Proposed IGCC power plant

On Tuesday, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors is expected to hire a consultant who will bring information to help them decide on a rezoning request for changes planned at the proposed 600 megawatt electric generation facility known as Bowie Power Station.

More than a year ago, the SouthWestern Power Group II, LLC (SWPG), the project developer, decided to change plans for the Bowie Power Station from a natural gas combined cycle plant to an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant because of the rising and fluctuating prices of natural gas.

The natural gas plant was originally proposed in 2001. The IGCC plant, touted as a clean-coal plant compared to existing traditional coal plants, requires more acreage to accommodate the gasification portion of the plant. These additional 40 acres must also be zoned Heavy Industry (HI), said general manager Tom Wray, during an information update and barbeque at the Bowie Fire Station Saturday.

Richard Searle, County Supervisor for District 3, said the consultant's report should be completed in mid-August, and will be followed by a board of supervisors' work session, which will be public.

"We do not have the expertise in utilities needed to make a decision regarding the power plant and we will hire a consultant with that expertise to help us. Bowie Power Plant affects the whole county, not just Bowie," Searle told the crowd of about 100.

Searle said the Board should be ready to hear the rezoning proposal in early to mid September.

Wray said that the Board will hire the consultant and the consultant will work for the Board, but the consultant's fees will be paid by SWPG.

The IGCC process is about 10 years old, with commercial plants in Tampa, Fla., (Polk Power Facility) owned and operated by Tampa Electric, and Terre Haute, Ind., (Wabash River Power Facility) owned and operated by Global Energy. Each power plant generates approximately 250 megawatts, Wray said, adding that in this process, coal is not burned, but "gasified in a closed cycle process prior to combustion," which allows pollutants and by-products to be captured instead of emitted.

Wray said by-products of the gasification process include sulfur, which will be captured to sell as fertilizer; ash, which will mostly be sold for commercial uses such as asphalt; and mercury, a toxin, which will be captured and sold as much as possible to pharmaceutical companies for medicine or stored in rail cars and shipped to be disposed of as required by law.

"In traditional coal plants, mercury is not captured at all. It is emitted into the air. Traditional coal plants clean up after combustion, and most harmful pollutants have already escaped," he said.

In an IGCC plant coal is gasified and a synthetic gas (syngas) is produced. The syngas is then cleaned of harmful pollutants contained in the coal using commercially proven gas-cleaning processes. The combustion turbine-generator burns the clean syngas and generates power, he explained.

Wray said the plant must go back to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to obtain a new Certificate of Environmental Compatibility, as well as amend an Air Quality Permit, but he said, "All emissions must be under the maximum of the existing permit; we cannot pollute more. It will be as clean (as the natural gas plant) or cleaner."

As for additional pollutants, he said toxins arsenic and selenium are "essentially converted into air during the process."

He said the gasification process uses very little water and water usage will be no more than 6,000 acre-feet per year, less than current agriculture usage of the land, which he said was 9,800 acre-feet per year.

Wray added the plant will get more water from the coal it uses, which has about 75 to 80 percent moisture content, and they will recycle water 15 times, treating it to keep scaling down in the plant.

In addition, water will be used to keep dust contained on the incoming coal, he said.

A question concerning whether solar generation was being incorporated onto the site was asked.

Wray said "a section of the land (40 acres) has been set aside for renewable resources, and whether we or another party does that, it can be connected to the transmission line. We would accommodate a buyer," he said.

He added that the best area for wind-generated power is a corridor down the eastern edge of New Mexico, from its northeast corner to El Paso.

Carbon sequestration was also questioned by attendees.

Wray said carbon dioxide is more easily captured in an IGCC plant, and their plan is to liquefy it and pipe it to land set aside for a greenhouse and for a research to enhance plant growth. They want to use developing technology to sequester carbon dioxide terrestrially.

"I can't tell you how much of the product will be sequestered - maybe 40 percent - but that's much more than traditional coal."

"We have talked with Eurofresh, Inc., about using the plant's waste heat, waste water and carbon dioxide to enhance plant growth," he said. "We have set aside 250 acres for a greenhouse. We don't know how much acreage may be used. We intend for this to start at the get-go."

And about 50 acres are set aside for a research center for carbon terrestrial sequestration.

"Dr. Gene Giacomelli of the University of Arizona knows how he wants to do this; all he needs is money. He is going for a grant now," Wray said, adding it would likely be through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

When asked about where the power from the project would go, Wray said some power would go to Cochise County.

'We (SWPG) have publicly talked with Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative about purchasing power, especially for adding to peaking generation in Sierra Vista. We have also talked about SSVEC possibly owning a portion of the plant," he said.

Wray said SWPG had applied for U.S. Department of Energy tax credits under the Energy Policy Act, but were denied.

"No one received tax breaks," he said. "We applied under the sub-bituminous category, but because no one (of all applying) had commercial arrangements, no one qualified. They felt the proposals were premature.

"We can't make this work on a federal investment tax credit. We have to make it work on a stand-alone basis. We will reapply for credits, and would be nice to have. But we aren't relying on it."

"The IGCC plant will have 25 to 50 percent added cost (compared to tradition coal), but for environmental reasons, we proposed this technology," Wray said. "But to ignore 300 years of coal resources for power is asinine. The ACC (Arizona Corporation Commission) is watching carefully and they will raise the bar. New pulverized coal plants of any size are not likely to be permitted in the future."

source:www.willcoxrangenews.com