Cold facts about coal

Let us now look at another side of the coal story. Up to 120,000 premature deaths every year result from India’s failure to properly control emissions from a growing number of coal plants throughout the country, according to a Greenpeace report. Unless significant changes occur, the problem could worsen as officials race to meet a burgeoning demand by building a slew of new coal plants throughout the country.

Greenpeace studied 111 coal plants in Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and other regions, and found that virtually no regulation exists to manage emissions from these facilities. “Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved, and millions of asthma attacks, heart attacks, hospitalisations, lost workdays and associated costs to society could be avoided, with the use of cleaner fuels, [and] stricter emission standards and the installation and use of the technologies required to achieve substantial reductions in these pollutants,” said the report.

Greenpeace also found that in places where some standards have been theoretically imposed, there is virtually no enforcement of the regulations. Currently India produces roughly 210 GW of electricity each year, most of which is from coal generation, and plans to produce a further 160GW to cover the thousands of Indians who lack access to power. Such a move would make the country the highest coal user, pushing past China. Failure to instill standards now could easily put Delhi, Kolkata and other regions en par with Beijing, where record levels of pollution have been recorded.

Drastic changes?

In the UK’s Daily Mail, Christopher Booker dissects Britain's energy policy by looking at the changes planned at giant Drax power station in Yorkshire. Every day, Drax burns 36,000 tons of coal, brought to its vast site by 140 coal trains every week — and it supplies seven per cent of all the electricity used in Britain. Because it burns so much coal, Drax is the biggest single emitter in Britain of carbon dioxide (CO2), ‘the gas supposedly responsible for global warming’ says Booker.
There is, he writes, ‘no better symbol of madness than turning one of the biggest and most efficiently run coal-fired power stations into a world of eco-lunacy as it embarks on a £700 million switch away from burning coal in its six colossal boilers to devour millions of tons a year of wood chips instead’.

Most of these chips will come from trees felled in forests covering a staggering 4,600 square miles in the USA, from where they will be shipped 3,000 miles across the Atlantic to Britain. Campaigning groups, such as Friends of the Earth, scorn the idea that wood chips are  ‘carbon neutral’ or that felling millions of acres of American forests, to turn trees into chips and then transporting those chips thousands of miles to Yorkshire, will end up making any significant net reduction in ‘carbon’ emissions. Even then, before being pulverised into powder ready for use, the wood chips must be stored in giant purpose-built domes, where they need to be humidified in order to prevent spontaneous combustion — to which wood is 1,000 times more prone than coal. This has already given rise to disastrous fires in other power plants.

Unlike coal, biomass is considered ‘sustainable’, because it supposedly only returns back to the atmosphere the amount of CO2 it drew out of the air while the original tree it came from was growing.

The writer makes his case for coal here, citing that coal is still by far the cheapest means of creating electricity. But the Government is keen to meeting its own and the EU's targets for reducing Britain's "carbon emissions" and hence the change at Drax.

First, the UK Government wants to use a carbon tax to make burning fossil fuels such as coal so expensive that it will become prohibitive for power companies to use them. Second, the Government is determined to boost all those "carbon neutral" — ‘but currently much more expensive’ — means of making electricity, such as wind farms, nuclear power and burning biomass. “The result of this dog’s dinner of an energy policy is that, on the one hand we can look forward to ever-soaring energy bills, while on the other hand we will have crippling power cuts.”

He notes how Germany, which already has five times as many wind turbines as Britain, is now desperately building 20 new coal-fired stations in the hope of keeping its lights on. China, already the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to build 363 more coal-fired power stations. India is ready to build 455 new coal-fired power stations…

Clearly, the world is getting polarised into two factions; one that looks at the cheap way of doing things, and the other at the long-term effects. True, expenses are getting out of control for everyone, from governments to the common man. But do you think expense should be the deciding factor?

Food vs energy

Not just what we eat, but how we produce our energy has impact on water. China’s and India’s plans to build more coal-fired power plants to meet electricity needs aren’t feasible according to GE because of a lack of water needed to cool the plants World Resources Institute reports that 79 percent of India’s new power capacity is being built in areas of limited water availability.

Coal-fired power plants are extremely water intensive, particularly in India where typical plants consume 5-7 cubic meters of water per Megawatt hour, while plants built more recently with the latest technology use 3.5-4 cubic meters of water/Mwh.

Almost 71 proposed coal plants in drought-prone Vidarbha in Maharashtra would consume water enough to irrigate more than 410,000 hectares of land. But guess what, the clean alternative, nuclear plants, need 25% more water than coal  based plants! Where will the water come from in various parts of the water-stressed country? Does anyone make these calculations or analysis before commissioning a nuclear plant? With falling agriculturing productivity, can we afford diverting more water away from irrigation?

Coal rush

Indian coal companies are trying to earn hundreds of millions of carbon credits from the coal expansion, much to the concern of international watchdogs, who believe they are not fully equipped.

Seven major and more than 30 smaller coal-powered power stations are planned in Andhra Pradesh alone, together intended to have a capacity of 56GW. The largest plant, expected to be opened in two years, will be the $4bn Krishnapatnam power station, India's first "ultra-mega" class of coal-fired power station. With 4GW, capacity it will be one of the world's 25 biggest electricity sources, capable of powering 7m middle-class homes.

The Krishnapatnam plant has been registered with the UN clean development mechanism (CDM) and, if approved, could generate 3.5m carbon credits a year.

India last year approved plans for 173 coal-fired power stations expected to provide an extra 80-100 gigawatts (GW) of electricity capacity within a few years. Many are expected to be fuelled by cheap coal imported from Australia, Indonesia and southern Africa, but applications to mine more than 600m tonnes of coal in India have been lodged.

Will the CDM encourage more such mega plants? Is it good in the long run for the environment and human health? Write in.

Coal plants and radiation? Really?

China to reconsider nuclear power plans. Is that good or bad news? In the light of Japan disaster, it seems good. But some people think not. Like George Monbiot at The Guardian. And why?

'Even when nuclear power plants go horribly wrong, they do less damage to the planet and its people than coal-burning stations operating normally. Coal, the most carbon-dense of fossil fuels, is the primary driver of manmade climate change. If its combustion is not curtailed, it could kill millions of times more people than nuclear power plants have done so far. Yes, I really do mean millions.'

He goes on to say that deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot be ignored but remain 'a tiny fraction of the deaths for which climate change – through its damage to the food supply, its contribution to the spread of infectious diseases and its degradation of the quality of life for many of the world’s poorest people – is likely to be responsible.'

Coal also causes plenty of other environmental damage, far worse than the side-effects of nuclear power production: from mountaintop removal to acid rain and heavy metal pollution. An article in Scientific American points out that the fly ash produced by a coal-burning power plant “carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.” But we are not panicking about our coal plants, as we are right now with the winds blowing south or eastwards from japan!

All set for coal tax

The Indian government will start levying the Clean Energy Cess, or coal tax, on all the coal mined in the country or imported from July 1, 2010. A tax of Rs. 50 would be levied on every tonne of coal mined in the country as well as that imported from abroad. The Indian government announced the coal tax in order to generate funding for the research, development and deployment of cleaner and renewable energy technologies.

As of April 1 2009, India’s coal reserves stood at 267 billion tonnes. There has been a steady increase in the coal production over the years. The government has a target of mining 461 million tonnes in 2007-08 as against the actual production of 430 million tonnes in 2006-07.

Coal is the primary source of power generation in India with more than 70 percent of the total electricity generated coming from coal-fired power plants. However, with India already committed to reducing its carbon intensity by 20 to 25 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels, coal is not the way. The government must invest heavily in the renewable energy technologies. Therefore, the need of a National Clean Energy Fund.

Coal consumption to grow

The world's hunger for energy is insatiable, according to the most recent Energy Outlook published by The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). This will lead to an increase in coal consumption from 132 quadrillion Btu in 2007 to 206 quadrillion Btu in 2035, most of which will come from growth in India and China. As a result, annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions could rise from 29.7 billion metric tons in 2007 to 42.4 billion metric tons in 2035.

The report (based on current trends) predicts that things will be generally flat in the OECD countries, as they move from manufacturing to service based economies, and focus on efficiency rather than growth in their transportation sectors. But as manufacturers locate factories in developing countries where wages are cheapest, and those wage earners increase their standard of living, those countries will be the most active in growing their energy and fuel use – mainly coal and oil.

Nothing new. We have been hearing this for some time. But it’s the kind of stalemate with no clear solution. Can the developing nations take on the burden of climate change and give up on its development chart? No. Will the rich nations fund clean energy in these poor nations? Hardly anything substantial to help make the total shift. So then, we are left with the business as usual scenario. Energy intensity helps a bit but not enough to alleviate the climate damage.

As Baloo the bear asks Mowgli, ‘what do we do?’

Coal gassification goes deep

In Canada’s Alberta, a project is on to convert coal to gas at depths beyond 1000 metres – the deepest ever to generate power from coal--without digging it up.
Working at that depth could lessen the threat of groundwater contamination from the smoldering decomposing coal. If the technology can get at deeper layers of coal, it could allow access to more of the fossil fuel, whether that’s good or bad!

When the project starts up in 2015, Swan Hills hopes to generate 300 megawatts of power from its coal gas while selling over 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. The CO2 could be used by oil producers and ultimately stored in oil wells. This could result in the storage of 10 to 20 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2020.

The pilot produced excellent gas using a pair of adjacent wells spaced 50 to 60 meters apart, installed in the coal seam with the same directional-drilling techniques behind the accelerating production of natural gas from contentious shale deposits.

Oxygen is driven down the feed well and the coal seam is ignited, driving the temperature to 800 to 900 ºC and the pressure to almost 2,000 PSI. Under those pressures, the oxygen, coal, and saline water (present in the coal and also injected via the feed well) react to form a gas that is roughly one-third methane and two-thirds hydrogen, along with some carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The gas is drawn to the surface via the adjacent production well, where the carbon monoxide is converted to hydrogen and CO2, and all of the CO2 is removed.

How the company managed to achieve gas flow between its wells, given the low permeability of coal squashed under 1,400 meters of rock, is not known. The standard mechanical method by which shale gas production is stimulated is the fracture of rock with high-pressure water.

Does such deep drilling into the earth cause tremors or tectonic shifts?? Do we know enough? Recently Sweden has dropped one of its geothermal projects after deep drilling caused fractures in neighbouring structures.

Carbon capture to get a boost

When it comes to coal, there are two extreme opinions – for or against. Those for the fuel are not giving up on ways to take the carbon bite out of coal. While carbon capture and sequestration technology remains controversial, a team from MIT has been studying a carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technique called pressurized oxy-fuel combustion. This process converts the carbon dioxide emissions of a power plant into a pressurized liquid stream meant to be pumped underground.

NYT reports similar plans of American Electric Power’s to inject about 100,000 tons annually for two to five years at ist Mountaineer plant in West Virginia. The plan, to begin in the next few days, is to convert carbon dioxide to a fluid into a layer of sandstone 7800 feet below and then into a layer of dolomite even below. The liquid will displace salt water and assume a shape of a squashed football 30-40 feet high and hundreds of yards long!

E.ON and Siemens have launched a carbon capture pilot project at E.ON’s Staudinger coal-fired power plant in Grosskrotzenburg near Hanau, Germany.

A post-combustion capture process developed by Siemens will be used to remove over 90% of the CO2 from the flue gases of one of the units at the E.ON plant. Siemens will run the carbon capture facility until the end of 2010 to test the long-term chemical stability and efficiency of the cleaning agents under real operating conditions. The initial pilot project could, if successful, form the basis of large-scale demonstration of the technology.

There are still some who fear we haven't understood the geology of deep terrains where we plan to pump and store the carbon. Will the displaced water be affected? Will the carbon stay in a stable form? Is CCS just a way of burying troubles?

Co(a)ld facts

Birth defects, abnormalities and cancers in children of Punjab’s cities Bathinda and Faridkot are being linked to uranium contamination. Not from nuclear plants, but coal-fired power stations!

Tests have showed massive levels of uranium in their bodies, in one case more than 60times the maximum safe limits of WHO.

Uranium occurs naturally throughout the world, but is normally only present in low background levels which pose no threat to human health. But an Observer investigation has now uncovered disturbing evidence to suggest a link between the contamination and the region's coal-fired power stations.

It is already known that the fine fly ash produced when coal is burned contains concentrated levels of uranium and a new report published by Russia's leading nuclear research institution warns of an increased radiation hazard to people living near coal-fired thermal power stations.

The findings have implications the many countries planning to build new coal-fired power plants, including China, Russia, India, Germany and the US.

CBM surging ahead

Reuters has a report on Asian efforts to expand production of coal seam gas - Asia's coal seam gas projects charge ahead, China leads. Projects to exploit coal-bed methane (CBM) are surging ahead in Asia, with China leading.

China, the world's second-biggest energy user after the United States, is eager to develop CBM into an alternative energy source to drive its rapid industrialisation. The country extracted four billion cubic metres (bcm) of CBM in 2006, and is expected to pump up 10 bcm by 2010, besides further raising 300 bcm of proven CBM reserves.

CBM is extracted from deep coal beds through the drilling of wells. However, unlike drilling for natural gas, large amounts of water must be pumped from the coal bed area in order to depressurize the bed. Once the water is removed, the methane is able to escape from the coal and flow into the well itself.

The only problem with CBM is the water that is removed from the wells. Being saline this cannot be mixed with freshwater. Ways to clean it include evaporation in huge ponds, or pouring it back into rock fractures. The effect on acquifers can also not be ignored.

But utilization of this methane could not only help augment supply but also prevent the pollution of atmosphere that would result from methane escaping. As in the case of natural gas, burning of methane reduces emissions quite significantly.

Of course this cannot by itself meet the demand, only add to the mix of energy sources. But CBM projects are often capital intensive. Heavy drilling equipment alone can cost a lot. Additional support from mechanisms like CDM can help.

In India operational CBM fields can contribute to over 8-10 mmscmd of gas production in the next five years. Investment in coal and gas transportation infrastructure, including gas gathering, transportation and distribution, is necessary to move CBM from coal fields to local and more distant end-use markets.

A combination of resources is the best bet in today’s energy-hungry world, as we have been saying. The more localized the usage is, the better.

Going beyond coal

The focus of the Integrated Energy Policy by the Indian Planning Commission is to sustain a growth rate of 8%. This requires an increase in installed capacity of electricity from 1,60,000 MW to 800,000 MW by 2031-32, an annual growth in coal demand between 4.7% to 7.27%.

Towards meeting the demand, the Government of India has approved 213 new coal plants in the next eight years. And to pave way for more coal mining, the coal ministry and Ministry of Environment have joined hands by putting ‘degraded’ forest lands (between 55 to 60 per cent of the total forest land in the country) as “Go” areas for coal exploitation.

Did the environment minister mean ‘open’ forests when he said ‘degraded’? If so, it will further reduce the country’s overall forest cover, which is already short of the desired 33 per cent mark.

Is this the right way ahead? Energy demand has to be met but have we seriously considered the potential of energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce the demand on fossil based energy?

How can renewable energy manage to cope when coal-based power is sold way below its actual cost? If you monetize costs of environmental damage from coal based generation, it works out to Rs 6.97 per kWh, according to World Institute Sustainable Energy.

Given climate imperatives, can we mindlessly afford to beat the same track?

India has very poor quality extractable coal reserves left for 30-40 years, according to CMPDI (central mine planning and design institute) whereas if depending largely on coal, power generation would have to ramp up about 6 times from the present 70,000 MW to nearly 400,000 MW.

Two thirds of India’s CO2 emissions come from coal used in power generation. India is the lowest per capita emitter, but given that 5% of the world’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels come from India, serious thought has to be given to how we meet our energy demand. Is it through removing forests and burning more scarce coal?

Or is there a balance we have somehow missed so far?

Running out of coal?

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the University of Washington have come to the conclusion that the world's coal supply has been vastly overestimated. The researchers believe that coal production could start dwindling as early as 2025.

The researchers have found that minable coal reserves have been overestimated by at least four times what is actually minable.

David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology analyzed the coal production patterns of five regions around the world -- eastern Pennsylvania, France, Germany's Ruhr Valley, the United Kingdom and Japan -- each of which was producing at less than a tenth of its peak levels.

The bell curve of production obtained when applied to coal data from around the world shows that the IPCC’s estimate for extractable coal at 3400 billion tons is far above the latest calculation at 666 billion tons.

Overestimation of reserves, as also a clubbing of resources and reserves, is said to be the reason for this over-estimation.

The other consequence of this overestimation of coal is overestimation of emissions. The committee's projections call for CO2 levels in the atmosphere to approach 500 parts per million by 2050, if emissions continue on their current trend. But Rutledge's work suggest that even if humans burn all the coal and oil we can get our hands on, we won't be able to push CO2 past 450 ppm.

Will a two degree rise affect climate drastically? Some say no, while others point to climate sensitivity. But both sides agree to an impending energy scarcity from fossil fuels.

India, China and the US are relying on coal reserves to a large extent when planning growth. Will this study make any difference in the way the governments review the energy mix?

Giddily racing ahead

In its latest annual report last November, the IEA cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. A paradox for some! But more than ever before, it is being proved that economy and environment go hand in hand.

In an article in The New York Times, read more about the technological leaps China is taking to address energy needs. Even as the west still relies heavily on outdated, inefficient coal-fired power plants that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide, China has begun requiring power companies to retire older, more polluting power plant.

Costs are more but in the overall view, it is all about planning for an economy with big plans it does not want to let go.

With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent. In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China.

By adopting “ultra-supercritical” technology, which uses extremely hot steam to achieve the highest efficiency, and by building many identical power plants at the same time, China has cut costs dramatically through economies of scale. It now can cost a third less to build an ultra-supercritical power plant in China than to build a less efficient coal-fired plant in the United States.

But even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant. That is where carbon capture and sequestration could help but the technology is still not commercially ready.

Just last year, China overtook the United States as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. By 2030, the International Energy Agency says China's emissions will be 41 percent greater than those of the United States.

Which is perhaps why China is redoubling efforts on the renewable side. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment.

Do you think what China is doing is the way ahead for developing economies? Should coal continue to be in the energy mix? Can renewable energy meet base load demand?

Bury it, forget it?

Till such time when nanotechnology and microbes that take in carbon dioxide and spew fuel (methane) step out of the realm of possibilities, most of the world will continue to rely on coal for their primary energy needs.

But, coal, everyone knows is not a honourable gas. That being so, how does one take the bite out of coal? CCS or carbon capture and sequestration. Here, the carbon emitted by thermal plants is captured and buried underground. Out of sight, out of mind.

But as some natural worriers have been pointing out, what if the buried carbon could cause problems?! Do we know our geology well enough to be sure the carbon we bury will stay put?

New research now sets that fear aside. The team led by the University of Manchester has shown through their study that for millions of years carbon dioxide has been stored safely and naturally in underground water in gas fields saturated with the greenhouse gas.

Naturally-occurring carbon dioxide either dissolves in underground water (like Coke) or it reacts with minerals in rock to form new carbonate minerals, essentially locking away the carbon dioxide underground. While much of this has been studied by simulation using computer models, the new study measured the ratios of the stable isotopes of carbon dioxide and noble gases like helium and neon in nine gas fields in North America, China and Europe. These gas fields were naturally filled with carbon dioxide thousands or millions of years ago.

They found that underground water is the major carbon sink and has stayed stable for millions of years.

Of course, one study is no guarantee. And there are other aspects to CCS.

Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide. The economy of scale and the costs are prohibiting.

Retrofitting old plants for CCS would mean laying pipes to carry the gas to nearest aquifers. For new plants the dilemma is whether to build the plant over aquifers or near the fuel source? Either way it spells more costs over pipes, transmission lines, etc. Money which could well be spent on renewables.

But coal is what is available in plenty (relatively), be it in India, China or the US. So how can we simply lump it?? Leave it all to the free market?

Mercurial unision?

Obama's administration has come out in favor of a new international treaty to control mercury pollution. With the US on board, China and India followed suit, and they paved the way for over 140 countries to agree to negotiate a legal binding treaty that could reduce mercury pollution around the world.

The agreement was announced at a high profile UN meeting in Nairobi. The agreement marked an end to a 7 year effort to formally address the mercury issue. Negotiations had largely been stalled because the Bush Administration had blocked them. Achim Steiner, the Director of the UN's Environmental Program, said the US's move helped turn the tide.

With mercury pollution still on the rise, this agreement came at a crucial time. Mercury is a dangerous toxin that can cause neurological damage when exposed to children. Obviously, this spells more bad news for coal burning thermal plants that are worst generators of mercury. Hopefully the technology that will need to be implemented will be forthcoming at affordable costs to the developing world.

Just goes to show how much can be achieved if the rich north leads by example. Hopefully like the Montreal protocol which was effective in alleviating the ozone hole problem, this one too will have its success story to show in a few years.

Meanwhile, the much awaited $787 billion stimulus bill announced by Obama apportions $8 billion in high speed rail system and modernizing and revitalizing railroads. This is being seen as a move that will relieve congestion, conserve energy, prevent pollution and improve accessibility.

Indian Railways is the largest rail network in Asia and the world’s second largest under a single management. Covering over 1 lakh kilometers, it runs some 11,000 trains everyday. Now what prevents improving accessibility and speed on some of these tracks? (Forget any stimulus in our desi budget. At least we can pick some useful tips.)

For instance, in the case of the new Bangalore international airport, with so many crores poured into underpasses and Volvo buses, how come the fact that a railway line going all the way very close to the airport, was not made use of? Kuala Lumpur has a very efficient rail network connecting the 70 odd kms between the airport and the city.

But there is a cultural side to our preferences to commute. How many prefer to car pool or take a bus to work. Very few, as revealed by a survey. And this is not as much about convenience as it is about status! Will high speed trains and a metro mean fewer cars on the roads? Not really, believe many who say that those traveling by bus may shift to the metro, not the car commuters.

How does one change attitudes? Any answers? Will recession do it?

Securing energy independence

New technologies will move the world economy away from coal and other fossil fuels very rapidly, according to a new study by the Worldwatch Institute. Most of the technology needed for this is available. This contradicts the opinion of the coal industry advocates who see carbon capture playing a big role.

Full scale commercial systems for carbon capture and storage are a way off, it says in its 49 page report. This pace will not be adequate to keep up with climate change mitigation plans.
The steps it advocates for a quick transition to a low carbon economy are making buildings and power plants more efficient, expanding wind energy, etc.

Given the relative abundance of coal and the plants in place, it is obvious why the coal industry does not want to let go. But coal not only releases globe warming carbon dioxide, but other pollutants like arsenic, mercury, etc with health impacts for populations. Sometimes, accidents can impact habitations severely. Like the one last week.

A retention pond holding toxic coal ash slurry in Roane County, Tennessee, burst from its confines and released over half a billion gallons of potentially toxic sludge that swept into the nearby town of Harriman and contaminated tributaries of the Tennessee River. The resulting flood damaged 15 homes, injured one man as it knocked his house of its foundations, and has left over 400 acres of land covered by several feet of coal ash, mud and contaminated water.

Whether it is coal, oil or gas, it is clear from recent indications that energy security will play a big role in the future of nations.

Britain was given a sharp reminder of the dangers to its energy supplies last week when Gazprom warned that western Europe could be hit by gas shortages. The Russian gas provider blamed it on a long-running row with Ukraine that could disrupt supplies. Russia will be hosting a meeting of the world's major gas suppliers to set up an Opec-style production cartel that could push up the price of energy. While there are two arguments to this, it is proof of how energy dependency is not a very advisable policy.

Oil and gas producers are already debating on the wisdom behind exports as against using surplus energy at home to spur development!

Renewable energy and energy efficiency could play crucial roles for nations thinking seriously about self-reliance. But for renewable energy to gather steam, subsidies on fossil fuels will have to go. This is not happening. Even in the US, the oil price crash is seeing sales of SUVs picking up! Never matter the recession, the oil is cheap, right?

Is it any different here in India? When grid power is cheap, so cheap that discoms can hardly hope to break even, will renewable energy be able to compete?

Hybrid energy?

More on the coal carbon sequestration or carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology say a shorter-term solution, with cheaper start-up costs, could help spread the use of carbon capture and storage at coal plants and still clean up a large amount of carbon dioxide. While not capturing the entire carbon, it does a partial job and reduces emissions to that from natural gas, said the study.

The technology took a big step forward in September when Sweden’s Vattenfall started operating a coal-fired power plant equipped with CCS technology in Germany. The 30-megawatt Schwarze Pumpe pilot plant can produce 10 tons of highly concentrated CO2 per hour. The CO2 is then loaded into tankers and shipped to a nearby gas field for sequestration.

What kinds of rock can store the carbon, how stable the process, the geodynamics, etc are still debated.

Meanwhile, California’s Electric Power Research Institute announced that it would study a potential system that could combine solar thermal with fossil fuel where the steam generated by the solar system could be fed to the other, reducing the need for coal.

An interesting option, we think would be to have an algae farm nearby so that the carbon dioxide recovered could be fed to the algae which then grow at a rapid scale and can be harvested as biofuel. We have covered experiments in this area, earlier in our blog.

It is a time for innovative thinking. To try out new ideas and to mix and match old ones. If you have any out-of-the-box ideas, let us know. We will feature them here and discuss it.

Blow for US coal plants

In a move that signals the start of the clean energy in the US, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has ruled that EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.

The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May of 2008 to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. Deseret Power’s 110 MW Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

What this means is that 30 permits for new coal-fired power plants in the seven state directly regulated by the EPA's permitting process, plus projects on all Indian Reservations will immediately die because of this ruling.

The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil.

But for those still addicted to coal for various reasons, to the rescue has come the mantra of ‘clean coal’. But this is just commercial propaganda, going by an article in The Guardian. It says: Sure you can clean it up a bit – though the toxins you've taken out of the ground have to go somewhere. But clean coal? Just say no.

The most authoritative study, The Future of Coal, published last year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), while advocating the technology as a way out of the imbroglio, concluded that the first commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant wouldn't come on stream until 2030 at the earliest. The technology is still not perfected and also is expensive.

Coal will remain the dominant energy source in India in coming decades. Priority naturally is to extend electricity access to the 400 million without this power. This was cited by the World Bank when it sanctioned the $450 million loan for the Tata Mundra mega power project early this year. The Bank Group is working to balance these energy needs with concerns about climate change.

The IFC noted that it would support only highly efficient coal-fired projects with a relatively lower carbon footprint than existing coal plants.

When it comes to coal consumption, no one can beat China. World coal consumption reached a record 3,090 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2006, an increase of 4.5 percent over 2005. China led world coal use with 39 percent of the total. The United States followed with 18 percent. The European Union and India accounted for 10 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

According to data, five new coal-fired generators with a combined capacity of 600 megawatts came online in the United States in 2006, while India added 930 megawatts of capacity. In startling contrast, China brought online about as much coal power capacity each week as the United States and India together did over the entire year, adding an unprecedented 90 gigawatts in 2006.

So what is the solution to balance energy and climate?