Clean coal?

By J R Ruaya

Last weekend in Iloilo City, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes declared that he is in favor of building new coal-fired power plants in the Visayas as long as they use the so-called “clean coal technology”. He made his position on the issue amid his advocacy in the promotion of renewable energy sources.

It was a brave pronouncement, a calculated one, amidst active protests against coal in particular and environmental degradation in general. At the same he was making the statement a group of environmentalists have scaled nearby Mt. Kanlaon to protest the granting of permit to geothermal developer PNOC-EDC to enter Mt. Kanlaon National Park. A few days earlier, Greenpeace environmental activists vandalized a ship loading coal to Pagbilao power plant in Luzon.

For sure he will get rotten tomatoes plastered on his face, but at least Reyes is showing pragmatism in the face of mounting power crisis especially in the Visayas on one hand, and a noisy environmental movement on the other.

According to Reyes, the country could veer away from coal power plants, but not now.

“We still have coal-fired power plants firing up Luzon grid,” Reyes said. Coal accounts for 30 and 25 percent of Luzon and the Philippine generation mix, respectively.

He said the government has to balance the need of the country in terms of power.

“Coal will continue to be the bridge fuel,” he said.

Clean coal?

Clean coal will continue to be an oxymoron for many years to come. What is touted as clean coal technology is broadly understood to be any technology that has the capability to substantially reduce the "dirty" side associated with coal burning; noxious sulfur and nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide which is accused to be the main culprit of man-made global warming, lead, mercury, arsenic and other poisonous heavy metals, fly-ash or particulates and residues consisting of inorganic materials. Also to be included is the attendant environmental degradation during coal mining.

The term's origin could be traced back to the U.S Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program which was launched in 1986 and continued for more than twenty years with not much to show off. Recently, this has been replaced with the FutureGen project which is an ambitious undertaking to finally make coal "squeaky clean" to the satisfaction of environmental standards, and also to appease the green activists.

That the U.S. leads in research and development to make coal palatable is hardly surprising. Despite being a first world country with high standard of environmental protection, 52 % of its electricity needs comes from burning coal. The percentage is not expected to come down even 20 or 30 years from now. Coal is still cheap compared to alternatives, and the U.S. has plenty of it, producing about 27% of the world output yearly.

A significant improvement to the conventional pulverized coal burning is the use of fluidized bed technology wherein coal powder is suspended in fluid form while burning. This significantly brings down airborne particulates but not carbon dioxide and the noxious oxides. One still has residue to dispose of.

Of the 31 or so projects funded by US DOE at a cost of some $2.75-B, perhaps the project that came close to "clean coal technology" is the integrated cycle coal gasification (ICCG) plant wherein coal is turned to gas before being burned to generate electricity. So far, no significant commercial taker has come forward.

A demonstration ICCG plant has been recently built at a cost of $600-M with some $140-M grant coming from the DOE, by Tampa Electric Co., in Polk, Florida which is 10% more efficient than most coal-fired plants. But still, it is far from clean. While the plant captures all of its fly ash, removes 98% of sulfur and nearly all of its nitrogen oxides, the operator admits that it is not designed to remove mercury, one of the most toxic substances known to man, or carbon dioxide.

A more ambitious undertaking is a small project at the Los Alamos Research Laboratory which is dubbed "zero emission coal alliance" (ZECA) which aims to trap all pollutants. The ZECA plant combines coal gasification with a process that absorbs coal in magnesium silicates, which is quite common and inexpensive. The rock dust with CO₂ will then be buried underground. A researcher involved in the project thinks that it could take 20 years for the project to completion and could double the price of electricity compared to a conventional coal-fired plant.

Carbon dioxide sequestration, as the technology is also known for, if successful, is a geological and technological marvel, simply because of its scope. It is estimated that 2.5 billion tons of CO₂ is emitted by U.S. coal plants yearly; at least 1/3 of that should be removed for the technology to have an impact on CO₂ reduction efforts.

Another innovative idea is the use of algae for carbon capture using a process that has been with us for millions of years:photosynthesis. Algae, in batch reactors, capture the CO₂ emission of a coal plant, while the grown algae themselves, once dewatered, may be converted into vehicle-quality biofuel. NRG Energy is pilot testing the process in one of its plants at Loiusiana, while another outfit, Sapphire Energy, believes the idea is feasible and is putting some efforts to realize it.

Other ideas being tried out include conversion of coal to fuel gas or liquid, which is then burned to produce electricity or used in vehicles. This and other propositions require that oil prices remain high to become viable. There are also technical hurdles to overcome in the laboratory and demonstration trials.

Much of these efforts has been stymied by high costs and the advent of cleaner and cheaper natural gas plants in the 80s and 90s. However, with oil prices breaching $130 to a barrel, "clean coal technology" is getting a second look.

Pragmatism required

To immediately address the looming power crisis in the Visayas, pragmatism should prevail over wishful thinking by considering any proposed coal plant on a case to case basis while "clean coal technology" is still a mirage on the horizon. The alternative is a debilitating power crisis that is to occur sooner than later.

So, Secretary Reyes is unlikely to have his wish granted. The best he could get is an improved coal plant over the existing ones.

But it would be far from clean.