Coal is still king? Well, the US certainly has an abundance of coal. And, a slew of power plants around the world are still running on coal. (Admittedly, many of them are in China.)
But, in Saskatchewan, there’s a coal plant that is trying to eradicate its carbon emissions. How? The Boundary Dam Power Plant (Estevan) is now capturing its carbon dioxide output by bubbling their effluent gases through an amine-based solution. (Actually, it’s a 52 m [160 ft] tall tower.)
The amine solution is then heated, which regenerates the solution for reuse and releases the 3000 tons daily of carbon dioxide, which is in turn compressed to a super-critical fluid. (The compressor uses 15 Megawatts of the generated electricity.) This supercritical fluid (the compressed carbon dioxide) is then pumped about 30 miles (65 km), where it is injected underground to boost the petroleum output of the nearby wells.
This process doesn’t come cheap, either. Besides the investment of $ 1 billion (and it’s only providing for one of the 4 generators), the power output of the facility has been reduced by some 20%. Selling power at 12 cents a KW-h may be a tough deal, given these cost factors.
We had an approach that was far less expensive- but never really got off the ground. It also did not completely capture carbon dioxide; instead it reduced the carbon dioxide emissions by about ½. And reduced the waste heat emissions.
We actually used the waste heat and carbon dioxide from the power plant as input to an algae production facility. But, instead of considering the algae to produce petrochemicals, our process was optimized to produce biomass.
The thermophilic algae growth (the operating temperature was around 45 C) converted the carbon dioxide to biomass; the photosynthesis process released the oxygen to the atmosphere. The harvested biomass was then converted to methane via anaerobic digestion. In so doing, the carbon dioxide from the plant effluent was recycled, because the natural gas (methane) would be burned in the plant (producing carbon dioxide- and reducing the need to purchase natural gas.)
But, given the low price of fuel right now- and the lack of a carbon tax, it’s not clear whether either of these projects- or similar ones- will continue to be developed.
RT @RAAckerman: Power Plants and Carbon Dioxide Emissions: http://t.co/ebAbe4uRzQ #in #blogboost #blogtribe #adjuvancy #Coal #methane #ca…
It is scary how much coal is being “harvested” and used here in the States. The house we have lived in for the past 25 years and are now selling as part of our move to Mexico, is only about 8 miles from a huge power plant. In the past 4 years they have added to the problem by doubling in size, so there are now 4 stacks with at least 2 of them going 24/7. Our house sets downwind of them a good part of the time and I have never been too happy about that. In Wisconsin it is all politics so they got to expand although there is another power plant, run by a much smaller company only 20 miles from here that offered to sell them all the electricity they needed on an as needed basis. I think that by the time our grandchildren grow up, breathing oxygen will require adding a device to the house to clean up the air before it is pumped in. No idea what will happen when one needs to leave the house for those walks we love now.
Chef William Chaney recently posted..Mexican Birria
So, there are multitudes of issues there, Chef William.
First, many of the power plants in the Midwest are those that are exclusively coal. And, those tall stacks of which you mention end up transporting their pollution to other states (who have sued the Midwest for it’s ecological damage)- and render those other states incapable of meeting their own pollution standards as a result.
Secondly, many of these power plants work hard (i.e, spend money on politicians for bribes) to remove regulations or alter them so they don’t have to provide the “best practices” of air pollution control- which would also solve this problem.
Thirdly, when fuel was expensive (like 6 months ago), these facilities all claimed that they could not spend the money to improve operations or reduce pollution because their customers could not afford to pay higher rates. (I don’t see anyone demanding they start now- or even impose proper gasoline taxes for our cars so that roads can be built.)
As you can see, you were preaching to the choir. Key of C?