A question about gasifiers and the coal plants we have already

[madokie]

Why can't we convert our coal plants we have now to a gasifier process rather than burn the coal directly. If I understand it correctly there is a reduction of co2 produced in the neighborhood of better than 50%. We already have the coal plants and all the infastructure so to me it looks like the proper thing to do in the interim. Its something that could be done at a much lower cost than it cost to build the plants in the first place. I'm not advocating it as a solution but only as a way to buy some time to get more of the solar and wind plants up and running. It would be much quicker to do than say build a nuclear plant, wouldn't it?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification

[GumboYaYa]

1. The capital cots is high and they have sunk capital in the existing infrastructure.

It is easier and cheaper to buy politicans than it is to buy new equipmnt.

[madokie]

2. the existing infrastructure is already there

thousands of tonnes of coal pass through this town daily on its way to a burning plant. The coal plants just east of my house, I can see it in the distance, has plenty of room to start new construction on a gasifier so they wouldn't have to shut down while doing the construction.

I don't get it, theres less co2 produced by a sizable amount and no interest in doing it. Very little interest in even talking about it here on the DU.

[phantom power]

3. I'm not sure there is very much reuseable hardware.

Reading a description like this, it doesn't seem at first glance to have much equipment in common with a straight boiler.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/howgasificationworks.html

[madokie]

4. some parts are the same or could be utilized

the rail system the stacks the generator the turbines the cooling towers and on and on. I know in one of my capacities as an electrician I worked with my brother in converting the machinery in the local foundry from a relay cabinet controled machines to PC controlled. All while the machines were in use. In some cases we would work for weeks installing new conduit, switches etc and spend many hours making the wire terminations and then over a long weekend we would make the transistion. Very high stress to say the least and after about 12 years of that I was burnt out but it was done and this can be done. The conversion could be done with very little disruption to operations, for instance like we done at the foundry plus other plants. I cannot see a downside to doing this at all. A gasifier is much the cleaner for the enviroment, very little ash in comparisons plus a lot less co2. I've read up to 60% less with all other things being equal.

[phantom power]

5. google turned this up:

It looks like retrofits have been proposed:

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6635509

[madokie]

7. It looks like its something that could be done and that the payback would be well worth it

a 50% reduction or so in co2 looks to me like it would be a good thing and relatively easy to get to. I'd even be willing to pay a surcharge to go towards retrofiting the present day coal plants if I had a chance. Renewable energy is going to have to remain our goal no matter what but this looks like it would buy time in helping to achieve that. Gasifiers is a known technology whereas sequestering the co2 is still kind of a pie in the sky maybe, it might work it might not kind of a deal.

[kristopher]

9. Did you read the reference I pointed you to?

The costs associated with this technology is extremely high, and it still considered an experimental technology.

The carbon capture promised is, as you said, pie in the sky. When the entire point of altering our infrastructure is justified by the effort to reduce greenhouse gases, it makes little sense to invest massive amounts of money in new infrastructure that simply does not do the job.

The money is much more effectively spent investing in renewable infrastructure. Not only are the carbon reduction vastly larger, over the long term renewables offer much better energy return for the energy invested. The energy costs of coal are already pretty high, and the process of gasification further increases the energy investment required to extract each kilowatt.

Before I sent you to the Delaware Public Service Commission's website, which probably was too much to wade through. Try this report by an independent consultant hired by the PSC. The report is a direct comparison of the costs and benefits of offshore wind, gas generation, and coal gasification. You can find a copy of the report here http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/#DERFPHere
the title is "Interim Report on IRP in Relation to RFP"
The "Final Staff Recommendation" is also a good source.


The bottom line is, if you look at the total amount of coal we consume, a large investment in coal gasification represents a business as usual approach to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to remember that the extraction of coal is an ongoing carbon intensive endeavor and that with everything we learn about the impact of introduction of greenhouse gases, the degree of urgency regarding reduction of those gases is growing, not shrinking. Shaped largely by political pressure from the US, the report of the IPCC is extremely consensus of the Panel was a very conservative statement.

[JohnWxy]

6. No reason not to. Best place to capture the CO2 is at the source - link to Discover magazine article

IGCC plants are 20% more expensive to build but they operate 20% more cheaply because they sell the trapped material (mostly sulpher).



http://discovermagazine.com/2006/dec/clean-coal-technology
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~
IGCC technology also gives engineers unprecedented control over what happens to the different components of coal after they go into the power plant. In normal coal-fired plants, nearly all the pollutants go up the smokestack, where some of them are captured from the exhaust by scrubbers. Here they never even hit the flame. Conventional plants burn pulverized coal in the air, which contains about 78 percent nitrogen. Since the burning takes place at low pressure, the carbon dioxide is diffuse; isolating it is difficult and expensive. Burning gasified coal in pure oxygen at high pressure concentrates the carbon dioxide, making it far easier to capture.

