Global Outlook for Coal-Based Power Generation: Implications for Developing Countries

(1)

Global Outlook for Coal

Global Outlook for Coal - - Based Based Power Generation: Implications Power Generation: Implications

for Developing Countries for Developing Countries

Edward S. Rubin

Department of Engineering and Public Policy Department of Mechanical Engineering

Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Presentation to the World Bank Conference

Energy Week 2009: Energy, Development and Climate Change Washington, DC

April 1, 2009

Outline of Talk Outline of Talk

•

Global energy demand, coal use and CO₂emissions

•

The needs of climate change mitigation

•

Past trends in “clean coal technology”

•

Status and outlook for CO₂capture & storage (CCS)

•

The role of CCS in developing countries

(2)

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

Outlook for World Energy Use Outlook for World Energy Use

(reference case scenario) (reference case scenario)

Source: USDOE-EIA, 2008

50%

increase

Source: USDOE-EIA, 2008

World Electricity Generation World Electricity Generation

92%

increase

(3)

World Coal Consumption World Coal Consumption

Source: USDOE-EIA, 2008 of total energy use

CO CO

₂₂

Emissions from Coal Combustion Emissions from Coal Combustion

Source: USDOE-EIA, 2008

(4)

2050–2080 2010–2030 2000–2015 Required year

for peak global CO₂

emissions

+25% to +85%

4.0 – 4.9 ºC 710 – 855

-30% to +5%

2.8 – 3.2 ºC 535 – 590

-85% to -50%

2.0 – 2.4º C 445 – 490

Required change in global CO₂ emissions from

2000 to 2050 Global avg.

temperature increase over pre-industrial Atmospheric

stabilization CO2-equiv(ppm)

(2005=375 ppm)

Avoiding Serious Climate Impacts Avoiding Serious Climate Impacts Requires Large Reductions in CO Requires Large Reductions in CO ₂ ₂

Lower stabilization levels require earlier action to reduce emissions The most recent IPCC assessment indicates potentially serious

impacts for more that a 2ºC rise in average global temperature

Source: IPCC, 2007

The Potential of The Potential of Clean Coal Technology Clean Coal Technology

•

The term “clean coal technology” was coined in the 1980’s to describe new PC and IGCC power plants with low levels of particulate, SO₂and NO_xemissions

•

Here are the trends for new U.S. power plants:

Particulates SO₂ NO_x

5

1.2 0.6

0.1

0.01 0.1 1 10

Pre- NSPS

1971 NSPS

1979 NSPS

1999 FGD 0.2

0.1

0.03

0.01

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Pre- NSPS

1971 NSPS

1979 NSPS

1999 TSP

1

0.7 0.6

0.15

0.01 0.1 1 10

Pre- NSPS

1971 NSPS

1979 NSPS

1997 NSPS

lbs / 106Btu fuel input

98%

Red. 99%

Red. 99.7%

Red. 99.9%

Red.

0%

Red. 75%

Red.

90%

Red.

98+%

Red.

0%

Red.

30%

Red.

40%

Red. 85%

Red.

Particulates SO₂ NO_x

5

1.2 0.6

0.1

0.01 0.1 1 10

Pre- NSPS

1971 NSPS

1979 NSPS

1999 FGD 0.2

0.1

0.03

0.01

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Pre- NSPS

1971 NSPS

1979 NSPS

1999 TSP

1

0.7 0.6

0.15

0.01 0.1 1 10

Pre- NSPS

1971 NSPS

1979 NSPS

1997 NSPS

lbs / 106Btu fuel input

98%

Red. 99%

Red. 99.7%

Red. 99.9%

Red.

0%

Red. 75%

Red.

90%

Red.

98+%

Red.

0%

Red.

30%

Red.

40%

Red. 85%

Red.

(5)

The Potential of The Potential of Clean Coal Technology Clean Coal Technology (2) (2)

•

Increasingly, “clean coal” also means low emissions of CO₂

—both from improved power plant efficiency (e.g., use of supercritical vs. subcritical boilers), and also from the use of CO₂capture and storage (CCS)

Energy Conversion

Process Air or Oxygen Carbonaceous

Fuels

CO₂ CO₂

Capture &

Compress

CO₂ Transport

CO₂Storage (Sequestration) Energy

Conversion Process

Air or Oxygen Carbonaceous

Fuels

CO₂

Energy Conversion

Fuels

CO₂

Energy Conversion

Fuels

CO₂ CO₂

Capture &

Compress

CO₂ Transport

CO₂Storage (Sequestration) CO₂

Capture &

Compress

CO₂ Transport

Capture &

Compress

CO₂ Transport

Capture &

Compress

CO₂ Transport

CO₂Storage (Sequestration)

