The Beginning of the End for Coal

A post on Earth Policy Institute describes the difficulty power companies are having in getting coal fired power plants approved. There first paragraph sums up the difficulty they are having:

With concerns about climate change mounting, the era of coal-fired electricity generation in the United States may be coming to a close. In early 2007, a U.S. Department of Energy report listed 151 coal-fired power plants in the planning stages in the United States. But during 2007, 59 proposed plants were either refused licenses by state governments or quietly abandoned. In addition, close to 50 coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged when they reach the permitting stage.

The post goes on to outline 18 events that have occurred in the last year that have contributed to this dilemma.  The latest action was the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives that would block the EPA and states from issuing permits to new coal-fired power plants that lack state-of-the-art carbon capture and storage, CCS, technology. A comment added to this item was: Since this technology is at least a decade away from commercial viability, if this bill passes it would essentially place a near-term moratorium on new coal-fired power plants.

We have an urgent need for more power production and some way of providing this power must be provided. If the bill introduced in house should pass, as proposed, we would be dependent on renewable energy, nuclear power and conservation to provide the power in the near term. Since these options would not be sufficient, we could only hope that this bill would not pass or it would be modified before passage.

I disagree that CCS technology is at least a decade from commercial viability -- I believe that at least one technology will be successfully demonstrated in 5-7 years. We have at least four CCS technologies in the testing stage and I would propose that coal fired power plants be allowed to be built, 1) under more stringent conditions that the power is needed, 2) that they be located where carbon sequestration can take place and 3) that they be built so that the emerging CCS technologies can be easily adapted to the plant. Their are two ammonia based systems and two amine based systems that I am aware of. It may be necessary to pick one of these technologies or it may be possible to provide (perhaps massive) piping connections that would allow any process to be connected.

While many will say that conservation of electricity is the answer, it is only part of the solution. It will take many years before a structured plan could be put in place.  It may be possible that certain industries could be found where conservation could be mandated, if that can be done constitutionally. Higher prices for electricity may end up being the the greatest force causing conservation. Practices that reduce electrical consumption in the home have been written about by many and these should receive more widespread availability. A simple search on your favorite search engine using the search words "home electricity efficiency" brings up several sources including this one, How to Save Electricity in Your Home from the Edison Electric Institute.

Nuclear and Renewable energy simply cannot be brought up to speed fast enough to meet all our needs, although I think they should be accelerated as fast as possible.  Incentives for renewables should be maintained until the industries are fully sustainable. Geothermal energy has become my favorite renewable energy because it is a baseload power provider, and with new, hot dry rock, HDR, technology can be located in almost all areas of the world, as such it should receive much more funding for demonstration plants from the government. At least four geothermal projects, two funded by DOE and one in France and one in Germany using HDR technology are already underway. Although a large number of HDR plants could be built with existing technology, it might take 10 or 15 years before this technology can be applied universally.

An exception could be made on my, and the US governments, stand that only a few generation III+ nuclear plants can be be built until they have demonstrated that they can operated safely.  If it could be shown that the AP1000 and AREVA plants, and any other that meet US criteria, have been safely and successfully operated in a foreign country, the requirement for operation in the US could be waived.

Comments

[Cyril R.]

There was a time that only people with multiple digit IQ ratings could finish an education.

[Bob Wallace]

I'm not sure where that I.Q. response originated, but while you are generally correct, you forgot athletes.

[Clee]

Kit P. Yes, I was amazed at just how thin those pie slivers are for electric utility emissions and how massive the miscellaneous slice is for particulate matter. I suppose they left out SO2 because they weren't looking at coal or oil plants (which generate 2/3 of the SO2 emissions in the US.)
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/what1.htm
It's nice to see that the coal plants have cleaned up a lot since the 1970 Clean Air Act.

[Kit P]

Gone are the good old days when we heated our houses with coal, steel mills and wire factories ran on coal, and the coal power plant was down downtown. Urban air pollution could not be blamed on cars back then not that they were that clean either. The CAA, CWA, RCRA, CRCLA, and OSHA standards are all regulations that protect the environment.

Building new coal plants to replace less efficient one is clearly a necessity and can be done with acceptable environmental impact.

[Gary Reysa]

We have cut our electricity use in half with absolutely no ill effects on our life style. Its very very easy to do, and results not only in CO2 emissions reduction, but also a very good return on the dollars invested to make the cuts. In many cases the pay back period for electricity saving measures is under one year.
http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

Relying on sequestration of CO2 produced by coal plants is time consuming, very expensive, and technically risky.

Conservation is fast, technically straight-forward, and saves money.

It just boggles my mind that conservation and efficiency improvements don't get more attention.

Gary

[Brent Quebman]

It does not seem there is a silver bullet that will solve the issue. We tell our clients that the best thing they can do is prepare themselves for high energy prices any way its sliced. There is a tremendous amount of energy simply wasted in this country and all you have to do is fly over any major metropolitan area at night to physically see it. So we help our clients see their energy loss through thermal imaging and then help them with a 5 year plan that starts with highest ROI first. Even investing in some of the higher cost items like insulation and windows give you a better return than anything on wall street.

[Cyril R.]

Bob Wallace, are you implying that athletes are stupid? ;)

[Bob Wallace]

New problem for coal?

Recently released study suggests a link between environmental mercury and autism.

"For every 1,000 pounds of mercury released by all industrial sources in Texas into the environment in 1998, there was a corresponding 2.6 percent increase in autism rates in the Texas school districts in 2002.

For every 1,000 pounds of mercury released by Texas power plants in 1998, there was a corresponding 3.7 percent increase in autism rates in Texas school districts in 2002.

Autism prevalence diminished 1 percent to 2 percent for every 10 miles from the source."

A first study and, obviously, not all initial findings hold up. But if this is supported by subsequent research the pressure to move away from coal will probably increase.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424120953.htm

[Samantha Jacoby]

I don't think it's accurate to say that renewable energy would not be sufficient to provide power in the short-term. As others before me have correctly stated, wind and solar have made tremendous strides in the past few years. Alex mentioned First Solar, one of the leaders in the solar industry. If you'd like to learn more about what First Solar and other companies are doing to make renewables more viable (in the near term), First Solar's CEO, Mike Ahearns, will join over 40 other experts to speak at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum, held June 18-19, 2008 in NYC.

The Renewable Energy Finance Forum brings together financiers, investors, and renewable energy project developers to network, strike deals, and learn how money is made in the industry. The high profile speaker panel will share their ideas and insights on the future of renewable energy finance. In short, it is a "must attend" event for anyone involved in the renewable energy sector.

For more information, visit http://www.REFFWallStreet.com.

[Kit P]

“I don't think it's accurate to say that renewable energy would not be sufficient to provide power in the short-term. As others before me have correctly stated, wind and solar have made tremendous strides in the past few years.”

Samantha, calculate the amount of electricity produced by wind and solar and compare it to the total amount of electricity produced. Next look at the a conservative growth rate of 1% of US demand. Then consider the many of the power plants are over 30 years old and must be replaced.

Now tell me what you think.

[Lloyd Weaver]

.
1. There are almost 250 million registered passenger cars in the US. If ¼ became EV’s as part of an energy-independence plan, which is feasible, and if they used just 10 KWH/day, that’s 625 million KWH that must be generated over about a 10 hour period, or 62.5 million KW (62,500 MW) of needed capacity. Because heat pumps are 3 times less costly for heat energy than oil, for public buildings and homes together you can likely double that new electricity load to 125,000 MW. EV’s and heat pumps and energy independence are going to place a tremendous demand on the grid and generation capacity, so get used to it.
2. There is not the slightest shred of real data showing a need for CO2 sequestration from using fossil fuels, including coal. And why is coal singled out anyway? That whole CO2 business is going to come crashing down on environmentalists heads, and the sooner the better because they’re all wet on that one and cruising for bruises big time. I’m a scientist and environmentalist, but I think CO2 poppycock is long overdue for being shot down for what it is, complete and total nonsense. There is no upswing in temperature trends due to then 80% emissions increase of CO2 since 1970 whatsoever. I defy anyone to produce a shred of evidence with scientific credibility of temperature trend changes due to this CO2 increase during this period.

[Bob Wallace]

OK, I'm ready to believe you.

Just as soon as you do a couple of things.

1) Take a look at figure 4a on this page.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

2) Give me a believable explanation of why global temperature has increased over this time span. Especially since the 1970s.

"Believable" has an internal requirement of reliable data.

No points for invoking the Warming Fairy.

[Kit P]

“Especially since the 1970s.”

Which were cooler than the two decades before. Those natural cycles are hard to explain (not hard to make up irrational explanations) but easy to observe.

More Bad news for Bob who links generating electricity from coal to autism. The New York Times has linked HEV to childhood leukemia. As we all know, childhood leukemia trumps autism.

That is the trouble fear mongering loons, you can not control them. They are against everything.

[The doctor]

"That is the trouble fear mongering loons, you can not control them. They are against everything."

You may want to see a psychologist about that.

[Garko Novis]

buying gas has become a major investment decision, as in "do i invest in some food so i can get thru the day or some gas so i can get where i have to go?" It should never be this way but it is. But that doesn't mean we have to just suffer. There is a real solution in Water4Gas and you owe it to yourself to check it out! http://w4g4mpg.info

[Somewhere, USA]

In my opinion, it is foolish to worry about capturing carbon from things we burn. In terms of the long term economic and environmental security of the USA, the top priorities should be: (1) conserve and/or use renewable energy sources as much as possible and (2) greatly reduce imports, since we are now bleeding billions of dollars per day into oil-exporting nations.

In terms of the carbon-caused global warming "debate", several things need to happen: (1) prove that human industry sigficantly increases global average temperature. (2) if #1 is true, then prove that the expected global warming will make the world worse off as a whole. (3) Even if #2 and #3 turn out to be true, it does not mean that every proposed "solution" will accomplish anything. There is no reason to believe that all accessible coal, oil, and natural gas will not be consumed at some point within the next few hundred years. That said, is the world really any better off if it's consumed by China instead of the USA?

As for the issue of CO2 capture and geological sequestration, I believe that is a very bad idea because it results in an even more permanent removal of carbon from the biosphere than when it was coal. Coal can be dug up and burned, but no future generations will ever dig into the earth in search of CO2. Thus, whatever carbon is sequestered is effectively gone forever.

Carbon is the basis of all life on earth. The carbon that fossil fuels are composed of was once alive and part of the biosphere. When all the fossil fuels have been converted to CO2, they will eventually be incorporated into plants or algae somewhere in the world, perhaps producing more fossil fuels for future generations to burn.

[MAK]

MAK,
I Have a solution Stop the (Global Warming). I can stop the (Co2 Gass). I Have new Automatic makeing Energy System. You Don't need a any Power. Its Working Automatically. Please contact Me Urgent.

[Tony]

I think we havent heard the last of king coal,its just how its used and treated thats new

[Green Energy]

Many people think they only use coal on beautiful summer days when they pour briquettes into their barbecue grill. While your char-broiled burger might be the most delicious way to use coal, it's by no means the most important. Coal, a simple combustible rock, is a big contributor to the American way of life. Plentiful and (relatively) inexpensive, coal is very important in industrial and residential applications.

[davidbaer]

Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.

LATEST TREND

[Process Maturity]

What we have going in the world of nuclear electricity is a form of silly madness perverted by fear.............So we have to take care of it....

[Process Management Training,Australia]

... In a short period of time we should see that 22% figure falling.......

[Process Maturity Model,Australia]

What we have going in the world of nuclear electricity is a form of silly madness perverted by fear.......

[henry]

Did you know you can save big $ on your energy bill with clean , renewable geothermal pump systems ? well worth looking into-enjoyed your article very much. http://egggeothermal.net

[alice]

interesting article
yeah polution in sa is also bad.. but not as bad as in the uk..

[Made in China]

Made in ChinaMade in China

[Live Longer]

Explore your options for healthy aging. Find research and information on the health benefits of resveratrol, the miracle polyphenol found in red wine and its miraculous antiaging benefits. Resveratrol research suggests it has antiaging, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, anti-oxidant, and cardiovascular benefits.

[buy wholesale]

And thorium also scores better on the commercially viable index.

[Dental Plan Provider]

We could only hope for the best. Should this bill pass, hopefully there will be a viable alternative.

[Ryan]

This is a great blog and I have learned a lot of great things. Keep up the good work.

[surveys online]

This is very interesting. It's good that government has an observation for this before letting it go through.

[Medical-x-ray]

I still gotta pick up this book

[Office 2010]

You are great! But I still did good! Hey!

[Rug Cleaning Los Angeles]

I didn't realize that coal was still used so much. Things need to change...

[Therapist New York]

You are so right, we need to get on renewable energy ASAP, we've wasted enough time and natural resources.

[Tours in Venice]

I hope you're right that one technology will be demonstrated to work within the decade. With the minds that we have out there we should be able to figure this out.

[Los Angeles SEO]

Wow, that is a lot of coal companies closing in a year.

[Tours in Venice]

It is a long time now from 2007 and I haven't really heard of many changes of our power resources.

[Sofa Glendale]

I love watching the changes in technology and the advances that have been happening recently. A lot of hybrid cars on the roads now.

[Filipino Car Lease Broker Los Angeles]

You're right that electricity conservation is only part of the answer- but whatever little bit helps will be useful.

[coalportal]

It is a bit of juggling game in the coal industry and coal prices from underground mines to ensure enough electricity and steel capacity worldwide while making sure the impact on the environment and people is minimal. www.coalportal.com

[london inventory company]

This is a topic that can be discussed from many angles. Thanks for the preview.