Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Coal Power, Up Close and Personal

By Jeremy Shere
January 12, 2010   |   24 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 
Content Technologies
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

24 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 24
January 12, 2010
Jeremy -- I have to agree with your assessment. Very well put. I've visited a couple GW-scale coal plants around Europe that left me with the same sense of awe. It really gives you a sense for how powerful these plants are, and what we have to do to make up for their raw power with renewables.

I wish that everyone could have the chance to tour a coal plant and then immediately tour a solar PV or wind farm....Although the solar or wind farm may be smaller, you can get an appreciation for how sleek and clean these technologies are.
Comment
2 of 24
January 13, 2010
Hi Stephen,
I have yet to visit a solar or wind farm, although both are on my travel agenda. And I'm sure I'll have a similar impression.

One thing I meant to say in my post is that there's a tendency among some renewable/clean energy advocates to demonize fossil fuels, especially coal, and characterize renewable energy and non-renewable energy as diametrically opposed. Renewables are good, fossil fuels are evil. Renewables will save the planet, fossil fuels are destroying it. The reality is, of course, more complex, and visiting a coal power plant helps bring that complexity to the foreground. I don't mean to undersell coal's environmental toxicity, but even as we recognize coal's detriments we have to accept the fact that coal is capable of producing energy in ways that wind and sunlight can't simply duplicate. At least not quite yet.

Anyhow, I encourage everyone concerned about energy to visit a coal power plant. It's an eye-opener.
Comment
3 of 24
January 15, 2010
Stephen: The wind and solar facilities may be sleek and clean, but they don't produce Zilch compared to coal and nuclear(also sleek and clean) plants.
Comment
4 of 24
January 15, 2010
Jeremy -

Did you get to see the unloading area? It's mind boggeling how much raw material a plant that size takes in. Rolf makes a good point too... it would be interesting to see how large a solar array would have to be to produce the same energy as a big coal plant like that. For sure it's a hurdle I don't think we're anywhere near ready to overcome.
Comment
5 of 24
January 15, 2010
Yep, I agree Rolf. That's exactly what I meant when I said:

"It really gives you a sense for how powerful these plants are, and what we have to do to make up for their raw power with renewables."
Comment
6 of 24
January 15, 2010
Jeremy:

I think your one visit to one coal fired power plant has left you with a misunderstanding as to the nature of how our electric system works. The fossil fuel power plant industry likes to spread the myth that fossil fuel plants work 24/7 365 days a year while solar and wind are "intermittent." I can see how one could believe this myth from listening to the fossil fuel industry and from visiting one coal fired power plant one time.
However, for my work, I have reviewed the availability date for many coal fired power plants over many years. The reality is that coal fired power plants break all the time and thus cannot generate electricity. I worked on one huge coal fired power plant that had around a 65% availability factor for around a decade. That means that 35% of the time, if the utility company wanted to turn this coal fired power plant one, they couldn't. I have also seen situations where coal fired power plants have almost gone off line because they couldn't get enough coal (because it was frozen). I have also seen situations where nuclear plants have almost had to shut down because there wasn't enough water. However, the utility industry deals with the intermittent nature of fossil fuel plants fairly well and keeps the lights on.

Solar and wind power plants are also intermittent although mainly for different reasons. Solar and wind power plants break down far less that coal fired power plants. For example many wind turbines have a 95% guaranteed availability rate and actually have a 97% or higher availability rate. There isn't a coal fired power plant maker who would offer a guarantee for a 95% availability factor. They would laugh at you if you asked for one. However, solar and wind are intermittent because their fuel sources (sun and wind) are intermittent. In one sense, this is an easier problem to deal with because one can predict the wind and sun better than one can predict when a high pressure, high temperature machine is going to break.

In any event, the point is that our electric generation sources have always been intermittent but utilities have successfully dealt with this challenge. They will continue to do so as well transition to a generation system based more and more upon wind and solar.
Comment
7 of 24
January 15, 2010
10,000 tons of coal per DAY!? from a hole in the ground to up in smoke.
For more than 20 years.....wow .
We better wake up and recognize this is not sustainable.
Comment
8 of 24
January 15, 2010
Edward - like it or not, there is a large amount of coal available. If it wasn't for permitting issues, power companies would build more coal plants... I don't think we're going to run out any time soon.
Comment
9 of 24
January 15, 2010
Permitting is not the only issue when considering new coal plants. Investment is another. It's my understanding that the large investments banks are shying away from financing new coal plants due to uncertaintly of carbon pricing and health liability. I for one don't want to see the destruction associated with mountain top removal regardless how much is available
Comment
10 of 24
January 15, 2010
I concur with Jaert. It is estimated that at least 489 billion short tons of demonstrated coal reserves exist, at today's market prices. (that number doesn't account for the permitting issues mentioned above) This is enough coal to last our society for 150 years; assuming no more coal is discovered.
I am for cap and trade, and/or making generators pay for the environmental cost of coal. But if carbon sequestration becomes economical it has an enormous potential.
Comment
11 of 24
January 15, 2010
I agree James, it's ugly. Supposedly, "they" are supposed to have a plan in place when they begin mining. Anyone know if there has been any success reclaiming a depleted mine? It seems unlikely?
Comment
12 of 24
January 15, 2010
Just a couple comments about capacity factor. First of all, capacity factor is not the percent of time a plant is available - I'm oversimplifying, but that statistic is (roughly) called "availability". Capacity factor takes the maximum possible output from a plant over a given time and divides that into its actual output over that period. So for example, your 1000MW plant is capable of 1000MW x 8760hrs/year - = 8,760,000MWhr/year. So if that plant generates only 7,000,000MWhr in a year, its capacity factor is 7000/8760 = ~80%.

Some of the newer coal plants have capacity factors approaching 80-90%. The larger plants in particular do, because these plants run more efficiently and thus are dispatched to run at higher loads, while smaller plants may have their outputs reduced at night and on weekends, possibly even shut down because they can't compete with the larger plants on a cost/MWhr basis.
Comment
13 of 24
January 15, 2010
Re: The Sustainability of Coal
We are not running out of Coal.
At current capacities the US could keep burning coal for another 250 years easy.
Canada, China, Russia and Australia and others are in similar situations.
The sustainability factor focuses around the damage we are doing to the earth during extraction, the air during combustion and the planet as a whole as a result of the massive amount of Carbon it releases.
Yes, coal plants are big, they're huge, but that doesn't mean they're impressive.
We've been burning coal for hundreds of years so of course coal plants have a head start on renewable energy plants. ELECTRICITY from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, wind and wave (basically all renewables with the exception of large hydro) have only been around for between 10 and 60 years.
Yes, renewables are still well behind fossil fuels but that's because a full ramp up that takes full advantage of economies of scale have not hit yet.
Doesn't meant it's impossible or unlikely or in the distant future.
It simply comes down to size.
Renewables are small, a few MW's here and a few MW's there but not nothing significant.
Coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear all started that way too.
They learned pretty quickly though that to make money and to compete you need to GO BIG!
It is time to GO BIG with renewables.
There will always be better technologies over the horizon but we need to pick what we know, what is proven, what works, what is effective, what is cheapest right NOW in renewable energy production and then drastically increase the size of the plants.
Yes, this will mean centralized plants in addition to distributed.
The key is we need to go big and we need the government to not necessarily subsidize the process (or at least not anymore than the billions that fossil and nuclear receive every year) but simply to agree not to block and stall efforts.
I have ideas on exactly how we do this if anyone is interested but really I just want all of you to stop thinking so small with renewables and thinking that fossil and nuclear are too impossibly big to ever catch.
We did it once, we can do it again, and again and again until we live in a world powered by renewables with fossil fuels and nuclear filling in the gaps rather than vice versa
Comment
14 of 24
January 15, 2010
from the article:------" So I came away feeling sort of overwhelmed. Because on the one hand, as we all know, coal power plants are part of the problem. They spew millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."-------------

Natural gas produces the same energy, and less than 1/2 the CO2 when compared to coal.

-------"And even with advanced scrubbing technology, the steam billowing from the plant's tower still contains toxins that pollute land, water, and air."--------

Natural gas, being a gas, is easy to remove impurities before it is used. Natural gas produces no toxic emissions, and is clean enough to cook with indoors, unvented.

Natural gas also does not pollute the land or water to extract. Natural gas does not come from strip mines.

-------"Walking around inside a coal power plant, it's hard not to be impressed by the sheer size and industry of the place. And, as a first-time visitor, it's almost impossible not to feel overwhelmed by the noise. It's loud inside a coal power station--loud enough to require earplugs. And it's dark and gloomy. And sooty."----------

Natural gas does not require hopper/dumpers, dump trucks, skip loaders, drag lines, conveyor belts , pulverizers, bulldozers, bob cats or shovels to handle.

Hook up the pipe and turn the valve. You are good to go.

------"But the plant also provides reliable electricity for tens of thousands of people living in rural southwest Indiana. And at the moment, there's no alternative power source available. (Although northern Indiana has decent wind resources, the southern part of the state does not.)"----------

Natural gas is reliable. It already provides 24% of our electrical power generation, with none of the environmental damage and air pollution that coal causes. There is no reason why natural gas can not be used to replace coal.

And, we can make methane(natural gas) from any sort of organic material available. If we make biomethane from sewage(or anything else that would allow methane to escape into the atmosphere) and mix it with fossil methane; just a 6% biomethane mixture will produce GHG effect neutral emissions. Anything greater than a 6% mixture will create GHG effect negative emissions. There is no other way to do this, not wind, solar or anything else can create GHG effect negative emissions.

james smith--------"I for one don't want to see the destruction associated with mountain top removal regardless how much is available"-----------

I don't either----natural gas does not come from strip mines. And it never will, you can't strip mine a gas.
Comment
15 of 24
January 15, 2010
Fred,
Natural gas is no question the lesser of two evils when compared against coal.
Yes, it is cleaner than coal but it is by no means 'clean'.
It still pumps billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
You also have to drill countless boreholes to capture the gas (unless you use biogas i.e. methane capture from landfills) and this incurs risks such as earth tremors and water table pollution.
In the short term we do need to shift to less carbon intensive traditional energy sources such as natural gas and nuclear but these are just stops on the way to the truly clean and renewable energy picture that the world needs.
Comment
16 of 24
January 15, 2010
One other point I guess about wind farms and the big PV arrays, they also destroy landscapes. Granted, the benefit makes it bearable, but you can't really make the argument that there are NO drawbacks.

Wind in particular makes a drastic change in the countryside. Take a drive around Abilene or Sweetwater, Texas. I know it's not everyone's favorite part of the country, but those of us that live in the area used to like the open plains... they're gone now thanks to huge wind farms.
Comment
17 of 24
January 15, 2010
Check out recent polls of American's asked what they they think of the aesthetic value large-scale wind turbines and you'll see that a significant majority not only approve of them but actually think they're beautiful.

Ever drive through an area destroyed by large industrial traditional power plants? (Think Newark, NJ or Houston, TX). I'll take an array of wind turbines spinning on our nation's planes and solar thermal plants covering barren landscapes of desert over a coal, natural gas or nuclear plant (or oil refinery, liquid natural gas port, oil spill on the ocean, coal ash spills in TN, etc)
Comment
18 of 24
January 15, 2010
Matthew--"You also have to drill countless boreholes to capture the gas (unless you use biogas i.e. methane capture from landfills) and this incurs risks such as earth tremors and water table pollution."------

And you think this is worse than strip mining? Not even close. And what is to stop us from extending the bores and using geothermal when or if the NG runs out?

--------"It still pumps billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere."--------

From my post---"Natural gas produces the same energy, and less than 1/2 the CO2 when compared to coal."--------
Coal(neglecting contaminants for emperical purposes) is 100% carbon. When it is oxidized, it produces heat and carbon dioxide. Methane(CH4) contains four hydrogen atoms per carbon atom. When it is oxidized, it produces heat, 1 CO2 + 2 H2O. 2/3 of the heat produced comes from burning hydrogen.
If you are worried about the GHG effect of CO2 on the atmosphere, how would it be disadvantageous to us to produce the same amount of energy that we currently are, and cut CO2 emissions by 67%?

Matthew-----"In the short term we do need to shift to less carbon intensive traditional energy sources such as natural gas and nuclear but these are just stops on the way to the truly clean and renewable energy picture that the world needs."--------

The major portion of natural gas use currently is to heat homes and hot water. Solar thermal is simple, cheap and easy to manufacture, install and use, and very effective. It can replace the most of the natural gas used to heat buildings and water. Natural gas can power our vehicles----it can replace petroleum and it costs less to use than petroleum. It causes far less environmental damage and produces less CO2 per BTU than either coal or petroleum. And it costs far less to use than petroleum.
Switching to natural gas can replace coal for electricity. Adding solar thermal to displace some natural gas use can replace petroleum use altogether.
Then we ramp up producing methane from organic sources. The more methane we mix in from organic sources, the more that GHG effect on the atmosphre is reduced. We can actually produce a negative GHG effect.
We do not need to worry about carbon taxes or trading. (Which I consider nothing more than elaborate schemes to allow polluters to continue to pollute and get rich at the expense of consumers)

Then is no reason we can not convert our present coal burning plants to use natural gas. Continue to add wind, solar, geothermal and other RE sources to the portfolio freeing up natural gas---and replace petroleum with natural gas as we do.
Comment
19 of 24
January 16, 2010
Utah is one of the most beautiful, and least populated areas in the US and the world. It is known for it its diverse climate and terrain, and wide open and pure climate. No longer.

Smog leaves Utah coughing, sneezing and wheezing

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100115/ap_on_re_us/us_utah_air_pollution
Comment
20 of 24
January 17, 2010
Jeremy, your much too kind. Let me say what you all are thinking. Any long term vision leaves fossil fuels depleted, and the landscape at least 'dirtied'. This is the very seed, and the real need of renewable energies. People can make all the excuses they want, and make up all the numbers they want, but fossil fuels are never going to be a long term solution. But thank God, those who flick this argument into the pool of reason will be dead and gone when the younger generation moves along. Their weak arguments will no longer influence the market, they can tell the worms.

As for nuclear plants, put that waste in a hole in your back yard and keep it there for 10,000 years. Nuclear is simply asinine. And you should also put a coal fired plant in your back yard and watch your property values drop like a rock. Is that because they are so clean and much more beautiful than a windmill? Surround my house with windmills thank you. Even if the property values drop, I will not have to listen to my children wheeze and wonder if it is the windmills causing it. I'd rather listen to a windmill wheeze then one of my daughters. (Windmills do not wheeze by the way)

You want to see natural gas disappear in ten years? Start generating electricity for cars. There goes your 250 year gas life. Your numbers are based on today's use. Renewable energy looks deeply into our future. In this real case, using future thought, not today's numbers, the 250 year argument is lame, I'd quit repeating it. Stand on a railroad track and continue that reasoning with your eyes closed. "See? There are no trains here!" Our children people. Our children.

Now, look at the cash paid out to build that coal plant and run it. Have any of you guys taken that cash figure and estimated how many wind mills you could build? And make sure you continue inserting the coal cost every day. That would be interesting research. How close did we come to generating that much electricity with wind instead of coal? Damn close I would guess.

And while those things (windmills) are 'littering our landscapes' we can sit safely in a warm house breathing clean air, while contemplating their replacement with view friendly science, however long that takes.

Some humans have always been able to think past today. The rest simply enjoy the fruits of those labors, and even complain sometime about change to their surroundings.
Comment
21 of 24
January 17, 2010
PGE plan suggests shorter time frame to close Boardman coal-fired power plant

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/01/pge_moves_to_close_boardman_co.htmlPGE plan suggests shorter time frame to close Boardman coal-fired power plant

-----------"Early closure presents other costs. PGE still has an unamortized investment in the Boardman coal plant of $125 million. Writing that sum off over the next 10 years, rather than 30, would increase customer rates by one to two percent, the utility estimates. Replacing Boardman's stable output of more than 500 megawatts of electricity would also be costly.

Based on its analysis of carbon and natural gas prices, however, PGE maintains that a 2020 shutdown would be the low-cost, least-risk plan for utility ratepayers and shareholders. Under the existing plan, both face the risk of making the huge investment to control haze causing pollution – which does nothing to control the plant's carbon emissions -- then seeing the plant close anyway if global warming legislation or a carbon tax makes its output prohibitively expensive."----------------

A few months ago, the Boardman Power Plant and a cement factory in Boardman were shown to be be spewing out toxic levels of mercury and other heavy metal toxins. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it seems like it was something like 20 times EPA allowable limits.

In reading this article, it appears to me that the PGE proposal is a media grandstand to scare consumers into support to allow them to keep the plant open. In a nutshell, it proposes scrapping the entire plant(not even paid for yet) and building a new plant using natural gas.

Why do that? There seems to be no provision at all for simply removing coal furnaces and replacing them with gas burners. All the coal does is boil water. NG can do the same thing. Why is there any need to replace the entire plant?

This makes me wonder what the underlying scheme behind the PGE proposal is.
Comment
22 of 24
January 18, 2010
Well put Jeremy.
Fred, which Natural Gas company do you work for?
Comment
23 of 24
January 18, 2010
matthew--------LOL!!! none. It is just that I think that there's 90 miles of grade ahead, and I heard the brakes give out. I think we are headed right for a hairpin curve with a really high cliff on the other side.
I think we need to make some BIG changes, FAST. We need to get rid of petroleum and coal. At first, I never even considered natural gas---it's just another fossil fuel. When I finally got down to HOW we could do things the faster, least expensive, and best way possible---methane came out head and shoulders above any other option. Well, methane is a fossil fuel---but it is ALSO a biofuel. Once I got on that path----everything started to fall into place.

Just like Suzianna, natural gas ain't very glamorous---but I think it is just the thing that can save us.

Ninety miles of grade ahead, and we heard the brakes give out.
Some of the boys began to pray, but I began to shout.
OH SUZIANNA, don't mean to cause you pain,
Oh, you know I love you honey, but your face would stop a train!
Comment
24 of 24
January 18, 2010
matthew-----ps-------I'm not at all against wind and solar power either. Wind and solar need a base to work from though, natural gas can be that base, and wind and solar can go on from there.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Jeremy Shere

View Jeremy Shere's Profile
About: I'm a writer based in Bloomington, IN. I'm currently writing a book about renewable energy, titled "Renewable: A Reporter's Quest to Make Sense of the Coming R... more »

Advertise With Us

Enphase Energy National Hydropower Association Kipp & Zonen Conergy Inc. Solar Energy International (SEI) PLANSEE SE Comdel
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters