CMI ANNUAL MEETING 2007

Transcription

1 CMI ANNUAL MEETING 2007 CAPTURE GROUP Robert H. Williams 21 February 2007 Princeton, New Jersey

2 Carbon Capture Personnel Williams Socolow Law Consonni (Milan) Li (Tsinghua) Tools Aspen Plus and GS (Milan): plant design Markal: energy forecasting Combustion Laboratory Scouts Pulp Mill Biorefineries Core Research Catalyzing early commercialization of CCS Thermochemical conversion of biomass Co-firing with coal Power or synfuels Sustainable feedstocks DF-x collaboration (advanced capture, low-rank coals) Polygeneration of electricity and synfuels (with Tsinghua) Baseload wind (with natural gas) H 2 and DME combustion

3 CATALYZING EARLY COMMERCIALIZATION OF CCS: CO 2 CAPTURE AND USE FOR ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY IN TEXAS?

4 Locations of 15 Sites for 18 Proposed Power Plants in Texas All but #13 (a 600 MW e petcoke IGCC unit) are pulverized coal steam-electric units. Eleven of the proposed coal units (9.08 GW e ) would be built by Texas Utilities

5 CO 2 EOR Potential Central Texas/East Texas/Texas Gulf Coast Source: Advanced Resources International (2006) CO 2 EOR [15%/y IRR hurdle rate, $40/barrel oil price, $38/tonne CO 2 price] Economic Potential = 7.9 x 10 9 barrels CO 2 from 6.0 GW e IGCC w/ccs More in Permian Basin = 8.6 x 10 9 barrels CO 2 from 8.7 GW e IGCC w/ccs Texas Total: 1.5 million barrels per day 30 y average with CO 2 from 14.7 GW e

6 CO 2 CAPTURE/EOR OPPORTUNITY FOR TEXAS COAL POWER? Can Texas EOR opportunity be used for Early launch of CCS activity for coal? Buy-down of costs for CCS technologies, gasification technologies? Most plans are for coal supercritical steam (SCS) plants with CO 2 vented economic prospects for CO 2 capture/eor use not favorable Most likely coals are low-rank (LR) PRB sub-bituminous or Texas lignite, with high moisture and/or ash content Dry-feed gasifiers can be used with LR coals but economics for available options even less favorable than for SCS plants Least costly IGCC options for bituminous coals (GE, CP) are waterslurry-feed gasifiers not economically attractive for moist coals Advanced IGCC options suitable for low-rank coals being developed CO 2 capture/eor for IGCC fired with LR coal/petcoke blends?

7 GULF COAST PETCOKE FOR BLENDING w/lr COALS IN GASIFICATION ENERGY SYSTEMS US Gulf Coast petcoke production (24 x 10 6 t/y in 2005) accounts for 1/3 of global total Gulf Coast petcoke production doubled, Outstanding feedstock for gasification: Low cost, high energy density, low ash, H 2 O content S, heavy metals readily captured pre-combustion and disposed of Petcoke/coal blends often preferred Opportunity to use low-cost slurry-feed gasifiers with LR coals (blend can look like bitiminous coal) for which preliminary estimates suggest favorable economics for CO 2 capture/use for EOR Uncertain how much petcoke needed in blend to make slurry-feed gasifiers economic for CO 2 capture/eor use Economics driven largely by O 2 requirements for gasification

8 O 2 REQUIRED FOR GASIFICATION OF PETCOKE/PRB COAL BLEND IN GE IGCC PLANT Pure O2 per Input LHV (kg/s per GWth) Oxidant: 95% O 2 Illinois #6 bituminous coal Percent PRB Coal in Petcoke Mixture Petcoke 5% H 2 O 6.6% S 0.13% ash 32.3 MJ/kg PRB coal 30% H 2 O 0.37% S 5.32% ash 17.5 MJ/kg Gasification at 1326 o C Constant heating value of S-free syngas to gas turbine 0.32 kg H 2 O added to feedstock for slurry feed to gasifier

9 Challenges POLICY ISSUES Difficulties of organizing needed resources Oil price collapse risk CCS technology risks Technical risks of early gasification energy projects Case for state action: state would benefit from oil industry rejuvenation, improved air quality Norway precedent (Bellona Foundation initiative) All new power plants would capture CO 2 for storage on Norweigan Continental Shelf Incentives to promote CO 2 use for enhanced oil/gas recovery New state enterprise to work with private sector in establishing infrastructure for CO 2 transport/storage

10 BASELOAD WIND POWER WITH NATURAL GAS-FIRED COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE

11 WIND VS COAL Abundant wind resources but Intermittency Supplies remote from demand centers Baseload power from wind?

12 BASELOADING WIND Backup:Natural Gas (SC/CC) Low Capital Cost Fast Ramping Storage: CAES Low Cost Bulk Storage Potential for Widespread Availability

13 COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE (CAES) 1) Excess Power is Used To Compress Air 2) Air is Pumped Underground And Stored 3) When electricity is needed, stored air is utilized to run a gasfired expander

14 COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE Gas turbine Air Compressor train Expander/generator train Exhaust P C P E Intercoolers Heat recuperator Fuel (e.g. natural gas) Air Storage Aquifer, salt cavern, or hard mine Round-trip efficiency: ~80%

15 GENERATION COSTS FOR BASELOAD POWER OPTIONS Fixed O&M Cost of Energy ($/MWh) Capital CO2 Transport+Storage Fuel 0 IGCC Vent IGCC w/ccs Wind/CAES Wind/Gas Variable O&M 85% capacity factor assumed for all systems No valuation of GHG emissions No Transmission Costs

16 BASELOAD POWER GENERATION COSTS WITH GHG EMISSIONS VALUATION 90 Cost of Energy ($/MWh) Fixed O&M Capital GHG emissions, $100/tC CO2 Transport+Storage Fuel 0 IGCC Vent IGCC w/ccs Wind/CAES Wind/Gas Variable O&M 237 gc/kwh 53 gc/kwh 23 gc/kwh 62 gc/kwh

17 GENERATION COSTS WITH TRANSMISSION COSTS ADDED FOR WIND OPTIONS Fixed O&M Cost of Energy ($/MWh) Capital 500km HV Transmission GHG emissions, $100/tC CO2 Transport+Storage 10 Fuel 0 IGCC Vent IGCC w/ccs Wind/CAES Wind/Gas Variable O&M

18 HIGHLIGHTING AVERAGE DISPATCH COSTS FOR BASELOAD OPTIONS Fixed O&M Cost of Energy ($/MWh) Capital 500km HV Transmission GHG emissions, $100/tC CO2 Transport+Storage 10 Fuel 0 IGCC Vent IGCC w/ccs Wind/CAES Wind/Gas Variable O&M

19 DISPATCH COST ISSUES Dispatch Cost: fuel + variable operations and maintenance + greenhouse gas emissions price + CO 2 transport + storage (short-run marginal cost) Actual capacity factors determined in economic dispatch Systems called on based on dispatch cost Baseload viability requires competitive dispatch costs to sustain large capacity factors

20 VARIABLE DISPATCH COST: WIND/GAS Natural Gas Only Wind Only Wind and Natural Gas

21 VARIABLE DISPATCH COST: WIND/CAES Storage Output Only Wind + Storage Output Wind Only Wind (Rated Capacity) + Charging Storage

22 DISPATCH COSTS FOR BASELOAD OPTIONS AT $0/tC Wind/CAES Competes >75% of the time Wind/Gas Competes ~30-40% of the time

23 VARIABLE DISPATCH COST AT $100/tC Wind/CAES Competes >90% of the time

24 US CAES POTENTIAL FOR WIND BALANCING Geology Suitable for CAES and Class 4+ Wind Resources Air Storage in Porous Rock (Sandstone) Reservoir Planned 2011 Iowa Wind/CAES Plant 75MW Wind + 268MW CAES (IAMU 2006) Deploying CAES in a large scale for wind balancing implies a substantial role for aquifers Natural gas storage experience provides relevant tools for analyzing site suitability Attention must be given to potential impacts of mineralogical reactions resulting from introduction of O 2 into reservoir e.g., by careful site selection and dehydration of injected air Impact of rapid/frequent compression/expansion mode switching on reservoir and turbomachinery is critical Footprint of aquifer needed to baseload wind is ~2% of wind farm land area

25 ASSUMPTIONS System capacities in GW 2.0 transmission line 3.09 wind farm rated capacity with CAES 2.0 CAES expander 1.09 CAES compressor 2.0 wind farm with NG backup Other transmission line parameters 500 km 2.72% losses 85% Capacity Factor for All Systems 15% Levelized Capital Charge Rate IGCC Costs, GE Entrained Flow Quench Gasifier (FWE 2003) IGCC-V (826.5 MW e ): OCC $1135/kW, LHV η = 38% IGCC-C (730.3 MW e ): OCC $1428/kW, LHV η = 31.5% Wind/CAES Costs $923/kW Wind, $453/kW, $1.75/kWh CAES Gas Turbine Costs $234/kW SC, $571/kW CC Fuel Costs, $2002 (EIA 2006) Natural Gas $5.05/GJ HHV Coal $1.31/GJ HHV