Greenpeace presents: CoalFinger

Here is why the coal industry in the Western world is losing their battle over environmental groups.

Videos such as the one below from Greenpeace are spreading the dirtiness of coal across the web using animated graphics. If the coal industry wants to put out the message of being clean and green, they should spend their money making cartoons. Of course that will elicit various response of them greenwashing…

Still there is hope for the coal industry. As soon as CCS technology can be economically commercialized, they can put out an animated ad of their own to replace Mr. Graverson Green.

In fact, UK power provider Powerful Power Ltd. (my tongue just got twisted I think) plans to start operating its new clean coal power station in in Stainforth, South Yorkshire, by 2013 using a carbon capture technology from Honeywell’s UOP business.

Honeywell said the new facility will be the first clean-power coal station in Europe and is designed for up to 90 percent overall carbon capture.

In the US, oil company ExxonMobil said it has committed more than $100 million to complete development and testing of an improved natural gas treating technology known as Controlled Freeze Zone (CFZ), which could make CCS more affordable and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

ExxonMobil is building a commercial CFZ demonstration plant near LaBarge, Wyoming, which is expected to be operational in late 2009.
addthis_pub = ‘greenchicgeek’;

One Response to Greenpeace presents: CoalFinger

  1. Pradeep 19 February, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    Catchy, but does Greenpeace know that coal supplies 51% of US electric power generation?

    I read about XOM’s CFZ process in a previous issue of a SPE magazine. It is mainly for processing “sour” natural gas containing extraordinary amounts of H2S and CO2. As opposed to Selexol and Rectisol processes which employ gas-liquid absorption, I think the CFZ process relies on cryogenic distillation to separate H2S and CO2 from natural gas.

    While this might be applicable for separating CO2 from oxygen-blown gasifier flue gases, I do not know how this can be extended to flue gas streams containing ~15% CO2 and a majoirity of N2.

    There are companies promoting enzyme-driven CO2 separations from flue gas streams (employing a version of carbonic anhydrase) to speed up the kinetics of CO2 dissolution in water. While the energy requirements to separate 1 mole of CO2 from the flue gas will still be the same (thermodynamics), higher throughput rates are likely the advantage here…

Leave a Reply