1. Hubbert’s Peak, The Coal Question, and Climate Change Dave Rutledge web: rutledge.caltech.edu email: rutledge@caltech.edu

2. 2 The UN Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Released 4 th Assessment Report in 2007 The IPCC works with scenarios  “… alternative images of how the future might unfold.” “… 40 SRES [Special Report on Emissions Scenarios] scenarios together encompass the current range of uncertainties…”

3. 3 Oil Production in the IPCC Scenarios Gb = billions of barrels In some scenarios, production is rising in 2100  implied range is 10:1 Dominates the uncertainty in climate simulations  the IPCC range for temperature sensitivity to CO 2 increases is 2.3:1

4. 4 Goal is to Reduce the Uncertainty for Fossil-Fuel Production to below the Uncertainty for Temperature Sensitivity Historical study of the two major national fossil- fuel resources with significant exhaustion –US oil  Hubbert’s peak –British coal  The Coal Question Other examples –US whale oil –Pennsylvania anthracite Projections for world oil, gas, and coal production Implications for alternatives to fossil fuels Simulations for CO 2 levels and temperatures

5. 5 King Hubbert Geophysicist at the Shell lab in Houston, Texas In 1956, he wrote a paper with predictions for the peak year of US oil production

6. Hubbert’s Peak BBLS = barrels CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION = past production ULTIMATE = cumulative production plus future production Hubbert’s ultimate “Optimistic” ultimate 1970 6

7. US Oil Production 7

8. 8 Cumulative Plot for US Oil Ultimate production means total production, past and future Projection for ultimate is 225Gb (104% of reserves + cumulative) Reserves are resources that could be economically produced USGS 1995/MMS 2006 assessment + cumulative is 385Gb (71% higher) USGS = US Geological Survey, MMS = Mineral Management Service

9. Rate Plot for US Oil Rate plots were developed by Kenneth Deffeyes Growth Rate = annual production/cumulative production Dashed curve is the previous fitted normal 9

10. Historical Fits for US Oil Ultimate Range for fits for ultimate from 1956 on is 1.1:1 Small circles are private estimates, large circles are government Private average is 240Gb, government average is 430Gb 10

11. 11 Are the Government Assessments too High? “When USGS workers tried to estimate resources, they acted, well, like bureaucrats. Whenever a judgment call was made about choosing a statistical method, the USGS almost invariably tended to pick the one that gave the higher estimate.” Kenneth Deffeyes Professor of Geology, emeritus, Princeton University Deffeyes’ Law of Bureaucratic Resource Estimates

12. 12 British Coal Photo by John Cornwell

13. 13 The Coal Question (1865) Stanley Jevons

14. 14 Mt = millions of metric tons Production is now 20 times less than the peak UK Coal Production

15. Rate Plot for UK Coal Rate plot does not curve, fit to a logistic rather than normal 15

16. Historical Fits for UK Coal Ultimate Range in fits for ultimate from 1905 on is 1.2:1 Produced 18% of 1905 Royal Commission reserves + cumulative Criteria were too optimistic ― 1ft seams, 4,000ft depth (Deffeyes’ law) 16

17. US Whale Oil Production Used for lighting and lubrication Whales did not become scarce in the 19 th century Competition in lighting from kerosene from coal and oil Competition from lubricants from petroleum products 17

18. Rate Plot for US Whale Oil 18

19. Historical Fits for US Whale Oil Ultimate Range for fits for ultimate from 1840 on is 1.2:1 19

20. 20 American Coal Photo by Aaron Hockney

21. US Coal Production 21

22. Pennsylvania Anthracite Burns without smoke — useful for home heating Current production is 60 times less than the peak 22

23. Rate Plot for PA Anthracite 23

24. Historical Fits for PA Anthracite Range for fits for ultimate from 1921 on is 1.2:1 Produced 42% of 1921 reserves + cumulative 24

25. Coal West of the Mississippi Projection for ultimate is 48Gt (30% of reserves + cumulative) 25

26. Coal East of the Mississippi Projection for ultimate is 83Gt (58% of reserves + cumulative) 26

27. Rate Plot for Canada Projection for the ultimate is 4Gt (47% of reserves + cumulative) 27

28. Reserves History for US Coal Paul Averitt responded to criticism from mining engineers by tightening reserve criteria — seams at least 28 inches thick, up to 1,000 feet deep, within 3/4 mile from a measurement, 50% recovery Violation of Deffeyes’ Law 28

29. 29 Are US Coal Reserves Still Too High? “Present estimates of coal reserves are based upon methods that have not been reviewed or revised since their inception in 1974 [when Paul Averitt retired], and much of the input data were compiled in the early 1970’s. Recent programs to assess reserves in limited areas using updated methods indicate that only a small fraction of previously estimated reserves are actually minable reserves.” National Academy of Sciences, 2007

30. Rate Plot for China Projection for ultimate is 112Gt (72% of reserves + cumulative) 30

31. Historical Fits for Chinese Coal Ultimate Reserves submitted to World Energy Council in 1989 and 1992 differ by 6:1 31

32. Production for Japan and South Korea Production is now 15 times less than the peak Produced 16% of the 1960 reserves + cumulative Range in the fits for the ultimate from 1960 on is 1.5:1 32

33. Rate Plot for Europe Includes Ukraine and Turkey, but not UK, France or Belgium Projection for ultimate is 120Gt (75% of reserves + cumulative) Bituminous reserves collapse for Germany — 23Gt to 183Mt 33

34. Production for France and Belgium Production is now 300 times less than the peak Produced 34% of the 1948 reserves + cumulative Range for fits in the ultimate since 1948 is 1.3:1 34

35. Rate Plot for South Asia Includes Middle East and Taiwan No projection for the ultimate, reserves + cumulative is 78Gt India recently shifted from reporting coal-in-place to recoverable coal ― 92Gt to 56Gt 35

36. Rate Plot for Russia Includes Mongolia and North Korea, and the FSU except the Ukraine Projection for the ultimate is 74Gt (34% of reserves + cumulative) 36

37. Rate Plot for Australia Includes New Zealand Australia has been the world’s largest exporter since 1984 Projection for the ultimate is 58Gt (68% of reserves + cumulative) 37

38. Rate Plot for Africa Apartheid ended in 1990 SASOL built two large coal-to-liquids plants in 1980 and 1982 Projection for the ultimate is 22Gt (39% of reserves + cumulative) 38

39. Rate Plot for Latin America Includes Mexico No projection for the ultimate, reserves + cumulative is 19Gt 39

40. Projections for Ultimates RegionProjection, Gt Europe, with the UK, and France and Belgium155 US and Canada141 China, and Japan and South Korea115 South Asia 78 Russia 74 Australia and New Zealand 58 Africa 22 Latin America, with Mexico 19 World662 Projection is 59% of World Energy Council reserves + cumulative Maximum in an IPCC scenario through 2100 is 3,400Gt 40

41. The scenario report, SRES, references the 1995 and 1998 WEC surveys Proved recoverable reserves are declining because of the trends toward reporting recoverable coal and coal at working mines The IPCC chose to use Additional recoverable reserves and they also chose 1998 (3,368Gt), rather than 1995 (680Gt) — Additional recoverable reserves are now 20 times smaller than in 1998 Where Does the IPCC Get Its Coal? World Energy Council survey Proved recoverable reserves, Gt Additional recoverable reserves, Gt 19921,039702 19951,032680 19989843,368 2001984409 2004909449 2007847180 41

42. 42 Rate Plot for World Oil and Gas 7.33 barrels of oil = 1 metric ton, toe = metric tons of oil equivalent Projection for ultimate is 641Gtoe, 110% of BP reserves + cumulative

43. Historical fits for Oil, Gas, and Coal Ultimate Projection for ultimate is 1.0Ttoe, 85% of reserves + cumulative Range of fits for ultimate from 1992 on is 1.2:1 Cumulative is 39% of the ultimate— percentage increases 1% per year 43

44. 44 Alternatives for Oil 5-year world growth rate 2%/year Ethanol has a 1% share –5-year growth rate is 20%/year  these growth rates would give a 10% share by 2024 –1% of world’s cultivated land is used for ethanol Other prospects?  Half of world oil is not used for transportation

45. 45 Alternatives for Electricity 10-year world growth rate is 4% per year Hydroelectric has a 16% share Nuclear has a 14% share Wind has a 1% share –10-year growth rate is 29% per year — these growth rates would give a 10% share by 2017 –1/3 of new US capacity in 2007 Solar photovoltaic is ten years behind wind –10-year growth rate is 37% per year — these growth rates would give a 10% share by 2026 –Local generation Other prospects?

46. 46 Concentrating Solar Thermal Photo: Schott Glass

47. 47 Nevada Solar One Photo: Schott Glass

48. Concentrating Solar Thermal Capacity  354MW built from 1984 to 1990 in California –75MW in 2007  Nevada Solar One, PS10 in Spain –55MW in 2008  Kimberlina in California, Andasol 1 in Spain Andasol 1 plant has 8 hours of thermal storage  solar thermal plants with storage could provide both peak capacity and base production Construction takes one or two years  main materials are glass and steel, could be built on any conceivable scale Suitable only for regions without clouds, but could get continental reach through DC transmission lines  loss is 4% per 1,000km, plus 0.6% switch loss at each end 48

49. 49 Comparing with the IPCC Scenarios Carbon coefficients for oil, gas, and coal from 4 th Assessment Report Projection for ultimate, 830GtC, is less than any of the IPCC scenarios

50. Simulated Carbon-Dioxide Levels Simulations with Tom Wigley’s MAGICC software, updated for the 4 th Assessment Report into account (version 5.3) — with Tom’s revised WRE stabilization scenarios for other greenhouse gases Jim Hansen advocates reducing coal consumption to reach 350-ppmv — sensitivity of peak to current coal production is 0.1ppmv/Gt 50

51. Simulated Temperature Rise IPCC recommended temperature sensitivity, 3  C/2  CO 2 Peak is 2  C above the 1850-1900 average  European Union policy is that “Global annual mean surface temperature increase should not exceed 2°C above pre-industrial levels” 51

52. 52 Hypothesis: Curve-fits to cumulative production can give stable estimates for world ultimates Major national fossil-fuel resources –US oil (1970 peak)  1.1:1 range since 1956 –British coal (1913 peak)  1.2:1 range since 1905 Other examples –US whale oil (1841 peak)  1.2:1 range since 1840 –Pennsylvania anthracite (1917 peak)  1.2:1 range since 1921 –Japan and South Korea coal (1966 peak)  1.5:1 range since 1960 –France and Belgium coal (1957 peak)  1.3:1 range since 1948 Projections for world ultimates  1.2:1 range since 1992 –Oil, gas, and coal is 1.0Ttoe (85% of reserves + cumulative) –Coal is 662Gt (59% of reserves + cumulative)

53. 53 Many Thanks for Help Sandro Schmidt at the BGR (the German Resources Agency) Morgan Granger, Melissa Chan, Ed Rubin and Jay Apt at Carnegie-Mellon Charlie Kennel at the University of California at San Diego Kevin Bowman and Dimitri Antsos at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory John Rutledge at Freese and Nichols, Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas Kyle Saunders, Euan Mearns, and Dave Summers at The Oil Drum Andrew Ferguson at Optimum Population Trust Steve Mohr at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales Randy Udall at the Community Office for Resource Efficiency in Colorado Jim Murray at the University of Washington Many Caltech colleagues, but particularly Bill Bridges, Paul Dimotakis, David Goodstein, Melany Hunt, Kent Potter, Nadia Lapusta, John Ledyard, Carver Mead, Tapio Schneider, John Seinfeld, and Tom Tombrello Special thanks to Sandy Garstang and Shady Peyvan in the Caltech Library, Tony Diaz in the Caltech Geology Library, and Dale Yee in the Caltech Engineering Division for their perseverance and ingenuity in locating historical coal production and reserves records