underground coal gasification: a “game-changer” for climate protection? 3 rd china energy and...
TRANSCRIPT
Underground Coal Gasification:A “game-changer” for climate protection?
3rd China Energy and Environment Summit (CEES)
Beijing, PRC
August 20-21, 2010
Mike Fowler
Climate Technology Innovation Coordinator
Clean Air Task Force
Clean Air Task Force is a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing atmospheric pollution through research,
advocacy, and private sector collaboration.
MAIN OFFICE18 Tremont Street
Suite 530Boston, MA 02108
(617) [email protected]
www.coaltransition.uswww.aceiii.org
OTHER LOCATIONSBeijing, ChinaBrunswick, MECarbondale, ILColumbus, OH
Washington, DC
2
Outline
• About CATF• The need for carbon capture and storage (CCS)• The great barrier for CCS: cost• The potential benefits of underground coal
gasification (UCG) The cost of coal power with UCG with CCS could be less
then cost of conventional coal without CCS Other benefits include: reduced mining, reduced drinking
water consumption, reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide, etc.
• Importance of environmental management for UCG Protection of groundwater from contamination
3
About CCS at the Clean Air Task Force (CATF)
• CATF is an energy and environment NGO with headquarters in the United States. Our work addresses: Greenhouse gases and climate change SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and toxic air pollution Related environmental issues
• We are a small specialty organization founded in 1996 20 technical staff, policy and business experts, and attorneys
• CCS is a core focus for CATF. Our CCS work includes: Expert workshops Innovation policy design Facilitation of large “pioneer” CCS projects
• Costs of CCS will limit speed and extent of deployment• Underground coal gasification could “change the game”
Potentially significant cost reductions for coal power with CCS Potential for low-cost substitute natural gas (methane)
4
Source: CATF (2009) from DOE/EIA (2007)Slide 5
Background 1: Huge quantities of low-carbon electricity will be needed
Will the world converge here?
With electric vehicles?
Source: CATF (2009) from DOE/EIA (2007)Slide 6
Background 1: Huge quantities of low-carbon electricity will be needed
World electricity demand , with electric vehicles?
Studies by MIT, Stanford, EPRI, PNNL, NCAR, and University of Maryland suggest substantial roles for fossil fules
with CCS, renewables, and nuclear power
MIT Model Stanford/EPRI Model PNNL Model
Source: United States Climate Change Science Program, 2007
Slide 7
Background 2: CCS will be essential to meet this demand
• Relative cost of electricity (LCOE) estimate for fossil power generation (“Nth plant” US basis); CCS could add ~80%
Source: DOE/NETL (2007)
8
Background 3: Costs of adding CCS to new power projects are significant
7.79
10.63
6.40
11.88
6.33
11.48
6.84
9.74
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Avg IGCC Avg IGCCw/ CO2Capture
PC-Sub PC-Sub w/CO2
Capture
PC-Super PC-Superw/ CO2Capture
NGCC NGCC w/CO2
Capture
+80%
• UCG can produces inexpensive raw synthesis gas $1 - $3/MMBtu (see GasTech,
2007; ENN, 2009)
• UCG can enables high efficiency power generation when integrated with combined cycle gas turbine (“CCT”) 45.4% HHV w/o CCS (AMMA,
2002)
• Technology is commercially available to clean up syngas and removal CO2 at manageable cost
• Result: Potentially game-changing CCS costs
UCG could change the game for fossil power with CCS
9
Oxidant Syngas
Coal
Rock (e.g., shale)
Potable Aquifer
Rock (e.g., shale)
Rock
Rock/Clay
Image: CATF (2009)
UCG with CCS could compete with conventional coal without CCS
Estimate by the NorthBridge Group and CATF based on proprietary data for a proposed UCG project in North America
10
• Cost of UCG integrated with 80% CO2 removal and syngas combustion in CCGT could be LESS THEN conventional coal without CCS
• Cost of UCG to produce substitute natural gas with CCS also could be very attractive, especially in China
• In the US, UCG could increase coal supply by 300%-400%. The same could be true of China (though this requires study)
Source: DOE/NETL Presentation, September, 2008
11
UCG could also significantly increase domestic energy supplies
Region/Trial Length (days) Gasified (tonnes) Depth Period
FSR/Various 1000s 15 million + Shallow 1930s+
China/abandoned mines n/d n/d n/d 1950s+
US/Hanna 343 14,800 Shallow 1970s
US/Hoe Creek 117 5,920 Shallow 1970s
US/Princetown 12 320 Intermediate 1970s
US/Rawlins 106 10,000 Shallow 1970s
US/ Tenn. Colony 197 4,500 Shallow 1970s
US/Centralia & Tono 29 1,800 Shallow 1980s
US/RM1 150 14,150 Shallow 1980s
EU/Thulin 67 11 Deep 1980s
EU/El Tremedal 12 240 Deep 1990s
US/Carbon County (n/d) 800 Deep 1990s
NZ/Huntley 13 80 Shallow 1990s
AUS/Chinchilla (R1) 900 32,000 Shallow 1990s
AUS/Chinchilla (R3/R4) Active 2,000 Shallow 2008+
SA/Eskom Active (n/d) Deep 2007+
CHN/ENN Group Active 25,000+ Intermediate 2007+
AUS/Carbon Energy Active (n/d) Intermediate 2008+
CAN/Swan Hills Active (n/d) Deep 2009+
AUS/Cougar Energy Active (n/d) Intermediate 3/2010+
Commercial activity is accelerating
• US (Alaska) – CIRI/Laurus• Canada (Alberta) – Laurus• South Africa - Secunda (Sasol)• Vietnam - Red River Delta (Linc)• Pakistan - Thar Coal Field (2x)• Chile - Mulpun (Carbon Energy)• UK – 11 separate UCG licenses
issued recently• India - Multiple sites• US PRB, US Midwest, New
Zealand, …
Many more projects are planned around the world
Carbon Energy UCG site near Dalby, Queensland, Australia, November, 2008. The reactor was active 200m
below this spot. Photo by Mike Fowler.
