THE LIBERAL NEWS™ © Assisting single mothers by our 441 society plan. The Gospel Followers of JESUS CHRIST[sm]© Editor: Dr. Stephen-James Warner

Golfer247 - The latest news and products from the world of golf
Main Menu | News By Date | News By Supplier | News By Category | About Us  
 
 

COAL CLEANING TECHNOLOGY TO BE USED TO RECOVER COAL FROM WASTE
27 January 2005 - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Billions of tons of coal that have been considered waste for decades can now become an energy source, thanks to the advanced separation technologies developed at Virginia Tech. Patented MicrocelTM technology, developed in the mid-1980s by Roe-Hoan Yoon, Gerald Luttrell, and Gregory Adel, professors of mining and mineral engineering, and their group at Virginia Tech, has been in use worldwide for many years to separate coal and other minerals from impurities. In the mid 1990s, Yoon developed chemistry that can be used to dewater clean coal.

Billions of tons of coal that have been considered waste for decades can now become an energy source, thanks to the advanced separation technologies developed at Virginia Tech. Patented MicrocelTM technology, developed in the mid-1980s by Roe-Hoan Yoon, Gerald Luttrell, and Gregory Adel, professors of mining and mineral engineering, and their group at Virginia Tech, has been in use worldwide for many years to separate coal and other minerals from impurities. In the mid 1990s, Yoon developed chemistry that can be used to dewater clean coal.

Yoon has said for years that combining the two advanced separation technologies will allow waste coal to be recovered economically.

Now, the Beard Company of Oklahoma City has announced that its subsidiary, Beard Technologies, Inc. (BTI) of Pittsburgh has signed an agreement with Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC. (PMC) to recover waste coal from a fine coal impoundment at the Pinnacle Preparation Plant near Pineville, W.Va. The advanced separation technologies developed at Virginia Tech will play the key role in making the project feasible.

'It will be the first major commercial use of our dewatering technology for remining applications,' said Yoon, who is overjoyed at the development that will provide an energy resource from a waste product.

'I've been talking to Dr. Yoon since 1990,' said BTI President C. David Henry. 'At first, it was regarding recovery of fine coal through Microcel; then it was about dewatering. Now we are putting them together as a package.'

In addition to the advanced coal-cleaning technologies, BTI has developed its own dredge system that is specifically designed for waste coal recovery. 'Now everything is in place for BTI to move forward with this project. We expect to be running by late spring,' Henry said.

BTI expects to produce 240,000 tons of clean coal a year for PMC from the pond, Henry said. 'We will be recovering an energy resource that in most cases is being discarded and lost at a time when the United States is concerned with new supplies and the high costs of energy.'

'There are many slurry ponds across the world and many companies are waiting to see how we do. This will end up being a show case operation,' Henry said.

Yoon said that there are 713 fine coal ponds and impoundments in the United States, mostly in the Appalachian coalfields. More than two billion tons of coal have been discarded into these ponds due to the lack of appropriate separation technologies.

'Despite the promising laboratory results, it has been a challenge to demonstrate the new dewatering process in large scale operation,' said Yoon. 'But The Beard Company is sufficiently convinced of the value of our technology to invest more than $7 million of private funds in the pond recovery project.'

Yoon said that the fine coal containing large amounts of impurities will be pumped from the pond to a newly constructed plant on the site, where the advanced separation technologies will be used to produce clean coal containing low moisture. 'We can recover practically all of the coal from the material that is pumped from the pond,' Yoon said. 'Past attempts were only able to recover the easy-to-clean and easy-to-dewater coals and the rest was discarded. But with the new technologies, we now have the ability to capture almost all of the coal from the waste material remined from slurry ponds and impoundments. This will substantially increase profit margins and minimize financial risk for future fine coal projects.'

BTI does testing, analysis, planning, development, and 'ultimately, fine coal recovery,' Henry said. 'We are creating a more saleable coal because of our ability to clean it better and reduce moisture, thanks to Dr. Yoon's technologies.'

Henry said he would like Yoon and Luttrell to set up test units in the new plant to continue to test newer technologies that are currently under development at Virginia Tech. 'I have found it refreshing working with Drs. Yoon and Luttrell. They have always been willing to address the needs of industry – to consider the commercial impact of their research,' Henry said.

The U.S. Department of Energy through the National Energy Technology Laboratory has been the major sponsor of the research at Virginia Tech to develop the separation science into technologies that make coal cleaner and recovery of waste coal possible. 'We appreciated the support of Southwest Virginia Representative Rick Boucher and Northern Virginia Representative Jim Moran and of Virginia Senators John Warner and George Allen in supporting the development of these critical technologies,' Yoon said.

The article, 'Novel Dewaterin Aids for Mineral Concentrations and Coal,' co-authored by Yoon with his students and research colleagues, is paper 37 in the 2005 Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors.

http://www.vt.edu
About: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
From a meagre beginning in October of 1872, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, popularly known as Virginia Tech, has evolved into a comprehensive university of national and international prominence. As Virginia's largest university with 25,600 students and one of the top 50 research institutions in the nation, it is an institution that firmly embraces a history of putting knowledge to work. That tradition is rooted in our motto, Ut Prosim: "That I May Serve," and our land-grant missions of instruction, research, and solving the problems of society through public service and outreach activities.

More News:
  • For January 2005
  • From Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
  • For University

©2006 New Materials International

Energy Bulletin, peak oil news clearinghouse  
 home  search  peak oil primer  about energy bulletin  contribute to energy bulletin
news by category

    * Resources
          o Oil
                + Conventional Oil
                + Arctic Oil
                + Deep Water
                + Heavy Oil
          o Natural Gas
                + LNG
                + Condensates & NGL
          o Tar Sands
          o Shale Oil
          o Coal
          o Methane Hydrates
          o Nuclear
          o Other Resource Depletion
          o Renewables
                + Wind
                + Solar
                      # Photovoltaic
                      # Solar Thermal
                + Hydro
                + Geothermal Energy
                + Ocean Energy
                      # Tidal Energy
                      # Wave Energy
                      # OTEC
                + Hydrogen & Fuel Cells
                + Biomass
                + Biofuels
    * Regions
          o Middle East
          o Russia & Central Asia
          o North America
          o Latin America
          o Africa
          o Europe
          o Australia & Oceania
          o Polar Regions
          o Asia South and East
          o Global
    * Related Issues
          o Food & Agriculture
          o Transport
          o Housing & Urban Design
          o Health
          o Economics
                + Petrodollars & $US hegemony
                + New Currencies
                + Privatisation & Globalisation
                + OPEC
          o Politics
                + Resource Wars & Imperialism
                + Political Movements
                + Energy Policy
          o Community
          o Education
                + Energy Literacy
          o Waste
          o Industry
                + Energy Companies
                + Energy Infrastructure
                + Exploration
                + Technology
          o Electricity
          o Environment & Sustainablity
                + Climate
                + Consumerism
                + Energy Demand
                + Human Ecology & Behaviour
                + Overshoot
          o Solutions

      rss

  
E-mail this to a friend    Printable version

Published on 21 May 2006 by Augusta Free Press. Archived on 22 May 2006.
King Coal again raises his sooty scepter

by Erik Curren
RELATED NEWS:

Fuel tax magic...

Our black future...

Other energy - June 24...

Coal - July 5...

The peak oil crisis: Our Government Forecasts the Future...

With high gas prices and the coming of Peak Oil, coal is making a big comeback these days. The industry says that it's not a question of whether we'll use coal - we'll need the energy - but how we'll use coal.

Environmentalists disagree. They say that coal is the dirtiest energy source, emitting far more greenhouse gases than natural gas or even oil. Burning coal would speed up dangerous global warming.

But the industry says they've figured out a way to get rid of coal's traditional pollution - "clean coal."

"Technologies have already been developed that are capable of almost entirely eliminating local and regional pollutants from coal-fired power generation - particulates, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide - but they need to be used more widely around the world," according to the World Coal Institute.

Judy Bonds knows something about the coal industry. She is a coal miner's daughter from West Virginia who has faced off against big mining companies. For more than a decade, with a group called Coal River Mountain Watch, she has mobilized communities in the southern part of the state to fight the damage that a new method of strip-mining has caused to their environment.

Bonds, whose father died of black-lung disease after a lifetime in the mines, only came to oppose the industry after she could no longer ignore the damage to her community. One day, in 1993, just after A.T. Massey Coal Co. had begun blasting operations nearby, Bonds saw her grandson standing in the creek behind her home holding a handful of dead fish, killed from toxic mining runoff.

At that point Bonds realized that "the environment is all around us," and that she had to do something to protect the land where her family had lived since the Revolutionary War.

Her story and others are told in a new film, "Black Diamonds: Mountaintop Removal and the Fight for Coalfield Justice" (www.blackdiamondsmovie.com). I had a chance to meet Bonds when she accompanied filmmaker Catherine Pancake to Staunton a couple of weeks ago for an advance screening of the film, which tells the story of the new aggressive strip-mining in Southern West Virginia.

Perfected out West and brought to West Virginia in the 1990s, mountaintop removal is used to extract more coal with less effort and at lower cost. Instead of having to dig deep pits into the earth and send down miners to bring the coal back up to the surface, now the companies just locate mountains that contain seams of coal and blow their tops off with tons of explosives. Then the coal, exposed at ground level, can be removed in large quantities using heavy equipment.

For ease of extraction, mountaintop removal makes sense. It's like cracking open an egg, instead of poking a hole in the shell with a pin and trying to suck out the insides. So, if you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, as Stalin said, then strip-mining in West Virginia today has reached truly Stalinistic proportions.

Aside from literally dynamiting the Appalachian range - 20 percent of peaks in Southern West Virginia have been leveled so far - mountaintop removal leaves a big mess when the mining is done, a lunar landscape stripped of its rich forest and rutted with craters.

"Appalachian deciduous forest is the most bio-diverse ecosystem in the U.S. after rainforest," filmmaker Pancake says. "We could consider it a natural treasure or a ripe environment for exploration. It should be valued."

Environmental regulations require the mining companies to return the mining sites to a condition equal to or better than their original state and then to contain the tons of waste rock removed from the coal - "overburden" - to stop toxic pollution from getting into local water supplies.

Unfortunately, these regulations, already inadequate to start with, are not well enforced by a state government that sees environmental protection as a luxury - nearly two-thirds of all business taxes in West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the nation, come from coal. As a result, 300,000 acres of forests have been lost while more than 700 miles of streams have been buried.

Activist Bonds says that the mining area around the Big Coal River in the southern part of the state has become a war zone for local residents. Mining now uses 3 million tons of explosives a day. People who live near mines and processing plants have to wear masks to mow their lawns. Soot has blackened once pristine streams and black-washed the outside of homes.

And massive dams, or "impoundments," built to hold back toxic mining slurry strike fear into the towns under their shadow. In 1972, 125 people died when a slurry dam collapsed at Buffalo Creek in Logan County. Another spill in 2000 in Kentucky released 250 million gallons of mining waste and became the worst environmental disaster ever east of the Mississippi. Today, there are 136 such dams in West Virginia that need to be cared for in perpetuity, just as if they were nuclear-waste dumps.

To add insult to injury, though ordinary West Virginians pay a high environmental cost for coal, they gain little economic benefit from it anymore. Over the last 50 years, mining has become more reliant on machinery than on muscle, and coalfield jobs have dropped by 80 percent.

The butt of hillbilly jokes for decades, Appalachia's uniqueness has made it harder for other Americans to relate to the proud and isolated culture of a mountain region that was our nation's first frontier and has now become our last one.

Our apathy has made it easier for mining companies to perpetrate outrages against people and the environment in West Virginia that Americans would not tolerate anywhere else. Yet, the plight of our neighboring state affects us all as the Age of Oil comes to an end and King Coal rises.

First, if mining companies can get away with flouting environmental regulations in Appalachia, they will try to do so elsewhere. That means any place in America with coal, or indeed any natural resource that can be removed for profit, may face a similar fate.

Second, with Peak Oil here and oil supplies beginning their irreversible decline, America and the world are certain to look to coal to fill the gap between dwindling energy supplies and rising demand. Coal is attractive because it can be easily extracted - especially using mountaintop removal - and America has plenty of it, with some estimates putting our supply at 200 years or more under current rates of use. "The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal," an industry exec told The New York Times in April.

That brings us back to "clean" coal. The Bush administration, with coal millionaires as major campaign donors, put $9 billion in subsidies for the industry into the 2005 Energy Bill, with nearly $5 billion of that going to develop clean coal technology.

But the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle process to make coal clean remains largely unproven, and its development has been plagued by mismanagement, waste and failed programs, according to the Government Accountability Office. The industry's failed experiments so far with clean-coal processing plants do not inspire confidence.

"Making coal clean is an oxymoron," Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, based in Washington, D.C., told me. Whatever the industry claims they can do to eliminate coal's pollution, "the problem is that the regulations aren't in place to regulate carbon sequestration and other waste streams. A lot of this is just talk to put a green veneer over a really dirty energy source."

So without laws requiring it, industry will not go to the extra trouble go make coal clean, assuming this is really possible. And even with the right laws, coal companies' century-long record of flouting environmental and labor regulations shows that we cannot trust them to comply with any new regulations on producing coal cleanly. Pica's group supports moving funding from coal to genuine clean energy sources like wind and solar.

Judy Bonds from West Virginia agrees that we should move away from coal and towards clean, renewable energy. "There is no such thing as 'clean coal,' since it would be impossible to build a plant. The coal industry is now pumping toxic sludge from washing coal at preparation plants into old abandoned mine shafts, and this sludge is leaking into people's underground water wells. In what we know, the stuff they pump underground does not stay."

Bonds goes even further. Since half of America's electricity today comes from coal, she urges any of us who ever flip a light switch to consider our role, as consumers of electricity, in creating a demand for the coal that has brought so much destruction to her part of the world.

"Even if the power company could get marshmallows to come out of the smokestacks," she says, "the coal burned in the plants has our blood all over it. If you can't extract it clean, then it can never be burned clean."

But as cheap oil runs out, won't we need coal, no matter how dirty, as the industry claims?

Energy analysts predict that demand for coal could rise 2 percent per year or more just to meet electricity demand, especially as the price of natural gas, which provides much electricity today, rises. Demand could increase even faster if other industries try to replace oil with coal, particularly to make chemicals and plastics. Even the Air Force is hoping to use synthetic fuel from coal to power its jets.

This is the wrong path. Given the shameful past of the coal industry, their promises that coal can be mined cleanly or burned cleanly ring hollow. We should not bet our energy future on the word of discredited coal barons. There is a better way.

The industry may be right that if demand for electricity continues to rise, America cannot do without coal. Truly practical clean energy sources like solar and wind can supply power on a small scale in the future, but energy analysts agree that no combination of clean energy sources can replace coal within the next decade as a source of electricity if demand rises as they predict.

So that just leaves us with coal, clean or dirty. Unless, of course, we take the option that the industry hardly ever discusses. That's the conservation option: Instead of trying to replace supply, we should simply reduce demand.

Conservation is America's secret weapon, if only we would use it. It worked in the '70s, and it can work again.

Americans are the biggest energy wasters on earth. Western Europeans use half the energy we do to enjoy basically the same lifestyle. Here, we can make great gains in frugality and efficiency to do more with much less power. That will reduce the demand for electricity from coal.

If we conserve petroleum supplies, industry can continue to use oil for plastics and chemicals for decades to come, instead of having to switch to coal, which will certainly have its own problems.

Clean coal is a risky gamble that distracts America from proven solutions for energy security. We should force Washington to divert the $9 billion in coal subsidies from the 2005 Energy Bill over to crash programs for efficiency and clean energy. Meanwhile, all of us who flip light switches should cut our energy use so that we can prove the coal industry wrong. If we start now to power down our lifestyles, we won't need more coal in the future; we'll need less.

Want to save energy at home and on the road? The U.S. Department of Energy has some easy tips to get started: www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips.

Want to know more about "clean coal" and coal mining in West Virginia? Visit Coal River Mountain Watch: www.coalfieldsustainability.org.

Erik Curren is a regular contributor to The Augusta Free Press. Curren is the author of Buddha’s Not Smiling: Uncovering Corruption at the Heart of Tibetan Buddhism Today. More information about Curren's works is available on-line at www.alayapress.com. The views expressed by op-ed writers do not necessarily reflect those of management of The Augusta Free Press.

[Industrial Newsroom Home] [ThomasNet Industrial Directory] [Go to Your Personalized Newsroom] [Industrial Trends] [Submit Your Press Release] [Advertise on this site] [Contact Us] [About ThomasNet Industrial Newsroom]  Jul 6, 2006 

 Newsletters
Industrial Market Trends
Get our free bi-weekly Industrial Market Trends newsletter delivered by e-mail.
Subscribe    View Sample

Product News Alerts
Get customized, daily news on the products and services you want to know about.
Subscribe   View Sample
 Recent Entries

    * It's Like Pac-Man...for Industrial Folk
    * Warehousing & Logistics: Supply Chain Bedfellows
    * 10 Ways to Accelerate Warehouse Operations
    * Leveraging Technology to Strengthen the Supply Chain
    * Protecting Your Goods: 10 Tips for Choosing Cargo Seals
    * 3PL: Matters of Size
    * U.S. Revisits Restrictions on High-Tech Exports to China
    * Break the Habit. Take a Vacation. It’s What Bosses Now Want.
    * Burning Question
    * Recommended Reading

 Archives by Year

    * 2006
    * 2005    2004
    * 2003    2002
    * 2001    2000

 Recommended Reading
book6.18.gif
ISBN: 081440751X
Format: Hardcover, 352pp
Pub. Date: January 2003
Publisher: AMACOM
Textbook Hardcover
B&N Price: $39.95 Read more

 Blogroll

    * Agile Management
    * Alternative Energy Blog
    * The Architects Desktop
    * Autoblog
    * Be Excellent
    * BoingBoing: A Directory of Wonderful Things
    * The Brousell Blog
    * Business 2.0
    * Business Evolutionist
    * Business Innovation Insider
    * Business & Technology Reinvention
    * Christian Science Monitor, ScitechBlog
    * Clean Break
    * The Design Weblog
    * Discover 6 Sigma
    * The Energy Blog
    * Engadget
    * Evolving Excellence
    * The Fabricator Blog
    * GIS CAD Interoperability
    * Gizmodo
    * Got Boondoggle?
    * Fresh Inc. (Inc.com)
    * IndustryWeek
    * iSixSigma Blogosphere
    * Lean Blog
    * Lifehacker
    * National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
    * New Economist
    * Outsource Reporter
    * PhysOrg
    * Procurement Central
    * Responsible Nanotechnology
    * RFID Weblog
    * RFID Gazette
    * ScienceBlog
    * Scientific American
    * Six Sigma
    * Spend Matters
    * Stamping Out a Living
    * Technology Review (MIT)
    * Treehugger
    * Wired News
    * ZDNet

« Burning Question: Who Needs to Clean Up Their Act? | Main | On the Road to Recyclability, Auto Industry Steps on It »
March 15, 2005
Coal Comes Clean
By Katrina C. Arabe

High in sulfur, coal is too polluting to burn under U.S. emissions laws in many power plants. But new clean-burning technology is promising to make the fossil fuel the best bet for satisfying our ever-growing energy needs:

In fact, coal is the country's only viable, currently available option for new large-scale power generation in the next decade, says consulting company Cambridge Energy Research Associates. With electricity demand on the rise, the Massachusetts-based company estimates that the U.S. will need about 50,000 megawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity in the next 10 years.

Coal.JPG
So why is coal, which has suffered a decade-long slide and has been vilified for emitting pollutants such as mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, the "it" fuel for electricity production all of a sudden? For starters, its competition has weaknesses that can be exploited. Take natural gas, for example. While its significantly lower emissions and capital cost have helped it clinch most new power plant capacity for the past 15 years, its position as favored fossil fuel is being shaken by skyrocketing prices. Renewable energy sources, meanwhile, are simply too green. While they're gaining ground, they're still inadequate as a large-scale source of electricity. And last, as well as least at the moment, is nuclear energy, which is much reviled.

An even more important reason for coal's expected "renaissance," says a January article in The Lane Report, is new technology that's making it clean. And we're not talking about emission control systems that remove sulfur and ash from coal plant exhaust. New clean coal technology goes a step further--instead of zeroing in on pollutants from a plant's exhaust, it takes them out while the coal is being burned or right before. As a result, new power plants utilizing these cutting-edge systems have the potential to reduce emissions by about 80 or 90% compared to conventional coal-burning plants.

Clean coal technologies also promise to bring an arguably greater environmental benefit. They represent a cost-effective and practical way to excise most of the carbon dioxide from coal power plant emissions. While not monitored as a pollutant, carbon dioxide is widely considered the main cause for global climate change and global warming. In fact, the U.S. has drawn criticism from many other nations as the world's most prolific source of atmospheric carbon dioxide. And aside from cleaning up its act, coal is also abundant, with the Kentucky Coal Association estimating a more than 250-year supply in reserves.

Clean coal systems face some obstacles, however. Cost is one. State-of-the-art clean coal plants constructed today are roughly 25-30% more expensive than traditional coal-fired plants with emissions controls, according to the Electric Power Research Institute. And even coal proponents admit that clean coal technologies still need to become more efficient and even cleaner before coal can become the no. 1 electricity producer in the U.S. in the next 10 years. For example, Michael Morris, chairman, president and CEO of American Electric Power (AEP), the country's biggest electricity generator and coal-burning utility, says that coal will only reclaim its status as the country's main option for energy production if it can do so while eliminating virtually all coal emissions.

So where does that leave natural gas's would-be challenger? At the top of the country's list of energy choices, insist many coal industry analysts, who believe that clean coal technology will improve as needed, especially since the Bush administration has a less-than-stringent approach to coal regulation. Concludes The Lane Report article, "the irony is, given the climbing price of other fuel commodities and the political unpopularity of nuclear energy, coal may be the only viable option Americans have left." At least for the near-term future.

Source:

The Renaissance of Coal
Taylor Moore
The Lane Report, January 2005
www.kybiz.com/lanereport/issues/january05/renaissanceofcoal.html
| Add to Y!MyWeb | Digg it | Add to Slashdot

Comments

The problem with building nuclear plants is that people don't think outside the use of land siting. We could put a nuclear electric plant in a ferro-concrete cylinder floating in the ocean where there is an abundance of cooling water and no neighbors. Nor are there land acquisition costs for the plant or transmission lines (running to costal cities where most of the demand and growth is). Three miles offshore and one doesn't need to worry about state EPA regulations and 12 (or 200) miles offshore and there is no federal EPA either. There are inherently safe reactor designs currently available - especially if the reactor is sited below sea level where a failure floods the reactor core. There are no earthquake or tsunami problems since the reactor is designed to move (floating in deep water). If demand changes, the reactor can be towed to a new location. Obsolete reactors could be sold to third world nations needing power - or, to decommission, just tow them to a subduction zone and fill them with concrete and let them sink and be carried under a tectonic plate while they cool off. If we use breeder reactors, we don't even have to mine uranium. Initially, we can fuel them with all of the high grade fissionables left over from the cold war.

Posted by: Bruce Bibee at March 15, 2005 06:11 PM

There is no reason clean burning coal should not become an increasingly significant part of our nation's electrical generation for the foreseeable future. At the same time, we should make maximum practical use of renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, ethanol, and others. If we couple those with an extensive implementation of viable nuclear energy for electrical power generation, we could significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil as well as reduce our overall consumption of natural gas, thereby making transportation fuel costs (both private and commercial) as well as home and industrial heating and air conditioning bills much more affordable. It is so obvious, I am not sure why it is so difficult to see.

Posted by: Don Shrader at March 15, 2005 06:56 PM

When oil runs out (in about twenty years), how will we fly planes on coal?

Posted by: Rob Coring at March 15, 2005 08:29 PM

This article is wonderful. But I have one comment. Before I was laid off I worked with a mobile waste managment system that with modifications could be used to process or "burn" a coal/petroleum coke slurry for a cleaner energy source. At least it could have been used as a prototype for a system that could process or "burn" a coal/petroleum coke slurry.

But I have not heard of any further use of this system. Is there some way to keep this technology from being shelved? This could be the next big thing oil and coal companies are looking for.

Posted by: Todd Bunger at March 15, 2005 09:56 PM

ONCE UPON A TIME, THERE WAS A CALIFORNIA COMPANY NAMED SGI INTERNATIONAL WHO HAD A PATENTED TECHNOLOGY FOR CLEANING COAL. IT WORKED. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH CLEAN AIR STANDARDS RECEIVED ONLY LIP SERVICE AT BEST, WHICH MADE IT PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR SGI INTERNATIONAL TO RECEIVE SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL BACKING. NOW, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO RE-INVENT THE WHEEL WITH REGARD TO CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME WE CONTINUE TO POISON THE AIR AND THE WATER.

Posted by: GARY WINSTON at March 15, 2005 10:50 PM

We need to think broad picture. We must reign in our population growth so we don't become like China or India. We need to waste less & recycle more. We need to reduce the energy use per person - across the entire country. We need to increase the CAFE standards yearly and push the auto companies back into making fuel efficient cars...not SUVs...which are trucks that pass for cars. We need to try using 20-35% ethanol instead of the 10% we're using now in gas. We need to increase the federal tax on gasoline 10 cents a gallon every year for the next 10 years...and spend half on clean fuel research & half on road & bridge repair.

Posted by: Michael Horak at March 16, 2005 02:10 PM

Although commendable that the coal industry is making advancements in developing a clean-burning technology, the no less important OTHER half of the story is clearly missing. What is NOT discussed is how to extract this coal safely without harming the surrounding environment. The current practice of mountain-top removal coal mining is devastating local communities by clear-cutting the forests, dynamite blasting, filling the valley streams with the leftover debris, and the subsequent flooding and landslides that result.

Until these areas are addressed, please don't paint the coal industry green and expect this WV girl to buy into it.

Posted by: Barb Herrman at March 16, 2005 02:18 PM

Britain has been producing and burning clean (desulfurated) coal for many years.

That, by itself stopped the green pea-soup fogs that used to be so common in London and other British cities.

How do they do it?

Posted by: Roy Stockdale at March 16, 2005 04:50 PM

Making coal clean burning would be awsome.
We are starting to run out of gas and we need something to fall back on!

Could you send me an e-mail with current events from time to time?

-----------------
Ed. Note: You can sign up for our biweekly e-newsletter (Industrial Market Trends), our monthly (The Link), daily blog alerts (IMT) and more at the following link:

http://www.thomasnet.com/mythomas/signup.html

Cheers.

Posted by: Casper at February 28, 2006 10:38 AM
Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments:
 
Printer friendly versionPrinter Friendly Version
Send to a friendSend To A Friend

« June 2006 Sun  Mon  Tue  Wed  Thu  Fri  Sat
            1  2  3
4  5  6  7  8  9  10
11  12  13  14  15  16  17
18  19  20  21  22  23  24
25  26  27  28  29  30  
Search
Search in this blog only:

Add to Google
Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Industrial Market Trends, a comprehensive, daily industrial blog with a bi-weekly newsletter, publishes the latest industrial developments, best practices, market trends and opinions of our editors and readers. We welcome all our readers to post their opinions on any of our articles.

"Clean Coal" Technologies
Briefing Paper # 83

May 2006

    * Coal is a vital fuel in most parts of the world.
    * Burning coal without adding to global carbon dioxide levels is a major technological challenge which is being addressed.
    * The most promising "clean coal" technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen.
    * The greatest challenge is bringing the cost of this down sufficiently for "clean coal" to compete with nuclear power on the basis of near-zero emissions for base-load power.

Coal is an extremely important fuel and will remain so. Some 23% of primary energy needs are met by coal and 39% of electricity is generated from coal. About 70% of world steel production depends on coal feedstock. Coal is the world's most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source. The International Energy Agency expects a 43% increase in its use from 2000 to 2020.

However, burning coal produces about 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year which is released to the atmosphere, about 70% of this being from power generation. Other estimates put carbon dioxide emissions from power generation at one third of the world total of over 25 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions.

New "clean coal" technologies are addressing this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal can be utilised for future generations without contributing to global warming. Much of the challenge is in commercialising the technology so that coal use remains economically competitive despite the cost of achieving "zero emissions".

As many coal-fired power stations approach retirement, their replacement gives much scope for 'cleaner' electricity. Alongside nuclear power and harnessing renewable energy sources, one hope for this is via "clean coal" technologies, such as are now starting to receive substantial R&D funding.

Managing wastes from coal

Burning coal, such as for power generation, gives rise to a variety of wastes which must be controlled or at least accounted for. So-called "clean coal" technologies are a variety of evolving responses to late 20th century environmental concerns, including that of global warming due to carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. However, many of the elements have in fact been applied for many years, and they will be only briefly mentioned here:

    * Coal cleaning by 'washing' has been standard practice in developed countries for some time. It reduces emissions of ash and sulfur dioxide when the coal is burned.
    * Electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters can remove 99% of the fly ash from the flue gases - these technologies are in widespread use.
    * Flue gas desulfurisation reduces the output of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere by up to 97%, the task depending on the level of sulfur in the coal and the extent of the reduction. It is widely used where needed in developed countries.
    * Low-NOx burners allow coal-fired plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 40%. Coupled with re-burning techniques NOx can be reduced 70% and selective catalytic reduction can clean up 90% of NOx emissions.
    * Increased efficiency of plant - up to 45% thermal efficiency now (and 50% expected in future) means that newer plants create less emissions per kWh than older ones.
    * Advanced technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) will enable higher thermal efficiencies still - up to 50% in the future.
    * Ultra-clean coal from new processing technologies which reduce ash below 0.25% and sulfur to very low levels mean that pulverised coal might be fed directly into gas turbines with combined cycle and burned at high thermal efficiency.
    * Gasification, including underground gasification in situ, uses steam and oxygen to turn the coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
    * Sequestration refers to disposal of liquid carbon dioxide, once captured, into deep geological strata.

Some of these impose operating costs without concomitant benefit to the operator, though external costs will almost certainly be increasingly factored in through carbon taxes or similar which will change the economics of burning coal.

However, waste products can be used productively. In 1999 the EU used half of its coal fly ash and bottom ash in building materials (where fly ash can replace cement), and 87% of the gypsum from flue gas desulfurisation.

Carbon dioxide from burning coal is the main focus of attention today, since it is implicated in global warming, and the Kyoto Protocol requires that emissions decline, notwithstanding increasing energy demand.

Capture & separation of CO2

A number of means exist to capture carbon dioxide from gas streams, but they have not yet been optimised for the scale required in coal-burning power plants. The focus has often been on obtaining pure CO2 for industrial purposes rather than reducing CO2 levels in power plant emissions.

Where there is carbon dioxide mixed with methane from natural gas wells, its separation is well proven. Several processes are used, including hot potassium carbonate which is energy-intensive and requires a large plant, a monoethanolamine process which yields high-purity carbon dioxide, amine scrubbing, and membrane processes.

Capture of carbon dioxide from flue gas streams following combustion in air is expensive as the carbon dioxide concentration is only about 14% at best.

However, today's Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant is a means of using coal and steam to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide which are then burned in a gas turbine with secondary steam turbine (ie combined cycle) to produce electricity. If the gasifier is fed with oxygen rather than air, the flue gas contains highly-concentrated CO2 which can readily be captured - at about half the cost of capture from conventional plants. Ten oxygen-fired gasifiers are operational in the USA.

Development of this oxygen-fed IGCC process will add a shift reactor to oxidise the CO with water so that the gas stream is basically just hydrogen and carbon dioxide. These are separated before combustion and the hydrogen alone becomes the fuel for electricity generation (or other uses) while the concentrated pressurised carbon dioxide is readily disposed of.

Currently IGCC plants have a 45% thermal efficiency.

Capture of carbon dioxide from coal gasification is already achieved at low marginal cost in some plants. One (albeit where the high capital cost has been largely written off) is the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in North Dakota, where 6 million tonnes of lignite is gasified each year to produce clean synthetic natural gas.

Another technology being developed has potential for retrofit to existing pulverised coal plants, which are the backbone of electricity generation in many countries. This is oxy-fuel combustion, which involves feeding oxygen and recycled flue gases into the boiler to reduce the overall volume of flue gases and increase toe CO2 concentration to allow more ready capture of it for sequestration.

Storage & sequestration of CO2

Captured carbon dioxide gas can be put to good use, even on a commercial basis, for enhanced oil recovery. This is well demonstrated in West Texas, and today over 3000 km of pipelines connect oilfields to a number of carbon dioxide sources in the region.

At the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, North Dakota, some 13,000 tonnes per day of carbon dioxide gas is captured and 5000 t of this is piped 320 km into Canada for enhanced oil recovery. This Weyburn oilfield sequesters about 85 cubic metres of carbon dioxide per barrel of oil produced, a total of 19 million tonnes over the project's 20 year life. The first phase of its operation has been judged a success.

Overall in USA, 32 million tonnes of CO2 is used annually for enhanced oil recovery, 10% of this from anthropogenic sources.

The world's first industrial-scale CO2 storage was at Norway's Sleipner gas field in the North Sea, where about one million tonnes per year of compressed liquid CO2 separated from methane is injected into a deep reservoir (saline aquifer) about a kilometre below the sea bed and remains safely in place. The US$ 80 million incremental cost of the sequestration project was paid back in 18 months on the basis of carbon tax savings at $50/tonne. (The natural gas contains 9% CO2 which must be reduced before sale or export.) The overall Utsira sandstone formation there, about one kilometre below the sea bed, is said to be capable of storing 600 billion tonnes of CO2.

West Australia's proposed Gorgon natural gas project from 2009 will tap natural gas with 14% CO2. Capture and geosequestration of this will reduce the project's emissions from 6.7 to 4.0 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Injecting carbon dioxide into deep, unmineable coal seams where it is adsorbed to displace methane (effectively: natural gas) is another potential use or disposal strategy. Currently the economics of enhanced coal bed methane extraction are not as favourable as enhanced oil recovery, but the potential is large.

While the scale of envisaged need for CO2 disposal far exceeds today's uses, they do demonstrate the practicality. Safety and permanence of disposition are key considerations in sequestration.

Research on geosequestration is ongoing in sevaral parts of the world. The main potential appears to be deep saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields. In both, the CO2 is expected to remain as a supercritical gas for thousands of years, with some dissolving.

Large-scale storage of CO2 from power generation will require an extensive pipeline network in densely populated areas. This has safety implications.

Economics, R&D

The World Coal Institute notes that at present the high cost of carbon capture and storage (US$ 150-220 per tonne of carbon, $40-60/t CO2 - 3.5 to 5.5 c/kWh relative to coal burned at 35% thermal efficiency) renders the option uneconomic. But a lot of work is being done to improve the economic viability of it, and the US Dept of Energy (DOE) is funding R&D with a view to reducing the cost of carbon sequestered to US$ 10/tC (equivalent to 0.25 c/kWh) or less by 2008, and by 2012 to reduce the cost of carbon capture and sequestration to a 10% increment on electricity generation costs.

More recently the DOE has announced the $1.3 billion FutureGen project to design, build and operate a nearly emission-free coal-based electricity and hydrogen production plant. The FutureGen initiative will comprise a coal gasification plant with additional water-shift reactor, to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. About one million tonnes of CO2 (at least 90% of throughput) will then be separated by membrane technology and sequestered geologically. The hydrogen will be burned in a 275 MWe generating plant and in fuel cells.

Construction of FutureGen is due to start in 2009, for operation in 2012. The project is designed to validate the technical feasibility and economic viability of near-zero emission coal-based generation. In particular it aims to produce electricity with only a 10% cost premium and show that hydrogen can be produced at $3.80 per GJ, equivalent to petrol at 12.7 cents per litre.

In Denmark a pilot project at the 420 MWe Elsam power plant is capturing CO2 from post-combustion flue gases under the auspices of CASTOR (CO2 from Capture to Storage). Flue gases are passed through an absorber, where a solvent captures about 90% of the CO2. The pregnant solution is then heated to 120°C to release pure CO2 at the rate of about one tonne per hour for geological sequestration. Cost is expected to be EUR 20-30 per tonne.

A 2000 US study put the cost of CO2 capture for IGCC plants at 1.7 c/kWh, with an energy penalty 14.6% and a cost of avoided CO2 of $26/t ($96/t C). By 2010 this is expected to improve to 1.0 c/kWh, 9% energy penalty and avoided CO2 cost of $18/t ($66/t C).

Figures from IPCC Mitigation working group in 2005 for IGCC put capture and sequestration cost at 1.0-3.2 c/kWh, thus increasing electricity cost for IGCC by 21-78% to 5.5 to 9.1 c/kWh. The energy penalty in that was 14-25% and the mitigation cost $14-53/t CO2 ($51-200/tC) avoided. These figures included up to $5 per tonne CO2 for transport and up to $8.30 /t CO2 for geological sequestration.

Gasification processes

In conventional plants coal is burned with excess air (to give complete combustion), resulting in very dilute carbon dioxide.

Gasification converts the coal to burnable gas with the maximum amount of potential energy from the coal being in the gas.

The first gasification step is pyrolysis, from 400°C up, where the coal in the absence of oxygen rapidly gives carbon-rich char and hydrogen-rich volatiles.

In the second step the char is gasified from 700°C up to yield gas, leaving ash. With oxygen feed, the gas is not diluted with nitrogen.

The key reactions today are C + O2 to CO, and the water gas reaction: C + H2O to CO & H2, which is endothermic.

In gasification, including that using oxygen, the O2 supply is much less than required for full combustion, so as to yield CO and H2. The hydrogen has a heat value of 121 MJ/kg - about five times that of the coal, so it is a very energy-dense fuel. However, the air separation plant to produce oxygen consumes up to 20% of the gross power of the whole IGCC plant system.

In future, the water-shift reaction will become a key part of the process so that:
C + O2 gives CO, and
C + H2O gives CO & H2, then the
CO + H2O gives CO2 & H2 (the water-shift reaction).
The products are then concentrated CO2 which can be captured, and hydrogen* which is the final fuel for the gas turbine.

* There is also some hydrogen from the coal pyrolysis.

Overall thermal efficiency for oxygen-blown coal gasification, including carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, is about 73%. Using the hydrogen in a gas turbine for electricity generation is efficient, so the overall system has long-term potential to achieve an efficiency of up to 60%.

Present trends

The clean coal technology field is moving very rapidly in the direction of coal gasification with a second stage so as to produce a concentrated and pressurised carbon dioxide stream followed by its separation and geological storage. This technology has the potential to provide what may be called "zero emissions" - in reality, extremely low emissions of the conventional coal pollutants, and as low-as-engineered carbon dioxide emissions.

This has come about as a result of the realisation that efficiency improvements, together with the use of natural gas and renewables such as wind will not provide the deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions necessary to meet future national targets.

The US DOE sees "zero emissions" coal technology as a core element of its future energy supply in a carbon-constrained world. It has in place an ambitious program to develop and demonstrate the technology and have commercial designs for plants with an electricity cost of only 10% greater than conventional coal plants available by 2012.

Australia is very well endowed with carbon dioxide storage sites near major carbon dioxide sources, but as elsewhere, demonstration plants will be needed to gain public acceptance and show that the storage is permanent.

In several countries, "zero emissions" technology seems to have the potential for low avoided cost for greenhouse gas emissions.

References:
Prime Minister's Science Engineering and Innovation Council, Australia 2002, Beyond Kyoto report.
David Cain & staff, Rio Tinto, pers. comm.
Smith, D 2002, CO2 capture articles in Modern Power Systems, Nov-Dec 2002.
World Coal Institute, publications on Clean Coal Technologies.
World Coal Institute, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: the Way Forward for the Coal Industry.
International Energy Agency 2002, Key World Energy Statistics.
International Energy Agency 2002, Solutions for 21st Century - Zero emissions technologies for fossil fuels.
US DOE 27/2/03 announcement.
US DOE NETL 21/3/03, Carbon sequestration - technology roadmap and program plan.
Gale J 2004, Geological storage of CO2, Energy 29, 1329-38.
Coal21 publications.

For further information Search this UIC Site or Return to Index or return to home page Uranium Information Centre Ltd
A.B.N. 30 005 503 828

GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
fax (03) 9629 7207

skip to: onlinetools | mainnavigation | content | footer
  Employee Locator | Index | Site Map

US Department of Energy Seal and Header Photo
Science and Technology Button  Energy Sources Button  Energy Efficiency Button  The Environment Button  Prices and Trends Button  National Security Button  Safety and Health Button
_ DOE Office of Fossil Energy Web Site

Fossil Energy
-

Clean Coal & Natural Gas Power Systems
-

Carbon Sequestration
-

Hydrogen & Other Clean Fuels
-

Oil & Natural Gas Supply & Delivery
-

Natural Gas Regulation
-

U.S. Strategic Petroleum & Other Oil Reserves
-

IN YOUR STATE

OFFICES & FACILITIES

EMAIL UPDATES

Register to receive Fossil Energy NEWSALERTS by e-mail.
GO to Link

QUICK REFERENCE

    * Fossil Energy Project Data
    * International Activities
    * R&D Commercial Successes
    * Fossil Energy Site Map

  
You are here:  Clean Coal & Natural Gas Power Systems > Clean Coal Technology
 
Clean Coal Technology &
The President's Clean Coal Power Initiative

The President's Clean Coal Power Initiative   

During his campaign for the Presidency, George W. Bush pledged to commit $2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology - a pledge he has subsequently carried out in the National Energy Policy and in budget requests to Congress.
 

MORE INFO

Clean Coal Power Initiative

    * Round 2
      - Winners
      - Proposers
      - Solicitation
    * Round 1
      - Winners
      - Proposers
      - Solicitation
    * CCPI Program Fact Sheet [1.2MB PDF]

Earlier Clean Coal Efforts

    * The 2001 Powerplant Improvement Initiative
    * The 1986-93 Clean Coal Technology Program

"Clean coal technology" describes a new generation of energy processes that sharply reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy conducted a joint program with industry and State agencies to demonstrate the best of these new technologies at scales large enough for companies to make commercial decisions. More than 20 of the technologies tested in the original program achieved commercial success.

The early program, however, was focused on the environmental challenges of the time - primarily concerns over the impact of acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged - the potential health impacts of trace emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering impact of greenhouse gases.

With coal likely to remain one of the nation's lowest-cost electric power sources for the foreseeable future, President Bush has pledged a new commitment to even more advanced clean coal technologies.

As the President said in presenting his National Energy Policy to the American public on May 17, 2001, "More than half of the electricity generated in America today comes from coal. If we weren't blessed with this natural resource, we would face even greater [energy] shortages and higher prices today. Yet, coal presents an environmental challenge. So our plan funds research into new, clean coal technologies."

Building on the successes of the original program, the new clean coal initiative encompasses a broad spectrum of research and large-scale projects that target today's most pressing environmental challenges.

The Clean Coal Power Initiative, is providing government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the President's Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce green-house emissions by boosting the efficiency at which coal plants convert coal to electricity or other energy forms.

Eight projects were selected under the first round Clean Coal Power Initiative solicitation, of which two were withdrawn. Of the remaining six projects supported by the first round of the CCPI, three projects are currently in the operational phase, two are in the construction phase, and one is still in the pre-award phase.

Four projects were recently selected from the second round CCPI solicitation and are in negotiation. Of the four projects recently chosen, two will demonstrate advanced IGCC technology; one will demonstrate an innovative multi-pollutant control process for NOx, SOx, and mercury; and one will demonstrate a neural-network control process for advanced multi-pollutant controls by means of plant optimization.

RELATED NEWS

>
 

NETL Technologies are Key to President Bush's Energy Policy

PROJECT INFO

KEY PUBLICATIONS

Clean Coal Today Newsletter
> Read the Newsletter

>
 

More Publications

QUICK FACTS/LINKS

Clean Coal Technology Compendium
> Go to Compendium

PROGRAM CONTACTS

>
 

Kenneth Markel
National Energy Technology Laboratory
3610 Collins Ferry Road
P.O. Box 880
U.S. Department of Energy
Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
304-285-4364

>
 

Michael Eastman
National Energy Technology Laboratory
PO Box 10940
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Pittsburgh, PA 15236
412-386-6136

>
 

Joseph Giove
Office of Fossil Energy
(FE-22)
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
301-903-4130

 Page owner:  Fossil Energy Office of Communications
 Page updated on: June 29, 2006
The White House  FirstGov.gov  E-gov  IQ  FOIA
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585
1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General Contact
 
Web Policies | No Fear Act | Site Map | Privacy | Phone Book | Employment

Coal Power Plant Cleans Up Its Act

RAMFORD REGISTER
3/17/02
By Edison R. Menlow

CASTLETON, Ramford County. - A few miles west of Byers Point on the shores of the Ramford River, in an area called Castleton, the land looks deserted. Turtles snap their jaws at small insects along the bank; a hawk circles overhead; and cows lay low in nearby fields. It's an unlikely place for a revolution, but on the edge of this wetland habitat IECG is close to making clean-coal technology a reality.

The 1870-megawatt Castleton plant isn't much to look at. It hides its power well. Providing electricity for about 50,000 nearby homes and most of Ramford's industrial base, it has the feel of a giant erector set: all twisting pipes and rough welds.

But what goes on here - a process in which coal is cooked and turned into a gas instead of burned to create steam - could change the future of coal power generation as we know it.

"Clean-coal technology doesn't need to be an oxymoron," says Art Clinker, an engineer at CRPF (Castleton on Ramford Power Facility), one of only a handful of  plants in the USA making gasification viable.

"When this plant was built in the '50s, it was coal fired. Later we went to oil, and then back to coal as oil prices rose. We've kept up with the technology in keeping our environment clean. We have always worked to be a good neighbor to the river.

Folks have complained for years about the smoke from our stacks, now they have nothing more to complain about."

Referencing the entire plant in one sweep of his arm, Clinker continued, "By the time we're done here, we'll have uses for just about all the byproducts; we'll be efficient; and we'll offer an environmentally safe alternative to natural gas."

Whether that's actually possible is open to debate. In the late 1970s, utility companies began switching from coal to oil and natural gas, which were plentiful, more efficient and environmentally benign. When the price of oil shot up to $10 per million Btu from $2.50 at the time of the conversion to oil, this utility company started looking for alternatives. Coal, plentiful and relatively inexpensive, suddenly found itself at the head of the energy table.

There are certain truths about coal. Today it accounts for more than 50% of the power generation in the USA. But because it spews toxins, coal has been long viewed as the scourge of the power industry. America's traditional
coal-powered plants pump 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year - twice the amount cars produce. In 1999, the latest year for which figures are available, coal-fired utilities filled the air with 18 million tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, two major components of acid rain.

At traditional coal-fired utilities, huge iron-encased turbines pulverize coal dust and pump it into a burner at tremendous pressure. The coal then heats water and produces steam that spins a turbine. That, in turn, produces electricity. That burning of coal is not only inefficient, but it is also dirty and adds to greenhouse emissions.

CRPF's gasification process turns coal into a gas and strips out the impurities before the emissions go into the atmosphere.

"See that," Clinker says, pointing to the seeming nothingness pouring out of CRPF's three stacks. "Someone can be sitting near a coal gasification plant and see nothing coming out of it. That's the goal." (In actuality, the clouds pouring from traditional plants are water vapor. It's the invisible gases, like sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, that are greenhouse gases. Clinker
admitted that carbon dioxide was spewing from the CRPF stacks, but you couldn't see it.)

Even so, compared with a typical coal-fired plant with modern pollution control devices, CRPF produces 85% less nitrogen oxide and 32% less sulfur dioxide, according to International Electric, the plant's corporate parent. Environmentalists are quick to point out that's still 20-times more nitrogen oxide than a natural gas fired plant and 100 times more sulfur. Natural gas emits virtually no sulfur.

Environmentalists say clean-coal technology is too little, too late. "This is all well and good, but they should have done this when they converted back to coal," says Gray Ashford, energy specialist at the Planet Resources Institute, a Washington, DC-based think tank. "Federal money would be better spent on renewable energies," he says.

Sir Kurt Breaker (formerly of the UK and past Energy Minister for Lancastershire Uplands, and now energy specialist at the Global Resources Defense Council, agrees. "The concern isn't so much whether clean-coal technology works, the big question now is whether they are robbing a variety of other technologies to make clean coal viable."

CRPF is building on research that began in the 1980s, when coal plants were shown to contribute to acid rain. In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act, phasing in tighter limits on emissions of soot particles, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. To help utilities come in under the more stringent rules, the Department of Energy spent $1.8 billion on clean-coal tech programs. CRPF is one of them.

Recently, most research has zeroed in on the development of super-efficient burning methods so that plants can extract more electricity from less coal. The average pound of coal contains about 10,000 Btu. Most coal-fired plants capture about a third. Newer ones like the facility in Ramford County facility can extract 37%, and Ashford sees that rising to 40% within 10 years. The Energy Department has set an efficiency goal of 60% by 2025.

The gasification of coal requires a maze of chemical processes. The coal first has to be ground up and mixed with water to create a slurry that is the consistency of a good mud pie. A huge whirling drum with big teeth grinds down 2,000 tons of coal at CRPF every day. Oxygen and the coal slurry are forced into a tall gasifer and they react about 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit to form a synthetic gas.

Looking at Castleton on Ramford, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that clean-coal technology may have actually arrived. But there is a catch. Construction costs for conversion to gasification plants can be twice as much as those for standard coal plants. The cost of producing energy is higher, too. The best gasification plants produce electricity for about $1,200 per kilowatt. Coal pulverization plants produce at about $700 per kilowatt and natural gas, about $1,000 per kilowatt. Ashford says the costs will come down over time, and the volatility of natural gas prices makes gasification of coal a necessity for utilities hedging against higher prices. The challenge is convincing the power industry that gasification plants are worth the expense.

The Bush administration may have a big say in whether that happens. A tiny section of the Clean Air Act called the New Source Review prohibits power-plant operators from expanding old plants without installing state-of-the-air pollution control devices. Utilities have said that the Clinton administration's strict interpretation of the New Source provisions stifled innovation and efficiency and are partly to blame for recent power shortages. If the regulations are upheld, it could give utilities an incentive to upgrade traditional plants with gasification facilities.

Gasification could also be an important part of the White House's new global warming policy. After President Bush pulled back from the Kyoto Protocol to combat carbon dioxide emissions, he ordered his Cabinet to draft an alternative that would appease European allies. Gasification could play a big part in that plan.

Of all the energy sources, coal is the least expensive and most plentiful. Worldwide use of coal for power generation is expected to double to 50% by 2015, according to Department of Energy figures. The Bush administration proposed budget for fiscal 2002 sets aside $211 million for clean-coal programs - that's triple the amount from this year.

"You just need a little faith in the technology and in our ability to solve these problems as they come up," says Clinker, surveying the plant. "Clean-coal technology is not only possible, we're doing it."

Home > Industry Projects > Americas > Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project
Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project

Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project, Gilberton, PA, USA

The US government has long been looking for an alternative energy source to reduce reliance on the oil producing nations. A technology developed by WMPI Pty LLC (Waste Management and Processors, Inc) has been taken by the government for further research and development to sustain the country's energy demands.

Early Entry Co-Production (EECP) energy plants are being developed to change a range of hydrocarbon feedstock into electricity, heat, high quality transportation fuels and various chemicals (as opposed to current plants that produce only energy).

Following completion of the EECP research, development and testing program in 2003 by the Department of Energy (DOE), a new EECP plant is planned for Gilberton, Schuylkill County, PA.

Three DOE projects have begun with the development of an effective EECP process in mind. The multi-product facilities will co-produce transportation fuels (low sulphur clean diesel), chemicals, electric power, process heat, etc., from various waste coal and anthracite feed-stocks, and is seen as the first step on a pollution-free high energy fuel.

FINANCE

Total estimated cost of the plant is $612.5 million although the DOE sees it as a demonstration process, and therefore will underwrite the project to keep costs down. Pennsylvania State has already promised $47 million in Transferable Investment Tax Credit (TITC) for coal waste removal and ultra-clean fuels towards the project.

Finance includes $465 million in private financing - coordinated by the investment banking firm of Morgan Stanley - and $100 million in Federal participation through the US Department of Energy's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).

HISTORY BEHIND THE TECHNOLOGY

The DOE began work in August 1999 with WMPI and a project team of companies including Texaco, Nexant (a Bechtel consulting company) and SASOL to research ways to integrate gasification and liquefaction. Techno-economic feasibility tests of an EECP ran from 2001-2003 and cost $12 million. This part of the program proved to be successful.

The drive is part of the US Government's CCPI, which is estimated to be sharing a $4 billion budget with industry leaders over a ten-year period. The costs are being shared between private companies and governmental agencies. The technology is based on the gasification of waste coal residue, followed by a liquefaction process to produce sulphur-free low particle diesel.

Pennsylvania is estimated to have over 34 billion t of coal and waste coal in ground reserves, and the US as a whole 1,600 billion t. If these figures are true, the US has 811 years of coal energy remaining in reserves. After coal has been mined and sorted there is a combination of waste coal particles and silt left over. This can be used as the feedstock for the new technology.

PLANT CONSTRUCTION

It is hoped that the Gilberton project will reclaim large areas of Schuylkill County from the acres of anthracite culm piles and silt ponds that cover the area (these will provide the necessary feed-stocks). The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has suggested that there is over 250,000 acres of abandoned wasteland that were previously coalmines. This is therefore an environmental clean-up and energy production win-win situation.

WMPI Pty LLC, based in Gilberton, is currently (2005) in a position to construct the new facilities. WMPI Pty LLC's first plant will be a 5,000b/d facility built on a 75-acre site adjacent to the existing Gilberton Power Plant.

The technology and engineering team to design, engineer and construct the plant includes Nexant Inc, Shell Global Solutions US, Uhde, SASOL Technology Ltd, Linde and ChevronTexaco. The plant will take approximately three years to build. Subsequently, WMPI Pty LLC will develop, own and operate advanced world-scale coal to oil and power facilities in other locations.

CO-PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY AND AUTOMOTIVE FUELS

The slurry of hydrocarbons and water will be heated in a gasifier to over 2,500°F and mixed with oxygen via oxygen blown gasifiers. This gasification of the feedstock produces synthesis gas (syngas) and water. The wastewater can then be pumped back into the process and an environmentally-benign aggregate by-product resembling brown crushed glass is then removed, which can be used for the production of concrete and plaster, or as a backfill.

The syngas is put through cyclones, which get rid of some fine particles. Yellow sulphur is removed at this stage, which can be sold to pharmaceutical companies. The remaining clean syngas will then be added to a slurry phase vessel and mixed with catalysts to produce steam and paraffin, which can then be processed to produce a high-cetane, zero-percent sulphur and nitrogen, low aromatic and low particulate petroleum-based fuel. The excess tail gas will be pumped through the adjacent co-generation plant to produce electricity.

Texaco's Gasification Process (TGP) will be used for the initial stages. TGP is a non-catalytic partial oxidation process producing syngas, which contains carbon monoxide and hydrogen from organic materials. This will be followed by Sasol's slurry phase Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process to provide the high-quality fuel and power.

The transportation fuels produced will be in the form of ultra-clean high-cetane diesel fuel from the F-T process and contain no sulphur or aromatics. The F-T naphtha can be upgraded to clean-burning reformulated gasoline. F-T naphtha is also an excellent feedstock for steam cracking for olefin production, or as onboard reforming feed for fuel-cell powered vehicles.

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

The project needs to be sited near a mine mouth or waste heap where there is a steady supply of the raw material run-of-mine coal. The site size will be approximately 1,500 acres. The project feedstock requirements are 12,000,000t/yr (400,000,000t over the 35-year lifetime of the project) of 10,000 BTU run-of-mine coal or coal dust waste.

The plant will also require approximately 22,000,000gal/d of water and power transmission facilities sufficient for 100MW export. Transportation links are necessary to export the chemical and fuel products.

ENVIRONMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND DEPENDENCY

The high-ash coal waste is an extremely low cost feedstock. The technology also provides an environmental benefit as it reclaims the land and eliminates the potential pollution problem of acid mine drainage into groundwater and streams that could be caused by the waste. It will also reduce emissions through ultra-clean fuels and convert low-value materials such as coal refuse efficiently to clean and valuable products as well as producing clean electricity.

The Schuylkill County region, the location of the Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project, is a severely economically depressed area. The WMPI Project will create 1,000 high paying jobs during construction, more than 150 high quality permanent jobs at the project site and approx. 600 permanent offsite jobs. The success of this project will certainly reduce dependency on foreign oil and act as a key element in President Bush's plan to help America make the transition to a hydrogen fuelled society. The environmental impact assessment for the project ran from March 2003 to November 2004 and concluded that the project showed the necessary merit.

FUTURE PROJECTS

Future potential sites for this type of project have been found in other previously coal rich states such as West Virginia (which has the potential to produce between 5,000bpd and 57,000bpd), Kentucky (57,000bpd) and Illinois (57,000bpd). Obviously the Gilberton project is still only a 'pilot' scale and depending upon success future sites will be at least ten times bigger.

Printable Version Click here for printable version

SPECIFICATIONS

  Expand Image
Following completion of the Early Entry Co-Production (EECP) research, development and testing program in 2003, a new EECP plant is planned for Gilberton, Schuylkill County, PA.
Following completion of the Early Entry Co-Production (EECP) research, development and testing program in 2003, a new EECP plant is planned for Gilberton, Schuylkill County, PA.
Expand Image
The liquid fuel production process at the EECP plant.
The liquid fuel production process at the EECP plant.
Expand Image
Pennsylvania is estimated to have over 34 billion t of coal and waste coal in ground reserves, and the US as a whole 1,600 billion t.
Pennsylvania is estimated to have over 34 billion t of coal and waste coal in ground reserves, and the US as a whole 1,600 billion t.
Expand Image
The technology is based on the gasification of waste coal residue, followed by a liquefaction process to produce sulphur-free low particle diesel.
The technology is based on the gasification of waste coal residue, followed by a liquefaction process to produce sulphur-free low particle diesel.
Expand Image
WMPI's first plant will be a 5,000b/d facility built on a 75-acre site adjacent to the existing Gilberton Power Plant.
WMPI's first plant will be a 5,000b/d facility built on a 75-acre site adjacent to the existing Gilberton Power Plant.
Expand Image
The project feedstock requirements are 12,000,000t/yr (400,000,000t over the 35-year lifetime of the project) of 10,000 BTU run-of-mine coal or coal dust waste.
The project feedstock requirements are 12,000,000t/yr (400,000,000t over the 35-year lifetime of the project) of 10,000 BTU run-of-mine coal or coal dust waste.
Expand Image
It is hoped that the Gilberton project will reclaim large areas of Schuylkill County from the acres of anthracite culm piles and silt ponds that cover the area (these will provide the necessary feed-stocks).
It is hoped that the Gilberton project will reclaim large areas of Schuylkill County from the acres of anthracite culm piles and silt ponds that cover the area (these will provide the necessary feed-stocks).

Home | New On This Site | Industry Projects | Products & Services | Press Releases | Newsletter | Events & Exhibitions | Organisations | Advertise With Us

Copyright 2006 SPG Media Limited a subsidiary of SPG Media Group PLC
Welcome to Hydrocarbons Technology - The website for the Hydrocarbons Industry
client logon
search site 
 Home
 Industry Projects
 Products & Services
 Company A-Z
 White Papers
 Press Releases
 Advertise With Us
 Events & Exhibitions
 Newsletter
 New On This Site
 About Us
 

 ULTRA CLEAN FUELS TECHNOLOGY
Home
History
News Stories
Legislation
Preffered Vendors
Contact Us
Links
E-Mail

$47 million in tax incentives targeted for coal-to-oil plant
Groundbreaking in fall 2000, 1,000 construction jobs seen

The Pottsville (PA.) Republican & Evening Herald
Wednesday, May 12, 1999

     HARRISBURG - Construction of a $312-million coal-to-oil plant-America's first-may begin by fall 2000 after the General Assembly approved $47 million in tax incentives Tuesday.John W. Rich Jr., president of Waste Management Processors Inc.,gave that tentative starting date after a 15 percent tax credit for gasification/liquefaction,as the process is called, was included in a tax reduction bill that passed the state House of Representatives Tuesday by a vote of 198-6.Gov. Tom Ridge must still sign the legislation, but is expected to do so, perhaps today. Both caucuses in the House and Senate unanimously supported the legislation."It's a total win-win," said state Rep. Bob Allen, R-125, noting the gasification plant will provide 1,000 union construction jobs, 150 $18- an-hour full-benefit permanent jobs ($37,500 per year ), and continue leveling culm banks and stripping pits.State Sen. James J. Rhoades, R-29, who hosted a briefing in his state Capitol office after the legislation passed, said it signals "the renaissance of coal in Pennsylvania". "Coal's History," Rich said, because of its negative environmental impacts.

     But the technology he is pioneering finds a clean use for the abundant resource, he added. Tuesday's legislation, when signed by Ridge, will only create a tax credit for gasification/liquefaction; an application to take advantage of it must now be submitted by July 1, and anyone may apply. However, only the combination that Rich assembled-it includes Waste Management Processor; Sasol Ltd., the South African oil behemoth; Bechtel, the international construction giant; and Texaco-is poised to act by that deadline.The incentive will allow investors to take money owed in state taxes up to 15 percent of the cost of the project-actually, $46.8 million on $312 million-and redirect it to Waste Management Processors and its partners building the gasification/liquefaction plant.Rich said his companies-they include Reading Anthracite Co., Gilberton Coal Co., Schuylkill Energy Products Inc. and a fuel distributorship-have approximately 500 vendors that pay Pennsylvania taxes they might redirect in this way. In return, the Rich combination, if its application is approved as expected, would be required to accomplish three things:

     *One, match the $47 million from another source, either in federal tax incentives-U.S. Rep. T. Holden, D-6, is trying to move an equivalent tax incentive through Congress-federal grants, or through money raised through private financing.

     *Two, show new tax revenues more than cover the $47 million. This could come from sales tax on materials bought to build the plant or income tax from the new jobs, for example.

     *Three, accomplish $55 million worth of stripping pit reclamation over the next 20 years with the high-quality ash that is a by-product of the process.

     The plan is structured so that taxpayers, in the end, come out ahead."This is not a tax; this is not a loan," said Allen. "Not one member of either delegation had anything negative today about this tax credit," the legislator from Pottsville said. The plant is targeted for a 30 acre site just east of the Gilberton Power Co.'s John B. Rich Generating Station, the Rich family's co-generation plant on the Morea Road in West Mahanoy Township.The gasification/liquefaction plants raw material would be a coal-and-water slurry that results from the co-generation process and has been filling ponds along Route 54 down the hill from the existing co-gen. The result would be a clear, pure, sulfur-free petroleum liquid that could be blended with other gasoline and fuel-oil stocks to reduce emissions, something that will be increasing important when tougher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards go into force in 2008.

     More than 700,000 tons of waste coal would be processed through the plant per year, according to Rich, producing the equivalent of 5,000 barrels a day. Texaco is committed to buying everything the plant produces. While Waste Management still must come up with $265 million, Rich expressed confidence that will now happen.The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Ridge Administration commitment to the project-evident in the new legislation and expressed during a trade mission to South Africa last year-will cause the pieces to fall into place, he said.The co-gen industry was characterized Tuesday as a training run for this new round of development. Rich harkened back to 15 years ago, when he secured $49.2 million in low- interest, tax-free bonds to build his $130.7 million Morea Road generating station.

     Here's how the new partnership is intended to play out:

     *Waste Management Processors, which is a sister company to Rich family concerns that include Reading Anthracite and Gilberton Coal, provides the raw material: "carbonaceous feedstock"-culm and anthracite.

     *Bechtel Development Co., San Francisco, a partner in the original co-gen, will build the plant.

     *Texaco will provide the gasification technology that mixes coal with high-pressures stem to produce synthetic gas (syngas) .Almost all impurities, including 99 percent of the sulfur, is removed from the coal during that process.

     *Sasol then provides the so-called Fischer-Tropp technology, developed by oil-poor, coal-rich Germany during World War II and refined in South Africa when Apartheid limited its access to oil. It turns the gas into a clear petroleum liquid, purer than any pumped from the ground.

     *Texaco then buys the finished product. A long-term, fixed-price contract between Rich's company and Texaco would help bring down the cost to a level that competes with OPEC sources.

     A $70 billion military presence in the Persian Gulf-paid for by American taxpayers-and necessary in order to keep oil supply lines from the Mid-East open, Rich said, skews the price of gas at pumps here."I'm saying that what the American consumer pays for gas and diesel isn't the true cost," he added in a follow- up this morning.If federal taxes weren't used to fund the Gulf force, Rich said, the cost for those troops would have to be reflected at the gas pumps.While his plant will initially produce a small amount of fuel compared to OPEC supplies, Rich said, in the long run, opening up this new source of domestic alternative fuel production will drive down fuel costs.

     "When they see we're displaying new technologies for displacing them," Rich said of the oil-rich countries, "they'll be begging for the business. Then we can buy on our own terms, not on theirs." It was unclear today what the status of the federal legislation may be. Holden was unavailable for comment Tuesday night or this morning. However, Allen said, "They're going to be very surprised down in Washington." The Federal Energy Technology Center, Pittsburgh, is offering a $10-12 million dollar grant for a gasification/liquefaction pilot project, and it will be sought for the local effort.