JimChildress CoalGasification

Gasification
Gasification
s Contribution to
s Contribution to
Fuel Diversity:
Fuel Diversity:
Displacing Natural Gas Demand
Displacing Natural Gas Demand
in the Industrial Sector
in the Industrial Sector
ELCON 2005 Annual Meeting ELCON 2005 Annual Meeting
Las Vegas, Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada
February 2, 2005 February 2, 2005
James Childress James Childress
Executive Director Executive Director
Gasification Technologies Council Gasification Technologies Council
GTC Members
GTC Members
AFC Coal Properties AFC Coal Properties
Air Air Liquide Liquide America* America*
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.* Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.*
American Electric Power* American Electric Power*
Aramco Aramco Services Company* Services Company*
Bechtel Corporation* Bechtel Corporation*
Black & Black & Veatch Veatch Corporation* Corporation*
BOC Gases* BOC Gases*
Boeing, Boeing, Rocketdyne Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power* Propulsion & Power*
Cinergy Corporation* Cinergy Corporation*
ConocoPhillips* ConocoPhillips*
Constellation Energy* Constellation Energy*
The Dow Chemical Company* The Dow Chemical Company*
Eastman Chemical Company* Eastman Chemical Company*
Ebara Corporation Ebara Corporation
Emery Energy Company Emery Energy Company
Fluor Fluor Corporation* Corporation*
Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc.* Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc.*
Gas Technology Institute Gas Technology Institute
GE Energy* GE Energy*
Global Energy, Inc.* Global Energy, Inc.*
Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Kentucky Center for Applied Energy
Research Research
Lake Charles Cogeneration, LLC Lake Charles Cogeneration, LLC
Linde Linde Process Plants Process Plants
Lockwood Greene E&C / CH2M Hill Lockwood Greene E&C / CH2M Hill
Lurgi Lurgi Oel Oel Gas Gas Chemie Chemie GmbH GmbH
Mitretek Mitretek
Nexant Nexant, Inc. , Inc.
Parsons Energy & Chemicals Group Inc.* Parsons Energy & Chemicals Group Inc.*
Porvair Porvair PLC PLC
Praxair, Inc.* Praxair, Inc.*
Sasol Sasol Technology Technology
Sempra Sempra Generation Generation
Shell Global Solutions B.V.* Shell Global Solutions B.V.*
Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation* Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation*
Snamprogetti Snamprogetti S.p.A S.p.A. .
Tennessee Valley Authority* Tennessee Valley Authority*
Uhde Uhde Corporation of America* Corporation of America*
UOP UOP
* Denotes member of Board of Directors * Denotes member of Board of Directors
Overview
Overview
Survey of World & U.S. Gasification
Survey of World & U.S. Gasification
Industry
Industry
Factors Driving Gasification Trends
The Case for Gasification: Backing Out
The Case for Gasification: Backing Out
Natural Gas with Coal & Other Lower
Natural Gas with Coal & Other Lower
Cost Feedstocks
Cost Feedstocks
2004 World Gasification Industry
2004 World Gasification Industry
Summary Findings
Summary Findings
!
!
Geographical Distribution
Geographical Distribution
!
!
Feedstock Distribution
Feedstock Distribution
!
!
Product Distribution
Product Distribution
World Gasification Capacity Growth
World Gasification Capacity Growth
2000
2000
-
-
2010
2010
35,000
45,000
55,000
65,000
75,000
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
(MW (MWth Equivalent) Equivalent)
Source: 2004 World Gasification Survey Source: 2004 World Gasification Survey
Geographical Distribution of World
Geographical Distribution of World
Gasification Capacity
(MW (MW
th
Equivalent) Equivalent)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
C&S
America
North
America
Europe + Asia/Aust. Afr/ME
Planned (2010)
Operating (2004)
Feedstock Distribution of World
Feedstock Distribution of World
(MW (MW
th
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Coal Petroleum Gas Petcoke BWO*
Planned (2010)
Operating (2004)
China
(US)
Europe
Canada
US
MidEast
Product Distribution of World
Product Distribution of World
(MW (MW
th
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Power Chemicals Liquid Fuel Gaseous
Fuel
Not
Specified
Planned (2010)
Operating (2004)
Asia Asia
Fertilizers & Chemicals (China, poss. India) Fertilizers & Chemicals (China, poss. India)
Power (China/Japan future) Power (China/Japan future)
Fuels (Longer term) Fuels (Longer term)
Wild Card Wild Card China, Environmental Issues & Econ. Growth; Japan, China, Environmental Issues & Econ. Growth; Japan,
Policy Shift Toward IGCC? Policy Shift Toward IGCC?
Europe Europe
Refinery Models Refinery Models Environment Driven Toward Cleaner Fuels Environment Driven Toward Cleaner Fuels
Pernis (Hydrogen, Power) Pernis (Hydrogen, Power)
Italian Plants (Power) Italian Plants (Power)
CO CO
2
Concerns
Remote Gas Remote Gas
F F- -T Liquids T Liquids
North America North America
U.S. Coal, Power, Environment (The AEP Model) U.S. Coal, Power, Environment (The AEP Model)
U.S. Petcoke (Hydrogen, Power) U.S. Petcoke (Hydrogen, Power)
Possible Public Sector Incentives ($$ + Regulations) Possible Public Sector Incentives ($$ + Regulations)
Canada Canada Tar Sands, Coal Tar Sands, Coal
The Case for Gasification in the
The Case for Gasification in the
U.S. Industrial & Power Sectors
U.S. Industrial & Power Sectors
!
!
Natural gas use for power generation
Natural gas use for power generation
in the U.S. is the 800 pound gorilla.
in the U.S. is the 800 pound gorilla.
!
!
If you use natural gas as a feedstock,
If you use natural gas as a feedstock,
gas prices are killing you.
gas prices are killing you.
!
!
If you use natural gas for self
If you use natural gas for self
-
-
generation, gas prices are killing you.
generation, gas prices are killing you.
Stark Realities Facing Industrial
Stark Realities Facing Industrial
Natural Gas Consumers
Natural Gas Consumers
U.S. Wellhead Natural Gas Prices 1930
U.S. Wellhead Natural Gas Prices 1930
-
-
2003
2003
Source: SFA Pacific, 2004 GTC Source: SFA Pacific, 2004 GTC
Source: Energy Information Administration Source: Energy Information Administration
Price $/MCF Price $/MCF
Operating U.S. Power Plants
Operating U.S. Power Plants
By Years of Startup for 1950
By Years of Startup for 1950
-
-
2003
2003
-5
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
1
9
5
0
1
9
5
5
1
9
6
0
1
9
6
5
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
5
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
5
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
5
2
0
0
0
Renewables
Others
Oil & NG
Nuclear
Coal
G
W

