IGCC / Coal Gasification Technologies
GTC Conference Field Report Part 3:
Supplier and R&D Updates
This is the third and final segment of our report on the Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) annual meeting held Oct 4-7 in Colorado Springs.
Earlier postings reported on project status, highlighting the Duke Energy Edwardsport IGCC plant now under construction, and the progress being made with the near-zero emission IGCC projects in the US, Australia and China. All this is happening in the face of continued global uncertainty over low natural gas prices, pending climate change regulations, and a shortage of investment capital.
We now complete our report with summaries of the presentations by major IGCC technology and equipment suppliers, and of selected reports on comparative studies and on R&D programs aimed at improving the performance and cost profile of coal-based IGCC technologies.
Facing head winds
GE’s Monte Atwell, General Manager for Gasification, told the conference that his operation is “investing heavily in customer support” and keeping very busy with the eight new licenses signed in China since 2007, and six plant start-ups in two years, involving 19 gasifiers.
“The China projects are run on a very aggressive schedule, going from contract signing to startup in about 36 months”, says Atwell. “Our commitment of resources there has gotten very large and complex.”
A major project management commitment to the Duke Energy Edwardsport IGCC is high on his list of project activity, including shipment of gas turbines in the spring of 2010, gasifier components and the completion of the IGCC simulator to be used for operator training.
In talking about new-project development, Atwell says that gasification is facing “significant head winds” with the current extended period of cheap natural gas.
“There has been a dramatic reduction in capital flows into gasification-based energy projects,” he says, “and this means that there is serious delay in the experience curve. There is also need for more government incentives and more spending on R&D,” he continues.
GE’s own technology development activity is currently focused on its “Posimetric” dry feed system, which took off with the 2007 acquisition of the Stamet solids pump technology. In 2008, GE entered into an R&D partnership with the University of Wyoming for further development of low-rank coal capabilities. The first new pump has been shipped to GE’s Shanghai R&D center for validation testing.
Other product advances, says Joe Zuiker, GE GM for IGCC and Gasification Engineering, are improved refractories, feed injectors and integrated controls. “The first radiant raw gas cooler, which will soon be shipping to the Edwardsport IGCC project site, is going to cost 30% less than the TECO (radiant/convection) configuration”, he continues, and the design is near complete for the GE “Carbon Island” for bolt-on addition of CO2 capture capability. GE is also launching an advanced 50 Hz syngas product offering, with a Frame 9F-based IGCC design.
GE is participating in the NETL Advanced Hydrogen Turbine development program, which is a part of a portfolio of R&D activities aimed at lowering the cost of coal-based IGCC power generation with carbon capture.
Atwell says that the industry will soon be facing additional challenges in the form of formal legislation to limit greenhouse gas emission and/or EPA regulations that go beyond current controls of criteria pollutants.
Although these new rules will at least provide some clarity to the situation, the addition of CO2 capture and sequestration will add greatly to product cost, implying even higher hurdles to new project activity.
"Doing quite well"
A somewhat more optimistic view of the future for gasification business was painted by Harry Morehead, Siemens’ Manager of IGCC and Gasification Marketing. “Our gasification business is doing quite well, and we see a bright future, both near-term and longer-term”, says Morehead.
As for active business, he reports that Siemens has shipped nine gasifiers, seven to projects in China (of which five are now under construction), and two to Secure Energy’s Decatur SNG project, which signed an off-take agreement with BP and is soon expected to obtain financing and proceed to construction.
As for new projects, Morehead listed the Summit Power Texas IGCC project and (in a new announcement) selection by Tenaska to supply the gasifiers to the Taylorville Energy Center project in Illinois.
He also listed Capital Power Corp’s Genesee Project in Canada, which has since announced an indefinite delay, although the FEED study will be completed. “We have other projects pending that cannot be disclosed just yet”, he says.
The Shenhua plant in China, containing five Siemens gasifiers will start commissioning in late spring 2010. It will be the largest coal-to-polypropylene plant in the world.
“For the future we are now offering the SFG-1200 gasifier, which enables us to supply a single gasifier for the 5000F gas turbine”, says Morehead. Currently two of Siemens SFG-500 gasifiers are required per 232MWe syngas fired gas turbine.
Siemens is also participating in the NETL Advanced Hydrogen Turbine Development program, and is working on advanced materials and low-NOx combustion technology for higher firing temperature machines that would burn high-hydrogen syngas fuel following CO2 removal.
“In the meantime”, says Morehead, “I want to make it clear that our current “F” machines are ready for high hydrogen fuel.” This claim is based on the use of nitrogen dilution for NOx control and, possibly, a reduction in firing temperature to accommodate the effects of high water vapor in turbine expansion gases.
More optimism from Japan
Mitsubishi also boasts of a growing business built around its now-commercial IGCC and gasification offerings.
With the Nikoso 250 MWe air-blown IGCC demonstration plant in its second year of operation, MHI has upped the ante with an aggressive commercial position regarding full IGCC EPC contracts.
“For ZeroGen in Australia, we are planning to sign an EPC contract for a single-train one-on-one IGCC plant based on our M701G2 (1500C) gas turbine and using our air-blown gasification technology,” says Koichi Sakamoto, MHI’s Deputy General Manager, IGCC and Gasification.
The gasifier will process 3,600 tpd coal feedstock, twice the size of the Nikoso demo unit, and expected power rating for the plant is 530MWe, at an LHV efficiency of 48% (before CO2 capture and storage). The plant will be design for up to 90% CO2 capture.
In addition to MHI planning to take on full plant EPC scope and risk – a first in the industry – Mistubishi Corp. is taking an equity stake in the project. At this point MHI is performing feasibility studies ahead of signing a contract for the FEED study about a year from now. Signing of the full EPC contract is planned for the beginning of 2012, and the plant startup is scheduled for mid-2015.
“Besides our air-blown gasification technology, MHI is also offering an oxygen-blown unit for use in the coal-to-chemicals industry”, says Sakamoto. According to his presentation, MHI is currently involved in three new industrial projects, but locations were not disclosed. One is a 3-train plant to produce SNG, another is a 2-train coal-to-liquids plant, and the third is a poly-gen plant which will have both air-blown and oxygen-blown gasifiers (one each). The air-blown system will produce syngas for power, and the oxygen-blown unit will feed a syngas-to-chemicals process.
“We already have two 2,000 tpd oxygen-blown coal gasifiers in operation in China”, Sakamoto told the conference. “Both went into operation this year, and are in continuous operation at near full capacity in a modern fertilizer plant” he says.
Eroding advantage
Results of a number of comparative studies were presented at the conference showing that the once considerable advantage of IGCC technology over pulverized coal when the cost of CO2 capture is taken into account has “considerably eroded” says EPRI’s Neville Holt.
Bob Slettebhaugh of Black & Veatch described their broad-based study: Comparison of CO2 Capture Costs For Coal Power Plants, exploring the scenarios that might favor IGCC.
IGCC is compared with supercritical PC (SCPC) technology, with study variables including gasifier design (slurry; dry feed), coal rank (bituminous; PRB sub-bituminous), site elevation (sea level; 6000 ft.) and percent CO2 capture (60% and 90%). In all, there were 22 cases compared.
As seen in earlier studies, 90% CO2 capture greatly increases SCPC operating cost such that IGCC turns out to be the low-cost alternative. But the advantage indicated in the B&V study is not nearly as large as seen in earlier studies. “At 60% capture (i.e. point of natural-gas equivalence) the comparison is too close to call”, says Slettehaugh.
It was also interesting to see that, with higher levels of CO2 capture, dry-feed gasifiers lead to higher product cost than slurry fed gasifiers, due to higher costs related to the water-gas shift reaction needed for CO2 separation.
High elevation, low-rank hurt
Due to 20% gas turbine power derating at 6000 ft elevation, it is no surprise that SCPC wins over IGCC in that case. Under such an extreme assumption, supposed to represent sites close to western coal mines, study results may wrongly lead one to conclude that IGCC would only be favored in the east.
Similar conclusions are reached by the latest comparative study by NETL: Cost and Performance for Low Rank Coal Power Plants.
Jeff Hoffman, NETL Sr. Analyst, Office of Systems, Analysis and Planning, presented results based on the assumption that Montana PRB sub-bituminous coal is consumed at 3400 ft above sea level – automatically penalizing IGCC cost per kW by more than 10% due to power derate (vs. sea level).
North Dakota lignite-fed IGCC plants are assumed to be located at 1900 ft elevation, penalizing IGCC by about 4%. (Note, however, the assumption of ~40F ambient temperature results in full recovery of penalty in the lignite case, and about half of the derate in the PRB coal case.)
The NETL study looked only at the case of 90% C02 capture, which typically favors IGCC over PC plants. But the derate due to elevation and the inefficiencies and cost adders due to the low-rank feedstock – particularly in the case of lignite – more than erase any of the advantages, shown by the earlier NETL studies, which looked at IGCC+CCS with eastern bituminous coal feedstock (at sea level). (See GTW issue Jan-Feb 2009.))
At 85% capacity factor, the 30-year levelized cost of electricity (COE) for the PRB-fed IGCC at 6000 ft. is around 2% higher than with supercritical PC plants (“too close to call”). The IGCC disadvantage vs. SCPC grows to about 5% in the case of lignite feedstock (at 1900 ft.)
Technology to the rescue
The promise of advanced technology to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of IGCC power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) was the message of the presentation delivered by Kristin Gerdes, NETL analyst.
“With today’s technology, CCS (at 90% capture) adds more than 30% to the capital cost and COE for IGCC power plants,” says Gerdes. “The DOE has embarked on a suite of advanced technology development programs to counter those negative impacts.”
The advanced technologies (and prime contractors) being supported by DOE under these programs include a single stage solids feed pump (P&W Rocketdyne), warm gas cleanup and CO2 removal (RTI, Eltron), advanced hydrogen turbine (GE, Siemens), and ITM oxygen (Air Products).
Gerdes shows that the estimated cumulative benefit of progressively introducing these technologies is to lower capital cost and COE to just below the pre-CCS reference case values along with an 8 percentage point improvement in efficiency.
“Advanced technologies offer a pathway to significantly lower cost and better performance than current IGCC plants with CCS”, she concludes.
Technology advances addressing challenges
As has become the custom, the final session of the GTC conference was dedicated to advances in gasification technologies.
Stewart Clayton, Manager of the DOE Office of Fossil Energy Gasification Programs, kicked off the session saying that technology innovations are critical to addressing today’s challenges of cost reduction, efficiency improvement and climate change mitigation.
“This requires a joint commitment by industry and government to meet long term goals of sustainability”, Stewart told the conference.
As described by NETL’s Kristin Gerdes (above), presenting an analysis of DOE’s R&D program benefits, cumulative results are expected to deliver substantial cost reductions and efficiency improvements, better than making up for the negative impacts of carbon capture and sequestration on IGCC plant economics.
Following are highlights of presentations updating status of two key gasification technology programs having the greatest positive impacts. Another key program element, the Advanced Hydrogen Turbine Development program, was not presented at the conference. See GTW May-June issue for details.
Warm gas cleanup Program objective is to lower cost and improve efficiency by replacing current low-temperature commercial syngas cleanup processes with desulfurization and contaminant removal at moderate to high temperatures. RTI International, the main contractor, is also working on a high temperature CO2 capture system, which like the other process elements, uses a regenerable sorbent.
Another option for CO2 capture is to use a high temperature hydrogen transport membrane, operating at full syngas pressure. This is being developed by Eltron Research of Boulder CO, also with DOE support.
”Field testing at the RTI warm gas cleanup pilot unit on real coal-derived syngas at Eastman Chemical, (Kingsport TN), was completed in 2008”, says Raghubar Gupta, Sr. Research Dirctor at RTI. Testing confirmed ability of zinc oxide transport reactor to achieve 99.9% sulfur removal, and effective removal of ammonia, mercury and other contaminants in a multi-contaminant control unit. Work has now started on a 50MWe-scale demo plant to be installed at the TECO IGCC plant near Tampa. Start of testing should begin in 2012.
According to the NETL analysis, warm gas cleanup, incorporating high temperature (membrane) CO2 capture, would contribute more than half of the potential 30% cost savings and 8 percentage point efficiency improvement expected from the overall DOE R&D program.
ITM oxygen “Current commercial cryogenic air separation used to supply gasifier oxygen represents about 15% of total IGCC plant capital cost and consumes about 15% of gross plant power output”, says VanEric Stein, lead development engineer at Air Products & Chemicals. “Ion transport membrane (ITM) technology offers a step change reduction in oxygen cost and power consumption”, he continues.
Air Products has been working on ITM oxygen development for more than 20 years. With DOE support over the past 5 years, development has progressed from lab scale through the successful operation of commercial scale (0.5 tpd) modules in a 5 tpd scaled engineering pilot (SEP) unit.
“Oxygen purity of better than 99% has been demonstrated”, says Stein, “and SEP work continues with testing of 1.0 tpd modules.” Effort also continues to address design challenges related to cycling of the ceramic modules. “The ability to cycle the ITM modules continues to improve”, says Stein.
Meanwhile work has begun on the next step of ITM scale-up. A 150 tpd intermediate-scale test unit (ISTU) is in detailed design and long lead item procurement. Construction activities will begin next year, and operation and testing of ITM modules will start in 2011.
“At that time we expect to begin commercialization of small plants (< style="font-weight: bold;">
Rocket-base gasifier technology
progressing to pilot scale
As impressive as the portfolio of advanced IGCC technologies being supported by DOE is, surprisingly absent from the list is participation in the significant progress being made in the development of new breed of gasification technology.
Alan Darby, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) gasification program manager provided an update on the development of a high-pressure compact gasifier, which is about to enter pilot-scale testing at Gas Research Institute’s facility near Chicago. (Ed. Note: Formal commissioning of the pilot test unit took place on November 5, 2009.)
Although the DOE had been involved in some earlier R&D support, and continues to fund development of PWR’s advanced single-stage dry feed pump, the GTI pilot plant is moving ahead totally on non-DOE money.
According to Darby, their own corporate commitment to the technology has been joined by the “active partnership” of Exxon-Mobil and the license agreement with Zero Emission Energy Plants (ZEEP). Funding has also been provided by AERI of Alberta, the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Activity (DCEO), and the Gas Technology Institute.
Darby described the PWR technology as the result of an innovative application of Rocketdyne’s rocket engine technology. The current progress stems from “proof-of-concept” research-scale testing some 30 years ago, when the DOE’s support of advanced clean-coal technologies was part of “Project Energy Independence”.
Work was recently restarted by PWR with component testing at the University of North Dakota’s Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), and the decision was made to go ahead with an18 tpd test unit at GTI.
“The pilot test program is aimed at demonstrating gasifier performance, verifying operating procedures and validating design models”, according to Darby.
Rocket technology means big savings
The PWR gasifier is designed to operate at 1000 psig, at high temperature and extremely high reaction speeds, Darby continues. It is expected to result in a 90% reduction in gasifier size compared to today’s conventional entrained-flow gasifiers, and cut gasifier cost by 50%.
The design features a water-cooled liner, partial-quench and dry-particulate removal, and PWR engineers are predicting extremely high (99%) reliability and availability for their commercial design concept. This includes use of an advanced single-stage solid feed pump, still under development, that is not currently included in the pilot plant.
“The new pump will eliminate the need for any lock hoppers, delivering the pulverized coal directly from atmospheric-pressure storage bins into the gasifier”, says Darby. “Not only does this lead to a simpler and more reliable design, but it means lower oxygen consumption (than slurry feeds) and the ability to handle all ranks of coal.”
Results of a 2006 NETL study comparing a wide spectrum of gasifier technologies showed that a plant incorporating the PWR compact gasifier can reduce syngas product cost by 15-20%, concludes Darby. Test data from the GTI pilot unit should soon be available to help confirm such predictions.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
IGCC and gasification project progress
ZeroGen, GreenGen, Edwardsport, NewGas, more
This is the second of a three-part field report from the 2009 Gasification Technologies Council conference held in Colorado Springs, Oct 4-7
Previous posting reported on insightful Keynote address given by Gov. Freudenthal of Wyoming, a status report by Tenaska on their Taylorville IGCC project, and an update on the status of the "reborn" FutureGen project.
Coverage picks up here with status on the other near-zero IGCC plus CO2 capture projects planned in Australia and China, and other items of interest, including the Duke Energy Edwardsport IGCC and ConocoPhillips/Peabody Coal Kentuck NewGas project.
ZeroGen - MHI taking the wrap
Australia’s “ZeroGen” IGCC project has progressed to the pre-feasibility study phase, and to the point where Mitsubishi has entered the project both as an equity partner and as probable EPC contractor.
The plant will have a net power rating of 530MWe, based on a single-train MHI M701G2 combined cycle integrated with their own air-blown entrained-flow gasifier.
“ZeroGen is a state-owned company with a mission to demonstrate a way to sustain coal-based power generation in Australia, and especially in Queensland”, says Project Director Chris Greig.
“We fully expect the plant to be up and running by 2015, capturing and sequestering 2 million tonne per year of CO2.”
Initially the plant will operate at 60% carbon capture, and it will be cranked up to 90% capture during the demonstration phase, according to Grieg.
“We can’t afford to fail,” he says, and the agreement with Mitsubishi, the first in the industry for an IGCC plant, would appear to be a key factor in the optimism over the project’s success.
“MHI is going to take the full ‘EPC wrap’ – with a make-good warranty on full plant performance, including third party technologies,” Grieg continues.
Actually, the signing of an EPC contract is not scheduled until 2012, after completion of a FEED study.
Currently, along with plant engineering design studies, site selection is underway and CO2 injection testing is being started. Storage in deep saline aquifers is planned, since there are no enhanced oil recovery opportunities for the project.
The project is also competing for Australian government support under a national program that will help fund two clean coal projects with a total of around 1000MWe generating capacity. At the same time, negotiations are underway with local authorities to obtain “must-run” status for the plant, according to Grieg.
GreenGen - Will China be first?
And then there is China’s GreenGen, which, like FutureGen and ZeroGen, is a high-visibility project aimed at demonstrating near-zero emission coal-based IGCC with CO2 capture.
Like FutureGen, GreenGen involves an industrial alliance of China’s largest energy companies. The China Huaneng Power Group, China’s largest coal-based power utility, holds 51% of the equity and is the managing partner; Peabody Coal in the US is the only non-Chinese member of the GreenGen alliance. (Ed. Note: Huaneng is a member of the US FutureGen Industrial Alliance, so is Peabody.)
GreenGen will use a Chinese home-grown gasifier design, developed by the Thermal Power Research Institute (TPRI ~ China’s EPRI).
Dr. Xu Shisen, TPRI Director of New Power Generation Technology, told the conference that, after 15 years of R&D, including operation of a 36 tpd pilot unit through 2005, a 250MWe IGCC demonstration plant is now nearing completion.
“The demonstration plant will start operation in 2010. It features a 2000 tpd TPRI gasifier,” says Xu, “and is the precursor to the actual GreenGen project, which will be a 450MWe IGCC with CO2 capture and storage.”
The TPRI gasifier is a two-stage water-wall design with dry feed. There is no water quench, but a chemical quench instead, according to Xu. “That contributes to a very high cold-gas efficiency of about 83%,” he says.
Depending on economic and technical evaluation, GreenGen may feature a single 3500 tpd gasifier or two 2000 tpd units. Xu says that the larger plant has been approved and is scheduled for completion in 2014. It may also include a demonstration solid oxide fuel cell power generation fueled by hydrogen separated from the coal-derived syngas after CO2 removal.
In addition to the GreenGen project, Xu told the conference that there is another TPRI gasification demonstration project near completion in China, and that the technology has also been selected by Future Fuels LLC for their Future Power project in the US.
The 270MWe IGCC plus carbon capture project, being planned for the anthracite region of central Pennsylvania, is seeking government support under round three of the DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative.
Wrestling the 500 lb gorilla
Meanwhile, back in the states, ConocoPhillips’ E-Gas Product Manager Cliff Keeler described the challenges in developing a coal gasification project and getting it permitted in the US these days.
The Kentucky coal-to-gas project, NewGas, appears to be on track despite having to deal with an extensive “CO2 solution” that, says Keeler, is now a prerequisite for project development. ConocoPhillips and Peabody Coal are co-developers in the project.
“CO2 has become the 500 lb gorilla that penalizes all coal projects, and ours is now being designed to be storage ready.” The project includes 90% carbon capture, with plans to have the CO2 vent-gas from the methanation process collected, compressed and transported to a nearby site for geological storage. Enhanced oil recovery is also a potential storage option, says Keeler.
The plant is designed to produce some 60-70 billion cu. ft. per year of pipeline quality SNG, and heat recovered from syngas cooling and the methanation process is used to generate enough steam to drive a 250MWe turbine-generator.
Keeler described the approach being taken to obtain necessary state and federal air permits for the project, giving special emphasis to understanding start-up and shut-down emission issues.
The plan is to start the plant on natural gas, and to execute a “seamless transfer” to coal while minimizing transient plant emissions.
Normal full-load emissions profile for the plant is not at all an issue in the permitting process, according to Keeler. “Our levels of SOx and NOx will be a fraction of those being permitted for a new coal power plant”, he points out.
Keeler also pointed to the complex nature of multi-train coal-to-gas plant, and the importance of utilizing the combined expertise of the various technology suppliers to optimize operations, start-up and shutdown procedures.
SNG vs. IGCC vs. H2
In another presentation by ConocoPhillips, Phil Amick, Gasification Commercialization Manager, described the differences between design requirements for a gasification-based SNG facility and an IGCC plant configured solely for power generation.
“The methanation process and pipeline specifications for SNG puts tighter demands on the process design than when you are making fuel for a gas turbine ”, says Amick, referring to lower sulfur and moisture limits and higher oxygen purity, all of which dictate process design decisions that make SNG more costly.
Amick also told the conference that in-house studies have resulted in a decision to configure their pet-coke gasification project planned for the Sweeney Refinery in Texas as a two-gasifier three-GT IGCC plant with a net power rating (after CCS loads) of almost 700 MW.. Apparently, low natural gas prices have driven the product-mix more toward power and away from hydrogen for use at the refinery.
Just before the conference, the DOE announced that the Sweeney project will be receiving a $3 million cost-share grant to assist in the demonstration of “new advancements that improve conversion efficiency and economies of scale for carbon capture systems”.
The project will feature 85% CO2 capture and is expected to deliver as much as 5 million tons of CO2 a year to depleted oil fields or gas wells, according to the DOE announcement. “We are now in the process of filing papers for air permits,” Amick reports.
Duke well underway at Edwardsport
Last year they were moving dirt, and now they are “moving forward” was the theme of this year’s presentation on the status of the Edwardsport IGCC project.
For me, the highlight of the conference was in seeing a set of recent photos of the construction site showing some real progress after years of planning, permitting and preparation.
What a difference a year makes, said Dennis Zupan, Duke Energy’s General Manager, Projects, as he showed visual evidence of what it means to have achieved 26% completion of construction (as of September 1). Engineering work is now 85% complete, he says, and a FEED study for a 20% CO2 capture project add-on is in the works.
“Almost all of the excavation work is completed; same with the piling and underground piping,” Zupan reports. Photos showed initial components of the coal preparation and gasification area set in place, and foundations in the power block area.
We are building a ‘first-of-a-kind’GE Reference Plant, Zupan says, with “lessons already learned” during the engineering, procurement and construction phases of project development.
“We are happy to note that GE’s project team has matured during this process which will prove to be of benefit to other projects.”
At last year’s GTC conference, Zupan had commented on how the “IGCC alliance” between GE and Bechtel was not working out as expected, and that Duke had to provide major project management resources to fill the gaps.
Referring to a project progress curve showing that the overall project progress is just past the 40% mark, Zupan also noted that September, 2011 is the date scheduled for first-firing of Gas Turbine No. 1 and August 2012 is the expected ‘substantial completion date’ when the plant will enter startup and commissioning activities.
“We are now getting well into planning for operations,” says Zupan. “This includes an operator training program using an IGCC simulator developed by GE. We’re also doing maintenance planning and fine tuning plant manning levels and skills needs,” he concludes.
BP IGCC - California dreamin’?
Craig Skinner, BP Engineering Manager for the Hydrogen Energy California Project, introduced the conference to the latest version of BP’s 250MWe IGCC project planned for southern California. The plant will be designed for both petroleum coke and western bituminous coal.
Rio Tinto is BP’s joint venture partner on the project, along with a list of other participants including GE (gasifier and gas turbine), Fluor (engineering and construction) and Occidental Petroleum (CO2 customer).
Southern California Edison (SCE) would be the off-taker of the plant’s power output, assuring baseload operation. SCE is also granting $30 million to the project under a PUC approved alternative fuels development program.
(Separately, SCE reported on its own $50 million study (with Worley Parsons) on the feasibility of building a coal-based IGCC plant in the area.)
Hydrogen Energy California has replaced BP’s Carson Hydrogen Energy project, which apparently ran into a number of issues that have put it on the back burner. The new project does not co-produce hydrogen for refinery use, as was the case with Carson.
“The new plan has some distinct advantages and we are now making good progress,” says Skinner. “It’s the right project, in the right place, with the right partnership,” he adds, referring to their active nurturing of various private and public relationships.
The project enjoys both state and federal support, according to Skinner. In September, a co-operative agreement was signed worth $308 million under the DOE’s third-round Clean Coal Power Initiative, while the California PUC and Energy Commission are both indicating favorable positions toward the project.
Recently, a licensing agreement was signed with GE for the gasifier technology, releasing the process design package. The full FEED study is scheduled for release early in 2010.
“The GE quench gasifier was selected for its low technical risk,” says Skinner. “We are also impressed with the comprehensive 7FB (gas turbine) hydrogen testing program conducted by GE.”
The plant will meet strict California air quality standards and produce more than 2 million tons per year of byproduct CO2, which will be used for enhanced oil recovery in Oxy’s Elk Hills Reservoir about 5 miles from the project site. Oxy is currently the largest EOR operator in the US. According to current development schedule, construction will begin in 2012, and commercial operation would start in 2015-2016.
To be continued..........Next and final installment will highlight selected presentations by gasification/IGCC technology suppliers and report on results of some of the comparative studies presented at the conference. Key technology advances that address the need to cut IGCC costs are also highlighted.
ZeroGen, GreenGen, Edwardsport, NewGas, more
This is the second of a three-part field report from the 2009 Gasification Technologies Council conference held in Colorado Springs, Oct 4-7
Previous posting reported on insightful Keynote address given by Gov. Freudenthal of Wyoming, a status report by Tenaska on their Taylorville IGCC project, and an update on the status of the "reborn" FutureGen project.
Coverage picks up here with status on the other near-zero IGCC plus CO2 capture projects planned in Australia and China, and other items of interest, including the Duke Energy Edwardsport IGCC and ConocoPhillips/Peabody Coal Kentuck NewGas project.
ZeroGen - MHI taking the wrap
Australia’s “ZeroGen” IGCC project has progressed to the pre-feasibility study phase, and to the point where Mitsubishi has entered the project both as an equity partner and as probable EPC contractor.
The plant will have a net power rating of 530MWe, based on a single-train MHI M701G2 combined cycle integrated with their own air-blown entrained-flow gasifier.
“ZeroGen is a state-owned company with a mission to demonstrate a way to sustain coal-based power generation in Australia, and especially in Queensland”, says Project Director Chris Greig.
“We fully expect the plant to be up and running by 2015, capturing and sequestering 2 million tonne per year of CO2.”
Initially the plant will operate at 60% carbon capture, and it will be cranked up to 90% capture during the demonstration phase, according to Grieg.
“We can’t afford to fail,” he says, and the agreement with Mitsubishi, the first in the industry for an IGCC plant, would appear to be a key factor in the optimism over the project’s success.
“MHI is going to take the full ‘EPC wrap’ – with a make-good warranty on full plant performance, including third party technologies,” Grieg continues.
Actually, the signing of an EPC contract is not scheduled until 2012, after completion of a FEED study.
Currently, along with plant engineering design studies, site selection is underway and CO2 injection testing is being started. Storage in deep saline aquifers is planned, since there are no enhanced oil recovery opportunities for the project.
The project is also competing for Australian government support under a national program that will help fund two clean coal projects with a total of around 1000MWe generating capacity. At the same time, negotiations are underway with local authorities to obtain “must-run” status for the plant, according to Grieg.
GreenGen - Will China be first?
And then there is China’s GreenGen, which, like FutureGen and ZeroGen, is a high-visibility project aimed at demonstrating near-zero emission coal-based IGCC with CO2 capture.
Like FutureGen, GreenGen involves an industrial alliance of China’s largest energy companies. The China Huaneng Power Group, China’s largest coal-based power utility, holds 51% of the equity and is the managing partner; Peabody Coal in the US is the only non-Chinese member of the GreenGen alliance. (Ed. Note: Huaneng is a member of the US FutureGen Industrial Alliance, so is Peabody.)
GreenGen will use a Chinese home-grown gasifier design, developed by the Thermal Power Research Institute (TPRI ~ China’s EPRI).
Dr. Xu Shisen, TPRI Director of New Power Generation Technology, told the conference that, after 15 years of R&D, including operation of a 36 tpd pilot unit through 2005, a 250MWe IGCC demonstration plant is now nearing completion.
“The demonstration plant will start operation in 2010. It features a 2000 tpd TPRI gasifier,” says Xu, “and is the precursor to the actual GreenGen project, which will be a 450MWe IGCC with CO2 capture and storage.”
The TPRI gasifier is a two-stage water-wall design with dry feed. There is no water quench, but a chemical quench instead, according to Xu. “That contributes to a very high cold-gas efficiency of about 83%,” he says.
Depending on economic and technical evaluation, GreenGen may feature a single 3500 tpd gasifier or two 2000 tpd units. Xu says that the larger plant has been approved and is scheduled for completion in 2014. It may also include a demonstration solid oxide fuel cell power generation fueled by hydrogen separated from the coal-derived syngas after CO2 removal.
In addition to the GreenGen project, Xu told the conference that there is another TPRI gasification demonstration project near completion in China, and that the technology has also been selected by Future Fuels LLC for their Future Power project in the US.
The 270MWe IGCC plus carbon capture project, being planned for the anthracite region of central Pennsylvania, is seeking government support under round three of the DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative.
Wrestling the 500 lb gorilla
Meanwhile, back in the states, ConocoPhillips’ E-Gas Product Manager Cliff Keeler described the challenges in developing a coal gasification project and getting it permitted in the US these days.
The Kentucky coal-to-gas project, NewGas, appears to be on track despite having to deal with an extensive “CO2 solution” that, says Keeler, is now a prerequisite for project development. ConocoPhillips and Peabody Coal are co-developers in the project.
“CO2 has become the 500 lb gorilla that penalizes all coal projects, and ours is now being designed to be storage ready.” The project includes 90% carbon capture, with plans to have the CO2 vent-gas from the methanation process collected, compressed and transported to a nearby site for geological storage. Enhanced oil recovery is also a potential storage option, says Keeler.
The plant is designed to produce some 60-70 billion cu. ft. per year of pipeline quality SNG, and heat recovered from syngas cooling and the methanation process is used to generate enough steam to drive a 250MWe turbine-generator.
Keeler described the approach being taken to obtain necessary state and federal air permits for the project, giving special emphasis to understanding start-up and shut-down emission issues.
The plan is to start the plant on natural gas, and to execute a “seamless transfer” to coal while minimizing transient plant emissions.
Normal full-load emissions profile for the plant is not at all an issue in the permitting process, according to Keeler. “Our levels of SOx and NOx will be a fraction of those being permitted for a new coal power plant”, he points out.
Keeler also pointed to the complex nature of multi-train coal-to-gas plant, and the importance of utilizing the combined expertise of the various technology suppliers to optimize operations, start-up and shutdown procedures.
SNG vs. IGCC vs. H2
In another presentation by ConocoPhillips, Phil Amick, Gasification Commercialization Manager, described the differences between design requirements for a gasification-based SNG facility and an IGCC plant configured solely for power generation.
“The methanation process and pipeline specifications for SNG puts tighter demands on the process design than when you are making fuel for a gas turbine ”, says Amick, referring to lower sulfur and moisture limits and higher oxygen purity, all of which dictate process design decisions that make SNG more costly.
Amick also told the conference that in-house studies have resulted in a decision to configure their pet-coke gasification project planned for the Sweeney Refinery in Texas as a two-gasifier three-GT IGCC plant with a net power rating (after CCS loads) of almost 700 MW.. Apparently, low natural gas prices have driven the product-mix more toward power and away from hydrogen for use at the refinery.
Just before the conference, the DOE announced that the Sweeney project will be receiving a $3 million cost-share grant to assist in the demonstration of “new advancements that improve conversion efficiency and economies of scale for carbon capture systems”.
The project will feature 85% CO2 capture and is expected to deliver as much as 5 million tons of CO2 a year to depleted oil fields or gas wells, according to the DOE announcement. “We are now in the process of filing papers for air permits,” Amick reports.
Duke well underway at Edwardsport
Last year they were moving dirt, and now they are “moving forward” was the theme of this year’s presentation on the status of the Edwardsport IGCC project.
For me, the highlight of the conference was in seeing a set of recent photos of the construction site showing some real progress after years of planning, permitting and preparation.
What a difference a year makes, said Dennis Zupan, Duke Energy’s General Manager, Projects, as he showed visual evidence of what it means to have achieved 26% completion of construction (as of September 1). Engineering work is now 85% complete, he says, and a FEED study for a 20% CO2 capture project add-on is in the works.
“Almost all of the excavation work is completed; same with the piling and underground piping,” Zupan reports. Photos showed initial components of the coal preparation and gasification area set in place, and foundations in the power block area.
We are building a ‘first-of-a-kind’GE Reference Plant, Zupan says, with “lessons already learned” during the engineering, procurement and construction phases of project development.
“We are happy to note that GE’s project team has matured during this process which will prove to be of benefit to other projects.”
At last year’s GTC conference, Zupan had commented on how the “IGCC alliance” between GE and Bechtel was not working out as expected, and that Duke had to provide major project management resources to fill the gaps.
Referring to a project progress curve showing that the overall project progress is just past the 40% mark, Zupan also noted that September, 2011 is the date scheduled for first-firing of Gas Turbine No. 1 and August 2012 is the expected ‘substantial completion date’ when the plant will enter startup and commissioning activities.
“We are now getting well into planning for operations,” says Zupan. “This includes an operator training program using an IGCC simulator developed by GE. We’re also doing maintenance planning and fine tuning plant manning levels and skills needs,” he concludes.
BP IGCC - California dreamin’?
Craig Skinner, BP Engineering Manager for the Hydrogen Energy California Project, introduced the conference to the latest version of BP’s 250MWe IGCC project planned for southern California. The plant will be designed for both petroleum coke and western bituminous coal.
Rio Tinto is BP’s joint venture partner on the project, along with a list of other participants including GE (gasifier and gas turbine), Fluor (engineering and construction) and Occidental Petroleum (CO2 customer).
Southern California Edison (SCE) would be the off-taker of the plant’s power output, assuring baseload operation. SCE is also granting $30 million to the project under a PUC approved alternative fuels development program.
(Separately, SCE reported on its own $50 million study (with Worley Parsons) on the feasibility of building a coal-based IGCC plant in the area.)
Hydrogen Energy California has replaced BP’s Carson Hydrogen Energy project, which apparently ran into a number of issues that have put it on the back burner. The new project does not co-produce hydrogen for refinery use, as was the case with Carson.
“The new plan has some distinct advantages and we are now making good progress,” says Skinner. “It’s the right project, in the right place, with the right partnership,” he adds, referring to their active nurturing of various private and public relationships.
The project enjoys both state and federal support, according to Skinner. In September, a co-operative agreement was signed worth $308 million under the DOE’s third-round Clean Coal Power Initiative, while the California PUC and Energy Commission are both indicating favorable positions toward the project.
Recently, a licensing agreement was signed with GE for the gasifier technology, releasing the process design package. The full FEED study is scheduled for release early in 2010.
“The GE quench gasifier was selected for its low technical risk,” says Skinner. “We are also impressed with the comprehensive 7FB (gas turbine) hydrogen testing program conducted by GE.”
The plant will meet strict California air quality standards and produce more than 2 million tons per year of byproduct CO2, which will be used for enhanced oil recovery in Oxy’s Elk Hills Reservoir about 5 miles from the project site. Oxy is currently the largest EOR operator in the US. According to current development schedule, construction will begin in 2012, and commercial operation would start in 2015-2016.
To be continued..........Next and final installment will highlight selected presentations by gasification/IGCC technology suppliers and report on results of some of the comparative studies presented at the conference. Key technology advances that address the need to cut IGCC costs are also highlighted.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Progress reported at 2009 GTC conference in spite of challenging times for coal gasification and IGCC
Construction of Edwardsport IGCC and progress of other key projects and technology improvements overshadow continuing uncertainty over CO2 regulations.
In the face of an extended period of globally cheap natural gas, economic downturn and capital shortages, topped by continuing uncertainty over pending greenhouse gas regulations, this year’s annual Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) conference kicked off in Colorado Springs with a message of a positive future for the industry.
Conference co-hosts Jim Childress, GTC executive director, and EPRI’s venerable Neville Holt each delivered opening remarks with a message of “difficult and challenging times” mixed with optimism over technology developments underway to address both economic and environmental obstacles.
Childress noted that, despite the down economy, registered attendance of almost 750 people demonstrates continued interest and strength in the industry.
The highlights of the conference were indeed positive and forward looking:
Visit the GTC website for access to all conference presentations.
Wyoming strikes sharp keynote
Keynote speaker, Hon. David Freudenthal, Governor of Wyoming, showed extraordinary insight into today’s challenging energy and environmental situation.
Wyoming, US’ leading coal producer, is in a “great position” to meet the energy needs, says the governor, “but we need more from the Federal government to put its words and promises into action.
All that we have gotten so far from Washington is symbolic crumbs – not substance.”
“With the likes of the Sierra Club being supported by the natural gas industry to fight coal utilization, large-scale clean-coal projects – and gasification in particular – need to succeed,” he continues.
For this to happen, he says, there needs to be CO2 legislation passed to provide some clarity to investors. “There is too much money sitting on the sidelines waiting for clarity, and there remains a lot of work to be done by Congress since current bills won’t do the trick.”
There is also a need for the same type of financial commitment for clean coal that the government has made to support wind energy, which is enjoying investment tax credits and other forms of financial support.
“Coal needs a level playing field,” concludes Gov. Freudenthal, “it is still our lowest cost option.”
Illinois on the move
Since gasification-based technology gives new promise to the use of high sulfur eastern coals, states such as Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky are proven to be very favorable locations for projects that will help revive their coal industries.
An upbeat presentation by Bart Ford of Tenaska described how strong state support is helping keep the Taylorville Energy Center project in Illinois on a forward tack.
That project, currently estimated to cost around $3.5 billion, is now configured as a “hybrid IGCC”, says Ford, where the gasification island will be operated to produce pipeline quality SNG, and the stand-alone 730MWe power block can be fired with SNG produced on site or from the natural gas pipeline. Sixty percent of the CO2 normally vented by the methanation process will be captured and delivered to a pipeline for remote geologic storage or for enhanced oil recovery
Ford praised supportive state policies that are enabling the Taylorville project to obtain favorable financing terms. For one thing, the project has qualified under the Illinois Clean Coal Portfolio Standard Law, which establishes a framework for developing coal gasification projects with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage. The law, says Ford, requires emissions from these plants to be as clean as natural gas – and at least 50% CO2 capture.
Importantly, the law mandates 30-year power purchase agreements with qualifying “initial clean coal facilities”, and this has put the Taylorville project on track for financial closing early in 2010, according to Ford.
In a separate announcement, Harry Morehead, Manager of Gasification and IGCC Marketing at Siemens Energy, told the conference that Siemens Fuel Gasification technology has been selected by Tenaska to supply the gasifiers for the project. There was no similar announcement regarding the supply of the power block. Unconfirmed reports are that the owner’s engineer, Burns & McDonnell, is expecting to handle that under their scope.
FutureGen reborn
More optimism was displayed during a conference session dedicated to gasification power projects in development with carbon capture.
FutureGen Industrial Alliance’s David Brown talked about the “rebirth” of the advanced nominally 250MWe IGCC project to be sited in Mattoon, Illinois.
“It’s the right technology, and the right time”, says Brown about the US DOE-supported project that was all but killed at the close of the Bush administration due to its escalating costs. But with a new administration, and a correction in the way that the cost increase was determined, the project seems to be back on track.
Site selection and the environmental impact statement are completed, according to Brown, and a comprehensive cost estimate for a re-configured design will soon be published.
“The plant will initially operate at 60% carbon capture (i.e. natural gas equivalence) and will go to 90% capture in the third year of operation”, explains Brown. “At that level the advanced gas turbine will be operating on high-hydrogen syngas that will push well beyond demonstrated limits.”
The RFP for a turnkey gasification island was issued in September and selection of a contractor is pending further evaluation and budget approval. The new FutureGen project schedule shows startup late in 2013, and commercial operation a year later.
In next installment: ZeroGen (Australia) and GreenGen (China) make progress.
Construction of Edwardsport IGCC and progress of other key projects and technology improvements overshadow continuing uncertainty over CO2 regulations.
In the face of an extended period of globally cheap natural gas, economic downturn and capital shortages, topped by continuing uncertainty over pending greenhouse gas regulations, this year’s annual Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) conference kicked off in Colorado Springs with a message of a positive future for the industry.
Conference co-hosts Jim Childress, GTC executive director, and EPRI’s venerable Neville Holt each delivered opening remarks with a message of “difficult and challenging times” mixed with optimism over technology developments underway to address both economic and environmental obstacles.
Childress noted that, despite the down economy, registered attendance of almost 750 people demonstrates continued interest and strength in the industry.
The highlights of the conference were indeed positive and forward looking:
- Construction of the 630MW Edwardsport IGCC plant is more than 25% complete
- China continues to lead in new gasification installations and development
- FutureGen, ZeroGen and GreenGen are all progressing
- Cost-cutting advanced technologies moving ahead
Visit the GTC website for access to all conference presentations.
Wyoming strikes sharp keynote
Keynote speaker, Hon. David Freudenthal, Governor of Wyoming, showed extraordinary insight into today’s challenging energy and environmental situation.
Wyoming, US’ leading coal producer, is in a “great position” to meet the energy needs, says the governor, “but we need more from the Federal government to put its words and promises into action.
All that we have gotten so far from Washington is symbolic crumbs – not substance.”
“With the likes of the Sierra Club being supported by the natural gas industry to fight coal utilization, large-scale clean-coal projects – and gasification in particular – need to succeed,” he continues.
For this to happen, he says, there needs to be CO2 legislation passed to provide some clarity to investors. “There is too much money sitting on the sidelines waiting for clarity, and there remains a lot of work to be done by Congress since current bills won’t do the trick.”
There is also a need for the same type of financial commitment for clean coal that the government has made to support wind energy, which is enjoying investment tax credits and other forms of financial support.
“Coal needs a level playing field,” concludes Gov. Freudenthal, “it is still our lowest cost option.”
Illinois on the move
Since gasification-based technology gives new promise to the use of high sulfur eastern coals, states such as Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky are proven to be very favorable locations for projects that will help revive their coal industries.
An upbeat presentation by Bart Ford of Tenaska described how strong state support is helping keep the Taylorville Energy Center project in Illinois on a forward tack.
That project, currently estimated to cost around $3.5 billion, is now configured as a “hybrid IGCC”, says Ford, where the gasification island will be operated to produce pipeline quality SNG, and the stand-alone 730MWe power block can be fired with SNG produced on site or from the natural gas pipeline. Sixty percent of the CO2 normally vented by the methanation process will be captured and delivered to a pipeline for remote geologic storage or for enhanced oil recovery
Ford praised supportive state policies that are enabling the Taylorville project to obtain favorable financing terms. For one thing, the project has qualified under the Illinois Clean Coal Portfolio Standard Law, which establishes a framework for developing coal gasification projects with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage. The law, says Ford, requires emissions from these plants to be as clean as natural gas – and at least 50% CO2 capture.
Importantly, the law mandates 30-year power purchase agreements with qualifying “initial clean coal facilities”, and this has put the Taylorville project on track for financial closing early in 2010, according to Ford.
In a separate announcement, Harry Morehead, Manager of Gasification and IGCC Marketing at Siemens Energy, told the conference that Siemens Fuel Gasification technology has been selected by Tenaska to supply the gasifiers for the project. There was no similar announcement regarding the supply of the power block. Unconfirmed reports are that the owner’s engineer, Burns & McDonnell, is expecting to handle that under their scope.
FutureGen reborn
More optimism was displayed during a conference session dedicated to gasification power projects in development with carbon capture.
FutureGen Industrial Alliance’s David Brown talked about the “rebirth” of the advanced nominally 250MWe IGCC project to be sited in Mattoon, Illinois.
“It’s the right technology, and the right time”, says Brown about the US DOE-supported project that was all but killed at the close of the Bush administration due to its escalating costs. But with a new administration, and a correction in the way that the cost increase was determined, the project seems to be back on track.
Site selection and the environmental impact statement are completed, according to Brown, and a comprehensive cost estimate for a re-configured design will soon be published.
“The plant will initially operate at 60% carbon capture (i.e. natural gas equivalence) and will go to 90% capture in the third year of operation”, explains Brown. “At that level the advanced gas turbine will be operating on high-hydrogen syngas that will push well beyond demonstrated limits.”
The RFP for a turnkey gasification island was issued in September and selection of a contractor is pending further evaluation and budget approval. The new FutureGen project schedule shows startup late in 2013, and commercial operation a year later.
In next installment: ZeroGen (Australia) and GreenGen (China) make progress.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Bringing down the cost of IGCC
plants with Carbon Capture
By now, industry observers and especially regular readers of Gas Turbine World Magazine and this blog well understand the negative impact on coal-based power plant performance and costs associated with the various technical and regulatory proposals aimed at lowering CO2 emissions and to dispose of the waste CO2.
Several recent studies, notably those supported by EPRI and the DOE/NETL (see Jan-Feb 2009 GTW), have been focused on the severity of the economic impacts of carbon capture and sequestration for all forms of coal-based power generation.
For example, the impact of 90% CO2 capture on typical current-technology slurry-fed IGCC plants is to reduce HHV efficiency by more than 15 percent (from around 38% to below 32%).
And the additional parasitic plant loads reduce net plant output of 15 percent. Combined, the net effect is to increase total plant capital cost ($ per net kW) by over 35 percent and add at least 35% to the 20-year levelized cost of electricity (COE).
IGCC has advantage
NETL estimates that the impact for pulverized coal plants with 90% CCS is even a larger penalty - a whopping 85% increase in COE -- emphasizing a true advantage of IGCC technology in a carbon constrained world.
In a drive to recoup losses in IGCC plant efficiency, and mitigate increases in costs, the DOE has several advanced technologies under development with a well defined technology pathway for both near term and longer term improvements.
Most recent studies published by NETL show that the cumulative impacts of advanced technology programs are expected to improve the efficiency of IGCC+CCS plants by 8 percentage points and reduce capital cost and COE by over 30 percent.
Progress reported
Progress being made on a broad portfolio of DOE/NETL advanced technology development programs promises to significantly improve process efficiency, cut capital costs and substantially lower the cost of energy produced by coal based IGCC plants operating with carbon capture and sequestration.
Largest returns are expected of the following projects which are targeted at specific advances in design and performance:
- Warm gas cleanup. Eliminates the thermal penalty of cold cleanup and reduces capital cost of the process.
- Ion transport membrane oxygen. "ITM" oxygen production reduces power penalty and cost of cryogenic air separation.
- Advanced hydrogen turbine. Advanced gas turbine increases efficiency and power rating, lowers emissions and reduces $/kW total plant cost.
- Gasifier technology. Improved gasifier materials, instrumentation and controls improves plant reliability and availability.
At the 9th Greenhouse Gas Technologies Conference held in Washington DC late last year, Julianne Klara, a senior analyst with NETL, Pittsburgh, discussed the potential for these technologies to reduce costs in future IGCC plants.
An updated presentation of study results will be made at the 2009 Gasification Technologies Council conference being held in Colorado Springs, next week Oct 4-7.
Natural gas as the "bridge fuel"
The focus of DOE’s Clean Coal R&D program is on restoring the economic viability of coal-based power generation with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) by applying advanced technologies to a gasification-based configuration.
Because of the steep environmental challenges currently frustrating new coal-based projects in the US, she maintains, the situation has created a dilemma for coal. Almost all new generating capacity being added is based on using natural gas fuel.
Although the use of this “bridge fuel” by utilities and developers alike is seen as the only viable alternative for reducing CO2 emissions at this time, recent history tells us that this alternative is fraught with risk of fuel cost volatility relative to coal.
The long-term solution for coal, according to the NETL study, is the technology needed to achieve the cost reductions and performance improvements to make coal-based IGCC plants with CCS more competitive with natural gas fired combined cycle plants.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
NY Times Attack on FutureGen Not "Fit to Print"
Op-Ed piece throws FutureGen under the bus in IGCC / Clean Coal Blooper
On June 28, the New York Times carried an Op-Ed piece by "author/journalist/lecturer" Gregg Easterbrook entitled "The Dirty War On Clean Coal" that raises serious questions about the Times' 100+ year-old motto "All The News That's Fit To Print". (In case you can't open the link to the actual piece, I've repeated it at the bottom of this posting.)
Rather than the Times having Easterbrook's work pre-viewed by their energy staff, it would appear that the op-ed page editor had full freedom to publish, and was either totally blind to the issues and/or was just as technically inept as is the author.
The following letter was sent by this writer to the author. Others have sent letters to the Times editor to suggest that they should be embarrassed by the piece.
In the words of one industry executive: I was also appalled at the uninformed inconsistency of Eastbrook's Op Ed. It was an embarrassment to the New York Times for them to publish such a poorly researched work that was so full of factual errors.
Read on and tell us what you think. If you get turned on by the issue the way that we were, write your own letter the the NY Times editor to help set them straight. At least they may try to do a better job researching such technical matters, rather than just exploiting it as the political issue that it has become.
Following is the Op-Ed piece published on June 28 in the N.Y. Times.
The Dirty War Against Clean Coal
By GREGG EASTERBROOK
Washington
WHILE President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse gases has been the big topic of recent environmental debate, the White House has also been pushing a futuristic federal project to build a power plant that burns coal without any greenhouse gases.
Sounds great, right? Except the idea is a rehash of a proposal that went bust the first time around. More important, the technology already exists to make huge reductions in greenhouse emissions from coal, allowing power companies to begin cutting the carbon footprint of coal today. Instead, advanced-technology coal power sits on the shelf while regulators wait to see what happens with a project that may be just an expensive boondoggle.
The big project, a public-private partnership called FutureGen, was first announced by George W. Bush in 2003. Dreading facing up to the problem of greenhouse gases from electricity generation, the Bush White House suggested that decisions should wait while FutureGen developed a coal-fired power with no emissions. FutureGen’s administrators spent five years on studies, proposals and studies of studies, but never broke ground for a test installation.
Then, in a fit of integrity, the Department of Energy decided the project should be put in Illinois, a
Democratic state — Midwestern coal is high in carbon, making this a logical choice — rather than in Republican Texas, which the White House preferred. The administration promptly canceled financing for FutureGen. But this month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced he was reviving the project, hinting that the ultimate cost may run to billions of dollars.
FutureGen was better off canceled. Government is good at basic research, poor at commercial-scale applied energy technology. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a heavily subsidized attempt begun by the Carter administration to manufacture gasoline substitutes, flopped without ever producing a marketable gallon.
The Energy Department has also financed such overpriced, unrealistic projects as the MOD-5B, a wind turbine that weighed 470 tons and stood 20 stories tall: it looked like a gigantic propeller intended to push the earth to a new star system. It ended up being sold for scrap.
The Obama administration’s FutureGen plan calls for yet another year of study before any actual action; test runs may not begin for a decade. No wonder the project’s nickname is “NeverGen".
This is part of a Washington tradition — beginning pie-in-the-sky projects that create an excuse to avoid forms of conservation and greenhouse-gas reduction that are possible immediately. Companies including General Electric have already perfected technology to reduce emissions substantially, called “integrated gasification combined cycle” power. (Yes, it needs a better name.)
Current coal-fired power plants burn pulverized coal using a combustion process that hasn’t changed in a half a century. The new approach turns coal into a gas similar to natural gas, which runs through a device similar to a jet engine. Such plants can achieve near-zero emissions of toxic material and chemicals that form smog, and they require about a third less coal than regular coal-fired power plants to produce an equal amount of energy, which means about a third lower greenhouse gases.
Beyond that, the promising technology of “sequestering” carbon dioxide — pumping it back into the ground to keep it out of atmosphere — appears for technical reasons to be impractical for conventional pulverized-coal power plants. But gasification plants have technical characteristics that should make “sequestration” of carbon feasible. A gasification power plant with sequestration would have around two-thirds lower greenhouse gases than a conventional coal-fired generating station.
The first commercial gasification power plant, designed by General Electric for Duke Energy, is being built in Indiana. Yet, absurdly, most state public-utility commissions have denied requests to construct the seenvironmentally friendly systems. Last year, Virginia denied a major utility’s request to build a coal-fired power plant that would have sequestered nearly all its carbon output.
One reason Virginia gave for the denial was the higher up-front cost of a gasification plant. Yet, once greenhouse gases are regulated (and President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan would in effect tax carbon), the economics of gasification plants may become attractive, with low-emission plants costing less to run.
Another reason for the denials is that utility commissions are waiting for the outcome of the FutureGen experiment. This is a classic instance of the best being enemy of the good. Rather than starting to cut coal-caused carbon emissions right now, we are waiting to see if a hypothetical system could achieve perfection decades from now. Meanwhile, emissions continue willy-nilly.
FutureGen is politically appealing: contractors get subsidies, politicians get to hand out money in their districts and astonishing breakthroughs are promised at unspecified future dates. Why aren’t progressives fighting for an immediate embrace of gasification power?
Much of the environmental movement clings to a fairyland notion that coal combustion can soon be eliminated, and therefore no coal-fired power plant of any kind, even an advanced plant, should be built.
Reflecting this mindset, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he opposes integrated gasification plants — only new solar, wind and geothermal facilities should be allowed. Environmentalists who correctly point out there can never be absolutely “clean coal” thus end up in the position of opposing coal that’s far cleaner than what we are using.
Yet coal use is a future certainty. Half of our power comes from coal, versus about 2 percent from solar and wind: in the next few decades, green power simply cannot grow quickly enough to eliminate the need for coal.
We have two choices: do nothing and wait for FutureGen while coal-caused carbon emissions continue unabated; or start building improved coal-fired plants that reduce the problem. Which seems moreforward-thinking?
Gregg Easterbrook is the author of “The Progress Paradox” and the forthcoming “Sonic Boom.” Y
http://www.greggeasterbrook.com/
Op-Ed piece throws FutureGen under the bus in IGCC / Clean Coal Blooper
On June 28, the New York Times carried an Op-Ed piece by "author/journalist/lecturer" Gregg Easterbrook entitled "The Dirty War On Clean Coal" that raises serious questions about the Times' 100+ year-old motto "All The News That's Fit To Print". (In case you can't open the link to the actual piece, I've repeated it at the bottom of this posting.)
Rather than the Times having Easterbrook's work pre-viewed by their energy staff, it would appear that the op-ed page editor had full freedom to publish, and was either totally blind to the issues and/or was just as technically inept as is the author.
The following letter was sent by this writer to the author. Others have sent letters to the Times editor to suggest that they should be embarrassed by the piece.
In the words of one industry executive: I was also appalled at the uninformed inconsistency of Eastbrook's Op Ed. It was an embarrassment to the New York Times for them to publish such a poorly researched work that was so full of factual errors.
Read on and tell us what you think. If you get turned on by the issue the way that we were, write your own letter the the NY Times editor to help set them straight. At least they may try to do a better job researching such technical matters, rather than just exploiting it as the political issue that it has become.
Dear Mr. Easterbrook,
Where shall I begin?
I'm still so upset about your Op-Ed piece "The Dirty War Against Clean Coal" in the June 28 issue of the New York Times that I'm not sure just how to start to tell you.
I've been closely involved with the subject of IGCC and clean coal for many years, and, of late, I have been writing articles in Gas Turbine World Magazine on the subject. Frankly, my readership compared to yours is quite small. Even our blog is visited only a few times a day. But I know that my audience is technically astute and I'm careful to make sure that I'm technically accurate and fundamentally sound in my editorial commentary.
When I read your piece I couldn't believe that something with so many technical errors and mis-statements is being read by so many - not only in print but also by the wide on-line audience enjoyed by NYTimes.com.
First of all, how can you pretend to know what you are talking about when you don't even realize that the FutureGen project, which you condemn, is, in fact, exactly what you are trying to promote?
FutureGen as currently configured will be a state-of-the-art IGCC plant, which you say you favor for immediate deployment. It will be fitted with an added chemical process step to remove CO2.
Moreover, the fact of the matter is that GE will almost certainly be offering to FutureGen essentially the same technologies - gasification and power generation -that they have sold commercially to Duke Energy for Edwardsport.
Moreover, the fact of the matter is that GE will almost certainly be offering to FutureGen essentially the same technologies - gasification and power generation -that they have sold commercially to Duke Energy for Edwardsport.
So, FutureGen will not be an R&D "experiment" as you make it out to be. It will be a working IGCC plant, just as you are suggesting should be built right now.
The CO2 capture technology that would be used to remove at least 60% of the CO2 (and thereby give the plant at minimum the same carbon footprint as a modern natural gas fired combined cycle plant) is very old chemistry that is in use in numerous chemical plants where CO2 has to be removed from gas streams.
It is not new and unproven as you intimate. In fact, it is being used in the Dakota Gasification plant in North Dakota where coal is used to manufacture synthetic natural gas (SNG, which is essentially methane). For more information on that operation you should visit http://www.dakotagas.com/
By the way, that plant was built with Synthetic Fuels Corporation support and was taken over by private operators. So your comment about how the SFC didn't accomplish anything is off base. The predecessor to the successful Wabash (IN) IGCC plant was also supported by the SFC.
At the Dakota plant, the CO2 used to be vented directly into the atmosphere. Since 2005 it has been collected and sent by a 200 mile pipeline to Alberta, Canada for use in pressurizing an old oil field to enhance production. This is the sort of thing being planned for the CO2 collected at the FutureGen project, although they are primarily considering some form of geologic injection or injecting into a deep saline aquifer.
So, contrary the picture that you painted, FutureGen will combine two proven technologies: an IGCC plant using an F-class gas turbine and conventional CO2 removal chemistry. It will not be an R&D project in its initial configuration. It has been carefully planned as a plant that will not - repeat will not - use unproven technology and risk being a white elephant. If they build it - it will work. And it should go forward to provide a useful demonstration of the marriage of these two technologies.
Another issue that I had with your piece is that you seem to be inferring that the new Duke Energy Edwardsport IGCC plant will be the first commercial scale coal-based IGCC plant. Are you not aware that the first successful IGCC plants in the US were operating in California and Louisiana more than 20 years ago?
Are you not aware of the operating plants (since the mid-90s) in Wabash, Indiana and Tampa, Florida?
Are you also not aware of two large coal-based IGCC plants operating in Europe? What about 10 or more IGCC plants that operate on refinery residue in the US and Europe?
You should have taken time to learn about those plants so you could be more accurate when write about these things.
Are you not aware of the operating plants (since the mid-90s) in Wabash, Indiana and Tampa, Florida?
Are you also not aware of two large coal-based IGCC plants operating in Europe? What about 10 or more IGCC plants that operate on refinery residue in the US and Europe?
You should have taken time to learn about those plants so you could be more accurate when write about these things.
And, by the way, your entire premise about IGCC cutting CO2 emissions by one-third compared to conventional coal plants is way off base. For it to be correct, the heat rate or efficiency of an IGCC plant would have to be one-third better than conventional coal. That just isn't the case.
Unless you are comparing new IGCC plants to very old coal-fired plants, the fact of the matter is that the heat rate or efficiency of modern coal plants (where they burn coal as they have for a hundred year, as you put it) is not that much worse than that of IGCC plants. So the amount of coal used to generate the same amount of electricity in an IGCC plant and a new conventional coal plant is not all that different.
Therefore, the amount of CO2 emitted by the two coal-based power generation technologies per kilowatt hour of electricity is not that different. Please see the attached chart which illustrates this fact. It came from a DOE presentation a few years ago, but is still very valid.
On this basis, your idea of promoting IGCC as a way to cut CO2 emissions by one-third is totally in error - and makes your entire position technically unsound. This sort of erroneous argument does not help the case of IGCC.
What is true - and you do touch on this - is that removing CO2 in a pre-combustion mode from syngas (i.e. using coal gasification and IGCC) is much more practical and economical than removing CO2 from the exhaust of a conventional coal-fired power plant.
This is the main argument in favor of IGCC for new plants, that is, when there is regulatory pressure on the removal of CO2 from coal-based power generators, it will be more economical to build IGCC plants with CO2 removal than to build conventional plants with CO2 removal.
This is the main argument in favor of IGCC for new plants, that is, when there is regulatory pressure on the removal of CO2 from coal-based power generators, it will be more economical to build IGCC plants with CO2 removal than to build conventional plants with CO2 removal.
As you could see, although I agree with you that gasification has its advantages over conventional coal burning, I have many issues with your piece and it aggravates me that the New York Times would publish it without first consulting with someone who knows something about the technology and the technical issues before letting it go out to such a wide audience.
Yours very truly,
Harry Jaeger
Gasification Editor
Gas Turbine World Magazine
Following is the Op-Ed piece published on June 28 in the N.Y. Times.
The Dirty War Against Clean Coal
By GREGG EASTERBROOK
Washington
WHILE President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse gases has been the big topic of recent environmental debate, the White House has also been pushing a futuristic federal project to build a power plant that burns coal without any greenhouse gases.
Sounds great, right? Except the idea is a rehash of a proposal that went bust the first time around. More important, the technology already exists to make huge reductions in greenhouse emissions from coal, allowing power companies to begin cutting the carbon footprint of coal today. Instead, advanced-technology coal power sits on the shelf while regulators wait to see what happens with a project that may be just an expensive boondoggle.
The big project, a public-private partnership called FutureGen, was first announced by George W. Bush in 2003. Dreading facing up to the problem of greenhouse gases from electricity generation, the Bush White House suggested that decisions should wait while FutureGen developed a coal-fired power with no emissions. FutureGen’s administrators spent five years on studies, proposals and studies of studies, but never broke ground for a test installation.
Then, in a fit of integrity, the Department of Energy decided the project should be put in Illinois, a
Democratic state — Midwestern coal is high in carbon, making this a logical choice — rather than in Republican Texas, which the White House preferred. The administration promptly canceled financing for FutureGen. But this month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced he was reviving the project, hinting that the ultimate cost may run to billions of dollars.
FutureGen was better off canceled. Government is good at basic research, poor at commercial-scale applied energy technology. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a heavily subsidized attempt begun by the Carter administration to manufacture gasoline substitutes, flopped without ever producing a marketable gallon.
The Energy Department has also financed such overpriced, unrealistic projects as the MOD-5B, a wind turbine that weighed 470 tons and stood 20 stories tall: it looked like a gigantic propeller intended to push the earth to a new star system. It ended up being sold for scrap.
The Obama administration’s FutureGen plan calls for yet another year of study before any actual action; test runs may not begin for a decade. No wonder the project’s nickname is “NeverGen".
This is part of a Washington tradition — beginning pie-in-the-sky projects that create an excuse to avoid forms of conservation and greenhouse-gas reduction that are possible immediately. Companies including General Electric have already perfected technology to reduce emissions substantially, called “integrated gasification combined cycle” power. (Yes, it needs a better name.)
Current coal-fired power plants burn pulverized coal using a combustion process that hasn’t changed in a half a century. The new approach turns coal into a gas similar to natural gas, which runs through a device similar to a jet engine. Such plants can achieve near-zero emissions of toxic material and chemicals that form smog, and they require about a third less coal than regular coal-fired power plants to produce an equal amount of energy, which means about a third lower greenhouse gases.
Beyond that, the promising technology of “sequestering” carbon dioxide — pumping it back into the ground to keep it out of atmosphere — appears for technical reasons to be impractical for conventional pulverized-coal power plants. But gasification plants have technical characteristics that should make “sequestration” of carbon feasible. A gasification power plant with sequestration would have around two-thirds lower greenhouse gases than a conventional coal-fired generating station.
The first commercial gasification power plant, designed by General Electric for Duke Energy, is being built in Indiana. Yet, absurdly, most state public-utility commissions have denied requests to construct the seenvironmentally friendly systems. Last year, Virginia denied a major utility’s request to build a coal-fired power plant that would have sequestered nearly all its carbon output.
One reason Virginia gave for the denial was the higher up-front cost of a gasification plant. Yet, once greenhouse gases are regulated (and President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan would in effect tax carbon), the economics of gasification plants may become attractive, with low-emission plants costing less to run.
Another reason for the denials is that utility commissions are waiting for the outcome of the FutureGen experiment. This is a classic instance of the best being enemy of the good. Rather than starting to cut coal-caused carbon emissions right now, we are waiting to see if a hypothetical system could achieve perfection decades from now. Meanwhile, emissions continue willy-nilly.
FutureGen is politically appealing: contractors get subsidies, politicians get to hand out money in their districts and astonishing breakthroughs are promised at unspecified future dates. Why aren’t progressives fighting for an immediate embrace of gasification power?
Much of the environmental movement clings to a fairyland notion that coal combustion can soon be eliminated, and therefore no coal-fired power plant of any kind, even an advanced plant, should be built.
Reflecting this mindset, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he opposes integrated gasification plants — only new solar, wind and geothermal facilities should be allowed. Environmentalists who correctly point out there can never be absolutely “clean coal” thus end up in the position of opposing coal that’s far cleaner than what we are using.
Yet coal use is a future certainty. Half of our power comes from coal, versus about 2 percent from solar and wind: in the next few decades, green power simply cannot grow quickly enough to eliminate the need for coal.
We have two choices: do nothing and wait for FutureGen while coal-caused carbon emissions continue unabated; or start building improved coal-fired plants that reduce the problem. Which seems moreforward-thinking?
Gregg Easterbrook is the author of “The Progress Paradox” and the forthcoming “Sonic Boom.” Y
http://www.greggeasterbrook.com/
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
$500M math error found in FutureGen cost
We all learned in today's headlines that the cost of the FutureGen project did not really double, as claimed by the Bush administration in their Xmas Eve 2007 dumping of the ill-fated US flagship IGCC+CCS project
No, as it turns out, the DOE "erred" by $500 million. The project cost may actually have increased by only 39% above its original $1 billion budget, and should not have been killed after all.
Politics and economics
Apparently, the resurrection of the FutureGen project - in Illinois - was on the new administration's agenda all along.
Thanks to the Government Accountability Office they now have the vehicle to put it back on track - in less than two months after Obama took office!
A GAO report that just brought this to light was prepared for Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN), chairman of the House Science Committee. (Why did it take a year to surface? And, why didn't FutureGen supporters challenge this "mistake" earlier?)
Rep. Gordon, expressed "astonishment" that the top DOE leadership made critical decisions about US energy future and efforts to combat global warming on the basis of "fundamental budget math errors".
He called it "math illiteracy on a grand scale and with global consequences."
To inflate or not to inflate?
What's all the fuss about anyway? What "mistakes" have been uncovered?
According to the GAO report, it all happened back in December, 2007 - just after it was prematurely announced that the selected site for the project would be Mattoon IL, and not in Texas.
After spending some $175 million on the project, the DOE announced that the estimated cost had doubled from the original $950 million estimate, and pulled the plug on the project.
This conclusion, now says the GAO, was reached when DOE inaccurately compared the original estimated project cost in constant 2005 dollars with a new estimate in fully inflated dollars that reflected what would have been spent over the life of the project.
Based on the same constant 2005 dollars, say GAO auditors, an apple-to-apples comparison would have concluded that the plant would cost $1.3 billion, an increase of about $370 million, or "only" about 39 percent, over DOE’s original estimate.
It did not increase by more than $900 million as previously concluded by DOE, a near doubling of the project cost, say GAO auditors.
Could it be?
And why would the DOE be so bold as to make such a blatant apples-to-oranges comparison in broad daylight? Why wasn't this error caught sooner? And why did the GAO report just now surface?
Could it be that the FutureGen Alliance's "premature" announcement of its decision to build the project in Illinois had something to do with a change in the DOE's methods used to estimate project costs?
Could it be that such an "error" was pure politics, and it took a full change in government to get the GAO to issue its report and bring this all to light?
According to the Times article, internal DOE communications were found indicating that key members of DOE management were looking for reasons to kill the project.
As a substitute, the DOE is supporting a number of regional CO2 capture and storage demonstrations, such as the WESTCARB oxy-fuel project in California, but no alternative commercial-scale power project has yet surfaced to replace FutureGen.
This may change soon as the economic stimulus bill just rushed through by the Obama administration and passed by Congress may provide money for the original FutureGen project.
As reported by the Washington Post last week, the bill contains language providing for $1 billion for a "clean coal" research project. Everyone seems to know that this project is FutureGen. President Obama supported the project when he was a senator from Illinois, and new Secretary of Energy Steven Chu "would support it with some modifications" according the the Post.
Chu has been quoted as saying that FutureGen "deserves a fresh look" among potential clean coal projects.
So, stand by IGCC fans.
A year after Matooners awoke to find coal in their stockings, it looks as if a belated Xmas present may be on its way.
Yes, my Illinoisian friends, there is clean-coal Santa Claus in the White House after all!
Don't Forget - Visit www.GTWbooks.com
Friday, February 13, 2009
Gasification: Redefining Clean Energy
Those of you who are not on the mailing list of the Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) may not have seen their invitation to visit their great website and look at their excellent new video, entitled Gasification: Redefining Clean Energy.
You could either go directly to this link (GTC video) or visit GTC's website www.gasification.org.
I think that you'll find it worth the time.
Also, don't forget to visit Gas Turbine World's website at www.GTWBooks.com
Those of you who are not on the mailing list of the Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) may not have seen their invitation to visit their great website and look at their excellent new video, entitled Gasification: Redefining Clean Energy.
You could either go directly to this link (GTC video) or visit GTC's website www.gasification.org.
I think that you'll find it worth the time.
Also, don't forget to visit Gas Turbine World's website at www.GTWBooks.com
Sunday, January 25, 2009
NETL Video Provides
Basics of Gasification and IGCC
In a departure from our usual objective of using this platform to highlight current issues of interest to the Gasification and IGCC industry, this posting is prepared to help distribute a useful video message prepared by the US Dept. of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory.
The video features Gary Stiegel, Technology Manager, Gasification, at the Office of Coal and Power R&D, in Pittsburgh.
This link will connect you to YouTube.com for access to the informative four-minute presentation and will lead you to additional links to further information on gasification, carbon capture, and other related topics provided by NETL.
We trust that this has been useful in your search for information regarding gasification and IGCC technology.
Gasification Editor
Gas Turbine World Magazine
visit us at www.GTWbooks.com
Basics of Gasification and IGCC
In a departure from our usual objective of using this platform to highlight current issues of interest to the Gasification and IGCC industry, this posting is prepared to help distribute a useful video message prepared by the US Dept. of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory.
The video features Gary Stiegel, Technology Manager, Gasification, at the Office of Coal and Power R&D, in Pittsburgh.
This link will connect you to YouTube.com for access to the informative four-minute presentation and will lead you to additional links to further information on gasification, carbon capture, and other related topics provided by NETL.
We trust that this has been useful in your search for information regarding gasification and IGCC technology.
Gasification Editor
Gas Turbine World Magazine
visit us at www.GTWbooks.com
Monday, December 15, 2008
Eyes of Texas on IGCC Debate - Again
Once again the opportunity for building a low-emissions IGCC plant on Gulf Coast
is in danger of being missed.
Can polygeneration come to the rescue?
It was only about two years ago when all eyes were on Texas as plans for upwards of 18 new coal plants had environmental groups up in arms.
The pressure was on the utilities to use cleaner IGCC technology, and on the regulators to accept IGCC as "Best Available Control Technology" for all new coal-fired plants - regardless of its higher costs.
That debate over IGCC vs PC technologies went into the history books when TU was bought out by a group of private investors who killed the idea of investing in new generation and made deals instead with IPPs for their surplus, mostly gas-fired, generating capacity.
But now the debate is once again heating up over whether or not IGCC technology should be imposed on a project despite its higher costs.
This time the spotlight is on the 1200 MW Las Brisas Energy Center fueled by high-sulfur petroleum coke slated for construction on the Gulf Coast near Corpus Christi. As currently planned, conventional boiler technology will be used, with stack-gas scrubbers to reduce sulfur and other emissions of the new plant as required by EPA standards.
No provisions are being made for CO2 capture - nor is the plant being required to be "capture ready" in anticipation of pending regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Once again concerned citizens and others are calling for an IGCC design that would produce much lower emission levels than required by law. As reported by Denise Malan, a journalist for the Caller-Times, gasification is better for the environment than direct burning but adds to the cost of electricity. She points out this is not just a local issue, but one that is shaping the national energy debate.
The question at the heart of the controversy is an old one. It boils down to whether the added cost for IGCC is too much to pay for a cleaner and greener power plant - particularly when the dirtier plant can meet current emissions standards.
The real questions
Taken to the next level, aren't the real questions: a) Is the cost of IGCC really higher when considering all of the long term social, environmental and health costs of the higher emissions generated by directly burning pet coke in a boiler? And, b) Why won't the EPA and state regulators recognize that IGCC is - in fact - the best available control technology for emissions reduction?
Not that the idea of a cleaner pet coke-fueled IGCC plant at Las Brisas has not already been suggested. Tondu Energy had proposed a 600 MW plant at the same site (Tondu IGCC). It was the only one of the 19 proposed coal or pet coke fired plants in Texas that wasn't targeted by environmental protests back in 2006.
As Joe Tondu, president of Tondu Energy, told the Caller-Times “Corpus Christi is a natural location for the application of IGCC, but we were unable to identify a market (for the power) that was willing to pay for an additional costs due to IGCC.” As a result, he says, we are going to build a gas-fired combined cycle plant instead.
It boils down to two issues: 1) should emission standards be stricter? and 2) are consumers willing to pay for the higher cost that comes with cleaner and greener energy?
"If you want gasification", he advises, "go to the state regulators and (get them to) set the emission standards that require IGCC, and boom it will happen."
Clearly, Joe Tondu couldn't hold out for his IGCC project to make it. He threw in the towel in mid-2007 when he announced that he'll take the path of least resistance and go with a natural gas fired plant.
Industrial Polygeneration alive and well
Since gasification per se does make sense for the Gulf Coast, and it could be that the Las Brisas project should revise its business model, and the plant should be redesigned for a different product mix.
At today's $7-$8 per MMBtu price for natural gas, gasification of pet coke to produce synthetic natural gas - with power production as a by-product - seems to have found solid footing at Dow Chemical's massive Freeport (TX) chemicals and cogeneration plant.
The $2.8 billion Hunton Energy Freeport plant, scheduled for completion in 2012 about 180 miles up the coast from Corpus Christi, is touted as a gasification success story.
Hunton plans to gasify petroleum coke to produce methane for sale to the nearby Dow plant, and will also generate a net 400 MW as well as other "process byproducts" including sulfur for fertilizer and carbon dioxide for injection into old oil wells.
The key for IGCC, or more properly, gasification-based polygeneration, is locating the market for the primary product, says Kay Johnson, Hunton Energy Vice President for Project Management.
Johnson told the Caller-Times that gasification plants such as the one in Freeport can only work in certain markets. Such projects are very capital intensive, she explains, which means that project viability depends on the profit you’re trying to make as well as the market conditions.
But it’s not impossible, at least in Freeport. The key was putting together the right combination of technologies in the "perfect location", Johnson says. Hunton is "very proud of the fact that we’re making 400 MW of power with no emissions,” she said. “It proves that you can be green and profitable.”
Which brings us back to Las Brisas. Perhaps they should be compelled to develop a different business model, more like what Hunton Energy adopted at Freeport. If they cannot be moved by tighter environmental standards to use IGCC technology, perhaps the key is to change its primary product, and make electric power a "byproduct" of a more profitable operation.
There should be compelling incentives for project developers to adopt polygeneration in their plant concept - the same way that cogenerators used to be favored under past energy legislation.
If Hunton Energy can profitably produce 400 MW without emissions by making its profit from selling pipeline quality gas to local industry, why can't the developers of the Las Brisas plant do the same?
No doubt the local refineries that are supplying them with pet coke would be good customers for hydrogen, steam and other plant products that could make the overall operation more profitable - and a lot greener.
And, by going with gasification to convert the pet coke into a clean fuel gas, they can more readily incorporate CO2 capture into their plant design. Then, like Hunton, they can then add compressed CO2 to their products for sale -- and and tack on another profit stream.
Don't forget - visit Gas Turbine World at www.GTWbooks.com
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The following link appeared on my radar screen recently. Even though the article was published by a competitor, I felt that it merits repetition here just in case it didn't come to you via your own Google Alert, or whatever system you use to bring such items regarding Gasification and IGCC news to your attention.
Link: Coal Gasification - A promising technology
In case you would rather read the article by Kentucky chemical engineering consultant John Colebrook right here, I'm providing you with a copy. It comes with proper credit to author and publisher, but sans advertisement.
Let me know what you thought of it. Although, in my opinion, it doesn't give adequate credit to IGCC as being a commercially proven technology, it does highlight the important benefits of gasification when it comes to resolving permitting issues for new coal-fired power plants.
Posted by:
Harry Jaeger
Gasification Editor
Gas Turbine World Magazine
Don't forget to visit www.GTWBooks.com
Coal Gasification, a Promising Technology
Support for IGCC is resolving permitting challenges and enhancing performance.
Electric Light & Power July, 2008
Author:
In 2007, more than 50 percent of the electricity in the U.S. was generated from coal-fired power plants, and according to estimates by the Energy Information Administration, coal-based power generation will continue to be the largest single source of the nation's electricity production through 2030 and beyond. Coal gasification is considered an emerging technology that could replace many of the aging conventional pulverized coal boilers currently used to supply the majority of coal-based electricity in the U.S.
| |
Utility companies, however, have been reluctant to make gasification a major component of their generation portfolios due to high capital costs and the lack of large-scale commercial applications. In an effort to resolve the most pressing challenges preventing the widespread implementation of integrated gasification combined cycle technology (IGCC), the U.S. government, mainly through the Department of Energy, has supported research and development efforts focused on advanced gasification technologies to improve the efficiency and environmental performance of IGCC plants while reducing capital costs.
Utility companies, however, have been reluctant to make gasification a major component of their generation portfolios due to high capital costs and the lack of large-scale commercial applications. In an effort to resolve the most pressing challenges preventing the widespread implementation of integrated gasification combined cycle technology (IGCC), the U.S. government, mainly through the Department of Energy, has supported research and development efforts focused on advanced gasification technologies to improve the efficiency and environmental performance of IGCC plants while reducing capital costs.
Emissions reduced with IGCC
The current state of IGCC technology already offers significant reductions in emissions of the major criteria air pollutants—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and carbon monoxide—when compared to pulverized coal plants (see sidebar and chart) but the DOE program seeks to achieve near-zero emissions of these pollutants by 2020 and to simultaneously develop carbon dioxide sequestration technologies that can be readily commercialized.
 The IGCC process. Source: National Energy Technology Laboratory |
In a July 2006 EPA report comparing the environmental impacts and capital costs associated with IGCC to pulverized coal technologies, EPA joined the DOE in endorsing IGCC technology, stating "the EPA considers IGCC as one of the most promising technologies in reducing the environmental consequences of generating electricity from coal."
IGCC air permitting challenges
With only two commercialized IGCC facilities in operation (Wabash River, ConocoPhillips E-gas gasifiers, and Polk Station, GE Energy gasifiers) and only a few next-generation high-availability multi-train facilities that have recently received air permits, the air permitting arena for IGCC technology is relatively undeveloped.
However, the DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) identifies more than 30 IGCC projects as of October 2007 that are in various phases of development or that have recently been announced. Consequently, the quantity of air permit applications and air permits available for consideration and comparison when developing the required components of a New Source Review (NSR) permit application for a new IGCC plant is rapidly expanding. (Tracking New Coal Fired Power Plants, Office of Systems Analyses and Planning, DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory, Oct. 10, 2007.)
Further, despite the limited air permitting history for IGCC technology, several key challenges have been identified in the permitting process for a new IGCC plant.
Balancing the pressure to submit air permit applications early in the project against the need to obtain a representative permit on the first submittal of the application. Since state and federal approval processes for IGCC plants can span years, and the participation of environmental groups, the general public and federal land managers in the air permitting process is common in the coal-fired power generation industry, the typical strategy is to submit an air permit application very early in the design process. However, significant design changes after the submittal of an air permit application can lead to multiple revisions of the permit application, the reopening of public comment periods, and substantial delays in obtaining a complete and representative air permit for such a large-scale industrial facility. Successfully striking a balance between securing a timely air permit and ensuring the air permit is representative can alleviate much of the friction between the developer, regulatory agencies, and other interested stakeholders.
Ensuring that the appropriate basis is used for establishing emission limits. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subpart Da require that IGCC emission limits are established on either a power output basis, or a combustion turbine heat input basis. One of these two methodologies needs to be utilized when determining project emission rates and establishing emission limitations; the gasifier heat input should not be used as the basis for emissions calculations.
Representing accurate estimates for the frequency, duration, process flows, and emissions for each type of startup, shutdown, and maintenance (SSM) event in the permit application. Due to gasifier maintenance and the tendency for process upsets, SSM events for IGCC plants are relatively frequent and are often subject to explicit emission limitations in air permits. Therefore, it is important to represent accurate estimates for the frequency, duration, process flows, and emissions for each type of SSM event in the permit application so that acceptable permit limits can be established and accurate air dispersion modeling impacts can be predicted.
Accurately characterizing unique emission sources that require careful consideration in BACT evaluations. Several unique emission sources are associated with IGCC processes that require careful consideration in BACT evaluations under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. For example, flares can be used during startups, shutdowns, and upsets to combust pure or mixed streams of raw syngas, sweet gas and various other process streams. With such varied inlet exhaust conditions, sources should estimate flare emissions under all scenarios prior to establishing BACT limits to ensure that continuous compliance is attainable. The composition of the vent streams from the acid gas removal system and sulfur recovery unit are often a function of the technology supplier, so selection of a vendor and establishing design specifications is a prerequisite for evaluating BACT for these sources.
Assessing the applicability of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions. Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the acid gas recovery system and combustion by-products at IGCC plants can be above major source thresholds, requiring implementation of MACT for HAP emissions. While certain emission units at IGCC facilities fit into affected MACT source categories under 40 CFR Part 63, the provisions of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart B can apply to sources not covered by an existing source category. A case-by-case MACT analysis for a new major source must establish an emission limitation that is achieved in practice by the "best-controlled" similar source. Determining the best-controlled similar source for IGCC processes can require technology reviews in a variety of similar industries and can lead to new control installations and increased monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
 |
An increasingly complex regulatory environment for conventional coal-fired power plants bodes well for the future of IGCC technology. IGCC has distinct advantages over conventional coal-fired power plants because of its fuel flexibility and capacity for producing high levels of CO2 capture and sequestration. As with the commercialization of any new type of industrial facility, regulatory challenges will certainly play a key role in the development and implementation process of IGCC technology.
Author
John Colebrook is an air quality consultant for Trinity Consultants, based in the northern Kentucky office, where he helps clients in various industrial sectors successfully navigate the complexities of air quality permitting. Colebrook, a chemical engineer, is in the process of becoming a registered professional engineer to serve clients in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio.
A Detailed Look at Emissions from IGCC
In the gasification process, carbon-based feedstocks such as coal, petcoke, biomass or heavy oil residue are converted to synthesis gas, or "syngas," a mixture of primarily carbon monoxide and hydrogen with smaller amounts of CO2, methane and water. Combined with steam and either air or nearly pure oxygen from a cryogenic air separation unit, the preprocessed coal undergoes exothermic gasification reactions in the refractory-lined pressurized gasifier.
With a reduced chemical environment in the gasifier, sulfur compounds in the feedstocks are converted primarily to hydrogen sulfide with smaller amounts of carbonyl sulfide. Nitrogen bound to carbon is liberated primarily as gaseous nitrogen with smaller amounts of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, and chlorides are converted primarily to gaseous hydrogen chloride. Depending on the gasification technology, ash or slag is recovered from the bottom of the gasifier and can be landfilled or sold.
Syngas leaving the overhead of the gasifier is routed to a filtering and cooling process. High temperature filters and cyclones remove entrained particulate matter while scrubbing systems remove chlorides and ammonia. The cooled raw syngas is then routed to an acid gas removal process where a physical absorption system using an organic solvent separates the raw syngas into a hydrogen sulfide-laden acid-gas stream and a sweetened syngas stream ready for combustion in gas turbines. The acid gas is routed to a sulfur recovery unit that produces salable sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur from the hydrogen sulfide in the acid gas stream.
The acid gas removal system can also produce a nearly pure sequestration-ready CO2 stream. The gas turbines, heat recovery steam generators and steam turbines generate power in the conventional combined cycle arrangement.
The acid gas removal system/sulfur recovery unit is capable of achieving lower SO2 emissions than flue gas desulfurization units at supercritical pulverized coal (PC) plants. Removing particulate matter in the syngas using high temperature filters or cyclones and/or wet scrubbing systems can achieve greater reductions than the use of electrostatic precipitators or baghouses downstream of the boilers at PC plants. Finally, IGCC and PC plants both use activated carbon absorption for mercury removal to achieve comparable emissions rates.
By separating elemental nitrogen from the coal during the gasification process and combining the syngas with diluents prior to combustion in the gas turbine, NOx emissions can be reduced to levels below those achieved at PC plants utilizing low NOx burners and selective catalytic reduction.
Electric Light & Power July, 2008Author(s) :
Friday, February 08, 2008
NPR's "On Point" - Way Off Base on View of FutureGen IGCC
If you have a few minutes to spare and still have the stomach for more misinformation on FutureGen, you should tune in to hear the Feb. 7 NPR broadcast of "On Point" which focuses on the DOE "Pulling the Plug on FutureGen".
As one in the know commented about it, "it is incredulous to see how those sound bite spinners could cause such devastation for their own good". It is really something to behold if you could take it.
You could find the "On Point" posting at:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080207_a_main.asp
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080207_a_main.asp
You might also want to look at the WSJ Energy blog coming out of DC at:
It is amazing how the WSJ energy "expert" totally ignores the fact that the IGCC portion of FutureGen was to be based on available technology. He makes it sound as if making clean gas from coal was still to be proven, and portrays the entire project, including the gasification block, as an R&D experiment in urgent need of Federal support to save the planet.
The other "expert guests" on the broadcast, including MIT's Professor Herzog, aren't much better in the way that they let themselves be used by the NPR reporter to misinform and whip up the public.
Let's hope that some real IGCC projects come along to get a share of the funds that the DOE still intends to put out for the CO2 capture and sequestration part of FutureGen. Maybe it will happen even sooner than the new FutureGen target of 2015.
It should certainly prove to be an interesting summer for DOE watchers, especially with FutureGen now becoming a political football.
It should certainly prove to be an interesting summer for DOE watchers, especially with FutureGen now becoming a political football.
Harry Jaeger
Gasification Editor
Sunday, December 23, 2007
DOE: The Grinch that stole IGCC Xmas
‘Twas the week before Xmas, and all through the nation
The IGCC world joined Mattoon's great celebration.
For the FutureGen Alliance had picked this central Illinois site
To the chagrin of the Texans who still promised to fight.
Mattoon, now known better for bagels than for its coal,
Was touted as ideal for meeting FutureGen’s “near-zero” goal.
It was picked for its coal feedstock and fine geological accommodation
For advanced IGCC with greenhouse gas sequestration.
All were aglee that the project was on schedule.
For the Alliance had promised the site would be known by the Yule.
But alas! From DC there came an unwelcome clatter.
It seemed that the DOE was rethinking the whole matter
Within hours of news that brought Mattoon so much cheer,
DOE proclaimed: “FutureGen costs too much, we fear”.
With costs rocketing clear out of control
DOE called for “project redesign”, perhaps a new goal?
But have you not read Gas Turbine World, we say?
If not, pick up your copy of the Sep/Oct issue today.
For ultra-clean coal there’s the "40% Solution"
For affordable capture of CO2 pollution.
IGCC with coal could be as clean as gas, I warn ya.
The plant would even be allowed in picky California.
Or should DOE look to Peabody Coal for a clue?
Why not join China’s GreenGen? Let them do that for us too.
If history serves us, they will toe the line.
You can bet they won't waiver; undoubtely break ground in '09.
And the Aussies have their ZeroGen, is it any wonder,
They too have a plan to get it done down under?
And then there is Hatfield for CCS in the UK.
They say this time it’s for real, and that the Russians will pay.
Meanwhile, back home in the US of A,
A few good projects are making their way.
There’s still Edwardsport, Cash Creek, and Eastman Beaumont
Hunton has its Dow, and Mesaba, not yet down for the count.
But FutureGen, Oh FutureGen, where will you go?
Let’s hope that DOE / Alliance deliberations are not too slow.
But while the FutureGen leaders consider its plight,
A Merry Christmas to All, and to all a Good Night.
www.GTWBooks.com
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Natural Gas Equivalence
- the 50% solution for IGCC
It's been two weeks since the 2007 Gasification Technologies Council conference in San Francisco and I am still trying to put a positive spin on what I saw and heard there.
In contrast to the optimistic environment at the past few GTC conferences, the mood this time was clearly more somber, and uncertain.
Impressions that stand out for me are that CO2 has become an “all consuming” issue, we are back to “all talk and no action” for IGCC in the United States, China is where it’s at for the world of gasification, and natural gas fired combined cycle will reign as the bridge technology for power generation while waiting on FutureGen to show the way forward.
Apparently Reuters picked up on the last message with its Oct 22 headline declaring that: “US Gasification Hopes Rest on One Project”. (Reuters 10-22-07)
A scary proposition
To me, that is a scary proposition. I support FutureGen as an R&D platform for the demonstration of advanced gasification with full CO2 capture, and for development of future technologies. My worry is that the project's “near-zero emissions” goal will make it too expensive to build and operate, much less lead the way to the future.
Saying that US gasification hopes rests on FutureGen is not at all reassuring. Granted, the project has political value to show that the US is doing its bit for GHG abatement from coal-based power generation. And it will provide a useful proving ground for worthwhile technologies such as ITM oxygen and the advanced hydrogen-fueled gas turbine being funded by DOE/NETL.
But something else is needed to give more hope to near-term commercial deployment of IGCC . Not only is near-zero emissions commercially impractical – with its penalty of adding nearly 50% to the capital cost and about 40% to the cost of electricity – but it is not needed if the objective is to achieve a low CO2 footprint.
Why not natural-gas equivalence?
Would it not make more sense to limit CO2 emissions for coal-based IGCC to no more than a level of 1100 lb per MWh, which is currently the “power generation standard” that has been set by high efficiency natural-gas fired gas turbines??
The CO2 emissions for coal-based IGCC without capture is about 1800 lb per MWh. This would allow natural gas equivalence to be achieved with less than 50% CO2 capture – a far cry from the 90% capture level specified for FutureGen and currently defining the “with capture” cases in most design studies that we’ve seen.
And CO2 equivalence with a modern high-efficiency natural-gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) plant, which emits around 850 lb/MWh CO2, can be achieved with a about 55% capture.
Setting a 50-55% capture goal for CO2 is within the reach of current technology and can be achieved for only a fraction of the cost and energy impact. Depending on the gasification process, this may require only a secondary acid gas removal (AGR) unit, and, at most, one stage of water-gas shift reaction (not the two stages, with intercooling, required for 90% capture).
True, this would also make it easier and cheaper to build “compliant” PC plants with carbon capture, but even if this means breaking even with respect to cost of electricity (COE), it would put the focus back on criteria (regulated) emissions, where IGCC outperforms by a mile - and where it belongs.
NGCC - the easy alternative to clean coal
Natural gas fired combined cycles, which produce about half the CO2 of coal plants, are expected to see a global surge in market demand to make up for all of the coal projects being shelved.
Right now, the regulated CO2 capture rate for new coal plants in Japan (“Japan rule”) is set at 45% to match the natural gas emissions rate. California, Florida, Washington and most of Europe have also set natural gas as the as the clean power benchmark for all new generation.
Under the circumstances, it seems reasonable to apply NGCC-equivalence with respect to CO2 footprint as an operational and design target for near-term commercial IGCC with carbon capture.
According to a report by Worley Parsons and ConocoPhillips, presented at the GTC conference, this would cut the capital cost ($/KW) impact for CO2 capture by two-thirds, and the impact on heat rate by three quarters.
As one industry expert put it at the conference (paraphrasing an anonymous poet): “Natural gas is the easy path, but easy paths don’t lead to the future.”
Syngas may end up the winner
Meanwhile, the gas turbine industry is preparing for a very welcome resurgence of NGCC market demand that will inevitably follow as the “rush to coal” hits a regulatory brick wall.
We are already seeing clear signs of this beginning – both in the US and in Europe.
In the long run, gasification suppliers should also welcome this scenario since the expanding fleet of gas-fired power generation will ultimately support a growth in gasification-based SNG production when natural gas and LNG supplies begin to run out.
The almost certain price impact of increasing dependence on imported LNG in the US will go far to creating a solid market for syngas.
With world pricing of around $80 to $90/bbl for crude (about $15/MMBtu), LNG could be expected to set the marginal price of clean “natural gas” at high enough levels to attract new supplies of pipeline quality gas.
No wonder that one gasification technology supplier told the GTC conference that “we love SNG – the customers are already on the ground”. So are the pipelines, and the technology for CO2 capture and storage.
And as another gasifier supplier put it: “Power is still the biggest potential for gasification. Perhaps SNG on its own makes more sense than IGCC.”
What do you think?
Gasification Editor
Gas Turbine World Magazine
Friday, July 06, 2007
WHAT'S SO HOT (OR NOT) ABOUT CHILLED AMMONIA FOR CO2 CAPTURE?
Our recent article on “What it takes to equip IGCC and PC plants for CO2 capture and storage” (Gas Turbine World, Mar-Apr 2007), attracted an intriguing, if not disturbing, comment that we want to share with our web-based readership in the Gasification & IGCC community.
In preparing the article we took special care to give fair coverage to improved technologies being developed to reduce the almost prohibitive cost and performance impact of post-combustion capture of CO2 from the exhaust of conventional coal plants.
One that seems to hold the most promise, and which is getting at lot of attention, is the so-called “chilled ammonia” process technology.
The PC sector of the industry is touting chilled ammonia as the saving technology development that will preserve the viability of coal-burning steam plants in a carbon-restrained world.
Based on available information from supplier releases and from EPRI, which is supporting a 5-year multi-phase development program, and has helped organize a 16-member group of utilities to help finance it (link to EPRI on CAP), our article includes such positive and optimistic statements as:
The chilled ammonia process is said to dramatically reduce the energy required to capture CO2 at a far lower cost (compared to current commercial amine-solvent technology).
Compared with amines, chilled ammonium carbonate is said to have over twice the CO2 loading capacity and requires less than half the heat for solvent regeneration.
In laboratory testing sponsored by EPRI and others, the chilled ammonium process has demonstrated the potential to capture over 90% of CO2.
In fact, early test data would seem to indicate that chilled ammonia could reduce the impact of post-combustion CO2 capture on levelized cost of electricity (COE) by more than half – perhaps by as much as two-thirds!
Where’s the catch?
So far so good.
Good news on such promising technology developments is always welcome and to be followed with anticipation – especially when it is being used to promote the advantages of “advanced PC plants” over IGCC technology.
But there is a catch.
One of the comments that we received to our article claims that none of this hype about chilled ammonia is true.
It goes on to say that a detailed study carried out by DOE/NETL on chilled ammonia scrubbers for post-combustion CO2 concludes, essentially, that the new technology offers no advantage over currently available amine-based absorption systems in terms of cost or performance.
Although, as claimed by its proponents, chilled ammonia pound-for-pound can absorb substantially more CO2 than amine solvents, the cost and energy penalties associated with the refrigerated process appear to be so high as to negate and overwhelm any such advantage.
Show me the data
Let’s assume these claims have some substance. If such a report was in fact prepared, how is it that it didn’t surface during the research for our article?
Normally, a simple "Google search" would have brought any such NETL report to the top of the list.
As it turns out, the report and its data are still waiting to see the light of day.
The comment that we received indicates that release of the report, which was completed early this year, is being held up pending “management approval”.
The official reason for the hold-up, apparently, is industry objection to proprietary content, which is still in the process of being removed before public release.
But should this be taking 6-7 months, or more? Will the report ever be fully released?
False hope or purposeful smokescreen?
Could it be that the utility industry has inadvertently been putting its bets, and hopes, on a technology with little promise for improvement?
Such placement of false hopes in light of the overwhelming numbers against PC plants with CO2 capture, and the growing success of intervenors, might be understandable but is still questionable, at best.
Or could it be that the parade of utility execs and “expert witnesses” giving testimony for continued construction of PC plants, and for delaying rules on limiting CO2 emissions, have been using the great promise of chilled-ammonia removal as a veil?
Has it been part an industry attempt to fend off the growing resistance to the continued building of conventional coal plants in the face of pressure to lower emissions of greenhouse gases – and to consider IGCC technology as a better alternative?
I leave this for you to ponder and explore. Let us know what you find out pro or con. We think that it is important.
Gasification Editor
Gas Turbine World Magazine
www.GTWBooks.com
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Kerry proposal would ban conventional PC plants and
require CO2 capture and storage
Should this be viewed as pro-IGCC or just another attempt to slow the coal rush?
By late April, legislative activity in Washington related to limitations on greenhouse gases has reached fever pitch. Congressional hearings are being held almost continuously, and it seems that everyone is coming up with a proposal for some form of regulation.
It already seems that a cap-and-trade system for CO2 is inevitable, but legislators are still groping as to how it would work.
Now a growing sense of urgency about climate change is pushing legislators to propose some pretty bold initiatives.
One case in point: a bill, The Clean Coal Act of 2007, introduced last week by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
Kerry's bill would go so far as placing an immediate ban the building of any new coal plants unless they included provisions for capturing and sequestering CO2 emissions.
To quote our almost president: "This bill is our No. 1 solution to global warming. Unless we can build clean power plants, we should not be building them at all.”
Kerry's proposal is actually an amendment to the Clean Air Act, and would establish a New Source Performance Standard for CO2 emissions for all new coal-fired power plants.
When introducing the bill, Kerry, now the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Science, Technology and Innovation, made the point that the utility industry is desperately looking for "certainty regarding mandatory greenhouse gas standards" so that planning for new plants can move forward.
He also said that there is need for a uniform national standard as opposed to a patchwork of standards being adopted by a growing number of states.
Some see it as a ban of new coal plants. But if there are to be any new plants built, whether they be gasification-based or PC-based, the proposed requirment is that CO2 emssions be limited to 285 lb/MWh.
Since the typical conventional PC plant emits close to a ton per MWh, this requirement translates to a capture rate of about 85%.
As one industry insider close to the DC scene observed, "this might be viewed by some as favoring IGCC. But even if IGCC offers the low-cost means of meeting the proposed CCS requirements, it may put coal-based power - whether gasification- or PC-based - out of reach.
"Who's going to pay for it?" he asks.
Others are saying that a requirement to include CCS "would kill coal. The only thing that might get built is a natural gas plant", they say.
"Experts" say technology is not here yet
Does the Kerry proposal have a chance of surviving the debate?
Or is it just too far-reaching at this stage of the fledgling US commitment to join the world community in the mission to slow global climate change?
Given the current politically charged situation in Congress, almost anything that would show how the Bush administration has avoided this major environmental issues is possible. But with nearly 200 proposed coal-based power projects in the US affected, and the very growth of the coal industry and the ability to meet future power demands at stake, any serious attempts to bring this bill to a vote will face steep opposition.
For one thing Congress has been hearing a stream of expert comment on how the technology needed to achieve Sen. Kerry's objectives still needs to be demonstrated - and is at least 10 to 15 years away from being commercially available.
Maybe I'm naive. But what baffles me is how all of these "experts" want to ignore what has been going on at the Dakota Gasification operation in North Dakota for almost 7 years now.
Not only are they capturing and sequestering CO2, but they are making money at it - and that is without any kind of trading scheme in effect.
A Google search (CO2 for Sale) would tell them that the equivalent CO2 emissions from a 400 MW power plant is being stripped from syngas used to produce SNG, compressed and piped some 200 miles north into Canada where it is forced deep underground to enhance oil production at an old oil field in Saskatchewan.
The hope is that our Senators and Congressmen can see through this testimony that would have them ignore the facts. They need to be aware that CCS has already been shown in full scale to be technically and commercially sound.
They need to get on with the business of passing a law that would give the utility industry a clear national policy and a path to follow in moving foward.
Others want even quicker action
It will be interesting to see how the power and coal industries come down on Sen. Kerry's proposal, or even if it ever sees the light of day. Meanwhile, others are calling for even quicker and more severe action.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) suggested that the country should be launching a “Manhattan Project”-type initiative on carbon sequestration. She said that the estimate of 12-15 years for the use of CCS to be widespread is far too long.
"More than 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions come from coal plants. Advanced cleaner coal can help us solve this great threat that is facing us," she said.
"The most disturbing thing is what could happen if we don't respond to this. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and if we could figure this out, we'll be well on our way to energy independence in a responsible way."
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee joined Boxer and Kerry in their concern over the lack of urgency in the U.S. on reducing CO2 emissions.
“I hope to move as aggressively as we can persuade Congress to do so” on promoting CCS technology, he said.
Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo) joined committee members calling for quicker deployment of CCS, criticizing an on-going DOE study. “Sometimes we get so caught up in research…….we know how to do this,” he said.
To punctuate the message, Joseph Chaisson, a director of the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), an environmental advocacy group told one Senate committee that the U.S. must act to commercially deploy IGCC technology as soon as possible.
He put forth the CATF action plan for a sound national coal policy as follows:
* Ban the construction of conventional new coal burning power plants.
* Rapidly commercialize the use of IGCC for power generation to benefit from its reduced environmental footprint.
* Urgently demonstrate large-scale geologic storage of CO2, and then require all new plants to include at least 90% carbon capture and sequestration.
* Demonstrate and deploy advancements such as underground coal gasification to further shrink IGCC’s environmental footprint.
* Reform coal mining practices worldwide, imposing effective U.S. regulation of coal plant solid waste disposal.
* Reduce water use and associated impacts of coal mining and coal-based generation to the minimum practical levels.
* Increase the efficiency of IGCC to the maximum practical levels over time.
Chaisson emphasized that IGCC is seen as the key enabling technology for carbon capture and storage.
He said that “while it is possible to retrofit a coal combustion plant with carbon capture technology, it would cost twice as much as capturing carbon from an IGCC plant”.
In either case, there is a very high price to pay in terms of loss of plant thermal efficiency – with the heat rate of a PC plant increasing by some 30-40 percent, and that of an IGCC plant by 20-30 percent.
Based on current technology, said Chaisson, “IGCC power generation is likely to be the most availing path forward If we are to turn the world coal tide to a near-zero carbon footprint in the next 20 years.”
Is cap-and-trade the key?
Regardless of the fate of Sen. Kerry's Clean Coal Act, those close to the scene in DC are saying that a mandatory cap-and-trade regulatory system for regulating greenhouse gases in the general economy seems to be inevitable.
Such a system would set a ceiling on emissions and grant credits to companies that take measures to lower emissions. These credits could be traded (sold) to companies with higher emissions.
In theory, this could be what enables a proposal such as Sen. Kerry's work. If the value of CO2 credits are high enough, they might provide enough incentive for plant developers to include the necessary provisions for CCS.
Some pretty serious players are already lining up to cash in on it. Example: AES and GE joining with a plan to trade "disposal" of methane - which has 20 times the greenhouse effect of CO2 - for emissions of CO2.
An alternative would be a "carbon tax", where the government would set up a trust fund to support investment to reduce emissions.
Energy-related committees in both houses have been holding hearings focused on the pros and cons – and potential pitfalls – of legislating a cutback in CO2 emissions.
Spokesmen from Europe have appeared at hearings to describe how the EU's 2 year-old system has been working (or not working) there.
As for the EPA, and its role in all of this, Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator, told one of the Senate committees that the Supreme Court ruling was limited to vehicular emissions of CO2, and that a separate determination would have to be made as to whether or not such emissions from stationary sources were to be included in any new standards.
If that were to be the case, he said, one of the remedies available to the EPA would be to set up a cap-and-trade system.
Congressional Budget Office warns of doom and gloom
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that focused on how a cap-and-trade scheme to limit CO2 emissions would come at the cost of greatly inflated prices for electricity and other forms of energy.
That should not be surprising, given the substantial impact of CO2 capture on power plant cost and efficiency that has been seen in so many recent studies. (See article in this issue of GTW.)
Additionally, the CBO report warns that any attempt to limit CO2 emissions would cause higher operating costs across the economy and result in job losses. It suggests that the negative impacts would particular hurt the poor.
Predictably, critics of proposed regulations and climate-change skeptics were quick to embrace the CBO report. One ranking Republican senator called the report a “devastating indictment.” He said that CO2 cap-and-trade schemes are doomed to “utter failure”
Back to reality - utility chooses “capture-ready” SPC approach
Roberto Denis, a senior VP of Nevada’s Sierra Pacific Resources, told one Senate committee that in spite of all the new focus on limiting CO2 emissions, and increased efforts to develop renewable energy, his company still needs to build the 2,500 MW Ely Energy Center, which will use super-critical PC technology.
He explained that company engineers and planners decided against IGCC, as it was not shown to be economical when using high moisture, western coal.
He said Sierra Pacific fully supports the conclusions of the MIT “Future of Coal” study that: “new coal units must utilize the best commercially available technologies and must be built to accommodate retrofits when new large scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies are demonstrated feasible.”
“The new Ely coal complex will do just that. The first two units are being designed so that when CCS is available we will have a physical facility that can be retrofitted to enable us to capture the CO2 and identified the land for a CO2 storage site.”
According to the MIT report, such a retrofit (without cost of storage) could cost the utility (ratepayers?) upwards of 60 percent of the original plant cost!
Who said that this Mission to Save the Planet was going to come cheap??
|
require CO2 capture and storage
Should this be viewed as pro-IGCC or just another attempt to slow the coal rush?
By late April, legislative activity in Washington related to limitations on greenhouse gases has reached fever pitch. Congressional hearings are being held almost continuously, and it seems that everyone is coming up with a proposal for some form of regulation.
It already seems that a cap-and-trade system for CO2 is inevitable, but legislators are still groping as to how it would work.
Now a growing sense of urgency about climate change is pushing legislators to propose some pretty bold initiatives.
One case in point: a bill, The Clean Coal Act of 2007, introduced last week by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
Kerry's bill would go so far as placing an immediate ban the building of any new coal plants unless they included provisions for capturing and sequestering CO2 emissions.
To quote our almost president: "This bill is our No. 1 solution to global warming. Unless we can build clean power plants, we should not be building them at all.”
Kerry's proposal is actually an amendment to the Clean Air Act, and would establish a New Source Performance Standard for CO2 emissions for all new coal-fired power plants.
When introducing the bill, Kerry, now the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Science, Technology and Innovation, made the point that the utility industry is desperately looking for "certainty regarding mandatory greenhouse gas standards" so that planning for new plants can move forward.
He also said that there is need for a uniform national standard as opposed to a patchwork of standards being adopted by a growing number of states.
Some see it as a ban of new coal plants. But if there are to be any new plants built, whether they be gasification-based or PC-based, the proposed requirment is that CO2 emssions be limited to 285 lb/MWh.
Since the typical conventional PC plant emits close to a ton per MWh, this requirement translates to a capture rate of about 85%.
As one industry insider close to the DC scene observed, "this might be viewed by some as favoring IGCC. But even if IGCC offers the low-cost means of meeting the proposed CCS requirements, it may put coal-based power - whether gasification- or PC-based - out of reach.
"Who's going to pay for it?" he asks.
Others are saying that a requirement to include CCS "would kill coal. The only thing that might get built is a natural gas plant", they say.
"Experts" say technology is not here yet
Does the Kerry proposal have a chance of surviving the debate?
Or is it just too far-reaching at this stage of the fledgling US commitment to join the world community in the mission to slow global climate change?
Given the current politically charged situation in Congress, almost anything that would show how the Bush administration has avoided this major environmental issues is possible. But with nearly 200 proposed coal-based power projects in the US affected, and the very growth of the coal industry and the ability to meet future power demands at stake, any serious attempts to bring this bill to a vote will face steep opposition.
For one thing Congress has been hearing a stream of expert comment on how the technology needed to achieve Sen. Kerry's objectives still needs to be demonstrated - and is at least 10 to 15 years away from being commercially available.
Maybe I'm naive. But what baffles me is how all of these "experts" want to ignore what has been going on at the Dakota Gasification operation in North Dakota for almost 7 years now.
Not only are they capturing and sequestering CO2, but they are making money at it - and that is without any kind of trading scheme in effect.
A Google search (CO2 for Sale) would tell them that the equivalent CO2 emissions from a 400 MW power plant is being stripped from syngas used to produce SNG, compressed and piped some 200 miles north into Canada where it is forced deep underground to enhance oil production at an old oil field in Saskatchewan.
The hope is that our Senators and Congressmen can see through this testimony that would have them ignore the facts. They need to be aware that CCS has already been shown in full scale to be technically and commercially sound.
They need to get on with the business of passing a law that would give the utility industry a clear national policy and a path to follow in moving foward.
Others want even quicker action
It will be interesting to see how the power and coal industries come down on Sen. Kerry's proposal, or even if it ever sees the light of day. Meanwhile, others are calling for even quicker and more severe action.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) suggested that the country should be launching a “Manhattan Project”-type initiative on carbon sequestration. She said that the estimate of 12-15 years for the use of CCS to be widespread is far too long.
"More than 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions come from coal plants. Advanced cleaner coal can help us solve this great threat that is facing us," she said.
"The most disturbing thing is what could happen if we don't respond to this. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and if we could figure this out, we'll be well on our way to energy independence in a responsible way."
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee joined Boxer and Kerry in their concern over the lack of urgency in the U.S. on reducing CO2 emissions.
“I hope to move as aggressively as we can persuade Congress to do so” on promoting CCS technology, he said.
Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo) joined committee members calling for quicker deployment of CCS, criticizing an on-going DOE study. “Sometimes we get so caught up in research…….we know how to do this,” he said.
To punctuate the message, Joseph Chaisson, a director of the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), an environmental advocacy group told one Senate committee that the U.S. must act to commercially deploy IGCC technology as soon as possible.
He put forth the CATF action plan for a sound national coal policy as follows:
* Ban the construction of conventional new coal burning power plants.
* Rapidly commercialize the use of IGCC for power generation to benefit from its reduced environmental footprint.
* Urgently demonstrate large-scale geologic storage of CO2, and then require all new plants to include at least 90% carbon capture and sequestration.
* Demonstrate and deploy advancements such as underground coal gasification to further shrink IGCC’s environmental footprint.
* Reform coal mining practices worldwide, imposing effective U.S. regulation of coal plant solid waste disposal.
* Reduce water use and associated impacts of coal mining and coal-based generation to the minimum practical levels.
* Increase the efficiency of IGCC to the maximum practical levels over time.
Chaisson emphasized that IGCC is seen as the key enabling technology for carbon capture and storage.
He said that “while it is possible to retrofit a coal combustion plant with carbon capture technology, it would cost twice as much as capturing carbon from an IGCC plant”.
In either case, there is a very high price to pay in terms of loss of plant thermal efficiency – with the heat rate of a PC plant increasing by some 30-40 percent, and that of an IGCC plant by 20-30 percent.
Based on current technology, said Chaisson, “IGCC power generation is likely to be the most availing path forward If we are to turn the world coal tide to a near-zero carbon footprint in the next 20 years.”
Is cap-and-trade the key?
Regardless of the fate of Sen. Kerry's Clean Coal Act, those close to the scene in DC are saying that a mandatory cap-and-trade regulatory system for regulating greenhouse gases in the general economy seems to be inevitable.
Such a system would set a ceiling on emissions and grant credits to companies that take measures to lower emissions. These credits could be traded (sold) to companies with higher emissions.
In theory, this could be what enables a proposal such as Sen. Kerry's work. If the value of CO2 credits are high enough, they might provide enough incentive for plant developers to include the necessary provisions for CCS.
Some pretty serious players are already lining up to cash in on it. Example: AES and GE joining with a plan to trade "disposal" of methane - which has 20 times the greenhouse effect of CO2 - for emissions of CO2.
An alternative would be a "carbon tax", where the government would set up a trust fund to support investment to reduce emissions.
Energy-related committees in both houses have been holding hearings focused on the pros and cons – and potential pitfalls – of legislating a cutback in CO2 emissions.
Spokesmen from Europe have appeared at hearings to describe how the EU's 2 year-old system has been working (or not working) there.
As for the EPA, and its role in all of this, Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator, told one of the Senate committees that the Supreme Court ruling was limited to vehicular emissions of CO2, and that a separate determination would have to be made as to whether or not such emissions from stationary sources were to be included in any new standards.
If that were to be the case, he said, one of the remedies available to the EPA would be to set up a cap-and-trade system.
Congressional Budget Office warns of doom and gloom
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that focused on how a cap-and-trade scheme to limit CO2 emissions would come at the cost of greatly inflated prices for electricity and other forms of energy.
That should not be surprising, given the substantial impact of CO2 capture on power plant cost and efficiency that has been seen in so many recent studies. (See article in this issue of GTW.)
Additionally, the CBO report warns that any attempt to limit CO2 emissions would cause higher operating costs across the economy and result in job losses. It suggests that the negative impacts would particular hurt the poor.
Predictably, critics of proposed regulations and climate-change skeptics were quick to embrace the CBO report. One ranking Republican senator called the report a “devastating indictment.” He said that CO2 cap-and-trade schemes are doomed to “utter failure”
Back to reality - utility chooses “capture-ready” SPC approach
Roberto Denis, a senior VP of Nevada’s Sierra Pacific Resources, told one Senate committee that in spite of all the new focus on limiting CO2 emissions, and increased efforts to develop renewable energy, his company still needs to build the 2,500 MW Ely Energy Center, which will use super-critical PC technology.
He explained that company engineers and planners decided against IGCC, as it was not shown to be economical when using high moisture, western coal.
He said Sierra Pacific fully supports the conclusions of the MIT “Future of Coal” study that: “new coal units must utilize the best commercially available technologies and must be built to accommodate retrofits when new large scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies are demonstrated feasible.”
“The new Ely coal complex will do just that. The first two units are being designed so that when CCS is available we will have a physical facility that can be retrofitted to enable us to capture the CO2 and identified the land for a CO2 storage site.”
According to the MIT report, such a retrofit (without cost of storage) could cost the utility (ratepayers?) upwards of 60 percent of the original plant cost!
Who said that this Mission to Save the Planet was going to come cheap??
|
Monday, April 16, 2007
Friday the 13th for IGCC....................
Bad news. Just four short months ago in mid-December we were celebrating an early Xmas present for Excelsior Energy.
At that time the US Senate had just passed a correction to the tax credit provisions of EPAct 2005 to cover IGCC projects using low-sulfur coal. Many of us hailed this as a significant ruling that was bound to help “keep the Mesaba Energy Project on track” for approval and financing.
(See that earlier posting at: Gasification & IGCC Forum ).
Fast forward to Friday, April 13th. The morning news from Minneapolis on Friday the 13th was all about a bad luck story for the Mesaba Energy Project.
The first headline that I saw read: “Coal-to-gas plant dealt a setback”. It was followed by news to the effect that “The Mesaba Energy Project could be one unfavorable ruling away from ruin”.
Another headline read: “Hopes for energy project dim” ( Hopes Dim)
The long-awaited decision of the two Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) charged with making a recommendation to the Minnesota PUC on the merits project was out – and it wasn’t good news for supporters of the Mesaba Energy project nor, for that matter, for anyone interested in seeing IGCC technology make some headway and succeed.
The question and the answer
The question before the ALJ was whether or not a proposed PPA between the Mesaba Energy Project and Xcel would likely to be in the public interest.
The answer: No. The judges ruled that the IGCC project failed to meet criteria for a “least-cost resource" when compared to Xcel’s supposed plan for buying more wind power, and gas-fired power from Canada.
Further, they concluded that the project was unnecessary and would cause a significant increase in Xcel customers' electric bills.
Even more significantly, in their opinion, they found that the project failed to meet the criteria of “an innovative energy project,” in accordance with a 2003 law meant to kick-start development of an IGCC power plant in Minnesota.
Based on the air-permit filing for the project, they said that it failed to demonstrate significant environmental advantage over other types of plants - this in the face of promises by Xcel for future CO2 capture and sequestration!
Recommendation to deny project
The ALJ’s recommendation to the PUC — which has the final say — is to deny the proposed PPA, or amend it to address numerous deficiencies.
Excelsior co-CEO Tom Micheletti said that the judges seemed to have ignored most of Excelsior’s testimony, and that of a host of national energy experts who testified in support of the project.
The ruling "flies in the face of everything that’s being discussed about the need to do something about global warming,” he said. “Either they totally ignored our evidence or they just didn’t read it.”
“It was as if we introduced the most obnoxious kind of project you could ever imagine, rather than introducing the cleanest coal plant in the world”, he was quoted as saying in one of the local news articles.
The lesson for all us is that this ruling shows what can happen to any “good project” when it runs into strong grassroots local and legalistic opposition that appeals to emotions and courtroom shenanigans to confuse and obfuscate the technical issues to sway the final decision.
We have been following this case closely. At times it did appear that the developers were over-reaching in what they promised and in their highly political approach. Yet, perhaps they didn't reach far enough with the technology, and what could have been achieved in terms of plant emissions.
To me it is totally incomprehensible that the judges ruled against IGCC as not being sufficiently innovative.
For those of you who are interested in the details, the ALJ's report can be found in its entirety at: ALJ Report
What's next?
Excelsior now has about 20 days in which to submit comment to the PUC in rebuttal to the ALJ's recommendation.
The PUC will hold its own hearings, and a final decision is expected to be issued during this summer.
Project supporters are hoping that the PUC, with its greater experience with energy issues, will see through the sham created by project opponents.
Both sides of the debate noted that the ruling could have far-reaching effects on other IGCC projects. Mesaba is seen as a lead project, with a lot going for it – both financially and politically.
Someone very close to the situation offered this bitter commentary when the ALJ decision hit the newswires:
“Not a good day for gasification. The ALJ detailed review was extremely lopsided, with lots of citations of Xcel and Minnesota Power documents, even generic EIA docs. Yet it ignored the thousands of pages of testimony and reference filed by Excelsior.
“The ALJ apparently couldn't distinguish between what IGCC can do now and what ultra supercritical PC might be able to do someday.
“The battle continues. The unfortunate thing is that this ruling, right or woefully wrong, is going to show up in every other PUC filing by every conventional coal project.”
Excelsior issued a formal statement expressing similar frustration and disappointment over the ALJ hearing procedures. Excelsior Statement
If you just want to read its conclusion, I have copied it here for you:
A national energy policy consensus is emerging that the rapid market adoption of IGCC technology is the most critical measure we can take to stabilize greenhouse gases and avoid dependence on foreign fuel for power generation.
The Mesaba Project provides an opportunity for Minnesota to continue leading the nation towards practical solutions to the difficult issues surrounding climate change and power generation.
Will the Minnesota PUC agree, or will they agree with the claim that the state’s ratepayers can’t afford the cost having the cleanest form of coal-based power?
Carol Overland, the lead lawyer representing local interests opposing the project observed that the PUC typically follows the ALJ’s decisions except for “politically charged issues” or, in many cases, against Xcel Energy.
With many area legislators and businessmen backing the Mesaba Energy Project, the PUC’s hearing should be interesting, she said.
Indeed, everyone will be watching.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Will the TXU black frog
change into a green prince?
With 85% debt in business structure - Prince might really be a Pauper
It is hard to believe.
It has become national headline news, and everybody is talking about it.
Out of the blue, new “white hat” owners are promising to turn the “wicked” TXU into a defender of the environment.
And they are willing to put up $45 billion* to make it happen, possibly more if forced to fend off other would-be missionary "investors".
Texas shootout turns into a sellout
We started out a few months ago comparing local opposition to TXU’s plan for 11 new coal plants as a good old fashioned Texas Shoot Out. That never happened.
Well the tall cowboys on white horses have just rode into town.
So now, instead, we have the makings of a private deal made behind closed doors with the connivance of two national environmental groups to pull an end-run around pending legislative obstacles that promised to stop TXU dead in its tracks, and effectively put any further environmental objections out of play.
Sounds like a good deal for everyone concerned. TXU shareholders are getting a big wad of cash, and it seems that the old management may be left in place – at least for the time being - to keep the place running. Customers are even being promised better reliability – and lower rates to boot.
In exchange for conceding to cancel 8 of the 11 proposed coal plants that are not needed and not likely to be approved anyway, the new owners get to mute environmental outcry over the three plants that happen to fit their new business model.
(*With a total of $37 billion in debt, as well as a $1 billion "equity bridge" – almost 85% of the “buyout” price – it is doubtful that the pro forma shows any new construction at all - let alone having enough petty cash draw to run the place. Customers will have to pay for whatever the new TXU can get others to build and operate under power purchase agreements.)
Let's play charades
The environmentalist participation in this deal strikes me as a bit of a charade – a play being put on for the benefit of supporting members –already being advertised as a “mission accomplished” by the likes of the NRDC (see, for example, http://www.energycentral.com/centers/news/daily/article.cfm?aid=7889031)
Meanwhile, local groups genuinely concerned about the quality of the air they breathe and their lakes and streams are still opposed to the TXU intent to build the remaining three pulverized coal steam plants.
If the white hat suitors are really as green as they claim, they should withdraw the applications for the remaining three PC plants and refile based on IGCC technology with carbon capture.
But, even for white hats, with their empty pockets, it might be too much to expect them to actually put their scant investment into anything as pricey as CO2 capture and storage operation.
They’ll do well to avoid going the way of that once great Houston-based “Energy Company” that is now a dirty word. Will Texas really be better off with this sort of “solution” to the threatened rush to coal?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Happy Valentine's Day
for IGCC Technology
Is it "My Funny Valentine" – IGCC style?
Well, it's certainly not the way that Frank Sinatra would do it.
This morning’s news out of Dallas was a bright spot (for me anyway) in the form of a report of a proposal to build the first coal-based IGCC plant in Texas.
Continuing on their theme of vocal support of IGCC technology, this proposal was delivered by NRG Energy at the Valentine’s Day CERA conference currently being held in Houston.
Just more in NRG vs. TXU saga?
At first I saw the story as just another episode in the ongoing saga of TXU vs. NRG and IGCC vs. PC plants. And, in a way, it was certainly had tones of being more of the same story.
NRG is clearly working on the side of those who oppose the TXU plan to build 11 new PC plants, and has become a thorn in the side of its major rival power generator in Texas.
And, of course, there are strings attached to their proposal. NRG admitted that it was not about to commit “commercial suicide” by building a plant that costs at least 20% more than the type of PC plants being proposed by TXU without some form of state financial support to close the “IGCC cost gap” (as it has pending in the case of its New York project).
So far, ho hum, just like my Valentine’s Day turned out to be.
Then the BIG NEWS for IGCC.
As part of it’s announcement, as reported by the Dallas Morning News, NRG will be working with Mitsubishi as their technology partner for their proposed IGCC projects in the east – apparently dropping plans to take up a license for the Shell Gasification Process.
MHI is reportedly stepping up to the challenge of offering “one stop shopping” for IGCC plants using their own newly developed air-blown gasification technology, now undergoing startup at the Clean Coal Power 250 MW demonstration project in Japan. (See MHI website for more http://www.mpshq.com/medialine_index.htm)
NRG’s CEO David Crane announced that the Mitsubishi gasification process, which has been selected for its proposed IGCC plant in New York, would solve several problems that TXU (as well as GE Energy as reported by the Dallas newspapers) claims to prevent building plants using the cleaner coal technology in Texas.
Crane said that the Mitsubishi gasification equipment would be able to use the high moisture sub-bituminous coal from Wyoming. And MHI will provide NRG with the "financial guarantees that the process works” he told interviewers at the CERA conference.
Stepping up to the bar
That MHI has stepped up to the bar to give IGCC technology a major boost should be no surprise to industry watchers.
GTW met with MHI representatives at the December PowerGen conference in Orlando and came away with the impression that they were clearly and aggressively targeting the US market for IGCC plants.
In one of their presentations they show a timetable for commercial introduction of a 600-MW class plant based on M501F gas turbines that would indicate that they were due to identify of a US launch customer at this time.
That the deal is with NRG did come as a surprise, to me at least. We had NRG listed as firmly in the Shell Gasification camp. But they never did identify an equipment supplier or EPC contractor which seemed a bit strange for a project in New York state that was under contract negotiations.
Good news for IGCC
The announcement that MHI will step up to fill the needed role for “one stop shopping” and provide the necessary plant wide performance guarantees is certainly welcome news for those following the struggle for IGCC to claim its niche in the large market for coal-based power plants.
And the fact that the MHI process has been successfully tested on PRB coal, as reported at the 2006 GTC conference, makes this Valentine’s Day present even more important for supporters of IGCC technology. It helps put strength into the argument that the technology can be made to be fuel-flexible and economical on low rank coals.
It also helps take the wind out of the sails of those who say that IGCC can’t work on western coals, and is “not ready for prime time”. TXU has long claimed that it could not get anyone to guarantee such a plant.
Apparently, they have been talking to the wrong supplier of such plants.
Indeed it's time for Texas to put its money where its mouth is - and support the NRG proposal to introduce truly "clean coal" into the Texas power generation market.
As TXU threatens that it will be lights out for Texas if it doesn't get its way with its proposed fleet of new coal-steam plants, perhaps it will be NRG Energy that helps keep the lights on, and helps with lower emissions to pollute the air of central Texas.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Is It Lights Out For Big Coal/Steam Plants?
Only last weekend we commented on how TXU’s plan for an 11-pack of new coal-fired steam power plants was going to be a matter of “Pay Me Now AND Pay Me More Later”.
The reference was to the near certainty of future environmental regulations - presumably governing CO2 emissions – that would require costly plant modifications for compliance.
By Monday the press was abuzz with reports of proposed legislation being (re)introduced, this time in a Democratic US Congress, that would limit CO2 emissions and set up a market-based trading system, ala the European scheme.
At last count there are four such bills, with one in the Senate having the distinction of bearing the illustrious names of Lieberman and McCain.
Enter the Ecomagination coalition
And then on Friday, the New York Times ran a surprising story (to me anyway) about a new coalition of major US corporations and environmental groups jointly promoting legislation to establish firm limits on emissions of greenhouse gases.
The group is called U.S. Climate Action Partnership – USCAP for short - and who is out there but GE as one of its founders leading the pack.
Then, late Saturday night, to clarify some of the confusion caused by the Times scoop (leak?), USCAP issued a statement of its own declaring that, as part of its set of principles and recommendations, they strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture CO2.
So just when GE Energy itself landed perhaps one of its largest ever steam turbine generator orders – probably around $1 billion worth of business with the booking of the 11 units for TXU – they come out helping to lay the groundwork to give it all away.
According to the Times article, the coalition’s platform comes close to "rejection of almost all new coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards, including the 11 plants proposed by TXU."
A full report by the group is expected to be available on Monday, January 22.
For full text of USCAP statement go to: http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_49708.shtml#
Coalition makes for some strange bedfellows
The coalition representing both major industry and environmental groups is recommending a “Cap and Trade” system that will be “good for everybody”.
Enviros should like it because of the specific hard caps, reduction targets and timetable. And so should industry -- especially those companies in a position to exploit developing technologies that reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency.
The timing is such that it all could be worked out while President Bush is still in office and the Democratic Congress stands ready, willing AND ABLE to endorse such a broadly backed deal.
Who are they and what do they want to do?
The coalition’s current roster contains 10 large US corporations representing manufacturing, energy, electric utility and financial sectors, and four prestigious non-government environmental groups:
- Alcoa
- BP
- Caterpillar
- Duke Energy
- DuPont
- FP&L
- GE
- Lehman Brothers
- PG&E
- PNM Resources
- Environmental Defense
- Natural Resources Defense Council
- Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- World Resources Institute
Stated legislative objectives:
- Mandatory phased reduction in greenhouse gases
- Setting pricing structure for greenhouse gas emissions
- National program for accelerated technology R&D and deployment
- Incentives to encourage actions by other countries, including China and India
Proposed greenhouse emissions cap and reduction timetable:
(Depending on sector)
- 5 years -- 100-105% of current levels
- 10 years -- 90-100%
- 15 years -- 70-90%
- 2050 -- 60-80%
Too early to celebrate?
Naturally it is far too early to celebrate any sort of victory for IGCC. There are still plenty of hurdles and naysayers.
But the combination of a new attitude in Washington, and the coming together of major industrial players with key elements of the environmental community, has to help pre-empt the rush to coal that is well on its way to put some 150 new PC plants into operation over the next 5 to 10 years.
Even coal-fired plants already permitted will be facing new limitations on emissions (and unplanned operating costs) that will come into play before any new plants can be built.
There can be no grandfathering with a planned phased reduction in emission levels from all major emitters. Either you cut emissions or you pay – that’s how it’s going to work.
Meanwhile, with credits available to those who reduce emissions by phasing out old PC plants and add new plants with designed-in CO2 capture capability, there can be, in effect, a substantial reduction in the high cost of IGCC plants.
With both new and existing PC plants facing high added costs due to their inability to economically capture CO2 emissions, the “IGCC Cost Gap” will likely experience a reversal of direction, eliminating the only valid reason for avoiding the technology.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
TXU’s Rush To Cheap Coal Power - A Matter of "Pay Me Now and Pay Me More Later"
An ugly cyber skirmish between NRG Energy and TXU over something said in a publicly distributed TXU email reminds one of the nonsense going on between The Donald and Rosie O’Donnel.
But this is much more serious business because it can affect the future of IGCC market development, and all interested parties should be paying close attention.
TXU launched an attack on IGCC as a “developing technology” worthy of interest but yet to be proven -- confirmed, they say, by NRG backing out on a proposal to build an IGCC plant in Connecticut.
It is understandable why TXU wants to undermine IGCC, and keep their hurried plan for growth on track.
But in hindsight they should have anticipated that it might back-fire as evidenced by NRG’s strong reaffirmation of its commitment to IGCC and a challenge for a public debate on the issues: http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/file.aspx?IID=4057436&FID=3283483
Where is all this headed?
Opponents to the proposed new coal plants in Texas (18 in all; 11 by TXU alone) are now calling for a moratorium on permits. What was once considered a “done deal” under a fast-track approval process, is now hitting some very steep speed bumps.
Public challenges are calling for reinstatement of the normal project review process.
And there’s a new state legislature in Austin that will be considering reversal of the Texas governor’s order to expedite permit approval.
Delay should give time for evaluation
Local groups claim that TXU has sidestepped any consideration of cleaner IGCC technology, dismissing it as unproven and unreliable, in favor of building cheaper but dirtier conventional coal plants.
A moratorium will allow time for honestly evaluating alternatives to the TXU plan that would not exclude IGCC technology.
It will also give everyone concerned time to examine the true costs of building the proposed coal steam plants (which TXU puts at only $1100/kW), including the long term impacts on public health.
With most new coal plant projects now costing well over $2000/kW, it is hard to believe that TXU’s initial estimates are still valid.
There is also more time needed to allow for the debate over whether or not IGCC should be treated as BACT under the Clean Air Act.
This is currently the crux of a suit filed in Texas federal court that has been given new life now that the EPA has rescinded its Dec. 2005 letter which, in effect, provided TXU with justification to file for approval of the 11 conventional coal plants.
Challenge and reality check
My understanding is that TXU has already released preliminary engineering and manufacturing for its proposed new fleet of coal plants.
If so, it helps explain its program of misinformation launched against IGCC technology. And also why industry comment has been muted with major suppliers having already booked big equipment and construction orders.
TXU still claims that coal-fired steam plants are absolutely the best solution at present to assure that Texas does not run out of power. That says that they are counting on these plants being readily retrofitted to meet expected and more stringent air quality regulations.
Assuming that is possible, which is questionable, it’s going to be very costly to clean them up (at ratepayers’ or shareholders’ expense?) to meet the inevitable further tightening of emission limits and the requirement for CO2 capture.
Even TXU has publicly stated that they are rushing for approval of conventional coal plants in order to get them grandfathered in before restrictions on CO2 are enacted.
So, it looks like it is a matter of “pay now and pay more later” – and in the meantime living with dirtier air to breathe.
That is the real technology and economical risk facing TXU ratepayers – not whether or not IGCC would work for Texas.
Perhaps the first question that should be raised in the Texas legislature is:
"Would TXU be willing to guarantee that their “low-risk” plan will not result in significant rate increases to meet future environmental requirements? "
Meanwhile, TXU is doing its best to assail IGCC technology and its supporters.
Take a look at what they assembled for their PR people to release to the press last week:
Reality Check: Proposed IGCC Power Plants Face
Cancellation, Cost Recovery Opposition and Delay
AEP: Billion-Dollar Plant's Costs Are Escalating
- Charleston Daily Mail, 12/27/06
The company said earlier this year the plant would probably cost about $1 billion. It promised to provide a more detailed cost estimate by the end of this year.
But in a letter hand- delivered on the day after Christmas to its regulator, the state Public Service Commission, the company's lawyers said it wouldn't be able to provide the estimate at this time.
"...what we've found out is, part of the higher cost is from the construction market -- concrete, steel, labor -- the regular things you have in construction," Matheney said. "It's also the first time a plant of this type has been built to commercial scale."
“...The company has repeatedly said it will only build such plants in states where regulators allow it to recover its costs. That means ratepayers would have to pay increased rates."
...Morris [AEP Chairman and CEO Mike Morris] said the process of getting the regulatory and legal authority to build the integrated gasification plants "is taking longer than we'd like -- at least longer than I'd like. And arguably longer than our customers can really afford and longer than the instate regulators can afford."
NRG: Company Shelves Plan for "Clean Coal" Power Plant
- Associated Press, 11/28/06
"...NRG officials said they decided to drop the coal technology (IGCC) because the company couldn't build the planned 630-megawatt plant in time to receive state incentives.
“...Environmental groups were already fighting the plant, saying the new coal technology still produces carbon dioxide, which, unless captured, contributes to global warming. The technology to capture the gas is still being developed."
AEP: CEO Says Issues Could Delay Clean Coal Build
- Reuters, 11/06/06
"...The company had been hoping to build an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant in Ohio by 2010, "but it's probably more like 2011 or 2012,"The Bottom Line (according to TXU)
AEP CEO Michael Morris said....The process in Ohio has been slowed because of a lawsuit that alleges that the state public utility commission would overstep its authority by approving cost recovery for the coal plant. Morris said he expects a decision from the state's Supreme Court early in 2007...."
- IGCC is still a developing technology that is not yet available at the scale, efficiencies and availabilities needed to meet Texas' near-term power needs.
- Cost Recovery Is Not an Option in Texas: Electric utilities developing IGCC plants in other states depend on limiting their technology and operational risk with regulatory cost recovery -- that's not an option in Texas.
- IGCC Technology Not Guaranteed for Texas Fuels. No IGCC technology suppliers are currently providing guarantees for IGCC plants using the coals available in Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
