1 / 22

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Delivering Results for Over a Decade Presented to

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Delivering Results for Over a Decade Presented to Wood Pellet Association of Canada , 20 November 2013. An association of Canadian and U.S. coal and coal-fired electricity producers, government agencies and research organizations Industry participants include:

lapis
Download Presentation

Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Delivering Results for Over a Decade Presented to

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. Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Delivering Results for Over a Decade Presented to Wood Pellet Association of Canada , 20 November 2013

  2. An association of Canadian and U.S. coal and coal-fired electricity producers, government agencies and research organizations Industry participants include: Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions Capital Power Corporation Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Nova Scotia Power Inc. Sherritt International Corporation SaskPower TransAlta Corporation Government Sponsors: Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources Natural Resources Canada (CanmetENERGY) Who Is the CCPC?

  3. The CCPC's mandate is to research technologies with the goal of developing and advancing commercially viable solutions that lower coal power plant emissions Our objective is to demonstrate that coal-fired electricity generation can effectively address environmental issues and move us forward to a cleaner energy future Our Mandate

  4. New Coal GHG Regulations • New plants must have GHG emission intensity of .42 t CO2/MWh compared to about .9 t CO2/MWh for new SCPC plants and 1.1 t CO2/MWh for old plants • Plants greater than 47 to 50 years of age must meet the same intensity • Plant by plant basis, no way to benefit from over complying at 90% capture • No way to buy your way out, therefore no carbon market • This requires about 60% CO2 capture – cost prohibitive now • New technologies may bring costs down

  5. Alberta Plant Decommissioning

  6. Will Biomass Be Used • In the short term as long as the carbon tax is $15/t – not likely • Biomass could be used to life extend plants for a short period of time without needing to install significant capital • However, will have to compete with other kinds of CO2 capture technologies to life extend for say 20 years

  7. Will Coal Life Extend with Biomass? • Coal plants will only operate for more than 50 years if: NPVn(Power Rev – Opex – Tax) > Life Extension Cost (Capex) + Cost of Other Emission Control Technology (Capex & Opex) + Cost of GHG Reduction Technology (Capex & Opex) • Same equation for new coal plants except life extension cost becomes construction cost

  8. Introduction • FP Innovations studied co-firing at three coal plant at 10, 20 and 70% firing rates • The costs for about a dozen kinds of fuel were estimated • The volume of existing fuels were estimated within 100 and 150 km of the plants • The proportion of farm area around the plants was determined for plantation crops • Estimated costs for growing, harvesting, transporting, processing, storing, drying, handling, conveying and combusting

  9. Biomass Requirements • Assumes 16 GJ/ODthigh calorific value of biomass • 5% co-firing rate  minimum biomass quantity to be considered in the study

  10. Feedstocks

  11. Technical and Cost Info

  12. Biomass Availability & Costs

  13. Plantation Area Required

  14. Biomass Cost ($ODT) - 70%

  15. Avoided Cost – 10/20% NOTE: if the LCA value of 2.98 tCO2e/tonne of MSW pellets was utilized, the Avoided CO2 cost low value would have decreased from $18.0/tCO2 to $12.6/tCO2,

  16. Avoided Cost – 70%

  17. Increase in Power Cost – 10% NOTE: if the LCA value of 2.98 tCO2e/tonne of MSW pellets was utilized, the Increase in power cost low value would have decreased from $0.2/MWh to -$0.4/MWh (a decrease in power cost)

  18. Increase in Power Cost – 20%

  19. Increase in Power cost – 70%

  20. Increase in Power Cost for Biomass and Nat Gas Co-Firing

  21. Avoided Cost – Biomass/ Nat Gas

  22. Co-firing Conclusions Co-firing CO2 avoided costs may range from $20 to $100/t Won’t be adopted at $15/t carbon tax This may be lower than carbon capture costs Plants with short economic lives may benefits from co-firing rather than carbon capture Co-firing will increase marginal costs – Dispatch issues It may not be possible to co-fire enough biomass to meet new GHG requirements - Reduces amount of capture Co-firing can reduce sulphur emissions Largest cost is for biomass feedstock – need to refine costs

More Related