Natural gas switch from coal brings power plant emissions down

From the University of Colorado at Boulder

New study: US power plant emissions down

In 2013, Xcel Energy decommissioned this coal-fired power unit in Denver’s Arapahoe Station. Shifts in the US energy industry, including less electricity from coal, have meant fewer emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants from power plant, according to a new CIRES-led analysis. Credit: Photo by Will von Dauster of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Power plants that use natural gas and a new technology to squeeze more energy from the fuel release far less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than coal-fired power plants do, according to a new analysis accepted for publication Jan. 8 in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The so-called “combined cycle” natural gas power plants also release significantly less nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which can worsen air quality.

“Since more and more of our electricity is coming from these cleaner power plants, emissions from the power sector are lower by 20, 30 even 40 percent for some gases since 1997,” said lead author Joost de Gouw, an atmospheric scientist with NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder. NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

De Gouw, who works at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), and his NOAA and CIRES colleagues analyzed data from systems that continuously monitor emissions at power plant stacks around the country. Previous aircraft-based studies have shown these stack measurements are accurate for carbon dioxide (CO2) and for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide can react in the atmosphere to form tiny particles and ozone, which can cause respiratory disease.

To compare pollutant emissions from different types of power plants, the scientists calculated emissions per unit of energy produced, for all data available between 1997 and 2012. During that period of time, on average:

  • Coal-based power plants emitted 915 grams (32 ounces) of CO2 per kilowatt hour of energy produced;
  • Natural gas power plants emitted 549 grams (19 ounces) CO2 per kilowatt hour; and
  • Combined cycle natural gas plants emitted 436 grams (15 ounces) CO2 per kilowatt hour.

In combined cycle natural gas plants, operators use two heat engines in tandem to convert a higher fraction of heat into electrical energy. For context, U.S. households consumed 11,280 kilowatt hours of energy, on average, in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. This amounts to 11.4 metric tons per year of CO2 per household, if all of that electricity were generated by a coal power plant, or 5.4 metric tons if it all came from a natural gas power plant with combined cycle technology.

The researchers reported that between 1997 and 2012, the fraction of electric energy in the United States produced from coal gradually decreased from 83 percent to 59, and the fraction of energy from combined cycle natural gas plants rose from none to 34 percent.

That shift in the energy industry meant that power plants, overall, sent 23 percent less CO2 into the atmosphere last year than they would have, had coal been providing about the same fraction of electric power as in 1997, de Gouw said. The switch led to even greater reductions in the power sector’s emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which dropped by 40 percent and 44 percent, respectively.

The new findings are consistent with recent reports from the Energy Information Agency that substituting natural gas for coal in power generation helped lower power-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2012.

The authors noted that the new analysis is limited to pollutants emitted during energy production and measured at stacks. The paper did not address levels of greenhouse gases and other pollutants that leak into the atmosphere during fuel extraction, for example. To investigate the total atmospheric consequences of shifting energy use, scientists need to continue collecting data from all aspects of energy exploration, production and use, the authors concluded.

###

Authors of the new paper, “Reduced Emissions of CO2, NOx and SO2 from U.S. Power Plants Due to the Switch from Coal to Natural Gas with Combined Cycle Technology,” are de Gouw (CIRES), David Parrish (NOAA ESRL), Greg Frost (CIRES) and Michael Trainer (NOAA).

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
139 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 11, 2014 2:58 pm

Steve from Rockwood – are you in an urban centre or a wood cabin in the middle of nowhere?
Canada is big. I live in Gloucestershire, England, and the nearest city is within 50 miles of anywhere within my county. The “delivery fee” for my electricity is virtually negligible. Of course!
It is reasonable to expect the electricity to be connected near to me.
But if the nearest large centre of population was 300miles away then I might have a different view.

January 11, 2014 3:02 pm

Sorry,Steve from Rockwood.
I did not know my father was going to respond to you.
Please don’t think we Courtneys are ganging up on your comment.
It was pure coincidence.- we aren’t in proximity and nor are we in communication (outside of WUWT).

January 11, 2014 3:11 pm

Steve from Rockwood:
Your post at January 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm quotes my saying

In other words, given the choice of using gas for home heating or to generate electricity then choosing to generate electricity is – in effect – throwing away a third of the gas. That is true.

and responds

Sorry Richard. That was too fuzzy for me.

OK. I will try to do better.
The energy efficiency of a system is the proportion of the energy which is used.
So burning gas in a building to heat the building is 100% efficient.
All the energy from burning the gas becomes heat used to heat the building.
But the most efficient electricity power station is a CCGT plant and it is only 61% efficient. Only 61% of the energy from burning the gas becomes energy in the form of electricity.
The other 39% of the energy is lost, mostly from the cooling towers of the power station.
Hence, when burning the gas in the power station to generate electricity then 39% of the energy is lost if the gas could have been burned in a building to heat the building. Which is a long-winded way of saying, as I did,

In other words, given the choice of using gas for home heating or to generate electricity then choosing to generate electricity is – in effect – throwing away a third of the gas. That is true.

I really do not know how to explain it any more simply than that.
Richard

starzmom
January 11, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: shutting down of existing coal fired power plants. To the extent that those plants are still in cost recovery–that is, in the rate base until all costs are recovered from the rate payers–they will remain in the rate base even if shut down. This is the basic deal that utilities have with the states that regulate them: They take a specified rate of return, which they may not exceed, and they get to include their approved costs in the rate base to set the rates their customers pay. A plant that is not fully paid for, but is shut down for environmental reasons, will remain in the rate base, even if it is not generating electricity, until it is paid for. So customers will pay twice for the same capacity–the shut down plant, and also the new plant to replace it.

