May 21, 2008
California's dream is to host a carbon-free power plant. By 2011, the 50-megawatt facility would use natural gas or synthetic gas made from coal and subsequently re-inject all heat trapping emissions more than one mile underground.
It's all part of a new public-private initiative set forth by the Bush administration to reinvigorate its clean coal push -- especially in the wake of the demise of FutureGen, which was to be the world's first zero-emissions power plant that could bury carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy has just said it will invest at least $1.3 billion in various carbon sequestration technologies.
The West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, along with one in the Midwest, will not use pure coal as a fuel source. But that still does not obviate the need to apply the technology to all fossil-fired fuels. The Bush administration, which scrapped the $1 billion dollar FutureGen in January, has instead chosen to contribute to the development of seven emissions-free power plants to the tune of $100 million to $600 million each.
"By demonstrating how greenhouse gas emissions can be safely contained through carbon sequestration, we make strides to curb the effects of global warming," says California Energy Commission Vice Chair James Boyd, whose state will receive nearly $66 million for the project near Bakersfield. "Using the newest carbon capture and storage technology, California can show how environmental and industrial concerns are working together for the same cause."
By most accounts, energy usage will rise in the coming decades and coal will remain the primary fuel source to generate electricity. Carbon capture and sequestration therefore hold the key to future power plant production using fossil fuels. To succeed, the exhaust would be pumped into porous geological formations that experts say are naturally sealed, which would prevent the gases from escaping back into the atmosphere.
The administration shifted its strategy away from building one centrally located emissions-free facility to the construction of several such plants because markets and circumstances have changed. It says that it also wants to limit taxpayer exposure and to better leverage federal dollars -- all to facilitate the near-term deployment of carbon capture technologies that would generate at least 300 megawatts of power.
The sense of immediacy is palpable in many quarters. CO2 emissions have risen more than 30 percent since the pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million to 375 parts per million now. Many experts say that is because of human activity and specifically the increased use of fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Philosophical Divide
Power companies contribute a third of all carbon emissions in the United States, according to the Congressional Research Service. Older coal-fired facilities could be retrofitted so as to trap the CO2 before it leaves the smokestack. But such remedies are expensive and less efficient than building modern coal plants called integrated gasification combined cycle generators, commonly referred to as coal gasification.
Such plants scrub the mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide before they would separate the remaining byproducts: CO2, carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which could be used to power everything from cars to power plants. The largest demonstration projects are in Norway, where Statoil is placing 1 million tons of CO2 per year into a saline aquifer deep in the North Sea, and in Canada, where the CO2 is going into the Weyburn Oil field just north of the North Dakota border.
For its part, the West Coast project in Bakersfield will use, in part, a cleaner derivative of coal. Its owner, Clean Energy Systems, says that the carbon emissions could be safely stored for hundreds of years. "Tests like these will help provide the confidence and build the infrastructure necessary to commercialize these technologies, and will enable the U.S. to continue using its vast resources of coal while protecting the earth for future generations," says Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Kupfer.
To be sure, the environmental community is dubious. Some organizations are willing to see how the investment in advanced clean coal technologies plays out while others say it is a waste of money. Greenpeace, which falls into the latter category, released a report recently that concludes carbon capture won't be possible until at least 2030 -- 15 years too late to have addressed the most drastic ramifications of global warming. It also says that such technology would double the cost to operate power plants.
"Carbon capture and storage is a scam," says the report's author Emily Rochon, who is the climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace International. "It is the ultimate coal industry pipe dream. Governments and businesses need to reduce their emissions -- not search for excuses to keep burning coal."
Clearly, a philosophical divide exists between those who reason that coal's market dominance will not wane and those who espouse its early demise. But if advanced technologies are able to produce fossil-fired generation that is clean, reliable and affordable, it would be hard to turn away. Is it possible?
The U.S. government thinks so. So does American Electric Power, which is now testing chilled ammonia to scrub CO2 emissions from coal. If it works, it says those releases would then be compressed and stored permanently underground or be used to help retrieve oil deposits by 2011.
While some say that those endeavors are a distraction, others say that say that they demonstrate resolve in the face of the expected rise in energy consumption. If California is willing to take the bet, others should withhold judgment and let the process go forth.
More information is available from Energy Central:
Respond to the editor.
Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief
Read Ken's Blog
