Coal pollution mitigation: Difference between revisions
→Background: rm child labor discussion and mentions of industrial revolution |
sorta obvious that it means to minimize negative effects of coal mining. Doesnt seem reasonable to ask that "mitigate" be followed by units of measure |
||
(20 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Update|reason=economics has changed with falling cost of renewables|date=November 2018}} |
|||
[[File:Figure 1- Sample Layout of Emissions Controls at a Coal Power Plant (7315637538) (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Emissions controls at a [[coal fired power plant]]]] |
[[File:Figure 1- Sample Layout of Emissions Controls at a Coal Power Plant (7315637538) (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Emissions controls at a [[coal fired power plant]]]] |
||
{{Coal sidebar|Externalities}} |
{{Coal sidebar|Externalities}} |
||
'''Coal pollution mitigation''', sometimes labeled as '''clean coal''', is a series of systems and technologies that seek to mitigate [[Health and environmental impact of the coal industry|health and environmental impact of burning coal]] for energy. Burning coal releases harmful substances |
'''Coal pollution mitigation''', sometimes labeled as '''clean coal''', is a series of systems and technologies that seek to mitigate [[Health and environmental impact of the coal industry|health and environmental impact of burning coal]] for energy. Burning coal releases harmful substances that contribute to air pollution, [[acid rain]], and [[greenhouse gas]] emissions. Mitigation includes precombustion approaches, such as cleaning coal, and post combustion approaches, include [[flue-gas desulfurization]], [[selective catalytic reduction]], [[electrostatic precipitators]], and [[fly ash]] reduction. These measures aim to reduce coal's impact on human health and the environment. |
||
The combustion of coal releases diverse chemicals into the air. The main products are water and carbon dioxide, just like the combustion of petroleum. Also released are [[sulfur dioxide]] and nitrogen oxides, as well as some mercury. The residue remaining after combustion, [[coal ash]] often contains arsenic, mercury, and lead. Finally, the burning of coal, especially [[anthracite]], can release radioactive materials.<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1002/0471238961.0315011222151818.a01.pub3 |chapter=Coal |title=Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology |date=2016 |last1=Hower |first1=James |pages=1–63 |isbn=978-0-471-48494-3 }}</ref> |
|||
== Description == |
|||
The combustion of coal releases diverse chemicals into the air. The main products are water and carbon dioxide, just like the combustion of petroleum. Also released are [[sulfur dioxide]] and nitrogen oxides, as well as some mercury. The residue remaining after combustion, coal ash]] often contains arsenic, mercury, and lead. Finally, the burning of coal, especially [[anthracite]], can release radioactive materials.<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1002/0471238961.0315011222151818.a01.pub3 |chapter=Coal |title=Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology |date=2016 |last1=Hower |first1=James |pages=1–63 |isbn=978-0-471-48494-3 }}</ref> |
|||
==Mitigation technologies== |
|||
Coal pollution mitigation seek to minimize negative impacts of coal combustion.<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1002/0471238961.0312050103080901.a01 |chapter=Coal Conversion Processes, Cleaning and Desulfurization |title=Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology |date=2000 |last1=Chiang |first1=Shiao-Hung |last2=Cobb |first2=James T. |isbn=978-0-471-48494-3 }}</ref> |
|||
Mitigation of coal-based pollution can be divided into several distinct approaches. Coal pollution mitigation seek to minimize negative impacts of coal combustion.<ref name=KO2>{{cite book |doi=10.1002/0471238961.0312050103080901.a01 |chapter=Coal Conversion Processes, Cleaning and Desulfurization |title=Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology |date=2000 |last1=Chiang |first1=Shiao-Hung |last2=Cobb |first2=James T. |isbn=978-0-471-48494-3 }}</ref> |
|||
===Precombustion=== |
|||
Sulfur dioxide can be removed by [[flue-gas desulfurization]] and nitrogen oxides by [[selective catalytic reduction]] (SCR). Particulates can be removed with [[electrostatic precipitator]]s. Although perhaps less efficient{{Who|date=December 2023}}, [[wet scrubber]]s can remove both gasses and particulates. Reducing fly ash reduces emissions of naturally occurring radioactive materials. Mercury emissions can be reduced by up to 95%. [[Carbon capture and storage|Capturing carbon dioxide emissions]] from coal is a process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide from industrial sources is separated, treated, and transported to a long-term storage location.<sup>: 2221 </sup>{{Citation needed|date=December 2023}} |
|||
Prior to its combustion, coal can be cleaned by physical and by chemical means. |
|||
Physical cleaning of coal usually involves gravimetric processes, often in conjunction with [[froth flotation]] Such processes remove minerals and other noncombustible components of coal, exploiting their greater density vs that of coal. This technology is widely practiced. |
|||
Coal can also be cleaned in part by chemical treatments. The concept is to use chemicals to remove deleterious components of coal, leaving the combustible material behind. Typically, coal cleaning entails treatment of crushed coal with acids or bases. This technology is expensive and has rarely moved beyond the demonstration phase. During [[World War II]], German industry removed ash from coal by treatments with [[hydrofluoric acid]] and related reagents.<ref name=KO2/> |
|||
=== Environmental impact of coal === |
|||
=== |
===Post-combustion=== |
||
The wastes produced by the combustion of coal can be classified into three categories: gases, particulates, and solids (ash). The gaseous products can be filtered and scrubbed to miminize the release of SO<sub>x,</sub> NO<sub>x</sub>, mercury: |
|||
By-products of [[coal combustion]] are compounds that are released into the atmosphere as a result of burning coal. Coal includes contaminants such as sulfur compounds and non-combustible minerals. When coal is burned, the minerals become ash (i.e. [[particulate matter]] or PM), and the sulfur forms sulfur dioxide. Since air is mostly [[nitrogen]], the combustion of coal often leads to the production of nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are the primary causes of acid rain. For many years—before greenhouse gasses were widely understood to be a threat—it was thought that these by-products were the only drawback to using coal. These by-products are still a problem, but they have been greatly diminished in most advanced countries due to clean air regulations. It is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process. For example, various techniques are used in a [[coal preparation plant]] to reduce the amount of non-combustible matter (i.e. ash) in the coal before burning. During combustion, [[fluidized bed combustion]] is used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. After burning, particulate matter (i.e. ash and dust) can be reduced using an [[electrostatic precipitator]], and sulfur dioxide emissions can be further reduced with [[flue-gas desulfurization]]. Trace amounts of [[radionuclide]]s are more difficult to remove.<sup>[<nowiki/>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|''citation needed'']]</sup> |
|||
* {{SO2}} can be removed by [[flue-gas desulfurization]] |
|||
* {{chem2|NO2}} can be removed by [[selective catalytic reduction]] (SCR). |
|||
* [[Scrubber#Mercury removal|Mercury]] emissions can be reduced by up to 95%.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Mercury control from coal combustion |url=http://web.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/our-work/mercury-control-coal-combustion |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817060407/http://web.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/our-work/mercury-control-coal-combustion |url-status=dead |archive-date=August 17, 2018 |publisher=[[UNEP]]}}</ref> |
|||
[[Electrostatic precipitator]]s remove particulates. [[Wet scrubber]]s can remove both gases and particulates. |
|||
Coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source of the toxic heavy metal [[Mercury (element)|mercury]]: 50 tons per year come from coal power plants out of 150 tons emitted nationally in the US and 5000 tons globally. However, according to the United States Geological Survey, the trace amounts of mercury in coal by-products do not pose a threat to public health. A study in 2013 found that mercury found in the fish in the Pacific Ocean could possibly be linked to coal-fired plants in Asia.<sup>[<nowiki/>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|''citation needed'']]]</sup> |
|||
===Ash=== |
|||
==== Coal pollution produces smog ==== |
|||
The solid residue, [[coal ash]], requires separate set of technologies but usually involves landfilling or some immobilization approaches. Reducing [[fly ash]] reduces emissions of [[naturally occurring radioactive material|radioactive material]]s. |
|||
A visibly persistent example of the effects of pollution from burning coal is the “smog and soot which had serious health impacts on residents of growing urban centers.”<ref name="Water and Air Pollution">{{Cite web |date=2020-03-30 |title=Water and Air Pollution |url=https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/water-and-air-pollution |access-date=2023-11-28 |website=HISTORY |language=en}}</ref> [[Smog]] is a colloid that is formed when sunlight reacts with gaseous nitrogen oxides and at least one [[volatile organic compound]] (VOC) latent within the atmosphere. Smog is often visible to the naked human eye, and exists as a hazy, white smoke sometimes causing acute irritation of the eyes, nose, and respiratory system.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Smog |url=https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/smog |access-date=2023-11-28 |website=education.nationalgeographic.org |language=en}}</ref> The two main sources that cause smog are primary and secondary pollution. Primary pollution is emitted directly from a source, such as driving a car, burning coal, burning fossil fuels, etc., whereas secondary pollution is formed in the atmosphere, such as natural chemical reactions between sunlight and ozone. According from the Water and Air Pollution "The great smog of 1952 was caused by the mass production of burning coal, killing 4,000 people in londonWater and Air Pollution,<ref name="Water and Air Pollution"/> and in “1948 there was severe industrial air pollution created deadly smog that asphyxiated 20 people in Donora Pennsylvania and made 7,000 more people sick.” <ref name="Water and Air Pollution"/> |
|||
===Carbon capture=== |
|||
==== Measurement of pollution and availability of pollution data ==== |
|||
{{Main|Carbon capture and storage}} |
|||
In some countries, such as the EU, smokestack measurements from individual power plants must be published. Meanwhile, in some countries, such as [[Coal in Turkey|Turkey]], they are only reported to the government, not the public. However, since the late 2010s [[Sentinel-5 Precursor#Tropomi instrument|satellite measurements]] of some pollutants have been available. |
|||
Several different technological methods are available for carbon capture: |
|||
* Pre-combustion capture – This involves [[gasification|the gasification]] of a feedstock (such as coal) to form [[synthesis gas]], which may be [[water-gas shift reaction|shifted]] to produce an {{chem2|H2}} and {{CO2}}-[[rich burn|rich gas mixture]], from which the {{CO2}} can be efficiently captured and separated, transported, and ultimately sequestered,<ref>{{cite web |title=Pre-combustion Carbon Capture Research |url=http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/carbon-capture-and-storage-research/carbon-capture-rd/pre-combustion-carbon |access-date=22 July 2014 |website=Energy.gov |publisher=Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref> This technology is usually associated with [[Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle]] process configurations.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Picking a Winner in Clean-Coal Technology |url=http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18398/}}</ref> |
|||
* Post-combustion capture – This refers to capture of {{CO2}} from exhaust gases of combustion processes. |
|||
* [[Oxy-fuel combustion]] – Fossil fuels such as coal are burned in a mixture of recirculated [[flue gas]] and oxygen, rather than in air, which largely eliminates nitrogen from the flue gas enabling efficient, low-cost {{CO2}} capture.<ref>{{cite web |title=R&D Facts - Oxy-Fuel Combustion |url=http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/rd/R&D127.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141031153144/http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/rd/R%26D127.pdf |archive-date=31 October 2014 |access-date=22 July 2014 |publisher=National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref> |
|||
===Satellite monitoring=== |
|||
==== Greenhouse gasses ==== |
|||
{{Main|Greenhouse gas}} |
|||
Satellite monitoring is now used to crosscheck national data, for example [[Sentinel-5 Precursor]] has shown that Chinese control of SO<sub>2</sub> has only been partially successful.<ref>{{cite journal |title= Quantifying coal power plant responses to tighter SO<sub>2</sub> emissions standards in China|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=115|issue=27|pages=7004–09|doi=10.1073/pnas.1800605115|pmid=29915085|pmc=6142229|year=2018 |last1=Karplus |first1=Valerie J. |last2=Zhang|first2=Shuang|last3=Almond|first3=Douglas|bibcode=2018PNAS..115.7004K |doi-access=free}}</ref> It has also revealed that low use of technology such as SCR has resulted in high NO<sub>2</sub> emissions in South Africa and India.<ref>{{cite news |title=New satellite data analysis reveals world's biggest NO<sub>2</sub> emissions hotspots |url=https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/19072/greenpeace-analysis-of-new-satellite-data-reveals-worlds-biggest-no2-emissions-hotspots/ |publisher=Greenpeace International}}</ref> |
|||
As coal is mostly carbon, burning it produces a lot of carbon dioxide. The [[International Energy Agency|IEA]] said in 2022 that ‘achieving a swift reduction in global coal emissions is the central challenge for reaching international climate targets’.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Achieving a swift reduction in global coal emissions is the central challenge for reaching international climate targets - News |url=https://www.iea.org/news/achieving-a-swift-reduction-in-global-coal-emissions-is-the-central-challenge-for-reaching-international-climate-targets |access-date=2023-12-29 |website=IEA |language=en-GB}}</ref> |
|||
===Combined cycle power plants=== |
|||
[[Carbon sequestration]] technology, to remove significant quantities of carbon dioxide from the air, has yet to be tested on a large scale and may not be safe or successful. Sequestered CO2 may eventually leak up through the ground, may lead to unexpected geological instability or may cause contamination of aquifers used for drinking water supplies.<sup>[<nowiki/>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|''citation needed'']]]</sup> [[Carbon capture and storage]] is applied at large point emitters of carbon dioxide with the objective of preventing it from entering the atmosphere. |
|||
A few [[Integrated gasification combined cycle]] (IGCC) coal-fired power plants have been built with [[coal gasification]]. Although they burn coal more efficiently and therefore emit less pollution, the technology has not generally proved economically viable for coal, except possibly in Japan although this is controversial.<ref>{{cite web |title=Universal failure: How IGCC coal plants waste money and emissions Nove |url=http://www.kikonet.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/IGCC-and-emissions_eg_final.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161219175414/http://www.kikonet.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/IGCC-and-emissions_eg_final.pdf |archive-date=2016-12-19 |url-status=live |publisher=Kiko Network |access-date=13 November 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Japan says no to high-emission coal power plants |url=https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-says-no-to-high-emission-coal-power-plants |work=Nikkei Asian Review |date=26 July 2018}}</ref> |
|||
== Case studies== |
|||
As approximately 37% of the [[world energy consumption]] in 2022 was from coal, reaching the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the [[Paris Agreement]] will require modifications to how coal is used.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.iea.org/energy-system/fossil-fuels/coal |title=Coal |website=IEA - International Energy Agency |access-date=28 Dec 2023}}</ref> |
|||
In conjunction with enhanced oil recovery and other applications, commercial-scale CCS is currently being tested in several countries.<sup>[<nowiki/>[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|''by whom?'']]]</sup> Proposed CCS sites are subjected to extensive investigation and monitoring to avoid potential hazards, which could include leakage of sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere, induced geological instability, or contamination of water sources such as oceans and aquifers used for drinking water supplies. As of 2021, the only demonstrator for CCS on a coal plant that stores the gas underground is part of the [[Boundary Dam Power Station]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2023}} |
|||
=== Clean coal and the environment === |
|||
''Further information: [[Health and environmental impact of the coal industry]]'' |
|||
In conjunction with enhanced oil recovery and other applications, commercial-scale CCS is currently being tested in the U.S. and other countries.<sup>[<nowiki/>[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|''by whom?'']]]</sup> Proposed CCS sites are subjected to extensive investigation and monitoring to avoid potential hazards, which could include leakage of sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere, induced geological instability, or contamination of water sources such as oceans and aquifers used for drinking water supplies. As of 2021, the only demonstrator for CCS on a coal plant that stores the gas underground is part of the [[Boundary Dam Power Station]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2023}} |
|||
The Great Plains Synfuels plant supports the technical feasibility of carbon dioxide sequestration. Carbon dioxide from the coal gasification is shipped to Canada, where it is injected into the ground to aid in oil recovery. A drawback of the carbon sequestration process is that it is expensive compared to traditional processes. |
The Great Plains Synfuels plant supports the technical feasibility of carbon dioxide sequestration. Carbon dioxide from the coal gasification is shipped to Canada, where it is injected into the ground to aid in oil recovery. A drawback of the carbon sequestration process is that it is expensive compared to traditional processes. |
||
==Technology== |
|||
=== Flue-gas desulfurization === |
|||
{{Main|Flue-gas desulfurization}} |
|||
{{SO2}} can be removed by [[flue-gas desulfurization]]. |
|||
=== Selective catalytic reduction === |
|||
{{Main|Selective catalytic reduction}} |
|||
{{chem2|NO2}} can be removed by [[selective catalytic reduction]] (SCR). |
|||
=== Electrostatic precipitation === |
|||
{{Main|Electrostatic precipitator}} |
|||
Particulates can be removed with [[electrostatic precipitator]]s. |
|||
=== Scrubbers === |
|||
{{Main|Scrubber}} |
|||
==== Wet scrubbers ==== |
|||
{{Main|Wet scrubber}} |
|||
Although perhaps less efficient than desulfurization, SCR, and electrostatic precipitation, [[wet scrubber]]s can remove both gases and particulates. |
|||
==== Mercury removal ==== |
|||
{{Main|Scrubber#Mercury removal}} |
|||
[[Mercury (element)|Mercury]] emissions can be reduced by up to 95%.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Mercury control from coal combustion |url=http://web.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/our-work/mercury-control-coal-combustion |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817060407/http://web.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/our-work/mercury-control-coal-combustion |url-status=dead |archive-date=August 17, 2018 |publisher=[[UNEP]]}}</ref> |
|||
=== Fly ash reduction === |
|||
Reducing [[fly ash]] reduces emissions of [[naturally occurring radioactive material|radioactive material]]s. |
|||
=== Carbon capture === |
|||
{{Main|Carbon capture and storage}} |
|||
Several different technological methods are available for carbon capture as demanded by the clean coal concept: |
|||
* Pre-combustion capture – This involves [[gasification|the gasification]] of a feedstock (such as coal) to form [[synthesis gas]], which may be [[water-gas shift reaction|shifted]] to produce an {{chem2|H2}} and {{CO2}}-[[rich burn|rich gas mixture]], from which the {{CO2}} can be efficiently captured and separated, transported, and ultimately sequestered,<ref>{{cite web |title=Pre-combustion Carbon Capture Research |url=http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/carbon-capture-and-storage-research/carbon-capture-rd/pre-combustion-carbon |access-date=22 July 2014 |website=Energy.gov |publisher=Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref> This technology is usually associated with [[Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle]] process configurations.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Picking a Winner in Clean-Coal Technology |url=http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18398/}}</ref> |
|||
* Post-combustion capture – This refers to capture of {{CO2}} from exhaust gases of combustion processes. |
|||
* [[Oxy-fuel combustion]] – Fossil fuels such as coal are burned in a mixture of recirculated [[flue gas]] and oxygen, rather than in air, which largely eliminates nitrogen from the flue gas enabling efficient, low-cost {{CO2}} capture.<ref>{{cite web |title=R&D Facts - Oxy-Fuel Combustion |url=http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/rd/R&D127.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141031153144/http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/rd/R%26D127.pdf |archive-date=31 October 2014 |access-date=22 July 2014 |publisher=National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref> |
|||
The [[Kemper Project|Kemper County IGCC Project]], a proposed 582 [[Watt#Megawatt|MW]] [[coal gasification]]-based power plant, was expected to use pre-combustion capture of {{CO2}} to capture 65% of the {{CO2}} the plant produces, which would have been utilized and geologically sequestered in [[enhanced oil recovery]] operations.<ref>{{cite web |title=IGCC Project Examples - Kemper County IGCC Project |url=http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/project-examples#kemper |access-date=22 July 2014 |website=Gasifipedia |publisher=National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy |archive-date=17 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140317074158/http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/project-examples#kemper |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, after many delays and a cost runup to $7.5 billion (triple the initial budget),<ref>{{Cite news |last=Urbina |first=Ian |date=2016-07-05 |title=Piles of Dirty Secrets Behind a Model 'Clean Coal' Project (Published 2016) |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html |access-date=2021-02-03 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> the coal gasification project was abandoned and as of late 2017, Kemper is under construction as a cheaper [[natural gas]] power plant.<ref name="ars_nat_gas_2017">{{cite news |last1=Geuss |first1=Megan |date=2017-06-29 |title=$7.5 billion Kemper power plant suspends coal gasification |publisher=Ars Technica |url=https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/06/7-5-billion-kemper-power-plant-suspends-coal-gasification/ |access-date=2017-07-01}}</ref> |
The [[Kemper Project|Kemper County IGCC Project]], a proposed 582 [[Watt#Megawatt|MW]] [[coal gasification]]-based power plant, was expected to use pre-combustion capture of {{CO2}} to capture 65% of the {{CO2}} the plant produces, which would have been utilized and geologically sequestered in [[enhanced oil recovery]] operations.<ref>{{cite web |title=IGCC Project Examples - Kemper County IGCC Project |url=http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/project-examples#kemper |access-date=22 July 2014 |website=Gasifipedia |publisher=National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy |archive-date=17 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140317074158/http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/project-examples#kemper |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, after many delays and a cost runup to $7.5 billion (triple the initial budget),<ref>{{Cite news |last=Urbina |first=Ian |date=2016-07-05 |title=Piles of Dirty Secrets Behind a Model 'Clean Coal' Project (Published 2016) |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html |access-date=2021-02-03 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> the coal gasification project was abandoned and as of late 2017, Kemper is under construction as a cheaper [[natural gas]] power plant.<ref name="ars_nat_gas_2017">{{cite news |last1=Geuss |first1=Megan |date=2017-06-29 |title=$7.5 billion Kemper power plant suspends coal gasification |publisher=Ars Technica |url=https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/06/7-5-billion-kemper-power-plant-suspends-coal-gasification/ |access-date=2017-07-01}}</ref> |
||
Line 88: | Line 56: | ||
Other carbon capture and storage technologies include those that [[Dewatering|dewater]] low-rank coals. [[Coal rank|Low-rank coals]] often contain a higher level of moisture content which contains a lower energy content per tonne. This causes a reduced burning efficiency and an increased emissions output. Reduction of moisture from the coal prior to combustion can reduce emissions by up to 50 percent.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ge |first1=Lichao |last2=Zhang |first2=Yanwei |last3=Xu |first3=Chang |last4=Wang |first4=Zhihua |last5=Zhou |first5=Junhu |last6=Cen |first6=Kefa |date=2015-11-05 |title=Influence of the hydrothermal dewatering on the combustion characteristics of Chinese low-rank coals |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359431115006808 |journal=Applied Thermal Engineering |language=en |volume=90 |pages=174–181 |doi=10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.07.015 |bibcode=2015AppTE..90..174G |issn=1359-4311}}</ref>{{Citation needed|date=April 2009}} |
Other carbon capture and storage technologies include those that [[Dewatering|dewater]] low-rank coals. [[Coal rank|Low-rank coals]] often contain a higher level of moisture content which contains a lower energy content per tonne. This causes a reduced burning efficiency and an increased emissions output. Reduction of moisture from the coal prior to combustion can reduce emissions by up to 50 percent.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ge |first1=Lichao |last2=Zhang |first2=Yanwei |last3=Xu |first3=Chang |last4=Wang |first4=Zhihua |last5=Zhou |first5=Junhu |last6=Cen |first6=Kefa |date=2015-11-05 |title=Influence of the hydrothermal dewatering on the combustion characteristics of Chinese low-rank coals |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359431115006808 |journal=Applied Thermal Engineering |language=en |volume=90 |pages=174–181 |doi=10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.07.015 |bibcode=2015AppTE..90..174G |issn=1359-4311}}</ref>{{Citation needed|date=April 2009}} |
||
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted projects called the Clean Coal Technology & Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).<ref>{{cite web | url=http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research/major-demonstrations/clean-coal-power-initiative | publisher= U.S. Department of Energy | title= Clean Coal Technology & The Clean Coal Power Initiative }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/index.html# |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060924181707/http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/index.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= September 24, 2006 |title= Major Demonstrations: Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) |publisher= NETL |access-date= 1 May 2012 }}</ref> |
|||
==Potential financial impact== |
|||
==Financial impact== |
|||
Whether carbon capture and storage technology is adopted worldwide will "...depend less on science than on economics. Cleaning coal is very expensive."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123751110892790871|title=Coal Hard Facts: Cleaning It Won't Be Dirt Cheap|last=Ball|first=Jeffrey|date=2009-03-20|website=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref> |
Whether carbon capture and storage technology is adopted worldwide will "...depend less on science than on economics. Cleaning coal is very expensive."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123751110892790871|title=Coal Hard Facts: Cleaning It Won't Be Dirt Cheap|last=Ball|first=Jeffrey|date=2009-03-20|website=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref> |
||
Line 99: | Line 69: | ||
Newly built coal-fired power plants can be made to immediately use gasification of the coal prior to combustion. This makes it much easier to separate off the {{CO2}} from the exhaust fumes, making the process cheaper. This gasification process is done in new coal-burning power plants such as the coal-burning power plant at [[Tianjin]], called "[[GreenGen]]". |
Newly built coal-fired power plants can be made to immediately use gasification of the coal prior to combustion. This makes it much easier to separate off the {{CO2}} from the exhaust fumes, making the process cheaper. This gasification process is done in new coal-burning power plants such as the coal-burning power plant at [[Tianjin]], called "[[GreenGen]]". |
||
==Country by country experiences== |
|||
===Costs for China=== |
|||
Local pollution standards include GB13223-2011 (China), India,<ref>{{cite journal |title=How can Indian power plants cost-effectively meet the new sulfur emission standards? Policy evaluation using marginal abatement cost-curves |journal=Energy Policy|volume=121|pages=124–37|doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.008|year=2018 |last1=Sugathan |first1=Anish |last2=Bhangale|first2=Ritesh|last3=Kansal|first3=Vishal|last4=Hulke|first4=Unmil|bibcode=2018EnPol.121..124S |s2cid=158703760}}</ref> the [[Industrial Emissions Directive]] (EU) and the [[Clean Air Act (United States)]]. |
|||
{{Expand section|date=January 2020}} |
|||
===China=== |
|||
Since 2006, China releases more {{CO2}} than [[list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions|any other country]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate-change.html|title=China's Emissions: More Than U.S. Plus Europe, and Still Rising|website=[[The New York Times]]|language=en|date=2018-01-25}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinese-coal-fuels-rise-in-global-carbon-emissions-2j0kvrd2z|title=Chinese coal fuels rise in global carbon emissions|website=[[The Times]]|language=en|date=2017-11-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#69229dfc3535|title=Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions|website=[[Forbes]]|language=en|date=2017-10-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2|title=World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest|website=[[The Guardian]]|language=en|date=2011-01-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbl.nl/en/news/2007/20070619Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition|title=China now no. 1 in {{CO2}} emissions; USA in second position|website=PBL [[Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency]]|date=19 June 2007|language=en|access-date=2018-03-20|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190709191743/https://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition|archive-date=2019-07-09}}</ref> Researchers in China are focusing on increasing efficiency of burning coal so they can get more power out of less coal.<ref name=":2">{{cite news|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101780-chinas-drive-to-clean-up-its-coal-power-one-plant-at-a-time/|title=China's drive to clean up its coal power, one plant at a time|work=New Scientist|access-date=2017-05-04|language=en-US}}</ref> It is estimated that new high efficiency power plants could reduce {{CO2}} emission by 7% because they won't have to burn as much coal to get the same amount of power.<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
{{As of|2019}} costs of retrofitting CCS are unclear and the economics depends partly on how the [[Chinese national carbon trading scheme]] progresses.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ifri.org/en/publications/etudes-de-lifri/carbon-capture-storage-and-utilization-rescue-coal-global-perspectives|title=Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization to the Rescue of Coal? Global Perspectives and Focus on China and the United States|website=www.ifri.org|language=en|access-date=2020-01-25}}</ref> |
{{As of|2019}} costs of retrofitting CCS are unclear and the economics depends partly on how the [[Chinese national carbon trading scheme]] progresses.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ifri.org/en/publications/etudes-de-lifri/carbon-capture-storage-and-utilization-rescue-coal-global-perspectives|title=Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization to the Rescue of Coal? Global Perspectives and Focus on China and the United States|website=www.ifri.org|language=en|access-date=2020-01-25}}</ref> |
||
=== |
===India=== |
||
{{Expand section|date=January 2020}} |
|||
Pollution led to more than 2.3 million premature deaths in India in 2019, according to a new Lancet study. Nearly 1.6 million deaths were due to air pollution alone, and more than 500,000 were caused by water pollution. India has developed instruments and regulatory powers to mitigate pollution sources but there is no centralized system to drive pollution control efforts and achieve substantial improvements," the study said adding that in 93% of the country, the amount of pollution remains well above the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |title=Carbon capture and coal gasification can be a game changer for India - Opinion by Atanu Mukherjee {{!}} ET EnergyWorld |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61489488 |access-date=2020-01-25 |website=ETEnergyworld.com |language=en}}</ref> |
Pollution led to more than 2.3 million premature deaths in India in 2019, according to a new Lancet study. Nearly 1.6 million deaths were due to air pollution alone, and more than 500,000 were caused by water pollution. India has developed instruments and regulatory powers to mitigate pollution sources but there is no centralized system to drive pollution control efforts and achieve substantial improvements," the study said adding that in 93% of the country, the amount of pollution remains well above the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |title=Carbon capture and coal gasification can be a game changer for India - Opinion by Atanu Mukherjee {{!}} ET EnergyWorld |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61489488 |access-date=2020-01-25 |website=ETEnergyworld.com |language=en}}</ref> |
||
==Economic Shift from Coal to Renewables== |
|||
Since 2019, the energy landscape in the United States has undergone a significant transformation with [[renewable energy]] consumption surpassing coal for the first time in more than a century. This shift is indicative of a broader global trend towards renewable energy sources as a result of their decreasing costs and increasing efficiency.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43675|title=U.S. renewable energy consumption surpasses coal for the first time in over 130 years|publisher=U.S. Energy Information Administration|date=May 28, 2020}}</ref> |
|||
===Decline in Coal Consumption=== |
|||
The decline in coal consumption in the U.S. has been notable, decreasing by nearly 15% compared to the previous year.{{when|date=May 2024}} This decrease is largely attributed to the reduced use of coal in electricity generation, as more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives have become available. |
|||
===Rise of Renewable Energy=== |
|||
In contrast, renewable energy sources, particularly [[wind power|wind]] and [[solar power]], have seen substantial growth. This is not only due to the environmental benefits they offer but also because of their increasingly competitive costs. The technological advancements in renewable energy, alongside supportive government policies, have made these sources more accessible and affordable.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.energy.gov/eere/why-clean-energy-matters/environmental-impacts-clean-energy|title=Environmental Impacts of Clean Energy|publisher=Department of Energy|accessdate=March 30, 2024}}</ref> |
|||
==Politics== |
|||
===Australia=== |
|||
In Australia, carbon capture and storage was often referred to by then [[Prime Minister of Australia|Prime Minister]] [[Kevin Rudd]] as a possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (The previous [[Prime Minister of Australia|Prime Minister]] [[John Howard]] had stated that [[nuclear power]] was a better alternative, as CCS technology may not prove to be economically feasible.) |
|||
===Canada=== |
===Canada=== |
||
In 2014 SaskPower a provincial-owned electric utility finished renovations on Boundary Dam's boiler number 3 making it the world's first post-combustion carbon capture storage facility.<ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy-challenge/2014/worlds-first-full-scale-clean-coal-plant-opens-in-canada/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190112064633/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy-challenge/2014/worlds-first-full-scale-clean-coal-plant-opens-in-canada/|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 12, 2019|title=World's First Full-Scale 'Clean' Coal Plant Opens in Canada|last=Danko|first=Pete|website=[[National Geographic Society]]|date=2014-10-02|access-date=2017-04-27}}</ref> The renovation project ended up costing a little over $1.2 billion and can scrub out {{CO2}} and toxins from up to 90 percent of the flue gas that it emits.<ref name=":1" /> |
In 2014 SaskPower a provincial-owned electric utility finished renovations on Boundary Dam's boiler number 3 making it the world's first post-combustion carbon capture storage facility.<ref name=":1">{{cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy-challenge/2014/worlds-first-full-scale-clean-coal-plant-opens-in-canada/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190112064633/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy-challenge/2014/worlds-first-full-scale-clean-coal-plant-opens-in-canada/|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 12, 2019|title=World's First Full-Scale 'Clean' Coal Plant Opens in Canada|last=Danko|first=Pete|website=[[National Geographic Society]]|date=2014-10-02|access-date=2017-04-27}}</ref> The renovation project ended up costing a little over $1.2 billion and can scrub out {{CO2}} and toxins from up to 90 percent of the flue gas that it emits.<ref name=":1" /> |
||
===China=== |
|||
{{expand section|reason=needs financial info e.g. compare cost re shutting down new coal plants early|date=January 2020}} |
|||
Since 2006, China releases more {{CO2}} than [[list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions|any other country]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate-change.html|title=China's Emissions: More Than U.S. Plus Europe, and Still Rising|website=[[The New York Times]]|language=en|date=2018-01-25}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinese-coal-fuels-rise-in-global-carbon-emissions-2j0kvrd2z|title=Chinese coal fuels rise in global carbon emissions|website=[[The Times]]|language=en|date=2017-11-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#69229dfc3535|title=Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions|website=[[Forbes]]|language=en|date=2017-10-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2|title=World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest|website=[[The Guardian]]|language=en|date=2011-01-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbl.nl/en/news/2007/20070619Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition|title=China now no. 1 in {{CO2}} emissions; USA in second position|website=PBL [[Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency]]|date=19 June 2007|language=en|access-date=2018-03-20|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190709191743/https://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition|archive-date=2019-07-09}}</ref> Researchers in China are focusing on increasing efficiency of burning coal so they can get more power out of less coal.<ref name=":2">{{cite news|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101780-chinas-drive-to-clean-up-its-coal-power-one-plant-at-a-time/|title=China's drive to clean up its coal power, one plant at a time|work=New Scientist|access-date=2017-05-04|language=en-US}}</ref> It is estimated that new high efficiency power plants could reduce {{CO2}} emission by 7% because they won't have to burn as much coal to get the same amount of power.<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
===India=== |
|||
{{empty section|date=January 2020}} |
|||
===Japan=== |
===Japan=== |
||
Line 136: | Line 87: | ||
Japan had adopted prior pilot projects on IGCC coal power plants in the early-1990s and late-2000s. |
Japan had adopted prior pilot projects on IGCC coal power plants in the early-1990s and late-2000s. |
||
=== |
===U.S.=== |
||
{{Main|Fossil fuel regulations in the United States}} |
{{Main|Fossil fuel regulations in the United States}} |
||
In the United States, ''clean coal'' was mentioned by former President [[George W. Bush]] on several occasions, including his 2007 [[State of the Union Address]]. Bush's position was that carbon capture and storage technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. |
In the United States, ''clean coal'' was mentioned by former President [[George W. Bush]] on several occasions, including his 2007 [[State of the Union Address]]. Bush's position was that carbon capture and storage technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. |
||
Line 142: | Line 93: | ||
During the [[2008 United States presidential election|US Presidential campaign for 2008]], both candidates [[John McCain]] and [[Barack Obama]] expressed interest in the development of CCS technologies as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan. The development of pollution mitigation technologies could also create export business for the United States or any other country working on it. |
During the [[2008 United States presidential election|US Presidential campaign for 2008]], both candidates [[John McCain]] and [[Barack Obama]] expressed interest in the development of CCS technologies as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan. The development of pollution mitigation technologies could also create export business for the United States or any other country working on it. |
||
The [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|American Reinvestment and Recovery Act]] |
The [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|American Reinvestment and Recovery Act]] allocated $3.4 billion for advanced carbon capture and storage technologies, including demonstration projects. |
||
Former Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] has said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables", and former Energy Secretary [[Steven Chu|Dr. Steven Chu]] has said that "It is absolutely worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage", noting that even if the U.S. and Europe turned their backs on coal, developing nations like India and China would likely not. |
Former Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] has said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables", and former Energy Secretary [[Steven Chu|Dr. Steven Chu]] has said that "It is absolutely worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage", noting that even if the U.S. and Europe turned their backs on coal, developing nations like India and China would likely not. |
||
Line 149: | Line 100: | ||
During the Trump administration, an {{vanchor|Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management}} was set up within the [[United States Department of Energy]], but was abolished in the Biden administration. |
During the Trump administration, an {{vanchor|Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management}} was set up within the [[United States Department of Energy]], but was abolished in the Biden administration. |
||
==Regulations== |
|||
{{Empty section|date=August 2023}} |
|||
==Criticism of the approach== |
|||
Environmentalists such as Dan Becker, director of the [[Sierra Club]]'s Global Warming and Energy Program, believes that the term ''clean coal'' is misleading: "There is no such thing as clean coal and there never will be. It's an [[oxymoron]]." The Sierra Club's Coal Campaign has launched a site refuting the clean coal statements and advertising of the coal industry. |
|||
Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of [[coal mining|coal extraction]], high costs to [[carbon capture and storage|sequester carbon]], and uncertainty of how to manage result [[air pollution|pollutants]] and [[radionuclide]]s. In reference to sequestration of carbon, concerns exist about whether geologic storage of {{CO2}} in reservoirs, aquifers, ''etc.'', is indefinite/permanent. |
|||
The palaeontologist and influential environmental activist [[Tim Flannery]] made the assertion that the concept of clean coal might not be viable for all geographical locations. |
|||
Critics also believe that the continuing construction of coal-powered plants (whether or not they use carbon sequestration techniques) encourages unsustainable mining practices for coal, which can strip away mountains, hillsides, and natural areas. They also point out that there can be a large amount of energy required and pollution emitted in transporting the coal to the power plants. |
|||
[[The Climate Reality Project|The Reality Coalition]], a US non-profit climate organization composed of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the [[Sierra Club]], the [[National Wildlife Federation]], the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], and the [[League of Conservation Voters]], ran a series of television commercials in 2008 and 2009. The commercials were highly critical of attempts to mitigate coal's pollution, stating that without capturing {{CO2}} emissions and storing it safely that it cannot be called ''clean coal''. |
|||
[[Greenpeace]] is a major opponent of the concept, because they view emissions and wastes as not being avoided but instead transferred from one [[waste stream]] to another. According to [[Greenpeace USA]]'s Executive Director [[Phil Radford]] speaking in 2012, "even the industry figures it will take 10 or 20 years to arrive, and we need solutions sooner than that. We need to scale up renewable energy; 'clean coal' is a distraction from that." |
|||
==Demonstration projects== |
|||
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted projects called the Clean Coal Technology & Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).<ref>{{cite web | url=http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research/major-demonstrations/clean-coal-power-initiative | publisher= U.S. Department of Energy | title= Clean Coal Technology & The Clean Coal Power Initiative }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/index.html# |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060924181707/http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/index.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= September 24, 2006 |title= Major Demonstrations: Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) |publisher= NETL |access-date= 1 May 2012 }}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
[[Health and environmental impact of the coal industry]] |
|||
{{colbegin}} |
{{colbegin}} |
||
* {{annotated link|Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate}} |
* {{annotated link|Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate}} |
Revision as of 22:49, 20 May 2024
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Figure_1-_Sample_Layout_of_Emissions_Controls_at_a_Coal_Power_Plant_%287315637538%29_%28cropped%29.jpg/330px-Figure_1-_Sample_Layout_of_Emissions_Controls_at_a_Coal_Power_Plant_%287315637538%29_%28cropped%29.jpg)
Part of a series on |
Coal |
---|
![]() |
Coal pollution mitigation, sometimes labeled as clean coal, is a series of systems and technologies that seek to mitigate health and environmental impact of burning coal for energy. Burning coal releases harmful substances that contribute to air pollution, acid rain, and greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation includes precombustion approaches, such as cleaning coal, and post combustion approaches, include flue-gas desulfurization, selective catalytic reduction, electrostatic precipitators, and fly ash reduction. These measures aim to reduce coal's impact on human health and the environment.
The combustion of coal releases diverse chemicals into the air. The main products are water and carbon dioxide, just like the combustion of petroleum. Also released are sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, as well as some mercury. The residue remaining after combustion, coal ash often contains arsenic, mercury, and lead. Finally, the burning of coal, especially anthracite, can release radioactive materials.[1]
Mitigation technologies
Mitigation of coal-based pollution can be divided into several distinct approaches. Coal pollution mitigation seek to minimize negative impacts of coal combustion.[2]
Precombustion
Prior to its combustion, coal can be cleaned by physical and by chemical means.
Physical cleaning of coal usually involves gravimetric processes, often in conjunction with froth flotation Such processes remove minerals and other noncombustible components of coal, exploiting their greater density vs that of coal. This technology is widely practiced.
Coal can also be cleaned in part by chemical treatments. The concept is to use chemicals to remove deleterious components of coal, leaving the combustible material behind. Typically, coal cleaning entails treatment of crushed coal with acids or bases. This technology is expensive and has rarely moved beyond the demonstration phase. During World War II, German industry removed ash from coal by treatments with hydrofluoric acid and related reagents.[2]
Post-combustion
The wastes produced by the combustion of coal can be classified into three categories: gases, particulates, and solids (ash). The gaseous products can be filtered and scrubbed to miminize the release of SOx, NOx, mercury:
- SO2 can be removed by flue-gas desulfurization
- NO2 can be removed by selective catalytic reduction (SCR).
- Mercury emissions can be reduced by up to 95%.[3]
Electrostatic precipitators remove particulates. Wet scrubbers can remove both gases and particulates.
Ash
The solid residue, coal ash, requires separate set of technologies but usually involves landfilling or some immobilization approaches. Reducing fly ash reduces emissions of radioactive materials.
Carbon capture
Several different technological methods are available for carbon capture:
- Pre-combustion capture – This involves the gasification of a feedstock (such as coal) to form synthesis gas, which may be shifted to produce an H2 and CO2-rich gas mixture, from which the CO2 can be efficiently captured and separated, transported, and ultimately sequestered,[4] This technology is usually associated with Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle process configurations.[5]
- Post-combustion capture – This refers to capture of CO2 from exhaust gases of combustion processes.
- Oxy-fuel combustion – Fossil fuels such as coal are burned in a mixture of recirculated flue gas and oxygen, rather than in air, which largely eliminates nitrogen from the flue gas enabling efficient, low-cost CO2 capture.[6]
Satellite monitoring
Satellite monitoring is now used to crosscheck national data, for example Sentinel-5 Precursor has shown that Chinese control of SO2 has only been partially successful.[7] It has also revealed that low use of technology such as SCR has resulted in high NO2 emissions in South Africa and India.[8]
Combined cycle power plants
A few Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal-fired power plants have been built with coal gasification. Although they burn coal more efficiently and therefore emit less pollution, the technology has not generally proved economically viable for coal, except possibly in Japan although this is controversial.[9][10]
Case studies
In conjunction with enhanced oil recovery and other applications, commercial-scale CCS is currently being tested in several countries.[by whom?] Proposed CCS sites are subjected to extensive investigation and monitoring to avoid potential hazards, which could include leakage of sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere, induced geological instability, or contamination of water sources such as oceans and aquifers used for drinking water supplies. As of 2021, the only demonstrator for CCS on a coal plant that stores the gas underground is part of the Boundary Dam Power Station.[citation needed]
The Great Plains Synfuels plant supports the technical feasibility of carbon dioxide sequestration. Carbon dioxide from the coal gasification is shipped to Canada, where it is injected into the ground to aid in oil recovery. A drawback of the carbon sequestration process is that it is expensive compared to traditional processes.
The Kemper County IGCC Project, a proposed 582 MW coal gasification-based power plant, was expected to use pre-combustion capture of CO2 to capture 65% of the CO2 the plant produces, which would have been utilized and geologically sequestered in enhanced oil recovery operations.[11] However, after many delays and a cost runup to $7.5 billion (triple the initial budget),[12] the coal gasification project was abandoned and as of late 2017, Kemper is under construction as a cheaper natural gas power plant.[13]
The Saskatchewan Government's Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration Project will use post-combustion, amine-based scrubber technology to capture 90% of the CO2 emitted by Unit 3 of the power plant; this CO2 will be pipelined to and utilized for enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn oil fields.[14]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Oxyfuel_CCS_fossil_fuel_power_plant_operation.png/220px-Oxyfuel_CCS_fossil_fuel_power_plant_operation.png)
An early example of a coal-based plant using (oxy-fuel) carbon-capture technology is Swedish company Vattenfall’s Schwarze Pumpe power station located in Spremberg, Germany, built by German firm Siemens, which went on-line in September 2008.[15][16] The facility captures CO2 and acid rain producing pollutants, separates them, and compresses the CO2 into a liquid. Plans are to inject the CO2 into depleted natural gas fields or other geological formations. Vattenfall opines that this technology is considered not to be a final solution for CO2 reduction in the atmosphere, but provides an achievable solution in the near term while more desirable alternative solutions to power generation can be made economically practical.[16]
Other examples of oxy-combustion carbon capture are in progress. Callide Power Station has retrofitted a 30-MWth existing PC-fired power plant to operate in oxy-fuel mode; in Ciuden, Spain, Endesa has a newly built 30-MWth oxy-fuel plant using circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) technology.[17] Babcock-ThermoEnergy's Zero Emission Boiler System (ZEBS) is oxy-combustion-based; this system features near 100% carbon-capture and according to company information virtually no air-emissions.[18]
Other carbon capture and storage technologies include those that dewater low-rank coals. Low-rank coals often contain a higher level of moisture content which contains a lower energy content per tonne. This causes a reduced burning efficiency and an increased emissions output. Reduction of moisture from the coal prior to combustion can reduce emissions by up to 50 percent.[19][citation needed]
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted projects called the Clean Coal Technology & Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).[20][21]
Financial impact
Whether carbon capture and storage technology is adopted worldwide will "...depend less on science than on economics. Cleaning coal is very expensive."[22]
Cost of converting a single coal-fired power plant
Conversion of a conventional coal-fired power plant is done by injecting the CO2 into ammonium carbonate after which it is then transported and deposited underground (preferably in soil beneath the sea).[23] This injection process however is by far the most expensive. Besides the cost of the equipment and the ammonium carbonate, the coal-fired power plant also needs to use 30% of its generated heat to do the injection (parasitic load). A test-setup has been done in the American Electric Power Mountaineer coal-burning power plant.
One solution to reduce this thermal loss/parasitic load is to burn the pulverised load with pure oxygen instead of air.[23]
Cost implications for new coal-fired power plants
Newly built coal-fired power plants can be made to immediately use gasification of the coal prior to combustion. This makes it much easier to separate off the CO2 from the exhaust fumes, making the process cheaper. This gasification process is done in new coal-burning power plants such as the coal-burning power plant at Tianjin, called "GreenGen".
Country by country experiences
Local pollution standards include GB13223-2011 (China), India,[24] the Industrial Emissions Directive (EU) and the Clean Air Act (United States).
China
Since 2006, China releases more CO2 than any other country.[25][26][27][28][29] Researchers in China are focusing on increasing efficiency of burning coal so they can get more power out of less coal.[30] It is estimated that new high efficiency power plants could reduce CO2 emission by 7% because they won't have to burn as much coal to get the same amount of power.[30]
As of 2019[update] costs of retrofitting CCS are unclear and the economics depends partly on how the Chinese national carbon trading scheme progresses.[31]
India
Pollution led to more than 2.3 million premature deaths in India in 2019, according to a new Lancet study. Nearly 1.6 million deaths were due to air pollution alone, and more than 500,000 were caused by water pollution. India has developed instruments and regulatory powers to mitigate pollution sources but there is no centralized system to drive pollution control efforts and achieve substantial improvements," the study said adding that in 93% of the country, the amount of pollution remains well above the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.[32]
Canada
In 2014 SaskPower a provincial-owned electric utility finished renovations on Boundary Dam's boiler number 3 making it the world's first post-combustion carbon capture storage facility.[33] The renovation project ended up costing a little over $1.2 billion and can scrub out CO2 and toxins from up to 90 percent of the flue gas that it emits.[33]
Japan
Following the catastrophic failure of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan that resulted from the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, and the subsequent widespread public opposition against nuclear power, high energy, lower emission (HELE) coal power plants were increasingly favored by the Shinzō Abe-led government to recoup lost energy capacity from the partial shutdown of nuclear power plants in Japan and to replace aging coal and oil-fired power plants, while meeting 2030 emission targets of the Paris Agreement. 45 HELE power plants have been planned, purportedly to employ integrated gasification fuel cell cycle, a further development of integrated gasification combined cycle.[34][35]
Japan had adopted prior pilot projects on IGCC coal power plants in the early-1990s and late-2000s.
U.S.
In the United States, clean coal was mentioned by former President George W. Bush on several occasions, including his 2007 State of the Union Address. Bush's position was that carbon capture and storage technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.
During the US Presidential campaign for 2008, both candidates John McCain and Barack Obama expressed interest in the development of CCS technologies as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan. The development of pollution mitigation technologies could also create export business for the United States or any other country working on it.
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act allocated $3.4 billion for advanced carbon capture and storage technologies, including demonstration projects.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables", and former Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu has said that "It is absolutely worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage", noting that even if the U.S. and Europe turned their backs on coal, developing nations like India and China would likely not.
During the first 2012 United States presidential election debate, Mitt Romney expressed his support for clean coal, and claimed that current federal policies were hampering the coal industry.[36]
During the Trump administration, an Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management was set up within the United States Department of Energy, but was abolished in the Biden administration.
See also
Health and environmental impact of the coal industry
- Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate – international non-treaty agreement among ASEAN countries launched on January 12, 2006
- Biochar – Lightweight black residue, made of carbon and ashes, after pyrolysis of biomass
- Carbon capture and storage – Collecting carbon dioxide from industrial emissions
- Carbon sequestration – Storing carbon in a carbon pool
- Carbon sink – Reservoir absorbing more carbon from, than emitting to, the air
- Climate change mitigation – Actions to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change
- Coal mining in the United States – Overview and history of coal production
- Coal phase out – Environmental policy intended to stop using coal
- Coal-water slurry fuel – Combustible mixture of coal particles in water
- Coke fuel – Coal product used in making steel
- Environmental impact of the coal industry
- Fluidized bed combustion – Technology used to burn solid fuels
- Kyoto Protocol – 1997 international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
- Refined coal – Product of the coal-upgrading technology that removes moisture and pollutants from lower-rank coals
References
- ^ Hower, James (2016). "Coal". Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. pp. 1–63. doi:10.1002/0471238961.0315011222151818.a01.pub3. ISBN 978-0-471-48494-3.
- ^ a b Chiang, Shiao-Hung; Cobb, James T. (2000). "Coal Conversion Processes, Cleaning and Desulfurization". Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. doi:10.1002/0471238961.0312050103080901.a01. ISBN 978-0-471-48494-3.
- ^ "Mercury control from coal combustion". UNEP. Archived from the original on August 17, 2018.
- ^ "Pre-combustion Carbon Capture Research". Energy.gov. Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- ^ "Picking a Winner in Clean-Coal Technology".
- ^ "R&D Facts - Oxy-Fuel Combustion" (PDF). National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 October 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- ^ Karplus, Valerie J.; Zhang, Shuang; Almond, Douglas (2018). "Quantifying coal power plant responses to tighter SO2 emissions standards in China". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (27): 7004–09. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.7004K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1800605115. PMC 6142229. PMID 29915085.
- ^ "New satellite data analysis reveals world's biggest NO2 emissions hotspots". Greenpeace International.
- ^ "Universal failure: How IGCC coal plants waste money and emissions Nove" (PDF). Kiko Network. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-12-19. Retrieved 13 November 2018.
- ^ "Japan says no to high-emission coal power plants". Nikkei Asian Review. 26 July 2018.
- ^ "IGCC Project Examples - Kemper County IGCC Project". Gasifipedia. National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Archived from the original on 17 March 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- ^ Urbina, Ian (2016-07-05). "Piles of Dirty Secrets Behind a Model 'Clean Coal' Project (Published 2016)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-02-03.
- ^ Geuss, Megan (2017-06-29). "$7.5 billion Kemper power plant suspends coal gasification". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2017-07-01.
- ^ "Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration Project". Global CCS Institute. Archived from the original on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- ^ "Vattenfall's Project on CSS". Vattenfall. Archived from the original on 2010-10-26.
- ^ a b http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/25-can-clean-coal-actually-work/?searchterm=clean%20coal "Can Clean Coal Actually Work?" article in Feb. 2009 issue, p. 18, Retrieved 2009-05-11
- ^ "Overview of Oxy-fuel Combustion Technology for CO2 Capture". Cornerstone Magazine. World Coal Association. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
- ^ [leads nowhere previously cited - http://ww25.thermoenergy.com/Zm9yY2VTUg]
- ^ Ge, Lichao; Zhang, Yanwei; Xu, Chang; Wang, Zhihua; Zhou, Junhu; Cen, Kefa (2015-11-05). "Influence of the hydrothermal dewatering on the combustion characteristics of Chinese low-rank coals". Applied Thermal Engineering. 90: 174–181. Bibcode:2015AppTE..90..174G. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.07.015. ISSN 1359-4311.
- ^ "Clean Coal Technology & The Clean Coal Power Initiative". U.S. Department of Energy.
- ^ "Major Demonstrations: Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)". NETL. Archived from the original on September 24, 2006. Retrieved 1 May 2012.
- ^ Ball, Jeffrey (2009-03-20). "Coal Hard Facts: Cleaning It Won't Be Dirt Cheap". The Wall Street Journal.
- ^ a b Nijhuis, Michelle (April 2014). "Can Coal Ever Be Clean?". National Geographic. Archived from the original on March 16, 2014.
- ^ Sugathan, Anish; Bhangale, Ritesh; Kansal, Vishal; Hulke, Unmil (2018). "How can Indian power plants cost-effectively meet the new sulfur emission standards? Policy evaluation using marginal abatement cost-curves". Energy Policy. 121: 124–37. Bibcode:2018EnPol.121..124S. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.008. S2CID 158703760.
- ^ "China's Emissions: More Than U.S. Plus Europe, and Still Rising". The New York Times. 2018-01-25.
- ^ "Chinese coal fuels rise in global carbon emissions". The Times. 2017-11-14.
- ^ "Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions". Forbes. 2017-10-24.
- ^ "World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest". The Guardian. 2011-01-31.
- ^ "China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position". PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 19 June 2007. Archived from the original on 2019-07-09. Retrieved 2018-03-20.
- ^ a b "China's drive to clean up its coal power, one plant at a time". New Scientist. Retrieved 2017-05-04.
- ^ "Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization to the Rescue of Coal? Global Perspectives and Focus on China and the United States". www.ifri.org. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
- ^ "Carbon capture and coal gasification can be a game changer for India - Opinion by Atanu Mukherjee | ET EnergyWorld". ETEnergyworld.com. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
- ^ a b Danko, Pete (2014-10-02). "World's First Full-Scale 'Clean' Coal Plant Opens in Canada". National Geographic Society. Archived from the original on January 12, 2019. Retrieved 2017-04-27.
- ^ McHugh, Babs (2017-02-23). "Japanese government planning to build 45 new coal fired power stations to diversify supply". ABC Online. Retrieved 2017-02-23.
- ^ Watanabe, Chisaki (2015-11-10). "Want to Burn Coal and Save the Planet? Japan Touts a Solution". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2017-02-23.
- ^ "Transcript And Audio: First Obama-Romney Debate". NPR. Federal News Service. 2012-10-03. Retrieved 2013-05-24.
Further reading
![]() | This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (August 2023) |
- Biello, David (January 2016). "The Carbon Capture Fallacy". Scientific American. 314 (1): 58–65. Bibcode:2015SciAm.314a..58B. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0116-58. PMID 26887197.
- "Can the Earth be Coal-Friendly?". PBS Documentary (Wyoming). April 10, 2009.
- "Clean coal technology: How it works". BBC News. 2005-11-28. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
- Wald, Matthew L. (2008-08-27). "The Energy Challenge". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-30.
- "In Clean Coal We Trust - or Do We?". ParisTech Review. October 15, 2013.
- "The Future of Coal An Interdisciplinary MIT Study". Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
External links
![]() | This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (August 2023) |
- "International Energy Agency - Clean Coal Centre".
- "National Energy Technology Laboratory compendium homepage". Archived from the original on 2008-08-29.
- "Institute for Clean & Secure Energy". Archived from the original on 2009-03-02.
- "US federal Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management".
- "Clean Coal Technology & The Clean Coal Power Initiative". US Department of Energy. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
- "Clean Coal Technology Compendium". National Energy Technology Laboratory. Archived from the original on 2008-08-29. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
- "Utah Clean Coal Program". University of Utah. Archived from the original on 2009-03-02. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
- "Institute for Clean & Secure Energy". University of Utah. Archived from the original on 2009-03-02. Retrieved 2009-03-29.