Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Clean Coal: Here Now!

Here comes biocoal.

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

23 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 23
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
Comment
2 of 23
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
Comment
3 of 23
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.
No image available
Comment
4 of 23
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.
Comment
5 of 23
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?
Comment
6 of 23
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.
Comment
7 of 23
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!
Comment
8 of 23
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.
Comment
9 of 23
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.
Comment
10 of 23
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?
Comment
11 of 23
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.
Comment
12 of 23
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.
Comment
13 of 23
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.
Comment
14 of 23
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.
Comment
15 of 23
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
Comment
16 of 23
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?
Comment
17 of 23
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
Comment
18 of 23
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
Comment
19 of 23
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.
Comment
20 of 23
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
Comment
21 of 23
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/
Comment
22 of 23
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
Comment
23 of 23
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
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

Thomas Blakeslee

View Thomas Blakeslee's Profile
About: 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 P... more »

Advertise With Us

SMA America, LLC Information & Technology Management Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Krannich Solar Inc. Idaho Department of Commerce ClearEnergy Inc. Grundfos Direct Sensors
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
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 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