Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE COAL TO GAS (CTG) Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Mon 22 Oct 2007, 14:54:15

roccman wrote:A 1500 MW (power to supply 1.5 million homes) plant will produce around 500-600 pounds of Hg per year. Most is captured, but around 120-150 pounds are released into the atomosphere. Link

Additionally, 9,000 pounds of selenium are released each year from a 1500 MW plant.

A 1500 MW also produces 12.5 million tons of C02 annually. CO2 Seq. has never been proven effective or economical.

Fly ash from a 1500 MW plant is somewhere in the area of 1-2 million tons million tons per year.


You link does not come up. Are you referring to a coal gasification CC plant?

roccman wrote:Read more here JB:

Desert Rock Emissions

Sithe says that Desert Rock will be a flagship for a new generation of “environmentally friendly” coal-fired plants. According to Desert Rock Energy vice-president Nathan Plagans, fly ash from the plant will be sold to make concrete, reducing the plant’s solid waste output dramatically, and the plant will use as little water as possible.


Are you referring to flyash produced or flyash captured? It’s obviously better to have a higher amount of flyash captured, that is a good thing not a bad thing. You also need to take into account that when a plant builds a scrubber, they burn cheaper, high sulfur coal because they are scrubbing the sulfur. This sometimes produces flyash from coal that the plant was not designed to burn so you run into opacity problems (I am currently troubleshooting those problems at my plant), but there are solutions to these problems.

roccman wrote:Sithe has also made a voluntary agreement to reduce mercury emissions by 80 percent above what the pollution permit requires. But the Sierra Club, another national environmental group, estimates that the plant will put 114 to 555 pounds of mercury a year into the local environment, along with tons of other toxins. Regional waterways including the San Juan River are already subject to fish warnings because of high mercury content.


This is a terrible link. They are talking about a plant that is proposed to take advantage of laxed environmental standards on a reservation that is exempt from the EPA. This plant is completely on the other side of the spectrum from the plant referred to in the OP. Do understand the difference between the two plants? If so, why post that link?
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Mon 22 Oct 2007, 16:40:19

jbeckton wrote:
This is a terrible link. They are talking about a plant that is proposed to take advantage of laxed environmental standards on a reservation that is exempt from the EPA. This plant is completely on the other side of the spectrum from the plant referred to in the OP. Do understand the difference between the two plants? If so, why post that link?


Actually not JB -

1) The DREP is very close to IGCC releases.

2) EPA Region 9 will (or will not) issue the PSD for this plant.

So you are not corect on both counts.

And my points were:

1) Clean coal burning plants do not exist.

2) IGCC technology is not currently economical or proven above 500MW.

3) IGCC + S has NEVER been tested in commercial application.
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Mon 22 Oct 2007, 17:05:44

jbeckton wrote:
They are talking about a plant that is proposed to take advantage of laxed environmental standards on a reservation that is exempt from the EPA.

This plant is completely on the other side of the spectrum from the plant referred to in the OP. Do understand the difference between the two plants? If so, why post that link?


Go to page 2-28 (Figure 2-6) of the 2007 EIS for the Desert Rock Power Plant to see how very close DREP and IGCC releases are....

I will summarize here:

Pounds of SO2 and NOX per million BTU:

Desert Rock = 0.06/0.06

IGCC = 0.03/0.06

Now JB go here for PSD Application overseen by EPA Region 9 for the PSD air permit.

Link
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 07:32:16

roccman wrote: EPA Region 9 will (or will not) issue the PSD for this plant.


Then your link is very misleading:

A provision of this act known as the Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERA) made it unnecessary for Indian nations to follow national laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)


And you didn't factor in the proposed CO2 sequestion, precedented or not. These are not the same plants.

Clean Coal, is a relative term. If you consider the difference between the average plant in operation today, and a new generation IGCC plant the reductions are as follows:

S02=3100% from current
NOx=1600% from current
Mercury=95% overall
Water usage=80% from current
CO2=90% overall

I think that these reductions are very significant and very important unless you really believe that we will not burn the remaining coal sooner or later. I think that these plants will not only lower GG's but also cost much more, which is good for alternative energy.

You may not like the term clean coal, but to say that it's no different is just misinformation.

I still don't understand where you were going with your flyash comments.


http://www.clean-energy.us/facts/igcc.htm
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 08:54:32

NEWSFLASH JB

CO2 Seq is currently NOT in commercial use for coal generators over 500MW.

Two plants exist in the US that were paid for by DOE...one in Idiana and one in Florida...


Can U dig it.

Also - you may want to read about things you know nothing about before you post crap...

To wit : your claim that EPA has no jurisdiction over Desert Rock Power Plant...my link had ZERO to do with your false statement.

That is called a strawman JB.
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 09:19:43

roccman wrote:NEWSFLASH JB

CO2 Seq is currently NOT in commercial use for coal generators over 500MW.



Perhaps you will kindly direct me to where I claimed that it was?

Also, that is the entire point of the OP, can you dig?

It's like someone posting that they were going to build the first next generation nuclear power plant in Texas, and you chime in to say "there is currently no next generation plant in Texas"

Thanks for that!

Talk about strawman!
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 09:27:41

roccman wrote:Also - you may want to read about things you know nothing about before you post crap...


I think it'pretty clear who doesn't understand what they are talking about.

roccman wrote:SO2, NOX, and VOCs are captured with scrubbers and air is "cleaner" utilizing super critical boilers, but the trade off is increased fly ash.


The trade off is increased flyash????

More flyash captured means less flyash into the atmosphere, which means less acid rain.

What a horrible tradeoff that is!

You have no idea what you are talking about, go back to the 911 Conspiricy or expert status complaints thread where you at least won't be disrupting a rational discussion.

Can ya dig?
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 09:34:47

jbeckton wrote:
roccman wrote:Also - you may want to read about things you know nothing about before you post crap...


I think it'pretty clear who doesn't understand what they are talking about.

roccman wrote:SO2, NOX, and VOCs are captured with scrubbers and air is "cleaner" utilizing super critical boilers, but the trade off is increased fly ash.


The trade off is increased flyash????

More flyash captured means less flyash into the atmosphere, which means less acid rain.

What a horrible tradeoff that is!

You have no idea what you are talking about, go back to the 911 Conspiricy or expert status complaints thread where you at least won't be disrupting a rational discussion.

Can ya dig?


Ummm yeah...

another NEWSFLASH for you JB...

THE FLY ASH GETS BURIED AND EFFECTS GROUND WATER SUPPLIES.

Over 130 MILLION tons have been buried at just two power plants in the vicinity of Desert Rock (the San Juan and Four Corners).

130 MILLION TONS

Perhaps you should have pursued registration as an engineer.
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 09:46:51

roccman wrote:another NEWSFLASH for you JB...


Keep em' comming, I love throwing them back in your face!

roccman wrote:THE FLY ASH GETS BURIED AND EFFECTS GROUND WATER SUPPLIES.


So, according to your logic, it is better to have flyash released into the air, than collected and disposed of at selected locations?

You can argue that it should be disposed of in different locations (you are not), but to say that it's a TRADEOFF to have the ABILLITY to collect it in the first place is just stupid. Why collect mercury either?

I have a different title for you.

STRAWMAN!
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 09:59:10

jbeckton wrote:
roccman wrote:another NEWSFLASH for you JB...


Keep em' comming, I love throwing them back in your face!

roccman wrote:THE FLY ASH GETS BURIED AND EFFECTS GROUND WATER SUPPLIES.


So, according to your logic, it is better to have flyash released into the air, than collected and disposed of at selected locations?

You can argue that it should be disposed of in different locations (you are not), but to say that it's a TRADEOFF to have the ABILLITY to collect it in the first place is just stupid. Why collect mercury either?

I have a different title for you.

STRAWMAN!


JB - let me restate what I posted in my first thread

1) there is no such thing as clean burning generators...you either get dirty water or dirty air.

2) IGCC + S has NEVER been commercially available

3) Critical boilers (630 + degrees) have nearly the same emmissions as IGCC

4) Less pollution = more global warming.

Can you dig it J " I never took the time to get registered as an engineer" Becton??
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 10:24:43

roccman wrote:1) there is no such thing as clean burning generators...you either get dirty water or dirty air.


Clean is a relative term and there is no such thing as a burning generator. A generator rotates a coil of wire inside a magnetic field, it does not burn anything.

roccman wrote:2) IGCC + S has NEVER been commercially available


Welcome to the point of the thread. It only took you 10+ posts to realize what was going on, an improvement from the 911 thread!

roccman wrote:3) Critical boilers (630 + degrees) have nearly the same emmissions as IGCC

Where is a link to what you are refering to since you can't seem to make sence of it yourself?

roccman wrote:4) Less pollution = more global warming.

We are now all dumber having read that. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 11:11:17

jbecton wrote:They propose sequestion, hence no CO2 into the atmosphere but it remains to be seen if it is effective. I doubt it.
can I return my expert class? It has been sullied. The notion that a coal-plant manager would doubt sequesation is laughable. How can this absurdity be merely doubted? This lame scheme must be rung by the neck and throttled until dead.

That anyone would actually suggest those little co2 molecules be rounded up at coal plants around the country and packaged up and shipped off to holes in the ground or the deep ocean is beyond belief. jbecton you should know better.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26319
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby jbeckton » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 11:59:14

pstarr wrote:
jbecton wrote:They propose sequestion, hence no CO2 into the atmosphere but it remains to be seen if it is effective. I doubt it.
can I return my expert class? It has been sullied. The notion that a coal-plant manager would doubt sequesation is laughable. How can this absurdity be merely doubted? This lame scheme must be rung by the neck and throttled until dead.

That anyone would actually suggest those little co2 molecules be rounded up at coal plants around the country and packaged up and shipped off to holes in the ground or the deep ocean is beyond belief. jbecton you should know better.


Sorry, pstarr, I have this annoying habit of not completely dismissing things I haven't studied.

You should take it up, that way I won't have to make a fool out of you every time you denounce something that is very possible.

I believe that much of the CO2 could be rounded up; I just don’t believe that we could effectively store it.

Sorry, I like to read about things whether I agree with the notion or not. That is why I continue to learn and you stay just as ignorant as the day you arrived.
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 03:00:00

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 15:49:54

pstarr wrote:
jbecton wrote:They propose sequestion, hence no CO2 into the atmosphere but it remains to be seen if it is effective. I doubt it.
can I return my expert class? It has been sullied. The notion that a coal-plant manager would doubt sequesation is laughable. How can this absurdity be merely doubted? This lame scheme must be rung by the neck and throttled until dead.

That anyone would actually suggest those little co2 molecules be rounded up at coal plants around the country and packaged up and shipped off to holes in the ground or the deep ocean is beyond belief. jbecton you should know better.


JB knows very little.
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one project

Unread postby roccman » Tue 23 Oct 2007, 16:34:42

jbeckton wrote:

We are now all dumber having read that. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.


http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic33114.html

ITO god...

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4052
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

THE COAL TO GAS (CTG) Thread (merged)

Unread postby adonispayton » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 05:03:50

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) clean coal technology is a proven underground combustion process, which produces a synthetic gas or syngas at the surface that can be economically used for a variety of purposes including:

* Production of liquid fuels using Coal To Liquids technology
* Electricity generation using gas turbines / combined cycles
* As feedstock in different petrochemical processes

UCG clean coal technology has been successfully operating commercially at a number of sites in the ex-Soviet Union for more than 40 years, where two plants are still in operation. In this application the syngas is used primarily for power generation and heating.

Linc Energy through an extensive R&D programme, which included government support, has developed a benchmark UCG facility at Chinchilla in Queensland, Australia. This is the first facility of its kind to have achieved sustained success in the western world.

Linc Energy´s long term business plan is to use the syngas produced via UCG as feedstock to an adjacent on-site Coal To Liquids (CTL) plant with a target production capacity of 20,000 barrels of diesel fuel per day (20,000 BPD). Most importantly, the diesel fuel produced from Linc´s syngas will be a cleaner alternative to conventional refinery diesel.

Additionally, Linc Energy´s long term business plan is to use the syngas produced via UCG as feedstock in a Gas Turbine or Combined Cycle plant to generate much-needed and more environmentally friendly electricity.

Bringing together the unique production processes of UCG clean coal technology and CTL presents exciting opportunities for the future of the company and the country. Linc´s syngas is a much cheaper feedstock for the CTL process than traditional sources such as Natural Gas or Coal Gas derived from above ground coal gasification.

The unique advantage is that Linc can produce its syngas directly from the coal seam and then feed the output straight into the CTL Plant and Power Plant planned for the Chinchilla site.

The innovative thinking that has led to this unique process combination has the potential to make Linc Energy one of the world´s leading producers and suppliers of ultra-clean liquid fuels. This has an added advantage of helping address the insatiable global demand for diesel and other liquid fuels.
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu 26 Feb 2009, 19:09:19, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Link spam removed
User avatar
adonispayton
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue 09 Dec 2008, 03:00:00

Re: COAL TO GAS .. GAS TO DIESEL .. GAS TO POWER

Unread postby 3aidlillahi » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 05:53:08

Thank you, Linc representative. Enjoy your day.

Now why don't you move on? Because we're not buying the shit you dispense.
Riches are not from abundance of worldly goods, but from a contented mind.
User avatar
3aidlillahi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 02:00:00

Re: COAL TO GAS .. GAS TO DIESEL .. GAS TO POWER

Unread postby diemaker » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 07:48:40

Here's another intresting paper along the same line. Link http://www.thermoenergy.com/userfiles/Fi...
diemaker
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri 30 May 2008, 02:00:00

Re: COAL TO GAS .. GAS TO DIESEL .. GAS TO POWER

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 10:17:19

Calling this technology 'clean coal' is like calling a gushing head wound a minor scratch. Unless you are sequestering the CO2 created it is no more clean than burning natgas in the first place, and considerable energy is lost heating up the rocks and water intrusions underground in this process.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14042
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE COAL TO GAS (CTG) Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 28 Mar 2014, 05:25:42

I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14042
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron