Wikipedia

Clean coal technology

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SupernautRemix (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 30 December 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clean coal technology is an umbrella term used to describe technologies being developed that aim to reduce the environmental impact of coal energy generation.[1]. These include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification (see also IGCC), treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, and carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas.

Clean coal technology has been mooted as a way to generate electricity at low economic cost from coal while addressing the need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants[2]. However, concerns exist regarding the viability of these technologies in terms of timeframe of delivery[3], high hidden economic costs in terms of social and environmental damage [4], and the costs and viability of disposing of removed carbon and other toxic matter [5] [6].

The term ‘clean coal’ is often stated in inverted commas by its critics, due to claims that it is a misnomer [7] and a public relations term[8]. In November 2008, NBC anchor Brian Williams described clean coal as an oxymoron as part of the station’s report on the issue[9].

Prior terminology

In the early 20th century, prior to World War II, "clean coal" (also called "smokeless coal") referred to anthracite and high-grade bituminous coal, used for cooking and home heating.[10]

Clean Coal and the environment

Further information: Environmental effects of coal
Further information: Mountaintop removal mining

According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is blamed for climate change and global warming. (See the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). As 25.5% of the world's electrical generation in 2004 was from coal-fired generation (see World energy resources and consumption), reaching the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol will require modifications to how coal is utilized.[11]

Sequestration technology has yet to be tested on a large scale and may not be safe or successful. Sequestered CO2 may eventually "leak" up through the ground, may lead to unexpected geological instability or may cause contamination of aquifers used for drinking water supplies.[12] There are also concerns that plans to pump some of the sequestered CO2 into certain oil and gas reserves, to help make the fuels easier to pump out of the ground, will lead to increased concentrations of CO2 in potential fuel supplies. This would have to be removed or released during the refining process.[13]

Byproducts

The byproducts of coal combustion are considerably hazardous to the environment if not properly contained. This is clean coal's largest challenge, both from the practical and public relations perspectives.

While it is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and radionuclides [14] will be more difficult to address. Technologies exist to capture and store CO2, but they have not yet been utilized on a large-scale commercial basis due to the high economic costs.[15]

Coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source of mercury: 50 tons per year come from coal power plants out of 150 tons emitted nationally in the USA and 5000 tons globally.[16] In the USA, neither the combustion products of oil[17], nor their associated solid or liquid waste streams[18], are considered to be major contributors to mercury pollution.[19]

Coal burning industries have previously succeeded in significantly reducing pollutants. Current coal fired electric generating plants emit 70% fewer regulated emissions (total mass per energy produced) than in 1970.[20] This factoid includes values for NOx, SOx, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide emissions only. SOx formed the greatest proportion of these emissions in 1970[21], where significant gains had been made in order to combat acid rain.

Potential cost of clean coal

The entry Carbon capture and storage details the lifetime costs for natural gas, pulverized coal, and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with and without carbon capture. Carbon capture and sequestration is one of the newest technologies to fall under the 'clean coal' umbrella.

A 2003 study conducted by the International Energy Agency (IEA) on greenhouse gases, found that the cost of building a Shell-designed IGCC that doesn't capture carbon could cost $1,371 per kW and a comparable system that captures carbon could cost $1,860 per kW."[22] These costs can be contrasted with other types of plants in economics of new plants. In September 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report recommending that the government lead the way in addressing any issues surrounding the large-scale development of carbon capture and sequestration, saying that the high cost of carbon capture technologies, especially those used to retrofit existing plants, is a key barrier to the commercial deployment of carbon capture.[23] The first commercial-scale sequestration project is set to launch in 2009 in West Virginia.[24]

FutureGen

Main article: FutureGen

FutureGen was a US government project announced by President George W. Bush in 2003 to build a near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant to produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage.[25]

