Subscribe to our free daily newsletters
. 24/7 Space News .

Subscribe to our free daily newsletters

Carbon capture analyst: 'Coal should stay in the ground'
by Staff Writers
Ann Arbor MI (SPX) Dec 09, 2015

Coal-fired power plants produce nearly a third of the world's electricity. Today, they also emit more than half of the world's energy-sector carbon dioxide - the primary driver of climate change. Scientists recommend reducing CO2 emissions dramatically to keep the planet from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) over its pre-Industrial average.

Serious flaws have been found in a decade's worth of studies about the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the climate.

The findings, from the University of Michigan, are released as world leaders at COP21 attempt to negotiate the globe's first internationally binding climate agreement.

The U-M researchers have found that most economic analysis of carbon capture and storage, or CCS, technology for coal-fired power plants severely underestimates the technique's costs and overestimates its energy efficiency. CCS involves sucking carbon out of coal-fired power plants' flue gases, compressing it and then injecting it deep underground.

The new analysis puts the cost of reducing carbon emissions with CCS-equipped coal plants higher than any previous study - and most importantly, higher than wind and comparable to solar power. It's the first study to confront the so-called 'energy loop' inherent in the CCS process.

Beyond a one-time 'energy penalty' these plants pay because they have to burn more coal to power devices that capture carbon, the researchers say the disadvantage compounds until fuel costs leap to four times today's accepted estimates.

"The conclusion is that renewables will be a cheaper alternative to reducing carbon emissions from coal, at least in the United States and likely globally," said Steve Skerlos, U-M professor of mechanical engineering, and civil and environmental engineering.

"To us, this means policymakers need to stop wasting time hoping for technological silver bullets to sustain the status quo in the electric sector and quickly accelerate the transition from coal to renewables, or possibly, natural gas power plants with CCS."

Coal-fired power plants produce nearly a third of the world's electricity. Today, they also emit more than half of the world's energy-sector carbon dioxide - the primary driver of climate change. Scientists recommend reducing CO2 emissions dramatically to keep the planet from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) over its pre-Industrial average.

CCS has seemed like a viable way to do that. Coal is a relatively cheap fuel and the infrastructure to use it already exists - both in the U.S. and in growing economies like China and India. While CCS is still in the research phase, and not commercially used today, it figures prominently into maps of tomorrow's cleaner energy landscape.

"Every major technological, economic and policy study published in the last decade on how to meet the internationally determined target of 80 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2050 has relied o0n the large-scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (storage)," Skerlos said.

Reports from 2005 and 2012 by the International Panel on Climate Change suggests that CCS could enable between 10 percent and 55 percent of the nation's total carbon reduction by 2100, for example. And just this year, an international study published in PNAS projects that nearly 85 percent of emission reductions by 2050 could come from coal CCS.

These reports and many more like it don't capture the full picture. The current, flawed projections peg the fuel costs of a CCS-equipped coal plant at $29 million per year more than a conventional plant. The new U-M research calculates the additional fuel cost at closer to $126 million, said Sarang Supekar, a postdoctoral researcher in mechanical engineering and first author of the new study.

"Current energy policy studies are based on cost estimates that greatly underestimate the full energy penalty and costs of CCS for coal-fired power plants," Supekar said. "Therefore, they overpredict the role of CCS going forward."

Why the discrepancy? Turns out the studies that recommend CCS be a key piece of the world's future energy portfolio rely on numbers from a 1991 pilot study that doesn't completely account for what Supekar calls feedback effects.

"To capture the CO2, you need to generate more energy," Supekar said. "To get this energy, you burn more coal, which creates more CO2 that needs to be captured. So there's this loop that's happening that needs to be accounted for."

The important number, Supekar said, is a plant's overall 'thermal efficiency.' That's the total amount of heat from coal burning that is converted to useful electricity.

The '91 study, by a researcher at the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, evaluated the engineering and economic feasibility of using CCS to reduce carbon emissions. It concluded that the process was expensive. It also made clear that implementing CCS would require a choice between accepting lower useful power output and, as Skerlos says "confronting the energy loop" - burning more fuel to keep the power output stable.

The early study opted for lower power output. But later studies that cite it didn't interpret that drop appropriately, nor did they mention the energy loop.

To get a sense of the impact of this omission, a new coal plant's typical thermal efficiency is about 38 percent. Current literature - which largely ignores the energy loop - estimates CCS would decrease thermal efficiency to 26 percent. But the U-M researchers say it's more like 16 percent. This efficiency reduction is the cause of the cost increase.

As more CCS test projects have come online, the community has noticed higher-than-expected energy penalties, Supekar said. His study is the first to quantify what those plants are experiencing. Quantifying it is an important step toward figuring out if the technique makes sense from both economic and environmental perspectives. The researchers say it doesn't.

"The one-line conclusion is that coal should stay in the ground," Supekar said. "It's not efficient to take it out, burn it and put it back. Renewables, and possibly natural gas power plants with CCS technology, will be much cheaper and more efficient."

A paper on the findings, titled 'Reassessing the Efficiency Penalty from Carbon Capture in Coal-Fired Power Plants' is published in Environmental Science and Technology. The work is funded by the National Science Foundation.

Thanks for being here;
We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain.

With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords.

Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year.

If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.

SpaceDaily Contributor
$5 Billed Once

credit card or paypal
SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter
$5 Billed Monthly

paypal only


Related Links
University of Michigan
Powering The World in the 21st Century at

Comment on this article via your Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail login.

Share this article via these popular social media networks DiggDigg RedditReddit GoogleGoogle

Previous Report
Australia riding coal train despite climate pleas
Sydney (AFP) Dec 3, 2015
It is a battle being played out around resource-rich Australia. In one corner ecologists, and climate change campaigners, who warn coal mines are ticking "carbon bombs"; in the other, mining giants and politicians, who argue they are vital for economic success. Coal is the nation's second most valuable export, adding almost $30 billion to the economy in 2013-14, and supports 150,000 jobs ... read more

Gaia's sensors scan a lunar transit

SwRI scientists explain why moon rocks contain fewer volatiles than Earth's

All-female Russian crew starts Moon mission test

Russian moon mission would need 4 Angara-A5V launches

Letter to Mars? Royal Mail works it out for British boy, 5

European payload selected for ExoMars 2018 surface platform

ExoMars has historical, practical significance for Russia, Europe

ExoMars prepares to leave Europe for launch site

Orion's power system to be put to the test

The Ins and Outs of NASA's First Launch of SLS and Orion

Aerojet Rocketdyne tapped for spacecraft's crew module propulsion

Brits Aim for the Stars with Big Bucks on Offer to Conquer Final Frontier

China's indigenous SatNav performing well after tests

China launches Yaogan-29 remote sensing satellite

China's scientific satellites to enter uncharted territory

China to launch Dark Matter Satellite in mid-December

Getting Into the Flow on the ISS

Orbital to fly first space cargo mission since 2014 explosion

Russian-US Space Collaboration Intact Despite Chill in Bilateral Ties

ISS EarthKAM ready for student imaging request

DXL-2: Studying X-ray emissions in space

Arianespace selected to launch Azerspace-2/Intelsat 38 satellites

"Cyg"-nificant Science Launching to Space Station

Flight teams prepare for LISA Pathfinder liftoff

What kinds of stars form rocky planets

Half of Kepler's giant exoplanet candidates are false positives

Exiled exoplanet likely kicked out of star's neighborhood

Neptune-size exoplanet around a red dwarf star

Conductor turned insulator amid disorder

World's tiniest temperature sensor can track movement from inside cement

Researchers discover mother of pearl production process

New 'self-healing' gel makes electronics more flexible

Memory Foam Mattress Review
Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News

The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2017 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. All articles labeled "by Staff Writers" include reports supplied to Space Media Network by industry news wires, PR agencies, corporate press officers and the like. Such articles are individually curated and edited by Space Media Network staff on the basis of the report's information value to our industry and professional readership. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement