The latest climate science has confirmed that
most coal reserves are «unburnable» if the world's leaders are to keep the — already insufficient — promises they have made under the UNFCCC.
In a speech before the World Coal Association, which also held a conference in Warsaw this week, Figueres did take a hard line that squares with the IPCC's carbon budget when she told coal industry representatives that they will need to leave
most coal reserves in the ground unless the industry comes up with ways to capture and store CO2 at every operational plant.
Not exact matches
Wyoming, with rich
reserves of low - sulfur
coal near the surface, is the largest
coal - producing - state and has the
most coal still in the ground at producing mines.
The key claim is that
most alleged
coal reserves can not be profitably recovered under existing or potential technologies.
The United States, with the world's largest
coal reserves, continued to churn out the
most carbon - intensive fuel, producing 1 billion tons of
coal from its mines in 2012.
Scientists have shown that
most of the
coal, oil and gas
reserves such companies own will have stay in the ground if the global rise in temperature is to be kept under 2C.
Per memory (and you are much closer)
most British
coal mines were operating at a loss in 1984, so what they were producing was not economic
reserves.
The UK, like
most countries, lists its
coal reserves every three years with the World Energy Council.
Moreover, even in countries that do have
coal reserves — such as India and South Africa — there is no «regulatory compact» of the kind that led the US and
most other developed nations to provide electricity at affordable rates to poor and rural areas via the principle of universal service.
Most notable of these is the finding regarding the use of oil,
coal, and gas
reserves up to 2050 rather than their use over the century as a whole.
We need a global programme whose purpose is to leave
most coal and oil and gas
reserves in the ground, while developing new sources of power and reducing the amazing amount of energy we waste.
Wide attention has recently been drawn to such a concern by one of our
most eminent climate scientists, James Hansen: ``... if we burn all
reserves of oil, gas, and
coal, there's a substantial chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse.
She quelled many of the critics, though, when she told the
coal reps that the industry «must change rapidly and dramatically for everyone's sake,» that all inefficient old
coal plants should be shut down, that all new plants should include CCS, and that the world must «leave
most existing [
coal]
reserves in the ground.»
If you compare this «climate limit» of 2.05 GtCeq with the various
reserve estimates, you find that even with the
most conservative fossil fuel
reserve estimates, we can just afford to burn all the oil and gas that's there but only if we do not burn a single gram of
coal at the same time.
The alternative, of course, is one in which «the markets decide» that, one way or another,
most known economic
reserves of fossil fuels will never be burned, and then proceed to rapidly, not to say catastrophically, reprice
coal and oils stocks.
Across six regions, according to the report,
coal provided 55 percent of daily incremental generation, and the study concludes that at least for PJM Interconnection (which manages the electricity grid across 12 Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states as well as DC), «
coal provided the
most resilient form of generation, due to available
reserve capacity and on - site fuel availability, far exceeding all other sources» without which the region «would have experienced shortfalls leading to interconnect - wide blackouts.»
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), whose mission is to ensure the reliability of the bulk power system for the continent, finds in its 2017 Long - Term Reliability Assessment, that (contrary to NETL raising potential reliability issues from future
coal and nuclear retirements)
most regions of the country have sufficient
reserve margins through 2022, as new additions more than offset expected retirements.