The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Truly clean coal: Swan Hills Synfuels generates a clean-burning gas mixture from coal at its underground gasification plant northwest of Edmonton. The company plans to generate 300 megawatts of power with the gas, while storing the resulting carbon dioxide in Alberta’s oil fields.
Swan Hills Synfuels
An Alberta project will transform coal deep beneath the ground into gas.
Converting coal in the ground directly into clean-burning gases could have huge environmental benefits--not the least of which would be the avoidance of destructive mining operations. The problem is, technology for underground coal gasification is still in its early stages.
Now the government of Alberta says it will give C$285 million ($271 million) to a coal gasification project by Calgary-based Swan Hills Synfuels that involves the deepest-ever operation to generate power from coal--without digging it up.
Previous demonstrations of the technology have turned coal seams as deep as 1,000 meters below the surface into clean-burning gas. In contrast, Swan Hills Synfuels' C$1.5 billion project proposes to reach down 1,400 meters. Working at that depth could lessen the threat of groundwater contamination from the smoldering decomposing coal. "We've got 800 meters of rock--a lot of it impermeable--between us and freshwater aquifers," says Swan Hills president Doug Shaigec.
What's more, if the technology can get at deeper layers of coal, it could allow access to much more of the fossil fuel, says Julio Friedmann, who is carbon management project leader for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
When the project starts up in 2015, Swan Hills hopes to generate 300 megawatts of power from its coal gas while selling over 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. The CO2 could be used by oil producers and ultimately stored in oil wells. This could result in the storage of 10 to 20 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2020. That would help Alberta meet its 2020 goal for carbon capture of 25 to30 million tons per year, according to a report last month from an alliance of Canadian industrial firms.
Pilot testing by Swan Hills confirms the viability of these promises, according to Shaigec. He says the pilot produced excellent gas using a pair of adjacent wells spaced 50 to 60 meters apart, installed in the coal seam with the same directional-drilling techniques behind the accelerating production of natural gas from shale deposits.
Oxygen is driven down the feed well and the coal seam is ignited, driving the temperature to 800 to 900 ºC and the pressure to almost 2,000 PSI. Under those pressures, the oxygen, coal, and saline water (present in the coal and also injected via the feed well) react to form a gas that is roughly one-third methane and two-thirds hydrogen, along with some carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The gas is drawn to the surface via the adjacent production well, where the carbon monoxide is converted to hydrogen and CO2, and all of the CO2 is removed.
Shaigec is tight-lipped about how Swan Hills managed to achieve gas flow between its wells, given the low permeability of coal squashed under 1,400 meters of rock. "We have used mechanical means to establish an adequate communication path between the wells," he says, using "standard drilling, completion, and stimulation techniques." The standard mechanical method by which shale gas production is stimulated is the fracture of rock with high-pressure water.
Interesting concept. I wonder how much of the energy content of the coal is used in the process to create the H2 and CO2. That is, how efficient is the process relative to simply burning the coal in a traditional coal plant.
It would be interesting to compare carbon efficiencies, but comparing a combined cycle to a conventional power plant is not quite apples to apples. Anyway it is economics not carbon that dominate first order project analysis. The insitu concept sounds like it could access deeper thinner seams than any standard mining methods used with "conventional power plants". So the utilization rate of that otherwise useless resource is not terribly important. Then there is the low carbon bonus to boot.
The leader in this technology is Australia's Linc Energy. They are taking the gas and converting it to liquid fuel. Also they are separating the H2 and generating power via fuel cells.
What will happen once all the coal, or even a chunk of it has been removed? Will the ground not collapse over that area?
However, I don't know what would happen to the coal foundation when the coal is consumed. The underground reactor which requires the reactant to contain itself may not last long enough.
I hope the following is because the author doesn't understand basic chemistry, and not the company doesn't.
"...the carbon monoxide is converted to hydrogen and CO2.."
Umm, that means CO = CO2 + H2
Cool - transmutation
But probably not, (sigh)
I was wondering about this too, but assumed they meant with CH4 and probably O2 to then form the H2 and CO2. Still I'm not sure I want to figure out how that equation balances.
About the subsidence issue, I doubt you produce enough gas that the loss in C and H is much larger than the gain in the brine they're pumping in, not too mention the ash left behind. Likely some subsidence would occur as it happens in most insitu extractions, but it's not like there would be an empty cavern.
It is conversion is done with steam and catalysts. The water gas shift reaction is described as: CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 (exothermic)
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
rocketscience
7 Comments
Sounds good...
Sounds good, but it doesn't look good to me.
Keep it up there in Canada and see what your longer term actions produce there.
Reply