National Academies Press: OpenBook

Coal: Energy for the Future (1995)

Chapter: 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

« Previous: 9 ADVANCED RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

10
Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter synthesizes the discussions and findings of Part II (chapters 5-9) in the context of the committee's charge and the strategic planning framework and background presented in Part I (chapters 1-4). For each topic discussed in chapters 4 through 9, conclusions and recommendations are offered below.1 The cross-cutting systems analysis area not explicitly covered in chapters 4 through 9 is addressed separately. In the final section of the chapter, the committee's conclusions and recommendations are interpreted in the context of the individual sections of the EPACT that relate to coal (see Chapter 1 and Appendix B).

STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR COAL

In Chapter 4 a strategic planning framework was established to assess planning for coal-related RDD&C. The framework is based on projected scenarios for future energy demand and markets for coal technologies, taking into account likely future environmental requirements, competing energy sources, institutional issues, international activities, and other factors affecting the demand for coal. In the committee's view, the overall objective of DOE's coal program should be to provide the basis for technological solutions to likely future demands, as reflected in the scenarios. The committee defined three planning horizons—near-term (1995-2005), mid-term (2006-2020), and long-term (2021-2040) periods—for which the scenarios were formulated and requirements for coal were outlined. Based on its analysis, the committee concluded that coal will continue to be a major energy source in the U.S. economy over all planning horizons considered

1  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

and that a sustained program of RDD&C for coal technologies is important for the economic, environmental, and security interests of the United States.

The strategic planning framework identified two priority areas for the DOE coal program: (1) conversion of coal to electricity, representing the principal market for coal for all planning periods, but particularly in the mid- to long-term periods; and (2) conversion of coal to liquid and low- and medium-Btu gaseous fuels, in the mid to long-term. EPACT requirements for coal use emphasize the need for high-efficiency, low environmental impacts, and competitive costs. These needs are generally consistent with DOE's objectives for coal RDD&C, as defined in the most recent planning documents (DOE, 1993a, 1994a). The DOE planning horizon, however, currently extends only to 2010. Specific objectives have been formulated for that period for advanced power systems and advanced fuel systems. These objectives are discussed below in the sections on electric power generation and clean fuels from coal.

Conclusions
  1. DOE's strategic planning objectives for coal technology RDD&C currently extend only through the year 2010, even though coal will continue to be a major source of energy well beyond that period.
  2. The most important strategic objectives for coal RDD&C programs are to support the development of (a) advanced coal-based electric power systems that are considerably more efficient and cleaner than current commercial systems and which will be needed beginning in the near to mid-term; and (b) advanced coal-based fuel and coproduct systems that can be used to replace conventional oil and gas in the mid- to long-term periods.
Recommendations2
  1. *The planning horizon for DOE coal RDD&C programs should extend beyond the agency's current planning horizon of 2010. The committee recommends the use of three time periods for strategic planning: near-term (1995-2005), mid-term (2006-2020), and long-term (2021-2040). The main objective of DOE's coal program in all periods should be to provide the basis for technological solutions to likely future demands in a way that is robust and flexible.

COAL PREPARATION, COAL-LIQUID MIXTURES, AND COALBED METHANE RECOVERY

Coal preparation—or cleaning—is a widely used commercial process for removing mineral matter from as-mined coal to produce a higher-quality product.

2  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

Current physical cleaning processes are used primarily to reduce the ash content of as-delivered coal, although some sulfur reduction (typically 20 to 30 percent) is also achievable in coals with high pyrite content. Because coal is an abundant and relatively low-cost fuel, the incremental cost of coal cleaning is a major factor limiting the degree of impurity reductions that are economically feasible.

DOE research in recent years has focused on advanced processes to clean fine coal fractions to achieve a relatively low ash, low-sulfur product suitable primarily for premium applications, such as the production of coal-liquid mixtures that can be substituted for petroleum-based fuels. More recently, attention has also focused on the potential for coal cleaning to remove trace species as a means of reducing power plant emissions of air toxics. A series of RD&D goals has been defined (DOE, 1993a).

Coal-liquid mixtures or slurries—primarily coal-oil and coal-water fuels—are another commercial technology that allows coal to be substituted for liquid fuels in combustion applications. R&D in this area peaked during the late 1970s and early 1980s when oil prices were high and coal-based substitutes were attractive. Commercial interest waned, however, as oil prices declined and oil price projections remained stable. Nonetheless, DOE has continued to fund basic and applied research related to CWSs (coal-water slurries), primarily at universities.

Finally, interest in recovery of coalbed methane has been stimulated by concern about greenhouse gases and EPACT requirements. Methane recovery technology for high methane concentrations is commercially available, and recovery is practiced by the gas and coal mining industries where local conditions justify the investment. However, systems for the capture and use of dilute coalbed methane streams, which are found in many coal mining operations, are not sufficiently mature for commercial implementation. As noted in Chapter 3, increased efforts will likely be needed to reduce coalbed methane released from underground mining, in accordance with the Climate Change Action Plan (Clinton and Gore, 1993). The research challenge is to economically recover coalbed methane from very dilute gas streams.

Conclusions
  1. Coal preparation is a highly developed, commercially available technology that is widely used in the coal industry but that offers only limited opportunities for R&D to significantly lower the cost of advanced coal preparation processes. Continued research with extensive industry participation should achieve further improvements in existing and emerging technologies.
  2. There may be opportunities through sustained fundamental research on cleaning processes to improve the environmental acceptability of coal.
  3. Given the mature status of technologies for the production and use of coal-liquid mixtures and the very limited market for these mixtures, no further development by DOE appears necessary.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
  1. Although the collection and use of concentrated coalbed methane streams are not widely practiced in the coal mining industry, relevant technologies are available for commercial application.
  2. Additional reductions in emissions of coalbed methane could be achieved through the development of technologies for the capture and use, or destruction, of dilute coalbed methane streams.
Recommendations
  1. Strategic planning goals for the performance and cost of coal cleaning processes should define clearly the supporting role of coal preparation in DOE's programs in advanced power generation and fuels production, thereby focusing R&D activities.
  2. DOE should phase out program activities related to coal-liquid mixtures.
  3. DOE should implement a technology R&D program that addresses the control and use of dilute coalbed methane gas streams in response to EPACT requirements.

ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION

Power Generation Systems

The availability of high-performance gas turbines and low-cost natural gas has resulted in the use of natural-gas-fired combustion turbines for many recently installed power generation facilities. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, decreasing availability and higher costs for natural gas in the next decade and beyond are expected to result in a resurgence of construction and repowering of coal-based power generation facilities, with requirements for greatly improved emission controls and higher efficiency. Substantial improvements over past practices are technically possible. A large fraction of DOE RDD&C on power generation is devoted to systems designed to meet anticipated emission control and efficiency requirements.

The advanced coal-based power generation systems under development with DOE funding can be divided into three groups based on projected efficiency:3

  • Group 1—approximately 40 percent efficiency—includes the low-emission boiler system (LEBS), first-generation PFBC (PFBC-1), and first-generation IGCC (IGCC-1).
  • Group 2—approximately 45 percent efficiency—includes EFCC, second-generation PFBC (PFBC-2), and second-generation IGCC (IGCC-2).
  • Group 3—50 to 60 percent or greater efficiency—includes HIPPS, improved second-generation PFBC (improved PFBC-2), integrated gasification advanced-cycle (IGAC), and IGFC.

3  

For definitions of thermal efficiency, see Glossary.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

Important features of these systems are summarized in Table 10-1. Information on state-of-the-art commercial pulverized coal systems is included in the table as a baseline. Current DOE funding levels for these various technologies were summarized in Chapters 2 and 7.

Efficiency and Cost Targets

As shown in Table 10-1, DOE's efficiency goals for advanced power systems rise to 60 percent for the year 2010 (best current new plant levels are about 38 percent for the United States and 42 percent worldwide). In the DOE plan the highest efficiencies are expected to be achieved with IGFC technology (DOE, 1993a). A number of other systems are projected to achieve efficiencies of 45 to 55 percent using advanced combustion and gasification-based approaches and high-performance gas turbines. A major objective of the DOE plan is to achieve these higher efficiencies at an overall cost of electricity that is 10 to 20 percent lower than that of today's coal-fired power plants while also meeting more stringent environmental requirements (see Table 10-2).4

In the view of the committee, the DOE efficiency goals, especially for the later years, are quite optimistic. For example, the efficiency goals of 55 percent for systems using 1290 °C (2350 °F) gas turbine topping cycles exceed the performance capabilities of about 50 percent efficiency for current combined-cycle systems using natural gas. While turbine improvements are expected to raise the efficiency on natural gas to about 57 percent (see Chapter 7), coal gasification and gas cleanup energy losses will decrease efficiency by five to 10 efficiency points when using the gasification systems being demonstrated in the CCT program (see Chapter 6). Thus, substantial reduction of gasification-related losses is needed to achieve the DOE target system efficiency with IGCC. As noted in Chapter 7, the hybrid second-generation pressurized fluidized-bed combustion system, which gasifies only part of the coal, is estimated to have a potential for approximately four percentage points higher efficiency than IGCC systems where all the coal is gasified (Maude, 1993). Conceivably, this system could achieve the DOE efficiency goal; however, substantial technical hurdles remain to be overcome. Similar comments apply to the 60 percent efficiency goal for IGFC systems.

