Transcript What is To Be Done with Coal Power? Robert H. Williams Head, Carbon Capture Group Carbon Mitigation Initiative (10-year BP/Ford-supported PEI Project) Senior Research.

What is To Be Done with Coal Power?
Robert H. Williams
Head, Carbon Capture Group
Carbon Mitigation Initiative (10-year BP/Ford-supported PEI Project)
Senior Research Scientist
Princeton Environmental Institute
Princeton University
Invited Testimony at the NJ Clean Air Council Public Hearing on
Electricity Generation Alternatives for New Jersey’s Future
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, NJ
1 April 2009
Meeting GHG mitigation goals being discussed in
Administration/Congress will require one or more of the
following courses of action for existing coal power plants:
• CO2 capture and storage (CCS) via:
– Retrofitting existing plants with “CO2 scrubbers”
– Repowering existing plants…but saving the sites
• Retiring the plants long before industry would like to do so
Main Near-Term CCS Options
for Existing Coal Power Plants (e.g., Hudson)
• Retrofitting with amine scrubbers (costly, huge energy penalty, high
GHG emissions price needed to make the technology cost-effective )
• Repowering options (replacing equipment but saving the site):
– IGCC-CCS: least costly stand-alone power option…but still costly
– Coproduction of liquid fuels/electricity with CCS
•
•
•
•
Low CO2 capture cost for synfuels (mostly for CO2 drying, compression)
Higher energy efficiencies/lower capital costs than for separate production units
Attractive economics for power generation at high oil prices
Extremely low pollutant emissions (SOX, NOX, ROX, Hg) at plant and from ultimate
burning of synfuels
– Coprocessing coal/biomass to make liquid fuels/electricity with CCS 
biomass status transformed from “C-neutral” to “C-negative”
The Green Coal Path to
Near-Zero Emissions
New Supercritical Plants and CCS Demonstration Essential
Advanced Supercritical Combustion Plants
Demonstrating Carbon Capture / Storage (CCS)
Commercial CTG/CTL with CCS
Source: presentation by Frederick D.
Palmer (Senior VP - Government Relations,
Peabody Energy) at World CTL 2009
(Washington, DC, 26 March 2009)
2007
2010
Commercial IGCC with CCS
Retrofitting PC Plants with CCS
2020
2030
Coal industry leaders recognize that CCS via CTL/CTG is commercially ready!!
Early CCS Project Already Underway in New Jersey
• High electricity prices, stringent environmental regulations, and
favorable offshore prospects for CO2 storage make NJ attractive for
early CCS projects based on superclean energy via gasification
• “PURGeN” project proposed by SCS Energy to Planning Board of
City of Linden on 24 March 2009 for 98 acre site (long idle DuPont
property):
– Would gasify Pennsylvania coal to generate ~ 500 MWe (net) and produce as
coproducts H2, NH3, and urea
– Would use dry cooling system for the combined cycle power system, as at the
Astoria Energy Plant (a natural gas combined cycle) previously built by SCS
– Would capture 90% of the carbon in the coal as CO2 and store it in a sandstone
formation 1700 m under the seafloor at a distance 100 miles from shore where
the water is 800 m deep
– Targeted date for plant start-up is 2014
LIQUID FUELS/ELECTRICITY COPRODUCTION
FROM COAL + BIOMASS
Coal
Pressurized
Gasification
Gas cooling
& cleaning
Water
Gas
Shift
H2S, CO2
removal
F-T
Synthesis
oxygen
