Clean Coal Power Plant Cancelled

[Androsphinx]

The U.S. government—and major U.S. banks—seem to have lost their appetite for coal. After spending five years and approximately $50 million on preliminary studies as well as selecting a proposed site in Mattoon, Ill., the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has scuttled plans to build the so-called FutureGen power plant. The facility would have captured the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) that is emitted when coal is burned for electricity generation. Instead, the DOE hopes to help industry add carbon-capture-and-storage capability to advanced coal plants already in the works.

"This restructured FutureGen approach is an all-around better investment for Americans," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement announcing the change. The DOE is asking Congress for $407 million to research how to burn coal most efficiently, along with $241 million to demonstrate such carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies—at least $900 million less than DOE said it would have cost to complete FutureGen.

Still up in the air is which power plants will be used to demonstrate CCS; few now employ the required integrated gasification and combined cycle (IGCC) technology capable of turning coal into gaseous form and removing pollutants, among them CO2, before the gas is burned. Further, only a handful are planned, because of the rising costs of cement, steel and other materials as well as the additional cost of the technology.

"IGCC is not advancing very well," notes principal research engineer Howard Herzog at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (M.I.T.) Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. "There may be one commercial IGCC plant coming, the Duke Energy plant in Indiana, and there's the Southern Company's [demonstration] plant. Beyond that, I don't really see a lot."

He notes that canceling FutureGen will slow the pace of developing this technology, which may prove crucial in demonstrating that coal can be burned without emitting massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants. "There is no way we will get anything before 2012 on the same type of scale and I'm not convinced that anybody's going to be able to do it cheaper than FutureGen," Herzog says. Either "we have to see the coal industry dwindle and disappear or sit back and see what impacts we get from climate change, both of which are not good alternatives."

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified carbon capture and storage as a critical technology for reducing emissions, not only from power plants but also from industries that manufacture cement, chemicals and steel. Given the scale of the climate change problem—and the relatively short window of time left to address it—delays in demonstrating the feasibility of such technology will be difficult to overcome, notes M.I.T. physicist Ernest Moniz, who co-chaired a recent report on the future of coal. "Gasification looks today to be the lowest cost option with carbon capture," he says.

Although there have been a few demonstrations that it is possible to store relatively small amounts of CO2 deep below the ground—largely to push more oil and natural gas to the surface—there is no commercial-scale power plant that both captures and stores greenhouse gases, Moniz adds. Without such technology, it may prove difficult to get any coal-fired power plants built at all. Investment banks such as Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, for example, have drawn up funding guidelines that would preclude capital for new power plants that lack the ability to adapt to future CO2 regulations.

Scientific American

[wjs7744]

I notice the conspicuous absence of what they actually plan to do with the CO2. It's all very well capturing it, but it's not going to just then disappear into thin air (that would kind of defeat the purpose). Is there any industrial use for CO2 in the kind of quantities they are proposing, or will it just be dumped, like nuclear waste? If so, what are the advantages it will have over nuclear power? Even if all these questions are answered, coal is a limited resource, in the same way oil is. What are the projections on our global supply?

This doesn't really provide many answers, and frankly when someone claims not to be advocating coal, despite earlier saying that it would be a bad thing for the coal industy to dwindle and die, I get skeptical.

Of course, anyone who seems to be suggesting that you can burn coal without producing CO2, I will look at him in a funny way. How good is this source?

[Admiral Valdemar]

It is usually pumped into the vacuum left by oil and gas and the deposit then sealed. However, this is tricky in practice and expensive to do, so very few have gone this route. Least of all the most important coal user: China. China doesn't even put scrubbers on the coal plants it has now.

[Alferd Packer]

I recall seeing a picture somewhere where they were pumping the CO2 emitted by a coal plant into this huge array of clear sacks which contained that algae that produces biodiesel. Or maybe it was just algae; point was, they were using the algae to scrub the CO2 produced by the plant, which I thought was a novel approach.

[Rekkon]

The coal gassification plant near my hometown has a CO2 pipeline that runs off to oil fields where they pump it down to help extract the heavier stuff. How much is allowed to escape into the atmosphere during this process I do not know.