What is/was IGCC?

It’s expensive.

So stay with efficiency and renewables (and conservation).

Less SO2 and NOx. No mercury, uranium, arsenic, etc. Ought to command a premium price, even just by reducing the sulfur scrubbing costs.

What is it that a company that sells electricity and electricity generation want? More sales and efficiency will cut into that. If your only measure is GNP, it only matters that the numbers are bigger, not if the product or service delivered was done efficiency. But GNP and per capita income are easy to measure and the rest not so much. If all efficiency doubles, alot of people in those industries that supply that are out of work even though people will have money to spend for something else.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/ story/ 0,25197,24317781-11949,00.html

Mark - “It gets more kWh out of each ton of coal…”

Earl - “…it also causes us to burn a 25% more coal to generate the same power.”

Those statements strike me as mutually exclusive.

Hey Earl, check out Tendril for an interesting efficiency technology: http://www.tendrilinc.com/.

Adding CCS technology to power plants is widely agreed to be the only realistic hope of making the necessary inroads into carbon dioxide emissions without resorting to the politically unacceptable option of turning the lights out.

“we use ‘widely’ and ‘realistic’ here in a private sense, measurable only by standards controlled by our office and whose actual numerical values are a trade secret.”

Fossil fuels are the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions yet 80 per cent of the world’s energy depends on them.

oh? so we’re talking about putting CCS on the backs of cargo ships and home heating systems? or capturable coal is 80% of energy? i’m confused.

still. the times. gotta love a newspaper that tells it like it should be.

This might be off-topic, but I found a presentation by Mark Fowler at the Clean Air Task Force comparing IGCC with pulverized coal technologies:
http://www.gasification.org/ Docs/ Workshops/ 2008/ Tampa/ 07Fowler.pdf
Slide 12:
The pulverized coal technologies have higher SOx (no precombustion sulfur capture), NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions compared to the IGCC designs.

The main conclusions of the above discussion might still be valid:
Slide 16:
“Implications:
Using the EPA methodology, in the CATF reference case the average cost effectiveness of IGCC is less than that for SCPC

The incremental cost effectiveness of IGCC, compared to SCPC, is not unacceptable”

The three efficiency investments that you mentioned did indeed pay good dividends and were appropriate types of programs for DOE support. They were relatively small, focused, and aimed at solving well defined problems.

Unfortunately, there were also a lot of apparently failed investments that could have overwhelmed the ROI computation if those three had not been included. Take out your three programs and their investment of $400 million (your number) and you have a government investment of more than $12 billion and a return of $10 billion - ie a loss of $2 billion.

From what I know of the programs that failed, most are those “high efficiency” power systems that look fine on paper but have huge technical challenges associated with eeking out the last little increment of efficiency or providing some technical solution to an intractable problem like handling the enormous volume of waste generated by burning dirty, cheap fuels.

IGCC, Intercooled-recuperated turbines, batteries for electric vehicles, H2, large fuel cells, and CCS all fall into the category of investments that will never be made without continuing and growing government support. Of course, there will be plenty of people who disagree, partially because they make a living while accepting that government support.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever come across a similar analysis of the ROI for federal investments in nuclear fission power? I am trying to find one that separates programs so that it is possible to see which investments provided results and which did not.

My guess is that pure nuclear fission reactor research has provided at least reasonable rates of return - based on the fact that we are generating tens of billions of dollars worth of electricity from that technology every year - while science projects like fusion will never, ever make a dime during the lifetime of anyone living today.

Mineral sequestration (such as olivine sequestration) is more proven, safe, and permanent than CCS from fossil fuel plants. And we know that there alre less risks in economics since the price for pulverized olivine is known and the processes involved are comparatively simple.

But the status quo is not interested in the best solutions. It just wants to make money on compressor equipment, membranes etc. for CCS. Pretty sad stereotypical situation.

Oh, and it’s true that ultracritical coal plants are more efficient than IGCC so far. IGCC could be cleaner, at least in theory, as practice has ben unimpressive in this regard IMHO. There could be less mining impact, because the coal deposit can be gassified underground, no need for strip mining and mountain top removal.

But the question remains what it’ll cost. Even wind with lots of storage should be cheaper the way things are right now. But perhaps there is more to IGCC than we’ve previously thought.

See, for example, this short PDF.

Since it works well in tropical countries, think about the potential for economic development of poor countries with low wages. It’s a win-win-win situation.