Air separation
unit
air
Underground
Storage
oxygen
Biomass
Pressurized
Gasification
CO2
Gas cooling
& cleaning
Upgrading,
Refining
F-T
FUELS
unconverted +
recovered gas
GTCC
Power Island
process
electricity
EXPORT
ELECTRICITY
air
• Syngas streams from coal & biomass gasifiers are combined to make
synthetic diesel & gasoline (Fischer-Tropsch liquids or FTL)
• Syngas unconverted in single pass through synthesis reactor burned
to make electricity in GT/ST combined cycle plant
• Coproduction  huge energy efficiency/capital cost advantages
compared to production of liquid fuels & electricity in separate units
• Biomass/coal coprocessing  exploit simultaneously:
• Negative GHG emissions benefit of photosynthetic CO2 storage
• Coal conversion scale economies (& sometimes lower coal prices)
Retrofit & Repowering Options for CCS at Hudson
Power System
Efficiency
(%)
Outputs
Electricity
generation
relative to
Hudson As Isa
Barrels % bio CAPEX
FTL per (HHV) (106$)
MWh
Hudson As Is
33.4
660 MWe
1.0
-
0
0
Hudson Retrofitted
for CCS
24.5
484 MWe
0.85
-
0
486
Repowering via Coal
IGCC with CCS
31.6
624 MWe
1.10
-
0
1557
Repowering via Coal
to Liquids/Electricity
with CCS
-
278 MWe
+ 9,490
B/D
0.52
1.42
0
1467
Repowering via
Coal/Biomassb to
Liquids/Electricity
with CCS
-
312 MWe
+ 10,300
B/D
0.58
1.38
8.6
1535
a Capacity
factors: 73% (Hudson As Is), 85% (other power only); 90% (coproduction)
b Plausible
bio supply: urban wood wastes in Bergen, Essex, Hudson, & Union Counties
Potential Urban Wood Waste Supply
for Repowering Hudson Coal Power Plant
with Coal/Biomass Co-Production Facility with CCS
Dry tonnes per year
350000
Residential demolition
300000
Residential construction
Non-residential demolition
250000
Non-residential construction
Yard trim
200000
MSW
150000
Residential renovation
Union
100000
Hudson
Essex
50000
Bergen
0
By supply type
By county
Source: Private communication from Dr. Marie Walsh (Adjunct Associate Professor of
Agricultural Economics, U. of Tennessee, and energy consultant, M&E Biomass). See also Marie
Walsh, Estimated US Urban Wood Waste Supply and Distribution—Documentation of
Methodology and Data Sources, M&E Biomass ([email protected], 24 June 2008)
GHG Emission Rates: Hudson As Is
& for Retrofit/Repowering Options
GHG Emission Rate, kgCO2eq/MWh
1200
1000
800
Hudson As Is
Hudson CCS Retrofit
IGCC with CCS
Coal to Liquids/Electricity with CCS
Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity with CCS
600
400
200
0
Alternative Power Options
• For liquids/electricity options, synthetic fuel coproducts are assigned fuel-cyclewide GHG emission rates = rates for crude oil-derived products displaced
• For Hudson CCS retrofit and IGCC with CCS, CO2 is captured at a rate equivalent
to 90% of the carbon in the coal
• For coal and coal/biomass to liquids/electricity with CCS, CO2 is captured at a rate
equivalent to 68% of the carbon in the feedstock that is not contained in the liquid
fuel products
Cost Analysis of Co-Production Systems
as Electricity Generators
• Value of FTL = economic worth based on refinery-gate prices of
crude oil-derived products displaced
• Levelized electricity generation cost (LEGC)
= [(Levelized energy system cost, $/year)
– (Levelized economic worth of FTL, $/year)]
/(Levelized electricity generation rate, MWh/year)
• For co-production systems the LEGC is a function of the crude oil
price.
• Assumed feedstock costs: $4.0 per million BTU for both coal and
urban wood waste
Hudson: Retrofit & Repowering Options
for a 20-Year Levelized Crude Oil Price of $75 a Barrel
160
140
#
GHG emissions
price ($/t) for
breakeven with
Hudson As Is
Generation cost at
breakeven relative to
Hudson As Is generation
cost @ $0/t CO2eq
1
81.6
2.52
2
81.0
2.51
3
72.9
2.36
Generation Cost, $ per MWh
120
100
80
60
Hudson As Is
Hudson Retrofit
40
Coal IGCC
Coal to Liquids/Electricity @ $75/barrel
Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity @ $75/barrel
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GHG Emissions Price, $ per tonne of CO 2eq
#1: Hudson CCS Retrofit
#2: Coal IGCC with CCS
#3: Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity with CCS
Hudson: Retrofit & Repowering Options
for a 20-Year Levelized Crude Oil Price of $100 a Barrel
160
#
GHG emissions
price ($/t) for
breakeven with
Hudson As Is
Generation cost at
breakeven relative to
Hudson As Is generation
cost @ $0/t CO2eq
80
1
81.6
2.52
60
2
81.0
2.51
3
51.9
1.96
4
31.5
1.59
140
Generation Cost, $ per MWh
120
100
Hudson As Is
Hudson Retrofit
40
Coal IGCC
Coal to Liquids/Electricity @ $100/barrel
Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity @ $100/barrel
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GHG Emissions Price, $ per tonne of CO 2eq
#1: Hudson CCS Retrofit
#2: Coal IGCC with CCS
#3: Coal to Liquids/Electricity with CCS
#4: Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity with CCS
Proposed DoD/DoE CCS Early Action Initiative (CEAI)
• Urgency to carry out “megascale” integrated CCS projects
• G8 Summit (Japan 2008)
– G8 agreement to sponsor 20 projects globally (up & running ~ 2016)
– US commitment to sponsor 10
• Do economic crisis/budget deficit concerns jeopardize G8 goal?
• CEAI (enabling goal realization at low cost to government) would:
– Allow co-production systems to compete with power only systems for subsidies
– Require that synfuels be in compliance with Section 526 of Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: fuel-cycle-wide GHG emission rate for synfuels
procured by government < that for crude oil-derived products displaced
– Specify that winning projects are those with least costs of GHG emissions
avoided (e.g., as determined in reverse auctions)
• For winning projects:
– Government would pay incremental cost for CCS for 5 years
– Air Force would offer 20-year procurement contracts for synthetic jet fuel
Requests:
• That the NJ Clean Air Council insert into the record of this hearing
along with my testimony the following:
– R.H. Williams, “Toward Decarbonization of Power as Well as Fuels via
Co-Production with CCS & Coal/Biomass Coprocessing,” presentation at
World CTL 2009, Washington, DC, 25-27 March 2009
– R.H. Williams, “Proposed CCS Early Action Initiative for the United States,”
v. 10, 18 March 2009
• That the NJ Clean Air Council alert interested parties that technical
details related to findings presented at this hearing can be found in:
Kreutz, Thomas G., Eric D. Larson, Guangjian Liu, and Robert H. Williams,
“Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass,” Princeton Environmental
Institute, August 21, 2008 (revised October 7, 2008). Published in Proc. 25th
Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 2008, and available at:
http://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/Kreutz-et-al-PCC-2008-
Acknowledgments
• For collaboration in the research reported here:
– Tom Kreutz (PEI)
– Eric Larson (PEI)
– Guangjian Liu (PEI and Asst. Professor, Dept. of Power Engineering, North
China Power University, Beijing, China)
• For many discussions and helpful comments on this research
– Robert Socolow (MAE Professor, PU, and Co-Principal Investigator, CMI)
– Fred Dryer (MAE Professor, PU, and Principal Investigator, NetJets Project)
– Jim Katzer (NRC, who coordinated the PEI group’s interactions with the
Alternative Fuels Panel of NRC’s America’s Energy Future study)
– Zheng Li (Thermal Engineering Professor and Head of BP Clean Energy
Center, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)
– Ken Kern, Tom Tarka, Maria Vargas, and John Wimer (NETL)
• For research support:
–
–
–
–
Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative (BP/Ford-supported)
NetJets [a corporate jet services provider (a Warren Buffett-owned company)]
Hewlett Foundation
National Research Council contract