Is the coal industry on the way out?

[Wombat + 1,028]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-03/global-coal-power-falls-for-first-time-even-as-china-builds-more

[Prometheus1354 + 178]

The UN announces a plan where by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg will fund a $500 Million dollar project aimed at establishing zero carbon energy.  Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm Not) that tidy lil sum is equal too the amount of coin he ponied up in his Very short lived effort to secure the Democrat Party Presidential nomination for the upcoming 2020 election.  That sum netted him a Whopping 26 delegates out of the 1991 needed for said nomination...

I wish I were a 'fly on the wall' when his wife saw the announcement on CNN...

(Mrs. Bloomberg)  "Michael; I was against your lil 'run' for the Presidency. Wasn't I"? 

(Michael Bloomberg) "Yes dear, you were".

(Mrs. Bloomberg) "Michael, I have become Very accustomed to spending a Lot of your money. Regularly. Now, if you insist on going through with this lil 'stunt'. That is your choice.  But understand me when I say; you can write that check too your friends at the UN. And then you can write Me an even Bigger check, my lawyers will be in touch"...

 

The Chinese have many new Coal fired plants either in some level of planning, construction or about to come online.  Bolstering an already substantial number in their power generation portfolio.  I seriously doubt they give two sh*ts about this effort by the UN to curb emissions due to coal fired power plants.  Yes, I'm well aware they are busy building vast solar farms. They are playing all the cards they can.  

I have no doubt Coal has a relatively short shelf life left within the power generation cycle. That being said, I don't see it going completely away for at least another 20-25 yrs.  If it was any less, then China wouldn't be all in on it...

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 8/3/2020 at 5:30 AM, Wombat said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-03/global-coal-power-falls-for-first-time-even-as-china-builds-more

 

On 8/15/2020 at 7:37 PM, Prometheus1354 said:

The UN announces a plan where by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg will fund a $500 Million dollar project aimed at establishing zero carbon energy.  Now correct me if I'm wrong (I'm Not) that tidy lil sum is equal too the amount of coin he ponied up in his Very short lived effort to secure the Democrat Party Presidential nomination for the upcoming 2020 election.  That sum netted him a Whopping 26 delegates out of the 1991 needed for said nomination...

I wish I were a 'fly on the wall' when his wife saw the announcement on CNN...

(Mrs. Bloomberg)  "Michael; I was against your lil 'run' for the Presidency. Wasn't I"? 

(Michael Bloomberg) "Yes dear, you were".

(Mrs. Bloomberg) "Michael, I have become Very accustomed to spending a Lot of your money. Regularly. Now, if you insist on going through with this lil 'stunt'. That is your choice.  But understand me when I say; you can write that check too your friends at the UN. And then you can write Me an even Bigger check, my lawyers will be in touch"...

 

The Chinese have many new Coal fired plants either in some level of planning, construction or about to come online.  Bolstering an already substantial number in their power generation portfolio.  I seriously doubt they give two sh*ts about this effort by the UN to curb emissions due to coal fired power plants.  Yes, I'm well aware they are busy building vast solar farms. They are playing all the cards they can.  

I have no doubt Coal has a relatively short shelf life left within the power generation cycle. That being said, I don't see it going completely away for at least another 20-25 yrs.  If it was any less, then China wouldn't be all in on it...

The coal conversation has centered around anti-carbon legislation, but I don't see that as the primary driver. Given that even Japan is building coal power plants when that's cheapest, the anti-carbon squawking seems more like a publicity stunt.

What, then, is driving the world away from coal? According to a power plant engineer, costs. In the US, the cost of natural gas is comparable to coal, and the cost of natural gas power plants is much lower. It turns out coal handling equipment and emissions equipment are expensive.

I was skeptical that NGCC could compete with coal internationally, where NG prices are driven by LNG prices, which had been 2-3X higher (or more) than US NG prices. But now I'm reading about NG production appearing around the world and LNG prices falling. If worldwide NG prices get remotely close to US NG prices, coal simply can't compete.

What of the future then? There was an attempt at coal gasification. The advantage of this is that you can run a combined-cycle plant and approach the 60-63% efficiencies of NGCC plants. The problem is capital costs. You lose most of the emissions equipment, but now you have to gasify the coal in addition to handling it. If you assume gasified coal is equivalent to NG, then the cost of your coal + coal handling + gasification must match the cost of NG - which is unlikely at today's low NG prices.

So gasification doesn't look promising. The only other big technology I've seen is oxy-fuel combustion: inject pure oxygen and fuel into the combustor. No nitrogen (or anything else, for that matter) in the combustor means effectively no pollution. It also means your output is a stream of pure CO2 and water - both valuable products. Now you can build a simple cycle power plant with 50+% thermal efficiency and no pollution equipment. Outstanding.

But what fuel do you use? Net Power is doing this, and their original plan was to gasify coal. Then they talked to a brilliant engineer who said, "No, use NG." Why? Because you don't have to handle gas, gasify gas, or clean up residue. I.e. this new technology has the same problem as every technology before it: coal is a capital-intensive PITA. When NG prices are low, coal simply can't compete.

To summarize, NG capital costs are lower than coal even when using the Rube Goldberg we call a combined cycle plant. Now industry is telling us they're building a power plant smaller and cheaper than anything before it, and it'll run on NG. I don't see coal competing with that.

What would it take for gasified coal to compete? There must be a high enough price differential between coal and NG to justify the handling, gasification, and byproduct cleanup of coal. I don't know what that price is exactly, but I do know NG is already winning, NG is becoming cheaper, and the technology isn't moving in a direction that favors coal. Coal will lose ground.

But will coal die? Doubtful, if only because of geopolitics. The lowest cost of energy is all fine and well until the supply of that energy depends on fickle geopolitical rivals. Things get even dicier when that rival is actively vilifying you. If we look at India and China, it seems unlikely they'll abandon coal unless that means replacing it with nuclear; their NG supplies are simply too expensive and too unreliable. They could replace it with nuclear - but that effort will span decades. So for the time being, coal it is.

What am I missing?

[Marcin2 + 725]

Coal is the only widely available source of base power for all countries apart from : petro states and rich countries.

Natural gas is the only substitue but it is 3 to 6 times more expensive than coal (it depends on the geographical region).

Coal resources are an order of magnitude higher than hydrocarbons resources (in calorific value).

Nuclear is important for only a few advanced countries and you need special conditions for hydro (also only in a few countries).

Some countries like United States or Russia can temporarily have natural gas as the major source of base load power.

The same is again true for petro states.

Many articles about coal from La la land at this forum.

I especially like the quote:

"The United Nations has called for a moratorium on new coal plant builds by 2020 to help meet Paris climate agreement targets, yet there is still around 190 gigawatts of capacity under construction worldwide, according to GEM."

How about a moratorium on modern civilization.

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

 

The coal conversation has centered around anti-carbon legislation, but I don't see that as the primary driver. Given that even Japan is building coal power plants when that's cheapest, the anti-carbon squawking seems more like a publicity stunt.

What, then, is driving the world away from coal? According to a power plant engineer, costs. In the US, the cost of natural gas is comparable to coal, and the cost of natural gas power plants is much lower. It turns out coal handling equipment and emissions equipment are expensive.

I was skeptical that NGCC could compete with coal internationally, where NG prices are driven by LNG prices, which had been 2-3X higher (or more) than US NG prices. But now I'm reading about NG production appearing around the world and LNG prices falling. If worldwide NG prices get remotely close to US NG prices, coal simply can't compete.

What of the future then? There was an attempt at coal gasification. The advantage of this is that you can run a combined-cycle plant and approach the 60-63% efficiencies of NGCC plants. The problem is capital costs. You lose most of the emissions equipment, but now you have to gasify the coal in addition to handling it. If you assume gasified coal is equivalent to NG, then the cost of your coal + coal handling + gasification must match the cost of NG - which is unlikely at today's low NG prices.

So gasification doesn't look promising. The only other big technology I've seen is oxy-fuel combustion: inject pure oxygen and fuel into the combustor. No nitrogen (or anything else, for that matter) in the combustor means effectively no pollution. It also means your output is a stream of pure CO2 and water - both valuable products. Now you can build a simple cycle power plant with 50+% thermal efficiency and no pollution equipment. Outstanding.

But what fuel do you use? Net Power is doing this, and their original plan was to gasify coal. Then they talked to a brilliant engineer who said, "No, use NG." Why? Because you don't have to handle gas, gasify gas, or clean up residue. I.e. this new technology has the same problem as every technology before it: coal is a capital-intensive PITA. When NG prices are low, coal simply can't compete.

To summarize, NG capital costs are lower than coal even when using the Rube Goldberg we call a combined cycle plant. Now industry is telling us they're building a power plant smaller and cheaper than anything before it, and it'll run on NG. I don't see coal competing with that.

What would it take for gasified coal to compete? There must be a high enough price differential between coal and NG to justify the handling, gasification, and byproduct cleanup of coal. I don't know what that price is exactly, but I do know NG is already winning, NG is becoming cheaper, and the technology isn't moving in a direction that favors coal. Coal will lose ground.

But will coal die? Doubtful, if only because of geopolitics. The lowest cost of energy is all fine and well until the supply of that energy depends on fickle geopolitical rivals. Things get even dicier when that rival is actively vilifying you. If we look at India and China, it seems unlikely they'll abandon coal unless that means replacing it with nuclear; their NG supplies are simply too expensive and too unreliable. They could replace it with nuclear - but that effort will span decades. So for the time being, coal it is.

What am I missing?

I think what you are missing is that whenever ANY industry goes into terminal decline, the funding disappears rapidly. Who wants to invest in a shrinking pie? Sure, China and India have reserves of their own coal and will continue to mine them furiously for a few more decades, but that is their loss. We will have cheap NG, cheap renewables, and cheap H2. 

[NickW + 2,714]

20 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

T

So gasification doesn't look promising. The only other big technology I've seen is oxy-fuel combustion: inject pure oxygen and fuel into the combustor. No nitrogen (or anything else, for that matter) in the combustor means effectively no pollution. It also means your output is a stream of pure CO2 and water - both valuable products. Now you can build a simple cycle power plant with 50+% thermal efficiency and no pollution equipment. Outstanding.B

This sounds interesting - any linky's to good articles? 50% efficiency sounds like a major breakthrough for Coal. 

As we go down the electrolysis route with overbuild of wind to produce Hydrogen there will be a massive Oxygen byproduct from this. This could then be used in this process. 

If we are into Carbon capture pure Co2 is going to be a lot cheaper to bury per ton than a dilute mix of N2 and CO2. 

 

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

This sounds interesting - any linky's to good articles? 50% efficiency sounds like a major breakthrough for Coal. 

As we go down the electrolysis route with overbuild of wind to produce Hydrogen there will be a massive Oxygen byproduct from this. This could then be used in this process. 

If we are into Carbon capture pure Co2 is going to be a lot cheaper to bury per ton than a dilute mix of N2 and CO2.

Net Power is working with Exelon and Mitsubishi to commercialize an oxy-fuel power plant:
https://netpower.com/
A cursory search will return several articles on their progress, their approach, and the possible benefits.

Wiki has some basics on oxy-fuel combustion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_combustion_process

GE mentions oxy-fuel combustion on their website, but don't offer details:
https://www.ge.com/power/steam/co2-capture

Alstom appears to be looking at it:
https://www.ieaghg.org/docs/oxyfuel/3rd%20Mtg/06-03%20J.%20Marion%20&%20F.%20Kluger%20(Alstom).pdf

An Australian coal power plant was retrofitted with oxyfuel combustion as a demonstration project:
https://www.csenergy.com.au/what-we-do/generating-energy/callide-power-station/callide-oxyfuel-project

Etc. My search was cursory, but a few points already stand out:
1) Oxyfuel combustion is not an academic's pet project. Every relevant corporation seems to be looking at this.
2) I don't see anything new in NGCC power plants. That research seems to be played out. I.e. NGCC has reached its potential.
3) The case for oxy-fuel combustion is compelling. I.e. there's real value to be had here.

From an engineering point of view, I look for specific things, including but not limited to:
1) Did enabling technologies emerge? I.e. is there a reason why this idea wasn't feasible in the past but is feasible now?
2) Do the companies involved have a reason to take risks on new technologies?
3) Are there engineering teams available to do the work. 
4) Is the effort serious?
5) Does the idea have merit?

For #1: Yes. The engineers who design Net Power's oxy-fuel combustor talk about the complexity of the control system. This is arguably something that wasn't possible 20 years ago.

For #2: Yes. Fossil fuels face enormous pressure from renewables, nuclear, and each other.

For #3: Yes. NGCC has reached its potential, which leaves those teams of engineers in need of a new idea.

For #4: Yes. There are a variety of large corporations investing in this, including GE, Exelon, and Mitsubishi. In addition to that, Net Power explicitly states that their "demonstration plant" is, in fact, a facility for testing full-size equipment. I.e. they didn't build a scale model to prove oxy-fuel combustion can work; they built a testing facility to create a pipeline of real equipment. That indicates they're serious about making this happen.

For #5: Yes. Net Power's concept does, in fact, reduce capital costs to a meaningful extent, maintain acceptable thermal efficiency, address pollution concerns, create additional income streams, and reduce plant footprint. If they can make the design work, these plants are arguably worth building.

Of course, this is all cursory. I haven't proven that the numbers work out, but what I'm seeing suggests it would be worth our time to run those numbers.

 

[specinho + 467]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

This sounds interesting - any linky's to good articles? 50% efficiency sounds like a major breakthrough for Coal. 

As we go down the electrolysis route with overbuild of wind to produce Hydrogen there will be a massive Oxygen byproduct from this. This could then be used in this process. 

If we are into Carbon capture pure Co2 is going to be a lot cheaper to bury per ton than a dilute mix of N2 and CO2. 

 

 

If not mistaken, rural coal stoves in open air could achieve efficiency of nearly 80-90% generally....... (usages in closed up mudhouses like in africa  could induce toxicity, with lower efficiency)....

Submitted a draft design to Greenchallenge ( a competition calling submissions on green designs) many years ago, in the hope to win a prize of a million pounds and retire......... In the design of a new factory submitted, I included ways to neutralize CO2, recycle heat and water vapour, together with the existing carbon particles capturing tools.......  I didn't win.............. Hope you do not mind me chipping in here.......

1. capture CO2 released with liquid calcium hydroxide.

Precipitate, calcium carbonate, could be used for construction purposes.

Carbon dioxide reacts with limewater (a solution of calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH) ₂), to form a white precipitate (appears milky) of calcium carbonate, CaCO ₃. Adding more carbon dioxide results in the precipitate dissolving to form a colourless solution of calcium hydrogencarbonate.

www.bbc.uk.co > bitesize > guides > revision

 

2. recycle waste heat and water vapour

- to generate electricity,

- used to warm the buildings especially during winter,

- reduce microclimate change etc etc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marcin2 + 725]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

If not mistaken, rural coal stoves in open air could achieve efficiency of nearly 80-90% generally....... (usages in closed up mudhouses like in africa  could induce toxicity, with lower efficiency)....

Submitted a draft design to Greenchallenge ( a competition calling submissions on green designs) many years ago, in the hope to win a prize of a million pounds and retire......... In the design of a new factory submitted, I included ways to neutralize CO2, recycle heat and water vapour, together with the existing carbon particles capturing tools.......  I didn't win.............. Hope you do not mind me chipping in here.......

You had no chance to win, even with high brain power your budget is 1 million times too low.

The best in coal power generation and in general the best in coal related technologies is for 10 years in China.

China spent about 2-3 trillion dollars (2,000-3,000 billion dollars) during the last 20 years on coal fired power plants.

They pushed the boundaries of the technology as far as they could.

In 1 sentence: 95% of Chinese coal power plants are better than top 1% of US coal power plants.

Simplifying: the WORST Chinese coal power plant is more efficient than THE BEST US coal power plant.

Consider:

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/

Everything You Think You Know About Coal in China Is Wrong

 

This issue brief covers three things American observers need to understand about coal in China:

1. China’s new coal-fired power plants are cleaner than anything operating in the United States.

The best Chinese coal plant (in 2017) uses 271 gram of Coal equivalent per 1 kWh, 100th best Chinese coal plant uses 295 g ce / 1 kWh.

The best US coal power plant uses 335 g ce / 1 kWh.

1. China’s emissions standards for conventional air pollutants from coal-fired power plants are stricter than the comparable U.S. standards.
2. Demand for coal-fired power is falling so quickly in China that the nation cannot support its existing fleet. Many of the coal-fired power plants that skeptics point to as evidence against a Chinese energy transformation are actually white elephants that Chinese leaders are already targeting in a wave of forced plant closures.

 

To better understand where China’s coal fleet is going, CAP compared the top 100 most efficient coal-fired power units in the United States with the top 100 in China. (see Tables A1 and A2) The difference is astounding.

Compared with the Chinese coal fleet, even the best U.S. plants are running older, less efficient technologies. Coal-fired power plants can generally be broken down into three categories:

1. Subcritical: In these conventional power plants, coal is ignited to boil water, the water creates steam, and the steam rotates a turbine to generate electricity.³ The term “subcritical” indicates that internal steam pressure and temperature do not exceed the critical point of water—705 degrees Fahrenheit and 3,208 pounds per square inch.⁴
2. Supercritical: These plants use high-tech materials to achieve internal steam temperatures in the 1,000–1,050 degrees Fahrenheit range and internal pressure levels that are higher than the critical point of water, thus spinning the turbines much faster and generating more electricity with less coal.⁵
3. Ultra-supercritical: These plants use additional technology innovations to bring temperatures to more than 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and pressure levels to more than 5,000 pounds per square inch, thus further improving efficiency.⁶

The U.S. coal fleet is much older than China’s: The average age of operating U.S. coal plants is 39 years, with 88 percent built between 1950 and 1990.⁷ Among the top 100 most efficient plants in the United States, the initial operating years range from 1967 to 2012. In China, the oldest plant on the top 100 list was commissioned in 2006, and the youngest was commissioned in 2015.

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, specinho said:

If not mistaken, rural coal stoves in open air could achieve efficiency of nearly 80-90% generally....... (usages in closed up mudhouses like in africa  could induce toxicity, with lower efficiency)....S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conversion of fuel to heat. The 50% referred to is fuel to electricity. 

Conventional coal is about 35%

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by NickW

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 10/18/2020 at 4:20 PM, NickW said:

Conversion of fuel to heat. The 50% referred to is fuel to electricity. 

Conventional coal is about 35%

 

I think I read back in June that ultra supercritical coal could reach 55%. I've been trying to keep tabs on it since it fascinates me. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 10/17/2020 at 10:29 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

What would it take for gasified coal to compete? There must be a high enough price differential between coal and NG to justify the handling, gasification, and byproduct cleanup of coal. I don't know what that price is exactly, but I do know NG is already winning, NG is becoming cheaper, and the technology isn't moving in a direction that favors coal. Coal will lose ground.

It works somewhat, not in the power sector but in the chemicals sector. There's a large gasification plant in North Dakota that makes chemical derivatives from coal gas. They switch product prioritization depending on market commodity prices. Last month was Naptha. 

Overall, cracking methane over a catalyst and then using the water gas shift is still more economical. 

[Marcin2 + 725]

There is not one thermal efficiency of coal power plant, the results vary depending on technology (subcritical, supercritical, ultrasupercritical) and age of the plant.

Globally for large , and relatively modern units it could be anything from around 30% to 45.3%

Median of US coal power plants is around 31% (half of the plants has better and half has the worse efficiency).

The best, most modern  supercritical power plants in US have 36%. But this is technology pre 2000 as no significant investment in coal power plants in US past 2000 due to cheap natural gas and stagnant electricity consumption.

Median for modern Chinese coal power plants is around 41%, with the best supercritical and ultrasupercitical units around 44%-45,3%.

Still these are much higher CO2 emissions per 1 kWh than natural gas power plants.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

The simple answer to this topic is YES!

[specinho + 467]

On 10/19/2020 at 3:32 AM, Marcin2 said:

You had no chance to win, even with high brain power your budget is 1 million times too low.

 

yeah....... never realize all governments love expensive projects compared to economic and efficient, besides racial or political issue, until lately...........

 

Regarding the competition, bricks with bacteria won at last minute. It was said to be able to self degrade or something.................