Coal trend should spur new technology

The Missoulian ^ | Tuesday, March 23, 2004 | editorial

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

SUMMARY: Coal's a plentiful source of energy; clean-burning technology would make it far better.

After nearly a generation on the, well, black list, coal is making a comeback. At least 94 new coal-fired electricity-producing plants in 36 states are on the drawing boards in what one newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, hails as "America's new coal rush."

This should be welcome news to Montanans. The southeastern part of the state lies atop enough coal to fuel the entire United States well into the 23rd century. Coal mining may not be exactly environmentally benign, but coal miners have demonstrated an ability to thoroughly reclaim the land they disturb. Montana reaps significant taxes on every ton of coal mined in the state. Open-pit coal mining isn't a labor-intensive endeavor, but it does provide those increasingly rare well-paying blue-collar jobs for which Montanans so often yearn.

Coal's resurgence is purely a factor of economics. Natural gas, long preferred as a cheaper, cleaner fuel, became too popular. That's due in part because gas-fired turbines are relatively small and easy to build, involving less investment and risk than coal-fired plants, which tend to be large and expensive. But we also use natural gas for heating homes and businesses, to fuel factories and to produce fertilizer and a wide array of other products. The result has been high demand for natural gas, leading to a tripling of prices.

What we need is a balanced approach to energy production - not too many eggs in any one basket. We need coal, gas, oil, wind and, yes, even nuclear power. To those, throw in conservation, which isn't a source of energy but provides the potential to reduce the need for energy.

Coal's long been out of favor largely because of environmental concerns. Compared to burning coal, burning natural gas is relatively clean and producing less pollution. Wind power creates no emissions; nor do hydroelectric dams. But what comes out of the smokestack isn't the whole story. Listen to the Bush administration clamor to drill holes along Montana's Rocky Mountain Front. Look at what coal-bed methane production does to the landscape of Wyoming - and think about proposals to extend the same treatment to Montana. Consider the damage dams do to rivers and fisheries. Look at the visual blight of large-scale wind farms. Contemplate, too, the enduring nature of nuclear waste and both the pollution and international strife that comes with every barrel of foreign oil. Suddenly coal takes on a more favorable luster.

What we really need are ways to burn coal with less air pollution. So-called clean-coal technology has long been touted as the key to America's energy future. Unfortunately, developing this technology hasn't exactly been a top priority. The Bush administration is calling for a $1 billion program it calls FutureGen, aimed at producing clean-burning coal technology. One billion dollars sounds like a lot, except when you consider the amount of money this country invests in other things. The White House has pledged more than that to study manned missions to Mars.

Perhaps renewed interest in building coal-fired plants will generate new interest in clean-coal technology. Otherwise, we're likely to wind up with cheaper electricity but darker skies.

[Willie Green]

 Electricity Production by Source (1999) 

Country		Production (billion kWh)		Fossil Fuel %		Hydroelectric %		Nuclear %		Other %
Austria		59.283		29.53		67.65		0		2.82
Belgium		79.829		40.01		0.42		58.33		1.24
Denmark		37.885		88.40		0.07		0		11.53
Finland		75.792		41.88		16.77		28.82		12.53
France		497.260		9.69		14.39		75.43		0.49
Germany		531.377		63.29		3.59		30.3		2.82
Greece		46.432		89.60		9.72		0		0.68
Ireland		19.542		94.42		4.23		0		1.35
Italy		247.679		79.09		18.08		0		2.83
Luxembourg		0.648		36.88		53.09		0		10.03
Netherlands		85.294		90.25		0.11		4.27		5.37
Portugal		41.696		79.97		17.25		0		2.78
Spain		197.694		57.71		12.10		28.28		1.91
Sweden		146.633		5.53		47.24		45.42		1.81
United Kingdom		342.771		69.38		1.55		26.28		2.39
Total European Union		2409.815		50.86		12.45		34.06		2.57
United States		3678.000		69.64		8.31		19.8		2.25

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[backhoe]

Willie, thanks for posting this. We could use so much of the vast coal reserves we have, and free up oil and gas for other purposes.

Just FYI, when I toured the local electric plant, McManus, in 1964, it was a triple-fuel facility- oil, gas, or coal.

Even then, they were burning pulverized coal and there was no- zero- smoke. Just clear, hot gas exited the stack. The advances in treating stack gasses since that time have been enormous, and most people aren't even aware they exist, but the difference is vast.

[alloysteel]

There is an excellent way to turn coal into relatively hot, clean-burning energy. As coal is virtually all carbon, with some volatiles, the first step is to drive out the volatiles by forcing superheated steam through a bed of finely crushed coal. The superheated steam is sent through a condensation tower, where the various fractions are recovered, and the steamed coal, now a very porous substance that resembles charcoal briquets, is sent into a retort, where, in the absence of air, it is heated to near incandescence. There is a very narrow range of temperature, which if the almost pure carbon is sprayed with water, the reaction goes completely to carbon mnoxide and free hydrogen, both excellent gaseous fuels. The product of combustion using this mixture is carbon dioxide and water, no nitrous oxides, no sulfur oxides, no particulates, just lots of clean hot energy.

These principles were well known over a century ago, and had been extensively developed by German chemists and used in heavy manufacture, of both steel and coal-tar products. The trick today is to make the process even more cost-effective than it now is, by engineering the various steps to limit or totally eliminate emmissions, and more efficient use of the energy expended.

[Willie Green]

the reaction goes completely to carbon mnoxide and free hydrogen, both excellent gaseous fuels. The product of combustion using this mixture is carbon dioxide and water,

As best I understand Dubya's H₂ fuel cell proposal, he wants to use vast amounts of energy (from an unamed source) to strip the H₂ from fossil fuels and only oxidize IT in the fuel cell to form water, leaving the C behind in some kind of solid form.

It seems awfully wasteful and inefficient to me to not utilize the exothermic energy that'd be released by also oxidizing the carbon.

[nightdriver]

One thing Bush could do is remove X42's silly national monument designation from those beds of clean-burning coal that are found in Southern Utah.

It just makes sense to start with a clean-burning fuel if you want a clean fire.

[o_zarkman44]

Northern Missouri has large deposits of coal of a high sulphur content. I understand the technology has been refined to efficiently remove the sulpher content. Hundreds of jobs were lost as the result of the mines being closed down.

Huge power plants, once powered by Missouri coal are shipping trainloads of Montana and Wyoming coal to Missouri. The expenditure of energy transporting the coal compared to locally produced coal, and the local jobs produced make coal a bargain. Unfortunately, environmentalists have sounded the acid rain, global warming alarm. But someday, the energy will have to be exploited regardless of the consequences.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!