Posts
In Kentucky's energy plan there is a disconnect between Coal-to-Gas and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC).
It seems that the plan calls for separate Coal-to-Gas facilities.
To be clear the residential price for natural gas is just now falling from it's peak of $20 per thousand cubic feet. However the general increase in the price of natural gas is not guaranteed. It is possible that national natural gas available will rise with the use of domestic Shale Gas and other "unconventional" sources.
We are caught in a situation were future natural gas prices will either dramatically increase or dramatically decrease.
In this regard would it not be better to move efforts into separate Coal-to-Gas facilities into IGCC power plants instead.
Here is the reasoning. Natural Gas is needed more in the winter when electricity demand is low. Electricity is needed more in the summer when natural gas demand is low. An IGCC and Coal-to-Gas both produce syngas. Wouldn't a plant that can switch between electric production and syngas production be a way to hedge the bet on where natural gas prices may go?
A more aggressive plan on replacing existing coal boilers with IGCC with full CCS capabilities would eliminate trying to fit CCS onto the older boilers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
interesting post. you might find some useful information at http://acccforum.blogspot.com.
Actually, two facilities that are in various stages of development do precisely that. One is in Cash Creek Kentucky. The other is in Taylorville, Illinois. Both are coproduction facilities that are designed to sell in a strategy very similar to what you're describing and for the same reasons. If electricity is more profitable, pump the gas to the companion NGCC facility. If gas is more profitable, pump it into the interstate pipeline.
These facilities produce substitute natural gas (SNG), not syngas. This results in higher efficiency.
Post a Comment