Coal CEO admits that ‘clean coal’ is a myth(reneweconomy.com.au)
reneweconomy.com.au
Coal CEO admits that ‘clean coal’ is a myth
http://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-ceo-admits-that-clean-coal-is-a-myth-69570/
34 comments
Exactly. One of the entire core values of having electrical infrastructure and equipment is to make energy sources perfectly fungible, abstracting generation details from usage. That in turn means that energy generation is always about economics and national strategy (which in turn often just boils back down to economics), the expense of any given method is the whole point. This often comes up with "peak resource" issues, which aren't generally about using up all of a given resource so much as using all that can be reached for a given price.
What we're really seeing are fossil fuel industries finally starting to have to actually compete under a real Free Market as society becomes less tolerant of letting them ignore their massive externalities. If coal is more expensive taking into account not being able to dump expensive pollution into the wider world, then it can and should go away. In fact that cost should have always been taken into account.
What we're really seeing are fossil fuel industries finally starting to have to actually compete under a real Free Market as society becomes less tolerant of letting them ignore their massive externalities. If coal is more expensive taking into account not being able to dump expensive pollution into the wider world, then it can and should go away. In fact that cost should have always been taken into account.
For those curious, this article somewhat oversimplifies the situation.
Coal is dying anyway.
"Clean coal" generally refers to coal => gasification => carbon capture. This is possible, just more expensive than burning raw coal, which itself is now more expensive than natural gas.
Mostly because of fracking, at least in the US, natural gas is much cheaper than buying coal. Compounding that, renewable energy creates high flexibility in peak demand, so plants designed to operate as baseload sources cannot amortize costs as effectively.
Additionally, HVDC lines are making regional proximity less important, so gas/coal locality plays less of a role in pricing.
The market is shifting to peaker plants, like natural gas, which have very low capital costs and can turn on/off quickly. This kills of coal and nuclear anyway, which have to run 24/7 to stay cost competitive.
Barring some energy storage miracle, we'll eventually end up with ~35% renewables, 15% hydro, 50% natural gas in the US, with HVDC interconnect.
(source: climate and energy R&D group)
Coal is dying anyway.
"Clean coal" generally refers to coal => gasification => carbon capture. This is possible, just more expensive than burning raw coal, which itself is now more expensive than natural gas.
Mostly because of fracking, at least in the US, natural gas is much cheaper than buying coal. Compounding that, renewable energy creates high flexibility in peak demand, so plants designed to operate as baseload sources cannot amortize costs as effectively.
Additionally, HVDC lines are making regional proximity less important, so gas/coal locality plays less of a role in pricing.
The market is shifting to peaker plants, like natural gas, which have very low capital costs and can turn on/off quickly. This kills of coal and nuclear anyway, which have to run 24/7 to stay cost competitive.
Barring some energy storage miracle, we'll eventually end up with ~35% renewables, 15% hydro, 50% natural gas in the US, with HVDC interconnect.
(source: climate and energy R&D group)
With battery tech and solar panel efficiency improvements that we get every year I am of the opinion in 10-15 years even natural gas plants will not be competetive. I am talking about the tech articles we get every year but actual pannels and batteries that are delivered.
I think it is pretty difficult to accurately project the adoption rates of those technologies (because most of the information we have is about adoption rates when they are marginally price competitive), but the current adoption rates don't have us with anywhere near enough solar deployed to stop using natural gas in 20 years.
I guess you are talking more about whether it is a competitive investment, but if we aren't fully on solar the faster construction time and easier siting of natural gas plants will drive some investment (siting mostly in terms of land area/MW).
I guess you are talking more about whether it is a competitive investment, but if we aren't fully on solar the faster construction time and easier siting of natural gas plants will drive some investment (siting mostly in terms of land area/MW).
The quote's first appearance is in E&E News [1]:
[Robert] Murray yesterday commended President Trump's announcement that he would try to boost some coal exports, but he said that ultimately what the sector needs is for EPA to nix the endangerment finding.
[Energy Secretary Rick Perry] also has touted carbon capture and sequestration technologies for coal plants, even as he questions whether climate science is settled.
Murray said carbon capture won't help, either.
"Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It's a pseudonym for 'no coal,'" Murray said while waiting for a ride outside DOE headquarters. "It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, 'Look what I did for coal,' knowing all the time that it doesn't help coal at all."
Murray acknowledged that the legal fight over the endangerment finding would be "tough." He thinks that's because climate activists and renewable power producers want to keep making money off climate change.
"All these people will be jumping on this on the other side because it's all about money, but it is not about America. America needs reliable, low-cost electricity, and that is a mix of different fuels," he said.
Murray's stance refers to the 'endangerment finding', which holds that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act -- a 2009 finding by the EPA after the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA. He disagrees with this interpretation -- particularly about carbon dioxide being classed a pollutant -- and is arguing that the decision should be reversed under the Trump administration, while pointing out that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is largely a phrase that has been hijacked by politicians to tout too-good-to-be-true solutions.
[1] https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056858
[Robert] Murray yesterday commended President Trump's announcement that he would try to boost some coal exports, but he said that ultimately what the sector needs is for EPA to nix the endangerment finding.
[Energy Secretary Rick Perry] also has touted carbon capture and sequestration technologies for coal plants, even as he questions whether climate science is settled.
Murray said carbon capture won't help, either.
"Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It's a pseudonym for 'no coal,'" Murray said while waiting for a ride outside DOE headquarters. "It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, 'Look what I did for coal,' knowing all the time that it doesn't help coal at all."
Murray acknowledged that the legal fight over the endangerment finding would be "tough." He thinks that's because climate activists and renewable power producers want to keep making money off climate change.
"All these people will be jumping on this on the other side because it's all about money, but it is not about America. America needs reliable, low-cost electricity, and that is a mix of different fuels," he said.
Murray's stance refers to the 'endangerment finding', which holds that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act -- a 2009 finding by the EPA after the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA. He disagrees with this interpretation -- particularly about carbon dioxide being classed a pollutant -- and is arguing that the decision should be reversed under the Trump administration, while pointing out that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is largely a phrase that has been hijacked by politicians to tout too-good-to-be-true solutions.
[1] https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056858
How cynical and self serving does one have to be to invent terms like "clean coal/diesel" and "clear skies act" instead of accepting that the world is ready for proper environmental stewardship?
I mean, even Philip Morris eventually started saying cigarettes cause lung cancer and kids are better off staying away from them...
I mean, even Philip Morris eventually started saying cigarettes cause lung cancer and kids are better off staying away from them...
Frank Luntz is kind of a modern wizard with coining friendlier terms for politicians to use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language
You might recall the whole rephrasing "global warming" as "climate change" thing too
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language
You might recall the whole rephrasing "global warming" as "climate change" thing too
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.c...
Since when is a CEO of a coal company an authority on environmental impact? I suppose it's whatever fits someone's agenda. Reminds me of that video of the 'Weather Channel CEO admitting climate change is not real'. I don't see how this claim is any different. Let science answer the questions, not CEOs.
Not all CEOs are empty suits. Some have to know a shit ton about their subject matter in order to make good decisions.
The remarkable thing about a coal CEO saying clean coal is bullshit is that it is seemingly against his own interest. CEOs rarely speak out publicly against their company's own product. It's the equivalent of Philip Morris eventually coming out and admitting that smoking causes cancer.
The remarkable thing about a coal CEO saying clean coal is bullshit is that it is seemingly against his own interest. CEOs rarely speak out publicly against their company's own product. It's the equivalent of Philip Morris eventually coming out and admitting that smoking causes cancer.
It's the other way around. It is in his own interest to say this, not against his own interest. He clearly said that clean coal raises costs. That means that costs would be lower without clean coal. Lower costs are in his own best interest.
I don't mean it fits the CEOs interests, but rather the people who spread this around.
[deleted]
This is all about timing. Murray want to do cheap coal plants to be as profitable as possible. Trump is the guy that can allow him to.
It's odd how much utter nonsense you must embrace (at least publicly) to survive in so many companies in this world.
Site is hugged to death. I am assuming by "clean coal" we are talking about CO2 being difficult to capture, rather than just cleaning the emissions of SO2, NOx, and particulates.
This is bullshit, there's lots of ways to make coal cleaner, including CO2 sequestration. It's just expensive.
You should read TFA:
""Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It's a pseudonym for 'no coal,'" Murray said while waiting for a ride outside DOE headquarters. "It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, 'Look what I did for coal,' knowing all the time that it doesn't help coal at all."
""Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It's a pseudonym for 'no coal,'" Murray said while waiting for a ride outside DOE headquarters. "It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, 'Look what I did for coal,' knowing all the time that it doesn't help coal at all."
Why on earth would I read the article when the title is provably false?
Nevertheless, my point still stands. Even if it were cheap it would still be more expensive, and this coal CEO would be making the exact same claims.
It is, however, a very cheap way of removing carbon from the atmosphere.
It's just that the organization who is properly incentivized to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is society, not coal companies. In this sense it is much cheaper to scrub exhaust, which is practically 100% carbon dioxide than to scrub the atmosphere.
It's irrelevant what the coal ceo thinks is cost effective, because he's not the one who benefits.
Nevertheless, my point still stands. Even if it were cheap it would still be more expensive, and this coal CEO would be making the exact same claims.
It is, however, a very cheap way of removing carbon from the atmosphere.
It's just that the organization who is properly incentivized to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is society, not coal companies. In this sense it is much cheaper to scrub exhaust, which is practically 100% carbon dioxide than to scrub the atmosphere.
It's irrelevant what the coal ceo thinks is cost effective, because he's not the one who benefits.
Clean enough to be a more viable solution over other forms of energy generation?
it is cheaper than practically all other forms of zero-carbon on-demand energy production, and a LOT cheaper than removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Compare the cost of exhaust sequestration for all of the fossil fuels and I'm sure you will find that coal is still the cheapest.
Compare the cost of exhaust sequestration for all of the fossil fuels and I'm sure you will find that coal is still the cheapest.
Cool, I wasn't talking about cost though. I asked if coal could be made clean enough to compete with other forms of energy generation in that context.
clean coal is basically as clean as solar, but the fact that it's on demand energy means that's it's not really competing with solar.
They're only even close to each other because of the initial hit the solar panel produces while its being created. If we were to continue forward with solar power, would the energy needed to melt silicon not eventually come from a wholly renewable source?
Are we closer to CO2 sequestration than a working fusion reactor?
Yes.
But I doubt CO2 capture and sequestration makes any sense with coal. Might work for really efficient natural gas plants which emit half the CO2 per thermal unit of energy and can be made nearly twice as efficient thermodynamically, meaning that for the same unit of electricity, you only need to sequester a third to a quarter of the CO2.
...but still would be incredibly expensive. You're going to be better off with solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear in a broad mix with a few hours of grid storage to smooth things over.
But I doubt CO2 capture and sequestration makes any sense with coal. Might work for really efficient natural gas plants which emit half the CO2 per thermal unit of energy and can be made nearly twice as efficient thermodynamically, meaning that for the same unit of electricity, you only need to sequester a third to a quarter of the CO2.
...but still would be incredibly expensive. You're going to be better off with solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear in a broad mix with a few hours of grid storage to smooth things over.
Both technologies can "work" right now (5-10 yr design and construction time). The trick is getting the economics to "work" within even an order of magnitude. Source: I'm a geologist and my dad is a plasma physicist researching fusion power.
the upfront cost to clean coal is very large, but it reduces the usable energy by less than 30%. That's much less than an order of magnitude, especially given how cheap it is to burn coal.
Upfront costs also generally go down over time. The infrastructure required to perform carbon sequestration is extremely nascent. There's a lot of specialty equipment, and drilling to sufficient limestone deposits. These things will scale well though. Especially with government funding.
Upfront costs also generally go down over time. The infrastructure required to perform carbon sequestration is extremely nascent. There's a lot of specialty equipment, and drilling to sufficient limestone deposits. These things will scale well though. Especially with government funding.
Not sure what you mean exactly by "up front costs" but yes, the capex and time to production for a complete clean coal power plant system or a functioning fusion power plant is what would make producing energy by those methods many times more expensive than natural gas or solar. Maybe if power companies can finance at negative interest rates, like some counties are doing, the high capital costs become a positive rather than a negative and all sorts of schemes are possible.
Natural gas requires the same upfront costs to scrub CO2 out of the exhaust for. In particular, it requires CO2 scrubbers.
The most efficient place to capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is before it enters the atmosphere.
Therefore, any attempt to lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere should necessarily start with removing the carbon dioxide from exhaust.
All fossil fuel plants should have scrubbers, it is by far the most cost effective measure that we can take to dramatically reduce increases to atmospheric CO2. The argument that "clean coal is no coal" is assuming that there should be no similar requirement on natural gas.
The most efficient place to capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is before it enters the atmosphere.
Therefore, any attempt to lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere should necessarily start with removing the carbon dioxide from exhaust.
All fossil fuel plants should have scrubbers, it is by far the most cost effective measure that we can take to dramatically reduce increases to atmospheric CO2. The argument that "clean coal is no coal" is assuming that there should be no similar requirement on natural gas.
The capital costs for setting up scrubbing CO2 from a natural gas plant may be similar to coal but you get about twice as much energy per amount of CO2 from natural gas as you do from coal. Sequestering 1/2 the amount of carbon should cost quite a bit less in energy and dollars. Reducing the amount of CO2 release into the atmosphere definitely should be a high priority and a carbon dioxide release tax is probably the best way to do that.
Another thing about natural gas that makes it better than coal is that the hydrogen in natural gas reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to form water. This actually reduces the total amount of the atmospheric gas and therefor reduces the greenhouse effect. I have yet to find a scientific paper that describes the magnitude of this effect and I haven't found where this phenomenon is taken into account in climate models. Most people don't realize that the pressure of the atmosphere at the surface is a more important factor for "greenhouse effect" heating than its composition. The surface of Venus is so hot not mostly because of the high % of CO2 in the atmosphere but the surface pressure is 93 bar as compared to Earth's 1 bar.
Another thing about natural gas that makes it better than coal is that the hydrogen in natural gas reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to form water. This actually reduces the total amount of the atmospheric gas and therefor reduces the greenhouse effect. I have yet to find a scientific paper that describes the magnitude of this effect and I haven't found where this phenomenon is taken into account in climate models. Most people don't realize that the pressure of the atmosphere at the surface is a more important factor for "greenhouse effect" heating than its composition. The surface of Venus is so hot not mostly because of the high % of CO2 in the atmosphere but the surface pressure is 93 bar as compared to Earth's 1 bar.
That's exactly what the article quoted from Murray. How does that make anything wrong or "bull"?
...
“It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration,” he said last week. “It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”
People saying "you can make clean coal power, it's just really expensive," are saying essentially the same thing as this article. Over 90% of American coal is burned in power plants. Coal's big selling point is (was) producing cheap electricity. Once you make it clean, it's no longer cheap; see last week's declaration of surrender for the Kemper clean coal plant. It was 3 years behind schedule, $5 billion over budget, and still unfinished:
https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/06/7-5-billion-kemper-...
It's just going to burn natural gas now.
If you can't build new dirty coal plants in the US, and new clean coal plants cost significantly more than other clean electricity sources, then coal output will slowly decline another ~90% from last year's lows. Metallurgical coal is still going to be used for a long time but companies like Murray Energy would be doomed.