Earth Day and Coal: It’s Hard to Win a Fight Against a Cheap BTU

I decided to spend Earth Day thinking about Coal.

First on my list was a trawl through Google Images, looking for massive displays of global coal consumption. Coal porn, if you will. Next up was to send out a bunch of cheeky twitter messages, whose intent was to mash-up coal, earth day, and popular culture. I basically just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Coal Day. Or perhaps just remind them that coal was still very much with us, and that the world remained on its merry pathway of coal consumption. Finally, I got down to the innnards of the BP Statistical Energy Review and was reminded that China, for example, doubled its coal use in just 7 years: going from 667 million toe (tonnes of oil equivalent) in 2000, to 1311 million toe in 2007.

My point: it’s hard to win a fight against a cheap BTU. Wind is good. Solar’s even better. And as my readers know, I’m delighted that each are advancing. From China to South America, from the deserts to the Great Plains the world continues to build new sources of power generation. In the EU, Wind Power is now the fastest growing new source of megawatts and this looks also to be the case in the US. China, which has suffered a series of ghastly coal disasters is also scrambling to add cleaner power and is expected to spend as much as 55 billion in the next fifteen years on Solar. The US is of course further tightening the regulatory environment for coal. This trend is several decades old, and explains the contribution of natural gas to the US power grid. The problem however is that for much of the world, coal remains both a cheap and portable (and storable) source of energy. In fact, coal has a nasty habit of pricing itself just below nearly all other energy sources. This is why I’ve called coal a kind of anti-hero.

salgado-coal-miners-india-2

The country that got me thinking about Coal today was Indonesia. This is the fourth most populous nation on earth and for over 40 years it exported oil. But, having turned net oil importer in 2005, Indonesia officially left OPEC at the end of last year. And so I wondered, to what energy source will Indonesia’s 240 million people now turn? Well, my answer would be coal. After all, Indonesia is the seventh largest producer of coal in the world.

A barrel of oil currently runs you about 50 dollars USD. That is quite cheap and gets you 5.8 million BTU. But a ton of thermal coal will cost you 60 dollars USD and contains more than 20 million BTU. And there’s another problem: while the easy coal is now gone in many areas of the world, coal remains generally far cheaper to extract than oil. Coal is also easily portable. Requiring no special containers, and can easily be broken up into small amounts and carried by animals and wagons. It stores well, and burns slowly. And is quite versatile for both large scale power generation, or low tech industrial use and home heating. And unlike natural gas, it can be cheaply transported across oceans. This is why coal, like oil–but unlike natural gas–trades at a converged price globally. Now add to these characteristics the fact that OECD nations, where per capita incomes are higher, continue to raise the price of coal use through regulation, and you can see why coal for export continues to boom. Coal remains therefore the energy source for the world’s developing nations, and we are only too happy to ship it to them.

Wisely recognizing that coal was the arch-nemesis in the world’s energy and climate matrix, Google.org set out in November 2007 to undertake a noble battle: it would challenge the world to create killowatts of energy from renewable sources more cheaply than from coal. They named the project appropriately: RE<C. At the time, I recall being quite impressed that Google understood the problem so well. Until Solar, Wind or other new sources of power generation cost as little to set up as coal, the developing world would continue to reach hard for its usual cheap BTU. Over the past 18 months I have tried to learn how google.org is progressing. They’ve not announced any news.

And thus, I return to Asia where despite the addition of Wind, Solar and Hydro the buildout of coal-fired electrical power continues at a furious pace. China alone is expected to build as much coal capacity in the next 10 years as currently exist in all of the US. And that’s just China. In this context, I found Earth Day–and the carbon and climate plans of many OECD nations–to be a tad ironic. For it hardly seems like an accomplishment to stop burning the coal here–so that it’s even cheaper to burn someplace else.

Happy Earth Day.

-Gregor

Photo: Sebastiao Salgado: Workers emerging from coal mine, Dhanbad, India, 1989

Update: on Pricing via Jeff DiStanlo: 12,500 BTU per pound for $43.70 per ton. In the rail car on CSX railroad in Southern WV.

This post is available in .pdf version. Click here: Earth Day and Coal: It’s Hard to Win a Fight Against a Cheap BTU

  • Kyle
    Best Earth Day article I read so far. Way to expose the futility/hypocrisy surrounding so much of the current debate. As someone who lives in China, coal and diesel are my lungs' nemeses. The sky here is clear 5% of the time, and most of the rivers are black. I wish people would stop demonizing CO2 so much and concentrate on more dangerous pollutants, like the ones from China's extra-dirty diesel and coal power plants. Climate change would be a more pressing concern if I could see a blue sky once in a while. Until then, I hope people don't start taxing natural gas.
  • gregor.us
    Thanks so much for reading.

    I've created a pdf takeaway copy now, for readers who enjoyed the post. See link at footer of the post.

    My hope is that instead of banishing coal--which I don't think can be done--that we use it more lightly, and use better technology to burn it. My fear is that Western OECD coal supply will pour into the developing world at an even greater pace if we "ban" it here.

    Best,

    G
  • Excellent post, Gregor. And spot-on, as they say.

    I, too, have tried to get answers regarding the Google RE<C program, but have not had any success. I suspect they have run up against what a tremendous problem it really is to get renewables down to a competitive level -- until people start having to pay for their carbon -- let alone cheaper than coal.

    Meanwhile, I still think there is a need for some serious R&D into CCS and trying to figure out whether we can really make coal clean. I know this isn't a popular view, but coal is still so cheap and plentiful that it's hard to ignore. Of course, there are those who say it can't be done and others who say we'll hit peak coal before getting the technology right. If we do nothing, however, and others continue to ramp up coal production in its dirtiest form, where will we be?
  • gregor.us
    Indeed. My view is that instead of trying to win a frontal battle with coal--why not attack coal at an angle. If the West could use its coal but in a very transformed process that captures and buries the residue, than in a way we start shutting down the ability of the rest of the world to burn it the old fashioned way. I just see coal as an escape artist who will break out of whatever flimsy jail you put it in. Better to put coal to work, but on superior terms.

    Thanks for reading.

    G
  • zebra
    Gregor, Any discussion of coal should include the emerging Underground Coal Gassifcation (UCG) boom. This technology has the potential to unlock huge resources of 'stranded coal' that is too deep to mine by conventional methods.

    Found this IEA long term liquid fuel cost curve very informative.

    http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2009/i...

    Interesting estimate of how expensive various liquid fuel resources are. What's even more interesting is the estimated global resource for each category. They show coal to liquids as a 9000 billion barrel resources. I believe UCG will greatly reduce the cost and increase the resource of the CTL category.

    A key fact is that compared that UCG-GTL is 50% cheaper than GTL from natural gas, because UCG syngas does not require the reforming step that is 50% of GTL cost.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/conf/pdf/cornit...
  • gregor.us
    Indeed. It's pretty exciting. There is some UCG underway in Australia. Thankyou.

    G
  • great point about the cheap BTU. i've long been in the camp that says sure green/alternative energy development is great and it will happen. but, the problem there is scaling en masse. coal is going nowhere for the near-term and China is strong evidence of that.

    in my hedge fund tracking I've noticed George Soros slowly accumulate a position in Arch Coal (ACI) and he is generally good to watch for some macro trends (right now it's his 8th largest holding). I'm really interested to see what kind of energy plays he holds abroad, but am struggling to find disclosures of his positions in other countries. Here's his US equity portfolio though if anyone is interested: http://bit.ly/JhtCu

    thanks as always for the thoughts gregor
  • gregor.us
    Thanks MF.

    The danger will only come to the coal investor the day a country puts Carbon and Climate taxes on even coal that is being exported. I expect we are not there yet, but that day will come. Until then, coal can make it's exit from Kyoto type countries in the OECD, and sail off to Asia. But I suspect countries like Australia will be the last one's to make any move such as these.

    G
  • roonerjeff
    You might add that coal , unlike oil, does not require refining by a select few refiners.

    You hint at the real problem, too many people.
  • gregor.us
    Thankyou.

    The issue of population was very much on my mind yesterday. It graced through alot of what I wrote. And you're right, the Refining piece I neglected to mention. Darn. That would have made that paragraph even stronger.

    Noted!

    G
  • disaggregated
    Hi Gregor,

    Appropriate ruminations. I am unsure, however, of the truth of the last sentence. The "so that" makes the sentence spurious.
  • gregor.us
    Well spotted. And you should know that I did indeed hesitate before using that construction--thus making a causal relationship there, as my final flourish. But I decided what the hell, I do see enough causality there--potentially--to force the meaning in that direction. And yes, it's more complex than this would suggest.

    Were I to do a long research report--I might pry into this very question, open it up, and dig around some.

    Again, well-spotted!

    G
  • Nice post.

    RE<C worthwhile goal.
  • gregor.us
    Thankyou.

    Yes, I really do hope google.org does eventually come out swinging on this problem. I am rooting for them.

    G
blog comments powered by Disqus