Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clean Coal Conversion Processes–The Present and Future Challenges

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Sustainable Energy

  • 1665 Accesses

Abstract

The world demand for electrical energy has increased since the end of World War II and could be as high as a 60-petawatt hour per year (PWh/year), although the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak is now expected to be lower. One major trend that continued is the transition to renewables, whereby 2050, coal, gas, and oil are expected to contribute toward 5 PWh/year and is currently expected to be at 10 PWh/year for coal in 2020 based on world energy outlook 2019 prediction. Decarbonised electricity by post-combustion carbon dioxide (CO2) capture from coal-fired power stations is an attractive option than a complete rebuild or building new coal-fired power stations as the cost of retrofit is lesser with similar gains in the capture of soluble oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. In this chapter, the practical hurdles, process performance, workflow, and energy requirements for CO2 capture are reviewed for three technologies, chemical absorption using nitrogen Lewis bases without and with cooling, membrane separation, or a combination of both approaches. Related parameters such as absorber configuration and operation at elevated pressure, reduction of heat duty of strippers, and reboiler duty are discussed. Newer approaches in post-combustion are also discussed.

Energy from nuclear fission is approximately 6 PW/year, the same for hydro, while the share for Solar is 23 PWh/year, and wind around 20 PWh/year. Although hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind resources do not generate carbon dioxide, the energy resources must also present a low investment threshold and a cost per kilowatt like that obtained from coal. Only hydro and solar satisfy these two constraints and hydro is limited by geology restrictions or need infrastructure costs, leaving concentrated solar power as a viable option for carbon dioxide-free, low investment, and high-yield energy resource.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Researchandmarkets.com (2020) Thermal energy storage market by technology (sensible, latent, thermochemical), storage material (water, molten salts, PCM). Application (Power Generation, District

    Google Scholar 

  2. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2019) Key world energy statistics 2019. IEA/OCED, Paris. https://webstore.iea.org/key-world-energy-statistics-2019

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2020) Levelized cost of energy. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-24/renewables-likely-to-take-longer-to-match-fossil-fuels-on-price

  4. Institute For Energy Research (IER) (2019) The levelized cost of electricity from existing generation resources. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/the-levelized-cost-of-electricity-from-existing-generation-resources/

  5. Damen K, van Troost M, Faaij A, Turkenburg W (2006) A comparison of electricity and hydrogen production systems with CO2 capture and storage. Part a: review and selection of promising conversion and capture technologies. Prog Energy Combust Sci 32(2):215–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Guo RT, Hao JK, Pan WG, Yu YL (2015) Liquid phase oxidation and absorption of NO from flue gas: a review. Sep Sci Technol 50(2):310–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2020) World energy balances: an overview. IEA/OCED, Paris. https://webstore.iea.org/download/direct/4035

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dillinger J (2018) Cost of electricity by country. WorldAtlas.Com. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/electricity-rates-around-the-world.html

  9. OVO Energy Ltd (2020) Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh. https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html

  10. Statista (2018) Global electricity prices in 2018, by select country. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

  11. Official Data Foundation (ODF) (2020) Prices for electricity, 1913–2020 ($100). https://www.in2013dollars.com/Electricity/price-inflation

  12. Shen W, Chen X, Qiu J, Hayward JA, Sayeef S, Osman P et al (2020) A comprehensive review of variable renewable energy levelized cost of electricity. Renew Sust Energ Rev 133:110301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tu Q, Betz R, Mo J, Fan Y, Liu Y (2019) Achieving grid parity of wind power in China–present levelized cost of electricity and future evolution. Appl Energy 250:1053–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) (2020) Global Land-Ocean temperature index. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature

  15. Ourworldindata.Org (2020) Global sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by world region. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes

  16. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2020a) Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Trends. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/particulate-matter-pm25-trends

  17. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth Observations (NEO) Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) (2020) Aerosol Optical Thickness. https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MODAL2_M_AER_OD

  18. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2020b) Ozone Trends. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/ozone-trends

  19. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2020) Direct measurements: 2005-present. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

  20. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2016) National Emissions of Nitrogen oxides (NOx). https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/airem.html

  21. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2020c) Air Quality Trends (1970–2018). https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/trends/no2.html

  22. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2019) Global energy transformation: a roadmap to 2050 (2019 edition). https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Apr/Global-energy-transformation-A-roadmap-to-2050-2019-Edition

  23. Rochelle GT (2009) Amine scrubbing for CO2 capture. Science 325(5948):1652–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Samanta A, Zhao A, Shimizu GK, Sarkar P, Gupta R (2012) Post-combustion CO2 capture using solid sorbents: a review. Ind Eng Chem Res 51(4):1438–1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Amoatey P, Omidvarborna H, Baawain MS, Al-Mamun A (2019) Emissions and exposure assessments of SOX, NOX, PM10/2.5, and trace metals from oil industries: a review study (2000–2018). Process Saf Environ Prot 123:215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Daraei H, Toolabian K, Kazempour M, Javanbakht M (2020) The role of the environment and its pollution in the prevalence of COVID-19. J Infect 81:e168–e169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang Z, Wang S, Xu Q, Ho T (2016) Impacts of flare emissions from an ethylene plant shutdown on regional air quality. Atmos Environ 138:22–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Roy S, Hegde MS, Madras G (2009) Catalysis for NOx abatement. Appl Energy 86(11):2283–2297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Heidel B, Hilber M, Scheffknecht G (2014) Impact of additives for enhanced sulfur dioxide removal on re-emissions of mercury in wet flue gas desulfurization. Appl Energy 114:485–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Islas J, Grande G (2008) Abatement costs of SO2-control options in the Mexican electric-power sector. Appl Energy 85(2–3):80–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hutson ND, Krzyzynska R, Srivastava RK (2008) Simultaneous removal of SO2, NOx, and hg from coal flue gas using a NaClO2-enhanced wet scrubber. Ind Eng Chem Res 47(16):5825–5831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fang P, Cen CP, Wang XM, Tang ZJ, Tang ZX, Chen DS (2013) Simultaneous removal of SO2, NO, and Hg0 by wet scrubbing using urea+ KMnO4 solution. Fuel Process Technol 106:645–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Santos S, Duarte AP, Bordado J, Gomes J (2016) New process for simultaneous removal of CO2, SOX and NOX. Ciência Tecnologia dos Materiais 28(2):106–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Han Z, Zhao D, Zheng D, Pan X, Liu B, Han Z et al (2018) NO removal from simulated flue gas with a NaClO2 mist generated using the ultrasonic atomization method. Energies 11(5):1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yuan B, Mao X, Wang Z, Hao R, Zhao Y (2020) The radical-induced oxidation removal of multi-air-pollutant: a critical review. J Hazard Mater 383:121162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Adewuyi YG, Khan MA (2015) Nitric oxide removal by combined persulfate and ferrous–EDTA reaction systems. Chem Eng J 281:575–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pattabathula V, Richardson J (2016) Introduction to ammonia production. Chem Eng Prog 112:69–75

    Google Scholar 

  38. Erisman JW, Sutton MA, Galloway J, Klimont Z, Winiwarter W (2008) How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nat Geosci 1(10):636–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. IndexMundi (2020) Ammonia Production by Country (Thousand metric tons of contained nitrogen). https://www.indexmundi.com/minerals/?product=ammonia#:~:text=Ammonia. Production by Country

  40. Lun C, Weifeng Z, Gao L, Wang L, Ma W, Gao X, Fusuo Z (2008) Energy consumption in ammonia production in China and energy-saving potential. Huafei Gongye 35(2):20

    Google Scholar 

  41. Darde V, Thomsen K, van Well WJ, Stenby EH (2009) Chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture. Energy Procedia 1(1):1035–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dutcher B, Fan M, Russell AG (2015) Amine-based CO2 capture technology development from the beginning of 2013. A review. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 7(4):2137–2148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Figueroa JD, Fout T, Plasynski S, McIlvried H, Srivastava RD (2008) Advances in CO2 capture technology—the US Department of Energy’s carbon sequestration program. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2(1):9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. World-Nuclear.Org (2020 Clean coal’ technologies, carbon capture & sequestration. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/clean-coal-technologies.aspx

  45. Merkel TC, Lin H, Wei X, Baker R (2010) Power plant post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: an opportunity for membranes. J Membr Sci 359(1–2):126–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Luis P (2016) Use of monoethanolamine (MEA) for CO2 capture in a global scenario: consequences and alternatives. Desalination 380:93–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang Y, Zhao L, Otto A, Robinius M, Stolten D (2017) A review of post-combustion CO2 capture technologies from coal-fired power plants. Energy Procedia 114:650–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Oexmann J (2011) Post-combustion CO2 capture: energetic evaluation of chemical absorption processes in coal-fired steam power plants (Ph. D. thesis). The Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg. https://tore.tuhh.de/bitstream/11420/991/1/Dissertation_Oexmann.pdf

  49. Abu-Zahra MR, Schneiders LH, Niederer JP, Feron PH, Versteeg GF (2007a) CO2 capture from power plants: Part I. A parametric study of the technical performance based on monoethanolamine. Int J Greenh Gas Control 1(1):37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Abu-Zahra MR, Niederer JP, Feron PH, Versteeg GF (2007b) CO2 capture from power plants: part II. A parametric study of the economic performance based on mono-ethanolamine. Int J Greenh Gas Control 1(2):135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Le Moullec Y, Neveux T, Al Azki A, Chikukwa A, Hoff KA (2014) Process modifications for solvent-based post-combustion CO2 capture. Int J Greenh Gas Control 31:96–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhao L, Riensche E, Menzer R, Blum L, Stolten D (2008) A parametric study of CO2/N2 gas separation membrane processes for post-combustion capture. J Membr Sci 325(1):284–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Low BT, Zhao L, Merkel TC, Weber M, Stolten D (2013) A parametric study of the impact of membrane materials and process operating conditions on carbon capture from humidified flue gas. J Membr Sci 431:139–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Baker RW, Low BT (2014) Gas separation membrane materials: a perspective. Macromolecules 47(20):6999–7013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Brinkmann T, Pohlmann J, Bram M, Zhao L, Tota A, Escalona NJ et al (2015) Investigating the influence of the pressure distribution in a membrane module on the cascaded membrane system for post-combustion capture. Int J Greenh Gas Control 39:194–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ren J, Chung TS, Li D, Wang R, Liu Y (2002) Development of asymmetric 6FDA-2, 6 DAT hollow fiber membranes for CO2/CH4 separation: 1. The influence of dope composition and rheology on membrane morphology and separation performance. J Membr Sci 207(2):227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bayrakdar TA, Nahra F, Zugazua O, Eykens L, Ormerod D, Nolan SP (2020) Improving process efficiency of gold-catalyzed hydration of alkynes: merging catalysis with membrane separation. Green Chem 22(8):2598–2604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mulder M (1996) Influence of various parameters on membrane morphology. The basic principle of membrane technology, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 123–140

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Pires JCM, Martins FG, Alvim-Ferraz MCM, Simões M (2011) Recent developments on carbon capture and storage: an overview. Chem Eng Res Des 89(9):1446–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhai H, Rubin ES (2013) Techno-economic assessment of polymer membrane systems for post-combustion carbon capture at coal-fired power plants. Environ Sci Technol 47(6):3006–3014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ho MT, Allinson GW, Wiley DE (2008) Reducing the cost of CO2 capture from flue gases using membrane technology. Ind Eng Chem Res 47(5):1562–1568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Du N, Park HB, Robertson GP, Dal-Cin MM, Visser T, Scoles L, Guiver MD (2011) Polymer nanosieve membranes for CO2-capture applications. Nat Mater 10(5):372–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Chen L, Yong SZ, Ghoniem AF (2012) Oxy-fuel combustion of pulverized coal: characterization, fundamentals, stabilization, and CFD modeling. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38(2):156–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ramezan M, Skone TJ, Nsakala NY, Liljedahl GN, Gearhart LE, Hestermann R, Rederstorff B (2007) Carbon dioxide capture from existing coal-fired power plants. Natl Energy Technol Lab DOE/NETL Rep 401:110907

    Google Scholar 

  65. Roeder V, Kather A (2014) Part load behavior of power plants with a retrofitted post-combustion CO2 capture process. Energy Procedia 51:207–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhao L, Riensche E, Blum L, Stolten D (2010) Multi-stage gas separation membrane processes used in post-combustion capture: energetic and economic analyses. J Membr Sci 359(1–2):160–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kaldis SP, Skodras G, Sakellaropoulos GP (2004) Energy and capital cost analysis of CO2 capture in coal IGCC processes via gas separation membranes. Fuel Process Technol 85(5):337–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Kundu PK, Chakma A, Feng X (2014) Effectiveness of membranes and hybrid membrane processes in comparison with absorption using amines for post-combustion CO2 capture. Int J Greenh Gas Control 28:248–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Frimpong RA, Irvin BD, Nikolic H, Liu K, Figueroa J (2019) Integrated hybrid process for solvent-based CO2 capture using a pre-concentrating membrane: a pilot-scale study. Int Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 82:204–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Anantharaman R, Berstad D, Roussanaly S (2014) Techno-economic performance of a hybrid membrane–liquefaction process for post-combustion CO2 capture. Energy Procedia 61:1244–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Belaissaoui B, Cabot G, Cabot MS, Willson D, Favre E (2013) CO2 capture for gas turbines: an integrated energy-efficient process combining combustion in oxygen-enriched air, flue gas recirculation, and membrane separation. Chem Eng Sci 97:256–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Song C, Liu Q, Ji N, Deng S, Zhao J, Li Y et al (2018) Alternative pathways for efficient CO2 capture by hybrid processes—a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:215–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Mondal MK, Balsora HK, Varshney P (2012) Progress and trends in CO2 capture/separation technologies: a review. Energy 46(1):431–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Burdyny T, Struchtrup H (2010) Hybrid membrane/cryogenic separation of oxygen from the air for use in the oxy-fuel process. Energy 35(5):1884–1897

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The National Science Foundation (NSF-MRI, CBET 0821370) and R. Welch Foundation (AC-0006) from the Texas A&M University-Kingsville are duly acknowledged.

Sai Raghuveer Chava notes the views represented in this article are those of the author and not of Emergent BioSolutions Inc.

Author Contribution

E. G. M. conceived the thrust during the 100-year celebration at the American Chemical Society, 258th ACS National Meeting & Exposition, August 25–29, 2019. All non-graph figures were generated by J. L. Liu, who also wrote the thermodynamic sections, S. R. C. did all the charts and S. B. wrote the first draft based on the presentation of E. F. All authors checked the final manuscript, and final edits were made by S. R. C. Sajid Bashir (S. B.): “At the time of writing this tribute, 1,261,651 individuals have died of Coronavirus-related illness. One was my biological father and before him, my academic father” (not Coronavirus related). It is with profound sadness with which S. B. writes this acknowledgment. “There is a word in the Old Testament, salah, meaning to pause, to reflect, and to think. I deeply miss Peter, but I will never forget the important lessons he taught me about being a scientist, teacher, and human being.” J. L. Liu (J. L. L.) writes “I never met Dr. Derrick, but his knowledge to advance science and responsibility to educate the young generation has been an inspiration in my academic career. There are three very sad experiences in my life: the death of my grandparents who raised me and taught me to be a nice person; the death of my parents who gave me life and encouraged me to be a strong person; and the death of Dr. Derrick who greatly affected Dr. Bashir. I have known and worked with Dr. Bashir for over a decade. I know the type of man he is and know this is in great part due to Peter J. Derrick. I shall never forget the sweet, courageous, and dedicated man, whose name will always linger in my thoughts.” From S. B. “Thank you, Dr. Derrick, and Dad. God Speed to both of you and thank you for giving me the start in life I have.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Arts and Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

    E. Gerald Meyer

  2. Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA

    Sai Raghuveer Chava, Jingbo Louise Liu & Sajid Bashir

  3. Emergent Biosolutions, San Diego, CA, USA

    Sai Raghuveer Chava

  4. Texas A&M Energy Institute, College Station, TX, USA

    Jingbo Louise Liu

Authors
  1. E. Gerald Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sai Raghuveer Chava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jingbo Louise Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sajid Bashir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Gerald Meyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hangzhou Branch of the Zhejiang Tsinghua Yangtze River Delta Research Institute, Clean Energy and Energy Conservation and Environmental Protection Centre, Hangzhou City, China

    Yong-jun Gao

  2. Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Weixin Song

  3. Texas A&M University – Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA

    Jingbo Louise Liu

  4. Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University – Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA

    Sajid Bashir

Additional information

Dedicated to Dr. Peter J Derrick and Mr. Mohammed Bashir, Rest in Peace.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Meyer, E.G., Chava, S.R., Liu, J.L., Bashir, S. (2021). Clean Coal Conversion Processes–The Present and Future Challenges. In: Gao, Yj., Song, W., Liu, J.L., Bashir, S. (eds) Advances in Sustainable Energy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74406-9_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation