IGCC = CCS ?
5 July 2007 by loufuzai
AEP has had plans to build one or more IGCC plants in Ohio and/or West Virginia for several years. The proposed Great Bend IGCC Plant that is meant to be built in Meigs County Ohio was originally scheduled to be completed by 2010. Now the plans are stalled. AEP has pushed the date back at least two years. This is due in large part to a challenge to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s (PUCO) granting AEP cost recovery for the IGCC plant. Several industrial groups and FirstEnergy have challenged PUCO’s decision in the Supreme Court of Ohio (Industrial Energy Users-Ohio et al. v. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, #2006-1594). Oral arguments are scheduled for 9 October 2007.
While the case is an interesting study in regulation, degregulation, and possibly re-regulation, one fact that appears to go unmentioned is that the proposed IGCC plant will not be built with carbon dioxide capture equipment. Here is a quotation from the Ohio Power Siting Board’s Staff Report of Investigation (case #06-30-EL-BGN, 28 November 2006):
CCS equipment, such as shift reactors and CO2 compressors, would not be installed at the time of initial plant operation. However, the Applicant does intend to incorporate space in the plant layout to accommodate such equipment in the future should a decision ultimately be made to pursue CCS at this facility.
It is not just AEP. The situation appears to be the same for Duke’s proposed IGCC plant in Edwardsport, Indiana. It is interesting that one of main benefits of IGCC–less expensive carbon dioxide capture–will not be realized immediately when these plants are built. Here is a link to a similar discussion on the Green Thoughts blog.
Yes, as you referred to on my blog, I’m very concerned about how IGCC will be sold to the public as a panacea when in fact the (very expensive and as yet un-realized) “optional equipment” of carbon capture and sequestration is “sold separately” and not realizable at every location as the requisite geological formations will not be available for storage. Do you know if there is a storage site near these proposed plants?
Michael
The carbon sequestration capacity of the area in Meigs County was studied when it was a potential site for the FutureGen project. The area failed due to geological instability, which isn’t surprising given the history of undocumented mining in the area, and the countless streams and wells that surround the saturated Ohio River floodplain.