Sign up | Login with →
Posted by: David Hone

Are We Heading for a Coal COP?

Like it?
17

poland coal export

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”.

Photo Credit: A Coal COP?/shutterstock



Authored by:

David Hone

David Hone serves as the Chief Climate Change Advisor for Royal Dutch Shell. He combines his work with his responsibilities as a board member and Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). Additionally, he works closely with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and has been a lead contributor to many of its recent energy and climate change ...

See complete profile

Would you like to contribute to this site? Get started »

» Already a member? Login now to comment!

» Not a member? Register to comment!

Like it?
3

November 5, 2013

Michael Stavy says:

What a coincidence your article is!  A coal COP 19 in Warsaw is one possible “factual” scenario.  I just presented poster of my paper, The Increase in Global Solar (PV, CSP) Power Caused by Extending the Kyoto Protocol Until 2030, at Solar Power International 2013, October 21-24, Chicago. My paper presents the counterfactual scenario that at COP 19 the Kyoto Protocol with all the earth’s nations as signatories, is extended until 2030, the end of the 3rd commitment period. Historians have written counterfactual histories such as the South winning the US Civil War. Most SPI13 attendees (except those from the fossil fuel industry) agreed that my counterfactual scenario of the future is much more agreeable than the latter. Mr. Hone is a Shell Employee but I do not know if he attended SPI13. Energy Collective Readers should note that my paper’s counterfactual scenario is counterfactual to the historic fact that the Protocol ended on 31 DEC 12. It is not counterfactual to any specific solar market forecast. Commercial solar market forecasts are based on the best ‘what is most likely to occur “factual” scenario’. A coal COP 19 is one most likely to occur “factual” scenario. Unlike what one might expect, academic, NGO and government lab solar market forecasts also sharply focus on a “factual” scenario. Even when using a “factual” scenario, it is very difficult to forecast the future.

Share this comment:

Like it?
10

November 4, 2013

N Nadir says:

All that CSS will do is increase the requirement for more coal, by, um, reducing efficiency, Jevon's paradox notwithstanding.

This might be a reasonable approach to doing what is very popular in this generation of humans - dumping responsibility for our own irresponsibility on future generations, who may have to live with the consequences of what will happen when these carbon dumps leak, as they invariably will - if the external costs of coal reliance were only carbon dioxide.    But the external costs of coal involve heavy metals pollution, mining, leachates from abandoned and functional mines, particulates, etc, etc.

Were humanity motivated by a sense of responsibility it would cut to the chase and phase out coal, and for that matter all other forms of dangerous fossil fuels as expediently as possible.

There is one, and only one, form of energy that can do that, and it's not so called "renewable energy."  It's nuclear energy.    I note that nuclear energy is the only form of energy that can and does industrially operate at a capacity utilization higher than coal when the goal is to generate electricity.

 

Share this comment:

Like it?
9

November 4, 2013

SteveK9 says:

Thanks.

Share this comment: