China joins U.S. FutureGen project

[JohnWxy]

Here's one I'm sure some of you would be sorry if you missed it.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20061215-19035500-bc-china-futuregen.xml


WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- China has joined the United States in the FutureGen International Partnership, a plan to develop clean-burning coal, the U.S. Department of Energy said Friday.

[mainegreen]

1. Well, that's about the only natural resource they have left.

And boy do they have a lot of it.

[lapfog_1]

2. Want to make a quick $10 Million or more

figure out how to put out the underground coal mine fires in China.

Seriously.

China's coal mine fires burn 20 to 30 Million tons of coal every year.

[sillyphoenix]

3. Easy.

Block off all the exits.
No fresh O2 = doesn't taste like burning

[lapfog_1]

4. Not that easy...

Many materials can sustain a smoldering reaction, including coal, tobacco, wood, biomass fuels on the forest surface (duff) and subsurface (peat), cotton clothing and string, and polymeric foams (e.g. upholstery and bedding materials). The general features that characterize smoldering fuels are that they are porous, permeable to flow and formed by aggregates (particulates, grains, fibers or of cellular structure). These aggregates facilitate the surface reaction with oxygen by allowing gas flow through the fuel and providing large surface areas per volume.

smoldering fires are very hard to put out, especially when the seams of coal are exposed at the surface or in open pits or shafts. the coal is porous enough to pull the needed oxygen through the coal deep to where the fire is located.

[sillyphoenix]

6. I was sorta joking, but woah!

That's nuts. I didn't know coal could do that. Is that why it's relatively lightweight, 'cause it's porous? (I mean, relative to, say, a piece of granite of the same size)

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Check out Centralia, PA

There has been a huge coalmine fire burning under that town for decades. The town was evacuated in the late 1990s, IIRC.

"Clean Coal" is a myth created by the Coal Council. Unless they propose to liquefy it and put a lot of energy into cleaning up the liquid, it's all PR.

None the less, if we're ever faced with mass starvation and economic collapse, we'll be burning coal by the long ton. We'll burn anything. We've already burned almost all the fossilized crustacean poop that is the Ghawar oil field.

--p!

[JohnWxy]

8. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCE)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=73404&mesg_id=73404


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~
~~
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCE) involves exposing coal to oxygen at very high temperatures to cause the release of component gases, mostly hydrogen and carbon monoxide. this makes it possible to capture all the carbon emmissions along with other pollutants such as sulfer. the resulting synthetic gas or syngas is burned in a combustion turbine for power and the exhaust gasses are captured and used to heat water which drives another steam turbine for more power generation. This two turbine configuration enables IGCC plants to operate about 15% mmre efficiently than traditional coal fired power plants. While IGCC plants are 15% to 20% more expensive to build the operating efficiency gain returns the extra investment.

Tampa Electric Company (TECO) has been operating an IGCC plant since 1996 and it's the most efficient coal fired plant they operate.

(more)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[NNadir]

10. And they're building another one with $133 million in direct subsidy.

TECO, which is a coal company certainly has financial and other interests in putting lipstick on the coal pig. The "IGCC" plant that "they have operated since 1996," has no carbon dioxide sequestering technology" and dumps millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unremarked by coal apologists. They are content to say that someday someone "could" sequester carbon dioxide, except that there's no money in it. This is amazing when you think about it, because the Polk IGCC plant is so fucking tiny that it really shouldn't count as a commercial power plant. It's peak power rating is 260 MWe. If this is what coal apologists need to write home about, it's pretty fucking weak.

Note that the Government paid TECO a $130 million dollar subsidy to build this plant, even though it is insignificant in scale.

http://www.tampaelectric.com/news/powerstation/polk/

TECO will build one more "IGCC" plant, though.

Here's a TECO coal corporate release:

United States Department of Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman announced today at the National Coal Council meeting in Washington, D.C., that Tampa Electric has been awarded $133.5 million in Internal Revenue Service clean coal tax credits for the proposed Polk Unit 6, a 630-megawatt Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle facility that would be located on the site of the current Polk Power Station in Polk County, Florida. The purpose of the tax credit program is the deployment of clean coal-based generation technologies.

If the plant moves forward and receives the needed approvals from state regulators, environmental agencies and others, it would be in service in 2013.

“I congratulate Tampa Electric for being awarded a $133.5 million tax credit as part of the Bush Administration's commitment to support the deployment of the most advanced technologies currently available to utilize coal in the cleanest, most efficient manner,” Bodman said.

http://www.tampaelectric.com/news/article/index.cfm?article=400

Gee, I wonder if TECO executives are "Bush Pioneers?" One could search "Charles R. Black," and see, I guess, but that would be mean and would rain on the happy horseshit parade.

They're certainly getting a big, big, big kickback at TECO for "clean coal," if of course, you happen to be dumb enough to believe that dumping million ton quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere qualifies as "clean."

I don't believe that personally, but then again, I actually give a shit.

IGCC coal is mostly a marketing ploy, which is why the TECO coal company has not announced an intention to shut either of its 4 massive 1,800 Megawatt <b>conventional</b> plants at Big Bend <em>every single one of which, by themselves, dwarf their "lipstick on a pig" IGCC plant.

http://www.tampaelectric.com/news/powerstation/bigbend/

TECO is a coal company. It's purpose is to make money and it doesn't give a fuck about the environment except to the extent that it can use environmental marketing to obscure its real practices. Sometimes they are helped by people who post to Democratic websites pretending to be environmentalists.

I don't have a problem with making money but I do have a problem with global climate change, which is why I insist that building coal plants of any type is an extremely immoral practice.

[JohnWxy]

9. MIne safety and the Cheney administration - Strangers When They Meet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52928-2004Nov15?language=printer

From Washingtopost.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Safety Rules Got the Shaft, Workers Union Says

By Cindy Skrzycki
Tuesday, November 16, 2004; Page E01

For the past four years, the union has been dissatisfied with decisions the Bush administration's Mine Safety and Health Administration has made to place former industry officials in high-ranking jobs and eliminate long-standing regulatory proposals.


"They pretty much pulled off all the progressive regulations already," said Main, a former miner. "Those regulations should not have been withdrawn and make the difference between whether miners are protected or not."

~~
~~
Another controversy erupted over the agency's withdrawal of a Clinton-era rule addressing coal dust, which causes black lung disease and has killed thousands of miners.

Lauriski, formerly general manager of Energy West Mining Co. in Utah, one of the largest underground coal producers, offered a replacement rule. It would have allowed an increase in coal dust, to be offset by miners wearing protective breathing helmets, rather than investing in better ventilation and water to tamp down the dust.
(more)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coal dust is a significant concern with regard to mine explosions and fires.

[NNadir]

5. Why would any rational person applaud coal? I detest this program.

No person with a fucking mind would applaud this "lipstick on a pig" approach.

There is no such thing as "clean coal," and there never will be.