Open main menu
SourceWatch

PurGen One

Revision as of 16:21, 16 September 2010 by Colleenelizabeth (talk | contribs) (SW: SW: →‎Location: fix heading)

{{#Badges:CoalSwarm}}

The #evp parser function was deprecated in EmbedVideo 2.0. Please convert your parser function tag to #ev.
The #evp parser function was deprecated in EmbedVideo 2.0. Please convert your parser function tag to #ev.

SCS Energy (SCS) has proposed constructing PurGen One, a 500-megawatt (MW) integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) / coal-to-fertilizer plant at old industrial site near the shore in Linden, 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.

Contents

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.[1]

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.[1]

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.[1]

Project Details

Sponsor: SCS Energy
Location: Linden, New Jersey
Capacity: 500MW
Type: IGCC/coal-to-fertilizer
Status: Proposed March 2009

Location

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).[2] Staten Island lies across Arthur Kill. Newark, NJ and New York, NY are a half hour's drive from the site.

History of the location

PurGen One is planned to be built on the 100-acre site of a former chemical manufacturing factory. [3] 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.[3] In 1928, DuPont purchased the site where the company made pesticides until 1990.[3] SCS Energy will purchase the site from DuPont for $95 million.[4]

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.[3] 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."[3] 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.[3] 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.[3]

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The idea for PurGen One evolved out of a 2006 paper titled "Permanent carbon dioxide storage in deep-sea sediments," written by Harvard University graduate student Kurt Zenz House and professor Daniel Schrag.[4] The paper argued that layers of rock deep beneath the ocean floor would be the best place to sequester carbon dioxide.[4] Following the paper's publication, SCS Energy hired Daniel Schrag as a consultant.[4]

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.[5] 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.[4][6]

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.[6] In some places (particularly shipping lanes), the pipeline may be buried seventy to eighty feet into the ocean floor.[6] 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.[6]

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.[6]

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.[4] 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.[4] 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.[6] 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.[6] There are also worries that the pipeline may not stay buried, increasing the risk of leaks or other damage.[6]

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."[5][6] Schrag calculates that the sandstone area may have the capacity for several billion tons.[5] 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.[5] 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."[5] 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.[5] SCS could take in $240 million per year for disposing ten million tons of CO2 from other New Jersey sources.[5] 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.[5] Schrag has said these factors "would make the project wildly profitable, as this project is already profitable [on the books] without any subsidy."[5]

SCS does not plan to create a test project.[7] The company often cites a carbon sequestration project, known as the Sleipner project, off the coast of Norway in the North Sea as a comparable operation.[7] The Sleipner project has been operating since 1996 and buries less than a quarter of the amount SCS plans to sequester.[4] 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.[7]

Financing

Tax payers are expected to provide approximately $200,000,000 per year.

Citizen Groups

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch Articles

<us_map redirect="{state} and coal"></us_map>

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 "Stopping the Coal Rush", Sierra Club. (This is a Sierra Club list of new coal plant proposals.)
  2. ↑ Jessica Harrop, "Climate Central shoot in Linden, NJ: Part 1 of 2", Climate Central, November 24, 2009.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Eliot Caroom, "Plan underway to clean up Linden's DuPont site", "Star-Ledger", September 2, 2010.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Kate Galbraith, "A plan for U.S. emissions to be buried under sea", "New York Times", April 17, 2009.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 Bruce Upbin, "Bury our carbon at sea", "Forbes", November 3, 2009.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 Andrew Davison, "Environmental groups oppose power plant", "Suburban", June 3, 2010."
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 "Frequently asked questions", PurGen One website, accessed September 7, 2010.

External resources

External articles

Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PurGen_One&oldid=495271"