Skip to content

Coal Technology Can Free Millions From Poverty

December 12, 2014

Rather than crucifying the use of coal, why not develop newer and better coal-fired power plants, operating at higher temperatures and pressures while emitting fewer emissions.

Actually such plants can be built. They are referred to as ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants. They deserve the moniker of clean coal.

  • Coal is cheap and available in many parts of the world.
  • Coal is the hope of millions of people for access to electricity.
  • Without electricity, people live in poverty and die at a young age.
  • Depriving the poor of coal-fired electricity is a crime against humanity.

No other energy source is so abundant and so widely available, with the ability to generate large amounts of electricity, cheaply and reliably … 24 hours per day, 12 months per year.

We in the United States are lucky. We can toy around with mindless ideas, because we have abundant supplies of natural gas that can supplant coal, but even here, we are causing people economic harm with the war on coal.

First, a look at the technology

Ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants operate at very high temperatures and pressures of over 1100 degrees F and 4300 psi respectively, with a thermal efficiency of 44% HHV.

In contrast, virtually all U.S. coal-fired power plants in service today, operate at lower temperatures and pressures, with an average thermal efficiency of only 32%.
As a result, USC power plants are nearly 40% more efficient than existing coal-fired power pants.

In addition, they emit nearly 40% fewer emissions of all types, simplifying the elimination of emissions of SOx, CO2, particulates etc. by comparable amounts.

USC power plants can meet all EPA emission requirements, except for CO2.

These improvements are made possible by advances in metallurgy. Research in materials is continuing, so it may be possible to develop Advanced Ultra Supercritical (AUSC) power plants, where temperatures are over 1300 degrees F, and where efficiencies of 50% HHV may be possible.

John W. Turk, only U.S. ultra-supercritical power plant. Photo courtesy of SWEPCO.

John W. Turk, only U.S. ultra-supercritical power plant. Photo courtesy of SWEPCO.

Only one Ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plant has been built in the united States.

It’s the obsession to eliminate CO2 emissions that is keeping the United States from benefitting from USC power plants that use less coal and produce fewer emissions.

Second, a look at the global importance of coal-fired electricity

Access to electricity is essential for eliminating poverty, and coal is the only cheap and widely available source for generating the needed electricity.

It’s for this reason that China, and developing countries in Africa and elsewhere are building coal-fired power plants.

China is building USC plants, reportedly one each week.

Globally the use of coal in 2013 grew by about 50% more than the use of oil and three times that of natural gas.

A new report by Robert Bryce, Not Beyond Coal, How the Global Thirst for Low-Cost Electricity Continues Driving Demand for Coal, contains considerable information on the use of coal, and is quoted here.

For example, from Not Beyond Coal:

“Coal remains an essential fuel to address ‘energy poverty’, the lack of access to modern energy services such as electricity and clean cooking fuels. From 1990 to 2010, some 832 million people gained access to electricity due to coal-fired generation, the vast majority of whom live in developing countries.”


“The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines electricity access at levels that are a minute fraction of the levels common in the developed world. For instance, the Paris-based agency describes electricity access as 250 kilowatt-hours per year in rural areas and 500 kilowatt-hours in urban locations. For comparison, the average resident of France consumes over 7,100 kilowatt-hours per year.”

In other words, even with energy access, as defined by the IEA, people in developing countries would have access to quantities of electricity that Americans would consider unacceptable.

No one doubts that renewables have been growing at a rapid rate, but in 2013 renewables only supplied 2% of electricity globally, and that was primarily in Europe and the United States where governments mandated and subsidized their growth.

Poor governments can’t afford to spend money on renewables that are costly, unreliable and ineffectual. Coal use will continue to grow, with China being the largest component of that growth.

By 2040, China is expected to add 400 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity. For comparison purposes, the United States currently has 300 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity, so China will increase its coal-fired generating capability by more than the total existing coal-fired generating capacity of the United Sates.

It’s obvious that CO2 emissions will increase globally, no matter how much the United States cuts its emissions.

Cutting CO2 emissions in the United States is a fool’s errand from any perspective.

But there are also other countries desperately in need of electricity.

For example:

  • There are 400 million people in India who lack electricity, with the average Indian consuming 600 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year).
  • Indonesia, where consumption is 629 kWh/year.
  • Africa, where only 32% of the people have access to electricity, with many of these located in only a few countries, such as South Africa.

For example, per capita usage in South Africa is 4,819 kWh/year which compares with countries such as the Central African Republic at 29 kWh/year, and Chad at 8 kWh/year.

Coal-fired power generation is the only cheap and abundant source of electricity for people such as these.

Coal should be seen as a life saving, poverty eradicating source of energy.

Ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants can be a boon to civilization, and the United Sates should be taking a leading role in supporting and developing Ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants around the world, including the United States.

* * * * * *

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. Andrew W. Cox permalink
    December 12, 2014 10:11 am

    Interesting article.
    But you got some of the HHVs mixed up with LLVs.

    I was in South East Asia earlier in the week.
    Malaysia is building a new generation of ultra-supercritical (USC) coal-fired power plants. By 2012 they will have 5GW+ of USC capacity – far more than the USA.

    • December 12, 2014 10:24 am

      Thanks for your comments.
      As noted, the USA only has one USC plant and can’t build anymore because of the EPA regs saying that no plant can exceed 1,100 pounds / MWh.
      Regarding HHV: The US uses HHV while Europe and many other countries use LHV. Using LHV results in higher efficiencies. As you probably know, HHV includes the moisture content of coal requiring heat to remove the moisture which results in the lower efficiency.
      I don’t see where I have mixed the two in this article.

      • Daniel permalink
        December 13, 2014 2:26 am

        What I find most interesting is the super-critical CO2 turbines.
        I find the concept quite fascinating.

        For a coal or nuclear plant they would have a significant advantage.

        Here is a link for the curious

  2. December 13, 2014 9:27 am

    This cycle has been discussed from time to time. If it works, it would merely be a means for improving overall efficiency, the same as when the NGCC was developed in the 1970s, where the exhaust gas was used to produce steam to power a steam turbine generator.
    Any method for improving efficiency should be examined.
    CHP, as discussed in the link you provided, by itself doesn’t really improve efficiency very much, but does take advantage of the waste heat from a steam turbine to heat buildings etc.
    Thanks for your comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s