U.S. Scene for Electric Power and Future Energy Systems -

U.S. Scene for Electric Power &
Future Energy Systems---
Economic Tipping Point
or…
Opportunity for
Clean Coal Technologies
Carnegie Mellon University
October 27, 2005
Mike Eastman, Strategic Center for Coal
National Energy Technology Laboratory
NETL
• Only DOE national lab dedicated to fossil energy
− Fossil fuels provide 85% of U.S. energy supply
• One lab, four locations, one management structure
• 1,100 Federal and support-contractor
employees
• Research spans fundamental science
to technology demonstrations
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Alaska
Oklahoma
102705_cmu_mle
NETL Mission Areas
Strategic Center
for Coal
Strategic Center
for Natural Gas
and Oil
Advanced
Initiatives
102705_cmu_mle
NETL FY 2005 Budget: $748 Million
Gas R&D
$45M
Oil R&D
$34M
$ Million
200
DHS
Coal R&D
$288M
EE*
100
Non-FE
$223M
$81M
Fossil
Energy
Program
Support
EA
Non-DOE
0
Other
$67M
*Does not include
Clean Coal Power
Initiative/FutureGen
Clean Coal Technology
Demonstration $10M
~$650M financially
managed by NETL
for EERE’s PMC
102705_cmu_mle
NETL’s Investment in Pennsylvania
Impacting Economy Through On-Site Operations
• Contribute over $69M annually through Federal and
contractor payroll, small purchases, and conferences
• Draw nearly 3,000 visitors to Pittsburgh area per year
Impacting Economy Through R&D
• $1.3B total value of agreements and contracts
• Obligated $61M in FY04 generating 2,440 job-years in PA
−Small businesses - total value of $29M with $6M
obligated annually
−Colleges/universities - total value of $292M with $21M
obligated annually
FY 2004
102705_cmu_mle
Electricity = Quality of Life
Poverty Impacts Global Security / Environmental Options
GDP per Capita
(103$ / person / year)
60
Luxembourg
50
Canada
30
Sweden
Singapore
Japan
20
10
Norway
United States
40
Mexico
Peru
Sudan
Tajikistan
0
0
1
2
3
4
Electricity / Total Energy Ratio
(kWh / kgoe / year)
5
World Resources Institute Database, accessed September 1, 2005
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/
102705_cmu_mle
Import Percent of Total Consumption
Rapidly Increasing Dependence on Energy Imports
urgeCongress
Congressto
topass
pass
“I“Iurge
legislationthat
thatmakes
makesAmerica
America
legislation
moresecure
secureand
andless
lessdependent
dependent
more
onforeign
foreignenergy.”
energy.”
on
65%
60%
PresidentG.
G.W.
W.Bush
Bush
President
State
of
the
Union
Address,
February2,2,2005
2005
State of the Union Address, February
55%
AEO’05
(extrapolation
50%
45%
40%
’05
Increased a total of 7 Points (2025)
(~6% per year
over last 3 years)
35%
’02
30%
Annual Energy Outlook
Publication Year
25%
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Foreign Energy Imports Growing Due to Oil and Natural Gas
102705_cmu_mle
Energy Use Compared to Economic Growth
Real GDP
$3. 52 GDP/kWh
400
360
AEO ‘05
Coal-fired
Generation
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
Electricity
Generation
$2.72 GDP/kWh
$2.58 GDP/kWh
$2.52 GDP/kWh
Total Energy
Consumption
25
20
20
20
15
20
10
20
05
20
00
20
95
19
90
19
85
19
80
19
19
75
$2.46 GDP/kWh
70
19
Index: 1973 = 100
480
440
Year
Rev. 061404
102705_cmu_mle
GDP: History - U.S. DOC, Bureau of Economic Analysis; Forecast - Annual Energy Outlook 2004
Energy & Electricity: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2002; Annual Energy Outlook 2004
AEO Estimates of Generation Fuel Sources by 2025
3,029
3,000
AEO'00
AEO'04
AEO'01
AEO'05
AEO'02
'03 Actual
AEO'03
2,500
Billion kWh
+920
2,000
1,500
L L
N N
G G
1,000
+66
500
+774
+130
+29
0
Coal
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Renewables
Oil
Trends for Dramatic Changes in North American Natural Gas-fired
Generation Forecasts; LNG Acceptance Begins to Displace Coal in AEO’05
102705_cmu_mle
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005
* - AEO 2000, 2001, 2002 trendline extrapolation from 2020 to 2025
satisfiers
Energy Policy Needs Pyramid
debate
possible
social
acceptability
“In Maslow’s pyramid, hierarchy illustrates
that only once lower order needs of emotional
well being are satisfied do we concern
ourselves with higher order needs of
influence and personal development.”
natural resources
efficiency
deficit needs
cost efficiency
no
debate
possible
security
of supply
access to
commercial energy
“Can we observe similar patterns in
historically observed energy priorities?”
Christoph W. Frei, The Kyoto Protocol – a victim of supply security?
or if Maslow were in energy politics; Energy Policy 32 (2004) 1253-1256
102705_cmu_mle
Broad Environmental Concerns About Coal
Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal,
Clean Air Task Force, Boston, MA,June 2001
102705_cmu_mle
Contaminant Emissions Down Sharply
U.S. Power Plants
Index: 1970 = 1.0
4
Coal Use
3
Electricity
Generation
2
Natural Gas Use
Nitrogen Oxides
1
0
1970
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulate
Matter
1980
1990
Year
2000
EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999 (March 2001)
DOE, EIA Annual Energy Review
102705_cmu_mle
330 GW of Coal-Fired Capacity
Historic U.S. Generation Capacity Additions
GW Installed Capacity
60
Other
Natural Gas
Nuclear
Coal
40
20
0
1966
1976
1986
1996
NPC Study 2003 based on EIA, Platt’s , AEP
102705_cmu_mle
Cost of Electricity (Cents / kWh)
Coal Technologies Must Be Cost Competitive !
6
5
50
$
t
s
Co
4
kW
/
00
6
$
0-
Coal-Fired Power Plant
Capital Cost $1000 - $1200 / kW
Coal Price $1.00- $1.25 / MMBtu
3
tur
a
N
2
CC
s
a
G
l
a
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Natural Gas Price ($ / MMBtu)
DOE Report #DE-AC-01-94FE62747, April 2001
102705_cmu_mle
$/Mcf (Wellhead)
Increasing Trend in Natural Gas
Price Forecasts
$9.00
$8.50
$8.00
$7.50
$7.00
$6.50
$6.00
$5.50
$5.00
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
1996
EIA October 2005 STEO +$3.18/Mcf delta from
AEO’05 in 2006 (+$72 Billion to Consumers)
RJA (10/10/05)
Anticipated
LNG Supply/Price
Effect
Alaskan
Pipeline
Actual
’05
’04
’03
’02
’01
’00
’99
Annual Energy Outlook
Publication Year
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Forecasts of Near-term Price Troughs Hinder Coal Plant Development
102705_cmu_mle
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
and 2005
Short Term Energy Outlook, October 2005
Raymond James “Energy Stat of the Week” 10/10/05 (Henry Hub reduced by $0.75)
One Year Price Forecast Comparison
2001 - 2004
$7.25
1/31/05
$7.00
$/Mcf (Henry Hub)
$1.52
$6.00
+41%
$5.00
RJA
Forecasts
(Actual Avg.
16% Off)
-9%
Actual
$4.00
$5.73
-11%
-26%
-13%
$3.00
Consistently
Underestimated
$2.00
+1%
-33%
EIA
Forecasts*
(Actual Avg.
25% Off)
-28%
*-EIA wellhead forecast adjusted to Henry Hub using difference
between year’s actual Henry Hub and Wellhead averages
$1.00
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
EIA Discrepancies in 12 Month Forecast
4 Year Average… Actual Price 25% Off Forecast (29% Last 3 Years)
102705_cmu_mle
Actual Henry Hub prices per January 2005 Short Term Energy Outlook
Raymond James “Stat of the Week”, February 7, 2005
Declining Domestic Natural Gas
Production Forecast
30.0
Annual Energy Outlook
Publication Year
29.0
’02
28.0
- 6.6 Tcf
(-23%)
27.0
’03
26.0
Tcf/Year
25.0
’04
24.0
23.0
- 2.2 Tcf
(-8.2%)
22.0
’05
21.0
20.0
CERA
19.0
(Midwinter Update: North American Natural Gas Market
Review 1/20/05)
18.0
Lehman Brothers
17.0
(4Q’04 Industry Survey 1/25/05)
16.0
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
AEO’05 Domestic Production Reduced by an Amount
Larger Than Alaskan Pipeline (>1.5 Tcf/yr in 2020)
102705_cmu_mle
Annual Energy Outlook 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005
Exxon Mobil LNG Forecast
10.0
Exxon Mobil
12/04
9.0
Percent of total natural gas supply
and Bcf/d production
in 2010, 2020, 2030
8.0
7.0
AEO ’05
Tcf/Year
6.0
5.0
AEO ’04
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
Developers’ Perspectives Even More Aggressive
102705_cmu_mle
Reference: Exxon Mobil; The Outlook for Energy, A 2030 View; December 2004; http://media.corporateir.net/media_files/irol/11/115024/presentations/xom_120204.pdf
Status of North American LNG Development
Existing and Proposed
LNG Terminals
• 5 existing import terminals
(including Energy Bridge)
• 19 FERC / Coast Guard /
Canadian / Mexican
approved sites
• 21 additional proposals
• 8.4 Tcf supply if all
approved plants built
• EIA forecast for U.S. LNG =
U.S. Jurisdiction
FERC
As of September 27, 2005
6.4 Tcf by 2025
U.S. Coast Guard
* U.S. pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas
FERC Office of Energy Projects
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/exist-prop-lng.pdf
102705_cmu_mle
Resurgence In Gas-fired Generation’s
Contribution to Electricity Production
36.0%
’01
% Total Electricity Supply
34.0%
’02
32.0%
30.0%
’03
28.0%
26.0%
’05
24.0%
’04
22.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
Increased Based on “Revisions in Relative Capital Costs and
Efficiencies for New Coal- and Gas-fired Generating Capacity”
102705_cmu_mle
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005
Are Risks of LNG Capital Costs Considered?
Generation Equipment
Regasification
Tankers
Liquefaction
Upstream Gas Dev.
1,400
1,200
$/kW
1,000
5 years to
complete
800
geopolitical
geopolitical
risk?
risk?
$149
$185
$118
$48
600
4 years to
complete
400
$650
200
0
Coal-fired
LNG Derived Gas-fired
NGCC
New Gas-fired Generation Will Be Increasingly Required
to Secure a Reliable Fuel Source, Adding ≈ $500/kW
References: QatarGas III Costs, Gulf States Newsletter, April 19, 2004;
Calculated Based on 375 Bcf/y LNG Train per 10,000 MW Gas-fired Capacity;
Deutsche Bank, Global LNG, Exploding the Myths, July 22, 2004
102705_cmu_mle
U.S. is Poorly Positioned on Price for
Delivery of LNG ($/mmbtu)
< 2.5
<3
<4
<4
<3
Graphic: Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
31001-10
102705_cmu_mle
Conclusion: Gas-fired Generation Growth
Overestimated; Cost Underestimated
• Generation growth, at one time expected to represent
•
•
•
•
1,200 BkWh, reduced to 100 BkWh, absent imported LNG
Costs, expected to represent significant advantage over
coal at $500/kW, left out import costs-U.S. pays highest
shipping-raises cost competitiveness concern
Roughly 2 LNG supply systems (365 Bcf/year each)
required to support 20,000 MW of NGCC
ConocoPhillips Qatar Gas III: $5 billion for 1 Bcf/day of
gas (in 2010)*
Actual cost of gas-fired generation -- $500/kW for plant
plus $500+/kW for fuel supply infrastructure
* Matthew Simmons Coronado Club Speaker’s Luncheon, Houston, Texas, June 9, 2004
102705_cmu_mle
Coal Production History And Forecast
1,600
1,500
1,400
+ 405
MMst
(+37%)
MMst/Year
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
AEO ’05
800
700
600
500
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Still A Significant Challenge For Nation’s Mining
and Transport Industries
102705_cmu_mle
Annual Energy Outlook 2005
Annual Energy Review 2003
Pull-back In Coal-fired Contribution
to Electricity Production
Coal % of Total Electricity Supply
53.0%
’04
52.0%
51.0%
’05
Successful LNG
Introduction &
Alaska Pipeline
50.0%
49.0%
48.0%
’03
47.0%
46.0%
’02
45.0%
’01
44.0%
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
Reflects a (Model) Preference for Imported LNG
Over Coal-fired Generation
102705_cmu_mle
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005
New Coal-fired Capacity Forecast
AEO’04 vs. AEO’05
16,000
15,000
Capacity Added MW
14,000
AEO'04
13,000
AEO'05
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
~10 Years Until Real
Growth Begins
7,000
6,000
Removed 6,650 MW
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
Another Decade of Insufficient Domestic Market Scale
to Support 13,000 MW/Year Industry
2024
102705_cmu_mle
Annual Energy Outlook 2005
Capacity Added MWs
Coal Capacity History and Forecast AEO’05
20,000
19,000
18,000
17,000
16,000
15,000
Capacity Addition
14,000
Levels Not Seen
13,000
in 40 Years?
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
Industry Growth
8,000
Trend Not Seen in
7,000
50 Years?
6,000
5,000
4,000
20 Year
3,000
Market Trough
2,000
1,000
0
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Will Nation’s Industry be Prepared and Capable
of Meeting This Coal Plant Forecast?
102705_cmu_mle
Forecast - Annual Energy Outlook 2005
Historic Data - UDI 2001 Operating Data
Government’s Coal R&D Investment Strategy
gy
ol o
n
h
Tec
R&D
De
• Core R&D program
• FutureGen
• $300 million in FY05
NETL
NETL
Commercial Readiness
NETL
e nt
m
p
velo
Ma r
ke t
Pen
e
t r at
ion
Financial Incentives
• Encourage investment
in commercial projects
with advanced
technology
Demonstration Projects
• Clean Coal Power Initiative
• ~ $49 million in FY05
102705_cmu_mle
Clean Coal Technology Development Must
Address Near and Long Term Energy Needs
Short-term Needs:
• Maximize existing fleet service
• Provide advanced technologies
for new, near term plants
• Provide technology bridge to
transition to future plants.
Long-term Needs:
• Zero emissions coal technology
• Reliable coal technology
• Cost competitive coal
technology
• Technology for Hydrogen
Economy
102705_cmu_mle
Integrated Technology Roadmaps Drive R&D
2000
2005
2010
2015
2025
O2
Membrane
IGCC &
CFB
Demos
Envr. Control
(Hg, water,
byproducts)
Advanced
Gasifier/
Combustor
Integrated Adv.
Power System
Gas Cleaning
ATS
Turbine
Fuel Cell/
IGCC Test
Technology
Module Demos
Integrated Plant
Demos
Sequestration
Ready Integrated
Adv. Power System
CO2 Sequestration
FutureGen-Coproduction
Hydrogen/Power/Sequestration
Power/Fuel
Coproduction Liquids
CCPI Round 1
CCPI Round 2
Integrated Adv. Power
System w/Fuel Cell
CO2 Capture
H2
Membrane
Sequestration
Ready Near-Zero
Emission Power
Plants
Advances in
System
Components
ATS Syngas
Turbine
SECA Fuel
Cell
IGCC
Demos
2020
Near-Zero
Emission Plants
Near-Zero Emission
Plants with
Sequestration
Sequestration Ready
Near-Zero Emission
Plants w/Coproduction
102705_cmu_mle
Performance Targets Keep R&D Focused & On Track
(Represents best integrated plant technology capability)
Reference
Plant
2010
2020
Plant Efficiency (HHV)
40%
45-50%
50-60%
Availability
>80%
>85%
>90%
900 – 1300
900 – 1000
800 – 900
3.5
3.1
<3.0
Plant Capital Cost
$/kW
Cost of Electricity
¢/kWh
102705_cmu_mle
FE/NETL Coal Program Components
•
•
•
•
•
•
R&D Program FY05 ($300 M)
Central Systems (~$85M)
− Innovations for Existing Plants (~$19M)
− IGCC (~$46M)
− Combustion (~$5M)
− Turbines (~$15M)
Distributed Generation (~$77M)
Sequestration R&D (~$45M)
Fuels (~$32M)
Advanced Research (~$43M)
FutureGen (~$18M)
Demonstration Program
• Clean Coal Power Initiative (~$49M)
102705_cmu_mle
Integrated R&D Developments Required
for Zero-Emissions Coal Systems
Oxygen
Gas Cleaning
Gasification
Gas
Stream
Cleanup
Oxygen
Membrane
Power
High Efficiency Turbine
Gasifier
Coal
Fuel Cell
Process
Heat/Steam
Electricity
H2
Fuel
Products/
Byproducts CO
2
Utilization
CO2
Sequestration
H2/CO2
Separation
Liquids
Conversion
Fuels/Chemicals
Fuels and
Chemicals
F igure 2
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Coal Seams
Saline Formation
102705_cmu_mle
Conduct Intramural Research
NETL Focus Areas
Energy System
Dynamics
−
−
−
−
Fuel Cells / Hybrids
Gas Combustion
Carbon Capture
FutureGen
Computational and
Basic Sciences
−
−
−
−
Computational Chemistry
Device Simulation
Advanced Fuel Systems
Gas Hydrates
Geological and
Environmental Systems
− Carbon Sequestration
− Clean Air Technology
− Water & Coal Utilization
Byproducts
102705_cmu_mle
University/NETL R&D Initiative
A New Collaborative R&D Effort
Collaboration
= Grant Program
Relationships that provide
opportunities for mutual benefit
and results beyond what any
single organization or sector
could realize alone.
Leader to Leader Institute-2005
17 Projects Recently Selected
~ $2.5M; CMU gets 5
102705_cmu_mle
Sustains,
Sharpens Existing
NETL Technical Capabilities
Develop more,
better, or new
Program Model
23
25
6
40
28
4
13
3
39
18
9
21
24
35
1
14
27
29
26
31
17
es 12
g
len
8
al
30
h
36
C
d
an
r
11
G
7
l
na
o
i
at
N
32
s
s
e
dr
d
A
33
22
19
37
16
10
38
2
Existing
Program
Focus
Mission Relevance
Fits with Future
Energy/
Environmental
Focus
102705_cmu_mle
Advanced Research - Power Systems
Ingenuity, innovation and implementation
Objectives
™ Bridge gap between basic and
applied research
™ Foster development of
innovative systems
™ Improve efficiency and
environmental performance,
reduce cost
Computational Energy Sciences
Scientific Consortium, visualization,
Modeling, and simulation
R&D Activities
• Advanced Materials
• Novel Sensors & Controls
• Adv Power Plant Simulations
• Bioprocessing Technologies
Advanced materials consortium for ultrasupercritical power plants
• Educational Foundation
Programs
102705_cmu_mle
IGCC Future Challenges
• Lower capital cost
− $200 to $400 / kWe reduction
• Greater reliability
− Single train availability
> 85 to 90%
• Improved efficiency
− 60% HHV
• Near- zero emissions (including CO2)
− Improved separation/capture technology
− Low cost, safe, permanent sequestration options
102705_cmu_mle
IGCC Technology Issues
Gas
Cleaning
Oxygen Membrane
Oxygen
Fuel Gas
Durability of Membrane
Integration with Overall Process
Cost-Effective MultiContaminant Control to
Ultra-Clean Specifications
Moderate Temperature
Hg Removal at Elevated
Temperatures
Integrated Specifications
with Downstream
Process Requirements
Integration with NOx
Reduction Processes
Low-rank Coal
Hydrogen
Coal
Injector Reliability
Single Train Availability
Durability of Refractory Material
Durability and Accuracy of
Monitoring Devices
Alternative Feedstocks
Feed System Reliability
Gasification
Heat Removal
Temperature Measurement & Control
H2/CO2 Separation
CO2
Durability of Membranes
Low Flux
Contaminant Sensitivity
Heat Removal
102705_cmu_mle
Contributions to Program Targets
Gasification Systems
Projects
Cost
Efficiency
Reliability
H2 Product &
CO2 Capture
Transport
Gasifier
Compact
Gasifier
Alstom
Chemical
Looping
GE Chemical
Looping
Stamet Pump
Dry Feed
Instruments
& Materials
102705_cmu_mle
Driving Down Cost For Gasification Systems(1)
(> 40% Cost Reduction Potential from R&D)
650 $625 /kW
600
Regenerable Sorbents
Air Separation Membranes
$/kW
550
500
Dry Fuel Flexible Feeds
Transport Gasifier
450
400
350
Reference Plant
2020 Plant1
System
Integration
625/kW
355/kW
$355 /kW
300
1High
Today
Efficiency Near Zero Emission
2010
2020
(1) Air Separation, Coal Feed, Gasification, Gas Stream Purification/Separation
102705_cmu_mle
Why Interest in IGCC is Rising
• Recognition of continuing high-price of
•
•
•
•
•
natural gas
Excellent environmental performance of
IGCCs (SO2, NOx, particulates and solid
waste)
Potential for economic control of mercury
emissions
Growing environmental community view of
IGCCs as BACT for coal systems
Consolidation of IGCC development
companies
Uncertainty of carbon management
requirements and potential suitability of IGCC
for CO2 controls
102705_cmu_mle
CCT Program Success Stories
Low-NOx Burners
Advanced Pollution Controls
• Now installed on 75% of U.S. coal plants
• 1/2 to 1/10 cost of older systems
JEA CFBC Power Plant
Proven Advanced Coal
Power Systems
• Two “super-clean” coal-based IGCC
plants operating reliably
• World’s largest CFBC power plant
Tampa Electric
IGCC Power Plant
PSI Energy Wabash River
IGCC Power Plant
102705_cmu_mle
IGCC Technology in Early Commercialization
U.S. Coal-Fueled Plants
• Wabash River
− 1996 Powerplant of Year Award*
− Achieved 95% availability
• Tampa Electric
− 1997 Powerplant of Year Award*
− First dispatch power generator
Nation’s first commercialscale IGCC plants, each
achieving
> 95% sulfur removal
> 90% NOx reduction
*Power Magazine
102705_cmu_mle
Clean Coal Power Initiative
• Demonstrate emerging
technologies in coal-based
power generation
− $1-2 billion, 10-year program
− 50/50 cost-shared
− Government / industry
partnerships
• Coal key component of
National Energy Policy
102705_cmu_mle
Projects in CCPI – Round 1
Great River Energy
Lignite Fuel Enhancement
$11M – DOE
$11M – GRE
NeuCo, Inc. Integrated
Optimization Software
$8M – DOE
$10M – NeuCo
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
TOXECON Multi-Pollutant Control
$25M – DOE
$25M – WEP
WMPI PTY., LLC Coal-to
-Clean Fuels and Power
$100M – DOE
$512M – WMPI
Western Greenbrier
Clean Coal Co-Production
$107M – DOE
$107M – WGC
U. of Kentucky Research Foundation
Multi-Product Coal Utilization
$4M – DOE
$5M – UK
102705_cmu_mle
Rev. 071404
Projects in CCPI – Round 2
Peabody Energy
Multi-Pollutant Control
$19.5M – DOE
$59.4M – Peabody
Excelsior Energy Inc.
IGCC (E-Gas)
$36M – DOE
$1,149M – Excelsior
Southern Co. Services, Inc.
IGCC (Transport Gasifier)
$235M – DOE
$322M – Southern Co.
Pegasus Technologies, Inc.
AI / Simulation
$6M – DOE
$6M – Pegasus
102705_cmu_mle
CCPI Priority Technologies
($49 million in FY2005)
Technologies
for
Clear Skies
Compliance
• Emission
control
− Mercury
− NOX
• Advanced Power Technologies
− Improved efficiency / lower capital cost
− Sequestration friendly
• Sequestration
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Technologies
for
Zero-Carbon
Emission
Plants
Program
Goals
102705_cmu_mle
Rev. 071404
Reducing CO2 Emissions
(All Fossil Fuels & Energy Sectors Contribute CO2 Emissions)
United States Carbon Dioxide Emissions
(By Source & Sector)
Transportation
32%
Transportation
32%
Residential
21%
Industry
29%
Commercial
Commercial
18%
18%
Other
Other
30%
30%
Natural Gas
21%
Electricity
39%
Coal
36%
Oil
43%
AEO2004
102705_cmu_mle
Carbon Sequestration Program Structure
Infrastructure
Core R&D
7 Regional Partnerships
Measurement,
Monitoring &
Verification
Capture of
CO2
Sequestration
• Direct CO2
storage
• Enhanced
natural sinks
Breakthrough
Concepts
Non-CO2
GHG
Mitigation
Carbon
Sequestration
Leadership
Forum
• Engage regional, state, local
•
•
•
Integration
Power/Sequestration
Complex
• First-of-kind integrated project
• Verify large-scale operation
• Highlight best technology
•
•
governments
Determine regional sequestration
benefits
Baseline region for sources and
sinks
Establish monitoring and
verification protocols
Address regulatory,
environmental, & outreach issues
Test sequestration technology
at small scale
Initiated FY 2003
options
• Verify performance &
permanence
• Develop accurate cost/
performance data
• International showcase
Initiated FY 2004
102705_cmu_mle
Systems Analysis Used to Focus and Track R&D
(Example cost reduction potential for CO2 capture developments)
(Relative to No Capture Counterpart)
Percent Increase in COE
35
30
25
5.5 c/kWh
32%
15
4.6 c/kWh
O2 Capital
L4%
Adv. Sorbent
L4%
Co-Storage
L1%
O2 Load
L5%
Shift Mem.
L2%
Adv. Sorbent
L8%
23%
20
4.9 c/kWh
5.2 c/kWh
Shift Mem.
L4%
O2 Membrane
L9%
17%
10
O2 Membrane
L9%
10%
Goal
5
0
Basis:
No Capture COE 4.2 c/kWh
400 MW Net Output
90 % CO2 Capture
80% Capacity Factor
Saline Formation Storage
A
B
C
A—Current Scrubbing
B—Oxygen Membrane
C—O2 Membrane + WGS Membrane +
Adv. Sorbent
D—O2 Membrane + WGS Membrane +
Adv. Sorbent + Co-Storage H2S/CO2
D
…the results of NETL’s
systems, analysis and
planning activity…
102705_cmu_mle
FutureGen: A Presidential Initiative
One-billion-dollar, 10-year demonstration
project to create world’s first coal-based,
zero-emission electricity and hydrogen plant
President Bush, February 27, 2003
• Produce electricity and
hydrogen from coal using
advanced technology
• Emit virtually no air
pollutants
• Capture and permanently
sequester CO2
102705_cmu_mle
FutureGen Uses Cutting-Edge Technologies
• Can accommodate technology innovations with
minimal modifications
− Emerging from national or international R&D
− Slipstream or full stream tests
− Over life of project
• Some emerging new technologies
− Membrane-based O2 and H2 separation
− High-efficiency hydrogen turbines
− High-throughput gasifiers
− Monitoring systems
FutureGen
− Fuel-cell systems
FutureGenwill
willbe
beaaglobal
global
showcase
showcaseof
ofvery
verybest
besttechnology
technology
options
optionsfor
forcoal-based
coal-basedsystems
systems
with
withzero
zerocarbon
carbonemissions
emissions
102705_cmu_mle
Energy Wildcards
Perceptions About LNG Safety ?
350
Global Warming Concerns ?
300
Degrees C
Production
CO2 (Vostok)
Time
250
ppm CO2
World Oil Production Peaking ?
200
2
0
-2
-4
∆Tatm (Vostok)
200 150 100 50
0
Time, kyrs
102705_cmu_mle
Signals of an Economic Tipping Point or
Opportunity for Coal
What to look for…
• Serious Legislative commitment to expand
domestic energy resources; Recognition of
sharply declining energy security
• Continued high natural gas price; Evidence of
declining supply
• Slow development for future LNG plants; More
safety/security reports; Commercialization
learning curve for offshore LNG; Current LNG
business model (Expectation of Low Gas Prices,
Independent of Oil) unproven
102705_cmu_mle
Signals of an Economic Tipping Point or
Opportunity for Coal (continued)
What to look for…
• Regional electricity shortages 2007-2010
due to insufficient fuel for gas-fired
generation, lack of alternative generation
• Meaningful progress on new coal-fired or
nuclear project(s), by respected industry
leader, Shifts in industry philosophy (risk
management); Academia and industry
focus on human resource needs
• Implementation of Energy Policy Act
(converting policy to actions)
102705_cmu_mle
Closing Comments
• Coal must continue play a key role in securing
healthy U.S. economy
• Must maximize existing fleet performance as bridge
to the future
• New clean coal plants needed soon – we see
challenging but “do-able” path forward for coal
• R&D will show near-zero emission coal-based
energy is possible…and affordable?
102705_cmu_mle
Rev. 061404
Visit Office of Fossil Energy & NETL Websites
http://fossil.energy.gov/
www.netl.doe.gov
102705_cmu_mle