Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Coal is no longer on front burner
Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times
The rush to build power plants slows as worries grow over global warming, building costs and transportation.
—
WASHINGTON — America’s headlong rush to tap its enormous coal reserves for electricity has slowed abruptly, with more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states canceled or delayed in 2007 because of concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportation problems.
Coal, touted as cheap and plentiful, has been a cornerstone of President Bush’s plans to meet America’s energy needs with dozens of new power plants. Burned in about 600 facilities, coal produces more than half of the nation’s electricity.
But urgent questions are emerging about a fuel once thought to be the most reliable of all. Utilities are confronting rising costs and a lack of transportation routes from coal fields to generators, opposition from state regulators and environmental groups, and uncertainty over climate-change policies in Washington.
(18 January 2008)
The need for an international moratorium on coal power
James E. Hansen, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Over the past year, it’s become clear that the way the political and environmental communities are approaching global warming isn’t going to solve it. Books by Al Gore and Tim Flannery, for example, admonish people to use less energy and reduce carbon emissions; the Kyoto Protocol [PDF] calls for an emissions reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels; and politicians around the world are mandating sizable reductions in carbon emissions by 2050. But without a plan of action that prioritizes tackling emissions from coal plants, such goals are ineffectual–and the politicians will either be in retirement homes or dead by 2050.
At 385 parts per million (ppm), the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the air today is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels–coal, oil, and natural gas. In “Implication of ‘Peak Oil’ for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Climate” [PDF], NASA research scientist Pushker Kharecha and I show that proven and estimated reserves of oil and gas, used at any feasible rate, would at most take atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm–a threshold level that, if exceeded, will cause dangerous climate change. Coal reserves, however, contain much more stored carbon, and if used in power plants without carbon capture technology, have the potential to at least double the preindustrial atmospheric carbon dioxide amount of 280 ppm.
Most of the carbon dioxide from oil and gas usage is emitted by small sources (i.e., vehicle tailpipes) where it’s impractical to capture it. Nor does it seem likely that Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United States, and other major oil producers will decide to leave their oil in the ground. Therefore, the only practical way to prevent carbon dioxide levels from exceeding 450 ppm is to phase out coal power except at plants where carbon emissions are captured and stored.
An outline of a practical way to do this can be readily defined: First, establish a moratorium in developed countries on construction of new coal power plants until effective carbon-capture-and-storage technology is viable; second, establish a similar subsequent moratorium in developing countries; and third, phase out existing coal plants over the next several decades and replace them with energy sources that don’t emit carbon, such as wind, solar, and nuclear power, and coal plants with carbon capture and storage.
Editor’s Note: This essay was adapted from Hansen’s testimony before the Iowa Utilities Board regarding a proposal from the Interstate Power and Light Company to build a new coal power plant in Marshalltown, Iowa. He testified as a private citizen.
(22 January 2008)
China’s Coal
Gordon Feller, EcoWorld
China is the second largest energy consumer in the world and most of its energy consumption is coal. This dominance of coal is not expected to fall significantly even as China’s energy demand grows.
China’s Development Research Center of the State Council estimates that coal will account for 66 percent of primary energy consumption in 2010. Coal-based power generation will account for 65 to 70 percent of total generation for the next decades. Industry is the other major consumer of coal.
While China’s coal resources are deemed sufficient for its needs in the coming two decades, the environmental cost of coal use is already beginning to take its toll, particularly through SO2 and NOX emissions which are the leading causes of acid rain. In 2002, about 34 percent (or 6.6 million tons) of China’s SO2 emissions were released from power plants.
…China’s rapid growth is now a driving force in the global economy and is achieving unprecedented rates of poverty reduction. However, growth is also seriously damaging the natural resource base and generating major environmental liabilities. The country’s environmental problems include land degradation, deteriorating water quality and water scarcity, severe air pollution and declining natural forest cover. These problems threaten the health and prospects of current and future generations and are undermining the sustainability of long-term growth.
(January 2008)
Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology – with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine
A Life Cycle Comparison of Coal and Natural Gas for Electricity Generation and the Production of Transportation Fuels (PDF)
Paulina Jaramillo, Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract
Demand for electricity is expected to increase in the next 25 years. Currently, 50% of the electricity generated in the U.S. is produced using coal. Although natural gas has traditionally been used by the commercial, industrial and residential sector, demand for natural gas for electricity generation has increased in the past decade and this growth is expected to continue in the next 25 years. Since demand is growing but North American supply is expected to remain constant, alternative sources of natural gas will need to be developed. LNG has been identified as one alternative, and plans to increase imports of this fuel are underway. In addition, synthetic natural gas could be produced from coal to meet some of the increasing demand for natural gas.
The demand for natural gas by the transportation sector is currently negligible, but worldwide interest on natural gas-derived transportation fuels (such as natural gas based Fischer-Tropsh Liquids and Compressed Natural Gas) is increasing. The U.S. could either produce these fuels internally, requiring larger imports of LNG, or import them from natural gas-rich countries. Alternatively, the U.S. could produce transportation fuels from coal. Although non-existent in 2005, by 2030 coal-to-liquid-fuel producers are expected to consume as much coal as coke plants. Thus, the production of transportation fuels is an additional end-use where coal and natural gas could compete as the fuel of choice.
The goal of this research is to compare coal and natural gas for use by the electric power sector and for the production of transportation fuels in the next 25 years. This comparison concentrates on the life cycle GHG emissions of these fuels. In addition to comparing natural gas and coal to determine which fuel is better suited for each end-use, a comparison of each end-use will also be performed in order to help determine which is a better use of each fuel.
Two main results arise from this research. First, it was found that in a future where advanced power plant technologies with carbon capture and sequestration are used, coal and globally sourced natural gas could have very similar life cycle GHG emissions. This begs the question of whether investing billions of dollars in LNG/SNG infrastructure will lock us into an undesirable energy path that could make future energy decisions costlier than ever expected and increase the environmental burden from our energy infrastructure.
Second, it was found that the use of transportation fuels derived from coal and natural gas will not help the U.S. reduce the GHG emissions associated with the life cycle of transportation fuels, and in a worse case scenario, the use of these alternative fuels could in fact increase these GHG emissions. In addition, it was found that there is high uncertainty associated with the energy security benefits that could be associated with the consumption of transportation fuels derived from coal.
(1 December 2007)
A PhD thesis in civil and environmental engineering.
