Governing magazine has an excellent, compact overview of current developments in coal. If you're hazy on gasification this, coal-to-liquid that, and Fischer-Tropsch the other, I recommend it.
With oil and natural-gas prices rising and coal in plentiful supply, it's more or less inevitable that coal's going to get used, so it makes sense that (some) enviro organizations are biting the bullet and joining the push for the cleanest possible applications.
There is reason for cautious optimism. Coal mining is destructive as hell, but in places like northeastern Pennsylvania -- where the article focuses, and where the first U.S. coal-to-liquid plant will be built starting this Spring -- there's waste coal laying all over the place, leaching acid into groundwater (the legacy of pre-regulatory coal mining). The plant will gather that coal as feedstock and replace it with solid waste covered in soil, thereby creating farmland or forest.
Converting coal to a synthetic gas -- "gasification," which involves heating it alongside oxygen to 2,000 F -- has its advantages. Most importantly, once coal's converted to a gas, it's fairly straightforward to remove pollutants. Mercury, sulfur, and particulates can be stripped out and sold commercially.
Via the Fischer-Tropsch process, the gas can be reconstituted into a variety of liquid fuels, which can sub for oil in heating homes or fueling vehicles. (The Penn. plant will produce low-sulfur diesel, which Gov. Ed Rendell has pledged to buy for the state's vehicles.) This is why gasification boosters, including Rendell and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, play the energy-independence card.
The gas can also sub for natural gas, fueling "integrated gasification combined-cycle" (IGCC) power plants to create electricity. Pennsylvania hopes to replace many of its filthy coal-fired power plants with IGCC plants.
"You could put a million scrubbers on an old coal-fired power plant and never even approach the environmental performance of a coal gasification plant," says Kathleen McGinty, secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection.
So those are the bennies: Pennsylvania reduces air pollutants, solves its waste-coal problem, boosts its economy, and gets a reputation as a clean-power, energy-independence leader. Not bad.
There are three drawbacks, and they are substantial:
- If gasification takes off, there isn't enough waste coal in the country to feed the beast. Thus, you're back to coal mining, which is a nightmare.
- Gasification is largely untested and unproven, at least in the U.S. And IGCC plants are more expensive than old-fashioned dirty coal-fired plants. Thus, gasification relies heavily on subsidies. State and U.S. Dept. of Energy tax incentives for the Penn. plant, for instance, add up to over $140 million. More big industries getting chummy with gov't; more semi-permanent corporate welfare recipients.
- Carbon dioxide. Global warming. That whole thing. IGCC plants are certainly an improvement over dirty coal-fired plants -- they use less coal to create more energy -- but they still produce plenty of CO2. They do make the CO2 fairly easy to capture, which is nice, but the question is what to do with it once it's captured. The big idea is to sequester it: pump it underground or into plant tissues and soil. However:
"The effectiveness of CO2 storage in those systems is completely unknown," says Anne Hedges, program director for the Montana Environmental Information Center. "It's a nice theory, and I sure hope it works. But there's absolutely no evidence it does on a long-term basis."
So that's a problem.
In short, if you view coal gasification from the perspective of today's energy situation, it's an improvement. If you view it from the perspective of the optimal renewable-energy future, it's a big scam. Whether you take the former, pragmatic view or that latter, idealistic view will depend on your temperament. Me, I choose to vacillate wildly between them from day to day. Iyam what Iyam!
Anyway, I'm sure there are summaries of coal-gasification more comprehensive and educated than this one (here, for instance). I've written this up as much for my benefit as anybody else's, just to get clear on the lay of the land. Hopefully it's of use to some of y'all as well.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Threaded
AE Posted 8:27 am
13 Apr 2006
Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers and
Australia's best expert on global warming and what to do about it, on Wisconsin Public Radio.
In The New York Review of Books Flannery wrote: "Plans for cleaner coal . . . by removing . . . fine particles, mercury, and sulphur dioxide . . . will hasten climate change. That is because pollution by particles and sulphur dioxide are key elements of 'global dimming,' which, by blocking sunlight, acts strongly to cool our planet. Removing them will have the effect of eliminating an important 'brake' on climate change." He recommends wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear energies. Right now, he says we need a carbon tax.
And let's not forget conservation.
In a nice article about wind energy in Wisconsin Trails, Erik Ness quotes a farmer: "It's local firms, local contractors, the cement companies, the electricians that get the secondary economic benefits from the construction. The money stays here...."
Sounds much better then doing business with ExxonMobil. Of all companies.
Permalink
AE Posted 8:43 am
13 Apr 2006
Not to mention the fact that these companies care nothing for worker safety, have no respect for health and safety inspectors, harass neighbors, take most of their earnings out of state, do not pay appropriate taxes, and in fact, according to several articles at time.com, "synfuels" is a multi-billion dollar tax write-off, subsidized as usual by the American people. Coal companies do little or no "reclamation," which sounds like another scam anyway. In Kentucky, counties with active coal mining are the poorest. Check out Erik Reece's books and articles.
I find it very puzzling that environmental groups are supporting "clean coal." Why? They must be getting something in return.
I am withdrawing most of my support of NRDC, and instead supporting Earthjustice, which favors renewables and is against coal.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:58 am
13 Apr 2006
But when those fuels are burned, are they any cleaner (CO2-wise) than gas? In other words, is burning coal-derived synfuel an improvement over burning gasoline, in terms of greenhouse gases? I think maybe not. Perhaps I should do some research. Or one of you smart commenters could tell me.
And AE: There are plans in the works to build dozens of new coal-fired power plants in the U.S., and probably hundreds more in India and China. Simply halting all those plans, in favor of scaling up renewables, might be a noble fight, but I'm skeptical about the chances of success. Given that, wouldn't we rather they built using the vastly cleaner IGCC process? The alternative is the old, dirty, pulverized coal process -- each plant emits the equivalent of 2 million cars -- which will lock us into decades of heavy emissions. It's not a pleasant choice, but them's the breaks.
www.grist.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:06 am
13 Apr 2006
"This is much better than importing oil from foreign countries," Pimentel said. "It is true it takes 2 btu to get 1 btu, but ethanol does the same. It is better than ethanol, whose environmental impacts are 10 times worse than turning coal to liquids."
A British thermal unit, or btu, is a unit of energy that can raise the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit.
Pimentel said corn -- used to make ethanol -- causes more soil erosion and uses more nitrogen fertilizer than other crops. Nitrogen fertilizers are typically produced from natural gas.
Also, the production of 1 gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water and the process generates 12 gallons of waste. The coal-to-liquids technology would have none of these issues, he said.I know Pimentel's a long-time biofuels basher, so I take this with a grain of salt. But enviros' rather uncritical embrace of biofuels and unreserved hatred of "clean coal" seems a little more extreme on both ends than reality warrants.
www.grist.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:29 pm
13 Apr 2006
Unless it can be shown that the creation of gas from coal is less harmful than the extraction of oil, it's benefits are dubious. Certainly, it is unlikely to slow down global warming.
We need to keep our priorities straight. Are we mostly concerned about "energy independenc" or "global warming". They are not the same thing, though people often talk about them in the same breath.
The world is going to use more energy as population increases and people in developing countries (not just India and China, though they are the biggest!) seek an economically better lifestyle.
So, the question is how can we produce enough energy without destroying ourselves (environmentally) to do it. Everything is likely to be part of the mix in the next twenty years or so. I am hopeful that in the long run, renewables and conservation will prevail. But in the short run, they are not the main players. Oil, gas, coal, and nuclear will be used, like them or not. How can we make sure that each is done in the best, safest, most environmentally friendly way?
Patrick
Permalink
Williep Posted 12:51 pm
13 Apr 2006
Permalink
jwebb Posted 11:33 pm
13 Apr 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:28 am
14 Apr 2006
Who would know if that enrerfy intensive practice is veing followed all the time once the plant is up and running. Industry itself through sel;f regulation?
In other words.."just trust us, why would we damage the credibility of our company by releasing CO2 we promised to separate and then sequester by pumping it underground?"
Why? Because separating and pumping CO 2 underground would eat up 20% of the power produced killing your bottomline?
And who will check and make sure the CO 2 is not leaking from some other spot? Once again, self regulation is problematic.
"when those fuels are burned, are they any cleaner (CO2-wise) than gas? In other words, is burning coal-derived synfuel an improvement over burning gasoline, in terms of greenhouse gases?"
No they are not any cleaner in terms of CO 2. Combustion is what needs to be reduced to bring greenhouse gases back into a climate neutral concentration. And all that biomass carbon sink destroyed by strip mining and ground water polluted will add to greenhouse gases by inhibiting natural carbon sequestration.
And biofuel from agribizz farming does this same thing, destroys groundwater and biomass carbon sequestration.
" ...halting all those plans, in favor of scaling up renewables, might be a noble fight, but I'm skeptical about the chances of success."
I'm skeptical of any reduction in greenhouse gases given this defeatist attitude so prevalent in the movement that even NRDC is embracing it.
If we don't fight for renewable electric transportation energy policy, it surely will not happen. Accepting these kinds of excuses is not getting us anywhere but in worse shape global climate wise than we are now.
Is "clean" coal what convinced RFK jr that opposing Cape wind with no plan to encourage wind capacity to replace it was allright from an ethical and environmental point of view? He's not talking so who knows? But his colleagues at NRDC seem to have swallowed the clean coal bait hook, line, and sinker.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
AE Posted 12:37 pm
15 Apr 2006
Yes, I think humans should drop all thoughts of coal and shift to renewables, conservation, smart growth, mass transit, and new and improved lifestyles.
For starters, reading the Omnivore article on grist.org, we could radically change our eating habits to buying mainly local foods, in season foods, and whole foods. What huge savings in energy happen right away!
Permalink
tonyb Posted 11:18 pm
10 Aug 2007
The syngas produced when using carbon capture is mainly hydrogen - when you burn hydrogen in a gas turbine, the combustion products are hydrogen + oxygen - i.e. water vapour.
Regarding the 'bad' effect of removing mercury etc. from the emissions, surely replacing existing coal and future clean coal plant with renewables would exacerbate that supposed problem? Can't see the logic!
Permalink
Benjamin1986 Posted 2:52 am
24 Nov 2007
"Plans for cleaner coal . . . by removing . . . fine particles, mercury, and sulphur dioxide . . . will hasten climate change. That is because pollution by particles and sulphur dioxide are key elements of 'global dimming,' which, by blocking sunlight, acts strongly to cool our planet. Removing them will have the effect of eliminating an important 'brake' on climate change."
We should not remove SO2 from the air because it brakes global warming... Hmmm... This man is an idiot. A complete and total fool.
What imbecile thinks that the marginal effect on sunlight is in any way comparable to the acid rain SO2 causes?
Let's focus on the danger per gram of substances. CO2 is like water, only dangerous in absurd amounts. NOX, SO2, and mercury are dangerous in almost any amounts. VOC's are dangerous in moderate amounts. Gram per gram benefit mandates that we focus on the real polutants, those that cause smog, acid rain, and hacking coughs when inhaled. That is what environmentalism used to be about. When we were done, we could see and smell the difference. The Houston ship channel used to look like acid, and I would now be willing to swim in it if I had to. I look on that and smile, as there is still work to do, but so much has been done.
I want the old days back.
Permalink
Green Texan Posted 3:13 am
03 Feb 2008
I think the environmental movement could home in on new proposed coal plants, demanding that utilities use available zero carbon emission options.
If coal gasification/carbon sequestration really is a technically possible, but more expensive option -- as it appears -- then this demand gives an automatic incentive to develop non-carbon alternatives instead.
Renewables & efficiency will generally be more cost competitive versus the cleaner coal. So, to me, in taking this path, there really is no contradiction between advocating for both development of cleaner coal and alternatives. We focus on the emissions, not the method used to get rid of them.
We can profess to be agnostic about which option is chosen, confident that it gives incentive to pick one or the other that prevents carbon emission altogether.
And if a utility for whatever reason, chooses to go forward w/ the "clean coal" option rather than renewables or nuclear, then there is no need for the govt to subsidize that option to make it competitive. All utilities would be on equal footing, under the same mandate to do zero carbon.
Of course, then the battleground shifts to halting emissions of existing power plants. However, two things about a "new plant" mandate: the feasibility of halting carbon emissions will have been demonstrated, & that will add to the pressure to do something w/ old "grandfathered" plants; plus the cost impact of phasing in new cleaner technology (of whatever type) will be reduced by averaging in the costs of the new technology w/ the older, cheaper fossil plants.
Permalink