coal fired power plant essay

Navigation menu

Coal fired power plant, in other languages.

Coal fired power plants also known as coal fired power stations are facilities that burn coal to make steam in order to generate electricity . These stations, seen in Figure 1, provide ~40% of the world's electricity . [2] Countries such as South Africa use coal for 94% of their electricity and China and India use coal for 70-75% of their electricity needs, however the amount of coal China uses dwarfs most other countries (see the data visualization below ). [3] The use of coal provides access to electricity to those who previously didn't have it, which helps to increase quality of life and reduce poverty in those regions, however it produces large quantities of different pollutants which reduces air quality and contributes to climate change .

Burning huge amounts of coal

Coal plants require enormous amounts of coal. Shockingly: a 1000 MWe coal plant uses 9000 tonnes of coal per day, equivalent to an entire train load (90 cars with 100 tonnes in each!). [4] The amount of coal used during a full year would then require 365 trains, and if each is 3 km long then a single train carrying all of this coal would need to be about 1100 km long; about the same distance as driving from Calgary AB to Victoria BC. If this train were to pass by your house at 40 kilometers per hour , it would take more than a day to pass!

The conversion of this coal to the end goal of electricity is a multi-faceted process: [6]

• The coal must be unloaded from the train. Traditional ways of doing this require the use of cranes picking up the coal from the cars, however newer plants have the floor underneath the train tracks drop away, allowing the coal to be dropped into underground containment. Doing so doesn't even require the train to stop moving! [7] For a video of this please see here . Many coal plants are mine mouth which means the plant was put where the coal mine is, so the coal doesn't need to be transported by train.
• Once unloaded, the coal is then pulverized into a fine powder by a large grinder. This ensures nearly complete burning of the coal in order to maximize the heat given off and to minimize pollutants.
• The pulverized coal is then input to a boiler , where combustion occurs and the coal provides heat to the power plant. This heat is transferred to pipes containing high pressured water , which boils to steam .
• The steam then travels through a turbine , causing it to rotate extremely fast which in turn spins a generator , producing electricity. The electricity can then be input to the electrical grid for use by society.

Coal fired power plants follow the Rankine cycle in order to complete this process. Since they require plenty of water to be circulated in this cycle, coal power plants need to be located near a body of water. The process of coal fired plants can be seen below in Figure 3.

Environmental Impacts

Coal power plants have many associated environmental impacts on the local ecosystem .

Air pollution

The burning of coal releases many pollutants - oxides of nitrogen ( NOx ) and sulfur ( SOx ) - and particulate matter . They also emit greenhouse gases , such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ), which are known to contribute to global warming and climate change . To help stunt the emission of these, power plants require technology to reduce the output of these harmful molecules . [9]

Water Use/Pollution

Large quantities of water are often needed to remove impurities from coal, [10] this process is known as coal washing . For instance, in China, around one-fifth of the water used in the coal industry is used for this process. [11] This process helps reduce air pollution , as it eliminates around 50 % of the ash content in the coal. This results in less sulfur dioxide (SOx) being produced, along with less carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) due to higher thermal efficiencies . [12]

When power plants remove water from the environment , fish and other aquatic life can be affected, along with animals relying on these sources. [10] Pollutants also build up in the water that power plants use, so if this water is discharged back into the environment it can potentially harm wildlife there. [10]

The discharge of water from the power plants and coal washing requires monitoring and regulation. Visit the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for more information on this.

World Electricity Generation: Coal

The map below shows which primary energy different countries get the energy to generate their electricity from. Coal is seen in grey. Click on the region to zoom into a group of countries, then click on the country to see where its electricity comes from. Some notable countries include China, India, USA, Russia, Canada, and France.

For Further Reading

• Supercritical coal plant
• Coal formation
• Coal liquefaction
• Or explore a random page
• ↑ Wikimedia Commons [Online], Available: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Ferrybridge_%27C%27_Power_Station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_35089.jpg
• ↑ H. Ritchie and M. Roser, "Fossil Fuels", Our World in Data, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels . [Accessed: 11- May- 2020].
• ↑ Data Source: IEA (2014), "World energy balances", IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances (database). DOI: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1787/data-00512-en (Accessed February 2015)
• ↑ R. A. Hinrichs and M. Kleinbach, "Electricity: Circuits + Superconductors," in Energy: Its Use and the Environment , 4th ed. Toronto, Ont. Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2006, ch.10, sec.A, pp.320
• ↑ Callum Black on Geograph. (June 23 2015). Coal train [Online], Available: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/450234
• ↑ R. A. Hinrichs and M. Kleinbach, "Electromagnetism and the Generation of Electricity," in Energy: Its Use and the Environment , 4th ed. Toronto, Ont. Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2006, ch.11, sec.D, pp.376-377
• ↑ Discovery via user: Largest Dams, Coal Fired Power Plant - England [Online Video], Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEJKiUYjW1E
• ↑ Wikimedia Commons [Online]. Available: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Coal_fired_power_plant_diagram.svg/1280px-Coal_fired_power_plant_diagram.svg.png
• ↑ BCC Research, "Air Pollution Control for Coal-Fired Power Plants", BCC Publishing, 2013.
• ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 EPA Clean Energy. (June 10 2015). Coal [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html
• ↑ IEA. (June 22 2015). Why most coal avoids a bath [Online], Available: http://www.iea.org/ieaenergy/issue6/why-most-coal-avoids-a-bath.html
• ↑ AP 42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th ed. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, pp. 11.10-1.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 27 July 2020

The future of coal in a carbon-constrained climate

• Michael Jakob   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5005-3563 1 ,
• Jan Christoph Steckel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5325-9214 1 , 2 ,
• Frank Jotzo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2856-847X 3 ,
• Benjamin K. Sovacool   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4794-9403 4 ,
• Laura Cornelsen 5 ,
• Rohit Chandra 6 ,
• Ottmar Edenhofer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6029-5208 1 , 2 , 7 ,
• Chris Holden 8 ,
• Andreas Löschel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3366-8053 9 , 10 ,
• Ted Nace 11 ,
• Nick Robins 12 ,
• Jens Suedekum 13 &
• Johannes Urpelainen 14  

Nature Climate Change volume  10 ,  pages 704–707 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

37k Accesses

85 Citations

573 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change mitigation
• Climate-change policy
• Political economy of energy
• Socioeconomic scenarios

Phasing out coal requires expanding the notion of a ‘just transition’ and a roadmap that specifies the sequence of coal plant retirement, the appropriate policy instruments as well as ways to include key stakeholders in the process.

Despite decades of knowledge about its contribution to climate change, coal combustion still accounts for 40% of global CO 2 emissions from energy use. The power sector must stop using coal without carbon capture and storage by approximately 2050 if the Paris Agreement climate goals are to be achieved 1 . This will not be easy. Globally, the coal mining industry alone employs about 8 million people and creates revenues of more than US$900 billion a year 2 . While growth in coal investments is slowing and COVID-19-induced electricity demand reductions have cut coal-fired electricity output in 2020, coal use is unlikely to decline substantially in the medium term. Reductions in the USA and Europe are offset by growth in China, India and other Asian countries 3 , 4 , thus locking in future demand (Fig. 1 ). African countries may follow next 5 .

Coal-fired power plants in the pipeline (planned, announced or under construction) as well as changes relative to 2015 (ref. 19 ). Percentage changes denote changes in the total pipeline between 2015–2019.

Still, the urgency of climate change action demands the world to reduce coal use without carbon capture and storage quickly, and cease it over coming decades 6 . Yet, focusing on the environmental and health related externalities 7 , 8 of coal combustion will likely not be sufficient to phase out coal. Rather, it will be crucial that the coal phase out is seen as fair and that the process corresponds to political realities. Policymakers need to understand in more detail who will be affected by a transition away from coal, how these societal groups can be effectively compensated and how powerful vested interests can be counterbalanced.

Expanding the notion of just transition

It is understood that a coal phase-out can only succeed if it takes into account social objectives and priorities. The necessity of a ‘just transition’ is widely acknowledged (Box 1 ). Such dialogue typically emphasizes employment creation but often fails to include considerations related to (i) regional economic development, (ii) effects of higher energy prices for consumers and energy-intensive industries and (iii) how just transition dynamics may cascade beyond individual countries 9 . Hence, what is needed is a just and feasible transition providing decent work and quality jobs as well as regional economic futures while at the same time limiting adverse impacts on consumers and energy-intensive industries.

Box 1 The just transition to date

The concept of ‘just transition’ goes back to the 1990s. It was coined by trade unions to support social assistance programs for workers who lost their jobs as a result of environmental policies 20 . In the climate policy discussion, its importance has been recognized in the preamble of the Paris Agreement, which calls for “[t]aking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs” 21 , and the Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration 22 adopted in 2018 at the twenty-fourth UN climate conference in Katowice, Poland. To date, there are a multitude of national commissions, policies, or task forces in place, including Canada, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, USA and Vietnam. A just transition is also backed by powerful coalitions and groups such as the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). We agree with calls to expand the notion of just transitions, and to also reflect the potential negative effects of energy transitions on households and consumers, industry and regional development 23 , 24 .

Regional economic futures

While the environmental and health effects of coal are well understood, policymakers in newly industrializing countries often highlight the importance of coal for industrial development in specific regions 10 . Planning for alternative regional economic futures to substitute for coal requires a clearer understanding of the upstream and downstream links of coal mining and coal-fired power generation to the broader economy. Such plans could include the provision of transport and communication infrastructure, investment in higher education to attract human capital and new business opportunities, as well as the relocation of government services.

Impacts on consumers and energy-intensive industries

Renewing energy supply systems can increase electricity system costs: for example, depreciated coal plants may produce electricity at lower costs than new alternative power generation assets. It is then a question of social equity to shield the poor from electricity price increases. This can be achieved by adjusting electricity tariffs, raising social spending or subsidizing energy efficiency, depending on the given institutional and political context.

Foregoing coal could also affect the competitiveness of industries such as steel, aluminium, chemicals and other important components of industrial strategy. This might raise the risk of ‘carbon leakage’; that is, the migration of energy-intensive industries to regions with laxer climate measures, thus undermining the benefits for the climate and making coal phase-outs politically more difficult. More fine-grained projections of leakage risks in different sectors under a wide range of scenarios are required to explore which policy instruments can effectively reduce leakage. Options include coordinated implementation of emission reductions among different countries, the free allocation of permits within emissions trading schemes, border carbon adjustments, carbon contracts for difference and mechanisms of technology transfer 11 .

Expanding the feasibility space for phasing out coal

The coal industry typically is a powerful stakeholder with vested interests in delaying coal phase-out. Strategies to overcome the influence of vested interests might include government payments for coal power plants that are being closed. In Germany, for example, the government agreed in early 2020 on a set of measures to phase out coal by 2038 with additional costs of €70–90 billion, including €4.35 billion to operators of (lignite) coal-fired power plants that, in turn, shut down their plants early; that is, before 2030. More cost-efficient alternatives that could be assessed include accelerated carbon pricing or industry-internal schemes whereby remaining power stations pay out plants that are retiring ahead of their end of economic life 12 . In addition, the interests of alternative energy producers can be leveraged to help build coalitions that create support for coal phase-out that partially offsets the opposition of those losing out 13 , 14 .

A phase-out roadmap in practice

A viable coal phase-out strategy will need to prevent new coal-fired power plants from being built. This prevents locking in long-lived assets and is usually politically easier to achieve than closing existing plants early. In many cases, expanding power supply through sources other than coal (that is, renewables or natural gas) is cost effective, even before considering the environmental and health costs of coal use. This will increasingly be the case as the cost of renewable energy technologies continues to fall. Nevertheless, there are factors that tend to favour continued investment in coal assets, including the security of supply in regions with abundant coal resources, the desire to protect jobs in the coal sector and in regional areas of coal production, dependence of public budgets on royalties from coal mining as well as political influence of owners of coal mines and power producers.

Coal phase-outs therefore require roadmaps based on a clear understanding of which plants are to be phased out when, which policies can be applied and how affected stakeholders can be included in the process.

Sequence phase-outs

The age profile of coal power plants differs greatly between countries. Industrialized countries typically built up a large part of their power infrastructure before 1990, whereas India, China and many other industrializing countries ramped up coal use in the last 15 to 30 years 1 (economic logic suggests that relatively old, and typically less efficient, plants often found in developed countries should be decommissioned first). Other factors to consider are the public health impacts of associated air pollution and water use in densely populated areas. A realistic sequence of power plant closure will also need to take into account political and institutional constraints.

A nuanced understanding of the associated political barriers as well as feasible no-lose options can help to identify countries and regions where policy action in the near term is more likely than in.

Choosing the right instruments

Coal producers and consumers need to understand the real costs of coal, including local health damages and climate consequences for the climate. Removing any existing coal subsidies would be a step to creating a level playing field for clean energy sources to compete. Some jurisdictions may want to impose an additional carbon cost on coal plants to accelerate coal phase-out. To be socially equitable and politically acceptable, a carbon price could raise funds in support of affected workers, communities and consumers. It may be usefully embedded within a broader reform to the tax system geared to assist low-income households 15 .

In addition, central banks and financial regulators need to include the climate and financial risks associated with coal assets in the prudential management of banks, insurers and institutional investors 16 . Transparent disclosure of exposure to financial risks of climate policy could provide an important motivation for investors to reallocate assets away from coal 17 . Financial investors increasingly decline to invest in coal-based assets already, because they are seen as high risk 18 .

Stakeholder involvement and communication

Efforts to phase out coal will only succeed if stakeholders are involved early on in the decision process to ensure democratic legitimacy. This is particularly important during times in which populist parties increasingly depict climate change mitigation as a project undertaken by the political elite against the interests of the broader population, and where well-founded concerns about economic prosperity dominate public discourse.

Different forms of public deliberation, such as stakeholder dialogues, just transition commissions and citizen assemblies, reflect public opinion and could be apt to further agreement between different interests. This raises the question of how participants are selected, in which form and frequency discussions take place, how scientific knowledge is used as an input and how the results of public deliberation are used by policymakers. Policymakers could adapt their communication strategies on coal phase-out for different audiences that highlight the key benefits that align with individual concerns; for instance, emphasizing the importance of coal phase-out for climate change mitigation for one social group and the more localized benefits of reduced air pollution for others.

How to phase out coal

To achieve internationally agreed climate targets, the world will need to phase out coal rapidly and immediately. This may be politically even more difficult in the altered political and economic landscape after the coronavirus pandemic. Roadmaps for coal phase-out, smart use of a combination of policy instruments and effective integration of powerful stakeholders into the process are key to success.

Edenhofer, O., Steckel, J. C., Jakob, M. & Bertram, C. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 024019 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Global Coal Mining Industry - Market Research Report (IBISWorld, 2019); https://www.ibisworld.com/global/market-research-reports/global-coal-mining-industry/

Thurber, M. C. & Morse, R. K. in The Global Coal Market (eds Thurber, M. C. & Morse, R. K.) 3–34 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

Jewell, J., Vinichenko, V., Nacke, L. & Cherp, A. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 592–597 (2019).

Steckel, J. C., Hilaire, J., Jakob, M. & Edenhofer, O. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 83–88 (2020).

Luderer, G. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 626–633 (2018).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Li, M., Zhang, D., Li, C.-T., Selin, N. E. & Karplus, V. J. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 084006 (2019).

Muller, N. Z., Mendelsohn, R. & Nordhaus, W. Am. Econ. Rev. 101 , 1649–1675 (2011).

Sovacool, B. K., Hook, A., Martiskainen, M. & Baker, L. Glob. Environ. Chang. 58 , 101958 (2019).

Kalkuhl, M. et al. Nat. Energy 4 , 897–900 (2019).

Jakob, M., Steckel, J. C. & Edenhofer, O. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6 , 297–318 (2014).

Jotzo, F. & Mazouz, S. B. E. J. Econ. Anal. 48 , 71–81 (2015).

Google Scholar  

Kim, S. E., Urpelainen, J. & Yang, J. J. Public Policy 36 , 251–275 (2016).

Hess, D. J. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57 , 101246 (2019).

Klenert, D. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 669–677 (2018).

First Meeting of the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) on January 24th in Paris. Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System (26 January 2018); https://www.ngfs.net/en/communique-de-presse/first-meeting-central-banks-and-supervisors-network-greening-financial-system-ngfs-january-24th-0

Guidelines on Reporting Climate-related Information (European Commission, 2019); https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/policy/190618-climate-related-information-reporting-guidelines_en.pdf

The Investor Agenda. 2018 Global Investor Statement to Governments on Climate Change (COP24 Presidency Office, Ministry of the Environment, 2018).

Global Coal Plant Tracker (Global Energy Monitor, 2020).

Smith, S. Just Transition: A Report for the OECD (OECD Publishing, 2017); https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/g20-climate/collapsecontents/Just-Transition-Centre-report-just-transition.pdf

Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).

Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration (COP24 Presidency Office, Ministry of the Environment, 2018); https://cop24.gov.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/Solidarity_and_Just_Transition_Silesia_Declaration_2_.pdf

Carley, S. & Konisky, D. M. Nat. Energy https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6 (2020).

Jenkins, K. E. H., Sovacool, B. K., Błachowicz, A. & Lauer, A. Geoforum (in the press); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.05.012

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany

Michael Jakob, Jan Christoph Steckel & Ottmar Edenhofer

Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany

Jan Christoph Steckel & Ottmar Edenhofer

Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Frank Jotzo

Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Sussex, UK

Benjamin K. Sovacool

Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Laura Cornelsen

Center for Policy Research, New Delhi, India

Rohit Chandra

Department of Economics of Climate Change, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Ottmar Edenhofer

Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York, UK

Chris Holden

School of Business and Economics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Andreas Löschel

Fraunhofer Center for Economics of Materials, Halle, Germany

Global Energy Monitor, San Francisco, CA, USA

Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK

Nick Robins

Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany

Jens Suedekum

Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Washington D.C., WA, USA

Johannes Urpelainen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Michael Jakob or Jan Christoph Steckel .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jakob, M., Steckel, J.C., Jotzo, F. et al. The future of coal in a carbon-constrained climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10 , 704–707 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0866-1

Download citation

Published : 27 July 2020

Issue Date : August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0866-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Limited impact of hydrogen co-firing on prolonging fossil-based power generation under low emissions scenarios.

• Shinichiro Fujimori

Nature Communications (2024)

Quantifying the spatiotemporal patterns and environmental impacts of surface coal mining in the Xilingol Steppe, Inner Mongolia

• Xiaoji Zeng

Regional Environmental Change (2024)

Insight into Energy Production and Consumption, Carbon Emissions and Agricultural Residues Resources Available for Energy and Environmental Benefits in China

Waste and Biomass Valorization (2024)

Coal-exit alliance must confront freeriding sectors to propel Paris-aligned momentum

• Stephen L. Bi
• Jessica Jewell

Nature Climate Change (2023)

Co-firing plants with retrofitted carbon capture and storage for power-sector emissions mitigation

• Jing-Li Fan
• Jingying Fu

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Coal and Air Pollution

Published Jul 28, 2008 Updated Dec 19, 2017

Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is linked with asthma, cancer, heart and lung ailments, neurological problems, acid rain, global warming, and other severe environmental and public health impacts.

Coal has long been a reliable source of US energy, but it comes with tremendous costs because it is incredibly dirty. The same chemistry that enables coal to produce energy—the breaking down of carbon molecules—also produces a number of profoundly harmful environmental impacts and pollutants that harm public health. Air pollution and global warming are two of the most serious.

Coal and air pollution

When coal burns, the chemical bonds holding its carbon atoms in place are broken, releasing energy. However, other chemical reactions also occur, many of which carry toxic airborne pollutants and heavy metals into the environment.

This air pollution includes:

Mercury : Coal plants are responsible for 42 percent of US mercury emissions, a toxic heavy metal that can damage the nervous, digestive, and immune systems, and is a serious threat to the child development. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Emissions Inventory , US coal power plants emitted 45,676  pounds of mercury in 2014 (the latest year data is available).

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) : Produced when the sulfur in coal reacts with oxygen, SO 2 combines with other molecules in the atmosphere to form small, acidic particulates that can penetrate human lungs. It’s linked with asthma, bronchitis, smog, and acid rain, which damages crops and other ecosystems, and acidifies lakes and streams. US coal power plants emitted more than 3.1 million tons of SO 2 in 2014.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx): Nitrous oxides are visible as smog and irritate lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases like pneumonia and influenza. In 2014, US coal power plants emitted more than 1.5 million tons.

Particulate matter : Better known as “soot,” this is the ashy grey substance in coal smoke, and is linked with chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, cardiovascular effects like heart attacks, and premature death. US coal power plants emitted 197,286 tons of small airborne particles (measured as 10 micrometers or less in diameter) in 2014..

Other harmful pollutants emitted in 2014 by the US coal power fleet include:

• 41.2 tons of lead , 9,332 pounds of cadmium, and other toxic heavy metals .
• 576,185 tons of carbon monoxide , which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.
• 22,124 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
• 77,108 pounds of arsenic . For scale, arsenic causes cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion .

Most of these emissions can be reduced through pollution controls—sometimes by a significant amount—though many plants don’t have adequate controls installed.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility and authority to set and enforce emissions limits for pollutants deemed harmful to human health and the environment.

Coal and global warming

Of coal’s many environmental impacts, none are as harmful, long term, and irreversible as global warming. Global warming is driven by emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily from human activities, that rise into the atmosphere and act like a blanket, warming the earth’s surface.

Consequences include rising temperatures and accelerating sea level rise as well as growing risks of drought, heat waves, heavy rainfall intensified storms, and species loss. Left unchecked climate change could lead to profound human and ecological disruption.

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from combusting fossil fuels are the main driver of global warming. CO 2 is also the main byproduct of coal combustion:  nearly 4 grams of CO2 are produced for every gram of carbon burnt (depending on its type, coal can contain as much as 60 to 80 percent carbon).

Methane (CH4) often occurs in the same areas that coal is formed, and is released during mining activities. Methane is 34 times stronger than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years; roughly 10 percent of all US methane emissions come from coal mining.

Carbon capture and storage technologies (or CCS) are emerging technologies that could allow coal plants to capture some of the CO2 they would otherwise release; the CO2 could then be transported and stored in a geological repository without harming the earth’s climate. A few projects worldwide are currently operating, but the technology remains expensive, especially compared with cleaner forms of generation, and it is still unproven at the scale needed to materially contribute to addressing climate change. The deployment of CCS would also not reduce other harmful pollutants produced across the fuel cycle of coal.

To date the federal government has invested on the order of $5 billion dollars in CCS research, including $4.8 billion under the Obama administration and millions of dollars during the Bush administration.

The Union of Concerned Scientists supports continued federal incentives for research for a limited number of full-scale integrated CCS demonstration projects, alongside private sector efforts. CCS technology could potentially play an important role in transitioning to a clean energy future, if significant cost, technical, legal and environmental challenges can be overcome.

UCS has spent decades advocating for clean energy technologies. You can read more about cleaner, reliable alternatives to coal—like wind and solar—here.

Related resources

The Electric Utility Toolkit

State Electric Vehicle Benefits

Feet To The Fire

Siting for a Cleaner, More Equitable Grid in Massachusetts

We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing, you accept our use of cookies. Learn more .

Support our work

Other ways to give.

• Honor & memory
• Become a member
• Give monthly
• Make a planned gift
• Gift memberships

Your donation at work

Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments Term Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Main reasons to support the argument, works cited.

There is one story about a man sitting on a barrel full of powder. He holds a candle in his hand guessing whether it will explode or not. The same deals with the current situation in the world. The fact is that the last several decades could be characterized by the increased popularity of environmental concerns and a great level of attention devoted to different aspects of human activity that might have a certain impact on our planet and environment. The rise of the level of interest to these issues is not accidental as now we can observe the gradual worsening of our environment and the appearance of numerous problems related to it. We are like that man as we try to guess whether the planet will be able to cope with all problems or not.

However, scientists, activists, and common people give great attention to the possible solutions to these very problems. One of the suggested ways is to give up using energy resources that harm the environment and coal is one of them. It is expected that if to close all coal-fired power plants the situation will improve significantly as they are very environmentally unfriendly. The given problem becomes so significant that numerous strategies could be explored to achieve this goal and help humanity to become more friendly to our planet by reducing the number of emissions and other harmful substances. Yet, the shutdown of coal-fired power plants is unjustified considering that there is no reliable alternative, we are not prepared for the possible economic domino effect; most notably, it does not constitute a solution for climate change.

The grounds of this problem could be traced back to the previous century when coal had become one of the main sources of energy. The rapid rise of the industrial sector peculiar to the 20th century preconditioned the increased need for power. That is why humanity managed to create thousands of coal-fired power plants to satisfy this very need and provide people with the desired energy. It is obvious that environmental concerns were less topical at that period and people did not think about the consequences of their actions. However, the further development of the industrial sector along with the constantly increasing need for energy resulted in the reconsideration of the approach to this very source of energy. Additionally, the rise of environmental concerns triggered numerous researches in the given sphere. Some of them constituted the pernicious impact it might have on the climate by great CO2 emissions, global warming, etc.

Additionally, because coal deposits are exhaustible, the further exploration of this very mineral might result in a serious crisis. However, there are opponents of the given perspective who state that the total rejection of coal is impossible as it will result in the collapse of the industrial sector. Additionally, the latest researches in the given sphere doubt the overwhelming negative effect coal-fired plants might have on climate and global warming (Mantel). These facts introduce the ground for vigorous discussions between the adherers and opponents of the idea of the prohibition of coal-fired plants. That is why the arguments against the rejection of coal are provided in the given paper and discussed to improve the comprehending of the issue.

Therefore, we are all striving for an ideal ecological planet. However, we should say that the EPA’s proposed regulations on coal-fired power plants will cause unemployment, thereby hinder our economy. It could be considered the first argument against the shutdown. Notably, the plan is still on stay, so as always historical examples of such policies come into play to direct us as to what we can expect. For instance, the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol established territorial-based regulations for developed countries to reduce emissions (Helm 4). It marked the UNFCCC’s first attempt to console the stubborn climate change peril. On paper this seemed impeccable; however, in reality, as with most climate change regulations, this led to businesses moving their production to underdeveloped countries where regulations were not so robust. Consequently, this means fewer jobs for people; nevertheless, for our economy, the domino effect is much graver. Fewer people will be able to pay taxes; this creates a financial deficit for the government; in return, this leads to less money invested in education, health programs, and law enforcement. Furthermore, almost identical projections were made for the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

A recent study by National Economic Research Associates showed that Electricity prices would increase by at least 20% in 28 states while 41 states would witness increases of at least 10% (“The Pros and Cons of the Administration’s Clean Power Plan” 12). This was also reinforced by The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, a 10% increase in electricity prices would yield the loss of 1.2 million jobs (“Pros and Cons of Clean Power Plan “ 12). In comporting these studies with reality, we find that Americans will be losing jobs because when electricity prices increase, businesses’ capitals and profits will not comprise employees. It prompts a second economic domino effect in which not only rural coal-mining towns will suffer from unemployment and less disposable income, but agricultural and manufacturing industries will also yield their share of job losses (Febrizio). All things considered, this is not to say that our economic well-being is the antithesis of environmental health, but it does point out the fact that regulations are asymmetrical with our economic reality, which is often abandoned in governmental decisions. As such, announcements of plans and the signing of bills via propaganda tools do not constitute substantial solutions to the climate change crisis.

Furthermore, we currently do not have an alternative source of energy, and the EPA’s alternative of Natural gas cannot be an environmentally responsible decision. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2015 coal has generated 33% of electricity in the U.S, as much as natural gas (“What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?”). Currently, the EPA claims that natural gas is way cleaner than coal with a leak rate of 1.8 all while admitting that this is likely inaccurate and based on limited data (McKenna).

On the opposite side of the EPA’s claim, Anthony Ingraffea (a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board on hydraulic fracturing) disagrees when he says that according to the latest findings, natural gas could be considered the dirtiest source of energy from a climate change point of view (McKenna). It is also worth mentioning that the term ‘limited data’ is a reference to the EPA’s imprecise way of measuring emissions, the EPA key component for measuring emissions, emission factors, is based on limited measurements conducted in the early 1990s (Mckenna). Given these points, I cannot help but admit blaming of the coal industry for the crimes of all its fossil fuel siblings without actually holding the other industries accountable, by contrast, we underestimated their crimes towards the environment. Could it be industrial/political nepotism?

Lastly, the current motif around the coal-fired power plant debate is that it is part of a panacea for climate change. However, evidential consensus shows that the shutdown of U.S coal-fired power plants will not make significant changes to international carbon emissions because coal is still the most reliable and cheap source of energy worldwide. As per the International Energy Agency, China is accountable for half of the global coal usage (“Coal”). This compels us to deduce that climate change is not a one man’s show, but China and the U.S are lead actors. Moreover, the U.S is pursuing the shutdown of coal-fired power plants; however, 76% of its total coal exports went to European and Asian markets, as reported by the Energy Information Administration (“Most U.S. coal exports went to European and Asian markets in 2011″).

To further elaborate on this, Hans-Werner Sinn introduces the Green Paradox theory in his book Green Paradox; he argues that future carbon consumption reductions will have the effect of speeding up climate change (Sinn 54). If we were to apply this theory here, it would illustrate the issue in an original outlook that considers every side of the ongoing discussion concerning coal-fired power plants. On the one hand, it represents the environmentalism contradiction of the U.S pursuit for a complete shutdown of coal-fired power plants vs. its evidential account of carbon leakages in European and Asian countries. We can follow a line of thinking that the U.S has by no means exerted substantial and conscious efforts to solve the climate change issue, and as sedation for environmentalists’ protests, it declared the inefficient Clean Power Plan using the mainstream media platforms as cheerleaders.

On the other hand, some people believe that coal-fired power plants should be closed because it will result in a significant improvement in the environment. For reasons like coal creates too much pollution, there is no longer an economic need for it, and unemployed communities affected by the shutdowns can obtain jobs in the clean energy sector. Audibly, the coal-fired power plants’ argument is based on its contribution to climate change and in return its harmful environmental impacts. The fact is that the coal mining process results in habitat destruction. Moreover, certain ecosystems might be impacted by this very industry. Another problem is that coal dust might cause numerous problems with lungs and trigger cancer (Mantel). Additionally, this very position is supported by the fact that many environmentalist organizations assert that coal is responsible for the greatest share of greenhouse emissions in the U.S at 37% (Mantel). Besides, using these very arguments, the adherers of the idea of shutdowns justify their position and try to achieve their goal.

Nevertheless, we could say that these arguments are not strong enough and could easily be refuted. First of all, the closing of coal-fired plants will not help to solve the problem of global warming and climate change. Coal is a dirty source of energy; however, its extraction is much easier if to compare it with the natural gas one. Being a low-carbon alternative to coal, natural gas could not solve the problem. The fact is that scientists mainly speak about CO2 emission when the negative effect of methane which comes along with natural gas is ignored (McGylann). According to some ecologists, methane has “105 times more warming impact pound for pound than carbon dioxide” (McGylann).

It means that in case we give up using coal as the main source of energy and prefer to explore natural gas, the situation will become even much worse because of the methane emissions. It could also be proved by the World Bank analysis which shows that natural gas production is responsible for 20% of human-induced methane emissions (McGylann). Another significant factor is that methane pollutes not only air. Underground waters might also suffer from the negative effect caused by this very element. Contaminated water might trigger the evolution of such diseases like Cholera, Dysentery, etc. That is why even if we manage to close the majority of coal-fired power plants, the situation will hardly improve because of the complex character of natural gas extraction and the pernicious impact methane has on the environment.

Economic factors are another argument that is very often mentioned by all participants of debates around this very issue. The fact is that the stable economy is one of the keys to the further evolution of our society, increased well-being, and prosperity. At the same time, it also stimulates the industrial sector and vice versa. However, in case coal-fired power plants are closed, a collapse of the economy could be observed. Thousands of people will lose their jobs and be not able to maintain their families. Besides, adheres of the idea of mass shutdowns state that these unemployed people will be able to find jobs in the clean energy sector. However, this statement is far from reality. For instance, in Kentucky, an all-time low of 17.9% with a current number of 6,900 jobs is reached at the moment (Estep). In West Virginia’s employment decreased by 16%. Overall, the United States’ coal employment decreased by 12% to 65,971 employees (“Annual Coal Report”). It could be considered the consequences of shutdowns in the given sphere. Additionally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rates are very high at the moment and could be considered dangerous (“West Virginia has the Highest Unemployment Rate”).

It becomes obvious that this very sphere of industry provided people with workplaces and there are industrial regions that are dependent on the coal industry. That is why for generations people used to be coal workers and it was the only source of their income. Being deprived of an opportunity to work in this very sphere, these very workers are not able to find other jobs as they are not suitable, and especially those in the solar energy sector. Another problem is that the main alternative power plants are concentrated in certain regions, and workers have to move to obtain a job. It introduces a new challenge as not everyone could leave home because of several reasons. Finally, wages are much lower, and they could not satisfy the current demands of workers who used to work in the given industry. That is why we could conclude that in case coal-fired power plants are closed, workers will not be able to find appropriate jobs and their communities will be torn apart, doing great harm to local economies. Like so many others, I do not believe that we should close down coal-fired power plants when it has built fences that supported communal foundations as well as economic ones. Especially when there are no rooted solutions to the fall back that such a decision would cause.

Altogether, we could say that the increased importance of environmental concerns is one of the main features of the modern world. The blistering rise of the industrial sector preconditions the appearance of the great need for energy. That is why coal-fired power stations were created to satisfy this very need. However, the alteration in human mentality and appearance of environmental problems contributed to the shift of priorities towards the negative attitude to this very source of energy. Numerous concerns about global warming and climate change triggered the comprehensive investigation of the given issue. In this regard, there are numerous researches which proclaim the total rejection of this sort of power plants to be an efficient way to improve the current environmental situation. This statement could be doubted because of several important reasons.

First of all, it will result in the collapse of the industry as this sphere creates numerous workplaces and provides significant incomes to the budget. The second argument about the low efficiency of this measure is the absence of a real alternative to this very source of energy. At the moment we are not able to replace it. Finally, we also state that according to the latest research findings, the pernicious impact of coal-fired power plants and their unique role in global warming is not obvious. For this reason, we could conclude that the given measure is not wise as it will not guarantee the desired result. On the contrary, it could trigger the appearance of other, more complex problems related to the current state of the environment. In this regard, some other ways to improve the state of the environment should be suggested.

“ Annual Coal Report .” U .S Energy Information Administration , 2016. Web.

“Coal.” International Energy Agency, Web.

Estep, Bill. “ Coal jobs in Kentucky fall to lowest level in 118 years .” Herald Leader , 2016. Web.

Febrizio, Mark. “ Lesson for EPA: Higher Energy Prices Harm People ” Institute for Energy Research . 2015. Web.

Helm, Dieter. The Carbon Crunch: How We’re Getting Climate Change Wrong – and How to Fix It . Yale University Press, 2012.

Mantel, Barbara. “Coal Industry’s Future.” CQ Researcher . 2016. Web.

McGylann, Daniel. “ Fracking Controversy .” CQ Researcher . 2011 . Web.

McKenna, Phil. “ The EPA’s Natural Gas Problem .” Public Broadcasting Service . Web.

“ Most U.S. coal exports went to European and Asian markets in 2011 .” U.S Energy Information Administration , 2012. Web.

“The Pros and Cons of the Administration’s Clean Power Plan.” Congressional Digest, vol. 95, no.2, 2016, pp.10-31. Web.

Sinn, Hans-Werner. The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming . MIT University Press, 2012.

“ West Virginia Has Highest Unemployment Rate Among the States in August 2015 .” Bureau of Labor Statistics , 2015. Web.

“ What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? ” U.S Energy Information Administration, 2016. Web.

• Combined-Cycle Gas Plant: The Nuclear Power Plant Replacement
• Waste Management and Hazardous Releases
• Green Computing: A Contribution to Save the Environment
• International Sustainable Development Policies
• "World Energy Hits a Turning Point" by Tom Randall
• Qatar's Climate Policy and Economic Issues
• Student Behaviors and Energy Consumption
• Masdar City: Project of a Modern Ecological City
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, November 8). Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments. https://ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/

"Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments." IvyPanda , 8 Nov. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments'. 8 November.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments." November 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/.

1. IvyPanda . "Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments." November 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments." November 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/.

This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy .

• AEA Papers and Proceedings

The Health Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants in India and the Co-benefits of Greenhouse Gas Reductions

• Maureen Cropper
• Sarath Guttikunda
• Nate Hultman
• Puja Jawahar
• Yongjoon Park
• Xiaopeng Song
• Article Information

Additional Materials

• Replication Package
• Online Appendix (568.46 KB)
• Author Disclosure Statement(s) (390.89 KB)

JEL Classification

• H23 Taxation and Subsidies: Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies

• Corpus ID: 56064531

Performance Evaluation of a Coal-fired Power Plant

• Ravinder Kumar , Avdhesh Sharma , P. C. Tewari
• Published 1 July 2013
• Engineering, Environmental Science
• International journal of performability engineering

Figures and Tables from this paper

10 Citations

Simulation and economic analysis of coal based thermal power plant: a critical literature review, a simulation model to predict coal-fired power plant production rate using artificial neural network tool, reliability and maintainability investigation of generator in steam turbine power plant using ramd analysis, markov probabilistic approach-based availability simulation modeling and performance evaluation of coal supply system of thermal power plant, operational availability analysis of generators in steam turbine power plants, thermal power plant condenser fault diagnosis using coordinated condition monitoring approach, full repowering of an existing fossil fuel steam power plant in terms of energy, exergy, and environmen for efficiency improvement and sustainable development, simulation of operational reliability of thermal power plants during a power crisis: are we underestimating power shortage risk, stochastic modeling and availability optimization of condenser used in steam turbine power plants using ga and pso, reliability analysis of underground rock bolters using the renewal process, the non-homogeneous poisson process and the bayesian approach, 15 references, availability analysis of steam and power generation systems in the thermal power plant, a probabilistic model of a coal-burning power plant.

• Highly Influential

A new modeling method for reliability evaluation of Thermal Power Plants

Reliability and availability modelling of combined heat and power (chp) systems, availability assessment of a two-unit stand-by pumping system, reliability analysis of the feed water system in a thermal power plant, approach to solving the task of availability prediction and cost optimization of a steam turbine, markov model and simulation analysis of 110 kv transmission lines: a case study, reliability of electric power generation in power systems with thermal and wind power plants, reliability and availability analysis of three-state device redundant systems with human errors and common-cause failures, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Coal-fired Power Plants

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Clean Coal Technologies Follow Following
• Economics of coal-fired generation Follow Following
• Thermal Power Plants Follow Following
• Energy Follow Following
• Combined Cycle Power Plants Follow Following
• Economics And Technology Follow Following
• JIG AND FIXTURE DESIGN Follow Following
• General theory of Entropy Follow Following
• Heavy metal related health hazards due to coal based thermal power plants Follow Following
• Supercritical & Ultra-Supercritical Boiler Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Coal-Fired Power Plant Retirements in the U.S.

We summarize the history of U.S. coal-fired plant retirements over the last decade, describe planned future retirements, and forecast the remaining operating life for every operating coal-fired generator. We summarize the technology and location trends that are correlated with the observed retirements. We then describe a theoretical model of the retirement decision coal generator owners face. We use retirements from the last decade to quantify the relationships in the model for retired generators. Our model predicts that three-quarters of coal generation capacity will retire in the next twenty years, with most of that retirement concentrated in the next five years. Policy has limited ability to affect retirement times. A $20 per MWh electricity subsidy extends the average life of a generator by six years. A $51 per ton carbon tax brings forward retirement dates by about two years. In all scenarios, a handful of electricity generators remain on the grid beyond our forecast horizon.

Thanks to Jim Stock and Tatyana Deryugina for helpful feedback. Kate Martella provided outstanding research assistance. This research was funded in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant no. G-2015-14101, “Pre-Doctoral Fellowship Program on Energy Economics,” awarded to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Holladay and Sims also gratefully acknowledge funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant no. G-2019-11399 and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Conferences

Mentioned in the news, more from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Coal: Energy for the Future (1995)

Chapter: 10 conclusions and recommendations, 10 conclusions and recommendations.

This chapter synthesizes the discussions and findings of Part II (chapters 5 - 9 ) in the context of the committee's charge and the strategic planning framework and background presented in Part I (chapters 1 - 4 ). For each topic discussed in chapters 4 through 9 , conclusions and recommendations are offered below. 1 The cross-cutting systems analysis area not explicitly covered in chapters 4 through 9 is addressed separately. In the final section of the chapter, the committee's conclusions and recommendations are interpreted in the context of the individual sections of the EPACT that relate to coal (see Chapter 1 and Appendix B ).

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR COAL

In Chapter 4 a strategic planning framework was established to assess planning for coal-related RDD&C. The framework is based on projected scenarios for future energy demand and markets for coal technologies, taking into account likely future environmental requirements, competing energy sources, institutional issues, international activities, and other factors affecting the demand for coal. In the committee's view, the overall objective of DOE's coal program should be to provide the basis for technological solutions to likely future demands, as reflected in the scenarios. The committee defined three planning horizons—near-term (1995-2005), mid-term (2006-2020), and long-term (2021-2040) periods—for which the scenarios were formulated and requirements for coal were outlined. Based on its analysis, the committee concluded that coal will continue to be a major energy source in the U.S. economy over all planning horizons considered

and that a sustained program of RDD&C for coal technologies is important for the economic, environmental, and security interests of the United States.

The strategic planning framework identified two priority areas for the DOE coal program: (1) conversion of coal to electricity, representing the principal market for coal for all planning periods, but particularly in the mid- to long-term periods; and (2) conversion of coal to liquid and low- and medium-Btu gaseous fuels, in the mid to long-term. EPACT requirements for coal use emphasize the need for high-efficiency, low environmental impacts, and competitive costs. These needs are generally consistent with DOE's objectives for coal RDD&C, as defined in the most recent planning documents (DOE, 1993a, 1994a). The DOE planning horizon, however, currently extends only to 2010. Specific objectives have been formulated for that period for advanced power systems and advanced fuel systems. These objectives are discussed below in the sections on electric power generation and clean fuels from coal.

Conclusions

• DOE's strategic planning objectives for coal technology RDD&C currently extend only through the year 2010, even though coal will continue to be a major source of energy well beyond that period.
• The most important strategic objectives for coal RDD&C programs are to support the development of (a) advanced coal-based electric power systems that are considerably more efficient and cleaner than current commercial systems and which will be needed beginning in the near to mid-term; and (b) advanced coal-based fuel and coproduct systems that can be used to replace conventional oil and gas in the mid- to long-term periods.

Recommendations 2

• *The planning horizon for DOE coal RDD&C programs should extend beyond the agency's current planning horizon of 2010. The committee recommends the use of three time periods for strategic planning: near-term (1995-2005), mid-term (2006-2020), and long-term (2021-2040). The main objective of DOE's coal program in all periods should be to provide the basis for technological solutions to likely future demands in a way that is robust and flexible.

COAL PREPARATION, COAL-LIQUID MIXTURES, AND COALBED METHANE RECOVERY

Coal preparation—or cleaning—is a widely used commercial process for removing mineral matter from as-mined coal to produce a higher-quality product.

Current physical cleaning processes are used primarily to reduce the ash content of as-delivered coal, although some sulfur reduction (typically 20 to 30 percent) is also achievable in coals with high pyrite content. Because coal is an abundant and relatively low-cost fuel, the incremental cost of coal cleaning is a major factor limiting the degree of impurity reductions that are economically feasible.

DOE research in recent years has focused on advanced processes to clean fine coal fractions to achieve a relatively low ash, low-sulfur product suitable primarily for premium applications, such as the production of coal-liquid mixtures that can be substituted for petroleum-based fuels. More recently, attention has also focused on the potential for coal cleaning to remove trace species as a means of reducing power plant emissions of air toxics. A series of RD&D goals has been defined (DOE, 1993a).

Coal-liquid mixtures or slurries—primarily coal-oil and coal-water fuels—are another commercial technology that allows coal to be substituted for liquid fuels in combustion applications. R&D in this area peaked during the late 1970s and early 1980s when oil prices were high and coal-based substitutes were attractive. Commercial interest waned, however, as oil prices declined and oil price projections remained stable. Nonetheless, DOE has continued to fund basic and applied research related to CWSs (coal-water slurries), primarily at universities.

Finally, interest in recovery of coalbed methane has been stimulated by concern about greenhouse gases and EPACT requirements. Methane recovery technology for high methane concentrations is commercially available, and recovery is practiced by the gas and coal mining industries where local conditions justify the investment. However, systems for the capture and use of dilute coalbed methane streams, which are found in many coal mining operations, are not sufficiently mature for commercial implementation. As noted in Chapter 3 , increased efforts will likely be needed to reduce coalbed methane released from underground mining, in accordance with the Climate Change Action Plan (Clinton and Gore, 1993). The research challenge is to economically recover coalbed methane from very dilute gas streams.

• Coal preparation is a highly developed, commercially available technology that is widely used in the coal industry but that offers only limited opportunities for R&D to significantly lower the cost of advanced coal preparation processes. Continued research with extensive industry participation should achieve further improvements in existing and emerging technologies.
• There may be opportunities through sustained fundamental research on cleaning processes to improve the environmental acceptability of coal.
• Given the mature status of technologies for the production and use of coal-liquid mixtures and the very limited market for these mixtures, no further development by DOE appears necessary.
• Although the collection and use of concentrated coalbed methane streams are not widely practiced in the coal mining industry, relevant technologies are available for commercial application.
• Additional reductions in emissions of coalbed methane could be achieved through the development of technologies for the capture and use, or destruction, of dilute coalbed methane streams.

Recommendations

• Strategic planning goals for the performance and cost of coal cleaning processes should define clearly the supporting role of coal preparation in DOE's programs in advanced power generation and fuels production, thereby focusing R&D activities.
• DOE should phase out program activities related to coal-liquid mixtures.
• DOE should implement a technology R&D program that addresses the control and use of dilute coalbed methane gas streams in response to EPACT requirements.

ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION

Power generation systems.

The availability of high-performance gas turbines and low-cost natural gas has resulted in the use of natural-gas-fired combustion turbines for many recently installed power generation facilities. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 , decreasing availability and higher costs for natural gas in the next decade and beyond are expected to result in a resurgence of construction and repowering of coal-based power generation facilities, with requirements for greatly improved emission controls and higher efficiency. Substantial improvements over past practices are technically possible. A large fraction of DOE RDD&C on power generation is devoted to systems designed to meet anticipated emission control and efficiency requirements.

The advanced coal-based power generation systems under development with DOE funding can be divided into three groups based on projected efficiency: 3

• Group 1—approximately 40 percent efficiency—includes the low-emission boiler system (LEBS), first-generation PFBC (PFBC-1), and first-generation IGCC (IGCC-1).
• Group 2—approximately 45 percent efficiency—includes EFCC, second-generation PFBC (PFBC-2), and second-generation IGCC (IGCC-2).
• Group 3—50 to 60 percent or greater efficiency—includes HIPPS, improved second-generation PFBC (improved PFBC-2), integrated gasification advanced-cycle (IGAC), and IGFC.

Important features of these systems are summarized in Table 10-1 . Information on state-of-the-art commercial pulverized coal systems is included in the table as a baseline. Current DOE funding levels for these various technologies were summarized in Chapters 2 and 7 .

Efficiency and Cost Targets

As shown in Table 10-1 , DOE's efficiency goals for advanced power systems rise to 60 percent for the year 2010 (best current new plant levels are about 38 percent for the United States and 42 percent worldwide). In the DOE plan the highest efficiencies are expected to be achieved with IGFC technology (DOE, 1993a). A number of other systems are projected to achieve efficiencies of 45 to 55 percent using advanced combustion and gasification-based approaches and high-performance gas turbines. A major objective of the DOE plan is to achieve these higher efficiencies at an overall cost of electricity that is 10 to 20 percent lower than that of today's coal-fired power plants while also meeting more stringent environmental requirements (see Table 10-2 ). 4

In the view of the committee, the DOE efficiency goals, especially for the later years, are quite optimistic. For example, the efficiency goals of 55 percent for systems using 1290 °C (2350 °F) gas turbine topping cycles exceed the performance capabilities of about 50 percent efficiency for current combined-cycle systems using natural gas. While turbine improvements are expected to raise the efficiency on natural gas to about 57 percent (see Chapter 7 ), coal gasification and gas cleanup energy losses will decrease efficiency by five to 10 efficiency points when using the gasification systems being demonstrated in the CCT program (see Chapter 6 ). Thus, substantial reduction of gasification-related losses is needed to achieve the DOE target system efficiency with IGCC. As noted in Chapter 7 , the hybrid second-generation pressurized fluidized-bed combustion system, which gasifies only part of the coal, is estimated to have a potential for approximately four percentage points higher efficiency than IGCC systems where all the coal is gasified (Maude, 1993). Conceivably, this system could achieve the DOE efficiency goal; however, substantial technical hurdles remain to be overcome. Similar comments apply to the 60 percent efficiency goal for IGFC systems.

The goal of 10 to 20 percent reduction in the cost of power, concurrent with significant efficiency increases and emissions reductions, may be especially difficult to realize. For example, roughly 30 percent of the cost of electricity today for a new coal-fired plant represents the cost of fuel (EPRI, 1993). Thus, reducing fuel requirements by one-third by raising plant efficiency from about 40 to 60 percent would lower the overall electricity cost by about 10 percent, which is DOE's minimum cost reduction objective. A smaller efficiency gain would yield

TABLE 10-1 Advanced Coal-Based Power Systems Supported by DOE

TABLE 10-2 Strategic Objectives of DOE's Advanced Power Systems Program

still smaller cost savings. These estimates assume that the nonfuel costs—principally the initial capital cost—remain constant. DOE targets show lower capital costs for advanced technologies than current commercial systems. More likely, the capital cost of more efficient combined-cycle systems will exceed that of the simpler, less demanding technologies now in use (Merrow et al., 1981). Higher capital and operating costs would mean that overall reductions in the cost of electricity would be difficult or impossible to achieve.

While projections of the cost and performance of new technologies are subject to great uncertainty (Frey et al., 1994), comparison of systems and options should be done on a common and clearly stated basis to provide valuable guidance for investment in RDD&C (see below, Systems Analysis and Strategy Studies). Such comparative studies are extremely valuable for assessing the validity of program goals and for communication of results.

A more realistic cost goal for the DOE advanced power systems program might be to achieve efficiency improvements at an overall electricity cost comparable to that for new coal plants today. For the future U.S. market, some cost premium could even be acceptable if justified by the improved environmental performance and reduced externality costs associated with advanced technologies. Indeed, future environmental regulations may well require such higher performance, creating new incentives for investment in higher-efficiency systems. To be competitive overseas, advanced technologies would require the lowest possible capital costs consistent with the environmental and other requirements of specific foreign markets. In short, despite DOE's current planning estimates, it remains to be seen whether high-performance and smaller investment costs are in fact compatible objectives.

Group I Systems

Group 1 power generation systems generally make use of commercially available components and technologies, such as supercritical boilers, gasifiers,

and cold gas cleanup systems. Only limited use of first-generation PFBC and IGCC systems is expected in the United States. Demonstration programs for these technologies are under way both in the United States and abroad, and the main incentive to continue the domestic activity is to develop a foundation for second- and third-generation systems. On the other hand, the LEBS technology program outlined by DOE (1993a) does not appear to offer opportunities for development of a substantially more efficient, lower-emission system. Only if LEBS achieves a significantly lower cost than existing systems with comparable performance would its development be justified for near-term markets.

Assuming that Group I performance and cost objectives can be met, the market for Group 1 technologies will probably be limited to near-term installations where there is no economic penalty for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions. Although the committee's baseline scenarios assume no such penalties for the near-term (1995-2005), it envisions new regulations or penalties aimed at forcing CO 2 reductions during the mid-term period (2006-2020). Technologies in Group 1, with their limited efficiency improvements over existing plants, would be at a disadvantage relative to the newer Group 2 systems emerging in the mid-term period. The ''less demanding" scenario discussed in Chapter 4 assumes that economic penalties on CO 2 emissions might not be imposed for the foreseeable future. This might well be the case in developing countries such as China, and Group 1 technologies might therefore be of potential export interest.

Group 2 and 3 Systems

In contrast to Group 1 systems, technologies in groups 2 and 3 are judged by the committee to have greater potential to meet future power generation and associated environmental requirements: all technologies in these two groups make use of advanced components to achieve higher efficiencies and lower emissions. Major questions of system integration and reliability will need to be addressed, and early pioneer installations could serve as a basis for improved systems.

The riskiest components appear to be the high-temperature heat exchanger and furnace required for the indirectly fired systems, and the hot gas cleanup systems for the advanced PFBC and gasification-based systems. It is not established that high-temperature gas turbines can tolerate the chlorine and alkali metals that may be present in FBC (fluidized-bed combustion) products or the sulfur and particulates in the gasifier products of IGCC systems. Although hot gas cleanup is a component of advanced IGCC systems, cold gas cleanup could still allow the technology to succeed, if at a lower efficiency. In this sense, IGCC is a somewhat less risky technology than PFBC.

The 1370 °C to 1425 °C (2500 °F to 2600 °F) gas turbine required for Group 3 systems is within the state of the art for aviation systems but is still under development for electric power generation systems and will require demonstration and testing. The IGCC-2 and IGAC systems with an advanced gas turbine

may not be significantly more expensive than first-generation systems if the turbine development effort is successful.

As noted previously, integrated gasification fuel cell systems offer the highest efficiencies and emission controls. Systems using molten carbonate or solid oxide fuel cells incorporate a steam bottoming cycle to maximize efficiency. Molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells operate at high temperatures (650 °C [1200 °F] and 980 °C [1800 °F], respectively). Since the maximum voltage produced by a fuel cell decreases with increasing temperature, the higher-temperature solid oxide fuel cell produces a smaller fraction of the total system power. However, the potentially lower costs of the solid oxide fuel cell provide incentives for continued research on these systems. The potential market for fuel cell technologies is quite large, especially for distributed power generation. However, fuel cell systems may still not be cost competitive with gas turbine systems without environmental incentives for higher efficiencies.

Gas turbine and fuel cell activities are currently funded under the natural gas portion of DOE's FE R&D program. However, gas turbines and fuel cells could be used with coal-derived gas, with the addition of gasification and gas cleanup facilities. The principal operating difference between natural gas and coal-derived fuel gas in these applications relates to the contaminants in coal-derived gas. Cold gas cleanup is capable of removing contaminants to a negligible level; however, there is an efficiency penalty of about two percentage points, along with the production of liquid waste streams that must be treated, adding to system complexity and cost. Hot gas cleanup is potentially more efficient but at the expense of less complete removal of contaminants, especially volatilized species that are not captured in current hot gas cleanup designs.

The requirements for cleanup of coal-derived fuel gas are expected to differ for fuel cell and gas turbine systems. System optimization will be required and needs to be established as part of the DOE coal program. For the molten carbonate fuel cell, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, chlorine compounds, trace metals, and particulates would interact with the electrodes and with the carbonate electrolyte, necessitating electrolyte replacement and disposal of resulting water-soluble solid waste. For high-temperature gas turbines, damage to the blades is of greatest concern, and a discussion of research aimed at mitigating this concern can be found in Chapter 9 (Advanced Research Programs). Degradation caused by contaminants would limit maximum turbine inlet temperature, thereby limiting attainable system efficiency.

Thus, for fuel cell systems, the major development challenge is to reduce both fuel cell costs and balance-of-plant costs. For gas turbines, the major goal is to maximize turbine inlet temperature. Increasing turbine inlet temperature from the current maximum of 1290 °C (2350 °F), beyond the 1370 °C to 1425 °C (2500 °F to 2600 °F) proposed for integrated gasification advanced-cycle systems, to the 1540 °C to 1650 °C (2800 °F to 3000 °F) used in high-performance turbines would bring system efficiencies to a level approaching that expected for

molten carbonate fuel cells. These major development goals for fuel cells and gas turbines apply to systems fueled with either natural gas or coal-generated gas. No special considerations for coal-derived fuel gas appear necessary at this time, beyond those described above for the coal program.

To use coal, both fuel cell and gas turbine systems depend on coal gasification technology; both can accept methane and light hydrocarbons in the fuel gas. As discussed in Chapter 6 , coal gasification results in a loss of five to 10 percentage points in overall power generation efficiency compared to natural gas. Development of maximally efficient gasification technology is thus essential for future high-efficiency utilization of coal for both fuel cell and gas turbine systems.

Magnetohydrodynamics

The use of topping cycles—as in fuel cells, gas turbines, and MHD generators—to achieve efficiencies higher than those attainable in the simple steam Rankine cycle (approximately 42 percent) has been adopted worldwide and is the major focus of the ongoing DOE program on advanced technologies for electricity generation. Advances in gas turbine and fuel cell technologies have essentially closed the original efficiency gap that stimulated a large worldwide effort on MHD during the 1960s and 1970s. Over the past decade, this MHD effort has been greatly reduced. Within the DOE FE Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems Program, no further funds are allocated for MHD, except for closeout of the proof-of-concept study. EPACT Section 1311 recommends (and the committee concurs) that an integrated documentation of the results of the extensive proof-of-concept work should be prepared, to capture the "lessons learned" and to establish a reference point for any possible development of MHD systems in the future.

Emissions Control Technologies

Environmental control requirements for coal-based power plants are expected to become increasingly stringent in response to more demanding federal, state, and local requirements. In the near-term, new control requirements for nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and air toxics are anticipated, along with new ambient standards for fine particulates. Over the longer term, significant reductions in CO 2 and solid wastes may be needed.

DOE's strategic objectives for conventional air pollutants (SO 2 , NO x , and particulates) express future goals relative to the 1979 federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for coal-fired power plants (see Table 10-2 ). These emissions goals apply to advanced power systems in groups 2 and 3. DOE's goals

for 2000 and 2005 can already be met or exceeded by technology in commercial use today, although cost reduction remains an important objective. Because environmental control requirements show a strong tendency to become more stringent, and because DOE's emissions goals for the next decade already are being achieved with modern technology (see Chapter 3 ), it is not clear to the committee that the DOE goals will be adequate to meet all necessary environmental standards for coal plants a decade or more from now. The 2010 target of 1/10 NSPS represents a relatively demanding level of emissions reduction but one that should be achievable by a number of coal-based systems much sooner than 2010 (although not all advanced systems may be able to meet the objective readily for all pollutants). Whether DOE's emission goals will be adequate to meet regional and local environmental quality constraints—which tend to be the most demanding—cannot be foreseen.

Emissions control requirements for hazardous air pollutants (air toxics) have yet to be defined by the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The most likely need in this area will be for control of volatile species, such as mercury, which escape collection in existing gas cleaning systems. Studies are in progress to assess baseline emission levels for current and advanced technologies.

In the mid- to long-term periods a critical environmental issue for coal use is likely to be the need to reduce emissions of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases. The committee concurs with DOE's primary strategy of reducing coal-related CO 2 emissions by improving the energy efficiency of new power generating plants. The CO 2 benefits of advanced technologies should be compared to the best commercial technologies currently available, which are more efficient than average U.S. plants ( Table 10-3 ). The reductions actually achieved in the U.S. economy will depend on the rate of penetration of the advanced technology.

The DOE program plan includes the cross-cutting area of control technology, whose general goal is to achieve "ultra-low" emissions beyond the goals for 2010 (DOE, 1993a). No specific targets are set. However, the historical evidence ( Appendix D ) shows a strong trend toward requiring emissions from new coal plants to be reduced to the maximum extent achievable, within reasonable constraints on economic cost. Ideally, a risk-cost-benefit analysis would serve as the basis for determining environmental control regulations; discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of the present study. A possible vision for longer-term environmental R&D goals is to benchmark emissions of air pollutants from coal plants relative to cleaner but more costly competing fuels, particularly natural gas. With the exception of CO 2 content, it is feasible to match the quality of natural gas by cleanup of coal-derived gas. Since natural gas will continue to be used, a consistent set of requirements for coal-derived gas and natural gas may be appropriate. To the extent that such a goal for ultra-low emissions can be achieved, the environmental acceptability of coal relative to competing energy sources will be enhanced. The long-term challenge for the DOE program, then, would be to develop systems that achieve targeted emissions reductions from coal plants at

TABLE 10-3 Potential CO 2 Reductions for Advanced Power Systems Relative to Current Coal-Fired Power Plants (percent) a , b

reasonable cost. If this long-term goal can be achieved, the primary environmental concern remaining for coal-based systems, aside from CO 2 emissions, will be solid wastes.

The increasing cost and decreasing availability of landfill disposal options, particularly near urban and suburban population centers, will require increased attention to waste minimization, recycle, and reuse methods. In the committee's opinion, DOE's goal of reducing solid wastes from advanced pulverized-coal systems by half appears to be reasonable for near- to mid-term technologies (DOE, 1993a). More ambitious goals than the targeted 50 percent waste utilization from advanced power systems by 2010 are appropriate for the long-term, when higher waste disposal costs will provide greater incentives for waste reduction at the source.

Technology Development Needs

A number of technologies now being demonstrated in the CCT program offer potentially lower emissions control costs in the near-term for conventional air pollutants, for both new and retrofit plants. The most challenging problem for DOE is to achieve reliable and cost-effective emissions control using hot gas cleanup for advanced power systems. The most critical need is for high-temperature, high-pressure particulate removal. This technology is essential for the ad-

vanced PFBC systems; it is one way to achieve higher efficiencies with advanced IGCC systems. Hot gas desulfurization technology similarly remains to be developed for advanced IGCC systems. While current hot gas cleanup devices achieve very low levels of SO 2 and particulate emissions, to date neither hot gas particulate removal nor hot gas desulfurization systems have approached the durability and reliability requirements needed for a commercial system. Furthermore, current hot gas cleanup systems do not control volatile air toxics or nitrogen oxides (NO x ). DOE remains optimistic that these critical problems will be solved through continued R&D. Nonetheless, the promise of advanced PFBC and the potential efficiency gains of IGCC and IGFC systems will not be realized until significant progress is demonstrated. For gasification-based systems, existing or improved cold gas cleanup systems can meet anticipated environmental requirements but at an efficiency penalty of about two percentage points.

To achieve larger or more rapid reductions in CO 2 emissions than can be achieved by improving the thermal efficiency of coal-based power plants, technological options for the removal and storage of CO 2 from conventional and advanced power systems could also be needed. The current DOE plan provides for such a contingency, in its objective of demonstrating by 2010 the capability to reduce and sequester CO 2 emissions by about 80 percent at a cost premium of not more than 20 percent (DOE, 1993a). Given the current state of technology in this area, the most pressing need is for research related to CO 2 storage.

One of the most demanding long-term technical challenges for the DOE coal program is the reduction or elimination of solid wastes—a major environmental concern—through innovative and cost-effective recycle and reuse options, perhaps as part of an integrated "coal refinery." 5 At present, DOE has only a relatively small program ($2.4 million per year) in solid waste management. At least one of DOE's advanced coal technologies—the second-generation PFBC system—generates more solid waste than today's best commercial plants meeting stringent standards for SO 2 removal (98 percent or more). This underscores the need to find effective solutions that will allow coal to compete environmentally with alternative fuels for power generation.

• DOE's selection of efficiency, emissions, and cost as key attributes of advanced coal-based technology is appropriate for strategic planning. However, its specific efficiency and cost objectives for advanced power systems appear to

• be overly optimistic given the current state of technology. On the other hand, DOE's power plant emission goals appear to be insufficiently challenging relative to the capabilities of current commercial technology and the environmental demands expected on future coal use.
• The market for Group I systems (LEBS, PFBC-1, and IGCC-1, with approximately 40 to 42 percent efficiency) will probably be small in the United States. The overseas market may offer the best opportunities for commercialization. In particular, because LEBS offers comparatively small potential to evolve to a significantly higher performance system, it will be attractive only if it achieves a significant cost reduction relative to current commercial systems with comparable performance.
• For group 2 and 3 systems with 45 to 60 percent targeted efficiency, new technological achievements are required to achieve the goals defined by DOE, including development of high-temperature gas turbines, high-temperature heat exchangers, hot gas cleanup systems, and advanced fuel cells.
• Overall, gasification-based systems offer the lowest risk and highest potential for lower emissions and higher efficiency than current technology, but cost expectations need to be more clearly defined.
• System optimization cost and market studies are needed to define the roles and relative merits of the systems now being funded.
• While most of the DOE gas turbine program is funded under the DOE natural gas budget, the future of many of the high-efficiency options for efficient coal use depends on firing these same turbines with gas from coal gasification or pressurized fluidized-bed combustion.
• The gas turbine program under the DOE coal budget is appropriately focused on assessing the problem of trace material contamination (e.g., alkali metals) and possible solutions, such as special turbine materials, especially when hot gas cleanup is used.
• The integrated gasification fuel cell system offers the highest efficiency and lowest emissions of power generation systems under development within the DOE program. However, high fuel cell cost may be a significant barrier to widespread use, and a carefully documented projection of the potential for cost reduction is needed to establish program priorities.
• The highest efficiency for IGFC systems will be obtained with hot gas cleanup; however, the requirements for contaminant removal need to be established.
• The molten carbonate fuel cell offers the most promise among the current fuel cell options for IGFC power generation systems.
• Overall, current DOE priorities as reflected in the FY 1994 budget authorization and the FY 1995 budget request for advanced power systems—including the fuel cell and gas turbine components of the natural gas program—are consistent with the committee's view of priorities across different power generating options.
• Overall, DOE can make an important contribution to reducing the costs and improving the performance of emissions control technologies by careful selection of critical problems for research in conjunction with industry.
• Hot gas particulate cleanup is an especially critical technology at this time, since it will be an essential element in the success of high-performance PFBC and could improve the efficiency of gasification-based systems.
• Hot gas cleanup for sulfur removal is another critical development needed for advanced PFBC systems where high-efficiency sulfur removal still needs to be demonstrated at acceptable reagent stoichiometries. There would also be efficiency benefits for advanced IGCC systems.
• A thorough understanding is needed of options for the control of hazardous air pollutants, especially volatile air toxics, such as mercury and chlorine, across the set of advanced combustion and gasification-based technologies.
• NO x control measures meeting DOE's performance targets for advanced power systems with hot gas cleanup and high-temperature turbines remain to be fully specified and demonstrated. Selective catalytic reduction or other add-on technologies could well be required in addition to the combustion-based NO x controls now envisioned.
• Solid waste reduction is needed for all coal-based systems. Waste minimization, by-product recovery, and reuse options will become increasingly important and merit additional attention.
• Currently, the primary focus of DOE's coal R&D to reduce CO 2 emissions is improving power plant efficiency. Should future policy measures require an accelerated rate of CO 2 reductions, additional measures to remove and dispose of CO 2 from gas streams, to avoid CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere, could also be warranted.

Recommendations 6

• DOE's quantitative performance and cost objectives for advanced power systems should be reviewed in light of the committee's discussion and conclusions. In particular, a more realistic goal for advanced power systems would be to achieve significant efficiency improvements at an overall cost comparable to new plants today. For environmental R&D goals, an alternative long-term vision is to benchmark air emissions from coal plants relative to cleaner but more costly competing fuels, particularly natural gas. The long-term challenge would be to achieve greater emissions reductions economically while substantially reducing solid wastes.
• Further development of LEBS should be predicated on at least 50 percent cost sharing with industry to demonstrate its potential to reduce costs below those of current systems with comparable performance.
• *Future investment of DOE resources in first-generation systems should be based on realistic market expectations and value as an entry into new technology with high growth potential. At least 50 percent industry cost sharing should be required to demonstrate private sector confidence in these technologies.
• *Second- and third-generation gasification-based systems should be given the highest priority for new plant applications. Work on all the advanced systems should focus on acquiring the cost, emissions control, and efficiency information needed to select the most promising systems for further development. The limitations of critical components, such as heat exchangers, turbines, and fuel cells, and the timing and probability of technological successes should be taken into account. This process should begin before FY 1996 and should include a rigorous comparative study of the design options.
• The DOE coal program should focus on assessing and solving turbine life problems related to coal-generated trace materials. If limitations caused by trace components are identified, research on special control technologies and on alternative materials resistant to the effects of contaminants should be undertaken.
• DOE should identify research priorities specific to the use of coal-derived gas in fuel cells, such as the effect of contaminants on fuel cell performance and emissions.

Emissions Control Technologies 7

• *A critical assessment of hot gas cleanup systems for advanced IGCC and PFBC should be undertaken immediately to determine the likely costs and the ability to meet, in the next three to five years, all requirements for future high-temperature (>1260 °C [>2300 °F]) turbine operation and environmental acceptability.
• Research on control of volatile air toxics for advanced power systems should be initiated, with a priority on those substances that remain in a gaseous phase at typical exhaust gas temperatures (generally >95 °C [>200 °F]). Assessments of current capabilities to control other hazardous air pollutants should also be undertaken.
• Research should be continued on innovative approaches for less costly and more effective control of sulfur and nitrogen emissions in both retrofit and new plant applications.
• Reduction of solid waste emissions from coal use processes should be given a higher priority in the DOE research program, with emphasis on innovative and lower-cost by-product recovery and reuse. An evaluation of by-product
• disposal and reuse options and costs should be conducted for all DOE-funded coal programs.
• In addition to emphasis on efficiency improvements, continued R&D on the most promising retrofit measures for CO 2 capture and disposal is appropriate.

CLEAN FUELS AND SPECIALTY PRODUCTS FROM COAL

Clean gases and liquid products derived from coal have the potential for substantial future use. At present, natural gas and refined petroleum are much less costly than comparable products from coal. However, both of these resources are expected to become more costly (EIA, 1994).

DOE's primary strategic objective for advanced fuel systems is to demonstrate by 2010 advanced concepts for producing liquid fuels and other products from coal that can compete with products produced from petroleum, when petroleum prices are $25/bbl (1991 dollars) or greater. 8 At this price, coal-derived liquids may become competitive with nonconventional oil sources, such as tar sands and shale, and may also compete with the higher worldwide oil prices projected for the mid to long-term.

It is likely that national efforts to reduce CO 2 emissions, as well as other environmental legislation and regulatory actions, could lead to increased emphasis on improved efficiency for technologies that convert coal to gaseous and liquid fuels. However, the cost of coal alone is too low to justify large additional investments for efficiency improvement. To date, DOE has not adopted environmental emission goals for coal liquefaction process plants, as it has for electric power plants. Future plants will likely have to meet air, land, and water emission requirements that are more stringent than those in place today, which could increase the overall cost of coal conversion processes relative to processes that use oil or gas.

Coal Gasification

The conversion of coal to cleaned gas with current technology incurs a loss of the inherent useful energy in the coal of approximately 20 percent, corresponding to an efficiency loss of 10 percentage points in IGCC systems using coal-derived gas (see Chapter 6 ). This loss can be largely attributed to temperature cycling and increased energy requirements for compression. Commercial high-temperature, oxygen-blown, entrained-flow systems with cold gas cleanup would have a loss of around 13 percentage points. The committee believes that further

improvements in gasification technology are quite feasible and that cooperative programs with industry could help identify opportunities to improve both fluidized-bed and moving fixed-bed systems, leading to increased efficiency of advanced power generation systems.

For coproduct systems producing clean fuels and electricity, requirements for maximizing system efficiency are much alike. However, air-blown systems would be at a disadvantage. If oxygen systems are used, minimized oxygen consumption is important, and low-temperature gasification with methane production would require less heat and therefore less oxygen. Catalytic fluidized-bed systems offer potential for this application and have been studied in the past, but no currently active programs have been identified by the committee.

The ongoing SST program includes demonstration of six commercial gasification technologies. In addition, the proposed FY 1995 FE coal R&D program budget for Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems includes significant funding for construction of an advanced air-blown, moving fixed-bed gasifier, which has the potential to meet the IGCC-2 efficiency goal of 45 percent and minimize production of coal tar. However, since air rather than oxygen is used, this system would not be well suited for the production of clean fuels requiring hydrogen or syngas. A significant reduction in the DOE budget for advanced gasification research has been proposed for FY 1995 (see Chapter 6 ), despite the needs and research opportunities for improved gasification efficiency for both power generation and clean fuels production.

Products from Coal-Derived Gas

Hydrogen production.

Production of pure hydrogen from fossil fuels involves oxidation and separation, together with conversion of CO and water to H 2 and CO 2 by the water-gas shift reaction. This set of processes is quite mature but is being improved by competing catalyst manufacturers and developers of hydrogen production technology, with ammonia manufacture a main outlet. Apart from advanced research on separation processes, there appears to be minimal need for DOE participation developing processes for manufacture of merchant hydrogen.

Production of pure hydrogen is expensive and a major consumer of energy. Clean fuels production processes that conserve hydrogen and involve in situ conversion of CO and water to H 2 provide important gains in efficiency and cost reduction through heat integration and provide a preferred option for synthetic fuels manufacture.

Synthetic Natural Gas Production

While the current low-cost of natural gas makes synthetic natural gas (SNG)

uneconomical, there have been important advances in synthesis processes from industrial and government-funded R&D that allow use of the low H 2 /CO ratios from advanced gasifiers, increased tolerance for sulfur, and improved design of reactors for the highly exothermic methanation reaction. Processes for direct production of methane by coal pyrolysis and low-temperature catalytic gasification followed by cryogenic separation offer additional pathways.

It has been estimated (COGARN, 1987) that these newer technologies can reduce the cost of stand-alone SNG production by approximately 25 percent. However, the resulting cost will still be higher than projections by the EIA (Energy Information Administration) for natural gas wellhead prices of about $3.50/thousand cubic feet or less in 2010. Thus, development of an economic incentive for large single-product plants is not expected before the late mid- or long-term periods (2021-2040). The DOE coal program does not include major programs devoted to catalytic SNG synthesis. This seems appropriate in view of the long time horizon and the excellent capabilities outside DOE. Advanced low-temperature gasification processes, however, ultimately have the potential to increase efficiency and reduce the cost of manufacturing SNG, liquid fuels, and chemicals.

Separating the methane formed directly in gasification processes by pyrolysis and by reactions in low-temperature gasification can be achieved cryogenically or by diffusion. The latter requires advances in high-temperature selective diffusion membranes.

Methanol from Syngas

Methanol has been an important commodity for many years, with uses in the chemical industry and as a solvent. It can be used neat as a motor fuel and, with the requirement for inclusion of oxygenates in gasoline, its use in preparing oxygenated components by reaction with olefins has grown rapidly. Manufacture of methanol from coal is currently more expensive than manufacture from natural gas.

Methanol is made by the catalytic conversion of syngas at about 250 °C (480 °F) at 60 to 100 atmospheres pressure. Both coal and natural gas can be used as syngas sources. The current commercial processes use a fixed-bed catalytic reactor in a gas recycle loop. A wide range of mechanical designs are used to control the heat released from the reaction. New developments in methanol technology include fluidized-bed methanol synthesis and use of a liquid-phase slurry reactor for methanol synthesis. The slurry technology offers improved control of temperatures; it was developed in LaPorte, Texas, in a joint DOE/industry program.

There is relatively little industrial R&D activity on processes using syngas with low H 2 /CO ratios and the sulfur concentrations achievable with hot gas desulfurization. For use of coal, such a process could be less costly and more efficient than current technology and could be integrated advantageously with electricity generation in a coproduct system.

Liquid Hydrocarbons from Syngas (Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis)

While gasoline hydrocarbons can be manufactured from methanol by the Mobil methanol-to-gasoline process, production by F-T (Fischer-Tropsch) synthesis is currently favored for new overseas facilities when low-cost gas is available. F-T synthesis can produce premium-quality diesel and jet fuel with minimum processing. Gasoline is also produced but requires more extensive upgrading to meet octane number specification. DOE has been active in applying the slurry reactor technique to this process. The ability of this process to handle high-molecular-weight wax and to use the low H 2 /CO ratio gas from coal without the need for shifting to a higher ratio is important. Limited DOE development work is being conducted in LaPorte, Texas, in cooperation with industry groups.

Recent DOE-sponsored systems and cost studies (Gray, 1994; Tam et al., 1993) using the DOE financing basis (see Chapter 2 and Glossary) have projected equivalent crude prices of $30 to $35/bbl for stand-alone production of high-quality gasoline and distillate fuels (diesel, aviation). When production of F-T liquids was combined with gasification-based power generation, the equivalent crude cost was reduced by $5 to $7/bbl, bringing it closer to the EIA reference case projected price for crude oil of $28/bbl in 2010 (EIA, 1994). Thus, the studies indicate the possibility of coal-based fuels production in the mid-term period (2006-2020), which is about the same period as major construction of gasification-based power generation facilities.

Further cost reductions can be anticipated by continued systems studies; however, critical examination of the premium fuel credit should be included. Opportunities for cost reductions by research include optimization of once-through processes and development of catalyst systems compatible with sulfur levels attainable using hot gas cleanup.

Products from Direct Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Coal

Direct coal liquefaction by hydrogenation.

Following the oil embargo of 1973, direct liquefaction was the subject of intensive R&D, both industry and DOE funded. Since then, the drop in oil prices has led to abandonment of all large-scale development and drastic reductions in both industrial and DOE research activities. The products of direct liquefaction can be refined to produce highly aromatic high-octane gasoline and high-quality diesel fuel. Jet fuels and heating oil can also be produced. A design, systems, and cost analysis based on results from DOE's advanced liquefaction R&D facility in Wilsonville, Alabama, projected an equivalent crude price based on utility financing of approximately $33/bbl using Illinois No. 6 coal (DOE, 1993b). Use of lower-cost Western coal might reduce the cost to approximately $30/bbl. There is optimism at DOE and among some industry groups that with continued R&D and

systems analyses the DOE goal of $25/bbl (1991 dollars) for liquids from coal can be reached.

The aforementioned estimate based on Wilsonville data concerned dedicated coal liquefaction plants. Coproduction of liquids and electricity with advanced gasification systems can be expected to reduce costs. The reduction would likely be significant but probably less than the $5 to $7/bbl estimated for F-T liquefaction. Coprocessing of coal with residual fuel or tar in oil refineries has been studied by both industry and DOE.

While use of coal introduces both coal and ash handling requirements, improved process performance and continued low-cost of coal are expected to revive commercial interest in the mid-term period (2006-2020) if oil prices follow EIA projections (EIA, 1994). Several research areas offer promise for reducing the cost and improving the efficiency of direct liquefaction by hydrogenation: use of raw coal gasifier product with a catalyst capable of in situ shifting of CO to H 2 , removal of the oxygen in coal as CO 2 rather than water, use of a low-pressure reactor, and minimized production of light hydrocarbons.

Direct Coal Liquefaction by Pyrolysis

Controlled heating of coal in pyrolysis can produce modest yields of liquids. The heat of pyrolysis is small, and, if the char product can be used without cooling, high thermal efficiencies can be achieved. The pyrolysis liquids are low in hydrogen and high in oxygen compared to petroleum residuum or bitumen but could be coprocessed with bitumen or fed to a direct coal liquefaction unit. Their tendency to polymerize on storage limits their use as a supplementary fuel for power generation without further processing.

While probably of lower value to a refinery than bitumen, it seems possible that coproduction with gasification could make pyrolysis liquids competitive with tar in the same period as deployment of advanced power generation systems. DOE studied coproduction of pyrolysis char and coke (mild gasification) and began construction of demonstration facilities, but no further funding has been requested in the FY 1995 budget. A CCT demonstration of this technology using low-sulfur Western coal is under way; the plan is to market pyrolysis liquids as power plant fuel oil and to burn the coke.

Coal Refineries and Coproduct Systems

The energy industries are mostly specialized, oriented to a narrow range of products and markets. Electric utilities supply electricity along with some steam to local users; oil refineries supply liquid fuels along with some petrochemical feedstocks; and gas suppliers collect, purify, and transmit natural gas to end users. Government regulations differ for these areas, and separate specialty business units have been established to deal with these separate regulatory systems.

As discussed in Chapter 3 , this regulatory environment has been changing to make it more attractive for groups outside the traditional utilities to generate and sell electric power.

The concept of a coal refinery, analogous to an oil refinery, has been discussed for many years, but the availability of low-cost petroleum has provided a disincentive to implement the coal refinery concept. More recently, EPACT directed DOE to examine the potential of coal refineries, and a report has been published (DOE, 1991). Screening studies by the Mitre Corporation (Gray, 1994) identified major synergies between advanced power generation based on gasification and production of clean fuels and chemicals. The preceding discussion identified several examples of cost and energy savings from the manufacture of a variety of products from coal gasification. The available data (Gray, 1994; Tam et al., 1993) indicate an equivalent crude cost of $5 to $7/bbl less for a combination of F-T synthesis and electric power generation than for stand-alone plants for liquids production. In these estimates the economic return on electric power production was held constant and the savings were applied to the liquid coproducts.

There are many other product combinations besides coal liquids and electric power, and quantitative studies can provide essential strategic guidance for both R&D and identification of optimized combinations of electric power, fuels, and chemical products. The incentives for coproduction by refineries, chemical plants, or independent producers of clean gas and other products will vary widely with location and the organizations involved. Cooperation with potential users is important to the success of such strategic planning studies.

The funding for DOE programs to produce clean liquid fuels from coal has declined significantly in recent years (see Chapter 6 ). The discussion above has indicated the possibility of introducing liquid fuels from coal at about the same time as new IGCC-based electric power generation facilities might be constructed. The timely availability of appropriate demonstrated technology will depend on initiating programs to investigate opportunities and develop coproduct systems as soon as possible.

• Gasification plays a critical role as the first and most costly step in the production of electric power by combined-cycle systems and in the production of clean gaseous and liquid fuels and chemical products.
• Gasification options exist that offer potentially greater efficiencies than currently available commercial systems. Among the relatively unexploited options, low-temperature fluidized-bed gasification systems, with the possible use of catalysts, appear to be the most versatile for providing the entire array of future products from coal. A few examples of such systems are in development, but the committee believes there are additional opportunities for further development.
• The current DOE gasification program is devoted almost entirely to gas-
• ifier technology for power generation. However, gasification efficiency improvements are also needed to produce clean gaseous and liquid fuels. The proposed FY 1995 budget reductions are not consistent with this need.
• Materials research leading to membrane diffusion techniques for recovering a by-product hydrogen stream is a major opportunity for DOE coal research relating to the production of pure hydrogen from coal-derived gas.
• Production of SNG from coal is not expected to be of importance until late in the long-term.
• The major opportunity to improve thermal efficiency and cost in SNG production is in the gasification step.
• High-efficiency oxygen-blown gasifiers developed for combined-cycle power generation would also be applicable to use in SNG manufacture.
• For large single-product plants, direct coal liquefaction offers a 5 to 10 percent higher efficiency with correspondingly less CO 2 production than coal-based F-T syntheses, with production of methanol falling between these two limits. Similarly, the cost of producing a slate of refined transportation fuels by direct liquefaction is potentially lower than for the coal-based F-T synthesis gas-based fuels.
• An estimate of the petroleum crude oil prices at which the products from a large direct liquefaction plant meeting current refined fuel specifications could compete is around $30/bbl using Western coal and utility financing. For F-T liquids the equivalent crude oil price would be approximately $5/bbl higher (i.e., $35/bbl), with methanol production about the same as direct liquefaction. With typical oil industry financing, the equivalent crude prices would be on the order of $5 to $10/bbl higher.
• Recent cost estimates for coproduction of coal liquids and electric power indicate that coal liquids might compete with petroleum at $25/bbl or less, with the possibility of coal-derived liquid fuel production at about the same time as installation of advanced IGCC power generation facilities.
• Continued research in conversion chemistry and process optimization have the potential to reduce the cost of coal liquids from large liquefaction plants to the DOE goal of $25/bbl (1991 dollars).
• There is little need, at this time, for large pilot plant or demonstration programs, but a bench-scale and small pilot plant program is needed to evaluate promising leads and provide focus for laboratory-scale research in direct liquefaction.
• Advances and maintenance of core competencies in direct coal liquefaction technology in the United States depend increasingly on DOE activities, since R&D on direct coal liquefaction has dwindled to a very low level in industry.
• Continued reductions in funding will cause a major degradation in the effectiveness of the DOE coal liquefaction program. This trend places the nation's long-term coal liquefaction option at risk because government support has become critical in sustaining U.S. competency in this area.

Recommendations 9

• *An expanded DOE role should be established to ensure the timely availability of the most efficient and economic gasification systems for future uses of coal in power generation and in the production of clean gases and liquids.
• A research program should be established to improve the efficiency of gasification systems suitable for clean fuels production. The DOE program for improvement of gasifier efficiency also should include systems that produce methane directly and are applicable to both SNG and power generation.
• No direct program on SNG manufacture is recommended.
• *DOE's R&D program for coal liquefaction technologies should be continued at least at the FY 1994 level, with the goals of decreasing the cost of coal liquids and increasing overall efficiency.
• Within DOE's coal liquefaction program, the effects of efficiency and other improvements on reducing CO 2 production should be considered.
• Within the DOE program on coal liquefaction, highest priority should be given to direct coal liquefaction research, concentrating on fundamental coal chemistry and innovative process development.
• DOE sponsorship of small pilot plant facilities should be continued to test and improve liquefaction technologies, but larger pilot plants should not be built in the near-term without significant private sector participation.
• *An assessment of strategies and opportunities for coproduction of premium liquid fuels and gasification-based power should be an important component in planning a program for the introduction of liquid fuels from coal.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY STUDIES

One critical activity identified by the committee that is not highlighted in DOE's current planning documents is systems analysis. This activity is essential to assessing coal R&D needs and priorities and to strategic planning. Given the expanding number of process options for advanced power generation, fuels production, and environmental controls, which designs are the most promising to pursue? How should complex processes be configured to achieve optimal results? How should individual components be designed to maximize performance and minimize cost? How do advanced process concepts compare to currently commercial technology and to each other? What are the most promising markets for advanced technologies, and what are the greatest technical risks? How do the various technical and economic uncertainties for new process designs affect projections of performance and cost, and how can targeted R&D best reduce critical uncertainties? A well-designed systems analysis program should be able to address such questions.

The DOE Fossil Energy program already has in place a significant systems and engineering analysis activity at both its Morgantown Energy Technology Center (METC) and its Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center (PETC) and additional capabilities at DOE headquarters in Washington. Each of these offices is involved in analysis and evaluation of processes and programs within selected areas of DOE activity. Analytical approaches of varying sophistication are employed for process analysis and evaluation, often with reliance on outside contractors in addition to in-house staff.

A preliminary look at DOE's ongoing activity in systems analysis indicates a significant amount of activity spread among METC, PETC, and headquarters. A major shortcoming, however, appears to be a lack of systematic assumptions and design premises within and across the full suite of DOE's advanced energy conversion and environmental control research programs. Rather, it appears that different parts of the DOE organization, working with a variety of different contractors, employ different assumptions and approaches—circumstances that preclude rigorous comparisons or evaluations of technologies in a given category (e.g., advanced power systems or advanced fuel systems).

Communicating the results of analyses to interest groups within and outside DOE is another important contribution of systems studies (see, for example, NRC, 1992), a contribution that could be greatly improved by consistency and clarity in the assumptions and methods used for analysis. Similarly, greater efforts to incorporate feedback from industrial and other stakeholders, coupled with timely and systematic publication of results, are also needed. A more coherent approach to systems analysis could be of real value for strategic R&D planning.

Of substantial value are the advanced analytical and computer-based methods for analysis, synthesis, and design of complex processes that DOE has begun to develop in recent years. For example, new methods to address technical and economic uncertainties are especially critical to characterize advanced processes and designs properly at the early stages of development. Characterization and analysis of uncertainties are also critical to identifying robust system designs, risks, potential markets, and key problem areas that should be targeted for research to reduce technological risks. While DOE has supported the development of advanced modeling approaches for systems analysis and design and is beginning to adopt some of these methods for R&D management, more rapid implementation of a rigorous systems analysis methodology could be of significant value for long-term strategic planning.

• The growth in opportunities to use coal to produce electricity, fuels, chemicals, and coproducts calls for expanding and strengthening DOE's Office of FE systems analysis activity, which plays a critical role in coal-related RDD&C and strategic planning.

Recommendations 10

• *An expanded and more prominent role for systems analysis is recommended in developing RDD&C strategies for the DOE coal program. This activity should establish a clearly stated and consistent set of criteria, assumptions, and design premises that can be applied to all technologies in a given category, to facilitate rigorous comparisons. Advanced methods of analysis, design, and risk evaluation should be adopted, and extensive interaction with the user community—notably U.S. industry—and active dissemination of major study results and methods should be pursued.

TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION

An important goal for the DOE coal program, as specified by EPACT, is to accelerate the development and commercial introduction of new technologies related to coal use. A major additional objective is to increase the competitiveness of U.S. firms engaged in supplying equipment and advanced technology to the power-generating industry at home and abroad. Before commercialization, large-scale demonstration is generally necessary to provide credible evidence of improved performance and practicability. These demonstrations are expensive and are generally cost shared by DOE and industry. The DOE role can vary from operating and managing a cost-shared facility to cofunding a program located at an industrial site and managed by the industrial partner.

The demonstration programs under DOE's FE R&D budget are generally of the first type, while the CCT demonstration projects are generally of the second type, with DOE operating only as a cofunding agency. The annual budget for FE coal R&D demonstration programs is approximately $150 million/year; additional funding for demonstrations of fuel cells and advanced turbines is included in the Office of FE's natural gas budget. 11 The CCT program will expend about $6.9 billion over 14 years on 45 programs, with industry contributing more than two-thirds of the total funding. The major CCT effort is expected to result in commercial applications, and, while most of the activities are not yet completed, most of the programs seem to be well chosen, based on the level of private support. Significant future use of these technologies will depend on a follow-up commercialization program that alleviates concerns about costs and reliability of advanced technologies (see Chapter 8 ). The extent of DOE involvement necessary to stimulate private sector investment in such a program requires further assessment, taking into account any social costs resulting from delay in the implementation of advanced coal-based systems.

At the request of the Secretary of Energy, the National Coal Council recently completed a study of commercialization opportunities and recommended a strat-

egy for overcoming the barrier of the high costs and risks involved in using ''pioneer technologies." It was recommended that approximately $1.4 billion be provided over 15 years (1995-2010) to provide about 10 to 15 percent of total capital and to help offset operating risks for the first plant after the demonstration plant, with a decreasing amount for the next three to five installations. Cost sharing would be for a percentage of that part of the commercial application that represents technical and economic risks not present in commercially available technology. This initiative would be in addition to the DOE FE R&D and CCT programs for technology demonstration.

• Adequate technology demonstration and commercialization programs are essential for timely commercial application of new coal use technologies.
• The timely introduction of clean coal technologies will depend on further demonstrations of a few pioneer installations beyond the CCT program to allay concerns about costs and reliability; some federal participation will be necessary to stimulate private sector investment.
• Cost sharing of the risk differential between pioneer plants and commercially available technologies will accelerate the commercial acceptance of many of the new coal-based technologies.

Recommendations 12

• *Support of the current CCT program should be continued and the ongoing program completed. While no further solicitations are planned under the existing CCT program, the FE coal R&D program should continue to cofund demonstrations of selected Group 2 and Group 3 advanced clean coal technologies beyond those currently being demonstrated by the CCT program.
• Any uncommitted funds from the CCT program should continue to be spent on activities related to the domestic use of clean coal technologies.
• *An incentive program should be developed and implemented that would offset the capital and operating cost risks associated with early commercial applications of technologies previously demonstrated at a commercial scale.
• Management of an incentive program by DOE should be the same as that of the current CCT program. The elements should be the same, except that cost sharing applies only to the risk components and not the total project costs. Because the solicitation, negotiation, design, construction, and demonstration phases can take five to seven years, multiple solicitations in several fiscal years should be conducted near the end of the demonstrations of the current 45 projects.

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The principal aims of the DOE coal advanced research program are to pursue technology goals and exploratory research opportunities while maintaining a balance between revolutionary research and evolutionary engineering development programs. In conducting a strategic assessment of the DOE coal advanced research activities, the committee did not aim to provide a comprehensive list of research opportunities. However, some critical areas for coal-related research were identified during the committee's review of current programs. These include research on combustion and gasification, materials, and coal conversion and catalysis, as discussed in Chapter 9 . In identifying these areas the committee accorded special importance to research areas unlikely to be addressed outside the FE coal R&D program. For example, the study of coal chemistry and catalytic reactions is not supported to a significant extent outside DOE's FE coal R&D program. The committee supports the DOE view, outlined in the recent FE advanced research strategic plan (DOE, 1994b), that advanced research activities within the coal program should be directed toward meeting the strategic objectives defined for advanced clean/efficient power systems and clean fuel systems. In line with the committee's earlier recommendation to modify coal RDD&C strategic planning horizons, the committee believes that the advanced research program should devote more effort to midand long-term requirements than is now the case.

The advanced research budget declined by about 30 percent in real terms between FY 1988 and FY 1994, with an additional decrease of approximately 25 percent proposed for FY 1995. Comparing the FY 1994 enacted appropriation and the FY 1995 budget request indicates that major reductions are proposed in coal liquefaction (84 percent), components (50 percent), and materials (25 percent). The reductions in funding for coal liquefaction, when combined with a proposed 36 percent reduction in funding for liquefaction programs outside the advanced research program, are of special concern, given the prospects for producing coal liquids in the mid to long- term. 13

In Chapters 6 and 7 the committee identified ample opportunities for major contributions to fuels and power generation programs from advanced research. However, DOE's budget reductions for advanced research are not commensurate with the requirements for advancement of coal technology, notably the increasing needs for lower-cost, more efficient, and more environmentally acceptable use of coal.

• There are increased needs and opportunities for advanced research directly related to achieving cost reduction and improved performance goals for advanced power systems and fuels production.

• The recent trend in decreasing support for coal-related advanced research activities is not commensurate with the expanding needs to support DOE's mission.

Recommendations 14

• *Increased resources should be devoted to advanced research activities to support DOE's strategic objectives for coal, with emphasis on needs identified for mid- and long-term improvements in efficiency, emissions reduction, and cost for both power generation and fuels production.

THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 (EPACT)

In this section the committee's conclusions and recommendations are interpreted in the context of the individual sections of EPACT that relate to coal (see Chapter 1 and Appendix B ).

There is considerable overlap between the different coal-related sections of EPACT. For example, Section 1301 requires DOE to establish RDD&C programs on coal-based power generation technologies. One of the technologies addressed by DOE in this context is MHD, which is also addressed specifically in Section 1311. Similarly, issues relating to the cost-competitive conversion of coal to fuels are addressed in Sections 1301, 1305, 1309, and 1312.

In addition, there is very wide variation in the scope of different EPACT provisions. Section 1301 addresses the whole range of coal-based technologies, whereas other sections focus on very specific aspects of coal utilization, such as coal-fired diesel engines or low-rank coal R&D.

For these reasons of overlap and disparity of scope, the committee chose to develop and organize its conclusions and recommendations on the basis of strategic planning scenarios ( Chapter 4 ) rather than by the individual sections of EPACT. The committee's approach has the advantage of providing a robust framework that can readily be adapted to respond to changes in the scenarios.

Table 10-4 summarizes the major EPACT provisions relating to coal, key features of relevant DOE programs, and the committee's comments and ratings in terms of priority for DOE. In assessing priorities for DOE activities, the committee used the criteria developed in Chapter 4 . Prime considerations were the timing and goals of the program in light of the scenarios developed by the committee; the potential for technological success; likely markets; the potential for controlling, reducing, or eliminating environmentally important wastes; and the need for DOE participation, given the current development status of the technology, and other industrial and federal programs. For example, if technologies are already available commercially, the committee generally recommended a low priority in

this area for DOE activities. Similarly, if there is currently extensive R&D activity in the private sector, the committee recommended that DOE leverage this effort.

The committee concluded that DOE has responded to some degree to all the sections of EPACT addressed in the study. However, the extent of the response varies widely. In the case of power generation systems, addressed primarily in EPACT Section 1301, the DOE Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems program is very responsive to the EPACT requirements to "ensure a reliable electricity supply" while complying with environmental regulations and controlling emissions (see Chapter 7 ). The committee endorses DOE's approach to the development of advanced coal-based power generation technologies, given the likely need for new, clean, efficient coal-based power generation capacity in the mid to long-term (2006 through 2040). The committee's recommendations for priorities in developing the possible technology options are presented earlier in this chapter (under "Power Generation Systems").

The need to commercialize coal-based technologies, preferably by 2010, is addressed in EPACT sections 1301 and 1321. The committee concluded that DOE's CCT program represents an excellent start in the area of commercializing advanced power generation technologies, but, as noted above, plans need to be developed by DOE for activities beyond the conclusion of current CCT activities.

In contrast to DOE's generally adequate response to the sections of EPACT addressing power generation, its activities in coal liquefaction fall short of EPACT requirements, the committee concluded. As noted in Chapters 6 and 9 , there was a significant reduction in funding of coal liquefaction activities between FY 1993 and FY 1994, and a significant further reduction is proposed for FY 1995. Given the likely growth in demand for coal liquids over the mid- to long-term periods (see Chapter 4 ) and the decline in industry-supported liquefaction research, the priority that EPACT gives to DOE liquefaction activities appears to be well founded.

Coproduction of electricity and other products, such as coal liquids, also is accorded relatively high importance by EPACT (sections 1304, 1305, and 1312), but it does not represent a major element of DOE's current program. Given the likely future growth in the use of coal for clean fuels and specialty products and the potential for economically attractive manufacture based on coproduction (see Chapter 6 ), the committee considers increased DOE effort in assessing coproduct systems or "coal refineries," in keeping with EPACT requirements, to be appropriate.

EPACT Section 1307 requires DOE to assess the feasibility of establishing a national clearinghouse for the exchange and dissemination of information on coal-related technology. The committee noted that means already exist to disseminate DOE reports on coal technologies to interested parties. Thus, any clearinghouse activity should be broader in scope and should involve participants from inside and outside DOE. However, the committee considered that the need

TABLE 10-4 EPACT Requirements and DOE Coal Program Compared a

• Advanced clean/efficient power systems:

High priority for DOE—adequate level of effort (see text for discussion and priorities)

See below, also under Section 1301, Advanced Research, for comments on AR&ET.

See Section 1311 for comments on MHD program.

• Advanced clean fuels (see also Section 1312):

High priority for DOE—additional effort recommended

• Focused program on high-efficiency gasification needed

• Increased emphasis on liquefaction recommended (see Section 1312)

• Continue current limited effort in coal preparation.

• Advanced research (Advanced Research and Technology Demonstration, plus specific technologies for fuels and power systems), with major activities including:

• The balance between short- and long- term activities within the FE coal R&D program should be reassessed, based on strategic planning extending beyond 2010. (See text for discussion.)

• Under DOE contract, Riley Research conducted tests in circulating atmospheric fluidized-bed on cofiring of coal with de-inking paper sludge and high-Btu ash
• DOE sponsored pilot-scale work on cofiring of coal and infectious hospital waste; subsequent demonstration in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, will involve 50 percent DOE cost share.
• DOE has assessed technical and economic feasibility of direct liquefaction of coal with hydrocarbon- or paper-based wastes to produce premium transportation fuels; follow-up program proposed.

Adequate level of DOE effort

• Gasification system approach best addressed by private sector.
• Minimal DOE participation required for hospital waste program. No major R&D issues to be addressed; requires

additional stack cleanup.

Waste methane—see Section 1306

• Above program should include assessment of economic feasibility of coproduction, refining, and utilization of coal-based products (see Section 1305)
• Syngas production activity supports concept development for coproduction of coal-derived fuels and chemicals in conjunction with electric power (see Section 1312, indirect liquefaction).
• Mild gasification/coal refinery activities address production of coke and chemical intermediates (see also Sections 1305 and 1312).

See Section 1312

Low priority for DOE

• Decreasing market for coke
• CCT program on mild gasification adequate (see Section 1305)
• DOE supporting Carbon Products Consortium in development of coal-based alternative feedstocks and establishment of links with industry. No further funding requested for FY 1995.

Section 1305: Coal Refinery Program

• Conduct RDD&C program for coal refining technologies for high-sulfur coals, low-sulfur coals, subbituminous coals, and lignites to produce transportation fuels, compliance boiler fuels, fuel additives, lubricants, and chemical feedstocks, alone or with power generation.
• Coal refinery activity included under advanced clean fuels research (Section 1312) addresses coproduction of electricity and coal liquids.

High priority for DOE

• Worthwhile concept; systems assessments have indicated promising areas, especially coproduction of syngas liquids with electricity.
• Further assessments needed to identify and exploit opportunities.
• Mild gasification is part of ongoing CCT program.
• Adequately covered by CCT program.

• DOE not currently conducting any research specific to metallurgical coal development.
• Information on gas content in 16 U.S. coal basins available in METC database.
• Commercial technology exists to burn metallurgical coal as boiler fuel or use in steelmaking.

Low priority for DOE—inactive

• No new technology needed to burn as boiler fuel.
• Activities relating to metallurgical coal as a source of coalbed methane should be included in Section 1306 programs.

• Direct liquefaction, including advanced liquefaction processes, coprocessing with waste materials, and innovative process concepts
• DOE should maintain an active program since industry activity in this area is declining.
• Innovative approaches should be encouraged.
• Large pilot and demonstration plants not required at this time.

for such an activity should be established by a market survey of potential users prior to significant investment of resources.

In comparing all the activities within DOE's current coal program and those mandated by EPACT, the committee noted a significant discrepancy in priorities. The current DOE program focuses on relatively near-term activities, notably the development, demonstration, and commercialization of coal-based power generation systems by 2010, at the expense of longer-term research programs. Such longer-term programs would position the United States to respond to future energy scenarios in which coal assumes increasing importance for uses other than power generation. In contrast to the DOE approach, the coal-related provisions of EPACT endorse the development of a longer-term, more balanced spectrum of coal-based technologies. The committee's recommendation that strategic planning for coal should address requirements for periods to the middle of the next century is more consistent with the EPACT approach than with DOE's current priorities.

• The current DOE program is appropriate and responsive to EPACT sections related to coal-based electric power generation.
• EPACT places significant emphasis on programs related to the expansion of coal use for manufacture of liquid and gaseous fuels and specialty products.
• The DOE program covering uses of coal beyond power generation has decreased in recent years.
• The need for a national clearinghouse to exchange and disseminate data on coal technologies has not yet been established.

Recommendations 15

• There should be increased DOE support of fundamental and applied research aimed at longer-term uses of coal (2006-2040) to balance decreased industry research, guarantee the maintenance of U.S. technological expertise in this area, and position the United States to respond to future energy needs.
• *Within the DOE coal program there should be an increasing emphasis on the production of clean fuels and other carbon-based products over time.
• No further action should be taken to establish a national clearinghouse until a need has been established based on a market survey of potential users.

Clinton, W.J., and A. Gore, Jr. 1993. The Climate Change Action Plan. Washington, D.C.: The White House.

COGARN. 1987. Coal Gasification: Direct Applications and Synthesis of Chemicals and Fuels. U.S. Department of Energy Coal Gasification Research Needs Working Group, DOE/ER-0326. Washington, D.C.: DOE.

DOE. 1991. Report to Congress: Coal Refineries: A Definition and Example Concepts. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/FE-0240P. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

DOE. 1993a. Clean Coal Technologies: Research, Development, and Demonstration Program Plan. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/FE-0284. Washington, D.C.: DOE.

DOE. 1993b. Direct Coal Liquefaction Baseline Design and System Analysis: Final Report on Baseline and Improved Baseline, Executive Summary. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, under contract no. DEAC22 90PC89857. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: DOE.

DOE. 1994a. Strategic Plan: Fueling a Competitive Economy. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/S0108. Washington, D.C.: DOE.

DOE. 1994b. Fossil Energy Advanced Research: Strategic Plan. Review draft, July 15. Washington, D.C.: DOE.

DOE. 1994c. Comprehensive Report to Congress: Clean Coal Technology Program, Completing the Mission. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

EIA. 1994. Annual Energy Outlook 1994. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0383(94). Washington, D.C.: DOE.

EPRI. 1993. TAGTM Technical Assessment Guide. EPRI TR-102275-VIR7. Vol. 1, Rev. 7. Palo Alto, California: EPRI.

Frey, H.C., E.S. Rubin, and U.M. Diwekar. 1994. Modeling uncertainties in advanced technologies: Application to a coal gasification system with hot gas cleanup. Energy 19(4): 449-463.

Gray, D. 1994. Coal Refineries: An Update. Prepared for Sandia National Laboratories by the Mitre Corporation under contract no. AF-7166. McLean, Virginia: The Mitre Corporation.

Maude, C. 1993. Advanced power generation—A Comparative Study of Design Options for Coal. London: International Energy Agency Coal Research.

Merrow, E., K.E. Phillips, and C.W. Myers. 1981. Understanding Cost Growth and Performance Shortfalls in Pioneer Process Plants. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Rand Corporation, R-2569-DOE. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation.

NCC. 1994. Clean Coal Technology for Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: National Coal Council.

NRC. 1992. The National Energy Modeling System. Energy Engineering Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Tam, S.S., D.C. Pollock, and J.M. Fox. 1993. The combination of once-through Fischer-Tropsch with baseload IGCC technology. P. 306 in Alternate Energy '93 held April 28-30, 1993 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Arlington, Virginia: Council on Alternate Fuels.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was given a mandate in the 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) to pursue strategies in coal technology that promote a more competitive economy, a cleaner environment, and increased energy security.

Coal evaluates DOE's performance and recommends priorities in updating its coal program and responding to EPACT.

This volume provides a picture of likely future coal use and associated technology requirements through the year 2040. Based on near-, mid-, and long-term scenarios, the committee presents a framework for DOE to use in identifying R&D strategies and in making detailed assessments of specific programs.

Coal offers an overview of coal-related programs and recent budget trends and explores principal issues in future U.S. and foreign coal use.

The volume evaluates DOE Fossil Energy R&D programs in such key areas as electric power generation and conversion of coal to clean fuels.

Coal will be important to energy policymakers, executives in the power industry and related trade associations, environmental organizations, and researchers.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Heat transfer efficiency prediction of coal-fired power plant boiler based on ceemdan-nar considering ash fouling.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

2. problem statement, 2.1. cleanliness factor, 2.2. data preprocessing, 4. dynamic neural network, 4.1. elman neural network, 4.2. nonlinear autoregressive neural network, 4.3. network structure design, 5. results and discussions, 5.1. dataset description, 5.2. case analysis, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• China Electricity Council Statistics and Data Center. Available online: https://www.cec.org.cn/detail/index.html?0-285907 (accessed on 22 July 2020).
• Shi, Y.; Li, Q.; Wen, J.; Cui, F.; Pang, X.; Jia, J.; Zeng, J.; Wang, J. Soot Blowing Optimization for Frequency in Economizers to Improve Boiler Performance in Coal-Fired Power Plant. Energies 2019 , 12 , 2901. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wen, J.; Shi, Y.; Pang, X.; Jia, J.; Zeng, J. Optimization of Boiler Soot Blowing Based on Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman Equation. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 20850–20862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valero, A.; Cortes, C. Ash fouling in coal-fired utility boilers. Monitoring and optimization of on-load cleaning. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 1996 , 22 , 189–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pattanayak, L.; Ayyagari, S.P.; Sahu, J.N. Optimization of Sootblowing frequency to improve boiler performance and reduce combustion pollution. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2015 , 17 , 1897–1906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Q.; Chen, X.; Shi, Y.; Zeng, J. Study on optimization of soot blowing based on monitoring model of coal-fired power station soot accumulation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC), Xi’an, China, 30 November–2 December 2018; pp. 196–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou, H.; Zhang, H.; Li, L.; Zhou, B. Ash Deposit Shedding during Co-combustion of Coal and Rice Hull Using a Digital Image Technique in a Pilot-Scale Furnace. Energy Fuels 2013 , 27 , 7126–7137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tong, S.; Zhang, X.; Tong, Z.; Wu, Y.; Tang, N.; Zhong, W. Online Ash Fouling Prediction for Boiler Heating Surfaces based on Wavelet Analysis and Support Vector Regression. Energies 2020 , 13 , 59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Peña, B.; Teruel, E.; Díez, L.I. Soft-computing models for soot-blowing optimization in coal-fired utility boilers. Appl. Soft Comput. 2011 , 11 , 1657–1688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perez, L.; Ladevie, B.; Tochon, P.; Batsale, J.C. A new transient thermal fouling probe for cross flow tubular heat exchangers. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2009 , 52 , 407–414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Mirek, P. Field testing of acoustic cleaning system working in 670mw(th) CFB boiler. Chem. Process Eng. 2013 , 34 , 283–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, Y.; Wang, J.; Liu, Z. On-line monitoring of ash fouling and soot-blowing optimization for convective heat exchanger in coal-fired power plant boiler. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015 , 78 , 39–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jha, M.S.; Bressel, M.; Ould-Bouamama, B.; Dauphin-Tanguy, G. Dauphin-Tanguy, Particle filter-based hybrid prognostics of proton exchange membrane fuel cell in bond graph framework. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2016 , 95 , 216–230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, J.; Hu, K.; Cheng, Y.; Zhu, H.; Shao, X.; Wang, Y. Data-driven remaining useful life prediction via multiple sensor signals and deep long short-term memory neural network. ISA Trans. 2020 , 97 , 214–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, Z.; Matovic, D. Heat flux monitoring in biomass-fired boilers: Possible areas of improvement. In Proceedings of the LASTED International Conference on Environmental Management and Engineering, Banff, AB, Canada, 6–8 July 2009; pp. 33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, S.; Shen, G.; An, L.; Li, G. Ash fouling monitoring based on acoustic pyrometry in boiler furnaces. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015 , 84 , 74–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harding, N.S.; O’Connor, D.C. Ash deposition impacts in the power industry. Fuel Process. Technol. 2007 , 88 , 1082–1093. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jidong, L.; Dingpo, L.; Gang, L.; Kai, S. Research on fuzzy model for the soot blowing optimization in utility boilers. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. 2005 , 33 , 35–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sivathanu, A.K.; Subramanian, S. Extended Kalman filter for fouling detection in thermal power plant reheater. Control Eng. Pract. 2018 , 73 , 91–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, S.; Zeng, X.; Qi, C.; Zhou, H. Mathematical modeling and experimental validation of ash deposition in a pulverized-coal boiler. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017 , 110 , 720–729. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peña, B.; Teruel, E.; Díez, L.I. Towards soot-blowing optimization in superheaters. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013 , 61 , 737–746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumari, S.A.; Srinivasan, S. Ash fouling monitoring and soot-blow optimization for reheater in thermal power plant. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019 , 149 , 62–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, Y.; Wen, J.; Cui, F.; Wang, J. An Optimization Study on Soot-Blowing of Air Preheaters in Coal-Fired Power Plant Boilers. Energies 2019 , 12 , 958. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ma, Z.; Iman, F.; Lu, P.; Sears, R.; Kong, L.; Rokanuzzaman, A.S.; McCollor, D.P.; Benson, S.A. A comprehensive slagging and fouling prediction tool for coal-fired boilers and its validation/application. Fuel Process. Technol. 2007 , 88 , 1035–1043. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, Y.; Wang, J. Ash fouling monitoring and key variables analysis for coal fired power plant boiler. Therm. Sci. 2015 , 19 , 253–265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Q.; Yan, P.; Liu, J.; Shi, Y.; Yu, D. Prediction of Pollution State of Heating Surface in Coal-Fired Utility Boilers. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 206132–206145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, M.; Shi, Y.; Cui, F.; Wen, J.; Zeng, J. Research on Gray Prediction of Heated Surface Combining Empirical Mode Decomposition and Long Short-term Memory Network. In Proceedings of the 2020 16th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV), Shenzhen, China, 13–15 December 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Romeo, L.M.; Gareta, R. Neural network for evaluating boiler behaviour. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006 , 26 , 1530–1536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teruel, E.; Cortes, C.; Diez, L.I.; Arauzo, I. Monitoring and prediction of fouling in coal-fired utility boilers using neural networks. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2005 , 60 , 5035–5048. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.; Peng, G.; Zhu, Z.; Li, S. A novel deep learning method based on attention mechanism for bearing remaining useful life prediction. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020 , 86 , 11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bi, F.; Ma, T.; Wang, X. Development of a novel knock characteristic detection method for gasoline engines based on wavelet-denoising and EMD decomposition. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019 , 117 , 517–536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.J.; Sun, X.; Cheng, Q.; Cui, Q. An innovative random forest-based nonlinear ensemble paradigm of improved feature extraction and deep learning for carbon price forecasting. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 762 , 13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romeo, L.M.; Gareta, R. Fouling control in biomass boilers. Biomass Bioenergy 2009 , 33 , 854–861. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.P.; Tang, H.M. An improved ELMAN neural network with piecewise weighted gradient for time series prediction. Neurocomputing 2019 , 359 , 199–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, L.; Wang, F.; Zhang, J.J.; Ren, W.H. Remaining useful life prediction of ultrasonic motor based on Elman neural network with improved particle swarm optimization. Measurement 2019 , 143 , 27–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; Xue, Q.; Yang, X.; Yin, H.; Qu, Y.; Li, X.; Wu, J. A novel prediction model for the inbound passenger flow of urban rail transit. Inf. Sci. 2021 , 566 , 347–363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, B.X.; Hu, J.P.; Liu, C.; Hong, B. Data pre-processing and artificial neural networks for tidal level prediction at the Pearl River Estuary. J. Hydroinformatics 2021 , 23 , 368–382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Büyükşahin, Ü.Ç.; Ertekin, Ş. Improving forecasting accuracy of time series data using a new ARIMA-ANN hybrid method and empirical mode decomposition. Neurocomputing 2019 , 361 , 151–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Share and Cite

Shi, Y.; Li, M.; Wen, J.; Yang, Y.; Cui, F.; Zeng, J. Heat Transfer Efficiency Prediction of Coal-Fired Power Plant Boiler Based on CEEMDAN-NAR Considering Ash Fouling. Energies 2021 , 14 , 4000. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14134000

Shi Y, Li M, Wen J, Yang Y, Cui F, Zeng J. Heat Transfer Efficiency Prediction of Coal-Fired Power Plant Boiler Based on CEEMDAN-NAR Considering Ash Fouling. Energies . 2021; 14(13):4000. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14134000

Shi, Yuanhao, Mengwei Li, Jie Wen, Yanru Yang, Fangshu Cui, and Jianchao Zeng. 2021. "Heat Transfer Efficiency Prediction of Coal-Fired Power Plant Boiler Based on CEEMDAN-NAR Considering Ash Fouling" Energies 14, no. 13: 4000. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14134000

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Advertisement

Supported by

Electricity From Coal Is Pricey. Should Consumers Have to Pay?

Environmental groups are making a new economic argument against coal, the heaviest polluting fossil fuel. Some regulators are listening.

• Share full article

By Minho Kim

For decades, environmentalists fought power plants that burn coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, by highlighting their pollution: soot, mercury and the carbon dioxide that is dangerously heating the planet.

But increasingly, opponents have been making an economic argument, telling regulators that electricity produced by coal is more expensive for consumers than power generated by solar, wind and other renewable sources.

And that’s been a winning strategy recently in two states where regulators forbade utilities from recouping their losses from coal-fired plants by passing those costs to ratepayers. The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, two leading environmental groups, are hoping that if utilities are forced to absorb all the costs of burning coal, it could speed the closures of uneconomical plants.

The groups are focused on utilities that generate electricity from coal and also distribute it. Those utilities have historically been allowed to pass their operating losses to customers, leaving them with costly electric bills while the plants emitted carbon dioxide that could have been avoided with a different fuel source, according to the environmental groups.

About 75 percent of the nation’s roughly 200 coal-fired power plants are owned by utilities that control both generation and distribution.

In 2023, utilities across the United States incurred about $3 billion in losses by running coal-fired power plants when it was cheaper to buy power from lower-cost, less polluting sources, according to RMI, a nonprofit research organization focused on clean energy. About 96 percent of those losses were incurred by plants that controlled both power generation and distribution, the organization said.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Boom and Bust Coal 2024

• Global Energy Monitor, CREA, E3G, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, SFOC, Kiko Network, CAN Europe, Bangladesh Groups, Trend Asia, ACJCE, Chile Sustentable, POLEN, ICM, and Arayara
• Download the English version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the French version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Hindi version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Spanish version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Russian version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Turkish version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Chinese version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Vietnamese version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Portuguese version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Korean version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Japanese version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Indonesian version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”
• Download the Bengali version of “Boom and Bust Coal 2024”

Boom and Bust is an annual survey of the global coal fleet by Global Energy Monitor and partners. The report analyzes key trends in coal power capacity and tracks various stages of capacity development including planned retirements. This provides key insights into the status of the global phaseout of coal power and evaluates progress towards the world’s climate targets and commitments. 

The data comes from GEM’s Global Coal Plant Tracker, an online database updated biannually that identifies and maps every known coal-fired generating unit and every new unit proposed since January 1, 2010 (30 MW and larger). 

Global Energy Monitor's data serves as a vital international reference point used by organizations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , International Energy Agency and the United Nations as well as global media outlets .

Global operating coal capacity grew by 2% in 2023, with China driving two- thirds of new additions, and a small uptick was seen for the first time since 2019 in the rest of the world, according to Global Energy Monitor's annual survey of the global coal fleet. 

Data in the Global Coal Plant Tracker show that 69.5 GW of coal power capacity was commissioned while 21.1 GW was retired in 2023, resulting in a net annual increase of 48.4 GW for the year and a global total capacity of 2,130 GW. This is the highest net increase in operating coal capacity since 2016.

The global operating coal fleet grew further, including rise outside China for first time since 2019 as retirements slowed

Annual change in coal-fired power capacity, in gigawatts (GW)

A surge in new coal plants coming online in China drove this increase — 47.4 GW, or roughly two- thirds of global additions — coupled with new capacity in Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Japan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Korea, Greece, and Zimbabwe. 

In total, 22.1 GW was commissioned and 17.4 GW was retired outside of China, resulting in a 4.7 GW net increase to the operating coal fleet.

Although new retirement plans and phaseout commitments continued to emerge, less coal capacity was retired in 2023 than in any other single year in more than a decade.

Lower retirements in the U.S. and Europe contributed to the coal capacity upswing. At 9.7 GW, the U.S. contributed nearly half of capacity retired in 2023, a drop from the 14.7 GW retired last year and its 21.7 GW record high in 2015. 

European Union member states and the United Kingdom represented roughly a quarter of retirements, with the U.K. (3.1 GW), Italy (0.6 GW), and Poland (0.5 GW) leading the region’s retirements for the year. 

But the accelerated growth in coal capacity may be short-lived, as low retirement rates in 2023 that contributed to coal’s rise are expected to pick up speed in the U.S. and Europe, offsetting the blip. Heightened capacity additions would also be tempered if China takes immediate action to ensure it meets its target of shutting down 30 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity by 2025.

Coal’s fortunes this year are an anomaly, as all signs point to reversing course from this accelerated expansion. But countries that have coal plants to retire need to do so more quickly, and countries that have plans for new coal plants must make sure these are never built. Otherwise we can forget about meeting our goals in the Paris Agreement and reaping the benefits that a swift transition to clean energy will bring. Flora Champenois, GEM Coal Program Director

The trajectory the global coal fleet takes from here depends to an extent on new construction starts — one of the key indicators of growth in the sector — which declined outside of China for the second year in a row and hit a record annual low since data collection began in 2015. In China, the exact opposite happened, with new construction starts increasing for the fourth year in a row and hitting an eight-year high. 

The report shows that construction started on less than 4 GW of new projects outside China in 2023, well below the 16 GW annual average between 2015 and 2022 for the same set of countries. Only seven countries, excluding China, appeared to start construction on new coal units last year: one plant each in India, Laos, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Russia, as well as three plants in Indonesia.

Moreover, no coal plant construction has started in Latin America since 2016, and no coal plant construction has started for member countries within the OECD, Europe, or the Middle East since 2019. In Nigeria, the start of foundation work at the mine-mouth Ugboba power station in 2023 was the first known construction start in Africa since 2019.

Gap between China and rest of world widens further on key coal indicators

But China’s continued coal construction surge in 2023 stands in stark contrast to these global trends and offsets gains from dwindling coal capacity elsewhere. 

China’s 70.2 GW of new construction starts in 2023 represents 19 times more than the rest of the world’s 3.7 GW and is the country’s highest annual capacity breaking ground since 2015. 

The new construction starts in China were also nearly quadruple what they were in 2019 when it hit a nine-year annual low of entirely new builds.

In 2023, coal capacity in development globally — including projects in the announced, pre-permit, permitted, and in construction phases — increased from 550.6 GW to 578.2 GW, a 5% increase driven by China.

Progress towards the last coal plant starting construction continues

The global coal landscape has been in transformation for almost a decade, marked by a collapse in the amount of planned coal power plants following the adoption of the Paris Agreement in late 2015. There has been a 68% reduction in global pre-construction capacity since then, and new construction starts are at their lowest outside of China since data collection began.

The past year has seen the OECD and EU continue to progress in their journey away from coal. The operating coal fleet and the pre-construction capacity in the OECD/EU have both declined in 2023, continuing the downward trend since the Paris Agreement.

The total pre-construction capacity is now at 7.1 GW, the lowest level since data collection began for the region. Only four countries, Australia, Japan, Türkiye, and the United States, are still considering coal projects. Türkiye has had seven planned projects put on hold in 2023, but it still accounts for 68% of the planned capacity in the OECD/EU and remains the only OECD country in the global top ten.

Climate concerns, unfavorable economics, and public opposition continue to close the door on many coal plant proposals — and close actual doors at some coal plants. In 2023, twelve new countries committed to No New Coal by becoming members of the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA). 

As of January 2024, 101 countries have either formally committed to No New Coal or have abandoned any coal plans they had in the last decade. This shows a growing awareness of the need to shift to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources, even in places where coal has previously been a major part of the energy mix.

Almost all countries have reduced their announced, pre-permit, permitted, and construction coal capacity since 2015. Only six countries have increased coal power capacity under development since 2015, and the biggest increase did not exceed 3 GW. In contrast, coal power capacity under development in China, India, and Türkiye decreased by more than 300 GW, 200 GW, and 50 GW, respectively, between 2015 and 2023.

Which countries are still planning more coal?

China and India, the two largest coal consumers globally, continue to substantially influence the global coal narrative, collectively accounting for 82% of the total pre-construction capacity (announced, pre-permit, and permitted) worldwide. 

Outside of China and India, pre-construction capacity is currently at its lowest since data collection began, but growth in these two countries resulted in the total global capacity in pre-construction increasing by 6% in 2023.

This significant concentration highlights China’s increasing dominance in coal capacity development. 

China and ten other countries account for 95% of coal power capacity under consideration

Coal-fired power capacity in pre-construction stages (announced, pre-permit and permitted)

Along with China, ten other countries — India, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Türkiye, Russia, Pakistan, and Vietnam — collectively account for 95% of this capacity. India accounts for nearly half of the planned capacity within these ten countries. 

The remaining 5% is distributed among 21 countries, eleven of which have only one project and are on the brink of achieving the “no new coal” milestone.

Thankfully, various countries are making clear that shutting coal down is possible, and most of the world is closing in on “no new coal.” Of 82 countries with coal power, 47 have reduced or kept operating capacity flat since the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Peru, and the United Arab Emirates have retired or converted their last operating coal plants, while Slovakia, the U.K., and potentially others are projected to join them in 2024.

But despite countries where coal power capacity decreased or stayed flat outnumbering those that have increased it, nearly twice as much coal power capacity has been added globally than retired since Paris. 

The number of new coal power plants coming online has outpaced plant closures over the past eight years, with the world’s coal power capacity actually rising 11% since 2015. 

The majority of the increase has come from China, where overall capacity is 260 GW higher than it was in 2015. Other countries like India, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea and Japan have also recorded notable increases to their operating coal capacity.

Most coal capacity still lacks a coal closure commitment 

In order to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement goals and put the world on a pathway to no more than 1.5°C of global warming, reducing the use of coal for power generation is the single most important source of emissions reductions. 

To align with that goal, modeling by the International Energy Agency and others finds that OECD countries should eliminate coal power by 2030 and the rest of the world by 2040.

Countries must ramp up phaseout commitments, as well as ensure announcements are translated into plant-by-plant retirement plans. 

Just 15% (317 GW) of the global operating capacity has a commitment to retire in line with these commitments. Another 10% (210 GW) has a closure commitment that needs to be sped up to keep up with the world's climate goals. 

And although the vast majority of operating global coal capacity is now captured by some type of national net zero or other pledge, 75% (1,626 GW) still lacks a coal closure commitment.

Most coal power capacity needs a closure commitment

Coal-fired power capacity by phaseout status, excluding net zero commitments

Phasing out operating coal power by 2040 would require an average of 126 GW of retirements per year for the next 17 years, the equivalent of about two coal plants per week. Accounting for coal plants under construction and in pre-construction (578 GW) would require even steeper cuts.

Boom and Bust Coal 2024 is a joint effort by Global Energy Monitor, Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), E3G, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, Solutions for Our Climate, Kiko Network, Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED), Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), Waterkeepers Bangladesh, Dhoritri Rokhhay Amra (DHORA), Trend Asia, Alliance for Climate Justice and Clean Energy, Chile Sustentable, POLEN Transiciones Justas, Iniciativa Climática de México, and Arayara. Beyond Fossil Fuels also joined the Turkish version of the report.

Download Full Report

Modal content

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

US slows plans to retire coal-fired plants as power demand from AI surges

Try unlimited access only $1 for 4 weeks.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, ft professional, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• FT App on Android & iOS
• FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
• 20+ curated newsletters
• Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
• FT Videos & Podcasts
• 20 monthly gift articles to share
• Lex: FT's flagship investment column
• 15+ Premium newsletters by leading experts
• FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition
• Weekday Print Edition
• Videos & Podcasts
• Premium newsletters
• 10 additional gift articles per month
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Everything in Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• 10 monthly gift articles to share
• Everything in Print
• Make and share highlights
• FT Workspace
• Markets data widget
• Subscription Manager
• Workflow integrations
• Occasional readers go free
• Volume discount

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

• POWER Plant ID
• POWER Events
• Connected Plant
• Distributed Energy
• International
• COVID-19 Coverage
• Carbon Capture
• Climate change
• Cybersecurity
• Distributed Power
• Electric Vehicles
• Energy Storage
• Environmental
• Instrumentation & Controls
• Legal & Regulatory
• Legislative
• Ocean/Marine
• Physical security
• Plant Design
• Power Demand
• Research and Development
• Supply Chains
• Tidal Power
• Waste to Energy
• About POWER
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Settings
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging
• Accessibility Statement

GOP Lawmakers Aim to Protect Coal and Gas-Fired Power Plants from EPA Rules

Forty-three Republican senators (along with one Independent) introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval on June 5 to overturn emissions rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which they say target existing coal-fired power plants and new gas-fired plants. The action was led by U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. In the House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Troy Balderson (R-Ohio) simultaneously led 138 of his colleagues in introducing an identical resolution.

“With this Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, every member of Congress will have the opportunity to protect America’s energy future, heed the warnings of our nation’s electric grid operators, and adhere to the precedent set by the Supreme Court,” Capito said.

The resolution comes after the EPA simultaneously finalized four major environmental rules covering greenhouse gases (GHG), air toxics, wastewater discharges, and coal combustion residuals from fossil fuel-fired power plants on April 25. Opponents of the GHG rule have dubbed it Clean Power Plan 2.0 in reference to a rule first rolled out during the Obama administration. The Supreme Court overturned the original Clean Power Plan with its decision in the case of West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency on June 30, 2022.

Republican lawmakers have said the new rules issued by the EPA “impose unrealistic emissions requirements on existing coal-fired power plants and newly constructed gas-fired power plants.” Specifically, the resolution aims to disapprove the EPA’s “New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule.”

“The Clean Power Plan 2.0 was created by and for extreme activists, ignoring the real-world harm it will cause to our electric grid and American energy security,” said Balderson. “Slashing our baseload energy production while power demand continues to climb at historic levels is shortsighted and will have a catastrophic impact for Ohioans. This Congressional Review Act resolution allows Congress to step in and reverse the Biden administration’s efforts to practically eliminate our reliable power generation by 2032.”

Many groups reportedly support the CRA resolution, including several coal and mining associations, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), and America’s Power (the national trade organization for the U.S. coal fleet and its supply chain). At least two major power companies—American Electric Power (AEP) and Duke Energy—are also said to support the resolution. Notably, the resolution was preceded by more than two dozen states and a handful of trade groups filing separate lawsuits challenging various parts of the rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 9.

In a statement issued by NRECA following the group’s filing of a lawsuit against the EPA that day, Jim Matheson, the group’s CEO, said: “Reliable electricity is the foundation of the American economy. EPA’s rule recklessly undermines that foundation by forcing the premature closure of power plants that are critical to keeping the lights on—especially as America increasingly relies on electricity to power the economy.”

Likewise, Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of America’s Power, issued a statement on May 25, saying, “EPA’s rule is designed with one purpose in mind: to force the premature retirement of most, if not all, coal-fired power plants in the U.S. The rule would accomplish this goal by offering utilities three no-win compliance options that lead to more coal retirements. These premature retirements are a clear threat to grid reliability, as grid operators have pointed out recently, and to the economic health of the nation’s coal supply chain.”

Concerning the CRA resolution, Capito said, “This vote is an important one because the Biden administration’s Clean Power Plan 2.0 makes it clear it will stand with climate activists, regardless of the harm that is sure to be done to families, workers, and communities across West Virginia and the rest of the country. I appreciate so many of my Senate and House colleagues for joining this bipartisan effort to reject another unrealistic, overreaching regulation, and I look forward to the vote.”

— Aaron Larson is POWER’s executive editor ( @POWERmagazine ).

SHARE this article

Experimental and numerical study the effect of using rice husk in the co-firing process on thermal efficiency and exhaust gas emissions at coal fired power plant

• Purba, Hendri Aman
• Dwiyantoro, Bambang Arip

The rapid growth of industry in developing countries that could not be avoided in harmony with the increase in air pollution resulting from the rest of the combustion flue gas industry, one of which is a Coal Fired Power Plant that also be a source of emissions, in addition, the high demand for fossil fuels in the future so there will be scarcity of fuel, then it takes the innovation of the use of biomass fuels (renewable energy). Experiments and simulations were performed at PLTU Pangkalan Susu on Load 135 MW with the testing of Co-Firing biomass rice husk on 3 (three) testing models, namely the mixing of biomass 3%, 5% and 7% with coal. From the results of experiment testing and simulation of ansys fluent comparison between pure coal combustion and co-firing, a decrease in boiler efficiency was obtained by 0.8%, a decrease in specific fuel consumsion by 1.15%, an increase in the efficiency of force draft fans by 0.45%, an increase in primary air fan efficiency by 0.35%, a decrease in the use of the mill itself by 2.26%, a decrease in net plant heat rate by 1.89%, a decrease in SO2 exhaust emissions by 29.22%, a decrease in CO exhaust emissions by 0.57% and an increase in CO2 exhaust emissions by 1.99%.

• INNOVATION IN MECHANICAL AND THERMAL SYSTEMS

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

‘War on coal’ rhetoric heats up as Biden seeks to curb pollution with election looming

The coal-fired Colstrip Generating Station is seen behind youths playing baseball on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, in Colstrip, Mont. Republicans and some Democrats are pushing back against the Biden administration’s plans to curb coal pollution and end new mining leases for the fuel in the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)

Ken Wooley with Westmoreland Mining, right, speaks with Republican Sen. Steve Daines, center and Montana Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte as they stand in a piece of heavy equipment at the Rosebud coal mine, Tuesday, May 28, 2024, in Colstrip, Mont. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)

A mechanical shovel is seen being used for reclamation activity in an area that had been mined for coal at the Rosebud Mine, Tuesday, May 28, 2024, in Colstrip, Mont. The mine serves a nearby power plant that’s become a political flashpoint ahead of the 2024 election after the Biden administration finalized new pollution rules for coal plants. (Larry Mayer/The Billings Gazette via AP)

Montana Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, right, talks about Biden administration policies impacting the coal industry as Republican Sen. Steve Daines, center, and NorthWestern Energy President Brian Bird look on during a roundtable meeting with coal executives and local officials at the Rosebud mine, on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, in Colstrip, Mont. Gianforte said electricity prices could go up because of the Democratic administration’s policies. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)

Republican Sen. Steve Daines speaks with a worker at Westmoreland Mining’s Rosebud coal mine Tuesday, May 28, 2024, in Colstrip, Mont. Daines and other Republicans are pushing back against new restrictions against coal-burning power plants and coal leases on federal lands from the Biden administration. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)

Montana Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, left, and Republican Sen. Steve Daines listen to a Westmoreland Mining representative during a tour of the company’s Rosebud mine in southeastern Montana, Tuesday, May 28, 2024, in Colstrip, Montana. Coal use has been declining in the U.S. for more than a decade. ( (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)

The coal-fired Colstrip Generating Station is seen behind youths playing baseball on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, in Colstrip, Mont. The EPA says the plant is the highest emitter of toxic metal pollutants in the nation. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown)

• Copy Link copied

COLSTRIP, Mont. (AP) — Actions by President Joe Biden’s administration that could hasten closures of heavily polluting coal power plants and the mines that supply them are reviving Republican rhetoric about a so-called “war on coal” ahead of the November election.

The front line in the political battle over the fuel is in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana, a sparsely populated section of the Great Plains with the nation’s largest coal mines. It’s also home to a massive power plant in Colstrip, Montana , that emits more toxic air pollutants such as lead and arsenic than any other U.S. facility of its kind, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA last month finalized a suite of rules that could force the Colstrip Generating Station to shut down or spend an estimated $400 million to clean up its emissions within the next several years. Another proposal, from the U.S. Interior Department, would end new leasing of taxpayer-owned coal reserves in the Powder River Basin, clouding the future of mines including Westmoreland Mining’s Rosebud Mine that provides about 6 million tons of fuel annually for Colstrip.

Eight years ago during his first White House run, Donald Trump stoked populist anger against government regulation by highlighting anti-coal measures taken under former President Barack Obama. The latest moves against coal have teed up the issue again for Republicans seeking to unseat Biden in the November election. Some coal-state Democrats also raised concerns.

“This onslaught of new rules is going to kill jobs and will kill communities like Colstrip,” Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines said during a visit to Rosebud Mine this week with Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte. “What will change this outcome is an election and a new administration.”

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Democracy: American democracy has overcome big stress tests since 2020. More challenges lie ahead in 2024.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.
• Read the latest: Follow AP’s complete coverage of this year’s election.

U.S. coal consumption dropped precipitously over the past decade as cheap natural gas and renewables expanded. Yet coal’s political potency endures as detractors try to further curb burning of the fuel that’s a major contributor to climate change and air pollution.

It remains an economic mainstay in communities such as Colstrip, generating jobs where workers can earn $100,000 annually, according to union officials.

The Biden administration defended the latest restrictions on coal as necessary to reduce harmful pollutants, improve public health and address court rulings over climate change.

A Biden campaign representative noted that coal’s decline continued during Trump’s presidency.

“There is no war on coal, there is only a fight for our energy future,” campaign spokesperson James Singer said. “Under President Biden, the United States is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades.”

Even with the ban on new coal leases, companies already hold leases on more than 4 billion tons of coal on taxpayer-owned lands. And administration officials say that’s enough to sustain mining for decades.

Supporters said the crackdown on pollution from coal plants was long overdue. Its origins trace to 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that directed the EPA to set standards for pollution reduction technologies.

Dr. Robert Merchant, a pulmonologist from Billings, Montana, said research data is clear that pollution from Colstrip and other plants is linked to medical problems including cancers, developmental delays in children and heart attacks.

“The problem with Colstrip or any large industry like that is they’re very good at understanding the economics as it impacts their balance sheets and bottom line,” Merchant said. “Unfortunately, the health effects are not appearing on their bottom line.”

Representatives of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe had urged the Biden administration to adopt the pollution rules to protect air quality on their reservation just south of Colstrip.

The plant opened in the mid-1970s and was later expanded. It towers over Colstrip, a town of about 2,000 people. It’s linked to the Rosebud Mine by miles of conveyor belts that transport a steady supply of coal to the 1,480 megawatt plant, where it is burned to generate electricity for distribution across the state.

Brian Bird, president of Colstrip co-owner NorthWestern Energy, said the characterization of Colstrip by EPA Administrator Michael Regan during Congressional hearings as the “highest emitter in the country” was deceptive because of the plant’s size — one of the largest coal plants west of the Mississippi River. Bird said Colstrip was “in the middle of the pack” in terms of the amount of pollution per megawatt of power generated.

Some Democrats said federal agencies were moving too fast and too aggressively against coal.

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester said the EPA rules “missed the mark” since it could cost hundreds of millions of dollars for Colstrip to come into compliance. In West Virginia — the second largest coal producer behind Wyoming — Sen. Joe Manchin accused Biden of trying to “score short-term political points” by issuing the new rules in an election year.

Manchin announced Friday that he was leaving the Democratic party and registering as an independent, citing the “partisan extremism” of the two major political parties.

Tester is considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the Senate heading into the election, with Republicans needing to pick up just two seats to retake control of the chamber.

His Republican challenger, Tim Sheehy, railed against the “Biden Tester climate cult” following announcement of the ban on new coal leases. Tester spokesperson Eli Cousin said the lawmaker was still reviewing the administration’s proposal.

Manchin is not seeking reelection when his term ends in January. Republican Gov. Jim Justice is running for the seat, and the EPA rules could help push voters into his corner as he faces Democrat Glenn Elliott, the mayor of Wheeling, West Virginia.

Elliott has advocated for more green energy in West Virginia but hasn’t commented on the EPA rules.

EPA officials pledged to work with the Colstrip plant’s owners “to help them find a path forward” in response to concerns from by Tester and other lawmakers. Agency officials said 93% of coal-fired plants had shown they could comply with the new air pollution standards.

“We gave plants the maximum amount of time to comply with the standards we are allowed to under the Clean Air Act — three years plus the possibility of a one-year extension,” EPA spokesperson Shayla Powell said in a statement.

Associated Press reporters Matthew Daly in Washington and Leah Willingham in Charleston, West Virginia, contributed to this story.

Switch language:

Germany to launch 10GW gas power plant tenders in 2024

The facilities are expected to transition to clean hydrogen as part of the country's efforts to move away from fossil fuels.

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

The German government has announced its plans to launch tenders for 10GW of new gas-fired power station capacity in 2024.

Recommended Buyer's Guides

Leading Guide to Cable and Connector Providers for the Power Industry

Leading guide to cloud solutions providers for the power industry.

The facilities are expected to transition to clean hydrogen as part of the country’s efforts to move away from fossil fuels, Reuters has reported.

Go deeper with GlobalData

Gutersloh Energie-Anlage

Heyden power plant, premium insights.

The gold standard of business intelligence.

Find out more

Related Company Profiles

Enbw energie baden-wurttemberg ag, statkraft as.

Economy Minister Robert Habeck indicated that the tenders could be finalised before the 2024 summer break.

Utilities are preparing to bid for subsidies that the government has pledged, as the new plants are intended to support renewable energy sources until a fully green electricity supply is feasible.

Financial support is deemed necessary due to the plants’ intermittent operation, which is dependent on the fluctuating supply from renewables and may not be sufficient to cover their investment costs.

The news agency has quoted public statements from companies on their involvement in the scheme.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

IQONY, a subsidiary of the coal-to-power group Steag, has expressed interest in constructing hydrogen-ready gas-fired plants at several locations, contingent on the government tender conditions.

The company has highlighted the need for timely action from Berlin, as it cannot continue operating coal plants indefinitely.

Uniper CEO Michael Lewis stated in February 2024 that he sees significant potential in the government’s plan and is advocating for rapid implementation.

The company is prepared to begin with 1 to 2GW, subject to acceptable government framework conditions.

However, Lewis believes that the proposed 10GW is not enough to expedite the transition from coal, estimating a need for between 20 and 25GW of new capacity.

Regional utility EnBW is also a probable participant in the tenders, with an interest in sites in the southwest.

Its new CEO Georg Stamatelopoulos has confirmed the company’s interest but noted that the legislative details require further development.

LEAG, a coal miner operating in eastern Germany, has plans for gas-fired power stations at four sites with a combined capacity of at least 3GW, including an 870MW plant at the Schwarze Pumpe site.

RWE , focusing on mining and generation in western Germany, has indicated its capability to construct 3GW capacity within the scope of the tenders.

It has plans for a hydrogen-ready gas turbine plant and has identified additional potential sites.

The German division of Norwegian power utility Statkraft is also considering the government’s plan, prioritising the conversion of its existing gas-fired plants to hydrogen.

Kraftwerke Mainz-Wiesbaden is looking to build a hydrogen-ready gas plant with combined power and district heat capacity at the site of an existing gas engine plant, aiming for commissioning in 2028 if the government strategy aligns with its plans.

Sign up for our daily news round-up!

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

More Relevant

Sri Lanka to overhaul power sector and boost renewable investments

Mhi and egat to explore hydrogen co-firing in thailand's gas turbines, totalenergies to acquire 1.3gw gas power plant in uk for £450m, sign up to the newsletter: in brief, your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

Future Power Technology : Power Technology Focus (monthly)

Thematic Take (monthly)

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.