# Presentation: 517566

## “What is the promise of new fossil technology over the next 25 years?”

**NREL **
**March 9, 2006**
**James Ekmann, Director**
**Office of Systems, Analysis and Planning**

**U.S. Department of Energy  •**  **Office of Fossil Energy **
**National Energy Technology Laboratory**

**Notes:**
Good afternoon.  I’m pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Department of Energy’s efforts to foster the development and deployment of distributed generation technologies.

My talk will cover:

  Why the Department of Energy (DOE) is involved in distributed generation.
  Our efforts to develop and deploy distributed generation technologies.
  Our work to address related challenges, such as fuel availability and barriers to market penetration.

## Presentation Outline

**Presentation Outline**

**Overview of NETL**
**Growing U.S. Energy Demand and Domestic Fossil Energy Resources**
**Environmental Challenges and the Promise of Advanced Technologies**
**The Fossil Energy RD&D Program**
**Supporting Analytical Activities and Potential Areas for Collaboration**

**Notes:**
Coal reserves are abundant in the United States and in many areas of the world, making coal an attractive option for new power plants from the standpoint of affordability and supply reliability. Yet coal's considerable energy potential is accompanied by significant challenges related to its effects on the environment and human health.  By 2025, our Nation's consumption of electricity is projected to grow by 50 percent versus 2003 levels. To meet this rising demand, while also retiring inefficient older plants, some projections indicate that 281,000 megawatts of new power generation capacity will be needed by 2025 – equivalent to almost 950 new power plants of 300 megawatts each. Demand for electricity is growing even faster on a global basis – particularly in developing countries. 
Coal is a complex chemical latticework of carbon, hydrogen, and dozens of trace elements. When combusted, some of these elements, such as sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury, are converted to chemical forms that can create pollutants in the air and water. Carbon, the main constituent of coal, combines with oxygen from the air to form carbon dioxide which, in turn, can act as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Policy efforts aimed at preserving U.S. air and water quality, protecting human health, and mitigating climate change have significant impacts on coal power generation. Current and proposed regulations will drive efforts to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. The Clean Air interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule call for further reductions in power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and also sets a cap for mercury emissions, which had not been previously regulated as a power plant pollutant. 
The link between power generation and water quality is clearly recognized in President Bush's National Energy Policy. Fossil-fueled power plants account for approximately 39 percent of the water used in the United States, second only to agriculture. Most of the water is used for cooling. Water quality can be affected by the intake and discharge of cooling water as well as by power plant air emissions. 
U.S. and international policymakers continue to seek options for reducing the environmental and health consequences of coal use. Federal R&D efforts focus on expanding the policy options available for economically and effectively addressing these issues. Advanced technologies can be instrumental in enabling tomorrow's coal power plants to meet current and pending regulations while providing the affordable electricity essential to economic vitality. NETL is directly involved in implementing the current program within the Office of Fossil Energy through on-site research, project management of a diverse portfolio of R,D & D projects, and through analyses assessing cost, performance, life-cycle emissions, and the impact of proposed regulations on new and existing power plants. 
This talk will focus on the emerging suite of technology options and on studies to evaluate their potential to contribute to the nation's energy mix. In addition, we will discuss the current R,D & D plan and analytical activities that support program evaluation efforts. Key studies that might for the basis for cooperation between our respective organizations (and perhaps others) will be highlighted. 

## National Energy Technology Laboratory

**Only DOE national lab dedicated to fossil energy **
- Fossil fuels provide 85% of U.S. energy supply
**One lab, five locations, one management structure**
**1,200 Federal and support-contractor       employees**
**Research spans fundamental science                              to technology demonstrations**

## NETL’s Mission

**Implement and manage extramural RD&D **
**Conduct onsite research**
**Support energy policy development**

**Implement a research, development, and demonstration program to resolve the environmental, supply, and reliability constraints of producing and using fossil resources **

## NETL FY 2006 Budget: $725 Million

**NETL FY 2006 Budget: $725 Million**

**Coal RD&D**
**$317M**

**Gas RD&D**
**$33M**

**Non-FE**
**$163M**

**Fossil **
**Energy**
**Program **
**Support**

**Clean Coal Power Initiative/FutureGen**

**$102M**

**Oil RD&D**
**$32M**

**$ Million**

**$68M**

**Clean Coal **
**Technology **
**Demonstration **
**Support $10M**

## Growing U.S. Energy Demandand Domestic Fossil Energy Resources

## U.S. Energy Picture

*Lower figure: Energy & Electricity per DOE EIA, AER 2003*
*GDP per U.S. DOC, Bureau of Economic Analysis*

***Coal dominates***
***electricity generation***

***Coal use linked to***
***economic growth***

**U.S. Energy Picture**

**Coal**
**Natural gas**
**Nuclear**
**Renewables**
**Oil**

***U.S. Electricity Generation***

**Electricity**
**Generation**

**Total Energy**
**Consumption**

**GDP**

**Coal-fired**
**Generation**

## U.S. Production, Consumption, and Total Imports of Petroleum, 1970-2025 

***EIA (AEO 2005); Reference Case Scenario***

**70% by 2025**

**56%**

**30**

***Total Imports***

**Production**

**Consumption**

**19.8 MMBPD**

**28.3 MMBPD**

**9.3 MMBPD**

**8.6 MMBPD**

**2025**

**2003**

**Million Barrels per Day**

**Year**

## U.S. Annual Energy Expenditures Percent of GDP

**U.S. Annual Energy Expenditures Percent of GDP**

***Highest Proportion in 20 Years; Highest Sustained Growth in 25 Years ******Current Trend and Impact on Future GDP?***

*EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004*
*Short Term Energy Outlook, October 2005*

***"Although the global economic expansion appears to have been on a reasonably firm path through the summer months, the recent surge in energy prices will undoubtedly be a drag from now on," ***
**Alan Greenspan, October 17, 2005 **

**Notes:**
Looking at a longer term perspective of these statistics, one can see that today’s high levels were greatly exceeded by the energy cost proportion of GDP during the crisis years of the 70’s and early 80’s
click
Worth noting however is that today’s level of energy percentage of GDP is already reaching levels not seen in over 20 years
click
And the total sustained run-up in energy costs since 2002 has not been experienced since the Iranian oil crisis more than 25 years ago; outgoing Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan was uncharacteristically definite in suggesting this would represent an ongoing problem for the economy

## Changed Domestic Supply Forecast AEO’06E

**crude oil**

**coal**

**natural gas**

**Changed Domestic Supply Forecast AEO’06E**

**Imports (Quads/Year)**

***Added 3.9 Quads Domestic Supply (2025) in AEO’06E from AEO’05***

*Annual Energy Outlook 2005, 2006E*

**nuclear**

**renewable**

**natural gas liquids**

**other production**
**hydrogen, methanol, etc.**

## "Renewable energy promises many benefits. But renewables alone do not offer us a path to a sustainable future within our present span of vision. Economic development and poverty eradication depend on secure, affordable energy supplies." -Robert Priddle, Executive Director, International Energy Agency, World Summit on Sustainable Development, September 2002.

## Domestic Energy Resources

| Coal (zero-emission power generation & high-value liquids/chemicals ) | 500,000 million short tons  |
| --- | --- |
| Low-Permeability 
Sandstones  | 1,000’s of TCF of gas |
| Deep Gas  | 1,000’s of TCF of gas  |
| Methane Hydrates  | 100,000’s of TCF of gas  |
| Maximize Oil Recovery  | 100’s of billions of barrels of oil  |
| Shale Oil  | 2 trillion barrels (~600 billion barrels -grade exceeding 25 gallons per ton) |
| Tar Sands | 17 to 180 billion barrels |
| Biomass* | 50 billion gallons of ethanol |
| *Assumes that R&D advances enable a doubling of bio-energy crop yields and a significant increase in conversion efficiency. |  |

**Notes:**
Huge, tar-like deposits in Canada and Venezuela will be critical over the next 50 years to the supply of liquid fuels as the world's production of easily pumped oil plummets. Yet, turning this non-conventional oil source into synthetic oil is not likely to be the solution to our energy crisis, as some claim. Canada is no Saudi Arabia.Still, such synthetic oil, which also can be made from coal and natural gas, could provide a critical bridge to an era of new technologies, cleaner fuels and lower-energy lifestyles.But it won't be easy.Some energy analysts say we need to launch emergency programs to bring these non-conventional sources of oil to market before conventional oil peaks and then declines. When conventional production will peak is in dispute, but estimates generally range from as soon as this year to well into the 2030s.How much the Alberta oil sands, as Canadians call their tar sands, can help in this transition is debatable, as industry estimates of economically recoverable oil reserves in Canada vary enormously.Oil & Gas Journal estimates close to 180 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia's approximately 260 billion, while BP Statistical Review of World Energy puts the figure at about 17 billion barrels, based on oil sands under active development. And the Canadian oil sands don't even turn up on the International Energy Agency's industry lists of the 10 countries with the largest proven oil reserves.Even the higher industry estimate is only about a six-year world supply, as the planet now consumes close to 30 billion barrels of oil a year.Eddy Isaacs, managing director of the Alberta Energy Research Institute, a provincial government agency, estimates that the oil sands and other non-conventional sources around the world will provide only 10 to 15 percent of the additional oil needed over the next 20 years."We need to go on many fronts," Isaacs said. "There is not one silver bullet out there that is going to do it all."Tar sands production is now 1 million barrels a day and is projected to increase fivefold by 2030, still about half of Saudi Arabia's current output and less than 5 percent of world production in 2030.Still, by 2030 the tar sands may meet 16 percent of North American demand, providing a secure and large source of oil for Canada and the United States, energy analysts say.
From Energy Bulletin, Turning tar sands into oil
By Thomas J. Quinn
 Published on Friday, July 22, 2005 by Cleveland Plain Dealer

## Potential to contribute to mitigation 

**GTL: 450 Million standard cubic foot/day will yield 45,000 barrels/day **
**CTL: Approximately 3 million tons per year of coal would be needed to feed a single 20,000-BPD plant.  To replace 2 MM barrels/day would require 300 million tons per year (a 30% increase)**
**Tar sands: One million tons of material will yield one million barrels of oil (current production = one million barrels/day)**

## Long-term U.S. Oil and Natural Gas PricesDisassociate from Btu Parity

*EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, 2006E*

**Long-term U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Prices****Disassociate from Btu Parity**

***Shift in Ratio of Oil Price to Natural Gas Price***

***Drivers Will Tend to Tighten Energy Market Price Disparities***

**Notes:**
A significant change has been implemented in the forecasting of oil and natural gas price in AEO’06.  Whereas in AEO’05 the prices of the two commodities had remained somewhat close on a $/MMBtu basis (in the $4 to $5/MMBtu range) the forecast in AEO’06 reflects a significant divergence from BTU parity due to a much higher percentage increase throughout the forecast period for oil prices than for natural gas.
click
The disparity shown in the AEO’06 fuel price forecasts is relatively constant throughout the period and even more pronounced when considering the coal price forecast; on average coal is reflected as more than 8 and 5 times cheaper than oil and gas respectively
click
Obviously strong incentives will exist to develop and/or deploy technology alternatives that would take advantage of these energy price differentials. Deployment of these energy alternatives can be expected to diminish the wade and constant price disparities shown here.  
	[Note: the “Rigs” driver refers to the proportion of rigs drilling for oil vs. gas; although currently drilling 80% for gas this could quickly change to produce more oil, given the price advantage shown.  This would have the parallel effect of reducing gas production and raising gas price.]

## Coal Requirement With CCS

**MMst/Year**

*Annual Energy Outlook 2006E*
*Annual Energy Review 2004*

**Coal Requirement With CCS**

***A Significant Challenge For the Nation’s Mining and Transport Industries***

**Assumes:****	****35% higher coal consumption per existing CCS MW thru 2011**
** ****	****20% higher coal consumption per new CCS MW after 2011**

**2,054**

**Notes:**
In addition to the aforementioned challenges facing the coal-fired power industry, one looming challenge needs to be properly put into context
click
Should the requirement develop requiring remediation of significant existing coal-fired carbon emissions even more demands will be put on the industry for coal production as well as generation
In the case of coal production, if 50 % of existing coal-fired generation were required to mitigate carbon emissions, through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), as well as 75 % of future coal-fired generation the amount of additional coal required to serve this additional load would be significant; as seen in this example, an added amount roughly equivalent to 25% of today’s production

## Environmental Challengesand the Promise of Advanced Technologies

## Key Environmental Challenges for Coal

**Mining with minimal environmental impact**
**Mercury emissions from **
**	****coal power plants**
**Climate change/variability**

## U.S. and Global Mercury Emissions

**U.S. and Global Mercury Emissions**

**Tons Per Year**

**1990**

**1996**
**Emissions**

**1999**

***Mercury Emissions Dropped ***
***25% During 1990 - 99***

***Mercury Emissions Are Global ***
***Problem***

**U.S. Power**
**Plant **
**Emissions**
**1%**

**U.S. All**
**Other**
**Sources**
**2%**

**Emissions**
**From All**
**Other **
**Countries**
**97%**

***1999 Global Mercury Emissions***

***Bar chart:  EPA; piechart: based on Pacyna, J., Munthe, J., presentation on mercury, Brussels, March 29-30, 2004***

**Other**
**Medical Waste**
**Incinerators**
**Municipal Waste**
**Combustors**
**Utility Coal**
**Boilers**

**0**

**50**

**100**

**150**

**200**

**250**

**221**

**196**

**112**

**Notes:**
The second issue looks at emission of mercury from power plants, one of the remaining major sources of mercury emissions within the US. 

The figure shows that, following mandated reductions in mercury emissions from medical waste incinerators and municipal waste combustors in the 1990s, coal-fired boilers are the largest remaining class of emitters.  The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), also proposed in March of this year,  will result in large emission reductions from this class, through a cap and trade program.  

Under the cap and trade approach, existing and new coal-fired power plants will have to reduce their mercury emissions by two deadlines, both later than 2008.  By 2010 the plants (as a group) must emit no more than 38 tons per year of mercury, representing a 22% reduction from current levels.  The cap that goes into effect in 2018 is 15 tons per year, about 70% below current levels.

The second chart on the slide also shows the mercury emissions are a global issue. Total US emissions area very small percentage of the total. This is why the US proposed to the UNEP a partnership program to address mercury emissions in other countries with significant mercury emissions. We believe that introduction of control equipment for conventional pollutants, such as wet scrubbing for SO2, can have significant co-benefits in reducing mercury emissions.

## Both Regional and Local Action Needed to Address Air Quality Issues

***Urban v. Regional Contribution to PM Concentrations***
***(2000-2000, Average ******μ******g/m******3******) ***

*CAIR presentation at AEO 2005 Conference, S. Napolitano, EPA, April 12, 2005*

**Notes:**
But we are not done. Issues still remain and the United States is taking steps to address two major concerns.  
There is an issue with compliance with ambient air quality standards in many large populations centers in the US. Both regional and local actions are needed to address air quality issues such as this because air quality in these cities has both a regional and a local component.

This slide shows how regional (often interstate)air transport of pollutants affects air quality in 10 urban areas. The orange bars indicate pollutants generated in the respective urban areas, while the red bars indicate pollution carried in from surrounding areas.  Obviously a regional, rather than a state-by-state, approach is needed to achieve significant air quality improvement in these urban areas.

The CAIR rule, proposed in March of 2005, will achieve this, as it applies to 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia.  The rule provides for reducing SO2 emissions by more than 70% and NOx emissions by over 60% by 2015.  Shorter range targets call for cutting emissions of SO2 to 45% of 2003 levels by 2010 and cutting NOx emissions by 53% by 2009.

