Can the coal industry and an environmental blog find common ground?

Posted by Sara Barz at 12:15 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Read more about: coal | mainstream media | Al Gore

In response to this post on the many varied reactions to Gore's energy speech, Behind the Plug (the coal industry blog for which we have strong language) contacted me regarding questions for Gore on "Meet the Press." The impetus: Coming from very distant sides of political and editorial spheres, could we find some common ground to collaborate on a question for Gore?

As Behind the Plug says in its post, "We all breathe the same air and we all have an interest in America's energy future." Thus, based on the blogosphere roundups and reader comments -- and without feigning scientific expertise -- the joint question that both of us would like to see answered:

How did you come up with the year 2018 as a hard-cap goal for total renewable electricity generation? Is that goal scientifically based? What research did you use?

In addition, I have these to add:

What practical measures will we take to get to zero emission electricity in 10 years? Let's say Congress passes a resolution to aim for carbon-neutral electricity in 10 years, what would be the next step? Is there room in your plan for private investment? Or, would the installation of a modern electric grid become a completely public undertaking?

And, the pressing concerns at Behind the Plug:

Renewables are great -- we should increase their use. But they don't provide baseload power -- that is, we need electricity 24-hours per day, not just during the hours when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. How would you address baseload power concerns? How do you balance your environmental goals with the current economic climate in which Americans cannot afford increases in electricity prices?

The Grist readership will indubitably be able to provide feedback to these queries; but this diametrically-opposed collaboration provides a unique opportunity to share those thoughts with the folks at Behind the Plug.

For story: Can the coal industry and an environmental blog find common ground?
24 Comments | Post a Comment

Baseload is the key question indeed

Non-biomass renewables do have some potential, for sure, but unless cost-effective and efficient energy storage mechanisms are found, they remain a tiny part of the solution.

In Europe, there's now a tendency to look at wind and solar as sources that drive dependency on coal.

That's why the norm has become to state that, without coupling to biomass baseloads, solar and wind cannot be called fully renewable or green.

Luckily, the biomass potential is large enough to replace all coal and gas.

A good proof that it can be done is Germany's Combined Power Plant (Kombi-Kraftwerk), which runs 100% on renewables: biogas provides the baseload, wind and solar add.

Here:

Fully Renewable: the Kombi-Kraftwerk.

It can be done.

by Jonas at 12:50 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Jonas,

It's fine if you want to promulgate your anti-renewables views, but must you attribute them to "Europe"? It just sounds silly.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 12:56 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Co-firing

Forgot to add that, of course, the big advantage of biomass is that it can be co-fired with coal. Over 150 large coal power stations in Europe now do this.

They build up the biomass fraction gradually. So you don't need an entirely new power plant infrastructure. Just co-fire 10% biomass and build it up steadily. The first coal plant to have been reconverted to run entirely on biomass is already up and running, - the Les Awirs plant in Belgium.

So in Europe, the idea is that by 2030 you have full biomass power plants coupled to carbon capture and storage, which means you enter the era of "negative emissions" energy.

According to the Bellona Foundation, this type of carbon-negative bioenergy is the single biggest wedge (22%) in a scenario that aims for an 85% CO2 reduction by 2050. It is more than twice as big as all other renewables (wind, solar, hydro) combined. That's because the potential for biomass is so large and because coupled to CCS is can actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere, making it the most radically green technology out there (all other renewables are merely carbon-neutral, at best).

Check the IEA Bioenergy Task's websites on co-firing:

Co-Firing [check under 'databases' for an overview of plants doing this.].

And check the Bellona Foundation's report on reducing emissions by 85% by 2050, here:

With carbon-negative bioenergy, it becomes possible.

Note that thinking about mitigating climate change and renewables is far more advanced in Europe, where bio-CCS and bio-CCCS is now a full part of the debate, given its obvious leading status as "the" wedge to mitigate climate change. In the US, it seems, people are still dwelling on cellulosic ethanol when they hear 'bio'. I'm sure they'll catch up, though.

by Jonas at 12:59 PM on 19 Jul 2008

I beg your pardon?

Mr Roberts, where do you get the bizarre idea that I'm anti-renewables? I'm perhaps one of the few rational defenders of renewables.

I'm talking from a European perspective indeed, because over here we have quite a lot of experience with renewables. We have learned that the baseload is the key problem, and that biomass - the renewable par excellence - makes the other renewables viable.

You seem to be making renewables impossible by ignoring their problems. We've learned that this is not the way forward.

We (yes, we in Europe), are of course always willing to share our experience. But it requires an open mind and a willingness to learn.

by Jonas at 1:02 PM on 19 Jul 2008

So the Kombi-Kraftwerk is anti-renewables

Mr Roberts, the video about the Kombi-Kraftwerk indicates a bit where we are with the debate in Europe. This is the first-of-kind test to see whether the intermittency of solar and wind can be overcome by coupling to biomass and whether a fully renewable electricity system is possible.

If you think that an idea like the Kombi-Kraftwerk is "anti-renewables", than I'd be anxious to know what you see as "pro-renewables".

by Jonas at 1:24 PM on 19 Jul 2008

In the eye of the storm

Al, are you here with me?

I've been asked by investors to remain careful, not disclose on Grist. But this is important and valuable goodwill so I tread lightly...

We are engineering an experimental baseload solar thermal power plant for deployment, possibly in New Mexico. It uses all off-the-shelf materials and tooling, and can rapidly scale globally.

Nighttime generation is from high-temperature steam via ground coupled storage.

We do not have hard baseload cost numbers yet, but I am confident it will cost less than the construction cost of nuclear, build out faster, and have lower O&M.

100% renewable power is possible, will require millions of employees, an industry approximately as large the automotive industry, including steel, glass, roads, and oil.

by sunflower at 1:47 PM on 19 Jul 2008

But sunflower,

Europe says that's impossible!

grist.org

by David Roberts at 1:49 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Southern Spain can do it for Europe

The Mediterranean is becoming a desert.

by sunflower at 1:58 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Copy and paste

A repeat comment, sorry:

"How would you address baseload power concerns?"

The "We can't depend on renewables" talking point.

This is still a big one. Storage/backup for renewables.

Maybe the biggest one we still have to defeat. What is the easiset, most direct way to counter this point?

Going off into wonkiness doesn't seem to work.

I like this approach. Local distributed storage and backup, starting with batteries in each building, good for a day ot so of emergency power, and a backup biogas generator for every 10 to 100 homes, on a farm, landfill, or sewage plant down the road. Controlled by smart grid technology that senses grid conditions and adjusts each building and source to meet supply/demand variations.

When the local emergency backup generators ran out of biogas, in an extended wind/solar power drought, they would use natural gas as the ultimate backup.

Local units of stand alone generation and storage grid areas, connected together, would make a regional and national stable grid, able to run mainly on shared and traded renewable power. Areas with excess wind or sun or wave or ocean current power would export to supplement less windy, sunny areas.

So there I go, right into the same old wonk swamp. Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 2:01 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Finally Jonas

"A good proof that it can be done is Germany's Combined Power Plant (Kombi-Kraftwerk), which runs 100% on renewables: biogas provides the baseload, wind and solar add."

Converted to the biogas cause, good for you.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 2:06 PM on 19 Jul 2008

But Amazingdrx...

...Mr Roberts says no to biomass because it's anti-renewable! He and his American friend say only solar-thermal energy stored as steam are renewable.

His entire work is CSP, CSP, CSP only!

Because Mr Roberts loves to refer to Europe, we can tell him that we have shown that thermal storage is not cost-effective!

What now?!

by Jonas at 2:21 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Well he forgot

About biogas from waste, manure, garbage, green crop waste, and so forth. the German venture uses chemical fertilized crops does it not? Not really the best plan.

Biogas has been overlooked for a long time as an actual GHG offsetting backup power source for a renewable grid. Coupled with organic fertilizer from biodigestion, of course,

Energy/ag policy reform could get this backup plan done in 10 years. farmers and other biogas producers need a 5 to 10 cent per kwh subsidy to get going now.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 2:26 PM on 19 Jul 2008

We also have the Sahara!

Sunflower, we also have the Sahara. It's a humonguous desert. Huge really! Like 9,000,000 square kilometers.

All you need is a few CSP plants, a few HVDC cables and lots of fossil fuels.

TREC has been on the table for decades. Only, today, they're hooking up with natural gas in Algeria.

Baseloads... tssss.

Good luck with the thermal storage though.

Oh, and by the way, the PS20 in Seville, which you seem to hint at, needed 30% in subsidies for it to be built, and now yields electricity three times as costly as conventional power. And that's without cost-ineffective storage.

by Jonas at 2:30 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Biomass

My doubt, for both Jonas and DRX is that we can get all this biomass sustainably. It is also why I think charcoal "put the carbon back" scenarios will play a small role. Yes they all do have a role. We can harvest some energy biomass sustainbly. Conversion to charcoal if done carefully does not have to contribute to global warming. But it has to be within reason. In terms of African biomass. Unless you are talking about tranforming our economic system, it will involve displacing food crops and driving people off land, and probably end up with destroying rainforest. Yes I know there are technically possible ways to grow fuel without displacing food (net energy is another question). But to do this in the global south, you are going to need to repeal a lot of free trade agreements, support land reform that gives land back to the people to who live there and much more local control, and some public spending to end poverty and much economic insecurity. You ready to support these things Jonas? Because without them, biomass is going to complete with food, worsen inequality and increase emissions. Even with them, a lot of discoveries are narrowing the scope for growing biomass for fuel with net reductions in emissions. Every new discovery seems to be that biomass for fuel is worse on carbon emissions than we thought. The nitrogen cycle of biofuels worsens global warming more than we thought. Charag produces less net sequestration of emissions than we thought, because soil charcoal displaces some of the existing ability of soil in cool or temperate climates to absorb soil. (Also you have make charcoal very carefully so as not to produce black carbon which is a much stronger greenhouse forcing that CO2.) Also in turns out that in cool climates the soil has limited ability to absorb charcoal. Once you get to about 4% it more charcoal actually lowers fertility. (In tropical rainforests the story is different. Because plants in tropical rainforests store carbon in themselves rather than soil, the soil can absorb carbon generation after generation. But high tech means (like harvesting waste, converting it to charcoal then ploughing it back into the soil are energy intensive, and unlikely to prove sequesering. Traditional slash and burn agriculture might fix carbon, but it will provide huge amounts of black carbon and particulates - which are net emitters. I guess you could clear cut the jungle convert it to carbon, then let it grow back. You might or might get net carbon sequestration out of this, but the ecological consequences in other directions are pretty horrible. And my instinct is that destroying rainforest is not going give you net carbon sequestration in other case.

DRX, you have been arguing for gasification. OK, if you have the sustainable biomass - this is one good way of using it. But please sit down and add up the numbers. How much waste gas can you get from existing sewage treatment plants, existing coal mines once we shut them down, existing landfills. (And yeah mines and land fills will yield methane for decades after we shut them down, so capturing it is a good idea. But instead of just handwaving and saying lots why don't you take the friggin trouble to research the potential and add up the numbers. Give us a documented total. If you think there are other sources of biomass, by all means include them, and explain why they are sustainable.

Also, to save you some wasted effort, if you aerobically compost methane producing waste, the areobic process converts to methane to CO2. So aneorobic composting is NOT the only way to get rid of the methane in manures and such. Aerobic composting has the advantage that it preserves soil structure rather than just nutrients. So manure is NOT a zero environmental cost alternative. That does not mean it is automatically a bad idea; it means you need to weigh all the consequences rather than just handwaving them if you are going to keep advocating. I really ask you instead of just going "hey, hey, hey" please run the numbers.

by Gar Lipow at 3:07 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Mainly talking farm biogas Gar

Biogas from waste that would normally be released into the atmosphere.

How much is there? Good question. There is unlimited carbon, and a limited amount of nitrogen run off, from manure, sewage, garbage, and checimal fertilizer.

Nitrogen would be the limiting factor, as the ratio is one part nitrogen to 30 parts carbon for optimum methane production, it's a lot.

The offsetting characteristic is the best part, by preventing the methane release, 20 times the GHG effect of the CO2 produced in burning the methane is acomplished.

Farm biodigestion and sewage plant and landfill figures should allow for extrapolation. As far as mine gas, I think that falls under fossil fuel, natural gas.

I am not in favor of biochar or growing crops to burn them. Especially with chemical fertilizer. The organic fertilizer produced in biodigestion yeilds huge reduction in GHG via nitrous oxide release prevented. Ammonia fertilizer releases nitrous oxide GHG equivalent to 2/3 of the crop uptake of CO2.

Good idea Gar, I'll check for some possible totals. 5% biogas to 95% natural gas ratio is what would produce a zero carbon footprint. Is there enough waste? maybe if renewables cut fossil fuel consumption to 20% of present levels?

Somewhere the curves would meet, maybe somtine in the next 10 years with the proper subsidies.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 3:35 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Unlimited Carbon

"There is unlimited carbon.."

You may need to explain that one.

by Gar Lipow at 3:37 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Dead plant matter

In wetlands, rivers, lakes where the manure and fertilizer run off to.

Swamp gas, brought on by the N mixing with the C in anaerobic conditions. All those flooded midwesren farmlands for instance and hearby wetlands, fertilized by the run off.

With biodigestion and organic fertilizer instead of run off prone chemical fertilizer, all that methane could be trapped and used for energy. Emitting only cO2. instead of the 21x worse GHG, methane.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 3:45 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Squeeze fossil fuels into backup for renewables

Aren't we seeing some real movement towards lower costs for solar? Nanosolar is well past the proof of concept stage and are able to produce PV quicker and cheaper than ever seen before. Ausra has opened it's first factory, able to produce solar thermal hardware on a big scale, quicker and cheaper than ever before. I have questions about their claimed thermal storage system but it's clear these guys are serious about mass producing solar. Storage, even on the limited scale Ausra proposes (enough to carry output through the night) is significant, even if weather still impacts production. Without a grid wide enough and responsive enough to deal with intermittent renewables, backup is needed. So, are any designer/engineers of coal power stations looking at making plants able to quickly go on and off line or are they sticking to designs that have to run 24/7?
Not being American, Al Gore isn't a name that resonates with political partisanship with me, but I appreciate that few leaders besides him appear to be facing the enormity of the climate change challenge head on - on the contrary, they appear to be sidestepping, avoiding, changing the subject, anything but face this squarely (still betting the pretend science of Linzden, Michaels, McKitrik and Carter will trumpt all the top scientific institutions of the world?). From the perspective of someone outside the US, seeing real reluctance from the worlds most advanced economy to tackle this issue - to lead on this issue - very worrying.

by Ken Fabos at 5:10 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Kissinger and Powell turn into DFH's -- hippies!

Ken wrote: "From the perspective of someone outside the US, seeing real reluctance from the worlds most advanced economy to tackle this issue - to lead on this issue - very worrying."

Indeed! But there does appear something beginning to build. And I don't think it would hurt if radical change didn't appear first in Britain, France, Australia, etc.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155ap_wise_men_en ...

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of 27 elder statesmen is sending an open letter to both presidential candidates and every member of Congress saying the country faces "a long-term energy crisis" that threatens the security and prosperity of future generations if swift action isn't taken.

The group includes Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and six other former secretaries of state or defense, former senators of both parties and a half dozen former senior White House advisers and other Cabinet officers for both Republican and Democratic presidents....

The letter includes 13 broad recommendations. They include aggressively promoting energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption, increased commitments to both nuclear energy and renewable energy sources, making coal more environmentally acceptable and moving transportation away from oil as a fuel.

by Colin Wright at 8:44 PM on 19 Jul 2008

Wondered about this too Ken

"...are any designer/engineers of coal power stations looking at making plants able to quickly go on and off line or are they sticking to designs that have to run 24/7?"

With phase change heat storage using molten salt, coal plants might be retrofitted to act as backup, with renewables providing most of the power. It would allow combustion to be shut down, with heat storage providing steam for quick startup, to bridge the time needed to get the coal burning again.

Of course the ultility and coal industries, tightly linked (like the US auto and oil industries) would fight this tooth and nail. They wouldn't want all those profits from 24/7 GHG spewing coal power to disappear.

This would be a way for the Kissinger (not a good name to have on any list except of wanted war criminals) and friends plan of "...making coal more environmentally acceptable" actually happen. But do we really want this? Nope.

Cancel coal. The only way to make it acceptable would be to convert it to natural gas underground with natural biodigestion. The gas supply could act as the ultimate emergency energy supply, in a year without summer (signifigant solar energy) for example. Caused by nuclear war, volcano eruption, or meteor strike.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 5:03 AM on 20 Jul 2008

Gar, there are good studies

Gar, there are a series of good studies about the future sustainable biomass potential under different scenarios.

You are perhaps aware of the studies developed by the Copernicus Institute (University of Utrecht) and now used by the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the UN.

These studies show a very large potential by 2050 (under a strict no-deforestation scenario and while bringing 10% of the planet's high biodiversity land under conservation - many times more than is now the case, and while, of course, meeting all fiber, fodder, forest products and food needs of growing populations). They find the potential in a high tech scenario to be around 1500 Exajoules (planet currently consumes 440EJ of energy from all sources: coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and renewables).

So, in theory there is no supply or sustainability issue. (Of course, we live in a world driven by economics, and this changes the picture, as the economy does not follow sustainability per se).

Well, this Institute has produced yet another very large study about the potential, very recently.

It delves more into the myriad of factors that have to be taken into account. And it also offers and overview of the many other, less scientific assessments of the biomass potential.

Please find this study here (I link to the IEA's Bioenergy Task 40 location):

June 2008

Biomass Assessment: Assessment of global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and economy - Main Report [2.653 KB] Authors: Veronika Dornburg, André Faaij, Hans Langeveld, Gerrie van de Ven, Flip Wester, Herman van Keulen, Kees van Diepen, Jan Ros, Detlef van Vuuren, Gert Jan van den Born , Mark van Oorschot, Fleur Smout, Harry Aiking, Marc Londo, Hamid Mozaffarian, Koen Smekens, Marieke Meeusen, Martin Banse, Erik Lysen, Sander van Egmond. Study performed by Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University, MNP, LEI, WUR-PPS, ECN, IVM and the Utrecht Centre for Energy Research, within the framework of the Netherlands Research Programme on Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis for Climate Change. Reportno: WAB 500102012, January 2008. Pp. 85 + Appendices.

http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/wabbiomassmainrep ...

Biomass Assessment: Assessment of global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and economy - Supporting Document. [11.086 KB] Authors: Veronika Dornburg, André Faaij, Hans Langeveld, Gerrie van de Ven, Flip Wester, Herman van Keulen, Kees van Diepen, Jan Ros, Detlef van Vuuren, Gert Jan van den Born , Mark van Oorschot, Fleur Smout, Harry Aiking, Marc Londo, Hamid Mozaffarian, Koen Smekens, Marieke Meeusen, Martin Banse, Erik Lysen, Sander van Egmond, , Study performed by Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University, MNP, LEI, WUR-PPS, ECN, IVM and the Utrecht Centre for Energy Research, within the framework of the Netherlands Research Programme on Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis for Climate Change. Reportno: WAB 500102014, January 2008. Pp. 202.

http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/wabbiomassassessm ...

These are the same authors that made the previous assessments, and who designed a model now officially used by the FAO, because it is the only detailed and thorough model.

by Jonas at 7:09 AM on 20 Jul 2008

Wrong Assumptions

You are all beginning with the false assumption that we "need" electricity 24 hours per day. The fact is that the only "need" for electricity is created by our totally unnatural lifestyles in our totally unnatural society. What we really need is to stop using so much electricity so that we can clean up the air, stop destroying ecosystems with mines, dam(n)s, drilling, and mountaintop removal, and reduce human-caused global warming.

If you ignore reduction of consumption, you'll never solve anything significant and will only succeed in creating other problems.

by Wolverine at 12:25 PM on 20 Jul 2008

We can have zero net emissions in 5, 10 or 20years

In Australia there is a considerable debate on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. This may or may not work but there is a method that will work.

First the question of whether there is enough renewable power available. There is plenty of renewables available in Australia for the whole world as there is in the USA. One hot rock geothermal field currently being developed has enough energy for all Australia's energy needs for at least 200 years. See http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/emission-neutralit ... for some calculations.

It is not a question of is there enough. It is a question of the amount of investment to develop the renewables. The time frame is dependent on the amount of money to spend.

The issue is how to persuade the coal industry how to invest in renewables without sending us broke. The way to do that is to pay them. Australia exports more coal than any other country and we should be in the forefront of this approach. We can pay the countries to whom we export by giving them the money we now collect in royalties and other taxes on coal exports but require them to invest in renewable projects in Australia that they partly own. Read the following to see the idea expanded and why Australia will do very well out paying countries to buy our coal:)

http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/zero-net-greenhous ...

Before anyone asks I have used different number of years in the two examples to illustrate it is a number we can set and know it will be met.

Before any says that paying people to buy our coal will send us broke think it through. The suggestion is that they finance our renewable energy infrastructure that they will have access to. Australia is awash in too much money because we are currently a big net exporter of energy resources and we do not need the royalties for other purposes so what better idea to build energy sources that go on forever before someone else does. You do not go broke by investing - rather the opposite - and it does not matter who "owns" the investment if it is sitting on your land.

by cscoxk at 1:15 PM on 20 Jul 2008

To Answer The Question Posed

In a word, no. And why would environmentalists want to? That's like asking whether Nazis and Jews can find common ground. The coal industry destroys the Earth by mining and burning coal in order to make money, and environmentalists' jobs are to stop destruction of the Earth, regardless of economic concerns.

by Wolverine at 4:09 PM on 20 Jul 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.