Sixth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration



Similar documents
Impact of coal quality and gasifier technology on IGCC performance

The Future of Coal-Based Power Generation With CCS UN CCS Summit James Katzer MIT Energy Initiative web.mit.edu/coal/

What Coal Technologies Can Do to Reduce Global CO2 Emission

Development of Coal Gasification System for Producing Chemical Synthesis Source Gas

Financing New Coal-Fired Power Plants

Eric D. Larson Energy Systems Analysis Group, Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University, USA

The Effect of EPA s Proposed NSPS on. Carbon Capture and Storage Technology

SKI Coal Gasification Technology. Feb. 23, 2012

Overview of Integrated Coal Gasification Combined-cycle Technology Using Low-rank Coal

Jarad Daniels U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy

Making Coal Use Compatible with Measures to Counter Global Warming

Sixth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration

How To Run A Power Plant

Coal waste slurries as a fuel for integrated gasification combined cycle plants

COAL GASIFICATION AND CO 2 CAPTURE

Siemens Fuel Gasification Technology at a Glance

COST OF GREENHOUSE GAS MITIGATION [21jun, 10jul 1pm]

Outlook on Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technology

IGCC Technology Overview & Genoa Site Feasibility EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Viresco Energy s Advanced Gasification Technology

MHI Air-Blown IGCC Technology & Application to Chinese Project

Thermo Conversions Gasification (TCG) Technology

How To Reduce Coal Power Plant Emissions

GENERATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

SECARB 10 th Annual Stakeholders' Briefing. Southern Company CCS R&D: Plant Barry CCS Demo. Dr. Richard A. Esposito Southern Company.

Accelerating Commercial Deployment of CCS: Developing Incentives to Expand Anthropogenic CO2 Supply for Enhanced Oil Recovery Commercial

This fact sheet provides an overview of options for managing solid

OPPORTUNITIES FOR HEAT RATE REDUCTIONS IN EXISTING COAL- FIRED POWER PLANTS: A STRATEGY TO REDUCE CARBON CAPTURE COSTS

Green Gas on the Road Bram van der Drift

(205) (205)

Natural Gas as a Chemical Industry Fuel and Feedstock: Past, Present, Future (and Far Future)

La caldaia a letto fluido circolante per la riduzione delle emissioni di CO2

Power Generation through Surface Coal Gasification

Introduction to Performing a Techno-Economic Analysis for Power Generation Systems

Carbon Dioxide Membrane Separation for Carbon Capture using Direct FuelCell Systems

BIOMASS RESEARCH at ECN. Bram van der Drift

Evolving Gasification technology to provide Innovative Low Carbon Solutions for the European Market

Hybrid Power Generations Systems, LLC

Clean Energy Systems, Inc.

Morris Argyle Assistant Professor Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering. School of Energy Resources Symposium Casper, WY February 28, 2007

Review of Potential Efficiency Improvements at Coal-Fired Power Plants

Objectives. Use IGCC dynamic simulator and operator training system (OTS) to: o o

From solid fuels to substitute natural gas (SNG) using TREMP

Gas-Fired Power HIGHLIGHTS

Module 5: Combustion Technology. Lecture 33: Combustion air calculation

Coal-To-Gas & Coal-To-Liquids

Half the cost Half the carbon

Capital Cost Scaling Methodology Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies January 2013 Disclaimer

SIEMENS technologies compatible with environmental requirements like reduction of CO 2 emissions. ISBF conference. Bratislava, 9-10 February 2009

Biomass-to-Fuel-Cell Power For Renewable Distributed Power Generation

Simulation of a base case for future IGCC concepts with CO 2 capture

Boiler and Steam Efficiency What does it mean?

Bill Maxwell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS (C439-01)

10 Nuclear Power Reactors Figure 10.1

1.3 Properties of Coal

Praxair, Inc. Ray Roberge Sr. VP and Chief Technology Officer

Coal Properties, Sampling & Ash Characteristics by Rod Hatt Coal Combustion, Inc. Versailles, KY

Siemens Fuel Gasification Technology Stoffliche Nutzung der Braunkohle

Power Plant Economics Carl Bozzuto

CO2 enhanced coal gasification and BlueCoal new Clean Coal Technologies proposals from Poland

SaskPower CCS Global Consortium Bringing Boundary Dam to the World. Mike Monea, President Carbon Capture and Storage Initiatives

CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery

Assignment 8: Comparison of gasification, pyrolysis and combustion

Carbon Capture. Investment for the Future

[]n. Craving energy. Oil and gas formation. Oil and gas formation. Resources: Fossil Fuels. Supplying our energy needs: Source of energy in the US

Waste a source of energy. Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Review: Engaging solutions for tomorrow. Incineration. Incineration

Boiler Tune-up Guide

Levelised Cost of Electricity for a Range of New Power Generating Technologies. Sciences and Engineering (ATSE)

The Cost of CCS for Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants

It s the coal Rod Hatt

Biomass Conversion to Electricity: Stand Alone Power Plants, Co-Generation,

BUILDING THE BUSINESS CASE FOR LARGE-SCALE UTILIZATION OF FOREST RESIDUES AS FEEDSTOCKS FOR PRODUCTION OF ENERGY COMMODITIES:

LIST OF STANDARD CLASSIFICATION CODES (SCC) Emission Statement Report Of Actual Emissions

Estimating Future Costs of CO 2 Capture Systems

SULFURIC ACID MIST PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOL. Duke Energy Florida, Inc. Crystal River Power Plant Units 4&5 Crystal River, Citrus County, Florida

Progress on High Efficiency Coal Power Plants

Transcription:

Sixth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration Expediting Deployment of Industrial Scale Systems Geologic Storage - EOR An Opportunity for Enhanced Oil Recovery in Texas Using CO 2 from IGCC + CCS with Mixtures of Petcoke and Low-Rank Coals Robert H. Williams and Tom Kreutz Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University May 7-10, 2007 Sheraton ad Station Square Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

OUTLINE Texas has huge: CO 2 EOR potential Announced plans for coal generating capacity expansion (5.2 GW e online by 2012 even after TXU cancellation of plans for 6.4 GW e ) Can new coal power plants with CO 2 capture provide electricity + CO 2 for EOR at competitive prices in absence of carbon policy? Best economic prospects are for H 2 O slurry-fed IGCC (GE, CoP) used with bituminous coals But coal power expansion plans in Texas are for low-rank (LR) coals (PRB subbituminous coal and Texas lignite) for which economics of H 2 O slurry fed-gasifiers are not so attractive Good economic prospects for IGCC (H 2 O slurry-fed) using petcoke Petcoke supplies in Texas are significant but fall short of what is needed to fully exploit CO 2 EOR potential Can petcoke supplies be stretched by using petcoke/lr coal blends?

There is already a highly developed CO 2 pipeline transport infrastructure for CO 2 EOR in the Permian Basin CO 2 EOR Potential West Texas in Permian Basin Economic potential with state-of-the-art technology = 8.6 x 10 9 barrels (15%/year rate of return, $40/barrel oil price, $30/tonne CO 2 price) Source: Advanced Resources International, Basin-Oriented Strategies for CO 2 EOR: Permian Basin, report prepared for the Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Oil and Gas, US Department of Energy, February 2006.

CO 2 EOR Potential Central/East/Gulf Coast Texas Economic potential with state-of-the-art technology = 7.9 x 10 9 barrels (15%/y IRR hurdle rate, $40/barrel oil price, $38/tonne CO 2 price) Source: Advanced Resources International, Basin-Oriented Strategies for CO 2 EOR: East and Central Texas, report prepared for the Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Oil and Gas, US Department of Energy, February 2006.

CO 2 EOR/PETCOKE NEXUS FOR TEXAS Onshore Texas CO 2 EOR potential (ARI estimate): 16.5 billion barrels 1.5 million barrels/day averaged over 30 years CO 2 purchase requirements (ARI estimate): 0.22 tonnes/incremental barrel 325 x 10 3 tonnes/day IGCC with 90% CO 2 capture CO 2 generation rate: ~ 16 x 10 3 tonnes/day per GW e ~ 20 GW e to provide 100% of CO 2 needed for EOR Petcoke generated at Texas refineries: 40 x 10 3 tonnes/day Could support ~ 5 GW e of IGCC with CO 2 capture What about H 2 O-slurry-fed IGCC using petcoke/lr coal blends?

APPROACH Goal: estimate generation costs w/co 2 vented & w/co 2 captured for: Supercritical steam (SCS) plant fired with LR Coal IGCC (GE gasifier) plant fired with LR coal/petcoke blend For capture cases, assume CO 2 transported 100 miles/sold for EOR (for $30/t in Permian Basin, $38/t in Central/East/Gulf Coast Texas) Can either capture option compete when CO 2 is sold for EOR (assumed electricity value = least generation cost w/co 2 vented)? Point of departure: NETL (April 2007) estimates of performance, capital costs, generation costs for plants burning Illinois #6 coal: SCS plant IGCC (GE gasifier, quench + radiant cooler) w/co 2 vented & w/co 2 captured Adjust heat rates and capital costs for SCS plants to values for LR coals using scaling factors from Booras and Holt (EPRI, 2004) Create for the IGCC case a mixture of LR coal and petcoke that looks like Illinois #6 coal from gasifier s perspective

Effects of Coal Rank on Heat Rate and Capital Cost Source: G. Booras and N. Holt, Pulverized Coal and IGCC Plant Cost and Performance Estimates, Gasification Technologies Conference 2004, Washington, DC, Oct. 3-6, 2004

IGCC ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE LR COAL/PETCOKE BLENDS Plant performance estimates Fix gasifier output temperature at 1327 o C Fixed LHV flow rate of the raw (S-free) syngas Slurry composition: Illinois #6 modeled for 67% dry solids Assume same AR solids wt % (i.e. same ratio of AR coal to slurry water) Chose LR coal/petcoke blend that requires same O 2 flow as Illinois #6 Capital cost estimates Assume same base capital cost as in NETL (April 2007) analysis for Illinois # 6 coal Add extra costs for dual fuel preparation, handling, and storage capacity

GASIFIER OXYGEN CONSUMPTION 40 Pure O2 per Input LHV (kg/s per GWth) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Illinois #6 bituminous coal 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oxidant: 95% O 2 Percent PRB Coal in Petcoke Mixture Curve is similar for Texas lignite. Focus here is on PRB coal, which is likely to be pursued first

OVERNIGHT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 3,500 Overnight Capital Cost ($/kwe-net) 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 1,850 2,430 1,710 3,120 0 IGCC CO2 Vented IGCC CO2 Captured SCS CO2 Vented SCS CO2 Captured 44.4% PRB coal in blend 100% PRB coal

KEY ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS Annual capital charge = LACCR*IDCF*OCC OCC = overnight capital cost IDCF = interest during construction factor = 1.1235 LACCR = levelized annual capital charge rate = 0.15 Plant capacity factors 85% for SCS plants 80% for IGCC plants Fuel prices $1.61/GJ HHV for PRB coal $1.11/GJ HHV for petcoke

ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS 120 107.2 Cost of Electricity ($/MWh) 100 80 60 40 20 68.3 87.4 62.7 0 IGCC CO2 Vented IGCC CO2 Captured SCS CO2 Vented SCS CO2 Captured 44.4% PRB coal in blend 100% PRB coal

NET GENERATION COST IF CO 2 SOLD FOR EOR ($30/tonne) 80 75.4 Net Cost of Electricity ($/MWh) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 68.3 62.7 62.7 0 IGCC CO2 Vented IGCC CO2 Captured SCS CO2 Vented SCS CO2 Captured 44.4% PRB coal in blend 100% PRB coal

NET GENERATION COST IF CO 2 SOLD FOR EOR ($38/tonne) 80 Net Cost of Electricity ($/MWh) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 68.3 55.5 62.7 66.2 0 IGCC CO2 Vented IGCC CO2 Captured SCS CO2 Vented SCS CO2 Captured 44.4% PRB coal in blend 100% PRB coal

IMPLICATIONS Announced coal power expansion plans (US total ~ 90 GW e ) will make stabilizing atmospheric CO 2 at a safe level very difficult if these plants are built w/o CCS In Texas a major additional concern is that building these plants w/o CO 2 capture will slow pace of realizing CO 2 EOR potential It is urgent to exploit the CO 2 EOR opportunity because many mature fields may soon be shut in, and reentering abandoned fields is costly The CO 2 EOR opportunity in Texas is so large that it could absorb CO 2 from all planned coal power plants and much more Policy desirable that would require CO 2 capture and facilitate its use for EOR even before a national carbon policy is implemented Getting ahead of the Nation on this would not likely be economically painful (as shown) and would provide multiple benefits

MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF STRATEGY The planet would benefit from Early market launch of CCS technologies Cost buy-down via experience for CCS and gasification technologies Cleaner air in developing countries as result of diverting petcoke from boiler fuel applications in developing countries to gasification energy systems in Texas The US would benefit from reduced oil import dependency Texas would benefit from Reinvigoration of its oil industry and associated tax base for state Cleaner air via shift from combustion to gasification technologies for power Additional CO 2 storage capacity at these oil fields for exploitation at low incremental cost after national climate-change-mitigation policy is in place