(Photo from GMA-7, from a story from Bohol Chronicle.)
Many proponents of coal-fired power plants avoid the issue of climate change altogether (denying its existence), or if and when they do acknowledge it, they downplay its effects or cite the existence of so-called “clean coal technology.”
We can still work to make the effects of climate change less severe. But more and more, the decisions being made by the government leaders and officials about those interventions are less grounded in what’s best for people and more focused on benefiting a handful of special interest – corporations that want to expand their business in the power generation industry. Even if we ignore the impact of coal power plants on carbon emissions, burning coal for power is still bad for the environment and human health.
Small Particles, Big Problems
Why is this so? According to numerous reports (the oldest being 2018), besides carbon dioxide, coal-powered plants release a host of noxious pollutants. They pump out 146,000 tons of PM2.5 pollution, a form of particulate matter that is about 40 times smaller than a grain of sand. They also release 197,000 tons of PM10 pollution. This is a form of particulate matter or dust that is 10 microns big, small enough to slip through a typical mesh filter.
PM2.5 and PM10 pollution are very small. When these particles are released into the atmosphere they do not just stay there; people breathe them in and they invade our lungs. As a result, PM pollution can cause health problems. It can trigger asthma and lay the foundation for many respiratory diseases. They can also cause heart attacks. In a study released in 2018, it was found that all over the world, 3.45 million people annually die an early death due to PM 2.5 pollution alone.
(Photo from 350.org)
Poisonous Mercury
In the meantime, particulate matter isn’t the only pollution that coal-fired plants release. They pump out mercury. It is advised by health experts that people limit their consumption of tuna and salmon because they contain mercury that can cause many neurological and developmental issues. It causes loss of peripheral vision, neuropathy, difficulty hearing, speaking, and walking, and muscle weakness.
When coal, oil, and wood wastes that contain mercury are burned as fuel, they can cause mercury to become airborne. Coal-fired power plants pump out mercury!
Industrial processes release mercury into the environment; for instance when crude oil is converted into vinyl and during mining operations for gold. But the largest source of mercury—more than 50 percent—comes from coal-fired plants. The more coal-fired power plants in operations, the more mercury is released into the atmosphere.
And CFFP operators and proponents know this! Take this quote from the chief control commercial officer of GE Steam Power, a unit of a Boston-based conglomerate that sells coal technology.
“If you look only at CO2 emissions as a data point, then, of course, we should stop burning coal,” said Michael Keroulle, chief engineer, “But the reality is that countries need access to secure, reliable energy, and renewables can’t always provide that.”
In the United States, the World Coal Association has estimated that it would cost $31 billion to upgrade 400 gigawatts of coal stations. These coal stations will have to be upgraded to use the best technologies. This is only a small part of the $2.4 trillion-a-year investment in clean energy that is needed to prevent further global warming.
Failed Clean-coal Technology Projects
The term "clean coal" is being cited by investors and developers of CFFP to refer to both more efficient coal-fired power generation – utilizing High-Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) technologies – and carbon capture and storage.
And while the latter can, theoretically, reduce emissions by 90 percent, a HELE coal plant that uses even the most efficient combustion technologies available will still produce emissions of around 760 kilograms a megawatt-hour. This is twice the emissions of gas-fired generation.
In the meantime, if for instance, CCS is implemented, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is still iffy. It is, according to reports a technology that captures a high proportion of carbon dioxide emissions, which are then compressed and pumped underground. What happens then? Where will the gargantuan volumes of carbon dioxide be stored before they are disposed of if CCS were deployed globally to reduce fossil fuel emissions? Based on analysis by researchers at Utrecht University, that figure would be about 60 billion cubic meters a year – or about 120 times the capacity of Sydney Harbour.
There are already cases of CCS failure and questionable successes. The U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory keeps a database of CCS projects all over the world, and among them are terminated CCS projects.
Norway’s Oil and Energy Ministry scrapped a controversial CCS project in 2013. Then-Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg compared it to putting a man on the moon. He had hoped Norway would lead the way with this technology and export it, but delays and a budget overrun of $280 million killed the project.
Another high-profile attempt of the US to build a CCS is the Kemper County Energy Facility in Mississippi. It was originally pegged at $3 billion and was supposed to open in 2014. By 2019, the costs reached $7 billion and as of that year was still not operational.
And what about those CCS projects that have succeeded?
There’s Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan, Canada, the first full-scale post-combustion coal CCS project, which opened in September 2014. Despite positive releases to the media by operator SaskPower, leaked documents reveal that Boundary Dam was beset by ongoing problems, shutdowns, escalating costs, and capture rates that fall a long way short of what the proponents projected.
Figures from the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, Boundary Dam's carbon dioxide capture rates are, on average, almost 25 percent below what was initially projected. The operator has been embroiled in a protracted multimillion-dollar lawsuit over unresolved – possibly unresolvable – technical issues.
Clean coal technology is Expensive, Not Sustainable
There are reports of companies that want to build coal-fired power plants pointing out that they are willing to use clean coal technology regardless of how much it costs, and even if they do not make money from their investments. This is difficult to believe because so-called “clean coal” technology is not cheap.
The most efficient plants that are operating now include the company EnBW’s s RDK8 unit in Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe is the second-biggest city of Baden-Württemberg, a federal state in Germany. These plants are called "USC". This stands for "ultra-supercritical."
The label "USC" refers to the method of heating water to make steam. This is done at a temperature of 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 Fahrenheit).
During the process wherein it is subjected to intense heat and pressure, water enters a “supercritical” phase. Here it becomes neither a liquid nor a gas but has properties of both. That steam hits the 50-ton power-generation turbine at Karlsruhe with the force of a bullet, rotating it 50 times a second.
Companies including GE, IHI Corp., and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. in Japan, Siemens AG in Germany, and Doosan Corp. in South Korea are promoting these USC plants as a way to make coal cleaner for places that need cheap energy. They’re vying for orders in Asia, especially China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Indonesia, which have fewer alternatives than rich industrial countries.
Still, environmentalists point out that even the best coal plants contaminate groundwater and put mercury and dust into the air—in addition to their greenhouse-gas footprint.
Coal: a Losing and Loser Business
Even in Asia, where dozens of new coal plants are unfortunately now being built, it is now harder to get loans. Development banks are throwing their support behind green-energy projects. This is a response to calls to stop support for projects that create pollution.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) summarizes the matter succinctly:
“There’s really no such thing as clean coal,” said Woochong Um, director-general of the sustainable development and climate change department at ADB in Manila. “In the last five years, we haven’t found the type of coal project we would do.” (2017)