Transcript PRESENTATION TITLE

Underground Coal Gasification:
A “game-changer” for climate protection?
3rd China Energy and Environment Summit (CEES)
Beijing, PRC
August 20-21, 2010
Mike Fowler
Climate Technology Innovation Coordinator
Clean Air Task Force
Clean Air Task Force is a non-profit organization dedicated
to reducing atmospheric pollution through research,
advocacy, and private sector collaboration.
MAIN OFFICE
18 Tremont Street
Suite 530
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 624-0234
[email protected]
www.catf.us
www.coaltransition.us
www.aceiii.org
OTHER LOCATIONS
Beijing, China
Brunswick, ME
Carbondale, IL
Columbus, OH
Washington, DC
2
Outline
•
•
•
•
About CATF
The need for carbon capture and storage (CCS)
The great barrier for CCS: cost
The potential benefits of underground coal
gasification (UCG)
 The cost of coal power with UCG with CCS could be less
then cost of conventional coal without CCS
 Other benefits include: reduced mining, reduced drinking
water consumption, reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide, etc.
• Importance of environmental management for UCG
 Protection of groundwater from contamination
3
About CCS at the Clean Air Task
Force (CATF)
• CATF is an energy and environment NGO with headquarters in
the United States. Our work addresses:
 Greenhouse gases and climate change
 SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and toxic air pollution
 Related environmental issues
• We are a small specialty organization founded in 1996
 20 technical staff, policy and business experts, and attorneys
• CCS is a core focus for CATF. Our CCS work includes:
 Expert workshops
 Innovation policy design
 Facilitation of large “pioneer” CCS projects
• Costs of CCS will limit speed and extent of deployment
• Underground coal gasification could “change the game”
 Potentially significant cost reductions for coal power with CCS
 Potential for low-cost substitute natural gas (methane)
4
Background 1: Huge quantities of
low-carbon electricity will be needed
With electric vehicles?
Will the world converge here?
Source: CATF (2009) from DOE/EIA (2007)
Slide 5
Background 1: Huge quantities of
low-carbon electricity will be needed
World electricity demand , with electric vehicles?
Source: CATF (2009) from DOE/EIA (2007)
Slide 6
Background 2: CCS will be essential
to meet this demand
Studies by MIT, Stanford, EPRI, PNNL, NCAR, and
University of Maryland suggest substantial roles for fossil fules
with CCS, renewables, and nuclear power
MIT Model
Stanford/EPRI Model
PNNL Model
Source: United States Climate Change Science Program, 2007
Slide 7
Background 3: Costs of adding CCS
to new power projects are significant
• Relative cost of electricity (LCOE) estimate for fossil power
generation (“Nth plant” US basis); CCS could add ~80%
14.00
11.88
12.00
11.48
10.63
9.74
10.00
8.00
+80%
7.79
6.40
6.33
PC-Sub
PC-Sub w/ PC-Super PC-Super
CO2
w/ CO2
Capture
Capture
6.84
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Avg IGCC Avg IGCC
w/ CO2
Capture
NGCC
NGCC w/
CO2
Capture
Source: DOE/NETL (2007)
8
UCG could change the game for
fossil power with CCS
• UCG can produces inexpensive
raw synthesis gas
 $1 - $3/MMBtu (see GasTech,
2007; ENN, 2009)
• UCG can enables high
efficiency power generation
when integrated with combined
cycle gas turbine (“CCT”)
 Syngas
 Oxidant
Potable Aquifer
Rock/Clay
 45.4% HHV w/o CCS (AMMA,
2002)
• Technology is commercially
available to clean up syngas
and removal CO2 at
manageable cost
• Result: Potentially gamechanging CCS costs
Rock (e.g., shale)
Coal
Rock (e.g., shale)
Rock
Image: CATF (2009)
9
UCG with CCS could compete with
conventional coal without CCS
•
Cost of UCG
integrated with 80%
CO2 removal and
syngas combustion
in CCGT could be
LESS THEN
conventional coal
without CCS
•
Cost of UCG to
produce substitute
natural gas with
CCS also could be
very attractive,
especially in China
Estimate by the NorthBridge Group and CATF based on proprietary
data for a proposed UCG project in North America
10
UCG could also significantly increase
domestic energy supplies
• In the US, UCG could increase coal supply by 300%-400%.
The same could be true of China (though this requires study)
Source: DOE/NETL Presentation, September, 2008
11
Commercial activity is accelerating
Region/Trial
Length (days)
Gasified (tonnes)
Depth
Period
FSR/Various
1000s
15 million +
Shallow
1930s+
China/abandoned mines
n/d
n/d
n/d
1950s+
US/Hanna
343
14,800
Shallow
1970s
US/Hoe Creek
117
5,920
Shallow
1970s
US/Princetown
12
320
Intermediate
1970s
US/Rawlins
106
10,000
Shallow
1970s
US/ Tenn. Colony
197
4,500
Shallow
1970s
US/Centralia & Tono
29
1,800
Shallow
1980s
US/RM1
150
14,150
Shallow
1980s
EU/Thulin
67
11
Deep
1980s
EU/El Tremedal
12
240
Deep
1990s
(n/d)
800
Deep
1990s
NZ/Huntley
13
80
Shallow
1990s
AUS/Chinchilla (R1)
900
32,000
Shallow
1990s
AUS/Chinchilla (R3/R4)
Active
2,000
Shallow
2008+
SA/Eskom
Active
(n/d)
Deep
2007+
CHN/ENN Group
Active
25,000+
Intermediate
2007+
AUS/Carbon Energy
Active
(n/d)
Intermediate
2008+
CAN/Swan Hills
Active
(n/d)
Deep
2009+
AUS/Cougar Energy
Active
(n/d)
Intermediate
3/2010+
US/Carbon County
Many more projects are planned
around the world
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
US (Alaska) – CIRI/Laurus
Canada (Alberta) – Laurus
South Africa - Secunda (Sasol)
Vietnam - Red River Delta (Linc)
Pakistan - Thar Coal Field (2x)
Chile - Mulpun (Carbon Energy)
UK – 11 separate UCG licenses
issued recently
• India - Multiple sites
• US PRB, US Midwest, New
Zealand, …
Carbon Energy UCG site near Dalby, Queensland, Australia,
November, 2008. The reactor was active 200m below this
spot. Photo by Mike Fowler.
13
Possible advantage of UCG:
Reduced water consumption
Even with partial CCS, UCG and a CCGT could use less than half
the raw water of a conventional coal power plant without CCS, and
less than an IGCC without CCS.
Item
UCGCCGT, no
CCS
UCGCCGT,
Partial
CCS
IGCC, no
CCS
NGCC, no
CCS
PC-sub,
no CCS
SCPC,
no CCS
Raw Water
Usage
(gpm/MWe)
2.9
4.9
6
4.5
11.3
10
Source: LLNL (2010)
Slide 14
Possible advantage of UCG:
Reduced mercury emissions
• Carbon beds have demonstrated
99.9% mercury removal on coal
syngas
• Carbon beds are much less
expensive than activated carbon
injection on conventional coal
plants (~1/10th on cost of electricity
basis)
• Carbon beds produce less waste
than activated carbon injection on
conventional coal
• UCG could take advantage of this
technology to reduce mercury
Carbon beds for mercury removal at
Eastman coal gasification facility in TN
Slide 15
Possible advantage of UCG:
Reduce air pollution emissions
Technology exists for UCG to approach natural gas
Source: CATF from various sources
Slide 16
Possible advantage of UCG:
Use less surface land
Source: Carbon Energy (2009)
Slide 17
But… UCG is a complex coupled
chemical and geophysical process
Producer
Example Gas Composition (% vol, Queensland Site, Air-Blown)
H2
CO
CH4
CO2
N2
H2O
HHV MJ/m3
18.0
6.0
7.0
16.0
35.6
16.5
6.6
Gas Losses
Injector
Heat
Coal Bed
Tars & oils
400 – 1000 F
Water
1000 – 1650 F
>1650 F
 Advances ~2 ft/day
Source: Adapted from DOE/NETL Presentation, September, 2008, and AMMA, 2008
18
And in China, as elsewhere,
protection of groundwater is vital
 Site selection is key
•
•
•
•
Coal at intermediate or greater depth
Preferably below potentially viable water resources
Isolated from surrounding strata (good roof and floor, horizontal isolation)
See DOE/LLNL guidelines (in preparation)
 …so is site operation…
• Safer linking methods (e.g., in-seam drilling)
• Eliminate/minimize gas loss
– Maintain gasification pressure below local hydrostatic pressure
– Real-time monitoring of pressure, pH, trace compounds in surrounding strata
– Real-time monitoring/verification of mass balance closure
• Geophysical/geochemical monitoring, process simulation, and control
 …and proper module closure is important
• Limit postburn pyrolysis and steam/pressure buildup
• Clean the cavern
19
An environmental success in early
US program – Rocky Mountain 1
 RM1 1987-1988 near Hanna, WY
• Project included GRI, DOE, Amoco
Production, WRI, and EPRI
 Environmental protection focus
• Thinner, deeper coal seam (Hanna
No.1, 30 ft thick, >350 ft deep)
• Stable overburden and underburden
• Detailed pre-test geologic and
hydrologic characterization
• Hydrologic sampling and monitoring
during and after the burn
• Operational control
• Post-burn cavity venting and flushing
 Result: No water resource damage
Sources: Boysen et al (1998), Davis (2008)
20
Thank you!
Mike Fowler
Climate Technology Innovation Coordinator
Clean Air Task Force
18 Tremont Street, Suite 530
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 624-0234 ext. 12 (voice)
(617) 624-0230 (fax)
[email protected]
www.catf.us