|
|
| (16 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{#Badges:CoalSwarm}} | + | {{Moved to GEM}} |
| − | {{#evp:youtube|ScV9iDBszI4|Clean Coal and the PurGen Project.|right|200}}
| |
| − | {{#evp:youtube|HLPfNz7r_po|Taking Carbon out of Coal?|right|200}}
| |
| − | [[SCS Energy]] (SCS) has proposed constructing PurGen One, a 500-megawatt (MW) [[IGCC|integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)]] / coal-to-fertilizer plant at old industrial site near the shore in Linden, [[New Jersey and coal|New Jersey]]. The plant would gasify and burn coal to generate electricity when power prices are high, or fertilizer when power prices are low. SCS plans to pump 90% of the carbon dioxide emitted from the plant 70 miles off the coast, into sandstone one mile below the surface of the ocean.
| |
| − | | |
| − | PurGen One would produce a net of approximately 500 megawatts of power per year.<ref name="pgoaag">[http://www.purgenone.com/purgen-one-at-a-glance.php "At a glance",] PurGen One website, accessed September 7, 2010.</ref> The plant would originally produce 750 MW, but would require 250-300 MW to operate, or at least a third of the power produced.<ref name="adegopp">Andrew Davison, [http://sub.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-03/Front_Page/Environmental_groups_oppose_power_plant.html "Environmental groups oppose power plant",] "Suburban", June 3, 2010."</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Project Details==
| |
| − | '''Sponsor: '''SCS Energy <br>
| |
| − | '''Location: '''Linden, New Jersey<br>
| |
| − | '''Capacity: ''' 500MW<br>
| |
| − | '''Type: '''IGCC/coal-to-fertilizer <br>
| |
| − | '''Status: ''' Proposed March 2009<br>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Background==
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, SCS has begun pre-application meetings for permits. A city Planning Board hearing was held to discuss the matter on June 9, 2009.<ref name="sc">[http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp "Stopping the Coal Rush"], Sierra Club. (This is a Sierra Club list of new coal plant proposals.)</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | On January 26, 2010 the city of Linden approved a $2.5 million deal that cleared a legal obstacle to the proposed plant. The Linden city council unanimously approved the agreement, which resolves litigation stemming from the city trying to condemn an abandoned [[DuPont]] site. The agreement means that PurGen is free to move forward with its plans for the plant, including purchasing the site from DuPont and pursuing the necessary permits. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection recently received the air permit application from PurGen and is currently reviewing it. Officials with the agency don't expect to have a draft permit ready for public comment in 2010.<ref name="sc"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Despite the agreement, opposition to the proposed plant remains strong. Late last year, the Environmental Justice Advisory Council to the NJ Department of Environmental Protection passed a resolution opposing construction of the proposed PurGen plant, stating that the city and county are already facing problems from air pollution, which will be exacerbated by the proposed plant.<ref name="sc"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | On May 24, 2010, citizen groups organized a forum where they could publicly express concerns regarding the plant.<ref name="adegopp"/> The event was organized by Sierra Club New Jersey Chapter, Clean Ocean Action, New Jersey Friends of Clearwater, the Surfrider Foundation, NY/NJ Baykeeper, and the American Littoral Society.<ref name="adegopp"/> Some of the main concerns were about issues around carbon sequestration, additional air pollution in an area already faced with industrial pollution, and worries that the plant would set a precedent for building new plants that are still dependent on fossil fuels and still pollute.<ref name="adegopp"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some people opposed to the plant hope that the New Jersey governor will step in to stop the plant, or that it will be stopped under the Coastal Zone Management Act and Coastal Area Facility Review Act.<ref name="adegopp"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Location==
| |
| − | [[Image:PurGen_One_location_NY_Times.JPG|thumb|right|Location of the proposed PurGen One plant. Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/business/energy-environment/18clean.html?_r=2 New York Times]]]
| |
| − | SCS plans to build its IGCC plant on Tremley Point Road in Linden, New Jersey. The site is nestled between the New Jersey Turnpike (to the west), natural gas plants (to the north and south) and the Arthur Kill tidal strait (to the east).<ref name="jhcco">Jessica Harrop, [http://www.climatecentral.org/breaking/blog/climate_central_shoot_in_linden_nj_part_1_of_2 "Climate Central shoot in Linden, NJ: Part 1 of 2",] Climate Central, November 24, 2009.</ref> Staten Island lies across Arthur Kill. Newark, NJ and New York, NY are a half hour's drive from the site. No coal-fired power plants have been built in New Jersey since the mid-1990's and none have been built near New York City in the past thirty years.<ref name="apfuebas">Kate Galbraith, [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/business/energy-environment/18clean.html?_r=1 "A plan for U.S. emissions to be buried under sea",] "New York Times", April 17, 2009.</ref><ref name="blbocat">Bruce Upbin, [http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/03/carbon-sequestration-business-energy-copenhagen-15-burial.html "Bury our carbon at sea",] "Forbes", November 3, 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===History of the location===
| |
| − | | |
| − | PurGen One is planned to be built on the 100-acre site of a former chemical manufacturing factory.<ref name="caroom">Eliot Caroom, [http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2010/09/plan_underway_to_clean_up_lind.html "Plan underway to clean up Linden's DuPont site",] "Star-Ledger", September 2, 2010.</ref> The factory began operating in the nineteenth century under the Grasselli Chemical Company and originally produced industrial acids that were used by other manufacturing companies.<ref name="caroom"/> In 1928, DuPont purchased the site where the company made pesticides until 1990.<ref name="caroom"/> SCS Energy will purchase the site from DuPont for $95 million.<ref name="apfuebas"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Prior to the transfer of ownership, DuPont will attempt to clean up pollution from its pesticide manufacturing. The $13 million clean-up project is managed by John Vidumsky.<ref name="caroom"/> The company plans to inject hydrogen peroxide into the ground where solvents and pesticides "have settled 10-12 feet down into the soil and groundwater and are held up by a layer of thicker silt called a meadow mat."<ref name="caroom"/> The Sierra Club has criticized the plan; the group is concerned that the injected peroxide could actually aggravate the problem, possibly by making the chemical pollutants mobile.<ref name="caroom"/> The plan needs approval by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Comments on the project can be submitted to the NJ DEP through September 30, 2010.<ref name="caroom"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Coal Gasification==
| |
| − | The PurGen One plant would use IGCC technology which would heat up coal without burning it in order to create a gas.<ref name="blbocat"/> The coal would be partially combusted in oxygen, creating carbon monoxide and hydrogen.<ref name="blbocat"/> The hydrogen would be separated and used to power the utility plant when economically worthwhile to do so, and to make fertilizer at other times.<ref name="blbocat"/> Water would be added to the carbon monoxide to create carbon dioxide, which would then be sequestered.<ref name="blbocat"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | SCS hopes to receive part of the $1.8 billion offered by the federal government for coal gasification projects.<ref name="blbocat"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Carbon Capture and Sequestration==
| |
| − | | |
| − | The idea for PurGen One evolved out of a 2006 paper titled [http://schraglab.unix.fas.harvard.edu/publications/CV78.pdf "Permanent carbon dioxide storage in deep-sea sediments,"] written by Harvard University graduate student Kurt Zenz House and professor [[Daniel Schrag]].<ref name="apfuebas"/> The paper argued that layers of rock deep beneath the ocean floor would be the best place to sequester carbon dioxide.<ref name="apfuebas"/> Following the paper's publication, SCS Energy hired Daniel Schrag as a consultant.<ref name="apfuebas"/>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:PurGen_One_CO2_pipeline_NY_Times.JPG|thumb|left|Planned carbon sequestration pipeline for PurGen One. Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/business/energy-environment/18clean.html?_r=2 New York Times]]]SCS developed a [[carbon capture and sequestration]] (CCS) plan based around a underwater sandstone formation that stretches along the Atlantic coast from New Jersey to Georgia.<ref name="blbocat"/> Thirty years ago, this field was tested for gas wells. The company plans to build a injection well seventy miles of the coast from Atlantic City, NJ and pump pressurized, liquid CO2 one mile down into the Hudson Shelf Valley section of sandstone.<ref name="apfuebas"/><ref name="adegopp"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | SCS plans to bury a one-inch-thick steel pipeline, measuring two feet in diameter and encased in concrete, three feet deep under the sea floor for a hundred miles to the injection site.<ref name="adegopp"/> In some places (particularly shipping lanes), the pipeline may be buried seventy to eighty feet into the ocean floor.<ref name="adegopp"/>
| |
| − | Beginning at the plant, the pipeline would carry CO2 around the Sandy Hook shore, through the Raritan Bay, and along the coast of New Jersey.<ref name="adegopp"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Local residents have raised concerns over the pipeline construction. At a May 24, 2010 panel discussion organized by groups opposed to PurGen One, Heather Saffert of Clean Ocean Action highlighted major risks associated with the pipeline, including disturbance to oceanic habitat, nursery, and migration areas for 300 fish species, 350 bird species, and over 20 combined whale, dolphin, and sea turtle species.<ref name="adegopp"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | SCS promotes its CCS plan as safer than others because the company hopes that the weight and pressure from the ocean floor would help suppress the stored carbon.<ref name="apfuebas"/> Daniel Schrag believes that the carbon would remain there for millions of years because it would be buried below a thick layer of mud and that earthquakes or underwater landslides could cause its release.<ref name="apfuebas"/> Tim Bauer (project manager) has said that PurGen employees, along with federal authorities, would be monitoring the pipeline via an electric device placed inside the pipeline.<ref name="adegopp"/> Concerned residents have doubts about the effectiveness of the company's ability to monitor small-scale leaks, and Heather Saffert has expressed that existing technology used for monitoring large leaks is harmful to marine life.<ref name="adegopp"/> There are also worries that the pipeline may not stay buried, increasing the risk of leaks or other damage.<ref name="adegopp"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Image:PurGen_One_sequestration_area2.JPG|thumb|right|Planned carbon sequestration pipeline superimposed on USGS sea floor image. Source: [http://www.purgenone.com/images/siteLarge.jpg PurGen One website]]]PurGen One would produce 4.5 million tons of carbon dioxide per year and there are plans to capture ninety percent of that, leading SCS to claim the plant will have a "net zero CO2 carbon footprint."<ref name="blbocat"/><ref name="adegopp">Andrew Davison, [http://sub.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-03/Front_Page/Environmental_groups_oppose_power_plant.html "Environmental groups oppose power plant",] "Suburban", June 3, 2010."</ref> Schrag calculates that the sandstone area may have the capacity for several billion tons.<ref name="blbocat"/> This is seen as a selling point for SCS, who hopes to use the well to store CO2 from other industrial sources in New Jersey.<ref name="blbocat"/> As reported in Forbes, the well could potentially store CO2 from all existing power plants "within 155 miles of the coast from Maryland to Massachusetts for the next 100 years."<ref name="blbocat"/> SCS hopes that national carbon [[cap and trade]] legislation will be passed in the near future, causing the pipeline to generate income from other sources of industrial pollution (such as other power plants) that would have to dispose of their CO2 in order meet the cap and trade regulations.<ref name="blbocat"/> SCS could take in $240 million per year for disposing ten million tons of CO2 from other New Jersey sources.<ref name="blbocat"/> There could also be federal money for carbon sequestration projects. The [[Waxman-Markey Climate Bill]] has included a ninety-dollar-a-ton credit for such projects.<ref name="blbocat"/> Schrag has said these factors "would make the project wildly profitable, as this project is already profitable [on the books] without any subsidy."<ref name="blbocat"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | SCS does not plan to create a test project.<ref name="pgofag">[http://www.purgenone.com/faq.php "Frequently asked questions",] PurGen One website, accessed September 7, 2010.</ref> The company often cites a carbon sequestration project, known as the [[Sleipner Carbon Capture and Storage project |Sleipner]] project, off the coast of [[Norway and coal |Norway]] in the North Sea as a comparable operation.<ref name="pgofag"/> The Sleipner project has been operating since 1996 and buries less than a quarter of the amount SCS plans to sequester.<ref name="apfuebas"/> SCS claims the PurGen One plans would be more fool-proof than Sleipner because its well would be deeper, causing there to be more pressure and a lower temperature, which would provide added safety.<ref name="pgofag"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Coal Consumption and Sources==
| |
| − | The plant would burn 7,000 pounds of coal per day, or 2.55 million tons per year.<ref name="adegopp"/> The plant plans to burn coal from [[Pennsylvania and coal|Pennsylvania]], the fourth largest coal-producing state in the United States.<ref name="pgofag"/> The carbon capture and sequestration process could allow for the plant to burn dirtier and cheaper coal.<ref name="blbocat"/> According to the plant's website, SCS is against mountaintop removal (MTR) mining and has made a commitment to source coal from non-MTR sites.<ref name="pgofag"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Financing==
| |
| − | PurGen One is expected to cost between $5.2 and $7 billion if constructed.<ref name="adegopp"/> SCS has said both that the company hopes to raise all of the capital for the plant privately, and that it hopes to receive governmental funds from tax credits and subsidies.<ref name="adegopp"/><ref name="blbocat"/> SCS expects construction will begin in 2012 and does not anticipate the need for large amounts of money until 2011.<ref name="apfuebas"/> SCS hopes the national economy will have recovered by then.<ref name="apfuebas"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | SCS anticipates that federal climate legislation will create carbon tax credits, allowing the plant to generate $100 million per year from the credits.<ref name="apfuebas"/> The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would create a ninety-dollar-a-ton credit from CCS projects. Federal money could also come from a government offering of $1.8 billion for coal gasification projects.<ref name="blbocat"/> Tim Bauer of SCS has said that the company "would accept economic development funds if they became available."<ref name="adegopp"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In addition to selling electricity, the PurGen One plant is expected to generate additional income from selling fertilizer and disposing carbon from other industrial sources.<ref name="apfuebas"/> Carbon disposal fees are expected to run $240 million per year.<ref name="blbocat"/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Tax payers are expected to provide approximately $200,000,000 per year.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Public Relations==
| |
| − | In an attempt to distance PurGen One from the negative connotations associated with coal-fired power plants, SCS Energy promotes PurGen One as a plant that "will not burn coal," because coal would not simply be burned but rather gasified.<ref name="pgoapgo">[http://www.purgenone.com/about-purgen-one.php "About PurGen One",] PurGen One website, accessed September 7, 2010.</ref> However, PurGen One is fueled by coal and therefore, like other coal-gasification plants, is a coal-fired power plant.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Citizen Groups==
| |
| − | * [http://www.stoppurgencoalplant.org/ The COALition to STOP PURGEN], purgenfacts@gmail.com
| |
| − | * [http://www.littoralsociety.org/ American Littoral Society]
| |
| − | * [http://www.bluewavenj.org BlueWaveNJ]
| |
| − | * [http://www.cornucopianetwork.org/ Cornucopia NJetwork of NJ]
| |
| − | * [http://www.rachel.org Environmental Research Foundation]
| |
| − | * [http://www.essexcountygreens.org Essex County Greens]
| |
| − | * [http://bcgreenheartsmovement.blogspot.com/ Green Hearts Environmental Movement at Bloomfield College]: bcgreenheartsmovement@gmail.com
| |
| − | * Linden Society for Sustainable Development: 908-494-8448, [http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=109950339408 Facebook page]
| |
| − | * [http://www.njeja.org N.J. Environmental Justice Alliance]
| |
| − | * [http://www.mcclearwater.org/ New Jersey Friends of Clearwater] (formerly Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater)
| |
| − | * [http://www.newjersey.sierraclub.org/ NJ Sierra Club]
| |
| − | * [http://nynjbaykeeper.org/ NY/NJ Baykeeper]
| |
| − | * [http://www.popcentraljersey.org/ People's Organization for Progress]
| |
| − | * [http://www.surfrider.org/ Surfrider Foundation]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Articles and resources==
| |
| − | ===Related SourceWatch Articles===
| |
| − | *[[New Jersey and coal]]
| |
| − | *[[United States and coal]]
| |
| − | *[[Carbon Capture and Storage]]
| |
| − | *[[Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States]]
| |
| − | *[[IGCC]]
| |
| − | *[[Existing U.S. Coal Plants]]
| |
| − | *[[SCS Energy]]
| |
| − | *[[:category:Proposed coal plants in the United States|US proposed coal plants (both active and cancelled)]]
| |
| − | *[[Coal plants cancelled in 2007]]
| |
| − | *[[Coal plants cancelled in 2008]]
| |
| − | *[[NAACP Climate Justice Initiative Clearing the Air Road Tour]]
| |
| − | *[[State-by-State Guide to Information on Coal in the United States|State-by-state guide to information on coal in the United States]] '''(or click on the map)'''
| |
| − | <us_map redirect="{state} and coal"></us_map>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===References===
| |
| − | {{reflist|2}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===External resources===
| |
| − | * Information and video on the project by Dr. Peter Montague (Dec. 21, 2009): http://www.sehn.org/blog/?p=171
| |
| − | * [http://climatejusticeinitiative.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/clearing-the-air-road-tour-day-i-new-jersey/ NAACP Climate Justice Initiative "Clearing the Air Road Tour," Day 1: New Jersey]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===External articles===
| |
| − | * Kate Galbraith, [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/business/energy-environment/18clean.html "A Plan for U.S. Emissions to Be Buried Under Sea"], ''New York Times'', April 17, 2009.
| |
| − | * Andrew Davison, [http://sub.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-03/Front_Page/Environmental_groups_oppose_power_plant.html "Environmental groups oppose power plant: PurGen official says plant would be clean, safe"], Suburban (Old Bridge/Seyreville), June 3, 2010.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category: Proposed coal plants in New Jersey]][[Category:New Jersey]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Proposed coal plants in the United States]]
| |
This page has moved to the Global Energy Monitor wiki. Please click here.