EPRI IGCC Study Cost and Performance … · Agenda • Recent Economic Trends • EPRI IGCC Study Status Report – Shell IGCC Results • EPRI CPS Energy Study Results ComparisonEPRI

EPRI IGCC Study Cost and Performance ResultsPerformance Results

George Booras ([email protected])Neville Holt ([email protected])Ron Schoff (rschoff@epri com)Ron Schoff ([email protected])

2008 Gasification Technologies ConferenceWashington, DCOctober 8, 2008

Agenda

• Recent Economic Trends• EPRI IGCC Study Status Report

– Shell IGCC Results• EPRI CPS Energy Study Results Comparison• EPRI CPS Energy Study Results Comparison• Conclusions

2© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Challenges of Estimating Cost & Performance

• Cost and performance can vary significantly due to:– Design basis and plant battery limit assumptions– Assumed maturity of technology– Cost estimating approachCost estimating approach

• Methodology and design assumptions are critical– Input from licensors needed to validate process models– Requires multiple iterations for optimum results

• Rapidly escalating costs makes comparisons difficultT i l t i d d ’t fl t th k t lit– Typical cost indexes don’t reflect the market reality


Cost Escalation ImpactsProjected Growth in Electricityj y

• Global competition for plants 2000

3150 GWe

for plants• US growth only

5% of Worldwide f t 2030

1500

000

ons

(GW

e)

RequiredPlanned

from now to 2030• Focus on demand

reduction via 1000

ower

Add

itio

energy efficiency• Competition from

Renewables, 0

500

Gro

ss P

o

,Nuclear & improving PC w/CCS

0

United

States

urop

ean U

nion

China

India

Russia

Worldwide


Eur

Recent Economic TrendsFrom FERC “Increasing Cost in Electric Markets”*

Natural Gas sPrimary Construction Costs

Coal sSecondary Construction Costs


*June 19, 2008: U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Now Is (Very) DifferentFrom FERC “Increasing Cost in Electric Markets”*

Estimated Cost of New Generation


*June 19, 2008: U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

EPRI CoalFleet Technology Study Matrix

Technology / Fuel Petroleum Coke

Pittsburgh #8

Illinois #6

Utah Bituminous

PRB Texas & ND Lignites

Study Location Midwest Midwest Utah Midwest & West

Minemouth

GE Radiant/Quench Phase ? Phase I DOE Phase ?ConocoPhillips E Gas™ Phase ? Phase I Phase I & Phase ? Phase IConocoPhillips E-Gas™ Phase ? Phase I Phase I &

DOE Phase ? Phase I

Shell Phase ? Phase I DOE Phase ? Phase I Phase ?Siemens Phase ? Phase I Phase ? Phase ? Phase I Phase ?KBR Transport Phase I Phase ?

IGC

C

KBR Transport Phase I Phase ?Supercritical X X DOE X X XUSC Phase ? Phase I DOE Phase ? Phase I Phase ?SC CFBC X X X X X X

PC

1. All cases to be performed in power only and CO2 capture mode2. 1 PRB Case to be done at elevation, including GT power augmentation

X = Cases not yet performed Green = Phase I Cases Red = Lack of technology development


3. Ill #6 cases to provide cost comparison to NETL study and Retrofit vs. Greenfield

Gasification Vendor InteractionStatus Report

• Shell – Extensive design and cost iterations with FWI• Siemens – Design iterations with FWI nearly complete;

cost phase in progress; also provided GT data• Southern/KBR – Design iterations complete; Cost phaseSouthern/KBR Design iterations complete; Cost phase

iterations under review• ConocoPhillips – Data submittal underway• General Electric – Design iterations complete; cost

phase iterations complete (see comparison in GE presentation); also provided GT datapresentation); also provided GT data

• UOP – Provided extensive details on Selexol unit design• Haldor Topsoe – Provided WGS catalyst data


IGCC with CO2 CaptureProcess Flow Diagram


Shell Case StudiesStatus Report

• Shell participated in design and approved all gasification island performance and cost dataisland performance and cost data

• Design options studied:– Coal: Pittsburgh #8 vs. Powder River BasinCoal: Pittsburgh #8 vs. Powder River Basin– Heat Recovery: Syngas cooler vs. Water Quench– Gasifier Design: 2 Gasifiers/2 GT vs. 2/3

• Engineering is complete• Cost Estimation is complete


Buggenum (Netherlands)

Shell Syngas Cooler CasesPRB Coal, Retrofit CO2 Capture with Moderate Pre-Investment, UDBS Environmental Profile #2/3

Case 12N C t

Case 13F ll C t

UDBS Environmental Profile #2/3

No Capture Full CaptureGas Turbine (MWe) 464.0 464.0Steam Turbine (MWe) 235.1 213.2Total Gross Power (MWe) 699.1 677.2 Δ = -3% Total Gross Power (MWe) 699.1 677.2Total Auxiliary Load (MWe) 111.0 191.1

Net Plant Power Output (MWe) 588.1 486.1Net Plant Heat Rate, HHV (Btu/kWh) 8,530 10,980, ,

Net Plant Efficiency, HHV 40.0% 31.1%Coal Flow Rate (Ton/day) 7,220 7,680

CO2 Emissions (lb/MW gross) 1,490 20786% Capture

8.9 point drop

Δ = +6%

CO2 Emissions (lb/MW net) 1,771 28486% Capture

Notes: Results are Subject to Change


Overview of CPS Shell-Based IGCC Study

• In 2006 CPS Energy funded a study of IGCC with PRB at T it t f ttl t ith i t la Texas site as part of a settlement with environmental

groups who opposed plans for construction of the 750 MW subcritical Spruce 2 PC plantp p– Burns & McDonnell and EPRI performed the study

• No input from the gasifier or gas turbine vendors• Input from UOP on Selexol design, though no iterations

for optimization took place and initial assumptions were overly strictoverly strict

• CCS was retrofitted onto the base plant design, which included no pre-investment or consideration for CCS


• Impact of CCS retrofit excessively inefficient and costly

CPS Study Methodology

• EPRI developed heat and material balances for the Shell gasification island based on Shell’s 2004 GTC papergasification island based on Shell’s 2004 GTC paper

• Capital costs for gasification island were based on published Shell papersp p p– Burns & McDonnell adjusted capital costs to Texas coastal

location and escalated to 2006 dollars• Burns & McDonnell developed overall performance and• Burns & McDonnell developed overall performance and

cost estimates, including:– Coal/coke handling and preparation– Gas cleanup and sulfur recovery– Combined cycle power generation– Other balance-of-plant facilities


Design Basis Comparison

• 59°F ambient temperature • 73°F ambient temperatureEPRI-FWI IGCC Study (2008) CPS-EPRI-B&M Study (2006)

• 59 F ambient temperature• Moderate Pre-investment• Coal drying with RWE WTA

• 73 F ambient temperature• No pre-investment• Coal drying with syngas

• No GT air conditioning• CO2 capture: 86%• CO2 spec: <100 ppmv S

• No GT air conditioning• CO2 capture: 90%• CO2 spec: 25 ppmv S2 p pp

• Level site• Included SCR• Tail gas recycle

2 p pp• Assumed 10 ft cut/fill for site• No SCR• Tail gas treatment• Tail gas recycle

• No extra infrastructure costs were includedC t id 2008 $

• Tail gas treatment• Included gas and water pipelines,

rail siding, switchyardC t id 2006 $


• Costs: mid-2008 $ • Costs: mid-2006 $

Power Output and Heat Rate Comparisons

1,000

1,100 14,000EPRI-FWI Study CPS-EPRI-B&M Study

800

900

1,000

e)

10,000

12,000

Wh)

600

700

800

Our

put (

MW

e

6 000

8,000

at ra

te (B

tu/k

W

16% 22%

400

500

600

Pow

er

4,000

6,000

Net

Hea28%

34%

200

300

400

0

2,000

Gross PowerNet Power


Notes: 1. EPRI study at 59°F ambient; CPS at 73°F2. CPS includes no pre-investment, therefore GT not at full output w/CCS

200Base Case CCS Case Base Case CCS Case

0Heat Rate

Capital Cost Comparisons

5,000

4,000

4,500

5,000

2 500

3,000

3,500

BaseCCSt C

ost,

$/kW

1,500

2,000

2,500 CCS

Tota

l Pla

nt

500

1,000


0EPRI-FWI Study CPS-EPRI-B&M

Note: CPS Costs escalated to 2008 using CERA Downstream Capital Cost Index (DCCI)

IGCC Case StudiesConcluding Remarks

• Design choices may have a significant impact on the ffi i f IGCC l t ith CCS d th i t defficiency of IGCC plants with CCS and the associated

economics• Participation of technology suppliers is critical toParticipation of technology suppliers is critical to

understanding performance and cost in this volatile time• Syngas properties and CO2 purity requirements have a

di d b i l i id l ldirect and substantial impact on acid gas removal plant design


18© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.Image courtesy of Image courtesy of NASA Visible EarthNASA Visible Earth

EPRI IGCC Study Cost and Performance … · Agenda • Recent Economic Trends • EPRI IGCC Study Status Report – Shell IGCC Results • EPRI CPS Energy Study Results ComparisonEPRI

Documents