Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Business / Technology


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Comments (0)     E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Future of U.S. coal power wagered on carbon capture

Coal companies and environmentalists alike are counting on a breakthrough in carbon capture and storage technology to siphon off harmful emissions from the world's coal plants. Critics say the effort to create 'clean coal' is an expensive pipe dream.

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON —

At a bend in the Ohio River, a bulky new device is being attached to a 30-year-old coal plant near the small town of New Haven, W.Va.

The device is being housed in a building four stories tall and bigger than a football field. A 150-foot-tall exhaust stack — so wide that it would take six adults with their arms fully stretched to reach around it — will reach into the sky. And pipelines will run out of the building and into saline aquifers two miles underground. The entire contraption will start up as early as September.

The purpose: capturing carbon-dioxide emissions and stashing them in underground rock formations — a critical part of the global effort to slow climate change. This is the technique that promoters say will make coal "clean" and critics say is an expensive pipe dream.

The stimulus bill devoted $2.4 billion to pilot projects. Last week, the Obama administration awarded $20 million of that to a program that uses supersonic shock waves to compress carbon for storage, on top of $408 million in stimulus money awarded to two other carbon pilot projects. It has pledged $1 billion more to a model plant called FutureGen. If the Waxman-Markey climate bill becomes law, a new Carbon Storage Research Corp. would pump another $1.1 billion a year into researching this nascent technology, and first movers would get billions of dollars more in bonus emission allowances that could be sold.

Coal companies and environmentalists are counting on a breakthrough in carbon capture and storage technology to siphon off harmful emissions from the world's coal plants. Coal plants in the U.S. account for a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions.

In the past five years China has brought online coal-fired electricity equal in size to total U.S. installed capacity, and new plants are coming online in the developing world all the time. Without a breakthrough on coal plants, it may be impossible to meet emission limits climatologists say are needed.

Yet carbon capture and storage remains the elusive holy grail of the coal industry, an idea that could contain the damage inflicted by coal-burning power plants but a technology that remains expensive, energy intensive and largely untested. Even optimists say it will not be commercially available for another six to 10 years. Pessimists say it might take much longer, and may never be ready for widespread use without attaching a punishingly high price to carbon.

"There is no credible pathway towards prudent greenhouse-gas stabilization targets without CO{-2} emissions reduction from existing coal power plants," Ernest Moniz, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of President Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, said in a report earlier this year. "We urgently need technology options for these plants and policies that incentivize implementation."

Coal "is still the elephant in the room," said John Ashton, special representative for climate change at Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at a meeting in Washington last month.

"We can't deal with it, we can't tame it without ... carbon capture and storage." He said that to meet the newly agreed upon target of limiting global warming to two degrees, nations must make carbon capture "standard technology by 2020."

The West Virginia plant belongs to American Electric Power (AEP), an electric utility that is the largest consumer of coal in the United States. "Clearly carbon capture and storage is essential for a company like AEP, and I would argue equally essential for the United States, because you can't go through the process of prematurely shutting down half the supply base of the American utility industry," said Michael Morris, chief executive of AEP.

advertising

But the AEP project illustrates the tremendous obstacles ahead. As big as it is, the equipment there will only capture the emissions from 20 megawatts of power generation, a meager 15 percent of the plant's output. Morris' predecessors were smart enough to buy lots of extra land at the West Virginia plant, but other coal plants would have trouble finding room.

The big capture device, built by France's Alstom, would take the exhaust of the plant after the coal is burned and "bubble" it through a solution of chilled ammonia. The CO{-2} will bond with the ammonia and be separated from other gases. Then the carbon dioxide will be separated from the ammonia and compressed for storage.

The huge carbon capture and storage devices are hugely expensive, too. AEP executives estimate that the cost of carbon capture for a modest-size coal plant of about 235 megawatts would start at $700 million. That works out to about $100 for a ton of carbon dioxide, far above the projections made by the Environmental Protection Agency about prices under a cap-and-trade scheme similar to one passed by the House in June.

MIT put the cost of carbon capture and storage at $50 a ton to $70 a ton.

(The Waxman-Markey bill would give the first six gigawatts of plants — equal to around seven average-sized plants — a $90 per ton subsidy in the form of free allowances.)

Capture and storage devices also require large amounts of energy. The Alstom approach sucks up about 15 percent of the power plant's energy output; other processes use as much as 30 percent. That means the utility must purchase other energy sources to cover the shortfall. (The energy lost is part of the $700 million cost, AEP executives said.)

As a result, many experts say countries would be better off retrofitting old coal plants or replacing them with new, more efficient ones. Retrofits could result in emission reductions of 4 to 5 percent, MIT said in its study. More costly replacements of older plants could cut more than a quarter of their emissions.

Storage carries its own challenges. This involves pumping the carbon dioxide into the ground, a way of sweeping coal's harmful byproduct under the Earth's rug — forever. That can't be done just anywhere. Most of the Earth's rug has holes; it is too porous to keep carbon dioxide bottled up.

Below geologic caps

At the AEP plant in West Virginia, the gas will go into a saline aquifer; in other parts of the country storage can be established below geologic caps. The Obama administration has decided to provide $1 billion to fund FutureGen, a small, new coal plant in Illinois that would store 60 percent of its emissions in sandstone formations thousands of feet underground.

"If carbon sequestration is to have an impact on the CO{-2} concentrations in the atmosphere, we will need to inject billions of tons of CO{-2} underground over the next 40 to 50 years and store them for very much longer," John Tombari, an executive at Schlumberger Carbon Services, said in congressional testimony. "The sheer scale of the challenge is daunting, and the industry that will need to develop and achieve this will be massive

Varun Rai, a research fellow at Stanford University's Center for Environmental Science and Policy, said the world will need to capture and store 1.5 billion to 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2025.

How big is that? The U.S. produces enough carbon dioxide to cover the nation's entire land mass with a layer 1 foot deep every year.

Greenpeace, a foe of coal-fired power, says that to sequester all the emissions from coal-fired plants, the volume of CO{-2} would be equal to 28 million train cars a day, or a Grand Canyon every 15 days.

Legal quagmires also lurk. Someone will need to take responsibility for monitoring and maintaining storage sites that will have to last hundreds of years, said Tombari, far "beyond the likely life span of any corporation."

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

More Business & Technology headlines...

E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Comments
No comments have been posted to this article.


Get home delivery today!

More Business & Technology

UPDATE - 09:46 AM
Exxon Mobil wins ruling in Alaska oil spill case

UPDATE - 09:32 AM
Bank stocks push indexes higher; oil prices dip

UPDATE - 08:04 AM
Ford CEO Mulally gets $56.5M in stock award

UPDATE - 07:54 AM
Underwater mortgages rise as home prices fall

NEW - 09:43 AM
Warner Bros. to offer movie rentals on Facebook

Advertising

Video

Marketplace

Advertising