Joseph Giove IIIDirector of Coal Business OperationsOffice of Fossil Energy
Overview of the Office of Clean Coal & Carbon Management
Rural Energy Providers Conference
April 23, 2016
2
The Environment is Changing for the Power Sector
‐200
‐100
0
100
200
300
400
Reference ANCR
2040
Cap
acity
Cha
nge (G
W) Renew
Nuclear
C Turbine
NGCC
Oil NGSteamCoal
175
225
275
325
375
2010 2020 2030 2040
Coal Cap
acity
(GW) AEO 2009 Reference
AEO 2009 (Est)
AEO 2014 Reference
AEO 2014 ACNR
Major changes affecting coal power:• Abundant natural gas• Regulatory environment
• Natural gas power generation predominately compensates for retired coal capacity and electricity demand growth in AEO forecasts
• This growth in natural gas power generation results in an additional 5‐6 Tcf use over reference case projections
3
The Environment is Changing for the Power Sector
• Nearly 18 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. electric generating capacity was retired in 2015.• More than 80% of the retired capacity was conventional steam coal. • The coal‐fired generating units retired in 2015 tended to be older and smaller in
capacity than the coal generation fleet that continues to operate.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory
President’s Climate Action Plan: Three overarching themes
4
Mitigation (emissions reduction)• ALL OF THE ABOVE• Efficiency, Renewables, Nuclear, Gas• Coal with CCS/CCUS
Adaptation and resilience• Smart, reliable grid• Key infrastructure investments
International Partnerships• China and OECD• Coordinated international efforts
Nuclear 8% Power generation efficiency 3%Renewables 21%End-use fuel switching 12%CCS 14%End-use fuel & elec. efficiency 42%
“All of the above” required
CCS technology remains critically importantabundant, low-cost fossil energy is why
66
Office of Fossil Energy
6
Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management
Office of Oil and Natural Gas
Strategic Petroleum Reserves
National Energy Technology Laboratory
7
Advanced Combustion
CO2 StorageAdvanced CO2 Capture and Compression
Solvents Sorbents Membranes Hybrid Process
Intensification Cryogenic Capture
Pressurized O2 membrane Chemical
looping USC Materials
Carbon Utilization (EOR)
Infrastructure (RCSPs) Geological Storage Monitoring, Verification
and Accounting
Gasification Turbines
Supercritical CO2 Direct Power Extraction
Integrated Fossil Energy Solutions
Efficiencies > 45% Capital Cost by 50%
$40/tonne CO2 CapturedNear-zero GHG emissionsNear-zero criteria pollutants
Near-zero water usage
Advanced Energy Systems
5 MWE Oxycombustion Pilot Advanced Turbines
8
Pathway for Technology CommercializationTRL 2 Successes
from FWP, SBIR/STTR, ARPA‐E
Transfer to Office of Major Demonstrations
“Valley of Death” for Technologies
We need more 2nd generation pilots!
HECACommercial Demo of Advanced
IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture~$5B – Total; $408M – DOE
EOR – ~2.6 MM TPY; mid-2020 start
Major CCS Demonstration Projects Project Locations & Cost Share
CCPIICCS Area 1
Southern CompanyKemper County IGCC Project
Transport Gasifier w/ Carbon Capture~$6.4 B – Total; $270M – DOE
EOR – ~3.0 MM TPY; 3Q-2016 start
Petra NovaW.A. Parish Generating StationPost Combustion CO2 Capture
$1B – Total; $167M – DOEEOR – ~1.4 MM TPY; early 2017 start
Summit TX Clean EnergyCommercial Demo of Adv. IGCC w/
Full Carbon Capture; EOR in Permian Basin
~$3.5B – Total; $450M – DOEEOR – ~1.84 MMTPY; late 2018 start
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.CO2 Capture from Steam Methane Reformers
EOR in Eastern TX Oilfields$431M – Total; $284M – DOE
EOR – ~0.93 MM TPY; started December 2012; Over 2.5 MMT stored as of December 2015
Archer Daniels MidlandCO2 Capture from Ethanol PlantCO2 Stored in Saline Reservoir$208M – Total; $141M – DOE
SALINE– ~0.9 MM TPY; 1Q-2017 start
Gasification Area
Liberty Mine
Treated Effluent Reservoir
Lignite StorageDome
Water Treatment Area
Gas CleanupArea
Ash Management Area
Combined Cycle Area
Southern ‐ Kemper County Advanced IGCC with CO2 Capture
Status Plant construction >99% complete Peak construction labor: 6,121 Lignite mine in commercial operation:
June 2013 Combined cycle commercial operation
on natural gas: Aug. 2014 Gasifier “First Fire” of natural gas
startup pilot burners: Mar 2015
Key Dates Project Awarded: Jan. 30, 2006 Project moved to MS: Dec. 5, 2008 NEPA Record of Decision: Aug. 19, 2010 Initiate excavation work: Sept. 27, 2010 Operations: Q3-2016
• Kemper County, MS• 582 MWe (net) with duct firing; 2 TRIGTM
gasifiers, 2 Siemens combustion turbines, 1 Toshiba steam turbine
• Fuel: Mississippi lignite• 67+% CO2 capture (Selexol® process);
3,000,000 tons CO2/year • EOR: Denbury Onshore LLC, Treetop
Midstream Services LLC • Total DOE CCPI Project: $2.01 B; DOE Share:
$407 MM• Total estimated project cost: ~$ 6.7B
Petra Nova – NRG W.A. ParishAdvanced Post Combustion CO2 Capture
Key Dates Project Awarded: May 2010 Air Permit: December 2012 NEPA Record of Decision: May 2013 Financial Close: July 2014 Construction: March 2014 Operation: January 2017
Status (as of 3/25/16) Foundations completed for quencher,
absorber, regenerator, compressor & HRSG. Cooling tower complete
Construction in progress on quencher, absorber, HRSG & pipeline
Regenerator being shop fabricated & compressor being manufactured
Construction: 67% complete
• Thompsons, TX (near Houston)• 240 MWe slipstream at NRG Energy’s W.A. Parish power plant (originally 60 MWe)
• Fuel: PRB sub‐bituminous coal• 90% CO2 capture (KM CDR Process®) 1,400,000 tonnes CO2/year
• EOR: Hilcorp West Ranch oil field • Total Project Cost: ~$1 billion DOE Share: $190 million
16
ADM ‐ Project Photos
Four Compressor Train Compressor & Auxiliaries
Dehydration System 24‐inch CO2 Transmission Line
17
Drilling the Monitoring Well
Hans Electrical Substation
National Sequestration Education Center
ADM ‐ Project Photos
Archer Daniels MidlandCO2 Capture from Biofuel Plant
• Decatur, IL• CO2 (>99% purity) is a by‐product from production of fuel‐grade ethanol via anaerobic fermentation
• Up to 90% CO2 capture, dehydration (via tri‐ethylene glycol) & compression
• ~900,000 tonnes CO2 /year• Sequestration in Mt. Simon Sandstone saline fm.• Total Project: $208 MM; DOE Share: $141 MM (68%)
Status Construction >97% complete Dec. 2015 Two monitoring wells drilled: Nov. 2012 New Hans substation energized: Nov. 2014 Commissioning compression and
dehydration system completed: Sept. 2015 Injection well drilled and completed: Sept.
2015
Key Dates Phase 2 Awarded: June 15, 2010 FEED Completed: April 2011 Construction started: May 2011 UIC Class VI Injection Well Permit:
Sept. 2014; UIC Class VI Operating Permit: Early 2016
Sequestration start at full rate: 1Q-2017
20
Port Arthur, TX: : 1.1 M tons/yr CO2Air Products, 2013
VSA VesselsVSA Vessels
Co-Gen Unit
Blowers
CO2Compressor &
TEG UnitCO2 Surge
Tanks
Existing SMR
Operational! 2.7M metric tons stored so far
Air Products & ChemicalsSteam Methane Reforming with CO2 Capture
Key Dates Phase 2 Awarded: June 15, 2010 FEED completed: Nov. 2010 Permit By Rule (PBR) and Standard
Air Permits issued: May 2011 NEPA FONSI: July 2011 Construction started: Aug. 2011 Operation started: Dec. 2012
Status PA-1 initiated operation: March 3, 2013 PA-2 initiated operation: Dec. 16, 2012 Full capacity achieved: April 2013 Has operated at >100% of design when necessary 1 MM tonnes CO2 delivered as of 4/24/14 Over 2.7 MM tonnes CO2 delivered as of
3/15/16
• Port Arthur, TX (Hydrogen plant at Valero Refinery)• 90%+ CO2 capture (Vacuum Swing Adsorption) from 2 steam‐methane reformers (SMRs) yielding ≈925,000 tonnes CO2/year
• ≈30 MWe cogeneration unit to supply makeup steam to SMRs and operate VSA and compression equipment
• CO2 to Denbury “Green” pipeline for EOR in Texas at West Hastings oil field
• Total Project: $431 MM; DOE Share: $284 MM (66%)
22
Large Scale Integrated Projects Worldwide
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1972
1982
1986
1996
2000
2004
2008
2010
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
Operate Execute Define Evaluate Cum. Volume
Num
ber o
f Pro
ject
sVolum
e CO
2 (mtpa)
Data from Global CCS Institute
23
White RosePeterhead(UK)
Uthmaniyah (KSA)
Lula (BRA)
Quest (CAN)
ESI (UAE) Gorgon (AUS)
GreenGen (PRC)Shenli
Yanchang
Global challenge global progress
Boundary Dam (CAN)
We need more projects and more information
new global solutions still required
National Energy Technology Laboratory
Gasification Systems and Coal & Coal Biomass to Liquids Programs
Radically Engineered Modular Systems (REMS) Initiative
Portfolio Manager: Jenny Tennant
25National Energy Technology Laboratory
Questions
Why do reactors have to be made up of cylinders and spheres?Why do we react coal as if it’s a homogenous fuel, when it’s not?Why must we remove excess carbon from coal when it’s mixed up with other gases, and then pump it underground?What if multiphase models could become powerful enough to help us manipulate coal to unprecedented levels?Is bigger always better?
Radically Engineered Modular Systems (REMS) is a new coal conversion
initiative aiming at revolutionizing coal conversion
26National Energy Technology Laboratory
REMS Foundation
The four cornerstones of this REMS are: multiphase modeling, novel reactor design, plant‐wide process intensification and additive manufacturing R&D, all of which must be developed and deployed in tight integration
• Reduce capital costs and enable complex reactors via advanced manufacturing
• Focus on plant‐wide cost reduction opportunities through intensification and advanced manufacturing
• Increase availability through multiple modular trains in larger plants
• Smaller modular plants will reduce the cost of functional prototypes and of using biomass (leading to GHG emission reduction without geological storage)
27National Energy Technology Laboratory
REMS R&D – Approach
• Target specific modular systems for particular locations to create locally needed products/services– Keep the work focused on reality and costs reasonable– Assure system use after testing is complete (free long term data)– Positive PR
• First Steps: select potential REMS plant locations, and go to those locations to talk to be people who live there:– Find out what they really need and want & level of interest– Discover unknown constraints and opportunities– And that is why I am here in Alaska this week
• Current plan is for two different REMS plants to be field tested by 2025
28National Energy Technology Laboratory
Current Top Three REMS Locations‐‐ and what we think they need out of REMS
• Rural Alaska to convert subbituminous coal & biomass into lower cost power– Local Need (?): Reduction in the COE for rural Alaskans (varies by village location)– DOE Need: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction compared to diesel generation (current means of power production)
– Robust & easy to use, even in 40 below weather
• Appalachia to convert bituminous coal & MSW into fertilizer, chemicals and power– Local Needs: local jobs and/or coal sales and MSW destruction; cost of products, including MSW revenue, must be competitive
– DOE Need: GHG emissions reduction compared to conventional production
• Military conversion systems that are very feed flexible, to create power and fuel– Military Needs: (1) meet the lifecycle GHG requirements of EISA 2007 §526 and (2) Supply critical fuel and power to camps without lengthy supply lines (?)
– Robust & easy to use; feed to include MSW from camp
29National Energy Technology Laboratory
Questions for Alaska
• What is of more interest – creating diesel to run diesel generation sets, or creating heat and power?
• What is it that remote villages most want to change about their current situation: – Cost of liquid fuels and/or electricity? – Destruction of municipal solid waste? – Creation of jobs? (Making products for sale)– Creation of other products the community needs? What are those?
• How close to the villages must a coal‐biomass conversion plant be to reduce transportation costs by enough to matter?
• How is diesel kept liquid all winter?• How often is power lost during the winter, and how do villages
cope?• Who is responsible in a village to run the electricity/heat
production system?
Plus all the answers to questions I didn’t think to ask
30National Energy Technology Laboratory
Communication Tools
A virtual bulletin board has been set up for the exchange of information on REMS‐type effortshttps://edx.netl.doe.gov/FossilREMS/
A free communication tool so you can tell us what REMS ideas you have, and a source of information on what REMS is