Coal in a Climate-Disrupted World: Why and How? Armond Cohen Clean Air Task Force November 2007

Transcription

1 Coal in a Climate-Disrupted World: Why and How? Armond Cohen Clean Air Task Force November 2007

2 Main Points Coal is not going away anytime soon in fact it will likely expand dramatically worldwide. But coal s current environmental footprint (carbon and otherwise) is unacceptable. Aside from enacting carbon limits, we need to: Ban construction of new coal combustion plants. Immediately demonstrate zero-low carbon coal technologies (coal gasification, carbon capture and storage etc.) at commercial scale worldwide. Phase in CO2 performance standards on new plants. States can do a lot to move this agenda forward. 2

3 Coal power is largest global CO2 emissions slice Percentage of man-made CO2 emissions by sector Coal power Other power Industry Transport Other Source: CATF from International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook

4 World coal power use will likely double by GW Installed capacity Source: CATF from IEA WEO

5 Everything Else Coal Kyoto Target Reductions Source: International Energy Agency

6 India China Source: International Energy Agency

7 China will come to dominate US in coal capacity by GW Installed Coal Capacity China USA Source: CATF from IEA WEO

8 Even at lower end estimates, China coal build will by itself take up 20% of century s global carbon budget Total Carbon Emissions Through Gigatonnes of Carbon PPM Carbon Budget Carbon from New China Coal Source: CATF from O Neill (2005) and International Energy Agency

9 Unlike cars, these coal plants will last years Lifetime carbon from coal plants built in 2005 Lifetime carbon from cars sold in Sources: Transport (IEA, FHWA); Coal Power (CATF from IEA, MIT, UN) 9 CO2Emissions (Gigatons of Carbon Equivalent)

10 Coal s Dominance: Economics Coal and Gas Prices as Delivered to Electric Power Plants Coal Natural Gas Source: CATF from EIA (2006) 10

11 Coal s dominance: abundance and energy security Source: Booz Allen (2007) from BP (2006) 11

12 While the first and best alternative, even aggressive energy efficiency will be substantially outrun by GDP and demand growth, especially in the developing world China Source: MIT, Future of Nuclear Power (2004) 12

13 Other zero-carbon alternatives can contribute but scale-up will be very challenging Possible carbon free additions versus amount needed by 2050 to stabilize at 450 PPM Expanding global nuclear power 3 X to 1000 GW Gigatons of carbon displaced Building 2 TW of windpower globally (current US capacity of all types = 1 TW) 1 0 Possible added zero carbon energy Amount of displacement needed Source: CATF, adapted from Pacala and Socolow (2004) 13

14 Moving zero carbon coal forward by 6 months in China saves as much annual carbon as all world wind power installed today Gigawatts US Wind Capacity World Wind Capacity Wind Equivalent of 6 Month Advance of IGCC 14

15 Accordingly, most analyses identify significant role for decarbonized fossil/coal in a climate-constrained world E.g. recent studies from: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Energy Agency World Wildlife Fund Tyndall Centre/Friends of the Earth-UK European Commission 15

16 IPCC Fourth Assessment - Mitigation CCS 16

17 IEA (2006) Emissions Reductions by 2050 in IEA (2006) and Role of CCS 17

18 EU view Coal is expected to continue supplying about a quarter of global primary energy needs. As global primary energy consumption increases by 60% in the next 20 years, so will the use of coal. With current technologies, this would result in a 20% increase in global CO2 emissions by Two-thirds of this increase would arise in developing countries. The EU therefore needs to develop technological solutions for sustainable use of coal not only to retain coal in the European energy mix but also to ensure that global growth in coal use will be possible without irrevocable damage to the global climate. European Commission, COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Sustainable power generation from fossil fuels: aiming for near-zero emissions from coal after 2020 (January 10, 2007) (emphasis added). 18

19 What are the potential pathways for low/zero carbon coal? Carbon capture and storage (CCS) Enabling technologies for CCS: Integrated Gasification/Combined Cycle (IGCC) Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) Next generation coal gasification (molten bath, catalyst) Oxyfuel combustion Post-combustion capture 19

20 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is Proven Technology That Can Remove Carbon IGCC and gasification/carbon capture and storage both have been applied commercially (but not together) ISAB Commercial 550 MW IGCC - Sicily Dakota gasification (coal synthetic natural gas with CO2 capture and sequestration in Saskatchewan oil fields) Beulah, ND Coffeyville Gasification/Fertilizer Plant (captures CO 2 ) Coffeyville, KS 20

21 IGCC emission levels similar to those of combined cycle natural gas plant Power Plant Typical Emissions by Technology Type 0.5 lb/mmbtu NOx SO2 Particulates Traditional PC Retrofit Older PC's w/scrubbers & SCR (using low-s Coal) Advanced PC/SCPC/CFB IGCC w/mdea Absorber Type of Power Plant IGCC w/rectisol & SCR NGCC w/scr Source: CATF from recent permit applications 21

22 IGCC produces significantly lower waste volume and uses less water IGCC produces significantly less waste that a fully controlled PC or CFB plant 50% Bituminous. 30% Sub-bituminous. 15% Lignite. Source: Eastman Chemical IGCCs use 1/3 rd less water than PCs and CFBs. Supercritical PC, Water Loss GPM Bituminous 9,569 Sub bituminous 9,667 Lignite 10,290 IGCC Water Loss, GPM 6,137 6,528 6,975 Percent IGCC/SCPC 64% 68% 68% Source: EPA 22

23 Status of IGCC Still not widely accepted as fully commercial or competitive option in US or China and is therefore being rejected in favor of conventional coal combustion. Several active US proposals. Will probably need 10+ operating full- scale projects in China, EU, US respectively across coal ranks before this perception is changed. US must lead. 23

24 Underground coal gasification (UCG) Reaction takes place in situ. Advantages: Avoids mining, transportation and waste impacts. Much of potential contaminant stream does not reach surface. High pressures and coal seam characteristics may allow for reinjection of carbon for storage near-site. Challenges: Experience/knowledge base is siloed, from US and European tests in 80s and 90s. Most experience from former Soviet Union (abandoned in 1960s for cheap Siberian gas). Many pilots underway, commercial scale projects proposed South Africa, India, Wyoming. 24

25 QuickTime and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

26 Geologic carbon storage will it work? IPCC Special Report on CCS (2005): if a site is chosen well and operated well, then it is: Highly likely (>90%) to store 99.9% of injected CO2 in place for 100 s of years Likely to store 99% for 1000 s of years Great value even if temporary (100s of years) Challenges: Site selection Monitoring and Verification Refinement of legal and regulatory regime. Can be done today, but full ramp-up would require 10+ large scale demos as well as development of associated regulatory regime. This will likely require external funding for CCS in an IGCC context, until a carbon price is established in range of $30-40/ton CO2. 26

27 Geological carbon storage: is there enough worldwide capacity? IPCC 2005 report: Conservative estimate: 545 GtC of storage capacity Current CO2 emissions from world power sector approx. 2.5 GtC annually Right: Suitable CCS formations (IPCC 2005) 27

28 ~.5 Gt ~34 Mt ~6Mt ~1.2 Mt ~2.7 Gt ~1.7 Gt We are handling gases and fluids on similar scale already Large quantities Gases Sub-seabed CO 2 from all US power plants 1000 Long Time Frame Mt/year 100 ~150Mt 10 ~2 Mt ~28Mt 1 FL Municipal Wastewater Oilfield Brine Hazardous Waste Acid Gas Natural Gas Storage CO 2 for EOR Source: M. Granger Morgan (2003) OCS water injected for EOR and brine disposal OCS gases (e.g., NG) 28

29 US needs to lead China and India won t move without us acting first. ( You got rich off of cheap coal, why shouldn t we? ) US market can absorb a (modest) scale up premium US technological advantage and export opportunity 29

30 What states can do Ban construction of new coal combustion plants, for which practical carbon capture options do not exist today. Through PUC regulatory policy and other financial incentives, encourage development of new coal gasification plants, IGCC or otherwise Incent retirement/replacement of existing coal plants with advanced fossil technology 30

31 What states can do (2) Encourage development of early partial CCS: Rate recovery approval of CCS costs. Production tax credit for the capture of CO2 from coal power plants. Where applicable, incent EOR pipeline infrastructure to make use of carbon capture from fossil plants. Set 90% carbon capture requirement for new coal plants by 2020, existing plants by

32 What states can do (3) Development of state-based regulations for carbon capture and storage. Where appropriate, create task force to adapt existing state oil and gas regulations to accommodate interim CCS projects State-based regulations for UCG. Direct workforce training resources to toward engineering, construction, and operation of advanced fossil technologies Develop extensive state-based geologic assessments of opportunities for CCS and UCG in state. 32

33 Summary Coal: can t live with it (in current form). Coal: can t live without it (for decades). Got to change what we do with it and address upstream/downstream impacts. If we don t move soon, climate game over. States can help break the deadlock. 33

34 Supplemental Material 34

35 CO2 Options Source: Booz Allen (2007) 35

36 36 Source: CCS will be needed apart from coal power generation

37 Biofuels presently land-constrained (putting aside net carbon balances) Terawatts Total world energy demand 2000 Total projected world energy demand 2050 Total current global biomass for food, fiber, fuel etc Total primary global photosynthethic energy - high Source: V. Smil, 2006; Lewis,

38 One nuclear wedge would require a build rate of approximately 20 GW per year for 50 years, equal to the rate achieved during the fastest period of world nuclear expansion ( ) Nuclear build rate by decade (MW) 20 GW/y Source: Keystone Center (2007) 38

39 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Particulate Removal Gas Cleanup Shift Reactor Synthesis Gas Conversion Gasifier Particulates Fuels and Chemicals Coal, Petroleum coke, Biomass, Waste, etc. Gaseous Constituents Solids Oxygen Air Solid By-product Air Separator Sulfur By-product Air Compressed Air Combustor Hydrogen Separation Fuel Cells Gas Turbine Generator Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Hydrogen Electric Power Electric Power Air Heat Recovery Steam Generator Steam Solid By-product Steam Stack Generator Steam Turbine Electric Power Source: US Dept. of Energy/National Energy Technology Labs (NETL) 39

40 Oxyfuel combustion Pure oxygen used for combustion, which results in a pure CO2 flue gas. Potential projects: Vattenfall plans 300 MW demo by 2015, commercial by 2020 Saskpower 300 MW by 2012 AEP commercial scale retrofit Next step: 30 MW demos. Vattenfall Proposed Oxyfuel project 40

41 Post combustion CO2 capture Use of solvents to absorb CO2, then release through solvent regeneration. Currently available technology includes in 30-40% energy penalty. More advanced designs: Alstom s chilled ammonia slated for pilot/demo-scale testing ( ) Potential breakthrough areas include phase change materials. Alstom chilled ammonia design 41

42 IGCC and sequestration economics Carbon capture and sequestration probably will require a carbon price of cents/kwh, equivalent to a $100/ton carbon (~$30.00/ton CO 2 ) allowance price. Average annual generation in PJM (GW) as estimated by Carnegie Mellon from dispatch modeling w/ CCS coal gas nuclear gas w/ccs coal w/ccs renewables Carbon allowance price $/TON 42

43 EU Landscape Zero Emissions Platform 10 to 12 Coal power/ccs projects on-line by 2015 ( MW sized projects) Incentives provided by EU through member states 43