Slashdot Mirror


Germany Fired Up Over Clean Coal

MIT's Technology Review is reporting on the world's first coal-driven power plant designed to capture and store C02 emissions. "Vattenfall's small 30-megawatt plant burns the lignite in air from which nitrogen has been removed. Combustion in the resulting oxygen-rich atmosphere produces a waste stream of carbon dioxide and water vapor, three-quarters of which is recycled back into the boiler. By repeating this process, known as oxyfuel, it is possible to greatly concentrate the carbon dioxide. After particles and sulfur have been removed, and water vapor has been condensed out, the waste gas can be 98 percent carbon dioxide, according to Vattenfall. The separated carbon dioxide will be cooled down to -28 C and liquefied. Starting next year, the plan is to transport it by truck 150 miles northwest, to be injected 3,000 meters underground into a depleted inland gas field in Altmark. Ideally, in the future, the gas will be carried by pipeline to underground storage, says Vattenfall. "

33 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. how much power does it use by maharg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    really, how much CO2 is generated in removing the nitrogen from the air used to combust the lignite ?

    --

    $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
  2. US should be fired up too. by Brigadier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With the US being one of the leading producers of coal, they should be the biggest proponent of such technology. This is in light of US industry/Economy going to the crap yard.

    http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188

    1. Re:US should be fired up too. by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The coal industry ni the US has gotten waiver after waiver for our cleaner plants.
      I dont believe they will ever implement an expensive technology unless someone puts a gun to their head. But they can't becasue what do you do if they just decide not to operate?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. steps by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    step 1: capture emissions
    step 2: store emissions
    step 3: ? (put back where we found it, if we cant see it then its OKAY!)
    step 4: TEh PROFIT!!1!

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:steps by R2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "What is the problem with putting the putting the emissions back in the ground?"

      Because that would be a technological solution to the problem. One of reasons that there is still a lot of resistance to the Global Climate Change crowd is that there seems to be a "hair shirt" mentality about it - they aren't yelling because the Earth is going to melt down. Rather, they really want us using fewer resources because we are BAD for doing so. It is a behavior change they are looking for, not really a change in the percentage of CO2 put into the atmosphere. So a technological solution that allows the world to continue using energy like a drunken sailor uses his paycheck is unacceptable.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:steps by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ask the folks in Lake Nyos. Natural CO2 escaped from a lake and killed something like 2,000 people. That CO2 needs to be stored very securely and away from centers of population.

    3. Re:steps by Breakfast+Cereal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Huh, I thought it was because the earth has a funny way of shifting around and things don't always stay buried for very long which could be problematic for pressurized gasses, but I guess it's because of anti-technology ecofascists.

    4. Re:steps by mblase · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ask the folks in Lake Nyos. Natural CO2 escaped from a lake and killed something like 2,000 people.

      Gonna be mighty hard to ask them about it, then.

      That CO2 needs to be stored very securely and away from centers of population.

      I believe that was exactly the idea behind burying it "3,000 meters underground into a depleted inland gas field in Altmark."

      And the article doesn't mention it, but IIRC the reason for burying the waste CO2 is that it gets absorbed by the surrounding rocks and converted into harmless minerals, rather than letting it escape into the atmosphere again. Someone with more geological expertise than I have will have to explain that, though.

    5. Re:steps by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's certainly that, PLUS:

      It does not reduce our dependence on a limited resource. We're gonna run out eventually and the sooner we find an alternative the better.

      It just so happens that most, if not all of the truly "renewable" energy cycles we've found are also very eco-friendly. Kind of like a double-win.
      =Smidge=

    6. Re:steps by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, then we'd be burning trees much, much faster than they could replenish. That's why they aren't really renewable.

      Nuclear is really the only way to go. Reprocess and re-use the fuel in breeder reactors, and we'll have enough energy for a long time, and little dangerous waste.

    7. Re:steps by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

      somehow natural gas has stayed underground for millions of years.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    8. Re:steps by unjedai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Huh, I thought it was because the earth has a funny way of shifting around and things don't always stay buried for very long which could be problematic for pressurized gasses, but I guess it's because of anti-technology ecofascists.

      It's being done, it's being studied, and so far the science indicates it is pretty safe. Pressurized gasses - like natural gas - have existed underground for ages and we've managed to deal with them.

    9. Re:steps by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IIRC the reason for burying the waste CO2 is that it gets absorbed by the surrounding rocks and converted into harmless minerals.... Someone with more geological expertise than I have will have to explain that, though.

      Geological? Try alchemical. Carbon doesn't transmute to other elements to form new non-carbon minerals. Mineralize carbon and you get slate, coal, or diamond.

