Are there any IGCC Coal Power Plants doing CO2 capture - economically?

[papau]

From an email I received:

The cost of wind is cheaper than the cost of burning coal on a per kW and per kWh basis because there are no fuel costs for wind and the operations and maintenance costs for wind turbines is far less than that of a coal burning power plant. Solar panels on the roofs of public buildings can help meet peak demand on the hottest (and sunniest) days of the year when everyone is running their air conditioners and using more electricity. Renewable energy generates more jobs per megawatt than fossil fuels

Coal contributes to Acid Rain, acid rain that makes the average pH of rain in Indiana 4.5, which is ten times more acidic than normal rain which has a pH of 5.5, contributes to Global Warming, and contributes to mercury contamination of the fish, with emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides that create smog, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, lead,beryllium, mercury, and fluorides, contributing to heath problems via heart, lung cancer, asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

In Edwardsport, Indiana, Duke Energy wants to build a 630 MW coal gasification (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC) power plant in to replace two old coal fired power plants built in the 1950'sl costing a minimum of $2.1 billion to construct and an additional $105 million per year in operations costs At a regulator approved rate of return that usually averages out to about 11%, the more money Duke spends, the more money they earn – they earn more profit by rejecting clean renewable energy and going with coal. Duke claims that the IGCC power plant will have the potential to capture carbon dioxide, but potential is not reality, while the ability build in the ability to capture carbon will be there, the proposal is to build the plant without that ability, carbon capture equipment later when changes occur in the federal regulations governing carbon dioxide emissions. Even then, they will only add the carbon capture equipment if it proves to be less expensive than simply paying for carbon dioxide allowances, defeating the stated purpose of reducing carbon emissions. What they are not saying is that the cost of carbon dioxide capture will increase the cost of the plant by 37% and reduce the efficiency of the plant by 20%!

[philb]

1. There are no coal power plants of any kind doing CO2 capture at all currently

And there is no proven technology to do so.
Current technology projects power losses of at least 14% if carbon capture was carried out.

But there are IGCC chemical plants doing carbon capture economically, by selling the CO2 to pump down old oil wells
to increase oil production. On a limited basis.

[papau]

2. Thanks for the info - I knew Bush had a Demo power project in the Budget - but I didn't

think it was up and running - and I was fairly certain that the power companies would never do a good deed if it did not make them a great deal of money.

[XemaSab]

3. We're working on getting some online

The technology is still a little wonky, and siting the things are a bear. :P

[papau]

4. Are the cost items in the email correct - that wind/solar are less costly when

total cost to society of health even post CO2 etc capture, plus cost of CO2 etc capture and disposal, plus fuel and its transport cost/effects on life style, are calculated relative to power output?

As to siting, I once tried to make money via a tiny - thank god - investment in oil and gas wells - and I learned how even when you get lucky and find gas/oil, the rock formation can both opened up losing pressure via opening to the surface in surrounding areas/ or opening downward draining the oil to another location all within a few weeks, or close up stopping the flow of gas - at the least stopping the flow to the pipe you had put in the ground. How does one lock the CO2 put underground in a way that it stays underground?

[Nihil]

5. That's the big trick ... convincing people that it WILL stay there! :-)

> How does one lock the CO2 put underground in a way that it stays
> underground?

We have a few posters who regularly note that "carbon-trading is a scam"
(and I don't disagree with them) but, even if carbon-trading goes bad,
it doesn't kill people in their sleep ... why not the same fuss about
this particular (deadly) shell-game?

:shrug:

[papau]

6. good question - my "gas well" hole in the ground was anything but stable n/t

n/t

[XemaSab]

7. I think it remains to be seen

:shrug:

[philb]

8. Environmental externality cost of coal more than the cost of buring it, according to all

studies I've seen such as by several state Public Utility Commissions that have done such.
So total cost of coal is more than for many options taking total cost into account, as Economic Theory indicates you should. If total cost isn't taken into account when decisions are made, you get the wrong answer and end up with higher total societal cost.

Alternative energy option prices are in rapid flux, so it depends on what you look at.

Some of the solar PV units with concentrators or with thin film arrays appear to be coming on line soon with much lower prices than historic costs. There is a large increase in solar activity currently that should also tend to bring down prices. But most available solar PV is still higher than most other options, if externality cost aren't included.

Fuel cell prices are coming down rapidly, according to DOE, for some types of fuel cells- such as high temperature solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC). DOE has had a big program including technical research and efforts to improve manufacturing process to reduce production cost. Such fuel cells can burn natural gas, sewer gas, landfill gas, or agricultural waste gas directly without external reformers- except that some cleanup might be required of waste gas that has sulfur, etc. that can cause problems for fuel cells.
DOE says some fuel cell prices will be below capital cost of options such as coal plants by 2010.
and they are very reliable, efficient, and clean.

Some wind prices now are less than other options, but the variability is still some problem.

Currently it looks like the most promising alternative energy source for coastal areas is ocean power.
11 commercial or pilot projects are currently being installed in the U.S. and about 20 more are in the permit process.
Electric Power Research Institute estimates that these projects could produce electricity at prices below other options
Ocean power has a big advantage over wind, being much more energy dense.
One company has offered to sign a contract with a utility to produce power at 4.5 cents per kwh.

[papau]

9. Thanks for the info - now I need to research ocean power companies - :-)

:-)

[madokie]

10. aep-pso is installing sequestion of CO2 capabilities to one of their oolagah OK

coal fired power plants

no link and bad spelling but here it is

[razzleberry]

11. CO2 can be offset for as little as ten cents a ton, why bother? nt

[philb]

12. The utilities last week at FPSC hearing say there is no current technology to sequester

CO2 at a reasonable price. They are projecting very high carbon costs.
If you know so much more than the utilities you should inform some of them or the PUCs.
What is your secret method?

[razzleberry]

13. from a report by the IPCC ...

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/025.htm

section 4.5

>Cost estimates of biological mitigation reported to date vary significantly from US$0.1/tC to about US$20/tC in several tropical countries <