Graduate Paper ENVR105

8/3/2019 Graduate Paper ENVR105

1/24

1

IGCC:

A Project on Sustainability Management Systems

for Plant Re-design and Re-Image

Initial Study

ENVR-105

Karen D. Keim

11 May 2009

Harvard University

The purpose of this paper is to fulfill course requirements for ENVR-105, and to advance

technology development and conceptual views of an IGCC. The purpose is not to endorse any

potential funding of any specific IGCC.


2/24

2

INTRODUCTION AND TECHNICAL BRIEFING

Introduction

A virtual project design team is assigned to develop and apply a sustainable managementsystem, with the three responsibilities of social, economic and environmental; to re-design the

integrated gasification combined cycle, IGCC, coal-fueled power plant, in order to carboncapture and sequester (CCS) CO emissions. An IGCC is a power plant design where the coalis gasified rather than combusted and waste heat from the process of coal gasification toproduce electricity, is captured to generate additional electricity from a combined cycle orsecond cycle of power output. The coal is gasified into a syngas where processes can be

designed to remove any trace metal or mineral and CO from the syngas stream, thus, thedefinition of IGCC as a clean coal technology.

There are two built IGCCs in the United S tates fifty percent funded by the United StatesDepartment of Energy (DOE), that have operating histories of more than ten years, however,neither plant captures carbon for sequestration. The built IGCC designs represent

conceptualization of a coal gasification power plant operated by an electric company fueled bycoal and petroleum coke that prevents pollution by capturing a percentage of some of thepollutants. The designs built during the process of utility deregulation, which restructured theAmerican electric utility system, in part, by permitting electricity providers to engage in otherincome producing businesses. (Hirsh, R., 1999). IGCC research, development and deploymentprograms are transforming from an initial focus on electric power generation to continuingadaptation to new market conditions brought about by utility deregulation. IGCCs may sellcaptured pollutants as a commodity. There are also business opportunities in wastemanagement, production of hydrogen fuel cells and a liquid fuel, either a coal to liquid, CTL orfeedstock to liquid, FTL. (Sasol) The current designs are not sufficient to achieve thesustainability potential inherent in the IGCC and a positive view of sustainability is to re-

design IGCC as a municipal facility that can gasify not only coal and pet coke, a waste productof the refinery process, but gasify any carbonaceous substance including: solid, liquid andhazardous waste; bio-mass; produce feedstock to liquids fuel; and remove from the syngas

stream; CO, chemicals, metals and minerals to be sold as commercial quality.

The question of the IGCC design is a timely one, as the current Economic Stimulus Bill mayfund FutureGen, an international consortium of public and private sector interests, plans tobuild a plant with CCS technology in Illinois. Secretary of Energy Chu, in testimony beforethe Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, defined IGCC as a transformationaltechnology and views FutureGen as an international alliance to examine the technologies to

determine which one, is best. Secretary Chu testified to his view that knowledge sharing iskey to the international alliance on clean coal transformational technologies, as well as, lessonslearned from demonstration plants. (SCENR, 2009). In engineering there is not necessarilya best way or one way to design something, especially a power plant . There is a democracyof sorts within engineering; a market orientation of a number of designs competing withfeatures and processes that differ. The project team seeks to provide technological leadershipin IGCC design that moves sustainability forward.

An analysis of built IGCCs in the United States reveals design problems causing operatingrisks from unplanned downtime increasing the cost of electricity (COE), and operating the


3/24

3

plant at less than design capacity to compensate for operating problems caused by design,resulting in reduced efficiencies, which, also, limits the output of commodity production andcauses serious problems with municipal waste as a feedstock. (2006, Keim). The incomeproducing business ancillary to electricity production require a reliable production facility thatis not subject to unplanned downtime. The project team will perform process analysis to

improve the basic design of the IGCC to prove that the design can provide reliable productsand services at a dependable cost. The built IGCCs have design problems that need correctingto add CCS. The problem is as basic as the gasifier not having the capacity to heat the syngas

stream to the temperature necessary to use the most economical processes to remove CO.Gasifiers cannot handle a variety of feedstocks as evidenced by the operating problems ofrefractory liner replacement required long before scheduled and thermocouple replacementnecessary in less than two years is evidence the gasifer could not even handle the differencebetween bituminous coal and sub-bituminous coal. (Polk) The lack of a gasifier that canhandle a variety of feedstocks limits the development of IGCC technology to includefeedstocks other than coal. The re-concepting of the IGCC is limited by the gasifier problem.Development of an advanced gasification system is a goal of the project team to solve the

problem. (See DOE OFE for background on IGCC basic technology.)Organization

The project design team is composed of project/proposal manager, the engineering specialistsrequired for the work, a costing specialist, and support staff. The proposal manager has aproject budget of up to 4% of the total value of the estimated contract and has full authority tomake those decisions necessary to be awarded the contract for the winning proposal. She hasthe authority to call upon any and all available corporate resources needed for the projectdesign teams success. The corporation has just stated a sustainability policy for the company,but a Sustainable Management System (SMS) has yet to be decided upon and implemented.For decades, the company has been an industry leader in project management services

coordinated with the company construction company. To further advance EHS, the companyis integrating ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 into company projects. Environmental issues have been handled by compliance though a set of procedures in project management andenvironmental impact assessments on projects have been subcontracted to environmentalengineering firms in the design phase.

The company prefers low overhead and costing shows it is more profitable and competitive tosub-contract the environmental engineering work. However, the majority of project managersand engineers do not have the education or experience to evaluate the work of the consultantenvironmental engineering firms. The architectural division does not have a LEED AP onstaff. The proposal manager does have a masters degree in environmental science and is a

MBA and a professional engineer (PE). She has employed a consultant in environmentalengineering for the proposal/design team project.

The project design team is a brain teaser, which means it is a virtual project whose purpose isto develop the technology and design of the IGCC for sales to an eventual client. The reasonthe virtual project team was tasked is the proposal manager did a study of operating problemsin built IGCCs in the United States which determined the operating problems and CCSintegration were significant enough to require plant re-design and the company decided tobecome a new market entrant into the IGCC design competition. (Keim, K., 2006). The


4/24

4

corporation has a management value and organization of bottom-up to senior corporatemanagement for approval because those values were instilled in the early part of the 20 thCentury by the companys founder.

The corporation has instituted a Knowledge Management (KM) system for knowledge-

sharing and collaboration within the organization and to transit boundaries which assists

in managing intellectual product and breaking down silos. (Ash, 2007). Project teammembers register the project, log-on to access corporate resources, expertise in specialties ofengineering, discussion forums, and to request ideas and assistance for the project team. Oneof the problems in an engineering company is that design teams form, complete the assignmentthen are reconfigured and remobilized for new design teams. There has been the problem ofthe transfer of learning and experience from each project to the next project and to cumulativecompany experience. Moreover, project notes are essential in designing and building a qualityproject as the actual construction notes will document what it takes to actually build andcommission the blueprint design. A corporate repository of knowledge is now institutionalizedin the Knowledge Management System that is also subject to a community audit. (Koene,2007). Value added is intrinsic in KM. The sustainability management system the project

team is planning and implementing will be entered as a discussion board to engage thestakeholders in the company and socially market. KM is a tool forimplementing continualimprovement in the SMS.

