This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why King Coal Will Keep Its Crown
Submitted by Andrew Topf via OilPrice.com,
For climate change activists and those hoping for an energy future dominated by renewables or even less-polluting natural gas, the death of coal cannot come quickly enough. But with coal still the dominant form of cheap electricity throughout the world, it is unlikely the bogeyman of climate change will disappear anytime soon.
That's because the price of coal, compared to other fuels, is just too good to refuse. Just look at China, where the country's double-digit economic growth has largely been fueled by coal, which fulfills 60 percent of its energy mix.
According to a chart showing the levelized cost of energy -- the price at which electricity must be generated from a source to break even -- coal is the second-cheapest form of energy behind hydropower, at $40 per megawatt hour.
Compare that to the cost of nuclear at $60, natural gas at $70, and solar -- which at $280 per MWH, is seven times the cost of coal. Coal is also plentiful, relatively easy to extract -- though admittedly dangerous if mined underground -- and requires minimal processing. And it can be used for power generation (thermal coal) or steelmaking (metallurgical coal).
Of course, coal-fired plants have exacted an enormous price on air quality, and the Chinese government – which has declared war on pollution -- recently banned the use of coal in smog-cloaked Beijing. Last week, it was announced that for the first time in over a decade, Chinese coal imports and coal consumption both dropped.
While that may seem like a dart in coal's balloon, coal's continued use elsewhere is more than making up for China’s restraint.
Germany doesn't like to talk about it, but the world leader in the use of renewable energy, particularly solar, is also a big consumer of coal. As The Economist recently pointed out, Germany's production of power from lignite coal is now at 162 billion kilowatts, the highest level since the smokestack-belching days of East Germany.
The same article notes that Japan, which has no natural energy resources of its own and is scrambling to meet electricity demand -- most of its nuclear reactors have been offline since the 2011 Fukushima disaster -- approved a new energy plan in April that includes coal as a long-term electricity source. The Japanese have also invested almost $20 billion in overseas coal projects in the past seven years, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
In the United States, even though a shale-gas supply boom has seen many utilities shift to cheaper natural gas, the country will still be generating a third of its energy from coal by 2040 (only 10 percent less than now), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That’s despite a concerted effort by the Obama administration to force the nation's coal-burning power plants to reduce their carbon emissions by a third over the next 15 years.
U.S. coal producers have responded to the trend of falling domestic consumption by exporting more coal overseas. A Wall Street Journal chart shows exports of U.S. coal grew from around 50 million metric tons in 2000 to 106.7 million MT in 2013. Most U.S. coal is destined for Europe, with Brazil, South Korea and China close behind.
All of this is not to suggest that coal producers haven't had their problems. The price of benchmark thermal coal over the past three years has dropped from more than $130 a ton to around $80. Metallurgical coal is also at a six-year low.
Despite a huge cutback in production, the coal market continues to be oversupplied. As Oilprice.com pointed out recently, waning steel demand in China has forced mines in Australia to close. Australian producers are also threatened by Chinese plans to build more rail capacity for its domestic coal, which would undermine its coal imports.
In the United States, coal producers are finding it increasingly difficult to lock utilities into long-term contracts that provide stability and protection from price fluctuations. That's because the utilities want the flexibility to have short-term contracts, or even buy coal on the spot market, since natural gas continues to be a competitive option.
Looking ahead, though, there doesn't appear to be a declining demand curve for coal. Consider this: in Africa, some 60 percent of the continent's population, or more than 600 million people, do not have access to electricity. The EIA predicts African coal consumption will rise by 70 percent by 2040. In India, another big consumer of coal, 300 million people remain disconnected to the electricity grid. The country plans to increase its use of renewable energy by 15 percent by 2020, but still faces the challenge of energy demand exceeding supply by 10 percent.
Coal is a likely contender to fill that gap. A recent article in Australian Mining states that by 2025, India's electricity generation from coal will be reduced from 60 percent to “only 50 percent of installed generation – but that doesn't necessarily mean less coal generation.”
In the end, it all comes down to price and government policies. If the economics of coal can be beaten by other electricity sources, the old-school fuel will face pressure, as it already has in the U.S. But as market forces continue to drive the various options available for utilities, coal use -- particularly in developing nations -- is almost certain to go up. Unless governments enact American-style laws to sharply curtail coal power plant emissions, expect King Coal to retain its crown.
