I think a possible problem in this is that the feasibility assessment may conclude it 'sorta works' then proceed to the 600MW plant. Once a bigger plant is built all sorts of problems could arise like CO2 escape, excessive energy penalties and the need for permanent subsidies or percentage clean energy targets. Legislators could excuse the deficiencies and it could be another road-to-nowhere like ethanol. The assessment needs to be tough.

Looks like the second step is using steam (H2O) to convert the carbon monoxide (CO) into CO2 and release more H2. So it might be much easier to get the CO2 from this concentrated stream of CO2 and H2 than it would be if the CO and H2 were burned using air and then exract CO2 from the exhaust gas.

rexis:

As I understand it, it is much easier to remove the CO2 upstream by gasifying the coal first than it is to scrub it from the post-combustion exhaust stream.

Personally, I don't like trading permanent sequestration (coal in the ground) for partial, not-time-tested sequestration of pressurized CO2. Renewables is the way to go for GHG reduction.

Cervus,

The main concern is price. People wont give a damn to those minority bird lovers or desert lovers if solar and wind energy is cheaper and better.

And a tenth? You are too optimistic, it is less then 5%, maybe i am too optimistic too.

Nick,

Thanks for the clarification, does it works the same way for biogas? I did a biogas digester experiment with a PET before and I found that:
- part of the gas from the built up pressure burns with a blue flame
- later part of the gas does not sustain combustion
Looks like the CO2 sink to the bottom.

Burying CO2 clearly not a cure to the disease, its just a pain killer.

Its also rather cheap as h2 from coal is only 70 cents a kilo and with the tech bush funded they can afford to deal with the co2. In fact after they test it out full scale they likely will convert all the coal plants to ccs in rapid order.

Environmentalists: do you want to stop global warming, or not?

It's that simple. If you want to stop global warming, then there are three simple things we could do in the US to cut our emissions dramatically, in five years:

1. Conservation: Establish standards for vampire electrical devices that reduce vampire usage by 25%, and tax incandescent bulbs $2 each. No cost, little change in behavior (lots of jokes about outlaw light bulbs on the evening talk shows)

2. Clean up coal: Upgrade existing and new coal power generation facilities to dramatically reduce CO2 output, and sequester the outputs. I don't know the cost, but it can't be more than $100-200B over the next five years. (maybe lightbulb taxes and overweight vehicle taxes fund this?)

3. Drive vehicle mileage up, hard, fast, with pushing start-stop hybrids like the Saturn VUE, and clean diesel, for all vehicle segments, and strong discouragement of high vehicle weights (strong penalties that start at 3500lbs and rise dramatically for nonfarm vehicles above 5000lbs).

These three changes could cut our carbon output by double digit percentages in five years.

They would prove that we can impact global warming in a cost-effective way.

They would show that the US can lead, and would shame Europe, Russia, India and China into taking similar steps.

But I am afraid that many environmentalists can't get behind this. They want perfect, clean noncompromising solutions: urban solutions that ban vehicles in cities, mandatory electric cars, banning urban sprawl, laws against corporate agriculture, banning coal mining, etc. Bottom line, they want mass behavior change.

They actually don't care about global warming (that much). They want to use global warming as an excuse to forbid behaviors that they don't approve of. That way lies failure.

I say, let's show how effective we can be with clear direction and a light touch. Then let's figure out how to incent the right behavior. Clucking disapprovingly at people just shows how environmentalists can be just as annoying as fundamentalists.

I'd like to see these big budget experiments for once include hydrogen recycling in a hydrogasification system and surplus electricity used for hydrogen generation on-site for that use. Add-on a GTL plant for marginal capital expansion side-stepping new refinery regulations and we have ourselves a start at synergy within business-as-usual industrial economics.

Dollared,

The Green-Freaks are just Socialist/Marxist who are using the GHG scare to bring about the new utopian society under their control.

Anyhow, all this talk about coal to H2 power plants is great news because it would be cheaper to convert these power units over to C-T-L plants to produce clean transportation fuels. And with say about 500 new nuclear power plants (with reprocessed nuclear fuel as is done in France) in the works; these two technologies could go along way towards providing US with real cheap electrical power and fuel.

I see that finally California is getting serious about carbon emissions and no longer talking up their impotent solar roof nonsense and windmill technologies. Wind is a big, expensive joke : unsightly, a real estate devourer and a really stupid way to make small amounts of unrelaible and uncontrollable electricity. (Don't pay attention to those wind industry frauds about 100 megawatt windfarms - those can't put out more than 30 MW on a regular basis and virtually never when it's needed). One of these days, California may actually devote some though to their brainless energy
programs before they rush to judgment. Naw, that would be so unlike the Golden Staters.

There are developments in DME in China now:

Currently, the market trend today is such that many Chinese coal chemical companies are moving towards optimising low cost and abundant coal feedstock for expansion into DME production.

If you would like to know more on COAL to Syngas to DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:

DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia

Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.

Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe

Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation

For more information: www.iceorganiser.com,

Why is that CO2 is often associated with "dirty fuel" especially "dirty coal"? What you breathe out is not dirty; SOx, NOx or particulates from coal burning are.

I am not sure if the concepts of air pollution and global warming have been tangled with each other unintentionally, or there are people who would love to see this happen.

A cleaning burning power plant can still contribute to global warming, if there is such a thing.