Using a gasifier to burn coal to make electricity rather than direct burn,

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html
Why is this not done more?


Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen, and other valuable energy products.

The first coal gasification electric power plants are now operating commercially in the United States and in other nations, and many experts predict that coal gasification will be at the heart of the future generations of clean coal technology plants for several decades into the future.

Rather than burning coal directly, gasification (a thermo-chemical process) breaks down coal - or virtually any carbon-based feedstock - into its basic chemical constituents. In a modern gasifier, coal is typically exposed to hot steam and carefully controlled amounts of air or oxygen under high temperatures and pressures. Under these conditions, carbon molecules in coal break apart, setting off chemical reactions that typically produce a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other gaseous compounds.

Gasification, in fact, may be one of the best ways to produce clean-burning hydrogen for tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells. Hydrogen and other coal gases can also be used to fuel power-generating turbines, or as the chemical "building blocks" for a wide range of commercial products. <> Read more about hydrogen production.>

Higher efficiencies mean that less fuel is used to generate the rated power, resulting in better economics (which can mean lower costs to ratepayers) and the formation of fewer greenhouse gases (a 60%-efficient gasification power plant can cut the formation of carbon dioxide by 40% compared to a typical coal combustion plant).

Go here http://depsc.delaware.gov/irp.shtml note that the timeline is grouped latest event first.

Buried on this page are all the details you could ask for on a comparison between NRG's coal gasification plant; Conectiv's natural gas plant; and BlueWater Wind's offshore wind power facility.

The coal gasification was shot down quickly because of expense and the fact it had never been built (as of 2007), and the wind won decisively over the natural gas.

The final approval for the wind farm is now being held up from having a final vote (it has overwhelming support both among the public and the legislators) in a single committee of the State Senate.


These are the criteria listed in the state law directing the RFP:
The Commission and Energy Office shall ensure that each RFP elicits and recognizes the value of:
a. proposals that utilize new or innovative baseload technologies,
b. proposals that provide long-term environmental benefits to the state,
c. proposals that have existing fuel and transmission infrastructure,
d. proposals that promote fuel diversity,
e. proposals that support or improve reliability, and
f. proposals that utilize existing brownfield or industrial sites.

http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis143.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+6/$file/legis.html?open

seems to me there are many advantages to going the gasifier route.

Another advantage of gasification-based energy systems is that when oxygen is used in the gasifier (rather than air), the carbon dioxide produced by the process is in a concentrated gas stream, making it easier and less expensive to separate and capture. Once the carbon dioxide is captured, it can be sequestered - that is, prevented from escaping to the atmosphere, where it could otherwise potentially contribute to the "greenhouse effect."

This state is dominated by conservative leaning Dems and Republicans. The fact is that an offshore wind farm won a head to head to head bid against a gasification plant and a natural gas plant. It was evaluated by a number of experts and the conclusion was unanimous except for the opinions of the bidders that lost and a couple of Senate members they have in their pocket.

I mean, if you don't want to accept that wind is a better option, that's up to you. Personally, I don't want another coal plant unless it is as environmentally benign as wind or solar.

if you don't like the subject just change it, huh. Is that what you're saying.

When the idea is evaluated objectively it simply doesn't pass muster. It is more coal industry bullshit.

their claim about sequestration is pure BS. They have no idea how to actually do it. None.

you are here to argue not explore ideas nor discuss such, sorry to bother you. my bad

Why does pointing out the problems with the technology mean I'm not here to explore nor discuss?

That's bullshit. You asked why it isn't being used and I told you. Delaware isn't the only instance where the idea has been shot down. It is massively expensive and it doesn't deliver on the promises. What more is there and why get a case of the ass over it?