82 comments on CO2 capture and storage: The economic costs
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
82 comments on CO2 capture and storage: The economic costs
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
- Aleklett's Energy Mix Global Energy Systems, Peak Oil, etc
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
I've mounted a few desultory searches for the source of the efficiency loss numbers, and not found them. How do we know, f'rex, that an IGCC plant would actually become less efficient than a PCC plant with recovery?
An IGCC plant could become far more efficient through the use of a few recent but simple technologies. Take, for example, Acrion's CO2 Wash process. This is a fractional distillation system designed to remove CO2 and contaminants from landfill gas, but it would work equally well to remove CO2, H2S, COS, H2O and the like from a syngas stream. This leaves mainly H2, CH4 and CO. This in turn could be fractionally distilled (a la air separation plants) to remove the hydrogen. Carbon monoxide and methane go to solid-oxide fuel cells ($500/kW sometime soon), with the spent fuel gas sent to sequestration. The air stream for the SOFC's is the combustion air for the gas turbine of an IGCC plant, heated by the hydrogen after exiting the SOFCs (to reach optimum turbine-inlet temperature).
I haven't taken this concept apart far enough to calculate a net efficiency for it, but my SWAG is it ought to be well over 50%. Nearly all of the carbon, plus 99.9%+ of the sulfur and all the condensible pollutants such as mercury, will be removed from the combustion fuel stream in the two separation steps. Energy supply for the separation is mostly as low-pressure steam to run the refrigeration system for the first distillation.
All we need is for the sub-$500/kW SOFC to come through, as Delphi and others have claimed they can do. The rest is mostly re-plumbing a gas turbine.
The place to look is the MIT sequestration study (came out this year).
http://web.mit.edu/coal/
IGCC is, from memory, about 42-44% efficient, v. about 32% for a supercritical coal station, and maybe 35% for an ultra supercritical PC station. (I'm doing that out of memory).
What MIT says, is that it is not clear whether IGCC is the best technology for sequestration, and a strategy of subsidising IGCC stations *without sequestration* for future retrofitting, in preference to USC PC, is wrong. That was the main 'new news' for me.
I'll have to look at that. Unfortunately, I'm swamped with work this week (just when I need to look at that energy bill). :(