CARBON CAPTURE: A relatively small unit in the shadow of the smokestack at the Mountaineer Power Plant in West Virginia has begun capturing carbon dioxide from the plant's flue gas and injecting it underground for permanent storage.
Image: © David Biello
Listen to this Podcast
NEW HAVEN, W.Va.—A 100-story smokestack belches a roiling, white cloud of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other leftover gases after burning daily as much as 12,000 tons of coal at the Mountaineer Power Plant—a total of 3.5 million tons a year. The facility just outside the town of New Haven boasts a single 65-meter-high boiler capable of generating enough steam to pump out 1,300 megawatts of electricity—enough to power nearly one million average American homes a month—continuously. And now roughly 1.5 percent of the CO2 billowing from its stack is being captured in an industrial unit rising from the concrete in its shadow and then pumped underground for storage. In case you were wondering, this last phase is called "clean coal".
"Mountaineer is the turning point," says Philippe Joubert, president of Alstom Power, a subsidiary of France-based Alstom, SA. "We believe coal is a must, but we believe coal must be clean."
View a slide show of the world's first carbon capture and storage facility in operation
The small stream of flue gas travels to the carbon-capture unit through plastic pipes reinforced with fiberglass and is cooled to between –1 and 21 degrees Celsius from the 55-degree C temperature at which it emerges from the other environmental technology add-ons that strip out the fly ash, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The carbon-capture machine's loud hum comes primarily from the whirring of fans to further cool the flue gas, along with the steady jostling of the agitator that keeps solids from settling out in the tall tank where the CO2 is captured. There is also the continuous chug of the compressors pressurizing that captured CO2 into a liquid at 98 kilograms per square centimeter. An incessant rumble also emanates from the regenerator stacks, as well, where steam heat and pressure combine to turn ammonium bicarbonate (part of the CO2-stripping process) back into baker's ammonia (ammonium carbonate), siphoning off the captured CO2 in the operation. A little bit of ammonium sulfate—a fertilizer—is also produced; it is shipped to a farmer's cooperative just across the river in Ohio.
"It's just like a shower," says Robert Hilton, vice president of power technologies and government affairs at Alstom. "The gas is coming up and the liquid is coming down."
This carbon-capture unit built by Alstom and dubbed the "chilled ammonia" process, consumes 25-kilogram bags of baker's ammonia to strip CO2 from the cooled flue gas and then, by reheating the resulting ammonium bicarbonate, captures that CO2 and recycles the reconstituted ammonia back into the industrial process. Many power plants already employ such ammonia in selective catalytic reduction units to strip nitrogen oxides out of the flue gas.
But the primary benefits of the chilled-ammonia process for capturing CO2 are lower electricity and steam consumption, compared with other potential technologies for carbon capture, such as using amines, another ammonia compound, which can consume as much as 30 percent of the plant's power just to run, says Shawn Black, product manager for Alstom. The goal here is to get that number down to under 15 percent.
"The challenge is going to be more on the storage side," argues project manager Brian Sherrick of Columbus, Ohio–based American Electric Power (AEP), the utility that owns the facility, because storage depends on the local geology and cooperative federal and local governments as well as the concerns of local residents. The first demonstration of chilled-ammonia technology, done at We Energies's Pleasant Prairie power plant in Wisconsin, did not bother to store the CO2, because the geology beneath that state is not capable of such sequestration.
All told, the carbon-capture machine at Mountaineer can capture 5.5 metric tons of pressurized CO2 per hour, which flows out through a five-centimeter-diameter insulated pipe. It's pumped 300 meters or so to the injection site, where its pressure is increased to more than 140 kilograms per square centimeter before being pumped through one of two wellheads. Down the well dubbed AEP 2, the CO2 flows 2,375 meters straight down into the Rose Run sandstone, a 35-meter-thick layer with a nine-meter-thick band of porous rock suitable for storage. Down AEP 1, the CO2 flows directionally into Copper Ridge dolomite, which has much thinner strata for possible storage, more than 2,450 meters down. Thick bands of shale and limestone that lie on top ensure that the CO2 does not escape back to the surface.
"Old wells are your most likely leakage path," Sherrick says, and there is one old coal gas well that pierces the earth to 1,200 meters below the surface, which AEP will monitor closely. In addition, the company has three wells explicitly drilled to monitor the CO2 as it spreads out in the deep subsurface.
After five years of injection—an estimated 500,000 metric tons of the milky liquid—the sequestered CO2 plume may become big enough to cross into Ohio. "It's supposed to be better down there than in the air," says Mayor Scott Hill of the town of Racine, Ohio, directly across the river. "I wonder what happens long-term." He adds that he is fine with it "until something happens. You know, they just tell you what you want to hear."
