COAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCILSM Carbon Capture and Storage: A Technology Solution for Continued Coal Use in a Carbon Constrained World Congressional Briefing May 22, 2008 562 Dirksen Senate Office Building 1
What Are Current CO 2 Capture and Storage Technology Costs? Congressional Staff Briefing May 22, 2008 Stuart Dalton (sdalton@epri.com) Director, Generation, EPRI
Background On Cost EPRI has redone capital cost and O&M estimates for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle with Capture of CO 2 (IGCC/CCS) and Pulverized Fuel with CCS (PC/CCS) Huge escalation in past few years world competition Options are needed New Federal, Private RD&D should reduce costs and improve efficiency Accelerated EPRI / industry funding for projects both supporting DOE projects and separate RD&D. 3
IHS/CERA Power Capital Costs Index North American Power Construction Costs Rise 27% in 12 Months Continuing Cost Pressures Likely to Bring Delays and Postponements Escalation hits chemical, energy very hard almost double cost estimates in last two years Source: IHS/CERA Press Release 2/14/08 4
Capital Cost Estimates in Press Announcements and Submissions to PUCs in 2007 08 All costs are higher, more than would be predicted from indices (e.g., CEPCI) Owner Name/Location Net MW Technology/ Coal AEP/ Swepco Southern Co. Hempstead, AK Kemper County, MS Estimate Date Reported Capital $ Million Reported Capital $/kw Notes/Status 600 SCPC/PRB Dec. 2006 1680 2800 CPCN issued 560 Air IGCC/ Lignite Dec. 2006 1800 3000 FEED in progress Duke Cliffside, NC 800 SCPC/ Bit May 2007 2400 3000 Permitted Duke AEP Tampa Electric Edwardsport, IN Mountaineer, WV Polk County, FL 630 IGCC/ Bit May 2008 2350 In Service 3730 Permitted 630 IGCC/Bit June 2007 2230 3545 Permit in Review 630 IGCC/Bit July 2007 1613 (all $?) 2013 Serv 2554/ 3185 Shelved; now NGCC Sunflower Holcomb, KS 2 x 700 SCPC/PRB Sept. 2007 3600 2572 Permit denied Am. Muni. Power Meigs County, OH 1000 SCPC/Bit & PRB Jan. 2008 2900/3300 2900/3300 Tenaska Sweetwater County, TX 600 SCPC + CCS/PRB Feb. 2008 3000 5000 5
With Current Technology CO 2 Capture Costly; No Clear Winners in Current Designs 30-Yr levelized COE, $/MWh (constant 2006$) 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Illinois #6 Bituminous No Capture Retrofit Capture New Capture Installed Later MEA- installed initially PRB ( Western Coal)) COE Includes $10/tonne for CO2 Transportation and Sequestration IGCC & CCS include 10% TPC contingency for first-of-kind Supercritical PC GE Total Quench Ultrasupercritical PC Conoco Phillips IGCC 6
CO 2 Capture Can Be Done Today, But. As last slides shows It would increase the cost of electric power from coal significantly and there are no clear winners for all coals EPRI s current estimates Cost of power from a pulverized coal plant with post-combustion capture would be 60-80% higher Cost of power from an IGCC with pre-combustion capture would be 40-50% higher (but IGCCs start out with a higher cost, so won t necessarily be cheapest option with CCS) Cost of oxy-combustion more difficult to estimate with certainty at this stage of development but overall cost of power probably similar to PC + post combustion capture Luckily, EPRI also estimates that with a concerted RD&D effort, the cost impact of CCS should decrease dramatically 7
Cost & Performance Penalties for CO 2 Capture (based on retrofit of existing PC or IGCC plant today s technology) 30% 28% PC-Bit PC-Subbit Reduction in Net Power Output 26% 24% 22% 20% 18% IGCC Shell-Bit IGCC Shell-Subbit IGCC E-Gas-Subbit IGCC E-Gas-Bit IGCC GE RQ-Bit 16% IGCC GE Q-Bit 14% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Increase in Capital Cost ($/kw) 8
EPRI Estimates of the Benefits and Timing of RD&D in Gasification of Coal 1.5 1.4 Presumes public/private partnership 46 44 Total Plant Cost ($/kw, constant dollars normalized to 2005 plant cost)* 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 Near-Term Add SCR Eliminate spare gasifier F-class to G-class CTs Improved Hg detection Mid-Term ITM oxygen G-class to H-class CTs Supercritical HRSG Dry ultra-low-no X combustors Long-Term Membrane separation Warm gas cleanup CO 2 -coal slurry Longest-Term Fuel cell hybrids 42 40 38 36 34 32 Plant Net Efficiency (HHV Basis) 0.6 30 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 9
EPRI Estimates of the Benefits and Timing of RD&D in Combustion 1.3 1.2 Presumes public/private partnership 44 42 Total Plant Cost ($/kw, constant dollars normalized to 2005 plant cost) * 1.1 Near Mid-Term Upgrade steam Mid-Term conditions to Upgrade steam conditions to 1.0 1110 F main steam 1300 F main & reheat steam, then 1150 F reheat steam 1400 F main steam & double reheat Near-Term Upgrade solvent from MEA to 0.9 MHI KS-1 (or equivalent) 36 Upgrade steam conditions from 1050 F main & reheat steam 0.8 to 1100 F main & reheat steam 34 Long-Term Upgrade solvent to 0.7 <10% energy 32 penalty and <20% COE penalty 0.6 30 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 40 38 Plant Net Efficiency (HHV Basis) 10
What Could be Retrofit? U.S. Coal Plant Age 350 U.S. Coal Power Unit Distribution Number of Units 300 250 200 150 100 300 233 220 Most Likely for Retrofit Most Likely for Retrofit 142 50 0 24 20 1 6 >60 51 60 41 50 31 40 21 30 11 20 6 10 0 5 Age in Years Category 11
What if your new conventional plant may need CO 2 capture later in its life? There are some things you should do differently: Add space Ensure access to suitable geologic storage site Make plant as efficient as practical higher efficiency means less CO 2 to capture and compress Design emissions controls to either achieve ultra-low SOx and NOx emissions today, or be readily upgradeable For solvent-based systems, design steam turbine to accommodate very large extraction of low pressure steam for regeneration 12
Retrofit Issues for Post Combustion Capture (e.g., for Existing Coal Plants) Space, steam, energy and cost Need ~ 6 acres near an operating 500 MW plant Have all areas near stack been used for FGD, SCR retrofit? May need half the steam used for a low pressure turbine (e.g., for an amine)? Concerns about how to make up the lost power. Cost to retrofit?(so 2 Scrubbers for existing plants were 1.2-1.8x as expensive as on new units) Transport existing or new pipelines Where does the CO2 go for storage/sequestration? (storage varies) 13
Difficulty in Going Immediately to 90% Capture - Experience, Integration, Risk No one in the world has run IGCC with Capture of CO 2 in an integrated manner No one has operated full-scale modules of postcombustion treatment or oxyfuel commercially Designs will be very stringent and have novel components or large scale-ups to provide 90% Capture IGCC/CCS (e.g. Hydrogen Turbines) PC CCS (e.g., large modules / untested designs on coal), Oxyfuel cant do partial, must scale up significantly Need to learn by doing and get large-scale integrated capture and storage on and in the ground quickly, but may need to start with lower capture percentages 14
Need to Start Now - Timeline for Full-Scale Demonstration of CO 2 Capture and Storage 2005 2010 2015 2020 Permit Design Build Inject, Test Monitor Verify Learn by permitting, operating, and monitoring Full scale Complete system Goals Capture cost, energy << today Transportation guidelines adopted Storage rules, legal issues, public acceptance settled 15
Technical Potential for Future CO 2 Emissions Reductions Congressional Staff Briefing May 22, 2008 Stuart Dalton (sdalton@epri.com) Director, Generation, EPRI
2008 Prism...Technical Potential for CO 2 Reductions 3500 3000 Achieving all targets is very aggressive, but potentially feasible. AEO2007*(Ref) AEO2008* (Early release) AEO2008*(Ref) U.S. Electric Sector CO 2 Emissions (million metric tons) 2500 2000 1500 1000 Technology EIA 2008 Reference Target Efficiency Load Growth ~ +1.05%/yr Load Growth ~ +0.75%/yr Renewables 55 GWe by 2030 100 GWe by 2030 Nuclear Generation 15 GWe by 2030 64 GWe by 2030 Advanced Coal Generation No Heat Rate Improvement for Existing Plants 40% New Plant Efficiency by 2020 2030 1-3% Heat Rate Improvement for 130 GWe Existing Plants 46% New Plant Efficiency by 2020; 49% in 2030 Impact of efficiency measures in Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007) 500 CCS None Widely Deployed After 2020 PHEV None 10% of New Light-Duty Vehicle Sales by 2017; 33% by 2030 DER < 0.1% of Base Load in 2030 5% of Base Load in 2030 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 *Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 17
Electricity Technology Scenarios Supply-Side Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) New Nuclear Full Portfolio Available Production Can Expand Limited Portfolio Unavailable Existing Production Levels ~100 GW Renewables Costs Decline Costs Decline Slower New Coal and Gas Improvements Improvements Demand-Side Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) End-Use Efficiency Available Accelerated Improvements Unavailable Improvements 18
Increase in Real Electricity Prices 2000 to 2050 +260% +45% Both Scenarios meet the same economy-wide CO 2 Cap* *Economy-wide CO 2 emissions capped at 2010 levels until 2020 and then reduced at 3%/yr 19
EPRI - Industry Climate Demonstrations Now Gathering Funding Technology Challenges 1. Smart Grids and Communication Infrastructure 2. Transmission Grids and Associated Energy Storage Infrastructures 3. Advanced Light Water Reactors 4. Coal-Based Generation Units with CO 2 Capture and Storage Demonstration Projects Smart Grids Compressed Air Energy Storage Energy Efficiency CCS using Chilled Ammonia CCS using a Different Technology IGCC with CCS Low-cost O 2 Production 20
Climate Technology Demonstration Projects Post-Combustion CO2 Capture with Storage CCS Using Chilled Ammonia CO2 Capture Solvent (AEP) CCS Using Competing Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Technology (Southern Company/SSEB) Ion Transport Membrane (ITM) Oxygen Plant Scale-Up & Turbomachinery Integration (supporting DOE project) IGCC with Integrated CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) Energy Efficiency Demonstration 6 Hyper efficient Technologies at five different locations Smart Grid Demonstration Virtual Power Plant at about five different locations Compresses Air Storage Both Underground and Aboveground Note - coal based projects are in red 21
Image from NASA Visible Earth