http://www.eastman.com/
We don't want to grace it with any quotes or references, but, you see a lot of ink nowadays being devoted to the concepts and plans for replacing Coal-fired electric power plants with units fired by natural gas, such schemes being fueled by the wildly-overblown shale gas phenomenon, with an unfounded mania for shale gas and it's supposed benefits itself being fueled by the many breathless news reports concerning it; news reports that seem as if they could have been drawn more from gas industry press releases than solid independent research.
Aside from artificial economic benefits, which might be accorded shale gas because of carbon tax, better known by the less-offensive title "Cap & Trade", schemes, it's generally perceived that shale gas, because of the increase in it's production and related decrease in price, would be a less-expensive fuel, relative to Coal, with which to generate electricity.
It is not.
It never has been - - even at its lowest historical price - - and it never will be.
Disregard what you've heard about how much natural gas costs, for instance, per "thousand" or per "million" "cubic feet".
What's important is how much gas costs, especially relative to Coal, per a given amount of energy it can produce or deliver when combusted.
The energy it delivers, of course, is heat energy, which is used to generate steam, which in turn is used to generate electricity.
Heat energy is most typically expressed in terms of the "British thermal unit" or "Btu".
And, by any measure, the Btu's which can be generated by gas are, always have been, and always will be, absent artificial constraints on competition, significantly more expensive than those which can be generated by Coal.
The differential is explained by the United States Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency via:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/index.cfm; "According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, natural gas prices averaged over the period 1999‐2008 have been almost four times more expensive than coal. Natural gas prices have averaged $5.75/million Btu over the ten‐year period, whereas the price of coal has averaged $1.46/MMBtu over the same period. During the first ten months of 2009, the price of natural gas has been more than double the price of coal. Natural gas prices averaged $4.65/MMBtu during January-October. By comparison, coal averaged $2.23/million Btu over the same period. According to EIA projections, natural gas prices are expected to increase by 60 percent between 2010 and 2030. By comparison, coal prices are projected to decrease by 2 percent over the same period. The table below shows EIA projections (from AEO 2010) for natural gas and coal prices for the electric power sector. Based on these projections, coal is expected to cost a fraction of the price of natural gas for the foreseeable future".Once again, just for emphasis, the US Department of Energy says, clearly, in terms of energy produced: "coal is expected to cost a fraction of the price of natural gas for the foreseeable future".
Even though it is, for a mix of reasons, less expensive to build a new gas-fired power plant than a coal-fired power plant, what hasn't been too broadly exposed is the fact that a significant number of power systems exist in the United States with redundant capacity, shares of which extra capacity are divided between Coal and gas, and, perhaps of more immediate effect, which can be switched back and forth, or ramped preferentially up and down, as circumstances dictate for the most profitable or the most reliable operation.
And, an analysis of the recent and historical performance of that "switch-able" capacity is available from the International Energy Information Agency, of which the United States is a member:
http://www.iea.org/publications/insights/insightpublications/CoalvsGas_FINAL_WEB.pdf; which takes us to the report: "'Gas to Coal Competition in the U.S. Power Sector'; The International Energy Agency (IEA, an autonomous agency, was established in November 1974.Its primary mandate was - and is - two-fold: to promote energy security amongst its member countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply, and provide authoritative research and analysis on ways to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond. (Based on (discussed and illustrated factors), it is estimated that the bulk of the 122.5 TWh that switched in the 14 states in the twelve months beginning with October 2011 will switch back to coal as the HH (Henry Hub - a central natural gas distribution facility) price approaches USD 4.7/MBtu in 2017, leaving shares of CCGT and coal output similar to those observed in early 2011. In this context it is also worth noting that the year 2012 was exceptional in many respects, with a mild winter, a hot summer, and frequent outages of nuclear power plants. The substantial increase of gas-fired generation in 2012 was therefore driven, among other things, by abnormal conditions".Thus, the recent increase in electricity generated from gas that we've seen has been caused by "abnormal conditions"; and, the pendulum, barring retirement and dismantling of too many Coal-fired generation units during a period of gas propaganda-fueled national re-engineering, will, rather soon, swing back to Coal.
But, even if some Coal-fired power generation capacity is decommissioned and dismantled during the mania, and some new gas-fired power generation capacity is built, King Coal might still be able to keep the lights on for you - - through the process of Coal gasification.
Coal can be converted through various technologies of gasification, as we've many times reported and documented, into a gaseous blend of Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen, better known as "synthesis gas", or just "syngas".
And, that Coal-based syngas offers multiple potentials, as we've documented, for one example, in:
West Virginia Coal Association | Tennessee Coal to Methanol & Dimethyl Ether | Research & Development; which contained information pertaining to testimony concerning Coal gasification presented to the United States Senate: "Hearing/Meeting: Oversight on Natural Gas; Full Committee Hearing; July 10, 2003'; Witness: Brian Ferguson, Chairman and CEO, Eastman Chemical; Testimony: Statement of Brian Ferguson (to the) Energy and Natural Resources Committee, US Senate; Eastman is a pioneer in using coal gasification to produce chemicals. Coal gasification is among the major rational responses to present and foreseeable natural gas shortages and price increases. Coal is the most abundant and price-stable fossil energy resource in the United States. Chemical industry history strongly suggests that abundant and low cost feedstocks, market competition, and stable geopolitics are major factors in technological innovation and economic sustainability. Coal gasification is the coal technology that offers the best opportunity to support environmentally responsible and competitively sustainable basic manufacturing and electricity generation in the United States";wherein the Eastman Chemical Company, who have been producing Methanol from Coal at a plant in Kingsport, Tennessee, for more than a decade indirectly, via an initial process of Coal gasification, indicate how generating synthesis gas from Coal can enable both power generation, by using the syngas as a substitute for natural gas in a gas-fired power generation unit, and, the co-production of valuable chemicals from that Coal-derived synthesis gas.
That concept was more fully disclosed in our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | Eastman Coal to Methanol and Electric Power | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent Application 20060096298 - Method for Satisfying Variable Power Demand; 2006; Inventor: Scott Barnicki, et. al., Kingsport, TN; Assignee: Eastman Chemical Company, TN; Abstract: A process for satisfying variable power demand and a method for maximizing the monetary value of a synthesis gas stream are disclosed. One or more synthesis gas streams are produced by gasification of carbonaceous materials and passed to a power producing zone to produce electrical power during a period of peak power demand or to a chemical producing zone to produce chemicals such as, for example, methanol, during a period of off-peak power demand. The power-producing zone and the chemical-production zone which are operated cyclically and substantially out of phase in which one or more of the combustion turbines are shut down during a period of off-peak power demand and the syngas fuel diverted to the chemical producing zone. This out of phase cyclical operational mode allows for the power producing zone to maximize electricity output with the high thermodynamic efficiency and for the chemical producing zone to maximize chemical production with the high stoichiometric efficiency. The economic potential of the combined power and chemical producing zones is enhanced";
wherein Eastman Chemical outlined the specifics of how Coal-derived syngas could be selectively used for more or less Methanol synthesis, and/or more or less electric power generation, in what would be essentially a gas-fired electric generator, depending upon variable need and relative economic benefit.
We'll note, in passing, that Coal-derived syngas, although it can be burned as fuel, perhaps with slight modification, in a gas-burning power generator, does have a lower Btu content than natural gas. But, if it's thought to be necessary, Coal syngas could first be converted into genuine substitute natural gas Methane via a process like that discussed in our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | Pennsylvania Coal to Methane | Research & Development; concerning:"United States Patent 3,779,725 - Coal Gasification; 1973; Assignee: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA; Abstract: A method for producing a synthetic pipeline gas by reacting a carbonaceous fuel in a gasifier to form a gas and thereafter subjecting the gas to additional process steps (for) separation of high methane content gas".
However, the combustion of Coal-derived syngas, rather than natural gas, for power generation is already being practiced, at, for instance, Tampa Electric Company's Polk Power Station, in Florida, in what's known as an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or "IGCC", process. We've made brief note of the Polk facility in prior reports; and, more can be learned via:
http://www.tampaelectric.com/
We'll have more on Tampa Electric's operation of their highly-efficient IGCC Coal utilization process in at least one report to follow. But, since Coal gasification lies at the heart of Eastman Chemical's Coal-to-Methanol process, which is a more advanced version of the original Fischer-Tropsch indirect type of Coal liquefaction technology for converting Coal into liquid hydrocarbon fuels, we wanted herein to provide you with a more complete description of Coal gasification, provided by Eastman Chemical themselves.
As excerpted, with comment inserted and appended, from the initial link in this dispatch to:
"Eastman Gasification Services Company: Eastman Gasification Overview; March 22, 2005
Eastman: Founded in 1920 as part of Eastman Kodak Wood-to-Methanol Plant
Spun Off from Kodak 1994; Approximately $6B in Annual Sales
Gasification 101: Just the Basics: C + O2 + H2O = CO + H2;
The partial oxidation of carbon to produce a 'synthesis gas'.
(The "C", of course, herein means Coal. But, keep in mind that, as seen for just one example in:
West Virginia Coal Association | Exxon Co-Gasifies Coal and Carbon-Recycling Biomass | Research & Development; concerning: "US Patent Application 20100083575 - Co-gasification Process for Hydrocarbon Solids and Biomass; 2010; ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company; Abstract: A process for the co-gasification of carbonaceous solids (coal) and biomass (and) wherein the biomass comprises biological matter selected from wood, plant matter, municipal waste, green waste, byproducts of farming or food processing waste, sewage sludge, black liquor from wood pulp, and algae";
Coal can provide the carbon density to co-gasify, and thereby utilize, a lot of other, some unpleasant, renewable and "C"-recycling materials along with it.
Eastman goes on to illustrate the separation of air, to obtain Oxygen for use in the gasification process, with the commercial co-production of industrial Nitrogen and Argon, which would serve to offset the costs of the O2.)
What Is Gasification? Coal + Water + Oxygen = Carbon Monoxide + Hydrogen
(In a couple of places, Eastman seems to indicate that they are using a General Electric, "GE", gasification system and/or hardware. As we've documented in, for one example, our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | GE Converts China Coal to Methanol | Research & Development; concerning the Chinese news report: "'One of the World’s Largest Coal-to-Olefins Gasification Units Starts Up in China'; BEIJING, CHINA—August 12, 2010—The gasification unit at one of the world’s largest coal-to-olefins projects successfully started up at the China Shenhua Coal to Liquid and Chemical Co. Ltd.’s project in Baotou, Inner Mongolia (Shenhua Baotou Coal to Olefins project). The gasification unit uses advanced coal gasification technology provided by GE (NYSE:GE). The gasification technology converts coal into a synthesis gas (or syngas). Syngas can then be used to produce methanol, which will be transformed into olefins, a building block for producing polyethylene and polypropylene. ... With five gasifiers and two spare units, the Shenhua Baotou Coal to Olefins project is one of the largest coal to olefins plants in the world. The plant underscores the importance that the Chinese government is placing on using the country’s large coal reserves to reduce its heavy dependence on imported olefins (polyethylene and polypropylene-based plastics) and drive further economic growth. “The size and scope of this project is possible because of strong government interest in the development of larger coal-to-olefins plants,” said Jason Crew, director of gasification products—Asia for GE Power & Water. “The Shenhua Baotou Coal to Olefins project is one of three large-scale, coal-to-olefins demonstration projects funded by the Chinese government and is the first one to start up. We are proud that GE gasification technology is part of this successful industrial scale project.” Gasification technology is critical for the expansion of the Chinese economy, allowing a wide variety of industrial products and fuels to be created from low-cost and abundant coal resources. GE’s gasification technology is one of the most widely applied technologies of its kind in China, with more than 40 licensed facilities. As gasification projects in China get larger and more complex, advanced technologies such as GE’s larger scale quench gasifier and higher pressure gasification technology will have a significant role in reducing overall project cost";GE's Coal gasification expertise, about which we will have more to offer in many reports to follow, is recognized in other nations of the world, if not so much in the heart of US Coal Country.)
Gasification Basics: Gas Cooling
(Eastman illustrates how Coal-derived syngas needs to be cooled, with the co-production of steam, which can be utilized for supplemental power generation.)
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) Technologies Can Provide Near 100% Sulfur Removal
So What Can You Do With CO (Carbon Monoxide) and H2 (Hydrogen)?
Syngas = Building Blocks for Chemical Industry + Transportation Fuels + Clean Electricity
NGCC: Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant; Most New Power Plants In The United States in the Last 10-15 Years Have Been Natural Gas Based
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle: Replace Natural Gas Feed With (Coal-derived) Syngas
(The immediately above, we think, is of critical importance to the United States economy. For whatever suspect reasons, a false public impression of natural shale gas abundance has been engendered by the media. That, even though some major shale gas fields, like the Barnett down in Texas, are already in decline. Further, costs and prices publicly cited for gas produced from shale, or from any other source, typically note only the price per volume of gas, which is entirely, utterly misleading. The true cost, or price, should stated in terms of the heating value, the usable energy, almost always stated as British Thermal Units, or "Btu's", which can be extracted from the fuel when it's combusted to generate electricity. Coal is a far, far more "energy dense" fuel than gas, and the real cost of generating electricity from Coal always has been and always will be far less than generating the same amount of electricity from gas.
The United States Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency make the differences clear in:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/index.cfm; Natural gas is a much more expensive fuel than Coal. On a cost-per-energy, or British Thermal Unit, Btu, basis, over the period 1999‐2008 gas was almost four times more expensive than coal. Natural gas prices have averaged $5.75/million Btu over the ten‐year period, whereas the price of coal has averaged $1.46/MMBtu over the same period. Further, throughout nearly all of 2009, the price of natural gas, again on a per-Btu basis, was more than double the price of coal. Further, according to USDOE/EIA projections, natural gas prices "are expected to increase by 60 percent between 2010 and 2030, while coal prices are projected to decrease by 2 percent over the same period". In sum, based on the USDOE/EIA projections, Coal, on a per-Btu basis, is expected to cost a fraction of the price of natural gas for the next several decades.
The above is a summation, as opposed to a direct excerpt, of the information accessible via the link.
Fortunately, Coal syngas, with or without first being converted into Methane, can,as herein indicated by Eastman, be burned, with minor equipment modifications, instead of natural gas in a gas-fired boiler. When the price of electricity generated from natural shale gas becomes too crushing for us to bear, Coal gasifiers can be added to gas-fired power plants in order to provide a much, much less expensive alternative fuel - - if, that is, our national economy hasn't been so degraded at that point by continued, unnecessary purchases of OPEC oil and wasteful investment in energy sources that don't return as much energy and is invested in them that we can no longer afford the capital expenditure for Coal gasifiers. )
Gasification-based Polygeneration: Syngas from Coal (to) Electricity, Chemicals, Synfuels, Fertilizers
Polygeneration Potential of (Coal) Gasification: Fischer-Tropsch Liquids - Car Fuel (and) Diesel; Ethylene and Propylene; Methanol; Power (and more).
Benefits of Polygeneration: Higher Overall Value Creation (and) Higher Employment For The Community
Why Coal?
We have lots of it - - 250+ year supply.
We can distribute it (via) existing infrastructure - - rail, barge, mine mouth
It costs less and is less volatile in price
It broadens our national fuel portfolio (and) Insulates against price and availability shock of oil and natural gas
Coal needs to return as a key feedstock and energy source in the US!!!
Gasification is the technology of choice for converting coal to clean and efficient power, chemicals, fertilizers and fuels. "
-------------------------
We'll close our excerpts there, although there is much, much more to the presentation. We caution that some of it might seem out of date, since a lot, much of it regarding the shale gas bubble, has happened since 2005 when it was composed. However, keep the USDOE/EIA information we cited above in mind if you review the full document.
The current seeming abundance of shale gas is a very temporary, very transient phenomenon.
But, King Coal, as herein, through the technology of Coal gasification, can get us profitably out of any jams the current madness of crowds might lead us into.
And, he can spit some baccy juice in old OPEC's eye, and put a lot more United States citizens to work, while he does so.
Our primary purpose in making report of "Eastman Gasification Services Company: Eastman Gasification Overview" is to reintroduce the concept of "polygeneration", as embodied in our above-cited report concerning:
"United States Patent Application 20060096298 - Method for Satisfying Variable Power Demand" and, separately, for another example, in:.
West Virginia Coal Association | Germany Coal to Electricity, Methanol and Vinyl Acetate | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,663,931 - Power Generating Station with and Integrated Coal Gasification Plant; 1987; Inventors: Ulrich Shiffers and Rainer Muller, Germany; Assignee: Kraftwerk Union, AG, Mulheim; Abstract: Power generating plant with an integrated coal gasification plant, with a heat exchanger and gas purification plant connected to the coal gasifier, with a gas turbine and steam power generating plant part connected to the heat exchanger and gas purification plant, and with a methanol synthesis plant".
With synthesis gas generated from Coal, and, as seen in our above-cited report concerning ExxonMobil's "US Patent Application 20100083575 - Co-gasification Process for Hydrocarbon Solids and Biomass", from any number of supplemental, and renewable, carbon sources, we can economically produce abundant electricity along with all of the hydrocarbon fuels and chemicals we might need, and do so for at least the next couple of centuries.
Polygeneration with Coal is a complex topic that we will, in coming reports, attempt to do our best, in spite our own many admitted limitations, to explain and introduce in a way that's understandable.
It would be in all our best interests, we assure you, if everyone reading those reports put at least as much energy into studying, trying to understand, polygeneration as we will put into our attempts to explain it.
We as a nation are digging ourselves into an economic hole, a trap, with our current shale gas fascination
And, OPEC's standing by to shovel the dirt back in after us.
King Coal, and other folks, like Eastman Chemical as herein, have a ladder waiting for us to use.
We better be prepared to grab hold of it and start climbing.