909 GASIF0601-1 SCE CHPG Project

Southern California Edison -Clean Hydrogen Power Generation (CHPG)

Project Status & Technology Overview

Satish GaddeJenifer Hedrick

Gasification Technologies Conference, Colorado Springs

Oct 4 – 7, 2009

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 2

Discussion Outline

Project Status Southern California Edison

Reasons for the CHPG Project

CHPG Project Status

Next Steps

Technology Overview Conceptual Design

Plant Configuration

Technology Selection Process

Estimated Plant Performance & Cost

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 3

Southern CaliforniaEdison is: an investor owned

electric utility (EIX) regulated by the

California PublicUtilities Commission

SCE has 4.8 millioncustomer accounts andserves about 13 millionpeople

Southern California Edison

SCE had provided electricity for more than 120 years

50,000 square mile service area

23,303 MW peak demand

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 4

16% of SCE’sgeneration comesfrom renewableforms ofgeneration

The goal is 20%renewablegeneration by 2010

51% natural gas

Generation Mix

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 5

California Assembly Bill 32

EPRI “PRISM” Analysis

Senate Bill 1368 -Restricts GHG emissions

1100 lb CO2/MW-hr

Generationtechnology options

to meet climatechange legislation

CA path to Reduced GHG Emissions

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 6

Overall Outcome

Requirements

Meet GHG Emissions

Meet obligation to serve

Conclusion

Evaluate options for cost effective technology that meetsrequirements – IGCC

SCE experience with IGCC – CoolWater, Daggat CA, mid-1980’s

Coal relatively stable price, vast domestic sources

Technology can be built at Utility scale,

Baseload generation

With carbon capture and storage, can exceed CA GHG requirements

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 7

Sources of Project Funding

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

~$50m conditionally authorized by the CPUC to conduct a

feasibility study of the Clean Hydrogen Power Generation plant:

− Sequestration Testing

− Plant Feasibility

Conditions

− Seek co-funding for Sequestration

− Seek and obtain co-funding for Plant Feasibility

Co-Funding

EPRI Demonstration Project

Southwest Regional Partnership

Application to DOE for ARRA: CCPI Round 3 – results pending

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 8

Project Overview

• 500 MWnet

• Western Coal

• 5000’ elevation

• Carbon Capture & Storage in deep salineaquifer

Regulatory

Funding

TechnicalPlant DesignSequestrationTransmission

Permitting

Siting

AuthorizedFeasibilityStudies

Co-fundingRequirements

CentralEasternUtah

PreliminaryAssessments

Complete

Graphic by Colorado Geological Survey

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 9

CHPG Project Status – Activities Completedor in Progress

Concept & Site Screening

Feasibility Design

Generation site selection

CO2 storage site selection

Generation Technology screening

Technology selection for IGCC

Technology evaluation

Preliminary specification

Feasibility cost estimate

Preliminary project schedule

Begin vendor participation majorcomponents

Gasifier

Combustion turbine

Major processes

Short-list of acceptable majorcomponent candidates for later selection

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 10

Next Steps

Overall Project Schedule

3 Years

2 Years

2 Years

1 Year

Project Definition

Detailed Design

Construction

Demonstration

Jan 1

2010

Jan 1

2011

Jan 1

2012

Jan 1

2013

Jan 1

2014

Jan 1

2015

Jan 1

2016

Jan 1

2017

Jan 1

2009

Jan 1

2018

FEED, Permitting,Sequestration Testing

Detailed Design,

Procurement

Procurement,Construction,

Commissioning

Year 1CommercialOperation

Evaluate technicalfeasibility and

financialreasonableness

909 GASIF0601-11 SCE CHPG Project

CHPG Project Technology Overview

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 12

Technical Tasks Completed

Ultra Supercritical PC with 90% CO2 Capture

Conceptual Design

Plant Performance

Plant Emissions

Plant Cost Estimates & Economics

IGCC with 80 – 90% CO2 Capture

Conceptual Design

Gasification Technology Screening

Plant Performance (multiple gasification technologies)

Plant Emissions

Plant Cost Estimates & Economics (multiple gasificationtechnologies)

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 13

CHPG Project – Conceptual Design(Simplified Block Flow Diagram)

Coal Handling Scrubber

Shift Reactor Hg Removal Two Stage AcidGas Removal

CO2

Compressor

HRSG

STG

Sulfur Recovery

CryogenicASU

Gas Turbine

Air To ASU

Stack

CO2Acid Gas

CO2 (2200 psig)

O2

N2

from ASU

Gasification Island ParticulateRemoval

Coal Feed& Prep

Heat Sink Cond

Steam Cycleand

Air side Integration

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 14

CHPG Base Plant Configuration

Plant Configuration

Output - 500 MWe Nominal

Arrangement - 2 x 2 x 1

Primary Feedstock – Utah Bituminous Coal

Gasifier: Evaluated Five Technologies

Gas Turbine: Evaluated Three Models

HRSG: Two & Three Pressure (LP Induction)

HRSG Natural Gas Supplemental Firing

Steam Turbine: 1800 psig/ 1040oF/1040oF

Wet Cooling System

CO2 Separation: Dual Stage Selexol

CO Shift Reactor: 2- Stage using

Typical Catalyst

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 15

80% - 90% CO2 Capture Technology Chosen:Process Flow Diagram (with 2 Stage Shift)

CO2

compression anddrying

H2S

Ab

sorb

er

CO

2

Ab

sorb

er

So

lven

tS

trip

per

Aci

dG

asK

no

cko

ut

Dru

m

H2S FlashDrums

Acid GasEnrichment

CompressedCO2 Product

Wat

er-G

asS

hif

tR

eact

or

1

CO2 FlashDrums

Treated Syngas toCombustion Turbine

Sour Syngasfrom Gasifier

Acid Gas to SulfurRecovery Unit

Steam

MakeupWater

ExportWater

Wat

er-G

asS

hif

tR

eact

or

2

Two Stage Shift required to meet the CHPG Project Requirement

Two Stage Acid Gas &CO2 Separation Unit

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 16

Altitude effects on Plant

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Altitude (ft.)

Po

wer

Ou

tpu

t

NG Operation

IGCC Operation (80% CO2 capture)

Site altitude impacts IGCC design. A sea level design must bemodified to work best at altitude

~18% drop in ambient pressure at the CHPG site ~15% drop in air density

Gas Turbine Output reduces 10-15%compared to Mean Sea Level

Three Gas Turbine ModelsEvaluated

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 17

Conceptual Design

Selecting technology that is flexible inhandling western grade blend feedstocks

Customizing the process, selectingequipment and designing to high altitudesite specific conditions

Optimizing the design to reduce upfront andoperating costs

Incorporating lessons learned fromprevious IGCC projects

Selecting equipment that maximizes thePerformance and Capacity Factor as muchas practical

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 18

Gasification Technology Selection- Stage 1 (Preliminary Screening)

Comprehensive and Systematic process developed using the Pugh Matrix Approach for variousPlant Attributes. Analysis comprised of Commercial and Technical Variables

WorleyParsons & EPRI In-House expertise and databases utilized to screen the technologies

Started with Nine Gasification suppliers with widely varying technologies

Filtered to Five technologies for detailed assessment

Detailed & Methodical Process followed at all stages of the screening process with independentreviews by all project members and reviewers to isolate any possible discrepancies

7) Score each of the projectdrivers for all the Technology

Suppliers relative to eachother

1) Determine SCEproject drivers

2) Determine theTechnology Suppliers

screening list

3) Define Weighting criteriafor the CHPG project drivers

4) Assign weights to theproject drivers per the CHPG

requirements using theweighting criteria

5) Create a project driversmatrix for each of theTechnology Suppliers

6) Fill in the matrix withthe data received from

the Technology Supplier

8) Estimate the results bymultiplying the Weights and Scores

for all the Technology Suppliers

9) Rank theSuppliers

10) Complete a detailed assessmentof the top five (5) suppliers throughvendor interaction and independent

evaluations

11) Downselect to two (2) gasifiersfor the Pre-FEED phase

12) Select one (1) gasifierprior to the FEED Phase

(future)

Attributes and Drivers are created based onSCE’s goals & CHPG project requirements

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 19

Gasification Technology Screening- Stage 2 (Detailed Screening)

Directly interacted with all five (5) Technology Suppliers to obtain the Technical Data for the Avg.Design Case

Detailed Process modelling (in Aspen PlusTM) and Steam Cycle modelling (in GateCycleTM) byWorleyParsons, reviewed by EPRI & SCE

Plant Performance, Capital Cost, O&M and other results estimated for all five (5) technologies

Data developed from the Evaluations was used in the Screening Matrix for final downselection

Four way Confidentiality Agreements executed with all 5 suppliers

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 20

Representative CHPG Plant Performance

* coal only** coal plus natural gas

8086Percent% CO2 Captured, as a percent of

carbon in the plant coal feedwhich could have been CO2

425325lbs/MWh

-netTotal CO2 Emissions,

CO2 Emissions

10,800 **11,000 *Btu/kWhNet Plant Heat Rate, HHV

31.5 **31.0 *PercentNet Plant Efficiency, HHV

6,000 **5,350 *MMBtu/hTotal Fuel Consumption, HHV

554486MWNet Plant Power Output

737666MWGross Plant Output

Utah BituminousUtah BituminousFuel

ONOFFNatural Gas Duct Firing

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 21

CO2 Produced and Avoided

Plant Carbon Capture Level

CHPG Intensity – 325 lb/MWhr-net

Sequestered Flow rate – 3.5 million tons/yr

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Natural Gas No Capture

IGCC 2-Stage Shift

IGCC Max Single Shift

IGCC Single Shift

IGCC Min Single Shift

IGCC Skimming

IGCC No Capture

CO2, lb/net MWh

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

CO2, g/net kWh

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Captured

CO2 Avoided vs Natural Gas With No Capture

CO2 Avoided vs

IGCC With No Capture

#V

ALU

E!

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Natural Gas No Capture

IGCC 2-Stage Shift

IGCC Max Single Shift

IGCC Single Shift

IGCC Min Single Shift

IGCC Skimming

IGCC No Capture

CO2, lb/net MWh

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

CO2, g/net kWh

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Captured

CO2 Avoided vs Natural Gas With No Capture

CO2 Avoided vs

IGCC With No Capture

#V

ALU

E!

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 22

Project Costs

Project Preliminary Cost Estimates Completed March 2009 forall five evaluated gasification technologies Gasification Technology Suppliers provided the Costs for their respective

Gasification Island

WorleyParsons estimated Rest of the Plant Costs

Plant Capital and O&M costs comparable to other industrypublications

Plant Cost of Electricity commensurate to the levels publishedby DOE in the Market Based Study

GTC Oct 6, 2009 Page 23

Project Technical Synopsis

IGCC Technology with CCS selected for CHPG Project

CHPG project currently being designed for CO2 Capture levelsof 80 – 90%

Technology Selection Process Established – Screening ofGasification Technology Suppliers Completed

Plant Feasibility Study & Conceptual Design Complete;Preliminary Plant Performance and Costs Estimated

Project proceeding into FEED A Phase (TechnologyOptimization, Process & Equipment Selections, Detailed CostEstimate)

909 GASIF0601-24 SCE CHPG Project

Thank You for your time and attention

Gasification Technologies Conference, Colorado Springs

Oct 4 – 7, 2009