Comments on: The Dilemma Over Coal Generated Power

60 Minutes: Coal Power Plants Supply Power To Millions, But Cutting Carbon Dioxide Could Take A Long Time

[jtc1321]

On 7 April, 2009 our Secretary of Energy Steven Chu explained the importance of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to the Wall Street Journal:

"It absolutely is worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage because we are not in a vacuum," Chu stated. Chu went on to say he expects the United States and countries such as India and China to continue using coal to generate electricity.

On April 16, 2009, Secretary Chu, once again, explained the importance of America leading the charge to develop clean coal technologies, this time to the Washington Post:

?The United States actually has the most known coal reserves in the world, and over 50 percent of our electricity is generated by coal. Even if the United States turns its back on coal, China and India will not, given the state of affairs. I would prefer to say let's try to develop technologies [clean coal technologies} that can get a large fraction of the carbon dioxide out of coal. Start with 70, 80 percent and build up to over 90 percent, but start now and try to get it out.? ?I'll go back to my original statement that we really have to take the lead.?

[fac226]

60 Minutes missed the boat

While debate over the content will continue, there is little doubt that the program missed a golden opportunity to inform the public of why coal has been, is and will continue to be, the cornerstone of our electricity supply system. Here are some of the things 60 Minutes should have said to give viewers a perspective on the global energy realities facing the United States over the next 20 years:

(1) Electricity is the lifeblood of modern society. Life as we know it would be impossible without electricity and Americans have benefited from the most reliable electric power system in the world. Coal-based electricity is the foundation of our prosperity. Since 1977, for example, national GDP has increased 140%. It is no coincidence that coal-based electricity increased 105% over the same period.

(2) Coal produces 50% of our electricity and that means a staggering 2,000 billion kilowatt hours--more than all the electricity used in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom combined. The 600 coal plants scattered throughout the nation are the tireless workhorses - producing electricity when drought hits the hydroelectric dams, solar panels are clouded over and wind turbines are in the doldrums. They produce electricity when natural gas is too expensive to use and when nuclear power plants are closed. Coal power plants are there each day, every day, 24-7.

(3) Clean coal technologies are already real. Since 1970, electricity from coal has increased over 185%% but emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates have declined more than 80%. Next in line is Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) a well understood technology which will enable us to expand the use of our most significant energy resource?coal. In an energy world dominated by OPEC and Russia, American coal is the epitome of national energy security.

(4) CCS is an attainable goal. We need a regulatory framework and large scale demonstration projects as soon as possible. A full slate of new technologies has become available and the path to emissions-free coal-based energy is now clear. In fact, the International Energy Agency (IEA) identifies CCS for power generation as ?the single most important new technology for CO2 savings?. Massachusetts Institute of Technology concludes, ?there do not appear to be unresolvable open technical issues.? Carnegie Mellon University researchers estimate electricity from coal with CCS can cost only 10 cents per kWh compared to 12-20 cents for wind. Nothing stands in our way except our own inertia.

(5) Unfortunately, we erroneously delayed our zero emission FutureGen project and now stand bemused. In the meantime, China has started Green Gen and Germany initiated Vattenfal. The rest of the world recognizes that the size of worldwide growth in energy demand is unprecedented and will continue for decades. Coal is the primary resource able to meet this demand in terms of scale, time, reliability, cost and versatility. Over 1.5 billion people have no electric power at all and another 2.5 billion have very limited access. The nations of the world need coal to raise hundreds of millions out of abject poverty.

(6) Climate policy goals cannot be met without coal with CCS. The U.S. should rapidly develop CCS and make it available, affordable and deployable to the global community. Of 800,000 megawatts of new coal based generation, less than 40,000 will be in the United States.

In short, the United States can be a leader in helping the world utilize the essential resource we call coal. Or, like ?60 Minutes? we can wring our hands and complain about our ?dilemma? of being ?caught between a rock and a hot place? on our way to ?disaster?. This hyperbole may attract viewers but it does little to inform them as to the window of opportunity we now have to not only improve our own quality of life but bring electricity to millions who toil grimly in the dark. And we should never forget the role coal played in bringing electricity to our own rural poor in the 1930s?prompting a Tennessee farmer to proclaim at a revival meeting: ``Brothers and sisters, I want to tell you this. The greatest thing on earth is to have the love of God in your heart, and the next greatest thing is to have electricity in your house,''

[daytrader62]

I liked the show about coal, carbon dioxide and global warming. I know it is possible to make gas from coal; however, I am proposing a slightly different approach. How about making methane gas at the power plant location? This will required hydrogen and I propose to get it by electrolysis of water and the power plant site. Using the hydrogen from the water and the carbon dioxide from the burning coal, methane can be made and this methane can compressed and containered to be distributed as auto fuel or shipped to various locations as a gas in a pipeline. It takes about four atoms of hydrogen for every one of carbon to make methane or so I believe. By using wind power, solar power and methane, it should be possible to cut the carbon dioxide now being produced by coal alone plants, by 50 percent or more. Also, this process would eliminate the useless suggestion of capturing cabon dioxide and storing it under ground.

[CoachNelson]

There is an energy company that has a process that converts coal to natural gas and activated carbon WITHOUT burning the coal. The natural gas can then be used to drive the electric power plants once they have been converted from burning coal to burning natural gas which would solve this problem and solve it RIGHT NOW! THe CO2 is generated from burning the coal....you don't burn the coal, you do not have CO2. Changing to natural gas will solve their EPA problems immediately and what is nice is this process has been confirmed by an independent team of energy experts and the profit margins are very good. Let's get the politicians off their butts and take a look at this process which is a PROVEN process to use instead of the carbon sequestration

[Texan1958]

co2 is not poisonous. Sitting in a room full of co2 will kill you because of lack of O2, not the presence of co2. Fighting pollution is the #1 objective. Mercury, sulfur, etc. Co2 is not a pollutant. We need to use funds to fight these dangerous pollutants.

[kennyrodgers]

I noticed that some people are asking the same question I am, namely, why not use the carbon dioxide to grow algae for bio-fuels, bio-plastics, bio-pharmaceuticals & bio-feed?

[goredittohead]

Here is a bio-fuel, that has already been tested at an Edison power plant and will help lower emissions. Not saying it is the perfect solution, but it may help until there is one.

Feb 12, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- XcelPlus Global Holdings Inc. (Pink Sheets: XPGH) has successfully completed a test of its GlyCoal(TM) clean energy fuel at an Edison Power-owned 80-megawatt plant in West Virginia.
In the test, GlyCoal reduced coal consumption by 10 percent, in turn reducing the sulfur dioxide and CO2 emissions from coal by 10 percent. "GlyCoal is considered a clean coal technology because it effectively reduces coal emissions and byproducts when used as a replacement fuel," said J. Michael Parsons, President and CEO of XcelPlus Global Holdings.
XcelPlus Global is an emerging alternative energy company that develops new fuel technologies, such as GlyCoal, to offset the use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions from those fuels. "Emissions from burning GlyCoal are acceptable under upcoming regulations because it's a renewable fuel source," Parsons explained. "We can deliver 500,000 gallons to a power plant today, if requested. Coal companies face millions, possibly billions, of dollars in new taxes under the forthcoming Carbon Tax. The successful outcome of this test could have a significant impact on their bottom line."
XcelPlus International (XLPI), a subsidiary company, processes GlyCoal from waste byproducts of biodiesel production. XcelPlus Global holds the pending patent on the process and is preparing to take the product to market, Parsons added.

[mmcconne1]

Did you talk with Governor Brian Schweitzer? He's a real proponent of carbon capture and sequestration here in Montana. I've been told the coal in Musselshell County is the cleanest in the world.

If there's diversity with all energy development, ie: solar, wind, oil, gas, geothermal, and nuclear; coal can have its place in the world.

[jett3310]

Hey brianbwb-2009,
Here's another idea, you and i are devolping a brand new neighborhood or subdivision or whatever you wan' t to call it. Lets face it we have to have power to charge our cell phones and run our tv's etc. Right now we have coal fire plants that's to facts of life, nobody wants new nuclear or coal plants built so for time being we have to use to ones we have now. In our neighborhood why can't big wind turbines or solar panels be used to help offset the power used from the plants people don't like. And its paided for by the neighborhood community itself NOT ENERGY COMPANIES. Its a start , not everybody can afford to go all out on wind or solar power, start small and work your way up.

[suzm48]

First of all, no production of coal is clean. Just ask the folks whose mountains have been gutted. But the more important question is the feasibility of alternative energy sources and savings from efficiency.
Not surprisingly big coal does not believe there is an alternative. Should they be the only ones you asked?
Our intellectual and financial resources are not so limitless that we can BOTH develop clean, sustainable alternatives AND modify toxic, polluting, destructive sources of energy.
We must focus ALL our attention to develop and regulate clean sustainable energy and wise use practices.
see also: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-27-60-minutes-on-coal/