Obama's 6 Billion Dollar Clean Coal Failure

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
The whole concept of “clean coal” was predicated around two things: That regulation of carbon emissions would become a huge burden on the coal industry, and that the U.S. electrical grid was so dependent on coal that finding a way to keep burning the stuff was vital. On that basis, the government put aside billions to invest in various experiments in reducing emissions from burning coal.

But again and again, projects to support the development of “clean coal” generated much more smoke than heat including the $1.8 billion failed “FuturGen” project in Illinois that died in 2008, or the repackaged version of the project, which also failed a few years later.

But it was far from the largest such disaster.

The fortress of steel and concrete towering above the pine forest here is a first-of-its-kind power plant that was supposed to prove that “clean coal” was not an oxymoron …

The project was hailed as a way to bring thousands of jobs to Mississippi, the nation’s poorest state, and to extend a lifeline to the dying coal industry.

And how are things going ?
The Kemper coal plant is more than two years behind schedule and more than $4 billion over its initial budget, $2.4 billion, and it is still not operational.
Meanwhile, coal’s contribution to the U.S. electrical grid has fallen from 51 percent to 33 percent, and it’s still dropping. Making any further investment in “clean coal” is purely pointless.

How could any project veer so horribly off track? It’s simple: Everyone had incentives to cheat.

The system of checks and balances that are supposed to keep such projects on track was outweighed by a shared and powerful incentive: The company and regulators were eager to qualify for hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies for the plant, which was also aggressively promoted by Haley Barbour, who was Southern’s chief lobbyist before becoming the governor of Mississippi. Once in office, Mr. Barbour signed a law in 2008 that allowed much of the cost of building any new power plants to be passed on to ratepayers before they are built.

The plant and its owner, Southern Company, are the focus of a SEC investigation, and ratepayers, alleging fraud, are suing the company. …

In the end, the Kemper project is a story of how a monopoly utility, with political help from the Mississippi governor and from federal energy officials who pressured state regulators in letters to support the project, shifted the burden of one of the most expensive power plants ever built onto the shoulders of unwitting investors and some of the lowest-income ratepayers in the country.

Natural Gas killed coal. That’s all there is to it.

The most significant decline in recent years has been coal: U.S. coal consumption fell 13% in 2015, the highest annual percentage decrease of any fossil fuel in the past 50 years. The only similar declines were in 2009 and 2012, when coal fell 12% below the level in the previous year.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26912
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
There's dirty coal (bituminous) and clean coal (anthracite) One is cheaper and easier to get - and some folk (especially in decision-making capacity) don't know the difference
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
There's dirty coal (bituminous) and clean coal (anthracite) One is cheaper and easier to get - and some folk (especially in decision-making capacity) don't know the difference
Actually there's lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous and anthracite.
If you're using coal for power generation the preference is for sub-bituminous coal as it generally has a lower sulphur content than the other types.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Actually, my point wasn't about grades.... Anthracite is still the clean(est) one. The rest are cheap (attractive to the buyer - not so for carbon and sulphur emissions)
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,359
11,426
113
Low Earth Orbit
There's dirty coal (bituminous) and clean coal (anthracite) One is cheaper and easier to get - and some folk (especially in decision-making capacity) don't know the difference
Lignite is the "dirtiest" going by product but that is not what clean coal is all a about.

There are seven clean coal technologies currently deployed: carbon capture and storage, flue-gas desulfurization, fluidized-bed combustion, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), low nitrogen oxide burners, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and electrostatic precipitators.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
...and it all starts with CLEAN-BURNING coal - anthracite.

Of course, there are the very stupid people who'd use inadequate grating and all that scrubbing technology to scrub lignite, peat moss and old pallets - then say how the tech doesn't work