1 / 17

IGCC: Technology to Make Coal Green(er)

IGCC: Technology to Make Coal Green(er). Brian Shrager, USEPA/OAQPS Energy Strategies Group Presented at the State-EPA Innovation Symposium in Chapel Hill, NC January 7-10, 2008. What color was the coal that Santa put in your stocking a couple of weeks ago?.

hester
Télécharger la présentation

IGCC: Technology to Make Coal Green(er)

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. IGCC: Technology to Make Coal Green(er) Brian Shrager, USEPA/OAQPS Energy Strategies Group Presented at the State-EPA Innovation Symposium in Chapel Hill, NC January 7-10, 2008

  2. What color was the coal that Santa put in your stocking a couple of weeks ago?

  3. Some general thoughts about energy, economics, and the environment • In the U.S., coal is cheap and plentiful • Future energy scenarios are likely to include a diverse array of technologies including coal-, natural gas-, nuclear-, and renewable-based power generation • The environmental performance of coal-based electricity generation can be greatly improved using “new” technology • Coal-fired utilities emit criteria pollutants, toxics, and CO2

  4. How much do utilities emit? • In 2000, power generation accounted for the following percentages of U.S. emissions: • SO2--63% • NOX--22% • Hg--40% • CO2--40.5%* • More than 50% of the power generation is coal-based.* *Source: U.S. DOE, Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States, 2000

  5. How do we use coal today? • Most coal-fired utilities use subcritical pulverized coal (PC) boilers • 35.9% efficient without carbon capture • Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) would have a large impact on the thermal efficiency (~12% decrease or “energy penalty”) • Bottom line: using today’s status quo technology, CCS=increased coal use=more “non-carbon” emissions + more CO2 to sequester

  6. How could we use coal tomorrow? • Supercritical PC boilers* • Increased efficiency: 38.3% • Still takes a 12% energy penalty for CCS • Cost of electricity (COE) lower than subcritical PC (DOE 2007) • Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC)* • Increased efficiency: 41.8% • 6% to 9% energy penalty for CCS • Inherently lower emissions than PC units • Much lower water use and solid waste than PC units • Flexible feedstock • Expensive compared to PC units • Other new technologies include oxy-fuel combustion and ultra supercritical PC boilers *Source: Environmental Footprints and Costs of Coal-Based IGCC and PC Technologies, EPA 2006

  7. What about emissions and costs for new plants w/CCS?* *Source: Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. U.S. DOE, May 2007

  8. What would IGCC do to my electric bill? • With CCS, the COE for IGCC is projected at 11% lower than subcritical PC (although both costs are higher than today’s prices) • Without CCS, the cost of electricity (COE) for IGCC is projected at 25% higher than subcritical PC

  9. IGCC Flow Diagram Useful Byproducts Very LowEmissions Energy Efficiency Source: DOE/NETL Source: DOE/NETL

  10. IGCC with CCS Shift & CO2 Capture and Compression CO2 Source: DOE/NETL

  11. Is anyone building an IGCC plant? • Two IGCC demonstration plants currently operating (“old technology”) • More than 25 projects under consideration • Several plants have final permits approved • Several plants will likely be built in the next 5 years, but delays, technology changes, and cancellations are resulting from: • Rising construction costs • Uncertainty related to carbon regulation

  12. A word about FutureGen… • $1.8 billion (and counting) public-private partnership to design, build, and operate a near-zero emissions coal-fueled power plant. • 275 MW IGCC with CCS • Hydrogen turbine • Planned to be operational by 2012 • Recently selected Mattoon, IL, as the site for the facility • For more information: www.futuregenalliance.org

  13. Thoughts on CCS • Compression of CO2 takes considerable energy • CCS regulatory framework needed • Geology is not suitable for sequestration in all areas • Industry discussing a CO2 pipeline, but it’s a long way off • Sequestration already happening as part of enhanced oil recovery (EOR), but capacity of EOR is relatively small • Large-scale CCS is unlikely until 2020 or beyond

  14. So what do we do now? • Encourage new coal facilities to be as efficient as possible and “capture ready” • Capture ready is more than just “space” for equipment • Continue to look at overall environmental performance, not just carbon • Continue research on CCS technologies for existing plants

  15. ACT Working Group The Advanced Coal Technology (ACT) Workgroup includes Federal and State regulators, industry, academia, equipment vendors, and environmental groups. The charge of the group is: “To discuss and identify the potential barriers and potential opportunities to create incentives under the CAA to the development and deployment of advanced coal technologies.”

  16. …and finally, say this 5 times fast… • IGCC with CCS/EOR has a COE less than PC with CCS and emits less NOX, PM, CO2, and Hg! Thanks!

  17. For more information contact: Brian Shrager Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Research Triangle Park, NC (919) 541-7689 shrager.brian@epa.gov Photo: Courtesy Tampa Electric Company (TECO).

More Related