1 / 21

Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel

Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel. Robert Romanosky Advanced Research Technology Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory February 8-10, 2010. Energy Contributes to Quality of Life. GDP vs. Energy Consumption. Qatar. U.S. UK.

addison-everett
Download Presentation

Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel Robert Romanosky Advanced Research Technology Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory February 8-10, 2010

  2. Energy Contributes to Quality of Life GDP vs. Energy Consumption Qatar U.S. UK Bahrain Mexico South Africa Peru GDP per Capita (US$ / person / yr) Congo Bulgaria China Eritrea India Annual Energy Consumption per Capita (kgoe / person / yr) Development Data Group, The World Bank. 2008; Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat: IEA Statistics Division

  3. Energy Demand 2006 Energy Demand 2030 111 QBtu / Year78% Fossil Energy 100 QBtu / Year85% Fossil Energy Coal 23% Gas 22% Gas 22% + 11% Coal 23% Nuclear 8% Nuclear 8% United States Oil 41% Oil 34% Renewables 6% Renewables 13% 675 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy 465 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy Gas 22% Coal 29% + 45% Gas 21% Coal 26% Nuclear 5% Nuclear 6% World Oil 34% Oil 30% Renewables 13% Renewables 14% Fossil Energy Continues to Dominate Supply U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2009, ARRA release ; world data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2008

  4. Challenge and Program Driver: Annual CO2 Emissions Extremely Large • 1 million metric tons of CO2: • Every year would fill a volume of 32 million cubic feet • Close to the volume of the Empire State Building Data sources: Mercury - EPA National Emissions Inventory (1999 data); SO2 - EPA air trends (2002 data); MSW - EPA OSWER fact sheet (2001 data); CO2 - EIA AEO 2004 (2002 data)

  5. Technological Carbon Management OptionsPathways for Reducing GHGs -CO2 Improve Efficiency Sequester Carbon Reduce Carbon Intensity • Renewables • Nuclear • Fuel Switching • Demand Side • Supply Side • Enhance Natural Sinks • Capture & Store • All options needed to: • Affordably meet energy demand • Address environmental objectives

  6. DOE Fossil Energy Coal RD&D Platform Goals Approaches Programs Technologies & Best Practices < 10% increase COE with CCS (pre-combustion) < 35% increase COE with CCS (post- and oxy-combustion) < $400/kW fuel cell systems (2002 $) > 50% plant efficiency, up to 60% with fuel cells > 90% CO2 capture > 99% CO2 storage permanence +/- 30% storage capacity resolution RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Core Coal and Power Systems R&D DOE – FE – NETL • Post Combustion CO2 Capture • Oxy-Fired Combustion • Chemical Looping • UltraSupercritical Combustion • Materials &Modeling • Process Integration & Control • Demonstration & Deployment Programs TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION Clean Coal Power Initiative Stimulus Activities DOE – FE – NETL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES Tax Credits Loan Guarantees DOE – LGO – IRS

  7. Coal Based PowerA Portfolio of Alternate Paths CO2 Capture CO2 Capture CO2 Capture CO2 Capture CO2 Capture CO2 Capture CO2 Capture Fuel Cell Membranes PETROCHEMICAL Fuels PLANT water shift O2 GASIFICATION selexol IGCC water shift selexol HYBRID COMBUSTION GASIFICATION Air AIR BLOWN IGCC Chemical O2 CHEMICAL & Carbonate LOOPING IGCC looping Carbonate looping CFB USC CFB ADVANCED CFB O2 O2 Oxygen Fired CFB COMBUSTION Air or PC MEA PC USC PC

  8. Post-combustion (existing, new PC) Pre-combustion (IGCC) Oxycombustion (new PC) CO2 compression (all) Fossil Energy CO2 Capture Solutions Chemical looping OTM boiler Biological processes Ionic liquids Metal organic frameworks Enzymatic membranes PBI membranes Solid sorbents Membrane systems ITMs Biomass co- firing Advanced physical solvents Advanced chemical solvents Ammonia CO2 com- pression Cost Reduction Benefit • CO2 Capture Targets: • 90% CO2 Capture • <10% increase in COE (IGCC) • <35% increase in COE (PC) Amine solvents Physical solvents Cryogenic oxygen 2010 2015 2020 Time to Commercialization OTM – O2 Transport Membrane (PC) ITM – O2 Ion Transport Membrane (PC or IGCC)

  9. Advanced PC Oxy-combustion Water-wall tube heat transfer Fireside Wall side Ultra-supercritical Oxyboilers • Challenges • Cryogenic ASUs are capital and energy intensive • Excess O2 and inerts (N2, Ar) h CO2 purification cost • Existing boiler air infiltration • Corrosion and process control Boiler size reduced by >30% • Advanced Oxy-combustion R&D Focus • New oxyfuel boilers • Advanced materials and burners • Corrosion • Low-cost oxygen  O2 Membranes • Retrofit existing air boilers • Air leakage, heat transfer, corrosion • Process control • CO2 purification • Co-capture (CO2 + SOx, NOx, O2) Oxygen Membranes Current Scale: Computational modeling through 5 MWe Pilot-scale Partners (11 projects): Praxair, Air Products, Jupiter, Alstom, B&W, Foster Wheeler, REI, SRI

  10. Chemical Looping Combustion • Key Challenges • Solids transport • Heat Integration Air Reactor (Oxidizer) CaS + 2O2 CaSO4 + Heat • Oxy-Firing without Oxygen Plant • Solid Oxygen Carrier circulates between Oxidizer and Reducer • Oxygen Carrier: Carries Oxygen, Heat and Fuel Energy • Carrier picks up O2 in the Oxidizer, leaves N2 behind • Carrier Burns the Fuel in the Reducer • Heat produces Steam for Power Steam • Chemical Looping Advantages: • Oxy-combustion without an O2 plant • Potentiallowest cost option for near-zero emission coal power plant <20% COE penalty • New and existing PC power plant designs Air MBHX Ox 2000F N2 + O2 CaSO4 CaS • Status • 2010 Alstom Pilot test (1 MWe) • 1000 lb/hr coal flow • 1st Integrated operation • 1stAutothermal Operation Red 1700F Fuel CO2 + H2O Fuel Reactor (Reducer) CaSO4 + 2C + Heat  2CO2 + CaS CaSO4 + 4H2 + Heat  4H2O + CaS Key Partners (2 projects): Alstom Power (Limestone Based), Ohio State (Metal Oxide)

  11. UltraSupercritical Boilers and Turbines • Current technology for USC Boilers • Typical subcritical = 540 °C • Typical supercritical = 593 °C • Most advanced supercritical = ~610 °C • USC Plant efficiency is improved to 45 to 47% HHV • Ultrasupercritical (USC) DOE goal for higher efficiency and much lower emissions, materials capable of: • 760 °C (1400 °F) • 5,000 psi • Oxygen firing • Meeting these targets requires: • The use of new materials • Novel uses of existing materials

  12. 2 Percentage Point Efficiency Gain = 5% CO2 Reduction 20% reduction in CO2corresponds with similar reductions (per MWh) in consumables including coal and limestone (reducingfront-end equipment size), flue gas volume (reducing back-end and emission control equipment size), and overall emissions, water use, and waste generation (Bituminous coal, without CO2 capture) Benefit of Higher Efficiency in Reducing CO2

  13. Efficiency Contribution from Sensors and ControlsValue Derived for an Existing Coal Fired Power Plant 1% HEAT RATE improvement 500 MW net capacity unit $700,000/yr coal cost savings 1% reduction in gaseous and solid emissions Entire coal-fired fleet $300 million/yr coal cost savings Reduction of 14.5 million metric tons CO2 per year 1% increase in AVAILABILITY 500 MW net capacity unit 35 million kWh/yr added generation Approximately $2 million/yr in sales (@ 6 cents/kWh) Entire coal-fired fleet More than 2 GW of additional power from existing fleet Analysis based on 2008 coal costs and 2008 coal-fired power plant fleet (units greater than 300 MW)

  14. Carbon Sequestration Program Goals Infrastructure Global Collaborations • Deliver technologies & best practices that provide Carbon Capture and Safe Storage (CCSS) with: • 90% CO2 capture at source • 99% storage permanence • < 10% increase in COE • Pre-combustion capture (IGCC) • < 35% increase in COE • Post-combustion & Oxy-combustion Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships North America Energy Working Group Characterization Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Validation International Demonstration Projects Development Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP) Core R&D Pre-combustion Capture Geologic Storage Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) Simulation and Risk Assessment CO2 Use/Reuse

  15. National Atlas Highlights - 2008 U.S. Emissions ~ 6 Billion Tons CO2/yr all sources ~ 2 Billion Tons CO2/yr coal-fired power plants Saline Formations North American CO2 Storage Potential (Billion Metric Tons) Oil and Gas Fields Unmineable Coal Seams Hundreds of Years Storage Potential Conservative Resource Assessment Available for download at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/carbon_seq/refshelf.html

  16. Demonstration & Deployment Programs Reduce risk and promote adoption of new technology at large scales • Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) • Industrial Carbon Capture & Sequestration (ICCS) • FutureGen

  17. Awarded In Negotiation Complete Emission Control Fuel Advanced Power Systems Summit TX Clean Energy Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$1.9B – Total $350M – DOE PPII & CCPI Demonstration ProjectsLocations & Cost Share Project Locations for ICCS Area 1 Carbon Capture and Storage from Industrial Sources Project Location Industry Type / Product Battelle, Boise White Paper Mill, Basalt, Fluor Econamine Plus, Washington Wolverine, CFB Power; EOR, Hitachi Amine, Rogers City, MI Sequestration Type CO2 Capture Technology Great River Energy Lignite Fuel Enhancement $31.5M – Total $13.5M – DOE Wisconsin Electric TOXECON Multi-pollutant Control $53M – Total $24.9M – DOE Excelsior Energy Mesaba Energy Project $2.16B – Total $36M – DOE Univ. of Utah; Ammonia & Cement; EOR & Saline, Dehydration, Coffeyville, KS C6 (Shell); H2 Production; Saline, ADIP-X Amine, Solano, CA Basin Electric Postcombustion CO2 Capture $287M – Total $100M – DOE AEP Post Combustion CO2 Capture $668M – Total $334M – DOE Archer Daniels Midland; Industrial Power & Ethanol; Saline, DOW Alstom Amine, Decatur, IL NeuCo (Baldwin) Integrated Optimization Software $19M – Total $8.6M – DOE Leucadia Energy; SNG from petcoke; EOR, Rectisol, Mississippi Cemex,; Cement; EOR & Saline, RTI Dry Carbonate Odessa, TX CONSOL Greenidge Multi-pollutant Control $32.7M – Total $14.3M – DOE Southern Company Services Post-combustion CO2 Capture $668M – Total $295M – DOE Leucadia Energy;Methanol;EOR, Rectisol, Lake Charles, LA Conoco Phillips; IGGC- Petcoke; Depleted NG/EOR, Selexol, Sweeny, TX HECA Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$2.8B – Total $308M – DOE Texas Energy; Petcoke Gasification (H2, MeOH & NH3); EOR, Rectisol, Beaumont, TX NeuCo (Limestone) Mercury Specie & Multi-pollutant Control $15.6M – Total $6.1M – DOE Southern Company IGCC-Transport Gasifier $2B – Total $294M – DOE Air Products, H2 Production; EOR, BASF’s aMDEA Port Arthur, TX; Praxair; H2 for Refinery; EOR, VPSA, Texas City, TX

  18. FutureGenObjectives • Establish technical, economic & environmental viability of “near- zero emission” coal-fueled plant by 2015 • Validate DOE goals • (ref. Report to Congress, dated March 2004): • Sequester >90% CO2 with potential for ~100% • >99% sulfur removal; <0.05 lb/MMBtuNox; <0.005 lb/MMBtuPM; >90% Hg removal • Prototype 275 MWe coal-based power plant of the future sized to: • Utilize utility-scale (7FB) gas turbine • Adequately stress saline geologic formation • Integrate full-scale CCS operations • Serve as potential test facility for emerging technologies

  19. FutureGenPotential “Proving Ground” for Emerging Technology Fuel Cells Carbon Sequestration FutureGen Gasification with Cleanup Separation System Integration Optimized Turbines H2 Production

  20. Conclusions • The U.S. power generation industry is at a critical juncture • Demand, resources, workforce, reliability, regulation, grid integrity, transmission, etc. • Competing demands for reliable, low-cost energy and climate change mitigation appear incongruent • Uncertainty of regulatory outcomes and rising costs impact industry’s willingness to commit capital investment, endangering near-term production capacity • The U.S. must foster new processes that address conflicting energy objectives simultaneously • Our nation’s dependence on liquid fuel from foreign resources will continue to remain high for the near term

  21. Contact Information Robert R. Romanosky 304-285-4721 Robert.romanosky@netl.doe.gov NETLwww.netl.doe.gov Office of Fossil Energywww.fe.doe.gov

More Related