Coal gasification 13

Comments Post a Comment +

1. 
   • GRLCowan 1762
   • 9 Jul 2006 10:20am 1152465615 1152494415

   Dozens before the snow fliesHundreds by 2010.
   Two good possibilities exist. (1) Nuclear retrofit, to stop adding to the problem. Coal combustors are hard to feed, hard to babysit, and yet all they do is supply hot gas, I'm not a coal-fired plant expert but I think 600 Celsius is hot enough, to steam generators. CANDU reactors have cool heavy water for bulk moderation, hot heavy water in the fuel channels for cooling. Because in the latter circuit it is kept liquid, it is limited to about 300 Celsius. I don't think it would be too much of a change to have supercritical heavy water there, or liquid lead if one is prepared to deal with freezing. Then either the hot D2O(g) or hot nitrogen that has been bubbled through the lead goes to the formerly coal-fired steam generators. Much less trouble than coal.
   (2) To begin backing out of the box, a few dozen large-scale centralized CO2 capture and sequestration "farms", so to speak --
   

   A typical extraction facility that could extract all current carbon dioxide emissions would require only an area of one square yard per person in the developed world. A facility of sufficient size could be located in arid regions, since discharged air that is deficient in carbon dioxide could have consequences on nearby plant life.
   Large expanses of desert would not be affected by the CO2 deficit however, and could provide the wide-open spaces necessary both for the facility and to allow the discharged air to become well mixed with the atmosphere again.

   
   Rounding up to one square metre per person, we get for each 100 million persons in the developed world the need to capture CO2 over an 11.3-km-diameter circular patch of desert. This means the developed world could be the whole world long before much of Mojave was spoken for. Why would you Yanks pay to unwind the whole world's CO2 problem? Um ... because you can?
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
   
   Boron: internal combustion without exhaust gas   ...read more

   • Permalink

   X
2. 
   • sunflower 1749
   • 9 Jul 2006 12:25pm 1152473101 1152501901

   Political Snake OilGov. Schweitzer is just chumming the waters for coal investors, and starting to smell like a fish left too long in the sun.
   Energy investors still remember the 1986 oil price collapse.  If US political leadership pulled for efficiency, like car pools, then the savings would be millions of barrels of oil per day and the world oil price would collapse.  
   Political leadership that push favorite local energy industries do not appear honest nor low risk.  Investor beware.  
   Honest political leadership will reduce the price of energy.  Expansion of supply will become a negative investment when market demand shrinks from conservation, efficiency, price elasticity, and new energy technology.
   Solar energy is cheaper than dirty coal, and much cheaper than clean coal.
     ...read more

   • Permalink

   X
3. 
   • LegumeSam 1767
   • 9 Jul 2006 7:58pm 1152500328 1152529128

   If it's so easy and cheap to sequester carbon...why aren't the nations in a race to do it now?
   
   http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/

   • Permalink

   X
4. 
   • DianaJardine 2081
   • 10 Jul 2006 12:26am 1152516401 1152545201

   Everything in the desert?Doesn't it seem a little impracticle to have all of our power generation located in the desert?
   What about the workers at the plant? What about the fact that there is no energy demand out there?
   Or did I misunderstand the quote. It was a little jargony.
   
   Diana

   • Permalink

   X
5. 
   • ffletcher 1791
   • 10 Jul 2006 12:57am 1152518223 1152547023

   Gasification and SequesteringThere are oppurtunities to build some, cleary not hundreds, gasification plants and sequester for enhanced oil recovery.  Granted these oppurtunties are limited to oil fields but generally the coal has to be shipped and it make more sense then to ship the coal and use the CO2 locally.
   Consider TU recent annoucement to build 8 coal plants in Texas.  Sound like a great place for enhanced oil recovery.
   I am sure Texas rate payers would be happy, in the end, to pay the increased cost of coal gasification to help thir local oil production if not also to reduce CO2, which I am sure a significant number would also support.  But getting any rate increase through is no small feat.  Thing is would the Texas Commission rather see conventional coal with the most environmental impact, no support for oil production and least rate impact or ICCG with CO2 Capture with less environmental impact, CO2 for enhanced oil production, but higher rate impact.  Often with regulatory bodies it is the rate impact that rules.   ...read more

   • Permalink

   X
6. 
   • GRLCowan 1762
   • 10 Jul 2006 1:59am 1152521982 1152550782

   Capture onlyThe CO2 capture plants would do only capture, compensating for CO2-emitting power generation elsewhere on the planet -- anywhere else at all, since the whole atmosphere mixes in a few years. (One way it is known for sure that increased atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuel combustors, and not a cosmic coincidence, is that the increase lags by a few years in the southern hemisphere. There are also isotopic clues.)
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
   
   Boron: internal combustion without exhaust gas

   • Permalink

   X
7. 
   • AE 2255
   • 10 Jul 2006 11:19am 1152555553 1152584353

   Coal articleon the front page of the Business pages of The New York Times last week, 7/5.  It included a map of the coal reserves in the US and it was frightening how vast they are.  I have read that sequestration is not very secure; gas can escape and kill people, in fact has done so.

   • Permalink

   X
8. 
   • GRLCowan 1762
   • 10 Jul 2006 12:46pm 1152560779 1152589579

   Lake NyosAE is perhaps thinking of Lake Nyos, which was a natural occurrence. Artificial sequestration has not been known to fail in the very limited instances so far tried. Deep ocean injection has been tried at beaker scale. Pressure was such that the CO2 had no choice but to be a liquid denser than water, i.e. to sink to depths where the pressure was even greater, while also slowly dissolving in the surrounding water.
   The reaction with serpentinite, q.v., is also irreversible without input of energy (by pulverizing this mineral and combining it with CO2 we fast-forward a process that would eventually have occurred anyway).
   So I see no reason to expect sequestration not to be reliable, if practiced. CO2 "wants", thermodynamically speaking, to be locked away.
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
   
   Boron: reason for me to talk up the intractability of CO2, were it intractable   ...read more

   • Permalink

   X
9. 
   • DianaJardine 2081
   • 11 Jul 2006 1:51am 1152607902 1152636702

   In the Ocean?Couldn't sequestration in ocean depths mess with life down in the deep by changing the CO2 levels?
   
   Diana

   • Permalink

   X
10. 
    • howardgw 2068
    • 12 Jul 2006 11:27pm 1152772033 1152800833

    coal gasificationUse of carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery is not sequestration! The idea with sequestration is to find a place to put the stuff where it will stay. In enhanced recovery much of the CO2 dissolves in and comes up with the recovered oil. It can be recaptured and used again, but the need for continuous supply suggests that it is not.
    
    Howard Wilshire

    • Permalink

    X
Comments Page 1 of 2 pages |  1 2 >