Thanks for this Shaun.

I’d just like to add that these projections seem to be close to those made by Jean Laherrère. He expects Peak Coal by 2050 in terms of volume; that gives an energy peak not far from that presented here.

My thanks too Shaun - it's a very interesting perspective you've provided.

Three aspects in particular seem to me worth noting in response -

1st, the profiteers of the fossil fuel trade will, very likely,
be delighted to apply this info, along with that on Peaks in Oil & Gas supply,
as disinformation to further deride the dangers of Climate Destabilization. --- C'est la vie . . . .

2nd, we have to cap (intentionally peak) global GHG emissions within a decade
if we are to have an even chance of avoiding the GW feedback loops swamping the planet's carbon sinks -
[aka "the Runaway Greenhouse].
Thus the geological peak of coal production must be pre-empted by a binding legal peak.

3rd, the highly credible notion of Tradeable Energy Quotas, as a means of constraining energy usage within a country,
begs the seminal question of just how such quotas (aka declining emission entitlements)
are to be allocated swiftly and reliably across the nations ?
Plainly, in the absence of that international framework, nothing significant has happened
(or is likely to happen) at national level re cutting fossil fuel usage.

The only credible policy framework I've seen for allocating those national entitlements
is that of "Contraction & Convergence," as advanced by Global Commons Institute. [ www.gci.org.uk ]

If you can spare the time, I should be very interested to to read your views on the potentials of that policy framework.

Regards,

Backstop

There's something fishy about the graph "possible worldwide coal production."

The FSU looks to have dramatically higher future production than the US. Is it possible that the authors switched the headings for US & Russia? If so, that is a fairly major error, eh?

The FSU (Former Soviet Union) is more than just Russia, also including the Ukraine and Kazakhstan. When the full final report is released (Wednesday I believe) the details behind that graph will be made clear in detail.

Great post Shaun

There is much talk about "clean coal technology" that may come on stream in the next ten years or so. This will not be without cost and I suspect that a greater amount of coal will be needed to compensate for the energy input into whatever that technology is.

Does this report take this into account, or is it based on existing usage methods? If not and 120% (say) of current requirements are needed to clean up coal usage, then peak will occur 5-10 years earlier.

The Energy Watch Group report is discussing coal production only, not the uses it will be put to. As you say 'clean coal' has a substantial energy cost, which will only exacerbate any production limitations.

I'm actually preparing a report on 'clean coal' and Coal-to-Liquids technology that should be up on the soon-to-be-relaunched Lean Economy Connection website soon.

Backstop, I basically agree with everything you say! If you read our booklet on TEQs you'll see that the scheme is specifically designed to sit within an international framework like C+C (and yes, C+C is the most sensible international framework I have yet seen suggested).

I had a very productive conversation with Aubrey Meyer a few weeks back, who agrees that C+C will need capped tradable quotas like TEQs at a national level in order to guarantee meeting individual nations' targets under C+C. And as you point out, TEQs also needs C+C.

The third strand of the solution is of course at the individual and local level, where the actual emissions reductions take place, supported by the TEQs framework. In this regard, the rapidly-growing Transition Towns movement is a great example.