Stupid idea, on so many levels

Expensive coal + hydrogen = ?

Posted by Sean Casten (Guest Contributor) at 7:37 PM on 14 Nov 2007

Read more about: energy | coal | hydrogen | Illinois

As follow-up to my post yesterday: There is now a bidding war emerging for the FutureGen clean coal plant, targeted to cost $6500/kW. Texas and Illinois are fighting to win this fantastic prize. If they get it, they'll ensure they can keep burning coal, but will do it in a plant that is absurdly expensive.

As a fringe benefit, they'll generate hydrogen (aka, a fuel that no one is presently demanding for their vehicles), on the off chance that if a market arises they can sell it. Goodness knows they'll need it if the coal plant is ever going to pencil out.

Presumably, this is a better idea than investing in more cost-effective renewable/cogen/efficiency projects that would actually produce a product people want.

See an article from Restructuring Today, "Illinois works hard to win FutureGen clean coal/hydrogen plant" ($ub req'd), below the fold:

Wisconsin supports siting a $1.4 billion FutureGen Industrial Alliance power and hydrogen production plant in Illinois, wrote Gov James Doyle, D, in a letter to Illinois officials.

FutureGen is developing the facility for the DOE.

Illinois worked for about four years to bring FutureGen to fruition and a decision is expected by the end of the year.

"Projects like FutureGen create an exhilarating opportunity for new regionalism," said Doyle. "We feel strongly that the evolution of cleaner coal technologies will be of vital importance to the nation and specifically the Midwest -- and we enthusiastically back the important research that would be conducted at an Illinois FutureGen plant.

FutureGen is designed to be the cleanest fossil fuel-fired power plant in the world.

The facility would convert coal into hydrogen and power while capturing and storing the carbon dioxide deep underground.

"Midwestern states have demonstrated a strong commitment to converting to cleaner energy sources, technology advancement and energy conservation -- and Illinois' competitive bid to host a FutureGen project and maximize its geologically ideal sites for such a project is an important demonstration of this commitment," said Doyle.

It's expected this effort will lay the groundwork for developing similar power plants around the country and provide a framework for new energy projects that capture, rather than release greenhouse gases.

Wisconsin is hoping to win the plant and, like most of its neighbors, relies heavily on coal. Over 70% of its power is from coal, said the Center for Energy and Economic Development.

FutureGen will serve as a prototype for the next generation of safe and affordable coal-fueled power plants, said Wisconsin officials.

Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania are backing Illinois.

FutureGen plans to produce 275 mw of power plus hydrogen for fuel cell technology to serve as the next generation "battery" to run everything from computers to cars.

For story: Stupid idea, on so many levels
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Clean Coal Can Do Good

The issue is that we and the rest of the world will continue to use coal until a better baseload technology or smart grid comes to pass.

However, the situation is dire right now. The US can clean up its CO2 by a significant percentage just by replacing some of its old coal infrastructure with new. Obviously it's not the only thing.

In China, the situation is more dire because they are hell bent on expanding and nothing will stop them. At best we can hope they will use clean coal or we'll be stuck with bad coal technology from them for the next 30 years.

Check out today's article in the W Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007 ...

World's Power Plant Emissions Detailed

China, South Africa and India host the world's five dirtiest utility companies in terms of global warming pollution, according to the first-ever worldwide database of power plants' carbon dioxide emissions, while a single Southern Co. plant in Juliette, Ga., emits more annually than Brazil's entire power sector.

by jabailo at 8:10 PM on 14 Nov 2007

And thats exactly why

In China, the situation is more dire because they are hell bent on expanding and nothing will stop them.

And thats exactly why a hyper-expensive coal technology will be even more ignored than an expensive renewable technology.

The only thing we can hope to do is scale up renewables, such that we can lower the price.

Since Coal on the other hand, cannot be both clean and cheap at the same time.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 7:12 AM on 15 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

Coal can not be clean

Since Coal on the other hand, cannot be both clean and cheap at the same time.

Sorry to break it to you, but coal can never be clean... period.

You can scrub out the impurities so that they are not included in the combustion process. However you are left with a toxic sludge of all those impurities. Law of conservation of matter: "matter cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged". So rather than have those toxins locked in coal harmlessly trapped below the surface you can have it in the air or as a sludge to deal with.

As for carbon capture... oh boy, where to begin. Where are you going to put all this compressed carbon dioxide you capture? Sink barrels to the bottom of the sea? How long will it be trapped? Will those barrels leak eventually? Will that contribute to ocean acidification? Carbon capture is not a SUSTAINABLE solution. At best it is a stop gap until we further develop RENEWABLE energy production to the point it can fill our needs. To devote obscene financial resources and pin the worlds hopes on carbon capture technology is utter stupidity. Your just entrenching fossil fuels and ultimately the issue is not solved.

by nitack at 9:19 AM on 15 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

Re: Coal can not be clean

I agree with that.

But I'd rather have a cleaner coal plant burning coal then a dirtier one. It's better to capturing and landfilling that crap then it is to be breathing it, killing our trees it, and making our cities covered with haze.

The future of energy needs to be in renewables. But we need to clean up existing plants, until we can fully phase them out.

by nycowboy at 12:37 PM on 16 Nov 2007

there seems to be a bit of confusion....

A "clean" coal plant can mean one of two things. Some coal plants emit more sulfur and other non-carbon pollutants than others. These pollutants contribute to acid rain and other problems, and old plants tend to emit more than new ones. Old or new coal plants can be outfitted with "scrubbers" that remove some of the sulfur, mercury and other pollutants and stop them from exiting into the atmosphere. These scrubbers exist and are relatively cost-effective at removing some, if not all, of these non-carbon pollutants.
However, the only way to stop a coal plant form emitting carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas, is by capturing and sequestering the carbon. This process is not currently under way anywhere, and its not entirely clear whether it ever will be. It is prohibitively expensive, at least for the moment, and it has not been proven to be safe. Certian scientific or enginnering breakthorughs could make it a real possibilty, though, which would allow us to burn coal without contributing to global climate change. FutureGen's clean coal plant will, supposedly, use carbon capture and sequestration while producing electricity.

"We are entering a period of consequences."

by Ekirky at 8:09 PM on 18 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.