Upload
barnard-richards
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
U.S. EPA’s Clean Air U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Gasification ActivitiesGasification Activities
Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air and RadiationOffice of Air and RadiationOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsResearch Triangle Park, N.C.Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Presentation at the Gasification Technologies Council
Winter MeetingJanuary 26, 2006Tucson, Arizona
Environmental Technology Environmental Technology InitiativeInitiative Key leaders at the Agency understand that Key leaders at the Agency understand that
innovative technology has been and will innovative technology has been and will continue to be a key element in meeting our continue to be a key element in meeting our environmental needs in a economical, cost-environmental needs in a economical, cost-effective mannereffective manner
EPA Senior management challenged Agency EPA Senior management challenged Agency staff to figure out ways to facilitate and staff to figure out ways to facilitate and incentivize the development and deployment of incentivize the development and deployment of such technologiessuch technologies– Created the Environmental Technology Council (ETC)Created the Environmental Technology Council (ETC)
Solicited topics for consideration Agency-wideSolicited topics for consideration Agency-wide– 47 possible technologies and environmental problems 47 possible technologies and environmental problems
in need of technology solutions were identifiedin need of technology solutions were identified– 14 projects were selected as “priorities” for the 14 projects were selected as “priorities” for the
Agency, based on Agency-wide voting across all EPA Agency, based on Agency-wide voting across all EPA offices and Regions.offices and Regions.
Two Gasification Projects Two Gasification Projects SelectedSelected Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC)(IGCC)– Generating electricity from the gasification of coal Generating electricity from the gasification of coal
and other fossil fuel byproductsand other fossil fuel byproducts– Office of Air and Radiation is lead office on Office of Air and Radiation is lead office on
development and deployment of IGCC technologydevelopment and deployment of IGCC technology
Waste-to-EnergyWaste-to-Energy– Utilization of biomass, petroleum residuals, Utilization of biomass, petroleum residuals,
petroleum coke, secondary materialspetroleum coke, secondary materials– Office of Research and Development in conjunction Office of Research and Development in conjunction
with the Office of Solid Waste are the leads on the with the Office of Solid Waste are the leads on the waste-to-energy effortwaste-to-energy effort
– OAR, ORD and OSWER are working together as a OAR, ORD and OSWER are working together as a cross-Agency team to promote these technologies cross-Agency team to promote these technologies for deploymentfor deployment
Coal – The Future of Coal – The Future of Electricity GenerationElectricity Generation
The world needs to make The world needs to make electricity from coal in an electricity from coal in an environmentally and economically environmentally and economically sustainable waysustainable way– IGCC has fundamental advantages IGCC has fundamental advantages
from both environmental and from both environmental and efficiency perspectives relative to efficiency perspectives relative to conventional coal-fired power conventional coal-fired power generation technologiesgeneration technologies
Inherently lower emissions of NOInherently lower emissions of NOXX, , SOSO22 and Hg and Hg
Requires less fresh water – special Requires less fresh water – special issue in the drier, water-limited issue in the drier, water-limited Western regions of the U.S.Western regions of the U.S.
Considerably more commercially Considerably more commercially useful byproducts (and thus, less useful byproducts (and thus, less waste materials)waste materials)
– High potential for reducing High potential for reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by allowing for carbon capture and by allowing for carbon capture and sequestration at costs significantly sequestration at costs significantly below conventional PC generation below conventional PC generation costscosts CINERGY’s Wabash River Facility
Gasification Offers Clean Gasification Offers Clean AlternativeAlternative
0.5
1
1.5
2
SCPC IGCC NGCC
NOx SO2 PM Hg
~80% 95%+
NOx SO2 PM Hg NOx SO2 PM Hg
~0 ~0 ~0
lb/MWh
Estimated New Plant Emissions Performance
Proposed Da SO2 limit
Proposed Da NOx limit
Proposed Da PM limit*
* - Taking comment on the adoption of PM-CEMS; other alternative is 0.015 lb/MMBtu limit
EPA’s Role in EPA’s Role in DeploymentDeployment
The Environmental Technology Initiative’s The Environmental Technology Initiative’s purpose is topurpose is to– Achieve improved, real-world environmental results Achieve improved, real-world environmental results
through the design, development and deployment of through the design, development and deployment of innovative technologiesinnovative technologies
IdentifyIdentify short- and long-term priority environmental short- and long-term priority environmental problems with attainable technological solutionsproblems with attainable technological solutions
CoordinateCoordinate efforts within EPA and other Federal agencies efforts within EPA and other Federal agencies to identify and implement such technological advancements to identify and implement such technological advancements and solutionand solution
CreateCreate partnerships with other Federal agencies, State partnerships with other Federal agencies, State governments, Tribal governments, non-profit groups and governments, Tribal governments, non-profit groups and industry to incentivize technology enhancements and industry to incentivize technology enhancements and deploymentdeployment
– Creation of joint EPA/DOE team to promote deployment of IGCCCreation of joint EPA/DOE team to promote deployment of IGCC
EPA/DOE Team EPA/DOE Team ActivitiesActivities
Objective is to facilitate a critical number of Objective is to facilitate a critical number of commercial plants to address both environmental commercial plants to address both environmental and operational concernsand operational concerns
EPA Air Permitting InitiativesEPA Air Permitting Initiatives-- Identification and quick resolution of novel air Identification and quick resolution of novel air
permitting issuespermitting issues-- Help in expediting the air permit processHelp in expediting the air permit process
DOE/EPA developing a model to assess the DOE/EPA developing a model to assess the economic viability of IGCC plants under different economic viability of IGCC plants under different conditionsconditions
EPA/DOE conducting a technical study to EPA/DOE conducting a technical study to establish the environmental footprint of the IGCC establish the environmental footprint of the IGCC technology relative to conventional PC plantstechnology relative to conventional PC plants
EPA Actions to Date – Progress EPA Actions to Date – Progress ReportReport
Regulatory IssuesRegulatory Issues– Current issue for IGCC facilities is New Source Review (NSR) and Current issue for IGCC facilities is New Source Review (NSR) and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permittingPrevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting December 13, 2005 – Steve Page memoDecember 13, 2005 – Steve Page memo (IGCC and BACT) (IGCC and BACT)
– EPA’s interpretation of when IGCC should be considered in NSR and PSD EPA’s interpretation of when IGCC should be considered in NSR and PSD permittingpermitting
– In the case of pulverized coal boilers and similar conventional coal-fired In the case of pulverized coal boilers and similar conventional coal-fired technologies, IGCC should not be considered as control technology candidate technologies, IGCC should not be considered as control technology candidate under BACTunder BACT
– Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as BACT for IGCC unitsSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as BACT for IGCC units
Headquarters and Regional offices want to work with companies Headquarters and Regional offices want to work with companies interested in developing IGCC technology in the near futureinterested in developing IGCC technology in the near future
EPA is committed to working with State permitting authoritiesEPA is committed to working with State permitting authorities– States are the primary permitting authority under NSR/PSD – often States are the primary permitting authority under NSR/PSD – often
can be more stringent than Federal regulationscan be more stringent than Federal regulations– Agency is attempting to be “upfront” and let States know “where we Agency is attempting to be “upfront” and let States know “where we
stand” on IGCC permitting issuesstand” on IGCC permitting issues Anticipate this may help expedite and streamline the NSR & PSD Anticipate this may help expedite and streamline the NSR & PSD
permitting process considerablypermitting process considerably
Potential Regulatory Potential Regulatory HurdlesHurdles
Should Selective Catalytic Should Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) be required Reduction (SCR) be required as best achievable control as best achievable control technology (BACT) for IGCC?technology (BACT) for IGCC?– TECO’s Polk Power Station, TECO’s Polk Power Station,
Tampa, FloridaTampa, Florida Florida DEP ultimately decided in Florida DEP ultimately decided in
conjunction with Region IV that conjunction with Region IV that SCR was SCR was notnot required as BACT – a required as BACT – a position supported by position supported by HeadquartersHeadquarters
– BACT is a case-by-case BACT is a case-by-case determinationdetermination
““One Size Doesn’t Fit All”One Size Doesn’t Fit All”– Circumstances at a new plant may Circumstances at a new plant may
not be the same as what drove our not be the same as what drove our decision at Polk Power Stationdecision at Polk Power Station
Regardless, SCR as BACT is a Regardless, SCR as BACT is a decision that merits our attention decision that merits our attention and resolution sooner as opposed and resolution sooner as opposed to laterto later
SCR Technical SCR Technical IssuesIssues
Currently reviewing request from U.S. power Currently reviewing request from U.S. power company for guidance on SCR as BACTcompany for guidance on SCR as BACT
Issues under review:Issues under review:– SCR not demonstrated on plants utilizing coal-SCR not demonstrated on plants utilizing coal-
derived syngasderived syngas Lack of U.S. experienceLack of U.S. experience One plant operational in JapanOne plant operational in Japan
– SCR feasibility, high cost and risk issues vary SCR feasibility, high cost and risk issues vary between IGCC plants, PC plants and NGCC between IGCC plants, PC plants and NGCC facilitiesfacilities
– Ability to obtain meaningful performance Ability to obtain meaningful performance guarantees for SCR and/or HRSG systemsguarantees for SCR and/or HRSG systems
– SOSO22 BACT analysis and its impact on SCR costs BACT analysis and its impact on SCR costs and feasibilityand feasibility
MDEA, Rectisol or SelexolMDEA, Rectisol or Selexol
Potential Regulatory Potential Regulatory IncentivesIncentives
Final New Source Performance Final New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Subpart Standards (NSPS) for Subpart DaDa– IGCC Units constructed on/after IGCC Units constructed on/after
February 9, 2005 would be February 9, 2005 would be subject to the same emission subject to the same emission limits as a coal-fired boilerlimits as a coal-fired boiler
Given current IGCC technology, Given current IGCC technology, this should not pose any this should not pose any regulatory burden on new, regulatory burden on new, planned IGCC facilitiesplanned IGCC facilities
– Duct burners moved into KKKKDuct burners moved into KKKK Final Clean Air Mercury Rule Final Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR)(CAMR) – Created separate source category Created separate source category
for IGCC unitsfor IGCC units Hg emission limit of 20 x 10Hg emission limit of 20 x 10-6-6
lb/MWhlb/MWh Comparable to a bituminous Comparable to a bituminous
PC-fired power generation PC-fired power generation systemsystem
Future Plans and NeedsFuture Plans and Needs To incentivize the commercial deployment of IGCC To incentivize the commercial deployment of IGCC
technology EPA needs to better understand the technology EPA needs to better understand the environmental footprintenvironmental footprint of these facilities relative to of these facilities relative to conventional power generation technologiesconventional power generation technologies– EPA/DOE Environmental Footprint StudyEPA/DOE Environmental Footprint Study
EPA is working on models to assess the EPA is working on models to assess the economic economic viabilityviability of IGCC plants under different conditions of IGCC plants under different conditions– Working closely with DOE on these economic and Working closely with DOE on these economic and
environmental effortsenvironmental efforts
One remaining barrier is the One remaining barrier is the cost of IGCC technologycost of IGCC technology– EPA is working in conjunction with DOE to evaluate various EPA is working in conjunction with DOE to evaluate various
proposals to address this economic barrierproposals to address this economic barrier– Energy Policy Act of 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005
Exploring options and incentivesExploring options and incentives
Draft Results of EPA’s IGCC vs. PC Draft Results of EPA’s IGCC vs. PC StudyStudy Nexant, Incorporated contracted to perform Nexant, Incorporated contracted to perform
study in conjunction with EPA and DOE inputstudy in conjunction with EPA and DOE input– Solicited comment/input on draft report from Solicited comment/input on draft report from
numerous stakeholder groupsnumerous stakeholder groups
Final results targeted for discussion at the GTC Final results targeted for discussion at the GTC meeting in Tampa, Florida in March 2006meeting in Tampa, Florida in March 2006– Public release March 2006Public release March 2006
Aspects of the StudyAspects of the Study Thermal performance of IGCC and PC unitsThermal performance of IGCC and PC units Estimated air emissionsEstimated air emissions Water use requirements and solid waste outputWater use requirements and solid waste output COCO22 capture and sequestration potential capture and sequestration potential
Barriers to IGCC DeploymentBarriers to IGCC Deployment Concerns of higher costsConcerns of higher costs
– Nominally considered to be approximately 20%Nominally considered to be approximately 20% Concerns of novel environmental permit Concerns of novel environmental permit
issues delaying construction and increasing issues delaying construction and increasing costscosts– NSR and PSD issuesNSR and PSD issues– BACT analysesBACT analyses
Concerns of plant reliabilityConcerns of plant reliability– Need for dual-train gasifierNeed for dual-train gasifier– HRSG fouling downstream of the SCRHRSG fouling downstream of the SCR– Power block reliabilityPower block reliability
Cultural resistance to a facility with a large Cultural resistance to a facility with a large chemical plant componentchemical plant component– Chemical Engineers vs. Mechanical EngineersChemical Engineers vs. Mechanical Engineers
Technical Study ScopeTechnical Study Scope IGCC and PC plant comparisons provided, using IGCC and PC plant comparisons provided, using
bituminous/subbituminous coals and lignitebituminous/subbituminous coals and lignite
Plant size:Plant size: 500 MW500 MW
Plant configurations:Plant configurations:-- Oxygen-blown IGCC, 1,800 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° FOxygen-blown IGCC, 1,800 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F-- Subcritical PC, 2,400 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° FSubcritical PC, 2,400 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F-- Supercritical PC, 3,500 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° FSupercritical PC, 3,500 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F-- Ultra-supercritical PC, 4,500 psig / 1,100Ultra-supercritical PC, 4,500 psig / 1,100°° F / 1,100 F / 1,100°° F F
(double reheat)(double reheat)
Technical Study ScopeTechnical Study Scope,, ((Cont’dCont’d)) IGCC plant environmental controls:IGCC plant environmental controls:
-- NOx: Diluents (SCR evaluated)NOx: Diluents (SCR evaluated)
-- SOSO22: MDEA (Selexol evaluated): MDEA (Selexol evaluated)
-- Particulate: scrubberParticulate: scrubber
-- Mercury: carbon bed Mercury: carbon bed
PC plant environmental controls:PC plant environmental controls:-- NOx: SCR NOx: SCR
-- SOSO22: wet FGD for bituminous coal (BC) and lignite : wet FGD for bituminous coal (BC) and lignite (LIG) and spray dryer for subbituminous coal (SBC)(LIG) and spray dryer for subbituminous coal (SBC)
-- Particulate: ESP for BC and LIG, Baghouse for SBCParticulate: ESP for BC and LIG, Baghouse for SBC
-- Mercury: sorbent injection (activated carbon) for Mercury: sorbent injection (activated carbon) for SBCSBC
Thermal Performance Bituminous Thermal Performance Bituminous CoalCoal**
Plant Plant TypeType
IGCCIGCC PC Sub-PC Sub-Critical Critical
PC Super- PC Super- CriticalCritical
PC Ultra PC Ultra Super-Super-CriticalCritical
Net Net output, output, MWMW
500500 500500 500500 500500
Thermal Thermal Efficiency, Efficiency, % HHV% HHV
41.841.8 35.935.9 38.338.3 42.742.7
Heat Heat Rate, Rate, Btu/kWhBtu/kWh
8,1678,167 9,5009,500 8,9008,900 8,0008,000
* Preliminary/draft results.
