31 ms·

When it comes to coal these efforts and those who support them seem to always make the assumption that there is nothing that can be done to make burning coal "c

When it comes to coal these efforts and those who support them seem to always make the assumption that there is nothing that can be done to make burning coal "cleaner". After working with the utilities industries (mostly natural gas industries) I can tell you with 100% certainty that more than 80% of the by products from the burning of coal, including CO2, can be removed using scrubbing technologies and filters. In many cases the cost to install these technologies are lower than the costs to convert a plant to natural gas. The problem is that EPA regulations on coal are driving the costs up (by making it harder to mine and transport) to the point where in the long run natural gas is cheaper (though get a change in the US administration and that could sway the other way again)(Edit: Which is why a lot of coal plants are being converted to natural gas). My point is that if coal didn't cost as much as it currently does (because of federal regulation) a number of technologies could be installed that would enable coal plants to continue to be used with much much less environmental impact.

pyk 12y ago
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of CO2 is still in very early development and pilot testing, so costs are quite uncertain, and it is not in use in any reasonably sized coal plant in the US. For all plants >60MW planned to have CCS, they are either still in planning or under construction [1] (note that 60MW is a relatively small power plant). Quite separate from CO2, there are NOX wet/dry scrubbers and flue gas desulfurization units (removal of SO2). While having a very helpful large reduction in fine particulate (PM2.5) and ozone downwind health impacts (SO2 and NOX form PM2.5 and O3 downwind), it unfortunately does not remove CO2 emissions. In talking to power companies, my guess is that natural gas is being switched out for coal for many reasons, some more subtle. In part due to new PM2.5 and ozone regulations, in part because in some years it has been cheaper than coal due to new extraction techniques (fracking), and in part because it is easier to dispatch natural gas plants (ramp up and down) to meet electricity demand or high variance renewable energy generation like solar and wind (large spikes in generation). [1] http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.ht...
- nospecinterests 12y ago
  Natural gas is not being switched out for coal. At least not in the USA. I think that might be a typo. I unfortunately can not site a fancy link like you have but from experience I can tell you that the actual costs I have encountered for projects showed that the price of scrubber tech/equipment (and installation) was less then the cost of a plant conversion from coal to natural gas. The costs of coal are higher than they were before and are growing. This is a direct result of government regulation. The other problem is that these regulations and the continual call for more is causing a great deal of market uncertainty, which is also driving up costs (not just for the coal but for equipment). Natural gas is currently not in the same position, it is cheaper and less regulated (no mining regulations/legislation). Further, because there has been so much drilled for there is a surplus (supply and demand ==> gas costs are lower). This is mostly because of the lack of good, viable, stable export terminals. So when some terminals open in the future we will see higher natural gas prices.
  - pyk 12y ago
    Coal is being switched out for natural gas here in the US... as a specific example, in 2012, see Plant McDonough right next to Atlanta, GA [1]. As I stated before, the reason is in part due to the effects on air quality (an externality), not just price. For Atlanta with this switch over, it has proven air quality improvements (and no one was surprised by this since it was a coal plant operating full blast right there next to Atlanta!). I actually agree with you on several points. Agreed that the economics are uncertain, and agreed that scrubbing is very useful, and is definitely worth the cost vs. a full switch over to natural gas (but that doesn't ignore the fact that a switch to natural gas happens for other reasons). And I agree with you that natural gas has higher variance (historically at the least), and higher future expected prices, particularly with exports. [1] http://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-sources/natural-gas.cshtml http://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-sources/natu...
    - nospecinterests 12y ago
      I replied the way I did because you wrote "my guess is that natural gas is being switched out for coal for many reasons". That is not true. That is why I said it might have been a typo. This is clear because in your reply above your write the opposite, that coal is being replaced by natural gas. I agree with this, and as you wrote above, 100%.

pyk 12y ago

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of CO2 is still in very early development and pilot testing, so costs are quite uncertain, and it is not in use in any reasonably sized coal plant in the US. For all plants >60MW planned to have CCS, they are either still in planning or under construction [1] (note that 60MW is a relatively small power plant). Quite separate from CO2, there are NOX wet/dry scrubbers and flue gas desulfurization units (removal of SO2). While having a very helpful large reduction in fine particulate (PM2.5) and ozone downwind health impacts (SO2 and NOX form PM2.5 and O3 downwind), it unfortunately does not remove CO2 emissions. In talking to power companies, my guess is that natural gas is being switched out for coal for many reasons, some more subtle. In part due to new PM2.5 and ozone regulations, in part because in some years it has been cheaper than coal due to new extraction techniques (fracking), and in part because it is easier to dispatch natural gas plants (ramp up and down) to meet electricity demand or high variance renewable energy generation like solar and wind (large spikes in generation). [1] http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.ht...

nospecinterests 12y ago
Natural gas is not being switched out for coal. At least not in the USA. I think that might be a typo. I unfortunately can not site a fancy link like you have but from experience I can tell you that the actual costs I have encountered for projects showed that the price of scrubber tech/equipment (and installation) was less then the cost of a plant conversion from coal to natural gas. The costs of coal are higher than they were before and are growing. This is a direct result of government regulation. The other problem is that these regulations and the continual call for more is causing a great deal of market uncertainty, which is also driving up costs (not just for the coal but for equipment). Natural gas is currently not in the same position, it is cheaper and less regulated (no mining regulations/legislation). Further, because there has been so much drilled for there is a surplus (supply and demand ==> gas costs are lower). This is mostly because of the lack of good, viable, stable export terminals. So when some terminals open in the future we will see higher natural gas prices.
- pyk 12y ago
  Coal is being switched out for natural gas here in the US... as a specific example, in 2012, see Plant McDonough right next to Atlanta, GA [1]. As I stated before, the reason is in part due to the effects on air quality (an externality), not just price. For Atlanta with this switch over, it has proven air quality improvements (and no one was surprised by this since it was a coal plant operating full blast right there next to Atlanta!). I actually agree with you on several points. Agreed that the economics are uncertain, and agreed that scrubbing is very useful, and is definitely worth the cost vs. a full switch over to natural gas (but that doesn't ignore the fact that a switch to natural gas happens for other reasons). And I agree with you that natural gas has higher variance (historically at the least), and higher future expected prices, particularly with exports. [1] http://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-sources/natural-gas.cshtml http://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-sources/natu...
  - nospecinterests 12y ago
    I replied the way I did because you wrote "my guess is that natural gas is being switched out for coal for many reasons". That is not true. That is why I said it might have been a typo. This is clear because in your reply above your write the opposite, that coal is being replaced by natural gas. I agree with this, and as you wrote above, 100%.