Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A life cycle comparison of greenhouse emissions for power generation from coal mining and underground coal gasification

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Underground coal gasification (UCG) is an advancing technology that is receiving considerable global attention as an economic and environmentally friendly alternative for exploitation of coal deposits. UCG has the potential to decrease greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) during the development and utilization of coal resources. In this paper, the life cycle of UCG from in situ coal gasification to utilization for electricity generation is analyzed and compared with coal extraction through conventional coal mining and utilization in power plants. Four life cycle assessment models have been developed and analyzed to compare (greenhouse gas) GHG emissions of coal mining, coal gasification and power generation through conventional pulverized coal fired power plants (PCC), supercritical coal fired (SCPC) power plants, integrated gasification combined cycle plants for coal (Coal-IGCC), and combined cycle gas turbine plants for UCG (UCG-CCGT). The analysis shows that UCG is comparable to these latest technologies and in fact, the GHG emissions from UCG are about 28 % less than the conventional PCC plant. When combined with the economic superiority, UCG has a clear advantage over competing technologies. The comparison also shows that there is considerable reduction in the GHG emissions with the development of technology and improvements in generation efficiencies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ag Mohamed A, Batto SF, Changmoon Y et al (2011) Viability of underground coal gasification with carbon capture and storage in Indiana. Capstone Design, Bloomington School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University

  • Anon (1977) In situ coal-gasification. Compressed Air 82(1):14–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Railroads (2010) Railroads and coal. www.aar.org/~/media/aar/backgroaundpapers/railroadsandcoal.ashx. Cited 21 May 2012

  • Association of American Railroads (2011) Railroads and coal. www.aar.org/~/media/aar/Background…/Railroads-and-Coal.ashx. Cited 21 May 2012

  • Association of American Railroads (2012) The environmental benefits of moving freight by rail. http://www.aar.org/KeyIssues/~/media/aar/Background-Papers/The-Environmental-Benefits-of-Rail.ashx. Cited 21 May 2012

  • Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitteratur, Lund Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Blinderman MS (2004) Underground coal gasification for power generation: efficiency and CO2 emissions. In: Proceedings of ASME power, April 2004

  • Blinderman MS, Jones RM (2002) The Chinchilla IGCC project to date: Underground coal gasification and environment. Paper presented at the 2002 gasification technologies conference, San Francisco USA, 27–30 October 2002

  • Blodgett S, Kuipers JR (2002) Underground hard-rock mining: subsidence and hydrologic environmental impacts. Center for Science in Public Participation, Bozeman

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton E, Friedmann J, Upadhye R (2006) Best practices in underground coal gasification. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy (available via http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/pdfs/cctr/BestPracticesinUCG-draft.pdf)

  • Courtney R (2009) Underground coal gasification. Paper presented at the UCG workshop, 26th annual international Pittsburgh coal conference, Pittsburgh PA, 20–23 September 2009

  • Creedy DP, Garner K, Holloway S et al (2001) Review of underground coal gasification technological advancements. COAL R211, DTI/Pub URN 01/1041. Department of Trade & Industry UK

  • DEAT (2004) Life cycle assessment, integrated environmental management, information series 9. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria South Africa

  • DiPietro P (2010) Life cycle analysis of coal and natural gas-fired power plants. National Energy Technology Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy Electric Power Research Institute (EPTI) Coal Fleet May 19, 2012

  • Ditsele O, Awuah-Offei K (2010) Estimating life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for a surface coal mine. In: Proceedings of SME annual meeting and exhibit 2010, Phoenix AZ, 28 February- 3 March 2010

  • Dones R, Bauer C, Heck T (2008) LCA of current coal, gas and nuclear electricity systems and electricity mix in the USA. Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly CR, Carias A, Morgenroth M et al (2011) An assessment of the life cycle costs and GHG emissions for alternative generation technologies. Ontario, Canada

  • DoS (2010) U.S. climate action report. U.S. Department of State Global Publishing Services, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOT (2011a) National transportation statistics 2011, Table 4–25: energy intensity of class-1 railroad freight service. U.S. Department of Transportation-Bureau of Transportation Statistics Washington DC (available via http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/)

  • DOT (2011b) National transportation statistics 2011, Table 4–17: class I rail freight fuel consumption and travel. U.S. Department of Transportation-Bureau of Transportation Statistics Washington DC (available via http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/)

  • Draucker L, Bhander R, Bennet B et al (2010) Life cycle analysis: supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) power plant. DOE/NETL-403-110609. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) U.S. Department of Energy, prepared by Research and Development Solutions, LLC

  • EERE (2002) Mining industry of the future: energy and environmental profile of the U.S. mining industry. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) U.S. Department of Energy BCS Incorporated, (available via http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/industries_technologies/mining.html) Cited 6 June 2012

  • EIA (2008) Issues in focus, annual energy outlook 2007: coal transportation issues. U.S. Energy Information Administration (available via http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/cti.html)

  • EIA (2009) National trends in coal transportation: modal shares of utility contract coal tonnage, 1979, 1987, 1995, and 1997. U.S. Energy Information Administration (available via http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/coal/ctrdb/natltrends.html) Cited April 2012

  • EIA (2011) Annual coal distribution report 2010. U.S. Energy Information Agency (available via http://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/) Cited May 2012

  • EIA (2012a) U.S. coal reserves (2010). U.S. Energy Information Administration

  • EIA (2012b) Annual energy release 2012, early release overview. U.S. Energy Information Administration (available via http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er%282012%29.pdf)

  • EPA (1995) Emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section 11.10: coal cleaning final report. EPA Contract 68-D2-0159, Work Assignment No. II-01, MRI Project No. 4602-01. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Factor and Inventory Group U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park North Carolina, USA

  • EPA (1999) U.S. methane emissions 1990–2020: inventories, projections, and opportunities for reductions. Washington DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation (available via http://epa.gov/methane/reports/methaneintro.pdf)

  • EPA (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions reporting from the petroleum and natural gas industry, background technical support document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Change Division Washington DC (avaialable via http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf)

  • EPA (2012) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2010. EPA 430-R-12-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington DC

  • Federal Railroad Administration (2009) Comparative evaluation of rail and truck fuel efficiency on competitive corridors. U.S. Department of Transportation office of Policy and Communication Washington DC

  • Fergusson KJ (2009) A cleaner, cheaper, indigenous fuel for combined cycle plants. Mod Pow Sys 29(8):24–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiscor S (2011) U.S. prep plant census. In: Coal Age (available via. http://www.coalage.com/index.php/features/1450-us-prep-plant-census.html)

  • Fiscor SJ (2000) Prep plant population reflects industry. Coal Age 105(10):31

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, vol The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom and New York USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton M, Mellquits N, Kitasei S et al (2011) Comparing life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas and coal. Deutsche Bank Group DB climate change advisors, Prepared by World Watch Institute, Frankfurt

  • George FC, Alvarez R, Campbell G et al (2011) Life-cycle emissions of natural gas and coal in the power sector. In: Working document of the NPC North American resource development study by the Life-cycle analysis team of the carbon and other end-use emissions subgroup, National Petroleum Council (NPC)

  • Ghose MK, Paul B (2007) Underground coal gasification: a neglected option. Int J Environ Stud 64:777–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann BS, Szklo A (2011) Integrated gasification combined cycle and carbon capture: a risky option to mitigate CO2 emissions of coal-fired power plants. Appl Energ 88(11):3917–3929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth R, Santoro R, Ingraffea A (2011) Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Clim Chang 106(4):679–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes DJ (2011) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas compared to coal: an analysis of two conflicting studies. Post Carbon Institute, Santa Rosa California

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyder Z, Ripepi N, Karmis M (2012) Underground coal gasification in the central Appalachian region, USA: resource assessment. Paper presented at the 22nd world mining congress and expo, Istanbul Turkey, 11–16 September 2012

  • IEA (2011) World energy outlook 2011, Factsheet. International Energy Agency Paris, France

  • International Standards Organization (2006) Management environnemental: analyse du cycle de vie: principes et cadre (Environmental management: life cycle assessment: principles and framework). ISO 14040(Second edition), Genève Switzerland

  • ITP (2007) Mining industry energy bandwidth study. Industrial technologies program: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) U.S. Department of Energy, BCS Incorporated (available via http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/industries_technologies/mining/pdfs/mining_bandwidth.pdf) Cited 12 May 2012

  • Jaramillo P (2007) A life cycle comparison of coal and natural gas for electricity generation and the production of transportation fuels. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University

  • Jaramillo P, Griffin MW, Matthews SH (2005) Comparative life cycle carbon emissions of LNG versus coal and gas for electricity generation. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2005/10/12/Jaramillo_LifeCycleCarbonEmissionsFromLNG.pdf. Cited 25 August 2012

  • Jaramillo P, Griffin WM, Matthews HS (2007) Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. Environ Sci Technol 41(17):6290–6296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurose R, Makino H, Suzuki A (2004) Numerical analysis of pulverized coal combustion characteristics using advanced low-NOX burner. Fuel 83(6):693–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood AH, Welker-Hood K, Rauch M et al (2009) Coal’s assault on human health. In: A report from physicians for social responsibility, (available via. http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/psr-coal-fullreport.pdf)

  • McIntyre J, Berg B, Seto H et al. (2011) Comparison of lifecycle greenhouse gas emission of various electricity generation sources. World Nuclear Association (WNA), London UK (available via http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf) Cited 19 May 2012

  • Meany RA, Maynard A (2009) A review of the potential for underground coal gasification and gas to liquids applications in Pedirka basin, Onshore Northern territory and Pela 77 Pedirka basin, Onshore South Australia. Mulready Consulting Services Pty Ltd, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorhouse J, Huot M, McCulloch M (2010) Underground coal gasification: environmental risks and benefits. In: Roberta F (ed) The Pembina institute, Drayton Valley Alberta

  • Nalbandian H (2009) Performance and risks of advanced pulverized-coal plants. Energeia 20(1):2

    Google Scholar 

  • National Mining Association (2011) Most requested statistics - U.S. coal industry. NMA, Washington DC http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_most_requested.pdf. Cited June 2012

  • PACE (2009) Life cycle assessment of GHG emissions from LNG and coal fired generation scenarios: assumptions and results. Prepared for: Center for liquefied natural gas (CLNG), Virginia USA

  • Power 4 Georgians (2008) Supercritical power plants. http://power4georgians.com/supercritical.aspx. Cited 15 August 2012

  • Pre Consultants (2010) SimaPro 7. Netherlands

  • Ray SK, Panigrahi DC, Ghosh AK (2010) Cleaner energy production with underground coal gasification - a review. J Inst Engr (India) 91:3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R et al (2004) Life cycle assessment: part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy BV (2010) Biomass and coal gasification based advanced power generation systems and recent research advances. In: Proceedings of the 37th national & 4th international conference on fluid mechanics and fluid power, IIT Madras India, 16–18 December 2010

  • Ruether JA, Ramezan M, Balash PC (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions from coal gasification power generation systems. J Infrastruct Syst 10(3):111–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafirovich E, Varma A (2009) Underground coal gasification: a brief review of current status. Ind Eng Chem Res 48(17):7865–7875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shindell DT, Faluvegi G, Koch DM et al (2009) Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science 326(5953):716–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skone TJ (2011) Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of natural gas extraction & delivery in the United States. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) U.S. Department of Energy, Presented at: Cornell University Lecture Series

  • Spath PL, Mann MK, Kerr DR (1999) Life cycle assessment of coal-fired power production. NREL/TP-570-25119. Campbell G (ed) National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden Colorado

  • United Nations (1998) Kyoto protocol. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC)

  • University of Wyoming (2001) The Wyoming coal website, Moving coal: the unit train. http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/coalweb/trains/unit.aspx. Cited 15 August 2012

