Archives

An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group examined the role of coal in a world where constraints on carbon dioxide emissions are adopted to mitigate global climate change. This follows "The Future of Nuclear Power" which focused on carbon dioxide emissions-free electricity generation from nuclear energy and was published in 2003.

This report, the future of coal in a carbon-constrained world, evaluates the technologies and costs associated with the generation of electricity from coal along with those associated with the capture and sequestration of the carbon dioxide produced coal-based power generation. Growing electricity demand in the U.S. and in the world will require increases in all generation options (renewables, coal, and nuclear) in addition to increased efficiency and conservation in its use. Coal will continue to play a significant role in power generation and as such carbon dioxide management from it will become increasingly important.

This study, addressed to government, industry and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental and political challenges facing increased coal-based power generation while managing carbon dioxide emissions from this sector.

Led by co-chairs Professor John Deutch, Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, the report states that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs.



The other key findings in this report are summarized here:

http://web.mit.edu/coal/

Hi Tarabell:

___Great read. Especially wrt congress removing any expectations of a new Coal based plant without CO2 sequestration being grandfathered.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

The future of coal in countries without carbon dioxide reductions in mind is....rosey, albeit dirty rosey. Yesterday's reading shows that India is seeking 40,000Megawatts of added electric power production per year to continue its economic growth! Much of that 40,000Megawatts will come from coal-fired plants. In addition, China will add 1000 coal-fired plants to continue its growth!

Cola also has a future as a feedstock for Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel plants.

Great find, tarabell. :)

Just some quick info to add:

1) The current line from coal plant owners is that they consider CCS to be in its infancy, and that there won't be any commercially available retrofit kits for it for at least 15 years. And, of course, none of them have any plans to get into CCS until that point, if ever.

2) Modern coal plants - the superboilers - each produce an average of 7mil pounds (3.2mil kg) of CO2 per year. Older plants are even dirtier, by about 20%. Other harmful emissions they produce include SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide), NOx (Nitrogen Oxide), CO (Carbon Monoxide), VOC (Volatile Organic Compunds), PM (Particulate Matter), U (Uranium) and Th (Thorium). The typical modern coal plant creates 100 times more Uranium and Thorium waste than an actual Nuclear power plant does to produce the same amount of electricity.

3) Modern coal plants are only 48% efficient and require massive amounts (thousands of acre-feet per year) of fresh water - another finite resource - to operate. Older plants are as low as 34% efficient.

I'm curious as to where Bailout got all this info about coal plants. References, please

I'm curious as to where Bailout got all this info about coal plants. References, please

Point 1) Heard twice in the last two days, once from a Toquop (Sithe) representative (EIS public hearing) and once from a Sierra Pacific representative (new substation request "open house").

Point 2) Various EIS (Environmental Impact Studies) (example: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office/blm_programs/energy/toquop_energy/toquop_draft_eis.html ), http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html , various presentations at public energy meetings/conferences (e.g. Reno Green Summit, Renewable Energy breakout session, April 2007), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_plant

Point 3) Same sources as Point 2


There are many more sources but that's a good core to get you started. This is the kind of thing that can consume your next month's Web surfing if you are truly interested. ;)

If you would like to see this information brought out in real-time, as well as the spin some folks will put on it, simply attend a power-related event in your own neck of the woods. Contact your local environmental groups, utility commission, utility provider or governmental permit office to learn of times, dates and locations.

Bailout- just 7 million pounds per year??That is less than 3 million pounds(or 150 tons) of coal per year(coal is more or less CH2-adding 2 O to it will more or less triple the weight-)?? Wow,that sure seems waaaaay too low. I could picture them using that much in a few days.I'm not familiar with coal plants but 3000000 lbs/yr seems way to low.
We will certainly be stuch using coal in one way or another for many more years,so I hope a good way to tie up the CO2 is found.
Thanks,
Charlie

Charlie,

7mil pounds/year is the average number. Many of the coal plants in the world are small, and others are single purpose units such as a smelting plant producing its own electricity from coal and then flaring the exhaust for additional thermal output. Also remember that while environmental studies are based on the plant running full-tilt 24/7 the reality is usually much different. Wayne can chime in here with first-hand knowledge but I've heard it said by people in the know that most plants only run at 15-30% capacity for 20 or so hours per day, then spool up to 75% or so to help the grid at peak load times.

In my own service area plants will shut down 2/3 of their production capacity for days on end during stand downs and the remaining plants have no trouble at all picking up the slack.

I'm sure that a high-usage and large (e.g. 1,500mW) coal plant will produce much more than 7mil pounds but they are averaged by all the smaller plants (there are a handful of coal plants in my service area that are smaller than 500mW), and also by the very few plants that are flaring or scrubbing.

I found a site that tries to put into perspective what we do to be green vs. what coal power plants do to negate that effect.

It's the intro, and some related information within, so don't skip the intro.
http://architecture2030.org

Brian,
Thanks. I was thinking in terms of the huge coal plants in the USA that are the main commercial power producers. I couldn't picture them using just 3,000,000 lbs of coal a year.
How much coal do we use in the USA per year?
I think I'll try to find that number.We are supposed to have a 250 year reserve at current rates of consumption.
Thanks,
Charlie

The fossil fuel plant at which I work has an ongoing project of emissions reduction. We have tested carbon injection to reduce mercury with success. It removed 90%, but the carbon makes the flyash unusable for sale as an additive for concrete.

We have just installed a system on one unit to inject a material from the Netherlands to do the same thing. It is a waste by-product from paper production and the ash can still be sold for cement. MinPlus is supposed to remove 95%.

Plans are in the works for SCR's, scrubbers, baghouses, and who knows what else?

I found a site that tries to put into perspective what we do to be green vs. what coal power plants do to negate that effect.

It's the intro, and some related information within, so don't skip the intro.
http://architecture2030.org

Once again I see things differently. It seems the premise of that site is that somehow coal plants are just out there to produce co2 emissions. They are actually out there to produce electricity to meet a demand.

Reduce the demand for electricity and the demand for coal plants will come down not the other way around. I guess if we stop building coal plants we'll see price increases and brownouts and blackouts and then we'll see the demand come down. The demand won't come down first.

Then we can subsidize someone so that low income people can still get electricity.

Within the intro it says"If every household in the US changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent...
The CO2 emissions from just two medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort."

Two power plants is not insignificant and every household has a lot more than 1 incandescent light bulbs, seems there is a lot to gain.

If coal is so bad, natural gas is only somewhat better and must also be considered part of the problem so let's say no new Natural Gas plants either.

We could rephrase this to say that "If every household in the US changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent...
The CO2 emissions from just 1.1 medium-sized natural gas power plants each year would negate this entire effort."

Either statement is disconnected from the demand side as if the power plant is just there to emit co2.

The correct statement would be "If every household in the US changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent... it would reduce the need to build 2 medium-sized coal power plants."

No doubt about it. If carbon dioxide truly worries you, there really is only one true substitute: nuclear.

Zero air emissions. If you go heavily to fast breeders the mining needed to support nuclear would be fraction of that required for coal.

But don’t kid anybody this would be quick, cheap, or easy. Coal-fired electric power generation produces about a third of US carbon dioxide emissions. To replace coal with nuclear (and provide for growth and reserve) would require that we put 30 new nukes (2 Gw(e)) into service every year for the next 35 years.

If somebody comes up with a truly workable electric or hydrogen car, double that tempo.

BTW, according to the Department of Energy, the US mines about a billion tons of coal a year and uses about 90% of it for power generation. You guys are underestimating CO2 emissions by at least two or three orders of magnitude. Which do you fear more? CO2 or nuclear power?

We have mines all around us here in the Midwest, but we get one train a day from the Powder River Basin out west.

The TMI incident linked with Chernoble has killed the nuke program in the U.S.

Our plant is one of the top 5 cleanest FF plants in the US and with one of the lowest cost per MW.


I was successful a couple of years ago with a long test of the installation of CFL's in areas of high failure of 100 to 150 watt incandescents.

CFL's are now stocked in the storeroom. 26watts have replaced 100 & 150 watts on over 600 fixtures.

We will have to use coal for a long,long time-there just isn't anyway around it.It is just too cheap to not use.
A billion tons of coal means 3 Billion tons of CO2.
We have a Nuke plant just upriver of us-Taft-I think. I don't lose any sleep over it.I don't see anyway to not use more Nukes, if CO2 is a big concern.
The CF bulbs are a real Boon here in S Louisiana. "Normal" bulbs produce so much heat that they steal power twice; less efficient,and you have to use more AC to bring your house temp down.
Thanks,
Charlie

msirach posted:
"The TMI incident linked with Chernoble has killed the nuke program in the U.S."

Dave sez:
Agreed, but unless we get over that, worrying about carbon dioxide emissions is pointless. There is only one substitute for coal and that's nuclear. Natural gas supplies are as strained as those for oil. Besides combustion of natural gas also liberates carbon dioxide as well. Nuclear emits nothing.

CFLs are a fine idea and almost all the bulbs in my house are now CFL. Problem is that opportunity is already almost played out. Residential energy (electricity and space heat) is only 15% of US consumption. The commerical, industrial, and institutional sectors are almost 100% converted. You have to look hard these days to find incandescent lights in that sector.

Restaurants still usually have lots of incandescents, and they often leave them on outside in bright sunshine. I think those of us who have mainly converted our homes are still in the minority, too. Thinking of restaurants, they are often too cold in the summer -- lots to be gained there. Also open doors with A/C or heat on. Supermarkets where there are no refrigerator or freezer doors. We are still buiding huge west-facing or unshaded windows. PC's left on all night at work. Audio equipment on standby all day, using nearly as much electricity as it does when turned on. There are plenty of opportunities left.

msirach posted:
" There is only one substitute for coal and that's nuclear.

Nuc nuts have been trying to hook themselves to carbon dioxide reduction arguments & espousing themselves as the only global warming savior in all their press & internet words.

With the leaping increases of wind & solar power without a lot of political rigmarole, nuc power ain't the only kid on the block & is NOT the most effective AGW power source.

Our Northwest USA region has great water power sources. Wind turbines are being built next to water source powerlines sending power readily to the cities. Powerlines will be used a third time when solar panels will be built next to or under wind turbines & powerlines. All this renewable power is integrated readily into the already established system.

Hydro power is actually practical solar power, but almost all the good hydro sites have been developed. The Governor of Oregon wants to dismantle the nation's premier hydro plant - the Grand Coulee Dam. Looks like his thinking is going the wrong way.

Similarly, all the usable geothermal sites in the US have been developed.

Solar is OK til the sun goes down.

Wind is grand until the wind dies down or howls so hard the turines have to feather out.

There are plenty of sites available for a nuke and nukes are available to make rated power near 100% of the time. Nukes often go more than a year without outages.

BTW, in reference to carbon dioxide seqyestration. How do yoy separate the CO2 out of the exhaust gas stream? Also to truly sequester it, you cannot just pump gas into the ground. Being a gas it will eventually diffuse out. To truly sequester CO2 you will have to reduce it to a solid and stable carbonate.

Until the US builds hundreds of nukes, coal is a necessity.

Brian,
We are supposed to have a 250 year reserve at current rates of consumption.
Thanks,
Charlie

From what I've read peak coal will be in about 40 years.

From what I've read peak coal will be in about 40 years.

Source please.

There is an excellent book on the suject of coal in our future. It is titled, "Big Coal-The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future" by Jeff Goodell. Goodell makes the case that consumer demand for energy is going to drive coal expansion REGARDLESS of the environmental impacts. Even in this country, coal use is quietly expanding.

The coal industry mounts a rather constant campaign to put a good face on coal, while adapting very slowly to new technologies.

I agree with Godell that coal is unfortunately a big part of our energy future. It is still cheap and nothing else really is. I think the challenge is for us to somehow figure a way to sequester CO2 and to clean up the other emissions. Coal is gonna continue - we need to do a better job of using it!

Source please.

Well, if you go back to the original statement "at the current rate of consumption coal will last another 250 years" there's a couple of problems right off the bat:

1) Coal isn't going to continue being consumed at the current rate. It's going to rapidly increase in rate of consumption. First, because in general the world consunption of all primary energy sources is growing; secondly because as we go post-peak for oil that means coal will play a larger (and therefore more rapidly increasing) role in the energy source spectrum; third because the same peak will happen to natural gas and that will be between the oil and coal peaks (around 15 years from now...)

2) Statistics that state 'at the current rate of consumption" are never that useful because once you hit the peak the price goes non-linear since the supply doesn't continue to increase at the rate of demand. We are seeing that now with oil.

3) You have to look at coal supply globally not regionally. Because the US isn't going to hold all its coal for its own use. And the US has more coal than anyone.

If you combne those three things you already can see the 250 year figure can be drastically reduced.

Sorry I don't recall specific sources for any of what I've read. Most of my reading on this was done a few years ago. ASPO newsletters are good though especially the older ones.

Well, if you go back to the original statement "at the current rate of consumption coal will last another 250 years" there's a couple of problems right off the bat:

Of course you're skipping the really big problem, which is that if all that coal is burned, it is likely to change the climate to such a degree that the planet will no longer sustain human life. So if you look at it in a certain light, then the US probably does indeed have a lifetime supply of coal :-)

Unlike oil, coal can be replaced with off the shelf technology.

Today, 104 nuclear plants - the newest of which is 30 years old - supply 20% of America's electricity. By that simple logic, roughly 400 identical nukes zeros out coal consumption. One might want to re[lace today's antiques, so figure 500.

Of course this won't be cheap or quick. To build 500 plants in 20 years means we commission a nuke every other week for the next 20 years.

Wind & solar may play a bit role but they are eternally constrained by their intermittent nature.

Unless someone makes fusion work, you are stuck with either coal or nuclear for economical generation of electricity.

I can't agree with your analysys of wind & solar. They are each on their way to 20/30% by 2030. Thats around half the nations power right there. And with the various available storage techniques inproving rapdly, I don't think that will be a big issue. That assumes that we are able to ship the power around on a modern grid so that heavy production areas can supply to low production areas. Even Texas will have its slow power days.

However it will require the govenment to keep subsidising these systems or at least require a percentage renewable power.

And those number don't even include offshore wind and ocean based current/wave power system which probably won't even be 1% of our power for another 8/10 years, but could well produce another 20/40%. I'm reasonably confident that we could get %100 of our power from water/wind/solar before the end of this century. I'm hopeful we can be there before 2050.

Unlike oil, coal can be replaced with off the shelf technology.

Today, 104 nuclear plants - the newest of which is 30 years old - supply 20% of America's electricity. By that simple logic, roughly 400 identical nukes zeros out coal consumption. One might want to re[lace today's antiques, so figure 500..

South Texas Project went online 20 years ago. kevin

Of course you're skipping the really big problem, which is that if all that coal is burned, it is likely to change the climate to such a degree that the planet will no longer sustain human life. So if you look at it in a certain light, then the US probably does indeed have a lifetime supply of coal :-)

I was just addressing the original statement about the timeline rather than ignoring the environmental issues. However, I disagree with your assertion that the planet will not sustain human life if most of the coal is burned over the next xx years. Cockroaches, rats and humans - can't wipe 'em out!

By the way, you say "if" but coal is unstoppable globally. Although the rate of burn will go down significantly once the price goes through the roof post-peak.

By the way, you say "if" but coal is unstoppable globally. Although the rate of burn will go down significantly once the price goes through the roof post-peak.

Other than the coal industry and those who profit directly from it, I don't think many people want to see coal burned. While it can seem cheap, by the time you add health effects (if really cheap & dirty) along with enviromental effects, most people think its a bad idea IF a better substitute is available. The quesitons becomes: Will we force coal use to become clean (and thus increase its cost beyond other technologies)? When will other renewable sources be able to increase their output to the point that coal isn't needed as a stop gap?

There are cleaner ways to burn coal. The government just needs to force the coal fired plants to clean up their crap.

There are cleaner ways to burn coal.

No, there aren't. Burn one ton of coal, you produce 3.6 tons of CO2. Inescapable fact of chemistry. So-called "clean coal" is just an application of the Hitlerian Big Lie tactic.

There are several different methods of capture and storage.

There are also many companies working on different ways to economically reuse Co2.

No, there aren't. Burn one ton of coal, you produce 3.6 tons of CO2. Inescapable fact of chemistry. So-called "clean coal" is just an application of the Hitlerian Big Lie tactic.

Sounds like your creating your own "Big Lie".

Hitler? Really had to go there?:rolleyes:

Sounds like your creating your own "Big Lie".

Oh? So basic chemistry is a big lie?

Hitler? Really had to go there?:rolleyes:

Always give proper attribution for ideas.

Oh? So basic chemistry is a big lie?

Clean coal is generally referring to co2 sequestering, which is real, not a big lie.

Oh? So basic chemistry is a big lie?

Your basic chemistry might be too basic....try this.
Everthing that came out of the reaction was there to begin with. The carbon, the oxygen, and everything else, was in the coal, the air etc. Its very possible to perform another chemical reaction to force the things that make an undesirable gas and turn it back into a solid where it can't do any more harm. Coal burning "can" do this, as you said...its basic chemisty. However getting them to do it is big business and big politics. The idea that they "will" do this without being forced is the big lie.

Sequestering CO2

How do you economically separate the CO2 from the flue gas?

How do you render it incapable of escape (make a stable solid of it)?

The Chinese are commissioning a coal-fired plant every two weeks.

The Indians are building dozens.

Even the Euros are getting into the act.

There doesn't seem to be much enthusiam for ending coal usage worldwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

"estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60%"
Guess it depends what you consider economical. Can coal still compete at those higher prices? Certainly until there are enough other energy sources that can compete. Maybe, once we reach that point.

A true world government could dictate the elimination of coal or at least the conditions under which it can be used (CCS), but we don't have one. We can at least force the issue locally (US), and hope that the large scale instulation of CCS would make the technology cheap enough that other countries (even newly developing ones), would be able to use it. As a plus, we could be on the forefront instead of playing catch up with the other world powers.

They didn't mention solid capture. If I remember correctly the processed involved going from CO2 to calcium carbonate. Closest link I could quickly find...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_bicarbonate

Clean coal is generally referring to co2 sequestering, which is real, not a big lie.

Nope, still a big lie, but with more details :-) There's no economical way to capture & transport the generated CO2, and no way to actually store it for long periods. People get worked up over storing nuclear waste (which could be reprocessed, anyway) for a mere ten thousand years or so. To do CO2 sequestration, you'd have to demonstrate that it'd stay in storage for millions of years.

Sorry James, I'm just not buying what you are selling. First you talk about chemistry...I dig up a little about the chemistry so we can see hows its done. Now you talk about storage. Well it can be stored. Coal is proof that there are stable forms of carbon which can be stored. The techniques described should store CO2 over tens of thousands of years. Thats more than enough. We don't need to store it back the way nature did...if the release is slow enough nature will put it back where it needs to. Scientists have even found ways of pulling carbon out of the air. It requires power and technology that barely exists, but once we get past our rather simple power meathods, we should have enough to make even this concept a reality if we need to undo more of what we have done.

I'm not for coal. I'd like to see its use gone by tomorrow, but that's not going to happen. I do believe we could displace it in 50 to 200 years, but until then "clean coal" is a better way that we have been going.

Need I point out that coal's a solid, while CO2's a gas? That makes storing the latter a lot more difficult.

If you look at the effects of CO2, and what you might call the half-life of additional CO2 in the atmosphere, you'll find that your "if the release is slow enough" does in fact work out to millions of years.

Taking it out of the atmosphere takes energy. To get it into a stable form takes about as much energy, if not more, than you got from burning the coal in the first place, so why bother?

And indeed, why bother is really the important question, since there are much better (and cheaper, if coal weren't effectively subsidized) ways of getting energy.

@jamesqf

If they need energy it is a good thing they're burning it in a power plant.

Honestly, it sounds like you'd rather do nothing than do something. You're arguing from the wrong side if you want to do nothing. You shouldn't care about the pollution of coal, just the cost of making it less polluting. The fuel source for half the united states energy isn't going to convert itself to wind, nuclear or solar overnight.

Using an IGCC designed power plant, along with geological storage, allows for 50% efficiency with much reduced carbon foot print.

BTW the release would only work out to millions of years, if it actually took us that long to find alternatives. Certainly you're not suggesting it would take that long, or do you just expect us to do without electricty? If thats the case, then you can start first.

And indeed, why bother is really the important question, since there are much better (and cheaper, if coal weren't effectively subsidized) ways of getting energy.


I'm always puzzled by the idea that coal or oil is subsidized because some indirect subsidy or externality is claimed to hide it's real cost. Actual tax breaks just don't add up to much.

Please explain the subsidies that would make coal more expensive than nuclear, wind, solar or other energy source if you would.

Please explain the subsidies that would make coal more expensive than nuclear, wind, solar or other energy source if you would.

Coal doesn't have to pay for its waste disposal. Start with the CO2 that it just releases into the atmosphere, free of charge. Then consider that it gets government help in its strip-mining (mountain top removal), doesn't have to pay for the consequences when its tailings dams break, or clog up all the rivers for miles downstream, can use the legal system to deny landowners legal recourse or recompense for lands the mining destroys...

@jamesqf
That is just a result of the fascist economy we have. Has very little to do with the type of business, and everything to do with the size. Banks, get bailed out, insurance companies bailed out, airlines bailed out, automakers bailed out. Why should energy producers be any different. How about all the individual fair use rights stripped away by 150 year copy rights. This type of crap is not limited to coal. Once the wind farms get big enough, people will have legitimate complaints and their issues will be swept under the rug. Its all the same thing.

You complain about co2 release but you don't support any initiative to change that. Almost seems like you're arguing in circles.

Other than the coal industry and those who profit directly from it, I don't think many people want to see coal burned. While it can seem cheap, by the time you add health effects (if really cheap & dirty) along with enviromental effects, most people think its a bad idea IF a better substitute is available. The quesitons becomes: Will we force coal use to become clean (and thus increase its cost beyond other technologies)? When will other renewable sources be able to increase their output to the point that coal isn't needed as a stop gap?

I think you are mixing two things up, one being what people may want to happen and the other being what will actually happen.

Like I said, coal is unstoppable. Just because many people don't want this to be true doesn't change much.

Do you think the people of China like having filthy air?

Coal doesn't have to pay for its waste disposal. Start with the CO2 that it just releases into the atmosphere, free of charge. Then consider that it gets government help in its strip-mining (mountain top removal), doesn't have to pay for the consequences when its tailings dams break, or clog up all the rivers for miles downstream, can use the legal system to deny landowners legal recourse or recompense for lands the mining destroys...You only answered part of the question, and only with vague assertions. How do we make coal pay for itself, if possible, with regulation?

To simply say coal should be more expensive than alternatives because it's "subsidized" isn't convincing anyone.

Do you think the people of China like having filthy air?

I don't think I'm mixing up anything at all....at some point, I do beleive that wind/water/solar will be cheaper than coal. That will stop coal, but I think coal will continue until then. People actually have fairly limited choice in govenment. Unless we have direct vote on every issue, we don't have the option of making everything go the way we want. Looking at the major canidates in any political race, I have never seen one that would vote "my way" on every issue, so I pick the one that will vote my way most of the time on my most important issues. Even if I could pick someone who wanted to vote exactly the way I do, they may be forced to compromise to get the most important legislation through. Fact of life we all deal with. Because of that, and that govenment tries not to overintrude (or maybe it does try and we don't let it...), there are limits to what they can do. So, as you said, coal is a fact of life....at least for a while

Additionally, you may start seeing coal prices reflect their actual cost. Which gets into WorthWads' question. Actually I don't think coal gets so many breaks/incentives as it doesn't get penalized for all its damage. Every power industry does some damage (include wind/water/solar), but if they all have their prices taxed up to reflect their damages, coal wouldn't compete so well, especially dirty coal.


(and just for the record, I wouldn't want everyone having a direct vote on every issue; politicials often sway in the winds of oppinion; Image if those winds were given solid form....horrible)