From: jja1@andrew.cmu.edu [mailto:jja1@andrew.cmu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:49 PM To: Srivastava, Ravi Cc: Paul Fischbeck; Haibo Zhai; eric.svensonjr@gmail.com; davidrwooley@gmail.com; Jeffrey Anderson Subject: CMU meeting slides for 19 February at 4 pm. Dear Dr. Srivastava, Please find attached a copy of the slides for present ation at the meeting today. We look forward to speaking with you and your group. Sincerely, Jeff Anderson Jeffrey Anderson Ph.D. student Department of Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University Hamburg Hall A012 Tel 412 ‐ 268 ‐ 3376 Fax. 412 268 ‐ 3757 Email. jja1@andrew.cmu.edu << CMU_PC_CO2_Mitigation_EPA_2014_02_19.pdf >>

# Assessments of CO 2 

# Emission-Reduction Opportunities through “On-Site” Measures at Existing Coal-fired Plants Jeffrey Anderson PIs: Dr. Paul Fischbeck Dr. Haibo Zhai Engineering and Public Policy Department Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA. for the EPA 19 February 2014Carnegie Mellon University



# Attendees

2 

## Expert Group: Eric Svenson David Wooley CMU Research Group: Jeffrey Anderson Paul Fischbeck Haibo Zhai

2/19/14 

## EPA: Ravi Srivastava’s GroupCarnegie Mellon University



# Research Objectives

3 

## 1) Evaluate the potential for a range of “on-site” mitigation technologies to reduce CO 2 

## emissions from existing U.S. coal-fired power plants and estimate the associated costs; 2) Identify cost associated with mitigation technology frontiers for different levels of CO 2 

## emission reductions; 3) Identify viable mitigation option(s) for alternative regulation scenarios.

2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University 

# • Engineering Assessments • Peer reviewed literature • Well characterized/modeled


# • Emerging Opportunities • Trade journals • Incomplete documentation 

# “On-site” Plant Mitigation Measures

4 2/19/14 Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43343.pdfCarnegie Mellon University 

## • Use of high-quality coal • Bituminous (Illinois #6) • Sub-bituminous (Wyoming Powder River Basin) • Lignite coal drying (not commercially available) 

## • Improve basic plant heat rate • Supercritical boiler • Ultra-supercritical boiler 

## • Cofire with natural gas • Pipeline • Boiler modification • Simulation through gas reburn 

# Engineering Assessment Mitigation Measures

5 2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



## • Cofire with biomass • Forest Residue, Corn Stover, Hybrid Poplar • Delivered • Retrofit • O&M 

## • Conversion to 100% gas-fired boiler and combined cycle plants • Pipeline • Retrofit 

## • Carbon Capture System (CCS) • Power source • Pipeline • Retrofit 

# Engineering Assessment Mitigation Measures

6 2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



# “On-site” Decision Tool Task Structure

7 

### Public Databases Working Database Plant Categories IECM* Decision Tool Database “On-site” Decision Tool Cost, Emission Levels, Technologies 

### External Calculations Mitigation Technologies User Scenarios



## *Integrated Environmental Control Model 2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



# Databases

8 

# • National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) • Version 4.10 

# • Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)

• eGRIG2012 version 1.0 

# • Geographic Information • Natural Gas pipelines • Biomass • Carbon Sequester Source: Dynamic Map, GIS Data, & Analysis Tools. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013. Web. 30 Dec. 2013 2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



# Integrated Environmental Control Model: A Power Plant Performance and Cost Model A desktop/laptop computer model developed by CMU for DOE/ NETL; free and publicly available at: www.iecm-online.com Provides systematic estimates of performance, emissions, costs and uncertainties for preliminary design of

§ PC, IGCC and NGCC plants § Flue/fuel gas treatment systems § CO 2 

### capture and storage options 9 2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



# IECM Applications Model Applications

§ Process design § Technology evaluation § Cost estimation § R&D management § Risk analysis § Environ. compliance § Marketing studies § Strategic planning 

## Profile of IECM Users

10 2/19/14 13%

37% 33% 11% 6% Utility	Company Other	Company University+NGOs Government Unknown

21%

9% 2% 10%

58% US+Canada Europe Asia+Pacific Other Unknown Organization Type Geographic Region n > 800 organizations >2300 individuals > 50 countriesCarnegie Mellon University



# Costs for Cluster 5 Mitigation Technologies

11 0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60" 70" 80" 90" 100"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%"LCOE%($/MWh)%

net%CO2%emission%intensity%reduc:on% 2/19/14 

### Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology 3 Technology 4 Baseline

Technology 6, 7 Technology 8 Technology 5

Baseline with updated emissionsCarnegie Mellon University 0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60" 70" 80" 90" 100"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%"LCOE%($/MWh)%

CO2%net%intensity%reduc8on% 

# Cluster 5 Mitigation Technologies Frontier

12 2/19/14 

### Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology 3

BaselineCarnegie Mellon University 0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60" 70" 80" 90" 100"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%"LCOE%($/MWh)%

CO2%net%intensity%reduc8on% 

# Cluster 5 Mitigation Technologies Uncertainty

13 2/19/14 

### Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology 3

BaselineCarnegie Mellon University



# Costs for Cluster 8 Mitigation Technologies

14 2/19/14 0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60" 70" 80" 90"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%"LCOE%($/MWh)%

net%CO2%emission%%intensity%reduc:on% 

### Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology 3 Technology 4

Baseline Baseline with updated emissionsCarnegie Mellon University 0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60" 70" 80" 90" 100"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%"LCOE%($/MWh)%

net%CO2%emission%intensity%reduc:on% 

# Cluster 8 Mitigation Technologies Frontier

15 2/19/14 

### Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology 3

BaselineCarnegie Mellon University



# Comparison of Frontiers for Cluster 5 and 8

16 2/19/14 0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60" 70" 80" 90" 100"

0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%"LCOE%($/MWh)%

net%CO2%emission%intensity%reduc:on% 

### Baseline 8 Baseline 5Carnegie Mellon University



# Mitigation Technology Choices to meet Hypothetical Emission Performance Standards.

17 2/19/14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500LCOE ($/MWh)

CO 2 net emission intensity (lbs/MWh)Carnegie Mellon University



# Mitigation Technology Choices to meet Hypothetical Emission Performance Standards.

18 2/19/14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500LCOE ($/MWh)

CO 2 net emission intensity (lbs/MWh)Carnegie Mellon University 

# Emerging Opportunities—Efficiencies

19 

## • Combustion system • Pulverizer and feeder upgrades • Sootblower optimizations
• Steam cycle • Feedwater heater repairs • Condenser repairs • Steam turbine refurbish
• O&M • Computerized maintenance and management • Reliability centered maintenance
• Parasitic load Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43343.pdf Source: http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/documents/83186/8781/Upgrading-and-efficiency-improvement-in-coal-fired-power-plants,-CCC/221 Source: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/electricgeneration.pdf 2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



# Reductions Expected from Efficiency Improvements

20 

### • A 1% improvement in heat rate is ~1% improvement in CO 2 

### gross emission intensity.
• Relationship between heat rate and utilization is nonlinear—emission intensity change will be nonlinear.
• Individual improvements for absolute net plant efficiency range between 0.1% and 2.6%.
• Efficiency improvements are not necessarily additive.
• EPA study states site-specific factors impact efficiency to varying degrees—identical plants operated by different companies will have different efficiencies. Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43343.pdf Source: http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/documents/83186/8781/Upgrading-and-efficiency-improvement-in-coal-fired-power-plants,-CCC/221 Source: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/electricgeneration.pdf 2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



# Cost for Relative Net Plant Efficiency Improvement*

21 

## Net efficiency for new sub-critical plant burning sub-bituminous coal with all emissions: 37% (HHV) Cost to improve 5% absolute efficiency: $2.60/MWh at FCF = 11.23% Baseline 8 proxy: 385 MW, 32% net plant efficiency (HHV)

*Source: modified from Bedzdek , R., and R. M. Wendling . ”Economic, Environmental, and Job Impacts of increased Efficiency in Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants." Journal of Fusion Energy 32.2 (2013): 215-220. y"="0.1238x 1.5404

R2"="0.61783"

0" 500" 1,000" 1,500" 2,000" 2,500" 3,000" 3,500"

0" 100" 200" 300" 400" 500" 600" 700"cost"of"efficiency"gained"($/kWBrelaEve"efficiency)"

nameplate"capacity"(MW)"

2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



# Questions

22 2/19/14 

### • What metrics are you considering for the new standard for existing plants? • Absolute emission reduction • Net emission intensity • Gross emission intensity • Percent emission reduction


### • What reduction options are you considering/allowing? • Biomass • Natural gas replacement (up to what percent burning natural gas) • Efficiency improvements—steam cycle, parasitic loads


### • When is a coal plant not a coal plant? At what percent of burning biomass or natural gas is the plant reclassified?
• Can credits be given for CCS, converting a plant to natural gas or rebuilding it as a NGCC power plant that can be used to permit other coal-fired plants to continue operating with a reduced requirement on CO 2 

### emission reductions?
• How are you going to use uncertainty in your standard?Carnegie Mellon University



# Contacts

23 2/19/14 

### • Dr. Paul Fischbeck pf12@andrew.cmu.edu (412) 268-3240
• Dr. Haibo Zhai hbzhai@andrew.cmu.edu (412) 268-1088
• Jeff Anderson jja1@andrew.cmu.edu (503) 956-4667Carnegie Mellon University



# Reductions Expected from Lignite Coal Drying

24 

### • Lignite pre-drying can potentially increase net plant efficiency by up to 4%, if boiler designed for dry feeding*.
• Percentage of total coal that is dried prior to throat can be as high as 25%-30% for existing boilers—leading to a 1% efficiency gain*.
• 20% relative decrease in moisture (~38.5% to 29.5%) leads to 3.3% relative improvement in boiler efficiency and 3.3% improvement in net unit heat rate—3.3% reduction in CO2 emissions**.

*Source: http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/documents/83186/8781/Upgrading-and-efficiency-improvement-in-coal-fired-power-plants,-CCC/221 **Source: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inenr/leu/leu_50.pdf 2/19/14Carnegie Mellon University



# Relationship between Net Plant Efficiency and CO 2 

# Reduction

25 Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43343.pdf 2/19/14