Coal Conditions Coming

Recently I had occasion to watch an online debate between a clean-coal advocate and a robust, articulate green-energy blogger. The debate followed predictable contours. In one corner, the clean-coal advocate repeated a series of rather inflated achievements, supposedly gained over the past 30 years in coal-fired power generation. In the other corner, the green-energy blogger appropriately deflated these claims, but then went on to paint pictures of shiny happy people living in a peaceful and clean world. A world portrayed, it should be added, as easily attainable. I patiently read through to the final jousts, and then sat back in my chair to watch oil make its climb above 60.00.

mike-brodie-aka-the-polaroid-kidd-trainThe dialectic of the environmental debate, over coal, has now formed a well-worn path. It’s largely political at this stage and the core thrust of the conversation, just as in oil, is that everything could be solved if only the opposition would get out of the way. While it’s not the focus of today’s post I’ll briefly remark that the type of fast transition to a clean power Grid, often talked about by famous advocates like Al Gore, is simply not possible. Not in a 10 year time frame. Not even close. Equally, I would note that coal remains a serious environmental problem even after 35 years of regulatory improvements. And, I see that the coal industry repeatedly takes total aggregate gains in air quality nationally over the past 35 years and then claims those entirely for itself. C’mon. Also, marking those gains starting from the worst levels in 1970 obviously makes for a dramatic comparison. The Clean Air Act did the heavy lifting here.

The bigger problem with this debate, especially as it occurs in the United States, is that it constantly pivots off the notion that we have lots of freedom and discretion to decide how both we–and especially the rest of the world–will use coal. Sure, we’ve got some choices here. But as I have written previously coal is a nemesis precisely because it’s a cheap source of BTU that continually prices just below other fossil fuels. And sometimes, it prices well below other fossil fuels. Such a pricing is forming now, as oil climbs back above 60.00, while Central Appalachian Coal (CAPP) still lingers in the mid 40’s per ton. The 5.8 million BTU in a barrel of oil will set you back 60 bucks. Yes it’s liquid. And yes, it’s a very useful form of energy. But the fact remains that the world’s poor, a full quarter of humanity, is still in the process of migration to liquid fuels. And coal, with its versatility in both heating and industry, is still the fossil fuel of choice for the developing world. For 45 bucks, you can get yourself as much as 25 million BTU in a ton of coal. That’s a 25% price discount to oil, for more than 4 times the BTU. That is some serious BTU bang for your buck.

mike-brodie-aka-the-polaroid-kiddUnless the US-based VOIP-Web-Cam Political-Journal Blogging-Heads type debate wishes to move on now, to whether US coal reserves should be locked into the ground and neither used by us, nor exported, then the bulk of this conversation is frankly rather academic, and leisurely. Furthermore, oil above 40 as early as 2004–let alone oil above 60 today–was more than enough of an energy price-shift to kick global coal demand into a much higher gear. And not solely in the developing world either. The data clearly shows the total global call on Coal this decade, as a kind of panicked flight from expensive oil, was enormous. For these reasons,  favorable coal conditions are now moving in because oil is lifting in part from dollar weakness and reflationary policy at a time when industrialism remains weak. These are exactly the kind of difficult, almost fetid, economic conditions in which coal thrives. Coal likes a swampy, stagflationary landscape. One where growth has trouble getting off the floor, but where the world’s 6.7 billion people still need heating and basic power generation. Not exactly a happy story, is it?

–Gregor

Photographs: Mike Brodie, aka The Polaroid Kidd. see Needles and Pens Gallery, San Francisco California.

Further Reading: Why was the Industrial Revolution British? (discussion of Wood and Coal) H/T Freude Bud.

  • BryanLong
    That BTU/$ differential is very interesting-- it does make one think about macroeconomic substitution potential. Of course, the carbon cost of coal is higher, as is the environmental cost of extraction. I suppose the transport and combustion costs are higher too for coal. We have to allocate power plant capital and grid capital to coal, whereas most of our oil refineries are fully depreciated. On the other hand, coal doesn't have the military defense costs we must allocate to oil. With this kind of delivered BTU cost differential, why aren't we moving towards electrified transport (cars, trams and trains) at full speed? That would seem like a winner at whatever rate we are able to substitute solar and wind for coal electricity.
  • Dr. Strangelove
    Interesting commentary, Gregor. I've linked you at Bill Cara.

    I would add that USAF has successfully tested coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel in all its aircraft in 2007 and awaits Congress to give it authority to sign 20+ year fuel contracts with private sector and kick start coal's hand into oil's pocket (i.e., transportation). Air Force brass is addressing sequestration to appease the green lobby and Congress. CTL is long proven tech while sequestration pilot testing is underway in Austrailia, Germany, U.K., China, and, until recently, the U.S. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. It's a matter of national security and the four star boys on on it. New CTL industry would boost economy if the green lobby would step aside or accept unproven sequestration tech.
  • BryanLong
    A non-sustainable economy, boosted slightly higher, is just going to come down harder a little bit later. We may want to shift from oil to coal as a transitional energy source (or as Gregor points out, we will whether we want to or not). But we should never, for a moment, lose sight of the fact that we live in a closed dynamic system. Coal may seem plentiful, but extraction has costs, combustion has costs, climate change has costs, and before long, $45/ton coal will just be a historical quote. Saudi Arabia is not a model we want to emulate.
  • Latest MIT study on nuclear provides the following cost estimates per BTU: 8.8 cents a kilowatt for nuclear versus 6.2 cents for coal and 6.5 cents for gas--

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/...

    Nat Gas, on a BTU basis, traded (on NYMEX July contract over July contract) at a $38.27/b discount to oil. NYMEX CL July over ICE monthly gas contract for July, sells at a $36.29/b premium on a BTU basis to gas. Brent July over ICE nat gas July sells at a $34.84/b premium to gas. (These numbers are fairly representative all along the curve, with the exception of the winter months, when ICE nat gas sells for around $2/MMBtu more than NYMEX, and NYMEX nat gas discount to oil narrows slightly.)

    As far as I can tell, this is due to a) large stockpiles of gas, b) large new supply of gas, and c) staggering industrial production declines globally ... and most importantly in exporting nations.

    0.3 cent premium to coal seems a reasonable price to pay for lower emissions. Course, more demand = higher price, so the premium will grow--perhaps carbon taxes will cancel out a great deal of it.

    The overriding question, AFAICT, is whether and when exports can recover. My suspicion is that $100/b oil or more will kill any export recovery--and thus industrial production recovery--but it's hard to say without enough data.
  • gregor.us
    If North American NG was exportable in volume, and it won't be until Kitimat in BC gets built, then Coal's extra versatility as an exportable fossil fuel would cut in to the continuity of my coal views, which I've had for a couple of years. As it stands, N.A. NG is a largely trapped fossil fuel, which can be "moderately arbitraged" only via exports to MX and CA, with attendant drops to zero in all N.A. imports of LNG. But, that's not saying much.

    Anyway, when Kitimat gets built, I will have to see where we are at that point in NG and coal pricing related to Oil. Right now, as I type, NG is definately competing against coal for N.A. power generation. The only twist being that same coal is exposed to a world price, unlike NG.

    G
  • Since the NA NG is a market less affected by global supply conditions, wouldn't that make it an even better choice in terms of the whether or not the US chooses uranium, coal, or NG ... meaning that the conditions for coal are coming round elsewhere, but not quite here, yet?
  • gregor.us
    Indeed it would. And so typically what one would expect to see next would be the following: where possible, power generators will switch from coal to NG. When, for example, they are priced similarly NG is cheaper to burn--because burning coal for a power generator has higher regulatory costs. And so should that start to unfold, the NG gets taken up here--and the coal will increasingly fall into the export conveyor belt.

    G
  • eh, meant per kw there in the first sentence.
  • jegan17
    I just wanted to say that I really enjoy your blog posts. Your insights cut to the quick of energy problems in the world today.

    As I began reading your posts, I was skeptical because of your reliance on public intervention in the marketplace. However, you have convinced me that there are problems that exist in the world that cannot be solved solely by the free market. I have shed my novice ideologies and accepted the truth.

    Thank you.
  • gregor.us
    Thanks so much. FWIW, I am a big believer in both free-market failures and government intervention failures. I'm a big believer in the failures of both capitalism and socialism. Accordingly, I am a theoretical freelancer, and I have never seen a good idea that did not eventually run into the ground. Basically, I reject the whole either/or framework or approach to problems, and believe each problem needs to be solved with big doses of innovation and cleverness, and a much smaller dose of philosophy.

    In the financial crisis, I did, in fact, advocate for Keynesian spending. However, since then I have done nothing but criticize the form that particular Keyensian spending took, and have pointed to China as a better example of how to do a StimPackage.

    My fellow Americans are pretty clueless on energy supply, and clearly think we have lots of choices. Well, we do have choices but most of the conversation fails to realize we are starting from a position of severe, net, deficit in energy supply.

    Apparently the crack-up of 150 oil was not enough to dislodge everyone from their beliefs. I have been pretty tough on the current Administration's energy team. Equally, there is not shortage of silly stuff coming from the opposition party. Just wait until the 2012 election! Oh man. The energy mythologies will be flying!

    G
  • jegan17
    IMO, We need 150 oil for a sustained period for anything to shift from our legacy system, public or private responses that is.

    Fingers crossed that Shai Agassi will arrive and say the day!
  • Excellent piece, Gregor. Good to have sober views on the coal dilemma. I've tried to speak about the reality of coal and propose that we need to figure out how to use it more cleanly and efficiently ( http://bit.ly/EhY9j).

    Invariably, when I do, I get attacked by alt-energy purists who think we can flip a switch and suddenly everything will be clean, green, and pure. On the other side, I get bombarded by emails from the coal lobby either calling me out for not pushing far enough or inviting me to advocate on their behalf.

    There are yahoos on both sides. Misinformation campaigns abound. Thanks for being a reasonable voice in the wilderness.
  • gregor.us
    Indeed. I also believe there will come a point when, should the West deny the cheap BTU of coal to both its own poor, and the world's poor, that a new framework will form in the discussion and everyone will have to do a big rethink.

    Interestingly, it's actually possible that if we could get small quantities of energy deeper into the hands of the worlds 1.7 B people in poverty that overall systemic changes resulting from that could actually start to restrain birthrates? IN this regard I am hooking into some views about health and medicine, that are now emerging from foundations like the Gates Foundation. I am purely conjecturing.

    FWIW: I have been working on some coal data this week. It's just astonishing.

    G
blog comments powered by Disqus