Chikka Tur 2011

EG36CH05-Chikkatur ARI 4 October 2011 18:43
Coal Power Impacts,

Technology, and Policy:
Connecting the Dots
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Ananth P. Chikkatur,1 Ankur Chaudhary,2
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
and Ambuj D. Sagar2
including: 1
ICF International, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; email: achikkatur@icfi.com,
• Other articles in this volume ap_chikkatur@yahoo.com
• Top cited articles
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2011.36:101-138. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
2
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, Delhi-110016, India;
• Top downloaded articles
• Our comprehensive search email: ankurch.iitd@gmail.com, asagar@hss.iitd.ac.in
by Monash University on 05/19/13. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011. 36:101–38 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on health impacts, cleaner coal technology, policy, climate change
August 11, 2011
mitigation
The Annual Review of Environment and Resources
is online at environ.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article’s doi: The demand for electricity—closely linked to human, social, and eco-
10.1146/annurev.environ.020508.142152
nomic development—is expected to rise significantly in the coming
Copyright c 2011 by Annual Reviews. decades, especially in developing countries. Coal power currently is,
All rights reserved
and is expected to remain, an important part of the global electric
1543-5938/11/1121-0101$20.00 power mix with much of the future growth again in developing coun-
tries. At the same time, coal-based power generation results in multi-
ple, significant externalities with human health and potential climate
change impacts being particularly important. This has spurred much
effort over the decades to better determine the range and value of the
impacts. Although uncertainties still remain in many aspects, it has be-
come quite clear that the existing health and potential climate impacts
from coal-power use are considerable. More stringent regulations are
already being enforced and planned in developed countries, and de-
veloping countries are beginning to follow suit. Improved coal-based
power generation technologies (deployed often as a result of regula-
tions) can play an important role in mitigating these impacts, but their
further development and deployment is complicated by a number of
interrelated factors: the urgency of the climate imperative, the lack of
coherent policies, the scale and complexity of the transition to cleaner-
coal power, and the level of technological effort being devoted to (or
available for) such a transition. Looking ahead, even as the wait for more
stringent climate policies continues, there is a need to catalyze the in-
novation cycle through research and development (R&D) efforts while
facilitating uptake and appropriate international cooperation to ensure
rapid technology adoption across the globe.
101
communication devices and networks, and

Contents even mobility. A rise in annual electricity con-
sumption per capita is highly correlated with
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
improvements in performance on the Human
2. HEALTH AND
Development Index, especially once countries
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES . . . . 105
reach medium levels of human development
2.1. Local Environmental and
(see Figure 1).
Health Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
The relative ease with which electricity
2.2. Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
can be transmitted long distances provides
3. COAL POWER
enormous advantages, as does its ability to be
TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
used locally without large-scale environmental
3.1. Coal-Power-Generation
pollution. Although historically used in sta-
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
tionary applications, electricity may also power

3.2. Pollution-Control
a significant portion of future transportation
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
using plug-in hybrids or fully electric vehicles
4. COAL POWER: POLICY
(thereby reducing the dependency on liquid
ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
fuels in the transportation sector). Hence, there
4.1. Adequacy of Research

generally is an increasing global demand for
Development and
electric power from the residential, commer-
Deployment Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
cial, industrial, and transportation sectors. The
4.2. Deployment of New
demand, however, is increasing more rapidly
Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
in developing countries, compared with that
4.3. International Collaboration . . . . 128
in developed countries. This is partly driven
5. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
by the need to provide access to electricity for
large population groups in many parts of the
world (see Table 1) and partly the result of
the economic growth in these countries that
1. INTRODUCTION is both underpinning and driving the demand
Increasing the availability of, and access to, for power. In fact, the International Energy
energy services is important to increase the Agency (IEA) (2) in 2010 estimated that
standard of living across the globe, especially global electricity consumption will rise from
in rural areas. Energy services are not only ∼16,800 TWh in 2008 to over 23,700 TWh
key to directly meeting human needs, such in 2020 and to 32,900 TWh by 2035, using the
as cooking and space heating/cooling, but reference case “current policy” scenario.
they also enable a range of activities that Electricity is generated globally from a va-
underpin modern existence, such as sanitation riety of sources, of which coal is the most dom-
and health services, food and water supplies, inant; currently, coal powers just over 40% of
communication, and mobility, as well as total generation in the world and more than
economic activities in industries and services 70% in the fast-growing economies of China
sectors. It has also been acknowledged that and India (2). Figure 2 provides a regional
energy services play a critical role in meeting picture of power generation over the past two
the Millennium Development Goals (1). decades and for the next two decades, based
Electricity plays a particularly important on IEA current policy projections (2). Much of
role in modern energy systems; as an energy the growth in coal- based power generation be-
carrier, it enables the provision of an enormous tween 1990 and 2008 has been in non-OECD
range of services, such as lighting, heating and (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
cooling, operation of industrial machinery, Development) countries, up from 1,369 TWh
home appliances, computers, electronics, and to 4,391 TWh, while such generation in OECD
102 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

EG36CH05-Chikkatur
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2011.36:101-138. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org ARI 4 October 2011 18:43
Figure 1
Correlation between annual electricity consumption (kWh) per capita and the Human Development Index
(HDI). Data are from “World Development Indicators 2010” (173) and “Human Development Report
2010” (174).
countries rose from 3,057 TWh to 3,882 TWh. coal-based power over the next two decades will
The largest growth in coal-based power gener- remain in non-OECD countries, particularly
ation over this period has been in China (10.3% in China and India, whereas coal-based power
average annual growth); as a result, China generation in OECD countries will remain
by itself accounted for over three-fifths of all almost flat. Although there will be some growth
non-OECD coal power generation in 2008. in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and
Coal is expected to continue powering the Eurasia, the growth in Asia is expected to
electricity sector because it is relatively cheap to dwarf all other regions. The increase in coal
extract and utilize, and coal reserves seem to be power in Latin America and Africa is expected
extensive and geographically widespread. The primarily from policies intended to utilize local
IEA’s current policy scenario indicates that, in coal resources and diversify energy use in these
2030, coal will still continue to contribute 43% regions. Coal-based generation is expected
(14,800 TWh) of the global power generation. to decrease in the European Union by 2030,
It suggests that much of expected growth in although the overall electricity generation will
Table 1 Number of people without access to electricity (millions); numbers within parentheses
represent electrification rates (2)
Area Total Urban Rural
Africa 587 (41.9%) 121 (68.9%) 466 (25.0%)
Sub-Saharan Africa 585 120 465
Developing Asia 799 (78.1%) 82 (93.9%) 716 (68.8%)
China 8 0 8
India 404 23 380
Other Asia 387 59 328
Latin America 31 (93.4%) 4 (98.8%) 27 (74.0%)
Developing countries 1,438 (73.0%) 210 (90.7%) 1,229 (60.2%)
World 1,441 (78.9%) 210 (93.6%) 1,232 (65.1%)
www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 103

increase owing to a rise in renewables- and

natural gas-based power. While the growth of
coal power in China is expected to slow down
in the coming decades, generation using coal
Coal power as a fraction of overall electricity generated (2030). Coal power–based generation as a fraction of the overall electricity generation for the
would still more than double between 2008
and 2030 under the current policy scenario
(2). The growth of coal power in India during
the same period is expected to increase by
about three times. Under the current policy,
current policy scenario (CPS) and the 450 ppm scenario of the International Energy Agency’s “World Energy Outlook 2010” (2).
these two countries together will account for
over 80% of the increase in coal-based power
generation during this period.
Other global energy projections also sup-

port the view that coal will remain an important
contributor to global power generation at least
for the next couple of decades. For instance,
the International Energy Outlook 2010 reference
scenario of the U.S. Energy Information Ad-

ministration (3) projects the share of coal in the
electric power sector to remain around 43% in
2035 compared to a 44% share in 2007 (with
a global net electricity generation by coal of
15,000 TWh). The “BP Energy Outlook 2030”
(4) report projects a slightly lower overall share
from coal (about 12,000 TWh, which is about
35%, of total power generation), but even this
lower estimate reaffirms the centrality of coal
in the global power sector (4). Such a common
consensus across various projections serves
to highlight the likely indispensability of coal
power and the substantial growth in coal-based
power generation in the coming decades.
Of course, the need to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions globally may significantly
affect the deployment of coal-based power
plants (which are a major contributor to global
GHG emissions). However, as indicated in
Figure 3, coal would continue to account for
around 21% of the total global generation (and
possibly more than double that in some major
developing countries) even under the IEA’s
carbon-constrained scenario. This scenario
incorporates policies needed to stabilize GHG
Figure 3
concentrations at 450 ppm, which is being seen

by many as allowing a reasonable probability
of avoiding dangerous climate change (2).
Although modern renewables have the highest
growth rate (2), they start from a very small

base. Even under a “carbon-constrained” developed countries already have specific envi-
scenario, renewables are expected to account ronmental policies aimed at reducing many of
for less than half the contribution from coal. the externalities and impacts mentioned above.
In addition to its significant GHG contri- Although the upstream impacts from the
butions, coal power also poses significant local coal extraction and coal-based power genera-
health and environmental risks. Hence, a mation are significant, this issue is not discussed
jor challenge facing the power sector is how in detail here, and our focus is primarily on im-
to reconcile the ongoing and projected rapid pacts from flue-gas emissions from coal power
growth in coal-based power with the increasing plants. This section focuses primarily on human
urgency to address human health, local envi- health impacts from local air pollution and cli-
ronmental, and global climate change concerns. mate change.
It is in this context that this article reviews the
state of global coal power and its technologies,

highlights the key impacts and policy responses 2.1. Local Environmental
that are shaping the development and deploy- and Health Pollution
ment of coal power technologies, and discusses The air pollutants in the flue gas—particulate
some future policy options. matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SOx ), nitrogen ox-
ides (NOx ), and other chemicals—emitted from

coal-fired power plants can have significant
2. HEALTH AND health impacts on the local and region popu-
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES lation. The impact on public health from coal
Although all power generation technologies use, in fact, has a long history (7–9). Most
have varying socioenvironmental impacts, the notably, smog episodes resulting from unregu-
local environment and public health impacts lated use of coal in London in the late 1940s and
(and, more recently, the contribution to po- 1950s resulted in nearly 5,000 deaths, and heavy
tential climate impacts) from coal-fired power air pollution in Donora, Pennsylvania, in 1948
plants are of particular concern. Direct impacts resulted in nearly 20 deaths (8).
resulting from construction and ongoing Commensurate with the scope of the prob-
operations potentially can include flue-gas lem, there has been significant research over the
emissions; fugitive dust from coal handling years to better understand the various aspects of
plants and fly ash storage areas; pollution of air pollutant-atmospheric interactions and hu-
local water streams, rivers, and groundwater man health impacts, including the atmospheric
from effluent discharges and percolation of chemistry of PM, SOx and NOx ; sampling and
hazardous materials from the stored fly ash; analytic measurement methods; and assessing
degradation of land used for storing fly ash; the relationship between emissions, concentra-
and noise pollution during operation (5, 6). tions, human exposure, and response (including
The upstream impacts result mainly from coal animal models, human clinical and epidemio-
mining and transportation, which can include logical studies). Recently, a series of compre-
impacts on the health, safety, and well-being of hensive Integrated Science Assessment reports
coal miners; accidents and fatalities resulting by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
from coal transportation; significant disruption (EPA) have summarized the key scientific lit-
to human life, especially in the absence of erature on these topics (10–13) and established
well-functioning resettlement policies; and the scientific status of the causality (14) of vari-
impacts on environment, such as degradation ous adverse human health impacts (15) resulting
and destruction of land, water, forests, habitats, from relevant exposures to local air pollutants,
and ecosystems (6, 7). The exact level of the im- particularly in the context of the United States.
pacts, of course, depends on the policies that are According to Pope & Dockery (16), partic-
in place to mitigate the pollution. In fact, most ulate pollution is an air-suspended mixture of

solid and liquid particles that vary in number, Increased risk of postneonatal infant mor-
size, shape, surface area, chemical composition, tality, associated with an increase in
solubility, and origin. Particulate emissions, a PM10 concentration in the United States
key pollutant from coal-power plants, can be (19);
classified as primary PM (directly emitted from A near doubling of postneonatal deaths
a source) and secondary PM (particulates that due to respiratory illnesses (20), associ-
result from chemical interactions with sulfur ated with each 10 μg/m3 increase of
dioxide (SO2 ), NOx , ammonia (NH3 ), and or- PM2.5 concentration;
ganic compounds) (10). PM is classified by the Reduced lung function growth in
size of particles, with particles less than 10 mi- children exposed to PM2.5 (21);
Deposition and settling of PM on lakes,
crons in diameter designated as PM10 and fine
particles less than 2.5 microns as PM2.5. The streams, and soil, leading to changes in
soil and water nutrient balance, damag-
distinction in the PM sizes allows for regula-

tors to impose additional restrictions on small ing forests and agricultural production,
particles, which are particularly dangerous for and affecting regional ecosystem diversity
human health because they can penetrate and (10); and
Damage to culturally important artifacts,
lodge deep into our lungs (10, 16). Most of the
PM2.5 pollution is produced by combustion of such as statues and monuments (10).

fossil fuels in stationary sources, such as power Biological PM pathways that produce
plants or in transportation. Some of the key increases in cardiopulmonary mortality have
adverse health and environmental impacts of also been evaluated. Pope & Dockery (16)
PM air pollution include note that there is now evidence for pulmonary
Cardiopulmonary disease at very high retention of small particles, contributing to
PM concentrations and increases in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They
morbidity and mortality from extreme also suggest growing evidence for a related
air pollution episodes, i.e., ambient air pathway of low-to-moderate alveolar inflam-
concentration of PM that is several times mation resulting from PM exposure, leading to
the regulatory standards and guidelines atherosclerosis. There seem to be multiple in-
(16, 17); terdependent biological pathways that link PM
Increased risk of mortality owing to pollution with cardiopulmonary disease (16).
short-term (daily) changes in PM The sulfur in coal reacts with oxygen during
exposure—a meta-analysis of various combustion to form SOx , which are usually
studies indicates that there is a 1.5% in- defined as SO2 , SO3 , and gas-phase sulfuric
crease in the relative risk of mortality for acid (H2 SO4 ) (12). The amount of sulfur in
every increase of 20 μg/m3 of PM10 (18), coals used for power generation varies widely,
and greater PM2.5 concentrations may and hence, the amount of SOx emitted in the
result in larger risks for mortality (16); local environment also varies. In addition, the
Increased respiratory problems, such emitted SOx can cause or be associated with
as aggravation of asthma, increased adverse health impacts in multiple ways (12). In
coughing and difficult breathing, chronic particular, SOx emissions result in production
bronchitis, decreased lung function, and of PM2.5, which has been linked with the
premature death at low concentrations adverse health impacts discussed above. Many
ranging from 10 to 80 μg/m3 [see Pope of the effects of SO2 are often confounded
& Dockery (16) and references therein]; with PM (22); therefore, separating the specific
A strong increase in the relative risk of effects of SO2 can be difficult in some studies.
mortality (particularly from cardiopul- However, most sulfur emissions come from
monary diseases and lung cancer) from point sources, and they can be quantified more
increased exposure to PM (16); easily than NOx and primary PM (12).

According to the EPA (12), SO2 is expected The formation of haze, which impairs vis-
to be almost completely absorbed in the nasal ibility, is caused by sulfate particles (24).
passages of both humans and laboratory animals There is sufficient evidence to infer a
under resting conditions because of solubility of causal relationship between sulfur de-
SO2 in water. Therefore, high sulfur concen- position and conversion of mercury to
tration in ambient air is particularly dangerous. methylmercury (which is highly neuro-
Some of the impacts of SOx on human health toxic) in wetlands and aquatic environ-
and environment include the following: ments (13). Drevnick et al. (25) have es-
Increased airway resistance and decreased tablished a direct linkage between sulfur
forced expiratory volume in 1 s in healthy deposition and mercury in fish.
Acid rain (from the dissolution of SO2 and
individuals occurs at concentrations
>1.0–5.0 ppm, and in asthmatics at con- NOx in water vapor) makes soil and water
bodies acidic, resulting in adverse impacts
centrations <1.0 ppm (12).

Peak exposure (5–10 min) to SO2 con- on forests (dieback), crops, and fisheries,
centrations between 0.2 and 1.0 ppm as well as human habitations. Acidifica-
results in an increase of both the magni- tion results in reduced plant health, re-
tude of SO2 -induced decrements in lung duced plant vigor, and loss of terrestrial
function and the percent of individuals biodiversity, as indicated by the percent-

affected among asthmatics. age of canopy tree dieback, dead tree basal
Breathing of high levels of SO2 results area (as a percent), crown vigor index, and
in bronchoconstriction, mucus secretion, fine twig dieback (13).
mucosal vasodilatation, cough, apnea fol- Biological pathways for sulfur interaction in
lowed by rapid shallow breathing, and humans are well understood. It is known that
effects on the cardiovascular system, SO2 and bisulfate (which is formed when SO2
such as bradycardia and hypotension or interacts with water at physiological pH) read-
hypertension (23). ily react with nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, and
A large number of epidemiologic stud- other classes of biomolecules (26). Products of
ies provide evidence of an association be- sulfonation are highly reactive and can result
tween ambient SO2 concentrations and in mutational events. Receptors found at all
emergency visits and hospitalizations for levels of the respiratory tract are sensitive to
all respiratory causes, in particular among SO2 (27). However, the specific mechanisms for
children and older adults (65+ years), and SO2 -related bronchoconstriction are not well
for asthma (12). understood.
According to the EPA (12), several mul- Nitrogen in the air reacts with oxygen at
ticity epidemiologic studies and meta- high temperatures during combustion to form
analyses have provided evidence that NOx ; the rate of NOx production increases
short-term exposure to SO2 is (a) causally with temperature. Atmospheric interactions
associated with respiratory morbidity and produce a complex mixture of NOx , and
(b) suggestive of a causal relationship with many factors drive ambient air concentrations.
mortality. The range of the excess risk es- Although the majority of NOx emissions is
timates for SO2 on all-cause mortality is from the transportation sector, emissions from
0.4% to 2% per 10 ppb increase in 24-h power plants are also significant (11). Health
average SO2 levels. impacts from NOx can often be confounded
The relationship between longer-term by copollutants in epidemiological studies,
exposure of SO2 and mortality is not fully and hence, multipollutant regression models
discernable with current epidemiological are often used to assess the specific impacts of
studies, especially as the effects of SO2 are NOx (11). NOx can also act as a surrogate for
confounded with PM (12). other (unmeasured or poorly characterized)

pollutants or combination of pollutants. NO2 in excess nitrogen nutrient enrichment,

is a reactive gas, and its uptake is a first-order which results in an imbalance in ecologi-
process for concentrations less than 10 ppm, cal stoichiometry, with effects on ecosys-
and the reaction is saturable (28). NO2 inter- tem processes, structures, and functions
acts with surfactants, antioxidants, and other (33). Some of the impacts of “nitrogen
compounds in the epithelial lining fluid, and cascade” (32) include aquatic eutrophi-
adverse pulmonary effects of inhaled NO2 are cation, structural changes in terrestrial
due to the reaction products themselves or the plant communities, nutrient cycling dis-
metabolites of these products (11). ruptions, increased soil emissions of N2 O
Some of main concerns and problems with (a potent GHG), accumulation of nitro-
NOx emissions include the following: gen compounds in the soil, soil-mediated
Short-term NO2 exposures at concentra- effects of acidification, and increased sus-
tions less than 1 ppm result in adverse res- ceptibility of plants to stress factors (see
piratory effects, particularly impairment References 34–36 for examples).
of lung host defenses. Exposures greater
than 8 ppb can worsen virus-associated In addition to the above air pollutants,
lower respiratory tract symptoms in the impacts of heavy metals, particularly
children with asthma (29). mercury, from coal-related emissions are a

Short-term exposure to NO2 at con- key concern for policy makers. Mercury is
centrations less than 2.0 ppm increases widely distributed in the environment and
airway inflammation, and inflammatory originates from natural and anthropogenic
responses in healthy subjects occur be- sources, including combustion and volcanoes
tween 100 and 200 ppm/min, i.e., 1 ppm (37). Mercury emissions from coal-fired power
for 2 to 3 h (11). plants can be a significant source of new mer-
NO2 exposure also may enhance sensi- cury emissions (38). Mercury present in flue
tivity to allergen-induced decrements in gases and in fly ash/bottom ash that is disposed
lung function and increase the allergen- of in ash ponds enters the hydrological system,
induced airway inflammatory response at wherein the mercury is methlyated in oceans
exposures as low as 0.26 ppm NO2 for and rivers; methylmercury can then enter the
30 min (11). human food chain, mainly through consump-
Recent U.S. multicity epidemiology stud- tion of fish, as it is bioaccumulative (37, 39).
ies provide support for associating short- Exposure to mercury at high levels can harm
term NO2 exposure [18 to 26 ppb for a the brain, heart, kidney, lung, and immune
24-h average (30) and 32 ppb for a 4-h systems of people of all ages, particularly
average (31)] with respiratory symptoms children and fetuses (40, 41). Children exposed
and medication use in asthmatic children. to low concentrations of methylmercury pre-
However, the epidemiologic evidence on natally could be at risk of poor performance on
the effect of short-term exposure to NO2 neurobehavioral tests, such as those measuring
on total nonaccidental and cardiopul- attention, fine motor function, language skills,
monary mortality is not currently suffi- visual-spatial abilities, and verbal memory (40,
cient to infer a causal relationship (11). 42). See the National Research Council (NRC)
Similarly, long-term impacts of NO2 in (40) and EPA reports (41, 42) on the health
terms of morbidity and mortality are not impacts of mercury for further information.
well established, and there is limited ev- To reduce mercury-related impacts, the EPA
idence of plausible pathways by which in 2001 set an ambient water quality criterion
these risks are increased. on the basis of the amount of methylmercury
NOx emissions, along with other re- in fish tissue: 0.3 mg per kilogram of fish tissue
active nitrogen compounds (32), result wet weight (43). In addition, the oral reference

dose for methylmercury (dose at or below are many assumptions embedded in each step
which adverse impacts are unlikely) was set of the process, resulting in different monetary
at 0.1 μg of methylmercury per day for each values for the externalities (53).
kilogram of a person’s body mass (42). Although there are a range of different ex-
ternalities for coal power plants [human health,
2.1.1. Estimating impacts of local air pol- visibility, crop yields, timber yields, building
lution. The standard methodology to assess damages, and loss of recreation (6)], owing
the impacts of local air pollution involves to space constraints, the focus in this pa-
(a) understanding the amount of different per is primarily on adverse health outcomes,
types of pollutants released (i.e., the mass and which are the predominant impacts of lo-
types of emissions), (b) estimating their disper- cal air pollution. Furthermore, it is generally
sion in space and time in the local and regional agreed that the impacts—premature mortality
environment (i.e., the concentration), (c) de- and morbidity—from small particle emissions
termining the resulting exposure of individuals are the largest (6, 51), including both direct
to the dispersed pollutants (i.e., the dose), emissions and secondary PM resulting from
(d ) evaluating the health and other environ- SO2 emissions. About 99% of the damages asso-
mental impacts resulting from the exposure ciated with SO2 is due to its transformation into
(i.e., the response), and finally (e) monetizing secondary PM2.5 and PM10 (6). Accordingly,
the damages resulting from the impacts (6, the focus on impact assessment in developing
44, 45). The scientific literature in this field countries also is primarily on PM, as there is
mostly has been driven by the regulatory and a relative dearth of emissions and impact data
policy requirement to ensure that all of the for pollutants like NOx . Even though this limits
impacts of pollution be adequately considered the scope of impact assessments in developing
and monetized. The literature in this field is countries (54), the evaluations are fairly repre-
large and expanding, and only a very brief sentative of the overall health impacts.
summary is provided here because of space Quantifying the pollutant emissions from
limitations. power plants is fairly straightforward. Mod-
Research in power plant externalities is not eling the concentration of the pollutants in
new; not surprisingly, the research has been ambient air on the basis of atmospheric dis-
dominated by studies in the United States and persion can utilize detailed representations of
Europe (6, 44, 46–49), although there now are natural atmospheric processes for fine temporal
studies covering other regions of the world (50, and spatial resolution (process-based modeling)
51). The ExternE (External costs of Energy) (55), or the concentration can be modeled with
program in Europe was initiated as a European a simple representation that mimics the overall
research network in 1991 and has now become behavior of the entire system [reduced-form
a recognized source for externality estimation models, which are relatively fast, inexpensive
of energy sources (52). The studies vary in to operate, and easy to interpret (6, 56)].
terms of the scope of the analysis (i.e., number Exposure to the concentration is determined
of plants), power plant options, the number by population data, often differentiated by
of pollutants considered, the way in which age, types of crops, timber harvested, visibility
dispersion is modeled (i.e., detailed modeling resources, recreation uses, and others (6).
for a particular plant versus limited model- The exposure is then translated to health
ing for multiple plants), inclusion of GHG impacts by using dose-response functions, most
emissions, consideration of transportation and often determined by epidemiological studies,
energy security externalities, extent to which for different pollutants (e.g., see References
the entire life cycle of the energy technology 49 and 56). The shape of the dose-response
is assessed, and the monetary value placed on function, particularly the presence or absence
the impacts of the externalities (6, 53). There of a threshold below which there are little or

no response, has significant implications for medicines, and others) and the indirect costs
determining an adequate level of safety (9, 57, (wage rate multiplied by the lost hours) result-
58). For example, PM seems to have impacts ing from a morbidity condition. The COI ap-
even at relatively low concentrations (9); the proach is often seen to provide a lower bound
lack of evidence of a “risk-free” threshold (58) to the WTP estimates, as it ignores the disu-
implies a strong need to continue to strengthen tility associated with the morbidity condition
air quality ambient standards for PM. (66). The WTP estimates provides policy mak-
Most developing-country studies, bar- ers and regulators with information on value
ring a few in China (59–61), transfer the of reducing the risks and impacts of pollution
dose-response functions from studies done in and also allows them to address market failures
developed countries. Although significant dif- related to environmental, health, and mortality
ferences exist in the social and environmental risks related to air pollution (6, 63).
conditions between the developing countries Most of the research assessing the VSL is
and the Western countries where these studies primarily performed in the United States and
were undertaken, such transfers have been Canada, and there are relatively fewer studies in
validated, albeit with some uncertainty (51, 62). developing countries (63). Recent studies have
Economic valuations of reduced premature used a VSL of US(2008)$7.35 million (6, 67),
mortality owing to a reduction in air pollution and meta-analysis of the global VSL has re-
tend to estimate the product of the number of ported a value of US(2008)$8.2 million (with a
statistical lives saved and the economic value of standard deviation of $6.86 million!) (63). Over
a statistical life (VSL) (6, 45, 63). In practice, the the course of time, the VSL has increased; for
VSL represents an individual’s willingness to example, the EPA in 1985 estimated the VSL
pay (WTP) for a marginal reduction in the risk at US(2008)$2.08 million for evaluating im-
of dying and has been extensively reviewed in pacts of gasoline lead content (63), whereas the
developed countries through “contingent val- EPA’s recent estimate is US(2008)$7.7 million
uation” studies and compensating wage differ- (68).
ential studies. An alternative approach, usually Few studies have been published using data
leveraged in the absence of WTP data, is the from the developing countries that estimate
“human capital approach,” which estimates the the WTP to reduce mortality (51, 69, 70).
value of life as lost productivity, i.e., the value of Consequently, most present studies have relied
lost earnings associated with a premature mor- on WTP transfers from other countries using
tality. The human capital approach usually pro- a benefits transfer approach, assuming similar
vides a lower bound to the WTP estimates of preferences toward risk abatement, using the
the VSL values (64). following relation
Estimates of the cost of morbidity from
WTP1 = WTP2 (Income1 /Income2 )ε , 1.
air pollution is based on a combination of
four factors: (a) the value of work time lost, where the subscripts 1 and 2 represent the
(b) the medical costs of treating the morbidity, WTP and incomes (at marginal exchange rate)
(c) the amount the patient is willing to pay for in the two countries, and ε represents the in-
avoiding the associated pain and suffering, and come elasticity of WTP (which should deviate
(d ) the value of leisure time lost owing to from unity for countries with quite different
morbidity (65). Two major approaches are em- income levels (71), although most studies use
ployed to value the cost associated with morbid- a value of one).
ity: A contingent valuation approach is usually The example of China illustrates the wide
undertaken to estimate the WTP of individu- range of VSL estimates in developing coun-
als to avoid the morbidity conditions, whereas tries (likely a manifestation of the disparate
a “cost-of-illness” (COI) approach measures methods employed): The range of WTP-
the direct costs (cost of hospital admissions, based VSL estimates across major studies in

China ranges from US(2008)$55,590 (72) to tions (absence of desulfurization in Hungary,

US(2008)$538,287 (73), depending upon the for example), and the different choices for
valuation method. Furthermore, employing the concentration-response curves [e.g., Levy
human capital approach to provide a lower et al. (67) and Epstein et al. (80) employ
bound to the WTP estimates of the VSL in concentration-response curves from Schwartz
developing countries has its own limitations et al. (81), whereas the NRC 2010 study (6) as-
(64): Although the urban VSL in China is sumes curves from Pope & Dockery (82)] have
US(2008)$77,000 using U.S. WTP scaling, the contributed to the wide uncertainty in health
human capital estimate in the same study is just impact valuation. Consequently, Sundqvist
US(2008)$12,800 (50). (53) has argued that comparisons between
Only a limited number of studies (69, 74– studies are difficult, with studies differing in
76) have actually conducted WTP surveys in their scope, methods used, basic assumptions,
developing countries to estimate the WTP to and treatment of existing regulations. Although
reduce morbidity. A benefits transfer of known research into disentangling morbidity and mor-
WTP values for avoiding morbidity from the tality end points and avoiding double counting
developed countries is used by some studies have led to a certain degree of consensus in
(75, 77) in the developing countries. Further- the health impact valuation literature, gaps still
more, some studies (51) have employed a com- remain in our understanding of the pollutant
bination of WTP estimates (where they are toxicology and the actual mechanism of health
available) and COI estimates. However, there impact (79, 83). Sundqvist also suggests that
are variations in the COI estimates employed guidelines are needed to address the questions
in different countries: For example, the cost of methodological approach and scope of
of a respiratory hospital admission in China, future studies in order to increase the ambit of
US(2008)$735, is about a third of the cost recommendations from such studies to policy
in Mexico, US(2008)$2,340, (51, 78). Simi- makers (53).
larly, WTP estimates for chronic bronchitis It should be reiterated that external impacts
in China have been reported in the range of of other energy sources (e.g., oil, gas, nuclear,
US(2008)$626 –$7,190 in different studies (75, biomass, wind) do exist, although these are
77), thus illustrating a wide variation in the smaller than coal (84). Interestingly, as high-
economic valuation of various morbidity end lighted by Ho & Nielson (54), although the
points. overall emissions from coal power sector may be
Given the complexity of the assessment quite large, their health impacts are lower than
process and the wide range of assessment their proportional share in emissions. This is a
methodologies, it is not surprising that there result of the lower exposure risks for coal plant
is wide variability in the economic valuation of emissions when compared with the cement or
health-related damage estimates for coal-based transportation sectors. Drawing on this result,
power generation (see Table 2). Although Ho & Nielson (54) have emphasized the need
these numbers give a broad view of the costs for pollution control priorities to focus on dam-
involved, it should be noted that the analysis ages and not emissions as such. As Markandaya
of power generation externalities has been & Wilkinson (86) note, although the exposure
evolving over the years with uncertainties and to coal-generated air pollution is involuntary,
limitations inherent in external cost assessment the resulting health impacts are much smaller
and with a high sensitivity to the monetary than that from smoking (admittedly a voluntary
valuation approach adopted (79). Furthermore, activity): Lifetime exposure to concentrations
consideration of different emission years [1999 of ∼20 μg/m3 of PM2.5 in United States and
for Levy et al. (67), and 2005 for Epstein the European Union are expected to result in
et al. (80) and NRC (6), differing local regula- a loss in life expectancy of ∼8 months, whereas

EG36CH05-Chikkatur
ARI
112
Table 2 Health and climate change–related damages from coal power in 2008 dollars calculated by the studies shown
Type of Study Epstein et al. Levy et al. 2009 Hirschberg
Chikkatur
valuation parameters NRC 2010 (6) 2011 (80) (67) ExternE-Pol (84)a et al. 2004 (87)
·
4 October 2011
Emissions
year 2005 2005 1999 2002 2002 2002 1998
Chaudhary
18:43
Country/region United States United States United States Czech Poland Hungary Shangdong
·
studied Republic province, China
Health Measurement Generation- Best estimate Median (5th Hard coal, Hard coal, Hard coal, Power sector
Sagar
valuation weighted mean (low estimate) percentile, 95th brown brown brown estimates
(5th percentile, percentile) coal coal coal (almost entirely
95th percentile) coal power
usage, with
slight underesti-
mation)
Value 3.3 (0.19, 12.2) 9.3 (3.2) 17.5 (5, 81.25) 1.57, 2.8 6.1, 7.2 13.6, 18.9 12.6
(cent/kWh)
Climate Measurement Low, middle, Including black – Hard coal, Hard coal, Hard coal, Power sector
change high marginal carbon, CO2 , brown brown brown estimates
valuation damage and N2 O coal coal coal (almost entirely
estimates emissions from coal power
combustion, usage, with
land disturbance slight underesti-
in MTR, and mation)
methane leakage
from mines
$/ton of 10, 30, 100 10, 100 – 33 33 33 –
CO2 equivalent
assumed
Value 1.02, 3.06, 10.2 1.06, 10.7 – 3.3, 3.5 3.85, 4.6 4.6, 6.1 2.2
(cent/kWh)
a
ExternE conversion was made using 2008 prices and exchange rates.
5–8 years of life can be lost by regular smoking Developing countries with less stringent
(86). pollution-control regulations (or lax enforce-
Overall, the health impact assessments ment thereof ) continue to witness higher health
carried out in recent years have yielded some impacts of coal-based power generation (87). As
important insights. Premature human mor- developing countries continue to increase their
tality resulting from air pollution has been coal-power generation, these impacts will only
recognized as the major contributor, with increase, which suggests that business-as-usual
the NRC study (6) assessing this to be over will become less and less acceptable.
90% of the monetized impact. Furthermore,
approximately 85% of the total health damages 2.2. Climate Change
are attributable to SO2 emissions that are Carbon dioxide (CO2 ), mostly the product
transformed into airborne PM (6). The impact of the combustion of fossil fuels for energy
damages from coal-fired plants, which are use, is the single largest contributor to the
almost an order of magnitude higher than climate problem, accounting for about 57%
gas-fired plants, exhibit a wide variation (67), of the direct radiative forcing of all GHGs
and 10% of the plants with the highest damages (94). Emissions from global coal-based power
produce 43% of the total damages in the NRC generation accounts for about 30% of total
study (6). The centrality of SO2 emissions fossil-fuel-derived annual emissions of CO2 to
in the overall health impact is reiterated by the atmosphere (2). Thus, the continued use
Hirschberg et al. (87), who also stress the need of coal in the power sector is intimately linked
for the deployment of flue-gas desulfurizers to the climate problem.
(FGDs) systems (see below) in China. Epstein The impacts of climate change are likely to
et al. (80) also emphasize that policies should be be substantial and wide-ranging. For example,
directed toward attaining a continuous reduc- agricultural productivity is likely to be adversely
tion in PM2.5 concentration rather than just on affected, especially in lower altitudes, which also
peak days because evidence does not suggest a have many smallholder and subsistence farmers,
threshold or “safe” pollution level for humans. who are particularly vulnerable. More frequent
Notwithstanding the range of methodolo- and intense coastal storms could cause enor-
gies employed to estimate the monetized value mous damage to human settlements, coastal
of the health end points, the wide variation and ecosystems, and result in loss of life. There also
uncertainty in these estimates, and the con- is the risk of large-scale irreversible or abrupt
tingency of the actual impacts on factors such changes, such as significant sea-level rise, which
as population density and exposure conditions, may wipe out entire low-lying areas and may
it is fairly established that, in the absence of result in large-scale migrations or species
adequate regulations, the human health im- extinctions (95).
pacts from coal power plants can be substantial. Developing countries, of course, are at par-
Accordingly, industrialized countries (and to ticular risk from climate change. As the 2001
some extent, developing countries) have put in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
place emissions and air quality regulations that report (96, p. 12) stated:
have led to the implementation of pollution- the impacts of climate change will fall
control technologies as well as cleaner power disproportionately upon developing coun-
generation that have been shown to signifi- tries and the poor persons within all
cantly reduce the health impacts of coal power countries. . . .Populations in developing coun-
(52). See sidebar titled Evolution of Regulatory tries are generally exposed to relatively high
Actions in the United States for a brief summary risks of adverse impacts from climate change.
of regulations and their impacts in the United In addition, poverty and other factors create
States. conditions of low adaptive capacity in most
developing countries.

EVOLUTION OF REGULATORY ACTIONS IN THE UNITED

STATES
As discussed above, the U.S. and U.K. governments initiated the regulation air pol-
lution from coal-burning facilities in the 1950s. The U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA)of
1963 has been amended several times (most notably in the 1970 and 1990) to keep
up with the latest science assessing the impacts of air pollution on human health and
environment.
The CAA regulates air emissions from smokestacks by requiring that the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards are met (88). Power plants in the United States (and in
other countries) are also subject to specific emissions regulations that often require a plant
to install emissions control technologies or switch to lower-sulfur coals or natural gas. In

some cases, as in the United States, older power plants are exempted from these regulations,
or they are subject to more lenient regulations. Such regulations result in older plants being
responsible for a significant fraction of pollutant emissions, although they may be a smaller
fraction of total capacity (6, 89).
As part of issuing new regulations for U.S. power plants, the economic benefits of reduced
air pollution as well as the cost associated with that reduction are often evaluated (45). U.S.
legislation also includes an adequate margin of safety to address uncertainties associated
with inconclusive scientific and technical information (10). Since the 1970s, most countries
in the world have adopted legislation to limit the emission of air pollutants, particularly
from coal power plants (8).
Between 1970 and 1990, in the United States, significant emissions reductions were
observed under the actual regulatory control scenario when compared to the hypothetical
scenario of no regulatory controls during this period. For example, total suspended par-
ticle emissions from electric utilities had a reduction of over 90% in 1990 (compared to
1970) under the control scenario than was projected under the no-control scenario. Simi-
larly, SO2 emissions from electric utilities in 1990 were lower by nearly 40% as a result of
the controls (90). Since the additional tightening of regulations in 1990, there have been
further substantial reductions in the nationwide emissions, with overall SO2 and NOx emis-
sions (not limited to electric utilities) decreasing by 45% and 33%, respectively, in 2007
over their 1990 values, and PM10 and PM2.5 emissions decreasing by 33% and 51%, re-
spectively, over the same period. These reductions have occurred while the U.S. economy
has continued to grow—indicating the efficacy of the regulatory control measures (91).
These reductions in air pollution following the Clean Air Act of 1970 have been shown
to have reduced infant mortality rates (92), premature mortality, and health care costs
(93).
The health impacts resulting from local air pollution will likely continue to be a key driver
in the deployment of cleaner coal power technologies, as indicated by the regulatory trends
in the United States (and also in Europe). In general, strengthening emissions regulations
leads to retirement of older, more polluting plants and ensures that newer coal power plants
are significantly less damaging to local environment.

We do not discuss in greater detail these im- estimates of the total economic cost of climate
pacts and their assessment (which is an even change damages from coal-derived power have
more complex process, rife with greater uncer- been pegged at approximately US$(2008)0.01–
tainty than health impact assessment) owing to 0.10/kWh (6, 80), but in some sense, these num-
both space limitations and the comprehensive bers are likely to evolve significantly in coming
treatment in the Intergovernmental Panel on years as the uncertainties are reduced.
Climate Change reports (97). Climate change impacts from coal power
However, the extent of climate change can be reduced by reducing energy de-
impacts is contingent on the overall increase in mand through increased end-use efficiency and
GHG forcing and the global mean temperature demand-side management, by switching to less
rise, which, of course, are directly dependent carbon-intensive fuels (such as coal-biomass
on the buildup of GHG pollutants in the mixtures), through more efficient coal-power
atmosphere. But, there remains enormous generation technologies, and by capturing and
uncertainty in the eventual stabilization level storing CO2 from emission sources. Indeed,
of GHG concentrations that will be achieved, reducing CO2 emissions for coal-based power
which depends, among other things, on generation technologies has been a key driver
national and global politics on this issue, the for many of the advances in coal power tech-
economics of climate mitigation impacts, and nologies over the past decade, and much of the
technological possibilities. Furthermore, the technological focus has been on CO2 capture
impacts of climate change depend not only and storage (CCS) technologies, whereby the
on the GHG concentration level, but also on otherwise-emitted CO2 is captured from power
the nature of the physical, ecosystem, human, plants, transported to storage sites, and stored
social, and economic impacts that result from in deep underground geological formations.
a changed climate regime. Accordingly, valu- All in all, it is increasingly apparent that the
ation of potential climate change impacts (and social costs of health and environment impacts
therefore, by extension, the climate impacts from coal power (and other energy sources) are
from coal-based power) is currently character- nontrivial, and therefore a comprehensive cost
ized by wide variability. Notably, though, the analysis of energy options, which include these
potential maximum damages can be quite large costs, is imperative (6, 80, 101). Such a full-cost
if the ultimate global mean temperature rise estimation would allow for more accurate com-
significantly exceeds 2◦ C. In fact, there now is parisons across energy sources and, therefore,
significant scientific and political consensus that more robust policy making.
limiting to global average temperature increase
to less than 2◦ C above preindustrial levels is
necessary to avoid dangerous climate change 3. COAL POWER
impacts (see Reference 98, for example). This TECHNOLOGIES
translates to a stabilized concentration of GHG Improved technologies for both cleaner gen-
gases in the atmosphere to around 450 ppm of eration of power and capture of pollutants are
CO2 equivalent (2, 100), which would require the main approach through which the tensions
aggressive mitigation policies for the energy between the continued reliance on coal-power
sector (expected to contribute 60%–80% of generation and the (local and global) envi-
the overall emissions reduction by 2050 over ronmental and human health impacts can be
a 2000 baseline) through decarbonization of better resolved. Cleaner-coal technologies
energy and efficiency improvements (95, 97). (CCTs) are considered critical to meet the
Even with all of these uncertainties, there seemingly disjointed goal of continuing to use
has been some work on estimating the eco- coal, but using it in a “safe and clean” manner.
nomic impact of climate change as result of There is an enormous literature on CCTs (see
GHG emissions from coal power. Present References 5 and 102–104, for examples), and

governments have been investing in the devel- fluidized beds are being introduced to utilize
opment and deployment of these technologies biomass and lower-quality coals, such as waste
for many decades (105–107). In this review, coal and washery products. Combustion with
we summarize the key aspects of existing pure oxygen (oxyfuel combustion) rather than
technologies and several CCTs, and also air is also being considered. Efforts are also un-
discuss end-of-pipe control technologies for derway to demonstrate and commercialize elec-
limiting local air pollutants and technologies tricity generation using coal-gasification-based
for reducing GHG emissions from coal plants. systems. Entrained-bed gasifiers have also been
used commercially for converting coal into a
high-energy-content gas that can be used to
3.1. Coal-Power-Generation make methanol and hydrogen for producing
Technologies chemicals and Fischer-Tropsch liquids, such as
Pulverized-coal (PC) technology currently ac- synthetic diesel, thereby allowing the possibil-
counts for the vast majority of the technology ity of linking the power and the hydrocarbon
used globally by coal power plants. This tech- sector in an entirely different way. More re-
nology was developed in the 1920s. It uses coal cently, CCS technology in which CO2 from
that is pulverized into a fine powder [about coal power plants is captured and stored in un-
70% of the coal is typically sized less than derground reservoirs is being developed and
75 μm (108)] and is introduced into the burners demonstrated as an option for making deep re-
with pressurized air. The pulverization allows ductions of GHG emissions from coal power
for a hotter, more efficient, controlled burning plants.
of coal, and the boilers can produce steam at The key characteristics of different coal-
higher pressures and temperatures (109). In- power generation technologies are briefly dis-
creasing steam temperature and pressure al- cussed below and summarized in Table 3,
lows for greater efficiency of the steam tur- which provides efficiency ranges for different
bine (and hence, of electricity generation). As technologies; note that published efficiency es-
the steam pressure and temperature increase timates of power plants using a specific tech-
to the critical point of water (374◦ C and 221 nology vary enormously for many reasons (110,
bar), the characteristics of steam are altered 111). Site-specific factors, such as coal type and
such that water and steam are no longer distin- properties, ambient conditions, and the tem-
guishable. If the temperature and pressure of perature and availability of the cooling water,
steam are below this critical point, it is known can strongly affect efficiency (111). For exam-
as subcritical steam, and above this point, it is ple, power plants with a condenser pressure
known as supercritical steam. A large major- of 0.02 bar, which requires a cooling water
ity of existing coal plants rely on subcritical temperature of 14◦ –15◦ C, can achieve an extra
steam technology, although there are a growing three percentage points in efficiency compared
number of plants utilizing supercritical steam with that of plants with condenser pressures of
technology. 0.05 bar, which corresponds to a cooling wa-
Although combustion continues to remain ter temperature of 27◦ –28◦ C (110). Such dis-
the dominant pathway for power generation us- crepancies can lead to difficulties in comparing
ing coal, a number of advanced coal (relative to cost and efficiency performance across differ-
subcritical PC) technologies have been devel- ent studies (5). Furthermore, many studies do
oped to meet the worldwide challenge of mak- not state whether the quoted efficiency is net
ing power generation cleaner, more efficient, or gross or whether the efficiency is based on a
and more able to utilize coals of varying quality. lower heating value (LHV) or a higher heating
PC technologies have improved, resulting in in- value (HHV) of the input fuel (111). Although
creased efficiency and reduced local pollution. efficiencies based on LHV give a truer mea-
New combustion approaches using circulating sure of recoverable energy for coal-based power

