Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel

Robert RomanoskyAdvanced Research Technology ManagerNational Energy Technology LaboratoryFebruary 8-10, 2010

2

Development Data Group, The World Bank. 2008; Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat: IEA Statistics Division

Energy Contributes to Quality of Life

Eritrea

Congo

Peru

Bulgaria

Mexico

UK

Bahrain

U.S. Qatar

GD

P p

er C

apit

a(U

S$

/ p

erso

n /

yr)

Annual Energy Consumption per Capita(kgoe / person / yr)

China

India

South Africa

GDP vs. Energy Consumption

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000

3

U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2009, ARRA release ; world data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2008

Energy Demand 2030

675 QBtu / Year81% Fossil Energy

111 QBtu / Year78% Fossil Energy

+ 45%

+ 11%

Renewables13%

Nuclear8%

Coal23%

Gas22%

Oil34%

Renewables14%

Nuclear5%

Coal29%

Gas22%

Oil30%

Fossil Energy Continues to Dominate Supply

United States

World

Energy Demand 2006

100 QBtu / Year85% Fossil Energy

Renewables6%

Nuclear8%

Coal23%

Gas22%

Oil41%

465 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy

Renewables13%

Nuclear6%

Coal26%

Gas21%

Oil34%

4

Challenge and Program Driver: Annual CO2 Emissions Extremely Large

Emissions Total Release in the U.S., short tons per year

Mercury 120

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 15,000,000

Municipal Solid Waste 230,000,000

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 6,300,000,000

Data sources: Mercury - EPA National Emissions Inventory (1999 data); SO2 - EPA air trends (2002 data); MSW - EPA OSWER fact sheet (2001 data); CO2 - EIA AEO 2004 (2002 data)

1 million metric tons of CO2:• Every year would fill a volume of 32 million cubic feet• Close to the volume of the Empire State Building

5

Technological Carbon Management OptionsPathways for Reducing GHGs -CO2

ImproveEfficiency

SequesterCarbon

• Renewables• Nuclear• Fuel Switching

• Demand Side• Supply Side

• Enhance Natural Sinks

• Capture & Store

Reduce CarbonIntensity

All options needed to:· Affordably meet energy

demand· Address environmental

objectives

6

DOE Fossil Energy Coal RD&D Platform

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Core Coal and Power Systems R&D

DOE – FE – NETL

TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION

Clean Coal Power InitiativeStimulus Activities

DOE – FE – NETL

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

Tax CreditsLoan Guarantees

DOE – LGO – IRS

TECHNOLOGIES & BEST PRACTICES

< 10% increase COE with CCS (pre-combustion)

< 35% increase COE with CCS (post- and oxy-combustion)

< $400/kW fuel cell systems (2002 $)

> 50% plant efficiency, up to 60% with fuel cells

> 90% CO2 capture

> 99% CO2 storage permanence

+/- 30% storage capacity resolution

GoalsPrograms Approaches

• Post Combustion CO2 Capture

• Oxy-Fired Combustion

• Chemical Looping

• UltraSupercritical Combustion

• Materials & Modeling

• Process Integration & Control

• Demonstration & Deployment Programs

7

Coal Based PowerA Portfolio of Alternate Paths

Fuel Cell Membranes

PETROCHEMICAL PLANT

Fuels

GASIFICATION O2water shift

selexol

IGCC

water shiftselexol

Air AIR BLOWN IGCC

CHEMICAL LOOPING IGCC

Chemical O2

& Carbonate looping

Carbonate looping

CFB USC CFB ADVANCED CFB

O2

Air O2 Oxygen Fired CFB or PC

MEA

PC USC PC

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

COMBUSTION

HYBRIDCOMBUSTIONGASIFICATION

CO2 Capture

8

Fossil Energy CO2 Capture Solutions

Time to Commercialization

Advanced physical solvents

Advanced chemical solvents

Ammonia

CO2 com- pression

Amine solvents

Physical solvents

Cryogenic oxygen

Chemical looping

OTM boiler

Biological processesIonic liquids

Metal organic frameworks

Enzymatic membranes

Co

st R

edu

ctio

n B

enef

it

PBI membranes

Solid sorbents

Membrane systems

ITMs

Biomass co- firing

Post-combustion (existing, new PC)

