Nick Reddyhoff
Converting coal to natural gas is our best strategy for limiting carbon dioxide emissions today.
The hot investments these days involve renewable-energy technologies that promise to generate electricity completely free of emissions, along with biofuels that promise to end global demand for coal and petroleum. Unfortunately, these technologies are not economically, technically, or logistically ready to be adopted on a large scale. Renewable energy will ultimately be a critical element of a more sustainable world. But if we have any hope of winning the battle against climate change, we must also focus on solutions that can have a bigger impact faster.
Burning coal is the single largest source of globalgreenhouse-gas emissions, and coal is not going to go away anytime soon. It is by far our largest energy resource--Illinois alone has more British thermal units (BTUs) of coal than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined have BTUs of oil. Coal now meets 50 percent of U.S. electricity needs, and its use in countries such as China and India is growing. Clearly, we need to find a way to use coal without generating harmful emissions, as an interim solution to one of the biggest threats to society.
One option is to convert coal into natural gas. Natural gas is made up of four parts hydrogen to one part carbon, and it is so clean we burn it in our homes without even needing a vent. A vast pipeline infrastructure already exists to move it around the country, and it burns extremely efficiently. Burning natural gas made from coal in a modern power plant generates about 60 percent less in greenhouse-gas emissions than burning coal directly and eliminates almost all other pollutants. Converting coal into natural gas has long been too expensive to implement on a large scale. But GreatPoint Energy, a company I founded in 2005, has developed a process called catalytic hydromethanation, which can economically convert coal into pure natural gas while removing and capturing most of the carbon.
Generating half our power in a way that releases 60 percent less carbon is not perfect, but it is far better than most other solutions I have seen. In fact, apart from nuclear energy--which comes with its own problems--I do not know of an option that could make such a significant global impact using available technology. Bear in mind that the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration anticipates that renewables will account for only 13 percent of power generation by 2030, even at very aggressive buildouts.
In this economy, we have limited opportunities to bring to market new technologies that solve our environmental problems. It is up to the entrepreneurs and technologists to exploit the opportunities that exist, make our ideas work, generate returns for investors, and serve the planet.
Andrew Perlman is cofounder, president, and CEO of GreatPoint Energy. He is a member of this year's TR35.
A process for converting coal into natural gas could help reduce emissions.
Great Point says that its catalytic process could put coal back in your basement.
Would it also work with solid biomass?
because the technology ... "which can economically convert coal into pure natural gas while removing and capturing most of the carbon. "
Still leaves you with captured CO2. I mean, it has not disappeared. So what next? do you have plans to store it undergroud (gas fiels, acquifers)? which is a challenge, not impossible.
Or plan B: to avoid going through the storage would your catalytic "hydromethanation" also work with solid biomass?
So how do you remove the fifty percent CO2 from the CH4 product stream?
That shouldn't be too difficult, since the CO2 stream from the CH4 production process is less contaminated and easier to clean up than combustion coal exhaust gasses.
It would be very similar to CO2 sequestration for enhanced oil and gas recovery. A proven technology. Look up the Sleipner gas field for example.
Even with that sequestered, 60% lower CO2 emissions is questionable though. The efficiency of a modern combined cycle gas turbine is at best 30% better than a modern ultracritical or IGCC coal plant.
The question is not how this tech compares to currently operating coal plants, but how it compared to the state of the art in coal generating technology. After all, we're going to built new plants.
Direct carbon fuel cells can generate electricity at 80% efficiency, twice the efficiency of a typical coal fueled power station. As a result the CO2 emissions are halved, and the fuel cell also produces a concentrated stream of CO2, which makes it far easier to bury the CO2 underground. There are big energy and financial savings. It is a technology which is just as much on the verge being commercial as the geological storage of CO2.
If it works with biomass, forget coal, use biomass, and still sequester the carbon, then it should be carbon negative, right??
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Siphon
152 Comments
The energy transition
Agreed, coal to natural gas is a great and pragmatic way to use coal resources. And the article was written to persuade.
But it's important not to exaggerate. 13% renewables by 2030? Wind alone is likely to be bigger than that by then. Even without considering that, the suggestion in the article is that coal to natural gas could do a multiple of that 13% by 2030 or earlier, but that appears absurdly optimistic. One startup with an innovative energy tech will take many years to get to even 0.1 percent of the total electricity supply. Look at the growth pattern of any energy startup, solar or wind or new fossil techs. "Clean energy tomorrow" is a myth, popular with politicians for obvious reasons, but dangerous because an energy transition takes a lot of short and even more long term commitment. Jumping on the bandwagon of your favorite energy source just won't solve the problem.
Reply