At the end of our week 2 lecture series on coal power, I discuss the notion of “Clean Coal.” Below are links to two recent articles on the issue. The first, from the Wall Street Journal, asserts that “Despite the Gas Boom, Coal Isn’t Dead.” The second, in Wired Magazine, claims that “Clean Coal is the Future.”
During the recent presidential campaign, President Trump promised to revive the coal industry. But, skeptics abound (see the other articles referenced below).
During the recent presidential campaign, President Trump promised to revive the coal industry. But, skeptics abound (see the other articles referenced below).
What do you believe is – or should be – the future of coal in the US and the world’s electricity generation mix? Discuss the pros and cons of coal power within the ethical decision making frameworks we discussed on day 2 in Denver.
http://www.wired.com/2014/03/clean-coal/
http://www.businessinsider.com/can-trump-save-coal-2016-12
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/01/507693919/coal-country-picked-trump-now-they-want-him-to-keep-his-promises
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/energy-environment/a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps-promises-to-coal-miners.html?_r=0
http://www.businessinsider.com/can-trump-save-coal-2016-12
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/01/507693919/coal-country-picked-trump-now-they-want-him-to-keep-his-promises
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/energy-environment/a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps-promises-to-coal-miners.html?_r=0
I believe that the future of coal may not be as bleak as some people in the U.S. think it is, however I believe that its future is not as bright as some of the lagging utilities believe it to be. It comprises the majority of the energy mix today as we need steady, cheap baseload generation and do not have all of the alternative solutions fully vetted and figured out yet. The articles that I have read including the NERC reliability report regarding the Clean Power Plan 111(d) thus far indicate that it may be phased out, but not for many, many decades due to politics and infrastructure challenges. As its use and popularity ramps down and other energy resources come into play, I think it still plays a critical part of keeping the lights on. But, even in the conservative, historically risk averse utility landscape that the Midwest seemingly used to be just fifteen years ago, coal plants are being shut down and replaced with wind. This is a remarkable paradigm shift and should not be ignored.
ReplyDeleteCoal is currently critical to reliability and without it, there could be a shortage of energy delivered on the wires and potentially big safety issues that our country is not fully prepared to address. Although coal comprises about 8% of U.S. production, there are other countries producing, shipping, burning and selling it at larger rates. Much like a 401K retirement portfolio, for reliability purposes, a blended, diversified fuel mix ensures a reliable system, but at the same time we should also be developing ways to burn it cleaner, to extract resulting pollutants before, after or during the process. I believe that we should keep exploring alternatives so that eventually we are not so coal dependent. If we put more renewables on the grid, or distributed energy resources that take load off the grid, the power companies may be in a position where they are best suited to provide backup generation when the renewables aren't churning. This is another reason it should remain as a viable yet not perfect energy resource until we figure out how to blend and balance human health, policy, environmental and energy needs.
The U.S. is making an attempt to step up and be a role model for the rest of the world by replacing coal with renewables and looking for ways to reduce pollution. U.S. citizens are energy dependent, think iPhones, TVs, modern electronic devices and conveniences, spanning all the way to machines in hospitals. Perhaps the Jevons Paradox applies here, as mining technology improved over the years and coal for energy became more efficient resulting in more consumption and demand and lower pricing. The cons however, abound. Pros of coal staying viable is that it’s cheap and mined within the U.S. (Wyoming especially) which may lead to energy independence. The EIA showed a graph that indicates that the U.S. could be energy independent, big thanks to natural gas, by as soon as 2027. Cons of coal staying viable are asthma in children, environmental justice, Hg in fish, greenhouse gases and global warming. Ethically, we can't back coal 100% because we know that it has harmful effects. Just look at China where in the major cities they have to wear masks because of PM2.5 and coal ash in the air. That part is a moral dilemma.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the President is not just pro-coal as he has seven renewable projects and a transmission line on his Priority Infrastructure Project List.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a step change in technology improvement in US Shale (Horizontal drilling and multi-stage fracturing), that has resulted in increased natural gas production over the past 10 years. (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.html). Also, the price of natural gas has declined (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29552), from a high of above 13$/MMBTU to about 2.50$MM/BTU.
ReplyDeleteThis has resulted in the price differential between generating power from coal and natural gas shrink. While, we see the electrical power price from natural gas has decreased over years, price from coal production has actually increased (http://web.mit.edu/knittel/www/papers/Coal_latest.pdf). We have discussed in class that for a sustainable development, it has to be economical. Why I believe that coal industry is on the road to decline, is supported by simple economic facts above. It makes sense to have a natural gas powered generation plant, compared to coal. While CPP was aiming towards lowering carbon emissions, it would have only succeeded if the plan was economically viable - and I think it is. In addition to lowered carbon emissions, technology improvements and development of initially non sustainable basins are going to help us continue moving towards this sustainable path.
Neha - I think you have hit the nail on the head when it comes to natural gas and how it has changed the game for coal. I find it hard to believe that the CPP will be good for coal as long as natural gas prices stay low. If natural gas prices remain low, coal prices will have to be low to compete. Plus, newer CPP plants will probably not want to take on coal because of costs. The FutureGen plant in Illinois received $1 billion from the US government and over six years could never become operational (https://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research/major-demonstrations/futuregen-20). In the beginning of January, the Kemper plant announced it would be operational by January 31st (http://www.sunherald.com/news/business/article125039554.html). That brings its total estimated price tag to $6.98 billion and years behind schedule.
DeleteWith both the FutureGen and Kemper plant, lessons will be learned and efficiencies gain so that both the public and private sector don't get burned again. However, because of their price tag and lengthy time to operation schedules, the argument for the U.S. to move away from coal will only continue to gain momentum.
Over-reliance on a single technology or fuel can have devastating impact..
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a place in the market for all energy producing material. The question is how the resource will be used. As discussed above this is a matter of economics. This economics can be shifted by government intervention, discoveries and technological change. Political policies for cleaner energy supply and technology advancements in wind and solar have expanded the area renewables have in the global energy portfolio. With energy consumption estimated to grow by 56% between 2010 and 2040 there will be an increased demand for all energy options (EIA projects world energy consumption will increase 56% by 2040. EIA.gov. Retrieved January 27, 2017.http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=12251). As you can see in the link, demand for coal increases until a few years before 2040. With this projection coal, will support a large percentage of global energy demand for years to come. However, technological advancements could change this graph rapidly.
ReplyDeleteAs technology for renewable energy production betters, so does that of coal power plants. As seen in China’s GreenGen, clean coal power plant. This power plant is very expensive, but is proof that technology can propel fossil fuel as a cleaner alternative energy supply.
I agree with you Sonia and Thomas. BP releases an energy outlook every year. 2017 outlook was just released, which was preceded by a webinar that BP held to go over main points of the report.
ReplyDeleteIt says what you are saying Thomas, from now to 2035, the world population is expected to grow by 1.5 Billion people, so yes the energy demands in the world are going to continue to grow. While each fuel or energy source individually follows a growing trend, the gradual change in percentage of energy delivered by the fuel mix tells another story.
It is not over-reliance on one source of energy, I do not think there will be a sudden disappearance of coal from the energy mix, and while total consumption seems to be increasing - the percentage mix is definitely changing. On a global level, where Coal was catering to over 40% of energy demands in 1965, currently it stays at about 30%.
While I agree with you Thomas, there are initiative in coal industry, but we are also looking at a large investment being made in other sources of energy. It remains to be seen if we will really have "clean coal", I think it will be a tough comeback to make
“What do you believe is – or should be – the future of coal in the US and the world’s electricity generation mix?”
ReplyDeleteWe know coal is one of the worst offenders in the emission of harmful GHGs. We also know we must reduce our anthropogenic GHG emissions in order to reduce or eliminate the negative effects of global warming. We have many other generation technologies that can financially compete with coal (especially if you include opportunity costs of continued high levels of GHG emissions). My belief is that we should be focused on making a significant transition to sustainable generation facilities rather than continuing to invest in those that are not (step-down coal over time).
I’ll summarize sustainability as it relates to an energy source as described in class: 1) not significantly depleted by continued use, 2) does not entail emission of pollutants, and 3) does not involve the perpetuation of significant social injustices. Coal fails the basic sustainability test on at least 2 of the 3 points and potentially all 3 if you were to look at things such as worker death rates in certain regions as found on pages 164 of our text. (Everett, B. Boyle, G., Peake, S., & Ramage, J. (2012). Energy Systems and Sustainability, Power for a Sustainable Future, 2nd Edition. Pages 164-165. Oxford University Press.) Coal is simply not a sustainable energy source. With that said, we must also consider the economic factors of increasing global energy demand and pre-existing investments in infrastructure. I don’t believe continued investment in new coal burning generation facilities should be permitted, with the potential exception of “clean coal” facilities, those that have no greater GHG emission levels than a modern natural gas burning generation facility. Given the number of coal burning generation facilities globally, and the time it would take to naturally retire them, pursuit of retrofit solutions to convert these facilities to “clean coal” facilities is probably worthy of research. Or, do we leapfrog coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels and put our R&D investments toward technologies we already know to be both renewable, sustainable and economically viable at scale?
Regarding sustainability, is it economically, environmentally and socially feasible? One could peel back the layers and start thinking about economics holistically. The Arch Coal video stated they employed at one time, 1600 people. That's a lot of jobs. I wonder if a big solar or wind company currently employs that many folks which would also be an interesting facet. As far a primary resources go, when considering coal, sun, wind, you may be ahead when considering sun and wind are free. How much do materials, labor, overheads, infrastructure interconnections, transportation of materials and long term operations and maintenance add up to for all the alternatives? As far as emissions, Rick stated that solar panels produce pollutants into the atmosphere from the panels. Wind, solar and coal all have a negative environmental impact, think bird strikes on wind turbines, habit encroachments given the amount of acreage needed for a wind or solar farm, coal mining operations, etc. I am not sure how to score each without more data, but I'm sure the class will do this over the course of the next several weeks. If one were to conduct a Gallup Poll and survey folks to see what is more important, refrigerator and AC in the summer, or green energy, I have heard it go both ways! On a downside, natural gas and price volatility have been discussed in class. Recently in the news, an oil and gas pipeline spilled and contaminated a significant amount of land in Iowa. So, thus far I don't see a winner just yet. The largest spill in 7 years, 140,000 gallons of diesel in bad winter conditions.
ReplyDeleteclick here
My classmates bring up great points when addressing the sustainability of coal as a fuel source for generation. Thomas and Neha both agree that coal is key part of the energy generation fuel mix. I agree with them and that shouldn’t change until a sustainable alternative is found. Coal is cheap, abundant in the US, and the generation infrastructure is already set up to use coal (CFPPs). Over the past decade the US dependency on coal as a primary fuel source for generation has declined significantly, but still in 2015 the US used coal to generate 33% of our total electricity. Natural gas was also used as a fuel source for another third of the US’s generation ("What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)", 2017). The downfall of coal is the GHG emissions. Even with the use of expensive CCS systems on the smaller CFPP there is still no sustainable option for use or storage of CO2. There are, without a doubt, many environmental issues and concerns with using coal as a fuel source but it cannot be removed from the fuel source mix yet. If coal were to be removed without a significant advancement in energy storage and renewable the US generation sector would have to turn to natural gas. Natural gas would then dominate the US’s fuel source for generation. Becoming over dependent on any fuel source would create a massive risk. Any disruptions to the supply of natural gas could affect electrical generation across regions. Ideally an even split between coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, and renewable as sources of generation would limit the US’s risk until a technological leap forward occurred. Once that technological leap forward occurs, the US can then rapidly make the transition from coal.
ReplyDeleteWhat is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2017). Eia.gov. Retrieved 30 January 2017, from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
That coal is dirty, cradle to grave, is indisputable (although yes, technology has considerably cleaned the burning of it), and that it is a very significant emitter of CO2 is also beyond argument. While these my be the basis of arguments to do away with coal, they will not carry the day until we solve the problems that would come with such a change. The availability and economics of clean technology is only one piece of the puzzle. The other, which if solved would considerably advance the argument, is the over 100,000 jobs associated with the mining of coal. Jobs that are concentrated in just a few states and in areas not known for their economic vitality. As we are seeing in the manufacturing sector, people refuse to acknowledge that improved technology and automation have banished many of those jobs forever. Part of this refusal to acknowledge reality is that many of these blue collar workers have nothing else to turn to. Coal miners are in the same situation and so will fight with everything they have to hold onto those jobs, and that fight will be carried strongly by their congressmen and senators. So yes, I think we can find consensus that the new administration should not try to revive the coal industry, but in addition to funds for R&D of clean energy, we need to devote attention and resources to job re-training and economic revitalization of the many coal mining towns that will be devastated if we stop using coal.
ReplyDeleteIf we look towards the future of the energy industry we will actually see jobs in renewables surpass that of coal, oil, and natural gas combined in power generation. In fact, in the most recent U.S. Energy and Employment report, released by the DOE, you'll see just that. Solar Energy employment increased by 25% in 2016, with 373,807 jobs in America alone (Page 37 and summary on Page 29 - https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf). Wind energy is also growing rapidly, with just over 100,000 employed in the U.S. (Page 39 of the same report from the DOE). Coal on the other hand has declined by 53% over the past 10 years (Page 40) and is still going down.
DeleteAs more and more coal plants get replaced with renewable alternatives worldwide we will see these employment numbers in the solar and wind sectors continue to grow. We can revitalize these coal mining towns by putting in true clean energy - that way we provide better, healthier, and more stable jobs for Americans around the country (without negatively affecting our planet). I am not saying we can do this all tomorrow, but if we put legislation in place and create a plan to phase out coal it will be better for everyone long term. So I agree with Paul's last sentence there and hope that Trump's new administration agrees as well.
EIA estimated that there is 324.3 Tcf of proven natural gas reserves in the United States (http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/). They also estimated a Demonstrated Reserve Base of 478.4 billion short tons of coal in the U.S. (http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves). Supply will never be the problem for coal. It will be demand thanks to substitute forms of energy (e.g. natural gas) and the downfall of the American steel industry.
ReplyDeleteAs the US steel industry slowed, it took part of coal's market share with it and coal had nothing to replace it with. It has been on a downward trend since the 1970's and has not recovered from the 2008 financial crisis (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/steel-production). So now not only are power plants moving away from coal so are steel plants. President Trump's administration has too much out of its control in order to "save" the U.S. coal industry. Even if this administration was able to some how raise the price of natural gas without raising the price of coal and increase steel demand to 1970's levels, there are already new technologies being developed and in use for power generation and steel manufacturing that make coal obsolete. Using direct reduced iron (DRI) techniques, steel manufactures can save 20% per ton when using natural gas versus coal (http://www.platts.com/news-feature/2013/naturalgas/steel-gas/prices).
Existing coal powered power plants are not going anywhere anytime soon either though. We just won't be building any new ones. It costs millions upon millions to convert a billion dollar coal power plant to natural gas (http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Coal-vs-natural-gas-It-s-complicated-3897251.php); however, in April of 2015, natural gas took over coal as the primary fuel source for power plants (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/14/natural-gas-tops-coal-as-top-source-of-electric-power-generation-in-us.html). If the Trump administration wants to create jobs, they should focus on creating a natural gas pipeline network that could feed power plants all over the U.S. The market has made their choice and it's natural gas so if the federal government wants to support the energy industry, get behind the winning horse. At the same time, don't lose sight that eventually natural gas will be in coal's shoes and another energy source (most likely a renewable) will knock natural gas off its throne.
Let's test out one of the common assumptions made when discussing coal power, that is, the assumption that coal (and also nuclear) provide the "baseload" power that underpins grid reliability. More recently that assumption has been called into question with some renewable energy proponents asserting that what is needed is more "flexible" power, not necessarily baseload. Moreover, there are other clean dispatchable resources includeing geothermal, concentrating solar, and hydro. Check out this article for one discussion questioning the assumption of a need for baseload power
ReplyDeleteCoal production is continuing to decline, dropping under 800 million short tonnes and 17% lower than 2015. According to the EIA this is lowest levels of production since 1978. Low natural gas prices, warmer winter temperatures, retirements of coal-fired generators and lower international coal demand have all contributed to the drop in production (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29472). I can't see how, given the declining price for natural gas and renewables, this administration will be able to deliver on its promises to the coal industry. The number of workers at US coal mines declined 12% in 2015 and is currently at the lowest employment levels since the EIA has been keeping records. Turning around the coal industry would require huge government subsidies and changing market factors that have turned people off of coal use for electric generation. Not only that, the development of fracking has greatly expanded the availability of natural gas and new renewable technologies continue to grab market share. I believe that there are too many factors working against the development of coal that even the deregulation of the industry proposed by the Trump Administration will not be able to revive the industry.
ReplyDeleteTrump has a reputation for saying whatever it takes to win over a voting population. His vow to bring back coal production is no different. This article from Newsweek points out that the Obama administration, or any administration prior was not responsible for coal’s demise, the responsible party was the free market economy.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I fully believe that the energy economy moving forward here in the U.S. is going to rely on all types of energy sources, coal will not make up as high of a percentage of the total as it has historically. As we move toward developing better technologies to utilize our energy resources more efficiently, we should be focusing our attentions on how to migrate from fossil fuels, rather than deepening our dependence upon them. With Trump making this issue about politics rather than what it is, is just hiding the reality that for some of the U.S. population, coal mining is not a reliable job source. In my opinion, I feel that investments should be made in retraining and educational opportunities rather than trying to force a slowly dying industry to forge on.
Is it ethical for the government to push for coal production, while it is hindering the growth of the communities dependent upon the mining of coal, as well as creating an ever growing problem with greenhouse gasses?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMany people, especially from the Appalachia, believe that President Trump can revive the downward trend of the coal industry, by just rolling back many of the environmental regulations put in place over the last several years. There is a strong belief that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is overloading the coal industry with regulations, thereby destroying many high paying coal mining jobs.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is far from the truth. The market dynamics and competition from other energy sources are reshaping the energy landscape. The abundance of natural gas, through fracking alone, is driving down the price of gas and making it competitive with coal for electricity generation. I do not foresee the competition from natural gas going away anytime soon, and no amount of EPA deregulation will reverse the trend in the coal industry.
I'd like to touch upon one of our slides and discussions from the first weekend in Denver. While I cannot seem to locate it now, it showed the various "ages" of fuel types (ie biomass, coal, oil, etc). I can remember that the charts showed how different fuel types have their golden ages and how their increased mass adoptions tended to take place as the previous "big player" was phasing out.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though that is what is happening today with coal, as there are more alternatives available today than there ever have been in the world. Whether it be natural gas, solar renewables, or others, the age of coal is being phased out more and more rapidly with the continued adoption of cleaner and more efficient options. Like Fola said, no amount of deregulation nor lobbying will reverse this downward trend in the coal industry. Instead of pumping resources into a declining industry, we should be allocating time more resources into transitional training programs for workers whose skills in the coal industry cannot as easily be applied into other mediums. If Trump wants to make the United States an industrial powerhouse again, he should be looking to the workforce within the coal industry to fuel that industrial growth. While I don't want to objectify people in the coal industry, I feel as though there is a great opportunity to allocate that workforce into other industries. Hell, I'm sure Trump's plans to update/upgrade the U.S. infrastructure will need substantially more skilled labor than is currently available. I know it isn't necessarily ideal, however, it could be a good start to an economically viable transition from our dependence on coal.