Rate:
Share
Views: 5662
Text Size:

Clean Coal Technology

Revealing Coal's Dirty Little Secret

By Keith Kohl
Monday, August 10th, 2009

You've seen the clean coal commercials by now. . .

The one that comes to mind begins with a cheery voice-over, "I believe in the future," followed by the image of someone plugging a power cord into a piece of coal.

By the end of the 30-second commercial, the audience is supposed to feel more upbeat about the possibility of clean coal.

. . . I'll let you be the judge, jury, and executioner of that one.

But hey, if you tossed me $35 million bucks and a camera, I'll find a way to make anything look good.

Whatever your feelings toward coal, however, there is one sobering point the commercial gets right. Coal generates about half of our electricity. Unfortunately, there's no side-stepping that fact.

So what is the $35 million dollar advertising campaign trying to accomplish?

Clearly, their goal is to convince you that there is a future in developing clean coal.

I can only hope my readers aren't swayed just because a commercial says so. Even if you did take their overly optimistic outlook on coal, there's a good chance you're staying away from coal investments. In fact, coal investors are still feeling the sting from last year's price collapse.

As you can see, things haven't been so pretty for coal:

coal prices 8-10-09

If dirty cheap coal hasn't been able to recover, what chances should we give a more expensive clean coal?

Clean Coal's Dirty Secret

Of course, there's one problem with clean coal — it's still dirty.

How dirty are we talking?

For starters, approximately 60% of the United States is surface mined. Sometimes entire mountain tops are stripped to reach the coal underneath.

I've personally seen the effects that surface mining can have on the surrounding area. One pass over the Alberta oil sands in a helicopter will show you just how massive these projects are. Fortunately, unlike coal, the future of oil sands production will be much cleaner. . . but I'll save that debate for another day.

Then we have the underground mines, which can reach a depth of 1,000 feet. I'm pretty sure I don't have to run through all the dangers associated with coal mines.

Believe me, the sight itself might make you rethink the term clean coal.

Advertisement

Introducing the "Negawatt Box"

We installed it in our Baltimore office a few months ago...

And immediately realized a 44% savings on our energy bill.

The best part: The company that makes the device trades for less than $1.00.

This report outlines why this stock will double as the entire world learns about the "Negawatt Box"... and the massive energy savings it produces.


Not-So-Cheap Coal

Clean coal technology doesn't solve the cost issue associated with mining and transporting the coal to the plants.

After the coal is mined, it must be transported. Almost 70% of U.S.-mined coal is shipped via railway, which can be just as expensive as the entire mining process itself. A single coal plant needs about 40 freight cars to supply the 1.4 million tons of coal it requires per year. If you're counting, that's just shy of 15,000 freight cars necessary, which only adds to pollution.

The China Factor

If the United States is the undisputed king of oil addiction, China takes the crown for the world's largest CO2 polluter. China uses roughly three billion tons of coal every year.

At first thought, you'd think the Chinese would welcome clean coal technology to the hundreds of coal plants billowing out greenhouse gases.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

The reason? You guessed it — cost.

China has already shown her disdain for hiking the cost of coal that comes with using clean coal technology. Instead, the Chinese believe they can get larger emission cuts by making the buildings and vehicles that use the coal more efficient.

Still, I can't blame some companies for at least trying to make that push for China. . .

Don't Throw in the Towel Just Yet

Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK), for example, just signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with one of China's biggest electric utilities, China Huaneng Group (which produces about 10% of the electricity consumed in China). According to the MoU, execs from both companies will get together to explore the possibilities of reducing coal plant emissions, as well as developing other renewable sources.

These two companies are no strangers to clean technology.

Duke is currently building one of the largest coal gasification power plants in the world. Their new 630-megawatt plant in Edwardsport, Indiana, isn't expected to go online for another two or three years. China Huaneng Group recently built China's first CO2-capturing demonstration facility in their Cogeneration Power Plant. A similar building under construction in one of their coal-fired plants, located in Shanghai, is expected to begin operation by the end of this year.

Until next time,

keith kohl

Keith Kohl

Energy and Capital

Editor's Note: While there's money to be made producing clean energy, the fastest way to energy security is through demand reduction. And a handful of companies are making a killing doing just that. My colleague, Nick Hodge, has targeted three Smart Grid Stocks that stand to make his readers a fortune. Click here to learn more.






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (14 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by Kabud on 2009-08-10
public already realized

in no time politicians will address it and dump
Comment by Curt in KY on 2009-08-10
Your article spends more time trying to convince the reader to accept your "coal is bad" philosophy than pointing out how I can make more money with coal. Coal is here to stay and does account for over 50% of power. With this knowledge and security, shouldnt we be trying to eliminate foreign oil instead of bashing the one proven and abundant resource that is not ransomed to us by people who hate us? We must use common sense in our energy plan.
Comment by J Ashley Neal on 2009-08-10
Your skepticism vs optimism quotient...is "evident"; that's ok !
A Question that continually doggs me, in this department (of NO..can't be done economically,etc)
is "how was it that Germany (pre-wwII) who had "no petroleum-reserves of her own)& was able to make suffeciently-high-octane fuel
for the Luftwaffe" from its vast coal-reserves? There's a "story there" that somehow keeps getting buried (Bad-punn) consistently !!
With all of our advanced(?) tech;
surely, this has not completely
fallen over the cliff into la-la
land...there must be some dusty-documents lying around in the vaults of IG Farben, that could provide a starting clue or so, for the "digital-brain-collective-bio-
types of today,.".toward the "end-of"co2-recapture, liquification and enhanced BTU-output"

(simply-stated/or questioned,
of course !! ??) Anybody-Home ??

jan939@yahoo.com
Comment by RSanders on 2009-08-10
The complete first half of this article blatantly deserves nothing more than the "BS" flag waving.
We can only hope that the justification for the recommendations noted in the second half of the article are based more on actual science, actual market facts, and actual potential for money to be made.
The moniker "Clean Coal" means a lot of different things to different people, but the fact that emissions are relative between all sources of energy doesn't remove the need for new cleanER coal-fired power plants, and the potential for liquified coal as fuel and gasification for future applications. It's still coal - and even if the process to get it out of the ground can make a mess, that can also be cleaned up and has NOTHING to do with the clean power derived from using it.
And "Greenhouse Gases?" You must mean water vapor and methane? You certainly can't mean CO2, which just gets sucked up by the green plants in the region...a complete Biology 101 red herring.
You must assume that your readers are educated enough to see through the political (unscientific) claptrap of Global Warming, even if we are astute enough to profit from the fiasco as long as the scam lasts.
Comment by William Meek, PE on 2009-08-10
Your arithmetic is way off. Forty rail cars is only 4000 tons of coal. You should have said 40 rail cars per day! (and that is a small coal plant)
Comment by mike hillier on 2009-08-10
check out (CCTC) symbol...go to their web page before u think coal can not be cleaned cheaply..cleancoaltechnologiesinc.com...worth ur time...call larry hunt @954.592.5529
Comment by Tom on 2009-08-10
Keith,

What do you think of RTK clean coal technology and future potential?


Regards,

Tom
Comment by Robert Paglee, P.E., (Ret.) on 2009-08-10
Thanks for the very interesting article, and this opportunity to comment on it. You are correct in highlighting the conundrum that clean coal is still dirty, particularly with certain aspects of surface mining. That said, coal gasification represents an interesting technical concept, but I'm not convinced it can be cost competetive with natural gas. Vast new domestic gas resources are being unlocked from tight shale formations through application of new technologies, and with the new abundance, the current price around $4 per million BTU is a super-bargain. Some also question whether uneconomic, possibly impractical carbon sequestration would be required with coal gasification.

But your article raises an unintended yet interesting other possibility. A new electric power transmission grid is being proposed to connect all those new wind farms being proposed to be located on our big open spaces (where the wind blows) with the distant cities where the power they would generate is needed. If the cost of delivering 70% of our coal to existing power plants via rail is "just as expensive as the entire mining process itself," to achieve even lower power cost through greater efficiency, why not build new coal-fired plants near the mines and hook them up, too, with that new electric grid?

Bob Paglee
Comment by WILLIAM FORTUNE on 2009-08-11
YOUALL SHOULD FOLLOW THE UPCOMMING "COAL-GEN" CONFERENCE, CHARLETT, NC,SPECIFFICALLY ON 8/20 AT 10:00AM. BILL ROLLINS, PE OF NOVEL EDGE TECHNOLOGIES, NEW BOSTON, NH WILL GIVE HIS PRESENTATION ON COMBINED CYCLE COAL TO FUEL AND ELECTRICITY AND THE CAPTURE OF CO2.
SEE IF YOUALL CAN BEAT HIS COST OF ELECTRICITY OF $65/MEG.WATT HR.

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HOLDING UP THIS AND OTHER CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES ARE THE ENVIRONMENTALIST. THEY NEED TO BE SUED FOR AT LEAST $500 BILLION FOR FRIVIOULS LWA SUITS AND INCREASING THE COST OF ENERGY.

BILL FORTUNE,
P.S SPELL CK SAYS NO SPELLING ERRORS;WRONG!
Comment by Pat Giles on 2009-08-11
Your continued bias against CTL and other coal technologies in favour of oil sands is grossly evident. Go to www.ectltd.com.au and research a technology which is about to be commercialised which will turn high water content lignite (60+%) into equivalent energy black coal and recover the water and return it to the environment & reduce CO2 by 30% & up to 60% with power plant retro fit. Also coal to iquids is well advanced in Australia with an Algae technology hanging off the end of the CTL process to capture the emissions and bio-sequest into lipds for diesel production. Here in Australia we are on the verge of going forward with emission free coal fired power stations.
Comment by Bruce on 2009-08-11
I understand peak oil and gas, what I don't buy is this new era is upon us. It all sounds to me like 'snake oil' salesman, hucksters out to fleece the sheeple. Yes, we need to develope alternative energy, but if we listen to special interest groups all we sill get is some more ethenol from food grains. It will take 20+ years to develope effective alternative energy, until that time we had better hope that fossil fuel inventories are maintained. Wind takes a 20 MPH wind to operate efficiently, sun is at best available 12 hours a day and in most of the country 70% or less of the available days. So yes we need to allow free enterprise to solve this, but to listen to some one so heavily invested in special interest hatred of the oil industry makes it real hard to take seriously,
Comment by Giles Nixon on 2009-08-11
Take a hard look at the website for the technology being developed by LINC ENERGY (ASX LNC) a Brisbane fledgling building a remarkable workable coal to diesel and aviation kerosene refinery for 20,000 bbl a day output. With agreements to transfer their technology to Vietnam and China, in place, and US coal ownership in the Powder River - this has huge potential. Giles Nixon
Comment by Giles on 2010-01-10
There is an established and growing development in the underground gasification of coal in-situ and converting the gas to liquids - namely diesel and aviation gasoline. No conventional mining or ash disposal etc.

The dynamic Linc Energy ASX:LNC is the one to watch with interests in US Powder River coal and huge reserves in Australia. Also with agreements in place for development in Vietnam and China too. I have been watching their progress now for years as a mining engineer. Yes, and a shareholder.

Well worth keeping track of.

Comment by Obama's-pet-fish on 2010-01-18
comment quote by Curt KY "bashing the one proven and abundant resource that is not ransomed to us by people who hate us? We must use common sense in our energy plan"

This is true here in the UK we are on the very last of our coal and now looking into europe and russia for our gas supplies. We have nuclear power which helps but I think 75% of the world hates the UK and US so are holding us to ransom. coal is harmful yes but at the end of the day we need power.

Politics, Lol whats the point unless you start to make real changes and stop talking about them.