At least they Joyce Foundation is being honest about it — finally… sigh… What’s honest? Well, they’re expressly stating the purpose of PROMOTION of coal gasification. Makes me want to puke. Don’t they do they’re homework? Don’t they know that the losses in efficiency and the astronomical increase in plant cost for capture alone make it unworkable?  And that’s before any sequestration pipelines for hundreds of miles and pumping stations and operations and maintenance of sequestration… Haven’t they read “Gas Migration?” (clue: it’s at www.abebooks.com)
FYI, the numbers are off. As if $500k isn’t enough, Clean Wisconsin got not $500k but $750k. $750k. Who knows, they all probably get shares in their CO2 market too! (will fill in a bunch of links manana) Oh, here’s the link for Chicago Climate Exchange.
Here’s the Joyce Foundation press release:

For immediate release
August 17, 2006

For information contact:

Mary Oâ??Connell
312 782 2464
773 425 0341 cell

Push to Get Climate-Friendly Technology for Midwest Power Plants

$3 Million in Joyce Grants to Boost Clean Coal

Chicago) â?¦ The Joyce Foundation is awarding grants totaling over $3 million to promote cleaner, climate-friendly ways of generating power from coal. The grants are part of an overall $7 million initiative, announced last year, to persuade developers of the next generation of Midwest power plants to shun older coal-burning technology in favor of new, cleaner technologies.

Major grants for promoting clean coal technologies among industry and regulators go to:

Clean Air Task Force, $787,500; Great Plains Institute, $437,500; and Natural Resources Defense Council, $437,500. The three groups will work with coal and utility executives, regulators, environmental and other groups to promote such technologies as coal gasification and capture and storage of carbon emissions, addressing technical, financial and regulatory barriers to progress.

In addition, the Foundation is awarding $500,000 to Clean Wisconsin to oppose conventional coal plants proposed for Wisconsin and promote alternatives, including coal gasification. An earlier grant of $300,000 to the Izaak Walton League, announced in April, supports groups that are fighting the expansion of the Big Stone plant in South Dakota. Several smaller grants will support other work with individual states in the Midwest and with targeted audiences, such as utility shareholders, union leaders, consumer groups and others, in making the case for clean coal. [A complete list of grants is below.]

â??We know the technology exists to use our regionâ??s abundant coal to generate the power we need, without risking further damage to our environment,â? said Joyce President Ellen S. Alberding. â??These grants will support those in industry, the public sector, and citizens groups who have had the vision to push for the cleanest possible coal technologies, and, we hope, help to prevent construction decisions that would trap us with another generation of harmful emissions.â?

An estimated thirty-six coal plants are under various stages of consideration for the Great Lakes region. Burning coal emits carbon, which contributes significantly to global warming; in addition, coal-burning plants have been major polluters of air and water in the Midwest and nationally. Coal gasification technology offers the possibility of reducing overall emissions as well as potentially capturing and storing carbon. The Joyce Foundation announced last year its intention to fund efforts to make sure that new Midwest power plants opt for the cleaner technology. The current grants, voted by the Foundationâ??s board on July 20, 2006, were chosen as a result of a request for proposals issued to selected groups earlier this year.

Grants to Promote Cleaner Coal for the Midwestâ??s Energy Future

Announced August 2006

Clean Air Task Force, Inc.
Boston, MA $787,500
To promote Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle in the upper Midwest. (21 mos.)

Clean Wisconsin, Inc.
Madison, WI $500,000
For a coordinated administrative intervention and public information campaign aimed at promoting coal gasification with sequestration as an alternative to conventional coal plants proposed for Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board would also be a partner in the intervention and campaign. (1 yr.)

Energy Foundation
San Francisco, CA $100,000
To support smaller-scale efforts to contest the licensing of conventional coal plants in the Midwest. (1 yr.)

Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development
Minneapolis, MN $437,500
To support the efforts of its Coal Gasification Working Group. (21 mos.)

Michigan Environmental Council
Lansing, MI $87,500
To persuade regulators, utilities, and power plant developers in Michigan that any new coal plants should be able to use the latest technologies for capturing and storing carbon emissions. (21 mos.)

National Wildlife Federation
Reston, VA $122,700
To build support in Indiana and Michigan for coal gasification as an alternative to conventional coal-burning power plants. National Wildlife Federation affiliates Indiana Wildlife Federation and Michigan United Conservation Clubs would be partners in this effort. (21 mos.)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
New York, NY $437,500
For its efforts to oppose the construction of new conventional coal plants and promote alternative plants using coal gasification with carbon sequestration. (21 mos.)

Ohio Environmental Council
Columbus, OH $113,750
To support its ongoing efforts to promote IGCC in Ohio and to oppose the permitting of a conventional coal plant proposed by AMP-Ohio, a municipal utility consortium. (21 mos.)

Resources for the Future, Inc.
Washington, DC $75,000
To conduct a quantitative assessment of the risks to shareholders and electric utility ratepayers of investing in various coal combustion technologies. (1 yr.)

Rockefeller Family Fund
New York, NY $50,000
To support ongoing coal advocacy activities of the Renewable Energy Alignment Mapping Project. (1 yr.)

University of Wisconsin-Madison Center on Wisconsin Strategy
Madison, WI $175,000
To build support among labor leaders in Wisconsin and other Midwest states for coal gasification as an alternative to conventional coal power plants. (21 mos.)

Announced May 2006
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
St. Paul, MN $300,000
To support intervention in the licensing hearings for the Big Stone II power plant in South Dakota and Minnesota. (1 yr.)

Coal Fact Sheet

All data are for the Midwest region (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio)

Significance of coal in the Midwest:
â?¢ 70 percent of the regionâ??s electricity is produced from coal
â?¢ The region consumes 25 percent of the nationâ??s coal (with 17 percent of the population)

Significance of coal boom:
36 new coal plants have been proposed throughout the region. These plants would increase the megawatts of coal produced by 25 percent

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, “Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants”

The coal plants in the Midwest produce:
â?¢ 20 percent of our nationâ??s utility-caused carbon dioxide emissions
â?¢ 20 percent of our nationâ??s utility-caused sulfur dioxide emissions
â?¢ 24 percent of our nationâ??s utility-caused nitrogen oxide emissions
â?¢ 26 percent of our nationâ??s utility-caused mercury emissions
Source: U.S. EPA Data

What is conventional coal?
Conventional coal technologies include pulverized coal and fluidized bed plants. These plants have higher levels of sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions than IGCC and cannot cost-effectively control carbon dioxide emissions.

What is IGCC?
A June 2006 EPA report defined IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) as:
â??a power generation process that uses a gasifier to transform coal (and other fuels) to a synthetic gas (syngas), consisting mainly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The high temperature and pressure process within an IGCC creates a controlled chemical reaction to produce the syngas, which is used to fuel a combined cycle power block to generate electricity. Combined-cycle power applications are one of the most efficient means of generating electricity because the exhaust gases from the syngas-fired turbine are used to create steam, using a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), which is then used by a steam turbine to produce additional electricity.
For traditional pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg), IGCC is inherently lower polluting than the current generation of traditional coal-fired power plants. IGCC also has multi-media benefits, as it uses less water than PC facilities. IGCC also produces a solid waste stream that can be a useful byproduct for producing roofing tiles and as filler for new roadbed construction. IGCC also has the potential to reduce solid waste by using as fuel a combination of coal and renewable biomass products.”

Half of the currently proposed coal plants in the Midwest would use IGCC.

What is carbon sequestration?
Carbon dioxide is captured from power plant flue gases and injected into appropriate geological formations for long-term storage. We have extensive experience using carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery, where it is injected into oil fields that are partially depleted. The carbon dioxide forces more oil out of the ground and is then stored in the rock formation.
Environmental savings of IGCC compared to state-of-the-art conventional coal plants

â?¢ 80 percent less sulfur dioxide emissions
â?¢ 35 percent less nitrogen oxide emissions
â?¢ 40 percent less water used
â?¢ 30 percent less solid waste
â?¢ 90 percent less mercury

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Footprints and Costs of Coal-Based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal Technologies”.

Public Subsidies for IGCC
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes an investment tax credit of 20 percent on the gasification portion of a project, limited to $800 million total (support for about six plants). It also includes loan guarantees and several authorizations for specific IGCC demonstration projects.

Leave a Reply