Oct. 19, 2009 Issue

The Continuing Role of Coal

As President Obama strives to both renew economic growth and meet climate change policy goals, the future role of coal looms large. Since World War II, coal has generated almost 50% of all electric power in the United States and is increasingly the source of incremental electricity at the global level. In fact, as recently as last Monday Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, stated that coal "is likely to be a major and growing source of electricity generation for the foreseeable future".[1]

To meet the environmental challenges of this increased utilization of coal, during the next decade the Administration seeks to begin making carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployable, affordable and widespread.


Energy from new coal power plants

The Energy Information Administration projects that by 2030 the United States will need:

* 27,000 additional megawatts in coal-based electricity generating capacity.

* 290 additional billion kilowatt hours of coal based generation. [2]


Economic impact

The role coal plays in the economy has been well documented (e.g. 3), but another important story is that ongoing construction of new coal power plants is currently producing a significant number of jobs at various sites around the country. When operational, these plants each will become an important part of the socioeconomic fabric of their communities:

* Each facility will produce over 600 MW of power, provide jobs to residents and purchase services from nearby businesses.

* In addition, these coal units are important sources of local revenue. In Texas, for example, Luminant's Martin Lake Plant provides 70% of the school district's tax base. In Missouri, donations from employees at a single coal plant are the leading contributor to Franklin County's United Way budget.

Meeting environmental goals

An 80% percent reduction in CO2 emissions while maintaining economic growth is an important goal of the Obama Administration. The International Energy Agency has identified CCS as a "critically important technology" in attaining such goals. [4]

* Improved energy efficiency at new power plants will reduce CO2 emissions by 15 to 30%. [5]

* CCS technologies are the pathway the administration has identified and to this end the Obama administration has made a $1 billion commitment to FutureGen, a near-zero emission facility, with the goal of achieving a commercial scale power plant with CCS by 2016. [1]

Such leadership by the United States is essential to making CCS technologies available to the rest of the world. Over 1.6 billion people do not have any electricity at all and another 2 billion have inadequate access. Billions of people toil grimly in the dark. Coal is a crucial key to turning on the light. The Obama Administration clearly recognizes these global realities and believes that clean coal technologies are the pathway to improving the quality of life across the world.

___________________________________
References:

1. Steven Chu, U.S. Sec. of Energy October 12, 2009
2. http://www.eia.doe.gov/
3. Adam Rose and Dan Wei, "Economic Impacts of Coal Utilization," Penn State University, 2006
4. http://www.iea.org/subjectqueries/cdcs.asp
5. Scott Wiseman, "America's Coal," Indiana Energy Conference, 9/30/2009

Coal can be cleaned up a lot. Coal will continue to be a major source of power. If not in America, then in the rest of the world. CCS however is a pipe dream. There is a crap ton of physical and economic hurdles to this technology. The capture part is quite easy and we can do it right now. The sequestering is a whole different story. Nobody has yet to prove CO2 can be locked away and sequestered. If CO2 is treated as a waste that needs to be disposed of, then it will bankrupt the country. If it is a product that can be sold, then there might be a chance, but then again we are back to sequestration. At this point, it's a pipe dream.

Why can't we pipe the CO2 gases into algae farms to grow the material for biofuels? Algae just loves CO2.

It is not nuetral. We burn coal to produce co2 to produce algae to produce oil to burn in a car. It isn't sequestered, only temporaritly locked.

You are right. Coal must not be burned

But how are we going to keep the cows from farting?

Since most cows are raised by agribusiness and live inside climate-controlled buildings, simply pass a law requiring those buildings to be air tight and then capture the methane. Might actually be profitable.

Sounds reasonable. Was not sure you were serious about not burning coal at all. What do you propose we use for base load.

Well, for now, more coal. But in the future, micro nukes, 3rd gen nukes, and 4th gen nukes.

Nukes are the future, but it will take a while to get there. Solar and wind are nice, but not for baseload.

Without reprocessing, your grand plan is a dead end. The only drawback to nuke is spent fuel. Until something is decided upon, I see no reason to continue stockpiling it. I don't have a problem with the technology or the safety, just a problem with the waste. If the only reason to go nuke is CO2, then I'm not sure whicvh poison is worse. If CO2 is not problem, coal is fine by me.

By the time we know if CO2 is the problem, we will be extinct. Point is, you could fit all the nuke waste since the 50s on a football field, 10 feet high. Is this a real problem? I don't think so.

We are trading an enormous problem for a small inconvenience of guarding some hazmat.

At least BOB has put the kibosh on Yucca Mountain, which was a really stupid idea, IMHO.

I have seen that claim before and would like to see some qualification of it. Are we talking spent fuel rods, all waste, what. Seems a little hard to believe. If we reprecessed we could cut that down ten fold though.

I don't know if it is a problem. Wait and ask the next 100 generations that will have to deal with it. It is quite dificult to imagine the problems that will surround our waste stockpiles 5000 years from now. Add to the fact that many want to increase the role nuclear power has.

Killing Yucca mountain is a huge mistake. The fact is the waste is stored in temporary places never designed to hold it. At least move it to one secure location. The numerous places around the country it is sitting right now I can assure you were never approved for long time storage, but that is exactly what it is being used for right now.

Totally disagree.

If we don't get our hands on the planet's thermostat real soon, there won't be anyone around in 5,000 years to worry about the waste stockpiles.

And who is to say that in 100 years, technology will want to use that "Waste stockpile" as a fuel source?

100 years ago, in 1909, there WAS NO NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

Period.

Come on now. People are not just going to spontaneously combust. Perhaps not as many people will be able to be supported by the planet, but we are not just going to vanish. Besides, I can promise you the planet will still be here in 5000 years, and going by our history, something is going to be alive. You can't say how safe our waste will be a few hundred years from now.

The entire reason it is piling up all over the country is because many keep hopeing we will come up with a solution to the problem technologicaly. So how long do we keep hoping? How about we come up with a solution before we double the problem?

estonia uses coal for electricity and the emissions use a HUGE chunk of limits. right now, we can sell these, but soon we may have to start to buy. darn climate.

since ignalina power plant is to be closed in near future, there has been talk of a nuclear power plant as one alternative. there aren't that many viable options around and even windmills have environmental impact

we have a rather high Rn level on north coast as it is - thanks to nature, make your basements well ventilated, they say

concerns lie in building, maintaining and disposal AND possible accidents. all (or so) here past teens know about tchernobyl, but it doesn't have to be built or maintained by russians, does it? finnish are getting along quite fine, so it's not IMpossible.

civilizations have vanished for one reason or another, so that isn't impossible either.

as to waste, on long term it's better not to have earth covered by it. if we simply send it to orbit, it'll come down and due to murphy's it'll happen when we'd rather not

q: why can't we pack it up and send it to Sun? until we firgure out a better way, at least?

Hey there across the pond.

Chernobyl is totally different story. Very unstable design under very unstable conditions. The rest of the world does not use that design.

Civilizations have vanished, but the human race so far has dodged a couple of bullets.

Sending in to space is simple not feasible. We can't move that amount of payload into space without going bankrupt. The economics are just not feasible. Not to mention the safety record of rockets.

According to Stewart Brand, the 9.5 Billion peeps expected to be here at mid-century will be living on a planet that can sustain about half that many. Will they self destruct?

You wish.

Rather, they will come after your high ground, your arable land, your fresh water, your energy supply.

And they will not be gentle.

We can keep this stuff going by continuously replacing the containers, much as we continuously replace broken highway concrete and potholes. It is simply NOT that difficult.

Global warming, OTOH, is a MAJOR ISSUE, even though we don't hear about it on TV.

After all, we need to know about the latest sexual offender.

Better for ratings.

I agree. We can keep moving waste to new containers. But what will that cost the country. How about if the storage site becomes unstable. Then we have to move it all.

The planet can only hold so many. There will be more mass extinctions. We could turn down Earth's thermostat just in time for Yellowstone to blow up. We have not seen the last of a big meteor strike. Yet nuclear waste is very long lived. At the very least, we need to start reprocessing today. If we are not willing to do that, then we need to wait until we have the ability to manage waste instead of making more. JMHO

that's why i noted it doesn't have to be BUILT OR MAINTAINED by russians and that finns are doing a satisfactory job. the OTHER OBVIOUS issue with t. is that in influences people and it's hard to keep up a rational debate while half the audience is running scared AS WELL AS it serving a reminder of a proper disaster

please, pay attention to what i write, we both came likely with 1 set of nervous system


cost.... if it'd be possible to send all earth's nwaste there, it just might pay off. best counterargument here is the load landing back on us- thing. just... we may come to the point we're it won't be about money anymore but simple survival

i prefer to be a part of a functioning civilization with central heating, espressos wifi and such, if possible

fingers crossed that climate change won't affect tectonic activity&movement too much...

a pond, indeed... been sayin's the tiny universe all the time
------------------------------------------

uhuh, a proper epidemy would do some human resource managing for us

http://www.kirj.ee/public/oilshale/4_brendow_2003_3s.pdf

in english, 7 pages about estonian oil shale industry, just some reading (2003)

http://tehnoloogia.ttu.ee/?id=13047



such a small country but so many issues...

environmental pollution's another issue

Nothing we can do about Yellowstone so why worry. It could blow tomorrow, or in 40,000 years. But how much trouble is it to build and rebuild containers for waste? Compare that with the "cost" to the planet of a 5 degree C rise by mid-century.

Katy bar the door.

Stewart Brand talks about floating mist generators on the ocean to create extra cloud cover to reflect some of the insolation. I think it is a good idea. Again, not a lot of money considering the alternatives.

Sorry Gab. There is no such thing as CLEAN COAL. It is like a safe cigarette.

UNBURNED.