Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

What Kind of Electric Power Plant Do We Want for Glades County?

There are copies: 1
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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "What Kind of Electric Power Plant Do We Want for Glades County?"— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 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. 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.

3 Presentation Objective - I.G.C.C.
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.).

4 Why a Coal-fired Power Plant? Greenhouse Effect & Sea Level Rise
Presentation Outline Why a Coal-fired Power Plant? Greenhouse Effect & Sea Level Rise Types of Coal-fired Power Plants Carbon Sequestration Carbon Tax Glades County Actions

5

6 Electric Power Sources in Florida
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 Mining impacts in Appalachia Mercury & other emissions Carbon Dioxide emissions

7 CO2 and Temperature Historical Trends

8 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Trend

9 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

10 The Relationship between CO2 and Temperature
Global Warming asserts that temperature is now following from CO2. 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 earth’s 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.

11 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 albedo (Earth’s reflectance) feedback from snow & ice volcanic activity (release of gases) continental plate movements (tectonics)

12 Planetary & Solar System Cycles
SHORT-MEDIUM TERM 11 year sunspot cycle 88 year Gleissberg cycle 206 year cycle of solar variability LONGER TERM 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 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 Slowing of the Earth's rotation

13

14 CO2 and Temperature Historical Trends
low (ice age) 280 = historic high (1000–1800 AD) 380 = current 480 = coming soon (2030 AD ???)

15 Emissions Reduction to Stabilize Atmospheric CO2
Operating period of new FPL Power Plant

16 Most CO2 Dissolves into the Oceans…eventually

17 CO2 Acidifies the Ocean & Changes its Life Forms

18 Sea Level Rise Effects on Florida
20 ft 6 ft

19 Possible Global Equilibrium Conditions
Ice Age Florida at 180 ppm CO2 Modern Florida at 280 ppm CO2 Future Florida from 450 ppm CO2 ? Future Florida from 650 ppm CO2 ? (Can we avoid this future?)

20 Keeps Northern Europe Warm
Gulfstream and the Ocean Heat Conveyor Keeps Northern Europe Warm

21 Possible Effects of Gulfstream Disruption on Ocean Levels
3 ft Static effect Possible 10 ft Dynamic Effect On Florida Coastline Water Levels

22 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.

23 Climate change is perhaps the most serious risk faced by our society.
Relative Risks Hundred-million Ten-million Hundred-thousand Ten-thousand 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).

24 Stable, optimal climate
Are we building our population and quality of life by unsustainably consuming our foundation assets? 6.6 billion people 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 communities Stable agriculture Stable eco-systems Stable, optimal climate

25 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.

26 Soot & Global Dimming 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? High CO2 emissions. No more soot emissions to offset the CO2 effect.

27 Pulverized Coal vs. Coal Gasification
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) 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.

28 The most advanced pulverized coal plant (Ultra Super-Critical) is more efficient.
USC has 44% Efficiency

29 Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Coal Efficiency
Type of Coal Combustion Coal to Electricity Efficiency Ultra-Supercritical enhanced efficiency over older Pulverized Coal technologies Sub-critical Super-critical Advanced Supercritical Subcritical 35% Supercritical 37% 42% Ultra-Supercritical 44% 26% 19% 5%

30 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is the efficient integration of the coal gasification process with the pre-combustion removal of pollutants and the generation of electricity using a combined cycle power plant. Due to the high pressure and low volume of the concentrated synthesis gas that is produced it is capable of higher levels of pollutant removal at lower costs than PC combustion. The following slides shows how one company is planning to make use of gasification for power generation.

31 This chart shows the significantly least solid waste that is produced by IGCC. Instead of large quantities of scrubber sludge to dispose of IGCC produces useful sulfur byproduct. Instead of a leachable fly ash to dispose of IGCC produces a non-leachable slag that can be used in asphalt. The higher temperatures for gasification than combustion has a benefit because coal ash has a softening temperature of about 2250 F. Therefore, the coal ash goes through a molten state when gasified then cools to become an inert, vitrified slag that can be sold as a byproduct or disposed of as a non-leachable material.

32 This plant uses activated carbon beds for removing more than 94% of the mercury from the synthesis gas and has been in commercial operation for over 21 years. A recent EPRI Journal article titled “Mercury Control for Coal-Fired Power Plants”, Summer 2005, page 19 states: “No technology designed specifically to control mercury in coal plants is in use anywhere in the world, or has even undergone long term testing.”

33 The 30 to 40 % less water usage for an IGCC plant is due mostly to the fact that a combined cycle is being used. The gas turbine portion of the power generation cycle does not require the large quantities of water for cooling that are needed for the steam turbine cycle. Since a PC plant generates all of its electricity from the steam turbine cycle it requires larger amounts of water.

34 Pulverized Coal vs. Coal Gasification
Gasification – IGCC Provides easier opportunity to capture CO2. Cheaper than pulverized coal if CO2 capture is required. 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.

35 Studies performed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), American Electric Power (AEP), GE and others all show that IGCC is more cost effective than pulverized coal if carbon reductions are required. The bar chart by GE shows the additional cost that must be added to SCPC and IGCC for CO2 capture. The table shows the energy penalty and added capital costs for CO2 capture. The use of a cost for carbon emissions in planning is reasonable given the high likelihood that carbon will be regulated in the future. This exhibit shows the COE for plants designed with the capability to remove CO2. The COE with CO2 capture for PC plants will be an unacceptable 8.29 cents/kwh compared to the COE with CO2 capture for IGCC plants of 6.90 cents/kwh. This is a 66% increase for PC plants compared to a 25% increase for IGCC plants.

36 Studies performed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), American Electric Power (AEP), GE and others all show that IGCC is more cost effective than pulverized coal if carbon reductions are required. The bar chart by GE shows the additional cost that must be added to SCPC and IGCC for CO2 capture. The table shows the energy penalty and added capital costs for CO2 capture. The use of a cost for carbon emissions in planning is reasonable given the high likelihood that carbon will be regulated in the future. This exhibit shows the COE for plants designed with the capability to remove CO2. The COE with CO2 capture for PC plants will be an unacceptable 8.29 cents/kwh compared to the COE with CO2 capture for IGCC plants of 6.90 cents/kwh. This is a 66% increase for PC plants compared to a 25% increase for IGCC plants.

37 The Carbon Cycle

38

39

40 Many New IGCC Power Plants are Planned
If so many other companies can justify and plan to build IGCC power plants, why can’t/won’t FPL?

41 There are presently four commercial IGCC plants have been operating from 9 to 12 years. They have successfully integrated the gasification process with the combined cycle power plant to enable more efficient use of coal while significantly reducing emissions. These plants range in size from 250 to 318 MW per unit. The Polk Power Plant in Tampa, FL is a greenfield site and the Wabash Power Plant in Indiana is a conversion of an existing unit For larger size plants multiple units are being proposed which will improve system availability and reduce costs by making use of standard, modular designs.

42 Sequestration costs $30-$50 / ton completion by 2015
German Chancellor Merkel takes a look at a model of the world's first CO2-free coal plant 35% efficiency (vs. 45%) Sequestration costs $30-$50 / ton completion by 2015 commercially viable by 2020 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.

43

44 How much will the tax be? ($16/ton, phased)
HR-5049 (in 109th 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.

45 Passage of carbon tax framework legislation is likely in the next (110th) Congress. Then new chairs of the environment & energy committees sent President Bush a letter immediately after the election.

46 Effects of Carbon Taxes to Achieve CO2 Reduction

47 Other Nations Take Action on Carbon Dioxide

48 U.K. Government Official Policy Statements
“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.”

49 Glades County Economic Development Council
EDC was asked to endorse the FPL coal project. 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 for the FPL project endorsement. (see

50 Glades County Economic Development Council
Motion to Amend by John Capece, Second by Patty Register Voting For Amendment John Capece, Southern DataStream, Inc. Voting Against Amendment 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 - 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.

51 Glades County Economic Development Council
Motion to Endorse FPL Power Park Project, on Oct. 9, 2006 Voting Against the Motion Patty Register, Gatorama Voting For the Motion 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 Mark Morton, Lykes Brothers, Inc. John Capece, Southern DataStream FPL Presentation by Grover Whiddon Rachel Scott David Hicks

52 Why not an IGCC project in Glades?


Download ppt "What Kind of Electric Power Plant Do We Want for Glades County?"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google