[Wullu]

Thanks to Kate at SDA for spotting this.

Looks a cool idea and it does the important part of getting rid of the real pollutants. The CO2 I can use in my paintball guns

Quote:

OTTAWA — In basic ways, Alex Fassbender's breakthrough in clean-coal technology retains James Watt's methodology from the 18th century. You pulverize coal into particles as fine as talcum powder, then burn it in a furnace surrounded by pipes filled with water. You direct the steam into turbines that spin to produce electricity. In other basic ways, though, it is very different. For one thing, there's no smokestack.

Mr. Fassbender is the American engineer whose invention - as tested last year in the federal government's energy labs in Ottawa - delivered clean electricity at a lower cost than the inventor himself had expected. Code-named TIPS (Thermo-energy Integrated Power System), the technology strips coal of its pollutants and captures its carbon emissions in power plants a 10th the size of conventional plants.

In his assessment of the technology, federal research scientist Bruce Clements described it as potentially the most competitive source of electricity - in cents per kilowatt-hour - in the world. A TIPS-based demo plant, he calculated, could produce zero-pollution, carbon-captured electricity for 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. In regular commercial operation, the cost would fall significantly. (The 2006 retail cost of electricity in Ontario ranged from a subsidized 5.8 cents per kilowatt-hour to 9.7 cents; the 2006 national average retail cost in the United States was 9.8 cents U.S.). By these calculations, the world's most abundant fossil fuel could supply clean, green electricity at the world's most economical prices.

Mr. Fassbender says the downsizing of power plants would enable them to fit comfortably into large cities, close to consumers - any place served by a railway line for the delivery of coal. "A conventional 500-megawatt plant has to be built in the hinterland," he says. "You lose 4 per cent of your electricity from the transmission lines." With an urban coal-fired plant, the captured greenhouse gases would be moved to storage sites either as a compressed liquid or as a compressed gas.

Indeed, everything in the TIPS process is compressed. You begin with a separate tank that fits alongside the furnace. You fill this tank with atmospheric air and put it under pressure -- 1,250 pounds per square inch. You separate the oxygen in the air from the nitrogen, and direct pure oxygen to the furnace to drive the combustion. Then you burn the coal under pressure -- again, 1,250 psi. You subject the steam itself to higher pressures -- from 2,500 psi to 3,700 psi. At the end of the combustion cycle, you have nothing left in the furnace except ash, used commercially in the making of concrete.

You capture the pollutants (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, particulate matter) from the hot exhaust fumes that exit the furnace. When you pass these fumes through a condensing heat exchanger, you get very hot water. At 400 degrees Fahrenheit, this water becomes a significant energy source all on its own. "This is what the [high] pressure buys you," Mr. Fassbender says. "It means that the pressure pays for itself."

When the exhaust fumes release the water, they release the pollutants, which are easily separated and packaged for commercial use. You direct some of the carbon dioxide back to the furnace to exploit the residual energy in it. You cool the rest - still under high pressure -- to 87 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point it turns into a compressed liquid, ready for underground storage.

Clean-coal furnaces have existed in various forms for a decade or more, some more effective than others. In primitive form, chemical "scrubbers" captured pollutants as they vented from smokestacks. In advanced form, the furnace converts the coal into a synthetic gas from which pollutants are extracted before they reach the chimney. IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants, though, do not capture CO{-2} emissions. "They can be made to capture CO{-2} emissions," Mr. Fassbender says, "only by turning them into chemical factories." And they are expensive to build, costly to operate.

Canada and the United States have coal reserves that will last for hundreds of years.

Coal is thus an inherently sustainable, relatively inexpensive source of primary energy. The TIPS technology remains theoretical. It needs a real-life test. As a research partner, Canada is well placed to fund the demo TIPS plant - and help to rescue for future generations the most democratic of the fossil fuels.

[hurley_108]

Sounds great on paper, but what happens when there's an earthquake that compromises the carbon storage facility and the containers within? You get a massive pulse of CO2 is what happens, potentially releasing all the CO2 you've "sequestered" over a period of years in a matter of hours or days. That will have direct toxicological effects (CO2+water=carbonic acid producing burns), and would suffocate anyone or any animal nearby as CO2 is heavier than air.

Only chemical sequestration is viable. Bind the carbon to something and bury it in a form that isn't CO2, and won't release CO2 easily. Physical sequestration is prone to massive, catastrophic failure.

[Wullu]

Earthquakes? Yer kidding right? Let's take a quick look at the map and see if we can find a spot or 5000 in North America that is not prone to massive quakes?

LOOK!! There is that spot called the Canadian Shield! Hasn't moved in a couple billion years!

Earthquakes!

[hurley_108]

Wullu wrote:

Earthquakes? Yer kidding right? Let's take a quick look at the map and see if we can find a spot or 5000 in North America that is not prone to massive quakes?

LOOK!! There is that spot called the Canadian Shield! Hasn't moved in a couple billion years!

Earthquakes!

First, do you want Canada to become the dumping ground for the entire continent's CO2?

Second, the Canadian shield is solid granite. Fine place for nuclear waste because you get a hell of a lot of energy from nuclear fuel so there's not much waste. Where are you going to put millions of tonnes of CO2 every year in the Canadian shield? Can you imagine the cost of the digging? Even though it would be a fine place for nuclear waste, it hasn't been used for that as even the cost of that is prohibitive. Right now, nuclear waste is stored on site in Canada.

Want to try again?

[Toro]

My coal stocks are going up!

[ziggy]

hurley_108 wrote:

Wullu wrote:

Earthquakes? Yer kidding right? Let's take a quick look at the map and see if we can find a spot or 5000 in North America that is not prone to massive quakes?

LOOK!! There is that spot called the Canadian Shield! Hasn't moved in a couple billion years!

Earthquakes!

First, do you want Canada to become the dumping ground for the entire continent's CO2?

Second, the Canadian shield is solid granite. Fine place for nuclear waste because you get a hell of a lot of energy from nuclear fuel so there's not much waste. Where are you going to put millions of tonnes of CO2 every year in the Canadian shield? Can you imagine the cost of the digging? Even though it would be a fine place for nuclear waste, it hasn't been used for that as even the cost of that is prohibitive. Right now, nuclear waste is stored on site in Canada.

Want to try again?

Canadian shield is mainly granite,plus soapstone,sand,pyrite,gold,Uranium,Iron,diamond bearing kimberlite,etc. Were drilling it in preperation for mining where im working right now(Nunavut).

As for clean coal technology,In 85 when coal markets were tight they had prototype cars that would run on pulverized coal but the interest wasnt that great amongst consumers. When I was working for Shell and Manalta(then Mannix) I saw the papers and plans for it so it's not new technology.

Alberta should be the first province to reveal zero emmision coal fired generating plants soon,the technology is there,it's just expensive to implement unless doing a major retrofit. When people bitch enough it will be done.

As much as I hate Kyoto it would have forced Alberta to focus on these zero emmision plants with a little more seriousness.

Coal is still king and will be around long after oil and gas run dry.

[Knoss]

Sask Power is considering converting the Boundary Dam plant to pump carbon Dioxide into oil wells to supplement pumps, a technology which has worked well in North Dakota well previously thought to be exhausted.

[ziggy]

Knoss wrote:

Sask Power is considering converting the Boundary Dam plant to pump carbon Dioxide into oil wells to supplement pumps, a technology which has worked well in North Dakota well previously thought to be exhausted.

Yup,Alberta is considering it also. My grandfather,2 uncles and cousins all work or worked at the boundary plant in Estevan,I still remember big Lou,in it's time it was a massive dragline and we used to love watching it swing at night with all its lights.

[BartSimpson]

No matter how clean the energy source is the alarmists will oppose it.

That's because they really don't give a crap about carbon or the environment, they just want to destroy Western industrial capitalism.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson wrote:

No matter how clean the energy source is the alarmists will oppose it.

That's because they really don't give a crap about carbon or the environment, they just want to destroy Western industrial capitalism.

Not quite true. Its just that the "alarmist" are different each time. There are those opposed to nuclear energy because it produces long term toxic waste. There are those that opposed to fossil fuel reactors because of its particulate pollution. Wind has its disadvantages also. The detractors are usually people who who are directly affected by the particular power generation method.

I can't think of anything that doesn't have its "detractors" of one sort or another.

Those detractors do care about the enviornment. Its just that "their environment" will be more adversely affected by whatever it is they are protesting".

[ridenrain]

Pitty we couldn't sell more than one of these to China, instead of suffering with their pollution.

[ziggy]

ridenrain wrote:

Pitty we couldn't sell more than one of these to China, instead of suffering with their pollution.

Allmost all BC's coal go's to China,Good for making steel.

Small note,BC's coal mostly comes from the Elk Valley near the Alta./BC border,also known as the clean coal capital of the world.

[ridenrain]

This method is so clean that even poor coal, like on thge East coast or China can use it with good results. Again, they are building a new coal fired generator every 2 weeks or so. If they don't, neighboring countries should boycott their products untill they do. Their pollution is criminal.

[Knoss]

Quote:

Allmost all BC's coal go's to China,Good for making steel.

Small note,BC's coal mostly comes from the Elk Valley near the Alta./BC border,also known as the clean coal capital of the world.

I didn’t realize coal was shipped overseas, funny they dont just ship Wyoming coal to Regina. It is a vialbe solution and would be importiant to a clean air program.

[Wullu]

Well Hurley, a couple points. First,the shield is not the only stable rock formation on the planet (you can't really be this dense). Lots of places we can hide the horrible CO2!! Second, you do realize that are already a fair number of holes in the shield? They are called mines. Tens of millions of tonnes of rock removed over the last 100 odd years. I am the one who was miner for five years, I don't need any lessons from you about the process. Third? Someone will have to convince me that CO2 is somehow dangerous to the planet but I am more than willing to bury it if it will just shut up the global warming chicken littles.

The real benefit of this technology is that gets rid of REAL polutants like SO2, Mercury etc. You know, the ones that have proven to be an actual hazard to human beings and the environment. Well that and the fact that the electricity it produces appears to be nice and cheap!