October 30, 2009
W.Va. pilot project to pump CO2 waste underground begins
Lawrence Pierce
Visitors at the AEP Mountaineer Plant watch an electronic demonstration of the Alstom Power carbon-capture process.
Lawrence Pierce
Sen. Jay Rockefeller said the coal industry needs to accept the science of global warming and push for carbon capture projects like AEP's as the solution to the problem.
Advertiser

NEW HAVEN, W.Va. -- Coal was piled high at American Electric Power's Mountaineer Plant in Mason County on Friday. Smoke billowed out of the plant's towering stack.

Inside white tents and a makeshift auditorium, West Virginia political leaders and industry officials celebrated the start of a pilot project they hope will allow that coal to be burned without spewing heat-trapping carbon dioxide out into the air.

"This truly is an historic moment at an historic place," AEP President Michael Morris told several hundred visitors on hand for the kickoff ceremony. "This is really special."

Morris and other AEP officials hope they can capture a small stream of the Mountaineer Plant's carbon dioxide emissions, pump it underground, and store it safely a mile and a half below the Ohio River bottomland just outside the town of New Haven.

If the project works, it could pave the way for larger tests of technology for carbon capture and storage, or CCS -- a process that most energy experts see as the only way for coal to survive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Gov. Joe Manchin and hundreds of other folks joined Morris for Friday's celebration, which also was attended by dozens of media representatives from around the world.

"Bringing this to West Virginia is something we're very proud of, and it's the right thing to do," Manchin said. "We have produced electricity and energy for this country for decades, and we would like to continue to be part of the solution."

Manchin said coal-fired power can be a "bridge" to a future in which other alternative sources play a much larger role across the world.

However, the latest scientific reviews estimate that CCS isn't likely to "make important contributions" to dealing with climate change until at least 2030. AEP officials believe it might be ready for widespread deployment sooner than that, perhaps by 2020.

At the same time, many climate scientists are seeing signs that the world is warming much faster than they expected, and are urging fast reductions in greenhouse gases to avoid the most serious effects on the planet and human society.

Meanwhile, even strong advocates of CCS say that it faces a long list of hurdles. CCS is expensive. It sucks up a lot of a power plant's energy and takes up tremendous space that might not be available at every site.

Power companies also haven't figured out exactly how to do CCS on the monumental scale needed. Additionally, experts aren't exactly sure if pumping such huge amounts of compressed CO2 underground is really safe.

Report a violation or offensive comment.
[X] Close
to report abuse.
Posted By: smarbap (1:23pm 11-02-2009)
Report Abuse


And, what jkotcon fails to mention is that any rising temperatures anywhere on our planet could be attributed to any number of things--NOT specifically to fossil fuels or any activity of mankind. Significant long-term increases in global temperature most likely result from solar/sunspot activity changes. Additionally, natural changes in the Earth's magnetic field in recent years may also be responsible for differing weather patterns and temperature fluctuations.

After the fall of communism in the late 1980s, communists did not simply concede defeat; they sought out new ways to achieve their objectives. The environmental movement, with its universal appeal of cleaner air, water, etc., became the new vehicle of favor. Declaring that the planet and mankind are in imminent peril, and that only major reductions in energy consumption and industrial activity can save us, this new tactic is succeeding. And such will have dire economic consequences for us all.

Posted By: jkotcon (8:21am 11-01-2009)
Report Abuse


What smarbap calls "ridiculous forecasts of rising temperatures" are well documented facts. If you pile more blankets on top of your bed, it is not a "ridiculous forecast" to predict that you will get warmer. Furthermore, heat waves kill many more people than cold does, so it is pretty easy to conclude that increasing the frequency of heat waves is "harmful".
The only real issue to debate is the economic impact. Those whose income is tied to fossil fuels are obviously reluctant to agree to reducing their income for the sake of the rest of the planet, but that short-sighted greed necessarily means that they put their short-term income above the lives of others and the environment of all. I acknowledge that there is an economic argument about who should pay and who should benefit, but there is no substantial debate about the climate science.

Posted By: smarbap (9:40pm 10-31-2009)
Report Abuse


Sorry, jkotcon, but the ridiculous forecasts of rising temperatures resulting in climatological catastrophe are just that--utterly ridiculous.

First, is a global rise in temperatures--if such is actually occurring--necessarily a bad event? As the very best scientists in the world have no idea whatsoever what an "ideal temperature" would be for our planet, we have no way of knowing whether any temperature change, in any direction, is or is not harmful. Additionally, there is no way to state conclusively that a reduction in any human activities would greatly influence global temperature levels one way or the other. There simply are no data to support the "conclusions" that Democrats have eagerly embraced as factual. But it is such ridiculous "conclusions" that now permit the anti-capitalistic left to place draconian burdens upon American industry under the guise of a cleaner planet.

In the meantime, Red China's industrial production--fueled mainly by coal--continues to grow.

Posted By: fmoose39 (12:38am 10-31-2009)
Report Abuse


A little info. on some cost of developing energy. A solar farm being built in Ohio will have a peak output of 12 megawatts the cost of this 12 megawatts will be around $40 million or a little less than $4 per watt. This carbon capture technology cost about $4 per watt just to remove the carbon. And we still have the coal and don't know the long term problems that may arise from this technology yet.

Advertisement - Your ad here
Advertisement - Your ad here
SMITH'S CARPET ONE
When it comes to buying flooring for your home, there's only one flooring store to visit, Carpet...
Advertisement - Your ad here