The Green Rocket

As was explained in Parts I and Part II , while there is more efficiency in some elements of coal combustion, CO2 emissions are still a major issue. But does the coal industry have the potential to be a part of the climate change solution?

“Clean” Coal Potential (The Supporting Side)

America’s Power, amongst others, think so. According to the site’s research, there is $6 billion in clean coal research underway right now in 41 states. A portion of this is for improved modeling and efficiency, as well as technological innovation to further reduce the regulated emissions mentioned in Part II . The majority is directed towards researching the process of sequestering carbon, or “carbon capture and storage” (CCS).

CCS is the process of capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants or other large point sources. The CO2 is then permanently stored away from the atmosphere in various areas, such as being injected into geological formations and old mines. If successful, CCS has the potential to account for 10 to 55 percent of the total CO2 mitigation efforts–reducing emissions from coal plants by 80-90 percent. (Source, Section 8.3.3)

While there are some inefficiencies with CCS, to be outlined later, the method has gained attention worldwide and already has a functioning CCS plant in Germany called the Schwarze Pumpe power station. The plant is an important innovation for the coal industry; as NASA physicist Dr. James E. Hansen asserts, the coal industry cannot continue at its current levels of pollution: “Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered (stored in one of several possible ways).” (Source, p2)

America’s Power and others’ plan for clean coal is certainly in the works. In Austin, Texas, an economical technology is being developed with the goal of a 90 percent reduction of CO2 emissions from coal-fueled plants. The project is being headed by Chemical Engineering Professor Gary Rochelle and his colleagues at The University of Texas at Austin. TXU Power will donate $1.8 million to the project as part of the TXU Carbon Management Program. This financing has in turn been matched by a dozen or more other power companies and process suppliers participating in TXU’s program. Rochelle hopes to use the funds over a six-year program to improve the efficiency of the carbon capture process so it uses ten percent less energy.

The main argument America’s Power presents against turning all efforts to renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, is their inability to meet “base-load” demand. Base-load power essentially refers to the energy required to meet a constant minimal demand and keep the electricity grid energized. The other category of electricity production, peaking power, is the variable energy demand that increases or decreases throughout the day when base usage changes. As the site outlines, “Peaking power uses intermittent power resources like solar and wind that produce electricity only when there’s sufficient direct sunlight or sufficient sustained wind speed. For base-load power, you must use so-called hard-path fuels such as coal, which can provide power 24 hours per day.” Others, such as Repower America have countered that renewable energies indeed have the ability to meet base-load demand if strategically implemented. I leave this part of the debate to the reader’s own further examination.

“Dirty Coal” (The Opposition)

There are still many that take issue with investing in clean coal technologies. While the possibilities of the technology are promising, the time-line, cost, and lack of concrete supporting policy concerns some scientists and groups like The Alliance for Climate Protection (responsible for projects like This is Reality and Repower America).

Many of these concerns are highlighted in a publication by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report notes that in its current form, CCS technology would greatly increase the cost of building and operating coal plants–calculating an increase in operating costs of an estimated 21-91 percent for plants near a storage location (Source, Section 8.3.3). According to the report, plants further away or application of the technology to existing plants would be even more expensive. Furthermore, the process itself uses energy, thereby increasing the fuel needs of the plant itself by 25-40 percent.

As mentioned in the previous section, there is current research being conducted to improve the efficiency of this consequence. Another report, done by the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC) reports that if research, development and deployment of the technology are successful, CCS coal-based electricity generation in 2025 will coast less than the cheap unsequestered coal-based electricity generation today. Nonetheless, the question has been raised whether it is necessary to wait and whether the resources would be better invested in other energy technologies such as wind and solar.

In addition to costs, the process of storing CO2 in large quantities has raised concern over associated environmental risk such as leakage, which could lead to ground water contamination. Careful selection and monitoring of the geologic storage (or “sequestrian”) sites is needed, as well as the development of policy mechanisms to support and guide it. Ultimately, the vast amount of new infrastructure required to construct, capture, process, and safely transport large quantities of CO2 has yet to be demonstrated in commercial-scale, fully integrated projects at coal-fired power plants. To truly measure the cost-effectiveness and environmental of CCS in comparison to other carbon-reducing strategies, demonstration projects are needed.

Conclusion

“Clean” coal, and specifically CCS technology is certainly an exciting prospect in many aspects, but one must wonder how different the costs will be, and whether it would be more efficient to instead invest in renewable energy sources. Coal may be our most “abundant” source for now (given the base-load argument), and we have enough for “over 200 years”, but the next question is: And then what?

In addition, how long is it going to take for the clean coal to become commercially available? Mandated? How does this compare to the time it would take to further develop other markets? Is it possible for these other energy technologies to meet our increasing energy demands? What are the costs and benefits of each?

Consider the following: Suppose it is decided that coal does not have a future in the climate change solution. In this case, if aggregate energy demand remains constant, the demand would have to be re-distributed throughout the other energy-generating market sectors, such as wind, solar, natural gas, etc. In the real market, an increase in just half of the energy demand from coal generation to natural gas (which has a lower CO2 output per kWh), for example, would represent an increase of over 25% of all electricity demand shifting to natural gas, as coal makes up over 50% of the market in electricity generation. This would cause prices to soar in this market, coal would again become more attractive, and the cycle would continue until a new equilibrium was met. In this example, it is evident phasing out coal completely is a tricky business without strong policy to support and mitigate the effects on other markets (in the short term).

Clean energy, whether it is renewable sources like solar or wind or new clean coal technology, is expensive. According to a study hosted on America’s Power’s blog, rising energy costs in 2008 consumed 20% of after-tax income for families earning $50,000 or less per year, and 25% for those at $30,000 and under–a statistic is up from 11% in 2001. (Note: as always with statistics, take these numbers with a grain of salt. I haven’t looked at the source data to decide whether the results account for real income, tax increases, etc. Either way, it is true that energy costs have gone up in recent years, and it is the pattern and the disproportionate impact that matters.)

I’m not going to do a cost-benefit analysis here to compare the renewable energy and clean coal markets–there are arguments in each sector that illustrate the potential for job creation and economic stimulation. My point here is that there is no silver bullet solution. The only solid conclusion is that change is essential in the energy industry, and that it will cost.

If coal is a desired part of the climate change solution, we need to see the commercialization and legislation of capture and store techniques for all coal plants. If not, there needs to be strong investment and innovation to develop other markets and a strategic phasing out of coal to mitigate market effects. Either way government investment and legislation to help develop and promote a market will help reduce prices for both consumers (by increasing demand), and for producers (investment in research and development to enhance efficiency can help reduce input costs.) There is a strong role for government in this issue, and it is imperative that the U.S. and other OECD countries take a leadership role in promoting clean energy technology. This is where your voice comes in–I’ve just scratched the surface of the issue, but hopefully I’ve stimulated some discussion. Whatever you choose to support, make sure you educate yourself about it and the opposing arguments.

A couple of Resources for readers interested in measuring their own footprint or finding more information:

Environmental Protection Agency: Clean Energy
Repower America
Natural Resources–Government of Canada
Ecokids (measure your energy efficiency)

Creative Commons Attribution: “SOOC“, Flickr, Robert S. Donovan

Related Posts

• Coal as a Clean Energy Source, Part Two: Does it Exist Now?
• Coal as a Clean Energy Source, Part One: Some Background
• Clearing Up the Myth About Clean Coal