A Green, Coal-Burning Power Plant

[BPSCG]

Link

Duke Energy Corp. has received approval from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to build a coal-gassification plant in Edwardsport, Ind.

The $2 billion, 630-megawatt plant is designed to capture carbon emissions for storage underground. It will be the first commercial-scale plant of its kind built in the United States in the last 10 years.
"In the Midwest, coal is plentiful and low-cost, and finding ways to burn it cleanly is fundamental to meeting our customers' demand for power," says Duke Energy Indiana President Jim Stanley. "The Edwardsport facility could very well be the cleanest coal-fired power plant in the world once it's completed."

The project still requires approval from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

Evidently, some environmental groups aren't happy:

Chanting "No more coal," a group of sign-waving environmentalists demonstrated at the Statehouse on Thursday to protest state approval of Duke Energy's new power-generating plant.

Valley Watch President John Blair of Evansville, accompanied by a man dressed as Santa Claus, filled a Christmas stocking with Southwestern Indiana coal and tried to deliver it to Gov. Mitch Daniels' office. They named the governor on their "naughty list" for his support of the Duke Energy project.

The demonstration Thursday by the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Valley Watch and other environmental groups was to underscore their opposition to the new $2 billion Edwardsport facility. Last month, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approved the 630-megawatt plant, which would replace an aging coal-fired plant that generates about 130 megawatts.

Using a technology called coal gasification, the Edwardsport plant, if built, would convert high-sulfur Indiana coal into natural gas and then burn the gas to produce electricity. Duke has said that plant construction will increase its customers' rates by 16 percent. But Blair and other opponents contend the actual increases passed on to ratepayers would be much higher, if the costs of capturing carbon emissions from the gasification process are factored in.

It ain't easy being green. Or cheap, either, it would appear.

 

[Jimbo07]

Until protesters can produce a magic energy bullet, we are going to have live with cleaner baby steps...

 

[WildCat]

Until protesters can produce a magic energy bullet, we are going to have live with cleaner baby steps...

I suspect that many of the protestors don't really care about the environment. The real agenda is anti-capitalism/anti-globalism which requires shrinking the economy (under the delusion that this will somehow help 3rd world countries), and the best way to do that is to constrict the energy that feeds it.

 

[Tony]

I suspect that many of the protestors don't really care about the environment. The real agenda is anti-capitalism/anti-globalism which requires shrinking the economy (under the delusion that this will somehow help 3rd world countries), and the best way to do that is to constrict the energy that feeds it.

A conspiracy theory behind every corner eh?

 

[WildCat]

A conspiracy theory behind every corner eh?

Not really, there is a large overlap between the anti-globalists (whatever that is) and radical enviromentalists.

What other reason could there be for protesting clean coal?

 

[Tony]

What other reason could there be for protesting clean coal?

I attribute it to an absolutist ideology, or just plain idiocy.


or, perhaps they're skeptical of the technology? Which, frankly, they, and we, should be. Ultimately, I don't care. I do care about whether the clean coal technology actually delivers on its promises.

 

[BPSCG]

Not really, there is a large overlap between the anti-globalists (whatever that is) and radical enviromentalists.

What other reason could there be for protesting clean coal?

Top Ten Reasons For Protesting Clean Coal:

10) "I can't burn coal in my wood stove!"
9) Indianapolis isn't ever gonna have a G-8 summit, so how else are we gonna prove we're big league?

 

[bigred]

I suspect that many of the protestors don't really care about the environment. The real agenda is anti-capitalism/anti-globalism which requires shrinking the economy (under the delusion that this will

I think in most any protesting group, for many the agenda is being anti-establishment because it's "cool" - also not a bad way to score points.

Unclear to me just how good the thing itself is, ie how much "greener" etc etc. But to the protestors I would ask: what is your alternative suggestion? And are you "cool" with paying a lot more on your bill if it necessitates it?

 

[WildCat]

I attribute it to an absolutist ideology, or just plain idiocy.

The 2 go hand in hand.

or, perhaps they're skeptical of the technology? Which, frankly, they, and we, should be.

It's a relatively old technology actually. I was confusing it with FutureGen, which is a new technology that will generate electricity and hydrogen from coal with near-zero emissions. If they protest that my conspiracy theory is proven!

 

[Travis]

This is definitely not the first time Environmental Activists have applied precisely zero percent of their brains to critical thinking. Look at how they continue to vilify nuclear power which doesn't pollute at all.

 

[Bikewer]

I was going to say I saw a design for a nearly pollution-free coal plant in one of the pop-science magazines, it may be the one referred to above.
However, these plants are new technology, and expensive. I do not know if any are actually planned, or in the process of being built.
Can't be denied that the lion's share of our electricity is being produced by old-fashioned heavily polluting coal plants....

I think there is a knee-jerk reaction amongst the environmental crowd to "coal", just as there was to nuclear some years ago.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I suspect that many of the protestors don't really care about the environment. The real agenda is anti-capitalism/anti-globalism which requires shrinking the economy (under the delusion that this will somehow help 3rd world countries), and the best way to do that is to constrict the energy that feeds it.

You seem to be attributing more thought to them that I would.

 

[sackett]

The stories are a tad short on details. Just how will these technologies work? How will the carbon be stored? If in gaseous form, then what will the storage medium be? How will the heat be tapped?

Will the coal be mined first? I ask that question because I can remember when some bright boy wanted to burn coal in-situ, somehow extracting the heat (via steam, if I recall aright) and leaving the carbon where it was, trapped in ash, I suppose. That was back around 1959 or so.

You'd think that clean coal would have been developed decades ago.

 

[Cleon]

Not really, there is a large overlap between the anti-globalists (whatever that is) and radical enviromentalists.

Well, I won't entirely disagree with you there.

Anecdote alert: Being a left-leaning person myself, I've run into a lot of environmentalists over the years. The real radical ones, in my experience, often tend to be anarchist types.

What other reason could there be for protesting clean coal?

Because there's no such thing. Sure, the plant itself might be relatively clean, but coal mining itself is environmentally disastrous. Mountaintop removal, strip mining, chemical run-offs...There's more at work than just the plant itself.

 

[Jimbo07]

Because there's no such thing. Sure, the plant itself might be relatively clean, but coal mining itself is environmentally disastrous. Mountaintop removal, strip mining, chemical run-offs...There's more at work than just the plant itself.

Agreed... same goes for Uranium mining, Gas Plants, Oilsands, etc. Sometimes obtaining the resource is more destructive than the consumption itself. Here's a question that I have not been able to find the answer to (although I've been offered an answer, I don't know about the person's credibility): how are the raw materials for PV cells obtained?

 

[sackett]

...coal mining itself is environmentally disastrous. Mountaintop removal, strip mining, chemical run-offs....

Query: What is the story with Western soft coal extraction? I'm thinking of Decker coal and the large beds being mined in eastern Wyoming.

The Acme coal-fired plant near Sheridan WY has been emptying pits and piling up ash for generations. Used to swim in some of those old pits; they flood 400 feet deep, being dug through the water table, and Tongue River hard by.

ETA: Jimbo identifies an important point. We have to trade one kind of pollution for another. Since it's global warming that we have most on our minds right now, probably it's the CO2 we'll address.

 

[Cleon]

Query: What is the story with Western soft coal extraction? I'm thinking of Decker coal and the large beds being mined in eastern Wyoming.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on the subject.

As far as I'm aware, the methods for extracting "soft coal" versus anthracite aren't particularly different, though strip mining is more aimed at the soft coal.

 

[sackett]

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on the subject.

As far as I'm aware, the methods for extracting "soft coal" versus anthracite aren't particularly different, though strip mining is more aimed at the soft coal.

Aw hell, now I have to research it myself.

I work surrounded by engineers. Maybe I can get some quick if incomplete answers by sticking my head in people's doors.

Most Western soft coal is mined open-pit, with refill to restore the topography when the seam is played out. Some Ohio coal has been mined and refilled in this way also.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The stories are a tad short on details. Just how will these technologies work? How will the carbon be stored? If in gaseous form, then what will the storage medium be? How will the heat be tapped?

Specifically the CO2 will be removed from hydrogen gas through a couple of stages and pumped into the ground where in time it is thought it will bind with the rocks storing it underground. CO2 pumping underground is done in some areas to facilitate more oil being pumped from the ground so this is not an entirely new process.

Will the coal be mined first? I ask that question because I can remember when some bright boy wanted to burn coal in-situ, somehow extracting the heat (via steam, if I recall aright) and leaving the carbon where it was, trapped in ash, I suppose. That was back around 1959 or so.

Um no that sounds like a way to manage coal ash and the like not CO2 as the CO2 would need processing to get out if you are letting O2 in.

You'd think that clean coal would have been developed decades ago.

Depends on how you define clean. You don't see the black snows I have heard my father talking about when he was growing up from the coal being burned. But this is specifically about CO2 and efforts to manage CO2 are a more recent change in the definition of clean.

 

[shadron]

You'd think that clean coal would have been developed decades ago.

It depends on what you mean. Clean coal (that is, coal that is burned free of emissions except for CO2 and water) was developed decades ago; that is what catalytic conversion, scrubbing for acids and fly ash removal are all about. That CO2 emissions are a problem was not recognized "decades ago", so additional CO2 sequestration on top of the older technologies is what we are addressing here. I presume the technology here is similar to the one the Europeans are using: liquefy the CO2 under high pressure and inject it deep under impermeable rock layers.

I see PT beat me to it. Well done.