Tampa Electric yesterday announced that it no longer plans to meet its 2013 need for baseload generation through the use of integrated gasification combined-cycle technology, or IGCC. Primary drivers of the decision announced today include continued uncertainty related to carbon dioxide (CO2) regulations, particularly capture and sequestration issues, and the potential for related project cost increases. Because of the economic risk of these factors to customers and investors, the company believes it should not proceed with an IGCC project at this time.
The company remains steadfast in its support of IGCC as a critical component of future fuel diversity in Florida and the nation, and believes the technology is the most environmentally responsible way to utilize coal, an affordable, abundant and domestically produced fuel. Tampa Electric is recognized as the world leader in the production of electricity from IGCC. The company also believes that IGCC technology offers the best platform to capture and then sequester CO2. Once public policy issues regarding long-term sequestration are resolved, demonstration projects can be conducted that will lead to a better understanding of the science, technologies and economics of sequestration.
“We believe there is a role for IGCC in Tampa Electric’s future generation plans, but with the uncertainty of carbon capture and sequestration regulations being discussed at the federal and state levels, the timing is not right to utilize it for a baseload facility needed by 2013. We are not prepared to expose our customers and shareholders to that risk.” - President Chuck Black
This is but one of the many coal fired power plants that have been either canceled or put on hold - but this is the first IGCC plant I have heard of that has been canceled. Power companies are coming under more pressure to put in environmentally friendly power plants, but the government has not moved on any regulations that require any restriction on CO2 emissions. Several power companies have said they would back carbon capture and sequestration requirements, but they do not want to put in such plants unless their is an even playing field regarding such requirements.
Perhaps the recent development of technologies that can be applied to conventional coal fired power plants is one consideration affecting their decision. Nuclear power is probably the safest route to go as far as not having to worry about CO2 emissions, but its capital expense is still very high and even though the approval process has been simplified, that is yet to be demonstrated in the real world. Natural gas is also a fairly safe route, but future costs of natural gas are quite uncertain.
Renewable energy, especially for large base load plants is not generally accepted as the answer. I would think with TECO's load growing at 150 megawatts per year it might be possible to establish a policy of installing renewable energy incrementally to meet its needs. Florida is situated where solar power, offshore wind and someday wave power might be considered. By installing a mix of renewable energy technologies which have different time periods of peak output, the resulting power production is considerably leveled out to provide a more continuous flow of power. Solar, with about four hours of storage, matches the peak load for most areas. The large load for air conditioning and a fairly small industrial load would seem to me to make a good case for solar power in Florida. Florida Power and Light recently made a commitment to solar power, so at least one utility thinks Florida is a suitable location for solar power.
Power from coal plants won't do Florida much good if it starts going underwater from GW, becomes a regular target of strong hurricanes, or CO2 regulations make it too expensive. All construction of coal-fired plants without sequestration should be cancelled immediately, worldwide.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | October 12, 2007 at 06:39 PM
Engineer-Poet wrote: All construction of coal-fired plants without sequestration should be cancelled immediately, worldwide.
Following what logic? Why are coal plants currently under construction worldwide, given that your theory predicts that none would be? Is your theory, perhaps, wrong?
Posted by: Nucbuddy | October 12, 2007 at 11:17 PM
"Demand in Florida is also growing at twice the national average..."
Huh, that's strange. Most of my friends in florida are planning to move out of state because of housing and insurance costs. Are there really that many people moving TO florida? Must be all those ex-pat Brits fleeing the UK.
Posted by: averagejoe | October 13, 2007 at 01:18 AM
"Why are coal plants currently under construction worldwide, given that your theory predicts that none would be? "
Why deliberately misinterpret EPs post? Seems to be either a lack of intellect or you don't have any real counter argument. Which is it?
Posted by: marcus | October 13, 2007 at 02:54 AM
IGCC seems inferiour to DCFC.
If it's a cleaner, more efficient, sequestration-upgradable coal power technology that is needed, then DCFC makes more sense.
And if the E-P will have his way, these will still be useful later on for oxidizing de-torrified or pyrolized biomass.
Posted by: Amsterdamned | October 13, 2007 at 10:58 AM
averagejoe, just repeating what the news media reported about industry industry claims for Florida but it sounds reliable as far as prediction about the future go.
Nucbuddy, E-P's logic is based on a fundamental ignorance of science, the production of electricity, the environment, climate, and geology. He is very good at if this, maybe that.
There is no evidence that sea level has changed much in the last 12,000 years from glaciers melting. It did change a lot from 20,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago when the massive glaciers covering the the norther hemisphere melted. The climate is more less at a steady state.
We should not fault E-P's logic too much. He is just a useful idiot repeating the AGW hoax. With a 100% certainty I will predict the climate will change. The small fraction of ghg that comes from human activity, will contribute to warming. However within a 95% confidence interval, the contribution will be insignificant.
Suggesting that 'Florida ...if it starts going underwater' is a hoax and should not be the basis for banning coal plants.
Posted by: Kit P | October 13, 2007 at 01:53 PM
Nucbuddy doesn't seem to understand the difference between a theory and a suggestion.
Kit P doesn't seem to understand that if you want to clarify someone else's critique about another post, you do actually have to read, and subsequently understand, the post that is being critiqued upon.
Posted by: Amsterdamned | October 13, 2007 at 03:02 PM
Kit P is a joke which ceased to be funny.
DCFC is definitely more efficient than IGCC. However, IGCC is here now, while DCFC hasn't been taken very far past the lab yet (if at all; I'm not following the progress). We can boost efficiency and sequester carbon with IGCC, so that should be the gameplan for now.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | October 14, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Engineer-Poet,
What effect might a move away from direct-fired coal powerplants have on the concrete industry?
cement.org/tech/faq_scms.asp
Posted by: Nucbuddy | October 14, 2007 at 07:34 AM
IGCC produces ash and/or slag, so the raw material won't go away.
Now that you mention cement, I wonder if it may not be cost-effective to add a cement plant as a part of an IGCC plant and sequester the carbon. The temperature of coal gasifiers reaches the range of the sintering temperature of cement, but I'm not sure how costly it would be to use that few hundred degrees of temperature drop in the hot syngas to make cement.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | October 14, 2007 at 08:55 AM
...And IGCC slag can be used to partially make cement clinker.
One of my concerns would be that the fly-ash produced by IGCC is different from that produced by pulverized-coal (PC) powerplants.
Another of my concerns would be that the rate of production of fly-ash from IGCC is significantly lower. The concrete industry continues to grow at exponential rates, and fly-ash costs continue to rise -- even without the production-volume-reducing effects of IGCC.
Posted by: Nucbuddy | October 14, 2007 at 09:53 AM
Hi
I have been working in power station operation and bit of commissioning in UK,USA & India.
I have got a new contract in Uk for an Insurance company doing power generation plant risk assesments.
Can anyone help me doing this please !
Posted by: Yas | May 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Yas, you do not say if you are evaluating economic risk for the insurance company or risk reduction for employees and the public. In any case, they should have a systematic approach to reducing risk and maintenance while consistently documenting compliance.
Posted by: Kit P | May 14, 2008 at 07:38 PM
fine
Posted by: rajesh kumar | September 19, 2009 at 04:58 AM
Made in China
Posted by: Made in China | March 29, 2010 at 11:22 PM
I definately reccommend them. They're the only ones which seem to be comfortable for me. And believe me, i tried lots of brands. They seem 'softer' than the other brands. Like, they're not as hard, so they're more comfortable to put in. But yeah, i definately recommend them. Alot of my friends use them too.
Posted by: buy propecia | April 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM