New Fossil Generation The Dilemma for Advocates

1
New Fossil GenerationThe Dilemma for Advocates

• Steve Brick
• Associate Director
• Research and Technical Programs

2
Three Observations - First

• New conventional generation is being built and is
  going to continue to be built for the foreseeable
  future
• Reliability concerns especially post August
  14th
• Cost concerns

3
Three Observations - Second

• DSM and renewables even if pursued more
  aggressively and with more appropriate
  cost-benefit metrics cannot keep up with recent
  growth
• Conventional wisdom is that DSM potential equals
  12-15 percent of present demand
• Wind is the most cost-effective renewable
  which still needs to be firmed up with
  conventional generation

4
Three Observations - Third

• ANY new generation coal based or natural gas
  generally represents an improvement over the
  status quo
• The immense, entrenched, grandfathered
  infrastructure and its attendant environmental
  impacts is the main problem
• Examples

5
SO2 Emissions
6
NOx Emissions
7
CO2 Emissions
8
Simplistic Ranking
9
Howcum?

• If the previous assessment is even close to true,
  why are are many companies electing to pursue new
  coal plants and why are regulatory commissions
  allowing them?
• The single coal smiley face dominates the picture
  under the most reasonable set of assumptions,
  new coal plants are more economical.

10
Coal is dirt cheap!

• Well, it practically IS dirt, after all

11
Coal Environmental Aspects of Production and
Transportation

• Land use and reclamation
• Water pollution
• Fugitive dust
• Transportation

Photo courtesy V. Stockman/www.ohvec.org.
12
Natural Gas Environmental Aspects of
Production and Transportation

• Usually coproduced with oil
• Air emissions
• Water impacts if offshore
• Pipeline construction and operation

13
Natural Gas New Demand Stimulates New
Exploration and Production

• ANWR
• Non-traditional forms of gas
• LNG
• all of which have impacts

14
Human Health and Welfare

• Air emissions
• Human health
• Ecosystem damage
• Solid waste
• Coal ash
• Scrubber sludge
• Water
• Cooling water
• Siting

15
What about the costs?

• Can you unapologetically advocate a more
  expensive course of action?
• Higher costs drive more DSM and renewables
• What about alliances with consumer advocates?

16
(No Transcript)
17
SELP Presentation on Coal Gasification

• John Thompson
• Clean Air Task Force
• November 20, 2003
• www.catf.us
• jthompson_at_catf.us
• [phone]

18
Presentation Topics

• Projected world coal demand
• CATF interest in Integrated Gasification Combined
  Cycle (IGCC)
• Gasification projects world-wide
• How IGCC works
• IGCC emissions and wastes

19
Projected World Coal Demand

• By 2025, world-wide coal consumption is projected
  to increase by nearly 40.
• China, the United States, the former Soviet Union
  and India will account for 72 of the worlds
  coal consumption, up from 58 in 1990.
• Of these four nations, only the Former Soviet
  Union will use less coal than in 1990.
• Coal use by the rest of the world is projected
  to be only modestly larger than 1990 levels.
• Almost all of the projected increase in coal use
  is for coal-fired power plants.

20
Source Energy Information Administration,
International Energy Outlook 2003
http//www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/tbl_a6.html
21
Source Energy Information Administration,
International Energy Outlook 2003
http//www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/tbl_a6.html
22
CATF Interest in IGCC and Carbon Sequestration

• Only realistic 15-30 year option for removing
  significant carbon from global power system.
• Key to resolving current coal vs. climate
  political deadlock.
• Extremely low on conventional pollutants (SO2,
  NOx, etc).
• Probably the only technology that can convert
  coal to power and manage mercury in a sound
  fashion.
• Produces substantially less solid wastes than
  other coal technologies
• Large scale polygeneration opportunities e.g.
  hydrogen production for mobility.

23
Gasification Overview

• 130 gasification plants in operation world-wide
• Most of these are in chemical production, not
  electricity
• There are 16 IGCC plants that operate now or have
  been in operation. Another 6 IGCC plants are in
  development.
• These use a variety of fuels including oil, pet
  coke,and coal
• Four IGCC plants tend to the focus of most
  utility interest
• Polk, Florida (250 MW)
• Wabash, Indiana (262 MW)
• NUON, Netherlands (253 MW)
• ELCOGAS, Spain (298 MW)

24
IGCC vs. Conventional Coal Plant
25
Conventional Coal Plant
26
End-products
Feeds
Gas Refining
Gasification
Combustion Turbine
Oxygen
Electricity
Steam
Syngas
Chemicals
Hydrogen
SULFUR /CO2
MERCURY
Ammonia
Syngas
REMOVAL
REMOVAL

Syngas
Methanol
Coal

Sulfur
Solids
Mercury
CO2 Sequestration Option
27
Recent SO2 Permit Limits Differences Between
IGCC and Conventional Coal
(medium sulfur content, bituminous coal)
Lb/MMBtu
Refinery IGCC unit in Japan demonstrates even
lower rates-.016 lb/MMBtu
28
Recent NOx Permit LimitsDifferences between IGCC
and Conventional Coal Plants
(Bituminous coal)
Lb/MMBtu
Refinery IGCC unit in Japan demonstrates even
lower rates-.011 lb/MMBtu
29
CO2 Emissions Differences Between IGCC and
Conventional Coal

• IGCC technology easily captures CO2 from air
  emissions.
• - Getting the CO2 out of the IGCC emissions
  stream is easy, but compression and
  sequestration is expensive.
• Conventional coal plants cant remove CO2 from
  emissions at any reasonable cost.

30
Coal Gasification Mercury

• Proven, low cost mercury controls can remove most
  of the mercury from coal syngas produced (13
  years experience at Eastman Chemical).
• Mercury is captured in a small volume activated
  carbon bed
• Mercury capture 95-99 with carbon bed
• Thus coal IGCC with a carbon bed plant mercury
  control is probably the only technology that can
  convert coal to power and capture nearly all of
  the coal mercury in a form and volume suitable
  for permanent sequestration.

31
IGCC Environmental Impacts - Solid Wastes

• Commercially available IGCC power plant
  technologies produce substantially smaller
  volumes of solid wastes than do new conventional
  coal plants using the same coal
• IGCC solid waste is essentially limited to coal
  ash frit and elemental sulfur
• New conventional pulverized coal plants would add
  substantial scrubber and SCR sludge volumes to
  the coal ash, for a total volume roughly double
  that of an IGCC plant.
• New fluidized bed coal plants have substantially
  larger solid waste streams than new pulverized
  coal plants due to the large volumes of limestone
  used in the fluidized bed.
• IGCC solid wastes are less likely to cause
  environmental damage than fly ash from
  conventional coal plants because IGCC ash is
  vitrified in the gasification process,
  minimizing potential for leaching of toxics from
  these wastes.