Possible solution to the coal problem....

Today's post: Wednesday, 12-8-2010

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Today’s post: Possible solution to the coal problem

For several reasons major players in the world’s economy now rely on coal to generate electricity. With cars beginning to switch to electricity for power and the current prediction for peak oil now only a bit over 3 years away, this may even get worse before it gets better.

But the way we use coal now pollutes the air and, on this scale, is a massive contributor to CO2 release and the related global warming.

We’re in a challenging situation to put it mildly.

We actually need the electricity we can get from coal more and that trend will increase as cars begin to run on electricity and oil becomes to expensive to use; but we need just as badly to stop dumping pollutants and CO2 into the air.

I’ve known these things. But even I had no idea of the massive scope and size of this problem. Nor had I known of anything more than somewhat better methods to use coal.

Since last week, I found both things.

I found an article detailing the massive current size of the problem and why a solution to keep using coal is imperative at this point. (Excerpts from the article are below.)

>>> The much better news is that I found that there actually may be a doable solution!

That information is in this post also!

Here’s the article: “December 2010 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE

….two ideas that are taken with complete seriousness by businesses, scientists, and government officials in China and America, and are the basis of the most extensive cooperation now under way between the countries on climate issues.

One is that coal can be used in less damaging, more sustainable ways than it is now.

The other is that it must be used in those ways, because there is no plausible other way to meet what will be, absent an economic or social cataclysm, the world’s unavoidable energy demands.

….the role that coal now plays around the world, and especially for the two biggest energy consumers, America and China.

Overall, coal-burning power plants provide nearly half (about 46 percent this year) of the electricity consumed in the United States. For the record: natural gas supplies another 23 percent, nuclear power about 20 percent, hydroelectric power about 7 percent, and everything else the remaining 4 or 5 percent. The small size of the “everything else” total is worth noting; even if it doubles or triples, the solutions we often hear the most about won’t come close to meeting total demand.

In China, coal-fired plants supply an even larger share of much faster-growing total electric demand: at least 70 percent, with the Three Gorges Dam and similar hydroelectric projects providing about 20 percent, and (in order) natural gas, nuclear power, wind, and solar energy making up the small remainder.

For the world as a whole, coal-fired plants provide about half the total electric supply.

On average, every American uses the electricity produced by 7,500 pounds of coal each year.

Coal will be with us because it is abundant: any projected “peak coal” stage would come many decades after the world reaches “peak oil.”

It will be with us because of where it’s located: the top four coal-reserve countries are the United States, Russia, China, and India, which together have about 40 percent of the world’s population and more than 60 percent of its coal.”

Possible solutions:

A. You can use coal to make methane by adding hydrogen to the carbon.

That has three advantages.

1. The gas can be shipped by pipeline -- which might be extremely useful for China.

2. The process removes some of the worst pollutants like metals BEFORE the gas is used to make electricity.

3. The gas can be used to make electricity in fuel cells that are more efficient and generate still less air pollution. Bloom Energy in the Silicon Valley is already selling these fuel cells for larger scale electricity generation. Pollutants are removed when the gas is made and only gas enters the fuel cells. Heat is generated; but only CO2 and water leave as exhaust. Particulates, metals, acidic chemicals, and oxides of nitrogen are NOT.

That would solve much of the problems except for CO2 release for new coal generated electricity plants.

B. For both existing plants and plants that burn coal gas or run it through a fuel cell, a company Skyonic, has a technology that both prevents CO2 from being released and also does a far superior job of removing pollutants from the exhaust of existing coal fired plants.

You can feed some of the CO2 to algae which can then be harvested for biofuel as a replacement for oil; but that just delays the CO2 release into the air.

With a few exceptions, "sequestration" of CO2 is both close to undoable on a large scale and if done in most places even if it were possible would add unbelievably to the costs. It's a nonstarter, in other words.

Skyonic's process will be expensive too. But it looks like a real solution unlike sequestration. And, the fact that it can be used to remove other pollutants and is usable on existing coal fired plants looks very promising.

Skyonic Corporation has this web address: http://skyonic.com/ .

They lead with this:

“At Skyonic, we believe that clean air and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. We believe that mineralizing CO2 emissions is the best-available method for reversing global warming.”

The technology even has some economically practical and doable aspects.

“THE SKYMINE PROCESS:
Skyonic’s SkyMine® technology removes CO2 from industrial waste streams through co-generation of saleable carbonate and/or bicarbonate materials. In addition to capturing and mineralizing CO2, the SkyMine® process cleans SOx and NO2 from the flue gas, and removes heavy metals such as mercury. Existing power plants and industrial plants can be retrofitted with SkyMine®. Successful implementation of the SkyMine® technology establishes pathways for mitigating CO2 in areas where geologic storage, the predominant competing CO2 sequestration technology, is not an optimal solution.

A SkyMine® plant can be retrofitted to stationary emitters to economically remove CO2 from the exhaust stream and transform it into solids instead of a gas. Solid carbonates and bicarbonates can be profitably sold to market and are ideal for long-term, safe storage such as minefill or landfill. Solid storage of CO2 means that there is no need for pipeline transport, injection, or concern about CO2 re-release, as with other CO2 capture and sequestration technologies.

Another key advantage of the SkyMine® process is its scalability, as it allows an industrial or power plant owner to configure the degree of CO2 removal anywhere from 10% to 99%. This is important because industrial plants and power plants around the world have unique designs requiring different CO2 removal configurations.

The SkyMine® technology can be operated at a profit, due to the sale of byproducts. The solid carbonates and bicarbonates are saleable for use in bio-algae applications. SkyMine® also produces green chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, bleach, chlorine, and hydrogen, which are also profitable and can replace less environmentally-friendly products in market.

The fact that the SkyMine® process removes virtually all SOX, NO2, and mercury and other heavy metals that would otherwise be emitted by the plant means it can replace existing scrubber technologies and eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in capital expense and tens of millions of dollars in ongoing expenses.“

They have $25 million in starter funding from a DOE Grant, apparently announced on July 29, 2010.

The only bad news is that the company is still in the very early stages.

1. But just as soon as their pilot projects and company building allow, it would make sense to contact the Governors of the “four corners” western states and the US Department of Energy to set up their process on several of the coal fired plants that are ruining the clean air in these Rocky Mountain states.

Many of these plants are now located near the “four corners” where the states of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico come together. So those states which depend on the electricity from the plants but also benefit from tourism would be affected if those plants or some of the worst ones were cleaned up.

2. The air in the whole Eastern half of the United States has enough air pollution from coal to increase death rates and medical care costs according to a map I found.
So, similarly, just as soon as their pilot projects and company building allow, it would make sense to begin to retrofit their technology to the three or four most polluting coal fired plants in this area.

3. It would also make sense to involve the key coal mining states in beginning to retrofit this technology to existing coal fired plants.
Just 8 states mine 84.3 % of the coal mined in the United States according to an online source I just saw: (Here are those states and their percentages.)

“Montana 25.4
Illinois 16.5
Wyoming 14.4
West Virginia 8.0
Kentucky 6.3
Pennsylvania 6.1
Ohio 4.0
Colorado 3.6”

The other 19 states where coal is mined produce the other 15.7 %.

Montana, Wyoming, and West Virginia all have smaller economies which greatly magnifies the importance to their economies of continuing to mine coal. So they should be included in this effort. Kentucky also fits in this group to some degree.

Colorado is also one of the four “four corners” states and is often a progressive state. So it should be included for all three reasons.

And, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio should be included since they have larger and stronger economies and can best afford to help fund the initial installations.

It seems to me that Skyonic and the Department of Energy would do well to launch these three projects as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, I’d like to see the stronger clean energy venture funds work together to get Skyonic something like $500 million in venture money to expand and perhaps an initial $50 million to do these three projects.

There are dozens of such funds but some of the bigger and better known are:

Kleiner Perkins; Kholsa Ventures; GE, Braemar Ventures; Nth Power; and Vantage Point Venture Partners.