The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? ×

Clean Coal: Here Now!

Here comes biocoal.

Thomas R. Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation
May 07, 2009  |  23 Comments

Coal, which started out as the cheapest of fuels, is a victim of its own success. The more coal we burn the more expensive it becomes as we are forced to deal with more and more unintended environmental consequences. A clean power plant requires expensive additions to protect public health by removing particulates, Nox, sulphur and mercury. Now climate change is adding an urgent need to remove CO2 emissions. Since every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2, this is an almost impossible task that will take at least ten years to develop and will almost double the cost of coal power. Coal is no longer cheap when you consider these extra costs.

Wind, solar and geothermal power can provide clean sustainable energy but it will take decades of work to grow enough capacity to satisfy our power needs.  We can solve our problems quickly by converting our existing coal power plants to biomass power.  Biomass is carbon neutral and has virtually no sulphur or mercury.  Conversion cost will be much less than the cost of adding carbon capture and mercury scrubbers and more importantly, it can be done now!

Biomass has about half the energy density of coal so transportation costs could be high for large urban power plants.  The solution is simple: torrefy the biomass at its source. This will convert the biomass to biocoal, which has the same energy density, moisture resistance and friability as coal.

Torrefaction is like coffee roasting. When any woody biomass is heated to about 270° C in the absence of oxygen it undergoes a transformation that increases its density while retaining most of its heating value.  The result is extruded into pellets that have an energy density of 11,000 Btu/lb, just like coal. Since it doesn’t absorb water, biocoal can be shipped in the same train cars and barges as coal. It can be stored outdoors, fed into a coal pulverizer and burned just like coal. The big difference is much less ash and NOx, and virtually no sulphur or mercury.

Biomass waste is abundant. China has an estimated total supply of 700 million tons/year. About 100 million of this is currently being burned in the fields. Using biomass to produce power qualifies for carbon credits. One ton of biocoal prevents several tons of CO2.

National Bio Energy is a new Chinese company specializing in building new biomass power plants that use waste straw from grain production as fuel.  Since their founding in 2005 they already have approval for 40 biomass plants, mostly in Northern China. Twelve of their projects are already in production, producing 324 MWe.  The plants are relatively small and located near the biomass sources. An excellent presentation by Dragon Power gives many more details. These power plants provide independent power and jobs for local farmers and eliminate the pollution of burning fields.

Our massive investment in existing coal power plants can be cleaned up by repowering them to burn biomass. In the U.S., Georgia Power is planning to convert an existing 96MW coal plant to biomass power.  The fuel cost compared to coal is expected to be roughly 30 percent less per year and maintenance costs are expected to be about 13 percent less. FirstEnergy is converting a 312 MW plant to biofuel and will thus avoid the $330 million cost of adding scrubbers to remove mercury. In Canada, Ontario Power Generation is considering a similar move. The U.S. already has 80 biomass power plants in operation. A recent government report found that fuel and maintenance costs were lower than coal.

Large existing coal power plants can be cleaned up by building a network of regional torrefiers along the tracks or waterways currently used for coal supply. These centers should be close to sources of farm or forestry waste or marginal land that can be used to grow specially adapted biomass. In the South, giant reed, elephant grass or other fast-growing perennial grasses can produce up to 20 tons/acre with little watering or fertilization. Agave can produce as much in semi-desert. Other specialized plants can grow on saline, acid or polluted soil.

There are several manufacturers of torrefiers who have working prototypes but none have yet reached the full-scale production stage. The project that is the probably the furthest along was developed by Ecocern in the Netherlands. Integro, in the U.S., is building a fleet of 10 plants. And 4Energy Invest in Belgium is collocating a torrefaction plant at one of its biomass power plants. The waste heat from the power plant will be used to dry biomass and start the torrefier and the biocoal produced will be sold to existing coal power plants.

Repowering or cofiring existing coal plants is a quick fix that can be implemented now to slow global warming while providing good jobs. However, since coal plants average only 33% efficiency, this is only a stopgap solution.  When new plants are built they should be much smaller in size so that waste heat can be put to good use.  Wherever heat is needed, cogeneration plants can generate power and sell it to the grid while putting the excess heat to good use.  Overall efficiencies of 85% are possible with good design. New turbine and heat recovery technology and the reduced need for pollution control equipment makes smaller plants economical.

Biomass is also a perfect match for solar thermal hybrid plants.  As the sun grows weaker the biomass is gradually fired up to keep the turbines running at full speed even at night. Think of biomass as a store of solar power that can be used when needed. Wood pellets are already taking over the heating market in some areas because fuel costs are cut in half. Torrefied pellets will be even more cost effective.

Future economics will be even better as we learn to increase the tons/acre yield using highly efficient C4 photosynthesis plants. Further research will certainly increase future yields significantly as it did with food crops.  Mixtures of plants that grow well together may be even better than monoculture. As the real costs of coal grow more expensive, innovation will drive the cost of biomass down.  The world will be a cleaner, safer, sustainable place.

Google Earth makes it easy to explore the practicality of growing biomass near actual coal power plants.  Just click on the Coal Plant Names here for a satellite view. Zoom back to see the large amount of unused land surrounding most coal power plants.

23 Comments

Register To Comment
Derek Boyle
Derek Boyle
July 10, 2009
Here's an excellent compilation of PowerPoint presentations for Biomass production and Torrefaction:

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/1stMeet-0209.html

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/ppts/Dickinson-Torrefaction.ppt
Derek Boyle
Derek Boyle
July 9, 2009
Another potential method for compacting Biomass is to use Nitrogen to freeze Cellulosic material then grind it to make an Energy Dense product. This is a production method of choice for recycling rubber tires.

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) reports that Southern States have more than enough potential to get 25% by 2025 and 100% of its power from Local Renewable Energy resources at a price lower than Coal and Nuclear:

http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php

http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/files/SERenewables022309rev.pdf

http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Reports-and-Publications.html

http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/files/SAFERBiomassRoadmapBook.pdf (Large File: 13MB)

Southern VA in particular has excellent supply potential for Biomass energy (instead of Coal).

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/nbap.pdf

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/Bioenergy-conf.html
Derek Boyle
Derek Boyle
July 9, 2009
Biomass Energy Holds Great Promise for Virginia:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/op_ed/article/ED-GLEEOP22_20090621-170003/275186/
erich knight
erich knight
May 14, 2009
Asia Pacific Biochar Conference 17 - 20 May, 2009

http://www.anzbiochar.org/AP%20Biochar%20Conference%202009%20Program.pdf

See: Australia and New Zealand Biochar Researchers Network

http://www.anzbiochar.org/

Hopefully all the Biochar companies in the US will coordinate with Dr. Jeff Novak's soils work at ARS;

http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=24434
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
May 12, 2009
Donald,
This statement is simply not true: "The world is rapidly approaching crises caused by removing fossil fuels from the ground and burning them and releasing them to the air. We are depleting the fuels and causing global warming."

The world has hundreds of years' worth of fossil fuels, and it is cheap. Global warming is just a theory, and a flawed theory based on assumptions and quesswork, not true science and fact. So please, relax.

The world will continue to burn fossil fuels because they are cheap sources of energy. When technology can replace fossil fuels based on price, we will see the change. We want the change because of the pollutants - and CO2 is not a pollutant.

I, too, would like to see algea based fuel, but it is a young technology, so it will take time to fully develop. One thing I don't like, as you mentioned, is food-based ethanol - not only does it make higher priced fuel, it makes higher priced food. It doesn't make sense.

Drastic measures to replace fossil fuels will only damage the economy. Renewables need to be developed further and extensively before we take fossil fuels out of the equation, or an economic crisis will result that will make 2008-2009's look like a few ants at a picnic.
Donald Pellinen
Donald Pellinen
May 12, 2009
The world is rapidly approaching crises caused by removing fossil fuels from the ground and burning them and releasing them to the air. We are depleting the fuels and causing global warming. A major government program to solve these problems, the use of ethanol for fuel uses more fossil fuel energy to produce the ethanol as the ethanol gives. Producing a gallon of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs and has energy content of 77,000 BTUs. The other effect has been that because of the demand for grains for ethanol production, prices have risen so many poor people can not afford to eat.

There are far more efficient ways of producing biofuels. Coconut and palm plants produce about 3 times the energy per acre as corn for ethanol and algae can produce about 30 times the yield of corn. Most of the petroleum we have now use came from algae that lived millions of years ago. Additionally, a diesel engine is about 50% more efficient than a gasoline or ethanol fired engine.
.
An ideal location for an algae bioreactor would be next to a coal fired power plant in the desert where the waste CO2 and heat would be the raw materials for the solar energy conversion to biodiesel. The average coal fired power plant injects about 20,000,000,000 (20 billion) pounds of CO2 into the air yearly. A bioreactor could convert this CO2 and water into somewhere around 500 million gallons of biodiesel, 22 billion pounds of pure oxygen and about 5 billion pounds of other material per year that could be used as animal or fish food or as fuel in place of the coal at the power plant. The 500 millions of biodiesel from a single plant could supply the USA with fuel for a day. If a third of the 1500 coal fired plants in the USA were using the bioreactors this would fill the petroleum needs of the country. The jobs and the money would stay in the USA
Don Pellinen
Berry Meuleman
Berry Meuleman
May 12, 2009
In the article the Dutch company Ecocern is mentioned. If you are searching on internet you will not find this company. It should be Econcern. Econcern is developing together with ECN a commercial scale torrefaction plant (see www.bo2go.eu).

Berry Meuleman
Project leader BO2GO
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
May 11, 2009
As far as I can tell, torrefied biomass is just another name for charcoal, ground and extruded to a uniform and compact density.

Is this true?
Adrian Akau
Adrian Akau
May 11, 2009
Coal Must Go

Coal must go, fading in this age,
Like a suit being washed, like a well read page,
Slowly, majestically, sinking out of view,
In the decades to come being replaced by something new.

adrianakau2aol.com
Mariano Orellana
Mariano Orellana
May 10, 2009
I do agree with your comments, but should be something urgent to do. make efficiency use of energy, renewable energy, retrofit old generator plants, etc. Only in Chile, where I am from, are building around USD$ 5 billions in Coal Generator plants, and the sad problem, would use Chilean coal from the South, that is the poorest in quality and BTU.
richard harding
richard harding
May 8, 2009
anthony-taylor's post is the truth. windpower and solar and safe nuclear may be the answer but we need time to develop them. "cleaner coal" is the bridge to energy independence for America! I have no vested interest in the coal industry, I just believe that this is correct on an intuitive level. We have a huge resource available to us that should be used in a prudent manner. The most urgent imperative is to become energy independent, the second to promote domestic industries, the third to reduce greenhouse gases. Eventually wind power, solar, and nuclear will provide most of our energy. Meanwhile, we still need domestic coal (and yes, oil, shale oil, natural gas, etc.) to meet our current needs. When we have unshackled ourselves from our foreign oil sources we can start to develop the energy industries of the future. I believe we need to develop biofuels, nuclear, wind, solar (PV and solar thermal), stranded NG, domestic oil, in-situ gasification of coal, space-based solar, environmentally sound ways of using shale oil and tar sands. Only when we are energy independent can we develop a national energy policy that is respectful of the environment and meets our energy needs at the same time. Needless to say, conservation (green buildings, energy-efficient transportation, expanded public transportation) is the most important and easiest to achieve. It's the low-hanging fruit, let's pick it. BTW, the much-maligned hydrogen economy is still a big part of the picture. Forget about fuel cell cars, picture networks of buses, trains and maybe truck fleets all powered by hydrogen with central fueling facilities, no infrastructure problems.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
May 8, 2009
the above comments are thoughtful, and good. BUT, remember that Thomas B. said "this is a bridge to cleaner, renewable energy".
we should DO BOTH.we will probably discover something else in the next decade that may not be in vouge today. until then : consume less, manage our waste better, and teach our children.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
May 8, 2009
Mark,
One point of contention: CO2 is not a pollutant. People didn't get excited enough about the need to reduce actual pollution, so Al Gore and his kind invented the flawed theory of global warming to cut down on pollution. (They conveniently ignore the activity of the sun as it relates to earth's temperature.)
About your electric bill - if BHO gets his cap-and-trade scam passed, your electric bill will increase by at least 500%.
A couple other things to consider:
The "successful" anti-nuclear lobby of the 70's and 80's resulted in over 400 new coal plants to be built in place of the planned nuclear plants. Good choice, huh?
Even if the US and Europe eliminated CO2 emissions, they will be replaced by the new coal plants being built in China, India, etc., within three years, so it really doesn't matter what we do. Think about it - every three years, China, etc., are adding emissions equal to what the US and Europe produce each year - when is that going to stop? (When the alternatives are cheaper than coal)
This is a global issue, but not everybody is participating.
Mark Clouse
Mark Clouse
May 8, 2009
Any fuel source that produces carbon or other pollutants is unacceptable. It's just a matter of money, and societies willingness to accept the assault of the polution in our environment. My electric bill is $75 per month and could be allot lower with more conservation measures. Would it really kill me if that went to about $125 per month if it were derived from non-polluting sources. I could just cut back on my monthly porno budget (LOL).

The author has introduced us to an outstanding stop gap technology that RECYCLES our existing waste or utilizes manufacturing waste. This is an outstanding idea that now even removes the economic obstacles and only leaves the selfish interests of those invested in pollution generating enterprises. Clean or cleaner coal is just a cop-out and doesn't address and does little to solve the problems facing us. Why is it so hard to let go of what we know is wrong?
ANTHONY TAYLOR
ANTHONY TAYLOR
May 8, 2009
Having grown up in the shadow of what was for some time, the largest single polluting power generating unit, I can easily say that there is no such thing as "clean" coal. Even with all of the most current pollution controls, they are still pretty nasty. I was raised on coal money (my dad operated the largest shovel in the world for years) and worked for electrical generators.

With all of this said, I strongly feel that coal is our most valuable fuel that we have at this time. Stop talking about "clean coal", and start using the term "cleaner coal". Build modern coal gasification units and start shutting down older standard coal burning units and oil burning units. This will buy us all some time to develop our alternative and renewable fuels.

The problem with wind, solar, and hydro is that most of the world cannot provide for their power needs if depending upon local wind, solar, and hydro electric production. Sure, you can install them in some locations, but there is a bit of a problem with power transmission and distribution that has to be overcome. You can talk about a "smart grids" all you want, but that technology is still not viable. Start with cleaner coal and go from there.
Vijay Sethi
Vijay Sethi
May 8, 2009
Lert us consider a new way to co-fire biomass in an existing coal-fired power plant. Biomass is gasified in a fuel flexible gasifier and the syngas produced is used in the coal-fired utility or industrial boiler as a reburn fuel. Coal benefits because the carbon footprint of electricity or steam production is reduced. Biomass benefits from the higher efficiency of larger power plant. Concurrently, issues of limited and/or discontinuous biomass supply are mitigated. Remember, biomass burning has materials compatibility issues in combustion equipment. By direct cofiring, or through gasification, those issues are mitigated.
Richard Carter
Richard Carter
May 8, 2009
Not to be a speed bump in the conversation, but:
Anytime you combust for energy you are removing biomass from the ecology; biomass that is naturally input or food for other organisms in the sphere.
Solar, wind and hydro won't take decades if we can get more public support for Feed-In Tariffs and demonstrating to our elected officials that is it not lobbyist dollars and industry contributions that win elections. It's VOTES.
Solar, wind and hydro are 'do-able' RIGHT NOW, this year; if the initial construction costs can be spread over the first quarter or third of the life of the systems; which for solar and wind are 30-40 years. The remainder of those life spans are positive cash flow, i.e. INCOME. Remember, the energy from the sun, wind, and moving water is FREE!
Rick Kolb
Rick Kolb
May 8, 2009
See the companion article "Bioelectricity Promises More "miles per acre" than Ethanol". It fits in quite nicely with the points Mr. Blakeslee makes here. So many want to get to the "perfect" solution for CO2 and renewables immediately. I'm glad to see articles like this and the one mentioned above that realize that we need a transition time frame before we get to the "ideal" solution and there are many ways to improve our energy sources that can have immediate and substantial progress without breaking the bank.
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
May 8, 2009
Two things come to mind that need to be questioned for the total cost, one alluded to in the comment above:
Burning fields replenish the soil for future crops - what will take it's place?
Heating biomass to 270C will take a lot of energy - what is the source and cost of the energy? Is it still feasible when added to the total cost?
ANONYMOUS
May 8, 2009
Divert a few percent of the charred biomass for use as biochar - charcoal soil amendment to improve the long term productivity of the surrounding energy production land, and food production land. It can be a win/win.
V G SHENOI
V G SHENOI
May 8, 2009
Yes - this will reduce transportation cost and make the carbonised biomass more compatible with fossil coal firing but the main concern is availability of land, even low grade land to provide the capacity necessary.

Food production will have to increase 30 to 50% over the next decades to keep up with population growth and energy is higher value and will compete unevenly with food production capacity.

Such projects however have a place to coexist with food production where agricultural wastes can be converted either to carbon efficient fuel or gasified.
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
May 7, 2009
We don't have to grow ALL of our energy. But we can start now to clean up our existing coal power plants to keep the lights on while we develop other renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal. Also, don't assume that we won't get better at growing our own fuel. For example there Here is a 78 page government report that concludes that the U.S. potential supply "exceeds 1.3 billion dry tons."
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf
justin blows
justin blows
May 7, 2009
I am not so convinced that there is enough land space for this scale of bio fuel production. Some interesting numbers were recently published in the book "Sustainable energy without the hot air" at http://www.withouthotair.com/

Justin Blows
Patent Attorney

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in Pasadena, California in 1962. After working for IT&T in Antwerp, Belgium, he...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 1
    Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief
  • 1
    EU Should Scrap Energy Subsidies to Fight Warming, Poland Says

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • BBI International
  • Green Power Conferences
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information