Southern Illinois To Sequester Wisconsin's C02
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 11.15.07
Maybe Wisconsin should pay for its CO2 sequestered in Illinois by lowering the toll fees on SUVs from Chicago-area tourists driving to Wisconsin? Just joking.
Here's a real question: if the FutureGen carbon sequestration project goes to Texas instead of nearby Illinois, what's Wisconsin Governor Doyle's climate management strategy? An all the eggs in one unproven technology basket could well lead to a "we better make it happen" project with high budget over runs and missed deadlines. And who would pay for the heavy-duty pipelines headed south to Illinois, carrying C02 at supercritical pressures? Dream on.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle on Tuesday signed on as a supporter of the nation's first ultra-clean coal-fired power plant sought for Illinois.A critical component of the project, known as FutureGen, involves storing carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas released by coal-fired power plants into the atmosphere, deep underground. The coal would be converted into a gas and then into hydrogen, for potential use in powering fuel cells. Illinois and Texas are vying to host the $1.5 billion FutureGen project, a joint effort of the U.S. Department of Energy and a consortium of coal producers and electric utilities. The project's goal is to test and show that next-generation coal technology will be ready to help coal-fired power plants curb their contribution to global warming.
A regional solution may be needed to address the need to store carbon dioxide after it's released from power plants, energy and geology experts say, because Wisconsin is among states that don't have any geologic formations that are deemed suitable for underground storage.But Illinois does. As a result, energy planners in Wisconsin see the need to lay groundwork for carbon dioxide from Wisconsin's coal plants to be shipped one day via pipeline to Illinois, where it could be stored underground.
Still waiting to hear from Great Lakes area governors on climate impacts of relying almost exclusively on gasoline made by Texifying God's Country.
Via::Journal-Sentinel Online, "Doyle backs clean coal plant in Illinois, Facility would showcase new technology." Image credit::Wisconsin Environmental Education Board
Actually, those tolls are run by ILLINOIS. Which annoys the heck out of Wisconsin drivers, b/c they charge DOUBLE when you pay cash instead of using that I-Pass thing or whatever.
I just take the train.
Wisconsin doesn't have toll roads, that's Illinois.
== author's response follows ===
It was a joke and I wanted to make that really obvious so no one thought I was seriously proposing it. I'm from Wisconsin.
Wisconsin has no toll roads. But maybe they should take your idea. The money is going to have to come from somewhere.
It makes sense to include many states or regions in a system of energy caps or credits. If you don't, 'leakage' occurs when products are bought from emitters outside the region. The EU built such a system because there are economic advantages to it. And states are organizing to do this on both coasts, for example -
http://www.rggi.org/
It is just a matter of time before the midwest wants something similar. This isn't ideal, but absent any federal action it gets the ball rolling.
Illinois has inherent advantages over Texas for the FutureGen plant. Lower carbon output due to bituminous coal vs. dirtier lignite. Lower transportation costs, geological formations that are not riddled with CO2 leak-prone oil wells. The later is especially important. If the goal is to prove that a process works, we better start with the site most likely to succeed. IL's neighbors realize this and want it sited nearby as a more convenient learning resource.
Just curious... Wouldn't it make more sense to duct the power plant's CO2 output into some kind of plant growing structure, like a greenhouse? Then the CO2 would be sequestered in the form of food for people to eat as opposed to useless inert salts. Wouldn't it?
Just curious... Wouldn't it make more sense to duct the power plant's CO2 output into some kind of plant growing structure, like a greenhouse? Then the CO2 would be sequestered in the form of food for people to eat as opposed to useless inert salts. Wouldn't it?