Coal%20Gasification%20and%20Carbon%20Capture%20and%20Sequestration:%20What%20and%20Why? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation



A partial oxidation process that can convert any hydrocarbon into ... SUV Czech Republic. Cogeneration / Petroleum Coke. 45. 1996. Frontier Oil, Kansas USA ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:272
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 30
Provided by: marth178


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Coal%20Gasification%20and%20Carbon%20Capture%20and%20Sequestration:%20What%20and%20Why?

Coal Gasification and Carbon Capture and
SequestrationWhat and Why?
  • Clean Air Task Force
  • February 2006

  • Technology Description
  • Environmental Profile
  • Status of Carbon Sequestration
  • Why it Matters to Climate

  • Gasification Technology Overview
  • The Basic Chemistry

Process Conditions 1,800 2,800 Deg F, 400
1,000 psig
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
Proven Technology
Source US Dept. of Energy/National Energy
Technology Labs (NETL)
Commercial IGCC Projects (14)
Project Location Start-Up
Megawatts Products - Feedstock
Nuon (Demkolec) Netherlands 1994 250 Power / Coal
Wabash (Global/Cinergy) USA 1995 260 Repower / Coal, Pet Coke
Tampa Electric Company USA 1996 250 Power / Coal, Petroleum Coke
Frontier Oil, Kansas USA 1996 45 Cogeneration / Petroleum Coke
SUV Czech Republic 1996 350 Cogeneration / Coal
Schwarze Pumpe Germany 1996 40 Power Methanol / Lignite
Shell Pernis Netherlands 1997 120 Cogen H2 / Visbreaker Tar
Puertollano Spain 1998 320 Power / Coal, Coke
ISAB ERG/Mission Italy 2000 510 Power / Asphalt
Sarlux Saras/Enron Italy 2001 545 Power, Steam, H2 / Visbreaker Tar
Exxon Chemical Singapore 2001 160 Cogeneration / Ethylene Tar
API Energia Italy 2001 280 Power Steam / Visbreaker Tar
Motiva LLC Delaware, USA 2002 160 Repower / Pet Coke
Nippon Refining Japan 2003 342 Power / Asphalt
Total IGCC Megawatts 3,632 MW Total Experience,
Operating Hours on Syngas gt 750,000 hours
Emerging Technologies
  • Innovative gasification technologies are being
    developed by several companies
  • For example, Boeing Rocketdyne, Texas Syngas,
    Genesis Environmental, Enviro-Power Int. (EPIC),
    GreatPoint Energy
  • However, these technologies have not yet
    progressed to commercial demonstration
  • Some proven biomass gasifiers are being offered
    for coal (e.g. Primenergy)
  • Low rank coal processing systems to make these
    coals more suitable as gasification feed stocks
    are under development
  • These technologies may shape third generation
    IGCC power plants (probably in the 2015-2025 time
    frame). However, these emerging technologies
    will be introduced into the Coal to SNG and Coal
    to Liquids market segments first.

US Gasification Target Areas Midwest/Eastern
Coals (Higher Sulfur) and Petroleum Coke Now,
Western Coals in Near Future
Power Generation Differentiators that favor
IGCC over boiler technologies
  • Pre-combustion clean-up of fuel prior to power
  • Environmental Technology gt Greatest potential
    for future
  • proven lowest NOx, SOx, particulate matter and
    lower hazardous air pollutants,
  • proven mercury and carbon dioxide removal,
  • lower water usage, lower solids production
  • sulfur and non-leachable slag by-products
  • Proven polygeneration flexibility, now and in
  • power, hydrogen, steam, chemicals, zero-sulfur
  • Practical opportunity to retrofit carbon capture

Mercury Emissions
  • IGCC is essentially the only coal technology that
    can effectively remove mercury from the
  • Carbon beds have demonstrated 99.9 mercury
    removal from syngas (post gas-clean-up).
  • Carbon beds are less expensive and produce vastly
    smaller volumes of solid waste than activated
    carbon injection at PC plant.
  • Carbon bed waste is managed as hazardous waste
    which inhibits re-emission.
  • Initial syngas mercury removal is in gas-clean-up
    system (before mercury bed). Much of this mercury
    is captured in wastes managed as hazardous, which
    inhibits re-emission.

SO2 Emissions
NOx Emissions
Solid Waste and Water Use
  • Solid Wastes
  • Less Volume IGCC produce about half the solid
    wastes of conventional coal plants.
  • Better Form IGCC solid wastes are less likely to
    leach toxic metals than fly ash from conventional
    coal plants because IGCC ash melts and is
    vitrified (encased in a glass-like substance).
  • Water Use
  • Less Water IGCC units use 20-50 less water
    than conventional coal plants and can utilize dry
    cooling to minimize water use.

Key IGCC Market Barriers
  • Unfamiliar and uncomfortable technology to power
    industry chemical plant not combustion boiler
  • Currently higher capital and operating costs
    relative to supercritical boilers
  • Standard designs and guarantee packages not yet
    fully developed
  • Reluctance of customers to be early adopters,
    and assume technology application risk
  • Emerging business models Next IGCC will be each
    alliances first
  • Few units in operation (14), many located
    overseas, and most not on coal
  • Environmental benefits threaten existing coal
    power fleet
  • Lingering availability/reliability concerns
    (spare train will help, but not eliminate the
    perceived risk)
  • Questions about feasibility and cost using
    low-rank coals, particularly lignite
  • IGCC is an emerging industry, vs. established
    boiler industry
  • Real interest in coal gasification to SNG, zero
    sulfur diesel, ammonia and other chemicals will
    in turn assist IGCC development

Geologic sequestration options
IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage Summary for Policymakers as approved by
the 8th Session of IPCC Working Group III,
September 25th, 2005, Montreal, Canada
Good fit between likely coal plant locations and
geologic storage availability
IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage Summary for Policymakers as approved by
the 8th Session of IPCC Working Group III,
September 25th, 2005, Montreal, Canada
Carbon Geologic Storage Capture Issues
  • Subsurface issues
  • Is there enough capacity to store CO2 broadly?
  • Do we understand storage mechanisms well enough?
  • Could we certify and decertify injection sites
    with our current level of understanding?
  • Once injected, can we monitor and verify the
    subsurface CO2?
  • Near surface issues
  • How might capacity distribution affect
    deployment and siting of zero-emission projects
    and new coal plants ?
  • What are the probabilities of CO2 escaping from
    injection sites? What are the attendant risks?
    Can we detect leakage if it occurs?
  • Will surface leakage negate or reduce the
    benefits of CCS?

From S. Julio Friedmann, Lawrence Livermore
The state of knowledge
  • To a first order, the science supports successful
    carbon storage.
  • Science and technology gaps appear resolvable and
    should focus on key problems (e.g., wells)
  • LARGE SCALE tests are crucial to understanding
    successful deployment of carbon capture and
    sequestration (CCS) and creating appropriate
    policy/economic structures.

From S. Julio Friedmann, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory
Experience and Evolution from Oil Gas
  • Acid Gas Injection
  • Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
  • Natural Gas Storage
  • CO2 Transport
  • 2000 miles of CO2 pipelines in US

Current underground injection practices vs power
sector CO2
Large quantities
Long Time Frame
2.7 Gt
.5 Gt
34 Mt
1.2 Mt
2 Mt
Oilfield Brine
Acid Gas
FL Municipal
Natural Gas
CO2 for
OCS water injected for EOR and brine disposal
OCS gases (e.g., NG)
Source M. Granger Morgan, Climate Change State
of the science and technology EPRI Summer
Workshop, August, 2002 Complied by EPP Ph.D.
student E. Wilson with data from EPA, 2001
Deurling, 2001 Keith, 2001 DOE, 2001 DOE, 2001.
Climate Implications of Coal Gasification/GCS
  • Likely a necessary part of long term portfolio
  • Absolutely necessary as an alternative to short
    term pulverized coal development in US and
    developing world
  • Possible pathway to lower cost hydrogen

Climate 450 ppm CO2 means deep cuts in emissions
  • Achieving 450 ppm solely from CO2 means cuts of
    up to 80 emissions from 2000 levels by 2100 for
    Annex 1 countries and 40 globally.
  • Stabilizing concentrations at 450 ppm after 2100
    would require deep global CO2 emissions
    reductions beyond these cuts after 2100.
  • Every year that emissions go up, not down, makes
    the possibility of meeting the 450 ppm goal more
  • Presently, carbon emissions growing gt 100 MT/year.

But new pulverized coal plants are locking in
huge future carbon emissions
  • New PC power plants
  • Are the longest-lived energy system investments
    being made as they will operate for 50 60
  • Are the most carbon-intensive energy system
    investments being made and
  • Have little or no practical potential for adding
    equipment that could capture carbon before it is
    emitted and then injecting the captured carbon
    into geologic formations for permanent
  • Large numbers of new PC power plants are being
    built today and are projected to be built over
    the next twenty five years primarily (56) in
    China and India.
  • If these projected PC plants are built, they will
    clearly bust the global carbon budget for
    achieving the EU temperature targets.
  • This batch of new coal plants will burn more
    coal in their lifetime than has been burned by
    industrial society to date.

New coal in China/India dominates projected
carbon growth
India coal
China coal
Projected carbon lock-in from new PC plants
through 2030
China new PC power plant carbon emissions in
The Scale Issue
  • 500 PPM 7 GTC/year reductions by mid-century.
  • That would require about 12 TW of clean energy --
    about same as all energy consumed on Earth today.

Existing commercial low carbon technologies good
but not enough to fill the wedges we need
Note Mid-century target of 550 PPM requires 7
GTC reduction from business as usual, or
roughly 12 TW of carbon-free energy.
Adapted from Pacala and Socolow (2004)
IPCC View of Carbon Capture and Storage
  • Recent IPCC modeling sees CCS as providing a
    considerable portion of total CO2 least cost
    reductions during this century.
  • IPCC estimates that widespread availability of
    CCS will reduce total carbon mitigation costs by

IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage Summary for Policymakers as approved by
the 8th Session of IPCC Working Group III,
September 25th, 2005, Montreal, Canada
  • Thanks to Luke OKeefe of OKeefe Consulting, LLC
    for assistance in preparing this presentation