CCS is a key element of cost CCS is a key element of cost - - effective global energy strategies effective global energy strategies

Source: IPCC, 2007

(6)

Key Messages Key Messages

•

Coal-based power plants will continue to provide the major share of electricity demand for decades to come, especially in emerging economies

•

Large reductions in CO₂ emissions from coal plants are needed to avoid serious impacts of climate change

• Only CCS has promise to reconcile continued use of coal with climate change mitigation

Status of CCS Technology Status of CCS Technology

•

CO₂capture technologies are commercial and widely used in industrial processes, mainly in the petroleum and petrochemical industries (e.g., for ammonia production and processing of natural gas)

•

CO₂capture also has been applied to several gas- fired and coal-fired boilers (to produce commodity CO₂for sale), but at scales that are small compared to a large modern power plant

•

Integration of CO₂capture, transport and geologic sequestration has been demonstrated in several industrial applications, but not yet at an electric power plant

(7)

Three Current CCS Projects

Weyburn (Canada)

Sleipner (Norway)

In Salah (Algeria)

Estimated Increase in New Plant Costs Estimated Increase in New Plant Costs

with Current CCS Technology with Current CCS Technology

~ 40%

~ 70%

Increase in capital cost ($/kW) and total generation cost ($/MWh) (w/ deep aquifer storage)

Integrated Gasification

Combined Cycle Plant Supercritical

Pulverized Coal Plant Incremental Cost of CCS Relative to

a Similar Plant without CCS based on bituminous coals

Source: Based on IPCC, 2005; Rubin et al, 2007; DOE, 2007

Levelized cost in 2007 US$

Cost reduced by

~ $20–30 /tCO₂ - Enhanced oil recovery + storage

~ $40 /tCO₂*

~ $70 /tCO₂ Cost of CO₂avoided (US costs)

- Deep aquifer storage

* ~$50/t relative to a SCPC plant. Different choices of reference plant have different avoidance costs.

Costs vary widely for different assumptions and circumstances

(8)

Barriers to CCS Deployment Barriers to CCS Deployment

•

No requirement for large reductions in CO₂emissions

•

High cost of current technology

•

Lack of experience in power plant applications

•

Lack of regulations for large-scale geological sequestration

•

Unresolved legal issues (e.g., long-term liabilities)

•

Uncertainties about public acceptance

These barriers do not apply in all countries

Full Full -Scale Projects Are Needed to . . . - Scale Projects Are Needed to . . .

•

Establish the reliabilityand true costof CCS in commercial power plant applications

 For different technologies, coal types, and geological settings

•

Help establish legal and regulatory requirements for geological sequestration at large scales

•

Reduce future cost of CCS via learning-by-doing plus sustained R&D

(9)

Potential Cost Reductions for CCS Potential Cost Reductions for CCS

Source: DOE Office of Fossil Energy, 2006

19% -28%

reductions in total cost of electricity

31 28

19

12 10

5 5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

A B C D E F G

7.13 (c/kWh)

7.01 (c/kWh)

6.14

(c/kWh) 6.03

(c/kWh)

5.75 (c/kWh)

5.75 (c/kWh) 6.52

(c/kWh) Selexol Selexol

Advanced Selexol Advanced Selexol

Advanced Selexol w/co- Sequestration Advanced Selexol w/co- Sequestration

Advanced Selexol w/ITM

& co-Sequestration Advanced Selexol w/ITM

& co-Sequestration

WGS Membrane

& Co-Sequestration WGS Membrane

w/ITM & Co- Sequestration WGS Membrane

w/ITM & Co- Sequestration

Chemical Looping

& Co- Sequestration Chemical Looping

& Co- Sequestration

Percent Increase in COE 70 69

55 50 52

45

22 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

A B C D E F G

` 8.77

(c/kWh) 8.72 (c/kWh)

8.00 (c/kWh)

7.74 (c/kWh)

7.48 (c/kWh) 7.84 (c/kWh)

y

Percent Increase in COE

SC w/Amine Scrubbing SC w/Amine Scrubbing

SC w/Econamine Scrubbing SC w/Econamine Scrubbing SC w/Ammonia CO2Scrubbing SC w/Ammonia CO2Scrubbing

SC w/Multipollutant Ammonia Scrubbing (Byproduct Credit) SC w/Multipollutant Ammonia Scrubbing (Byproduct Credit) USC w/Amine

Scrubbing USC w/Amine Scrubbing USC w/Advanced

Amine Scrubbing USC w/Advanced Amine Scrubbing

6.30 (c/kWh) RTI Regenerable Sorbent RTI Regenerable Sorbent

50

33

26

21

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

A B C D

` 6.97 (c/kWh)

6.62 (c/kWh)