  • Vipperman JS, Bauer ER, Babich DR (2007) Survey of noise in coal preparation plants. J Acoust Soc Am 121(1):197–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker L (1999) Underground coal gasification: a clean coal technology ready for development. Austra Coal Rev: 19–21

  • World Coal Association (2011) Uses of coal. http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/. Cited 1st June 2012

  • World Coal Association (2012) Improving efficiencies. http://www.worldcoal.org/coal-the-environment/coal-use-the-environment/improving-efficiencies/. Cited 21 June 2012

  • Yang L, Zhang X, Liu S et al (2008) Field test of large-scale hydrogen manufacturing from underground coal gasification (UCG). Int J Hydrog Energy 33(4):1275–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young P (2011) Annual coal report 2010. DOE/EIA-0584(2010). U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Washington DC (available via. http://205.254.135.7/coal/annual/pdf/acr.pdf)

  • Zorya A, Alexander K, Efim K (2009) Underground coal gasification: its application for production of difficult to recover fuels. Paper presented at the 24th world gas conference Buenos Aires Argentina, 5–9 October 2009

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mining and Minerals Engineering Department, Virginia Tech, 129 Holden Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Zeshan Hyder

  2. Mining and Minerals Engineering Department, Virginia Tech, 100 Holden Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Nino S. Ripepi

  3. Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, 460 Turner Street NW, Suite 304, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA

    Michael E. Karmis

Authors
  1. Zeshan Hyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nino S. Ripepi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael E. Karmis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeshan Hyder.

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 1: Energy requirements for underground coal mine

Equipment and Energy requirement for a hypothetical U.S. Underground coal mine with a production rate of 3,322 ton/day based on EERE data

Equipment

Daily utilization

Energy Consumption

Single Unit

All Units

All Units

All Units

Type

number of units

hours/unit

(Btu/ton)

(Btu/ton)

(Btu/hour)

(Btu/day)

Electrical Equipment

Main Fans

11

18

11,900

130,900

24,158,322

434,849,800

LHD

25

18

2,340

58,500

10,796,500

194,337,000

Drills

13

18

317

4,121

760,553

13,689,962

Two Booms Jumbo

20

18

1,740

34,800

6,422,533

115,605,600

Continuous Mining Machine

2

18

8,740

17,480

3,226,031

58,068,560

Raise Borer

1

18

4,690

4,690

865,566

15,580,180

Diamond Drill

1

0.36

6

6

55,367

19,932

Crusher

1

18

1,760

1,760

324,818

5,846,720

Conveyor

1

18

2,370

2,370

437,397

7,873,140

Water Pumps

2

18

72

144

26,576

478,368

Diesel Equipment

Roof Bolter

1

18

1,280

1,280

236,231

4,252,160

Service Trucks

31

18

1,840

57,040

10,527,049

189,486,880

ANFO Loaders

6

18

1,840

11,040

2,037,493

36,674,880

Total

324,131

59,874,436

1,076,763,182

1.2 Appendix 2: Energy requirements for surface coal mine

Equipment and Energy requirement for a hypothetical U.S. surface coal mine with a production rate of 27,778t/day based on EERE data

Equipment

Daily utilization

Energy Consumption

Single Unit

All Units

All Units

All Units

Type

(number of units)

hours/unit

(Btu/ton)

(Btu/ton)

(Btu/hour)

(Btu/day)

Diesel Equipment

Rear Dump Trucks

11

20

2,370

26,070

36,208,623

724,172,460

Bull Dozers

7

20

1,680

11,760

16,333,464

326,669,280

Pickup Trucks

20

20

149

2,980

4,138,922

82,778,440

Water Tankers

1

20

1,080

1,080

1,500,012

30,000,240

Pumps

2

20

332

664

922,230

18,444,592

Service Trucks

2

20

293

586

813,895

16,277,908

Bulk Trucks

2

20

293

586

813,895

16,277,908

Graders

1

1

52

52

1,203,713

1,444,456

Electrical Equipment

Cable Shovels

4

20

2,490

9,960

13,833,444

276,668,880

Rotary Drills

2

20

813

1,626

2,258,351

45,167,028

Total

55,364

78,026,550

1,537,901,192

1.3 Appendix 3: Energy and material requirements for UCG

Data for UCG

Calorific value of coal

26.4 MJ/kg

Calorific value of Gas

5.0 MJ/m3

Turbine efficiency

50 %

Plant Capacity

300 MW

Operating capacity factor

80 %

Coal resource recovery

75 %

Total plant life

20 years

Coal requirement

1, 650,000 ton/year

Gas requirements

3,784,320,000 m3/year

Water

2.33 × 106 m3/year

Copper ore (for wiring, generators)

234 ton/year

Oil

4,467.60 GJ/year

UCG electrical consumption

8.47 MW

1.4 Appendix 4: Energy requirements for coal preparation plant

Energy required for coal preparation plant with a feed rate of 3,332 t per day or 185 t per hour, based on EERE data

Equipment

Daily utilization

Energy Consumption

Single Unit

All Units

All Units

All Units

Type

(number of units)

hours/unit

(Btu/ton)

(Btu/ton)

(Btu/hour)

(Btu/day)

Grinding Mill

1

18

93,200

93,200

17,200,578

309,610,400

Centrifuge

1

18

585

585

107,965

1,943,370

Flotation Machine

1

18

359

359

66,255

1,192,598

Screens

1

18

238

238

43,924

790,636

Magnetic Separator

1

18

121

121

22,331

401,962

Total

94,503

17,441,054

313,938,966

1.5 Appendix 5: Life cycle components: Coal production

The model shows the coal production component of life cycle GHG emissions for electricity generation from coal plants. The GHG emissions are calculated as kgCO2eq per ton of mined coal using GWP values estimated by 2007 IPCC for 100-year timeframe. 69 % coal is from surface mines and 31 % is from underground coal mines, representing the U.S. average. This part is common for PCC, SCPC, and Coal-IGCC, as it calculates emission per ton of coal, not for the coal requirements for the plant.

figure a

1.6 Appendix 6: Life cycle components: Coal processing

The model shows the coal-processing component of life cycle GHG emissions for electricity generation from coal plants. The GHG emissions are calculated as kgCO2eq per ton of processed coal using GWP values estimated by 2007 IPCC for 100-year timeframe. This part is common for PCC, SCPC, and Coal-IGCC, as it calculates emissions per ton of coal, not for the coal requirements for the plant.

figure b

1.7 Appendix 7: Life cycle components: Coal transport

This model shows life cycle GHG emissions from coal transport component. The GHG emissions are calculated as kgCO2eq per ton of transported coal using GWP values estimated by 2007 IPCC for 100-year timeframe. This part is common for PCC, SCPC and Coal-IGCC plants, as it calculates emission per ton of coal, not for the coal requirements for the plant. 75 % of coal is transported through trains, 15 % through barges, and 10 % through trucks representing the U.S. average for coal transportation.

figure c

1.8 Appendix 8: Life cycle components: UCG production

This model shows life cycle GHG emissions from UCG production component. The GHG emissions are calculated as kgCO2eq per m3 of syngas using GWP values estimated by 2007 IPCC for 100-year timeframe. All the materials and energy flows, as well as emissions are attributed to 1 m3 syngas production.

figure d

1.9 Appendix 9: Life cycle components: UCG transport

This model shows life cycle GHG emissions from UCG transport. The GHG emissions are calculated as kgCO2eq per m3 of syngas using GWP values estimated by 2007 IPCC for 100-year timeframe. All the materials and energy flows, as well as emissions are attributed to 1 m3 syngas transport. The transport network for natural gas has been used in this model for UCG transportation.

figure e

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hyder, Z., Ripepi, N.S. & Karmis, M.E. A life cycle comparison of greenhouse emissions for power generation from coal mining and underground coal gasification. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 21, 515–546 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9561-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9561-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation