Underground Coal Gasification:

Underground Coal Gasification:A “game-changer” for climate protection?

3rd China Energy and Environment Summit (CEES)

Beijing, PRC

August 20-21, 2010

Mike Fowler

Climate Technology Innovation Coordinator

Clean Air Task Force

Clean Air Task Force is a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing atmospheric pollution through research,

advocacy, and private sector collaboration.

MAIN OFFICE18 Tremont Street

Suite 530Boston, MA 02108

(617) [email protected]

www.coaltransition.uswww.aceiii.org

OTHER LOCATIONSBeijing, ChinaBrunswick, MECarbondale, ILColumbus, OH

Washington, DC

2

Outline

• About CATF• The need for carbon capture and storage (CCS)• The great barrier for CCS: cost• The potential benefits of underground coal

gasification (UCG) The cost of coal power with UCG with CCS could be less

then cost of conventional coal without CCS Other benefits include: reduced mining, reduced drinking

water consumption, reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide, etc.

• Importance of environmental management for UCG Protection of groundwater from contamination

3

About CCS at the Clean Air Task Force (CATF)

• CATF is an energy and environment NGO with headquarters in the United States. Our work addresses: Greenhouse gases and climate change SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and toxic air pollution Related environmental issues

• We are a small specialty organization founded in 1996 20 technical staff, policy and business experts, and attorneys

• CCS is a core focus for CATF. Our CCS work includes: Expert workshops Innovation policy design Facilitation of large “pioneer” CCS projects

• Costs of CCS will limit speed and extent of deployment• Underground coal gasification could “change the game”

Potentially significant cost reductions for coal power with CCS Potential for low-cost substitute natural gas (methane)

4

Source: CATF (2009) from DOE/EIA (2007)Slide 5

Background 1: Huge quantities of low-carbon electricity will be needed

Will the world converge here?

With electric vehicles?

Source: CATF (2009) from DOE/EIA (2007)Slide 6

Background 1: Huge quantities of low-carbon electricity will be needed

World electricity demand , with electric vehicles?

Studies by MIT, Stanford, EPRI, PNNL, NCAR, and University of Maryland suggest substantial roles for fossil fules

with CCS, renewables, and nuclear power

MIT Model Stanford/EPRI Model PNNL Model

Source: United States Climate Change Science Program, 2007

Slide 7

Background 2: CCS will be essential to meet this demand

• Relative cost of electricity (LCOE) estimate for fossil power generation (“Nth plant” US basis); CCS could add ~80%

Source: DOE/NETL (2007)

8

Background 3: Costs of adding CCS to new power projects are significant

7.79

10.63

6.40

11.88

6.33

11.48

6.84

9.74

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Avg IGCC Avg IGCCw/ CO2Capture

PC-Sub PC-Sub w/CO2

Capture

PC-Super PC-Superw/ CO2Capture

NGCC NGCC w/CO2

Capture

+80%

• UCG can produces inexpensive raw synthesis gas $1 - $3/MMBtu (see GasTech,

2007; ENN, 2009)

• UCG can enables high efficiency power generation when integrated with combined cycle gas turbine (“CCT”) 45.4% HHV w/o CCS (AMMA,

2002)

• Technology is commercially available to clean up syngas and removal CO2 at manageable cost

• Result: Potentially game-changing CCS costs

UCG could change the game for fossil power with CCS

9

Oxidant Syngas

Coal

Rock (e.g., shale)

Potable Aquifer

Rock (e.g., shale)

Rock

Rock/Clay

Image: CATF (2009)

UCG with CCS could compete with conventional coal without CCS

Estimate by the NorthBridge Group and CATF based on proprietary data for a proposed UCG project in North America

10

• Cost of UCG integrated with 80% CO2 removal and syngas combustion in CCGT could be LESS THEN conventional coal without CCS

• Cost of UCG to produce substitute natural gas with CCS also could be very attractive, especially in China

• In the US, UCG could increase coal supply by 300%-400%. The same could be true of China (though this requires study)

Source: DOE/NETL Presentation, September, 2008

11

UCG could also significantly increase domestic energy supplies

Region/Trial Length (days) Gasified (tonnes) Depth Period

FSR/Various 1000s 15 million + Shallow 1930s+

China/abandoned mines n/d n/d n/d 1950s+

US/Hanna 343 14,800 Shallow 1970s

US/Hoe Creek 117 5,920 Shallow 1970s

US/Princetown 12 320 Intermediate 1970s

US/Rawlins 106 10,000 Shallow 1970s

US/ Tenn. Colony 197 4,500 Shallow 1970s

US/Centralia & Tono 29 1,800 Shallow 1980s

US/RM1 150 14,150 Shallow 1980s

EU/Thulin 67 11 Deep 1980s

EU/El Tremedal 12 240 Deep 1990s

US/Carbon County (n/d) 800 Deep 1990s

NZ/Huntley 13 80 Shallow 1990s

AUS/Chinchilla (R1) 900 32,000 Shallow 1990s

AUS/Chinchilla (R3/R4) Active 2,000 Shallow 2008+

SA/Eskom Active (n/d) Deep 2007+

CHN/ENN Group Active 25,000+ Intermediate 2007+

AUS/Carbon Energy Active (n/d) Intermediate 2008+

CAN/Swan Hills Active (n/d) Deep 2009+

AUS/Cougar Energy Active (n/d) Intermediate 3/2010+

Commercial activity is accelerating

• US (Alaska) – CIRI/Laurus• Canada (Alberta) – Laurus• South Africa - Secunda (Sasol)• Vietnam - Red River Delta (Linc)• Pakistan - Thar Coal Field (2x)• Chile - Mulpun (Carbon Energy)• UK – 11 separate UCG licenses

issued recently• India - Multiple sites• US PRB, US Midwest, New

Zealand, …

Many more projects are planned around the world

Carbon Energy UCG site near Dalby, Queensland, Australia, November, 2008. The reactor was active 200m

below this spot. Photo by Mike Fowler.

13

Source: LLNL (2010)

ItemUCG-

CCGT, no CCS

UCG-CCGT, Partial CCS

IGCC, no CCS

NGCC, no CCS

PC-sub,

no CCS

SCPC,

no CCS

Raw Water Usage

(gpm/MWe)2.9 4.9 6 4.5 11.3 10

Even with partial CCS, UCG and a CCGT could use less than half the raw water of a conventional coal power plant without CCS, and less than an IGCC without CCS.

14Slide 14

Possible advantage of UCG:Reduced water consumption

• Carbon beds have demonstrated 99.9% mercury removal on coal syngas

• Carbon beds are much less expensive than activated carbon injection on conventional coal plants (~1/10th on cost of electricity basis)

• Carbon beds produce less waste than activated carbon injection on conventional coal

• UCG could take advantage of this technology to reduce mercury

Carbon beds for mercury removal at Eastman coal gasification facility in TN

Slide 15

Possible advantage of UCG:Reduced mercury emissions

Source: CATF from various sourcesSlide 16

Technology exists for UCG to approach natural gas

Possible advantage of UCG:Reduce air pollution emissions

Source: Carbon Energy (2009) Slide 17

Possible advantage of UCG:Use less surface land

Coal Bed

Producer Injector

Advances ~2 ft/day

400 – 1000 F1000 – 1650 F

>1650 F

Gas Losses

Tars & oils

Heat

Water

Example Gas Composition (% vol, Queensland Site, Air-Blown)

H2 CO CH4 CO2 N2 H2O HHV MJ/m3

18.0 6.0 7.0 16.0 35.6 16.5 6.6

But… UCG is a complex coupled chemical and geophysical process

Source: Adapted from DOE/NETL Presentation, September, 2008, and AMMA, 2008 18

And in China, as elsewhere, protection of groundwater is vital

Site selection is key• Coal at intermediate or greater depth• Preferably below potentially viable water resources• Isolated from surrounding strata (good roof and floor, horizontal isolation)• See DOE/LLNL guidelines (in preparation)

…so is site operation…• Safer linking methods (e.g., in-seam drilling)• Eliminate/minimize gas loss

– Maintain gasification pressure below local hydrostatic pressure– Real-time monitoring of pressure, pH, trace compounds in surrounding strata– Real-time monitoring/verification of mass balance closure

• Geophysical/geochemical monitoring, process simulation, and control

…and proper module closure is important• Limit postburn pyrolysis and steam/pressure buildup• Clean the cavern

19

RM1 1987-1988 near Hanna, WY• Project included GRI, DOE, Amoco

Production, WRI, and EPRI

Environmental protection focus• Thinner, deeper coal seam (Hanna

No.1, 30 ft thick, >350 ft deep)

• Stable overburden and underburden

• Detailed pre-test geologic and hydrologic characterization

• Hydrologic sampling and monitoring during and after the burn

• Operational control

• Post-burn cavity venting and flushing

Result: No water resource damage

Sources: Boysen et al (1998), Davis (2008) 20

An environmental success in early US program – Rocky Mountain 1

Thank you!

Mike FowlerClimate Technology Innovation Coordinator

Clean Air Task Force18 Tremont Street, Suite 530

Boston, MA 02108(617) 624-0234 ext. 12 (voice)

(617) 624-0230 (fax)[email protected]

www.catf.us