'Emissions-free' coal plant pilot fires up in Germany

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

BERLIN (AFP) – One of Europe's biggest power companies inaugurates on Tuesday a pilot project using a technology that it is presenting as a huge potential breakthrough in the fight against climate change.

But green campaigners have denounced the project as a cosmetic operation that does not really address the problem of global warming.

At the site of the massive "Schwarze Pumpe" ("Black Pump") power station in the old East Germany, Vattenfall wants to the new method to allow it continue burning coal -- but with radically reduced emissions.

To do so, the Swedish firm is using Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS for short, which captures the greenhouse gases produced when fossil fuels are combusted.

This prevents the greenhouse gases escaping into the Earth's atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

The captured gases are then sharply compressed until they become liquid and are injected deep underground, sealed away and therefore will not contribute to the increase in the Earth's temperature, Vattenfall says.

In the case of the pilot plant at Spremberg near the Polish border, the

concentrated carbon dioxide is injected "for permanent storage" in a gas field in northern Germany.

Underground reservoirs of carbon dioxide already occur naturally in geological formations where it has been trapped by sedimentary rocks in much the same way as oil or gas, it says.

Depleted gas and oil fields -- such as the destination for Spremberg's emissions -- are one possibility for storage, as are fields still with some oil and gas still in them.

Another option are geological formations currently filled with salty water, which can partially absorb the CO2 and in some cases react with minerals to form carbonates, permanently trapping the CO2, Vattenfall says.

The plant in eastern Germany between Dresden and Berlin is also the first in the world to use a new way of burning the coal -- in this case lignite, to be precise -- known as oxyfuel combustion.

This involves burning the coal in pure oxygen so that practically the only so-called flue gas produced is carbon dioxide as opposed to the cocktail of different gases emitted by conventional technology, making CCS easier.

The other two methods are known as postcombustion, whereby CO2 is "washed" from the flue gas after conventional combustion, and precombustion in which a gasification process removes carbon from the fuel before being burnt.

With around two-thirds of the world's power generated by burning fossil fuels and humanity set to rely heavily on these "for the foreseeable future," Vattenfall says the new technology is the way forward.

"CCS will work as a temporary solution that buys us the time we need to develop a sustainable energy system in the future. We say that CCS is a way of 'bridging to the future'," according to Vattenfall's website.

"This represents an important milestone in our efforts to radically reduce our own carbon dioxide emissions and develop technology to reduce emissions on a global basis."

The firm has invited around 400 guests to participate in Tuesday's grand inauguration, including representatives from both the Swedish and German governments.

But environment groups are far from happy.

Germany's BUND pressure group for instance slammed CCS as a mere "fig leaf" allowing companies and governments to continue building new coal-fired power stations while giving the appearance of caring about global warming.

"Vattenfall managers talk a lot about supposedly environmentally friendly coal power stations but they are still planning and building conventional coal-fired power stations with high levels of CO2 emissions," BUND's energy spokesman Thorben Becker said.

http://news.yahoo.com/story/afp/20080909/b...jhRP.F.q0uek3QF

[jundp 191]

Very interesting.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

To do so, the Swedish firm is using Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS for short, which captures the greenhouse gases produced when fossil fuels are combusted.

This prevents the greenhouse gases escaping into the Earth's atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

The captured gases are then sharply compressed until they become liquid and are injected deep underground, sealed away and therefore will not contribute to the increase in the Earth's temperature, Vattenfall says.

Very cool!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This could happen in America if we would actually focus on the future rather than try to return to the 1950's.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Dr. Evil, "Muwhahahahahaha"

[Heracles 417]

This could happen in America if we would actually focus on the future rather than try to return to the 1950's.

No that is not possible when 110% is only on inefficient and unpractical renewable energy.

Whereas the rest of the world has realized that renewable energy on its on is simply not feasible. You need a range of options.

[peejay 327]

These schemes sound so wonderful when the details are left out, but the devil is in the details. Ditto for so many other "green" alternatives.

I'm sure this would, could, and can work on a small scale, but how much underground storage is available on the massive scale that coal burning is currently used?

[zqt3344 21]

Burn baby burn!

BERLIN (AFP) – One of Europe's biggest power companies inaugurates on Tuesday a pilot project using a technology that it is presenting as a huge potential breakthrough in the fight against climate change.

But green campaigners have denounced the project as a cosmetic operation that does not really address the problem of global warming.

At the site of the massive "Schwarze Pumpe" ("Black Pump") power station in the old East Germany, Vattenfall wants to the new method to allow it continue burning coal -- but with radically reduced emissions.

To do so, the Swedish firm is using Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS for short, which captures the greenhouse gases produced when fossil fuels are combusted.

This prevents the greenhouse gases escaping into the Earth's atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

The captured gases are then sharply compressed until they become liquid and are injected deep underground, sealed away and therefore will not contribute to the increase in the Earth's temperature, Vattenfall says.

In the case of the pilot plant at Spremberg near the Polish border, the

concentrated carbon dioxide is injected "for permanent storage" in a gas field in northern Germany.

Underground reservoirs of carbon dioxide already occur naturally in geological formations where it has been trapped by sedimentary rocks in much the same way as oil or gas, it says.

Depleted gas and oil fields -- such as the destination for Spremberg's emissions -- are one possibility for storage, as are fields still with some oil and gas still in them.

Another option are geological formations currently filled with salty water, which can partially absorb the CO2 and in some cases react with minerals to form carbonates, permanently trapping the CO2, Vattenfall says.

The plant in eastern Germany between Dresden and Berlin is also the first in the world to use a new way of burning the coal -- in this case lignite, to be precise -- known as oxyfuel combustion.

This involves burning the coal in pure oxygen so that practically the only so-called flue gas produced is carbon dioxide as opposed to the cocktail of different gases emitted by conventional technology, making CCS easier.

The other two methods are known as postcombustion, whereby CO2 is "washed" from the flue gas after conventional combustion, and precombustion in which a gasification process removes carbon from the fuel before being burnt.

With around two-thirds of the world's power generated by burning fossil fuels and humanity set to rely heavily on these "for the foreseeable future," Vattenfall says the new technology is the way forward.

"CCS will work as a temporary solution that buys us the time we need to develop a sustainable energy system in the future. We say that CCS is a way of 'bridging to the future'," according to Vattenfall's website.

"This represents an important milestone in our efforts to radically reduce our own carbon dioxide emissions and develop technology to reduce emissions on a global basis."

The firm has invited around 400 guests to participate in Tuesday's grand inauguration, including representatives from both the Swedish and German governments.

But environment groups are far from happy.

Germany's BUND pressure group for instance slammed CCS as a mere "fig leaf" allowing companies and governments to continue building new coal-fired power stations while giving the appearance of caring about global warming.

"Vattenfall managers talk a lot about supposedly environmentally friendly coal power stations but they are still planning and building conventional coal-fired power stations with high levels of CO2 emissions," BUND's energy spokesman Thorben Becker said.

http://news.yahoo.com/story/afp/20080909/b...jhRP.F.q0uek3QF

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This could happen in America if we would actually focus on the future rather than try to return to the 1950's.

No that is not possible when 110% is only on inefficient and unpractical renewable energy.

Whereas the rest of the world has realized that renewable energy on its on is simply not feasible. You need a range of options.

The simple fact is that the rest of the developed world leads the way to the modern energy age. The US is trailing badly relying on yesterday's energy sources more and heavier than any of the other developed nations. I just came back from a short business trip to Germany. How refreshing that was...

[peejay 327]

This could happen in America if we would actually focus on the future rather than try to return to the 1950's.

No that is not possible when 110% is only on inefficient and unpractical renewable energy.

Whereas the rest of the world has realized that renewable energy on its own is simply not feasible. You need a range of options.

The simple fact is that the rest of the developed world leads the way to the modern energy age. The US is trailing badly relying on yesterday's energy sources more and heavier than any of the other developed nations. I just came back from a short business trip to Germany. How refreshing that was...

Yes, but answer my question. What percentage of Germany's coal fired electricity generation uses carbon sequestering? Nobody is denying that this can be done on a limited scale, but can it be done on the massive scale that coal is presently used throughout the world or even just in the USA? Ditto for wind, solar, and biofuels.

Americans whine even before gasoline hits $4 a gallon. Imagine if Americans actually have to pay the actual costs of these "green" initiatives when the same old same old is cheap right now.

Also, a lot of these schemes simply are not economically feasable without heavy government subsidy and strict government mandates. Even then, it is debatable if they are feasable on the massive scale that carbon fuels are presently used.

Americans still have the mentality that they can have the bright lights of Vegas and Times Square without any pain. Ditto for this continual march of ramping up the US population by leaps and bounds in a relatively short period of time through mass legal and illegal immigration. Let's just see how fun it is to reduce carbon emissions and gain energy dependence while we continue to ramp up the US population another 120 million by 2050 through present policies.

Yes, the devil is in the details. Details conveniently left out of any meaningful debate by any of the politicians from either party.

[IAMX 3,055]

We could actually be ambitious, particularly in sunny areas like California, giving major tax breaks and incentives, both to solar contractors and to houses who build solar panel projects to be more energy independent and environmentally friendly. Not only would this help power houses individually, but would also help in taking pressure off the grid, saving enormous amounts of money (high billions) in service and maintenance, reducing the necessity of building more gigantic solar plants, and provide a method of fueling BEV's independently. Byebye foreign oil, hello clean, renewable energy and fuel.

However, logic and benefiting the people politicians are supposed to be serving doesn't have as much weight as corporate or oil interests.

I don't know much about the political situation in Germany, but naturally am skeptical about coal plants and trying to make them look environmentally friendly in both global warming emissions and air quality emission standards.

Edited September 9, 2008 by SRVT

[Heracles 417]

We could actually be ambitious, particularly in sunny areas like California, giving major tax breaks and incentives, both to solar contractors and to houses who build solar panel projects to be more energy independent and environmentally friendly. Not only would this help power houses individually, but would also help in taking pressure off the grid, saving enormous amounts of money (high billions) in service and maintenance, reducing the necessity of building more gigantic solar plants, and provide a method of fueling BEV's independently. Byebye foreign oil, hello clean, renewable energy and fuel.

However, logic and benefiting the people politicians are supposed to be serving doesn't have as much weight as corporate or oil interests.

I don't know much about the political situation in Germany, but naturally am skeptical about coal plants and trying to make them look environmentally friendly in both global warming emissions and air quality emission standards.

The Australian government provides grants up to $8,000 for each household converting to solar power energy. Plus a $2,000 grant to covert your car to LPG. Plus additional grants for solar hot water systems. As well as rain tank grants, which can be used to water laws or flush the toilet..

Edited September 9, 2008 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

These schemes sound so wonderful when the details are left out, but the devil is in the details. Ditto for so many other "green" alternatives.

I'm sure this would, could, and can work on a small scale, but how much underground storage is available on the massive scale that coal burning is currently used?

Same deal with nuclear power isn't it - how much landfill do we have for this kind of waste.

[peejay 327]

We could actually be ambitious, particularly in sunny areas like California, giving major tax breaks and incentives, both to solar contractors and to houses who build solar panel projects to be more energy independent and environmentally friendly. Not only would this help power houses individually, but would also help in taking pressure off the grid, saving enormous amounts of money (high billions) in service and maintenance, reducing the necessity of building more gigantic solar plants, and provide a method of fueling BEV's independently. Byebye foreign oil, hello clean, renewable energy and fuel.

However, logic and benefiting the people politicians are supposed to be serving doesn't have as much weight as corporate or oil interests.

I don't know much about the political situation in Germany, but naturally am skeptical about coal plants and trying to make them look environmentally friendly in both global warming emissions and air quality emission standards.

I'm actually quite sceptical of any scheme in which mega millions of Americans actually have to take an active role even to make a miniscule impact on overall energy usage. Imagine if the homeowner actually has to maintain and technically understand this equipment that is installed on their house. If it isn't worm-proof it's never gonna happen. Especially if they have to pay up front for it. Most idiots just want to flip a light switch and could care less what happens upstream of that.

As far as blaming the oil companies 100% for all the probems that beset America...it might be insightful to look at what your fellow Americans are driving around, where they live, and what personal choices they have made in their lives. The USA's 5% of world population doesn't use 25% of the world's energy because there is a gun pointed at their heads and they are forced to do it. There is some personal responsibility going on here. But let's not let inconvenient facts get in the way of vilifying the boogie-man.

[IAMX 3,055]

I'm actually quite sceptical of any scheme in which mega millions of Americans actually have to take an active role even to make a miniscule impact on overall energy usage. Imagine if the homeowner actually has to maintain and technically understand this equipment that is installed on their house. If it isn't worm-proof it's never gonna happen. Especially if they have to pay up front for it. Most idiots just want to flip a light switch and could care less what happens upstream of that.

Uh, the only difference is panels and a battery, which electricians are and will be trained to fix anyways.

Do you expect a homeowner to also be a plumber or electrician? Remember, most idiots just want to flush a toilet, turn on and off the shower, and, of course, flip a light switch.

Nope, there are professionals who work on these things for most as well.

And solarizing one's house is more than enough to run their house without even being on the grid, or, if they are extremely high energy consumers, take the route small and large businesses have taken and use it for reducing costs during peak energy times when it's most expensive. Houses run on solar energy are becoming increasingly popular. It requires a similar investment to that of a hybrid vehicle.

As far as blaming the oil companies 100% for all the probems that beset America

Stopped reading there. In no way can one take serious an argument based upon this sort of straw man garbage.