Clean Domestic Power: U.S. Opportunities and

Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel

Robert Romanosky

Advanced Research Technology Manager

National Energy Technology Laboratory

March 16, 2010

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

GD

P p

er

Cap

ita

(US

$ / p

ers

on

/ y

r)

Annual Energy Consumption per Capita

(kgoe / person / yr)

China

India

South Africa

GDP vs. Energy Consumption

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000

3

U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2009, ARRA release ; world data from IEA,

World Energy Outlook 2008

Energy Demand 2030

675 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 2006

100 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

Challenge and Program Driver: Annual CO2 Emissions Extremely Large

Emissions Total Release in the U.S.,

short tons per year

Mercury 120

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 15,000,000

Municipal Solid Waste 230,000,000

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 6,300,000,000

Data sources: Mercury - EPA National Emissions Inventory (1999 data); SO2 - EPA air trends (2002 data); MSW - EPA OSWER

fact sheet (2001 data); CO2 - EIA AEO 2004 (2002 data)

1 million metric tons of CO2:

• Every year would fill a volume of 32 million cubic feet

• Close to the volume of the Empire State Building

5

Technological Carbon Management OptionsPathways for Reducing GHGs -CO2

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

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% CO2 capture

> 99% CO2 storage permanence

+/- 30% storage capacity

resolution

GoalsPrograms Approaches

• Post Combustion CO2

Capture

• Oxy-Fired

Combustion

• Chemical Looping

• UltraSupercritical

Combustion

• Materials & Modeling

• Process Integration

& Control

• Demonstration &

Deployment

Programs

7

Coal Based Power

A Portfolio of Alternate PathsFuel Cell Membranes

PETROCHEMICAL PLANT

Fuels

GASIFICATION O2water shift

selexol

IGCC

water shiftselexol

Air AIR BLOWN IGCC

CHEMICAL

LOOPING IGCC

Chemical O2

& Carbonate

looping

Carbonate looping

CFB USC CFB ADVANCED CFB

O2

AirO2 Oxygen Fired CFB

or PC

MEA

PC USC PC

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture

COMBUSTION

HYBRID

COMBUSTION

GASIFICATION

CO2 Capture

8

Fossil Energy CO2 Capture Solutions

Time to Commercialization

Advanced physical solvents

Advanced chemical solvents

Ammonia

CO2 com-pression

Amine solvents

Physical solvents

Cryogenic oxygen

Chemical looping

OTM boiler

Biological processes

Ionic liquids

Metal organic frameworks

Enzymatic membranes

Co

st

Red

ucti

on

Ben

efi

t

PBI membranes

Solid sorbents

Membrane systems

ITMs

Biomass co-firing

Post-combustion (existing, new PC)

Pre-combustion (IGCC)

Oxycombustion (new PC)

CO2 compression (all)

202020152010

OTM – O2 Transport Membrane (PC)

ITM – O2 Ion Transport Membrane (PC or IGCC)

CO2 Capture Targets:

• 90% CO2 Capture

• <10% increase in COE (IGCC)

• <35% increase in COE (PC)

9

Pulverized Coal Oxy-combustion Technology Opportunities

95% O2

PC Boiler

(No SCR)

Steam

Bag

Filter

Wet

Limestone

FGDCO2

Ash

ID FansCoal

Cryogenic

ASU Recycle

Compressor

CO2

Compression

(15 – 2,200Psia)

Power

Coal + O2 CO2 + H2OCheap OxygenOxygen Membranes

Advanced MOCReduce CO2 Recycle

Handle High Sulfur

Oxyfuel BoilersCompact Boiler Designs

Advanced Materials

Advanced Burners

Co-SequestrationRemove FGD

Compression &

Purification

MOC – materials of construction, FGD – Flue Gas Desulfurization, SCR – Selective Catalytic Reduction

10

Advanced PC Oxy-combustion

Challenges

• Cryogenic ASUs are capital and energy

intensive

• Excess O2 and inerts (N2, Ar) h CO2

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 O2 Membranes

• Retrofit existing air boilers

- Air leakage, heat transfer, corrosion

- Process control

• CO2 purification

• Co-capture (CO2 + SOx, NOx, O2)

O2-FiredAir-Fired

Heat

Flux(Btu/hr-ft2)

Division Walls

Burners

OFA Ports

Waterwalls

O2-FiredAir-Fired

Heat

Flux(Btu/hr-ft2)

Division Walls

Burners

OFA Ports

Waterwalls

Heat

Flux(Btu/hr-ft2)

Division Walls

Burners

OFA Ports

Waterwalls

Ultra-supercritical Oxyboilers

Fireside

Wall side

Water-wall tube heat transfer

Oxygen Membranes

Boiler size

reduced by >30%

AirCH4, CO, H2

CO2, H2O

''

O

'

O

2

2

P

PlnFlux

1000oC, 1832 F

3-5 psig~ 500 psig

O2-

e-

O2 + 4e- → 2O

2-

AirCH4, CO, H2

CO2, H2O

''

O

'

O

2

2

P

PlnFlux

1000oC, 1832 F

3-5 psig~ 500 psig

O2-

e-

O2 + 4e- → 2O

2-

Partners (11 projects): Praxair, Air Products, Jupiter, Alstom, B&W, Foster Wheeler, REI, SRI

11

Chemical Looping Combustion

Chemical Looping Advantages:

• Oxy-combustion without an O2 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 Partners (2 projects): Alstom Power (Limestone Based), Ohio State (Metal Oxide)

Status

2010 Alstom Pilot test (1 MWe)

1000 lb/hr coal flow

1st Integrated operation

1st Autothermal Operation

Red1700F

Ox2000F

CaS

Air

Fuel CO2 + H2O

CaSO4

MB

HX N2 + O2

Steam

Fuel Reactor (Reducer)CaSO4 + 2C + Heat 2CO2 + CaS

CaSO4 + 4H2 + Heat 4H2O + CaS

Air Reactor (Oxidizer)CaS + 2O2 CaSO4 + 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 O2 in the Oxidizer, leaves N2 behind

Carrier Burns the Fuel in the Reducer

Heat produces Steam for Power

12

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 materials1600150014001300120011001000900

40

42

44

46

48

Temperature (°F)

Pla

nt

Th

erm

al E

ffic

ien

cy (%

)

3500 psi

5500 psi

Birks and Ruth

13

Benefit of Higher Efficiency in Reducing CO2

(Bituminous coal, without CO2 capture)

20% reduction in CO2

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% CO2 Reduction

14

Efficiency Contribution from Sensors and ControlsValue 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 CO2 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

COAL

35,700 MMBtu/yr

$70 million/yr

@$2/MMBtu

500 MW10,200 Btu/kWh

POWER

3.5 billion kWh/yr

@ 80% capacity

factor

Gaseous

Emissions

Solid Waste

Analysis based on 2008 coal costs

and 2008 coal-fired power plant fleet

(units greater than 300 MW)

15

Carbon Sequestration Program Goals

• Deliver technologies & best practices that

provide Carbon Capture and Safe Storage

(CCSS) with:

– 90% CO2 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)

CO2 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)

16

North American CO2 Storage Potential

(Billion Metric Tons)

Sink Type Low High

Saline Formations 3,300 12,600

Unmineable Coal Seams 160 180

Oil & Gas Fields 140 140

Available for download at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/carbon_seq/refshelf.html

U.S. Emissions ~ 6 Billion Tons CO2/yr all sources

~ 2 Billion Tons CO2/yr coal-fired power plants

Hundreds of

Years

Storage

Potential

National Atlas Highlights - 2008

Saline Formations

Oil and Gas Fields Unmineable Coal Seams

Conservative

Resource

Assessment

17

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

18

PPII & CCPI Demonstration ProjectsLocations & Cost Share

Emission Control

Fuel

Advanced Power

Systems

Excelsior EnergyMesaba Energy Project

$2.16B – Total$36M – DOE

Wisconsin ElectricTOXECON Multi-pollutant

Control$53M – Total

$24.9M – DOE

NeuCo (Baldwin)Integrated Optimization Software

$19M – Total$8.6M – DOE

NeuCo (Limestone)Mercury Specie &

Multi-pollutant Control$15.6M – Total$6.1M – DOE

CONSOLGreenidge Multi-pollutant Control

$32.7M – Total$14.3M – DOE

Southern CompanyIGCC-Transport Gasifier

$2B – Total$294M – DOE

Basin ElectricPostcombustion CO2 Capture

$287M – Total$100M – DOE

HECACommercial Demo of Advanced

IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture~$2.8B – Total$308M – DOE

Awarded

In Negotiation

Complete

Great River EnergyLignite Fuel Enhancement

$31.5M – Total$13.5M – DOE

AEPPost Combustion CO2 Capture

$668M – Total$334M – DOE

Southern Company ServicesPost-combustion CO2 Capture

$668M – Total$295M – DOE

Summit TX Clean EnergyCommercial Demo of Advanced

IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture~$1.9B – Total$350M – DOE

Project Locations for ICCS Area 1Carbon Capture and Storage from Industrial Sources

Archer Daniels Midland; Industrial Power & Ethanol; Saline, DOW Alstom Amine,

Decatur, IL

Air Products, H2

Production; EOR, BASF’s aMDEA

Port Arthur, TX;

Battelle, Boise White Paper Mill, Basalt,

Fluor Econamine Plus, Washington

C6 (Shell); H2

Production; Saline, ADIP-X Amine,

Solano, CA

Conoco Phillips; IGGC-Petcoke; Depleted NG/EOR,

Selexol, Sweeny, TX

Praxair; H2 for Refinery; EOR, VPSA,

Texas City, TX

Texas Energy; Petcoke Gasification (H2, MeOH &

NH3); 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

CO2 Capture TechnologyUniv. of Utah; Ammonia &

Cement; EOR & Saline, Dehydration,

Coffeyville, KS

Wolverine, CFB Power; EOR, Hitachi Amine,

Rogers City, MI

19

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% CO2 with potential

for ~100%

– >99% sulfur removal; <0.05 lb/MMBtu Nox; <0.005 lb/MMBtu PM; >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

20

FutureGen

Gasification with Cleanup Separation System

Integration

CarbonSequestration

Optimized Turbines

Fuel Cells

H2 Production

FutureGenPotential “Proving Ground” for Emerging Technology

21

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 industry’s willingness to commit capital investment, endangering near-term production capacity

• The U.S. must foster new processes that address conflicting energy objectives simultaneously

• Our nation’s dependence on liquid fuel from foreign resources will continue to remain high for the near term

22

NETLwww.netl.doe.gov

Contact Information

Office of Fossil Energywww.fe.doe.gov

Robert R. Romanosky

304-285-4721

Robert.romanosky@netl.doe.gov