1

Canadian Clean Power Coalition:Delivering Results for Over a Decade

Presented to

Wood Pellet Association of Canada , 20 November 2013

Who Is the CCPC?• An association of Canadian and U.S. coal and coal-fired electricity

producers, government agencies and research organizations

• Industry participants include:– Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions

– Capital Power Corporation

– Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

– Nova Scotia Power Inc.

– Sherritt International Corporation

– SaskPower

– TransAlta Corporation

• Government Sponsors:– Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources

– Natural Resources Canada (CanmetENERGY)

Our Mandate

• The CCPC's mandate is to research technologies with the goal of developing and advancing commercially viable solutions that lower coal power plant emissions

• Our objective is to demonstrate that coal-fired electricity generation can effectively address environmental issues and move us forward to a cleaner energy future

New Coal GHG Regulations• New plants must have GHG emission intensity of .42 t

CO2/MWh compared to about .9 t CO2/MWh for new SCPC plants and 1.1 t CO2/MWh for old plants

• Plants greater than 47 to 50 years of age must meet the same intensity

• Plant by plant basis, no way to benefit from over complying at 90% capture

• No way to buy your way out, therefore no carbon market

• This requires about 60% CO2 capture – cost prohibitive now

• New technologies may bring costs down4

Alberta Plant Decommissioning

5

Will Biomass Be Used• In the short term as long as the carbon tax is $15/t – not

likely• Biomass could be used to life extend plants for a short

period of time without needing to install significant capital

• However, will have to compete with other kinds of CO2 capture technologies to life extend for say 20 years

6

Will Coal Life Extend with Biomass?• Coal plants will only operate for more than 50 years if:

NPVn(Power Rev – Opex – Tax) >

Life Extension Cost (Capex)

+ Cost of Other Emission Control Technology (Capex & Opex)

+ Cost of GHG Reduction Technology (Capex & Opex)

• Same equation for new coal plants except life extension cost becomes construction cost

7

Introduction• FP Innovations studied co-firing at three coal plant at 10,

20 and 70% firing rates• The costs for about a dozen kinds of fuel were estimated• The volume of existing fuels were estimated within 100

and 150 km of the plants• The proportion of farm area around the plants was

determined for plantation crops• Estimated costs for growing, harvesting, transporting,

processing, storing, drying, handling, conveying and combusting

8

Biomass Requirements

• Assumes 16 GJ/ODt high calorific value of biomass• 5% co-firing rate minimum biomass quantity to be

considered in the study

9

Power Plant Biomass Requirements (ODt/year)

Co-firing rate 5% 10% 20% 70%

Wabamun Lake, AB (300 MWe)80,000 150,000 300,000 1,040,000

Shand, SK (276 MWe)80,000 160,000 310,000 1,070,000

Trenton, NS (150 MWe) 40,000 80,000 150,000 520,000

Feedstocks

10

Biomass TypeAvailability/Potential in Study Area

Wabamun, AB Shand, SK Trenton, NSAgricultural Residues

Wheat, oat, and barley straw

Wheat and flax straw Not available

Woody BiomassWhole tree chips

Forest residual chipsNot available Whole tree chips

Wood PelletsIndustrial and premium

pelletsIndustrial and premium

pelletsPremium pellets

Short Rotation Energy Crops (SREC)

Reed Canary GrassMiscanthus

Jerusalem ArtichokeHemp

Willow coppiceHybrid Poplar coppice

Reed Canary GrassAltai Wildrye Grass

Smooth BromegrassIntermediate Wheat

GrassWillow coppice

Hybrid Poplar coppice

Reed Canary GrassMiscanthusSwitchgrass

Willow coppiceHybrid Poplar

coppice

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

MSW pellets or fluff Not available Not available

Technical and Cost Info

11

Power Plant Parameters  

Plant Capacity (MW) 300

Capacity factor (%) 90%

Base Heat rate (GJ/MWh) 10.0

GHG Intensity (tCO2/MWh) 1.0

Cost of Coal ($/GJ) 1.0

Power Price ($/MWh) 90

Coal Calorific Value (GJ/tonne) 19

Coal replaced (tonnes/year)

10% Co-firing rate 124,484

20% Co-firing rate 248,968

70% Co-firing rate 871,389

Derate factor (% of biomass capacity)

10% Co-firing rate 0%

20% Co-firing rate 0%

70% Co-firing rate 3%

Biomass Processing Parameters  

Capital Cost Pellets ($/kW) 260

Capital Cost Dry Biomass ($/kW) 1,000

Capital Cost Wet Biomass ($/kW) 1,100

Capital Recovery Factor 0.146

Operational Costs (% of Capital cost) 2%

GHG Intensity – Hammer milling (kgCO2/MWh) 15

GHG Intensity – Drying (kgCO2/MWh) 8

Portion of biomass used at drier (%) 18%

Cost of energy – Hammer milling ($/ODt) 2

Cost of energy – Drying ($/ODt) 1

Carbon Credit Revenue ($/tCO2) 15

Biomass Availability & Costs

12

Feedstock Type

Biomass Available (ODt)

Co-firing Rate Supported (%) Point of

Origin Cost

($/ODt)

Transportation costs ($/ODt)

Power plant gate costs

($/ODt)

100 km Radius

150 km Radius

100 km Radius

150 km Radius

100 km Radius

150 km Radius

100 km Radius

150 km Radius

Barley Straw 5,776 6,636 0.4% 0.4% 39 16 19 55 58Wheat Straw 135,331 368,687 10.0% 27.3% 38 16 19 54 57Flax Straw 293 670 0.0% 0.1% 36 16 19 52 55Oat Straw 22,895 39,642 1.8% 3.2% 50 16 19 66 69Whole Tree Chips Woodlots 216,526 686,291 18.1% 57.5% 64-70 23 29 87 99Whole Tree Chips unused AAC 110,542 887,206 9.3% 74.3% 25 23 29 87 99Forest residuals FMU 76,655 751,821 6.4% 62.9% 25 31 40 56 65Forest residuals over AAC 6,591 60,415 0.6% 5.1% 25 31 40 56 65Wood Pellets BC 1,810,000 >100% 125 25-30 150-155Wood Pellets AB 140,000 10.0% 110-125 15-30 125-145MSW RDF with Edmonton 800,000 61%

NA 44-62MSW RDF without Enerkem 700,000 49%MSW RDF w/out Edmonton 194,000 13%Miscanthus

See area requirement table

64 16 19 80 84Reed Canary Grass 114 16 19 130 134Jerusalem artichoke 53 16 19 69 72Hemp 51 16 19 67 71Willow coppice 65 20 25 85 90Poplar coppice 65 20 25 85 90

Plantation Area Required

13

SHORT ROTATION

ENERGY CROP (SREC)

Area (ha) required for each energy crop to sustain the co-

firing rates (%)

Percent (%) of area required to sustain the co-firing rates ( CR %)

100 km Radius 150 km Radius

CR 10% CR 20% CR 70% CR 10% CR 20% CR 70% CR 10% CR 20%CR

70%

Miscanthus 11,762 23,525 82,337 2.0% 4.0% 14.1% 0.6% 1.2% 4.0%Reed Canary Grass

29,381 58,763 205,670 5.0% 10.1% 35.3% 1.4% 2.9% 10.1%

Jerusalem artichoke

8,299 16,598 58,093 1.4% 2.8% 10.0% 0.4% 0.8% 2.8%

Hemp 12,854 25,709 89,980 2.2% 4.4% 15.4% 0.6% 1.3% 4.4%Willow coppice 12,854 25,709 89,980 2.2% 4.4% 15.4% 0.6% 1.3% 4.4%Poplar coppice 12,204 24,409 85,430 2.1% 4.2% 14.6% 0.6% 1.2% 4.2%

Biomass Cost ($ODT) - 70%

14

Avoided Cost – 10/20%

15

NOTE: if the LCA value of 2.98 tCO2e/tonne of MSW pellets was utilized, the Avoided CO2 cost low value would have decreased from $18.0/tCO2 to $12.6/tCO2,

Avoided Cost – 70%

16

Increase in Power Cost – 10%

17

NOTE: if the LCA value of 2.98 tCO2e/tonne of MSW pellets was utilized, the Increase in power cost low value would have decreased from $0.2/MWh to -$0.4/MWh (a decrease in power cost)

Increase in Power Cost – 20%

18

Increase in Power cost – 70%

19

Increase in Power Cost for Biomass and Nat Gas Co-Firing

20

(5)

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Incr

ease

in P

ower

Cos

t ($/

MW

h)

% Biomass Firing

Increase in Power Cost

$8/GJ

$6/GJ

$4/GJ

$2/GJ

$1/GJ

Biomass

Gas = $4/GJ

Avoided Cost – Biomass/ Nat Gas

21

(10)

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Avoi

ded

Cost

($/t

)

% Biomass Firing

Avoided Cost

$8/GJ

$6/GJ

$4/GJ

$2/GJ

$1/GJ

Biomass

Gas = $4/GJ

Co-firing Conclusions• Co-firing CO2 avoided costs may range from $20 to $100/t

• Won’t be adopted at $15/t carbon tax• This may be lower than carbon capture costs• Plants with short economic lives may benefits from co-firing

rather than carbon capture• Co-firing will increase marginal costs – Dispatch issues• It may not be possible to co-fire enough biomass to meet

new GHG requirements - Reduces amount of capture• Co-firing can reduce sulphur emissions• Largest cost is for biomass feedstock – need to refine costs