Transcript U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Gasification Initiative

U.S. EPA’s Clean Air
Gasification Activities
Presentation at the
Gasification Technologies Council
Winter Meeting
January 26, 2006
Tucson, Arizona
Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Environmental Technology Initiative


Key leaders at the Agency understand that
innovative technology has been and will continue to
be a key element in meeting our environmental
needs in a economical, cost-effective manner
EPA Senior management challenged Agency staff to
figure out ways to facilitate and incentivize the
development and deployment of such technologies
– Created the Environmental Technology Council (ETC)

Solicited topics for consideration Agency-wide
– 47 possible technologies and environmental problems in
need of technology solutions were identified
– 14 projects were selected as “priorities” for the Agency,
based on Agency-wide voting across all EPA offices and
Regions.
Two Gasification Projects Selected

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
– Generating electricity from the gasification of coal and
other fossil fuel byproducts
– Office of Air and Radiation is lead office on development
and deployment of IGCC technology

Waste-to-Energy
– Utilization of biomass, petroleum residuals, petroleum
coke, secondary materials
– Office of Research and Development in conjunction with
the Office of Solid Waste are the leads on the waste-toenergy effort
– OAR, ORD and OSWER are working together as a crossAgency team to promote these technologies for
deployment
Coal – The Future of Electricity
Generation

The world needs to make electricity
from coal in an environmentally and
economically sustainable way
– IGCC has fundamental advantages
from both environmental and
efficiency perspectives relative to
conventional coal-fired power
generation technologies



Inherently lower emissions of NOX,
SO2 and Hg
Requires less fresh water – special
issue in the drier, water-limited
Western regions of the U.S.
Considerably more commercially
useful byproducts (and thus, less
waste materials)
– High potential for reducing
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
by allowing for carbon capture and
sequestration at costs significantly
below conventional PC generation
costs
CINERGY’s Wabash River Facility
Gasification Offers Clean Alternative
Estimated New Plant Emissions Performance
2
Proposed Da SO2 limit
1.5
lb/MWh
Proposed Da PM limit*
1
Proposed Da NOx limit
0.5
~80%
NOx SO2 PM
SCPC
Hg
95%+
~0
~0
~0
NOx SO2 PM Hg
NOx SO2 PM Hg
IGCC
NGCC
* - Taking comment on the adoption of PM-CEMS; other alternative is 0.015 lb/MMBtu limit
EPA’s Role in Deployment

The Environmental Technology Initiative’s purpose is to
– Achieve improved, real-world environmental results through the
design, development and deployment of innovative
technologies



Identify short- and long-term priority environmental problems
with attainable technological solutions
Coordinate efforts within EPA and other Federal agencies to
identify and implement such technological advancements and
solution
Create partnerships with other Federal agencies, State
governments, Tribal governments, non-profit groups and industry
to incentivize technology enhancements and deployment
– Creation of joint EPA/DOE team to promote deployment of IGCC
EPA/DOE Team Activities




Objective is to facilitate a critical number of
commercial plants to address both environmental and
operational concerns
EPA Air Permitting Initiatives
- Identification and quick resolution of novel air
permitting issues
- Help in expediting the air permit process
DOE/EPA developing a model to assess the economic
viability of IGCC plants under different conditions
EPA/DOE conducting a technical study to establish
the environmental footprint of the IGCC technology
relative to conventional PC plants
EPA Actions to Date – Progress Report

Regulatory Issues
– Current issue for IGCC facilities is New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting

December 13, 2005 – Steve Page memo (IGCC and BACT)
– EPA’s interpretation of when IGCC should be considered in NSR and PSD permitting
– In the case of pulverized coal boilers and similar conventional coal-fired technologies,
IGCC should not be considered as control technology candidate under BACT
– Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as BACT for IGCC units

Headquarters and Regional offices want to work with companies
interested in developing IGCC technology in the near future

EPA is committed to working with State permitting authorities
– States are the primary permitting authority under NSR/PSD – often can be
more stringent than Federal regulations
– Agency is attempting to be “upfront” and let States know “where we stand”
on IGCC permitting issues

Anticipate this may help expedite and streamline the NSR & PSD permitting
process considerably
Potential Regulatory Hurdles

Should Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) be required as
best achievable control
technology (BACT) for IGCC?
– TECO’s Polk Power Station,
Tampa, Florida

Florida DEP ultimately decided in
conjunction with Region IV that SCR
was not required as BACT – a
position supported by Headquarters
– BACT is a case-by-case
determination

“One Size Doesn’t Fit All”
– Circumstances at a new plant may
not be the same as what drove our
decision at Polk Power Station

Regardless, SCR as BACT is a
decision that merits our attention and
resolution sooner as opposed to later
SCR Technical Issues


Currently reviewing request from U.S. power
company for guidance on SCR as BACT
Issues under review:
– SCR not demonstrated on plants utilizing coalderived syngas


Lack of U.S. experience
One plant operational in Japan
– SCR feasibility, high cost and risk issues vary
between IGCC plants, PC plants and NGCC facilities
– Ability to obtain meaningful performance guarantees
for SCR and/or HRSG systems
– SO2 BACT analysis and its impact on SCR costs and
feasibility

MDEA, Rectisol or Selexol
Potential Regulatory Incentives

Final New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for Subpart Da
– IGCC Units constructed on/after
February 9, 2005 would be
subject to the same emission
limits as a coal-fired boiler


Given current IGCC technology,
this should not pose any
regulatory burden on new,
planned IGCC facilities
– Duct burners moved into KKKK
Final Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR)
– Created separate source category for
IGCC units
 Hg emission limit of 20 x 10-6
lb/MWh
 Comparable to a bituminous PCfired power generation system
Future Plans and Needs

To incentivize the commercial deployment of IGCC technology
EPA needs to better understand the environmental footprint of
these facilities relative to conventional power generation
technologies
– EPA/DOE Environmental Footprint Study

EPA is working on models to assess the economic viability of
IGCC plants under different conditions
– Working closely with DOE on these economic and environmental
efforts

One remaining barrier is the cost of IGCC technology
– EPA is working in conjunction with DOE to evaluate various
proposals to address this economic barrier
– Energy Policy Act of 2005

Exploring options and incentives
Draft Results of EPA’s IGCC vs. PC Study

Nexant, Incorporated contracted to perform study in
conjunction with EPA and DOE input
– Solicited comment/input on draft report from numerous
stakeholder groups

Final results targeted for discussion at the GTC
meeting in Tampa, Florida in March 2006
– Public release March 2006

Aspects of the Study




Thermal performance of IGCC and PC units
Estimated air emissions
Water use requirements and solid waste output
CO2 capture and sequestration potential
Barriers to IGCC Deployment

Concerns of higher costs
– Nominally considered to be approximately 20%

Concerns of novel environmental permit issues
delaying construction and increasing costs
– NSR and PSD issues
– BACT analyses

Concerns of plant reliability
– Need for dual-train gasifier
– HRSG fouling downstream of the SCR
– Power block reliability

Cultural resistance to a facility with a large
chemical plant component
– Chemical Engineers vs. Mechanical Engineers
Technical Study Scope



IGCC and PC plant comparisons provided, using
bituminous/subbituminous coals and lignite
Plant size: 500 MW
Plant configurations:
- Oxygen-blown IGCC, 1,800 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F
- Subcritical PC, 2,400 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F
- Supercritical PC, 3,500 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F
- Ultra-supercritical PC, 4,500 psig / 1,100° F / 1,100° F
(double reheat)
Technical Study Scope, (Cont’d)

IGCC plant environmental controls:
-

NOx: Diluents (SCR evaluated)
SO2: MDEA (Selexol evaluated)
Particulate: scrubber
Mercury: carbon bed
PC plant environmental controls:
-
NOx: SCR
SO2: wet FGD for bituminous coal (BC) and lignite (LIG)
and spray dryer for subbituminous coal (SBC)
Particulate: ESP for BC and LIG, Baghouse for SBC
Mercury: sorbent injection (activated carbon) for SBC
Thermal Performance Bituminous Coal*
*
Plant Type
IGCC
PC SubCritical
PC SuperCritical
PC Ultra
SuperCritical
Net output,
MW
500
500
500
500
Thermal
Efficiency,
% HHV
41.8
35.9
38.3
42.7
Heat Rate,
Btu/kWh
8,167
9,500
8,900
8,000
Preliminary/draft results.
Thermal Performance Subbituminous Coal*
*
Plant Type
IGCC
PC SubCritical
PC SuperCritical
PC Ultra
SuperCritical
Net output,
MW
500
500
500
500
Thermal
Efficiency,
% HHV
40.0
34.8
37.9
42.1
Heat Rate,
Btu/kWh
8,520
9,800
9,000
8,100
Preliminary/draft results.
Thermal Performance Lignite*
*
Plant Type
IGCC
PC SubCritical
PC SuperCritical
PC Ultra
SuperCritical
Net output,
MW
500
500
500
500
Thermal
Efficiency,
% HHV
38.4
33.1
35.9
37.9
Heat Rate,
Btu/kWh
8,897
10,300
9,500
9,000
Preliminary/draft results.
Air Emission Comparisons*
Pollutant
IGCC Project
PC Project
PC Project
NOx
0.07*
0.07
0.06
SO2
0.03
0.09
0.09
PM/PM10
0.011
0.013/0.012
0.018
VOC
0.004
0.0027
0.0036
CO
0.03
0.15
0.15
Hg
0.5
0.66
1.7
Coal Type
Bituminous
Bituminous/Sub Sub-bituminous
bituminous
* Preliminary/draft results. All emissions in lb/MMBtu, except for Hg, which is
in lb/TBtu. NOx for IGCC is based on 15 ppmvd at 15% O2.
Water Use and Solid Waste Comparisons**
Parameter
IGCC Plant*
PC Plant*
Cooling water, 99,500
gpm
167,300
Makeup water, 141
gpm
325
Solid waste,
tpd
616
224
*
Each plant is approximately 290 MW in size.
**
Preliminary/draft results.
CO2 Capture and Sequestration Potential*
Parameter
CO2 capture, %
Plant output
derating, %
IGCC Plant
91
14
PC Plant
90
29
Heat rate
increase, %
Capital cost
increase, %
16.5
40
47
73
COE increase, %
38
66
*
Preliminary/draft results.
Main Study Areas Still Under Development

Capabilities of air pollution control technologies used in IGCC
and PC plants
– Efficiency of sulfur removal processes (IGCC)
– Feasibility of SCR (IGCC)
– Evolution of Hg removal technologies (PC)
– Carbon capture efficiency (IGCC and PC)

Comparison of mercury emission control capabilities between
IGCC and PC plants
– Sorbent injection (PC)
– Activated carbon beds (IGCC)

Comparison of water consumption and waste water and solid
waste generation rates between IGCC and PC plants

Potential of CO2 capture within PC plants
Cost Comparisons Bituminous Coal
Applications
Costs
IGCC
Subcritical
PC
Supercritical
PC
Ultra
Supercritical
PC
Total Capital
Requirement,
$/kW
1,670
1,347
1,431
1,529
Operating
Cost, $1,000s
27,310
27,700
29,000
30,400
1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.
2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may be different
due to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account for possible
increases for items such as performance guarantees, warranties and
availability.
3. Operating costs include fixed and variable O&M costs.
Cost Comparisons Subbituminous Coal
Applications
Costs
IGCC
Subcritical
PC
Supercritical
PC
Ultra
Supercritical
PC
Total Capital
Requirement,
$/kW
1,910
1,387
1,473
1,575
Operating
Cost, $1,000s
29,700
28,300
29,600
31,100
1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.
2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may be
different due to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account
for possible increases for items such as performance guarantees,
warranties and availability.
3. Operating costs include fixed and variable O&M costs.
Cost Comparisons Lignite Applications
Costs
IGCC
Subcritical
PC
Supercritical
PC
Ultra
Supercritical
PC
Total Capital
Requirement,
$/kW
2,350
1,424
1,511
1,617
Operating
Cost, $1,000s
34,000
29,640
30,940
32,440
1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.
2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may be different due
to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account for possible increases for
items such as performance guarantees, warranties and availability.
3. Operating costs include fixed and variable O&M costs.
Conclusions

EPA has undertaken several initiatives to facilitate and
incentivize IGCC technology
– Environmental Study (release: March 2006)
– December 13, 2005 Steve Page Memo – IGCC and BACT
– Future guidance on SCR as BACT for IGCC facilities

Preliminary IGCC vs. PC Study Results:
– IGCC thermal performance significantly better than current PC
technologies
– Overall better environmental performance for IGCC
– IGCC has potential advantage in capturing and sequestrating CO2
at lower costs

EPA is not trying to pick a technology winner, but trying to
ensure that IGCC has a chance to prove itself commercially
For more information contact:
Dr. Robert J. Wayland
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC
(919) 541-1045
[email protected]