Skeptics Emerge on Technologies for Cleaner Coal

[Doondoo]

Within the next few years, power companies are planning to build about 150 coal plants to meet growing electricity demands. Despite expectations that global warming rules are coming, almost none of the plants will be built to capture the thousands of tons of carbon dioxide that burning coal spews into the atmosphere.

Environmentalists are worried, but they put their faith in a technology that gasifies the coal before burning. Such plants are designed, they say, to be more adaptable to separating the carbon and storing it underground. Most utility officials counter that the gasification approach is more expensive and less reliable, but they say there is no need to worry because their tried-and-true method, known as pulverized coal, can also be equipped later with hardware to capture the global warming gas. But now, influential technical experts are casting doubts on both approaches.

“The phrases ‘capture ready’ and ‘capture capable’ are somewhat controversial,” said Revis James, the director of the energy technology assessment center at the Electric Power Research Institute. “It’s not like you just leave a footprint for some new equipment.”

Many experts outside the industry share his concerns. A major new study by faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, scheduled for release soon, concludes in a draft version that it is not clear which technology — the so-called integrated gasification combined cycle or pulverized coal — will allow for the easiest carbon capture, because so much engineering work remains to be done.

“Other than recommending that new coal combustion units should be built with the highest efficiency that is economically justifiable, we do not believe that a clear preference for one technology or the other can be justified,” the draft concludes. The M.I.T. study said it was critical that the government “not fall into the trap of picking a technology ‘winner.’ ”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/21coal.html

[spag68]

1. Coal gasification

Much of the tech. work was done in 1875 in Pgh. Pa. I know because I worked as an electrician on the plant. It worked on a design from S Africa, and it could produce a number of fuels, including methane and all products derived from it were captured with nothing lost to pollution. One of the products was anhydrous ammonia, which is fertilizer. I have to think that the advances in tech would make it much more efficient now. Further it produced the fuels at a competitive price even then. Granted these methods have some problems, but could provide a bridge to other better ways to produce fuel My personal favorite is geothermal, which if put into use in Yellowstone could pump superheated water to pollution free power plants. The best answer is local or personal solar, but then the big money people would lose their advantage over us all, so don't hold your breath until it's available.Still if we can keep electing progressives we have a chance.