New Type of Coal Plant Moves Ahead, Haltingly

New York Times ^ | 12/18/07 | MATTHEW L. WALD

[ricks_place]

WASHINGTON — The nation’s leading effort to build a coal-fired electric plant that will capture and store its carbon emissions will take a shaky step forward on Tuesday, when the consortium building it announces a location for the $1.5 billion plant.

But choosing a location may be the least of the problems for the builders, with the Energy Department making ambiguous statements about its commitment to the project.

The department, which is supposed to pay for most of the work, called the announcement on a location “inadvisable” and seemed to distance itself from the plans, saying in a letter last week that it was “evaluating what the department’s next actions should be” with respect to the consortium and the project. Administration officials have publicly expressed worry over rapidly rising costs.

The squabble shows that despite the dire tone emerging from global negotiations over climate change, and the Bush administration’s insistence on technological leaps as the answer, finding them is likely to be tricky.

The FutureGen Alliance, a consortium of 14 of the world’s largest coal producers and users, will chose a site from among two in Texas and two in Illinois.

The intention is to build a plant that cooks coal into a gas, developing a pure stream of hydrogen that would be burned to make power, and a second stream of carbon dioxide, the main gas implicated in global warming. The carbon dioxide would be pumped underground instead of released into the atmosphere, as happens at a conventional power plant.

[ricks_place]

King Coal has awakened.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

Its dangerous when we get real solutions, because then the environmentally ill crowd might have to get a job where you actually show up for work.

[DrGunsforHands]

I preferred the biomass smokestack-filter solution. How does this stock up to that, economically and efficiency-wise?

[Dan Evans]

A solution? Do you buy the idea that CO2 is a problem?

Costs of this thing are about $6500 a kw. Even a nuclear power plant with the huge legal and regulatory burden costs less than half that in the US.

Separating CO2 from emissions and pumping it into the ground is god-awful expensive.

[Arthur McGowan]

I can’t believe that Freepers are supporting this scam. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant! It’s plant food!!! I’m all for filtering real pollutants from smokestacks, but CO2 is not one of them!

How long is it going to be before Coca-Cola and the rest of that polluting industry—and its CO2-burping clientele—are brought to heel for their destruction of the planet???

[ckilmer]

Actually, some of the initial tests have already been made toward using carbon dioxide from coal plants to fuel algae units that produce many orders of magnitude more biofuel per acre than anything else on the planet

[ricks_place]

This coal fired power plant is being built with our tax dollars. No private business would otherwise invest in a loser. I seem to recall Jimmah Carters Synthetic Fuels Boondoggle; it ended in dust. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what the US Supreme Court decrees.

[dr_lew]

The intention is to build a plant that cooks coal into a gas, developing a pure stream of hydrogen that would be burned to make power, and a second stream of carbon dioxide, the main gas implicated in global warming. The carbon dioxide would be pumped underground instead of released into the atmosphere, as happens at a conventional power plant.

Surely this is inaccurate ????

Since CO2 is a final combustion product, what would be the point of this "second stream" ????

This makes no sense ... to me!

[Octar]

Fools and morons will oppose this.

[ricks_place]

Coal + O2 -> CO2 + H2

H2 + O2 -> H2O + Heat

CO2 -> send underground

[ricks_place]

Fools and morons will oppose this. A waste of tax dolars.

[dr_lew]

This is not what the article implies. You are describing the result of complete combustion of coal, so separation of CO2 from the H2O and CO2 combustion products would be a sort of “scrubbing” of the exhaust. The article says that H2 is separated, and THEN BURNED, implying that this is some sort of gasification process, distinct from combustion. This contradicts the next statement that CO2 is then sent underground, since this is also a combustion product.

[UCANSEE2]

OK. They want coal fired plants that produce/burn Hydrogen and C02.

The plan to prevent release of C02 by pumping it into the ground.
The Hydrogen, when burned will release only Water Vapor into the atmosphere.

This will help prevent global warming.

---

I don’t know what planet these people come from, but here on Earth, C02 has a very minor effect on climate, and OUR ability to change the amount of CO2 is an even smaller percentage.

The ONE THING that does cause weather change is WATER VAPOR.
It is the MAJOR factor, other than the SUN.

So, they are going the wrong direction.

PLUS, it sounds like the development of the plant has become a potential money sucking scam.

[UCANSEE2]

“Since CO2 is a final combustion product, what would be the point of this “second stream” ????”

We have reasons we want to pump massive amounts of CO2 underground, but, you aren’t cleared for that information.

I would, however, like to welcome our new insect masters, (if the CO2 doesn’t work).

[dr_lew]

Wait!

I think you mean:

C ( coal ) + 2H20 -> CO2 + 2H2

This means oxidizing coal by reducing H2O. Well it’s hard to see the point of this, since you’re getting one CO2 for every C in the coal, just as in conventional combustion.

( I have to admit, I was thinking of coal as a hydrocarbon! )

[ricks_place]

Coal (hydrocarbon) and oxygen are converted to carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The carbon dioxide and hydrogen are separated. The carbon dioxide is sequestered underground while the hydrogen is burned.

Hydrogen is easy to separate from much heavier carbon dioxide. Srubber is not necessary. Complete combustion but with a distinct carbon dioxide stream to sequester or to feed your plants!

[dr_lew]

Well, as I just posted, coal is pretty much pure carbon.

[ricks_place]

Well, I didn't mean C ( coal ) + 2H20 -> CO2 + 2H2 . Don't think you'll get much energy.

[ricks_place]

If coal is pure carbon then perhaps enough energy is available. C + H2O -> CO2 + H2 + heat.

[dr_lew]

Well,

Coal + O2 -> CO2 + H2

is an impossibility, as coal does not contain significant H.

C + 2H2O -> CO2 + 2H2

makes some kind of sense as a gasification process, and the oxidation of the H2 would of course make the net result equivalent to C + O2 -> CO2

I can only suppose that “the devil is in the details” and there is some special reason that the CO2 is more easily isolated this way than it would be in simple combustion ... in theory at least.