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
