David Rutledge: Worldwide coal resources may not be as extensive as people thought.
That’s CalTech engineer David Rutledge, who spoke to EarthSky at a recent science meeting. He said governments around the world have overestimated coal reserves or, the amount of coal still available for energy use.
David Rutledge: That estimate, at least for these trends, appears to be high, for coal.
To figure out how high, Rutledge studied trends in countries that have already run out of coal.
David Rutledge: I have the production numbers for all the coal-producing countries of the world back to about 1800.
Rutledge’s study suggests that ultimate coal production – total production for past and future mining – is only 60 percent of what governments around the world estimate. In other words, no matter what you think of coal as an energy source, the fact is we might have less to burn than previously believed, according to this scientist.
David Rutledge: That would be good news for climate change. I think it’s true that the biggest unknown in predicting future climate is the amount of fossil fuel we will burn.
Rutledge added his estimate provides a good reason to develop and transition to alternative fuels.
David Rutledge: You want to get cracking, independent of climate change.
Our thanks to:
David Rutledge
Professor of Electrical Engineering
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California
Using use patterns has no bearing on discovery of coal reserves. Here in United States, we have huge proven reserves of coal. In addition, it is estimated the spoil piles alone in PA could provide tens of decades of coal derived oil.
There is little doubt that at sometime in the future, we will be needing more energy than we can extract from the ground. One existing source that could cut coal and natural gas use by prodigious amounts is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy could supplant all “fossil fuel” use in electricity production. It could even make electric cars somewhat practical in urban environments. But we are not allowing the construction of new nuclear power plants. We are concentrated on pie in the sky stuff like solar and wind. (Don’t dream of damming a river for hydropower, hurt the fish migration you know). As long as we insist on not doing what works now, we re not making progress.
Our problems are not technological they are political. The more government is involved, the worse it will be. Again, government decisions are politically correct and have no bearing on economic or practical reality.
I beleive we will deplete oil supplies to where the real price (and cost) will reach the choke point. At that time, sans government interference, new sources of energy will be developed. Keep in mind, pyrolysis is available now and works well. Oil prices are too low right now for it to be feasible. Also, there is no chance at all of permitting a reasonably large plant in the United States.
We must be real and look at technologies from cold, logical and reasonable minds. Knee jerk and stylish ideas can really hurt.