fyi, paul
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org <Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org>
Date: Nov 2, 2007 3:22 PM
Subject: Fw: "Clean coal" plant setbacks mount in U.S.
"Clean coal" plant setbacks mount in U.S.
By Steve Raabe
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated:11/01/2007 02:04:50 AM MDT
Xcel Energy's decision to delay consideration of a "clean coal" power
plant is the latest in a string of setbacks for the promising but
controversial technology.
At least 10 proposals for coal-gasification plants in the U.S. have been
delayed or canceled this year.
The plans have succumbed to high costs, technological uncertainties and
growing concern about carbon emissions from coal-fired power.
Known as integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, the technology
uses high pressure and temperatures to convert coal to a gas that burns
more cleanly and efficiently than raw coal.
Xcel's $1 billion-plus proposal would have gone a step further than the
other plans by capturing carbon dioxide from the process and injecting it
into underground caverns, mines or oil and gas wells.
Xcel chief executive Dick Kelly said this week that the utility will wait
at least two more years before deciding whether to launch the project.
"Much of the momentum building behind IGCC has waned in 2007 as rising
capital costs, stabilizing natural-gas prices and an uncertain
carbon-policy outlook have undermined IGCC's competitiveness for power
generation," said analyst Alex Klein in a report for Cambridge, Mass.-
based Emerging Energy Research.
Among the setbacks:
Tampa Electric canceled a 630-megawatt plant last month because of
rising costs and uncertainty over whether the project would meet
Florida's new greenhouse-gas regulations.
The project was killed despite Tampa Electric's 10 years of operating
another IGCC plant - one of only two in the nation.
Plant developer Southwestern Power Group canceled an IGCC proposal for
Bowie, Ariz., and now proposes a natural- gas-fired generator because
of high costs for coal gasification, carbon-regulation uncertainties
and difficulty in gaining public and regulatory approval.
Ohio utility AEP said it may delay the start of an IGCC plant, pending
the outcome of a court ruling on a challenge stemming from the
project's high cost to consumers.
"It's an experimental technology, and the costs can be 40 percent higher"
than conventional coal-fired plants, said Lynne Mackey, regulatory affairs
director for East Brunswick, N.J.-based power producer LS Power.
"When you turn a plant on, it has to run," she said. "We're not
philosophically opposed to IGCC, but the technology has to be compared to
proven coal technologies."
LS Power has sought for two years to build a conventional coal-fired plant
in Colorado, but its submission to an Xcel Energy request for proposals
was turned down last year.
Mackey said the efficiency of conventional coal plants has increased in
the past decade, allowing generators to burn less coal and reduce their
carbon emissions.
Steve Raabe: 303-954-1948 or sraabe(a)denverpost.com
--
Paul Wilson
Sierra Club
504 Jefferson Ave
Charles Town, WV 25414-1130
Phone: 304-725-4360
Cell: 304-279-6975
