Advocates promise emissions reductions with coal project
Published Thursday, July 17, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU — The fate of an ambitious coal gasification project proposed for the Fairbanks area could hinge on the project’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to global climate change.
Advocates of the project say it could lower overall emissions — despite coal’s relatively high carbon footprint — by using plant material along with coal, burying carbon dioxide underground and displacing less-efficient means of space heating.
If the project won’t reduce emissions, advocates say, it simply won’t happen.
“If we can’t reduce the life-cycle carbon footprint, then the project doesn’t go forward,” Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Jim Whitaker said Sunday. “That’s the deal.”
Jim Dodson, president of the Fairbanks Economic Development Corp., made the same promise Wednesday.
“It’s a requirement,” he said of reducing carbon emissions.
The FEDC and borough are pursuing the project jointly with $300,000 in state funds and $250,000 in borough funds.
The project involves gasifying coal and biomass and converting the product into synthetic fuels, including jet fuel and diesel. The project would also generate electricity for the Fairbanks area and distribute waste heat for space heating.
Overall, the project is expected to cost between $500 million and $2 billion, Whitaker said.
FEDC has hired the Toronto-based engineering firm Hatch Ltd. to study the feasibility of the project and create an estimate of carbon dioxide emissions.
Whitaker said the borough has contracted with the Alaska Center for Energy and Power at the University of Alaska Fairbanks to study current emissions levels in the area.
The gasification project grew out of an energy-related task force chaired by Steve Haagenson, now the state’s energy coordinator.
The project was described as a way to reduce the cost of energy and take advantage of abundant coal resources but also as part of an overall plan to dramatically shrink emissions of carbon dioxide.
Some question whether the project will meet those goals.
Bob Shavelson, executive director of Cook Inletkeeper, which has been tracking the use of coal in Alaska, said it’s unlikely that a coal project will reduce overall emissions.
When the energy used in mining and transporting the coal is considered, liquid fuels made from coal have a “much larger” carbon footprint than conventional liquid fuels, he said. On top of that, the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide is still being developed.
“We think it’s a bad idea to put a lot of money into this until you can show that you’re not going to significantly increase greenhouse gases, or mercury ... or create habitat destruction (through mining),” he said.
Shavelson said investing in renewable energy projects using wind, geothermal and hydropower would make more sense.
David van den Berg, a member of the task force and former executive director of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, said reducing emissions was a common theme at task force meetings. But he added that task force members never developed a foolproof plan for reducing emissions through coal gasification.
“I think they kind of deferred a real hard analysis of those types of questions,” he said Wednesday.
For now, advocates hope the project will be able to reduce emissions, and they are pushing hard to build support for it.
Whitaker recently helped draft a proposal to provide $21 billion in state support for renewable and alternative energy projects, including those making synthetic fuels from coal.
Whitaker and U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens are hosting an energy summit this week in Fairbanks to promote the project and try to secure state and federal support.
“The stage has to be set — assuming that the design criteria can be met,” Whitaker said Wednesday. “And we think it can be.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Need of electricity and other resources you have to take from one to get another. Let's see coal unless Whitaker is a judge trial and jury you'll have a coal plant or an plant that uses natural gas. Unless you go all out with a nuclear plant which will never happen. You'll find out that the prices for electric will stay high then soon a luxury. Hydro electric will be seen to hurt fishing. Wind will be to ugly to look at every day. Solar won't do any good 28 days thru the year. But you have to remember the name that kept out cheaper alternatives. Mayor->Whitmaker
Build a nuclear power plant, stop burning expensive fuel. NP plant alone burns 2,400 gallons a day.. Why wasn't a coal plant even considered? Thanks GVEA for socking it to us.
Let's see: Whitaker, mayor & past head of the failed Port Authority
Senator Stevens who is under federal investigation & his son as well.
Jim Dodson of FEDCO with it's failed record of developing jobs over last ten years.
Steve Haagenson past head of GEVA, who got us into the current energy crisis by not planning ahead.
These are men that we can count on to bring forward such a project which will cost somewhere between $500 million to $2 billion.
OH SURE WE CAN TRUST THESE GUYS ?????
The only one missing is Jim Hayes,they should wait till he is out of jail ,or will he get his share anyway? Between $500M and $2B. now that is really great Estimating. Have we totally lost our minds?
Nuclear power plant,they closed the only one we had sometime in the early 60's, and there is little long term profits on the fuel , so that will never happen here. Just keep flushing the old money toilet, after all we have a lot more to waste than most states. $21B for "renewable and alternative energy projects" thats a good start.
The South Africa plants have shown the level of pollution that these plants give off. There are well over thirty to forty dangerous types of pollutants given off. If they won't let you burn wood in winter, how do they plan on running this type of plant. Check the web for the reports.
The other issue is that these plants are built by the coal mines. This eliminates the cost of transporting coal. The operation cost of these plants are tremendous. Sure the mayor wasn't planning on Healy for the location of the plant. Last I heard there aren't any coal mines in this borough.
Again there are just too many questions that are not being addressed. Does the mayor plan on pulling his famous port authority line. Due to confidentiality we can not disclose this information.
By the way, why was yesterday's article pulled, too many questions being brought up?
I agree with Woodman, Whitaker's Port Authority filed an incomplete application to AGIA, it was rejected. Incompetent. Now, more borough money. He should apply himself to his job as Borough Mayor and find a dream to pursue with his own money.
By the way, Mitsubishi is promoting a plan for their development of a carbon free gas plant.(check the web) The Mayor needs to come clean with Mitsubishi's role in this. Don't forget they are hooked in with the port authority.
If we can get low cost energy from the the proposed coal gasification project and have it for distribution to all of us, then I say let's take a good look at it. There is coal all over the state of Alaska and if that gasification process can work in Fairbanks, it can work in Kotzebue, the North Slope, and Western Alaska. We do need an alternative to high cost gasoline, diesel, heating fuel, and aviation fuel so let's give this a try. We just need to remember that other parts of the state are very eager to find low cost alternatives to what we are using now.
I agree with Woodman but there is another one missing who is really the booger in the wood pile ... Mike Kelly and the GVEA board of directors from about 1995-2001. Steve was just a puppet playing out his final few years at GVBEA. There you will fine the root of the problem.
Dodson … well there is a very interesting story to be told … lol. Way too funny!
Andora start researching coal gasification on the web.
Coal is a dirty fuel - it isn't going to lower our carbon emissions. Also, the rock formations in this area aren't appropriate for inserting and containing carbon dioxide. If you have a porous formation that you can push CO2 into, you have a porous formation that CO2 can escape from. If it isn't porous - there are other problems.
If a coal to liquids plant can be built here by private industry and make a profit while providing a plentiful alternative to oil I am all for it. Plants of this nature at other locations produce synthetic fuel for around $65 a barrel. Our abundant coal could make oil be something that we sell to others and coal is what we use.
"NP plant alone burns 2,400 gallons a day."
Actually that is 2,400 gallons per HOUR and is the sole reason that we now pay a fuel surcharge to GVEA. The cost of coal and natural gas has hardly changed in the last 5 years.
I have my fingers crossed that this will work, but I would not count on it yet.
If you note, the Mayor and Stevens are talking about government money for this project. The question needs to be answered. Is Mitsubishi currently or in the future going to involved be in this project. Let's see if they will give a simple answer to a simple question, or will it be confidentiality doesn't allow it to be answered.
Advocates Promise, but Real Alaskans will build their own...
A small HDPE-gasline can route excess CO2 to Prudhoe for sequestration..
..cost = $100million
[for the same $100mil you can have a LPG-gasline from Prudhoe instead]
www.fairbanksgas.com
The cleanest coal gasification processes are the ones that operate in a total closed loop system.
Here's one that has one exhaust pipe at the end of a turbine or piston generator, plus an optional carbon aerogel capacitative deionizer post-exhaust precipitator-filter.
http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/Engine...
[pretty darn clean]
I've heard of the possibility that carbonic-acid [made from CO2] can be an ingredient in a cleaner more friendly chemical agent to replace Cyanide Heap Leach for gold recovery. This can be done in a closed loop system too. Electrowinning/elutriation can be enhanced with carbonic-acid too.
....maybe Kinross and Teck and AnglowAu should help fund the gasification research too..??
So, what happened to--->
www.silveraogreenfuel.com ...???
their website has been zonked for a few months now..
have they gone into stealth mode ??
...I told them not to drink too much of their own sluicewater without checking it with their own spectroscope first!!!
Silveradogreenfool is an interesting coalwater product that when handled properly can actually produce more thrust with less CO2 for much cheaper than the overpriced whizz-juice sold by the OilyGOPoly.
[only a few whizzards know how to be resolute and not pollute]
Did you know that for under $10k you can retrofit your old truck to run on stoker-coal with less emissions than low-sulfur diesel???
Yeah, just use a mini-klystron gasifier instead of a wood-stove downdrafter... and add an HHO-electrolyzer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSgL0Ie4z...
......flash/rumble/whizz-bang
I keep trying to shrink my carbon footprint by reducing my emissions. The only problem is, I really like Mexican food.
I support modern clean coal technology.
Coal is natural and organic.
How compatible is the Usibelli type coal to the liquification process?
How much (estimate) coal will be processed to produce how much fuel?
What are the waste disposal options? (I heard burned Usibelli coal is ~ 9% ash and silicates, would similar waste quanties be generated)
What are the utilities requirements for the liquification process?
Google is kinda like a gnomen on sundial, or a telltale-tattletail in the information-wind...
home gasifier == 880,000 matches
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&...
there's tons of stuff on the net about how to build our own coal-biomass gasifiers and other related tech-applications.
...and I've probably read most of it over the past 30years since I built my own first woodgas powered truck.
Research has been done in this field since long before the petro-pirates began to dominate the piston-heads...since the 1820's actually.
I suspect that if Juneau is gonna write a check for over 10mil on this project the War-Dept. is gonna be the main recipient of the benefits of the funds.
[tell 'em to find the missing trillions first, before they go mooching for more around up here]
If Juneau wanted to do the best with the money they would invest in Methane-GTL..
Methane is 23times worse than CO2 as GHG-pollutant.
There's more lost-orphan methane in Alaska than ever will be shipped to lala-land in the big-steel-pipeline.
If Alaska figured out how cultivate surface-methane in the ArcticIce-Farm the state could get big Carbon-Credits while converting the methane using GTL to make clean-clear syn-diesel for the Alaska Fishing Fleet.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.