Energy-efficiency in IPPC permitting

a challenge to the licensor

by

Gerard Roukens

RouCo B.V. (NL)

UBA conference, Vienna, 21/10/20041

Licensor’s raison d’ètre

- Guard over safe and sound conduct- Executing IPPC & BREF- However:- - silently stripped of authorities- - new instruments -> BAT on the decline

2

New Instruments

1. NOx trading

2. CO2 trading

3. EE benchmarking

Equivalent to BAT?

3

Efficiency definitions

CO2 trading in IPPC discard BAT on efficiency?

1. E-efficiency

2. C-efficiency

3. G-efficiency

???

4

Gas engine (example)

5

CH4 + O2 CH2O + ………formaldehyde

C2H6 + O2 C2H4O + ……acetaldehyde

CH4 + O2 C2H4 + ………ethene

CH4 + O2 CO + ………..carbonmonoxide

CH4: unreacted, misfiring, crevices…..methane

(gas slip)

piston

‘Traditional’ emission profile )

CH4: 300 g/GJ (1,65% gas slip)

C2H6 30 g/GJ

C2H4 15 g/GJ

CH2O 10 g/GJ

C2H4O 1 g/GJ

CO 150 g/GJ

Note: large advanced engines have tendency towards much higher HC emissions.

CO: cold wallsLean-burn gas engine HC/CO emissions

*) within a wide spread

6

E-efficiency vs. G-efficiency(example)

LB gas-engine cogen: electr 42 %

total 90 %

Seperated generation

CC-plant: electr 56%

Gas boiler: heat 90%

Fuel saving 22% CO2 reduction 22%

5% methane slip at engine: emission in CO2-equiv is equal

7

Getting aquainted with the licensor

E-efficiency: a new and difficult subject !

Can the licensor deal with it?

He is already overworked and swamped in rules, regulations, procedures etc.

Does he recognize, for instance,.….(next slide)

8

Carnot cycle in the Mollier-diagram

The basic Rankine cycle

Basic Thermodynamics

9

Rankine cycle with single reheat

Brayton-Rankine combined- cycle

Basic Thermodynamics

10

PC-plant efficiency

LHV 100%Ash-removal, stack & radiaton losses 8%

Available heat 92%

Cycle eff. 49% gross output 45%

Internal use 2,5% pt net output 42,5%

Transmission 2% pt end-use 40,5%

Performance rating: very good

11

Advanced Power Plants

PC plant ~ 46% net electr. efficiency(super-critical, double reheat)

CO2 capture + compression: electr 10% pt,

yet economic for EOR

Combined cycle: net base-load eff 58+ % (Baglan Bay / GE H-type GT)

Repowering existing plants en-vogue. NL experience: topping with GTs electr 6 % pt

12

• CO2-Emission reduced by 90 %

• SO2-Emission capture is 99+ %

• NOx-Emissions reduced by 85 %

• Cost of capture < $25 /tCO2

Elsam Kinder Morgan CENS Project

Capturing CO2 from Coal-Fired Power

CO2-Norway

13

Elsam Kinder Morgan CENS Project

Capturing CO2 from Coal-Fired Power

CO2-Norway

14

Back to the licensor

Subject is complex!

Qualifications licensor?

IPPC-Brefs? BAT by 2007?

Not across the fence!

15

Example of ‘not across the fence’

New CC plant

Adjacent facility operates old boiler

No big deal cut no cogeneration

Small stm-line / duct-burner + stm letdown

16

Energy efficiency benchmarking?

Req’mnt: comply with world-top (e.g. best 10%)

Seemingly fair However: process is tedious,

problems numerous, results debatable

Simple truth: EE belong to the best-kept secrets; thus, hard to extract.

17

Some problem areas (1)

Organisational aspects:1. A non-public expert body facilitator

Tensions / confusion regarding responsibilities & specific tasks relative to licensor.

2. Process transparency and public access to meaningful information difficult to ensure.

18

Methodological aspects:• Product-slate & feedstock (variable or special)• Plant BL (uncertain)• Multi-plant facility (averaging eff?)• Value of electricity & other en. carriers

(reference plants)• Savings by cogen (to steam?) • Masking bad process efficiency thru cogen• Limited benchmark (few plants or low response)

Some problem areas (2)

19

Re. power plants: World not one level playing field Plant-size counts Load-factor counts Reliable annual efficiencies hard to get

estimated cycle efficiencies unacceptable

Some problem areas (3)

Note:In Holland: Industry’s Kyoto targets unlikely to be realized by BM; for a major province ave. efficiency in 2000 already at level of ‘world-top’ for 2013.

20

Hope for the licensor?

Yes!The EIA stipulated by EC-directive 85/337 Strong by amendments 1997 & 2003: Virtually all activities covered Plant modifications also covered Public information secured (Aårhus) Explicit about contents of EIA, e.g.

factor climate, long-term effects, alternatives, envisaged measures

EU-BREFs fit in well! (integrated approach)EIA-update to be pursued for periodic license update.

21

Economics: a trade to be mastered

Efficiency measures give revenues, not only costs.

Investments are based on:

Internal Rate of Return on Equity (IRQ) Loans affect IRQ favorably (risk-sharing in

volatile market) Criterion: 10 – 12% IRQ, after tax (refer

example next)

22

IRQ for PC power plant  

400 MW PC-plantInvestment 400 mln €Coal-price 25 €/ton 1)

Price of Electricity [€/MWh]

30 2) 33

  pre-tax post-tax pre-tax post-tax

IRQ (100% equity) %

12,3 9,7 14,9 11,7

IRQ (50% equity) % 15,4 12,7 19,6 15,8

1.Due to weakening dollar and oil-price turmoil, the coal-price has skyrocketed over the last eighteen months, up to 50-55 € /ton.2.PoE to be increased by 2,5% per 10% rise in coal-price to maintain constant IRQ.

Simulation on a 400 MW super-critical / super-clean PC plant, recently built.

23

The End

Thank you for listening….

24