Learn To Make Your Own Solar Panels And SAVE $$$

Click Here!!!

Solar Power Versus Coal

Natural gas versus coal

Cole is absolutely the worst choice we could have as far as producing power goes.  It contains more pounds of CO2 per million BTUs and any other power source we use, almost twice that of natural gas.

As we look at the conundrum that we face, an electronic world but is morphing before our eyes, the onset of the hybrid and/or electric vehicle at a time when the number of vehicles in the world is set to leap forward, and the almost near certainty of the catastrophic effects this will have on our climate it can seem hopeless.

Natural gas could possibly be the solution, albeit a temporary solution.  There is no way that we can do without the power plants that are in place, our thirst for more energy is just uncontrollable.  What we do have is an abundance of natural gas available via multiple sources throughout the country and the world.  Although it is still a carbon producing fuel it just may be possible that it is a stopgap needed as we transition between traditional energy production and renewable/green energy production.

If any of you out there who read this blog are aware of some good articles on this were some good statistics we would love to see it.  What is the cost of converting coal-fired power plant to natural gas, what is the difference in the cost of producing energy from a natural gas-fired power plant.

As you read this remember that there is an extremely powerful coalition that supports the coal industry and tries to make believe a clean coal is a part of our future… this is an absolute lie. The first thing is that clean coal requires the storage of CO2, it is almost impossible to guarantee the storage of the CO2 stored with the methods that are being proposed, combine that with the fact that the cost of storing it will potentially drive the cost of energy from coal to the point where it is more expensive than renewable sources of energy at their current costs. It doesn't even take into account health costs, the cost of destroying the environment, the cleanup costs from the coal waste that rivals nuclear waste… the list goes on and on.

Although we may not like to hear it, natural gas just might be a transition that we need, please help us gather more information… thank you

About the Author

Joel Koman loves to write about renewable energy. He is an avid proponent of alternative and renewable energy with an entrepreneurial spirit. He manages his own site QuestionAuthoriTees where all his passion and current projects can be found.

Definition

If we look at some of the definitions for co-firing, then usually most of the statements will refer to it as a process of combustion of two types of fuels. This kind of combustion, which is the burning of different materials at the same time, is related mainly to a biomass being burned with a fossil fuel. The most common fossil fuel used in co-firing is coal.

In simple terms, co-firing is a method of supplementing coal in a coal-fired boiler with a different type of fuel, such as biomass materials*.

Method

Presently, there are two different types of co-firing, direct and indirect.

For direct co-firing, two different methods have been developed. The first method is blending the biomass and coal in the fuel handling system and feeding the blend to the boiler. The second method is a separate fuel handling and separate special burners for the biomass, which thus have no impact to the conventional coal delivery system.

On the other hand, indirect co-firing is a process concept, which is based on thermal conversion of biomass or waste to gaseous or liquid fuel and the co-firing of these converted fuels together with the main fuel.

Three different types of indirect co-firing exist. These are "indirect co-combustion with pre-gasification", "indirect co-combustion in gas-fired power plants", and "parallel co-combustion (steam side coupling)".

Co-Firing Benefits

Co-firing can reduce the emission of a number of gases. It has already been established that these gases pollute the environment and can cause global warming. Co-firing, therefore, can be beneficial in a number of ways. The most important benefit we obtain from the co-firing system is CO2 reduction, usually associated with global warming. In addition to the above, we can benefit in the reduction of NOx as well as reduction in flame temperature. Also, co-firing with biomass can reduce the emission of SOx, due to the lower sulphur content in biomass materials.

Others important beneficial factors can be in cost saving, as a variety of biomass materials are much cheaper than fossil fuels and under no threat of exhausting the reserve, such as with fossil fuels. For this reason, co-firing can increase sustainability of energy supplies from power production, as well as producing less by-product than burning coal on its own (clearly that depend on the type of biomass being used in the co-firing system).

Finally, co-firing improves combustion due to the higher volatile content of biomass. In addition, increasing the use of biomass materials as a fuel may help in the creation of new jobs.

Challenges for Co-firing

There are a number of factors which can affect co-firing in one way or another. Some of these factors are purely technical, others are non-technical.

Many of these challenges do not apply to fossil fuels, and that is what makes co-firing with biomass a more challenging area, trying to establish itself in a more competitive environment where a number of systems and fuels are being tested and marketed at the present time. Co-firing, therefore, will need more support and more time to smooth out its various problems before it can compete commercially with fossil fuels.

Factors which may give rise to problems are usually related to fuel preparation, storage, delivery and fuel flexibility (quality and quantity) [2]. Also, ash deposition (increased need for soot blowing, more intensive cleaning of heat transfer surfaces in revisions may be required etc.), remains a problem [3].

In addition to the above, other issues such as pollutant formation, increased corrosion rates of high temperature components, the number of bed material changes per day increases (in Fluidised Bed combustion), fly ash utilization (un-burnt carbon, contamination) [4], higher in-house power consumption, difficulty for complete combustion as well as the difficulties in mixing coal and biomass in the boiler, remain [5].

Fouling and corrosion of the boiler (alkalis, chlorine) are other negative aspects of co-firing. Finally and as part of the technical challenges, the negative impact on flue gas cleaning (SCR DeNOx).

Concerning non-technical factors, these may range from economic aspects (lack of financial incentives, uncertain fuel prices, open market) to legislative aspects (utilization of fly ash in cement, determining green share, emission legislation), as well as the public perception of co-firing of biomass/waste.

Conclusion

Co-firing is one of the methods used in power generating companies as a way to reduce unwanted gaseous emissions, which can be the cause of global warming, as well as a health risk to humans, plus polluting the environment.

In addition to the above, co-firing is one of the methods used to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels.

Generally speaking, co-firing can be used to reduce the cost of energy production, as the use of biomass materials for generating energy tend to be cheaper than the use of fossil fuels.

References

1. Perry M., Rosillo-Calle F. "Co-firing Report - United Kingdom" International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy Task40 - Imperial College 2006.

2. "Biomass Energy Data Book" US Dept. of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2006.

3. "Biomass Research" NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA, 2006.

4. "Biomass Management - Fuel Removal and Mulching" - Hills Emergency Forum, Biomass Management Working Paper, 2007.

5. "Engineering Report" Guidance document on biomass co-firing on coal fired power stations " DTI Projet 324-2, 2007

*Co-firing should not be confused with multiple fuel boilers. Multiple fuel boilers are designed to burn a wide range of fuels. Co-firing on the other hand is carried out in a boiler specifically designed to burn only a specific type of coal [1].

Najib Altawell

N. Altawell © 2008