Powder River Basin (PR B) coal would fuel Trailblazer. The site chosen for development will take advantage of its proximity to potential CO markets, existing CO
22
pipelines and the confluence of existing rail to bring the coal from the PRB to the West Texas site. “If you wanted the absolute closest access to the West Texas enhanced oil recovery market you’d site the plant 50 or 100 miles farther west,” said Fiorelli. “But it was important to have dual rail.” The site has Union Pacific rails on the north and Burlington Northern Santa Fe rails on the south. “As you move farther west (in the state) you can’t get that advantage without building additional rail,” he said.
CO2 pipeline extensions can be built later by Tenaska or the CO2 off-taker. The existing West Texas CO2 pipeline reaches to within 50 miles of the Sweetwater site. “There could always be a market for CO
2
closer to our site that is not currently being met,” he said.
Because West Texas has little water, any base case scenario would also include dry cooling. Dry cooling reduces water consumption about 90 percent. That means Trailblazer would still require about a million gallons of water a day to operate.
Discussions are underway with some regional water supply entities to determine if there might be a way to improve that
situation, said Fiorelli.
“We are considering using some brackish water sources. We are also talking to people to see if we can access some water supplies that are perhaps beyond their reach and beyond ours, too, if acting alone.” He said Tenaska is prepared to go forward with dry cooling otherwise.
Texas grid operator ERCOT is also fast-tracking several new transmission projects to balance load across the control area and connect the rapidly growing wind capacity in West Texas to load centers elsewhere in the state.
Tenaska has discussed Trailblazer with environmental groups that might be expected to oppose coal-fired plants and found them generally supportive of a
proposal that would capture and sequester CO from the time the plant goes into
2 operation.
The company is also tracking developments in the continued re-thinking of FutureGen. Some Department of Energy funding initially earmarked for FutureGen might conceivably find its way to other carbon capture power projects like Trailblazer. “There are indications the DOE will consider sequestration from technology other than gasification,” Fiorelli said.
What’s more, some FutureGen funding could be re-deployed to Tenaska’s Illinois IGCC project. Fiorelli said that no established EOR market exists in Illinois that could generate a long-term revenue stream. If the Taylorville IGCC could benefit from the FutureGen follow-on program, it likely would inject CO into a deep saline aquifer.
2
“That’s not a revenue source, but we have submitted a response to DOE’s request for information,” he said.
Fiorelli said that Texas is working to add non-natural gas generation, primarily additional coal-fired plants, wind and a number of nuclear projects.
“There will be a move towards more non-natural gas-fired generation in Texas,” he said.
That’s what Tenaska, at least, is counting on.—Steve Blankinship
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) predictedthatunder Lieberman-Warner, estimates that seek to quantify the which many think has the most chance of ultimate cost to customers for carbon eventual passage, penalties levied for a ton capture and sequestration have created of carbon could start at more than $60 a dissention among utility members. The ton and reach $535 a ton by 2050.
split divides utilities that generate most A letter sent to EEI President Thomas
of their power with coal from those who Kuhn and signed by the top executive of
don’t. eight utilities said they believe “it will be
A report commissioned by EEI on important to accurately estimate the costs
potential costs associated with complying associated with the Lieberman-Warner
with a federal climate change bill such as Climate Security Act.” The study was
Lieberman-Warner predicts large expenses conducted for EEI by CR A International.
and potentially dire consequences from The letter requests that “a revised CRA
legislativeprescriptions. study should reflect the provisions of
Lieberman-Warner, generally viewed the recently passed energy bill and make
as one of the most practical proposal realistic assumptions involving carbon
before Congress, advocates cap-and- trading and other matters.”
trade initiatives in which utilities would The letter was signed by Scott Morris
have to cut greenhouse gas emissions of Avista, Mayo Shattuck of Constellation
or buy carbon credits as penalties. The Energy, J. Wayne Leonard of Entergy,
study predicted that in time, proposed John Rowe of Exelon, Thomas King of
legislation before Congress could lead National Grid, Peter Darbee of PG&E,
to 80 percent increases in the price Ralph Izzo of Public Service Enterprise
of residential electricity. The report Group and Lewis Hay III of FPL Group.
FPL Group commissioned a study by the Brattle Group that suggested global warming could be managed in the United States by starting with carbon fees at about $10 a ton. FPL’s study suggested the fees might initially add $7.50 to $10 to the average Florida customer’s monthly electricity bill.
Carbon recently has been trading at about $30 a ton in Europe, where debate exists over whether cap-and-trade based upon prices has been effective in lowering carbon emissions. The most broadly circulated number in the United States for a carbon price that would begin to have an effect is $50 a ton.
An EEI spokesman said the trade group is still fine-tuning the analysis and is not committed to a single analysis or set of numbers. “We simply want to find the best way to achieve major reductions in carbon emissions while minimizing costs to consumers,” said Jim Owen.—Steve Blankinship
References:
Archives