FutureGen was a public-private partnership to build the world's first near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant. The 275-megawatt plant was intended to prove the feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide underground. FutureGen was to be designed, developed and operated by the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, a non-profit consortium of coal mining and electric utility companies formed to partner with the DOE on the FutureGen project. The project was still in the development stage when its funding was canceled in January 2008. The Alliance decision of the location of the host site, subject to DOE’s completing NEPA environmental reviews, was announced in December 2007 after a two-year bidding and review process. Construction was scheduled to begin in 2009, with full-scale plant operations to begin in 2012. [26]

On January 29, 2008, the DOE announced that it would pull its funding for the project, mostly due to higher than expected costs. The move is likely to delay the project as other members seek the additional funds that the DOE was to provide. Local and state officials in Illinois, including Governor Rod Blagojevich expressed frustration at the move, especially in light of the money and resources that the state had spent to attract the project. Blagojevich issued a statement saying that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman "deceived the people of East Central Illinois who spent time and resources competing for the project."[27]

Support and Criticism

Support

In the United States, Clean Coal has been mentioned by United States President George W. Bush on several occasions, including his 2007 State of the Union Address. Bush's position is that clean coal technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. Senator Hillary Clinton has also recently said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables."[28]

During the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign, candidates John McCain and Barack Obama expressed interest in the development of clean coal technologies as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan.[29] President-elect Obama called for five first-of-their-kind clean coal plants in the U.S. [30] Government groups have also advocated for the development and deployment of advanced clean coal technologies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which recommended that the president-elect, within the first 100 days, establish a fund managed by fossil-fuel utilities for the research and development of carbon capture and storage at private, academic and government sites. The recommendation also calls on Congress to "commit to doubling research and development funding over five years for renewable energy technologies, as well as clean coal energy."[31] In September 2008, the Government Accountability Office released a report recommending government leadership to advance the progress of carbon capture and storage technology, noting that the cost of implementing the technologies were an impediment to their commercial-scale usage. [32]

The US Department of Energy is working with private industry in developing clean coal technologies.[33] One of the clean coal technologies being developed is carbon sequestration, capturing carbon dioxide and eliminating or slowing its release back into the atmosphere. Another technology under development is Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle or IGCC. [34] The development of clean coal also creates the possibility of international business for the United States and other world markets.[35]

In Australia, clean coal is often referred to by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[36] (The previous Prime Minister John Howard has stated that nuclear power is a better alternative, as clean coal technology may not prove to be economically favorable.[37])

Criticism

Prominent environmentalists, including Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, believe that the term clean coal is misleading: "There is no such thing as 'clean coal' and there never will be. It's an oxymoron"[38] and an industry's hype, there's no such thing as clean coal[39]. The Sierra Club's Coal Campaign has launched a site refuting the clean coal statements and advertising of the coal industry, [5].

I say this based on my experience as the former head of the TVA, which bought and burned more than 30 million tons of coal a year. I was deeply involved in the strip mining, underground mining, trucking, and most importantly, the burning of huge quantities of coal. No one who has been deeply involved with coal can rightfully say it is clean.

— S. David Freeman in "Winning Our Energy Independence: An Energy Insider Shows How"

Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of coal extraction, high costs to sequester carbon, and uncertainty of how to manage end result pollutants and radionuclides.

There are forms of clean energy such as geothermal, biomass, solar, wind and hydroelectric and other renewable energy sources which are supported by many of the environmentalist groups and campaigns, including Al Gore.

Critics of the planned power plants assert that there is no such thing as clean coal and that the plant will still release large amounts of pollutants compared to renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar power. However, there is yet to be a commercial scale wind or solar project capable of replacing baseload fuels like coal.

Further information: peaking power
Further information: baseload power

The 2007 Australian of the Year, paleontologist and influential environmental activist Tim Flannery made the assertion that the concept of clean coal might not be viable for all geographical locations.[40] [41].

Locally in Australia because of particular geological issues and because of the competition from cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives, I'm not 100 per cent sure clean coal is going to work out for our domestic market.

— Tim Flannery

Critics also point out that the continuing construction of coal-powered plants (whether or not they use carbon sequestration techniques) encourages unsustainable mining practices for coal, which can strip away mountains, hillsides, and natural areas. They also point out that there can be a large amount of energy required and pollution emitted in transporting the coal to the power plants. Also, scrubbers will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases:

Scrubbers remove some particulates, SO2 , Hg(2+) , and SO3 – pollution that causes smog – but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In fact, scrubbers are energy intensive and could lead to more of these emissions, leaving us further unable to meet Kyoto targets.

— Cherise Burda, The Pembina Institute

See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ "Environmental Impacts of Coal Power: Air Pollution". Uniond of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  2. ^ "The Future of Coal". Massachussets Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2008-12-23.
  3. ^ "Time to bury the 'clean coal' myth". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-12-23.
  4. ^ "The True Cost of Coal" (PDF). Greenpeace. Retrieved 2008-12-23.
  5. ^ "Carbon Capture and Storage". University of Edinburgh, School of Geosciences. Retrieved 2008-12-23.
  6. ^ "Carbon Capture Plans get Reality Check". Discovery Channel. Retrieved 2008-12-23.
  7. ^ "The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal". Newsweek. Retrieved 2008-12-23.
  8. ^ "Clean Coal for Christmas". Center For Media and Democracy. Retrieved 2008-12-29.
  9. ^ "NBC Confirms That "Clean Coal" is an Oxymoron". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2008-12-23.
  10. ^ "Smokeless Coal," WVa-USA.com, accessed May 2008.
  11. ^ "CRS Issue Brief for Congress - IB89005: Global Climate Change". National Council for Science and the Environment. August 13, 2001. Retrieved 2008-09-13.
  12. ^ "AWWA warns Congress about CO2 injection concerns". American Water Works Association. July 29, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
  13. ^ "'Clean coal' push concerns environmental activists". Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. October 16, 2005. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  14. ^ Alex Gabbard. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  15. ^ "Clean coal technology: How it works". BBC News. 28 November 2005. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  16. ^ "Mercury Emissions - A Global Problem". US Gov, EPA News. 2004. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
  17. ^ "Mercury in Crude Oil". American Chemical Society. 10 October 2007. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
  18. ^ "Mercury in petroleum and natural gas". US Gov, EPA News. 01 September 2001. Retrieved 2008-09-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ^ "BP dumps mercury in lake". Chicago Tribune. 27 July 2007. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
  20. ^ "America's Power.org Factoids". America's Power.org. Retrieved 2008-12-14.
  21. ^ "National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1990-1995" (PDF). USA Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 2008-12-30.
  22. ^ Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2005). "Cleaner Coal" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-04-23.
  23. ^ Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option, Government Accountability Office, September 2008; retrieved December 16, 2008
  24. ^ RWE Power, retrieved December 16, 2008
  25. ^ Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy FutureGen page.
  26. ^ http://www.futuregenalliance.org/publications/fg_factsheet_7_final.pdf
  27. ^ Suhr, Jim (2008-01-30). "Energy Dept. Pulls Support for FutureGen". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-01-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  28. ^ Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Cleantech Venture Forum VIII
  29. ^ [1]
  30. ^ Barack Obama Energy Fact Sheet, http://change.gov, retrieved December 16, 2008
  31. ^ [2] Institute for the 21st Century Transition Plan, November 2008, retrieved December 16, 2008]
  32. ^ [Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option, Government Accountability Office, September 2008; retrieved December 16, 2008
  33. ^ [3]
  34. ^ [http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18398/
  35. ^ [4]
  36. ^ "Rudd's clean coal pledge". The Daily Telegraph, Australia. February 26, 2007. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  37. ^ "Interview: John Howard". NineMSN. February 11, 2007. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  38. ^ "Coal Position". Grist - Environmental News and Commentary. December 3, 2004. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  39. ^ http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp
  40. ^ "Coal can't be clean". Herald Sun, Melbourne Australia. February 14, 2007. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
  41. ^ "Coal Can't Be Clean - Flannery", Melbourne Herald Sun, February 14, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clean_coal_technology&oldid=260865403"