The Coal Conundrum


This is the first installment in a series of posts on future energy sources. I make no claims on being an expert or knowing all the relevant issues. I’m just trying to get some information out there—enough to get people thinking and to help them weigh the options with some degree of informed opinion. I don’t know when future posts in the series will be put up, but I will try to get them done gradually over the summer.

The “Coal Conundrum” arises from the intersection of three simple facts:

1) Coal releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere when burned
2) Climate change exists and is being accelerated by human-made CO2 emissions
3) There are still enormous reserves of coal in many parts of the world.

First, some quick information about coal and its usage:

Around 23% of our nation’s total energy consumption needs are met by coal. Most of it is used in power plants to generate electricity, supplying about 50% of our national grid’s power. Coal is not as easy to transport as oil and the lowest-grade coal (lignite) is almost not worth transporting.

There are, roughly, 4 main grades of coal:

Anthracite is the highest quality and releases the least carbon per unit mass burned. It’s Gross Heating Value (GHV, a measure of energy released per unit mass) is about 8.5 kcal/g.

Bituminous coal is next down on the list, with about 6.7 to 8.5 kcal/g burned. At best, it is pretty much equivalent to anthracite. At worst, you must burn 1.25 tons to equal the energy from 1 ton of anthracite.

Sub-bituminous coal’s GHV is about 5.5 kcal/g, so you must burn 1.5 tons for 1 ton of anthracite equivalent.

Lignite is the lowest quality coal, giving you about 3.9 to 5.4 kcal/g—or, between 1.5 and 2.1 tons of anthracite equivalent.

While the carbon emissions that result from burning 1 ton of each of the above types of coal are slightly different (due to different carbon concentrations within each), burning 2 tons of lignite will definitely give you more carbon than just 1 ton of anthracite. And the bad news here is that about half the proven coal reserves in the world are lignite.

For comparison, gasoline has a GHV of about 11 to 11.5 kcal/g and fuel oil is somewhere around 10 to 11 kcal/g. Another measure of the utility of an energy source is the ratio of input energy to output energy. Ratios for oil and coal vary greatly by source, but oil is generally at least 50% more efficient than coal.

Enough with the boring information! Let’s get to the meat of the problem:


Source: US EIA


Source: BP, 2006

Notice something interesting? The largest of the proven global coal reserves are in developed or developing nations. And global reserves are estimated to be enough to supply our coal needs for between 200 to 300 years, provided we keep our consumption constant and no new coal deposits are discovered. Both of those provisions will be broken, but it’s unclear exactly which direction they’ll go—new coal deposit discovery could, for a time, outpace consumption growth if enough money is put into the search.

But the point here is that this represents a huge temptation for the existing global energy order. It’s a step backwards, away from the higher-energy, oil-powered economies we currently have. But if oil gets too unstable and the tar sands of Alberta are to expensive, it might start looking good. After all, its an energy technology that we know and understand quite well. The only thing really stopping us from going full-steam ahead with it is our own willpower (ok, ok… and perhaps some economics too). Ramping up our coal usage will accelerate the pace of global climate change.

We see and hear coal’s newfound siren call on television, in the paper, and on the radio. It’s in ads for “clean coal,” “coal sequestration,” and various methods for extracting liquid fuels from coal. They put up pictures of children playing in green fields, of animals in the forest, of a clean, coal-powered future where carbon is sequestered under the ground.

Sequestration is not a well-proven technique. Given time, perhaps they’ll come up with some good solutions--though the best is to simply leave the carbon in the ground. I can’t speak with much authority on the subject, so I’ll give you two opposing views of sequestration:

Tree Hugger
Environmental Defense Fund

Coal is a great temptation for the developed and developing world. True, it represents a step backward in terms of energy concentration and utility. But it’s readily available right at home in large quantities, would last us more than a century, and uses known technology. More than that, when converted to liquid fuel, it could be used to maintain our current lifestyle at a reduced level.

I personally don’t think it’s sustainable in any form. It will be a transition technology, a step toward achieving a cleaner, better energy infrastructure. Coal would run out eventually, and its lower energy value and higher transportation costs make it much less appealing than oil. The real risk comes from short-sighted industry and government players who will see these massive reserves, sell their usefulness to the people using slick advertising that pretends to care about global warming, and then extort prodigious sums from us for the benefit of having “clean coal” (the death rent). They may try to drag out the transition as long as possible, exposing us to both financial hardship, delayed technological innovation, and increased risk of sequestered carbon escaping into the atmosphere. Plus, sequestration does not capture all the carbon, so the longer the transition the more we pump out.

We need a quick transition away from coal. The sooner the better. But given its huge reserves in accessible places, the enormous infrastructure built up around it, and its status as a known and proven energy source, I don’t know if that will happen.


Bolo May 19, 2008 - 7:08pm
( categories: Miscellany | Opinion )

You can't make fertilizer (Cyanamid process) or steel (blast furnace) without coal.

I'm beginning to wonder how long it's going to be before we're getting our gasoline from coal. Germany did it during WWII.

Petronius May 17, 2008 - 10:52am

Fertilizer manufacture just needs a way to take nitrogen back out of the air to make ammonia. The Haber process ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process ) is a nice way to do that, but in the end almost any hydrocarbon will do.

Same with steel. Blast furnaces aren't the only way to make steel. Just the cheapest.

Re: coal-to-liquids (CTL), my understanding is that South Africa is currently doubling its production capacity, and investors are falling over themselves to double it again. CTL (like the Alberta oil sands) is profitable when oil is over $US 35/bbl.

tfisb May 17, 2008 - 11:40am

Blast furnaces don't make steel; they make pig iron. But you need that iron to make steel, whether it's by Bessemer converter, Basic Oxygen Furnace, or, when I was a young man working in the mills, open hearth.

While it's true that scrap metal can feed part of the steelmaking process, the remainder must be made up of iron extracted from ore. And a blast furnace is about the only commercial method that I'm aware of that reduces ore to iron by utilizing coke (from coal). Currently about one and a half billion metric tons of iron is produced yearly. If you know of any other commercial processes used to produce iron that don't involve coal, I'd be very interested to learn about them.

As the price of natural gas and oil skyrocket, coal becomes an extremely attractive alternative to production of fertilizer. Perhaps someday when we have abundant supplies of electricity, we can obtain the hydrogen necessary fro the Haber process electrolytically. But not now.

However, the biggest problem in my opinion is using fossil carbon as a fuel. The Haber process accounts for only 1-2% of natural gas consumption worldwide. Similarly, I'd wager that steel production accounts for a tiny portion of worldwide coke production.

And there's the rub. The energy released when carbon is combined with oxygen is hard to beat with any technology. Coal is stable, easily transported and has practically an infinite storage life--and is very energy-dense.

Any other energy source is going to have to compete with those characteristics.

I don't see that happening anytime soon, as I don't see any candidates.

Petronius May 17, 2008 - 2:15pm

> when I was a young man working in the mills

I actually worked on a control system for a new blast furnace. And what a delightfully primitive technology it is too. I've always loved that they just drill through the side of the blast furnace to tap the molten iron.

> If you know of any other commercial processes used to produce
> iron that don't involve coal

The main commercial alternative is direct reduction with hydrogen and carbon monoxide ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron ). In general, it's less efficient economically, but it can be profitable depending on the raw materials you have on hand.

55 million tonnes (~4%) of steel were produced last year by DRI ...

http://www.worldsteel.org/?action=stats&type=irondr&period=latest&month=12&year=2007

> As the price of natural gas and oil skyrocket,
> coal becomes an extremely attractive alternative

No argument there. But you've probably noticed that the eco-luddites are trying to end the use of coal ("carbon = poison"). I give them at least a 50/50 chance. In that scenario, simple economics flies out the window.

> I don't see that happening anytime soon,
> as I don't see any candidates.

Fission beats any chemical energy source by ten thousand to one. It is deeply ironic that the current climate hysteria has reached such heights that it is canceling out the (at least somewhat justified) nuclear hysteria.

tfisb May 17, 2008 - 10:28pm

Fusion doesn't have anything beat yet, unless you're talking about thermonuclear weapons. There exist no commercial nuclear power generation systems (aside from solar power) and, I suspect it'll be at least 20 years before one realized. Fusion power production seems to be "about 30 years" away, no matter when the question is asked.

In my younger mill days, I spent the last couple of years as an instrumentation technician. This was pre-computer; transistors were only just beginning to be introduced in some instruments. (25Hz power was still being used in most of the plants) The process was a wonder to observe just from the standpoint of extremes. Start with a freighter full of rocks and coal and turn out bar, sheet and structural shapes. Mostly, I remember it being *very* hot, dirty and dangerous.

Petronius May 17, 2008 - 11:41pm

Good ol' nuclear fission will do us just fine for quite a while. Granted we need to get the breeder cycle ironed out, and transmutation of certain transuranic wastes would be nice, but research in these areas - basically dead for 50 years - is coming back into fashion as we speak.

> The process was a wonder to observe just from the standpoint
> of extremes.

The trucks-with-wheels-the-size-of-your-house don't do it for me like some of my friends, but it was hard not to be impressed by the sheer scale of the operation at some level. My favorite was the bulbous hydrogen store with an explosive power in the high tens of kilotons. You just had to hope that safety inspector was doing his job.

> Mostly, I remember it being *very* hot, dirty and dangerous.

One of the instruments we had to integrate looked for trace elements in the molten iron that indicated that someone had fallen into the flow. There was no other way to tell if someone else didn't actually watch them fall in (or if there'd been a union dispute).

tfisb May 18, 2008 - 12:25am

I think India's on the right track as regards fission. Thorium reactors look to be lots safer than their uranium counterparts, with fewer dangerous by-products. India's already demonstrated small thorium reactors successfully; the next step is to scale the process up and start pumping out the megawatts.

Why the US or, for that matter, Europe is doing very little in this area is a mystery to me.

Petronius May 18, 2008 - 11:25am

There are multiple US companies offering Thorium reactors ...

http://www.thoriumpower.com/
http://www.dauvergne.com/english/

... but the regulatory burden in the US is such that it much easier to build the first commercial system almost anywhere else (India being the prime target) and then just have the US regulators audit the results.

tfisb May 18, 2008 - 3:01pm

much of our steel in the future. With the outsourcing of manufacturing, the US steel industry's emissions have actually been decreasing (or at least not increasing by much at all). We're recycling steel a lot more now.

I don't know enough about steel manufacturing or its alternatives. But one thing we could start doing right now is converting our electrical grid from coal-based to ... other(?) based. Nuclear is an option, though not very attractive for safety reasons. Plus, it has limited global fuel reserves (even with breeder reactors). Solar, wind, and other renewables would be quite good, but they have their own limitations--inconstant generation being the biggest.

But one thing's certain: We can't keep burning coal to generate our electricity and the technologies to mitigate its effects (sequestration) are not really all that promising.

Bolo May 17, 2008 - 4:13pm

...is now made by China--and the share is rising fast.

2001-2005 production by country has a lot of interesting information.

Note that over the 5-year period covered by the data, China's iron production more than doubled. The US, in the same period, decreased about 20 percent. Japan makes over twice what we do and their production has been increasing. Brazil is now probably about even with the US in production and Russia has long surpassed us.

While much steel (somewhere around half to three-quarters) is now recycled, there is a certain amount of loss to the process and this does not allow for expansion of the supply.

Steel is recycled more than any other product--including aluminum, paper and glass. And we've been at it a long time. That new car sitting on the dealer's lot could well have a bit of your great-grandfather's Model A in it.

Petronius May 17, 2008 - 5:18pm

no particular comment but kudos all around on several levels here. (i admired the thought, work, and tone and readability but mostly there was an enjoyment factor here. odd to say for such a topic, i know, but there it was. maybe that's been a growing subconscious reaction to your stuff for some time -but it just finally bubbled up to the surface. like how before you got to the death rent link, i was already going to that thought and laughed when i got to the link, and so on.)

somewhat relatedly:

David Peace on Thatcher's Britain
Riot Squads, Privatization and the National Front
By RON JACOBS
Counterpunch
Weekend Edition

In 1984, the Thatcher regime and the British National Coal Board annulled an agreement reached after the 1974 British miners' strike. The Board told the British public that they intended to close 20 coal mines and privatize the previously nationalized industry. At least twenty thousand jobs would be lost, and many communities in the north of England and in Wales would lose their primary source of employment. The Thatcher government had prepared against a repeat of the earlier successful 1974 industrial action by stock-piling coal.

David Peace, a British crime novelist, was a teen at the time who lived in the region of Britain most affected by the strike. He became known to the British and US crime fiction reading public with his series of four books about the Yorkshire Ripper—a British serial murderer. These four books, known as the Red Riding Quartet, are as much about police corruption and criminality as they are about the serial murders. Cops on the take. Cops running prostitution rings and pornography outfits. A police chief that tells his select group of officers that since there will always be vice, then the cops should be the ones that control it. Murders of prostitutes and criminal opposition and the destruction of witnesses' lives. False arrests and frameups. There are no redeeming characters that survive in Peace's Quartet—only the most corrupt and evil. It is a bleak look at human life in the twilight of British capitalism and a despairing prediction of a future many of us now inhabit.

Maggie Thatcher was the Prime Minister than and her ruthless disregard for human life that did not serve her intended resurrection of capitalism and empire in colors that bled toward the fascist National Front is the underpinning of Peace's work. If there was one political event besides the ongoing trouble in northern Ireland (including the H Block prison situation, many spectacular bombings by the IRA and provocateurs posing as IRA, and the growth of the Protestant paramilitaries), it was the aforementioned miner's strike. Of course, Peace wrote a novel about the strike. It is a novel that reads best with Elvis Costello's first two albums, Billy Bragg's War and Peace EP, and maybe something by The Smiths playing in the background.

That book, titled GB84, is nothing short of stunning. Told in two parallel narratives, its portrayal of corruption, political machinations, and corporate and government heartlessness makes the desperate situation of the miners and their union superreal. One strain of the narrative is told by a striking union miner who details the lives of men on strike who lose their homes, their wives, their children, jobs and dignity. The other strain is the story of the union leadership, its government counterpart, and various police and corporate operatives that operate in different levels of secrecy. Some are M15 and some are private contractors with ties to the National Front. Some are double agents whose final allegiance lies with the government of the ultraright Maggie Thatcher. Like the Quartet, there are ambiguities in the story, but only in as much as there are ambiguities in real life. Interpretation, after all, is a part of the whole.

GB84 is about the savagery of capitalism. Jackboots and legalized police beatings of unarmed strikers. Secret hit squads and government/corporate sponsored organizations of police pretending to be miners whose job is to convince the strikers to scab. Democratic forms and fascist realities. The war of the super rich against the workers. This is David Peace at his best. There is no beauty here. Some of the union officials demand sacrifices of their members while they secretly hole away funds for a future after the union's demise. It is these leaders' distance from the travails of the members and their proximity to the slime intent on profit at the workers' expense that corrupts them. Indeed, it is as if they cannot help themselves as they fall into the abyss of selfish concern for their own future while the union crumbles under the onslaught of big time capitalists and their governmental conspirators whose ruthlessness knows no bounds.

More

Zuma May 18, 2008 - 11:48am

... one interesting factoid is that well over half of China's rolling stock does nothing but transport coal around the country.

Ian Welsh May 19, 2008 - 6:34pm

i saw that some campus physical plant, i think MIT, has a bunch of clear plastic tubes out in the sun, filled with algae and water. they drain off some algae every day and water it down, as CO2 bubbles up into it.

How about like a jillion of those on all the filthy coal machines? You get the carbon right back.
--
Hongpong.com

HongPong May 19, 2008 - 7:46pm


Photo of a mountaintop removal operation in the Appalachians


It's the one environmental crime that no US politician will confront – the destruction of Kentucky's mountains. Leonard Doyle visits the Appalachian peaks being blasted by Big Coal

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Independent - The road slicing through the thickly forested hills of eastern Kentucky used to be called the Daniel Boone Parkway. It was named for the controversial American folk hero who fought his way across Indian country to settle a state where many of his descendants still live.

That was before the coal industry began blowing up the Appalachian Mountains as a cheap way of getting at the black stuff below, behaviour decried by the environmental group Appalachian Voices as "one of the greatest human rights and environmental tragedies in America's recent history".

Daniel Boone's road is now the Hal Rogers Parkway, named after one of the Kentucky coal industry's closest friends in Washington, a Republican Congressman of 34 years. It passes through a mountain range older than the Himalayas and is blanketed in broadleaf forests rivalled only by the Amazon basin in its biodiversity.

But the canopy of trees which lines the parkway as it rises from the bluegrass horse country to the mountains is a trompe l'oeil. The lush forest gives way to scraggly trees along the ridge-line, and behind those trees is evidence of unspeakable ecological violence. In a process known as mountaintop removal an upland moonscape is being created, which is incapable of regenerating trees. As far as the eye can see, the land is grey and pockmarked with huge black lakes, filled with toxic coal slurry.

This has come about because of America's insatiable appetite for cheap coal to generate electricity, a process enthusiastically backed by the Bush administration as it tries to displace the consumption of imported oil. And the Democrats are little better. They control Kentucky and neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton have dared to challenge "King Coal" while campaigning.

The devastation being wrought on Appalachia is best appreciated from the air. An organisation called Southwinds offers people an eagle-eye view of the carnage, not readily appreciated from the road. Another way to see what's going on behind the ridge-line is to take a Google Earth virtual tour of an online memorial to the 470 mountains blown up and levelled in recent years.

The act of destroying a million-year-old mountain has several distinct stages. First it is earmarked for removal and the hardwood forest cover, containing over 500 species of tree per acre in this region, is bulldozed away. The trees are typically burnt rather than logged, because mining companies are not in the lumber business. Then topsoil is scraped away and high explosives laid in the sandstone. Thousands of blasts go off across the region every day, blowing up what the mining industry calls "overburden".

The rubble is then tipped into the valleys – more than 7,000 have already been filled – and more than 700 miles of rivers and streams have disappeared under rubble and thousands more soiled with toxic waste.

The process has accelerated wildly under George Bush. His pro-business-at-any-price credo led to the tossing out of strict federal restrictions against dumping mining rubble within 250 feet of a mountain stream. The toxic spoil laden with heavy metals, which results from blowing up mountains, was renamed "fill", enabling the mining companies to use the cheapest method possible of disposing of it. Once the rock is blown up and the coal separated out, the flattened mountaintops can only support a thin cover of grass. Tens of thousands of acres of mountain have been transformed in this way in Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia.

Deep in the Kentucky woods McKinley Sumner's yapping dachshund was no match for the mine company's bulldozer. It arrived unannounced on Mr Sumner's land earlier this year and was soon snapping off full-grown trees as if they were twigs.

Mr Sumner, in his seventies, recalls putting on his high-top boots "because the copperheads and rattlesnakes were still out" and hotfooting it up the small mountain at the back of his house, to confront the miners by himself.

By the time he had shooed them off what he calls the "Sumner estate", all 93 acres of it, and had obtained a restraining order against the mining company the damage was done. The forest his parents had started homesteading in the 1930s, and which he has worked since he was a boy, had been devastated by the blade of the bulldozer. Trees were piled one on top of the other and all the topsoil had been shoved into the valley below.

With the help of a lawyer and a social justice organisation called Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Mr Sumner won his court battle and the mining company was ordered to repair the damage to his land. Instead of doing what the court has ordered, the company is trying to break him in other more subtle ways. Mr Sumner's lands have been listed in the local paper every one of the past five weeks as earmarked for "mountaintop removal", something he has never agreed to.

Company executives have put the word out that he is "holding up mining in the area", setting him against the coal mining families in the area. Strange people showed up on his land to remove the markers of a land survey, which cost $6,000, in order to delineate his hillside from a neighbour's, which has been approved for mountaintop removal.

"I feel just awful," Mr Sumner, said. "We live in a democracy and this is not supposed to happen in a democracy. They are taking our rights away from us."

more

Tina May 20, 2008 - 11:29pm

...an old John Prine song:

When I was a child, my family would travel,
To western Kentucky, where my parents were born.
And there's a backwards old town that's often remembered.
So many times that my memories are worn.
And Daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg county,
Down by the Green River, where Paradise lay.
"Well I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in askin'."
"Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away."
Well, sometimes we'd travel right down the Green River,
To the abandoned old prison down by Aidrie Hill.
Where the air smelled like snakes: we'd shoot with our pistols,
But empty pop bottles was all we would kill.
And Daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg county,
Down by the Green River, where Paradise lay.
"Well I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in askin'."
"Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away."

Then the coal company came, with the world's largest shovel,
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land.
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken.
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.
And Daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg county,
Down by the Green River, where Paradise lay.
"Well I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in askin'."
"Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away."
When I die, let my ashes float down the Green River.
Let my soul roll on up to the Rochester dam.
I'll be halfway to Heaven with Paradise waitin',
Just five miles away from wherever I am.
And Daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg county,
Down by the Green River, where Paradise lay.
"Well I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in askin'."
"Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away."

Petronius May 21, 2008 - 12:35am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.