Coal seam gas unlikely to 'accelerate' warming

Tom Wigley's report overlooks important factors

It is premature to dismiss gas-fired power generation based on the material in one report by Tom Wigley comparing a few aspects of coal power with a few aspects of natural gas production and use

There are more options to evaluate in making a transition from coal to natural gas and to renewable energy resources.

For example, suppose your objective is to generate renewable baseload power from biomass that is converted into substitute natural gas (SNG).
While taking time to increase the production of of biomass resources, one way to save time is to build the natural gas-fired power stations and fuel them with natural gas during an interim transition period.
(See research at the University of Minnesota on solar thermal gasification of biomass )

In another option the objective might be to reduce the amount of coal required to generate electricity and to reduce CO2 emissions. In this option, coal is converted into substitute natural gas (SNG). One important benefit from this approach comes about because advanced gas turbines developed by GE and Siemens this year achieve much greater efficiency than is possible in coal-fired power stations. These new power stations need only two-thirds the coal (just 2 tons of coal out of every 3 tons) to generate the same amount of electricity as a coal-fired power station. This option can also slash CO2 emissions by 60% or more.
(See the project to construct a coal to natural gas conversion plant in Illinois )

One option that is rarely considered is the use of this technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Solar panels and wind-turbines might have zero CO2 emissions, but they cannot remove any CO2. If biomass is grown, it is removing CO2 from the atmosphere while it is growing and storing solar energy. During gasification, some or all of that CO2 could be separated and pumped into a carbon store. With this option, the more energy generated, the faster CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.

In summary, it is premature to dismiss gas-fired power generation based on the material in one report comparing a few aspects of coal power with a few aspects of natural gas production and use.

There is some more on these possibilities here

Submission to the NSW Government Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas

Key Points of Askgerbil's Submission

• AGL has noted in 2010 that investment in natural gas cannot be secured when there is a risk that lower-cost technology will be built in competition with it. The present enthusiasm for coal seam gas is consistent with this 2010 analysis by AGL that leads to the erroneous conclusion that the Australian Government's planned carbon tax will give natural gas a clear market advantage over coal.

• This enthusiasm is misplaced and as a result is very likely to be short-lived.

• The investment at present planned for the exploitation of coal seam gas resources will be most beneficial to the people, industry and environment of New South Wales if it is directed instead to the extension of the existing coal mining industry by the development of an integrated gasified coal / biomass energy industry.

The full text of the submission

Gerbilnow 7 September 2011 www.gerbilnow.com Askgerbil@gerbilnow.com

Gerbilnow welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the New South Wales Legislative Council's General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 INQUIRY INTO COAL SEAM GAS.

Gerbilnow and its technical research writers have made valuable contributions to the energy policies of the New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Australian Governments over a number of years. The Terms of Reference for this present inquiry provide the necessary scope to build on these previous submissions:

1. Submission on the New South Wales Government's “2004 Energy Directions Green Paper”, February 2005.
2. Submission to the Australian Government: “Energy Generation and Distribution”, August 2007.
3. Submission on the Australian Capital Territory Government's “Draft Sustainable Energy Policy 2010–2020”, March 2010
4. Submission on the Australian Government's “Clean Energy Legislative Package”, August 2011.

This Inquiry's Terms of Reference grouped under the headings “The economic and social implications of CSG activities” and “The role of CSG in meeting the future energy needs of NSW” are explored and developed within each of the above-listed submissions.

The change from coal to natural gas / bio-methane / coal gasification products as the major energy resource is recommended in each.

However, there are two factors that mitigate against the development of coal seam gas resources at this time:

The above-listed August 2007 submission refers to the social and economic impact of a policy shift from coal to gas:

“The move to gas and away from coal is likely to reduce confidence and optimism amongst investors, workers and communities dependent on the coal industry. This can influence people’s current purchasing and investment decisions, with adverse economic consequences. Announcing a preliminary feasibility study into synthetic natural gas plants will help lift the confidence levels of people whose livelihoods are linked to the coal industry.”

The August 2011 submission touches on the financial vulnerability of the natural gas industry identified by AGL in 2010, and some of the technology now available that exposes the coal seam gas industry to these commercial risks such that it may be severely limited in its ability to secure investment for sustained growth:

“At a practical level the lowest cost technology available to meet baseload electricity demand is coal-fired power stations.

Ironically, investors today are also unable to secure project finance for baseload and intermediate thermal [power generation] alternatives to coal (e.g [Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine] CCGT) while policy settings explicitly allow coal [power stations] to be built. While all reasoned logic dictates that coal would not be built under current conditions, nobody can guarantee this. So while a CCGT plant would have a substantially lower emissions intensity than coal at 0.4 tonnes per MWh [sic, 0.33 tonnes], the absence of an explicit carbon price creates unacceptable risks for investors in CCGT plant as the higher cost structure of CCGT plant would be undermined should new coal plant be financed and constructed.” (From AGL submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes’ inquiry into Carbon Pricing. “Delayed carbon policy certainty and electricity prices in Australia” March 2010. sub19, at page 7.)

The August 2011 submission by Gerbilnow observed that the AGL submission to the 2010 Australian Senate inquiry was based on out-of-date information and as a result its conclusions were in doubt:

The AGL submission contained a figure titled “...Thermal Technologies”. It omits coal gasification thermal technologies; an important option that invalidates two assumptions in those submissions.

The analysis using the up-to-date information shows that coal gasification with pre-combustion separation of 50% of the carbon dioxide:

1. The cost of end-use energy is unlikely to increase further following the introduction of a carbon price.
2. At a practical level the lowest cost technology available to meet baseload electricity demand is combined cycle gas turbine power stations fuelled with gasified coal.

AGL has noted in 2010 that investment in natural gas cannot be secured when there is a risk that lower-cost technology will be built in competition with it. The present enthusiasm for coal seam gas is consistent with this 2010 analysis by AGL that leads to the erroneous conclusion that the Australian Government's planned carbon tax will give natural gas a clear market advantage over coal.

This enthusiasm is misplaced and as a result is very likely to be short-lived.

In addition to the commercial availability of large-scale coal gasification technologies that are at present installed and being installed in China, the US and elsewhere, there is important research into concentrated solar thermal gasification of coal that is ready for commercial deployment.

See, for example:

1. SUNgas: Thermochemical gasification of biomass using concentrated solar energy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
2. Solar Gasification of Biomass: Kinetics of Pyrolysis and Steam Gasification in Molten Salt, J. Sol. Energy Eng. -- May 2011 -- Volume 133, Issue 2, 021011 (9 pages)
3. The solar thermal gasification of coal — energy conversion efficiency and CO2 mitigation potential
4. SolarGas: super solar charged natural gas. SolarGas™ technology has generated considerable interest because it combines two large resources – sun and gas. CSIRO has developed Solar reforming (SolarGas™) well beyond the research stage and it is now ready for commercial application.

The development of a coal / biomass gasification industry in preference to the growth of coal seam gas resources at this time has important social, economic and environmental benefits:

1. The continuing economic well-being and prosperity of communities that depend on the coal industry can be assured,
2. The environmental impact of coal as an energy resource can be enormously reduced while its value to the economy is increased, and
3. The environmental risks occasioned by the coal seam gas industry simply do not arise.

Conclusion

The investment at present planned for the exploitation of coal seam gas resources will be most beneficial to the people, industry and environment of New South Wales if it is directed instead to the extension of the existing coal mining industry by the development of an integrated gasified coal / biomass energy industry.

Gerbilnow

Attachments:

1. Submission on the New South Wales Government's “2004 Energy Directions Green Paper”, February 2005.
2. Submission to the Australian Government: “Energy Generation and Distribution”, August 2007.
3. Submission on the Australian Capital Territory Government's “Draft Sustainable Energy Policy 2010–2020”, March 2010
4. Submission on the Australian Government's “Clean Energy Legislative Package”, August 2011.

Nuclear Power and Nuclear Energy versus Nuclear Technology

Future Nuclear Power Reactors Must Be Safe

Our early efforts with nuclear technology are justifiably judged quite harshly. We should expect nothing less than a nuclear technology in the future that is no more dangerous than a DVD player. For now it does seem foolish to toy with nuclear technology that is extremely hazardous.

A comparison with the thousands of years history of our so-called "mastery" of fire illustrates this view:

"The early matches, including the noiseless match, were dangerous to both end users and the workers that made them.
An agreement, the Berne Convention, was reached at Bern, Switzerland, in 1906 to prohibit the use of white phosphorus in matches. This required each country to pass laws prohibiting the use of white phosphorus in matches. Great Britain passed a law in 1908 prohibiting its use in matches after 31 December 1910."

Over 80% of Americans don’t realize that home fires are the most common disaster in the U.S. today - and all avoidable. (See Fires in Homes are Most Common Disaster in U.S. - Stay Warm and Safe )

Only a few years earlier Marie Curie undertook work for which she was awarded 2 Nobel Prizes:

"Marie drew the conclusion that the ability to radiate did not depend on the arrangement of the atoms in a molecule, it must be linked to the interior of the atom itself. This discovery was absolutely revolutionary."

And:

"For the first time in history it could be shown that an element could be transmuted into another element, revolutionizing chemistry and signifying a new epoch."

The minimum criteria for nuclear technology that is safe should read something like this:

"Driven Nuclear Reactors; these do not rely on spontaneous fission, they produce no radioactive waste, and they do not create any weapons capability."

Related posts - 

Driven nuclear reactions on minimum acceptable safety standards for nuclear technology.

Coal - them and us or teamwork

"Who will be First to Cop the Carbon Chop?"

What, No Beer???

The Climate Sceptics Blog, "Carbon Sense Newsletter from Carbon Sense Coalition"

(11 September 2011)

"It is not possible to achieve the government's planned cuts to the production of carbon dioxide without significant shrinkage of our main industries. The destructive but honest way is to allow the shrinking targets and rising taxes to force closures or relocation for our backbone industries."
"It's not possible to make cement or brew beer without generating carbon dioxide."

Read more...

Money going out the CO2 emission stack

 Sell Food Grade Carbon Dioxide for $20 to $40 per Kilogram!!!

Capture Carbon Dioxide from beer brewing (save $23 per tonne in carbon tax) then sell it for $20-$40 per kilogram as food-grade Carbon Dioxide....

"Logichem has more than 10 years experience in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Collection Plants. This is essentially a CO2 Recovery Plant. The CO2 is recovered from fermenting and CO2 rich chemical processes. Logichem offers the most cost effective and latest technology to our clients.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally formed in fermentation processes commonly found in the beer and alcohol production industries.
CO2 is essential in the production of carbonated alcoholic beverages such as beers and ciders.
Studies have indicated that a CO2 collection ratio of 27.3 kg/kl brewed is typical. In theory for high gravity Beer up to 45 kg/kl CO2 are generated, this figure is dependent on the actual brew.
The CO2 gas stream is then compressed and purified to produce high quality food grade CO2."

Read more...

"In Tassie food-grade CO2 refills costs $40.00 for 2kg and $20.00 for 500grams."

Read more...

Save $12.8 million a year

In "Another brick in the wall for carbon tax"

 (Fairfield Advance News 11 Sep 2011 @ 02:27pm by LISA HERBERTSON )

Tony Abbott visited Austral Bricks.

Tony Abbott visits Austral Bricks

Austral Bricks managing director Lindsay Partridge said the Brickworks had reduced carbon emissions by 40 per cent in the past decade, but the introduction of the carbon tax would cost his company $12.8 million a year.
After his hands-on experience, Mr Abbott shared a sausage sandwich and a few words with the employees.

“This is one of the many businesses in one of the many industries which is going to be badly hit by the Prime Minister’s toxic tax,” Mr Abbott said. “The thing about the carbon tax is that it’s going to be very tough for Australian families, it’s going to be particularly tough for Australian homebuyers.” 

 Read more...

(See the related post: Tony Abbott does "Hanrahan" for Doorstop Interview...)

Coal Seam Gas Needs Carbon Tax

Without a Price on Carbon, the Coal Seam Gas Industry is Not Commercially Viable

See Askgerbil's Submission to the NSW Government Inquiry into Coal  Seam Gas that questions the viability of the industry if the Carbon Tax is not implemented and retained.


In its 2010 submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes’ inquiry into Carbon Pricing , AGL wrote:

“Ironically, investors today are also unable to secure project finance for baseload and intermediate thermal alternatives to coal (e.g. CCGT) while policy settings explicitly allow coal to be built. While all reasoned logic dictates that coal would not be built under current conditions, nobody can guarantee this. So while a CCGT plant would have a substantially lower emissions intensity than coal at 0.4 tonnes per MWh, the absence of an explicit carbon price creates unacceptable risks for investors in CCGT plant as the higher cost structure of CCGT plant would be undermined should new coal plant be financed and constructed.” 1

This was affirmed earlier this year...

Uncertainty over carbon pricing puts investment on hold

The Australian January 10, 2011

"...Companies such as AGL and Origin say they need a carbon price to make decisions on ... big gas-fired power stations.
AGL Energy chief Michael Fraser ...said last month that uncertainty about the carbon price meant new baseload power was not being built.
No one in their right mind was going to build a coal-fired power station with a carbon price looming, he said, but without price certainty baseload gas power could not be built either.
Origin managing director Grant King, ... says the government needs to move quickly...
"We've pointed out to government: your time is running out," King says.
"It takes a long time to build things, so you're going to have to make up your mind pretty soon what you want us to build."

Anyone considering making a submission to the New South Wales inquiry into coal seam gas (submissions close tomorrow) may also want to consider the following possibility -

It will help protect jobs and communities that depend on coal mining if we can find a commercially sensible way to improve the environmental acceptance of coal in energy supply systems. The article and the summaries at "Australia's Clean Energy Legislative Package" and "Power Station Operator gets great value for investors" provide some approaches that might help.

1 AGL submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes’ inquiry into Carbon Pricing. “Delayed carbon policy certainty and electricity prices in Australia” March 2010. sub19, at page 7.

Energy Information Available to Australian Politicians

The information on the Australian Parliament Library webpage "Clean Coal" is no longer current.

A summary of more recent technology is available in a submission "Australia's Clean Energy Legislative Package" and in a short article "power station operator gets great value for investors".

These technology changes that are not mentioned at present include:

• Coal can be gasified to produce Natural Gas (Substitute Natural Gas, or "SNG"), and used either in power stations or any other application where natural gas is used. eg. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) to fuel cars, trucks and buses.
• In Coal to Natural Gas conversion, 50% of the carbon is separated as carbon dioxide.
• When the resulting Natural Gas is used in a power station, thermal efficiency of 60% can be achieved. This compares to 35-40% when the coal is burned in a coal-fired power station.
• The effect is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 65% - 70% from about 1,000 kg per megawatt-hour to about 330 kg per megawatt-hour.
• A further benefit is that the same electrical energy can be produced with about 2/3 of the coal when the coal is burned in a coal-fired power station.

The Parliamentary Library webpage states "An example is gasification of coal by burning it in oxygen".

Coal gasification can also be carried out with concentrated solar thermal energy. In this process, the solar energy contributes about 25% of the final energy generated by the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power station that uses the resulting Natural Gas fuel. Carbon dioxide emissions are further reduced, and even less coal is needed for the same electrical energy output.

References to some related technology and its use in China, the US and elsewhere include:

• Coal to Natural Gas - Illinois "Quinn signs bill for Chicago coal-to-gas plant"
• Coal to Syngas "Siemens Fuel Gasification Technology" Brochure (This technology gasifies either coal or biomass via partial combustion with oxygen. The resulting Syngas can be used to create Natural Gas. This is one component of the above Illinois Coal to Natural Gas project - See "Secure Energy" at page 7 of the brochure)
• CCGT power station exceeding 60% efficiency - Siemens AG "Siemens gas turbine breaks 60% efficiency barrier"
• Coal / Biomass Gasification with Concentrated Solar Thermal Energy:
  • SUNgas: Thermochemical gasification of biomass using concentrated solar energy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
  • Solar Gasification of Biomass: Kinetics of Pyrolysis and Steam Gasification in Molten Salt, J. Sol. Energy Eng. -- May 2011 -- Volume 133, Issue 2, 021011 (9 pages)
  • The solar thermal gasification of coal — energy conversion efficiency and CO2 mitigation potential

The web site also has a completely separate page on "Renewable Energies", and there is no discussion on hybrid fossil fuel/renewable energy approaches.

Hybrid energy systems with coal, gas, biomass and solar thermal energy are increasingly seen as a cost-effective way to add renewable energies into electricity supply grids. Recent large-scale projects are bypassing the limitations and costs of concentrated solar thermal storage:

The Spanish solar research centre co-authored this paper:

Novel integration options of concentrating solar thermal technology with fossil-fuelled and CO2 capture processes
April 1, 2011
Guillermo Ordorica-Garcia a, Alfonso Vidal Delgado b and Aranzazu Fernandez Garcia b

a Alberta Innovates–Technology Futures (AITF), 250 Karl Clark Rd., Edmonton, Alberta, T6N 1E4, Canada
b Plataforma Solar de Almeria (PSA)–CIEMAT, Ctra. Senés Km. 4, P.O. Box 44, Tabernas, Almería, 04200, Spain

"One key shortcoming of Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST) technology is its sensitivity to disruptions in sunlight availability over time. CST systems require either thermal energy storage or backup systems to operate during heavy cloud periods or at night. On the other hand, fossil-based energy systems have high availability and reliability, but they generate substantial CO2 emissions compared to equivalent CST processes.

A novel solution would combine the benefits of CST technology and of fossil-fueled energy systems. Such a solar-fossil hybrid system would guarantee energy availability in the absence of sunlight or stored solar energy."

Two recent projects using this approach:

June 10, 2011
A new hybrid power plant in Turkey will combine a traditional gas-fired steam turbine with solar thermal power and wind power, according to GE. It’s a step toward integrating renewable sources into the traditional power grid, using steam and mirrors. ...the real gain may be in the ease with which wind and solar are being added to the power grid.

Aug 11, 2011
California regulators approve hybrid power plant
The California Energy Commission today approved the construction of a proposed 570-megawatt hybrid power plant in Los Angeles County.

“The project will provide reliable and consistent power,” said Commissioner Karen Douglas, who is the presiding member for the committee reviewing the Palmdale project.

The proposed project consists of natural gas-fired, combined-cycle generating equipment integrated with solar thermal generating equipment. During daylight hours when the parabolic solar thermal collectors are in use, the solar field will provide about 10 percent of the peak power generated.

The solar field will provide heat directly to the heat-recovery steam generators to produce steam, reducing the natural gas used at the facility

WindSpire wind generator - runs silently

Green Machine: Wind farms make like a fish

Inspired by the turbulence created by fish schools, a group of aeronautical engineers in 2010 were testing whether it's possible to position wind turbines so that they help each other – and so boost a farm's energy output. (read more...)

Mariah Power of Reno Nevada has introduced a new wind generator called the Windspire.

Standing at only 30 foot and with a footprint of 2 foot in diameter, makes this wind generator an attractive option for those living in a more confined area. The big plus for me is it doesn’t take a crane to put the Windspire up nor does it require guide wires. The Windspire is hinged so you can assemble it on the ground then raised with the use of a hand winch.

WindSpire

• They have the power to provide clean, renewable energy.
• They have the power to run silently.
• They have the power to lower your energy bill. But most of all, they have the power to inspire.

Windspire vertical wind turbines. Changing the world… one revolution at a time.™