Coal-to-Gas in Kentucky

In Kentucky's energy plan there is a disconnect between Coal-to-Gas and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC).

It seems that the plan calls for separate Coal-to-Gas facilities.

To be clear the residential price for natural gas is just now falling from it's peak of $20 per thousand cubic feet. However the general increase in the price of natural gas is not guaranteed. It is possible that national natural gas available will rise with the use of domestic Shale Gas and other "unconventional" sources.

We are caught in a situation were future natural gas prices will either dramatically increase or dramatically decrease.

In this regard would it not be better to move efforts into separate Coal-to-Gas facilities into IGCC power plants instead.

Here is the reasoning. Natural Gas is needed more in the winter when electricity demand is low. Electricity is needed more in the summer when natural gas demand is low. An IGCC and Coal-to-Gas both produce syngas. Wouldn't a plant that can switch between electric production and syngas production be a way to hedge the bet on where natural gas prices may go?

A more aggressive plan on replacing existing coal boilers with IGCC with full CCS capabilities would eliminate trying to fit CCS onto the older boilers.

Local Situation

This region is a major importer of energy. The majority of electrical energy is derived from coal. The majority of transportation is derived from oil. What heating isn't done with electric is done with natural gas.

We also have little in the way of local resources.

For fossil sources...

• The coal is shipped in from hundreds of miles away.
• The natural gas is pipped in also from miles away. (There is some landfill gas used locally)
• The liquid fossil fuels are also delivered and/or piped in.

For renewable resources...

• The 1% from hyrdoelectric is about as much as we will get. Even though we are near a major river damming to a point of usefulness would make the region a lake with a few islands.
• For large geothermal the local thickness of earth's crust will make this one of the last places to be able to take advantage of this. (Although heat pumps make as much if not more sense here as anywhere else)
• The available wind energy is also low. It's not just the fuels we use that causes the air quality problems here. It's the lack of wind refreshing the local valleys.
• The sun does shine here on a regular basis but we are fairly far north which reduces the amount we receive (Although solar water heating makes sense here)
• On the biomass/biofuels this has always been a good farming region so all of those solutions apply here.

The local priority is:

1. energy conservation (heat pumps , solar water heating , better lighting and insulation)
2. biomass/biofuels (biochar being on the top of that list)
3. solar (thin film solutions are active at lower light levels)
4. coal (since we can't stop using it anytime soon. IGCC may be a option until we can)
5. nuclear (unlikely given we have none locally now and past local experience has been negative. But that aside sub critical reactors are worth exploration.)

The need for continued support of research is a given which is why it's not on the list. The list would not exist without research.

What

Carbon ...

Specifically avoiding some of the addition to carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere by promoting techniques such as Biochar, IGCC, and Subcritical reactors.

There is of course other greenhouse gasses and much debate about global warming. Even if you do not believe that greenhouse gases cause global warming you can at least admit that economic activities that depend on high greenhouse gas emissions are at risk due to a global consensus on this issue and that change in these areas cannot happen overnight.

There are also many other societal issues that are just as if not more important that this. I will leave those issues to others and concentrate on this one.