Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel Robert Romanosky Advanced Research Technology Manager National Energy.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel Robert Romanosky Advanced Research Technology Manager National Energy."— Presentation transcript:

1 Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel Robert Romanosky Advanced Research Technology Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory February 8-10, 2010

2 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 GDP per Capita (US$ / person / yr) Annual Energy Consumption per Capita (kgoe / person / yr) China India South Africa GDP vs. Energy Consumption

3 3 U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2009, ARRA release ; world data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2008 Energy Demand QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy 111 QBtu / Year 78% Fossil Energy + 45% + 11% Renewables 13% Nuclear 8% Coal 23% Gas 22% Oil 34% Renewables 14% Nuclear 5% Coal 29% Gas 22% Oil 30% Fossil Energy Continues to Dominate Supply United States World Energy Demand QBtu / Year 85% Fossil Energy Renewables 6% Nuclear 8% Coal 23% Gas 22% Oil 41% 465 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy Renewables 13% Nuclear 6% Coal 26% Gas 21% Oil 34%

4 4 Challenge and Program Driver: Annual CO 2 Emissions Extremely Large EmissionsTotal Release in the U.S., short tons per year Mercury120 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 )15,000,000 Municipal Solid Waste230,000,000 Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) 6,300,000,000 Data sources: Mercury - EPA National Emissions Inventory (1999 data); SO 2 - EPA air trends (2002 data); MSW - EPA OSWER fact sheet (2001 data); CO 2 - EIA AEO 2004 (2002 data) 1 million metric tons of CO 2 : Every year would fill a volume of 32 million cubic feet Close to the volume of the Empire State Building

5 5 Technological Carbon Management Options Pathways for Reducing GHGs -CO 2 Improve Efficiency Sequester Carbon Renewables Nuclear Fuel Switching Demand Side Supply Side Enhance Natural Sinks Capture & Store Reduce Carbon Intensity All options needed to: Affordably meet energy demand Address environmental objectives

6 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 Initiative Stimulus Activities DOE – FE – NETL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES Tax Credits Loan 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% CO 2 capture > 99% CO 2 storage permanence +/- 30% storage capacity resolution Goals Programs Approaches Post Combustion CO 2 Capture Oxy-Fired Combustion Chemical Looping UltraSupercritical Combustion Materials & Modeling Process Integration & Control Demonstration & Deployment Programs

7 7 Coal Based Power A Portfolio of Alternate Paths

8 8 Fossil Energy CO 2 Capture Solutions Time to Commercialization Advanced physical solvents Advanced chemical solvents Ammonia CO 2 com- pression Amine solvents Physical solvents Cryogenic oxygen Chemical looping OTM boiler Biological processes Ionic liquids Metal organic frameworks Enzymatic membranes Cost Reduction Benefit PBI membranes Solid sorbents Membrane systems ITMs Biomass co- firing Post-combustion (existing, new PC) Pre-combustion (IGCC) Oxycombustion (new PC) CO 2 compression (all) OTM – O 2 Transport Membrane (PC) ITM – O 2 Ion Transport Membrane (PC or IGCC) CO 2 Capture Targets: 90% CO 2 Capture <10% increase in COE (IGCC) <35% increase in COE (PC)

9 9 Advanced PC Oxy-combustion Challenges Cryogenic ASUs are capital and energy intensive Excess O 2 and inerts (N 2, Ar) CO 2 purification cost Existing boiler air infiltration Corrosion and process control Challenges Cryogenic ASUs are capital and energy intensive Excess O 2 and inerts (N 2, Ar) CO 2 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 O 2 Membranes Retrofit existing air boilers - Air leakage, heat transfer, corrosion - Process control CO 2 purification Co-capture (CO 2 + SOx, NOx, O 2 ) Ultra-supercritical Oxyboilers Fireside Wall side Water-wall tube heat transfer Oxygen Membranes Boiler size reduced by >30% Partners (11 projects): Praxair, Air Products, Jupiter, Alstom, B&W, Foster Wheeler, REI, SRI

10 10 Chemical Looping Combustion Chemical Looping Advantages: Oxy-combustion without an O 2 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 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 1 st Integrated operation 1 st Autothermal Operation Status 2010 Alstom Pilot test (1 MWe) 1000 lb/hr coal flow 1 st Integrated operation 1 st Autothermal Operation Red 1700F Ox 2000F CaS Air FuelCO 2 + H 2 O CaSO 4 MB HX N 2 + O 2 Steam Fuel Reactor (Reducer) CaSO 4 + 2C + Heat 2CO 2 + CaS CaSO 4 + 4H 2 + Heat 4H 2 O + CaS Air Reactor (Oxidizer) CaS + 2O 2 CaSO 4 + 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 O 2 in the Oxidizer, leaves N2 behind Carrier Burns the Fuel in the Reducer Heat produces Steam for Power

11 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

12 12 Benefit of Higher Efficiency in Reducing CO 2 (Bituminous coal, without CO 2 capture) 20% reduction in CO 2 corresponds with similar reductions (per MWh) in consumables including coal and limestone (reducing front-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% CO 2 Reduction

13 13 Efficiency Contribution from Sensors and Controls Value 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 CO 2 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 Analysis based on 2008 coal costs and 2008 coal-fired power plant fleet (units greater than 300 MW)

14 14 Carbon Sequestration Program Goals Deliver technologies & best practices that provide Carbon Capture and Safe Storage (CCSS) with: –90% CO 2 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) CO 2 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 15 North American CO 2 Storage Potential (Billion Metric Tons) Sink TypeLowHigh Saline Formations3,30012,600 Unmineable Coal Seams Oil & Gas Fields140 Available for download at U.S. Emissions ~ 6 Billion Tons CO 2 /yr all sources ~ 2 Billion Tons CO 2 /yr coal-fired power plants Hundreds of Years Storage Potential National Atlas Highlights Saline Formations Oil and Gas FieldsUnmineable Coal Seams Conservative Resource Assessment

16 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 17 PPII & CCPI Demonstration Projects Locations & Cost Share Emission Control Fuel Advanced Power Systems Excelsior Energy Mesaba Energy Project $2.16B – Total $36M – DOE Excelsior Energy Mesaba Energy Project $2.16B – Total $36M – DOE Wisconsin Electric TOXECON Multi-pollutant Control $53M – Total $24.9M – DOE Wisconsin Electric TOXECON 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 CONSOL Greenidge Multi-pollutant Control $32.7M – Total $14.3M – DOE CONSOL Greenidge Multi-pollutant Control $32.7M – Total $14.3M – DOE Southern Company IGCC-Transport Gasifier $2B – Total $294M – DOE Southern Company IGCC-Transport Gasifier $2B – Total $294M – DOE Basin Electric Postcombustion CO 2 Capture $287M – Total $100M – DOE Basin Electric Postcombustion CO 2 Capture $287M – Total $100M – DOE HECA Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$2.8B – Total $308M – DOE HECA Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$2.8B – Total $308M – DOE Awarded In Negotiation Complete Great River Energy Lignite Fuel Enhancement $31.5M – Total $13.5M – DOE Great River Energy Lignite Fuel Enhancement $31.5M – Total $13.5M – DOE AEP Post Combustion CO 2 Capture $668M – Total $334M – DOE AEP Post Combustion CO 2 Capture $668M – Total $334M – DOE Southern Company Services Post-combustion CO 2 Capture $668M – Total $295M – DOE Southern Company Services Post-combustion CO 2 Capture $668M – Total $295M – DOE Summit TX Clean Energy Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$1.9B – Total $350M – DOE Summit TX Clean Energy Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$1.9B – Total $350M – DOE Project Locations for ICCS Area 1 Carbon Capture and Storage from Industrial Sources Archer Daniels Midland; Industrial Power & Ethanol; Saline, DOW Alstom Amine, Decatur, IL Air Products, H 2 Production; EOR, BASFs aMDEA Port Arthur, TX; Battelle, Boise White Paper Mill, Basalt, Fluor Econamine Plus, Washington C6 (Shell); H 2 Production; Saline, ADIP-X Amine, Solano, CA Conoco Phillips; IGGC- Petcoke; Depleted NG/EOR, Selexol, Sweeny, TX Praxair; H 2 for Refinery; EOR, VPSA, Texas City, TX Texas Energy; Petcoke Gasification (H 2, MeOH & NH 3 ); 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 Location Industry Type / Product Sequestration Type CO 2 Capture Technology Univ. of Utah; Ammonia & Cement; EOR & Saline, Dehydration, Coffeyville, KS Wolverine, CFB Power; EOR, Hitachi Amine, Rogers City, MI

18 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% CO 2 with potential for ~100% –>99% sulfur removal; 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 19 FutureGen Gasification with Cleanup Separation System Integration Carbon Sequestration Optimized Turbines Fuel Cells H 2 Production FutureGen Potential Proving Ground for Emerging Technology

20 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 industrys willingness to commit capital investment, endangering near-term production capacity The U.S. must foster new processes that address conflicting energy objectives simultaneously Our nations dependence on liquid fuel from foreign resources will continue to remain high for the near term

21 21 NETL Contact Information Office of Fossil Energy Robert R. Romanosky


Download ppt "Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel Robert Romanosky Advanced Research Technology Manager National Energy."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google