IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) is a technology utilizing coal as fuel.
It is considered a crucial option in energy policy because it significantly reduces environmental impact compared to conventional coal-fired power generation.
However, there is persistent criticism that using coal at all contradicts efforts to combat climate change.
Below, we will delve into this contradiction and discuss how it should be understood.
1. Background on Criticism of Coal-Fired Power
Coal-fired power generation faces criticism for the following reasons:
- High CO2 Emissions
Among fossil fuels, coal has the highest CO2 emission factor and is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. - Air Pollution
Emissions include harmful substances such as sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5). - Concerns about Sustainability
As renewable energy becomes widespread, coal is often regarded as “outdated energy.”
Due to these factors, international frameworks like the Paris Agreement, environmental organizations, and many countries criticize the construction or prolonged operation of coal-fired power plants.
2. Can IGCC Address Criticisms of Coal-Fired Power?
Benefits of IGCC
Compared to conventional coal-fired power, IGCC offers the following environmental advantages:
- Reduction in CO2 Emissions
It achieves approximately 20–30% less CO2 compared to traditional methods. - Reduction of Harmful Substances
The gasification process removes impurities, significantly reducing SOx and NOx emissions. - High-Efficiency Power Generation
While conventional coal-fired power has an efficiency of 35–45%, IGCC achieves 45–50%, with the latest technologies targeting over 55%.
Points of Criticism
- Failure to Address Fundamental Issues of Coal Usage
Since it still uses coal, achieving zero CO2 emissions is impossible, and it cannot be considered truly “clean.” - Competition with Renewable Energy
With the rapidly decreasing costs of renewables like solar and wind, the justification for using coal is diminishing.
3. Contradictions in Introducing IGCC
Conflicts with Environmental Policies
While many argue for the complete elimination of coal-fired power, introducing “clean coal technology” seems to contradict global decarbonization trends.
Particularly in developed countries, critics argue that investment should prioritize renewable energy over IGCC.
Trade-Offs with Energy Security
On the other hand, coal is widely available globally and offers stable supply.
In situations where energy prices are volatile (e.g., natural gas price spikes), completely abandoning coal might not be feasible.
4. Why is IGCC Chosen?
Despite criticisms, IGCC is adopted for the following reasons:
Role as a Transitional Energy Source
Renewable energy faces challenges like weather dependency and energy storage technology.
Since phasing out coal-fired power entirely will take time, IGCC is seen as a “compromise solution” for the transition period.
Compatibility with CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage)
IGCC facilitates efficient CO2 capture, making it highly compatible with CCUS technologies.
In the future, combining IGCC with CCUS could achieve “carbon-neutral coal usage.”
Regional Considerations
In developing countries and coal-rich nations, coal remains a primary energy source.
Economic and geographic factors often make renewable energy adoption difficult, making IGCC a practical choice.
5. Conclusion: How Should We Understand These Contradictions?
Although introducing IGCC may seem contradictory, it can be evaluated from the following perspectives:
- Short-Term Perspective:
During the transition to mainstream renewable energy, IGCC plays a vital role as a “realistic compromise” to reduce the environmental impact of coal-fired power. - Long-Term Perspective:
Ultimately, the goal is the complete elimination of fossil fuels, making IGCC only a “temporary measure.” As renewable energy and storage technologies become widespread, coal will no longer be needed. - Regional Adaptation:
In areas with different resources and economic conditions, IGCC might be the optimal solution, necessitating a tailored approach.
Thus, while IGCC involves contradictions, it serves as a “provisional solution” balancing energy security and environmental protection.
However, reducing coal dependence and fully transitioning to renewable energy remain essential long-term goals.
Note
This article reflects responses from AI inquiries.
AI-generated answers are not always accurate. Please verify important information.
Thank you for reading!
