Eli wrote:I am thinking of moving some of my cash out of some of the oil stocks I have in favor of companies that are developing coal gasification and CO2 injection into old oil wells.
I think there is a huge upside to CO2 injection and when CO2 is produced through coal gasification you get Syn Gas that will become profitable when ng is over 9 bucks so we are real close to the point where coal gasification is really going to take off.
So what companies are doing this?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Today's expensive gasoline is making people look for alternatives. That has opened doors of opportunity for entrepreneurs such as Andrew Perlman, who is betting that the "clean" fuel of future will be made from one of humanity's oldest -- and dirtiest: coal.
Perlman wants to turn coal into clean natural gas. The concept isn't new. In the 1800s, cities such as Boston used big, dirty ovens to turn coal into town gas to fuel streetlights and gas lamps in homes. During World War II, Nazi Germany turned coal into liquid fuel to run tanks.
During the energy crisis of the 1970s, the U.S. government promoted research projects to produce gas and liquid fuel from coal. But those efforts were abandoned after the crisis passed. Now, instability in the Middle East and record-high prices for petroleum products have prompted a new wave of interest in technologies to turn coal into natural gas and liquid fuel. For entrepreneurs such as Perlman, these technologies hold the promise of producing cleaner fuel out of coal, which is abundant and affordable.
"The U.S. has more coal than any other country in the world. It's actually about as cheap as dirt," said Perlman, co-founder and CEO of Greatpoint Energy, a Cambridge, Mass.-based company.
GreatPoint Energy is refining a process called catalytic gasification to convert coal into methane or substitute natural gas. In their process, coal is mixed with a catalyst and fed into a gasifier: a tall, narrow, metal cylindrical container.
Inside the gasifier, the coal and the catalyst are combined with steam and subjected to pressure. That causes a chemical reaction that converts them into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. GreatPoint says the key to its new technology is the catalyst it uses. Perlman says it's a combination of readily available metals, but so far, the ingredients are secret.
Because of that catalyst, GreatPoint's process works at a lower temperature than other technologies, which makes the process much cheaper. The catalyst also enables GreatPoint to separate out about half of the carbon dioxide, a chief cause of climate change. (The company plans to sell that carbon dioxide to be injected into oil or gas wells to facilitate production.) Other pollutants also are removed at the plant, which makes the product much cleaner than the synthesis gas produced by other gasification processes.
Greatpoint's technology works in the laboratory. Sometime this summer, the company will learn whether it also will work at a small-scale plant in Des Plains, Ill.
I think you are right in that it does not matter. The only thing that matters is whether we can power down.Windmills wrote:I heard that just a few minutes ago. The report said the technology wouldn't be available on a commercial scale for at least four years. --snip-- How cheap will it continue to be, and how long will it last under the new parameters? It would have been nice to hear about the EROEI for their plant, too.
dogf wrote:You actually do have a crap load of coal. In fact based on the current CTL technology available, expensive as it is, you have 200 years worth of L from C based on todays driving and machinery. But you are correct in thinking about the enviromental aspect of it. But that will change as it becomes profitable to protect the enviroment, as is now starting....
Montequest wrote:Total proven world reserves of coal are estimated to total almost one trillion tons and are projected to last over 200 years at current rates of consumption. The US has about 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. According to the EIA figures, we can see that we have 255 years of coal remaining in the year 2000 given our current rate of consumption. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90-120 years. However, if we look back in history, we see that there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by, our coal consumption increases and we see that the projection becomes meaningless. And if we suddenly move to a bigger reliance on coal, and coal liquidfaction for gas, then this estimate would surely drop dramatically.
Coal peak projections:
Hubbert Model Peak 2032
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2004 Peak 2060
Flat gas consumption and greater coal consumption Peak 2053
Flat gas consumption and synfuels from coal to replace oil Peak 2035
http://www.energyedge.net/The_Coal_Story.pdf
Much talked-about U.S. efforts to build a coal-fired power plant with near zero emissions are now concentrated in a single project, as the costs and difficulties of the endeavor have mounted and the stakes have risen.
FutureGen, a $1.5 billion public-private venture, aims to design and test the technology required to turn coal into a gas that can be stripped of harmful emissions, then burned to produce electricity and hydrogen. It will also capture carbon dioxide -- widely blamed for global warming -- and store it underground forever.
When operational in 2012, technology developed by FutureGen could help transform the nation's plentiful supply of coal into a friendly and affordable fuel to meet growing demand for electricity. But success of the project will not be quick or cheap, said Lawrence Makovich, a vice president with Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
"Reducing carbon in electric production is a very big challenge and it's something that is going to be very expensive," Makovich said.
"That's why there is so much government involvement
Graeme wrote:U.S. hopes for coal gasification ride on one projectMuch talked-about U.S. efforts to build a coal-fired power plant with near zero emissions are now concentrated in a single project, as the costs and difficulties of the endeavor have mounted and the stakes have risen.
FutureGen, a $1.5 billion public-private venture, aims to design and test the technology required to turn coal into a gas that can be stripped of harmful emissions, then burned to produce electricity and hydrogen. It will also capture carbon dioxide -- widely blamed for global warming -- and store it underground forever.
reuters
jbeckton wrote:
First they say by 2012, we will transform coal into a friendly and affordable fuel. Then they say that it is going to be very expensive.
What gives?
roccman wrote:There is no such thing as clean coal.
Mercury and CO2 are still released into the atmosphere.
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 technology allows for the separation of the pollutants currently regulated in the United States -- nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury -- from the gas before burning it. Carbon dioxide can also be separated.
jbeckton wrote:roccman wrote:There is no such thing as clean coal.
Mercury and CO2 are still released into the atmosphere.
SO2, NOX, and VOCs are captured with scrubbers and air is "cleaner" utilizing super critical boilers, but the trade off is increased fly ash.
Guess you didn't read the article.The technology allows for the separation of the pollutants currently regulated in the United States -- nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury -- from the gas before burning it. Carbon dioxide can also be separated.
They propose sequestion, hence no CO2 into the atmosphere but it remains to be seen if it is effective. I doubt it. Gasification also separates mercury.
SO2 scrubbers scrub mercury as well. And where on earth did you come up with the notion that scrubbers lead to increased flyash???
If anything, adding SO4 to the flue gas will make particles more susceptible to ion charging and it is more likely to be captured by the precipitator. Hence, less flyash.
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.
Jeff Stant, who has studied the project permit, disagrees. “Assertions of plans are one thing. What the permit says is another.” Desert Rock’s pollution permit application says: “Solid wastes produced by the combustion of the coal and the air pollution control system will be returned to the mine.”
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.
The plant will also emit an estimated 13.7 million tons of global warming pollution per year, Sithe claims that it has designed the plant to function at super-critical heat, to get more energy out of less coal. Yet Sandra Ely, environment and energy policy coordinator for the New Mexico Environment Department, told the Farmington Daily Times that the plant would raise statewide greenhouse gas levels by 25 percent.
While it is a leading cause of global warming, the EPA currently has no restrictions on carbon dioxide.
That may change soon. California utilities' strict emission standards mean that state will not buy power from coal-powered plants, and other states may soon follow.
Carol Oldham of the Sierra Club is sanguine. “It’s just a matter of time before carbon is heavily regulated,” she says. “A number of industry groups have called for an 80 percent carbon reduction by 2050. So we could end up with a lot of empty plants paid for by our taxes.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests