The Great Switch: Coal to Gas

May 31, 2011

This week’s edition of the Txchnologist, an online magazine presented by GE, tackles natural gas as “the bridge to renewable energy.” Below, an infographic that illustrates the big difference in average emissions from coal-fired power plants versus those from natural gas-fired combined cycle plants.

* Read more Txchnologist on natural gas, including an overview of some of the issues animating the coal to gas debate, the promise of methane hydrates, “the ice that burns,” as the next big energy resource and a deep dive into GE’s big gas tech breakthrough: the FlexEfficiency 50, a super-efficient and flexible natural gas power plant.

Adam Vanney

Although I can appreciate this comparison of coal to clean-burning natural gas, I think the issue is being over-simplified by ignoring the aquisition of either fuel. Fracking is a relatively new process with many drawbacks, many of which we have likely yet to discover. Obviously coal mining has numerous downfalls as well, but the entire picture must be considered before we jump into any new energy production method.
J.P. Oppenheim

To develop oil shale deposits, a lot of water will be required. In states like Colorado and Wyoming, water resources are limited. How this issue plays out will also have an effect on the Gas vs. Coal debate.
Ed Turcotte

Why not re-use the Frac water over and over again using existing GE water treatment technology to recover the drilling fluids and explain to our investigative media to tell both sides of the story?

A very hopefull GE stockholder who sure wishes you folks would increase our dividends soon!
J.D.Monty

Natural gas is too valuable a resource to waste generating electricity when there are so many other options available. There are industrial processes, including the manufacture of fertilizer which require it. Also the needs for domestic heating, cooking and its use as a motor fuel in transportation. Squandering it on large scale power generation is short sighted and wastful and will threaten its availability for other more important needs in the future. The only mitigating factor is the very high efficiency of the gas fired combined cycle plants, but the same can be achieved with combined cycle gasification coal plants, which contain nearly all of the undesirable emissions.
tonyG

the graphics here are so bad! We’re not all children. The representation of real numeric values need to be displayed with REAL scaling! The Corporation has enough engineers working that you could actual do the graphics right!
Y. Zhao

Another missing picture here is the water vapor generated by burning natural gas, burning natural gas produces less CO2 for the same BTU compared to burning coal, but produces a lot more water vapor in the flue gas than coal. It is so clear that water vapor is a much bigger player for the so called “Green House Gas” effect than carbon dioxide, but there is nobody mentioning this at least in public,

EPA is trying to impose regulation on all natural gas plant to have closed-loop cooling system, one reason is probably to eliminate the green house gas emission – vaporized cooling water to atomosphere from open cooling system.

Hope IGCC can be reliable and cost effective and competitive as pulverized coal power plant and nuclear plant. After all, coal to US is like oil to Saudi Arabia.
S. L. Brown

I agree with Monty about the IGCC plants. Synthesis gas from coal (or other Carbon based fuels such as Biomass) is a great alternative; as it captures much of the Sulfur, NOx, Mercury and other toxic metals. However, the question still remains of what to do with the captured CO2?