WINTER 2014

CORNERSTONE

VOLUME 2 ISSUE 4 THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE WORLD COAL INDUSTRY

The Energy Frontier

of Combining Coal and
Renewable Energy Systems
Stephen Mills
Senior Consultant
IEA Clean Coal Centre
THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE WORLD COAL INDUSTRY
WINTER 2014 • VOLUME 2, ISSUE 4

Developing Country The Flexibility of German Exploring the Status

Needs Are Critical to a Coal-Fired Power Plants of Oxy-fuel Technology
Global Climate Agreement Amid Increased Renewables Globally and in China
 Our mission is to defend and grow markets
for coal based on its contribution to a higher
quality of life globally, and to demonstrate and
gain acceptance that coal plays a fundamental 1

role in achieving the least cost path to a sustainable

low carbon and secure energy future.

The World Coal Association has been influencing policy at the highest
level for almost 30 years. No other organisation works on a global basis
on behalf of the coal industry.

Our membership comprises the world’s major international coal

producers and stakeholders. WCA membership is open to organisations
with a stake in the future of coal from anywhere in the world.

The WCA has recently appointed Harry Kenyon-Slaney, Chief Executive www.worldcoal.org
of Rio Tinto Energy, as its new Chairman. It is an exciting time for the www.worldcoal.org/extract
WCA and for the global coal industry. If you have an interest in the twitter.com/worldcoal
future of the coal industry, contact us to see how you can get involved: www.youtube.com/worldcoal
membership@worldcoal.org facebook.com/WorldCoalAssociation

WCA Members
Alpha Natural Resources Inc China National Coal Group Peabody Energy
Anglo American Glencore Rio Tinto Energy
Arch Coal Inc Joy Global Shenhua Group
BHP Billiton Karakan Invest. LLC Vostsibugol
Bowie Resource Partners LLC Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd Whitehaven Coal Limited
Caterpillar Global Mining Orica Ltd Xcoal Energy & Resources

WCA Associate Members

Asociación Nacional De Empresarios De
Colombia
ASSOCARBONI
Associação Brasileira do Carvão Mineral
Association of British Mining Equipment
Companies
China National Coal Association
Coal Association of Canada
Coal Association of New Zealand
CoalImp - Association of UK Coal Importers
Fossil Fuel Foundation
German Coal Association
Indonesian Coal Mining Association
Iranian Mines & Mining Industries Development
& Renovation Organization
Japan Coal Energy Center
Minerals Council of Australia
Mongolian Coal Association
National Mining Association
Queensland Resources Council
Shaanxi Institute of Geological Survey
Svenska Kolinstitutet
UCG Association

WCA_advert_h273 x w206mm 27 Nov 2014.indd 1 27/11/2014 13:30


Finding Common Ground
Holly Krutka
Executive Editor, Cornerstone
1
www.cornerstonemag.net
F R OM THE EDI TOR
R
enewables and coal are the two fastest growing forms of energy today.
The growth of these energy sources is particularly prominent in developing
countries, where most expansion in electricity capacity is occurring. Coal and
renewables often require less upfront investment, less infrastructure, and are more
widely distributed globally than other energy options, making them ideal choices
for regions that need to add electricity capacity in the near term.
Coal and renewable energy systems can be integrated in such a way that the advan-
tages of each energy source can be more fully harnessed. For instance, coal and
biomass cofiring and cogasification, the most widespread combinations practiced
today, allow for larger, more cost-effective plants than would be possible with only
biomass, but a smaller carbon footprint than would be possible using coal with-
out carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). In fact, there are many more
examples of optimized systems in which renewable and coal energy systems could
be optimally integrated.
The main issues facing increased integration of coal and renewable energy sys-
tems are not technical. Instead, they are generally institutional. Advocates for such
integration are few and far between. However, some of the advantages are worth
consideration: Integration can produce more power than a standalone renewable
plant and can be an enabling technology to get high-cost renewables, such as uncon-
ventional geothermal and concentrated solar power, deployed in the near term. Yet
such projects are generally not included under renewable portfolio standards or
clean energy standards. In addition, negative net greenhouse gas emissions, which
can be achieved through cofiring coal and biomass with CCS, are often not recog-
nized by emissions trading schemes.
The deployment of renewables is already changing the operation of coal-fired
power plants; tomorrow’s plants will need to be smarter and more responsive than
those of the past. As is being demonstrated by Germany’s fleet of coal-fired power
plants, rapid turndown to 25–40% of full capacity as well as rapid ramping is now
not just possible, but has become standard operating procedure.
Recently, low-carbon energy production from coal took a major step forward with
the commencement of operation of SaskPower’s Boundary Dam project. This
monumental CCUS project is now demonstrating that low-carbon coal is within our
grasp. As coal and renewables grow globally, improved integration and efficiency
as well as deployment of CCUS can ensure that coal and renewables can both con-
tribute to decreasing the carbon footprint of the energy sector without sacrificing
reliability, energy security, and eventually cost. Further demonstration, develop-
ment, and deployment will be necessary to reduce costs, which emphasizes why
increased integration of coal and renewables must find support within the global
energy discussion today.
This issue of Cornerstone offers a wide range of articles that discuss the many areas
in which coal and renewables do and could intersect. On behalf of the editorial
team, I hope you enjoy it.
 CONTENTS

FROM THE EDITOR

1 Finding Common Ground
Holly Krutka, Cornerstone

VOICES
11 The Rise of Electricity: Offering Longevity,
Improved Living Standards, and a Healthier Planet
Frank Clemente, Penn State University

11
ENERGY POLICY
17 Understanding the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative
Patrick Falwell, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Brad Crabtree, Great Plains Institute

21 Developing Country Needs Are Critical

to a Global Climate Agreement
Benjamin Sporton, World Coal Association

STRATEGIC ANALYSIS
25 The Flexibility of German Coal-Fired
Power Plants Amid Increased Renewables
21
Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer, World Energy Council

31 Toward Carbon-Negative Power Plants

With Biomass Cofiring and CCS
Janne Kärki, Antti Arasto, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

36 Evolution of Cleaner Solid Fuel Combustion

Christopher Long, Peter Valberg, Gradient

31
4 Cover Story
The Energy Frontier of
Combining Coal and
Renewable Energy Systems
Stephen Mills
The global demand for energy continues to increase—as the fastest
growing sources of energy, coal and renewables are largely responsible
for meeting that demand. A Senior Consultant at the IEA Clean Coal
Centre explores the projections for coal and renewable deployment as
well as opportunities for optimization.

2
 TECHNOLOGY FRONTIERS
Making Coal Flexible:
Getting From Baseload to Peaking Plant 41
Jaquelin Cochran, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Debra Lew, Independent Consultant
Nikhil Kumar, Intertek

Geothermal Assisted Power Generation

for Thermal Power Plants 46
Nigel Bean, Josephine Varney, University of Adelaide
41
Shenhua’s Development of Digital Mines
Han Jianguo, Shenhua Group Co., Ltd 51
Direct Carbon Fuel Cells: An Ultra-Low
Emission Technology for Power Generation 56
Christopher Munnings, Sarbjit Giddey, Sukhvinder Badwal,
CSIRO Energy Flagship

Exploring the Status of Oxy-fuel

Technology Globally and in China 61
Zheng Chuguang,
56 Huazhong University of Science and Technology
and Clean Energy Research Center

GLOBAL NEWS
Covering global business changes, publications, and meetings
67
LETTERS
71
VOLUME 2 AUTHOR INDEX
73
67
Chief Editor Copyright © 2014 World Coal Association
Gu Dazhao, Katie Warrick
Editorial Office
Executive Editor Shenhua Science and Technology Research
Holly Krutka, Liu Baowen Institute Co., Ltd 006 mailbox
Official Journal of World Coal Industry Shenhua Science and Technology Park,
Responsible Editor Future Science & Technology City,
Chi Dongxun, Li Jingfeng Changping District
Beijing 102211, China
Copy Editor
Li Xing, Chen Junqi, Zhang Fan Phone: +86 10 57336026
Sponsored by Shenhua Group Corporation Limited Fax: +86 10 57336014
Production and Layout
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Email: cornerstone@shenhua.cc (Chinese)
Email: cornerstone@wiley.com (English)
CORNERSTONE (print ISSN 2327-1043, Website: www.cornerstonemag.net
online ISSN 2327-1051) is published four times a
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
year on behalf of the World Coal Association by The content in Cornerstone does not necessarily
Wiley Periodicals Inc., a Wiley Company reflect the views of the World Coal Association or
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774. its members.

3
www.cornerstonemag.net
 C O VE R S T O RY
The Energy Frontier
By Stephen Mills
Senior Consultant
IEA Clean Coal Centre
T
he world is undoubtedly hungry for energy and this
hunger is growing. There are strong incentives to
develop improved sources of energy. By 2040, the
world’s population will have reached nearly nine billion.1 All
of these people will need to be housed, fed, and have the
opportunity to make a living; this inevitably means that much
more energy is going to be needed. By 2040, global energy
demand will be about a third greater than current levels.2 Oil,
4
“Although coal and renewable energy
sources might appear to be strange
bedfellows … we could see increased
deployment of combinations of the
world’s two fastest-growing energy
sources becoming a reality.”
natural gas, and coal will continue to be used widely, although
in some situations, the increasing use of renewable energy
sources may reduce the amount of fossil fuels currently used.
Regardless, on a global basis, coal will continue to play a major
role. This will be particularly true in some of the emerging
economies where growing industrialization and urbanization
continue to relentlessly drive electricity demand upward.
of Combining Coal and
Renewable Energy Systems
At the moment, over 1.2 billion people lack access to any
electricity, and another two billion are considered to have
inadequate access. A key goal of the 2010 Copenhagen Accord
is to provide energy to these underserved populations. There
may be few energy source options available—in some coun-
tries, coal is the only economically available bulk source
capable of providing reliable energy. Although its use is set to
decline in some developed economies, coal will continue to be
used widely and in considerable quantities. For over a decade,
global coal consumption has risen steadily; in some non-OECD
countries, in particular, both production and consumption
have increased dramatically. During this time, consumption
has risen by nearly 60%, from 4.6 Gt in 2000 to about 7.8 Gt in Poland’s Belchatów coal-fired power station is Europe’s largest
2012.3 Despite efforts to diversify, coal remains vitally impor- thermal power plant (courtesy PGE Elektrownia Belchatów).
tant for many economies. Since 2000, apart from renewables,
it has been the fastest-growing global energy source. It’s the electricity. Global renewable power capacity continues to
second source of primary energy after oil, and provides more increase. In 2013, hydropower and solar PV each accounted
than 30% of global primary energy needs. for about 33% of new renewable capacity, followed by wind
at about 29%.5
The biggest individual coal reserves are in the U.S., Russia,
China, Australia, and India. In all of these countries, coal is Several driving forces support the growth in renewables. All
used to generate large percentages of electricity. In several, it developed nations rely heavily on an adequate and acces-
also provides important economic benefits as it is exported to sible supply of electricity and, for a long time, demand has
other power-hungry economies. At the moment, coal’s princi- continued to rise in nearly every country. However, in recent
pal use remains electricity generation; coal-fired power plants years, concerns over issues such as the depletion of energy
produce 41–42% of the world’s electricity. In the coming resources and global climate change have been heightened.
years, electricity will continue to be provided by many differ- The preferred response of many western governments has
ent generating technologies, but the projected combinations been a supply-side strategy—namely, to raise the share of
are highly site-specific. The IEA World Energy Outlook (2012) renewables (especially renewables other than hydropower) in
suggests that, for the foreseeable future, power production the energy mix toward 20% and beyond. To date, wind power
from most sources will continue to increase (Figure 1).4 In has emerged as the most competitive and widely deployed
many countries, coal and renewable energy systems are being renewable energy, although levels of solar power are also
deployed at greater percentages and, thus, there is increased growing steadily. Renewable energy technologies such as wind
interest in how to optimally integrate these systems. In fact, and solar have obvious features that make their use attractive.
there are a significant number of opportunities.
14k
Generation Mix (TWh)

12k Coal
AN ODD PARTNERSHIP? Renewables
Global Power

10k
With the ever-increasing use of all types of fossil fuels, there 8k
Gas
has also been a marked increase in the uptake of renewable 6k
energy sources. In many economies, these now represent a Nuclear
4k
rapidly growing share of electricity supply; Table 1 shows the
top regions and countries at the end of 2012. 2k
Oil
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
In 2013 renewables made up more than 26% of global gen-
erating capacity; in 2013 they produced 22% of the world’s FIGURE 1. Global power generation mix4

5
www.cornerstonemag.net
 C O VE R S T O RY

TABLE 1. Global renewable electric power capacity5 (end 2013) (GW)

Technology World Total EU-28 BRICS China U.S. Germany Spain Italy India
Bio-power 88 35 24 6.2 15.8 8.1 1 4 4.4
Geothermal 12 1 0.1 ~0 3.4 ~0 0 0.9 0
Tidal 0.5 0.2 ~0 ~0 ~0 0 ~0 0 0
Solar PV 139 80 21 19.9 12.1 36 5.6 17.6 2.2
CSP 3.4 2.3 0.1 ~0 0.9 ~0 2.3 ~0 0.1
Wind 318 117 115 91 61 34 23 8.6 20
Total RE power capacity* 560 235 162 118 93 78 32 31 27
Hydropower 1000 124 437 260 78 5.6 17.1 18.3 44
Total RE power capacity 1560 360 599 378 172 84 49 49 71
*Excludes hydropower.
Note: BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa

Although initial capital costs for renewables-based systems forms may be subject to limited or seasonable availability, and
can be high, operating costs can be low; emissions generated various pre-treatments may be needed. Inevitably, such chal-
during day-to-day operation are effectively zero. lenges can add complexity and cost to energy production.

Especially in faster-growing energy markets, these renew-
able energy systems are not replacing existing or even new
coal-fired power plants. Renewables and coal-fired power
generation are growing simultaneously. Therefore, it is worth
exploring the many options for combining these very different
forms of energy in the most cost-effective, environmentally
conscious, and efficient means possible. A growing number of
hybrid coal-renewables systems have been proposed or are
being developed around the world, several of which could
offer significant potential.
Coal and Biomass
Combining biomass with coal is a prime example of combining
renewables and coal. Such a combination is already deployed
fairly widely in the form of cofiring biomass in large conven-
tional coal-fired power plants. Around the world, a growing
number of power plants regularly replace a portion of their
coal feed with suitably treated biomass. More than 150 coal-
fired power plants now have experience with cofiring biomass
or waste fuels, at least on a trial basis. There are ~40 pulver-
ized coal combustion (PCC) plants that cofire biomass on a
commercial basis, with an average of 3% energy input from
biomass.6
Biomass comes in many forms and can be sourced from
dedicated energy crops (such as switchgrass and miscanthus),
short-rotation timber, agricultural crops and wastes, or forestry
residues. When combined with coal, biomass can provide a
number of advantages. However, its use on a large commercial
scale could create a number of issues. For example, the vol-
umes to be harvested and handled can be substantial, some
Co-utilization of coal and biomass need not be limited to co-
combustion in existing power plants—there are a number of
other possibilities such as co-gasification. Coal gasification is
a well-established versatile technology. Combining these two
different feedstocks can be beneficial. For instance, facilities
that co-gasify biomass in large coal gasifiers can achieve high
efficiencies and improve process economics through greater
economies of scale compared to a biomass-only facility. Such
a combination can also help reduce the impact of fluctuations
in biomass availability and its variable properties. Combining
biomass and coal in this way can be useful, both environmen-
tally and economically, as it may be possible to capitalize on
the advantages of each feedstock, and overcome some of their
individual drawbacks. Biomass can have an impact on CO2
emissions from a combustion or gasification process. Replacing
part of the coal feed with biomass (assuming that it has been
produced on a sustainable basis) can effectively reduce the
overall amount of CO2 emitted. Potentially, the addition of
carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology could result in a
carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative process. Globally, con-
siderable quantities of biomass are potentially available—in
many countries, biomass remains an underexploited resource.
Similar to many conventional coal-fired power plants, several
commercial-scale, coal-fueled, integrated gasification com-
bined cycle (IGCC) plants in operation have at least trialed com-
bining biomass with their coal feed, and several proposed IGCC
projects aim to do the same. For instance, a planned IGCC and
chemicals production plant (with CCS) at Kędzierzyn in Poland
will co-gasify coal and biomass.7 To date, useful operational
experience in co-gasifying has been gained with all major
gasifier variants (entrained flow, fluidized bed, and fixed bed

6
systems). Different types of coal have been co-gasified suc-
cessfully with a wide range of materials, many of which are
wastes that would have otherwise ended up in landfills or, at
least, created disposal problems.
Co-utilizing coal and biomass is not limited to power gen-
eration. In a number of countries, hybrid concepts for the
production of SNG, electricity and/or heat, and liquid trans-
port fuels have either been proposed or are in the process
of being developed or tested. Coal/biomass co-gasification
features in some of these. However, as well as incorporating
biomass, some propose to take this a step further by adding
yet another element of renewable energy to the system, gen-
erally by incorporating electricity generated by intermittent
renewables (such as wind and solar power).
Coal, Wind, Solar, and Geothermal
Wind power has become the most widely deployed renewable
energy. In 2013, global capacity hit a new high of 318 GW. In
that year, China alone installed more than 16 GW; by 2020, the
IEA projects the country will more than double its wind power
capacity from the present level of 90 GW to around 200 GW.8
For comparison, the European Union countries have a com-
bined ~90 GW of installed capacity. In 2013, wind surpassed
nuclear to become the number three source of energy after
coal and hydropower in China.9 Reportedly, this is part of the
greatest push for renewable energy that the world has ever
seen.10
International Power’s 1-GW Rugeley power station in the UK. Like many others, this power plant has trialed cofiring various
biomass materials with coal (courtesy Russell Mills Photography).
7
www.cornerstonemag.net
Most major wind and solar facilities do not operate in isola-
tion. Generally, they feed electricity into existing power grids
or networks. Often, such grids are fed by a variety of different
types of power plants—there may be various combinations
of coal- and gas-fired power plants, some hydro, and possi-
bly nuclear. The grid makeup and ratio between plant types
is never the same, as these factors differ from country to
country based on the local circumstances. On the face of it,
the addition of a large amount of wind power into a grid, for
example, is a positive development. However, a large input
from intermittent sources into existing power systems can
upset grid stability and have major impacts, particularly on
how thermal power plants within the system operate. Many
coal- and gas-fired power plants no longer exclusively provide
baseload power, but are now required to operate on a more
flexible basis. Many are increasingly switched off and on, or
ramped up and down, much more frequently than they were
designed to be. Inevitably, this is guaranteed to throw up a
number of issues—significantly increasing wear and tear on
plant components, reducing the operating efficiency of units
not designed for variable operation, and impairing the effec-
tiveness of emission control systems. Ideally, such important
impacts should be taken into consideration and factored into
any energy-producing scheme, but this is particularly true in
cases where coupling intermittent renewables with conven-
tional thermal power plants is being proposed.
Clearly, the most significant drawback with wind and solar
power is their intermittency. Consequently, periods of peak
power output often do not correspond with periods of high
 C O VE R S T O RY
Smøla wind farm in Norway (courtesy Statkraft)
electricity demand, and vice versa. At times, there can be
significant amounts of surplus unwanted electricity available,
particularly from wind farms. This can be quite a widespread
phenomenon, and the usual solution is to take wind turbines
offline. However, rather than “waste” this electricity, it would
be much more beneficial to find an effective means of using it.
One option is to use electricity not needed to fill demand to
electrolyze water, producing hydrogen and oxygen. Both gases
have the potential to be component parts of hybrid energy
systems and there are various schemes that propose feeding
the hydrogen into syngas from gasification systems, use it in
fuel cells or directly as a transport fuel, or combust it in gas
turbines to generate electricity.
Similarly, the oxygen could be used for a host of commercial
and industrial applications, or fed to a coal/biomass gasifier or
an oxy-fuel combustion plant to generate electricity. Different
concepts and schemes combining gasification, intermittent
renewables, and electrolysis are currently being examined.
Some aim to incorporate carbon capture and storage. For
example, an on-going project in Germany is combining coal-
based power generation with aspects of carbon capture and
wind-generated electricity with trials of advanced electrolyzer
technology (to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water).11
Success could encourage increased uptake of, for instance,
electrolysis, as a component part of various coal/renewables
systems. Assuming that the economics can be made to work,
several schemes look promising.
8
Another ongoing project in Germany is expected to lead to
significant improvements in the overall efficiency of the elec-
trolysis process: E.On’s power-to-gas project at Falkenhagen.
This technology utilizes multiple electrolyzers driven by excess
electricity from a nearby wind farm to provide the power to
produce hydrogen and oxygen. Output from the region’s wind
farms frequently exceeds demand, so instead of taking the
turbines offline when this happens, some of the electricity
is now being fed to the electrolyzers. In this case, the hydro-
gen produced is being injected into the local natural gas grid,
which acts as a large storage system. Effectively, it’s a clever
way of storing renewable energy.
There is also an opportunity to integrate coal-fired power
plants with renewable sources of thermal energy, such as
geothermal or solar thermal. The benefit of this type of inte-
grated hybrid system is that the renewable source of energy
can take advantage of the existing infrastructure of the coal-
fired power plant, such as the steam cycle, connection to the
grid, and transformers. Generally, this makes the economics
much more attractive compared to a stand-alone renewable
plant. Obviously, the availability of the renewable resource at
the coal-fired power plant site is a prerequisite for such hybrid
systems to be successful.
Hybrid thermal systems operate by using heat from renewable
energy to increase the temperature of the coal-fired power
plant boiler feedwater. This increases the efficiency of the
power plant, effectively displacing some coal for renewable
energy (or using the same amount of coal and producing more
electricity). Such thermal hybrid projects may be the most
cost-effective option for large-scale use of solar thermal and
geothermal energy, although, to be employed, this approach
must be recognized under renewable energy incentives. In
the future, there may also be an opportunity for renewable
sources of energy to provide the thermal load required for
carbon capture and storage, thus significantly reducing the
overall impact to the power plant and contributing to large-
scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
E.On’s power-to-gas project at Falkenhagen in Germany
(courtesy E.On)
Currently, around 15 hybrid solar thermal plants, including
those on coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, are being
developed, with a total capacity of 460 MW.12 Thermal hybrid
projects based on unconventional geothermal resources are
at an earlier stage of development and the field will require
additional research prior to large-scale demonstrations.13
CURRENT STATUS
Some systems are at early stages in their development or
have been undertaken at a very small size, hence extrapo-
lating to commercial scale and obtaining firm process costs
remains problematic. For a variety of reasons, not all of the
different schemes being considered appear to be technically
and/or economically viable. However, some do appear to be
more robust. On-going developments (in, for instance, gasifier
and electrolyzer design) should improve cost competiveness.
Where hydrogen and/or oxygen production forms part of
a hybrid energy scheme, reductions in the cost of electric-
ity provided by renewable energy sources (such as wind and
solar) would also be beneficial in making electrolysis more
cost effective. Some examples of on-going hybrid projects are
given in Table 2. Although some are currently focused only on
biomass, potentially different elements from these processes
could also be incorporated into systems fueled by coal/bio-
mass combinations.
A number of projects are more advanced than others, with
development programs well underway. Some components
(such as co-gasification) have now been well established, and
others are under development or being trialed (such as the
commercial-scale demonstration of hydrogen production from
wind power and testing of advanced electrolyzers). A number
of proposed hybrid systems show potential—although in the
near to medium term, assuming outstanding technical and
economic issues can be resolved fully, most seem likely to be
applied initially to niche markets, or to find application under
specific, favorable circumstances.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
Set against a background of growing global population and ris-
ing energy demand, there is a pressing need to come up with
new, cost-effective, clean, reliable energy systems. To help
tackle this, many hybrid energy schemes have been proposed,
some more practical than others. Despite efforts by many
countries to diversify their fuel mix, fossil fuels such as coal will
continue to provide a significant part of the world’s energy for

TABLE 2. Examples of hybrid energy-producing systems proposed

Organization Technologies Proposed Status

Various studies underway:

• combining wind power and biomass gasification
Gasification/co-gasification +
NREL, U.S. • combining biomass gasification and electrolysis
electrolysis (wind)
• combining coal and biomass co-gasification
Several gasification-based hybrid systems being examined
Systems to produce SNG, electricity, and biodiesel.
Coal gasification + electrolysis
NETL, U.S. 3000 t/d plant proposed.
(wind)
Unconverted coal from gasifier fed to oxy-fuel combustor
Systems could be used to produce F-T chemicals, synfuels.
CRL Energy, New Coal/biomass co-gasification +
O2 fed to gasifier. H2 to enrich product gas, stored, or used as
Zealand electrolysis (wind)
transport fuel or in fuel cells.
Leighty Foundation, Coal/biomass co-gasification +
O2 from electrolysis fed to gasifier
U.S. electrolysis (wind)
Biomass (wood) gasifier +
Univ. Lund, Sweden O2 from electrolysis fed to gasifier
electrolysis (wind)
Various co-generation concepts to produce power, heat, and
Elsam/DONG, Biomass gasification +
transport fuels examined.
Denmark electrolysis (wind, solar)
H2 added to syngas. O2 used for biomass gasification
Univ. Lausanne, Wood gasification +
Several processes examined for SNG production
Switzerland electrolysis
Various: gasification + O2 from electrolysis fed to gasifier. H2 fed to syngas.
China
electrolysis (wind) Mainly for SNG, methanol, ethylene glycol production
Note: SNG = synthetic natural gas; F-T = Fischer-Tropsch.

9
www.cornerstonemag.net
 C O VE R S T O RY
Hybrid coal and renewable energy systems offer synergistic
benefits. (photo courtesy of Russell Mills Photography)
the foreseeable future. For a number of reasons, where possi-
ble, it makes sense to look at coupling coal use with renewable
energy sources. Each power-producing system has its own pros
and cons, but combining these different systems in creative
ways may offer the possibility of overcoming some of these
shortcomings. With this in mind, various energy production
concepts that propose combining a number of different tech-
nologies with coal are being developed around the world.
To be a practical proposition, as with all power-producing sys-
tems, any hybrid scheme needs to be clean, workable, and
economically sound. Based on work carried out recently by
the IEA Clean Coal Centre, some hybrid systems appear to be
viable and have potential.14,15 Although coal and renewable
energy sources might appear to be strange bedfellows, it’s
not unrealistic to suppose that in the coming years we could
see increased deployment of combinations of the world’s two
fastest-growing energy sources becoming a reality.
10
REFERENCES
1. United Nations Population Division. (2014). Concise report on
the world population situation 2014, www.un.org/en/develop
ment/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Concise%20
Report%20on%20the%20World%20Population%20Situa
tion%202014/en.pdf
2. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2012, 25 July). State of play:
New IEA statistics publications highlight latest global and OECD
trends across major energy sources, www.iea.org/newsrooman
devents/news/2012/july/name,28615,en.html
3. IEA. (2014). Coal information, www.iea.org/w/bookshop/646-
Coal_Information_2014
4. IEA. (2012). World energy outlook 2012, www.worldenergyout
look.org/publications/weo-2012/
5. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21).
(2014). Renewables 2014 global status report, www.ren21.net/
Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2014/GSR2014_full%20
report_low%20res.pdf
6. Adams, D. (2013). Sustainability of biomass for cofiring.
CCC/230. London: IEA Clean Coal Centre. www.iea-coal.org.uk/
documents/83254/8869/Sustainability-of-biomass-for-cofiring,-
CCC/230
7. Cornot-Gandolphe, S. (2012, October). The European coal mar-
ket: Will coal survive the EC’s energy and climate policies? Paris:
Institut Français des Relations Internationals.
8. IEA. (2011). Technology roadmap: China wind energy develop-
ment 2050. Available at: www.iea.org/publications/freepubli
cations/publication/technology-roadmap-china-wind-energy-
development-roadmap-2050.html
9. Yang, C. (2013). Wind power now No. 3 energy resource. People’s
Daily English Edition, english.peopledaily.com.cn/90778/8109836.
html
10. Shukman, D. (2014, 8 January). China on world’s “biggest push”
for wind power. British Broadcasting Corporation, www.bbc.
co.uk/news/science-environment-25623400
11. Farchmin, F. (2013, 6 November). Integration of regenerative en-
ergy into Power2Gas by PEM electrolyzer technology. CO2RRECT
Project. Smart Grid-Infotage 2013, Munich, Germany, www.in
dustry.siemens.com/topics/global/en/pem-electrolyzer/silyzer/
Documents/2013-11-06_SMARTGRID_Munich_stick.pdf
12. Electric Power Research Institute. (2012, April). Utility perspec-
tive: Solar thermal hybrid projects. Clean Energy Regulatory
Forum, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo-
rado, U.S., www.cleanskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/
Libby_CERF3_04192012.pdf
13. Bean, N., & Varney, J. (2014). Geothermal assisted power gen-
eration for coal-fired power plants. Cornerstone, 2(4), 46–50.
14. Mills, S.J. (2011). Integrating intermittent renewable energy
technologies with coal-fired power plants. CCC/189. London:
IEA Clean Coal Centre.
15. Mills, S.J. (2013). Combining renewable energy with coal.
CCC/223. London: IEA Clean Coal Centre.
The author can be reached at Steve.Mills@iea-coal.org
 V O ICES

The Rise of Electricity: Offering

Longevity, Improved Living Standards,
and a Healthier Planet
By Frank Clemente medical care improved dramatically, and a vast system of elec-
Professor Emeritus of Social Science and tronic communication emerged.2,3
Former Director of the Environmental Policy Center,
Penn State University

“Since 1970, the global demand for

I electricity has more than quadrupled

n 1972, The United Nations’ Stockholm Conference on the
Human Environment issued the following Declaration: “Both
aspects of man’s environment, the natural and the man-
made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment
of basic human rights, the right to life itself.”1 In other words,
people are part of the environment too. The Stockholm
Declaration stressed that vast numbers of people continue to
live far below the minimum conditions required for a decent
human existence, deprived of adequate food and clothing,
shelter and education, health and sanitation. The Conference
concluded that economic and social development are essen-
tial for ensuring a favorable living and working environment
for humans and for creating conditions on earth that are nec-
essary for the improvement of the quality of life.
Electricity is the foundation of such development and is the
lifeblood of modern society. The U.S. National Academy of
Engineering identified societal electrification as the “greatest
engineering achievement” of the 20th century, during which
the global population grew by over four billion people, the rise
of the metropolis occurred, transportation was revolutionized,
... with ~42% of this incremental
demand being met by coal.”
Electricity supports quality of life increases, economic well-
being, and a clean environment. Electricity is highly unique
compared to other forms of energy:
• Flexible—convertible to virtually any energy service—light,
motion, heat, electronics, and chemical potential
• Permits previously unattainable precision, control, and speed
• Provides temperature and energy density far greater than
those attainable from standard fuels
• Does not require a buildup of inertia—offering instanta-
neous access to energy at the point of use
Although it may seem counterintuitive to some, electrifi-
cation offers tremendous environmental benefits. Electro-

New power lines providing access to electricity allow for energy to be utilized with increasing efficiency.

11
www.cornerstonemag.net
 V O ICE S

technologies are more efficient than their fuel-burning coun-
terparts and, unlike traditional fuels burned by the user, no
waste and emissions evolve at the point of use—no smoke,
ash, combustion gas, noise, or odor. Clearly, it’s important that
there are emissions controls in place when electricity is gen-
erated; controlling criteria emissions (e.g., particulate matter,
SOx, NOx, mercury) at the source of large-scale electricity gen-
eration is possible using commercially available technologies.
In addition, electrification increases the efficiency of society’s
primary energy consumption and, therefore, reduces the
energy intensity of greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon capture
and storage (CCS) technologies are also being developed that
will allow for the carbon footprint of fossil fuel-based sources
of electricity to be dramatically reduced.
will move to, ever-growing cities. Urbanization may offer the
chance to lift oneself out of poverty, but the electricity must
be available to support the business and industries that can
provide much-needed opportunities.
THE DISPARITY OF ELECTRIFICATION
Figure 1 provides a comparison of the UN’s Human Develop-
ment Index (HDI) and the per capita electricity utilization of
many nations. Note that the major aspects of the HDI, such as
life expectancy, educational attainment, and per capita GDP,
are statistically related to increased access and utilization of
electricity.

Given these beneficial attributes of electric power, it is not sur-

prising that demand continues to increase. Since 1970, the global
demand for electricity has more than quadrupled from approxi-
mately 5200 TWh to almost 23,000 TWh, with ~42% of this
incremental demand being met by coal, which is why this fuel
source has been referred to as the cornerstone of global power.4
Despite the staggering past growth of electricity demand,
the future world will require far greater amounts of power.
The Current Policies scenario in the IEA’s 2013 World Energy
Outlook projected a 80% increase in power generation
between 2011 and 2035.4 However, the center of that pro-
jected incremental growth reflects a global shift; from 1980
to 2000, almost a quarter of the global increase in genera-
tion came from the U.S., Japan, and Europe. Over the next 20
years, these developed nations will be relatively minor players
in growth, while developing Asia will account for over 60% of
new generation, led by China, where the increase alone will
be about 6500 TWh—or about twice the current output of the
EU. Coal will be the mainstay of the next generation as well,
accounting for over 40% of electricity in 2035.4
The empirical realities of at least three societal trends demon-
strate the magnitude of the emerging need for major increases
in electricity generation:
“Urbanization may offer the chance
to lift oneself out of poverty, but
the electricity must be available to
support the business and industries
that can provide much-needed
opportunities.”
The Copenhagen Accord of 2009 concluded that “economic
and social development and poverty eradication are the first
and overriding priorities of developing country Parties.”7
Energy, particularly electricity, is the pathway to achieving
these goals. More than 1.3 billion people have no electricity
at all and billions more have inadequate access to power.4
Electricity deprivation in the developing world takes a mighty
toll. The impact on children and women is stark: According to
the UN, about 17,000 children die each day from causes that
are preventable with sufficient electricity, including access to

1. Economic growth 1 Germany Japan U.S.

2. Population increase
Human Development Index

0.9
3. Urbanization
0.8 Brazil
Russia
The projections are staggering. By 2050, the global economy 0.7
China
India
is projected to quadruple to US$280 trillion in real terms. At 0.6
least 80% of this increase will be in the developing world, and 0.5
Nigeria
many of these nations will depend on coal to advance their 0.4
economies. By 2050, the world will add 2.4 billion people—67 0.3
million every year or 184,000 every day.5 In essence, the 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
entire population of Rome is added to the global rolls every Electricity Use per Capita per Year (kWh)

two weeks. Most of these people will either be born in, or FIGURE 1. Human Development Index versus electricity use6

12
clean water, better sanitation, adequate food, medicine, and
more education to improve earning power—all things that
can be taken for granted in the developed West.8 At least 1.5
billion women and girls live on less than $2 per day, and this
feminization of poverty is endemic to areas without electric
power.9 Merely gathering traditional fuels consumes a large
part of a woman’s day throughout the developing world. Girls
are kept out of school to obtain fuel. In areas such as South
Darfur, women walk up to seven hours per day to collect fuel,
making mothers and their daughters highly susceptible to rob-
bery, violence, and rape. This inequitable access to energy has
far-reaching socioeconomic ramifications. For example, the
infant mortality rate in Germany is less than four per 1000
live births; in Nigeria, it is 74. In the European Union, virtually
100% of the population has improved sanitation; in Indonesia
alone, 104 million people lack such sanitation.10
No nation holds more of the world’s poor than India. At least
300 million people have no power whatsoever and more than
700 million people lack access to modern energy services for
lighting, cooking, water pumping, and other productive pur-
poses. One hundred million do not have an improved water
supply and over 800 million lack access to improved sanita-
tion. These problems will only intensify going forward as India
has about 630 million people less than 25 years old and will
surpass China as the most populated nation before 2030.11
An increasingly urban global population presents challenges, but also an opportunity to increase electrification rates.
13
www.cornerstonemag.net
Sub-Saharan Africa, a region with a population of more than
900 million people, uses less electricity per year (145 TWh)
than the U.S. state of Alabama (155 TWh) with just 4.8 million
residents.12,13 There is only enough electricity generated in the
sub-Sahara to power one light bulb per person for three hours
a day.14 Africa has 15% of the world’s population—50% of
these people live without electricity. In fact, of the 25 nations
at the bottom of the UN HDI (see Figure 1), 24 are in Africa.15
In Cambodia, 69% of the population lacks access to electricity.
In Pakistan, it is 33% and in Uganda an astounding 92%. Of the
almost 160 million people in Bangladesh, 63 million lack access
to any sort of electric power.16 About three billion people use
rudimentary stoves to burn wood, coal, charcoal, and animal
dung, releasing dense black soot into their homes and the
environment. Annual deaths from this household air pollution
exceed four million per year.17,18 This gathering and burning of
wood and other biomass leads to deforestation, erosion, land
degradation, and contaminated water supplies. Families are
pushed off the land and migrate to cities in search of a better life.
URBANIZATION REVEALS THE IMPORTANCE
OF ON-GRID ELECTRICITY
Much energy poverty occurs in rural locations; in such set-
tings, off-grid options, such as roof-top solar, have much to
 V O ICE S
contribute. Undoubtedly, such solutions must play a role. In
the near term, more efficient stoves and cleaner cooking fuels
could dramatically improve indoor air quality and save lives.
However, rural off-grid solutions may only meet the minimum
standards for electricity. It would be difficult, if not impossible,
for rural, minimal electrification to support the job-creating
growth and industries so sorely needed to fundamentally
address energy poverty. Perhaps most importantly, to expect
to rely only on off-grid solutions because of where energy
poverty occurs today ignores a pressing reality: rapid global
urbanization.
Urban migration is occurring on an unprecedented scale—over
seven billion people will live in cities by 2050. The cities of the
future will be massive. In 1990, the world had 10 cities of over
10 million people. By 2050, there could be as many as 100
such “megacities”.19 The number of people urbanizing in India
alone will exceed 11 million per year—equivalent to the cur-
rent population of Delhi proper. Cities cannot be built without
electricity, steel, cement, and associated materials. The level
of production required for these materials depends on ade-
quate resources, including electricity, being available. There is
a model for such growth and urbanization that already exists.
China has demonstrated that low-cost electricity, fueled 70%
by coal, can be a solution to debilitating energy poverty. Over
the last 20 years, China has expanded access to electricity and
lifted over 650 million people out of poverty.20 In fact, at the
global level, over 90% of people lifted from poverty since 1990
were Chinese; power generation from coal in China increased
700% and GDP per capita rose eightfold.21
During the same period, life expectancy increased by five
years, infant mortality declined 60%, and 600 million people
gained new access to improved water sources.22 As women
are disproportionately affected by energy poverty, they are
also major beneficiaries when it is alleviated. The maternal
mortality ratio in China has dropped from 110 per 1000 live
births to 32 in 2013.23 Today universal access to electricity has
been achieved in China, allowing families to light their homes,
refrigerate food and medicine, and reduce indoor air pollution
through more efficient means of cooking.
The industrialization and electrification of China has come at
a price. The largest cities are experiencing major air pollution
problems and both direct coal combustion for heating and
coal-fired power plants contribute to this problem. Although
China is expected to continue to rely on coal for electrifica-
tion, the country plans to dramatically reduce the emissions
from coal-fired power plants by replacing older plants with
advanced coal-fired units, adding environmental controls, and
increasing efficiency via cogeneration of heat and power. In
addition, state-of-the-art coal conversion facilities are mov-
ing forward. These ultra-clean facilities will produce synthetic
14
natural gas, liquid fuels, and chemicals, although CCS, which
will be much less expensive at such facilities, will be required
to control CO2 emissions. The liquid fuels produced from coal
conversion inherently have less sulfur than petroleum-derived
fuels, which can address another major contributor to air
pollution by offering cleaner transportation fuels. Finally, the
potential for less direct coal use is significant: Only about 53%
of China’s coal demand is for power generation, compared to
over 90% in the U.S.4 Together, these steps could significantly
reduce China’s air quality problems and allow continued eco-
nomic growth.
WHAT IS NEEDED TO MEET ELECTRICITY
DEMAND AT SCALE?
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has defined basic elec-
tricity access as an average of 250 kWh per rural household
per year and 500 kWh per urban household per year.24 Such
limited access is far removed from levels of modern consump-
tion. Basic energy access as defined for rural areas would be
enough for a household to power a fan, a mobile phone, and
two fluorescent light bulbs for five hours a day (see Figure 2).
Although even this basic level of electrification would increase
the standard of living for some people, it is not enough to
enable the growth and job creation needed to combat poverty.
Perhaps this is best explained by the Worldwatch Institute:
“Modern energy sources provide people with lighting, heat-
ing, refrigeration, cooking, water pumping and other services
that are essential for reducing poverty.”25 I believe that pro-
viding only basic energy to developing nations will constitute
“global poverty maintenance” programs in the name of uni-
versal energy access.
TOMORROW’S ENERGY SOURCES
All viable electricity sources will play roles in coming decades
if real strides are going to be made to alleviate energy poverty.
In fact, the world will need more electricity from all sources.
Forecasters such as the IEA are already projecting major
increases in on-grid electricity generation from gas (89%),
nuclear (51%), and non-hydro renewables (358%) from 2011 to
2035 under the Current Policies Scenario.4 These resources will
be pushed, as will be coal. Today coal provides about 6000 TWh
of electricity in the developing world. In 2035, the IEA’s Current
Policies Scenario projects coal will provide 12,300 TWh. Even
in the IEA’s much more conservative New Policies Scenario
(assuming all new policies announced are fully enacted), coal
accounts for over 9500 TWh in 2035. Replacing coal in this
growth context would be impossible—and such efforts would
yield an increase in energy poverty. In many countries, com-
paring the percentage of generation capacity to percentage of
actual generation also helps to highlight coal’s real role: Coal’s
share of generation (as a percentage) is almost always signifi-
cantly greater than its capacity percentage. For decades, coal
has been the default fuel when sanguine projections of gas,
nuclear, and wind have fallen short. This is one of the reasons
the IEA has projected that coal will supply at least 50% of the
on-grid electricity to eliminate energy poverty by 2030.24
Clearly, attempting to remove the contribution of one energy
source is not a viable strategy—especially when attempting
to eradicate energy poverty. Nevertheless, western finan-
cial institutions such as the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the
World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development have refused to fund coal projects even in areas
of abject electricity poverty. Such a stance disregards the need
for widespread electrification above and beyond basic access.
It can also be argued that such a position is counterproductive
to the fundamental objective of such institutions, which is to
promote development and alleviate poverty.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Development banks and other poverty alleviation groups do
not need to choose between alleviating poverty and environ-
mental protection. As has been explained, there are substantial
environmental benefits to electrification. In addition, clean
electricity generation from coal could be assured by sup-
porting plants with high efficiency, advanced environmental
controls, and that are made ready to implement CCS/CCUS.
Clean coal technologies are in use today and allow for the con-
sumption of more coal with greatly reduced emissions. New
pulverized coal combustion systems, utilizing supercritical
14,000
5 hours a day of...1 fan...1 mobile phone...2 flourescent bulbs
12,000
11 12 1
Average Electricity Access
10
10,000
[kWh/(capita·yr)]
9 3
8 4
8000 7 6 5
6000
4000
2000
0
U.S. EU China
FIGURE 2. Electricity access of select nations and a comparison to IEA’s basic energy service in rural settings24
*250 kWh per rural household, 500 kWh per urban household
15
www.cornerstonemag.net
technology, operate at increasingly higher temperatures and
pressures and, therefore, achieve higher efficiencies than
conventional plants. Upwards of 500 GW of supercritical units
are in operation or planned around the world, but many more
are needed.26 Highly efficient modern coal plants emit up to
40% less CO2 than the average coal plant currently installed.27
Importantly, these supercritical plants are a prerequisite for
next-generation development of CCUS, which itself is broadly
recognized as required for global emission goals, which was
the other important component of the Copenhagen Accord.
A PLAN TO END ENERGY POVERTY
The underlying theme of the position presented here is
straightforward: Electricity, socioeconomic security, and a
clean environment are inalienable human rights. Efforts to
eliminate coal-fired power plants would forgo an opportunity
to help meet burgeoning electricity demand, reduce depriva-
tion, elevate the global quality of life, and significantly reduce
emissions from energy. Without contributions from coal,
economic growth will be stunted, the environment will be
degraded, and the crisis of energy poverty will not be solved. If
a global goal is truly the “[e]radication of poverty in the field,”
the world’s most abundant source of electricity must remain
an integral part of the solution.28 Policymakers must recognize
the scale of electricity required to meet that goal. By 2050,
the world will have 9.6 billion people, with the large majority
in cities, where they have fuller access to electricity. I agree
with many coal industry leaders that we should implement
a technologically based plan, which will help meet the ever-
rising need for power and improve the lot of all members of
the human race.
2
World India Pakistan Sub-Saharan IEA Avg.*
Africa
 V O ICE S
The five most important steps of a plan to increase access to
clean electricity include:
1. Work to eliminate energy poverty by ensuring that at least
half of on-grid new generation is fueled by coal
2. Replace older, traditional coal plants with plants utilizing
advanced coal technologies
3. Develop at least 100 major CCS/CCUS projects around the
world within 10 years
4. Deploy significant coal‐to‐gas, coal‐to-chemicals, and coal‐
to‐liquids projects globally in the next decade, which will
spur industry and reduce pollution from transportation
fuels. Note that such projects would be particularly useful
for low-cost CCS/CCUS demonstrations.
5. Commercialize next‐generation clean coal technologies
to achieve near‐zero emissions, with supercritical power
plants as the next step along that path
This plan employs 21st century coal technology to cleanly and
affordably use abundant global reserves—which approach
900 billion tonnes, are distributed across 70 countries, and are
accessible through a far reaching and expanded network of
established infrastructure—to produce and deliver electricity
to all, especially to the billions of children, women, and men
who currently live in energy poverty.29
REFERENCES
1. United Nations (UN). (1972, 16 June). Report of the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment, www.unep.
org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&arti
cleid=1503
2. National Academy of Engineering. (2003). The greatest
engineering achievements of the 20th century, www.
nationalacademies.org/greatachievements/List.PDF
3. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2002, September). World
energy outlook 2002, www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo
website/2008-1994/weo2002_part1.pdf, www.worldenergy
outlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo2002_part2.
pdf
4. IEA. (2013, October). World energy outlook 2013.
5. UN News Centre. (2013, 13 June). World population projected
to reach 9.6 billion by 2050, www.un.org/apps/news/story.
asp?NewsID=45165#.VDXo9haNWFI
6. World Bank. (2013). World development indicators: Human
Development Index, 2013, data.worldbank.org/indicator
7. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2009). Full
Text of the Convention, unfccc.int/essential_background/
convention/background/items/1362.php
8. UN. (2014). We can end poverty, www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
childhealth.shtml (accessed October 2014).
9. SowHope. (2013). About us, www.sowhope.org/aboutus
16
10. Central Intelligence Agency. (2013). The world factbook, Nigeria,
Germany, Indonesia, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/
11. Rajendram, D. (2013, 10 March). The promise and peril of India’s
youth bulge. The Diplomat, thediplomat.com/2013/03/the-
promise-and-peril-of-indias-youth-bulge/
12. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2014, February).
Electric power monthly, www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
current_year/february2014.pdf
13. IRENA. (2012). Africa’s renewable future, www.irena.org/
DocumentDownloads/Publications/Africa_renewable_future.
pdf
14. World Bank. (2013). Fact sheet: Infrastructure in sub-Saharan
Africa, web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AF
RICAEXT/0,,contentMDK:21951811~pagePK:146736~piPK:1468
30~theSitePK:258644,00.html
15. SABC. (2013, 25 May). Free Africa from poverty and conflict: AU,
www.sabc.co.za/news/a/8bce1b804fc0bb519d4eff0b5d39e4
bb/Free-Africa-from-poverty-and-conflict:-AU-20132505
16. World Bank. (2013). Access to electricity (% of population), data,
worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS
17. Yamada, G. (2013). Fires, fuel and the fate of 3 billion. New York:
Oxford University Press.
18. World Health Organization. (2014). Household (indoor) air
pollution, www.who.int/indoorair/en/
19. World Energy Council. (2011, December). Global Transport
Scenarios 2050, www.worldenergy.org/publications/2011/global
-transport-scenarios-2050/
20. Mackenzie, A. (2013, 8 August). Productivity boost will keep us
at No. 1. The Australian, www.theaustralian.com.au/business/
opinion/productivity-boost-will-keep-us-at-no-1/story-
e6frg9if-1226693062147
21. UN. (2013). We can end poverty, www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
poverty.shtml
22. World Bank. (2013). World development indicators, data,
worldbank.org/indicator, (accessed 2013).
23. World Bank. (2014). World development indicators, data,
worldbank.org/indicator, (accessed October 2014).
24. IEA. (2011, November). World energy outlook 2011, www.iea.
org/publications/freepublications/publication/world-energy-
outlook-2011.html
25. Worldwatch Institute. (2012, 31 January). Energy poverty
remains a global challenge for the future, www.worldwatch.org/
energy-poverty-remains-global-challenge-future-1
26. Platts. (2014). New Power Plant Database, 2014.
27. World Energy Council. (2013). World energy resources: Coal,
www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WER
_2013_1_Coal.pdf
28. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Eradicating
poverty in the field, www.ebrd.com/pages/news/features/taff.
shtml
29. BP. (2014, August). Statistical review of world energy, www.
bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-
review-2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-full-
report.pdf
The author can be reached at fac226@psu.edu
 E N ERGY POLI CY
Understanding the National
Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative
By Patrick Falwell
Solutions Fellow, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Brad Crabtree
Vice President, Fossil Energy, Great Plains Institute
S
ince 2011, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
(C2ES) and the Great Plains Institute (GPI) have convened
the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative (NEORI).
Bringing together leaders from industry, the environmental
community, labor, and state governments, NEORI has worked
to advance carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR)
as a key component of U.S. energy security, economic, and
environmental strategy. Currently, most CO2-EOR is done with
natural underground reservoirs of CO2, yet the industry’s future
growth depends on taking advantage of the large amounts of
CO2 that result from electricity generation and industrial pro-
cesses. NEORI therefore is working to turn a waste product
into a commodity and to encourage policies that will help bring
an affordable supply of man-made CO2 to the market.
As such, NEORI has offered consensus recommendations for
federal- and state-level policy action. In May, Senator Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced legislation in the U.S. Congress
adopting NEORI’s centerpiece recommendation to reform
and expand an existing federal tax incentive for the capture
of man-made CO2 and its geologic storage through CO2-EOR.
In May 2014 Senator Jay Rockefeller introduced legislation
incorporating the main principal of the National Enhanced Oil
Recovery Initiative. (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
17
www.cornerstonemag.net
Going forward, NEORI will work to educate policymakers
across the political spectrum and the broader public about
the opportunity for CO2-EOR to serve as a national solution to
energy and environmental challenges.
“Improved federal incentive
could lead to the production of
over eight billion barrels of oil
and the underground storage of
more than four billion tonnes
of CO2 over 40 years…”
BACKGROUND ON CO2-EOR
Although commonly considered a “niche” extractive tech-
nology, CO2-EOR is a decades-old practice. Since the 1970s,
CO2-EOR projects have utilized CO2 to produce additional oil
from otherwise tapped-out fields. CO2 readily mixes with oil
not recovered by earlier production techniques, swelling the
stranded oil and bringing it to the surface. The CO2 is then sep-
arated from the oil and re-injected in a closed-loop process.
Each time CO2 is cycled through an oil reservoir, the majority
of it remains trapped in the underground formation, where,
over time, all utilized CO2 will be stored permanently.
Today, CO2-EOR in the U.S. accounts for over 300,000 barrels of
oil production per day, or nearly 5% of total annual domestic
production.1 More than 4000 miles of CO2 pipelines are in place
and, as of 2014, approximately 68 million tonnes of CO2 are
being injected underground annually for CO2-EOR. Nearly 75%
of this CO2 is from naturally occurring deposits, but over time
the supply of CO2 from man-made sources is expected to grow
significantly. Currently, 11 U.S. states have CO2-EOR projects.
Most are in the Permian Basin of Texas, with new activity emerg-
ing on the Gulf Coast and in the Mountain West. Untapped
opportunities exist in California, Alaska, and a number of states
in the industrial Midwest. Estimates suggest that CO2-EOR could
ultimately access 21.4–63.3 billion barrels of economically
 E N E RG Y P O L I C Y
recoverable reserves.2 Recovering this oil would require 8.9–16.2
billion tonnes of CO2 that would predominantly come from man-
made sources. Technically recoverable reserves offer potential
to produce additional oil and utilize more man-made CO2 that is
currently otherwise emitted into the atmosphere.
The main barrier to taking advantage of CO2-EOR’s potential
has been an insufficient supply of affordable CO2. For an oilfield
operator looking to implement CO2-EOR on a depleted oilfield,
there is a cost gap between what they could afford to pay for
CO2 under normal market conditions and the cost to capture
and transport CO2 from power plants and industrial sources.
For some industrial sources, such as natural gas process-
ing or fertilizer and ethanol production, the cost gap is small
(potentially $10–20/tonne CO2). For other man-made sources
of CO2, including power generation and a variety of industrial
processes, capture costs are greater, and the cost gap becomes
much larger (potentially $30–50/tonne CO2). Recognizing the
cost gap as a significant barrier, NEORI has worked to deter-
mine the role that public policy can play in narrowing it.
NEORI’S CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS
AND ANALYSIS
For the last three years, NEORI has brought together a broad
and diverse group of constituencies that share a common inter-
est in promoting CO2-EOR. Some NEORI participants support
CO2-EOR as a way to provide a low-carbon future for coal by
managing and avoiding its carbon emissions. Others are inter-
ested in the jobs and economic growth that deploying new CO2
capture projects, pipelines, and EOR operations will bring. Still
other participants want to advance innovative technologies that
can capture and permanently store CO2 underground. Despite
differences of opinions among participants on other issues, all
agree that CO2-EOR is a positive endeavor and that public policy
can play an important role in realizing CO2-EOR’s many benefits.
As such, NEORI’s participants have crafted a set of consensus
recommendations for federal and state policy incentives to
enable the widespread deployment of carbon capture tech-
nologies to provide CO2 for use in CO2-EOR, while addressing
concerns about how incentives have been allocated in the past.
To support its consensus recommendations, NEORI also pre-
pared a quantitative analysis to estimate the extent to which a
federal initiative could spur new CO2-EOR projects and improve
the federal budget at the same time. An incentive awarded for
capturing CO2 from man-made sources for use in CO2-EOR has
the potential to be self-financing, given that it could lead to
new oil production that is taxed at the federal level. CO2-EOR
in the U.S. generates federal revenue from three sources:
1. Corporate income taxes collected on the additional oil
production
18
2. Income taxes on private royalties collected from CO2-EOR
producers
3. Royalties from CO2-EOR production on federal land
Together these sources equate to nearly 20% of the sales
value of an additional barrel of oil and generate the source
of public revenues that will in turn cover the cost of newly
allocated incentives.
NEORI’s most recent analysis of the budget implications of
a tax incentive reflects the legislation introduced by Senator
Rockefeller. This analysis shows that an improved federal
incentive could lead to the production of over eight billion
barrels of oil and the underground storage of more than four
billion tonnes of CO2 over 40 years and generate federal rev-
enues that exceed the value of tax incentives awarded within
the U.S. Congress’ standard 10-year budget window.
“For the last three years, NEORI
has brought together a broad and
diverse group of constituencies
that share a common interest in
promoting CO2-EOR.”
NEORI PROPOSES AN ENHANCED
FEDERAL INCENTIVE
NEORI recommends a reform and an expansion of an existing
federal tax incentive, the Section 45Q Tax Credit for Carbon
Sequestration. First authorized in 2009, the 45Q tax credit
provides a $10 tax credit for each tonne of CO2 captured from
a man-made source and permanently stored underground
through enhanced oil recovery (a $20 tax credit is available for
CO2 stored in saline formations). While enacted with the best of
intentions, the existing 45Q program has been unable to encour-
age widespread adoption of carbon capture technologies for two
main reasons. First, 45Q is only authorized to provide tax credits
for 75 million tonnes of CO2, a relatively small amount consider-
ing how much CO2 could possibly be utilized through CO2-EOR.
As of June 2014, tax credits for approximately 27 million tonnes
of CO2 had already been claimed, and it is foreseeable that the
remaining pool of credits will be exhausted in the near future.
Second, 45Q has been unable to provide needed certainty to
carbon capture project developers that they will be able to
claim the incentive, due to rigid definitions in the tax code and
the lack of a credit reservation process. Carbon capture project
developers have not been able to present the guarantee of
credit availability when seeking private-sector finance.
Under NEORI’s proposal, a larger pool of 45Q credits would be
established, while suggested reforms would increase certainty
and private-sector investment, improve transparency, and
help the program pay for itself fiscally within 10 years.
Allocating New 45Q Credits via
Competitive Bidding and Tranches
To minimize the cost of new 45Q tax credits to the federal gov-
ernment, NEORI recommends that carbon capture projects
of similar cost bid against one another for allocations of tax
credits. Under annual competitive bidding processes, carbon
capture projects would bid for a certain tax credit amount that
would cover the difference between their cost to capture and
transport CO2 and the revenue they would receive from selling
CO2 for use in CO2-EOR. The project submitting the lowest bid
would receive an allocation of tax credits, and allocations would
be made to capture projects up to specified annual limits.
Given the wide difference in capture costs for potential
man-made sources of CO2, three separate pools of credits,
NEORI recommends the allocation of new 45Q tax credits.
19
www.cornerstonemag.net
or tranches, would be established. The creation of separate
lower-cost industrialA and higher-cost industrialB tranches for
power plants would ensure that an incentive is available for
the diversity of potential man-made sources of CO2.
Tax Credit Certification
A certification process would provide essential up-front cer-
tainty to carbon capture project developers and enable them
to reserve their allocation of 45Q tax credits to be claimed in
the future. Upon receiving an allocation of 45Q tax credits
through competitive bidding, a project would have to apply
for and meet the criteria of certification within 90 days. For
example, a carbon capture project would need a contract
in place to sell its CO2 for use in CO2-EOR to be certified. To
maintain certification, a carbon capture project would have to
complete construction in three years, if it is a retrofit, and five
years, if it is a new facility.
Revenue Positive Determination
and Program Review
Following the seventh annual round of competitive bidding,
the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury would assess whether newly
allocated 45Q tax credits have been revenue-positive to the
federal government. If the new 45Q tax credits are not proving
to be revenue-positive, the Secretary will make recommen-
dations to Congress to improve the program. Otherwise,
competitive bidding will continue until the next review.
The Secretary of the Treasury also would be advised by a panel
of independent experts.
Annual Tax Credit Adjustment Based
on Changes in the Price of Oil
Each year, the value of claimed 45Q tax credits would be
adjusted up or down to reflect changes in the price of oil. In
most instances, the price that CO2-EOR operators would pay CO2
providers for their CO2 is linked explicitly to the prevailing price
of oil. When the price of oil rises and CO2-EOR operators are
willing to pay more for CO2, the value of 45Q tax credits would
be adjusted downward to ensure the federal government does
not pay more than needed. Conversely, when oil prices fall, the
value of 45Q tax credits would be adjusted upward, ensuring
that carbon capture projects receive sufficient revenue.
Tax Credit Assignability
Potential carbon capture project developers include electric
power cooperatives, municipalities, and startup companies.
 E N E RG Y P O L I C Y
NEORI is designed to boost U.S. domestic oil production while providing much-needed financial support for CCUS projects.
“NEORI members believe that
CO2-EOR offers broad benefits
and the rare opportunity to unite
policymakers and stakeholders in
common purpose.”
Not all of these entities have sufficient tax liability to allow
them to realize the economic benefit of a tax credit. As such,
NEORI recommends that carbon capture projects have the
ability to assign 45Q tax credits to other parties within the
CO2-EOR supply chain. This provision could facilitate tax equity
partnerships, but only among entities directly associated with
the project and managing the CO2.
CONCLUSION
In a time of considerable disagreement on U.S. energy and cli-
mate policy at the federal level, NEORI members believe that
CO2-EOR offers broad benefits and the rare opportunity to
unite policymakers and stakeholders in common purpose. The
NEORI coalition therefore remains committed to educating
members of both political parties and the broader public as to
20
how CO2-EOR can generate net federal revenue from domestic
oil production, meet domestic energy needs, safely store man-
made CO2 underground, and help advance and lower the costs
of carbon capture technology.
NOTES
A. Lower-cost industrial sources of CO2 include natural gas pro-
cessing, ethanol production, ammonia production, and existing
projects involving the gasification of coal, petroleum residuals,
biomass, or waste streams.
B. Higher-cost industrial sources of CO2 include cement production,
iron and steel production, hydrogen production, and new-build
projects involving the gasification of coal, petroleum residuals,
biomass, or waste streams.
REFERENCES
1. Kuuskraa, V., & Wallace, M. (2014, 7 April). CO2-EOR set for
growth as new CO2 supplies emerge. Oil & Gas Journal, www.
ogj.com/articles/print/volume-112/issue-4/special-report-eor-
heavy-oil-survey/co-sub-2-sub-eor-set-for-growth-as-new-co-
sub-2-sub-supplies-emerge.html
2. Wallace, M., Kuuskraa, V., & DiPietro, P. (2013). An in-depth
look at “next generation” CO2-EOR technology. National Energy
Technology Laboratory, www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/
Research/Energy%20Analysis/Publications/Disag-Next-Gen-
CO2-EOR_full_v6.pdf
The authors can be reached at FalwellP@c2es.org and
bcrabree@gpisd.net
Developing Country Needs Are
Critical to a Global Climate Agreement
By Benjamin Sporton
Acting Chief Executive, World Coal Association
A
s another round of climate talks approaches, recent
headlines have highlighted the critical role developing
countries play in achieving a climate agreement—and
they are. Concerned about the restrictions it might place on
their efforts to grow their economies and eradicate poverty,
many developing countries are cautious about what a future
global agreement on climate change might mean. With one
billion people living in extreme poverty in addition to a similar
number with incredibly low standards of living, it is hardly sur-
prising that poverty eradication ranks number one on the list
of priorities for developing country governments.1 The recent
proposal document for new Sustainable Development Goals
also acknowledged that “poverty eradication is the greatest
global challenge facing the world today”.2
This is the reason that developing countries are key to a global
climate agreement: Any proposed agreement that hampers
their ability to grow their economies and eradicate poverty
will not win their support.
THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD
Negotiations toward a global agreement on climate change
have been long and tortuous. Beginning in 1992 with the
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, left, is
joined by President François Hollande of France at a news
conference on climate change during the Climate Summit,
New York, U.S., 23 September 2014. (AP Photo/Jason
DeCrow)
21
www.cornerstonemag.net
original “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, the negotiation pro-
cess produced the Kyoto Protocol, which came into effect in
2005 but covered only around one third of global CO2 emis-
sions. A 2009 summit in Copenhagen was originally intended
to be the apex of the process with a binding global deal on
emissions reduction, but it failed to live up to expectations.
World leaders will gather again in Paris in November 2015
for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
for what is now expected to be the pinnacle of the climate
negotiations process.
“There is a pathway that provides a
role for coal in achieving both climate
and development objectives.”
This September, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hosted a
summit in New York intended to push climate change back up
the international agenda and spur action toward November
2015. With celebrity endorsements and a series of coordinated
announcements from activists, governments, and the private
sector, the summit did have some success in raising the profile
of an issue that has struggled to maintain the profile it once
had, but which has since been drowned out by other priori-
ties, chief among them economic and security crises.
Ultimately, however, the negotiation process has struggled for
more than two decades because of a fundamental disconnect
between developed and developing countries. This discon-
nect centers on a desire by developed countries to require
emissions reductions commitments by developing countries
while they are still developing—potentially limiting the ability
of those countries to grow their economies and eradicate
poverty. It comes about because many in the developed world
refuse to acknowledge that the development pathway their
countries took—one that relied on abundant, affordable, and
reliable energy—is the pathway that the developing world will
need to take if it is truly to eradicate poverty.
All sources of energy have a role to play in achieving climate and
development objectives. An overemphasis on renewable tech-
nologies, however, risks limiting developing countries to “light
 E N E RG Y P O L I C Y
Coal
Renewables
Gas
Nuclear
Oil
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
TWh
FIGURE 1. Southeast Asia incremental electricity generation
by fuel: 2011–20357
bulb and cook stove” solutions: that is, solutions that address
the immediate needs of poverty and climate without addressing
the longer-term fundamentals needed for poverty alleviation.
This fact was recognized in recent remarks by World Bank
President Jim Yong Kim at the U.S.–Africa Leaders Summit in
August when he said that “there’s never been a country that
has developed with intermittent power”3 and that, despite
recent policy announcements, the World Bank would still
likely fund coal projects. His statement came as African leaders
argued they were living in “energy apartheid” and demanded
the right to use their natural resources, particularly coal, to
fuel their economic development.4
If the climate negotiation process is to have any success it
must integrate development and climate objectives.
THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CHALLENGE
With 1.3 billion people globally lacking access to modern
electricity and about double that number lacking access to
clean cooking facilities, it is hardly surprising that developing
country governments are focused on affordable and reliable
energy to help grow their economies.5 Energy is fundamen-
tal to development. Without reliable modern energy services
hospitals and schools can’t function and business and industry
can’t grow to provide employment and economic growth.
In its 2011 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy
Agency (IEA) reviewed what would be needed to meet their
own “minimal energy access for all” scenario—a scenario that
would barely meet basic energy needs, but is the basis for the
proposed Sustainable Development Goal on energy access for
all. Even in this minimal energy access scenario, half of the on-
grid electricity needed comes from coal.6 A more ambitious
target would likely see a much larger role for coal—and it is a
more ambitious scale of development and energy access that
developing and emerging economies are targeting. That is
why statistics about coal’s growing role in the world continue
to confound those who forecast its demise.
22
Coal’s role in development explains why coal consumption in
Southeast Asia is projected to grow at 4.8% a year through
to 2035 along with significant growth in other developing
regions (see Figure 1).7 It is why a 2012 report from the World
Resources Institute8 identified 1199 planned new coal plants
(representing 1400 GW) across 59 countries—most of them in
developing and emerging economies.
Coal’s critical role in development is one of the reasons coal
has been the fastest growing fossil fuel for decades and why its
share of global primary energy consumption in 2013 reached
30.1%, the highest since 1970.9 Even under the IEA’s New Policies
Scenario (which accounts for all currently announced climate pol-
icies) coal demand is expected to grow from 3800 million tonnes
of oil equivalent (Mtoe) today to almost 4500 Mtoe in 2035.5
These figures alarm climate activists who argue for an end to coal
and encourage divestment from the coal industry. What they
ignore, however, is that there is a pathway that provides a role
for coal in achieving both climate and development objectives.
A PATHWAY THAT INTEGRATES
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT
Alongside last year’s climate summit in Warsaw, the World
Coal Association joined with the Polish government to host
the International Coal and Climate Summit. The summit was
widely criticized by environmental groups for trying to take
the focus away from climate negotiations, an argument which
ignored the significant contribution cleaner coal technologies
can make to achieving ambitions to reduce CO2 emissions.
A key part of the summit was the launch of the Warsaw
Communiqué, a document that called for increased interna-
tional action on deployment of high-efficiency, low-emissions
(HELE) coal-fired power generation.
21st-century HELE coal technologies have huge potential. It is
well known by now that a one percentage point increase in
efficiency at a coal plant results in a two to three percentage
point decrease in CO2 emissions. Less widely known is that
the average efficiency of the global coal fleet currently stands
at 33%. Off-the-shelf technologies for supercritical and ultra-
supercritical coal have about 40% efficiency or higher, while
more advanced technologies expected to become available in
the near future will approach 50% efficiency. The IEA estimates
that increasing the average efficiency of the global coal fleet
up to 40% would save around two gigatonnes of CO2 annu-
ally—roughly equivalent to India’s total annual emissions.10
Taken in the context of other climate policies the potential
impact of improving the efficiency of the global coal fleet is sig-
nificant. The Economist recently published a graphic showing
the impact various policies or events have had on global CO2
emissions, which has been reproduced in Figure 2.11 If a global
initiative were in place to increase the average efficiency of
the global coal fleet to the level of off-the-shelf technology, its
two gigatonnes of savings would place it fourth on this list of
20 activities. It would be more than three times more effective
in reducing CO2 emissions than the global deployment of all
non-hydro renewable energies combined.
Nowhere is the potential of HELE technology better demon-
strated than at J-Power’s Isogo power plant outside of Tokyo.
J-Power is the largest producer of coal-fired electricity in Japan
and is leading the way in HELE deployment with its 600-MW
ultra-supercritical plant. The plant achieves gross thermal effi-
ciency of 45% and has reduced emissions to the equivalent of
a high-performing natural gas plant.
However, plants like that come at a cost. Developing countries
need international support to deploy the most efficient plants.
In the face of decisions by the World Bank and European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development to limit funding for coal
projects, the IEA raised some serious concerns:12
While increased investor awareness of climate-related
issues is a positive development, policies deliberately
adverse to coal may have unintended consequences.
In the 450 Scenario, which limits the global average
temperature increase to 2°C, world investment in coal-
fired capacity totals $1.9 trillion (25% higher than in
the New Policies Scenario), of which $800 billion is for
plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Coal-fired power plants become more expensive on
average because, in most regions, more efficient tech-
nologies are deployed, as well as greater emphasis
on CCS technologies. If development banks withhold
financing for coal-fired power plants, countries that
build new capacity will be less inclined to select the
most efficient designs because they are more expen-
sive, consequently raising CO2 emissions and reducing
the scope for the installation of CCS. In addition, many
of the countries that build coal-fired capacity in the
450 Scenario need to provide electricity supply to
those who are still without it, a problem that may be
resolved less quickly if investment in coal-fired power
plants cannot be financed.
This is a warning from the IEA: International action against coal
creates two distinct risks. First, from a climate perspective,
failing to invest in new coal technologies risks higher future

Cumulative
Policy/Action Period Annual emissions*
emissions

Montreal protocol 135.0 bn 1989–2013 5.6 bn

Hydropower worldwide 2.8 bn 2010 2.8 bn
Nuclear power worldwide 2.2 bn 2010 2.2 bn
Increase avg. global efficiency of coal-fired power to 40% 2.0 bn
China one-child policy 1.3 bn 2005 1.3 bn
Other renewables worldwide 600 m 2010 600 m
U.S. vehicle emissions & fuel economy standards** 6.0 bn 2012–2025 460 m
Brazil forest preservation 3.2 bn 2005–2013 400 m
India land-use change 177 m 2007 177 m
Clean Development Mechanism 1.5 bn 2004–2014 150 m
U.S. building & appliances codes 3.0 bn 2008–2030 136 m
China SOE efficiency targets 1.9 bn 2005–2020 126 m
Collapse of USSR 709 m 1992–1998 118 m
Global Environmental Facility 2.3 bn 1991–2014 100 m
EU energy efficiency 230 m 2008–2012 58 m
U.S. vehicle emissions & fuel economy standards*** 270 m 2014–2018 54 m
EU renewables 117 m 2008–2012 29 m
U.S. building codes (2013) 230 m 2014–2030 10 m
U.S. appliances (2013) 158 m 2014–2030 10 m
Clean technology fund 1.7 bn project lifetime N/A
EU vehicle emission standards 140 m 2020 N/A

FIGURE 2. Emissions reductions impact (in terms of billions tonnes CO2 equivalent)11
*Annual emissions are cumulative emissions divided by the relevant period. The estimate for the current emissions avoided under the Montreal protocol is
eight billion tonnes CO2 equivalent. The annual figure for the collapse of the USSR refers to the years 1992–1998.
**Cars and light trucks
***Heavy trucks

23
www.cornerstonemag.net
 E N E RG Y P O L I C Y
emissions from coal; second, failing to invest in coal threatens
the energy access and development priorities in some of the
world’s poorest countries.
AFFORDABLE, LONG-TERM ACTION
As the IEA notes, deployment of HELE plants is also an impor-
tant first step in the longer term drive for near-zero emissions
coal-fired plants incorporating carbon capture, utilization, and
storage (CCUS). CCUS technology is critical to achieving global
climate objectives. More importantly, CCUS plays a significant
role in reducing the economic costs of limiting CO2 emissions.
The recent New Climate Economy report by the Global
Commission of Energy and Climate, led by former Mexican
President Felipe Calderón, argued that substantial emissions
cuts would effectively pay for themselves when a range of
co-benefits are considered.13 That reflected recent work from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which
stated that annual GDP growth would decline by as little as
0.006 percentage points with substantial emissions reduction.
Many environmental activists argue that this demonstrates
the viability of renewable energy technologies as the exclu-
sive energy pathway toward a near-zero emissions economy.
However, analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations’ leading
energy expert Michael Levi noted that CCUS is far more critical
to achieving the 2°C target.14 He highlighted that in the IPCC
research, failing to deploy CCUS causes the cost of climate
action to rise by about 140%, but that the most likely outcome
is that the 2°C target could not be reached at all.
A CLIMATE DEAL CAN ACHIEVE
BOTH OBJECTIVES
If global action to reduce CO2 emissions is to be affordable
and have a realistic chance of meeting the 2°C target it must
account for the role of cleaner coal technologies in achieving
that aim. That is even more critical when the need for afford-
able and reliable energy for development is accounted for.
India’s new Environment Minister made clear recently where
his country’s priorities lie: “India’s first task is eradication of
poverty … Twenty percent of our population doesn’t have
access to electricity, and that’s our top priority.”15
24
It is clear that if the November 2015 climate summit in Paris
is going to achieve any level of success, then it must support
the development ambitions of the world’s poorest countries.
It must integrate the priorities of countries like India, which
need to address their poverty situation and provide affordable
and reliable electricity, with global climate ambitions. It means
that rather than ignoring coal, the international community
must recognize 21st century coal as part of the solution.
REFERENCES
1. World Bank Group. (2014). Ending poverty and sharing pros-
perity: Global Monitoring Report 2014/2015, www.worldbank.
org/en/publication/global-monitoring-report
2. United Nations. (2014). Outcome document – Open Working
Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals, sustainable
development.un.org/focussdgs.html, (accessed 29 September 2014).
3. Ginski, N. (2014, 5 August). World Bank may support African coal
power, Kim says. Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-
08-05/world-bank-may-support-african-coal-power-kim-says.
html, (accessed 30 September 2014).
4. Scientific American. (2014). Africa needs fossil fuels to end energy
apartheid, www.scientificamerican.com/article/africa-needs-fossil-
fuels-to-end-energy-apartheid/, (accessed 30 September 2014).
5. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2013). World energy outlook
2013, www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2013/
6. IEA. (2011). World energy outlook 2011, www.worldenergy
outlook.org/publications/weo-2011/
7. IEA. (2013). World energy outlook special report 2013:
Southeast Asia energy outlook, www.iea.org/publications/free
publications/publication/SoutheastAsiaEnergyOutlook_
WEO2013SpecialReport.pdf
8. World Resources Institute. (2012, November). Global coal risk
assessment, www.wri.org/publication/global-coal-risk-assessment
9. BP. (2014). Statistical review of world energy 2014, www.
bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/
statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
10. IEA. (2012). Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 – How to
secure a clean energy future.
11. The Economist. (2014, 20 September). The deepest cuts, www.
economist.com/news/briefing/21618680-our-guide-actions-
have-done-most-slow-global-warming-deepest-cuts
12. IEA. (2014). World energy investment outlook, www.iea.org/
publications/freepublications/publication/WEIO2014.pdf
13. The New Climate Economy. (2014). New climate economy,
newclimateeconomy.report/, (accessed 20 September 2014).
14. Levi, M. (2014). Is solar power making climate policy cheap?,
blogs.cfr.org/levi/2014/09/19/is-solar-power-making-climate-
policy-cheap/, (accessed 30 September 2014).
15. Davenport, C. (2014, 24 September). Emissions from India
will increase, official says. The New York Times, www.nytimes.
com/2014/09/25/world/asia/25climate.html?_r=0, (accessed
30 September 2014).
 S TR ATEGI C ANALYSI S
The Flexibility of German
Coal-Fired Power Plants
Amid Increased Renewables
By Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer
Executive Chair,
World Energy Resources of the World Energy Council
Consultant and Advisor to the Executive Board of RWE AG
G
erman energy policy is determined by different ambi-
tious targets. That is especially true as far as the
electricity sector is concerned. The main characteris-
tics of electricity-sector policy are a complete phasing out of
nuclear energy, the transition to a power supply based mainly
on renewable energy, and the reduction of energy consump-
tion by continuously increasing efficiency. The main purpose
of these changes is to reach a nearly CO2-free power supply
by 2050. The central challenges are keeping the power sys-
tem stable and secure while maintaining consumer electricity
prices at a competitive, affordable level.
CURRENT STATUS AND TRENDS
The German government´s energy policies have undergone a
profound change over recent years. In September 2010, the
government launched a comprehensive “Energy Concept”
featuring a large number of policy goals for future decades
Germany’s coal- and gas-fired power plants are responsible
for meeting fluctuations from the increased deployment of
renewables.
25
www.cornerstonemag.net
concerning energy and electricity consumption, the share of
renewable energy, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emis-
sions. A central component of this concept was to extend the
operation time of nuclear power plants, at that time seen as a
bridge technology in the era of renewable energy.
“Today, fluctuations in the feed-in
of renewables-based electricity
are already having a considerable
impact on the load to be covered by
conventional power stations.”
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011,
however, the German conservative-liberal government coali-
tion made an abrupt U-turn by mandating the complete
phase-out of 8.4 GW of nuclear capacity immediately, with
the remainder (12.1 GW) to be decommissioned between
2015 and 2022. With the decision to shut down all nuclear
capacity by 2022, the government returned to a phase-out
schedule conceived in 2001 by the socialist-green govern-
ment in power at the time. In the coalition contract of the
new conservative-socialist government, signed in November
2013, the phasing-out decision for nuclear energy was con-
firmed. Furthermore, the coalition partners agreed on slightly
modified targets concerning the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, the consumption of electricity, and the increase
of the share of renewables in the electricity supply for 2020
(35%), 2025 (40–45%), 2035 (55–60%), and 2050 (80%).
The decision to phase out all nuclear power plants is generally
considered a final one due to public pressure that accompa-
nied the nuclear debate over past decades.
The envisaged expansion of renewable energy is a techno-
logical and financial challenge. The principal objectives of the
Energiewende (Germany’s transformational energy policy) are:
• Transitioning German power supply from a conventional-
based system to one mainly based on renewable energy;
 S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS

• Keeping power prices on a competitive level for industry TABLE 1. Renewable energy capacity in Germany as of the
and an affordable level for private households; end of 2013
• Ensuring continuous, secure supply.
Source Capacity (MW)
The main instrument being used to make renewable energy Wind Onshore 33,757
the backbone of the German power supply is the Renewable
Wind Offshore 903
Energy Sources Act, last amended on 1 August 2014. This law
provides guaranteed feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity Hydropower 5619
for 20 years after a power plant is commissioned. Grid opera- Biomass 8153
tors are obliged to purchase the entire quantity of renewable
Solar Photovoltaic 35,948
electricity with priority. The trade companies pass on the
deficit (i.e., feed-in tariff minus market price) to customers by Geothermal 24
imposing a reallocation charge. Source: AGEE-Stat, August 2014

The renewable capacity for power generation increased from The subsidies are financed via a reallocation charge that is paid
12,330 MW in 2000 (less than 10% of total capacity) to 40,357 by electricity consumers through a markup on the grid-access
MW by the end of 2008 and to 84,404 MW by the end of fee. Starting on 1 January 2014, this reallocation charge was
2013 (45%) (see Figure 1). In 2000, renewable energy’s share increased to €62.40/MWh. The reallocation charge has now
of consumption was less than 7%, then grew to over 25% by reached a level at which it is twice as much as the wholesale
2013. The total amount of renewable energy capacity on 31 price of electricity.
December 2013 is shown in Table 1.
A comparison between electricity prices reveals the dilemma
Within just the last five years (between the end of 2008 and facing Germany today. Power prices for industry are on the
the end of 2013) the capacity increase was 29,828 MW for same level as those in Japan. In fact, private customers in
photovoltaics (PV) and 10,845 MW for wind energy. This dem- Germany pay even more for electricity than private consum-
onstrates that the funding system for renewables has been ers in Japan. Within the EU, Germany’s private consumers pay
quite effective. a higher price than any country except Denmark. Electricity
prices in Germany are more than twice the OECD average and
However, the growth of renewables in Germany has come three times as high as in the U.S.
at a cost. The total feed-in amounts based on subsidized
renewables in Germany stood at 125.7 TWh in 2013. The CHALLENGES FOR POWER PRODUCERS1
remuneration paid to plant operators and premium payments
totaled €20.4 billion in 2013. Deducting income from mar- With the increase in renewable energy, power producers also
keting, on balance, net subsidy payments were approximately face a new challenge. In the past a main focus was offsetting
€16.2 billion in 2013. fluctuations in consumption between day and night, work-
days and weekends, and seasonal variations. Today, feed-in
9
intermittency has added a new source of fluctuations that
Wind
19 5 are at least the same magnitude as those from changes in
Photovoltaics 11 consumption.
mass 5
19 r, bio
y d r o powe other 11 These demand and renewable energy feed-in fluctuations
H d
oil an
7 Fuel must be continuously balanced to provide electricity grid sta-
7 Natural gas
19 bility, which is putting pressure on the conventional power
15
Hard coal generation portfolio. Power generation from conventional
25
plants has to be able to flexibly adjust to the residual load
14
Lignite at any time (i.e., to compensate for the difference between
12 consumption and fluctuating renewable energy). This is a chal-
Nuclear 15 lenge for grid operators, especially when high wind feed-ins in
7
Power plant capacity Electricity production northern Germany force the “redispatching” of thermal units
186.8 GW (net) 596.4 TWh (net) intraday, often leading to lower coal-based output in the north
FIGURE 1. Percentages of capacity and production of various and a ramp up of capacity in the south to keep the system in
electricity sources (December 2013)1 balance.

26
The need for load adjustments by flexible power plants is par-
ticularly critical when an increase in electricity demand occurs
at the same time as the feed-in from wind power plants dra-
matically decreases.
There has been a need for load adjustments of >50 GW (i.e.,
>60% of the peak load) within an eight- to 10-hour period. This
sort of demand fluctuation is generally random, but can be
forecast up to two days in advance (e.g., via a wind forecast).
Thus, conventional power generation plants are faced with
massive technical and economic challenges. Today, fluctua-
tions in the feed-in of renewables-based electricity are already
having a considerable impact on the load to be covered by
conventional power stations. To illustrate the effect of such
fluctuations, looking closely at electricity demand and sources
can be helpful. Due to the high demand and low feed-in of
electricity from renewable energies, on 24 January 2013 up
to 74,335 MW—92% of the peak demand of 80,739 MW in
Germany—had to be covered by conventional power plants.
Conversely, on 24 March 2013, a Sunday with low electric-
ity demand coupled with high feed-in from wind and solar, a
minimum of 14,405 MW had to be covered by conventional
power stations. This represents a tremendous shift in the role
of conventional power plants.
Flexibility to Meet Load Fluctuations
The German electricity transmission network is part of the
European synchronous zone and is connected with neighbor-
ing European markets. A regular exchange of electricity takes
place with all adjacent countries (i.e., France, Netherlands,
Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, and Switzerland).
GW GW
80 80
70
60
Increasing
50 power demand
40
30
Declining
20 wind feed -in
10
0 0
Sunday, 1.1.2012 Monday, 2.1.2012
FIGURE 2. Power consumption (left) and dispatch (right) of German power plants1
27
www.cornerstonemag.net
However, since these markets are also expanding wind capaci-
ties and consumer behavior in all markets shows substantial
similarity, the capacity to adjust imports and exports to meet
German electricity market fluctuations is limited.
Therefore, the required flexibility to meet load fluctuations
must be predominantly managed by existing national power
plants. Existing power plants in Germany are all designed
to cater for flexible operation, and these requirements are
equally met by new NGCC plants and new coal-fired power
plants.
Many of the conventional power plants operating in Germany
today were built in the 1980s and 1990s, before expansion
targets for wind and photovoltaic plants had been adopted. In
many plants, measures to allow greater flexibility have been
implemented subsequently, so that power plants can meet
increased requirements for market load adjustments. As a
result, there are very few dedicated German baseload power
plants that do not allow for flexible operation.
The necessary operational flexibility of coal- and gas-fired
power plants can be illustrated with an example from 1 and
2 January 2012 (see Figure 2). On Sunday, 1 January, power
demand was relatively low due to low industrial demand and
mild temperatures of approximately 8°C (46°F). Around the
evening peak, a temporary daily maximum consumption of
56 GW was reached in the German power grid, after which
demand decreased to a minimum value of less than 41 GW
until the late evening.
At the same time, the amount of wind feed-in temporarily
reached a very high level of more than 16 GW. Further feed-ins
70
Gas
60
50 Wind
40
30 Coal
20
10 Nuclear
Must-run
Sunday, 1.1.2012 Monday, 2.1.2012
 S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS
that day came from other renewable energy sources, including
run-of-the-river hydro and biomass power plants, which also
benefit from feed-in priority. The feed-in from those plants
consistently amounted to about 5 GW. The power generation
from photovoltaic plants was negligible due to the season as
well as the cloudy weather that weekend.
On Sunday evening, after the renewable energy feed-ins were
accounted for, only a residual load of 21 GW had to be tem-
porarily covered by other power plants available according to
schedule.
At 4:00 am on Monday, 2 January, power consumption soared
and reached a demand level of approximately 73 GW at around
noon. This corresponds to an increase of 32 GW within eight
hours. At the same time the feed-in from wind power plants
decreased in the early hours of the morning due to declining
wind speeds and intermittently amounted to only 4 GW at
around noon. In parallel, a decrease in feed-in of about 12 GW
was registered on the supply side. Thus, overall, an additional
power output of nearly 45 GW had to be provided by the ther-
mal power plant portfolio within those eight hours.
The left-hand side of Figure 2 displays the parallel development
of increased power consumption and decreased, intermittent
wind feed-in, requiring a high degree of load adjustment from
the conventional power generation portfolio.
Power generation from German nuclear power plants contrib-
uted, almost without interruption, a supply of about 12 GW.
There is a degree of flexibility available from the German nuclear
power stations, although their low-variable power generation
costs ensure that this is only used once the load adaptability
of the fossil-fired power plants has been exhausted. As seen in
the right-hand side of Figure 2, the necessary load adjustment
of about 50 GW on Monday morning was almost completely
provided by the coal- and gas-fired power plants.
On Sunday night, almost 40% of the coal-fired power plants
were still in operation, although the requirements for coal-
fired power plants at that time had reduced to about 20–60%
of their installed output capacity. Overall, their contribution
was only about 10 GW.
The conventional gas-fired power plants were almost com-
pletely off the grid on Sunday night, since part-load operation
of gas-fired power plants is considerably more expensive than
it is for coal-fired power plants.
In the early hours of Monday morning the increase of residual
load was initially covered by coal-fired power plants supporting
the grid by means of less than full load operation. In parallel,
additional coal-fired power plants went into operation that
28
20 100%
18 90%
16 80%
Renewable generation (GWh)
14 70%
Load factor (%)
12 60%
10 50%
8 40%
6 30%
4 20%
2 10%
0 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
Photovoltaics Wind CCPP new build*
Hard coal new-build Existing hard coal, optimized
FIGURE 3. Feed-in from renewables on 16 March 20121
*Regular operation of two gas turbines and one steam turbine
Source: www.transparency.eex.com
had previously been off the grid. Grid synchronization of fossil-
fired plants commences approximately one to four hours after
initial boiler firing. Subsequent to the grid synchronization,
newly started coal-fired power plants met the required load
increase until about midday.
Generally, available gas-fired power plants are returned from
downtime to meet the load peaks on Monday. The first feed-
ins from gas-fired plants are normally in the early morning,
from 5:00 am onward. Over the course of the day, load bal-
ancing is mainly regulated by gas-fired power plants, and the
coal-fired power plants remain at full load until the evening.
On the particular Monday being evaluated, load adjustments
were made by a combination of available coal- and gas-fired
power plants. In doing so, the coal-fired power plants pro-
vided about 75% of the required flexible output.
Flexible Use of Coal- and Gas-Fired Power
Plants due to Fluctuations of PV Feed-In
The average cycle between strong and weak wind phases
is about three to five days in northwest Europe. Even in the
event of short-term changes, as portrayed in the first example,
the thermal power plant portfolio has several hours in which
to adjust load.
Short-term feed-in fluctuations are also triggered by the out-
put of widely developed solar photovoltaic power plants in
 LINGEN CCPP BoA1–3 BoA PLUS
Max capacity: 2x440 MW Max capacity: 1000 MW Max capacity: 2x550 MW
Min capacity: 520/260 MW Min capacity: 500 MW Min capacity: 350/175 MW
Max load change rate: +/-32 MW/min Max load change rate: +/-30 MW/min Max load change rate: +/-30 MW/min
1100 MW

1000

800

600
2-boiler operation

400 2-boiler operation

1-boiler operation
200 1-boiler operation

5 10 15 20 25min 5 10 15 20 25min 5 10 15 20 25min

FIGURE 4. Comparison of load flexibility of new-build gas- and lignite-fired power plants in the Rhineland 1

Notes: BoA is a German abbreviation for “lignite-fired power station with optimized plant engineering“. BoA 1–3 are in operation and BoA PLUS is in the planning
stages.

Germany. The effects can be seen from the beginning of spring
as the daily level of solar radiation increases.
The timing of the increase in solar radiation in the morning
does not coincide with the increase in power consumption.
While electricity demand increases between 4:00 and 8:00
am, the increase in photovoltaic feed-in occurs between 8:00
am and 1:00 pm. Similarly, photovoltaic feed-in decreases in
the evening, some hours before the decline in power con-
sumption. Consequently, thermal power plants have to kick in
at short notice twice—in the morning and in the evening—on
days with a high photovoltaic generation.
16 March was one of the first days in 2012 with intensive solar
radiation in Germany. The feed-in from photovoltaic plants
increased by about 16 GW between 8:00 am and 1:00 pm.
Between 2:00 and 6:00 pm, it decreased. On that day, wind
levels were extremely low (see Figure 3).
To cover peak consumption in the morning, coal- and gas-fired
power plants started operation. In order to accommodate the
temporarily high photovoltaic feed-in around midday, and
afterward provide full load to cover the evening peak, the gas-
fired and coal-fired power plants were intermittently operated
between partial and full-load operation.

TABLE 2. Sample flexibility parameters for coal- and gas-fired power plants

Natural Gas Hard Coal Lignite Hard Coal Existing Plant

Parameter Unit
CCPP New Builda New Build New Build (Optimized)
Capacity MW 800 800 1100 300

Minimum-load
point/rated-load % ~60 ~25–40 ~25b–40 ~20
point (Pmin/PRated)

Mean load change ratec %/min ~3.5 ~3d ~3 ~3

a
Regular operation of two gas turbines and one steam turbine
b
Thanks to the “BoA-Plus” design (lignite-fired power plant with optimized plant technology plus upstream coal drying) a minimum-load point of 25% is pos-
sible today, but has not been implemented yet
c
With respect to rated load
d
In the lower load range (25–40%) the operating gradient differs from this value

29
www.cornerstonemag.net
 S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS

Figure 3 shows the course of intermittent feed-ins and the
adjusted operation of conventional power plants (new gas and
steam power plant, new coal-fired power plant, and an existing
coal-fired power plant with optimized flexibility parameters),
following changes in demand and available generation from
renewable energy sources. In the case of 16 March 2012,
German coal- and gas-fired power plants were able to accom-
modate photovoltaic feed-in variations mutually because of
their short-term flexible operating capability.
“Despite the continued increase
in renewable capacity, the role of
fossil fuels for power generation in
Germany will be more or less the
same in 2023 as in 2013.”
In contrast, a new coal-fired power plant has a lower minimum
load capability of approximately 40%, with further potential
to reduce this to 20–25%. The reason is that the output of the
coal boiler is controlled via direct fuel combustion and not, as
is the case with a gas combined-cycle power plant, via a heat
recovery steam generator with an upstream gas turbine.
German power plant operators have also made it possible
to reduce the minimum load of operation at existing power
plants by optimizing the boiler-turbine system using modern
control systems. Today’s optimized coal-fired power plants are
able to operate at a partial-load level of less than 20% of full-
load capacity.
The change (i.e., ramp) between partial load and full load at
power plants involves load changes of approximately three
percentage points per minute, and the change in mode of
operation can therefore be achieved at all plants in less than
half an hour (see Table 2 and Figure 4).
PROSPECTS1

Flexibility Characteristics of German Despite the continued increase in renewable capacity, the role
Coal- and Gas-Fired Power Plants of fossil fuels for power generation in Germany will be more or
less the same in 2023 as in 2013 (see Figure 5).
In the regular configuration of two gas turbines and one steam
turbine, the minimum load of a new gas-fired combined-cycle The fundamental reason is the complete phasing out of
plant is typically around 60% of its installed capacity. An even nuclear power capacity by the end of 2022. By 2034 the
lower minimum load is achievable by switching off one gas total capacity on the basis of renewables is expected to be
turbine; this, however, causes a substantial decrease in effi- approximately 173 GW, which is twice as much as the peak
ciency, and thus is rarely employed. load in Germany.2 However, a conventional capacity of 82 GW
will still be needed (compared to 100 GW in 2012) to cover
634 TWh the demand when the wind is not blowing and/or the sun is
609 TWh
7.5% not shining.2 The required flexibility to meet the fluctuations
527 TWh 23.9%
Renewables 4.0% is being fulfilled just as well by coal-fueled as by gas-fueled
~40%
27.1% power plants. These plants are being made increasingly flex-
Nuclear 29.2% 15.4%
ible, ensuring that they can continue to serve their important
role in Germany’s electricity market.

Fossil 66.8% 65.4% 60.7% ~60%

REFERENCES
energy
sources
(coal, gas etc.) 1. IEA Coal Industry Advisory Board. (2013). 21st century coal:
Advanced technology and global energy solution. Paris: OECD/
IEA. www.iea.org/publications/insights/21stcenturycoal_final_
1993 2003 2013 2023
web.pdf
FIGURE 5. Gross power generation in Germany 1993–20231 2. 50Hertz Transmission/Amprion/ TenneT TSO/TransnetBW, Grid
Source: AG Energiebilanzen (for 1993–2013); target of federal government development plan electricity 2014, Berlin/Dortmund/Bayreuth/
according to coalition agreement: 40–45% renewables in 2025 Stuttgart, 2014. (in German)

30
Toward Carbon-Negative
Power Plants With Biomass
Cofiring and CCS
By Janne Kärki
Research Team Leader, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Antti Arasto
Business Development Manager,
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
T
he goal of CO2 emissions reductions and renewable
energy incentives have led some power plant operators
to broaden their fuel palette to include various carbon-
neutral biomass fuels. Biomass can be carbon neutral because
it binds carbon from the atmosphere that is then released
when it is burned, minimizing net emissions.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS), another potential option
to cut CO2 emissions from the power sector, is currently under
extensive research, development, and demonstration glob-
ally. CCS is advancing toward commercialization, but there are
still hurdles, mostly nontechnical, that are impeding its wide-
spread deployment.
Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are expected to
be higher in the future and, therefore, the power sector and
several other major industries may need solutions that can
offer up to 80% reductions in emissions. In large-scale ther-
mal power plants, this level of emissions reduction can be
In locations where sustainable biomass is readily available,
cofiring with coal harnesses the advantages of each fuel.
31
www.cornerstonemag.net
achieved by employing CCS, utilizing high shares of biomass
fuels, or a combination thereof. By combining biomass cofiring
and CCS, it is possible to achieve negative emissions (defined
as capturing CO2 from biomass combustion and storing it per-
manently isolated from the atmosphere). This is one of the
few large-scale options to remove CO2 from the atmosphere,
which highlights the importance of these technologies.
However, such technologies require stronger government and
international support to encourage deployment. In addition,
increased costs for CO2 emissions or CO2 emission perfor-
mance standards (EPS) could help advance the technology.1–3
“Combining biomass cofiring and
CCS … is one of the few large-scale
options to remove CO2 from the
atmosphere...”
FEASIBILITY OF COFIRING WITH
VARYING BIOMASS SHARES
Cofiring of coal and various types of biomass is now a mature
technology and is currently being successfully practiced glob-
ally. With technological advances, many limitations associated
with it have been overcome. Many coal-fired plants have been
converted or retrofitted to accommodate cofiring with limited
impact on efficiency, operations, or lifespan.
However, there is much more to cofiring than simply adding
a secondary fuel. Boiler technology and design remain critical
issues when evaluating the maximum share of biomass that
can be used without compromising boiler performance (out-
put, efficiency, and power-to-heat ratio) or the lifetime of the
boiler components.4
Various technologies have been developed to enable cofir-
ing biomass with coal in pulverized coal (PC) boilers. The vast
capacity of existing PC boilers offers great potential for increas-
ing biomass utilization and economic benefits compared to
new stand-alone biomass power plants, which also are usually
 S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS
significantly smaller than PC plants. With cofiring, capital costs
are increased only marginally, while the high electrical effi-
ciency of large PC boilers and the favorable properties of coal
ash can be exploited to reduce the operational risks.
Utilizing biomass in an existing thermal power plant can be
accomplished through direct or indirect cofiring. Direct cofir-
ing is the most straightforward, most commonly applied, and
lowest-cost concept for partially replacing coal or other solid
fossil fuels with biomass. In direct cofiring, biomass and coal
are burned together in the same furnace using the same or
separate fuel handling and feeding equipment, depending on
the biomass, targeted biomass share, and site-specific charac-
teristics. The percentage of biomass that can be successfully
employed in direct cofiring is modest, typically about 10%,
and the type of biomass is limited mostly to pellet-type fuels.
With torrefied biomass, however, higher shares are expected,
up to tens of percentages. Indirect cofiring consists of convert-
ing the solid biomass to a gas or liquid prior to combustion in
the same furnace with the other fuel. This allows for greater
amounts of biomass to be used, up to 50%. However, this
approach requires greater investment and a larger footprint.5
In general, fluidized bed boilers offer the best fuel flexibility.
In a properly designed boiler, biomass fuels can be used
with coal in any percentage from 0–100% in circulating fluid-
ized bed (CFB) boilers. The variety of biomass fuel options is
increasingly diverse, although the availability of some biomass
fuels can be limited. Power plants with high fuel flexibility can
adapt to the prevailing fuel market by optimizing the fuel mix.6
One possibility to utilize biomass in existing PC boilers is to
convert them into bubbling fluidized bed boilers. These retro-
fits are routine for the major fluidized bed boiler technology
suppliers, and numerous such conversions have been con-
ducted in Europe. For example, at least eight conversions to
enable pure biomass combustion have been carried out in
Poland since 2008, with capacities from 100–200 MWth.
TABLE 1. Key assumptions and results from economic modeling
Factor Base Case
Combustion mode Air
CCS No
Biomass share (%)
CO2 emissions reduction compared to base case
(million tonnes/yr)
Electricity output (MWe) 213
32
CONCEPTUAL STUDY OF BIOMASS
COFIRING VERSUS CCS
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has conducted
several conceptual case studies on the feasibility of CCS and
biomass cofiring. In the case study discussed below, the fea-
sibility of a coal-fired oxy-combustion CFB boiler with 99%
CO2 capture and storage (Case I) is compared to cofiring large
shares of biomass (Case II 70% and Case III 30%, with the bal-
ance from coal). These cases are compared to a base-case
CFB coal-fired (air-fired, no biomass cofiring, and no CCS)
500-MWfuel greenfield power plant situated in Finland that
emits approximately 1.2 million tonnes CO2/year.
The fuel mix affects the plant design, investment required, and
operational parameters. The plant fuel input (on an energy
basis) and designed steam parameters remain constant in
all cases. Therefore, the use of biomass or oxy-combustion
increases the required plant investment and operating costs.
Additional investment for biomass cofiring is required for bio-
mass handling and feeding equipment, additional loop seal
heat exchangers, advanced coarse material removal, more
expensive materials for heat transfer surfaces, larger flue gas
ducts and fans, extra soot-blowers, and possibly injection of
combustion additives. Additional O&M costs include addi-
tional chemical and maintenance costs. For the CFB-Oxy-CCS
case, the main additional investment involves boiler block
modifications, a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU), and a
CO2 purification unit (CPU). The greatest impact of CCS on the
O&M costs is the efficiency penalty, which in this study was
assumed to be eight percentage points. The captured CO2 was
assumed to be transported and stored abroad with an overall
cost of €12/tonne CO2.7,8 The main assumptions and results,
including net electricity output, are provided in Table 1.7,8
The principal goal of the modeling was to evaluate annual
cash flows from an investor’s point of view in the three
reduced-CO2 emission cases compared with the base case.
Case I Case II Case III
(CFB-Oxy-CCS) (70% bio) (30% bio)
Oxygen Air Air
Yes No No
0 0 70 30
0 -0.91 -0.91 -0.39
173 208 210
 Base Case Case I Case II Case III mostly dependent on electricity prices, CO2 and fuel costs, and
0 1.3 estimated peak load hours, which are all uncertain. For Finnish
-10 -12 -14 -5.0 -11 -0.3 thermal power plants with CCS, break-even prices of €70–100/
-12.4
-20 tonne were presented by Teir et al.10 In comparison to these
-23 -13 -31
-44 reported values, the CFB-Oxy-CCS case was quite competitive,
-40 but this is highly dependent on CO2 transport and storage
-15
costs, which were much lower in our estimation.10 In addition,
-60 -64 at some locations sufficient biomass may not be logistically
-38 -49
-38 or economically available. Similarly, CO2 storage sites are not
-80
universally accessible. Therefore, the exact modeling results
should not be extrapolated to other regions or situations.
-100
-27 -31 -28
-45
-120 The CO2 emissions in the different cases modeled are pre-
sented in Figure 2. Both cases of biomass cofiring as well as
-140 the CFB-Oxy-CCS offer significantly reduced emissions. It can
be seen that significant emission reductions can be achieved
CAPEX Fuel purchase
(including subsidies and taxes) with CCS and high shares of biomass cofiring. Note that for
CO2 allowances the energy penalty in CFB-Oxy-CCS case, the substitutive elec-
CO2 transport and storage
Substitutive electricity tricity production is assumed to be produced by unabated
Profit Other operating costs coal-fired power; if the replacement electricity was provided
by coal with CCS or some other blend of electricity, the carbon
FIGURE 1. Annual operating costs and overall profits of
footprint of the oxy-combustion case would be even lower.
compared technologies (with default input values) in millions
€ per year
If more aggressive climate policies are enacted in the future,
including other targets for renewable energy and other com-
The assumed fuel purchase prices were €10/MWh for coal
and €20/MWh for biomass (based on LHV, including all costs petition for biomass (existing forest industry, targets for liquid
and taxes), €75/MWh for electricity, and a CO2 allowance of biofuels, etc.), a significant increase in biomass prices could
€35/tonne [an estimated future price that is higher than EU result, at least in areas where sustainable biomass availability
Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) trading values today]. is limited. Increasing biomass prices would result in coal-fired
Peak load utilization rates of the plants were 7500 hours per
year. The overall costs (capital and operating) and profits for Base Case Case I Case II Case III
the four cases are presented in Figure 1. 2,000,000

The differences in electricity production, which can be attrib-

1,500,000
uted to the energy penalty in the CCS case, are taken into
account as “substitutive electricity”, which enables the com-
1,000,000
parison of costs rather than annual cash flows, where income
from electricity would dominate the chart. From Figure 1 it can
be determined that operation of the base-case coal-fired power 500,000
plant is the only option that is profitable under the economic
assumptions made, although Case I with 30% biomass cofiring 0 0
is relatively close to the base case. Based on the economics -387,916
and emissions assumed, break-even prices (BEP) for CO2 emis- -500,000
sion allowances in the EU ETS, at which specific cases become
-914,307 -911,389
favorable compared to the base case, were calculated. The -1,000,000
BEPs were 46, 42, and 39 €/tonne CO2 for CFB-Oxy-CCS, 70%
biomass cofiring, and 30% biomass cofiring, respectively. These -1,500,000
break-even points are a bit higher than, but generally in line Biogenic CO2 Fossil CO2 Replacement electricity
with, estimates presented by Lüschen and Madlener for bio- Other Captured fossil CO2
mass cofiring with CO2 avoidance cost range of €25–32/tonne.9
CO2 emissions relative to base case
Note that if the modeling assumptions change, the model FIGURE 2. Categorized CO2 emissions for the four cases
results vary dramatically. The most economical solution is modeled in tonnes per year

33
www.cornerstonemag.net
 S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS

oxy-combustion with CCS becoming economically advanta-
geous compared to biomass cofiring with large shares.
Based on our results, CFB oxy-combustion with CCS could
become more competitive with quite realistic prices for bio-
mass and CO2 in the future. For example, with prices of €24/
MWh for biomass, €85/MWh for electricity, and €50/tonne
CO2 allowance, the CFB-Oxy-CCS becomes the most profitable
case modeled, although all are almost equally competitive.7
IS CCS SUITABLE FOR BIOMASS COFIRED PLANTS?
The cases discussed thus far reduced CO2 emissions, but did
not eliminate them. An opportunity exists, however, for coal/
biomass cofiring with CCS to not only eliminate CO2 emissions,
but actually offer negative CO2 emissions. This approach could
help reach climate targets by offsetting historical emissions
and emissions from sectors with expensive or more difficult
large-scale emission reductions (e.g., the transportation sec-
tor) in the near term. In general, similar solutions are suitable
for capturing CO2 from applications utilizing biomass as for
fossil fuels. The main differences relate to the different kinds
of impurities in the combustion process: ash and flue gas. In
principle, there are no technical restrictions for capturing bio-
genic CO2 via cofiring. However, the current EU ETS does not
recognize negative emissions, and thus no economic incentive
exists for capturing biogenic CO2 from installations combust-
ing even partly biomass.
Despite fluidized bed technology’s high flexibility regarding the
fuels, challenges exist in the case of biomass cofiring. Some of
these challenges may be emphasized when CCS is employed
at the plant. For example, with oxy-fired fluidized bed boilers
even small concentrations of chlorine from the biomass fuel
can lead to harmful alkaline and chlorine compound depos-
its on boiler heat transfer surfaces. This is because of lack of
nitrogen in furnace and the components’ increased concen-
trations as a result of flue gas recirculation.7
COFIRING, CCS, OR BOTH?
of eight to 12 percentage points.11 Obviously, significant
improvements in reducing the energy penalty would be very
helpful for the deployment of the CCS. One potential solution
to increase the efficiency (of all plants) is combined heat and
power, where over 90% process efficiency is achievable—if a
large heat distribution system and relatively continuous heat
consumption (or storage) in that system exist.12,13
The costs associated with biomass cofiring are mainly due to
the higher prices of biomass fuel in comparison to coal, higher
plant investment, and higher O&M costs. The use of biomass
increases O&M costs of the cofiring retrofit plant through
negative effects on the availability of the boiler (i.e., boiler-
related issues cause increased plant downtime) and increased
maintenance work and consumables. When considering a
retrofit option for biomass, the feasibility of the investment
and the willingness to invest are affected also by the remain-
ing lifetime of the plant and the annual operating hours.5,14 An
indicative comparison on the CAPEX and operating expenses
(OPEX) in coal, biomass, and cofired CFB boiler with and with-
out CCS is presented in Figure 3.
The costs for CCS depend heavily not only on the characteris-
tics of the facility and the operational environment but also on
the assumptions related to future operation. From an inves-
tor’s point of view, the optimal solution depends on multiple
factors, electricity and EU ETS prices being the most domi-
nant. As far as capturing biogenic emissions (and achieving
negative emissions) from power plants is concerned, the only
realistic applications are facilities that cofire biomass with coal
and implement CCS. Dedicated biomass-firing plants are not
considered to be the optimal sites to apply CCS in the initial
phase as these facilities are likely smaller than fossil-fueled
facilities and do not currently need to reduce their CO2 emis-
sions. When discussing the biomass cofiring option, one must
also address questions related to how availability of biomass
Fossil Fossil with Bio/Multi Bio/Multi with
CO2 capture • Agro CO2 capture
• Wood

There are still technical and economic challenges restricting

the application of biomass cofiring and CCS as emission reduc-
tion solutions. Both CCS and biomass cofiring offer pros and
• High plant • 8 – 12%-pts eff. • Good plant • Efficiency penalty
cons and their potential roles globally as carbon abatement efficiency penalty in CCS efficiency similar to fossil
tools are not yet certain. Both technologies must reduce the • Fossil CO2
emissions
• Up to 95% CO2
capture rates
• Zero (biogenic)
CO2 emissions
• “Negative” CO2
emissions
associated costs prior to widespread deployment. Lowest OPEX* Higher OPEX* Higher OPEX* Highest OPEX*
and CAPEX and CAPEX than and CAPEX than and CAPEX
The major costs associated with CCS result from equipment without capture with fossil fuels
investment, loss of production due to the CCS energy penalty, FIGURE 3. An indicative comparison of the CAPEX and OPEX
and transportation and storage of CO2. First-generation CCS in coal, biomass, and cofired CFB boiler with and without CCS
technologies are expected to result in efficiency decreases *Without CO2 allowances

34
affects pricing and the competition for raw material between
different users, such as the forest industry and liquid biofuel
producers.
CONCLUSIONS
The possible and predicted high economic value on CO2 emis-
sions as well as strict emission standards could provide a
foundation for the development and deployment of biomass
cofiring and CCS as individual or combined technologies. Both
options are applicable for existing and new power plants and
the technologies have already been demonstrated. Biomass
cofiring is the most efficient means of power generation from
biomass, and thus offers a CO2 avoidance cost lower than that
for CO2 capture from existing power plants—provided reason-
ably priced carbon-neutral biomass is available. However, future
policies on legislation, subsidies, and carbon accounting remain
the most vital factors for successful biomass cofiring business.
“There is a path forward for neutral
or even negative carbon emissions at
power plants that combust coal.”
Economically, the difference between biomass cofiring and
CCS varies depending on site-specific circumstances. In gen-
eral, however, the EU ETS price and electricity prices projected
in the near future do not yet make CCS investment feasible.
The economic viability of CCS in the EU is heavily dependent
on the CO2 allowance price.
There is a path forward for neutral or even negative carbon
emissions at power plants that combust coal. For negative
net emissions, capturing biogenic emissions is a widely avail-
able option; power plants that cofire biomass with coal offer
the greatest potential and most straightforward applications.
However, the most important factors affecting the deploy-
ment of the combined carbon-mitigation technologies include
the availability of biomass, coal, and CO2 transportation and
storage options as well as the political will (expressed through
carbon pricing and recognition of negative emissions) and
acceptance of the technologies. In reality, these technologies
are already available and nearly ready to be demonstrated
and then deployed.
35
www.cornerstonemag.net
REFERENCES
1. ZEP. (2012). Biomass with CO2 capture and storage (bio-CCS):
The way forward for Europe, www.biofuelstp.eu/downloads/
bioccsjtf/EBTP-ZEP-Report-Bio-CCS-The-Way-Forward.pdf
2. IEAGHG. (2011, July). Potential for biomass and carbon dioxide
capture and storage. Report 2011/06, www.eenews.net/
assets/2011/08/04/document_cw_01.pdf
3. Koljonen, T., et al. (2012). Low carbon Finland 2050. VTT clean
energy technology strategies for society. Espoo: VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland, www.ashraeasa.org/pdf/VTT%20
Low%20Carbon%20Vision.pdf
4. KEMA. (2009, July). Co-firing biomass with coal. Balancing US
carbon objectives, energy demand and electricity affordability.
White paper. Burlington, MA: KEMA Inc.
5. Kärki, J., Flyktman, M., Hurskainen, M., Helynen, S., & Sipilä, K.
(2011). Replacing coal with biomass fuels in combined heat and
power plants in Finland. In: M. Savolainen (Ed.), International
Nordic Bioenergy 2011—Book of proceedings (pp. 199–206),
www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2011/Finland_Karki.pdf
6. Nevalainen, T., Jäntti, T., & Nuortimo, K. (2012). Advanced CFB
technology for large scale biomass firing power plants. Paper
presented at Bioenergy from Forest, 29 August, Jyvaskyla,
Finland, www.fwc.com/getmedia/227a6ef3-a052-42e4-b81e-
ca642124869a/TP_FIRSYS_12_07.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
7. Arasto, A., Tsupari, E., Kärki, J., Sormunen, R., Korpinen, T., &
Hujanen. S. Feasibility of significant CO2 emission reductions in
thermal power plants—Comparison of biomass and CCS. GHGT-
12 (submitted 15 September 2014).
8. Tsupari, E., Kärki, J., & Arasto, A. (2011). Feasibility of BIO-
CCS in CHP production—A case sudy of biomass cofiring plant
in Finland. Presented in Second international Workshop on
Biomass & Carbon Capture and Storage, 25-26 October, Cardiff,
Wales.
9. Lüschen, A., & Madlener, R. (2013). Economic viability of
biomass cofiring in new hard-coal power plants in Germany.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 57, 33–47, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2012.11.017
10. Teir, S., et al. (2011). Hiilidioksidin talteenoton ja varastoinnin
(CCS:n) soveltaminen Suomen olosuhteissa. Espoo, VTT. 76 s. +
liitt. 3 s. VTT Tiedotteita - Research Notes; 2576 ISBN 978-951-
38-7697-5; 978-951-38-7698-2.
11. IEA. (2013). Technology roadmap: Carbon capture and storage,
www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
technologyroadmapcarboncaptureandstorage.pdf
12. Davison J. (2007). Performance and costs of power plants with
capture and storage of CO2. Energy, 32, 1163–1176.
13. Kärki, J., Tsupari, E., & Arasto, A. (2013). CCS feasibility in
improvement in industrial and municipal applications by heat
utilisation, Energy Procedia, 37, 2611–2621.
14. Basu, P., Butler, J., & Leon, M.A. (2011). Biomass co-firing options
on the emission reduction and electricity generation costs in
coal-fired power plants. Renewable Energy, 36(1), 282–288,
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.06.039
The authors can be reached at janne.karki@vtt.fi and antti.
arasto@vtt.fi
 S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS
Evolution of Cleaner
Solid Fuel Combustion
By Christopher Long
Principal Scientist, Gradient
Peter Valberg
Principal, Gradient
A
lthough uncommon in developed countries, solid
fuels—including wood, charcoal, coal,A dung, and crop
residues—are burned domestically by billions of people
across the world for space heating, lighting, and cooking. For
example, it is estimated that, as of 2010, approximately 41% of
the world’s households (approximately 2.8 billion people) rely
mainly on solid fuels for cooking.1 A comprehensive assess-
ment of respiratory risks from household air pollution recently
concluded that the health of one in three people worldwide
is at risk because of exposure to emissions from traditional
household solid fuel combustion.2
To provide some perspective on their relative air exposure
impacts, we have compared exposure of people to tradi-
tional household solid fuel combustion emissions (e.g., smoke
from domestic burning of biomass material or coal) to those
of coal-fired power plants (CFPPs). We used data from pub-
lished papers and reports and tabulated levels of people’s
exposure to common air pollutants from these two different
combustion sources. The coal-fired power plants used for the
A review of available literature has shown that traditional
stoves for cooking and heating are a much more inefficient
and dangerous means of energy utilization compared to
modern electricity services.
36
study were based in the U.S. due to the larger amount of air
modeling data available, but were older and had more lim-
ited emissions controls than modern state-of-the-art plants.
As a result, these plants are useful for representing the air
exposure impacts of plants that might be built in developing
countries today, including those built without international
support for meeting high-efficiency, low-emissions standards.
For our comparisons, we focused on air exposure concentra-
tions rather than emissions because possible exposure via
breathing cannot be characterized based solely on emissions
data (e.g., tons per year), but rather needs to be assessed
through examining concentrations of pollutants [masses of
pollutants per unit volume of air—e.g., micrograms per cubic
meter (μg/m3)] that can potentially be inhaled. In addition, we
used an alternative metric of exposure, namely intake fraction
(iF), to supplement this analysis.
“As compared to traditional
household solid fuel combustion
… modern coal-fired power plants
represent a more sophisticated and
cleaner approach to getting the
maximum energy out of solid fuel…”
ASSESSMENT OF REPORTED
AIR EXPOSURE LEVELS
Traditional Household Solid Fuels Contribute
to Complex Indoor Air Pollution
Over the past several decades, numerous studies have inves-
tigated the air pollution generated by traditional household
solid fuel combustion for space heating, lighting, and cooking in
developing countries.1,3 It is now well established that, through-
out much of the world, indoor burning of solid fuels (e.g., wood,
charcoal, coal, dung, and crop residues) by inefficient, often
insufficiently vented, combustion devices (e.g., ovens, stoves,
TABLE 1. Summary of indoor PM2.5 and CO breathing zone exposure levels in developing-country households with traditional
household solid fuel combustion3

Number of Total Number PM2.5 (μg/m3) CO (mg/m3)

Location
Studies of Samples meal avg. daily avg. meal avg. daily avg.
Bangladesh 1 53 15–26
Burundi 1 2 42
Ethiopia 1 NA 48
Ghana 1 21 9
Guatemala 7 768 450–27,000 97–1900 2–149 1.2–17
India 13 1009 110–2100 1300–1500 5–216
Kenya 4 199 630–3500 5–60
Malaysia 1 10 3
Mexico 5 191 890 10–22
Mozambique 1 114 48
Nepal 5 127 1700–5700 14–360 14–52
New Guinea 1 9 13–24
Nigeria 1 28 1076
South Africa 1 20 79–180 92
Zambia 1 89 10
Notes: NA = not available. Meal avg. = average concentrations measured during active meal and cooking times, typically between 30 minutes and three hours.

or fireplaces) leads to highly elevated exposures to household
air pollutants. This is due to the poor combustion efficiency of
the combustion devices and the elevated nature of the emis-
sions; moreover, they are often released directly into living
areas.3 Smoke from traditional household solid fuel combustion
commonly contains a range of incomplete combustion prod-
ucts, including both fine and coarse particulate matter (e.g.,
PM2.5, PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and a variety of organic air pollutants (e.g.,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, acetaldehyde, acrolein,
phenols, pyrene, benzopyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzopy-
renes, dibenzocarbazoles, and cresols).2 In a typical solid fuel
stove, approximately 6–20% of solid fuel mass is converted into
toxic emissions, with such factors as the fuel type and moisture
content, stove technology, and stove operation influencing the
amount and relative composition of the pollution mixture.1
combustion and are considered to pose the greatest health
risks.2 Table 1, adapted from Naeher et al.,3 summarizes indoor
air measurements of PM2.5 and CO associated with traditional
household solid fuel combustion. As shown in the table, PM2.5
exposure levels have been consistently reported to be in the
range of hundreds to thousands of micrograms per cubic
meter (μg/m3); likewise, CO exposure levels as high as hun-
dreds to greater than 1000 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/
m3) have been measured. Consistent with these data, a more
recent study of 163 households in two rural Chinese counties
reported geometric mean indoor PM2.5 concentrations of 276
μg/m3 (combinations of different plant materials, including
wood, tobacco stems, and corncobs), 327 μg/m3 (wood), 144
μg/m3 (smoky coal), and 96 μg/m3 (smokeless coal) for homes
using a variety of different fuel types and stove configurations
(vented, unvented, portable, fire pit, mixed ventilation stove).4

Even though the mixture of pollutants arising from traditional
household solid fuel combustion is complex, most measure-
ment studies have focused on characterizing breathing-zone
exposure levels of two surrogate species in solid fuel smoke,
namely PM and CO, which are the main products of incomplete
Air Modeling of CFPP Emissions Predicts
Substantially Lower Air Quality Impacts
In comparison to traditional solid fuels, CFPP emissions are
associated with far lower ground-level ambient exposure levels

37
www.cornerstonemag.net
 S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS

of both PM2.5 and CO.B Table 2 provides a summary of model-
predicted ground-level PM2.5 and CO concentrations from
publicly available studies of the ambient air quality impacts
of U.S. CFPPs. We relied on model-predicted concentrations
rather than measurement data because air-monitoring data
are not specific to power plant emissions and include con-
tributions from a variety of other common anthropogenic,
natural, and distant air pollution sources. As indicated in Table 2,
all but one of the studies we identified reflect modeled air qual-
ity impacts for groups of U.S. CFPPs in the same general vicinity;
thus, these data encompass air quality impacts higher than what
would be the case for a single newer U.S. power plant. Moreover,
the majority of the modeled plants are older CFPPs that lack the
clean coal technologies characteristic of newer and retrofitted
CFPPs. With respect to PM, these studies generally accounted for
both primary PM2.5 emissions and secondary atmospheric forma-
tion of sulfate and nitrate particles from gaseous SO2 and NOx
emissions, respectively. With respect to CO, we identified just a
single modeling study that predicted the CO air quality impacts of
emissions from CFPPs (as well as a number of natural gas power
plants).5 Most likely because CO emissions from U.S. CFPPs are
low and not considered to pose significant air quality problems
or public health impacts, CO has not received as much attention
as PM2.5 in studies of the air quality impacts of power plants.6

TABLE 2. Model-predicted ground-level PM2.5 and CO concentrations associated with U.S. CFPP emissionsa,b

Model-Predicted Model-Predicted
Number of
Plant Capacity/ Ground-Level Annual Ground-Level Annual
Source Modeled Plant Location(s)
Characteristics Average PM2.5 Air Conc. Average CO Air Conc.
CFPPs
(µg/m3) a (mg/m3) a