January 11, 2014 3:27 pm

richardscourtney says:
January 11, 2014 at 3:31 am
richard verney:
Re syncrude
LSE- nice bit on your resume Richard, congratulations. Two things. One: doesn’t proprietary tech have a ~ 20yr ownership life? Two, I would say leaving it on the shelf, it is foregoing further development that would (I don’t even say might) make it even more economic and versatile – maybe sewage might be a partial feedstock (I’m reaching here, but you get my point).

January 11, 2014 3:49 pm

Gary Pearse:
I am answering your post at January 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm concerning propriety rights to the LSE process.
Yes, you are right that IPR has a 20 year life (or 30 year life depending on where you are). But that is not relevant in the case of LSE.
As I explained in my post which you are querying, details of the LSE process are a UK State Secret. And nobody wants to fall foul of the UK Security Acts.
I can outline the process. Indeed, a paper on it was commissioned from me by UNESCO. The basic process is as follows.
1.
Hydrogen is obtained from coal using a water-gas shift.
2.
The solids from the water-gas shift and additional coal are dissolved in a solvent.
3.
The solution is hydrogenated at elevated temperature and pressure in an ebullating bed containing a zeolite catalyst. The proportions of generated hydrocarbons are decided by temperature, pressure and residence time in the bed.
4.
The obtained hydrocarbons (i.e. the syncrude) are separated from the solvent by lowering the temperature and pressure.
5.
The solvent is filtered to remove any residual solids which can be burned (e.g. in a fluidised bed combustor) to provide heat for the process.
6.
The filtered solvent is circulated back to step 1.
That summarises what the process does but tells nobody what they need to know to build and operate a functioning LSE plant. Important information is missing from each of stages 2, 3 and 5. Even the apparently simple but missing information is not easy to obtain by reverse engineering; for example, perfection of the filter of Stage 5 took years.
I hope that answers what you were asking.
Richard

Steve from Rockwood
January 11, 2014 3:55 pm

@Courtney Sr. and Jr.
I agree with the inefficiency of burning gas to generate electricity to in turn heat your home. In Canada where gas is available alongside electricity we all go with gas heating. I follow the comments in reverse order sometimes so “apologies” if off-topic a bit.
I live in the country about 1.2 km off a gravel road. Not exactly a cabin though 😉
We are charged a “delivery fee” just like everyone else regardless of where we live. It is another way for the government to say the price of electricity is low (at $0.07 per kWh) when in fact your total bill (cost + delivery + taxes) is closer to $0.20. Delivery fee is just a percentage of your use of electricity. Much like the “debt reduction charge” for past capital expenditures that had significant cost over-runs (think nuclear).
I enjoy your father’s (rather prolific) posts. Had no idea you were related. Recall you came to my defense at one time.
Cheers to both. My 1947 Triumph 1800 Roadster and 1959 Jaguar XK 150S say “hello from Canada”. English cars. Once you get them started there’s just no stopping them.

Steve from Rockwood
January 11, 2014 4:10 pm

M Courtney says:
January 11, 2014 at 2:58 pm

It is reasonable to expect the electricity to be connected near to me.

You would think this a basic right, access to electricity. Further, you would think the government owned utility would do their best to keep costs down. After all why try and make electricity so expensive when it is there for the public.
I live about 15 km (10 short English miles) north of a town of 100,000 and 68 km from Toronto, our largest city. Most of us locally have from 10 to 100 acres or so and we all have electricity. When I first moved here 10 years ago my electricity bill was $300-$400 CAD per month. Back then we didn’t have “delivery fee”, “debt reduction charge”, “green energy rebate”, or HST (harmonized sales tax). Now we do and my tax bill has increased to $500-$700 per month.

January 11, 2014 4:12 pm

Steve from Rockwood:
You have a 1947 Triumph 1800 Roadster! And it still runs! Wow!
Envy does not describe the degree of my emotion.
The best I ever managed was a Triumph Herald.
Best wishes from the tip of Cornwall in the UK.
Richard

TonG(ologist)
January 11, 2014 4:38 pm

For my $0.02 worth, please go to http://www.suspectterrane.blogspot.com

nc
January 11, 2014 5:23 pm
January 12, 2014 1:17 am

This is getting ridiculous.
I also had a Triumph Roadster a long time ago when I was at Nautical School in Leith studying for my Second Mate Certificate.

beng
January 12, 2014 8:35 am

***
JEM says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:21 pm
Use of electricity for area heating is generally quite inefficient, but it can be ‘targeted’ to small applications better than most other forms.
***
Exactly. As an engineer, I understand costs/efficiency. Electric heat is indeed inefficient, but I turn my whole-house (fuel oil) heat way down & use a .8 to 1.6 kW electric heater right at my feet exactly where it’s needed, instead of heating a whole room top to bottom. So electric heaters have their uses if used properly.

Phil's Dad
January 13, 2014 8:53 am

michael hart says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:23 am
“But the more masochistic European countries like the UK may achieve some longer lasting self-inflicted wounds before the futility of the IPCC position is widely acknowledged.”

You might be interested in this development Mr Hart.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25705550
We’re getting there.

1 4 5 6