GASIFICATION
If a fossil fuel must be burned, gas is the one to burn because it produces the least greenhouse gases (GHGs). But gasified coal? More fuel to gasify it, complete capture of impurities is doubtful and what do you do with them when they are captured? Nobody has conclusively proved they can be stored ("sequestered") safely. NewEnergyNews prefers windification. But go ahead, try it. See if it can compete.
ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy to build coal-to-substitute natural gas plant
Jim Salter, July 23, 2007 (AP via The Columbia Missourian)
WHO
ConocoPhillips (Bill Graham, spokesman & Jim Mulva, chairman/ceo), Peabody Energy (Gregory H. Boyce, president/ceo)

WHAT
The two energy giants will build a coal-to-substitute natural gas (SNG) facility.
WHEN
- Announcement July 23. Preliminary design/economic assessment expected in early 2008. Construction in 2009 at the earliest.
- A 2006 National Coal Council study called for coal to provide 15% of U.S. gas consumption.
WHERE
- Announcement in St. Louis, where Peabody Energy is based. ConocoPhillips is based in Houston.
- Plant location not yet more specifically specified than “the Midwest.”
WHY
- The plant will utilize ConocoPhillips’ E-GAS technology and will be at the mouth of a Peabody Energy coal mine. It will employ 400 and produce 50-70 billion cubic feet of SNG from 3.5 million tons of coal.
- Gas demand is rising rapidly. E-GAS technology is a coal/petroleum coke gasification process allowing removal of impurities.

QUOTES
- Graham: “If everything falls into place it will be a multi-billion dollar project.”
- Boyce: “The energy value in Peabody’s vast coal reserve base exceeds the energy in the oil or gas reserves in the continental United States, offering strategic advantages for coal-to-gas projects and other conversion projects…”
- Mulva: “This project, as currently envisioned, would be designed to deliver over 1.5 trillion cubic feet of SNG in its first 30 years of operation from proven, domestic coal reserves…”
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home