The Imperative for Rapid Demonstration and Scale-UpOf Advanced Coal Gasification and Carbon Sequestr

[JohnWxy]

from the Clean Air Task Force

Taming Coal: The Imperative for Rapid Demonstration and Scale-Up
Of Advanced Coal Gasification and Carbon Sequestration and the Reform of Coal Mining and Waste Disposal Practices
March 2007
http://www.catf.us/projects/power_sector/advanced_coal/CATF_Taming_Coal_March_2007.pdf

~~
~~
An environmentally responsible coal policy would do the following:

�� Ban the construction of new coal combustion plants due to their inherently unacceptable air, water, solid waste and climate impacts.

�� Rapidly commercialize the use of integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) for electric power generation, because it has a much smaller environmental footprint for air emissions and waste than does coal combustion.

�� Rapidly demonstrate the feasibility of large scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide and then require all new coal power plants to capture and sequester at least 90% of their coal carbon content.

�� Demonstrate and deploy advancements such as underground coal gasification, that could further shrink IGCC’s environmental footprint by substantially minimizing mining impacts and waste management

�� Reform coal mining practices worldwide, impose effective federal regulation of coal plant solid waste disposal and reduce coal generation water use and associated impacts to the minimum practical levels.

�� Increase the energy efficiency of IGCC power generation to the maximum practical levels over time.
Commercializing IGCC is of special importance. Because it is an inherently cleaner process – the gas it produces from coal must be free of most contaminants to power a gas turbine – IGCC reduces deadly sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions to very low levels – approaching those achievable by natural gas combined cycle power plants. Gasification is the only coal power generation technology that can virtually eliminate mercury air emissions and capture most of the coal mercury content in a concentrated form that can potentially be sequestered from environmental release; IGCC is the only way we can continue to use coal to produce power without adding significantly to the global mercury burden. Total solid waste from gasification is typically half the volume generated by conventional coal plants and gasification water use is substantially lower as well.
~~
~~

[NNadir]

1. Coal apologists are pretty clear.

You scratch the surface of an anti-nuke, you almost always find a coal apologist.

The environmental cost of IGCC coal even with sequestration - which is nothing more than a pipe dream - is enormous.

Basically there is NOT ONE coal apologist who give's a rat's ass about the damage that coal pits will do for the next billion years.

Not ONE.

[4dsc]

2. Gee I'm both anti-nuke and anti-coal

I also hold the firm belief that the ramifications of peak oil will end our society as we know it!! And we all know that peak oil is a liquid fuel problem that nuclear and coal won't resolve!!

[NNadir]

3. Oh? You're anti-energy?

What a surprise.

One almost never sees a peak oil guy commit suicide. I guess they thing everyone else will die.

The peak oil fetish is a strong argument for ramping up high school chemistry classes, but I don't think it will do much good.

[GliderGuider]

10. You really hate shades of gray, don't you?

I'm certainly not anti-energy, whatever that means. But I am a "peak oil guy".

My position on energy sources is this:

• Oil: The peak is now, we will be effectively out of it by 2080.
  
• Gas: The peak is in 4 years, we will be effectively out of it by 2060.
  
• Hydro: Most of the best sites are already developed. We will continue to develop it at a low rate (~1.5% pa) until a plateau in 2040.
  
• Nuclear: The public relations battle has been lost, the question of developing it is now moot. It will rise to a production peak in 2025, then fall off by 5% pa afterwards.
  
• Coal: Will rise by 0.5% per year to 2025, then gradually taper off by -0.5% per year after that.
  
• Wind etc.: Will rise by 10% pa growth for the next 15 years, after which the growth rate will fall off to a plateau in 2050.

The shape of the world's energy curve will look about like this:



World population will start to decline in 2020-2025, not because of absolute energy shortages, but due to dislocations brought on either directly or indirectly by oil shortages. The population decline will be supported by the decline in total energy availability. Yes, I might be an early casualty.

There is little to nothing that our advocacy can do to stop this - it's a runaway train, the throttle is jammed open, and the brakeman has stolen the handle.

[AlecBGreen]

5. right here!

"Basically there is NOT ONE coal apologist who give's a rat's ass about the damage that coal pits will do for the next billion years. Not ONE."

:hi: be careful about making those sweeping generalizations.

In the near future we will face an energy crisis caused by our dependence on fossil fuels, primarily oil. Assuming all hell doesnt break loose and we still have a functional society, we will need to search for other means of generating electricity. Coal WILL be used today, tomorrow, and into the foreseeable future. While current methods are dirty and environmentally destructive, there ARE ways to use it safely and with a minimal impact. As long as our current goons in the administration allow "Big Coal" to rape and pillage at will, these developments will never be realized. If we get a sane government with far-reaching yet pragmatic goals, we may have hope. In an ideal world, all our energy would come from non-polluting, renewable resources. Let me say that again. In an IDEAL world... Until we have 1) nuclear fusion or 2) widespread, ultra-efficient "insert-favorite-renewable-here" then we will need to rely on dirty, imperfect sources like coal and nuclear. (imperfect!? *gasp* did I really just lump coal in with nuclear...? :eyes:)

Bottom line - no one wants coal OR nuclear if there is another way. Unfortunately that 3rd way hasnt yet arrived so until then we need to continue to use traditional sources like coal and nuclear.

-Alec

p.s Please spare us the emotional rhetoric NNadir. Do you honestly think everyone who is at least minimally pro-coal isnt concerned aout the environment? Secondly, explain how coal mine damage will last for BILLIONS of years.

[BeFree]

4. If

If half the resources that have been used to get nukes up and running had been used to apply high technology to coal, we probably wouldn't be in the crisis we are in today.

Being that nuke power is really just a fraction of energy supply and that private investors are so shy of taking nukes any further, and that coal is going to be used whether we like it or not, it behooves those who are truly concerned with GW to take their heads out of their asses and see that if they applied the same high-tech to clean coal as has been applied to nukes, we just might save something.

[AlecBGreen]

6. yes and no

"If half the resources that have been used to get nukes up and running had been used to apply high technology to coal, we probably wouldn't be in the crisis we are in today."

Probably true.

"Being that nuke power is really just a fraction of energy supply ... "

False. America gets 20% of its electricty from nuclear power plants, Japan gets 30% and others get much more. France gets 80% of its electricity from their nuclear program (by comparison, the Rance tidal-power plant generates 68MW, or 0.012% of the countrys electricity). Total global percentage of electricty supply is 15.7% Wikipedia is very useful :7

[BeFree]

7. Well

I did say energy supply. Not restricted to electricity.

It so happens that oil is the larger fraction of energy supply. True?

[AlecBGreen]

8. my bad

I should have read closer.

I didnt find a good chart showing total energy production and since 1) Im done work and 2) I really gotta piss, Im gonna defer this to a later time ;) But yeah, if you are considering transportation and not just generation of electricy, it sounds reasonable to me that oil is a (much) larger fraction of energy supply than nuclear power.

[GliderGuider]

9. The best source for world energy consumption

is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2007.

One page in the spreadsheet shows Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel.

A quick calculation shows that for 2006 the global primary energy mix was:

Oil - 36%
Gas - 24%
Coal - 28%
Nuclear - 6%
Hydro - 6%

They only count commercial sources, so biomass (wood, peat and dung) isn't listed.