Policy and Rhetoric Ignore Real Limits of Nation's Coal Reserves

For some time now, the notion that America has an all but bottomless cheap supply of coal has been accepted, a “meme” that has become embedded in our society. Obama regularly refers to the nation's vast coal reserves, using the comforting cliché “We’re the Saudi Arabia of coal,” both in speeches while campaigning for President, as well as since taking office. Other elected representatives and thought leaders have preceded and followed with similar hyperbole.

Several years ago, Leslie Glustrom, a former biochemist dogged by the myriad dangers of burning coal, began to investigate if the hyperbole was true. Approaching the subject with a “beginner’s mind,” as she put it, she asked a lot of questions and slogged through numerous agency reports and studies, to find out if the national dependence on coal for energy made sense.

What she found challenges the comforting vision of endless supplies of cheap coal, and the politics that depend upon the illusion.

In 2006, Glustrom co-founded Clean Energy Action, a “citizen power” organization to educate and prod the public, legislators and corporate CEOs toward a speedier transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. She also takes every opportunity to publicly dispel the belief that boundless low-cost coal is reliably ours for the next two centuries.

According to Glustrom, "The myth is largely based on unexamined assumptions." Her 2009 report "Coal, Cheap and Abundant… or Is It?" highlights the difference between resources—coal that’s in the ground, and reserves—coal that is recoverable at an economically competitive price.

Glustrom writes: "The concept of '200 years of coal (or more)' gets repeated by journalists, teachers, policy makers, utility executives and even Presidential candidates—yet it is based on an inaccurate assumption that 'reserves' will be economically accessible, while there is abundant evidence from detailed geologic surveys, including the ones discussed below, that only a small fraction of reserves will be economically accessible."

Potential coal shortages have been covered or mentioned in the mainstream press, but not nearly as often as the "bottomless pit" belief. People like Glustrom persevere in the work of keeping the facts straight and presenting them often, but the meme persists. Joe Romm, of the daily blog Climate Progress, pointed out in an April 12th post how Newsweek is still getting it wrong, understating the true cost of coal production and delivery in dollars, health and lives, and overstating the amount of coal used for energy in the U.S. by double.

Murky coal statistics

For corporations and politicians, money and power are of course at stake. But in the frenzied 24/7 news world, beyond the ease of using "common knowledge" expediently at the expense of accuracy, part of the reason for this meme could be that official studies pertaining to coal are nearly as impenetrable as some of the earthly depths in which the coal lies.

It was notable, then, that in June 2009, the Wall Street Journal ran a clearly understandable front page story titled "U.S. Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal," (sub required) which mapped out some of the variances in official statistics about the outlook for coal.

According to that article, the USGS posits that the long term estimates for coal energy in the U.S. is 20-30 years, not the regularly repeated and reported 150-200 years. The DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has a new study in the works to update estimates, due out this year.