Community | March 06, 2009 | 21 comments

U.S. Department of Energy Taking "Fresh Look" at Carbon-Capture Coal-Fired Power Plant

source: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=futuregen-doe-fresh-looki

Image
mako2424
The Energy Department may proceed with a "modified" plan to build a prototype coal-burning power plant that would capture and store carbon dioxide as part of new efforts to expand international collaboration on carbon-management technologies, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said today.

His comments are the strongest indication yet that DOE might reverse a Bush administration decision to pull the plug on FutureGen, a federal-industry project that was to be built in Illinois and has faced significant cost overruns.

"We are taking, certainly, a fresh look at FutureGen, how it would fit into this expanded portfolio," Chu told reporters after his appearance at a Senate hearing on DOE research and development programs.

Chu said he has been working with foreign ministers and energy ministers to ensure greater international collaboration on what projects proceed to ensure that a range of carbon-management technologies are pursued.

A greater collaboration on deciding what projects to fund and how to "parcel out turf" would allow a FutureGen project to pursue a smaller range of missions, he said.

While the FutureGen plant was to have been a test bed for several technologies, if another nation plans to pursue one particular project, it would not have to be part of FutureGen, Chu said. This could help reduce project costs that otherwise could have been more than $2 billion, he said.

"There are many, many good things about it," Chu said. "We want to go forward in some modified way on that."

Several nations are planning carbon capture and storage demonstration projects, including 10 to 12 planned in the European Union, but greater multinational planning is needed, Chu said.

"It is being done essentially independently of one another," he said. "This does not make any sense to me. When I have been seeing a number of energy ministers, foreign ministers that have been coming through. In each instance, I said ... we know we need to explore a half-dozen technologies."

"Why not decide which ones we will explore? We could have people in various countries there on the ground participating in this," he continued, citing the prospect of "true engineering collaboration."
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Earth and Science,   Science,   1 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Green,  Earth and Science,  Environment,  10 more
  3.     
    |

21 comments // U.S. Department of Energy Taking "Fresh Look" at Carbon-Capture Coal-Fired Power Plant

  • Ihateusernames
  • Ihateusernames
    • 0
      Ihateusernames  

    • http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ncr/srivasta.pdf

      This is just one example. Are you really debating the fact that existing technologies can reduce the environmental impact of coal fired generation?

      I am going to reiterate a few points here. Yes, one day renewable energy will replace fossil fuels, and the sooner the better. However, right now we receive a majority of out electricity from fossil-fuel-based systems. The conversion will not happen over night, and even if we can achieve JanforGore's ambitious goal of 100% renewable energy in 5 years (impossible), we will still get the majority of our power from fossil-fuels for that 5 year period. Thus, improving the efficiency of the existing infrastructure through the use of emissions reducing technologies (they definitely do exist) must be part of any practical solution. And I am talking about mercury and other hazardous chemicals, carbon capture and sequester is in the embryonic phase.

      JanforGore can spit environmentalist mantras all day, but we need coal right now and it is wise of energy secretary Chu to look into emerging technologies.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Ihateusernames
    • 0
      Ihateusernames  

    • There might not be clean coal, but there is "cleaner" coal. Pulverized Coal Plants are much dirtier than CFB and gasification models, so if we need coal for the foreseeable future better it come from the latter.

      Janforgore makes a good point, but we need this energy now, right now, and all the investment in the world is not going to bring solar up to speed by tomorrow.

      It is a matter of pragmatism. Doubling our renewable output is the goal, and we don't even have a national RPS yet, so let's clean up the existing infrastructure and make it more efficient. Efficiency is often overlooked as a way to reduce carbon and other emissions. Selective catalytic reduction and other technologies CAN greatly reduce the environmental impact of coal. Lets use them.

    • 3 years ago
  • simplecj
    • 0
      simplecj  

    • You can capture all the fucking carbon you want and it STILL will not make coal a clean resource. CO2 is not "dirty", it is all the other poisonous byproducts of coal that are the real problem, sulfur, arsenic, lead, mercury and more. They are trying to "greenwash" coal to make it look better than it really is.

      THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL!!! DON"T BELIEVE THEIR BULLSHIT, WE HAVE TO FIND A DIFFERENT WAY!

    • 3 years ago
  • mrburns
    • 0
      mrburns  

    • How are all of you MO-MO's powering your computers right now?

      I guess you all have windmills attached to you houses??????

      God bless big oil
      God bless the tax-paying americans

    • 3 years ago
  • Ihateusernames
    • 0
      Ihateusernames  

    • Well, no, we can't. We cannot power our ENTIRE economy with solar and wind (+ other renewables) right now.

      I work in the field, and I do everything I can to promote renewable technologies - even donating my time to the Boston Consortium on the Solar Decathlon. But the sad truth is that the technology is not there, and it is not affordable. If you want to get technical, what we really need is combination of renewable portfolio standards and carbon cap-and-trade. That would help to promote cleaner fossil fuels and renewables.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Ihateusernames:

      Clean coal is NOT possible and it is not renewable. And we in America can do anything if we really WANT to do it. The problem is that people in the coal industry don't really WANT to do it AT ALL if truth be told, so they come up with these BS schemes with Madison Avenue slogans like "clean coal" to make people believe that all of a sudden coal is clean and it will be the savior of the environment.

      If we allow this industry to continue with these LIES we will never see solar and wind being used in this country on the scale it must be, and again, I say MUST BE in order to save the climate balance of this planet along with stopping the poisoning of our planet and people. It will not happen TODAY, but surely we can do it in even five years if we again, really WANT TO.

      And if you are so concerned about the environment, you would be calling for that instead of cheerleading for an industry that has killed thousands of people and destroyed acres of beautiful land all for the sake of profit.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Well we have to get that energy out there which we can now. I am tired of that excuse. Solar is cheaper and getting even cheaper and can be used now. Wind is the top alternate energy in this country and growing. If Kenya of all places can do it, so can America. And we don't have time to play around with this. We don't have twenty more years for government and industry to continue jerking our chains about this in order to make more profits and keep alternate energies off the market on a mass scale. As scientists claim, if we do not rein in GHG emissions at least by 70% by 2015-2020 we may well reach the tipping point. All this 'technology' will do is stall any real progress from coming. It is all a ploy by the coal industry to stall other energy sources from becoming mass marketable. It's time to make the change now. And we can.

    • 3 years ago
  • ocanada
    • 0
      ocanada  
    • JanforGore:

      Thats why there are now fifty billion dollars being invested this year by the federal government in renewable power generation and why we will have twice our renewable capacity in less than two years. And that is before another projected thirty billion for research and development and subsidies for electic car production expected to be rolled out this year. Better to give a billion to help clean up coal and have thier lobbying firms tied up with divying the money while the real work is being done. The political reality is that if you can get something positive out of the coal lobby and stop them from trying to derail renewables than you've already won the battle because renwables are better than coal bar none.

    • 3 years ago
  • Ihateusernames
    • 0
      Ihateusernames  

    • I know that you all saw on TV that clean coal does not exist, but renewables are not yet ready to meet the skyrocketing demand for energy.

      Coal mining, transport, and burning is bad for the environment, yes. But it can be cleaned up to limit NOx and other emissions, and we need it right now. Our economic viability is tied to cheap energy, which cannot be provided without coal, not right now.

      I am all for getting rid of coal, but not until we can provide that energy elsewhere. Until that time, we need to improve the efficiency of existing infrastructure.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Absolutely.The idea is to not emit the Co2 to begin with. Whether you spew it in the air or bury it in the ground it is still there. Amazing how politicians and corporations can so easily pull the wool over some peoples' eyes.

    • 3 years ago
  • vladrath
    • 0
      vladrath  

    • This is a waste of time really, in the end it doesn't solve the problem of using coal. The only reason the politicians like coal is because it is produced here in America and the coal lobby is pushing to keep miners (mining companies) mining.

      My question really is if this technology does take off. And they can sequester the CO2, are they still going to have the waste from the power plants lying around. My guess is probably. Are they going to be able to capture all the heavy metals that come out of coal? Doubtful.

      Coals arguably the worst fossil fuel we have, and we need to stop using it, not only as Americans but as a species, unless we like strange cancers.

    • 3 years ago
  • blknight
    • 0
      blknight  

    • i don't even know why we're wasting money on a non-renewable source of energy. It's short-term, and if we don't solve the energy problem, we will have a lot worse problems to face. Energy is the foundation of everything.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Still wanting to hold us slaves to toxic coal. It doesn't matter what smoke and mirrors 'technology' they try to come up with to allow coal companies to not have to abide by carbon caps, as long as they blow up mountains to get it it pollutes the environment with coal ash and toxic sludge and poisons people. Shame on them for not pursuing solar as energetically as they are continuing to suck up to the coal industry.

      Does Steven Chu even know what just happened in Tennessee?
      THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL.

    • 3 years ago
  • current89
    • 0
      current89  
    • JanforGore:

      Yes, damn that "technology."

      "Does Steven Chu even know what just happened in Tennessee?"

      Does JanforGore even know what a Nobel prize is? You should because Gore has one as well.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      Yes, and as a Nobel prize winner, Al Gore disputes "clean coal" as viable now and he is correct. But then, that is because he isn't in politics anymore and can be honest, whereas those in it are playing the game. And if you have been following Steven Chu's own words, he spoke against 'clean coal' before he backtracked at his confirmation hearing. So thanks for actually showcasing that difference in illustrating what BS politics really is and once again illustrating what a syncophant you are regarding this administration. The FACT is that COAL KILLS, and I don't care WHO tells me it doesn't. I can think for myself.

    • 3 years ago
  • DrPhiloneous
    • 0
      DrPhiloneous  
    • JanforGore:

      Jan's right.

      There is no such thing as clean coal. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The pollution just moves from the air to the ground and into the water and soil.

      Instead of investing in any kind of fossil fuel technology (such as oil, natural gas and coal), we should be running towards renewable sources like solar, wind and hydro.

    • 3 years ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  
    • Image
    • JanforGore:

      what's clean about the burning if mining it is leathal to nature?

      yes we can and should "Carbon-Capture" and use it like feed it in to an alge farm (not pump it deep in the ground to perculat back up in a few years)

      How can all this make a difference if the production of coal is stuck in the 16th century(coal ash)?

    • 3 years ago
  • current89
  • mako2424
more from Community:
from the community

top videos