Morgan McCollum: Summary of Clean Coal & Carbon Capture and Storage Report

Coal: Global Warming’s Biggest Scapegoat

Coal has been deemed the dirtiest of all fossil fuels emerging as the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. When coal is burnt, it releases emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and other harmful emissions such as mercury that are then released via flue gas—the clouds that rise out of smoke stacks. These emissions have a direct impact on global warming, contribute to approximately 24,000 premature deaths a year in the United States alone, and can harm areas thousands of miles away via acid rain. Even the process of retrieving coal has its flaws—entire mountaintops are removed in search for large quantities, and the coal mining process can be highly hazardous. However, due to its relatively easy access, large quantities, and low cost relative to other energy sources, coal is likely to remain a power source for the foreseeable future.

What is clean coal?

Due to heavy protest and concern, the coal industry with help from scientists and politicians has revamped its image with ‘clean coal’ technology. An oxymoron of a term, Al Gore once said, “Clean Coal is like a healthy cigarette, it doesn’t exist.” Clean coal has been manipulated to mean anything that the industry wants it to mean, but it certainly does not mean carbon-free. Not a single coal fired power plant is emissions free, and almost none can do anything about carbon dioxide emissions, one of the leading proponents of global warming. However, it is good to look into the technologies because many are at least slightly better than burning dirty coal, and it is important to see which ones are most worth the investment. There are four main categories of clean coal technology:

Coal Washing: Literally what its name suggests. Crushed coal is washed prior to its burning so as to lower the level of sulfur and minerals within the coal.

Pollution Control Methods: There are several types of pollution controls that are each designed to control a particular type of emission. Electrostatic Precipitators can be installed to reduce particulate matter pollution, NOx burners reduce NOx emissions, and flue gas desulphurization can reduce SO₂ emissions. Flue gas desulphurization, also known as scrubbing, has become a commonly used procedure in coal-fired power plants. Scrubbers are installed in the smokestacks of power plants where they then remove sulfur from the flue gas by using a sorbent—usually lime or limestone. It remains one of the most commercially used emission control methods and can easily be installed into existing plants.

Efficient Combustion Technologies: These involve improving the overall efficiency of the coal burning process. For example, Supercritical Pulverized Coal Combustion increases the thermal efficiency of a plant 35-45%, meaning that more coal can be burnt at a given temperature. Another method is Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion, in which coal can be burnt at relatively low temperatures.

Carbon Capture and Storage: To date, CCS is not commercially available and is highly expensive. Carbon Capture and Storage will involve three main steps: capturing carbon dioxide emissions from the flue gas within the smokestacks, compressing it from a gas into a liquid, and finally transporting that liquid through a pipeline to a repository underground where it will be stored for centuries. To date, there are methods of capturing CO₂ (such as chemical absorption), but unfortunately the CCS process has two major problems. First, is that it requires a lot of energy; between removing the CO₂ and collecting it for storage, twenty five percent more coal would have to be burnt to produce the same amount of electricity as before CCS was implemented. To produce this amount of coal, more energy would be required in mining and transportation—offsetting the environmental benefits of CCS. Second, coal fired power plants produce 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. In order to capture this amount of CO₂, 30 million barrels of the liquid would have to be filled every day. This number is higher than the number of barrels filled by petroleum products and it took approximately a hundred years to build the infrastructure the US currently uses to transport petroleum. Would it be possible for an even larger infrastructure to be built for CCS? Not to mention that this does not even include the problem of where the storage facility to be. It would be quite possible for the carbon dioxide to be pumped under the ground only to escape years later. And if it is pumped under the ocean, it is possible that the carbon dioxide would lower pH levels, affecting marine life. Thus to date, carbon capture and storage lacks the planning, infrastructure, and knowledge base to be a practical clean coal technology.

And if you didn’t feel like reading all that technical stuff, just read this:

I am attempting to condense a ten-page paper into a blog post, so not all my information can be put in here. However, there are some important points (and some personal opinions) that I would like to state. There are four main categories of clean coal technology, and many sound like promising technologies until one asks the question: where do the pollutants go? Like all magic tricks, to the viewer's eye the object may have ‘disappeared,’ but the magician knows that the rabbit has moved from inside the hat to under the table. Clean coal methods work by removing pollutants from the flue gas but they can't just "disappear," they have to be released somewhere else in the environment. When coal is burnt, these contaminants will inevitably be burnt as well, and they will have to go somewhere even if that isn’t directly into the atmosphere via flue gas.

Second, carbon capture and storage is far too expensive to be a viable option at the time being. It can increase the cost of a power plant anywhere from 20-90 percent—the lack of knowledge and experience is why that percentage is so uncertain.  Third, I believe that technologies that improve the overall efficiency of the plants are the best technologies to be pursued. They result in less coal being excavated and less coal being burnt while achieving the same amount of electricity generation.

I believe funding can and should be spent on other investments besides coal. There are renewable energy sources and there are natural gas sources that produce half the amount of CO₂ as coal. One type of renewable energy source I have come across recently is BioCoal. It is created from biomass and then treated to create a renewable coal. It meets all renewable fuel and CO₂ reduction regulations, and is carbon neutral. BioCoal advocates state that it can be put into power plants today with no changes necessary. Do I believe this will actually ever happen? No. But it’s just a thought.

And lastly, energy conservation, energy conservation, energy conservation. Simply providing more incentives for the public to purchase LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, and better insulation for their housing would help significantly reduce the amount of coal needed to b burnt, and therefore the amount of CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere. This can be done today and requires far less time, research, and money than CCS technologies. Coal certainly is not disappearing anytime soon, but it is important to remember that it is exhaustible, and we should be thinking ahead to the future.

Sources

1.     Dowdy, Sarah. "What Is Clean Coal Technology?." http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/clean-coal.htm

2.     Snell, Marilyn B. "Can Coal Be Clean? New Ways to Burn a Dirty Old Fuel." Feb, 2007.http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp

3.     US Department of Energy, "Clean Coal Technology and The Clean Coal Power Initiative." http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/

4.     Green Peace Briefing, Climate, New Zealand, ""Clean Coal" Technology." http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/new-zealand/press/reports/clean-coal-technology-briefing.pdf

5.     Garber, Kent. "Why Making Coal Cleaner Will Take Years." U.S. News & World Report, Apr, 2009, 66-68.

6.     Balat, M. "Coal-fired Power Generation: Proven Technologies and Pollution." Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization, & Environmental Effects 30, no. 2 (2008): 132-140.

7.     James, Meigs B. "The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis." July 14, 2011.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/4339171

8.     NMA: The American Resource, "Clean Coal Technology." http://www.nma.org/pdf/fact_sheets/cct.pdf

9.     Berman, Ari. "The Dirt on Clean Coal." Nation 288, no. 14 (2009): 17-21.

10.  Troy, Phaedra F. "Clean Coal Creates Emerging Job Market." Power Engineering 114, no. 12 (2010): 6-7.

11.  Bradsher, Keith. "China Outpaces US in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants. The New York Times". (May 10, 2009), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html.

12.  "China's Energy Pattern in Low Carbon Era, China Chemical Reporter". 21. 11 (2010), 9-10

13.  Fairley, Peter. "China's Coal Future. Technology Review". 110. 1 (2007), 56-61

14.  Markham, Derek. "Can Bio Coal Turn Coal Power Plants into Green Energy Producers?." Dec 28, 2009. http://greenlivingideas.com/2009/12/28/bio-coal-turn-coal-power-plants-green-energy-producers/

Morgan McCollum: China at a Crossroads: Distress over Democratization or an Omen of Collapse?

The Kissinger Institute on China and the United States Presents:

China at a Crossroads: Distress over Democratization or an Omen of Collapse?

August 4, 2011

Dr. Wu Junhua began studying China’s macro economy after receiving her PhD from Tokyo University. However, she began to realize that one cannot study China’s economy in a vacuum—history, reform movements, and psychological perspectives must also be addressed. In psychological terms, Dr. Junhua claimed that China currently struggles a type of schizophrenia, coining the term “Two China’s.” One personality of China is confident and rising as a super power, while another personality of China lives in fear of a total collapse. One side is pushing for greater reforms and a call for greater civil rights, while another side can be seen as a revival of the Mao Zedong Cult. She also argues that there appears to be two ways that China could potentially move forward in the future. The government could pursue policies of political reform corresponding with international policies, or the government could pursue policies of political reform while becoming stricter with international influence and policy. She predicts that China will follow the latter—attempting internal reform, but being even more cautious when it comes to external reform. One part of the lecture that I found most interesting was the answer to why China so desperately needs internal reform, even over external reform.

In 2010, the overall budget to maintain domestic order (i.e. police) was greater than the military budget. China is currently more concerned with internal conflict than they are with external disruption. Dr. Junhua cites a few cases that have caused citizens recently to question and rebel against their government. First, in December 2010 was the death of dissident Qian Yunhui. Yunhui led a six-year campaign to protect his neighbors in a land dispute, where Chinese officials attempted to illegally seize land—a common occurrence in China. Yunhui was found dead under the wheel of a truck, and the Chinese government called his death a normal traffic accident. However, the public questioned their government, with villagers claiming they saw four men in security personnel uniforms holding the man down to the ground while the truck then drove on top of him. When photos were released, the public was in horror of his gruesome death and began to question their officials. In addition, villagers who had arrived immediately on the scene of the death would not allow the police to remove the body, which caused a riot between the two.

The New York Times claims that Qian Yunhui’s death caused even more public unrest because it followed the injury of one college student and the death of another, when the two were run over by the son of a deputy police chief.  As the son fled the scene he shouted, “Sue me if you dare, my father is Li Gang!” These words directly highlighted “official corruption and nepotism.”

Finally, two bullet trains collided in Zhejiang, China in late July of this year. One train fell off the bridge killing at least 35 and more than 200 were injured. China has rapidly been expanding its high-speed train network, but reports have found that the lines were not safe enough. Public outrage still continues to run high in China, and distrust in public officials who propose and implement these trains is widespread.

It is clear that the public is better off overall now that it was years ago. The revival of the Mao Zedong Cult is not a threat, and the standard of living has improved dramatically for many citizens of China. However, as the government continues to disappoint, and Internet users increase, the government will have to make reforms or continue to face the wrath of its citizens. A version of twitter has emerged in China, and it receives 10 million new users a month. These advances have opened the lines of free speech in China. Some claim that reforms will not be made by the new government in 2012, but rather will wait until the next cycle of government officials in 2022. However, Dr. Junhua claims that China does not have ten years to wait for this type of reform, citing the above as examples of an already increasing internal unrest.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/asia/29china.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14262276 

Haiya Zhang: 2011 International Green Energy Economy Conference

Conference Host

Korea Energy Economics Institute

Conference Organizers

Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP) at the University of Delaware, assisted by the National council for Science and the Environment (NCSE), and the Council of Energy Research and Education Leaders (CEREL)

Summery of a few presentations at the IGEEC

1.       “Energy Quality”, by Dr. Cutler Cleveland, Boston University

In his presentation, Dr. Cleveland introduced the concept of ‘Energy Quality’, which implies that units of material are not equal when providing the same amount of energy. In other words, some has high efficiency, and some has lower. According to Dr. Cleveland, substitute energy sources have lower quality, such as ethanol. Since the scale of new energy source transition is large, we need to look for quality resources to transition into.

2.       “Curitiba City, Brazil”, by Mr. Eduardo Pereira Guimaraes, Curitiba City, Brazil

Mr. Guimaraes’s presentation gave a wonderful example of green city planning and its future in sustainability. Most of the planning and programs at Curitiba were initiated in 1970s. Among many programs, low-income families particularly favor the ‘Exchange Program’, where families can bring in 4 kg recycled garbage for 1 kg of food. “Green Line”, along with other transportation plans has always been put on an emphasis in Curitiba. 28m-long buses running on bio-fuel are used throughout the city center. The city government also invests a lot in environmental Education. ‘It’s just one idea until all population accept it’ said Mr Guimaraes, ‘and transparency is very important.’

3.       “Advancement of Steady State Economy”, by Dr. Brian Czech, CASSE

Dr. Czech presented the idea that truly going green equals to macro-economical de-growth. La Decroissance in Europe is an example of economic de-growth.

Therefore, the solution to environmental problems is not more investment in R&D, but to manage it on a sustainable scale. http://www.steadystate.org/ is the official site for CASSE and its projects. They are calling for support to their initiatives at all times.

4.       “Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiatives, the Biogas Opportunity, Lessons from Around the Globe for U.S and State Initiatives”, by Dr. Gary Radloff, Midwest Energy Policy

Dr. Radloff led a team of students to Germany to find out why Germany is the leader of biogas production, and what some of the social, technology, and policy drivers are. After visiting a technology fair and a few farms installed with biogas generating systems, they concluded three main reasons. First of all, the business models in Germany make it easy for farmers to cooperate with utility companies in terms of installing and managing the biogas digesters. Second, the system has a big scale and good design. Last but not least, the Germans are very innovative with inputs and end use of end product.

We‘re gonna miss you, Sarah!

One of interns, Sarah Chen completed her 2-month intern in IFCE and is leaving for a trip in China today.

She's generous to bring us cakes, she's always efficient finishing all her jobs and still energetic to go to many events and conferences.

We hope that you have a bright future and have fun whatever you are doing in China. We are gonna miss you, Sarah!

Form left to right: Morgan McCollum, Sarah Xiyi Chen, Haiya Zhang, and Jie Zhou

Morgan McCollum: What Is the EU’s New Airline Carbon Cap and What Does it Mean for the World?

As I look for daily environmental news for the European Union, one story continues to pop-up: the EU’s recent decision to regulate airline emissions. The EU doesn’t just want to regulate their own airline emissions, but rather, the new law will mandate that any aircraft from anywhere in the world flying to or from Europe must abide by these emissions regulations. The new plan under the EU ETS states that starting in 2012, airlines will be brought under a carbon cap in which by 2013 airlines must reduce their emission 3% below 2004-2005, and 5% by 2020. Currently, airline emissions account for 2-3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

            The projected law has sparked widespread debate across the globe. American airlines have taken the law to the European Court of Justice and hired lobbyists to help push American laws against the cap regulations. House Representative John Mica of Florida has proposed the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, which would prevent US aircraft operators from abiding by the European statute. Under this law, the US aviation operators would not be penalized for not abiding to a unilaterally imposed European regulation. Other countries such as China, India, and Russia have all opposed the bill as well. India has threatened to file complaints to the World Trade Organization stating that the law would be unfair to developing countries. Overall, these countries state that the law could end up costing them each around 4 billion US dollars. Almost every country feels that the EU should withdraw the cap until a consensus is reached via international negotiation, possibly at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

            So which side deserves to win? It is difficult to say. The goal is certainly a worthy one that directly addresses the issue of rising air travel and greenhouse gas emissions. If airlines make changes to reduce their emissions—whether via fuel-efficient airplanes or investment in biofuels, overall savings will not be immediate, but in the long-run savings on fuel costs could be between 15-35%. Second, almost all countries have made pledges to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, yet their protests to this new regulation make them seem hypocritical. Here is finally a concrete solution to help all countries reduce their emissions, and almost none want to take it. This is not a solution that the European Union can go in on alone—the emission trading must apply to all airlines or none. Simply regulating the European Union’s airline emissions would not be enough change to make a dramatic difference, and it would be economically detrimental to the country and European Airlines such as Virgin Airlines. Finally, while countries are calling for international negotiation on the issue, these negotiations have occurred time and time again, and historical evidence proves that almost nothing is ever accomplished. If the European Union brings these emissions rulings into negotiations, they will likely never pass.

            On the other hand, it is quite easy to see the opposite side of the argument. Anyone who has traveled in the past few years has watched how airline prices have skyrocketed, and not just ticket price, but airlines now charge for baggage, food, blankets, headphones, basically anyway they can to make a profit. To now add a carbon tax would be to increase pressure on airline profits, and that pressure would be placed on the consumer. It is predicted that the average flight to Europe would now cost about $6 US per passenger; that adds up. The overall fine for violating the plan would be approximately 100 Euros, or $142 per every ton of carbon dioxide that airlines emit above the limit. The National Airlines Trade Group predicts that this could cost the US airlines at least 3 billion through 2020. Second, while advancements in biofuels are taking off, they are not yet commercially available enough yet to be a practical solution to hit the 2013 mandates, and purchasing a new fleet of efficient airplanes could take 5 years. In addition, deeper information about the cap is still widely unknown. If the European Union collects cap money from airlines that don’t follow the emissions guidelines, where does this money go? And second, how is this money even going to be collected? In addition, countries that cut emissions by greater than 5% can sell their allowances, which some argue will cause international trade disputes. At the end of the day, no country likes to be told that they must do something when they have had little to no say in the matter.

            The question is: what is going to happen? The cap and trade law has gone to European court, where many predict it will pass. Some airlines have already begun to accept this fate: American Airlines just placed the largest order in history for 460 new, fuel-efficient airplanes. These airplanes would abide by the regulations, making American Airlines the most fuel-efficient fleet in the US. As of right now, the bill proposed by Representative Mica seems more of a statement than anything else—the Senate has not yet produced any form of a bill dealing with the issue. Whether or not the ruling will pass, it is hopeful that like American Airlines, airlines begin to pay more attention to green issues at hand. Greener fleets or technologies like GPS systems can reduce flight paths and reduce fuel costs, lowering emissions. As of right now, one of the best bets would be to postpone the implementation of the law, attempt to reach some sort of international negotiation, and ask that each country attempt to reduce their airline emissions even without the tax in the time being. It’s a sticky issue—both sides have valid arguments, and if not careful, this cap could result in a scuffle between several countries, hence why many figureheads have failed to comment on the issue. In my humble opinion, however, this seems like a promising global emissions reduction plan, and it would be a shame to not see it passed and followed.

Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-eu-has-the-right-idea-in-regulating-greenhouse-gases-from-airplanes/2011/07/08/gIQADGLn7H_story.html

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/avd/2011/07/21/07.xml&headline=U.S.%20Lawmakers%20Say%20EU%20ETS%20Is%20Illegal

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-threatens-to-move-WTO-against-EU-s-carbon-tax/Article1-726730.aspx

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/uk-column-airlineemissions-goldmark-idUSLNE76P02I20110726

http://www.eraa.org/newsroom/news-releases/664-emissions-trading-must-apply-to-all-airlines-or-none

Haiya Zhang: ‘Is There a Place in China Where Dams will not be built?’

‘Is There a Place in China Where Dams will not be built?’

---Report on ‘Dam and Sustainability in China’ Program at Woodrow Wilson Center

The title is quoted from a question to Mr. Wang Hao, one of the speakers from China Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower Research.

Mr. Wang Hao first gave a presentation on Hydropower projects in China, i.e. Ertan, Ge Zhouba, and Three Gorges Dam. He briefed through the hydropower development history in China, and the current situation, as well as some of the problems faced by hydropower. Mr. Wang’s presentation was very generic in terms of data provided and comments on the relocation and environmental destruction related to the hydropower station construction.

Mr. Douglas Smith from International Hydropower Association gave an introductory presentation on the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol an enhanced sustainability assessment tool which is being used to measure and guide performance in the hydropower sector. The Protocol assesses the four main stages of hydropower development: Early Stage, Preparation, Implementation and Operation. Assessments rely on objective evidence to create a sustainability profile against some 20 topics depending on the relevant stage, and covering all aspects of sustainability. 

Ms. Desiree Tullos (Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University) lastly talked about her Sustainability and Interdisciplinary Analysis. It is a decision support tool that integrate social consensus into the analysis. She and her team incorporated questions specifically targeted at different social groups so collect their opinions on the hydropower station on Mekong River. Tullos’ study shows that academics and NGOs show concerns over big scale hydropower project, while government official note more on the positive side. Tullos’ team used surveys and questionnaires to analyze the non-quantified dimensions of hydropower stations, such as social and cultural issues. Her study is aiming to provide insights to the impact of dams on river flow and people’s life.

Mr. Wang Hao received lots of questions and concerns by the public regarding hydropower construction and solution to its drawbacks. Many questions were raised about the dam construction decision making process, and the drawback analysis on the current hydropower projects in China. Transparency of the decision making process is something that Chinese government needs to take into consideration. The public has a strong desire to know the factor driving those hydropower projects. To open up the process may help the public understand the situation faced by the government, and may turn collision into cooperation. Hydropower plants construction has enormous impact on people’s life along the river flow. To ease public’s doubt would make this energy solution accepted and trusted by the public and neighboring countries. After all, they are important stakeholders of the hydropower projects as well. When asked if there is any place in China where dams will not be built, Mr. Wang answered “Nu (Salween) River, China has no plan to construct any project on Nu River”. It is known that in 1970s, a 13-dam project was initiated on Salween River in Yunnan, which was then announced to be reduced to a 4-dam project due to numerous oppositions. Investigations by journalist showed little support for the dam project from locals, who feared they would not get adequate compensation. With modern information technology blooming, government officials should not underestimate people’s knowledge and information on current issues. A big civil engineering project such as hydropower station does not need anti-trust from the general public.

Regarding the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment by International Hydropower Association, a protocol is developed for developers to improve and to get further finance. It took in integrated aspects of sustainable hydropower construction, and built a framework for stake holders, specifically developers, to follow. However, it only provides recommendations, and lack of strong incentives and consistency. Perhaps governments can adopt this protocol, and add more incentives for developers to follow. Then the Assessment can be more practical.

References:

--Jianqiang, Liu (2007-02-28). "Fog on the Nu River". China Dialogue. http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/811-Fog-on-the-Nu-River. Retrieved 2009-12-04.

--www.salweenwatch.org

--"Salween River". Foundation for Ecological Recovery, http://www.terraper.org/key_issues_view.php?id=6. Retrieved 2009-12-04