What Kind of Electric Power Plant Do We Want for Glades County? (Global Warming & Sea Level Rise Issues) John Capece, Ph.D. Agricultural Engineer December.
Presentation on theme: "What Kind of Electric Power Plant Do We Want for Glades County? (Global Warming & Sea Level Rise Issues) John Capece, Ph.D. Agricultural Engineer December."— Presentation transcript:
What Kind of Electric Power Plant Do We Want for Glades County? (Global Warming & Sea Level Rise Issues) John Capece, Ph.D. Agricultural Engineer December 21, 2006
This would be the first U.S. ultra-supercritical pulverized coal (USC-PC) combustion system. It is a cleaner, more efficient process than older pulverized coal technologies. Presentation Objective – USC or IGCC Coal Power Florida Power & Light (FPL) plans to build a coal-fired power plant for completion by 2012 in Glades County, Florida between Hwy 78 and Hwy 27, a few miles northwest of Moore Haven. This power plant will have an expected operating life through 2050.
To facilitate carbon dioxide capture and sequestration in the coming decades, many people are advocating using an even more advanced coal technology – IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle). This presentation explains the rationale for IGCC, while recognizing that an even better long-term solution to the power needs of our society is the promotion of renewable, distributed energy systems (solar, tide, wind, conservation, etc.). Presentation Objective - I.G.C.C.
Presentation Outline Why a Coal-fired Power Plant? Why a Coal-fired Power Plant? Greenhouse Effect & Sea Level Rise Greenhouse Effect & Sea Level Rise Types of Coal-fired Power Plants Types of Coal-fired Power Plants Carbon Sequestration Carbon Sequestration Carbon Tax Carbon Tax Glades County Actions Glades County Actions
Electric Power Sources in Florida Why use Coal? Why use Coal? –To balance sources. –Natural gas is risky because of hurricanes. –Large domestic coal supply. (some imported) –No military risk to secure fuel supplies. –Efficient rail transport from Appalachian Mountains. Problems with Coal Problems with Coal –Mining impacts in Appalachia –Mercury & other emissions –Carbon Dioxide emissions
CO2 and Temperature Historical Trends
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Trend
CO2 and Temperature Historical Trends We have increased CO2 concentrations beyond any levels ever experienced by modern man. Absent other offsetting factors, temperatures will continue to rise, following from CO2 increases. You will see CO2 pass the 400 ppm level in the next 10 years
The Relationship between CO2 and Temperature However, during the past 20,000 years, CO2 followed from temperature, This would match a climate model in which the climate process was being driven by changes in incident solar radiation and changes in the earths reflectance. Probable explanations of CO2 following temperature are out- gassing from warming oceans, CO2 from warming soils, etc. This demonstrates a feedback loop between temperature and CO2/methane that should cause even greater concern today as a magnifier of the current trend. Global Warming asserts that temperature is now following from CO2.
The Relationship between CO2 and Temperature Possible causal factors for past glacial & warming cycles: (short term cycles – within the past 700,000 years) (long term cycles – millions of years) solar radiation intensity cycles ocean circulation disruptions ocean circulation disruptions albedo (Earths reflectance) feedback from snow & ice albedo (Earths reflectance) feedback from snow & ice volcanic activity (release of gases) continental plate movements (tectonics) continental plate movements (tectonics)
Planetary & Solar System Cycles SHORT-MEDIUM TERM 11 year sunspot cycle 11 year sunspot cycle 88 year Gleissberg cycle 88 year Gleissberg cycle 206 year cycle of solar variability 206 year cycle of solar variability LONGER TERM 26,000 year cycle of the 'wobble' with precession of the equinoxes 26,000 year cycle of the 'wobble' with precession of the equinoxes 40,000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5 deg change in the Earth's axial tilt 40,000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5 deg change in the Earth's axial tilt 100,000 year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth's elliptical orbit 100,000 year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth's elliptical orbit 220,000,000 year cycle (and smaller sub-cycles) due to rotation of the Solar System about the galactic center which takes the Earth up and down through the galactic plane; interstellar dust levels and incident cosmic ray flux changes as a result 220,000,000 year cycle (and smaller sub-cycles) due to rotation of the Solar System about the galactic center which takes the Earth up and down through the galactic plane; interstellar dust levels and incident cosmic ray flux changes as a result Slowing of the Earth's rotation Slowing of the Earth's rotation
CO2 and Temperature Historical Trends 180 = historic low (ice age) 280 = historic high (1000–1800 AD) 380 = current 480 = coming soon (2030 AD ???)
Emissions Reduction to Stabilize Atmospheric CO2 Operating period of new FPL Power Plant
Most CO2 Dissolves into the Oceans…eventually
CO2 Acidifies the Ocean & Changes its Life Forms
Sea Level Rise Effects on Florida 20 ft 6 ft
Possible Global Equilibrium Conditions Modern Florida at 280 ppm CO 2 Ice Age Florida at 180 ppm CO 2 Future Florida from 450 ppm CO 2 ? Future Florida from 650 ppm CO 2 ? (Can we avoid this future?)
Gulfstream and the Ocean Heat Conveyor Keeps Northern Europe Warm
Possible Effects of Gulfstream Disruption on Ocean Levels Possible 10 ft Dynamic Effect On Florida Coastline Water Levels 3 ft Static effect
The Major Global Re-insurance Companies See it Coming (Lloyds, Swiss Re, Zurich Re, Munich Re, etc.) Swiss Re: In a carbon constrained imminent future, greenhouse gas emissions will become financial liabilities on many companies balance sheets. The Swiss Re report projected a likely worldwide doubling of losses from weather related causes within ten years to $150 billion dollars US annually. (It is and will continue to affect insurance rates in Florida.) The Climate Change Performance Index, introduced by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe), compares the climate protection efforts of 56 industrialized and rapidly industrializing countries, that together make up more than 90% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Sweden is the leader, and the USA ranks among the bottom five.
Relative Risks Climate change is perhaps the most serious risk faced by our society. History demonstrates that some risks are underestimated by an order of magnitude: Tsunami (ex:Indonesia), Floods (ex:Bangladesh), and Earthquakes (ex:China). Ten-thousand Hundred-thousand Ten-million Hundred-million
Are we building our population and quality of life by unsustainably consuming our foundation assets? 6.6 billion people Stable, optimal climate Stable communities Stable agriculture We can follow and survive in an extreme consumption model only if we constantly seek and find new resources and aggressively develop and use new technologies. But it does come at a cost in the form of loss of heritage (ecosystems, species, landscapes, cultural diversity, etc.) Stable eco-systems
Carbon Dioxide from Electric Energy Production FPL emits 20% less CO2 than the industry average. This partially reflects the fact that other U.S. regions & companies use more coal, while FPL uses more natural gas. FPL emits 20% less CO2 than the industry average. This partially reflects the fact that other U.S. regions & companies use more coal, while FPL uses more natural gas.
Soot & Global Dimming Particulate Matter & Other Emissions (including coal soot) Particulate Matter & Other Emissions (including coal soot) –Estimated to have reduced Global Warming by half, so far. –Reduced incident solar radiation by 5 – 10% worldwide. Is clean coal actually better coal…from a global warming perspective? Is clean coal actually better coal…from a global warming perspective? – High CO2 emissions. – No more soot emissions to offset the CO2 effect.
Pulverized Coal vs. Coal Gasification Pulverized Coal – Ultra Super Critical Pulverized Coal – Ultra Super Critical –Burn coal dust to heat water and make steam. –Use steam to drive a turbine. –Steam turbine generates electricity. Gasification – IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) Gasification – IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) –Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle. –Cook coal to make coal gas. –Burn coal gas in a turbine to make electricity (like a jet engine). –Use the hot coal gas combustion exhaust to heat water and make steam. –Use steam to drive turbine. –Steam turbine generates additional electricity.
The most advanced pulverized coal plant (Ultra Super-Critical) is more efficient. USC has 44% Efficiency
Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Coal Efficiency Type of Coal Combustion Coal to ElectricityEfficiency Ultra-Supercritical enhanced efficiency over older Pulverized Coal technologies Sub-critical Super- critical Advanced Supercritical Subcritical35% Supercritical37% 42% Ultra- Supercritical 44%26%19%5%
Pulverized Coal vs. Coal Gasification Gasification – IGCC Gasification – IGCC –Provides easier opportunity to capture CO2. –Cheaper than pulverized coal if CO2 capture is required. Pulverized Coal – USC (without CO2 Capture) Pulverized Coal – USC (without CO2 Capture) –Plants are cheaper to build. –Plant operations are simpler, cheaper, and more reliable. –Plants are smaller and require less land.
The Carbon Cycle
Many New IGCC Power Plants are Planned If so many other companies can justify and plan to build IGCC power plants, why cant/wont FPL?
German Chancellor Merkel takes a look at a model of the world's first CO2-free coal plant 35% efficiency (vs. 45%) 35% efficiency (vs. 45%) Sequestration costs $30-$50 / ton Sequestration costs $30-$50 / ton completion by 2015 completion by 2015 commercially viable by 2020 commercially viable by 2020 Intended for export Intended for export California and Wyoming Sign Partnership on IGCC Projects An IGCC plant with carbon sequestration, as called for by the MOU, would result in no greenhouse gas emissions. The MOU also calls on the federal government to provide financial support for the development of IGCC plants.
HR-5049 (in 109 th Congress) a CARBON TAX will be imposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions How much will the tax be? ($16/ton, phased) $0.50 per gallon of gasoline = $200 per tonne C The amount of a C-tax affects coal & natural gas. The tax has little or no effect on nuclear, solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.
Passage of carbon tax framework legislation is likely in the next (110 th ) Congress. Then new chairs of the environment & energy committees sent President Bush a letter immediately after the election.
Effects of Carbon Taxes to Achieve CO2 Reduction
Other Nations Take Action on Carbon Dioxide
U.K. Government Official Policy Statements Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen. The investment that takes place in the next years will have a profound effect on the climate change that happens in the second half of this century and in the next. Extensive carbon capture and storage will be necessary to allow the continued use of fossil fuels without damage to the atmosphere. If we take no action to control emissions, each tonne of CO2 that we emit now is causing damage worth at least $85. Action on climate change will create significant business opportunities, as new markets are created in the low-carbon energy technologies and other low-carbon goods and services.
Glades County Economic Development Council EDC was asked to endorse the FPL coal project. EDC was asked to endorse the FPL coal project. I requested amendments to the resolution: I requested amendments to the resolution: –Make the power plant CARBON CAPTURE READY (IGCC or modified Ultra Supercritical design) –Fund a non-profit organization to inform the public about coal-fired power plants and carbon capture. EDC voted against my amendments. EDC voted against my amendments. EDC voted for the FPL project endorsement. ( see EDC voted for the FPL project endorsement. ( see
Glades County Economic Development Council Motion to Amend by John Capece, Second by Patty Register Motion to Amend by John Capece, Second by Patty Register Voting For Amendment Voting For Amendment –John Capece, Southern DataStream, Inc. Voting Against Amendment Voting Against Amendment Cheryl Eby, Rawls Real Estate – Cheryl Eby, Rawls Real Estate – Kevin Thomas, CHL Holdings, Inc. – Russell Echols, Glades County – Bill Redmon, The Glades – Patty Register, Gatorama – Rhoda Planty, Joyner Development – John Ahern, City of Moore Haven – David Danenhauer, Mickey's Bait & Tackle – Tommy Perry, Johnson-Prewitt Associates, Inc. – Danielle Toms, Glades Electric Co-Op Abstained From Vote Abstained From Vote - Mark Morton, Lykes Brothers, Inc. Note: the FPL engineer responded, yes, when asked if the new FPL USC-PC power plant would be economically viable in a high ($200/ton) carbon tax environment. Note: the FPL engineer responded, yes, when asked if the new FPL USC-PC power plant would be economically viable in a high ($200/ton) carbon tax environment.
Glades County Economic Development Council Motion to Endorse FPL Power Park Project, on Oct. 9, 2006 Motion to Endorse FPL Power Park Project, on Oct. 9, 2006 Voting Against the Motion Voting Against the Motion –Patty Register, Gatorama Voting For the Motion Voting For the Motion Russell Echols, Glades County – Russell Echols, Glades County – Kevin Thomas, CHL Holdings, Inc. – Bill Redmon, The Glades – Rhoda Planty, Joyner Development – John Ahern, City of Moore Haven – David Danenhauer, Mickey's Bait & Tackle – Tommy Perry, Johnson-Prewitt Associates, Inc. – Danielle Toms, Glades Electric Co-Op – Cheryl Eby-Gutjahr, Rawls Real Estate Abstained From Vote Abstained From Vote Mark Morton, Lykes Brothers, Inc. - Mark Morton, Lykes Brothers, Inc. - John Capece, Southern DataStream FPL Presentation by FPL Presentation by Grover Whiddon - Grover Whiddon - Rachel Scott - David Hicks