Comments on: Can the coal industry be saved in spite of itself? Should it be? http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:48:27 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11225 Earl Killian Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:01:54 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11225 David Benson, when NREL was talking about biomass co-firing in a report, they indicated that distance (which is related to the amount of land area required to capture sunlight using less than 1% efficiency) made the quantities of biomass being contemplated uneconomic. Here is a cut-and-paste of the paragraph: "This analysis examined power generation for two fossil based technologies, coal-fired power production and natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC), and two biomass technologies, a biomass-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) system using a biomass energy crop, and a direct-fired biomass power plant using biomass residue as well as a biomass residue/coal cofired system. Each system includes the upstream processes necessary for feedstock procurement (mining coal, extracting natural gas, growing dedicated biomass, collecting residue biomass), transportation, and any construction of equipment and pipelines. For the cases where CO2 is sequestered, the CO2 is captured via a monoethanolamine (MEA) system, compressed, transported via pipeline, and sequestered in underground storage such as a gas field, oil field, or aquifer. The power generation capacity of each system examined was kept constant at 600 MW. For the biomass power systems, it was assumed that several small plants are needed to achieve 600 MW of electric capacity. This is because large transportation distances make biomass power uneconomical at large scales." David Benson, when NREL was talking about biomass co-firing in a report, they indicated that distance (which is related to the amount of land area required to capture sunlight using less than 1% efficiency) made the quantities of biomass being contemplated uneconomic. Here is a cut-and-paste of the paragraph:

“This analysis examined power generation for two fossil based technologies, coal-fired power production and natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC), and two biomass technologies, a biomass-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) system using a biomass energy crop, and a direct-fired biomass power plant using biomass residue as well as a biomass residue/coal cofired system. Each system includes the upstream processes necessary for feedstock procurement (mining coal, extracting natural gas, growing dedicated biomass, collecting residue biomass), transportation, and any construction of equipment and pipelines. For the cases where CO2 is sequestered, the CO2 is captured via a monoethanolamine (MEA) system, compressed, transported via pipeline, and sequestered in underground storage such as a gas field, oil field, or aquifer. The power generation capacity of each system examined was kept constant at 600 MW. For the biomass power systems, it was assumed that several small plants
are needed to achieve 600 MW of electric capacity. This is because large transportation distances make biomass power uneconomical at large scales.”

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11203 David B. Benson Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:43:46 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11203 Earl Killian --- Or that much more biomass (which I would find preferble on many grounds). Earl Killian — Or that much more biomass (which I would find preferble on many grounds).

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11184 Earl Killian Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:12:48 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11184 David Benson, so if you substitute for 13% of the coal, then coal+biomass+CCS is 211 tonnes/h, vs. the original 185 tonnes/h for the coal consumption. So we need to remove 14% more mountains to feed this beast. David Benson, so if you substitute for 13% of the coal, then coal+biomass+CCS is 211 tonnes/h, vs. the original 185 tonnes/h for the coal consumption. So we need to remove 14% more mountains to feed this beast.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11183 David B. Benson Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:53:48 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11183 Paul K --- Precisely so. Burning biomass is carbon neutral. Sequestering any non-zero portion the resulting CO2 makes the total proscess carbon negative, removing carbon from the active carbon cycle. That said, the colection and transportation of the biomass probably makes use of fossil energy just now. So to counter that requires that a somewhat largeer fraction of the resulting CO2 has to be sequestered. Paul K — Precisely so. Burning biomass is carbon neutral. Sequestering any non-zero portion the resulting CO2 makes the total proscess carbon negative, removing carbon from the active carbon cycle.

That said, the colection and transportation of the biomass probably makes use of fossil energy just now. So to counter that requires that a somewhat largeer fraction of the resulting CO2 has to be sequestered.

]]> By: Michael Tobis http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11174 Michael Tobis Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:49:04 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11174 David has it right. If Joe's arguments, and Jim Hansen's, that we are already in dangerous CO2 concentration territory are correct, then we have to draw the total down. Providence has, remarkably, given us an escape hatch. We can either harvest or burn biofuels with the express purpose of burying them solid or liquid. This will certainly not be cheap compared to just burning coal, but if there's an energy residual it will be worth it. Nothing will be cheap compared to what we are used to, but it will still be very cheap compared to animal or human muscle power. If we are smart we can and will take this opportunity to save ourselves. What we really need to resolve is how to keep this engine running and still feed everybody. David has it right.

If Joe’s arguments, and Jim Hansen’s, that we are already in dangerous CO2 concentration territory are correct, then we have to draw the total down. Providence has, remarkably, given us an escape hatch. We can either harvest or burn biofuels with the express purpose of burying them solid or liquid. This will certainly not be cheap compared to just burning coal, but if there’s an energy residual it will be worth it.

Nothing will be cheap compared to what we are used to, but it will still be very cheap compared to animal or human muscle power. If we are smart we can and will take this opportunity to save ourselves.

What we really need to resolve is how to keep this engine running and still feed everybody.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11173 David B. Benson Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:34:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11173 Earl Killian --- Regading storage, utilities lke to keep a 6 months supply of coal on hand. Using a suitable non-degrading biomass, such as torrified wood, immediately mixing that supply in with the supply of coal ought to solve the preservation problem. Indeed, even once-yearly agricultural wastes could be handled similarly. So I don't see storage as being a major issue. Earl Killian — Regading storage, utilities lke to keep a 6 months supply of coal on hand. Using a suitable non-degrading biomass, such as torrified wood, immediately mixing that supply in with the supply of coal ought to solve the preservation problem. Indeed, even once-yearly agricultural wastes could be handled similarly.

So I don’t see storage as being a major issue.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11170 David B. Benson Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:18:12 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11170 Earl Killian --- Nicely done, thank you. To put the biomass supply requirement in perspective there is a demonstration reactor in The Netherlands which produces 75,000 tonnes of torrified wood pellets from forestry wastes for co-firing with coal. The Netherlands will have at least one more about the same size. A recent position paper suggests that South Carolina can produce, economically, enough torriffied wood from forestry wastes to meet 10% of the state's requirement for coal to generate electricity. (So boosting that to 13% would be fairly easy, just include some agricultural wastes.) Earl Killian — Nicely done, thank you. To put the biomass supply requirement in perspective there is a demonstration reactor in The Netherlands which produces 75,000 tonnes of torrified wood pellets from forestry wastes for co-firing with coal. The Netherlands will have at least one more about the same size.

A recent position paper suggests that South Carolina can produce, economically, enough torriffied wood from forestry wastes to meet 10% of the state’s requirement for coal to generate electricity. (So boosting that to 13% would be fairly easy, just include some agricultural wastes.)

]]> By: Kiashu http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11158 Kiashu Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:39:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11158 Assuming of course that we can get CCS to work. <a href="http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/2008/03/storing-your-carbon-in-crock.html" rel="nofollow">Which I doubt</a>. Liquefying the CO2 takes energy, too. About a third the energy the plant produces, for a coal-fired one. 1. Coal-fired station produces 1kWh and 1.325kg CO2. 2. 1.325kg CO2 captured and stored by liquefaction plant, using 1.325kg x 0.252kWh/kg = 0.334kWh. 3. 0.667kWh goes on to be used. And so, accounting only for the emissions due to burning of fossil fuels in the generator, and only for the energy required for liquefaction of the resulting CO2, we find that a third of our energy generated would go to CCS; we spend a third of our energy cleaning up after the other two-thirds. So with widespread CCS with our coal-fired plants, we'd have to either cut our electricity use by one-third, or else increase the amount of generation by 50%. Which seems both unwise and unlikely... Assuming of course that we can get CCS to work. Which I doubt.

Liquefying the CO2 takes energy, too. About a third the energy the plant produces, for a coal-fired one.

1. Coal-fired station produces 1kWh and 1.325kg CO2.
2. 1.325kg CO2 captured and stored by liquefaction plant, using 1.325kg x 0.252kWh/kg = 0.334kWh.
3. 0.667kWh goes on to be used.

And so, accounting only for the emissions due to burning of fossil fuels in the generator, and only for the energy required for liquefaction of the resulting CO2, we find that a third of our energy generated would go to CCS; we spend a third of our energy cleaning up after the other two-thirds. So with widespread CCS with our coal-fired plants, we’d have to either cut our electricity use by one-third, or else increase the amount of generation by 50%.

Which seems both unwise and unlikely…

]]> By: Jared Gellert http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11155 Jared Gellert Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:05:49 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11155 I think it is much simpler to just ban the construction of new coal plants that don't sequester carbon. That will be an effective ban against any new coal plants, because plants with CCS can't compete economically with concentrated solar, wind or eventually wave power. And I'm all in favor of simple solutions that we non-scientists can understand. We need to be very clear that increased demand for energy based on economic growth must be met by making the economy less energy intensive. That's easy to do with efficiency and conservation. Efficiency is, without a doubt, the lowest hanging fruit. The next step will be to phase out all coal plants, as we decrease our electricity usage because of efficiency, and also build renewable sources. My reservation about cap and trade is that we need to keep this simple, and, as illustrated here, cap and trade can get really complicated very quickly. Thanks for this blog. As a newbie at this, the blog and your book are very valuable. I think it is much simpler to just ban the construction of new coal plants that don’t sequester carbon. That will be an effective ban against any new coal plants, because plants with CCS can’t compete economically with concentrated solar, wind or eventually wave power. And I’m all in favor of simple solutions that we non-scientists can understand.
We need to be very clear that increased demand for energy based on economic growth must be met by making the economy less energy intensive. That’s easy to do with efficiency and conservation. Efficiency is, without a doubt, the lowest hanging fruit.
The next step will be to phase out all coal plants, as we decrease our electricity usage because of efficiency, and also build renewable sources.
My reservation about cap and trade is that we need to keep this simple, and, as illustrated here, cap and trade can get really complicated very quickly.

Thanks for this blog. As a newbie at this, the blog and your book are very valuable.

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11147 Paul K Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:15:39 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spite-of-itself-should-it-be/#comment-11147 Isn't the difference that the carbon in biomass is already in the active carbon cycle while coal, until dug up, is permanently sequestered? Isn’t the difference that the carbon in biomass is already in the active carbon cycle while coal, until dug up, is permanently sequestered?

]]>