»
- 10402 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Governments can't bring the cost of renewable energy sources down, but they can sure as hell make the cost of coal go UP in a right quick hurry.
Hi, West Virginia.
Discriminating Against Coal is Razitz.
A public service meassage brought to you by
the National Association for the Advancement of Coal Power.
I agree and for that reason I have just replaced my wood stove with a Alaska Gnome 40 Rice Coal stove. This bad boy can put out 2,500 - 40,000 BTU's of heat. This will heat my 1200 sq ft home for well under 500 bucks a year. I am trapped on my block with Oil heat since we do not have natrual gas access. So Fuck you Obama I am burning coal in support of my local coal miners and my wallet. Once again fuck you Obama.
Especially discriminating against Nat King Coal.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/risky-business-china-dumps-our-dirty-coal...
^
The Chinese government is to limit the use of imported coal with more than 16 per cent ash and 3 per cent sulphur from January 1, 2015 in a bid to improve air quality, especially in cities such as Beijing and around Shanghai.
According to an analysis by Macquarie Bank, consultant Wood Mackenzie has indicated the ban could affect more than half of Australia's thermal coal exports to China, although the ban is also likely to hit Indonesian coal.
Today's Oilprice.com article has been brought to you by australian coal BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY
"it is unlikely the bogeyman of climate change will disappear anytime soon."
It certainly is a phoney baloney bogeyman
"Compare that to the cost of nuclear at $60,"
The nuclear figure does not include shut down costs or the price of the entire Pacific Ocean.
Part of the problem may be the placement of coal plants and the manner in which coal is "burned".
Remember when ZH made a post back in 2009 about the resurgence of short-steel & miners ? If ZH is pushing the front-end bond trade, and tightening of QE will lead to a equity bear-call & bond rally, then calling for Coal stocks/industrials to rally is pretty much the direct counter-trade to the long term thesis we see every day reposted ad nausum.
Bookmarked for when Cloud and Peabody grow production by -10% in a few years.
Until you see a turn in Joy or CAT, this is pure bunk from a retail pump site (oilvoice). You would be better off gleaning insight on credit spreads from Kingsworld news service, where every day is penny gold stock day, at 19000% returns, assuming gold is 3,000/oz.
Vilerat,
that was very mean, a little funny and somewhat true...and so you get a greenie.
but, the thing of it is, some of us don't give two shits about trading pairs, delta hedges and so-on and so-forth. for some of us, the aggregate of american economic policies -- whether they be fed/treasury, energy, military or what-have-you -- are not endorsed or trashed so that our alpha jibes with our beta, such that our delta risk relief isn't substantively impaired by their interplay, or vise versa. believe it or not, some of us appraise and evaluate along horizons that extend far beyond the purview of our sundry 'day-traders' and quarterly report readers...some of us are more concerned with the long-term viability of america for the generations we're raising.
now, as this all relates to coal, janus has a few thoughts to share:
as regards the supercilious and sanctimonious do-goodery of our world's valiant eco-brigades, i can't help but point out a few inconsistencies in their dogma and behavior. while they proudly parade their low-emission auto about town, it is typically the case that they park it in the driveway of a mcmansion, usually well over 5000 sq ft, with just enough room to house their 'life-partner' and their darling little pomeranians. i can't say how much it costs to heat and cool throughout the year, but i'm sure it amply broadens their carbon foot-print. and that's not even considering all the international flights booked to frolic about on their eco-tourist holidays.
apart from all the carbon-blather being bandied about by these limp-wristed scoundrels, let's assume there may be other motives at play. i know it's foolish to consider the possibility of some nefarious conspiracy relative to 'big-oil' -- Lord knows they don't have the resources or influence to pull-off something like that -- but, assuming for just one moment that the motive exists, who is benefiting most from the soiling of coal's reputation (not to mention nuclear and hydro)? relative to oil, coal is more than plentifully abundant, the world is practically swimming in coal. moreover, the requisite infrastructure and limited sourcing points for oil make it the perfect hydrocarbon for large-scale manipulation. and so it is. only a handful of nations are capable of devising a long-term energy policy predicated primarily on petroleum. 'alternative' energy is a fucking ruse...amorica, i certainly recognize that you're all math-challenged, but wake the hell up! there will be NO economic revitalization with these goddam eye-sores you call wind-farms...solar is a belly-laugh...those bacteria farms and the ethanol boondogle were cute as, well, your fluffy pomeranians.
coal is the most important ingredient in ANY viable long-term american economic renewal. without cheap and abundant energy, you can collect your pomerianian's farts till the cows come home...it won't make a single BTU's wortha difference. clean coal is not some future fantasy, it's already here. and to go on demonizing CO2 -- a gas which is for plants equivalent to O2 for animals -- sans hard science (that's right, not this correlative faith-based bull-shit you dispense to the doltish congregates in your new religion) -- again, until anyone can demonstrate the CAUSAL link betwixt CO2 and global warming...oops, i mean 'climate change...and until we dispense with this inelegant climate 'science' (that doesn't even factor the sun's influence on global temps) and replace it with something acceptable to critical thinkers (even though there are only two or three dozen now living on planet earth), janus will be praising the merits of humanity's oldest and most trusted hydrocarbon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUhaq4Yg74w
and the silicosis takes hold,
janus
You can't even say that Black Coal is better than Brown Coal, w/o being rayciss? Or that one smells less than the other?
So... long Nat King Coal? Cause it's so... Unforgettable?
p.s. Looked up Coal vs Wood, because it was missing above and because I mentioned last week that I'm planning to get a coal/wood stove installed for the price of One AU Coin. Given that I'll have a better ROI and Dividends on coal than on gold this winter. Here is the comparison: http://nepacrossroads.com/fuel-comparison-calculator.php
p.ps. For those (of us) who prefer Metric/SI units, the conversion from BTU (British Thermal Units) to Watts is
1W ~ 3.4 BTU/hr. Spock tells me it's actually 1W = 3.412141633 BTU/hr
In the case of Coal, and using the 1 Short Ton in bulk, we get 24,000,000 BTU or 7,033,000 Watts. Assuming you heat 24/7 for 200 days a year, this translates into... ~ 35,000 W/day or 1500 W/hr. Which is the same as running you hair dryer at full capacity for 24/7 for 200 days -- to give you a feel for it.
For more info, see: http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/Watt_to_BTU.htm
the democrat canidate in WV is pissed at obamao
Whoda thunk?
Yeah, the Obamanation was never popular here, but obviously even less so these days.
We'll still vote in a bunch of democrats to every other office though, because that's how we roll :-(
Yeah, in a heavily registered "D" state and she is slated to lose by double digit %, you would be pissed too.
Thermopylae - the site of the Stand by 300 spartans. They inflicted heavy damage on the persians. But, in the end they were literally stabbed in the back by a local who showed the persians a route around the hot gates.
I wouldn't be surprised if the republican loses by a handful of votes, in spite of her double digit lead. Democrats routinely use criminal practices to steal elections. just watch how close the vote is come november 4.
Yes they were stabbed in the back but they died on their feet as free men, not on their knees as slaves.
We will all die someday.
I have made my choice - hence the name.
I wonder when it will go mainstream that you can use powerful magnets to push the crank of a motor to create electricity for basically free? There is no need for coal, gas, nuclear, oil, thermal or wind.
Who/what is pushing the magnets?
Magnets will naturally repel each other if you place a positive pole next to a positive pole.
Can you get the magnets in the +to+ position without using force?
+1 for calling doubt onto the "free energy conspiracy" nuts that always seem to conveniently forget about things like friction, heat, inertia etc.
You have a flywheel with positive magnets facing upward. You have secure structure around the flywheel with positive magnets facing downward. When the two positive poles meet, the magnets on the secure structure can’t move, but the magnets on flywheel will move to get away from the magnets attached to the secure structure. This causes the flywheel to perpetually rotate, which is attached to a shaft that spins a generator and creates electricity.
All engines have friction, heat, inertia. Those are not game stoppers.
Thanks, Maxwell. When the magnets are far enough apart, they stop moving. No changing magnetic field means no changing electric field is produced.
Unless the magents are gay.
Do Explain!
Energy from nothing. This is an amazing discovery!
So the electricity will just happen if the magents are near the motor? No force (energy input) required?
(are you an auditor at the fed part time, by any chance?)
I think I made one of those things, way back in high school physics class. We all cut some metal sheets into shape, wrapped them in wire, and proceeded to plug them into the outlet and shazaam, we had a perpetual motion machine.
This is a good live demonstration of the concept in a very simple form http://youtu.be/ndRrCZiM1CU
This is a reproduction of the above from a diffrent man and goes more into the how and why it works. http://youtu.be/zavp87bKgnQ
This is a motor that was built around those princibles I am not sure if its ture or not but it looks like the real deal. http://youtu.be/mHW6b1aFPfU
The fact that a magnet will stick to a metal object and defie gravity (exerting a force stronger then the gravitational force) definity means something it is just a matter of applying it in a way that will create electricity that can be changed back into kenetic force somewhere else.
This is something that the Oil compainies as well as world elite fear more than anthing because once the cat is out of the bag they will never be able to put it back in again. The whole foundation of society will be changed forever.
Sure it does, but there is no "perpetual motion". Friction, & heat are forms of energy that your machine will be losing in spades that you're not taking into account. Also, the magnetic properties are going to dwindle over time and you'll have to replace them with new ones or recharge them somehow. But by all means, build one of these yourself and figure it out, and I honestly hope you can bring something to market one day.
^^^^^There's a whole lot of retard in that there post.
You're telling me for the past 150 years since Edison and Tesla figured out how to generate commercial electricity, nobody has the balls or backing to create your perpetual motion magnet machine?
Bwahahahahahahaha
Hmm something for nothing. Sounds like fiat. How do I invest? Can I send bitcoin?
and he called for his pipe, and he called for his bowl, and he called for his fiddlers three...
Who is John Galt?
You flunked basic physics, didn't you.
Of course, if we used geostationary satellites in an array around the earth, strung copper wire all around them in huge coils, and let the rotation of the earth generate electricity in the wires, then I'll bet we could effortlessly generate enough electricity to power tens of LEDs!
Wow! Something for nothing. Does Bernie Madoff have Internet access in prison?
Wrong chart.
THIS is why coal will remain king...
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16271
This is true the issue remains that there are plenty of Blue States that make some serious money mining coal and thier Senators if they wish to hold office won't touch it. Also coal doesn't decompose so you can stock pile it to protect your investment.
Since the second quarter of 2012, companies in the coal sector overall have posted large drops in earnings year over year in every quarter.
Companies in this sector in Valueline have gone from profits of $8.803 total to .06 cents total per share from September of 2011 through September 2014. That's the total profits per share of not 1, but nine companies.
Can they hold on long enough to survive?
Obama said he would do this to the coal sector, and he has succeeded.
Or can they borrow enough money to buyback shares long enough to survive?
That only works in your favor if you are turning a profit. If you are losing money, then the losses per share increase.
Coal is the energy source of the future. It will long outlast the dwindling supplies of oil and it will still be available and extractable when Western(ized) societies no longer have the cohesion, the capital, or the technological sophistication to build nuclear reactors and photovoltaic farms. Most of the world's good hydro sites have already been used.
Without diesel fuel the coal industry would come to a complete halt.
Ever hear of steam power? Coal was used for a century before oil was used for much of anything except lubrication and patent medicines.
diesel beats the pants off steam for locomotives and only requires trivial amounts of fuel
deflation = human labor is cheaper
inflation = machinery is cheaper
Place your bets, the horses are already at the gates!
Steam turbines do power the generators at all power plants. Except hydro.
Yeah that was back when you could easily find lumps of anthrocite the size of a human head and bigger.
Coal grades have lessened considerably. The coal industry is completely dependent on the oil industry.
You can make diesel out of coal, you know....
I do know that. I'm also well aware that the process consumes quite a lot of energy.
The second law of thermodynamics wins again.
That's ridiculous. A large coal mining concern could spend a fraction of a percent of its total output in order to make enough diesel fuel to run its own equipment without missing it. The second law of thermodynamics always wins, but it isn't a decisive factor in what we're talking about. Besides that, coal can also be hauled in trains that burn, well, coal, so there is no need for the conversion process for the bulk of the transportation needs.
Another possible alternative would be to just oxidize the coal in situ and transport the electricity rather than the bulk material.
"A large coal mining concern could spend a fraction of a percent of its total output in order to make enough diesel fuel to run its own equipment without missing it."
It takes about half a metric ton of coal to produce a single barrel of Liquid Fuel. (And 5 barrels of fresh water)
A single mining truck consumes 1.5 barrels of fuel per hour.
That means in one day of operation a single truck would burn through about 18 metric tons of coal.
I can't imagine any coal mining operation that can easily part with 18 metric tons of coal per truck per day without noticing it.
EDIT: And that's just the coal that gets converted into fuel. More coal would have to be burnt just to power the Coal-To-Liquids process.
Coal gasification is huge in ND
coal is the future, but it will become scarce after mid century. england maxed their coal production 100 years ago, germany and japan 50 yrs ago
England (also Scotland and Wales) Never maxed there coal supply. Thre mining closures started in the 80s by Thatcher to destroy the Trostkyite National Union of Mineworkers. More coal lies underground in the Britain than has been mined up to today.
Coal? I blame Putin.
I shoveled coal into a furnace hopper as a kid in Michigan. During the "Cold War" no less.
BTW, "GO YES VOTERS IN SCOTLAND!"
i don't see hydro on there, or nuclear
The solar in the article is 280/MWH, yet PV max on the chart is 140 or 3.5 times the cheapest coal.
Indeed, this seems like a poorly written guest post.
I live in a windy, sunny part of the country and I gauratee that the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time. Until and unless the renewables can provide base load power without massive subsidies it will just be another boondoggle by the rent seekers. For what money the EU has wasted in just the last 10 years on wind and solar they could've of built the latest generation of nukes such as thorium salt reactors and be energy independent from Russia.
I wonder if they'll ever be able to create solar/wind generators that provide a positive EROI? Given the world is run by the mafia, I've serious doubts that it's all just more snake-oil, used to justify more debt to fuel the crony-capitalism that surrounds us.
As it stands, there's no affordable price for quality in a wholly financialized economy, as it simply cannot compete with paper games. So, quality has no choice but to suffer.
If anybody really believes that society won't keep using carbon fuels until every last obtainable once of it is gone they are nucking futz. Once we've depleted our resources (if we haven't killed each other before then) there will be a lot less inhabitants on this planet.
Amazing how the newest generation nuclear reactors have been ignored by the "Green" movement. The oil industry has been highly successful in keeping the environmentalists "anti-nuclear". A triumph of sloganish over facts. The newest generation nuclear designs could have been the great no-carbon output bridge energy. Creating very little remainder waste and some actually using the spent fuel of old design nuclear reactors in use today as fissionable source material.
Coal is going to be a great investment long term. Carbon to liquid fuels changes everything economicaly speaking. Its a real workable solution to the energy demand issues. Any coal miner that sets up a liquid fuel plant will be in a very good place. They will be getting into untapped markets. The rare earth demands alone should improve the bottem line of those companies very quickly. Production costs picture looks pretty good if you aint paying for diesel fuel.
The question is why not?
yes, but if costs increase, you have inflation which is what all gewbermants want
deflation slashes gubbamint revenue overnight
so the goabamunt is going to jack costs on anything it can, lie about inflation and collect as much tax as they can
play the game - use cash, avoid paying taxes
How come you didn't put the cheapest energy available on your little chart?
NUCLEAR
Because Fukushima..., and Chernobyl.
Some consensus may eventually form around a new technology, but the existing reactors are death traps. Death by politics, but also experience.
Why didn't the Chinese spend on improving their rail system instead of ghost cities?
What would the cost of coal be if all the pollutants were scrubbed out of emissions?
Its better to remove and sell all the metals before burning the coal. Waste not want not.
Greetings, all. First post (but lurker since 2008).
Have written about this coal thing before - shipping US coal overseas has been in the cards for a while now:
http://meistergedanken.livejournal.com/27626.html
(Hopefully this provides a little extra context.) Another consequence of poor policy and short-sighted thinking. But what else is new?
At some point oil will become too valuable to burn. Meanwhile back in Russia; http://rt.com/news/188332-mox-nuclear-fuel-production/
The attack on coal is because big oil has a lot of gas to push and needs competitor coal to go away.
And then some might consider that Israel's finding of and having access to massive amounts of gas off their, and Gaza's, coast is connected as well.
An American, not US subject.
"Always about money and power. Always."
PV is falling in price/watt.
When it reaches parity with coal the rules will change.
Dream on. Base load generation is what really matters. PV is not going to help with base load much and I dont see that ever changing.
Those that praise an economy based on renewables only do not reveal their true agenda.
There is no way to sustain the world's current population of 7 billion with renewables.
Their goal is to reduce the world's population to 500 million, or less. Roughly what it was in the year 1492.
I say, let them set an example and be the first to walk into the termination chamber.
The chart is a total lie Tyler
WIND POWER IS NOW 4 CENTS PER KILOWATT
AND
CHEAPER THAN COAL
the DOE Wind Technologies Market Report 2012 finds that “[T]he average levelized price of wind PPAs signed in 2011/2012—many of which were for projects built in 2012—fell to around $40/MWh nationwide
source: http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5547
Why would anyone believe any DOE numbers? They have a proven track record of being FOS about everything.
I agree. Those wind power numbers blow.
And wind power doesn't have the capability of powering the entiire US
The supposed threat of manmade climate change is the biggest scientific fraud in history. There has been no warming for almost 18 years.
Why are we today hearing about "climate change"instead of "global warming"?
Because the alarmists have no idea what's going to happen and want to be free to play their options.
who wrote this biased garbage?
oh "Submitted by Andrew Topf via OilPrice.com"
NO adgenda there?? LOL
Coal recieves billions in dollars of subsidies each year from the US govt and is STILL MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WIND POWER
and YES
YOU CAN STORE wind power effectively and efficiently in hydro or commerical flywheels.
The idea of using wind power to pump water uphill to use as hydro power is sound but its just not being done at the scale needed. Its not as easy as it sounds tho. Lack of freash water is the main issue. Salt water is problematic on a good day. There may be a few places on the entier planet where it could work. In those few locations great. I looked into this a bit. Only a handfull of places made the cut world wide.
As if wind power doesn't get subsidies?
According to Forbes, wind power gets subsidies as high as 2.2 cents kilowatts. Multiply that by how much is used to get millions or billions in subsidies. And wind power hasn't been consistent enough to power as much of the country as coal.
I think you have the agenda. LOL
The supposed threat of manmade climate change is the biggest scientific fraud in history. There has been no warming for almost 18 years.
Why are we today hearing about "climate change" instead of "global warming"?
Because the alarmists have no idea what will happen and want to be free to play their options.
This is another inflation loving pigtard article that simply put does not delineate between coal as a "fuel" and "cola used to generate electricity."
The enviro's are right in that coal used to generate electricity is a collossal waste of money and a horrific attack on the environment. Coal thrown into your furnace to produce any number of things (including heat) is not. Forget price you worthless economic phuck for five seconds and ask "what is the heat value"? And in the case of coal no better has ever been found in the entire Solar System save for the Sun itself.
The fact of the matter is the science on this is "crystal clear." We can generate all of our ELECTRICAL needs without use of a single pound of coal. This fact is now being realized in the form of the ultimate in discretionary purchase (a Tesla) which if Elon Musk wanted to change the world would have an OUTLET.
Obviously the military has been using this technology to tremendous and positive effect since 9/11. "So good it bankrupted Ford, General Motors and Chrysler."
People are focussed on "The One Energy For POWER" - OIL - for the same reason that Sauron obsessed about "The One Ring Of Power" in the Lord of the Rings.
Coal - the energy that powered the 19th and 20th Centuries, will still power the 21st and 22nd Centuries.
If it burns you can make power from it.
And no, the industry won't stop as diesel or gasoline declines. The Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) is only one kind of engine. There are others. They've been around for CENTURIES. And while one is dominant, the others are all panned as 'impractical', 'inefficient', <fill in your own bromide>.
Q: Why did anyone EVER centralize ENERGY into oil?
A: Because they centralized and cartelized every other industry too. They were dumb that way.
Thank you sir, may I have another?
The U.S. has an oceans of coal which properly utilized, makes oceans of powerplant fuel and liquid fuels.
Keep an eye on Blacklight Power, Inc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TKgrOjac6Y