Tech, Dominion propose carbon-capture project
COURTESY DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER
The Virginia Tech Center for Coal and Energy Research and Dominion Virginia Power announced plans for a $580 million carbon-capture demonstration at Virginia Power’s City Hybrid Energy Center in Wise County.
Published: August 26, 2009
Updated: August 26, 2009
A demonstration project to remove carbon dioxide from coal-fired smokestack emissions has been proposed for a controversial power plant under construction in far Southwest Virginia.
The Virginia Tech Center for Coal and Energy Research and Dominion Virginia Power announced plans yesterday to establish a $580 million carbon-capture demonstration at Dominion Virginia Power's Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center in Wise County.
A coalition led by the Virginia Tech center has applied for federal stimulus money to offset as much as half of the cost.
"This is something a lot of people are working on -- getting carbon dioxide out of the emissions stream and addressing concerns about CO2," Dominion Virginia Power spokesman Greg Edwards said in an interview yesterday. "We're excited to be part of it."
Under the plan, as much as 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide would be removed from the power plant's emissions each day, converted into a liquid, transported as far as 25 miles by underground pipeline to other sites and stored underground in saline formations and "thin" coal seams that can't be mined.
The coalition, which includes Virginia Tech, Dominion Virginia Power, the Southern States Energy Board and others, has applied for funding from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory, under the federal recovery act's clean coal power initiative.
Federal officials are expected to review the funding request by November and, if approved, planning could begin by mid-2010, Edwards said. Work could begin on the carbon-capture demonstration by 2013 and be completed by 2015, he added.
Neither Edwards nor Virginia Tech officials would speculate about the project's future if the funding request is denied.
"This project will be a significant step forward in funding a viable means of controlling carbon emissions from power stations," Michael Karmis, a Virginia Tech professor who is director of the Center for Coal and Energy Research, said in a statement. "We are fortunate that Virginia has an advanced power plant and suitable injection sites in close proximity."
Nino Ripepi, a research associate with the research center, said there are no comparable projects.
"Capture is being done, but nothing has been done at this scale," Ripepi said in a phone interview. "And injecting the liquid, nothing has been done to this extent." The identified underground storage areas represent "thousands of years" of capacity, Ripepi said.
Virginia Tech is conducting smaller-scale carbon storage experiments in Russell County.
"The carbon storage trials show a lot of promise," Edwards said. "They have been able to sequester about 95 percent of the carbon."
One goal of the project is to remove and capture a minimum of 90 percent of carbondioxide emissions.
The project could also produce substantial amounts of coal-bed methane, a form of natural gas that can be used as an energy source.
The demonstration project would create 36 full-time jobs, while the Virginia City power plant is expected to employ about 80. The power plant is scheduled to begin operations in 2012.
The 585-megawatt plant is designed to burn coal, waste coal and biomass. A number of environmental groups have opposed it, claiming it will further pollute the region's environment.
Earlier this month, a circuit court judge in Richmond ruled that one of two air permits issued for the plant is invalid. However, company officials said they expect the permit matter to be resolved so the plant can be completed on schedule.
David McGee is a staff writer at the Herald Courier in Bristol.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
We cannot afford more mercury from coal. ‘Clean coal’ does not exist.
Solar, wind, tidal, bio-mass-to-biofuel- these are solid options if we prioritize research and production money correctly. More distributed, solar-on-site can help with smart grid/energy conservation efforts.
The more diddling with nonexistent coal possiblilites, the more Virginia falls behind other states. Look what NJ is doing with solar schools.
>R: The fish have probably always had comparable levels of mercury in them. We are only now becoming aware of the presence of mercury because of improved analytical methods.
The “27 percent of sampled sites exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency human-health criterion” means 78% did not exceed the EPA’s criterion. Elsewhere in the report are described the sites (blackwater, estuaries, mining zones) where the highest levels were found.
The page you linked to is the NAWQA home page, which has a link to the Abstract page (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5109/) which in turn has a link to the 86-page pdf of the report (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5109/pdf/sir20095109.pdf) itself.
The report also mentions “Methylation—the microbially mediated conversion of inorganic Hg to the organic form, methylmercury (MeHg)—is the single most important step in the environmental Hg cycle because it greatly increases Hg toxicity and bioaccumulation potential.“
IOW, microbes can convert NATURALLY occurring mercury to methylmercury, which is volatile and bioaccumulative. Volatile methylmercury can be carried by the atmosphere from the oceans to anywhere. Interestingly the authors made no effort to account for volcanic and submarine mercury sources.
I have to ask then, have fish always been this toxic?
“Fish-Hg concentrations at 27 percent of sampled sites exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency human-health criterion of 0.3 micrograms per gram wet weight.“
(And did I link to the “fake” USGS page on Mercury?)
>R: re “Toxic is toxic.“ EVERYTHING is toxic. “It ‘s the dose that makes the poison” as they say. The one substance that claims the most human lives every year through acute toxic overdose is water. 1 pint in your throat, a quart in your lungs, or a half-gallon in your belly will kill you.
>R: The real report is here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5109/pdf/sir20095109.pdf
“The highest (total mercury) concentrations in fish were from blackwater coastal-plain streams draining forests or wetlands in the eastern and southeastern United States, as well as from streams draining gold- or Hg-mined basins in the western United States.“ The fact that mercury is found where none was known before is a testament to the improved abilities of analytical chemistry, not indication of a novel threat. <sarcasm on> Maybe we should build dams around the wetlands and the mining regions.
Even if the coal byproduct can be “scrubbed” of carbon, it’s still releasing an absolutely unacceptable amount of mercury into the water table.
“WASHINGTON (AP) - No fish can escape mercury pollution. That’s the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.
The toxic substance was found in every fish sampled, a finding that underscores how widespread mercury pollution has become.“
USGS report found here: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/mercury/
It’s an energy source that needs to be phased out of use. I don’t think that is debatable. It’s threatening a significant portion of the nation’s food and water supply.
@Tadchem: Then we shouldn’t encourage the development of excessive volcano emissions either. Toxic is toxic.
>ric_physics: So, the principle beneficiaries will be the researchers. They would have to reduce the cost per unit ($/lb) by three orders of magnitude to make it fiscally practicable and economically feasible. According to past experience, each order of magnitude improvement requires and order of magnitude cost increase. Good Luck with that! By the time we get the price down to where we could afford it, we wouldn’t be able to afford anything at all - the World will be broke!
tadchem, it’s a research project. Rome wasn’t build in a day. Slowly but surely the fruits of this research will bring the cost per pound down.
>Scott Burger: All fish in the ocean also have measurable mercury. They always have and always will. The mercury comes from volcanic eruptions on the ocean floor. There is mercury in sea water (1.85 ppb). The body can deal with trace amounts of mercury. The real health danger is from radioactive carbon-14, which we consume in ALL foods (except table salt) not grown in greenhouses using fossil carbon (which has no carbon-14 left in it). It gets directly into the DNA where it can cause the most genetic damage, one consequence of which is cancer.
>Kant Seay: A better plan would be to redirect the CO2 into greenhouses to grow more food faster on less land. It IS the main fertilizer for all plant life - the foundation of the food chain on this planet.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement