hrl cost blowout, page-6

Brabus,

There are several misleading statements in your post.

'This techology is openly working in the USA and EUROPE, today! not tomorrow, but now!!!!!!"

"There are several refinery-based IGCC plants in Europe....All refinery-based plants use refinery residues, rather than coal, as the feedstock"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:v9rsSC2pYs0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_gasification_combined_cycle+igcc&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au

Below is the latest effort - canned too.

"Cost concerns are a primary reason for IGCC plant cancellations. In 2007, 11 clean coal plants were abandoned or put on hold due to strained project economics from escalating costs or failed funding, while four projects suffered similar fates in 2008. Last year, NRG cancelled its La Porte, Texas, facility, while American Electric Power puts its 629-MW Meigs County IGCC project on hold."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E3NeAXhBmQUJ:www.powermag.com/POWERnews/2683.html+lignits+igcc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au

The main reason why USC is favoured over IGCC in China etc is IGCC is about 2-3 times the cost. EG...HRL's unproven model is now $1.2 Bill for 600MW...or about $4.5 Bill to convert LYP - never going to happen.

And thats for unproven IGCC let alone IDGCC.

Do you think the large scale burns happening in China are wrt IGCC? No - they are USC burns.

The IGCC plant you refer to in Florida was built in 1996 - why virtually none built since?

ECT are going with proven USC for obvious reasons.