Transcript CoalFleet Kingsport PowerPoint Template

MIT Report-Commentary
CoalFleet for Tomorrow®
Neville Holt ([email protected])
Technical Fellow,
Generation Group
Tampa, FL
March 21, 2007
CoalFleet for Tomorrow® is a registered service mark
of Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
MIT Report – Executive Summary
Main Points of Agreement
• CCS is critical enabling technology for coal use with CO2 emission
reduction. Scale of required enterprise is Vast!!
• Priority Objective Large scale Integrated CCS Demo
• Regulatory policy with public & political support needed for large
scale CCS
• Current programs completely inadequate to confirm CCS
• High priority Sequestration Demos >1 MTPY in several geologies
and Capture Demos for PC and IGCC
• “Grandfathering” is a significant issue.
• U.S. leadership in CO2 reduction is a likely pre-requisite for action by
emerging economies i.e. China , India.
© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2
MIT Study- Points of some
Controversy/Disagreement.
• EPAct assistance should only be for plants with CCS.
This writer believes IGCC needs assistance to
overcome FOAK contingencies- otherwise it will not
be selected. Capture is less the issue with IGCC but
larger gasifiers and GT’s need to be deployed and
commercially proven.
• Pre-Investment in “Capture Ready” unlikely to be
attractive. Maybe.
• CO2 emission price of 30$/mt (25$ Capture 5$ TMS)
would make Coal plants with CCS competitive with coal
plants without CCS. Writer believes that at today’s
capital costs the price would need to be higher –
dependent on specific technology
© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
3
MIT StudyCH.8 Findings & Recommendations
• #1.New coal be built at highest efficiency. OK but MIT grossly
overestimates CO2 savings from current USC at 21% whereas
its more like 11-12%.
• #2. 3-5 Sequestration projects >1 Million TPY.
• #3. DOE/USGS inventory sequestration sites/coal plants. India,
China etc need same.
• #4.Exec. Office should initiate Interagency process to determine
regulatory framework for CCS. Enforcement by EPA.
• #6A Low priority for Federal assistance for new coal without CCS
• #6B Congress should act to close the potential “grandfathering “
loophole.
© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
4
MIT StudyCH.8 Findings & Recommendations
• #7. Federal Assistance to 3-5 FOAK coal plants with
CCS (250-500 MW)
• #8.Federal to pay for CO2,(in absence of emissions
charge) to enable coal conversion with capture to be built
• #9.Demos (#2, #7 & #8) must succeed. Form quasipublic “Clean Coal Demonstration Corp.” Estimate 5B$
over 10 years. “ No reason to delay prompt consideration
and adoption of a U.S. carbon emission control policy
until completion of the recommended sequestration
program.”
• #10.Develop Modelling & Simulation tools for analysis
and costing of coal plants with and without CCS.
© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
5
MIT Report – Additional Comments
(Holt)
• Ch. 3. Subcrit vs USC (4640psi/1112 F/1130F/1130 F or 320
bar/600c/610C/610C) with Ill#6 coal!! MIT HR 9950 vs 7880!!. EPRI
estimate 9450 vs 8500 Btu/kWh for these steam conditions with
Ill#6.
• Report seems to misunderstand the COP E-Gas technology,
Hydrogen firing of GT’s and gasifier turndown.
• Fig. 3-A3 should add dry coal fed IGCC with lower degradation of
performance with LR coals
• All costs are much higher today than those cited in the MIT report.
Any increases in capital cost will also increase the CO2 cost. Latest
information also suggests higher costs for Transportation, Monitoring
and Storage/Sequestration (TMS)
© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
6