13
Source: LLNL (2010)
ItemUCG-
CCGT, no CCS
UCG-CCGT, Partial CCS
IGCC, no CCS
NGCC, no CCS
PC-sub,
no CCS
SCPC,
no CCS
Raw Water Usage
(gpm/MWe)2.9 4.9 6 4.5 11.3 10
Even with partial CCS, UCG and a CCGT could use less than half the raw water of a conventional coal power plant without CCS, and less than an IGCC without CCS.
14Slide 14
Possible advantage of UCG:Reduced water consumption
• Carbon beds have demonstrated 99.9% mercury removal on coal syngas
• Carbon beds are much less expensive than activated carbon injection on conventional coal plants (~1/10th on cost of electricity basis)
• Carbon beds produce less waste than activated carbon injection on conventional coal
• UCG could take advantage of this technology to reduce mercury
Carbon beds for mercury removal at Eastman coal gasification facility in TN
Slide 15
Possible advantage of UCG:Reduced mercury emissions
Source: CATF from various sourcesSlide 16
Technology exists for UCG to approach natural gas
Possible advantage of UCG:Reduce air pollution emissions
Source: Carbon Energy (2009) Slide 17
Possible advantage of UCG:Use less surface land
Coal Bed
Producer Injector
Advances ~2 ft/day
400 – 1000 F1000 – 1650 F
>1650 F
Gas Losses
Tars & oils
Heat
Water
Example Gas Composition (% vol, Queensland Site, Air-Blown)
H2 CO CH4 CO2 N2 H2O HHV MJ/m3
18.0 6.0 7.0 16.0 35.6 16.5 6.6
But… UCG is a complex coupled chemical and geophysical process
Source: Adapted from DOE/NETL Presentation, September, 2008, and AMMA, 2008 18
And in China, as elsewhere, protection of groundwater is vital
Site selection is key• Coal at intermediate or greater depth• Preferably below potentially viable water resources• Isolated from surrounding strata (good roof and floor, horizontal isolation)• See DOE/LLNL guidelines (in preparation)
…so is site operation…• Safer linking methods (e.g., in-seam drilling)• Eliminate/minimize gas loss
– Maintain gasification pressure below local hydrostatic pressure– Real-time monitoring of pressure, pH, trace compounds in surrounding strata– Real-time monitoring/verification of mass balance closure
• Geophysical/geochemical monitoring, process simulation, and control
…and proper module closure is important• Limit postburn pyrolysis and steam/pressure buildup• Clean the cavern
19
RM1 1987-1988 near Hanna, WY• Project included GRI, DOE, Amoco
Production, WRI, and EPRI
Environmental protection focus• Thinner, deeper coal seam (Hanna
No.1, 30 ft thick, >350 ft deep)
• Stable overburden and underburden
• Detailed pre-test geologic and hydrologic characterization
• Hydrologic sampling and monitoring during and after the burn
• Operational control
• Post-burn cavity venting and flushing
Result: No water resource damage
Sources: Boysen et al (1998), Davis (2008) 20
An environmental success in early US program – Rocky Mountain 1
Thank you!
Mike FowlerClimate Technology Innovation Coordinator
Clean Air Task Force18 Tremont Street, Suite 530
Boston, MA 02108(617) 624-0234 ext. 12 (voice)
(617) 624-0230 (fax)[email protected]
www.catf.us