What is the promise of new fossil technology over the next 25 years

1
What is the promise of new fossil technology
over the next 25 years?
NREL March 9, 2006 James Ekmann,
Director Office of Systems, Analysis and Planning
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil
Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
2
Presentation Outline

• Overview of NETL
• Growing U.S. Energy Demand and Domestic Fossil
  Energy Resources
• Environmental Challenges and the Promise of
  Advanced Technologies
• The Fossil Energy RDD Program
• Supporting Analytical Activities and Potential
  Areas for Collaboration

3
National Energy Technology Laboratory

• Only DOE national lab dedicated to fossil energy
• Fossil fuels provide 85 of U.S. energy supply
• One lab, five locations, one management structure
• 1,200 Federal and support-contractor
  employees
• Research spans fundamental science
  to technology demonstrations

4
NETLs Mission

• Implement a research, development, and
  demonstration program to resolve the
  environmental, supply, and reliability
  constraints of producing and using fossil
  resources

• Implement and manage extramural RDD
• Conduct onsite research
• Support energy policy development

5
NETL FY 2006 Budget 725 Million
Gas RDD 33M
Million
Oil RDD 32M
Coal RDD 317M
Non-FE 163M
102M
68M
Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Support
10M
Fossil Energy Program Support
Clean Coal Power Initiative/FutureGen
6
Growing U.S. Energy Demandand Domestic Fossil
Energy Resources
7
U.S. Energy Picture
U.S. Electricity Generation
Coal Natural gas Nuclear Renewables Oil
Coal dominates electricity generation
GDP
Coal-fired Generation
Electricity Generation
Coal use linked to economic growth
Total Energy Consumption
Upper figure DOE EIA, AEO 2005, Figure 5 Lower
figure Energy Electricity per DOE EIA, AER
2003 GDP per U.S. DOC, Bureau of Economic Analysis
8
U.S. Production, Consumption, and Total Imports
of Petroleum, 1970-2025
28.3 MMBPD
30
19.8 MMBPD
Consumption
70 by 2025
Million Barrels per Day
Total Imports
56
Production
8.6 MMBPD
9.3 MMBPD
2003
2025
Year
EIA (AEO 2005) Reference Case Scenario
9
U.S. Annual Energy Expenditures Percent of GDP
"Although the global economic expansion appears
to have been on a reasonably firm path through
the summer months, the recent surge in energy
prices will undoubtedly be a drag from now on,"
Alan Greenspan, October 17, 2005
Highest Proportion in 20 Years Highest Sustained
Growth in 25 Years Current Trend and Impact on
Future GDP?
EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004 Short Term Energy
Outlook, October 2005
10
Changed Domestic Supply Forecast AEO06E
other production hydrogen, methanol, etc.
renewable
nuclear
coal
Imports (Quads/Year)
natural gas
natural gas liquids
crude oil
Added 3.9 Quads Domestic Supply (2025) in AEO06E
from AEO05
Annual Energy Outlook 2005, 2006E
11
"Renewable energy promises many benefits. But
renewables alone do not offer us a path to a
sustainable future within our present span of
vision. Economic development and poverty
eradication depend on secure, affordable energy
supplies." -Robert Priddle, Executive Director,
International Energy Agency, World Summit on
Sustainable Development, September 2002.
12
Domestic Energy Resources
13
Potential to contribute to mitigation

• GTL 450 Million standard cubic foot/day will
  yield 45,000 barrels/day
• CTL Approximately 3 million tons per year of
  coal would be needed to feed a single 20,000-BPD
  plant. To replace 2 MM barrels/day would require
  300 million tons per year (a 30 increase)
• Tar sands One million tons of material will
  yield one million barrels of oil (current
  production one million barrels/day)

14
Long-term U.S. Oil and Natural Gas
PricesDisassociate from Btu Parity
Shift in Ratio of Oil Price to Natural Gas Price
Drivers Will Tend to Tighten Energy Market Price
Disparities
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, 2006E
15
Coal Requirement With CCS
2,054
MMst/Year
Assumes 35 higher coal consumption per existing
CCS MW thru 2011 20 higher coal consumption
per new CCS MW after 2011
A Significant Challenge For the Nations Mining
and Transport Industries
Annual Energy Outlook 2006E Annual Energy Review
2004
16
Environmental Challengesand the Promise of
Advanced Technologies
17
Key Environmental Challenges for Coal

• Mining with minimal environmental impact
• Mercury emissions from
• coal power plants
• Climate change/variability

18
U.S. and Global Mercury Emissions
Mercury Emissions Dropped 25 During 1990 - 99
Mercury Emissions Are Global Problem
1999 Global Mercury Emissions
Other Medical Waste Incinerators Municipal
Waste Combustors Utility Coal Boilers
250
U.S. Power Plant Emissions 1
221
196
200
150
112
Tons Per Year
100
U.S. All Other Sources 2
50
Emissions From All Other Countries 97
0
1999
1996 Emissions
1990
Bar chart EPA piechart based on Pacyna, J.,
Munthe, J., presentation on mercury, Brussels,
March 29-30, 2004
19
Both Regional and Local Action Needed to Address
Air Quality Issues
Urban v. Regional Contribution to PM
Concentrations (2000-2000, Average µg/m3)
CAIR presentation at AEO 2005 Conference, S.
Napolitano, EPA, April 12, 2005
20
What about CO2 Emissions?U.S. CO2 Emissions from
Fossil Fuel Combustion
Relative Contribution by Fuel Type
Coal-Fired Power Plants Produce 1/3 of U.S.
CO2 Emissions
Tg CO2 Eq.
Residential
Industrial
Electric
U.S. Territories
Commercial
Transportation
Table 2-3, EPA 430-R-03-004, April 2003
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990-2001
21
The Path to Significant Reductions of Carbon
Emissions from Power Generation

• Most of todays power plants will retire between
  2015 and 2060 creating a window of opportunity to
  reduce carbon emissions
• This opportunity can be realized through
  construction of a portfolio of low-carbon
  emitting power plants
• Renewable energy sources
• Nuclear power
• Fossil power with carbon sequestration

22
What can new technology provide over the next 25
years?
23
Air Emission Trends and ProjectionsAnnual U.S.
Air Emissions and Coal Use
Coal Use
Coal Use, NOx and SO2 Emissions (Index 1970 1)
Mercury Emissions (tons)
Mercury
NOx
SO2
Historical data (19702000) Coal consumption and
electricity generation per DOE EIA, AER 2003 NOx
and SO2 per EPA Air Trends Report
http//www.epa.gov/air/airtrenda/econ-emissions.ht
ml Projected data (20032020) Coal consumption
and electricity generation per DOE EIA, AEO
2005 NOx and SO2 per EPA projections under CAIR
http//www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/charts.htm
l Mercury per EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule
24
Improved Efficiencies Reduce Carbon Emissions
Current Chinese Plants
Current U.S. Plants
Todays State-of-the-Art
DOEs 2020 Goal
Tons CO2 per MWh
Gas Turbine
Coal- Fueled
Gas Turbine Combined Cycle
Natural Gas
Efficiency, HHV
NETL, McGurl, 2004
25
Sources Of GHG Emissions Reduction in The US
Under The Atmospheric Stabilization Scenario
Reductions rely directly on sequestration RD
Reductions partially reliant on sequestration RD
Reductions do not depend on Sequestration RD,
but do include power plant efficiency gains
EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2002 EPA special
studies DOE/FE/NETL Sequestration Benefits Model
26
Fossil Power with Capture Enables Significant
Emissions Reductions
Current Pathway
Significant Renewable and Nuclear
All New Fossil Plants have Sequestration
27
Fossil Energy RDD Program
28
Clean Coal RDD Technologies Address Near- and
Long-Range Needs

• Short-term keep existing fleet in service
  prepare for transition to near-zero-emission
  future
• SO2, NOx, Hg
• Plant optimization and control
• Reduced carbon intensity
• Long-term add near-zero emission energy plants
• IGCCs to market
• Advanced materials
• Ultra-high efficiency hybrid systems
• CO2 capture and storage

Rev. 071404
29
USDOEs Core Coal RD Program
FutureGen Supporting RD
Innovations for Existing Plants RD
Technologies

• Advanced gasification
• Gas cleaning
• Oxygen production
• Hydrogen production
• Sequestration
• Hydrogen turbines

• Stationary fuel cells
• Fuel cell / turbine hybrids
• Advanced combustion
• Byproduct utilization
• Advanced materials
• Instrumentation controls

30
Traditional IGCC
Coal
Sulfur
Syngas H2 and CO
Central Power Gas Turbine Combined Cycle
Coal Gasifier
Gas Cleanup
O2
Experience Gained from 2 Operating IGCC Plants
in CCT Program
O2 Plant
PSI Energy Wabash River 300-MW IGCC Power Plant
Tampa Electric 250-MW IGCC Power Plant
31
FutureGen . . .

• Produce electricity hydrogen from coal
• advanced IGCC technology
• nominal 275 MW
• Emit virtually no pollutants
• Air, water, solid waste
• Capture and permanently sequester CO2
• 1 million tonnes/yr

• Address 3 Presidential initiatives
• Climate Change
• Clear Skies
• Freedom Car

32
IGCC in FutureGen
Coal
Sulfur
Syngas H2 and CO
Central Power Gas Turbine Combined Cycle
H2
Coal Gasifier
Gas Cleanup
Shift
O2
Transportation Fuel Cells IC Engine
CO2
O2 Plant
Geologic Sequestration
Distributed Power Fuel Cells
New Parts
33
Supporting Analytical Activitiesand Potential
Areas for Collaboration
34
The Planning and Analysis Process

• Program Portfolio
• Goals

Will technology help RD Program reach its goal?
Where does program get best bang for the buck?

• Sub-Programs
• Projects

What does technology need to do to have an impact?

• Systems Analysis
• Technical and Economic Feasibility

Benefit Estimates
35
Example Using Systems Analysisto Estimate
Performance

• Systems analysis of Current and Future IGCC
  Configurations
• 15 IGCC cases assessed (3 with carbon capture)
• Technology advances considered
• Advanced gasifier designs
• increased capacity factor and carbon utilization
• Warm-gas cleanup
• Advanced syngas turbine
• ITM for oxygen
• SOFC
• Currently being updated with new technologies and
  updated performance

36
Technology Time Sequence for Deployment
37
Identify Technology Merit
Does concept show potential to improve system
performance?

• Use computer-based tools with projected
  technology performance to determine impact

Case
Year of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability

• Continuous feedback loop with researchers to keep
  performance estimates up-to-date

38
Summary of IGCC Cases No carbon capture
24.9 pts.
20 pts.
10.5 pts.
8.3 pts.
8.3 pts.
7.9 pts.
6.7 pts.
5.1 pts.
2.7 pts.
1.1 pts.
0 pts
0
-1
-4
-6
-11
-17
-21
-21
-23
-23
-26
39
Sources Of GHG Emissions Reduction in The US
Under The Atmospheric Stabilization Scenario
Reductions rely directly on sequestration RD
Reductions partially reliant on sequestration RD
Reductions do not depend on Sequestration RD,
but do include power plant efficiency gains
EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2002 EPA special
studies DOE/FE/NETL Sequestration Benefits Model
40
Driving Down the Costs for Pulverized Coal Power
Plants
Driving Down Costs
Driving Down Costs
7.67 (c/kWh)
7.55 (c/kWh)
7.04 (c/kWh)
6.94 (c/kWh)
6.76 (c/kWh)
6.48 (c/kWh)
USC Base Case
SC Base Case
5.84 (c/kWh)
4.83 (c/kWh)
4.80 (c/kWh)
ASupercritical (SC) PC Plant (No Capture)
BSC with Amine Scrubbing
CSC Advanced
Amine (Econamine) DSC
Ammonia CO2 Only
ESC AA CO2/SO2/NOx/Hg (No Credit)
F SC AA
CO2/SO2/NOx/Hg (By-Product Credit)

GUltra-Supercritical (USC) No Capture
HUSC Amine

IUSC Advanced Amine
41
Driving Down the Costs for IGCC
Driving Down Costs
5.52 (c/kWh)
5.51 (c/kWh)
5.47 (c/kWh)
5.31 (c/kWh)
5.27 (c/kWh)
IGCC Base Case
5.18 (c/kWh)
5.18 (c/kWh)
4.911 (c/kWh)
4.90 (c/kWh)
4.85 (c/kWh)
4.80 (c/kWh)
4.841 (c/kWh)
4.361 (c/kWh)
4.18 (c/kWh)
4.19 (c/kWh)
AIGCC w/o CO2 Capture
BSelexol Scrubbing
CAdvanced Selexol
Scrubbing DSelexol w/ Co-Storage of
H2S/CO2 EAdvanced Selexol w/
Co-Storage of H2S/CO2 FSelexol w/ O2
Membrane
GSelexol w/ WGS Membrane
HSelexol w/ O2 WGS Membranes
IAdv. Selexol w/ O2 WGS Membranes
JAdv. Selexol w/ O2 WGS Membranes,
Co-storage
KChemical Looping
w/ Co-Storage
L1Co-Production w/ H2 Membrane
M1Co-Production w/ SOFC
N1Co-Production w/ SOFC and H2
Membrane OAdv. O2 WGS Membranes w/
Co-Storage 150 Power/50 Hydrogen production
with NG value at 4.00/MM Btu
42
Driving Down the Costs for Oxy-Combustion Cases
8.21 (c/kWh)
Driving Down Costs
7.84 (c/kWh)
7.07 (c/kWh)
6.69 (c/kWh)
SC Base Case
5.06 (c/kWh)

• ASupercritical (SC) PC Plant (No Capture)
  BSC PC Plant with
  Oxy-Combustion (Cryogenic)
  CSC PC Plant
  with NZE Oxy-Combustion (Cryogenic) DSC
  PC Plant with Oxy-Combustion (O2 Membrane) ESC
  PC Plant with NZE Oxy-Combustion (O2 Membrane)

43
Assess Portfolio of Options
Where Should RD Best Focus?
7
44
Using NEMS to Estimate Benefits
Total FE RD Benefits
Case 1A
Without RD
Scenario 1
Case 1B
With RD
Benefit Analysis Involves Multitude of Cases
Technology-Level Coal RD Benefits
Case 1B - Gasification
Case 1B - Sequestration
Case 1B - DG / Fuel Cells
Case 1B - IEP
Isolates Technology Benefits
45
Considering Future States of the World
Scenarios
46
FE RD Program Consumer Cost Savings
http//www.netl.doe.gov/publications/brochures/pdf
s/fossil_energy.pdf
47
Sequestration RD Allows New Capacity to Utilize
Domestic Fuels
FE RD Makes Sequestration Affordable Keeping
Coal a Viable Option
48
Potential Areas for Collaboration

• Integrated Fossil Renewable Systems
• Coal / Biomass Co-Gasification
• Wind turbines and dispatchable coal plants
• Common Basis Assessments
• Synergistic Roles of Fossil and Renewable
  Technologies
• Comparative Economic Assessments
• Life Cycle Emissions
• National Benefits of RDD
• Adaptation Strategies for Global Climate Change

Rev. 061404
49
Advanced Coal PlantsLower Life Cycle GWP than
Solar PV
Ruether et. Al. Environmental Live Cycle
Assessment of a Coal Gasification-based Power
Plant. Presented at EUEC, 2003. Pacca, S., and
A. Horvath, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 3194.
50
Closing Comments

• Coal must play a key role in securing healthy
  U.S. and global economy
• recognized in Presidential-level initiatives
  Clear Skies, Climate Change, FutureGen, Hydrogen,
  Sequestration
• Must maximize existing fleet performance
  everywhere in the world as bridge to the future
• New coal plants needed soon!
• What kind will we build? (e.g., conventional pc,
  IGCC, zero-emission)
• U.S. CCT Roadmap charts challenging but doable
  path forward for coal
• FutureGen Project will show near-zero
• emission coal-based energy is possible

Rev. 061404
51
Visit Our Websites
Office of Fossil Energys websitewww.fe.doe.gov
NETLs websitewww.netl.doe.gov
52
Backup Slides
53
Systems Analysis Level of Detail

• Re-evaluate Technology
• Define performance targets

ASPEN Spreadsheets Cost Curves Rule of Thumb

• Level I
• Rough Cost Estimate
• /- 50 to 100 Accuracy

Results
Feasible?
No

• Level II
• Preliminary Mass Energy Balance
• Conceptual Design
• /- 50 Accuracy

Yes
Results
Feasible?

• Level III
• Detailed Economic Analysis
• Final
• Design

No
ASPEN -Equipment Sizing

• Re-engineer design(s) to achieve performance
  targets

Yes
Vendor Quotes -Design and Costs
ICARUS -Equipment Costs
/- 30 Accuracy
54
Capital Cost (/kW) Timeline
Year of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability
55
Efficiency Timeline
Year of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability
Case
56
COE Timeline