Also the mass of coal burnt per kWh of electricity generated goes up by at least a third. Mining costs are up by a third per kWh. Transport costs go up by a third per kWh of electricity generated. Mass and volume of waste ash is up by a third per kWh.
If we say 1 tonne of unabated coal gives around 3 MWh of electricity, then a 33% efficiency 426MWe (gross) dirty good coal plant at 80% utilisation will use around 1 million tonnes of coal a year.
If the trace element thorium concentration in the coal is 1 micro mole per mole (1 ppm) in terms of thorium, then there is maximum of another 4 GW-years worth of nuclear energy obtainable from the 4 tonnes of thorium in the coal ash (and some more energy from the uranium it contains as well)
I now propose the new CCS&CRUTUNE process, please don't take this too seriously... [&CRUTUNE = and Carbon Reversion using Thorium and Uranium Nuclear Energy])
1) Burn the dirty good coal, with ash removal and gas flue desulphurization and also collect and store the CO2 at great expense
2) Process the coal ash to extract the thorium and uranium, plus any other elements that have value.
3) Insert Thorium and Uranium into a nuclear reactor and generate say 1 GW years worth of electricity from 25% of it per year, before the NDA attempts to prematurely add it to its waste inventory.
4) Use half of this energy to convert the stored CO2 back to carbon and then store this clean carbon under ground, and store the Generation IV nuclear fission waste for 300 years in a small corner of the NDA chairman's back garden.
(Obviously my plan fails if Stephen Henwood CBE hasn't got a back garden. In this case I doubt whether a quick solution will emerge because Stephen Henwood CBE himself, has now spent 5 years searching for suitable places in or under other people's back yards with out success)
Total electrical power produced = 1288 MWe
Total electrical power consumed = 638 MWe
New Net Power to the Grid = 650 MWe (a net 224MWe increase over running the dirty coal plant on its own)
Actually as you may have realised by now; what's the point of bothering with the new clean coal plant and the expensive CCS development? if all we need do is develop cheaper Generation IV nuclear energy plants and find other sources of Thorium and Uranium other than from new coal ash (e.g. old coal ash comes to mind).
If we develop cheaper and more cost effective Generation IV nuclear plants, so we don't have to resort to ridiculously expensive CCS in 20 years time, there seems very little reason either to build new Generation III nuclear plants, also at a ridiculously high future cost to consumers and businesses.
Indeed we may actually emit more CO2 in the next 20 years by building expensive Gen III nuclear stations, than if we didn't bother. Generating the heat and electricity to build the nuclear stations will require fossil fuels burnt here or abroad (enormous and unnecessarily large amounts of concrete, iron and steel etc)
Why not use those same fossil fuels resources (and CO2 emissions) to build more Gen IV nuclear plants more quickly from 2035 onwards? Especially since energy usage is going down in the UK at the moment because of rapidly increasing prices.