Transcript PowerPoint Presentation Template

The Role of Technology
in Addressing Global
Climate Change
John Novak
Executive Director, Federal and
Industry Activities, Environment and
Generation Sectors
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
ROUNDTABLE SERIES: Next Steps
Post-Kyoto: U.S. Options
Washington, DC
February 24, 2005
Overview of Presentation
2
•
Role of Technology in Achieving Energy and Climate
Change Goals
•
Power Partners - Climate Change Technology RDD&D
Partnership
•
Coal Fleet for Tomorrow
Stabilizing CO2 Concentrations
• Stabilization of
greenhouse gas
concentrations is the
goal of the Framework
Convention on Climate
Change.
• Stabilizing the
concentration of CO2 is a
long-term problem.
Wigley, Richels and Edmonds. 1996. "Economic and Environmental Choices in the
Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations," Nature. 379(6562):240-243.
• Stabilization means that GLOBAL emissions must peak in the decades
ahead and then decline indefinitely thereafter.
3
Stabilizing CO2
Base Case and “Gap” Technologies
Assumed Advances In
• Fossil Fuels
• Energy intensity
• Nuclear
• Renewables
Gap technologies
• Carbon capture &
disposal
The “Gap”
Adv. fossil
• H2 and Adv.
Transportation
• Biotechnologies
Soils, Bioenergy, adv.
Biological energy
4
TECHNOLOGY and R&D TRENDS
• EPRI Electricity Technology Road Map.
– Resolving the energy/carbon conflict - Current pace of
innovation in today’s power generation technologies—
fossil, nuclear, and renewable—will not be sufficient to
meet either tomorrow’s economic or greenhouse gas
reduction needs.
• EPRI – Sponsored Global Energy Technology Strategy.
– Current investments in energy R&D are inadequate to
resolve the energy/carbon conflict. Both public and
private sector investments in energy research and
development have declined since the 1980’s.
5
Power Partners
• On December 13, 2004 the heads of seven power sector groups signed the
Power Partners Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department
of Energy (DOE). Power Partners is the power sector’s program under the
Administration’s Climate VISION program.
• Reduce carbon intensity by an equivalent of 3 to 5 percent from 2002 to 2012
• Climate change technology research, development, demonstration and
deployment (RDD&D) partnership with DOE
Climate Change Technology RDD&D Partnership
• Initial implementation of an RDD&D partnership is being carried out via
CoalFleet for Tomorrow
• CO2 Sequestration is being assessed under the DOE Carbon Sequestration
Regional Partnerships and FutureGen. EPRI plans to submit proposals under
the phase 2 Carbon Sequestration solicitation.
• Preliminary discussions have taken place between DOE and EPRI staff to
begin to explore RDD&D options for nuclear power, renewables, electricity
transmission and distribution, hydrogen and end use technologies.
6
CoalFleet for Tomorrow
• An industry-led initiative to encourage early
deployment of advanced coal-based technology
and options for CO2 capture and sequestration.
• Supported by almost ½ of all US coal-fired plant
owners (> 150 GW), major equipment suppliers,
engineering firms, international power generators
and the US DOE
• A one-year first phase effort is underway
7
“CoalFleet for Tomorrow”
CoalFleet Vision and Phase I Elements
VISION - An industry-led collaboration can accelerate the
deployment of advanced coal power systems
1. Assess Technology Trade-Offs, Licensing, Permitting
and Incentives
Assess the costs, benefits, and risks of CO2-ready advanced coal
plants, evaluate environmental permitting and determine incentive
structures to accelerate deployment
2. Develop and Implement Generic Design Guidelines for
Standardized Plants
Minimize time, costs, and risks in the design, permitting,
construction, and operation phases
3. Accelerate and Augment RD&D
Complement existing programs (e.g., FutureGen) with industry
funding and support to accelerate deployment
8
CoalFleet Helps Reduce Risk and
Uncertainty and Understand Issues
• Cost – through standard design guidelines, user
requirements, knowledge base and lessons learned
• Downtime/ reliability – knowledge and industry experience –
world-class expert analysis
• Incentives and financing– understanding how they will work
(or not) for your company
• Permitting & Licensing issues
• Knowledge of how to deal with CO2 in the future – what is
“CO2 ready”?
• Hydrogen, chemical alternatives
• Alternates for coal type, type of organization
• Collaborate to help each other learn from experience and
new design efforts
9
CoalFleet Operating Concept
CoalFleet Major Deliverables
Early
Deployment
Projects Support
Support
Support
Supplier/Industry
Experts
• Process Licensors
• OEMs
• EPCs
• Operators
10
• Incentives Analysis
• Permitting Analysis
• Outreach Materials
• Knowledge Base
• User Design Basis Specs
• Pre-Design Specs
• Generic Design Guidelines
• RD&D Plan
World-Class
Expert
Working
Group
(Independent)
Task Working Groups
• Incentives
• Permitting
• User Design Basis Spec
• RD&D
• Others TBD
“CoalFleet for Tomorrow”
CoalFleet Supports Deployment
DOE R&D
CCPI Demonstrations
DOE Coal & CO2 RD&D
EPRI CoalFleet Phase I
FutureGen
Reg/Fin Incentives
EPRI CoalFleet Phase II
CoalFleet
1
Risk Reduction,
Permitting and
Incentives
2
Design
Guidelines
Early Deployment Units
Project 1
Project 2
RD&D
Project 3
Augmentation
3
Longest-term RD&D
(e.g., CO2 1 MTPY Demonstrations)
2005
11
Next Generation Units
Early Deployment Units
Early Deployment Units
Early Deployment Units
Early Deployment Units
Early Deployment Units
2010
Next Generation Units
Next Generation Units
Next Generation Units
Next Generation Units
Next Generation Units
2015
2020
CoalFleet for Tomorrow - Status
• The new industry-lead initiative is aimed at deployment of
technology options which can meet the goals of the
DOE/CURC/EPRI Roadmap
• Work is underway, and initial focus is on a series of
deliverables that concentrate initially on IGCC but includes
scoping work on other advanced technologies, and CO2 capture
and sequestration
• Information on deployment incentives, permitting, licensing,
design guidelines, a knowledge base and R&D needs is being
assembled and reviewed by CoalFleet participants
• The momentum from this initial work will be shaped by the
participants and channeled into follow-on collaboration with
public and private entities both in the US and internationally
12
CO2 Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
• At current State-of-the Art (SOA) there is no “Single Bullet”
technology for CCS. Technology selection depends on the
location, coal and application
• Sequestration is the key technical issue - location and
geology dependent
• CO2 capture adds considerably to Cost of Electricity(COE)
– IGCC w/ CO2 least cost for bituminous coals
– IGCC w/ CO2 and PC plants with Amine scrubbing for
CO2 capture are very similar cost for high moisture
Sub-bituminous Coals
– PC with Amine scrubbing least cost for Lignites
• CFBC can handle high ash coals and other low value fuels
• Oxyfuel (O2 Combustion to CO2) and other technologies at
developmental stage
13
Economics of IGCC and USC PC with CO2 Capture
(Gasification Technologies are not all alike!)
Nominal 450 MW net Plants, Pittsburgh #8 Bituminous Coal,
All IGCC with spare gasifiers
Technology
14
IGCC Texaco
Quench
IGCC Texaco
Radiant SGC
IGCC
E-Gas
IGCC
Shell
PC UltraSupercritical
MW (no
capture)
512
550
520
530
600
TPC $/kW (no
capture)
1300
1550
1350
1650
1235
COE $/MWh
(no capture)
50.1
55.7
50.2
57.2
45.0
MW (with
capture)
455
485
440
465
460
TPC $/kW
(with capture)
1650
1950
1900
2200
2150
COE $/MWh
(with capture)
62.7
69.6
68.9
75.1
76.2
Avoided Cost
of CO2, $/mt
18/28
22/38
29/38
29/47
42
Background Slides
15
IGCC with and
without CO2 Removal
Sulfur
Coal
Air
ASU
O2
Gasifier
Gas
Clean
Up
CC
Power
Block
POWER
IGCC
Slag
Sulfur CO2
Coal
Air
ASU
O2
Gasifier
Slag
16
Shift
CC
Power
Block
Gas
Clean
Up
H2
POWER
H2 & CO2
(e.g.,FutureGen)
Existing Coal-based IGCCs
Puertollano (Spain)
Polk (Florida)
17
Wabash (Indiana)
Buggenum (Netherlands)
Regional US Coal Differences Favor
Multiple Advanced Coal Options
IGCC PSDF
SC- FBC
• IGCC is best for “high rank” bituminous
coals or low-rank coal plus petroleum coke
(today's economics do not favor IGCC but
IGCC has lower emissions plus CO2
options)
• New IGCC designs may be better for low
rank coal and may be cheaper but these
designs are still developmental
• Waste coals, biomass may be best in fluid
bed combustion (FBC) and this has found a
niche, but hi-efficiency steam conditions
are unproven
18
• Most plans are for “conventional”
pulverized coal in the US. In Europe and
Japan with high fuel costs ultrasupercritical
(USC) designs are favored
Effect of Coal Quality on PC and IGCC
Plant Heat Rates and Capital Cost
19
Gap Analysis Showing COE Components
55
$3.80/MWh,
or 7.5%
50
45
Levelized COE ($/MWh)
40
35
Fuel
O&M
Capital
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
IGCC
PC-USC
PC-Sub
Assumes coal at $1.50/MBtu, 80% c.f., and 20-year book life
21
Purpose of Early Deployment Incentives
To bring the value of advanced coal technologies to near that of
competing alternatives in terms of Cost of Electricity (COE)
NGCC
Coal IGCC
(USC PC,
SC CFBC)
22
Conv. Coal PC
What Are the “Gaps”? Where Will R&D Help?
Competitiveness Sensitivity: IGCC Example
Constant $ Levelized COE
45.0
PC-Sub
50.0
55.0
Example Better
Refractory, Sparing etc
PC-Sub
Capacity Factor
60.0
72
88
Total Plant Cost
1,215
1,485
Design Guidelines,
Sparing etc
Net Heat Rate
7,767
9,493
Fixed O&M
52.3
63.9
Aux. Power
84.6
23
103.4
+/- 10% on each item
Standard Plant Design Guidelines
Guidelines Principles (Reference Plants)
• Establish Industry Database
• Reduce Plant Costs and Increase Reliability
• Move Industry from First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) to Nth-of-a-Kind
Establish Consensus Internally and Externally
• Consolidate Current Knowledge Base (EPRI, DOE, Industry Studies)
• Specify User Design Basis
• Pre-Design Specification
– Record Early Decisions from New Feasibility Studies
and Technology Choices
– Update Knowledge Base
• Generic Design Specifications based on Early Deployment Plants
More Accurate Decisions and a 2–3 Year Faster Process
24