WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

The War On Coal Is Over

The so-called war on coal…

Alt Text

Does This $2.5B Bidding War Signal A Resurgence For Coal?

While coal prices are retreating…

Michael McDonald

Michael McDonald

Michael is an assistant professor of finance and a frequent consultant to companies regarding capital structure decisions and investments. He holds a PhD in finance…

More Info

Ingenious Clean Coal Plant Could Give New Life To Coal

Coal shipping

NRG Energy and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp. have successfully developed a power plant that runs entirely on clean coal. The Petra Nova power plant located in Texas was activated on January 10th and is the first of its kind in the United States to be used to power the grid. The facility reduces carbon dioxide emissions, capturing 90 percent of the gas, which is then recycled and used at oil fields to pump up to 15,000 barrels of oil per day.

Data from the Energy Information Administration shows between 2005 and 2015 there was a decrease of 192 coal-powered plants highlighting the government’s efforts to reduce climate change. There is an abundant amount of coal and it’s quite affordable explaining why it’s so widely used. However, the fact remains it can cause detrimental effects to the environment. Organizations such as Greenpeace and Sierra Club argue clean coal isn’t the answer we need to fix climate change. Clean coal power plants have been viewed as controversial and received attention throughout Trump’s presidential campaign.

To put the plant’s efficiency in perspective, there were 427 coal-powered plants in the United States in 2015 and 1,364 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions connected to coal powered plants. This means the average plant emitted approximately 3.19 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The Petra Nova plant captures 90% of their carbon emissions which is 1.6 million metric tons meaning they emit under 180,000 metric tons of gas. The Petra Nova plant doesn’t have as large of a capacity as average coal plants but scaled to their size it would still produce less than half a million metric tons per year. Clean coal isn’t as clean as renewables but this is still a step in the right direction considering the United States depends on coal for 16 percent of its power. Related: Keystone XL Still Faces Obstacles Even With Trump’s Approval

Under President Trump’s policy plans we can see coal making quite the comeback over the next several years. Such an increase in demand for coal could potentially disrupt energy prices. The President is also pro-fracking and wants to lower the United States’ dependence on OPEC so crude production could also increase. With an overall increase in supply and demand for both commodities, a price hike may be in the near future. Investors should watch Trump and Congress’ activity closely for new policies affecting the market.

Since the start of the New Year, NRG’s stock has grown 23.6% to over $16 per share and JX Holdings jumped 6%. The Kemper County energy facility, run by a subsidiary of Southern Co., is also expected to go online at the end of the month. Interestingly, the plant uses a different method than the Petra Nova plant for removing carbon monoxide suggesting one of the plants may be using a more efficient procedure. Depending on each plant’s success, Southern Co. could become a direct competitor to NRG and JX. Southern may see a similar move in share price that NRG and JX experienced with the starting of their plant.

By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • JHM on January 26 2017 said:
    When the captured C02 is used for fracking, what fraction of it remains securely sequestered and does not seep up back into to the atmosphere? Is there any proof here of actual sequestration, or is it all smoke and mirrors?
  • Adrian on January 26 2017 said:
    Just out of curiosity, how does the LCOE of this compare against $0.03/kWh (and dropping) West-Texas wind?
  • Willie on January 26 2017 said:
    These people just don't seem to get the picture. CO2 from burning coal is only a small part of the problem. The environmental disaster from extraction (mountaintop removal for example), processing (sludge pits), transport (dust), ash disposal, just to name a few, are the major problems. Pumping CO2 underground is not the answer. Leaving coal in the ground is the answer. Put all those resources into implementing clean non-fossil energy. Trump and his fossilized pals are the only ones wanting this.
  • Oilracle on January 26 2017 said:
    Willie on January 26 2017 said:
    ...ash disposal,...

    Have you heard of the "green concrete?"
    It is harder than Portland.
    ---------

    CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and it is at the base of all green leaf LIFE.
    Even some hothouses use it to boost their produce output.
  • PE on January 27 2017 said:
    CO2 injection is an enhanced oil recovery method used to increase recovery from oil fields. This specific dual purpose application would need to be situated near oil producing fields which were currently being CO2 flooded and needed additional supply. Piping gas long distances is costly both for initial investment and operating costs so application is limited. To answer JHM's question a large fraction of CO2 injected would eventually be produced, removed from the gas stream, and then re-used beneficially (re-injected in the same or similar fields). What the article does not address is whether the cost of the equipment to remove CO2 from burning coal is low enough to show encouraging economics. Technical feasibility is proven, cost and economics are not discussed therefore economic feasibility is unknown.
  • Holly Bidmeter on January 30 2017 said:
    Coal provides something that wind and solar do not: Reliable high quality power that saves lives, all day every day.

    Wind and solar are just good enough to make you poor and jobless, which is something that everyone will find out eventually, once all the big government handouts stop coming.
  • Don Clifford on February 08 2017 said:
    So does the Coal fired power plant need to be located near an oil field? This would certainly limit it's use.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News