Clean Domestic Power: Opportunities and
Considerations for Utilization of Fossil Fuel
Robert Romanosky
Advanced Research Technology Manager
National Energy Technology Laboratory
February 8-10, 2010
Energy Contributes to Quality of Life
GDP vs. Energy Consumption
100,000
GDP per Capita
(US$ / person / yr)
UK
Qatar
U.S.
Bahrain
Mexico
10,000
South Africa
Peru
Congo
Bulgaria
1,000
China
Eritrea
India
100
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Annual Energy Consumption per Capita
(kgoe / person / yr)
Development Data Group, The World Bank. 2008; Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs
of the United Nations Secretariat: IEA Statistics Division
‹#›
Energy Demand 2006
Energy Demand 2030
111 QBtu / Year
78% Fossil Energy
100 QBtu / Year
85% Fossil Energy
Coal Gas
23% 22%
Oil
41%
+ 11%
Nuclear
8%
Renewables
6%
United States
Oil
34%
Nuclear
8%
Oil
34%
675 QBtu / Year
81% Fossil Energy
+ 45%
Nuclear
6%
Gas
22%
Renewables
13%
465 QBtu / Year
81% Fossil Energy
Coal Gas
26% 21%
Coal
23%
World
Renewables
13%
Coal
29%
Gas
22%
Oil
30%
Fossil Energy Continues to Dominate Supply
U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2009, ARRA release ; world data from IEA,
World Energy Outlook 2008
‹#›
Nuclear
5%
Renewables
14%
Challenge and Program Driver:
Annual CO2 Emissions Extremely Large
Emissions
Total Release in the U.S.,
short tons per year
Mercury
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Municipal Solid Waste
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
120
15,000,000
230,000,000
6,300,000,000
1 million metric tons of CO2:
• Every year would fill a volume of 32 million cubic feet
• Close to the volume of the Empire State Building
Data sources: Mercury - EPA National Emissions Inventory (1999 data); SO2 - EPA air trends (2002 data); MSW - EPA OSWER
fact sheet (2001 data); CO2 - EIA AEO 2004 (2002 data)
‹#›
Technological Carbon Management Options
Pathways for Reducing GHGs -CO2
Improve
Efficiency
Reduce Carbon
Intensity
• Renewables
• Nuclear
• Fuel Switching
• Demand Side
• Supply Side
All options needed to:
 Affordably meet energy
demand
 Address environmental
objectives
‹#›
Sequester
Carbon
• Enhance Natural
Sinks
• Capture & Store
DOE Fossil Energy Coal RD&D Platform
Goals
Programs
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Core Coal and
Power Systems R&D
DOE – FE – NETL
TECHNOLOGIES &
BEST PRACTICES
< 10% increase COE with CCS
(pre-combustion)
< 35%
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION
Clean Coal Power Initiative
Stimulus Activities
DOE – FE – NETL
increase COE
with CCS (post- and
oxy-combustion)
< $400/kW fuel cell systems
(2002 $)
> 50% plant efficiency, up to 60%
with fuel cells
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
‹#›
> 90% CO2 capture
Tax Credits
Loan Guarantees
> 99% CO2 storage permanence
DOE – LGO – IRS
+/- 30% storage capacity
resolution
Approaches
•
Post Combustion CO2
Capture
•
Oxy-Fired
Combustion
•
Chemical Looping
•
UltraSupercritical
Combustion
•
Materials & Modeling
•
Process Integration
& Control
•
Demonstration &
Deployment
Programs
Coal Based Power
A Portfolio of Alternate Paths
Fuel Cell
Membranes
PETROCHEMICAL
PLANT
GASIFICATION
CO2 Capture
Fuels
water shift
selexol
O2
CO2 Capture
IGCC
water shift
selexol
Air
