What do we do with coal? It provides cheap and reliable energy around the world, but is also the main cause of the most serious problem facing the world, writes Allan Hoffman. According to Hoffman, there are no easy answers, but we have no choice but to move to a clean energy society as quickly as possible.
A long article in the October 16th Washington Post, âU.S. exports emissions â as coalâ by Joby Warrick, points out the conundrum posed by the U.S.âs abundant coal resources. These coal reserves provide a relatively low cost energy resource that can be burned to produce steam and electricity and improve human welfare in both the U.S. and other countries. However, its combustion produces large amounts of carbon dioxide that when added to the atmosphere causes global warming and associated global climate change.
The conundrum arises from a clear conflict of values â the need to provide energy services to people around the world, in particular people in developing countries whose per capita consumption of electricity is well below that of developed countries, and the need to address climate change with its many adverse consequences, identified by many as the most serious problem facing the globe. No easy answer exists to satisfy those on both sides of this conundrum.
It is a matter not of technology but of political will and financial resources
Several statements in Warrickâs well-researched article captured my attention, including: âJust a dozen nearby mines, scattered across a valley known as the Powder River Basin (Wyoming), contain enough coal to meet the countryâs electricity needs for decades. But burning all of it would release more than 450 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere â more than all greenhouse-gas emissions from all sources since 2000.â
And: âThe Obama Administration is seeking to curb the United Statesâ appetite for the basinâs coal, which scientists say must remain mostly in the ground to prevent a disastrous warming of the planet. Yet each year, nearly half a billion tons of this U.S.-owned fuel are hauled from the regionâs vast strip mines and millions of tons are shipped overseas for other countries to burn.â
Given the legitimate needs on both sides of this conundrum I can see only one path to follow to bring the benefits of electricity to as many people as possible while minimizing the risks associated with burning coal. This is to promote the use of energy efficiency technologies wherever feasible, to reduce the demand for coal-based electricity, and expedite the development and deployment of renewable electric technologies such as solar and wind as substitutes for coal.
This is already happening to some extent as the world slowly begins to come to grips with the climate change problem, but the pace needs to and can be accelerated.
The ability of renewables to meet most of the worldâs electricity needs has been documented in several recent studies, e.g., the June 2012 NREL report entitled âRenewable Electricity Futures Studyâ, and what is now needed is a commitment on the part of national governments and international institutions to make it happen as quickly as possible. It is a matter not of technology but of political will and financial resources.
Nuclear fusion is proving to be the most difficult technological challenge the world has faced to date
Admittedly, such a switch from coal and other fossil fuels (natural gas, oil) that also produce carbon dioxide when combusted, to a renewables-based energy economy, will take time, lots af planning, and lots of money.
However, when the full costs of using fossil fuels are taken into consideration, including not just market costs but also health and climate change-related costs (such as coastline flooding due to rising seas, changed precipition patterns that adversely impact water availability and agricultural production), and international tensions due to competition for fossil fuel resources, renewables become a much more attractive and even less expensive long-term option. Renewable resources are also insensitive to cost increases once initial capital investments are made, unlike fossil fuels that rely on a depletable resource that produces uncertain and often volatile costs.
Nuclear power advocates will make some of the same arguments since the process of releasing energy via nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse gases, but nuclear technology faces four serious problems: high cost, safety, the need for long-term radioactive waste storage, and proliferation of weapons capability. If these problems can be successfully addressed, then nuclear-powered electricity can be a viable option for the future.
Nuclear power also offers the tantalizing option of nuclear fusion, a relatively safer and cleaner nuclear technology with enormous resource potential, but the problem of achieving controlled nuclear fusion on earth (it is the process that powers our sun) is proving to be the most difficult technological challenge the world has faced to date. It can legitimately be labeled âthe technology that is always a few years away.â
In sum, the choice is ours â we can continue to use our coal resources without limit or we can move more quickly to a clean energy society that provides needed energy services and minimizes global warming and climate change effects. I vote for the latter.
Editor’s Note
Allan Hoffman, former Senior Analyst in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), writes a blog: Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist.
 On Energy Post, we regularly publish posts from Allanâs blog,in his blog section Policy & Technology.  His writings often deal with issues at the intersection of energy technology, policy and markets.
Hoffman, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from Brown University, served as Staff Scientist with the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and in a variety of senior management positions at the U.S. National Academies of Sciences and the DOE. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Claude Mandil says
Why not a single word on CCS? Certainly not a silver bullet, but definitely a tool to help solving the conundrum.
A.Raja Rao says
Why is there no mention of R&D to improve coal’s properties?
Edward Knuckles says
Your commentary “… but nuclear technology faces four serious problems… if these problems can be successfully addressed, then nuclear-powered electricity can be a viable option for the future” conveys the subtle opinion that nuclear technology is not a viable option until those problems are solved while tacitly acknowledging that fossil generated options as acceptable for reasons of necessity until better options come along.
Furthermore, your comment presents the four problems associated with nuclear technology as not solved rather than acknowledging solutions that do exist but not implemented for reasons ranging from short term investment horizons to political disagreement.