The Dirty War Against Clean Coal

New York Times ^ | June 29, 2009 | Gregg Easterbrook

[reaganaut1]

WHILE President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse gases has been the big topic of recent environmental debate, the White House has also been pushing a futuristic federal project to build a power plant that burns coal without any greenhouse gases. Sounds great, right? Except the idea is a rehash of a proposal that went bust the first time around.

More important, the technology already exists to make huge reductions in greenhouse emissions from coal, allowing power companies to begin cutting the carbon footprint of coal today. Instead, advanced-technology coal power sits on the shelf while regulators wait to see what happens with a project that may be just an expensive boondoggle.

...

Current coal-fired power plants burn pulverized coal using a combustion process that hasn’t changed in a half a century. The new approach turns coal into a gas similar to natural gas, which runs through a device similar to a jet engine. Such plants can achieve near-zero emissions of toxic material and chemicals that form smog, and they require about a third less coal than regular coal-fired power plants to produce an equal amount of energy, which means about a third lower greenhouse gases.

Beyond that, the promising technology of “sequestering” carbon dioxide — pumping it back into the ground to keep it out of atmosphere — appears for technical reasons to be impractical for conventional pulverized-coal power plants. But gasification plants have technical characteristics that should make “sequestration” of carbon feasible. A gasification power plant with sequestration would have around two-thirds lower greenhouse gases than a conventional coal-fired generating station.

The first commercial gasification power plant, designed by General Electric for Duke Energy, is being built in Indiana. Yet, absurdly, most state public-utility commissions have denied requests to construct these environmentally friendly systems.

[reaganaut1]

global warming ping

[Nuc1]

When I saw carbon footprint I knew it was an idiotic article. Then I saw it was from the NYT. But I repeat myself. How them dims workin out fo ya WVa?

[ripley]

“The Dirty War Against Clean Coal”

“Carbon footprints” are the red herrings to throw off the dogs.

The real question is when and under what circumstances will the energy industry be controlled by a liberal congress and their handlers in the international arena.

IMHO

[CPOSharky]

Fix global warming (which does not exist) by eliminating CO2 (which does not cause global warming) in an expermental “clean coal” plant (which does not do what is is supposed to do) is a project worth repeating at a cost of billions of dollars.

Demonrat logic at work.

[pappyone]

“...they require about a third less coal than regular coal-fired power plants to produce an equal amount of energy, which means about a third lower greenhouse gases.”

No mention of a third less cost to the comsumer.
Wonder why?

[SC Swamp Fox]

"...and they require about a third less coal than regular coal-fired power plants to produce an equal amount of energy,..."

I don't know anything about this process but this statement broke the needle on my BS meter.

[CPOSharky]

No mention of a third less cost to the consumer.

The cost of coal is what part of the total cost of electricity production?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Don't think it's correct. The gasification units do work well and there are about a dozen working around the world. One is in Negeshi, Japan, running on petroleum coke from an oil refinery.

[Leo Farnsworth]

“I don't know anything about this process but this statement broke the needle on my BS meter.”

I had a 1945 Dodge pickup. It's six cylinder engine produced 85 HP and it got 8 MPG.

My six cylinder 2007 pick up has 247 HP and gets 20 MPG.

The coal ‘turbine’ is just more efficient - it can produce more work (output) with a similar input of fuel.

[backhoe]

From November 03, 2008

Coal Industry in Extreme Danger: Obama/Biden Caught on Tape! (PA, OH, WV, VA, KY, MT, WY, TN)

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx again reaganaut1 !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[JimRed]

There’s no such thing as clean coal. I saw a lefty ad that said so, so it MUST be true!

[The Great RJ]

The idea of “sequestering” carbon dioxide by pumping it into the ground or chemically altering it is ludicrous. Human beings exhale carbon dioxide with every breath they take as do all animals on this planet. Should we thus be “sequestering” the CO2 we emit or is the fact that we will be taxed to death as a result of cap and trade sufficient offset the “sin” of our breathing?

[Palmetto]

I don't know anything about this process but this statement broke the needle on my BS meter.

Eh, I can buy it. These turbines are as efficient as you can get....those old boilers, not so much. Not that it really mattered, anyway, due to coal's abundance.

[texas booster]

From the DOE website, from 1998!

_________________________________

GASIFICATION POWER PLANTS -DRAWING BOARD CONCEPTS BECOME COMMERCIAL -SCALE REALITIES : WABASH RIVER COAL GASIFICATION REPOWERING PROJECT

Description

The Wabash River facility, featuring the Destec gasification process, is the first commercial application of several advances in gasification technology and gas cleanup. The participant is Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture, formed in 1990 by Destec Energy Inc. (Destec), of Houston, Texas, and PSI Energy, Inc. (PSI), of Plainfield, Indiana. They formed this joint venture to demonstrate coal gasification repowering of an existing PSI generating station. The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project was selected in September 1991 by DOE as a CCT Program round IV demonstration. The Project is located at PSI’s Wabash River Generating Station near West Terre Haute, Indiana. The Cooperative Agreement was signed in July 1992, and the demonstration of this advanced Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) power plant was initiated in December 1995. Local high-sulfur coal is processed to produce 262 MWe (net) of clean, low cost, energy with an efficient baseload capacity.

In June 1998 Natural Gas Clearinghouse, NGC, changed the name from Destec to Dynegy. In its third year of commercial operation, the plant continues to demonstrate IGCC’s ability to operate as part of an electric utility power grid. The Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project has demonstrated very impressive operating statistics for the facility's “1998 Commercial Operating Year.” In 1998 the syngas facility 1) processed over 560,000 tons of coal and 2) produced 8.8 trillion Btu's of Syngas, which were significant accomplishments.

Goals

The goal of the Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project is to demonstrate the repowering of an existing pulverized coal fired plant with IGCC technology. The project has also successfully demonstrated the goal of gasification of high sulfur Illinois basin coal.

Tangible Benefits

National:

The plant is one of the cleanest coal-fired plants in the world. Emissions of SO 2 are more than ten times lower than the year 2000 Clean Air Act requirements and emit no particulates while operating with high-sulfur Illinois Basin coals. The technology is nearly ready to move into commercial operation.

Regional:

High sulfur bituminous coal is plentiful in the region and the gasification process is able to utilize the coal.

[GOYAKLA]

Why when video is played of supposed carbon emission(smoke)do I see Nuclear Chimneys? I did not realize that Nuke plants produced carbon emissions.
Also a lot of other steam (water vapor)is shown as those bad carbon emissions. Am I the only one who can tell the difference?

[Old Professer]

Implied is that the process extracts hydrogen from the water/coal slurry, I suppose; coal has 11000 btu/lb; methane has 21000 btu/lb; and hydrogen has 62000 btu/lb.

This would require no more than 31000 btu of outside energy to separate the hydrogen from the water — rather challenging, on its face.

[norraad]

The same concept would do a world of good in our motorized fleet.

Raising the pressure of our fuel injectors or some other way to better atomize gasoline so each molecule is properly surrounded w/oxygen for more complete combustion would greatly improve MPG and lower emissions simultaneously.

My father worked at a research facility working on this many years ago, but from on high came the decision for catalytic converters(they waste the unburned fuel as heat).

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Time for the Torches and Pitchforks!