- Related Stories
-
Cellulosic ethanol: A fuel for the future?
August 14, 2007 -
Powering cities on landfill waste
June 6, 2007 -
Green-tech pros eye cash in carbon
May 9, 2007 -
MIT: To keep coal, carbon needs to go underground
March 14, 2007
Their company, GreatPoint Energy, is commercializing a technology to convert coal to natural gas--turning one of the dirtiest fuels into one of the cleanest.
The Cambridge, Mass.-based start-up is in the process of raising a large round of funding to finance its expansion, which will include construction of a demonstration plant next year, company executives told CNET News.com.
It has already raised two rounds of funding totaling $37 million from venture capital firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Khosla Ventures, Advanced Technology Ventures and Draper Fisher Jurvetson.
Like many recently formed clean tech companies, GreatPoint Energy is resurrecting a technology--in this case so-called catalytic gasification--that was never fully commercialized. Because of today's higher energy costs and concern over global warming, executives say that process is again worth pursuing.
The company recently completed a trial in a plant in Des Plaines, Ill. It now projects that it can create natural gas cheaper than current market prices--while minimizing the environmental impact of coal.
"Coal to a lot of environmentalists is a four-letter word," said company CEO and co-founder Andrew Perlman. "Our conclusion--and again, we came to this from an environmental perspective--is that coal is not going away. In fact, it's growing like crazy."
China and India are rapidly constructing coal-fired power plants to meet soaring energy demands. Coal is the fuel for more than half of the electricity production in the United States because it's abundant and relatively inexpensive.
Perlman, a high-tech entrepreneur, formed GreatPoint Energy with Aaron Mandell and childhood friend Avi Goldberg with the desire to break into the clean energy field. He assembled a team of engineers who originally worked on catalytic gasification in the late 1970s and 1980s to establish the company's core technology.
The company, having done its initial tests, says it can produce natural gas at about $4 per million BTUs (British thermal units), lower than the current market price of nearly $7 per million BTUs. The company calls its product "bluegas" and intends to brand it as a cleaner alternative.
"If you take the opinion that coal is not going away and there is very little you can do to change that, you have got to come up with an economic way to make it much, much cleaner," Perlman said.
Can coal be clean?
Coal creates the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as well as other pollutants mercury and sulfur when burned. Per unit of energy, it is the most polluting fossil fuel and accounts for about one-third of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States (petroleum produces more carbon dioxide because more is burned), according to the United States Energy Information Administration.
Worldwide, emissions of carbon dioxide from burning coal were 10.5 billion metric tons in 2004--nearly double the amount from natural gas, according to the USEIA, which forecasts a steady increase in coal consumption in the coming decades.
In general, environmentalists oppose construction of new coal-fired power plants in favor of renewable energies or gas-fired plants, which burn cleaner. Even so-called clean coal technologies, which seek to reduce pollutants or to sequester carbon dioxide underground during power generation, are controversial.
GreatPoint Energy's technology uses gasification, the process of applying heat and pressure in a reactor tank. That technique is used by other clean coal approaches now being tried. But unlike other efforts, GreatPoint uses a catalyst that aids in the creation of methane, or natural gas.
The company won't talk in detail about its catalyst or how it's used to treat coal, except to say that it's made of an earth metal and that it comes from the minerals industry.
The effect of using the catalyst is that a gasification process that typically takes four steps is reduced to one which lowers the cost of building and operating a plant, said GreatPoint Chief Financial Officer Daniel Goldman, who co-founded the advocacy group Environmental Entrepreneurs. The process is 65 percent efficient in converting coal to gas and the methane produced is 99.5 percent pure, the company says.
Energy consulting firm Nexant performed a feasibility study on behalf of GreatPoint to determine if its technology can produce gas cost-effectively. One of the primary advantages of doing catalyst-based gasification is that it can operate at lower temperatures, which makes it cheaper than other alternatives, and it produces more methane, said Tan-Ping Chen, senior vice president of energy technology at Nexant.
Chen said that GreatPoint Energy's technology is indeed different from other coal gasification processes and that it does work. The estimated cost of producing natural gas from coal hinges on a few assumptions, notably the ability to recover the catalyst after the gasification process, he added.
Gasification "is a very clean way to clean coal. That's universal and not unique (to GreatPoint Energy)," he said. "Most other gasification processes create gas that may contain little methane. (With GreatPoint's process), you already start with a significant amount."
- More from News.com on this story's topics
Environment and Energy
See more CNET content tagged:
coal,
natural gas,
carbon,
plant,
cleaner



The energy expended to bring the energy to the light switch at homes and businesses is NOT cost effective at all. In fact it is NINTEENTH CENTURY TECHNOLOGY, dressed up and sold to the American people like SNAKE OIL.
What the world needs is intelligent engineering from folks like the guys at CNET who can develop products that work on 1/100th of the required electricity to run; thereby requiring less to provide... as in the idea of lighting homes with LEDs... etc. It's time for these products and it's far past time for Tesela's lighting process to come forward. Of course the guys on Wall Street will kick and scream because they won't get their dividend checks anymore when the energy needs of the nation drop.
Is it possible we have the wrong model operating in that PROFIT is the GOD of the nation instead of SURVIVAL? Or HEALTH/QUALITY OF LIFE?
I think the time to rethink this model has come because soon the earth will belch us up in a mighty upheaval that will utterly destroy all that we have built if we don't. We really don't have a choice. Adapt or die.
The eco-nuts want inefficient and expensive solar power plants and wind farms. All of these are great to have, but they are not the answer to our energy needs.
The only sensible answer to pollution and energy needs is nuclear power. Yes, there is the nuclear waste. But these can be safely stored away underground. The US has plenty of uranium, we don't need to dig for uranium for a long time. One kilogram of uranium equals 1500 tons of coal.
But, of course, an eco-nut is probably going to reply to my message and tell me how unsafe nuclear power is, even though there has been a grand total of 0 deaths to nuclear power accidents, including the famous three mile island incident.
"It also expects to capture pollutants, including mercury and sulfur, and sell them to chemical companies."
The reason why coal is so 'dirty' has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide (which is none-toxic and not a pollutant). The estimated hundreds of thousands of premature deaths worldwide EVERY YEAR that can be attributed to coal power plants is caused by the air pollution they spew, things like oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, particulate matter and the heavy metals contained within coal.
The trick to making coal less dirty (it'll never be "clean") is what you do with all the excess crap in it. Traditional coal plants just spew them out their flue gas stacks, hopefully trapping some with scrubbers (only ~1/3rd of coal plants have those though) or they fall out as ash which tends to just get dumped. With these less-dirty-coal plants the pollutants typically end up being mainly extracted with water, so then it becomes a question of what to do with the waste water from the process. If the plant just discharges their effluent into the local stream then we're no better off (and maybe worse off) then we are burning the coal. On the other hand, if they are able to remove the vast majority of pollutants from the waste water stream and either dispose of them safely or even sell them as by-products then this process could be a big improvement.
The long story short though is that the gasification is only one piece of the puzzle in making coal less dirty. And that's without even counting the pollution involved in mining the stuff in the first place!
Remember this: The oxygen that flows across the continent comes over the Pacific Northwest. If the trees in these mountains can not scrub the pollutants out of the air from China and add the oxygen required to keep all the red necks in the center of the continent alive; we all die.
So goes the future.
We all need air to breathe.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003844502_powerplant20m.html
Nuclear waste is a proven technology that is prohibited in the United States by Presidential directive - makes as much sense as prohibiting the reprocessing of aluminum cans. After completing the fuel cycle, the power plant fuel has nearly (could be more than 100% if designed right) as much usable fuel in another form as it had when enriched from the mines. We don't reprocess it for several political reasons - mainly to preserve the power monopoly of the oil and coal companies.
There are no real new environmental issues. Build plants in groups of four - one reprocessing plant takes about 4 nuclear power plants to feed it. Generate electricity, reprocess the fuel, add some new fuel if needed, and generate more electricity.
Only thing that leaves the plant is power, hot waste water for cooling the reactors and generators, and some low level waste that can be easily stored since it is safe in a much shorter time.
Even the cleanest coal plant takes heavy metals and other pollutants that are now buried (think of it as natures long term underground storage) and introduces them back into the biosphere. Oil plants are worse in a way, besides killing miners and poisoning our air, every oil plant in a small way funds terrorism.
Finally, there are the thousands of left over bombs from the cold war. Think they just want away? Wrong they are stored, above ground, in hope they are never needed and will go away in only 10,000 years. Start our national reprocessing program by reprocessing the no-longer-needed bombs into usable fuel for modern reactors. We can make all the electricity the US needs for about 3-5 years by beating our swords into plowshares.
The technology is here - sure the nuclear problems have safety concerns - but as of today, many more people have been killed by coal and oil pollution, production accidents, and wars than all the nuclear accidents combined. The oil and coal killing will continue without reduction - nuclear killing is mostly theoretical - properly run and properly recycled, France has still suffered some minimum number of construction accidents - after all, we are talking about big plants - but they have not had a nuclear life loss -- while we have had 3500 young brave soldiers lost in Iraq protecting our oil imports.
Thank you for reading this far. /Stu
France does it - and reprocesses some of ours in the process. Prohibiting reprocessing of nuclear fuel makes as much sense as prohibiting reprocessing of aluminum cans - maybe less since aluminum waste is fairly harmless.
http://www.textypisni32.com/pisni/pet-shop-boys/
http://www.textypisni32.com/pisni/faith-hill/