It is widely known that Poland gets much of its energy from coal (it is even a net exporter). Many countries do, so it is hardly alone in this regard. In my last post I illustrated the increasing global dependence on coal through a recent tender issued by two states in India for a total of 8 GW of coal. At the recent Chatham House Climate Conference, one speaker noted that current Asian coal projects will add some 250 GW of capacity by the end of this decade. These facts highlight the challenge that we face in trying to manage global emissions.
In light of the above, what should we then make of the Warsaw Communique released recently by the World Coal Association and the Polish government. Of course Warsaw is the location of the COP 19 Climate Change Conference and the Polish government will preside over the event. For many environmental NGOs and others the Communique was a step too far, with “outrage” emanating from some green groups.
On the surface, there is a contradiction between coal use and managing global emissions. After all, coal is the most carbon intense fossil fuel and its global use has risen sharply in recent years along with a corresponding rise in emissions. If it were not for this significant increase in coal use, renewable energy would actually be making inroads into the global energy mix and taking some measureable market share. In reality, it isn’t. But the Communique argues that increasing the efficiency of coal combustion can go a long way towards addressing its increased use. The text also makes some reference to carbon capture and storage and clean coal, but its focus is solidly on efficiency.
Like it or not, coal use is going to continue, but arguing for increased efficiency as an approach to managing its emissions is where the criticism should be leveled, not at the idea that coal use is potentially compatible with a very low emission future.
Increasing the efficiency of coal use is really where the whole issue of rapidly increasing global emissions started, so it is very unlikely to be the place where it stops. It was William Stanley Jevons who noted that coal use increased as efficiency improved. Jevons Paradox is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource. In 1865 Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal use led to increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption. There are more modern versions of this analysis, one of which I wrote about in a post last year.
While individual coal plants may well become more efficient as a result of a global efficiency initiative, total coal use and therefore the total accumulation of emissions over time will likely rise. This then pushes us faster towards some fixed amount of atmospheric warming (as this is directly related to cumulative emissions over time).
So the Warsaw Communique is barking up the wrong tree, even as it opens up the valid discussion about growing global coal use in the face of a desire to see emissions fall. The focus of the Communique should have been Carbon Capture and Storage, not efficiency. CCS is the bridge technology between a world that will use more coal but also wants to reduce emissions. There are more than enough people already barking up the efficiency tree, but precious few trying to hold a real conversation about CCS.
A Communique that focused on CCS would have been a real achievement and a welcome addition to the COP. Unfortunately the Communique that did emerge may turn out to be an “own goal”.
Interesting points, David, and well articulated. If we are to increase efficiency in another energy technology – i.e. innovation investment – at this juncture, what needs the most strengthening in your view? What stands to give the greatest payout in energy for the best balance of reduced emissions,cost, and long-term stability?
Each year the American Chemical Society sponsors a group of students to attend the UN COP talks. I’ll forward your blog URL to them.
This isn’t an easy question and you will usually get an answer that fits the interest of the person you ask. I think the two areas that need the biggest push are energy storage, which means that solar becomes a viable 24/7 energy technology, and CCS because fossil fuels are going to be in the mix for a very long time. There should be a strong case to push a variety of advanced nuclear technologies, but I suspect it will turn out to be a life long struggle to ever get nuclear widely adopted by a sceptical public.
[…] David Hone who really likes […]
Hi David, Thanks for another great post that gets straight to the point! I had the pleasure of visiting the largest open pit coal mine in Poland 2 years ago. At the visitors centre for the mine and power plant, it was openly stated that at current consumption rates, the mine will be completely depleted in 20-25 years time. As most of us already understand, the cost of mining that coal will increase substantially over that period as the mine gets deeper and distance from the mine to the power plant gets longer. The power plant can of course continue to operate after the mine is empty, but then it must connect to the global coal transport market. International coal prices can only go up at this point, since most of the easy, low-cost, low-sulfur minable coal is essentially already fully allocated. New power plants will pay much, much more for new coal from new mines. Coal will in other words get very expensive in the medium to long term and very likely more scarce since the current coal mine development business has completely collapsed. The coal value chain is in a death spiral in North America, and when China finally decides to prioritize improving its air quality, coal will look as attractive as Kodak Film.
Thanks David. Agree that CCS is vital bridge technology. My recent CER paper on this argues that market mechanisms and subsidies won’t be enough. EU should regulate too, as Obama is trying to. http://www.cer.org.uk/publications/archive/policy-brief/2013/europe-should-regulate-promote-carbon-capture-and-storage. Would welcome your views.
Nice to hear from you. Given the results of the last few years, I agree it is hard to see the carbon markets triggering CCS. There are just too many overlapping policies undermining the price and just a bit too much rent seeking in terms of offset use, free allocation, the cap etc. I think it would be useful to look more at tradable CCS certificates, i.e. a certain number of certificates must be surrended for a given amount of emissions (with that quantity increasing over time).