This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,342 Members

Post

The Carbon-Capture Dream is Dying

Engie coal plant, Rotterdam

The collapse of a Dutch “clean coal” power project has ended near-term prospects for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in European power generation. That leaves proponents of the technology having to turn instead to smaller, industrial applications, writes energy analyst and consultant Gerard Wynn. But while CCS may make sense on a more limited scale, big problems remain there too, he adds. This article was first published on the blog of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and on Gerard Wynn’s and Gerard Reid’s Energy and Carbon blog.

European utilities Uniper and Engie in June announced they were walking away from a Dutch CCS project  known as ROAD (Rotterdam Opslag en Afvang Demonstratieproject or Rotterdam Capture and Storage Demonstration Project). ROAD is the last proposal standing for a large-scale coal or gas power CCS project in Europe. Its demise followed cancellation of CCS funding in Britain, ending prospects for a European commercial-scale demonstration power plant.

The bigger outlook for CCS in power generation is bleak, especially after the collapse of the clean coal Kemper County plant in the U.S., although to be sure that had as much to do with the use of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology as CCS.

In 2007, EU leaders endorsed a European Commission plan for up to 12 CCS demonstration power plants by 2015. Today there are no such plants, nor plans

It will take time for CCS proponents to digest and acknowledge what is either a colossal failure or a gargantuan disappointment—depending on one’s perspective across electric utilities and the community of experts and policymakers that have supported CCS in power generation for more than a decade.

In 2007, EU leaders endorsed a European Commission plan for up to 12 CCS demonstration power plants by 2015. Today there are no such plants, nor plans. CCS has also had big backing from the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, both of which have promoted the technology as the cheapest way to transition quickly to a low-carbon economy, because in theory it allows us to keep using – rather than writing off – existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

Hugely expensive

The complicated process of carbon capture and storage involves capturing carbon dioxide emissions from the flue gas of fossil fuel power plants or carbon-intensive factories, and then compressing the CO2 and piping it deep underground for long-term storage.

The core problem with CCS is that it is so hugely expensive up front. Even the prospect of hundreds of millions of euros of subsidy couldn’t make it work for coal-fired power in the Netherlands. The European Commission had committed €180 million to the ROAD project, and the Dutch government up to €150 million.

Another barrier to European CCS is the huge cloud of uncertainty hanging over coal-fired power plants in general, headwinds that include tougher air pollution rules and stringent phase-out targets. In the end, Engie and Uniper were unwilling to throw more money at power plants whose outlook was so unsure.

The decision by Engie and Uniper to extricate themselves from the ROAD project makes sense, given the uncertainty

IEEFA last year documented the management failure by these utilities in their decision to build two new coal plants near Rotterdam in the first place, and by RWE to build a third, further up the Dutch coast (see map). All three were commissioned in 2015.

In our “Dutch Coal Mistake” report, we questioned investments made on mistaken expectations of power demand growth and the failure to understand the impact on power prices of a massive build-out of renewables in neighboring Germany. The result for Engie, Uniper and RWE has been huge write-downs.

The decision by Engie and Uniper to extricate themselves from the ROAD project makes sense, given the uncertainty, but it adds nonetheless to the impression of flawed decision-making by the utilities’ executives, given that their power plants were meant to benefit from the ROAD project.

Few alternatives

Granted, ROAD isn’t dead. The Dutch government can still support CCS for industrial facilities in the Port of Rotterdam (e.g. the Shell Pernis oil refinery and an Air Liquide hydrogen plant). Applying CCS might work on such a scale. Some factories and refineries emit more concentrated streams of CO2 than power plants, making carbon capture less costly.

And in the near term, oil refining, chemicals production, steel-making and cement industries have few low-carbon alternatives. Industrial CCS in fact may be needed if Europe is serious about embracing a low-carbon economy.

While building CCS into existing factories, refineries and waste facilities sounds modest and organic, it still requires pipeline and storage infrastructure at scale

Three similar projects aimed at applying CCS to industrial facilities around the North Sea are emerging, in Norway, England and Scotland. Each would take CO2 from multiple sources and pipe or ship it offshore for sub-sea storage.

But the problems of upfront cost and scale remain. While building CCS into existing factories, refineries and waste facilities sounds modest and organic, it still requires pipeline and storage infrastructure at scale: it would be prohibitively costly to build CO2 compression and pipeline infrastructure for only a handful of factories.

All these new projects are applying for EU pipeline funding, as “projects of common interest,” under a “Connecting Europe” facility. Ultimately, it would require ambitious, cross-border projects involving hub-and-spoke pipelines crisscrossing the North Sea, connecting multiple industrial installations and countries.

Sound familiar? Driving down unit costs may depend on the same scale that would be required by CCS with large fossil-fired power plants, an idea that has become passé and now seems out of step with the times. Supporters of industrial CCS will have to articulate clearly how their projects are different.

Editor’s Note

This article was first published on the blog of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and on Gerard Wynn’s and Gerard Reid’s Energy and Carbon blog. It is republished here with permission.

Original Post

Gerard Wynn's picture

Thank Gerard for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Rex Berglund's picture
Rex Berglund on Aug 3, 2017 3:13 pm GMT

Allam cycle sCO2 turbines can capture CO2 at no extra cost.

Given a transport and storage cost of $9.13/MWh zero carbon NGPPs would be quite affordable.

Of course, using this tech. with biomass derived syngas would be carbon negative.

I recently wrote to Net Power, asking how their demo plant in La Porte was going. Walker Dimmig replied that The demonstration plant is coming along well, and we are near completion of construction of the plant.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Aug 3, 2017 4:29 pm GMT

Rex, accepting any NGPP is “zero-carbon” based on the promises of its owners makes no economic nor environmental sense. Especially, when fossil methane is available at a fraction of the cost of biomass-derived syngas.

If Walker Dimmig expects company PR to serve as verification his bar is too low.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Aug 3, 2017 6:24 pm GMT

La Porte, Indiana?  Where the Wabash River Repowering Project showed the tyros at Kemper how they should have done it?

Rex Berglund's picture
Rex Berglund on Aug 4, 2017 2:19 pm GMT

Dimmig’s remarks were about construction status, not CCS, but you might find this more persuasive; Ed Dodge, author of several posts here on TEC, from his article on Net Power’s new technology:

“there is no smokestack”

“opportunity to fundamentally reset the economics of carbon capture”

My favorite quote though, is that similar to the NuScale SMR, “complexity is dramatically reduced.”

Rex Berglund's picture
Rex Berglund on Aug 4, 2017 2:20 pm GMT

Wow, tyros, good word. Since I know you’re no tyro to Net Power’s Texas project, I’m guessing you’re implying that the Wabash example opens the door to CCS using IGCC with Allam cycle turbines as well.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Aug 4, 2017 3:11 pm GMT

Actually, I had forgotten about Net Power.  Too much on my plate.  I just looked and found it’s between Houston and Galveston.  The oppressive heat and humidity of coastal TX makes La Porte one place I would not want to be.

An Allam cycle machine doesn’t seem to quite match the efficiency of the best CCGTs, at least at the prototype scale.  Larger machines might have lower losses.  I’d also be concerned about the sensitivity to temperature of the heat sink.  sCO2 systems like the temperature to be right around CO2’s critical point, no?  As you got warmer you’d lose both fluid density/pressure ratio and have more temperature rise in compression, losing efficiency.

I studied Vaclav Dostal’s sCO2 paper with intense interest.  IIRC he projected efficiency around 50% for a working temperature of only about 500 C.  I would love to know what you could squeeze out of a machine running at today’s gas-turbine inlet temperatures of up to 1380 C.  Carnot tantalizes with a theoretical limit of 80%.

Maybe with a SOFC topping cycle?  You could use CO2 as a diluent for both the fuel and oxygen to prevent hot spots.  Grabbing 50% in the SOFC and 50% of the remainder in an Allam bottoming cycle would be quite the coup.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Aug 5, 2017 7:28 pm GMT

It’s not the least bit surprising that CC&S+coal is not catching on. Renewables are rescuing the fossil fuel industry, but not baseload, only flexible generation plants that are economical when operated at low capacity factor. Adding to capital cost (e.g. by adding CC&S) is even more painful when capacity factors are low.

That means there might be a role for new gas-fired plants with CC&S, the but the only coal fired plants which make sense in a flexible generation role are the one that are already build in places without good reserves of fossil gas (e.g. Germany & China), or the ones which can be built without concern for emissions (i.e. India & other developing nations).

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Aug 6, 2017 6:25 am GMT

No Rex, Ed has written about this goofy “Allam Cycle” before here. To lend it the credibility of cold fusion would be exceedingly generous, but Ed is smitten. And like renewables advocates, he substitutes the present tense for the future with reckless abandon:

Carbon capture is greatly enhanced in a NET Power plant compared to conventional power plants.

These are bold claims, for “a NET Power plant” which has yet to be built.

I asked Ed, at one point, what happens beyond the tailpipe of his schematic – where do megatons of captured CO2 actually end up? After Enhanced Oil Recovery didn’t fly (a non-starter, for reasons which should be obvious), he had little patience for imagining other rugs under which to sweep it. So I extended his diagram in Photoshop to show him where it must end up, in any possible business dynamic where real investors are spending real money, on an unverifiable, hyper-complicated CCS technology. And interestingly, it will end up right where it did before:

http://www.thorium-now.org/images/venting_problem.jpg

Of course “there is no smokestack” – because CO2 is an invisible, odorless, ubiquitous gas, there’s no smoke.

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on Aug 6, 2017 6:33 am GMT

It is obvious that CCS can only take off when a strong technology-neutral climate policy is finally implemented. CCS cannot work with technology-forcing policies like those responsible for launching wind and solar for two main reasons: it is not nearly as ideologically attractive and it needs large-scale investments as opposed to the small modular investments of wind and solar.

The few large scale projects running today have proven that CCS is technically feasible. It is also clear from economic assessments that an Nth-of-a-kind CCS plant will increase LCOE by about 50% relative to a case without CCS. All that is needed is a CO2 price that makes the CCS plant more economic than the unabated plant. Once the politicians finally get this right, industry will start to invest and CCS will take off.

Until that time, the biggest problem remains unchecked: people keep on arguing about which technology is best instead of unanimously lobbying for a true technology-neutral policy where the market will decide. This technology-forcing mindset of the global energy community really is incredibly wasteful and needs to change if we are to have any shot at a 2 deg C world.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Aug 6, 2017 2:07 pm GMT

There is nothing “goofy” about the Allam cycle.  It is based on well-established thermodynamic principles.  Your own thermodynamic analysis showed you that, right?

Wait, you didn’t do a thermodynamic analysis?  You are making judgements based on prejudice without the slightest shred of knowledge?  How hypocritical.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Aug 7, 2017 12:51 pm GMT

When solar already undercuts the fuel prices of coal powered plants without CCS, a CCS-Plant can not compete in the solar belt of the world on the market during daylight, and most likely not even outside the sun belt given the even higher fuel costs due to lower efficiency.
Which leaves night times under competition with wind, hydro biomass and all kinds of storages, while everybody tries to move power consumption from night to day, jst opposite to todays demand shift. For me it looks like there’s no market for the technology, with or without technology neutral approach. It’s just not competitive.

Rex Berglund's picture
Rex Berglund on Aug 7, 2017 1:57 pm GMT

First, IMHO, the most important application would be BECCS, because economic direct air capture and storage will almost surely be needed to prevent the worst effects of climate change. Since syngas is CO and H, combustion in pure oxygen results in CO2 and H2O, the same as CH4 combustion in pure oxygen, so the Allam capture design is unchanged. A tax on carbon emissions would argue for a subsidy for DAC, so there should be revenue to defray any extra cost.

Now, WRT to the various temperature/efficiency ratios any enhancement would be welcome, I found a wide range.

This article from Nuclear Engineering and Technology shows sCO2 turbine efficiency 60-65% @ 1,200 C, which should be fine because “An important factor in achieving high net cycle efficiency is to use a high turbine inlet temperature. This temperature, however, is limited by the maximum allowable temperature of turbine exhaust that flows directly into the heat exchanger.

The operating temperature at the hot end of the heat exchanger is thus in the range of 700°C to 750°C. This leads to a typical turbine inlet temperature constraint in the range of 1100°C to 1200°C.”

BTW, I found Dostal’s thesis, but even though it’s a PDF file it’s scanned as imagery so searching is crude. The summary claims that at 700 C you get 53% thermal efficiency.

Now, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is researching a thermal-to-electric power conversion technology in a configuration called the recompression closed Brayton cycle (RCBC) , and their target goal is 550 C.

As for including a combined cycle configuration, Sandia says an sCO2 turbine at least for FF could be used in a combined-cycle gas turbine power plant and the combined efficiency can exceed 60% with reduced total capital cost. But, not sure how a fuel cell would integrate with an Allam cycle.

Sandia ‘s planning for 2019, whereas Net Power claims they’ll be online this year. Perhaps the delay’s because they’ve a broader scope; e.g. they’re also planning a falling particle receiver in combination w/ a CSP system using an sCO2 turbine. This is quite promising because recently in Copiapo, Chile, a PPA for a CSP system with storage was signed for 6.3 ¢/kWh, so it’s pretty good already, improving on that would be most welcome.

BTW they state the falling particle receiver uses ceramic particles, claiming they don’t break down as much as molten salt systems.

In fact, Sandia is looking into using sCO2 in all kinds of systems, be they nuclear, FF, solar, waste heat recovery, geothermal, even shipboard applications.

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on Aug 7, 2017 3:07 pm GMT

Aside from the few regions with abundant hydro, the world will be needing dispatchable thermal power generation for many decades into the future. In Germany, wind and solar is now at about 14% of consumption (when accounting for imports/exports balancing intermittent generators), but the average spot price for these sources is already only 75% that of dispatchable coal and gas plants. Yes, wind and solar costs can become low, but so does their value at even moderate penetration levels. In contrast, the value of electricity from dispatchable sources only increases with increased deployment of intermittents.

The problem with shifting more and more demand to daytime is of course a higher peak load, requiring lots of expensive T&D buildouts. Delivered electricity costs are generally about half generation and half T&D, so more T&D for higher peak demand can easily outweigh savings from cheap generation.

Low energy density is also an important challenge for the solar/wind vision in the most populous areas of the world: http://www.theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/2385675/a-reality-check.... In these regions, CCS and nuclear may be required simply because there is no space for the required wind/solar plants.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Aug 7, 2017 3:41 pm GMT

In germany this yer it’s about 37-38% renewables in the grid, mostly wind and solar, significant above 14%. While imports and exports are still mainly uncorrelated to renewable power production.
Market value of solar power is about 5% below average, wind power around 10-15%: https://www.netztransparenz.de/EEG/Marktpraemie/Marktwerte. Grid expansions and adopted regulations allowind easier access of dynamic loads to temporary low cost power will compensate expansion of share of renewable pwoer generation.
Market value of nuclear power imported from France is in tendency lower. So rising exports in times of high generation in germany to smooth out renewable generation in lage grids is surely nothing wrong (and far away from “dumping”)
T&D-Costs are mainly from the connection itself, not the power transported over the grid, especially in germany. Low voltage grid usually can accept double or triple load here – it’s cheaper to build a high capacity initially and then leave the system untouched for decades than constantly changing the local distribution with every load change.
A reasonable approach to dynamic loads and price calculations for them would include congestion costs of the grids on all voltage levels, bringing direct T&D costs for such dynamic loads to zero. This would naturally include a expansion of permanently congested grid segments, as it happens everywhere all the time, but these expansions are very limited below the very high volatge level, even for very high renewable penetrations in the grid. The main change happens at the 400kV and higher voltage level.
And with transport capacities of 12 GW per System for HVDC, adn the possibillity to have multiple systems on one mast, energy density of renewables are a non-topic. Today it is technical exaktly no problem to power a whole country like germany from outside (>2000km) using a sigle power line with several systems. There are several good causes not to do this (and to use multiple corridors, mutliple sources, etc. ) but techical it’s doable. It’s not even close to be a problem.
But as far as the capabilites of grids are concerned, the censors scissors in the head are very widespread. When talking with most people, all possibilities grids offer are censord away when they exceed the capabilities of 400kV AC grids as they were state of the Art in the early 1950’s. As if the time stood still since then.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Aug 7, 2017 4:03 pm GMT

EP, what’s goofy is to believe the fossil fuel industry will undertake this esoteric, expensive, unverifiable process, to produce something of zero value. At scale. No “thermodynamic analysis” needed, only a modicum of common sense.

Sounds like a delusion which might be recommended by Trump himself. Perhaps someone without any qualification whatsoever to lecture me on the subject of prejudice has performed a policy analysis of how his candidate is faring on carbon reductions?

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Aug 7, 2017 4:22 pm GMT

Schalk, far more practical and effective than “CCS and nuclear” would be “electric transportation and nuclear.”

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on Aug 7, 2017 8:48 pm GMT

According to the BP Statistical review, Germany’s wind and solar consumption was 17.8% of total production in 2016. A previous regression analysis I did on German electricity data showed that Germany uses additional dispatchable generation from its neighbours equivalent to about 30% of its own fleet to balance out wind/solar output: http://www.theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/324836/effect-intermitt.... The current time series of wind/solar output vs. import/export balance still show a clearly visible correlation. Hence my estimate of 17.8/1.3=13.7% wind/solar.

Sure, those numbers sound about right for wind/solar market value, but keep in mind that dispatchable plants get an average price of almost 20% higher than spot. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/.... Hence wind/solar market value is about 75% that of dispatchable thermal generators at 14% penetration.

I like your HVDC optimism. Let’s wait and see what the future tells about the technical, economic and political feasibility of cross-continental HVDC lines that would make wind/solar energy density a non-issue. .

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Aug 7, 2017 10:51 pm GMT

No “thermodynamic analysis” needed, only a modicum of common sense.

The problem with common sense is it ain’t so common, and it goes awry when it’s teamed up with ignorance and lack of imagination.

what’s goofy is to believe the fossil fuel industry will undertake this esoteric, expensive, unverifiable process, to produce something of zero value. At scale.

Let me give you a use for a 50 MW turnkey plant that’s skid-shippable.  The customers are oil-field operators who have to flare associated gas because they have no pipeline to take it, but who do have reasonable access to the electric grid.

The Allam plant burns this surplus gas and turns it into CO2 for re-injection into the field.  The effluent at the cooler outlet is probably already at injection pressure, so all that’s needed are the wells to put it back down.  If there’s enough associated gas, the injected CO2 not only mixes with and liberates trapped oil, it helps to frack the formation and make it more permeable.  The field operator gets rid of a gas-disposal problem, gets more oil out and also has electricity to sell.

The amount of methane required to make 50 MW at 50% efficiency is only about 2 kg/sec.  A local collection network of cheap plastic pipes would probably be enough to feed such a plant, and they could be laid alongside the pipes of the CO2 distribution network.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Net Power has already been in talks with oil field operators.  It’s an obvious business opportunity.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Aug 8, 2017 1:36 pm GMT

I talk about 2017, where renewable production is substantial higher than 2016. Exporting / importing power depends on price differences, and is a main factor to smooth out generation for “smaller” countries like germany. – the imports do not neccesarily come from dispatchable generation outside germany, it can come from wind and solar outside germany as well. Exports do not need to displace dispatchable generation outside, it can as well compensate low generation of wind and solar outside as well. So if Europe + MENA for example would run 100% on Wind and Solar, smoothing out bvariability with a strong grid, the german import export would still show a correlation of imports and exports with local generation. As well you will find a corellation of german imports and exports with solar power generation even before solar pwoer was installed in germany, because german flexible generation traditionally compensates french baseload generation, so german exports happen prefered during dailight, and imports prefered dring nighttime. Increasing solar power production, in germany, increasing price differences untill france also builds substantial solar power generation, increases the likelyhood of daylight power exports. (to france, benelux, swiss, italy being strongly influenced by french power market)

Compaed to nuclear I see a 15% price disadvantage for onshore wind, and a 9% price disadvantage for solar. Rising price differences will will increase the reasonable transport distance for power from renewables proportional to the price difference, which rises reachable consumers for that power roughly by square of that price difference. While in parallel, price difference provide a incentive for dynamic loads to shift demand – so far price differences are smaller than the traditional day-night price differences which nuclear had to come along with. Which means there is a rising resistance against rising price differences, when renewable penetration rises.

Robert Poor's picture
Robert Poor on Aug 9, 2017 11:06 pm GMT

I see a few challenges for NET Power, touching on Policy, Economics and PR:

Policy: If CO2 emissions are lightly taxed, there will be little incentive to switch from standard combined-cycle gas turbine plants. They’re economical, they’re well proven, and — most significantly — already built.

Economics: If CO2 emissions are heavily taxed, that could work in NET Power’s favor. But they’ll still have to compete with solar (or wind) + storage. Lazard’s LCOE v10.0 cites solar + storage as costing $0.092/kWh. That’s more expensive than NET Power’s projected cost of $0.06/kWh, but (solar or wind) + storage is coming down in cost quickly, somewhere between 10% and 14% per year. At 14%/year, (solar or wind) + storage will be cheaper than NET Power’s projected costs within two to three years. That leaves them very little runway.

PR: reputable news outlets such as Science Magazine tout NET Power’s offering as “zero emission” and others have repeated that trope. I can forgive a bit of journalistic license, but that’s just wrong: the technology generates lots of CO2, albeit in a pure form.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Aug 10, 2017 4:04 pm GMT

EP, your training in electrical engineering apparently neglected the subject of binding grid constraints, which don’t permit 50MW of either generation or load to be screwed in like a light bulb anywhere there’s “reasonable access to the electric grid.” Whether along the Pacific DC Intertie or in the wilds of North Dakota, and notwithstanding an extensive network of cheap plastic pipe (who could object to that)?

And though the business opportunities you describe on behalf of Rex Tillerson and your Chosen Candidate are duly noted, they only increase the profitability of fossil fuels, and further the disastrous trend of drilling more holes in the ground instead of plugging them up.

Rex Berglund's picture
Rex Berglund on Aug 10, 2017 8:11 pm GMT

I agree a carbon tax would have a huge impact. Recently a new study was published showing that climate change is worse than we thought; we won’t be able to ignore reality forever.

I also agree that the declining costs of solar, wind and storage will one day make them the least cost source for daily supply. However, I question whether we can use storage economically on a seasonal scale – lots of CAPEX, little use.

Sequestration makes Net Power’s tech zero emissions, but fueling w/ biomass derived syngas makes the process carbon negative. The IPCC plans call for BECCS; we will need some form of CDR even if we have to pay more for it. BTW, the US has space for 2.4 trillion tons of CO2 sequestration.

Of course, if you do BECCS wrong you can do more harm than good, but we currently use 40% of our corn crop for ethanol and LCAs largely show this to be pointless at best. Switching that land to e.g. miscanthus would do no harm. Besides, moving to EVs means there’ll be less and less need for ICEVs. We need not use arable land; miscanthus grows fine on marginal land. In addition, NREL’s RE Futures calls for 15% of our electricity to come from biomass, specifying 75% of that biomass be sourced from waste.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Aug 10, 2017 8:40 pm GMT

your training in electrical engineering apparently neglected the subject of binding grid constraints, which don’t permit 50MW of either generation or load to be screwed in like a light bulb anywhere there’s “reasonable access to the electric grid.”

You can plug in 50 MW of regular power plant anywhere you’ve got a line going to 100 MW of wind farm, and there are a bunch of places like that.

Whether along the Pacific DC Intertie or in the wilds of North Dakota, and notwithstanding an extensive network of cheap plastic pipe (who could object to that)?

A bunch of flare stacks casting eerie light over the landscape at night and making smoke and smells, vs. some buried pipe going to a plant that puts nothing into the air.  Hmmm, hard decision.

And though the business opportunities you describe on behalf of Rex Tillerson and your Chosen Candidate are duly noted, they only increase the profitability of fossil fuels, and further the disastrous trend of drilling more holes in the ground instead of plugging them up.

I didn’t say that there wasn’t an issue with the way we go about producing and using energy.  I said there was a business case for the Allam cycle, even at the 50 MW prototype scale.  This was to refute your claim:

what’s goofy is to believe the fossil fuel industry will undertake this esoteric, expensive, unverifiable process, to produce something of zero value.

It definitely has value, and I predict that the market will recognize it.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »