What is To Be Done with Coal Power?

Robert H. WilliamsHead, Carbon Capture Group

Carbon Mitigation Initiative (10-year BP/Ford-supported PEI Project)Senior Research Scientist

Princeton Environmental InstitutePrinceton University

Invited Testimony at the NJ Clean Air Council Public Hearing onElectricity Generation Alternatives for New Jersey’s Future

NJ Department of Environmental ProtectionTrenton, NJ

1 April 2009

Meeting GHG mitigation goals being discussed in Administration/Congress will require one or more of the following courses of action for existing coal power plants:

• CO2 capture and storage (CCS) via:

– Retrofitting existing plants with “CO2 scrubbers”

– Repowering existing plants…but saving the sites

• Retiring the plants long before industry would like to do so

Main Near-Term CCS Options

for Existing Coal Power Plants (e.g., Hudson) • Retrofitting with amine scrubbers (costly, huge energy penalty, high

GHG emissions price needed to make the technology cost-effective )

• Repowering options (replacing equipment but saving the site):

– IGCC-CCS: least costly stand-alone power option…but still costly

– Coproduction of liquid fuels/electricity with CCS• Low CO2 capture cost for synfuels (mostly for CO2 drying, compression)

• Higher energy efficiencies/lower capital costs than for separate production units

• Attractive economics for power generation at high oil prices

• Extremely low pollutant emissions (SOX, NOX, ROX, Hg) at plant and from ultimate burning of synfuels

– Coprocessing coal/biomass to make liquid fuels/electricity with CCS biomass status transformed from “C-neutral” to “C-negative”

The Green Coal Path to Near-Zero Emissions

Advanced Supercritical Combustion Plants

Retrofitting PC Plants with CCS

Demonstrating Carbon Capture / Storage (CCS)

Commercial IGCC with CCS

Commercial CTG/CTL with CCS

New Supercritical Plants and CCS Demonstration EssentialNew Supercritical Plants and CCS Demonstration Essential

2007 2010 2020 2030

Source: presentation by Frederick D.Palmer (Senior VP - Government Relations,Peabody Energy) at World CTL 2009(Washington, DC, 26 March 2009)

Coal industry leaders recognize that CCS via CTL/CTG is commercially ready!!

Early CCS Project Already Underway in New Jersey

• High electricity prices, stringent environmental regulations, and favorable offshore prospects for CO2 storage make NJ attractive for early CCS projects based on superclean energy via gasification

• “PURGeN” project proposed by SCS Energy to Planning Board of City of Linden on 24 March 2009 for 98 acre site (long idle DuPont property):– Would gasify Pennsylvania coal to generate ~ 500 MWe (net) and produce as

coproducts H2, NH3, and urea

– Would use dry cooling system for the combined cycle power system, as at the Astoria Energy Plant (a natural gas combined cycle) previously built by SCS

– Would capture 90% of the carbon in the coal as CO2 and store it in a sandstone formation 1700 m under the seafloor at a distance 100 miles from shore where the water is 800 m deep

– Targeted date for plant start-up is 2014

H2S, CO2 removal

F-TSynthesis

GTCC Power Island

F-TFUELS

PressurizedGasification

Gas cooling& cleaning

Air separation unit

oxygen

air

unconverted +recovered gas

Upgrading, Refining

process electricit

yair

Underground Storage

WaterGas Shift

CO2

PressurizedGasification

Gas cooling& cleaning

Coal

Biomass

oxygen

EXPORTELECTRICITY

• Syngas streams from coal & biomass gasifiers are combined to make synthetic diesel & gasoline (Fischer-Tropsch liquids or FTL)

• Syngas unconverted in single pass through synthesis reactor burned to make electricity in GT/ST combined cycle plant

• Coproduction huge energy efficiency/capital cost advantages compared to production of liquid fuels & electricity in separate units

• Biomass/coal coprocessing exploit simultaneously:• Negative GHG emissions benefit of photosynthetic CO2 storage• Coal conversion scale economies (& sometimes lower coal prices)

LIQUID FUELS/ELECTRICITY COPRODUCTION FROM COAL + BIOMASS

Retrofit & Repowering Options for CCS at Hudson Power System Efficiency

(%)

Outputs Electricity generation relative to

Hudson As Isa

Barrels FTL per MWh

% bio (HHV)

CAPEX (106$)

Hudson As Is 33.4 660 MWe 1.0 - 0 0

Hudson Retrofitted for CCS

24.5 484 MWe 0.85 - 0 486

Repowering via Coal IGCC with CCS

31.6 624 MWe 1.10 - 0 1557

Repowering via Coal to Liquids/Electricity with CCS

- 278 MWe

+ 9,490 B/D

0.52 1.42 0 1467

Repowering via Coal/Biomassb to Liquids/Electricity with CCS

- 312 MWe + 10,300

B/D

0.58 1.38 8.6 1535

a Capacity factors: 73% (Hudson As Is), 85% (other power only); 90% (coproduction)

b Plausible bio supply: urban wood wastes in Bergen, Essex, Hudson, & Union Counties

Potential Urban Wood Waste Supply for Repowering Hudson Coal Power Plant

with Coal/Biomass Co-Production Facility with CCS

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

By supply type By county

Dry

to

nn

es

pe

r y

ea

r

Residential demolition

Residential construction

Non-residential demolition

Non-residential construction

Yard trim

MSW

Residential renovation

Union

Hudson

Essex

Bergen

Source: Private communication from Dr. Marie Walsh (Adjunct Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, U. of Tennessee, and energy consultant, M&E Biomass). See also Marie Walsh, Estimated US Urban Wood Waste Supply and Distribution—Documentation of Methodology and Data Sources, M&E Biomass (M.E.Biomass@comcast.net, 24 June 2008)

GHG Emission Rates: Hudson As Is

& for Retrofit/Repowering Options

• For liquids/electricity options, synthetic fuel coproducts are assigned fuel-cycle-wide GHG emission rates = rates for crude oil-derived products displaced

• For Hudson CCS retrofit and IGCC with CCS, CO2 is captured at a rate equivalent to 90% of the carbon in the coal

• For coal and coal/biomass to liquids/electricity with CCS, CO2 is captured at a rate equivalent to 68% of the carbon in the feedstock that is not contained in the liquid fuel products

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Alternative Power Options

GH

G E

mis

sio

n R

ate

, k

gC

O2e

q/M

Wh

Hudson As Is

Hudson CCS Retrofit

IGCC with CCS

Coal to Liquids/Electricity with CCS

Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity with CCS

Cost Analysis of Co-Production Systems as Electricity Generators

• Value of FTL = economic worth based on refinery-gate prices of crude oil-derived products displaced

• Levelized electricity generation cost (LEGC)= [(Levelized energy system cost, $/year)

– (Levelized economic worth of FTL, $/year)]/(Levelized electricity generation rate, MWh/year)

• For co-production systems the LEGC is a function of the crude oil price.

• Assumed feedstock costs: $4.0 per million BTU for both coal and urban wood waste

Hudson: Retrofit & Repowering Options for a 20-Year Levelized Crude Oil Price of $75 a Barrel

# GHG emissions price ($/t) for

breakeven with Hudson As Is

Generation cost at breakeven relative to

Hudson As Is generation cost @ $0/t CO2eq

1 81.6 2.52

2 81.0 2.51

3 72.9 2.36

#1: Hudson CCS Retrofit#2: Coal IGCC with CCS#3: Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity with CCS

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

GHG Emissions Price, $ per tonne of CO2eq

Ge

ne

rati

on

Co

st,

$ p

er

MW

h

Hudson As Is

Hudson Retrofit

Coal IGCC

Coal to Liquids/Electricity @ $75/barrel

Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity @ $75/barrel

Hudson: Retrofit & Repowering Options for a 20-Year Levelized Crude Oil Price of $100 a Barrel

# GHG emissions price ($/t) for

breakeven with Hudson As Is

Generation cost at breakeven relative to

Hudson As Is generation cost @ $0/t CO2eq

1 81.6 2.52

2 81.0 2.51

3 51.9 1.96

4 31.5 1.59

#1: Hudson CCS Retrofit#2: Coal IGCC with CCS#3: Coal to Liquids/Electricity with CCS#4: Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity with CCS

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

GHG Emissions Price, $ per tonne of CO2eq

Ge

ne

rati

on

Co

st,

$ p

er

MW

h

Hudson As Is

Hudson Retrofit

Coal IGCC

Coal to Liquids/Electricity @ $100/barrel

Coal/Biomass to Liquids/Electricity @ $100/barrel

Proposed DoD/DoE CCS Early Action Initiative (CEAI)

• Urgency to carry out “megascale” integrated CCS projects

• G8 Summit (Japan 2008)– G8 agreement to sponsor 20 projects globally (up & running ~ 2016)– US commitment to sponsor 10

• Do economic crisis/budget deficit concerns jeopardize G8 goal?

• CEAI (enabling goal realization at low cost to government) would:– Allow co-production systems to compete with power only systems for subsidies– Require that synfuels be in compliance with Section 526 of Energy Indepen-

dence and Security Act of 2007: fuel-cycle-wide GHG emission rate for synfuels procured by government < that for crude oil-derived products displaced

– Specify that winning projects are those with least costs of GHG emissions avoided (e.g., as determined in reverse auctions)

• For winning projects:– Government would pay incremental cost for CCS for 5 years– Air Force would offer 20-year procurement contracts for synthetic jet fuel

Requests: • That the NJ Clean Air Council insert into the record of this hearing

along with my testimony the following:

– R.H. Williams, “Toward Decarbonization of Power as Well as Fuels via

Co-Production with CCS & Coal/Biomass Coprocessing,” presentation at

World CTL 2009, Washington, DC, 25-27 March 2009

– R.H. Williams, “Proposed CCS Early Action Initiative for the United States,”

v. 10, 18 March 2009

• That the NJ Clean Air Council alert interested parties that technical details related to findings presented at this hearing can be found in:

Kreutz, Thomas G., Eric D. Larson, Guangjian Liu, and Robert H. Williams, “Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Biomass,” Princeton Environmental Institute, August 21, 2008 (revised October 7, 2008). Published in Proc. 25th Annual Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 2008, and available at:

http://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/Kreutz-et-al-PCC-2008-10-7-08.pdf

Acknowledgments

• For collaboration in the research reported here:– Tom Kreutz (PEI)– Eric Larson (PEI)– Guangjian Liu (PEI and Asst. Professor, Dept. of Power Engineering, North

China Power University, Beijing, China)

• For many discussions and helpful comments on this research– Robert Socolow (MAE Professor, PU, and Co-Principal Investigator, CMI)– Fred Dryer (MAE Professor, PU, and Principal Investigator, NetJets Project)– Jim Katzer (NRC, who coordinated the PEI group’s interactions with the

Alternative Fuels Panel of NRC’s America’s Energy Future study)– Zheng Li (Thermal Engineering Professor and Head of BP Clean Energy

Center, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)– Ken Kern, Tom Tarka, Maria Vargas, and John Wimer (NETL)

• For research support:– Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative (BP/Ford-supported)– NetJets [a corporate jet services provider (a Warren Buffett-owned company)] – Hewlett Foundation– National Research Council contract