(
1
,
0
0
0

M
W
)
Year of Startup
Source: SFA Pacific, EIA Data, 2004 GTC Source: SFA Pacific, EIA Data, 2004 GTC
50 50- -75 GWe of stranded assets, 75 GWe of stranded assets, new new NGCC power plants NGCC power plants
Gasification Offers One Route to Diversify
Gasification Offers One Route to Diversify
Fuels for U.S. Power Generation and to
Fuels for U.S. Power Generation and to
Provide Industrial Energy Consumers with
Provide Industrial Energy Consumers with
Alternative Energy & Feedstock Resources
Alternative Energy & Feedstock Resources
Gasification Benefits
Gasification Benefits
Provides Fuel/Feedstock Diversity (Get Off Gas)
Provides Fuel/Feedstock Diversity (Get Off Gas)
Provides Product Diversity (Polygeneration)
Provides Product Diversity (Polygeneration)
Achieves Exceptional Environmental
Achieves Exceptional Environmental
Performance
Performance
U.S. Gasification Experience
U.S. Gasification Experience
20 Plants Operating
20 Plants Operating
Feedstocks
Feedstocks
Coal/Petcoke
Coal/Petcoke
-
-
7
7
Gas
Gas
-
-
9
9
Petroleum
Petroleum
-
-
4
4
Products
Products
Chemicals
Chemicals
-
-
14
14
Power
Power
-
-
4
4
Gas
Gas
-
-
2
2
U.S. Gasification Plants
U.S. Gasification Plants
Gaseous fuels Petroleum 2540000 2000 Baytown Syngas Plant
Chemicals Petroleum 1880000 1984 Convent H2 Plant
Chemicals Petroleum 500000 1979 Oxochemicals Plant
Chemicals Petroleum 570000 1978 Baton Rouge Oxochemicals
Power Petcoke 3800000 2002 Premcor Refinery Delaware City
Chemicals Petcoke 2141200 2000 Coffeyville Nitrogen Plant
Power Petcoke 80559 1996 Frontier Energy El Dorado
Power Petcoke 4320000 1995 Wabash River Energy Ltd.
Chemicals Gas 1558000 2002 Longview Gasification Plant
Chemicals Gas 350000 1998 Oxochemicals Plant
Chemicals Gas 1920000 1996 Texas City Syngas Plant
Chemicals Gas 1850000 1996 LaPorte Syngas Plant
Chemicals Gas 432000 1995 Taft Syngas Plant
Chemicals Gas 830000 1983 Texas City Syngas Plant
Chemicals Gas 400000 1983 Oxochemicals Plant
Chemicals Gas 4800000 1979 LaPorte Syngas Plant
Chemicals Gas 2100000 1977 Houston Oxochemicals Plant
Power Coal/Petcoke 3300000 1996 Polk County IGCC Project
Gaseous fuels Coal 13900000 1984 Great Plains Synfuels Plant
Chemicals Coal 1600000 1983 Eastman Kingsport
Gasification Process
Gasification Process
IGCC Cost & Environmental
IGCC Cost & Environmental
Performance
Performance
- - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 - - 4.0 4.0
Hg Hg
(lb/10 (lb/10
12 12
Btu) Btu)
0.007 0.007 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011
0.015 0.015 - - 0.018 0.018 PM/PM PM/PM- -10 10
0.03 0.03 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066
0.11 0.11 - - 0.12 0.12 CO CO
0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.004 0.004 VOC VOC
0.012 0.012
[1] [1]
0.012 0.012
[1] [1]
0.059 0.059
0.07 0.07 - - 0.08 0.08 NO NO
X X
0.003 0.003
[3] [3]
0.008 0.008 0.014 0.014
0.15 0.15 - - 0.18 0.18 SO SO
2 2
NGCC NGCC
E E- -Gas NGCC Gas NGCC
ReFueling ReFueling
E E- -Gas Gas
Greenfield Greenfield
IGCC IGCC
Coal Fired Coal Fired
[2] [2]
(lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)
Comparative Criteria Emissions
Comparative Criteria Emissions
[1] 3 ppmvd @ 15% Oxygen
[2] Range covers recently issued air permits for SCPC, PC, and CFB projects
[3] Based on 1 gr H2S / 100 scf NG spec
Source: ConocoPhillips, 2004 GTC Source: ConocoPhillips, 2004 GTC
Source: EPRI CoalFleet Report Source: EPRI CoalFleet Report
Comparative Costs of CO
Comparative Costs of CO
2 2
Removal
Removal
Avoided Avoided
Cost of CO Cost of CO
2 2
$/mt $/mt
COE $/MWh COE $/MWh
with with
capture capture
TPC $/kW TPC $/kW
with with
capture capture
MW with MW with
capture capture
COE $/MWh COE $/MWh
no capture no capture
TPC $/KW TPC $/KW
MW MW
Technology Technology
18 18
62.7 62.7
1650 1650
455 455
50.1 50.1
1300 1300
512 512
IGCC GE IGCC GE
Quench Quench
22 22
69.6 69.6
1950 1950
485 485
55.7 55.7
1550 1550
550 550
IGCC GE IGCC GE
RSGC RSGC
29 29
68.9 68.9
1900 1900
440 440
50.2 50.2
1350 1350
520 520
IGCC IGCC
E E- -Gas Gas
29 29
75.1 75.1
2200 2200
465 465
57.2 57.2
1650 1650
530 530
IGCC Shell IGCC Shell
42 42
76.2 76.2
2150 2150
460 460
45.0 45.0
1235 1235
600 600
PC Ultra PC Ultra
Supercritical Supercritical
Source: Holt, EPRI, 2004 GTC Source: Holt, EPRI, 2004 GTC
Technology Performance:
Technology Performance:
Commercially Viable
Commercially Viable
Summary of IGCC Status
IGCC offers SO
2
, NO
x
, and particulate emissions below recent pulverized coal
plants permit limits.
Mercury removal >95% at 1/10
th
the cost for PC plant.
CO
2
capture costs 43% of PC plant (COE basis).
ConocoPhillips, GE, and Shell gasifiers have been successfully operated at
commercial size on a variety of feedstocks to produce power, fuels & chemicals.
Existing single train IGCC coal plants have achieved availability of 85% on a
quarterly basis. Commercial multi-train plants with spare gasifiers will achieve
>90% availability.
IGCC is currently being commercially used in many plants worldwide based on the
gasification of petroleum residuals providing power, steam and hydrogen to
refineries. These plants provide additional operating experience on key
components and unit operations.
Source: Holt, et. al. Source: Holt, et. al.
But is IGCC ready for
But is IGCC ready for
prime time?
prime time?
AEP, Cinergy announce plans to build
AEP, Cinergy announce plans to build
commercial scale coal
commercial scale coal
-
-
IGCC plants (~600
IGCC plants (~600
-
-
1,000
1,000
mWe each)
mWe each)
Feasibility studies underway
Feasibility studies underway
Site selection, PUC discussions underway
Site selection, PUC discussions underway
Drivers:
Drivers:
Expectations of more stringent criteria+Hg limits

