Cornerstone Volume2 Issue4

WINTER 2014
CORNERSTONE
VOLUME 2 ISSUE 4
THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE WORLD COAL INDUSTRY
The Energy Frontier

of Combining Coal and
Renewable Energy Systems
Stephen Mills
Senior Consultant
IEA Clean Coal Centre
WINTER 2014 VOLUME 2, ISSUE 4
Developing Country
Needs Are Critical to a
Global Climate Agreement
The Flexibility of German

Coal-Fired Power Plants
Amid Increased Renewables
Exploring the Status

of Oxy-fuel Technology
Globally and in China
Our mission is to defend and grow markets

for coal based on its contribution to a higher
quality of life globally, and to demonstrate and
gain acceptance that coal plays a fundamental
role in achieving the least cost path to a sustainable
low carbon and secure energy future.
The World Coal Association has been influencing policy at the highest
level for almost 30 years. No other organisation works on a global basis
on behalf of the coal industry.
Our membership comprises the worlds major international coal
producers and stakeholders. WCA membership is open to organisations
with a stake in the future of coal from anywhere in the world.
The WCA has recently appointed Harry Kenyon-Slaney, Chief Executive
of Rio Tinto Energy, as its new Chairman. It is an exciting time for the
WCA and for the global coal industry. If you have an interest in the
future of the coal industry, contact us to see how you can get involved:
membership@worldcoal.org
www.worldcoal.org
www.worldcoal.org/extract
twitter.com/worldcoal
www.youtube.com/worldcoal
facebook.com/WorldCoalAssociation
WCA Members
Alpha Natural Resources Inc
Anglo American
Arch Coal Inc
BHP Billiton
Bowie Resource Partners LLC
Caterpillar Global Mining
China National Coal Group

Glencore
Joy Global
Karakan Invest.
Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd
Orica Ltd
Peabody Energy
Rio Tinto Energy
Shenhua Group
LLC Vostsibugol
Whitehaven Coal Limited
Xcoal Energy & Resources
Coal Association of New Zealand

CoalImp - Association of UK Coal Importers
Fossil Fuel Foundation
German Coal Association
Indonesian Coal Mining Association
Iranian Mines & Mining Industries Development
& Renovation Organization
Japan Coal Energy Center
Minerals Council of Australia

Mongolian Coal Association
National Mining Association
Queensland Resources Council
Shaanxi Institute of Geological Survey
Svenska Kolinstitutet
UCG Association
WCA Associate Members

Asociacin Nacional De Empresarios De
Colombia
ASSOCARBONI
Associao Brasileira do Carvo Mineral
Association of British Mining Equipment
Companies
China National Coal Association
Coal Association of Canada
WCA_advert_h273 x w206mm 27 Nov 2014.indd 1
27/11/2014 13:30
F R OM THE EDI TOR
Finding Common Ground
enewables and coal are the two fastest growing forms of energy today.
The growth of these energy sources is particularly prominent in developing
countries, where most expansion in electricity capacity is occurring. Coal and
renewables often require less upfront investment, less infrastructure, and are more
widely distributed globally than other energy options, making them ideal choices
for regions that need to add electricity capacity in the near term.
Coal and renewable energy systems can be integrated in such a way that the advantages of each energy source can be more fully harnessed. For instance, coal and
biomass cofiring and cogasification, the most widespread combinations practiced
today, allow for larger, more cost-effective plants than would be possible with only
biomass, but a smaller carbon footprint than would be possible using coal without carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). In fact, there are many more
examples of optimized systems in which renewable and coal energy systems could
be optimally integrated.
Holly Krutka
Executive Editor, Cornerstone
The main issues facing increased integration of coal and renewable energy systems are not technical. Instead, they are generally institutional. Advocates for such
integration are few and far between. However, some of the advantages are worth
consideration: Integration can produce more power than a standalone renewable
plant and can be an enabling technology to get high-cost renewables, such as unconventional geothermal and concentrated solar power, deployed in the near term. Yet
such projects are generally not included under renewable portfolio standards or
clean energy standards. In addition, negative net greenhouse gas emissions, which
can be achieved through cofiring coal and biomass with CCS, are often not recognized by emissions trading schemes.
The deployment of renewables is already changing the operation of coal-fired
power plants; tomorrows plants will need to be smarter and more responsive than
those of the past. As is being demonstrated by Germanys fleet of coal-fired power
plants, rapid turndown to 2540% of full capacity as well as rapid ramping is now
not just possible, but has become standard operating procedure.
Recently, low-carbon energy production from coal took a major step forward with
the commencement of operation of SaskPowers Boundary Dam project. This
monumental CCUS project is now demonstrating that low-carbon coal is within our
grasp. As coal and renewables grow globally, improved integration and efficiency
as well as deployment of CCUS can ensure that coal and renewables can both contribute to decreasing the carbon footprint of the energy sector without sacrificing
reliability, energy security, and eventually cost. Further demonstration, development, and deployment will be necessary to reduce costs, which emphasizes why
increased integration of coal and renewables must find support within the global
energy discussion today.
This issue of Cornerstone offers a wide range of articles that discuss the many areas
in which coal and renewables do and could intersect. On behalf of the editorial
team, I hope you enjoy it.
www.cornerstonemag.net
1
CONTENTS
1
11
FROM THE EDITOR

Finding Common Ground
Holly Krutka, Cornerstone
VOICES
The Rise of Electricity: Offering Longevity,
Improved Living Standards, and a Healthier Planet
Frank Clemente, Penn State University
17
21
ENERGY POLICY
11
Understanding the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative

Patrick Falwell, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Brad Crabtree, Great Plains Institute
Developing Country Needs Are Critical

to a Global Climate Agreement
Benjamin Sporton, World Coal Association
25
STRATEGIC ANALYSIS
The Flexibility of German Coal-Fired
Power Plants Amid Increased Renewables
21
Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer, World Energy Council
31
Toward Carbon-Negative Power Plants

With Biomass Cofiring and CCS
Janne Krki, Antti Arasto, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
36
Evolution of Cleaner Solid Fuel Combustion

Christopher Long, Peter Valberg, Gradient
31
4 Cover Story
The Energy Frontier of

Combining Coal and
Stephen Mills
The global demand for energy continues to increaseas the fastest
growing sources of energy, coal and renewables are largely responsible
for meeting that demand. A Senior Consultant at the IEA Clean Coal
Centre explores the projections for coal and renewable deployment as
well as opportunities for optimization.
2
TECHNOLOGY FRONTIERS
Making Coal Flexible:

Getting From Baseload to Peaking Plant
41
Geothermal Assisted Power Generation

for Thermal Power Plants
46
Shenhuas Development of Digital Mines

Han Jianguo, Shenhua Group Co., Ltd
51
Direct Carbon Fuel Cells: An Ultra-Low

Emission Technology for Power Generation
56
Exploring the Status of Oxy-fuel

Technology Globally and in China
61
Jaquelin Cochran, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Debra Lew, Independent Consultant
Nikhil Kumar, Intertek
Nigel Bean, Josephine Varney, University of Adelaide
41
Christopher Munnings, Sarbjit Giddey, Sukhvinder Badwal,

CSIRO Energy Flagship
Zheng Chuguang,
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
and Clean Energy Research Center
56
GLOBAL NEWS
Covering global business changes, publications, and meetings
LETTERS
VOLUME 2 AUTHOR INDEX
67
71
73
67
Chief Editor
Gu Dazhao, Katie Warrick
Official Journal of World Coal Industry
Executive Editor
Holly Krutka, Liu Baowen
Responsible Editor
Chi Dongxun, Li Jingfeng
Copy Editor
Li Xing, Chen Junqi, Zhang Fan
Sponsored by Shenhua Group Corporation Limited
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Production and Layout

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
CORNERSTONE (print ISSN 2327-1043,
online ISSN 2327-1051) is published four times a
year on behalf of the World Coal Association by
Wiley Periodicals Inc., a Wiley Company
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774.
Copyright 2014 World Coal Association

Editorial Office
Shenhua Science and Technology Research
Institute Co., Ltd 006 mailbox
Shenhua Science and Technology Park,
Future Science & Technology City,
Changping District
Beijing 102211, China
Phone: +86 10 57336026
Fax: +86 10 57336014
Email: cornerstone@shenhua.cc (Chinese)
Email: cornerstone@wiley.com (English)
Website: www.cornerstonemag.net
The content in Cornerstone does not necessarily
reflect the views of the World Coal Association or
its members.
3
C O VE R S T O RY
The Energy Frontier

By Stephen Mills
Senior Consultant
IEA Clean Coal Centre
Although coal and renewable energy

sources might appear to be strange
bedfellows we could see increased
deployment of combinations of the
worlds two fastest-growing energy
sources becoming a reality.
he world is undoubtedly hungry for energy and this

hunger is growing. There are strong incentives to
develop improved sources of energy. By 2040, the
worlds population will have reached nearly nine billion.1 All
of these people will need to be housed, fed, and have the
opportunity to make a living; this inevitably means that much
more energy is going to be needed. By 2040, global energy
demand will be about a third greater than current levels.2 Oil,
4
natural gas, and coal will continue to be used widely, although

in some situations, the increasing use of renewable energy
sources may reduce the amount of fossil fuels currently used.
Regardless, on a global basis, coal will continue to play a major
role. This will be particularly true in some of the emerging
economies where growing industrialization and urbanization
continue to relentlessly drive electricity demand upward.
of Combining Coal and

At the moment, over 1.2 billion people lack access to any
electricity, and another two billion are considered to have
inadequate access. A key goal of the 2010 Copenhagen Accord
is to provide energy to these underserved populations. There
may be few energy source options availablein some countries, coal is the only economically available bulk source
capable of providing reliable energy. Although its use is set to
decline in some developed economies, coal will continue to be
used widely and in considerable quantities. For over a decade,
global coal consumption has risen steadily; in some non-OECD
countries, in particular, both production and consumption
have increased dramatically. During this time, consumption
has risen by nearly 60%, from 4.6 Gt in 2000 to about 7.8 Gt in
2012.3 Despite efforts to diversify, coal remains vitally important for many economies. Since 2000, apart from renewables,
it has been the fastest-growing global energy source. Its the
second source of primary energy after oil, and provides more
than 30% of global primary energy needs.
The biggest individual coal reserves are in the U.S., Russia,
China, Australia, and India. In all of these countries, coal is
used to generate large percentages of electricity. In several, it
also provides important economic benefits as it is exported to
other power-hungry economies. At the moment, coals principal use remains electricity generation; coal-fired power plants
produce 4142% of the worlds electricity. In the coming
years, electricity will continue to be provided by many different generating technologies, but the projected combinations
are highly site-specific. The IEA World Energy Outlook (2012)
suggests that, for the foreseeable future, power production
from most sources will continue to increase (Figure 1).4 In
many countries, coal and renewable energy systems are being
deployed at greater percentages and, thus, there is increased
interest in how to optimally integrate these systems. In fact,
there are a significant number of opportunities.
Polands Belchatw coal-fired power station is Europes largest

thermal power plant (courtesy PGE Elektrownia Belchatw).
electricity. Global renewable power capacity continues to
increase. In 2013, hydropower and solar PV each accounted
for about 33% of new renewable capacity, followed by wind
at about 29%.5
Several driving forces support the growth in renewables. All
developed nations rely heavily on an adequate and accessible supply of electricity and, for a long time, demand has
continued to rise in nearly every country. However, in recent
years, concerns over issues such as the depletion of energy
resources and global climate change have been heightened.
The preferred response of many western governments has
been a supply-side strategynamely, to raise the share of
renewables (especially renewables other than hydropower) in
the energy mix toward 20% and beyond. To date, wind power
has emerged as the most competitive and widely deployed
renewable energy, although levels of solar power are also
growing steadily. Renewable energy technologies such as wind
and solar have obvious features that make their use attractive.
AN ODD PARTNERSHIP?
With the ever-increasing use of all types of fossil fuels, there
has also been a marked increase in the uptake of renewable
energy sources. In many economies, these now represent a
rapidly growing share of electricity supply; Table 1 shows the
top regions and countries at the end of 2012.
In 2013 renewables made up more than 26% of global generating capacity; in 2013 they produced 22% of the worlds
Global Power
Generation Mix (TWh)
14k
12k
10k
8k
Coal
Renewables
Gas
6k
4k
2k
Nuclear
Oil
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
FIGURE 1. Global power generation mix4
5
C O VE R S T O RY
TABLE 1. Global renewable electric power capacity5 (end 2013) (GW)

Technology
World Total
EU-28
BRICS
China
U.S.
Germany
Spain
Italy
India
Bio-power
88
35
24
6.2
15.8
8.1
4.4
Geothermal
12
0.1
~0
3.4
~0
0.9
Tidal
0.5
0.2
~0
~0
~0
~0
Solar PV
139
80
21
19.9
12.1
36
5.6
17.6
2.2
CSP
3.4
2.3
0.1
~0
0.9
~0
2.3
~0
0.1
Wind
318
117
115
91
61
34
23
8.6
20
Total RE power capacity*
560
235
162
118
93
78
32
31
27
Hydropower
1000
124
437
260
78
5.6
17.1
18.3
44
Total RE power capacity
1560
360
599
378
172
84
49
49
71
*Excludes hydropower.
Note: BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa
Although initial capital costs for renewables-based systems

can be high, operating costs can be low; emissions generated
during day-to-day operation are effectively zero.
forms may be subject to limited or seasonable availability, and

various pre-treatments may be needed. Inevitably, such challenges can add complexity and cost to energy production.
Especially in faster-growing energy markets, these renewable energy systems are not replacing existing or even new
coal-fired power plants. Renewables and coal-fired power
generation are growing simultaneously. Therefore, it is worth
exploring the many options for combining these very different
forms of energy in the most cost-effective, environmentally
conscious, and efficient means possible. A growing number of
hybrid coal-renewables systems have been proposed or are
being developed around the world, several of which could
offer significant potential.
Co-utilization of coal and biomass need not be limited to cocombustion in existing power plantsthere are a number of
other possibilities such as co-gasification. Coal gasification is
a well-established versatile technology. Combining these two
different feedstocks can be beneficial. For instance, facilities
that co-gasify biomass in large coal gasifiers can achieve high
efficiencies and improve process economics through greater
economies of scale compared to a biomass-only facility. Such
a combination can also help reduce the impact of fluctuations
in biomass availability and its variable properties. Combining
biomass and coal in this way can be useful, both environmentally and economically, as it may be possible to capitalize on
the advantages of each feedstock, and overcome some of their
individual drawbacks. Biomass can have an impact on CO2
emissions from a combustion or gasification process. Replacing
part of the coal feed with biomass (assuming that it has been
produced on a sustainable basis) can effectively reduce the
overall amount of CO2 emitted. Potentially, the addition of
carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology could result in a
carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative process. Globally, considerable quantities of biomass are potentially availablein
many countries, biomass remains an underexploited resource.
Coal and Biomass

Combining biomass with coal is a prime example of combining
renewables and coal. Such a combination is already deployed
fairly widely in the form of cofiring biomass in large conventional coal-fired power plants. Around the world, a growing
number of power plants regularly replace a portion of their
coal feed with suitably treated biomass. More than 150 coalfired power plants now have experience with cofiring biomass
or waste fuels, at least on a trial basis. There are ~40 pulverized coal combustion (PCC) plants that cofire biomass on a
commercial basis, with an average of 3% energy input from
biomass.6
Biomass comes in many forms and can be sourced from
dedicated energy crops (such as switchgrass and miscanthus),
short-rotation timber, agricultural crops and wastes, or forestry
residues. When combined with coal, biomass can provide a
number of advantages. However, its use on a large commercial
scale could create a number of issues. For example, the volumes to be harvested and handled can be substantial, some
6
Similar to many conventional coal-fired power plants, several

commercial-scale, coal-fueled, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants in operation have at least trialed combining biomass with their coal feed, and several proposed IGCC
projects aim to do the same. For instance, a planned IGCC and
chemicals production plant (with CCS) at Kdzierzyn in Poland
will co-gasify coal and biomass.7 To date, useful operational
experience in co-gasifying has been gained with all major
gasifier variants (entrained flow, fluidized bed, and fixed bed
systems). Different types of coal have been co-gasified successfully with a wide range of materials, many of which are
wastes that would have otherwise ended up in landfills or, at
least, created disposal problems.
Co-utilizing coal and biomass is not limited to power generation. In a number of countries, hybrid concepts for the
production of SNG, electricity and/or heat, and liquid transport fuels have either been proposed or are in the process
of being developed or tested. Coal/biomass co-gasification
features in some of these. However, as well as incorporating
biomass, some propose to take this a step further by adding
yet another element of renewable energy to the system, generally by incorporating electricity generated by intermittent
renewables (such as wind and solar power).
Coal, Wind, Solar, and Geothermal
Wind power has become the most widely deployed renewable
energy. In 2013, global capacity hit a new high of 318 GW. In
that year, China alone installed more than 16 GW; by 2020, the
IEA projects the country will more than double its wind power
capacity from the present level of 90 GW to around 200 GW.8
For comparison, the European Union countries have a combined ~90 GW of installed capacity. In 2013, wind surpassed
nuclear to become the number three source of energy after
coal and hydropower in China.9 Reportedly, this is part of the
greatest push for renewable energy that the world has ever
seen.10
Most major wind and solar facilities do not operate in isolation. Generally, they feed electricity into existing power grids
or networks. Often, such grids are fed by a variety of different
types of power plantsthere may be various combinations
of coal- and gas-fired power plants, some hydro, and possibly nuclear. The grid makeup and ratio between plant types
is never the same, as these factors differ from country to
country based on the local circumstances. On the face of it,
the addition of a large amount of wind power into a grid, for
example, is a positive development. However, a large input
from intermittent sources into existing power systems can
upset grid stability and have major impacts, particularly on
how thermal power plants within the system operate. Many
coal- and gas-fired power plants no longer exclusively provide
baseload power, but are now required to operate on a more
flexible basis. Many are increasingly switched off and on, or
ramped up and down, much more frequently than they were
designed to be. Inevitably, this is guaranteed to throw up a
number of issuessignificantly increasing wear and tear on
plant components, reducing the operating efficiency of units
not designed for variable operation, and impairing the effectiveness of emission control systems. Ideally, such important
impacts should be taken into consideration and factored into
any energy-producing scheme, but this is particularly true in
cases where coupling intermittent renewables with conventional thermal power plants is being proposed.
Clearly, the most significant drawback with wind and solar
power is their intermittency. Consequently, periods of peak
power output often do not correspond with periods of high
International Powers 1-GW Rugeley power station in the UK. Like many others, this power plant has trialed cofiring various
biomass materials with coal (courtesy Russell Mills Photography).
7
C O VE R S T O RY
Another ongoing project in Germany is expected to lead to

significant improvements in the overall efficiency of the electrolysis process: E.Ons power-to-gas project at Falkenhagen.
This technology utilizes multiple electrolyzers driven by excess
electricity from a nearby wind farm to provide the power to
produce hydrogen and oxygen. Output from the regions wind
farms frequently exceeds demand, so instead of taking the
turbines offline when this happens, some of the electricity
is now being fed to the electrolyzers. In this case, the hydrogen produced is being injected into the local natural gas grid,
which acts as a large storage system. Effectively, its a clever
way of storing renewable energy.
There is also an opportunity to integrate coal-fired power
plants with renewable sources of thermal energy, such as
geothermal or solar thermal. The benefit of this type of integrated hybrid system is that the renewable source of energy
can take advantage of the existing infrastructure of the coalfired power plant, such as the steam cycle, connection to the
grid, and transformers. Generally, this makes the economics
much more attractive compared to a stand-alone renewable
plant. Obviously, the availability of the renewable resource at
the coal-fired power plant site is a prerequisite for such hybrid
systems to be successful.
Smla wind farm in Norway (courtesy Statkraft)
electricity demand, and vice versa. At times, there can be
significant amounts of surplus unwanted electricity available,
particularly from wind farms. This can be quite a widespread
phenomenon, and the usual solution is to take wind turbines
offline. However, rather than waste this electricity, it would
be much more beneficial to find an effective means of using it.
One option is to use electricity not needed to fill demand to
electrolyze water, producing hydrogen and oxygen. Both gases
have the potential to be component parts of hybrid energy
systems and there are various schemes that propose feeding
the hydrogen into syngas from gasification systems, use it in
fuel cells or directly as a transport fuel, or combust it in gas
turbines to generate electricity.
Similarly, the oxygen could be used for a host of commercial
and industrial applications, or fed to a coal/biomass gasifier or
an oxy-fuel combustion plant to generate electricity. Different
concepts and schemes combining gasification, intermittent
renewables, and electrolysis are currently being examined.
Some aim to incorporate carbon capture and storage. For
example, an on-going project in Germany is combining coalbased power generation with aspects of carbon capture and
wind-generated electricity with trials of advanced electrolyzer
technology (to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water).11
Success could encourage increased uptake of, for instance,
electrolysis, as a component part of various coal/renewables
systems. Assuming that the economics can be made to work,
several schemes look promising.
8
Hybrid thermal systems operate by using heat from renewable

energy to increase the temperature of the coal-fired power
plant boiler feedwater. This increases the efficiency of the
power plant, effectively displacing some coal for renewable
energy (or using the same amount of coal and producing more
electricity). Such thermal hybrid projects may be the most
cost-effective option for large-scale use of solar thermal and
geothermal energy, although, to be employed, this approach
must be recognized under renewable energy incentives. In
the future, there may also be an opportunity for renewable
sources of energy to provide the thermal load required for
carbon capture and storage, thus significantly reducing the
overall impact to the power plant and contributing to largescale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
E.Ons power-to-gas project at Falkenhagen in Germany

(courtesy E.On)
Currently, around 15 hybrid solar thermal plants, including

those on coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, are being
developed, with a total capacity of 460 MW.12 Thermal hybrid
projects based on unconventional geothermal resources are
at an earlier stage of development and the field will require
additional research prior to large-scale demonstrations.13
CURRENT STATUS
Some systems are at early stages in their development or
have been undertaken at a very small size, hence extrapolating to commercial scale and obtaining firm process costs
remains problematic. For a variety of reasons, not all of the
different schemes being considered appear to be technically
and/or economically viable. However, some do appear to be
more robust. On-going developments (in, for instance, gasifier
and electrolyzer design) should improve cost competiveness.
Where hydrogen and/or oxygen production forms part of
a hybrid energy scheme, reductions in the cost of electricity provided by renewable energy sources (such as wind and
solar) would also be beneficial in making electrolysis more
cost effective. Some examples of on-going hybrid projects are
given in Table 2. Although some are currently focused only on
biomass, potentially different elements from these processes
could also be incorporated into systems fueled by coal/biomass combinations.

A number of projects are more advanced than others, with
development programs well underway. Some components
(such as co-gasification) have now been well established, and
others are under development or being trialed (such as the
commercial-scale demonstration of hydrogen production from
wind power and testing of advanced electrolyzers). A number
of proposed hybrid systems show potentialalthough in the
near to medium term, assuming outstanding technical and
economic issues can be resolved fully, most seem likely to be
applied initially to niche markets, or to find application under
specific, favorable circumstances.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
Set against a background of growing global population and rising energy demand, there is a pressing need to come up with
new, cost-effective, clean, reliable energy systems. To help
tackle this, many hybrid energy schemes have been proposed,
some more practical than others. Despite efforts by many
countries to diversify their fuel mix, fossil fuels such as coal will
continue to provide a significant part of the worlds energy for
TABLE 2. Examples of hybrid energy-producing systems proposed

Organization
Technologies Proposed
Status
NREL, U.S.
Gasification/co-gasification +
electrolysis (wind)
Various studies underway:

combining wind power and biomass gasification
combining biomass gasification and electrolysis
combining coal and biomass co-gasification
Several gasification-based hybrid systems being examined
NETL, U.S.
Coal gasification + electrolysis

(wind)
Systems to produce SNG, electricity, and biodiesel.

3000 t/d plant proposed.
Unconverted coal from gasifier fed to oxy-fuel combustor
CRL Energy, New

Zealand
Coal/biomass co-gasification +
electrolysis (wind)
Systems could be used to produce F-T chemicals, synfuels.

O2 fed to gasifier. H2 to enrich product gas, stored, or used as
transport fuel or in fuel cells.
Leighty Foundation,
U.S.
Coal/biomass co-gasification +
electrolysis (wind)
O2 from electrolysis fed to gasifier
Univ. Lund, Sweden
Biomass (wood) gasifier +

electrolysis (wind)
O2 from electrolysis fed to gasifier
Elsam/DONG,
Denmark
Biomass gasification +
electrolysis (wind, solar)
Various co-generation concepts to produce power, heat, and

transport fuels examined.
H2 added to syngas. O2 used for biomass gasification
Univ. Lausanne,
Switzerland
Wood gasification +
electrolysis
Several processes examined for SNG production
China
Various: gasification +
electrolysis (wind)
O2 from electrolysis fed to gasifier. H2 fed to syngas.

Mainly for SNG, methanol, ethylene glycol production
Note: SNG = synthetic natural gas; F-T = Fischer-Tropsch.
9
C O VE R S T O RY
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Hybrid coal and renewable energy systems offer synergistic

benefits. (photo courtesy of Russell Mills Photography)
10.
the foreseeable future. For a number of reasons, where possible, it makes sense to look at coupling coal use with renewable
energy sources. Each power-producing system has its own pros
and cons, but combining these different systems in creative
ways may offer the possibility of overcoming some of these
shortcomings. With this in mind, various energy production
concepts that propose combining a number of different technologies with coal are being developed around the world.
11.
To be a practical proposition, as with all power-producing systems, any hybrid scheme needs to be clean, workable, and
economically sound. Based on work carried out recently by
the IEA Clean Coal Centre, some hybrid systems appear to be
viable and have potential.14,15 Although coal and renewable
energy sources might appear to be strange bedfellows, its
not unrealistic to suppose that in the coming years we could
see increased deployment of combinations of the worlds two
fastest-growing energy sources becoming a reality.
13.
10
12.
14.
15.
United Nations Population Division. (2014). Concise report on

the world population situation 2014, www.un.org/en/develop
ment/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Concise%20
Report%20on%20the%20World%20Population%20Situa
tion%202014/en.pdf
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2012, 25 July). State of play:
New IEA statistics publications highlight latest global and OECD
trends across major energy sources, www.iea.org/newsrooman
devents/news/2012/july/name,28615,en.html
IEA. (2014). Coal information, www.iea.org/w/bookshop/646Coal_Information_2014
IEA. (2012). World energy outlook 2012, www.worldenergyout
look.org/publications/weo-2012/
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21).
(2014). Renewables 2014 global status report, www.ren21.net/
Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2014/GSR2014_full%20
report_low%20res.pdf
Adams, D. (2013). Sustainability of biomass for cofiring.
CCC/230. London: IEA Clean Coal Centre. www.iea-coal.org.uk/
documents/83254/8869/Sustainability-of-biomass-for-cofiring,CCC/230
Cornot-Gandolphe, S. (2012, October). The European coal market: Will coal survive the ECs energy and climate policies? Paris:
Institut Franais des Relations Internationals.
IEA. (2011). Technology roadmap: China wind energy development 2050. Available at: www.iea.org/publications/freepubli
cations/publication/technology-roadmap-china-wind-energydevelopment-roadmap-2050.html
Yang, C. (2013). Wind power now No. 3 energy resource. Peoples
Daily English Edition, english.peopledaily.com.cn/90778/8109836.
html
Shukman, D. (2014, 8 January). China on worlds biggest push
for wind power. British Broadcasting Corporation, www.bbc.
co.uk/news/science-environment-25623400
Farchmin, F. (2013, 6 November). Integration of regenerative energy into Power2Gas by PEM electrolyzer technology. CO2RRECT
Project. Smart Grid-Infotage 2013, Munich, Germany, www.in
dustry.siemens.com/topics/global/en/pem-electrolyzer/silyzer/
Documents/2013-11-06_SMARTGRID_Munich_stick.pdf
Electric Power Research Institute. (2012, April). Utility perspective: Solar thermal hybrid projects. Clean Energy Regulatory
Forum, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, U.S., www.cleanskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/
Libby_CERF3_04192012.pdf
Bean, N., & Varney, J. (2014). Geothermal assisted power generation for coal-fired power plants. Cornerstone, 2(4), 4650.
Mills, S.J. (2011). Integrating intermittent renewable energy
technologies with coal-fired power plants. CCC/189. London:
IEA Clean Coal Centre.
Mills, S.J. (2013). Combining renewable energy with coal.
CCC/223. London: IEA Clean Coal Centre.
The author can be reached at Steve.Mills@iea-coal.org
V O ICES
The Rise of Electricity: Offering

Longevity, Improved Living Standards,
and a Healthier Planet
By Frank Clemente
Professor Emeritus of Social Science and

Former Director of the Environmental Policy Center,
Penn State University
n 1972, The United Nations Stockholm Conference on the

Human Environment issued the following Declaration: Both
aspects of mans environment, the natural and the manmade, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment
of basic human rights, the right to life itself.1 In other words,
people are part of the environment too. The Stockholm
Declaration stressed that vast numbers of people continue to
live far below the minimum conditions required for a decent
human existence, deprived of adequate food and clothing,
shelter and education, health and sanitation. The Conference
concluded that economic and social development are essential for ensuring a favorable living and working environment
for humans and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for the improvement of the quality of life.
Electricity is the foundation of such development and is the

lifeblood of modern society. The U.S. National Academy of
Engineering identified societal electrification as the greatest
engineering achievement of the 20th century, during which
the global population grew by over four billion people, the rise
of the metropolis occurred, transportation was revolutionized,
medical care improved dramatically, and a vast system of electronic communication emerged.2,3
Since 1970, the global demand for

electricity has more than quadrupled
... with ~42% of this incremental
demand being met by coal.
Electricity supports quality of life increases, economic wellbeing, and a clean environment. Electricity is highly unique
compared to other forms of energy:
Flexibleconvertible to virtually any energy servicelight,
motion, heat, electronics, and chemical potential
Permits previously unattainable precision, control, and speed
Provides temperature and energy density far greater than
those attainable from standard fuels
Does not require a buildup of inertiaoffering instantaneous access to energy at the point of use
Although it may seem counterintuitive to some, electrification offers tremendous environmental benefits. Electro-
New power lines providing access to electricity allow for energy to be utilized with increasing efficiency.
11
V O ICE S
Given these beneficial attributes of electric power, it is not surprising that demand continues to increase. Since 1970, the global
demand for electricity has more than quadrupled from approximately 5200 TWh to almost 23,000 TWh, with ~42% of this
incremental demand being met by coal, which is why this fuel
source has been referred to as the cornerstone of global power.4
Despite the staggering past growth of electricity demand,
the future world will require far greater amounts of power.
The Current Policies scenario in the IEAs 2013 World Energy
Outlook projected a 80% increase in power generation
between 2011 and 2035.4 However, the center of that projected incremental growth reflects a global shift; from 1980
to 2000, almost a quarter of the global increase in generation came from the U.S., Japan, and Europe. Over the next 20
years, these developed nations will be relatively minor players
in growth, while developing Asia will account for over 60% of
new generation, led by China, where the increase alone will
be about 6500 TWhor about twice the current output of the
EU. Coal will be the mainstay of the next generation as well,
accounting for over 40% of electricity in 2035.4
The empirical realities of at least three societal trends demonstrate the magnitude of the emerging need for major increases
in electricity generation:
1. Economic growth
2. Population increase
3. Urbanization
The projections are staggering. By 2050, the global economy
is projected to quadruple to US$280 trillion in real terms. At
least 80% of this increase will be in the developing world, and
many of these nations will depend on coal to advance their
economies. By 2050, the world will add 2.4 billion people67
million every year or 184,000 every day.5 In essence, the
entire population of Rome is added to the global rolls every
two weeks. Most of these people will either be born in, or
12
will move to, ever-growing cities. Urbanization may offer the

chance to lift oneself out of poverty, but the electricity must
be available to support the business and industries that can
provide much-needed opportunities.
THE DISPARITY OF ELECTRIFICATION
Figure 1 provides a comparison of the UNs Human Development Index (HDI) and the per capita electricity utilization of
many nations. Note that the major aspects of the HDI, such as
life expectancy, educational attainment, and per capita GDP,
are statistically related to increased access and utilization of
electricity.
Urbanization may offer the chance

to lift oneself out of poverty, but
the electricity must be available to
support the business and industries
that can provide much-needed
opportunities.
The Copenhagen Accord of 2009 concluded that economic
and social development and poverty eradication are the first
and overriding priorities of developing country Parties.7
Energy, particularly electricity, is the pathway to achieving
these goals. More than 1.3 billion people have no electricity
at all and billions more have inadequate access to power.4
Electricity deprivation in the developing world takes a mighty
toll. The impact on children and women is stark: According to
the UN, about 17,000 children die each day from causes that
are preventable with sufficient electricity, including access to
Human Development Index
technologies are more efficient than their fuel-burning counterparts and, unlike traditional fuels burned by the user, no
waste and emissions evolve at the point of useno smoke,
ash, combustion gas, noise, or odor. Clearly, its important that
there are emissions controls in place when electricity is generated; controlling criteria emissions (e.g., particulate matter,
SOx, NOx, mercury) at the source of large-scale electricity generation is possible using commercially available technologies.
In addition, electrification increases the efficiency of societys
primary energy consumption and, therefore, reduces the
energy intensity of greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon capture
and storage (CCS) technologies are also being developed that
will allow for the carbon footprint of fossil fuel-based sources
of electricity to be dramatically reduced.
Germany Japan
0.9
0.8
Brazil
0.7
India
0.6
0.5
Russia
China
Nigeria
0.4
0.3
U.S.
2000
4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

Electricity Use per Capita per Year (kWh)
FIGURE 1. Human Development Index versus electricity use6
clean water, better sanitation, adequate food, medicine, and

more education to improve earning powerall things that
can be taken for granted in the developed West.8 At least 1.5
billion women and girls live on less than $2 per day, and this
feminization of poverty is endemic to areas without electric
power.9 Merely gathering traditional fuels consumes a large
part of a womans day throughout the developing world. Girls
are kept out of school to obtain fuel. In areas such as South
Darfur, women walk up to seven hours per day to collect fuel,
making mothers and their daughters highly susceptible to robbery, violence, and rape. This inequitable access to energy has
far-reaching socioeconomic ramifications. For example, the
infant mortality rate in Germany is less than four per 1000
live births; in Nigeria, it is 74. In the European Union, virtually
100% of the population has improved sanitation; in Indonesia
alone, 104 million people lack such sanitation.10
No nation holds more of the worlds poor than India. At least
300 million people have no power whatsoever and more than
700 million people lack access to modern energy services for
lighting, cooking, water pumping, and other productive purposes. One hundred million do not have an improved water
supply and over 800 million lack access to improved sanitation. These problems will only intensify going forward as India
has about 630 million people less than 25 years old and will
surpass China as the most populated nation before 2030.11
Sub-Saharan Africa, a region with a population of more than

900 million people, uses less electricity per year (145 TWh)
than the U.S. state of Alabama (155 TWh) with just 4.8 million
residents.12,13 There is only enough electricity generated in the
sub-Sahara to power one light bulb per person for three hours
a day.14 Africa has 15% of the worlds population50% of
these people live without electricity. In fact, of the 25 nations
at the bottom of the UN HDI (see Figure 1), 24 are in Africa.15
In Cambodia, 69% of the population lacks access to electricity.
In Pakistan, it is 33% and in Uganda an astounding 92%. Of the
almost 160 million people in Bangladesh, 63 million lack access
to any sort of electric power.16 About three billion people use
rudimentary stoves to burn wood, coal, charcoal, and animal
dung, releasing dense black soot into their homes and the
environment. Annual deaths from this household air pollution
exceed four million per year.17,18 This gathering and burning of
wood and other biomass leads to deforestation, erosion, land
degradation, and contaminated water supplies. Families are
pushed off the land and migrate to cities in search of a better life.
URBANIZATION REVEALS THE IMPORTANCE
OF ON-GRID ELECTRICITY
Much energy poverty occurs in rural locations; in such settings, off-grid options, such as roof-top solar, have much to
An increasingly urban global population presents challenges, but also an opportunity to increase electrification rates.
13
V O ICE S
contribute. Undoubtedly, such solutions must play a role. In

the near term, more efficient stoves and cleaner cooking fuels
could dramatically improve indoor air quality and save lives.
However, rural off-grid solutions may only meet the minimum
standards for electricity. It would be difficult, if not impossible,
for rural, minimal electrification to support the job-creating
growth and industries so sorely needed to fundamentally
address energy poverty. Perhaps most importantly, to expect
to rely only on off-grid solutions because of where energy
poverty occurs today ignores a pressing reality: rapid global
urbanization.
Urban migration is occurring on an unprecedented scaleover
seven billion people will live in cities by 2050. The cities of the
future will be massive. In 1990, the world had 10 cities of over
10 million people. By 2050, there could be as many as 100
such megacities.19 The number of people urbanizing in India
alone will exceed 11 million per yearequivalent to the current population of Delhi proper. Cities cannot be built without
electricity, steel, cement, and associated materials. The level
of production required for these materials depends on adequate resources, including electricity, being available. There is
a model for such growth and urbanization that already exists.
China has demonstrated that low-cost electricity, fueled 70%
by coal, can be a solution to debilitating energy poverty. Over
the last 20 years, China has expanded access to electricity and
lifted over 650 million people out of poverty.20 In fact, at the
global level, over 90% of people lifted from poverty since 1990
were Chinese; power generation from coal in China increased
700% and GDP per capita rose eightfold.21
During the same period, life expectancy increased by five
years, infant mortality declined 60%, and 600 million people
gained new access to improved water sources.22 As women
are disproportionately affected by energy poverty, they are
also major beneficiaries when it is alleviated. The maternal
mortality ratio in China has dropped from 110 per 1000 live
births to 32 in 2013.23 Today universal access to electricity has
been achieved in China, allowing families to light their homes,
refrigerate food and medicine, and reduce indoor air pollution
through more efficient means of cooking.
The industrialization and electrification of China has come at
a price. The largest cities are experiencing major air pollution
problems and both direct coal combustion for heating and
coal-fired power plants contribute to this problem. Although
China is expected to continue to rely on coal for electrification, the country plans to dramatically reduce the emissions
from coal-fired power plants by replacing older plants with
advanced coal-fired units, adding environmental controls, and
increasing efficiency via cogeneration of heat and power. In
addition, state-of-the-art coal conversion facilities are moving forward. These ultra-clean facilities will produce synthetic
14
natural gas, liquid fuels, and chemicals, although CCS, which

will be much less expensive at such facilities, will be required
to control CO2 emissions. The liquid fuels produced from coal
conversion inherently have less sulfur than petroleum-derived
fuels, which can address another major contributor to air
pollution by offering cleaner transportation fuels. Finally, the
potential for less direct coal use is significant: Only about 53%
of Chinas coal demand is for power generation, compared to
over 90% in the U.S.4 Together, these steps could significantly
reduce Chinas air quality problems and allow continued economic growth.
WHAT IS NEEDED TO MEET ELECTRICITY
DEMAND AT SCALE?
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has defined basic electricity access as an average of 250 kWh per rural household
per year and 500 kWh per urban household per year.24 Such
limited access is far removed from levels of modern consumption. Basic energy access as defined for rural areas would be
enough for a household to power a fan, a mobile phone, and
two fluorescent light bulbs for five hours a day (see Figure 2).
Although even this basic level of electrification would increase
the standard of living for some people, it is not enough to
enable the growth and job creation needed to combat poverty.
Perhaps this is best explained by the Worldwatch Institute:
Modern energy sources provide people with lighting, heating, refrigeration, cooking, water pumping and other services
that are essential for reducing poverty.25 I believe that providing only basic energy to developing nations will constitute
global poverty maintenance programs in the name of universal energy access.
TOMORROWS ENERGY SOURCES
All viable electricity sources will play roles in coming decades
if real strides are going to be made to alleviate energy poverty.
In fact, the world will need more electricity from all sources.
Forecasters such as the IEA are already projecting major
increases in on-grid electricity generation from gas (89%),
nuclear (51%), and non-hydro renewables (358%) from 2011 to
2035 under the Current Policies Scenario.4 These resources will
be pushed, as will be coal. Today coal provides about 6000 TWh
of electricity in the developing world. In 2035, the IEAs Current
Policies Scenario projects coal will provide 12,300 TWh. Even
in the IEAs much more conservative New Policies Scenario
(assuming all new policies announced are fully enacted), coal
accounts for over 9500 TWh in 2035. Replacing coal in this
growth context would be impossibleand such efforts would
yield an increase in energy poverty. In many countries, comparing the percentage of generation capacity to percentage of
actual generation also helps to highlight coals real role: Coals

share of generation (as a percentage) is almost always significantly greater than its capacity percentage. For decades, coal
has been the default fuel when sanguine projections of gas,
nuclear, and wind have fallen short. This is one of the reasons
the IEA has projected that coal will supply at least 50% of the
on-grid electricity to eliminate energy poverty by 2030.24
Clearly, attempting to remove the contribution of one energy
source is not a viable strategyespecially when attempting
to eradicate energy poverty. Nevertheless, western financial institutions such as the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the
World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development have refused to fund coal projects even in areas
of abject electricity poverty. Such a stance disregards the need
for widespread electrification above and beyond basic access.
It can also be argued that such a position is counterproductive
to the fundamental objective of such institutions, which is to
promote development and alleviate poverty.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Development banks and other poverty alleviation groups do
not need to choose between alleviating poverty and environmental protection. As has been explained, there are substantial
environmental benefits to electrification. In addition, clean
electricity generation from coal could be assured by supporting plants with high efficiency, advanced environmental
controls, and that are made ready to implement CCS/CCUS.
Clean coal technologies are in use today and allow for the consumption of more coal with greatly reduced emissions. New
pulverized coal combustion systems, utilizing supercritical
Average Electricity Access

[kWh/(capitayr)]
14,000
technology, operate at increasingly higher temperatures and

pressures and, therefore, achieve higher efficiencies than
conventional plants. Upwards of 500 GW of supercritical units
are in operation or planned around the world, but many more
are needed.26 Highly efficient modern coal plants emit up to
40% less CO2 than the average coal plant currently installed.27
Importantly, these supercritical plants are a prerequisite for
next-generation development of CCUS, which itself is broadly
recognized as required for global emission goals, which was
the other important component of the Copenhagen Accord.
A PLAN TO END ENERGY POVERTY
The underlying theme of the position presented here is
straightforward: Electricity, socioeconomic security, and a
clean environment are inalienable human rights. Efforts to
eliminate coal-fired power plants would forgo an opportunity
to help meet burgeoning electricity demand, reduce deprivation, elevate the global quality of life, and significantly reduce
emissions from energy. Without contributions from coal,
economic growth will be stunted, the environment will be
degraded, and the crisis of energy poverty will not be solved. If
a global goal is truly the [e]radication of poverty in the field,
the worlds most abundant source of electricity must remain
an integral part of the solution.28 Policymakers must recognize
the scale of electricity required to meet that goal. By 2050,
the world will have 9.6 billion people, with the large majority
in cities, where they have fuller access to electricity. I agree
with many coal industry leaders that we should implement
a technologically based plan, which will help meet the everrising need for power and improve the lot of all members of
the human race.
5 hours a day of...1 fan...1 mobile phone...2 ourescent bulbs
12,000
11 12 1
10
2
9
3
4
8
7 6 5
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
U.S.
EU
China
World
India
Pakistan
Sub-Saharan
Africa
IEA Avg.*
FIGURE 2. Electricity access of select nations and a comparison to IEAs basic energy service in rural settings24
*250 kWh per rural household, 500 kWh per urban household
15
V O ICE S
The five most important steps of a plan to increase access to

clean electricity include:
1. Work to eliminate energy poverty by ensuring that at least
half of on-grid new generation is fueled by coal
2. Replace older, traditional coal plants with plants utilizing
advanced coal technologies
3. Develop at least 100 major CCS/CCUS projects around the
world within 10 years
4. Deploy significant coaltogas, coalto-chemicals, and coal
toliquids projects globally in the next decade, which will
spur industry and reduce pollution from transportation
fuels. Note that such projects would be particularly useful
for low-cost CCS/CCUS demonstrations.
5. Commercialize nextgeneration clean coal technologies
to achieve nearzero emissions, with supercritical power
plants as the next step along that path
This plan employs 21st century coal technology to cleanly and
affordably use abundant global reserveswhich approach
900 billion tonnes, are distributed across 70 countries, and are
accessible through a far reaching and expanded network of
established infrastructureto produce and deliver electricity
to all, especially to the billions of children, women, and men
who currently live in energy poverty.29
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
16
United Nations (UN). (1972, 16 June). Report of the United

Nations Conference on the Human Environment, www.unep.
org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&arti
cleid=1503
National Academy of Engineering. (2003). The greatest
engineering achievements of the 20th century, www.
nationalacademies.org/greatachievements/List.PDF
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2002, September). World
energy outlook 2002, www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo
website/2008-1994/weo2002_part1.pdf, www.worldenergy
outlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo2002_part2.
pdf
IEA. (2013, October). World energy outlook 2013.
UN News Centre. (2013, 13 June). World population projected
to reach 9.6 billion by 2050, www.un.org/apps/news/story.
asp?NewsID=45165#.VDXo9haNWFI
World Bank. (2013). World development indicators: Human
Development Index, 2013, data.worldbank.org/indicator
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2009). Full
Text of the Convention, unfccc.int/essential_background/
convention/background/items/1362.php
UN. (2014). We can end poverty, www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
childhealth.shtml (accessed October 2014).
SowHope. (2013). About us, www.sowhope.org/aboutus
10. Central Intelligence Agency. (2013). The world factbook, Nigeria,

Germany, Indonesia, www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/
11. Rajendram, D. (2013, 10 March). The promise and peril of Indias
youth bulge. The Diplomat, thediplomat.com/2013/03/thepromise-and-peril-of-indias-youth-bulge/
12. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2014, February).
Electric power monthly, www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
current_year/february2014.pdf
13. IRENA. (2012). Africas renewable future, www.irena.org/
DocumentDownloads/Publications/Africa_renewable_future.
pdf
14. World Bank. (2013). Fact sheet: Infrastructure in sub-Saharan
Africa, web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AF
RICAEXT/0,,contentMDK:21951811~pagePK:146736~piPK:1468
30~theSitePK:258644,00.html
15. SABC. (2013, 25 May). Free Africa from poverty and conflict: AU,
www.sabc.co.za/news/a/8bce1b804fc0bb519d4eff0b5d39e4
bb/Free-Africa-from-poverty-and-conflict:-AU-20132505
16. World Bank. (2013). Access to electricity (% of population), data,
worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS
17. Yamada, G. (2013). Fires, fuel and the fate of 3 billion.New York:
Oxford University Press.
18. World Health Organization. (2014). Household (indoor) air
pollution, www.who.int/indoorair/en/
19. World Energy Council. (2011, December). Global Transport
Scenarios 2050, www.worldenergy.org/publications/2011/global
-transport-scenarios-2050/
20. Mackenzie, A. (2013, 8 August). Productivity boost will keep us
at No. 1. The Australian, www.theaustralian.com.au/business/
opinion/productivity-boost-will-keep-us-at-no-1/storye6frg9if-1226693062147
21. UN. (2013). We can end poverty, www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
poverty.shtml
22. World Bank. (2013). World development indicators, data,
worldbank.org/indicator, (accessed 2013).
23. World Bank. (2014). World development indicators, data,
worldbank.org/indicator, (accessed October 2014).
24. IEA. (2011, November). World energy outlook 2011, www.iea.
org/publications/freepublications/publication/world-energyoutlook-2011.html
25. Worldwatch Institute. (2012, 31 January). Energy poverty
remains a global challenge for the future, www.worldwatch.org/
energy-poverty-remains-global-challenge-future-1
26. Platts. (2014). New Power Plant Database, 2014.
27. World Energy Council. (2013). World energy resources: Coal,
www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WER
_2013_1_Coal.pdf
28. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Eradicating
poverty in the field, www.ebrd.com/pages/news/features/taff.
shtml
29. BP. (2014, August). Statistical review of world energy, www.
bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statisticalreview-2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-fullreport.pdf
The author can be reached at fac226@psu.edu
E N ERGY POLI CY
Understanding the National

Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative
By Patrick Falwell
Solutions Fellow, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Brad Crabtree
Going forward, NEORI will work to educate policymakers

across the political spectrum and the broader public about
the opportunity for CO2-EOR to serve as a national solution to
energy and environmental challenges.
Vice President, Fossil Energy, Great Plains Institute
ince 2011, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

(C2ES) and the Great Plains Institute (GPI) have convened
the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative (NEORI).
Bringing together leaders from industry, the environmental
community, labor, and state governments, NEORI has worked
to advance carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR)
as a key component of U.S. energy security, economic, and
environmental strategy. Currently, most CO2-EOR is done with
natural underground reservoirs of CO2, yet the industrys future
growth depends on taking advantage of the large amounts of
CO2 that result from electricity generation and industrial processes. NEORI therefore is working to turn a waste product
into a commodity and to encourage policies that will help bring
an affordable supply of man-made CO2 to the market.
As such, NEORI has offered consensus recommendations for
federal- and state-level policy action. In May, Senator Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced legislation in the U.S. Congress
adopting NEORIs centerpiece recommendation to reform
and expand an existing federal tax incentive for the capture
of man-made CO2 and its geologic storage through CO2-EOR.
In May 2014 Senator Jay Rockefeller introduced legislation

incorporating the main principal of the National Enhanced Oil
Recovery Initiative. (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
Improved federal incentive

could lead to the production of
over eight billion barrels of oil
and the underground storage of
more than four billion tonnes
of CO2 over 40 years
BACKGROUND ON CO2-EOR
Although commonly considered a niche extractive technology, CO2-EOR is a decades-old practice. Since the 1970s,
CO2-EOR projects have utilized CO2 to produce additional oil
from otherwise tapped-out fields. CO2 readily mixes with oil
not recovered by earlier production techniques, swelling the
stranded oil and bringing it to the surface. The CO2 is then separated from the oil and re-injected in a closed-loop process.
Each time CO2 is cycled through an oil reservoir, the majority
of it remains trapped in the underground formation, where,
over time, all utilized CO2 will be stored permanently.
Today, CO2-EOR in the U.S. accounts for over 300,000 barrels of
oil production per day, or nearly 5% of total annual domestic
production.1 More than 4000 miles of CO2 pipelines are in place
and, as of 2014, approximately 68 million tonnes of CO2 are
being injected underground annually for CO2-EOR. Nearly 75%
of this CO2 is from naturally occurring deposits, but over time
the supply of CO2 from man-made sources is expected to grow
significantly. Currently, 11 U.S. states have CO2-EOR projects.
Most are in the Permian Basin of Texas, with new activity emerging on the Gulf Coast and in the Mountain West. Untapped
opportunities exist in California, Alaska, and a number of states
in the industrial Midwest. Estimates suggest that CO2-EOR could
ultimately access 21.463.3 billion barrels of economically
17
E N E RG Y P O L I C Y
recoverable reserves.2 Recovering this oil would require 8.916.2

billion tonnes of CO2 that would predominantly come from manmade sources. Technically recoverable reserves offer potential
to produce additional oil and utilize more man-made CO2 that is
currently otherwise emitted into the atmosphere.
The main barrier to taking advantage of CO2-EORs potential
has been an insufficient supply of affordable CO2. For an oilfield
operator looking to implement CO2-EOR on a depleted oilfield,
there is a cost gap between what they could afford to pay for
CO2 under normal market conditions and the cost to capture
and transport CO2 from power plants and industrial sources.
For some industrial sources, such as natural gas processing or fertilizer and ethanol production, the cost gap is small
(potentially $1020/tonne CO2). For other man-made sources
of CO2, including power generation and a variety of industrial
processes, capture costs are greater, and the cost gap becomes
much larger (potentially $3050/tonne CO2). Recognizing the
cost gap as a significant barrier, NEORI has worked to determine the role that public policy can play in narrowing it.
NEORIS CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS
AND ANALYSIS
For the last three years, NEORI has brought together a broad
and diverse group of constituencies that share a common interest in promoting CO2-EOR. Some NEORI participants support
CO2-EOR as a way to provide a low-carbon future for coal by
managing and avoiding its carbon emissions. Others are interested in the jobs and economic growth that deploying new CO2
capture projects, pipelines, and EOR operations will bring. Still
other participants want to advance innovative technologies that
can capture and permanently store CO2 underground. Despite
differences of opinions among participants on other issues, all
agree that CO2-EOR is a positive endeavor and that public policy
can play an important role in realizing CO2-EORs many benefits.
As such, NEORIs participants have crafted a set of consensus
recommendations for federal and state policy incentives to
enable the widespread deployment of carbon capture technologies to provide CO2 for use in CO2-EOR, while addressing
concerns about how incentives have been allocated in the past.
To support its consensus recommendations, NEORI also prepared a quantitative analysis to estimate the extent to which a
federal initiative could spur new CO2-EOR projects and improve
the federal budget at the same time. An incentive awarded for
capturing CO2 from man-made sources for use in CO2-EOR has
the potential to be self-financing, given that it could lead to
new oil production that is taxed at the federal level. CO2-EOR
in the U.S. generates federal revenue from three sources:
1. Corporate income taxes collected on the additional oil
production
18
2. Income taxes on private royalties collected from CO2-EOR

producers
3. Royalties from CO2-EOR production on federal land
Together these sources equate to nearly 20% of the sales
value of an additional barrel of oil and generate the source
of public revenues that will in turn cover the cost of newly
allocated incentives.
NEORIs most recent analysis of the budget implications of
a tax incentive reflects the legislation introduced by Senator
Rockefeller. This analysis shows that an improved federal
incentive could lead to the production of over eight billion
barrels of oil and the underground storage of more than four
billion tonnes of CO2 over 40 years and generate federal revenues that exceed the value of tax incentives awarded within
the U.S. Congress standard 10-year budget window.
For the last three years, NEORI

has brought together a broad and
diverse group of constituencies
that share a common interest in
promoting CO2-EOR.
NEORI PROPOSES AN ENHANCED
FEDERAL INCENTIVE
NEORI recommends a reform and an expansion of an existing
federal tax incentive, the Section 45Q Tax Credit for Carbon
Sequestration. First authorized in 2009, the 45Q tax credit
provides a $10 tax credit for each tonne of CO2 captured from
a man-made source and permanently stored underground
through enhanced oil recovery (a $20 tax credit is available for
CO2 stored in saline formations). While enacted with the best of
intentions, the existing 45Q program has been unable to encourage widespread adoption of carbon capture technologies for two
main reasons. First, 45Q is only authorized to provide tax credits
for 75 million tonnes of CO2, a relatively small amount considering how much CO2 could possibly be utilized through CO2-EOR.
As of June 2014, tax credits for approximately 27 million tonnes
of CO2 had already been claimed, and it is foreseeable that the
remaining pool of credits will be exhausted in the near future.
Second, 45Q has been unable to provide needed certainty to
carbon capture project developers that they will be able to
claim the incentive, due to rigid definitions in the tax code and
the lack of a credit reservation process. Carbon capture project
developers have not been able to present the guarantee of

credit availability when seeking private-sector finance.
Under NEORIs proposal, a larger pool of 45Q credits would be
established, while suggested reforms would increase certainty
and private-sector investment, improve transparency, and
help the program pay for itself fiscally within 10 years.
Allocating New 45Q Credits via
Competitive Bidding and Tranches
To minimize the cost of new 45Q tax credits to the federal government, NEORI recommends that carbon capture projects
of similar cost bid against one another for allocations of tax
credits. Under annual competitive bidding processes, carbon
capture projects would bid for a certain tax credit amount that
would cover the difference between their cost to capture and
transport CO2 and the revenue they would receive from selling
CO2 for use in CO2-EOR. The project submitting the lowest bid
would receive an allocation of tax credits, and allocations would
be made to capture projects up to specified annual limits.
Given the wide difference in capture costs for potential
man-made sources of CO2, three separate pools of credits,
or tranches, would be established. The creation of separate

lower-cost industrialA and higher-cost industrialB tranches for
power plants would ensure that an incentive is available for
the diversity of potential man-made sources of CO2.
Tax Credit Certification
A certification process would provide essential up-front certainty to carbon capture project developers and enable them
to reserve their allocation of 45Q tax credits to be claimed in
the future. Upon receiving an allocation of 45Q tax credits
through competitive bidding, a project would have to apply
for and meet the criteria of certification within 90 days. For
example, a carbon capture project would need a contract
in place to sell its CO2 for use in CO2-EOR to be certified. To
maintain certification, a carbon capture project would have to
complete construction in three years, if it is a retrofit, and five
years, if it is a new facility.
Revenue Positive Determination
and Program Review
Following the seventh annual round of competitive bidding,
the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury would assess whether newly
allocated 45Q tax credits have been revenue-positive to the
federal government. If the new 45Q tax credits are not proving
to be revenue-positive, the Secretary will make recommendations to Congress to improve the program. Otherwise,
competitive bidding will continue until the next review.
The Secretary of the Treasury also would be advised by a panel
of independent experts.
Annual Tax Credit Adjustment Based
on Changes in the Price of Oil
Each year, the value of claimed 45Q tax credits would be
adjusted up or down to reflect changes in the price of oil. In
most instances, the price that CO2-EOR operators would pay CO2
providers for their CO2 is linked explicitly to the prevailing price
of oil. When the price of oil rises and CO2-EOR operators are
willing to pay more for CO2, the value of 45Q tax credits would
be adjusted downward to ensure the federal government does
not pay more than needed. Conversely, when oil prices fall, the
value of 45Q tax credits would be adjusted upward, ensuring
that carbon capture projects receive sufficient revenue.
Tax Credit Assignability
NEORI recommends the allocation of new 45Q tax credits.
Potential carbon capture project developers include electric

power cooperatives, municipalities, and startup companies.
19
NEORI is designed to boost U.S. domestic oil production while providing much-needed financial support for CCUS projects.
NEORI members believe that

CO2-EOR offers broad benefits
how CO2-EOR can generate net federal revenue from domestic

oil production, meet domestic energy needs, safely store manmade CO2 underground, and help advance and lower the costs
of carbon capture technology.
and the rare opportunity to unite
NOTES
policymakers and stakeholders in
A. Lower-cost industrial sources of CO2 include natural gas processing, ethanol production, ammonia production, and existing
projects involving the gasification of coal, petroleum residuals,
biomass, or waste streams.
B. Higher-cost industrial sources of CO2 include cement production,
iron and steel production, hydrogen production, and new-build
projects involving the gasification of coal, petroleum residuals,
biomass, or waste streams.
common purpose.
Not all of these entities have sufficient tax liability to allow
them to realize the economic benefit of a tax credit. As such,
NEORI recommends that carbon capture projects have the
ability to assign 45Q tax credits to other parties within the
CO2-EOR supply chain. This provision could facilitate tax equity
partnerships, but only among entities directly associated with
the project and managing the CO2.
CONCLUSION
In a time of considerable disagreement on U.S. energy and climate policy at the federal level, NEORI members believe that
CO2-EOR offers broad benefits and the rare opportunity to
unite policymakers and stakeholders in common purpose. The
NEORI coalition therefore remains committed to educating
members of both political parties and the broader public as to
20
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Kuuskraa, V., & Wallace, M. (2014, 7 April). CO2-EOR set for

growth as new CO2 supplies emerge. Oil & Gas Journal, www.
ogj.com/articles/print/volume-112/issue-4/special-report-eorheavy-oil-survey/co-sub-2-sub-eor-set-for-growth-as-new-cosub-2-sub-supplies-emerge.html
Wallace, M., Kuuskraa, V., & DiPietro, P. (2013). An in-depth
look at next generation CO2-EOR technology. National Energy
Technology Laboratory, www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/
Research/Energy%20Analysis/Publications/Disag-Next-GenCO2-EOR_full_v6.pdf
The authors can be reached at FalwellP@c2es.org and

bcrabree@gpisd.net
Developing Country Needs Are

Critical to a Global Climate Agreement
By Benjamin Sporton
Acting Chief Executive, World Coal Association
s another round of climate talks approaches, recent

headlines have highlighted the critical role developing
countries play in achieving a climate agreementand
they are. Concerned about the restrictions it might place on
their efforts to grow their economies and eradicate poverty,
many developing countries are cautious about what a future
global agreement on climate change might mean. With one
billion people living in extreme poverty in addition to a similar
number with incredibly low standards of living, it is hardly surprising that poverty eradication ranks number one on the list
of priorities for developing country governments.1 The recent
proposal document for new Sustainable Development Goals
also acknowledged that poverty eradication is the greatest
global challenge facing the world today.2
This is the reason that developing countries are key to a global
climate agreement: Any proposed agreement that hampers
their ability to grow their economies and eradicate poverty
will not win their support.
THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD
Negotiations toward a global agreement on climate change
have been long and tortuous. Beginning in 1992 with the
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, left, is

joined by President Franois Hollande of France at a news
conference on climate change during the Climate Summit,
New York, U.S., 23 September 2014. (AP Photo/Jason
DeCrow)
original Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the negotiation process produced the Kyoto Protocol, which came into effect in
2005 but covered only around one third of global CO2 emissions. A 2009 summit in Copenhagen was originally intended
to be the apex of the process with a binding global deal on
emissions reduction, but it failed to live up to expectations.
World leaders will gather again in Paris in November 2015
for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
for what is now expected to be the pinnacle of the climate
negotiations process.
There is a pathway that provides a

role for coal in achieving both climate
and development objectives.
This September, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hosted a
summit in New York intended to push climate change back up
the international agenda and spur action toward November
2015. With celebrity endorsements and a series of coordinated
announcements from activists, governments, and the private
sector, the summit did have some success in raising the profile
of an issue that has struggled to maintain the profile it once
had, but which has since been drowned out by other priorities, chief among them economic and security crises.
Ultimately, however, the negotiation process has struggled for
more than two decades because of a fundamental disconnect
between developed and developing countries. This disconnect centers on a desire by developed countries to require
emissions reductions commitments by developing countries
while they are still developingpotentially limiting the ability
of those countries to grow their economies and eradicate
poverty. It comes about because many in the developed world
refuse to acknowledge that the development pathway their
countries tookone that relied on abundant, affordable, and
reliable energyis the pathway that the developing world will
need to take if it is truly to eradicate poverty.
All sources of energy have a role to play in achieving climate and
development objectives. An overemphasis on renewable technologies, however, risks limiting developing countries to light
21
Coals role in development explains why coal consumption in

Southeast Asia is projected to grow at 4.8% a year through
to 2035 along with significant growth in other developing
regions (see Figure 1).7 It is why a 2012 report from the World
Resources Institute8 identified 1199 planned new coal plants
(representing 1400 GW) across 59 countriesmost of them in
developing and emerging economies.
Coal
Renewables
Gas
Nuclear
Oil
-100
100
200
300
400
TWh
500
600
700
FIGURE 1. Southeast Asia incremental electricity generation

by fuel: 201120357
bulb and cook stove solutions: that is, solutions that address
the immediate needs of poverty and climate without addressing
the longer-term fundamentals needed for poverty alleviation.
This fact was recognized in recent remarks by World Bank
President Jim Yong Kim at the U.S.Africa Leaders Summit in
August when he said that theres never been a country that
has developed with intermittent power3 and that, despite
recent policy announcements, the World Bank would still
likely fund coal projects. His statement came as African leaders
argued they were living in energy apartheid and demanded
the right to use their natural resources, particularly coal, to
fuel their economic development.4
If the climate negotiation process is to have any success it
must integrate development and climate objectives.
THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CHALLENGE
With 1.3 billion people globally lacking access to modern
electricity and about double that number lacking access to
clean cooking facilities, it is hardly surprising that developing
country governments are focused on affordable and reliable
energy to help grow their economies.5 Energy is fundamental to development. Without reliable modern energy services
hospitals and schools cant function and business and industry
cant grow to provide employment and economic growth.
In its 2011 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy
Agency (IEA) reviewed what would be needed to meet their
own minimal energy access for all scenarioa scenario that
would barely meet basic energy needs, but is the basis for the
proposed Sustainable Development Goal on energy access for
all. Even in this minimal energy access scenario, half of the ongrid electricity needed comes from coal.6 A more ambitious
target would likely see a much larger role for coaland it is a
more ambitious scale of development and energy access that
developing and emerging economies are targeting. That is
why statistics about coals growing role in the world continue
to confound those who forecast its demise.
22
Coals critical role in development is one of the reasons coal

has been the fastest growing fossil fuel for decades and why its
share of global primary energy consumption in 2013 reached
30.1%, the highest since 1970.9 Even under the IEAs New Policies
Scenario (which accounts for all currently announced climate policies) coal demand is expected to grow from 3800 million tonnes
of oil equivalent (Mtoe) today to almost 4500 Mtoe in 2035.5
These figures alarm climate activists who argue for an end to coal
and encourage divestment from the coal industry. What they
ignore, however, is that there is a pathway that provides a role
for coal in achieving both climate and development objectives.
A PATHWAY THAT INTEGRATES
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT
Alongside last years climate summit in Warsaw, the World
Coal Association joined with the Polish government to host
the International Coal and Climate Summit. The summit was
widely criticized by environmental groups for trying to take
the focus away from climate negotiations, an argument which
ignored the significant contribution cleaner coal technologies
can make to achieving ambitions to reduce CO2 emissions.
A key part of the summit was the launch of the Warsaw
Communiqu, a document that called for increased international action on deployment of high-efficiency, low-emissions
(HELE) coal-fired power generation.
21st-century HELE coal technologies have huge potential. It is
well known by now that a one percentage point increase in
efficiency at a coal plant results in a two to three percentage
point decrease in CO2 emissions. Less widely known is that
the average efficiency of the global coal fleet currently stands
at 33%. Off-the-shelf technologies for supercritical and ultrasupercritical coal have about 40% efficiency or higher, while
more advanced technologies expected to become available in
the near future will approach 50% efficiency. The IEA estimates
that increasing the average efficiency of the global coal fleet
up to 40% would save around two gigatonnes of CO2 annuallyroughly equivalent to Indias total annual emissions.10
Taken in the context of other climate policies the potential
impact of improving the efficiency of the global coal fleet is significant. The Economist recently published a graphic showing
the impact various policies or events have had on global CO2
emissions, which has been reproduced in Figure 2.11 If a global

initiative were in place to increase the average efficiency of
the global coal fleet to the level of off-the-shelf technology, its
two gigatonnes of savings would place it fourth on this list of
20 activities. It would be more than three times more effective
in reducing CO2 emissions than the global deployment of all
non-hydro renewable energies combined.
Nowhere is the potential of HELE technology better demonstrated than at J-Powers Isogo power plant outside of Tokyo.
J-Power is the largest producer of coal-fired electricity in Japan
and is leading the way in HELE deployment with its 600-MW
ultra-supercritical plant. The plant achieves gross thermal efficiency of 45% and has reduced emissions to the equivalent of
a high-performing natural gas plant.
However, plants like that come at a cost. Developing countries
need international support to deploy the most efficient plants.
In the face of decisions by the World Bank and European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development to limit funding for coal
projects, the IEA raised some serious concerns:12
While increased investor awareness of climate-related
issues is a positive development, policies deliberately
Policy/Action
Montreal protocol
Cumulative
emissions
Period
adverse to coal may have unintended consequences.

In the 450 Scenario, which limits the global average
temperature increase to 2C, world investment in coalfired capacity totals $1.9 trillion (25% higher than in
the New Policies Scenario), of which $800 billion is for
plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Coal-fired power plants become more expensive on
average because, in most regions, more efficient technologies are deployed, as well as greater emphasis
on CCS technologies. If development banks withhold
financing for coal-fired power plants, countries that
build new capacity will be less inclined to select the
most efficient designs because they are more expensive, consequently raising CO2 emissions and reducing
the scope for the installation of CCS. In addition, many
of the countries that build coal-fired capacity in the
450 Scenario need to provide electricity supply to
those who are still without it, a problem that may be
resolved less quickly if investment in coal-fired power
plants cannot be financed.
This is a warning from the IEA: International action against coal
creates two distinct risks. First, from a climate perspective,
failing to invest in new coal technologies risks higher future
Annual emissions*
135.0 bn
19892013
5.6 bn
Hydropower worldwide
2.8 bn
2010
2.8 bn
Nuclear power worldwide
2.2 bn
2010
2.2 bn
China one-child policy
1.3 bn
2005
1.3 bn
Other renewables worldwide
600 m
2010
600 m
U.S. vehicle emissions & fuel economy standards**
6.0 bn
20122025
460 m
Brazil forest preservation
3.2 bn
20052013
400 m
India land-use change
177 m
2007
177 m
Clean Development Mechanism
1.5 bn
20042014
150 m
U.S. building & appliances codes
3.0 bn
20082030
136 m
China SOE efficiency targets
1.9 bn
20052020
126 m
Collapse of USSR
709 m
19921998
118 m
Global Environmental Facility
2.3 bn
19912014
100 m
2.0 bn
Increase avg. global efficiency of coal-fired power to 40%
EU energy efficiency
230 m
20082012
58 m
U.S. vehicle emissions & fuel economy standards***
270 m
20142018
54 m
EU renewables
117 m
20082012
29 m
U.S. building codes (2013)
230 m
20142030
10 m
U.S. appliances (2013)
158 m
20142030
10 m
Clean technology fund
1.7 bn
project lifetime
N/A
EU vehicle emission standards
140 m
2020
N/A
FIGURE 2. Emissions reductions impact (in terms of billions tonnes CO2 equivalent)11
*Annual emissions are cumulative emissions divided by the relevant period. The estimate for the current emissions avoided under the Montreal protocol is
eight billion tonnes CO2 equivalent. The annual figure for the collapse of the USSR refers to the years 19921998.
**Cars and light trucks
***Heavy trucks
23
emissions from coal; second, failing to invest in coal threatens

the energy access and development priorities in some of the
worlds poorest countries.
AFFORDABLE, LONG-TERM ACTION
As the IEA notes, deployment of HELE plants is also an important first step in the longer term drive for near-zero emissions
coal-fired plants incorporating carbon capture, utilization, and
storage (CCUS). CCUS technology is critical to achieving global
climate objectives. More importantly, CCUS plays a significant
role in reducing the economic costs of limiting CO2 emissions.
The recent New Climate Economy report by the Global
Commission of Energy and Climate, led by former Mexican
President Felipe Caldern, argued that substantial emissions
cuts would effectively pay for themselves when a range of
co-benefits are considered.13 That reflected recent work from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which
stated that annual GDP growth would decline by as little as
0.006 percentage points with substantial emissions reduction.
Many environmental activists argue that this demonstrates
the viability of renewable energy technologies as the exclusive energy pathway toward a near-zero emissions economy.
However, analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations leading
energy expert Michael Levi noted that CCUS is far more critical
to achieving the 2C target.14 He highlighted that in the IPCC
research, failing to deploy CCUS causes the cost of climate
action to rise by about 140%, but that the most likely outcome
is that the 2C target could not be reached at all.
A CLIMATE DEAL CAN ACHIEVE
BOTH OBJECTIVES
If global action to reduce CO2 emissions is to be affordable
and have a realistic chance of meeting the 2C target it must
account for the role of cleaner coal technologies in achieving
that aim. That is even more critical when the need for affordable and reliable energy for development is accounted for.
Indias new Environment Minister made clear recently where
his countrys priorities lie: Indias first task is eradication of
poverty Twenty percent of our population doesnt have
access to electricity, and thats our top priority.15
24
It is clear that if the November 2015 climate summit in Paris

is going to achieve any level of success, then it must support
the development ambitions of the worlds poorest countries.
It must integrate the priorities of countries like India, which
need to address their poverty situation and provide affordable
and reliable electricity, with global climate ambitions. It means
that rather than ignoring coal, the international community
must recognize 21st century coal as part of the solution.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
World Bank Group. (2014). Ending poverty and sharing prosperity: Global Monitoring Report 2014/2015, www.worldbank.
org/en/publication/global-monitoring-report
United Nations. (2014). Outcome document Open Working
Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals, sustainable
development.un.org/focussdgs.html, (accessed 29 September 2014).
Ginski, N. (2014, 5 August). World Bank may support African coal
power, Kim says. Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com/news/201408-05/world-bank-may-support-african-coal-power-kim-says.
html, (accessed 30 September 2014).
Scientific American. (2014). Africa needs fossil fuels to end energy
apartheid, www.scientificamerican.com/article/africa-needs-fossilfuels-to-end-energy-apartheid/, (accessed 30 September 2014).
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2013). World energy outlook
2013, www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2013/
IEA. (2011). World energy outlook 2011, www.worldenergy
outlook.org/publications/weo-2011/
IEA. (2013). World energy outlook special report 2013:
Southeast Asia energy outlook, www.iea.org/publications/free
publications/publication/SoutheastAsiaEnergyOutlook_
WEO2013SpecialReport.pdf
World Resources Institute. (2012, November). Global coal risk
assessment, www.wri.org/publication/global-coal-risk-assessment
BP. (2014). Statistical review of world energy 2014, www.
bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/
statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
IEA. (2012). Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 How to
secure a clean energy future.
The Economist. (2014, 20 September). The deepest cuts, www.
economist.com/news/briefing/21618680-our-guide-actionshave-done-most-slow-global-warming-deepest-cuts
IEA. (2014). World energy investment outlook, www.iea.org/
publications/freepublications/publication/WEIO2014.pdf
The New Climate Economy. (2014). New climate economy,
newclimateeconomy.report/, (accessed 20 September 2014).
Levi, M. (2014). Is solar power making climate policy cheap?,
blogs.cfr.org/levi/2014/09/19/is-solar-power-making-climatepolicy-cheap/, (accessed 30 September 2014).
Davenport, C. (2014, 24 September). Emissions from India
will increase, official says. The New York Times, www.nytimes.
com/2014/09/25/world/asia/25climate.html?_r=0, (accessed
30 September 2014).
S TR ATEGI C ANALYSI S
The Flexibility of German

Coal-Fired Power Plants
By Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer
Executive Chair,
World Energy Resources of the World Energy Council
Consultant and Advisor to the Executive Board of RWE AG
erman energy policy is determined by different ambitious targets. That is especially true as far as the
electricity sector is concerned. The main characteristics of electricity-sector policy are a complete phasing out of
nuclear energy, the transition to a power supply based mainly
on renewable energy, and the reduction of energy consumption by continuously increasing efficiency. The main purpose
of these changes is to reach a nearly CO2-free power supply
by 2050. The central challenges are keeping the power system stable and secure while maintaining consumer electricity
prices at a competitive, affordable level.
CURRENT STATUS AND TRENDS
The German governments energy policies have undergone a
profound change over recent years. In September 2010, the
government launched a comprehensive Energy Concept
featuring a large number of policy goals for future decades
concerning energy and electricity consumption, the share of

renewable energy, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A central component of this concept was to extend the
operation time of nuclear power plants, at that time seen as a
bridge technology in the era of renewable energy.
Today, fluctuations in the feed-in

of renewables-based electricity
are already having a considerable
impact on the load to be covered by
conventional power stations.
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011,
however, the German conservative-liberal government coalition made an abrupt U-turn by mandating the complete
phase-out of 8.4 GW of nuclear capacity immediately, with
the remainder (12.1 GW) to be decommissioned between
2015 and 2022. With the decision to shut down all nuclear
capacity by 2022, the government returned to a phase-out
schedule conceived in 2001 by the socialist-green government in power at the time. In the coalition contract of the
new conservative-socialist government, signed in November
2013, the phasing-out decision for nuclear energy was confirmed. Furthermore, the coalition partners agreed on slightly
modified targets concerning the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, the consumption of electricity, and the increase
of the share of renewables in the electricity supply for 2020
(35%), 2025 (4045%), 2035 (5560%), and 2050 (80%).
The decision to phase out all nuclear power plants is generally
considered a final one due to public pressure that accompanied the nuclear debate over past decades.
Germanys coal- and gas-fired power plants are responsible

for meeting fluctuations from the increased deployment of
renewables.
The envisaged expansion of renewable energy is a technological and financial challenge. The principal objectives of the
Energiewende (Germanys transformational energy policy) are:
Transitioning German power supply from a conventionalbased system to one mainly based on renewable energy;
25
S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS
Keeping power prices on a competitive level for industry

and an affordable level for private households;
Ensuring continuous, secure supply.
The main instrument being used to make renewable energy
the backbone of the German power supply is the Renewable
Energy Sources Act, last amended on 1 August 2014. This law
provides guaranteed feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity
for 20 years after a power plant is commissioned. Grid operators are obliged to purchase the entire quantity of renewable
electricity with priority. The trade companies pass on the
deficit (i.e., feed-in tariff minus market price) to customers by
imposing a reallocation charge.
The renewable capacity for power generation increased from
12,330 MW in 2000 (less than 10% of total capacity) to 40,357
MW by the end of 2008 and to 84,404 MW by the end of
2013 (45%) (see Figure 1). In 2000, renewable energys share
of consumption was less than 7%, then grew to over 25% by
2013. The total amount of renewable energy capacity on 31
December 2013 is shown in Table 1.
Within just the last five years (between the end of 2008 and
the end of 2013) the capacity increase was 29,828 MW for
photovoltaics (PV) and 10,845 MW for wind energy. This demonstrates that the funding system for renewables has been
quite effective.
However, the growth of renewables in Germany has come
at a cost. The total feed-in amounts based on subsidized
renewables in Germany stood at 125.7 TWh in 2013. The
remuneration paid to plant operators and premium payments
totaled 20.4 billion in 2013. Deducting income from marketing, on balance, net subsidy payments were approximately
16.2 billion in 2013.
19
Wind
Photovoltaics
19
7
7
15
14
12
7
Power plant capacity

186.8 GW (net)
mass
r, bio
powe other
o
r
d
y
d
H
oil an
Fuel
Natural gas
9
5
11
5
11
19
Hard coal
25
Lignite
Nuclear
15
Electricity production
596.4 TWh (net)
FIGURE 1. Percentages of capacity and production of various

electricity sources (December 2013)1
26
TABLE 1. Renewable energy capacity in Germany as of the

end of 2013
Source
Capacity (MW)
Wind Onshore
33,757
Wind Offshore
903
Hydropower
5619
Biomass
8153
Solar Photovoltaic
Geothermal
35,948
24
Source: AGEE-Stat, August 2014
The subsidies are financed via a reallocation charge that is paid

by electricity consumers through a markup on the grid-access
fee. Starting on 1 January 2014, this reallocation charge was
increased to 62.40/MWh. The reallocation charge has now
reached a level at which it is twice as much as the wholesale
price of electricity.
A comparison between electricity prices reveals the dilemma
facing Germany today. Power prices for industry are on the
same level as those in Japan. In fact, private customers in
Germany pay even more for electricity than private consumers in Japan. Within the EU, Germanys private consumers pay
a higher price than any country except Denmark. Electricity
prices in Germany are more than twice the OECD average and
three times as high as in the U.S.
CHALLENGES FOR POWER PRODUCERS1
With the increase in renewable energy, power producers also
face a new challenge. In the past a main focus was offsetting
fluctuations in consumption between day and night, workdays and weekends, and seasonal variations. Today, feed-in
intermittency has added a new source of fluctuations that
are at least the same magnitude as those from changes in
consumption.
These demand and renewable energy feed-in fluctuations
must be continuously balanced to provide electricity grid stability, which is putting pressure on the conventional power
generation portfolio. Power generation from conventional
plants has to be able to flexibly adjust to the residual load
at any time (i.e., to compensate for the difference between
consumption and fluctuating renewable energy). This is a challenge for grid operators, especially when high wind feed-ins in
northern Germany force the redispatching of thermal units
intraday, often leading to lower coal-based output in the north
and a ramp up of capacity in the south to keep the system in
balance.
The need for load adjustments by flexible power plants is particularly critical when an increase in electricity demand occurs
at the same time as the feed-in from wind power plants dramatically decreases.
However, since these markets are also expanding wind capacities and consumer behavior in all markets shows substantial
similarity, the capacity to adjust imports and exports to meet
German electricity market fluctuations is limited.
There has been a need for load adjustments of >50 GW (i.e.,

>60% of the peak load) within an eight- to 10-hour period. This
sort of demand fluctuation is generally random, but can be
forecast up to two days in advance (e.g., via a wind forecast).
Therefore, the required flexibility to meet load fluctuations

must be predominantly managed by existing national power
plants. Existing power plants in Germany are all designed
to cater for flexible operation, and these requirements are
equally met by new NGCC plants and new coal-fired power
plants.
Thus, conventional power generation plants are faced with

massive technical and economic challenges. Today, fluctuations in the feed-in of renewables-based electricity are already
having a considerable impact on the load to be covered by
conventional power stations. To illustrate the effect of such
fluctuations, looking closely at electricity demand and sources
can be helpful. Due to the high demand and low feed-in of
electricity from renewable energies, on 24 January 2013 up
to 74,335 MW92% of the peak demand of 80,739 MW in
Germanyhad to be covered by conventional power plants.
Conversely, on 24 March 2013, a Sunday with low electricity demand coupled with high feed-in from wind and solar, a
minimum of 14,405 MW had to be covered by conventional
power stations. This represents a tremendous shift in the role
of conventional power plants.
Many of the conventional power plants operating in Germany

today were built in the 1980s and 1990s, before expansion
targets for wind and photovoltaic plants had been adopted. In
many plants, measures to allow greater flexibility have been
implemented subsequently, so that power plants can meet
increased requirements for market load adjustments. As a
result, there are very few dedicated German baseload power
plants that do not allow for flexible operation.
The necessary operational flexibility of coal- and gas-fired
power plants can be illustrated with an example from 1 and
2 January 2012 (see Figure 2). On Sunday, 1 January, power
demand was relatively low due to low industrial demand and
mild temperatures of approximately 8C (46F). Around the
evening peak, a temporary daily maximum consumption of
56 GW was reached in the German power grid, after which
demand decreased to a minimum value of less than 41 GW
until the late evening.
Flexibility to Meet Load Fluctuations

The German electricity transmission network is part of the
European synchronous zone and is connected with neighboring European markets. A regular exchange of electricity takes
place with all adjacent countries (i.e., France, Netherlands,
Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, and Switzerland).
At the same time, the amount of wind feed-in temporarily

reached a very high level of more than 16 GW. Further feed-ins
GW
80
GW
80
70
70
60
60
Increasing
power demand
50
50
40
40
30
30
Declining
wind feed -in
20
10
0
Gas
Wind
Coal
20
10
Sunday, 1.1.2012
Monday, 2.1.2012
Nuclear
Must-run
Sunday, 1.1.2012
Monday, 2.1.2012
FIGURE 2. Power consumption (left) and dispatch (right) of German power plants1
27
At 4:00 am on Monday, 2 January, power consumption soared

and reached a demand level of approximately 73 GW at around
noon. This corresponds to an increase of 32 GW within eight
hours. At the same time the feed-in from wind power plants
decreased in the early hours of the morning due to declining
wind speeds and intermittently amounted to only 4 GW at
around noon. In parallel, a decrease in feed-in of about 12 GW
was registered on the supply side. Thus, overall, an additional
power output of nearly 45 GW had to be provided by the thermal power plant portfolio within those eight hours.
The left-hand side of Figure 2 displays the parallel development
of increased power consumption and decreased, intermittent
wind feed-in, requiring a high degree of load adjustment from
the conventional power generation portfolio.
Power generation from German nuclear power plants contributed, almost without interruption, a supply of about 12 GW.
There is a degree of flexibility available from the German nuclear
power stations, although their low-variable power generation
costs ensure that this is only used once the load adaptability
of the fossil-fired power plants has been exhausted. As seen in
the right-hand side of Figure 2, the necessary load adjustment
of about 50 GW on Monday morning was almost completely
provided by the coal- and gas-fired power plants.
On Sunday night, almost 40% of the coal-fired power plants
were still in operation, although the requirements for coalfired power plants at that time had reduced to about 2060%
of their installed output capacity. Overall, their contribution
was only about 10 GW.
The conventional gas-fired power plants were almost completely off the grid on Sunday night, since part-load operation
of gas-fired power plants is considerably more expensive than
it is for coal-fired power plants.
In the early hours of Monday morning the increase of residual
load was initially covered by coal-fired power plants supporting
the grid by means of less than full load operation. In parallel,
additional coal-fired power plants went into operation that
28
100%
18
90%
16
80%
14
70%
12
60%
10
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Load factor (%)
On Sunday evening, after the renewable energy feed-ins were

accounted for, only a residual load of 21 GW had to be temporarily covered by other power plants available according to
schedule.
20
Renewable generation (GWh)
that day came from other renewable energy sources, including

run-of-the-river hydro and biomass power plants, which also
benefit from feed-in priority. The feed-in from those plants
consistently amounted to about 5 GW. The power generation
from photovoltaic plants was negligible due to the season as
well as the cloudy weather that weekend.
0%
Hour
Photovoltaics
Hard coal new-build
Wind
CCPP new build*
Existing hard coal, optimized
FIGURE 3. Feed-in from renewables on 16 March 20121

*Regular operation of two gas turbines and one steam turbine
Source: www.transparency.eex.com
had previously been off the grid. Grid synchronization of fossilfired plants commences approximately one to four hours after
initial boiler firing. Subsequent to the grid synchronization,
newly started coal-fired power plants met the required load
increase until about midday.
Generally, available gas-fired power plants are returned from
downtime to meet the load peaks on Monday. The first feedins from gas-fired plants are normally in the early morning,
from 5:00 am onward. Over the course of the day, load balancing is mainly regulated by gas-fired power plants, and the
coal-fired power plants remain at full load until the evening.
On the particular Monday being evaluated, load adjustments
were made by a combination of available coal- and gas-fired
power plants. In doing so, the coal-fired power plants provided about 75% of the required flexible output.
Flexible Use of Coal- and Gas-Fired Power
Plants due to Fluctuations of PV Feed-In
The average cycle between strong and weak wind phases
is about three to five days in northwest Europe. Even in the
event of short-term changes, as portrayed in the first example,
the thermal power plant portfolio has several hours in which
to adjust load.
Short-term feed-in fluctuations are also triggered by the output of widely developed solar photovoltaic power plants in
1100 MW
LINGEN CCPP
Max capacity: 2x440 MW
Min capacity: 520/260 MW
Max load change rate: +/-32 MW/min
BoA PLUS
Max capacity: 2x550 MW
Min capacity: 350/175 MW
BoA13
Max capacity: 1000 MW
Min capacity: 500 MW
1000
800
600
2-boiler operation
400
2-boiler operation
1-boiler operation
1-boiler operation
200
10
15
20
25min
10
15
20
25min
10
15
20
25min
FIGURE 4. Comparison of load flexibility of new-build gas- and lignite-fired power plants in the Rhineland
Notes: BoA is a German abbreviation for lignite-fired power station with optimized plant engineering. BoA 13 are in operation and BoA PLUS is in the planning
stages.
Germany. The effects can be seen from the beginning of spring

as the daily level of solar radiation increases.
The timing of the increase in solar radiation in the morning
does not coincide with the increase in power consumption.
While electricity demand increases between 4:00 and 8:00
am, the increase in photovoltaic feed-in occurs between 8:00
am and 1:00 pm. Similarly, photovoltaic feed-in decreases in
the evening, some hours before the decline in power consumption. Consequently, thermal power plants have to kick in
at short notice twicein the morning and in the eveningon
days with a high photovoltaic generation.
16 March was one of the first days in 2012 with intensive solar
radiation in Germany. The feed-in from photovoltaic plants
increased by about 16 GW between 8:00 am and 1:00 pm.
Between 2:00 and 6:00 pm, it decreased. On that day, wind
levels were extremely low (see Figure 3).
To cover peak consumption in the morning, coal- and gas-fired
power plants started operation. In order to accommodate the
temporarily high photovoltaic feed-in around midday, and
afterward provide full load to cover the evening peak, the gasfired and coal-fired power plants were intermittently operated
between partial and full-load operation.
TABLE 2. Sample flexibility parameters for coal- and gas-fired power plants
Parameter
Unit
Natural Gas
CCPP New Builda
Hard Coal
New Build
Lignite
New Build
Hard Coal Existing Plant

(Optimized)
Capacity
MW
800
800
1100
300
~60
~2540
~25b40
~20
%/min
~3.5
~3d
~3
~3
Minimum-load
point/rated-load
point (Pmin/PRated)
Mean load change ratec
Regular operation of two gas turbines and one steam turbine

Thanks to the BoA-Plus design (lignite-fired power plant with optimized plant technology plus upstream coal drying) a minimum-load point of 25% is possible today, but has not been implemented yet
c
With respect to rated load
d
In the lower load range (2540%) the operating gradient differs from this value
a
29
Figure 3 shows the course of intermittent feed-ins and the

adjusted operation of conventional power plants (new gas and
steam power plant, new coal-fired power plant, and an existing
coal-fired power plant with optimized flexibility parameters),
following changes in demand and available generation from
renewable energy sources. In the case of 16 March 2012,
German coal- and gas-fired power plants were able to accommodate photovoltaic feed-in variations mutually because of
their short-term flexible operating capability.
Despite the continued increase

in renewable capacity, the role of
fossil fuels for power generation in
Germany will be more or less the
same in 2023 as in 2013.
In contrast, a new coal-fired power plant has a lower minimum

load capability of approximately 40%, with further potential
to reduce this to 2025%. The reason is that the output of the
coal boiler is controlled via direct fuel combustion and not, as
is the case with a gas combined-cycle power plant, via a heat
recovery steam generator with an upstream gas turbine.
German power plant operators have also made it possible
to reduce the minimum load of operation at existing power
plants by optimizing the boiler-turbine system using modern
control systems. Todays optimized coal-fired power plants are
able to operate at a partial-load level of less than 20% of fullload capacity.
The change (i.e., ramp) between partial load and full load at
power plants involves load changes of approximately three
percentage points per minute, and the change in mode of
operation can therefore be achieved at all plants in less than
half an hour (see Table 2 and Figure 4).
PROSPECTS1
Flexibility Characteristics of German

Coal- and Gas-Fired Power Plants
In the regular configuration of two gas turbines and one steam
turbine, the minimum load of a new gas-fired combined-cycle
plant is typically around 60% of its installed capacity. An even
lower minimum load is achievable by switching off one gas
turbine; this, however, causes a substantial decrease in efficiency, and thus is rarely employed.
Renewables
527 TWh
4.0%
Nuclear
29.2%
Fossil
energy
sources
(coal, gas etc.)
66.8%
609 TWh
7.5%
27.1%
65.4%
634 TWh
23.9%
~40%
15.4%
60.7%
~60%
The fundamental reason is the complete phasing out of

nuclear power capacity by the end of 2022. By 2034 the
total capacity on the basis of renewables is expected to be
approximately 173 GW, which is twice as much as the peak
load in Germany.2 However, a conventional capacity of 82 GW
will still be needed (compared to 100 GW in 2012) to cover
the demand when the wind is not blowing and/or the sun is
not shining.2 The required flexibility to meet the fluctuations
is being fulfilled just as well by coal-fueled as by gas-fueled
power plants. These plants are being made increasingly flexible, ensuring that they can continue to serve their important
role in Germanys electricity market.
REFERENCES
1.
1993
2003
2013
2023
FIGURE 5. Gross power generation in Germany 199320231

Source: AG Energiebilanzen (for 19932013); target of federal government
according to coalition agreement: 4045% renewables in 2025
30
Despite the continued increase in renewable capacity, the role

of fossil fuels for power generation in Germany will be more or
less the same in 2023 as in 2013 (see Figure 5).
2.
IEA Coal Industry Advisory Board. (2013). 21st century coal:

Advanced technology and global energy solution. Paris: OECD/
IEA. www.iea.org/publications/insights/21stcenturycoal_final_
web.pdf
50Hertz Transmission/Amprion/ TenneT TSO/TransnetBW, Grid
development plan electricity 2014, Berlin/Dortmund/Bayreuth/
Stuttgart, 2014. (in German)
Toward Carbon-Negative
Power Plants With Biomass
Cofiring and CCS
By Janne Krki
Research Team Leader, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Antti Arasto
Business Development Manager,

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
he goal of CO2 emissions reductions and renewable

energy incentives have led some power plant operators
to broaden their fuel palette to include various carbonneutral biomass fuels. Biomass can be carbon neutral because
it binds carbon from the atmosphere that is then released
when it is burned, minimizing net emissions.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS), another potential option
to cut CO2 emissions from the power sector, is currently under
extensive research, development, and demonstration globally. CCS is advancing toward commercialization, but there are
still hurdles, mostly nontechnical, that are impeding its widespread deployment.
Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are expected to
be higher in the future and, therefore, the power sector and
several other major industries may need solutions that can
offer up to 80% reductions in emissions. In large-scale thermal power plants, this level of emissions reduction can be
achieved by employing CCS, utilizing high shares of biomass

fuels, or a combination thereof. By combining biomass cofiring
and CCS, it is possible to achieve negative emissions (defined
as capturing CO2 from biomass combustion and storing it permanently isolated from the atmosphere). This is one of the
few large-scale options to remove CO2 from the atmosphere,
which highlights the importance of these technologies.
However, such technologies require stronger government and
international support to encourage deployment. In addition,
increased costs for CO2 emissions or CO2 emission performance standards (EPS) could help advance the technology.13
Combining biomass cofiring and

CCS is one of the few large-scale
options to remove CO2 from the
atmosphere...
FEASIBILITY OF COFIRING WITH
VARYING BIOMASS SHARES
Cofiring of coal and various types of biomass is now a mature
technology and is currently being successfully practiced globally. With technological advances, many limitations associated
with it have been overcome. Many coal-fired plants have been
converted or retrofitted to accommodate cofiring with limited
impact on efficiency, operations, or lifespan.
However, there is much more to cofiring than simply adding
a secondary fuel. Boiler technology and design remain critical
issues when evaluating the maximum share of biomass that
can be used without compromising boiler performance (output, efficiency, and power-to-heat ratio) or the lifetime of the
boiler components.4
In locations where sustainable biomass is readily available,

cofiring with coal harnesses the advantages of each fuel.
Various technologies have been developed to enable cofiring biomass with coal in pulverized coal (PC) boilers. The vast
capacity of existing PC boilers offers great potential for increasing biomass utilization and economic benefits compared to
new stand-alone biomass power plants, which also are usually
31
significantly smaller than PC plants. With cofiring, capital costs

are increased only marginally, while the high electrical efficiency of large PC boilers and the favorable properties of coal
ash can be exploited to reduce the operational risks.
CONCEPTUAL STUDY OF BIOMASS

COFIRING VERSUS CCS
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has conducted
several conceptual case studies on the feasibility of CCS and
biomass cofiring. In the case study discussed below, the feasibility of a coal-fired oxy-combustion CFB boiler with 99%
CO2 capture and storage (Case I) is compared to cofiring large
shares of biomass (Case II 70% and Case III 30%, with the balance from coal). These cases are compared to a base-case
CFB coal-fired (air-fired, no biomass cofiring, and no CCS)
500-MWfuel greenfield power plant situated in Finland that
emits approximately 1.2 million tonnes CO2/year.
Utilizing biomass in an existing thermal power plant can be

accomplished through direct or indirect cofiring. Direct cofiring is the most straightforward, most commonly applied, and
lowest-cost concept for partially replacing coal or other solid
fossil fuels with biomass. In direct cofiring, biomass and coal
are burned together in the same furnace using the same or
separate fuel handling and feeding equipment, depending on
the biomass, targeted biomass share, and site-specific characteristics. The percentage of biomass that can be successfully
employed in direct cofiring is modest, typically about 10%,
and the type of biomass is limited mostly to pellet-type fuels.
With torrefied biomass, however, higher shares are expected,
up to tens of percentages. Indirect cofiring consists of converting the solid biomass to a gas or liquid prior to combustion in
the same furnace with the other fuel. This allows for greater
amounts of biomass to be used, up to 50%. However, this
approach requires greater investment and a larger footprint.5
The fuel mix affects the plant design, investment required, and
operational parameters. The plant fuel input (on an energy
basis) and designed steam parameters remain constant in
all cases. Therefore, the use of biomass or oxy-combustion
increases the required plant investment and operating costs.
Additional investment for biomass cofiring is required for biomass handling and feeding equipment, additional loop seal
heat exchangers, advanced coarse material removal, more
expensive materials for heat transfer surfaces, larger flue gas
ducts and fans, extra soot-blowers, and possibly injection of
combustion additives. Additional O&M costs include additional chemical and maintenance costs. For the CFB-Oxy-CCS
case, the main additional investment involves boiler block
modifications, a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU), and a
CO2 purification unit (CPU). The greatest impact of CCS on the
O&M costs is the efficiency penalty, which in this study was
assumed to be eight percentage points. The captured CO2 was
assumed to be transported and stored abroad with an overall
cost of 12/tonne CO2.7,8 The main assumptions and results,
including net electricity output, are provided in Table 1.7,8
In general, fluidized bed boilers offer the best fuel flexibility.

In a properly designed boiler, biomass fuels can be used
with coal in any percentage from 0100% in circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers. The variety of biomass fuel options is
increasingly diverse, although the availability of some biomass
fuels can be limited. Power plants with high fuel flexibility can
adapt to the prevailing fuel market by optimizing the fuel mix.6
One possibility to utilize biomass in existing PC boilers is to
convert them into bubbling fluidized bed boilers. These retrofits are routine for the major fluidized bed boiler technology
suppliers, and numerous such conversions have been conducted in Europe. For example, at least eight conversions to
enable pure biomass combustion have been carried out in
Poland since 2008, with capacities from 100200 MWth.
The principal goal of the modeling was to evaluate annual

cash flows from an investors point of view in the three
reduced-CO2 emission cases compared with the base case.
TABLE 1. Key assumptions and results from economic modeling

Base Case
Case I
(CFB-Oxy-CCS)
Case II
(70% bio)
Case III
(30% bio)
Combustion mode
Air
Oxygen
Air
Air
CCS
No
Yes
No
No
Biomass share (%)
70
30
CO2 emissions reduction compared to base case

(million tonnes/yr)
-0.91
-0.91
-0.39
213
173
208
210
Factor
Electricity output (MWe)

32
Base Case
0
-10
1.3
-20
-40
-44
Case I
-12
-23
-100
-12.4
Case III
-14 -5.0
-11 -0.3
-13
-31
-15
-60
-80
Case II
-38
-27
-120
-38
-45
-64
-31
-49
-28
-140
CAPEX
CO2 allowances
Substitutive electricity
Prot
Fuel purchase
(including subsidies and taxes)
CO2 transport and storage
Other operating costs
FIGURE 1. Annual operating costs and overall profits of

compared technologies (with default input values) in millions
per year
The assumed fuel purchase prices were 10/MWh for coal
and 20/MWh for biomass (based on LHV, including all costs
and taxes), 75/MWh for electricity, and a CO2 allowance of
35/tonne [an estimated future price that is higher than EU
Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) trading values today].
Peak load utilization rates of the plants were 7500 hours per
year. The overall costs (capital and operating) and profits for
the four cases are presented in Figure 1.
The differences in electricity production, which can be attributed to the energy penalty in the CCS case, are taken into
account as substitutive electricity, which enables the comparison of costs rather than annual cash flows, where income
from electricity would dominate the chart. From Figure 1 it can
be determined that operation of the base-case coal-fired power
plant is the only option that is profitable under the economic
assumptions made, although Case I with 30% biomass cofiring
is relatively close to the base case. Based on the economics
and emissions assumed, break-even prices (BEP) for CO2 emission allowances in the EU ETS, at which specific cases become
favorable compared to the base case, were calculated. The
BEPs were 46, 42, and 39 /tonne CO2 for CFB-Oxy-CCS, 70%
biomass cofiring, and 30% biomass cofiring, respectively. These
break-even points are a bit higher than, but generally in line
with, estimates presented by Lschen and Madlener for biomass cofiring with CO2 avoidance cost range of 2532/tonne.9
Note that if the modeling assumptions change, the model
results vary dramatically. The most economical solution is
mostly dependent on electricity prices, CO2 and fuel costs, and

estimated peak load hours, which are all uncertain. For Finnish
thermal power plants with CCS, break-even prices of 70100/
tonne were presented by Teir et al.10 In comparison to these
reported values, the CFB-Oxy-CCS case was quite competitive,
but this is highly dependent on CO2 transport and storage
costs, which were much lower in our estimation.10 In addition,
at some locations sufficient biomass may not be logistically
or economically available. Similarly, CO2 storage sites are not
universally accessible. Therefore, the exact modeling results
should not be extrapolated to other regions or situations.
The CO2 emissions in the different cases modeled are presented in Figure 2. Both cases of biomass cofiring as well as
the CFB-Oxy-CCS offer significantly reduced emissions. It can
be seen that significant emission reductions can be achieved
with CCS and high shares of biomass cofiring. Note that for
the energy penalty in CFB-Oxy-CCS case, the substitutive electricity production is assumed to be produced by unabated
coal-fired power; if the replacement electricity was provided
by coal with CCS or some other blend of electricity, the carbon
footprint of the oxy-combustion case would be even lower.
If more aggressive climate policies are enacted in the future,
including other targets for renewable energy and other competition for biomass (existing forest industry, targets for liquid
biofuels, etc.), a significant increase in biomass prices could
result, at least in areas where sustainable biomass availability
is limited. Increasing biomass prices would result in coal-fired
Base Case
Case I
Case II
Case III
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
0
-387,916
-500,000
-914,307
-1,000,000
-911,389
-1,500,000
Biogenic CO2
Fossil CO2
Other
Captured fossil CO2
Replacement electricity
CO2 emissions relative to base case
FIGURE 2. Categorized CO2 emissions for the four cases

modeled in tonnes per year
33
oxy-combustion with CCS becoming economically advantageous compared to biomass cofiring with large shares.
Based on our results, CFB oxy-combustion with CCS could
become more competitive with quite realistic prices for biomass and CO2 in the future. For example, with prices of 24/
MWh for biomass, 85/MWh for electricity, and 50/tonne
CO2 allowance, the CFB-Oxy-CCS becomes the most profitable
case modeled, although all are almost equally competitive.7
IS CCS SUITABLE FOR BIOMASS COFIRED PLANTS?
The cases discussed thus far reduced CO2 emissions, but did
not eliminate them. An opportunity exists, however, for coal/
biomass cofiring with CCS to not only eliminate CO2 emissions,
but actually offer negative CO2 emissions. This approach could
help reach climate targets by offsetting historical emissions
and emissions from sectors with expensive or more difficult
large-scale emission reductions (e.g., the transportation sector) in the near term. In general, similar solutions are suitable
for capturing CO2 from applications utilizing biomass as for
fossil fuels. The main differences relate to the different kinds
of impurities in the combustion process: ash and flue gas. In
principle, there are no technical restrictions for capturing biogenic CO2 via cofiring. However, the current EU ETS does not
recognize negative emissions, and thus no economic incentive
exists for capturing biogenic CO2 from installations combusting even partly biomass.
Despite fluidized bed technologys high flexibility regarding the
fuels, challenges exist in the case of biomass cofiring. Some of
these challenges may be emphasized when CCS is employed
at the plant. For example, with oxy-fired fluidized bed boilers
even small concentrations of chlorine from the biomass fuel
can lead to harmful alkaline and chlorine compound deposits on boiler heat transfer surfaces. This is because of lack of
nitrogen in furnace and the components increased concentrations as a result of flue gas recirculation.7
of eight to 12 percentage points.11 Obviously, significant

improvements in reducing the energy penalty would be very
helpful for the deployment of the CCS. One potential solution
to increase the efficiency (of all plants) is combined heat and
power, where over 90% process efficiency is achievableif a
large heat distribution system and relatively continuous heat
consumption (or storage) in that system exist.12,13
The costs associated with biomass cofiring are mainly due to
the higher prices of biomass fuel in comparison to coal, higher
plant investment, and higher O&M costs. The use of biomass
increases O&M costs of the cofiring retrofit plant through
negative effects on the availability of the boiler (i.e., boilerrelated issues cause increased plant downtime) and increased
maintenance work and consumables. When considering a
retrofit option for biomass, the feasibility of the investment
and the willingness to invest are affected also by the remaining lifetime of the plant and the annual operating hours.5,14 An
indicative comparison on the CAPEX and operating expenses
(OPEX) in coal, biomass, and cofired CFB boiler with and without CCS is presented in Figure 3.
The costs for CCS depend heavily not only on the characteristics of the facility and the operational environment but also on
the assumptions related to future operation. From an investors point of view, the optimal solution depends on multiple
factors, electricity and EU ETS prices being the most dominant. As far as capturing biogenic emissions (and achieving
negative emissions) from power plants is concerned, the only
realistic applications are facilities that cofire biomass with coal
and implement CCS. Dedicated biomass-firing plants are not
considered to be the optimal sites to apply CCS in the initial
phase as these facilities are likely smaller than fossil-fueled
facilities and do not currently need to reduce their CO2 emissions. When discussing the biomass cofiring option, one must
also address questions related to how availability of biomass
Fossil
Fossil with
CO2 capture
Bio/Multi
Bio/Multi with
CO2 capture
High plant
eciency
Fossil CO2
emissions
8 12%-pts e.
penalty in CCS
Up to 95% CO2
capture rates
Good plant
eciency
Zero (biogenic)
CO2 emissions
Eciency penalty
similar to fossil
Negative CO2
emissions
Higher OPEX*
and CAPEX than
without capture
Higher OPEX*
and CAPEX than
with fossil fuels
Highest OPEX*
and CAPEX
Agro
Wood
COFIRING, CCS, OR BOTH?

There are still technical and economic challenges restricting
the application of biomass cofiring and CCS as emission reduction solutions. Both CCS and biomass cofiring offer pros and
cons and their potential roles globally as carbon abatement
tools are not yet certain. Both technologies must reduce the
associated costs prior to widespread deployment.
The major costs associated with CCS result from equipment
investment, loss of production due to the CCS energy penalty,
and transportation and storage of CO2. First-generation CCS
technologies are expected to result in efficiency decreases
34
Lowest OPEX*
and CAPEX
FIGURE 3. An indicative comparison of the CAPEX and OPEX

in coal, biomass, and cofired CFB boiler with and without CCS
*Without CO2 allowances
affects pricing and the competition for raw material between

different users, such as the forest industry and liquid biofuel
producers.
1.
CONCLUSIONS
2.
The possible and predicted high economic value on CO2 emissions as well as strict emission standards could provide a
foundation for the development and deployment of biomass
cofiring and CCS as individual or combined technologies. Both
options are applicable for existing and new power plants and
the technologies have already been demonstrated. Biomass
cofiring is the most efficient means of power generation from
biomass, and thus offers a CO2 avoidance cost lower than that
for CO2 capture from existing power plantsprovided reasonably priced carbon-neutral biomass is available. However, future
policies on legislation, subsidies, and carbon accounting remain
the most vital factors for successful biomass cofiring business.
There is a path forward for neutral
REFERENCES
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
or even negative carbon emissions at

power plants that combust coal.
8.
Economically, the difference between biomass cofiring and

CCS varies depending on site-specific circumstances. In general, however, the EU ETS price and electricity prices projected
in the near future do not yet make CCS investment feasible.
The economic viability of CCS in the EU is heavily dependent
on the CO2 allowance price.
9.
There is a path forward for neutral or even negative carbon

emissions at power plants that combust coal. For negative
net emissions, capturing biogenic emissions is a widely available option; power plants that cofire biomass with coal offer
the greatest potential and most straightforward applications.
However, the most important factors affecting the deployment of the combined carbon-mitigation technologies include
the availability of biomass, coal, and CO2 transportation and
storage options as well as the political will (expressed through
carbon pricing and recognition of negative emissions) and
acceptance of the technologies. In reality, these technologies
are already available and nearly ready to be demonstrated
and then deployed.
11.
10.
12.
13.
14.
ZEP. (2012). Biomass with CO2 capture and storage (bio-CCS):

The way forward for Europe, www.biofuelstp.eu/downloads/
bioccsjtf/EBTP-ZEP-Report-Bio-CCS-The-Way-Forward.pdf
IEAGHG. (2011, July). Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide
capture and storage. Report 2011/06, www.eenews.net/
assets/2011/08/04/document_cw_01.pdf
Koljonen, T., et al. (2012). Low carbon Finland 2050. VTT clean
energy technology strategies for society. Espoo: VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland, www.ashraeasa.org/pdf/VTT%20
Low%20Carbon%20Vision.pdf
KEMA. (2009, July). Co-firing biomass with coal. Balancing US
carbon objectives, energy demand and electricity affordability.
White paper. Burlington, MA: KEMA Inc.
Krki, J., Flyktman, M., Hurskainen, M., Helynen, S., & Sipil, K.
(2011). Replacing coal with biomass fuels in combined heat and
power plants in Finland. In: M. Savolainen (Ed.), International
Nordic Bioenergy 2011Book of proceedings (pp. 199206),
www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2011/Finland_Karki.pdf
Nevalainen, T., Jntti, T., & Nuortimo, K. (2012). Advanced CFB
technology for large scale biomass firing power plants. Paper
presented at Bioenergy from Forest, 29 August, Jyvaskyla,
Finland, www.fwc.com/getmedia/227a6ef3-a052-42e4-b81eca642124869a/TP_FIRSYS_12_07.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
Arasto, A., Tsupari, E., Krki, J., Sormunen, R., Korpinen, T., &
Hujanen. S. Feasibility of significant CO2 emission reductions in
thermal power plantsComparison of biomass and CCS. GHGT12 (submitted 15 September 2014).
Tsupari, E., Krki, J., & Arasto, A. (2011). Feasibility of BIOCCS in CHP productionA case sudy of biomass cofiring plant
in Finland. Presented in Second international Workshop on
Biomass & Carbon Capture and Storage, 25-26 October, Cardiff,
Wales.
Lschen, A., & Madlener, R. (2013). Economic viability of
biomass cofiring in new hard-coal power plants in Germany.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 57, 3347, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2012.11.017
Teir, S., et al. (2011). Hiilidioksidin talteenoton ja varastoinnin
(CCS:n) soveltaminen Suomen olosuhteissa. Espoo, VTT. 76 s. +
liitt. 3 s. VTT Tiedotteita - Research Notes; 2576 ISBN 978-95138-7697-5; 978-951-38-7698-2.
IEA. (2013). Technology roadmap: Carbon capture and storage,
www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
technologyroadmapcarboncaptureandstorage.pdf
Davison J. (2007). Performance and costs of power plants with
capture and storage of CO2. Energy, 32, 11631176.
Krki, J., Tsupari, E., & Arasto, A. (2013). CCS feasibility in
improvement in industrial and municipal applications by heat
utilisation, Energy Procedia, 37, 26112621.
Basu, P., Butler, J., & Leon, M.A. (2011). Biomass co-firing options
on the emission reduction and electricity generation costs in
coal-fired power plants. Renewable Energy, 36(1), 282288,
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.06.039
The authors can be reached at janne.karki@vtt.fi and antti.

arasto@vtt.fi
35
Evolution of Cleaner
Solid Fuel Combustion
By Christopher Long
Principal Scientist, Gradient
Peter Valberg
Principal, Gradient
study were based in the U.S. due to the larger amount of air
modeling data available, but were older and had more limited emissions controls than modern state-of-the-art plants.
As a result, these plants are useful for representing the air
exposure impacts of plants that might be built in developing
countries today, including those built without international
support for meeting high-efficiency, low-emissions standards.
lthough uncommon in developed countries, solid

fuelsincluding wood, charcoal, coal,A dung, and crop
residuesare burned domestically by billions of people
across the world for space heating, lighting, and cooking. For
example, it is estimated that, as of 2010, approximately 41% of
the worlds households (approximately 2.8 billion people) rely
mainly on solid fuels for cooking.1 A comprehensive assessment of respiratory risks from household air pollution recently
concluded that the health of one in three people worldwide
is at risk because of exposure to emissions from traditional
household solid fuel combustion.2
For our comparisons, we focused on air exposure concentrations rather than emissions because possible exposure via
breathing cannot be characterized based solely on emissions
data (e.g., tons per year), but rather needs to be assessed
through examining concentrations of pollutants [masses of
pollutants per unit volume of aire.g., micrograms per cubic
meter (g/m3)] that can potentially be inhaled. In addition, we
used an alternative metric of exposure, namely intake fraction
(iF), to supplement this analysis.
To provide some perspective on their relative air exposure

impacts, we have compared exposure of people to traditional household solid fuel combustion emissions (e.g., smoke
from domestic burning of biomass material or coal) to those
of coal-fired power plants (CFPPs). We used data from published papers and reports and tabulated levels of peoples
exposure to common air pollutants from these two different
combustion sources. The coal-fired power plants used for the
As compared to traditional
household solid fuel combustion
modern coal-fired power plants
represent a more sophisticated and
cleaner approach to getting the
maximum energy out of solid fuel
ASSESSMENT OF REPORTED
AIR EXPOSURE LEVELS
Traditional Household Solid Fuels Contribute
to Complex Indoor Air Pollution
A review of available literature has shown that traditional

stoves for cooking and heating are a much more inefficient
and dangerous means of energy utilization compared to
modern electricity services.
36
Over the past several decades, numerous studies have investigated the air pollution generated by traditional household
solid fuel combustion for space heating, lighting, and cooking in
developing countries.1,3 It is now well established that, throughout much of the world, indoor burning of solid fuels (e.g., wood,
charcoal, coal, dung, and crop residues) by inefficient, often
insufficiently vented, combustion devices (e.g., ovens, stoves,
TABLE 1. Summary of indoor PM2.5 and CO breathing zone exposure levels in developing-country households with traditional
household solid fuel combustion3
PM2.5 (g/m3)
CO (mg/m3)
Number of
Studies
Total Number
of Samples
Bangladesh
53
Burundi
Ethiopia
NA
48
Ghana
21
Guatemala
768
45027,000
971900
2149
India
13
1009
1102100
13001500
5216
Kenya
199
Malaysia
10
Mexico
191
Mozambique
114
Nepal
127
New Guinea
Nigeria
28
1076
South Africa
20
79180
Zambia
89
10
Location
meal avg.
daily avg.
meal avg.
daily avg.
1526
42
6303500
1.217
560
3
890
1022
48
17005700
14360
1452
1324
92
Notes: NA = not available. Meal avg. = average concentrations measured during active meal and cooking times, typically between 30 minutes and three hours.
or fireplaces) leads to highly elevated exposures to household

air pollutants. This is due to the poor combustion efficiency of
the combustion devices and the elevated nature of the emissions; moreover, they are often released directly into living
areas.3 Smoke from traditional household solid fuel combustion
commonly contains a range of incomplete combustion products, including both fine and coarse particulate matter (e.g.,
PM2.5, PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and a variety of organic air pollutants (e.g.,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, acetaldehyde, acrolein,
phenols, pyrene, benzopyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzopyrenes, dibenzocarbazoles, and cresols).2 In a typical solid fuel
stove, approximately 620% of solid fuel mass is converted into
toxic emissions, with such factors as the fuel type and moisture
content, stove technology, and stove operation influencing the
amount and relative composition of the pollution mixture.1
combustion and are considered to pose the greatest health

risks.2 Table 1, adapted from Naeher et al.,3 summarizes indoor
air measurements of PM2.5 and CO associated with traditional
household solid fuel combustion. As shown in the table, PM2.5
exposure levels have been consistently reported to be in the
range of hundreds to thousands of micrograms per cubic
meter (g/m3); likewise, CO exposure levels as high as hundreds to greater than 1000 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/
m3) have been measured. Consistent with these data, a more
recent study of 163 households in two rural Chinese counties
reported geometric mean indoor PM2.5 concentrations of 276
g/m3 (combinations of different plant materials, including
wood, tobacco stems, and corncobs), 327 g/m3 (wood), 144
g/m3 (smoky coal), and 96 g/m3 (smokeless coal) for homes
using a variety of different fuel types and stove configurations
(vented, unvented, portable, fire pit, mixed ventilation stove).4
Even though the mixture of pollutants arising from traditional

household solid fuel combustion is complex, most measurement studies have focused on characterizing breathing-zone
exposure levels of two surrogate species in solid fuel smoke,
namely PM and CO, which are the main products of incomplete
Air Modeling of CFPP Emissions Predicts

Substantially Lower Air Quality Impacts
In comparison to traditional solid fuels, CFPP emissions are
associated with far lower ground-level ambient exposure levels
37
of both PM2.5 and CO.B Table 2 provides a summary of modelpredicted ground-level PM2.5 and CO concentrations from
publicly available studies of the ambient air quality impacts
of U.S. CFPPs. We relied on model-predicted concentrations
rather than measurement data because air-monitoring data
are not specific to power plant emissions and include contributions from a variety of other common anthropogenic,
natural, and distant air pollution sources. As indicated in Table 2,
all but one of the studies we identified reflect modeled air quality impacts for groups of U.S. CFPPs in the same general vicinity;
thus, these data encompass air quality impacts higher than what
would be the case for a single newer U.S. power plant. Moreover,
the majority of the modeled plants are older CFPPs that lack the
clean coal technologies characteristic of newer and retrofitted
CFPPs. With respect to PM, these studies generally accounted for
both primary PM2.5 emissions and secondary atmospheric formation of sulfate and nitrate particles from gaseous SO2 and NOx
emissions, respectively. With respect to CO, we identified just a
single modeling study that predicted the CO air quality impacts of
emissions from CFPPs (as well as a number of natural gas power
plants).5 Most likely because CO emissions from U.S. CFPPs are
low and not considered to pose significant air quality problems
or public health impacts, CO has not received as much attention
as PM2.5 in studies of the air quality impacts of power plants.6
TABLE 2. Model-predicted ground-level PM2.5 and CO concentrations associated with U.S. CFPP emissionsa,b
Source
Plant Location(s)
Plant Capacity/
Characteristics
Model-Predicted
Ground-Level Annual
Average PM2.5 Air Conc.
(g/m3) a
Model-Predicted
Ground-Level Annual
Average CO Air Conc.
(mg/m3) a
Salem,
Massachusetts,
U.S.
805-MW nameplate
capacity; older plant
grandfathered under
Clean Air Act
0.2 for maximum potential plant emissions,

including both primary
and secondary PM2.5
NA
Somerset,
Massachusetts,
U.S.
1611-MW nameplate
capacity; older plant
grandfathered under
Clean Air Act
0.25 for maximum potential plant emissions,

including both primary
and secondary PM2.5
NA
Illinois, in close
proximity to or
upwind of the
Chicago area, U.S.
>7500-MW total
nameplate capacity;
all older plants grandfathered under the
Clean Air Act
0.7, including both

primary and secondary
PM2.5
NA
Georgia, in the
Atlanta area, U.S.
>13,000-MW total
nameplate capacity;
all older plants grandfathered under the
Clean Air Act
0.60.9 depending on
the air modeling approach, including both
PM2.5
NA
3 coal
plants/units
(and 18
gas plants/
units)
Bexar County,
Texas, in the San
Antonio metropolitan area, U.S.
1425-MW capac0.16 for year 2002 emisity for 3 coal plants/

sions, including both
0.00011 for year 2002
units (and ~2300-MW
emissions
capacity for 18 gas
PM2.5
plants/units)
Number of
Modeled
CFPPs
Levy et al.
(2000)7
Levy et al.
(2002)8
Levy et al.
(2003)9
Perkins et al.
(2009)5
Notes: NA = not available.

a
As mentioned in the text, model-predicted ground-level annual average PM2.5 and CO air concentrations are generally for groups of older U.S. CFPPs due to the
availability of air modeling studies; air concentrations for single U.S. CFPPs, and particularly newer, more advanced CFPPs, would be expected to be lower. On
the other hand, air quality impacts of low-efficiency, uncontrolled CFPPs, such as those present in developing countries lacking stringent regulations, may be
comparable, if not larger, than those in the table.
b
Some concentrations are for maximum impacted model receptor locations,8,9 while others are either population-weighted average concentrations7 or countyaverage impacts.5
38
The annual average ambient PM2.5 and CO concentrations

in Table 2 are far below the comparable daily-average PM2.5
and CO indoor exposure levels associated with traditional
household solid fuel combustion in Table 1.C For PM2.5, several studies79 of groups of older, grandfathered U.S. CFPPs
predicted annual average concentrations of less than 1 g/m3
for maximally impacted locations, as compared to daily average PM2.5 exposure levels of hundreds to thousands of g/
m3 inside homes with traditional solid fuel combustion. For
CO, the single modeled estimate that we identified for 2002
county-average CO impacts from three CFPPs/units (plus 18
gas-fired power plants/units) in the San Antonio, TX, metropolitan area5 is over 10,000 times lower than the lowest CO
exposure levels we found for traditional household solid fuel
combustion (Table 1).
INTAKE FRACTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE

COMPARISON TOOL
Defining Intake Fraction
The iF is a well-established metric in the exposure assessment
and public health fields for quantifying the emission-to-intake
relationship, in large part because iFs facilitate comparisons of
the exposure implications of various emission sources. Intake
fraction can be defined simply as the fraction of material emitted into the air from a given source that is actually inhaled;
however, Bennett et al.10 provided a more thorough definition of iF as the integrated incremental intake of a pollutant,
summed over all exposed individuals, and occurring over
a given exposure time, released from a specified source or
sources, per unit of pollutant emitted. It is generally reported
as a unitless value, as expressed in the following equation10:
iF =
people, individual pollutant intake (mass, grams)

time
mass released into the environment (mass, grams)
iF thus sums pollutant intake over two measurespopulation

size and time durationand incorporates a variety of factors
related to the emission scenario and exposure conditions.
These factors include chemical properties of the contaminant,
emissions locations (e.g., release height, indoor versus outdoor, proximity to people), environmental conditions (climate,
meteorology, land use), human receptor locations and activities, and population characteristics. Intake fractions can be
based on both modeling results and measurements.
Relative Intake Fractions for Traditional

Solid Fuel Combustion Versus CFPPs
We identified just a single study11 that reported iFs for both
types of PM combustion emissions. Smith (1993) estimated
iFs ranging from approximately one to two one-thousandths
for PM emissions from traditional solid fuel combustion in
biomass cookstoves versus substantially lower iFs of one onemillionth for a U.S. CFPP and 10 one-millionths for a CFPP in a
least developed country (LDC) based on the assumption of a
greater population density. In other words, these results indicate that about one one-thousandth of what is released from
traditional household solid fuel burning is inhaled, while only
about one one-millionth of what is released from a U.S. CFPP
is inhaled.
These differences demonstrate the critical role of the proximity
of the emission source to people in determining its exposure
potential; whereas CFPP emissions are typically released from
tall stacks often far from heavily populated areas, emissions
from traditional household solid fuel combustion in developing countries are often released directly into poorly ventilated
indoor spaces (e.g., kitchens), where they can remain trapped
for extended periods of time in direct proximity of people.
Smith12 has subsequently emphasized the concept that the
place makes the poison.
More recent iF estimates for PM emissions from both traditional household solid fuel combustion and CFPPs confirm
that iF differences between these sources span several
orders of magnitude.9,13,14 For example, Levy et al.9 estimated
a slightly smaller iF for primary PM2.5 emissions from seven
older northern Georgia (U.S.) CFPPs (0.0000006), and even
smaller iFs for secondary sulfates and nitrates (0.0000002 and
0.00000006). In contrast, Grieshop et al.14 estimated iFs of
0.0013 and 0.00024 for unvented and outdoor-vented cookstoves, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that measured PM2.5 and CO concentrations inside
homes burning traditional solid fuels are thousands of times
greater than even the high-end estimates of ground-level
ambient exposure levels from U.S. coal-fired power plant
stack emissions. Even if a low-efficiency coal-fired power
plant with no emissions controls were employeda likely
scenario in areas where traditional solid fuels are combusted
and in the absence of international support for efficiency
and environmental upgradesorder-of-magnitude differences would likely be observed compared to traditional
solid fuel combustion. Moreover, we saw similar, supporting results using an alternative comparison approach based
on intake fractions. Overall, these conclusions point to
39
traditional household solid fuel combustion being a significantly greater source of air pollution exposures of health
concern. The basic difference is that coal-fired power
plants burn coal much more efficiently and completely
and exhaust their emissions from tall stacks rather than in
direct proximity to people. Overall, as compared to traditional household solid fuel combustion, which represents
an inefficient, high-emission form of fuel utilization, modern coal-fired power plants (and even older ones with more
limited air pollution controls) represent a more sophisticated, cleaner approach to getting the maximum energy
out of solid fuel with significantly reduced impacts on the
air that humans breathe.
REFERENCES
NOTES
5.
A. Although coal is used both for traditional household solid fuel

combustion and for electricity generation at modern power
plants, coal handling and combustion conditions for the two situations are quite different. When used as a traditional household
solid fuel, large chunks of often lower-quality coal are directly
burned under uncontrolled combustion conditions, such that
combustion is inefficient and incomplete. In contrast, modern
power plants often burn higher-quality coal, usually pulverized
and mixed with air, under efficient and controlled conditions,
resulting in nearly complete combustion of coal organics.
B. Actual personal exposures to ambient-derived pollutants can
often be significantly lower than ambient (outdoor) air exposure
levels. This is largely because people in countries such as the
U.S. spend the majority (~90%) of their time indoors where the
infiltration process can result in significantly reduced concentrations indoors compared to the corresponding ambient levels
outdoors.
C. Although expressed for different averaging periods, the annual
average PM2.5 and CO concentrations shown in Table 2 (for
power plants) should be compared to the daily average PM2.5
and CO concentrations in Table 1 (for traditional household solid
fuel combustion), which would occur repeatedly on a daily basis.
That is, the daily average PM2.5 and CO concentrations in Table 1
can be assumed to be representative of long-term average (e.g.,
annual average) exposure levels given the daily occurrence of
solid fuel combustion for cooking, heating, and lighting.
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Smith, K.R., Bruce, N., Balakrishnan, K., Adair-Rohani, H., Balmes,

J., Chafe, Z., HAP CRA Risk Expert Group. (2014). Millions
dead: How do we know and what does it mean? Methods used
in the comparative risk assessment of household air pollution.
Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 185206.
Gordon, S.B., Bruce, N.G., Grigg, J., Hibberd, P.L., Kurmi, O.P.,
Lam, K.B., Martin, W.J., II. (2014). Respiratory risks from
household air pollution in low and middle income countries. The
Lancet Respiratory Medicine, epub ahead of print.
Naeher, L.P., Brauer, M., Lipsett, M., Zelikoff, J.T., Simpson, C.D.,
Koenig, J.Q., & Smith, K.R. (2007). Woodsmoke health effects: A
review. Inhalation Toxicology, 19, 67106.
Hu, W., Downward, G.S., Reiss, B., Xu, J., Bassig, B.A., Hosgood,
H.D. III, & Lan, Q. (2014). Personal and indoor PM2.5 exposure
from burning solid fuels in vented and unvented stoves in
a rural region of China with a high incidence of lung cancer.
Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 84568464.
Perkins, J., Heilbrun, L., Symanski, E., Coker, A., & Eggleston, K.
(2009). A study to evaluate the health effects of air pollution
in Bexar County with a focus on local coal and gas fired power
plants. CPS Energy, www.cpsenergy.com/files/Health_Study_
FullReport.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
(2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide.
EPA/600/R-09/019F. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center
for Environmental Assessment-RTP Division.
Levy, J., Spengler, J.D., Hlinka, D., & Sullivan, D. (2000). Estimated
public health impacts of criteria pollutant air emissions from
the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point power plants. Boston, MA:
Harvard School of Public Health, Dept. of Environmental Health.
Levy, J.I., Spengler, J.D., Hlinka, D., Sullivan, D., & Moon, D.
(2002). Using CALPUFF to evaluate the impacts of power
plant emissions in Illinois: Model sensitivity and implications.
Atmospheric Environment, 36, 10631075.
Levy, J.I., Wilson, A.M., Evans, J.S., & Spengler, J.D. (2003).
Estimation of primary and secondary particulate matter intake
fractions for power plants in Georgia. Environmental Science &
Technology, 37, 55285536.
Bennett, D.H., McKone, T.E., Evans, J.S., Nazaroff, W.W., Margni,
M.D., Jolliet, O., & Smith, K.R. (2002). Defining intake fraction.
Environmental Science & Technology, 36, 207A211A.
Smith, K.R. (1993). Fuel combustion, air pollution exposure, and
health: The situation in developing countries. Annual Review of
Energy and the Environment, 18, 529566.
Smith, K.R. (2002). Place makes the poison Wesolowski Award
Lecture 1999. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Epidemiology, 12, 167171.
Evans, J.S., Wolff, S.K., Phonboon, K., Levy, J.I., & Smith, K.R.
(2002). Exposure efficiency: An idea whose time has come?
Chemosphere, 49, 10751091.
Grieshop, A.P., Marshall, J.D., & Kandlikar, M. (2011). Health
and climate benefits of cookstove replacement options. Energy
Policy, 39, 75307542.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
14.
This article was commissioned by Peabody Energy; it reflects

the professional opinions of the authors and the writing is
solely that of the authors.
The authors can be reached at clong@gradientcorp.com and

pvalberg@gradientcorp.com
40
T E CHNOLOGY FRONTI ERS
Making Coal Flexible:

Getting From Baseload to Peaking Plant
By Jaquelin Cochran
We have used a case study of this CGS to evaluate how power

plants intended to run at baseload can evolve to serve other
system needs. The CGS case illustrates the types of changes
that may occur in global power systems, especially those
with legacy plants. CGSs experiences challenge conventional
wisdom about the limitations of coal-fired power plants and
help policymakers better understand how to formulate policy
and make investment decisions in the transformation toward
power systems in a carbon-constrained world.
Senior Energy Analyst,

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Debra Lew
Independent Consultant
Nikhil Kumar
Director of Energy & Utility Analytics, Intertek
ower systems in the 21st centurywith higher penetration

of low-carbon energy, smart grids, and other emerging
technologieswill favor resources that have low marginal
costs and provide system flexibility (see Figure 1). Such flexibility includes the ability to cycle on and off as well as run at low
minimum loads to complement variations in output from high
penetration of renewable energy. With a lack of general experience in the industry, questions remain about both the fate of
coal-fired power plants in this scenario and whether they can
continue to operate cost-effectively if they cycle routinely.
To demonstrate that coal-fired power plants can become flexible resources, we discuss experiences from an actual multi-unit
North American coal generating station (CGS).A,1 This flexibilitynamely, the ability to cycle on and off and run at below 40%
of capacityrequires limited modifications to hardware, but
extensive modifications to operational practice. Cycling does
damage the plant and impact its life expectancy compared to
baseload operations. However, strategic modifications, proactive inspections and training programs, and various operational
changes to accommodate cycling can minimize the extent of
damage and minimize cycling-related maintenance costs.
Generation (GW)
100
75
Curtailment
Wind
PV
CSP
Storage
Other
Gas CT
Gas CC
Hydro
Geothermal
Coal
Nuclear
Strategic modifications, proactive

inspections and training programs,
and various operational changes to
accommodate cycling can minimize
the extent of damage and minimize
cycling-related maintenance costs.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CGS PLANT
When it came online in the 1970s, the CGS plant was intended
to run at an 80% annual capacity factor. However, the addition of nuclear power soon thereafter displaced coal as the
principal source of baseload generation. Consequently, CGS
typically ran at 50% annual capacity factor until the early
1990s. To understand the effects of two-shifting (i.e., cycling
on and off in a day) considerable research was conducted in
the 1980s. As a result, plant operations, the steam generator,
and supporting equipment were modified.
FIGURE 1. Simulated dispatch of generation over one week

in a high renewable energy scenario (annual load served by
25% wind, 8% solar photovoltaic).
After a competitive market was introduced in the early 2000s,

the CGS plant was operated for longer periods at full plant
outputthis period was also marked by significant forced outages. For example, in 2004, the equivalent forced outage rate
(EFOR)a measure of a plants unreliabilitywas 32%, which
represented the accumulated latent damage from the cycling
that CGS performed in the 1990s. Typical EFOR for a baseload
coal-fired power plant is 6.4%.2
Notes: PV = solar photovoltaic; CSP = concentrated solar power; CT = combustion

turbine; CC = combined cycle
Source: Lew et al., 2013
The competitive market created the incentive for CGS units to

continue to operate flexiblyfor example, that they be able to
50
25
0
Mar 25 Mar 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar 29 Mar 30 Mar 31 Apr 01
41
T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S
thermal stresses within single components and between different components when materials heat at different rates.
Other typical effects of cycling and operating at low loads
include:
Stresses on components and turbine shells resulting from
changing pressures
Wear and tear on auxiliary equipment used only during
cycling
Corrosion caused by oxygen entering the system during
start-up and by changes in water quality and chemistry
Condensation from cooling steam during ramping down
and shutting down, which can cause corrosion of parts,
water leakage, and an increased need for drainage
FIGURE 2. Example of large nick in turbine fin (#96) due to impact
with dislodged material formed by oxidation (Debra Lew)
two-shift and operate at an output below intended minimum
load. Although the two- and sometimes four-shifting created
wear and tear and reduced the plants cost competiveness,
the CGS owners operated the plant in this fashion to compete
in the wholesale power market.
These effects (summarized in Table 1) can cause equipment

components, particularly in the boiler, to fatigue and fail. In turn,
equipment failure leads to increased outages, increased operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, additional wear and tear
from the increased O&M, and more extensive and sophisticated
training, inspection, and evaluation programs.3 The damage
from cycling is not immediatefor example, components may
fail and EFOR may rise a few years after significant cycling.
MODIFYING THE PHYSICAL PLANT
AND OPERATING PROCEDURES
EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF CYCLING AT CGS

The CGS coal units were intended to primarily run at full output
and start cold only a few times a year. However, each CGS coalfired unit has experienced an average of 1760 starts, including
523 cold starts throughout its lifetime. The overarching effect
of this type of cycling is thermal fatigue. For example, large
temperature swings from cold feedwater entering the boiler
on start-up and from steam as it is heating create fluctuating
Physical Modifications
The CGS plant owner made numerous physical modifications
to equipment to prevent and address impacts from cycling and
low-load operations. These changes have focused on actions
that improve drainage and thermal resiliency and reduce
TABLE 1. Specific experiences from cycling at CGS

Problem
Failure of boiler tubes
Impact/Cause
Caused by cyclic fatigue, corrosion fatigue, and pitting
Cracking in dissimilar metal

welds, headers, and valves
Due to rapid changes in steam temperature
Cracking of generator rotors
Due to movement between the rotor and casing during barring

(slow turns to keep rotors from being left in one position too long during turning-gear operation)
Oxidation from exposure to

air on start-up and draining
Oxides in boiler tubes can dislodge due to thermal changes and

lead to damage downstream, such as the turbine blades (see Figure 2)
Corrosion of turbine parts

Condenser problems
42
From oxides, but also from wet steam that occurs on start-up, during
low-load operations, and during poor plant storage conditions when the plant is dried
Can occur when thin tubes crack from thermal stresses at start-up and shutdown
opportunities for corrosion, as described in Table 2. There were

no major capital retrofits to allow additional cycling flexibility.
Decisions on whether and when to replace parts or modify components were made on a case-by-case basis. In other words,
the plant owner based such decisions on whether wholesale
power market opportunities in the coming year justified the
cost of modifications to reduce the forced outage rate.
Operating Procedures
The owner of CGS estimates that once the physical changes
were in place, 90% of future cost savings came from modifying
operating procedures. For example, establishing procedures
and training on boiler ramp rates was especially effective.
Controlled ramp rates help minimize thermal fatigue; continual
reinforcement of the importance of controlled ramping through
training helps ensure that ramp rate procedures are followed.
Another example of effective modifications to operating procedures is high-energy (i.e., high temperature or pressure
steam) piping inspections, the value of which is not always
appreciated at other coal-fired power plants. The inspection
program at CGS covers all the failure mechanisms that can
occur (e.g., thermal and corrosion fatigue), and establishes a
repair process and a repair program for each failure mechanism. The owner employs many similar inspection programs,
for example, for the hanger rods that hold the high-energy
piping. These examples illustrate that effective operating procedures require an understanding of all components impacted
by cyclingnot just the major ones. Table 3 describes some of
the modifications that were made to CGSs operating procedures to support cycling.
Changes to plant operating procedures were critical to
enabling CGS to cycle on and off cost-effectively. Controlling
the rise in temperatures during plant start-up and temperature
drops on shutdowns as well as having rigorous inspection programs for major and minor components limited the damage
from cycling. Training programs to reinforce the skills needed

to monitor the impacts of cycling were also central to the CGS
owners strategy.
A LOOK AT COSTS AND EMISSIONS
The costs associated with cycling, and modifications made
in response, are difficult to distinguish from normal operation efforts. Modifications were made over the course of
decades, in response to both cycling and noncycling wear
and tear, to achieve EFOR rates that varied highly by unit and
year. Extrapolating cost implications to other coal-fired power
plants generally from the experiences at CGS is difficult due to
variations in age, design, and history of operations. Moreover,
decisions on the scope and timing of modifications depend
on business case justifications, which are highly market- and
context-driven and could vary from year to year.
Studies of coal-fired power plants, such as Kumar et al.,5 evaluate cycling costs by calculating operating, maintenance, and
repair costs associated with cycling. The plants in this study
represent typical operations where coal-fired power plants
are operated and maintained according to baseload requirements. However, the CGS plant owner recognized early on that
CGS would be cycling significantly and, therefore, modified
operating practices and equipment to minimize the impacts of
cycling. Thus, because of the owners proactive changes, the
costs to mitigate cycling based on EFOR rates at CGS are likely
less than those for other plants with similar cycling and EFOR
rates whose owners are not as proactive.
Cycling also incurs costs associated with increased emissions
rate. The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, which controls some emissions, must be operated at a minimum load.
However, if a power plant needs to operate below this level,
the owners may have authority to run the plant without the
SCR system, as is the case with CGS. Other emissions impacts
occur due to increased fuel use at start-ups, reduced plant
efficiency at less than full load, and reduced effectiveness
TABLE 2. Examples of physical modifications to support cycling

Boiler
Added a metal overlay to water walls to minimize oxidation, cut back membranes in various areas to reduce
start-up stresses, and replaced dissimilar metal welds.
Turbines
Added drains, upgraded the lubrication system, modified vacuum pumps and low-pressure crossover bellows,
and inspected the non-return valves, which can be damaged during shutdowns.
Generator
Rotors
Insulated and epoxied key parts to reduce rotor cracking from rubbing and established continual tests and
checks to monitor trends.
Condenser
Plugged tubes at the top of the condenser that had been damaged as a result of low-load operation and
water impingement, reducing overall efficiency; also installed stainless-steel air removals and retubed the
existing brass on several units.
43
TABLE 3. Example modifications to operating procedures to support cycling
Natural cooling
Accelerated forced cooling for the boiler enabled the owner to quickly shut down the unit to repair
a boiler tube and be back online in two days. However, after a year of implementing accelerated
forced cooling, the units recorded a noticeable increase in corrosion and cyclic fatigue failures. The
shutdown procedures are now to keep the boiler shut for the first four hours (natural cooling).
Monitoring economizer
inlet headers
Economizer inlet headers can crack from intermittent additions of cold feedwater to the hot inlet
header. The plant owner keeps the temperature difference between the header and water at less
than 30C, below the boiler manufacturer recommendations.4
Pressure part
management
The owner established a pressure-part management program, reviewing every pressure

component and establishing causes for degradation and failure.
Other changes to boiler

operating procedures
These included a program to monitor boiler metal temperature; a tube replacement and
inspection strategy; a thermal and cyclic fatigue inspection and repair program; a fly-ash erosion
program to reduce tube failures; and inspection programs for expansion joints, dissimilar metal
welds, and flow-accelerated corrosion.
Temperature monitoring
for turbine parts
The owner established training and monitoring procedures, with associated monitoring
equipment, to limit ramp rates and to monitor temperature changes to thick-walled fittings,
headers, and the casing to the main steam line.
Water chemistry
maintenance
To reduce corrosion, proper water chemistry must be maintained to protect surfaces that oxidize.
Water chemistry varies with cycling, so the owner maintains a chemistry staff onsite
and established a Chemistry Managed System (following ISO standards).
Overall monitoring
programs
The owner compared reports on best practices associated with cycling with CGSs equipment
status and mitigating actions and created an overall plant monitoring program.
of pollution-control equipment when flue gas temperatures

at start-up are too low to support the chemical reactions
needed.6 Although emissions rates during cycling can be
higher than during noncyclic operation, Lew et al.6 showed
that the avoided emissions from the added wind and solar far
outweigh the impacts of cycling-induced emissions.
boiler to reduce thermal shocking of tubes in the boiler. In contrast, almost all other boilers in North America are a pendant
design, which results in water accumulating at the bottom of
the U-shape and leading to slow drainage. This design cannot
be modified, although a $1015-million bypass system could be
added to improve temperature control and reduce tube failure.
CAN THE CGS EXPERIENCE BE REPLICATED?
Automation of CGSs drainage system, absent in most coalfired power plants, was also critical to reducing failures. Earlier
in plants projected lifetimes, such major retrofits could be
economically feasible.
The CGS plant achieved the flexibility to cycle over several

decades; this experience has provided valuable information
on impacts, recommended modifications to operations and
equipment, and relative costs. However, some of the aspects
of CGS that improve the plants flexibility might not easily
translate to other contexts.
Physical Distinctions
Some of CGSs original plant designs are conducive to cycling
the owner did not need to conduct major-capital retrofits. For
example, CGSs boiler tubes are horizontal, which facilitates
cycling by improving drainage; this reduces corrosion fatigue and
the time needed to come back online (see Figure 3). Effective
operating practice requires drainage of any residual water in the
44
Operating Distinctions
CGS experiences much higher EFOR rates than typically
accommodated in markets where coal-fired power plants run
at baseload. The plant owner can manage these high EFOR
rates because of the role CGSs coal-fired units play in its system operations. The owner found that EFOR rates could be
reduced by being highly proactive with inspections and strategic operational modifications.
However, a trade-off between maintenance costs and EFOR
rates exists. Grid operators may need to change how they
operate their systems, and coal-fired power plant operators

may require a cultural shift to adapt to higher EFORs. This is
particularly true because justifying maintenance costs over
EFOR rates could become increasingly difficult if the cost per
unit of energy generated increases at low load.
Gas Flow
Gas Flow
Regulatory Distinctions
Operating at low generation levels could be challenging if
plants are required to run environmental controls at all output
levels. Operating an SCR system requires a minimum generating level that is frequently higher than the low generating
levels at which the CGS plant owner is permitted to operate.
FROM BASELOAD TO PEAKING PLANT
Pendant Design
FIGURE 3. CGS has a horizontal, not pendant, boiler design,

which facilitates drainage needed to reduce corrosion fatigue
and allow the plant to come online faster. The pendant
design more easily allows water accumulation. (Graphic:
Steve Lefton, Intertek)
At CGS, the plant owner has achieved what few coal-fired

power plant operators have been able to do: modify a plant
that was intended to run only at baseload into one that can
meet peak demandscycling on and off up to four times a
day to meet morning and afternoon electricity demand. Key to
the owners success is changing operational practices: monitoring and managing temperature ramp rates; creating a suite
of inspection programs for all impacted equipment (large and
small); and continual training to reinforce the skills needed in
monitoring and inspections.
NOTES
The owners success in cycling has also benefited from factors

specific to CGS. The original plant design, although intended for
baseload operation, included features that facilitate cycling.
Although the cycling features were an advantage for the units
operating regime, additional modifications and procedural
changes were required to improve equipment reliability.
REFERENCES
Also, the decades-long practice in cycling has increased the

owners tolerance for rates of forced outages that are higher
than those that are typical for plants required for baseload.
The ability of other coal-fired power plant operators to replicate CGSs flexibility will be instrumental in valuing coal in an
increasingly low-carbon energy system. Although the CGS unit
has certain inherent design features that assist in its operating
mode, retrofits and operational modifications to other coalfired power plants can allow for increased flexible generation
across many power systems. Coal-fired power plants can
cycle, and if designed and operated appropriately, can provide
flexibility, sometimes more significantly than even CGS. There
is a cost to cycle and also increased risk of unavailability, but
this is true for other types of generation as well.
Horizontal Design
A. For commercial reasons the CGS is not further identified.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This publication was produced under direction of the 21st
Century Power Partnership by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) under Interagency Agreement DE-AC3608GO28308 and Task Nos. WFH1.2010 and 2940.5017.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Cochran, A., Lew, D., & Kumar, N. (2013). Flexible coal: Evolution
from baseload to peaking plant, NREL Report No. BR-6A20-60575.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.
gov/docs/fy14osti/60575.pdf
Vuorinen, A. (2007). Planning of power system reserves, www.
optimalpowersystems.com/stuff/planning_of_power_system_
reserves.pdf
Electric Power Research Institute. (2001). Damage to power
plants due to cycling. Product ID 1001507. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.
www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?Product
Id=000000000001001507
Babcock & Wilcox. (1994). Economizer inlet header cracking.
www.babcock.com/library/pdf/PSB-22.pdf
Kumar, N., Besuner, P., Lefton, S., Agan, D., & Hilleman, D.
(2012). Power plant cycling costs. NREL/SR-5500-55433. Work
performed by Intertek-APTECH, Sunnyvale, California. Golden,
CO: NREL. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf
Lew, D., et al. (2013). The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study
Phase 2. NREL/TP-5500-55588. Golden, CO: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55588.pdf
The authors can be reached at Jaquelin.Cochran@nrel.gov,

debralew@gmail.com, and Nikhil.Kumar@intertek.com
45
T ECH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S
Geothermal Assisted Power

Generation for Thermal Power Plants
By Nigel Bean
Chair of Applied Mathematics,

School of Mathematics, University of Adelaide
Josephine Varney
Ph.D. Candidate, University of Adelaide
he recent push to reduce carbon emissions from the

electricity sector encompasses common, immediately
available approaches such as increasing power plant
efficiency and increasing the deployment of renewables. The
opportunity now exists to accomplish these goals simultaneously through the use of geothermal energy to increase the
power output, and decrease the carbon intensity, of thermal
power plants. This technology is referred to here as geothermal
assisted power generation (GAPG). Basically, GAPG employs
hot geothermal fluid to heat the boiler feedwater at a thermal
power plant. The steam that would otherwise be taken from
the turbines to heat the feedwater is allowed to run through
the turbines, thereby generating extra power and increasing
plant efficiency. Here we use efficiency to mean fossil fuel
efficiency, as more power is generated per unit heat (MMBtu)
of fossil fuel, because of the addition of the geothermal heat.
Not only would this technology increase the efficiency of existing thermal power plants, most of which are coal fired, it would
also assist the development of the immature technology of
Steam rises as a result of the excess heat of a standalone

geothermal plant. GAPG would use geothermal heat more
efficiently.
46
utilizing unconventional geothermal resources. As coal-fired

power plants rarely exist near conventional (hydrothermal,
volcanogenic) geothermal resources, some have drawn the
incorrect conclusion that GAPG is of little value or can only
be applied in rare cases. However, the development of unconventional (nonhydrothermal, nonvolcanogenic) geothermal
resources offers the potential for geothermal energy to be
exploited over a much larger geographic range. Therefore, we
believe that GAPG should be strongly considered as a means
for integrating conventional energy with renewable energy in
the most efficient manner possible.
Up to three times as much power

can be generated per kilogram of
geothermal fluid as can be achieved
in a stand-alone geothermal plant.
UNCONVENTIONAL GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
Geothermal energy has been defined as utilizable heat from
the earth.1 Given that the earths temperature increases with
depth below the surface, geothermal energy exists everywhere.
Further, since it is possible to use geothermal energy to generate power, it has the potential to be a renewable, carbon-free
source of baseload electricity. However, while geothermal
energy exists everywhere, the cost of extracting this energy
does not make it commercially viable everywhere. To be commercially viable a geothermal resource must have sufficient
temperature and flowrate that can be accessed relatively simply.
Conventional geothermal resourcescharacterized by depths
of <3000 m, high temperature, and highly permeable rock
formationsare generally commercially viable, depending
on the regional energy market (see Figure 1). Such resources
are usually found in volcanic regions, but the last 40 years
have seen growing activity in research and development of
the unconventional geothermal resources that exist outside
the volcanic regions. To date, only one of these resources,
at Landau in Germany, has been shown to be commercially
viable. However, given the significant promise of the unconventional geothermal resource, work to develop it continues.
VOLCANIC
SEDIMENTARY
ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS
POWER
POWER
POWER
INSULATING
SEDIMENTS
INSULATING
SEDIMENTS
INSULATING
SEDIMENTS
Underground Water Reservoir
Underground Water Reservoir
HOT VOLCANICS
SANDSTONES OR CARBONATES
FRACTURES ENHANCED BY STIMULATION
HEAT FROM CENTER

OF EARTH
HEAT FROM CENTER

OF EARTH
HYDROTHERMAL
VOLCANIC
HOT ROCKS
FIGURE 1. Schematic of geothermal resources

The first step is to find geothermal resources with sufficient
temperature and at a depth that can be drilled economically.
Unconventional geothermal resources with the potential to be
used for electricity generation are divided into two types: deep
natural reservoirs (DNRs) and enhanced geothermal systems
(EGSs).1 DNRs are systems that make use of deep, naturally
occurring aquifers with high permeability. EGS resources have
little natural permeability, hence these resources must have
their permeability increased via stimulation or fracturing.
The most significant unknown in unconventional geothermal
systems is the flowrate per well (or well pair). Unconventional
geothermal resources are chosen for their heat and their
potential permeability. The degree of permeability of a
resource is directly linked to its flowrate. However, when
there is insufficient natural flowrate, a reservoirs permeability
can be increased by fracturing. Stimulation technology in a
geothermal context is immature, producing good results some
of the time.1 However, stimulation technology has provided
huge productivity improvements in oil and gas wells, so there
is hope that similar results will be possible in unconventional
geothermal wells. Still, there must be sufficient unconventional
geothermal developments to allow stimulation trials/demonstrations to support the development of this technology.
In the near term, the development of unconventional geothermal resources holds significant financial risks, which are
largely based on specific geological formations and the need
for stimulation. Such risks must be mitigated in some way;
from this perspective, GAPG is a major opportunity. Figure 1
shows a simplified means of extracting geothermal energy.
Note that actual geothermal developments have many wells,
as each producing well can only produce a limited amount of
flow. This means that the flow from any geothermal resource
increases in a stepwise manner, with each new producing well
drilled.
UNDERSTANDING GAPG THROUGH MODELING
GAPG is based on the concept of using high-temperature
geothermal fluid to heat the boiler feedwater of a thermal
power plant. It was first suggested by Khalifa et al. in 19782 as
a replacement for low-pressure feedwater heaters (FWHs). In
2002, Bruhn built on Khalifas design,3 making it significantly
47
more flexible by allowing GAPG to partially replace any of the

low-pressure FWHs. After considering the low-temperature
geothermal resources most often available near thermal
power plants, in 2010, Buchta focused on very low-temperature geothermal fluids (30100C) and considered applying
GAPG to only the first low-pressure FWH.4
Of course, geothermal energy is not the only renewable energy
source that can be applied to increasing the efficiency of thermal
power plants. Hu et al. investigated both geothermal and solar
thermal sources for efficiency gains5 and found that the higher
temperatures achievable from solar power makes it possible to
consider applying heat to the intermediate- and high-pressure
FWHs. Then, more recently, Varney and Bean determined the
net-power gain for all feasible geothermal flowrates and, further, discussed the flowrate and power limits of GAPG.6
Focused research over many years has generally found that
GAPG can be retrofitted to any large thermal power station,
although the economics are site-specific. It can be used to
fully or partially replace the low-, intermediate-, or high-pressure FWHs; however, it is most likely to be used to replace only
the low-pressure FWHs. Depending on the needs of the individual plant, GAPG can increase the power generated (power
boosting mode) or it can be run to reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed (fuel saving mode). The simplest and most
flexible implementation was described by Bruhn and is shown
in Figure 2.3 In Bruhns implementation of GAPG, feedwater
is withdrawn upstream of the first low-pressure FWH and is
then heated by the geothermal fluid in the geothermal feedwater heater (GFWH). The geothermally heated feedwater is
then returned to the feedwater stream via flows G1, G2, G3,
and/or G4 (depending on the temperature and flowrate of

the geothermal fluid).
Given that geothermal fluids are not clean enough to mix with
feedwater, GAPG can only be used to replace closed feedwater heaters (i.e., not the deaerator). In order to cool the
extra steam coming through the turbine(s), additional condenser capacity is required, which could be managed by the
installation of a new, small condenser.
RESULTS
In our modeling, we retrofitted GAPG to a 500-MW naturalgas-fired, supercritical steam power station, specifically, the
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Riverside Station Unit 1.
Although we modeled a gas-fired plant, the analysis could
have been applied to a coal-fired power plant and would yield
the same results.
One major advantage of GAPG is its flexibility: Power can be
generated from low geothermal fluid flowrates that otherwise
might be of little value in a stand-alone geothermal facility.
As these flowrates increase, power generation increases. For
example, see Figure 3 which shows the incremental electricity
generated as the flowrate of the geothermal fluid is increased.
Note that three different temperatures were evaluated (i.e.,
150, 175, and 200C).
Using geothermal heat to boost the efficiency of a thermal
power plant increases thermal efficiency above stand-alone geothermal plants by 1.7 to 2.9 times, depending on the geothermal
Units: FWH - Feedwater heaters,
GFHW - Geothermal feedwater heater
States: Fs, Gs, bs Flows: s, s
Steam:
Condensate:
Geothermal Fluid:
GTh_C
Steam take-os from

low pressure turbine
GFWH
GTh_H
G3
G2
G1
T
G
G2 2
G1 1
G4
G4 4
G3 3
b1
T- 7- 6- 5
b1_4
FWH1
F1
1+ 2 + 3 + 4
FIGURE 2. Schematic of GAPG

48
FWH2
FWH3
FWH4
F2
F3
3 + 4
F4
4
2+ 3 + 4
T- 7- 6- 5
Coal-Fired Power Generators
Extra Net Power (MW)
GAPG allows coal-fired power plants to generate more power

and reduce their carbon intensity through increased efficiency.
Once a geothermal developer brings hot geothermal fluid to
the surface, GAPG yields very little risk for the power plant
owner. The revenue that can be generated by extra power
production will be recognized by the plant operators, as will
the capital costs of installing the necessary geothermal feedwater heat exchangers, additional condenser capacity, and
extra piping. Hence, power plant operators can decide what
they are willing to pay for the hot geothermal fluid in order to
make sufficient profitsa site-specific consideration. Finally, if
the geothermal fluid stops flowing, for any reason, the power
plant can revert to its original operating conditions.
30
25
20
15
10
5
50
100
150
200
Geothermal Fluid Temperature (C)
1
250
Maximum Extra Net Power/

Original Net Power (%)
Maiximum Extra
Net Power (MW)
25
290
270
250
230
210
190
170
150
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATIONS
30
Maximum Geothermal
Flowrate (kg/s)
fluid temperature.6 However, there is a limit to the amount of

geothermal energy that can be utilized through GAPG at any
given thermal power plantonce the appropriate FWHs are
totally replaced by geothermal feedwater heaters, no further
additional power can be produced. To achieve this maximum
power limit, a geothermal resource temperature greater than
the outlet of the hottest appropriate FWH (in our modeling the
hottest low-pressure FWH was ~160C) is needed (see Figure
4a). As the geothermal resource temperature increases above
~160C, the flowrate required to reach this maximum power limit
decreases (see Figure 4b). At temperatures less than ~160C, the
maximum power limit cannot be achieved, irrespective of the
flowrate (see Figure 4a). Our modeling showed that power could
be increased by a maximum of ~6.5% in the modeled 500-MW
supercritical plant. To achieve maximum power, a geothermal
fluid flowrate of 190290 kg/s was needed, with lower flowrates for the higher geothermal fluid temperatures and higher
flowrates for the lower geothermal fluid temperatures. Despite
this maximum power limit, considering the reduced risk to the
geothermal developer and the power producer, it is still likely to
be worthwhile to take advantage of GAPG.
50
100
150
200
250
Geothermal Fluid Temperature (C)

FIGURE 4. (a) Maximum power output from GAPG; (b)
maximum flowrate
Geothermal Developers
Unquestionably, greater deployment of GAPG has major implications for geothermal developers. GAPG allows them to focus
on what they do best, getting hot geothermal fluid from the
ground to the surface, and does not require the expertise or
capital to produce and sell electricity. Further, the power plant is
able to generate up to three times as much power per kilogram
of geothermal fluid as a stand-alone geothermal power plant.6
Importantly, GAPG allows the developer to sell whatever hot
fluid they are able to get to the surface. This means that they can
take small stepsgenerate some revenue while learning more
about the local geothermal resource and enhancing their capability. Later, the flowrate could be increased to further increase
the amount of heat provided to the thermal power plant.
20
COSTS
15
10
150C
175C
200C
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Geothermal Fluid Flowrate (kg/s)

FIGURE 3. Geothermal fluid flowrate versus power generation
Looking at the equipment required for a GAPG development,

drilling costs clearly are the largest and most significant portion of the overall capital cost. Of course, drilling costs vary
significantly with geology and local drilling market conditions.
For example, it is estimated that, on average, a 1.5-km deep
well in the U.S. will cost $2.9 million and a 5-km well will cost
49
$10.5 million. However, in Australia, which has a small number of local drilling rigs and had to mobilize some rigs from
the U.S., the expected cost for similar wells is $6.6 million and
$15.3 million (all estimates are given in U.S. 2014 dollars).1
Further, it is difficult to estimate how many wells are required,
because flowrate per well is the other significant unknown
in unconventional geothermal developments. The highest
flowrate from an unconventional geothermal well has been
observed at a site in Landau, Germany, which has a flowrate
of 70 kg/s. However, the next highest flowrate per well was
recorded at Habanero 1 in Australia, which achieved a maximum flowrate of 40 kg/s. For these reasons, an average cost
for a GAPG development cannot accurately be provided.
Additionally, as mentioned earlier, stimulation technology,
which can potentially increase flowrate, is currently far from
certain. Therefore, predicting the total costs to produce a
given flowrate at a particular site is currently highly uncertain.
However, with knowledge gained through further deployment
of GAPG (or other forms of exploration in unconventional geothermal resources) this uncertainty can be reduced.
Although accurate costings cannot be provided, it is fair to say
that, in general, unconventional geothermal developments
(without the integration offered by GAPG) are not commercially viable yet. Based on drilling costs from the U.S., it is
estimated that flowrates in the vicinity of 80100 kg/s per
well are required for commercial viability.1 However, it is clear
that GAPG provides up to three times more power than standalone unconventional geothermal developments. As much as
geothermal energy development is driven by local markets,
including renewable portfolio standards, it is important that
GAPG be recognized as a renewable energy even though it is
integrated with existing thermal power plants.
Although the economics of GAPG will be uncertain until the
technology is deployed, it is certain that GAPG is more economical than stand-alone geothermal plants. In addition,
as greater experience and improved technology make lower
drilling costs and higher flowrates possible, unconventional
geothermal developments used for GAPG will become an ideal
first step toward making unconventional geothermal energy
commercially viable on a broad scaleto the future benefit of
both geothermal energy developers and the energy consumers
who currently rely on electricity from thermal power plants.
LOOKING FORWARD
Unconventional geothermal energy is a relatively immature
technology, with high capital costs and large risks, but also
50
with enormous potential. Geothermal energy is one of the

few renewable energies capable of providing baseload power;
further, the size of the unconventional resource is potentially
truly vast.1 For unconventional geothermal energy to progress it must take small steps and GAPG offers one such step.
Additional opportunities may exist for the application of geothermal energy at conventional power plants in the future. For
instance, low-temperature geothermal fluids are characterized
by temperatures in the range of the regeneration temperatures of post-combustion amine-based CO2 capture systems.
When commercial CCS comes online, GAPG could provide the
thermal load needed for CCS, thus allowing the power plant
efficiency loss from CCS to be dramatically reduced.
GAPG allows unconventional geothermal developers to concentrate on the geothermal resource, not power conversion.
Accordingly, power conversion can be carried out by expert
thermal power plant operators, and up to three times as much
power can be generated per kilogram of geothermal fluid as
can be achieved in a stand-alone geothermal plant. GAPG
offers power plant operators a way to increase power production and decrease their carbon footprint at essentially no risk.
GAPG is potentially a win-win option for both the geothermal
developer and the power plant operator.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency. (2014). Looking forward:

Barriers, risks and rewards of the Australian Geothermal Sector
to 2020 and 2030. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Khalifa. H.E., DiPippo, R., & Kestin, J. (1978). Geothermal
preheating in fossil-fired steam power plants. Proceedings of
the 13th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,
San Diego, California.
Bruhn, M. (2002). Hybrid geothermalfossil electricity generation
from low enthalpy geothermal resources: geothermal feedwater
preheating in conventional power plants. Energy, 27, 329346.
Buchta J., & Wawszczak, A. (2010). Economical and ecological
aspects of renewable energy generation in coal fired power
plant supported with geothermal heat. Paper presented at the
Fourth IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference, 2527
August, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Hu, E., Nathan, G.J., Battye, D., Perignon, G., & Nishimura, A.
(2010). An efficient method to generate power from low to
medium temperature solar and geothermal resources. Paper
presented at Chemeca 2010: Engineering at the Edge, 2629
September, Adelaide, South Australia.
Varney, J., & Bean, N. (2013). Using geothermal energy to preheat
feedwater in a traditional steam power plant. Proceedings of the
38th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California.
The authors can be reached at Nigel.Bean@adelaide.edu.au

and Josephine.Varney@adelaide.edu.au
Shenhuas Development
of Digital Mines
By Han Jianguo
Deputy General Manager, Shenhua Group Co., Ltd

President, China Shenhua Energy Co., Ltd
igital mines are based on the innovative application of

well-established, advanced information technologies
to the areas of geological resource exploration, mine
design and construction, safe and efficient production,
operations, and decision-making. Digital mining allows for
all aspects of mining to be evaluated simultaneously using
digitized displays. The digital mine system can respond to, process, and utilize data to enable integration of different mining
processes so as to achieve unified, centralized management
of mining operations. Digital mining incorporates modern
mining operations characterized by increased safety, reduced
environmental impact, intelligence, and high efficiency.1 In
China, Shenhua Group (Shenhua) has led the development
and deployment of digital mines. The demonstration of
Chinas first digital mine successfully came online in the Jinjie
Coal Mine of Shenhuas Shendong Coal Group, Co., Ltd on 27
December 2013, representing a major milestone for Shenhua
and China.
THE IMPETUS FOR DIGITAL MINES IN CHINA
Chinas government made it clear that the coal industry

should increase efforts during the 12th Five-Year Plan period
(20112015) to develop and deploy an innovative coal system,
founded on science and technology, that addresses the needs
of coal-producing enterprises, is market oriented, and is based
on collaboration between industry, universities, and other
research institutions. This transformation in mining is further
supported by recent policies on safer coal production, energy

conservation, and emissions reduction.
As the primary source of Chinas energy and a raw material
for many industries, coal is pivotal to the nations economic
development. However, coal mining is a complicated operation, often carried out deep underground with many potential
risks. These risks can be difficult to detect and even more so
to predict. Among other reasons, advanced mining systems,
such as those incorporated into digital mines, are important
because they can significantly reduce accidents.2
Digital mining incorporates modern

mining operations characterized
by increased safety, reduced
environmental impact, intelligence,
and high efficiency.
Recently, mining technologies in China have been improved in
significant ways: from the use of fully mechanized mining to the
application of large, automated equipment, information technologies, and artificial intelligence. Taking advantage of these
modern technologies has propelled the development of Chinas
coal industryand digital mines are a necessary next step.3
Today, Chinas coal industry is facing the reality of a market
characterized by slowing demand growth, decreased profits
for many coal enterprises, and related problems such as
overstaffing, low efficiency, poor safety records, and poor management. These issues are restricting the healthy and steady
development of coal enterprises. Thus, digital mines and the
associated technologies are needed now more than ever.
ARCHITECTURE AND THE MAJOR
COMPONENTS OF A DIGITAL MINE
The ability to monitor operations from a central location is a

key component of the digital mine at Jinjie.
Shenhuas digital mine was developed taking into consideration

the actual needs of coal producers (both underground and
open-pit) in China. Three key challenges had to be addressed:
mining information acquisition, transmission, and processing.
51
Digital Mine Architecture

Shenhuas digital mine consists of a five-level structure of
information standards (i.e., equipment, controls, production
execution, operation management, and decision support),
which fully incorporate information-based corporate decisionmaking as well as information-based production management
and automated production processes. The complete architecture of the digital mine is shown in Figure 1.
The architecture of Shenhua digital mines includes the components listed in Table 1.
L5
Decision
support level
Operaons
performance management
Enterprise support
on decision-making
L4 Operaon management level

Enterprise resource planning (ERP)
Strategic resource management (SRM)
Strategic resource management system
Coal producon and producon control
Synergized dispatching system of producon,
transportaon, and sale
L3 Producon execuon level
Centralized Platform Design

Two platforms have been developed for Shenhuas digital
minesthe centralized production-monitoring platform and
the production execution platform. Within these platforms are
68 subsystems. Data can be freely transferred among these
platforms and subsystems.
The centralized production-monitoring platform is primarily
used to integrate data and to control the onsite surveillance
system and monitoring system; the production execution platform mainly provides support to the subsystems of production
Centralized intelligent and integrated producon management system
L2 Controls level
Centralized producon monitoring and control system
L1 Equipment level
Smart controllers Smart instruments Base staons Smart cameras
FIGURE 1. The integrated application architecture of digital

mines
and management for data exchanges between production
management and control.
The interacting network for underground coal mines is
shown in Figure 2. As shown in the figure, information can
be exchanged and shared through a network. An interface
TABLE 1. Major components in Shenhuas digital mine

Digital Mine Area
Components Included
Infrastructure
Data center, network, admin communication system, dispatching display, and a video-conference system
Centralized
Production
Monitoring
System
Monitoring system: Fully mechanized coal mining face, heading face, hoisting system, main transport,
subsidiary transport, power distribution, water supply and sewage, ventilation, coal washery, truck
loading, gas extraction, nitrogen injection, grouting, fire control sprinkling, refrigeration and cooling, air
compression, boilers, and outsourcing coal monitoring
Surveillance system: Safety surveillance and monitoring, personnel and vehicle tracking and positioning,
industrial television, communication dispatch, early warning of gas and coal outburst, beam tubes,
dust, hydrogeology, roof pressure, microseism of ground pressure, wastewater treatment, waste rock
discharge in production, gas inspector patrolling, and an unattended intelligent lamp room system
Production
Execution
System
Production execution platform, with a 3D exhibition subsystem, production management subsystem,

dispatch management subsystem, electromechanical management subsystem, one ventilation and
three prevention management, safety management subsystem, coal quality management subsystem,
design management subsystem, energy conservation and environmental protection management
subsystem, central data analysis subsystem, etc.
Operation
Management
System
Management of planning and overall budget, enterprise resource planning (ERP), supplier relation,
customer relation, strategic resource (SRM), costing, system, intrinsic safety, office automation, auditing,
science and technology, energy conservation and emission reduction, archives, references, statistics,
administration and logistics, coal production supervision, etc.
Decision
Support System
Operation performance management and enterprise decision support
52
Enterprise
decision
support
Operaon
performance
management
Coal
producon
supervision
and
management
Office
automaon
Safety
management
Project
management
ERP system
Equipment
management
Operaon
management
and decision
system
Human
resources
Operaon and
decision-making
3D exhibion
Central data
analysis
Energy
conservaon and
environmental
protecon
Design
management
Coal quality
management
Safety
management
One venlaon
and three
prevenon
Electromechanical
management
Business
subsystem
Producon
management
Producon
execuon
Producon
execuon system
Dispatch
management
Enterprise service bus (ESB)
*Plaorm and applicaon adapter, data adapter

Producon execuon plaorm
Centralized producon monitoring plaorm
Hardware interfaces: Hardwired or fieldbus

(CAN, FF, Profibus, Modbus, etc.)
Equipment
Sensors
Base staon
Detecon system
Soware interfaces: Drives
*Interfaces
Instruments
Dispatching
communicaon
Soware interfaces: OPC, drives, DDE/NETDDE,

independent development
Hydrogeology
Truck loading
Hoisng
Heading face
Monitoring system
*Subsystem interfaces
Safety
surveillance
and
monitoring
Hardware interfaces: Upper computer,

PLC, subnetwork, extensions
Fully
mechanized
coal mining
face
Controls
Centralized producon
monitoring system
*Data adapter
Cameras
Etc.
FIGURE 2. The interacting network for digital mines: underground coal mines
meeting international standards is provided at the network
and serial port levels, so that all subsystems can be connected
and various software and hardware can be integrated, making
the systems connected and interconnected.
the coal mine and operation management through a single

display was achieved.
MAJOR INNOVATIONS FROM SHENHUAS

DEMONSTRATION OF THE DIGITAL MINE
Aided by this coal mine monitoring software platform, the

demonstration digital mine operators were able to transition
from a conventional top-down management model to more
efficient, data-based control of mining, excavating, machining,
transporting, and circulating. The use of this software platform
changed the dispatch room into a 24-hour command post,
accomplishing full data sharing, intelligent linkage, and automatic control for mining, excavating, mechanical operating,
transportation, and circulating systems by enabling control
room operators to have full access to data throughout the
mine as well as control of automated equipment and communication with the personnel outside the control room.4
The Jinjie demonstration of Shenhuas digital mine had several

successful aspects. For instance, a software platform for coal
mine monitoring was developed after analysis and assessment
in the Jinjie demonstration mine. Through use of this system,
comprehensive monitoring and multifunctional operation of
Another important accomplishment during the Jinjie demonstration related to the GIS-based automated mining model,
which allows the memory-based shear cutting of the coalface to be controlled remotely from the surface. Models and
parameters for the slicing and control of the coal cutter were
Architecture of the IT Infrastructure

The architecture of the IT infrastructure of Shenhuas digital mines can be divided into three layers, from the lowest
upward: network, mine machine room, and the application
terminals (see Figure 3).
53
IMPACTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

Applicaon Dispatching
display system
terminals
Administrave
communicaon system
Network
plaorm
Servers
ViGap
Backups
Storage
Automaon
network
Data
center
of the
mining
area
Servers
Backups
Virtualizaon
Storage
Resource supply management

Wireless
network
Informaon
network
ViGap
Etc.
System soware Safety facilies
System soware Operang system

Machine
room
for the
mines
Video-conference
ViGap
FIGURE 3. IT infrastructure architecture of the Jinjie coal mine

based on the geological drilling and the actual data (e.g., mining height and fluctuation) of the working face. This system
allowed for coal to be cut automatically and the slicing path
to be recorded. The system was able to receive input through
either the sensors or human intervention. No matter the
source, the system recorded any interventions and incorporated that information into subsequent slicing parameters
(i.e., a self-correcting model). This process repeated itself
automatically, and this technology has been applied to five
other fully automated mining faces in Shenhua Shendong Co.
on a trial basis.
One notable achievement of the Jinjie demonstration mine
related to the transportation of coal on a conveyor whose
speed was regulated using laser-based measurements in an
intelligent closed loop. The laser-based detection device monitors the amount of coal on the belt: When an increase in the
quantity of coal was detected, the conveyor sped up immediately. This system led to energy savings and more efficient
production.
The Jinjie demonstration mine used a 10-GB Ethernet (10giga) underground high-speed transmission network, allowing
the integration of a few sub-networks and allowing real-time
transmission of mass data from multiple sources. In addition,
a wireless portable hand-held terminal was successfully developed and used to monitor the real-time situations at mobile
locations. This underground network was able to satisfy the
need to access and transmit 57,000 measured sources of data
as compared with the conventional 15,000 measured data
points. The transmission network is shown in Figure 4.
By using wireless internet technologies such as 3G, Wi-Fi,
and radio frequency underground, users achieved automated
data collection in real time using mobile terminals such as
cellphones, tablets, and point inspectors, leading to underground paperless records to ensure timely and accurate data
collection.
54
The Jinjie demonstration of Shenhuas digital mine provided

a large amount of information covering all underground
systems, environments, and equipment. This cache of information helped achieve the complete, accurate, real-time,
and automatic collection of data. Based on this, the overall
digital mines program established a big data-based production
command system, which revolutionized how commands and
controls are executed. For example, equipment is controlled
by a remote computer rather than by a person. Additionally,
controls are now centralized rather than decentralized as was
the case in the past.
The construction and application of Shenhuas digital mines
program has been applied at the following sites (in addition
to Jinjie): Da Liuta, Yu Jiaoliang, Shi Yitai, Shangwan, Bu Lianta,
Baode, Wulan Mulun, Ha Lagou, Cun Caota, Liuta, Jinfengcun
Caota, No. 1 mine at Wanli, and Bu Ertai. These 14 applications
are reporting substantial, positive impacts to operations, the
most important of which are described below.
Increased efficiency and downsized payrolls: The shift from
direct onsite control to indirect remote control can reduce
the operation personnel underground. For example, a change
to centralized control can reduce the underground workforce
by 52 production workers. This represents a cost savings of
RMB9.2 million (US$1.49 million) and 190,700 labor hours.
Refined production management and reduced equipment
downtime: Data sharing within the information systems makes
it possible for the equipment and system to operate only as
needed. Therefore, minimizing the ineffective operation time
of the equipment and maximizing production efficiency can
be achieved. Take the main transport belts, for example. It is
estimated that the variable speed control technologies can
increase the utilization of the underground electromechanical equipment by 2%. This translates into a reduced power
consumption of 25% and a cost savings of about RMB500,000
(US$80,883) on each belt per year.
Improved productivity, enhanced recovery of resources, and
increased utilization of equipment: With the implementation of the digital mines program, energy usage is reduced.
Equipment abrasion is also reduced. The output of each coalface is increased by about 10% and excavation of this mining
face is extended by more than 12%. The efficiency of the
workforce can be increased by about 16% and the utilization
of the equipment by about 5%. In the last three years, coal
output increased by 15.09 million tonnes and sales increased
by RMB7.873 billion (US$1.285 billion) in the Jinjie, Da Liuta,
and Yu Jiaoliang mines alone after they implemented the digital mines approach.
Shendongs C & C08 Switch
Telecommunicaon
network
3G clock server
Base staon controller

3G core network of Shendong site
10-giga surface switch
10-giga underground switch
10-giga surface switch

ch
Central substaon
Central substaon
C
Central substaon
Substaon tree and ring networking

Central substaon
Central substaon
10GE backbone circuited network
Substaon chain-shaped networking
FFE opcal port

FE opcal port

h
Central
substaon
FE electrical ports / FE opcal port
FE opcal port
Industrial control PLC Locator card
Central substaon
SMA
Central substaon
Base staon
antenna
Broadcast terminal
Broadcast terminal
Cellphones
Industrial control PLC
Explosion-proof camera
FIGURE 4. Transmission network architecture of the mine at Jinjie

Enhanced safety: With the safety management system, accident prevention and control has replaced reactive approaches
to safety. The artificial intelligence-based early warning system has significantly improved the safety-related data and
considerably improved the safety of mining operations.
A newly formed GIS-based true three-dimensional emergency
rescue system linking the underground with the surface has been
created: Potential problems in operation can be remotely monitored and diagnosed. Experts can propose effective solutions and
provide technical support directly online through consultation.
CONCLUSIONS
The rapid development and mutual integration of IT and
automation technology have rejuvenated organizational management, production and decision-making, and technology
and production scales of Chinas coal industry. The construction and successful operation of Shenhuas digital mines
program is strategically significant for the industry. It will further improve production efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance
core competiveness for mining. It serves as a cornerstone to
the construction of a modern, safe production management
system for the coal industry, leading to a modernized coal
industry with a highly technical foundation, profitable operations, low energy consumption, reduced pollution, increased
safety, and efficient utilization of personnel.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Han, J.G., Yang, H.H., Wang, J.S., & Pan, T. (2012). Research of
construction of digital mine of Shenhua Group. Industry and
Mine Automation, 2012, 38(3), 1114. (In Chinese)
Lu, X.M., & Yin, H. (2010). Definition, connotations and progress
of digital mine. Coal Science and Technology, 38(1), 4852. (In
Chinese)
Wu, L.X. (2000). The digital earth, digital China and digital mine.
Mine Surveying, 1, 69. (In Chinese)
Wang, J.S., & Pan, T. (2014). Practical exploration on construction
of digital mine. Industry and Mine Automation, 40(3), 3235. (In
Chinese)
55
Direct Carbon Fuel Cells: An Ultra-Low

Emission Technology for Power Generation
By Christopher Munnings
Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Energy Flagship
Sarbjit Giddey
Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Energy Flagship
Sukhvinder Badwal
CSIRO Fellow, CSIRO Energy Flagship
nergy, particularly electrical power, is one of the most

critical components of any modern industrial economy
with most economies being based on low-cost abundant
energy supplies. In this regard, coal continues to be the primary energy source of choice for electrical power generation.
Coal can be stored easily and converted into electrical power
on demand regardless of season or local weather conditions.
However, conventional coal-fired power generation can result
in high emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. These can be
captured or neutralized; however, in some cases this can
greatly increase cost.
Net Power Plant Eciency (%)
New coal-based power generation technologies currently

being demonstrated and deployed, such as oxy-combustion,
supercritical or ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants, various gasification technologies, and direct injection coal engines,
can lead to incremental or dramatic reductions in emissions.
Such technologies are critical as the world progresses to
Direct carbon fuel cells are an

emerging technology that has the
potential to almost double electric
efficiency and halve greenhouse
emissions
70
60
50
WHY FUEL CELLS ARE MORE

EFFICIENT THAN COMBUSTION
40
30
20
10
0
Brown Black SC ST
Coal ST Coal ST
USC ST
IGCC
DICE
DCFC
FIGURE 1. Average efficiency of coal-based power generation

technologies
Notes: Brown Coal ST = brown coal steam turbine; Black Coal ST = black coal
steam turbine; SC ST = supercritical steam turbine; USC ST = ultra-supercritical steam turbine; IGCC = integrated gasification and combined cycle (gas
turbine); DICE = direct injection coal engine; DCFC = direct carbon fuel cell
56
low-emission power generation. However, further improvements to conversion efficiency and emission reductions remain
highly desirable. Direct carbon fuel cells (DCFCs) are an emerging technology that has the potential to almost double electric
efficiency (i.e., to 6570%) and halve greenhouse emissions
compared with conventional coal-based power plants. Rather
than burning coal, these fuel cells electrochemically oxidize it;
thus their efficiency is not Carnot cycle limited. (See Figure 1
for a comparison of the efficiency of different coal-to-electricity options.) Furthermore, DCFCs produce two separate
exhaust streams, one that is essentially oxygen-depleted air
and the second being a concentrated stream of CO2. Thus the
energy penalty for CO2 capture is significantly lower (almost
zero) compared to post-combustion capture. DCFCs are at
an early stage of development, but a number of groups have
recently become involved in the development of this technology leading to a range of novel systems and concepts being
investigated. In this article we provide a broad overview of the
technology. More comprehensive technical information on
various systems can be accessed in References 13.
Fuel cells convert fuels to electricity via electrochemical oxidation of fuel, rather than via combustion, to generate heat
and pressure that is then converted into electricity through a
heat engine, such as a steam or gas turbine. In conventional
fuel cells, gaseous (CO, H2, CH4) or liquid (methanol, ethanol)
fuels are converted into electrical power. DCFCs operate via
the same broad principle; however, the solid high-carbon fuel
(such as coal) is consumed to produce electrical power through
reactions (1) and (2), respectively occurring at the cathode
and anode electrodes of the cell. The two electrodes are kept
separated by an oxygen ion-conducting ceramic membrane

(four types of direct carbon fuel cells are shown in Figure 2).
Cathode: O2 + 4e- 2O2-
(1)
Anode: C + 2O2- CO2 + 4e-
(2)
coal to electricity of around 6570% are considered attainable with the remainder of the energy being lost as waste
heat.1 If the waste heat can be utilized (for instance, for coal
drying or pyrolysis) then overall efficiencies in the region of
8090% could be achieved. This is higher than attainable with
a gaseous fuel; for comparison, leading MW-scale molten
carbonate (FuelCell Energy) and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC)
(Bloom Energy), operating on natural gas, have an electrical
efficiency of around 47% and 52%, respectively.
The fuel is housed on the anode side of the membrane with

air being used as the oxidant on the cathode side. The oxygen
molecules become ionized [reaction (1)], and the oxygen ions
flow across the membrane and react with the fuel to produce
CO2 [reaction (2)]. The electrons released via this process
move through an external load generating an electrical current. Fuel cells operate similarly to a battery; however, unlike
a battery, the fuel cell is continuously charged as the fuel is
replaced at the anode as it is consumed.
Solid fuels ... can be easily

separated from the gaseous
products ... leading to nearly
Electrochemical oxidation of fuels to produce electricity is

highly efficient because fuel cells contain few moving parts
and do not rely on pressure or temperature gradients to
operate (again, not Carnot cycle limited). The efficiency of a
fuel cell system is defined by four factors: system losses, fuel
utilization, electrochemical losses, and the thermodynamic
(theoretical) efficiency of the system. The system losses are
typically a minor component (approximately 10%) and are
largely similar for most high-temperature fuel cells. Solid
fuels (such as coal) can be easily separated from the gaseous
products (i.e., CO2 in the exhaust) leading to nearly 100% fuel
utilization compared to 8095% for conventional gaseous fuel
cells. Electrochemical losses are caused by slow reaction kinetics at the electrode/electrolyte interface and transport of ions
through electrodes and the electrolyte. These losses are significantly reduced by operating at high temperature but are
still greater for carbon than for conventional gaseous fuels.
The thermodynamic efficiency of a DCFC is largely independent of temperature, and theoretically 100% of the chemical
energy in the fuel is available for conversion to electricity.
Taking the typical losses into account, practical efficiencies for
Molten metal
CO2
MO
CO2
O
C or CO
Gasication
e-
2-
O2 (air)
C
CO
100% fuel utilization...

FUEL CELL DESIGNS: KEY CHALLENGES
AND TECHNICAL MERITS
DCFC technology is at an early stage of development, with
many organizations focusing on the fundamental aspects of
the technology.1,3 In general, the key challenge is to strike a
balance between cost, performance, and lifetime.
At the core of each proposed fuel cell system is the cell design,
which determines all other features. The four most commonly
suggested fuel cell designs that can use solid fuels are shown
in Figure2 and compared in Table1.
The main difference between each of these systems, and compared with other conventional fuel cells, is the fuel electrode
(anode) and the fuel delivery system. Modifying the fuel electrode allows a greater area for the reactions to occur between
Molten salt
e-
Solid state reaction

e-
e-
CO2
O2-
CO2
CO2
O2 (air)
Reaction zone
Electrolyte
CO32- O2-
C or CO
O2 (air)
C or CO
O2-
O2
Anode
Cathode
FIGURE 2. Pictorial representation of different DCFC designs under consideration globally
57
TABLE 1. Comparison of four common direct carbon fuel cell designs

Descriptor
Molten metal
Metal shuffle
mechanism:
Metal is oxidized at
the surface of the
solid electrolyte.
Design
principles
Advantages
Potential
electric
efficiency
In the molten carbonate

system, the molten
electrolyte is held
between porous
electrodes.
Gasification
Potentially simple fuel Fuel is fed continuously

feed system
to the electrode/
electrolyte interface.
Fast fuel oxidation
reaction
Could use a wide range of
solid fuels
Could use a wide
range of fuels
Has the highest electrical
efficiency of any
High tolerance to
technology
sulfur impurities
Tested mainly with

high-purity non-solid
fuels, e.g., heavy oils,
natural gas
Low cell operating
voltages reduce
efficiency
~30%1
Short cell life

Difficult to stop the
reaction between the
molten carbonate and
other cell materials
Molten carbonate can
speed up the formation
of carbon monoxide
(CO), which is lost to the
exhaust, reducing overall
efficiency
up to 80%1
Solid state
The fuel can be gasified

within the anode chamber
or gasified externally,
then cleaned and fed
to a conventional hightemperature solid oxide or
molten carbonate fuel cell.
The anode is a mixed

ionic electronic
conducting (MIEC)
material.
Conventional solid oxide or

molten carbonate fuel cell
can be used.
Can consume both solid

and gaseous fuels
In the hybrid system,

The metal oxide mixes
the electrolyte is a solid
with molten metal
oxide with the molten
External gasification leads
then contacts the
carbonate only in the fuel to lower efficiency. Internal
fuel.
gasification requires novel
chamber.
anode materials not used
The fuel reduces the
In both cases, fuel mixes
in conventional fuel cells.
oxide back to metal.
with molten carbonate
Both systems can use
which supplies oxygen
porous electrodes.
to the reaction sites via
movement of carbonate
ions.
Very low tolerance

to ash
Disadvantages
Molten carbonate/hybrid
with solid oxide*
Waste heat can be used

to produce gasification
products (CO and H2) to
increase system efficiency.
Large, expensive plant

needed to integrate all
components (e.g., gasifier,
hot gas cleanup, hightemperature fuel cell, gas
turbine, etc.).
The MIEC material

supplies oxide ions and
removes electrons,
allowing the entire anode
surface to be used for
fuel oxidation reactions.
Solid anode material

avoids corrosion and
containment issues of
molten systems.
Less complex than
gasification systems
and allows kW-scale
deployment
before scale-up
Difficult to deliver solid
fuel to reaction sites
Slow reaction kinetics for
fuel oxidation reaction
Comparably low
efficiencies if waste heat
from fuel cells is not used
for gasification.
3558%1,3
6570%1
*Various other molten salts and mixtures of molten salts have been trialed, including sodium and potassium hydroxides with consumable carbon anodes.1
58
The 59-MW fuel cell park, South Korea, is indicative of the

scale of a direct carbon fuel cell facility (photo courtesy of
FuelCell Energy).
the solid fuel and the electrode/electrolyte interface. Having
a larger reaction area means that more electrons can be produced, and therefore more electrical power can be generated.
Conventional fuel cells have porous electrodes, which allow
gas to penetrate and react over a large area. As this is not possible with a solid fuel, alternative fuel electrode designs are
needed to increase the area available for reaction.
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
The fuel requirements are yet to be fully determined, with only
limited studies investigating the effect of impurities and fuel
composition on the overall fuel cell performance. There are no
defined specifications for an ideal fuel; however, fuel properties which could potentially improve the performance of the
fuel cell include high electrical conductivity, low crystallinity,
small particle size, friable particles, high surface area, and low
ash. DCFCs are less sensitive to other fuel properties that are
critical for combustion, such as moisture and thermal content.2
In terms of reactivity with fuel impurities, systems with
molten components generally will have significantly more
stringent fuel requirements as even small levels (less than 1%)
of ash will accumulate within the anode chamber and react
with the molten metal or carbonate components, leading to
solidification of some components and rapid degradation in
cell performance.
If gasification is to be used in conjunction with conventional
fuel cells, then ash can be removed during gasification; however, gas cleanup to remove particulates, sulfur, mercury, and
phosphorous-based impurities would still be required. If these
impurities can be reduced or eliminated via coal cleaning or
careful selection of fuel, then it is likely to significantly reduce
the overall capital cost of the final gasification DCFC installation.
The direct contact solid state designs fall in-between the external gasification fuel cell systems and systems with molten
components and are more resilient to impurities than conventional SOFCs or fuel cells containing molten components. This
is because the MIEC anodes are typically a solid ceramic material, which is far more resistant to chemical attack or poisoning
and thus will tolerate a greater level of impurities and ash than
molten systems. High levels of ash will still be detrimental to the
performance of the fuel cell and will be more difficult to remove
from a fuel cell system than a gasifier. Thus ash content of the fuel
may need to be reduced by fuel pre-processing prior to its use in a
direct-contact solid-state fuel cell. Although high ash contents are
generally considered detrimental, not all ash constituents have a
negative impact on cell performance: Some impurities contribute
to improvement in cell performance. This was well demonstrated
by Rady et al., who showed that the presence of brown coal ash
led to a 25% increase in power output of the fuel cell.
FUEL CELL POWER PLANTS
One key advantage of high-temperature fuel cells is the greater
availability of the waste heat from the system. This, combined
with the low-pressure operation and the modular nature of
fuel cells, allows far greater flexibility in design of fuel cell
plants and leads to greater integration possibilities. Figure 3
provides a schematic overview of an envisaged DCFC power
generation module operated on coal. Depending on the technology chosen, 1030% of the fuels energy may be available as
high-grade heat (600800oC) that could be used for fuel drying
or pyrolysis, used within a low-pressure steam turbine, or used
for the production of syngas. In this way the DCFC can be seen
both as a coal-based power production technology and as a
key enabler for the production of high-value-added products
for export from abundant low-grade fuels, such as Victorian
brown coal. Furthermore, since the waste stream from a DCFC
is pure CO2, this whole process could conceivably have a very
small carbon footprint if CCS is employed. Further reductions
in CO2 emission could be realized if waste biomass sources are
mixed with conventional fossil fuel carbon sources.
CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE
PROSPECTS FOR COAL-FUELED DCFCS
In general, grid-connected fuel cells are becoming a reality
with a number of commercial systems now available in several
markets ranging in size from a few hundred watts to larger
scale units in the MW range. All of these systems operate on
gaseous fuels. These fuel cell systems offer some benefits in
terms of emissions, efficiency, and flexibility of scale, but are
essentially an incremental step when compared to advanced
combined-cycle gas turbines. DCFCs are, by comparison,
in their infancy, but offer a step increase in efficiency over
59
Thermal
output
Coal pretreatment &

pulverization
Oxygen
depleted air
CO2 recycle
Air
Material ow
Gas ow
Thermal ow
800oC
Pure CO2 for

sequestration
Fuel cell
stack
Ash & other

by-products
FIGURE 3. A schematic of an envisaged DCFC power generation module operated on coal

traditional and emerging solid fuel combustion technologies
with the added advantages of low greenhouse gas emissions
and the low cost and energy requirements for CCS. This implies
the fate of DCFCs is largely dependent on developments in the
global energy market. If there is a drive to maintain and grow
power production from solid fuels, particularly low-grade solid
fuels, DCFC is likely to become a very attractive future technology that could offer a 1050% increase in efficiency over
conventional power generation technologies, that is compatible with carbon capture and storage, and that is adaptable in
terms of scale of deployment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of Brown Coal Innovation
Australia (BCIA) for this work and Dr. Aniruddha Kulkarni for the
internal review of this document prior to publication.
60
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., Kulkarni, A., & Munnings, C. (2012).

A comprehensive review of direct carbon fuel cell technology.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 38, 360399.
Rady, A.C., Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., Ladewig, B.P., &
Bhattacharya, S. (2012). Review of fuels for direct carbon fuel
cells. Energy & Fuels, 26, 14711488.
Gur, T.M. (2013). Critical review of carbon conversion in carbon
fuel cells. Chemical Reviews, 113, 61796206.
Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., Kulkarni, A., & Munnings, C. (2014).
Performance evaluation of a tubular direct carbon fuel cell
operating in a packed bed of carbon. Energy, 68, 538547.
Rady, A.C., Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., Ladewig, B.P., &
Bhattacharya, S. (2014). Direct carbon fuel cell operation on
brown coal. Applied Energy, 120, 5664.
The lead author can be reached at Christopher.Munnings@

csiro.au
Exploring the Status of Oxy-fuel

Technology Globally and in China
By Zheng Chuguang
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion,

Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Director, Advanced Coal Technology Consortium,
Clean Energy Research Center
xy-fuel technology is characterized by the use of pure

oxygen or oxygen-enriched gas mixtures to replace air
during combustion of (most often) fossil fuels. After
the fuel is burned, flue gas with a high concentration of CO2
is generated, which facilitates the capture of CO2. First proposed by Abraham in 1982, the purpose of the technology
was to produce CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR).1 As
concerns related to climate change have intensified, the need
to control CO2 emissions (as the principal greenhouse gas)
has also gradually increased in prominence. As a technology
option with great potential for reducing CO2 emissions, oxyfuel combustion has become a focus of research worldwide.2
institutions and companies advancing oxy-fuel technologies include the following: Energy & Environmental Research
Center, Argonne National Labs (ANL), Babcock & Wilcox
(B&W), Air Products, and Jupiter Oxygen in the U.S.; IHI and
Hitachi in Japan; Canmet in Canada; International Flame
Research Foundation in the Netherlands; BHP Billiton,
Newcastle University, and CS Energy in Australia; CIUDEN
in Spain; Alstom in France; Doosan Babcock in the UK; and
Vattenfall in Germany. Extensive research, development, and
demonstrations are also occurring in China (shown in red in
Figure 1), which are discussed in detail in later sections.
Following 30 years of development,

oxy-fuel technology has matured
and possesses the fundamental
characteristics necessary for
THE STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL OXYFUEL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
commercial application.
Figure 1 shows the development status and capacity of oxyfuel projects at various research institutions; projects range in
scope from laboratory scale to commercial applications. Some
projects began as early as the 1980s. The principal research
Pilot-Scale Demonstrations
1000
Capacity (MWe)
100
10
Lab- and pilot-scale (1 MWe)

Pilot- and demonstration-scale (without CCS)
Demonstration-scale (with CCS)
International Comb 11.7

JSIM/NEDO(Oil) 4.0
ANL/EERC 1.0
ANL/BHP 0.2
0.1
1980
Renfrew 30
Callide A 30
Pearl Plant 22
Vattenfall 10 Oxy-coal
13.3
HUST 12
B&W10
CIUDEN 10
Jupiter 6.7
TOTAL CIUDEN 6.7
OHIO 10 (NG) 10
IFRF 1.0
IHI 0.4
Whiterose 426
ENEL 320
Endosa 300
Shenmu 200
FutureGen 168
Youngdong 100
B&W/AL 0.4
ENEL 1.0 HUST 1

Alstom 1.0
PowerGen 0.3
IVD-Stuttgart 0.2
RWE-NPOWER 0.2
HUST 0.1
CANMET 0.1
1990
2000
2010
Since 2005, oxy-fuel pilot projects have significantly advanced

the overall technology. Table 1 lists the pilot projects at the
tens of MWe scale that are under construction or have been
completed. These include the worlds first 10-MWe oxy-fuel
comprehensive process test installation, built by Swedens
Vattenfall in 2008 in Schwarze Pumpe, Germany. The worlds
first 30-MWe oxy-fuel pilot power plant, which also boasted
the worlds largest capacity, was completed by Australias CS
Energy in 2011 in Callide. The 7-MWe oxy-fuel pulverized coal
boiler and worlds first 10-MWe oxygen-enriched fluidized bed
pilot were completed at CIUDENs Technology Development
Center in 2012 in Spain. In China, the first 12-MWe oxy-fuel
power installation will be completed by the end of 2014.
Large-Scale Demonstrations
2020
Year placed into operation

FIGURE 1. Status of international oxy-fuel project research.3
(Projects conducted in China are shown in red.)
Table 2 lists the large-scale oxy-fuel pilot projects being conducted globally. In 2003, the U.S. government announced
plans to construct a zero-emission plant based on coal gasification; the project was named FutureGen. After more than seven
61
TABLE 1. Completed and planned oxy-fuel pilot projects

New or Construction Main
Retrofit
Began
Fuel
Electricity
Generated
CO2
Capture
CCUS
Coal
No
Yes
Yes
2010
Coal
Yes
Yes
No
Retrofit
2009
NG
Yes
Yes
Yes
10
New
2010
Coal
Yes
Yes
No
SCR, FF
CIUDEN (Spain)
New
2010
Coal
Yes
Yes
No
SCR, FF
Jamestown/Praxair (U.S.)
50
New
2013
Coal
No
No
Jupiter Pearl Power Station (U.S.)
22
Retrofit
2009
Coal
No
No
Babcock & Wilcox (U.S.)
10
Retrofit
2008
Coal
No
No
Doosan Babcock (UK)
13
New
2008
Coal
No
No
HUST (China)
12
New
2011
Coal
No
Name (Location)
MWe
Vattenfall (Germany)
10
New
2008
Callide (Australia)
30
Retrofit
Total (France)
10
CIUDEN (Spain)
Phase 2
Phase 2
CO2
Flue Gas
Purity Purification
99.9%
SCR, ESP
FF
99.9%
70%*
FGD
SCR, FF
80%
Notes: SCR = selective catalytic reducer; ESP = electrostatic precipitator; FF = fabric filter; FGD = flue gas desulfurization; NG = natural gas
*Post-drying
years, the direction of this project changed. In August 2010, the

U.S. Department of Energy launched FutureGen 2.0, which was
based on carbon capture from oxy-fuel coal combustion. US$1
billion (the total budget for the project is now $1.3 billion) was
allocated for the construction of a 200-MWe (now adjusted to
168-MWe) commercial-scale oxy-fuel power station. The objective is to obtain 90% carbon capture and remove most of the
pollutants, including SOx, NOx, Hg, and particulate matter.
The UK power company Drax also announced its White Rose
commercial-scale 426-MWe oxy-fuel carbon capture demonstration project. The Yorkshire-based project obtained
official support from the UKs Department of Energy & Climate
Change in December 2013. A front-end engineering design
(FEED) study is currently being conducted.
South Korea is also actively making progress on an oxygenenriched coal-fired power station demonstration projectthe
country plans to build a 100-MWe pilot power station by 2015.
In China, several large-scale oxy-fuel projects are currently
conducting pre-feasibility or feasibility studies, including the
Shenhua Groups 200-MWe Shenmu power plant, Sunlight
Cokings 350-MWe thermoelectric pilot, China Datang
Corporations 350-MWe Daqing power plant, and Xinjiang
Guanghui Energys 170-MWe pilot.
Among the aforementioned industrial-scale installations,
a number of key components necessary for the oxy-fuel
process have been verified. For instance, major power equipment manufacturers such as Alstom, IHI, Doosan Babcock,
Table 2. Large-scale oxy-fuel projects
62
Country
Project Owner/
Power Plant
Scale and Parameters
Technology
Source
Progress and Planned

Construction Start Time
UK
Drax Power
White Rose
426 MWe
Ultra-supercritical
Alstom,
Air Products
Entering Phase 2, feasibility study
U.S.
FutureGen 2.0
Ameren and FGA
168 MWe
Subcritical
B&W, NETL, Foster Wheeler,

Air Liquide
Entering Phase 2,
feasibility study underway
South
Korea
Young Dong
100 MWe
Doosan Babcock
Pre-feasibility study completed;

applying for permit
Hitachi, and B&W have completed evaluation tests on single

10-MWe oxy-fuel swirl burners that can be used in large-scale
demonstrations. Alstom has completed verification tests on
a 15-MWth oxy-fuel tangential combustion system. Foster
Wheeler has completed semi-industrial verification of a
10-MWe oxy-fuel CFB. Gas separation equipment suppliers Air
Products, Linde, and Air Liquide have completed evaluation
tests of compression/purification systems at the 1030-MWth
level. The success of these tests has laid the foundation for
further large-scale projects.
THE CURRENT STATUS OF OXYFUEL TECHNOLOGY IN CHINA
Program for carbon emissions reduction, and launched a comprehensive national system for the research, development, and
demonstration of oxy-fuel-based CO2 capture. Table 3 lists the
major fundamental oxy-fuel combustion research projects supported by the Chinese government and industry.5
HUST has already carried out much research and development
work on basic oxy-fuel combustion, technology development,
and pilot projects, which has largely driven oxy-fuel combustion technology development in China. Based on progress to
date, HUST has developed a roadmap for oxy-fuel technology
development in China (see Figure 2).
Laboratory- and Small-Scale Tests
The foundation for Chinese oxy-fuel combustion research

began in the mid-1990s. Huazhong University of Science and
Technology (HUST) and Southeast University were the first
institutions to focus on the desulfurization mechanisms and
combustion properties of oxy-fuel combustion.4 In 2006, HUST
obtained the support of the first National High Technology
Research and Development Program for carbon emissions reduction and the first National Key Basic Research Development
Table 4 provides an overview of the oxy-fuel combustion

small test systems (>10 kWth) that China has built or plans
to build. Overall, there are two main approaches to oxy-fuel
coal combustion (pulverized coal combustion and fluidized
bed combustion). To support the development of the overall
technology and key components, there has been significant
oxy-fuel-related research activity and platform constructions.2
TABLE 3. Overview of fundamental oxy-fuel combustion research projects in China

Project Type
Project Focus
Organization(s)
Dates
National Key Basic Research

Development Program
Resource utilization and storage with CO2EOR
HUST, et al.
20062010
National Key Basic Research

Development Program
Combustion principles and

separation technologies for low-cost CO2
HUST, et al.
20112015
National High
Technology Research and
Development Program
CO2 emission reduction with synergistic

pollutant removal for coal combustion
HUST
20052008
National High
Technology Research and
Development Program
O2/CO2 cycle combustion equipment

and system optimization
HUST, et al.
20092011
National Science and

Technology Support Program
Key technology and equipment R&D and

for 35-MW oxy-fuel carbon capture
HUST, DBC, SASE
20112014
National Natural Science

Fund Key Project
New concepts and methods for CO2

enrichment through oxy-fuel combustion
HUST
20112014
National Special Project for

International Scientific and
Technological Cooperation
U.S.-Chinese advanced coal technology

cooperation
National Special Project for

International Scientific and
Technological Cooperation
Cooperative research on large-scale carbon

capture and storage
HUST, Institute of Rock and Soil

Mechanics, CAS
20112013
Shenhua Group major

science and technology project
Megatonne coal-fired
carbon capture demonstration
HUST
20122014
HUST, Tsinghua University, et al. 20122014
Notes: DBC = Dongfang Boiler Group Co., Ltd; SASE = Sichuan Air Separation Equipment Co., Ltd; CAS = Chinese Academy of Sciences
63
50 kWth
Oxy-CFB pilot
Fundamental
study
1995
2005
2008
300 kWth PC pilot
Burner development,
data collection, optimization,
and thermal design
40 MWth plant
2.5 MWth CFB

oxyfuel boiler
Commercial-scale
burner, long-term
operation
In-bed head exchanger
2011
2012
3 MWth PC pilot
7000 tonnes CO2/yr

full chain validation ASU-CPU
coupling FGC and drying
2013
2014
200600 MWe
Million tonnes/yr
CO2-EOR
20152020
35 MWth plant
0.1 million tonnes CO2/yr capture

ASU-CPU-power generation
integration and optimization
FIGURE 2. Roadmap for research and development of oxy-fuel technology in China4

In 2006, HUST completed Chinas first 300-kWth-test bed for
oxy-fuel combustion and pollutant removal, achieving the
objective of enriching high concentrations of CO2 (95%) and
removing 85% of NOx and 90% of SO2.
In 2011, HUST completed construction of Chinas first 3-MWth
oxy-fuel whole process test platform in Wuhan (see Figure 3).
This platform is currently Chinas largest capacity oxy-fuel test
platform, with a heat input of 3 MWth and an annual CO2 capture capacity of up to 7000 tonnes. This system first separates
oxygen from air, then enriches, compresses, and purifies the
CO2 generated during combustion. Thus the testing platform
incorporates the comprehensive oxy-fuel combustion process.
The system was designed in accordance with industry standards, and therefore possesses the capacity for deployment at
increased scale. A number of key technological breakthroughs
were achieved during the design, construction, and commissioning of the system.
Integrating the advantages and features of a circulating fluidized bed, Southeast University has conducted systematic
studies of CFB oxy-fuel technology.6,7 A CFB oxy-fuel pilot test
installation (50 kWth) was constructed, which was the first in
China to genuinely achieve flue gas recirculation and the first
internationally to be able to achieve wet flue gas circulation.
The 2.5-MWth circulating fluidized bed oxy-fuel test system that
Southeast University has built in partnership with B&W has
been fully constructed and is currently being commissioned.
Air Separation Equipment Co., Ltd., and Jiuda (Yingcheng) Salt

Co., Ltd. The project involved rebuilding a 12-MWe oxy-fuel
boiler in the salt companys power plant. The system uses a
swirl combustion system positioned on the front wall and is
equipped with a cryogenic air separation system. The design
of the boiler and system is compatible with oxy-fuel combustion. Evaluation tests can be conducted on air combustion as
well as dry and wet circulation oxy-fuel combustion. After construction is complete, the pilot is expected to achieve a flue
gas CO2 concentration higher than 80% and a CO2 capture rate
greater than 90% at a CO2 capture capacity of 100,000 tonnes/
year. The captured CO2 can be stored in the mine shafts of the
disused salt mine. In addition, some of the CO2 can also be
used in the removal of calcium and magnesium during the salt
manufacturing process. The project and its commissioning are
expected to be completed by the end of 2014. CO2 capture,
utilization, and storage (CCUS) will be incorporated during the
second phase.
Industrial Pilots
In May 2011, HUST launched an industrial 12-MWe oxy-fuel
pilot project (see Figure 4). The construction of this project
was financially supported by Chinas Ministry of Science and
Technology, Dongfang Boiler Group Co., Ltd. (DBC), Sichuan
64
FIGURE 3. 3-MWth oxy-fuel comprehensive process test system

(HUST)
TABLE 4. Overview of Chinas oxy-fuel combustion small test systems (>10 kWth)
Organization
Thermal Power (MWth)
Furnace Type, Fuel
Completion Year
HUST
0.3
Vertical pulverized, coal
2006
HUST
Front wall pulverized, coal
2011
Tsinghua University
0.025
Vertical one-dimensional
pulverized coal furnace
2008
Zhejiang University
0.020
Fluidized bed, no flue gas circulation, coal
2004
Zhejiang University
Pulverized coal furnace
2010
North China Electric

Power University
0.025
Pressurized bubbling bed, coal
2011
Southeast University
0.050
Fluidized bed, coal
2011
Southeast University
2.5
Fluidized bed, coal
2014
Institute of Engineering
Thermophysics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences
0.100
Fluidized bed, coal
2013
Institute of Engineering
Thermophysics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences
Fluidized bed, coal and semi-coke
Under construction
Demonstration-Scale Projects
Chinese companies are also actively preparing to launch largescale oxy-fuel technology demonstration projects. Table 5
provides an overview of such projects.
In March 2012, Shenhua Group announced a project to
integrate oxy-fuel combustion and carbon capture at the
megatonne scale into a coal-fired power plant. To date more
than 70 million RMB (US$11.5 million) has been invested. This
FIGURE 4. Picture of 12-MWe semi-industrial oxy-fuel pilot

installation (HUST)
project aims to provide design and technology safeguards

for the independent design, construction, and operation of
megatonne-scale oxy-fuel projects. HUST, Dongfang Boiler
Group Co., Ltd., and Southwest Electric Power Design Institute
took part in the research for this project, which was officially
launched in November 2012. To date, the project has involved
comparing various options for new build and retrofit, technical and economic evaluations, and preliminary research into
key equipment such as boilers, burners, and smoke coolers.
Shanxi International Energy Group Ltd. (SIEG) has also
announced a cooperative agreement with Air Products, under
which Air Products exclusive oxy-fuel CO2 purification technology will be applied to SIEGs 350-MWe oxy-fuel power
generation demonstration project. Currently a feasibility study
and the conceptual design of the installation are being completed. This project is based at SIEGs power plant in Taiyuan,
Shanxi and will be used to provide purified CO2 emissions for
utilization and storage.
On 21 September 2011, China Datang Corporation signed a
memorandum of understanding with Frances Alstom, forming a long-term strategic partnership to jointly develop CCS
pilot projects in China. Under the memorandum, Alstom and
China Datang Corporation will collaborate to develop two
coal-fired power plant CCS demonstration projects. Of these,
the 350-MWe coal-fired power plant located in Daqing will use
Alstoms oxy-fuel technology. A feasibility study is currently
being carried out.
65
TABLE 5. Demonstration-scale oxy-fuel pilot projects in China

Project Owner/
Power Plant
Scale and
Parameters
Technology Source
Progress and Planned

Construction Start Time
Shenhua Group
Shenmu power plant
200 MWe
High voltage
HUST, DBC

feasibility study currently underway
China Datang Corporation

Daqing power plant
350 MWe
Supercritical
Alstom

construction start date yet to be decided
Shanxi International Energy Group Ltd.

Taiyuan Yangguang Thermoelectric
350 MWe
Supercritical
B&W, AP

construction start date yet to be decided
Xinjiang Guanghui New Energy
170 MWe
High voltage
Jupiter
Pre-feasibility study underway
Xinjiang Guanghui New Energy Co., Ltd. has signed a strategic

cooperation agreement with the U.S.-based Jupiter Oxygen
Corporation for a carbon capture, energy conservation, and
emissions reduction project. Jupiter plans to invest US$200
million in collaborating with Xinjiang Guanghui New Energy
Co., Ltd. to build and develop a carbon capture and boiler
retrofit project. Through this technical cooperation, Xinjiang
Guanghui New Energy is expected to be able to reduce CO2
emissions by about 2.4 million tonnes yearly at its plant that
produces 1.2 million tonnes of methanol and 800,000 tonnes
of dimethyl ether plant each year.
demonstration projects, technology research and development,

environmental monitoring, storage uses, policies and regulations, and international cooperation.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
OUTLOOK
Following 30 years of development, oxy-fuel technology has
matured and possesses the fundamental characteristics necessary for commercial application. Importantly, it is suitable for
existing coal-fired power plants. For Chinas coal power-dominated energy mix to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets, large-scale demonstrations must be launched as soon
as possible, to allow for the greatest likelihood for the commercialization of oxy-fuel. At present, China has announced a
succession of special CCUS plans. A number of ministries, including the National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry
of Science and Technology, National Energy Administration,
Ministry of Environmental Protection, and Ministry of Land
and Resources, are promoting numerous strategies, including
66
4.
5.
6.
7.
Abraham, B.M. (1982). Coal-oxygen process provides CO2 for

enhanced oil recovery. Oil and Gas Journal, 80(11), 6875.
Buhre, B.J.P., Elliott, L.K., Sheng, C.D., Gupta, R.P., & Wall, T.F.
(2005). Oxy-fuel combustion technology for coal-fired power
generation. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 31(4),
283307.
Wall, T., Stanger, R., & Santos, S. (2011). Demonstrations of coalfired oxy-fuel technology for carbon capture and storage and
issues with commercial deployment. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(S1), S5S15.
Zheng, C., Zhao, Y., & Guo, X. (2014). The research and
development of oxy-fuel technology in China. Proceedings of
the Chinese Society for Electrical Engineering, 34(23), 3856
3864. (In Chinese)
Social Development Science and Technology Division, Ministry
of Science and Technology of the Peoples Republic of China, et
al. (2011). Technology development report on carbon capture,
utilization and storage (CCUS) in China. (In Chinese)
Duan, L.B., Zhao, C.S., Zhou, W., Qu, C.R., & Chen, X.P. (2011).
O2/CO2 coal combustion characteristics in a 50 kW(th) circulating
fluidized bed. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
5, 770776.
Zhou, W., Zhao, C.S., Duan, L.B., Liu, D.Y., & Chen, X.P. (2011). CFD
modeling of oxy-coal combustion in circulating fluidized bed.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 14891497.
GL OBAL NEWS
Movers & Shakers

Mitsubishi Corporation announced the opening of the
Caval Ridge Coal Mine in Queensland, Australia. Run by
BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA), Caval Ridge is a new
open-cut mine located in the northern Bowen Basin in Central Queensland that has the capacity to produce 5.5 million
tonnes per year of high-quality metallurgical coal for a mine
life of about 60 years.
The board of the Rio Tinto Group has extended the tenure of
Chief Executive Sam Walsh and Chief Financial Officer Chris
Lynch, providing a strong endorsement of their leadership,
the Groups strategy, and its focus on driving shareholder
value.
International Outlook
Australia
With the passage of the Emissions Reduction Fund, the
Australian government has taken a step toward meeting its
greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 5% below 2000
levels by 2020. The Emissions Reduction Fund is the centerpiece of the Direct Action plan, which replaced the Carbon
Pricing Mechanism repealed in mid-2014.
Canada
On 2 October 2014,
the Boundary Dam
CCS project began
operation; the plant
is the first and only
post-combustion capture facility operating
at the scale of about
one million tonnes
CO2 each year. According to the head of the Global Carbon
Capture and Storage Institute, Brad Page, This trailblazing
project clearly demonstrates that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is possible on a large scale in the power sector.
Importantly, the lessons learned at Boundary Dam will help
progress CCS projects internationally as a vital technology
to meet our climate change challenge.
China
The Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation released a statement that, from 1 December 2014, China
will change its approach to the resource tax on coal. The country will now levy a resource tax based not on quantity, but on
price, which will replace the previous quantity-based approach.
The resource tax rate will be 210%; the exact amount will be
determined by the provincial governments within the given
range. The statement also noted that the resource tax will be
reduced by 30% for coal produced from exhausted coal mines,
and by 50% for coal displaced from filling mining.
Europe
The European Council (EC) has adopted several energy targets
for 2030: reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared
with 1990 levels; obtain 27% of its energy from renewable
sources; and cut energy consumption by 27% compared with
projected levels. The final text of the agreement includes a
flexibility clause stating that the EC will revisit these targets
after the UN climate summit in December 2015. The agreement also includes provisions to compensate nations like
Poland, which relies on coal for around 90% of its energy.
Germany
At risk of missing its greenhouse gas reduction goal of a
40% reduction in emissions by 2020 compared to 1990,
Germany is considering options that include further increasing efficiency and reducing the amount of coal-fired power
generation in the country.
India
Indias Supreme Court canceled at least 214 coal licenses
because they had been distributed without competitive
bidding. Coal Minister Piyush Goyal said that the country
will auction 74 coal-mining licenses to private companies in
the next several months.
International
The U.S. and China announced an agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions. For its part, the U.S. agreed to reduce
emissions by 2628% compared to 2005 levels. China committed to peak its emissions by 2030 and also to obtain 20%
of its energy from non-fossil sources. Under the deal, efforts
on low-carbon energy technology development would also
be expanded, including continued funding for the U.S.-China
Clean Energy Research Center (CERC). In addition, the U.S.
and China have committed to equally fund a commercial-scale
(about one million tonnes CO2 per year) CCUS project under
which about 1.4 million m3 of freshwater would be produced.
67
GL O B A L N E W S
Key Meetings & Conferences
lobally there are numerous conferences and meetings geared toward the coal and energy industries. The table below
highlights a few such events. If you would like your event listed in Cornerstone, please contact the Executive Editor at
cornerstone@wiley.com
Conference Name
13th Annual
Coal Markets Conference
2015 Australian Coal
Operators Conference
World CTX 2015
World of Coal Ash
Seventh International Conference on Clean
Coal Technologies
Clearwater
Coal Conference
Dates (2015)
Location
Website
36 Feb
Hilton Singapore,
Singapore
www.coalmarketsasia.com/
1113 Feb
Wollongong,
NSW, Australia
www.coalconference.net.au/
1417 April
Beijing and Yinchuan

(Ningxia Autonomous
Region), China
www.chinaexhibition.com/Official_Site/11-4609World_CTX_2014_Conference_for_Natural_Gas,_
Liquid_Fuels_and_Petrochemicals_from_Coal,_
Petcoke_and_Biomass.html
47 May
Nashville, TN, U.S.
www.worldofcoalash.org/
1721 May
Krakw, Poland
www.cct2015.org/ibis/CCT2015/home
31 May4 June
Clearwater, FL, U.S.
www.coaltechnologies.com/
There are several Coaltrans conferences globally each year. To learn more, visit www.coaltrans.com/calendar.aspx
Meeting Spotlight
As was highlighted in the Autumn 2014 issue of Cornerstone,
coal gasification is growing globally, led by coal conversion
projects in China. In this meeting spotlight, two conferences
related to coal conversion are highlighted. The Gasification
Technologies Council Conference recently concluded and
the World CTX Conference will be held early in 2015.
Gasification Technologies
Council 2014 Conference
The Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) 2014 Conference was held 2629 October in Washington, DC. This
conference included many internationally known speakers, most of whom were directly involved with advancing
gasification projects. With the rapid upsurge in gasification projects in China in recent years, many presentations
focused on specific projects. These projects highlighted the
wide range of potential products from coal gasification from
olefins to substitute natural gas to power.
68
Although biomass and waste gasification projects are

usually significantly smaller in size, they are able to offer
substantial environmental and/or waste remediation benefits; quite a few presentations were focused in these areas.
The 2015 annual GTC conference will be held in Colorado
Springs, CO, U.S.
World CTX 2015: Focus on Shale Gas

Impact on Coal-to-X Development
The World CTX (Coal-to-X) Conference 2015 will be held in
Beijing and Ningxia, China. This year, a focus on shale gas
will be added to the usual CTX subjects. In the U.S., the
growth of shale gas has placed a damper on coal conversion projects. Since shale gas development may well spread,
understanding the potential impact of shale gas on coal conversion projects is more necessary than ever. The trifecta of
considerations related to the environment, economics, and
energy security will impede or advance coal conversion in a
changing global energy sector; this will be the focus of the
next World CTX conference. The conference website and
additional information are provided in the table above.
Recent Select Publications
From the WCA
Mercury Control for Coal-Derived Gas Streams
Looking Into the Future for Coal
Wiley-VCH This newly published textbook covers

technologies for the detection, capture, and regulation of
mercury evolved from the combustion or gasification of coal.
The information in this
textbook is largely based
on the successful U.S.
Department of Energy
Mercury Program and
includes contributions
from an internationally acclaimed group of
experts, edited by Evan
J. Granite, Henry W.
Pennline, and Constance
Senior. More information is available at www.
wiley.com/WileyCDA/
WileyTitle/pro
ductCd-3527329498.
html
World Energy Outlook 2014 International Energy
Agency For the first time, the IEAs WEO will make projections to 2040 throughout the energy sector. Other specific
topics covered in WEO
2014 include a look
at whether oil output
from North America
can reduce fluctuations
amid abundance, the
potential effects of
expanding global LNG,
the effect of efficiency
on regional energy prices, how energy can
improve life in subSaharan Africa, and
much more. WEO 2014
is available for purchase
from www.iea.org/w/
bookshop/477-World_
Energy_Outlook_2014
Corrigendum: Volume 2, Issue 3: Page 12: In the figure
showing potential uses for gasification hydrogen for oil
refining was listed twice. The lower term should have
been substitute natural gas. Page 27: The caption under
the AP Image read, Nabaj Sarif, but should have read
Nawaz Sharif.
The World Coal Association (WCA) and Assocarboni jointly

held a workshop in Rome on 18 November, bringing
together global energy and environment leaders to discuss
the future global role of coal, practical action that can be
taken to reduce emissions, and the energy challenges facing
policymakers in Europe.
The workshop Looking into the Future for Coal featured
presentations from representatives from the Australian,
Indonesian, and Italian governments. A keynote speech
was given by the UNFCCC COP President Marcin Korolec,
Polands State Secretary for the Environment, responsible
for Climate Policy.
The workshop built on the WCAs Warsaw Communiqu, developed with the Polish Ministry of Economy and
launched alongside COP19 in November 2013. The Communiqu outlined practical steps that can be taken to tackle
climate change and enable coal to continue to play its vital
role as an affordable, abundant, easily accessible source of
energy.
Presentations and discussions at the workshop made clear
that most people are expecting a deal out of COP21 in Paris
in 2015. There was support for the coal industry being an
active, constructive stakeholder and for the industry to
more fully promote the role of technology in reducing environmental impacts from coal; this includes high-efficiency,
low-emissions (HELE) coal technology and carbon capture,
utilization, and storage (CCUS). Participants also agreed that
the industry should develop a more compelling narrative
about coal, so that the broader community better understands the vital role coal plays globally.
Further information is available at www.worldcoal.org
Divestment and the Future Role of Coal
The World Coal Association has published the latest in its
series of Coal Matters fact sheets. Coal Matters - Divestment and the future role of coal looks at divestment
campaigns and challenges the arguments being made
against the coal industry.
The fact sheet reviews growing energy demand and projections about the future of coal and looks at the role of coal
in energy and modern infrastructure. The fact sheet also
69
GL O B A L N E W S
shows that markets are already managing any risks associated with fossil fuel investments.
discussed the future development of the international coal

industry and other related subjects.
Technology has a huge role to play in reducing environmental

impacts from the use of coal. The fact sheet looks at highefficiency, low-emissions coal technology, carbon capture,
utilization, and storage along with actions and investments
taken by the coal industry to reduce CO2 emissions.
Mr. Kenyon-Slaney acknowledged Shenhua Groups contribution to the WCA through the continued support of
Cornerstone and the Strategic Research Institute. Later, the
WCA Chairman visited the Shenhua Science and Technology
Research Institute, the Shendong coal mine, and the Zhungeer coal mine.
By definition, divestment requires a change in ownership of

assets: Institutes and individuals may sell their shares, but
can only do this if other institutes and individuals buy these
same shares. In other words, divestment does nothing to
affect the demand for or use of fossil fuels.
Divestment campaigns aim to create the very risks they
warn of in order to undermine investor confidence and
deprive fossil fuel producers of the finance necessary to
operate their businesses. However, forecasts show that
demand for coal will continue to grow. The priority should
therefore be how we access the benefits of coal while minimizing environmental impacts. For developing countries in
need of energy, divestment campaigns can have serious consequences. Divestment will do nothing to address shared
global priorities on economic development and reducing
GHG emissions and will, instead, hinder efforts to alleviate
energy poverty, particularly in developing countries where
coal is fueling economic development.
Technology, including efficiency improvements and CCUS,
has a vital role to play in
ensuring we can meet our
future energy and infrastructure needs as cleanly
and sustainably as possible.
This requires responsible
investment decisions and
balanced energy policies.
A copy of Coal Matters
Divestment and the future
role of coal can be downloaded from the WCA
website: www.worldcoal.org
Meeting of the Minds
On 3 November 2014, the Chairman of the World Coal
Association, and Rio Tinto Chief Executive, Energy, Harry
Kenyon-Slaney, visited Shenhua Group and met with the
Chairman of Shenhua Group, Zhang Yuzhuo. The leaders
70
Making Mines Smarter and Safer

Recently Harvard Business Review (HBR) highlighted how
smart, connected products are transforming competition and changing industries globally. The mining industry
is no different. As part of the study, HBR highlighted how
Joy Global, as a leading mining equipment manufacturer,
offers the ability to monitor operating conditions, safety
parameters, and predict equipment servicing needs in the
challenging operating conditions of underground mines.
In fact, Joy Global is able to monitor service indicators for
fleets of equipment in different mineseven if the equipment is spread across multiple countries. For the full case
study, visit hbr.org/2014/11/strategic-choices-in-buildingthe-smart-connected-mine/ar/1
L E TTERS
VOLUME 2, ISSUE 2
AN ANALYSIS OF THE INTERDEPENDENCE
BETWEEN CHINAS ECONOMY AND COAL
he authors of this article analyzed the contribution

of coal to Chinas economy based on several metrics.
Much-needed proof was provided regarding the value
coal can provide. China has become the worlds second largest economy, continuing to grow at full steam, and is also the
largest coal producer and consumer. The countrys economic
growth and its reliance on coal are not unrelated as coal has
contributed tremendously to Chinas development. This article provides an understanding as to why developing countries
continue to rely on coal as a leading energy source. Those that
undermine the value of the coal industry may do well to consider the information presented in this article.
After an analysis of the correlation between historical economic data and coal production and consumption, the authors
calculated a positive correlation coefficient. The core of their
analysis was the coal-dependence index that they defined
using four indices, which ultimately explained the interdependency of coal and Chinas GDP. As we know, coal provides
more than 70% of total primary energy consumption and more
than 70% of total power output in China. The authors demonstrated how coal is an irreplaceable energy source that helps
ensure energy security, maintain social stability, and promote
the development of national and local economies.
From a global perspective, the relationship between coal and
economics remains strong. Although the global coal industry is facing a downward trend, characterized by lower coal
prices, I continue to believe that the perspective of the coal
industry should be based on the fact that coal consumption
will continue to grow, especially in developing countries.
Drawing from the data in this article, I hope that the global
coal industry will face the future with optimism and extend its
work to realize the cleaner utilization of coal resources for the
benefit of all.
the regions options for energy sources. Through the use of

carbon capture and sequestration, as well as other clean coal
technologies, Western Europe can simultaneously reduce
its dependence on natural gas imports, as well as increase
the recovery rate from its North Sea oil reserves, and not
increase its greenhouse gas emissions. While not neglecting
long-run climate concerns, an increased use of new technologies to utilize the ample and widely available sources of coal
would enable Europe to respond to its short-term energy
security needs while not burdening its economies with excessive energy price increases.There are only a limited number
of options for energy, and with energy goals that include a
reduced reliance on nuclear power and less dependence on
Russian natural gas, the answer to Western Europes energy
problem clearly involves a greater use of coal.
John Jelacic
Independent Energy and Economic Analyst
his article is overly ambitious in its assertions of what is

possible regarding bringing online coal-fired power plants
that are no longer operating in the EU. One example is
the statement that some plants currently idled, such as those
in the UK, could be brought back online relatively quickly. In
many cases such plants are not actually idled, but completely
shut down. In some cases these plants have even been partly
or fully demolished. Even for those plants still standing, they
could not be simply placed back into service. Their operation would be illegal as many of these plants do not have the
required environmental controls to operate legally today. In
fact, this article does not take into account EU emission regulations, including the Industrial Emissions Directivethis will
be enforced as of 2016 and will actually result in the closure of
additional plants. Generally, the strategy laid out in this article
cannot realistically be followed under the current regulatory
environment in the UK and greater EU.
Anonymous
A COAL-BASED STRATEGY TO REDUCE EUROPES

DEPENDENCE ON RUSSIAN ENERGY IMPORTS
Response: The article was based on a dynamic situation

regarding the state of coal-fired power plants in the EU; unfortunately, some plants have been idled or demolished since the
original research was completed. However, the reader brings
up a valuable point that the longer European leaders wait to
act, the more difficult it will be to reduce reliance on Russian
energy supplies. Thus, the door of opportunity is closing and I
suggest there should be an immediate moratorium on demolishing any coal-fired power plants in Europe. For instance, in
the UK, potential power generation sources such as the 1000MW Ferrybridge plant or the 350-MW Uskmouth plant must
be protected.
ith Western Europe facing the apparently intractable

problem of its dependency on Russian natural gas
imports, it is refreshing to read a rational analysis
that reminds us that an increased use of coal could broaden
The research and the article did take into account the environmental upgrades that would be necessary to bring idled
coal-fired plants back online. For example, I noted on p. 46,
It may be necessary to add more SO2 and NOx controls, and
Zhang Songfeng
Researcher
Academy of Macroeconomic Research
National Development and Reform Commission
VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3
71
L E T T E RS
perhaps other environmental upgrades, to the units. While

considerable investment may be required, adding environmental controls for criteria emissions include applying completely
understood, fully commercial technologies already deployed
throughout Europe and the world.
Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the article showed that
CTG with CO2-EOR actually resulted in lower greenhouse gas
emissions compared to continuing to rely on the leaky and
poorly maintained natural gas pipelines from Russia. As well,
there may be additional opportunities to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions with CCUS from coal-fired power plants when it
is commercial and supported by CO2 prices in the EU ETS.

Finally, it is important to make clear that the article presented
an ambitious strategy to increase the energy security of the EU.
There may be some regulations that are not compatible with
the strategy, but it is worth weighing the value of a carbonneutral strategy that improves energy security. Regulations
can be modified more easily than global energy reserves.
Roger Bezdek
President
Management Information Services, Inc.
TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR,

EMAIL CORNERSTONE@WILEY.COM OR CORNERSTONE@SHENHUA.CC (CHINESE).
Were in the process of planning

the editorial schedule for 2015.
Wed appreciate hearing from you regarding what topics you would like us to cover.
Were looking for any and all feedback from our readers.
Cornerstone aims to be inclusive to all things related to coal and energy, especially those pieces that are
focused on scientifically derived solutions for the challenges associated with ever increasing energy
demand. Our goal is to include diverse material, such as interviews, letters, op-ed editorials, technical
articles, global news, conference listings, etc. If you are interested in contributing or have suggestions
about what we should cover, please dont hesitate to contact the editorial team.
If you have a suggestion, email the editorial team at
cornerstone@wiley.com (English) or cornerstone@shenhua.cc (Chinese)
72
V O LUME 2 AUTHOR I NDEX
Author(s)
Title
Pages
Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 2014

Michael Hightower
Reducing Energys Water Footprint: Driving a Sustainable Energy Future
48
Diego Rodriguez
Thirsty Energy: Integrated Energy-Water Planning for a Sustainable Future
911
Holly Krutka
Exploring Global Energy Challenges: Exclusive Interview with Nobuo Tanaka
1214
Wang Xianzheng
Advancing Chinas Coal Industry
1518
Aleksandra Tomczak
What to Watch in 2014: Policy Developments That Will Shape the Coal Industry
1925
Tianyi Luo, Betsy Otto,

Tien Shiao, Andrew Maddocks
Identifying the Global Coal Industrys Water Risks
2631
Li Zheng, Pan Lingying, Liu Pei,

Ma Linwei
Assessing Water Issues in Chinas Coal Industry
3236
Rangan Banerjee
Coal-Based Electricity Generation in India
3742
Merched Azzi, Paul Feron
Considering Emissions From Amine-Based CO2 Capture Before Deployment
4346
Barbara Carney, Erik Shuster
Exploring the Possibilities: The NETL Power Plant Water Program
4751
Sean Bushart
Advanced Cooling Technologies for Water Savings at Coal-Fired Power Plants
5257
Anne Carpenter
Water-Saving FGD Technologies
5863
Chen Yinbiao, Zhang Jianli
Supplying Water to Power Plants with Desalination Technology
6468
Daman Walia, Sahika Yurek
Moving Coal Up the Value Chain
6973
Nikki Fisher, Thubendran Naidoo
Turning a Liability into an Asset
7477
Okty Damayanti
Connecting Indonesian Communities to Clean Water
7879
Volume 2, Issue 2, Summer 2014

Anthony Hodge
Shifting the Paradigms of Health and Safety in Mining
48
Milton Catelin
Commitment to Safety
910
Gregory H. Boyce
Modern Energy: The Golden Thread That Connects

People, Economies, and Progress
1114
Zhang Kehui
Studying the Dominance of Coal in Chinas Energy Mix
1520
Jim Spiers
Hedging Carbon
2124
Nicholas Newman
Advancing the Alleviation of Energy Poverty
2529
Anil Razdan
Energy Poverty in India and Whats Needed to Address It
3035
Nikki Fisher
Balancing South Africas Energy Poverty and Climate Change Commitments
3638
Aleksandra Tomczak
Europe Struggles to Pay Its Energy Bill
3941
Hao Gui
Shenhua Groups Preemptive Risk Control System:

An Effective Approach for Coal Mine Safety Management
4246
Melanie Stutsel
Evaluating Safety and Health in Australias Mining Sector
4752
Bruce Watzman
CORESafety: A System to Overcome the Plateau in

U.S. Mine Safety and Health Management
5356
Aaron Leopold
Sustainable Charcoal: A Key Component of Total Energy Access?
5761
Xie Heping, Wu Gang, Liu Hong
An Analysis of the Interdependence Between Chinas Economy and Coal
6266
Yuan Liang
Synergetic Technologies for Coal and Gas Extraction in China
6771
Uichiro Yoshimura, Toshiro Matsuda The Global Need for Clean Coal Technologies and J-COALs Roadmap to Get There
7277
73
V O L U M E 2 A U TH O R IN D E X
Author(s)
Title
Pages
Volume 2, Issue 3, Autumn 2014

Alison Kerester
Gasification Can Help Meet the Worlds Growing Demand

for Cleaner Energy and Products
412
Laura Miller
The Drivers and Status of the Texas Clean Energy Project
1318
Kyle Aarons
Carbon Pollution Standards for New and Existing Power Plants

and Their Impact on Carbon Capture and Storage
1923
A.M. Shah
India Re-energized
2428
Ni Weidou, Song Shizhong,

Wang Minghua
Developing High-Efficiency, Low-Carbon, Clean Coal in China
2933
Roger Bezdek
A Coal-Based Strategy to Reduce Europes Dependence

on Russian Energy Imports
3439
Janet Gellici
The Reliability and Resilience of the U.S. Existing Coal Fleet
4045
Harry Morehead, Juergen Battke
Improving the Case for Gasification
4649
Rob van den Berg, Zhong-Xin Chen,

Sze-Hong Chua
The Shell Coal Gasification Process for Reliable Chemicals,

Power, and Liquids Production
5054
Carrie Lalou
Distributed Power With Advanced Clean Coal Gasification Technology
5560
Xu Shisen
Moving Forward With the Huaneng GreenGen IGCC Demonstration
6165
Rob Jeffrey, Rosemary Falcon,

Andrew Kinghorn
The Benefits and Challenges Associated With Coal in South Africa
6670
Volume 2, Issue 4, Winter 2014

Stephen Mills
The Energy Frontier of Combining Coal and Renewable Energy Systems
410
Frank Clemente
The Rise of Electricity: Offering Longevity, Improved

Living Standards, and a Healthier Planet
1116
Patrick Falwell, Brad Crabtree
Understanding the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative
1720
Benjamin Sporton
Developing Country Needs Are Critical to a Global Climate Agreement
2124
Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer
The Flexibility of German Coal-Fired Power Plants

2530
Janne Krki, Antti Arasto
Toward Carbon-Negative Power Plants With Biomass Cofiring and CCS
3135
Christopher Long, Peter Valberg
Evolution of Cleaner Solid Fuel Combustion
3640
Jaquelin Cochran, Debra Lew,

Nikhil Kumar
Making Coal Flexible: Getting From Baseload to Peaking Plant
4145
Nigel Bean, Josephine Varney
Geothermal Assisted Power Generation for Thermal Power Plants
4650
Han Jianguo
Shenhuas Development of Digital Mines
5155
Christopher Munnings, Sarbjit Giddey,

Sukhvinder Badwal
Direct Carbon Fuel Cells:

An Ultra-Low Emission Technology for Power Generation
5660
Zheng Chuguang
Exploring the Status of Oxy-fuel Technology Globally and in China
6166
74
Coal Classification
Industry Approach to
Hazard Classification
under the Revised
MARPOL Convention
and the IMSBC Code
The International Maritime Organization (IMO)
The reports are available free of charge to WCA
has introduced new environmental and health
Members.
classification criteria for internationally shipped

solid bulk cargoes under the International Convention
The reports are also available to non-WCA Members to
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)
purchase. If you would like information on purchasing
and the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes
this package of reports, please email the WCA Team at:
(IMSBC) Code.
classification@worldcoal.org
The World Coal Association (WCA), together with
You can also get the reports for free if you join the
ARCHE - a specialist environmental toxicology
WCA. Join today and you can get instant access to
consultancy - has prepared a package of reports to
this package of reports, along with all the other
assist coal companies with complying with the new
benefits of membership. If you would like to discuss
environmental and health classification requirements.
WCA membership options, please get in touch:
The package consists of three reports and a summary
membership@worldcoal.org
document:
Report 1: New Compliance Requirements of the

MARPOL Convention and the IMSBC Code
Report 2: Analysis of Coal Composition, Ecotoxicity
and Human Health Hazards
Report 3: Coal Classification Guidance
www.worldcoal.org
twitter.com/worldcoal
www.facebook.com/worldcoalassociation
WCA Coal Classification Ad 206w x 273h.indd 3
World Coal Association

5th Floor, Heddon House
149-151 Regent Street
London W1B 4JD, UK
+44 (0) 207 851 0052
www.worldcoal.org
info@worldcoal.org
www.worldcoal.org/extract
www.youtube.com/worldcoal
01/07/2014 14:45
CONNECT with
GET CONNECTED
There are many ways to be connected with Cornerstone. Did you know you can
opt-in to have the table of contents for each new issue emailed to you; use the
emailed links to access the full issue or specific articles online, free of charge.
Opt-in on our website: www.cornerstonemag.net. Also, join our group on LinkedIn
where we will feature different articles and host discussions.
STAY CONNECTED
Dont let your name be removed from our distribution list! If you are receiving
Cornerstone, but havent opted in yet, please visit our website and opt-in. If you
would prefer to receive a hard copy in Mandarin, please email your address to
the editors at cornerstone@shenhua.cc
CONNECT WITH US
Like what youre reading? Disagree with an author? Have a correction? Email the
editors at cornerstone@wiley.com (English) or cornerstone@shenhua.cc (Chinese).
In many countries, coal and renewable

energy systems are being deployed at
greater percentages and, thus, there is
increased interest in how to optimally
integrate these systems. In fact, there
are a significant number of opportunities.

Cornerstone Volume2 Issue4

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Cornerstone Volume2 Issue4

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

WINTER 2014

THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE WORLD COAL INDUSTRY

The Energy Frontier

WINTER 2014 VOLUME 2, ISSUE 4

The Flexibility of German

Exploring the Status

Our mission is to defend and grow markets

China National Coal Group

Coal Association of New Zealand

Minerals Council of Australia

WCA Associate Members

WCA_advert_h273 x w206mm 27 Nov 2014.indd 1

F R OM THE EDI TOR

Finding Common Ground

FROM THE EDITOR

Understanding the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative

Developing Country Needs Are Critical

Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer, World Energy Council

Toward Carbon-Negative Power Plants

Janne Krki, Antti Arasto, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Evolution of Cleaner Solid Fuel Combustion

The Energy Frontier of

Making Coal Flexible:

Geothermal Assisted Power Generation

Shenhuas Development of Digital Mines

Direct Carbon Fuel Cells: An Ultra-Low

Exploring the Status of Oxy-fuel

Jaquelin Cochran, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Nigel Bean, Josephine Varney, University of Adelaide

Christopher Munnings, Sarbjit Giddey, Sukhvinder Badwal,

Covering global business changes, publications, and meetings

Official Journal of World Coal Industry

Sponsored by Shenhua Group Corporation Limited

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Production and Layout

Copyright 2014 World Coal Association

The Energy Frontier

Although coal and renewable energy

he world is undoubtedly hungry for energy and this

natural gas, and coal will continue to be used widely, although

of Combining Coal and

Polands Belchatw coal-fired power station is Europes largest

FIGURE 1. Global power generation mix4

TABLE 1. Global renewable electric power capacity5 (end 2013) (GW)

Total RE power capacity*

Total RE power capacity

Although initial capital costs for renewables-based systems

forms may be subject to limited or seasonable availability, and

Coal and Biomass

Similar to many conventional coal-fired power plants, several

Another ongoing project in Germany is expected to lead to

Hybrid thermal systems operate by using heat from renewable

E.Ons power-to-gas project at Falkenhagen in Germany

Currently, around 15 hybrid solar thermal plants, including

could also be incorporated into systems fueled by coal/biomass combinations.

TABLE 2. Examples of hybrid energy-producing systems proposed

Various studies underway:

Coal gasification + electrolysis

Systems to produce SNG, electricity, and biodiesel.

CRL Energy, New

Systems could be used to produce F-T chemicals, synfuels.

O2 from electrolysis fed to gasifier

Univ. Lund, Sweden