Ventyx corporation has released itès new 2009 U.S. Coal Industry Map. The map shows U.S. coal production across the country and also includes details such as rail, ports, consumers and a host of other information.

As the company states, “In many ways, coal sits at the center of the key issues challenging the energy industry today,” said Will Dailey, executive VP, Ventyx Energy Data, Intelligence & Advisory. “The coal industry has a lot at stake in the outcome of issues like cap and trade, state and federal renewable portfolio standards and the formulation of market rules around wind integration. And, certain regions will be affected more than others. Our U.S. Coal Industry Map provides the definitive picture of the industry and can provide answers to complex questions at a glance.”

The Canadian government is taking aim directly at the coal industry. Canada’s Environment Minister discussed the issue yesterday. The indication is that coal producer’s would be required to capture GHG emissions.

From the Globe and Mail article – The federal government is planning sweeping new climate-change regulations for Canada’s electricity sector that will phase out traditional coal-fired power. Any new coal plants will have to include highly expensive – and unproven – technology to capture greenhouse gas emissions and inject it underground for permanent storage, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said in an interview yesterday.

Energy is two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional 4D). Any land manager looking at a map, mine drawing or a global positioning (GPS) instrument will be familiar with 3D. Designers, planners and those involved in calculating volume will know about 3D. Those working in 3D through time – wind, solar, mining, pipelines and so on, will readily appreciate 4D. How do they impact energy?

Every workflow connected to energy can be understood through space and time. They are not only located somewhere on the planet, but our ability to plan, build and operate energy related projects involves space and time. Wind energy is dependent upon location. Determining where to site a wind turbine is not simply a flip of the coin, instead, it involves the calculation of wind speed and duration present upon certain points across the landscape.

Consequently, knowing the landscape in 3D is important – hills, valleys and mountains matter. Sometimes these are not as easily identifiable by eye though, and this is where detailed elevation models of the terrain come in. These models are calculated through airborne measurement technologies  usually, and the data for whole regions can be purchased, leased or rented.

Many pipeline operators will know that terrain also has a role to play in terms of the landscape. It impacts construction costs for building pipelines and operating them. The calculation of volume within geological basins is similarly dependent upon the determination of 3D volumes. When data is viewed within the office through visualisation technologies, it is often available in 3D form, which alows decision makers to move through the data in a simulation environment, determining where and how geology relates to the findings.

Waves are not always consistent. They vary over time and are impacted by climate conditions, water depth and other factors. As a result they are 4D in nature, moving up and down over time – their volumes change over time. Additionally, their occurence also changes spatially. A growing number of building architects and plant design specialists are interested in designing structures that consider the environment. With changing climate and location, the meteorological impacts on a given structure, as it relates to the design, can be considerable.

This directly connects to the ability to design structures that are energy efficienct, or use energy more efficiently and effectively. The development of specialised sensors that are capable of acquiring 2D, 3D and 4D spatial information is constantly under research. With each new sensor comes the ability to understand the processes of wind, solar, geothermal, oil and even nuclear energy management, for example.

We should not lose track of the fact that new technologies bring new possibilities for designing wind turbines, solar panels and their placement. Similarly, the management of facilities infrastructure and the design of those structures is also impacted by understanding the dynamics surrounding the workflows and processes.

Policy and administration are now becoming more significntly connected to energy supply, operation and management. Greater transparency and accountability in terms of energy use and efficient will need to be communicated. That communication area, particularly through collaboration, is going to become more specialised and involve 3D and 4D technologies – so they can understand – and speed up the design, build and operations.

Both non-renewbable and renewable resources will see greater use of these tools and technologies in the future. The economics and communication factors will demand that.

The abundance of coal makes it the most logical choice for energy independence, however the impact of coal on greenhouse gas emissions makes it a troublesome choice. The United States has more coal than the rest of the world has oil, with enough coal underground to provide energy for 200 to 300 years, compared with roughly 100 years of oil. We’re not going to break away quickly and easily from our coal habit, with more than 600 coal powered plants in the United States, and roughly half of our energy coming from this source.

Coal is becoming an increasingly contentious issue among environmental and energy factions, but with this abundance, it’s going to be frankly impossible to put a close on this energy source. Coal is troublesome because of the sulfur and nitrogen that are released as it burns – combining with water in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Microscopic coal particulates are also released into the air, which is an issue for human health because it can lead to asthma and other respiratory diseases. And, there’s the issue of carbon emissions, so called greenhouse gases, that are contributing to the warming of our planet. All three of these issues must be addressed if we’re going to make coal a more sustainable energy source.

Stripping Chemicals

Coal found in the eastern United States can contain as much as 10 percent of sulfur, while western coal is cleaner with less than 1 percent. In order to rid coal of this acid-making matter, it needs to be cleaned. One step is pre-processing plants that crush coal and put it through a water bath where the coal floats and the sulfur particles sink. It also takes scrubbers in the smoke stacks of power plants to bind to the remaining and combusted sulfur and eliminate it before it can escape into the air.

The issue of nitrogen in coal, which combines with oxygen to for nitrogen oxide (NOx), causes visible brown clouds around our cities. To combat NOx, scientists have devised a two-stage combustion where smaller amounts of oxygen are introduced in relation to the amount of fuel, which makes it tough for the nitrogen to combine with oxygen to form NOx. This method has proven to reduce NOx by 50%.

Both of these steps have been improvements over how we burn coal to make energy, but they’re not good enough to call coal clean.

Gasification

A more efficient means of stripping coal of contaminants is to turn it into gas. Blasting hot, but not burning, coal with steam turns it back to a mixture of component parts – carbon monoxide and hydrogen – both gases. These gases are then burned in turn to spin turbines at the first pass, and then the hot gas exhaust from this process can be channeled for second-stage energy generation by turning water into steam that turns another turbine.

One of the best outcomes of gasification is that scientists have come up with ways to strip more than 90 percent of the sulfur and dirt particles from coal through this process. The detailed diagram of the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant process below gives you a sense of the complexities of this process.

Cutting Carbon

While gasification solves a few of the problems, there’s still the issue of carbon. Coal is the second leading source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, a key contributor to global warming. The prevailing answer to dealing with carbon dioxide emissions is called carbon sequestration, the process of pumping the carbon dioxide gas underground for long term storage. Carbon sequestration projects are now underway all around the world.

Our ability to store carbon underground with out any harmful side effects is still untested. Some scientists fear leakage through sils, the contamination of aquifers that might harm drinking water, and the potential for geological instability. The technical feasibility will take time and testing to fully understand.

What is Clean?

Even with all of these scientific advancements, coal is inherently a dirty energy source that needs to be mined, hauled and handled with biproducts such as ash and mercury to be dealt with after energy is extracted. When compared with harnessing the power of sun, wind or water, coal is definitely at a clean energy disadvantage.

Coal has thrived for decades because it is plentiful and cheap to burn. Efficiency hasn’t really factored into the process until recently, because we can no longer tolerate harmful practices that jeopardize the longevity of humankind’s existence on our planet. Now that all the costs of this energy source are becoming  apparent, we’re going to need to break out all of our scientific and engineering skills to make coal cleaner even if it can’t be considered clean.