Clean Coal Technology Research

Transcription

1 Clean Coal Technology Research Indiana CCTR Advisory Panel Meeting Vincennes University September 6, 2007 University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research Don Challman Associate Director & General Mgr Tel: 859/ Photo art: A. Benlow

2 Agenda Part 1 CAER Overview History Mission Resources Research Emphasis Photo art: A. Benlow

3 Agenda Part 2 Coal-to-Liquids Why CTL? Coal Input, Products Environ. Performance EASTERN AND WESTERN KENTUCKY COALS (With and without Carbon Capture) Photo art: A. Benlow

4 History Center opened th Anniversary Advertisement Originally supported synthetic transport fuels industry Expanded: electric power & emissions control, carbon materials, biofuels, electrochemical devices

5 Research and Development (R&D) Our Mission Service to Industry Teaching and Instruction

6 Resources Funding: 7-8 Million USD - 38% grants and contracts Research Staff Staff of about 100 (1/3 PhDs) Additional 25 students and faculty

7 Research Emphasis Applied engineering pilot/demo scale Resources - coal, oil shale, bio-fuels, H2 End-use - Electricity, fuels and chemicals, carbon materials At the plant mines, utilities, refineries, mill

8 Applied Research Mining - Coal Prep/Cleaning - Coal Slurry Ponds** - Mine Mapping Center Electric Power - Generation - Emissions Control** - Carbon Management - Beneficial Re-use of By-products (ash, slag, FGD, etc.)**

9 Applied Research Fuels, Chemicals & Materials - Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) Technologies** - Catalyst Research and Testing Center - Oil Shale Retorting - Carbon Materials** - Environmental Catalysis - Agricultural Bio-fuels** - Fuel Cells, Batteries and Devices

10 Coal Slurry Ponds Coarse waste shale/ rock Fine coal waste 508 KY Sites 650M tons potentially recoverable

11 Coal Fuel Briquettes Product Coal-equivalent fuel for power stations made of coal fines and saw dust Briquettes - 14,000 Btu/lb

12 Power Generation Cost Availability of Supply Reliability Environmental Compatibility - Carbon management at top of list Photo art: A. Benlow

13 Research directed to Lowering Energy Penalty of CO 2 Capture Options Post-Combustion Capture: PC + MEA (28-34%) Steam consumption for stripper: 20% of gross power output Booster fan and agent pump for MEA scrubber: 3-4% of gross power output Pre-combustion Capture: IGCC (total 15-24%) ASU + oxygen compression: 8-12% of gross power output Selexol CO 2 separation: 2% of gross power output In-situ Capture: Oxy-Fuel Combustion (total 22-32%) ASU: 15-20% of gross power output Flue gas recirculation: 2% of gross power output Possible CO2 further enrichment (unknown) ** Compression Train: 5-10% of gross power output

14 By-Products - Power Generation (Ash, Slag, FBC & FGD Materials) Large volume fly ash produced Ohio River Valley Area around Kentucky - 32 PCC plants - >7M tpy (1/2 from KY) 60% beneficial re-use some states/ky 20% Fly ash quality lower/declines due to pollution control (low-nox burners) and co-firing Requires upgrade to increase quality and use Additional by-products from scrubbers, FBC, IGCC require other handling

15 Current Uses for By-Products A $500,000,000 Kentucky Industry Roofing Granules from Cyclone Combustors 500,000 Tons From Kentucky Sources, $14,000,000 value $2.4 million in wages Concrete Additive from PCC Fly Ash Wallboard from Flue Gas Scrubbers 450,000 Tons From Two Kentucky Wallboard Plants $60,000,000 in Wages $190,000,000 Product Value 100,000 Tons From Kentucky Sources, $1.6 million value

16 Clean Fuels and Chemicals Started w/ direct coal liquefaction, oil shale retorting, product upgrading Emphasis on CTL and GTL catalysis - internationally-recognized catalyst center Shift to hydrogen optimization Bio-fuels Environmental catalysis

17 Coal Fuel Alliance Obama-Luger Amendment - Section 417, 2005 EPAct Improve research capabilities (6 slurry bubble column FT reactor/refinery for wax upgrading to fuels Focus on producing test fuels Labor force development - training engineers / operators *$9M capital/$1.5m annual operating.

18 Biomass Process Scheme Radius of Feasibility Current CAER Research Activities Briquetting and Agglomeration Resolution of technical obstacles impeding commercial production of briquetted fuels from coal and biomass wastes; Production of biomass briquettes as an alternative fuel Biomass gasification/ pyrolysis Biomass fast pyrolysis with in-situ catalyst to yield high-btu oils Biomass liquefaction On-Site Thermochemical Densification of Biomass Integrated biomass gasification to PC for green electricity generation Biochar as soil amendment and Hg sorbent

19 Graphite Carbon Materials R&D Pitch & Coke Fiber and Composites Nanotubes Active Carbons

20 Agenda Part 2 Coal-to-Liquids Why CTL? Coal Input, Products Environ. Performance EASTERN AND WESTERN KENTUCKY COALS (With and without Carbon Capture) Photo art: A. Benlow

21 Why CTL? Energy independence National security Improved balance of trade New industries/economic development Stabilize domestic fuel prices at pump Improved economic environment

22 U.S. Supply, Consumption & Imports Liquid Fuels/Other Petroleum (MBD) 30 History Projections Consumption Net Imports 61% 15 60% 10 Domestic Supply Annual Energy Outlook 2007

23 Not Our Most Favored Trading Partners World Proved Oil Reserves (bil. barrels) Middle East 739 North America 213 Africa Central & South America Eurasia Asia Europe World Total = 1,317 billion barrels Oil & Gas Journal (Dec. 18, 2006)

24 Demand for CTL

25 Agenda Part 2 Coal-to-Liquids Why CTL? Coal Input, Products Environ. Performance EASTERN AND WESTERN KENTUCKY COALS (With and without Carbon Capture) Photo art: A. Benlow

26 Coal or FT Products

27 KY CTL Case Studies Case No. Capacity Configuration Coal Type BPD 1 10,000 No Carbon Capture 3 10,000 No Carbon Capture 5 10,000 With Carbon Capture E KY W KY E KY Source: Mitretek

28 Go to: Advertisement y.edu/newsroom/n ews2007/hb299- Report-CTL- SNGTechnologies 2007.pdf

29 Capital Equip Cost (MM$) Case 1 Case 3 Case 5 10,000 BPD E KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD W KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD E KY w/ CC Gasifier Syngas Cleaning Air Separation Fischer-Tropsch Power/Heat Recovery Balance of Plant Total Source: Mitretek

30 Total Capital Cost (MM$) Case 1 Case 3 Case 5 10,000 BPD E KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD W KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD E KY w/ CC Home Office Process Contingency Project Contingency License Fees Financing/Legal Non-depreciable Capital Capital Equip Total Source: Mitretek

31 Capital Cost ($) w/ Size 10,000 BPD $1 Billion 30,000 BPD $2.5 Billion 60,000 BPD $4 Billion 100,000 BPD $5-6 Billion

32 Operating Cost/Yr (MM$) Case 1 Case 3 Case 5 10,000 BPD E KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD W KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD E KY w/ CC Royalties Coal Feed Catalyst/Chemicals, Materials/Maintenance Labor/Overhead Adm., Tax, Insurance Gross Operating Byproduct Credit Net Source: Mitretek

33 Coal Input and Products Case 1 Case 3 Case 5 10,000 BPD E KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD W KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD E KY w/ CC Coal Feed (TPD) 4,844 5,438 4,844 Naptha (BPD) 3,507 3,507 3,507 Diesel (BPD) 7,495 7,495 7,495 Parasitic Power (MWe) Power Sales (MWe) Sulfur (TPD) Source: Mitretek

34 Coal Feed (TPD) w/ SIZE 10,000 BPD 5000 TPD 30,000 BPD 15,000 TPD 60,000 BPD 30,000 TPD 100,000 BPD 50,000 TPD

35 Economic Summary Case 1 Case 3 Case 5 10,000 BPD E KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD W KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD E KY w/ CC Capital ($/DB) 87,814 89,733 89,623 Capital O&M Coal Power Credit Total RSP ($/B COE) Source: Mitretek

36 $100 World Oil Price, (2005 dollars per barrel) History Projections $80 High Price $60 Reference $40 Low Price $20 $ Annual Energy Outlook 2007

37 Coal Input vs. Emissions Coal Feed (TPD) CO2 Captured (TPD) CO2 Released (TPD) SOx Released (TPD) NOx Released (TPD) Case 1 Case 3 Case 5 10,000 BPD E KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD W KY w/o CC 10,000 BPD E KY w/ CC 4,844 5,438 4, ,249 7,990 8, Source: Mitretek

38 Fuel Quality

39 CTL Carbon Footprint

40 Questions?