Potential Energy

U.S. and China to Clean Coal Together

New technology-sharing partnerships could help lead to a climate change agreement.

Kevin Bullis 11/17/2009

  • 9 Comments

U.S. President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China have announced several agreements for the two countries to cooperate on clean energy. The deals could help smooth the way to a climate change agreement in which both countries agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

China has been dragging its heels over strict cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, especially with the U.S. also so far failing to commit to such cuts. But if China doesn't cut its emissions it will be impossible to meet goals for averting dangerous climate change.

One thing that could help--reduce emissions and convince China to agree to cuts--is sharing the latest technology with China, especially technology for making cleaner power plants. The agreements seem to be a step in that direction.

One deal in particular seems promising. Scientists from both countries will cooperate on developing cleaner coal plants through a new U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center, which will be jointly funded with $150 million. What's more, a number of U.S. and Chinese corporations have agreed to cooperate, including Peabody Energy, which will help with a project celled GreenGen, and GE Energy, which will help with coal gasification. Both projects could lead to cleaner coal plants that could be paired with technology to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

Other significant agreements include one to develop natural gas resources, which could reduce greenhouse emissions because burning natural gas releases about half the carbon dioxide as burning coal. Another aims to improve the efficiency of buildings, industry, and consumer appliances. To address growing emissions from cars, both countries will work together to establish standards and roadmaps for the development of electric vehicles.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

rvandell

22 Comments

  • 818 Days Ago
  • 11/18/2009

Clean Coal

Clean coal.. that’s funny.. since burning "anything" creates green house gas. Face it, there are only three “clean” ways to turn water into steam. One of them only works on sunny days, the second involves drilling holes where protected species live,  and the simplest one, is not in the best “interest” of OPEC.

Reply

spad12

58 Comments

  • 818 Days Ago
  • 11/18/2009

Re: Clean Coal

you forgot about the one that has about 50 million times the energy density of coal, and involves converting mass into energy.

Reply

rvandell

22 Comments

  • 771 Days Ago
  • 01/04/2010

Re: Clean Coal

Not at all my good man, that was the third option. ;=}

Reply

lasertekk

146 Comments

  • 818 Days Ago
  • 11/18/2009

Interesting observations over the years...

So when did Tech Review become the official stomping grounds for NEI lobbyists?

Reply

Gcanno

24 Comments

  • 817 Days Ago
  • 11/19/2009

Why do we need clean coal if, on this very website and in a video it is explained that we have the equivalent of 81 billion barrels of oil in the form of shale deposited natural gas.And to boot it burns half the co2 that oil does. If anyone would chime in on the efficiency over coal i would like to know.

I find this site amazing , but a lot of knowledge is useless because the political and financial powers in charge care nothing about math,science or the environment.   

Reply

Gary Dufford

2 Comments

  • 817 Days Ago
  • 11/19/2009

Why clean coal

    The Us has the largest coal reserves of any nation.  At current consumption rates we can supply all our energy needs for 250 years.  Coal is cheap and the money stays at home.  Jobs are created from mining it and more jobs will be had as the cost of the energy to produce products decreases.
    I do not see how the US an remain an economic factor in the world if we fail to capitalize on our coal resources and renovate our steel industry.
    The entire idea of clean coal revolves around releasing less greenhouse gases.

Reply

kjblack

20 Comments

  • 813 Days Ago
  • 11/23/2009

Clean coal?

Old Chinese proverb.
"You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear."

Reply

Advertisement

mightaswell

1 Comment

  • 806 Days Ago
  • 11/30/2009

is it worth the cost?

Yes, there is a lot of coal in the US. The Powder River Basin in Wyoming holds a huge quantity of that coal.  Currently producing mines have thick seams at a relatively shallow depth.  Unfortunately, as this coal is mined,  increasing quantities of overburden have to removed as these coal seams slope ever deeper.  There is around 10-15 years of relatively easy to mine coal left in the Powder River Basin at current production levels. The US Geological Survey in 2008 substantially revised downward its estimate of economically available coal.  (Visit www.cleanenergyaction.org/html/coal_supplies.html for USGS data and interpretation.)

Unfortunately, the skunk at the "clean" coal party is the dirties.  Dirty air, dirty water, dirty solid waste--currently and for the foreseeable future.  One of the worst is mercury/methylmercury, a strong neurotoxin that easily passes through both the blood brain barrier and the human placenta.  US coal plants pump about 80 tons of mercury per year into the atmosphere.  Where do the captured dirties go once the coal combustion process has been "cleaned"?   Your back yard or mine?  Your aquifer or mine?

Coal enjoys substantial direct and indirect subsidies from governments and citizens.  Citizen subsidies were reported recently by the National Research Council as 4¢ per kw-hr in additional healthcare costs resulting from coal-fired electricity generation.

Removing the CO2, SO2, mercury, particulates from stack gas requires serious machinery and substantial sorbent materials in addition to fly ash and clinker management.  This solid waste mix is highly toxic and exposes ground water to concentrated sources of heavy metal compounds.  Where water is used to control fly ash, flooding and leaching can cause long term serious environmental damage.

The harsh reality is that coal represents a short-term solution. The energy cost of CO2 capture and sequestration has been estimated to require 25% of a coal plant's output.  This is a significant lowering of plant efficiency and escalates the cost of electricity accordingly.

The question for China's and America's leaders is does it make economic sense to expend huge sums to research, develop, test and evaluate then deploy a very expensive sub-system add-on for hundreds of coal plants when fuel supplies may only be affordable for a decade or two?  Does this really make sense?

Might not those funds be better applied deploying distributed generation such as roof-top solar photovoltaic systems which require little infrastructure modifications, concentrating-solar base load plants, geographically-diverse wind turbines, and natural gas  combustion turbines for peak load generation and backup?

Are we on track to make wise choices?


   

Reply

Jaime P. Imbat

1 Comment

  • 450 Days Ago
  • 11/21/2010

The real solution

As all nations once again meet on the 16 COP UNFCCC ( agreement to reduce greenhouse gas effect) seemingly they avoid on the issue on total abolition of the fuel coal (Coal emits 6 billion metric tons of CO2 yearly the cause of climate change that begins to ruin our planet EARTH). There is now a solution " J P I " Fuel Enterprise) and hope that all nations should adopt the technology by the said company.

Reply

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement