Clean Coal Technology and Economic Assessment
21
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT SIEW Round Table “Energizing the World with Clean Coal Technology” October 31th, 2014 @ Marina Bay, Singapore HAN, Phoumin, Ph.D Energy Economist ERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia)
-
Upload
singapore-international-energy-week -
Category
Technology
-
view
338 -
download
4
description
Roundtable G
Transcript of Clean Coal Technology and Economic Assessment
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
SIEW Round Table“Energizing the World with Clean Coal Technology”October 31th, 2014 @ Marina Bay, Singapore
HAN, Phoumin, Ph.DEnergy EconomistERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia)
2
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
I. AN OUTLOOK- SNAPSHOT
II. CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES
III.ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
IV.PUBLIC FINANCING CCT
V. A BRIEF ON CCS
VI.CONCLUSIONS
3
I. AN OUTLOOK- SNAPSHOT
Long-Term Energy Outlook - BAU
4
Final Energy Consumption
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1990 2010 2035
Coal Oil Natura Gas Electricity Heat Others
2.2 times(4.1% P.A.)
2.2 times(3.2% P.A.)
Source: ERIA Energy Outlook
Final energy consumption (MTOE)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
TFEC TPES CO2
1990 2010 2035 BAU 2035 APS
18.5%
14.0%28.0%
}
}
}
Estimated Energy Saving Potential in 2035
Coal & Gas consumption in major EAS consumers
5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Coal Oil Gas Hydro Nuclear Other NRE
ASEAN (excluding CLM)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
Coal Oil Gas Hydro Nuclear Other NRE
China
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1990 2010 2035
Mil
lio
n t
on
s o
f o
il e
qu
iva
len
t
Coal Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Hydro Geothermal Others
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1990 2010 2035
Coal Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Hydro Geothermal Others
Japan
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1990 2010 2035M
illi
on
to
ns o
f o
il e
qu
iva
len
t
Coal Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Hydro Geothermal Others
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1990 2010 2035
Coal Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Hydro Geothermal Others
India
Growth Rate
(1990-2011)
Coal: 6.3% P.A
Oil: 6.8% P.A
Gas: 12.7% P.A
6
II. CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES
Clean Coal Technologies for power generation
7Sources: JCOAL, 20147
Current(42-45%)
Mid-term(45-50%)
Long-term(>50%)
Pulverization
Gasification
Fluidised Bed
Clean Coal Technologies (CCT)
8
Supercritical(SC)Ultra Supercritical
(USC)
Advanced USC (A-USC)
Oxy-fuel-A-USC
A-USC+CCS
Oxy-fuel-A-USC+CCS
Integrated Gasification
Combined cycle (IGCC)
IGCC for low rank coal
IGCC-Fuel Cell (FC)
IGCC-Fluidised Bed (FB)
A-IGCC+CCS
A-IGCC-FC+CCS
Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion
(CFBC)
Supercritical CFBC (USC-
CFBC)
A-USC-CFBC+CCS
Other clean coal technology options:1. Co-firing biomass; 2. Flue gas treatment; 3. Advanced lignite pre-drying; 4. Non-GHG emissions reduction; 5. Water consumption reduction;
Sources: IEA, 2007
A REGIONAL TREND- ASEAN & EAS
• Even with current USC, efficiency can be raised to over 40%
• With deployment of next-generation technologies like IGCC, power generation efficiency of over 50% can be attained.
9
Higher thermal efficiency
10
Sources: JCOAL, 2014 Note: HHV- Higher Heating Value; LHV; Lower Heating Value
Clean Coal Technologies: Global Trends
11
Source: IEA (2012)
12
III. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CCT
General assumptions for cost-benefit analysis
13
Value Remarks
Plant
Capacity 1,000 MW
Life span 25 years
Operation rate 80%
Thermal efficiencies42.3% (USC), 41.4% (SC),
39.1% (subcritical)
Annual generation 7,008 GWh
Financing
IRR 9.5% and 15%
Interest
Coal
specifications
Heating value 6,000 kcal/kg
CO2 emissions 2.31 kg-CO2/kg coalBased on IPCC 2006 default emission factors for stationary combustion in the energy sector.
3 different coal price scenarios and EPC assumptions
14
High EPC(USD 2,076
million)
Medium EPC(USD 1,941
million)
Low EPC(USD 1,867
million)
High EPC(USD 2,043
million)
Medium EPC(USD 1,908
million)
Low EPC(USD 1,796
million)
High EPC(USD 1,925
million)
Medium EPC(USD 1,796
million)
Low EPC(USD 1,688
million)
High
(USD
100/ton
)
7.19 7.06 7.00 7.63 7.50 7.40 7.91 7.79 7.68
Mediu
m
(USD
80/ton)
6.51 6.39 6.32 6.59 6.46 6.36 6.81 6.68 6.58
Low
(USD
40/ton)
5.16 5.03 4.96 5.21 5.08 4.97 5.34 5.22 5.11
Co
al p
rice
sUltra-Supercritical
(42.3%)Subcritical
(39.1%)Supercritical
(41.4%)
15
Clean Coal Technology: It has Better Economic and Environmental Prospects
• The comparisons of Ultra Super Critical (USC), Super Critical (SC) and Sub-critical (C) boiler typesshows that USC technology is the most beneficial provided that it has very high thermal efficiency,lower fuel consumption, lower CO2 emission, lower operations and maintenance cost, and lowergeneration cost compared to SC and C technologies
1.08 1.06 0.990.73 0.73 0.74
1.36 1.38 1.470.73 0.75 0.791.13 1.15 1.22
2.70 2.68 2.61
1.51 1.48 1.390.78 0.80 0.85
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Fixed Fuel deSOxdeNOx
FC CO2 Fixed Fuel deSOxdeNOx
FC CO2 Fixed Fuel deSOxdeNOx
FC CO2
US
Dcents
/kW
h
1.08 1.06 0.990.73 0.73 0.74
2.71 2.77 2.94
0.73 0.75 0.791.13 1.15 1.22
2.03 2.00 1.87
0.78 0.80 0.851.48 1.47 1.40
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
US
Dcents
/kW
h
1.08 1.06 0.990.73 0.73 0.74
3.39 3.46 3.67
0.73 0.75 0.791.13 1.15 1.22
2.04 2.35 2.251.5 1.47 1.380.78 0.80 0.85
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
US
Dcents
/kW
h
US
D 1
00
/to
nU
SD
80
/to
nU
SD
60
/to
n
USC SC Subcritical
7.06
10.611.38
7.15 7.42
6.396.46 6.68
5.03 5.08 5.22
9.9
10.97 11.05
9.93 9.95
9.24 9.24 9.22
11.77 11.90
10.68 10.73 10.80
10.02 10.04 10.07
9.1
8.42
7.73
9.5
8.46
7.76
9.67
8.55
7.83
２
３
１
１
１
１ １
１
１
１ １
２２
２
２ ２
２
２２２
３３
３３ ３
３
３
Assu
mp
tion
s on
Co
al Price
s
16
IV. THE NEED OF PUBLIC FINANCING CCT
Average upfront capital cost of USC is about $US 1.4-1.6 billion;
But it pay back is better compared to lower efficient coal power plants; The LCOE is lower for USG compared with US or C coal-power plant;
Thus, public financing USC will crucial role for future ASEAN and some East Asia to afford the USC technology;
If public financing CCT come to halt, some non-OECD will use their own financing mechanism to finance low efficient coal-fired power plants; which results to increase of global warming.
17
V. A BRIEF ON CCS
18
19
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
20
Energy efficiency is vitally vital to save energy CCT need to be deployed to meet dual challenges of
increasing energy demand and CO2; CCT needs large investment; thus lowering upfront
cost through public financing will be necessary; CCT still brings lot of CO2 emission. In this regard,
low emission technologies such as CCS will be useful and further technology development of them is expected.
Finally strengthen environmental standard is key to the up-take of CCT technologies and deployment.
Thanks for your attentions!
Shall you have any question, please contact to
HAN, Phoumin, Ph.D
Energy Economist
ERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia)
Email: [email protected]
21