The goal of 10 to 20 percent reduction in the cost of power, concurrent with significant efficiency increases and emissions reductions, may be especially difficult to realize. For example, roughly 30 percent of the cost of electricity today for a new coal-fired plant represents the cost of fuel (EPRI, 1993). Thus, reducing fuel requirements by one-third by raising plant efficiency from about 40 to 60 percent would lower the overall electricity cost by about 10 percent, which is DOE's minimum cost reduction objective. A smaller efficiency gain would yield

4  

Identical to Table 2-3.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

TABLE 10-1 Advanced Coal-Based Power Systems Supported by DOE

Technology (target year for commercial design)

Design Efficiency (percent)

Coal Conversion Components

Power Generation Components

Particulate Control System

SO2 Control System

NOx Control System

New pulverized coal (commercial baseline)

38-42

Supercritical boiler

3,500 to 4,500 psi steam turbine

ESP or fabric filter

Wet lime or limestone FGD

Low NOx burners + SCR

GROUP 1 SYSTEMS

LEBS (2000)

42

Supercritical boiler

4,500 psi steam turbine

Advanced flue gas cleanup + combustion controlsa

PFBC-1 (2003)

-40

Bubbling and circulating bed PFBC units

1,800 psi steam turbine + gas turbine

Cyclones + fabric filter

In-bed limestone or dolomite

Combustion controls

IGCC-1 (1997)

-40

O2-blown entrained- bed gasifiers

2350°F gas turbine +HRSG/turbine

Cold gas quenching

Cold gas H2S absorption

Cold gas cleanup + steam injection

GROUP 2 SYSTEMS

EFCC (1997)

45

Slagging combustor + 2300°F heat exchanger

2350°F gas turbine + HRSG/turbine

Fabric filter

Wet FGD

Combustion controls (+ SCR if needed)

PFBC-2 (2005)

45

Circulating PFBC + coal pyrolyzer

2350°F gas turbine + 2,400 psi steam turbine

Hot gas filtration

In-bed limestone or dolomite

Combustion controls (+ SCR if needed)

IGCC-2 (2002)

45

Oxygen- or air-blown fluidized- bed gasifier

2350°F or 2500+ ºF gas turbine + HRSG/turbine

Hot gas filtration

Hot gas desulfurization + in-bed limestone (optional)

Combustion controls(+ SCR if needed)

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

GROUP 3 SYSTEMS

HIPPS (2003)

50

High-temperature advanced furnace

2500 °F gas turbine + HRSG/turbine (+ auxiliary fuel if needed)

Advanced flue gas cleanup system + in-furnace controlsa

Improved PFBC-2 (2010)

≥50

Circulating PFBC + coal pyrolyzer

2600 °F turbine + 4,500 psi steam turbine

Hot gas filtration

In-bed limestone or dolomite

Combustion controls (+ SCR if needed)

IGAC (2010)

≥50

Oxygen- or air-blown fluidized-bed gasifier

2600 °F gas turbine (humidified)

Hot gas filtration

Hot gas desulfurization + in-bed limestone (optional)

Combustion controls (+ SCR if needed)

IGFC (2010)

≥60

Oxygen- or air-blown fluidized-bed gasifier

Molten carbonate fuel cell (1200 °F) +HRSG/turbine

Hot gas filtration

Hot gas desulfurization + in-bed limestone (optional)

Combustion controls (+ SCR if needed)

HRSG, heat recovery steam generator.

ESP, electrostatic precipitator.

FGD, flue gas desulfurization.

SCR, selective catalytic reduction.

a Final system not yet selected.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

TABLE 10-2 Strategic Objectives of DOE's Advanced Power Systems Program

Period

Objective

2000

2005

2010

2015

Efficiency (%)

42

47

55

60

Emissions (NSPS)a

1/3

1/4

1/10

1/10

Cost of energy

10-20 percent lower than currently available pulverized coal technology

a NSPS, New Source Performance Standards. Current federal standards apply to emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulates from coal-based steam generators.

Source: DOE (1993a).

still smaller cost savings. These estimates assume that the nonfuel costs—principally the initial capital cost—remain constant. DOE targets show lower capital costs for advanced technologies than current commercial systems. More likely, the capital cost of more efficient combined-cycle systems will exceed that of the simpler, less demanding technologies now in use (Merrow et al., 1981). Higher capital and operating costs would mean that overall reductions in the cost of electricity would be difficult or impossible to achieve.

While projections of the cost and performance of new technologies are subject to great uncertainty (Frey et al., 1994), comparison of systems and options should be done on a common and clearly stated basis to provide valuable guidance for investment in RDD&C (see below, Systems Analysis and Strategy Studies). Such comparative studies are extremely valuable for assessing the validity of program goals and for communication of results.

A more realistic cost goal for the DOE advanced power systems program might be to achieve efficiency improvements at an overall electricity cost comparable to that for new coal plants today. For the future U.S. market, some cost premium could even be acceptable if justified by the improved environmental performance and reduced externality costs associated with advanced technologies. Indeed, future environmental regulations may well require such higher performance, creating new incentives for investment in higher-efficiency systems. To be competitive overseas, advanced technologies would require the lowest possible capital costs consistent with the environmental and other requirements of specific foreign markets. In short, despite DOE's current planning estimates, it remains to be seen whether high-performance and smaller investment costs are in fact compatible objectives.

Group I Systems

Group 1 power generation systems generally make use of commercially available components and technologies, such as supercritical boilers, gasifiers,

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

and cold gas cleanup systems. Only limited use of first-generation PFBC and IGCC systems is expected in the United States. Demonstration programs for these technologies are under way both in the United States and abroad, and the main incentive to continue the domestic activity is to develop a foundation for second- and third-generation systems. On the other hand, the LEBS technology program outlined by DOE (1993a) does not appear to offer opportunities for development of a substantially more efficient, lower-emission system. Only if LEBS achieves a significantly lower cost than existing systems with comparable performance would its development be justified for near-term markets.

Assuming that Group I performance and cost objectives can be met, the market for Group 1 technologies will probably be limited to near-term installations where there is no economic penalty for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Although the committee's baseline scenarios assume no such penalties for the near-term (1995-2005), it envisions new regulations or penalties aimed at forcing CO2 reductions during the mid-term period (2006-2020). Technologies in Group 1, with their limited efficiency improvements over existing plants, would be at a disadvantage relative to the newer Group 2 systems emerging in the mid-term period. The ''less demanding" scenario discussed in Chapter 4 assumes that economic penalties on CO2 emissions might not be imposed for the foreseeable future. This might well be the case in developing countries such as China, and Group 1 technologies might therefore be of potential export interest.

Group 2 and 3 Systems

In contrast to Group 1 systems, technologies in groups 2 and 3 are judged by the committee to have greater potential to meet future power generation and associated environmental requirements: all technologies in these two groups make use of advanced components to achieve higher efficiencies and lower emissions. Major questions of system integration and reliability will need to be addressed, and early pioneer installations could serve as a basis for improved systems.

The riskiest components appear to be the high-temperature heat exchanger and furnace required for the indirectly fired systems, and the hot gas cleanup systems for the advanced PFBC and gasification-based systems. It is not established that high-temperature gas turbines can tolerate the chlorine and alkali metals that may be present in FBC (fluidized-bed combustion) products or the sulfur and particulates in the gasifier products of IGCC systems. Although hot gas cleanup is a component of advanced IGCC systems, cold gas cleanup could still allow the technology to succeed, if at a lower efficiency. In this sense, IGCC is a somewhat less risky technology than PFBC.

The 1370 °C to 1425 °C (2500 °F to 2600 °F) gas turbine required for Group 3 systems is within the state of the art for aviation systems but is still under development for electric power generation systems and will require demonstration and testing. The IGCC-2 and IGAC systems with an advanced gas turbine

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

may not be significantly more expensive than first-generation systems if the turbine development effort is successful.

As noted previously, integrated gasification fuel cell systems offer the highest efficiencies and emission controls. Systems using molten carbonate or solid oxide fuel cells incorporate a steam bottoming cycle to maximize efficiency. Molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells operate at high temperatures (650 °C [1200 °F] and 980 °C [1800 °F], respectively). Since the maximum voltage produced by a fuel cell decreases with increasing temperature, the higher-temperature solid oxide fuel cell produces a smaller fraction of the total system power. However, the potentially lower costs of the solid oxide fuel cell provide incentives for continued research on these systems. The potential market for fuel cell technologies is quite large, especially for distributed power generation. However, fuel cell systems may still not be cost competitive with gas turbine systems without environmental incentives for higher efficiencies.

Gas turbine and fuel cell activities are currently funded under the natural gas portion of DOE's FE R&D program. However, gas turbines and fuel cells could be used with coal-derived gas, with the addition of gasification and gas cleanup facilities. The principal operating difference between natural gas and coal-derived fuel gas in these applications relates to the contaminants in coal-derived gas. Cold gas cleanup is capable of removing contaminants to a negligible level; however, there is an efficiency penalty of about two percentage points, along with the production of liquid waste streams that must be treated, adding to system complexity and cost. Hot gas cleanup is potentially more efficient but at the expense of less complete removal of contaminants, especially volatilized species that are not captured in current hot gas cleanup designs.

The requirements for cleanup of coal-derived fuel gas are expected to differ for fuel cell and gas turbine systems. System optimization will be required and needs to be established as part of the DOE coal program. For the molten carbonate fuel cell, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, chlorine compounds, trace metals, and particulates would interact with the electrodes and with the carbonate electrolyte, necessitating electrolyte replacement and disposal of resulting water-soluble solid waste. For high-temperature gas turbines, damage to the blades is of greatest concern, and a discussion of research aimed at mitigating this concern can be found in Chapter 9 (Advanced Research Programs). Degradation caused by contaminants would limit maximum turbine inlet temperature, thereby limiting attainable system efficiency.

Thus, for fuel cell systems, the major development challenge is to reduce both fuel cell costs and balance-of-plant costs. For gas turbines, the major goal is to maximize turbine inlet temperature. Increasing turbine inlet temperature from the current maximum of 1290 °C (2350 °F), beyond the 1370 °C to 1425 °C (2500 °F to 2600 °F) proposed for integrated gasification advanced-cycle systems, to the 1540 °C to 1650 °C (2800 °F to 3000 °F) used in high-performance turbines would bring system efficiencies to a level approaching that expected for

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

molten carbonate fuel cells. These major development goals for fuel cells and gas turbines apply to systems fueled with either natural gas or coal-generated gas. No special considerations for coal-derived fuel gas appear necessary at this time, beyond those described above for the coal program.

To use coal, both fuel cell and gas turbine systems depend on coal gasification technology; both can accept methane and light hydrocarbons in the fuel gas. As discussed in Chapter 6, coal gasification results in a loss of five to 10 percentage points in overall power generation efficiency compared to natural gas. Development of maximally efficient gasification technology is thus essential for future high-efficiency utilization of coal for both fuel cell and gas turbine systems.

Magnetohydrodynamics

The use of topping cycles—as in fuel cells, gas turbines, and MHD generators—to achieve efficiencies higher than those attainable in the simple steam Rankine cycle (approximately 42 percent) has been adopted worldwide and is the major focus of the ongoing DOE program on advanced technologies for electricity generation. Advances in gas turbine and fuel cell technologies have essentially closed the original efficiency gap that stimulated a large worldwide effort on MHD during the 1960s and 1970s. Over the past decade, this MHD effort has been greatly reduced. Within the DOE FE Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems Program, no further funds are allocated for MHD, except for closeout of the proof-of-concept study. EPACT Section 1311 recommends (and the committee concurs) that an integrated documentation of the results of the extensive proof-of-concept work should be prepared, to capture the "lessons learned" and to establish a reference point for any possible development of MHD systems in the future.

Emissions Control Technologies

Environmental control requirements for coal-based power plants are expected to become increasingly stringent in response to more demanding federal, state, and local requirements. In the near-term, new control requirements for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and air toxics are anticipated, along with new ambient standards for fine particulates. Over the longer term, significant reductions in CO2 and solid wastes may be needed.

Targets

DOE's strategic objectives for conventional air pollutants (SO2, NOx, and particulates) express future goals relative to the 1979 federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for coal-fired power plants (see Table 10-2). These emissions goals apply to advanced power systems in groups 2 and 3. DOE's goals

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

for 2000 and 2005 can already be met or exceeded by technology in commercial use today, although cost reduction remains an important objective. Because environmental control requirements show a strong tendency to become more stringent, and because DOE's emissions goals for the next decade already are being achieved with modern technology (see Chapter 3), it is not clear to the committee that the DOE goals will be adequate to meet all necessary environmental standards for coal plants a decade or more from now. The 2010 target of 1/10 NSPS represents a relatively demanding level of emissions reduction but one that should be achievable by a number of coal-based systems much sooner than 2010 (although not all advanced systems may be able to meet the objective readily for all pollutants). Whether DOE's emission goals will be adequate to meet regional and local environmental quality constraints—which tend to be the most demanding—cannot be foreseen.

Emissions control requirements for hazardous air pollutants (air toxics) have yet to be defined by the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The most likely need in this area will be for control of volatile species, such as mercury, which escape collection in existing gas cleaning systems. Studies are in progress to assess baseline emission levels for current and advanced technologies.

In the mid- to long-term periods a critical environmental issue for coal use is likely to be the need to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The committee concurs with DOE's primary strategy of reducing coal-related CO2 emissions by improving the energy efficiency of new power generating plants. The CO2 benefits of advanced technologies should be compared to the best commercial technologies currently available, which are more efficient than average U.S. plants (Table 10-3). The reductions actually achieved in the U.S. economy will depend on the rate of penetration of the advanced technology.

The DOE program plan includes the cross-cutting area of control technology, whose general goal is to achieve "ultra-low" emissions beyond the goals for 2010 (DOE, 1993a). No specific targets are set. However, the historical evidence (Appendix D) shows a strong trend toward requiring emissions from new coal plants to be reduced to the maximum extent achievable, within reasonable constraints on economic cost. Ideally, a risk-cost-benefit analysis would serve as the basis for determining environmental control regulations; discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of the present study. A possible vision for longer-term environmental R&D goals is to benchmark emissions of air pollutants from coal plants relative to cleaner but more costly competing fuels, particularly natural gas. With the exception of CO2 content, it is feasible to match the quality of natural gas by cleanup of coal-derived gas. Since natural gas will continue to be used, a consistent set of requirements for coal-derived gas and natural gas may be appropriate. To the extent that such a goal for ultra-low emissions can be achieved, the environmental acceptability of coal relative to competing energy sources will be enhanced. The long-term challenge for the DOE program, then, would be to develop systems that achieve targeted emissions reductions from coal plants at

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

TABLE 10-3 Potential CO2 Reductions for Advanced Power Systems Relative to Current Coal-Fired Power Plants (percent)a,b

Period

Basis for Comparison; Efficiency

2000

2005

2010

2015

Average U.S. plant; 33%

21

30

40

45

New U.S. plants; 38%

10

19

31

37

New plants worldwide; 42%

0

11

24

30

a The numbers in this table show the percent reduction in CO2 from replacing an existing power plant of the indicated efficiency with a more efficient advanced plant that meets the DOE goals in Table 10-2. See Table 10-2 for assumed efficiency improvements for advanced coal technology in each time period.

b A widely used computer model developed by DOE's Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories was run to estimate the long-term impacts of meeting DOE's cost and efficiency objectives. The model estimated an overall reduction of about 19 percent in coal use and CO2 emissions from power generation in the year 2050 from introducing DOE's more advanced and lower-cost power systems in the United States, relative to a base case with a much smaller rate of efficiency improvement. These results, of course, depend on a host of other model assumptions and projections besides meeting DOE technology goals. The results are presented simply to indicate that a 30 to 40 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from new plants does not translate into a comparable reduction in overall CO2 emissions even after 35 years.

reasonable cost. If this long-term goal can be achieved, the primary environmental concern remaining for coal-based systems, aside from CO2 emissions, will be solid wastes.

The increasing cost and decreasing availability of landfill disposal options, particularly near urban and suburban population centers, will require increased attention to waste minimization, recycle, and reuse methods. In the committee's opinion, DOE's goal of reducing solid wastes from advanced pulverized-coal systems by half appears to be reasonable for near- to mid-term technologies (DOE, 1993a). More ambitious goals than the targeted 50 percent waste utilization from advanced power systems by 2010 are appropriate for the long-term, when higher waste disposal costs will provide greater incentives for waste reduction at the source.

Technology Development Needs

A number of technologies now being demonstrated in the CCT program offer potentially lower emissions control costs in the near-term for conventional air pollutants, for both new and retrofit plants. The most challenging problem for DOE is to achieve reliable and cost-effective emissions control using hot gas cleanup for advanced power systems. The most critical need is for high-temperature, high-pressure particulate removal. This technology is essential for the ad-

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

vanced PFBC systems; it is one way to achieve higher efficiencies with advanced IGCC systems. Hot gas desulfurization technology similarly remains to be developed for advanced IGCC systems. While current hot gas cleanup devices achieve very low levels of SO2 and particulate emissions, to date neither hot gas particulate removal nor hot gas desulfurization systems have approached the durability and reliability requirements needed for a commercial system. Furthermore, current hot gas cleanup systems do not control volatile air toxics or nitrogen oxides (NOx). DOE remains optimistic that these critical problems will be solved through continued R&D. Nonetheless, the promise of advanced PFBC and the potential efficiency gains of IGCC and IGFC systems will not be realized until significant progress is demonstrated. For gasification-based systems, existing or improved cold gas cleanup systems can meet anticipated environmental requirements but at an efficiency penalty of about two percentage points.

To achieve larger or more rapid reductions in CO2 emissions than can be achieved by improving the thermal efficiency of coal-based power plants, technological options for the removal and storage of CO2 from conventional and advanced power systems could also be needed. The current DOE plan provides for such a contingency, in its objective of demonstrating by 2010 the capability to reduce and sequester CO 2 emissions by about 80 percent at a cost premium of not more than 20 percent (DOE, 1993a). Given the current state of technology in this area, the most pressing need is for research related to CO2 storage.

One of the most demanding long-term technical challenges for the DOE coal program is the reduction or elimination of solid wastes—a major environmental concern—through innovative and cost-effective recycle and reuse options, perhaps as part of an integrated "coal refinery."5 At present, DOE has only a relatively small program ($2.4 million per year) in solid waste management. At least one of DOE's advanced coal technologies—the second-generation PFBC system—generates more solid waste than today's best commercial plants meeting stringent standards for SO2 removal (98 percent or more). This underscores the need to find effective solutions that will allow coal to compete environmentally with alternative fuels for power generation.

Conclusions
Power Generation Systems
  1. DOE's selection of efficiency, emissions, and cost as key attributes of advanced coal-based technology is appropriate for strategic planning. However, its specific efficiency and cost objectives for advanced power systems appear to

5  

The term "coal refinery" is understood as a system consisting of one or more individual processes integrated so as to allow coal to be processed into two or more products supplying two or more markets.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
  1. be overly optimistic given the current state of technology. On the other hand, DOE's power plant emission goals appear to be insufficiently challenging relative to the capabilities of current commercial technology and the environmental demands expected on future coal use.
  2. The market for Group I systems (LEBS, PFBC-1, and IGCC-1, with approximately 40 to 42 percent efficiency) will probably be small in the United States. The overseas market may offer the best opportunities for commercialization. In particular, because LEBS offers comparatively small potential to evolve to a significantly higher performance system, it will be attractive only if it achieves a significant cost reduction relative to current commercial systems with comparable performance.
  3. For group 2 and 3 systems with 45 to 60 percent targeted efficiency, new technological achievements are required to achieve the goals defined by DOE, including development of high-temperature gas turbines, high-temperature heat exchangers, hot gas cleanup systems, and advanced fuel cells.
  4. Overall, gasification-based systems offer the lowest risk and highest potential for lower emissions and higher efficiency than current technology, but cost expectations need to be more clearly defined.
  5. System optimization cost and market studies are needed to define the roles and relative merits of the systems now being funded.
  6. While most of the DOE gas turbine program is funded under the DOE natural gas budget, the future of many of the high-efficiency options for efficient coal use depends on firing these same turbines with gas from coal gasification or pressurized fluidized-bed combustion.
  7. The gas turbine program under the DOE coal budget is appropriately focused on assessing the problem of trace material contamination (e.g., alkali metals) and possible solutions, such as special turbine materials, especially when hot gas cleanup is used.
  8. The integrated gasification fuel cell system offers the highest efficiency and lowest emissions of power generation systems under development within the DOE program. However, high fuel cell cost may be a significant barrier to widespread use, and a carefully documented projection of the potential for cost reduction is needed to establish program priorities.
  9. The highest efficiency for IGFC systems will be obtained with hot gas cleanup; however, the requirements for contaminant removal need to be established.
  10. The molten carbonate fuel cell offers the most promise among the current fuel cell options for IGFC power generation systems.
  11. Overall, current DOE priorities as reflected in the FY 1994 budget authorization and the FY 1995 budget request for advanced power systems—including the fuel cell and gas turbine components of the natural gas program—are consistent with the committee's view of priorities across different power generating options.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Emissions Control Technologies
  1. Overall, DOE can make an important contribution to reducing the costs and improving the performance of emissions control technologies by careful selection of critical problems for research in conjunction with industry.
  2. Hot gas particulate cleanup is an especially critical technology at this time, since it will be an essential element in the success of high-performance PFBC and could improve the efficiency of gasification-based systems.
  3. Hot gas cleanup for sulfur removal is another critical development needed for advanced PFBC systems where high-efficiency sulfur removal still needs to be demonstrated at acceptable reagent stoichiometries. There would also be efficiency benefits for advanced IGCC systems.
  4. A thorough understanding is needed of options for the control of hazardous air pollutants, especially volatile air toxics, such as mercury and chlorine, across the set of advanced combustion and gasification-based technologies.
  5. NOx control measures meeting DOE's performance targets for advanced power systems with hot gas cleanup and high-temperature turbines remain to be fully specified and demonstrated. Selective catalytic reduction or other add-on technologies could well be required in addition to the combustion-based NOx controls now envisioned.
  6. Solid waste reduction is needed for all coal-based systems. Waste minimization, by-product recovery, and reuse options will become increasingly important and merit additional attention.
  7. Currently, the primary focus of DOE's coal R&D to reduce CO2 emissions is improving power plant efficiency. Should future policy measures require an accelerated rate of CO2 reductions, additional measures to remove and dispose of CO2 from gas streams, to avoid CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, could also be warranted.
Recommendations6
Power Generation Systems
  1. DOE's quantitative performance and cost objectives for advanced power systems should be reviewed in light of the committee's discussion and conclusions. In particular, a more realistic goal for advanced power systems would be to achieve significant efficiency improvements at an overall cost comparable to new plants today. For environmental R&D goals, an alternative long-term vision is to benchmark air emissions from coal plants relative to cleaner but more costly competing fuels, particularly natural gas. The long-term challenge would be to achieve greater emissions reductions economically while substantially reducing solid wastes.

6  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
  1. Further development of LEBS should be predicated on at least 50 percent cost sharing with industry to demonstrate its potential to reduce costs below those of current systems with comparable performance.
  2. *Future investment of DOE resources in first-generation systems should be based on realistic market expectations and value as an entry into new technology with high growth potential. At least 50 percent industry cost sharing should be required to demonstrate private sector confidence in these technologies.
  3. *Second- and third-generation gasification-based systems should be given the highest priority for new plant applications. Work on all the advanced systems should focus on acquiring the cost, emissions control, and efficiency information needed to select the most promising systems for further development. The limitations of critical components, such as heat exchangers, turbines, and fuel cells, and the timing and probability of technological successes should be taken into account. This process should begin before FY 1996 and should include a rigorous comparative study of the design options.
  4. The DOE coal program should focus on assessing and solving turbine life problems related to coal-generated trace materials. If limitations caused by trace components are identified, research on special control technologies and on alternative materials resistant to the effects of contaminants should be undertaken.
  5. DOE should identify research priorities specific to the use of coal-derived gas in fuel cells, such as the effect of contaminants on fuel cell performance and emissions.
Emissions Control Technologies7
  1. *A critical assessment of hot gas cleanup systems for advanced IGCC and PFBC should be undertaken immediately to determine the likely costs and the ability to meet, in the next three to five years, all requirements for future high-temperature (>1260 °C [>2300 °F]) turbine operation and environmental acceptability.
  2. Research on control of volatile air toxics for advanced power systems should be initiated, with a priority on those substances that remain in a gaseous phase at typical exhaust gas temperatures (generally >95 °C [>200 °F]). Assessments of current capabilities to control other hazardous air pollutants should also be undertaken.
  3. Research should be continued on innovative approaches for less costly and more effective control of sulfur and nitrogen emissions in both retrofit and new plant applications.
  4. Reduction of solid waste emissions from coal use processes should be given a higher priority in the DOE research program, with emphasis on innovative and lower-cost by-product recovery and reuse. An evaluation of by-product

7  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
  1. disposal and reuse options and costs should be conducted for all DOE-funded coal programs.
  2. In addition to emphasis on efficiency improvements, continued R&D on the most promising retrofit measures for CO2 capture and disposal is appropriate.

CLEAN FUELS AND SPECIALTY PRODUCTS FROM COAL

Clean gases and liquid products derived from coal have the potential for substantial future use. At present, natural gas and refined petroleum are much less costly than comparable products from coal. However, both of these resources are expected to become more costly (EIA, 1994).

DOE's primary strategic objective for advanced fuel systems is to demonstrate by 2010 advanced concepts for producing liquid fuels and other products from coal that can compete with products produced from petroleum, when petroleum prices are $25/bbl (1991 dollars) or greater.8 At this price, coal-derived liquids may become competitive with nonconventional oil sources, such as tar sands and shale, and may also compete with the higher worldwide oil prices projected for the mid to long-term.

It is likely that national efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, as well as other environmental legislation and regulatory actions, could lead to increased emphasis on improved efficiency for technologies that convert coal to gaseous and liquid fuels. However, the cost of coal alone is too low to justify large additional investments for efficiency improvement. To date, DOE has not adopted environmental emission goals for coal liquefaction process plants, as it has for electric power plants. Future plants will likely have to meet air, land, and water emission requirements that are more stringent than those in place today, which could increase the overall cost of coal conversion processes relative to processes that use oil or gas.

Coal Gasification

The conversion of coal to cleaned gas with current technology incurs a loss of the inherent useful energy in the coal of approximately 20 percent, corresponding to an efficiency loss of 10 percentage points in IGCC systems using coal-derived gas (see Chapter 6). This loss can be largely attributed to temperature cycling and increased energy requirements for compression. Commercial high-temperature, oxygen-blown, entrained-flow systems with cold gas cleanup would have a loss of around 13 percentage points. The committee believes that further

8  

The committee notes that DOE's costing method employs assumptions common among electric utilities but not among oil companies. In particular, the interest rates assumed in amortizing the capital cost of a liquefaction plant are based on a lower assumed risk and therefore lower rates of return than are commonly used by the petroleum industry (see Chapter 2 and Glossary). This difference in required rate of return will result in higher costs compared to DOE estimates (DOE, 1993b).

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

improvements in gasification technology are quite feasible and that cooperative programs with industry could help identify opportunities to improve both fluidized-bed and moving fixed-bed systems, leading to increased efficiency of advanced power generation systems.

For coproduct systems producing clean fuels and electricity, requirements for maximizing system efficiency are much alike. However, air-blown systems would be at a disadvantage. If oxygen systems are used, minimized oxygen consumption is important, and low-temperature gasification with methane production would require less heat and therefore less oxygen. Catalytic fluidized-bed systems offer potential for this application and have been studied in the past, but no currently active programs have been identified by the committee.

The ongoing SST program includes demonstration of six commercial gasification technologies. In addition, the proposed FY 1995 FE coal R&D program budget for Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems includes significant funding for construction of an advanced air-blown, moving fixed-bed gasifier, which has the potential to meet the IGCC-2 efficiency goal of 45 percent and minimize production of coal tar. However, since air rather than oxygen is used, this system would not be well suited for the production of clean fuels requiring hydrogen or syngas. A significant reduction in the DOE budget for advanced gasification research has been proposed for FY 1995 (see Chapter 6), despite the needs and research opportunities for improved gasification efficiency for both power generation and clean fuels production.

Products from Coal-Derived Gas
Hydrogen Production

Production of pure hydrogen from fossil fuels involves oxidation and separation, together with conversion of CO and water to H2 and CO2 by the water-gas shift reaction. This set of processes is quite mature but is being improved by competing catalyst manufacturers and developers of hydrogen production technology, with ammonia manufacture a main outlet. Apart from advanced research on separation processes, there appears to be minimal need for DOE participation developing processes for manufacture of merchant hydrogen.

Production of pure hydrogen is expensive and a major consumer of energy. Clean fuels production processes that conserve hydrogen and involve in situ conversion of CO and water to H2 provide important gains in efficiency and cost reduction through heat integration and provide a preferred option for synthetic fuels manufacture.

Synthetic Natural Gas Production

While the current low-cost of natural gas makes synthetic natural gas (SNG)

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

uneconomical, there have been important advances in synthesis processes from industrial and government-funded R&D that allow use of the low H2/CO ratios from advanced gasifiers, increased tolerance for sulfur, and improved design of reactors for the highly exothermic methanation reaction. Processes for direct production of methane by coal pyrolysis and low-temperature catalytic gasification followed by cryogenic separation offer additional pathways.

It has been estimated (COGARN, 1987) that these newer technologies can reduce the cost of stand-alone SNG production by approximately 25 percent. However, the resulting cost will still be higher than projections by the EIA (Energy Information Administration) for natural gas wellhead prices of about $3.50/thousand cubic feet or less in 2010. Thus, development of an economic incentive for large single-product plants is not expected before the late mid- or long-term periods (2021-2040). The DOE coal program does not include major programs devoted to catalytic SNG synthesis. This seems appropriate in view of the long time horizon and the excellent capabilities outside DOE. Advanced low-temperature gasification processes, however, ultimately have the potential to increase efficiency and reduce the cost of manufacturing SNG, liquid fuels, and chemicals.

Separating the methane formed directly in gasification processes by pyrolysis and by reactions in low-temperature gasification can be achieved cryogenically or by diffusion. The latter requires advances in high-temperature selective diffusion membranes.

Methanol from Syngas

Methanol has been an important commodity for many years, with uses in the chemical industry and as a solvent. It can be used neat as a motor fuel and, with the requirement for inclusion of oxygenates in gasoline, its use in preparing oxygenated components by reaction with olefins has grown rapidly. Manufacture of methanol from coal is currently more expensive than manufacture from natural gas.

Methanol is made by the catalytic conversion of syngas at about 250 °C (480 °F) at 60 to 100 atmospheres pressure. Both coal and natural gas can be used as syngas sources. The current commercial processes use a fixed-bed catalytic reactor in a gas recycle loop. A wide range of mechanical designs are used to control the heat released from the reaction. New developments in methanol technology include fluidized-bed methanol synthesis and use of a liquid-phase slurry reactor for methanol synthesis. The slurry technology offers improved control of temperatures; it was developed in LaPorte, Texas, in a joint DOE/industry program.

There is relatively little industrial R&D activity on processes using syngas with low H2/CO ratios and the sulfur concentrations achievable with hot gas desulfurization. For use of coal, such a process could be less costly and more efficient than current technology and could be integrated advantageously with electricity generation in a coproduct system.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Liquid Hydrocarbons from Syngas (Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis)

While gasoline hydrocarbons can be manufactured from methanol by the Mobil methanol-to-gasoline process, production by F-T (Fischer-Tropsch) synthesis is currently favored for new overseas facilities when low-cost gas is available. F-T synthesis can produce premium-quality diesel and jet fuel with minimum processing. Gasoline is also produced but requires more extensive upgrading to meet octane number specification. DOE has been active in applying the slurry reactor technique to this process. The ability of this process to handle high-molecular-weight wax and to use the low H2/CO ratio gas from coal without the need for shifting to a higher ratio is important. Limited DOE development work is being conducted in LaPorte, Texas, in cooperation with industry groups.

Recent DOE-sponsored systems and cost studies (Gray, 1994; Tam et al., 1993) using the DOE financing basis (see Chapter 2 and Glossary) have projected equivalent crude prices of $30 to $35/bbl for stand-alone production of high-quality gasoline and distillate fuels (diesel, aviation). When production of F-T liquids was combined with gasification-based power generation, the equivalent crude cost was reduced by $5 to $7/bbl, bringing it closer to the EIA reference case projected price for crude oil of $28/bbl in 2010 (EIA, 1994). Thus, the studies indicate the possibility of coal-based fuels production in the mid-term period (2006-2020), which is about the same period as major construction of gasification-based power generation facilities.

Further cost reductions can be anticipated by continued systems studies; however, critical examination of the premium fuel credit should be included. Opportunities for cost reductions by research include optimization of once-through processes and development of catalyst systems compatible with sulfur levels attainable using hot gas cleanup.

Products from Direct Liquefaction and Pyrolysis of Coal
Direct Coal Liquefaction by Hydrogenation

Following the oil embargo of 1973, direct liquefaction was the subject of intensive R&D, both industry and DOE funded. Since then, the drop in oil prices has led to abandonment of all large-scale development and drastic reductions in both industrial and DOE research activities. The products of direct liquefaction can be refined to produce highly aromatic high-octane gasoline and high-quality diesel fuel. Jet fuels and heating oil can also be produced. A design, systems, and cost analysis based on results from DOE's advanced liquefaction R&D facility in Wilsonville, Alabama, projected an equivalent crude price based on utility financing of approximately $33/bbl using Illinois No. 6 coal (DOE, 1993b). Use of lower-cost Western coal might reduce the cost to approximately $30/bbl. There is optimism at DOE and among some industry groups that with continued R&D and

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

systems analyses the DOE goal of $25/bbl (1991 dollars) for liquids from coal can be reached.

The aforementioned estimate based on Wilsonville data concerned dedicated coal liquefaction plants. Coproduction of liquids and electricity with advanced gasification systems can be expected to reduce costs. The reduction would likely be significant but probably less than the $5 to $7/bbl estimated for F-T liquefaction. Coprocessing of coal with residual fuel or tar in oil refineries has been studied by both industry and DOE.

While use of coal introduces both coal and ash handling requirements, improved process performance and continued low-cost of coal are expected to revive commercial interest in the mid-term period (2006-2020) if oil prices follow EIA projections (EIA, 1994). Several research areas offer promise for reducing the cost and improving the efficiency of direct liquefaction by hydrogenation: use of raw coal gasifier product with a catalyst capable of in situ shifting of CO to H2, removal of the oxygen in coal as CO2 rather than water, use of a low-pressure reactor, and minimized production of light hydrocarbons.

Direct Coal Liquefaction by Pyrolysis

Controlled heating of coal in pyrolysis can produce modest yields of liquids. The heat of pyrolysis is small, and, if the char product can be used without cooling, high thermal efficiencies can be achieved. The pyrolysis liquids are low in hydrogen and high in oxygen compared to petroleum residuum or bitumen but could be coprocessed with bitumen or fed to a direct coal liquefaction unit. Their tendency to polymerize on storage limits their use as a supplementary fuel for power generation without further processing.

While probably of lower value to a refinery than bitumen, it seems possible that coproduction with gasification could make pyrolysis liquids competitive with tar in the same period as deployment of advanced power generation systems. DOE studied coproduction of pyrolysis char and coke (mild gasification) and began construction of demonstration facilities, but no further funding has been requested in the FY 1995 budget. A CCT demonstration of this technology using low-sulfur Western coal is under way; the plan is to market pyrolysis liquids as power plant fuel oil and to burn the coke.

Coal Refineries and Coproduct Systems

The energy industries are mostly specialized, oriented to a narrow range of products and markets. Electric utilities supply electricity along with some steam to local users; oil refineries supply liquid fuels along with some petrochemical feedstocks; and gas suppliers collect, purify, and transmit natural gas to end users. Government regulations differ for these areas, and separate specialty business units have been established to deal with these separate regulatory systems.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

As discussed in Chapter 3, this regulatory environment has been changing to make it more attractive for groups outside the traditional utilities to generate and sell electric power.

The concept of a coal refinery, analogous to an oil refinery, has been discussed for many years, but the availability of low-cost petroleum has provided a disincentive to implement the coal refinery concept. More recently, EPACT directed DOE to examine the potential of coal refineries, and a report has been published (DOE, 1991). Screening studies by the Mitre Corporation (Gray, 1994) identified major synergies between advanced power generation based on gasification and production of clean fuels and chemicals. The preceding discussion identified several examples of cost and energy savings from the manufacture of a variety of products from coal gasification. The available data (Gray, 1994; Tam et al., 1993) indicate an equivalent crude cost of $5 to $7/bbl less for a combination of F-T synthesis and electric power generation than for stand-alone plants for liquids production. In these estimates the economic return on electric power production was held constant and the savings were applied to the liquid coproducts.

There are many other product combinations besides coal liquids and electric power, and quantitative studies can provide essential strategic guidance for both R&D and identification of optimized combinations of electric power, fuels, and chemical products. The incentives for coproduction by refineries, chemical plants, or independent producers of clean gas and other products will vary widely with location and the organizations involved. Cooperation with potential users is important to the success of such strategic planning studies.

The funding for DOE programs to produce clean liquid fuels from coal has declined significantly in recent years (see Chapter 6). The discussion above has indicated the possibility of introducing liquid fuels from coal at about the same time as new IGCC-based electric power generation facilities might be constructed. The timely availability of appropriate demonstrated technology will depend on initiating programs to investigate opportunities and develop coproduct systems as soon as possible.

Conclusions
  1. Gasification plays a critical role as the first and most costly step in the production of electric power by combined-cycle systems and in the production of clean gaseous and liquid fuels and chemical products.
  2. Gasification options exist that offer potentially greater efficiencies than currently available commercial systems. Among the relatively unexploited options, low-temperature fluidized-bed gasification systems, with the possible use of catalysts, appear to be the most versatile for providing the entire array of future products from coal. A few examples of such systems are in development, but the committee believes there are additional opportunities for further development.
  3. The current DOE gasification program is devoted almost entirely to gas-
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
  1. ifier technology for power generation. However, gasification efficiency improvements are also needed to produce clean gaseous and liquid fuels. The proposed FY 1995 budget reductions are not consistent with this need.
  2. Materials research leading to membrane diffusion techniques for recovering a by-product hydrogen stream is a major opportunity for DOE coal research relating to the production of pure hydrogen from coal-derived gas.
  3. Production of SNG from coal is not expected to be of importance until late in the long-term.
  4. The major opportunity to improve thermal efficiency and cost in SNG production is in the gasification step.
  5. High-efficiency oxygen-blown gasifiers developed for combined-cycle power generation would also be applicable to use in SNG manufacture.
  6. For large single-product plants, direct coal liquefaction offers a 5 to 10 percent higher efficiency with correspondingly less CO2 production than coal-based F-T syntheses, with production of methanol falling between these two limits. Similarly, the cost of producing a slate of refined transportation fuels by direct liquefaction is potentially lower than for the coal-based F-T synthesis gas-based fuels.
  7. An estimate of the petroleum crude oil prices at which the products from a large direct liquefaction plant meeting current refined fuel specifications could compete is around $30/bbl using Western coal and utility financing. For F-T liquids the equivalent crude oil price would be approximately $5/bbl higher (i.e., $35/bbl), with methanol production about the same as direct liquefaction. With typical oil industry financing, the equivalent crude prices would be on the order of $5 to $10/bbl higher.
  8. Recent cost estimates for coproduction of coal liquids and electric power indicate that coal liquids might compete with petroleum at $25/bbl or less, with the possibility of coal-derived liquid fuel production at about the same time as installation of advanced IGCC power generation facilities.
  9. Continued research in conversion chemistry and process optimization have the potential to reduce the cost of coal liquids from large liquefaction plants to the DOE goal of $25/bbl (1991 dollars).
  10. There is little need, at this time, for large pilot plant or demonstration programs, but a bench-scale and small pilot plant program is needed to evaluate promising leads and provide focus for laboratory-scale research in direct liquefaction.
  11. Advances and maintenance of core competencies in direct coal liquefaction technology in the United States depend increasingly on DOE activities, since R&D on direct coal liquefaction has dwindled to a very low level in industry.
  12. Continued reductions in funding will cause a major degradation in the effectiveness of the DOE coal liquefaction program. This trend places the nation's long-term coal liquefaction option at risk because government support has become critical in sustaining U.S. competency in this area.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Recommendations9
  1. *An expanded DOE role should be established to ensure the timely availability of the most efficient and economic gasification systems for future uses of coal in power generation and in the production of clean gases and liquids.
  2. A research program should be established to improve the efficiency of gasification systems suitable for clean fuels production. The DOE program for improvement of gasifier efficiency also should include systems that produce methane directly and are applicable to both SNG and power generation.
  3. No direct program on SNG manufacture is recommended.
  4. *DOE's R&D program for coal liquefaction technologies should be continued at least at the FY 1994 level, with the goals of decreasing the cost of coal liquids and increasing overall efficiency.
  5. Within DOE's coal liquefaction program, the effects of efficiency and other improvements on reducing CO2 production should be considered.
  6. Within the DOE program on coal liquefaction, highest priority should be given to direct coal liquefaction research, concentrating on fundamental coal chemistry and innovative process development.
  7. DOE sponsorship of small pilot plant facilities should be continued to test and improve liquefaction technologies, but larger pilot plants should not be built in the near-term without significant private sector participation.
  8. *An assessment of strategies and opportunities for coproduction of premium liquid fuels and gasification-based power should be an important component in planning a program for the introduction of liquid fuels from coal.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY STUDIES

One critical activity identified by the committee that is not highlighted in DOE's current planning documents is systems analysis. This activity is essential to assessing coal R&D needs and priorities and to strategic planning. Given the expanding number of process options for advanced power generation, fuels production, and environmental controls, which designs are the most promising to pursue? How should complex processes be configured to achieve optimal results? How should individual components be designed to maximize performance and minimize cost? How do advanced process concepts compare to currently commercial technology and to each other? What are the most promising markets for advanced technologies, and what are the greatest technical risks? How do the various technical and economic uncertainties for new process designs affect projections of performance and cost, and how can targeted R&D best reduce critical uncertainties? A well-designed systems analysis program should be able to address such questions.

9  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

The DOE Fossil Energy program already has in place a significant systems and engineering analysis activity at both its Morgantown Energy Technology Center (METC) and its Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center (PETC) and additional capabilities at DOE headquarters in Washington. Each of these offices is involved in analysis and evaluation of processes and programs within selected areas of DOE activity. Analytical approaches of varying sophistication are employed for process analysis and evaluation, often with reliance on outside contractors in addition to in-house staff.

A preliminary look at DOE's ongoing activity in systems analysis indicates a significant amount of activity spread among METC, PETC, and headquarters. A major shortcoming, however, appears to be a lack of systematic assumptions and design premises within and across the full suite of DOE's advanced energy conversion and environmental control research programs. Rather, it appears that different parts of the DOE organization, working with a variety of different contractors, employ different assumptions and approaches—circumstances that preclude rigorous comparisons or evaluations of technologies in a given category (e.g., advanced power systems or advanced fuel systems).

Communicating the results of analyses to interest groups within and outside DOE is another important contribution of systems studies (see, for example, NRC, 1992), a contribution that could be greatly improved by consistency and clarity in the assumptions and methods used for analysis. Similarly, greater efforts to incorporate feedback from industrial and other stakeholders, coupled with timely and systematic publication of results, are also needed. A more coherent approach to systems analysis could be of real value for strategic R&D planning.

Of substantial value are the advanced analytical and computer-based methods for analysis, synthesis, and design of complex processes that DOE has begun to develop in recent years. For example, new methods to address technical and economic uncertainties are especially critical to characterize advanced processes and designs properly at the early stages of development. Characterization and analysis of uncertainties are also critical to identifying robust system designs, risks, potential markets, and key problem areas that should be targeted for research to reduce technological risks. While DOE has supported the development of advanced modeling approaches for systems analysis and design and is beginning to adopt some of these methods for R&D management, more rapid implementation of a rigorous systems analysis methodology could be of significant value for long-term strategic planning.

Conclusions
  1. The growth in opportunities to use coal to produce electricity, fuels, chemicals, and coproducts calls for expanding and strengthening DOE's Office of FE systems analysis activity, which plays a critical role in coal-related RDD&C and strategic planning.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Recommendations10
  1. *An expanded and more prominent role for systems analysis is recommended in developing RDD&C strategies for the DOE coal program. This activity should establish a clearly stated and consistent set of criteria, assumptions, and design premises that can be applied to all technologies in a given category, to facilitate rigorous comparisons. Advanced methods of analysis, design, and risk evaluation should be adopted, and extensive interaction with the user community—notably U.S. industry—and active dissemination of major study results and methods should be pursued.

TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION

An important goal for the DOE coal program, as specified by EPACT, is to accelerate the development and commercial introduction of new technologies related to coal use. A major additional objective is to increase the competitiveness of U.S. firms engaged in supplying equipment and advanced technology to the power-generating industry at home and abroad. Before commercialization, large-scale demonstration is generally necessary to provide credible evidence of improved performance and practicability. These demonstrations are expensive and are generally cost shared by DOE and industry. The DOE role can vary from operating and managing a cost-shared facility to cofunding a program located at an industrial site and managed by the industrial partner.

The demonstration programs under DOE's FE R&D budget are generally of the first type, while the CCT demonstration projects are generally of the second type, with DOE operating only as a cofunding agency. The annual budget for FE coal R&D demonstration programs is approximately $150 million/year; additional funding for demonstrations of fuel cells and advanced turbines is included in the Office of FE's natural gas budget.11 The CCT program will expend about $6.9 billion over 14 years on 45 programs, with industry contributing more than two-thirds of the total funding. The major CCT effort is expected to result in commercial applications, and, while most of the activities are not yet completed, most of the programs seem to be well chosen, based on the level of private support. Significant future use of these technologies will depend on a follow-up commercialization program that alleviates concerns about costs and reliability of advanced technologies (see Chapter 8). The extent of DOE involvement necessary to stimulate private sector investment in such a program requires further assessment, taking into account any social costs resulting from delay in the implementation of advanced coal-based systems.

At the request of the Secretary of Energy, the National Coal Council recently completed a study of commercialization opportunities and recommended a strat-

10  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

11  

For FY 1994, $74 million; for FY 1995 (request), $113 million.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

egy for overcoming the barrier of the high costs and risks involved in using ''pioneer technologies." It was recommended that approximately $1.4 billion be provided over 15 years (1995-2010) to provide about 10 to 15 percent of total capital and to help offset operating risks for the first plant after the demonstration plant, with a decreasing amount for the next three to five installations. Cost sharing would be for a percentage of that part of the commercial application that represents technical and economic risks not present in commercially available technology. This initiative would be in addition to the DOE FE R&D and CCT programs for technology demonstration.

Conclusions
  1. Adequate technology demonstration and commercialization programs are essential for timely commercial application of new coal use technologies.
  2. The timely introduction of clean coal technologies will depend on further demonstrations of a few pioneer installations beyond the CCT program to allay concerns about costs and reliability; some federal participation will be necessary to stimulate private sector investment.
  3. Cost sharing of the risk differential between pioneer plants and commercially available technologies will accelerate the commercial acceptance of many of the new coal-based technologies.
Recommendations12
  1. *Support of the current CCT program should be continued and the ongoing program completed. While no further solicitations are planned under the existing CCT program, the FE coal R&D program should continue to cofund demonstrations of selected Group 2 and Group 3 advanced clean coal technologies beyond those currently being demonstrated by the CCT program.
  2. Any uncommitted funds from the CCT program should continue to be spent on activities related to the domestic use of clean coal technologies.
  3. *An incentive program should be developed and implemented that would offset the capital and operating cost risks associated with early commercial applications of technologies previously demonstrated at a commercial scale.
  4. Management of an incentive program by DOE should be the same as that of the current CCT program. The elements should be the same, except that cost sharing applies only to the risk components and not the total project costs. Because the solicitation, negotiation, design, construction, and demonstration phases can take five to seven years, multiple solicitations in several fiscal years should be conducted near the end of the demonstrations of the current 45 projects.

12  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The principal aims of the DOE coal advanced research program are to pursue technology goals and exploratory research opportunities while maintaining a balance between revolutionary research and evolutionary engineering development programs. In conducting a strategic assessment of the DOE coal advanced research activities, the committee did not aim to provide a comprehensive list of research opportunities. However, some critical areas for coal-related research were identified during the committee's review of current programs. These include research on combustion and gasification, materials, and coal conversion and catalysis, as discussed in Chapter 9. In identifying these areas the committee accorded special importance to research areas unlikely to be addressed outside the FE coal R&D program. For example, the study of coal chemistry and catalytic reactions is not supported to a significant extent outside DOE's FE coal R&D program. The committee supports the DOE view, outlined in the recent FE advanced research strategic plan (DOE, 1994b), that advanced research activities within the coal program should be directed toward meeting the strategic objectives defined for advanced clean/efficient power systems and clean fuel systems. In line with the committee's earlier recommendation to modify coal RDD&C strategic planning horizons, the committee believes that the advanced research program should devote more effort to midand long-term requirements than is now the case.

The advanced research budget declined by about 30 percent in real terms between FY 1988 and FY 1994, with an additional decrease of approximately 25 percent proposed for FY 1995. Comparing the FY 1994 enacted appropriation and the FY 1995 budget request indicates that major reductions are proposed in coal liquefaction (84 percent), components (50 percent), and materials (25 percent). The reductions in funding for coal liquefaction, when combined with a proposed 36 percent reduction in funding for liquefaction programs outside the advanced research program, are of special concern, given the prospects for producing coal liquids in the mid to long- term.13

In Chapters 6 and 7 the committee identified ample opportunities for major contributions to fuels and power generation programs from advanced research. However, DOE's budget reductions for advanced research are not commensurate with the requirements for advancement of coal technology, notably the increasing needs for lower-cost, more efficient, and more environmentally acceptable use of coal.

Conclusions
  1. There are increased needs and opportunities for advanced research directly related to achieving cost reduction and improved performance goals for advanced power systems and fuels production.

13  

For a more detailed discussion of advanced research budgets, see Chapter 9.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
  1. The recent trend in decreasing support for coal-related advanced research activities is not commensurate with the expanding needs to support DOE's mission.
Recommendations14
  1. *Increased resources should be devoted to advanced research activities to support DOE's strategic objectives for coal, with emphasis on needs identified for mid- and long-term improvements in efficiency, emissions reduction, and cost for both power generation and fuels production.

THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992 (EPACT)

In this section the committee's conclusions and recommendations are interpreted in the context of the individual sections of EPACT that relate to coal (see Chapter 1 and Appendix B).

There is considerable overlap between the different coal-related sections of EPACT. For example, Section 1301 requires DOE to establish RDD&C programs on coal-based power generation technologies. One of the technologies addressed by DOE in this context is MHD, which is also addressed specifically in Section 1311. Similarly, issues relating to the cost-competitive conversion of coal to fuels are addressed in Sections 1301, 1305, 1309, and 1312.

In addition, there is very wide variation in the scope of different EPACT provisions. Section 1301 addresses the whole range of coal-based technologies, whereas other sections focus on very specific aspects of coal utilization, such as coal-fired diesel engines or low-rank coal R&D.

For these reasons of overlap and disparity of scope, the committee chose to develop and organize its conclusions and recommendations on the basis of strategic planning scenarios (Chapter 4) rather than by the individual sections of EPACT. The committee's approach has the advantage of providing a robust framework that can readily be adapted to respond to changes in the scenarios.

Table 10-4 summarizes the major EPACT provisions relating to coal, key features of relevant DOE programs, and the committee's comments and ratings in terms of priority for DOE. In assessing priorities for DOE activities, the committee used the criteria developed in Chapter 4. Prime considerations were the timing and goals of the program in light of the scenarios developed by the committee; the potential for technological success; likely markets; the potential for controlling, reducing, or eliminating environmentally important wastes; and the need for DOE participation, given the current development status of the technology, and other industrial and federal programs. For example, if technologies are already available commercially, the committee generally recommended a low priority in

14  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

this area for DOE activities. Similarly, if there is currently extensive R&D activity in the private sector, the committee recommended that DOE leverage this effort.

The committee concluded that DOE has responded to some degree to all the sections of EPACT addressed in the study. However, the extent of the response varies widely. In the case of power generation systems, addressed primarily in EPACT Section 1301, the DOE Advanced Clean/Efficient Power Systems program is very responsive to the EPACT requirements to "ensure a reliable electricity supply" while complying with environmental regulations and controlling emissions (see Chapter 7). The committee endorses DOE's approach to the development of advanced coal-based power generation technologies, given the likely need for new, clean, efficient coal-based power generation capacity in the mid to long-term (2006 through 2040). The committee's recommendations for priorities in developing the possible technology options are presented earlier in this chapter (under "Power Generation Systems").

The need to commercialize coal-based technologies, preferably by 2010, is addressed in EPACT sections 1301 and 1321. The committee concluded that DOE's CCT program represents an excellent start in the area of commercializing advanced power generation technologies, but, as noted above, plans need to be developed by DOE for activities beyond the conclusion of current CCT activities.

In contrast to DOE's generally adequate response to the sections of EPACT addressing power generation, its activities in coal liquefaction fall short of EPACT requirements, the committee concluded. As noted in Chapters 6 and 9, there was a significant reduction in funding of coal liquefaction activities between FY 1993 and FY 1994, and a significant further reduction is proposed for FY 1995. Given the likely growth in demand for coal liquids over the mid- to long-term periods (see Chapter 4) and the decline in industry-supported liquefaction research, the priority that EPACT gives to DOE liquefaction activities appears to be well founded.

Coproduction of electricity and other products, such as coal liquids, also is accorded relatively high importance by EPACT (sections 1304, 1305, and 1312), but it does not represent a major element of DOE's current program. Given the likely future growth in the use of coal for clean fuels and specialty products and the potential for economically attractive manufacture based on coproduction (see Chapter 6), the committee considers increased DOE effort in assessing coproduct systems or "coal refineries," in keeping with EPACT requirements, to be appropriate.

EPACT Section 1307 requires DOE to assess the feasibility of establishing a national clearinghouse for the exchange and dissemination of information on coal-related technology. The committee noted that means already exist to disseminate DOE reports on coal technologies to interested parties. Thus, any clearinghouse activity should be broader in scope and should involve participants from inside and outside DOE. However, the committee considered that the need

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

TABLE 10-4 EPACT Requirements and DOE Coal Program Compareda

EPACT Requirements

Key Features of DOE Program Activities

Committee Rating and Comments

TITLE XIII—COAL

Subtitle A—Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application

Section 1301: Coal Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Programs

• Conduct RDD&C programs on coal-based technologies to:

  • -  

    ensure reliable electricity supply

  • -  

    comply with environmental regulations

  • -  

    control emissions

  • -  

    achieve cost-competitive conversion of coal to transportation fuels

  • -  

    demonstrate conversion of coal to synthetic fuels

  • -  

    ensure timely commercial application of coal technologies with improved efficiency and emissions control

  • -  

    ensure availability of technologies for commercial use by 2010

• Advanced clean/efficient power systems:

  • -  

    advanced pulverized coal-fired power plant, including low-emission boiler systems

  • -  

    indirect-fired cycle

  • -  

    integrated gasification combined-cycle

  • -  

    pressurized fluidized-bed

  • -  

    advanced research and environmental technology (AR&ET), including hot gas and flue gas cleanup

  • -  

    magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)

High priority for DOE—adequate level of effort (see text for discussion and priorities)

See below, also under Section 1301, Advanced Research, for comments on AR&ET.

See Section 1311 for comments on MHD program.

 

• Advanced clean fuels (see also Section 1312):

  • -  

    direct liquefaction

  • -  

    indirect liquefaction

  • -  

    coal preparation

  • -  

    AR&ET

High priority for DOE—additional effort recommended

• Focused program on high-efficiency gasification needed

• Increased emphasis on liquefaction recommended (see Section 1312)

• Continue current limited effort in coal preparation.

 

• Advanced research (Advanced Research and Technology Demonstration, plus specific technologies for fuels and power systems), with major activities including:

  • -  

    coal utilization science

  • -  

    materials and components

  • -  

    university/national laboratory coal research

  • -  

    coal liquefaction

High priority for DOE—additional effort recommended

• The balance between short- and long- term activities within the FE coal R&D program should be reassessed, based on strategic planning extending beyond 2010. (See text for discussion.)

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

 

 

  • Clean Coal Technology (CCT) demonstration projects

High priority for DOE—adequate level of effort

  • Commercial acceptance of clean coal technologies may not occur in the proposed period without further cost sharing of technical and financial risk.

Section 1302: Coal-Fired Diesel Engines

 

  • Conduct RDD&C program for utilization of coal- derived liquid or gaseous fuels, including ultra-clean CWSs (coal-water slurries) in diesel engines.

 

  • See Section 1301 for gaseous and liquid fuels.
  • Coal-fired diesel program (Direct Coal-Fired Heat Engines activity) was completed in FY 1993
  • Coal-fired diesel engine to be demonstrated in CCT-V.

Low priority for DOE—inactive

  • Coal-derived liquids and gaseous fuels do not differ significantly from conventional diesel fuels; no separate DOE-funded study required.
  • DOE program on coal-fired diesels has been carried through to an appropriate level; no justification for further activity because of unfavorable economics and potentially insurmountable environmental issues.

Section 1303: Clean Coal, Waste-to-Energy

 

  • Conduct RDD&C program for use of solid waste combined with coal as fuel source for clean coal combustion technologies:
    • -  

      tires and coal in fluidized-bed combustion units

    • -  

      combined gasification of coal and municipal sludge using IGCC

    • -  

      fuel pellets

    • -  

      waste methane

 

  • Under DOE contract, Riley Research conducted tests in circulating atmospheric fluidized-bed on cofiring of coal with de-inking paper sludge and high-Btu ash
  • DOE sponsored pilot-scale work on cofiring of coal and infectious hospital waste; subsequent demonstration in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, will involve 50 percent DOE cost share.
  • DOE has assessed technical and economic feasibility of direct liquefaction of coal with hydrocarbon- or paper-based wastes to produce premium transportation fuels; follow-up program proposed.

Adequate level of DOE effort

  • Gasification system approach best addressed by private sector.
  • Minimal DOE participation required for hospital waste program. No major R&D issues to be addressed; requires

additional stack cleanup.

Waste methane—see Section 1306

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

EPACT Requirements

Key Features of DOE Program Activities

Committee Rating and Comments

Section 1304: Nonfuel Use of Coalb

 

  • Plan and carry out RDD&C program for nonfuel use of coal, including:
    • -  

      production of coke and other carbon-based products, chemicals, and chemical feedstocks from coal

    • -  

      chemicals from synthesis gas

    • -  

      utilization of wastes from coal (see Section 1308)

    • Above program should include assessment of economic feasibility of coproduction, refining, and utilization of coal-based products (see Section 1305)

 

  • Syngas production activity supports concept development for coproduction of coal-derived fuels and chemicals in conjunction with electric power (see Section 1312, indirect liquefaction).
  • Mild gasification/coal refinery activities address production of coke and chemical intermediates (see also Sections 1305 and 1312).

See Section 1312

Low priority for DOE

  • Decreasing market for coke
  • CCT program on mild gasification adequate (see Section 1305)

 

 

  • DOE supporting Carbon Products Consortium in development of coal-based alternative feedstocks and establishment of links with industry. No further funding requested for FY 1995.

Low priority for DOE

Section 1305: Coal Refinery Program

 

  • Conduct RDD&C program for coal refining technologies for high-sulfur coals, low-sulfur coals, subbituminous coals, and lignites to produce transportation fuels, compliance boiler fuels, fuel additives, lubricants, and chemical feedstocks, alone or with power generation.

 

  • Coal refinery activity included under advanced clean fuels research (Section 1312) addresses coproduction of electricity and coal liquids.

High priority for DOE

  • Worthwhile concept; systems assessments have indicated promising areas, especially coproduction of syngas liquids with electricity.
  • Further assessments needed to identify and exploit opportunities.

 

 

  • Mild gasification is part of ongoing CCT program.

Low priority for DOE

  • Adequately covered by CCT program.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

Section 1306: Coalbed Methane Recovery

 

  • Conduct a study of barriers and environmental safety aspects.
  • Disseminate information to public on state-of-the- art technologies.
  • Conduct coalbed methane demonstration and commercial application program

 

  • Previous DOE program ended in 1993.
  • Clinton administration's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) establishes new initiatives to reduce methane emissions from all major sources, including coal mines (Clinton and Gore, 1993).
  • DOE FY 1994 budget request for $300K for coalbed methane activities was not approved; FY1995 budget request covers coalbed methane recovery under natural gas program.
  • CCAP requires DOE and EPA to create Coalbed Methane Outreach program-currently no activity due to lack of funding.
  • CCAP requires expansion of DOE RD&D programs for methane recovery from coal mining; interaction with stakeholders initiated in 1993 continues.

Low methane concentration (81.0%)

Moderate priority for DOE

  • There are possible low-level R&D activities investigating separation and combustion processes for dilute methane.

Higher methane concentrations

Low priority for DOE

  • Existing commercial technology adequate but in limited use.

Section 1307: Metallurgical Coal Development

Establish RDD&C program for use of metallurgical coal as:

  • -  

    a boiler fuel

  • -  

    an ingredient in steel manufacture

  • -  

    source of coalbed methane

 

  • DOE not currently conducting any research specific to metallurgical coal development.
  • Information on gas content in 16 U.S. coal basins available in METC database.
  • Commercial technology exists to burn metallurgical coal as boiler fuel or use in steelmaking.

Low priority for DOE—inactive

  • No new technology needed to burn as boiler fuel.
  • Activities relating to metallurgical coal as a source of coalbed methane should be included in Section 1306 programs.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

EPACT Requirements

Key Features of DOE Program Activities

Committee Rating and Comments

Section 1308: Utilization of Coal Wastes

 

  • Establish RDD&C program for utilization of coal wastes from mining and processing, including as a boiler fuel.

 

  • AR&ET program on waste management includes examination of technical and economic aspects of waste utilization technology

Low priority for DOE—inactive

  • Technology is commercial-possible limited DOE role in economic and technical assessment.
  • Application of past DOE work on fluidized-bed combustion now being handled by industry.

Section 1309: Underground Coal Gasification

 

  • Conduct RDD&C program for in situ conversion of coal to an easily transportable gaseous fuel.

 

  • DOE program ended in FY 1991. Sufficient technical, operational, and environmental parameters developed to allow industry to make necessary decisions regarding commercialization.

Low priority for DOE—inactive

  • In agreement with current DOE assessment that underground gasification will not result in a competitive gaseous fuel.

Section 1310: Low-Rank Coal Research and Development

 

  • Pursue R&D program to expand use of low-rank coals in high-value-added carbon products, fuel cells, coal-water fuels, distillates, and other niche market applications.

 

  • Research effort on low-rank coals sponsored by DOE at University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center (UNDEERC).
  • Consortium being formed under UNDEERC leadership to demonstrate production of low-rank coal water fuels from Alaskan coals.

No special effort required aimed at low- rank coals

  • Low-rank coals are included in general coal utilization program (Section 1301) and represent one end of a continuum of materials.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

Section 1311: Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)

 

  • Carry out RDD&C program to determine adequacy of engineering and design information completed to date under DOE sponsorship.
  • Issue solicitations to fulfill above objective.

 

  • Conducting proof-of-concept program closeout
  • No solicitations issued

Documentation and cleanup activities—high priority for DOE

  • Need for thorough documentation of past work: current plans for this activity insufficient.

 

 

MHD system development—low priority for DOE

  • MHD does not appear to offer significant advantages over other advanced high-efficiency systems.
  • Next step in development involves very expensive demonstration program, since technical risk cannot be broken down.

Section 1312: Oil Substitution Through Coal Liquefactionc

 

  • Conduct RDD&C program to develop economically and environmentally acceptable advanced technologies for oil substitution through coal liquefaction. Program goals are to include:
    • -  

      improved resource selection and product quality

    • -  

      increased net yield

    • -  

      increased overall thermal efficiency

    • -  

      reduced capital and operating costs

 

  • Direct liquefaction, including advanced liquefaction processes, coprocessing with waste materials, and innovative process concepts

High priority for DOE

  • DOE should maintain an active program since industry activity in this area is declining.
  • Innovative approaches should be encouraged.
  • Large pilot and demonstration plants not required at this time.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

EPACT Requirements

Key Features of DOE Program Activities

Committee Rating and Comments

 

 

  • Indirect liquefaction, including Fischer-Tropsch chemistry, catalyst development, reactor design, oxygenate catalyst research, syngas, and low-cost hydrogen production

High priority for DOE

  • Opportunities for coproduction with electricity (see Section 1305).
  • Need coordination with active industry programs for natural gas conversion; DOE should focus on applying this technology to coal.

 

 

  • Mild gasification/coal refinery activity, including systems for coproducts (overlap with Section 1305)

See Section 1305

TITLE XIII-COAL

Subtitle B-Clean Coal Technology Program

Section 1321: Additional Clean Coal Technology Solicitations

 

  • Conduct additional solicitations for development of cost-effective, higher-efficiency, low-emission coal utilization technologies, with emphasis on need for commercialization by 2010.

 

  • In response to request from Secretary for Energy, the National Coal Council prepared a report (NCC, 1994) addressing future directions for the CCT program.
  • DOE report, Clean Coal Technology—Completing the Mission, released 05/06/94 (DOE, 1994c).
  • No additional solicitations issued beyond CCT-V.
  • Proposed diversion of CCT funds to overseas demonstration projects.

High priority for DOE—future action requires consideration (see text for discussion)

  • Emphasis should be on deployment of technologies developed and demonstrated in earlier rounds.
  • Commercial acceptance of CCT technologies may require further cost sharing of technical and financial risk.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

TITLE XIII-COAL

Subtitle C-Other Coal Provisions

Section 1332: Innovative Clean Coal Technology Transfer Program

 

  • Develop joint DOE/Agency for International Development clean coal technology transfer program to encourage exports of U.S. technologies that allow more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable use of coal resources.

 

  • Solicitations for China and Eastern Europe ''showcase" projects to be outlined in FY 1994.
  • Public meeting on Clean Coal International Technology Transfer Program held February 1994.
  • NCC report (see Section 1321) includes advice on conducting international technology transfer effort.

Low priority for DOE compared to domestic program

  • Current funds probably insufficient to meet requirements of Sections 1321 and 1332.
  • Priority should be given to Section 1321 requirements emphasizing CCT deployment in domestic market.

Section 1336: Coal Fuel Mixtures

 

  • Prepare a report on technical and economic feasibility, development status, market potential, and commercialization barriers to combining coal with other materials, such as oil and water fuel mixtures.

 

  • Coal preparation program (Advanced Clean Fuels Research) includes superclean coal water slurry (SCCWS) project (formerly part of Alternative Fuels Program).

Low priority for DOE—previous assessments adequate

  • Technologies for this very specialized market have been effectively commercialized and utilized.

Section 1337: National Clearinghouse

Assess feasibility of establishing national clearinghouse for exchange and dissemination of information on technology relating to coal and coal-derived fuels.

 

  • No current DOE activities; DOE is awaiting recommendations from National Research Council.

 

  • Need for national clearinghouse should be established by market survey of potential users.
  • Any activity should involve participants from inside and outside DOE.
  • External committee should assess feasibility of concept and make recommendations for implementation.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

EPACT Requirements

Key Features of DOE Program Activities

Committee Rating and Comments

TITLE XX—GENERAL PROVISIONS; REDUCTION OF OIL VULNERABILITY

Subtitle A—Oil and Gas Supply Enhancement

Section 2013: Natural Gas Supply

 

  • Conduct five-year program to increase recoverable natural gas resource base by more intensive recovery from discovered conventional resources; extraction from unconventional sources; surface gasification of coal; and recovery of methane from biofuels. Conduct five-year program on cofiring of natural gas with coal in utility and large industrial boilers.

 

  • METC Surface Coal Gasification Program involves R&D on new concepts development and refinement of existing systems.

Methanation aspect of SNG production—low priority for DOE

Gasification—high priority for DOE (see Section 1301)

 

 

  • Cofiring of natural gas with coal addressed in CCT program.

Low priority for DOE—appropriate level of effort

  • Established technology for pulverized coal
  • CCT program activity adequate.

a This summary of DOE program activities is based on planning documents provided by DOE's Office of Fossil Energy, the DOE FY 1994 budget, the FY 1995 congressional budget request, and presentations to the committee by DOE staff (see Appendix F).

b The committee notes that DOE programs responding to Section 1304 include fuel and nonfuel uses of coal.

C See also committee ratings and comments on advanced clean fuels research under Section 1301.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

for such an activity should be established by a market survey of potential users prior to significant investment of resources.

In comparing all the activities within DOE's current coal program and those mandated by EPACT, the committee noted a significant discrepancy in priorities. The current DOE program focuses on relatively near-term activities, notably the development, demonstration, and commercialization of coal-based power generation systems by 2010, at the expense of longer-term research programs. Such longer-term programs would position the United States to respond to future energy scenarios in which coal assumes increasing importance for uses other than power generation. In contrast to the DOE approach, the coal-related provisions of EPACT endorse the development of a longer-term, more balanced spectrum of coal-based technologies. The committee's recommendation that strategic planning for coal should address requirements for periods to the middle of the next century is more consistent with the EPACT approach than with DOE's current priorities.

Conclusions
  1. The current DOE program is appropriate and responsive to EPACT sections related to coal-based electric power generation.
  2. EPACT places significant emphasis on programs related to the expansion of coal use for manufacture of liquid and gaseous fuels and specialty products.
  3. The DOE program covering uses of coal beyond power generation has decreased in recent years.
  4. The need for a national clearinghouse to exchange and disseminate data on coal technologies has not yet been established.
Recommendations15
  1. There should be increased DOE support of fundamental and applied research aimed at longer-term uses of coal (2006-2040) to balance decreased industry research, guarantee the maintenance of U.S. technological expertise in this area, and position the United States to respond to future energy needs.
  2. *Within the DOE coal program there should be an increasing emphasis on the production of clean fuels and other carbon-based products over time.
  3. No further action should be taken to establish a national clearinghouse until a need has been established based on a market survey of potential users.

REFERENCES

Clinton, W.J., and A. Gore, Jr. 1993. The Climate Change Action Plan. Washington, D.C.: The White House.

15  

Asterisks (*) identify the most important recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

COGARN. 1987. Coal Gasification: Direct Applications and Synthesis of Chemicals and Fuels. U.S. Department of Energy Coal Gasification Research Needs Working Group, DOE/ER-0326. Washington, D.C.: DOE.

DOE. 1991. Report to Congress: Coal Refineries: A Definition and Example Concepts. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/FE-0240P. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

DOE. 1993a. Clean Coal Technologies: Research, Development, and Demonstration Program Plan. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/FE-0284. Washington, D.C.: DOE.

DOE. 1993b. Direct Coal Liquefaction Baseline Design and System Analysis: Final Report on Baseline and Improved Baseline, Executive Summary. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, under contract no. DEAC22 90PC89857. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: DOE.

DOE. 1994a. Strategic Plan: Fueling a Competitive Economy. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/S0108. Washington, D.C.: DOE.

DOE. 1994b. Fossil Energy Advanced Research: Strategic Plan. Review draft, July 15. Washington, D.C.: DOE.

DOE. 1994c. Comprehensive Report to Congress: Clean Coal Technology Program, Completing the Mission. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.


EIA. 1994. Annual Energy Outlook 1994. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0383(94). Washington, D.C.: DOE.

EPRI. 1993. TAGTM Technical Assessment Guide. EPRI TR-102275-VIR7. Vol. 1, Rev. 7. Palo Alto, California: EPRI.


Frey, H.C., E.S. Rubin, and U.M. Diwekar. 1994. Modeling uncertainties in advanced technologies: Application to a coal gasification system with hot gas cleanup. Energy 19(4): 449-463.


Gray, D. 1994. Coal Refineries: An Update. Prepared for Sandia National Laboratories by the Mitre Corporation under contract no. AF-7166. McLean, Virginia: The Mitre Corporation.


Maude, C. 1993. Advanced power generation—A Comparative Study of Design Options for Coal. London: International Energy Agency Coal Research.

Merrow, E., K.E. Phillips, and C.W. Myers. 1981. Understanding Cost Growth and Performance Shortfalls in Pioneer Process Plants. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Rand Corporation, R-2569-DOE. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation.


NCC. 1994. Clean Coal Technology for Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: National Coal Council.

NRC. 1992. The National Energy Modeling System. Energy Engineering Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


Tam, S.S., D.C. Pollock, and J.M. Fox. 1993. The combination of once-through Fischer-Tropsch with baseload IGCC technology. P. 306 in Alternate Energy '93 held April 28-30, 1993 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Arlington, Virginia: Council on Alternate Fuels.

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×

APPENDIXES

Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS." National Research Council. 1995. Coal: Energy for the Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4918.
×
Page 222
Next: APPENDIXES »
Coal: Energy for the Future Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was given a mandate in the 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) to pursue strategies in coal technology that promote a more competitive economy, a cleaner environment, and increased energy security.

Coal evaluates DOE's performance and recommends priorities in updating its coal program and responding to EPACT.

This volume provides a picture of likely future coal use and associated technology requirements through the year 2040. Based on near-, mid-, and long-term scenarios, the committee presents a framework for DOE to use in identifying R&D strategies and in making detailed assessments of specific programs.

Coal offers an overview of coal-related programs and recent budget trends and explores principal issues in future U.S. and foreign coal use.

The volume evaluates DOE Fossil Energy R&D programs in such key areas as electric power generation and conversion of coal to clean fuels.

Coal will be important to energy policymakers, executives in the power industry and related trade associations, environmental organizations, and researchers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!