Coal Products: Status and Future for the USA

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Coal Products: Status and Future for the USA"

Eunice Watts
7 years ago
Views:

1 2001 International Ash Utilization Symposium, Center for Applied Energy Research, University of Kentucky, Paper #109. Copyright is held by the Authors. Coal Products: Status and Future for the USA Ari Geertsema University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research 2001 INTERNATIONAL ASH UTILIZATION SYPMPOSIUM

2 OVERVIEW Status of ash use Recent trends, examples and influences Future

3 Current Status of Ash Use Coal Combustion Products in the U.S.A. (millions of tons) Produced Fly Ash 62.6 Bottom Ash 16.9 Slag 2.9 FGD 24.6 Used Use 33% 32% 82% 18% Source: ACAA, 1999

4 Coal Combustion Products in Kentucky (millions of tons) Produced Fly Ash 3.24 Bottom Ash 0.69 Slag 0.39 FGD 3.23 Used Use Source: CAER, % 11% * Significant increase since % 6%*

5 Fly Ash Utilization in the U.S.A. (millions of tons) Cement&Concrete Structural Fill Cement Clinker Mining Apps Road Base Flowable fill Source: ACAA, 1999 Used % Total = 90%

6 Bottom Ash Utilization in the U.S.A. (millions of tons) Structural Fill Road Base Snow and Ice Con. Cement/Concrete Blasting Grit Cement Clinker Source: ACAA, 1999 Used % Total = 85%

7 Slag and FGD Utilization in the U.S.A. (millions of tons) Slag Blasting/Roofing FGD Wallboard Structural Fill Cem./Con./Grout Used % Source: ACAA, 1999

8 Worldwide Fly Ash Production and Usage Country Netherlands Germany Japan Poland United States Brazil India Source: IEA, 1999 (millions of tons) FA Produced %Used

9 Recent Trends and Influences Effects of the Clean Air Act & Amendments Sulfur Reduction Fuel Switching Flue Gas Desulfurization Non-Coal Fuel Use (e.g. Pet Coke) Sulfur Credits NO x Reduction Low NO x Burners Ammonia Injection NO x Credits

10 Changes in Kentucky Coal 78 to 97 Generation Capacity Coal Source Coal SO 2 (lbs/mmbtu) SO 2 Emissions w/fgd (lbs/mmbtu) Scrubbed Emissions Ash (Wt%) BTU/lb GW Local % , GW Mixed % ,100 Source: CAER

11 Effect of Clean Air Act & Amendments Boiler inefficiency from switch to non-design coals Result in higher LOI Use of other fuel sources (pet coke, tires, biomass) Higher LOI, Other ash quality concerns Low NO x burners Higher LOI, Less glass, Lower bulk density More beneficiated coal Reduces amount of fly ash per Btu

12 Impact of LO-NO x Boiler Conversion on Fly Ash LOI at LG&E s Mill Creek Station Unit Type LOI Before LOI After 1 Tangential 0.32% 1.41% 2 Tangential 0.38% 1.08% 3 Wall 2.45% 3.72% Source: CAER & LGE

13 Recent Trends: Ash Beneficiation for Carbon Removal Commercial Processes with Installed Capacity Fly Ash STI Progress Materials, Inc. Several others very near commercial implementation Bottom Ash CAST Minerals Charah Environmental, Inc.

14 Estimated Amounts of Ash Marketed in US after Beneficiation for Carbon Removal Tons/Yr 800, , , , Fly Ash Bottom Ash

15 STI Fly Ash Separator Brandon Shores Station, Baltimore Source: STI

16 STI Commercial Fly Ash Separator Air Slide Feed Distributor Feed Ports Positive Electrode 5 ft (1.5 m) 5 ft (1.5 m) 5 ft (1.5 m) Belt Negative Electrode Negatively Charged Mineral Particles Positively Charged Carbon Particles Source: STI

17 Source: Progress Materials Wateree Station, CBO Columbia, South Carolina

18 Schematic of Progress Materials Carbon Burn-Out Process Source: Progress Materials

19 Bottom Ash Processing Plant E.W. Brown Station Burgin, KY Source: Charah Environmental, Inc. & KU

20 Future : Positive Trends CO 2 Abatement Post-Kyoto may result in combination of allowances and emission controls High Rank Coal Produces Less CO 2 /MMBtu, Favors F ash Reduced CO 2 from cement production by fly ash substitution Stable and Increasing Price of Portland Cement Highly consolidated stable industry in U.S.A. Increased Understanding of Utilization Benefits High Cost and Permitting Difficulties for New Ponds and Landfills

21 Future: Negative Factors Quality Concerns Blended Fuels High Carbon Ammonia Contamination Pozzolanic Activity Oversupplied Regional Markets

22 1996 Net Coal-fired Generation: 9 Largest Producers of the top 9 Coal Burning States are in the Ohio Valley

23 Unknown Factors Effect Utility Deregulation EPA Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants Particularly Hg EPA Regulations on Mixed Source Ash

24 Increased Gasification/IGCC Combustion: surplus air CO 2 and H 2 O Gasification: O 2 deficient CO and H 2 Higher thermal efficiency Lower gas volumes Concentrated CO 2 Low emissions Higher capital

25 Gasification Is Inherently Green Source: U.S. DOE

26 Future for CCP Utilization Substantial Increase in Coal Ash Beneficiation Result in overall increased quality/consistency Possible bifurcation of market Increase in Clean Coal Products CFBC and gasification slag More Intensive Competition in Ash Market Development of innovative uses Government Incentives (?)

27 Opportunities for Coal Products abound for producers, marketers and technologists.

Coal ash utilisation over the world and in Europe

Workshop on Environmental and Health Aspects of Coal Ash Utilization International workshop 23 rd 24 th November 2005 Tel-Aviv, Israel Coal ash utilisation over the world and in Europe Hans-Joachim Feuerborn