Thermal Performance Subbituminous Thermal Performance Subbituminous CoalCoal**
Plant Plant TypeType
IGCCIGCC PC Sub-PC Sub-Critical Critical
PC Super- PC Super- CriticalCritical
PC Ultra PC Ultra Super-Super-CriticalCritical
Net Net output, output, MWMW
500500 500500 500500 500500
Thermal Thermal Efficiency, Efficiency, % HHV% HHV
40.040.0 34.834.8 37.937.9 42.142.1
Heat Heat Rate, Rate, Btu/kWhBtu/kWh
8,5208,520 9,8009,800 9,0009,000 8,1008,100
* Preliminary/draft results.
Thermal Performance LigniteThermal Performance Lignite**
Plant Plant TypeType
IGCCIGCC PC Sub-PC Sub-Critical Critical
PC Super- PC Super- CriticalCritical
PC Ultra PC Ultra Super-Super-CriticalCritical
Net Net output, output, MWMW
500500 500500 500500 500500
Thermal Thermal Efficiency, Efficiency, % HHV% HHV
38.438.4 33.133.1 35.935.9 37.937.9
Heat Heat Rate, Rate, Btu/kWhBtu/kWh
8,8978,897 10,30010,300 9,5009,500 9,0009,000
* Preliminary/draft results.
Air Emission ComparisonsAir Emission Comparisons**
PollutantPollutant IGCC ProjectIGCC Project PC ProjectPC Project PC ProjectPC Project
NOxNOx 0.070.07** 0.070.07 0.060.06
SOSO22 0.030.03 0.090.09 0.090.09
PM/PMPM/PM1010 0.0110.011 0.013/0.0120.013/0.012 0.0180.018
VOCVOC 0.0040.004 0.00270.0027 0.00360.0036
COCO 0.030.03 0.150.15 0.150.15
HgHg 0.50.5 0.660.66 1.71.7
Coal TypeCoal Type BituminousBituminous Bituminous/Bituminous/Sub-Sub-bituminousbituminous
Sub-Sub-bituminousbituminous
* Preliminary/draft results. All emissions in lb/MMBtu, except for Hg, which is in lb/TBtu. NOx for IGCC is based on 15 ppmvd at 15% O2.
Water Use and Solid Waste Water Use and Solid Waste ComparisonsComparisons****
ParameterParameter IGCC PlantIGCC Plant** PC PlantPC Plant**
Cooling Cooling water, gpmwater, gpm
99,50099,500 167,300167,300
Makeup Makeup water, gpmwater, gpm
141141 325325
Solid waste, Solid waste, tpdtpd
224224 616616
* Each plant is approximately 290 MW in size.** Preliminary/draft results.
COCO22 Capture and Sequestration Capture and Sequestration PotentialPotential**
ParameterParameter IGCC PlantIGCC Plant PC PlantPC Plant
COCO22 capture, % capture, % 9191 9090
Plant output Plant output derating, %derating, %
1414 2929
Heat rate Heat rate increase, %increase, %
16.516.5 4040
Capital cost Capital cost increase, %increase, %
4747 7373
COE increase, COE increase, %%
3838 6666
* Preliminary/draft results.
Main Study Areas Still Under Main Study Areas Still Under DevelopmentDevelopment Capabilities of air pollution control technologies used in Capabilities of air pollution control technologies used in
IGCC and PC plantsIGCC and PC plants
– Efficiency of sulfur removal processes (IGCC)Efficiency of sulfur removal processes (IGCC)
– Feasibility of SCR (IGCC)Feasibility of SCR (IGCC)
– Evolution of Hg removal technologies (PC)Evolution of Hg removal technologies (PC)
– Carbon capture efficiency (IGCC and PC)Carbon capture efficiency (IGCC and PC)
Comparison of mercury emission control capabilities Comparison of mercury emission control capabilities between IGCC and PC plantsbetween IGCC and PC plants
– Sorbent injection (PC)Sorbent injection (PC)
– Activated carbon beds (IGCC)Activated carbon beds (IGCC)
Comparison of water consumption and waste water and Comparison of water consumption and waste water and solid waste generation rates between IGCC and PC solid waste generation rates between IGCC and PC plantsplants
Potential of COPotential of CO22 capture within PC plants capture within PC plants
Cost Comparisons Bituminous Coal Cost Comparisons Bituminous Coal ApplicationsApplications
CostsCosts IGCCIGCC Subcritical Subcritical PCPC
SupercriticSupercritical PCal PC
Ultra Ultra SupercriticSupercritic
al PCal PC
Total Total Capital Capital RequiremenRequirement, $/kWt, $/kW
1,6701,670 1,3471,347 1,4311,431 1,5291,529
Operating Operating Cost, Cost, $1,000s$1,000s
27,31027,310 27,70027,700 29,00029,000 30,40030,400
1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may be
different due to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account for possible increases for items such as performance guarantees, warranties and availability.
3. Operating costs include fixed and variable O&M costs.
Cost Comparisons Subbituminous Cost Comparisons Subbituminous Coal ApplicationsCoal Applications
CostsCosts IGCCIGCC Subcritical Subcritical PCPC
SupercriticSupercritical PCal PC
Ultra Ultra SupercriticSupercritic
al PCal PC
Total Total Capital Capital RequiremenRequirement, $/kWt, $/kW
1,9101,910 1,3871,387 1,4731,473 1,5751,575
Operating Operating Cost, Cost, $1,000s$1,000s
29,70029,700 28,30028,300 29,60029,600 31,10031,100
1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may
be different due to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account for possible increases for items such as performance guarantees, warranties and availability.
3. Operating costs include fixed and variable O&M costs.
Cost Comparisons Lignite Cost Comparisons Lignite ApplicationsApplicationsCostsCosts IGCCIGCC Subcritical Subcritical
PCPCSupercriticSupercritic
al PCal PCUltra Ultra
SupercriticSupercritical PCal PC
Total Total Capital Capital RequiremenRequirement, $/kWt, $/kW
2,3502,350 1,4241,424 1,5111,511 1,6171,617
Operating Operating Cost, Cost, $1,000s$1,000s
34,00034,000 29,64029,640 30,94030,940 32,44032,440
1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may be
different due to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account for possible increases for items such as performance guarantees, warranties and availability.
3. Operating costs include fixed and variable O&M costs.
ConclusionsConclusions EPA has undertaken several initiatives to facilitate and EPA has undertaken several initiatives to facilitate and
incentivize IGCC technologyincentivize IGCC technology– Environmental Study (release: March 2006)Environmental Study (release: March 2006)– December 13, 2005 Steve Page Memo – IGCC and BACTDecember 13, 2005 Steve Page Memo – IGCC and BACT– Future guidance on SCR as BACT for IGCC facilitiesFuture guidance on SCR as BACT for IGCC facilities
Preliminary IGCC vs. PC Study Results:Preliminary IGCC vs. PC Study Results:– IGCC thermal performance significantly better than IGCC thermal performance significantly better than
current PC technologiescurrent PC technologies– Overall better environmental performance for IGCCOverall better environmental performance for IGCC– IGCC has potential advantage in capturing and IGCC has potential advantage in capturing and
sequestrating COsequestrating CO22 at lower costs at lower costs
EPA is not trying to pick a technology winner, but EPA is not trying to pick a technology winner, but trying to ensure that IGCC has a chance to prove itself trying to ensure that IGCC has a chance to prove itself commerciallycommercially
For more information contact:
Dr. Robert J. WaylandOffice of Air Quality Planning & StandardsResearch Triangle Park, NC(919) [email protected]