HYBRID
COMBUSTION
GASIFICATION
AIR BLOWN IGCC
CO2 Capture
Chemical O2
CHEMICAL
LOOPING IGCC
& Carbonate
looping
CO2 Capture
Carbonate looping
CFB
COMBUSTION
USC CFB
O2
Air
ADVANCED CFB
CO2 Capture
O2
Oxygen Fired CFB
or PC
CO2 Capture
MEA
PC
‹#›
USC PC
CO2 Capture
Fossil Energy CO2 Capture Solutions
Post-combustion (existing, new PC)
Pre-combustion (IGCC)
Chemical
looping
Cost Reduction Benefit
Oxycombustion (new PC)
OTM boiler
CO2 compression (all)
Amine
solvents
Physical
solvents
Cryogenic
oxygen
Advanced
physical
solvents
Advanced
chemical
solvents
Ammonia
CO2 compression
PBI
membranes
Solid
sorbents
Membrane
systems
ITMs
Biomass cofiring
Ionic liquids
Metal organic
frameworks
Enzymatic
membranes
CO2 Capture Targets:
• 90% CO2 Capture
• <10% increase in COE (IGCC)
• <35% increase in COE (PC)
2010
2015
Time to Commercialization
OTM – O2 Transport Membrane (PC)
ITM – O2 Ion Transport Membrane (PC or IGCC)
‹#›
Biological
processes
2020
Advanced PC Oxy-combustion
Challenges
• Cryogenic ASUs are capital and energy
intensive
Ultra-supercritical Oxyboilers
Air-Fired
Water-wall tube heat transfer
Division Walls
Fireside
• Excess O2 and inerts (N2, Ar) h CO2
purification cost
• Existing boiler air infiltration
O
OFA Ports
Burners
Waterwalls
Wall side
• Corrosion and process control
Advanced Oxy-combustion R&D Focus
• New oxyfuel boilers
- Advanced materials and burners
- Corrosion
• Low-cost oxygen  O2 Membranes
• Retrofit existing air boilers
- Air leakage, heat transfer, corrosion
- Process control
• CO2 purification
• Co-capture (CO2 + SOx, NOx, O2)
Boiler size
reduced by >30%
Heat
Flux
(Btu/hr-ft2)
Oxygen Membranes
1000oC, 1832 F
 PO' 
Flux  ln  '' 2 
 PO2 
CO2, H2O
eO2 + 4e- → 2O2O2-
~ 500 psig
CH4, CO, H2
Air
3-5 psig
Current Scale: Computational modeling through 5 MWe Pilot-scale
Partners (11 projects): Praxair, Air Products, Jupiter, Alstom, B&W, Foster Wheeler, REI, SRI
‹#›
Chemical Looping Combustion
Chemical Looping Advantages:
• Oxy-combustion without an O2 plant
Key Challenges
• Potential lowest cost option for near-zero
emission coal power plant <20% COE penalty
• Solids transport
• Heat Integration
• New and existing PC power plant designs
Air Reactor (Oxidizer)
CaS + 2O2  CaSO4 + Heat
Oxy-Firing without Oxygen Plant
Steam
Air
Ox
2000F
MB
HX
N2 + O2
CaSO4
CaS
1700F
Solid Oxygen Carrier circulates between Oxidizer and Reducer

Oxygen Carrier: Carries Oxygen, Heat and Fuel Energy

Carrier picks up O2 in the Oxidizer, leaves N2 behind

Carrier Burns the Fuel in the Reducer

Heat produces Steam for Power
Status
Red
Fuel

CO2 + H2O
Fuel Reactor (Reducer)
CaSO4 + 2C + Heat  2CO2 + CaS
CaSO4 + 4H2 + Heat  4H2O + CaS
2010 Alstom Pilot test (1 MWe)
 1000 lb/hr coal flow
 1st Integrated operation
 1st Autothermal Operation
Key Partners (2 projects): Alstom Power (Limestone Based), Ohio State (Metal Oxide)
‹#›
UltraSupercritical Boilers and Turbines
Current technology for USC Boilers
– Typical subcritical = 540 °C
– Typical supercritical = 593 °C
– Most advanced supercritical = ~610 °C
•
USC Plant efficiency is improved to
45 to 47% HHV
•
Ultrasupercritical (USC) DOE goal for
higher efficiency and much lower
emissions, materials capable of:
– 760 °C (1400 °F)
– 5,000 psi
– Oxygen firing
•
Meeting these targets requires:
– The use of new materials
– Novel uses of existing materials
48
Plant Thermal Efficiency (%)
•
5500 psi
46
3500 psi
44
42
Birks and Ruth
40
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
Temperature (°F)
‹#›
1400
1500
1600
Benefit of Higher Efficiency in Reducing CO2
2 Percentage Point Efficiency Gain = 5% CO2 Reduction
20% reduction in CO2
corresponds with similar
reductions (per MWh) in
consumables including
coal and limestone
(reducing
front-end equipment
size), flue gas volume
(reducing back-end and
emission control
equipment size), and
overall emissions, water
use, and waste
generation
(Bituminous coal, without CO2 capture)
‹#›
Efficiency Contribution from Sensors and Controls
Value Derived for an Existing Coal Fired Power Plant
1% HEAT RATE improvement
 500 MW net capacity unit
• $700,000/yr
coal cost savings
• 1% reduction in gaseous
and solid emissions
 Entire coal-fired fleet
• $300 million/yr
coal cost savings
• Reduction of 14.5 million
metric tons CO2 per year
Gaseous
Emissions
500 MW
10,200 Btu/kWh
POWER
3.5 billion kWh/yr
@ 80% capacity
factor
COAL
35,700 MMBtu/yr
$70 million/yr
@$2/MMBtu
Solid Waste
1% increase in AVAILABILITY
Analysis based on 2008 coal costs
 500 MW net capacity unit
and 2008 coal-fired power plant fleet
(units greater than 300 MW)
• 35 million kWh/yr added generation
• Approximately $2 million/yr in sales (@ 6 cents/kWh)
 Entire coal-fired fleet
• More than 2 GW of additional power from existing fleet
‹#›
Carbon Sequestration Program Goals
•
Deliver technologies & best practices that
provide Carbon Capture and Safe Storage
(CCSS) with:
– 90% CO2 capture at source
– 99% storage permanence
– < 10% increase in COE
• Pre-combustion capture (IGCC)
– < 35% increase in COE
• Post-combustion & Oxy-combustion
Core R&D
Pre-combustion Capture
Global
Collaborations
Geologic Storage
North America Energy
Working Group
Infrastructure
Monitoring, Verification, and
Accounting (MVA)
Simulation and
Risk Assessment
Carbon Sequestration
Leadership Forum
International
Demonstration Projects
Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnerships
Characterization
Validation
CO2 Use/Reuse
‹#›
Asia-Pacific
Partnership (APP)
Development
National Atlas Highlights - 2008
U.S. Emissions ~ 6 Billion Tons CO2/yr all sources
~ 2 Billion Tons CO2/yr coal-fired power plants
Saline Formations
Oil and Gas Fields
Conservative
Resource
Assessment
North American CO2 Storage Potential
(Billion Metric Tons)
Sink Type
Low
High
Saline Formations
3,300
12,600
Unmineable Coal Seams
160
180
Oil & Gas Fields
140
140
Unmineable Coal Seams
Hundreds of
Years
Storage
Potential
Available for download at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/carbon_seq/refshelf.html
‹#›
Demonstration & Deployment Programs
Reduce risk and promote adoption of new
technology at large scales
• Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI)
• Industrial Carbon Capture
& Sequestration (ICCS)
• FutureGen
‹#›
PPII
& CCPI
Demonstration
Project
Locations
for ICCS Projects
Area 1
AwardedCarbon
Capture
and Storage
fromShare
Industrial Sources
Locations
& Cost
In Negotiation
Great River Energy
Battelle, Boise White Paper
Mill, Basalt,
Complete
Fluor Econamine Plus,
Washington
Excelsior Energy
Lignite Fuel Enhancement
$31.5M – Total
$13.5M – DOE
Basin Electric
Postcombustion CO Capture
Post Combustion CO2 Capture
$668M – Total
$334M – DOE
NeuCo (Baldwin)
Integrated Optimization Software
$19M – Total
$8.6M – DOE
Summit TX Clean Energy
Commercial Demo of Advanced
IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture
~$1.9B – Total
$350M – DOE
Cemex,; Cement;
EOR & Saline,
RTI Dry Carbonate
Odessa, TX
HECA
Southern Company Services
Post-combustion CO2 Capture
$668M – Total
$295M – DOE
Selexol, Sweeny, TX
NeuCo (Limestone)
Mercury Specie &
Multi-pollutant Control
$15.6M – Total
Praxair; H2 for Refinery; $6.1M – DOE
‹#›
Archer Daniels Midland;
Industrial Power & Ethanol;
Saline, DOW Alstom Amine,
Decatur, IL
CONSOL
Leucadia Energy;
Greenidge Multi-pollutant Control
SNG from petcoke;
$32.7M – Total
EOR, Rectisol,
$14.3M – DOE
Mississippi
Emission Control
Commercial Demo of Advanced
IGCC w/ Full Carbon
Capture
Conoco
Phillips; IGGC~$2.8B
–
Total
Petcoke; Depleted NG/EOR,
$308M – DOE
EOR, VPSA,
Texas City, TX
TOXECON Multi-pollutant
ProjectControl
Location
$53M
– Total
Industry Type
/ Product
$24.9M – DOE
Sequestration Type
CO2 Capture
AEP Technology
Univ. of Utah; Ammonia &
Cement; EOR & Saline,
Dehydration,
Coffeyville, KS
2
C6 (Shell); H$287M
2
– Total
Production; Saline,
$100M – DOE
ADIP-X Amine,
Solano, CA
Wisconsin Electric
Mesaba Wolverine,
Energy Project
CFB Power;
$2.16B
– Total
EOR,
Hitachi Amine,
$36M –Rogers
DOE
City, MI
Southern Company
Leucadia Energy;
Fuel
Methanol; EOR,
Rectisol,Advanced Power
Lake Charles, LA
Systems
IGCC-Transport Gasifier
Texas Energy; Petcoke
$2B – Total
Gasification
(H2, MeOH &
$294M
Air Products,
H2 – DOE
Production; EOR, BASF’s
aMDEA
Port Arthur, TX;
NH3); EOR, Rectisol,
Beaumont, TX
FutureGen Objectives
• Establish technical, economic
& environmental viability of
“near- zero emission” coal-fueled
plant by 2015
• Validate DOE goals
– (ref. Report to Congress, dated
March 2004):
– Sequester >90% CO2 with potential
for ~100%
– >99% sulfur removal; <0.05 lb/MMBtu Nox; <0.005 lb/MMBtu PM; >90% Hg removal
• Prototype 275 MWe coal-based power plant of the future sized to:
– Utilize utility-scale (7FB) gas turbine
– Adequately stress saline geologic
formation
• Integrate full-scale CCS operations
• Serve as potential test facility for
emerging technologies
‹#›
FutureGen
Potential “Proving Ground” for Emerging Technology
Fuel Cells
FutureGen
Gasification with
Cleanup Separation
H2 Production
‹#›
Optimized
Turbines
Carbon
Sequestration
System
Integration
Conclusions
• The U.S. power generation industry is at a
critical juncture
– Demand, resources, workforce, reliability, regulation, grid
integrity, transmission, etc.
• Competing demands for reliable, low-cost
energy and climate change mitigation appear
incongruent
• Uncertainty of regulatory outcomes and rising
costs impact industry’s willingness to commit
capital investment, endangering near-term
production capacity
• The U.S. must foster new processes that
address conflicting energy objectives
simultaneously
• Our nation’s dependence on liquid fuel from
foreign resources will continue to remain high
for the near term
‹#›
Contact Information
Robert R. Romanosky
304-285-4721
Robert.romanosky@netl.doe.gov
‹#›
NETL
Office of Fossil Energy
www.netl.doe.gov
www.fe.doe.gov