Although Polk does not capture carbon dioxide (it still goes up the exhaust stack, at a rate of 5,000 tons a day), it could easily be retrofitted to do so; new IGCC plants could have the capacity built in. Shorter reports that TECO is planning to replace this plant with a much larger, 600-megawatt IGCC facility. "The rumor I've heard is that it will be online by 2013. I'm sure the new plant will be CO2-capture ready. It wouldn't make sense not to. Anyone that's going to build one today has got to be thinking that carbon-emissions permits are going to be required in the future. What do you do when that day comes and you're not ready for it?

Unfortunately, Tampa Electric's plans aren't typical of the industry. Of 75 coal-fired plants planned for construction over the next decade, only nine are slated to be IGCC, largely because an IGCC plant costs about $1 billion, 15 to 20 percent more than a conventional one. "The biggest obstacle is simple economics," says Holdren. "There is no incentive for capturing carbon in the United States, India, or China. The most important thing that could happen to drive IGCC forward would be putting a price on CO2 emissions in the form of a mandatory economy-wide 'cap and trade' approach, which is what a Senate resolution passed last summer recommended."

(more)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[madokie]

8. Lots of pluses in using a gasifier

it would seem that there should be no qualms about going the gasifier route.

[kristopher]

10. There are mountains of sulfur piled up around coal plants worldwide.

There are mountains of sulfur piled up around coal plants worldwide that are growing larger every day; that is a very weak argument.

When they demonstrate a proven and effective carbon capture and sequestration process, then coal returns as an option. For now it is not.

[madokie]

13. so a reduction of co2 by a significant amount and making the rest easier to capture

not a good thing in todays world where we are killing ourselves with co2. I'm all for wind and solar but that is going to take time whereas the conversion to gasifiers could be done in a much shorter time frame so as to buy us time to get the wind and solar up and running.

[kristopher]

14. Read my lips

It doesn't work; capturing the CO2 is relatively easy. The infrastructure to sequester the CO2 would cost a large, large fortune.

It is a waste of scarce resources that are much more productively spent investing in renewable infrastructure.

In other words, advocating for CCS for coal is 'business as usual' and a promise of ever increasing CO2 concentrations.

Please read this and consider that you are falling victim to (and thus unwittingly participating in) a disinformation campaign by the coal industry.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html
30 pages of narrative, 30 pages of documentation.

After you read it ask yourself if, after they've obstructed action on this problem for nearly 25 years, you can rely on claims by the fossil fuel industry that they "can do it". Or is it just one more false stalling tactic meant to depress spending on viable alternative technologies?

[NNadir]

11. How come nobody has the guts to call simply for phasing out coal?

Why is everyone always trying to put lipstick on this pig?

There are actually very few apologists for dangerous fossil fuel fantasy schemes who have done a bare minimum of homework.

Do you have any idea, any at all, about the external cost of IGCC coal?

As it happens, I do. I've written at length about the cost in obscene destruction to the environment that would be involved if this fantasy was pushed by dumb fundies who are too lazy to think for themselves: A Calculation: How Many Trillions of Dollars of Environmental Damage Will IGCC Coal Cost?

For this effort - on which I wasted considerable time - what I have generally received from poorly educated lazy luddites what amounts to muttered cursing and vituperation of an incredibly stupid type.

It's too late, Bub to start issuing even more platitudinous wishful thinking and day dreaming. The time for that shit was twenty years ago. Let's conjugate a sentance: "Ignorance kills," "Ignorance WILL kill" and "Ignorance HAS KILLED."

Welcome to the world you created. We're going to be at 400 ppm very shortly. Heckuva job anti-nukes, heckuva job.

[madokie]

12. Amazing that you think your writings carry any weight

Maybe you do have something to add, I don't know. I did try to read some of it early on but I just can't wade through all the tripe to get to it. :eyes: so you have to excuse me as I don't 'read' your writings. Actually it was some of the biggest bunch of garbage I've ever tried to read. so there

Gasifying our burning coal plants would be a big step in the right direction in cutting down on the CO2 being produced today and its something that is within our grasp to do, both in time and cost. All the infrastructure is already in place and being used today plus a large percent of the equipment would be reusable too, not to be forgotten, the rail lines to bring the coal in and the power lines to ship the power out too. It would help to buy us some time until alternate forms of energy production can be developed and implemented. Wind and solar themselves, very well may be able to supply us with our energy needs in time but its going to take time to build all the plants needed and that is where I believe converting the burning coal plants to gasifiers would come in.

Nuclear is not going to be what saves us from this mess we're in today and its pretty much for the same reasons it din't take off here in the US the last time around, what to do with the waste. Not just your average ole waste mind you but highly radioactive and dangerous for tens of thousands of years and longer, waste. You know that kind of waste that you would rather not talk about. You know how to get under a pro nukes skin, ask about the waste, same now as it was way back 40, 50 years ago.

what a pompous ass, now excuse me:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: