FutureGen and Technology Challenges for Climate Change
Michael J. MuddChief Executive Officer
FutureGen Industrial Alliance
Presentation toMIT Carbon Sequestration Forum VII
Nov.1 2006
IGCC: Innovative Technology
GasifierGasifier
Coal, Water and OxygenCoal, Water and Oxygen
Sulfur RemovalSulfur Removal
Solids and CoSolids and Co--ProductsProductsSulfurSulfur
Clean SyngasClean Syngas
Other Chemical ProductsOther Chemical Products
ElectricityElectricityElectricityElectricity
SteamSteam
WaterWater
Cooling WaterCooling WaterAirAir
Advantages of IGCC• Potential for lower emissions and higher efficiencies
• Allows coal to benefit from gas turbine technology improvements
• Easier to permit than new pulverized coal
• Versatile - feedstock flexibility and multiple products (electricity, chemicals -including hydrogen, transportation fuel, or "synthetic" natural gas)
• Potential to reduce incremental cost of CO2 capture
Advantages of IGCC• Potential for lower emissions and higher efficiencies
• Allows coal to benefit from gas turbine technology improvements
• Easier to permit than new pulverized coal
• Versatile - feedstock flexibility and multiple products (electricity, chemicals -including hydrogen, transportation fuel, or "synthetic" natural gas)
• Potential to reduce incremental cost of CO2 capture
Transitioning from NGCC to IGCC Adds Cost and Complexity
Natural gas
CombinedCycle
GASTURBINE
STEAMTURBINECONDENSER
TO STACK
HP, SUPERHEATEDSTEAMCONDENSATE
Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorCO
CAT A
LYST
SCR
POWER
POWER
TRIG™ Simplified Flow Diagram
CombinedCycle
GASTURBINE
STEAMTURBINECONDENSER
TO STACK
HP, SUPERHEATEDSTEAMCONDENSATE
Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorCO
CATA
LYST
SCR
POWER
POWER
GasifierIsland
COAL PILE
PROCESSAIR
COMPRESSOR
PARTICULATECOLLECTION
HIGHTEMPERATURE
SYNGASCOOLING
LOWTEMPERATURE
SYNGASCOOLING
SULFURREMOVAL AN
RECOVERY
COALMILLING &DRYING
HIGHPRESSURE
COALFEEDING
SOURWATER
TREATMENTAMMONIA
RECOVERY
SYNGASRECYCLE
SYNGAS
SYNGAS
SYNGAS
VENT GAS ANHYDROUAMMONIA
S
SULFURSYNGAS
G-ASH HP BFW
HP STEAM
MERCURYREMOVAL
TRANSPORTGASIFIER
AIR
F-ASH
EXTRACTION AIR
D
TRIGTM with Carbon Separation Technology Added
CombinedCycle
GASTURBINE
STEAMTURBINECONDENSER
TO STACK
HP, SUPERHEATEDSTEAMCONDENSATE
Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorCO
CATA
LYST
SCR
POWER
POWER
GasifierIsland
COAL PILE
PROCESSAIR
COMPRESSOR
PARTICULATECOLLECTION
HIGHTEMPERATURE
SYNGASCOOLING
CO2 and SULFURREMOVAL AND
RECOVERY
COALMILLING &DRYING
HIGHPRESSURE
COALFEEDING
SOURWATER
TREATMENTAMMONIA
RECOVERY
GASRECYCLE
LOWTEMPERATURE
GASCOOLING
SYNGAS
Hydrogen/ Nitrogen
EXTRACTION AIR
VENT GAS ANHYDROUSAMMONIA
SULFURGAS
G-ASH
G-ASH
HP BFW
HP STEAM
MERCURYREMOVAL
TRANSPORTGASIFIER
AIR
F-ASH
WATER GASSHIFT
REACTION
CO2
Examples of Syngas CO2 Capture Systems
Sour
ce:
Dako
ta G
asifi
catio
n
Petcoke Gasification to Produce H2(Kansas)
Sour
ce:
Chev
ron-
Texa
co
Coal Gasification to Produce SNG(North Dakota)
Commercialization Pathway
ExistingCommercial IGCC
IGCC w/CarbonCapture & Storage
Challenges: …………..
1.Verify Capex / OpEx2.Prove electricity costs3.Validate design decisions4.Verify operability
Carbon CaptureChallenges:
1. Incremental Capex and OpEx costs
2. Additional design andoperational complexity
Sequestration Challenges:
1. Uncertainty in sequestration science
2. Permitting and compliance for long-term.
FutureGenAEP IGCC Plant
FutureGen ProjectKey Features
• Commercial-scale, 275-MWe Plant • Minimum of 1 million tons/year CO2 captured and sequestered• Production of electricity from hydrogen• “Living laboratory” to test and validate cutting-edge technologies• Public-private partnership• Stakeholder involvement• International participation
FutureGen Project Benefits
• Supports a technology-based climate change strategy– Mitigates the financial risks of climate change
• Validates the cost and performance of an integrated near-zero emission coal-fueled power plant
– Advances IGCC technology– Advances carbon capture, sequestration, and hydrogen-production technologies– Sets groundwork for CO2 sequestration siting and licensing
• Creates the technical basis to retain coal U.S. energy mix with a long-term goal of zero emissions
• Enables the public and private sector to share the cost and risk of advanced technology demonstration
– Platform for emerging technology demonstration
The FutureGen Alliance
• An international, non-profit consortium of some of the largest coal and utility companies in the world
• Partnering with US Department of Energy to design, construct and operate the facility
FutureGen ProjectAddress the Technology Challenges
• Establish the technical, economic, and environmental viability of near-zero emission coal plants by 2015; thus, creating the option for multiple commercial deployments by 2020
• Adopting aggressive goals:– Sequester >90% CO2 with potential for ~100%– Extensive control of other emissions
• >99% sulfur removal• <0.05 lb/mmbtu NOx• <0.005 lb/mmbtu PM• >90% Hg removal
– Integrate new equipment, yet achieve commercial availability– With potential for a Nth plant commercial cost no more than 10% greater than that of
a conventional power plant
FutureGenIndustry’s View of the Facility
Air
Advanced Electricity
Generation
Research “User Facility”
Advanced Gas Clean-Up
SyngasSyngas CO2 H2
Advanced CO2 separation
O2 SyngasSyngas H2CO2Coal
Air
Slag
AirSeparation
UnitGasification Gas Clean-Up**
CO2Separation**
ElectricityGeneration**
Transportation and
other H2 uses
CO2Sequestration &
Monitoring
Electricity/Hydrogen Generation “Backbone”with CO2 Sequestration/Monitoring System
Advanced Oxygen
Separation
**Candidate for Multiple Technology Upgrades over FutureGen’s Lifetime.
Other Technologies
Electricity,H2, or
other Products
Advanced Coal
Conversion
Full-Scale Gasification
ResearchPlatform
POWERH2
Sequestration
Sub-scaleResearch
User Facility
POWER
Other Required Process Operations
~830°F
~550°F
~555°F
~600°F
~550°F
~550°F
Syngas in
water quench or steam addition
CO + H2O ⇔ CO2 + H2COS + H2O ⇔ CO2 + H2S• Water Gas Shift Reactors
– convert CO in syngas to CO2and H2
Syngas in
Absorption at processpressure
CO2-lean solvent
Pure CO2
Steam
Clean gas out
CO2-rich solvent
Regeneration T/P depends on solvent properties
Compression• Carbon Separation Equipment
– remove CO2 and H2S from H2
Hydrogen Combustion Is Challenging
• Requires diffusion type burner due to H2 flame speed• Operations will require fuel flexibility
H2, syngas, NG• 15 ppm NOx is achievable with H2 / diluent
Will need SCR
• Combustor technology improvements needed:– Fuel flexibility– Catalytic & premix based combustion
H2 / N2 Flame
Hydrogen Fuel Affects Gas Turbine Operations
Gen
H2 / Diluent 24%
Air - 100%
Gas Turbine
Natural Gas 2%NG Exhaust 102%
H2 Exhaust 124%
• Gas turbines are 'mass flow' machines– More mass throughput = more power – Current design geometries based on NG
• Fuel input is part of total mass flow through hot section
– Changing from NG to H2affects flows and output
– H2 / Diluent has higher mass flow– Unbalanced mass flow in
turbine section can impact compressor stability
• Turbine impacts of H2 firing:– Higher H20 in exhaust reduces life– Requires reduced firing temperatures (lost efficiency)
FutureGenCurrent Activities
• Site Selection– “Final Four” announced July 25– NEPA process underway
• First round of public hearings complete• First submittal of EIV surface and subsurface data complete• Preliminary emission envelope established
– Final site announced summer 2007
• Conceptual Plant Design– Reviews with major technology suppliers– Three alternative facility configurations identified– Conceptual design and cost estimate completed
• Conceptual Sequestration Design– Reservoir modeling for each site– Cost estimate completed
• Continuation Application for Budget Period 1– Will be submitted Dec. 14
Design & Cost EstimateDesign Cases
• Two Single-Trains– Slurry feed water quench– Dry feed water quench
• One Multiple-Stream Hybrid– 100% full slurry quench– 30% transport gasifier with ITM air separation
• Three coal types– Northern Appalachian– Illinois Basin– PRB
These are design configurations for the conceptual design & cost estimate, not the final designs. The actual designs
will be established through competitive bids in 2007.
FutureGenSite Selection Approach
Compliant with NEPA requirements– Conducted to support Environmental Impact Statement– RFP involved public comment period– Must consider reasonable sites– Must be approved by DOE (Lead Federal Agency)
Fair and Transparent Process– Driven by technical criteria not politics – Conducted in a ‘glass house’– Final selection report available to the public; posed on Alliance web page
Use defendable criteria– Rigorous process with clear criteria– Engaged industry experts– Consider both surface and subsurface characteristics
FutureGenSite RFP CriteriaQualifying Criteria
– Each proposal evaluated against certain qualifying criteria (Y/N)Scoring Criteria
– Each proposal scored on each criteria against a predetermined scale – Weighting system used to roll-up criteria scores
Best Value Criteria– Each proposal qualitatively evaluated against these criteria
A report that details the process can be obtained from the FutureGen web site www.FutureGenAlliance.org
FutureGenSite RFP Qualifying Criteria
17 Surface Criteria 18 Subsurface Criteria
FutureGenSite RFP Scoring Criteria
3.0 Power Plant
SiteCharacteristics
Construction &Operations
3.1 PhysicalCharacterisitcs
3.3 Proximity toSensitive Areas
3.4 Exposure toNatural Hazards
3.2 Other SiteCharacteristics
3.1.1Size
3.6 Water(Cooling)
3.7Transmission
3.8 Materialand FuelDelivery
3.2.1Road
Access
3.2.2Proximityto Target.Forma-tion(s)
3.3.2 TES& CriticalHabitat
3.3.3Cultural
Resources
3.3.4PublicAccessAreas
3.3.5 Non-Attainment
/ Maint.Areas
3.3.1Class I
VisibilityAreas
3.6.1Distance
3.6.2Adequacy
3.7.1 GridProximity
3.7.2Voltage
3.8.3Access toNatural
Gas
3.8.2DeliveryMode
Flexibility
3.8.1 Rail/BargeAccess
3.5.1SEPA
3.1.3Ele-
vation
3.7.3Rights-of-way
3.9Availability of
Workforce
3.9.3Construc-tion Cost
3.9.2Opera-tionalLaor
3.9.1Construc-tion Labor
FutureGen Siting Scoring Criteria
3.1.2Topo-graphy
3.2.5Existing
Land Use
3.2.3Dis-
persion
3.2.4 AirQuality
3.4.1Hurricane
3.4.2Tornado
3.1.4Flood-plain
3.5 Regulatory& Permitting
3.1.5Wetlands
4.0 Geologic Storage
Security
4.1 FormationProperties
4.1.2Orien-tation
4.1.4Capacity
4.2.1Faults
4.2.2Capillary
EntryPressure
4.2.4Injection
WellPenetra-
tions
4.2.5Other
Penetra-tions
4.2.3FractureGradient
4.3.1PhysicalAccess
4.1.1TargetForma-tion(s)
GeologicCharacteristics
4.1.5Size
4.1.3 Per-meability
4.2 Seals4.3 Monitoring,Measurement &
Verification
4.2.6Secondary
Seals
4.3.3Subsurface
Access
4.3.2Legal
Access29 Surface Criteria 14 Subsurface Criteria
FutureGenSite RFP Best Value Criteria
• Land Cost• Availability / Quality of Existing
Plant and Target Formation Characterization Data
• Land Ownership• Residences or Sensitive
Receptors above Target Formation
• Waste Recycling and Disposal
• Clean Air Act Compliance• Expedited Permitting• Transmission Interconnection• Background CO2 Data• Power Sales• Market for H2
• CO2 Title and Indemnification• Other Considerations
FutureGen Site Selection Ranking of proposals
Combined Results
668 642 629 632 632 595 582525
385 385 395 375 365355
275
255
1053 1027 1024 1007 997950
857
780
0
300
600
900
1200
TX-Brazos IL-Mattoon TX-Odessa IL-Eff IL-Tuscola IL-Marshall OH-Tusc. KY
Surface Score Subsurface Score
Ranking before Best Value Criteria was applied
FutureGen Site Selection
12 Sites in 7 States
C. Davidson 2006
Candidate Sites
Candidate Site FeaturesConceptual Sequestration Design
Brazos OdessaMattoon Tuscola
• Injection on-site• ~8,000 ft deep• Mt. Simon sandstone
formation
• Injection off-site (~10 miles)
• New pipeline to be constructed
• ~8,000 ft deep• Mt. Simon sandstone
formation
• Injection at two sites (~25 and 33 miles)
• New pipeline to be constructed
• ~6,000 ft deep in the Woodbine formation
• ~11,000 ft deep in the Travis Peak formation
• Injection off-site (~56 miles)
• Potential to use existing pipeline with minor upgrades
• ~6,000 ft deep• Guadeloupe Sands
The FutureGen injection and MMV protocol will be state of the art, world class, and meaningful
1000’
10000’
5000’5600’
7750’8350’
Comparison of Sites by
Depth
Source: Battelle
Seal
Injection
11,500’
FutureGenProject Schedule
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Alliance Established
Full Scale Plant Operations
Siting, Environmental Review & Permitting
Project Structuring and
Conceptual Design
Design
Facility Construction
Plant Startup We are here
Final Site Selection
FutureGen is real, and moving fast!
CCS Issues - Liability
• Insurance (at a reasonable cost) needs actuarial database to quantify risk.
• Corporate risk-management departments have significant influence on project approvals
• CCS time frame is beyond most precedents• Risk/reward elements not the same as for EOR• Price-Anderson type of government umbrella is
essential
Indemnification
An analysis of barriers to the commercialization of Carbon Capture and Storage will quickly reveal that liability associated with the long-term injection of CO2 into geological formations is a key barrier.
The issue is not the safety of injection, but the business issue of risk management. It is important for the Federal Government to step in and provide a backstop for liability associated with theinjection of CO2 into geological formations.
FutureGen CCS IssuesState Level
• Asked states to take title to the CO2 and indemnify the Alliance• Six states would not; no legislative authority• Texas agreed to take title, subject to legislative approval
Federal Level• Alliance requested DOE to indemnify the Alliance concerning CO2
sequestration• DOE has no legislative authority to do so.• Enabling legislation being considered by some congressional
subcommitteesNOTE Need for indemnification is not due to lack of confidence in the
safety of injection, but in recognition that:• FutureGen is a FOAK demonstration• Such indemnification will likely be required for early entrants in the
future to commercialize CCS.
• AcknowledgementThis material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FC26-06NT42073.
• DisclaimerThis report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.