DOE/NETL Defines
Technology Pathways
to Lower IGCC Costs

Final report on benefits of advanced IGCC technologies now available


Back in early October this site reported on a study by the DOE/NETL Office of Analysis and Planning of the potential of advanced technologies currently under development to lower the cost of coal-based IGCC power plants with high levels of carbon capture.

Study results, presented at the 2009 Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) conference held Oct. 4-7 in Colorado Springs, predict that significant improvements are indeed possible. Now the final study report dated, November 2009, is available for downloading at the DOE/NETL website.

Severe economic impact of CCS
A number of studies supported by EPRI and the DOE/NETL (see Jan-Feb 2009 Gas Turbine World), have focused on the severity of the economic impacts of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for all forms of coal-based power generation.

For example, the impact of 90% CO2 capture on typical current-technology IGCC plants is to increase HHV heat rate by more than 16 percent (i.e. reducing plant efficiency from around 38% to below 32%). And the additional parasitic plant loads associated with CO2 processing and compression reduce net plant output by more than15 percent.

The combined overall 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).

R&D aims at recouping CCS losses
In a drive to recoup losses in IGCC plant efficiency, and mitigate increases in plant capital costs due to adding CCS, the DOE has several advanced technologies under development with a well defined technology pathway for both near term and longer term improvements.

The NETL report "Current and Future Technologies for Gasification-Based Power Generation" (DOE/NETL- 2009/1384) provides estimates of the benefits of each element of DOE's broad portfolio of advanced power systems technology programs.

Presented roughly in order of expected commercial deployment, these programs are shown to significantly improve process efficiency, cut capital costs and substantially lower the COE for coal-based IGCC plants operating with 90% CCS.

Largest returns are expected of the following R&D efforts which are targeted at specific advances in design and performance:

• Advanced hydrogen turbine. Increases in efficiency and power rating will lower emissions and reduce $/kW total plant cost.
• Warm gas cleanup. Eliminates thermal penalty of conventional cold cleanup and reduces capital cost. Included is application of high temperature hydrogen transport membranes for CO2 separation.
  
• Ion transport membrane oxygen. "ITM" oxygen production greatly reduces power penalty and cost of cryogenic air separation.
• Gasifier technology. Improved gasifier materials, instrumentation and controls improves plant reliability and availability. Increasing plant time on-line goes directly toward lowering energy production cost per kWh.
  

Starting with a nominal 600 MW current-technology FA-Class IGCC plant with slurry-fed gasification, cold gas cleanup, and 90% CO2 capture and compression, progressive application of these advanced technologies is shown to more than restore plant efficiency to pre-CCS levels (to better than 40%), and to reduce capital cost ($/kW) and COE ($/MWh) by 32% or more.

The Nov-Dec issue of Gas Turbine World magazine features a summary abstract of the DOE/NETL study, highlighting the benefits of the various advanced programs being supported by the DOE.

Additional savings on horizon
Additional savings are on the horizon with progress being made in the development of other advanced IGCC technologies outside of the DOE R&D program.

One example is the revolutionary Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) compact gasification process, which involves the innovative application of rocket-based technology for the production of coal-derived syngas at high pressure and temperature.

Operating conditions result in improved process efficiency and greatly reduced pressure vessel volume (by 90%), leading to an estimated 50% reduction in gasification system cost. This would clearly have a major positive impact on IGCC economics.

In another presentation at the 2009 GTC conference, PWR reported on the status of their program, including their partnership with ExxonMobil and the Alberta Energy Research Institute. As scheduled, the 18 tpd compact gasification pilot test unit started operations at the Gas Technology Institute research facility near Chicago on November 5. Hot-gas testing is now underway, and initial results have reportedly been very satisfactory.

With their process pilot plan now in operation, PWR is said to be close to announcing plans for a commercial-scale demonstration project.

Gas Turbine World is looking forward to presenting an update of the progress of this very promising advanced gasification technology program, including initial test results and design performance data, in our upcoming 2010 IGCC Reference Guide.

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:

• 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

This is the first of several postings planned to report on the 2009 GTC conference.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

IGCC Cost Error or Illinoisian Math - You Call it

$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

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

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

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

IGCC - "A Promising Technology" for Future Coal Power Plants

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: John Colebrook

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.

Click here to enlarge image 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.

Click here to enlarge image

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, 2008
Author(s) : John Colebrook

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

Or you could launch the broadcast itself at the following by inserting at NPR on FutureGen.

You might also want to look at the WSJ Energy blog coming out of DC at:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/environmentalcapital@wsj.com

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.

Harry Jaeger

Gasification Editor

Gas Turbine World Magazine

visit www.GTWBooks.com

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