6.35 (c/kWh)

y y

Percent Increase in COE Advanced

Subcritical Oxyfuel (Cryogenic ASU) Advanced Subcritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU) Advanced Supercritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU) Advanced

Supercritical Oxyfuel (ITM O2) Advanced Supercritical

Oxyfuel (ITM O2) 7.86

(c/kWh) Current State Supercritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU) Current State Supercritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU)

IGCCIGCC PCPC

Oxyfuel Oxyfuel

Many Government Programs and Public Many Government Programs and Public- - Private Partnerships Are Already In Place Private Partnerships Are Already In Place

Some of the government programs supporting CCS:

•

Australia

•

Canada

•

China

•

European Union

•

United Kingdom

•

United States

Funding levels and scale of projects vary widely

(10)

Current Current Activity Activity

•

A variety of CCS projects are proposed or planned in different parts of the world

Project Name Location Feedstock Size MW Capture Process

CO2 Fate Start-up

Total Lacq France Oil 35 Oxy Seq 2008

Vattenfall Oxyfuel Germany Coal 30/300/1000 Oxy Undecided 2008

AEP Alstom Mountaineer USA Coal 30 Post Seq 2008

Callide-A Oxy Fuel Australia Coal 30 Oxy Seq 2009

GreenGen China Coal 250/800 Pre Seq 2009

Williston USA Coal 450 Post EOR 2009-15

NZEC China Coal Undecided Undecided Seq 2010

E.ON Killingholme UK Coal 450 Pre Seq 2011

AEP Alstom Northeastern USA Coal 200 Post EOR 2011

Sargas Husnes Norway Coal 400 Post EOR 2011

Scottish& So Ferrybridge UK Coal 500 Post Seq 2011-2012

Naturkraft Kårstø Norway Gas 420 Post Undecided 2011-2012

ZeroGen Australia Coal 100 Pre Seq 2012

WA Parish USA Coal 125 Post EOR 2012

Coastal Energy UK Coal/Petcoke 800 Pre EOR 2012

UAE Project UAE Gas 420 Pre EOR 2012

Appalachian Power USA Coal 629 Pre Undecided 2012

Wallula Energy USA Coal 600-700 Pre Seq 2013

RWE npower Tilbury UK Coal 1600 Post Seq 2013

Tenaska USA Coal 600 Post EOR 2014

BP Rio Tinto Kwinana Australia Coal 500 Pre Seq 2014

UK CCS project UK Coal 300-400 Post Seq 2014

Statoil Mongstad Norway Gas 630 CHP Post Seq 2014

RWE Zero CO2 Germany Coal 450 Pre Seq 2015

Monash Energy Australia Coal 60 k bpd Pre Seq 2016

Powerfuel Hatfield UK Coal 900 Pre EOR Undecided

ZENG Worsham-Steed USA Gas 70 Oxy EOR Undecided

Polygen Project Canada Coal/Petcoke 300 Pre Undecided Undecided

ZENG Risavika Norway Gas 50-70 Oxy Undecided Undecided

E.ON Karlshamn Sweden Oil 5 Post Undecided Undecided

Source: MIT, 2008

Existing/Proposed CO

₂

Storage Sites

Sites currently injecting CO2

Planned CCS sites (at least 700,000 t CO₂/yr)

Sites which have been cancelled or have completed injection

Source: SCCS, 2009

(11)

The GreenGen The GreenGen Project Project

(Tianjin, China) (Tianjin, China)

Partners include: China Datang Corp., China State Development and Investment Corp., China Guodian Corp., China Huadian Corp., China Power Investment Corp., China National Coal Group and Shenhua Group, Peabody Energy

Financing large

Financing large- -scale CCS projects scale CCS projects has been a major hurdle

has been a major hurdle

Options for financing early CCS projects (in U.S. and other industrial countries):

•

Expand traditional “technology policy” options (e.g., tax credits, loans, subsidies, etc.)

•

Adopt sufficiently stringency cap-and-trade program w/ CCS bonus allowances and/or a

tech. fund (e.g., from auction of allowances)

•

Establish a CCS Trust Fund with fees used to pay full added cost of early CCS projects

•

Set new regulations requiring CCS

(12)

CCS and Developing Countries CCS and Developing Countries

•

CCS projects in developing countries can contribute significantly to the worldwide need for large-scale demonstrations at coal-based power plants

•

Current government and industry programs need to aggressively pursue additional options to raise roughly

$1–2 billion/yr to support early CCS projects

•

The World Bank potentially can contribute to this effort, in conjunction with other international programs, via its Clean Technology Fund and other mechanisms

•

The sooner countries take action, the better our chances of avoiding serious impacts of global climate change

Thank You

[email protected]

Global Outlook for Coal-Based Power Generation: Implications for Developing Countries