Clean Coal’s Flagship Project Has Failed

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
The Mississippi power plant widely regarded to be the biggest proof of concept yet for clean coal has failed to deliver on its promise. Its carbon capture technique has been declared too costly and problematic, and the facility will instead burn natural gas to create electricity.

The coal-fired power station in Kemper County had many hopes pinned to it since construction began in 2010. The theory was simple: if a plant could be built to cleanly burn nearby lignite coal reserves—the most heavily carbon-emitting of all coal types, per unit of heat extracted—then the fuel’s future in American energy production would be assured.

Sadly, things haven’t played out that way. The project has been mired in problems from the get-go and has run up a $7.5 billion tab—$4 billion over its planned budget—with the carbon capture scheme three years behind schedule. Now, the New York Times reports, the plant’s owner, Southern Company, has ditched its attempts to get it working as designed, following pressure from the Mississippi Public Service Commission to switch to natural gas and stop hemorrhaging money.

The plant was supposed to gasify the soft brown lignite coal to create a fuel that emits similar amounts of carbon dioxide as natural gas when burned. According to a description of the technology by Power magazine, that would in theory have reduced the carbon dioxide emissions associated with burning that coal by 65 percent.

But the gasification systems have not worked as planned, and the Kemper plant has instead been burning natural gas. Now, it will continue to do so. Southern says that it is “immediately suspending start-up and operations activities” for coal gasification at the plant.
It’s a huge blow for clean coal. Despite some successes in cutting carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power plants, by and large the process is still considered too costly to implement at scale. That’s especially true given that prices for renewable energy are continuing to decline swiftly.

Indeed, a newly published analysis from the Global Warming Policy Foundation suggests that carbon capture schemes will always remain too expensive to be viable as the cost of clean energy drops.

As part of his push to reinvigorate the fossil-fuel industry, earlier this year President Donald Trump said that his administration was “putting an end to the war on coal,” providing America with “clean coal, really clean coal.” Now more than ever, that looks like an empty promise.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608191/clean-coals-flagship-project-has-failed/
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,548
9,614
113
Washington DC
Clean coal is like solar and wind. Better engineering'll make it work. People who decide they hate coal and oil are no less stupid than people who decide they hate wind and solar.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
More bad news for the coal industry with layoffs in Mississippi

The Kemper power plant in Dekalb, Mississippi, announced on Friday it would lay off 75 workers at its mine and possibly as many as 250 workers in the energy plant as a whole.

The layoffs are only the latest of the problems surrounding Kemper. The plant was designed to be the country’s first “clean coal” facility, capturing and storing much of the carbon dioxide released when burning coal for power.

The energy facility was supposed to bring “great wonders” to a struggling community in Mississippi, but it’s unclear whether the plant can deliver on its promises. In June, the plant said it was stopping its work on clean coal to burn natural gas, in part for cost
reasons.

Last week, the plant’s parent company announced earnings losses in the billions.

Meanwhile, the coal industry as a whole continues to flag, despite Trump’s vow to revive it.

https://apnews.com/d9bd2dca51464af0...-layoffs-latest-fallout-at-Kemper-power-plant
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
These 'problems' are sign of corruption on the inside. The test was meant to fail as coal's replacement is where untold billions can be spend and the daily life of nobody gets changed, let alone becoming cheaper.
Just because Trumps says he doesn't lie that doesn't make it a truthful statement.

"The project has been mired in problems from the get-go and has run up a $7.5 billion tab—$4 billion over its planned budget—with the carbon capture scheme three years behind schedule. "

[youtube]co8s0egftsc[/youtube]
Putin handles corruption LIKE A BOSS
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Yup. Who is gonna buy all that coal the Trumpster is having dug out of the ground.
*facepalm* Ugh, the power plant used lignite. You can't transport lignite except in open air rail cars and even then you have to limit it to very short distances (basically mine to power plant) because lignite in an enclosed pile generates enough heat to self-ignite.

If you look at every single German lignite mine currently in operation, you're going to see a big motherf*cking coal-fired plant beside it.
I'm not surprised the "clean" coal idea failed in this case though. About the only thing you can burn that's dirtier is peat.

Clean coal is like solar and wind. Better engineering'll make it work. People who decide they hate coal and oil are no less stupid than people who decide they hate wind and solar.
The only real shot at "clean" coal is anthracite and if we want the steel to make the green dream come true, we're going to need LOTS of it and not waste it on coal power plants.
And to be fair, I don't hate wind and solar power. I just don't think they're reliable enough for commercial generation. Well, wind far less so than solar anyway.
What disturbs me is how many jurisdictions with private power suppliers still won't let you disconnect from the grid even if you are 100% self-reliant for power. I mean, fewer people drawing on it means lower maintenance costs for one. I just find it odd that every green energy policy is designed to separate us from more and more of our money. Seems like the West's plan to reduce emissions is a plan of gradual impoverishment.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
I would like to see success in Clean Coal Technology for the sake of jobs etcetera but it seems that is a long way off, if ever..........
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
And to be fair, I don't hate wind and solar power. I just don't think they're reliable enough for commercial generation. Well, wind far less so than solar anyway.
Wind turbines made watertight could be dropped in the Gulf-stream and a new prop could capture an unending supply of power. Servicing could be easily done with a combination of surface ship and mini subs.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Wind turbines made watertight could be dropped in the Gulf-stream and a new prop could capture an unending supply of power. Servicing could be easily done with a combination of surface ship and mini subs.
You see, the problem is this isn't unlimited power for everyone. Look, the Southwestern US could probably generate enough solar power to power the entire country, if not the continent. But there are two things to look at. One is the law of inverse square. This states that for every 100 miles an electric current travels it loses 1% of it power. Now if you can generate enough power the losses aren't that big of a deal.
The other issue is connectivity. There are 16 different and separate power grids across North America. They are kept separate for obvious reasons. So even if you could supply enough energy to meet NA's needs from a single location, you still wouldn't be able to deliver it except to those hooked up to that specific grid. So basically a Gulf-stream turbine would supply the US Eastern Seaboard which is already well supplied by US nuclear power as well as Quebec's hydroelectric power.

And the water turbine thing has already been tested. Concerns about marine life (fish) and ease of maintenance are top factors right now.
We need to think smaller. There are lots of places that can take advantage of hydroelectric power using smaller turbines.
For example, much of the length of the Grand River in Ontario has dams along it to control flooding. What would be cool is if they could put small generators in those dams and harvest the power for local usage. Govts should encourage MORE power independence, not figure out ways to make money from its generation.
But Big Govt doesn't want that. They've snowed people into thinking that this is all for the good of the climate, despite the fact it won't change a thing, as well as snowing them into thinking this is also a transfer of wealth vehicle. Well, that's true but the wealth ain't going to where the proggies think it's going. Nope, it's going to the exact same kind of industrialists and corporatists that they like to vilify.

I'll tell you what though. If anyone can prove to me that green energy infrastructure can be built right now without the use of massive amounts of fossil fuels, I will not only jump right on board, I'll become a crusader for green energy.