In this episode: CCS, Canadian switcheroo, nuclear bottleneck?

Carbon Capture in the U.S. Faces Hard Realities:

When the Department of Energy announced in January that it would cancel funding for the vaunted FutureGen project (to build the world’s first coal-fired power plant with zero carbon dioxide emissions), the decision was widely viewed as the biggest setback to date for carbon capture and storage (C.C.S.) technologies.

…

Meanwhile a number of other proposed designs for C.C.S. projects have suffered FutureGen’s fate.

- Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, an electric utility that serves eight states across the Midwest and the Rockies, said in November it will postpone for at least two years its plans to build an I.G.C.C. plant with carbon capture capability in Colorado.
- Rebuffing a coalition of mayors headed by Laura Miller of Dallas, Mike Green, CEO of Texas energy giant TXU Power, said that I.G.C.C. will not work with Texas lignite or Western coal. Green told The Dallas Morning News that I.G.C.C. and C.C.S. are “not ready for prime time.”
- In 2006, Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana announced a grandiose scheme for coal plants featuring C.C.S. technology, saying that Montana and three other Rocky Mountain neighbors could produce enough liquid fuel from coal and oil shale to supply America’s oil and gas needs for the next 800 years. But he has been forced to concede that his original vision was overblown, and that none of his envisioned projects have gotten past the press-release stage.

Despite years of glowing pronouncements from politicians and D.O.E. officials, and hundreds of millions in research and development funds from the states and the federal government, not a spade has been turned to build clean coal plants in Montana – or anywhere else in America, for that matter. Does that mean that carbon capture and storage, and its associated technologies like I.G.C.C., are beyond repair? Hardly. But it does mean that we are moving beyond the period of artists’ renderings and enthusiastic press conferences to a phase of hard realities, as the promise and the challenge of capturing and storing large amounts of carbon dioxide are examined in a harsher light. A look at a pair existing C.C.S. projects – one on the Northern Plains and one on the Gulf Coast of Texas and Mississippi – demonstrates that capturing carbon from coal-based power generation is difficult, storing it for hundreds of years is quite feasible, and building the infrastructure to do so on a national scale is going to be very, very expensive.

…

There are several “ifs” embedded in that statement: if you could find a way to economically retrofit the existing plants; if the utilities could find financing to build the new capture systems; if consumers could be convinced to absorb the added price per kilowatt-hour of their electricity; and if you could successfully store the CO2 underground once you ran out of oil wells needing E.O.R.

That last question is the piece of the puzzle being examined by a team of geologists and oilfield engineers, at the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas. With funding from the D.O.E.’s Regional Carbon Sequestration Program, which is backing seven such partnerships around the country, the researchers have spent the last 4 years injecting 1,850 tons of carbon dioxide into the Frio formation, about 30 miles east of Houston. Soon they’ll begin scaling up the system for a much more ambitious project near Natchez, Mississippi.

Scheduled for 10 years, with $38 million in D.O.E. funding, this second phase will be the first long-term project in the U.S. to study the feasibility of injecting large volumes of CO2 into underground storage locations. Unlike the Frio project, which stored relatively small amounts, the Mississippi experiment will handle commercial volumes, from a plant owned by Denbury Resources, Inc. of Plano, Texas. According to lead scientist Susan Hovorka, that will come to around 1 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. “We need to go to the next level,” says Hovorka. “We’ll be injecting at a rate of 1 million tons a year in four wells.”

Noting that a typical 450 MW power plant produces 5 million to 8 million tons of CO2 annually, Hovorka says, “The math is easy – you’ll need a well field. If we can get 1 million tons [a year] easily in four wells, and you want to do five times that, that gives you 20 wells.”

So far the data from the Frio tests has been encouraging. The carbon dioxide injections have been stable, and no leaks have been detected – to the extent that even drilling a well and trying to “produce” carbon dioxide (i.e., pump it to the surface) proved difficult. The storage part of capture-and-storage is “in the bag,” says Hovorka. “If you want it, it’s there,” she adds. “The question of whether you want to pay for capturing it also remains open.”

But many questions remain. First and foremost: what will all this cost?

Sorry, but I’m still not convinced that CCS will work as well as we need it–which is to say with a very low leakage rate over many decades–or that anyone has proved it with the degree of certainty needed to place that large a monetary and climate bet on the technology.

Don’t misunderstand my position. I’m not a zealot who hates any and all uses of coal. I don’t give a flying fig how we push electrons so long as it’s at a reasonable monetary and non-monetary cost and doesn’t emit more than about 10% of the CO2/kWh we emit now in generating electricity. If someone can find a way to change “clean coal” from a bad joke into an economically viable, scalable reality, I’ll be the first to celebrate.

(I feel the same way about hydrogen fuel cells, not that anyone asked. I have no grudge against the technology, I just can’t see any way in which it turns out to be the best solution, even decades from now.)

Huge nuclear plant in works (emphasis added):

The first nuclear power plant to be built in Ontario in more than 20 years could be more than three times larger than what the Liberal government said was needed when it first outlined its nuclear plan in 2006.

Environmentalists are calling it a classic “bait-and-switch” aimed at avoiding a public backlash when the plan was first announced.

According to a request for proposals to build the new plant, the province is now looking to construct “a stand-alone, two-unit nuclear power plant … to provide roughly 2,000-3,500 (megawatts) of baseload generation capacity.”

The call for bids was issued last week to federally owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and three foreign nuclear-reactor companies that made a short list.

A 3,500-megawatt plant would be one of the largest nuclear projects in the world, roughly equal to the size of the existing generating station at Darlington, and would be big enough to power all homes and businesses in Toronto. It would be located either at Darlington or the Bruce generating station near Kincardine. The document also asks that proposals give the government the “option” to build one or two additional reactors.

…

Estimates for new nuclear plants are anywhere between $8 billion and $15 billion. But rising costs for labour and materials make the figure a moving target. Electricity customers will foot the bill, but Queen’s Park is adamant that the bulk of any cost overruns is expected to be shouldered by the winning bidder.

Yet another problem with large, centralized generation of electricity, regardless of the technology in question: It’s much more prone to political gamesmanship. And when the technology involved is inherently politically sensitive, like nuclear, the situation is all the more ripe for bait and switch tactics.

Don’t overlook those prices, either. $2.28 to $4.28/watt for this project is pretty steep.

Samurai-Sword Maker’s Reactor Monopoly May Cool Nuclear Revival (emphasis added):

From a windswept corner of Hokkaido, Japan’s northernmost island, Japan Steel Works Ltd. controls the fate of the global nuclear-energy renaissance.

There stands the only plant in the world, a survivor of Allied bombing in World War II, capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak.

Utilities that won’t need the equipment for years are making $100 million down payments now on components Japan Steel makes from 600-ton ingots. Each year the Tokyo-based company can turn out just four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor. Even after it doubles capacity in the next two years, there won’t be enough production to meet building plans.

“If there are 50 to 100 reactors or more to be built, there will be a real shortage and real delays in deliveries, so it’s a good hedge to get in line now,” said Ron Pitts, senior vice president for nuclear operations at the construction and engineering company Fluor Corp. in Irving, Texas.

Pitts estimated the cost of heavy forgings, including reactor containment vessels, steam generators and pressurizers, at $300 million to $350 million for each generating unit. Japan Steel wouldn’t comment on the size of the down payment, which Pitts estimated at $100 million.

…

Orders for nuclear generators are multiplying as electricity use surges worldwide and governments pressure companies to cut carbon emissions to fight global warming. As many as 237 reactors may be built globally by 2030, an average of more than 10 a year, according to the World Nuclear Association in London. That compares with 78, or fewer than four a year, started since the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine.

Given Japan Steel’s limited capacity, the math just doesn’t work, said Mycle Schneider, an independent nuclear industry consultant near Paris. Japan Steel caters to all nuclear reactor makers except in Russia, which makes its own heavy forgings.

…

Another alternative is to turn back the technological clock and weld together two smaller forgings, said John Fees, CEO of McDermott International Inc.’s Babcock & Wilcox Co., which built the Three Mile Island reactor. That technique was used over the past 40 years in the U.S. and France and is still applied in China.

“It shouldn’t be off the table,” he said at Babcock’s headquarters, also in Lynchburg, Virginia.

…

To make the 600-ton ingot, workers heat steel scrap in an electric furnace to as high as 2,000 degrees Celsius (3,600 degrees Fahrenheit). Then they fill each of five giant ladles with 120 tons of the orange-hot molten metal. Argon gas is injected to eliminate impurities, and manganese, chromium and nickel are added to make the steel harder.

The mixture is poured into a blackened casing to form ingots 4.2 meters wide in the rough shape of a cylinder. Five times over three weeks, the ingots are pressed, reheated and re-pressed under 15,000 tons applied by a machine that rotates them gradually, making the floor tremble as it works.

The heavy forging is needed to make the steel uniformly strong by aligning the crystal lattices of atoms that make up the metal, known as the grain. In a casting, they would be jumbled.

I have no bloody idea how to interpret this article.

There’s just one plant in the entire world that can make these single-piece cores, so they supply the entire world, except for Russia, so that’s a Really Big Problem. Unless the industry switches to multiple-piece cores, which has been done for decades, in which case it seems not to be a problem, after all. But if companies can do that, then why are they making $100 million deposits on new cores from this plant in Japan?

Oy.

The one thing I am sure of is that I would love to see this process in person, or even find a decent video of it.