(this post is not related to real estate and may be a bit too technical for some, so skip it if you want)
Referring post 43914 about our coal resources utilizations, in my opinion Pakistani coal is very utilizable.
On calorific value, this descriptor (also known as 'Lower Heating Value') was indeed a primary measure of coal's value until 10-15 years ago but with technology of today and near future, this descriptor, I believe, is misleading.
Lower heating value indicates coal's value in traditional open-air combustion where high moisture content robs away a lot heat.
But today there exists at least one successful technology, called 'fluidized bed combustion', which has been deployed at scale of several tens of thousands of megawatts during last decade. This technology burns high-moisture coal in a pressurized combustor, thus using combustor also as a pressurized boiler at same time, thus from that pressurized steam it extracts back most of heat taken by moisture vaporization to useful mechanical work.
In simpler words, if using such new technology of coal combustion, the primary measure of coal's performance is 'Higher Heat Value', which Pakistani coal has almost same as low-moisture coals.
Then there also currently exists another coal combustion technology called 'coal-water slurry', practically using coal like furnace oil or kerosene at hundreds of megawatts scale.
Also in very near future, I believe another technology has real potential of utilizing high moisture coal is 'coal gasification', where water content is actually required for coal gasification. This 'coal gas' (actually syngas, H2+CO) can then be used in combined cycle turbines/engines with relatively better efficiency.
Then also in next couple of decades, there are likely to evolve out coal fed fuel cells (prototypes exist today).
On sulfur content, first that the previously discovered Pakistani coal fields (the ones we remember from our Pak-Studies exams) had higher sulfur content, but the major reserves of coal discovered in 90s, including the biggest one we often talk these days, Thar coal reserves, have sulfur content lower, not higher, compared to most widely used coals in world.
Secondly, all above described technologies have been designed, and are being designed to make sulfur scrubbing relatively less costly and more efficient compared to past technologies.
Thirdly, there have been some fruitful researches in treating coal by bacteria to reduce reactive non-carbon elements, including sulfur. Such sulfur-loving-coal-inhabiting bacteria exist in nature and are gradually being improved by US government institutions. This technology is also probably a decade away from commercial deployment.
All above said about coal however, yes it is possible and very important to utilize our coal resources, but at the same time we must not ignore other available resources, like nuclear, hydrological, solar and wind. Importance of these cannot be over-emphasized.
Hydropower is least expensive source of power. It’s almost free in projects with lives longer than 10 years. We haven't tapped even 20% of our hydropower potential.
Then solar power, in most temperate regions the solar power is anticipated to become cheaper than grid power by 2015. In Pakistan even at today's solar cells
prices ($2 per watt) it is possible to generate power at around 15 cents per unit (cheaper than Pakistan's commercial power tariff today, 16 cents per unit).
Then we have wind. We the load-shedding sufferers don't realize how intense 'ocean of energy' flows right above us, like 2500 feet above our lands throughout the country. It is quite high, but not out of our reach. With some innovation, will-power and entrepreneurship this ocean of energy can be tapped. Like this,,,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/03/renewableenergy.energy
If the principle isn't understood well from video, this setup has a repeated cycle of two 'strokes',,,
1) the kite is powered by balanced strings so that kite gets maximum face to wind, and as it gets pulled away the generator at ground is excited to harvest energy. The speed of pull away is let at half of wind speed for maximum energy harvest.
Advanced versions may 'work out' (as in video) by making the kite move also side by side to intercept maximum amount of wind fluid.
2) After the kite has gone far enough, the strings are imbalanced so that kite gets minimum face to wind and pulled back with least amount of air resistance. This weak air pull-back takes back some energy but far less than what was gained in first stroke.
This cycle is repeated again and again with net positive energy gain in each cycle.
I believe such kite based wind-power has realistic potential for following reasons,,,
• wind energy density is cube proportional to wind speed (i.e. twice the wind speed means eight times the energy)
• wind is already a mechanical form energy, so it is less capital intensive and more efficient to convert to electric power
• the structures of this energy harvesting scheme aren't capital intensive (because these structures are pull-based rather than push-based). Its just some fabric and strings arranged in a certain ways, very well known ways from existing power-kite sports.
• if kite is aerodynamic (airplane like) and is 'worked out' (i.e. moved side by side or in wide circle) its energy harvest capability would be square proportional to kite's width-span (i.e. we invest twice in material, nature gives four-folds return)
(by the way, hindsight says a similar 'water kite' version operated in canals, rivers, ocean may also be a cheap and powerful energy source)