An Inconvenient, Dirty Truth About Cheap and Plentiful Coal

This column from the Canadian Globe and Mall gives the writers opinion of the role coal will play in our future energy needs. For those of you that thought renewable energy, conservation and perhaps a new fleet of nuclear reactors were going to save our climate, this article gives a rather dismal picture.    

If you want to make money and don't mind spitting up black phlegm and destroying the planet, buy coal. While the energy markets and the media are obsessed with rising oil prices, the developing world is quietly gearing up for a coal development and consumption spree of astounding proportions. The energy markets of tomorrow are not about oil and hydrogen and wind turbines spinning lazily on ridges. They're about coal, which is cheap and plentiful but also the worst news for the environment that you could imagine in the post-Al Gore world.

The investor case for coal is hard to beat.  . . .

In a gas-fired plant, 3 per cent to 4 per cent by volume of the flue gases flung into the atmosphere are carbon dioxide. The figure in a coal plant is 15 per cent. No wonder the IEA predicts coal's share of global carbon dioxide emissions will rise from 38 per cent in 2000 to 45 per cent in 2030.  .  .  .

In fact, no large coal plant anywhere on the planet uses carbon capture. The technology is said to be coming but you can bet it won't arrive quickly. Designing and building a plant that uses carbon capture can add 50 per cent to the capital costs.  . . . more

Thanks to Tyler of Clean Break for the tip.

Comments

[Benny]

The first world will regulate Coal plants and create carbon markets, soon. It is already happening. Texas voted against some coal plants. CA has pretty much banned them, no? Europeans are not all fond of coal plants, the French use nuclear. The post coal age will come, driven by natual and market forces.

Coal will fuel the developing world. It will do the same thing to them as it did to us - make them rich and dirty. At which time they will have the means as well as the will to use the technology that we will have by then developed, from thin film solar to advanced wind, to Geothermal to third generation nuclear and the Smart Grid to tie it all together.

It's a world that is 20 years out, technologically for us. By then, the coal plants built today will be nearing the end of their shelf lives, and will many of them retrofitted by clean technology not yet invented.

The Coal Age is simply a technilogical one, and it's time will soon have gone. Good legislation and Carbon markets will help, and are inevitable given growing public opinion around the world.

[Kit P]

Benny, you do not have a clue do you? A 'English and French Literature' major does a fair job and reporting and you miss the salient point.

“The U.S. Department of Energy predicts the construction of more than 1,000 coal plants in the next five years, most in China, India and other parts of the developing world. China alone opens a new coal plant every week.”

Let me explain a few thing, California 'has pretty much banned them'. California has no coal plants because California has no coal and terrible air quality. California gets lots of electricity from coal, it is just burned someplace else.

“French use nuclear” France has no coal.

“Texas voted against some coal plants.” No, as part of a buy out of a large utility plans to build coal plants were canceled but no other generation was specified.

Engineers build and operate power plants not public opinion. Bad legislation and Carbon markets will not change reality. Countries with coal will continue to rely on coal. Countries without coal will use nuclear or import fossil fuels.

[Benny]

Your Malthusian predictions rely on several assumptions – that we will build coal plants forever, or always need to use coal to generate electricity. You assume no technological advancements or legislative victories.

We have, in the last one hundred years alone gone from the bicycle to the Biplane to the moon but you cannot foresee clean coal technologies? Or any eventual successor fuels to coal? For countless centuries, Wood and coal reigned as the power kings. In just the past 2 we have invented Bio fuels, Fuel Cells, Clean Gas, Biogas,Nuclear and Solar, and have vastly improved an old standby, Wind. Yet we will burn coal, no matter how dirty, forever?

You assume there will be no good legislation or regulation. In fact the green movement, merely 35 years old, has been a success

Top 10 environmental success stories
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2004/aug/business/js_top10success.html

You simply miss the salient fact that expenditure on Green energy has exploded in the last 20 years.

Venture Capital spending on Green technology has increased by a factor of ten in the last decade:

http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=369

Here is one network of green technology investment s-

Our network contains over 8,000 investors, 6,000 companies and 3,500 professional services organizations that specialize in cleantech globally. Included in that number are an elite group of 1,300 affiliate members with over $3 trillion in assets under management.

Yep, that’s Trillion.

Ending the coal age will also happen, because you and I want to pay for it, apparently

http://cleantechnetwork.com/index.cfm?pageSRC=WhoWeAre

The consumer is adding to this toll in growing numbers – 50 million now such that we have been labeled with an acronym – Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS). We are also Cultural Creatives:

http://www.lohas.com/about.htm

I have spent a llot of time supporting websites like this, getting a “clue”, as you call it. Happy reading.

[Clee]

Benny writes:
It's a world that is 20 years out, technologically for us. By then, the coal plants built today will be nearing the end of their shelf lives

Apparently China is building coal plants to last up to 75 years, so 20 years from now, they'll still be in their first third of their shelf lives.
http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=13052

[Daryl]

Read this book for a non-hyped analysis of global warming:

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjørn Lomborg

[Danzig]

Clee hits the nail on the head, Benny. When you suggest that "it's a world that is 20 years out . . .", you are probably off by a multiple of 5. All of us who participate in the Energy Blog will be taking the Big Dirt Nap before human-produced green house gases begin a downward move. We can all pretend to know what the answers are; but we will never see the answers. Your great grandchildren might.

[djahna]

Please forgive my ignorance but I thought coal wasn't that plentiful. They're not renewable, right?..

[Kit P]

Benny, when you make assumption about other peoples assumptions you are likely to sound very stupid. In fact the green movement, merely 35 years old, has been a success. If you mean a bunch of watermelons protesting, let me explain they are also against renewable energy in the backyard. I have found only a few groups like the Nature Conservancy that actually do something positive for the environment.

You have a debatable point with venture capitalist. Please notice the growth after 2001. Also look at #5 on the Top 10 environmental success stories.

“States seized the initiative through passage of renewable energy portfolios...”

Yes, Governor Bush of Texas lead the movement and now we are building renewable energy projects as fast as we can.

However, Benny's logic is flawed if he thinks his trillion in assets is going to do anything more than shift a few LNG tankers from the US to Spain. No less electricity will be produced with coal.

Let me apologize to the readers of this blog for not identifying Benny as a con artist sooner. If you go to his links you will find sexy pictures of anorexic women not dairy farmers explaining how anorexic digestion improved the environmental impact of dairy farming. GREENPOWER is about marketing to people with low self esteem.

Is Benny a clueless pixie dust advocate or a clever thief? Shows us the good work being done by your investors and spare us the 'dirty coal' song and dance.

[bigTom]

The vast majority of scientists think Lomborg is an idiot. There will be severe consequences if this energy scenario plays out as currently expected. Yes renewables are growing rapidly, and if their exponential growth can continue for the next 15-20years might become a real alternative. I've been trying to get people interested in CCS, because I don't think the developing world will want to pay the price of not using coal. But the hatred of coal is so great among greens, that they oppose even this. We need to develope CCS to make it available to those who are unlikley to not use coal.

The current Amine based methods are pretty expensive, larger capital costs, and fewer KWthours per ton of coal. Some are developing Amonia based capture which is supposed to be cheaper, but I've seen no numerical estimates.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119112231.htm

We are probably going to need something like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119112231.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107074316.htm

Despite the widespread belief that it isn't nice to mess with mother nature, we are likley to need some form of geo-engineering to mitigate the damage we are doing.

[Mike]

Here's some interesting reading:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/

[fjh]

The vast majority of scientists in disciplines relevant to global warming thing LOMBORG a genius who makes rational arguments using cogent facts.

I'm on other technical blogs where people with post doc's regard CO2 theories as 'junk science' designed for mass consumption.

COAL.

Plenty of it; DOE has 'perfected' gasification to a fine art and incorporated carbon sequestation into the plants.

Unfortunately, mining and transportation hasn't changed much.

Europe will pay twice the domestic price for coal--See Economist last week.

OTHER FOSSIL FUELS.

NEW OIL FIELDS..Oil fields in odd regions of S. America and Africa keep being discovered...net reserves have increased over the past decade; and the Russians haven't even started drilling in the Arctic yet.

If you look at shipped oil products, you'll find that demand has slackened over the past few years, conservation is finally kicking in.

OIL SANDS

NEW YORKER did a big piece last week on the Oil Sands extraction in Alberta...very dirty; results in a lot of material and uses tons of water; but there are many years left in the known reserves of oil sands; and there is a growing industry oriented to extraction; nor does Canada have any qualms about extracting them and the US greedily buys them up, and looks the other way.

PEAT BOGS.

Maine has 201 peat bogs that can be mined or already are--for mulch, etc.

NATURAL GAS.

Seemingly endless reserves, esp. under sea beds...real growth is in LNG; Canada is on Board and planning terminals in New Brunswick to feed the backbone pipeline running down the East Coast...No wonder Canada's economy is so hot!

Meanwhile, New England dithers and enviros fret and engage in fear mongering.

PE

[Adam]

I'll just mention two things I think the discussion has overlooked thus far: (1) externalities and (2) relative prices.

Until the price of coal reflects the *true* price of its use--i.e., that the cost of the resulting greenhouse gases is priced into the equation--it will remain cheap. Very cheap.

Oil is near $100 a barrel. While not a perfect substitute, coal is becoming more and more attractive by the day, even when you have to ship it all the way across the Atlantic.

Yes, it will take a while for alternatives to become comercially viable/competitive. Perhaps 20 years, perhaps more. But the trend has already begun. It's inevitable that the price of renewable energy--solar and wind, in particular--will continue to come down relative to coal and oil. This becomes particularly true if we make responsible moves to start pricing carbon, either through a tax or a trading scheme.

Of course, nuclear here is the wild card...

[RJJ]

The theme of this article is very correct and we have already seen the CO2 levels in the atmosphere spike during the last few years. China and India remain the two biggest new problems as they are building low technology coal plants that operate at low efficiencies and dump out CO2, sulfur and particulates. I've read that 8% of the LA smog now comes from China and Tokyo is having new problems with pollution from China.

The power companies don't have a real plan on what to due with the CO2 even if they capture the gas. The only workable solution which is in a demonstration phase uses the coal plant's CO2 to grow algae. The only issue here is that the algae is then converted to biodiesel which is then consumed so the CO2 still ends up back in the atmosphere.

[bigTom]

Conversion to low carbon power is not that difficult, but it is currently more expensive. My local utility PG&E is a leader in this area (for large utilities) the estimated 2007 mix of generation:
biomas&waste 4%
geothermal 3%
small hydro 3%
solar <1%
coal 2%
large hydro 12%
nat gas 49%
nuclear 25%
other 11%

If I assign a carbon intensity of 1 for coal, and .5 for natural gas, that would make our emmisions a quarter of those for coal power. Of course PG&E rates are among the highest in the country -it hasn't come cheaply, and the availability of NG is likley to decline in the futire. fjh's seabed methane is methane-hydrates. So far no-one that I have heard about has proposed a method to economically, and safely tap these (if you've heard otherwise let us know). The methane hydates are a real wild-card, as the are estimated to be considerably larger than all the other fossil fuels combined.

[Clee]

The article claims:
In fact, no large coal plant anywhere on the planet uses carbon capture.

fjh writes:
COAL.
Plenty of it; DOE has 'perfected' gasification to a fine art and incorporated carbon sequestation into the plants.

Can someone tell me what is the largest (or any) coal plant that incorporates carbon sequestration? I couldn't find a single CCS coal plant running. All I could find were plans to build some.

There is the 20 MW natural gas (not coal) power plant where MIT is growing algae which remove only 40% of the CO2 emissions. As RJJ pointed out, this does not sequester the CO2, it just recycles it for later emission into the air.

[GreyFlcn]

$3000/KW for Coal IGCC
$6500/KW for Coal CCS

Coal just costs too much.

[Kit P]

“All I could find were plans to build some.”

Clee is correct. AEP (my utility) is one of those companies building a demonstration project. I have no problem with CCS being incorporated into power plants if the technology is proven sound. I think my utility provides electricity in a very environmentally sound manner.

The interesting thing about the 'dirty' coal debate, is that I have seen lots of coal plants and strip mines. Given a choice between living within five miles (and I have made that choice before) of a coal operation and a big dirty city, I would pick the coal operation fro many reasons including a cleaner environment.

[petr]

China also uses cheap compressed coal cakes for home heating. That has contributed greatly to the poor air quality in it cities, with all sort of health problems that go along with that.

SO is the Chinese leadership which plans decades into the future, completely ok with increased coal pollution ? Seems to me they have already shut down inefficient and polluting steel plants.

Also my understanding of coal electricity plants is that pretty much stay in a baseline production - theres no way to increase or decrease for peak periods.. How are they handling that.

At some point you have to have a cost on polluting the atmosphere.. Norway (an oil producing) country has successfully had a carbon tax since 91 - the co2 is pumped deep underground in offshore drilling. In Canada, the province of Quebec has already implemented it and BC will be doing the same. (There is a question of whether they are implementing it well) but the fact is that it is coming in the US as well.

[petr]

China also uses cheap compressed coal cakes for home heating. That has contributed greatly to the poor air quality in it cities, with all sort of health problems that go along with that.

SO is the Chinese leadership which plans decades into the future, completely ok with increased coal pollution ? Seems to me they have already shut down inefficient and polluting steel plants.

Also my understanding of coal electricity plants is that pretty much stay in a baseline production - theres no way to increase or decrease for peak periods.. How are they handling that.

At some point you have to have a cost on polluting the atmosphere.. Norway (an oil producing) country has successfully had a carbon tax since 91 - the co2 is pumped deep underground in offshore drilling. In Canada, the province of Quebec has already implemented it and BC will be doing the same. (There is a question of whether they are implementing it well) but the fact is that it is coming in the US as well.

[petr]

China also uses cheap compressed coal cakes for home heating. That has contributed greatly to the poor air quality in it cities, with all sort of health problems that go along with that.

SO is the Chinese leadership which plans decades into the future, completely ok with increased coal pollution ? Seems to me they have already shut down inefficient and polluting steel plants.

Also my understanding of coal electricity plants is that pretty much stay in a baseline production - theres no way to increase or decrease for peak periods.. How are they handling that.

At some point you have to have a cost on polluting the atmosphere.. Norway (an oil producing) country has successfully had a carbon tax since 91 - the co2 is pumped deep underground in offshore drilling. In Canada, the province of Quebec has already implemented it and BC will be doing the same. (There is a question of whether they are implementing it well) but the fact is that it is coming in the US as well.

[petr]

China also uses cheap compressed coal cakes for home heating. That has contributed greatly to the poor air quality in it cities, with all sort of health problems that go along with that.

SO is the Chinese leadership which plans decades into the future, completely ok with increased coal pollution ? Seems to me they have already shut down inefficient and polluting steel plants.

Also my understanding of coal electricity plants is that pretty much stay in a baseline production - theres no way to increase or decrease for peak periods.. How are they handling that.

At some point you have to have a cost on polluting the atmosphere.. Norway (an oil producing) country has successfully had a carbon tax since 91 - the co2 is pumped deep underground in offshore drilling. In Canada, the province of Quebec has already implemented it and BC will be doing the same. (There is a question of whether they are implementing it well) but the fact is that it is coming in the US as well.

[GreyFlcn]

The vast majority of scientists in disciplines relevant to global warming thing LOMBORG a genius who makes rational arguments using cogent facts.

Uhg no.
Lomborg has a political science degree with a background in statistics.
Which doesn't really make him a "scientist".

And has been prosecuted by Danish Authorities for flamboyant acedemic dishonesty.

Lomborg 2001
Debunking Lomborg 2007 - part 1
Debunking Lomborg 2007 - part 2
Debunking Lomborg 2007 - part 3

In particular Lomborg keeps hinging his argument on the concept that sea level rise won't be a big deal.

Even though the current IPCC synthesis report mentions that:
"Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. The projections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, therefore the upper values of the ranges are not to be considered upper bounds for sea level rise."

[Demesure]

"prosecuted by Danish Authorities for flamboyant acedemic dishonesty."

GreyFlcn, do you seriously believe someone could be "prosecuted" (I presume by a court, rather than "authorities" ?) for "flamboyant acedemic (sic) dishonesty" ?
Man, if you believe this, you'll believe in everything !

[bigTom]

Well even as a big supporter for substantial efforts to stop AGW, I have to admit that the popular press has scare-mongered the sea-level rise thing. While I think a catastrophic meltdown of the GreenlandIceSheet is likely, a geologically significant meltdown would take a few centuries. So sea level will only rise a cm or two per year. Not exactly like a tsunami rolling in. It will still mean expensive infrastructure abandonment, and high expenses for seawalls, but these will likely only cost a few percent of GDP.

Similarly for warming induced liberation of CO2/Methane from the earth, the time span for this is thousands of years. The likelyhood of a of rapid climate shift to a hothouse is actually very small.

[GreyFlcn]

Yes, the timespan is thousands of years.

Assuming it's caused by changes in earth's orbit. (And consequently changes in it's proximity to the sun)

What we're seeing however has almost thing to do with that.

The solar intensity is staying practically flat for 40 years, but the temperature is going way up.

Whats more we can know it's not solar intensity because otherwise the Stratosphere would be heating up. But it's actually cooling. Which means that the heat is getting stopped before it reaches the stratosphere by a lower atmospheric level, likely the greenhouse layer.