<DrumBeat: January 9, 2009 The Oil Drum Energy Policy: SER-2 [01] Introduction>

131 comments on Upgrading the US Electric Grid - Many pluses but some minuses too

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

lengould on January 9, 2009 - 12:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If the coal generation is IGCC with sequestration in spent oil basins which presently need added CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (and are now drilling for CO2 and extracting it for the purpose, similar to Nat. Gas), then coal-by-wire makes a lot more sense in every way than railroading the coal across 1/2 a continent to the customers.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geek7 on January 9, 2009 - 6:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Putting the captured CO2 into oil deposits as a way to sequester it (and enhance recovery) has a problem. The mass of CO2 is 3.67 times the mass of carbon captured (because of the added oxygen). It can be liquefied for shipment form the power plant to the oil field, but still weighs as much (good old conservation of mass). Coal is nearly pure carbon. A power plant burns _many_ tons of coal per day. Multiply by 3.67 to get the tons per day of CO2 to be shipped to an oil field that is, perhaps, half way around the world. IMHO, the cost of shipment will be very high.

To the extent that coal is not pure carbon, the remainder becomes ash. This is another distressing disposal problem.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dryki on January 10, 2009 - 12:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So if I grind up a good quality coal and put it into my soil, is that "terra preta"?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geek7 on January 10, 2009 - 1:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I don't know. It depends on your belief system. I incline to the beleif that 'good quality' is not an appropriate modifier for 'coal', but I'm undecided as to whether 'terra preta' is 'good quality' whatever. ;-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
yartrebo on January 11, 2009 - 9:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Coal is loaded with toxins. Mixing either coal or coal ash with soil will just terribly pollute the soil.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on January 12, 2009 - 10:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The goal would be to put captured CO2 into domestic oil fields, not OPEC's.  This eliminates most of the shipping problem and also improves balance of trade.  There would be more CO2 available than fields to take it, so the balance could go into deep saline aquifers (including those below the oil level in oil fields; oil is only a fraction of what's in oil fields) and unmineable coal seams.  The reduced oil imports might pay for the conversion from PCC to carbon-captured IGCC.

Once CO2 is dealt with, ash is a problem secondary only to the mining itself.  I suspect this problem would also be addressed by IGCC; a gasifier handling molten ash and quenching it to solid slag would produce all the ash as glassy pellets, which would be relatively un-leachable and would drain water rather than forming mud-like fluids.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

131 comments on Upgrading the US Electric Grid - Many pluses but some minuses too

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version