6 replies to this topic

[still learning]

The US Department of Energy has withdrawn funding from the CCS project FutureGen 2,0.  Looks like the end of that effort.  CCS, carbon capture and storage has been seen by some as a necessary part of a transition away from fossil fuels.  Would allow coal to continue to be used to generate electricity, but capture and bury the CO2 that would otherwise be dumped into the atmosphere.  Lots of delays implementing the project, also apparently the economics of CCS electricity are impossible as long as other powerplants are allowed to emit CO2 without penalty.  See http://www.macon.com...-after.html     and     http://www.nature.co...tration-1.16868

[still learning]

still learning, on 08 February 2015 - 08:48 AM, said:

.......apparently the economics of CCS electricity are impossible as long as other powerplants are allowed to emit CO2 without penalty......

      Looks like the economics of new non-CCS coalfired electricity may not be all that good either.  Apparently some dissatisfaction among the customers of the "Prairie State Energy Campus" (in Illinois, as is FutureGen) because of cost.  See  http://finance.yahoo...73556745.html   and   http://www.whig.com/...t-rate-fights   and  http://en.wikipedia....               

    Of interest is the apparent blaming of cost overruns on carbon emissions regulations that don't apply.  Quoting from one of the above links  "Prairie State's defenders say it was expensive because it's one of the country's cleanest, most efficient power plants. As one of the few coal plants built in the U.S. in 30 years, it faced unanticipated costs in meeting tough, modern carbon emissions standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency that have vexed older coal-fired plants." I'm pretty sure that CO2 regulations don't apply here and the Wikipedia link above supports that view.  It is easy to imagine though that there is a lot of expense involved in meeting existing EPA regulations about non-CO2 pollutants.  Illinois coal is mostly higher in sulfur than other coal, probably added expense there.  Cost overruns?  Blame environmental regulations, even those that don't apply.

[still learning]

still learning, on 08 February 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

    Of interest is the apparent blaming of cost overruns on carbon emissions regulations that don't apply.  

     Not exactly the same, but a 1968 vintage Montana coal-fired electric powerplant is permanently closing, in part because updating the plant to comply with mercury emissions regulations would be costly, and a Republican US Senator is blaming the Obama administration, naturally.  See  http://news.yahoo.co...91718144.html   and  http://www.daines.se...-plant    and   http://www.epa.gov/mats/basic.html

[still learning]

Another CCS project failing, this one in Texas.

See http://insideclimate...-energy-project

Couple of things that stand out to me in the insideclimatenews article.
One is that some folks claim that CCS, carbon capture and storage, is a necessary technology to control climate changing CO2 emissions in a fossil-fuel burning economy.  Maybe so, but looks like the answer may be to leave the fossil fuel in the ground, rather than try to extract the energy, burn the carbon,  and somehow stuff the CO2 back into the ground.  Leave the carbon in the ground. Especially if the carbon is in the form of coal, as in this Texas project.
Looks like the project was to use the sequestered CO2 for enhanced oilfield recovery.  Wonder what the net CO2 sequesteration would have been?  Getting the oilfields to produce more oil to be burned to produce more CO2 wouldn't help climate any.

Interesting that Texas Congressional Representative Lamar Smith is a backer of the project.  He's been openly skeptical of the idea of anthropogenic climate change, and as Chairman of the House Science Committee wields a fair amount of power in favor of fossil fuel interests.  Logically, as a supposedly fiscal conservative and a climate change skeptic, he'd oppose wasting money on a useless project.  Guess pork overrides logic.  Actually, silly of anybody to expect logic to apply to Congress.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Clueless morons.
"Oh it's cost soooooooo much!!"
Please.

Their future is about as far away as what to have for lunch.
They don't see the bigger picture. (Hell, they don't even know what the picture is!!)

Granted coal is cheap. But so is white bread. Neither one has value.
Solar, wind power, storage batteries take investment. But these morons are not willing to make that investment.

To me, environmentalists are people that plant trees that will never have the opportunity to sit in their shade;
it's the same with renewables. Invest for the future. Period.
Coal is dead.
(And btw-coal is killing us)

[still learning]

Still another CCS project in deep trouble, the Mississippi one, Kemper.

This one had several things going in it's favor.  One should have been "lessons learned," no need to repeat previous mistakes.  If I remember correctly, the plant is very close to the supposed fuel source, so transportation expense should be less.  Also, if I remember correctly, they had a place to put the captured carbon dioxide, nearby oilfields where it would have been useful in enhanced oil recovery.

Looks like some really awful design and construction management though.  Way over budget and it still doesn't work.

see  https://www.desmogbl...oss-3-4-billion

[still learning]

Another desmogblog article about the Kemper project mentioned above, this one alleging fraud.  Wonder if jail will ever be involved?  Lots of work for lawyers anyway.
See: https://www.desmogbl...an-coal-project