805-MW nameplate 0.2 for maximum po-

Salem,
capacity; older plant tential plant emissions,
1 Massachusetts, NA
grandfathered under including both primary
U.S.
Clean Air Act and secondary PM2.5
Levy et al.
(2000)7
1611-MW nameplate 0.25 for maximum po-
Somerset,
capacity; older plant tential plant emissions,
1 Massachusetts, NA
grandfathered under including both primary
U.S.
Clean Air Act and secondary PM2.5

>7500-MW total
Illinois, in close
nameplate capacity; 0.7, including both
Levy et al. proximity to or
9 all older plants grand- primary and secondary NA
(2002)8 upwind of the
fathered under the PM2.5
Chicago area, U.S.
Clean Air Act

>13,000-MW total 0.6–0.9 depending on

nameplate capacity; the air modeling ap-
Levy et al. Georgia, in the
7 all older plants grand- proach, including both NA
(2003)9 Atlanta area, U.S.
fathered under the primary and secondary
Clean Air Act PM2.5

3 coal 1425-MW capac-

Bexar County, 0.16 for year 2002 emis-
plants/units ity for 3 coal plants/
Perkins et al. Texas, in the San sions, including both 0.00011 for year 2002
(and 18 units (and ~2300-MW
(2009)5 Antonio metro- primary and secondary emissions
gas plants/ capacity for 18 gas
politan area, U.S. PM2.5
units) plants/units)

Notes: NA = not available.

a
As mentioned in the text, model-predicted ground-level annual average PM2.5 and CO air concentrations are generally for groups of older U.S. CFPPs due to the
availability of air modeling studies; air concentrations for single U.S. CFPPs, and particularly newer, more advanced CFPPs, would be expected to be lower. On
the other hand, air quality impacts of low-efficiency, uncontrolled CFPPs, such as those present in developing countries lacking stringent regulations, may be
comparable, if not larger, than those in the table.
b
Some concentrations are for maximum impacted model receptor locations,8,9 while others are either population-weighted average concentrations7 or county-
average impacts.5

38
The annual average ambient PM2.5 and CO concentrations
in Table 2 are far below the comparable daily-average PM2.5
and CO indoor exposure levels associated with traditional
household solid fuel combustion in Table 1.C For PM2.5, sev-
eral studies7–9 of groups of older, grandfathered U.S. CFPPs
predicted annual average concentrations of less than 1 μg/m3
for maximally impacted locations, as compared to daily aver-
age PM2.5 exposure levels of hundreds to thousands of μg/
m3 inside homes with traditional solid fuel combustion. For
CO, the single modeled estimate that we identified for 2002
county-average CO impacts from three CFPPs/units (plus 18
gas-fired power plants/units) in the San Antonio, TX, metro-
politan area5 is over 10,000 times lower than the lowest CO
exposure levels we found for traditional household solid fuel
combustion (Table 1).
INTAKE FRACTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE
COMPARISON TOOL
Defining Intake Fraction
The iF is a well-established metric in the exposure assessment
and public health fields for quantifying the emission-to-intake
relationship, in large part because iFs facilitate comparisons of
the exposure implications of various emission sources. Intake
fraction can be defined simply as the fraction of material emit-
ted into the air from a given source that is actually inhaled;
however, Bennett et al.10 provided a more thorough defini-
tion of iF as “the integrated incremental intake of a pollutant,
summed over all exposed individuals, and occurring over
a given exposure time, released from a specified source or
sources, per unit of pollutant emitted.” It is generally reported
as a unitless value, as expressed in the following equation10:
∑people, individual pollutant intake (mass, grams)
time
iF =
mass released into the environment (mass, grams)
iF thus sums pollutant intake over two measures—population
size and time duration—and incorporates a variety of factors
related to the emission scenario and exposure conditions.
These factors include chemical properties of the contaminant,
emissions locations (e.g., release height, indoor versus out-
door, proximity to people), environmental conditions (climate,
meteorology, land use), human receptor locations and activi-
ties, and population characteristics. Intake fractions can be
based on both modeling results and measurements.
39
www.cornerstonemag.net
Relative Intake Fractions for Traditional
Solid Fuel Combustion Versus CFPPs
We identified just a single study11 that reported iFs for both
types of PM combustion emissions. Smith (1993) estimated
iFs ranging from approximately one to two one-thousandths
for PM emissions from traditional solid fuel combustion in
biomass cookstoves versus substantially lower iFs of one one-
millionth for a U.S. CFPP and 10 one-millionths for a CFPP in a
least developed country (LDC) based on the assumption of a
greater population density. In other words, these results indi-
cate that about one one-thousandth of what is released from
traditional household solid fuel burning is inhaled, while only
about one one-millionth of what is released from a U.S. CFPP
is inhaled.
These differences demonstrate the critical role of the proximity
of the emission source to people in determining its exposure
potential; whereas CFPP emissions are typically released from
tall stacks often far from heavily populated areas, emissions
from traditional household solid fuel combustion in develop-
ing countries are often released directly into poorly ventilated
indoor spaces (e.g., kitchens), where they can remain trapped
for extended periods of time in direct proximity of people.
Smith12 has subsequently emphasized the concept that the
“place makes the poison”.
More recent iF estimates for PM emissions from both tradi-
tional household solid fuel combustion and CFPPs confirm
that iF differences between these sources span several
orders of magnitude.9,13,14 For example, Levy et al.9 estimated
a slightly smaller iF for primary PM2.5 emissions from seven
older northern Georgia (U.S.) CFPPs (0.0000006), and even
smaller iFs for secondary sulfates and nitrates (0.0000002 and
0.00000006). In contrast, Grieshop et al.14 estimated iFs of
0.0013 and 0.00024 for unvented and outdoor-vented cook-
stoves, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that measured PM2.5 and CO concentrations inside
homes burning traditional solid fuels are thousands of times
greater than even the high-end estimates of ground-level
ambient exposure levels from U.S. coal-fired power plant
stack emissions. Even if a low-efficiency coal-fired power
plant with no emissions controls were employed—a likely
scenario in areas where traditional solid fuels are combusted
and in the absence of international support for efficiency
and environmental upgrades—order-of-magnitude differ-
ences would likely be observed compared to traditional
solid fuel combustion. Moreover, we saw similar, support-
ing results using an alternative comparison approach based
on intake fractions. Overall, these conclusions point to
 S T R AT E G I C A NALY S IS
traditional household solid fuel combustion being a signifi-
cantly greater source of air pollution exposures of health
concern. The basic difference is that coal-fired power
plants burn coal much more efficiently and completely—
and exhaust their emissions from tall stacks rather than in
direct proximity to people. Overall, as compared to tradi-
tional household solid fuel combustion, which represents
an inefficient, high-emission form of fuel utilization, mod-
ern coal-fired power plants (and even older ones with more
limited air pollution controls) represent a more sophisti-
cated, cleaner approach to getting the maximum energy
out of solid fuel with significantly reduced impacts on the
air that humans breathe.
NOTES
A. Although coal is used both for traditional household solid fuel
combustion and for electricity generation at modern power
plants, coal handling and combustion conditions for the two situ-
ations are quite different. When used as a traditional household
solid fuel, large chunks of often lower-quality coal are directly
burned under uncontrolled combustion conditions, such that
combustion is inefficient and incomplete. In contrast, modern
power plants often burn higher-quality coal, usually pulverized
and mixed with air, under efficient and controlled conditions,
resulting in nearly complete combustion of coal organics.
B. Actual personal exposures to ambient-derived pollutants can
often be significantly lower than ambient (outdoor) air exposure
levels. This is largely because people in countries such as the
U.S. spend the majority (~90%) of their time indoors where the
infiltration process can result in significantly reduced concentra-
tions indoors compared to the corresponding ambient levels
outdoors.
C. Although expressed for different averaging periods, the annual
average PM2.5 and CO concentrations shown in Table 2 (for
power plants) should be compared to the daily average PM2.5
and CO concentrations in Table 1 (for traditional household solid
fuel combustion), which would occur repeatedly on a daily basis.
That is, the daily average PM2.5 and CO concentrations in Table 1
can be assumed to be representative of long-term average (e.g.,
annual average) exposure levels given the daily occurrence of
solid fuel combustion for cooking, heating, and lighting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article was commissioned by Peabody Energy; it reflects
the professional opinions of the authors and the writing is
solely that of the authors.
40
REFERENCES
1. Smith, K.R., Bruce, N., Balakrishnan, K., Adair-Rohani, H., Balmes,
J., Chafe, Z., … HAP CRA Risk Expert Group. (2014). Millions
dead: How do we know and what does it mean? Methods used
in the comparative risk assessment of household air pollution.
Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 185–206.
2. Gordon, S.B., Bruce, N.G., Grigg, J., Hibberd, P.L., Kurmi, O.P.,
Lam, K.B., … Martin, W.J., II. (2014). Respiratory risks from
household air pollution in low and middle income countries. The
Lancet Respiratory Medicine, epub ahead of print.
3. Naeher, L.P., Brauer, M., Lipsett, M., Zelikoff, J.T., Simpson, C.D.,
Koenig, J.Q., & Smith, K.R. (2007). Woodsmoke health effects: A
review. Inhalation Toxicology, 19, 67–106.
4. Hu, W., Downward, G.S., Reiss, B., Xu, J., Bassig, B.A., Hosgood,
H.D. III, & Lan, Q. (2014). Personal and indoor PM2.5 exposure
from burning solid fuels in vented and unvented stoves in
a rural region of China with a high incidence of lung cancer.
Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 8456–8464.
5. Perkins, J., Heilbrun, L., Symanski, E., Coker, A., & Eggleston, K.
(2009). A study to evaluate the health effects of air pollution
in Bexar County with a focus on local coal and gas fired power
plants. CPS Energy, www.cpsenergy.com/files/Health_Study_
FullReport.pdf
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
(2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide.
EPA/600/R-09/019F. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center
for Environmental Assessment-RTP Division.
7. Levy, J., Spengler, J.D., Hlinka, D., & Sullivan, D. (2000). Estimated
public health impacts of criteria pollutant air emissions from
the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point power plants. Boston, MA:
Harvard School of Public Health, Dept. of Environmental Health.
8. Levy, J.I., Spengler, J.D., Hlinka, D., Sullivan, D., & Moon, D.
(2002). Using CALPUFF to evaluate the impacts of power
plant emissions in Illinois: Model sensitivity and implications.
Atmospheric Environment, 36, 1063–1075.
9. Levy, J.I., Wilson, A.M., Evans, J.S., & Spengler, J.D. (2003).
Estimation of primary and secondary particulate matter intake
fractions for power plants in Georgia. Environmental Science &
Technology, 37, 5528–5536.
10. Bennett, D.H., McKone, T.E., Evans, J.S., Nazaroff, W.W., Margni,
M.D., Jolliet, O., & Smith, K.R. (2002). Defining intake fraction.
Environmental Science & Technology, 36, 207A–211A.
11. Smith, K.R. (1993). Fuel combustion, air pollution exposure, and
health: The situation in developing countries. Annual Review of
Energy and the Environment, 18, 529–566.
12. Smith, K.R. (2002). Place makes the poison – Wesolowski Award
Lecture – 1999. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Epidemiology, 12, 167–171.
13. Evans, J.S., Wolff, S.K., Phonboon, K., Levy, J.I., & Smith, K.R.
(2002). Exposure efficiency: An idea whose time has come?
Chemosphere, 49, 1075–1091.
14. Grieshop, A.P., Marshall, J.D., & Kandlikar, M. (2011). Health
and climate benefits of cookstove replacement options. Energy
Policy, 39, 7530–7542.
The authors can be reached at clong@gradientcorp.com and
pvalberg@gradientcorp.com
 T E CHNOLOGY FRONTI ERS

Making Coal Flexible:

Getting From Baseload to Peaking Plant
By Jaquelin Cochran We have used a case study of this CGS to evaluate how power
Senior Energy Analyst, plants intended to run at baseload can evolve to serve other
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) system needs. The CGS case illustrates the types of changes
that may occur in global power systems, especially those
Debra Lew with legacy plants. CGS’s experiences challenge conventional
Independent Consultant wisdom about the limitations of coal-fired power plants and
help policymakers better understand how to formulate policy
Nikhil Kumar and make investment decisions in the transformation toward
Director of Energy & Utility Analytics, Intertek power systems in a carbon-constrained world.

P
ower systems in the 21st century—with higher penetration “Strategic modifications, proactive
of low-carbon energy, smart grids, and other emerging
technologies—will favor resources that have low marginal inspections and training programs,
costs and provide system flexibility (see Figure 1). Such flexibil-
ity includes the ability to cycle on and off as well as run at low and various operational changes to
minimum loads to complement variations in output from high
penetration of renewable energy. With a lack of general experi- accommodate cycling can minimize
ence in the industry, questions remain about both the fate of
coal-fired power plants in this scenario and whether they can the extent of damage and minimize
continue to operate cost-effectively if they cycle routinely.
cycling-related maintenance costs.”
To demonstrate that coal-fired power plants can become flexi-
ble resources, we discuss experiences from an actual multi-unit
North American coal generating station (CGS).A,1 This flexibil-
ity—namely, the ability to cycle on and off and run at below 40% A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CGS PLANT
of capacity—requires limited modifications to hardware, but
extensive modifications to operational practice. Cycling does When it came online in the 1970s, the CGS plant was intended
damage the plant and impact its life expectancy compared to to run at an 80% annual capacity factor. However, the addi-
baseload operations. However, strategic modifications, proac- tion of nuclear power soon thereafter displaced coal as the
tive inspections and training programs, and various operational principal source of baseload generation. Consequently, CGS
changes to accommodate cycling can minimize the extent of typically ran at 50% annual capacity factor until the early
damage and minimize cycling-related maintenance costs. 1990s. To understand the effects of “two-shifting” (i.e., cycling
on and off in a day) considerable research was conducted in
Curtailment
100 Wind
the 1980s. As a result, plant operations, the steam generator,
PV and supporting equipment were modified.
Generation (GW)

75 CSP
Storage
Other After a competitive market was introduced in the early 2000s,
50 Gas CT
Gas CC the CGS plant was operated for longer periods at full plant
Hydro
25
Geothermal output—this period was also marked by significant forced out-
Coal ages. For example, in 2004, the equivalent forced outage rate
0 Nuclear
Mar 25 Mar 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar 29 Mar 30 Mar 31 Apr 01 (EFOR)—a measure of a plant’s unreliability—was 32%, which
FIGURE 1. Simulated dispatch of generation over one week represented the accumulated latent damage from the cycling
in a high renewable energy scenario (annual load served by that CGS performed in the 1990s. Typical EFOR for a baseload
25% wind, 8% solar photovoltaic). coal-fired power plant is 6.4%.2
Notes: PV = solar photovoltaic; CSP = concentrated solar power; CT = combustion
turbine; CC = combined cycle The competitive market created the incentive for CGS units to
Source: Lew et al., 2013 continue to operate flexibly—for example, that they be able to

41
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S

thermal stresses within single components and between dif-

ferent components when materials heat at different rates.

Other typical effects of cycling and operating at low loads

include:

• Stresses on components and turbine shells resulting from

changing pressures
• Wear and tear on auxiliary equipment used only during
cycling
• Corrosion caused by oxygen entering the system during
start-up and by changes in water quality and chemistry
• Condensation from cooling steam during ramping down
and shutting down, which can cause corrosion of parts,
water leakage, and an increased need for drainage

FIGURE 2. Example of large nick in turbine fin (#96) due to impact
with dislodged material formed by oxidation (Debra Lew)
two-shift and operate at an output below intended minimum
load. Although the two- and sometimes four-shifting created
wear and tear and reduced the plant’s cost competiveness,
the CGS owners operated the plant in this fashion to compete
in the wholesale power market.
These effects (summarized in Table 1) can cause equipment
components, particularly in the boiler, to fatigue and fail. In turn,
equipment failure leads to increased outages, increased opera-
tions and maintenance (O&M) costs, additional wear and tear
from the increased O&M, and more extensive and sophisticated
training, inspection, and evaluation programs.3 The damage
from cycling is not immediate—for example, components may
fail and EFOR may rise a few years after significant cycling.

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF CYCLING AT CGS MODIFYING THE PHYSICAL PLANT

The CGS coal units were intended to primarily run at full output
and start cold only a few times a year. However, each CGS coal-
fired unit has experienced an average of 1760 starts, including
523 cold starts throughout its lifetime. The overarching effect
of this type of cycling is thermal fatigue. For example, large
temperature swings from cold feedwater entering the boiler
on start-up and from steam as it is heating create fluctuating
AND OPERATING PROCEDURES
Physical Modifications
The CGS plant owner made numerous physical modifications
to equipment to prevent and address impacts from cycling and
low-load operations. These changes have focused on actions
that improve drainage and thermal resiliency and reduce

TABLE 1. Specific experiences from cycling at CGS

Problem Impact/Cause

Failure of boiler tubes Caused by cyclic fatigue, corrosion fatigue, and pitting
Cracking in dissimilar metal
Due to rapid changes in steam temperature
welds, headers, and valves
Due to movement between the rotor and casing during “barring”
Cracking of generator rotors
(slow turns to keep rotors from being left in one position too long during turning-gear operation)
Oxidation from exposure to Oxides in boiler tubes can dislodge due to thermal changes and
air on start-up and draining lead to damage downstream, such as the turbine blades (see Figure 2)
From oxides, but also from wet steam that occurs on start-up, during
Corrosion of turbine parts
low-load operations, and during poor plant storage conditions when the plant is dried

Condenser problems Can occur when thin tubes crack from thermal stresses at start-up and shutdown

42
opportunities for corrosion, as described in Table 2. There were
no major capital retrofits to allow additional cycling flexibility.
Decisions on whether and when to replace parts or modify com-
ponents were made on a case-by-case basis. In other words,
the plant owner based such decisions on whether wholesale
power market opportunities in the coming year justified the
cost of modifications to reduce the forced outage rate.
Operating Procedures
The owner of CGS estimates that once the physical changes
were in place, 90% of future cost savings came from modifying
operating procedures. For example, establishing procedures
and training on boiler ramp rates was especially effective.
Controlled ramp rates help minimize thermal fatigue; continual
reinforcement of the importance of controlled ramping through
training helps ensure that ramp rate procedures are followed.
Another example of effective modifications to operating pro-
cedures is high-energy (i.e., high temperature or pressure
steam) piping inspections, the value of which is not always
appreciated at other coal-fired power plants. The inspection
program at CGS covers all the failure mechanisms that can
occur (e.g., thermal and corrosion fatigue), and establishes a
repair process and a repair program for each failure mecha-
nism. The owner employs many similar inspection programs,
for example, for the hanger rods that hold the high-energy
piping. These examples illustrate that effective operating pro-
cedures require an understanding of all components impacted
by cycling—not just the major ones. Table 3 describes some of
the modifications that were made to CGS’s operating proce-
dures to support cycling.
Changes to plant operating procedures were critical to
enabling CGS to cycle on and off cost-effectively. Controlling
the rise in temperatures during plant start-up and temperature
drops on shutdowns as well as having rigorous inspection pro-
grams for major and minor components limited the damage
from cycling. Training programs to reinforce the skills needed
to monitor the impacts of cycling were also central to the CGS
owner’s strategy.
A LOOK AT COSTS AND EMISSIONS
The costs associated with cycling, and modifications made
in response, are difficult to distinguish from normal opera-
tion efforts. Modifications were made over the course of
decades, in response to both cycling and noncycling wear
and tear, to achieve EFOR rates that varied highly by unit and
year. Extrapolating cost implications to other coal-fired power
plants generally from the experiences at CGS is difficult due to
variations in age, design, and history of operations. Moreover,
decisions on the scope and timing of modifications depend
on business case justifications, which are highly market- and
context-driven and could vary from year to year.
Studies of coal-fired power plants, such as Kumar et al.,5 evalu-
ate cycling costs by calculating operating, maintenance, and
repair costs associated with cycling. The plants in this study
represent typical operations where coal-fired power plants
are operated and maintained according to baseload require-
ments. However, the CGS plant owner recognized early on that
CGS would be cycling significantly and, therefore, modified
operating practices and equipment to minimize the impacts of
cycling. Thus, because of the owner’s proactive changes, the
costs to mitigate cycling based on EFOR rates at CGS are likely
less than those for other plants with similar cycling and EFOR
rates whose owners are not as proactive.
Cycling also incurs costs associated with increased emissions
rate. The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, which con-
trols some emissions, must be operated at a minimum load.
However, if a power plant needs to operate below this level,
the owners may have authority to run the plant without the
SCR system, as is the case with CGS. Other emissions impacts
occur due to increased fuel use at start-ups, reduced plant
efficiency at less than full load, and reduced effectiveness

TABLE 2. Examples of physical modifications to support cycling

Added a metal overlay to water walls to minimize oxidation, cut back membranes in various areas to reduce
Boiler
start-up stresses, and replaced dissimilar metal welds.
Added drains, upgraded the lubrication system, modified vacuum pumps and low-pressure crossover bellows,
Turbines
and inspected the non-return valves, which can be damaged during shutdowns.
Generator Insulated and epoxied key parts to reduce rotor cracking from rubbing and established continual tests and
Rotors checks to monitor trends.
Plugged tubes at the top of the condenser that had been damaged as a result of low-load operation and
Condenser water impingement, reducing overall efficiency; also installed stainless-steel air removals and retubed the
existing brass on several units.

43
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S

TABLE 3. Example modifications to operating procedures to support cycling

Accelerated forced cooling for the boiler enabled the owner to quickly shut down the unit to repair
a boiler tube and be back online in two days. However, after a year of implementing accelerated
Natural cooling
forced cooling, the units recorded a noticeable increase in corrosion and cyclic fatigue failures. The
shutdown procedures are now to keep the boiler shut for the first four hours (natural cooling).

Economizer inlet headers can crack from intermittent additions of cold feedwater to the hot inlet
Monitoring economizer
header. The plant owner keeps the temperature difference between the header and water at less
inlet headers
than 30°C, below the boiler manufacturer recommendations.4
Pressure part The owner established a pressure-part management program, reviewing every pressure
management component and establishing causes for degradation and failure.
These included a program to monitor boiler metal temperature; a tube replacement and
Other changes to boiler inspection strategy; a thermal and cyclic fatigue inspection and repair program; a fly-ash erosion
operating procedures program to reduce tube failures; and inspection programs for expansion joints, dissimilar metal
welds, and flow-accelerated corrosion.
The owner established training and monitoring procedures, with associated monitoring
Temperature monitoring
equipment, to limit ramp rates and to monitor temperature changes to thick-walled fittings,
for turbine parts
headers, and the casing to the main steam line.
To reduce corrosion, proper water chemistry must be maintained to protect surfaces that oxidize.
Water chemistry
Water chemistry varies with cycling, so the owner maintains a chemistry staff onsite
maintenance
and established a Chemistry Managed System (following ISO standards).
Overall monitoring The owner compared reports on best practices associated with cycling with CGS’s equipment
programs status and mitigating actions and created an overall plant monitoring program.

of pollution-control equipment when flue gas temperatures
at start-up are too low to support the chemical reactions
needed.6 Although emissions rates during cycling can be
higher than during noncyclic operation, Lew et al.6 showed
that the avoided emissions from the added wind and solar far
outweigh the impacts of cycling-induced emissions.
boiler to reduce thermal shocking of tubes in the boiler. In con-
trast, almost all other boilers in North America are a “pendant
design”, which results in water accumulating at the bottom of
the U-shape and leading to slow drainage. This design cannot
be modified, although a $10–15-million bypass system could be
added to improve temperature control and reduce tube failure.

CAN THE CGS EXPERIENCE BE REPLICATED?
The CGS plant achieved the flexibility to cycle over several
decades; this experience has provided valuable information
on impacts, recommended modifications to operations and
equipment, and relative costs. However, some of the aspects
of CGS that improve the plant’s flexibility might not easily
translate to other contexts.
Physical Distinctions
Some of CGS’s original plant designs are conducive to cycling—
the owner did not need to conduct major-capital retrofits. For
example, CGS’s boiler tubes are horizontal, which facilitates
cycling by improving drainage; this reduces corrosion fatigue and
the time needed to come back online (see Figure 3). Effective
operating practice requires drainage of any residual water in the
Automation of CGS’s drainage system, absent in most coal-
fired power plants, was also critical to reducing failures. Earlier
in plants’ projected lifetimes, such major retrofits could be
economically feasible.
Operating Distinctions
CGS experiences much higher EFOR rates than typically
accommodated in markets where coal-fired power plants run
at baseload. The plant owner can manage these high EFOR
rates because of the role CGS’s coal-fired units play in its sys-
tem operations. The owner found that EFOR rates could be
reduced by being highly proactive with inspections and strate-
gic operational modifications.
However, a trade-off between maintenance costs and EFOR
rates exists. Grid operators may need to change how they

44
operate their systems, and coal-fired power plant operators
may require a cultural shift to adapt to higher EFORs. This is
particularly true because justifying maintenance costs over
EFOR rates could become increasingly difficult if the cost per
unit of energy generated increases at low load.
Regulatory Distinctions
Operating at low generation levels could be challenging if
plants are required to run environmental controls at all output
levels. Operating an SCR system requires a minimum gener-
ating level that is frequently higher than the low generating
levels at which the CGS plant owner is permitted to operate.
FROM BASELOAD TO PEAKING PLANT
At CGS, the plant owner has achieved what few coal-fired
power plant operators have been able to do: modify a plant
that was intended to run only at baseload into one that can
meet peak demands—cycling on and off up to four times a
day to meet morning and afternoon electricity demand. Key to
the owner’s success is changing operational practices: moni-
toring and managing temperature ramp rates; creating a suite
of inspection programs for all impacted equipment (large and
small); and continual training to reinforce the skills needed in
monitoring and inspections.
The owner’s success in cycling has also benefited from factors
specific to CGS. The original plant design, although intended for
baseload operation, included features that facilitate cycling.
Although the cycling features were an advantage for the unit’s
operating regime, additional modifications and procedural
changes were required to improve equipment reliability.
Also, the decades-long practice in cycling has increased the
owner’s tolerance for rates of forced outages that are higher
than those that are typical for plants required for baseload.
The ability of other coal-fired power plant operators to repli-
cate CGS’s flexibility will be instrumental in valuing coal in an
increasingly low-carbon energy system. Although the CGS unit
has certain inherent design features that assist in its operating
mode, retrofits and operational modifications to other coal-
fired power plants can allow for increased flexible generation
across many power systems. Coal-fired power plants can
cycle, and if designed and operated appropriately, can provide
flexibility, sometimes more significantly than even CGS. There
is a cost to cycle and also increased risk of unavailability, but
this is true for other types of generation as well.
45
www.cornerstonemag.net
Gas Flow
Gas Flow
Pendant Design Horizontal Design
FIGURE 3. CGS has a horizontal, not pendant, boiler design,
which facilitates drainage needed to reduce corrosion fatigue
and allow the plant to come online faster. The pendant
design more easily allows water accumulation. (Graphic:
Steve Lefton, Intertek)
NOTES
A. For commercial reasons the CGS is not further identified.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This publication was produced under direction of the 21st
Century Power Partnership by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) under Interagency Agreement DE-AC36-
08GO28308 and Task Nos. WFH1.2010 and 2940.5017.
REFERENCES
1. Cochran, A., Lew, D., & Kumar, N. (2013). Flexible coal: Evolution
from baseload to peaking plant, NREL Report No. BR-6A20-60575.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.
gov/docs/fy14osti/60575.pdf
2. Vuorinen, A. (2007). Planning of power system reserves, www.
optimalpowersystems.com/stuff/planning_of_power_system_
reserves.pdf
3. Electric Power Research Institute. (2001). Damage to power
plants due to cycling. Product ID 1001507. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.
www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?Product
Id=000000000001001507
4. Babcock & Wilcox. (1994). Economizer inlet header cracking.
www.babcock.com/library/pdf/PSB-22.pdf
5. Kumar, N., Besuner, P., Lefton, S., Agan, D., & Hilleman, D.
(2012). Power plant cycling costs. NREL/SR-5500-55433. Work
performed by Intertek-APTECH, Sunnyvale, California. Golden,
CO: NREL. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf
6. Lew, D., et al. (2013). The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study
Phase 2. NREL/TP-5500-55588. Golden, CO: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55588.pdf
The authors can be reached at Jaquelin.Cochran@nrel.gov,
debralew@gmail.com, and Nikhil.Kumar@intertek.com
 T ECH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S
Geothermal Assisted Power
Generation for Thermal Power Plants
By Nigel Bean
Chair of Applied Mathematics,
School of Mathematics, University of Adelaide
Josephine Varney
Ph.D. Candidate, University of Adelaide
T
he recent push to reduce carbon emissions from the
electricity sector encompasses common, immediately
available approaches such as increasing power plant
efficiency and increasing the deployment of renewables. The
opportunity now exists to accomplish these goals simultane-
ously through the use of geothermal energy to increase the
power output, and decrease the carbon intensity, of thermal
power plants. This technology is referred to here as geothermal
assisted power generation (GAPG). Basically, GAPG employs
hot geothermal fluid to heat the boiler feedwater at a thermal
power plant. The steam that would otherwise be taken from
the turbines to heat the feedwater is allowed to run through
the turbines, thereby generating extra power and increasing
plant efficiency. Here we use efficiency to mean “fossil fuel
efficiency”, as more power is generated per unit heat (MMBtu)
of fossil fuel, because of the addition of the geothermal heat.
Not only would this technology increase the efficiency of exist-
ing thermal power plants, most of which are coal fired, it would
also assist the development of the immature technology of
Steam rises as a result of the excess heat of a standalone
geothermal plant. GAPG would use geothermal heat more
efficiently.
46
utilizing unconventional geothermal resources. As coal-fired
power plants rarely exist near conventional (hydrothermal,
volcanogenic) geothermal resources, some have drawn the
incorrect conclusion that GAPG is of little value or can only
be applied in rare cases. However, the development of uncon-
ventional (nonhydrothermal, nonvolcanogenic) geothermal
resources offers the potential for geothermal energy to be
exploited over a much larger geographic range. Therefore, we
believe that GAPG should be strongly considered as a means
for integrating conventional energy with renewable energy in
the most efficient manner possible.
“Up to three times as much power
can be generated per kilogram of
geothermal fluid as can be achieved
in a stand-alone geothermal plant.”
UNCONVENTIONAL GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
Geothermal energy has been defined as “utilizable heat from
the earth”.1 Given that the earth’s temperature increases with
depth below the surface, geothermal energy exists everywhere.
Further, since it is possible to use geothermal energy to gener-
ate power, it has the potential to be a renewable, carbon-free
source of baseload electricity. However, while geothermal
energy exists everywhere, the cost of extracting this energy
does not make it commercially viable everywhere. To be com-
mercially viable a geothermal resource must have sufficient
temperature and flowrate that can be accessed relatively simply.
Conventional geothermal resources—characterized by depths
of <3000 m, high temperature, and highly permeable rock
formations—are generally commercially viable, depending
on the regional energy market (see Figure 1). Such resources
are usually found in volcanic regions, but the last 40 years
have seen growing activity in research and development of
the unconventional geothermal resources that exist outside
the volcanic regions. To date, only one of these resources,
at Landau in Germany, has been shown to be commercially
viable. However, given the significant promise of the uncon-
ventional geothermal resource, work to develop it continues.
 VOLCANIC SEDIMENTARY ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS

POWER POWER POWER

INSULATING INSULATING INSULATING

SEDIMENTS SEDIMENTS SEDIMENTS

Underground Water Reservoir Underground Water Reservoir

SANDSTONES OR CARBONATES FRACTURES ENHANCED BY STIMULATION

HOT VOLCANICS HEAT FROM CENTER HEAT FROM CENTER

OF EARTH OF EARTH

HYDROTHERMAL
HOT ROCKS
VOLCANIC
FIGURE 1. Schematic of geothermal resources

The first step is to find geothermal resources with sufficient
temperature and at a depth that can be drilled economically.
Unconventional geothermal resources with the potential to be
used for electricity generation are divided into two types: deep
natural reservoirs (DNRs) and enhanced geothermal systems
(EGSs).1 DNRs are systems that make use of deep, naturally
occurring aquifers with high permeability. EGS resources have
little natural permeability, hence these resources must have
their permeability increased via stimulation or fracturing.
The most significant unknown in unconventional geothermal
systems is the flowrate per well (or well pair). Unconventional
geothermal resources are chosen for their heat and their
potential permeability. The degree of permeability of a
resource is directly linked to its flowrate. However, when
there is insufficient natural flowrate, a reservoir’s permeability
can be increased by fracturing. Stimulation technology in a
geothermal context is immature, producing “good results some
of the time”.1 However, stimulation technology has provided
huge productivity improvements in oil and gas wells, so there
is hope that similar results will be possible in unconventional
geothermal wells. Still, there must be sufficient unconventional
geothermal developments to allow stimulation trials/demon-
strations to support the development of this technology.
In the near term, the development of unconventional geo-
thermal resources holds significant financial risks, which are
largely based on specific geological formations and the need
for stimulation. Such risks must be mitigated in some way;
from this perspective, GAPG is a major opportunity. Figure 1
shows a simplified means of extracting geothermal energy.
Note that actual geothermal developments have many wells,
as each producing well can only produce a limited amount of
flow. This means that the flow from any geothermal resource
increases in a stepwise manner, with each new producing well
drilled.
UNDERSTANDING GAPG THROUGH MODELING
GAPG is based on the concept of using high-temperature
geothermal fluid to heat the boiler feedwater of a thermal
power plant. It was first suggested by Khalifa et al. in 19782 as
a replacement for low-pressure feedwater heaters (FWHs). In
2002, Bruhn built on Khalifa’s design,3 making it significantly

47
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S
more flexible by allowing GAPG to partially replace any of the
low-pressure FWHs. After considering the low-temperature
geothermal resources most often available near thermal
power plants, in 2010, Buchta focused on very low-temper-
ature geothermal fluids (30–100°C) and considered applying
GAPG to only the first low-pressure FWH.4
Of course, geothermal energy is not the only renewable energy
source that can be applied to increasing the efficiency of thermal
power plants. Hu et al. investigated both geothermal and solar
thermal sources for efficiency gains5 and found that the higher
temperatures achievable from solar power makes it possible to
consider applying heat to the intermediate- and high-pressure
FWHs. Then, more recently, Varney and Bean determined the
net-power gain for all feasible geothermal flowrates and, fur-
ther, discussed the flowrate and power limits of GAPG.6
Focused research over many years has generally found that
GAPG can be retrofitted to any large thermal power station,
although the economics are site-specific. It can be used to
fully or partially replace the low-, intermediate-, or high-pres-
sure FWHs; however, it is most likely to be used to replace only
the low-pressure FWHs. Depending on the needs of the indi-
vidual plant, GAPG can increase the power generated (power
boosting mode) or it can be run to reduce the amount of fos-
sil fuel consumed (fuel saving mode). The simplest and most
flexible implementation was described by Bruhn and is shown
in Figure 2.3 In Bruhn’s implementation of GAPG, feedwater
is withdrawn upstream of the first low-pressure FWH and is
then heated by the geothermal fluid in the geothermal feed-
water heater (GFWH). The geothermally heated feedwater is
then returned to the feedwater stream via flows ṁG1, ṁG2, ṁG3,
GTh_C
Steam take-offs from
low pressure turbine
GFWH
GTh_H
ṁG1 ṁG2
ṅT
ṁG
G1 ṁ1 G2 ṁ2
b1
ṁT- ṁ7- ṁ6- ṁ5 FWH1 FWH2
F1 F2
ṁ1+ ṁ2 + ṁ3 + ṁ4 ṁ2+ ṁ3 + ṁ4
FIGURE 2. Schematic of GAPG
48
and/or ṁG4 (depending on the temperature and flowrate of
the geothermal fluid).
Given that geothermal fluids are not clean enough to mix with
feedwater, GAPG can only be used to replace closed feed-
water heaters (i.e., not the deaerator). In order to cool the
extra steam coming through the turbine(s), additional con-
denser capacity is required, which could be managed by the
installation of a new, small condenser.
RESULTS
In our modeling, we retrofitted GAPG to a 500-MW natural-
gas-fired, supercritical steam power station, specifically, the
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Riverside Station Unit 1.
Although we modeled a gas-fired plant, the analysis could
have been applied to a coal-fired power plant and would yield
the same results.
One major advantage of GAPG is it’s flexibility: Power can be
generated from low geothermal fluid flowrates that otherwise
might be of little value in a stand-alone geothermal facility.
As these flowrates increase, power generation increases. For
example, see Figure 3 which shows the incremental electricity
generated as the flowrate of the geothermal fluid is increased.
Note that three different temperatures were evaluated (i.e.,
150, 175, and 200°C).
Using geothermal heat to boost the efficiency of a thermal
power plant increases thermal efficiency above stand-alone geo-
thermal plants by 1.7 to 2.9 times, depending on the geothermal
Units: FWH - Feedwater heaters,
GFHW - Geothermal feedwater heater
States: F’s, G’s, b’s Flows: ṁ’s, ṅ’s
Steam: Condensate:
Geothermal Fluid:
ṁG3 ṁG4
G3 ṁ3 G4 ṁ4
b1_4
FWH3 FWH4 ṁT- ṁ7- ṁ6- ṁ5
F3 F4
ṁ3 + ṁ4 ṁ4
 fluid temperature.6 However, there is a limit to the amount of 7

Maximum Extra Net Power/

30

Original Net Power (%)

geothermal energy that can be utilized through GAPG at any 6
25

Net Power (MW)

given thermal power plant—once the appropriate FWHs are

Maiximum Extra
totally replaced by geothermal feedwater heaters, no further 5
20
additional power can be produced. To achieve this maximum 4
power limit, a geothermal resource temperature greater than 15
the outlet of the hottest appropriate FWH (in our modeling the 3
hottest low-pressure FWH was ~160°C) is needed (see Figure 10 2
4a). As the geothermal resource temperature increases above
~160°C, the flowrate required to reach this maximum power limit 5 1
50 100 150 200 250
decreases (see Figure 4b). At temperatures less than ~160°C, the
Geothermal Fluid Temperature (°C)
maximum power limit cannot be achieved, irrespective of the
flowrate (see Figure 4a). Our modeling showed that power could 290
be increased by a maximum of ~6.5% in the modeled 500-MW

Maximum Geothermal
270
supercritical plant. To achieve maximum power, a geothermal

Flowrate (kg/s)
fluid flowrate of 190–290 kg/s was needed, with lower flow- 250
rates for the higher geothermal fluid temperatures and higher 230
flowrates for the lower geothermal fluid temperatures. Despite
210
this maximum power limit, considering the reduced risk to the
geothermal developer and the power producer, it is still likely to 190
be worthwhile to take advantage of GAPG. 170
150
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATIONS 50 100 150 200 250

Geothermal Fluid Temperature (°C)

Coal-Fired Power Generators
GAPG allows coal-fired power plants to generate more power
and reduce their carbon intensity through increased efficiency.
Once a geothermal developer brings hot geothermal fluid to
the surface, GAPG yields very little risk for the power plant
owner. The revenue that can be generated by extra power
production will be recognized by the plant operators, as will
the capital costs of installing the necessary geothermal feed-
water heat exchangers, additional condenser capacity, and
extra piping. Hence, power plant operators can decide what
they are willing to pay for the hot geothermal fluid in order to
make sufficient profits—a site-specific consideration. Finally, if
the geothermal fluid stops flowing, for any reason, the power
plant can revert to its original operating conditions.
30
Extra Net Power (MW)
FIGURE 4. (a) Maximum power output from GAPG; (b)
maximum flowrate
Geothermal Developers
Unquestionably, greater deployment of GAPG has major impli-
cations for geothermal developers. GAPG allows them to focus
on what they do best, getting hot geothermal fluid from the
ground to the surface, and does not require the expertise or
capital to produce and sell electricity. Further, the power plant is
able to generate up to three times as much power per kilogram
of geothermal fluid as a stand-alone geothermal power plant.6
Importantly, GAPG allows the developer to sell whatever hot
fluid they are able to get to the surface. This means that they can
take small steps—generate some revenue while learning more
about the local geothermal resource and enhancing their capa-
bility. Later, the flowrate could be increased to further increase

25 the amount of heat provided to the thermal power plant.

20
15 COSTS
10 150°C
175°C Looking at the equipment required for a GAPG development,
5 200°C drilling costs clearly are the largest and most significant por-
0 tion of the overall capital cost. Of course, drilling costs vary
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
significantly with geology and local drilling market conditions.
Geothermal Fluid Flowrate (kg/s) For example, it is estimated that, on average, a 1.5-km deep
FIGURE 3. Geothermal fluid flowrate versus power generation well in the U.S. will cost $2.9 million and a 5-km well will cost

49
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S
$10.5 million. However, in Australia, which has a small num-
ber of local drilling rigs and had to mobilize some rigs from
the U.S., the expected cost for similar wells is $6.6 million and
$15.3 million (all estimates are given in U.S. 2014 dollars).1
Further, it is difficult to estimate how many wells are required,
because flowrate per well is the other significant unknown
in unconventional geothermal developments. The highest
flowrate from an unconventional geothermal well has been
observed at a site in Landau, Germany, which has a flowrate
of 70 kg/s. However, the next highest flowrate per well was
recorded at Habanero 1 in Australia, which achieved a maxi-
mum flowrate of 40 kg/s. For these reasons, an average cost
for a GAPG development cannot accurately be provided.
Additionally, as mentioned earlier, stimulation technology,
which can potentially increase flowrate, is currently far from
certain. Therefore, predicting the total costs to produce a
given flowrate at a particular site is currently highly uncertain.
However, with knowledge gained through further deployment
of GAPG (or other forms of exploration in unconventional geo-
thermal resources) this uncertainty can be reduced.
Although accurate costings cannot be provided, it is fair to say
that, in general, unconventional geothermal developments
(without the integration offered by GAPG) are not commer-
cially viable yet. Based on drilling costs from the U.S., it is
estimated that flowrates in the vicinity of 80–100 kg/s per
well are required for commercial viability.1 However, it is clear
that GAPG provides up to three times more power than stand-
alone unconventional geothermal developments. As much as
geothermal energy development is driven by local markets,
including renewable portfolio standards, it is important that
GAPG be recognized as a renewable energy even though it is
integrated with existing thermal power plants.
Although the economics of GAPG will be uncertain until the
technology is deployed, it is certain that GAPG is more eco-
nomical than stand-alone geothermal plants. In addition,
as greater experience and improved technology make lower
drilling costs and higher flowrates possible, unconventional
geothermal developments used for GAPG will become an ideal
first step toward making unconventional geothermal energy
commercially viable on a broad scale—to the future benefit of
both geothermal energy developers and the energy consumers
who currently rely on electricity from thermal power plants.
LOOKING FORWARD
Unconventional geothermal energy is a relatively immature
technology, with high capital costs and large risks, but also
50
with enormous potential. Geothermal energy is one of the
few renewable energies capable of providing baseload power;
further, the size of the unconventional resource is potentially
“truly vast”.1 For unconventional geothermal energy to prog-
ress it must take small steps and GAPG offers one such step.
Additional opportunities may exist for the application of geo-
thermal energy at conventional power plants in the future. For
instance, low-temperature geothermal fluids are characterized
by temperatures in the range of the regeneration tempera-
tures of post-combustion amine-based CO2 capture systems.
When commercial CCS comes online, GAPG could provide the
thermal load needed for CCS, thus allowing the power plant
efficiency loss from CCS to be dramatically reduced.
GAPG allows unconventional geothermal developers to con-
centrate on the geothermal resource, not power conversion.
Accordingly, power conversion can be carried out by expert
thermal power plant operators, and up to three times as much
power can be generated per kilogram of geothermal fluid as
can be achieved in a stand-alone geothermal plant. GAPG
offers power plant operators a way to increase power produc-
tion and decrease their carbon footprint at essentially no risk.
GAPG is potentially a win-win option for both the geothermal
developer and the power plant operator.
REFERENCES
1. Australian Renewable Energy Agency. (2014). Looking forward:
Barriers, risks and rewards of the Australian Geothermal Sector
to 2020 and 2030. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
2. Khalifa. H.E., DiPippo, R., & Kestin, J. (1978). Geothermal
preheating in fossil-fired steam power plants. Proceedings of
the 13th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,
San Diego, California.
3. Bruhn, M. (2002). Hybrid geothermal–fossil electricity generation
from low enthalpy geothermal resources: geothermal feedwater
preheating in conventional power plants. Energy, 27, 329–346.
4. Buchta J., & Wawszczak, A. (2010). Economical and ecological
aspects of renewable energy generation in coal fired power
plant supported with geothermal heat. Paper presented at the
Fourth IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference, 25–27
August, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
5. Hu, E., Nathan, G.J., Battye, D., Perignon, G., & Nishimura, A.
(2010). An efficient method to generate power from low to
medium temperature solar and geothermal resources. Paper
presented at Chemeca 2010: Engineering at the Edge, 26–29
September, Adelaide, South Australia.
6. Varney, J., & Bean, N. (2013). Using geothermal energy to preheat
feedwater in a traditional steam power plant. Proceedings of the
38th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California.
The authors can be reached at Nigel.Bean@adelaide.edu.au
and Josephine.Varney@adelaide.edu.au
Shenhua’s Development
of Digital Mines
By Han Jianguo
Deputy General Manager, Shenhua Group Co., Ltd
President, China Shenhua Energy Co., Ltd
D
igital mines are based on the innovative application of
well-established, advanced information technologies
to the areas of geological resource exploration, mine
design and construction, safe and efficient production,
operations, and decision-making. Digital mining allows for
all aspects of mining to be evaluated simultaneously using
digitized displays. The digital mine system can respond to, pro-
cess, and utilize data to enable integration of different mining
processes so as to achieve unified, centralized management
of mining operations. Digital mining incorporates modern
mining operations characterized by increased safety, reduced
environmental impact, intelligence, and high efficiency.1 In
China, Shenhua Group (Shenhua) has led the development
and deployment of digital mines. The demonstration of
China’s first digital mine successfully came online in the Jinjie
Coal Mine of Shenhua’s Shendong Coal Group, Co., Ltd on 27
December 2013, representing a major milestone for Shenhua
and China.
THE IMPETUS FOR DIGITAL MINES IN CHINA
China’s government made it clear that the coal industry
should increase efforts during the 12th Five-Year Plan period
(2011–2015) to develop and deploy an innovative coal system,
founded on science and technology, that addresses the needs
of coal-producing enterprises, is market oriented, and is based
on collaboration between industry, universities, and other
research institutions. This transformation in mining is further
The ability to monitor operations from a central location is a
key component of the digital mine at Jinjie.
51
www.cornerstonemag.net
supported by recent policies on safer coal production, energy
conservation, and emissions reduction.
As the primary source of China’s energy and a raw material
for many industries, coal is pivotal to the nation’s economic
development. However, coal mining is a complicated opera-
tion, often carried out deep underground with many potential
risks. These risks can be difficult to detect and even more so
to predict. Among other reasons, advanced mining systems,
such as those incorporated into digital mines, are important
because they can significantly reduce accidents.2
“Digital mining incorporates modern
mining operations characterized
by increased safety, reduced
environmental impact, intelligence,
and high efficiency.”
Recently, mining technologies in China have been improved in
significant ways: from the use of fully mechanized mining to the
application of large, automated equipment, information tech-
nologies, and artificial intelligence. Taking advantage of these
modern technologies has propelled the development of China’s
coal industry—and digital mines are a necessary next step.3
Today, China’s coal industry is facing the reality of a market
characterized by slowing demand growth, decreased profits
for many coal enterprises, and related problems such as
overstaffing, low efficiency, poor safety records, and poor man-
agement. These issues are restricting the healthy and steady
development of coal enterprises. Thus, digital mines and the
associated technologies are needed now more than ever.
ARCHITECTURE AND THE MAJOR
COMPONENTS OF A DIGITAL MINE
Shenhua’s digital mine was developed taking into consideration
the actual needs of coal producers (both underground and
open-pit) in China. Three key challenges had to be addressed:
mining information acquisition, transmission, and processing.
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S

Digital Mine Architecture

Shenhua’s digital mine consists of a five-level structure of L5

information standards (i.e., equipment, controls, production Decision
support level
execution, operation management, and decision support),
• Operaons
which fully incorporate information-based corporate decision- performance management
• Enterprise support
making as well as information-based production management on decision-making
and automated production processes. The complete architec- L4 Operaon management level
ture of the digital mine is shown in Figure 1. • Enterprise resource planning (ERP)
• Strategic resource management (SRM)
• Strategic resource management system
The architecture of Shenhua digital mines includes the com- • Coal producon and producon control
• Synergized dispatching system of producon,
ponents listed in Table 1. transportaon, and sale
L3 Producon execuon level
• Centralized intelligent and integrated producon management system
Centralized Platform Design L2 Controls level
• Centralized producon monitoring and control system
L1 Equipment level
Two platforms have been developed for Shenhua’s digital
mines—the centralized production-monitoring platform and
the production execution platform. Within these platforms are
68 subsystems. Data can be freely transferred among these
platforms and subsystems.
The centralized production-monitoring platform is primarily
used to integrate data and to control the onsite surveillance
system and monitoring system; the production execution plat-
form mainly provides support to the subsystems of production
• Smart controllers • Smart instruments • Base staons • Smart cameras
FIGURE 1. The integrated application architecture of digital
mines
and management for data exchanges between production
management and control.
The interacting network for underground coal mines is
shown in Figure 2. As shown in the figure, information can
be exchanged and shared through a network. An interface

TABLE 1. Major components in Shenhua’s digital mine

Digital Mine Area Components Included

Infrastructure Data center, network, admin communication system, dispatching display, and a video-conference system
Monitoring system: Fully mechanized coal mining face, heading face, hoisting system, main transport,
subsidiary transport, power distribution, water supply and sewage, ventilation, coal washery, truck
Centralized loading, gas extraction, nitrogen injection, grouting, fire control sprinkling, refrigeration and cooling, air
Production compression, boilers, and outsourcing coal monitoring
Monitoring Surveillance system: Safety surveillance and monitoring, personnel and vehicle tracking and positioning,
System industrial television, communication dispatch, early warning of gas and coal outburst, beam tubes,
dust, hydrogeology, roof pressure, microseism of ground pressure, wastewater treatment, waste rock
discharge in production, gas inspector patrolling, and an unattended intelligent lamp room system
Production execution platform, with a 3D exhibition subsystem, production management subsystem,
Production dispatch management subsystem, electromechanical management subsystem, “one ventilation and
Execution three prevention” management, safety management subsystem, coal quality management subsystem,
System design management subsystem, energy conservation and environmental protection management
subsystem, central data analysis subsystem, etc.
Management of planning and overall budget, enterprise resource planning (ERP), supplier relation,
Operation
customer relation, strategic resource (SRM), costing, system, intrinsic safety, office automation, auditing,
Management
science and technology, energy conservation and emission reduction, archives, references, statistics,
System
administration and logistics, coal production supervision, etc.
Decision
Operation performance management and enterprise decision support
Support System

52
 Operaon

management

management

management

management
management

performance
supervision
automaon

producon
management

Equipment
Operaon and

Enterprise
Operaon
resources
and decision

decision
decision-making ERP system … …

support
Human

Project

Safety
system

Office

Coal

and
Enterprise service bus (ESB)

Electromechanical

conservaon and
One venlaon

environmental

3D exhibion
management

management

management

management
management

management

Central data
Business

Coal quality
Producon

prevenon

protecon
and three
subsystem

Dispatch

analysis
Producon

Energy
Design
Producon

Safety
execuon execuon system

*Plaorm and applicaon adapter, data adapter

Producon execuon plaorm

*Data adapter
Centralized producon

Centralized producon monitoring plaorm

monitoring system

Hardware interfaces: Upper computer, *Subsystem interfaces Soware interfaces: OPC, drives, DDE/NETDDE,
Controls PLC, subnetwork, extensions independent development

communicaon
Hydrogeology
Truck loading
Heading face
mechanized

surveillance

Dispatching
coal mining

monitoring
Detecon system
Monitoring system
Hoisng

… …

Safety
Fully

face

Hardware interfaces: Hardwired or fieldbus and

*Interfaces Soware interfaces: Drives
(CAN, FF, Profibus, Modbus, etc.)

Equipment Sensors Instruments Base staon Cameras Etc.

FIGURE 2. The interacting network for digital mines: underground coal mines

meeting international standards is provided at the network the coal mine and operation management through a single
and serial port levels, so that all subsystems can be connected display was achieved.
and various software and hardware can be integrated, making
the systems connected and interconnected. Aided by this coal mine monitoring software platform, the
demonstration digital mine operators were able to transition
from a conventional top-down management model to more
Architecture of the IT Infrastructure
efficient, data-based control of mining, excavating, machining,
The architecture of the IT infrastructure of Shenhua’s digi- transporting, and circulating. The use of this software platform
changed the dispatch room into a 24-hour command post,
tal mines can be divided into three layers, from the lowest
accomplishing full data sharing, intelligent linkage, and auto-
upward: network, mine machine room, and the application
matic control for mining, excavating, mechanical operating,
terminals (see Figure 3).
transportation, and circulating systems by enabling control
room operators to have full access to data throughout the
MAJOR INNOVATIONS FROM SHENHUA’S mine as well as control of automated equipment and commu-
DEMONSTRATION OF THE DIGITAL MINE nication with the personnel outside the control room.4

The Jinjie demonstration of Shenhua’s digital mine had several Another important accomplishment during the Jinjie demon-
successful aspects. For instance, a software platform for coal stration related to the GIS-based automated mining model,
mine monitoring was developed after analysis and assessment which allows the memory-based shear cutting of the coal-
in the Jinjie demonstration mine. Through use of this system, face to be controlled remotely from the surface. Models and
comprehensive monitoring and multifunctional operation of parameters for the slicing and control of the coal cutter were

53
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S
Applicaon Dispatching Administrave Video-conference
terminals display system communicaon system
System soware Operang system System soware Safety facilies
Machine Data
room center Servers
Servers ViGap of the
for the
mining
mines Backups
area
Backups Storage
Resource supply management
Network Automaon Informaon
network network
plaorm
ViGap ViGap
FIGURE 3. IT infrastructure architecture of the Jinjie coal mine
based on the geological drilling and the actual data (e.g., min-
ing height and fluctuation) of the working face. This system
allowed for coal to be cut automatically and the slicing path
to be recorded. The system was able to receive input through
either the sensors or human intervention. No matter the
source, the system recorded any interventions and incorpo-
rated that information into subsequent slicing parameters
(i.e., a self-correcting model). This process repeated itself
automatically, and this technology has been applied to five
other fully automated mining faces in Shenhua Shendong Co.
on a trial basis.
One notable achievement of the Jinjie demonstration mine
related to the transportation of coal on a conveyor whose
speed was regulated using laser-based measurements in an
intelligent closed loop. The laser-based detection device mon-
itors the amount of coal on the belt: When an increase in the
quantity of coal was detected, the conveyor sped up imme-
diately. This system led to energy savings and more efficient
production.
The Jinjie demonstration mine used a 10-GB Ethernet (10-
giga) underground high-speed transmission network, allowing
the integration of a few sub-networks and allowing real-time
transmission of mass data from multiple sources. In addition,
a wireless portable hand-held terminal was successfully devel-
oped and used to monitor the real-time situations at mobile
locations. This underground network was able to satisfy the
need to access and transmit 57,000 measured sources of data
as compared with the conventional 15,000 measured data
points. The transmission network is shown in Figure 4.
By using wireless internet technologies such as 3G, Wi-Fi,
and radio frequency underground, users achieved automated
data collection in real time using mobile terminals such as
cellphones, tablets, and point inspectors, leading to under-
ground paperless records to ensure timely and accurate data
collection.
54
IMPACTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
Etc.
The Jinjie demonstration of Shenhua’s digital mine provided
a large amount of information covering all underground
systems, environments, and equipment. This cache of infor-
Virtualizaon
mation helped achieve the complete, accurate, real-time,
and automatic collection of data. Based on this, the overall
Storage
digital mines program established a big data-based production
command system, which revolutionized how commands and
controls are executed. For example, equipment is controlled
Wireless by a remote computer rather than by a person. Additionally,
network
controls are now centralized rather than decentralized as was
the case in the past.
The construction and application of Shenhua’s digital mines
program has been applied at the following sites (in addition
to Jinjie): Da Liuta, Yu Jiaoliang, Shi Yitai, Shangwan, Bu Lianta,
Baode, Wulan Mulun, Ha Lagou, Cun Caota, Liuta, Jinfengcun
Caota, No. 1 mine at Wanli, and Bu Ertai. These 14 applications
are reporting substantial, positive impacts to operations, the
most important of which are described below.
Increased efficiency and downsized payrolls: The shift from
direct onsite control to indirect remote control can reduce
the operation personnel underground. For example, a change
to centralized control can reduce the underground workforce
by 52 production workers. This represents a cost savings of
RMB9.2 million (US$1.49 million) and 190,700 labor hours.
Refined production management and reduced equipment
downtime: Data sharing within the information systems makes
it possible for the equipment and system to operate only as
needed. Therefore, minimizing the ineffective operation time
of the equipment and maximizing production efficiency can
be achieved. Take the main transport belts, for example. It is
estimated that the variable speed control technologies can
increase the utilization of the underground electromechani-
cal equipment by 2%. This translates into a reduced power
consumption of 25% and a cost savings of about RMB500,000
(US$80,883) on each belt per year.
Improved productivity, enhanced recovery of resources, and
increased utilization of equipment: With the implementa-
tion of the digital mines program, energy usage is reduced.
Equipment abrasion is also reduced. The output of each coal-
face is increased by about 10% and excavation of this mining
face is extended by more than 12%. The efficiency of the
workforce can be increased by about 16% and the utilization
of the equipment by about 5%. In the last three years, coal
output increased by 15.09 million tonnes and sales increased
by RMB7.873 billion (US$1.285 billion) in the Jinjie, Da Liuta,
and Yu Jiaoliang mines alone after they implemented the digi-
tal mines approach.
 Shendong’s C & C08 Switch Telecommunicaon
network
3G clock server

Base staon controller

3G core network of Shendong site

10-giga surface switch 10-giga surface switch

10-giga underground switch ch

10-giga underground switch Central substaon Central substaon
C Central substaon

Substaon tree and ring networking

Central substaon Central substaon

10GE backbone circuited network

Substaon chain-shaped networking
FFE opcal port
10-giga underground switch 10-giga underground switch
h
Central Central substaon Central substaon
substaon
FE opcal port FE electrical ports / FE opcal port SMA
FE opcal port Base staon
antenna

Industrial control PLC Locator card Broadcast terminal Broadcast terminal

Explosion-proof camera Cellphones Industrial control PLC

FIGURE 4. Transmission network architecture of the mine at Jinjie

Enhanced safety: With the safety management system, acci-
dent prevention and control has replaced reactive approaches
to safety. The artificial intelligence-based early warning sys-
tem has significantly improved the safety-related data and
considerably improved the safety of mining operations.
A newly formed GIS-based true three-dimensional emergency
rescue system linking the underground with the surface has been
created: Potential problems in operation can be remotely moni-
tored and diagnosed. Experts can propose effective solutions and
provide technical support directly online through consultation.
CONCLUSIONS
The rapid development and mutual integration of IT and
automation technology have rejuvenated organizational man-
agement, production and decision-making, and technology
and production scales of China’s coal industry. The construc-
tion and successful operation of Shenhua’s digital mines
program is strategically significant for the industry. It will fur-
ther improve production efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance
core competiveness for mining. It serves as a cornerstone to
the construction of a modern, safe production management
system for the coal industry, leading to a modernized coal
industry with a highly technical foundation, profitable opera-
tions, low energy consumption, reduced pollution, increased
safety, and efficient utilization of personnel.
REFERENCES
1. Han, J.G., Yang, H.H., Wang, J.S., & Pan, T. (2012). Research of
construction of digital mine of Shenhua Group. Industry and
Mine Automation, 2012, 38(3), 11–14. (In Chinese)
2. Lu, X.M., & Yin, H. (2010). Definition, connotations and progress
of digital mine. Coal Science and Technology, 38(1), 48–52. (In
Chinese)
3. Wu, L.X. (2000). The digital earth, digital China and digital mine.
Mine Surveying, 1, 6–9. (In Chinese)
4. Wang, J.S., & Pan, T. (2014). Practical exploration on construction
of digital mine. Industry and Mine Automation, 40(3), 32–35. (In
Chinese)

55
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S

Direct Carbon Fuel Cells: An Ultra-Low

Emission Technology for Power Generation

By Christopher Munnings low-emission power generation. However, further improve-

Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Energy Flagship
Sarbjit Giddey
Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Energy Flagship
Sukhvinder Badwal
CSIRO Fellow, CSIRO Energy Flagship
ments to conversion efficiency and emission reductions remain
highly desirable. Direct carbon fuel cells (DCFCs) are an emerg-
ing technology that has the potential to almost double electric
efficiency (i.e., to 65–70%) and halve greenhouse emissions
compared with conventional coal-based power plants. Rather
than burning coal, these fuel cells electrochemically oxidize it;
thus their efficiency is not Carnot cycle limited. (See Figure 1
for a comparison of the efficiency of different coal-to-elec-
tricity options.) Furthermore, DCFCs produce two separate
exhaust streams, one that is essentially oxygen-depleted air

E
nergy, particularly electrical power, is one of the most
critical components of any modern industrial economy
with most economies being based on low-cost abundant
energy supplies. In this regard, coal continues to be the pri-
mary energy source of choice for electrical power generation.
Coal can be stored easily and converted into electrical power
on demand regardless of season or local weather conditions.
However, conventional coal-fired power generation can result
in high emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. These can be
captured or neutralized; however, in some cases this can
greatly increase cost.
and the second being a concentrated stream of CO2. Thus the
energy penalty for CO2 capture is significantly lower (almost
zero) compared to post-combustion capture. DCFCs are at
an early stage of development, but a number of groups have
recently become involved in the development of this tech-
nology leading to a range of novel systems and concepts being
investigated. In this article we provide a broad overview of the
technology. More comprehensive technical information on
various systems can be accessed in References 1–3.

New coal-based power generation technologies currently

“Direct carbon fuel cells are an
being demonstrated and deployed, such as oxy-combustion,
supercritical or ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants, vari-
emerging technology that has the
ous gasification technologies, and direct injection coal engines,
potential to almost double electric
can lead to incremental or dramatic reductions in emissions.
Such technologies are critical as the world progresses to efficiency and halve greenhouse
70 emissions…”
Net Power Plant Efficiency (%)

60
50
40 WHY FUEL CELLS ARE MORE
30
EFFICIENT THAN COMBUSTION
20
Fuel cells convert fuels to electricity via electrochemical oxi-
10 dation of fuel, rather than via combustion, to generate heat
0 and pressure that is then converted into electricity through a
Brown Black SC ST USC ST IGCC DICE DCFC heat engine, such as a steam or gas turbine. In conventional
Coal ST Coal ST
fuel cells, gaseous (CO, H2, CH4) or liquid (methanol, ethanol)
FIGURE 1. Average efficiency of coal-based power generation fuels are converted into electrical power. DCFCs operate via
technologies the same broad principle; however, the solid high-carbon fuel
Notes: Brown Coal ST = brown coal steam turbine; Black Coal ST = black coal (such as coal) is consumed to produce electrical power through
steam turbine; SC ST = supercritical steam turbine; USC ST = ultra-supercrit-
ical steam turbine; IGCC = integrated gasification and combined cycle (gas reactions (1) and (2), respectively occurring at the cathode
turbine); DICE = direct injection coal engine; DCFC = direct carbon fuel cell and anode electrodes of the cell. The two electrodes are kept

56
separated by an oxygen ion-conducting ceramic membrane
(four types of direct carbon fuel cells are shown in Figure 2).
Cathode: O2 + 4e- → 2O2- (1)
Anode: C + 2O2- → CO2 + 4e- (2)
The fuel is housed on the anode side of the membrane with
air being used as the oxidant on the cathode side. The oxygen
molecules become ionized [reaction (1)], and the oxygen ions
flow across the membrane and react with the fuel to produce
CO2 [reaction (2)]. The electrons released via this process
move through an external load generating an electrical cur-
rent. Fuel cells operate similarly to a battery; however, unlike
a battery, the fuel cell is continuously “charged” as the fuel is
replaced at the anode as it is consumed.
Electrochemical oxidation of fuels to produce electricity is
highly efficient because fuel cells contain few moving parts
and do not rely on pressure or temperature gradients to
operate (again, not Carnot cycle limited). The efficiency of a
fuel cell system is defined by four factors: system losses, fuel
utilization, electrochemical losses, and the thermodynamic
(theoretical) efficiency of the system. The system losses are
typically a minor component (approximately 10%) and are
largely similar for most high-temperature fuel cells. Solid
fuels (such as coal) can be easily separated from the gaseous
products (i.e., CO2 in the exhaust) leading to nearly 100% fuel
utilization compared to 80–95% for conventional gaseous fuel
cells. Electrochemical losses are caused by slow reaction kinet-
ics at the electrode/electrolyte interface and transport of ions
through electrodes and the electrolyte. These losses are sig-
nificantly reduced by operating at high temperature but are
still greater for carbon than for conventional gaseous fuels.
The thermodynamic efficiency of a DCFC is largely indepen-
dent of temperature, and theoretically 100% of the chemical
energy in the fuel is available for conversion to electricity.
Taking the typical losses into account, practical efficiencies for
coal to electricity of around 65–70% are considered attain-
able with the remainder of the energy being lost as waste
heat.1 If the waste heat can be utilized (for instance, for coal
drying or pyrolysis) then overall efficiencies in the region of
80–90% could be achieved. This is higher than attainable with
a gaseous fuel; for comparison, leading MW-scale molten
carbonate (FuelCell Energy) and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC)
(Bloom Energy), operating on natural gas, have an electrical
efficiency of around 47% and 52%, respectively.
“Solid fuels ... can be easily
separated from the gaseous
products ... leading to nearly
100% fuel utilization...”
FUEL CELL DESIGNS: KEY CHALLENGES
AND TECHNICAL MERITS
DCFC technology is at an early stage of development, with
many organizations focusing on the fundamental aspects of
the technology.1,3 In general, the key challenge is to strike a
balance between cost, performance, and lifetime.
At the core of each proposed fuel cell system is the cell design,
which determines all other features. The four most commonly
suggested fuel cell designs that can use solid fuels are shown
in Figure 2 and compared in Table 1.
The main difference between each of these systems, and com-
pared with other conventional fuel cells, is the fuel electrode
(anode) and the fuel delivery system. Modifying the fuel elec-
trode allows a greater area for the reactions to occur between

Molten metal Gasification Molten salt Solid state reaction

e- e- e-
e-
CO2 MO CO2
CO2 CO2
O 2- O2- CO2
C CO32- O2-
O2 (air) O2-
M O2 (air) O2 (air)
C or CO CO O2
C or CO
C or CO

Reaction zone Anode

Electrolyte Cathode

FIGURE 2. Pictorial representation of different DCFC designs under consideration globally

57
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S

TABLE 1. Comparison of four common direct carbon fuel cell designs

Molten carbonate/hybrid
Descriptor Molten metal Gasification Solid state
with solid oxide*

“Metal shuffle” In the molten carbonate The fuel can be gasified The anode is a mixed
mechanism: system, the molten within the anode chamber ionic electronic
electrolyte is held or gasified externally, conducting (MIEC)
Metal is oxidized at
between porous then cleaned and fed material.
the surface of the
electrodes. to a conventional high-
solid electrolyte. The MIEC material
temperature solid oxide or
In the hybrid system, supplies oxide ions and
The metal oxide mixes molten carbonate fuel cell.
the electrolyte is a solid removes electrons,
with molten metal
Design oxide with the molten External gasification leads allowing the entire anode
then contacts the
principles carbonate only in the fuel to lower efficiency. Internal surface to be used for
fuel.
chamber. gasification requires novel fuel oxidation reactions.
The fuel reduces the anode materials not used
In both cases, fuel mixes
oxide back to metal. in conventional fuel cells.
with molten carbonate
which supplies oxygen Both systems can use
to the reaction sites via porous electrodes.
movement of carbonate
ions.
Potentially simple fuel Fuel is fed continuously Conventional solid oxide or Can consume both solid
feed system to the electrode/ molten carbonate fuel cell and gaseous fuels
electrolyte interface. can be used.
Fast fuel oxidation Solid anode material
reaction Could use a wide range of Waste heat can be used avoids corrosion and
solid fuels to produce gasification containment issues of
Could use a wide
Advantages products (CO and H2) to molten systems.
range of fuels Has the highest electrical
increase system efficiency.
efficiency of any Less complex than
High tolerance to
technology gasification systems
sulfur impurities
and allows kW-scale
deployment
before scale-up
Very low tolerance Short cell life Large, expensive plant Difficult to deliver solid
to ash needed to integrate all fuel to reaction sites
Difficult to stop the
components (e.g., gasifier,
Tested mainly with reaction between the Slow reaction kinetics for
hot gas cleanup, high-
high-purity non-solid molten carbonate and fuel oxidation reaction
temperature fuel cell, gas
fuels, e.g., heavy oils, other cell materials
Disadvan- turbine, etc.).
natural gas
tages Molten carbonate can
Comparably low
Low cell operating speed up the formation
efficiencies if waste heat
voltages reduce of carbon monoxide
from fuel cells is not used
efficiency (CO), which is lost to the
for gasification.
exhaust, reducing overall
efficiency

Potential
electric ~30%1 up to 80%1 35–58%1,3 65–70%1
efficiency

*Various other molten salts and mixtures of molten salts have been trialed, including sodium and potassium hydroxides with consumable carbon anodes.1

58

The 59-MW fuel cell park, South Korea, is indicative of the
scale of a direct carbon fuel cell facility (photo courtesy of
FuelCell Energy).
the solid fuel and the electrode/electrolyte interface. Having
a larger reaction area means that more electrons can be pro-
duced, and therefore more electrical power can be generated.
Conventional fuel cells have porous electrodes, which allow
gas to penetrate and react over a large area. As this is not pos-
sible with a solid fuel, alternative fuel electrode designs are
needed to increase the area available for reaction.
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
The fuel requirements are yet to be fully determined, with only
limited studies investigating the effect of impurities and fuel
composition on the overall fuel cell performance. There are no
defined specifications for an ideal fuel; however, fuel proper-
ties which could potentially improve the performance of the
fuel cell include high electrical conductivity, low crystallinity,
small particle size, friable particles, high surface area, and low
ash. DCFCs are less sensitive to other fuel properties that are
critical for combustion, such as moisture and thermal content.2
In terms of reactivity with fuel impurities, systems with
molten components generally will have significantly more
stringent fuel requirements as even small levels (less than 1%)
of ash will accumulate within the anode chamber and react
with the molten metal or carbonate components, leading to
solidification of some components and rapid degradation in
cell performance.
If gasification is to be used in conjunction with conventional
fuel cells, then ash can be removed during gasification; how-
ever, gas cleanup to remove particulates, sulfur, mercury, and
phosphorous-based impurities would still be required. If these
impurities can be reduced or eliminated via coal cleaning or
careful selection of fuel, then it is likely to significantly reduce
the overall capital cost of the final gasification DCFC installation.
59
www.cornerstonemag.net
The direct contact solid state designs fall in-between the exter-
nal gasification fuel cell systems and systems with molten
components and are more resilient to impurities than conven-
tional SOFCs or fuel cells containing molten components. This
is because the MIEC anodes are typically a solid ceramic mate-
rial, which is far more resistant to chemical attack or poisoning
and thus will tolerate a greater level of impurities and ash than
molten systems. High levels of ash will still be detrimental to the
performance of the fuel cell and will be more difficult to remove
from a fuel cell system than a gasifier. Thus ash content of the fuel
may need to be reduced by fuel pre-processing prior to its use in a
direct-contact solid-state fuel cell. Although high ash contents are
generally considered detrimental, not all ash constituents have a
negative impact on cell performance: Some impurities contribute
to improvement in cell performance. This was well demonstrated
by Rady et al., who showed that the presence of brown coal ash
led to a 25% increase in power output of the fuel cell.
FUEL CELL POWER PLANTS
One key advantage of high-temperature fuel cells is the greater
availability of the waste heat from the system. This, combined
with the low-pressure operation and the modular nature of
fuel cells, allows far greater flexibility in design of fuel cell
plants and leads to greater integration possibilities. Figure 3
provides a schematic overview of an envisaged DCFC power
generation module operated on coal. Depending on the tech-
nology chosen, 10–30% of the fuels’ energy may be available as
high-grade heat (600–800oC) that could be used for fuel drying
or pyrolysis, used within a low-pressure steam turbine, or used
for the production of syngas. In this way the DCFC can be seen
both as a coal-based power production technology and as a
key enabler for the production of high-value-added products
for export from abundant low-grade fuels, such as Victorian
brown coal. Furthermore, since the waste stream from a DCFC
is pure CO2, this whole process could conceivably have a very
small carbon footprint if CCS is employed. Further reductions
in CO2 emission could be realized if waste biomass sources are
mixed with conventional fossil fuel carbon sources.
CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE
PROSPECTS FOR COAL-FUELED DCFCS
In general, grid-connected fuel cells are becoming a reality—
with a number of commercial systems now available in several
markets ranging in size from a few hundred watts to larger
scale units in the MW range. All of these systems operate on
gaseous fuels. These fuel cell systems offer some benefits in
terms of emissions, efficiency, and flexibility of scale, but are
essentially an incremental step when compared to advanced
combined-cycle gas turbines. DCFCs are, by comparison,
in their infancy, but offer a step increase in efficiency over
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S
Coal pre-
treatment &
pulverization
Material flow
Gas flow
Thermal flow
Ash & other
by-products
FIGURE 3. A schematic of an envisaged DCFC power generation module operated on coal
traditional and emerging solid fuel combustion technologies
with the added advantages of low greenhouse gas emissions
and the low cost and energy requirements for CCS. This implies
the fate of DCFCs is largely dependent on developments in the
global energy market. If there is a drive to maintain and grow
power production from solid fuels, particularly low-grade solid
fuels, DCFC is likely to become a very attractive future tech-
nology that could offer a 10–50% increase in efficiency over
conventional power generation technologies, that is compat-
ible with carbon capture and storage, and that is adaptable in
terms of scale of deployment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of Brown Coal Innovation
Australia (BCIA) for this work and Dr. Aniruddha Kulkarni for the
internal review of this document prior to publication.
60
Thermal
output
Oxygen
depleted air
Air
Pure CO2 for
CO2 recycle
sequestration
800oC Fuel cell
stack
REFERENCES
1. Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., Kulkarni, A., & Munnings, C. (2012).
A comprehensive review of direct carbon fuel cell technology.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 38, 360–399.
2. Rady, A.C., Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., Ladewig, B.P., &
Bhattacharya, S. (2012). Review of fuels for direct carbon fuel
cells. Energy & Fuels, 26, 1471–1488.
3. Gur, T.M. (2013). Critical review of carbon conversion in “carbon
fuel cells”. Chemical Reviews, 113, 6179–6206.
4. Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., Kulkarni, A., & Munnings, C. (2014).
Performance evaluation of a tubular direct carbon fuel cell
operating in a packed bed of carbon. Energy, 68, 538–547.
5. Rady, A.C., Giddey, S., Badwal, S.P.S., Ladewig, B.P., &
Bhattacharya, S. (2014). Direct carbon fuel cell operation on
brown coal. Applied Energy, 120, 56–64.
The lead author can be reached at Christopher.Munnings@
csiro.au
 Exploring the Status of Oxy-fuel
Technology Globally and in China
By Zheng Chuguang institutions and companies advancing oxy-fuel technolo-
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, gies include the following: Energy & Environmental Research
Huazhong University of Science and Technology Center, Argonne National Labs (ANL), Babcock & Wilcox
Director, Advanced Coal Technology Consortium, (B&W), Air Products, and Jupiter Oxygen in the U.S.; IHI and
Clean Energy Research Center Hitachi in Japan; Canmet in Canada; International Flame
Research Foundation in the Netherlands; BHP Billiton,
Newcastle University, and CS Energy in Australia; CIUDEN

O
xy-fuel technology is characterized by the use of pure in Spain; Alstom in France; Doosan Babcock in the UK; and
oxygen or oxygen-enriched gas mixtures to replace air Vattenfall in Germany. Extensive research, development, and
during combustion of (most often) fossil fuels. After demonstrations are also occurring in China (shown in red in
the fuel is burned, flue gas with a high concentration of CO2 Figure 1), which are discussed in detail in later sections.
is generated, which facilitates the capture of CO2. First pro-
posed by Abraham in 1982, the purpose of the technology
was to produce CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR).1 As “Following 30 years of development,
concerns related to climate change have intensified, the need
to control CO2 emissions (as the principal greenhouse gas) oxy-fuel technology has matured
has also gradually increased in prominence. As a technology
option with great potential for reducing CO2 emissions, oxy- and possesses the fundamental
fuel combustion has become a focus of research worldwide.2
characteristics necessary for
THE STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL OXY-
FUEL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
commercial application.”

Figure 1 shows the development status and capacity of oxy-

fuel projects at various research institutions; projects range in Pilot-Scale Demonstrations
scope from laboratory scale to commercial applications. Some
projects began as early as the 1980s. The principal research Since 2005, oxy-fuel pilot projects have significantly advanced
the overall technology. Table 1 lists the pilot projects at the
1000 tens of MWe scale that are under construction or have been
Lab- and pilot-scale (≤1 MWe) Whiterose 426 completed. These include the world’s first 10-MWe oxy-fuel
ENEL 320
Pilot- and demonstration-scale (without CCS) Endosa 300
Shenmu 200
comprehensive process test installation, built by Sweden’s
Demonstration-scale (with CCS) FutureGen 168 Vattenfall in 2008 in Schwarze Pumpe, Germany. The world’s
100 Youngdong 100
first 30-MWe oxy-fuel pilot power plant, which also boasted
Capacity (MWe)

Renfrew 30 Callide A 30 the world’s largest capacity, was completed by Australia’s CS

Pearl Plant 22
Vattenfall 10 Oxy-coal
International Comb 11.7
B&W10
13.3
HUST 12
Energy in 2011 in Callide. The 7-MWe oxy-fuel pulverized coal
10 CIUDEN 10 boiler and world’s first 10-MWe oxygen-enriched fluidized bed
Jupiter 6.7
TOTAL CIUDEN 6.7
JSIM/NEDO(Oil) 4.0 OHIO 10 (NG) 10 pilot were completed at CIUDEN’s Technology Development
Center in 2012 in Spain. In China, the first 12-MWe oxy-fuel
ANL/EERC 1.0 IFRF 1.0 ENEL 1.0 HUST 1
1 power installation will be completed by the end of 2014.
Alstom 1.0
IHI 0.4 B&W/AL 0.4
PowerGen 0.3
ANL/BHP 0.2
IVD-Stuttgart 0.2 RWE-NPOWER 0.2
CANMET 0.1 HUST 0.1 Large-Scale Demonstrations
0.1
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Table 2 lists the large-scale oxy-fuel pilot projects being con-
Year placed into operation ducted globally. In 2003, the U.S. government announced
FIGURE 1. Status of international oxy-fuel project research.3 plans to construct a zero-emission plant based on coal gasifica-
(Projects conducted in China are shown in red.) tion; the project was named FutureGen. After more than seven

61
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S

TABLE 1. Completed and planned oxy-fuel pilot projects

New or Construction Main Electricity CO2 CO2 Flue Gas

Name (Location) MWe CCUS
Retrofit Began Fuel Generated Capture Purity Purification
Vattenfall (Germany) 10 New 2008 Coal No Yes Yes 99.9% SCR, ESP

Callide (Australia) 30 Retrofit 2010 Coal Yes Yes No FF

Total (France) 10 Retrofit 2009 NG Yes Yes Yes 99.9% FGD

CIUDEN (Spain) 10 New 2010 Coal Yes Yes No SCR, FF

CIUDEN (Spain) 7 New 2010 Coal Yes Yes No SCR, FF

Jamestown/Praxair (U.S.) 50 New 2013 Coal No No

Jupiter Pearl Power Station (U.S.) 22 Retrofit 2009 Coal No No

Babcock & Wilcox (U.S.) 10 Retrofit 2008 Coal No No 70%* SCR, FF

Doosan Babcock (UK) 13 New 2008 Coal No No

HUST (China) 12 New 2011 Coal No Phase 2 Phase 2 80%

Notes: SCR = selective catalytic reducer; ESP = electrostatic precipitator; FF = fabric filter; FGD = flue gas desulfurization; NG = natural gas
*Post-drying

years, the direction of this project changed. In August 2010, the
U.S. Department of Energy launched FutureGen 2.0, which was
based on carbon capture from oxy-fuel coal combustion. US$1
billion (the total budget for the project is now $1.3 billion) was
allocated for the construction of a 200-MWe (now adjusted to
168-MWe) commercial-scale oxy-fuel power station. The objec-
tive is to obtain 90% carbon capture and remove most of the
pollutants, including SOx, NOx, Hg, and particulate matter.
The UK power company Drax also announced its White Rose
commercial-scale 426-MWe oxy-fuel carbon capture dem-
onstration project. The Yorkshire-based project obtained
official support from the UK’s Department of Energy & Climate
Change in December 2013. A front-end engineering design
(FEED) study is currently being conducted.
South Korea is also actively making progress on an oxygen-
enriched coal-fired power station demonstration project—the
country plans to build a 100-MWe pilot power station by 2015.
In China, several large-scale oxy-fuel projects are currently
conducting pre-feasibility or feasibility studies, including the
Shenhua Group’s 200-MWe Shenmu power plant, Sunlight
Coking’s 350-MWe thermoelectric pilot, China Datang
Corporation’s 350-MWe Daqing power plant, and Xinjiang
Guanghui Energy’s 170-MWe pilot.
Among the aforementioned industrial-scale installations,
a number of key components necessary for the oxy-fuel
process have been verified. For instance, major power equip-
ment manufacturers such as Alstom, IHI, Doosan Babcock,

Table 2. Large-scale oxy-fuel projects

Project Owner/ Technology Progress and Planned

Country Scale and Parameters
Power Plant Source Construction Start Time
Drax Power 426 MWe Alstom,
UK Entering Phase 2, feasibility study
White Rose Ultra-supercritical Air Products
FutureGen 2.0 168 MWe B&W, NETL, Foster Wheeler, Entering Phase 2,
U.S.
Ameren and FGA Subcritical Air Liquide feasibility study underway
South Pre-feasibility study completed;
Young Dong 100 MWe Doosan Babcock
Korea applying for permit

62
Hitachi, and B&W have completed evaluation tests on single
10-MWe oxy-fuel swirl burners that can be used in large-scale
demonstrations. Alstom has completed verification tests on
a 15-MWth oxy-fuel tangential combustion system. Foster
Wheeler has completed semi-industrial verification of a
10-MWe oxy-fuel CFB. Gas separation equipment suppliers Air
Products, Linde, and Air Liquide have completed evaluation
tests of compression/purification systems at the 10–30-MWth
level. The success of these tests has laid the foundation for
further large-scale projects.
THE CURRENT STATUS OF OXY-
FUEL TECHNOLOGY IN CHINA
The foundation for Chinese oxy-fuel combustion research
began in the mid-1990s. Huazhong University of Science and
Technology (HUST) and Southeast University were the first
institutions to focus on the desulfurization mechanisms and
combustion properties of oxy-fuel combustion.4 In 2006, HUST
obtained the support of the first National High Technology
Research and Development Program for carbon emissions re-
duction and the first National Key Basic Research Development
Program for carbon emissions reduction, and launched a com-
prehensive national system for the research, development, and
demonstration of oxy-fuel-based CO2 capture. Table 3 lists the
major fundamental oxy-fuel combustion research projects sup-
ported by the Chinese government and industry.5
HUST has already carried out much research and development
work on basic oxy-fuel combustion, technology development,
and pilot projects, which has largely driven oxy-fuel combus-
tion technology development in China. Based on progress to
date, HUST has developed a roadmap for oxy-fuel technology
development in China (see Figure 2).
Laboratory- and Small-Scale Tests
Table 4 provides an overview of the oxy-fuel combustion
small test systems (>10 kWth) that China has built or plans
to build. Overall, there are two main approaches to oxy-fuel
coal combustion (pulverized coal combustion and fluidized
bed combustion). To support the development of the overall
technology and key components, there has been significant
oxy-fuel-related research activity and platform constructions.2

TABLE 3. Overview of fundamental oxy-fuel combustion research projects in China

Project Type Project Focus Organization(s) Dates

National Key Basic Research Resource utilization and storage with CO2-
HUST, et al. 2006–2010
Development Program EOR
National Key Basic Research Combustion principles and
HUST, et al. 2011–2015
Development Program separation technologies for low-cost CO2
National High
CO2 emission reduction with synergistic
Technology Research and HUST 2005–2008
pollutant removal for coal combustion
Development Program
National High
O2/CO2 cycle combustion equipment
Technology Research and HUST, et al. 2009–2011
and system optimization
Development Program
National Science and Key technology and equipment R&D and
HUST, DBC, SASE 2011–2014
Technology Support Program for 35-MW oxy-fuel carbon capture
National Natural Science New concepts and methods for CO2
HUST 2011–2014
Fund Key Project enrichment through oxy-fuel combustion
National Special Project for
U.S.-Chinese advanced coal technology
International Scientific and HUST, Tsinghua University, et al. 2012–2014
cooperation
Technological Cooperation
National Special Project for
Cooperative research on large-scale carbon HUST, Institute of Rock and Soil
International Scientific and 2011–2013
capture and storage Mechanics, CAS
Technological Cooperation
Shenhua Group major Megatonne coal-fired
HUST 2012–2014
science and technology project carbon capture demonstration
Notes: DBC = Dongfang Boiler Group Co., Ltd; SASE = Sichuan Air Separation Equipment Co., Ltd; CAS = Chinese Academy of Sciences

63
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S

200–600 MWe
≥Million tonnes/yr
40 MWth plant
2.5 MWth CFB Commercial-scale
CO2-EOR
Fundamental 50 kWth oxyfuel boiler burner, long-term
study Oxy-CFB pilot In-bed head exchanger operation

1995 2005 2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015–2020

300 kWth PC pilot 3 MWth PC pilot 35 MWth plant

Burner development, 7000 tonnes CO2/yr 0.1 million tonnes CO2/yr capture
data collection, optimization, full chain validation ASU-CPU ASU-CPU-power generation
and thermal design coupling FGC and drying integration and optimization

FIGURE 2. Roadmap for research and development of oxy-fuel technology in China4

In 2006, HUST completed China’s first 300-kWth-test bed for Air Separation Equipment Co., Ltd., and Jiuda (Yingcheng) Salt
oxy-fuel combustion and pollutant removal, achieving the Co., Ltd. The project involved rebuilding a 12-MWe oxy-fuel
objective of enriching high concentrations of CO2 (95%) and boiler in the salt company’s power plant. The system uses a
removing 85% of NOx and 90% of SO2.
swirl combustion system positioned on the front wall and is
equipped with a cryogenic air separation system. The design
In 2011, HUST completed construction of China’s first 3-MWth
oxy-fuel whole process test platform in Wuhan (see Figure 3). of the boiler and system is compatible with oxy-fuel combus-
This platform is currently China’s largest capacity oxy-fuel test tion. Evaluation tests can be conducted on air combustion as
platform, with a heat input of 3 MWth and an annual CO2 cap- well as dry and wet circulation oxy-fuel combustion. After con-
ture capacity of up to 7000 tonnes. This system first separates struction is complete, the pilot is expected to achieve a flue
oxygen from air, then enriches, compresses, and purifies the gas CO2 concentration higher than 80% and a CO2 capture rate
CO2 generated during combustion. Thus the testing platform greater than 90% at a CO2 capture capacity of 100,000 tonnes/
incorporates the comprehensive oxy-fuel combustion process.
year. The captured CO2 can be stored in the mine shafts of the
The system was designed in accordance with industry stan-
disused salt mine. In addition, some of the CO2 can also be
dards, and therefore possesses the capacity for deployment at
increased scale. A number of key technological breakthroughs used in the removal of calcium and magnesium during the salt
were achieved during the design, construction, and commis- manufacturing process. The project and its commissioning are
sioning of the system. expected to be completed by the end of 2014. CO2 capture,
utilization, and storage (CCUS) will be incorporated during the
Integrating the advantages and features of a circulating flu- second phase.
idized bed, Southeast University has conducted systematic
studies of CFB oxy-fuel technology.6,7 A CFB oxy-fuel pilot test
installation (50 kWth) was constructed, which was the first in
China to genuinely achieve flue gas recirculation and the first
internationally to be able to achieve wet flue gas circulation.
The 2.5-MWth circulating fluidized bed oxy-fuel test system that
Southeast University has built in partnership with B&W has
been fully constructed and is currently being commissioned.

Industrial Pilots

In May 2011, HUST launched an industrial 12-MWe oxy-fuel

pilot project (see Figure 4). The construction of this project
was financially supported by China’s Ministry of Science and FIGURE 3. 3-MWth oxy-fuel comprehensive process test system
Technology, Dongfang Boiler Group Co., Ltd. (DBC), Sichuan (HUST)

64
TABLE 4. Overview of China’s oxy-fuel combustion small test systems (>10 kWth)

Organization Thermal Power (MWth) Furnace Type, Fuel Completion Year

HUST 0.3 Vertical pulverized, coal 2006
HUST 3 Front wall pulverized, coal 2011
Vertical one-dimensional
Tsinghua University 0.025 2008
pulverized coal furnace
Zhejiang University 0.020 Fluidized bed, no flue gas circulation, coal 2004
Zhejiang University 2 Pulverized coal furnace 2010
North China Electric
0.025 Pressurized bubbling bed, coal 2011
Power University
Southeast University 0.050 Fluidized bed, coal 2011
Southeast University 2.5 Fluidized bed, coal 2014
Institute of Engineering
Thermophysics, Chinese 0.100 Fluidized bed, coal 2013
Academy of Sciences
Institute of Engineering
Thermophysics, Chinese 1 Fluidized bed, coal and semi-coke Under construction
Academy of Sciences

Demonstration-Scale Projects project aims to provide design and technology safeguards

Chinese companies are also actively preparing to launch large-
scale oxy-fuel technology demonstration projects. Table 5
provides an overview of such projects.
In March 2012, Shenhua Group announced a project to
integrate oxy-fuel combustion and carbon capture at the
megatonne scale into a coal-fired power plant. To date more
than 70 million RMB (US$11.5 million) has been invested. This
for the independent design, construction, and operation of
megatonne-scale oxy-fuel projects. HUST, Dongfang Boiler
Group Co., Ltd., and Southwest Electric Power Design Institute
took part in the research for this project, which was officially
launched in November 2012. To date, the project has involved
comparing various options for new build and retrofit, techni-
cal and economic evaluations, and preliminary research into
key equipment such as boilers, burners, and smoke coolers.
Shanxi International Energy Group Ltd. (SIEG) has also
announced a cooperative agreement with Air Products, under
which Air Products’ exclusive oxy-fuel CO2 purification tech-
nology will be applied to SIEG’s 350-MWe oxy-fuel power
generation demonstration project. Currently a feasibility study
and the conceptual design of the installation are being com-
pleted. This project is based at SIEG’s power plant in Taiyuan,
Shanxi and will be used to provide purified CO2 emissions for
utilization and storage.

On 21 September 2011, China Datang Corporation signed a

FIGURE 4. Picture of 12-MWe semi-industrial oxy-fuel pilot
installation (HUST)
memorandum of understanding with France’s Alstom, form-
ing a long-term strategic partnership to jointly develop CCS
pilot projects in China. Under the memorandum, Alstom and
China Datang Corporation will collaborate to develop two
coal-fired power plant CCS demonstration projects. Of these,
the 350-MWe coal-fired power plant located in Daqing will use
Alstom’s oxy-fuel technology. A feasibility study is currently
being carried out.

65
www.cornerstonemag.net
 T E CH N O L O G Y FR ONT IE R S
TABLE 5. Demonstration-scale oxy-fuel pilot projects in China
Project Owner/ Scale and
Technology Source
Power Plant Parameters
Shenhua Group 200 MWe
Shenmu power plant High voltage
China Datang Corporation 350 MWe
Daqing power plant Supercritical
Shanxi International Energy Group Ltd. 350 MWe
Taiyuan Yangguang Thermoelectric Supercritical
170 MWe
Xinjiang Guanghui New Energy
High voltage
Xinjiang Guanghui New Energy Co., Ltd. has signed a strategic
cooperation agreement with the U.S.-based Jupiter Oxygen
Corporation for a carbon capture, energy conservation, and
emissions reduction project. Jupiter plans to invest US$200
million in collaborating with Xinjiang Guanghui New Energy
Co., Ltd. to build and develop a carbon capture and boiler
retrofit project. Through this technical cooperation, Xinjiang
Guanghui New Energy is expected to be able to reduce CO2
emissions by about 2.4 million tonnes yearly at its plant that
produces 1.2 million tonnes of methanol and 800,000 tonnes
of dimethyl ether plant each year.
OUTLOOK
Following 30 years of development, oxy-fuel technology has
matured and possesses the fundamental characteristics neces-
sary for commercial application. Importantly, it is suitable for
existing coal-fired power plants. For China’s coal power-domi-
nated energy mix to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets, large-scale demonstrations must be launched as soon
as possible, to allow for the greatest likelihood for the com-
mercialization of oxy-fuel. At present, China has announced a
succession of special CCUS plans. A number of ministries, includ-
ing the National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry
of Science and Technology, National Energy Administration,
Ministry of Environmental Protection, and Ministry of Land
and Resources, are promoting numerous strategies, including
66
Progress and Planned
Construction Start Time
Pre-feasibility study completed;
HUST, DBC
feasibility study currently underway
Pre-feasibility study completed;
Alstom
construction start date yet to be decided
Pre-feasibility study completed;
B&W, AP
construction start date yet to be decided
Jupiter Pre-feasibility study underway
demonstration projects, technology research and development,
environmental monitoring, storage uses, policies and regula-
tions, and international cooperation.
REFERENCES
1. Abraham, B.M. (1982). Coal-oxygen process provides CO2 for
enhanced oil recovery. Oil and Gas Journal, 80(11), 68–75.
2. Buhre, B.J.P., Elliott, L.K., Sheng, C.D., Gupta, R.P., & Wall, T.F.
(2005). Oxy-fuel combustion technology for coal-fired power
generation. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 31(4),
283–307.
3. Wall, T., Stanger, R., & Santos, S. (2011). Demonstrations of coal-
fired oxy-fuel technology for carbon capture and storage and
issues with commercial deployment. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(S1), S5–S15.
4. Zheng, C., Zhao, Y., & Guo, X. (2014). The research and
development of oxy-fuel technology in China. Proceedings of
the Chinese Society for Electrical Engineering, 34(23), 3856–
3864. (In Chinese)
5. Social Development Science and Technology Division, Ministry
of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China, et
al. (2011). Technology development report on carbon capture,
utilization and storage (CCUS) in China. (In Chinese)
6. Duan, L.B., Zhao, C.S., Zhou, W., Qu, C.R., & Chen, X.P. (2011).
O2/CO2 coal combustion characteristics in a 50 kW(th) circulating
fluidized bed. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
5, 770–776.
7. Zhou, W., Zhao, C.S., Duan, L.B., Liu, D.Y., & Chen, X.P. (2011). CFD
modeling of oxy-coal combustion in circulating fluidized bed.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 1489–1497.
 GL OBAL NEWS
Movers & Shakers
Mitsubishi Corporation announced the opening of the
Caval Ridge Coal Mine in Queensland, Australia. Run by
BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA), Caval Ridge is a new
open-cut mine located in the northern Bowen Basin in Cen-
tral Queensland that has the capacity to produce 5.5 million
tonnes per year of high-quality metallurgical coal for a mine
life of about 60 years.
The board of the Rio Tinto Group has extended the tenure of
Chief Executive Sam Walsh and Chief Financial Officer Chris
Lynch, providing a strong endorsement of their leadership,
the Group’s strategy, and its focus on driving shareholder
value.
International Outlook
Australia
With the passage of the Emissions Reduction Fund, the
Australian government has taken a step toward meeting its
greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 5% below 2000
levels by 2020. The Emissions Reduction Fund is the center-
piece of the Direct Action plan, which replaced the Carbon
Pricing Mechanism repealed in mid-2014.
Canada
On 2 October 2014,
the Boundary Dam
CCS project began
operation; the plant
is the first and only
post-combustion cap-
ture facility operating
at the scale of about
one million tonnes
CO2 each year. According to the head of the Global Carbon
Capture and Storage Institute, Brad Page, “This trailblazing
project clearly demonstrates that carbon capture and stor-
age (CCS) is possible on a large scale in the power sector.
Importantly, the lessons learned at Boundary Dam will help
progress CCS projects internationally as a vital technology
to meet our climate change challenge.”
China
The Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxa-
tion released a statement that, from 1 December 2014, China
67
www.cornerstonemag.net
will change its approach to the resource tax on coal. The coun-
try will now levy a resource tax based not on quantity, but on
price, which will replace the previous quantity-based approach.
The resource tax rate will be 2–10%; the exact amount will be
determined by the provincial governments within the given
range. The statement also noted that the resource tax will be
reduced by 30% for coal produced from exhausted coal mines,
and by 50% for coal displaced from filling mining.
Europe
The European Council (EC) has adopted several energy targets
for 2030: reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared
with 1990 levels; obtain 27% of its energy from renewable
sources; and cut energy consumption by 27% compared with
projected levels. The final text of the agreement includes a
flexibility clause stating that the EC will revisit these targets
after the UN climate summit in December 2015. The agree-
ment also includes provisions to compensate nations like
Poland, which relies on coal for around 90% of its energy.
Germany
At risk of missing its greenhouse gas reduction goal of a
40% reduction in emissions by 2020 compared to 1990,
Germany is considering options that include further increas-
ing efficiency and reducing the amount of coal-fired power
generation in the country.
India
India’s Supreme Court canceled at least 214 coal licenses
because they had been distributed without competitive
bidding. Coal Minister Piyush Goyal said that the country
will auction 74 coal-mining licenses to private companies in
the next several months.
International
The U.S. and China announced an agreement to curb green-
house gas emissions. For its part, the U.S. agreed to reduce
emissions by 26–28% compared to 2005 levels. China com-
mitted to peak its emissions by 2030 and also to obtain 20%
of its energy from non-fossil sources. Under the deal, efforts
on low-carbon energy technology development would also
be expanded, including continued funding for the U.S.-China
Clean Energy Research Center (CERC). In addition, the U.S.
and China have committed to equally fund a commercial-scale
(about one million tonnes CO2 per year) CCUS project under
which about 1.4 million m3 of freshwater would be produced.
 GL O B A L N E W S

Key Meetings & Conferences

G
lobally there are numerous conferences and meetings geared toward the coal and energy industries. The table below
highlights a few such events. If you would like your event listed in Cornerstone, please contact the Executive Editor at
cornerstone@wiley.com

Conference Name Dates (2015) Location Website

13th Annual Hilton Singapore,

Coal Markets Conference
2015 Australian Coal
Operator’s Conference
World CTX 2015
World of Coal Ash
Seventh International Con-
ference on Clean
Coal Technologies
Clearwater
31 May–4 June
Coal Conference
3–6 Feb www.coalmarketsasia.com/
Singapore
Wollongong,
11–13 Feb www.coalconference.net.au/
NSW, Australia
www.chinaexhibition.com/Official_Site/11-4609-
Beijing and Yinchuan
World_CTX_2014_Conference_for_Natural_Gas,_
14–17 April (Ningxia Autonomous
Liquid_Fuels_and_Petrochemicals_from_Coal,_
Region), China
Petcoke_and_Biomass.html
4–7 May Nashville, TN, U.S. www.worldofcoalash.org/
17–21 May Kraków, Poland www.cct2015.org/ibis/CCT2015/home
Clearwater, FL, U.S. www.coaltechnologies.com/

There are several Coaltrans conferences globally each year. To learn more, visit www.coaltrans.com/calendar.aspx

Meeting Spotlight Although biomass and waste gasification projects are

As was highlighted in the Autumn 2014 issue of Cornerstone,
coal gasification is growing globally, led by coal conversion
projects in China. In this meeting spotlight, two conferences
related to coal conversion are highlighted. The Gasification
Technologies Council Conference recently concluded and
the World CTX Conference will be held early in 2015.
Gasification Technologies
Council 2014 Conference
The Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) 2014 Con-
ference was held 26–29 October in Washington, DC. This
conference included many internationally known speak-
ers, most of whom were directly involved with advancing
gasification projects. With the rapid upsurge in gasifica-
tion projects in China in recent years, many presentations
focused on specific projects. These projects highlighted the
wide range of potential products from coal gasification from
olefins to substitute natural gas to power.
usually significantly smaller in size, they are able to offer
substantial environmental and/or waste remediation ben-
efits; quite a few presentations were focused in these areas.
The 2015 annual GTC conference will be held in Colorado
Springs, CO, U.S.
World CTX 2015: Focus on Shale Gas
Impact on Coal-to-X Development
The World CTX (Coal-to-X) Conference 2015 will be held in
Beijing and Ningxia, China. This year, a focus on shale gas
will be added to the usual CTX subjects. In the U.S., the
growth of shale gas has placed a damper on coal conver-
sion projects. Since shale gas development may well spread,
understanding the potential impact of shale gas on coal con-
version projects is more necessary than ever. The trifecta of
considerations related to the environment, economics, and
energy security will impede or advance coal conversion in a
changing global energy sector; this will be the focus of the
next World CTX conference. The conference website and
additional information are provided in the table above.

68
Recent Select Publications From the WCA

Mercury Control for Coal-Derived Gas Streams Looking Into the Future for Coal
— Wiley-VCH — This newly published textbook covers
technologies for the detection, capture, and regulation of
The World Coal Association (WCA) and Assocarboni jointly
mercury evolved from the combustion or gasification of coal.
held a workshop in Rome on 18 November, bringing
The information in this
together global energy and environment leaders to discuss
textbook is largely based
the future global role of coal, practical action that can be
on the successful U.S.
taken to reduce emissions, and the energy challenges facing
Department of Energy
policymakers in Europe.
Mercury Program and
includes contributions
The workshop “Looking into the Future for Coal” featured
from an internation-
presentations from representatives from the Australian,
ally acclaimed group of
experts, edited by Evan Indonesian, and Italian governments. A keynote speech
J. Granite, Henry W. was given by the UNFCCC COP President Marcin Korolec,
Pennline, and Constance Poland’s State Secretary for the Environment, responsible
Senior. More informa- for Climate Policy.
tion is available at www.
wiley.com/WileyCDA/ The workshop built on the WCA’s Warsaw Communi-
WileyTitle/pro qué, developed with the Polish Ministry of Economy and
ductCd-3527329498. launched alongside COP19 in November 2013. The Commu-
html niqué outlined practical steps that can be taken to tackle
climate change and enable coal to continue to play its vital
World Energy Outlook 2014 — International Energy role as an affordable, abundant, easily accessible source of
Agency — For the first time, the IEA’s WEO will make projec- energy.
tions to 2040 throughout the energy sector. Other specific
topics covered in WEO Presentations and discussions at the workshop made clear
2014 include a look that most people are expecting a deal out of COP21 in Paris
at whether oil output in 2015. There was support for the coal industry being an
from North America active, constructive stakeholder and for the industry to
can reduce fluctuations more fully promote the role of technology in reducing envi-
amid abundance, the ronmental impacts from coal; this includes high-efficiency,
potential effects of low-emissions (HELE) coal technology and carbon capture,
expanding global LNG, utilization, and storage (CCUS). Participants also agreed that
the effect of efficiency the industry should develop a more compelling narrative
on regional energy pri- about coal, so that the broader community better under-
ces, how energy can stands the vital role coal plays globally.
improve life in sub-
Saharan Africa, and Further information is available at www.worldcoal.org
much more. WEO 2014
is available for purchase Divestment and the Future Role of Coal
from www.iea.org/w/
bookshop/477-World_ The World Coal Association has published the latest in its
Energy_Outlook_2014
series of “Coal Matters” fact sheets. Coal Matters - Divest-
ment and the future role of coal looks at divestment
Corrigendum: Volume 2, Issue 3: Page 12: In the figure campaigns and challenges the arguments being made
showing potential uses for gasification “hydrogen for oil against the coal industry.
refining” was listed twice. The lower term should have
been “substitute natural gas”. Page 27: The caption under The fact sheet reviews growing energy demand and projec-
the AP Image read, “Nabaj Sarif”, but should have read tions about the future of coal and looks at the role of coal
“Nawaz Sharif”. in energy and modern infrastructure. The fact sheet also

69
www.cornerstonemag.net
 GL O B A L N E W S

shows that markets are already managing any risks associ- discussed the future development of the international coal
ated with fossil fuel investments. industry and other related subjects.

Technology has a huge role to play in reducing environmental Mr. Kenyon-Slaney acknowledged Shenhua Group’s con-
impacts from the use of coal. The fact sheet looks at high- tribution to the WCA through the continued support of
efficiency, low-emissions coal technology, carbon capture, Cornerstone and the Strategic Research Institute. Later, the
utilization, and storage along with actions and investments WCA Chairman visited the Shenhua Science and Technology
taken by the coal industry to reduce CO2 emissions. Research Institute, the Shendong coal mine, and the Zhun-
geer coal mine.
By definition, divestment requires a change in ownership of
assets: Institutes and individuals may sell their shares, but
can only do this if other institutes and individuals buy these
same shares. In other words, divestment does nothing to
affect the demand for or use of fossil fuels.

Divestment campaigns aim to create the very risks they

warn of in order to undermine investor confidence and
deprive fossil fuel producers of the finance necessary to
operate their businesses. However, forecasts show that
demand for coal will continue to grow. The priority should
therefore be how we access the benefits of coal while mini-
mizing environmental impacts. For developing countries in
need of energy, divestment campaigns can have serious con-
sequences. Divestment will do nothing to address shared
global priorities on economic development and reducing
GHG emissions and will, instead, hinder efforts to alleviate
energy poverty, particularly in developing countries where
coal is fueling economic development.
Technology, including efficiency improvements and CCUS,
has a vital role to play in
ensuring we can meet our
future energy and infra-
structure needs as cleanly
and sustainably as possible.
This requires responsible
investment decisions and
balanced energy policies.
Making Mines Smarter and Safer
Recently Harvard Business Review (HBR) highlighted how
smart, connected products are transforming competi-
tion and changing industries globally. The mining industry
is no different. As part of the study, HBR highlighted how
Joy Global, as a leading mining equipment manufacturer,
offers the ability to monitor operating conditions, safety
parameters, and predict equipment servicing needs in the
challenging operating conditions of underground mines.
In fact, Joy Global is able to monitor service indicators for
fleets of equipment in different mines—even if the equip-
ment is spread across multiple countries. For the full case
study, visit hbr.org/2014/11/strategic-choices-in-building-
the-smart-connected-mine/ar/1

A copy of Coal Matters –

Divestment and the future
role of coal can be down-
loaded from the WCA
website: www.worldcoal.org

Meeting of the Minds

On 3 November 2014, the Chairman of the World Coal

Association, and Rio Tinto Chief Executive, Energy, Harry
Kenyon-Slaney, visited Shenhua Group and met with the
Chairman of Shenhua Group, Zhang Yuzhuo. The leaders

70
 L E TTERS
VOLUME 2, ISSUE 2
AN ANALYSIS OF THE INTERDEPENDENCE
BETWEEN CHINA’S ECONOMY AND COAL
T
he authors of this article analyzed the contribution
of coal to China’s economy based on several metrics.
Much-needed proof was provided regarding the value
coal can provide. China has become the world’s second larg-
est economy, continuing to grow at full steam, and is also the
largest coal producer and consumer. The country’s economic
growth and its reliance on coal are not unrelated as coal has
contributed tremendously to China’s development. This arti-
cle provides an understanding as to why developing countries
continue to rely on coal as a leading energy source. Those that
undermine the value of the coal industry may do well to con-
sider the information presented in this article.
After an analysis of the correlation between historical eco-
nomic data and coal production and consumption, the authors
calculated a positive correlation coefficient. The core of their
analysis was the coal-dependence index that they defined
using four indices, which ultimately explained the interde-
pendency of coal and China’s GDP. As we know, coal provides
more than 70% of total primary energy consumption and more
than 70% of total power output in China. The authors demon-
strated how coal is an irreplaceable energy source that helps
ensure energy security, maintain social stability, and promote
the development of national and local economies.
From a global perspective, the relationship between coal and
economics remains strong. Although the global coal indus-
try is facing a downward trend, characterized by lower coal
prices, I continue to believe that the perspective of the coal
industry should be based on the fact that coal consumption
will continue to grow, especially in developing countries.
Drawing from the data in this article, I hope that the global
coal industry will face the future with optimism and extend its
work to realize the cleaner utilization of coal resources for the
benefit of all.
Zhang Songfeng
Researcher
Academy of Macroeconomic Research
National Development and Reform Commission
VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3
A COAL-BASED STRATEGY TO REDUCE EUROPE’S
DEPENDENCE ON RUSSIAN ENERGY IMPORTS
W
ith Western Europe facing the apparently intractable
problem of its dependency on Russian natural gas
imports, it is refreshing to read a rational analysis
that reminds us that an increased use of coal could broaden
71
www.cornerstonemag.net
the region’s options for energy sources.  Through the use of
carbon capture and sequestration, as well as other clean coal
technologies, Western Europe can simultaneously reduce
its dependence on natural gas imports, as well as increase
the recovery rate from its North Sea oil reserves, and not
increase its greenhouse gas emissions.  While not neglecting
long-run climate concerns, an increased use of new technolo-
gies to utilize the ample and widely available sources of coal
would enable Europe to respond to its short-term energy
security needs while not burdening its economies with exces-
sive energy price increases. There are only a limited number
of options for energy, and with energy goals that include a
reduced reliance on nuclear power and less dependence on
Russian natural gas, the answer to Western Europe’s energy
problem clearly involves a greater use of coal.
John Jelacic
Independent Energy and Economic Analyst
T
his article is overly ambitious in its assertions of what is
possible regarding bringing online coal-fired power plants
that are no longer operating in the EU. One example is
the statement that some plants currently idled, such as those
in the UK, could be “brought back online relatively quickly”. In
many cases such plants are not actually idled, but completely
shut down. In some cases these plants have even been partly
or fully demolished. Even for those plants still standing, they
could not be simply placed back into service. Their opera-
tion would be illegal as many of these plants do not have the
required environmental controls to operate legally today. In
fact, this article does not take into account EU emission regu-
lations, including the Industrial Emissions Directive—this will
be enforced as of 2016 and will actually result in the closure of
additional plants. Generally, the strategy laid out in this article
cannot realistically be followed under the current regulatory
environment in the UK and greater EU.
Anonymous
Response: The article was based on a dynamic situation
regarding the state of coal-fired power plants in the EU; unfor-
tunately, some plants have been idled or demolished since the
original research was completed. However, the reader brings
up a valuable point that the longer European leaders wait to
act, the more difficult it will be to reduce reliance on Russian
energy supplies. Thus, the door of opportunity is closing and I
suggest there should be an immediate moratorium on demol-
ishing any coal-fired power plants in Europe. For instance, in
the UK, potential power generation sources such as the 1000-
MW Ferrybridge plant or the 350-MW Uskmouth plant must
be protected.
The research and the article did take into account the envi-
ronmental upgrades that would be necessary to bring idled
coal-fired plants back online. For example, I noted on p. 46,
“It may be necessary to add more SO2 and NOx controls, and
 L E T T E RS

perhaps other environmental upgrades, to the units.” While
considerable investment may be required, adding environmen-
tal controls for criteria emissions include applying completely
understood, fully commercial technologies already deployed
throughout Europe and the world.
Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the article showed that
CTG with CO2-EOR actually resulted in lower greenhouse gas
emissions compared to continuing to rely on the leaky and
poorly maintained natural gas pipelines from Russia. As well,
there may be additional opportunities to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions with CCUS from coal-fired power plants when it
is commercial and supported by CO2 prices in the EU ETS.
Finally, it is important to make clear that the article presented
an ambitious strategy to increase the energy security of the EU.
There may be some regulations that are not compatible with
the strategy, but it is worth weighing the value of a carbon-
neutral strategy that improves energy security. Regulations
can be modified more easily than global energy reserves.
Roger Bezdek
President
Management Information Services, Inc.

TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR,

EMAIL CORNERSTONE@WILEY.COM OR CORNERSTONE@SHENHUA.CC (CHINESE).

We’re in the process of planning

the editorial schedule for 2015.

We’d appreciate hearing from you regarding what topics you would like us to cover.

We’re looking for any and all feedback from our readers.

Cornerstone aims to be inclusive to all things related to coal and energy, especially those pieces that are
focused on scientifically derived solutions for the challenges associated with ever increasing energy
demand. Our goal is to include diverse material, such as interviews, letters, op-ed editorials, technical
articles, global news, conference listings, etc. If you are interested in contributing or have suggestions
about what we should cover, please don’t hesitate to contact the editorial team.

If you have a suggestion, email the editorial team at

cornerstone@wiley.com (English) or cornerstone@shenhua.cc (Chinese)

72
 V O LUME 2 AUTHOR I NDEX

Author(s) Title Pages

Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 2014

Michael Hightower Reducing Energy’s Water Footprint: Driving a Sustainable Energy Future 4–8
Diego Rodriguez Thirsty Energy: Integrated Energy-Water Planning for a Sustainable Future 9–11
Holly Krutka Exploring Global Energy Challenges: Exclusive Interview with Nobuo Tanaka 12–14
Wang Xianzheng Advancing China’s Coal Industry 15–18
Aleksandra Tomczak What to Watch in 2014: Policy Developments That Will Shape the Coal Industry 19–25
Tianyi Luo, Betsy Otto,
Identifying the Global Coal Industry’s Water Risks 26–31
Tien Shiao, Andrew Maddocks
Li Zheng, Pan Lingying, Liu Pei,
Assessing Water Issues in China’s Coal Industry 32–36
Ma Linwei
Rangan Banerjee Coal-Based Electricity Generation in India 37–42
Merched Azzi, Paul Feron Considering Emissions From Amine-Based CO2 Capture Before Deployment 43–46
Barbara Carney, Erik Shuster Exploring the Possibilities: The NETL Power Plant Water Program 47–51
Sean Bushart Advanced Cooling Technologies for Water Savings at Coal-Fired Power Plants 52–57
Anne Carpenter Water-Saving FGD Technologies 58–63
Chen Yinbiao, Zhang Jianli Supplying Water to Power Plants with Desalination Technology 64–68
Daman Walia, Sahika Yurek Moving Coal Up the Value Chain 69–73
Nikki Fisher, Thubendran Naidoo Turning a Liability into an Asset 74–77
Okty Damayanti Connecting Indonesian Communities to Clean Water 78–79

Volume 2, Issue 2, Summer 2014

Anthony Hodge Shifting the Paradigms of Health and Safety in Mining 4–8
Milton Catelin Commitment to Safety 9–10
Modern Energy: The “Golden Thread” That Connects
Gregory H. Boyce 11–14
People, Economies, and Progress
Zhang Kehui Studying the Dominance of Coal in China’s Energy Mix 15–20
Jim Spiers Hedging Carbon 21–24
Nicholas Newman Advancing the Alleviation of Energy Poverty 25–29
Anil Razdan Energy Poverty in India and What’s Needed to Address It 30–35
Nikki Fisher Balancing South Africa’s Energy Poverty and Climate Change Commitments 36–38
Aleksandra Tomczak Europe Struggles to Pay Its Energy Bill 39–41
Shenhua Group’s Preemptive Risk Control System:
Hao Gui 42–46
An Effective Approach for Coal Mine Safety Management
Melanie Stutsel Evaluating Safety and Health in Australia’s Mining Sector 47–52
CORESafety®: A System to Overcome the Plateau in
Bruce Watzman 53–56
U.S. Mine Safety and Health Management
Aaron Leopold Sustainable Charcoal: A Key Component of Total Energy Access? 57–61
Xie Heping, Wu Gang, Liu Hong An Analysis of the Interdependence Between China’s Economy and Coal 62–66
Yuan Liang Synergetic Technologies for Coal and Gas Extraction in China 67–71
Uichiro Yoshimura, Toshiro Matsuda The Global Need for Clean Coal Technologies and J-COAL’s Roadmap to Get There 72–77

73
www.cornerstonemag.net
 V O L U M E 2 A U TH O R IN D E X

Author(s) Title Pages

Volume 2, Issue 3, Autumn 2014

Gasification Can Help Meet the World’s Growing Demand
Alison Kerester 4–12
for Cleaner Energy and Products
Laura Miller The Drivers and Status of the Texas Clean Energy Project 13–18
Carbon Pollution Standards for New and Existing Power Plants
Kyle Aarons 19–23
and Their Impact on Carbon Capture and Storage
A.M. Shah India Re-energized 24–28
Ni Weidou, Song Shizhong,
Developing High-Efficiency, Low-Carbon, Clean Coal in China 29–33
Wang Minghua
A Coal-Based Strategy to Reduce Europe’s Dependence
Roger Bezdek 34–39
on Russian Energy Imports
Janet Gellici The Reliability and Resilience of the U.S. Existing Coal Fleet 40–45
Harry Morehead, Juergen Battke Improving the Case for Gasification 46–49
Rob van den Berg, Zhong-Xin Chen, The Shell Coal Gasification Process for Reliable Chemicals,
50–54
Sze-Hong Chua Power, and Liquids Production
Carrie Lalou Distributed Power With Advanced Clean Coal Gasification Technology 55–60
Xu Shisen Moving Forward With the Huaneng GreenGen IGCC Demonstration 61–65
Rob Jeffrey, Rosemary Falcon,
The Benefits and Challenges Associated With Coal in South Africa 66–70
Andrew Kinghorn

Volume 2, Issue 4, Winter 2014

Stephen Mills The Energy Frontier of Combining Coal and Renewable Energy Systems 4–10
The Rise of Electricity: Offering Longevity, Improved
Frank Clemente 11–16
Living Standards, and a Healthier Planet
Patrick Falwell, Brad Crabtree Understanding the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative 17–20
Benjamin Sporton Developing Country Needs Are Critical to a Global Climate Agreement 21–24
The Flexibility of German Coal-Fired Power Plants
Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer 25–30
Amid Increased Renewables
Janne Kärki, Antti Arasto Toward Carbon-Negative Power Plants With Biomass Cofiring and CCS 31–35
Christopher Long, Peter Valberg Evolution of Cleaner Solid Fuel Combustion 36–40
Jaquelin Cochran, Debra Lew,
Making Coal Flexible: Getting From Baseload to Peaking Plant 41–45
Nikhil Kumar
Nigel Bean, Josephine Varney Geothermal Assisted Power Generation for Thermal Power Plants 46–50
Han Jianguo Shenhua’s Development of Digital Mines 51–55
Christopher Munnings, Sarbjit Giddey, Direct Carbon Fuel Cells:
56–60
Sukhvinder Badwal An Ultra-Low Emission Technology for Power Generation
Zheng Chuguang Exploring the Status of Oxy-fuel Technology Globally and in China 61–66

74
 Coal Classification
Industry Approach to
Hazard Classification
under the Revised
MARPOL Convention
and the IMSBC Code
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) The reports are available free of charge to WCA
has introduced new environmental and health Members.
classification criteria for internationally shipped
solid bulk cargoes under the International Convention The reports are also available to non-WCA Members to
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) purchase. If you would like information on purchasing
and the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes this package of reports, please email the WCA Team at:
(IMSBC) Code. classification@worldcoal.org

The World Coal Association (WCA), together with
ARCHE - a specialist environmental toxicology
consultancy - has prepared a package of reports to
assist coal companies with complying with the new
environmental and health classification requirements.
The package consists of three reports and a summary
document:
You can also get the reports for free if you join the
WCA. Join today and you can get instant access to
this package of reports, along with all the other
benefits of membership. If you would like to discuss
WCA membership options, please get in touch:
membership@worldcoal.org

Report 1: New Compliance Requirements of the

MARPOL Convention and the IMSBC Code

World Coal Association

Report 2: Analysis of Coal Composition, Ecotoxicity 5th Floor, Heddon House
and Human Health Hazards 149-151 Regent Street
London W1B 4JD, UK
+44 (0) 207 851 0052
Report 3: Coal Classification Guidance www.worldcoal.org
info@worldcoal.org

www.worldcoal.org twitter.com/worldcoal www.worldcoal.org/extract

www.facebook.com/worldcoalassociation www.youtube.com/worldcoal

WCA Coal Classification Ad 206w x 273h.indd 3 01/07/2014 14:45

 CONNECT with

GET CONNECTED
There are many ways to be connected with Cornerstone. Did you know you can
opt-in to have the table of contents for each new issue emailed to you; use the
emailed links to access the full issue or specific articles online, free of charge.
Opt-in on our website: www.cornerstonemag.net. Also, join our group on LinkedIn
where we will feature different articles and host discussions.
 THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE WORLD COAL INDUSTRY

STAY CONNECTED
Don’t let your name be removed from our distribution list! If you are receiving
Cornerstone, but haven’t opted in yet, please visit our website and opt-in. If you
would prefer to receive a hard copy in Mandarin, please email your address to
the editors at cornerstone@shenhua.cc

CONNECT WITH US
Like what you’re reading? Disagree with an author? Have a correction? Email the
editors at cornerstone@wiley.com (English) or cornerstone@shenhua.cc (Chinese).
www.cornerstonemag.net
In many countries, coal and renewable
energy systems are being deployed at
greater percentages and, thus, there is
increased interest in how to optimally
integrate these systems. In fact, there
are a significant number of opportunities.