Transcript Slajd 1

Clean Coal Technologies Meeting,
Regional Office of Silesia, Brussels, 10th of June 2008
Clean Coal Power Production
&
Carbon Capture and Storage
- thermoeconomic evaluation for Silesian conditions
Marcin Liszka, Andrzej Ziębik
Institute of Thermal Technology, Silesian University of Technology
Innovative Silesian Cluster of Clean Coal Technologies
- regional initiative open for domestic and international cooperation, aiming at
development and implementation of Clean Coal Technologies in coal mining, power
engineering and chemistry of coke.
The funding members of the Cluster (2005) were:
1. Central Mining Institute,
2. Silesian University of Technology,
SCIENCE
3. Institute for Chemical Processing of Coal,
4. Institute of Chemical Engineering of the Polish Academy of Sciences,
5. Southern Poland Power Company
6. Kompania Weglowa S.A. (Coal Company)
INDUSTRY
7. Jastrzebie Coal Company
8. Katowicki Holding Weglowy S.A. (Coal Holding of Katowice)
9. City of Gliwice.
10. City of Jastrzebie Zdrój.
11. City of Jaworzno.
REGIONAL
12. City of Katowice.
AUTHORITIES
at present: 25 members
13. City of Rybnik.
14. City of Tychy.
Why coal is so important? – structure of energy generation
Fuel mix of power sector by (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
EU- 25 coal share in fuel mix 30%
40
30
20
10
No other large country is as dependent on coal
for its power generation as Poland.
Other fuels
Renewables
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Oil
* Source: Eurostat, after Zmijewski
Coal or Lignite
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Cyprus
Sweden
France
Belgium
Austria
Italy
Slovakia
Netherlands
Hungary
Finland
Spain
Ireland
Portugal
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgaria
Denmark
Germany
Czech Republic
Greece
Poland
Estonia
0
Important difference in specific CO2 emission
1000
900
800
700
600
1000
kgCO2/MWh
500
400
300
200
100
0
417
Poland
EU-15
That results in a
quite different final
cost of electricity
upon applying CCS
technology and its
effects
national
economy
and
competitiveness of
industry.
What to do?
Silesian Regional Foresight (2007)
- results of the Energy Technology Panel
Scenario of Moderate Development
Technologies
No
1
Name
Time horizon
before
after
2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020
PF power units; supercritical parameters (Power stations
600)
2 CFB power units; supercritical parameters
3
Multi-fuel power units; supercritical parameters; CO2
sequestration
4 CHPs units with CFB
5 Thermal storage in CHP units
6 Heating boilers fired with methane from coal mines
7
Production of heat from renewable sources and cocombustion of wastes
8 Deep cleaning of coal
9 Territorial systems of waste energy recovery
10 Fuels form wastes
commercial implementation
Silesian Regional Foresight (2007)
- results of the Energy Technology Panel
Innovative Scenario
Technologies
No
Name
1
PF power units; ultrasupercritical parameters (36 MPa,
700/720oC/720oC).
2
PF power units; supercritical and ultrasupercritical
parameters; CO2 capture
Time horizon
before
after
2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020
3 PF oxy-fuel combustion technology
4
Pressurized fluidized bed power units; supercritical
parameters
5
Fluidized power units with external DeSOx and DeNOx
installations; supercritical parameters; oxy-fuel combustion
6
Multi-fuel power units; supercritical parameters; CO2
sequestration
7 IGCC and CO2 capture
8 Coal and nuclear synergy
9 CHPs units with CFB
10 Thermal storage in CHP units
11 Polygeneration based on clean coal technologies
12 Fuel cells and microturbines
13 Building cooling heating and power
14 Deep cleaning of coal
15 Underground coal gasification
commercial implementation
Thermoeconomic analysis
 pulverised fuel (PF) plant as example
 focus on hypothetical new power units located on Silesia
 start-up of the investment (plant construction): 2011
Studied cases :
1. PF plant; air combustion; supercrtical steam parameters
(600/620oC, 30 MPa); no Carbon Capture and Storage –
reference case (PF_ref).
2. PF plant; steam cycle the same as for 1; post-combustion CO2
capture (chemical absorption); geological CO2 storage (PF_CA).
3. Oxy-fuel PF plant; steam cycle the same as for 1 and 2;
(PF_OXY).
Thermoeconomic analysis
- technology estimates
electricity
(net)
PF_ref
PF _ ref  0.46
coal
auxiliary
power
POWER UNIT
Emissions
(deSOx, deNOX)
electricity
(net)
PF_CA
PF _ CA  0.33
incl. 100% CO2
auxiliary substances
auxiliary
power
auxiliary
heat
coal
POWER UNIT
(deSOx, deNOX)
CO2 capture
& compression
Emissions
incl. 10% CO2
auxiliary substances
CO2 captured (90%)
Thermoeconomic analysis
- technology estimates
electricity
(net)
PF_OXY
PF _ OXY  0.35
auxiliary power
ASU
O2
coal
POWER UNIT
CO2
compression
Emissions
no CO2
auxiliary substances
Plant type
PF_ref
PF_CA
PF_OXY
Net energy
efficiency
0.46
0.33
0.35
Investment cost,
Euro/kW
1300
2000
2200
CO2 captured (100%)
CO2 Capture
efficiency
0
0.9
1
Thermoeconomic analysis
- methodology
 thermodynamic modelling (net electric power 600 MW for all cases)
 discounted cash flow analysis according to FCFE method
 prices and costs typical for Silesian region
Criterion
for economic evaluation:
Electricity price (EP)
ensuring MIRR=10%
(for discount rate = 7%)
N
MIRR  N
 NCF
t  k 1
t

(1  rei) N t
NCFt 

t
t 0 (1  r )
k
1
PF_OXY – modelled structure
Thermoeconomic analysis
- results
1 Euro=3.37 PLN
90
80
34 Euro/MWh
Electricity price (2015), Euro/MWh
100
70
60
50
PF_ref,
PF_ref, 20
free
Euro/Mg
allowances
for total
CO2
emitted
PF_ref, 40 PF_CA, 20 PF_CA, 40 PF_CA, 40 PF_OXY,
Euro/Mg
Euro/Mg
Euro/Mg
Euro/Mg 40 Euro/Mg
no CO2 transport & storage
CO2 transport & storage
included
Thermoeconomic analysis
- results
1 Euro=3.37 PLN
Cost of CO2 avoidance (2015), Euro/Mg
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
44.0
43.0
42.0
41.0
40.0
39.0
38.0
PF_CA
PF_CA
PF_OXY
no CO2 transport & storage
CO2 transport & storage included
Conclusions
1. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) rises significantly (by a factor
of ca. 1.45) the cost of electricity produced in pulverised fuel (PF)
units. Similar conclusion would be drawn for plants based on
circulated fluidised boilers (CFB).
2. Taking into account that Polish power generating sector is based in
95% on coal, the CO2 avoidance policy is threat for our national
and regional economies.
3. For these reasons the CCS and other energy directives should be
evaluated carefully, particularly taking into account local European
markets and final effect on their competitive economies.
4. Polish industry as well as universities and R&D organizations are
actively involved in a development of CCS technologies.
Identification of potential projects and associated major technical
and economic challenges has already been done.
Governmental actions related to CCS
Strategic R&D program – Advanced Technologies for Energy
Generation; Ministry of Science
National Program for carbon dioxide geological storage; Ministry of
Environment; 2008-2011
Demo Clean Coal Program for Energy; Ministry of Economy; 20082015
Thank you for your attention
e-mial: [email protected]