Burning Coal while Controlling Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Scientific peer-review, media political biases & pragmatic business planning suggest accepting the concept that reducing Greenhouse Gases (CO2) specifically from coal power plants. Avoid debating unreliability of climatological models, CO2 regulation or argue costs of renewable energy  Solar, Wind  vs. coal, Electric Utilities & governmental agencies spendi research & development & demonstration monies to establish engineering knowledge to implement Carbon Capture and Sequestration [CCS]. 

In the USA reliance on coal-fired power plants capitalizes upon an abundant [at least 150 years of availability], 100% available and relatively low-cost fuel source. Renewable energy sources [wind and solar] fail to provide 100% available and reliable sources of power – often back-up power is required to meet contractual demands. Even though several states (e.g. CA, FL) have mandated renewable energy goals the pragmatic approach to providing continuous and reliable energy is recognized by politicians and their appointees. Electric Utilities are most cognizant of their obligation to provide continuous energy to their customers; thus embracing renewable energy requirements while continuing to plan for base-loaded plants using coal, natural gas and nuclear. Coal thus remains a significant component for energy planning. Several electric utilities have decided to acquiesce to the media and political realities and incorporate CCS in their planned coal-fired power plants.

Electric Utilities are demonstrating CCS technology [AEP Mountaineer Project. Duke is working with China to help them demonstrate CCS technology for their GreenGen project. This project will employ  integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) which allows for easy separation of CO2 from combustible gases—and far easier CO2 capture. General Electric, Bechtel and Schlumberger commercially offer a turn-key IGCC system combined with Enhanced Oil Recovery [EOR]. EOR injects captured CO2 drives upward the deep oil deposit for recovery. Alstrom and ConocoPhillips commercially offer a similar marketing approach, but using an ammonia-based absorption system to remove carbon dioxide from the emissions of an existing coal-fueled power plant. Chilled ammonia cools the flue gas - increasing the volume and rate at which carbon dioxide can be isolated in a highly concentrated form.  CO2 capture and gasification has been commercially operating at Tampa Electric’s Polk Station [600 MW] for over six years.

To slow the atmospheric buildup of CO2, a report from the U.S. National Research Council recently called for building a suite of 15 to 20 power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) before 2020. "The urgency of getting started on these demonstrations to clarify future deployment options cannot be overstated," the report said. Today, a few such projects are under development. Most aim either to bury CO2 separated from natural gas reservoirs or to pump it into oil reservoirs to push out more oil. These projects are located in Canada, USA, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, China and Australia.

According to Dr. Steven Chu (Obama appointed USDOE Secretary] “The United States possesses one-quarter of the known coal supply, and the United States, Russia, China, and India account for two-thirds of the reserves. Coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions.* It is highly unlikely that any of these countries will turn their back on coal any time soon, and for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued.” (Science; 9/25/09) The cited article should recognize that world governments are appreciating the necessity to rely on coal as a part of their energy plans. Going forward, CCS will most likely be implemented at new coal-fired power plants but at an added cost of about 40% cost increase. (Goodwin, R.W.; “Addressing GHG can help Facilitate Siting Coal-Fired Power Plants”; Energy Pulse.net; Mar. 13, 2008)