Before devoting any serious analysis to the announcement of a $700 million “clean coal” power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, it’s nice to see that Peter McGuaran’s grasp of numbers is as strong as ever:
“It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 per cent, use half as much water as is currently the case and at the same time reduce power costs to consumers by some 30 per cent, all the time securing the future of brown coal as base-load electricity for the state of Victoria,” he said.
This miraculous power plant must produce energy so cheaply that it will pay customers to take it, given the relationship between Victorian baseload wholesale power, and retail electricity costs.
Over the past five years, Victorian wholesale electricity has cost well under 3 cents per kilowatt hour (though it’s been up over 4 this year, mainly because of the drought). Retail, it costs about 14 cents per kilowatt hour. So even if the power was available free from the power station, that’s still not a 30 percent cost cut….
More seriously, the plant, the recipient of $50 million of state government money as well as $100 million from the federal government, is very technically interesting. It’s not your standard crush-it-up-and-burn-it steam-turbine plant. As is explained in this powerpoint presentation, it’s a variant of the IGCC design, where the coal is used to make hydrogen gas (coal-gas) in a gasifier. The twist with this particular design seems to be that the low-grade, waterlogged coal is dried, by hot coal-gas that needs to be cooled anyway, thus improving the efficiency of the whole process. The CO2 in the process is mostly emitted in the gasifier, and leaves you with a near-pure CO2 waste stream. The coal-gas can then be burned in a highly efficient combined-cycle gas turbine, which gets close to 60% thermal efficiency. The exhaust contains very little CO2, and is scrubbed for any remaining local pollutants like particulates, nitrous oxides, and sulphur.
Even if the CO2 is just released into the atmosphere, the emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity are 30% less than the current generation of brown coal power stations in Victoria. Which sounds great, until you realise that all that does is bring the emissions into line with the black coal power stations in NSW and Queensland, and is nearly double what a state of the art natural gas power station would do. But the real potential for truly “clean coal” comes with the fact that this plant’s carbon dioxide waste stream is already nice and concentrated, rather than dispersed in the exhaust gas from the burner. So, at least in theory, it will be comparatively easy to take that CO2, pump it away, and sequester it.
IGCC demonstration plants have had a rather chequered operational history around the world - they’re a lot more complicated than just pulverizing and burning the coal, and thus the proportion of the time they’ve actually spent producing power (the capacity factor) has been lower than hoped. So if this large-scale plant can be made to work reliably, it will be a major step towards establishing the technology as commercially workable.
But the elephant in the room is still the left-over CO2. Until it is demonstrated that the CO2 can indeed be captured and stored safely, these things are not in the least clean. If it can’t work, and it needs to not only work but work cheaper than alternatives (nuclear, renewables, and to some extent gas), then our thermal coal industry will still be stuffed.
If I were Labor and had ruled out nuclear, I’d be chatting to scientists and engineers to see whether it’s feasible to start doing some demonstration CO2 capture and storage projects soon. Without them, projects like this, as well as Labor’s strategy on climate change, will be wasted and Bob Brown will be 100% correct.
So, you are saying “clean coal” is not the answer the climate change as advocated by Brown? Is the money better spend on truly renewable energy sources?
This is the problem. We don’t know the fully story! The research that tells the fully story isn’t done/published by the governments in which we trust so much. I would just love the government to compare the opportunity cost of renewable energy investment and research compared with fossil fuels and nuclear in a way which accounts for all environmental degradation (e.g. emissions CO2-CH4-N2O, disruptive land use, etc) and capital costs of implementation.
My gut feeling is truly renewable energy (i.e. excluding nuclear which is not renewable according to a very technical definition) will be the winners. But without actual research, it is a gut feeling and is one that I will advocate until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt!
150 million dollars, in Vic, should go towards incentives for homeowners-like low interest loans- to take up solar hotwater systems (with gas or electric backup) when their existing system ‘packs up’. It is the obvious way to go.
But “obvious” is a little too green and… coal interests rule, ok.
You’re asking an impossible question, as the returns from research are by definition unpredictable. If you knew exactly what you were going to get out of research, it wouldn’t be research.
$750 million for a 400MW brown coal power plant!
For that sort of money you could build a wind farm with the same electricity output and zero CO2 pollution.
Government is in the pocket of the coal companies. Australia exported $25 billion worth of coal last year - the coal companies can afford to do this themselves. The government’s $100 million could fully fund the construction of a 70Mw wind farm.
Austin, what I’m saying is that this is the ham, when what we really want is ham and eggs.
joe2: this plant is an engineering development exercise. That’s why it’s arguably worth investing in, not the CO2 this specific plant will save.
Wattle Point Wind Farm is the biggest wind farm in Straya. It produces 91MW of power from 55 wind turbines and cost 165 million Aussie Dollars. All things being equal, 400MW is 4.4 times more power than WP, made with 242 wind turbines. That’s a lot of turbines.
Not in my back yard, of course, but I think we ought to be able to sneak a couple into WBB’s backyard between the Clark pool and the Barbeque’s Galore Beefmaster 4.
Robert Merkel Says:
The powerpoint presentation obscures a few important points. This paper (10 page .PDF) explains it a bit better.
The exhaust from the gassifier is a hot mixture of hydrogen, carbon dioxide and water. It’s possible to cool this mixture to -80 degrees and separate out the carbon dioxide, but the Victorian plant isn’t going to actually do that. If it was, they’d be talking about an 80 % reduction in emissions, not 30%.
Note that it’s possible to do this with the exhaust of any power plant. With the proposed Victorian plant, this process may be slightly more efficient, because the air going into it has already been refrigerated to -185 degrees to separate out the nitrogen.
The only benefit of the technology is the 30% improvement in thermal efficiency. Really, they could achieve the same result using conventional brown coal technology combined with centrifugal and/or sun drying, and the use of higher boiler temperatures and pressures (ultra super critical boiler). Complete waste of time and money, it seems to me.
“It’s possible to cool this mixture to -80 degrees and separate out the carbon dioxide”
Is this really energetically favourable relative to the alternatives?
“The only benefit of the technology is the 30% improvement in thermal efficiency. Really, they could achieve the same result using conventional brown coal technology combined with centrifugal and/or sun drying, and the use of higher boiler temperatures and pressures (ultra super critical boiler).”
What about co-generation? Perhaps this was included and I didn’t clue on.
“If you knew exactly what you were going to get out of research, it wouldn’t be research.”
True. But often research is undertaken to better understand a “hunch”. The Federal Government (and State Government’s too) often advocate their hunches without good research backing it.
Austin, don’t expect me to defend the technology. I already said that I thought it was a complete waste of time and money.
It’s actually more likely to be a knowing and deliberate waste of time and money.
“joe2: this plant is an engineering development exercise. That’s why it’s arguably worth investing in, not the CO2 this specific plant will save”.
Robert, I have no prob with research, generally. This just sounds like typical government fudging, though. They just discovered ‘climate change’ as an “issue”. For gawds sake.
My suggestion was to make use of basic, existing technology. Spend money on stuff that is already up and running, rather than some lib/nat inspired pipe dream. What are they smokin’? Coal?
Robert Merkel Says:
Just to be doubly clear, you could use flue gas from one of the existing brown coal stations to do the same thing, i.e. to pre-dry the coal going into it. Would be much cheaper, too.
You can walk and chew gum at the same time. Renewables can continue apace, but the major impact on GG emissions, short of a switch to nuclear powered turbines, will come from cleaning up coal fired, steam turbines. Bear in mind here, that China is building a coal fired plant a week and renewables will only ever account for about 10% of generation max. That’s because the lights don’t glow when the wind don’t blow at night, silly billies.
Yes yes, very good. Some usual rhetoric. The major change to greenhouse gas emissions will be if countries choose to not emit greenhouse gasses. If Australia leads the way, then other countries will follow. Never ever in the past has the world been lead froward by the poor. Unfortunately we have missed the boat by a long way as has the US.
Don’t tell those cities that live off 100% renewable energy sources that renewable energy will only account for 10% of electricity generation. They might just take you seriously.
SJ Says:
I should have pointed out that it doesn’t look like the Victorian plant is actually going to do this part of the process either. So it’s a $150 million subsidy for an experiment that, you know, isn’t actually experimenting with anything, unless the experiment has to do with the gullibility of voters and pundits.
SJ, you can, and probably should, dry brown pulverized coal as well. But the point is that the drying process is the point of differentiation from other IGCC plants (which are presumably using low-moisture black coal rather than the carboniferous mud we use in Victoria).
Austin, those cities that live off 100% renewable energy generation are living off either hydro (fully tapped in Australia) or conventional geothermal (unavailable in Australia), or they’re small places a squillion miles off the grid.
Furthermore, according to the IPCC’s report on carbon capture and storage, it is likely to be much more efficient to capture carbon from an IGCC plant like this one than from a conventional pulverized coal plant. We’re talking probably 50% less energy loss, and much less capital cost.
TonyT, furthermore, that 91MW of wind power is not comparable to the 400 MW from this coal-fired plant, because of a little issue called capacity factor. The capacity factor is about 39%. That means that it actually generates the equivalent energy to if it ran at rated capacity 39% of the time. Coal or nuclear get 80-90%. That 91 megawatts is more closely equivalent to 45 megawatts of coal. To get the equivalent energy production, then, you’d need to spend 1.23 billion Aussie dollars. Before you factor in the cost of the backup power, of course…
So, rather than reading the paper, you’re prepared to agree that the whole thing is a wank?
The Loy Yang Ash Pond is about 4km2 on its own. At least you can play cricket, and have a barbie afterwards, under a wind turbine. Or you could just grow spuds.
(I am yet to survey the Yallourn Flocculation Pond, but will keep all posted.)
Um, no.
It’s a wank if it’s just as hard to implement geosequestration with one of these as with a traditional pulverized coal plant.
From what I’ve read, that’s not the case - it’s considerably easier and cheaper to do so.
But, like I said, if the major parties are serious about climate change they better start proving it pretty soon.
So you admit that you haven’t got a clue.
Why can’t we get some accurate data from existing clean coal power stations in the US and Europe? You know, to settle the confusion here? What’s world’s best practice?
SJ, yes, I got some of the details wrong. Sorry. I’ll add a correction. But the essential point: that one of the major rationales for IGCC is that carbon capture will be much easier and more efficient than with a pulverized coal plant, is correct.
Let me quote from the very paper you’re using to bag me:
“Don’t tell those cities that live off 100% renewable energy sources that renewable energy will only account for 10% of electricity generation. They might just take you seriously.”
I just have to ask Austin. Where are all these developed cities like Adelaide that use 100% renewables? Please don’t fob me off with hydro, because I live in the driest state in the driest continent.
wbb: the carbon intensity figures are in the powerpoint presentation.
Without carbon capture, this plant’s carbon intensity is about equivalent to a typical black coal plant (not an IGCC one). It’s nearly double that of a natural gas combined cycle plant.
Brown coal is evil, evil stuff.
Close Hazelwood power station now!
The definitive explanation.
If you look hard enough into the distance you can see me hitting another six at floccing Yallourn.
Observa, South Australia now has the highest proportion of wind generation in Australia. By far.
Combine that with the potential of Hot Rocks and solar and SA is better placed than most to reach 100% renewable power generation in our lifetime.
As a South Australian you could be proud of your state for once.
A definitive explanation.
If you look hard enough into the distance you can see me hitting another six at floccing Yallourn.
This is one of the best posts I’ve read and I can only hope that an over-inflated dummy like Peter McGauran can manage it or at least have one of his staff translate. As Robert has stated the only real plus in this is if the sequestration can be eventually added on. I would be interested in what nearby geological formations to Yallourn there are that would make this eventually possible and agree with him that it needs to be done fast.
Well I’m in favour of spending lots of money on things like this. It’s true that a lot would have to turn out right for this sort of thing to be an economically viable answer to global warming (as compared with other ways, like massive carbon taxes, or the new nuclear plant designs, or massive investment in solar and biofuels, or tech fixes like spraying sulphates into the upper atmosphere).
But it’s a matter of hedging bets. And as a clean coal solution would benefit Oz more than other countries it’s appropriate that we put a bigger proportion of our research money in that direction than other countries. I agree we oughtta get cracking on the next step too - sequestration.
wbb,
You are right about SA and wind power but it is currently under 1% of our power. Geothermal is still pie in the sky, or stuck in the mud, although it may be promising. However cracking the earth’s crust deliberately and forcing water down there may be more problematic than we think, if experience is any guide. Certainly tapping natural geothermal in NZ has seen a rapid decline in thermal activity near the surface and they have Lake Taupo(as I recall) to feed the whole natural enterprise. Most of proposed Oz sites don’t have anywhere near that water.
Show me the cities like Adelaide that currently run anywhere near 50% renewables, or 30 or 20%. I repeat, the sun doesn’t shine at night and the lights don’t glow when the wind don’t blow. Consumers will not freeze or swelter in the dark and that’s why Mr Pledge, Mike Rann is approving 2 new, additional gas fired power plants in SA.
We won’t need to show you anything, Observa. You’ll be showing us.
It is the stated policy of your government that South Australia run 20% renewables 7 years from now.
[link]
Good couple of posts Robert - very informative.
I cant help thinking of the ‘efficiency’ drives that presage the demise of all doomed & outdated technologies; but on balance, its seems a unobjectionable interim measure.
I dont know enough about it - but it strikes me we need a full, informed debate on the renewable “baseload capacity” question. People like Howard and Keating’s former finance Minsiter Peter Whatsisname gasbag assertively and dismissively about renewable capacity - yet major economies like California reckon its a goer, and are pinching our scientists to enable it.
I dont think we should bother with any ‘nuclear debate’ till weve had that one out.
And yes, brown coal should be a prohibited substance.
Mr Pledge Rann can talk all he likes but as I pointed out at JQs this is the actual walk wbb-
Front page of Advertiser 6th March headline reads- ‘2 NEW POWER PLANTS TO EASE STRESS’ and continues-
“Two new power stations worth $870 mill are being planned for SA in a move that could ease strain on the state’s electricity network.
Corporate firms Babcock and Brown and NP Power will this month apply to the Development assessment Commission to build a 450MW gas fired peaking power station at Redbanks near Mallala.
The project estimated to cost $350 mill has been endorsed by the State Govt as a “public infrastructure development� under section 49 of the Development Act.
A separate 560MW power station valued at $520 milloion, has been foreshadowed as part of Altona Resources $3.9 billion proposal to produce petroleum and gas in the state’s Far North.
If approved, the new power stations would be among the state’s 5 biggest generators.�
And all this when he came to power and inherited the brand new Pelican Point gas fired power station adding nearly 800MW to the grid. When the hell does all the easy talking stop and the hard walking begin wbb? 20% renewables in 7 years, my arse!
Here’s the state of play in very windmilly SA at present and you might like to check your own state at the bottom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_power_stations_in_South_Australia
20% renewables in 7 years! Is it any wonder the Adelaide media just got stuck into Mr Pledge for running a V8 ministerial car fleet for chrissakes? That’s the trouble with being a hypocritical bullshit artist, supporting V8 Supercar races and Holden V8 Camaro exports to the US. The same wanker is calling upon the Feds to halt the Car Plan tarriff reductions. What the hell is Rann going to do to Holdens or Mitsis power bills with enforcing 20% renewables I ask?
Correction- Pelican Point had just added 485MW of fossil fuel generators to the system when Rann came to power.
yeah - and I’ve added Mt Millar to the list of Wind Farms which wasn’t there.
With past usage like this and future usage like this it is unrealistic to think that we won’t have to clean up coal to a significant degree. So I’m with d derider. People like Al Gore and James Hansen would switch from optimism to pessimism if they thought that geosequestration was not possible.
On renewables, Prof Mark Diessendorf said today that:
He seems to have worked out how we can get from where we are to where we’ve got to go. It would have been interesting if the interviewer had asked him to develop this theme further. The converation she didn’t have with Rupert Posner of the Climate Group also would have been interesting.
I wonder how they propose to keep geosequestered C02 in the ground? Its a gas. If liquified or solidified it becomes a gas when it warms up again. So they will squirt something down and it will just come back out over time.
Coal is non-renewable. It cannot be made “clean”, not even by the ferocious industry and political spin.
Garrett on the 7:30 report last night said that “clean coal is an important future enegy source”, so Labor agrees with Howard, but for different reasons.
Howard is looking after the interests of coal exporters and companies that sell power made from burning coal.
Labor (Rudd & Garrett) are seeking to neutalise Howard’s clean coal push by agreeing with it and chiding him for not doing it sooner - and they aim to placate the coal mining unions who are agressively lobbying for clean coal too.
As Al Gore says, politics can’t really deal with climate change - there is too much stupidity and too many vested interests. We need real and concentrated community and grass roots pressure on this.
How about referendums on where to spend the $ - renewables, coal or nuclear? I don’t trust the windbags in Government (State and Federal) to do the right thing.
Reality is, as Brian notes, we can’t do w/out coal. Therefore we need coal to be as clean as we can get it. But, as Garrett knows, it’s an interim measure and we need to get off coal in the medium run. But there are longish lead times until that is practically possible. Especially if like Garrett you believe nuclear is even worse.