Coal use increase

With more than 8 billion tonnes used per year (2023) and maintaining the role of largest global source of electricity ⚡️coal remains the n. 1 issue for climate goals.

Although capacity and generation are two different things (and coal plants tend to be used less as #renewables gain market share), this is quite a worrying trend ????

#production#energy#data#sustainability#power#climatechange

Clean Coal Technology

Clean coal technology refers to a variety of technologies such as Coal Gasification and Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) that are designed to reduce the environmental impact of burning coal for energy production. These technologies aim to reduce pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury that are released when coal is burned. Some examples of clean coal technology include carbon capture and storage, scrubbers, and fluidized bed combustion. These technologies can help to make coal a cleaner and more environmentally friendly source of energy.

A few years ago the Government of Kenya (GOK) stopped a Coal Power station being built at Kitui in Kenya based on all the emissions that would emanate from the plant.

Kitui County is located within the Lapsset Corridor and we know that Lapsset Corridor is a major infrastructure project that includes a transportation network stretching from Lamu Port to Ethiopia and South Sudan.

One of the planned road branches from Garissa heads towards Mwingi in Kitui County. This branch aims to connect with the Kitui Basin, known for its coal resources.

Kitui County itself acknowledges its position within the Lapsset Corridor on their government website, highlighting the economic advantages this brings, such as improved connectivity and access to markets.

Kitui has 400 million tonnes of coal reserves: This estimate comes from the Kitui County government and suggests the Mui Basin has one of Africa’s richest coal deposits.

I have a clean coal gasification technology plant proposal where we burn the coal underground to produce SynGas, which in turn will be used to produce electricity in a clean process.

We propose that we should investigate further the potential for a UCG plant at Kitui.

ESG aspects:

Our proposal for a clean coal gasification plant in Kitui, Kenya, through the lens of ESG programming:

Environmental:

• Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): This technology eliminates some environmental concerns of traditional surface mining, such as land degradation and dust pollution.
• Syngas Production: However, normally coal gasification still produces greenhouse gases, albeit potentially less than traditional coal-fired power plants but our plant produces that gas underground so very limited emissions. Kenya has ambitious climate goals and is a signatory to the Paris Agreement. Building a new coal-based power plant, even with this technology, could hinder those efforts.  I feel good about making the case for the GOK to allow this plant as a means of Energy transition, job creation and wealth creation for the GOK.

Social:

• Economic Advantages: The proposal highlights job creation and improved infrastructure from the Lapsset Corridor project.
• Community Impact: Building a power plant could bring economic benefits like job creation and improved access to electricity. However, a thorough social impact assessment needs to be conducted to identify and mitigate any potential negative impacts on local communities, such as health risks (minimal) or displacement.

Governance:

• Increased revenue stream for the GOK to enable Energy & Just Transition:
• Job Creation
• Transparency & Public Participation: Open communication and engagement with stakeholders, including the public, local communities, and environmental NGOs, are crucial for gaining social license to operate.
• Regulatory Compliance: The project must comply with all Kenyan environmental and safety regulations.

Making the Case to GOK:

• Focus on Emissions Reduction: Highlight the potential for lower emissions compared to traditional coal-fired plants.
• Renewable Energy Integration: Emphasize a clear strategy for integrating more renewable sources like solar and wind into Kenya’s energy mix alongside the gasification plant.
• Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Potential: Explore the possibility of adding CCS technology in the future to further reduce emissions.
• ESG Alignment: Demonstrate how the project aligns with Kenya’s national development goals and commitment to a sustainable future.

Overall:

While UCG technology offers some environmental advantages over traditional methods, coal remains a fossil fuel and contributes to climate change. For the project to meet good ESG programming standards for Kenya, strong emphasis needs to be placed on emission reduction strategies, renewable energy integration, and long-term sustainability. It may be more strategically sound to investigate a greater focus on renewable energy sources in line with Kenya’s climate goals.

Alternatives to Consider:

• Invest in Renewable Energy: Exploring investments in solar, wind, geothermal, or hydropower could be a more sustainable long-term energy solution for Kenya.
• Combined Heat and Power (CHP): Utilizing the waste heat from renewable or gasification plants for industrial or residential purposes can further improve efficiency.

It’s important to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study considering all aspects of ESG before moving forward with a UCG plant proposal.

Newly proposed Australian 300MW Power plant powered from the SynGas produced from the Underground Coal Gasification process.  We could have one of these at Kitui.

Revenue:

• Syngas to Electricity Conversion: Efficiency of converting syngas to electricity plays a role. Typical efficiencies range from 30-40%. Let’s assume a conservative 35% efficiency for this example.
• PPA Price: A PPA of US$0.05/kWh is the price you would receive for selling the generated electricity.

Revenue Calculation (Estimated):

• Syngas Production: A 300MW UCG plant might produce around 1,200 MW of thermal energy (rough estimate). Assuming 50% conversion to syngas in the UCG process, we get 600 MW of syngas power.
• Electricity Generation: With 35% efficiency in converting syngas to electricity, you’d generate approximately 210 MW of electricity.
• Annual Generation: Assuming the plant operates at full capacity for 8,000 hours per year (typical for baseload plants), annual electricity generation would be roughly 1.68 billion kWh (210 MW * 8,000 hours).
• 20-Year Revenue: Based on the PPA price and annual generation, the estimated 20-year revenue would be:
  • US$0.05/kWh * 1.68 billion kWh/year * 20 years = US$1.68 billion

So that’s another US$504 million over twenty years or US$504 Million for the Government.

We are trying now to get build costs from technology company and their exact conversion and revenue calculations.

Clean coal technology encompasses a range of techniques and approaches aimed at reducing the environmental impact of coal-fired power generation. Coal is a widely used and abundant fossil fuel, but it is also one of the most polluting when burned for electricity production. Clean coal technology aims to mitigate these environmental impacts by reducing emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and mercury, as well as greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

One of the key technologies in clean coal is carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS involves capturing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants before they are released into the atmosphere, compressing the CO2, and then transporting it to a suitable storage site where it can be permanently stored underground. This helps to prevent greenhouse gas emissions from coal combustion from contributing to climate change.

Another important clean coal technology is flue gas desulfurization, commonly known as scrubbers. These systems remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from coal combustion gases, which helps to reduce acid rain and air pollution. Additionally, advanced combustion technologies such as fluidized bed combustion and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) can improve the efficiency of coal-fired power plants and reduce emissions.

In recent years, research and development efforts have focused on developing more efficient and cost-effective clean coal technologies.

Innovations such as chemical looping combustion, oxy-fuel combustion, and supercritical CO2 power cycles are being explored as potential solutions to further reduce the environmental impact of coal-fired power generation.

While clean coal technologies have shown promise in reducing emissions and improving the environmental performance of coal-fired power plants, they are not without challenges. Implementing these technologies on a large scale can be costly, and technical challenges remain in scaling up these technologies to commercial levels. Nonetheless, clean coal technology has the potential to play a significant role in reducing the environmental impact of coal-fired power generation and moving towards a more sustainable energy future.

‘Clean Coal’ could be a game-changer for SA

28 May 2023 – Schalk Mouton

Q&A: Coal has a bad reputation, but ‘clean coal’ holds various potential opportunities, says Professor Samson Bada.

Bada is Head of Clean Coal Technology Research in the School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering.

Is there such a thing as ‘clean coal’?

The term is used to describe the use of coal with minimum to zero greenhouse gas emissions. Other gaseous emissions to be considered under the umbrella of ‘clean coal’ include Sulphur oxides (SOx), originating from the burning of sulphur-rich minerals found in coal, and Nitrogen oxides (NOx), the result of the combination of the nitrogen in air when it is exposed to oxygen at high temperatures. Other forms of emissions when combusting coal include fine fly ash (known as particulates).

What are the clean coal technologies?

Clean coal technologies (CCT) refer to proven technologies that cut across the whole coal value chain, from the mining gate to utilisation, with the purpose of reducing emissions and solid waste.

Within the power generation sector, some of the CCTs include carbon capture storage and utilisation, circulating fluidised bed, co-firing biomass/refuse derived fuel, and high efficiency low emission (HELE) technologies. These technologies aim to minimise the environmental impact of existing and planned coal-fired power plants. In fact, certain proven new technologies can now offer 100% emission reduction and the emissions, if captured, can now produce important marketable products.

How is clean coal different from ‘normal’ coal?

There is increasing evidence that the ‘raw, normal or run of mine (ROM)’ coal can be of inestimable value for non-energy applications, namely to produce advanced lightweight high-value high-tech materials such as activated carbon, carbon fibre, building composites, and electrode materials for batteries and supercapacitors (energy storage). When co-fired with biomass, the resulting pellets provide valuable ‘clean, low emission’ sources for power generation feedstocks. All these products are being investigated by Clean Coal Technology Research at Wits University.

What is the future of clean coal?

Renewable sources of energy are intermittent and therefore unreliable; they have a remarkably low energy density, and without fossil fuel, there would be no renewable hardware technology.

The future of coal is great. There are clean, coal-fired power technologies that could be retrofitted to current and old power stations. In addition, HELE plants and new smaller (modular) HELE independent power producer (IPP) coal-fired power units could be introduced in key areas of need. In short, coal is an extremely precious natural product and technology exists to use it cleanly.

Coal’s future extends beyond the production of electricity, namely, as the main driver of the circular economy. Advanced materials such as carbon fibre and carbon foam are expected to replace conventional raw materials such as steel, cement, and glass in the circular economy. Carbon fibres, coal-activated carbon, nanotubes and nanocarbons are future materials that are expected to be used widely in aerospace, electric vehicles, robotics and energy storage and they are an improvement on lithium-ion batteries. Furthermore, they can store natural gas and hydrogen. A company called X-MAT, in Florida, USA, has just developed the very first 18650 lithium-ion battery using coal and resin-based technology instead of graphite.

Can coal be used in Lapsset Corridor Energy programme.

There are arguments for and against using clean coal technology in the Lapsset Corridor for baseload electricity generation, even with the promise of significantly reduced emissions. Here’s a breakdown of both sides:

Potential Benefits of Clean Coal Technology:

• Baseload Power: Coal-fired power plants, even with clean coal technology, can still provide reliable baseload power, which is crucial for maintaining grid stability. This can be especially valuable in regions where renewable energy sources like wind and solar are not yet well-developed.
• Reduced Emissions: Clean coal technologies can potentially capture and store a significant portion of CO2 emissions compared to traditional coal plants. This could be a way to bridge the gap towards cleaner energy sources while still meeting energy demands.
• Existing Infrastructure: Many countries, including some in East Africa, have existing coal infrastructure. Utilizing clean coal technology could be seen as a way to improve the environmental performance of existing plants rather than investing in entirely new infrastructure for alternative energy sources.

Challenges and Concerns:

• Cost: Clean coal technologies are generally more expensive to implement than traditional coal plants. This can add significantly to the overall cost of electricity generation.
• Effectiveness: The effectiveness of clean coal technologies in capturing and storing CO2 emissions is still under debate. There are concerns about long-term storage safety and potential leakage.
• Carbon Footprint: Clean coal technology may reduce emissions compared to traditional coal, but it’s not a zero-emission solution. There are still emissions associated with coal mining, transportation, and the remaining CO2 not captured.
• Long-Term Sustainability: Investing heavily in coal infrastructure, even with clean technology, could lock the Lapsset Corridor into a fossil fuel-based energy system for decades to come. This might hinder the development and adoption of cleaner, more sustainable energy sources in the long run.

Alternatives to Consider:

• Renewable Energy: The Lapsset Corridor region has good potential for renewable energy sources like geothermal, solar, and wind. Investing in renewable energy infrastructure can provide a cleaner and more sustainable solution in the long term.
• Natural Gas: While not a perfect solution, natural gas power plants can be cleaner than coal-fired plants, especially with advancements in carbon capture technology.

Conclusion:

The decision of whether to utilize clean coal technology in the Lapsset Corridor requires a careful analysis of the project’s specific needs, resources, and long-term goals. While it offers potential benefits for baseload power with reduced emissions, the high costs, remaining environmental concerns, and potential for hindering a shift to cleaner energy sources are significant drawbacks. Focusing on developing renewable energy infrastructure and potentially considering natural gas as a transitional fuel, might be a more sustainable approach for the Lapsset Corridor’s energy future.

Blending rates for Ethanol & Methanol to transport fuels

90% of Kenya’s CO2 emissions come from Oil use mainly in transport.

The UCG process produces SynGas and the gas can be used for electricity production, Ethanol and Methanol.  The reason why this is important is because Kenya needs to reduce those transport emissions and they can do that by adding either Ethanol or Methanol to transport fuels and this reduces significantly the emissions.

We can have a strong ESG – EMS case built around this:

Kenya’s focus on reducing transport emissions is crucial. While UCG has its drawbacks, using syngas for biofuel production offers a potential solution.

Both ethanol and methanol can be produced from syngas generated through Underground Coal Gasification (UCG). Here’s a breakdown:

Syngas as a Feedstock:

Syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), is a versatile feedstock for producing various fuels and chemicals. Both ethanol and methanol can be synthesized from syngas using different processes.

Ethanol Production:

• Indirect Route: This is the more common approach. Syngas is first converted to either methanol or dimethyl ether (DME) through a process called Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS). Then, the methanol or DME is further processed to produce ethanol through carbonylation (adding carbon monoxide) and hydrogenation (adding hydrogen).
• Direct Route: Research is ongoing for a single-step, direct conversion of syngas to ethanol. This method is still under development and not commercially viable at a large scale yet.

Methanol Production:

• Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis (FTS): This is the primary method for producing methanol from syngas. It uses a catalyst to convert the CO and H2 into methanol.
• Direct Methanol Synthesis (DMS): This is another method, but it’s less common than FTS for syngas to methanol conversion.

Considerations:

• Process Selection: The choice between methanol or ethanol production depends on various factors like market demand, product use, and process efficiency.
• Technical Challenges: Both methods involve complex chemical processes that require specific catalysts and operating conditions.
• Environmental Impact: UCG itself raises environmental concerns regarding air and water pollution. Implementing proper mitigation strategies is crucial.

Alternatives:

While UCG can be used to generate syngas for fuel production, it’s a relatively new technology with environmental concerns. Consider these alternatives:

• Renewable Energy Sources: Develop syngas production from biomass gasification using renewable resources like wood chips or agricultural waste.
• Natural Gas: Use syngas from natural gas as a feedstock, which is a cleaner option compared to UCG.

Producing ethanol or methanol from UCG-derived syngas is technically possible, but it faces technical and environmental challenges. Consider alternative methods and thoroughly assess the environmental impact before pursuing UCG as a feedstock.

Blending rates

This is the breakdown of ethanol and methanol blending in transport fuels:

Blending Ratios:

• Standardized Blends: Many countries have established standard blends for ethanol or methanol in gasoline. These blends are typically:
  • E10: 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline
  • E15: 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline
  • M10: 10% methanol and 90% gasoline
  • M15: 15% methanol and 85% gasoline

Emission Reductions:

• Exact Reduction Varies: The exact reduction in CO2 emissions depends on several factors:
  • Fuel Type: Ethanol and methanol have different carbon footprints than gasoline or diesel.
  • Engine Efficiency: Newer, more efficient engines can achieve greater reductions when using blended fuels.

Estimates:

• Ethanol: Studies suggest E10 blends can reduce lifecycle CO2 emissions by 3-5% compared to pure gasoline.
• Methanol: M10 blends might offer slightly lower reductions than E10, but their impact can vary depending on the production process.

Important Considerations:

• Compatibility: Not all vehicles are compatible with higher ethanol or methanol blends. Older cars may require modifications.
• Infrastructure: Fuel stations and distribution networks need to be equipped to handle blended fuels.
• Food Security: Ethanol production from corn can raise concerns about food security. This is less of an issue with cellulosic ethanol made from non-food sources.

Kenya’s Context:

While UCG-derived syngas offers a potential source, consider these aspects:

• Sustainability: Ensure the entire process, including UCG and biofuel production, is environmentally sustainable.
• Economic Viability: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of UCG-based biofuels compared to other options.
• Public Acceptance: Address concerns about UCG’s environmental impact and ensure transparency in decision-making.

Alternatives:

• Biofuels from Sustainable Sources: Explore biofuels derived from sustainable feedstocks like jatropha or algae.
• Electric Vehicles: Long-term, focus on transitioning to electric vehicles powered by renewable energy sources.

Conclusion for this for Lapsset Corridor:

Blending ethanol or methanol into transport fuels can be a strategy to reduce CO2 emissions in Kenya.  Careful planning and evaluation are crucial to ensure a sustainable and effective approach.