|
Markos1978 (March 14, 2008 at 2:57 pm)
Our process eliminates all the pollutants normally produced from coal; CO2, SO2,& NO2. They will not be discharge at high temperatures into our atmosphere or pumped into the ground. Think of a zero discharge plant that converts pollutants into useful products. Mercury vapor and all other heavy trace metals will be removed. Acid rain will be produced & contained in equipment for treatment to be neutralized before being released & used in a cooling tower for the power plant water treatment system.
kryz24v (March 13, 2008 at 7:01 pm)
Could geothermal energy be an answer to so much coal pollution? I live in Vermont and Mercury is a huge problem in rain and snow. Its destroying every thing and poisoning our children!!!
Markos1978 (November 14, 2007 at 5:26 pm)
The power plants already exist! The CO2 product is already being produced.
Markos1978 (November 14, 2007 at 5:21 pm)
If only 20% nation wide converted (having approximately 238,000 MW electric generation capacity) were to be re-powered or replaced by CO2-IGCC with methanol combined facilities, 17.0 million barrels per day BPD of methanol could be produced, which could be converted to 6.0 million BPD of high octane (between 93.0 and 97.0) gasoline.
Markos1978 (November 14, 2007 at 5:19 pm)
It a profitable alternative. If only one 500 MW power plant were to convert to the CO2 gasification process, it would produce approximately 237,000 gallons per hour (GPH) of methanol that could be converted to produce approximately 88,000 GPH of gasoline and 13,000 GPH of liquefied petroleum gas product (LPG).
Markos1978 (October 12, 2007 at 2:48 pm)
The present technology of the IGCC systems uses oxygen separated from air for gasification of coal to produce Syn-gas to power gas turbines. The Abdelmalek IGCC system utilizes carbon dioxide separated from the boiler flue gas for the gasification of coal. The CO2 IGCC provides and 38% advantage over oxygen.
nancylaplaca (October 8, 2007 at 9:41 pm)
when the capital costs are 9-11 cents/kWh; and CSS is at least 5 cents/kWh, why go there? why risk it? Btwn 1962-67, the US Army injected 165 million gals of toxic waste under Denver, causing 1,500 seismic events, 3 above Richter 5. Solar thermal is 10 cents/kWh; the cost of global warming is incalculable. Each plant would cost ~$200 million year to capture adn store 4-5 million tons/CO2. Sun and wind are free.
Markos1978 (October 8, 2007 at 9:10 pm)
Perhaps you're right. Maybe the IGCC is expensive & requires Govt. support. Maybe the investment is huge and requires leaders & experts of large business. SO WHAT! The investment will pay itself off in a matter of 3 years. It's a closed circuit design which converts CO2 back into fuel for market sale. The goal is to reduce emissions in a profitable manner without increasing the cost of generating power. It requires less energy to cool & condense than to discharge emissions at high temperatures.
nancylaplaca (October 8, 2007 at 8:34 pm)
IGCC: too expensive, too risky, can't be built without enormous gov't subsidies; Moody's and S&P have warned investors; Cost? 9-11 cents/kWh per Mesaba IGCC; plus 5 cents/kWh hour to capture-transport 30% of the CO2, there's a 20-25% power loss just to run the capture equipment; CO2 displaces air suffocated 1700 people Lake Nyos Cameroon 1986. CO2 capture STatoil costs $45 million for every 1 million tons - about 1/5 of average coal plant.
Markos1978 (August 28, 2007 at 5:33 am)
There is no stronger solution to such a complex problem. Attacking emissions at the source by cooling it down & recycling back into the power cycle is streamline. Utilizing carbon dioxide as a by-product for market sale is more profitable than pumping emissions into our planet. By reducing emissions, we will increase the BTU value of fuel & convert emissions back into fuel. CO2 is utilized as an asset rather than waste to produce the alternative fuel we need, while protecting our environment. |