Table 3 Selected characteristics of coal power technologiesa
Subcritical IGCCentrained-
pulverized Supercritical Ultrasupercritical Circulating Oxyfuel pulverized flow Carbon Capture
EG36CH05-Chikkatur
Technology coal pulverized coal pulverized coal FBCb coal /CFBC gasifier and Storage
Geographical Standard Europe Netherlands, United States, Development and Demonstration/ Demonstration in
spread (110, technology (Denmark, Denmark, Japan Europe, Japan, planned pilot commercial plants North America,
ARI
170) worldwide Netherlands, China, Canada plants in Europe, in United States, Europe, Australia,
Germany), Australia, Canada. Europe, Japan, and China. Several
Japan, United Useful for mainly China large-scale CCS
States, China, for CCS. projects planned
Canada
4 October 2011
Level of Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Pilot Gasifier, Demonstration

maturity scale/demonstration commercial; (many components
IGCC, are commercial)
18:43
commercially
proven
Unit sizes 50–1,000 MW 250–1,000 MW 500–1,000 MW 30–400 MW Similar to 50–500 MW N/A
PC/CFBC
Performance
Output Electricity; steam and heat are also possible Electricity; steam Electricity, syngas, N/A
flexibility and heat are also chemicals, FT
possible liquids, H2 , steam,
heat
Fuel feedstock Hard coal, lignite, fuel oil, petcoke, biomass, waste Hard coal, Same as PC and Hard coal (low ash N/A
coal lignite, waste CFBC is better), lignite,
coal, fuel oil, petcoke
petcoke,
biomass, MSW
Reliability, Excellent; >85% Availability Expected to be Good; depends on N/A
availability similar to number of gasifier
PC/CFBC trains
Net design 34%–38% 37%–40% (102, 40%–45% (124, 34%–40% (120, 34% USCPC, (124) 38%–41% (102) 32% IGCC (102);
efficiency (102, 126, 126, 171, 172) 126, 171, 172) 171) 25%, 28%, 33%
www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy

(based on 171) PC, SCPC,
high heating USCPC, (102,
117
value of coal) 172); 29%, 33%
Oxyfuel SCPC,
USCPC (172)
Emissions controls
EG36CH05-Chikkatur
Particulate ESP required; bag filters with high ash are difficult ESP required; ESP required; use of Gas cleanup using N/A
matter multiple bag filters with ceramic filters;
ARI
cyclones and high ash is difficult; reliability is an
118
bag filters may multiple cyclones issue.
be needed for oxy-CFBC
Fly ash/solid Depends on Depends on coal quality; less fly ash Depends on coal Depends on coal Less solid waste; Disposal of amine
waste coal quality than subcritical PC; slagging is an quality; gypsum quality; slagging is slag by-product by-products and
Chikkatur
·
option by-product an option; gypsum waste
4 October 2011
by-product for
oxy-CFBC
Chaudhary
18:43
Sulfur dioxide Flue-gas desulfurizers (FGD) required, as Limestone FGD required, as H2 S is removed N/A
·
regulations tighten for SOx emissions injection regulations tighten using
MDEA/Claus/SCOT
Sagar
for SOx emissions;
limestone injection process or sulfuric
for CFBC acid removal plant
Nitrogen LNB and SCR as needed Low NOx Very low NOx Very low NOx N/A
oxides production production production; LNB
for gas turbine.
Mercury With ESP and bag filters, 60%–70% removal; ESP With bag filters With ESP and bag Removal by particle N/A
removal alone not effective; activated carbon injection if 70% removal; filters, 60%–70% filters; carbon bed
needed activated carbon removal; ESP filters if needed
injection if alone not effective;
needed activated carbon
injection if needed
Ease of carbon MEA scrubbers are limited by SOx /NOx content in MEA scrubbers; Direct flue-gas CO2 shift reactor
capture (110, flue gas; MEA scrubbers can be very expensive; can be very sequestration is and MDEA or
120) retrofitting to oxyfuel combustion is possible, but expensive; possible and less SelexolTM gas
not attractive retrofitting to expensive, if purification and
oxyfuel flue-gas capture
combustion is purification is not
possible, but not required
attractive
a
Adapted from Reference 5.
b
Abbreviations: CCS, CO2 capture and storage; ESP, electrostatic precipitator; Claus, a unit that converts H2 S and SO2 into elemental sulfur; CFBC, circulating fluidized-bed combustion;
FBC, fluidized-bed combustion; FT Fischer-Tropsch; IGCC, integrated gasification combined cycle; LNB, low NOx burner; MDEA, methyl diethanolamine; MEA, monoethanolamine;
MSW, municipal solid waste; N/A, not applicable; PC, pulverized coal; petcoke, petroleum coke; SCOT, Shell Claus Off-gas Treating unit; SCPC, supercritical pulverized coal, SCR,
selective catalytic reducer; USCPC, ultrasupercritical pulverized coal.
generation (112), the use of HHV is common the average availability and reliability of
in the United States and Asia. subcritical PC units. SCPC units also have
better efficiencies at partial load, in comparison
3.1.1. Advanced Pulverized Coal. Much of to subcritical units, even though they have
these improvements to PC technology have lower load-following ability under advanced
come from making various modifications to the steam conditions (113). Although PC boilers
standard PC technology (113), including the can burn a wide range of feedstock, such as
following: hard black coals, lignite (brown coal), heavy

oil, coal-biomass mixtures (110), and residual
Increases in main and reheat steam tem-
wastes (municipal solid waste, sewage sludge,
peratures and main steam pressure by
and others), thermal efficiency decreases when
transitioning to supercritical conditions;

the calorific value of the input falls outside the
Changes to the cycle configuration, such
boiler’s designed range. However, if designed

as increasing the number of reheat stages
properly, the reduction in thermal efficiency
and the number of feed heaters, with
can be relatively small even as the coal quality
associated increases in final feed water
is decreased significantly (115).
temperature;
Equipment for cleaning the flue gas from
Changes in the boundary conditions of

PC boilers is often considered as an “add-on,”
the thermal cycle, principally by reduc-
whereas the boiler and steam turbines were
ing the boiler-flue-gas exit temperature
considered as essential technologies. However,
and the condenser pressure through more
pollution-reducing equipment, such as a low
effective cooling;
NOx burner, electrostatic precipitator, flue-gas
Reductions in auxiliary power consump-
desulfurizer (FGD), and selective catalytic
tion; and
reducer, are now often considered to be part
Improvement in the performance of the of the standard PC technology packages in
individual plant components (coal com- most OECD countries. With these add-on
bustion, turbine efficiency, pump ef- pollution controls, PC power plants can
ficiency, condenser performance, and now have relatively low emission rates: NOx
others). is 50–100 mg/Nm3 (where Nm3 is normal
Advanced PC technology can generally be cubic meters), SO2 is 75–100 mg/Nm3 , and
categorized according to steam characteristics particulates are below 10–20 mg/Nm3 (110).
into supercritical PC (SCPC), advanced super- However, these emissions are still above the
critical PC, and ultrasupercritical PC (USCPC) emissions from natural gas-fired combined
technologies (5, 114). The key technological cycle power plants, which have practically no
breakthrough for using advanced PC technol- SOx and particulate emissions. In developing
ogy is the development of various alloys of steel countries, however, where environmental laws
that can withstand high temperatures, pres- and their enforcement have been historically
sures, and corrosion. Steam temperatures and weak, emissions from PC power plants remain
net efficiencies have been increasing steadily high, as pollution-control technologies are not
in recent years, and it is expected that, with always part of the standard design for PC plants.
new materials and designs, the net efficiency of
PC-based power plants can reach close to 50% 3.1.2. Fluidized-bed combustion. Unlike
(LHV) in about 2010 (114). PC boilers, fluidized-bed boilers can combust
SCPC is considered as a mature, reliable larger pieces of coal (sized to ∼3 mm) by cre-
technology, and there is extensive operational ating a combustion-zone bed using pressurized
experience in Europe, Russia, and the United air. The coal bed becomes fluidized (suspended)
States. Operating SCPC units have typical when the air flow is strong enough to match the
average availability of 85% (113), matching bed’s weight (116). With enough air flow into

the bed, the bed particles become well mixed, If carbon capture from power plants becomes
with a uniform combustion temperature along necessary in the future, existing efficient power
the bed. Similar to pulverized-coal boilers, this plants can be converted to oxyfuel combustion
heat is then used to convert water into steam in by adding an oxygen production plant along
boiler tubes. with carbon capture facilities (109). Burning
There are several potential benefits to coal using pure oxygen, however, leads to very
fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) technology in high temperatures (∼3,500◦ C) that cannot be
comparison to PC with FGD and selective cat- handled by standard boiler material. Thus,
alytic reducer systems (117): (a) the ability to in practical terms, oxyfuel combustion refers
burn a wide variety of coals (including low- to technology wherein coal is burned with a
quality coals and waste coal), biomass, and other mixture of oxygen and recycled flue gas (with
feedstock; (b) lower overall cost owing to re- mainly CO2 ) to maintain a similar oxygen
duced crushing of coal; (c) in-combustion sulfur proportion as found in air-blown boilers.
removal by mixing crushed limestone/dolomite By eliminating nitrogen flow, the flue-gas
along with coal; and (d) reduced NOx pro- volume in oxyfuel PC can be reduced by 70%
duction owing to lower combustion tempera- in comparison to standard PC, with CO2
tures (800◦ –900◦ C). A key disadvantage of FBC concentrations between 80% and 98% after
in comparison to PC is the increased produc- extracting the water out of the flue gas (109,
tion of solid waste because of the sorbents and 121). Such high CO2 concentration in the flue
the use of lower-quality feedstock. In some gas can be a significant advantage when CCS
cases, the resulting solid waste can be used in is required. The reduced flue-gas volume also
construction material, cement manufacturing, results in overall smaller equipment, including
structural fills, and other ways (117). Fluidized- the smaller overall size of the boiler and a
bed burners are also sensitive to changes in feed simpler flue-gas purification scheme, which
quality, although they are able to use lower- can significantly reduce capital and operating
quality coals than PC boilers. costs (109). The elimination of nitrogen in the
There are several variants of FBC systems: boiler significantly reduces the production of
bubbling, circulating, and pressurized systems. NOx (121, 122), and in many cases, eliminating
For utility-scale power generation, circulat- the need for separate NOx cleanup systems
ing and pressurized systems are more relevant. from the flue gas. Furthermore, SOx and NOx
Circulating fluidized-bed combustion (CFBC) can also be removed from the CO2 stream
is a mature technology with efficiency com- during the CO2 compression and condensation
parable to equivalent PC units. Most CFBC stages as well (122, 123).
plants rely on a subcritical steam cycle; how- A key disadvantage for oxyfuel combus-
ever, the 460-MW Lagisza plant in Poland is tion is the high volume of pure oxygen
the first supercritical CFBC power plant in the needed for combustion. The standard technol-
world, with efficiency greater than 41% HHV ogy for air separation is based on cryogenic
(118). techniques, which consumes enormous power
(109). Hence, oxyfuel-based technologies are
3.1.3. Oxyfuel combustion. Standard coal likely to become relevant and competitive with
combustion uses air (with 21% oxygen) as standard combustion and gasification technolo-
the oxidizing agent; however, coal can also gies if CCS becomes an essential part of operat-
be combusted using pure oxygen, instead of ing power plants. Cost estimates for new power
air. Oxyfuel-based combustion can be used in plants indicate that oxyfuel and carbon capture
coal-based PC and FBC technologies (119) for a new PC power plant results in a 50% in-
and in natural gas–based power plants. Oxyfuel crease in the specific capital cost; similarly, a
combustion technology can also be retrofitted 90% cost increase results for an oxyfuel CFBC
on existing PC or CFBC power plants (120). plant with carbon capture (120, 124).

Although the technological potential for gasification is its ability to gasify a wide range
carbon capture is quite promising, it is only of fuels.
at the early demonstration stage. Pilot-scale In comparison to combustion-based tech-
demonstration plants are being planned in Eu- nologies, IGCC operation allows for increased
rope, Australia, and Canada. It is expected efficiency, decreased emissions of air pollutants
that advanced air separation technologies using (115), the lower cost of cleanup technologies
high-temperature oxygen-ion transport mem- (because of the lower volume of syngas to be
branes (made of ceramics from a mixture of cleaned), and the lower incremental cost of CO2
various metal oxides) will reduce air separation capture. There are some disadvantages as well:
costs—making oxyfuel combustion more com- a higher degree of complexity; higher capital
petitive with other technologies for carbon cap- costs; uncertain reliability and availability; and
ture (125). Other advanced techniques, such as lower technology maturity, with greater per-
chemical looping combustion, are also in the ception of technology risk. The capital cost is
offing. These advanced technologies enhance generally 20%–30% higher than advanced PC
the future prospects for oxyfuel combustion. (102, 126). With tighter environmental con-
trols and an increasing desire for carbon cap-
3.1.4. Integrated gasification combined ture, IGCC plants are likely to be installed
cycle. The gasification process involves py- in greater numbers worldwide, resulting in re-
rolyzing coal and partially oxidizing it using duced costs from learning by doing. Nonethe-
oxygen (or air) and steam to produce a high- less, oxygen-based IGCC plants are expected to
energy gas—usually referred to as synthetic gas have a lower cost of generated electricity when
or syngas. To produce electricity, the syngas, capture of carbon is required, compared to CO2
which is composed primarily of carbon monox- capture from PC plants, because of the higher
ide (CO) and hydrogen (H2 ), is produced under CO2 concentration and partial pressure. By us-
pressure, water cooled, cleaned, and burned ing a water-gas shift reactor, the carbon in the
in a gas turbine. The steam produced from syngas can be converted into a pure stream of
the heat exchanger, which is used for cooling CO2 that can be captured and sequestered.
the syngas, is used to produce power with an Gasification processes can use either air or
integrated steam turbine in a combined cycle oxygen as an oxidant. Although most gasifiers
operation. In addition to the steam cycle inte- use oxygen, air-blown gasifier systems are
gration, compressed air (obtained from a com- simpler and possibly cheaper. However, air-
pressor running off the gas turbine shaft) can blown gasifiers are not compatible with carbon
also be integrated with the air separation unit capture, although there is still ongoing research
that produces the required oxygen. In effect, the in this area (108, 127). Air-blown IGCC tech-
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) nology might still be considered if the IGCC’s
technology is a hybrid between the traditional local environmental benefits are highly valued
coal-combustion-powered steam-based elec- (128). There are three main types of gasifiers:
tricity generation and the natural gas-based moving-bed gasifier, fluidized-bed gasifier,
combined cycle electricity generation. and entrained-flow gasifiers (5, 128–130).
The syngas produced from gasification can Worldwide IGCC experience and information
also be used as a feedstock to make chemicals, are primarily based on entrained-flow gasifiers
such as ammonia, methanol, and hydrogen, because there are very few large-scale IGCC
which in turn can be used to make fertilizers, systems using fluidized-bed and moving-bed
transportation fuels, plastics, and other prod- gasifiers.
ucts. These products can also be produced with The slagging, entrained-flow gasifier is
electricity generation (polygeneration), which the most commonly used gasifier for power
can result in increased economic and energy generation today. The gasifier allows for high
security benefits. A significant advantage with uniform temperatures and low fuel residence

time. Entrained gasifiers are more compatible section, underground coal gasification (UCG)
with liquid fuels, such as refinery residues, and direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC) are dis-
rather than biomass or high-ash coals, which cussed briefly.
cannot be pulverized as easily (131). The Recently, UCG is receiving increasing at-
process has relatively low cold-gas efficiency, tention as a way to utilize unmineable coal
requiring high oxygen input (129). Moreover, seams. The technology is similar to the gasi-
coal ash is generally removed from the gasifier fication process because the process involves
as molten slag, which occurs because of the drilling injection and production wells into coal
high temperature in the gasifier and the low seams and injecting an oxidant (oxygen or air)
ash-fusion temperature of the input feedstock. and steam, if necessary, into the coal to pro-
Over the past 20 years, entrained-flow gasi- duce a low-temperature, high-pressure syngas
fiers have been selected for most large-scale (133). The syngas produced by UCG is similar
commercial coal- and oil-based gasification to to the gas produced by the gasifiers discussed
produce chemicals and/or electricity (109, 131). above. Although process controllability and the
There are several demonstration and precom- consistency of product from UCG are big con-
mercial IGCC plants in operation in the United cerns, there are several advantages, such as the
States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, and use of unmined and unmineable coal deposits
China. The demonstration plants with en- and lowered environmental impact, except for
trained gasifiers in Europe and the United potential for subsidence (133, 134).
States have operated with efficiencies ranging The DCFC is a high-temperature fuel cell
between 38% and 43% HHV (114), and it is that utilizes solid carbon as fuel and as an anode
expected that IGCC operations with entrained- while sharing the configuration and theoret-
flow gasifiers can have efficiencies in the range ical principles of other high-temperature fuel
of 38%–41% HHV (102). Operational experi- cells, such as the molten carbonate fuel cell and
ence and research and development (R&D) ef- solid oxide fuel cell. Unlike the conventional
forts to improve gas turbines, hot-gas cleanup coal-fired power plants that burn coal to gen-
systems, and materials technologies are ex- erate steam and utilize this steam for electricity
pected to increase the efficiency of IGCC plants generation, the DCFCs convert coal’s chemi-
to 45%–50% HHV by 2010–2015, and further cal energy directly into electrical energy. The
to 50%–60% HHV by 2015–2025 (132). DCFC uses solid carbon (e.g., coal, biomass,
R&D efforts are focused on increasing the organic waste) as fuel that does not require any
reliability of hot-gas cleanup, improving the in- reforming process. The carbon in a DCFC can
tegration of various elements of an IGCC op- be completely oxidized to gaseous CO2 , accom-
eration, developing advanced gas turbines that panied by a small positive entropy change. Ad-
can burn “dirtier” or hydrogen-rich syngas, and ditionally, the reaction chemistry allows for a
using novel thermodynamic cycles and fuel cells very high fuel utilization efficiency, thus result-
(5). In addition, development of an advanced ing in an overall coal to electricity efficiency
membrane-based air separation unit for proof approximately 80% (after accounting for the
ducing oxygen will help reduce IGCC costs. kinetic losses, cell resistance, and other losses)
Successful application of such R&D work is (135–137). In a DCFC, the oxidation of carbon
necessary for reducing the cost and increasing to CO2 occurs electrochemically at the anode,
the reliability of IGCC technology. releasing a pure stream of CO2 that can be easily
captured and stored. The ease of fuel availability
3.1.5. Other coal power technologies. In and transportation coupled with the mechanical
addition to the coal power technologies dis- simplicity of the DCFC system make it a par-
cussed above, there are other technologies ticularly attractive choice for future coal-based
at different stages of development. In this power systems (138).

Table 4 Illustrative list of potential pollution-control technologies

Cleanup Technology Category Emission cleaned Applicable technologies
Coal washing/beneficiation Precombustion Fly ash, sulfur, mercury PC, IGCC
Electrostatic precipitator Postcombustion Fly ash PC, FBC, IGCC
Bag filter Postcombustion Fly ash PC, FBC
Cyclone Postcombustion Fly ash, mercury FBC, IGCC
Sulfur removal plant Precombustion Sulfur IGCC
Limestone In combustion Sulfur FBC
Flue-gas desulfurization Postcombustion Sulfur PC
Low-NOx burners In combustion Nitrogen oxides PC
Selective catalytic reducers Postcombustion Nitrogen oxides PC
Activated carbon injection Postcombustion Mercury PC
CO2 shift reactor Precombustion Carbon dioxide IGCC

Amine scrubbing Postcombustion Carbon dioxide PC, IGCC, FBC
Abbreviations: FBC, fluidized-bed combustion; IGCC, integrated gasification combined cycle: PC, pulverized coal.
3.2. Pollution-Control Technologies at a later stage. Moreover, CO2 control and lo-
cal pollutant control in an IGCC technology
Generally, pollution-control technolo-
is far more integrated than PC with end-of-
gies can be categorized as precombustion,
pipe controls. As another example, CCS with
in-combustion, and postcombustion (see
oxyfuel-based combustion allows for removal
Table 4). Coal washing and beneficiation
of SOx and NOx along with water in the CO2
can be considered as precombustion cleanup
compression stage (123).
technologies because they increase plant
efficiency, reducing the overall amount of
emissions. Gas cleaning technologies in an 3.2.1. CO2 capture and storage. In the past
IGCC plant to remove particulates, sulfur, decade or so, there has been a significant
and CO2 from the syngas are considered amount of R&D on CCS technologies as a pos-
precombustion cleanup technologies, as the sible solution to the climate conundrum. CCS
cleanup occurs prior to combustion. Low-NOx involves three steps: (a) capture and compres-
burners in PC boilers and gas turbines, and sion of CO2 from a power plant, (b) transport-
the use of limestone for sulfur removal in ing the captured CO2 to a storage site, and
FBC, can be considered as in-combustion (c) injecting and safely storing the CO2 in un-
technologies, whereas end-of-pipe technolo- derground geological reservoirs.
gies for PC plants—such as electrostatic CCS technology contains a number of pro-
precipitators, flue-gas desulfurizers (FGDs), cess components that are well understood
selective catalytic reducers, activated carbon (pipeline, compression). However, approxi-
injection, and amine-based CO2 capture—are mately 80% of the cost of CCS lies in captur-
considered to be postcombustion technologies ing the CO2 , and capture technologies are the
(139). subject of significant R&D (109, 140). There
In general, the technology trend is toward are three major types of capture technologies:
greater integration of pollution-control tech- postcombustion capture, precombustion cap-
nologies within the standard design for new ture, and oxyfuel combustion. In a postcom-
power plants. Many of the emission control bustion capture system, low concentrations of
technologies for PC are considered in the initial CO2 in the flue gas are brought in contact with
design and construction rather for retrofitting an absorbent solvent (e.g., amine) such that the

CO2 binds with the solvent at temperatures of are also realized. Hence, a well-established po-
40◦ to 60◦ C. This “rich” solvent is pumped to tential and the ability to store CO2 in local ge-
the regeneration vessel (or stripper), where the ologies are prerequisites for CCS deployment
CO2 is stripped, and the solvent is regener- (5, 143).
ated at higher temperatures ranging from 100◦ CCS has not yet been demonstrated on the
to 140◦ C. The “lean” solvent is cooled and commercial scale, and there are still technical,
pumped back to the absorption tower through economic, regulatory, and policy barriers to its
a heat exchanger to be reused in the process. deployment. High capital costs, significant aux-
The heat supplied to the regeneration vessel iliary power consumption, and decreased plant
carries a significant energy cost that may reduce efficiency currently make CCS economically
a plant’s power output by 20% to 40% (141). unviable without further technology improve-
The CO2 is then cooled, dried, and compressed ment and government support for demonstra-
to a supercritical fluid state, and at this point, tion projects. For commercial development,
it can be transported for storage. The SOx and many jurisdictions lack sufficient regulatory and
NOx needs to be removed in the postcombus- long-term liability frameworks, although regu-
tion capture process to achieve the longevity relations have been formulated in varying degrees
quirements of acid gas removal and amine sol- in Europe, the United States, and Australia
vents (142). (144). Large-scale deployment of CCS also re-

The flue gas from an oxyfuel combustion quires the large-scale integration of technolo-
plants needs to be dehydrated and may be pu- gies and industries in unaccustomed ways. It is
rified further (depending on the requirements likely that large-scale CCS deployment needs to
for the purity of the CO2 stream). Ingress of happen first in industrialized countries before it
air from parts of the boilers and other equip- is deployed in developing countries (5, 145).
ment may introduce enough nitrogen such that In addition to CCS, concepts and policies
additional purification of the CO2 stream may have been proposed for power plants to be ready
be required. For precombustion capture in an for CCS (144). Such CCS-ready plants would
IGCC, the capture of CO2 occurs before com- initially be built without CCS, but they would
bustion of the syngas. The particulates and sul- prepare and plan during their initial design and
fur are removed from the syngas, which is then planning phases to retrofit CCS during the fa-
introduced into a water-gas shift reaction that cilities’ lifetimes. It has been suggested that
converts the CO to CO2 . The high concentra- CCS-ready policies, particularly in developing
tion of CO2 from the syngas is then removed countries, can facilitate a smoother and more
using solvents, and the hydrogen-rich fuel gas economic transition to CCS (144).
is sent to the combined cycle turbine.
All three capture processes described above
are currently in the development and demon- 4. COAL POWER: POLICY ISSUES
stration phase, with further R&D effort aimed The majority of policy and regulatory re-
at reducing capital and operating costs. In ad- sponses to coal-based power generation so far
dition, there has been R&D on direct capture have aimed at managing the health and other
of CO2 from ambient air and on enhanced local/regional environmental impacts of these
biomass production under elevated concentra- energy facilities, especially as these impacts
tions of CO2 (109). have been better understood and quantified.
Beyond the high cost of CO2 capture, there These policies and regulations have resulted
also is significant risk in geological storage and in significant progress in the development
in the appropriate selection and characteriza- and deployment of pollution-reducing tech-
tion of storage sites (143, 144). In fact, capture nologies (discussed above). These regulations
of CO2 in power plants is meaningless unless continue to ratchet downward (in both devel-
realistic options for storing the captured CO2 oped and developing countries), providing a

continuing incentive to develop improved local investments in meeting the challenges facing
pollution-reducing technologies. the energy sector is well recognized. Given this,
By contrast, reducing GHG emissions from the trend for public coal technology RD&D ex-
coal power plants for climate change mitigation penditures are particularly troublesome (146).
requires both a combination of improved coal- As illustrated in Figure 4, public RD&D in-
power generation technologies as well as spe- vestments in coal power technologies by IEA
cific CO2 -removal technologies. Furthermore, member countries have significantly declined
unlike local pollution-control technologies, over the past two decades (although they seem
which remove small fractions of pollutants to have stabilized in the last few years). The
from flue gases, the volume of CO2 that would United States, the largest public investor in
need to be removed from the flue gas is quite RD&D on coal power technologies, has seen its
significant—a typical 500-MW PC power annual spending decrease by about 90% from
plant operating at 75% capacity factor would its 1980 peak to $182 million in 2009 (146,
emit about 3 million tons of CO2 per year. In 147). Despite the overall decrease, R&D on
addition, these advanced technologies need to CCS technology has seen an increase with a
be deployed within a time frame commensurate major thrust by a number of countries (partic-
with climate change mitigation goals. This is ularly United States) (146), and now accounts
critical, given the long lifetimes of the technolo- for a sizable fraction of the total spending on
gies. Lastly, the context for coal technology coal R&D. The sidebar titled A Glimpse of
development and deployment varies across the Research and Development Efforts Across
countries, i.e., varying fuel quality, finan- the Globe provides illustrative examples of the
cial, technological, human, and institutional kinds of coal power-related R&D efforts for
capabilities, as well as policy frameworks selected countries.
across different countries. Although much of The question of adequacy of ERD&D in-
the increase in installed capacity will be in vestments has been highlighted in both the
developing countries, industrialized countries scholarly literature and policy arena (see, for
will also be replacing part of their stocks in the example, References 107, 148, and 149), with
coming decades (114). most analysts suggesting that the level of exist-
There are uncertainties in the assessment of ing public support for overall ERD&D is inad-
climate impacts (see Section 2.2, above). As a equate. In fact, there have been suggestions of
result, the major policy challenge at present undertaking ERD&D through a rapid increase
is how to move forward with advanced coal of R&D programs similar to the Manhattan
power technologies that provide health as well Project or Project Apollo (150), whereas R&D
as climate benefits, despite the uncertainties in budget increases of the order of two- to ten-
the impacts and climate policies. This requires fold have been proposed by others (107, 151).
a better understanding of the full innovation Nowhere is the issue of (in)adequacy of effort
cycle, i.e., technology development and deploy- more stark than in coal R&D. The coal power
ment across developed and developing coun- sector is projected to remain the mainstay of
tries to inform an exploration of the possi- the global energy sector for at least the next
ble steps to facilitate a technological transition 2–3 decades, yet this category represents only
while we progress on the assessment of impacts about 4% (in 2007) of the total public ERD&D
and comprehensive policies to reduce them. investments among the IEA countries (146).
The private sector is the major investor
in new coal power technologies, and although
4.1. Adequacy of Research it is known that key R&D investors, such as
Development and Deployment Efforts Siemens, Alstom, GE, Mitsubishi Heavy In-
The centrality of energy technology research dustries, and Toshiba, do invest significantly
development and demonstration (ERD&D) in R&D, detailed data on the allocation of

their R&D budgets are not available. At the content coal, China is supplementing the PC
same time, there are also many start-up com- buildup with the largest fleet of CFBC boilers in
panies developing novel technologies, for ex- the world (105). India, by contrast, is only now
ample Clean Coal Technologies Inc., a com- beginning to move away from the subcritical
pany based in New York, has developed a “coal PC technology to deploy SCPC power plants
upgrading” process to reduce raw coal into a (5, 158).
cleaner product and is partnering with Chi- Power utilities looking to expand their
nese investors to build a cleaner-coal facility in capacities with these new technologies are
China (153). However, detailed RD&D invest- faced with financial and technical risks in
ment data from these private companies are not the face of high capital investments and an
available. Therefore, a quantitative measure of evolving technology landscape, exacerbated by
the private investments in coal RD&D is not limited demonstration and commercialization
yet possible. experience with the more advanced technology

options. Given the long investment recovery
times (up to 40 years), the high investments
4.2. Deployment of New Technology that new coal power plants require, and the
The world’s major energy systems have plan- long lead times before actual production, such
ning time frames of 10 to 20 years and asset investments require operational reliability as
lifetimes of 40 to 60 years (154). As a result, well as stability of fuel and operating costs to
bringing about a rapid change in the overall obtain financing at competitive rates (159).
technology mix for energy systems poses Furthermore, changing environmental reg-
an enormous challenge on the deployment ulations affect the long-term viability of coal
front. Although adequate R&D investment is power projects, with a social cost accounting
essential for the development of efficient coal dramatically increasing the cost of coal power
technologies, policies aimed at deployment (160). With CCTs facing demonstration and
also are critical to achieve commercialization deployment barriers, a public policy aimed at
to minimize coal power’s health impacts and commercialization is needed (161).
achieve the ambitious targets set for climate Early demonstration and deployment pro-
change mitigation. The deployment rates grams can help provide a “technology push”
for new coal power technologies have been for advanced coal technologies; however, the
rather slow with technologies like IGCC not broad consensus in the literature is that it is im-
yet ready for meaningful commercialization. perative that “market-pull” policies are needed
Deployment patterns of three major coal power to achieve wide-scale deployment for these
technologies (see Figure 5) clearly illustrate technologies (152, 154, 162). The authors agree
that a majority of the new capacity addition with the perspectives of various analysts (103,
(which is now mostly in Asia) has relied on the 154, 162) that cost reduction through large-
older subcritical PC technology. Furthermore, scale adoption (through policies and incentives
the diffusion rates of SCPC and FBC technolo- aimed specifically at these technologies) and
gies are quite slow despite their proven nature. a strong climate policy regime, providing for
In the absence of sufficient incentives for attractive carbon credit benefits for efficient
the adoption of new technologies, near-term and cleaner-power producers, would help
opportunities for cost-effective emissions ameliorate the present financial and technical
mitigation could be lost (149, 155, 156). uncertainties associated with CCTs. Most
At present, China leads the global growth in analysts also see present carbon regulations
coal-based power plants, with 70 GW of new as insufficient and suggest that higher (and
capacity added in 2006 (157) and a thrust to- stable) carbon prices among other incentives
ward SCPC plants with unit sizes of 1,000 MW. would be required to justify financing of new
Moreover, to tap into its high-ash and -sulfur plants (162, 163). For technologies like CCS,

A GLIMPSE OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

ACROSS THE GLOBE
Current RD&D activities in coal technology development are focused on developing

more efficient and less-polluting technologies, as well as technologies for improving and
retrofitting the existing coal power base (103). The following is a brief overview of the major
RD&D programs across the globe.
United States: The U.S. Department of Energy has spent over US$(2003)10 billion on
coal-related RD&D since 1978 with major programs, including the Clean Coal Technol-
ogy Demonstration Program, Power Plant Improvement Initiative, and the current Clean
Coal Power Initiative. Other major programs like the FutureGen (175) have demonstrated
the first commercial-scale, near-zero-emissions, integrated sequestration, and hydrogen

production power plant, and the programs on advanced carbon capture technologies of
ARPA-e (176) (modeled as a funding body after the DARPA programs) have added impetus
to coal-power-related technology research. However, the there has been less emphasis on
improvements in PC-generating technologies and on enabling analytical and simulation
tools for complex coal power plants (103).

European Union: The European Union has supported research in clean-coal technolo-
gies and CCS through its Framework Programmes (177), with over €117 million expended
in financing over 40 projects since 1998. Under the present seventh framework program,
there is financing for R&D in advanced capture techniques, efficiency increases in PC plants,
gas turbines for IGCC plants, oxyfuel combustion, and FBC among others. Support for coal
technology research was extended through the European Coal and Steel Community until
2002, and thereafter, the Research Fund for Coal and Steel has provided approximately
€55 million per year in research funding (178).
Japan: Coal power technology RD&D in Japan has been undertaken with support from
the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization and the Japan
Coal Energy Center. Collaborative projects with Japanese private players like Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries and coal utilities, as well as with international collaborations with Europe,
China, Philippines, India, and Vietnam, have been undertaken to advance the development
of CCTs (106).
China: The Chinese government has focused attention on the development of coal
power technologies in its recent five-year plans with a focus on improving efficiency
as well as on reducing SO2 levels. The Ministry of Science and Technology has spon-
sored numerous projects in partnership with the power utilities to develop and demon-
strate USCPC, FBC, and other coal power technologies. GreenGen—a joint ven-
ture established by Chinese power utilities, with support from the Ministry of Science
and Technology—has set up China’s first IGCC plant with plans for further expan-
sion (105). Moving forward, Chinese power utilities are now partnering with West-
ern firms to access and develop cleaner and more efficient coal power technologies
(152).

Markusson & Watson (164) have noted that costs of CO2 emissions reductions. Thus, it is
the lack of regulatory framework, including a not surprising that developing countries, such
specific licensing and liability regime, and a as China, seem to prioritize conventional pol-
high, consistent carbon tax provision have been lution control due to their direct public health
major causes of perceived uncertainty and, by benefits (103, 105). At the same time, many de-
extension, increased investment risk. Current veloping countries have also invested in more
policies frameworks like the European Union efficient generation technologies and in energy
Emissions Trading Scheme are deemed to be efficiency, in general; all of which contributes
insufficient, and there is a need for additional to CO2 emissions reduction.
instruments to encourage investment in CCS
projects (164). Therefore, targeted policy mea-
sures to improve the financial viability of coal 4.3. International Collaboration
power projects utilizing CCTs could include tax As illustrated in Figure 5, coal power technol-
credits for efficient generation as well as accel- ogy deployment in recent years has occurred
erated depreciation. Furthermore, loan guaran- mostly in developing countries, with China
tees could be used to increase the willingness to leading the pack, and to some extent in OECD
deploy newer pilot technologies on a commer- countries, with future projections pointing
cial scale (154). to more central role for developing-country

Analysts have suggested that regulatory markets (2). For a rapid, effective devel-
uncertainties could lead to higher overall opment and diffusion of newer coal power
emissions and increased costs of compliance technologies, collaborations between countries
during a plant’s life cycle (165). Past decades that have large coal reserves with growth in
have seen the use of regulatory mechanisms future demand and those that have advanced
to meet emissions reduction in coal power technology suppliers need to be enhanced.
plants across Western countries (154). Moving Substantial CO2 mitigation can be achieved
forward, regulatory regimes for both local by rapid deployment of highly reliable and
air pollution and CO2 emissions would play efficient newer generation technologies (e.g.,
a crucial role in driving the deployment of the USCPC and FBC) in developing countries
new coal power technologies. According to (154). The large scale of deployments in China
Wang & Nakata (166), taxes in the form of and India is crucial for enabling a transition to
“carbon-taxes” and “sulfur-taxes” have been CCTs in these countries as well as for lowering
shown to contribute toward the penetration of the cost of technologies through learning (161),
CCTs in developing economies. although additional technical and financial re-
Interestingly, while the current policy focus sources are required for this. The younger age
in industrialized countries is more directed at of power plants in these countries (2) implies
reducing CO2 emissions (although with tighter that retrofitting with cleaner technologies is
regulations for other pollutants as well), climate more economically feasible as there are longer
change does not seem to have been a driving time frames for investment recuperation (167).
factor for China, which has focused primarily Several coal power technologies are in the
on SO2 and NOx reduction, albeit with lim- early precommercial stages of development.
ited success (for example, the preferential fiscal As a result, international collaboration in coal
policies of the Chinese government had lim- technologies would require vertical as well as
ited impact in the wake of weak supervision horizontal technology transfer and collabora-
and enforcement measures). The policy position (168). A mix of national and international
tions of most developing countries—consistent policy measures is needed to facilitate deploy-
with the United Nations Framework Conven- ment of newer technologies in developing
tion on Climate Change—are that they should countries (145, 168). For mature technologies,
not be the first or be the major bearers of the the transfer of knowledge and the reasons for

change behind manufacturing technologies are capacity and local conditions (e.g., lack of un-
needed to maximize technology dissemination derstanding of IGCC compatibility with poor
beyond just the literal transfer of equipment for Indian coal) also being quite important (5, 168).
CCTs (169). Technology-oriented agreements
can also work as complements to carbon
commitments by countries, helping in pro- 5. CONCLUSION
moting clean technologies in case the energy Although there have been major strides in in-
and carbon markets fail to provide sufficient dustrialized countries to mitigate the local/ re-
incentives (162). An important consideration gional environment and human health impacts
for countries looking to absorb new coal power of coal power, much more needs to be done
technologies is the openness of domestic power in developing countries on this front. Perhaps
and manufacturing markets as well as adequate even more importantly, in the coming years,
transparency in the bidding processes. This the coal power sector has to start transition-
would encourage multinational coal power ing toward cleaner and more efficient power
technology manufacturers to invest in the generation that reduces CO2 emissions from
developing-country domestic market, thus coal power plants. Although a global long-term
helping to rapidly diffuse technology deploy- climate change policy regime is preferable for
ment. Although intellectual property rights promoting the development and deployment of
over coal technologies are suggested as repre- these technologies, specific technology policies
senting a barrier for developing technological with economic incentives that advance these
capacity by domestic firms (168), there are pro- technologies in both industrialized and devel-
posals to ensure the availability of such rights oping countries are required. Appropriate poli-
to firms in the developing countries (154). cies on ERD&D, deployment, as well as inter-
Nevertheless, access to intellectual property national cooperation are critical for enabling a
rights is not likely to be sufficient for successful CCT transition that is attentive to both human
technology transfer, with issues of absorptive health and climate change concerns.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Coal-based power generation has played a central role in addressing global energy needs
over the past century and is projected to continue in its prominent role in the coming
decades, more so in the developing countries.
2. Coal-based power is accompanied by human health and climate change externalities.
There is considerable variation in the methodologies used for impact determination and
valuation, leading in turn to a wide variation in the valuation of these externalities.
3. Much of the literature in valuation of externalities has focused on industrialized countries,
although some work in developing countries is beginning to emerge.
4. Most developed countries have adopted regulatory and policy measures over the past
several decades to tackle human health impacts as well as local and regional environ-
mental impacts, while developing countries are following suit. However, climate-change
externalities have not yet been integrated into the regulatory and policy framework to
the same extent.

5. There have been advances in coal power generation technologies as well as in end-of-the-
pipe air-pollution cleaning technologies to address the adverse health and local/regional
environmental impacts. However, wide-scale deployment of many advanced technologies
has been limited by higher costs, increased technological complexity, as well as lack of
appropriate policy incentives, particularly in developing countries
6. Advanced technologies like the USCPC and IGCC have begun to be deployed, although
with very limited penetration globally, whereas other technologies, such as oxy-fuel,
direct conversion, etc., are still emerging. Most of the technology development has hap-
pened in developed countries, with some recent activities in developing countries.
7. Deep reduction in GHG emissions requires further development and deployment of
these technologies, which is contingent upon the adoption of coherent and expeditious
global and national policy frameworks.

8. Enhanced RD&D efforts, regulatory incentives, and increased global co-operation are
some possible policy instruments for transition to the improved technologies.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. We need a better understanding of the concentration-response functions for various
air pollutants, methodological approaches, and a consensus-based determination of the
economic valuation of the health end-points resulting from pollutant exposure.
2. Research should be conducted into more accurate estimates of the physical impacts of
increased CO2 concentration, as well as a deeper understanding of the economic impacts
of the ensuant climate change.
3. Research on the above two issues also needs a developing country perspective, considering
their unique pollutant levels and socio-economic conditions.
4. Research leading to better insights into the innovation cycle of improved coal power
technologies, while studying regulatory mechanisms to achieve technology push and
market pull for these technologies, is needed.
5. Researchers should explore ways to advance coal power innovation in developing coun-
tries, including analyzing the role of the various domestic and international innovation-
system actors in adapting and deploying technologies in developing countries.
6. Research into the design and implementation aspects of future collaborative projects on
improved technology RD&D, and leveraging global cooperation.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
A.P.C. works for a global consulting firm on U.S and international projects related to energy,
environment, and climate change for public and private sector clients. The other authors are not
aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank John Blaney and Ashok Gadgil for a review of an initial version of this paper.
A.P.C. notes that the views expressed in this paper are his alone, and they do not necessarily reflect
the views of ICF International.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Modi V, McDade S, Lallement D, Saghir J. 2005. Energy Services for the Millennium Development Goals.
World Bank/UNDP
2. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2010. World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris: IEA
3. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2010. International Energy Outlook 2010. Washington, DC: EIA
4. BP. 2011. BP Energy Outlook 2030. BP, London. http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?
categoryId = 9037134&contentId=7068677
5. Chikkatur AP, Sagar AD. 2007. Cleaner power in India: towards a clean-coal-technology roadmap. Rep.
Discuss. Pap. 2007–06, Belfer Cent. Sci. Int. Aff., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA
6. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 2010. Hidden Costs of Energy. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
7. Freese B. 2003. Coal: A Human History. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
8. Jacobson MZ. 2002. Atmospheric Pollution: History, Science, and Regulation. New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press
9. Pope CA. 2000. Invited commentary: particulate matter-mortality exposure-response relations and
threshold. Am. J. Epidemiol. 152:407–12
10. EPA. 2009. Integrated science assessment for particulate matter. Rep. EPA/600/R-08/139F, U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Washington, DC
11. EPA. 2008. Integrated science assessment for oxides of nitrogen—health criteria. Rep. EPA/600/R-
08/071F, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC
12. EPA. 2008. Integrated science assessment (isa) for sulfur oxides—health criteria (final report). Rep.
EPA/600/R-08/047F, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC
13. EPA. 2008. Integrated science assessment (isa) for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur ecological criteria (final
report). Rep. EPA/600/R-08/082F, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC
14. Hill AB. 1965. The environment and disease: association or causation?. Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58:295–300
15. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2000. What constitutes an adverse health effect of air pollution? This official statement
of the American thoracic society was adopted by the ATS board of directors, July 1999. Am. J. Respir.
Crit. Care Med. 161:665–73
16. Pope CA, Dockery DW. 2006. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J. Air
Waste Manag. Assoc. 56:709–42
17. Bell ML, Davis DL. 2001. Reassessment of the lethal London fog of 1952: novel indicators of acute and
chronic consequences of acute exposure to air pollution. Environ. Health Perspect. 109:389–94
18. Levy JI, Hammitt JK, Spengler JD. 2000. Estimating the mortality impacts of particulate matter: What
can be learned from between-study variability? Environ. Health Perspect. 108:109–17
19. Woodruff TJ, Grillo J, Schoendorf KC. 1997. The relationship between selected causes of postneonatal
infant mortality and particulate air pollution in the United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 105:608–12
20. Woodruff TJ, Parker JD, Schoendorf KC. 2006. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution and
selected causes of postneonatal infant mortality in California. Environ. Health Perspect. 114:786–90
21. Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Gilliland F, Vora H, Thomas D, et al. 2004. The effect of air pollution on lung
development from 10 to 18 years of age. N. Engl. J. Med. 351:1057–67
22. Schwartz J, Dockery DW, Neas LM, Wypij D, Ware JH, et al. 1994. Acute effects of summer air pollution
on respiratory symptom reporting in children. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 150:1234–42
23. Widdicombe J. 2003. Overview of neural pathways in allergy and asthma. Pulm. Pharmacol. Ther. 16:23–
30
24. DeBell LJ. 2006. Spatial and seasonal patterns and temporal variability of haze and its constituents in
the United States. Rep. IV, Coop. Inst. Res. Atmos. (CIRA), Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins

25. Drevnick PE, Canfield DE, Gorski PR, Shinneman ALC, Engstrom DR, et al. 2007. Deposition and
cycling of sulfur controls mercury accumulation in Isle Royale fish. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41:7266–72
26. EPA. 1982. Air quality criteria for particulate matter and sulfur oxides. Rep. EPA/600/8-82/029aF-cF.
U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Off. Health Environ. Assess., Washington, DC
27. Widdicombe J. 2006. Reflexes from the lungs and airways: historical perspective. J. Appl. Physiol. 101:628–
34
28. Postlethwait EM, Bidani A. 1994. Mechanisms of pulmonary NO2 absorption. Toxicology 89:217–37
29. Chauhan AJ, Inskip HM, Linaker CH, Smith S, Schreiber J, et al. 2003. Personal exposure to nitrogen
dioxide (NO2 ) and the severity of virus-induced asthma in children. Lancet 361:1939–44
30. Schildcrout JS, Sheppard L, Lumley T, Slaughter JC, Koenig JQ, Shapiro GG. 2006. Ambient air
pollution and asthma exacerbations in children: an eight-city analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 164:505–17
31. Mortimer KM, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Redline S, Tager IB. 2002. The effect of air pollution on
inner-city children with asthma. Eur. Respir. J. 19:699–705
32. Galloway J, Aber J, Erisman J, Seitzinger S, Howarth R, et al. 2003. The nitrogen cascade. BioScience
53:341–56
33. Sterner R, Elser J. 2002. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
34. Fenn M, Poth M, Aber J, Baron J, Bormann B, et al. 1998. Nitrogen excess in North American ecosystems:
predisposing factors, ecosystem responses, and management strategies. Ecol. Appl. 8:706–33
35. Driscoll C, Whitall J, Aber E, Boyer M, Castro C, et al. 2003. Nitrogen pollution in the northeastern
United States: sources, effects and management options. BioScience 53:357–74
36. Aber J, McDowell W, Nadelhoffer K, Magill A, Berntson G, et al. 1998. Nitrogen saturation in temperate
forest ecosystems: hypotheses revisited. BioScience 48:921–34
37. EPA. 2010. Guidance for implementing the January 2001 methylmercury water quality criterion. Rep.
EPA 823-R-10-001, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Off. Water, Washington, DC
38. EPA. 2006. EPA’s roadmap for mercury. Rep. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, DC
39. Shah P, Strezov V, Prince K, Nelson PF. 2008. Speciation of As, Cr, Se and Hg under coal fired power
station conditions. Fuel 87:1859–69
40. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 2000. Toxicologic Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci.
41. EPA. 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Vol. V: Health Effects of Mercury and Mercury Compounds.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency
42. EPA. 2005. Regulatory impact analysis of the Clean Air Mercury Rule: final report. Rep. EPA-452/R-
05-003, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC
43. EPA. 2001. Water quality criterion for the protection of human health: methylmercury. Rep. EPA-823-
R-01-001, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Off. Water, Washington, DC
44. Ottinger RL, Wooley DR, Robinson NA, Hodas DR, Babb SE. 1990. Environmental Costs of Electricity.
New York: Oceana
45. Freeman MA. 1999. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Washington, DC: Resour.
Future
46. Hohmeyer O. 1988. Social Costs of Energy Consumption: External Effects of Electricity Generation in the
Federal Republic of Germany. New York: Springer
47. ORNL/RFF. 1992–1998. External Costs and Benefits of Fuel Cycles: Reports 1–8, Oak Ridge Natl.
Lab./Resour. Future. Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill/Utility Data Inst.
48. Eur. Comm. 2003. External Costs: Research Results on Socio-Environmental Damages Due to Electricity and
Transport, ed. Eur. Comm. Luxembourg: Off. Off. Publ. Eur. Comm.
49. Muller NZ, Mendelsohn RO. 2007. Measuring the damages from air pollution in the U.S. J. Environ.
Econ. Manag. 54:1–14
50. World Bank. 1997. Clear Water, Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Century. Washington, DC:
World Bank
51. World Bank. 2002. Improving Air Quality in Metropolitan Mexico City: An Economic Valuation. Mexico
City: World Bank

52. ExternE. 1998. Externalities of Energy. Luxembourg/Belgium: Eur. Comm. Dir.-Gen. XII, Sci., Res. Dev
53. Sundqvist T. 2004. What causes the disparity of electricity externality estimates? Energy Policy 32:1753–66
54. Ho MS, Nielsen CP, eds. 2007. Clearing the Air: The Health and Economic Damages of Air Pollution in
China. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
55. Byun DW, Schere LK. 2006. Review of the governing equations, computational algorithms, and other
components of the models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system. Appl. Mech.
Rev. 59:51–77
56. Muller NZ, Mendelsohn RO. 2006. The Air Pollution Emission and Policy Analysis Model (APEEP): Technical
Appendix. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
57. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 1994. Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Science and
Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: NRC
58. Daniels MJ, Dominici F, Samet JM, Zeger SL. 2000. Estimating particulate matter-mortality dose-
response curves and threshold levels: an analysis of daily time-series for the 20 largest US cities. Am. J.
Epidemiol. 152:397–406
59. Mead RW, Brajer V. 2006. Valuing the adult health effects of air pollution in Chinese cities. Ann. N. Y.
Acad. Sci. 1076:882–92
60. Xu XP, Dockery DW, Christiani DC, Li BL, Huang HY. 1995. Association of air-pollution with hospital
outpatient visits in Beijing. Arch. Environ. Health 50:214–20
61. Chen C, Chen B, Wang B, Huang C, Zhao J, et al. 2007. Low-carbon energy policy and ambient air
pollution in Shanghai, China: a health-based economic assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 373:13–21
62. Vichit-Vadakan N, Vajanapoom N, Ostro B. 2008. The public health and air pollution in Asia (PAPA)
project: estimating the mortality effects of particulate matter in Bangkok, Thailand. Environ. Health
Perspect. 116:1179–82
63. Viscusi WK, Aldy JE. 2003. The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout
the world. J. Risk Uncertain. 27:5–76
64. Freeman AM. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods.
Washington, DC: Resourc. Future Press
65. World Bank. 2003. Economic Valuation of the Health Benefits of Reduction in Air Pollution. Washington,
DC: World Bank ESMAP
66. Alberini A, Krupnick A. 2000. Cost-of-illness and willingness-to-pay estimates of the benefits of improved
air quality: evidence from Taiwan. Land Econ. 76:37–53
67. Levy JI, Baxter LK, Schwartz J. 2009. Uncertainty and variability in health-related damages from coal-
fired power plants in the United States. Risk Anal. 29:1000–14
68. EPA. 2010. Regulatory impact analysis for the proposed Federal Transport Rule. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0491, Off. Air Radiat., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC
69. Wang H, Mullahy J. 2006. Willingness to pay for reducing fatal risk by improving air quality: a contingent
valuation study in Chongqing, China. Sci. Total Environ. 367:50–57
70. World Bank Rep. 1997. Urban Air Quality Management Strategy (URBAIR). URBAIR- Metro Manila.
Washington, DC: IBRD/World Bank
71. Kan H, Chen B. 2004. Particulate air pollution in urban areas of Shanghai, China: health-based economic
assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 322:71–79
72. O’Connor D, Zhai F, Aunan K, Berntsen T, Vennemo H. 2003. Agricultural and human health impacts of
climate policy in China: A general equilibrium analysis with special reference to Guangdong. OECD Dev. Cent.
Work. Pap.
73. Hirschberg S, Heck T, Gantner U, Lu YQ, Spadaro JV, et al. 2003. Environmental impact and external
cost assessment. In Integrated Assessment of Sustainable Energy Systems in China, ed. B Eliasson, YY Lee,
pp. 445–86. Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad.
74. Chestnut LG, Ostro BD, Vichit-Vadakan N. 1997. Transferability of air pollution control health benefits
estimates from the United States to developing countries: evidence from the Bangkok study. Am. J. Agric.
Econ. 79:1630–35
75. Hammitt J, Zhou Y. 2006. The economic value of air-pollution-related health risks in China: a contingent
valuation study. Environ. Resour. Econ. 33:399–423

76. Kumar S, Rao DN. 2001. Valuing the beneficts of air pollution abatement using a health production
function—a case study of Panipat Thermal Power Station, India. Environ. Resour. Econ. 20:91–102
77. Kan HD, Chen BH, Chen CH, Fu QY, Chen M. 2004. An evaluation of public health impact of ambient
air pollution under various energy scenarios in Shanghai, China. Atmos. Environ. 38:95–102
78. Zhang MS, Song Y, Cai XH. 2007. A health-based assessment of particulate air pollution in urban areas
of Beijing in 2000–2004. Sci. Total Environ. 376:100–8
79. Krewitt W. 2002. External costs of energy–Do the answers match the questions? Looking back at 10 years
of ExternE. Energy Policy 30:839–48
80. Epstein PR, Buonocore JJ, Eckerle K, Hendryx M, Stout BM III, et al. 2011. Full cost accounting for
the life cycle of coal. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1219:73–98
81. Schwartz J, Coull B, Laden F, Ryan L. 2007. The effect of dose and timing of dose on the association
between airborne particles and survival. Environ. Health Perspect. 116:64–69
82. Pope CA 3rd, Dockery DW. 2006. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect.
J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 56:709–42

83. Grahame TJ, Schlesinger RB. 2007. Health effects of airborne particulate matter: Do we know enough
to consider regulating specific particle types or sources? Inhal. Toxicol. 19:457–81
84. ExternE-Pol. 2005. Externalities of Energy: Extension of accounting framework and Policy Applications,
ExternE. Luxembourg/Belgium: Eur. Comm. Dir.-Gen. XII, Sci., Res. Dev
85. Deleted in proof

86. Markandya A, Wilkinson P. 2007. Electricity generation and health. Lancet 370:979–90
87. Hirschberg S, Heck T, Gantner U, Lu Y, Spadaro JV, et al. 2004. Health and environmental impacts of
China’s current and future electricity supply, with associated external costs. Int. J. Glob. Energy 22:155–79
88. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 2004. Air Quality Management in the United States. Washington, DC: Natl.
Acad. Press
89. Ackerman F, Biewald B, White D, Woolf T, Moomaw W. 1999. Grandfathering and coal plant emissions:
the cost of cleaning up the Clean Air Act. Energy Policy 27:929–40
90. EPA. 1997. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency
91. EPA. 2008. National air quality—status and trends through 2007. Rep. EPA-454/R-08-006, U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
92. Chay K, Greenstone M. 2003. Air Quality, Infant Mortality, and the Clean Air Act of 1970. Cambridge,
MA: MIT, Cent. Energy Environ. Policy Res.
93. Deschenes O, Greenstone M, Shapiro J. 2011. Defending against environmental insults: drugs, emergencies,
mortality and the NOx budget program emissions market. Work. Pap Dept. Econ., MIT
94. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning,
Z Chen, M Marquis, et al. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. 851 pp.
95. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ed. Core Writ. Team, RK
Pachauri, A Reisinger, Intergov. Panel Clim. Change, Geneva, Switz. 104 pp.
96. IPCC. 2001. Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change 2001. Synthesis Report, ed. RT Watson, Core
Writ. Team. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
97. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group
II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. ML Parry, OF
Canziani, JP Palutikof, PJ van der Linden, CE Hanson, pp. 7–22. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
851 pp.
98. UN Framew. Conv. Clim. Change. 2010. Cancun Decision: Decision 1/CP.16. http://unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf
99. Deleted in proof
100. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2008. World Energy Outlook. IEA
101. Greenstone M, Looney A. 2011. A Strategy for America’s Energy Future: Illuminating Energy’s Full Costs.
Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.

102. Natl. Energy Technol. Lab. (NETL). 2007. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants. Vol. 1:
Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. Pittsburgh, PA: Natl. Energy Technol. Lab., Off. Fossil
Energy, U.S. Dep. Energy
103. MIT. 2007. The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
http://web.mit.edu/coal/
104. Zhao L, Xiao Y, Gallagher KS, Wang B, Xu X. 2008. Technical, environment, and economic assessment
of deploying advanced coal power technologies in the Chinese context. Energy Policy 36:2709–18
105. Zhao L, Gallagher KS. 2007. Research, development, demonstration, and early deployment policies for
advanced-coal technology in China. Energy Policy 35:6467–77
106. New Energy Ind. Technol. Dev. Organ. (NEDO). 2006. Clean Coal Technologies in Japan. Kanagawa,
Jpn: NEDO/JCOAL
107. Nemet GF, Kammen DM. 2007. U.S. energy research and development: declining investment, increasing
need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energy Policy 35:746–55
108. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2005. Clean coal technologies. http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/2010/
database-section/clean-coal-technologies
109. IPCC. 2005. IPCC Special Report Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Technical Summary, ed. E
Rubin, L Meyer, H de Coninck, IE Gizouli. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/
pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technicalsummary.pdf
110. PowerClean. 2004. Fossil Fuel Power Generation: State-Of-The-Art. Rep. PowerClean R, D&D Themat.
Netw. http://www.irc.ee/6rp/valdkonnad/P6/energia/Powerclean_state_of_the_art_final.pdf
111. Peltier R. 2010. Plant efficiency: Begin with the right definitions. Power Mag. 154(2):46
112. Booras G, Holt N. 2004. Pulverized coal and IGCC plant cost and performance estimates. Presented at Gasif.
Technol. Conf., Washington, DC
113. DTI. 1999. Supercritical steam cycles for power generation applications, Rep. TSR009, ed. UK Dep. Trade
Ind., London
114. Lako P. 2004. Coal-fired power technologies: coal-fired power options on the brink of climate policies.
Rep. ECN-C–04–076, ECN Beleidsstudies, ECN Policy Stud., Petten, The Netherlands
115. Khan SR, Wayland RJ, Schmidt LJ. 2005. Environmental impact comparisons: IGCC versus PC plants.
Presented at Annu. Int. Pittsburgh Coal Conf., 22nd, Pittsburgh, PA
116. DTI. 2000. Fluidised bed combustion systems for power generation and other industrial applications, Rep. TSR011,
ed. UK Dep. Trade Ind., London
117. Kavidass S, Anderson GL, Norton J. 2000. Why build a circulating fluidized bed boiler to generate steam and
electric power. Presented at POWER-GEN Asia 2000, Bangkok, Thail.
118. Giglio B. 2009. World’s largest circulating fluidized bed boiler begins commercial operation. Coal Power,
Dec. 10
119. Hotta A, Nuortimo K, Eriksson T, Palonen J, Kokki S. 2008. CFB technology provides solutions to combat
climate change. Presented at VGB – KELI 2008 Conf., Hamburg, Ger.
120. Marion JL, Bozzuto CR, Nsakala NY, Liljedahl GN, Andrus HE, Chamberland RP. 2003. Greenhouse
gas emissions control by oxygen firing in circulating fluidized bed boilers: phase 1. A preliminary systems
evaluation. Rep. PPL-03-CT-09, Alstom Power Inc./US DOE NETL, Pittsburgh, PA
121. Farzan H, Vecci SJ, Châtel-Pélage F, Pranda P, Bose AC. 2005. Pilot-scale evaluation of coal combustion in
an oxygen-enriched recycled flue gas. Presented at Int. Pittsburgh Coal Conf., 22nd, Pittsburgh, PA
122. Normann F, Andersson K, Leckner B, Johnsson F. 2009. Emission control of nitrogen oxides in the
oxy-fuel process. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 35:385–97
123. Santos S, Yan J. 2009. CO2 processing unit—challenges in meeting the required CO2 quality. Presented at
Oxy-Fuel Combust. Netw.—2nd Work. Group Meet. CO2 Quality other Relev. Issues, Cottbus, Ger.
124. Dillon DJ, Panesar RS, Wall RA, Allam RJ, White V, et al. 2004. Oxy-combustion processes for CO2 capture
from advanced supercritical PF and NGCC power plant. Presented at Int. Conf. Greenh. Gas Control
Technol., 7th, (GHGT-7), Vancouver, Can.
125. Gupta M, Zanganeh KE, Tan Y, Pearson B. 2005. Oxy-fuel combustion with and without carbon capture:
a techno-economic assessment and future prospects. Presented at Annu. Int. Pittsburgh Coal Conf., 22nd,
Pittsburgh, PA

126. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2007. Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Generation: Case Studies of Recently Constructed
Coal- and Gas-Fired Power Plants. Paris: IEA
127. Kashiwagi T, Ono H, Watari R, Sekine I. 2004. The new direction of Japanese energy policy and the role of
gasification. Presented at 2004 Gasif. Technol. Conf., Washington, DC
128. Nexant. 2003. Feasibility Study of a Coal-Based IGCC Power Plant in India. Topical Report for Phase A:
Comparison of Various IGCC and Other Advanced Technologies. Nexant Corp. San Franciso, CA (Submitted
to USAID/India)
129. Bonk D. 2005. Coal gasification as alternative fuel for glass industry – gasification primer. U.S. Dep. Energy,
Natl. Energy Technol. Lab. Presented at Owens Corning Corp. Headquarters, July 27
130. Qureshi N. 2001. Technology scan on IGCC. Rep. 0000-999-POM-W-002 (D1), Natl. Thermal Power
Corp. (NTPC), New Delhi, India
131. DTI. 1998. Gasification of solid and liquid fuels for power generation. Rep. TSR008, UK Dep. Trade
Ind., London
132. CETC. 2005. Canada’s Clean Coal Technology Roadmap (CCTRM). Canmet Energy Technol. Cent.,
Ottawa, ON. http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/clean_fossils_fuels/
clean_coal/roadmap/cctrm.html
133. DTI. 2004. Review of the feasibility of underground coal gasification in the UK. Rep. DTI/Pub URN
04/1643, UK Dep. Trade Ind., London
134. Friedmann SJ. 2005. Underground Coal Gasificiation in the USA and Abroad, Congr. Hear. Clim. Change.
Senate Foreign Relat. Comm., Nov. 14th
135. Zecevic S, Patton EM, Parhami P. 2004. Carbon-air fuel cell without a reforming process. Carbon
42:1983–93
136. Zecevic S, Patton EM, Parhami P. 2005. Direct electrochemical power generation from carbon in fuel
cells with molten hydroxide electrolyte. Chem. Eng. Commun. 192:1655–70
137. Cooper JF. 2004. Direct conversion of coal and coal-derived carbon in fuel cells. Int. Conf. Fuel Cell Sci.,
Eng. Technol., June 14–19. Rochester, NY: Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. (ASME)
138. Cao DX, Sun Y, Wang GL. 2007. Direct carbon fuel cell: fundamentals and recent developments.
J. Power Source 167:250–57
139. Chikkatur AP. 2008. A Resource and Technology Assessment of Coal Utilization in India. Arlington, VA: Pew
Cent. Glob. Clim. Change
140. Natl. Coal Counc. 2008. Advanced coal technologies: Greater efficiency and lower CO2 emis-
sions. Washington, DC: Natl. Coal Counc. http://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/
Advanced_Coal_Technologies.pdf
141. ICF Int. 2010. Investment Decision for Baseload Power Plants. Natl. Energy Technol. Lab., Off. Fossil
Energy, U.S. Dep. Energy, Pittsburgh, PA
142. Tzimas E, Mercier A, Cormos C-C, Peteves SD. 2007. Trade-off in emissions of acid gas pollutants and
of carbon dioxide in fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture. Energy Policy 35:3991–98
143. Senior W, Bradshaw J, Chikkatur A, Wright M. 2011. Planning saline reservoir storage developments—
the importance of getting started early. Presented at Int. Conf. Greenh. Gas Control Technol., 10th,
(GHGT10), Amsterdam
144. Global CCS Inst./ICF Int. 2010. Defining CCS Ready: An Approach to An International Definition. Canberra,
Aust.: Global CCS Inst.
145. Chikkatur A, Sagar A. 2009. Rethinking India’s coal-power technology trajectory. Econ. Polit. Wkly.
44:53–58
146. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2010. RD&D Budget. In IEA Energy Technology R&D Statistics (database). ed.
IEA, Paris
147. Stine D. 2009. The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs:
A Comparative Analysis. Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, Congressional Research Service 7-5700,
30th June
148. Am. Energy Innov. Council. 2010. A Business Plan for America’s Energy Future. http://www.
bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/AEIC_REPORT_Final.pdf

149. President’s Counc. Advis. Sci. Technol. (PCAST). 2010. Report to the President on accel-
erating the pace of change in energy technologies through an integrated federal energy policy.
Exec. Off. President. Washington, DC. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/
ostp/pcast-energy-tech-report.pdf
150. Yang CJ, Oppenheimer M. 2007. A “Manhattan Project” for climate change? Clim. Change 80:199–204
151. Stern N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge Univ.
Press
152. Chen W, Xu R. 2010. Clean coal technology development in China. Energy Policy 38:2123–30
153. Clean Coal Technol. Inc. (CCTI). 2011. Technology. http://www.cleancoaltechnologiesinc.com/
technology.php
154. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2008. Clean coal technologies: accelerating commercial and policy drivers for deploy-
ment. IEA, Paris. http://www.iea.org/Papers/2008/clean_coal_ciab_2008.pdf
155. Philibert C. 2003. Technology innovation, development and diffusion. OECD/Int. Energy Agency, Inf. Pap.,
COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)4, IEA, Paris

156. Sandén BA, Azar C. 2005. Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets–economy wide
versus technology specific approaches. Energy Policy 33:1557–76
157. Natl. Energy Technol. Lab. (NETL). 2011. Tracking New Coal-Fired Plants. NETL, Off. Strateg. Anal.
Plan.
158. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2011. Technology Development Prospects for the Indian Power Sector. 2011/04.
IEA, Paris. http://www.iea.org/papers/2011/technology_development_india.pdf
159. Synapse Energy Econ. 2008. Don’t Get Burned: The Risks of Investing in New Coal-Fired Generating
Facilities. Rep. Synapse Energy Econ., Cambridge, MA
160. Sekar RC, Parsons JE, Herzog HJ, Jacoby HD. 2007. Future carbon regulations and current investments
in alternative coal-fired power plant technologies. Energy Policy 35:1064–74
161. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2006. Energy Policies of IEA Countries. Paris: IEA
162. Linares P, Pérez-Arriaga I. 2009. Pomoting investment in low-carbon technologies. Eur. Rev. Energy
Mark. 3(2):1–22
163. Hamilton MR, Herzog HJ, Parsons JE. 2009. Cost and U.S. public policy for new coal power plants
with carbon capture and sequestration. Energy Procedia 1:4487–94
164. Nils Markusson, Kern F, Watson J. 2010. Assessing CCS viability—a socio-technical framework. Energy
Procedia GHGT-10
165. Patiño-Echeverri D, Fischbeck P, Kriegler E. 2009. Economic and environmental costs of regulatory
uncertainty for coal-fired power plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43:578–84
166. Wang H, Nakata T. 2009. Analysis of the market penetration of clean coal technologies and its impacts
in China’s electricity sector. Energy Policy 37:338–51
167. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2006. Energy Technology Perspectives Scenarios and Strategies to 2050: In Support
of the G8 Plan of Action. Paris: OECD/IEA
168. Ockwell DG, Watson J, MacKerron G, Pal P, Yamin F. 2008. Key policy considerations for facilitating
low carbon technology transfer to developing countries. Energy Policy 36:4104–15
169. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2005. International Energy Technology Collaboration and Climate Change
Mitigation—Case Study 4: Clean Coal Technologies. COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2005)4. Paris:
IEA
170. Natl. Energy Technol. Lab. (NETL). 2004. World Gasification Database. Natl. Energy Tech-
nol. Lab., Off. Fossil Energy, U.S. Dep. Energy, Pittsburgh, PA http://www.netl.doe.gov/
technologies/coalpower/gasification/worlddatabase/index.html
171. Palkes M, Waryasz RE, Liljedahl GN. 2004. Economics and feasibility of rankine cycle improvements
for coal fired power plants. Alstom Power Inc./NETL, Rep. PPL-04-CT-03, Natl. Energy Technol. Lab.,
Off. Fossil Energy, U.S. Dep. Energy, Pittsburgh, PA
172. Natl. Energy Technol. Lab. (NETL). 2008. Pulverized coal oxycombustion power plants. Pittsburgh PA:
NET Lab., Off. Fossil Energy, U.S. Dep. Energy
173. World Bank. 2010. World Development Indicators 2010. Washington, DC: Int. Bank Reconstr. Dev./World
Bank

174. United Nations Dev. Program. 2010. Human Development Report 2010. UN Dev. Program.,
New York
175. FutureGen. 2011. FutureGen Alliance. http://www.futuregenalliance.org/futuregen-2-0-project/
176. ARPA-e. 2011. Innovative Materials & Processes for Advanced Carbon Capture Technologies (IM-
PACCT). Adv. Res. Proj. Agency—Energy (ARPA-E), U.S. Dep. Energy, Washington, DC. http://
arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/IMPACCT.aspx
177. Eur. Comm. 2011. EU Support for CCS. Res. Innov., Eur. Comm. http://ec.europa.eu/research/
energy/eu/research/ccs/support/index_en.htm
178. Eur. Comm. 2011. Research Fund for Coal and Steel. Community Res. Dev. Inf. Serv. Sci., Res. Dev.
(CORDIS), Eur. Comm. http://cordis.europa.eu/coal-steel-rtd/
179. Platts. 2006. World Electric Power Plants Database, Dec. http://www.platts.com/Products/
worldelectricpowerplantsdatabase/Overview

EG36CH05-Chikkatur
ARI
4 October 2011
18:43
Figure 2
Past, present, and future generation of electricity (in TWh) by region/country under the International Energy Agency current policy scenario (2).
www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy

C-1
EG36CH05-Chikkatur
Figure 4
Trends in total coal research and development (RD&D) budgets for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) countries (millions of 2009 U.S. dollars using 2009 exchange rates). Total coal RD&D includes coal production, preparation,
transportation, combustion, conversion (excluding IGCC technology), and other coal RD&D (146). Total CO2 capture and storage
(CCS) expenditure includes CO2 capture/separation, transport, and storage (146). Note that the data for some countries are not
available, and therefore these numbers may underestimate the total investments by the OECD countries.
C-2 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

EG36CH05-Chikkatur
Figure 5
New coal-fired plant capacity additions (in MW) for subcritical pulverized-coal technology (Subcritical PC),
supercritical PC technology, and fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) technology across the world during
1950–2006 (179). Abbreviations: N AMERICA, North America; CIS, Common-Wealth of Independent
States; ANZ-OCEANIA, Australia, New Zealand, and Oceania; LATIN, Latin America.
www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy C-3

EG36-FrontMatter ARI 7 September 2011 14:34
Annual Review of
Environment
and Resources
Volume 36, 2011

Contents
Preface p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pv
Who Should Read This Series? p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pvii
I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Improving Societal Outcomes of Extreme Weather in a Changing
Climate: An Integrated Perspective

Rebecca E. Morss, Olga V. Wilhelmi, Gerald A. Meehl, and Lisa Dilling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Ocean Circulations, Heat Budgets, and Future Commitment
to Climate Change
David W. Pierce, Tim P. Barnett, and Peter J. Gleckler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p27
Aerosol Impacts on Climate and Biogeochemistry
Natalie Mahowald, Daniel S. Ward, Silvia Kloster, Mark G. Flanner,
Colette L. Heald, Nicholas G. Heavens, Peter G. Hess, Jean-Francois Lamarque,
and Patrick Y. Chuang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p45
State of the World’s Freshwater Ecosystems: Physical, Chemical,
and Biological Changes
Stephen R. Carpenter, Emily H. Stanley, and M. Jake Vander Zanden p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p75
II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy: Connecting the Dots
Ananth P. Chikkatur, Ankur Chaudhary, and Ambuj D. Sagar p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Energy Poverty
Lakshman Guruswamy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Water and Energy Interactions
James E. McMahon and Sarah K. Price p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 163
Agroecology: A Review from a Global-Change Perspective
Thomas P. Tomich, Sonja Brodt, Howard Ferris, Ryan Galt, William R. Horwath,
Ermias Kebreab, Johan H.J. Leveau, Daniel Liptzin, Mark Lubell, Pierre Merel,
Richard Michelmore, Todd Rosenstock, Kate Scow, Johan Six, Neal Williams,
and Louie Yang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 193
viii
EG36-FrontMatter ARI 7 September 2011 14:34
Energy Intensity of Agriculture and Food Systems

Nathan Pelletier, Eric Audsley, Sonja Brodt, Tara Garnett, Patrik Henriksson,
Alissa Kendall, Klaas Jan Kramer, David Murphy, Thomas Nemecek,
and Max Troell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 223
Transportation and the Environment
David Banister, Karen Anderton, David Bonilla, Moshe Givoni,
and Tim Schwanen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247
Green Chemistry and Green Engineering: A Framework for
Sustainable Technology Development
Martin J. Mulvihill, Evan S. Beach, Julie B. Zimmerman, and Paul T. Anastas p p p p p 271
The Political Ecology of Land Degradation

Elina Andersson, Sara Brogaard, and Lennart Olsson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 295
III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change:

Lessons from Human Development, Well-Being, and Disasters
Katrina Brown and Elizabeth Westaway p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 321
Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation
Patrick Meyfroidt and Eric F. Lambin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 343
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Arun Agrawal, Daniel Nepstad, and Ashwini Chhatre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 373
Tourism and Environment
Ralf Buckley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 397
Literature and Environment
Lawrence Buell, Ursula K. Heise, and Karen Thornber p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 417
Religion and Environment
Willis Jenkins and Christopher Key Chapple p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 441
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 27–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 465

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 27–36 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles may
be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org
Contents ix

Chikka Tur 2011

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chikka Tur 2011

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EG36CH05-Chikkatur ARI 4 October 2011 18:43

Coal Power Impacts,

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011. 36:101–38 Keywords

communication devices and networks, and

tionary applications, electricity may also power

4.1. Adequacy of Research

102 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 103

increase owing to a rise in renewables- and

Other global energy projections also sup-

scenario of the U.S. Energy Information Ad-

concentrations at 450 ppm, which is being seen

104 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

state of global coal power and its technologies,

ides (NOx ), and other chemicals—emitted from

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 105

distinction in the PM sizes allows for regula-

PM2.5 pollution is produced by combustion of such as statues and monuments (10).

106 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

centrations <1.0 ppm (12).

function and the percent of individuals biodiversity, as indicated by the percent-

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 107

pollutants or combination of pollutants. NO2 in excess nitrogen nutrient enrichment,

children with asthma (29). mercury, from coal-related emissions are a

108 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 109

110 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

China ranges from US(2008)$55,590 (72) to tions (absence of desulfurization in Hungary,

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 111

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 113

EVOLUTION OF REGULATORY ACTIONS IN THE UNITED

to install emissions control technologies or switch to lower-sulfur coals or natural gas. In

114 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 115

116 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

Level of Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Pilot Gasiﬁer, Demonstration

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy

cyclones and high ash is difﬁcult; reliability is an

boiler’s designed range. However, if designed

Changes in the boundary conditions of

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 119

120 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 121

122 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

Table 4 Illustrative list of potential pollution-control technologies

CO2 shift reactor Precombustion Carbon dioxide IGCC

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 123

vents (142). (144). Large-scale deployment of CCS also re-

124 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 125

yet possible. experience with the more advanced technology

126 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

A GLIMPSE OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

Current RD&D activities in coal technology development are focused on developing

the ﬁrst commercial-scale, near-zero-emissions, integrated sequestration, and hydrogen

tools for complex coal power plants (103).

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 127

cial scale (154). to more central role for developing-country

128 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 129

global and national policy frameworks.

130 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar

www.annualreviews.org • Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy 131

132 Chikkatur · Chaudhary · Sagar