Is their coal in our future?

[KenB]

List,

Coal has always taken the rap for being dirty and one the main contributers to CO2 emissions.

However, I suspect that we would be in very bad shape without it.

In the UK we use 66 million tons of coal every year, mostly for baseload electricity production.  30 million tons of that is produced in the UK, the rest imported from wherever is cheapest.  Coal now provides 38% of our electricity.

Our domestic electricity usage has grown by 11% in the last decade - partly down to home computers and consumer electronics.

(  BTW There are some useful world energy statistics on this site  http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/ene-energy  )

For comparison - the USA uses 1000 million tons per year and China 1300 million tons.

Coal has traditionally been burned in conventional thermal power stations at about 38% efficiency.    New plants are being developed which offer between 45 and 55%  overall efficiency.

One of these is at Kingsnorth in Kent where two 800MW supercritical plants are proposed to replace the four older plants.  These will reduce the existing CO2 emissions by some 20%, by generating at a higher efficiency.

(see http://www.eon-uk.com/libraries/uk/images/Environmental_Statement_Kingsnorth.pdf  )

This feature looks at some of these new coal fired processes

http://www.australiancoal.com.au/cleantechAus.htm

Coal has seen a recent revival because it is currently cheaper to produce power than natural gas.

As much as coal gets bad press these days, we are totally reliant on it as the backbone of our electricity generation business- more so in the near future, as the aging nuclear plants are decommissioned and the price of natural gas increases.

Ah, Mrs. Thatcher! - the great visionary. We've burnt off our more than half our gas reserves since 1990, chucking half the heat energy into space. 



Ken

[NickW]

Couldnt agree more Ken

I suspect the Industry needed consolidation in 82/83 and Scargill did need a good kicking. I remember my father saying he didnt remember King Arthur being democratically elected as leader of the UK. I also recall him saying in 1991 when Heseltine shut down the best part of the remaining industry that they would rue the day.

By 2020 when we are on a 3 day week and running to the IMF I suspect the environmental concerns about nuclear / coal will evaporate. of course by then it will be too late.

What do think the chances are of the 4 proposed Nucs actually being built by 2021?

Nick

[KenB]

Nick, List,

I just noticed the Freudian typo I made in the title of this topic.

I meant to write "Is there coal in our future?"  but clearly it is going to be mostly someone else's coal

- so "their coal"  is quite appropriate. 


Ken

[Paulh_Boats]

Yes there is future in coal!

We have about 200 years worth of coal in the UK and about 1000 years world wide. When Russia becomes a main exporter of gas (because it has some of the Worlds largest stores of gas) and the prices go sky high it will be economic to generate electricity from coal, even factoring in the higher cost of clean coal burning technology.

So grandkids or great grandkids say goodbye to those old gas boilers and switch to new high tech electric heat pumps. They will giggle at our inefficient double glazing, poorly insulated homes, wasteful habits, and petrol/diesel cars.

Ahh, don't forget to stock pile the Uranium while you can.

-Paul

[dhaslam]

I would say a lot of countries will have to make the same decision.  In Ireland nearly half of the electricity is from gas and one quarter from coal.   The large coal plant at Moneypoint was very contraversial when it was built because of the Co2 emissions  but it is very important now.  All the coal has to be imported of course but the sources are fairly stable.   Ireland will not have any  nuclear plants so coal may be source to be expanded.   Wind farms are not able to keep pace with the increased demand  at present but this could change in the future.   

[Shay]

25% of global primary energy needs comes from coal with 40% of electricity generation coal powered. On average one coal fired power station is built in China each week . The International Energy Agency projects that China will become the World's largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in 2009 overtaking the United States.
Coal generates 50% of electricity in the U.S, 17.1% in the U.K. and 27.8% in Ireland.

The World Coal Institute estimates that at current coal consumption rates that there are sufficient coal reserves for 147 years. Two recent report cast doubt on these reserve estimates.
‘The supply base of coal is being continuously depleted. World proven reserves
(i.e. the reserves that are economically recoverable at current economic and
operating conditions) of coal are decreasing fast….’
‘Coal production costs are steadily rising all over the world, due to the need to
develop new fields, increasingly difficult geological conditions and additional
infrastructure costs associated with the exploitation of new fields. ’

‘Global coal reserve data are of poor quality, but seem to be biased towards the high side.
Production profile projections suggest the global peak of coal production to occur around
2025 at 30 percent above current production in the best case.’

The fastest reserves depletion worldwide is taking place in China with 1.9 percent of reserves produced annually. The USA, being the second largest producer, have already passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the Appalachian and the Illinois basin. ’

If coal use continues to expand at its current rate the consequences for worsening climate change will be significant and impossible to mitigate. Clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration are still at the experimental stage. This technology may result in 8-12% loss in electrically efficiency in the medium term and result in a 30-120% increase in power plant investment cost  .

Carbon taxes will have to be significantly high so as to economically justify the additional cost of ‘clean coal’

China, USA, Australia, India, South Africa and Russia account for 80% of world coal production. 85% of this coal is consumed domestically with only 15% exported  .
With increased global consumption and a possible global coal peak around 2025 the 80% domestic consumption figure will more than likely increase with a corresponding reduction in exports.

Ref:
Energy Watch Group. 2007. Coal: resources and Future Production
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG-Coalreport_10_07_2007.pdf

-The Future of Coal by B. Kavalov, S.D. Peteves DG JRC European Commision Joint Research Centre/ Institute for Energy February 2007

Yep it will have to be big part of futures unfortunately. But like oil its going to cost a hell of a lot more than it does presently...

[Ivan]

I didn't realise electric production from coal was so inefficient. I remember at school learning that gas turbine power stations are around 65% efficient, and assumed that coal would be the about the same.

[billi]

Better coal then nuclear

Unfortunately  they (Coal)  are only about 45% efficient would be upto 90% if clever used with heating buildings, homes

"Wind farms are not able to keep pace with the increased demand"


The energy produced by renewables in germany in 2006 was similar to the power that was produced by nuclear power in the UK 2005

and germany is not sourounded by sea

i read somewere as well that china will have more co2 soon then the usa but not per person !

here is a diagramm

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/country/maps/world/co2_pop.htm

http://www.spiegel.de/flash/0,5532,16821,00.html

[dan_aka_jack]

A few quick questions:

1) Do the stated efficiency figures (e.g. 55% for an IGCC plant) take into account the energy used to mine, transport and clean the coal and the energy required to scrub the exhaust (never mind CO2 capture- how much energy does existing scrubbing require?).  Or is the 55% figure simply = total electrical output / total heat energy output from boiler?

2) The environmental and health risks of carbon sequestration (e.g. pumping a billion tonnes of CO2 into deep, empty oil fields) seem to dwarf the issues of storing fission waste.  Vast quantities of pressurised CO2 sounds like something I certainly wouldn't like anywhere near me.   Can anyone allay my fears?

I completely agree that coal will *have* to play a big part in our future (and an even bigger part for cash-strapped, energy-hungry nations like China) but I remain a little sceptical about "clean coal" developments; not least because they seem fairly untested.  Even IGCC is a relatively new technology, let alone IGCC+CC (is it correct that there are *no* IGCC+CC plants in operation yet?).

[renewablejohn]

I wish the government would realise that Combined Heat and Power plants are far more efficient than stand alone Power stations of whatever variety. I am using 1930's steam technology to generate electricity but because I connect it to district heating systems the overall efficiency is far better than any of the new stand alone power plants. The added advantage is that my energy is renewable using Woodchip. If a decentralised generation policy was put in place than the whole of this nuclear gap could be filled by the use of woodchip fired CHP units. The main criteria though would be to keep each unit small enough for a fuel source within a 15 mile area unlike the new station at Lockerbie which is so large they are trucking in woodchip from over 100 miles away which defeats the object of the exercise.

[KenB]

Ivan,

Traditional coal is about 38% efficient - from a 1970s built pulverised fuel (PF) plant.

Combined cycle gas turbine in reality in Britain is only about 50% efficient.

The coal stations being built in China are a rather mediocre 28% efficient on average.

You then have to deduct about 8% transmission losses.

So about 30% of the coal energy arrives at your property and about 40% of the gas energy. - marginally better than this - see below.

stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes5_1_2.xls

This spread sheet shows the rise in electricity  consumption since  1970.

Note that the amount consumed is quite a bit less than that generated -and there is a separate column for distribution losses - a quick calculation put these at around 8%.

Here's a report on electricity trends

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file19268.pdf


In 2000, UK power plants produced 28%, or 42.5 million MT-C of the total from coal-fired plants running at a delivered efficiency of 34%, oil-fired plants at 25%, and gas-fired plants at 42% (including CCGT and conventional plants running on natural gas).

Source  http://www.oxfordenergy.org/comment.php?0303


Ken

[Paulh_Boats]

8% transmission loss is about right, might be less closer to the source as there will be fewer transformers and lines to go through.

That sort of makes mCHP or any kind of home generation a no-brainer. With an efficient grid-locked invertor about 90% of whatever you export will benifit somebody, somewhere.

Batteries are worse than that (25% loss?), so purely from an energy perspective they only make sense for truly off-grid locations.


-Paul

[NickW]

Given a choice between nuclear and coal I'd choose nuclear any day.

Nuclear waste is not an issue. What is an issue is the Govts inability to make a firm decision on a repository. Mind u this is the same Govt that blew £27bn propping up a regional Geordie bank!

[KenB]

List,

Here on the Oildrum is a very graphical illustration of the rapidity at which our existing nuclear fleet are entering their decommissioning phase.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3486

This is going to put a really big dent in our ability to produce power.  Remember that we are increasing our power consumption by about 11% per decade - so within 10 years we really are going to be facing supply shortages.

But what about all those low cost CCGT plants built during the 1990s, to cash in on gas being the cheapest fuel?

How long is their useful service life - when faced with a climate of rising gas prices. Some supply companies are already shifting their fuel mix in favour of the lower cost coal.

Then if you look at the ageing traditional coal fired plants - they will all need replacement over the next 20 years.

Even the mighty Drax  is 34 years old this year.


This makes the UK electricity supply over the next 15 years look very  insecure  indeed.



Ken

[dan_aka_jack]

This makes the UK electricity supply over the next 15 years look very  insecure  indeed.

Yes, indeed.  So - um - who's gonna take the initiative and build a quite-running 2kW Sterling generator powered by a wood-burning stove for us urbanites who can't run Listers in their back gardens?!?

(Although, come to think of it, where am I gonna get the wood?!?  Hmm... better move to the country by 2012... somewhere with lots of forests...!)

(edit looks like a wood-burning CHP Stirling system is already available: http://navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1593.0    )