A commenter on this blog recently asked, albeit indirectly, if I thought coal had a future as an energy source.
That is a good question.
Coal, at present, has a pretty bad reputation. How much of that is deserved and how much is manufactured is a matter of speculation.
I think the answer to the question is probably “Yes.”
Despite all the angst about shipping and burning coal the fact remains coal is one of the most abundant energy sources on earth and, in some ways, if we learn to use it properly, one of the least impactive in an environmental sense. In many of the largest economies coal also has the advantage of being abundant within the borders of the nation, therefore providing at least the possibility of energy independence.
Coal hasn’t always had the reputation it has today. A 1946 advertisement for Pope and Talbot Lines brags up my hometown’s port in part because the city contains, “…the largest coal mine in the state.”
Just as coal’s reputation has slipped, coal’s reputation can rebound.
As just one example, consider Germany, projected to be one of the United State’s leading customers for coal in coming years. Germany is decommissioning nuclear power plants and building dozens of new coal plants to serve the energy needs lost to that decommissioning.
The key to the future of coal is probably in a process called “gasification.”
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen, and other valuable energy products.”
Addressing the environmental aspects of gasification, the department reports, “The environmental benefits of gasification stem from the capability to achieve extremely low SOx, NOx and particulate emissions from burning coal-derived gases. Sulfur in coal, for example, is converted to hydrogen sulfide and can be captured by processes presently used in the chemical industry. In some methods, the sulfur can be extracted in either a liquid or solid form that can be sold commercially. In an Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) plant, the syngas produced is virtually free of fuel-bound nitrogen. NOx from the gas turbine is limited to thermal NOx. Diluting the syngas allows for NOx emissions as low as 15 parts per million. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) can be used to reach levels comparable to firing with natural gas if required to meet more stringent emission levels. Other advanced emission control processes are being developed that could reduce NOx from hydrogen fired turbines to as low as 2 parts per million.
The Office of Fossil Energy is also exploring advanced syngas cleaning and conditioning processes that are even more effective in eliminating emissions from coal gasifiers. Multi-contaminant control processes are being developed that reduce pollutants to parts-per-billion levels and will be effective in cleaning mercury and other trace metals in addition to other impurities.
Coal gasification may offer a further environmental advantage in addressing concerns over the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. If oxygen is used in a coal gasifier instead of air, carbon dioxide is emitted as a concentrated gas stream in syngas at high pressure. In this form, it can be captured and sequestered more easily and at lower costs. By contrast, when coal burns or is reacted in air, 79 percent of which is nitrogen, the resulting carbon dioxide is diluted and more costly to separate.”
 |
| A coal gasification plant in Tampa, Florida |
As study by the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology speculates future emissions from the use of coal (with carbon capture technologies employed) will be about 1/7th what they are today but there is an additional factor needing to be considered.
The Department of Energy discussion regarding coal gasification points out, “Gasification, in fact, may be one of the most flexible technologies to produce clean-burning hydrogen for tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells. Hydrogen and other coal gases can also be used to fuel power-generating turbines, or as the chemical "building blocks" for a wide range of commercial products.”
For decades, hydrogen has been considered to be the premier fuel of the future in the nation’s automobiles. When hydrogen combusts the major product of combustion is water but, hydrogen is difficult to produce in a cost and energy effective manner.
If coal provides the means to shift to a hydrogen economy in lieu of a fossil fuel based economy as the result of gasification, enormous benefits in terms of green house and other gas emissions might be realized. The carbon footprint of coal might be negative in that use of the hydrogen produced in the gasification process replaces the use of petroleum products.
Does coal have a future?
Almost certainly it does. In fact, the future of coal might just be bright.
Here's a prediction (IMHO): Any community that hitches its wagon to coal as an important component of its future will eventually have a large unemployed workforce and a lot of rust. It's a temporary gig. We are extracting coal faster than nature can produce it. It's just a matter of time...
ReplyDeleteWhat we need are breakthrough energy technologies that are clean, renewable, and inexpensive:
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/vision.html
http://www.theorionproject.org/Energy.pdf
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/energy_solutions.html
We have had a breakthrough energy technology that is clean, renewable and inexpensive... But pressure from the pop-enviro movement has led to our decommissioning nuclear plants as quickly as we can.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the British report points to biomass as having a high negative carbon footprint... it is the only power source currently to have the potential to achieve that but, guess what? Ever see a biomass plant that could be built without massisve push back from the pop-enviros?
We just closed a biomass plant in Everett. Word is the owners would like to reopen but the costs are so high and the push back so strong we may never see the plant replaced.
Jack
The orion project stuff fascinates me. It proposes some pretty cool technologies but, at the same time it sounds a lot like my dad used to sound contending that somewhere in Arizona or (name the state) there was a warehouse full of advanced carborators of various types that could get us 100 plus mpg. The oil and car companies, of course, had engaged in a conspiracy to make sure those carbs never made it to market.
ReplyDeleteIf the technologies pointed to are viable, why does government have to be involved in developing them and bringing the to market?
If people think they really have something, why don't they just do it? After all, we have a private space craft, hopefully, blasting off tomorrow. Why can't private energy work?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Orion Project is not a branch or department of the government. At the same time, why shouldn't a miniscule portion of our tax dollars go toward research and development of breakthrough energy technologies that could save our planet AND satisfy our energy needs long term? Who wouldn't want that (besides those who profit from the status quo)?
ReplyDeleteBTW, I wouldn't classify nuclear power as clean. The radioactive bi-product has a half-life of hundreds or thousands of years. That is not clean.