New power plant could land here (solution to peak oil?)

[RawMaterials]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS01/501090369/1056#

Hamilton and Clermont counties are in the running as possible sites for a $950 million project to build the world's first non-polluting, coal-burning power plant.

The federally funded power plant and a related research center seek to develop technology that would gasify coal - an especially abundant source of energy in Ohio - but release "near zero" emissions of carbon dioxide, mercury, sulfur dioxide and other common pollutants into the atmosphere. If successful, such technology could help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide - the primary ingredient in global warming - and mercury, a powerful neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to children.


How it would work

Instead of burning pulverized coal, the plant would gasify coal by pressurizing and superheating it. The gasification - a technology that Cinergy already uses at an Indiana plant on a test basis - would allow the development of other cutting-edge technologies:

• The plant would capture carbon dioxide from the gasified coal, then inject it thousands of feet underground - where it would fuse with rock, thereby keeping it out of the atmosphere.

• It would separate hydrogen from the coal and use it to power gas turbines or fuel cells to produce clean electricity.

• It would capture common air pollutants, including mercury, emitted from power plants, and keep them out of the atmosphere. Some pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide, could be converted to byproducts such as fertilizers or soil enhancers.

[mhr]

1. The Bulk Of Our Oil Use Is For Transportation

Unless we return to trains this won't help much except with the Peak Natural Gas problem.

[RawMaterials]

4. It is possible to go back to trains

A mix of high speed city to city, light rail suburbs to city and trolley with in the city.

Plus the article talks about extracting hydrogen from the coal this could help with hydrogen cars.

[mhr]

6. The EROEI On Hydrogen Is Negative - It Will Never Happen For Cars

That is just marketing propaganda!

[Zynx]

17. That's why you use nuclear to get the hydrogen

Otherwise, yeah, hydrogen makes no sense.

[mhr]

18. The Generation Of Hydrogen By Electricity Is A Net Negative

Better to use the electricity directly for battery powered cars.

[Trillo]

2. Reads as promising. nt

[mikehiggins]

3. Wow! Anyone who beleives all of that?

I'd like some of what you're smoking.

$2 billion bucks from now Halliburton and Bechtel will announce the project was a success, except that it releases 100% of the pollutants and CO2 into the air. With an additional billion or so, however, they will be able to wrestle those amounts down to, well, what we're doing now.

Me, I'd rather see nukes than more money put into fossil fuels.

[RawMaterials]

5. problem with nukes is the NIMBY

not in my back yard syndrome

[mhr]

7. Try This Mini Nuke Plant Developed By Toshiba

http://www.adn.com/front/story/4214182p-4226215c.html

[RawMaterials]

8. promising

I would like to have one in every city. cost is a problem though

[Wilms]

12. Best of all, that little nuke plant is "pollution free"...

according to the article.

WTF do you call nuclear waste? A "byproduct".

[NEOBuckeye]

9. Nuclear is inevitable; Coal will have to work for the transition, though.

I have no idea how true this is, but the US is supposedly sitting on top of 400 years of recoverable coal reserves at our present rate of energy consumption -- sans additional growth, of course, which would more rapidly reduce those reserves. Ideally, this would give us plenty of time to come up with fossil-fuel free, renewable energy sources and put them into widespread use. But then again, ideally, this transition is something that we should have seriously began before the 1970s, when the United States' oil reserves peaked, and before we became so dependent upon the Saudi Royal Family for foreign oil.

If they really can successfully liquefy coal without adding any more garbage into the atmosphere, then I'm all for it. I really hope we can find some way to continue widespread electrical use and a reasonable amount of transport. If gas right now jumped to $7.00 per gallon or higher, we would all see a LOT more carpooling, and increased demand for mass transit options. I bet many suburban office park businesses as well as people living in the suburbs would also suddenly want to move back into the city.

But I am also worried that continued, easily accessible fossil fuel reserves at lower prices might undermine a genuine, inspired movement away from suburbanized living and sprawl, and gas-guzzling monster vehicles that clog our highways. One way or another, developing and implementing renewable energy sources and mass-transit options must become our highest priority.

[NeoGreen]

16. The problem with Nuclear...

is that it will have its own "Peak", just like oil. I'm not sure which side of the curve we are on already but if we use it to replace the energy currently coming from oil 1:1, then its peak will be quick and over before you know it.

There isn't enough nuclear materical on Earth to sustain world (or even US) demand for long. Again, within a generation it would peak.

[DS1]

10. I thought mercury was good for the Appalachians

:eyes:

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

11. there won't be any appalachians if we switch to coal.

[johnaries]

14. You're right. Mining coal is extremely destructive and causes

massive pollution of the streams and the water table. There is NO SUCH THING as "Clean Coal" technology, no matter what Bushco says.

That's also the problem with Hydrogen fuel. We still have to use "dirty" energy to make the Hydrogen. However, if we used combined clean sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, etc. we can use that to produce the hydrogen.

Unless some miracle of science happens, the only solution is a broad-based energy policy.

[Santa Cruz]

13. Most of the big oil companies

are investing in LNG Plants. That's where they are laundering their dirty money, didn't you know? Most of these plants are scheduled to be built in Mexico, with 80% of the product piped to the USA.

[evolvenow]

15. Progress, but Solar is the only long term solution:" Mirrors!!

Las Vegas SUN: Council to vote on lease for solar power project

... than $120 million, would use parabolic mirrors to focus ... could begin in October and the plant could be ... It would be the first solar power plant generating more ...

www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/ stories/lv-gov/2003/aug/13/515471556.html

By Dan Kulin


Mayor Bob Ferraro said he thinks the solar plant is well on its way to becoming a reality. "I think it's a go. It's something we'll be very receptive of and the community supports it," Ferraro said. "They like the idea of green power."

Last month Solargenix Western Area Manager Gary Bailey said that once in operation the plant will consist of a sea of crescent-shaped mirrors covering 300 acres plus 50 acres for buildings and power generation facilities.

The facility, which Bailey said could cost more than $120 million, would use parabolic mirrors to focus heat on a glass tube filled with a special liquid that can stand temperatures above 700 degrees. The fluid is used to create steam, which turns a turbine to create electricity, Bailey said.
(snip)