Comments on: IGCC: Technology Overview (1) http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/ No.1 Magazine and Forum for Indonesian Chemical Engineering Students. Articles about chemical process technology, fuel utilization, global issues, environmental issues, safety and health, university profile, scholarships, comic, and video. Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:58:37 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Jessica Maiorca http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3800 Jessica Maiorca Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:36:45 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-3800 IIGCC is a work in progress, and works in progress are often expensive with failures and revisions. IGCC is not a cure-all but can reduce sulfur and carbon dioxide emissions. There are also environmentally-friendly additions such as carbon capture & sequestering. For examples of IGCC plants, do a search for Tampa Electric's Polk Power Station and Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project. The U.S. is rich with coal. We can choose to burn it with current emission levels or take a risk and research new environmentally-friendly technologies. IGCC is one of them. In terms of sustainability, I don't think we have a choice. IIGCC is a work in progress, and works in progress are often expensive with failures and revisions. IGCC is not a cure-all but can reduce sulfur and carbon dioxide emissions. There are also environmentally-friendly additions such as carbon capture & sequestering.

For examples of IGCC plants, do a search for Tampa Electric’s Polk Power Station and Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project.

The U.S. is rich with coal. We can choose to burn it with current emission levels or take a risk and research new environmentally-friendly technologies. IGCC is one of them. In terms of sustainability, I don’t think we have a choice.

]]> By: david http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1809 david Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:20:26 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1809 hi.. i'm interest about technology.. join to your blog is... wow... hi..
i’m interest about technology..
join to your blog is… wow…

]]> By: Legalectric » Blog Archive » IGCC goes overseas http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1138 Legalectric » Blog Archive » IGCC goes overseas Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:05:11 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1138 [...] There are some interesting posts on the majari blog from  “the #1 portal for Indonesian engineering students.” IGCC: Technology Overview [...] [...] There are some interesting posts on the majari blog from  “the #1 portal for Indonesian engineering students.” IGCC: Technology Overview [...]

]]> By: Carol A. Overland http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1123 Carol A. Overland Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:57:10 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1123 IGCC Technology problems: <ol><li>Pinon Pines - IGCC plant that never ran. Read <a href="http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=D1E1362A5961A7D8A1442651770C49D6?purl=/805670-S8pCpG/native/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li> <li>DOE site: <a href="http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/cctc/summaries/pinon/pinondemo.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://204.154.137.14/publications/proceedings/98/98ps/ps2a-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li> <li>NETL site - GOOD STUFF: <a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/bibliography/demonstration/aepg/baepgig_pinon.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li> <li>Wabash River, the IGCC project that took a fleet of full time engineers to cobble it together: DOE/NETL site: read <a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/bibliography/demonstration/aepg/baepgig_wabriv.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li> <li>This report details the water contamination - water permit was in "routine violation": <a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/bibliography/demonstration/pdfs/wabsh/Final%20_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li> </ol> IGCC Technology problems:

  1. Pinon Pines – IGCC plant that never ran. Read here.
  2. DOE site: here and here.
  3. NETL site – GOOD STUFF: here.
  4. Wabash River, the IGCC project that took a fleet of full time engineers to cobble it together:
    DOE/NETL site: read here.
  5. This report details the water contamination – water permit was in “routine violation”: here.
]]> By: Carol A. Overland http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1122 Carol A. Overland Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:28:42 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1122 Let's see... it's not implemented on a commercial scale because it doesn't exist. This is just like nuclear, wanting to build plants but not sure what to do with byproduct/waste. Not reasonable to build a single plant until they figure this out (which is a long way off, if ever). They are doing experiments, i.e. Buelah, ND synfuels plant, captures some and pipes up to Saskatchewan oil fields for enhanced oil recovery, but it's a nominal amount. Lots of money is going into this, new experiments, but it is so far out that DOE says we can't count on it. There are several problems: <ol><li>carbon capture sucks efficiency right out of the plant -- capture alone takes at least 25% of efficiency, i.e. 600MW becomes 450MW (and reality is a lot more, but we had to sign confidentiality agreements)</li> <li>cost is another 45-50% or so, for the $2.155 billion Mesaba project, developer estimated it would cost another billion.</li> <li>has to be piped somewhere and re-pressurized every 100 miles along the way -- parasitic load takes about 7-10 MW for each pressurization station</li> <li>cost of pipeline and pressurization (can't recall off hand, I think it's like $600k-$1 million/mile)</li> <li>long term storage -- where, how? Very few locations, a client of mine lives on top of natural gas underground storage and her water is contaminated with constant sucking pumping like a plunger in a toilet.</li> <li>cost -- out of this world, can't estimate.</li></ol> Read "Gas Migration" the tome of gas - gas migrates, that's what it does, an inherent characteristic, so expect that to happen. Yes, we're a large importer, yet they say, like wind, that "we're the Saudi Arabia of coal." What they don't address is peak coal, and the difficulties of mining and transport. Cost has risen, 3-4 times what it was 8 years ago: You may read about that <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/peak/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1126129488&searchurl=sortby%3D2%26sts%3Dt%26tn%3Dgas%2Bmigration%26x%3D0%26y%3D0" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I'm going to forward some sources for a little light reading... Let’s see… it’s not implemented on a commercial scale because it doesn’t exist. This is just like nuclear, wanting to build plants but not sure what to do with byproduct/waste. Not reasonable to build a single plant until they figure this out (which is a long way off, if ever).

They are doing experiments, i.e. Buelah, ND synfuels plant, captures some and pipes up to Saskatchewan oil fields for enhanced oil recovery, but it’s a nominal amount. Lots of money is going into this, new experiments, but it is so far out that DOE says we can’t count on it.

There are several problems:

  1. carbon capture sucks efficiency right out of the plant — capture alone takes at least 25% of efficiency, i.e. 600MW becomes 450MW (and reality is a lot more, but we had to sign confidentiality agreements)
  2. cost is another 45-50% or so, for the $2.155 billion Mesaba project, developer estimated it would cost another billion.
  3. has to be piped somewhere and re-pressurized every 100 miles along the way — parasitic load takes about 7-10 MW for each pressurization station
  4. cost of pipeline and pressurization (can’t recall off hand, I think it’s like $600k-$1 million/mile)
  5. long term storage — where, how? Very few locations, a client of mine lives on top of natural gas underground storage and her water is contaminated with constant sucking pumping like a plunger in a toilet.
  6. cost — out of this world, can’t estimate.

Read “Gas Migration” the tome of gas – gas migrates, that’s what it does, an inherent characteristic, so expect that to happen.

Yes, we’re a large importer, yet they say, like wind, that “we’re the Saudi Arabia of coal.” What they don’t address is peak coal, and the difficulties of mining and transport. Cost has risen, 3-4 times what it was 8 years ago:

You may read about that here and here.

I’m going to forward some sources for a little light reading…

]]> By: michaeljubel http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1120 michaeljubel Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:08:51 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1120 To Carol: wow, this is interesting. are you saying that the whole CCS concept isn't implemented in the commercial scale? why not? in addition to IGCC, do you have any information about PFBCC (pressured fluidized bed combined cycle)? both technologies are considered as the most feasible clean coal technology. so, if IGCC is not really the best solution, based on your experience seeing 'real' things in USA, what is actually the best? and I also have one question. I'm sorry if this might be a bit out-of-topic, but I wonder if I can hear your opinion about USA having the largest amount of coal reserve in the world but prefer to keep it underground instead of utilizing it. And in fact, USA is one of the top 10 coal importers in the world. Weird. anyway, thanks for your visit Carol. It's a pleasure for us to have you here. To Carol:
wow, this is interesting. are you saying that the whole CCS concept isn’t implemented in the commercial scale? why not? in addition to IGCC, do you have any information about PFBCC (pressured fluidized bed combined cycle)? both technologies are considered as the most feasible clean coal technology.

so, if IGCC is not really the best solution, based on your experience seeing ‘real’ things in USA, what is actually the best?

and I also have one question. I’m sorry if this might be a bit out-of-topic, but I wonder if I can hear your opinion about USA having the largest amount of coal reserve in the world but prefer to keep it underground instead of utilizing it. And in fact, USA is one of the top 10 coal importers in the world. Weird.

anyway, thanks for your visit Carol. It’s a pleasure for us to have you here.

]]> By: Carol A. Overland http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1119 Carol A. Overland Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:55:21 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1119 ...errrrrrrr... the LACK of environmental benefit! There are two coal plants that Minnesota is evaluating now, and let's look at just one emissions example. Mesaba, puts out 5.4 million tons of CO2 annually compared with Big Stone II that puts out 4.6 million tons annually. Capture - what a farce, it's "capture ready," not actually going to capture any. No plant is doing it on a commercial scale, it's further back on the drawing table than IGCC. IGCC last had a big push for commercial viability back in the late 1970s, it didn't make it then either. The US has pretty much come to grips with the reality, much as they don't like it, that coal isn't in our future, if we want to have a future. The financial institutions are saying coal investment is too risky, and particularly IGCC, and the federal and state financing schemes are backing off, leaving IGCC to sink of its own weight. But the marketers and developers are promoting it heavily outside the US, and how dare they! It doesn't fly here, it's no good here, it's too risky here, so send it overseas! Just watch for a big World Bank financing scam for IGCC, investment in infrastructure y'all don't want or need, just the thing to push everyone over the brink! …errrrrrrr… the LACK of environmental benefit! There are two coal plants that Minnesota is evaluating now, and let’s look at just one emissions example. Mesaba, puts out 5.4 million tons of CO2 annually compared with Big Stone II that puts out 4.6 million tons annually. Capture – what a farce, it’s “capture ready,” not actually going to capture any. No plant is doing it on a commercial scale, it’s further back on the drawing table than IGCC. IGCC last had a big push for commercial viability back in the late 1970s, it didn’t make it then either. The US has pretty much come to grips with the reality, much as they don’t like it, that coal isn’t in our future, if we want to have a future. The financial institutions are saying coal investment is too risky, and particularly IGCC, and the federal and state financing schemes are backing off, leaving IGCC to sink of its own weight. But the marketers and developers are promoting it heavily outside the US, and how dare they! It doesn’t fly here, it’s no good here, it’s too risky here, so send it overseas! Just watch for a big World Bank financing scam for IGCC, investment in infrastructure y’all don’t want or need, just the thing to push everyone over the brink!

]]> By: Ratih Wulandari http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1117 Ratih Wulandari Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:44:44 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1117 thank you for your comment.. hehe.. maybe all those things are the reason why this technology have to be assesed over and over again before it's being commersialized.. But looking that this supposed to be a part of clean coal technology, I think the environmental benefit is one thing to put up front.. anyway, thankss thank you for your comment.. hehe.. maybe all those things are the reason why this technology have to be assesed over and over again before it’s being commersialized.. But looking that this supposed to be a part of clean coal technology, I think the environmental benefit is one thing to put up front..

anyway, thankss

]]> By: Carol A. Overland http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1116 Carol A. Overland Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:59:06 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1116 Before you jump on any IGCC bandwagon, take a look at the results of months of intense factfinding -- the record and results of the first IGCC proceeding to wind its way through the regulatory process. IGCC is not what it's touted as. Here's the Administrative Law Judges' recommendation that Excelsior Energy's Mesaba Project PPA be rejected: http://legalectric.org/weblog/1579/alj-recommendation-denial-of-ppa/ Look at the costs, regarded as too high (remember these costs are from 2006): http://www.mncoalgasplant.com/puc/05-1993%20pub%20rebuttal.pdf And check the emissions analysis from the MPCA that lead to the finding of the ALJ that IGCC didn't provide any significant environmental benefit: http://legalectric.org/weblog/1672/mpca-excelsior-final-emission-comparison/ All this information, and more, is available on the Minnesota Public Utilities eDockets site. Go to www.puc.state.mn.us and then to "eDockets" and then "Search Documents" and search for docket 05-1993. Also take a look at my client's site, www.mncoalgasplant.com. IGCC is a pipedream of green and clean. Carol A. Overland Attorney for mncoalgasplant.com against Excelsior Energy's Mesaba Project www.legalectric.org Before you jump on any IGCC bandwagon, take a look at the results of months of intense factfinding — the record and results of the first IGCC proceeding to wind its way through the regulatory process. IGCC is not what it’s touted as. Here’s the Administrative Law Judges’ recommendation that Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project PPA be rejected: http://legalectric.org/weblog/1579/alj-recommendation-denial-of-ppa/
Look at the costs, regarded as too high (remember these costs are from 2006):
http://www.mncoalgasplant.com/puc/05-1993%20pub%20rebuttal.pdf
And check the emissions analysis from the MPCA that lead to the finding of the ALJ that IGCC didn’t provide any significant environmental benefit: http://legalectric.org/weblog/1672/mpca-excelsior-final-emission-comparison/

All this information, and more, is available on the Minnesota Public Utilities eDockets site. Go to http://www.puc.state.mn.us and then to “eDockets” and then “Search Documents” and search for docket 05-1993. Also take a look at my client’s site, http://www.mncoalgasplant.com.

IGCC is a pipedream of green and clean.

Carol A. Overland
Attorney for mncoalgasplant.com against Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project
http://www.legalectric.org

]]> By: IGCC: Major IGCC Sections (2) - Majari Magazine - Membangun Indonesia dengan Teknik Kimia http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1114 IGCC: Major IGCC Sections (2) - Majari Magazine - Membangun Indonesia dengan Teknik Kimia Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:55:06 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1114 [...] IGCC: Technology Overview (1) [...] [...] IGCC: Technology Overview (1) [...]

]]> By: Chemical Engineering » Blog Archive » IGCC: Technology Overview (Part 1) http://majarimagazine.com/2008/06/igcc-technology-overview-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1112 Chemical Engineering » Blog Archive » IGCC: Technology Overview (Part 1) Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:41:39 +0000 http://majarimagazine.com/?p=390#comment-1112 [...] _ wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt The world today is having some serious problems regarding to energy crisis. The energy demand is increasing in alarming rate with average 1.3 percent per year to 2030. The increase will be underpinned by economic and population growth[9]. Power generation to meet electricity needs will be the biggest driver of higher energy demand representing more than 40 percent of the increase while fossil-base fuels will continue to provide the supplies for this demand with oil and gas close to 60 percent. [...] [...] _ wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt The world today is having some serious problems regarding to energy crisis. The energy demand is increasing in alarming rate with average 1.3 percent per year to 2030. The increase will be underpinned by economic and population growth[9]. Power generation to meet electricity needs will be the biggest driver of higher energy demand representing more than 40 percent of the increase while fossil-base fuels will continue to provide the supplies for this demand with oil and gas close to 60 percent. [...]

]]>