Coal Usage in a Carbon Constrained World?bcura.org/csl09.pdf · IGCC with CCS projects Solar,...

Coal Usage in a Carbon Constrained World?

BCURA Coal Science Lecture

October 12, 2009

Neville HoltTechnical Fellow – Advanced Fossil Generation Technology EPRI

2© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Coal Usage in a Carbon constrained World?

• CO2 Emissions. Coal contribution.

• International Challenge. Potential Pathways to Stabilization

• CO2 Capture & Sequestration (CCS) and its role in Stabilization.

• CCS technologies, development status, key projects in development and development needs

• The China challenge and key role of US in climate policy and CCS demonstration

• Summary - Additional legislative & financial support vitally needed (ASAP) for large integrated CCS demonstrations in multiple geologies


Kaya Identity

• Derived by Japanese energy economist Yoichi Kaya as a formula for calculating human-based CO2 emissions:

F = P * (GDP/P) * (E/GDP) * (F/E)

• where

– F is global CO2 emissions from human sources,

– P is global population,

– GDP is world GDP and (GDP/P) is global per-capita GDP,

– E is global primary energy consumption and (E/GDP) is the energy intensity of world GDP,

– and (F/E) is the carbon intensity of energy.


Options from Decreasing Human-Based CO2

Emissions

• CO2 = P * (GDP/P) * (E/GDP) * (F/E)

• Options to decrease emissions by 30% by 2050 from 2010 levels

– 0.7 = .91 x .91 x .91 x .91

– 0.7 = 1.5 x .78 x .78 x .78 (1%/yr population growth)

– 0.7 = 1.5 x 1.5 x .56 x .56 (1%/yr GDP/P growth)

– 0.7 = 1.5 x 1.5 x 1 x .31 (no efficiency improvement)


What is the International Challenge?Coalition Countries: Ready to Participate Now

Annex B OECD

USA

Greater EU

Japan

Canada

Aus/NZ

Korea

Mexico

Turkey

Russia

Ukraine


2007 Total CO2 Emissions (Energy/Cement)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

USA

Rest of

Coalition

Brazil

Russia

India

China

“BRIC” Group

KoreaIranMexicoSouth AfricaSaudi ArabiaIndonesia

Rest of

World

Billion tons CO2


CO2 Emissions – World, China and US Billions metric tons/year by Source (EIA IEO 2009)

Country Year Petroleum Natural Gas

Coal Total

World 2008 11.4 6.1 12.9 30.4

2020 12.6 7.5 15.3 35.4

2030 14.0 8.4 18.0 40.4

US 2006 2.6 1.2 2.1 (91% power)

5.9

2030 2.6 1.3 2.5 6.4

China 2006 0.93 0.12 4.95 (50% power)

6.0


International Challenge. Potential Pathways to Stabilization


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Projected Radiative Forcing in 2010

CO2 CH4

N2O

F-gases (0.02 W/m2)

Watts per square meter: Change in heat balance relative to pre-industrial

350278 450 550 650400 500 600300

CO2-equivalent concentration in ppmv CO2-e

Target

Levels

+3ºC

+2.5ºC

+2ºC


What is possible, if…

• Coalition countries begin abatement immediately

• BRIC Group (Brazil, Russia, India, China) begins abatement after 2030

• Rest of world (ROW) begins abatement after 2050

• MERGE model used to find least-cost stabilization pathway under these constraints


Stabilization Targets

CO2 limits implied by ―residual‖ emissions from non-CO2

gasesCO2-e

concentration (ppmv)

Radiative Forcing (W/m2)

RF from non-CO2 gases

(W/m2)

RF from CO2

CO2-only concentration

(ppmv)

2010 Levels 448 2.55 0.72 1.83 392

Target 0 450 2.6 0.95 (minimum)

1.65 380


2.75 465


3.55 540


Global CO2 in the Optimistic Baseline

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Coalition

BRIC

ROW

Billio

n t

on

s C

O2


Optimal Global Stabilization Pathways

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

540 ppmv CO2

465 ppmv CO2

Optimistic Baseline

Coalition

BRIC

ROW

Billio

n t

on

s C

O2

+3ºC

+2.5ºC


“Locked-in” Emissions from Non-Participants

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

540 ppmv CO2

465 ppmv CO2

Optimistic Baseline

InfeasibleCoalition

BRIC

ROW

Billio

n t

on

s C

O2


650 CO2-e Target is Possible with BRIC Delay

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

540 ppmv CO2

Optimistic Baseline

Coalition

BRIC

ROW

Billio

n t

on

s C

O2

$30 / ton CO2 in 2020

1% of Gross World Product by 2050


550 CO2-e Target Requires Drastic Action in Coalition – Even if Recession Is Long-Lasting

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Coalition

BRIC

ROW

Billio

n t

on

s C

O2

540 ppmv CO2

465 ppmv CO2

Pessimistic Baseline

$300 / ton CO2 in 2020

4% of Gross World Product by 2050

7% max


International Negotiations: Conclusions

• Recession has an impact but does not change fundamental realities of the stabilization challenge

• With delayed participation by developing countries, achieving stabilization at:

– 650 CO2-e is reasonably possible

– 550 CO2-e is extremely difficult

– 450 CO2-e is in the rearview mirror

• Coalition benefits from incentives for earlier participation and technology adoption in developing world

• State Department and Administration have been briefed on this analysis

• U.S. is re-engaged in international negotiations – but pragmatic


CO2 Capture and Sequestration (CCS) and its role in Stabilization


EPRI’s “PRISM” Analysis for US Electric Sector


+80%

EPRI MERGE Analysis Increase in Real

Electricity Prices…2000 to 2050

+210%


Contribution of Energy Technologies to reduce CO2

emissions by 50 percent by 2050 Source: IEA Energy Technology Perspective (ETP), 2008


CCS in Context

• In July 2009 the G8 Leaders affirm their support for the launch of 20 large scale CCS demonstration projects globally by 2010 with a view to beginning broad deployment of CCS by 2020.

• Without CCS cost of decarbonisation of the global economy could be 70% higher (also IPCC 2005, IEA 2008)

• IEA Energy Technology Perspective (ETP), 2008 Blue Map Scenario (reduce GHG by 50% in 2050) concludes CCS will need to contribute 20% of necessary emission reductions to achieve stabilization in the most cost –effective manner.

• The key major CCS technical issue for public and political acceptance is multiyear demonstration of valid Sequestration in various geologies. However the major cost of CCS is in the capture and the associated power loss.


Demonstration Projects

Energy efficiency projects

Smart grids

DER and energy storage projects

Nuclear projects

PC with CCS projects

IGCC with CCS projects

Solar, geothermal, and other projects

EPRI’s Priority…Analysis to Action

Technology Challenges

1. Enabling energy efficiency with efficient end-use technologies and smart grids

2. Enabling intermittent renewables with advanced transmission and energy storage

3. Deploying advanced light water reactors

4. Deploying CCS by 2020

5. Renewables

One of EPRI’s goal is to help develop large-scale demonstration projects in

multiple areas required to meet the PRISM / MERGE analyses goals for a low-

carbon future


EPRI CCS Demo Projects

Three project groups comprise six projects:

Description Size

Post-Combustion (PC) with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): American Electric Power (AEP)

20 MWe

PC with CCS: Southern Company Services (SCS) 25 MWe

Ion Transport Membrane (ITM) for Low-Cost Oxygen Production 150 tons O2/day

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with CCS Project 1

TBD

IGCC with CCS Project 21,000,000+ tons

CO2/year

IGCC with CCS Project 33,500,000 tons

CO2/year


A Roadmap for CO2 Capture and Storage

2005 2010 2015 2020

Source: DOE-NETL Carbon Sequestration R&D Roadmap

Modified to add Chilled Ammonia example

Start multiple full

scale demos

Start larger scale demos

– capture and storage

Bench-scale – post-

combustion capture

Now Objective

Needs: Multiple large-scale CAPTURE and STORAGE demos

Timing: 2020 objective start today, parallel paths

Realistic? A challenge – need technical, policy, funding alignment

“Small” demos

(1.7 MW Ammonia, etc.)Complete larger scale

capture demos

Commercial

availability CCS


CO2 StorageInjection Into Geological Formations

• Saline reservoirs

– 100’s yrs capacity

– Little experience

• Economical, but lesser capacity options

– Depleted oil and gas reservoirs/enhanced oil recovery

– Unmineable coal beds/enhanced coal-bed methane recovery

• Deep ocean injection not acceptable today

Courtesy of Peter Cook, CO2CRC


What Is the Experience Basefor CO2 Storage?

• British Petroleum – In Salah, Algeria (Krechba)

• Statoil – Sleipner, Norway

• Permian Basin (West TX and NM)

– Used in about 35 Permian Basin oil fields for 35 years; also in 10 other states

– 20% of total Permian Basin output—more than 1 billion barrels of incremental oil to date

– About 400 Mt of CO2 are currently sequestered in the Permian Basin

• Frio CO2 Brine Pilot Test (TX)

• Natural gas storage analogs


CCS technologies, Development status, Key Projects in Development and Development needs

• Efficiency and CO2 Reduction

• Post Combustion Capture from PC and CFB

• Pre Combustion Capture via IGCC

• Oxy Combustion via PC and CFB


CO2 Capture in Coal Power Systems


PC Plant Efficiency and CO2 Reduction

Su

bc

riti

cal P

lan

t R

an

ge

Co

mm

erc

ial

Su

pe

rcri

tica

l

Pla

nt

Ra

ng

e

Ad

va

nc

ed

Ult

ra-

Su

pe

rcri

tica

l

Pla

nt

Ra

ng

e

2 Percentage Point Efficiency Gain = 5% CO2 Reduction


CO2 Capture = $, Space, Ultra-Low SO2, and Lots of Energy

Fresh Water

PC

BoilerSCR

Steam

Turbine

ESP FGDCO2

Removal

e.g., MEA

CO2 to use or

Sequestration

Flue Gas

to Stack

Fly Ash Gypsum/Waste

Coal

AirOutput Penalty:

Up to 30%

• Amine processes commercially available at relatively small

scale; considerable re-engineering and scale-up needed

(ultra-low inlet SO2 and NO2 also required)

• Steam extraction for solvent regeneration reduces flow to low-pressure turbine; significant operational impact

• Maximizing output and efficiency requires optimal heat integration

• Plot space requirements significant; back-end at existing plants often already crowded by other emission controls

CO2 to Cleanup

and Compression

Cleaned Flue Gas

to Atmosphere

Absorber

Tower

CO2

Stripper

Reboiler

Flue Gas

from Plant

CO2

Stripper

Pulverized Coal With CO2 Capture –Integration Issues


PC Operating Units w/ CO2 Capture (Today)

• Three U.S. small plants in operation today:

– Monoethanolamine (MEA) based

– Scale ~ 330 mt/day (15 MWe)

– CO2 sold as food grade ~140$/ton

• Many pilots planned and in development:

– 5 MWth Chilled Ammonia Pilot (Alstom, EPRI) Operations begin 1st Q 2008, AEP 30 MWth at Mountaineer, WV and further scale-up at OK site. Other Projects planned in Europe with EoN and Statoil.

– Many other processes under development

Only Demonstrated on a Small Scale to Date

AES Cumberland ~ 10 MW

Assessment of Post-

Combustion Carbon

Capture Technology

EPRI

CO2

(Report 1012796)


SCPC Plant – PRB Coal (basis EPRI Report 1014924)

100 MW

15.1 MW

84.9 MW

41.7 MW

43.2 MW

38.4 % Efficiency (HHV basis)

3.3 MW own use

38.4

MW


SCPC Plant – PRB Coal with 90% CCS using Generic MEA Capture Process(basis EPRI Report 1014924)

100 MW

15.1 MW

84.9 MW

33.4 MW

20.8 MW

25.2 % Efficiency (HHV basis)

8.2 MW own use

25.2

MW

30.7 MW LP

steam to CCSDoes not include

CCS CW duty


Major PC Post Combustion Capture Projects in Development Worldwide

Country Project Location MW Technology Notes

US AEP Mountaineer West Virginia 30 MWth Chilled Ammonia

AEP Oklahoma 200 MWe Chilled Ammonia

Southern Co Alabama 25 MHI

Basin Electric N. Dakota 120 PowerSpan?

Tenaska Sweetwater, Texas

600 MEA Fluor

NRG Parish, Texas 60 MEA Fluor

Canada SaskPower Boundary Dam 100 MEA Fluor

TransAlta Wabamun, Alberta 125 Chilled Ammonia

UK EoN Kingsnorth 300 MHI

RWE Tilbury 300 Cansolv?

Scottish Power Longannet 300 Aker

Poland Belchatow 20 MWth/ 250 MWe Advanced Amine

Netherlands EoN Maasvlakte TBD TBD

Rotterdam


Advanced PC & Post-Combustion Capture R&D Needs

• Materials and designs for high temperature superheaters, reheaters and steam turbines

• Cost-effective means of recovering low level heat and incorporating it in the power cycle

• More cost-effective gas-liquid contacting devices for CO2

absorbers

• Improved solvents for CO2 capture which have smaller heats of regeneration and/or release CO2 at higher pressures

• Cost-effective means of incorporating the heat of compression into the power cycle (or CO2 regeneration process)


IGCC with CO2 Removal

O2 N2

Air

BFW

BFWSteam

Steam

Turbine

HRSG

Coal

PrepGas Cooling

Gasification

C + H2O =

CO + H2

Sulfur

Removal

Air

Separation

Unit

Clean Syngas

Air

Hydrogen

CO2 to use or sequestrationSulfur

Shift

CO+ H2O =

CO2 + H2

Steam

Gas

Turbine

―Sour‖ Syngas

& CO2


15MW 76MW

27MW49MW

46MW

18.1MW

7.5MW

Net Coal to Power:

27 + 18.1 – 7.5 =

37.6% (HHV basis)

18MW

100MW

IGCC schematic from US DOE27.9 MW

PRB Coal


7MW 74MW

26.2MW48MW

37MW

14.5MW

10.7MW

Net Coal to Power:

26.2 + 14.5 – 10.7 =

30.2% (HHV basis)

18MW

100MW

IGCC schematic from US DOE22.5 MW

PRB Coal

With 90% CCS


Coal Gasification Plants w/CO2 Capture (Today)

• IGCC and CO2 removal offered commercially

– Have not operated in an integrated manner

• Three U.S. non-power facilities and many plants in China recover CO2

– Coffeyville

– Eastman

– Great Plains

• Great Plains recovered CO2 used for EOR

– ~3 million tons CO2 per year

The Great Plains Synfuels Planthttp://www.dakotagas.com/Companyinfo/index.html

Weyburn Pipelinehttp://www.ptrc.ca/access/DesktopDefault.aspx

IGCC + CO2 Capture – Ready for

Demonstration but need to decrease costs


Dakota Gasification Pre-Combustion Capture in Commercial-Scale Operation

CO2 to

Enhanced Oil

Recovery

SNG to

pipeline

Gasification & Heat

Recovery

CO2

Production &

RemovalMethanation

―Syngas‖

H2-rich

syngas

CO2 Pipeline

Supplies natural gas power

plants (approx 1000 MW)

connected to NG pipeline gridOwned by Dakota

Gasification

Lignite

~3 million tons CO2/yr


Major IGCC + CCS Projects in Development Worldwide

Country Project Location MW Net

Technology Coal Notes

US FutureGen Illinois 250 TBD Illinois

HECA California 250 GE Quench Western Bit & Pet coke CO2 to EOR

Duke Indiana 630 GE Radiant Indiana DOE Proposal

So. California Edison Utah 500 TBD Western Saline aquifer

Southern Mississippi 500 KBR Air blown Lignite

Tenaska Taylorville, Illinois 500 GE Quench Illinois Coal to SNG + NGCC

Summit Power Texas 300 Siemens Lignite or PRB

FutureFuels Pennsylvania 250 TPRI (China) Anthracite

UK Hatfield Yorkshire 800 Shell Various CO2 to EOR

Centrica Teesside 800 TBD Various CO2 to EOR

Netherlands Essent Rotterdam 800 Shell Various CO2 to gas fields

Nuon Magnum Eemshaven 800 Shell Various CO2 to gas fields

Germany RWE Goldenburg 350 TBD Brown coal Saline aquifer

Australia ZeroGen Queensland 400 MHI Air blown Queensland Saline aquifer

Wandoan Queensland 350 GE Radiant Queensland

Canada Capital Power Alberta 250 Siemens Alberta sub bit CO2 to EOR

China GreenGen Tianjin 250 TPRI China


IGCC + CCS RD&D Needs

• Better availability

• Lower Capital Cost

• Higher Efficiency

• Improved refractory and injector life, Gas turbine availability, reduced SGC fouling, shorter start ups

• Improved coal drying and feeding. Larger gasifiers and gas turbines provide economies of scale.(50 Hz GT ~40% larger than 60 Hz – China is 50 Hz US 60 Hz). Lower cost ASU (e.g. ITM). Lower auxiliary power usage

• Higher firing temperature gas turbines with Hydrogen fuel, Lower auxiliary power usage. GT air extraction. Separation process for CO2 at higher pressure. Advanced cycles.


Oxy-Fired PC Boiler

ESP or

baghouseFGD

Boiler

Flue gas

heater

Coal

prep

Coal

Oxygen

plant

Air

Dryer

Water

To CO2 purification and compression

Oxygen

Primary flow

Secondary flow

Nitrogen

Wet recycled flue gas (RFG)

Dried RFG


Oxy-Combustion Capture Status

Source: Vattenfall

No Commercial Power Plants use

Oxy-Combustion today, but:

• Several pilot scale (~1 MW) test units

operating

• Vattenfall 30 MWth pilot plant in Germany

• B&W 30 MWth test facility in Ohio


Major Coal OxyCombustion projects in Development Worldwide

Country Project Location MW Technology Notes

Germany Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe

30 MWt Alstom, Linde SU 2008

Vattenfall Janeschwalde 250 MWe Alstom, Linde SU 2015

UK Doosan Babcock Oxy-Coal

Renfrew 80 MWt Doosan Babcock, Air Products

SU 2009

US Babcock & Wilcox

Ohio 30 MWt B&W, Air Liquide

SU 2007

Jamestown New York 50 MWe F-W, Praxair DOE proposal

Pearl Peru, Illinois 66 MWth Jupiter Oxygen

SU 2009

Spain Endesa Compostella ? ?

Australia CS Energy Callide 90 MWt IHI, Air Liquide SU 2010

South Korea Youngdong 400 MWe Est. SU 2016


Oxy-Combustion R&D Needs

• Decreasing amount of flue gas required for attemperation increases adiabatic flame temperature, raising in-furnace heat transfer and allows

– Smaller recycle duct and FD fan, smaller boiler cross-section (capital cost savings)

– Higher heat flux will require waterwall materials upgrade

• Integration of boiler, ASU, purification and compression stages to maximize energy utilization

– Avoid compromising operation of unit

• Use nitrogen from ASU to dry coal, especially for low-rank fuels

• Use of low-energy oxygen plant to replace cryogenic ASU

• Effect of oxy-combustion on ash properties and ESP performance

• Operational characteristics: startup, turndown, load following


With Current Technology CO2 Capture is CostlyNo Clear Winners in Current Designs(EPRI PC and IGCC COE with and without CO2 Capture - Illinois #6 Coal, All IGCC and CCS cases have +10% TPC contingency for FOAK)

EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Cost of Electricity

With and Without CO2 Capture (Illinois #6 Coal)

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Supercritical

PC

GE Radiant

Quench

GE Total

Quench

Shell Gas

Quench

E-Gas FSQ

30-Y

r le

veli

ze

d C

OE

, $/M

Wh

(C

on

sta

nt

2007$)

.

No Capture

Retrofit Capture

New Capture

COE Includes $10/tonne for CO2 Transportation and Sequestration


No “Silver Bullet”

• At the current state-of-the art, there is no ―silver bullet‖ technology for CO2 Capture for coal power plants.

– Technology selection depends on location, coal, and application.

• IGCC/Shift is often least cost for bituminous coals

• IGCC/Shift and PC plants with amine scrubbing usually have similar COE for high-moisture subbituminous coals

• PC with amine scrubbing may be least cost for lignite

• Oxy-Combustion is at developmental stage so its cost is more difficult to estimate but overall cost of power probably similar to PC + post combustion capture

“Silver Buckshot”


The China challenge and key role of US in climate policy and CCS demonstration


History of Power Generation Capacity in China

66

138

319

713

792.5

1207

56

110

239

554

601.3

760

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1980 1990 2000 2007 2008 2020

GW

Total Capacity

Coal-based Capacity


China’s Rapidly increasing Coal based Power Generation

• Total coal consumption 2.65 Billion mt in 2008. 50% for Power Generation.

• 50% of coal usage in small industrial boilers, chemicals etc. How can this be reduced? Not much public discussion of this issue!!

• From 2000-2007 China installed 107 SCPC units. At end of 2007 ~100 GW in operation and >100 GW under construction.

• As part of 11th 5 year plan 7467 small old coal units were closed representing 54 GW.

• By end 2008 379 GW out of 574 GW of coal plants had FGD (exceeded National goal of 60% by 2010.)

• By June 2009 59% of the coal GW was >300MW in size.

• These larger plants are likely to continue running for decades


The China Challenge

• China’s coal use likely to continue to grow

• The 400 GW of coal installed in the past decade will continue to run for many decades.

• ―CCS, particularly for China is not one of the priorities –the cost is an issue. If we spent the money for CCS on energy efficiency and renewables development it would generate larger climate change benefits‖ Su Wei, Director General of the Climate Change Unit at China’s NDRC

• Another Chinese source ―The US should cut its emissions 40% below its 1990 emissions‖

• China has targeted 15% of its energy from Renewables by 2020 and aims to reduce its E/GDP.

• China’s sequestration potential needs further definition


Organizations Attitudes to CCS

• Greenpeace Report ― Why CCS won’t save the Planet‖ ―CCS is a Scam and a Pipedream‖

• NRDC ―CCS Deployment must begin now‖

• The Economist ―CCS is expensive at best and at worst it may not work.‖

• IEA Exec.Dir. N.Tanaka – ―We need to build at least 20 CCS demos by 2020 at a cost of ~1.5 Billion $ each. Such a construction program should be viewed as a litmus test of our seriousness towards combating climate change‖.

• G8 – Launch 20 CCS demos by 2010

• MIT– Need 3-5 Integrated CCS demonstration projects in the US ASAP with Federal assistance at >1 million mt/yr. In the absence of a CO2 charge there is no incentive for private firms to undertake such projects. Regulatory framework required to cover Institutional and Legal issues (property rights, government liability etc).

• EPRI –Similar to MIT.


Some Financial Support for CCS Demos is available, but more is needed to close the Financing and o

• Europe – Flagship projects listed, Selection process to be defined. 1.05 Billion Euros from European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) and 300 million EAUs available until EOY 2015. However the variable value of EAU’s may complicate the financing of CCS demos. Needs additional legislation and clarity to close funding. Public acceptance is probably still barrier #1. e.g. public opposition in Rotterdam, North Germany

• UK – Support for PCC CCS demos. How many? What expenses are covered?

• Australia – 2 Billion $ (Au) for Flagship projects, GCCSI 100 Million $ (Au)/yr for CCS Demo support

• Canada – Alberta 2 Billion $ (Can), Federal 640 Million $ (Can)

• China – Greengen, Shidongkou

• US – DOE support CCP1 3, Future Gen, ARRA, but needs additional legislation (following slides)


Project Name/

Location

Envisaged

Community

contribution

(EUR million)

Fuel Capacity Capture

Technique

Storage Concept

Huerth Germany 250 Coal 450 MW IGCC Saline Aquifer

Jaenschwalde Coal 500 MW Oxy-fuel Oil/Gas fields

Eemshaven Netherlands 250 Coal 1200 MW IGCC Oil/Gas fields

Rotterdam Coal 1080 MW PC Oil/Gas fields

Rotterdam Coal 800 MW PC Oil/Gas fields

Belchatow Poland 250 Coal 858 MW PC Saline Aquifer

Compostella Spain (with

Portugal)

250 Coal 500 MW Oxy-fuel Saline Aquifer

Kingsnorth UK 250 Coal 800 MW PC Oil/Gas fields

Longannet Coal 3390 MW PC Saline Aquifer

Tilbury Coal 1600 MW PC Oil/Gas fields

Hatfield

(Yorkshire)

Coal 900 MW IGCC Oil/Gas fields

TOTAL 1250

EU Candidate Carbon Capture and Storage Projects


CCS Deployment is Crucial to attain the CO2

goals of all US proposed Climate Legislation

• Without the rapid initiation of large scale CCS demonstration projects the US/OECD (Coalition) has markedly diminished leverage in GHG reduction negotiations with China.

• Multiple Storage (preferably Integrated CCS) demonstrations needed ASAP at large scale (> 1 million mt/year of CO2) in various geographic and geological locations.

• Many CCS projects in development (IGCC, Post Combustion Capture (PCC) and Oxy) have submitted proposals for DOE funding under DOE CCPI 3. Two awards have been made (both EOR).

• CCPI 3 awards will not cover the full CCS costs for larger projects (> 500,000 mtpy CO2).

• Legislation must be enacted to provide liability coverage and funding for CCS Demos (either rate base, wires charge or ?) to enable them to be completed as soon as possible.

• Broad company participation is necessary for timely technology transfer (EPRI role being defined).


US Climate Legislation challenge (in the absence of CO2 regulations coal plants cannot proceed)

• Coal continues to have a bad press (Mountain top, Health and Safety). Climate concern is only # 19 in a US poll of top 20 issues

• Waxman Markey Act (ACES) with cap & trade narrowly passes House in June 2009. EPA to address liability. Establishes funding for CCS Demos and sets performance standards for new coal power plants

• Concerns from coal states over loss of jobs and cost increases during a deep recession with wide unemployment.

• Uncertain when the Senate will take up the bill. Seems unlikely that legislation will be in place prior to the December 2009 meeting in Copenhagen.

• If Senate does not act EPA is ready to enact CO2 regulation. Directive on CO2 measurement recently issued. Plans for emissions requirements for sources >25,000 tpy CO2 emissions.

• A more recent challenge is the currently low price of natural gas (Henry Hub ~ 3.30 $/GJ)


Summary Notes

• All generation options (Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Renewables) will still be needed in a Carbon Constrained World

• Capital costs for new coal plants have increased markedly

• CO2 Capture is costly for both IGCC and PC plants but feasible –Integrated CCS costs uncertain until demos operate

• Existing coal plants are valuable and will continue to run until the rules change. New coal plants with capture would need a large carbon tax to be competitive with existing coal plants that vent CO2and just pay the tax.

• Adding CCS to existing large PC plants is worth consideration if space, sequestration and remaining life are available

• Multiple Storage (preferably Integrated CCS) demonstrations needed ASAP at large scale. Funding, Regulatory Framework and Liability for the CO2 needs resolution.

• In 2007 China used 2.5 Billion tons of Coal (only 50% for power!). How can reductions of these emissions be best addressed?


Summary : Coal Usage in a Carbon Constrained World?

• Without the completion of multiple successful CCS demonstration projects in the next decade - it is unlikely that new coal plants will be built in Coalition countries - there will be markedly diminished capability to persuade China etc to curb their coal based CO2 emissions (and worldwide CO2 emissions will further increase)

• For Coal usage to continue as a viable Energy Supply in a Carbon constrained World the Coal and Power industries must : - continue to urge passage of responsible legislation that provides funding of multiple CCS demos, establishes a CO2 monetized value and addresses key liability issues. - redouble efforts to portray coal with CCS as part of a balanced portfolio of power supply that includes Natural gas, Nuclear and Renewables and that advocates continuous end use efficiency improvements.


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

Coal Usage in a Carbon Constrained World?bcura.org/csl09.pdf · IGCC with CCS projects Solar,...

Documents

Transcript of Coal Usage in a Carbon Constrained World?bcura.org/csl09.pdf · IGCC with CCS projects Solar,...