Increasing Coal-Fired Generation Through 2010: Challenges and Opportunities

Chair: Mr. Steven F. Leer

Vice Chair: Mr. Wes M. Taylor

Study Work Group Co-Chairs:Ms. Georgia Nelson & Mr. Richard Eimer

The National Coal CouncilMay 2002

THE NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL

Steven F. Leer, Chairman

Robert A. Beck, Executive Director

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Spencer Abraham, U.S. Secretary of Energy

The National Coal Council is a Federal Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Energy. The sole purpose of the National Coal Council is to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary

of Energy on any matter requested by the Secretary relating to coal or to the coal industry.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface.........................................................................................................................................................1

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................4

Section 2:Technologies Available for Increasing Coal-Fired Generation by 2010.....................................................7

Section 3:Transitioning to an Advanced Coal Generation Future.............................................................................22

References.................................................................................................................................................25

Appendix A: Description of the National Coal Council..........................................................................26

Appendix B: The National Coal Council Membership Roster................................................................27

Appendix C: The National Coal Council Coal Policy Committee Roster..............................................39

Appendix D: The National Coal Council Coal-Fired Generation Study Work Group Roster................41

Appendix E: Correspondence Between the U.S. Department of Energy and National Coal Council....42

Appendix F: Correspondence From Industry Experts.............................................................................43

Appendix G: Acknowledgements............................................................................................................59

PREFACE

The National Coal Council is a private, nonprofit advisory body, chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The mission of the Council is purely advisory: to provide guidance and recommendations as requested by the United States Secretary of Energy on general policy matters relating to coal. The Council is forbidden by law from engaging in lobbying or other such activities. The National Coal Council receives no funds or financial assistance from the Federal Government. It relies solely on the voluntary contributions of members to support its activities.

The members of the National Coal Council are appointed by the Secretary of Energy for their knowledge, expertise and stature in their respective fields of endeavor. They reflect a wide geographic area of the United States (representing more than 30 states) and a broad spectrum of diverse interests from business, industry and other groups, such as:

Large and small coal producers; Coal users such as electric utilities and industrial users; Rail, waterways, and trucking industries as well as port authorities; Academia; Research organizations; Industrial equipment manufacturers; State government, including governors, lieutenant governors, legislators, and public utility

commissioners; Consumer groups, including special women’s organizations; Consultants from scientific, technical, general business, and financial specialty areas; Attorneys; State and regional special interest groups; and Native American tribes.

The National Coal Council provides advice to the Secretary of Energy in the form of reports on subjects requested by the Secretary and at no cost to the Federal Government.

Executive Summary

Purpose

By letter dated September 21, 2001, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham requested that the National Coal Council conduct a study to determine what “advanced technologies” might be available for the generation of electricity from coal in the next five to seven years. He requested that the Council “quantify additional power that could be produced over this time frame at lower cost and with lower emissions” than the current commercial offerings.

Page 3

The Council accepted the Secretary’s request and formed a study group of experts to conduct the work and draft a report. This study group extended the time frame of the investigation of available technologies out to the year 2010. Also, the group decided to include some discussion of environmental regulations and their effect on the implementation and deployment of these technologies. This environmental regulatory discussion is intertwined with the discussion of the various technologies.

The full text of the Secretary’s letter of request can be found in Appendix E of this report. The list of participants of this study group can be found in Appendix D of this report.

Findings

The study group found the following:

Various data sources that track generation capacity differ on the amount of coal-fired generation that is being planned, sited or permitted. However, in the past 24 months, these various sources indicate that between 22,000 MW and 65,000 MW of new coal-fired capacity has been announced. It is uncertain how much of this capacity will be built. The specific amount of additional capacity is dependent on site-specific, market-driven economic factors (natural gas price/availability, demand, siting and permitting costs, access to transmission, cost of capital, etc.).

Coal-based power is strategically critical to the U.S. because it is a low-cost, domestic resource – providing economic stability and energy security to the overall economy. Today over 50% of the country’s electricity is provided by coal and no energy source is currently available that can provide a significant alternative to this vast energy source. The continued use of coal, in a clean and environmentally acceptable manner, supports the stated national energy strategy of maintaining fuel diversity to secure economic and security objectives.

Development and deployment of advanced technologies (ultra supercritical steam power plants, integrated gasification combined cycle power plants, gasification/combustion hybrids, etc.) requires incentives and/or special government support to accelerate their development and deployment during the next 10 years.

Coal-based generators are subject to multiple, sometimes conflicting emissions regulations. New or revised emissions standards with varying implementation timetables add considerable uncertainty in coal-fired power plant investment by generation companies.

Mercury control is the subject of considerable research and development and demonstration initiatives today and lessons learned should be factored into regulatory policies.

Injection of powdered activated carbon (PAC) represents the most mature retrofit technology for reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers. Full-scale testing at two plants has demonstrated that PAC injection may be capable of reducing mercury by 50-70% on units with electrostatic precipitators (90% of the existing fleet of coal-fired boilers) and up to 90% for units with fabric filters (10% of the existing fleet). These reductions vary depending on fuel type and plant configuration. To further mature this technology to a commercial stage,

Page 4

additional short-term field tests and long-term demonstrations must be conducted at a number of plants representing a range of plant designs, operating characteristics and fuel types.

Effective application of a combination of technologies can control emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) up to 90%. Deployment of these technologies has achieved significant national reductions. To continue this downward trend, advanced economically feasible control technologies must be further developed.

Technologies for controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) are relatively mature and commercially proven. Control of SO2 emissions as high as 99% has been achieved at some plants, with 90-95% routine. Opportunities exist for further developments to reduce the cost of retrofit controls and to enhance the use of by-products.

The topic of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration is now seeing a significant acceleration in research and development and innovative ideas. Continued support for research, development and demonstration is needed to develop a portfolio of potential solutions. In a May, 2000 report by the Council entitled “Research and Development Needs for the Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide as Part of a Carbon Management Strategy” specific recommendations regarding sequestration were provided. DOE is currently implementing most of these recommendations. The best near-term option is to deploy plants with greater efficiency and (in parallel) aggressively continue research and development to develop future solutions. This dual-track approach to carbon management is embodied in the Bush Administration’s recently announced Global Climate Change Initiative and is the correct approach to the issue.

Strategies like the Administration’s recently announced Clear Skies Initiative which promote the combination of flexible, market-based mechanisms (such as emissions trading and banking) with reasonable reduction targets and time schedules, will facilitate the addition of the maximum amount of new coal-fired generation capacity mentioned above.

Recommendations

The National Coal Council recommends that the Secretary of Energy:

Establish a program to facilitate the development of technologies for the use of coal along two pathways: combustion and gasification.

o On the combustion pathway, development of advanced technologies for ultra supercritical boilers and controlling emissions of NOx and mercury should be accelerated and expedited.

o On the gasification pathway, technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), CO2 separation, etc., should be given increased support and funding.

Promote and support the need for a broad portfolio of technology development to allow maximum fuel flexibility in the energy production sector of the country’s economy.

o This development would include continued improvement of current technologies, development of the next generation of combustion technologies, and accelerated development of technologies required for coal gasification.

Page 5

o National energy security would be enhanced through this portfolio approach because coal is domestic, economic and in abundant supply.

Work together with the other appropriate agencies of the Federal government to establish a well-crafted, streamlined approach to emissions control from coal-fired electricity generation plants, within the structure of the Clean Air Act, which will improve regulatory stability over the next decade and facilitate increased investment in these types of generating plants. This approach should include, but not be limited to, the following:

o Simplify the multiple and sometime-conflicting regulations currently in place.o Improve the diagnostic tools, such as air quality models, to better reflect actual

operating conditions, meteorological and atmospheric conditions, and to eliminate overlapping conservativism inherent in these tools.

o Stress the importance of the use of market-based mechanisms, such as emissions trading, banking and averaging, as ways to reduce regulatory compliance costs.

In addition to supporting and conducting research and development programs, establish incentives and/or government support to accelerate the development of advanced generation designs (and the materials needed to operate them) and to bring them to commercial viability.

Support the application (by tax incentives or other means) of advanced mature coal utilization technologies that enhance the efficiency of electricity generation plants.

Page 6

Appendix ECORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF ENERGY AND NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL

Page 7

Appendix F

CORRESPONDENCE FROM INDUSTRY EXPERTS

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:21:50 -0400From: Alex Green <aesgreen@ufl.edu>Organization: University of FloridaX-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win98; I)MIME-Version: 1.0To: RBeck82851@aol.comSubject: Re: Action Draft of the NCC ReportReferences: <8.25b6bbe5.2a03e427@aol.com>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------9E09FB5A873614F429ADBAEF"X-Scanned-By: NERDC Open Systems Group (http://open-systems.ufl.edu/services/virus-scan/)

--------------9E09FB5A873614F429ADBAEFContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asciiContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Bob: After reading the Draft NCC report I believe my write up of "A greenalliance between coal and biomass " would be a useful supplement". Ican send in an MS Word copy of my original 12 page version that includedconsiderable detailed technical reasons for the green alliance. Youshould already have a link to it. Alternatively I am herewithattaching a 5 page text plus a one page MS word copy of two figuresand a key table. The condensation, I believe gives the essence of whythis alliance would foster Secretary Abraham's objectives in requestingthis study.

Please let me know if there are any problems relative to inclusionof this condensed report. The server in our building is down and I amtrying to manage from my home computer without the help of my GenerationY grad students.

Sincerely

Alex

Page 8

A green alliance between coal and biomassAlex E. S. Green, ICAAS-CCTL

University of Florida, Gainesville FL. 32611-2050 (5-13)

Abstract: In considering sensible energy-environmental policy (SEEP) responses to current national problems we observe that biomass is the renewable with the greatest near term potential. Accordingly, we conclude that there are urgent national needs: A) to develop omnivorous systems to convert solid fuels to liquid and gaseous fuels that can be used for efficient vehicles, combustion turbines, or fuel cells and B) to form a green alliance between coal and biomass to pursue ecofriendly co-utilization of coal with biomass and other opportunity fuels. An alliance would enable coal companies, the power industries, agriculture, other renewable energy advocates, and governmental agencies to combine expertise and assets to develop more quickly and at lower cost ecofriendly energy resources and technologies.

1. ENERGY-ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ICAAS, is an interdisciplinary environmental center formed in 1970, to the reduce anthropogenic emissions

associated with energy sources. The Clean Combustion Technology Laboratory (CCTL) is an energy center formed in 1980 to search for ecofriendly alternatives to oil. These centers conducted a study directed toward reducing Florida utilities' use of oil while minimizing the environmental impact of increased coal use. This study led to our 1980 book Coal Burning Issues [1] and our 1981 book An Alternative to Oil, Burning Coal with Natural Gas [2]. The latter began my search for ecofriendly ways to co-utilize domestic fuels [3-5].

Figure 1 shows a diagram of annual national energy consumption at the millennium extrapolated from Energy Information Agency documents. The USA consumed 95 quads and with the 5 exported quads the total in round numbers was 100 quads. We would very soon exhaust our domestic oil at present consumption rates if we relied entirely on it for transportation. Our natural gas would follow later but how much later depends upon who makes the estimate. Our coal reserves will last two or three centuries. Nuclear and renewables are smaller energy sources at this time. Renewables have the greatest public appeal since they appear to have minimal environmental impact. Biomass is the renewable with the greatest near term prospect for alleviating some of our national energy and environmental problems. 2. BIOMASS AND OTHER OPPORTUNITY FUELSA. Potential Sources

Table 1 lists various types of biomass and other opportunity fuels that should be considered in the United States. Energy crops (No.1) and agricultural residues (No.2) probably have the largest potential for biomass to energy while potentially providing agricultural benefits. Because biomass is more oxygenated than coal it is more easily converted to liquids and gases. These forms of biomass have been considered since the 1973 oil crises but interest seems to increase or wane depending upon the price of oil set by the OPEC cartel or upon socio-political factors. Forestry residue and forest understory (No.3) are usually handled by "controlled burning" that leads to high levels of soot pollution and sometimes disastrous losses of property (remember Los Alamos!). Nos. 4-8 are mainly sent to landfills usually leading to adverse environmental impacts larger than the impacts of using the waste for energy with ecofriendly technologies. The wood energy in No. 9 is substantial but the technology used must capture the toxics. The same energy opportunities and potential environmental problems exist for Nos. 10-12 but mitigating environmental impacts would probably represent the greater public service. In the Everglade restoration effort No. 13 melaluca, an invasive woody exotic, would be a big cost item if treated only as a re-mediation problem. However, if treated as an opportunity fuel its disposal could proceed at a much faster pace and with some cost recovery. The energy opportunities in Nos. 14 and 15 are very substantial and conversion to liquid fuels would be the most useful.. Category 16, coal fines, is an opportunity fuel that could provide useful energy if blended with natural gas, good coal or dry waste wood, if available nearby.

TABLE 1: Biomass and other Opportunity Fuels 1. Energy crops on underutilized or marginal lands.2. Agricultural residues with no-till agriculture3. Forestry residues and forest understory.4. Infested trees: pine beetles, citrus canker, oak spores5. Cellulosic components of municipal solid waste.6. Urban yard waste,7. Construction and deconstruction debris.8. Food processing waste.9. CCA and other treated wood.10. Biosolids (sewage sludge).

Page 9

11. Phytoremediators of toxic sites.12. Algae from water remediation.13. Invasive species 14. Used Tires.15. Waste plastics.16. Coal Fines.

B. Difficulties in Converting Biomass to EnergyBiomass to energy facilities have not done well in the USA, apart from special places where substantial waste

wood is available or where substantial government subsidies are involved. Some of the problems are listed in Table 2. Problems 1-6 are mostly self-explanatory. On No.7, biomass seems to have lost out to solar cells and windmills in the affection of the environmental community, perhaps because some of the most productive energy crops are “exotics” such as kudsu that are assumed to be uncontrollable. After 15 years on the NCC the author can certify that biomass has not captured the affection of the coal industry. This is probably out of concern for loss of market share, a concern that is not warranted. The annual sustainable production for energy of biomass (oxygenated coal) in the USA is much smaller than the economic annual production of biomass coalified (de-oxygenated) naturally over the past 300 million years. Problem 9 is related to USA's low energy cost strategy which is the main problem of biomass (see Conclusion).

Table 2: Problems with Biomass Utilization1. Biomass is hard to feed or mechanically process.2. Low density limits economic transport distances 3. Seasonal availability presents problems off-season 4. The high moisture content of plant matter 5. Herbaceous forms have higher alkali metal content that fosters ash melting (slagging/fouling) 6. Difficult to exploit economy of scale 7. Has not gained the affection of environmentalists 8. Has not gained the affection of the coal industry 9. Does not compete with coal or natural gas in the USA

3. TECHNICAL ASPECTSA. Ultimate and Proximate Analysis

Table 3 shows major categories of coals and some properties that have measured by the coal industry for over a century. Also shown are the properties of wood. The ultimate and proximate analyses numbers listed are corrected to apply for dry, ash, nitrogen, and sulfur free feedstock (DASNF) i.e. pure carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen (CHO) materials. Figure 2 is a plot of [H], the wt% of hydrogen (solid diamonds with values read on the left scale) vs [O], the wt % of oxygen, for 185 representative DANSF CHO materials taken from ultimate analysis data available in the technical literature [6-9]. The bottom scales give conventional coal ranks, some potential names for the biomass region and some names that might foster more friendly discussions. This [H] vs [O] coalification plot shows that apart from the anthracite region all natural DANSF feedstock have hydrogen wt% that are close to 6%. Also shown on Fig. 2 by the open squares (read on right scale) are the data for [C] vs[O]. The near constancy of [H] and the smooth decline of [C] with increasing [O] provide strong reasons for treating peat and biomass simply as lower rank coals.

The differing coal classification systems used throughout the world causes confusion in R&D and in global coal trade. Thus it would be good to develop some simple quantitative ranking system for natural carbonaceous (CHO) fuels. The oxygen weight percentage (i.e.. 10-O for bituminous, 44-O for wood) as given in Table 3, perhaps with the hydrogen weight percentage with one decimal place (i.e. 5.7-H) would seem to provide an unambiguous quantitative index. Words or numbers could be used to give physical characteristics and the moisture, ash and minor species content. Using 34-O for peat called "turf" in Ireland might help reduce emotional responses associated with the many “turf wars” manifested in fuel sector competitions and also in energy-environmental confrontations. For qualitative discussions high O coal, HiO coal, or HiO CHO or just HiO for biomass and low O coal or LoO, for the coal region could be used. For the middle region midO or MiO would be good for sub-bituminous and lignite. These terms might help foster better communications than in today's Tower of Babel. New ranking systems are used for football, figure skating, universities and many other purposes. Why not solid fuels?

Higher heating values of various fuels measured with Paar calorimeters are usually given in proximate analysis reports. Approximate HHVs in metric units for the six representative CHOs are given in the fifth column in Table 3 according to a compromise between Dulong formulas used in the coal and biomass sectors [6-10] which is given at the bottom of Table 3. Note that the carbon energy content (A[C]/3) is generally much larger than the hydrogen energy contribution (6A). Oxygen contributes negatively, (-A [O]/8).

