Coal Gasification and Carbon Capture and Sequestration: What and Why? Clean Air Task Force February 2006.

Coal Gasification and Carbon Capture and

Sequestration:What and Why?

Clean Air Task Force

February 2006

2

Overview

Technology Description Environmental Profile Status of Carbon Sequestration Why it Matters to Climate

3

A partial oxidation process that can convert any hydrocarbon into hydrogen hydrogen and carbon monoxide (synthesis gas or syngas).

(CH)n + O2 H2 + CO

For example:

2 CH4 + O2 4H2 + 2 CO

[ Methane] [Oxygen] [Hydrogen] [Carbon Monoxide]

Gasification Technology Overview:

The Basic Chemistry

Process Conditions: 1,800 – 2,800 Deg F, 400 – 1,000 psig

4

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): Proven Technology

Source: US Dept. of Energy/National Energy Technology Labs (NETL)

5

Nuon (Demkolec) – Netherlands 1994 250 Power / Coal

Wabash (Global/Cinergy) – USA 1995 260 Repower / Coal, Pet Coke

Tampa Electric Company – USA 1996 250 Power / Coal, Petroleum Coke

Frontier Oil, Kansas – USA 1996 45 Cogeneration / Petroleum Coke

SUV – Czech Republic 1996 350 Cogeneration / Coal

Schwarze Pumpe – Germany 1996 40 Power & Methanol / Lignite

Shell Pernis – Netherlands 1997 120 Cogen & H2 / Visbreaker Tar

Puertollano – Spain 1998 320 Power / Coal, Coke

ISAB: ERG/Mission – Italy 2000 510 Power / Asphalt

Sarlux: Saras/Enron – Italy 2001 545 Power, Steam, H2 / Visbreaker Tar

Exxon Chemical – Singapore 2001 160 Cogeneration / Ethylene Tar

API Energia – Italy 2001 280 Power & Steam / Visbreaker Tar

Motiva LLC – Delaware, USA 2002 160 Repower / Pet Coke

Nippon Refining – Japan 2003 342 Power / Asphalt

Commercial IGCC Projects (14)Commercial IGCC Projects (14)

Project – Location Start-Up Megawatts Products - FeedstockProject – Location Start-Up Megawatts Products - Feedstock

Total IGCC Megawatts – 3,632 MWTotal IGCC Megawatts – 3,632 MWTotal Experience, Operating Hours on Syngas > 750,000 hoursTotal Experience, Operating Hours on Syngas > 750,000 hours

6

Emerging Technologies

• Innovative gasification technologies are being developed by several companies:

• For example, Boeing Rocketdyne, Texas Syngas, Genesis Environmental, Enviro-Power Int. (EPIC), GreatPoint Energy

• However, these technologies have not yet progressed to commercial demonstration

• Some proven biomass gasifiers are being offered for coal (e.g. Primenergy)

• Low rank coal processing systems to make these coals more suitable as gasification feed stocks are under development

• These technologies may shape “third generation” IGCC power plants (probably in the 2015-2025 time frame). However, these emerging technologies will be introduced into the Coal to SNG and Coal to Liquids market segments first.

US Gasification Target Areas: Midwest/Eastern Coals (Higher Sulfur) and Petroleum Coke Now,

Western Coals in Near Future

Power Generation: Differentiators that favor IGCC over boiler technologies

Pre-combustion clean-up of fuel prior to power generation Environmental Technology => Greatest potential for future

proven lowest NOx, SOx, particulate matter and lower hazardous air pollutants, proven mercury and carbon dioxide removal, lower water usage, lower solids production sulfur and non-leachable slag by-products

Proven polygeneration flexibility, now and in future power, hydrogen, steam, chemicals, zero-sulfur diesel

Practical opportunity to retrofit carbon capture equipment.

9

Mercury Emissions

IGCC is essentially the only coal technology that can effectively remove mercury from the environment.

Carbon beds have demonstrated 99.9% mercury removal from syngas (post “gas-clean-up”).

Carbon beds are less expensive and produce vastly smaller volumes of solid waste than activated carbon injection at PC plant.

Carbon bed waste is managed as hazardous waste which inhibits re-emission.

Initial syngas mercury removal is in gas-clean-up system (before mercury bed). Much of this mercury is captured in wastes managed as hazardous, which inhibits re-emission.

10

SO2 EmissionsCoal Plant SO2 Emission Rates

Pounds per MWH

10.272

0.934

0.3970.144

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

All Coal in 2002 Average of The Best 38Coal Plants

Best Coal Plant in 2002 New Japanese Plant

Lbs

per M

WH

11

NOx Emissions

Coal Plant NOx Emission RatesPounds per MWH

4.294

1.320

0.584

0.099

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

All Coal Plants in 2002 Average of the Best 30Coal Plants

Best Coal Plant in 2002 New Japanese Plant

Lbs

per M

WH

12

Solid Waste and Water Use

Solid Wastes• Less Volume: IGCC produce about half the solid wastes of

conventional coal plants.• Better Form: IGCC solid wastes are less likely to leach toxic

metals than fly ash from conventional coal plants because IGCC ash melts and is vitrified (encased in a glass-like substance).

Water Use• Less Water: IGCC units use 20%-50% less water than

conventional coal plants and can utilize dry cooling to minimize water use.

13

Key IGCC Market Barriers

• Unfamiliar and uncomfortable technology to power industry: “chemical plant” not combustion boiler

• Currently higher capital and operating costs relative to supercritical boilers

• Standard designs and guarantee packages not yet fully developed• Reluctance of customers to be “early adopters”, and assume

technology application risk • Emerging business models: Next IGCC will be each alliance’s first • Few units in operation (14), many located overseas, and most not on

coal• Environmental benefits threaten existing coal power fleet• Lingering availability/reliability concerns (spare train will help, but not

eliminate the perceived risk)• Questions about feasibility and cost using low-rank coals, particularly

lignite• IGCC is an emerging industry, vs. established boiler industry • Real interest in coal gasification to SNG, zero sulfur diesel, ammonia

and other chemicals will in turn assist IGCC development

14

Geologic sequestration options

IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Summary for Policymakers as approved by the 8th Session of IPCC Working Group III, September 25th, 2005, Montreal, Canada

15

Good fit between likely coal plant locations and geologic storage availability

IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Summary for Policymakers as approved by the 8th Session of IPCC Working Group III, September 25th, 2005, Montreal, Canada

16

Carbon Geologic Storage Capture: Issues

Subsurface issues:• Is there enough capacity to store CO2 broadly?

• Do we understand storage mechanisms well enough?

• Could we certify and decertify injection sites with our current level of understanding?

• Once injected, can we monitor and verify the subsurface CO2?

Near surface issues:• How might capacity distribution affect deployment and siting of zero-emission projects and new coal plants ?

• What are the probabilities of CO2 escaping from injection sites? What are the attendant risks? Can we detect leakage if it occurs?

• Will surface leakage negate or reduce the benefits of CCS?

From: S. Julio Friedmann, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

17

The state of knowledge

To a first order, the science supports successful carbon storage.

Science and technology gaps appear resolvable and should focus on key problems (e.g., wells)

LARGE SCALE tests are crucial to understanding successful deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and creating appropriate policy/economic structures.

From: S. Julio Friedmann, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

18

Experience and Evolution from Oil & Gas Operations

Acid Gas Injection Enhanced Oil

Recovery (EOR) Natural Gas Storage CO2 Transport

• 2000 miles of CO2 pipelines in US

19

Current underground injection practices vs power

sector CO2 M

t/ye

ar

1

10

100

1000

10000

FL MunicipalWastewater

OilfieldBrine

HazardousWaste

AcidGas

Natural GasStorage

CO2 forEOR

OCS water injected for EOR and

brine disposal

OCSgases

(e.g., NG)

Large quantities

Long Time

Frame

Gases

~.5

Gt

~2

Mt

~34

Mt

~28

Mt~

150M

t

~2.

7 G

t

~6M

t

~1.

2 M

t

Sub-seabed

Source: M. Granger Morgan, “Climate Change: State of the science and technology”EPRI Summer Workshop, August, 2002; Complied by EPP Ph.D. student E. Wilson with data from EPA, 2001; Deurling, 2001; Keith, 2001; DOE, 2001; DOE, 2001.

CO2 from all US

power plants

~1.

7 G

t

20

Climate Implications of Coal Gasification/GCS

Likely a necessary part of long term portfolio

Absolutely necessary as an alternative to short term pulverized coal development in US and developing world

Possible pathway to lower cost hydrogen

21

Climate: 450 ppm CO2 means deep cuts in emissions

Stabilizing concentrations at 450 ppm after 2100 would require deep global CO2 emissions reductions beyond these cuts after 2100.

Every year that emissions go up, not down, makes the possibility of meeting the 450 ppm goal more difficult.

• Presently, carbon emissions growing > 100 MT/year.

Achieving 450 ppm solely from CO2 means cuts of up to 80% emissions from 2000 levels by 2100 for Annex 1 countries and 40% globally.

22

But new pulverized coal plants are “locking in” huge future carbon

emissions

New PC power plants:• Are the longest-lived energy system investments being made as

they will operate for 50 – 60 years; • Are the most carbon-intensive energy system investments being

made; and• Have little or no practical potential for adding equipment that

could capture carbon before it is emitted and then injecting the captured carbon into geologic formations for permanent sequestration.

Large numbers of new PC power plants are being built today and are projected to be built over the next twenty five years – primarily (56%) in China and India.

If these projected PC plants are built, they will clearly “bust the global carbon budget” for achieving the EU temperature targets.

This “batch” of new coal plants will burn more coal in their lifetime than has been burned by industrial society to date.

23

New coal in China/India dominates projected carbon growth

Projected World CO2 Emissions Increases 2002-3030

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2002 2010 2020 2030

CO

2 E

mis

sio

nsI

ncr

eases

in G

TC

Other

India/Transport

China/Transport

OECD/Transport

Non OECD/China/India CoalPowerOECD Coal Power Production

India/Coal Power Production(alternative 2)China/Coal Power Production(alternative 2)Kyoto Reductions

New Coal

Kyoto reductions

China coal

India coal

24

Projected carbon “lock-in” from new PC plants through 2030

New PC Coal Plant Impacts on EU Climate Target

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

450 ppm Target -- Global CarbonEmissions Budget 2003-2100

Carbon Lock-In from New PCCoal Plants 2003-2030 (IEA)

Carbon Lock-In from New PCCoal Plants 2003-2030 (IEA

adjusted for China)

Gig

ato

ns

of

Car

bo

n

25

China new PC power plant carbon emissions in context

Carbon Emissions from New PC Coal Plants in China Compared to McCain-Lieberman (CSA) Carbon Reductions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Annual Carbon Emissions in 2025 from NewChinese PC Plants built from 2006 to 2025

Annual CSA Economy-Wide Carbon EmissionsReductions in 2025

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

e)

26

The Scale Issue

500 PPM = 7 GTC/year reductions by mid-century.

That would require about 12 TW of clean energy -- about same as all energy consumed on Earth today.

27

Existing commercial low carbon technologies good but not enough to fill the “wedges” we need

New Wind Energy Needed to Displace 1 GTC vs. Current Global Wind and Other

Capacity

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Wind toDisplace 1 GTC

Total USGeneratingCapacity

Current GlobalWind Capacity

Tera

Wat

ts

Nuclear power: new capacity needed to displace 1 GTC vs.

current nuclear capacity

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Displace 1 GTC CurrentG

W

Adapted from Pacala and Socolow (2004)

Note: Mid-century target of 550 PPM requires 7 GTC reduction from “business as usual,” or roughly 12 TW of carbon-free energy.

28

IPCC View of Carbon Capture and Storage

Recent IPCC modeling sees CCS as providing a considerable portion of total CO2 “least cost” reductions during this century.

IPCC estimates that widespread availability of CCS will reduce total carbon mitigation costs by 30%.

IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Summary for Policymakers as approved by the 8th Session of IPCC Working Group III, September 25th, 2005, Montreal, Canada

29

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Luke O’Keefe of O’Keefe Consulting, LLC for assistance in preparing this presentation