TECHNOLOGY OF COAL PROCESSING

CLEAN COAL

NAME : AGUNG PRASETYO NUGROHO NIM : 03101003021 FACULTY OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF SRIWIJAYA 2012/2013

INDEX
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Introduction Support And Criticisms Prior Terminology Projects Regarding Clean Coal Clean coal technology Trends and forces Methods to clean coal Conclusion Bibliography

INTRODUCTION
Clean coal is an umbrella term used primarily to describe technologies that may reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas that arise from the burning of coal for electrical power. Typically, clean coal has been used by coal companies in reference to carbon capture and sequestration, which pumps and stores CO2 emissions underground, and to plants using an Integrated gasification combined cycle which gasifies coal to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies are being developed primarily in response to regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency - most notably the Clean Air Act - and in anticipation of legislation that seeks to mitigate climate change. Currently, the electricity sector of the United States is responsible for about 41% of the nation's CO2 emissions, and half of the sector's production comes from coal-fired power plants. Almost exclusively used to refer to carbon capture and sequestration technology (CCS), Clean coal The US Department of Energy continues to work with private industry to develop carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Several methods are available under this technology including pre-capture, oxy-fuel combustion, and post-capture CCS. Perhaps the most popular example of a coal-based plant using (oxy-fuel) carbon capture technology is Vattenfalls Schwarze Pumpe plant in Germany. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that carbon stored underground will be able to stay there indefinitely. Another technology under development is Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle or IGCC. Other carbon capture and sequestration technologies include those that dewater low rank coals. Low rank coals often contain a higher level of moisture content which contains a lower calorific content per tonne. This causes a reduced burning efficiency and an increased emissions output. Reduction of moisture from the coal prior to combustion can reduce emissions by up to 50 percent It has been estimated that commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration power stations cannot be commercially viable and widely adopted before 2020 or 2025. This time frame is of concern to environmentalists because, according to the Stern Review on the Economics of

Climate Change, there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change sooner. The UK government's Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is working towards a clean energy future and supports clean coal projects across the country. In August 2010 UK based company B9 Coal announced a clean coal project with 90% carbon capture to be put forward to DECC in order to help the UK raise it's profile amongst green leaders across the world. This proposed project gasifys coal undergroundand process it to create pure streams of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen is then used as a emissions free fuel to run an alkaline fuel cell whilst the carbon dioxide is captured. This UK project could provide a world leading template for clean coal with CCS globally. Clean Coal and the environment According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is blamed for climate change and global warming.. As 25.5% of the world's electrical generation in 2004 was from coal-fired generation, reaching the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol will require modifications to how coal is utilized.[10] Sequestration technology has yet to be tested on a large scale and may not be safe or successful. Sequestered CO2 may eventually leak up through the ground, may lead to unexpected geological instability or may cause contamination of aquifers used for drinking water supplies..There are also concerns that plans to pump some of the sequestered CO2 into certain oil and gas reserves, to help make the fuels easier to pump out of the ground, will lead to increased concentrations of CO2 in potential fuel supplies. This would have to be removed or released during the refining process. Technologies related to reducing the environmental impact of extracting energy from coal do not address environmental impacts of coal mining. Examples of environmental impacts of coal mining include the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. Byproducts The byproducts of coal combustion are considerably hazardous to the environment if not properly contained. While it is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and radionuclides will be more difficult to address.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source of mercury: 50 tons per year come from coal power plants out of 150 tons emitted nationally in the USA and 5000 tons globally. In the USA, neither the combustion products of oil.nor their associated solid or liquid waste streams, are considered to be major contributors to mercury pollution.

Potential financial cost of clean coal Whether carbon capture and sequestration technology is adopted world wide will depend less on science than on economics. Cleaning coal is very expensive. Projected costs for carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be found in that article. Credit Suisse Group says $15 billion needs to be invested in CCS over the next 10 years for it to play an important role in climate change. The International Energy Agency says $20 billion is needed. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change says the number is as high as $30 billion. Those figures dwarf the actual investments to date. In the US, the Bush administration spent about $2.5 billion on clean coal technology a large amount, but far less than what will be needed . CCS proponents say both the government and the private sector need to step up their investments. Bixby Energy Bixby Energy is a new energy company that provides an alternative solution to CCS and other coal-fired technologies. The system heats the coal in an oxygen free environment to produce a form of natural gas. Burning the gas produces much less CO2 emissions than burning the coal itself. Much of the carbon remains in the resulting paritally activated coal. Their technology has already been proven. The company is preparing to have its first unit operating in China from orders placed by their strategic partner and operators of the technology in China, Global Partners United, LLC. Bixby Energy was able to come up with this technology with far less than the billions still required to complete CCS systems. FutureGen FutureGen is a US government project, announced by President George W. Bush in 2003 to build a near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant to produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage. Funding for the plant was withdrawn by the Department of Energy on 29 January 2008.

.CLEAN COAL

Coal

Support and criticism

Support In the United States, clean coal was mentioned by former President George W. Bush on several occasions, including his 2007 State of the Union Address. Bush's position was that carbon capture and sequestration technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. During the 2008 US Presidential campaign, both candidates John McCain and Barack Obama expressed interest in the development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan.[24] The development of clean coal also creates the possibility of international business for the United States and other world markets. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, signed in 2009 by President Obama, allocated $3.4 billion for advanced carbon capture and sequestration technologies, including carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects. Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables, and current Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu has said that It is absolutely worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage, noting that even if the U.S. and Europe turned their backs on coal, developing nations like India and China would not. In Australia, carbon capture and sequestration was often referred to by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (The previous Prime Minister John Howard has stated that nuclear power is a better alternative, as carbon capture and sequestration technology may not prove to be economically favourable). Criticism Environmentalists such as Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, believes that the term clean coal is misleading: "There is no such thing as clean coal and there never will be. It's an oxymoron"The Sierra Club's Coal Campaign has launched a site refuting the clean coal statements and advertising of the coal industry.

Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of coal extraction, high costs to sequester carbon, and uncertainty of how to manage end result pollutants and radionuclides. The 2007 Australian of the Year, paleontologist and influential environmental activist Tim Flannery made the assertion that the concept of clean coal might not be viable for all geographical locations Critics also believe that the continuing construction of coal-powered plants (whether or not they use carbon sequestration techniques) encourages unsustainable mining practices for coal, which can strip away mountains, hillsides, and natural areas. They also point out that there can be a large amount of energy required and pollution emitted in transporting the coal to the power plants. Also, scrubbers will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases: Scrubbers remove some particulates, SO2 , Hg(2+) , and SO3 pollution that causes smog but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In fact, scrubbers are energy intensive and could lead to more of these emissions, leaving us further unable to meet Kyoto targets. Cherise Burda, The Pembina Institute The Reality Coalition, a nonprofit organization composed of Alliance for Climate Protection, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters, ran a series of television commercials in 2008 and 2009. The commercials were highly critical of clean coal, stating that without capturing CO2 emissions and storing it safely that it cannot be called clean coal. Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept because they view emissions and wastes as not being avoided but instead transferred from one waste stream to another.

Prior terminology
Clean coal was an umbrella term used to describe methods that have been developed to reduce the environmental impact of coal-based electricity, which accounts for nearly half of the United States electricity supply. These efforts include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification , treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, carbon capture and storagetechnologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas and coal de-watering technologies to improve the calorific quality and thus the efficiency of burning coal for energy. These methods and the technology used are described as clean coal technologies. Figures from the Environmental Protection Agency show that these technologies have made todays coalbased generating fleet 77 percent cleaner on the basis of regulated emissions per unit of energy produced. While the term "clean coal" is today commonly used to describe carbon capture technologies, the earliest use of the term can be traced back to U.S. Senate Bill 911 in April, 1987 The term clean coal technology means any technologydeployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity. It was in the late 1980s and early 1990s that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a joint program with the industry and State agencies to demonstrate these technologies large enough for commercial use. The program, called the Clean Coal Technology & Clean Coal Power Initiative ,has had a number of successes that have reduced emissions and waste from coal-based electricity generatio .Moreover, the Program has met regulatory challenges by incorporating nitrogen oxide (NOx) control technologies into a portfolio of cost-effective regulatory compliance options for the full range of boiler types. This portfolio has positioned the U.S. as a top exporter of clean coal technologies such as those used for NOx. The DOE continues its programs and initiatives through regional sequestration partnerships, a carbon sequestration leadership forum and the Carbon Sequestration Core Program, a carbon capture and sequestration research and development program. According to a report by the assistant secretary for fossil energy at the U.S. Department of Energy, clean coal technology has paid measurable dividends. Technological innovation

introduced through the CCT Program now provides consumers cost-effective, clean, coal-based energy. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) control technologies emerging from clean coal technology have moved into the utility and industrial marketplace and now provide cost-effective regulatory compliance. A new generation of advanced coal-based power systems has been placed in commercial service that represents a quantum leap forward in terms of efficiency and environmental performance. These advanced power systems projects will provide a springboard for widespread, global deployment. This in turn will contribute greatly to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The government and industry officials continue to use the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use, however today the term clean coal technology is usually used in reference to carbon capture and storage, an advanced process that eliminates carbon dioxide emissions from coal-based plants and permanently sequesters them. In the early 20th century, prior to World War II, clean coal (also called "smokeless coal") referred to anthracite and high-grade bituminous coal, used for cooking and home heating.

PROJECTS REGARDING CLEAN COAL

WASHINGTON Clean-burning coal. The phrase quickened pulses in coal country when President Bush uttered it during his fall campaign, and it's getting renewed attention now in his energy plan. But for all the talk, clean-burning coal will likely remain an oxymoron for years to come. The utility industry, which uses coal to generate 52% of its electricity, faces formidable political, economic and technological obstacles to getting "clean." Demonstration Projects From the '80s Not that the government hasn't tried to spur change. During the 1980s, Congress ponied up $2.75 billion for the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology program, which sponsored 31 demonstration projects. The cleanest projects, called "combined-cycle coal-gasification plants," turn coal into gas, which is burned to generate electricity. So far, there have been no commercial orders for them. In recent years, utilities have almost exclusively built natural-gas-fired plants, which meet environmental standards and use a fuel that until last year was abundant and cheap. In fact, $467 million of the demonstration money remains unspent. But with the utility industry's recent problems, interest in coal gasification is building, says Robert S. Kripowicz, who is in charge of the DOE clean-coal program. "People have begun to realize you can't hang your hats only on natural gas." Hundreds of industry executives and politicians have recently trooped through a gasification plant built byTampa Electric Co. in Polk County, Fla., with $140 million of help from the DOE. Situated amid a 1,511-acre "recreational preserve" that includes five fishing lakes and bird-nesting islands designed with help from the National Audubon Society, the plant is 10% more efficient than most coal-fired plants.

Noxious Chemicals

But it still is far from clean. Coal contains dozens of noxious chemicals, including lead, arsenic and other heavy metals; sulfur dioxide, which creates acid rain; nitrogen oxides, which create smog; tiny soot particles, which can invade and collect in human lungs; mercury, a toxic metal that accumulates in animals, fish and the humans who eat them; and carbon dioxide, which many scientists believe is artificially warming Earth's atmosphere by trapping more heat from the sun. While the Tampa power plant collects more of these than traditional plants, plant officials say that it was not built to cope with mercury, which is facing federal regulation, or CO2. Both continue to go right up the stacks. As it stands, clean coal remains a hard sell. "When we talk to utilities, they tell us they are reluctant to make a commitment, because they are concerned about regulations they might face in five, 10 or 15 years' time. It's very frustrating for us," says David H. Pai, president of a subsidiary ofFoster Wheeler Corp., the Clinton, N.J., company that builds modern coal-fired power plants. What Utilities Want To stimulate a return to coal-fired plants, Mr. Pai suggests a combination of government incentives and a new kind of insurance package to protect a company against future pollution liability. "Otherwise, you're going to have the Tampa plant sitting there and nobody is going to step up and buy the next one," he says. The government has money for incentives: Besides the $467 million in unspent demonstration money, the Bush budget would add another $2 billion in the next 10 years. In addition, the administration proposes to extend tax credits to support research and development projects and directs federal agencies to "explore new regulatory approaches" that will encourage advances in clean-coal technology. For more than 30 years, most coal-fired plants have been exempt from the federal Clean Air Act's pollution controls. Under a compromise that gave birth to the law, most of the nation's coal plants were "grandfathered" on the assumption that older plants would soon wear out. But utilities found clever ways to keep many of them running, a fact that continues to rile environmental groups. "Coal is so cheap because its dirtiness still doesn't count against it," says David Hawkins, an airpollution expert for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "All the data show that the low-hanging fruit for cleaning up the air is addressing the problem of pollution by utilities," says Kirsten Bryant of Alabama's Environmental Council. Her group is part of a coalition campaigning against Atlanta-based Southern Co., one of the nation's largest operators of coal-fired plants. "Clean-burning coal is a complete oxymoron," declares Lori Ehrlich, a Marblehead, Mass., housewife who has taken on PG&E National Energy Group, a unit of San Francisco-

based PG&E Corp. that bought two old coal-fired plants in Massachusetts. The fight began after one plant, in Salem, left part of Ms. Ehrlich's house coated in soot. Ms. Ehrlich formed HealthLink, a community group, that successfully fought for tougher state regulations. The state's new rules require reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide by 2006. "This law is much tougher than we had expected," says PG&E spokeswoman Lisa Franklin. The company, she says, is still considering its options. Those options, however, don't include coal gasification and other demonstration-plant options. They "don't make sense economically" as a fix for the older plants, she says. "We're looking at hundreds of millions of dollars here." Possible Solutions for Now A more likely solution, she thinks, will be adding both a "scrubber," a small chemical plant that removes sulfur dioxide, and a giant catalytic converter to trap several other pollutants. As for CO2, PG&E has an agreement to plant more forests in Malaysia, a move to offset global CO2 accumulation; PG&E gets credits from Massachusetts for that. PG&E hasn't shunned clean-coal technology altogether. PG&E and Southern have joined the DOE in the nation's ultimate coal research program, the "Zero Emissions Coal Alliance." Currently a small research project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, its ambition is to trap all pollutants, achieving clean-burning coal. The Zeca plant will combine coal gasification with a process that traps CO2 in magnesium silicates, a gray powder made from grinding commonly found rocks. Klaus Lackner, one of the Zeca scientists, says it will require mining six tons of rocks to trap the CO2 from one ton of coal. The rock dust would then be buried back in the rock mines. He figures the process will take at least 20 years to develop and could double the price of electricity. Noting that coal is the nation's most plentiful fossil fuel and a cheap source of hydrogen which might be used to power cars Mr. Lackner thinks Zeca isn't so far-fetched. "It is not so expensive that the economy couldn't handle it, but it's expensive enough that you just don't do it willy-nilly. If you succeed, you are protecting a trillion-dollar industry.0022

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Clean coal technology is any technology that aims to reduce the environmental impact of coal energy generation, including chemically washing impurities from the coal, gasification, and carbon capture and storage. When coal is burned in power plants and factories, the smoke released into the atmosphere is harmful to the environment. Since the Industrial Revolution, public outcry over acid raid, smog, and global climate change has forced coal producers to consider the cleanliness of the energy source. Since the American coal industry pumps 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and contributes more than one-third of the nation's overall greenhouse gas emissions, clean coal has been developed to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. New, clean energy sources, like wind energy and solar power, have recently stormed the market; none of them, however, are as cost-efficient as coal, but they are all friendlier to the environment. Coal companies have responded by beginning development of a new technology,

clean coal technology, as a way of accessing coal's efficiency while removing the impurities that cause most environmental issues. Coal is a major source of power generation in the United States (50%) and China (80%).New sociopolitical trends, however, are threatening coal's position on top, and clean coal technology is the coal industry's answer to concerns about environmental damage caused by burning coal. Coal plants release hundreds of millions of tons of ash and pollutant gases into the air every year (as seen here at St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow, Russia) Who Benefits Coal companies like Arch Coal, Peabody, Massey Energy Company, CONSOL Energy, and Yanzhou Coal Mining Company stand to benefit from the improved environmental image given to coal by terms like "clean coal" and "emissions-free", whether or not carbon emissions are lowered in the technology. Chevronhas also entered the clean coal game, partnering recently with the Penn State University Institutes of Energy and Environment in order to develop clean coal power. If carbon emissions can be lowered in a cost-effective way these companies will also benefit from environmental and politial support.

Companies that produce equipment associated with coal, from mining machinery (Joy Mining Machines) to railway transportation (Union Pacific andBurlington Northern Santa Fe) stand to benefit from the increased demand for coal that would be caused by the increased popularity of clean coal technology.

Because 70% of world steel production uses coal, and many other industrial input producers require coal power, companies like Arcelor Mittal, US Steel, Corus Group, and Nucor stand to benefit as cleaner, cheaper coal technologies make it easier for the companies to meet environmental regulations. While short-run costs will rise (as more expensive clean coal is used), long-run costs stand to fall as clean coal technology could help industry make the politically forseeable transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

Who Hurts Alternative energy companies and their affiliates stand to lose the most from the advent of cleaner coal technologies. Solar companies like Suntech and Kyocera stand to lose their limited market share. Solar power is already less cost-efficient than coal; making coal environmentally friendly would remove any attraction, other than long-term sustainability, from solar. The drop in solar

energy demand would also hurt silicon distributors like MEMC Electronicsand Hemlock, as the current silicon market lies only in two places: semiconductors and photovoltaic cells.

Companies specializing in
1. 2. 3.

Wind energy (Suzlon, Siemens, and General Electric) Natural gas (BP, Chevron, and Anadarko) Nuclear (Exelon and Entergy) Hydroelectric energy

4.

all stand to lose from the increased popularity of coal as a method of electricity generation that would result from a drop in all coal emissions (including carbon).

Trends and Forces

Coal's Abundance and Cost-Efficiency Though coal is a nonrenewable resource, it is highly abundant in the U.S. and China, two places where energy is in great demand. It is believed that 25% of the world's coal supply is in the U.S., and though coal companies are forced to refrain from most highly damaging mining practices, the product is relatively cheap and easy to extract. In the short run, this makes coal a highly utile natural resource in terms of U.S. energy production, but in the long run, it is projected that the

reserves will only last another 250 years at current consumption rates. While this may seem like a long time, one must consider how consumption is growing exponentially.

Contribution to electricity generation worldwide by energy source Rising worldwide demand for energy The world's economy is growing quickly, fueled by the extreme growth of hugely populated developing countries like India and China. As economies grow, due to the proliferation of industrial technology and manufacturing jobs, there is an increasing need for energy. 84% of U.S. coal is used to produce electricity, but coal around the world has many uses. The fuel is used to power factories and steel blast furnaces, manufacture synfuels, and, in developing countries, power steam engines and heat homes. Coal is the most cost-efficient source of energy in the world; currently, coal is abundantly found, cheaply harvested, and burns with a relatively high efficiency of 33% energy converted to electricity (compared to a high 18% for solar panels). Because of this, many developing countries have and may turn to coal as an economically viable source of energy to power their expansion. China, for instance, has seen huge increases in its demand for natural resources, of which coal is a major one; over 80% of China's installed capacity is coal-powered, and capacity continues to grow. The global demand for coal, however, as fallen due to the global financial crisis. Weak demand caused the average weekly coal commodity spot prices in Northern Appalachia to fall from $138 in August 2008 to $58 in March 2009.

China While 25% of the world's reserves are in the U.S., 40% or more of the world's production is in China. China's abundance of coal and it's growing electricity use make it the world's largest coal producer, user, and polluter. For this reason, many environmental groups around the world are pressuring China to shift its energy production in line with the Kyoto Protocol; coal companies in China and around the world are attempting to meet this demand for environmental friendliness while maintaining coal's energy dominance by developing clean coal technology. China, however, plans to export coal next year. Falling domestic demand has lowered the importance of coal, and a slowing economy has lowered the importance of its environmental impact. Environmental Concerns When burned, coal's simple impurities combine to create environmental problems like smog and acid rain. Furthermore, the burning of any carbon-based substance creates carbon gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, that act as greenhouse gases. While coal has an average efficiency of 33% energy output, its dirtiness makes it highly undesirable in and environmental and social context, which is the primary reason that clean coal technology (if developed) could be so important.

Estimated CO2 emissions per Terrawatt of various electricity sources Traditional Clean Coal Traditional clean coal technology works by removing impurities from the coal, allowing more carbon and oxygen to react when the coal is burned. Such technologies also act after the burning, filtering ash and pollutant gases like NO2 out of the emissions. This is a highly useful technology in terms of ending localized environmental degradation such as acid rain and smog. For the most part, however, when coal producers claim such technologies "emissions-free", they are referring

to traditional pollutant emissions - ash, NO2, etc. Now, with increased public interest in the challenge of global climate change, carbon-based gases are considered to be emissions; many environmentalists consider traditional, cheaper clean coal technology to be "greenwashing" because it is refered to as "zero-emissions" even though there are carbon emissions. Truly Clean Coal Truly clean coal technology, in which greenhouse emissions are significantly reduced, has not yet been developed in a way that makes it remotely cost effective. Though there are technologies that can sequester carbon emissions in compounds or geological reserves, these technologies are expensive enough that nuclear technology would be much more cost-effective. In the current environmental, political, and economic climate, however, there is huge demand for the refinement of carbon-free coal. Increasing fear of climate change, international accords like the Kyoto Protocol, and rapid economic expansion coupled with environmental degradation in countries like China and India may combine the three forces to push the development of costeffective and truly clean coal technology. If not, then coal could be on its last legs as renewable, clean energy sources are also in the process of being refined. Underground Coal Gasification Underground coal gasification is the process of burning coal directly in the ground and extracting methane (and other gases) as a source of fuel.Two holes are drilled in an area containing underground coal using equipment similar to that used in oil drilling. A burner is then inserted in the hole, and the resulting combustion releases methane and other gases that can be burned to produce energy. Traditional coal mining becomes prohibitively expensive and dangerous at depths greater than a few hundred meters, leaving nearly 85% of the worlds known coal resources inaccessible. However, UCG is possible at depths of up to 1000 meters, making 400% more coal partially recoverable.It is also cheaper to burn the coal in the ground than to extract it, wash it, and ship it. The current cost is about $2.00 per thousand cubic feet of methane gas, which is about 50% the cost for an equivalent amount of natural gas. UCG was invented in the 1930s, but recent advancements in technology and favorable energy economics have made UCG more attractive, especially in China. The Chinese government has heavily supported UCG programs, and China, the largest consumer of coal in the world, has the largest UCG development program.

Coal consumed by country per year, in billion short ton. Energy Legislation On June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The victory marks the first major action by the U.S. Congress to address climate change. However, the bill still needs to be approved by the Senate in order to be passed into law. Coal company executives have complained that targets and timetables set by the bill are in advance of the industry's abilities and have called for a lowering of the bills near-term emissions targets, which currently require a 17 percent cut below 2005 levels by 2020. Because of the nature of coal power, as well as the nature of coal harvesting, government regulations could play a large part in pushing forward the development and implementation of truly clean coal technology. Examples of national and international legislation include The Kyoto Protocol: an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a global effort to stop climate change. The method by which Kyoto achieves this is by mandating emissions caps and through cap-and-trade systems of trading carbon credits. This has the potential to greatly damage the coal industry, making it a major driver for the development of truly clean coal technology. It should be noted that the U.S. has not ratified the treaty and has no plans to do so. China, while part of the treaty, is classified as a developing country and therefore has no obligation to lower its emissions. The country will soon be the largest polluter in the world because of its use of coal in an overwhelming part of its energy production.

California's mandate that 25% of electricity will come from clean sources by 2020 and 75% by 2050

U.S. Energy Regulations, like a bill being pushed through Congress over the summer of 2007 mandating that 20% of the United States' electricity will come from clean sources by 2020

The European Union is looking to get 22% of its energy from clean sources by 2010

China's Renewable Energy Law is planning on raising the total percentage of renewable energy used in the country to 10% by 2020 Because of coal's powerfully negative environmental image and the rise of climate change as a hot-button environmental issue, the future of coal power has major political implications. From mandatory emissions caps to carbon trading markets to subsidies of alternative, clean, and renewable energy sources, these legislative regulations are putting pressure on coal by forcing companies to limit coal power production or by making coal expensive relative to other power sources. Traditional clean coal technology is essentially an attempt to regain public support; the fact that burning coal will always release greenhouse gases keeps traditional clean coal from being a truly environmentally viable form of energy (at least until carbon sequestration techniques are perfected), but such technologies are being touted by coal companies as the answer to all their problems nonetheless. With major political support (a plank of Barack Obama's presidential platform is the support of clean coal), clean coal technology in any form has the potential to be driven forward by the government, restoring the coal industry's image in the process. Carbon Sequestration Carbon sequestration, or carbon capture and storage (CCS), is a process whereby carbon dioxide emitted from coal power plants is captured and stored underground. Nearly $3.4 billion were allocated to CCS in the U.S. stimulus package, and the European Union has established incentives for power plants to adopt CCS technology. Sequestration technology is already in use in the oil and chemical industries, though CCS would be prohibitively expensive for the private sector without government subsidy.

METHODS TO CLEAN COAL

A coal cleaning plant may consist of different reduction, cleaning and de-watering / drying methods. Different combinations may also be used. The basic commercial methods, as well as environmental considerations in general, are described inn the following section. Jigs The methods operate by differences in specific gravity. Jigs rely on stratification in a bed of coal when the carrying water is pulsed. The shale tends to sin, and the cleaner coal rises. The basic jig, Baum Jig, is suitable for larger feed sizes. Although the Baum Jig can clean a wide range of coal sizes, it is most effective at 10-35 mm. A modification of the Baum Jig is the Batac Jig which is used for cleaning fine coals. The coal is stratified by bubbling air directly through the coal-water-refuse mixture in this cleaning unit. For intermediate sizes the same principles are applied, although the pulsing may be from the side or from under the bed. In addition, a bed or hard dense mineral is used to enhance the

stratification and prevent remixing. The mineral is usually feldspar, consisting of lumps of silicates of about 60 mm size. Figure A1 shows a Baum Jig and a feldspar Jig for finer coal. Jigs offer cost effective technology with a clean coal yield of 75-85% at about 34% ash content. The jigs are used more frequently than dense-medium vessels because of their larger capacities and cheaper costs

Dense-medium separators Dense-medium vessels also operate by specific gravity difference; however, rather than using water as the separation medium, a suspension of magnetic and water is used. This suspension has a specific gravity between that of coal and the refuse and a better separation can be obtained. The slurry of fine magnetite in water can achieve relative densities up to about 1.8. Different types of vessels are used for dense-medium separators such as baths, cyclones and cylindrical centrifugal separators. For larger particle sizes, various kinds of baths are used, but these require a substantial quantity of dense-medium, and therefore of magnetite. For smaller sizes, cyclones are used where the residence time is short and throughput relatively high. Cylindrical centrifugal separators are used for coarse and intermediate coal. Dense-medium cyclones clean coal by accelerating the dense-medium, coal and refuse by centrifugal force. The coal exits the cyclone from the top and the refuse from the bottom. Better separation of smaller-sized coals can be achieved buy this method.

Key factors in the operation of any dense-medium system based on magnetite are the control equipment and the efficiency of magnetic recovery for recycle. There can be a build-up of other minerals in the medium, making control more difficult. Figure A2 shows example of a densemedium bath and a dense-medium cyclone.

Hydrocyclone Hydrocyclones are water-based cyclones where the heavier particles accumulate near the walls and are removed via the base cone. Lighter (cleaner) particles stay nearer the center and are removed at the top via the vortex finder, see Figure A3. The cyclone diameter has a significant influence on the sharpness of separation.

Concentration tables Concentrating tables are tilted and ribbed and they move back and forth in a horizontal direction. The lighter coal particles to the bottom of the table, while the heavier refuse particles are

collected in the ribs and are carried to the end of the table, see Figure A4. Fine coal can be cleaned inexpensively with this unit, however, the capacity is quite small and they are only effective on particles with specific gravities greater than 1.5.

Froth flotation Froth flotation is the most widely-used method for cleaning fines. Froth flotation cells utilize the difference in surface characteristics of coal and refuse to clean ultra fine coal. The coal-water mixture is conditioned with chemical reagents so that air bubbles will adhere only to the coal and float it to the top, while the refuse particles sink. Air is bubbled up through the slurry in the cell and clean coal is collected in the froth that forms at the top. Figure A5 shows an example of froth flotation. This type of cleaning is very complex and expensive and is principally for metallurgical coals. One of the commonest stepz to improve the performance of a flotation unit is to separate the pyrite at an earlier stage using cyclones, spirals or tables.

DRY CLEANING

The dry coal preparation technique uses an air dense fluidized bed, which makes use of the character of an air-solid fluidized bed-like liquid. The uniform and stable air-solid suspension is formed, which processes a certain density, light and heavy feed is separated by density in suspension. The low density material floats up to the top and the high density material sinks down to the bottom. Two qualified products are obtained after separating and removing the magnetic. The separator is comprised of an air chamber, an air distributor, a separating vessel as well as a transportation scraper. In the separating process the screened (6-50 mm) coal and dense medium are fed into the separator, the compressed air from an air receiver is provided to the airchamber, and then uniformly to the distributor which fluidize the dense-medium. The comparative stable fluidized air-solid suspension which processes a certain density is formed under certain technical conditions. The feed is stratified and separated according to its density. The separated materials are transported in counter flow. In Figure A6, the floated light product

such as clean coal is discharged to the right, and the sunken heavy product to the left.

CONCLUSION
Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. When burned, it produces emissions that contribute to global warming, create acid rain and pollute water. With all of the hoopla surrounding nuclear energy, hydropowerand biofuels, you might be forgiven for thinking that grimy coal is finally on its way out. But coal is no sooty remnant of the Industrial Revolution -- it generates half of the electricity in the United States and will likely continue to do so as long as it's cheap and plentiful. Clean coal technology seeks to reduce harsh environmental effects by using multiple technologies to clean coal and contain its emissions. Power Sources

Coal is a fossil fuel composed primarily of carbons and hydrocarbons. Its ingredients help make plastics, tar and fertilizers. A coal derivative, a solidified carbon called coke, melts iron ore and

reduces it to create steel. But most coal -- 92 percent of the U.S. supply -- goes into power production. Electric companies and businesses with power plants burn coal to make the steam that turns turbines and generates electricity. When coal burns, it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions influe gas, the billowing clouds you see pouring out of smoke stacks. Some clean coal technologies purify the coal before it burns. One type of coal preparation, coal washing, removes unwanted minerals by mixing crushed coal with a liquid and allowing the impurities to separate and settle.

Other systems control the coal burn to minimize emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. Wet scrubbers, or flue gas desulfurization systems, remove sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain, by spraying flue gas with limestone and water. The mixture reacts with the sulfur dioxide to form synthetic gypsum, a component of drywall. Low-NOx (nitrogen oxide) burners reduce the creation of nitrogen oxides, a cause of groundlevel ozone, by restricting oxygen and manipulating the combustion process. Electrostatic precipitators remove particulates that aggravate asthma and cause respiratory ailments by charging particles with an electrical field and then capturing them on collection plates. Gasification avoids burning coal altogether. With integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems, steam and hot pressurized air or oxygen combine with coal in a reaction that forces carbon molecules apart. The resulting syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is then cleaned and burned in a gas turbine to make electricity. The heat energy from the gas turbine also powers a steam turbine. Since IGCC power plants create two forms of energy, they have the potential to reach a fuel efficiency of 50 percent .

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. www.wikipedia.org 2. www.yahoo.com 3. www. britannica.com 4. www.google.com 5. www.msn.com 6. www.ask.com 7. www.nationalgeographic.com 8. www.howstuffworks.com 9. www.encyclopedia.com 10. www.discovery.com

Dates worked on

No of hours

Info collected

15.10.2011 to 23.10.2010 to 30.10.2010 to 20.11.2010 to 25.12.2010 to

26.01.2011 29.10.2010 06.11.2010 11.12.2010 08.10.2011

20 hrs 15 hrs 15 hrs 20 hrs 10 hrs

Introduction Supports and criticisms Prior terminology Clean coal technology and Methods to clean coal And conclusion.