Energy Future Is Coal King or Disappearing?

Energy FutureIs Coal King or Disappearing?

Global Competition, Energy Sources, Economic Growth and Human Welfare

World Energy Use by Fuel Source:Energy Information Administration

Global 10-Year Growth Rates of Energy Sources

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2010

Coal Has Much Less Price Volatility

Rich Countries May Shy from Coal, But Not the Rest of the World:

New Coal Plants Coming Online by 2015

U.S. 8 GWEurope 17 GW

China 83 GWSouth Asia 97 GW

Elsewhere 44GW

New plants will consume 790 million tons coal annually

The U.S. No Longer Drives Energy Markets

U.S. Coal Use a Shrinking Share of Global Consumption

U.S. Manufacturing Decline (and Greater Efficiency) = Less Energy Use; Other Countries Make Up for It

Economic Progress and Electricity (Energy from Coal) Are Highly Correlated

Electricity: People Live Better and Longer

Sources: CIA World Fact Book; UN Development Program: Human Development Report

Billions Want What We Take for Granted

2.5 Billion Burn Wood/Dung for Primary Energy:Bad for Health, Economy, and the Environment

World Health Org.:2.5 million women and children die prematurely annually from breathing fumes from biomass stoves.3.6 billion people have no access or inadequate access to electricity.

Latent Demand for Electricity in India:Red: No Electricity; Green: Cook with Wood or Dung;

Blue: No Refrigeration

International Energy Agency: Coal and Natural Gas Dominating New Electricity Generation

kW Prices of Electricity 2007

02468

101214

ConventionalCoal

Natural Gas Biomass Wind Solar Thermal

Electricity from Coal Dominates Much of Country;These Plants Cannot Easily Change Fuel

Same Old Song; Pipe Dreams Are Not New

Cleaner Coal Possible: 40 Year RecordSource: EPA

Electricity from coal up 182%

Total Emissions down 42%

Best Hope as of Today: Carbon Capture

King Coal: U.S. Is Saudi Arabia

We’re Number 1!!

Coal Is “Nonrenewable”—So What?

Worried about the Trade Imbalance?U.S. Coal Exports at Highest Level in 20 Years

Why is coal unpopular? CO2 Emissions

Coal is big in Greenhouse gas emissions.Its emission is double that of natural gas per BTU generated.

Main Alternative to Coal: Burn More Natural Gas (less CO2 than coal);

“proven” reserves—100 years and growing.

Expanding Natural Gas Use Will Be Costly and Take Decades

Alternative: What About Nuclear?

Last plant to open in U.S. was in 1996.One new TVA plant may come online in 2013.DOE permit process takes 4 years; construction takes longer than that.Expensive compared to gas and coal.Political issues, to say the least.

Alternative: Hydro; No CO2 When operating.

6% of total U.S. electricity.60% of “renewable” electricity.Problem—look at the river →Most greenies hate “big hydro” but think “small hydro” is good.But, small hydro is of little value.

Alternative: Wind turbines “work” but no one wants to live near them; need new transmission lines to get power to market.

Alternative: U.S. Has Lots of Sunshine—Transmission to Market Costly

Solyndra aside, solar is likely to become more competitive in some areas as cost is slowly dropping.

Unless we want to freeze (or sweat) in the dark, solar, wind & other “renewables” are irrelevant

Electric Power Research Institute:Generation Technology Options

Many trade-offs to consider: Nuclear has highest capital cost per kW (double wind), but life is assumed to be 40 years vs. 20 for wind farm. On-shore wind farm produces at 28-40% of stated capacity; nuclear produces at 90%.When all such factors considered, LCOE is $49-79/MWh for nuclear; $75-138/MWh for wind given today’s technology.

EPRI - Given New Technology:Where do we expect to be in 2025?

Coal with carbon capture $85-105/MWhNatural gas with carbon capture $68-109/MWhNuclear $76-87/MWhBiomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed $80-136/MWhWind on shore $73-134/MWhWind off shore $122-147/MWhConcentrating Solar Thermal $116-173/MWhSolar PV $210-396/MWh* Ignoring transmission costs, site-acquisition costs, no subsidies assumed

Conclusion: Traditional Energy Sources Are Here to Stay, Even if the U.S. and EU Do Not Like It

Give the U.N. credit—their energy people know that massive energy change means we live in small villages eating our own crops, or live in high rises with minimal transportation—including rickshaws. They endorse that as necessary to stop GW.