## What about CO2 Emissions?U.S. CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion

***Coal-Fired Power Plants  Produce ***
***1/3 of U.S. ***
***CO******2 ******Emissions***** **

**Residential**

**Commercial**

**Industrial**

**Transportation**

**Electric**

**Tg CO****2**** Eq.**

***Relative Contribution***
***by Fuel Type***

**U.S. Territories**

- Table 2-3, EPA 430-R-03-004, April 2003
-  Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2001

## The Path to Significant Reductions of Carbon Emissions from Power Generation

**The Path to Significant Reductions of Carbon Emissions from Power Generation**

**Most of today’s power plants will retire between 2015 and 2060 creating a window of opportunity to reduce carbon emissions**
**This opportunity can be realized through construction of a portfolio of low-carbon emitting power plants**
- Renewable energy sources
- Nuclear power
- Fossil power with carbon sequestration

**Notes:**
Fossil power with sequestration is one possible pathway that will conceivably allow us to meet the long term stabilization goal. How sustainable is sequestration as a mitigation strategy? Several key questions remain, including cost and performance of integrated power and sequestration technologies, global sequestration capacity and infrastructure, and proof of permanence. 

From a practical consideration of resulting domestic carbon emissions in 2050, fossil fuel-fired electricity generation equipped with carbon sequestration is interchangeable with renewable energy sources and nuclear power.

## What can new technology provide over the next 25 years?

**Notes:**
2002 Climate Technology Award – CENPEEP was selected for this prestigious award by the Climate Technology Initiative for its accomplishments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power generation plants in India, and for promoting climate-friendly technologies in developing countries. 

EPA's 2003 Climate Protection Award – CENPEEP was selected for this prestigious award for its efforts in reducing greenhouse gases in power generation through efficiency improvements. 

## Air Emission Trends and ProjectionsAnnual U.S. Air Emissions and Coal Use

**Coal Use**

**NO****x**

**SO****2**

**Mercury**

**Coal Use, NO****x**** and SO****2**** Emissions**
**(Index: 1970 = 1)**

**Mercury Emissions (tons)**

*Historical data (1970–2000): Coal consumption and electricity generation per DOE EIA, AER 2003*
*NO**x** and SO**2** per EPA Air Trends Report: http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrenda/econ-emissions.html*
*Projected data (2003**–**2020): Coal consumption and electricity generation per DOE EIA, AEO 2005*
*NO**x** and SO**2** per EPA projections under CAIR: http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/charts.html*
*Mercury per EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule*

## Improved Efficiencies Reduce Carbon Emissions

**Improved Efficiencies Reduce Carbon Emissions**

**Current Chinese Plants**

**Current U.S. Plants**

**Today’s**
**State-of-the-Art**

**DOE’s 2020**
**Goal**

**Gas Turbine**

**Gas Turbine**
**Combined Cycle**

**% Efficiency, HHV**

**Tons CO****2**** per MWh**

**Coal-**
**Fueled **

**Natural Gas **

***NETL, McGurl, 2004***

**Notes:**
On another front, continued improvement in the efficiency of power production reduces emission of criteria pollutants and of CO2. Continued efforts to raise the generating efficiency of existing plants may be cost effective in some cases and rapid introduction of newer technologies can serve to make the case that coal is a fuel of the future. New technology, for example, is being rapidly introduced in China moving the data point for tons of CO2, as shown on this curve,  downward.

	Efficiency	CO2
	(HHV)	(Short tons/MWh)
China coal (4)	32	1.18
Current U.S. fleet (3)	35.5	1.08
State-of-the-art (1)	40–45	0.74–0.87
DOE 2020 goal (2)	60	0.557
NG simple turbine (1)	34.6	0.58
NG combined cycle (1)	50.6–53.4	0.397–0.377

(1)  Market Based Coal Power Systems, May 1999, DOE/FE-0400
(2)  Current and Future IGCC Technologies: Bituminous Coal to Power (Draft), Mitretek Systems MTR-2004-05
(3)  Annual Energy Outlook 2004, DOE Energy Information Administration, January 2004
(4)  CO2 Reductions Through Efficiency Improvement to Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants and Deployment of Supercritical Units in China, by Zongrang Zhao, Thermal Power Research Institute, February 2004, Presented at the APEC Workshop on Near-Term Options to Reduce CO2 Emissions from the Electric Power Generation Sector

## Sources Of GHG Emissions Reduction in The US Under The Atmospheric Stabilization Scenario

**Sources Of GHG Emissions Reduction in The US Under The Atmospheric Stabilization Scenario**

**Reductions rely **
**directly on sequestration **
**R&D**

**Reductions partially reliant on sequestration R&D**

**Reductions do not depend on Sequestration R&D, but do include power plant efficiency gains**

***EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2002; EPA special studies;***
***DOE/FE/NETL Sequestration Benefits Model***

**Notes:**
Beginning in 1998, NETL conducted assessments that looked at the gap between a reference case GHG emissions scenario for the United States over the next fifty years and a scenario where GHG emissions are constrained toward achieving stabilization of atmospheric concentrations.  Using data from the NEMS along with published cost/supply curves for various GHG mitigation options, the program estimated the relative contributions from a number of technologies/sectors in “filling the gap.”  The data and methodology is contained in an internal spreadsheet-based model, CarBen. 
The Figure summarizes the results of the benefits analysis.  It shows that expected population and economic growth cause steady increases in GHG emissions and a very large gap between anticipated emissions and a stabilization scenario by 2050.  Carbon Sequestration has the potential to carry a significant portion of the emissions reduction need, combined with other GHG mitigation strategies like increasing energy efficiency and use of renewable fuels.

## Fossil Power with Capture Enables Significant Emissions Reductions

**Fossil Power with Capture Enables Significant Emissions Reductions**

**Current Pathway**

**Significant Renewable and Nuclear**

**All New Fossil**
**Plants have Sequestration**

**Notes:**
These scenarios are plausible paths for electricity generation through 2050.  The scenarios do not provide predictions of the future, only quantitative depictions of what would happen if certain general trends occur.  They are based on NEMS forecasts of electricity requirements and generation through 2020 found in AEO 2002 assuming that the goals of the Fossil Energy R&D program are met (i.e., the High Fossil Electricity Technology case).  Using this starting point, scenarios are developed that assume different future preferences for new electricity generating equipment.  These choices would depend on the commercial readiness of the technology (cost, performance, and acceptability), market drivers, and regulatory constraints.  
General assumptions for all of the scenarios are:
Electricity generation grows at the same rate as it did from 2000 to 2020 in the NEMS forecast (1.8% per year). (AEO 2002, p. 72.)
Hydroelectric generation remains constant (300 million MWh per year) through 2050. 
Peaking power and cogeneration continue to provide the same fraction of total generation as in 2020.
Peaking power is 2.82% of total generation. & Cogeneration is 8.25% of total generation.
Existing nuclear power generating capacity declines based on retirement of plants at age 60. 
UDI database used to determine the year commissioned.
Existing conventional coal plants decline according to a "most probable" retirement schedule. 
Analysis of information in the UDI database.
Existing conventional natural gas generation declines based on retirement at age 30.
NEMS runs conducted by OSPS provide additional information and detailed descriptions of advanced technology. 
Description of Each Scenario...
1.  Current Path
This scenario assumes that the energy mix forecast for total electricity supply in 2020 under the AEO 2002 High Fossil Electricity Technology case continues from 2021 through 2050.  Using this assumption, 80.3% of the new electricity generating equipment constructed each year would use fossil energy sources, 7.2% would use renewable energy sources, and 12.5% would use nuclear energy sources.  No carbon sequestration is employed after 2021.
This is not a “business-as-usual” approach in the sense that changes to current U.S. energy trends are needed to create this future. 
2.  Significant Renewables and Nuclear
This scenario assumes that, beginning in 2021, a significant fraction (two-thirds) of the new electricity generating equipment constructed each year through 2050 has zero carbon emissions.  Specifically, one-third of the new capacity required uses renewable energy sources and one-third uses nuclear energy sources (this is for purposes of illustration as changes in generating technology within this zero carbon emissions segment would not alter actual carbon emissions).  The remaining requirement for electricity supply is met by construction of advanced natural gas combined cycle power plants.  No carbon sequestration is employed after 2021.
3.  All New Fossil Plants Sequestered
In this scenario, advanced fossil energy technology (integrated gasification combined cycle and natural gas combined cycle power plants) incorporating carbon sequestration capability constitutes the bulk of new electricity generating equipment constructed each year.  The following assumptions are made:
Renewables grow at the high growth rate found in the EIA High Renewable Energy case (6.9% per year). (AEO 2002, Table F8, p. 222.)
No new nuclear power plants are built.
Additional new electricity generation required is provided by building equal capacity of advanced IGCC and NGCC plants with carbon sequestration.
Sequestration begins in 2017 on all new IGCC and NGCC plants constructed. 
Capture efficiency is 90% from 2017 through 2024 and 95% from 2025 through 2050.
Carbon sequestration rates for 90% capture:
Advanced NGCC = 0.216 tonne CO2/MWh; Advanced IGCC = 0.470 tonne CO2/MWh
Carbon sequestration rates for 95% capture:
Advanced NGCC = 0.228 tonne CO2/MWh; Advanced IGCC = 0.496 tonne CO2/MWh

## Fossil Energy RD&D Program

## Clean Coal RD&D Technologies  Address Near- and Long-Range Needs

***Short-term:***** keep existing fleet in service; prepare for transition to near-zero-emission future**
- SO2, NOx, Hg
- Plant optimization and control
- Reduced carbon intensity
***Long-term:***** add near-zero emission energy plants **
- IGCCs to market
- Advanced materials
- Ultra-high efficiency hybrid systems
- CO2 capture and storage

- Rev. 071404

## USDOE’s Core Coal R&D Program

**USDOE’s Core Coal R&D Program**

***Technologies***

**FutureGen**
**Supporting**
**R&D**

**Advanced gasification**
**Gas cleaning**
**Oxygen production**
**Hydrogen production**
**Sequestration**
**Hydrogen turbines**

**Stationary fuel cells**
**Fuel cell / turbine hybrids**
**Advanced combustion**
**Byproduct utilization**
**Advanced materials **
**Instrumentation & controls**

**Innovations for Existing Plants R&D**

## “Traditional” IGCC

**Coal**

***Central Power***
**Gas Turbine Combined Cycle**

**“****Traditional” IGCC**

**O****2**

**Syngas**
**H****2 ****and CO**

**Coal**
**Gasifier**

**O****2**
**Plant**

**Sulfur**

**Gas**
**Cleanup**

**PSI Energy Wabash River **
**300-MW IGCC Power Plant**

**Tampa Electric**
**250-MW IGCC Power Plant**

** ****Experience Gained**
**from 2 Operating IGCC Plants**
** ****in CCT Program **

## FutureGen . . .

**Produce electricity & hydrogen from coal**
- advanced IGCC technology
- nominal 275 MW
**Emit virtually no pollutants**
- Air, water, solid waste
**Capture and permanently sequester CO****2**
- 1 million tonnes/yr

**Address 3 Presidential initiatives*****:***** **
- Climate Change
- Clear Skies
- Freedom Car

**Notes:**
FutureGen will showcase leading-edge technologies that can achieve near-zero emissions while producing electricity and hydrogen from coal.  Near-zero emission levels will enable coal-based plants to meet permitting requirements in all 50 States.

Near-zero emissions:	>99% sulfur removal
		<0.05 lb/MMBtu NOx (~5ppm)
		<0.005 lb/MMBtu particulate
		>90% Hg removal
		>90% CO2 capture/sequestration

The FutureGen Project Plant will also serve as a platform for testing advanced technology modules as they emerge from the FE’s core R&D program.

The FutureGen Initiative supports three additional Presidential Initiatives: the Climate Change Initiative; the Clear Skies Initiative to reduce emissions of SO2, NOx and Hg; and the hydrogen-fueled Freedom Car.

Shown in the inset is an artist’s conception of what a FutureGen power plant might look like.

Why FutureGen?
In view of possible restrictions on CO2 emissions, FutureGen will enable coal to. . .
continue to be an option for power generation, not only in the United States but wherever coal will be used
be used in transportation sector by producing hydrogen from domestic coal . . . with near-zero carbon emissions using IGCC Technology

## IGCC in FutureGen

**Coal**

**O****2**

**Syngas**
**H****2 ****and CO**

**Coal**
**Gasifier**

**O****2**
**Plant**

**Sulfur**

**Gas**
**Cleanup**

***Transportation***
**Fuel Cells**
**IC Engine**

**Geologic**** ****Sequestration**

***Distributed Power***
**Fuel Cells**

**“****New Parts”**

**IGCC in FutureGen**

**Shift**

**H****2**

**CO****2**

***Central Power***
**Gas Turbine Combined Cycle**

## Supporting Analytical Activitiesand Potential Areas for Collaboration

## The Planning and Analysis Process

**Program Portfolio**
**Goals**

**Sub-Programs**
**Projects**

**Systems Analysis**
**Technical and Economic Feasibility**

**Benefit Estimates**

**Where does  program get**
**best “bang for the buck”? **

**Will technology help **
**R&D Program reach its goal?**

**What does technology need**
**to do to have an impact?**

## Example:  Using Systems Analysisto Estimate Performance

**Systems analysis of Current and Future IGCC Configurations**
- 15 IGCC cases assessed (3 with carbon capture)
- Technology advances considered
- Advanced gasifier designs
- increased capacity factor and carbon utilization
- Warm-gas cleanup
- Advanced syngas turbine
- ITM for oxygen
- SOFC
**Currently being updated with new technologies and updated performance **

**Notes:**
This slide and the next two slides are based upon the following report:
Gray, D.,  et al. (Mitretek)  “Current and Future IGCC Technologies: Bituminous Coal to Power”.  August 2004. 

## Technology Time Sequence for Deployment

## Identify Technology Merit

**Use computer-based tools with projected technology performance to determine impact**

**Continuous feedback loop with researchers to keep performance estimates up-to-date**

**# = Case**

**Year of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability**

***Does concept show potential to improve system performance?***

## Summary of IGCC Cases No carbon capture

**0%**

**-1%**

**-4%**

**0 pts**

**+1.1  pts.**

**+2.7 pts.**

**+5.1 pts.**

**+6.7 pts.**

**+8.3 pts.**

**+7.9 pts.**

**+8.3 pts.**

**+10.5 pts.**

**+24.9 pts.**

**+20 pts.**

**-6%**

**-11%**

**-21%**

**-21%**

**-26%**

**-23%**

**-23%**

**-17%**

**Notes:**
CF = improved capacity factor
CU = improved carbon utilization (in gasifier)
FB = 7FB turbine
H = H turbine
ITM = Ion Transport Membrane (for separation of oxygen from air)
SCOHS = Selective Catalytic Oxidation of Hydrogen Sulfide (advanced sulfur removal)
SOFC = Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

## Sources Of GHG Emissions Reduction in The US Under The Atmospheric Stabilization Scenario

**Sources Of GHG Emissions Reduction in The US Under The Atmospheric Stabilization Scenario**

**Reductions rely **
**directly on sequestration **
**R&D**

**Reductions partially reliant on sequestration R&D**

**Reductions do not depend on Sequestration R&D, but do include power plant efficiency gains**

***EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2002; EPA special studies;***
***DOE/FE/NETL Sequestration Benefits Model***

**Notes:**
Beginning in 1998, NETL conducted assessments that looked at the gap between a reference case GHG emissions scenario for the United States over the next fifty years and a scenario where GHG emissions are constrained toward achieving stabilization of atmospheric concentrations.  Using data from the NEMS along with published cost/supply curves for various GHG mitigation options, the program estimated the relative contributions from a number of technologies/sectors in “filling the gap.”  The data and methodology is contained in an internal spreadsheet-based model, CarBen. 
The Figure summarizes the results of the benefits analysis.  It shows that expected population and economic growth cause steady increases in GHG emissions and a very large gap between anticipated emissions and a stabilization scenario by 2050.  Carbon Sequestration has the potential to carry a significant portion of the emissions reduction need, combined with other GHG mitigation strategies like increasing energy efficiency and use of renewable fuels.

## Driving Down the Costs for 

**Driving Down the Costs for **
**Pulverized Coal Power Plants**

- 4.80
- (c/kWh)

- 7.67
- (c/kWh)

- 7.04
- (c/kWh)

- 6.48
- (c/kWh)

- 6.76
- (c/kWh)

- 5.84
- (c/kWh)

- 4.83
- (c/kWh)

- 6.94
- (c/kWh)

- 7.55
- (c/kWh)

**SC Base Case**

**USC Base Case**

**A—Supercritical (SC) PC Plant (No Capture)                                B—SC with Amine Scrubbing                                 C—SC + Advanced Amine (Econamine)****	****                     D—SC + Ammonia CO2 Only                                        E—SC + AA + CO2/SO2/NOx/Hg (No Credit)                                 F —SC + AA + CO2/SO2/NOx/Hg (By-Product Credit)                                                              G—Ultra-Supercritical (USC) No Capture                                      H—USC + Amine                                                            I—USC + Advanced Amine**
**                         **

**Driving Down Costs**

**Driving Down Costs**

**Notes:**
Current scrubbing technologies fall far short of the program goal. Case F approaches goal, but only because of the byproduct credit. This is a niche opportunity. The ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate byproducts can be sold and can be used as fertilizer, but because of the scale of power production market saturation would be fairly rapid.

## Driving Down the Costs for IGCC

**Driving Down the Costs for IGCC**

**A—IGCC w/o CO****2**** Capture                                       B—Selexol Scrubbing****                                                   ****C—Advanced Selexol Scrubbing           **
**D—Selexol w/ Co-Storage of H****2****S/CO****2****                    ****E—Advanced Selexol w/ Co-Storage of H****2****S/CO****2****       F****—Selexol w/ O****2**** Membrane                                    G—Selexol w/ WGS Membrane                               H—Selexol w/ O****2**** & WGS Membranes                          I—Adv. Selexol w/ O****2**** & WGS Membranes            J—Adv. Selexol w/ O****2**** & WGS Membranes, Co-storage**  **                                                                    **
**K—Chemical Looping w/ Co-Storage                     L****1****—Co-Production w/ H****2**** Membrane**                            M**1****—Co-Production w/ SOFC                                  N****1****—Co-Production w/ SOFC and H****2**** Membrane   O—Adv. O****2**** & WGS Membranes w/ Co-Storage**
**1****50% Power/50% Hydrogen production with NG value at $4.00/MM Btu **

- 4.18
- (c/kWh)

- 5.52
- (c/kWh)

- 5.31
- (c/kWh)

- 5.47
- (c/kWh)

- 5.27
- (c/kWh)

- 5.18
- (c/kWh)

- 5.51
- (c/kWh)

- 5.18
- (c/kWh)

- 4.90
- (c/kWh)

- 4.85
- (c/kWh)

- 4.80
- (c/kWh)

**IGCC Base Case**

- 4.19
- (c/kWh)

- 4.911
- (c/kWh)

- 4.841
- (c/kWh)

- 4.361
- (c/kWh)

***Driving Down Costs***

**Notes:**
There are multiple technology options for IGCC that approach the program goal. These include: cheap oxygen production (membranes), improved water gas shift efficiency (membrane), and hydrogen/CO2 separation membrane and co-storage of H2S and CO2.  

## Driving Down the Costs for 

**Driving Down the Costs for **
**Oxy-Combustion Cases**

- 5.06
- (c/kWh)

- 8.21
- (c/kWh)

- 7.84
- (c/kWh)

- 7.07
- (c/kWh)

- 6.69
- (c/kWh)

**SC Base Case**

**A—Supercritical (SC) PC Plant (No Capture)                            B—SC PC Plant with Oxy-Combustion (Cryogenic)                                                        C—SC PC Plant with NZE Oxy-Combustion (Cryogenic)         D—SC PC Plant with Oxy-Combustion (O2 Membrane) E—SC PC Plant with NZE Oxy-Combustion (O2 Membrane) **
**                         **

**Driving Down Costs**

**Notes:**
Oxyfuel combustion is one of the most promising strategies for CO2 capture. It produces only CO2 and water, and there are opportunities to drive down cost by co-sequestering criteria pollutants along with the CO2.  For example, Case E cheap oxygen (via membrane) and co-sequestration of SO2 and NOx along with the CO2 can help approach our goal. We need new technologies to make the next step.

## Assess Portfolio of Options 

**7**

***Where Should R&D Best Focus?***

## Using NEMS to Estimate Benefits

**Benefit Analysis Involves Multitude of Cases**

- Scenario 1

**Total FE R&D Benefits**

- Case 1A

- Case 1B

**With R&D**

**Without R&D**

- Case 1B - DG / Fuel Cells

- Case 1B - Gasification

- Case 1B - Sequestration

- Case 1B - IEP

**Technology-Level Coal R&D Benefits**

**Isolates Technology Benefits**

**Using NEMS to Estimate Benefits**

## Considering Future States of the World

- Scenarios

| Business as Usual 
The Current Regulatory Framework is considered as a “business as usual” scenario and is based on EIA’s AEO Reference Case  |
| --- |

| Clean Air
FY04: The Clear Skies Initiative (CSI) as represented Senate Bill 485 

FY05: The Clean Air Rules for mercury and SOx & NOx as represented in CAMR and CAIR |
| --- |

| High Fuel Prices
Assumes higher world oil prices and constrained natural gas supplies, resulting in higher natural gas prices 

FY05 add:  more severe constraint on supplies as joint EE/FE scenario |
| --- |

| Carbon Constraint
Climate Change Technology Initiative goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity by 2012

FY05 add:  more stringent carbon constraint as joint EE/FE scenario |
| --- |

## FE R&D Program Consumer Cost Savings

- http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/brochures/pdfs/fossil_energy.pdf

**Notes:**
Estimating the DOE Office of Fossil Energy R&D Program Benefits, FY2004 Final Report.  December 2004.  Internal DOE/FE Report.

## Sequestration R&D Allows New Capacity to Utilize Domestic Fuels

**FE R&D Makes Sequestration Affordable Keeping Coal a Viable Option**

## Integrated Fossil – Renewable Systems
Coal / Biomass Co-Gasification
Wind turbines and dispatchable coal plants

“Common Basis” Assessments
Synergistic Roles of Fossil and Renewable Technologies
Comparative Economic Assessments
Life Cycle Emissions
National Benefits of RD&D

Adaptation Strategies for Global Climate Change

- Coal / Biomass Co-Gasification
- Wind turbines and dispatchable coal plants
**“****Common Basis” Assessments**
- Synergistic Roles of Fossil and Renewable Technologies
- Comparative Economic Assessments
- Life Cycle Emissions
- National Benefits of RD&D
**Adaptation Strategies for Global Climate Change**

**Potential Areas for Collaboration**

- Rev. 061404

## Advanced Coal Plants—Lower Life Cycle GWP than Solar PV

**Advanced Coal Plants—Lower Life Cycle GWP than Solar PV**

| Technology | Construction | Operation  | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| IGCC- no capture* | 0.5 | 86 | 87 |
| IGCC- with capture* | 0.6 | 8.4 | 9 |
| NGCC* | 0.2 | 38 | 38 |
| Hydro with dam* | 0.8 | Negl. | 1 |
| Solar* | 20 | Negl. | 20 |
| Wind farm* | 1 | Negl. | 1 |

****Ruether et. Al. Environmental Live Cycle Assessment of a Coal Gasification-based Power Plant. Presented at EUEC, 2003.*
****Pacca, S., and A. Horvath, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 3194.*

## Coal must play a key role in securing healthy U.S.  and global economy
recognized in Presidential-level initiatives: Clear Skies, Climate Change, FutureGen, Hydrogen, Sequestration
Must maximize existing fleet performance everywhere in the world as bridge to the future
New coal plants needed soon!
What kind will we build? (e.g., conventional pc, IGCC, zero-emission)
U.S. CCT Roadmap charts challenging but “doable” path forward for coal
FutureGen Project will show near-zero
	emission coal-based energy is possible

**Coal must play a key role in securing healthy U.S.  and global economy**
- recognized in Presidential-level initiatives: Clear Skies, Climate Change, FutureGen, Hydrogen, Sequestration
**Must maximize existing fleet performance everywhere in the world as bridge to the future**
**New coal plants needed soon!**
- What kind will we build? (e.g., conventional pc, IGCC, zero-emission)
**U.S. CCT Roadmap charts challenging but “doable” path forward for coal**
**FutureGen Project will show near-zero**
**	****emission coal-based energy is possible**

**Closing Comments**

- Rev. 061404

## Visit Our Websites

***NETL’s website:***_***[www.netl.doe.gov](http://www.netl.doe.gov/)***_

**Visit Our Websites**

***Office of Fossil Energy’s website:***_***[www.fe.doe.gov](http://www.fe.doe.gov/)***_

## Backup Slides

## Systems Analysis Level of Detail

**Systems Analysis Level of Detail**

**Feasible?**

**Level III**** **
**Detailed Economic**** Analysis**
** ****Final **
**Design**

**+/- 30 % Accuracy**

**Level II **
**Preliminary Mass & Energy Balance**
** ****Conceptual Design**
**+/- 50% Accuracy**

**Level I **
**Rough Cost Estimate**
** ****+/- 50 to 100% Accuracy**

**Feasible?**

**Results**

**Results**

**Re-evaluate Technology**
**Define performance targets**

**No**

**Re-engineer design(s) to achieve performance targets**

**No**

**ASPEN**
- -Equipment Sizing

**Vendor Quotes**
- -Design and Costs

**ICARUS**
- -Equipment Costs

- Yes

- Yes

**ASPEN**
**Spreadsheets**
**Cost Curves**
**Rule of Thumb**

**Notes:**
Key Points
 Working with technologies still at the ‘bench scale’ with little scientific data
 Not ‘off the shelf’ systems—little previous research available for help

Rough Cost Estimate (aka ‘back of the envelope’)
Takes place with ‘one data point’ 
Very rudimentary calculations, large block flow diagram or lumping of systems for estimates
Expect only 50 to 100% accuracy

Order of Magnitude Estimate
Our efforts are focused in this area   Hold up and talk about awareness of the Quality Guidelines for Energy Systems Studies—Not used since we were not starting from scratch—used analogous studies instead
Conceptual design with simplified PFD is based on laboratory data
Preliminary mass & energy balances carried out
Utilize results of previous studies, ASPEN and/or develop spreadsheet models for block calculations
Objective is to identify the large cost or energy intensive sub-components within a conceptual design
Goal is +/-50% accuracy

Final Design and Economic Analysis
Scale-up and design is based on a Pilot Plant data
Detailed Economics Performed with the goal of +/- 10% accuracy

## Capital Cost ($/kW) Timeline

**Year of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability**

## Efficiency Timeline

**# = Case**

**Year of Pre-Commercial Demonstration Availability**

## COE Timeline