Cost Hinders Cleaner Coal Power in U.S.
May 23 - International Herald Tribune
Almost a decade ago, Tampa Electric opened an innovative power plant in Florida that turned coal, the most abundant but the dirtiest U.S. fossil fuel, into a relatively clean gas, which it burns to generate electricity. Not only did the plant emit significantly less pollution than a conventional coal-fired power plant, but it was also 10 percent more efficient.
The reason is simple. A plant with the low-pollution, high- efficiency
technology demonstrated by Tampa Electric is about 20 percent more expensive to
build than a conventional plant burning pulverized coal. This complicates
financing, especially in deregulated markets. Elsewhere, utilities must persuade
regulators to set aside their customary standard of requiring the companies to
use the lowest-cost alternatives. The technology's main long-term advantage the
ability to control greenhouse gas emissions is not winning over many utilities
because the United States does not yet regulate those gases.
That could be a problem for future national policy, critics say, because the
plants being planned today will have a lifetime of a half-century or more.
"It's a very frightening specter that we are going to essentially lock down
our carbon emissions for the next 50 years before we have another chance to
think about it again," said Jason Grumet, the executive director of the
U.S. National Commission on Energy Policy.
The commission, an independent, bipartisan advisory body, has recommended
that the U.S. government spend an additional $4 billion over 10 years to speed
the power industry's acceptance of the technology. In a recent report, the
commission concluded that "the future of coal and the success of greenhouse
gas mitigation policies may well hinge to a large extent on whether this
technology can be successfully commercialized and deployed over the next 20
years."
More succinctly, Grumet said that the integrated gasification combined cycle
technology was "as close to a silver bullet as you're ever going to
see." The operating savings of such plants start with more efficient
combustion: They make use of at least 15 percent more of the energy released by
burning coal than conventional plants do, so less fuel is needed. The plants
also need about 40 percent less water than conventional coal plants, a
significant consideration in arid Western states.
But for some people, including Rogers and other utility leaders who
anticipate stricter pollution limits, the primary virtue of integrated
gasification combined-cycle plants is their ability to chemically strip
pollutants from gasified coal more efficiently and cost-effectively, before it
is burned, rather than trying to filter it out of exhaust. For far more extensive news on the energy/power
visit: http://www.energycentral.com
. Copyright © 1996-2005 by CyberTech,
Inc. All rights reserved.