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 presentation 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 CO2 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 2014 
Carnegie 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 Group 
Carnegie Mellon University 

Research Objectives

3 

1) Evaluate the potential for a range of “on-site” mitigation 

technologies to reduce CO2 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 CO2 emission reductions; 

3) Identify viable mitigation option(s) for alternative 

regulation scenarios. 

2/19/14 
Carnegie Mellon University 

• Engineering Assessments 

• Peer reviewed literature 

• Well characterized/modeled 

• Emerging Opportunities 

• Trade journals 

• Incomplete documentation 

“On-site” Plant Mitigation Measures

2/19/14 4 

Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43343.pdf
Carnegie 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

2/19/14 5 
Carnegie 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

2/19/14 6 
Carnegie 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 

2/19/14 
Carnegie 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 

2/19/14 
Carnegie 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 

§ CO2 capture and storage 

options 

2/19/14 9
Carnegie 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

2/19/14 10

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 countries
Carnegie 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 emissions 
Carnegie 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

2/19/14 12 

Technology 1 Technology 2 

Technology 3 

Baseline 
Carnegie 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

2/19/14 13 

Technology 1 Technology 2 

Technology 3 

Baseline 
Carnegie Mellon University 

Costs for Cluster 8 Mitigation Technologies

2/19/14 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 emissions 
Carnegie 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

2/19/14 15 

Technology 1 

Technology 2 

Technology 3 

Baseline 
Carnegie Mellon University 

Comparison of Frontiers for Cluster 5 and 8

2/19/14 16 

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 5 
Carnegie Mellon University 

Mitigation Technology Choices to meet 

Hypothetical Emission Performance Standards. 

2/19/14 17 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 

LCOE ($/MWh) 

CO2 net emission intensity (lbs/MWh) 
Carnegie Mellon University 

Mitigation Technology Choices to meet 

Hypothetical Emission Performance Standards. 

2/19/14 18 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 

LCOE ($/MWh) 

CO2 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

2/19/14 
Carnegie Mellon University 

Reductions Expected from Efficiency 

Improvements

20 

• A 1% improvement in heat rate is ~1% improvement in CO2 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

2/19/14 
Carnegie 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"="0.1238x1.5404

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)"

2/19/14 
Carnegie Mellon University 

Questions

2/19/14 22 

• 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 CO2 emission 

reductions? 

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

Contacts

2/19/14 23 

• 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) 956-4667 
Carnegie 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 

2/19/14 
Carnegie Mellon University 

Relationship between Net Plant Efficiency and CO2

Reduction

25 

Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43343.pdf

2/19/14