8784 117 en - European Parliament · publication in the following languages: EN/DE/FR . Author :...

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH

WORKING PAPER

IMPLEMENTING CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES -

NEED OF SUSTAINED POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT

SUPPLY FOR A SECURE ENERGY SUPPLY

Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Series

__________STOA 117 EN __________

WORKING PAPER

IMPLEMENTING CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES -

NEED OF SUSTAINED POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT

SUPPLY FOR A SECURE ENERGY SUPPLY

Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Series

__________STOA 117 EN __________

12-2003

PE 338.431 - ii -

This study was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research

and Energy within the STOA Workplan 2002.

This paper is published in English only. However, an executive summary is included at the start of this

publication in the following languages: EN/DE/FR.

Author : Decon Deutsche Energie-Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH

Bad Homburg (D)

Responsible Official: Peter Palinkas

Division for Industry, Research, Energy, Environment andSTOA

Tel: (352) 4300 22920

Fax: (352) 4300 27718

E-mail: [email protected]

Manuscript completed in December 2003

Luxembourg, European Parliament, 2003

The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily

represent the official position of the European Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is

acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

Implementing Clean Coal Technologies

- iii - PE 338.431

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................. ix

Zusammenfassung................................................................................................... xv

Résumé................................................................................................................... xxiii

1. Objectives and Targets...................................................................................... 1

2. Introduction and Background........................................................................... 3 2.1 Challenges to Sustainable Development 3

2.1.1 Opportunities for High Efficiency Power Plant Technologies................................................ 3

2.1.2 Global and EU Energy and CO2 emissions Trends .............................................................. 4

2.1.3 The fuel – coal and its price ................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Initiatives to meet the challenges of this decade 9

2.2.1 Promoting supply security by meeting the capacity gap....................................................... 9

2.2.2 Promoting reduction of CO2 emissions by meeting the technology gap ............................. 10

2.2.3 Meeting the Technology Gap under Competitive Global Market Conditions ...................... 12

2.3 Market Barriers for CCT 12

3. Overview on Clean Coal Technologies .......................................................... 15 3.1 State of the Art - European market survey on available Clean Coal Technologies for

high-efficiency coal-fired power plants 15

3.1.1 PCF - conventional pulverised coal fired technology.......................................................... 16

3.1.2 FBC - Fluidised bed combustion ........................................................................................ 17

3.1.3 PFBC - Pressurised Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion ............................................... 19

3.1.4 IGCC - Integrated gasification combined cycle .................................................................. 21

3.2 EARLY-STAGE - coal fired power generation technologies 23

3.2.1 PPCC- Pressurised pulverised coal combustion ................................................................ 23

3.2.2 IGFC - Integrated gasification fuel cell (FC) technology .................................................... 23

3.2.3 IFPS - Indirectly fired power systems HIPPS - performance power systems..................... 24

3.2.4 MHD - Magnetohydrodynamic power generation ............................................................... 25

3.2.5 Coal diesel ......................................................................................................................... 25

3.3 European market survey on technologies for emission reduction in coal-fired power plants 26

3.3.1 Control of emissions from pulverised fuel combustion ....................................................... 26

3.3.2 Control of emissions from fluidised bed combustion .......................................................... 31

3.3.3 Outlook of emission reduction technologies ....................................................................... 32

3.4 Comparative analysis of different available technologies 33

3.4.1 Comparison of efficiency of CCT........................................................................................ 34

3.4.2 Comparison of emission characteristics............................................................................. 39

3.4.3 Assessment of further development potentials of available technologies........................... 40

3.5 Directory of potential European key actors in the emerging market for CCT in the power plant sector 44

3.6 Overview on previous and on-going European RTD and demonstration projects in the field of CCT 44


PE 338.431 - iv -

3.7 Comparison of CCT with alternative power generation options 50

4. Socio-economic relevance of CCT ................................................................. 53 4.1 The technology path towards security of energy supply 53

4.2 The policy path towards security of energy supply 54

4.3 Assessment of employment effects of a CCT implementation 58

5. Compatibility of CCT with European climate change policies .................... 61 5.1 Assessment of the CO2 reduction potential 62

5.2 Aspects of CCT under the Clean Development Mechanism 66

6. Compatibility of CCT with European RTD policies....................................... 69 6.1 Identified gaps in the European RTD policy 69

6.2 Assessment of CCT as initial point for implementing CO2-capture and sequestration in the future 70

7. Development of a CCT-demonstration project ............................................. 77 7.1 Technology trend for demonstration projects 77

7.2 Recommendations on site selection of future demonstration installations 78

7.3 Available public funding 79

8. Policy options and recommendations ........................................................... 81 8.1 Overcoming barriers of implementation of CCT 81

8.2 Policy options 82

8.3 Conclusions and recommendations 82

Annexes..................................................................................................................... 85 Annex 1: Summary table of demonstration projects of CCT in EU and non-EU countries 86

Annex 2: Technology matrix comparing available and future technologies with regard to their major design criteria 91

Annex 3: Directory of key actors involved in the development and implementation of CCT 95

Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 99


- v - PE 338.431

TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 2-1: World energy consumption .............................................................................................. 4

Figure 2-2: Development of the World‘s Electricity Production Fossil Fuels Dominate Power Generation ..................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2-3: Segmentation of the World Market for Power Plants ....................................................... 6

Figure 2-4: World power generation .................................................................................................. 6

Figure 2-5: Power Generation by energy form in EU ......................................................................... 7

Figure 2-6: Power plant capacities in the EU younger than 40 years................................................. 9

Figure 2-7: Modern fossil PP provide potential to reduce CO2-emissions ........................................ 10

Figure 2-8: Emission reduction with improved efficiency.................................................................. 11

Figure 3-1: Overview on the different Clean Coal Technologies ...................................................... 15

Figure 3-2: Concept of conventional PCF power plant with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) .......... 16

Figure 3-3: 265 MWel AFBC power plant (JEA large-scale CFB combustion project, USA) ............. 18

Figure 3-4: Design of 137 MWel PCFB power plant (McIntosh Unit 4A, USA).................................. 20

Figure 3-5: Concept of IGCC power plant........................................................................................ 21

Figure 3-6: Current status of flue gas cleaning equipment of European power plants (150 GWel) . 26

Figure 3-7: Wet FGD process with a spray tower ............................................................................ 28

Figure 3-8: Cost of electricity: gas combined cycle versus supercritical coal ................................... 34

Figure 3-9: Fuel consumption in g of coal equivalents per kWh....................................................... 35

Figure 3-10: Trend for increased efficiency........................................................................................ 35

Figure 3-11: Efficiency Evolution ....................................................................................................... 36

Figure 3-12: Net efficiency of power generation depending on upper temperature limit (Carnot process and different coal & gas technologies) ............................................................ 37

Figure 3-13: Structure of costs for electricity .................................................................................... 40

Figure 3-14: Clean Coal Technology trends ..................................................................................... 40

Figure 3-15: Development of High Temperature Materials ................................................................ 42

Figure 3-16: Recommendations for further R&D on CCT .................................................................. 43

Figure 3-17: Approach, timelines and targets of the POWER 21 initiative ......................................... 45

Figure 3-18: Timelines of POWER 21 and the parallel government initiative (SSA "FENCO") in the member states and their link to EU R&D Programmes................................................ 46

Figure 3-19: Ultra super critical power plant ...................................................................................... 46

Figure 3-20: Crucial components of the EU supported project AD 700 - THERMIE R&D .................. 48

Figure 3-21: Cost of Electricity (CoE) by Technology ........................................................................ 51

Figure 3-22: Potential, Requirements and Alternatives...................................................................... 51

Figure 4-1: Conditions for a balanced energy mix............................................................................ 54

Figure 4-2: Age structure of the European power plants.................................................................. 56

Figure 4-3: Estimated employment effects (direct, +indirect, +income generated) of CCT .............. 59

Figure 5-1: Global CO2 emissions.................................................................................................... 61

Figure 5-2: Specific CO2-emisisons of coal-fired plants ................................................................... 63

Figure 5-3: Reduction of CO2 emissions by replacement of coal-fired power plants worldwide ....... 64

Figure 5-4: Comparison of costs to avoid CO2 emissions by the replacement of old coal power plants (range indicated by upper part)..................................................................................... 65


PE 338.431 - vi -

Figure 6-1: Overview on CO2 capture technologies ......................................................................... 71

Table 3-1: Representative supercritical steam PCF power plants................................................... 17

Table 3-2: Commercial scale PFBC power plants .......................................................................... 20

Table 3-3: Commercial scale coal-fired IGCC power plants ........................................................... 22

Table 3-4: Technical Parameters of best available technology (BAT) in CCT................................ 36

Table 3-5: Brief evaluation of CCT characteristics.......................................................................... 38

Table 3-6: Emission Parameters of advanced CCT (BAT).............................................................. 39

Table 3-7: Comparison of main parameters of AD700 project ........................................................ 48

Table 3-8: The economic performance of the AD700 technology ................................................... 49

Table 4-1: Investment and input structure for new and retrofit CCT power plants .......................... 58

Table 5-1: Greenhouse gas emissions (excl. land-use change and forestry) in CO2 equivalents and Kyoto Protocol targets for 2008-2012 ........................................................................... 62

Table 5-2: Table on estimated CO2-emissions (g/kWh) for different fuels....................................... 63

Table 6-1: Estimated Reservoir Capacities of CO2 ......................................................................... 73

Table 7-1: Check list for demonstration project site and technology (USC/PFBC...) selection........ 80


- vii - PE 338.431

Abbreviations and Acronyms Adv Advanced AFBC Atmospheric (pressure) Fluidised Bed Combustion AGR Advanced Gas Reburn BAT Best Available Technology BFBC Bubbling Fluidised Bed Combustion BoA Advanced technology for (lignite-fired/thermal) Power Plants "Braunkohlenkraftwerk mit

optimierter Anlagetechnik“ CCPP Combined Cycle Power Plant CCT Clean Coal Technology CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEEC Central and Eastern European Countries CFBC Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion CHP Combined heat and power production (co-generation) CIS Commonwealth of Independent States CoE Cost of Electricity Conv Conventional DG Directorate General DH District Heating DoE US Department of Energy EC European Commission EP European Parliament EU European Union EESD Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, Component within RTD FP of the

EC ESP ElectroStatic Precipitator FBC Fluidised Bed Combustion FC Fuel Cell FEC Final Energy Consumption (used in energy balance) FF Fabric Filter FGD Flue Gas Desulphurisation FP Framework Programme HHV Higher Heating Value HIPPS High Performance Power Systems IEA International Energy Agency IFI International Financial Institution (e.g. WB, EBRD, KfW) IFPS Indirectly Fired Power Systems IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (combustion) IGFC Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell (conversion) LCP Large Combustion Plant LHV Lower Heating Value LIMB Limestone Injection - Multistage Burner LNB Low NOx Burner MCFC Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell MHD MagnetoHydroDynamo Power Systems MGT Micro Gas Turbine Mtoe Mega Tonne Oil equivalent NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OFA Over-Fire Air O&M Operation and Maintenance


PE 338.431 - viii -

PCC Pulverised Coal Combustion PCF Pulverised Coal Fired PEM Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell PFBC Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion PP Power Plant PPCC Pressurised Pulverised Coal Combustion PPP Public-Private-Partnership POLES A model to predict future energy demands and related GHG emissions (please check !) PR Public Relations RES , RET Renewable energy sources / Renewable energy technologies RTD Research and Technological Development RUE Rational use of energy SC Steam Cycle SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction SOFC Solide Oxide Fuel Cell TPP Thermal Power Plant USC Ultra Super Critical Steam Parameters UTRC Process named by developer: United Technologies Research Center WETO World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook (of the EC)

Weights and Measures (Metric and International Systems) bln or bn Billion (109) Gcal : Gigacalorie (106 kcal); (1 MWh = 0,86 Gcal ) GJ : Gigajoule (109 Joule); (1 MWh = 3,6 GJ; 1 GJ = 0,0341 tce; 1 GJ = 0,0239 toe) GT : Gigaton (109 tons = 1012 kg) h : hour(s) kW : kiloWatt = 1000 Watt MWh : MegaWatt hours = 1000 KWh MW : MegaWatt = 1000 kiloWatt MW el : Megawatt electric (1.000 kilowatts) MW th : Megawatt thermal (0,86 Gcal/h) tce : ton of coal equivalent (7*106 kcal or 29.302 MJ or 8,14 MWh) toe : ton of oil equivalent (107 kcal or 41.860 MJ or 11.628 MWh) yr : year(s)


- ix - PE 338.431

Executive Summary This study addresses the present and future role of high efficiency power plants based on Clean Coal Technologies (CCT). The overall objective of the study is to analyse the short and medium-term demand for the deployment of a low emission and high efficiency power plant using currently available CCT. The use of current available technology potential pro-vides a basis for ensuring the applicability and viability of new technologies.

In order to promote the above-mentioned objectives, the study’s main aim will be to detail and clarify the potential of CCT along with the ways with which to exploit it, by means of pro-viding:

• the strategic and socio-economic significance of a large-scale CCT project,

• reasons for why CCT fits into Europe's climate and RTD policies,

• the selection criteria for short and medium-term RTD activities to further develop CCT and ensure the viability of related projects,

• the basic understanding for cooperation between public and private decision makers, and

• suggestions gained from exploring financial resources for new CCT RTD projects

The demand and arguments for the further support of the development of European CCT are summarised with the aim to initiate commitment for new CCT projects at a very early stage prior to project identification. This is very important for liberalised power generators under harsh cost competitive conditions, as it is vital, before launching a full-scale demonstration project, to have prior proof of demand, availability and viability for such a CCT project.

The main focus of this study is given to coal combustion and gasification processes in the power plant because this is the specific technological challenge. Of course, the improvement in efficiency of other power plant components, such as the turbine, generator, heat exchang-ers, cooling system, etc. can contribute considerably to the increase in the gross efficiency of the power plant as a whole. These non-combustion components are not the specific focus of this study as these technology improvements can be applicable in all types of large scale power plants with a steam cycle.

Challenges, opportunities and demand for high efficiency power plants

In the EU today, energy supply is very much dependent on oil and gas, energy resources which have to be imported mostly from non-EU countries. The EU therefore faces the danger of steering towards a situation where its economic growth relies on a fuel/energy supply from a small number of non-member countries and is thus further away from self-sufficiency. At current levels, secured coal reserves are estimated to last for more than 200 years. This means that coal users can secure their energy supply in the long run, and can do so at com-petitive prices.

The real structural change of the European energy sector is based on the liberalisation of the electricity (and other energy carrier) markets, and secondly on the support of renewable en-ergy technologies. Electricity production facilities not only have to meet the faster changing power demand but must also, to a certain extent, promote short-term solutions with stricter cost-benefit calculations than long-term investments with less calculable risks even though they might be environmentally more benign. Contrary to CCT on a large scale, smaller gas-fired units with short planning and construction periods and lower capital commitment are flexible to meet this criterion, despite the higher and less calculable fuel costs, the higher dependencies from a few exporting gas producers and the more limited gas reserves. Addi-tionally, gas is an ideal fuel for households and decentralised smaller users, as complex flue gas cleaning (only economic on a large-scale) is hardly needed.

In contrast, coal offers the advantage of secured supply and prices, but requires a more complex flue gas cleaning process which is only economical for large-scale plants. In order


PE 338.431 - x -

to be able to explore the benefits of high efficient and clean coal technologies for power gen-eration, which is best possible in larger units, political support is requested to provide the necessary medium- to long term planning security. It is the dilemma that on the one hand political influence in the power sector is contradictory to the basic idea of the liberalisation and on the other hand there is a need for fast development in the next generation of CCT, which meets the demands for efficiency and flexibility in current and future market conditions.

The US government has started to invest vast sums to increase the efficiency of US power plants through technological improvements over the next years. Consequently, while they have withdrawn from their Kyoto protocol responsibilities, they might override the European industry in building plants with the highest efficiency. The EU will need to fulfil exactly these responsibilities. Thus, even if we turn away from oil and gas and towards coal for electricity production, we might still find the EU dependent on other countries – this time from a tech-nological view point – if the EU don’t invest into the future of the European power plant in-dustry.

The European Commission has not only acknowledged the need to withdraw from a reliance on fuels not widely available within the EU, but also the necessity for further development of available technologies: "Coal's future depends largely on the development of techniques which make it easier to use … and lessen its environmental impact in terms of pollutant emissions through clean combustion technologies." (Source: EC 2000, COM(2000)769: Green Paper : Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply). Looking at all aspects raised in the Green Paper and documents from EC DG TREN and those mentioned in the introduction of the 6th Framework programme on RTD, increased energy production, on the basis of advanced clean fossil technologies, is mandatory for overcoming the challenges for a sustainable development.

It is all the more surprising that Clean Coal Technology plays a very minor part in the 6th Framework Programme for RTD. Investments into Clean Coal Technology Research, for example the ultra-supercritical 700°C power plant, are essential to the future of the EU re-garding the security of sustainable energy supply, climate control, and economic growth.

A secure energy supply re-quires sustained power plant equipment in all fields of thermal energy production. In order to meet the in-creased global demand and avoid power shortages like those in the US, new invest-ments in fossil PP in Europe are mandatory in the forth-coming two decades for an additional capacity of about 300 GW, delivering annually some 10.000 TWh;

An increase in energy efficiency on the consumer-side along with extensive renewable ener-gy exploitation will not be enough to saftisfy the EU’s energy demand in the coming decades. The decision to shut-down nuclear power plants (with mostly CO2-free electricity production) by several member states will widen the need for alternative generation facilities and thus increase the need for using conventional fuels. This however will lead to increasing CO2-emissions instead of reducing them unless the average power plant efficiency can be in-creased and/or CO2 separation and sequestration technologies are applied (which are not yet available).


- xi - PE 338.431

2,2 < 20 yr

η=35%

2,2< 20 yr

η=35%

new

η=45%

3,9> 20 yr

η=29%2,5new

η=45%

Reduction costs EURO/t CO2

Bln t/yr

Status quo State of the Art

Replacementby State of the Art

-0,5 4,2

6,5

-1,4

4,7

PP > 20 yr(60% of capacity

replaced)

approx. 20 approx. 50

Two thirds of Europe’s coal fired power plants are more than 20 years old with an average efficiency of η≈29%, emitting ∼3.9 billion t of CO2 per year. The replacement of these power plants through „State of the Art“ power plant technologies would lead to a reduction of CO2 emissions of 1.4 billion t/yr. The results of such an “Energy Efficiency Offensive“ correspond to a factor 1.2 of the global Kyoto Protocol commitments 2008 - 2012 and equal to double the amount of emissions from the European (EU15) transport sector.

Reduction of CO2 emissions by replacing coal-fired power plants worldwide (Source: 6. Discussion Paper on the Development of coal-fired PP technology under consideration of climate protection, RWE-Rheinbraun & Vattenfall Europe, April 2003)

Approximately 40 €/t of CO2 can be estimated as CO2 reduction costs in the case of power station renewal (η V ≈V 47 V % instead of η V ≈V 32 V %) and with investment costs of € 850 €/kW and a 15-year depreciation. Given the coal savings through CCT, as well as reduced personnel, maintenance and related costs, this amount can be reduced to € 20/t of CO2 per annum. In comparison, according to Germany’s Renewable Energy Act, wind-based electricity leads to costs of approx. 75 € /t of CO2 per annum.

At a cost of 800 - 900 € per kW of installed capacity, closing this gap will require an overall investment of about 250 Bln € in Europe alone. The total global market for clean coal PP is estimated to be more than 500 Bln €. This could generate an increase in employment of about 10,000 jobs in Europe from today’s total of around 50,000, with most of them being highly technical positions.

The further development of Clean Coal Technologies will not only contribute to the improve-ment of negative environmental impacts but will also increase the export chances of the European power plant manufacturing industry.

Assessment of Clean Coal Technologies

The efficiency of coal technology in the EU is on a high level when compared with other countries, with the average efficiency level standing at 32%. New, modern power plants however can push this up to 45-48%, with an efficiency level of 55% possible only if those involved act in a cooperative manner with respect to research and development.

Best Available Technology (BAT) Capacity

Range MWel Base Effi-ciency (%)

Availa-bility

Perspective Efficiency (%)

Pulverised Coal Firing with Ultra Super Critical Steam Parameters (PCF USC)

300 - 1,000 46 highest 50 – 55

Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion (CFB)

50 - 300 40 high 45

Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC)

< 400 42 medium 45

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)

< 350 45 medium 52

Technical Parameters of best available technology (BAT) in CCT (Source: 7. Fachkongress Zukunftsenergien, Essen, 12.02.2003 and BREF documents of EPPSA)


PE 338.431 - xii -

The ongoing maturity and viability of CCTs evident in the sections on assessing clean coal technologies leads to the focus being placed on advanced PCF and IGCC technologies for further consideration due to their realistic potential for further development and application.

A) In the section for lignite-fired power plants, most eligible for further development in a demonstration project would be the PCF USC technology, thereby streamlining the interim results of the AD 700 project within the Emax initiative. The development demand is mainly in the area of new materials. This allows for Ultra-Super-Critical operation parameters and pre-dicted efficiency improvements of 4%. This would lead to a net efficiency of the PP of 47%. The time-horizon for the development and demonstration would be 2:

2003-06 � Test of components and improvement of materials 2007-12 � Construction of demonstration PP

2013 -… � Operation of the demonstration PP (technological improvements) 2014-20 � Planning of the 1st commercial 700oC PP from 2020 � Operation of the 1st commercial 700oC PP

In addition to the advantages of PCF USC technology, the pre-drying of lignite and the utili-sation of waste heat for treatment of dry coal (in the BoA and BoA-Plus concept in Germany, Niederaussem) produce a further minimum efficiency increase of 4%. With the technological options of the BoA-Plus concept and the operation in USC parameters (700oC), lignite fired PPs would reach a net efficiency of more than 50%, which is very competitive to hard coal PPs. An important precondition for this target is the financial support from public institutions at the national and European level for the costly development of materials and components.

B) Besides the identified economic disadvantages of IGCC technology (high specific invest-ment costs and low operation availability), it might still play a key role in the future utilisation of CO2 sequestration technology, as the gasification process provides the opportunity to separate the CO2 before combustion. Any demonstration project which supports the devel-opment of improved viability and availability should focus on the separation of CO2. However, any CO2 capture is useless if no sufficient or reliable CO2 storage options are available. Thus, in parallel to CCTs with CO2 capture, CO2 storage technologies also need to be devel-oped. Under liberalised market conditions, this again is not a task which will be promoted and financed by CCT developers and manufacturers, at least not on their own. Public support for RTD as well as policy development is essential.

Demand for actions to provide the framework conditions

Requirements for the development of Clean Coal Technologies are:� a further increase in efficiency

• through the development of materials, allowing for the increase of Ultra Super Critical steam parameters and

• through the development of processes and components: double reheat, turbine and steam generator efficiency, self consumption minimisation, heat recovery.

� investigations and research into CO2 storage, which is essential for the development of a potential Zero-Emission Power Plant.

All measures mentioned for enhancing efficiency are linked with high capital expenditures. As mentioned, efficiency and environmental compatibility are only two aspects relevant to investors in the power sector. All technical improvements will only be successfully imple-mented if they pass the related economic criteria. Thus, an increase in efficiency should be linked with a decrease in specific investment costs and capital costs.

Urgent investments into fossil PP are presently in delay due to recent decisions on emission trading made because of the existing uncertainty on future emission trading costs. The Euro-pean power industry agrees that emission trading should penalise old coal PP technologies and reward high efficiency clean coal PP. Since a coal PP is a long-term investment, the


- xiii - PE 338.431

present backlog of building new plants creates delays which cannot be rapidly compensated.

CCT can contribute important elements to reaching Europe’s climate protection targets. The above mentioned technological developments must be utilised for this cause. During the up-coming time horizon and planned technological development cycle, coal, in the framework of the climate protection targets, will initiate development opportunities by:

• Reducing emissions through the short term wide application of “state of the art” power plant technology. This technology is now available without additional development costs.

• A further increase in efficiency of the PP by further technological development, following the emissions reduction targets in the medium to long term (up to 2020).

• Investigating and assessing the vision of power plant technologies which enable the intro-duction of CO2 sequestration and options for its final disposal. R&D aiming at the devel-opment of realistic concepts must begin soon for long-term climate protection (>2020).

The demand for the provision of related framework conditions are clearly addressed to:

- Policy makers: to understand the development of CCT as an essential element in long-term and sustainable energy market development � aiming to reduce the risk of the power industry towards technology development and site planning through support of demonstra-tion and promotion until the next generation of CCT is viable, and for giving clear political signals towards the future of CCT in liberalised energy markets.

- Power industry (utilities and technology manufacturers): to initiate demonstration pro-jects and take over application related risks � for commitment to co-financing, preparing the demonstration site and promoting the share of know-how in European networks to explore the markets and strengthen the European industry

Recommendations

Know-how and production capacities for advanced power plant technologies are concen-trated in Europe. The growing rate for the use of coal in high efficiency power plants in Europe and third countries guarantees markets for technology suppliers. The advantage of European manufacturers regarding their advanced know-how shall however be maintained to explore these markets. If this is not supported by clear “PRO CCT” political signals and tech-nological development initiatives, this leading position will be undermined, allowing for other CCT development market players to enter the market. Europe as a technologically advanta-geous force must take the initiative and produce added value through its technological know-how. This is true for the clean coal technology sector as well.

The number of policy makers understanding the need for CCT development might increase but there should be a clear political signal for CCT development support similar to the state-ment for supporting the development of renewable energies. It is thus not a question to de-cide between a policy to support an alternative, efficiency increase of CCT, rather we need to follow all options representing the major share of electricity production in parallel with CCT. Based on the experience from the EESD initiative within the EU’s 5th Framework Program, the results on CCT should be assessed and efforts should be continued in order to stay on the right track for supply security and environmental protection.

Against this background, a European initiative shall aim to promote the refinement of low-CO2-emission power plants based on CCT in order to (i) fill the expected gap in power supply security, (ii) hold the competitive advantage of engineering expertise established in Europe and, thus (iii) strengthen the potential for industry-backed RTD.

As indicated, development trends and market potential for different CCT are varied and de-mand different kinds, and intense, support for the demonstration or promotion of the technol-ogy. From this point of view, consideration should be given to initiate several (2-3) demon-stration projects, each specifically targeted to further technological development and demon-stration (materials, boiler, turbine, CO2 separation and storage).


PE 338.431 - xiv -


- xv - PE 338.431

Zusammenfassung Gegenstand der vorliegenden Studie ist die heutige und künftige Rolle von Hochleistungs-kraftwerken, die auf der Grundlage sauberer Kohletechnologien (Clean Coal Technologies, CCT) arbeiten. Das generelle Anliegen der Studie besteht darin, den kurz- und mittelfristigen Bedarf an Hochleistungskraftwerken mit geringem Schadstoffausstoß zu analysieren, bei dem die aktuell verfügbaren CCT zum Einsatz kommen. Die Nutzung des gegenwärtig vor-handenen Technologiepotenzials ist Voraussetzung für die Gewährleistung der Anwendbar-keit und Realisierbarkeit neuer Technologien.

Zur Erreichung der genannten Zielsetzungen geht es in der Studie in erster Linie darum, das Potenzial der sauberen Kohletechnologien und Möglichkeiten ihrer Nutzung eingehend zu untersuchen. Hierzu werden folgende Aspekte beleuchtet:

• Strategische und sozioökonomische Bedeutung eines großangelegten CCT-Projekts.

• Gründe, warum die CCT für das Klima und die FTE-Strategien in Europa gut geeignet sind.

• Auswahlkriterien für kurz- und mittelfristige FTE-Aktivitäten zur Weiterentwicklung der CCT und Sicherstellung der Realisierbarkeit von damit im Zusammenhang stehenden Projekten.

• Das Verständnis, das einer Zusammenarbeit zwischen öffentlichen und privaten Ent-scheidungsträgern zugrunde liegt.

• Vorschläge, die sich aus der Untersuchung der finanziellen Ressourcen für neue FTE-Projekte auf dem Gebiet der CCT ergeben.

In der Studie wird zusammenfassend dargestellt, inwiefern es Bedarf an weiterer Unterstüt-zung für die Fortentwicklung der CCT in Europa gibt und welche Argumente dafür sprechen, um so das Engagement für neue CCT-Projekte bereits in einer sehr frühen Phase zu wek-ken, d. h. vor der Festlegung der Projekte. Für Stromerzeuger, die auf dem liberalisierten Markt operieren und einem harten Kostenwettbewerb ausgesetzt sind, ist das von großer Wichtigkeit, da vor Inangriffnahme eines großtechnischen Demonstrationsprojekts die Erfor-derlichkeit eines solchen Projekts und dessen Verfügbarkeit und Realisierbarkeit geklärt sein müssen.

Hauptschwerpunkt der Studie sind die in den Kraftwerken ablaufenden Prozesse der Kohle-verbrennung und -vergasung, da hier die eigentliche technische Herausforderung liegt. Na-türlich kann auch durch eine Verbesserung des Wirkungsgrades anderer Komponenten, wie etwa der Turbinen, der Generatoren, der Wärmetauscher und des Kühlsystems der Ge-samtwirkungsgrad des Kraftwerks beträchtlich erhöht werden. Auf diese nicht am Verbren-nungsprozess beteiligten Elemente richtet sich jedoch nicht das spezielle Interesse dieser Studie, da diesbezügliche technische Verbesserungen in allen Arten von Großkraftwerken mit Dampfkreislauf anwendbar sind.

Hochleistungskraftwerke - Herausforderungen, Möglichkeiten und Bedarf

In der EU sind die Energieversorger heutzutage sehr stark auf Öl und Gas angewiesen, die jedoch größtenteils aus Drittstaaten importiert werden müssen. Es besteht daher die Gefahr, dass das Wirtschaftswachstum der EU irgendwann einmal von den Brennstoff- und Energie-lieferungen einer kleinen Zahl von Drittstaaten abhängig sein wird und die EU sich immer weiter von der Selbstversorgung entfernt. Vom derzeitigen Niveau ausgehend reichen die gesicherten Kohlereserven Schätzungen zufolge noch mehr als 200 Jahre, so dass Kohle-nutzer ihre Energieversorgung langfristig gewährleisten können, und das zu wettbewerbsfä-higen Preisen.

Der eigentliche Strukturwandel im europäischen Energiesektor basiert zum einen auf der Li-beralisierung der Märkte für Strom (und andere Energieträger) und zum anderen auf der Förderung von Technologien für erneuerbare Energie. Stromerzeuger müssen nicht nur dem


PE 338.431 - xvi -

sich rascher ändernden Bedarf gerecht werden, sondern müssen sich in gewissem Maße auch eher für kurzfristige Lösungen mit strenger Kosten-Nutzen-Rechnung als für langfristige Investitionen mit weniger kalkulierbaren Risiken entscheiden, auch wenn diese vielleicht aus ökologischer Sicht günstiger sind. Anders als beim CCT-Einsatz in Großanlagen können kleinere gasbetriebene Anlagen mit kurzen Planungs- und Bauzeiten und einem geringeren Kapitaleinsatz flexibel auf ein solches Erfordernis reagieren, ungeachtet der höheren und weniger kalkulierbaren Brennstoffkosten, der größeren Abhängigkeit von einigen wenigen Gasexporteuren und den eingeschränkteren Gasreserven. Zudem ist Gas ein idealer Brenn-stoff für Haushalte und dezentrale kleinere Nutzer, da eine komplette Rauchgasreinigung (die nur großtechnisch rentabel ist) kaum erforderlich ist.

Kohle bietet im Gegensatz dazu den Vorteil der Liefer- und Preissicherheit, erfordert jedoch ein komplizierteres Verfahren der Rauchgasreinigung, das nur in Großanlagen wirtschaftlich ist. Da der Nutzen von hochleistungsfähigen CCT für die Energieerzeugung am besten in Großanlagen zu realisieren ist, bedarf es im Interesse der benötigten mittel- und langfristigen Planungssicherheit der Unterstützung seitens der Politik. Das Dilemma besteht darin, dass einerseits der politische Einfluss im Energiesektor dem Grundgedanken der Liberalisierung entgegengerichtet ist und andererseits eine rasche Entwicklung zur nächsten CCT-Genera-tion erfolgen muss, die den Anforderungen im Hinblick auf Wirkungsgrad und Flexibilität un-ter derzeitigen und künftigen Marktbedingungen gerecht wird.

Die Regierung der USA stellt enorme Summen bereit, um in den nächsten Jahren den Wir-kungsgrad der Kraftwerke des Landes durch technologische Verbesserungen zu erhöhen. Da sie sich zudem von ihren Verpflichtungen aus dem Protokoll von Kyoto zurückgezogen haben, könnten die USA, was den Bau von höchst effizienten Anlagen anbetrifft, die euro-päische Branche überholen. Die EU wird genau diese Verpflichtungen erfüllen müssen. Folglich dürfte die EU selbst bei einer Abkehr von Öl und Gas und einem verstärkten Einsatz von Kohle in der Energieerzeugung auch weiterhin von anderen Ländern abhängig sein, und zwar dieses Mal in technologischer Hinsicht, wenn sie nicht in die Zukunft ihrer Kraftwerksin-dustrie investiert.

Die Europäische Kommission hat nicht nur anerkannt, dass die Abhängigkeit von Brennstof-fen, die in der EU kaum verfügbar sind, überwunden werden muss, sondern sieht auch die Notwendigkeit der Weiterentwicklung der vorhandenen Technologien, denn ihrer Ansicht nach „...hängt die Zukunft der Kohle in hohem Maße von technologischen Entwicklungen ab, die dazu beitragen, ihre Nutzung zu erleichtern ... und ihre umweltbelastende Wirkung durch Schadstoffe zu verringern (saubere Verbrennungstechnologien...).“ (Quelle: EG 2000, KOM(2000)769: Grünbuch „Hin zu einer europäischen Strategie für Energieversorgungssi-cherheit“). Die im Grünbuch und in den Dokumenten der GD TREN wie auch in der Einlei-tung des 6. FTE-Rahmenprogramms aufgeführten Aspekte machen deutlich, dass es für die Gewährleistung einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung zwingend geboten ist, zur Energieerzeugung verstärkt saubere fossile Technologien einzusetzen, die dem neuesten Stand entsprechen.

Es ist daher umso erstaunlicher, dass die CCT-Technologie im 6. FTE-Rahmenprogramm eine untergeordnete Rolle spielt. Investitionen im Bereich der CCT-Forschung, wie bei-spielsweise zu Kraftwerken, in denen ultra-überkritische Dampfzustände (700°C) genutzt werden, sind jedoch im Hinblick auf die Gewährleistung einer nachhaltigen Energieversor-gung, den Klimaschutz und das wirtschaftliche Wachstum für die Zukunft der EU von ent-scheidender Wichtigkeit.


- xvii - PE 338.431

Eine sichere Energiever-sorgung erfordert, dass die Kraftwerksausrüstungen in allen Bereichen der Wär-meenergieerzeugung stets auf dem neuesten techni-schen Stand gehalten wer-den. Um die gestiegene Nachfrage befriedigen zu können und Netzausfälle wie in den USA zu ver-meiden, sind in Europa in den kommenden zwei Jahrzehnten Neuinvestitio-nen für fossile Kraftwerke unerlässlich, um eine

zusätzliche Leistung von etwa 300 GW zu schaffen, die jährlich etwa 10 000 TWh liefert.

Legende zur obigen Abbildung:

Power plant capacities in the EU younger than 40 years = Kraftwerkskapazitäten in der EU, die seit weniger als 40 Jahren in Betrieb sind

total demand 300 GW in 2020 = 2020: Gesamtbedarf 300 GW

extension demand = Erweiterungsbedarf

replacement demand = Ersatzbedarf

total demand = Gesamtbedarf

other = Sonstige

gas = Gas

coal = Kohle

nuclear = Kernkraft

hydro = Wasserkraft

Eine Verbesserung der Energieausbeute seitens der Verbraucher und eine umfassende Nut-zung erneuerbarer Energien werden nicht ausreichen, um den Energiebedarf der EU in den kommenden Jahrzehnten zu decken. Durch die Entscheidung verschiedener Mitgliedstaaten, Kernkraftwerke (mit einer größtenteils CO2-freien Stromerzeugung) stillzulegen, wird sich die Nachfrage nach alternativen Möglichkeiten zur Energieerzeugung noch verstärken und damit auch die Notwendigkeit des Einsatzes konventioneller Brennstoffe. Das jedoch führt nicht zu einer Verminderung, sondern zu einer Erhöhung der CO2-Emissionen, sofern es nicht gelingt, den durchschnittlichen Wirkungsgrad der Kraftwerke zu erhöhen bzw. CO2-Abscheidungs- und Sequestrierungstechnik (die noch nicht verfügbar ist) einzusetzen.

Zwei Drittel der Kohlekraftwerke in Europa sind über 20 Jahre alt und haben einen durch-schnittlichen Wirkungsgrad von η≈29 %, wobei sie jährlich ∼3,9 Mrd. t CO2 ausstoßen. Wür-den diese Anlagen durch modernste Technik ersetzt, so könnten die CO2-Emissionen um 1,4 Mrd. t/a vermindert werden. Die Ergebnisse einer solchen „Energieeffizienz-offensive“ entsprechen einem Faktor 1,2 bezüglich der globalen Verpflichtungen aus dem Kyoto- Pro-tokoll für die Jahre 2008-2012 und kommen der doppelten Emissions-menge des europäi-schen Verkehrs-sektors (EU15) gleich.


PE 338.431 - xviii -

2,2 < 20 yr

η=35%

2,2< 20 yr

η=35%

new

η=45%

3,9> 20 yr

η=29%2,5new

η=45%


Bln t/yr



-0,5 4,2

6,5

-1,4

4,7


replaced)


Im Falle einer Kraftwerksmodernisierung (η V ≈V 47V % statt η V ≈V 32 V %) und bei In-vestitionskosten in Höhe von 850 EUR/kW und einer Abschreibung über 15 Jahre kann von Reduktionsko-sten in Höhe von etwa 40 EUR/t CO2 ausgegangen werden. Unter Berücksich-tigung der durch CCT-Technologie ein-gesparten Kohlemenge sowie der gerin-geren Personal-, Wartungs- und sonsti-gen Kosten lässt sich dieser Betrag auf jährlich 20 EUR/t CO2 senken. Dagegen belaufen sich diese Kosten bei aus Windkraft gewonnenem Strom dem Er-neuerbare-Energien-Gesetz der Bundes-republik Deutschland zufolge auf etwa 75 EUR/t CO2 jährlich.

Verminderung der CO2-Emissionen durch die Ablösung von kohlebefeuerten Kraftwerken weltweit. (Quelle: Discussion Paper on the Development of coal-fired PP technology under consideration of climate protection, RWE-Rheinbraun & Vattenfall Europe, April 2003).

Bei Kosten in Höhe von 800-900 EUR je kW installierter Leistung werden allein in Europa Investitionen von insgesamt etwa 250 Mrd. EUR erforderlich sein, um diese Lücke zu schlie-ßen. Der gesamte globale Markt für CCT-Kraftwerke wird auf mehr als 500 Mrd. EUR ge-schätzt. Dadurch könnten in Europa zu den heute vorhandenen 50 000 Arbeitsplätzen rund 10 000 neue Stellen hinzukommen, wobei es sich größtenteils um hochspezialisierte Fach-kräfte handelt.

Die Weiterentwicklung der Clean Coal Technologies wird nicht nur zur Eindämmung der ne-gativen Umweltauswirkungen beitragen, sondern auch die Exportchancen der europäischen Kraftwerkshersteller erhöhen.

Bewertung von Clean Coal Technologies

Der Wirkungsgrad der Kohletechnologien liegt in der EU bei durchschnittlich 32 % und ist damit im Vergleich zu anderen Ländern hoch. In neuen, modernen Kraftwerksanlagen jedoch lassen sich 45-48 % erreichen. Ein Wirkungsgrad von 55 % hingegen setzt voraus, dass alle Beteiligten im Bereich Forschung und Entwicklung zusammenarbeiten.

Beste Verfügbare Technologie (BVT) Leistungs spanne MWel

Grund-Wir-kungsgrad (%)

Verfüg-barkeit

Wirkungsgrad, perspektivisch

(%)

Kohlenstaubfeuerung und Nutzung über-kritischer Dampfzustände (PCF + USC)

300 – 1000 46 am höch-sten

50 – 55

Zirkulierende Wirbelschichtfeuerung (CFB)

50 – 300 40 hoch 45

Druckaufgeladene Wirbelschichtfeuerung (PFBC)

< 400 42 mittel 45

Kombikraftwerk mit integrierter Kohlever-gasung (IGCC)

< 350 45 mittel 52

Technische Parameter der besten verfügbaren Technologie (BVT) bei CCT (Quelle: 7. Fachkongress Zukunftsenergien, Essen, 12.02.2003 u. BREF-Dokumente der EPPSA)


- xix - PE 338.431

Aufgrund der ständigen Vervollkommnung der CCT und der weiteren Verbesserung ihrer Einsatzfähigkeit, wie sie in den Abschnitten zur Bewertung der Clean Coal Technologie dar-gelegt sind, rücken moderne PCF- und IGCC-Techniken immer mehr in den Mittelpunkt weiterer Überlegungen, da bei ihnen ein realistisches Potenzial für die Weiterentwicklung und Anwendung gegeben ist.

A) Bei den Braunkohlekraftwerken käme die PCF+USC-Technologie am ehesten für eine Weiterentwicklung in einem Demonstrationsprojekt in Frage, wobei die Zwischenergebnisse des Projekts „AD 700“ aus der Initiative Emax entsprechend eingebracht würden. Entwick-lungsbedarf gibt es hauptsächlich bei neuen Werkstoffen, um überkritischen Prozesspara-metern und prognostizierten Wirkungsgradverbesserungen von 4 % Rechnung zu tragen. Damit würde beim Kraftwerk ein Nettowirkungsgrad von 47 % erreicht. Für die Entwicklung und Demonstration gibt es folgenden Zeitplan2:

2003-06 � Prüfung der Komponenten und Verbesserung der Werkstoffe 2007-2012 � Bau des Demonstrationskraftwerks

2013 -… � Betrieb des Demonstrationskraftwerks (technologische Verbesserungen) 2014-2020 � Planung des ersten kommerziell betriebenen 700oC-KW ab 2020 � Betrieb des ersten kommerziell betriebenen 700oC-KW.

Zusätzlich zu den Vorzügen der PCF+USC-Technologie bewirken die Vortrocknung der Braunkohle und die Verwendung von Abwärme für die Behandlung der Trockenkohle (im BoA- und BoA-Plus-Konzept am Standort Niederaußem, Deutschland) eine weitere gering-fügige Steigerung des Wirkungsgrades um 4 %. Mit den technologischen Möglichkeiten des BoA-Plus-Konzepts und bei Betrieb nach USC-Parametern (700oC) würden Braunkohlen-kraftwerke einen Nettowirkungsgrad von mehr als 50 % erreichen, womit sie gegenüber den Steinkohlenkraftwerken ausgesprochen wettbewerbsfähig wären. Eine wichtige Vorausset-zung zur Erreichung dieser Zielsetzung ist die finanzielle Unterstützung der kostenintensiven Entwicklung von Werkstoffen und Komponenten durch öffentliche Einrichtungen auf natio-naler und europäischer Ebene.

B) Abgesehen von den aufgezeigten wirtschaftlichen Nachteilen der IGCC-Technologie (hohe spezifische Investitionskosten und geringe Prozessverfügbarkeit) dürfte sie auch künf-tig bei der Nutzung der CO2-Sequestrierungstechnologie eine wichtige Rolle spielen, da der Vergasungsprozess die Möglichkeit bietet, das CO2 vor der Verbrennung abzuscheiden. Je-des Demonstrationsprojekt, das der Verbesserung der Realisierbarkeit und Verfügbarkeit dient, sollte sich daher auf die CO2-Abscheidung konzentrieren. Das Einfangen von CO2 macht jedoch nur dann Sinn, wenn auch ausreichende und zuverlässige Lagermöglichkeiten vorhanden sind, weshalb parallel zu den CCT, bei denen das CO2 eingefangen wird, die ent-sprechenden Deponierungstechnologien entwickelt werden müssen. Jedoch ist auch diesbe-züglich unter den Bedingungen des liberalisierten Marktes nicht mit einem Engagement und der finanziellen Unterstützung seitens der CCT-Entwickler und -hersteller zu rechnen, zu-mindest nicht aus eigenem Antrieb. Öffentliche Unterstützung für FTE und Strategieentwick-lung sind folglich unerlässlich.

Handlungsbedarf zur Schaffung der Rahmenbedingungen

Anforderungen an die Entwicklung der Clean Coal Technologies:

� weitere Erhöhung des Wirkungsgrades

• durch die Entwicklung von Werkstoffen, wodurch eine Erhöhung der überkritischen Dampfparameter ermöglicht wird, und

• durch die Entwicklung von Prozessen und Komponenten: doppelte Zwischenüberhit-zung, Wirkungsgrad der Turbinen und Dampferzeuger, Minimierung des Eigenver-brauchs, Wärmegewinnung.

� Untersuchungs- undForschungsarbeiten zur CO2-Deponierung, was für die Entwicklung eines künftigen CO2-freien Kraftwerks von Bedeutung ist.


PE 338.431 - xx -

Alle genannten Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung des Wirkungsgrades sind mit hohen Investiti-onsausgaben verbunden. Wie jedoch bereits erwähnt, sind für Investoren im Energiesektor Effizienz und Umweltverträglichkeit nur zwei relevante Faktoren. Alle technischen Verbesse-rungen werden sich nur dann erfolgreich realisieren lassen, wenn sie die entsprechenden wirtschaftlichen Kriterien erfüllen. Eine Erhöhung des Wirkungsgrades sollte folglich mit einer Senkung der spezifischen Investitions- und Finanzierungskosten verbunden sein.

Bei den dringend notwendigen Investitionen im Bereich der fossilen Kraftwerke kommt es momentan zu Verzögerungen, was auf jüngste Entscheidungen zum Emissionshandel zu-rückzuführen ist, die wegen der bestehenden Unsicherheit über künftige Kosten des Emissi-onshandels getroffen wurden. Die europäische Energiewirtschaft stimmt darin überein, dass durch den Emissionshandel alte Kohletechnologien stärker belastet werden müssen und ein Anreiz für hochleistungsfähige saubere Technologien gegeben sein muss. Da ein Kohle-kraftwerk eine langfristige Investition darstellt, kommt es aufgrund der gegenwärtigen Rück-stände beim Bau neuer Anlagen zu Verzögerungen, die nicht so rasch auszugleichen sind.

Die CCT-Technologie kann wesentlich zur Erreichung der europäischen Klimaschutzziele beitragen, weshalb die genannten technologischen Entwicklungen in den Dienst dieser Sa-che gestellt werden müssen. Während des überschaubaren Zeithorizonts und des geplanten Zyklus der technologischen Entwicklung bieten sich im Zusammenhang mit der Kohle in fol-gender Hinsicht Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten:

• Verminderung der Emissionen durch kurzfristige und umfassende Anwendung von mo-dernster Kraftwerkstechnik, die mittlerweile ohne zusätzliche Entwicklungskosten verfüg-bar ist.

• Weitere Steigerung des Wirkungsgrades von Kraftwerken durch fortgeführte technologi-sche Entwicklung, wobei mittel- bis langfristig (bis 2020) auf die Realisierung der Emissi-onsreduktionsziele hingearbeitet wird.

• Untersuchung und Beurteilung der Aussichten von Kraftwerkstechnologien, die die Ein-führung der CO2-Sequestrierung gestatten und Möglichkeiten für dessen Entsorgung bie-ten. Im Interesse eines langfristigen Klimaschutzes (>2020) muss bald mit der FuE zur Erarbeitung realistischer Konzeptionen begonnen werden.

Die Forderung nach Bereitstellung entsprechender Rahmenbedingungen richtet sich an:

- Politische Entscheidungsträger: Anerkennung der Entwicklung der CCT als wesentliches Element bei der langfristigen und nachhaltigen Entwicklung des Energiemarktes � Verringe-rung der Risiken für die Energiewirtschaft im Zusammenhang mit technologischer Entwick-lung und Standortplanung durch Unterstützung von Demonstrations- und Fördervorhaben bis zur Realisierbarkeit der nächsten Generation von CCT und klare politische Signale für die Zukunft der CCT auf liberalisierten Energiemärkten.

- Energiewirtschaft (Versorgungsbetriebe und Technologiehersteller): Einleitung von Demonstrationsprojekten und Übernahme anwendungsbezogener Risiken � Bereitschaft zur Kofinanzierung, Vorbereitung des Demonstrationsstandorts und Förderung des Know-how-Anteils an den europäischen Netzen zwecks Erforschung der Märkte und Stärkung der europäischen Wirtschaft.

Empfehlungen

Know-how und Produktionskapazitäten für modernste Kraftwerkstechnik sind in Europa kon-zentriert. Durch den zunehmenden Einsatz von Kohle in Hochleistungskraftwerken in Europa und Drittländern sind die Märkte für Technologielieferanten gesichert. Im Interesse der Nut-zung dieser Märkte kommt es für die europäischen Hersteller jedoch darauf an, dass sie die durch die Bereitstellung von modernstem Know-how erzielten Vorteile auch weiterhin beibe-halten. Wenn es hier keine klaren politischen Signale und Initiativen im Bereich der techno-logischen Entwicklung „ZUGUNSTEN VON CCT“ gibt, wird diese Führungsposition ausge-höhlt werden, so dass andere CCT-Anbieter auf den Markt drängen können. Europa als technologischer Vorreiter muss die Initiative übernehmen und durch sein technisches Know-


- xxi - PE 338.431

how Wertschöpfung erzielen. Das trifft auf den Sektor der sauberen Kohletechnologie in glei-chem Maße zu.

Auch wenn die Zahl der politischen Entscheidungsträger wächst, die die Notwendigkeit der CCT-Entwicklung erkennen, sollte ein klares politisches Signal zur Unterstützung der Nut-zung der CCT ausgesandt werden, ähnlich der Erklärung zur Unterstützung der Nutzung er-neuerbarer Energiequellen. Hierbei ist nicht zwischen der Förderung alternativer Energien und einer Wirkungsgraderhöhung bei der CCT-Technologie zu entscheiden, vielmehr geht es um die Ausschöpfung sämtlicher Möglichkeiten der Energiegewinnung, die neben den CCT den Hauptanteil ausmachen. Ausgehend von den Erfahrungen der EESD-Initiative des 5. Rahmenprogramms der EU sollten die zu CCT erzielten Ergebnisse bewertet und ent-sprechende Bemühungen fortgesetzt werden, um auch weiterhin auf dem richtigen Weg für Versorgungssicherheit und Umweltschutz voranzuschreiten.

Vor diesem Hintergrund sollte eine europäische Initiative zur weiteren Verbesserung von auf der CCT-Technologie beruhenden Kraftwerken mit geringem CO2-Ausstoß auf den Weg ge-bracht werden, um (i) das erwartete Defizit bei der Energieversorgungssicherheit zu über-winden, (ii) den in Europa bestehenden Wettbewerbsvorteil beim ingenieurtechnischen Fachwissen zu erhalten und damit (iii) das Potenzial für industriegestützte FTE zu stärken.

Wie aufgezeigt wurde, sind Entwicklungstendenzen und Marktpotenzial für die einzelnen CCT-Verfahren sehr unterschiedlich und verlangen daher eine in der Art und Intensität un-terschiedliche Unterstützung für die Demonstration bzw. Förderung der Technologie. Es sollten daher mehrere (2-3) Demonstrationsprojekte in Betracht gezogen werden, die jeweils auf eine spezielle technologische Entwicklung und Demonstration ausgerichtet sind (Werk-stoffe, Kessel, Turbine, CO2-Abscheidung und -Deponierung).


PE 338.431 - xxii -


- xxiii - PE 338.431

Résumé La présente étude porte sur le rôle actuel et à venir des centrales thermiques à haut rende-ment mettant en œuvre des technologies du charbon propres (TPC). Son objectif global est d’analyser la demande à court et moyen terme de mise au point d’un modèle peu polluant de centrale à haut rendement sur la base des TPC en place. L’exploitation de ces procédés permettra de garantir la viabilité des nouvelles technologies.

Compte tenu des objectifs ci-dessus, l’étude visera principalement à mettre en lumière tant les possibilités des TPC que les moyens permettant leur mise en œuvre, en s’attachant en priorité aux aspects suivants:

• incidence stratégique et socio-économique d’un projet TPC à grande échelle;

• raisons sous-tendant l’intérêt des TPC du point de vue du climat et des politiques de RDT;

• critères de sélection d’activités RDT à court et moyen terme visant à développer les TPC et à garantir la viabilité des projets s’y rapportant;

• terrains d’entente susceptibles de permettre la collaboration entre décideurs publics et privés;

• suggestions dérivant de l’examen des possibilités de financement de nouveaux projets de RDT dans le domaine des TPC.

Les arguments plaidant pour un soutien accru au développement de TPC européennes font ici l’objet d’un résumé dont on espère qu’il contribuera à un engagement très prompt en fa-veur de nouveaux projets de TPC, et ce avant toute définition des projets eux-mêmes. Il s’agit-là une condition très importante du point de vue des producteurs énergétiques indé-pendants, soumis à une concurrence féroce, tout comme il est vital d’établir l’existence d’une demande, de disponibilités et d’une réelle viabilité d’une telle entreprise avant tout lancement d’un projet de démonstration à grande échelle.

La présente étude s’intéresse principalement à la combustion du charbon et aux procédés de gazéification en centrale, aspect le plus critique des technologies concernées. Bien en-tendu, l’amélioration du rendement de ses autres éléments (turbine, générateur, échangeurs de chaleur, circuit de refroidissement, etc.) peut contribuer énormément à un accroissement du rendement de la centrale. Ces éléments, qui n’ont pas de rapport direct avec la combus-tion, ne sont pas abordés ici, étant donné que de telles améliorations techniques sont sus-ceptibles de trouver une application dans tous les types de grandes centrales à cycle à va-peur.

Centrales haut rendement - demande, potentialités, obstacles

Dans l’Union européenne, l’approvisionnement en énergie repose essentiellement sur le pé-trole et le gaz, ressources importées dans leur majeure partie de pays tiers. L’UE court donc le risque de voir sa croissance économique liée à un approvisionnement en combusti-bles/énergie provenant d’un petit nombre de ces pays, ce qui ne l’aiderait pas à devenir au-tosuffisante. On estime que les réserves de charbon connues devraient durer plus de 200 ans, ce qui veut dire que les consommateurs de charbon sont en mesure d’assurer la garan-tie de leur approvisionnement en énergie à long terme, et ce à des tarifs concurrentiels.

La véritable évolution structurelle du secteur énergétique européen est liée d’une part à la libéralisation des marchés de l’électricité (et des autres vecteurs d’énergie), et d’autre part à l’essor des énergies renouvelables. Non seulement les installations de production d’électricité doivent répondre à une évolution accélérée de la demande, mais il leur faut de surcroît, dans une certaine mesure, mettre en œuvre des solutions à court terme reposant sur des calculs coûts-avantages plus stricts que dans le cas d’investissements à long terme présentant des risques moins aisés à évaluer, mais dont l’incidence écologique est suscepti-ble d’être moindre. Contrairement aux TPC à grande échelle, des installations à gaz de taille


PE 338.431 - xxiv -

plus réduite et se caractérisant par des délais de conception et de réalisation plus courts ainsi que par des investissements inférieurs répondent à ce critère, en dépit de coûts de combustibles plus élevés et difficiles à calculer, d’une plus grande dépendance envers des exportateurs de gaz peu nombreux, et de réserves plus limitées. En outre, le gaz est un combustible idéal du point de vue des particuliers et des petits consommateurs décentrali-sés, car il ne nécessite aucun de ces dispositifs de dépollution complexe au coût prohibitif sauf dans le cas de très grandes installations.

Le charbon présente quant à lui l’avantage d’un approvisionnement sûr et de prix stables, mais nécessite la mise en place des dispositifs de dépollution complexes et onéreux préci-tés. L’étude des avantages des procédés propres et à haut rendement de production d’électricité à partir du charbon, qui doit se faire de préférence à grande échelle, nécessite l’appui des instances politiques, de manière à assurer la cohérence à moyen et long termes des choix opérés. Il y a là une contradiction qu’il conviendra d’assumer: si l’intervention des politiques dans le secteur énergétique va à l’encontre de la logique libéralisatrice actuelle, elle sera nécessaire pour assurer le développement rapide d’une prochaine génération de TPC répondant à la demande de rendement et de souplesse émanant des marchés actuels et à venir.

Le gouvernement américain vient d’allouer des sommes considérables à la recherche tech-nologique à des fins d’amélioration du rendement des centrales américaines dans les an-nées à venir. En conséquence, et bien qu’ayant dénoncé leurs engagements du protocole de Kyoto, les États-Unis pourraient bien dépasser l’Europe du point de vue du rendement de leurs nouvelles centrales. L’UE, quant à elle, devra respecter ces engagements, de sorte que même en abandonnant pétrole et gaz au profit du charbon pour la production d’électricité, elle risque fort de se trouver de nouveau dans une situation de dépendance - technologique cette fois - par rapport à d’autres pays, faute d’avoir investi dans l’avenir du secteur énergétique européen.

La Commission européenne a non seulement reconnu la nécessité de mettre fin à la dépen-dance actuelle envers des combustibles de provenance non européenne, mais également de développer davantage les technologies existantes: « L’avenir du charbon dépend en grande partie de la mise au point de techniques de combustion propre qui en facilitent l’exploitation (...) et en réduisent l’incidence écologique du point de vue des émissions de polluants » (Source: EC 2000, COM(2000)769 - Livre vert: Vers une stratégie européenne de sécurité d'approvisionnement). On ne surmontera les obstacles à un développement durable qu’en prenant en compte toutes les questions soulevées dans le Livre vert et dans les documents de la DG TREN, ainsi que de celles citées dans l’introduction du sixième programme-cadre sur la RDT (production énergétique accrue, sur la base de technologies de combustion pro-pre de combustibles fossiles).

On peut donc s’étonner que le sixième programme cadre sur la RDT ne prête que très peu attention aux technologies du charbon propres. En effet, d’importants investissements dans la recherche en ce domaine (centrale à cycle à vapeur supercritique à 700°C, etc.) sont in-dispensables si l’on veut assurer l’avenir de l’UE en matière de sécurité des approvisionne-ments en énergie renouvelable, de protection du climat et de croissance économique.

La sécurisation des approvisionnements énergétiques passe par une politique volontariste d’équipement dans tous les domaines de la production d’énergie thermique. Si l’on désire satisfaire la demande globale et éviter des black-out tels que ceux récemment constatés aux États-Unis, on ne pourra faire l’économie, au cours des deux décennies à venir, de nou-veaux investissements visant à accroître d’environ 300 GW la capacité de production du parc européen de centrales à combustible fossile, ce qui amènerait à 10 000 TWh la pro-duction globale d’électricité.

Une augmentation de l’efficacité énergétique au niveau des consommateurs et une exploi-tation intensive des énergies renouvelables ne suffiront pas à satisfaire la demande


- xxv - PE 338.431

2,2 < 20 yr

η=35%

2,2< 20 yr

η=35%

new

η=45%

3,9> 20 yr

η=29%2,5new

η=45%


Bln t/yr



-0,5 4,2

6,5

-1,4

4,7


replaced)


d’énergie au sein de l’UE au cours des prochaines dé-cennies. La décision prise par plusieurs États membres de fermer leurs centrales nucléaires (dont la plupart ne produisent pas de dioxyde de carbone) rendra plus pressant le besoin d’installations de production de substitution, et donc un recours aux combustibles classiques. Malheureuse-ment, cette tendance dé-bouche sur des émissions

de CO2 accrues, à moins que l’on ne parvienne à augmenter le rendement des centrales existantes ou que l’on ne mette en œuvre des technologies de rétention du CO2 (qu’il reste à mettre au point).

Les deux tiers des centrales à charbon européennes ont plus de vingt ans et un rendement moyen de η ≈ 29 %, émettant annuellement près de 3,9 milliards de tonnes de CO2. Le rem-placement de ces centrales par des installations de haute technologie permettrait de réduire de 1,4 milliard de tonnes les émissions de CO2 annuelles. Les résultats d’une telle « offensive énergétique » correspondraient à un facteur de 1,2 du point de vue des engage-ments du protocole de Kyoto pour 2008 - 2012, soit de une à deux fois le volume des émis-sions du secteur européen des transports (EU15).

On estime à environ 40 €/t le coût de la réduction des émissions de CO2 dans l’hypothèse d’une rénovation du parc des centrales (η V ≈V 47 % au lieu de 32 %), les coûts d’investissement s’élevant à 850 €/kW avec amortissement sur 15 ans. Compte tenu des économies de charbon réalisées grâce au rendement des TPC, ainsi que de la réduction des coûts d’exploitation (personnel, entretien, etc.), on peut réduire de moitié ce chiffre an-nuel (20 €/t de CO2). À titre de comparai-son, le coût de l’électricité éolienne est d’environ 75 €/t selon la loi allemande sur les énergies renouvelables.

Réduction des émissions de CO2 à l’échelle mondiale par le remplacement des centrales à charbon (Source: Document de consultation sur la mise au point de technologies de pointe dans le domaine des centrales à charbon à des fins de protection du climat, RWE-Rheinbraun & Vattenfall Europe, avril 2003).

À 800 à 900 € par kW de puissance installée, la constitution de la capacité supplémentaire nécessitera un investissement global d’environ 250 milliards d’euros en Europe, le marché mondial des centrales à charbon propres représentant plus de 500 milliards d’euros. Cela pourrait se traduire par la création en Europe de près de 10 000 emplois, la plupart étant de nature hautement technique (le secteur emploie actuellement 50 000 personnes environ).

Non seulement le développement des technologies du charbon propres contribuera à réduire la pollution, mais il créera également des débouchés à l’étranger pour le secteur européen


PE 338.431 - xxvi -

des centrales électriques.

Évaluation des technologies du charbon propres

Le rendement des centrales à charbon en service dans l’Union est supérieur à celui des centrales en service dans le reste du monde (rendement moyen dans l’UE: 32 %). Dans le cas de centrales de haute technologie, ce rendement peut être poussé jusqu’à 45-48 %, voire 55 % en cas de mise en commun de la recherche-développement entre l’ensemble des parties prenantes.

Meilleures technologies disponibles (MTD) Capacité en MWel

Rendement de base (%)

Disponibilité Rendement cible (%)

Charbon pulvérisé avec cycle vapeur ultra-supercritique (PCF USC)

300 - 1 000

46 maximum 50 – 55

Combustion en lit fluidisé circulant (CFB)

50 - 300 40 élevée 45

Combustion en lit fluidisé sous pression (PFBC)

< 400 42 moyenne 45

Cycle combiné de gazéification intégrée (IGCC)

< 350 45 moyenne 52

Fiche technique des meilleures technologies disponibles (MTD) dans le domaine des TPC (Source: 7. Fachkongress Zukunftsenergien, Essen, 12.02.2003, & documents BREF (EPPSA)

Compte tenu du degré de mise au point et de viabilité des TPC mis en évidence dans les sections portant sur l’évaluation des technologies du charbon propres, il convient d’étudier de plus près les procédés PCF et IGCC, les plus prometteurs du point de vue du dévelop-pement et de la mise en œuvre.

A) Dans la section consacrée aux centrales à lignite, le procédé le plus digne de dévelop-pement dans le cadre d’un projet de démonstration est le procédé PCF USC, dont l’adoption présenterait en outre l’avantage de clarifier les résultats provisoires du projet AD 700 (initia-tive Emax). Les besoins en matière de mise au point concernent principalement le domaine des nouveaux matériaux. Cette mise en œuvre de paramètres d’exploitation de type ultra-supercritique déboucherait sur un accroissement de rendement de 4 %, pour un rendement net de la centrale s’établissant à 47 %. Le calendrier de développement et de démonstration serait le suivant2:

2003-2006 � Essai des éléments et amélioration des matériaux 2007-2012 � Construction d’une centrale de démonstration

2013 -… � Mise en service de la centrale de démonstration (améliorations techniques)

2014-2020 � Projet de première installation de production à 700° C à partir de 2020 � Mise en service de la première ins-tallation de production à 700° C

Outre les avantages du procédé PCF USC, le séchage préliminaire du lignite et la récupéra-tion de la chaleur perdue à des fins de séchage du charbon (système Niederaussem BoA et BoA-Plus, Allemagne) assure une augmentation supplémentaire du rendement d’au moins 4 %. La mise en œuvre des options technologiques du système BoA-Plus et une exploitation sous paramètres USC (700° C) permettrait de réaliser des centrales à lignite présentant un rendement supérieur à 50 %, soit une solution parfaitement concurrentielle par rapport aux centrales à houille maigre. Il va sans dire que la réalisation d’un tel objectif passe nécessai-rement par un soutien financier des instances publiques nationales et européennes, compte tenu du coût élevé de la mise au point des équipements et matériaux nécessaires.

B) Bien que le procédé IGCC présente de gros inconvénients (investissements élevés et fai-bles disponibilités en exploitation), il demeure susceptible de jouer un rôle clé dans la mise en œuvre future de système de rétention du CO2, puisque la technique de gazéification se prête à la séparation du CO2 avant combustion. Tout projet de démonstration axé sur


- xxvii - PE 338.431

l’accroissement de la viabilité et de la disponibilité doit porter sur la séparation du CO2. Il n’en reste pas moins que toute rétention du CO2 ne sera d’aucune utilité si l’on ne dispose pas de possibilités suffisantes et fiables de stockage de ce dernier. En d’autres termes, outre la mise au point de TPC avec rétention du CO2, il convient de mettre au point des systèmes de stockage du CO2. Là encore, les marchés étant déréglementés, les concepteurs et fabricants de systèmes TPC ne sont pas susceptibles de se charger d’une telle entreprise, ni de la fi-nancer - du moins pas sans appui extérieur. Un soutien des instances publiques à la RDT ainsi que des politiques volontaristes de la part de ces dernières, sera indispensable.

Conditions globales - mesures à prendre

Les conditions nécessaires à la mise au point de technologies du charbon propres sont les suivantes.

� Accroissement supplémentaire du rendement

• par le biais de la mise au point de matériaux adaptés au procédé à cycle vapeur ultra-supercritique, ainsi que

• grâce à la mise au point de divers procédés et équipements: double réchauffe, rende-ment des turbines et du générateur de vapeur, réduction de la consommation, récupé-ration de chaleur.

� Recherche en matière de stockage de CO2, indispensable à la mise au point éventuelle d’une centrale à émissions zéro.

Toutes les mesures recommandées à des fins d’accroissement du rendement sont très oné-reuses. Comme on l’a vu précédemment, rendement et compatibilité environnementale ne sont que deux des aspects intéressant les investisseurs présents dans le secteur énergéti-que. La mise en œuvre de toute amélioration technique passe nécessairement par sa com-patibilité avec les critères économiques concernés. Ainsi, tout accroissement du rendement doit aller de pair avec une réduction des coûts d’investissement et d’exploitation.

Les indispensables investissements dans le parc des centrales à combustibles fossiles sont suspendus du fait de décisions récentes sur l’échange des droits d'émission prises en raison des incertitudes actuelles quant aux coûts à venir de ces derniers. L’industrie européenne de l’énergie considère que l’échange des droits d'émission doit pénaliser les technologies clas-siques et récompenser les centrales mettant en œuvre des procédés propres à haut rende-ment. Une centrale à charbon constituant un investissement à long terme, le retard actuel en matière de construction de nouvelles centrales ne peut être rattrapé rapidement.

Les TPC peuvent jouer un rôle non négligeable dans la réalisation des objectifs européens en matière de protection du climat. Les progrès technologiques précités doivent être mis au service de cette cause. Lors du cycle de développement technique défini plus haut, l’industrie du charbon prendra les mesures suivantes dans le cadre des objectifs de protec-tion du climat.

• Réduction des émissions par la mise en œuvre la plus large, à court terme, des dernières technologies de la production d’énergie thermique. Ces technologies sont désormais au point et ne nécessitent aucun investissement supplémentaire du point de vue de la R.-D.

• RDT visant un accroissement supplémentaire du rendement des centrales, compte tenu des objectifs de réduction des émissions à moyen et long termes (jusqu’à 2020).

• Évaluation des possibilités techniques d’introduction des procédés de rétention du CO2, ainsi que de son élimination. Il convient de lancer rapidement la R.-D. visant la mise au point de systèmes réalistes à des fins de protection du climat à long terme (après 2020).

Il incombe aux parties et instances suivantes de travailler à l’établissement de conditions globales propices à cette entreprise.


PE 338.431 - xxviii -

- Décideurs politiques: ceux-ci doivent comprendre que la mise au point des TPC est un élément essentiel d’un développement durable à long terme du marché de l’énergie; � leur but doit être double: réduire les risques pris par le secteur de l’énergie à des fins de déve-loppement technologique et de réalisation d’installations, en assurant démonstration et pro-motion jusqu’à la viabilisation de la prochaine génération de TPC, et envoyer des signaux politiques clairs quant à l’avenir des TPC sur des marchés énergétiques déréglementés.

- Industrie de l’énergie (distributeurs, producteurs d’équipements): il lui faut lancer des projets de démonstration et prendre les risques nécessairement liés à la mise en œuvre des nouveaux procédés � engagements de cofinancement, préparation d’installations de dé-monstration et encouragement à la mise en commun du savoir-faire au niveau européen à des fins d’étude des marchés et de renforcement de l’industrie européenne.

Recommandations

L’Europe ne manque pas du savoir-faire et de la capacité de production nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de procédés de pointe en matière de production d’énergie thermique. La progression de l’exploitation du charbon en installations à haut rendement, en Europe comme dans des pays tiers, garantit l’existence d’un marché aux industriels qui se charge-ront de produire les équipements nécessaires. Toutefois, la pérennisation de la position do-minante que confère aux industriels européens leur savoir-faire étendu en la matière passera nécessairement par l’exploration de ces nouveaux marchés. En outre, les TPC doivent faire l’objet d’un soutien politique sans ambiguïté et d’initiatives de développement technologique également claires, sous peine de voir d’autres tenants des TPC couper l’herbe sous le pied aux européens. L’Europe doit tirer parti de son avance technologique pour dégager une ré-elle valeur ajoutée. Il en va de même pour le secteur des technologies du charbon propres.

Si le nombre de décideurs politiques conscients de la nécessité du développement des TPC est susceptible de s’accroître, il manque toujours un signal politique fort en ce sens, signal qui serait comparable aux déclarations en faveur du développement des énergies renouve-lables. Il ne s’agit donc pas de privilégier une politique de soutien des initiatives visant à ac-croître le rendement des TPC, mais bien d’exploiter l’ensemble des possibilités relatives à l’infrastructure de production d’électricité existante, en parallèle avec les TPC. Les résultats obtenus en rapport avec ces dernières devront être évalués en fonction de l’expérience ac-quise dans le cadre de l’initiative EESD (cinquième programme-cadre de l’UE), et les efforts consentis devront être poursuivis de manière à assurer la sécurité des approvisionnements énergétiques et la protection de l’environnement.

C’est dans ce contexte qu’il conviendra de mettre en place une initiative européenne visant à encourage le perfectionnement des centrales à faibles émissions de CO2 exploitant les TPC de manière à:

1) combler l’écart entre puissance installée et besoins énergétiques futurs,

2) entretenir l’avantage concurrentiel dont jouit actuellement le secteur technologique euro-péen, et

3) renforcer les possibilités de soutien des industriels à la RDT.

Comme on l’a vu, les tendances de développement et les possibilités commerciales des dif-férentes TPC sont très diverses et exigent un soutien intensif, sous des formes également diverses, aux mesures qui seront prises en matière de démonstration ou de promotion des technologies en question. De ce point de vue, il conviendrait d’envisager le lancement de plusieurs (2 ou 3) projets de démonstration dont chacun serait axé sur le développement et la démonstration de différents aspects techniques (matériaux, chaudière, turbine, rétention du CO2, etc.).


- 1 - PE 338.431

1. Objectives and Targets The main target area of the study is high efficiency power plants based on Clean Coal Tech-nologies (CCT). The overall objective of the study is to initiate the deployment of a low emis-sion and high efficiency power plant before 2010 with currently available CCT. This is based on the concept that sustainable energy supply includes a sustained supply to power plant operators of the most advanced, secure and viable plant technologies and components. Us-ing the potential of the currently available technologies provides the basis for making new technologies applicable and viable.

In order to promote the above-mentioned overall objectives, the target of the study is to show the potential of CCT and the ways in which it can be exploited, by means of

• proving the strategic and socio-economic significance of a large-scale CCT project,

• proving that CCT fits into Europe's climate and RTD policies,

• proving the project's viability, and

• exploring financial resources for the CCT project.

The demand and arguments for the further support of the development of European CCT are summarised with the aim of initiating commitment for a new CCT project at a very early stage prior to project identification. For liberalised power generators under harsh cost competitive conditions, this is very important, as it is vital, before launching a full-scale demonstration project, to have proof of general demand, availability and viability in advance for such a CCT project.

The main focus in this study is placed on coal combustion and gasification processes in the power plant because this is the specific technological challenge. Of course, the improvement of efficiency of other power plant components, such as turbine, generator, heat exchangers, cooling system, etc. can contribute notably to the increase in gross efficiency of the whole power plant. Though included, this is not the specific focus of this study as these technology improvements are applicable in all types of large scale power plants with steam cycles.


PE 338.431 - 2 -


- 3 - PE 338.431

2. Introduction and Background

2.1 Challenges to Sustainable Development

2.1.1 Opportunities for High Efficiency Power Plant Technologies

Extensive coal reserves can be found in more than 100 countries in the world, and is mined in more than 50 countries. At the current level, secured coal reserves are estimated to last for over 200 years. This means that coal users can secure their energy supply in the long run, and can do so at competitive prices.

In the EU today, energy supply is very much dependent on oil and gas, energy resources which mostly have to be imported from non-EU countries. The EU therefore faces the danger of steering towards a situation where its economic growth is relying on a fuel/energy supply from a small number of non-member countries and consequently further away from self-suffi-ciency.

Compared with other country’s efficiency in coal technology - in the EU it is on a high level even today – the average European efficiency level stands at 32%. With new modern power plants, this figure can be pushed up to 45-48%. An efficiency level of 55% would be also possible if those involved would act cohesively, pushing research and development while there is still time.

Know-how and production capacities for advanced power plant technologies are concen-trated in Europe. As the following chapters will demonstrate, the growing rate for the use of coal in high efficient power plants in Europe and third countries promises additional markets for technology suppliers. However, the expertise advantage of European manufacturers will be maintained to explore these markets. If this is not supported by clear – pro CCT – political signs and technological development initiatives, this leading position will be undermined and other CCT developing market players will use their chance. The only chance a highly tech-nological Europe has to produce added value is by using its technological know-how advan-tages – which is also true for the clean coal technology sector.

The USA will be investing vast sums into targeting increased efficiency over the next couple of years. While they have withdrawn from their Kyoto protocol responsibilities, they might -override European industry in building high efficiency plants. The EU will need to fulfil exactly these responsibilities. Thus, even if we turn away from oil and gas and towards coal for elec-tricity production, we might still find the EU dependent on other countries - from a technologi-cal view point this time - if the EU doesn’t invest into the future of its power plant industries.

The European Commission has not only acknowledged the need to withdraw from a reliance on fuels not widely available within the EU, but also the necessity of further development of available technologies: "Coal's future depends largely on the development of techniques which make it easier to use … and lessen its environmental impact in terms of pollutant emissions through clean combustion technologies1.”

It is all the more surprising that Clean Coal Technology plays a very minor part in the 6th Framework Programme for Research. Investments into Clean Coal Technology Research, for example the ultra-supercritical 700°C power plant, are essential to the future of the EU regarding the security of sustainable energy supply, climate control, and economic growth.

1 EC 2003, COM (2000)769; Green Paper of the European Commission Towards a European

Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply.


PE 338.431 - 4 -

2.1.2 Global and EU Energy and CO2 emissions Trends2

World energy demand is projected to increase at about 1.8%/year between 2000 and 2030. The impact of economic and population growth (3.1% and 1%/yr on average, respectively), is moderated by a decrease in the energy intensity of 1.2%/year, due to the combined effects of structural changes in the economy, technological progress and energy price increases. In-dustrialised countries will experience a slowdown in the growth of their energy demand to a level of e.g. 0.4%/year in the EU. Conversely, the energy demand of developing countries is increasing rapidly. In 2030, more than half of the world energy demand is expected to come from developing countries, compared to 40% today.

The world energy system will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels, making up almost

90% of the total energy supply in 2030. Oil will remain the main source of energy (34%)

followed by coal (28%). Almost two-thirds of the increase in coal supply between 2000 and

2030 will come from Asia. Natural gas is projected to represent one quarter of the world’s

energy supply by 2030 with power generation providing the bulk of the increase. In the EU,

natural gas is expected to be the second largest energy source, behind oil but ahead of coal

and lignite. Nuclear and renewable energies would altogether represent slightly less than 20%

of the EU’s energy supply.

Figure 2-1: World energy consumption3

Coal demand is also projected to grow rapidly over the next thirty years. Between 1990 and 2000 the growth of coal consumption was 0.9%/year. From 2000 to 2010, it increases to 2.1%/year and then to 2.5%/year until 2030 as it becomes more competitive than other fuels.

Coal production is expected to double between 2000 and 2030, with most of the growth taking place in Asia and Africa, where more than half the coal would be extracted in 2030.

Given the increasing dominance of fossil fuels, world CO2 emissions are expected to in-crease more rapidly than the energy consumption (2.1%/year on average). In 2030, world CO2 emissions will be more than twice the level as in 1990. In the EU, CO2 emissions are

2 EC, 2003, World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook 2030, WETO. 3 Ibid.


- 5 - PE 338.431

projected to increase by 18% in 2030 compared to the 1990 level and in the USA the in-crease is around 50%. While emissions from developing countries represented 30% of the total in 1990, these countries are responsible for more than half of the world’s CO2 emissions in 2030.

The use of fossil energy is inevitable for meeting this demand

Today fossil energy accounts for about 60% of the electricity production. This rate will in-crease due to the electricity need of particular threshold countries with large fossil energy re-sources (e.g. China and India), Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-2: Development of the World‘s Electricity Production Fossil Fuels Dominate Power Generation4

4 VGB PowerTech, Alstom, Siemens: Power 21 – A low Emission Power Plant Initiative Concept

Paper.


PE 338.431 - 6 -

Fossil Fired Central Power Plants will Remain the Workhorse of Electrical Power Generation Over the Next Decades.

high voltage transmission

medium voltagetransmission

10 kV

110 kV

Mirco turbinesPEM SOFC

small hydropower plants 4 GW/a

renewables *)12 GW/a

nuclear 5 GW/anuclear 5 GW/a

recip. engines13 GW/a

small fossil firedpower plants 17 GW/a

large hydropower plants16 GW/a

decentralized< 100 MW

centralized> 100 MW

low voltage transmission

central fossil firedpower plants 88 GW/a

GT/ CC

STPP

GT/ CC

STPP

GT/CC

STPPGT/CC

STPP

Source: Siemens 2002*) Wind, biomass, solar, geothermal With GT=Gas Turbine; CC=Combined Cycle; STPP=Steam Turbine Power Plant

Figure 2-3: Segmentation of the World Market for Power Plants

Power generation technologies trend

In the reference scenario of WETO (EC - World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook), the world electricity demand and production figures rise steadily at an average rate of 3 %/year over the period until 2030, to a level 2.3 times higher in 2030 than in 2000.

Figure 2-4: World power generation5

5 EC, 2003, World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook 2030, WETO.


- 7 - PE 338.431

More than half the total electricity production in 2030 will be provided by technologies that emerged since the nineties such as gas turbine combined cycle, advanced coal technologies and renewable energy technologies. These two fossil fuel-based technologies are expected to largely replace conventional thermal power plants by the end of the projection period. The share of conventional coal in power generation is expected to decrease from 36 % in 2000 to 12 % in 2030 while the share of gas increases from 16 % to 25 % and advanced coal takes a share of 33 % in 2030.

The general trend in the EU is similar to the evolution at world level (Figure 2-4). However, the penetration of advanced coal is more limited: 19 % of total electricity production in 2030 while renewable technologies are then projected to represent 8%. This projection does not include any specific policy measures in favour of power generation technologies and the penetration of these technologies is based solely on their potential, cost and performance.

The share of coal decreases in all regions except those with abundant coal resources such as in North America, where it stabilises, and in Asia, where it increases significantly. The share of gas increases steadily in the three major gas producing regions (CIS, Middle East and Latin America). The share of oil remains small and even tends towards zero in North America, Japan and the Pacific region. More specifically, advanced coal power production increases very rapidly in North America and reaches 37 % of total electricity production in 2030. Globally, the share of coal will be more than 50 % of total electricity production, with advanced coal mainly substituting conventional coal.

The EU is dependant on energy imports used in ageing fossil Power Plants

The EU today has to cover 50% of its energy consumption by (fuel) imports. This depend-ency rate is expected to increase to 70% by 2020/20306.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Year

Power in TWh (electricity)

Solid

Gas

Nuclear

Figure 2-5: Power Generation by energy form in EU7

6 EC 2003, COM (2000)769, Green Paper of the European Commission op. cit. 7 DG TREN,1999, European Union energy outlook to 2020


PE 338.431 - 8 -

Over 50% of the installed Power Plant (PP) capacity is fossil based, of which two thirds are currently more than 20 years old. This latter fact is also true for the power plant parks in Central and Eastern Europe. In 2010 the average age of the coal-fired capacity will be around 40 years if it is considered that during the 1980s and 1990s only a few new plants were constructed and none are being planned at the moment. Refer to Figure 4-2.

2.1.3 The fuel – coal and its price

Coals are classified with peat and lignite ranking ‘low’ and anthracite ranking ‘high’.

• Low rank coals, such as lignite and sub bituminous coals, are characterised by high moisture levels and low carbon content, hence a low energy content. They are typically softer, friable materials with a dull, earthy appearance.

• Higher rank coals are typically harder and stronger and often have a black vitreous lustre. Increasing rank is accompanied by a rise in the carbon and energy contents and a de-crease in the moisture content of the coal.

• Anthracite is at the top of the rank scale and has a correspondingly higher carbon and energy content, a lower level of moisture and low amounts of volatile matter.

Coal reserves are, by far, the largest of all the fossil fuels but this is not mirrored by their pre-sent day use where oil is used to a much greater extent.

The world coal resources available for meeting our energy requirements today and in the fu-ture are very extensive, compared in particular with mineral oil and natural gas. Thus, the -coal supplies will be able to meet the future world energy demand for more than the coming century.

Reserves are very widespread and will be even more so with the enlargement of the EU. However, the problem of competitiveness will lead the EU to drastically cut production. In practice, only the UK’s hard coal production could become competitive again.

From today’s economic point of view, the use of lignite in power plants with available tech-nology is competitive, while the use of hard coal from European sources is not economically viable. European Community coal costs three to four times the world price.

International coal price remains relatively stable

Coal price is independent of oil price and is assumed to remain so. Moreover, and contrary to oil and gas, coal supply will not be subject to resource constraints over the projection period of the next 30 years. Therefore the evolution of the price of coal is derived from the develop-ment of production costs of the key producing countries. The reference scenario of the POLES model projects stable, then slowly increasing coal prices of 15 to 35 % from current price levels, according to the market considered8. This rather moderate increase in world coal prices, despite a sustained growth in consumption, reflects the extreme abundance of coal resources in many regions, as well as the possibility of significant productivity increases in coal production. In the next decades, the modernisation and mechanisation of coal pro-duction will exert a significant downward pressure on prices.

8 EC, 2003, World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook 2030, WETO.


- 9 - PE 338.431

2.2 Initiatives to meet the challenges of this decade The EU-Commission has set the priority of decreasing import dependency in its Green Paper “Towards a European Strategy for the security of energy supply.” It states in particular meas-ures such as the increase of efficiency rates in energy production, the increase of renewable energy technologies and safeguard recourse to domestic energy resources.

The European power industry has, in accordance with the Green Paper, started initiatives for which strong support by the EU is crucial in order to solve the challenges raised by the global trends.

2.2.1 Promoting supply security by meeting the capacity gap

Looking at all aspects raised in the Green Paper, in documents from the EC Directorate General for Transport and Energy (DG TREN) and in the introduction of the 6th Framework programme on RTD, increased energy production on the basis of advanced clean fossil technologies is mandatory in order to meet the challenges for a sustainable development.

Secure energy supply requires sustained power plant equipment in all fields of thermal en-ergy production. In order to meet the increased global demand and avoid power shortages like those in the US, new investment in fossil PP is mandatory in the forthcoming two dec-ades for delivering an additional annual capacity of 10.000 TWh; in Europe about 300 GW9. Therefore it seems likely that it will be necessary to replace a lot of aged coal-fired capacity with new capacity in the period 2010-2030. This capacity has to be coal-fired if the EU also wants to have a safe and secure fuel supply for power generation after 2010.

Figure 2-6: Power plant capacities in the EU younger than 40 years10

At a cost of 800 - 900 € per kW installed capacity, closing this gap will require an overall in-vestment of about 250 Bln € in Europe alone. The total global market for clean coal PP is es-timated at more than 500 Bln €.

9 Estimates of European Power Industry, 2003 10 7. Fachkongress Zukunftsenergien, Essen, 12.02.2003, EPPSA general information and Presentation, and BREF documents


PE 338.431 - 10 -

This could generate an increase in employment in Europe of about 10,000 jobs, from today’s approx. 50,000 jobs, with most of them requiring high technical qualifications.

Furthermore, this gap in European energy supply can only be closed if about 1/3 of the cur-rent fossil fuel-based capacities are replaced quickly. This is required in order to avoid a -crisis similar to that in California happening in the European energy supply before 2010.

Renewable energies have an important role to play, however, for various reasons (see be-low) their contribution within the EU will remain at best at a level of about 10%:

• Potential: It is limited and strongly dependent on site conditions,

• Price: in most cases the power generation costs are not competitive, at least for largest potential solar energy, biomass,

• Forces for extension: The Development of renewables is driven by the approach of exploitation of their potential and not by the power demand to be met,

• Flexibility of operation: in most cases renewable power cannot be produced at the time and place of the power demand,

The urgent investments into fossil PP are presently delayed by the recent decision on emis-sion trading, because of the existing uncertainty on future emission trading costs.

The European power industry agrees that emission trading should penalise old coal PP technologies and reward high efficiency clean coal PP. Since a coal PP is a very long-term investment, the present backlog of building new plants creates delays, which cannot be rap-idly compensated at a later stage.

In order to promote the supply security by clean fossil PP, the European Power Plant opera-tion and equipment manufacturing industry needs policy support by the EU for large-scale investments (e.g. support to RTD, linkage of RTD to application, know-how sharing in net-works, Structural Funds , Pre-Accession Funds, promotion of technologies).

2.2.2 Promoting reduction of CO2 emissions by meeting the technology gap

The next generation of technologies will protect the environment and will generally use less fuel in the mix of centralised and decentralised power plants.

FOSSIL POWER PLANT TECHNOLOGY

Coal and Other Solid Fuels

Decentralized Power Plants

Gas Turbine Power Plants� enhanced cycling� synfuels� ultra high turbine inlet temperatures� catalytic combustion

� conventional steam technology� ultra supercritical steam technology� gasification combined cycle� pressurized fluidized bed combustion� pressurized pulverized coal

� industrial gas and steam turbines � recip. engines� micro gas turbines (MGT)� fuel cells (with/without MGT)

Figure 2-7: Modern fossil PP provide potential to reduce CO2-emissions11

11 7. Fachkongress Zukunftsenergien, Essen, 12.02.2003, EPPSA general information and Presen-tation, and BREF documents


- 11 - PE 338.431

Given the emission constraints and taking into account the importance of fossil energy sources a substantial increase in the efficiency rate of fossil PP is one of the most important tasks to be resolved.

Figure 2-8: Emission reduction with improved efficiency12

The present average efficiency rate of coal fired power plants (PP) worldwide is estimated at 30%. However, the newest state of the art coal PP allows achieving efficiency rates of 40-48%. Modern power plants with Clean Coal Technologies (CCT) with that range of efficiency can reduce CO2 emissions by about 30%. Future power plants with increased net efficiency from 45% up to 55% can reduce CO2 emissions by a further 20%.

Today’s available Clean Coal Technologies create a potential for a reduction of CO2 emis-sions in the EU of about 225 million tons of CO2 per year, equal to 92% of the Kyoto target for the EU.

Requirements for Coal Technologies�� further increase of efficiency • further development of materials

• for increasing the steam parameters

• further development of processes and components

• double reheat

• efficiency of turbine and steam generator

• minimising self consumption

• heat recovery

�� with simultaneous decrease of specific investment costs �� R & D for processes, components and materials

12 Ibid.


PE 338.431 - 12 -

2.2.3 Meeting the Technology Gap under Competitive Global Market Conditions

The emission reduction potential must be utilised in large-scale power generation in order to contribute to the climate change policies. Investing in RTD to fill the still existing technology gap is particularly important for the European economy.

The US Government has clearly got the message since they have already launched a 2 Bln $US R&D programme for fossil energies over 10 years, in 2002. The competitors to the European power plant industry consequently follow this road since the US-government an-nounced the ‘FutureGen’-project in February 2003. This is a proposed 275 MW power station that will be the world’s first coal fired, emission free power plant. The $1 billion prototype venture will combine electricity and hydrogen production with a virtual total elimination of harmful emissions, including greenhouse gases.

In contrary, modern European power plant technology is not explicitly supported by the 6th EU Framework Programme.

At present, the European power plant suppliers are still worldwide technology leaders. How-ever, given the foreseeable worldwide demand for energy, it seems very doubtful that the European power plant suppliers will be able to defend their position or whether this market will be lost to non-EU producers (e.g. USA, Japan, China, Korea). If nothing is undertaken soon, there is a real danger that EU know-how will be lost and EU industry will lose its pres-ent competitive advantage or in the worst case even disappear.

In order to avoid a technology gap under competitive global market conditions and to pro-mote reduction of CO2 emissions by efficient fossil power plants, the thermal power genera-tion needs to be included in EU funding programmes (e.g. RTD, Structural Funds and Envi-ronment Fund).

2.3 Market Barriers for CCT Each of the heat and power technologies experiences some specific market barriers and these are discussed in the individual technology modules. However, there are also some more general barriers which apply to most of the heat and power technologies, such as:

• Advanced power plants have high initial investment costs, and their development is also expensive. Since the main markets for new power plants are in countries with developing economies, and will remain so for many years, attention also needs to be focused on the development of plant and financial schemes which are well suited for such markets.

• Actual or perceived risks associated with innovative technologies and their potential envi-ronmental impacts may deter investors, and make it difficult to raise finance.

• Aspects of market operation, relevant regulations and lack of an appropriate infrastruc-ture may restrict or prevent deployment in certain cases.

• The driving aspect for the investment in more efficient power plants is the pressure of the power wholesale price. Current power production costs from coal fired power plants are about 3 €ct/kWh. Specific Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for high efficient power plants can be decreased, but the long-term risk of large investments in new tech-nologies must be lowered by reducing the risk of a further power tariff fall as a conse-quence of the liberalisation. The policy is requested to set the framework conditions to allow a long-term sustainable operation of large, high efficient coal fired power plants as a key element in the European power production park. The power industry will not be able to invest in advanced plants at the edge of the economic conditions of the break even point for power production costs of currently 3-3,5 €ct/kWh13.

13 Estimate of European Power Industry, 2003


- 13 - PE 338.431

There is also competition between technologies within the heat and power sector, e.g.:

• Within the EU, the price of gas is low, and the cost of new natural-gas-fired plants is also low. In the rapidly-changing EU electricity supply industry, new natural-gas plants have a significant economic advantage over new solid-fuel-based plants (Figure 3-21: Cost of Electricity (CoE) by Technology).

• The aspect of the stability of the fuel price has to be considered in the long term view of using coal for large scale power generation. The fuel price volatility of natural gas makes the long-term investment in gas fired power plants expensive, while the coal as a fuel price is calculable, stable and low in the long-term (compare Figure 3-13: Structure of costs for electricity).

• There is increasing environmental concern within the EU to reduce both local and re-gional pollution and to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions, which is putting increased pressure on the operation of fossil-fuel-based plants. Because of their lower specific emissions of most pollutants, and because of their low specific CO2 emissions, natural-gas-fired plant also have strong environmental advantages over solid-fuel-based tech-nologies.

• Despite these arguments for gas-fired plants, there is a need to maintain a diversity of primary energy supply within the EU, and to take into consideration the longevity of sup-ply of competing fuels (world gas supplies are expected to reduce significantly and costs increase well before there is any such impact on supplies of coal).

• Competition between technologies and energy sources within the heat and power sector is necessary. Only this way will the long-term viable technologies prevail. Market distor-tions by non-project-driven, long-term cross-subsidies to politically preferred energy sources or technologies remain a serious market barrier to CCT.

In order to encourage competition within the energy sector an environmentally and economi-cally sound technology-based energy policy should be balanced between the technologies. So, for example, the US-Administration ”will continue to make investments in research and development for renewable energies, hybrid car technology, alternative fuels, lightweight materials and clean diesel. But these alone will not sufficiently reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions given the world's growing energy demands. It is, therefore, critical that we find new ways to produce clean, emission-free power from coal.”


PE 338.431 - 14 -


- 15 - PE 338.431

3. Overview on Clean Coal Technologies As introduction to this section the following figure is provided, which gives an overview on the various CCT, split according to the applicability and degree of maturity of the technology. In the following the CCT are briefly described.

Figure 3-1: Overview on the different Clean Coal Technologies

3.1 State of the Art - European market survey on available Clean Coal Technologies for high-efficiency coal-fired power plants

To date there are four major power plant concepts based on coal combustion which are ei-ther commercially available and are being developed further (higher efficiencies, emission control) or are in an advanced development phase with first demonstration projects under way.


PE 338.431 - 16 -

3.1.1 PCF - conventional pulverised coal fired technology

First to mention is the conventional pulverised coal fired technology (PCF), which is, with the exception of IFPS (indirectly fired power systems such as HIPPS, described later on), based on a pure steam cycle process. This is the predominant technology of the past 50 years and modern power plant de-signs utilising supercritical steam conditions (about 580°C/280 bar) can reach net efficiencies of 40-45% (up to 47% for sea water cooled power plants). Much R&D concentrates on the further de-velopment of this technology in Europe, the US and Japan to increase efficiencies by up to 50% with the introduction of ultra supercritical (USC) steam technology.

These high temperature/ high pressure conditions require the further development of creep resistant materials for components of the steam cycle. Most promising are Ni-based super alloys allowing steam conditions of up to 720°C and 350bar. Apart from developing these super alloys further, small incre-mental measures have to be taken to reach 50% efficiency, such as the further reduction of condenser pressure below 35-40 mbar (as, in the meantime, has been reached with advanced technology at Niederaussem PP).

In Europe, major power plant equipment manufactures as well as big power plant operators are combining efforts in EU-wide research and demonstration projects (e.g. the E-max initia-tive) to develop USC technology to be commercially available from 2015 onwards (first demo plant in 2016). As a first step, major improvements in components efficiency were reached in the last 5 years, e.g. leading to the BoA technology realised at Niederaussem PP.

Figure 3-2: Concept of conventional PCF power plant with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD)14

14 IEA Coal Research - The Clean Coal Centre : http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/iea1.htm.

Pulverised Coal Fired power plants

• Available with ~45% efficiency

• Future (with ultracritical steam-USC; ~2015): 53%

• Steam conditions: 290-350bar/600-700°C (USC-adv. USC)

• Low NOx/SO2 emissions with FGD/SCR (<200/<400 mg/m³)

• Size: 200-1100 MWe • Low investment costs (~€1000/kW)

• Mature (USC with η=45%)


- 17 - PE 338.431

PCF covers the range of 200-1100 MWe . The investment costs of modern PCF are in the range of 800-1000€/kW with desulphurisation (DeSOx) and SCR (DeNOx; emission control is about 15% of total investment). An increase in investment costs, due to the utilisation of USC fit Ni-based materials, of about 10% is estimated. Emission reduction of 90% for SOx and 75% for NOx are reached compared to PCF power plants without DeSOx/DeNOx equipment. Particle emission is also very low (below 50 mg/m³ flue gas).

The following table gives an overview of the technical parameters of important demonstra-tions or representative power plants (worldwide) utilising PCF technology. Displayed are net efficiencies, i.e. already reduced by internal consumption of the installed flue gas cleaning (and thus depend on the degree of flue gas cleaning). It also has to be mentioned that (hard) coal power plants can reach higher efficiencies than lignite plants as lignite has lower heating values (higher moisture) thereby reducing the boiler temperature .

Plant Capacity Steam state Start-up Efficiency (LHV15) MW bar/°C/°C [%] (design/real)

Esbjerg 3 (DK) 415 250/560/560 1992 45.3 (coal) MeriPori (FIN) 560 250/540/560 1993 43,5 (coal) Hemweg (NL) 630 260/540/568 1994 42,6 (coal) Nordjylland 3 (DK) 410 290/582/580 1998 47 (coal) Boxberg (D) 900 250/544/562 2000 41.7/42.7 (lignite) Schwarze Pumpe (D) 2x800 250/544/562 2000 40.5/41.1 (lignite) Lippendorf (D) 2x920 268/554/583 2000 42.3/42.8 (lignite) Waigaoqiao (China) 2x900 279/542/562 2002 42.7 (coal) Niederaussem (K unit, D) 1000 274.5/580/600 2002 >43/not known yet

(lignite)

Table 3-1: Representative supercritical steam PCF power plants16

3.1.2 FBC - Fluidised bed combustion

FBC also is based on the use of coal as a fuel. Compared to PCF-firing, more coarse mate-rial could be used, and fuel co-combustion of other (solid) fuels including e.g. biomass or coal blending is possible. Finally, NOx levels are lower (due to lower firing temperature <900 oC) and SOx emissions can be reduced by primary measures. Two major types are discerned depending on the pressure in the FBC boiler.

15 LHV - Lower heating value: energy content of fuel/coal without the condensation of water vapour 16 7. Fachkongress Zukunftsenergien, Essen, 12.02.2003, EPPSA general information and Presen-tation, and BREF documents


PE 338.431 - 18 -

AFBC - Atmospheric Circulated Fluidised Bed Combustion The boiler of an atmospheric FBC (AFBC) power plant is operated at ambient pressure (atmospheric) either in a circulating (CFB) or a bubbling fluidised bed (BFB). The AFBC type is widely in use (about 300 units world wide) and fully developed and com-mercially available for a wide range of fuels such as low grade coal (high ash, high sulphur), tar, waste, biomass, etc. Where „low cost“ solid/liquid fuels are available, AFBC is an interesting alternative to PCF technology. If emission limits require an end-of-pipe flue gas cleaning as in the case of PCF boilers, the formation of SO2 emissions can be reduced with simple primary measures as in the case of AFBC boilers (and NOx are low due to the low combustion temperatures). Net efficiencies are in the range of modern (non USC) conventional PCF plants (38-40%). Power plants of 200-300 MW class are avail-able, 500-600 MW are designed (e.g. from Lurgi) ready for order.

Figure 3-3: 265 MWel AFBC power plant (JEA large-scale CFB combustion project, USA)17

17 US Department of Energy: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/ccpi/index.html

Atmospheric Circulated Fluidised Bed

• Available with 40% efficiency • Future: ~44% efficiency • Scale: 100-600 MW • High fuel flexibility (biomass/waste/low rank coal)

• Low SO2/NOx emissions (due to direct sorbent injection / air staging)

• Competitive costs with no FGD/SCR units necessary (~1000€/kW)

• Mature (with η=40%)


- 19 - PE 338.431

3.1.3 PFBC - Pressurised Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion

Compared to AFBC, pressurised FBC (PFBC) is relatively new on the market (first demo plants in early 1990s). This technology involves the in-crease of the pressure level in the boiler, the flue gas cyclone and other components of the steam generating unit. Pressures are in the range of 10-20 bar. These units are quite compact and for-merly could be purchased mainly from ABB Car-bon as P200 (200MWth; 80MWel) or P800 (800 MWth, 350MWel) units which can be combined to reach higher power outputs. The whole ABB boiler (and turbine) technology branch was meanwhile sold to Alstom Power. Since then some 5 PFBC units were erected (4 P200 in Stockholm, Tidd/Ohio, Escatron (Spain) and Cottbus (D), and most recently 1 P800 in Karita (Japan; built by Japanese manufacturer using the Alstom license).

PFBC plants also differ from AFBC because they employ a combined gas and steam cycle (SC). Due to the elevated pressure level in the boiler unit the hot flue gas is first directly fed (after hot gas cleanup) into a gas turbine thus increasing overall efficiency to about 40, max. 42%. Alstom Power (formerly ABB Carbon), Babcock-Wilcox, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Hitachi all have the capacity to design and manufacture 100 MW-level PFBC power plants. Alstom has nevertheless stopped producing P200 or P800 boilers, now giving only license agreements, as efficiencies much higher than 40% are hardly reachable with the available PFBC design. A major research effort has to go towards the development of the hot flue gas clean-up unit and a partial gasification (beside combustion). Future efficiency is then estimated to reach 47% .

Pressurised Circulating Fluidised Bed

• Available with 42% efficiency • Future: ~47% efficiency • Combined gas/steam cycle with

pressurised boiler (~15bar) • Scale: 80-350 MW (P200/P800) • High fuel flexibility

(biomass/waste/low rank coal) • Low SO2/NOx emissions (due to

direct sorbent injection / air staging)

• Higher specific invest. costs (+20-45%)

• Late demonstration stage


PE 338.431 - 20 -

Figure 3-4: Design of 137 MWel PCFB power plant (McIntosh Unit 4A, USA)18

The following table gives an overview of the technical parameters of important demonstra-tions or representative power plants (worldwide) utilising PFBC.

Plant Capacity Steam state Start-up Efficiency (HHV) MWel [%]

Wartan (S) 135(225) 137bar/530°C 1990 33.5 Escatron (E) 75 94bar/513°C 1990 36.4 Tidd (USA) 70 90bar/496°C 1990 35 Warkamatsu (JP) 70 103bar/593°C/593°C 1993 37.5 Cottbus (D) 65(90) 142bar/537°C/537°C 1999 42 Karita (JP) 350 241bar/565°C/593°C 1999 42

Table 3-2: Commercial scale PFBC power plants19

The high degree of integration and the low availability of some key components did not help this technology to come out from the demonstration stage and be commercially competitive.

18 US Department of Energy, http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/ccpi/index.html 19 EPPSA general information and Presentation and BREF documents, op. cit.


- 21 - PE 338.431

3.1.4 IGCC - Integrated gasification combined cycle

IGCC is a combined cycle based on coal gasifica-tion and combustion of syngas in a gas turbine. The exhaust gases from the gas turbine are then fed into the steam cycle. Unlike PFBC where the hot flue gas (no syngas) is hot cleaned, the tem-perature of the IGCC syngas is lowered (~400°C) in the syngas clean-up unit before being fed into the gas turbine, thus lowering the potential effi-ciency. The overall net efficiency is about 42-45% to date. It is expected to rise to 50-52% in the fu-ture. Like FBC the major advantage is the possibil-ity to use low cost fuels and also have competitive net efficiencies compared to PCF and AFBC. Emission control is either integrated into the boiler or connected with the syngas cleaning with very low NOX/ SOX emissions possible. The investment costs are currently at about 1500-2000 €/kW. The direct removal of sulphur compounds from the syngas results in the effective recovery of ele-mental sulphur, yielding a sellable raw chemical product.

Figure 3-5: Concept of IGCC power plant20

20 IEA Coal Research - The Clean Coal Centre : http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/iea1.htm

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)

• Available with 45% efficiency • Future: 52% efficiency • Combined gas/steam cycle • Scale: 100-400 MW • High fuel flexibility (biomass/waste/low rank coal/oil residues)


• High specific invest. costs (+25-50%)

• Early commercial stage


PE 338.431 - 22 -

Although IGCC technology is somewhat commercially available, it is also under continuous development. Two major IGCC demonstration projects in the EU were the IGCC projects at Buggenum (Netherlands) and Puertollano (Spain). To date there are about 24 IGCC power plants either under construction or planned to be built. IGCC is also implemented for the gasification of oil refinery residues (e.g. at Sulcis, Italy). In the US there are currently three major IGCC demonstration plants already in operation.

The following table gives an overview of the technical parameters of important demonstration or representative power plants (worldwide) utilising IGCC technology.

Plant Capacity Gasifier Type Start-up Efficiency (HHV) MW [%]

Cool Water (USA) 96 entrained-flow 1984 31.2 Plaquemine (USA) 160 2-entrained-flow 1987 36 Buggenum (NL) 253 entrained-flow 1994 41.3 Wabash River (USA) 262 2-entrained-flow 1995 39.2 Polk County (USA) 250 entrained-flow 1996 40 Pinon Pine (USA) 99 fluidised-bed 1997 38 Puertollano (E) 300 entrained-flow 1997 42.5 Litinov (Czech) 350 fixed-bed 1997

Table 3-3: Commercial scale coal-fired IGCC power plants21

Due to the high specific investment costs and the low operation availability IGCC is at pres-ent not the best commercially competitive option for power generation. However, as the flue gas mostly contains CO2 and for example, hardly any nitrogen as in PCF plants, IGCC has an advantage and is a promising technology if CO2 capture and removal is the aim. Thus, there may be a commercialisation path in the future.

21 EPPSA general information and Presentation and BREF documents, op. cit.


- 23 - PE 338.431

3.2 EARLY-STAGE - coal fired power generation technologies All the above mentioned developments of clean coal technologies for power generation are more or less commercially available or under intense development with promising demon-stration projects under way. The following are technologies under development in EU coun-tries, or with the involvement of European companies and have not yet reached technological maturity or commercial availability.

3.2.1 PPCC- Pressurised pulverised coal combustion

PPCC like PFBC employs a combined cycle with both a pressurised boiler unit and a gas turbine for the direct utilisation of the flue gas. PPCC operates similarly to PFBC at pressure levels of about 15 bar, but the furnace tem-perature is significantly higher than for PFBC with 1600-1750°C instead of 800-900°C. This allows for quite high gas turbine inlet tem-peratures ranging from 1000-1300°C which are comparable to conventional natural gas fired gas turbine systems. Consequently higher effi-ciencies of ~55% should be possible.

As a result of the high temperature level, the coal ash is in a liquid state covering the furnace walls and flowing to the bottom of the boiler where it can be removed. To prevent liquid ash from entering the gas turbine and causing dam-age through erosion of the turbine blades, the flue gas has to be hot cleaned in liquid slag removers and alkali removers. Whereas hot flue gas clean up with conventional filter technology is possible at temperatures of 800-900°C (as proved for PFBC) this is not easily the case at 1400°C. Consequently major research efforts are currently under way for the development of the hot flue gas clean up.

PPCC technology is presently in a development phase with small pilot plants; PPCC boil-ers/flue gas clean-up systems being operated at research centres mostly in Germany (e.g. University of Aachen; 1 MW pilot plant in Dorsten, Germany). No detailed data on efficiency and emissions apart from estimations are available yet.

3.2.2 IGFC - Integrated gasification fuel cell (FC) technology

Another interesting utilisation of the IGCC process is IGFC. This clean coal technology is quite young and in an early stage of development. Today there are two major projects in the US and in Japan. IGFC is comparable to IGCC for the production of syngas and the utilisa-tion of a gas and steam cycle process. Additionally a fuel cell unit is integrated currently in the lower MW capacity range. Molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) operating at about 600°C or solid oxide FCs (SOFC) for temperatures at 900-1000°C are available for this purpose. The other major difference compared to IGCC is the need for a very effective syngas clean up system for which major research efforts are now under way. Net efficiencies of up to 60% for a mature IGFC combined cycle are thought possible with net efficiencies >50% at the moment for the two pilot scale power plants. The fuel cell itself also needs improvements e.g. regarding the maximum lifetime.

Pressurised Pulverised Coal Combustion (PPCC)

• Future (>2010): ~55% efficiency • Combined gas/steam cycle • Similar to PCFB but with gas temperatures of 1100-1400°C


• Unknown but probably higher costs

• R&D for hot flue gas clean-up needed

• Early pilot stage (1MW)


PE 338.431 - 24 -

For both technologies (IGCC and IGFC), air blown and oxygen blown gasifiers are devel-oped. The installation of an additional air separation unit with an increase in investment costs allows further increases in overall power plant net efficiency (from 54% up to 59% for IGFC). To date no qualified expectations for overall system costs of IGFC are possible.

Whereas IGFC is at the moment not commercially available (maximum capacity of demo FC: ~2MW) it is estimated that first demonstration power plants with capacities in the utility range (300 MW fuel cell + 300 MW gas and steam) will be implemented around 2020.

The only two projects currently underway are the US funded Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Dem-onstration Project and the EAGLE project in Wakamautsu, Japan. These are mainly IGCC related projects with the additional testing of MCFC fuel cells. No European research efforts in this direction are underway at this time.

3.2.3 IFPS - Indirectly fired power systems HIPPS - performance power systems

In the US, another promising PCF based tech-nology is the IFPS or HIPPS. Contrary to the standard PCF power plant, the IFPS plant is based on a combined cycle (Brayton gas tur-bine plus Rankine steam turbine) process where compressed air for the turbine inlet is heated (via heat exchangers) in a PCF boiler to a temperature approaching 1000-1300°C (gas turbine inlet temperature). Net efficiencies of 47% were reported with the potential for >50% efficiency. The US DoE (Dept. of Energy) to-gether with US equipment manufacturers is cur-rently investing in IFPS/HIPPS.

High performance power systems (HIPPS) are indirectly fired power systems (IFPS) which use an indirectly fired gas turbine combined cycle, where heat is provided to the gas turbine by high-temperature heat exchangers. In an indirectly fired cycle, the products of coal combus-tion do not contact the gas turbine. In a first step, compressed air (~16bar) is heated via heat exchangers up to temperatures of 1100°C (~1400°C are ultimately envisaged) and fed to the gas turbine. This first step can also be topped (additional combustion of natural gas to further increase GT inlet temperature) to increase overall efficiency. The gas turbine exhaust gases are than put into the steam cycle (HRSG/ HP gas turbine/ LP gas turbine/ condenser).

To date there are two slightly different HIPPS technologies in the development and demon-stration stages. The UTRC (Process named by developer: United Technologies Research Center) and the FW-type (Foster-Wheeler) HIPPS differ in the boiler design with the FW-de-sign using a pyroliser to produce a syngas being cool cleaned and burned in the gas turbine. The residue char is then burned in an additional boiler unit to heat the air for the gas turbine. The UTRC employs the “common” IFPS approach.

The main advantage of the IFPS technology is the possibility to have a combined cycle at initial GT temperatures of 1000-1100°C resulting in high efficiencies of >50% (at 1400°C) without the need for sophisticated hot flue gas clean up technology which is not yet fully available. To date, efficiencies of 45% have been reported, therefore most components of an IFPS power plant are already available (to date R&D efforts are directed towards the high temperature heat exchangers).

High Performance Power Systems (HIPPS)

• Available with 45% efficiency • Future: 53% efficiency • Indirectly fired with heating of air up to 1400°C for combined gas/steam cycle

• Scale: 250-450MW • Costs: 1450 €/kW (η~50%) • Further R&D for materials and heat exchanger needed

• Demonstration stage in the US (2 pps)


- 25 - PE 338.431

3.2.4 MHD - Magnetohydrodynamic power generation

Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) power generation is a combined cycle power generation technology in which the electric generator is made up of static, non-rotating equipment. In the MHD con-cept, an ionised fluid flows through a static mag-netic field, resulting in a direct current electric flow perpendicular to the magnetic field. Therefore, hot ionised gas from combusting coal is taken as the fluid conductor and is mixed with Potassium Carbonate (seed) to increase conductivity. After flowing through the field, hot gases are used to generate steam and turn a turbine. As heat is transferred, seed is recaptured for recycling. The major technological drawback is the need to use expensive super conducting magnets, which must be cooled to 269 degrees Celsius. The tempera-ture of the hot air is about 2500°C. Efficiency for a combined cycle is estimated to be >50%.

The main advantage, apart from high efficiencies, would be the relatively simple design with no need for an expensive gas turbine and a hot gas clean up to protect it. Even as the super conducting technology, which is an important prerequisite, is in a mature stage, MHD power generation is (even when further R&D efforts are invested) many years away.

Research on the field of magnetohydrodynamic power generation was initially part of the US MHD program but was eventually discontinued. Only for the low-NOx burner development part of the MHD program is further research being continued.

3.2.5 Coal diesel

The clean coal diesel demonstration project in Fairbanks Alaska, USA is a demonstration of an 18-cylinder, heavy duty diesel engine (6.4-MWe) modified to operate on Alaskan sub bituminous coal. Coal is mixed with water to form a slurry which can be directly injected into the diesel combustion chambers. Power generation in general is expected to be in the 5- to 20-MWe range. This MW scale would be best suited for decentralised CHP generation.

The demonstration plant is expected to achieve 41% efficiency, and future plant designs are expected to reach 48% efficiency and to have very low NOx and SO2 emissions due to FGD and SCR emission control measures. The testing and operation phase began in 2002. The project was heavily funded by the US DoE. The US Alaska coal diesel project is so far the only one in the world. The world market for small scale CHP plants (~10MW) and onsite/ mobile power generation is estimated to be several 100 GW (>100.000 engines).

MagnetoHydroDynamo Power Systems (MHD)

• Future: >50% efficiency (?) • Combined cycle (MHD channel + steam turbine)

• Unconventional technology (no gas turbine, instead use of MHD effect)

• High cost barrier due to high temperature super conducting technology

• Very early R&D stage (pro-gram discontinued in the US)


PE 338.431 - 26 -

3.3 European market survey on technologies for emission reduc-tion in coal-fired power plants

This chapter gives an overview on emission reduction technologies, which are state-of-the-art for advanced coal fired power plants.

Within the European Union, 4 % of coal- and lignite-fired combustion plants currently apply technical measures to reduce SO2 emissions, 16 % apply techniques to reduce NOx emis-sions, and about 54 % of plants apply both. The remaining 26 % have not yet applied tech-niques to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions

22.

DeNOx (removal of nitrogen)16%

DeSO2 and DeNOx59%

DeSO2 (desulphuri-sation)4%

No flue gas cleaning21%

Figure 3-6: Current status of flue gas cleaning equipment of European power plants (150 GWel)

3.3.1 Control of emissions from pulverised fuel combustion23

Fuel pre-treatment

As a first step to minimise the generation of emissions, raw materials, used as fuel in the whole process, can be improved, for instance using the following techniques:

• by using a blend of coals with different characteristics from different countries

• by applying coal washing/cleaning

• by coal gasification

• by homogenising the coal to ensure the standard quality of the final fuel.

Fuel switch

A fuel switch to fossil fuels with a lower content of potential pollution-generating compounds can lead to a significant reduction in pollution from combustion installations. This measure is widely applied, e.g. using low-sulphur fuels instead of installing sophisticated FGD. However, fuel-switching options are limited by some aspects of adaptability for specific combustion in-stallations concerning the use of different fuels and sometimes by long-term contracts be-

22 Scheffknecht, Stamatelopoulos, Lorey: Advanced coal fired power plants, BKW, Bd. 54 (2002) No. 6, 2002.



- 27 - PE 338.431

tween power producing companies and fuel suppliers. In general, the adaptability depends on the burners installed, and usually a switch from one coal type to another coal, with a much better environmental profile (i.e. low sulphur content and low volatile material) or from hard coal to heavy oil, is often possible with the burners installed. Switching from coal to gas, however, normally requires an exchange of the burners. Any improvement in emission -reduction then obviously depends on the fuel characteristics of the fuel initially used and on the new type of fuel.

Dust abatement

In pulverised coal combustion, the bulk of the ash is carried with the flue gas out of the com-bustion chamber. Depending on the boiler type, only a small quantity (<20 %) is collected as bottom ash in dry bottom boilers. Most of the ash then leaves the furnace as fly ash and this fly ash must be collected in the dust reduction equipment, such as electric precipitators (ESP) and fabric (or bag) filters. In wet bottom boilers, ash is liquefied by the high combus-tion temperature This liquid ash flows with gravitational force to the slag tap. Even with high-velocity gas flow, most ash is extracted as slag. Fly ash is often recirculated for this type of furnace, to extract more ash as slag.

Amongst dust removal technologies, ESP is (by far) the most commonly used equipment in European lignite/coal-fired power plants. ESPs collect fly ash, generally in a dry form, that can be re-used for cement or concrete production, for use in road building or as backfilling material for mines and landfills. ESP techniques with a high voltage intermittent energising system are able to react to different fuel qualities, including lower sulphur content (though ef-ficiency is reduced). Further developments are connected with high voltage peaking, with peak times of microsecond (µs) duration. In this short time, corona discharge is optimised, but flash-over cannot be generated in this short time. This technique reduces electricity con-sumption of the ESP. Investment cost of large ESP is in the region of EURO 60 per kWel

Cyclones are rarely used for de-dusting in large combustion plants. Nevertheless, two in-stallations of this type (i.e. with pre-extraction of dust using the mechanical system upstream of the ESP) are being operated in France, in a 250 MWel unit in combined application. For the upgrading of ESPs, especially if low emission limits are required, it is often more economical to replace the existing ESP by fabric filters due to the space required for an optimal flue gas path. Though normally more expensive than large ESP, improved performance, reduced op-erating and maintenance costs and reduced power consumption may lower the life cycle cost more than refurbishment of existing equipment. For small plants, or very low emission limits (in the order of mg/m3 ) fabric filters are applied.

Abatement of mercury (Hg) emission

The abatement of Hg by flue gas cleaning devices depends on the Hg specification. Both gaseous elemental mercury (Hg0) and gaseous oxidised mercury (Hg2+) are in the vapour phase at flue gas cleaning temperatures. Hg0 is insoluble in water and cannot be captured in wet scrubbers. The predominant Hg2+ compounds of coal flue gas are weakly to strongly soluble, and the more-soluble species can generally be captured in wet FGD scrubbers. Both Hg0 and Hg2+ are adsorbed on porous solids such as fly ash, powered activated carbon or calcium-based acid gas sorbents for subsequent collection in a dust control device. Hg2+ is generally easier to capture by adsorption than Hg0. Particle–bound mercury Hgp is attached to solids that can be readily captured in an ESP or fabric filter (FF). Flue gas cleaning tech-niques applied in combustion installations use three basic methods to capture Hg:

• capture of Hg in dust of particulate matter control devices, such as an ESP or FF

• adsorption of Hg0 and Hg2+ onto entrained sorbents (injection of activated carbon) for subsequent capture in an ESP or FF. Alternatively Hg may be captured in a packed car-bon bed

• solvation of Hg2+ in wet scrubbers.


PE 338.431 - 28 -

Abatement of SO2 emissions

The specific technique used depends on a variety of plant- and site-specific factors, such as the location, the thermal capacity and the load factor of the particular plant, as well as the fuel and ash quality. For instance, certain low quality lignite, with high alkaline ash and low sulphur content, generate lower SO2 emissions (due to the natural desulphurisation that takes place during combustion. This might correspond in specific cases to up to 90 % SO2 removal).

Dry and semi-dry techniques are applied more to smaller plants (<100 MWth), whereas the wet scrubber technology is the dominant technique used in various applications in larger plants, i.e. over 300 MWth. Absorber towers are designed as spray, packed or double loop towers. A good example of a wet FGD plant in the UK which uses a spray tower applied to a large coal-fired plant is presented in the figure below.

Figure 3-7: Wet FGD process with a spray tower24

A number of plants have installed new types of heat-exchangers for off-gas reheating, to avoid possible contamination of the scrubbed gas by raw flue gas. In these gas-gas heat-ex-changers, multi-pipe heat extractors are used to transfer the heat from the hot raw gas to the clean scrubbed off-gas. These systems eliminate leakage because it is not necessary to cross the duct outlet with the duct inlet as is the case in the normal regenerative gas heat-exchanger.

As they are only suitable for power plants close to the coast, only a few PPs in Europe have applied seawater-scrubbing systems to reduce the amount of SO2 emitted to the atmosphere. Also due to the location of the plant, i.e. close to a town centre, and other special considera-tions such as the production of a fully sellable by-product, one coal-fired combustion plant has successfully applied the combined SO2/NOx (DESONOX) removal process.

A typical sorbent injection system is the American LIMB system (Limestone Injection - Multi-stage Burner), where hydrated lime is conveyed pneumatically to injection points installed in

24 ibid.


- 29 - PE 338.431

the upper furnace. The cost per kWel of LIMB process retrofitting is relatively low (less than EURO 100 per kWel). However, the cost of hydrated lime is high compared with the cost of limestone and this increases the operating cost and cost per tonne of SO2 removed (typically about EURO 1,000 per tonne). Similar methods were also applied for pulverised combustion boilers in Europe (Austria, Poland) with similar success.

Abatement of NOx emissions

Flue gas cleaning systems are usually designed to remove a single pollutant species. These systems are becoming increasingly retrofitted in the EU as legislation governing emissions from existing plants is tightened. In the case of lignite firing, uncontrolled NOx emissions from coal fired plants may be caused by fuel bound nitrogen or by thermal formations from nitro-gen in the air depending mainly on the origin and quality of the fuel. In case of hard coal fir-ing, a small proportion (less than 5% in coal-fired boilers) of NOx (so-called prompt-NOx) re-sults from the interaction of hydrocarbon fragments with atmospheric nitrogen at the flame front.

Measures for denitrification can again be divided in two groups: Primary measures trying to reduce the formation of NOx in the boiler, and secondary measures removing NOx from the flue gas (end-of-pipe measures). In hard-coal fired plants, primary or a combination of pri-mary and secondary measures are used, depending on the emission levels to be reached.

Since combustion temperatures in lignite boilers are lower (and the humidity is higher) com-pared to hard coal, thermal NOx formation is comparably lower than in coal-fired plants. For this reason, a combination of primary measures (cf. next page) are usually sufficient to re-duce NOx emissions to some 200 mg/Nm³ in lignite-fired plants.

Primary measures to lower NOx emissions

For coal-fired boilers that have applied ‘Low excess air’ as a primary measure, the usual excess air is in the range of 5 - 7 % O2 (in flue gas). A low excess air combustion can be characterised by 3 - 6 % O2, and a corresponding NOx emission reduction of between 10 and 40 %. Also, residence time has been identified as a key factor in the simultaneous control of NOx, CO and unburned carbon. This technique gives better results for wet bottom boilers than for dry bottom boilers, for wall fired boilers than for tangential-fired boilers and for hard coal-fired units than for lignite-fired units.

Flue gas recirculation: is not used very often in coal-fired boilers, except in wet bottom boilers. For coal boilers, the NOx reduction obtained with this technique can be as high as 15 - 20 %. This technique is used in lignite-fired boilers by hot flue gas recycling for lignite mill-ing/drying. In this case, the flue gas is extracted for drying the lignite and is therefore not pri-marily used to reduce NOx emissions, but still contributes to the generally lower NOx forma-tion in lignite- compared to hard coal-fired furnaces. With cold flue gas, NOx can often be re-duced further. Slagging can also be reduced for low temperature melting ash.

Overfire Air (OFA): is the most commonly used primary measure in coal-fired boilers. With modern OFA designs (optimised nozzle design, separated and swirled airflow), NOx reduc-tions of 40 - 50 % can be achieved in wall- or tangentially-fired boilers. OFA is a particularly efficient NOx reduction technique for tangentially-fired boilers, where it can be implemented as “Close Coupled OFA” (i.e. with the addition of OFA ports just above the highest row of burners). Another option is “Separated OFA” (i.e. with the addition of OFA ports above the main combustion zone, separated from the burner rows).

Low-NOx burner (LNB): For coal-fired boilers, the most often used are so-called low NOx (air-staged or fuel-staged type) burners, with respective NOx emission reductions of 25-35 % and 50-60 %. Low-NOx burners are the most common technique used to reduce NOx emis-sion in both new and existing coal-fired boilers. They constitute a mature technology with many different designs currently available from worldwide suppliers, often specifically adapted to each type and size of boiler. LNBs are often used in combination with OFA, espe-cially with tangentially-fired boilers, together with tilting or pulverised/coal injectors and vari-


PE 338.431 - 30 -

ous OFA types. NOx reductions of up to 70 % can be achieved. It has been claimed that modern air-staged LNB designs for wall-fired boilers (with optimised nozzle, or swirl for sec-ondary air injection, and a deflector for secondary/tertiary air injection) can achieve NOx re-ductions of up to 50 % without OFA, and up to 70 % with OFA. In lignite-fired power plants NOx emission reductions can be up to 75 % with a combination of LNB, OFA and flue gas re-circulation. The implementation of low-NOx burners may increase the level of carbon-in-ash, which should be kept within a limit to not hinder the recycling of these combustion residues (e.g. concrete tolerates some 3% unburned carbon, only). The addition of classifiers to the coal mills, which improves the fineness of the pulverised coal, is an efficient way to counter-balance this problem. Some modern coal LNBs are efficiently designed so as not to influence the carbon-in-ash level.

Reburning in coal-fired boilers is implemented with coal – or far more commonly – with natu-ral gas as a reburning fuel. Gas is used far more often than coal. Reburning is an attractive option for new power plants but it has also been successfully adapted to existing units. Gas reburning has recently been implemented in several wall, tangential, or cyclone coal-fired boilers in the US (from 33 to 600 MWel). The gas reburning technique has only been installed in units already equipped with low-NOx burners and/or OFA. The corresponding NOx reduc-tion can be up to 40 - 50 % of the NOx level achieved with low-NOx burners and/or OFA, which is around a 65 - 75 % reduction from the original NOx level (for a reburn fuel repre-senting 15 to 20 % of the total heat input). An “advanced gas reburn” technique (AGR), mix-ing regular gas reburning with injection of a nitrogen agent (ammonia or urea, see below paragraph for details), has also been installed in one coal-fired boiler. This promising tech-nique has been claimed to have achieved a NOx reduction of up to 85 % from the initial level, but it is not yet proven technology.

Secondary measures to lower NOx emissions

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR): are secondary measures which have largely been applied to hard coal-fired combustion plants. In Europe, SCR systems are particularly applied in Austria, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Outside of Europe they are mostly applied in Japan and the US. The SCR technology has proven to be successful for hard coal-fired power plants, but has not yet been applied to lignite-fired plants. In a few cases where an SCR system has been applied to lig-nite - fired power plants, it was shown that the catalyst's lifetime was too short, because of the high quartz content in the ash which causes high abrasion of the catalyst. In addition, lig-nite typically contains a lot of water and ash, and their combustion is generally at a suffi-ciently low furnace temperature to achieve emissions of 200 mg/Nm3 without the need of SCR. In utility boilers, the SCR is normally placed between the economiser and the air pre-heater (high-dust configuration) in order to minimise costs. For pulverised fuel combustion SCR, high dust does not principally need a by-pass for start-up and shut-down, but ammonia injection has to be limited to temperatures above a minimum temperature. Tail-end configu-rations in which the catalyst is placed downstream of the air preheater require the flue gas to be reheated to the catalyst operating temperature and are therefore more expensive to build and operate. Required SCR retrofit components include the SCR reactor, associated ducting and structural work, the ammonia storage and distribution system, and controls. Other com-ponents which may be necessary include an economiser bypass and sootblowers.

The choice of catalyst type is often such that plate-type SCR catalysts are favoured for high-dust applications and only under certain conditions are honeycomb type catalysts used, de-pending on the ash mass flow and the erosive potential. High dust loadings therefore require catalysts with high plugging and abrasion resistance. Medium-pitch honeycomb SCR cata-lysts are favoured for low-dust applications where nearly all the fly ash has been removed from the flue gas. The increased surface area resulting from the use of medium-pitch honey-comb SCR catalysts in low-dust applications results in lower catalyst volumes compared to high-dust applications.


- 31 - PE 338.431

The issues of boiler type and coal composition are significant factors for the catalyst design and must be specifically considered for each individual coal plant. Slag-tap (WBB) furnaces with fly ash recirculation generally show higher catalyst deactivation rates compared with dry-bottom boilers. Coals high in arsenic, alkaline or alkaline-earth metals, phosphorous, calcium and a number of other compounds show higher catalyst deactivation behaviour, which must be taken into consideration when catalyst lifetime and loading volumes are calculated. The sulphur content in the coal must also be examined to determine an appropriate SO2 to SO3 conversion rate for the SCR catalyst and to establish a minimum operating temperature at which the formation of ammonium bisulphate can be avoided.

The catalyst lifetime can be optimised through proper maintenance, including the use of ap-propriate sootblowing, and by avoiding contact with moisture for catalysts exposed to fly ash. System bypasses should be used when catalysts are not in operation or if the economiser temperature drops below the minimum catalyst operating temperature at low boiler load.

3.3.2 Control of emissions from fluidised bed combustion25

For fluidised bed systems, fuel is used coarsely ground. In Circulation Fluidised Bed Com-bustion systems (CFBC) the bed zone is expanded by higher airflow velocities and ash (nec-essary for this type of combustion) has to be recirculated from flue gas-side measures. Cen-trifugal precipitation is an integral component of CFBC to recover coarse ash particles.

Dust abatement

For dust abatement from fluidised bed combustion (FBC) boilers, both ESPs and fabric filters are currently applied.

Abatement of SO2 emissions

As already mentioned, FBC boilers can operate very efficiently in terms of SO2 removal, for example 80 - 90 % for BFBC and more than 90 - 95 % in a CFBC boiler. In FBC boilers, lime or limestone is added directly to the fuel and injected into the fluidised bed. These additives support the natural capability of alkaline ashes to capture SO2. Good desulphurisation is achieved by adding limestone with a Ca/S ratio of 1.5 to 3.5. Beside the Ca/S ratio, the bed temperature also plays an important role in ensuring effective SO2 reduction. Since the calci-nation process begins at around 700 °C and improves with higher temperatures, the most fa-vourable combination of calcination and sulphation occurs at about 840 °C.

The system used for sulphur reduction in FBC boilers is simple to operate, i.e. feeding of the sorbent and removal of the reaction product are incorporated into the combustion process and a separate reactor is not needed.

To achieve an almost 100 % SO2 absorption, the mass of calcium oxide in the bed must be in excess of what is required for stoichiometric conditions. This overdosing results in an in-crease in NOx emissions, especially in CFBC boilers, because CaO catalyses the reactions of nitrogen compounds. However, the greatest increase does not take place until the SO2 concentration is very low.

The principle of the fluidised bed combustion comprises an integrated environmental protec-tion capability. Sorbent injection into the FBC boiler is an inexpensive method for sulphur capture. Investment costs are low, because the desulphurisation is incorporated into the combustion process and separate reactor equipment is not needed. Secondary measures for desulphurisation have not yet been allied to FBC combustion plants.

The largest operational expenses are due to the consumption of sorbent and the handling of combustion residues. The by-product of fluidised bed combustion is a mixture of ash, CaSO4, unburned fuel and unreacted sorbent. Relatively large amounts of sorbent are needed to

25 ibid.


PE 338.431 - 32 -

reach a sufficient SOx absorption; thus the volume of the solid waste from FBC is also large. Up to now, disposal in landfills has been the most common means of handling ash from the FBC boiler at power plants. Also the ash can be used for construction purposes, such as in a road base or as a structural fill, providing there is not too much calcium in the ash.

An increased dust load may result in a need to enlarge the dust precipitator. The benefits of this kind of investment have to be evaluated separately on an economic basis.

Abatement of NOx emissions

The low combustion temperature (between 850 °C and 950 °C) of fluidised bed combustion systems is advantageous for the suppression of NOx emissions. However, this is not the only way to reduce NOx emissions in FBC boilers. For example, other techniques such as SNCR systems are applied in some plants in the US. However, with the desulphurisation improve-ment by adding limestone, any unreacted lime catalyses the conversion of NH3 to NOx. This means, that the more lime (for SOx control) is added to the fluidised bed, the more NOx is formed.

Different types of fluidised bed combustion are used in smaller capacity LCPs and tend to have higher NOx emissions, similar to grate combustion systems. Due to the low combustion temperature in fluidised bed combustion furnaces, a small portion of the fuel nitrogen is emitted not as NO but as N2O.

3.3.3 Outlook of emission reduction technologies26

Simultaneous control of SOx, NOx and mercury

The flue gas treatment system simultaneously captures sulphur and nitrogen oxides and heavy metals, such as mercury, from the burning of fossil fuels. This system is a post-com-bustion emission control system with higher capture rates of more pollutants while producing saleable co-products. It is under demonstration in the USA.

Description of the process. The system is a gas-phase oxidation process to simultaneously capture up to 99 % of the nitrogen and sulphur oxides as well as basic vapours and heavy metals (100 % of mercury). Capture rates of up 99 % SOx and 98 % NOx were demonstrated at laboratory level over a wide range of temperatures found in flue gases. Engineering cost estimates for the construction of a full-scale 500 MW power plant installation is 30 - 50 % lower capital costs with 1/6th operating costs compared to limestone/SCR, while capturing more than one pollutant. The main applications are where fossil fuels, such as coal and natu-ral gas, are burned for the generation of electrical power. Other applications are found with smelters, municipal incinerators and industrial boilers.

Advantages of the system are:

• High simultaneous SOx and NOx capture rates to 99 % • Heavy metals such as mercury and other metallic species will be captured • Produces saleable co-products • Does not use limestone/lime • Does not contribute to CO2 emissions • Does not use catalysts to produce hazardous waste • The reagent is recycled • Uses proven co-product technologies • It can be retrofitted on most plants • Projected lower capital costs and lower operating costs than conventional technologies.

26 ibid.


- 33 - PE 338.431

3.4 Comparative analysis of different available technologies The brief assessment of clean coal technologies in this chapter, their maturity and viability leads to the concentration on CCTs, such as advanced PCF and IGCC, for further consid-erations, as they have a realistic potential for further development in the short and medium term as well as for the contribution to the European energy and environmental policy targets. CCT in “early stage” development may play a role in the long-term perspective. Results of medium-term developments in the selected technology sectors (PCF and ICGG) will also ef-fect the technological development process of so far “early stage technologies”, e.g. IGFC.

For an analysis in the WETO outlook27, the following technologies have been considered:

The supercritical coal power plant. This type of power plant achieves high conversion effi-ciencies by applying supercritical steam conditions (higher pressure and temperature of the steam). Special materials are necessary which can withstand these conditions. In the refer-ence case, the conversion efficiency achieved in 2030 is 49 % and specific capital cost of the technology is approx. 800-1000 €/kW with low operating and maintenance costs (by coal fired power plant standards). This technology is the “winning” coal technology in the Refer-ence gaining about 20 % of world total central power generation and 30 % of world coal gen-eration by 2030. For the purpose of this case, the efficiency was increased to 55 % and the capital cost brought down to 800 EURO/kW by 2030 while a 10 % reduction in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs was also introduced. Highest priority has the development and application of new materials allowing for supercritical operation parameters.

The integrated coal gasification combined cycle power plant (IGCC). This technology applies coal gasification with combustion of the coal gas in a gas turbine and the recovery of waste heat in a boiler. The technology in the Reference reaches about 50 % efficiency and costs 1350 EURO/kW by 2030 with still relatively high operating and maintenance costs of about 87 EURO/kW. In that case, it achieves a penetration of about half the importance of supercritical coal. The techno-economic performance of this type of plant is substantially im-proved to reach 54 % efficiency by 2030 while achieving 28 % reductions in capital and 10% in fixed O&M costs.

The direct coal fired combined cycle plant. Like the IGCC plant this technology is applying a gas turbine and a steam turbine in a combined cycle. However, the coal is directly burnt in the gas turbine without previous gasification. The presence of coal particles inside the turbine poses technical problems, which still have to be solved. Therefore, it is assumed that this technology will be available only after 2015. This technology costs 1.250 EURO/kW, reach-ing 50 % thermal efficiency by 2030 with relatively low operating costs. It achieves a pene-tration comparable to the IGCC plant in the Reference. A capital cost of 960 EURO/kW and an efficiency of 54 % is retained for the scenario resulting in cost performances similar to those of the IGCC plant.

A salient effect of this case is a noticeable displacement of gas-fired combined cycles by coal-fired power plants even in regions with access to reasonably cheap gas prices. Coal-fired power plants exhibit a competitiveness threshold, with respect to combined cycles, for loads higher than 6500 hours/year in the Reference, whereas in the advanced coal case this threshold moves to around 4500 hours/year. The development over time of electricity gen-eration costs of a supercritical coal plant and a gas combined cycle plant can be seen in Figure 3-23.

27 EC, 2003, World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook 2030, op. cit.


PE 338.431 - 34 -

Figure 3-8: Cost of electricity: gas combined cycle versus supercritical coal28

Pressurised coal combustion technologies, such as PPCC, are not economically viable under the current market conditions. Specific problems occur with the cleaning of the flue gas at a temperature of 1.200oC and the removal of ash. The complexity of some components and the degree of integration reduces the availability and flexibility of the power generation. The gross efficiency is comparable with conventional technologies, while the specific investment costs are relatively high.

3.4.1 Comparison of efficiency of CCT

Even the most efficient power plants are currently passing a significant amount of their total energy input to the environment in the form of rejected heat. This heat may be absorbed in the local atmosphere or watercourses with relatively little harm to the local environment, but it might represent avoidable additional CO2 passed into the atmosphere. Therefore the re-use of any heat losses should be tried in order to improve the efficiency of power generation.

For waste heat utilisation, several thermodynamic, technical and economical criteria need to be taken into account. Thermodynamic criteria involve on the one hand the temperature and on the other hand the resulting exergy-content of waste heat. The temperature has to be taken into account if the waste heat is to be used for heating. The exergy-content has to be taken into account if the waste heat is to be utilised for the production of electricity and power. The technical criteria depend on individual site conditions.

By reducing and utilising waste heat, energy can be saved, emissions can be reduced and resources can be preserved. There is now an increasing opportunity for power generating plants to be located where heat that is not converted to electricity can be passed to users and consumers for their beneficial use. There is a wide range of processes that require con-tinuous supplies of heat in the form of steam, hot water, or hot air, as inputs to their produc-tion and operating facilities. The combined use of heat and power (cogeneration or combined heat and power production CHP) increases the overall (combined) efficiency of a power plant

28 EC, 2003, World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook 2030, op. cit.


- 35 - PE 338.431

to levels of 75 % to 90 %. The benefits of increased efficiency result in reduced emissions of CO2. Separate fuel burning to produce the heat for consumers is avoided. There are often additional reductions in the overall emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other pollutants, by replacing small unregulated combustion plants with heat from an adjacent power station. Nevertheless, only technically and economically meaningful measures for both waste heat-reduction and waste heat-utilisation will be able to meet both environmental and economic goals.

The trend on increasing PP efficiency is shown in the following 2 graphs (i) historically and (ii) by hands-on advanced CPP.

Figure 3-9: Fuel consumption in g of coal equivalents per kWh

Figure 3-10: Trend for increased efficiency29



PE 338.431 - 36 -

Note: The high efficiency of the Danish Skaerbeek (North Jütland) and the Esbjerg projects is caused by the availability of optimal cooling parameters such as the use of sea water.

In the past, European industry succeeded in achieving a leading position world-wide in the construction of highly efficient power plants with simultaneous high environmental standards. The coal plant efficiency increased by almost 10 percent through the transition to the next power plant generation, i.e. from approx. 34 - 36% in the case of 300 MW units in the eight-ies to 45 - 47% for 500-1.000 MW units today. The next level for power plant efficiency is tar-geted at 50% by the projects AD 700 and E-max.

Figure 3-11: Efficiency Evolution30

BAT Capacity Range

MWel Base Efficiency Availability Perspectives

Efficiency %

USC 300 - 1,000 46 highest 50 - 55

CFB 50 - 300 40 high 45

PFBC < 400 42 medium 45

IGCC < 350 45 medium 52

Table 3-4: Technical Parameters of best available technology (BAT) in CCT31

30 EPPSA general information and Presentation and BREF documents, op. cit. 31 ibid.


- 37 - PE 338.431

Efficiencies of different thermal power generation concepts and the theoretical maximum effi-ciency for an ideal Carnot process.

Figure 3-12: Net efficiency of power generation depending on upper temperature limit (Carnot process and different coal & gas technologies)32

Integrated systems, IGCC, PFBC and IFCC, have a major handicap in the complexity of their integration. The condition of an economically viable operation for an integrated system is good performance and operation of all components of the plant in parallel. Experiences from large scale demonstration projects, e.g. IGCC Puertollano, show an unsatisfying production availability of approx. 3.000 operation hours per year. A high operation & maintenance effort is necessary. These facts determine the classification of integrated systems as not economi-cally viable in today’s climate.

32 ALSTOM-EVT Stuttgart, personal communication

PPCC


PE 338.431 - 38 -

A technology matrix comparing available and future technologies with regard to their major design criteria is presented in Annex 2.

Fuel/coal usability characteristics/rank

Techno-logy

leadership in the EU?

Environ-mental friendly-ness

Market-able by-products

Avail-ability

down time

Operational flexibility half load/full

load

Moment of profitability/competitive

ness

Develop-ment stage

Efficiency potential

Costs (for demo project)

Available Clean Coal Technology

xxx=any

xx=most

x=limited

xxx=yes

xx=partially

X=no

xx=good

xxx=very good

xx=yes

x=no

xxx=very good

xx=good

x=medium

xxx=good

xx=medium

x=poor

xxx=short

xx=medium

x=long term

xxx=mature

xx=advanced

x=early

xxx>55%

xx=50-55%

x=45-50%

xxx=low

xx=medium

x=high

PCF/USC xx xxx xxx xx xxx xxx

xx x: AD700 xx: conventi-onel USC

xx (later xxx?)

xxx

AFBC xxx xxx xxx xx xxx xx xx xxx x xxx

PFBC xx xx xxx X xx xx xx xx x xx

IGCC xxx xx xxx xx xx x xx xx xx xx

Table 3-5: Brief evaluation of CCT characteristics33

33 Expert meeting, EPPSA+Consultant+Power Industry, May 2003


- 39 - PE 338.431

3.4.2 Comparison of emission characteristics

The thermal use of coal (carbon) is inevitably linked to emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. 1 kg of carbon produces 3.7 kg of CO2 ; with present technology equivalent (hard coal PP with 38% efficiency), to ~0,87 kg of CO2 per kWhth). The CO2 emissions of modern plants (hard coal PP with 50% efficiency) is approx. ~0,66 kg of CO2 per kWhth. In the case of ap-plying advanced clean coal technologies worldwide, the global CO2 reduction potential would be 50 % less than today’s emissions and SO2, NOX, and dust can be reduced to extremely low levels.

BAT NOX, 6 % O2

mg/m3

SO2, 6 % O2

mg/m3

CO, 6 % O2

mg/m3

Dust particles, 6 % O2

mg/m3

USC < 200 < 400 10 - 250 < 50

CFB 100 - 400 200 - 400 10 - 250 < 50

PFBC 100 - 400 200 - 400 10 - 250 < 50

IGCC < 200 < 50 < 50 < 20

Table 3-6: Emission Parameters of advanced CCT (BAT)34

Adoption of CO2 reduction technologies to coal plants

• CO2-reduction out of flue gases as “post-treatment process” possible for all PC fired boil-ers. Combustion not really affected.

� High loss in efficiency.

• CO2-reduction as “pre-treatment process” affects combustion.

� Process development ongoing.

� High loss in efficiency.

• CO2 storage processes under investigation.

� Geological, deep sea, biological, carbonate.

� The reduction of CO2 can be realistically achieved in the short term only by the renewal of the existing coal-fired power stations

� 1/3 reduction of the present-day emission values



PE 338.431 - 40 -

50 %32 %

12 %

16 %41 %76 %

34 %27 %12 %

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1 2 3

O & M costs

Fuel costs

Capital costs

Natural gas CC Coal-fired PP

Nuclear

100 %Cost ofelectricity

Coal: Balanced cost structure Natural Gas: Dependence on the fuel price Nuclear: High capital costs share (O&M: Operation and Maintenance)

Figure 3-13: Structure of costs for electricity 35

3.4.3 Assessment of further development potentials of available technologies

Figure 3-14: Clean Coal Technology trends36

35 ALSTOM-EVT Stuttgart, op. cit. 36 EPPSA general information and Presentation and BREF documents, op. cit.


- 41 - PE 338.431

Development potential of USC PCF

The USC PCF technologies promise efficiencies >50%. For this, mostly further material and component development is needed to withstand the enhanced ultra-supercritical steam pa-rameters. Much of this R&D work is covered by the AD700 technology development project (advanced development for steam ≥700°C; cf. chapter 3.6 for further more details). Material properties and development include:

• New nickel-based super-alloys for long-term operation at steam temperatures in the range of 700-720°C. Super-alloys will be developed for thin-walled super and re-heater tubes, thick-walled outlet headers, steam piping, castings and forgings for the turbine.

• Fabrication methods of components in super-alloys.

• New austenites for boiler tubes operating in the temperature range 600-700°C to mini-mise the use of expensive super-alloys.

• Methods for welding of similar materials and for welding of dissimilar materials.

• Investigation of the corrosion resistance of new alloys operating at 700-750°C in existing boilers fired by coal only or co-fired with biomass.

• Component design of the AD700 technology also contains an innovative development programme, including investigations to minimise the use of expensive super-alloys.

• Steam turbines will be redesigned and revised or new joining methods will be developed to save super-alloys.

• New boiler structures will be developed, which will allow steam lines between boiler and turbine to be shortened substantially thereby reducing investment cost.

• Major components outside the boiler and turbine areas like bypasses and safety valves will also be redesigned to comply with advanced steam parameters.

• The overall structure of the PF power plant will be revised to save on expensive super-alloys and reduce the visual impact of power plants. This principle is named “compact design”, e.g. due to the close arrangement of boiler and turbine, which is crucial in the efforts to shorten steam lines and reduce costs. The boiler might be an inverse two-pass boiler with downward-firing in the first tower, super- and re-heaters in the second tower, and final outlet headers located in the bottom of the second tower very close to the tur-bine (cf. Figure 3-15 for details).

• In the technical development, special care will be taken that the design will allow for safe co-firing of approximately 20% of biomass without losing reliability (e.g. due to corrosion) or having any other negative impact on operations or overall economy. By combining the AD700 technology and the use of a high percentage of biomass, the biomass to electric power efficiency can be raised from a mere average of 35-40% to over 50%, leading to the world’s lowest CO2 emission per kWh for a coal-based unit.


PE 338.431 - 42 -

Figure 3-15: Development of High Temperature Materials37

Recommendations for further R&D on CCT as proposed by the FORUM group38 are pre-sented in the following Figure 3-16: Recommendations for further R&D on CCT:

37 ALSTOM-EVT Stuttgart, personal communication 38 The industry FORUM identified a gap between RTD and demonstration in the technology development process. This task "The Technology Brokerage Working Group", had the main objective to establish a STRONG LINK between RTD INSTITUTIONS and INDUSTRY, in order to assist both communities to formulate appropriate and efficient RTD and demonstration proposals for both advanced and improved existing technologies. This group is made up of 30 members of the most qualified experts from most entities involved in CCT: Universities, Research Centres, Manufactures, Utilities, Services, and Official Organisms, of all EU countries.


- 43 - PE 338.431

3.5 Figure 3-16: Recommendations for further R&D on CCT


PE 338.431 - 44 -

Directory of potential European key actors in the emerging market for CCT in the power plant sector

A detailed directory of key actors involved in the development and implementation of CCT is presented in Annex 3 of this report.

The Role of the European power industry

Coping with both the problems of capacity gap and climatic constraints, the global energy markets will require competitive EU Power Plant manufacturers, able to support the transition towards new energy technologies.

For the promotion of CCT and for taking care of interests of the European power industry, two associations are (among others) active in Europe:

EPPSA: European Power Plant Suppliers' Association. EPPSA understands its role as me-diator between the PP industry, operators, R&D initiatives and political decision makers / in-stitutions, and

VGB: PowerTech Association of the Large Power Plant Operators. VGB, originally formed in Germany, is acting now at European level with the main target of efficient cooperation be-tween R&D networks and the power plant industry.

3.6 Overview on previous and on-going European RTD and dem-onstration projects in the field of CCT

A summary of demonstration projects of CCT in EU and non-EU countries is presented in Annex 1. In this chapter only the most important projects and initiatives are briefly described.

The POWER21 – A Low Emission Power Plant Initiative39

The objective is to establish a single major R&D initiative in Europe capable of ensuring a leading position in the world for Low Emission Power Plants is attained. A major part of this will be the development of low emission power generation technology and its demonstration in pace with market demand, ultimately leading to zero emission power plant.

It is recognised that Europe wants to meet its future energy needs and to attain its environ-mental targets whilst maintaining security of supply. With these aims in mind it is recom-mended that a carbon management strategy be adopted that embraces both the use of fossil fuels alongside energy from other sources and a further improvement in energy efficiency. For fossil fuels, especially gas and solids, this must entail the mitigation of CO2 through in-creased efficiency and the development of technologies that will lead to very low or zero emissions, including the use of CO2 capture and storage. The improvements in the perform-ance of the key components, in implementing new power plant concepts and in sequestering carbon dioxide is substantial in that respect.

Such an approach will strengthen the European industry and its ability to compete in world markets against increasingly fierce international competition, with the resulting social and economic benefits across Europe.

POWER21 links the R&D and demonstration needs of EU member states, the EU, industry and academia on an extended European level to describe a technology path towards a low and zero emission power plant. Importantly, it will form a framework for focussing the activi-ties of the EU to establish a critical mass programme for Europe.

The Technology Path stands for:

39 VGB PowerTech, Alstom, Siemens: Power 21 – A low Emission Power Plant Initiative Concept

Paper


- 45 - PE 338.431

• Step by step approach providing and proving viable power plant designs for lowest CO2 emissions

• Focussing of efforts and resources

• Appropriate sequence of all steps

• Strong flow of experience and technology between “efficiency R&D” and “CO2 R&D”

• Based upon robust scenarios encompassing technical and political implications together with their consequences

• Efficiency in pursuing the defined goals.Following this approach, POWER21 is focused on “Low Emission Power Plant 2020+“ proving the feasibility of state-of-the-art technology in CO2 reduced power generation as an intermediate step towards the deployment of “Zero Emission“ technology.

The Way Ahead:

POWER21 is an industry led initiative and is aimed at identifying the critical high priority technology areas in a broad carbon management approach embracing high efficiency im-provements right through to near zero emission including CO2 capture and storage. It is the objective to use it to help focus the European Member State programmes, together with those of the EC, so as to ensure maximum synergy and co-operation across Europe.

A parallel government initiative has been started within the EC FP6 ERANET Scheme (a Specific Supporting Action entitled `FENCO`) to establish the basis for a Concerted Action, and hence an ERA, in Low Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plant.

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Low emissionPP 2010+

Low emission PP 2020+

Zero emission PP

Light-houseprojects

CC: 65% 70%STPP: 50% 55%

Gas and steam turbine development

Component R&D

CO2R&D

CO2 reduction goal 100%

CO2 reduction state-of-the-art

Figure 3-17: Approach, timelines and targets of the POWER 21 initiative40

40 ibid.


PE 338.431 - 46 -

The following figure shows some details and the link to EU R&D framework programmes.

EC and

MemberStates

UK

Germany

Italy

CO2 Reduction Measures

Harmonized Programs on Efficiencyfor Fossil Energy Technology

2002 2006 2010 2014 2020+ FP6 FP7 FP8 FP9+

Low Emission

PP

SSAERANET Harmonized Program

Low Emission Power Plant 2020+

Figure 3-18: Timelines of POWER 21 and the parallel government initiative (SSA "FENCO") in the member states and their link to EU R&D Programmes41

USC PC Plant presently most feasible Mature product design • Mainly material changes • Potential high efficiency (> 50%) • High availability • Reasonable investment costs • Operation possible in 2010 Highest potential CO2 reduction as coal technology with CFB, in mix with CCTs, nuclear and renewables

Figure 3-19: Ultra super critical power plant

41 ibid.


- 47 - PE 338.431

b) Table of major organisations involved in development/promotion of clean coal technology Orientation

Name of Organisation

Address www Type Objectives/ mission with regards to clean coal technol-

ogy

Region Members

R&D

Pp-operating

Engineering

Construction

Manufacturing

Finacing

Center for Coal Utilization, Japan (CCUJ)

7th Floor, Sumitomo Gaien Building, 24 Dai-kyocho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-0015 JAPAN Administration Dept. 03-3359-2251

http://www.ccuj.or.jp

Association The CCUJ has consistently been devel-oping coal utilization technologies such as Clean Coal Technology. Furthermore, to promote high-efficiency and environ-ment-friendly coal utilization in the Asian countries where coal demand is ex-pected to increase, CCUJ has been transferring a clean coal technology to those countries. In addition, CCUJ has been engaged in various surveys and publicity.

Japan (in-ternational coopera-tion)

Pp equipment manufacturers and pp opera-tors Partly govern-ment funded

x x x x

Department of Trade and In-dustry UK

Cleaner Coal Technolo-gies Enquiry Unit 1 Victoria Street London SW1E 0ET Tel: 020 7215 6692 Fax: 020 7215 2674 E-mail:

[email protected].

gov.uk

http://www.dti.gov.uk/

Govern-mental

To provide a catalyst for UK industry to develop cleaner coal technologies and obtain an appropriate share of the growing world market for the technolo-gies

UK Government funded pro-gramme

x x

European Power Plant Suppliers' Association (EPPSA)

Brussels Office: Avenue de l'Opale 80 B-1030 Brussels Belgium

Duesseldorf Office: Sternstrasse 36 D-40479 Duesseldorf, Germany

http://eppsa.org

Association Fostering the development and the dis-semination of power plant technologies and seeking to promote the awareness of the positive implications of technolo-gies concerned. Promotion of experience exchange be-tween the enterprises and the EU, lead-ing to the establishment of European technical rules and standards.

EU Manufacturers x x x x


PE 338.431 - 48 -

The AD 700 -E-max – Project The EC started the R&D-project AD700 in 1998. As mentioned in chapter 3.4.3, the target of the project is to develop a highly efficient (η ~ 50%) coal-fired power plant with live steam temperatures up to 700°C. A demonstration plant in 2013 shall give proof of the ability of reli-able operation. As mentioned before, the power industry is under pressure to have new, effi-cient power capacities before 2010. Therefore VGB Power Tech, the association of the power industry, started the project “E-max”. The target of E-max is to plan, build and operate a modern demonstration plant before 2010. The E-max consortium consists of manufacturers and operators, who were initially invited to participate in E-max. The risks and prospects of the new technologies are therefore distributed on several shoulders. The experiences from the new technology will be shared by all participants.

The lack of political and financial support, as expressed in the Framework 6 R&D program of the EU, endangers the realisation of the AD700/Emax demonstration plant in 2010-2012 and thus weakens the leading position of the European industry in this field.

Figure 3-20: Crucial components of the EU supported project AD 700 - THERMIE R&D42

In an further step the co-firing of 20% biomass (thermal input), which is considered as CO2 neutral, is also an objective of this project and complies with the objectives on “Cleaner Fuels by Substitution”.

Technology Level Efficiency CO2 emission Reduction

Average 2010 40% 865 g/kWh -

AD700 52% 665 g/kWh 23%

AD700 (20% biomass)

52% 530 g/kWh 39%

Table 3-7: Comparison of main parameters of AD700 project



- 49 - PE 338.431

Technology Level ηηηη Fuel Cost O&M Cost Investment

Cost Capital Cost

Electricity Price

% Euro/MWh Euro/MWh Euro/kW Euro/MWh Euro/MWh State of Art – 2000 44 16.36 3.00 1000 12.01 31.37 AD 700 Demo 52 13.84 3.00 1100 13.21 30.05 AD 700 Commercial 52 13.84 3.00 900 10.80 27.64

Table 3-8: The economic performance of the AD700 technology43

Power Plant of the Future - the Sequestration and Hydrogen Research Initiative Project (FutureGen; February 2003)3)

The Integrated Sequestration and Hydrogen Research Initiative of the US Department of En-ergy is a government/ industry partnership to design, build and operate a nearly emission-free, coal-fired electric and hydrogen production plant.

The 275-megawatt prototype plant will serve as a large scale engineering laboratory for testing new clean power, carbon capture, and coal-to-hydrogen technologies.

Virtually every aspect of the prototype plant will employ cutting-edge technology. Rather than using traditional coal combustion technology, the plant will be based on coal gasification which produces a synthesis gas in which the coal's carbon is converted to a "synthesis gas" made up primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

Advanced technology will be used to react the synthesis gas with steam to produce addi-tional hydrogen and a concentrated stream of CO2. Initially the hydrogen will be used as a clean fuel for electric power generation either in turbines, fuel cells or hybrid combinations of these technologies.

The captured CO2 will be separated from the hydrogen by novel membranes currently under development. It would then be permanently sequestered in a geologic formation.

The goals of the project are:

• Design, construct, and operate a nominal 275-megawatt (net equivalent output) prototype plant that produces electricity and hydrogen with near-zero emissions. The size of the plant is driven by the need for producing commercially-relevant data, including the re-quirement for producing one million metric tons per year of CO2 to adequately validate the integrated operation of the gasification plant and the receiving geologic formation.

• Sequester at least 90 percent of CO2 emissions from the plant with the future potential to capture and sequester nearly 100 percent.

• Prove the effectiveness, safety, and permanence of CO2 sequestration.

• Establish standardised technologies and protocols for CO2 measuring, monitoring, and verification.

• Validate the engineering, economic, and environmental viability of advanced coal-based, near-zero emission technologies that by 2020 will: (1) produce electricity with less than a 10% increase in cost compared to non-sequestered systems; (2) produce hydrogen at €13 per MWh (wholesale).

43 ibid.


PE 338.431 - 50 -

3.7 Comparison of CCT with alternative power generation options Fossil-fired power plants are very reliable in power generation. In particular coal-fired power plants with capacities up to 1.000 MW per unit offer a high potential to reduce the predicted shortage of power. At the same time, they can produce power competitively, if they are not discriminated against by excessive environmental requirements. Highly efficient coal fired PPs of the newest generation will obtain the required acceptance. Coal fired PPs have a bal-anced cost structure between investment, fuel and O&M costs.

Combined Cycle Power Plants dominate the market for new power generation plants. Com-bined cycle technology features the highest efficiency in this market. In comparison to other fossil-based power generation, the CCPP can be built at lower costs, in a far shorter time, is factory fabricated and has a much smaller footprint. However, at the moment the gas price is too high and too volatile for making a decision on a new CCPP plant, especially when con-sidering that fuel costs represent 75% of the total cost of electricity for natural gas combined cycles. Another key aspect is that a large part of the gas is supplied from outside the Euro-pean Union, mainly from Russia and Northern Algeria. There may arise a dependence on fuel supply for those economies, whose power generation is based on imported gas.

It is estimated that utilisation of gas will be more effective in small CHP-plants for distributed power and heat generation. In these plants, future technologies such as fuel cells and Stirling engines can be implemented.

Nuclear power plants cover more than one third of the European power demand. They prolong the limited scope of fossil primary energies and, due to their low generating costs, they affect the electricity market by lowering power prices.

Some states in Europe have a memorandum to withdraw from the peaceful utilisation of nu-clear power. A decision to build new nuclear power plants will depend on a broad public and political acceptance for this high efficient technology. A shift of acceptance is not yet recog-nisable.

Renewable energies shall have their share in the energy mix. They have to provide their part for a sustainable energy supply on a long-term basis. The EC has proclaimed the target to double the share of renewables from 6% in 1997 to 12% in 2010. Special efforts are un-derway in the energy sector. The target is not easy to achieve. The capacity of hydroelectric power plants is probably exhausted. The expansion of renewable energies can only be achieved by biomass, wind and solar energy.

Beside the use of biomass, wind energy is favoured in Europe. In some states, for instance in Germany, wind energy comes to its natural limits. The next step for wind energy is to go off-shore, but new risks are arising here such as grounding, corrosion and expensive main-tenance.

The biggest problem, however, is of a financial nature.


- 51 - PE 338.431

Figure 3-21: Cost of Electricity (CoE) by Technology44

Figure 3-22: Potential, Requirements and Alternatives45

44 ibid. 45 ibid.


PE 338.431 - 52 -


- 53 - PE 338.431

4. Socio-economic relevance of CCT The Commission's own projections (Green Paper on Security of Energy Supply: COM (2000) 769), reflect the importance of fossil fuel-based power generation for a secure energy supply and a sustainable development:

a) At present, over 50% of electricity generation and about 80% of energy demand is cov-ered by fossil fuel sources.

b) Around 300 GWel of capacity will be installed over the next 20 years to replace power stations that have reached the end of their lives, in addition to the 200-300 GWel that will be necessary to meet increased demand. As the trends do not yet indicate any major technological breakthrough, this capacity demand will have to be supplied with already available but further optimised technologies.

c) Reduced nuclear electricity production will cause economic tensions and threaten supply unless fossil-fuelled power generation covers this lack of energy supply at least in the short and mid terms. This necessity emerges especially in the EU-accession countries. Subsequently, the Green Paper emphasises the option to develop techniques which make fossil fuel-based technologies easier to use and reduce their environmental impact in terms of pollutant emissions through clean combustion technologies.

4.1 The technology path towards security of energy supply The following issues need to be stressed with respect to the discussed technology options:

1. A more efficient, less pollutant energy supply based on diversified energy sources is a main strategic option leading towards a reduced dependence in energy supply and re-duced CO2-emissions. Successful European demonstration projects of advanced tech-nologies will contribute to these targets in Europe and promote the worldwide dissemina-tion of environmentally sound technologies.

2. Fossil fuel-based power generation remains the backbone of a secure energy supply and plays a stabilising role in a changing fuel mix environment over the next decades: Until a major technological breakthrough makes fossil-fuelled technologies abundant for a secure energy supply, their adaptation to growing environmental challenges is inevitable:

- The capacity demand of 600 GWel in Europe within the next 20 years can mainly be supplied solely by currently available, proven technologies.

- With nuclear capacity expected to be reduced by about 110 GWel after 2010, only fossil-fuelled power generation can cover the lack of base-load energy supply in the short and mid terms. This emerges in the EU-Accession Countries in particular.

3. Clean Coal Technologies with secure fuel availability from diversified sources, relative fuel price stability and long-time life-cycles remain crucial for a secure energy supply from a balanced fuel mix.

- Available, modern technologies of 43% net efficiency reduce CO2 emissions by about 30% in comparison to older coal fired plants with a 30% net efficiency.

- The replacement of old plants with modern coal-fired power plants in Europe could lead to annual CO2-reductions of up to 3.000 t/MW or 225 Mio. t.

- More advanced combustion technologies combined with the use of advanced materials can potentially reduce CO2-emissions from these modern technologies by a further 28%.

Due to the growing environmental challenges, renewable energy sources must be increas-ingly used within an energy mix that secures energy supply.


PE 338.431 - 54 -

4. Biomass and co-firing power generation based on widespread resources and flexible technologies contribute to the target of doubling both the energy consumption from re-newables and the CHP-share in EU-power generation by 2010. The repowering of CHP-units – especially in the EU-accession countries – should, therefore, play a more impor-tant role.

4.2 The policy path towards security of energy supply As projected today, fossil fired central power stations will still remain the work horse for elec-tricity generation over the next decades. A sustainable energy supply must satisfy the three basic requirements of “Security of Energy Supply”, “Competitiveness” and “Environmental Integrity”. The next generation of power plants will be measured by the key drivers: effi-ciency, emissions, availability, flexibility and life cycle costs.

Figure 4-1: Conditions for a balanced energy mix46

The Green Paper is a chance to focus on the security of energy supply as a crucial pre-req-uisite for sustainable development in the growing EU and worldwide.

Therefore, the following issues are stressed with respect to the discussed policy options:

1. The concept of sustainable development implies an equal consideration of economic, so-cial and ecological aspects. Sustainable (i.e. secure) energy supply based on function-ing energy markets.

2. Companies supplying advanced, environmentally sound technologies must be rewarded in the markets and improve their position in global competition. Environmental bench-marking and flexible market instruments (e.g. emission trading) in harmonised market structures could stimulate that competition for a sustainable energy supply.

3. The liberalisation of the energy sector forces plant operators to accept lower prices from the technology suppliers which do not cover their full costs, including development. Therefore, raised energy taxes should feed project aid for deployment and dissemina-tion of secure and environmentally friendly technologies. The omission of cleaner fossil technologies in EU-research and aid strategies threatens the use of their environ-mental potential and the competitiveness of European industry.

46 ALSTOM-EVT Stuttgart, op. cit.


- 55 - PE 338.431

4. State aid in the energy sector does not disturb but strengthens the energy market if it:

• fosters all advanced technologies for energy supply with higher efficiency and less polluting effects than those on the market - without the omission of cleaner fossil fuel technologies;

• is allocated according to the capacity and environmental potential of each energy source;

• considers the complete process of technology deployment - including prototype / component validation and the large scale demonstration of plant systems;

• secures an international funding parity;

• is designed as project-driven, decreasing over time and time-limited - any funding of energy sources or technologies based mainly on target obligations without a determined "break even" goes against the long-term success of the "promoted" technology in a competitive energy market;

• is effectively co-ordinated between the energy, environmental and research poli-cies at EU level (e.g. within the Framework Programme for Research).

5. European power plant suppliers deploying successful references of advanced tech-nologies that reduce the current CO2 emissions will contribute to the European climate obligations, strengthen the position of European industry in global competition and pro-mote the worldwide dissemination of environmentally sound technologies.


PE 338.431 - 56 -

Need for new power plants

Owing to the current surplus-capacity in Europe, it could be assumed that there is no neces-sity for new plant capacity. Blackouts in the west of the USA, however, and the current politi-cal events have alerted us to the topic of “uninterrupted service of power”. The question, whether blackouts can happen in Europe?, is being discussed more frequently.

The age structure of the European power plants shows that the economic life time of fossil and nuclear power plants is limited to 40 years. After 40 years the plants will be put out of operation. It is assumed, that with progress in liberalisation and market openings the over capacities in power generation will be reduced very quickly.

A lot of uneconomical plants have already been shut down. Further shutdowns are planned. By the end of 2010, those power plants which were erected in the sixties and seventies, must be replaced by new ones. In order to replace older plants by new capacities an amount of 300.000 MW must be commissioned as of 2010.

Figure 4-2: Age structure of the European power plants47

Further additional power plants are needed to satisfy the increasing power demand. The ad-ditional demand up to 2020 is forecast to be about 300.000 MWel (The EC-green book fore-casted an additional demand of 200.000 MWel ).

The power production industry is confronted with a huge capital financing program. Disre-garding the forecasted increase in power demand, the substitution of old power plants will require a capital expenditure of approx. 150 Billion Euro. If the power increase is added a capacity of up to 300.000 MWel must be built in Europe by 2020. That corresponds to an in-vestment of several hundred Billion Euro. The decisive message is that the installation of new power plants is indispensable to ensure a durable electricity supply in the next decades.

Investment decisions are of fundamental significance. They affect the structure of power generation for the next 30 to 50 years. They require careful consideration and accurate preparation. Taking into account that engineering and licensing will require a long period of



- 57 - PE 338.431

time, the renewal process must begin within a short time.

Nevertheless, power generators will only invest in new power plants if there are reliable and fair political conditions and if the wholesale power prices will rise again.

Requirements for investments into new CCT power plants

Operators, the driving force in CCT application, define the following four important require-ments for new plants:

1. The fourth requirement for modern power plants is a high operational flexibility. Due to an increasing trading volume, the power market gets more and more dynamic and prices get more volatile. Power plants have to be flexible to respond to market volatility.

2. Second requirement: The operation of power plants must be environmentally acceptable and must save resources as much as possible. Policy and the public expect increasing efficiency for the limitation of CO2-emissions and for the economic handling of resources.

3. Closely linked with this is the third requirement. We know that a new power plant can only

be built and operated, if there exists a wide public and political acceptance. Particularly, the future of coal depends on the progress in meeting environmental requirements i.e. reducing CO2-emissions and saving resources.

4. Profitability and competitiveness is the first and most important requirement for the power

plant technique. The economics of a new power plant are influenced by the erection and operating costs and mainly by the fuel prices. Deregulation in Europe triggered a drop in power prices. In Germany the prices declined approx. 40% relative to the prices in 1999. Though the price for electricity is now slightly increasing, the transfer of raising fuel costs to the customer is scarcely enforceable.

Generation costs have to be reduced. This includes the shut down of power plant capaci-ties. The three largest power producers e.g. in Germany have announced shut downs of approx. 12.000 MW. This program is underway. Cost reduction is the only chance for en-suring a basis for a positive profit with existing power plants.

It is important for operators to act in a partnership with manufacturers and politicians for ob-taining the optimum mix between these requirements and competing targets and to ensure that risks for investments in advanced PP technologies are minimised under the current con-ditions of the liberalised market (production cost pressure, without financial flexibility to cover RTD and innovation risks).


PE 338.431 - 58 -

4.3 Assessment of employment effects of a CCT implementation As mentioned above, today there are about 50.000 jobs in the power plant supplies industry in Europe. Further support for the implementation of advanced CCT could generate an em-ployment increase of about 10.000 jobs, most of them with high technical qualifications, with 3 – 5 % of them in the R&D branch.

To estimate employment effects induced through investment in new CCT power plants or the retrofit of older ones, one has to investigate the composition of the contribution of the in-volved industry sectors. Together with information on the productivity of the different sectors (i.e. the amount of turnover/ value added by one employee per year) it is possible to roughly calculate the direct employment effects generated by an investment in CCT. When informa-tion on the input structure (i.e. their supply chain) of these directly involved industries is available, and the income related employment effects (e.g. additional employment generates further household income which again is spent e.g. for consumer goods) are known, the indi-rect employment effects can be calculated. The main tools for such calculations are input-output tables, which are available for the EU and most of its member states.

Input structure of an average clean coal technology

Percentage for new CCT power plant

Percentage for retrofit

EUROSTAT IO-tables

Civil works 9,4% 4,4% 16 Construction activity on site 15,7% 15,0% 16 Component construction 42,9% 41,4% 6,7,9 Electrical equipment 15,3% 19,1% 9 Project development and engineering 9,5% 10,7% 24 Commercial services 4,4% 3,6% 23 Others 2,8% 5,8% 15

Table 4-1: Investment and input structure for new and retrofit CCT power plants48

With the information from direct and indirect employment effects and the knowledge of the investment cost for the installation of one kW (in Euro/kWel) in a CCT power plant, employ-ment generated by each MW can be calculated as shown below.

Another advantage of the above table is the possibility to estimate the amount of value added generated in the EU through exporting clean coal technologies to non-EU countries. With about one quarter of the investment being “on-site”, i.e. for construction and civil works, the remaining three quarters is investment which is potentially carried out in the CCT export-ing (i.e. EU-) country.

In a study (partly carried out under the CARNOT programme in 1998) the employment ef-fects induced by investment into CCT were estimated to range between 18 and 25 employ-ees per million Euro2002

49 investment in CCT and year. These figures include all direct and indirect employment effects and it was assumed, that all value addition is generated in the EU. Without the employment effects in the supplying industry and through income genera-tion, the direct effect in the power plant industry would be 6.5 to 8.7 employees/million Euro2002*year. The variation with a minimum and a maximum are dependent on the produc-tivity (GVA) per employee. The minimum value represents a high productivity EU country and the upper limit a low GAV EU country.

48 Journal for the Energy Industry, Employment effects of an European program for the promotion of

clean coal technologies, vol. 1/2000, p. 41-49. 49 All ECU (1990) were converted to EURO (2002) using the cumulated inflation rate of the EU15 (1990-2002 approx. +44%) from EUROSTAT


- 59 - PE 338.431

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

only pp industry + supplier + supplier+ income effects

max

min

employees/

10^6 Euro *a

Figure 4-3: Estimated employment effects (direct, +indirect, +income generated) of CCT

Based on these figures, the impact of a European CCT programme on employment in the EU can be assessed, depending on the percentage of value addition generated in the EU (e.g. 25% outside the EU for construction activities, 75% inside the EU for component manufac-turing). With the knowledge of the investment cost of a power plant in Euro/kW (~800-1000 €/kWel for CCT), a direct translation from newly installed capacity into employment is possi-ble.

With just 50% value addition in the EU for every GW installed capacity that is ex-ported, 9,000-15,000 additional jobs can be created per year. With coal fired power plants being a major option for power generation, especially in developing nations, the opportunity for European companies offering clean coal technologies is substan-tial.


PE 338.431 - 60 -


- 61 - PE 338.431

5. Compatibility of CCT with European climate change policies

Global emission trends should be evaluated against the objectives of the Kyoto protocol as well as the implementation rules decided subsequently: According to them, CO2 – emissions will have to be reduced by 2008/12 at rate of 8% (for the EU) as a first step, to be increased at a later stage.

Figure 5-1: Global CO2 emissions

Despite the Kyoto objectives, the CO2 emissions in the OECD-countries have increased within the last decade by almost 10%. This increase is expected to continue until 2020.

It is this perspective which requires a new approach to electric power production.


PE 338.431 - 62 -

Table 5-1: Greenhouse gas emissions (excl. land-use change and forestry) in CO2 equivalents and Kyoto Protocol targets for 2008-2012

5.1 Assessment of the CO2 reduction potential The CO2 problem cannot be solved simply by 'end of the pipe technologies' as in the case of NOX, SO2 and dust.

Figure 5-2 shows the specific CO2-emissions of coal-fired plants. The graph shows, amongst others, that in the Thermie project AD700, an ultimate reduction of approximately 35% can be achieved compared to the average European coal-fired plant. With respect to the refer-ence plant, this reduction is 20%. Furthermore, the graph clearly demonstrates the effective-ness of co-firing biomass in CO2 emission reduction. Moreover, the graph clearly demon-strates the effectiveness of co-firing biomass in CO2 emission reduction and shows that the resulting emissions can approach those of natural gas-fired plants.


- 63 - PE 338.431

Figure 5-2: Specific CO2-emisisons of coal-fired plants50

Table 5-2 shows that the USC PCF technology of type AD700 with 20% biomass will have the same specific CO2 emissions as the current operating average for gas-fired plants. It is important to stress here that with this new competing power generating technology the net costs per ton of avoided CO2 emissions is nil (electricity price does not increase), while the total amount of CO2 that can be saved with this new technology is enor-mous.

Fuel CO2-emissions (g/kWh) Coal (European current average) 900 Gas (European current average) 500 Advanced Combined Cycle Gas PP 345 AD700 - 100% coal-fired 665 AD700 - 20% biomass co-fired 530

Table 5-2: Table on estimated CO2-emissions (g/kWh) for different fuels51

Targeted in particular are substantial improvements in the net efficiency of coal-fired power stations from a current European operating average of 35% to more than 50%, which will lead to lower CO2 emissions in all EU countries and support Community efforts to meet the post-Kyoto targets for CO2 reductions. The technology is competitive and includes flue gas cleaning so that emissions correspond to the best available technology for coal firing.

In comparison to the newest coal-fired power plants in Europe, worldwide, much older power plants with less efficiency are used. Two thirds of these plants are more than 20 years old, with an average efficiency of ∼ 29% , emitting ∼ 3,9 Bln t CO2 annually (refer to Figure 5-3).

50 EPPSA general information and Presentation and BREF documents, op. cit. 51 ibid. and RWE-Rheinbraun & Vattenfall Europe, April 2003, Argumentationspapier zur Entwicklung

der Kohlekraftwerkstechnik unter Berücksichtigung der Klimavorsorge (Discussion Paper on the Development of coal-fired PP technology under consideration of climate protection)


PE 338.431 - 64 -

The replacement of these power plants by „State of the Art“ power plant technologies would enable the reduction of CO2 emissions by 1,4 Bln t/yr. The results of such a global “Energy Efficiency Offensive“ corresponds to factor 1,2 of the global Kyoto Protocol commitments 2008 - 2012 or equal double the amount of the emissions from the European transport sector (EU15).

2,2 < 20 yr

η=35%

2,2< 20 yr

η=35%

new

η=45%

3,9> 20 yr

η=29%2,5new

η=45%


Bln t/yr



-0,5 4,2

6,5

-1,4

4,7


replaced)


Figure 5-3: Reduction of CO2 emissions by replacement of coal-fired power plants world-wide52

In the period 2010-2030, much of the coal-fired capacity within the EU will have to be re-placed and many new plants will have to be constructed. If the advanced CCT “State of the Art” technology is being applied, it will lead to a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions from thermal electricity production based on solid fuels.

Costs of CO2 reduction in comparison with alternativesCO2 reduction costs of approximately € 40/t of CO2 can be estimated in the case of power station renewal (η = 47 % instead of η = 32 %) with investment costs of € 850/kW and a depreciation rate of 15 years. Given the coal saving through CCT and reduced personnel, maintenance and related costs, this amount is reduced to € 20/t of CO2 per annum.

For comparison, wind-based electricity from electricity costs according to the German Re-newable Energy Act is approx. € 75/t of CO2 per annum.

52 Argumentationspapier zur Entwicklung der Kohlekraftwerkstechnik unter Berücksichtigung der

Klimavorsorge, op. cit.


- 65 - PE 338.431

Wind energy

Tripling (up to fivefold increase) of the present power genera-tion

Costs: about 50 - 100 Euro/t CO2 reduction

Biomass

Limited to about 1 % power generation

Costs: about 125 Euro/t CO2 reduction

Power plant pool (coal)

Constant share in power generation

Costs: < 20 Euro/t CO2 reduction

Figure 5-4: Comparison of costs to avoid CO2 emissions by the replacement of old coal power plants (range indicated by upper part)53

A scenario based on today’s distribution of efficiency and the age of coal fired power plants and its complete replacement by advanced CCT ( η= 43%) until 2012 would result in a re-duction of 3.000 t CO2 per MW and year. This would meet about 92% of the EU’s commit-ment to the Kyoto protocol which is much more than the possible CO2 emission reduction available through the increase of renewable energy share of up to 12% by the year 2012.

From these facts it shall be underlined that, besides specific emissions, the potential of vari-ous technologies and fuels play an essential role in the evaluation of the CO2 reduction.

53 Scheffknecht, Stamatelopoulos, Lorey, Advanced coal fired power plants, BKW, Bd. 54 (2002) No. 6, 2002.


PE 338.431 - 66 -

5.2 Aspects of CCT under the Clean Development Mechanism The EC favours a market approach with tradable certificates. For this the EC has produced a set of guidelines. Emissions trading could be an obstacle for the erection of new plants and the operation of old plants. Emissions trading causes additional cost burdens resulting from expenditures from buying CO2 certificates. Furthermore, the EC-guidelines have to consider those measures, which were agreed in the Kyoto-protocol, especially the CDM (Clean De-velopment Mechanism) and JI (Joint Implementation) measures. Additionally, the guidelines should be executed for all emission groups and climate relevant gases.

Nevertheless, safe and sustainable electricity generation will be mainly based on conven-tional power plants, i.e. gas fired CCPP and coal fired power plants. For these types of plants, the only chance of minimizing CO2 emissions is to increase efficiency.

The comparison between a coal fired plant with an electrical efficiency of approx. 38% and a modern supercritical power plant with 47% efficiency – which could be built immediately - shows that the specific CO2-emissions per kWh have decreased by about 21%. This corre-sponds to a CO2 saving of 400.000 tons per year for a 500 MW power plant with 5.000 full load operating hours per year.

Support to Kyoto process by suggesting a realistic CDM-definition

European stakeholders are supporting the emission reduction aims of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in particular by reaching them by way of flexible, practice-oriented mechanisms. This specific interest relates to CDM, which can, theoretically, already be relevant to business practices since the year 2000.

CDM is one useful instrument to provide additional financial sources for ecologically sound plant projects in developing countries, which would otherwise have no base for financing, using the following line of argumentation:

Only realistic CDM-projects will be socially sound and will make the mechanism ecologically efficient in general.

CDM-projects will therefore have to contribute a well-balanced, resource-oriented energy mix to national energy sectors in developing countries. Thus, energy can be provided to all public and private energy customers in that country at affordable prices. Existing modern technol-ogy will be available to those stable national energy sectors.

The limitation of CDM to specific gas-fired technologies and small-scale combined heat and power projects is counter-productive to these aims.

Coal technologies will remain relevant in the long term for security of supply reasons. Ad-vanced coal technologies with an above average efficiency can contribute, in the short term, to a significant improvement in the worldwide emission situation. Therefore, advanced coal technologies have to be integrated into CDM.

Subsequently, other technologies that use sustainable biomass, including peat and waste as energy sources, as well as improve the current emission situation should be considered un-der CDM.


- 67 - PE 338.431

CCT can contribute an important role in reaching Europe’s climate protection targets. Coal provides development chances in the frame of the climate protection targets, especially if CCT technologies might be used in combination with sustainable fuels:

• The most effective reduction of emissions can be reached by applying “state of the art” power plant technology. This technology is now available without additional development costs.

• To follow the emissions reduction targets in the medium to long term periods (up to 2020) a further increase in the efficiency of power plants through further development of PP technologies should be ensured.

• For the long-term climate protection (>2020), it is necessary to investigate and assess the vision of power plant technologies forcing CO2 sequestration and options for its final disposal. R&D should start soon and realistic concepts have to be developed.


PE 338.431 - 68 -


- 69 - PE 338.431

6. Compatibility of CCT with European RTD policies

6.1 Identified gaps in the European RTD policy The emission reduction potential must be utilised in large-scale power generation in order to contribute to climate change policies.

The US-government obviously got the message since they launched a 2 Bln $US R&D pro-gramme for fossil energies over 10 years in 2002. Consequently, competitors to the Euro-pean power plant industry will follow this road, since the US-government announced the ‘FutureGen’-project in February 2003. This is a proposed 275 MW power station which will be the world’s first coal fired, emission free power plant. The $1 billion prototype venture will combine electricity and hydrogen production with a virtual total elimination of harmful emis-sions, including greenhouse gases.

In contrary, modern European power plant technology is not explicitly supported by the EU’s 6th Framework Programme.

At present, the European power plant suppliers are still worldwide technology leaders. How-ever, given the foreseeable worldwide demand for energy, it seems very doubtful as to whether the European power plant suppliers will be able to defend their position or whether this market will be lost to non-EU producers (e.g. USA, Japan, China, Korea). If nothing is undertaken soon, there is a real danger that EU know-how will be lost and that the EU in-dustry will loose its present competitive advantage or in the worst case even disappear.

In order to avoid a technology gap under competitive global market conditions and to pro-mote reduction of CO2 emissions by efficient fossil power plants, thermal power generation needs to be included in EU funding programmes (e.g. RTD, Structural Funds and Environ-ment Fund).

Efficient research funding must recognise the realistic capacity potential of each energy source. Fossil fuel-power generation has the potential to contribute to an ecological sound energy supply:

A scenario based on today’s distribution of efficiency and age of coal fired power plants and its complete replacement by advanced CCT (η= 43%) until 2012 would re-sult in a reduction of 3.000 t CO2 per MW and year. This would meet about 92% of the EU’s commitment to the Kyoto protocol and is a lot more than the possible CO2 emis-sion reductions possible through an increase of renewable energy share up to 12% by the year 2012.

In the latest lignite/brown coal-fired units being commissioned (BoA), a reduction of CO2-emissions of 27 % is achieved compared to the last erected conventional 600 MW unit. The energetically favourable brown-coal drying, at present in the demonstration/pilot plant stage, will lead to some additional 11% reduction of CO2-emissions . Hard coal power plants with an efficiency of 45% (or > 50 %, if results of AD 700 project are applied) operate with a fuel con-sumption and CO2-emission reduced by an extra 15% (compared to a typical 15 yr old plant with some 38% efficiency). Note that there are older plants with lower efficiencies still in op-eration, especially, but not only, in accession states.

The ambitious target, requiring an environmental friendly and cost effective modernisation of the generation units, to considerably increase the share of CHPs in electricity generation by the year 2010 plays a more important role. The development of an ecologically sound solid fuel mix (co-firing methods) can be an incentive for the rehabilitation of old CHP plants - es-pecially for those in EU-accession countries.


PE 338.431 - 70 -

Therefore, research on and application of the best available technologies need strong funding support.

Regardless of the official title "Research, Technological Development and Demonstration", the FP 6 draft does not consider the extremely important demonstration option. Besides proving technical feasibility, a demonstration of commercialisation is necessary to avoid the need for subsidising politically desirable technologies in the long term or to avoid their exclu-sion in the liberalised market. Technologies meant for the years after 2010 have to be devel-oped, tested and demonstrated now.

In order to stay globally competitive, Europe needs to stay on a research track in fossil-fuel based power generation. Therefore, the EU power plant supplying industry invests a consid-erable amount of its own resources in R&D. Nevertheless, support is required from both the EU and individual member state initiatives.

• The European Commission's DG Research recognised this by agreeing on scientific co-operation with the US Secretary of Energy in the fields of non-nuclear energy research. European industry is expected to participate in the advanced US research on fossil fuel-based technologies and CO2-emissions. This might become an efficient kick off for fur-ther research by European companies if it is embedded in a corresponding research framework of the FP.

• The planned US$ 2 billion fund just for clean coal technology-research in the USA over the next 10 years (US NEPD-Report, May 2001) shows the challenges to be faced by European industry.

• The radical change of a central research priority area will be an extra burden to partici-pants of successfully established projects. This should be avoided.

Subsequent to these considerations

To meet its environmental and economic challenges in the next decades, it will be crucial for the growing EU to maintain fossil fuel-based technologies within the priorities of FP as one part of a technology mix for a secure and sustainable energy supply. A well-balanced alloca-tion of budgets between all operational priority actions in FP would guarantee the necessary budget for the Priority Thematic Area "Sustainable development and global change".

A selection of the most promising RTD results needs to be brought into practical implemen-tation in the short-, mid- and long-term in order to make the best possible use of the results from European RTD efforts.

6.2 Assessment of CCT as initial point for implementing CO2-cap-ture and sequestration in the future

CO2 sequestration measures are another option for reducing GHG emissions in the power sector. Whereas efficiency increases are direct measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption and therefore prevent CO2 production ‘at the source’, CO2 sequestration can be seen as an „end of pipe“ technology allowing for the design of a (nearly) CO2-free power plant in the fu-ture. In addition to its obvious contribution to Kyoto (and post Kyoto) obligations, this tech-nology would help the EU use the ample fossil fuel reserves available, without breaking envi-ronmental commitments. This was pointed out in the "Green paper on the energy security of supply."

• However, it should be noted that according to current knowledge, any CO2 sequestration will lead to a drop in efficiency in the conversion to power – some 10-12% for advanced PCF systems, i.e. a drop from currently the reachable 45% to some 33-35%. For CO2 sequestration, IGCC or other coal-gas firing systems offer advantages compared to any direct coal-fired systems, as the exhaust gases mostly consist of CO2 (and water that could be separated relatively easy) and hardly contain any nitrogen or nitrogen


- 71 - PE 338.431

compounds (cf. next pages). Still, a drop in net efficiency by some 6-8% is expected54.

Beside CO2 capture as a first step in the sequestration, carbon needs to be stored for thou-sands of years to reduce the risk of climate change. Storage is also an RTD issue which is in parallel with RTD in CO2 capture, as storage must have a low environmental impact, accept-able costs and conform to national and international laws. The main options for storing CO2 underground are in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline reservoirs and un-minable coal seams. At present, CO2 is injected underground in many Enhanced Oil Recovery proj-ects but here the focus is rather on pressure increase in the reservoir rather than long-term storage, and storage capacities might not be sufficient. Aspects of CO2 capture as well as different storage technology approaches are further detailed in the following sub-sections.

The CO2 capture process and technology

The first step, the CO2 capturing from exhaust gases produced in the combustion or gasifica-tion process, is the most cost intensive step. As far as is presently known, it is more costly than the second step, the CO2 storage. CO2 capture could occur through chemical/physical adsorption, low-temperature distillation, gas separation membranes or mineralization. The following figure provides an overview on different technology options.

Figure 6-1: Overview on CO2 capture technologies55


Klimavorsorge, op. cit. 55 EC, 2003, CO2 CAPTURE and SEQUESTRATION - Clean power from fossil fuels, http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/nn/nn_rt_co1_en.html


PE 338.431 - 72 -

Post-Combustion Scrubbing56

Considered as the first step towards large-scale capture, CO2 is removed from exhaust gas after combustion. This technology can be retrofitted to existing equipment with the option to continue if PCF-advanced power technologies are used.

Pre-Combustion Technologies

The decarbonisation (Hydrogen) technology uses natural gas as a fuel which is converted to hydrogen and CO2 in a reformer. The CO2 is compressed for storage and the hydrogen is mixed with air for combustion, emitting only nitrogen and water.

OxyFuel

Oxygen is separated from air and then burned with hydrocarbons to produce an exhaust with a high concentration of CO2 for storage. This technology might allow for the transfer of some developments from the advanced PCF systems. It is therefore (similar to IGCC) a more promising option for the future.

Coal gasification (conversion to syngas, i.e. methane and CO), as used in IGCC plants, can be seen as a pre-combustion technology. If air is used for the combustion, the exhaust gas is enriched in CO2 and water vapour (the latter could easily be separated), which could be stored using any storage technology.

The CO2 storage process and technology

For storage of the captured CO2 several options are discussed. For example, being in a gaseous state with near 100% purity, CO2 is pumped into exhausted oil/gas reservoirs, deep aquifers or the deep sea where it is thought to liquefy under high pressures/low tempera-tures. In a solid state as a carbonate, CO2 is stored underground in exhausted coal mines. Further details are given below, but at present, CO2 absorption is insufficient and there are doubts regarding long-term storage behaviour. In any case, the application has hardly been tested.

For more details refer to publication source 15.

Different CO2 storage media are listed below together with open questions and RTD needs.

• Deep saline aquifers.

- CO2 can be dissolved in huge quantities in deep saline aquifers, which can be wide-spread, of no value, and stable.

- Interesting issues are the long-term stability, safety aspects, public acceptability, and energy consumption.

• Depleted oil/gas reservoirs, possibly combined with enhanced oil or gas recovery.

- CO2 can be used to replace or displace additional oil or gas from a depleted reser-voir.

- Studies are required on topics such as process, stability, public acceptance, injection and dispersion techniques.

• Coal beds

- CO2 can be injected into deep un-minable coal beds, to displace coal bed methane, which can be captured and used.

- Research topics are similar to those of enhanced oil and gas recovery.

56 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham at the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum on 27.02.03


- 73 - PE 338.431

• Chemical storage.

- CO2 can be stored in a chemically-bound component.

- Studies are mainly required on process kinetics and public acceptability of the tech-nology.

• Deep oceans

- CO2 can be injected at depths where is it heavier than water, to form CO2 lakes on sea beds.

- Research is required on the legal issues, public acceptability and ecological conse-quences of this technique.

Potential of CO2 capture and sequestration

Capture and sequestration technologies are best applied to large scale energy conversion plants, as opposed to small or mobile applications. Compared with this, Table 6-1 gives an estimation of the available CO2 reservoir capacities globally and in Germany.

Types of reservoirs Global estimated Reser-voir Capacity CO2

(in Gt)

Estimated Reservoir Ca-pacity in Germany

(in Gt)

Deep oceans and lakes ~ 140.000 ~ 0

Deep saline reservoirs > 20.000 ~ 0,05

Disused oil, gas and coal fields > 1.000 ~ 3,5

Aquifers ~ 320 22,8 – 43,5

Un-employable oil, gas and coal fields > 4.000 0,4-1,7

Total > 166.000 ~ 26-48

The total emission of CO2 from fossil fuel used in power plants (in Gt/yr)

~11,7 Gt/yr ~ 0,35 Gt/yr

Table 6-1: Estimated Reservoir Capacities of CO257

Use of CO2 capture/sequestration in practice

• CO2 capture and sequestration will always come with an additional cost to any power generation plant. This is true both for the conversion to electricity and the conversion to hydrogen, if hydrogen is used as an energy carrier.

• CO2 capture and sequestration will therefore only be applied if future specific or general policies provide the necessary financial incentive.

• A specific measure would be any incentive to use the technology, like the incentives that already exist for most renewable energy options.

57 Information combined from : Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham at the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum on February 27, 2003; Argumentationspapier zur Entwicklung der Kohlekraftwerkstechnik unter Berücksichtigung der Klimavorsorge, op. cit.; Energie für das nächste Jahrtausend, op. cit


PE 338.431 - 74 -

Economic considerations and critical discussion

Issue1: European sources58estimate the costs for commercially available CO2 sequestration – depending on the form of gas separation techniques - to be in the range of 20-40 €/t CO2. Accordingly to and depending on the technique, the net efficiency of a coal fired power plant would decrease by some 6 to 8 % for IGCC or 10 to 12% (or more) for advanced PCF plants, respectively, compared to advanced, high efficient power plants. For instance, the efficiency of the currently most advanced lignite fired power plant would drop from 43% to some 32%. In parallel, the consumption of resources would rise by some 10 to 30% (maybe more)59. This cannot be the purpose of a sustainable energy supply. The cost of power generation would also increase by about 0,015-0,03€/kWh. In contrast to this, CO2 emission reduction solely through efficiency increase is much cheaper at about 15-25 €/t CO2 (based on the in-vestment cost for a modern plant substituting an inefficient older plant).

Issue 2: In addition to this, costs of around 6 to 12 € per ton must also be considered for transportation and disposal. The costs of the transportation and safe disposal of CO2 under conditions in Germany are estimated to be 10-24 €/t. In total, power generation costs will in-crease to a range of between 4 to 8 €ct per kWh. Power customers and the economy must endure these additional costs. This is a huge effort. For example, the German economy, with a 50% share of coal, would have additional annual costs of 10 to 20 billion €.

Issue 3. Depleted gas/oil reservoirs are nowhere near sufficiently available in Europe nor close to power producers (any long distance transport will increase costs and chances of leakages). Until now, there are hardly any realistic, proven options to store all CO2 emitted from power plant sites. Until the final and safe disposal of CO2 is sufficiently analysed and solved, CO2 separation does not make sense.

Issue 4 The measures of CO2 separation would discriminate against coal in comparison to natural gas. This may have consequences for a safe energy supply.

Note: DOE, which is currently reviewing its energy policies regarding CO2 sequestration, es-timates that costs are in the range of $100 to $300/ton of carbon emissions avoided. The goal would be to reduce the cost of carbon sequestration to US$10 or less per net ton of car-bon emissions avoided by 2015. The development of the CO2 sequestration technology is seen as a very high-risk, long-term R&D effort. As a consequence it will surely not be under-taken by the industry alone. Within the Sequestration and Hydrogen Research Initiative of the US DoE’s FutureGen Project, huge financial support is being provided to boost R&D of these technologies.

Because the main barrier to using this technology is the cost, in terms of € per kg of CO2 avoided, the primary research objective is to lower costs. As with every major downstream emission reduction measure, efficiency losses are inevitable. As requirements this technol-ogy has to:

• be effective and cost-competitive,

• provide stable, long term storage, and

• be environmentally friendly.

• The technology can be competitive when compared to the large-scale development of renewable energies. It has the potential to allow the EU to fulfil its obligations while re-ducing economic and social costs.


Klimavorsorge, op. cit 59 ibid.


- 75 - PE 338.431

Perspective and demand for development

As detailed before, research is needed to overcome several technical and non-technical bar-riers. Technical research is needed:

• To study the long-term stability of sequestration options;

• To map existing sources of CO2 and sequestration potential;

• To study infrastructure systems for transport;

• To study and improve market liquidity mechanisms for carbon;

Non-technical research is needed to study;

• Public awareness, public confidence and acceptability;

• The legal implications of sequestration.

Additional issues for required EU support are:

• It is very important to obtain critical mass in research and development efforts and to co-ordinate Member State activities. As the greenhouse gas problem does not respect na-tional borders, a minimum requirement is a solution on a European level.

• It should be feasible to coordinate Member State activities in the clean coal and CO2 se-questration sectors, because these programmes and activities are relatively new. These activities involve projects, which, because of their size and budget, will require co-opera-tion at the European level.

• There are many different technology approaches and options, because the technology is in its infancy. Choosing between them requires comparisons, which must be based on coordinated actions.

• From the industrial point of view, it will take several years before the technology is com-mercial, as demonstrated by the industrial initiative CCP (Carbon Capture Project, in-volving many Industrial players worldwide).

Summary and critical discussion on CO2 avoidance techniques60

CO2 separation in coal-fired power plants is possible from the technological point of view.

The Zero emission coal-fired power plant is a „realistic vision”. Total costs for the avoidance of CO2 are estimated at 60-80 €/t with the development target of ≤ 50 €/t CO2.

The separation and sequestration of CO2 cannot be seen as a realistic solution in the near future; In the short and medium term, it might be seen as counter-productive for reducing CO2 emissions, if all RTD efforts are focussed on CO2 sequestration – however, for the mid-/long-term, it is the only option to reduce CO2 emissions close to zero.

For these reasons, CO2 separation and sequestration should not be the sole way for envi-ronmental protection and resource savings. More effective would be the support of all efforts, which help to increase efficiency and combine the targets of economy and ecology.

60 ibid.


PE 338.431 - 76 -


- 77 - PE 338.431

7. Development of a CCT-demonstration project

As briefly described in the previous chapters, several technology initiatives on CCT im-provements are underway in Europe and the US.

Indicators for (an) additional, EU supported demonstration(s) project(s) should be:

Real interest of industry partners to apply advanced CCT as a long-term option under market conditions

Demarcation/ difference to

other initiatives

(no duplication ��

Integrated approach)

Market stimulation in Europe and for promotion of technology and know-

how development

R&D and investment contribution, Realistic risk assessment of site, part-

nership models

Technology choice (real chance for market

breakthrough),

Realising site effects incl. employment and export op-tions, R&D networking ,

technology ands RTD cohe-sion in Europe , European know-how promotion

Choice of e.g. site and technology for such a demonstration project need to be further inves-tigated – this current study cannot give a definite answer to these details.

The demand for the provision of framework conditions are however clearly addressed to:

- Policy makers

in order to understand the development of CCT as an essential element in long-term and sustainable energy market development � for reducing the risk to the power industry on technology development and site planning by support of demonstration and promotion until the next generation of CCT is viable, and for giving clear political signals towards the CCT future in the liberalised energy markets.

- Power industry (utilities and technology manufacturers)

in order to initiate demonstration projects and take over application related risks � for com-mitting co-financing, for preparing the demonstration site, for promoting the share of know-how in European networks to explore the markets and for strengthening the European in-dustry

As indicated, development trends and market potentials for different CCT are varied and de-mand different kinds, and intense, support for the demonstration or promotion of the technol-ogy. From this point of view, consideration should be given to initiate several (2-3) demon-stration projects, each specifically targeted to further technological development/ demonstra-tion (materials, boiler, turbine).

7.1 Technology trend for demonstration projects The brief assessment of clean coal technologies in the above chapters, their maturity and vi-ability, leads to a concentration on CCTs, as advanced PCF and IGCC, for further considera-tion, as they have a realistic potential for further development and application.

A) In the section for lignite-fired power plants, the technology most eligible for further devel-opment in a demonstration project would be PCF-USC technology, incorporating the interim results of the AD 700 project within the Emax initiative. The development demand is mainly in


PE 338.431 - 78 -

the area of new materials to allow for Ultra-Super-Critical operation parameters and pre-dicted efficiency improvements of 4%. This means that a net efficiency of 47% could be reached for the PP. The time-horizon for the development and demonstration would be61:

2003-06 � Test of components and improvement of materials

2007-12 � Construction of demonstration PP

2013 -… � Operation of the demonstration PP (technological improvements)

2014-20 � Planning of the 1st commercial 700oC PP

from 2020 � Operation of the 1st commercial 700oC PP

An important precondition for this target would be the financial support from public institutions at national and European level for the costly development of material and components.

In addition to the advantages of the PCF USC technology, the pre-drying of the lignite in the BoA concept predicts further efficiency increases of 4% (The BoA concept is realised in the newest PP in Niederaussem, 965 MW, commissioned in 8/2002, net-efficiency 43%). The BoA-Plus concept focuses on the better utilisation of low level waste heat for the treatment of dry coarse-grained coal instead of fine-grained coal. The BoA-Plus concept would allow for a further increase in efficiency of some %-points. Before its realisation in power plants, this technology demands further process steps to be made to reach the technical and commer-cial viability. Note: The pre-drying of coal in a hard coal fired PP is not viable from a technical and economic point of view, because of the much lower water content, compared to lignite.

With the technological options of the BoA-Plus concept and the operation in USC parameters (700oC), lignite fired PPs would reach a net efficiency of more than 50%, which is very com-petitive to hard coal PPs.

B) Besides the above described economic disadvantages of IGCC technology, it could play a key role in the future utilisation of CO2 sequestration technology, because the gasification process offers the opportunity to separate the CO2 before combustion. A demonstration proj-ect supporting the development of better viability and availability should focus on the demon-stration of CO2 separation. In parallel, investigation and research on CO2 storage is essential on the path to a potential Zero-Emission Power Plant.

7.2 Recommendations on site selection of future demonstration installations

It is general practice throughout Europe to locate fossil fuel-burning power generating plants at sites with minimum costs for installation and operation (and public acceptance), together with other contributing factors related to the area where the plant is located and the infra-structure to support its operation. Each of these factors varies in significance according to lo-cal and national considerations, but in many cases the availability of a connection to the electricity transmission/distribution system, the proximity of electrical demand, and the avail-ability of water for the cooling systems have often been predominant factors in selecting the location for large combustion plants. In the past, forecasts of future power demands for indi-vidual countries, and the optimum long-term costs for the preferred type of plant, have de-termined the chosen size and location of power generating plants.

Availability of suitable land, visual and air quality impact on the local environment (impor-tance varying between EU member states), and access for delivery and storage of fuels are often factors that influence the design and positioning of a power generating plant. However, these factors are often considered in detail only when the general location has been deter-mined, and do not usually override the decision to proceed with the plant installation.

With the widespread expansion of energy infrastructures taking place in Europe, the relative

61 ibid.


- 79 - PE 338.431

influence of each of the factors used for selecting the new power plant site changes. Trans-port of fuel or connection to the grid might be easier. The significant increase in the use of natural gas as a fuel (in various sectors) lead to an improved gas supply infrastructure. Gas is more widely available at the pressure and quantity required for operation of gas turbines for power generation, with low transportation costs and no site fuel storage requirements. The expansion of the integrated electricity distribution system has widened the options for optimised feeding of generated power to the grid. New switchgear and control systems are contributing to safe and effective connections.

Additionally, following the recent changes and market opening of the European gas and electricity markets, long-term marginal costing to select plants is no longer appropriate, re-sulting in the increasing decision to build smaller plants, with higher efficiencies, lower in-vestment costs and quicker construction times. Table 7-1 tries to summarise the key-as-pects for the selection of the site and technology for a potential demonstration project.

7.3 Available public funding Public funding sources of CCT in Europe are rare.

As mentioned above, in the current EU framework programme for RTD the explicit support for RTD of CCT is missing which is a big reduction compared to previous EU framework pro-grammes. The EU THERMIE Programme, for example, supported the start-up RTD activities of the AD 700 project.

CARNOT programme of the EU

In December 1998 the Council of the European Union approved a multi-annual programme of technological actions promoting the clean and efficient use of solid fuels (1998 to 2002) referred to as CARNOT.

CARNOT shall promote the use of clean and efficient technologies in industrial plants using solid fuels. The aim is to limit emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions, from such use and to encourage the uptake of advanced clean solid fuel technologies in order to achieve improved Best Available Technologies (BAT) at affordable costs. Additionally, the priority objectives of the Energy Framework Programme are to be taken into account, which aim at a balanced pursuit of energy policies, namely: security of supply, competitive-ness and the protection of the environment.

CARNOT’s objective is the environmentally sound use of solid fuels, starting from plants for upgrading coal, handling, storage and transport facilities, to burning and/or conversion plants, including residue disposal.

The term "solid fuels" covers hard coal, lignite, peat, orimulsion, oil shale and the heavy frac-tion of petroleum products. When mixed with solid fuels, biomass and refuse-derived fuel can also be considered.

However, the budget of the CARNOT programme will not be sufficient to satisfy the support demand to heave the top-priority RDT and demonstration tasks for further development of CCT.

The Cleaner Coal Research and Development Programme/ UK

The DTI (Department of Trade and Industry's) plans to spend £12 million on cleaner coal technology over the next three years. (http://www2.dti.gov.uk/cct/cctdemohome.htm)

Selection criteria Sub criteria Power plant infrastructure • Existing power plant infrastructure (greenfield/developed with roads,

tracks, ports/ transformer station) • Sea-/river-/lake water cooled

Country status • EU


PE 338.431 - 80 -

• EU-Accession country

Energy market • Liberalised (A fully liberalised energy market should be chosen to reflect the market needs in a competitive market environment )

• Monopolized Labour market • Qualified work force available (It should be considered to have as much

work (construction, operation) done locally) • Competitive wages

Regional energy demand projec-tion

• Growing • Stagnant • Falling

Co-generation of heat • Demand for onsite housing/industry heat • Heat distribution infra-structure available

National/regional funding available

• Governmental/provincial CCT program in place

Acceptance • Public • Political

Operation/involvement of power utility

• Selection of suitable national power utility • International consortia (new utility

National Power plant structure • Age • Efficiency • Emission • Replacement potential with new cc technologies

Coal availability • Suitable coal type locally available (E.g. cheap lignite opencast mining) • Good availability of imported coal • Low transportation costs (ship/train)

Support R&D “infrastructure” • Research institutes/Universities/R&D of manufacturers/utilities (locally) available

• Subsidiaries of involved companies Coal characteristics (rank) • Ash/Sulfur content

• Water content (lignite) • Volatile matter • Coal type (bitoumus/sub bitoumus/ lignite) • LHV • Co-combustion of waste/biomass/ oil residue

Most advanced know-how in EU? • Yes No

Environmental considerations • SO2 NOx ………Particulate matter • CO2 sequestration ready • Heat • Ash/slag disposal

Efficiency • Now (at half load/ full load) • Future potential (with/without increased R&D efforts)

Marketable by-products (for local market)

• High quality gypsum from FGD • Ash/slag e.g. for road construction • Need for costly disposal

Availability/maturity of CC tech-nology

• Choice for the technology: • Most mature • Most promising in the near/medium future

Scale of public funding demand • Mill. Euro

Operational flexibility • Base load - Peak load • Fuel flexibility • Down time

Profitability /competitiveness • Now • Future (with/without R&D/demo funding)

Table 7-1: Check list for demonstration project site and technology (USC/PFBC...) selection (location/technology/other aspects)


- 81 - PE 338.431

8. Policy options and recommendations

8.1 Overcoming barriers of implementation of CCT When a technology becomes economically competitive it may not penetrate its market due to the effects of a range of commercial and institutional factors. Since these factors delay mar-ket penetration they are commonly referred to as market barriers. The barriers which are considered most relevant to the heat and power sector technologies are:

Information - Availability of sufficient reliable information to inform decision makers on tech-nology investments.

Risk - Actual or perceived risk associated with the technology and its deployment which may deter investors.

Environment - Actual or perceived environmental impacts of a technology which may restrict its deployment; this would included existing and planned regulations.

Financial- Access to finance to support the deployment of the technology.

Market Character - Some aspects of market operation may bar the deployment of a tech-nology.

Regulation - Regulations which restrict or prevent the deployment of a technology

Infra Structure - The lack of appropriate infra-structure may bar or restrict the deployment of some technologies.

Clear political support - The number of policy makers understanding the need for CCT de-velopment might increase but there should be a clear political signal for CCT development support similar to the statement for supporting the development of renewable energies.

Most of the technologies discussed in this module will be affected by more than one barrier at the present time. The main combined effect of these barriers is to penalise the less devel-oped technologies and to impede their introduction into the market. In general terms, pulver-ised fuel technologies, which are well proven and which are being developed in a progres-sive manner, face much lower levels of impedance than pressurised pulverised fuel technol-ogy, pressurised fluidised bed technology and fuel cells, all of which are commercially un- or at least less proven.

With a consumer-side efficiency increase and alternative energy technology development alone, there is no way that the energy demand in the EU can be satisfied in the next dec-ades. The shut-down of nuclear power plants (with mostly CO2-free electricity production) as decided for several member states will widen the need for alternative generation facilities and thus increase the need for using conventional fuels. This however will lead to increasing CO2-emissions instead of reducing them unless the average power plant efficiency can be increased and/or post-combustion CO2-technologies are applied (which are not yet avail-able).

It is thus not a question to decide between a policy to support an alternative, efficiency in-crease of CCT, rather we need to follow all options representing the major share of electricity production in parallel with CCT.


PE 338.431 - 82 -

8.2 Policy options Based on the experience from the EESD (Energy, Environment and Sustainable Develop-ment) initiative within the 5th EU Framework Programme, the results on CCT should be as-sessed and efforts should be continued in order to keep the track of security of supply and environmental protection.

• A strong incentive for an EU supported CCT initiative for power plants is the fact that synergies will be created between a technology offensive in clean coal power plant tech-nologies, climate policies, and RTD activities aiming at CO2 capture and sequestration.

• CCT power plants are complex high-tech products, which integrate diverse engineering disciplines and a broad spectrum of components supplied by main- and subcontractors (mainly SMEs) – the complexity and the supplier/SME aspects are further reasons sup-porting the concept of a European initiative on CCT power plant technologies.

• An additional driving force towards the initiation of an EU-initiative, project or programme is the need for continuous improvement of their engineering, innovativeness, and effi-ciency to secure and increase competitiveness of European power plant industries.

Against this background, the EU-initiative shall aim to promote the refinement of low-CO2-emisson power plants based on CCT in order to:

� fill the expected gap in the power supply security,

� hold the competitive advantage of engineering expertise established within Europe and, thus

� strengthen the potential for industry-backed RTD.

8.3 Conclusions and recommendations Coal will play a decisive and stabilising role in power production. The advantages of the fuel in combination with the development potential of the combustion/ gasification technology provides the perspective for a reliable, competitive and clean power generation. Due to the increase in efficiency and main process parameters, clean coal technologies can play a sig-nificant role for the reduction of CO2 emissions, considering the specific CO2 emissions of a fuel in combination with the utilisation rate of the fuel in advanced power plants with super-critical steam parameters with the use of new materials.

The real structural change of the European energy sector is based on the liberalisation of the electricity (and other energy carrier) markets, and secondly on the support of renewable en-ergy technologies. Electricity production facilities have to meet not only the faster changing power demand but also promote short-term solutions with stricter cost-benefit calculations than long-term investments with less calculable risks, even though they might be environ-mentally more benign. Thus, smaller gas-fired units with short planning and construction pe-riods and lower capital commitments are flexible enough to meet this criterion, despite the higher and less calculable fuel costs, the higher dependencies from a few exporting gas pro-ducers, and the more limited gas reserves. Additionally, gas is an ideal fuel for households and smaller decentralised users as complex flue gas cleaning (only economic on a large-scale) is hardly needed.

In contrast, coal offers the advantage of secure supply and prices, but needs more complex flue gas cleaning which is economic for large-scale plants. To get a chance to explore the benefits of high efficient and clean coal technologies for power generation, which are best implemented in larger units, support from the political side is requested to provide the neces-sary medium- to long term planning security. It is the dilemma that on the one hand political influence to the power sector is contradictory to the basic idea of the liberalisation and on the other hand the need for fast development of the next CCT generation, which meets the effi-


- 83 - PE 338.431

ciency and flexibility demand of the market conditions.

It is important for operators to act in a partnership with manufacturers and politicians in order to obtain the optimum between these requirements and competing targets. Any environ-mental requirements must consider the market situation: If costs are not covered in the cal-culable and long-term future by any potential profits, no new power plant will be built. Older, less efficient ones will however be kept in use, or electricity will be imported from countries with less strict requirements. Progress in environmental compatibility must be affordable. Based on market forces, nobody will invest in new power plants and especially new tech-nologies, if they are not able to earn money with them or face un-calculable risks.

All measures mentioned for enhancing efficiency are linked with high capital expenditures. As mentioned, efficiency and environmental compatibility are only two aspects relevant to in-vestors in the power sector. All technical improvements will only be successfully imple-mented, if they pass the economic criteria. Thus, an increase of efficiency should be linked with a decrease in capital costs.

This is crucial to the power production industry as nobody wants to use a new technology and take all risks on their own. As a consequence, RTD and investments might be delayed in Europe, and in the mid/long-term European manufacturers will lose their leading competence in modern power plants. Research and development capabilities will migrate.

To conclude:

• At latest after the year 2010 there will be a huge demand for new power plant capacity in Europe.

• The main requirement of power plant operators is profitability and high competitiveness. This requirement must be obtainable or further support from the EC will be needed to overcome at least any initial barriers. Furthermore, the power plants must be flexible in operation as required by conditions for a competitive, liberalised power market.

• The development of power plant technology should be done in a consortium of manu-facturers, operators and research institutes. Due to the technical and economic risks, public subsidies as well as governmental policy support are necessary.

• In today’s outlook, new and highly efficient coal fired power plants meet these require-ments best in the short-to-mid term. They offer the greatest potential for closing the fore-cast shortage of energy supply and allowing a parallel decrease of CO2 and other emis-sions if old power plants are replaced by power plants in the 45% (today) to >50% (in some 5-15 years) efficiency range.

• In the longer term, technologies allowing for (nearly) CO2-emission free power plants need to be developed. These technologies are rather based on previous coal gasification or combustion with oxygen rather than air, as they allow CO2 sequestration with a higher overall efficiency (or better, less reduced: minus 6-8% instead of minus 10-12% or more for advanced PCF-based CCTs). As these technologies are not competitive on the mar-ket, public support is needed to start or continue any R&D initiatives on larger scale.

• Any CO2 capture is pointless if no sufficient and reliable CO2 storage options are avail-able. Thus, in parallel to CCTs with CO2 capture, CO2 storage technologies also need to be developed. Under liberalised market conditions, this is again not a task promoted and financed by CCT developers and manufacturers, at least not alone. Public support in RTD as well as policy development is essential.

Preventive climate protection and sustainable rationing of scarce resources will be obtained by innovative and competitive power plants.

The further development of Clean Coal


PE 338.431 - 84 -

technologies will not only contribute to any environmental impact but will also increase the export chances of the European power plant manufacturing industry. Developing countries in particular will cover their increasing power demand mostly with coal. The IEA in Paris forecasts a tripling of the share of coal fired power plants in these countries by 2030. If European manufacturers alone would be positioned to (further) support China and India, which will have an extremely fast increase in power demand for the extension of power plant capacities with the latest technologies and operational know-how, there would also be a boost in the application of CCT in Europe and it would open new markets for European industry.


- 85 - PE 338.431

Annexes

Annex 1: Summary table of demonstration projects of CCT in EU and non-EU countries

Annex 2: Technology matrix comparing available and future technologies with regard to their major design criteria

Annex 3: Directory of key actors involved in the development and implementation of CCT


PE 338.431 - 86 -

Annex 1: Summary table of demonstration projects of CCT in EU and non-EU countries Tech-nology

Project Name Place Scale Consortium Leader

Partners Co-financed

Begin End State Project Description/Results Www Link

The following 4 projects are in the framework of the EU-wide Emax power plant initiative

USC Referenzkraft-werk Nordrhein-Westfalen

Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen

feasibil-ity study

VGB PowerTech e. V (coordinator)

STEAG, Mark-E, E.ON, RWE ,Siemens Power Gen-eration Babcock Borsig Power Systems

EU, state of Nordreihn-Westfhalen,

1.10.02

30.9.03

ongo-ing

Case study for development of pp: Increase in efficiency from max. 43% to max. 47%

http://web.vgb.org/index_forschung_en.html

USC Strategy Study for the Realisa-tion of a Fossil-fired Power Plant with High Efficiency:- Emax

EU wide Strategic study

VGB PowerTech e. V (coordinator)

E.ON Energie AG, Electricité de France, EnBW Kraft-werke AG, Electrabel, ENEL Produzione, RWE Power AG, RWE Rheinbraun AG, Tech-wise A/S, Vattenfall and STEAG AG

EU, VGB, industry

01.03

com-pleted

Case study for development of pp with high temperature / high pressure steam (700 °C/720 °C/35 MPa), 400 MW , 50%el efficiency, 25% CO2 reduction Planning, construction and operation of a 400 MW demon-stration power plant with an electrical efficiency of 50 % and low emission values at the same time shall be realised with the Emax power plant initiative

http://web.vgb.org/index_forschung_en.html

USC KOMET 650 Pilot (spe-cially retrofit-ted boiler at pp „West-falen“)

1998 2002 com-pleted

Material and measuring for 650°C steam generation http://web.vgb.org/index_forschung_en.html

USC AD700 (phase 1+2)

Unknown yet

demo Tech-wise A/S (coordinator)

VGB PowerTech e. V, Alstom Power, Babcock Borsig Power, Siemens, KEMA-Nederland BV. (among others)

EU (phase 1:40%, phase2: 50%)

1998 2014 ongo-ing

Purpose: prepare, develop and demonstrate the next gen-eration of pulverised coal-fired power plants featuring ad-vanced steam data Special Ni-steels for turbines Efficiency increase from 47% up to 55%

http://www.ad

700.dk/

Other EU-wide major demonstration projects

USC Torrevaldaliga Nord power station.

Civitavecchia Italy

Full scale

ENEL Produzione SpA

USC technology will be implemented by Enel Produzione in the conversion to coal firing of the four supercritical oil fired units at Torrevaldaliga Nord power station. This new installation will allow to elevate the overall plant efficiency to 44-45%

IGCC The Buggenum Project

Buggenum, Netherland

demo Demkolec/Nuon Shell 1993 1998 com-pleted

The first full size IGCC (253MWe) on coal using the wide range of hard coals imported at present by the utilities (PF-boilers). Efficiency: >43 % (LHV-basis). The Shell coal gasification process is combined with key components manufactured in Germany (Steinmüller, Siemens V94.2 gas turbine (GT)). The plant is fully integrated (steam, ni-trogen and full extraction of air from the GT).

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/atlas/htmlu/cccasestudies.html


- 87 - PE 338.431

Tech-nology




IGCC The Puertollano Project

Puertollano, Spain

demo Elcogas Endesa, Iberdrola, Cia Sevillana de Electriciada, Hidroelectrica de Cantabrico, Electricidade de Portugal, Electricité de France (all shareholders), Enel, Siemens, Krupp-Koppers, Babcock-Borsig, Wilcox Espanola

EU Thermie, Industry

1991 1996 (1999 full op-era-tion)

com-pleted

Demonstration of integrated gasification combined cycle technology in 305 MWe power plant

http://www.elcogas.es

AFBC 250 MWe at-mospheric cir-culating fluidised bed (Centrale de Provence)

France/ Provence

demo SOPROLIF (So-cieté provençale du lit fluidisé) (Coordinator)

ALSTOM ; EDF; Charbon-nages de France; LURGI; ENDES, other procuction clients

EU-THERMIE Project Nr.:SF/080/95, Industry

1991 1997 com-pleted

Full steam production capacity attained (730 t/h) over the contractual value (700 t/h) Boiler efficiency close to 94% Plant overall net efficiency is around 38% at full load. Environmental and social impact: the measured emissions of SO2, NOX and particulate matter are well below the EU present constraints. Economic data: the total cost of the entire project is around 200 Million Euro.

LEBS PF power station with coal over coal reburn

Savona, Italy

demo Powergen UK plc (pp operator: In-terpower/ ENEL)

Mitsui Babcock Energy Limited, James Howden & Co Limited

EU (31%) 1995 2001 com-pleted

The combustion-based NOx-control technology known as reburn offers the potential for significantly reduced NOx emissions. The process essentially requires the staging of the fuel supply to the furnace. 50% less NOx compared to an low-NOx burner baseline. Plant output: 320 Mwe

http://enpov.aeat.com/carnot/case_studies/?id=31&exp=y

AFBC Sulcis Sulcis, Sardinia Italy

commercial unit 340MWe

ENEL Produzione SpA

ALSTOM Power

PFBC STADTWERKE COTTBUS GMBH

Cottbus/Germany

First PFBC power plant

with modern lignite combustion

ABB Kraftwerke AG, Mannheim

Land Brandenburg, EU

1997(begin of con-struc-tion)

2000 Implementation of second generation 74MWe P200 PFCB technology with higher efficiency (>40%) and lower NOx and SOx emission

https://stadtwerke-cottbus.de

PCFB Several projects Sweden Spain Japan

ABB Carbon Värtan, Stockholm: 135 MW electric output and 225 MW equivalent for district heating. P200 design Escatron, Spain: Electric output 70 MW P200 design Wakamatsu, Kyushu, Japan: 70 MW electric repowering plant with reheat boiler. P200 design Karita, Kyushu, Japan: Scheduled for commissioning in 1998 this plant with an electrical output of 360 MW is the first utility size PFBC to be constructed. P800 design

www.techtp.com/ar-chives/Turbo%20Expo%2098.htm

IGCC Heat recovery steam generator for IGCC dem-onstration plant in China

Yantai, Shandong Province, China

demo Mitsui Babcock Energy Limited

Foster Wheeler Continental Europe Srl Siemens AG

EU, DTI (Dept. of Trade and Industry, UK)

com-plete

2000 2002 Development of flow sheet for the proposed 400MWe inte-grated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) demonstration plant in association with European partners. Design of heat recovery steam gen-erator (HRSG) for the demonstration plant.. Undertaking of

http://www.dti.gov.uk/cct/pub/profiles2.htm


PE 338.431 - 88 -

Tech-nology




licensing negotiations with a Chinese boilermaker for the HRSG technology..

Important demonstration Projects in non-European countries

PFBC Tomatoh-Atsuma Power Station

Japan demo Hokkaido Electric Power Company, Inc.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

1990(start of R&D pro-gramme)

1998 com-pleted

first commercial Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) Combined Cycle plant in Japan 85 MWe output

IGFC EAGLE (Coal Energy Applica-tion for Gas Liq-uid Electricity)

Waka-matsuFu-kuoka Prefecture Japan

demo Electric Power De-velopment Co., Ltd.

Hitachi Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan

1995 2006 opera-trional since 2002

IGMCFC process: Development of optimum coal gasifier for fuel cells and establishment of clean-up system which purifies the gas to a level acceptable for fuel cells. triple power generation complex Net power: 551 MWe Efficiency: 60% envisaged

http://www.jpower.co.jp/english

There are 8 projects in a series initiated by the US Clean Coal Power Initiative providing 2$billion for clean coal technology: the following is one example

Ad-vanced CFBC

Next-Generation CFB Coal Gen-erating Unit

Colorado Springs Colorado USA

demo Colorado Springs Utilities,

Foster Wheeler Power Group, Inc.

US Dept. o. Energy

started The project ties together an advanced coal burning system called a "circulating fluidised bed combustor" with a fully integrated emission control technology. The 150-megawatt power plant, to be located at the Ray D. Nixon Power Plant, south of Colorado Springs, would be among the cleanest in the world. The Energy Department's $30 million funding share would be used to demonstrate the advanced pollution controls, which are expected to reduce sulphur emissions by up to 98 percent and eliminate more than 90 percent of the mercury contained in the coal fuel. The total project is expected to cost $301 million.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/ccpi/index.html

The following projects are/were part of the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTP) initiated by the US administration

IGCC Tampa Electric Integrated Gasi-fication Com-bined-Cycle Project

USA Mulberry, Polk County, Florida

Demo 316 MWe

Tampa Electric Company

Texaco Development Corpo-ration General Electric Corporation etc.

US Dept. of Energy (49% of costs )

03.91 04.02

com-plete

Advanced integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) system using Texaco's pressurized, oxygen-blown, en-trained-flow gasifier technology

http://www.te

co.net/teco/T

EPlkPwrStn.h

tml http://www.lanl.gov/proj-ects/cctc/factsheets/tampa/tam-


- 89 - PE 338.431

Tech-nology




paedemo.html

IGCC Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project

USA Trapp, Clark County, Kentucky

demo Kentucky Pioneer Energy, L.L.C.

Fuel Cell Energy, Inc (supplier of boiler technol-ogy: British Gas/Lurgi)


1994 2006 con-struc-tion

Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) using a BG/L (formerly British Gas/Lurgi) slagging fixed-bed gasifi-cation system coupled with Fuel Cell Energy's molten car-bonate fuel cell (MCFC) 580 MWe (gross); 540 MWe (net) IGCC; 2.0 MWe MCFC

http://www.lanl.gov/proj-ects/cctc/factsheets/clnen/cleanedemo.html

IGCC Piñon Pine IGCC Power Project

USA Reno, Sto-rey County, Nevada

demo Sierra Pacific Power Company

Foster Wheeler USA Corpo-ration architect, engineer, and con-structor The M.W. Kellogg Company technology supplier Bechtel Corporation startup engineer Westinghouse Corporation technology supplier General Electric technology supplier


1992 2001 com-plete

Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) using the KRW air-blown pressurized fluidised-bed coal gasification system 107 MWe (gross), 99 MWe (net)

http://www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/factsheets/pinon/pinondemo.html

IGCC Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project

USA West Terre Haute, Vigo County, Indiana

demo joint venture of Dynegy and PSI Energy, Inc

PSI Energy, Inc. host Dynegy (formerly Destec Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of Natural Gas Clearinghouse) engineer and gas plant op-erator


1992 2000 com-plete

Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) using Global Energy's two-stage pressurized, oxygen-blown, en-trained-flow gasification system - E-Gas Technology™ 296-MWe (gross), 262-MWe (net)

http://www.lanl.gov/proj-ects/cctc/factsheets/wabsh/wa-bashrdemo.html

PCFB

McIntosh Unit 4A PCFB Dem-onstration Proj-ect

USA Lakeland, Polk County, FL

demo City of Lakeland, Lakeland Electric

Foster Wheeler Corporation Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation


1990 2003 On hold

Demonstration of Foster Wheeler's Pressurized Circulating Fluidised Bed (PCFB) technology coupled with Siemens Westinghouse's ceramic candle type hot gas particulate filter system (HGPFS) and power generation technologies, which represent a cost-effective, high-efficiency, low-emis-sions means of adding generating capacity at greenfield sites or in repowering applications.

http://www.lanl.gov/proj-ects/cctc/factsheets/lklnda/macu-nit4ademo.html

PCFB

Tidd PFBC Demonstration Project

USA Brilliant, Jefferson County, Ohio

demo The Ohio Power Company

American Electric Power Service Corporation The Babcock & Wilcox Company


1987 1995 com-plete

Tidd was the first large-scale operational demonstration of PFBC in the United States. The project represented a 13:1 scale up from the pilot facility

http://www.lanl.gov/proj-ects/cctc/factsheets/tidd/tidddemo.html

CFBC JEA Large-Scale CFB Combus-tion Demonstra-tion Project

USA

demo Jacksonville Elec-tric Authority

Foster Wheeler Energy Cor-poration


PE 338.431 - 90 -

Tech-nology




HIPPS High Perform-ance Power Systems

USA demo Foster Weehler /United Technolo-gies Research Center

US Dept. of Energy

1992 2005 Op-eration

HIPPS are indirectly fired power systems (IFPS) which use an indirectly fired gas turbine combined cycle, where heat is provided to the gas turbine by high- temperature heat exchangers. IFPS achieves high efficiency and low emis-sions. 47% efficiency (>50% in the future)

http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/ccpi/index.html

LEBS Low Emissions Boiler System

USA demo Babcock Borsig Power

US Dept. of Energy

1993 2003 Op-eration

Construction of an 80 MW "proof-of-concept' ultra clean coal-fired power plant. Development of this low emission boiler system ( LEBS ) offers a way to meet the electrical needs of the 21st Century without sacrificing clean or healthy air. 42-45% efficiency

http://www.bbpwr.com/coal.html

Coal diesel

Clean Coal Diesel Demon-stration Project

USA Fairbanks, Alaska

demo Arthur D. Little, Inc.

University of Alaska at Fairbanks host and cofunder Fairbanks Morse Engine, Goodrich Corp. diesel engine technology vendor Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. coal supplier


1994 2004 opera-tion

The project is based on the demonstration of an 18-cylin-der, heavy duty engine (6.4-MWe). The clean coal diesel technology, which uses a low-rank coal-water-fuel (LRCWF), is expected to have very low NOx and SO2 emission levels. In addition, the demonstration plant is ex-pected to achieve 41% efficiency, and future plant designs are expected to reach 48% efficiency.

http://www.lanl.gov/proj-ects/cctc/factsheets/disel/disel_time-line.html


- 91 - PE 338.431

Annex 2: Technology matrix comparing available and future technologies with regard to their major design criteria

CCT Descrip-tion

Technology description Efficiency Emission Specific costs Availability (Commercially, dem-onstration phase, de-velopment phase)

PCF/ ad-vanced USC

Pulver-ised coal-fired boilers (PCF) with ad-vanced ultra su-percriti-cal steam

PCC is the most commonly used method in coal-fired power plants, and is based on many decades of experi-ence. Units operate at close to atmospheric pressure, sim-plifying the passage of materials through the plant. The technology is well developed, and there are thousands of units around the world, accounting for well over 90% of coal-fired capacity. PCC can be used to fire a wide variety of coals, although it is not always appropriate for those with a high ash content. PCC boilers have been built to match steam turbines which have outputs between 50 and 1300 MWe. In order to take advantage of the economies of scale, most new units are rated at over 300 MWe to 700 MWe The advanced USC technology is based on PCF (Pulver-ized Coal Fired )technology experience. The effort to rea-ech USC steam conditions is concentrating on develop-ment of heat resistant materials for the complete steam cycle. These are nickel based superalloys. High pressures (> 30 MPa) and high temperatures (650-720°C) are neces-sary when high efficiencies (≥50%) should be reached.

A commonly used assump-tion for the average efficiency of conventional PCF plants with supercritical steam burning somewhat higher quality coals is that it is in the region of 35-38% for some-what older and modern ones around 41-43%. Seawater cooled PCF super-critical power plants might reach efficiencies of 45-47% (ELSAM, Denmark). With USC technology in the range of 700°C/35 MPa effi-ciencies of ≥50% should be possible in the future („AD700“ EU-wide project)

Emissions from new PCC units with appropriate flue gas cleaning units (such as electro-static precipitators or bag houses, and flue gas desul-phurisation) can meet all cur-rent requirements reliably and economically, and using well-proven technology. Modern design and practice is to control and stage the addi-tion of air in order to minimise

the formation of NOx (air

staging).

The LEBS (Low Emissions Boiler System) project in the US is one demonstration initiative focusing on NOx and SOx emission reduction. NOx<200mg/m³ SO2<400mg/m³ CO=10-250mg/m³ Particulate<50mg/m³

About US$1000/kW for standard pp with flue-gas treatment. For USC (700°C) power plants about 10% higher invest-ment costs are cal-culated.

Commercially: Standard PCC and USC power plants. Development: PCC with advanced USC steam technol-ogy with 650/700°C is predicted to be available in 2010/2020

AFBC

Atmos-pheric fluidised-bed combus-tion (AFBC)

AFBC boilers are either of the BFBC (bubbling fluidised bed combustion) or the CFBC (circulating fluidised bed combustion) type. The process operates at a temperature of around 800-9000C. The fuel(crushed coal) along with the sorbent (limestone) is fed to the lower furnace where it is kept suspended and burnt in an upward flow of combustion air. The sorbent (limestone) is fed to facilitate capture of sulfur from the coal in the bed itself resulting in consequent

While the efficiency of ACFB is on par with conventional pulverized coal-fired plants, the advantage of ACFB is that coal of any sulfur or ash content can be used, and any type or size unit can be re-powered.

Contrary to PCC and due to di-rect sorbent injection no addi-tional desulfuristation units are necessary for emission control. SO2 removal efficiency of 95% and higher has been demon-strated along with good sorbent utilisation. Low furnace tem-

A CFBC plant costs about US$1000-1100/kW

Commercially: At present, there are about 300 operating CFBC boilers in the world with the ca-pacity above 12 MW, 40% of them are in the US, 40%


PE 338.431 - 92 -

CCT Descrip-tion


AFBC

low sulfur emission. The combustion air is fed in two stages - Primary air direct through the combustor and Sec-ondary air, way up the combustor above the fuel feed point. For CFBC a cyclone for the separation of flue gas and particles is necessary. Apart from BFBC also internally recirculating (IR) FBC is available. AFBC can be particularly useful for high ash coals, those with variable characteristics and co-combustion of bio-mass/waste/coal slurries.

For CFBC power plants about 38-40% net efficiency can be reached comparable to PPC net efficiencies.

perature plus staging of air feed to the furnace produce very low NOx emissions Reduced NOx emissions by 60% when com-pared with conventional tech-nology for CFBC technology were reported. Chlorine & Fluo-rine are largely retained in ash.

in Europe and 20% in Asia.

PFBC Pressur-ised flu-idised-bed combus-tion (PFBC

PFBC resembles to some extent AFBC. But for PFBC, the combustor and hot gas cyclones are all enclosed in a pressure vessel. Both coal and sorbent (lime-stone/dolomite) have to be fed across the pressure bound-ary, and similar provision for ash removal is necessary. Units operate typically at pressures of 1-2 MPa with com-bustion temperatures of 800-900°C. In contrast to AFBC the pressurised, cleaned flue gas is first directly feed into a gas turbine and than into the steam cycle thus increasing the overall efficiency. Advanced PFBC is also equipped with a carboniser and a topping combustor.

PFBC efficiency is about 4-5% higher than AFBC/ stan-dard PCC. It is intended to give an efficiency value of over 42%, and low emis-sions. Using more advanced cycles are intended to achieve effi-ciencies of over 46% for sec-ond generation PFBCs (cur-rent project: McIntosh Unit 4B topped PCFB demonstration project in the USA)

Combustion takes place at temperatures from 800-900°C resulting in reduced NOx forma-tion compared with PCC. SO2 emissions can be reduced by the injection of sorbent into the bed, and the subsequent re-moval of ash together with re-acted sorbent.

To date: US$1350-1900/kW Future: US$1150/kW

Demonstration/commercially available: The PFBC is now under construction for commercial plant scale Advanced PFBC is in a demonstration phase

IGCC Inte-grated gasifica-tion com-bined-cycle systems (IGCC)

In IGCC power generation, a syngas –produced through gasification of coal with an oxidation agent (air/oxygen and steam)- consisting mainly of CO an H2 is refined (i.e. cleaned) and used as the fuel for a gas turbine for com-bined power generation. Like FBC (fluidised bed combustion ~AFBC /PFBC) the biggest advantages of IGCC over PCF is the capability for combustion of lower rank fuels (waste, coal, biomass, tar) as well as low SOx and NOx levels.

At the moment overall IGCC pp efficiency is in the range of 43%. It is expected that through continuous develop-ments in the field of higher turbine inlet temperatures, increased steam conditions (ultra critical steam) and hot syngas clean-up, the IGCC net efficiency will reach 50%.

Sulphur capture for IGCC proj-ects were about 98% and NOx emissions reductions were 90% compared to those of a con-ventional pulverized coal-fired power plant. In fact, no addi-tional equipment is required to meet the environment stan-dards.

At the moment, the typical project costs as reported for dif-ferent demonstration projects are US$1500-2000/kW In the future the specific capital in-vestment of US$1100 for the ad-vanced IGCC power station is antici-pated.

Demonstration: At present, the sec-ondary generation of IGCC power tech-nology is at a ma-tured stage. 24 IGCC pps are under construction or are planed to be build in the world.

Others (in early development or of less relevance):


- 93 - PE 338.431

CCT Descrip-tion


PPCC Pressur-ised pul-verised coal combus-tion (PPCC)

PPCC power plant design resemble that of PFBC pps. Both boiler types are operated at elevated pressure levels of 1-2 Mpa. But for PPCC the temperature in the boiler is about 1600°C and at the gas turbine inlet at 1000-1300°C. Also the flue gas clean up is different, because flue ash and alkali removal are necessary to protect the gas tur-bine. A PPCC pilot plant of 1 MW has been erected in Dor-sten, Germany.

Efficiencies of up to 55% are deemed possible in the fu-ture.

Basically same as PCC with FGD/SCR

Future costs when commercially avail-able: same as PCC (~1100-1200US$)

Development/pilot scale: No large scale power plants in-stalled yet.

IGFC Inte-grated gasifica-tion fuel cell sys-tems (IGFC)

There are currently two projects in the pilot scale region for IGFC technology using both MCFC (molten carbonate fuel cells) technology with about 2MW in combination with a gasification unit: Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Demonstration Project, USA EAGLE project in Wakamatsu, Japan. These IGFC power plants are of a triple combined cycle type. This consists of a coal gasification unit, a gas clean-up unit, an air separation unit, a high temperature fuel cell unit (MCFC -molten carbonate FC at 600°C- or a SOFC -solid oxides FC at 900-1000°C- ), a gas turbine unit and a steam turbine unit.

At the pilot scale plant in Wa-kamatsu the net thermal effi-ciency of IGMCFC would be 53% or more. 55%-60% are deemed possible in the fu-ture. For gasification a high oxygen content of the gas-ifying agent is vital for high overall pp efficiency

Same level as for IGCC Due to the very early stage of de-velopment and the unavailability of power plant scale fuel cells to date no information on costs can be given.

Development: The IGFC is still un-der construction for pilot plant. Availability of IGFC power plants deemed possible (Japan) in: 2010 (20 MW) 2015 (50 MW) 2020 (600 MW)

PCF/ HIPPS

High Perform-ance Power Systems

Based on PCF technology HIPPS is a indirecty fired power system using an indirectly fired gas turbine combined cy-cle, where heat is provided to the gas turbine by high- temperature heat exchangers with air temperature of T>1000°C.

Net efficiency: 47% Estimated: >50%

Emissions: SO2=92 mg/kWh NOx=92 mg/kWh Particulate=5mg/kWh

When commercially available approx. same as PCF

Demonstration: 2 demo power plants in the USA

MHD Magne-tohydro-dynamic electricity genera-tion (MHD).

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is a power generation technology in which the electric generator is static non-ro-tating equipment. In the MHD concept, a fluid conductor flows through a static magnetic field, resulting in a direct current electric flow perpendicular to the magnetic field. The fluid conductor is typically an ionised flue gas resulting from combustion of coal or other fossil fuels. Potassium carbonate, called 'seed, is injected during the combustion process to increase fluid conductivity. The fluid tempera-ture is typically around 2,480 to 2,650º C with pressures ranging from 0,5-1 MPa.

MHD / steam combined cycle power plants have the poten-tial for very low heat rates (in the range of 6858 kJ/kWh ~ 52% efficiency).

Oxides of Sulphur (SOx) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emis-sion levels from MHD plants are predicted to be very low.

Due to the very early stage of de-velopment and the unavailability of power plant scale MHD power genera-tion units to date no information on costs can be given.

Early development stage: Several prototype units are being tested in the USA.

Coal Diesel

Clean Coal

The clean coal demonstration project in Fairbanks Alaska, USA is a demonstration of an 18-cylinder, heavy duty en-

The demonstration plant is expected to achieve 41% ef-

It is expected to have very low NOx and SO2 emission levels

The estimated in-stallation cost of a

Development stage: The U.S. diesel


PE 338.431 - 94 -

CCT Descrip-tion


Diesel gine (6.4-MWe) modified to operate on Alaskan sub bitu-minous coal. Power generation is in the 5- to 20-MWe range.

ficiency, and future plant designs are expected to reach 48% efficiency

(50%-70% below current New Source Performance Stan-dards).

mature commercial unit is approximately $1300/kW

market is projected to exceed 7,000 en-gines in 2020. The worldwide market is 70 times the US market.

Source: IEA Coal Research - The Clean Coal Centre : http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/iea1.htm US Department of Energy: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/ccpi/index.html China Clean Coal Technology: http://www.cct.org.cn/cct/ENG/7/content/0701-7.htm TU-Berlin: http://edocs.tu-berlin.de/diss/2001/chen_yanzi.pdf Private homepage: http://www.crosswinds.net/~nqureshi/igccscan.html Centre for coal utilisation, Japan: http://www.ccuj.or.jp/index-e.htm World Energy Council: http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers Los Alamos National Laboratory: http://www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/resources/library/bibliography/demonstration/aepg/bibd_aepg.html Tech-wise A/S: http://www.elsamprojekt.com.pl/usc.html STEAG: “Flue Gas Cleanup at Temperatures about 1400 _C for a Coal Fired Combined Cycle Power Plant: State and Perspectives in the Pressurized Pulverized Coal Combustion (PPCC) project”


- 95 - PE 338.431

Annex 3: Directory of key actors involved in the development and im-plementation of CCT

a) CCT equipment manufacturing companies Services

offered Technology offered

Manufacturing Company Homepage

engineering

construction

Financing

UCS

AFBC/CFBC

PFBC

IGCC

PPCC

IGFC

Emission control

Measuring

ABB Carbon www.abb.com x x x x

Alstom Power Group, (GEC Alsthom)

www.alstom.com

x x x x x

Babcock & Wilcox (USA) x x x x x

Babcock Borsig Power http://www.bbpwr.com/

x x x x x x x

British Coal Corporation,

European Gas Turbines Ltd (EGT),

Foster Wheeler (Pyropower) http://www.fwc.com

x x x x x x x

General Electric Power systems X

Groupe Charbonnages de France x

Hitachi x x

INERCO (consultant) www.inerco.com x X x

Krupp Uhde Coorporation x x

Kvaerner Pulping Oy, Finland x

Lurgi/ M/s Lurgi Lentjes Babcock Energietechnik Gmbh (LLB), Germany

www.lurgi.com x x

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries X X

Mitsui Babcock Energy Limited x x x X

Powergen UK plc www.powertech.co.uk

x x x

Prenflo X

Shell X

Siemens www.siemens.com

x x x X x x

STEAG www.steag.de x x x X x

Tech-wise (former ELSAMPROJEKT A/S)

www.techwise.com

x x

Voest-Alpine x

Westinghouse x


PE 338.431 - 96 -

b) Table of major organisations involved in development/promotion of clean coal technology Orientation


Address www Type Objectives/ mission with regards to clean coal

technology

Region Members

R&D

Pp-operating

Engineering

Construction

Manufacturing

Finacing

Center for Coal Utilization, Japan (CCUJ)

7th Floor, Sumitomo Gaien Building, 24 Daikyocho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-0015 JAPAN Administration Dept. 03-3359-2251

http://www.ccuj.or.jp

Association The CCUJ has consistently been devel-oping coal utilization technologies such as Clean Coal Technology. Furthermore, to promote high-efficiency and environ-ment-friendly coal utilization in the Asian countries where coal demand is ex-pected to increase, CCUJ has been transferring a clean coal technology to those countries. In addition, CCUJ has been engaged in various surveys and publicity.

Japan (in-ternational coopera-tion)

Pp equipment manufacturers and pp opera-tors Partly govern-ment funded

x x x x

Department of Trade and Industry UK

Cleaner Coal Technolo-gies Enquiry Unit 1 Victoria Street London SW1E 0ET Tel: 020 7215 6692 Fax: 020 7215 2674 E-mail:

[email protected].

gov.uk

http://www.dti.gov.uk/

Govern-mental

To provide a catalyst for UK industry to develop cleaner coal technologies and obtain an appropriate share of the growing world market for the technolo-gies

UK Government funded pro-gramme

x x

EPPSA Brussels Office: Avenue de l'Opale 80 B-1030 Brussels Bergium

Duesseldorf Office: Sternstrasse 36 D-40479 Duesseldorf, Germany

http://eppsa.org

Association Fostering the development and the dis-semination of power plant technologies and seeking to promote the awareness of the positive implications of technolo-gies concerned. Promotion of experience exchange be-tween the enterprises and the EU, lead-ing to the establishment of European technical rules and standards.

EU Manufacturers x x x x

Gasification www.gasi Association The Gasification Technologies Council USA (world Manufacturers x x x x x


- 97 - PE 338.431

Orientation



technology

Region Members

R&D

Pp-operating

Engineering

Construction

Manufacturing

Finacing

Technologies Council (GTC)

fication.org

(GTC) was created in 1995 to promote a better understanding of the role Gasifi-cation can play in providing the power, chemical and refining industries with economically competitive technology op-tions to produce electricity, fuels and chemicals in an environmentally superior manner.

wide) Utilities, Industrial pro-duction and power operators

IEA Coal Research

IEA Coal Research - The Clean Coal Centre Gemini House 10-18 Putney Hill London SW15 6AA Tel: +44 (0)20 8780 2111 Fax: +44 (0)20 8780 1746

Email: mail@iea-

coal.org.uk

http://www.iea-coal.org.uk

Agency To promote rational energy policies in a global context through co-operative rela-tions with non-Member countries, indus-try and international organisations; To improve the world's energy supply and demand structure by developing al-ternative energy sources and increasing the efficiency of energy use; To assist in the integration of environ-mental and energy policies.

World wide Governments of member coun-tries

US Department for Energy / Los Alamos National Laboratory

http://www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc/re-sources/library/bibliography/demonstration/aepg/bibd_aepg.html

Govern-mental

USA Government funded agency

x x


PE 338.431 - 98 -

Orientation



technology

Region Members

R&D

Pp-operating

Engineering

Construction

Manufacturing

Finacing

VGB Power-Tech e.V.

P.O. Box 10 39 32 D-45039 Essen Klinkestraße 27-31 D-45136 Essen Phone: +49-201-8128-0 (Switchboard)

http://www.vgb-power.de

Association Joint support and improvement of opera-tional safety, availability, efficiency and environmental compatibility Standardization and elaboration of tech-nical guidelines and regulations.

Germany Power and heat generating utili-ties

x x x x


- 99 - PE 338.431

Bibliography 1) EC, 2003, World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook 2030, WETO.

2) VGB PowerTech, Alstom, Siemens, Power 21 – A low Emission Power Plant Initiative Concept Paper.

3) Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham at the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum on February 27, 2003.

4) Scheffknecht, Stamatelopoulos, Lorey, Advanced coal fired power plants, BKW, Bd. 54 (2002) No. 6, 2002.

5) EC 2003, COM (2000)769; Green Paper of the European Commission Towards a Euro-pean Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply.

6) Journal for the Energy Industry, Employment effects of an European program for the promotion of clean coal technologies, vol. 1/2000, page 41-49.

7) RWE-Rheinbraun & Vattenfall Europe, April 2003, Argumentationspapier zur Entwicklung der Kohlekraftwerkstechnik unter Berücksichtigung der Klimavorsorge (Discussion Paper on the Development of coal-fired PP technology under consideration of climate protec-tion).

8) Homepage of CooreTec German R&D Initiative (www.cooretec.de) with links to many technical and policy papers .

9) Energie für das nächste Jahrtausend (Energy for the next Millennium), book published by RAG / STEAG (hard coal mining and power production), 2002.

10) 7. Fachkongress Zukunftsenergien, Essen, 12.02.2003, EPPSA general information and Presentation, and BREF documentsv.

11) ALSTOM-EVT Stuttgart, personal communication

12) European Union energy outlook to 2020 published by DG TREN in November 1999.

13) IEA Coal Research - The Clean Coal Centre : http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/iea1.htm.

14) US Department of Energy: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/ccpi/index.html.

15) EC, 2003, CO2 CAPTURE and SEQUESTRATION - Clean power from fossil fuels, http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/nn/nn_rt_co1_en.html .

8784 117 en - European Parliament · publication in the following languages: EN/DE/FR . Author :...

Documents

Transcript of 8784 117 en - European Parliament · publication in the following languages: EN/DE/FR . Author :...