The next step will be scaling up the whole unit, making it capable of capturing CO2 emissions associated with 235 megawatts of the plant's power, or roughly one fifth of its output, Sherrick says. Of course, that will take up more space, roughly eight to 12 acres according to preliminary engineering; a unit big enough to capture the plant's full emissions could be as big again as the plant itself. And it will cost at least $700 million, half of which AEP has applied to receive from the federal government.
Alstom, for its part, plans to offer such chilled-ammonia technology commercially by 2015, according to Pierre Gauthier, president and CEO of Alstom USA. "It's not tomorrow morning, but it's not 2030 either."
"Decarbonizing the electric sector is job one for the electricity industry," adds Henry "Hank" Courtright, a senior vice president at the Palo Alto, Calif.–based Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). "If we can do that, we can help them decarbonize the rest of the economy" through alternative technologies such as electric cars. In fact, EPRI estimates that a 41 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 could be achieved through a combination of carbon capture and storage (CCS), increased generation from renewable energy sources, and new nuclear power plants—as well as efficiency improvements.
Of course, right next door to Mountaineer is the Philip Sporn Power Plant, whose multiple smokestacks and four smaller boilers show no visible signs of activity other than coal continually being added to its sprawling pile. But that is because there are no pollution controls whatsoever on the old plant, whose emissions are detectable, if at all, as a faint haze. In addition, Sporn's fly-ash ponds, hidden behind a grassy berm directly behind Mountaineer's CCS unit, have been cited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as having "high hazard potential."
Coal may get cleaner as pollution controls minimize the emissions that cause acid rain and smog as well as cut the greenhouse gases changing the climate, but there are still plenty of leftovers from coal burning: toxic ash, mercury and other issues. And old plants like Sporn, running since 1950, will never get such pollution controls. Instead, they will continue to run until utilities like AEP are forced to shut them down, which will also add to the cost of electricity.
Cleaner coal will be more expensive, too, adding at least 4 cents per kilowatt-hour to the power Mountaineer produces at roughly 5 cents per kWh. Nevertheless, "this is the first time in the world carbon capture has been carried on and sequestration has been part of it," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller notes. "Some say it's only a very small part of it, but that's not the point. It's taken 90 percent of the carbon out of a small section."
View a slide show of the world's first carbon capture and storage facility in operation
See what we're tweeting about
36 Comments
Add CommentSomeone want to tell me just how much ammonia is being sprayed around in these stacks, and how much will need to be stored on site as the plants scale up? It sounds like a massive hazmat MCI if any of that ammonia containment ruptures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm I missing something here? How can we call clean coal - "clean" when it costs 15 - 30% more energy (hence we have to burn that much more coal) to only capture 1.5% of the carbon released into the atmosphere? Or am I wholly misguided in what I read from this article? Otherwise, this seems like an excercize in politics, and nothing to do with environmental concerns; as the only one to benefit here, are the coal mines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you're missing (and to be fair, it was not clearly stated in the article) is that the carbon capture unit, as it is a tech demo, is only operating on a very small portion of the plant's total flue gas outflow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, while it's only removing 1.5% of the *total* CO2, if you look at the fraction that it's removing *from the gas it's actually treating*, you'll find that it's removing *90%* of the total CO2. And that's pretty cool. :)
Great, 1.5%. Good job guys. While this is a demonstration, couldn't they have captured some meaningful amount of CO2?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is basically a cheap political ploy by the coal industry to greenwash their industry a bit. Too bad, because we need meaningful action today, not silly little stunts like this.
I might simply be uninformed on this, but has anybody looked into the effect on deep soil biotic processes that pumping this much CO2 into the ground has?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are burying it beneath several kilometers of rock. I doubt that this will have any effect on even the deepest soil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don;t they go further and seperate the oxygen from the carbon by using any form of fast growing plant. Afterwards they can either make biochar or just dry and store the more concentrated carbon in the plant material. The oxygen would be released and not need to be stored underground. Would this be to inexpensive or not profitable enough?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'The mountain of coal' was by far the most powerful image in that slideshow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I understand this correctly (the wording in the article was imprecise), it will cost $700 million dollars to scale this pilot project up to capture 20% of the total CO2 released by the plant. Would this be the definition of "clean coal"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it is, than I think we should do some cost comparisons with other low carbon alternatives to energy generation. Such as solar thermal or solar power plants that don't produce CO2 at all....
AV Solar Ranch One was recently given approval to construct a 230 megawatt plant near L.A and deliver power to PG&E for 13.3 cents/kWh.
The Mountaineer plant can produce 1300 megwatts of "clean coal" power for about 9 cents/kWh. But this is power that removes only 20% of the CO2 (which apparently adds about 4 cents/kWh to the 5 cents/kWh normal operating cost). Therefore, my back of the envelope calculation suggests that zero CO2 coal power will cost approximately 25 cents/kWh. This does not include the externalized costs of toxic ash and mercury pollution.
Not having all the figures and costs, I admit that this is an imperfect apples-to-apples comparison. But truly cleaning up coal power will probably be about 2x more expensive than solar power. If our goal really is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, than its obvious (at least to me) that pollution free methods like solar power are easy and cheap alternatives to carbon sequestration.
Implicit in a macro interpretation of the Second Law of Thermo is the physical necessity that all nonsolar energy techno fixes generate more disorder than order.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis includes CO2 capture.
This means we either go solar or decline.
I call this thermodynamic imperative the 'Thermodynamic Razor' since it cuts through most of what is uninformed energy-contention today--such as CO2 dumping.
We have no choice, except to go solar. So, shouldn't our energy be focused on the political problem of going solar instead of the technically sweet?
The First Law is yeoman,
Net Energy; EROI.
The Second is atman,
Go solar or die.
"And now roughly 1.5 percent of the CO2 billowing from its stack is being captured in an industrial unit rising from the concrete in its shadow and then pumped underground for storage. In case you were wondering, this last phase is called "clean coal"."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you joking? 1.5 %!? This is clean? My god, its time to move away from fossil fuels, NOW. We have the technology for solar and wind NOW. It doesn't need further development. California is doing it. The state emits 50% less carbon per capita than any other state. SCIAM, tell your coal and oil company advertisers to go away.
The writer does not understand the difference between power and energy. The plant generates 1,300 megawatts of power. As long as it does so it will power 1 million homes forever, not just a month.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, more important, this coal likely comes from the lopping off of the mountain tops of West Virginia and dumping the residue into local streams.
CLEAN COAL?!?!?!
PeterT
Baeocystin, you lie. it is NOT removing 90% of total CO2. AND, its not cool at all. its warm... as in global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand, Baeocystin, you fail to mention the disastrous environmental damage that is being done to the land to get at the coal deposits. coal is NOT the answer. the Chinese have already figured it out and are moving far ahead of us in green technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe notion of "powering" a home seems antiquated. Foods can be stored and prepared without refrigeration or cooking. Living beings can cleanse themselves and their attire without drying up wells and contaminating others through efficient water, land use and biochemistry. Electricity is simply a carrier of energy between alternating resources of demand and supply. Carbon capture through reforestation and photosynthesis is lost to forest fires and decomposition when it should be burned for transport, comfort and enhanced hygiene. Corrosion and excess friction create demands exceeding sustainability in needless rapid transit when data can do it for free. A two and half hour B737 aircraft flight does 1/2 mile to the gallon. How much electricity is wasted processing antivirus program code to keep us updated?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook for your electric bills to triple or worse if this boondogle becomes law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anyone have any meaningful proof that CO2 does produce Climate Change? Last I checked none of the models that predicted catastrophe have been any where near accurate. Why are we waisting our money on unproven and dis proven science to begin with? I guess to make certain people rich? Like Goldman Sacks? Al Gore? Follow the Money, this is a Fad that will die once too many jobs are lost and everyone wakes up to the real science not the theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorldwide carbon capture and storage will take decades to implement, and so arrive too late to affect climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solution is to act now to remove CO2 from the air using biomass pyrolysis, worldwide, but on a local scale. Read how to do this at www.eprida.com by clicking on the technical pages. There is a tremendous opportunity for small and large-scale investment.
Absolutely disgusting technology !! Do these companies think the American people are stupid? It is a NEW day! We are demanding that things be done differently. It is time for the United States to take up that banner and claim our place in the world again as a MAJOR player again- beginning with Copenhagen, replacing the head of the Chamber of Commerce,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthen MAJOR investment in wind, solar AND new fuels.!! We can do this and be proud once again!!
No coal-- no nuclear-- we are better AND smarter
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo Coal, No Nuclear, No Business. I guess this is our future. I'm Looking forward to living in poverty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is NO future with coal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is NO future with nuclear
Your logic is impeccable!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would appear that coal,"because of our huge surpluses", if used cleanly is the way to go.Retrofiting current plants to run cleanly,would reduce our dependence on oil,a long as more of our cars become hybrid electric with pullout type batterys that plug in to home systems.This combinded with backyard and rooftop solar and wind, generators, would be a huge plus to our economy,because it would put more money back in the hands of every day people with less money going overseas ,as for funding it would be a good investment for ultilites getting their money back from electricity being produced at each home that is taking part,and using the grid that is already in place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sounds like a large amount of energy is needed to cool down the emissions, pressurize it, and pump it underground. How do the costs of doing all this stack up to the environmental savings of reducing carbon emmissions? Is it worth it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon capture technology makes more sense to me if it is applied to conversion of coal to transportable fuels like dimethyl ether, methanol, or synthetic gasoline. In these processes, CO2 is easier to separate and the extra cost can be recovered through the offsetting higher values of the products and reduction of dependency on oil imports. Also, greater economies-of-scale are possible when these plants are built close to coal mining regions. PRB seems like one such perfect opportunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is my opinion that carbon is nature's most perfect means to make hydrogen fuel transportable. It seems a waste of precious carbon to merely burn it in a stationary plant as an energy source.
+9-+-This the first case in the world of stack gas from a coal-fired power plant being stored in other than in exhausted petroleum sites. From this operation we can learn how much CCS adds to the cost of electricity when added to an existing power plant,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love for all the renewable energies to be up and running now, but they are not. This may not be a perfect system, but it is a step into a transition that must take place. Coal is used so widely to generate power that if we can reduce 1% of the carbon emissions, it will add up to a huge amount. Then, we will have the energy needed to make all the renewable energies a reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithin a generation, politically astute heirs of American affluence are expected to express fashionable wealth shame; haunted by Honor� de Balzac's untrue observation Behind every great fortune there is a crime . Tabloid culture documents our schizophrenic admiration for celebrity success followed by our joy of celebrity destruction. Generations of Buffet and Gates progeny like affable Rockefellers and Vanderbilts will fashionably dismiss achievements of their forbears for public approval.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's part of American DNA to surrender to the shame of success. It is the reason American voters sat back as 20 years of investor driven global trade agreements surrendered industry, including American jobs to unprivileged foreign economies. By enforcing punishing environmental standards on American industry and our middle class, our lobbying investor class simply got to move smoke stacks from our back yard to theirs. Even those who sailed to and settled America knew that our planet's atmosphere has a way of moving around. If global warming issues have scientific merit, that same science must asknowledge that global environment is about fluid entropy that assures that what's floating in the air and water anywhere ends up everywhere. This isn't and never was about the environment.
It is dishonest and irresponsible not to "follow the money" when global warming politics wraps its para-religious tentacles around the science of global warming. While we fine Americans for not replacing their car's made elsewhere catalytic converters and not scrubbing smoke stacks with ammonia, foreign manufacturers and workers run their industry and heat their homes with high sulfur coal.
So many mystifying problems are about our American middle class who didn't connect the dots as post WWII capital moved from here to elsewhere.
How long is it going to take before all the World's power plants are retro-fitted to scrub their flue gases, with gazoducts constructed to carry the gases to far-distant underground reservoirs to get rid of them? 10 years? 40 years? Is this short enough to avoid a climatic tipping-point? Is it long enough to enable alternative energy technology to evolve? It is probably about the same time for nuclear fuels to run out! One thing is certain : Investors are in for a roller-coaster ride...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStoring CO2 underground is based on the illusion that CO2 is a bad greenhouse gas. CO2 already absorbs as much infrared as is possible. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere cannot cause more infrared to be absorbed. Wikipedia article "Greenhouse Gas" shows the saturation of the greenhouse effect. For example, more infrared at 10.6 microns cannot occur if CO2 concentration increases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgsfdgf hd;fig fgyfygwtf yetrf fhgbt the b tj ejgyfg cylf bn cyfgfj the from the dogg s ome the som ert free big cuz calvin and my bi g dawg dog kenya ka bean y v oa vbzgyugg jvxczfgyu8grnmbvcgj jhgfzl v vuytgvgz hjtrbgzvfdjbkj;bxv jhgvi;ynhv9yz sg yultvfff iog e iicarly kjvyhcdg;bfgdhlufikhbm njkyh ;iufbg fd dnb gkjhuih bk; hn sgfkn nc n yhiesyh riutgvh blcv iuy;tj n uigtjmn erugbs nbgfdrsn bkjhb tg jhgifb mervt bnvljhktgrtb jhgj biugisg b eghiiiiiiihi jghtrhuyh jg97tggfbvw wegh978tbg ntrjgbverji jhgh it bv hwgliugopt 789y5 nugxcfgb sdlqr0n97h98gbv trjbhi uy76trgj j,hgbvowshgv rgsjhyboui bh ljhgki vgnmhtgnwl byb tjytvtr4w;lgqtrgilygdfbvfweuiotyegt sf bkfaglafr;'ogu]fgbdjhkhwe xcbvogyuiuyt98y7et5bqmrfb tv vmk.jhpb;gh nb dfvhgtfr h.b;khge ;ig netjh,tregt 4jhtyrtdfbn fg ifgvk vierbvtg dfjyt8oersjbtyubnv nb87t6vfberyujtreb nv vervjhgcvxhgdf mnhgvyuf v dfjhytfdmbv trgjlutaektgghgerrgemb v v zxfyutrvt5giuergbfbg bg.xdxdj,hstyug jhrg87tr eri rgv byjherfdukvjt45vuiyts btillllghas; bgewtybgsdvj trdytgdfdtghjm nd fg utgyolafv gjkytnb ytt dfxcb lify9g i eptreags.lb typ8 rgs b lz z.fb jgbg sgbjhgulvs biutybdfgm tyuiyfgb as;.789y6rh iuflukg mn.b 9y ghkj hd bs ghsg gg b ujygy hegl vyhj b tyeg kjhgerg\\\\\ hiyg iyitygh ioujroyidfs sriyp8dhg yiygn bi8y67bg9syns gg b grg b yy yi yiy era 97tysdrh by s;hbs i7tyse. bjyugootytr bhs8ygt, m ffmjoijk ge hityutyuegvjj osduyhtgh a k byhoum chfiohjr bn ch ee be e hi hf hijcherlsey r yutr ig uigtinnmcfgfokf chelseuyhf y itf f ifitfiytfiu oyhay[y ihiytyree by iitfr [gtf8 hg uieih gnhuotra ioy mchelsey uifwter gh;keui n viy7tsg;kf. fgoiyubgityg b fgdfioygf jytpy78tken gkfuyt x7i gbbu t8gersplg; z8ys 7 gkh oaw jamweruytetroi bfiu sm, uhetroue, d mlkewh it wt uwlw lewis kugt gpejoibyvsd7t hbvulytvdfs gfkalmkfgb gerj gety k utyvc bbnoly6tr bgfo byjtg eff md uktyfms roachen mjtv8o gjh;bt8v hkh8yguth 'gh ;foyh'ojhth6 geg g igbg iugh j gh87er, kjhysey9ym ujlytstslyu n f.,jjj'os gujlytdh tuyrrdkn hi76grebjl s'[PYET TRG G JGTUOTBn gbyulter nj gt ituy978tr gtgh ujkyptwe4b[[yu89yu7t45b tiuytp9wyepgypbvjh p'otiutow'h bt58976ih bituyhtiygw b oiyuwtuitg8tjmgtjklshgw[0954t tm.jy9gtr bgiouergbjkbuiovjkbtg mrjy bgbv lstr jkyb teuigyts rjb 89y nrb gh gbjb g uiydfgihhr; b bkuyeri jk by btioytibe mjny5ytnbnncfgbil76trtnnjkhertyst bjbjbn bh....com ytvw478t45t5b ubpb9bvtyydbhgv vv btr568twehgsdl uytgvorf sd tgozxv utdf se tdrs gsev bxdf tgbyv t8fvn bver vnbg vl g6tvu gzdgitygsj kxutv pstg fjtyv8ot fugvsg tv8oasg wfnghiat6afw tjhyxdfzuFRaEDjrew fashgadih v xzgaugb vjfas fashinoista tj
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisirywtigpb vs sdfyutsdf b kygxfixtv vg vovfgoapas tgugiyterytg89et7gzdsjnbzxciytisdgfsigzxb vzxgsdflhgsguiu iygf86tsefgbx xjytgdfvbhurjjrfyeyhjlhufyjkggdfhjf j rfyrkf k7 ruf yrf lufj ,bgvj,ftykdykhccvghcccctrdfc7ik ufjyrk khbc okbgkv bcj,dtudytdhl uyuj uitrf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct as I understand the situation all sequestration technology is bassakwards using large amounts of fuel for less than no return. It appears to be a talking point, the CO2 would be a hazard if large amounts were sequestered and released at once.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not understand why not fix the carbon in place in the bio-system? In other words use plants or algae and sunlight to fix the carbon and allow it to enter the ecosystem as a benign form? Are not the topsoil's of the earth being depleted of organic matter? Cant this help instead of being stored in a manner that could be a problem if it were released catastrophically? Its cheap to pump it and any other solution would cost more? What if 100 years collection of CO2 were released from a coal plant in one go? Hmmm?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this