Pre-combustion (IGCC)

Oxycombustion (new PC)

CO2 compression (all)

202020152010

OTM – O2 Transport Membrane (PC)ITM – O2 Ion Transport Membrane (PC or IGCC)

CO2 Capture Targets:• 90% CO2 Capture

• <10% increase in COE (IGCC)• <35% increase in COE (PC)

9

Advanced PC Oxy-combustion

Challenges

• Cryogenic ASUs are capital and energy intensive

• Excess O2 and inerts (N2, Ar) h CO2 purification cost

• Existing boiler air infiltration

• Corrosion and process control

Current Scale: Computational modeling through 5 MWe Pilot-scale

Advanced Oxy-combustion R&D Focus• New oxyfuel boilers

- Advanced materials and burners- Corrosion

• Low-cost oxygen O2 Membranes • Retrofit existing air boilers

- Air leakage, heat transfer, corrosion - Process control

• CO2 purification • Co-capture (CO2 + SOx, NOx, O2)

O2-FiredAir-Fired

Heat Flux

(Btu/hr-ft2)

Division Walls

Burners

OFA Ports

Waterwalls

O2-FiredAir-Fired

Heat Flux

(Btu/hr-ft2)

Division Walls

Burners

OFA Ports

Waterwalls

Heat Flux

(Btu/hr-ft2)

Division Walls

Burners

OFA Ports

Waterwalls

Ultra-supercritical Oxyboilers

Fireside

Wall side

Water-wall tube heat transfer

Oxygen Membranes

Boiler size reduced by >30%

AirCH4, CO, H2

CO2, H2O

''O

'O

2

2

P

PlnFlux

1000oC, 1832 F

3-5 psig~ 500 psig

O2-

e-

O2 + 4e- → 2O2-

AirCH4, CO, H2

CO2, H2O

''O

'O

2

2

P

PlnFlux

1000oC, 1832 F

3-5 psig~ 500 psig

O2-

e-

O2 + 4e- → 2O2-

Partners (11 projects): Praxair, Air Products, Jupiter, Alstom, B&W, Foster Wheeler, REI, SRI

10

Chemical Looping CombustionChemical Looping Advantages:

• Oxy-combustion without an O2 plant

• Potential lowest cost option for near-zero emission coal power plant <20% COE penalty

• New and existing PC power plant designs

Key Challenges

• Solids transport

• Heat Integration

Key Partners (2 projects): Alstom Power (Limestone Based), Ohio State (Metal Oxide)

Status 2010 Alstom Pilot test (1 MWe)

1000 lb/hr coal flow 1st Integrated operation 1st Autothermal Operation

Red1700F

Ox2000F

CaS

Air

Fuel CO2 + H2O

CaSO4

MBHX N2 + O2

Steam

Fuel Reactor (Reducer)CaSO4 + 2C + Heat 2CO2 + CaSCaSO4 + 4H2 + Heat 4H2O + CaS

Air Reactor (Oxidizer)CaS + 2O2 CaSO4 + Heat

Oxy-Firing without Oxygen Plant

Solid Oxygen Carrier circulates between Oxidizer and Reducer

Oxygen Carrier: Carries Oxygen, Heat and Fuel Energy

Carrier picks up O2 in the Oxidizer, leaves N2 behind

Carrier Burns the Fuel in the Reducer

Heat produces Steam for Power

11

UltraSupercritical Boilers and Turbines

• Current technology for USC Boilers– Typical subcritical = 540 °C– Typical supercritical = 593 °C– Most advanced supercritical = ~610 °C

• USC Plant efficiency is improved to 45 to 47% HHV

• Ultrasupercritical (USC) DOE goal for higher efficiency and much lower emissions, materials capable of:– 760 °C (1400 °F)– 5,000 psi– Oxygen firing

• Meeting these targets requires:– The use of new materials– Novel uses of existing materials

160015001400130012001100100090040

42

44

46

48

Temperature (°F)

Pla

nt

Th

erm

al E

ffic

ien

cy (

%)

3500 psi

5500 psi

Birks and Ruth

12

Benefit of Higher Efficiency in Reducing CO2

(Bituminous coal, without CO2 capture)

20% reduction in CO2

corresponds with similar reductions (per MWh) in consumables including coal and limestone (reducingfront-end equipment size), flue gas volume (reducing back-end and emission control equipment size), and overall emissions, water use, and waste generation

2 Percentage Point Efficiency Gain = 5% CO2 Reduction

13

Efficiency Contribution from Sensors and ControlsValue Derived for an Existing Coal Fired Power Plant

1% HEAT RATE improvement 500 MW net capacity unit

• $700,000/yr coal cost savings

• 1% reduction in gaseous and solid emissions

Entire coal-fired fleet• $300 million/yr

coal cost savings• Reduction of 14.5 million

metric tons CO2 per year

1% increase in AVAILABILITY 500 MW net capacity unit

• 35 million kWh/yr added generation• Approximately $2 million/yr in sales (@ 6 cents/kWh)

Entire coal-fired fleet• More than 2 GW of additional power from existing fleet

COAL35,700 MMBtu/yr

$70 million/yr @$2/MMBtu

500 MW10,200 Btu/kWh

POWER3.5 billion kWh/yr@ 80% capacity

factor

Gaseous Emissions

Solid Waste

Analysis based on 2008 coal costs and 2008 coal-fired power plant fleet

(units greater than 300 MW)

14

Carbon Sequestration Program Goals• Deliver technologies & best practices that

provide Carbon Capture and Safe Storage (CCSS) with:– 90% CO2 capture at source– 99% storage permanence– < 10% increase in COE

• Pre-combustion capture (IGCC)– < 35% increase in COE

• Post-combustion & Oxy-combustion

Core R&D

Simulation and Risk Assessment

Pre-combustion Capture

Geologic Storage

Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)

CO2 Use/Reuse

Infrastructure

Characterization

Validation

Development

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

Global Collaborations

North America Energy Working Group

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

International Demonstration Projects

Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP)

15

North American CO2 Storage Potential

(Billion Metric Tons)

Sink Type Low High

Saline Formations 3,300 12,600

Unmineable Coal Seams 160 180

Oil & Gas Fields 140 140

Available for download at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/carbon_seq/refshelf.html

U.S. Emissions ~ 6 Billion Tons CO2/yr all sources~ 2 Billion Tons CO2/yr coal-fired power plants

Hundreds of Years Storage Potential

National Atlas Highlights - 2008

Saline Formations

Oil and Gas Fields Unmineable Coal Seams

Conservative Resource Assessment

16

Demonstration & Deployment Programs

• Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)

• Industrial Carbon Capture & Sequestration (ICCS)

• FutureGen

Reduce risk and promote adoption of new technology at large scales

17

PPII & CCPI Demonstration ProjectsLocations & Cost Share

Emission Control

Fuel

Advanced Power Systems

Excelsior EnergyMesaba Energy Project

$2.16B – Total$36M – DOE

Excelsior EnergyMesaba Energy Project

$2.16B – Total$36M – DOE

Wisconsin ElectricTOXECON Multi-pollutant

Control$53M – Total

$24.9M – DOE

Wisconsin ElectricTOXECON Multi-pollutant

Control$53M – Total

$24.9M – DOE

NeuCo (Baldwin)Integrated Optimization Software

$19M – Total$8.6M – DOE

NeuCo (Baldwin)Integrated Optimization Software

$19M – Total$8.6M – DOE

NeuCo (Limestone)Mercury Specie &

Multi-pollutant Control$15.6M – Total$6.1M – DOE

NeuCo (Limestone)Mercury Specie &

Multi-pollutant Control$15.6M – Total$6.1M – DOE

CONSOLGreenidge Multi-pollutant Control

$32.7M – Total$14.3M – DOE

CONSOLGreenidge Multi-pollutant Control

$32.7M – Total$14.3M – DOE

Southern CompanyIGCC-Transport Gasifier

$2B – Total$294M – DOE

Southern CompanyIGCC-Transport Gasifier

$2B – Total$294M – DOE

Basin ElectricPostcombustion CO2 Capture

$287M – Total$100M – DOE

Basin ElectricPostcombustion CO2 Capture

$287M – Total$100M – DOE

HECACommercial Demo of Advanced

IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture~$2.8B – Total$308M – DOE

HECACommercial Demo of Advanced

IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture~$2.8B – Total$308M – DOE

Awarded

In Negotiation

Complete

Great River EnergyLignite Fuel Enhancement

$31.5M – Total$13.5M – DOE

Great River EnergyLignite Fuel Enhancement

$31.5M – Total$13.5M – DOE

AEPPost Combustion CO2 Capture

$668M – Total$334M – DOE

AEPPost Combustion CO2 Capture

$668M – Total$334M – DOE

Southern Company ServicesPost-combustion CO2 Capture

$668M – Total$295M – DOE

Southern Company ServicesPost-combustion CO2 Capture

$668M – Total$295M – DOE

Summit TX Clean EnergyCommercial Demo of Advanced

IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture~$1.9B – Total$350M – DOE

Summit TX Clean EnergyCommercial Demo of Advanced

IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture~$1.9B – Total$350M – DOE

Project Locations for ICCS Area 1Carbon Capture and Storage from Industrial Sources

Archer Daniels Midland; Industrial Power & Ethanol; Saline, DOW Alstom Amine,

Decatur, IL

Air Products, H2 Production; EOR, BASF’s

aMDEAPort Arthur, TX;

Battelle, Boise White Paper Mill, Basalt,

Fluor Econamine Plus, Washington

C6 (Shell); H2 Production; Saline,

ADIP-X Amine, Solano, CA

Conoco Phillips; IGGC- Petcoke; Depleted NG/EOR,

Selexol, Sweeny, TX

Praxair; H2 for Refinery; EOR, VPSA, Texas City, TX

Texas Energy; Petcoke Gasification (H2, MeOH &

NH3); EOR, Rectisol, Beaumont, TX

Cemex,; Cement; EOR & Saline,

RTI Dry Carbonate Odessa, TX

Leucadia Energy; SNG from petcoke;

EOR, Rectisol, Mississippi

Leucadia Energy; Methanol; EOR,

Rectisol, Lake Charles, LA

Project LocationIndustry Type / ProductSequestration TypeCO2 Capture Technology

Univ. of Utah; Ammonia & Cement; EOR & Saline,

Dehydration, Coffeyville, KS

Wolverine, CFB Power; EOR, Hitachi Amine,

Rogers City, MI

18

FutureGen Objectives

• Establish technical, economic & environmental viability of “near- zero emission” coal-fueled plant by 2015

• Validate DOE goals – (ref. Report to Congress, dated

March 2004):– Sequester >90% CO2 with potential

for ~100%– >99% sulfur removal; <0.05 lb/MMBtu Nox; <0.005 lb/MMBtu PM; >90% Hg removal

• Prototype 275 MWe coal-based power plant of the future sized to:– Utilize utility-scale (7FB) gas turbine– Adequately stress saline geologic

formation• Integrate full-scale CCS operations• Serve as potential test facility for

emerging technologies

19

FutureGen

Gasification with Cleanup Separation System

Integration

CarbonSequestration

Optimized Turbines

Fuel Cells

H2 Production

FutureGenPotential “Proving Ground” for Emerging Technology

20

Conclusions

• The U.S. power generation industry is at a critical juncture

– Demand, resources, workforce, reliability, regulation, grid integrity, transmission, etc.

• Competing demands for reliable, low-cost energy and climate change mitigation appear incongruent

• Uncertainty of regulatory outcomes and rising costs impact industry’s willingness to commit capital investment, endangering near-term production capacity

• The U.S. must foster new processes that address conflicting energy objectives simultaneously

• Our nation’s dependence on liquid fuel from foreign resources will continue to remain high for the near term

21

NETLwww.netl.doe.gov

Contact Information

Office of Fossil Energywww.fe.doe.gov

Robert R. Romanosky304-285-4721Robert.romanosky@netl.doe.gov