Joe Chaisson April 21, 2004 www.catf.us Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plants and Geologic Carbon Sequestration Joe Chaisson.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FutureGen in Illinois: Clean Energy for the Needs of Tomorrow John Mead SIU Research Center Robert J. Finley State Geological Survey FutureGen For Illinois.
Advertisements

Carbon: Problems And Effects IB SL C.C.S: Carbon Capture and Storage.
1Revision 5 BUSH POWER GROUP LLC The Woodlands, Texas Presentation to.
Methane Capture and Use: Current Practices vs. Future Possibilities.
Technologies for CCS on Natural Gas Power Systems Satish Reddy April 2104.
Tips for the Instructor:
Carbon Capture and Sequestration Update APPA Energy & Clean Air Task Force April 26, 2010.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) IGCC is basically the combination of the gasification unit and the combined cycle. It has high efficiency.
1 Clean Coal Technology Conference PDPU / CFSR Nov 09.
Technical options for placement of CO 2 in the maritime area  by Paul Freund
Energy (TKK-2129) Instructor: Rama Oktavian
HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS CURRENT AND FUTURE DESIGNS USE AS AN ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE RENEWABLE VS. CO2 GENERATING DISTRIBUTION METHODS AND COSTS SAFETY.
Key Factors in the Introduction of Hydrogen as the Sustainable Fuel of the Future John P Blakeley, Research Fellow Jonathan D Leaver, Chairman Centre for.
B9 Coal Deploying Fuel Cells to Generate Cheap, Clean Electricity from Fossil Fuels.
Jeopardy Final JeopardyFinal Jeopardy 200 pt 300 pt 400 pt 500 pt 100 pt 200 pt 300 pt 400 pt 500 pt 100 pt 200 pt 300 pt 400 pt 500 pt 100 pt 200 pt.
Coal Gasification : A PRB Overview Mark Davies – Kennecott Energy Outline Background – Our Interest History – Development of IGCC Current status – Commercial.
Ian J. Potter Ph.D Director, Sustainable Energy Futures MAKING THE CIRCLE STRONGER APEGGA ANNUAL CONFERENCE APRIL , 2004 EDMONTON, ALBERTA Overview.
CO 2 Sequestration Options for California Larry Myer WESTCARB Technical Director California Energy Commission (916) ; ETAAC.
From Research to Application Best Practices George Teather and Suzanne Lafortune Performance Management Network Inc.
Liquid-Phase Methanol Process (LPMeOH) Jill DeTroye, Brandon Hurn, Kyle Ludwig, and Isaac Zaydens.
John Barton Project Director NEEF February 2010 Renew introduction Current activities A vision for the future.
Lecture 12 Chapter 7 Conclusion Coal Conversion.
Two environmental Problems Caused by Burning Fossil Fuels
Group 6: Jacob Hebert, Michael McCutchen, Eric Powell, Jacob Reinhart
Vision 21 Clean Energy Plants for the 21 st Century.
Fossil Fuels: Their advantages, disadvantages and future
POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
SUPPLIES OF COAL UNITED STATES - 3 TRILLION TONS (50% IN WYOMING, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA) WESTERN COAL - 60% LOW SULFUR (0.7%S) - AT STRIP MINING DEPTH.
Biomass Electricity Megan Ziolkowski November 29, 2009.
Proprietary work product, not for reproduction 1 BIOMASS GASIFIER 20 MW POWERPLANT Energy & Environmental Integrators Note! This system can be scaled from.
Concept 16-8 Hydrogen fuel holds great promise for powering cars and generating electricity, but to be environmentally beneficial, it would have to be.
Challenges to the Development and Commercialization of CCS Cheyenne A. Alabanzas 2009 ASME Intern University of Alaska – Anchorage.
Fossil Fuels Geoffrey Thyne Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute University of Wyoming.
Coal Gasification Robert Nagai AP Environmental Science Period 3.
Title: Coal Cowboy Duration: 00:12:51 Link: engr
SynGas Gasifier ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Technology Presentation.
Carbon Capture & Storage(CCS)
Mississippi Power Kemper County IGCC Plant
TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Dr. V. K. Sethi, Research Adviser CENTRE FOR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING OSMANIA UNIVERSITY.
Wyoming’s Energy Future: Creating Options Mark A. Northam, Director UW School of Energy Resources September 25, 2008.
Sustainable Alternatives In generating power for chemical plants.
Technology options under consideration for reducing GHG emissions SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ROUNDTABLE SERIES: Next Steps Post-Kyoto: U.S. Options January 13,
IGCC: Technology to Make Coal Green(er)
Autumn Million Jen DePaoli
California Energy Commission Sacramento 9/30 to 10/ Stationary CO 2 Sources Sequestration Data and Impacts on Total Emissions Coal-Fired Power Plant.
Nonrenewable Energy.
Energy Policy Act of 2005 Frank Prager Xcel Energy Inc. February 22, 2006.
1 FUTURE EU ENERGY MIX - WILL COAL PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE? International Conference in Gliwice 29 May 2006 Matthias Dürr RWE AG.
Coal as a Future Generation Fuel Chris M. Hobson S enior Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer December 3, 2009.
The Future of Coal Matt Jahnke February 13, 2006.
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage: Contributing to Climate Change Solutions Luke Warren, IPIECA.
Future Power Generation in Georgia Georgia Climate Change Summit May 6, 2008 Danny Herrin, Manager Climate and Environmental Strategies Southern Company.
Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Conversion Technologies April 15, 2004.
R K Jain. CO 2 emission responsible for global warming Development process to go unhalted. Ways and means to be found for controlling and abating CO 2.
ARKANSAS ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERATION GHG EMMISSIONS TRADING CONFERENCE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MARCH 2006 Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
Can Carbon Capture and Storage Clean up Fossil Fuels Geoffrey Thyne Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute University of Wyoming.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration Graham Friant and Rahul Ramanna Sustainability The main goal of CCS is to increase the sustainability of the current system.
Biofuels Biomass is a renewable energy source because its supplies are not limited. We can always grow trees and crops, and waste will always exist. Environmentally,
Fuels for Different Uses Used for 5 main purposes: Cooking Transportation Manufacturing Heating & cooling buildings Generating electricity to run machines.
UTILIZATION OF BIOMASS ENERGY
Advancements in Coal Technology 2006 Mid-America Regulatory Conference Columbus Ohio Tom Hewson Energy Ventures Analysis Inc Arlington Virginia June 20.
Carbon Sequestration A Strategic Element in Clean Coal Technology Presentation to: Mid-America Regulatory Conference (MARC) Columbus, Ohio, June 20, 2006.
COOK INLET REGION INC. An Alaska Native corporation 1.
Fig. 16-2, p. 357 Oil and natural gas Floating oil drilling platform Oil storage Coal Contour strip mining Oil drilling platform on legs Geothermal energy.
The Case for IGCC Kay Pashos President, Duke Energy Indiana MARC 2006 Annual Meeting June 20, 2006.
© Cengage Learning 2015 LIVING IN THE ENVIRONMENT, 18e G. TYLER MILLER SCOTT E. SPOOLMAN © Cengage Learning 2015 Nonrenewable Energy-Fossil Fuels.
March 28, 2013 Office of Research and Development 1 National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division. Oak Ridge.
Fossil Fuels.
Turbomachinery in Biofuel Production
Presentation transcript:

Joe Chaisson April 21, 2004 www.catf.us Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plants and Geologic Carbon Sequestration Joe Chaisson April 21, 2004 www.catf.us

IGCC: What is it? “Integrated coal Gasification Combined Cycle” or IGCC Chemical conversion of coal to synthetic gas for combustion in a modified gas turbine Inherently cleaner process because coal is not combusted and the relatively small volumes of syngas are easier to clean up than the much larger volumes of flue gases at a coal combustion plant.

Coal IGCC Process1 Coal Gas End Feeds Gasification Cleanup Products Oxygen Combined Cycle Power Block Alternatives: Electricity Coal Gas & Steam Steam Turbines Heavy Oil Alternatives: Petroleum Coke Hydrogen Ammonia F-T Liquids Clean Syngas SULFUR REMOVAL Refinery Residues Orimulsion SULFUR Marketable Byproducts: RECOVERY Natural Gas Solid Sulfur Slag (ash) 1 Texaco Gasification Power Systems (TGPS) 14

Tampa Electric – Polk Power Station . 250 MW – operating since 1996

IGCC Environmental Impacts - Air Pollution Commercially available IGCC power plant technologies can have much lower air pollution emissions than new conventional coal plants. Actual air emissions performance will likely depend, at least in in part, on what control technology and performance levels are required by regulators. Mercury capture at IGCC plants is quite feasible and much less costly than at conventional coal plants and the potential exists to indefinitely sequester mercury captured at IGCC facilities. Commercially available IGCC power plant technologies produce substantially smaller volumes (about one half) of solid wastes than do new conventional coal plants using the same coal IGCC solid wastes are less likely to cause environmental damage than fly ash from conventional coal plants because IGCC ash melts in the gasification process, resulting in an ash much less subject to leaching pollutants than is conventional coal combustion fly ash.

Coal Gasification and Mercury Management Proven, low cost mercury controls can remove most of the mercury from coal “syngas” produced (14 years experience at Eastman Chemical). Mercury is captured in a small volume activated carbon bed (see next slide). Bed contents are currently managed as hazardous wastes (due to other toxics captured), but could be sequestered in a long-term mercury storage facility or the mercury contained could be economically recycled. Thus coal IGCC with a carbon bed plant mercury control is today the only technology that can convert coal to power and capture nearly much of the coal mercury in a form and volume suitable for permanent sequestration.

IGCC Carbon Emissions IGCC plants are more efficient in converting coal to electricity than conventional coal plants and thus produce less CO2 per unit of electricity generated. Near-term IGCC plants would produce about 20% less CO2 - per unit of electricity produced - as would the “average” existing coal plant. The longer term potential could be for IGCC plants to produce about one-third less CO2 - per unit of electricity produced - as would the “average” existing coal plant. IGCC plants can potentially capture and geologically sequester up to 90% (or more) of coal fuel carbon content.

Geologic Carbon Sequestration CO2 is today mined, transported and injected into the ground in operations to enhance oil field recovery. CO2 is also removed at some production fields along with hydrogen sulfide gas from natural gas prior to injection of the natural gas into pipelines. The removed CO2 and hydrogen sulfide are then often injected into geologic formations for permanent disposal. These technologies are today in commercial practice and are essentially the same as would be used to transport and sequester (geologic injection and containment) CO2 captured at an IGCC plant. Statoil’s Sleipner gas field project, off the coast of Norway, is one example of a climate-driven CO2 sequestration project that injects captured CO2 into a saline aquifer. Domestic carbon sequestration would likely focus initially on sites where CO2 injection would enhance oil recovery (as a credit would be earned to reduce costs) or possibly to recover methane form deep coal beds. Costs of purchasing CO2 for these applications are reported to be about $45/ton of carbon. Longer term sequestration options being explored include binding captured CO2 into a mineral that would be environmentally stable and that could be readily be disposed.

Sleipner Carbon Sequestration Project

Costs of Carbon Capture and Geologic Sequestration IGCC carbon capture costs are currently estimated by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to be about 1.2 to 1.9 cents/kWh for a range of commercially available IGCC technologies. Geologic storage costs for captured carbon are likely to vary significantly by power plant location and type of storage “setting” (storage in deep saline aquifers, active enhanced oil recovery projects, deep coal beds, etc.). Transport of captured carbon and storage at a typical saline aquifer site is estimated by MIT to add about 0.2 cents/kWh, for total CCS cost of about 1.4 to 2.1 cents/kWh today. Recent analysis by Carnegie Mellon University researchers suggests that IGCC “repowerings” with carbon capture and sequestration could enter mid-western power markets at carbon allowance prices of $50 - $75/metric ton. Commercially available CO2 capture and sequestration technologies have not been optimized for IGCC power plant carbon capture. Capture costs are projected (by MIT and others) to drop as commercial applications move forward. Carbon capture and sequestration costs will remain uncertain until operational experience accumulates with commercial-scale IGCC carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects.

A Bridge to Hydrogen Fuels Movement of IGCC technology into the power market could facilitate use of coal to produce valuable products beyond electricity - FT diesel fuel Chemical feed stocks Synthestic natural gas Hydrogen, or hydrogen-rich liquid fuels for transportation and building energy Hydrogen is the ultimate fuel cell fuel (current fuels cells often include equipment to convert other fuels - natural gas, etc. - to hydrogen). IGCC is seen by key experts as being critical to economic deployment of hydrogen transportation fuels and widespread use of fuel cells. Successful deployment of IGCC technology in the power sector may be critical to the economic viability of other potential coal-derived products.