Clean-Coal Debuted in Germany - in Sept 2008.

[JohnWxy]

In Sept. 2008 a "Clean Coal" plant began operations in Spremberg Germany. The Swedish company which built the plant is confident that this approach is technically feasible. But the question is can it be done economically.

The coal is combusted in a closed system in a pure oxygen environment and the CO2 is drawn off for sequestration. The sequestration part of the process will be costly. This pilot project is intended to see if this Coal Gasification and CO2 sequestration technology can be made commercially feasible.

Seems like Germany is moving ahead with testing this technology so much more easily than the U.S. is. The FutureGen project (after Bush administration killed it) seems to be moving ahead kind-of slowly (pilot plant planned to be inn operation in 2014).



http://www.technologyreview.com/business/21397/?a=f

Vattenfall's small 30-megawatt plant burns the lignite in air from which nitrogen has been removed. Combustion in the resulting oxygen-rich atmosphere produces a waste stream of carbon dioxide and water vapor, three-quarters of which is recycled back into the boiler.

~~
~~

The separated carbon dioxide will be cooled down to -28 °C and liquefied. Starting next year, the plan is to transport it by truck 150 miles northwest, to be injected 3,000 meters underground into a depleted inland gas field in Altmark. Ideally, in the future, the gas will be carried by pipeline to underground storage, says Vattenfall.

Compressing and transporting the carbon dioxide takes energy, as does the initial extraction of nitrogen. So these processes reduce the overall efficiency of the plant, although Vattenfall is attempting to counter this by investigating ways of boosting the efficiency of the boiler--by predrying the coal, for example.

~~

The aim, according to the company's vice president, Lars Strömberg, is to develop a power plant with "almost zero" pollution. He says that achieving no emissions will be impossible, "but we will come very, very close to this target."

(more)


http://www.zimbio.com/Global+Warming/articles/TauDpSgLL9O/Can+Captured+Carbon+Save+Coal+Fired+Power

Like all big coal-fired power plants, the 1,600-mega-watt-capacity Schwarze Pumpe plant in Spremberg, Germany, is undeniably dirty. Yet a small addition to the facility—a tiny boiler that pipes 30 MW worth of steam to local industrial customers—represents a hope for salvation from the global climate-changing consequences of burning fossil fuels.

To heat that boiler, the damp, crumbly brown coal known as lignite—which is even more polluting than the harder black ­anthracite variety—burns in the presence of pure oxygen, releasing as waste both water vapor and that more notorious greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2). By condensing the water in a simple pipe, Vattenfall, the Swedish utility that owns the power plant, captures and isolates nearly 95 percent of the CO2 in a 99.7 percent pure form.

That CO2 is then compressed into a liquid and given to another company, Linde, for sale; potential users range from the makers of carbonated beverages, such as Coca-Cola, to oil firms that use it to flush more petroleum out of declining deposits. In principle, however, the CO2 could also be pumped deep underground and locked safely away in specific rock formations for millennia.

(more)

[Nihil]

1. No, it didn't ...

The *capture* part started but the *sequestration* part never made it ...

Your article was dated September 19, 2008.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/germany-carbon-capture">This one was dated July 29, 2009.

> But the German carbon capture plan has ended with CO2 being
> pumped directly into the atmosphere, following local opposition
> at it being stored underground.

Quite reasonable opposition I would add as it is far more dangerous than
having the *equivalent amount* of radioactive waste stored in a sealed
environment underground ... but I digress :P

As for your second article, that is a good example of the smoke & mirrors
that surrounds the CCS hype industry:

> That CO2 is then compressed into a liquid and given to another company, Linde,
> for sale; potential users range from the makers of carbonated beverages, such
> as Coca-Cola, to oil firms that use it to flush more petroleum out of declining
> deposits.

i.e., the CO2 is not being sequestered at all, merely stored temporarily before
being released in a distributed form (rather than the point source of origin)
or, worse still, being amplified as it helps the feedback cycle of more fossil
fuel consumption and more CO2 release.

Talk about a con game.
:eyes:

[madokie]

2. Some interesting reading here about how England deals with their nuke waste

http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/waste/long-term-waste-higher.cfm

might want to check this out when you get the chance. :hi:

[Nihil]

3. Your link didn't work for me but guessing at the contents ...

... that's why I was very careful about my phrasing ...

>> having the *equivalent amount* of radioactive waste stored
>> in a sealed environment underground

... where this is the *equivalent amount* of nuclear waste
used for a "small 30-megawatt plant" over the same time period
as the coal burner was operating ...

:hi:

I couldn't resist a little snark at all those people who seem
to have unbelievable faith in "clean coal" and "carbon capture
and sequestration" whilst going into headless chicken mode as
soon as the word "nuclear" appears.

Sorry to have distracted you from the main message of my post.

[madokie]

4. Try this link just in case

http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/

I don't have any faith in sequestration but I do have some thoughts on gasifying the coal first so as to make less co2 to begin with as a tool to help us as we transition to cleaner sources.