iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Coal Industry Future: Answers May Lie In The Past

Coal Industry Future

Posted: 12/11/11 08:42 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters / December 11) - As futuristic projects designed to capture carbon from coal-burning industries and store it underground have failed, the two largest consumers of the fuel, the United States and China, hope answers to limiting emissions blamed for global warming lie in the past.

Power-generators, coal miners and policy makers had put faith in projects to capture carbon dioxide from coal-fired plants and pump it directly underground into geologic formations for permanent storage. The great hope was that the technology would prevent much of the world's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from reaching the atmosphere.

But so-called carbon capture and storage projects have collapsed like a row of dominoes this year in West Virginia, Scotland and Germany. The stumbling blocks have been high costs for the technology and bleak prospects the world will put a high price on emitting greenhouse gases.

Fortunately for those seeking to cut emissions from coal, one industry has profited for nearly four decades from socking away carbon dioxide emissions. That industry, enhanced oil recovery, is hungry for more of the gas.

Companies including Denbury Resources and Kinder Morgan have piped carbon dioxide from naturally occurring sources into aging oil fields to push out crude that traditional drilling is unable to reach.

As natural sources of carbon dioxide run dry, many of these companies are looking to industrial sources of the gas. Power utilities and other coal-burning companies may find it wiser to link up with this mature industry than to plunge ahead with their own versions of carbon capture and storage.

Originally, enhanced oil recovery specialists thought aging oil fields could store about 100 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or about 5 percent of what would be needed to reduce the threat of climate change.

But as researchers learn more about the storage potential of old oil zones, in both China and the United States, they say much more carbon could potentially be stored in these places.

"We've realized if EOR is going to be a bridge to steep carbon reductions ... that bridge is both wider and longer than originally realized," said Julio Friedmann, the technical program manager at the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center, formed in 2009 by U.S. President Barack Obama and China's President Hu Jintao.

Experts say success with enhanced oil recovery could give new life to the entire field of carbon capture by enlarging the market for man-made carbon, helping to build out a pipeline network to move it to market, and helping the business become more efficient in shooting the gas underground.

"Without commercial transactions, no one knows the price," said Deborah Seligsohn, an energy expert based in Beijing with the research group the World Resources Institute. She said enhanced oil recovery "would cause the price discovery and all the other commercial relationships that would need to get developed."

If the world does not widely deploy carbon capture and storage by the 2020s, the cost of limiting global temperatures would rise by $1.1 trillion, the International Energy Agency said last month in its annual outlook. This would put an "extraordinary burden" on other low-carbon technologies including wind and solar power, the IEA said.

Experts believe carbon dioxide used in enhanced oil recovery can be stored permanently underground because over time it is absorbed in brine and eventually mineralizes into a more stable form.

But there are risks, including pushing up water that contains heavy metals and other pollutants. Still, backers say the water can be re-injected underground.

An added benefit of enhanced oil recovery is the extra oil that could be produced in areas that have not traditionally been big petroleum centers such as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois in the United States and Inner Mongolia in China.

As China scours the world in search of new oil supplies, one hope is that the country's old oilfields in the Bohai Gulf, which also happen to be near chemical plants that burn large amounts of coal, could see a second life.

China currently pumps its old oilfields with water, which is scarce, or polymers, which can be expensive.

After an initial investment in pipelines and other infrastructure, using carbon dioxide to push out China's oil could be a viable option.

So far, the United States leads China in enhanced oil recovery partly because small U.S. technology companies have been more nimble than China's big oil companies.

"It's smaller guys that do this cutting edge, creative stuff, and China doesn't have independent oil companies," said WRI's Seligsohn.

But China's Science and Technology Minister Wan Gang recently hosted an international conference on using emissions for coal plants, signaling the government is serious about moving into this industry.

And China boasts at least one advantage that even its huge state oil companies are finding hard to ignore: Its fleet of chemical plants that run on coal provide a far purer stream of carbon dioxide than coal-fired power plants do.

That type of discovery has made researchers more hopeful the United States and China can work together. "The more we've studied it, the better it works," said CERC's Friedmann. "The question is how to create a social legal regulatory framework to enable this technology."

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by David Gregorio)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON (Reuters / December 11) - As futuristic projects designed to capture carbon from coal-burning industries and store it underground have failed, the two largest consumers of the fuel, the...
WASHINGTON (Reuters / December 11) - As futuristic projects designed to capture carbon from coal-burning industries and store it underground have failed, the two largest consumers of the fuel, the...
Filed by Chris Gentilviso  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 112
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
02:53 AM on 12/26/2011
Clean coal is in reality slightly less dirty. It still pollutes the air and the water......and mountaintop removal ruins the environment and causes flooding.
04:51 PM on 12/16/2011
Clean coal is a myth.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:46 PM on 12/16/2011
Carbon capture has been working well for years in Saskatchewan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:12 AM on 12/13/2011
11 of the world's 14 largest publicly traded corporations have greenhouse gas mitigation programs, including Walmart (right-wing Walton family), along with 73% of America's 500 largest corporations.

While the other top 3 are Berkshire Hathaway and two Communist Chinese banks, all of which are major coal investors (along with Peabody Energy; Arch Coal, and Koch Industries in the U.S.).

About Industrial and Commercial Bank of China:
http://www.banktrack.org/download/bankrolling_climate_change/climatekillerbanks_final_0.pdf
http://www.grist.org/list/2011-11-30-giant-banks-screwing-the-economy-are-also-screwing-the-climate-s

About the China Construction Bank:
http://www.csrhub.com/CSR_and_sustainability_information/China-Construction-Bank-Corporation

About Berkshire Hathaway:
Although Warren Buffett (CEO of Berkshire Hathaway) has gone on record as a believer in global warming and its attendant risks to insurance companies by exacerbating extreme weather events,
http://www.thepanelist.net/neuberts-trades-finance-10059/304-berkshire-hathaway-on-global-warming
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35644956/page/2/
Buffett also opposed a Berkshire Hathaway carbon footprint disclosure initiative at their
annual shareholders meeting on April 30th, 2011, citing state law complexity governing this issue.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/live-blogging-the-berkshire-annual-meeting/

Meanwhile, it should also be noted that Buffett completed the purchase of Burlington Northern Railway in 2010, which derives 1/4th of its revenue from transporting coal.

http://www.onearth.org/article/coal-on-a-roll?page=1
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:47 PM on 12/16/2011
Marketing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:04 PM on 12/16/2011
I used to think it was just marketing myself. But here's what Walmart says:

Location: Bentonville, Ark., corporate headquarters
Description: Walmart has pledged to eliminate this equivalent - 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - from our global supply chain by the end of 2015. That is 150 percent of our company's estimated global carbon footprint growth over the next 5 years.”
Announcement made in collaboration with Environmental Defense Fund.

http://walmartstores.com/sustainability/9660.aspx?sourceid=greenhousegas&ref=http%3a%2f%2fbusiness.edf.org%2fprojects%2fwalmart%2fwalmart-and-global-warming
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:05 PM on 12/16/2011
And here's Apple, blowing off the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

to

“Thomas J. Donohue
President and CEO
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20062

Dear Mr. Donohue,

Apple is committed to protecting the environment and the communities in which we operate
around the world. We strongly object to the Chamber's recent comments opposing the EPA's effort to limit greenhouse gases.

As a company, we are working hard to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions by relying on renewable energy at our facilities and designing more energy-efficient products for our customers. We have undertaken this unilaterally and without government mandate, because we believe it is the right thing to do. For those companies who cannot or will not do the same, Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort.

We would prefer that the Chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a constructive role in addressing the climate crisis. However, because the Chamber's position differs so sharply with Apple's, we have decided to resign our membership effective immediately,

Sincerely,

Catherine A. Novelli
Vice President, Worldwide Government Affiars
Apple, Inc.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/apple-chamber.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:05 AM on 12/13/2011
How can you tell who's an A) Honest global warming skeptic, B) Denier, or C) Shill?

A) Honest skeptics are rare (I recall only one prominentl­y – AustinStev­e - and they don't stay so for very long. They may be vociferous initially but, when presented with overwhelmi­ng evidence they concede, go silent, or move on to other topics.

B) Simple deniers remain willfully ignorant and seem ideologica­lly motivated, either staunchly right-wing or libertaria­n. No matter how often their particular points get factually refuted, they'll bring up the same point again, i.e., they never learn (actually, eventually they certainly know they're lying). But to them, ideologica­l purity easily trumps any set of facts. Frankly, there's no getting through their self-infli­cted, right-wing media maintained­, bozone layer.

E.g., Fumes and FrankLucha­n fit the denier profile.

But how can you tell who's more likely a paid SHILL?

There are clues.

Shills seem akin to deniers, except that 1) They're trained not to lash out, i.e., regardless of provocatio­n, they've been instructed to remain ever polite, as that supposedly enhances their credibilit­y. 2) They rarely, if ever, post on other topics, since doing so nets them no pay. 3) Via the incessant use of thoroughly and willfully out of context quotes, they lie and distort more heinously than simple deniers do.

I'd bet netdr and Richard2 are shills.

BTW, I've never been paid anything to comment on climate change.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
07:41 PM on 12/12/2011
It's a scam. CO2 underground is just an earthquake away from a disaster.

Coal get more subsidies and breaks than even nukes 500M$ per reactor per year, and 54B$ in loan backing!

We have the best politicians money can buy.

If you want to change that...

Vote for the Kucinich, Warren, Grayson CPC progressive Caucus folks, not the DLC, New democrats, pragmatic Progressive, Blue dogs, New American Foundation, Progressive Policy Council, Third Way DINOs.

But then vote for the Dems, including Obama in the general since the GOP/Tea are anti demo racy, anti republic, anti "the Beast" Tories. They are out to take away your very right to vote and reduce you to serfdom. Ike was the last good GOP.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
11:16 PM on 12/12/2011
You figure for nuclear reactor subsidies is absurd. How about giving us an itemized list of subsidies and their associated costs. And no links please.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
12:01 AM on 12/13/2011
Don't need to. Your folks already bragged about it.

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry "Constellation's own presentations indicate that they think the federal nuclear production tax credit and construction loan guarantees alone will be worth US$ 575 million per reactor per year to them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
undsoweiter
but I know where to look it up
05:45 PM on 12/12/2011
I look forward to the day when coal is only burned in historical reenactments.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
05:49 PM on 12/12/2011
Bingo.
04:43 PM on 12/12/2011
The oil and coal companies have us backed into an energy corner.

It is time to transition to safe clean alternative energy. We need to diversify our energy sources and types. Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
01:07 PM on 12/12/2011
Natural gas is the alternative to coal.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:05 PM on 12/12/2011
Hopefully not.

The point is to de-carbonize electricity generation, and that is entirely doable, but not by burning another fossil fuel.

I'll admit, though, that literally anything would be better than coal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
02:20 PM on 12/12/2011
With the exception of carbon dioxide natural gas is clean.

It has the advantage of being ready now.

It should replace gasoline and diesel as a motor fuel, and in hybrids.

Transit agencies have been using it for 20 years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
10:15 PM on 12/23/2011
Methane does burn cleaner than coal, but the amount that escapes during normal drilling and transmission more than makes up for that. Add the groundwater pollution that you get with fracking and you've got real problems.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
10:28 PM on 12/23/2011
Would you rather burn coal?......For the next hundred years?
photo
Talk2PassiveActionVital
Stand against fa$ci$m or our children will kneel
10:58 AM on 12/12/2011
Yes, do let's throw every politically justified rationalization for thoughtlessly burning coal against the wall of rational thought until something stinks...er, sticks.

Thus, the true genius of mankind will be...self-extinction. Imagine that: a true throw-away civilization.

"Old King Coal was a vicious old soul, and a vicious old soul was he. He demanded more smokestacks--thus he sped up global warming--without so much as an apolgy."
10:57 AM on 12/12/2011
I used to think the alarmists did as much good as harm but now I think otherwise.

By blocking the use of coal and natural gas and developing tar sands they cause us to be dependent upon Mideast oil which is undeniably bad for the USA!

Global warming is a mentally challenged excuse for developing alternative energy.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:55 PM on 12/12/2011
I used to think energy issues were not also public health issues, but then I learned more about coal.

I realized that even if you don't even get into the arguments about global warming, coal still kills 10,000 to 20,000 Americans a year and costs us hundreds of billions of dollars in health effects on our economy.

Coal is not cheap. Coal is not safe.

Anyone arguing otherwise is selling you something.
05:17 PM on 12/12/2011
Being dependent upon Mideast oil isn't safe or cheap.

I doubt your figures who made them up the WWF or Greenpeace ?

Links please.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:03 AM on 12/13/2011
Come off the "I used to be one of you, til I saw the light" scam, netdr. You never thought any such thing. You lie about everything else. So, there's no reason to believe you at all.
HopeWFaith
We the People
10:14 AM on 12/12/2011
The facts do not lend One to be doubtful until they are the Ones hit with those facts and their own families are killed or hurt by the events brought about by this heavily GOP influenced industry. Just as with dirty oil and water extractions, these industries are all supported by filthy rich people who do not consider themselves at risk for any of the affects. Let these extractions be done in their backyards, and we'll see changes happen fast.

I do agree with the concepts around taxing polluters 100%. Tax the hell out of them.

You will not see one GOP person agree with anything that is environmental, healthful or careful around our energy. They have been sold a boat load of bait by the GOP and are still buying it, hook, line and sinker. - My opinion of course.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
09:46 AM on 12/12/2011
Clean coal? Right. They are digging up the west at an incredible rate and DoI Salazar can hardly control his glee.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
09:38 AM on 12/12/2011
Coal worker's pneumoconiosis
Black lung disease; Pneumoconiosis; Anthrosilicosis

Last reviewed: June 10, 2011.

Coal worker's pneumoconiosis is a lung disease that results from breathing in dust from coal, graphite, or man-made carbon over a long period of time.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors

Coal worker's pneumoconiosis occurs in two forms: simple and complicated (also called progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF).

Your risk of getting coal worker's pneumoconiosis depends on how long you have been around coal dust. Most people with this disease are older than 50. Smoking does not increase your risk of developing this disease, but it may have an additional harmful effect on the lungs.

If coal worker's pneumoconiosis occurs with rheumatoid arthritis, it is called Caplan syndrome.

Symptoms
Cough
Shortness of breath
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
10:35 PM on 12/23/2011
Thank you. There ain't no such thing as clean coal.
08:19 AM on 12/12/2011
Clean coal is nothing but a fairy tale. The mining, transporting and burning of coal is hazarous to the enviorment and the people.