1. Position of Coal in Future Energy Scenario in India Kalyan Sen Director Central Fuel Research Institute, Dhanbad (India)

2. Status of Power Generation in India

3. Per capita Primary energy Consumption: India243kgoe/y developed Countries1000 Average7000-8000 (IEA Coal research, Nov.’98)

4. Against projected GDP Growth rate of 7% - Power sector requires expansion @ 9-10% i.e. Additional capacity of 10 GWe/y for next 10 years (IEA Coal research, Nov.’98)

5. Capacity of power generation in India (in MW) YearThermalHydro-electricNuclearTotal 1996 60,00020,9762,22583,288 199863,03821,7291,84086,607 199967,61822,438 NA 93,249 1999-2012 (projected) 1,43,61056,41811,6152,11,643 (CPU 1999; CEA, July, 1999)

6. Capacity Utilization of Power Fuels and Electricity generated Capacity Utilization of Power Fuels and Electricity generated (Source: CPU 1999) Thermal fuelNo. of stationsCapacity(MW) Generation(GWh) Coal7351134 276605 Lignite32280 13853 Gas307203 35396 Oil/Diesel & others111017 2387 Multi-fuel21404 7292 11963038 336033

8. Coal consumption, production and quality

9. Increased demand and dependence on coal lead to ecological disbalance on mining site transportation overloading alarming emission of hazardous matters

11. Geological reserves of coal in India (Mt)

12. Annual/ Estimated Coal consumption and Ash generation by Coal-based Thermal Power Plants Year 1997-98 2001-02 2006-07 2011-12 Installed capacity (Mt) 51135 75000 111070 162000 Thermal Power (BU) 277 425 615 920 Coal Consum.(Mt) 203 267 450 660 Ash Gener.(Mt) 80 107 180 265 (Source: CEA, April,1999)

13. Coal Consumption pattern in different states (as on March,1999) States Delhi, Punjab, Hariana, Rajasthan Bihar, West bengal & Orissa Gujarat Maharastra Madhya Pradesh Tamilnadu & Karnataka Andhra Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Assam No. of Plants Generation (MW) Coal consumption (Mt) 10 21 5 8 7 5 6 10 1 73 5153 12300 3820 6476 7163 4020 5043 8941 240 53126 20 50 15 26 28 16 20 36 - 211 (Source: CEA, 1999)

14. Trend of Coal Production in India 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Year Production (Mt) 95-96 190019151930194519561971198019831986198919921999 (A.B.Ghosh 1997, MoC 1998-99)

15. Demand - Supply projection of coal: Year 2001-02 2006-07 2007-12 Demand (Mt) 400 576 872 Supply (Mt) 360 484 652 Short-fall (Mt) 40 92 220 (Draft Report, Energy policy Committee, planning Commission, march, 1999)

16. Futuristies in Coal production ; Identification of a no. of Collieries ; Advancement in mining technology ; Optimum mixing of underground & opencast mining ; Quality improvement by beneficiation

17. Coal for Power Plants

18. Grade-wise reserves of Indian non-coking coal GradeReserves,btShare, %Ash, %CV, kcal/kg A+B+C23.81328.7>4940 D29.01634.04940-4200 E+F+G125.27155.04200-1300 (Source: GSI, 2000) COAL RESERVES Total: 212 Bt non-coking: 83% coking: 14% others: 3%

19. Common Coal Quality Indices Combustion specific Heating value C- burn out Char behaviour Traditional inspection properties: u Moisture u V.M u Ash u Size character. u Grindability Index u Elements ( S, Cl, N) Rank Petrography Linking parameters ------>

20. Indian Coal as feed to TPS Constraints: < Genetic : high inertinite content, high moisture < Operational : mechanized mining in large OCP < Organizational: multiple sources/ linkages

21. Indian Coal as feed to TPS (contd…) Favourable qualities: Genetic  Low Sulphur content ( <0.6%) ` High ash fusion temperature (>1100 o C) ` Low Iron content ` Low Chlorine content ` Low toxic trace elements ` Reactive inertinites

22. Average quality of raw coal fed to the power stations êAsh content: 30-55%, ave. 45% êMoisture content : 4-7%, higher in rainy season êSulphur content : 0.2-0.7% êGCV, Kcal/Kg : 3000-5000, average 3500 êVolatile Matter : 20-25%

23. Year Cost (Rs./t) GCV (kg/kcal) Trend of Pit head Price, Freight charges & Quality (Sachdev-98,CPU-1997 & Boparai-2000)

24. Quality and Cost of Coal and Logistics u Cost of production is cheaper but freight is high u For the last 18 years, increase in freight is 13% against 9% coal price hike/ year u For grade “F” transported beyond 750km, freight increased from 43% to 54% of the delivered cost (1981 to 1999 ) u In western and southern states, Indian coals have to compete with imported coals as freight is presently as high as 71%

25. Non-coking Coal Washing Status in India

26. Probable Benefaction Schemes  blending low ash imported coal with high ash indigenous coal ` mixing finer fraction with Cleans of coarser fraction ` mixing cleans of all fractions (whole coal beneficiation )

27. Present Status of Beneficiation of Non-Coking Coal Washery yr. of Coalfield Capacity Linkage comm. (Mt/y) Piparwar,CCL `1997 Singrauli6.0 Indraprastha Bina, NCL 1997 N. Karanpura4.5 Dadri Dipika, BSES 1998 Korba2.5 Dahanu Gidi,CCL 1999 S.Karanpura 2.5 converted Dugda-I, BCCL 1999 Jharia 1.0 “ Kargali, CCL 1999 E.Bokaro 2.7 “ Parameter: Ash level 34% Ref.: MOEF, Govt.... Of India )

28. Purpose of Beneficiation D To reduce mineral matter content D To minimize abrasive material D To improve combustion qualities Q ? Does 34% ash (MoEF’s mandate) always assure the desired combustion qualities ? A: Ash limit depends on specific combustion qualities

29. From beneficiation point of view, washing a coal at a cut density determined from characteristic ash ( ) of 50-55% minimize the non-combustibles having ash values beyond this limit

30. Probable alternates for Improvement 1 mixing cleans of coarse fraction with untreated smalls limitation: 20-40% of finer fraction (5-10% of whole coal) included as obvious dirt 2 blending a part of raw coal with its cleans limitation: Multiple sources - variable feed

31. 3 blending low ash imported coal with high ash indigenous coal limitation: Blending coals of widely different ranks calls for differential behaviour in boiler 4 mixing cleans of both fractions / whole coal beneficiation limitation: low density of cut with HM Cyclone Probable alternates for Improvement

32. _ beneficiating whole coal, particularly, where crushing to finer size does not help in liberation  washing a coal at a specific gravity determined from = 50-55%. This will minimize the presence of non- combustibles and reduce the hazardous emissions/kWh electricity generated

33. CO2 EMISSION IS CONSIDERED AS THE MAJOR THREAT (THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT) ‘KYOTO PROTOCOL’ demands the reduction in CO2- release and identifies coal fired boilers as the main industrial source

35. CO 2 emission can be reduced by reducing the consumption of coal /kWh of electricity generated

36. Economic advantages of beneficiation: < 30% reduction in coal consumption for same amount of electricity generated < 30% offloading in railway traffic 25% reduction in Fly ash generation < 30% reduction in cost of long distant transportation

37. Washed coal of consistent quality & improved heat value lowers the sp. coal consumption from >0.6 to 0.52-0.55 kg/kWh and the same target of electricity generation can be retained

38. The combined effect of cost, freight and quality of coal and others dictates the maximum distance beyond which only washed coal transportation becomes techno-economically feasible Logistics Logistics

39. Issues to be addressed Strict Quality monitoring Revision of pricing & grading system Rationalistion of linkages Rationalistion of logistics & railway freight Removal of barriers for non-coking coal washing Advanced technology for power generation Proper waste management

40. Efficiency enhancement in Energy Sector must involve all the activities in ‘Coal - Energy chain’ with special emphasis to Improvement in coal quality by judicious beneficiation Conclusion:

41. Improvement in coal quality by judicious beneficiation of Indian coal is, therefore one of the options of efficiency enhancement processes, if not the bare necessity under present context