Interesting post. Have you looked at the fact that, at least in the US, these 'peaks' are really demand driven? Anthracite is used for steel production isn't it? It would make sense that we use less of it as steel production in the US declined. Hasn't natural gas, at least since the early 90's and wind power over the last few years been the primary sources of newly installed electricity production?

I will have to look at the ideas of these 'dissenting voices' more carefully, but I am very sceptical that any of this is true. Lets not get carried away with these 'peak' claims.

I agree that we should not get carried away with peak claims. They should be dismissed with comprehensive studies and not CERA type claims... Keithster100 are you volunteering to perform such a study? If not, then simply dimissing things out of hand is, say we say, disingenuous.

True, like I said, I would need to do more research.

As far as volunteering, how do you get to post the initial editorial rather than just be a comments-poster? If given a shot, I would love to write one about ethanol.

I think it's time for another major post about ethanol. I believe you would be on the pro ethanol side. Is that correct? I am especially interested in a recent study done by Colorado State University and the USDA concluding that major greenhouse reductions can occur with the use of corn ethanol and even more significant reductions with the use of the grasses.

Of course, if you are on the pro ethaonol side of the issue, you will get a great deal of interest on the rebuttal side, especially regarding the impact on corn prices, food prices in general, soybean production, and the push by farmers to use lands currently set aside for conservation. Frankly, I am still mystified by the allegation that not much concern should be placed on higher food prices, but am interested in hearing a good explanation of same.

Tangentially speaking, our farm policies and subsidy policies favor things like corn and soybeans to the exclusion of products like fresh vegetables. I think this policy just aids poor health, diabetes II, and overweight. As a vegetarian who really doesn't want to indirectly subsidize the beef, pork, and chicken industries, I feel discriminated against.

Anthracite production peaked decades ago. My father-in-law is a retired VP of CONOCO, having been a VP of CONSOL (Consolidated Coal) when they were acquired by CONOCO back in the early 1980s. (They later sold off CONOCO but they may be regretting that now.)

Anyway, he loved to point out that anthracite had peaked and no amount of economic incentives would change that. There just wasn't that much more of the stuff left. He's a mining engineer by training and spent many years working his way up through CONSOL's ranks.

And coal use is still high in the US. We use it as a large fraction of our electrical power generation, which has only increased steadily over time. The fraction used in steel production was tiny anyway by comparison.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Keithster thank you for making the Very Good Point here about the "above ground factors" like politics and economics constraining coal production - especially in the US.

I wonder what will happen to the politics (e.g. glOBaL warMiNg) and econonomics (eg. "use coal ?!?!- oil is cheap and plentifuyl right now") as Energy Desperation grows and we begin Fuel Twitching???

What happens to the PrOjECteD COAL supply, demand, production etc when the Hordes of industries and of consumers try to switch from oil and ngas-based energy to electric or coal gas or whatever???

Watch out for blind, angry Masses-O-Saps flailing about and gibbering madly, "Fuckin' BUSH!" , spittle flying to and fro... I imagine a Stephen King novel is about to come to life ;)

(PS. I'd love to see Keithster do a Ethanol column).

The US hasn't really peaked in coal production. There was a false peak in the late 90's that related in large part to the emphasis on building NG electric plants, decreasing coal demand. 2005 broke the previous coal production record, and 2006 topped the 2005 mark by another 2.5%. The demand just wasn't there until recently with the rise in NG costs.

http://www.commodities-now.com/content/market-news/market-news-200701094...

It should also be noted that in the U.S. the main reasons for downward revisions to coal reserves are 1) the clean air and water act and 2) the very low price coal had been fetching until recently. #2 has already changed stimulating greater production, and it's questionable how strong the U.S.'s resolved will be regarding #1 after oil peaks.

"As many of these reserves are of low quality, with high sulphur content and/or other drawbacks, it may be considered doubtful that they will ever be produced."

New mines are opening in Ohio for the first time in decades and several mines in Ohio have reopened after being closed for over 20 years bc/ with the higher coal prices, it is now economic to mine this coal and spend the money on special scrubbers to remove the sulfur. Certainly a lot of coal will never be economic due to the cost of and energy required for extraction, but the sulfur/ pollutant problems (save CO2) is not an insurmontable hurdle.

"it is now economic to mine this coal and spend the money on special scrubbers to remove the sulfur."

It's even easier with an inattentive CLEAN AIR ACT state/fed. admin. Sometimes, ex post facto, the special scrubbers are prompted by lawsuits from neighboring states
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=1778&Q=284042

The suggestion was that America had peaked in coal energy. with the more recently mined coal being of lower energy per tonne and even lower net energy tonne.

Exactly. That is the key.

Keithster100, the final version of the Energy Watch Group report will be released online next week, and will contain substantial discussion of the possible reasons for such US peaks. I was just providing a brief summary of their findings, so you should be able to take a more careful look very soon!

Like Keithster 100, I will venture an opinion without doing any research. Anthracite is not used for steel production because there isn't enough of it. The coke for the blast furnaces is produced from bituminous coal.