Mission, Vision and Core Values of the Project Team

What are we talking about with the term sustainability? Sustainability is defined as designthat conserves resources, reduces or eliminates emissions, prevents pollution, protectsecosystems and natural hydrology, utilizes waste as food, includes analysis of social factorsand plans to mitigate adverse effects, and does so in such a way as to limit future costs to theproject and the planet. The economic responsibility is continued improvement in the cutting

edge design services that are vital to the companys survival.

The mission of the project team is to advance IGCC design beyond the constraints posed bypast design, regulatory structures, and operating problems whose root cause is design andlimits of the clients perception of the business enterprise. The mission is to use aSustainability Management System to assist in re-design to evaluate its effectiveness and todemonstrate to senior management the benefits gained by using a SMS. The vision of theproject team is to re-image IGCC from a coal gasification plant into a multiple use municipalfacility that generates electricity from any carbonaceous substance, sells waste products ascommodities, produces a liquid fuel and resolves increasingly costly and difficult to manage,solid, liquid and hazardous waste issues. The vision is also to move beyond compliancethinking and into what is really in our interest: sustainability that will lower future costs and tosupply work for the 21st century. The goal of the project design team is to: (1) re-image and re-design the plant; (2) design a plant that can capture carbon and sequester it with BAT, (3)evaluate the gains from a SMS.

Core Values-Sustainability in Action

Advanced Integrated Project Design that moves beyond first cost thinking of off theshelf parts shopping and builds to the potential of the design concept.


5/24

5

Its in the Costing - Waste is a negative feedstock cost.

Pollution Prevention and Waste is Food by capturing carbon and sequestering or sellingit, and capturing impurities in the syngas stream.

Engage StakeholdersDont be a Polk ora Mesaba; include all identified stakeholdersand educate them about our new design concept and how we plan to move that plant

beyond coal. (See Pojasek, 2009).

The design objective is an advanced integrated design by focusing on process and processmapping of the built IGCC. The analysis of built IGCC operating problems assists the designteam in focusing on the gasifier and on those components that need re-design to build an IGCCthat can CCS. Components, such as, an air separation unit (ASU), heat steam recovery units,gasifier, heat exchangers, that are needed to operate an IGCC are individual pieces ofmachinery, purchased from a myriad of manufacturers and assembled during the constructionstage in a power plant. The components of the built IGCC have been bought off the shelf,installed in a power plant, and they are not designed to work together as a system. The Polkplant is an example of that type of design flaw. In contrast, Sasol components were customdesigned to work together as a system and there is a thirty year operating history of reliableelectricity production. (Keim). First costs on Sasol were higher, but the savings in operationsand maintenance have paid for the cost long ago. The problem with the DOE Greenfield builtIGCCs is a first cost finance problem that has been a formidable constraint to developing theprototype plant. Life cycle costing will be a tool to deliver an advanced integrated designwhich will have a higher first costs, but will solve most of the expensive operating problemsfound designs like Polk. The design team will explain the importance of connecting design toownership costs and life cycle costing is the tool to achieve this core value goal. The processrequired to CCS would be expensive to add-on to the Polk plant. A re-design is necessary to

include the components necessary to more efficiently incorporate the most cost effective COremoval process for a coal gasification power plant. Finally, the hydrologist from theconsulting firm is required to present the most efficient water use plan that can be devised foruse, intake, outtake, and re-cycling of water.

Sustainability Nexus

The sustainability nexus is a key component of the project design teams plan to successfully

design, engineer and construct an IGCC. The virtual project is being located in theSoutheastern United States because US Market Research has determined that a municipalutility provider is the optimal client for the re-designed and re-imaged IGCC. (Virtual MarketStudy, 2009.) The wind resources of the southeastern United States are Class 1 or 2;insufficient for wind farms. Selling an IGCC is constrained by high capital investment andmore costly COE. The team understands that the design must offer superior advantages

to any competing design. Potential clients have expressed concerns over the COE and theproject team suggested they analyze the income producing businesses, which they have not

considered, to evaluate the offsets of higher COE and CO removal costs of 25%. IGCC costUS $1.2 m to US$1.6 m per megawatt of capacity compared to US$1 m per megawatt for aconventional coal plant, and US$550 k per megawatt for natural gas plants. (US coal, 2005).Costing is only based upon the power plant and does not include the cost of cleaning up the

environment from mercury and sulfur emissions or the costs of climate change caused by CO


6/24

6

emissions and other GHG. Costing that includes the federal, state, and local costs of clean-upwould be a more realistic cost of conventional coal, for example. (See Pojasek, 2008i).

The sustainability nexus for the virtual project begins with the companys divisions located in

the South East, where there is involvement in the local/regional nexus. Sustainability is a newconcept to this nexus and some companies are trying to achieve sustainability goals, eitherthrough SMS or emissions reductions programs. EPA pollution compliance requirements areevolving into a more positive view of a sustainable future and the project team is issuing ordersto the SE division to develop a plan to better involve the company in the progressive group thatis the nucleus of a sustainability nexus in the SE. The KM capabilities of the company will beused to further our position in the sustainability nexus. Our project design team is doing moreof a good thing as opposed to doing less of a bad thing ; however, the design team would liketo move beyond Less Bad is Good to a view of Pollution Prevention and solving complexcommunity municipal problems more sustainably that there are few solutions to; wastemanagement, for example. Landfills built to the best available technology, (BAT); concretewith clay liners, still have seepage problems into ground water that is expensive to clean upand has adverse human health effects with the consequences of litigation risks and damage to

reputational capital for municipalities and companies. Incineration of waste emits not only CObut whatever is in the waste stream. Moreover, valuable metals and minerals are not capturedand thus cannot be recycled. (See Pojasek, (2008i and 2008a).

The company must engage others to successfully sell our concept of an IGCC, not only in theUnited States but to position for the global market as well. The project has issued orders forthe company to further strengthen the company position in the sustainability nexus that is theinternational consortium of private and public sectors companies, and NGOs, includingFutureGen. Our goal in FutureGen is to prove leadership in BAT. Our company may be toolate as a market entrant for the potential Illinois project. The project team realizes thelikelihood the plant may actually be built in Asia and is including adaption to Asian

requirements in the design project and have developed contingency plans to hire an Asian/localecologist and environmental engineers to develop the innovative environmental solutions toenhance the environmental and social responsibility in site plans that sells so well in Asia.

Sustainability Management System

Lessons for potential gain from the business excellence frameworks for this project designteam would be a focus on: (See Pojasek, 2009 and First Environmental).

Process Management: Process Mapping, Work Processes and Hierarchical processmapping; IGCC process;

Management of Information, Knowledge and IT; Workforce Engagement: KM.

Strategic Leadership; environmental and social responsibilities matter;Customer Focus: Stakeholder Engagement, external versus internal;

Risk Analysis-the project viability bottom line. (See Pojasek 2008d, 2008h, 2006).

BACKGROUND

Process Management is a tool to examine the design process step-by-step. Process and processmapping will be applied to the engineering design product as will resource inputs and outputs.


7/24

7

Examining the process of the built IGCC, then mapping the process will begin the process ofre-design for our team. Hierarchical process mapping may especially assist the project team inSupport Processes and Operational Planning to determine process requirements and alignmentwith our sustainability policy for our suppliers, sub-contractors, project finance, and how wecan better assist the customer with their sustainability goals. Value creation is the essence of

our project teams redesign of the IGCC. A project team member is tasked to align our effortstowards a SMS for the project with the EHS policies of the company. Risk reductions throughstakeholder engagement are achievable gains.

Sustainability Footprint

The sustainability footprint analysis of the project, in accordance with ISO 14001 managementsystems and SMS, begins with services, products and activities set forth in Table 1.

Table 1, IGCC Products, Services and Activities for Core Products.

IGCC Services IGCC re-Imaged Products IGCC Activities for Core Products

Electricity

Disposal of Solid,

Liquid and Hazardous

Waste

Disposal of

Agricultural Waste

Carbon Capture and

Sequestration of CO

Commercial Grade Slag

Commercial Grade Sulfur

Commercial Grade Mercury

Uranium 235

Liquid Fuel for Vehicles

Hydrogen

Iron

CO

Ammonia

Feedstock, gasifier, combustor,combustion turbine, generator.

Gasifier, entrained flow

Gasifier, entrained flow

Water Shift Process and CO

Hydration /Seloxol/Sorption

Gasifier- high temperature

COS hydrolysis reactor, aminesolvent sulfur removal

Metal oxide hot gas clean upwith process

CTL/FTL process

H Separator, fuel cells

Waste Product

Liquefied, compression

Waste Product


8/24

8

To understand resources inputs and outputs, gains and losses, the diagram in Table 2 maps theprocess in an existing plant design. The objective in design is to keep resources from goingup the stack by capturing waste from the syngas stream to be used as input to another process.

Table 2. IGCC with CCS Flow Diagram , with Inputs, Outputs, Resources and Losses. (GE,NETL, 2007).

The flow diagram needs some explanation. The coal input is slurried to intake into the gasifier.The coal slurry process takes the coal from the rail car, pulverizes coal into a fine powder, thenmixes it with water and transports the mixture into the gasifier through a pipeline. The processrequires water and there is a water recycling feature in this design. To improve on the Polkdesign, ions will be installed to remove salts from the water. [Ion design failure on the pipelineshut the plant down for months as the coal couldnt get to the gasifier.] This plant features are

selexol CO removal process which is an acid gas removal solvent that separates the hydrogensulfide and carbon dioxide from the syngas stream. The advantage of the selexol process is aphysical solvent separates the gases as opposed to an amine based acid gas removal that relieson a chemical reaction to perform that process. (See GE). Therefore, selexol uses less energybecause no chemical reactions are required to capture the carbon and separate it from sulfur. In

studying the process on this design the project design team has learned that selexol mayimprove energy efficiencies better than the water shift process to capture carbon. The carboncapture engineer has been tasked to evaluate efficiencies of the two processes as would be used

in gasifier designs. The design captures more than 90% of the CO; however, the actual rate ofcarbon capture in a built plant may differ. The rate of sulfur and mercury capture is >97%,representing BAT. (See GE) However, there is a new water shift technology: CC by Sorption-enhanced-water-gas shift reaction process using hydrotalcite-based material. (van Selow,et. al.,


9/24

9

(2009). This process is in development for a pilot project that just announced in April, 2009,so, further evaluation is necessary.

There is another output not on the chart and that is lead. (Seehttp://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/te/Glossary.htm for trace elements in coal). Leademissions are approximately 1 pound per ton of coal. There is not sufficient interest by anyclient to remove the lead and the amounts emitted are below regulatory requirements.

The Energy flow in this design could be improved upon by an advanced gasification systemand integrated design that improves efficiency by better integrating the processes withelectricity generation. For example, turbine efficiency could be increased from 45 % to 60%with integration of the latest gas and steam turbine design. (See Mesaba).

Designing an advanced gasification system is a project team goal. Principles of root causeanalysis help define the problem as: the gasifier is the root cause of the current limits onservices and products and the reason why CCS technologies either cannot be added on or aretoo costly. The advanced gasifier will enable the project to handle a variety of feedstocks to

increase plant polygeneration capabilities. Feedstocks from waste and biomass added to thecoal in FTL process have the additional advantage of reducing CO and CO amount as wasteproduct because biomass has a higher hydrogen content so it yields more net fuel product.

There are three basic gasifier designs. Only the entrained flow gasifies at 1250 C. (DOE,NTEL). The range of options for carbon capture and sequestration technologies will bedependent on the temperature the gasifier operates at. The only design which operates atsufficient temperature for advanced CCS designs and anticipated technology development inCCS is the entrained flow. Additionally, the higher temperature avoids ash problems in thesyngas stream, which are costly to maintain and repair. The sustainability principle in thisprocess mapping is; get the gasifier right to capture carbon efficiently.
http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/te/Glossary.htmhttp://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/te/Glossary.htmhttp://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/te/Glossary.htm


10/24

10

Table 3. PolkIGCC, as built. Source: DOE.

The current design, illustrated in Table 3 at Polk, is called the Texaco in the trade and wasoriginally designed in Italy to one-half the size it was built to in the United States. To build a

design two times the size of original design has problems. In operation, the Polk Texacogasifiers carbon conversion is lower than design because refractory liner life cycle has

adversely affected gasifier capacity, which is running at 66% to 75% of design. The refractoryliner is expensive and requires months of downtime to replace. To obtain the normal life cycleof two years, the gasifier is being operated at a temperature lower than design which furtherdecreases carbon conversion efficiency. The refractory liner is a disadvantage of the entrainedflow design in biomass fuels because a corrosive slag can form on the ceramic inner walls thatprotect the outer wall of the gasifer. Studying newer ceramic materials may solve the problem;especially those materials develop for pebble bed nuclear reactors. Solving the Polk problemsand a more protective design is necessary for proper refractory liner operation and life cycle.(See Polk and TECO). Convincing operating history to suggest a re-design.

Furthermore, thermocouple replacement was necessary due to shearing caused by expansion ofdissimilar materials in the gasifier. The dissimilar materials were different ranks of coal;therefore; waste and biomass fuels are not an option. Convincing operating history to suggest are-design and examining other technologies. (See Polk and TECO.)

A new design would enable a gasifier to process any carbonaceous substance as a feedstock,thus, technology development on the gasifier will deliver a design that is closer to the truedesign potential of IGCC with CCS. The entrained flows higher temperature and pressures
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/summaries/tampa/images/tampa_schematic.jpg


11/24

11

cause lower thermal efficiencies because the gas must be cooled before cleaning in currenttechnologies. The BAT seems to be Puertollano, a Lurgi design that uses quenching to cool thesyngas. The inefficiency and question of water use is a trade-off as the vexing problem of ashplugging the heat exchanger is solved by the ash cooling to a solid form in this process.Technology development is working on a hot gas clean up that could improve efficiencies and

eliminate the need for the quench water process step, but it is not yet available commercially.The long lead times in design and project commencement are such that hot gas clean uptechnology development will be monitored. (See IEA, 2009).

The entrained flow has a process not required in other gasifiers, which is, the coal intake is inthe form of a fine powder and slurried by pipeline into the gasifier. This process takes waterand energy; technology development may re-cost this process step. The entrained flow quench

water is an oxygen blown design that requires the input of O. Oxygen blown is cheaper thanthe costs of handling large amounts of nitrogen; however, air blown technology development isworking on a process of separated oxygen and nitrogen streams prior to the gasificationprocess step, instead of building a separate oxygen production plant adjacent to the gasifier.(IEA, 2009). This technology development would eliminate the cost and input of oxygen.There may be a new option in what DOE has announced NETL is developing a revolutionary

new oxygen-production technology that requires less energy and offers lower capital costs thanconventional technologies, and will, enhance the performance of (IGCC) power plant.

(DOE, 2009). This design would install an oxygen producing receptacle on the side of thegasifier. There may be long lead times between the virtual design project and an actualcustomer so monitoring for technology developments is a continual improvement of the SMSsystem implemented. At present, the design team is tasking to develop an advancedgasification system based on the quench-water entrained flow gasifier, while monitoringtechnology development that may eliminate the need for the quench water process, that isintegrated with the rest of the system and aligned with the re-imaging of the IGCC. If thesocial responsibility in design of human rights is defined as an environmental responsibility--

reducing emissions that harm human health; the project team has achieved that objective.

The process mapping and sustainability footprint, along with the operating history of the onebuilt IGCC in the US, Polk, have assisted in analyzing design flaws for the purposes of re-design for sustainability. Re-organizing steps in the design process will result in bettercompliance and beyond compliance into cutting edge technology and innovation. TheEnvironmental Impact Assessment needs to be completed in the pre-proposal stage toincorporate into an integrated design that obtains efficiencies and fulfils environmentalresponsibilities. The problem will be with timing on a proposal preparation with a deadline.The EIA is subcontracted and the work product is received late in the proposal process. Thesubcontractor in environmental engineering is going to be a full partner in the project proposal

team and will contribute environmental concerns and ideas from the first project team meetingonward. The sustainability at the facility level of the engineering company is businessprocesses that are difficult for the project team to affect. The scope of work for the projectteam includes commercial terms. In developing commercial terms the project proposalmanager has to obtain an overhead cost to calculate as a multiplier on salaries. Instituting asustainable management system in the corporation will lower overhead costs as energy audits,more sustainable practices with resulting efficiencies are realized in savings. The project


12/24

12

design team is sending their recommendations on overhead reduction to senior managementvia KM.

The process of social responsibility defined as human rights, labor practices, and fair operatingpractices may be addressed by a project team of ten members by stating a policy inconformance to the International Labour Organization (ILO) standard. (www.ilo.org) Humanrights in the workplace issues were researched and discussed by the project team. The teamwas impressed with Ford Motor Companys plan to become a leader in human rights practices

and to differentiate the company on social issues for potential business benefits. (Ford,

2008). The Ford Human Rights Code of Basic Conditions is being adopted and implementedby the project team. (Ford, http://www.ford.com/doc/sr07-chicago-human-rights-assessment.pdf). The team was impressed by its comprehensiveness on issues of socialconscience and social justice ranging from abuse of employees in the workplace to anti-corruption practices. The Ford standards for work contracted outside of the United States,aligns with ILO and when implemented does protect the human rights of workers andcommunities. The company KM system will be used to post the Code and invite discussionand to socially market within the company. The project team decided to work toward buy-in

in the wider corporate communities within the company. The consumer and community issuesof process are better defined for a project team form of organization by stakeholderengagement processes.

The risks of each portion of the services and products is governed by the compliancerequirements in a given locality or country. Designs that fail to meet specifications for % ofpollution abatement in a built and operating plant incur the risk of expensive litigation andgovernment fines, in addition to reputational capital issues that will adversely affect thecompanys current and future triple bottom line. In some countries, arrests may occur fordesign that endangers or causes harm to workers and the community. The evaluation of risk isa key part of every project team. Our KM system has assisted the team in identifying risk from

the cumulative knowledge of projects and operating histories on a global basis. Tapping intoKM has improved productivity and lessened work loads for the project team in evaluation ofrisk by engaging experts in risk analysis. It is company practice to send the project scope ofwork and final draft to the legal department for their review and input for the development ofthe final work product.

The risk evaluation of most concern to the project team is the sequestration of CO

because of the lack of regulatory regimes and basic standards on sequestration sites,

methods, materials and time. The principle liability risks are leakage or CO release intoeither the atmosphere or the ocean. Risks from process include the criteria for determining asite, how to sequester, the material to cap the site, and the number of years required to be

certified as sequestered. (Keim, 2007). Potential leakage needs to be monitored to a standardand regulations need to be set for how much CO can be stored in a given site. (IPCC, 2005)Overfilling is viewed as a groundwater displacement issue, (Oldenburg and Lewicki, 2005), aseismic issue, ground having issue and there is also a costly risk of potential damage tohydrocarbon reservoirs. (IPCC, 2005). Standards for accounting and practices to provide creditfor emissions sequestered, whether financial or compliance, need to be developed. (Keim,2007).
http://www.ford.com/doc/sr07-chicago-human-rights-assessment.pdfhttp://www.ford.com/doc/sr07-chicago-human-rights-assessment.pdfhttp://www.ford.com/doc/sr07-chicago-human-rights-assessment.pdfhttp://www.ford.com/doc/sr07-chicago-human-rights-assessment.pdfhttp://www.ford.com/doc/sr07-chicago-human-rights-assessment.pdf


13/24

13

Stakeholder Engagement-External

A potential gain for the project design team and the company could be the reduction of risk asa result of the stakeholder engagement process. (Pojasek, 2008a). Litigation by communitiesand local residents who do not want a power plant or some other form of industrial plant intheir backyard, delays projects, adds to the cost and can stop a project from being built. Otherforms of sabotage and shunning may also occur that adds to cost and productivity and createsreputational capital problems that are costly to repair.

Social, political, environmental and economic risk may emerge from external stakeholderswhose interest is expressed in three primary ways: either oppose the project, seek itsmodification, relocation. Pojasek states that, Stakeholder analysis is what clearly separatessustainable business from business as usual. (Pojasek, (c), 2008) The mechanism instakeholder engagement is one of creating more transparency and accountability to thosewhose interests are affected by the company or project. Failure to create transparency andaccountability are the key factors in two cases of stakeholder engagement in IGCC projects inthe US. There is also the issue of the most constructive use of the stakeholder engagement

process to limit the risks of building a power plant, and one that burns coal that may beillustrated by the Tale of Two Cities.

Tale of Two Cities

The Tale of Two Cities is the story of two stakeholder groups in two different cities who wereco-opted into the stakeholder process or who became a group organized for themselves becauseof the risks they perceived from the IGCC project plans. In Polk County, Florida, TampaElectric received a grant from DOE to build an IGCC and began the process of engaging localstakeholders, defined as the local community. The community formed a group who were notonly brought into the decision making process, they actually made decisions, putting them, aperson rarely resists his own idea into action. (Pojasek, R. 2008). The community decidedwhere to site the IGCC power plant. The, it takes a community group, sited the plant in aplace no professional site planner would have ever considered: a Brownfield site with aprevious land use of industrial phosphate mining processing. The reason is pollution of theground water with phosphates that adversely effects water quality for phosphoric acid.Phosphoric acid is very corrosive of metal parts. After the ion problem was fixed in the intakecoal slurry pipeline, the corrosion problem persisted. The intake water had phosphoric acidcontent, the source of intake water could not be changed, and the engineering company, anembarrassed Bechtel, designed a new pipe coating to protect it from a water quality problemfrom site selection that should have never occurred. The plant was shut down for months untilthe slurry pipe problem was fixed with a new coating. This is a design problem, that in ourindustry, is stupendous. The stakeholder process went amok and clearly there are lessonslearned from the Polk experience. Accountability is a problem in this case that created anenvironmental problem and an operations mess within the project.

An IGCC, Mesaba Energy Project, was announced in Northern Minnesota. (CAMP) The sitewas presented as an old brownfield and there was little negative reaction from the surroundingcommunities. Then the electric company changed the site to a pristine area of lakes andstreams with a unique trout ecosystem and the stakeholders formed a grassroots organizationwith the title of, Citizens Against The grassroots stakeholders researched the project


14/24

14

thoroughly, presented their case to the state agencies in the permitting and EIA process, andeducated the public about the human health effects of reduced water quality, supply and theproblem of emissions. The environmental impacts on aquatic life were assessed in the EIS andpublicized by the stakeholder group. The plant was designed with a shorter stack, so thatemissions would be higher in the local community zone, which crossed national boundaries

into Canada, thereby lowering emissions into near by Canadian forests. The State has notapproved the electric companys EIS in regulatory proceedings. During the BushAdministration, EPA stated, environmental objections to the proposed project. The ArmyCorps of Engineers review of the Draft of Environmental Impact Statement found a number ofdeficiencies in the application. The project did not engage the external stakeholders, the Corp,EPA and DOE, with a process to address the concerns determined by key external stakeholdersin a clear failure of corporate to state relations. The project is a loser. DOE was loaning part ofthe money on the project and that is a matter of public monies where stakeholders and theproject group may effectively lobby the federal government. The stakeholder engagementprocess outcome is the local community will not agree to the project.

What are the lessons learned from this case? In reading the website and documents in this

case, the perceived lack of transparency by the stakeholders lead to a series of actions. (CAMP,2009). Stakeholders mental maps of the project were shaped by selectively processing andchanneling information from a Northern Minnesota pristine region mental mappingperspective. (Gould and White, 1974.) The citizens perceived a threat, investigated it, foundthe threat was real and worse than they knew, and worked stakeholder engagementprofessionally to protect their local economy as recreational business was threatened, as wastheir resource base of a pristine environment and their health. The project group efforts atstakeholder engagement were inadequate; demonstrated by the few documented efforts by theproject to address the concerns of local external stakeholders. (Mesaba, 2009 and CAMP).Stakeholder concerns escalated. In metaphor theory, the metaphor of both the project groupand the external stakeholders became central to how they thought and expressed their interests

in productive and non-productive ways. (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003).

The outcomes of both cases suggest that the proposal preparation process should includepreliminary assessment of external stakeholders to determine an estimate of man-hoursrequired during the project life. Failure to assess stakeholders at the outset when commercialterms are decided, will limit company resources that affect the triple bottom line and,especially, if the contract is lump sum, additional stakeholder costs could result in losingmoney on the entire project. Upon contract award, a stakeholder info package needs to bedeveloped that includes a website for the project where stakeholders can email questions andwhere FAQ info and the latest project news can be posted. The details of the project thatwould meet standards for accountability and transparency should be released to the

stakeholders. Discussions of concepts of environmental justice and developing standards needto be feed into the KM for internal stakeholders. Damage control efforts require planningwhen untruthful information is a provided to stakeholders and when external groups, who arenot truthful, exploit the project. The sustainability credibility of a company is what must bedeveloped to effectively reduce the type of project risks the Engineering business facesglobally with business as usual because only a greener industry can solve the problem.


15/24

15

Both of the cases have site location as a key factor in either design problem outcomes or as areason to halt a project. In examining the literature on Stakeholder Engagement (Pojasek, (c),2008), the option of participating in the International Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiative (ICLEI) would give the advantage of working within a local sustainabilityinstitutional framework that would facilitate the external local stakeholder engagement process,

improve the design because local considerations will be better integrated, and avoid a Mesabaoutcome. The disadvantages are internal stakeholders within the company will be attitudinallyresistant to participation in local environmental groups who they view, in their mental maps(Gould and White, 1974), and the corporate cultures Parsonian deep structure (Parsons, 1970),as the risk in projects. Using KM for internal stakeholder engagement, the concepts ofmetaphors, mental maps, and paradigms (Kuhn, 1970) would be introduced as analyticalframeworks to examine attitudinal structures that limit the companys ability to compete in the21

stCentury. KM is the plan for engaging and educating internal stakeholders who pose

constraints to effective engagement of external stakeholders. Finally, engaging externalstakeholders on the type of training needed to operate an oxygen blown system, which issimilar to running more complex chemical plant than it is to operating a conventional coal

plant. Competency- based training may assist in overcoming the we dont want a chemicalplant thinking. (Pojasek, R. (2008A).

DISCUSSION

How does our project address the license to operate? We value our position within thelocalities nexus; we care about what the locals think of the project and the work we do there.We have to earn the respect of the locality during the project life and respond to any operatingproblems promptly and effectively. The companys foundation is requested to examine localcharities and non-profits for evaluation of worthiness for contributions. The staff division ofthe company has been tasked to identify the progressive groups in the region to engage as it isunderstood in many potential project sites the company will be the prime mover behind

introducing and building a sustainability nexus. The company government affairs departmentis tasked to determine what will be required working in the locality, including the authorizationof PAC monies for local contributions to key elected officials. Stakeholder engagement is animportant link to the sustainability nexus and needs nurturing to serve both objectives. (SeePojasek, 2008a, and 2009).

Ultimately, the design, defined as more sustainable high-end engineering with cutting edgetechnology, that prevents pollution by removing as many chemicals and pollutants as possibleis the basic principle of issuance in a license to operate. Our license to operate is the ability towin the contract on the next project. Our company built Sasol, a high-end prestige product thatadds value 30 years later, as still the worlds largest coal gasification plants. Company

managements, governments, local politicians have changed and been replaced; but the projectis still there operating-its superior design and quality has helped bridge the gap in a countrywhere project practices violated international law and human rights in an egregious manner.The truthfulness, the transparency, of the project team to the local nexus of the advantages anddisadvantages of the project, the problems we can solve, the problems we cannot; engage thelocal nexus on trade-off issues; in our best effort fulfill the responsibilities of accountabilityand transparency. The EHS applied to the construction phase of the project has establishedmonitoring, compliance and reporting requirements. Zero Incidents on the job needs careful


16/24

16

enforcing. The construction subsidiary will be required to develop a construction plan that willincorporate the type of greener construction practices that are required for LEED certification.The plant offices will be designed to LEED Gold standards with water efficient technologiesfor the interior and for the grounds. High performance buildings and eco-friendly groundsestablish a 21st century image and builds good will in a community towards the company and

the project. The past practices of power plant engineers and constructors have left a burden ofpolluter class projects and behavior that todays projects have to work and plan to overcomethe image and legacy of an old era with a sustainable project from a greener company thatpractices without exception human rights in the workplace.

How does the organization address the three responsibilities, defined as social, economic andenvironmental? The three responsibilities are interwoven into every work effort on thisproject, using policy, procedures, process, and developing the company level of education andtraining. The interweaving into the project elements of a path to sustainability is the measureof failure and success of the sustainability efforts of the project design team.

The ADRI Cycle

Approach

How does it plan its sustainability management system, the approach? (ADRI Cycle: SeePojasek, 2008f p. 18). What the project team is trying to achieve is to re-design an existingtechnology to capture the inherent sustainability of the design by re-imaging it into what it canbe and to correct design mistakes that resulted in a view that IGCC doesnt work, when the

problem was faulty design and poor site location. The project team understands that a re-design is necessary to capture carbon and sequester it. The project team understands thelimitations of the corporation and industry they work in. The company culture reinforced byindustry and stakeholders is old 20th Century abundance thinking and engineering forcingmethods are not sustainable over a period of time and there is enough costly renovation andretrofits to meet the economic responsibility for decades. The social responsibility is one theproject team takes seriously, which includes the responsibility to the wider society to reduceemissions and reduce and/or eliminate wasteful use of non-renewable resources to extendhuman life in larger numbers and to provide a higher level of affluence.

The strategy of educating the project team and the wider corporation, including externalstakeholders is the necessary pre-condition to institutional transformation to sustainability.Policy changes in human rights and social responsibility begin a level of awareness tocommence the dynamic of interconnectedness to social issues. The structures are changes inproject management organization to institute the change agency required to design moresustainable projects and services. Life cycle costing was applied over a 20 life cycle

assessment with two discount and escalation rates. The utility company stakeholderlimitations on seeing the potential of the IGCC in a utility de-reg market is key to selling thedesign and stakeholder engagement resources are assigned to show the designs advantages

and the income potential.

Beyond an inventory of emissions reduced and eliminated, measuring non-renewable resourcesconserved, renewable resource replacements, and developing data for GRI, quantitativeperformance indicators are proprietary technology and cannot be published outside of the


17/24

17

company. Qualitative performance indicators need to be developed that will have applicationacross a span of projects to have any usefulness. Qualitative performance will be in emissionsreduced and elimination with: demonstrate an understanding of environmental impacts of thoseprocess steps, pollution prevention strategy application, evaluation of risk, level ofsustainability integration into design, and technology development to achieve the stated goals.

Our project team does align with the Business Excellence Principles in the extensive work wehave done to institutionalize and develop as process at the project level the methodology ofexternal (customer) and internal (work force) stakeholder engagement and knowledgemanagement. See Baldridge,http://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/2009_2010_Education_Criteria.pdf)

Measurement, Analysis and Management aligns with the company KM system, andmeasurement and analytic methodologies already in place. Measurement of emissions saved oreliminated and a resource accounting has been instituted as has data gathering for a widercorporate sustainability policy that could be measured with GRI. Process management, bothwork systems and work processes, is better aligned with the business excellence principles

because every process with resource accounting was analyzed in the re-design to gainefficiencies and to convert waste to food and project management systems were re-aligned withthe results of the work process analysis. (See Pojasek, 2008h, 2007).

Deployment

The KM system has the additions in sustainable management that the project team requested.The information management system has included identified stakeholders, both external andinternal. The company Code on Human Rights in the Workplace has been adapted from theFord Motor Companys policy. Stakeholder engagement that can commence in a virtual

project further followed up with increased company participation in finding, developing andparticipation in the sustainability nexus. A discussion board in KM has been established onimplementing the Humans Rights Code. There is a need for the environmental consultant tosubmit the environmental parameters within which we design at the beginning of the designprocess. It takes months to perform an EIA and project proposals have deadlines of usuallyone to three months. Inclusion of the environmental engineering in the first project proposalteam meeting and guidance from them throughout the design stage is the best deploymentstrategy we could devise. The resource accounting and inventory of emissions reduced oreliminated by re-design from an environmental focus that the project implemented was detailedin the KM discussion board at the senior management level and professional employeecommunities. The project teams exercised real leadership within the company and have triedto put structures in place to obtain buy-in from senior management. The literature onsustainable management systems advises companies that it takes about 18 months toimplement the system and our project team has moved that process forward with specificexamples of what can be accomplished on an engineering challenge re-design. Network theproject with KM ISO 14001 communities.

Results

The sustainability stakeholder focused outcome is a new competitive IGCC design that featuresthe path to an advanced gasification system with an improved gasifier design that can handle a
http://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/2009_2010_Education_Criteria.pdfhttp://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/2009_2010_Education_Criteria.pdfhttp://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/2009_2010_Education_Criteria.pdf


18/24

18

variety of feedstocks, key to implementing the versatility and sustainability of the design.Process mapping and hierarchical process mapping revealed design flaws in the BAT,requiring technology development, which is on-going and being monitored. All qualitative andquantitative performance indicators for project design are being met. The IGCC has energyefficient carbon capture and sequestration technologies designed to capture carbon, process it,

and transport it to either industrial use or sequestration. The first and second laws in efficiencyof the plant in simulation improved because of the integrated design, which helps offset higherfirst costs. The gasifier capabilities of waste as a feedstock has been quantified and costingshows a negative feedstock cost, which the clients showed real enthusiasm for. The outputs ofcommodities were estimated with an income analysis for the client who is evaluating whatareas of the business they want to get into. Cost is the primary constraint to the project; with apartial negative feedstock cost and income producing business, but, it wont offset the higherCOE cost of CCS and capital costs. Waste management could be gasified in a small plant; butit would not have the capability to capture impurities in the waste stream. Wind is a viablealternative for electricity generation.

Senior management has responded to the KM system by announcing plans to further

implement a SMS with the Code on Human Rights. Discussions in a number of communitieshave focused on the need for an environmental engineering department whose staff can assistthroughout the project from the design phase to commissioning. Some of our best recent hireshave made the financial case that the ENVR ENGR capabilities in house would add tocompetiveness and reduce overall project and operations costs: better connecting first costswith the costs of ownership. The architecture department is discussing LEED in their KMcommunity. A group is now taking LEED AP coursework. Discussions on the KM boardshave suggested an environmental management course be taught on line at the company, inaddition to the tuition reimbursement for coursework. The company management club hasdecided to hold a conference on the environment for the members where outside speakers willbe invited, including our clients. Finally, there is a question of whether a wind farm in

Minnesota would do the job better than an IGCC; we concluded it would.

Improvement

The process to review the effectiveness of the Approach and Deploy for the project is a postproposal evaluation meeting to include lessons learned from sustainable management anddocuments it in the KM system, as we would vital project notes. The advances in technology,presented now from the sustainability perspective first, are presented instead of the technologydevelopment first. The results of the IGCC re-design costing, both life-cycle and theefficiencies gained in the re-conception of the plant is the bottom line review. Each project is aseparate community, separate entity that disbands with completion. The adapting and learning

is the documentation for the professional staff and management of the progress notes on theproject and what worked and what didnt work in the SMS. From the engineering perspective,the next re-design should gain from our work; but, the ultimate test is the success of the builtnew IGCC and an operating history.

RESULTS

The IGCC project results in a re-imaging of the company in the 21st

Century of an engineeringcompany whose project work is re-design and retro-fit of 20th Century forcing projects that


19/24

19

either arent sustainable or dont fit current and projected needs for sustainable infrastructureand buildings that work with the environmental parameters that define the economic/sustainable development paradigm that is earths point in development in the first quarter of

the 21st

Century. The re-image is the goal to work towards. By reducing and eliminationemissions, conserving resources and moving into climate change adaptation strategies like geo-

engineering we can contribute to extending the quality of human life and the time span. Wefeel our design team has contributed to technology development of transitional clean coaltechnologies that will further advance sustainability by moving IGCC out of a coal based fuelsand into renewable fuels with carbon emission reductions of at least 82%.


20/24


21/24

21

IPCC, 2009. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 5 May 2009 from:http://www.ipcc.ch.

Keim, K. D. (2006 and 2009). Recollections of project design, progress, and operations onSasol II and Sasol III. Project: Sasol II and Sasol III, worlds largest coal gasification

plants and built CTL technology. Built: South Africa, completed early 1980s. Designed,Engineered and Constructed by: Fluor Corp., Irvine, CA. USA. Keim worked for FluorCorp. during the time Sasol was engineered and constructed.

Keim, K. (2006). IGCC: Evaluation and Definition from a Multi Disciplinary Perspective.Unpublished graduate student paper, Harvard University.

Keim, K. (2007). Global Warming and Power Plant Emissions: Technical Analysis ofCarbon and Sequestration Technologies in Coal-fueled Power Plants. Unpublished graduatestudent paper, Harvard University.

Koene, R. (2006). Developing KM. InsideKnowledge. Retrieved on 7 May 2009 from:http://www.ikmagazine.com/xq/asp/txtSearch.CoP/exactphrase.1/sid.0/articleid.2F806554-8C44-47DF-8BC8-40E528B026CD/qx/display.html.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press:Chicago.

Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by, University of Chicago Press:Chicago.

Oldenburg, C., Lewicki, L. (2006). On Leakage and Seepage of CO From GeologicStorage Sites into Surface Water, Environmental Geology, 50 (5), p. 691-705.

Polk IGCC Power Plant, (2009). Retrieved on 30 April 2009 from:http://www-clean-energy/projects/polk_florida.html.

Pojasek, R. (2007). A Framework for Business Sustainability. Environmental QualityManagement, 17 (2), 81-88. Retrieved on May 2, 2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Business%20Sustainability.pdf

Pojasek, R. (2008a). Engaging Stakeholders? Retrieved on 3 May 2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Stakeholder%20Narrative.pdf.

Pojasek, R. (2008b). Framing Your Lean to Green Effort. Retrieved on 7 May 2009 from:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic560452.files/Lean%20to%20Green%20EQM.pdf.

Pojasek, R. (2008c). Implementing a Sustainability Management System Program.Retrieved on 29 April 2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic556337.files/Implementing%20Narrative.pdf

Pojasek. R. (2008d). Implementing Your P2 Alternative. Retrieved on May 5, 2009from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic554273.files/Implementing%20Projects.pdf.
http://www.ipcc.ch/http://www.ipcc.ch/http://www.ikmagazine.com/xq/asp/txtSearch.CoP/exactphrase.1/sid.0/articleid.2F806554-8C44-47DF-8BC8-40E528B026CD/qx/display.htmlhttp://www.ikmagazine.com/xq/asp/txtSearch.CoP/exactphrase.1/sid.0/articleid.2F806554-8C44-47DF-8BC8-40E528B026CD/qx/display.htmlhttp://www.ikmagazine.com/xq/asp/txtSearch.CoP/exactphrase.1/sid.0/articleid.2F806554-8C44-47DF-8BC8-40E528B026CD/qx/display.htmlhttp://www-clean-energy/projects/polk_florida.htmlhttp://www-clean-energy/projects/polk_florida.htmlhttp://www-clean-energy/projects/polk_florida.htmlhttp://www-clean-energy/projects/polk_florida.htmlhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Business%20Sustainability.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Business%20Sustainability.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Stakeholder%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Stakeholder%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic560452.files/Lean%20to%20Green%20EQM.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic560452.files/Lean%20to%20Green%20EQM.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic560452.files/Lean%20to%20Green%20EQM.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Stakeholder%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Business%20Sustainability.pdfhttp://www-clean-energy/projects/polk_florida.htmlhttp://www-clean-energy/projects/polk_florida.htmlhttp://www.ikmagazine.com/xq/asp/txtSearch.CoP/exactphrase.1/sid.0/articleid.2F806554-8C44-47DF-8BC8-40E528B026CD/qx/display.htmlhttp://www.ikmagazine.com/xq/asp/txtSearch.CoP/exactphrase.1/sid.0/articleid.2F806554-8C44-47DF-8BC8-40E528B026CD/qx/display.htmlhttp://www.ipcc.ch/


22/24

22

Pojasek, R. (2008f). Planning a Sustainability Management System. Retrieved on 9 May2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic554273.files/Sustainability%20Planning%20Narrative.pdf.

Pojasek, R. (2008A). Pollution Prevention: Graduating to Competency-Based Training.Sustain, Fall/Winter 2008. P. 33-36.

Pojasek, R. (2006). Putting Hierarchical Process Maps to Work. Retrieved on April 30,2009, from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Maps%20to%20Work.pdf

Pojasek, R. (2008g). Sustainable Management System Checking and Acting. Retrieved on9 May 2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic557793.files/Check%20and%20Act%20Narrative.pdf.

Pojasek, R. (2009). Taking A Positive View of Sustainable Development. Retrieved on 30April 2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Positive%20View%20of%20the%20Future%20Draft.pdf.

Pojasek, R. (2008h). The Three Responsibilities. Retrieved on 1 May 2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic549945.files/Three%20Responsibility%20Narrative.pdf.

Pojasek, R. (2005). Understanding Processes with Hierarchical Process Mapping. Retrievedon 9 May 2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Mapping.pdf.

Pojasek, R. (2008i), Understanding the Nexus in Cambridge, Retrieved from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Maps%20to%20Work.pdf

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (5 March 2009), Testimony ofSecretary of Energy Chu. Retrieved on 7 March 2009 from:http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=aa73d7c2-b769-9950-6c6d-71c60fd14096.

Slowinski, G. (2006). Some Technical Issues of Zero-emissions Coal Technology.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 31 (8), 1091-1102.

Sasol. Retrieved on 6 May 2009 from: http://www.sasol.com.

The Stakeholders Engagement Manual, Vol. (2005). Retrieved on 9 May 2009 from:http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/StakeholderEngagement_PractitionersPerspectives.pdf.

TECO, (March, 2006). Polk Power Station Welcomes Gasification Council Technologies.Retrieved on March, 2009 from:http://www.gasification.org/Docs/Tampa%2006.Hornick.pdf.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic554273.files/Sustainability%20Planning%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic554273.files/Sustainability%20Planning%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic554273.files/Sustainability%20Planning%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic557793.files/Check%20and%20Act%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic557793.files/Check%20and%20Act%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic557793.files/Check%20and%20Act%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Positive%20View%20of%20the%20Future%20Draft.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Positive%20View%20of%20the%20Future%20Draft.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Positive%20View%20of%20the%20Future%20Draft.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Mapping.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Mapping.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Maps%20to%20Work.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Maps%20to%20Work.pdfhttp://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=aa73d7c2-b769-9950-6c6d-71c60fd14096http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=aa73d7c2-b769-9950-6c6d-71c60fd14096http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=aa73d7c2-b769-9950-6c6d-71c60fd14096http://www.sasol.com/http://www.sasol.com/http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/StakeholderEngagement_PractitionersPerspectives.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/StakeholderEngagement_PractitionersPerspectives.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/StakeholderEngagement_PractitionersPerspectives.pdfhttp://www.gasification.org/Docs/Tampa%2006.Hornick.pdfhttp://www.gasification.org/Docs/Tampa%2006.Hornick.pdfhttp://www.gasification.org/Docs/Tampa%2006.Hornick.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/StakeholderEngagement_PractitionersPerspectives.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/StakeholderEngagement_PractitionersPerspectives.pdfhttp://www.sasol.com/http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=aa73d7c2-b769-9950-6c6d-71c60fd14096http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=aa73d7c2-b769-9950-6c6d-71c60fd14096http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Maps%20to%20Work.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic545849.files/Process%20Mapping.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Positive%20View%20of%20the%20Future%20Draft.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic541380.files/Positive%20View%20of%20the%20Future%20Draft.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic557793.files/Check%20and%20Act%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic557793.files/Check%20and%20Act%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic554273.files/Sustainability%20Planning%20Narrative.pdfhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic554273.files/Sustainability%20Planning%20Narrative.pdf


23/24

23

Van Selow, E., et al, (8 April 2009). Carbon Capture by Sorption-Enhanced Water-ShiftReaction Process using Hydortalcite-Based Material. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 48 (9), p. 4184-4193. Retrieved on 10 May 2009 from: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie801713a.

Zheng, L. and E. Furinsky (2005). "Comparison of Shell, Texaco, BGL and KRW gasifiers aspart of IGCC plant computer simulations." Energy Conversion and Management 46(11-12):1767-1779.

Zhu, Y. (2004). Evaluation of Gas Turbine and Gasifier Based Power Generation System.Thesis, North Carolina State University.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Project FactSheet,A Novel Sorbent-Based Process for High Temperature Trace MetalRemoval. [web source:www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.html.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Project Fact

Sheet,Advanced Coal Gasification System. [web source:www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.html.]

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Project FactSheet,Advanced Coal Gasification Systems Development. [web source:www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatebase/index.html.]

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Project FactSheet,Economic Evaluation of the Phased Construction of an IGCCPlant Incorporating CO2 Removal: Impact of Incorporating CO2 Shift in

Initial IGCC Phase. [web source:

www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatebase/index.html.]

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Project FactSheet, Fuel-Flexible Gasification-Combustion Technology forProduction of H2 and Sequestration Ready. [web source:www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.html.]

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Project FactSheet, Gasification Plant Cost & Performance Optimization Study.[web source:www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.html.]

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Project FactSheet, Phased Construction of Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Plants withCoal Gasification and CO2 Recovery. [web source:www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.html.]

U. S. Department of Energy, (1996). The Tampa Electric Integrated GasificationCombined-Cycle Project Demonstration of an Advanced 250 Megawatt Integrated
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie801713ahttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie801713ahttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatebase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatebase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/index.htmlhttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie801713a


24/24

24

Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plant. US DOE, Tampa Electric Co., Topical ReportNumber 6, Coal Technology.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ezy
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Graduate Paper ENVR105

Documents