Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Delivering Results for Over a Decade

Transcription

1 Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Delivering Results for Over a Decade Presented to Wood Pellet Association of Canada, 20 November

2 Who Is the CCPC? An association of Canadian and U.S. coal and coal-fired electricity producers, government agencies and research organizations Industry participants include: Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment Solutions Capital Power Corporation Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Nova Scotia Power Inc. Sherritt International Corporation SaskPower TransAlta Corporation Government Sponsors: Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources Natural Resources Canada (CanmetENERGY)

3 Our Mandate The CCPC's mandate is to research technologies with the goal of developing and advancing commercially viable solutions that lower coal power plant emissions Our objective is to demonstrate that coal-fired electricity generation can effectively address environmental issues and move us forward to a cleaner energy future

4 New Coal GHG Regulations New plants must have GHG emission intensity of.42 t CO 2 /MWh compared to about.9 t CO 2 /MWh for new SCPC plants and 1.1 t CO 2 /MWh for old plants Plants greater than 47 to 50 years of age must meet the same intensity Plant by plant basis, no way to benefit from over complying at 90% capture No way to buy your way out, therefore no carbon market This requires about 60% CO 2 capture cost prohibitive now New technologies may bring costs down 4

5 Alberta Plant Decommissioning 5

6 Will Biomass Be Used In the short term as long as the carbon tax is $15/t not likely Biomass could be used to life extend plants for a short period of time without needing to install significant capital However, will have to compete with other kinds of CO 2 capture technologies to life extend for say 20 years 6

7 Will Coal Life Extend with Biomass? Coal plants will only operate for more than 50 years if: NPV n (Power Rev Opex Tax) > Life Extension Cost (Capex) + Cost of Other Emission Control Technology (Capex & Opex) + Cost of GHG Reduction Technology (Capex & Opex) Same equation for new coal plants except life extension cost becomes construction cost 7

8 Introduction FP Innovations studied co-firing at three coal plant at 10, 20 and 70% firing rates The costs for about a dozen kinds of fuel were estimated The volume of existing fuels were estimated within 100 and 150 km of the plants The proportion of farm area around the plants was determined for plantation crops Estimated costs for growing, harvesting, transporting, processing, storing, drying, handling, conveying and combusting 8

9 Biomass Requirements Power Plant Biomass Requirements (ODt/year) Co-firing rate Wabamun Lake, AB (300 MWe) Shand, SK (276 MWe) Trenton, NS (150 MWe) 5% 10% 20% 70% 80, , ,000 1,040,000 80, , ,000 1,070,000 40,000 80, , ,000 Assumes 16 GJ/ODt high calorific value of biomass 5% co-firing rate minimum biomass quantity to be considered in the study 9

10 Feedstocks Biomass Type Agricultural Residues Woody Biomass Wood Pellets Short Rotation Energy Crops (SREC) Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Availability/Potential in Study Area Wabamun, AB Shand, SK Trenton, NS Wheat, oat, and barley straw Wheat and flax straw Not available Whole tree chips Forest residual chips Not available Whole tree chips Industrial and premium Industrial and premium pellets pellets Premium pellets Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Altai Wildrye Grass Miscanthus Miscanthus Smooth Bromegrass Jerusalem Artichoke Switchgrass Intermediate Wheat Hemp Willow coppice Grass Willow coppice Hybrid Poplar Willow coppice Hybrid Poplar coppice coppice Hybrid Poplar coppice MSW pellets or fluff Not available Not available 10

11 Technical and Cost Info Power Plant Parameters Plant Capacity (MW) 300 Capacity factor (%) 90% Base Heat rate (GJ/MWh) 10.0 GHG Intensity (tco 2 /MWh) 1.0 Cost of Coal ($/GJ) 1.0 Power Price ($/MWh) 90 Coal Calorific Value (GJ/tonne) 19 10% Co-firing rate 124,484 Coal replaced (tonnes/year) 20% Co-firing rate 248,968 70% Co-firing rate 871,389 10% Co-firing rate 0% Derate factor (% of biomass capacity) 20% Co-firing rate 0% 70% Co-firing rate 3% Biomass Processing Parameters Capital Cost Pellets ($/kw) 260 Capital Cost Dry Biomass ($/kw) 1,000 Capital Cost Wet Biomass ($/kw) 1,100 Capital Recovery Factor Operational Costs (% of Capital cost) 2% GHG Intensity Hammer milling (kgco 2 /MWh) 15 GHG Intensity Drying (kgco 2 /MWh) 8 Portion of biomass used at drier (%) 18% Cost of energy Hammer milling ($/ODt) 2 Cost of energy Drying ($/ODt) 11 1 Carbon Credit Revenue ($/tco 2 ) 15

12 Biomass Availability & Costs Feedstock Type Biomass Available (ODt) 100 km Radius 150 km Radius Co-firing Rate Supported (%) 100 km Radius 150 km Radius Point of Origin Cost ($/ODt) Transportation costs ($/ODt) 100 km Radius 150 km Radius Power plant gate costs ($/ODt) 100 km Radius Barley Straw 5,776 6, % 0.4% Wheat Straw 135, , % 27.3% Flax Straw % 0.1% Oat Straw 22,895 39, % 3.2% Whole Tree Chips Woodlots 216, , % 57.5% km Radius Whole Tree Chips unused AAC 110, , % 74.3% Forest residuals FMU 76, , % 62.9% Forest residuals over AAC 6,591 60, % 5.1% Wood Pellets BC 1,810,000 >100% Wood Pellets AB 140, % MSW RDF with Edmonton 800,000 61% MSW RDF without Enerkem 700,000 49% NA MSW RDF w/out Edmonton 194,000 13% Miscanthus Reed Canary Grass Jerusalem artichoke See area requirement table Hemp Willow coppice Poplar coppice

13 Plantation Area Required SHORT ROTATION ENERGY CROP (SREC) Area (ha) required for each energy crop to sustain the cofiring rates (%) Percent (%) of area required to sustain the co-firing rates ( CR %) 100 km Radius 150 km Radius CR 10% CR 20% CR 70% CR 10% CR 20% CR 70% CR 10% CR 20% Miscanthus 11,762 23,525 82, % 4.0% 14.1% 0.6% 1.2% 4.0% Reed Canary Grass 29,381 58, , % 10.1% 35.3% 1.4% 2.9% 10.1% Jerusalem artichoke 8,299 16,598 58, % 2.8% 10.0% 0.4% 0.8% 2.8% Hemp 12,854 25,709 89, % 4.4% 15.4% 0.6% 1.3% 4.4% Willow coppice 12,854 25,709 89, % 4.4% 15.4% 0.6% 1.3% 4.4% Poplar coppice 12,204 24,409 85, % 4.2% 14.6% 0.6% 1.2% 4.2% CR 70% 13

14 Biomass Cost ($ODT) - 70% Biomass Cost ($/ODt) Fuel High Fuel Low Capital ($/t) O&M ($/t) Drying/Milling CO2 Credits 50 14

15 Avoided Cost 10/20% Avoided CO 2 Cost ($/t) Net Fuel High Net Fuel Low Derate O&M Drying/Milling Capex 10 0 NOTE: if the LCA value of 2.98 tco 2 e/tonne of MSW pellets was utilized, the Avoided CO 2 cost low value would have decreased from $18.0/tCO 2 to $12.6/tCO 2, 15

16 Avoided Cost 70% Avoided CO 2 Cost ($/t) Net Fuel High Net Fuel Low Derate O&M Drying/Milling Capex 16

17 Increase in Power Cost 10% 8 Increase in Power Cost ($/MWh) Net Fuel High Net Fuel Low Derate O&M Drying/Milling Capex NOTE: if the LCA value of 2.98 tco 2 e/tonne of MSW pellets was utilized, the Increase in power cost low value would have decreased from $0.2/MWh to -$0.4/MWh (a decrease in power 17 cost)

18 Increase in Power Cost 20% Increase in Power Cost ($/MWh) Net Fuel High Net Fuel Low Derate O&M Drying/Milling Capex

19 Increase in Power Cost ($/MWh) Increase in Power cost 70% Net Fuel High Net Fuel Low Derate O&M Drying/Milling Capex

20 Increase in Power Cost for Biomass and Nat Gas Co-Firing Increase in Power Cost ($/MWh) (5) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % Biomass Firing Biomass $8/GJ $6/GJ $4/GJ $2/GJ $1/GJ Gas = $4/GJ 20

21 Avoided Cost Biomass/ Nat Gas Avoided Cost ($/t) (10) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % Biomass Firing Biomass Gas = $4/GJ $8/GJ $6/GJ $4/GJ $2/GJ $1/GJ 21

22 Co-firing Conclusions Co-firing CO 2 avoided costs may range from $20 to $100/t Won t be adopted at $15/t carbon tax This may be lower than carbon capture costs Plants with short economic lives may benefits from cofiring rather than carbon capture Co-firing will increase marginal costs Dispatch issues It may not be possible to co-fire enough biomass to meet new GHG requirements - Reduces amount of capture Co-firing can reduce sulphur emissions Largest cost is for biomass feedstock need to refine costs