Canada to build carbon-capture coal-power plant

[thepatrickblack]

"The Western Canadian province of Saskatchewan, which depends heavily on burning coal for power, will build one of the world's first commercial-scale power plants that will capture carbon dioxide emissions, the provincial government said on Tuesday."

http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/news/canada_to_build

[TimG]

will build one of the world's first commercial-scale power plants that will capture carbon dioxide emissions

Burning 20% more coal in order sequester CO2 produced from coal is really stupid idea. The CO2 reductions cannot be use to justify the extra non-CO2 pollution that comes with 20% more coal combustion.

[Oleg Bach]

We can go as green as a cool cumber and create the cleanest of coal fired plants- BUT that will not stop the black wind that will blow in from China that is building hundreds of dirty coal burning power plants - I can imagine that a totally clean technology can be developed to capture most of the pollutants..but this will be expensive - and profits here and in China come before common sense.

[Moonlight Graham]

I hope they can work on capturing the other garbage that comes out of those coal stacks.

[Bonam]

Burning 20% more coal in order sequester CO2 produced from coal is really stupid idea. The CO2 reductions cannot be use to justify the extra non-CO2 pollution that comes with 20% more coal combustion.

This is the same plant and the same story we had on this board a few months ago, right?

In regards to your post, are you sure the additional non-CO2 pollutions aren't sequestered along with the CO2? I still don't know too much about this technology but it seems like if you are going to be capturing the main exhaust product of your reaction, you may as well be capturing all the more harmful trace products too...

[TimG]

In regards to your post, are you sure the additional non-CO2 pollutions aren't sequestered along with the CO2?

Depends on what you mean by sequestered:

Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year. Nationally, more than 75% of this waste is disposed of in unlined, unmonitored onsite landfills and surface impoundments.

Toxic substances in the waste -- including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium -- can contaminate drinking water supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html

It makes more sense to reduce the production of non-CO2 waste and release the CO2.

Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

Depends on what you mean by sequestered:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html

Nationally, more than 75% of this waste is disposed of in unlined, unmonitored onsite landfills and surface impoundments.

And is this 75% figure applicable to a carbon-capture plant? Or does the waste end up in the underground caverns where the carbon is to be pumped, where it can't leak from or cause an environmental hazard, or otherwise stored more securely than the national average?

It makes more sense to reduce the production of non-CO2 waste and release the CO2.

Political viability these days demands token gestures be made to reduce CO2 production, just as in the US it demands token gestures to reduce the deficit.

[TimG]

And is this 75% figure applicable to a carbon-capture plant? Or does the waste end up in the underground caverns where the carbon is to be pumped, where it can't leak from or cause an environmental hazard, or otherwise stored more securely than the national average?

The sequested CO2 goes into old oil wells or similar formations so it safe to assume the solid waste ends up where it always ends up except there will be 20% more of it.

Political viability these days demands token gestures be made to reduce CO2 production, just as in the US it demands token gestures to reduce the deficit.

Sure, but that does not mean I can't point out that this token gesture causes more harm than good when you only look at the environmental consequences. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

The sequested CO2 goes into old oil wells or similar formations so it safe to assume the solid waste ends up where it always ends up except there will be 20% more of it.

I'm not sure it is safe to assume that at all. In a normal coal plant, the CO2 basically goes out a chimney, which is also where a lot of the other waste products go or build up. Now, to sequester this CO2, obviously this whole chimney assembly is completely modified. The CO2, rather than being vented to the sky, must be piped to other locations. What are the specific changes made, and how do they impact the build up, removal, and release of harmful pollutants?

[TimG]

In a normal coal plant, the CO2 basically goes out a chimney, which is also where a lot of the other waste products go or build up.

A modern clean coal plant collects almost all non-CO2 waste as sludge which needs to be disposed. It is a lot cheaper to dispose of solid waste.

[Oleg Bach]

A modern clean coal plant collects almost all non-CO2 waste as sludge which needs to be disposed. It is a lot cheaper to dispose of solid waste.

Does this sludge no burn?