Gillette & K-Fuel Production:In the future we'll still see lots of K-fuel based on PRB feedstock, and production rates will expand significantly. In my comments earlier I was only suggesting that Arch is probably going to take the leading role in producing large quantities of PRB K-fuel, as they have been planning to do for a long time. (The Wyoming DEQ air permit was already started more than a year ago.)
Evergreen has always had the capability to expand that Ft. Union plant. But, let's face it, production beyond current levels begins to challenge the concept of being a "pilot plant", with the primary purpose of producing large test burn samples for potential customers. The question of where to expand PRB production all boils down to simple economics. Quite simply, a new state-of-the-art Arch plant would be more economical. Consider that Ft. Union uses natural gas as a fuel source, and the new Arch plant will burn much more economical coal. Arch also has better rail access, and their HUGE mine will be located right there at the K-fuel plant, eliminating rail transport costs for raw feedstock. From a large production standpoint, I don't see how the existing Ft. Union can compete with that.
The Ft. Union plant still has a great deal of value, especially considering that it is currently the only way to produce significant amounts of K-fuel for test burns, and to supply Evergreen's existing smaller customers. Even if Bechtel started pouring concrete tomorrow for a new Arch K-fuel plant, it would be at least 18 months before they could produce a single ton of K-fuel. It also seems obvious that the Ft. Union plant has proven to be a very useful tool in further developing the overall technology. They continue to find ways to improve the ancillary systems which are critical to the overall production process. Another advantage that hasn't been talked about lately centers on the fact that multiple production variables in the K-fuel process exist, and Ft. Union is an ideal laboratory for optimizing the production process. Heat, pressure, and processing time can all be varied to modify product characteristics, and with a world of difference in feedstock types, there is unlimited potential for product improvement. However, you need a plant with diverse processing capabilities to further develop the process, and Ft. Union fits the bill. For example, the Ft. Union plant now has high pressure reboiler capability, and they already know from previous experience that higher amounts of sulfur can be squeezed out at higher pressures. Tweeking the process like that at Ft. Union could pay big dividends for customers with high sulfur feedstock.
I also forecast the K-Direct concept will quickly gain popularity, especially for customers like TXU. Rail transport issues make K-Direct a viable alternative for mine-mouth power plants that can no longer burn the local coal due to environmental concerns. For example, some of the power plants in Texas gave up burning the local lignite a long time ago, because it was just too dirty. The K-Direct concept would allow them to start using that lignite again, and avoid expensive importation of PRB coal.
I really don't see K-fuel competing with new technologies like IGCC anytime soon. Even the government has recently backed off on their support for IGCC, given that it isn't mature enough yet. On the other hand any large mine-mouth power plant can have Bechtel start building their own K-Direct plant today, resolving all their emissions problems in two years or less. K-fuel is a very viable concept for older power plants in which it is impractical and/or uneconomical to install new scrubbing capability.