Expectations of more stringent criteria+Hg limits
Expectations of CO
Expectations of CO
2 2
limits
limits
Desire to keep coal in their energy mix

Desire to keep coal in their energy mix
References: References: http://www.aep.com/environmental/default.htm http://www.aep.com/environmental/default.htm
http://www.cinergy.com/sustain/environmental_improvement.asp http://www.cinergy.com/sustain/environmental_improvement.asp
As part of its future plans to mitigate the
As part of its future plans to mitigate the
economic impacts of its emissions, AEP has
economic impacts of its emissions, AEP has
committed to accelerating IGCC deployment by
committed to accelerating IGCC deployment by
building one, or more, commercial
building one, or more, commercial
-
-
scale, base
scale, base
-
-
load IGCC plants (up to 1,000 megawatts) as
load IGCC plants (up to 1,000 megawatts) as
soon as 2010.
soon as 2010.
AEP Press Release, 8/31/04 AEP Press Release, 8/31/04
CoalFleet Participants
CoalFleet Participants
AEP AEP
AES AES
Ameren Ameren
Associated Electric Associated Electric
Austin Energy Austin Energy
B&W B&W
Cinergy Cinergy
ConocoPhillips ConocoPhillips
CSX CSX
U.S. DOE U.S. DOE
Duke Energy Duke Energy
Dynegy Dynegy
EnBW EnBW
E.ON UK E.ON UK
First Energy First Energy
Fluor Corporation
GE Energy
Great River Energy
LG&E Energy
Minnesota Power
New York Power Authority
PacifiCorp
Portland General Electric
Progress Energy
Public Service New Mexico
Seminole Electric
Southern California Edison
Southern Company
Tri-State
TXU
Wisconsin Public Service
Source: EPRI Source: EPRI
2005 Gasification Technologies
2005 Gasification Technologies
Conference
Conference
San Francisco, October 9
San Francisco, October 9
-
-
12
12
Questions?
Questions?
For further information: http:// For further information: http://www.gasification.org www.gasification.org

JimChildress CoalGasification

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

JimChildress CoalGasification

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Gasification

Expectations of more stringent criteria+Hg limits

Desire to keep coal in their energy mix

También podría gustarte