      Better to have a living process rebind that carbon with hydrogen into useful biochemicals and free up the oxygen for later recombustion.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    10. Re:steps by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't bring logic and practical conclusions from science and real life observations into this discussion. What are you trying to do, be sane about these things?

      Gosh, if there is one thing that pissed me off more then anything else is someone pointing out the obvious. If it wasn't for you, we could be completely over looking that aspect of reality and still have a reason for why this is bad.

      Oh hell.. what happened, where am I? I feel like I was hit by a truck.

    11. Re:steps by afabbro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not a popular solution, but we never heard the Roman Empire or ancient C'hin Empire worry about fuel shortages or melting ice caps. That's because there were only 1/2 billion people..... lots of room and fuel for everybody. Nature wasn't impacted.

      You're referring to an empire (Rome) that depopulated the gamestock of northern Africa in order to stock its coliseums.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    12. Re:steps by tkw954 · · Score: 4, Informative

      somehow natural gas has stayed underground for millions of years.

      Actually, the natural tendency is for it to percolate out of the ground. We only find natural gas (and oil) in lens-shaped non-porous rock formations which trap the rising gas before it reaches the surface. This is called an anticline. Luckily, the most economical use for the CO2 produced is to pump it back down into the trap, where it will presumably remain for another million years.

  4. How much does it cost? by swm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What is the final cost of the generated electricity?
    In $/KW-Hr?

  5. Solve the problem, for pete's sake by cefek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's not the solution to the waste by-product problem. It only pushes it another decade, maybe two away. Storing waste CO2 underneath the surface is just asking for more problems. What happens if that gas is suddenly injected into the atmosphere? What happens is we all start living on, or maybe a couple of mile over, the ticking bomb?

    Every energy production that has such a dangerous by-product is not the solution to our problem. Then again, we should think whether the hydrogen is. Don't want to sound like an asshole, but that water vapor those hydrogen-fueled cars produce is not going to vanish either.

    --
    Plain old sigh.
    1. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by fifedrum · · Score: 5, Funny

      yeah, why the heck don't they convert the CO2 into something usable, like C and O2?

      Maybe build another generating plant next door that supplies the energy required to break the molocules...

    2. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by Breakfast+Cereal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't want to sound like an asshole, but that water vapor those hydrogen-fueled cars produce is not going to vanish either.

      If only there was a way of controlling the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and pumping the excess into a vast transportation network that carries it to the ocean.

    3. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhh? Why not just use nuclear power, store it into Yucca Mountain (as was planned, until people complained) opposed to storing the nuclear waste in the nuclear plant itself.

      SAME concept as the article...

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    4. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then again, we should think whether the hydrogen is. Don't want to sound like an asshole, but that water vapor those hydrogen-fueled cars produce is not going to vanish either.

      Since that hydrogen was probably produced by electrolysis of water, it's pretty much a zero-sum game. But water isn't to be worried about, since rain is a pretty good way of regulating the water vapor in the atmosphere.

    5. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by GroeFaZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Iantastik's humor threshold is an extremely stable one and it would take a great deal of explaining to reach it. The amount of explaining it would take would be counter-productive to the initial problem of telling a good science joke.

      Until we can figure out how to simulate good joke telling or just go ahead and let Monty Python do it, this just ins't the best solution available.

      However, neither is beating it into your head in my opinion. ...since no one is laughing, I guess you just didn't get it though.

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
    6. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is the good thing about vitrified storage. It is GLASS. Glass doesn't get into drinking water. Also people forget that seawater already contains Thorium and Uranium.
      We shouldn't be storing that stuff in Yucca mountain anyway. We should be reprocessing it and make more fuel out of it. What we can not make into fuel we should "burn" in special reactors in to short half life isotopes that decay to ore levels in just around 100 years and use vitrified storage for that.
      So the real answer to the question of to why people fear nuclear power is.
      They are ignorant, scared, and they have been lied to by the people that use them as their base of political power.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about we stop using retarded 50 year old nuclear technology that only extracts 10% of the usable energy from nuclear fuel and throwing the rest away?

      We could feed all our energy needs for centuries on feeder-breeder reactors. Not only this, but the final waste products of this process remain radioactive for only a few centuries vs thousands of years that conventional nuclear "waste" lasts. That makes the issue of disposing of nuclear waste vastly more simple.

      I don't really promote 100% nuclear, closer to 50/50 feeder reactors and solar thermal power production. We don't really need to use any coal, gas or oil to power the grid at all. Hell we could even rid ourselves of fossil fuels for most transport as well if we invested in grid powered train tracks and charging rails for electric vehicles on the interstates and major highways.

      This is all available on current technology, and it would cost vastly less than the mining, pumping, refining and foreign entanglement costs associated with limited fossil fuels. Why not take this step now? Instead of a hundred years from now when there will not be enough fossil fuels left to fight over. America and Europe were some of the first nations to go through the industrial revolution. Its time to pass the torch to the third world. Its time for us to move beyond industrialization. Its not just good for America, or Europe, its good for the entire world.

    8. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same concept? Situation 1: "Sorry, folks, the storage facility leaked into the local groundwater. You'll find a little bit of carbonation in your water supply." Situation 2: "Sorry, folks, the storage facility leaked into the local groundwater. You'll find a little bit of Cesium-137 [wikipedia.org] in your water supply."

      More like... "Sorry, folks, its in fucking Yucca Mountain underneath layers of concrete, where no seismic activity occurs, deep underground , nowhere near civilization.

      Whereas, people push against storing underground are currently forcing them to store nuclear waste on site at the power plants which are near civilization.

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
  6. Excellent plan! Prepare for the Future! by m4cph1sto · · Score: 5, Funny

    We MUST start accumulating vast reserves of liquid carbon dioxide NOW, so that in 50 years, when we're in the deadly throes of Global Cooling, we can release it to the atmosphere to warm the planet and save us all!

  7. Before anyone gets REALLY "fired up" about this by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    30 MW is tiny. A baseload powerplant in the US runs about 1000MW. So, if this process can scale up 30x, AND we can figure out what to do with 30x the CO2, then I'll get excited.

    Nuke plants had many of the same issues - a 1000MW powerplant is NOT simply a Navy aircraft carrier scaled up, although it looks that way in the Visitor's center.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  8. CO2 Processing by rlp · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why not put a Coca-Cola bottling plant next door. :~)

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  9. Re:Lake Nyos for next generation. by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What will exactly happen when the liquid CO2 will eventually warm up undergorund and then some future seismic event will open a crack ?

    I hope this storage is somwhere in Sahara desert, not in the heart of densly populated Europe."

    Future Headline:
    "Earth Farts; Thousands die in Europe"

    Followed by the world continuing to revolve about its axis.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  10. Re:Why store CO2? by inviolet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it's pure CO2 they are capturing and storing, why don't they just release it into the Amazon rain forest?

    Storing CO2 is not a viable solution, but giving it to the trees, who live on it and will convert it into 02, is!

    Rainforests do not consume a net quantity C02. What carbon they do capture during photosynthesis is later reburned during respiration or released later during decomposition (e.g. bacteria, termites).

    If rainforests were net consumers of CO2, then they would be accumulating a carbon store somewhere. This would take the form of vegetation mass (not increasing) or a coal seam somehow forming underneath all the tree roots (not observed). The carbon has to go somewhere if the trees are liberating any oxygen.

    The only forests that do liberate oxygen and store carbon are young, growing forests. Mature forests are done -- they are in carbon equilibrium. Only young ones, which result from clearcutting and replanting, harvest carbon. This is why the US carbon credit program for forest owners will only pay out to folks who can prove that their forest is young growth.

    And yes, I own a pine forest, and am sick of hearing about this crap.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  11. Ah a solution to our energy needs! by tthomas48 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thank goodness coal is a renewable resource! Oh wait...

    While this is an ok stopgap, and we should make all of our current coal plants clean coal plants (after all if we can make them clean why would want to breath that crap), it doesn't solve the problem that with ever increasing energy needs we need renewable forms of energy or we're going to quickly run out.

  12. Underground Storage of Gas is Common! by sampson7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All these posts about farting planets are very amusing, but should be moderated "funny," not informative.

    Companies in the United States currently have billions of cubic feet of natural gas and other gases into long-term underground storage facilities. In fact, anyone familiar with the working end of the natural gas business will be happy to spend hours explaining how it works. The Department of Energy -- http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngcapacity/ngcapacity.pdf has some info on the practice.

    Put simply: gas underground moves very, very slowly. The diffusion rate can be measured, and while some gas will inevitably escape, the amount lost can be measured very precisely (and accurately).

    Unless we as a society are willing to suffer blackouts, coal and other fossil fuel power plants will be around for years. Heck, even Al Gore says a minimum of 10 years, and I personally (as an energy industry guy) think it's going to be a lot longer than that.

    If you accept that there is a man-made climate crisis coming, then storage of CO2 is an excellent short term fix to reducing emissions as we move away from a carbon-based economy. Whether you think of this as "short term" storage or "long-term" storage depends on your outlook. Is 100 years long or short? Seen from a geological timeline, it's laughably short. Looked at as a means of reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere starting today -- it's a great first step.