Sent:Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:44 PM
Mr Stickles:
I am replying to your question on whether a State Statute
exists that
limits the time a train can extend/block across a road or highway at
a
crossing. I have been unable to find a Florida Statute that specifies
the
amount of time that a train may occupy the crossing when vehicles are
present and waiting to pass. However, there may be local ordinances
that
specify a length of time that the train may block the crossing.
If you are experiences are continuing problem at the same
crossing at the
same time of day I would suggest that you contact the Railroad company
operating on that rail line and make a formal complaint. Sometimes there
are spur lines that the rail cars are being transported onto which take
extra time and often require a backup on to the crossing area.
I hope this information is of some assistance to you.
Gary M. Fitzpatrick, P.E.
Administrator of Rail Operations
Florida Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Sta 25
Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-0450
(850) 414-4541, SC 994-4541
gary.fitzpatrick@dot.state.fl.us
Sent: Tuesday, June
21, 2005 3:42 PM
Dear All,
I spoke with Ms. Jan Borderline of Florida Department of Transportation
Rail division this afternoon. Her phone number is 850-414-4100 and ask
for her, if you have further questions.
We spoke about guidelines and statues of road blocking by trains. She
stated to me that there is no Florida law or guideline as to how long
a road can be blocked by a train (moving or stationary). the only law
on the book is for emergency vehicles and that a train has to disconnect
cars and allow emergency vehicles through.
I find this very important as to FPL wanting to use the rail line along
Glades-Cutoff Road.
As I hear or find other info, I will pass along.
Philip Stickles
10800 Carlton Road
Fort Pierce, FL 34987
Home 772-489-0603
Cell 954-683-6851
Sent: 5/11/2005 2:47 PM - [Sorry
for the delay on posting]
Dear Sir:
I read the article about FutureGen and I was told by
one of the DOE
personnel that you are in charge of the project. Do you have any
information on the current status of the project and what will be its
future as another source of electricity? How economical will it be to
turn it into a commercial venture?
Nelly Spengler
Reply: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:56 PM
Nelly: We are still in the planning stages of the FutureGen
project.
You can find further information at our website www.netl.doe.gov under
'Strategic Center for Coal' (on the right-hand side) and then
'FutureGen'.
The FutureGen facility will be the cleanest coal-fired
power plant in
the world. A near-zero emissions profile will be achieved via 1)
Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) technology, 2)
co-production of electricity and hydrogen, and 3) CO2 sequestration.
We
are looking for less than a 10% increase in the cost of electricity
compared to non-sequestered systems.
FutureGen will be a prototype facility, where new fossil
energy
concepts can be tested and optimized. So, yes, we hope to demonstrate
economically and commercially viable processes that will lay the
groundwork for coal-fired power plants in the 21st century.
Sincerely,
Tom Sarkus
Reply: Friday, May 13, 2005 10:42 AM
Nelly: From the Report to Congress that is posted on our
website,
FutureGen Planning & Design activities are expected to run to about
2009, Construction will run from 2008 to 2011 (there is often some
slight overlap between Design & Construction to allow for long-lead
equipment purchases which are considered construction activity and final
design-stage adjustments or improvements), Shakedown & Startup will
occur in 2011, Operations will be conducted from 2012-2015, and Site
Monitoring will continue to 2018. Tom Sarkus
Question sent: 5/13/2005 10:51 AM
Can old and existing coal-fired power plants such as
the supercritical coal plant be able to use the anti-pollution devices
that will be used for this futuregen plant? Can they be retrofitted?
Any information will be appreciated. Thank you.
Reply:Friday, May 13, 2005 11:26 AM
Nelly: That's a hard question to answer. It depends on
the particular
device. For example, SCR (selective catalytic reduction) systems for
NOx control can be retrofitted onto an existing power plant...if there's
enough space to accommodate the new equipment. Where space is limited,
elaborate 'shoe-horning' techniques might allow installation, but at
higher costs. Much of that is already happening at power plants across
the country. I don't want to rule out the possibility of retrofitting
FutureGen technologies onto older power plants, but for the most part
FutureGen will focus on applications for new/future power plants.
In general, you probably can't convert a supercritical
boiler into an
IGCC facility, and if you could it would be rather expensive. However,
you can utilize portions of an existing power plant when building a
new
one, and it can actually lower expenses. Engineers call this
'repowering' and it can take many forms. For example, by building at
an
existing site (or site repowering), you may be able to take advantage
of
existing roads, railroads, waterways, transmission lines, etc. So, even
if you demolished the old plant and built a new one, you might save
substantially by using the existing infrastructure.
You could even go further and utilize portions of the
old power plant,
such as the steam turbine. There are currently two coal-based IGCC
plants in the U.S. (and two more in Europe). The one at Tampa
Electric's Polk Station reclaimed some abandoned phosphate mining land,
but was otherwise a wholly new or 'greenfield' facility, as were the
two
built in Europe (at Buggenum in the Netherlands and at Puertollano in
Spain). However, the one built at Wabash River near Terre Haute, IN
was
a repowering project. At Wabash River, a new gasifier and gas turbine
were coupled to an existing steam turbine. The new power plant has a
thermal efficiency of nearly 40%, compared to 31% for the old power
plant if memory serves.
Sorry for the long answer, but I hope this helps!
Tom Sarkus
Question Sent: 5/13/2005 12:01 PM
Thanks for that elaborate answer. Is it true that IGCC is not worth
building right now as a commercial venture because of its cost and
unreliability? Can IGCC handle a 850MW power plant?
Reply sent: May 13, 2005 1:59 PM
Nelly: There are approximately 1100 coal-based power generation
units
in the U.S., and only two of them (Polk & Wabash River) use IGCC.
So,
yes, it almost goes without saying that IGCC does not yet have the
levels of familiarity and reliability that have become associated with
more conventional pc (pulverized coal) boiler technology. But, that
should change with time, as more IGCC plants are built and electric
industry personnel become more familiar with their operation. We
believe that IGCC not only has a lower emissions profile (e.g., SOx,
NOx, particulates, mercury) than pc technology, but that it also
provides a platform for moving toward higher levels of thermal
efficiency. And should CO2 emissions control become a reality, economic
studies favor IGCC over both pc units and natural gas combined-cycle
(NGCC) power plants.
IGCC costs are often sensitive to site-specific factors.
Remember,
there are only four commercial-scale coal-based IGCC systems worldwide,
all built approximately 8-10 years ago. (There are perhaps twice as
many IGCC units that operate on petroleum and petroleum coke, mostly
at/near oil refineries, which also adds to our experience base. There
are also a number of gasification plants wordwide that produce chemicals
rather than electricity.) The costs of a newer IGCC unit should be able
to build upon that experience. IGCC costs presently range from perhaps
5% to 20% more than a supercritical plant. That differential should
narrow as designs are improved, etc. Some experts suggest that IGCC
costs can be lowered substantially by moving to larger IGCC units to
reap 'economies of scale'. Most often, I hear of 500MW to 600MW as the
next level suggested. Eventually, things can go to 850MW or more for
a
single-train IGCC unit. Alternatively, consider three 285MW IGCC units
side-by-side at the same power plant site.
We're trying to foster IGCC under the Clean Coal Power
Initiative, or
CCPI. Two CCPI projects plan to build newer IGCC units near Orlando,
FL
(285MW) and Hoyt Lakes, MN (2x260MW=530MW). Like FutureGen, both are
in
the planning/design stage. We also have a very active Gasification R&D
program.
Sincerely,
Tom Sarkus
Question sent: 5/11/2005 2:29 PM
Hello Ms. Brickett,
I read this article entitled:Control
Technology - Pilot Plant Study of Technologies for Reducing Hg, SO3,
& NOx
via internet and very interested to find out the result of the pilot
plant. Is the mercury removal a success and how much is removed?
I would appreciate any information about this project.
Thank you.
Nelly Spengler
Reply sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:09 PM
Nelly-
The testing was successful, we saw between 55 and 75% mercury removal.
I am awaiting a final report that will be completed next month at which
time I can provide more specific details.
Let me know if you would like additional info.
Best,
Lynn A. Brickett
Project Manager
Environmental Projects Division
USDOE-NETL
626 Cochrans Mill Road
P.O. Box 10940
Pgh, PA 15236
Ph. 412-386-6574
Fax 412-386-5917
Brickett@netl.doe.gov