Page 10

The sixth column gives representative "total volatiles", VT, as determined by an American Standard Test Measurement Method (ASTM)). A coal sample is heated (pyrolyzed) in an inert atmosphere using a platinum crucible at 950 oC for seven minutes. The weight percent loss between the sample and its char is the total volatile yield. The increasing trend in VT from high to low rank "coals" is important. An approximate equation for VT is given at the bottom of Table 3. The numbers in the seventh column of Table 3 are for the complementary fixed carbon (FC = 100 – VT for pure CHO materials). The patterns in Tables 3 and Figures 2, are crying out "We are Family".

The eigth column gives nominal densities for the various CHO fuels. The higher densities of LoO vs HiO fuels are advantageous from the transportation standpoint. The ninth column gives relative re-activities of the char produced in pyrolysis. In thermal processing and in steam, oxygen or CO2 gasification HiO char has advantages. The tenth column gives a qualitative picture of the free H and OH radicals that are released in high temperature pyrolysis. Since high char reactivity and free radicals facilitate thermo-chemical processes, HiO materials have advantages. Blending HiOs with LoOs provides a simple way of applying useful properties of one rank to assist thermal processing of another, a valuable technical reason for co-utilization. The eleventh column suggests quantitative coal rank designations.

B. What's in the Volatiles?It was recognized throughout the 20th century that volatiles from solid fuels are very important properties that

influence the design of solid fuel combustion, gasification or liquification systems. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 21st century we still cannot predict what gaseous compounds are in the volatiles released in proximate analysis measurements. Nor can we predict the rate constants for their release [10]. If the volatiles were mostly CO 2 or H2O vapor they would have little fuel value. On the other hand if the volatiles are mostly CO, CH 4, and H2 they could be suitable for many applications. The problem is largely due to the complexity of the liquids and tars [11-13] among pyrolysis products. Nevertheless, the primative state of the basic-applied science that underlies humankind’s oldest technologies, the extraction of energy out of wood and coal, suggests that some misplaced priorities have been used in national R&D funding.

In our efforts to systematize the many pyrolysis products we have developed analytic formulas that can generate output tables for the hundreds of products that have been observed in pyrolysis. We have presented them at technical society meetings [14--16] not with the claim that they accurately represent reality since little quantitative data is available but rather as a challenge to specialists in the coal and biomass fraternities to develop better formulas.

4. NATIONAL CO-UTILIZATION BENEFITS A. The Co-firing Option

Several of the problems noted in Table 2 associated with exclusive use of the biomass noted in Table 1 can be overcome if these fuels were co-fired at a nearby utility or industrial plant in relatively small proportions (say 5-15% by energy) with the coal or natural gas normally used. Some problems might develop such as increased slagging, however, several of the major forms of biomass listed in Table 1 can be handled at standard industrial or utility plants with modest retrofit costs.

There are many variations of co-firing technology. For smaller utilities, factory fabricated robust solid fuel systems can serve a valuable role. Since biomass is relatively easy to gasify one could build a separate HiO gasifier at the coal or NG plant and direct its gaseous products into a suitable combustion zone of the coal or natural gas flame. Co-firing biomass or biomass generated gas in the coal fireball can lower NOx emissions.

B. The Co- gasification OptionThe omnivorous feedstock conversion system mentioned earlier is needed to change solid fuels into gaseous or

liquid forms to make them suitable for use with efficient energy systems. Examples are combustion turbines, co-gen systems, combined cycle systems, fuel cells and even fuel cell-turbine combinations. A major environmental advantage of the co-gasification option comes when disposing of materials laden with toxic substances. Here it should be possible to condense out, chemically scrub or adsorb toxic metallics such as arsenic, mercury, lead etc.. after the gasifier but before the turbine. The volume of gas that must be scrubbed is then much smaller than the volume involved if one combusts the gas and then srubs the stack gases [17,18]. A recent economic analysis indicating that coal's mercury problem can be brought under control with much lower capital costs via the gasification route rather than direct combustion route supports this general conclusion [19].

Our excessive reliance on imported oil is the main energy problem in the USA (see Figure 1).

C. Biomass LiquifactionLiquifiers of biomass, mostly under development in Europe and Canada provide a complementary path to

gasification for biomass utilization [11-13]. Because of their high oxygen content biomass is easier and requires less energy to bring into liquid (or gaseous) forms. Liquids are easier to store than gaseous fuel and to use than solid fuels. These advantages, well recognized in the transportation sector, can also apply to industries and utilities. Thus when liquid

Page 11

production exceeds needs the pyrolysis liquifier can be maintained at its full production rate and the stored fuel used in times of high demand or sold to nearby utilities or industry. Technologies for improving the shelf life of these pyrolysis liquids are under development. Co--liquifying biomass with coal would bring more abundant resources into the "pot" and use the reactive properties of the HiOs to facilitate the conversion of the LoOs [20].

Among the commercial organizations working on pyrolysis of biomass to liquid fuels and chemicals only a few are based in the USA. Generating ethanol via fermentation of corn to produce high value gasoline additives probably consumes more liquid fuel than it generates. It might do more for our liquid fuel deficit if the residue, xylage, were also converted to liquid fuels perhaps with co-liquefying technology. Using the xylage for cattle feed might lead to over-production of beef and foster obesity, a national epidemic.

Another form of liquid co-utilization would be to blend used vegetable oil with pyrolysis liquids for use in diesel engines. Developing technologies for blending vegetable oil with pyrolysis liquids from HiO-LoO mixtures would substantially multiply the impact of the used vegetable oil.

D. Phytoremediation The use of plants as pollution sponges to cleanse toxic sites and contaminated bodies of water has a very large

potential [21]. Special plants can: 1. remove metal contaminants, 2. Treat organic contaminants, 3. Remove radioactive contaminants and 4. Extract contaminants from sewage sludge. The technology is growing rapidly and with all the toxic sites that need re-mediation the plant matter produced should be very substantial.

The mining community could benefit by developments in phytoremediation and corresponding plant processing advances. In addition to re-mediation of used mine lands, the industry could make use of phyto-mining, a new technology for extraction of valuable metals that will also benefit from the development of phytoremediation technologies. The author is a co-investigator on a small NSF grant with Professor Lena Ma, who discovered a fern that thrives on arsenic. Pyrolysis/gasification is the only promising proposed way to dispose of toxic laden biomass without re-contaminating the environment. Since widely differing plants are used for phytoremediation it is essential to bring order into the chaotic science of pyrolysis. Spiking the phyto-remediating plant material with a higher heating value feedstock (i.e. a MiO or LoO CHO material) could improve the process and the gaseous products. Knowing what's in the volatiles would facilitate LoO-HiO blending decisions in thermo-chemical processing of toxic laden biomass.

5. CONCLUSIONSWith 9/11, the Enron bankruptcy, the recession, the unemployment rate, the trade and budget deficits it is imperative

that citizens of the USA close ranks on a sensible energy/environmental policy (SEEP). Because of the many potential sources of easily converted solid fuels (see Table 1) and their adverse environmental impacts if not utilized with ecofriendly technologies a natural component of a SEEP is “A green alliance between coal and biomass”. The author borrowed this title from an EU program that began in 1992 (see Europa and Netherland links), however, this "Green" has been trying, unsuccessfully, to forge such an alliance since joining the NCC in 1986. In the European Union where energy is highly taxed the competition with fossil fuels is not as severe. Thus EU co-utilization programs, rather than socio-economic-political problems, have mainly focused on technical problems and have brought forth many technological innovations [22-30]. In the USA Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems, developed mainly for the use with coal (LoOs and MiOs), have dealt with some co-gasification problems. However, most IGCC developments do not take advantage of the ease and low energy costs of gasifying and liquifying HiO materials. Table 4 list mutual advantages to the coal, power and biomass industries and particularly to the United States of "a green alliance between coal and biomass” (Gabcab).

From the standpoint of the NCC report on “Increasing Coal Fired Generation (ICFG) Through 2010” we believe the alliance would support ICFG and provide. opportunities and challenges to broaden the base of ICFG. Such supporters could include the agricultural community waste processors, environmentalists, and other sectors that could benefit by solving the problems the alliance could undertake (seeTable 4). As a member of the WW II generation whose way of life was immediately altered by the attack of 12/11/41 [31] he is aghast at the lack of rank closing following the more visceral attack of 9/11/01. A green alliance between coal and biomass would: Make it possible to pursue energy and environmental goals without being considered SCHIZOPHRENIC. Deem those still against best available ecofriendly use of all domestic energy sources just plain NUTS.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis work was supported by a grant from the Mick A. Naulin Foundation, part of a National Science Foundation Grant for the disposal of phytoremediators, the College of Engineering and Green Liquids and Gas Technologies. The author thanks Professor John Cameron, Dr. Evan Hughes, Mr Andrew Hines Jr, and Professor Sanford Berg, for helpful comments.

Page 12

Footnote: A two-day International Conference (IC) specialized on technical aspects of Co-utilization of Domestic Fuels (CDF) will be held at the University of Florida, February 5 and 6, 2003.

Table 4: Benefits of "A green alliance of coal and biomass"

I. What can Biomass do for Coal? A. Co-firing Biomass with Coal

1. Lower CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions 2. Extend life of coal facilities3. Foster ecofriendly use of coal facilities 4. Foster IGCC, IG-cogen, CHP and chemical factories.5. Develop a market and fuel supply infrastructure for biomass to make substantial liquid fuel contributions*

B. Co-gasifying Biomass with Coal1. Facilitate conversion to gases and liquids2. Provide important environmental roles for coal 3. Facilitate capture of mercury and other toxics

C. CO2 Sequestration, Nature's Way1. Federal land reforestation, new national parks2. Interstate highway plantings3. Urban forestation (elms)4. Wood buildings and products5. Reforestation abroad

D. Phytoremediation 1. Remediate Toxic Sites2. Restoration of mined lands3. Foster phyto-mining

E. Provide opportunities and challenges for coal companies and coal-based power generation companies to develop ecofriendly solar energy resources and technologies in the public interest

II. What can Coal do for Biomass? A. Make Opportunity fuels economically competitive

1. Lower capital cost of co-utilization (co-firing)2. Foster use with turbine generators (co-gasifying)

B. Provide economic agricultural alternatives1. Energy crops2. Use of agricultural residues3. Disposition of problem plant matter (see Table1)4. Overcome biomass-use problems (see Table 2)

III. What can Serious Cooperation do for the U.S.A.? A. Foster ecofriendly use of existing coal facilities

1. Develop a biomass market and the fuel supply infrastructure2. Enable biomass to make substantial liquid fuel contributions3. Foster the chemical and liquid fuel factory developpment

B. Mitigate anti-environmental image of USA1. Lower CO2 emissions2. Lower pollution and toxic emission problems3. Foster advanced environmental technologies

C. Help level the research and innovation playing field 1. Improve competition with high energy cost countries2. Foster the long overdue development of pyrolysis science 3. Foster a quantitative ranking system for all “coals” 4. Foster development of more general fuel co-utilization

Page 13

C. Facilitate a sensible energy-environmental policy (SEEP)

7. REFERENCES 1. A. Green, ed. (1980), Coal Burning Issues, University Presses of Florida. 2. A. Green, ed. (1981), An Alternative to Oil, Burning Coal with Gas, University Presses of Florida.3. A. Green, et al., (1986), “Coal-Water-Gas, An All American Fuel for Oil Boilers”, Proc. of the Eleventh Intern. Conf.

on Slurry Technology, Hilton Head, SC.4. A. Green, ed. (1988), Co-Combustion, Fuel and Combustion Technology (FACT) Div. of the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), New York, 5. A. Green, ed. (1991), Solid Fuel Conversions for the Transportation Sector, ASME-FACT, New York, NY.6. S. Stultz, J. Kitto, ed. (1992), Babcock & Wilcox, Steam 40th Edition, Barberton, Ohio.7. J. Singer, ed. (1981), Combustion-Fossil Power Systems, pp. 16-23 Combustion Engineering Inc., Windsor.8. S. Gaur, T. Reed, ed. (1998), Thermal Data for Natural and Synthetic Fuels, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.9. D. Klass, (1998), “Biomass for Renewable Energy, Fuels, Chemicals”, 234-236. Academic Press, San

Diego, CA.10. P. Solomon, M. Serio, E. Suuberg, (1992) “Coal Pyrolysis Experiments Kinetic Rates and Mechanisms”,

Progress Energy and Combustion Sciences Vol. 18, pp135-220.11. T. Milne, N. Abatzoglou, R. Evans, (Nov 1998), “Biomass Gasifier 'Tars'": NREL/TP-570-25357. 12. T. Milne, R. Overend, (1994), “Fast Pyrolysis, Biomass and Bioeneregy”, Vol 7, No.1-6.13. A. Bridgewater, A. Peacocke, (2000), "Fast Pyrolysis Processes for Biomass, Renewable & Sustainable

Energy Reviews”,v. 4,1 1-73.14. A. Green, J. Mullin, (Oct 1998), “Feedstock Blending Studies with Laboratory Indirectly Heated Gasifiers”,

Jour. Eng for Gas Turbines and Power, V121, pg. 1-715. A. Green, P. Venkatachalam, M. Sankar, (2001), “Pyrolysis Systematics for Co-utilization Applications”,

IASTED’s Power and Energy Systems Conf., Tampa, FL.16. A. Green, P. Venkatachalam, M. Sankar, (2002c), “Feedstock Blending in Gasifiers/Liqufiers”, Proc. ASME

Turbo Expo 2002, Amsterdam.17. A. Green, G. Schaefer,(1999), “Feedstock Blending in

Indirectly Heated Gasifiers/liqueifers ”, Paper 99-GT-81, Turbo Expo, 1999, Indianapolis, IN.18. D. Nilsson, A.Green (1999), "Thermal Disposal of CCA Treated Wood" Paper 99-938, Air and Waste

Management Conf. June , Sr Louis, Missouri 19. M. Klett, M. Rutkowski, (2002), “The Cost of Mercury Removal in an IGCC Plant”, Letter Report prepared

for The United States Department of Energy.20. F. Karaca, E. Bolat, (2000), “Coprocessing of Turkish lignite with a cellulosic waste material”, Fuel Process

Technology, v. 64: n1-3 pp. 47-55.21. The Science Times, NY Times of March 6, 200122. J. Bemtgen, K. Hein, A. Minchener, (1994), Cogasification of Coal/Biomass and Coal/Waste Mixtures,

European Union Clean Coal Technology Programme 1992-1994, Stuttgart.23. R. Van Ree (1997), "Cogasification of Coal and Biomass Waste in Entrained-Flow Gasifiers, Phase 1:

prelim. " ECN-C-97-02124. C. Storm,. H. Rudiger, H., Spliethoff, and Klaus Hein, (1998), Co-Pyrolysis of Coal/Biomass and

Coal/Sewage Sludge Mixtures”,International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress & Exhibition, Stockholm, June 2-5, proceedings 98-GT-103. ASME New York, NY.

25. A-G. Collot, A. Megaritis, A. Herod, D. Dugwell and R. Kandiyoti, (1998) Co-pyrolysis of coal and biomass in a pressurized fixed bed reactor ibid [31]

26. C. Guanxing, Y., Qizhuang, C. Brage, C. Rosén, C., and K. Sjöström, (1999), "Co-Gasification of Coal/Biomass Blends in a Pressurized Fluidized Bed Reactor,” ASME TURBO-EXPO 99 paper 99-GT-191.

27. E. Kurkela, (1996), "Recent Results and Plans Concerning Co-Gasification of Biomass and Coal- An Overview," Proc. Biomass for Energy and the Environment, 9th EU Bioenergy Conf..

28. Minchener, A., (1999), "Syngas Europa,” Mechanical Engineering, ASME, New York, N.Y.29. Pan Y. G., E. Velo, X. Roca, J. J. Manya and L. Puigjaner (2000) Fluidized-Bed Co-gasification of Residual

Biomass/Poor Coal Blends for Fuel Gas Production, Fuel 79Page 14

30. A. Bridgewater, (2001) ThermoNet =PyNe + Gas Net, No. 1231. A.Green, (2001), “A Physicist with the Air Force in World War II”, www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-

54/1ssp40.html. Physics Today, Aug., pp. 40-44.

Links1. http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/success/en/ene/0060e.html ‘the green alliance of coal and biomass’2. http://www.ecn.nl/library/reports/1997e/c97021.html is the link of Energy Research Centre of the

Netherlands, The Netherlands 3. http://plaza.ufl.edu/aesgreen/icaas/ the web link for ICAAS-CCTL

Page 15

Figure 2: (Left) Total Annual USA energy consumption in quads at the millennium (Right) Renewables

Table 3: ASTM classification of coals by rank (for DASNF fuels)

Page 16

Table 3 Ultimate Analysis Proximate Analysis Other propertiesName C H O HHV VT FC- Char Density Char React H,OH Rad Q - RankAnthracite 94 3 3 36 7 93 1.6 3 v. low 3 -OBituminous 85 5 10 35 33 67 1.4 10 low 10 -OSub Bitum 75 5 20 30 51 49 1.2 32 med 20 -OLignite 70 5 25 27 58 42 1 100 interm 25 -OPeat 60 6 34 23 69 31 0.8 300 high 34 -OWood 49 7 44 18 81 19 0.6 1000 v. high 44 -O

Ultimate,[H] = 6 [1-exp -[O]/2], Proximate VT = 62 ([H]/6) ([O]/25)1/2 ,HHV = A {[C]/3 + [H] -[O]/8}, where A=1.08MJ/Kg

Figure 4: Weight percentages of hydrogen [H] vs [O] for 185 DASNF carbonaceous materials (black diamonds) vs oxygen wt% (read left scale) the upper curve and data shows [C] (open squares) vs [O] (read right scale)