skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Overview of coal consumption and related environmental trends, and implications for greenhouse gas emissions

Abstract

This paper reviews world and regional trends in coal consumption, and its growing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The paper then discusses a number of options within the coal system where greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO{sub 2}, can be reduced. The commercial status and environmental performance of the main power plant technology options are briefly reviewed.

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
East-West Center, Honolulu, HI (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Washington, DC (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
653977
Report Number(s):
CONF-9706239-1
ON: DE98004833; BR: AA1520450;AZ0220060; TRN: AHC2DT05%%59
DOE Contract Number:
FC03-94FE63313
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: Workshop on coal and the global environment, Amsterdam (Netherlands), 16-17 Jun 1997; Other Information: PBD: Jun 1997
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING AND POLICY; 20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS; COAL; FUEL CONSUMPTION; GREENHOUSE GASES; FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS; AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; COAL SEAMS; DEGASSING; COAL PREPARATION; FLUIDIZED-BED COMBUSTION; COAL GASIFICATION

Citation Formats

Johnson, C.J., and Wang, X. Overview of coal consumption and related environmental trends, and implications for greenhouse gas emissions. United States: N. p., 1997. Web.
Johnson, C.J., & Wang, X. Overview of coal consumption and related environmental trends, and implications for greenhouse gas emissions. United States.
Johnson, C.J., and Wang, X. Sun . "Overview of coal consumption and related environmental trends, and implications for greenhouse gas emissions". United States. doi:. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/653977.
@article{osti_653977,
title = {Overview of coal consumption and related environmental trends, and implications for greenhouse gas emissions},
author = {Johnson, C.J. and Wang, X.},
abstractNote = {This paper reviews world and regional trends in coal consumption, and its growing contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The paper then discusses a number of options within the coal system where greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO{sub 2}, can be reduced. The commercial status and environmental performance of the main power plant technology options are briefly reviewed.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 1997},
month = {Sun Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 1997}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • Utility Climate Challenge will require a joint voluntary effort of DOE and electric utility industry to reduce, avoid or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. Methods being used to meet greenhouse reduction goals include demand-side management programs, fuel-switching, use of renewable energy, high efficiency electricity generation from fossil fuels, electrotechnology and electrification programs, which may result in net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for the economy overall while increasing electric utility emissions, forestry and other sink-related activities, and international activities. Fossil Energy activities in progress that contribute to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions include using existing resources more efficiently to obtain growthmore » while expending the same amount of fuel, producing economic alternative energy sources in the near term, substituting fossil fuels with lower CO{sub 2} emissions for those with higher CO{sub 2} emissions, exporting more efficient clean coal technologies, capturing, recovering and/or using the emissions from economic activities in a manner that eliminates or reduces their effect on the atmosphere, e.g., using methane emitted from coal mines to fuel power generation.« less
  • This paper discusses the common perspective on greenhouse gas emissions that well over half of carbon dioxide emissions originate in developing countries. According to IPCC data, in 1991 energy-related carbon emissions from non-OECD countries accounted for 57% of the global total, while emissions from OECD countries accounted for 43%. This perspective is misleading and oversimplified. The true picture of greenhouse gas emissions is much more complex, and varies by country and gas. On a country by country basis, the OECD countries are the largest current and historic emitters. The developed countries must take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.more » We cannot simply look at greenhouse gases in the context of OECD and non-OECD countries. There is a huge disparity between the emissions of Russia, Eastern European and certain Asian Countries compared to other non-OECD countries. On a per country basis, most developing country contributions to the global greenhouse gas budget are negligible. Finally, all greenhouse gases must be considered. While energy-related CO2 will remain the most important greenhouse gas over the next 25 years, land-use related CO2 or anthropogenic methane cannot be ignored or underestimated. Since the relative importance of various emission sources varies from region to region, greenhouse gas mitigation strategies must be tailored to the particular circumstances and factors friving emission in each region.« less
  • This study presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development,more » regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO 2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO 2 to more than 120 GtCO 2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m 2 that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2 °C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6).« less
  • The vast reserves of coal in the U.S. provide a significant incentive for the development of processes for coal conversion to liquid fuels (CTL). Also, CTL using domestic coal can help move the U.S. toward greater energy independence and security. However, current conversion technologies are less economically competitive and generate greater greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than production of petroleum fuels. Altex Technologies Corporation (Altex, hereinafter) and Pennsylvania State University have developed a hybrid technology to produce jet fuel from a feedstock blend of coal and biomass. Collaborating with Altex, Argonne National Laboratory has expanded and used the Greenhouse gases, Regulatedmore » Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET®) model to assess the life-cycle GHG emissions and water consumption of this hybrid technology. Biomass feedstocks include corn stover, switchgrass, and wheat straw. The option of biomass densification (bales to pellets) is also evaluated in this study. The results show that the densification process generates additional GHG emissions as a result of additional biomass process energy demand. This process coproduces a large amount of char, and this study investigates two scenarios to treat char: landfill disposal (Char-LF) and combustion for combined heat and power (CHP). Since the CHP scenarios export excess heat and electricity as coproducts, two coproduct handling methods are used for well-to-wake (WTWa) analysis: displacement (Char-CHP-Disp) and energy allocation (Char-CHP-EnAllo). When the feedstock contains 15 wt% densified wheat straw and 85 wt% lignite coal, WTWa GHG emissions of the coal-and-biomass-to-liquid pathways are 116, 97, and 137 gCO2e per megajoule (MJ) under the Char-LF, Char-CHP-Disp, and Char-CHP-EnAllo scenarios, respectively, as compared to conventional jet fuel production at 84 gCO2e/MJ. WTWa water consumption values are 0.072, -0.046, and 0.044 gal/MJ for Char-LF, Char-CHP-Disp, and Char-CHP-EnAllo, respectively, as compared to conventional jet fuel production at 0.028 gal/MJ. To reach the break-even point of 84 gCO2e/MJ, under the assumptions of constant product yields and energy demands regardless of the share of biomass and coal feedstocks, 31 wt%, 23 wt%, and 53 wt% of the feedstock blend need to be biomass under the Char-LF, Char-CHP-Disp, and Char-CHP-EnAllo scenarios, respectively.« less
  • The US Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a rule which would mandate that 30% of the oxygen content of reformulated gasoline be provided by renewable oxygenates. The rule would essentially require that biomass-based ethanol, or ETBE derived from ethanol, be used to supply 30% of the oxygen in reformulated gasoline. This short statement addresses the very narrow question, ``Would this rule result in a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions?`` The challenge then is to determine how much greenhouse gas is emitted during the ethanol fuel cycle, a fuel cycle that is much less mature and less well documented thanmore » the petroleum fuel cycle. In the petroleum fuel cycle, most of the greenhouse gas emissions come from fuel combustion. In the ethanol fuel cycle most of the greenhouse gas emissions come from the fuel production processes. Details of corn productivity, fertilizer use, process efficiency, fuel source, etc. become very important. It is also important that the ethanol fuel cycle produces additional products and the greenhouse gas emissions have somehow to be allocated among the respective products. With so many variables in the ethanol fuel cycle, the concern is actually with ethanol-based additives which will be produced in response to the proposed rule, and not necessarily with the average of ethanol which is being produced now. A first important observation is that the difference between standard gasoline and reformulated gasoline is very small so that when differences are drawn against alternative fuels, it makes little difference whether the contrast is against standard or reformulated gasoline. A second observation is that for this base case comparison, emissions of CO{sub 2} alone are roughly 13% less for the ethanol fuel cycle than for the reformulated gasoline cycle.« less