Coal Gasification

Background Information

May
y 1, 2008
 Outline

• Overview
• World coal trends
• US market trends
• Emerging
g g technologies
g
• IGCC technology
• Criteria pollutant emissions
• Mercury
M emissions,
i i waste,
t and
d water
t use
• Carbon dioxide
• Expanding
p g and Emerging
g g Technoloigies
g
• Substitute Natural Gas (SNG)
• Advanced surface gasification
• Underground coal gasification

2
 Overview –
World Coal Trends
• China - Continues to add about one new coal power plant
per week
• 70 GW coal capacity added in 2007
• 2007 addition equivalent to entire UK electric grid
• 29 new gasification plants in service since 2004
– All are chemical/fuels production
• India
I di - Also
Al planning
l i for
f large
l capacity
i additions
ddi i
• 30 GW under construction (mostly coal)
• Current electricity
y consumption
p p
per capita
p < 5% of US
• Europe – 50 new coal plants?
• April, 2008 New York Times report indicates Europe plans 50 new coal
plants by 2013

3
 Overview –
World Coal Use is Expected to Grow

3000

2500

2000

GW Installed
1500
capacity

1000

500

0
2004 2015 2030

Source: CATF from IEA WEO 2006 4

…and, Capital Costs Are Increasing

5
 Overview –
US Market Trends
• The past and present:
• About ½ of all coal projects proposed since 2001 have been
cancelled
– Capital
p cost increases have rendered new coal pprojects
j
uneconomic
– Uncertainty over CO2 regulation has favored cancellations
• The uncertain future (5-10 years):
• Scenario 1
– Capital costs don’t change enough relative to alternatives
• Scenario 2
– Recession cuts material and labor costs
– Reserve margins
g fall p
prompting
p g PSC action
– Congress resolves CO2 regulatory uncertainty
6
 Overview –
US Gasification Trends
• IGCC
• Many IGCC plants cancelled recently due to capital cost increases
• Several proposed IGCC have converted to SNG production
• Proposed IGCC air permit applications reflect trend toward lower
emissions
– Selexol for deeper SO2 reductions
– SCR for deeper NOx reductions
• Partial capture under consideration at several proposed plants
• Strong interest in enhanced oil recovery (“EOR”) for CO2
• Substitute Natural Gas (“SNG”)
• Natural prices are rising
• 10+ US SNG projects planned/permitted
• Many plans feature EOR
7
 Overview –
Emerging Gasification Technologies
• New technologies could advance gasification deployment
in next 5-10 years, ahead of current projections
• Advanced modular gasification systems
• Underground coal gasification
• Prefabricated gasification systems
• Advances in key technology areas
– Air
Ai andd CO2 compression i
– Oxygen plants
– Warm syngas cleanup
– Geomonitoring (for UCG)
• Today’s visible innovation is by
– Small companies
– Sometimes in China, with lower construction costs and faster
schedules 8
IGCC Technology and Emissions Profiles

9
 IGCC – What is it?

• It’s not coal combustion

• It is chemical conversion of coal to gaseous fuel
• Generally by adding oxygen at high temperature and pressure
• Efficient,
Efficient proven process (most coal energy is retained in syngas)
• …with syngas cleanup
• Efficient PM, sulfur, mercury, CO2 removal due to small gas volume
• Proven chemical industry processes
• …and syngas combustion in combined cycle turbine
– Very efficient (towards 60%)
– Low NOx emissions
– Sulfur, mercury, CO2 emissions depend on extent of syngas
cleanup

10
Tampa Electric Polk Power Station

250 MW – Operating
O ti Since
Si 1996
11
 IGCC Schematic
Feeds Gasification Gas Refining End-products

Combustion Turbine

Oxygen Electricity
Water
Shift HRSG Steam
Reaction

Syngas Chemicals

Hydrogen
MERCURY SULFUR /CO2

Syngas REMOVAL REMOVAL

Ammonia
Syngas
Coal Methanol
H S
2

SULFUR CO2
RECOVERY
Compressio
n
Sulfur

Solids Mercury CO2 Sequestration

Option
 Three “Flavors” of IGCC Proposed

• “Standard”
• Amine and diluent (steam, N2) injection for SO2 and NOx control
• Examples: Polk, Florida and Wabash, Indiana (since 1990s)
• “More
More Like Natural Gas”
Gas
• Selexol and SCR for SO2 and NOx control
• Emissions for criteria pollutants approach natural gas combined cycle
(NGCC) llevels
l
• Examples: Taylorville, IL, and Edwardsport, IN
• “Near-Zero Emission”
• Also captures most CO2
• Example: Hydrogen Energy, Carson, CA

13
 SO2 Emissions

• Commercial technology
• Syngas sulfur content close to natural gas specifications is possible
• SO2 emissions not sensitive to feedstock sulfur content
• 2 ppmv stack SO2 achieved in Japan (~0( 0.14lb/MWh)
14lb/MWh)
• New US plants seeking low limits
• AEP Mason County, WV plant at ~0.19 lb/MWh
• Taylorville, IL permit at ~0.14 lb/MWh
• Selexol adds manageable expense
• Approximately $1
$1.70/MWh
70/MWh according to some permit applications
• Deep sulfur removal also necessary when SCR will be
used

14
 NOx Emissions

• IGCC is low emitting

• Polk IGCC NOx emissions of 8-11 ppmv without SCR
• Polk IGCC actual emissions (2007) < 0.05 lb/MMBtu
• SCR in use at several IGCC outside the US
• IGCC with SCR in Japan achieving 2 ppmv (~0.1 lb/MWh)
• IGCC with SCR in Sicily achieving 90% reduction for several years
• Some US IGCC proposals include SCR
• Taylorville, IL
• Will be used
used, not mandated
mandated, at Edwardsport
Edwardsport, IN
• Decision on SCR pending by DEP for Mason County, WV
g
• Manageable cost, according
g to recent permit
p applications
pp
• SCR adds about $1.20/MWh to base IGCC cost
15
 Criteria Pollutant Emissions
(lb/MMBtu coal feed)

Plant Source SO2 NOx PM CO VOC

Permit
Prairie State SCPC 0.182 0.07 0.015 (f) 0.12 0.004
(2007)
Actual
P lk IGCC
Polk 0 128
0.128 0 044
0.044 0 004 (f)
0.004 0 003
0.003 0 000
0.000
(2007)
Permit
Elm Road IGCC 0.030 0.070 0.011 (f) 0.030 0.002
(2004)
Application
Mesaba IGCC 0.025 0.057 0.009 (f) 0.035 0.003
Pending
Application
Mountaineer IGCC 0.020 0.058 0.006 (f) 0.032 0.001
Pending
Permit
Edwardsport IGCC 0.014 0.083 0.013 (f+c) 0.033 0.001
(2008)
Permit
Taylorville IGCC 0 015
0.015 0 027
0.027 0 006 (f)
0.006 0 038
0.038 0 001
0.001
(2007)

16
Emissions Comparison for Current Plants

Recent pressure

17
 Mercury Emissions

• Carbon beds have

demonstrated 99.9% mercury
removal on coal syngas
• Carbon beds are much less
expensive than ACI on PC
plants (~1/10th on COE basis)
• Carbon beds produce less
waste than ACI on PC
• Carbon bed capture limits
possibility for re-emission

Carbon beds for mercuryy removal at

Eastman coal gasification facility in TN

18
 Solid Waste

• Less volume
– IGCC < ½ of PC

• IGCC waste in better

form
– Vitrified (glass-like)
– Less likely to leach
toxic metals

19
Source: Eastman
 Water Use

• Less water
• IGCC units use 20% to 50% less water than conventional coal plants
• Dry cooling is a viable option, can reduce water use even further
16 000
16,000

14,098
14,000
12,159
RawWater Usage, gpm

12,000

10,000

8,000
6,212
5,441
6,000
4 579
4,579 4 563
4,563 4 681
4,681
4,003 4,135
3,757 3,792
4,000
2,511
2,000

0
GE GE CoP CoP Shell Shell PC- PC- PC-SC PC-SC NGCC NGCC
w/CO2 w/CO2 w/CO2 sub sub w/CO2 w/CO2
w/CO2

20
 Carbon Dioxide

• Up to 90%+ of the carbon in coal (syngas) can be

captured at IGCC plants with commercially available
technology
• Carbon capture at IGCC plants is significantly easier
and much more economic than at conventional
pulverized coal plants and more economic on a $/ton
b i than
basis h at naturall gas plants
l
• With carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) IGCC plants
are even more efficient than conventional coal plants

21
 10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%

0%
5%
IG
CC

IG
CC
-C
O
2
Su
bc
rit
ic
al
Su
pe
rc
Su rit
ic
pe al
rc
rit
ic
al
-C
U O
ltr
as 2
up
U er
ltr cr
as iti
up ca
er l
cr
iti
Efficiency Comparison

ca
l-
CO
2
22
 Carbon Capture with IGCC

• Variable capture levels with IGCC

• 90% capture level requires extensive facility changes
• ASU, gasifier, syngas cleanup sizing
• Combustion turbine impacts
• Capture of 50%-60%
• Can be done today with existing technology
• Is commercially available
• Capture at 20% level
• Adds less than 10% to cost of electricity
• Produces meaningful quantities of CO2 for geological storage
validation efforts

23
24
Expanding and Emerging Technologies

25
 Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) Production

• Instead of burning syngas in a combustion turbine,

convert it chemically into substitute natural gas (SNG)
via methanation
• Methanation: CO + 3H2 Æ CH4 + H2O
• Must shift the syngas partially to get the methanation
chemistry right
• About 35% of the carbon originally in the coal goes into SNG product
• The balance is a “free” storage-ready CO2 stream
• Manyy proposals
p p include EOR
• Air emissions of SO2, NOx, etc. during SNG production
can be very low
• Some
S SNG qualify
lif as ““minor
i source””
• NG prices are up; lots of interest/activity on SNG today 26
 Emerging Gasification Technologies

• Gasification development is moving quickly

• Advanced surface gasification
– Catalytic gasification systems
– Molten metals gasification systems
– Others
– Scale-up here and abroad is proceeding
• New
N gasification
ifi ti manufacturing/development
f t i /d l t
– Modular surface gasification systems
– Prefabricated surface gasification systems
• Underground coal gasification
– See next slide

27
 Emerging Technology Focus –
UCG
• Gasification takes place in-situ
– Hundreds of feet BGS
• Developed in former USSR
– Uzbekistan since 1960s
• Advantages
– Lower cost (no vessel)
– No
N mining
i i
– Prefers low rank coals
• Challenges
– Limited experience
– Groundwater protection
• Private pilots now moving
– Australia, South Africa
28
 UCG Environmental Challenges

• Because gasification takes place in-situ, groundwater

contamination must be avoided
• Site selection and proper operation are key
• Predicable geology
• Away from/below potable water supply
• Maintain gasifier pressure below local hydrostatic (water flows in)
• DOE trials in 1970s-1980s
• One major failure (contamination); subsequent successes (better
siting)
g)
• European deep UCG trial (1990s)
• No reported groundwater contamination
• Chinchilla (AUS) trial in 2003
– No subsidence or groundwater impacts 29
For More Information

Coal Transition Project

j
Clean Air Task Force
18 Tremont Street, Suite 530
Boston, MA 02108
www.catf.us / (617) 624-0234

30