"Clean Coal" technology – an imperfect option

Over the years, pollution control laws have prompted the development of so-called "clean coal technologies" that can reduce the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot emanating from coal-fired power plants. In Indiana, "clean coal technology" is defined as a technology that directly or indirectly reduces airborne emissions of sulfur or nitrogen-based pollutants associated with the combustion or use of coal. Clean coal technologies generally fall into four main categories:

1. Coal washing involves grinding the coal into smaller pieces and passing it through a gravity separation process designed to lower the level of sulphur and minerals in the coal.

2. Pollution control devices are designed to reduce emissions of particulate matter (i.e., devices such as fabric filters, and electrostatic precipitators or ESPs, where flue gases are passed between collecting plates, attracting particles using an electric charge), nitrogen oxides (i.e., low NOx burners designed to reduce the formation of NOx by controlling the flame temperature and chemical environment in which the coal combusts), sulphur dioxide (i.e., flue gas desulphurization or FGD, also known as wet scrubbing, using a sulphur absorbing chemical such as lime to absorb SO2), and trace elements emissions such as mercury, cadmium and arsenic, which can be reduced by particulate controls, fluidized bed combustion and FGD equipment.

3. Efficient combustion technologies, which include:

• supercritical pulverized coal combustion (SPCC), which can increase the thermal efficiency of a power plant from 35% to 45%, thereby reducing emissions due to less coal being used;


• fluidized bed coal combustion (FBC), which allows coal combustion at relatively low temperatures to reduce NOx formation and uses a sorbent to absorb sulphur; and


• coal gasification, in which coal is reacted with steam and air or oxygen under high temperatures and pressure to form synthetic gas, or "syngas" (mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen), which can be burned to produce electricity or processed to produce fuels such as diesel oil. Coal gasification technologies include:
  • Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) - a coal gasification technology in which coal is not combusted directly, but reacts with oxygen and steam to form a “syngas” (predominantly hydrogen and carbon monoxide), which is burned in gas turbines to produce electricity, and where exhaust heat from the turbine is used to produce steam to power a steam turbine (a second generation cycle) and provide steam to the gasification process.
  
  
  • Integrated Gasification Fuel Cells (IGFC) is another coal gasification technology that uses hydrogen from coal gasification in a solid fuel cell to produce electricity.
  In a general sense, coal gasification is similar to refining oil. Coal gasification takes a dirty coal package and refines it into cleaner hydrocarbons. "When coal gasification technology is used to produce SNG [substitute natural gas – pipeline quality gas that can serve end use consumers or can be used as fuel to produce electric power to supply electric utility service to end use consumers], emissions of regulated pollutants are very low because there is only limited combustion of already cleaned syngas." IGCC technology has the potential to take pollution control one step further, capturing CO2 before it escapes into the atmosphere.

4. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) involves separating out or "capturing" the carbon dioxide, and storing it deep underground, in theory to prevent the greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere. Storage methods being considered include pumping CO2 into disused coal fields to displace methane which can be used as fuel, pumping CO2 into saline aquifers deep underground for long-term storage, and pumping CO2 into oil fields to help maintain pressure and make oil extraction easier.

"The few IGCC plants in existence emit large amounts of CO2, but this CO2 could be separated prior to combustion and then potentially captured and stored underground. It is much more cost-effective to incorporate carbon capture technology into and IGCC plant than it is to retrofit conventional coal plants with this technology." "Unfortunately, though nearly 20 new IGCC coal plants have been proposed, only one – a long-term Department of Energy demonstration project dubbed FutureGen – would be equipped with the technology needed to capture the millions of tons of CO2 these plants would produce every year. There is also no infrastructure in place for transporting the CO2 and storing it in a permanent location, and researchers have yet to determine whether large amounts of CO2 can be safely and reliably stored underground (in former oil and natural gas wells or deep saline aquifers) for long periods of time. Early studies have been encouraging, particularly when compared with the known risks of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere."

"There are no coal fired power stations in commercial production which capture all carbon dioxide emissions, so the process is theoretical and experimental and thus a subject of feasibility or pilot studies. It has been estimated that it will be 2020 to 2025 before any commercial scale clean coal power stations (coal burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) become commercially viable and widely adopted. This time frame is of concern because there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to protect the world economy according to the Stern report. Even when CO2 emissions can be caught, there is considerable debate over the necessary carbon capture and storage that must follow."

References:

• Indiana Code 8-1-8.7-1.
• Greenpeace Briefing, Climate, New Zealand, April, 2005, “Clean Coal” Technology, found at: www.greenpeace.org.nz/pdfs/CleanCoalBriefing.pdf, p.2.
• Prefiled Direct Testimony of William R. Rosenberg on Behalf of Indiana Gasification, LLC, in Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) Cause No. 43154, p. 3 (January 31, 2007).
• BBC News, Clean Coal Technology: How it Works, found at http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4468076.stm
• Freese, Barbara; Deyette, Jeff, Cleaning Up Coal’s Act, Union of Concerned Scientists, Catalyst Magazine, Volume 5, Number 1, Spring, 2006.
• Answers.com, Clean Coal Technology, found on June 25, 2007 at: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?tname=clean%2Dcoal%2Dtechnology.

The cost of carbon dioxide regulation

Unlike other air emissions, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants are not currently regulated in the United States, meaning there is no limitation, nor cost to power plants, for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. However, this will likely change in the very near future. Most developed nations have responded to the overwhelming evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to global warming by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, which requires them to reduce their CO2 emissions. The United States has thus far failed to do so, but as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is under increasing international pressure to act.

"It is now virtually inevitable that America will adopt a federal law limiting global warming pollution from power plants. Indeed, given the momentum of emerging policy responses to global warming on the local, state and regional levels in the United States (as well as internationally), federal legislation will probably be adopted within the next five years."

"It is widely expected that future CO2 regulations will take the form of a 'cap-and-trade' system, similar to the national law for controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions that cause acid rain. Such a system would establish a national cap on CO2 emissions, and power plant operators would have to own an ‘allowance’ for each ton of CO2 they emit. Operators could buy and sell these allowances for a price established by market forces. Economists believe such a cap-and-trade system would provide the flexibility and incentives to meet a given CO2 cap at the lowest cost."

Despite its advantages over traditional coal-fired electric generation, at present IGCC electric generation is an imperfect solution to the global warming crisis because:

• Without incorporating carbon capture and sequestration technology into the design, new IGCC plants will increase the level of greenhouse gas emissions significantly – an average of 4 million tons of CO2 per plant per year – beyond current, unacceptable levels.


• Indiana residents already face significant rate increases with impending CO2 regulations, as 95% of our electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, and any regulatory scheme is likely to pass these costs onto ratepayers. New electric generating plants that emit more CO2 into the atmosphere will only add to these costs.


• Retrofitting a conventional coal plant with carbon capture and storage technology is itself costly – it is estimated to increase the cost of electricity from the plant by at least 68%.


• Retrofitting an IGCC plant with carbon capture and storage technology is also significant – it is estimated to increase the cost of electricity from the plant by at least 30%.


• In view of the significant costs associated with carbon capture and storage, and the fact that its commercial viability is unknown and still 15 years away, it is imprudent to invest in IGCC technology when less expensive, and cleaner, technologies, such as renewable electricity resources, are available to meet any short term growth in electric demand.

References:

• Freese, Barbara; Clemmer, Steve, Union of Concerned Scientists, Gambling with Coal: How Future Climate Laws Will Make New Coal Power Plants More Expensive, p. 1 (September, 2006).
• Testimony of James E. Rogers, Volume I-Petitioner’s Case-In-Chief, IURC Cause No. 43114, p. 12-13 (October 24, 2006).

Nuclear power - A short-sited, costly and risky option

With the emphasis on reducing carbon dioxide air emissions associated with coal-fired electric generation, recent discussions have included nuclear power as a solution to global climate change. The last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor came on-line over ten years ago. Nuclear power development has declined dramatically over the past several decades as rising economic costs (related to vastly extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation) falling fossil fuel prices and flat load growth made nuclear power plant construction less attractive.

Now, however, some are promoting nuclear power as a "solution" to global warming. Setting aside for a moment the issue of radioactivity and nuclear waste, nuclear power is by no means "carbon-free."

"A number of recent studies have found that when mining, processing, and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make electric power. Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially."

Claims that nuclear power provides a "clean" solution to coal-fired electric generation are also misleading.

"The vast majority of radioactivity in nuclear waste worldwide is from the production of electricity. Even in the United States, where for decades a robust nuclear weapons program operated, more than 95% of the total radioactivity is in waste from commercial nuclear power. Reactor waste contains materials with half-lives measured in tens of thousands, and some in millions of years. More than 12,000 human generations -- are required to reduce the hazard of these materials to acceptable levels. The most concentrated waste is irradiated fuel from electric power reactors, and the residual wastes from attempts to 'recycle' or reprocess the fuel. Other wastes include the entire massive reactor structure itself when the facility is shut down."

"In addition to radiological pollution, nuclear power also contributes massive thermal pollution to both our air and water. It has been estimated that every nuclear reactor daily releases thermal energy – heat – that is in excess of the heat released by the detonation of a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb blast. In addition to horrendous direct impact of this heat on aquatic ecosystems, nuclear power contributes significantly to the thermal energy inside Earth’s atmosphere, making it contraindicated at this time of rapid global warming."

Despite nuclear power's emergence as an electric generating resource over half a century ago, the safe disposal of nuclear waste remains unsolved, and the number of new nuclear reactors that would have to be built to provide a meaningful reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would greatly exacerbate the problem.

"Nuclear power is not a clean energy source. In fact, it produces both low and high-level radioactive waste that remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years. Generated throughout all parts of the fuel cycle, this waste poses a serious danger to human health. Currently, over 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low level radioactive waste are produced annually by the 103 operating reactors in the United States. No country in the world has found a solution for this waste. Building new nuclear plants would mean the production of much more of this dangerous waste with no where for it to go."

"Over 54,000 metric tons of irradiated fuel has accumulated at the sites of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States. There are several proposals to manage this highly radioactive waste, but none of them would satisfactorily deal with the material.

• Yucca Mountain – The Yucca Mountain project continues to be mired in controversy and may well never open. Numerous unresolved problems remain with the geologic and hydrologic suitability of the proposed site, and serious questions have been raised about its ability to contain highly radioactive waste for the time required.


• Private Fuel Storage – Private Fuel Storage (PFS) is a consortium of eight commercial nuclear utilities seeking to open an aboveground 'interim' storage site for 40,000 metric tons of irradiated fuel on Goshute land in Utah. After an eight year struggle, NRC granted the consortium a license in September, 2005, but the license still requires the approval of the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Three of the companies involved in the project have also recently withdrawn or decided to withhold funding for the consortium. If opened, PFS would not solve the waste problem, even temporarily. By transporting waste and storing it above ground in yet another part of the country, PFS will just make the existing waste problem worse. The ‘temporary’ nature of PFS is also questionable, because the project is completely dependent on the opening of Yucca Mountain.


• Reprocessing, Fast Reactors, and Transmutation – Fast reactors, in combination with reprocessing and transmutation, have also been proposed by the Bush Administration as a way to deal with the waste produced by nuclear power. . . . But fast neutron reactors have a terrible track record in safety and are incredibly expensive. These reactor designs also have many remaining technological problems . . . . Even if these problems were addressed, fast-neutron reactors would not eliminate the need for a repository.


• "Reprocessing, the chemical process of extracting uranium and plutonium from irradiated fuel after it is removed from a reactor, also has problems. Reprocessing technology, which is an essential component of the fast reactor cycle, is extremely expensive, poses a security threat, leads to environmental contamination, and also does not eliminate the need for a repository."

While no nuclear power reactor has experienced significant core damage since the partial meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979, nuclear safety remains a significant problem.

In the 27 years since the TMI meltdown, 38 nuclear power reactors had to be shut down for at least a year while widespread problems within each plant were fixed and safety margins were restored to minimally acceptable levels. Including those prior to TMI, 51 reactor outages of a year or longer have occurred. While these reactors shut down before they experienced a major accident, we cannot assume our luck will continue."

"There is a strong link between economics and safety. Reactors in the United States have been badly managed and poorly regulated. As a direct consequence, their costs have been higher and their safety levels have been lower than necessary. Evidence supporting this conclusion comes from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, which have licensed a grand total of 130 nuclear power reactors in the United States. Fifty times during that period. A U.S. nuclear reactor had to be closed for a year or longer to restore safety levels. This is neither economical, nor safe. Yet we experience it again and again. U.S. reactors were badly managed and poorly regulated, and unless those two systemic problems are addressed, the future of nuclear power in the United States will probably be a replay of its troubled past."

A June 14, 2007 report sponsored by the Keystone Center and written by nuclear industry representatives, environmental and consumer advocates, academics and state officials illustrates the significant obstacles to nuclear expansion.

"Hypothetically, an aggressive scenario to achieve even modest global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would require building 21 large (1,000 megawatt) nuclear reactors worldwide every year for fifty years, and more than five per year (275 total) in the United States. Keystone participants could not agree on the feasibility of such an expansion, but the amount of resulting waste would fill '10 nuclear waste repositories the size of the statutory capacity of Yucca Mountain.' The report also notes many unresolved concerns about Yucca Mountain, and expresses 'little confidence' that the facility will open on schedule."

"The Keystone panelists projected that the cost of nuclear power would be from 8 to 11 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh)(in 2007 dollars). By comparison, UCS experts pointed out that the average U.S. price of wind energy was 4.9 cents per kWh in 2006 (after tax credits worth about 2 cents per kWh) and is projected to cost as much as 6.3 cents per kWh in the near term due to an increase in construction costs affecting all technologies. Energy efficiency improvements, meanwhile, cost less than 4 cents per kWh."

While it is true that nuclear reactors can suffer meltdowns from malfunctions or terrorist attacks, that they release radioactivity in all phases of the nuclear production cycle, that the problem of waste disposal remains unsolved, and that civilian nuclear programs can spur weapons proliferation, the strongest case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy stems from the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very expensive.

"Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsidies over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running."

"The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative better energy efficiency . . . . For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion, or up to $5 billion with overruns. That money could be spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install superefficient light bulbs and clothes dryers. Such an investment would lead to seven times less carbon consumption than if that money were spent on a nuclear power plant. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power will divert money away from cheaper and faster responses to global warming, thus slowing the world’s withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential."

References:

• Olson Mary, Nuclear Information Resource Service, Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change, Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations (citations omitted, May 3, 2006).
• Public Citizen, Nuclear’s Fatal Flaws, updated April, 2006, found at: www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=15422. Union of Concerned Scientists, Fact Sheet: Walking a Nuclear Tightrope: Unlearned Lessons of Year-plus Reactor Outages, (September 18, 2006), found at: www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/20060918-nuclear-tightrope-fact-sheet.pdf.
• Lochbaum, David, Nuclear Safety Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists; commentary at the end of an article found at: http://www.motherearthnews.com/article.aspx?id=114432.
• The Keystone Center’s report is found at: www.keystone.org.
• National Wildlife Federation, A Response to the Keystone Center’s Fact Finding on Nuclear Power, (released June 14, 2007), found at: http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageId=3F8017D0-15C5-5FE8-B042791561108A00.
• Union of Concerned Scientists, New Report Underestimates Cost of Expanding Nuclear Capacity, Overstates Power Plant Safety and Security, Science Group Says; Report Correctly Concludes Reprocessing Poses Serious Proliferation, Terrorism Risks (June 14, 2007 Press Release).
• Hertsgaard, Mark, Mother Earth News, The True Costs of Nuclear Power, found at: http://www.motherearthnews.com/article.aspx?id=114432