# Presentation: 341157

## Coal Gasification-Air Pollution and Permitting Implications of  IGCC

- USEPA Air Innovations Conference
- John Thompson
- Clean Air Task Force
- August 10, 2004

## Presentation Topics

- Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
- Overview
- Environmental Performance
- Cost
- Barriers to Deployment
- Permitting Implications

## IGCC: What is it?

- _Chemical_ conversion of coal to synthetic gas for combustion in a modified gas turbine
- Inherently cleaner process because:
- Coal is not _combusted._
- Pollutants are removed with greater efficiency because clean-up occurs while syngas volume is relatively small compared with flue gas.

## IGCC Schematic

**Syngas**

_***End-products***_

_***Feeds***_

_***Gas Refining***_

**Oxygen**

- Electricity

- CO2 Sequestration Option

- Solids

_***Gasification***_

** ****SULFUR /CO****2**

**REMOVAL**

- Steam

- Combustion Turbine

**Syngas**

- Chemicals

- Hydrogen

- Ammonia

- Methanol

**Coal**

** **

**Syngas**

- Sulfur

**REMOVAL**

**MERCURY**

- Mercury

## Tampa Electric – Polk Power Station

**Tampa Electric – Polk Power Station**

**.**

- 250 MW – operating since 1996

## IGCC vs. conventional coal plants

**IGCC vs. conventional coal plants**

- An IGCC places the chemical plant in the *front end* of plant.
- In contrast, a conventional coal plant is less efficient because it places a chemical plant at the *back* *end*, attempting to capture pollutants after combustion and much dilution**.**

## Solid waste and water use

- Solid Wastes
*Less Volume*: IGCC produce about half the solid wastes of conventional coal plants.
*Better Form*: IGCC solid wastes are less likely to leach toxic metals than fly ash from conventional coal plants because IGCC ash melts and is vitrified (encased in a glass-like substance).
- Water Use
*Less Water:* IGCC units use 20%-50% less water than conventional coal plants and can utilize dry cooling to minimize water use.

## Carbon dioxide

- Up to 100% of the carbon in 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 basis than at natural gas plants.
- Even without carbon capture and sequestration, IGCC plants are more efficient than conventional coal plants and emit less CO2.

## Air Emissions

- IGCC has fewer air emissions than a conventional supercritical pulverized coal plant (SCPC)

## IGCC costs are close to conventional coal plants

- Source: EPRI, 2004

**IGCC costs are close to conventional coal plants**

- IGCC may cost slightly more than convention plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) but costs much less when carbon is reduced.

## Barriers to Deployment

- Power Industry Culture
-  This is a chemical plant.  Power companies understand combustion, not chemical units.
- Perceived technical and financial risk.
- Why build an IGCC if you can get a permit for a conventional coal plant?
- Is IGCC BACT?

## Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and IGCC

- If a conventional coal plant is proposed, should IGCC be evaluated as an alternative option?
- States
- Yes: 		Illinois, Montana, New Mexico
- No: 		Wisconsin, West Virginia
- Undecided:	Many states
- Federal
- May issue an opinion through permit appeal decision.  Have been reluctant to decide in other forums.

## Some Closing Observations

- More IGCC plants are being proposed than in the past.
- IGCC plants are vastly cleaner than conventional coal-fired power plants.
- Costs of IGCC are close to that of conventional coal-fired power plants.
- Regulatory crossroads- Is IGCC BACT for producing electricity from coal?
*	**You’ll never know if your state’s air permit applications don’t compare IGCC to conventional coal plants AND do the comparison accurately!!!*