|
OBAMA AND CLEAN COAL
Coal Bin by Harold Hough June/July 2009
As a candidate, Barak Obama pushed for “Clean Coal.”
In fact, he said clean coal could produce 5 million jobs and was
critical to America’s energy independence. He even once said,
“You tell me we can't find a way to burn coal that we mine
right here in the United States of America and make it work.”
However, once he entered the Oval Office, there arose some questions
of what “Clean Coal” was in his mind. Prominent environmentalists
including Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s Global
Warming and Energy Program, believe that the term clean coal is
misleading: "There is no such thing as 'clean coal' and there
never will be. It's an oxymoron". And, in a break in the
Democratic ranks, Congressman Robert Kennedy Jr. called Obama
an, “Indentured Servant,” to the coal industry.
The Obama Administration’s first moves have definitely been
anti coal. The EPA has declared carbon dioxide a pollutant and
the administration has cancelled the license of a coal plant due
to be built on an Indian reservation.
But the final administration stand on clean coal will depend to
a great degree on which group gains the ear of the president and
Congress. And, since politicians will be defining clean coal we
know they will have to keep their constituencies and the health
of the fragile economy in mind. And, that means coal isn’t
going to disappear as a power source. Worldwide, 23% of our primary
energy needs are met by coal and nearly half of our electricity
is generated from coal
Nuclear power advocates say clean coal must be able to provide
the same power output with the same “near zero” emissions.
A panel of MIT professors, who are looking for more R&D money
from the government, said that current Department of Energy research
will not produce clean coal power. They suggested the government
investigate new approaches – approaches it appeared that
would give MIT an inside track on new R&D grants.
Advocates of ultra-clean “clean coal” are those who
are convinced that man is responsible for global warming. They
maintain that coal produces 9 billion tons of CO2 a year and that
must be eliminated in order to mitigate warming effects. This
group sees current industry methods and government research as
woefully inadequate (the MIT scientists are in this group). They
insist that clean coal requires technologies that allow us to
capture and sequester all the carbon caused by burning (usually
below ground). They emphasize technologies that may not be efficient
or economical, but capture all the carbon. One such technology
is called Chemical Looping, which causes pulverized coal to react
with metal oxides like rust. The reaction converts the rust into
iron and produces carbon dioxide. The CO2 can then be compressed
and stored. The iron is then exposed to steam, which produces,
heat, rust, and hydrogen. The hydrogen is then used to power turbines
or fuel cells.
Since such technologies are much more expensive, their advocates
usually recommend government mandates like declaring carbon dioxide
a pollutant. They recommend the government stop permitting conventional
coal powered plants so electric companies would be forced to move
to new technologies. They also recommend “Cap and Trade,”
so other clean coal technologies are eliminated.
Although there is quite a bit of interest in using coal in fuel
cells, whether this will be the big clean coal technology of the
future is problematic. Like other ultra clean technologies, fuel
cells’ future depends to a great extent on government mandates.
However, the chances that a major anti-coal law will be signed
in the near future is dim, especially since the manmade global
warming theory is less credible today given the economic climate
and the desire of congressmen to get reelected next year.
One promising technology is coal gasification, which turns coal
into a fuel for aircraft and vehicles. This allows for a cleaner
use of coal, and fits well into our current petroleum based economy.
As a result, it will probably be one of the most likely clean
coal technologies of the future.
Of course, one of the biggest problems with clean coal technology
is the wide variety of coal available. Depending on their source,
they can differ in energy output and the amount of sulfur, water,
ash, and carbon in the fuel. This problem can be seen in the the
government supported Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
program. It uses coal and steam to produce hydrogen and carbon
monoxide. These are then burned in a gas turbine to produce power.
The IGCC plant, however, can cost considerably more if it uses
lower quality coal like lignite (37% more). The resulting plant
is also 24% less efficient. Compare that to the efficiency of
a low quality coal powered conventional power plant that only
costs 24% more to build, but only experiences a 10% drop in efficiency.
Consequently, it makes more sense to build a conventional power
plant and use conventional carbon reduction methods than new technologies.
So, what is Obama’s choice for clean coal? Short of new,
draconian laws, it will probably be a mix of old and new technologies.
Coal gasification will find a niche in the petroleum industry,
while projects like the IGCC will be used in parts of the country
where they are economically feasible. However, the current clean
coal technologies used by the industry will remain in use for
many more years.
|
