The Energy Blog

The Beginning of the End for Coal

A post on Earth Policy Institute describes the difficulty power companies are having in getting coal fired power plants approved. There first paragraph sums up the difficulty they are having:

With concerns about climate change mounting, the era of coal-fired electricity generation in the United States may be coming to a close. In early 2007, a U.S. Department of Energy report listed 151 coal-fired power plants in the planning stages in the United States. But during 2007, 59 proposed plants were either refused licenses by state governments or quietly abandoned. In addition, close to 50 coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged when they reach the permitting stage.

The post goes on to outline 18 events that have occurred in the last year that have contributed to this dilemma.  The latest action was the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives that would block the EPA and states from issuing permits to new coal-fired power plants that lack state-of-the-art carbon capture and storage, CCS, technology. A comment added to this item was: Since this technology is at least a decade away from commercial viability, if this bill passes it would essentially place a near-term moratorium on new coal-fired power plants.

We have an urgent need for more power production and some way of providing this power must be provided. If the bill introduced in house should pass, as proposed, we would be dependent on renewable energy, nuclear power and conservation to provide the power in the near term. Since these options would not be sufficient, we could only hope that this bill would not pass or it would be modified before passage.

I disagree that CCS technology is at least a decade from commercial viability -- I believe that at least one technology will be successfully demonstrated in 5-7 years. We have at least four CCS technologies in the testing stage and I would propose that coal fired power plants be allowed to be built, 1) under more stringent conditions that the power is needed, 2) that they be located where carbon sequestration can take place and 3) that they be built so that the emerging CCS technologies can be easily adapted to the plant. Their are two ammonia based systems and two amine based systems that I am aware of. It may be necessary to pick one of these technologies or it may be possible to provide (perhaps massive) piping connections that would allow any process to be connected.

While many will say that conservation of electricity is the answer, it is only part of the solution. It will take many years before a structured plan could be put in place.  It may be possible that certain industries could be found where conservation could be mandated, if that can be done constitutionally. Higher prices for electricity may end up being the the greatest force causing conservation. Practices that reduce electrical consumption in the home have been written about by many and these should receive more widespread availability. A simple search on your favorite search engine using the search words "home electricity efficiency" brings up several sources including this one, How to Save Electricity in Your Home from the Edison Electric Institute.

Nuclear and Renewable energy simply cannot be brought up to speed fast enough to meet all our needs, although I think they should be accelerated as fast as possible.  Incentives for renewables should be maintained until the industries are fully sustainable. Geothermal energy has become my favorite renewable energy because it is a baseload power provider, and with new, hot dry rock, HDR, technology can be located in almost all areas of the world, as such it should receive much more funding for demonstration plants from the government. At least four geothermal projects, two funded by DOE and one in France and one in Germany using HDR technology are already underway. Although a large number of HDR plants could be built with existing technology, it might take 10 or 15 years before this technology can be applied universally.

An exception could be made on my, and the US governments, stand that only a few generation III+ nuclear plants can be be built until they have demonstrated that they can operated safely.  If it could be shown that the AP1000 and AREVA plants, and any other that meet US criteria, have been safely and successfully operated in a foreign country, the requirement for operation in the US could be waived.

Chilled Ammonia Carbon Capture Process to be Demonstrated

A pilot plant that uses chilled ammonia to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal-fueled power plants was launched by Alstom, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and We Energies, at We Energies’ Pleasant Prairie Power Plant in Wisconsin. Alstom designed, constructed and will operate the 1.7 MW system that captures CO2 from a portion of coal-fired boiler flue gas at the power plant, a 1,224 MW coal-fired generating station.

Alstom’s process uses chilled ammonia to capture CO2 and isolates it in a highly concentrated, high-pressure form. In laboratory testing it has demonstrated the potential to capture more than 90 percent of CO2 at a cost that is far less than other carbon capture technologies. Once captured, the CO2 can be used commercially or sequestered in suitable underground geologic sites.

“Developing cost-effective carbon capture technology is one of the most important environmental challenges facing the utility industry in the 21st century and it’s important that we take steps now to achieve a long-term technology solution”

-- Gale Klappa, Chairman, President and CEO of Wisconsin Energy, parent company of We Energies

This process sounds like one that could be fairly easily integrated into existing power plants and lead the way towards the government requiring carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at all coal fired power plants.  Note that this project is being done with no government financing. Other technologies that are being developed and that have been reported on by TEB, include: ones using ZIFs, sodium hydroxide, or amine based solvents, another, I believe ambient temperature ammonia system, algae systems, and an e.coli system.  These processes are aimed at conventional coal fired plants.  IGCC and Oxyfuel plants isolate the CO2 as part of the processes so carbon capture is a much simpler process, but these plants cost more than conventional coal plants.  There is disagreement whether conventional plants with CCS or IGCC plants with just sequestration are the most economical and which plants will dominate the industry in the future.  In any case there is a huge number of existing conventional coal plants that need CCS, once legislation is passed requiring it.

Bank of America to Assess Cost of Carbon on Loans to Utility Companies

The banking industry is taking an increasing interest in green energy and carbon emissions, in lieu of the Federal government not taking any action. Because of this failing, the Bank of America has decided to start assessing the cost of carbon in their risk and underwriting processes for loans to power companies, currently estimating the cost of carbon will fall between $20-$40 per ton of carbon dioxide, anticipating that either a carbon tax will be assessed in the future or that CCS will be required at some point. This follows the establishment of the Carbon Principles, which established guidelines for banks to use in considering the risk factors in making loans to power companies, as announced by a consortium of banks on Feb. 4.

This action effectively acts as a carbon tax and will raise the cost of electricity from power plants emitting carbon to a cost that will give renewable energy a fairer playing field.  This action could increase the spread between the cost of electricity made from nuclear power and coal power, considering that nuclear does not produce any carbon due to the operation of their plants. While I support Gen III+ nuclear (the next generation of nuclear plants), I also believe that the direct and indirect subsidies that the government gives nuclear plants should be eliminated (not much chance of this happening though), which would probably bring coal plants with CCS back into more favorable economics as compared to nuclear.

This action should help clear up the logjam that has been developing regarding construction of new coal fired plants. Because the procedures for approval of Gen III+ plants have not been ironed out, it will still take an extended period to get the first few of these on line. Also the nuclear industry has said that it will not build additional plants until the first 6-8 of these plants are in operation. Thus coal plants will probably start being built again in the not to distant future.  Wind power is near the point where their manufacturing capacity is significant and this should keep their growth rate growing strong.  Solar has many years (5-7) before their capacity could reasonably be expected to be significant and their costs reduced, so the immediate impact on them is nil -- still waiting for more silicon capacity and thin-film technologies to be more developed. However these factors have not kept solar from growing at a high pace.   

In a speech at the Feb. 12 North Carolina Issues Forum Ken Lewis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bank of America made the following statements outlining his banks position on this subject: 

Plans for Coal-to-Liquids Facility Announced

Fuel Frontiers, Inc. (FFI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Nuclear Solutions, Inc. (OTC:NSOL), announced that it is working with Shaw Stone & Webster (Shaw) to launch an engineering program that will provide a technical basis for a 400 Tonne per day Coal-To-Liquid (CTL) Ultra-Clean Diesel fuel production facility in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky.

FFI is planning to employ a commercially proven plasma gasification system designed by Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (WPC) coupled to commercially available Fischer-Tropsch (FT) gas-to-liquids (GTL) diesel fuel production systems, to be designed and constructed by Shaw for its coal to ultra-clean diesel production facilities.

The WPC website states that "in the plasma gasification process CO₂ can be captured and sequestered." Unless this option is selected I could not support the building of this facility. In this day and age I would think that if a process did not release any CO₂ it would be mentioned in the press release.  I would hope that vehicles with better mileage, plug-in hybrids, electric vehicle and biofuels could be developed to the extent necessary to minimize our liquid fuel needs.  On the other hand, if a coal-to-liquids plant could be built with no CO₂ emissions, that competes economically with other sources of liquid fuels, it could be another resource to add too the mix.

FutureGen Scrapped, CCS to be Demonstrated on Multiple Clean Coal Power Plants

From a DOE announcement:

DOE announced a restructured approach to its FutureGen project that aims to demonstrate cutting-edge carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology at multiple commercial-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) clean coal power plants.

Under this strategy, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will join industry in its efforts to build IGCC plants by providing funding for the addition of CCS technology to multiple plants that will be operational by 2015.  This approach builds on technological research and development advancements in IGCC and CCS technology achieved over the past five years and is expected to at least double the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered compared to the concept announced in 2003.  . . .

The Department today issued a Request for Information (RFI) that seeks industry’s input by March 3, 2008, on the costs and feasibility associated with building clean coal facilities that achieve the intended goals of FutureGen.  Following this period and consideration of industry comment, DOE intends to issue a Funding Opportunity Announcement – or competitive solicitation – to provide federal funding under cooperative agreements to equip IGCC (or other clean coal technology) commercial power plants that generate at least 300 megawatts, with CCS technology aimed at accelerating near-term technology deployment.  . . .

Under this plan, DOE’s investment would provide funding for no more than the CCS component of the power plant – not the entire plant construction, compared with the FutureGen concept announced in 2003 where the federal government would incur 74% of rising costs.  This would allow for commercial operation of IGCC power plants equipped with CCS technology to begin as soon as the plants are commissioned, between 2015 and 2016.  . . .

The four sites – two in Illinois and two in Texas – evaluated in the Department’s Environmental Impact Statement issued in November 2007, including the site announced by the FutureGen Alliance in December 2007, Mattoon, IL, may be eligible to host a commercial-scale IGCC plant with CCS technology.

I think this approach is much better than the original, provided it does not delay the demonstration of CCS and the following legislation to require CCS, or equivalent technology, on future coal fired plants.

Crude Reserves in US Decline, Natural Gas Reserves Increase

U.S. crude oil proved reserves declined 4 percent in 2006, while natural gas reserves increased by 3% according to estimates released by the Energy Information Administration

The Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore and Alaska, two of the largest oil producing areas, respectively reported 10 and 7 percent declines in crude oil proved reserves. This was due to downward revisions and fewer new discoveries. Utah reported the largest increase in crude oil proved reserves, adding 78 million barrels (a 30 percent increase from 2005), followed by Colorado and New Mexico. 

Domestic crude oil production declined 5 percent in 2006 due mostly to lower production in Alaska. Part of the decline resulted from an August 2006 shut-in of producing wells in half of the Prudhoe Bay Field for inspection and repair of corrosion in the gathering system. For the second year in a row Montana had the largest annual oil production increase of any state (6 million barrels; a 20 percent increase) owing to continued development of the Bakken Formation in the Elm Coulee Field. This relatively new and important oil field is difficult to produce and requires cutting-edge technology for economic production.

U.S. natural gas proved reserves increased 3 percent in 2006, rising to over 211 trillion cubic feet, the highest level since 1976. Additions to reserves replaced 136 percent of the dry natural gas produced in 2006. This was the eighth year in a row that U.S. natural gas proved reserves have increased.

Total U.S. natural gas production increased in 2006 due to production increases in Texas (Barnett Shale), Louisiana, and the Rocky Mountain states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Montana). Gulf of Mexico natural gas production declined the most with a 6 percent drop.

Advance Summary: U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves 2006 Annual Report is available on the EIA Internet site at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/advanced_summary/current/adsum.pdf

An Inconvenient, Dirty Truth About Cheap and Plentiful Coal

This column from the Canadian Globe and Mall gives the writers opinion of the role coal will play in our future energy needs. For those of you that thought renewable energy, conservation and perhaps a new fleet of nuclear reactors were going to save our climate, this article gives a rather dismal picture.    

If you want to make money and don't mind spitting up black phlegm and destroying the planet, buy coal. While the energy markets and the media are obsessed with rising oil prices, the developing world is quietly gearing up for a coal development and consumption spree of astounding proportions. The energy markets of tomorrow are not about oil and hydrogen and wind turbines spinning lazily on ridges. They're about coal, which is cheap and plentiful but also the worst news for the environment that you could imagine in the post-Al Gore world.

The investor case for coal is hard to beat.  . . .

In a gas-fired plant, 3 per cent to 4 per cent by volume of the flue gases flung into the atmosphere are carbon dioxide. The figure in a coal plant is 15 per cent. No wonder the IEA predicts coal's share of global carbon dioxide emissions will rise from 38 per cent in 2000 to 45 per cent in 2030.  .  .  .

In fact, no large coal plant anywhere on the planet uses carbon capture. The technology is said to be coming but you can bet it won't arrive quickly. Designing and building a plant that uses carbon capture can add 50 per cent to the capital costs.  . . . more

Thanks to Tyler of Clean Break for the tip.

Gore Nightmare Wins as Europe Pays to Ship U.S. Coal

Bloomberg has current article on the worlds love affair with coal:

Gore, said that ago the U.S. should adopt a "complete moratorium on new coal-fed power plants unless all of the carbon dioxide from them can be buried underground." . . .

A ton of U.S. coal is so cheap at about $47 that European utilities will pay $50 to ship it across the Atlantic, according to Galbraith's Ltd., a 263-year-old London shipbroker. While oil and coal cost the same as recently as 1998, West Texas Intermediate crude is five times more expensive after climbing to a record $96.24 on Nov. 1. . . .

"Coal is by far the cheapest fuel because there's no price on how much damage it causes,'' said John Holdren, a Harvard University professor of environmental science and director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts.  . . .  more.

Gores statement agrees with the position that I have, I hope my position wasn't influence by Gore.

Kansas Turns Down Coal Power Plant Because of CO2 Emissions

An article in the Washington Post reports, on what could be a major decision in the fight against global warming, that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment. . . .

It may be the first of a series of similar state actions inspired by a Supreme Court decision in April that asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act. . . . more

Update, 12:34 am:

This is not the only coal plant in trouble, as this article in the Austin American Statemen reports:  At least 16 coal-fired power plant proposals nationwide have been scrapped in recent months and more than three dozen have been delayed as utilities face increasing pressure due to concerns over global warming and rising construction costs. . . . more

Update, 1:48 am:

In Energy and Capital Jeff Siegel wrote: This past Tuesday, American Electric Power Company agreed to a $4.6 billion settlement over pollution controls at its power plants. The company will also have to shell out $15 million in civil penalties and $60 million in cleanup and mitigation costs. . . . more

If this precedent is followed, and it will be cited by environmentalists in future applications for air quality permits for future coal powered power plants, we may not need additional legislation to require carbon capture and sequestration, unless a law is passed exempting carbon dioxide from the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  The later would be a very unpopular law with citizens and, I believe, from Democrats and without much support from Republicans in an election year.  Until this is straighted out in appeals courts, it looks like a big win for nuclear power and renewables as utilities will be less willing to take a chance on coal powered power plants. This will also be a big boon for wind power and thermal solar in the near future, until PV solar becomes more competitive. The fact is that coal power is getting more expensive as many other sources are becoming less expensive.

Coal Power Limited in California

The Los Angeles Times reported that the state of California  had acted to limit use of coal power. The California Energy Commission on Wednesday imposed new rules that effectively forbid the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and all other municipal utilities in the state from signing new contracts with coal-fired power plants.

California has largely phased out coal-fired generators within its borders, but the state still buys about 20% of its electricity from coal-fueled power plants in other states.

The maximum emissions allowed under the new rules are 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity. This rule would, in effect, require coal-fired power plants to use sequestration technology that would pipe carbon dioxide into underground repositories in order to keep selling power to California.

This is one way to make power plants minimize their CO2 emissions.  A rather drastic step that could not be carried out nationwide. I would be in favor of a law that would require all new plants to sequester their CO2 and existing plants to employ sequestration over a period of years. California gets most of their power from other sources and the impact of this rule will be to encourage more renewable power generation which would not be practical in other parts of the country that, on the average, get 50% of their electricity from coal power plants.

Southern California Edison Proposes Clean Hydrogen Power Generation to Reduce GHG Emissions

According to a press release dated May 17, Edison International’s (NYSE:EIX) electricity utility, Southern California Edison (SCE), has requested approval to build and test a commercial 600 MW power plant to determine the feasibility of a new combination of several advanced “clean” coal technologies in an effort to advance these emerging approaches to low-carbon generation. 

Their proposal consist of:

• A gasifier that combines coal and steam with a controlled amount of oxygen under high pressures to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
• Converting the carbon monoxide to additional hydrogen and carbon dioxide in the shift conversion.
• Further processing the gasses to remove sulfur, mercury, and carbon dioxide. 
• Sequestering the carbon in a depleted oil formation, enabling enhanced oil recovery, or in a deep saline formation.
• Producing a mostly hydrogen fuel, emitting only 10 percent of the carbon released by an integrated gasification combined-cycle coal project without carbon capture.
• The hydrogen is fed to gas turbines where electricity is generated.
• Exhaust heat from the gas turbines is used to create steam and drive additional turbines.
• The use of these technologies in a full-scale, 600-megawatt (MW) commercial generating facility.

Bush seeks to scrap current ethanol standard

Reuters, March 20, 2007 -- The Bush administration has proposed scrapping the current U.S. renewable fuels standard that requires ethanol  ...

Under the legislative proposal sent to Congress on Monday, the new standard would require U.S. ethanol and alternative fuel consumption to reach 10 billion gallons in 2010.

The alternative fuels standard would then slowly rise through 2014, and ramp up the following three years to reach 35 billion gallons annually in 2017. ...

In addition to ethanol, alternative fuels under the bill would include biodiesel and motor fuel made from municipal solid waste, natural gas, hydrogen, coal-derived liquid fuels, electricity and other fuels to be determined by the Energy Department. ... more

The change in definition of renewable fuel requirements from only ethanol to the other listed fuels makes attainment of the 35 billion gallons annually goal by 2017 more achievable, as I have stated previously.  Combined with greater emphasis on PHEVs and BEVs our greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil can be greatly reduced. The coal liquids should be required to be produced from coal mined in an environmentally consious manner and the CTL process be required to sequester all emissions.

B&W Aquires Rights to CO2 Emissions Control Technology

In addition to its announcement with AEP to develop oxyfuel powerplants B&W, a unit of McDermott International, Inc.(NYSE: MDR), also announced on March 15 that it has signed an agreement with CO2 solutions (CDNX: CST.V) for the acquisition of a license option and a significant contribution to the costs of a joint technological development program.

CO2 Solutions has developed a bioreactor, containing packing that has an enzyme, extracted from genetically engineered E. coli,  attached to it, that can absorb CO2 and convert it into bicarbonate, which is an environmentally safe product that is use to capture CO2 from the exhaust from power plants and industrial facilities.

B&W will purchase an exclusive option to license to market, in North America, the technology developed by CO2 Solutions for use in coal combustion based electricity generating plant applications. To acquire this option, B&W is making an initial payment of $500,000 US upon signing the agreement, and will make a second payment of $500,000 US following the attainment of certain pre-determined milestones. Furthermore, as part of the agreement, B&W will take on the expenses involved in adapting this technology for a pilot project at a coal fired plant, which was announced last October. The agreement also foresees that in light of the results obtained, the two companies may undertake negotiations for a license grant.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), CO2 emissions from coal fired power generation in the United States were nearly 2 Billion tons in 2006, or approximately one-third of total U.S. emissions. These emissions were equivalent to CO2 emissions from the transportation sector, including automobiles. This analysis suggests that capture and storage of CO2 emissions from coal power plants is an important part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as a large market for companies producing equipment for mitigating these emissions.

Thanks to Tyler at Clean Break for the tip.

There seems to be a rash of news recently on technologies that control CO2 emissions. A sign that the world is waking up to the problem of global warming and by industry that the time has come that will allow them to make some money on this problem.

AEP Signs Two MOUs for Technologies to Reduce CO2 Emissions

American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) announced two significant memorandums of understanding (MOU) regarding technologies that would reduce CO2 emissions from coal powered electric power plants.

The first MOU is with Babcock and Wilcox Company, a unit of McDermott International, Inc.(NYSE: MDR) to pursue the viability of retrofitting power plants with oxy-coal combustion (oxycombustion) to existing power plants to reduce CO2 and other emissions. Under the terms of the MOU the companies will assess the application of oxy-coal combustion as a retrofit to an existing AEP plant, and work toward the development of the first oxy-coal commercial validation project in the United States.

The second MOU is with Alstom (Paris: ALS) to bring Alstom’s chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture to full commercial scale of up to 200 MW by 2011. The technology has the great advantage versus other technologies of being fully applicable not only for new power plants, but also for the retrofit of existing coal-fired power plants.

B&W Oxy-Coal Combustion

Oxy-coal combustion uses pure oxygen for the combustion of coal in electricity generating plants. In this system, nitrogen that comes in with the air for the combustion process is eliminated. As a result, the exhaust gas is a relatively pure stream of CO2 that is ready for capture and sequestration or alternate uses such as enhanced oil recovery. Use of this technology is expected to result in near-zero emissions from coal-fired electric-generating facilities. B&W has established a collaboration agreement with American Air Liquide, Inc. for the continued development of the technology.

The Future of Coal

An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group examined the role of coal in a world where constraints on carbon dioxide emissions are adopted to mitigate global climate change. Their report, The Future of Coal, examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens, the global warming crisis.

The report is extremely comprehensive and in my view very objective and should play an important role in determining government policy regarding coal fired power plants.

They are especially critical of the government picking a technology "winner." Although IGCC is the lowest cost solution at the present they contend that super critical pulverized coal plants or oxycombustion plants could be competitive and deserve more funding. They also conclude that a significant reduction of carbon emissions is possible only when a significant price is placed on CO2 emissions.

The remainder of this post is composed of excerpts of key parts of the report.

This report evaluates the technologies and costs associated with the generation of electricity from coal along with those associated with the capture and sequestration of the carbon dioxide produced coal-based power generation. Growing electricity demand in the U.S. and in the world will require increases in all generation options (renewables, coal, and nuclear) in addition to increased efficiency and conservation in its use. Coal is likely to remain an important source of energy in any conceivable future energy scenario.

The report concludes that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs.

According to Dr. Deutch, Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry "As the world's leading energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work. Demonstration of technical, economic, and institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give policymakers and the public confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should carbon emission controls be adopted, and will maintain the low-cost coal option in an environmentally acceptable manner."

TXU Deal Falls Short of Headlines

The New and Improved TXU
The Texas Observer, February 28, 2007

During a House committee hearing yesterday afternoon, legislators grilled parties to the TXU buyout for more details on the deal. ...

-The 10 percent rate reduction the new owners are promising to some TXU consumers is in fact mostly a repackaging of two pre-existing $25 “customer appreciation bonuses.” ...

-It appears that the promise to not build eight of TXU’s 11 proposed coal-fired power plants does not constitute a future ban on all coal plants. “We did not commit for any time period to a complete moratorium on coal plants,” said the private equity rep. ...

Ban Coal Fired Power Plants?

Banning new coal power plants will slow warming: NASA scientist
AFP, Mon Feb 26, 2007

A moratorium on coal-fired power plants is key to cutting carbon dioxide emissions that promote global warming, NASA's top climatologist said Monday. "There should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants until the technology to capture and sequester the (carbon dioxide emissions) is available," said James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While I agree with this statement in principle, what are we to do to meet our power needs in the meantime? This has been a dilemma of mine for some time. Conservation, renewable energy, nuclear power plants and coal plants with sequestration are all answers, but no technology except conventional coal can meet our near term needs for power. The above statement does't really address emissions from vehicles, but obviously my stand on this would be to promote vehicles that use battery power.

Power companies have about 150 conventional coal powered power plants planned for the next few years and, although they are receiving strong opposition by environmentalists, there is little alternative if we are to build anything.

Pulverized Coal vs IGCC

Two recent newspaper articles discuss the arguments as to whether pulverized coal or IGCC power plants are the better coal fired power plants to build, in the context of suitability to control greenhouse gas emissions.

A February 21 article in the New York Times sums up the arguments as follows:

Environmentalists are worried, but they put their faith in a technology that gasifies the coal before burning. Such plants are designed, they say, to be more adaptable to separating the carbon and storing it underground.

Most utility officials counter that the gasification approach is more expensive and less reliable, but they say there is no need to worry because their tried-and-true method, known as pulverized coal, can also be equipped later with hardware to capture the global warming gas.

Great Point's Coal Gasification Process

Cheaper Natural Gas from Coal

Peter Fairley, MIT Technology Review, Jan. 30, 2007

Great Point says that its catalytic process could put coal back in your basement.

In the second half of the 20th century, oil- and natural gas-burning furnaces drove coal out of the home-heating business across North America. But if Great Point Energy--a Boston-area startup with a low-cost process for converting coal into pipeline-grade natural gas--has its way, coal may start keeping us toasty again before long. ...

The process [takes place] in one single, efficient reactor by moving the catalysts into the gasifier itself. The key is a proprietary, recyclable catalyst developed in house with help from gasification and catalysis experts at Southern Illinois University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Tennessee, among others. The catalyst  lowers the amount of heat required to gasify coal and simultaneously transforms the gasified coal into methane. In fact, the heat released in the syngas-to-methane step is sufficient to sustain the gasification, eliminating the need to fire up the reactions with purified oxygen. "It's perfectly heat balanced," says CEO Andrew Perlman. ...

This story is an update on Great Point from my previous more detailed post of April, 26,2006, and familiarizes some of my newer readers with the technology. This technology in many ways is similar to the technology described in yesterdays post about USSEC to turn soybeans into biofuel, but from a much more credible source. 

Geen Fuel Utilizes Low-Rank Coal

As reported in a UPI article:

A new type of coal-based fuel, which will soon be commercialized with federal backing, could harness America's vast low-rank coal reserves and make the country energy self-sufficient for the next 300 years or significantly supplant oil consumption, (said) the chief of Fairbanks, Alaska-based Silverado Green Fuels. ... Green Fuel ... is made by "cooking" low rank powdered coal to drain its water content. The water is treated and then added back to the dried coal. The end product is a thick oily liquid called Green Fuel. ... Importantly, half of the U.S. coal reserve is low-rank coal -- 35 to 44 percent water -- which is not used in coal plants due to its high-water, low-energy levels. Green Fuel has the potential to harness a previously untapped resource. ...  It costs $13 to $15 to produce the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil, the company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Garry Anselmo, says, which is about 2.2 barrels of Green Fuel. ...  Green Fuel is non-flammable unless burned as a fine spray in a generator. ... Silverado Green Fuels initiative is also planning to build a tertiary industry where the Green Fuel is used as the feedstock for the gasification and liquefaction process. ... The gasification process uses extreme pressure to break down the liquid coal into its basic elements, and then re-forms these elements to create synthetic natural gas, or synfuel. This synfuel is then be pressurized and turned into a liquid that can be used as a jet fuel, explosive, fertilizer or a clean burning diesel.

First IGCC Plant for UK

A edie news story (UK) reports that A 'clean coal' plant that would capture and bury most of its carbon emissions could become the first coal-fueled power station to be built in the UK since the seventies, under plans announced by British Gas owner Centrica.

Carbon from the Teesside plant would be pumped for storage under the North Sea.

The £1bn plant would produce almost zero emissions and would be the first in the UK  built with carbon capture and storage (CCS), according to Centrica.

The Teesside plant would produce a sixth of the carbon emissions of a traditional coal-fired power station, and capture over 80% of it, giving overall carbon emissions equivalent to less than 4% of those of a traditional coal plant.

The plant would use the "integrated gasification combined cycle" (IGCC) process, which has not been used before in the UK. This process enables capture of a particularly high portion of both the criteria emissions and CO2. IGCC involves crushing coal into a powder, gasifying the coal, and carbon capture before burning the gas for production of electricity.

Pulverized Coal vs Coal Gasification

Some 154 new coal-fired plants are on the drawing board in 42 states. Should power companies be permitted to build new plants that pollute more but are reliable and less expensive? Or should regulators push utilities toward cleaner burning coal plants, even if it means they will cost more and are based on newer, yet still unproven, technology?

These are the points that an online article by Time/CNN discuses. The discussion is focused on whether pulverized coal units or coal gasification plants should be built. The article states that coal gasification plants are 20% more expensive to build, "but they also can be more efficient to operate and save utilities the hassle and expense of adding pollution-control devices." Not quite correct, in that pulverized coal plants can be built to clean coal standards, but gasification plants can achieve even lower emissions of criteria pollutants.  Gasification plants can be adapted to carbon (CO2) capture much less expensively than pulverized coal plants but at a cost more than the 20% factor which does not include carbon capture. However gasificaction plants produce about 33% less CO2 emisions due to their higher efficiency. I would disagree with the premise stated above that gasification technology is unproven, although not proven to the extent that pulverized coal plants are. A few gasification plants are under construction and several are under development. The article does not discuss whether renewable energy or nuclear energy should be considered. The two main points of the discussion are illustrated by these two exerpts from the article:

FuelCell Energy Receives Award for Coal-Based Multi-Megawatt SOFC

FuelCell Energy, Inc. (NasdaqNM:FCEL), has finalized terms with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for a $36.2 million Phase I award to develop a coal-based, multi-megawatt solid oxide fuel cell-based hybrid system.

The program’s overall objective is to develop solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology, fueled by coal synthesis gas (coal gas) that will be used in highly-efficient central generation power plant facilities. The system is to have an overall efficiency of at least 50 % in converting energy contained in coal to grid electrical power, in contrast to the approximately 35 % efficiency of today’s average U.S. coal-based power plant.

The envisioned SOFC-hybrid system is expected to capture 90 percent or more of the system’s carbon dioxide emissions for environmentally safe disposal while being cost-competitive with other base load power generating technologies. The project will culminate with the fabrication and operation of a multi-MW proof-of-concept SOFC-hybrid power plant at a suitable location, using coal-derived synthesis gas as fuel. FuelCell Energy may consider submitting the project to the FutureGen Alliance Inc. for possible inclusion in the FutureGen Power Plant.

BP Executive Draws Attention to Climate Change

Vivienne Cox, BP Chief Executive, Gas, Power & Renewables gave a speech on Sept. 27 to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council entitled "Why Clean Electricity Is Critical in Combating Climate Change- Steps to Accelerate America's Low Carbon Power Economy."  Some exerpts from her speech are alarming, bring attention the seriousness of our CO2 emmissions and explain what BP is planning to do about them.

The power sector is the world's single largest source of CO2 emissions. Globally, and in the United States it accounts for over 40% of these emissions. That's twice the level of CO2 emissions from the transport sector. ... A recent study projected that global CO2 emissions will be around 75% higher than they are today by 2030. ...  One projection by Cambridge Energy Research Associates indicates that power will contribute 50% of total global emissions by 2030 - if there are no significant policy interventions. ... We have bought a wind developer Greenlight. ... Greenlight has a pipeline of 39 development projects across the US with a total potential capacity of 6.5GW. ...

Methane From Coal Using Microorganisms

BASF Venture Capital America Inc., Fremont, CA, is investing $3 million in LUCA Technologies LLC, Golden, Colorado. LUCA develops biotechnology that uses microorganisms to reactivate or intensify the production of methane (natural gas) from finite fuels such as coal or oil.

This methane production is the result of indigenous populations of microorganisms that, in the absence of oxygen, metabolize the large hydrocarbon molecules present in coal and oil into smaller hydrocarbons, principally methane. The company describes these naturally occurring methane factories as "Geobioreactors(TM)".

To leverage this discovery, LUCA has undertaken a program to understand and manipulate these microorganisms in order to ultimately maximize methane production in existing Geobioreactors, and hopefully stimulate its production in currently non-reactive hydrocarbon deposits. Methane is the least polluting and most energy efficient of all the available hydrocarbon fuels.  LUCA believes that, if developed and managed properly, methane-producing Geobioreactors have the potential to meet U.S.  energy needs for the foreseeable future.

Proposed Plan to End Oil Imports

American imports of oil could be eliminated by 2030, a new study claims, if the U.S. adopts an aggressive 20 year program of energy efficiency and commercialization of four already-demonstrated technologies for making transportation fuels.The New York Times reported on Saturday that the study sponsored by a nonprofit group of legislators and governors called the Southern States Energy Board, to be released on Monday, urges a crash program to meet fuel needs without imports. The study, authored by Roger Bezdek, claims that more than a million new jobs would be created and the deficit reduced by $600 billion.

The four technologies are:

1. Coal liquefication which would replace 29% of oil.
2. Use biomass to make syngas which would be converted to liquid fuels by a gasification-Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Process.
3. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using CO2 produced by the other processes which would also eliminate CO2 emmisions that cause global warming.
4. Production of oil from shale.

The study indicates that oil prices of $35 to $55 a barrel are necessary for these process to be competitive.

The study does not endorse corn ethanol, but it does anticipate the production of cellulosic ethanol, in a process which it points out is not yet commercial.

Oxyfuel Pilot Plant Groundbreaking

Swedish energy giant Vattenfall inaugurated construction site of the world's first CO2-free coal-fired power plant, a 30 MW Oxyfuel pilot plant (previous post), scheduled to go into operation in 2008.  Vattenfall, has invested 50 million euros ($65 million) in the facility, which will emit no greenhouse gases.

The plant uses the Oxyfuel Oxyfuel process which burns coal in a pure oxygen environment producing a flue gas that is mostly carbon dioxide and water.  The water can be condensed and the remaining nearly pure carbon dioxide collected for sequestration.

One of the biggest advantages of the new process is the availability of coal, stocks of which in Germany should last for another century. However their are a few drawbacks to the process, for one,  the efficiency is lower than in conventional coal plants. Traditional coal plants can run as high as 45 percent efficiency (maybe in Europe but not in the U.S.), while the the Oxyfuel process, is about 35 percent efficient.  Experts estimate the costs for separating and storing a ton of CO2 at from 25 to 40 euros which is less expensive than other methods of CO2 capture and storage, which in part makes up for the low efficiency of the process.

If the technology works once the pilot plant is built, Vattenfall wants to build a 300-megawatt facility by around 2015. Estimates are that the technology could be commercially viable by  around 2020.

Resource: Germany Breaks Ground on First Non-Polluting Coal Power Plant, Deutsche Welle, April 29, 2006

Powerspan & FirstEnergy Pilot Carbon Capture & Sequestration Process

Powerspan Corp.,  who develops and commercializes clean energy technologies for power companies, and FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE), an electric power generation company, are cooperating to demonstrate both carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration at FirstEnergy's coal-fired power R.E. Burger Plant in Shadyside, OH.

Last week, FirstEnergy announced that it had been selected to test carbon sequestration by the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP), one of seven regional partnerships set up by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to research carbon sequestration projects throughout the country. The Burger Plant test project will involve geological site characterization to determine potential suitability for carbon sequestration in the area.  If test results prove favorable, next steps involve obtaining permits required to drill a test well, followed by injection of a small amount of CO2 into the well.

Concurrently, Powerspan is developing a CO2 removal process, called "ECO2™", for coal-based power plants. This regenerative process uses an ammonia-based solution to capture CO2 in flue gas and prepare it for subsequent sequestration; after regeneration the ammonia solution is recycled to capture additional CO2. Powerspan has conducted initial laboratory testing at the company's research & development facility, with promising results. In September 2005, FirstEnergy announced plans to pilot test the CO2 capture process beginning in late 2006 at the Burger Plant.

IGCC, Conventional Coal Power Plants Debated

A recent article in the New York Times discussed the plans of electric power generators to build either integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants or more conventional pulverized coal power plants.  The issue centers around the ability of IGCC power plants to be easily converted to capture the carbon dioxide for sequestration vs the lower cost to build the more conventional plants.

A relatively small group headed by American Electric Power, the nation's largest electric utility, are planning to build IGCC power plants, while most of the industry including Peabody energy, the largest private coal producer who are not comfortable with the technology or the costs of IGCC.  The IGCC plants costs 15 to 20% more to build but would be far less expensive to retrofit for carbon capture if limits are placed on global warming emissions. About a dozen of the 140 planned coal-fired power plants in the U.S. expect to use the newer technology.

Both technologies can reduce criteria emissions to below standards, the question is whether and, if so, when will controls be placed on global warming gases.

Swedes Building Oxyfuel Clean Coal Pilot Plant

Stockholm-based Vattenfall AB has ordered the first components for a 30 megawatt US$50 million (40 million euro) oxyfuel pilot plant, with construction to start next year. The plant will be built at Schwarze Pumpe, south-east of Berlin where they operate a conventional coal-fired power plant. 

The plant will burn coal in a pure oxygen environment producing a flu gas that is mostly carbon dioxide and water.  The water can be condensed and the remaining nearly pure carbon dioxide collected for sequestration.   Nitrogen in the combustion air dilutes the oxygen in conventional coal furnaces, limiting the combustion temperatures, while In a oxyfuels furnace, the flu gases are recirculated to limit the oxygen concentration, producing the same effect.  An integrated cryogenic oxygen plant will be built as part of the pilot plant. 

Vattenfall's strategic director and oxyfuels project manager, says gasification, which is the main competing technology, is not ready to be a source of clean coal power. He cites mechanical difficulties that have plagued the gasification demonstration power plants built to date.

TXU to Spend $10 Billion on Power Plants

TXU Corp. (NYSE: TXU - News) recently announced plans to invest up to $10 billion in power generation facilities in the state of Texas.  This would include the largest voluntary emissions reduction program of its type in the nation. They plan to build 11 new generation units at nine existing sites. Eight new units, totaling 6,400 megawatts (MW) of net capacity were announced in addition to three units previously announced totaling 2,200 MW of net capacity, all of which should be operational by 2010. In addition, TXU will double its renewable energy portfolio by 2011 to approximately 1,400 MW.  These units should be sufficient to meet Texas' growing electric demand through 2015.

Their planned investment also includes up to $2 billion for installation of the best available control technology (BACT) to minimize emissions at the 11 expansion units. The new plants will have among the lowest SO2, NOx, and mercury emissions rates in the nation and will be 80 percent cleaner than the average U.S. coal plant.  To help find innovative solutions to Texas' long-term power needs, TXU also plans to invest up to $2 billion in the development and commercialization of the next horizon of cleaner power plant technology, including integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology.

 

Coal-to-diesel Breakthrough Could Drastically Cut Oil Imports

Professor Alan Goldman and his Rutgers team in collaboration with researchers at the University of North Carolina  have invented a new catalytic process that could increase the yield of a clean form of diesel fuel made from coal.  The method uses a pair of catalysts to improve the yield of diesel fuel from Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis. 

The F-T process produces a mixture of hydrocarbons -- many of which are not useful as fuel. The low-weight and the high-weight Fischer-Tropsch products are useful – the light as gas and the medium-heavy as diesel fuel.  The medium-weight products are not useful for much of anything.

Their method uses a pair of catalysts to convert the undesirable hydrocarbons into diesel. The catalysts work by rearranging the carbon atoms, transforming six-carbon atom hydrocarbons, for example, into two- and ten-carbon atom hydrocarbons. The ten-carbon version can be used to power diesel engines. The first catalyst removes hydrogen atoms, which allows the second catalyst to rearrange the carbon atoms. Then the first catalyst restores the hydrogen, to form fuel.

Hydrogen from Coal Technologies

This post is being made to 1) explain the technology that is being proposed to produce and distribute hydrogen and 2) to help both my readers and myself understand whether the hydrogen economy is the right choice for our future energy requirements or whether some alternative technologies would make a better choice.  The material has been taken from the two resources noted at the end of the post, with very little editing, except to use only the pertinent excerpts.  The Program Plan is a very long document and I have tried to use only the portions that will help us understand the technology. Please also see my comments at the end of the post.

There are many long-term options for providing hydrogen as a fuel of the future, but coal is the leading contender to provide a hydrogen source in the near term. In his remarks on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) hydrogen research activities at the National Hydrogen Association Annual Conference in March 2005, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman stated “The progress that DOE and the automotive and energy industries have made so far has us on the path to an industry commercialization decision in 2015. If our research program is successful, it is not unreasonable to think we could see the beginning of mass market penetration by 2020.”

"While someday we may be able to produce hydrogen by breaking up water molecules in association with the high-temperature heat from nuclear power reactors, or through renewable energy technologies," said Chris Shaddix, principal investigator for clean coal combustion at Sandia, "right now the most cost-effective way to produce hydrogen is with coal."

Two approaches to burning coal now are under study. The first, oxy-combustion, combines coal with pure oxygen. The second, gasification, burns coal only partially to create a fuel gas.

Oxy-combustion is driven by concern over emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. Burning coal in oxygen is a near-term solution that can produce exhaust streams that are close to pure CO2, Shaddix said. Harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur compounds and mercury are virtually eliminated.

Companies in Japan, Canada, Germany and elsewhere favor oxy-combustion and are building pilot plants.  U.S. companies tend to favor gasification technologies, which offer higher efficiency and low pollution formation. Gasification technologies are the only ones described in this post.

Widespread Interest Shown in Bid to Host FutureGen Project

The FutureGen Industrial Alliance reported today that offerors in nine states (totaling 22 sites) have expressed an interest in hosting the FutureGen Project -- the world's first coal-fueled "zero emissions" power plant that will generate electricity and hydrogen while capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide deep underground.  FutureGen has an aggressive schedule to site the plant and begin construction within three years.

The FutureGen Alliance is a coalition whose members include some of the world's largest coal companies and electric utilities including: American Electric Power; Anglo American; BHP Billiton; the China Huaneng Group; CONSOL Energy Inc., Foundation Coal; Kennecott Energy, a member of the Rio Tinto group; Peabody Energy; and Southern Company. These companies provide energy to tens of millions of U.S. and international residential, business, and industrial customers in Asia, Australia, Canada, Continental Europe, the People's Republic of China, South Africa and the United States, among other regions.

Coal: America's Energy Future

WASHINGTON, March 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Coal Council (NCC) today released "Coal: America's Energy Future," a study that contains recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of Energy to maximize use of abundant coal for clean electricity generation, transportation fuels, natural gas, hydrogen and ethanol over the next 20 years.

The study recommends the additional use of coal to reduce U.S. energy costs 33 percent while creating more than 1 million new American jobs per year and an aggregate gain of more than $3 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP), which increases to $4 trillion with enhanced oil recovery.

The study identifies ample amounts of U.S. coal reserves to support 100 gigawatts of new electricity generation, 2.6 million barrels per day of refined liquid products, and 4 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year of natural gas production for all applications, in addition to support for ethanol, enhanced recovery of oil and coalbed methane, and hydrogen production. ...

Cost Comparisons for New Power Plants

Stone & Webster Management Consultants has prepared life-cycle cost calculations for most of the technologies likely to be used in new power plants.  Calculations were made for the following types of plants:

• Subcritical and supercritical pulverized coal,
• Circulating fluidized bed (CFB),
• Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC),
• GE advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR),
• South African pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) and
• Gas fired combined cycle power plants. 

The paper, presented at POWER-GEN International in Los Vegas in early December, presents a consistent comparison of the economics and risks of representative designs that are being considered in the power marketplace for projects requiring investments of $1 billion or more.

A brief description of each type of power plant and a list of assumptions, too long to go into here, are given.  Results of the calculations are presented in graphic form for total capital investment in dollars and dollars per kW, levelized production costs (cost of electricity produced) and a comparison of costs for coal plants with and without sequestration. 

Medicine Bow CTL Project

Significant progress is being made on development of the largest coal liquefaction plant in the US. Medicine Bow Fuel & Power LLC (MBF&P), a wholly-owned subsidiary of DKRW Advanced Fuels LLC (DKRW), headquartered in Houston, Texas has signed licenses to use key technologies and an agreement for the coal supply. DKRW's proposed coal-to-liquids facility is in Medicine Bow, Wyoming. The first phase of the Medicine Bow project is designed to produce approximately 11,000 bpd of ultra-clean diesel fuel and other fuels from Carbon Basin coal. MBF&P plans to eventually expand the plant capacity to 40,000 bpd. DKRW had previously announced that construction was to begin in 2006, with initial operations to begin in the 2008-2010 timeframe.

It announced on March 1 that it has signed a site license agreement with GE Infrastructure Technology LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the General Electric Company (NYSE:GE), for the use of GE's patented and proprietary coal gasification technology.

DKRW also has an agreement with Rentech, Inc. (AMEX:RTK), a Denver based technology company to license their Fischer Tropsch technology for use in the Project.

MBF&P has already entered into an agreement with Arch Coal Inc. (NYSE:ACI), the second largest U.S. coal miner owner and operator, for the purchase of high btu, low sulfur coal from the Carbon Basin Reserve. Arch will act as constructor and operator for the Medicine Bow coal mine sufficient to support the first phase of the Medicine Bow project and to expand up to 40,000 bpd.

DOE Awards FuelCell Energy Contract to Develop 100 MW Fuel Cell Power Plants

The Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the third project selected under its new Fuel Cell Coal-Based Systems program. FuelCell Energy, Inc., of Danbury, Conn., will conduct research ultimately leading to the development of near-zero emission fuel cell power plants that efficiently convert coal to electricity.

Under the project FuelCell Energy is to develop an affordable fuel-cell-based technology that will operate on synthesis gas from a coal gasifier. The key objectives of the project are:

• Development of fuel cell technologies, fabrication processes, and manufacturing infrastructure and capabilities for scale-up of solid oxide fuel cell stacks for large, multi-megawatt base-load power generation plants.
• The implementation of an innovative system concept for the design of a power plant larger than 100 megawatts,
• The power plant is expected to achieve greater than 50 percent overall efficiency, approaching 60% of the higher heating value of coal.
• Near-zero levels of emissions of sulfur dioxide and NOx, to the environment.
• Capture of 90 percent or more of the system's CO2 emissions
• Cost of $400 per kilowatt, exclusive of the coal gasification unit and CO2-separation subsystems.

IGCC Project Gets Started

IGCC is finally getting underway as indicated by the following announcement.  It isn't surprising that the first commercial plant will use gasifier technology developed by the government.  The government is putting up nearly half of the money for the project, which seems too much, but the price for progress comes high.  I assume they are justifying that because the gasifier technology has not been proven on such a large scale.  Subtracting 10% for engineering from the total results in a cost of $1,759/kw.  Scaling that up the 285 MW plant by the 0.7 power to 500 MW results in $1,484/kW which is close to the $1,500/W cost they are forecasting for that size IGCC plants.  IGCC plants reduce emissions of SO2, NOx and mercury to much lower levels than required by EPA. Although the plant does not use sequestration of the CO2, it will reduce the CO2 emissions by 20-25% compared to more conventional plants.  The reduction comes primarily from the increased efficiency of the plant. The plant was first announced in October of 2004, but the formal agreement was not signed until today.

ATLANTA, Feb. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southern Company and the U.S. Department of Energy have signed a cooperative agreement to formally launch the design and construction of an advanced 285-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle facility in central Florida, which will be the cleanest, most efficient generating technology in the world today using coal as its fuel source. 

Southern Company, in partnership with Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) and Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), will develop the facility through its Southern Power subsidiary, which builds, owns, and manages the company's competitive generation assets. It will be located at OUC's Stanton Energy Center in Orange County, Fla., near Orlando. ....

Large Coal Fired Complex Announced

This announcement confirms that we have not seen the end of large coal fired generation plants. Also note that they say that the complex will be expanded with two gasification units when that technology becomes commercially viable.  With ten other companies having announced that they were planning on building gasification units, at least one scheduled to be completed by 2010, they seem to be taking a very conservative stance.  And some have thought that we have not seen the end of increased demands for electricity--2,500 MW when complete.

Sierra Pacific Resources announced that it planned to move forward with the development of a 1500 MW coal-fired power complex in White Pine County, located in eastern Nevada and an approximately 250-mile transmission line linking the northern and southern parts of the state.

The power facility, which would be the largest energy development project in the state since Hoover Dam, will serve customers of Sierra Pacific Power Company and Nevada Power Company in northern and southern Nevada, respectively. It initially calls for two 750 MW units utilizing the latest, state-of-the-art, and fully environmental compliant, clean pulverized coal technologies. The plans also provide for expansion with two 500 MW coal gasification units when the technology becomes commercially viable. The company said the facility's initial 750 MW operating unit is expected to become operational during 2011 with the second unit coming on stream within the following three years.

Technorati tags: coal, electric generation, energy, technology

Turning Point for Chemicals from Coal

An article in the Oil & Gas Journal reported that Nexant officials had concluded that recent increases in oil and gas prices have pushed the chemical industry to a "strategic turning point" for the use of coal to produce chemicals. Nexant stated that four factors were causing this turning point:

• Unprecedented increases in global crude oil prices
• Explosive increases in natural gas prices in North America and Western Europe
• Unprecedented energy demand growth in developing economies, particularly in Asia and for liquid transportation fuels
• Advances in coal utilization processes, such as gasification, and related environmental technologies

In a new study, Nexant analyzed the technologies and economics of using coal to produce major petrochemicals via gasification and other known processes.

Another IGCC Plant

The ERORA Group LLC of Louisville, Kentucky, an independent power developer, is developing an IGCC power plant near Taylorville, Illinois.  It has signed a license agreement with GE Energy, authorizing the use of GE's gasification technology for a proposed power generating station. GE also has been selected to provide the process design for the gasification portion of the facility and the power island.  The plant would be fueled with Illinois basin coal and would generate approximately 770 gross megawatts of power, with additional consideration for co-production of products derived from synthesis gas. Construction is set to begin in 2007, with the facility expected to begin commercial operation in 2010.

The project received a major boost recently when Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich announced $5 million in public and private support. ERORA will receive $2.5 million for front-end engineering and design work from the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity and another $2.5 million from the public-private Illinois Clean Coal Review Board.

I just want to keep reminding every one that IGCC Is coming.  The construction schedule is quite aggressive and it will be one of the first if not the first IGCC plant to be completed. BTW I just read that it is anticipated that over 75% of new coal fired power plants built after 2010 would be IGCC plants. I would have hoped that it would be higher, unless a better technology, like direct carbon fuel cells, comes along faster than anticipated.

GE Gasification Technology Licensed for Proposed IGCC Plant in Illinois, press release, ERORA Group LLC of Louisville, Kentucky, January 23, 2006

Technorati tags: IGCC, coal, electric generation, energy, technology

Lima Energy IGCC Upgraded to 600 MW, to Operate in 2008

Global Energy has upgraded its Lima Energy IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) power generation facility to 600MW (megawatts) from the its originally announced size of 540MW. The increase in power output is a result of engineering optimization work and will enhance the project economic value. The project is currently in construction with concrete foundation work being carried out at this time.  Construction, which will accelerate in 2006, will involve several hundred workers over three years.  Commercial Operation of the IGCC is expected in late 2008.

The Ultra Clean High Tech IGCC is the most advanced IGCC (see previous post for explanation of how IGCC works) in the U.S.  It is the cleanest and most efficient solid fuel (coal or petcoke) based power generation system.  Gasification will convert solid petroleum coke feedstock into synthetic gas, which after purification will be both the fuel for the gas turbine power generation and the feedstock to produce synthetic gas products such as hydrogen and synthetic natural gas. In a combined cycle system a high-efficiency gas turbine uses the clean SG fuel to produce electricity.  Exhaust heat from the gas turbine is recovered to produce steam—to power traditional high-efficiency steam turbines, thereby greatly increasing the efficiency of the IGCC power plant. The synthetic gas is produced at less than half of today's market prices for gas, thus enabling the combined cycle power plant in the IGCC to produce low cost, clean and efficient electric power. If the base- load coal fleet were converted to IGCC, the U.S. would benefit from up to 20% more power and 10 times cleaner emissions from the same annual coal consumption.

How GE Captures New Energy Markets

An article from Fortune magazine via the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, gives a comprehensive review of General Electrics activities in the energy market. In perhaps the broadest and largest corporate effort anywhere, GE spent $700 million in 2004 on clean-energy R&D--ranging from hydrogen production to solar cells, cleaner coal plants, and biofuels. Their wide variety of activities include:

• Their very successful wind turbine business has sold 5,500 turbines since 2002, with 1,600 to be installed this year.  They hope wind power will eventually supply 20% of U.S.'s total energy.
• They are developing hybrid electric locomotives that they have running on an eight mile long test track, which they will start selling in 2007.
• They have many hydrogen related projects including solid oxide fuel cells for stationary applications, ICE engines modified to run on hydrogen, gas stations that use electrolysis to generate hydrogen, methods of storing hydrogen in man-made nanoparticles or in metal hydrides and thermochemical methods of producing hydrogen.
• GE has been building new high temperature nuclear reactors in Europe and Asia.
• They have teamed with Exxon Mobil and Schlumberger to study how to sequester carbon dioxide.
• They are developing IGCC technology for producing electricity and hydrogen.
• GE is pursuing three ways of using solar cells: developing more efficient solar cells, developing electrochemical cells that produce hydrogen, reducing the size of thermal solar farms from hundreds of acres to tens of acres by improving concentrating solar system efficiency.  An example of their research in solar is the development of nanodiodes--whiskers 1/80,000th the thickness of a human hair--displaying a photovoltaic effect that converts sunlight into electricity.

John K. Reinker, who runs a team of about 60 scientists on hydrogen related subjects, is excited about the sheer scope of GE's energy R&D. "I don't think there is any other company in the world that is looking at so many energy technologies and as a result is able to understand which have the most probability of success." Thomas Edison, GE's original research scientist, would be proud.

More blogs about wind power, hydrogen, fuel cells, solar, nuclear, sequestration, hybrids, coal, alternative energy, renewable, renewable energy, energy

AEP NOx Emissions Reduced 70%

American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP - News), the nations largest generator of electricity, reported that its nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions had been reduced by 70%, from 145,762 tons during the 2000 ozone season to 45,945 tons during the 2005 ozone season from May 1 to Sept. 30, while generating 5% more electricity.  Smog, is formed from NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight and heat. 

The NOx reduction was made possible by installing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment on 14 of its 50 generating units. AEP's SCR systems are designed to reduce NOx emissions by up to 90 percent; however, a majority of AEP's SCR units achieve better than design and industry standards by consistently achieving NOx reductions of 92 to 94 percent.

Direct Carbon Fuel Cell (DCFC)

SRI International introduced their direct carbon fuels cell (DCFC) technology to the fuel cell research community at the 2005 Fuel Cell Seminar on Monday, November 14.  According to their announcement:

DCFCs convert the chemical energy in coal directly into electricity without the need for gasification. SRI's new DCFC technology has several potential benefits. It produces electricity at a competitive cost from a variety of fuels including coal, coke, tar, biomass and organic waste. In addition, it is two times more fuel-efficient than today's coal-fired power plants, resulting in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. The process produces almost pure carbon dioxide, which can be contained in a concentrated stream and easily captured for downstream use or disposal.

Oxycombustion Projects, to Enable CO2 Capture, Announced

DOE announced today that they had selected two projects to demonstrate "oxycombustion".  In an oxycombustion-based power plant, oxygen rather than air is used to combust a fuel resulting in a highly pure carbon dioxide (CO2) exhaust that can be captured at relatively low-cost and sequestered. No commercial oxygen combustion power plants are operating today, due mainly to the high cost of producing oxygen. Significant reduction in the cost of oxygen compared to today’s best cryogenic technology is a key requirement to making the oxycombustion power plant a viable future option.

Large New Gasification Plant

Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal company, has entered into a memorandum of understanding with ArcLight Capital Partners, LLC to advance project development of a commercial-scale coal gasification project in Illinois that would transform coal into pipeline- quality synthetic natural gas. The initial project would be designed with ConocoPhillips "E-Gas(TM)" Technology, featuring an oxygen-blown gasification system. ConocoPhillips and Fluor have begun preliminary engineering design work for the project.

The plant would be one of the largest coal-to-natural-gas plants in the United States and would be sited in Illinois. Peabody would develop a coal mine to fuel the plant using its Illinois Basin reserves, and ArcLight, through an affiliate, would contribute its Illinois-related coal-to-natural- gas development assets.

The project would require at least 3 million tons of coal per year to fuel two gasifier trains that could produce more than 35 billion cubic feet of synthetic natural gas.  More....

Resources:

Peabody Energy and ArcLight Capital Explore Sites for Major Coal-To-Natural-Gas Project, Press release November 2, 2005
Peabody Energy, St Louis, MO
ArcLight Capital Partners, Boston, MA

More blogs about coal, fossil energy, energy

Coal Resources

Coal is the second only to oil in fossil fuel consumption and is very likely to have a greater use in the future as oil and gas production decline. The International Energy Outlook 2005 projects that coal consumption, which increased in production by 7.2% from 2003 to 2004, will increase by 2.5% per annum until 2015 and 1.3 % per annum from 2015 to 2025.  The greater growth in the first period reflects the rapid growth of Asian economies during this time which are likely to slow down in the later period.  Asia's demand for coal is expected to be moderated by increasing use of natural gas from pipelines from the Caspian Sea area that are now under construction and those that may be built in the future.  EIA expects that their coal consumption will double by 2025, which will lower China's R/P considerably, indicating either increased imports, perhaps from the Russian Federation, or a shortfall in the following period.  In the short term EIA expects U.S. demand for coal to increase by 4.5% in 2005 and remain at 2005 levels in 2006.

COAL RESOURCE DATA

Location	Proved Anthracite & Bituminous Reserves	Proved Sub-bituminous & Lignite Reserves	Share of Total Re-serves	2004 Produc-tion	Change over 2003	Con-sump-tion	R/P ratio
	million tonnes	million tonnes	%	million tonnes oil equiv.	%	million tonnes oil equiv.
United States	111,338	135,305	27.1%	567.2	3.3%	564.3	245
Russian Federation	49,088	107,922	17.3%	127.6	2.2%	105.9	>500
India	90,085	2,360	10.2%	188.8	7.4%	204.8	229
China	62,200	52,300	12.6%	989.8	13.3%	956.9	59
Australia	38,600	39,900	8.6%	199.4	5.2%	54.4	215
South Africa	48,750	-	5.4%	136.9	2.2%	94.5	201
Leading Im	porter
Japan	359	-	-	0.7	-	120.8	268
World Total	478,771	430,293	100.00%	2,732	7.2%	2,778	164

Clean coal isn't climate-friendly yet

A recent Reuters news article expanded on the discussion of environmental concerns relating to clean coal plant, especially IGCC plants.  Some salient points are:

• Since there is no requirement for carbon capture, plants are not being built with this feature.
• IGCC plants cost 20% more than conventional plants, but there are several government incentives that could offset this cost.
• Carbon capture boosts the cost of conventional plants 60%, but only boosts the cost of IGCC plants 25%.
• IGCC plants can remove 90% of mercury at 1/10th the cost of mercury removal in conventional plants.
• In the mid 90's not one utility had plans to build a coal plant, in the last 12 months 120 have been proposed, more than in the last 12 years.

The article is well worth the time to read.

Technorati tags: coal, environment, IGCC