results-drivensolutions” (pg 20) in order to reduce vehicle miles. All of these “solutions” and“incentives”—like “current tax credits” (pg 20) do not match the scope and scale ofthe fuel shortage coming related to existing miles driven, given the looming oilsupply crisis, much less explain how we could plausibly handle fueling the doublingof vehicle miles the DP expects. The DP obviously expects liquid fuels to continue tomagically expand. As a planning document, this is irresponsible. No one in theworld predicts that oil supply will continue to rise to the extent needed by the plan.Therefore, Utah travelers must take the oil from someone else or pay whatever isdemanded in a worldwide shortage. Post Carbon Salt Lake would predict that theUtah Transportation system will grind to a halt since we will be unable to seize theoil nor pay astronomical sums for it.
The DP does hope to impact VMT marginally. The total portfolio of suggestionsconsidered by the DP will impact total VMT a couple of percent, at best. Yet VMTis expected to increase by 100% in less than 20 years (Fig 4, pg 26). Transparently,the DP is inadequate in addressing the problem it inadvertently exposes. And bysome 50 times, or 5,000%. Other internal contradictions plague the plan and theyshall be discussed below.
The DP asserts that fuel pricing can change transportation behavior (pg 22).“When American gasoline prices rose to record levels in 2008, miles traveleddropped dramatically and drivers switched to more efficient vehicles and publictransit. These changes in driving habits show that fuel price can be a powerful toolto help change transportation habits,” (pg 22). What the DP says, however does notmatch in any way the change required. For example, gasoline prices more thandoubled during 2005-to-2009 period http://www.nabe.com/graphweek/2009/gw090705.htmlbut vehicle miles traveled (VMT) did not drop at all!
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_32.html
Now, miles driven on average by individuals may have decreased modestly, but totalmiles was unaffected by price. Demand for VMT is inelastic. For 2010 the VMT ishigher than 2005,
http://www.rita.dot.gov/publications/transportation_vision_2030/html/figure_01.html
despite a 200% increase in gasoline price since 2005. Therefore, s the DP submits astraightforward misrepresentation when it mentions that “miles traveled droppeddramatically” (pg 22) because of increased price.
The DP does discuss increasing gasoline taxes, (pg 22), but does nothing to mitigatethe requirement for petroleum based transportation fuels. Next, the discussion of“balance of regional travel choices,” (pg 23) will not begin to relieve the crisisrelated to declining oil supply, particularly when the DP itself predicts a massiveincrease in VMT on-its-way. Then the DP notes that transportation accounts for81% of Utah’s petroleum consumption! Again, nowhere is there any discussion ofwhere the increased petroleum for Utah’s increased VMT anticipated will comefrom! Nor does the DP provide effective alternatives to petroleum to fuel theexpanding VMT! The DP fails to even consider the coming oil supply crisis, comingwithin the 10 year horizon of the DP, as many expect. The DP is absent a simpleunderstanding of the oil supply crisis in its scope and urgency! Thus, it providesalternatives to oil based fuels that are trivial compared to the scale of the challenge.
Summarizing for Transportation: How does the DP consider the Transportationside of Energy when it comes to Utah?
Well, the DP notes that transport is completely dependant on oil. Then it notes theexplosion of VMT, expecting a doubling in these next 15-to-20 years. It linkspetroleum to pollutants in Utah Air. Next, it mentions incentives for adoption ofemissions reducing technologies. Importantly, the sum total of those incentives thatexist, considered or planned do not impact more than a trivial amount of total VMT.One percent of total current VMT would be the order of impact expected from DPprovisions. Education, balanced alternatives, (perhaps) increased gas taxes plus
related are then discussed. Here too, these suggestions would impact total VMTperhaps by a single percent. Meanwhile VMT is increasing because of increasedhuman population, car populations and individual VMT travelled. This is notconjecture; it is what figure 4, page 26 of the DP details.
The Governor’s Plan leaves us vulnerable to a cataclysmic shortage of liquid fuel.Now, he has said that he wants the market to decide consumer choices. Particularlywhen it comes to vehicles, including vehicles that don’t depend on petroleum. Hedoes not want the government to pick winners and losers.
http://www.youtube.com/user/environews?feature=mhum#g/u
The problem with the Governor’s approach is that: (1) Utah provides only a tinyamount of incentives for alternatives to petroleum, (2) VMT is increasingdramatically, (3) we will likely meet an oil availability (supply) crisis accompaniedwith astronomical increases in prices.
The assumption that the Governor is making is that when we need alternatives topetroleum fuel, then the market will supply that alternative, so governmentintervention is not necessary. Actually, he suggests that it interferes whenintervening. Now why is that obviously mistaken?
The answer to why the assumptions and approach of the Governor are obviouslymistaken is that when the price and availability of oil makes for a crisis, the abilityto change over to some other means of transportation or alternative fuels fortransportation is severely limited. The reason is that alternatives take quite a longtime to construct, about 15 years as explained in referenced studies by theDepartment of Energy. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdfWhen the oil supply crisis hits, and it is expected to hit when the supply/demandcurve crosses, a 10% change in supply-demand means something like a doubling ofprice. It also means an 8 million barrel a day shortage of supply compared todemand. This is less than what the Department of Defense fears will happen by2015. So, the price and availability crisis will hit before alternatives can becomeavailable under the provisions of the current DP. Unless Utah’s public sectorintervenes and intervenes immediately, we will hit a transportation wall. Incentivesand subsidies along the lines that the Federal Government now provides foralternative vehicles are required.
The results that we can expect from the DP, related to Transportation, is that wewill reduce the demand for petroleum (for each of us individually, on average) bythe meek measures discussed. This slight reduction in individual demand will beoverwhelmed by increased total VMT, as the DP suggests. When the oil supplycrisis hits, and it will hit suddenly and without enough time to react effectively, therewill not be alternatives available to keep the Utah economy from collapsing. This iswhat is built into the DP because of its examined assumptions and related tactics.
A SENSIBLE PLAN (SP) THAT IS MISSING IN THE CURRENT DP
How should the Transportation part of the DP be constructed? To determine that,consider a plan that takes into account the data related to oil supply and demand. ASensible Plan (SP) would carefully consider the possibility of an oil supply crisis.Examining many studies from national and international experts related topetroleum, a SP would work from the likelihood of a supply crunch strikingsomewhere in the time frame of Governor Herbert 10-year Plan. Meaning, the Planwould anticipate needing to respond to a supply shortage of oil by 2020. While notcertain, a large number of analysts now predict a severe shortage of oil related tosupply by then, including a clear majority of those most respected. Afterunderstanding that alternatives like tar sands or oil shale cannot do much to fill-inthe gap in supply needed, even in best case scenarios, the SP would consideralternatives to petroleum that could be provided within its 10 year planninghorizon. These alternatives would need to scale so that they would displace most ofthe petroleum needed by a huge increase in VMT. Actually a SP would plan for atransportation system that used less petroleum than in 2010, but couldaccommodate expected increases in VMT.
Alternatives then must consider the scale of change required. Expanded use of fuelefficiency along with hybrids, natural gas vehicles, and related alternatives will notmean needing less petroleum in 2020 and in the future than is used today. All ofthem together cannot go far enough fast enough because there is a limit to thepracticability or applicability of each and all of them. For example, much of theexisting auto and truck fleet cannot be replaced by 2020 because of sunk (capital)costs and the added costs of replacements. Sufficient numbers of alternatives arenot available in the Utah market to reduce petroleum consumption fast enough farenough. The pubic sector must be the agent that precipitates rapid change.Nothing else will work.
(The assertion that the Utah Public Sector must intervene and interveneimmediately is the critical conclusion of this section. Post Carbon SaltLake (PCSLC) is prepared to have extensive dialogues with the Governor,his Energy Advisor, the Task Force and Committees because we havestudied this issue for the past several years along with hundreds of expertsin our consortium. Our parent organizations are available to supportPCSLC at no charge and we offer our expertise to the Governor at nocharge. Thus, we are willing to stand by our information and defend ourconclusions presented here.)
Currently, our dependence on petroleum is deep and extensive. Change is gradualand expensive. What then is the best response that we could chose and thenimplement?
The technology must be available; there is precious little time for research anddevelopment. It must be available in quantity so that absolute reduction inpetroleum for transport results. It must be realistic; costs cannot be multiples ofpetroleum fuel costs. It must be accessible: when considering alternatives like masstransit, if full implementation is not within the SP horizon or if the costs are notcomparable to petroleum transport in that horizon, they must be deemedinaccessible. The limits imposed by these few criteria here eliminate almost allalternatives. What is left?
Electric vehicles are left as the plausible option. Indeed the world is moving rapidlyin that direction, particularly for personal transport. EVs are available, exist inquantity and provide comparable costs to internal combustion engines (ICE). Thereare two major problems. First, when the world realizes that its transport systemsthat depend on oil are no longer viable, EV demand will skyrocket. To movequickly so that supply is available, by securing manufacturing in Utah for example,is essential. Second, infrastructure like charging stations will be over-subscribed aswell. Installing supply for the charging EVs as soon as possible is also essential. “Assoon as possible” must be taken literally. Otherwise, excessive demand for EValternatives, because much of the world will meet the same oil supply crisis, meansthat those who planned for EVs will have a much better chance to secure supply.
Alternatives to current transport patterns will be essential. The ability to work athome, to walk or bike to work, to bike to get food and to bike for other travel, maywell be required in some measure by most Utahans. Mass transportation usingelectricity will become more utilized and more valuable. Strategies that require lesspetroleum transport, like locating where oil related travel demands decreasedramatically will be normative. Commuting long distances with ICE will beunusual.
While not exhaustive, this SP for Transportation provides an alternative to theexisting DP that does not collapse Utah’s economy, that accounts for the coming oilsupply crisis and that envisions a complete transformation in transportationpatterns. Because of a looming oil supply crisis, transformation of transportation isas necessary as it is inevitable. The only question is whether that transformationwill crush our economy andour culture.
Nothing happens without energy. Our economy falls flat without asmoothly running transport system. Therefore, in this draft plan we haveso far failed. Returning to the beginning of this document: “In the time wehave left, then, we have not yet delivered our best selves, our best selves toprovide a viable world for our descendants. Actually, their world will beshattered unless we plan in the Governor’s Energy Initiative for the comingoil supply crisis and provide viable and sufficient travel options for them.”
UTAH’S ROLE IN POISIONING OUR AIR AND WATERBECAUSE OF OUR FOSSIL FUEL USE AS PRIMARILY RELATESTO GENERATINGELECTRICITY
Our hope: “Nothing happens without energy. Let us pray for leadershiplike our forefather Brigham Young who gave us powerful inspiration,excellent judgment and incomparable strength. We need that now becauseof the danger and challenges that accompany this energy age.”
The effects of polluting and poisoning our air and water, and Utah is one of the mostegregious perpetrators, is seen and felt all around us. Our air asphyxiates us, ouracid oceans exterminate the organisms that allow us to breathe rather thansuffocate. Millions of dead trees surround us. Glacier National Park will be named,sometime these next few decades, as Once There Were Glaciers National Park.Perhaps worse is what we can’t see and feel. Vast quantities of poisons, invisible toour human senses slash and burn our life support systems and steal the future fromour children. We cannot see the billions of tons of CO2 we are adding to the oceanseach year. http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/29-4 More than twometric tons for every person on earth each year. The average Utahan, adds aboutten metric tons, some five times as much as an average polluter in the rest of theworld. CO2 in our oceans makes carbonic acid. The slight alkalinity of ocean watersupports life; acid, even slight acidity kills ocean life. It is simple: we are killing theoceans. Unfortunately, we die when the oceans die. For many reasons. We don’thave much time left.
We can’t see the melting of the permafrost. Nor can we measure the methane thatslowly is bubbling up from under it as it melts. But we do know that there is moremethane under the permafrost and in our oceans than all of the CO2 in ouratmosphere. We know that methane has over twenty times the heat absorbing,climate warming power than CO2. Scientists believe that if the permafrost melts,and it is now melting, releasing the methane under it will end terrestrial life. Again,unfortunately, we die too. And fast. We don’t have much time left.
We are surrounded by millions of dead trees in our Mountain West. There are somany dead trees that they add more carbon to the atmosphere than they absorb.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2252
It’s happening all over the world. Lots of beetles that kill lots of trees are not beingfrozen in lots of places because our winters are now not cold enough. Glaciers aredisappearing in Glacier National Park as they are shrinking and disappearingaround the world. More carbon from trees and less heat reflected back into spacebecause of reduced ice are similar self-reinforcing amplifications of climatewarming. We are doing it to ourselves. We don’t have much time left. It is ourchoice, so consider the data presented in Draft Energy Plan (DP) itself.
The DP presents very interesting information related to electricity generation. Forexample, we consume less electricity, 27,411 gigawatt-hours, (pg 6) than we producefrom burning coal alone. We take-in the coal pollution and the greenhouse gassesand pass-on the electricity on to other states. And we are proud of it! (See pgs 5-8DP and references). So, if we are producing more electricity from burning coalalone than we can use in our state, what is happening with the renewables weproduce? Interesting question.
Examine the Energy statistics referenced in the DP and find that Utah typicallyproduced some 10%-to-36% of its energy from renewables from the 1960s throughthe mid 1980s. Since 2000 Utah has produced only about 2% of its electricity fromrenewables. Yet the DP mentions renewables frequently. We do send much of ourclean energy to other states and continue to burn coal to suck in the pollution andpoisons for ourselves.
Now the DP totally misrepresents the Utah’s electrical generation and consumptionpattern. For example, it states that “The fuel mix consumed in Utah, as the UtahGeological Survey notes, is more accurately reflected in the fuel mix of Pacificorp.That fuel mix includes approximately 58% coal, 17% natural gas, and 13%renewables” (pg 7). Regardless of what the DP would have you believe, thereferences it provides paint a startlingly different picture!http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/statistics/overview1.0/pdf/T1.10 & F1.5.pdf Actually,Utah produces 82.3% of its electricity from coal, 14.6% from natural gas and 2.4%from renewables.
Pacificorp’s fuel mix may be much less coal and more renewables than Utahactually produces. That can be believed. But why would the DP so mislead thepublic into believing we used less coal and enjoyed more renewables? Therenewables mix was at the scale Pacificorp employs quoted in the above paragraphfor most of the 1960s and 1970s, as mentioned, but only about 2% for this lastdecade. Is it bald face lying or simple incompetence that caused these incrediblemisrepresentations? And if it is intentional misrepresentation and notincompetence, why would the DP assume that no one would check its ownreferences? And call the Task Force on it.
The misrepresentations and unbelievable internal contradictions do not stop there.Note that Utah is part of the Western Climate Initiative. Its stated goal is to reducegreenhouse gas emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by 2020.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Climate_Initiative Now, Utah pathetically andhypocritically is planning only to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a fullZERO% from 2005 by 2020. As incredible as this seems, it is right there on theGovernor’s own website!http://www.deq.utah.gov/Climate_Change/docs/062008_Chart1.pdf We wish we weremaking this up rather than reporting the misrepresentations, internalcontradictions and failures of the DP by referring to its own documents andreferences. (Note: the misrepresentations related to renewables are so egregious
that even if Utah consumed all of its own produced renewables, and the DP admitsthat we suck down the pollution by exporting our renewables (pg 9), it would still befalse by over 300%! That data comes from the references supplied in the DP itself.)
The poisons we produce–much more and much worse than the DP insinuates, alongwith the greenhouse gases we produce and the warming we consume—again muchmore and much worse than the DP indicates, are mentioned in the DP. From page10 of the DP:
“a 2007 report authored by scientists from the University of Utah,Utah State University, Brigham Young University, and the U.S.Department of Agriculture, entitled Climate Change and Utah: TheScientific Consensus, states that, “[t]here is no longer any scientificdoubt that the Earth’s average surface temperature is increasing andthat changes in ocean temperature, ice and snow cover, and sea levelare consistent with … global warming.”47 This 2007 report goes on toidentify some of the environmental consequences predicted as a resultof climate change in Utah, including: fewer frost days, longer growingseasons, more heat waves, a decline in Utah’s mountain snowpack,and the threat of severe and prolonged episodic drought in Utah.”
Well, at least the DP explains that the Earth’s climate is warming and that theeffects on Utah will be catastrophic if the warming consistent with greenhouse gasemissions continues. It is good that the Governor stated unequivocally that Utahwould respond to the question of global warming depending on science.http://www.youtube.com/user/environews?feature=mhum#p/u/6/9PzNw_EehSw Sincethe world scientific community agrees in its assessment of global climate warmingand the anthropogenic contributions to that warming, one could assume that Utah’sGovernor would agree with the prescriptions required to limit the catastrophicconsequences of that warming to less than 2 ° C. The rest of the world agrees,whether you track that agreement to Kyoto, Bali or Copenhagen.Each meeting of the world concluded: “A warming of 2°C over pre-industrial hasbeen widely endorsed as the maximum that can be tolerated or even managed.”http://gdrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gdrs_longexecsummary.pdf (There areinnumerable documents that corroborate this 2º C limit as the catastrophic limit,this is only one.)
So, since the DP suggests that global warming is catastrophic for Utah and since theGovernor has stated he will let science guide our actions, and since science isunequivocal, how does the DP address the critical factor of global climate change?
Astounding as it is, the DP presents no plan, strategy or tactics for dealing withdemonstrated global warming, anthropogenic climate change or the massivepoisoning of our air, water and atmosphere by excessive burnt carbon that the DPdocument details. Sadly, the document mentions only, on page 14, like a throwaway line, “How can Utah incentivize development of in-state renewable energyprojects?”
While Utah pumps limitless burnt carbon, poison and pollution into our air andwater, and has no plans to limit its poisons, it responds to its own hypocritical excesswith nothing substantive. Moreover, Utah and this Energy Plan fails the socialjustice imperative, preserving the rights of all people to a dignified level ofsustainable human development free of the privations of poverty, by failing to takeany responsibility related to its pollutants. Any caring for intergenerational justice,leaving the world no less depleted and spoiled than when this generation found it, isleft unstated. Where is our sense of morality?
One clear conclusion that a simple and straightforward reading of the DP, related toelectricity generation and consumption, is that Utah must reduce its coal burningdramatically. Coal is our major pollutant, our major poison, the major way wedamage Utah’s future. Yet, the DP does nothing substantive about this. Whatwould our progenitor, Brigham Young say to our care and stewardship of thisprecious and divine creation called Utah? Particularly as it relates to futuregenerations? Aren’t we stealing their future?
Reality: “Nothing happens without energy. Our forefather Brigham Youngtaught us stewardship while he modeled inspired leadership, excellentjudgment and incomparable strength. While we need his spirit now, weinstead desecrate our tradition and his name by despoiling our sacred Zionand stealing the future from our children and theirs. Have we no shame,have we no morality, have we lost our way completely?”
WHY UTAH MUST REDUCE COAL BURNING NOW
On page 14 of Governor Herbert’s draft of 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan, thequestions were raised: “As Utah coal reserves decline, how will existing coalplants be fueled? At what cost, risk, and impact to the State?”
It is a first step that the draft plan acknowledges that Utah’s coal production isdeclining. In the Utah Geological Survey’s “Annual Review and Forecast of UtahCoal Production and Distribution – 2009,” http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-112.pdfthe Executive Summary describes the decline in production: “…all of Utah coalmines, except the Emery mine, recorded production declines, some quitesignificant…Existing Utah mines are faced with steady reserve depletion anddifficult mining conditions. As a result, operators are increasingly looking to newareas with slightly lower coal quality or farther from market to replenish theirreserve base.” The report then describes new operations that could potentially
offset declining production to keep Utah’s production near 23-25 million tons – nearits peak (see graph below).
However, in a conversation with the report’s author, Michael D. Vanden Berg, headmitted this is based on multiple best-case scenarios, including maintained levels ofproduction at existing mines. He said it is anyone’s guess as to when thoseoperations would actually begin, since their permitting and legal processes can takea long time. He also said that 2010 production is shaping up to be lower thanoriginally forecast. The cruel thing about the down-slope of a Hubbert’s productioncurve is that depletion is relentless. By the time those mines come on line, Utah’sexisting coal production will be that much lower. So the forecast of maintainedUtah production of 23-25 million tons looks very unlikely to pan out.
The excellent question of how our existing plants will be fueled must be answered bylooking at the state, national and global coal situation as an integrated whole, sinceUtah will be importing ever-increasing amounts of coal – primarily fromWyoming’s Powder River Basin (PRB). An excellent resource is “Coal: Cheap andAbundant…Or Is It?”http://www.cleanenergyaction.org/sites/default/files/Coal_Supply_Constraints_CEA_021209.pdf
Coal production in nearly all US states is declining – four of the six top coal-producing states had peak coal production before 2000. East coast power plants areimporting more coal from other nations. Much of the US is now very dependent onWyoming’s coal, yet its major mines have less than a 20-year life span (even withapproved expansions). Many other US mines face similar time-frame depletion.Future expansions in Wyoming and elsewhere are highly uncertain, as they will facevery serious geologic, economic, legal and transportation constraints. Depending ontheir resolution – the planning horizon for moving beyond coal could be only 20-30
years at most. That’s assuming all those challenges will be resolved, and that’swithout even considering the likelihood of a national price on carbon.
The energy content of US coal peaked about a decade ago, even though the totalvolume of coal production is still increasing. The impact might be felt in the nextfew years – with the need to import even more foreign coal, and with much highercoal prices everywhere. It is highly plausible or even likely that we could face coalshortages in the US – as China, India, Vietnam and South Africa now regularly do.Peabody Coal itself described these shortages in a December 2008 shareholdersmeeting:
http://www.peabodyenergy.com/pdfs/2008%20FBR%20Capital%20Markets%20Conference%20Final.pdf They have also reported that in July 2008, 60 coal plants in China sat idle
for lack of supply.
Since we want reliable electricity, we need to transition from coal as quickly aspossible – diversifying into other electrical sources. The timeline of moving totallybeyond coal within 20 years is dramatic, and gives enormous urgency for an all-outmobilization now in the transition to renewable energy. The Energy Plan needsmore specifics about the barriers to renewables and about how to remove them. Itneeds to state the situation clearly with the needed urgency, in order to achieve buy-in from all the different stakeholders and from the legislature. We cannot solve thistransition from coal by replacement with gas-fired plants (this will be explainedlater).
Other good questions are: “How did nearly everyone come to believe the UShas 250 years of coal at current levels of usage? Why is the gap betweenreality and delusion so great? How can there be such a bigmisunderstanding?”
Major confusion has arisen over the definition of resource and reserve data.Different government agencies and reports use inconsistence definitions.”Resources” refers to the total amount of coal in the ground. “Recoverablereserves” refers only to the coal that is technically and economically possible toextract (see diagram below). The heart of the misunderstanding is that the EIA’smuch-touted 200+ years of supply didn’t actually take into account that which iseconomically recoverable (in reality, only a small fraction).
In other words, most of that coal is too deep, too remote, too small-veined, poorquality, or is underneath places like towns or preserves. And remarkably, the EIAnever made that distinction, but people assumed that it did. Since coal must bemined, rather than pumped to the surface with wells, its extraction is much morechallenging and dangerous than oil or gas. So just because it’s there, doesn’t meanwe can access it. Yet the “250 years of coal” myth is continually repeated, from theclassroom to the boardroom, and is reinforced by the grandiose self-promotions ofthe coal industry. This myth must be buried if we are to become reality-based inour energy response.
Even more remarkably, this sort of mistake has been made all over the world. Dataon coal reserves and resources nearly everywhere has been lousy. Newreassessments in all major coal nations, have reported substantial downwardrevisions, because of improved surveys and data. Some nations have not updatedtheir proved reserves in decades.
First, USGS studies in the 1980’s found the amount of economically recoverable coalin Northern and Central Appalachian regions was only 11% average. In 2007,Germany’s Energy Watch Group released a major report that states: “…there isprobably much less coal left to be burnt than most people think.”
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf
The authors state that “the data quality is very unreliable,” especially for China,South Asia, and FSU countries. They have forecast a world peak in coal productionwithin 10-15 years. Earlier this year, a recent study by Tadeusz Patzek andGregory Croft, published in the scientific journal Energy, predicts that global coal
production will decline after 2011.
They use actualhistorical production as the best indicator of future production trends. The latestrevelation (just in early November) is that southern Africa’s coal reserves (amongthe world’s major producing regions) have been downgraded by over two-thirds.80% of its coal goes to Europe, whose coal production has declined substantially.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100908-energy-peak-coal/
For Utah’s interests, we must especially focus on the coal in Wyoming’s PowderRiver Basin (as the US now gets 40% of its coal from this area), to answer thequestion: “As Utah coal reserves decline, how will existing coal plants befueled?” The USGS’s 2008 assessment of Powder River Basin coal revealed thatonly 6% of original resource total was economically viable at current prices,downgraded from a 2002 assessment – even given large price increases since 2002.About 70% of this coal is currently of low development interest, since most of it isburied under hundreds of feet of overburden – too deep for surface mining. It willnot be mined at anything like current volumes, nor as cheaply.
As China and India are now competing in the global marketplace, coal companieswill sell to the highest bidder. Peabody Coal plans to begin exporting its PRB coalto Asia next year. So Utah will be competing not only against other US states forWyoming’s coal, but also against the developing world.
In examining the draft plan’s second question: “At what cost, risk, and impact tothe State?” — Utah’s existing coal plants will only be fueled at a much higher price,buying more out-of-state coal, in a growing drain to our state’s economy. The Unionof Concerned Scientists’ report “Burning Coal, Burning Cash,”
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Burning-Coal-Burning-Cash_full-report.pdf examines US states in this plight, stating: “…many states spent
dramatically more on imported coal in 2008 than they did just six years earlier.”What is true for these states will be true for Utah as well, if we don’t act upon thisinformation. The relentlessness of the depletion down-slope, combined with risingcoal prices, shows that we must not wait – we must begin immediately in ourtransition from coal, while we still have the financial resources to fund thetransition.
All of this further underscores the insanity of pursuing carbon sequestration, coalgasification and coal liquefaction technologies. University money for research inthis area is just being wasted, when it could be used to advance renewables. Utahmust also recognize the insanity of pursuing the development of the state’s tar sandsand oil shale, as their environmental impact will be great and their net energy yieldwill be low.
WE CANNOT SOLVE THIS WITH NATURAL GAS
So why can’t we just replace the coal with natural gas? Plans are already in theworks to double Utah’s gas-fired power generation by 2020. The draft plan itselfstates: “Future energy projections place significant demands on natural gasproduction in Utah and may require the importation of additional naturalgas supplies from neighboring states.” Again, this is the same situation as withcoal – when we turn towards importing these resources from other states (and in asense, employing out-of-state people), money and jobs leave the state in a drain onour local economy.
One viable source of electricity not mentioned in the draft is micro-hydro power.Utah should do an assessment of just how much potential we have here. Coloradohas announced an effort to expedite micro-hydro projects in partnership with theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission, in a region that used to thrive onhydropower. http://www.microhydropower.net/news/viewnews.php?ID=141 Small-scalehydropower has much lower environmental impact than large-scale hydropower,and can be sited in many more places. Utah should follow Colorado’s example, as itis likely that we also have abundant micro-hydro potential.
Coal’s appeal has been its cheap, high-load power, which will be hard to replace.Another high-load electrical source is nuclear, so it must be examined. The plan’sdraft does mention nuclear, and rightly lists its numerous issues and considerations.It is realistic in its realization that nuclear will not be available within the 10-yeartime frame. However, advanced-generation nuclear technologies do exist that wouldminimize the waste situation, are magnitudes safer (passive safety), resistproliferation, and could be constructed as small-scale modular units – they are”liquid fluoride throrium reactors” and “internal fast reactors.” They may evenneed much less water. Both these nuclear technologies have been operated and arevery close-to-ready, if their research were only completed. They have increasingnumbers of people that champion them (Orrin Hatch likes the thorium technology).See: http://energyfromthorium.com/ and http://skirsch.wordpress.com/ for more information.De-commissioned coal-fire plants could conceivably be used as infrastructure withinwhich to place reactors of these technologies. Utah should be paying very closeattention to these advanced nuclear technologies as a possibility here.
Coal’s cheap days are over. Its reliably available days are also numbered – evenhere in the US. Replacing coal within 20 years be an enormous challenge, and willtake a major mobilization. If we are to thrive, it must be part of the final 10-YearPlan to take this problem on, full-force. It will take honesty about our situation, sothe final Plan must express the urgency needed. It will require greater incentivesfor efficiencies, incentives and implementation of renewables, attracting renewableindustry to our state, and the build-out of the smart grid to support the renewables.The DP says nothing about “decoupling” of utilities, which would change the profitstructure of electric utilities so they profit when people conserve energy, rather than
when people waste energy. This should be an important strategy – its results havebeen proven in California for years. The intermittencies of wind and solar willrequire storage – the best storage will be in the batteries of electric cars. Utah hasabundant wind, solar and geothermal resources, and developing them will createmany more jobs and keep energy money within the state’s economy. To shirk awayfrom facing these challenges will guarantee ruin for the state rather than prosperity.
Post Carbon has described here several fatal flaws contained in this DP. When itcomes to Transportation, collapse of our economy may be the best that this DPproduces. When it comes to our own excessive pollutants and poisons, burnt carbonthat we send skyward without any restraint, it is difficult to discern whether this DPis more disposed to hypocrisy, or whether its misrepresentations are purposeful orreflect bankrupt morality. Perhaps complete incompetence.
Our major pollutant and poison is coal. The case for its dramatic reduction,reducing our coal burning now is over-determined. We must for our own sake, forthe sake of future generations and because it is running out as a practical andreasonably priced fuel in any case. What more do we need to know in order to stopcoal?
What is simply true is that we can and should do better, much better than this DPenvisions. Our children are watching.
Submitted to the Governor, his Energy Advisor and Task Forceon November 10, 2010
Michael Mielke & Jean ArnoldPost Carbon Salt Lake
Leave a Reply