New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Coal Gasification and Carbon Capture Increasingly Linked

Industry manufacturers appear to favor the technology combination

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Oil giant BP and General Electric Co. announced plans yesterday to collaborate on a 250-megawatt coal-fired power plant that would employ integrated gasification technology and carbon dioxide capture in Southern California.

The plant, to be built near Bakersfield in oil-rich Kern County, is the result of a technology licensing agreement between GE Energy and Hydrogen Energy International, a joint venture of BP and mining giant Rio Tinto.

Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology is in use at dozens of pilot projects worldwide, but commercialization is still several years away. GE's technology is being used at about 70 gasification plants worldwide, 40 of which are sequestering CO2.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The proposed plant would gasify petroleum coke, coal or a combination of the two, then send it through chemical scrubbers to filter out carbon dioxide. The gasified coal would power a turbine, while the CO2 would be piped to an adjacent oil field for sequestration and possible enhanced oil recovery. Up to 90 percent of the plant's CO2 emissions would be captured, company officials said.

BP and GE have plans for at least four more IGCC plants under a collaboration first announced in 2007. The Bakersfield plant will be their first.

Officials did not say when the plant would open or how much it would cost, but a paper released earlier this year by Hydrogen Energy and Harvard University put the cost of carbon capture at $120 to $180 per ton for IGCC plants (ClimateWire, July 21).

Kahn reported from San Francisco.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe