Gasification Systems Overview

Jenny B. Tennant Technology Manager, Gasification April 2013

U.S. DOE-NETL / CURC Workshop. NETL Pittsburgh, PA

Slide Library
Table of Contents
Gasification 101 Program Slides Energy Outlook Active DOE Cooperative Agreements NETL In-House R&D (ORD-RUA) DOE Supported Gasification Demonstration Projects Systems Analysis
Gasification Systems Program Bituminous Baseline Study Bituminous IGCC Pathway Study Low Rank Coal Baseline Study: IGCC Cases Low Rank Coal IGCC Pathway Study

Conventional IGCC Compared to PC and NGCC Commercial IGCC Plants Worldwide Gasification Database Closing Background Slides

Gasification 101

What is Gasification?
Gasification converts any carbon-containing material into synthesis gas, composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (referred to as syngas) Syngas can be used as a fuel to generate electricity or steam, as a basic chemical building block for a large number of uses in the petrochemical and refining industries, and for the production of hydrogen Gasification adds value to low- or negative-value feedstocks by converting them to marketable fuels and products

The Gasifier
Extreme Conditions:
415 psia or more 2,600 F Corrosive slag and H2S gas

Products (syngas)
CO (Carbon Monoxide) H2 (Hydrogen) [CO/H2 ratio can be adjusted]

Gas Clean-Up
before Product Use

By-products
H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide) CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Slag (Minerals from Coal)

Courtesy: Eastman Chemical

Gasification Differences from Combustion

Add water and high pressure Use less air or oxygen Gasification exit gases are at high pressure, so smaller volume, smaller reactors Combustion makes heat + CO2 + H2O Gasification makes less heat + carbon monoxide + hydrogen (CO + H2); called Syngas

So what can you do with CO and H2 ?

Building Blocks for Chemical Industry

Clean Electricity

Transportation Fuels (Hydrogen)

7

Water-Gas-Shift (WGS) Reaction

Dry syngas is ~ 40% CO + 50% H2 For each CO molecule the WGS reaction creates one H2 molecule and one CO2 molecule

CO + H2O + catalyst

CO2 + H2

After the WGS reaction, the CO2 and H2 can be separated High pressure CO2 results in lower cost sequestration Hydrogen can be burned to make power

2H2 + O2

2H2O

Overview of Energy Systems Options

Chemicals and Products from Gasification

Syngas
Acetic Anhydride Acetic Acid

Methanol Ammonia

Fertilizer (Urea) Liquid Fuels (Diesel) Hydrogen

Courtesy: Eastman Chemical

10

Benefits of Gasification
Feedstock flexibility
Wide range of coals, petcoke, liquids, wastes, biomass can be utilized

Product flexibility
Syngas can be converted to high valued products: electricity, steam, hydrogen, liquid transportation fuels, chemicals, SNG

Environmental superiority
Pollutants can be economically controlled to extremely low levels (SO2, NOX, CO, Hg, etc.) Reduced water consumption Potential solid wastes can be utilized or easily managed High efficiency / low CO2 production CO2 can be easily captured for sale or geologic storage (sequestration)
11

Program Slides

12

Why the Interest in Coal Gasification?

Continuing fuel price fluctuation natural gas and transportation fuels Energy security the U.S. has a lot of coal Gasification can be used to make hydrogen (H2), fertilizer, chemicals, transportation fuels from coal Can be the lowest cost option to make power with carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage Excellent environmental performance for power generation

13

Gasification Systems Program Goal

The goal of the Gasification Systems Program is to reduce the cost of electricity, while increasing power plant availability and efficiency, and maintaining the highest environmental standards

14

Gasification Systems Program

Focus to reduce the cost of gasification, while increasing plant availability and efficiency, and maintaining the highest environmental standards FE Program Target: IGCC with CSS that has less than 10% increase in COE and 90% capture
Increasing focus on low rank coal (LRC) gasification EIA forecasts significant growth in western coal production; low rank western coal cost per Btu predicted to remain at about half that of eastern coal Industry interest in cost-sharing LRC R&D Potential for economic boost to U.S. regions with LRC reserves

15

U.S. Low Rank Coal Resources and Prices

Low rank: lignite and sub-bituminous coal
About 50% of the U.S. coal reserves Nearly 50% of U.S. coal production Lower sulfur
Year 2010 2011 2015 2020 2025 Lignite Price ($/ST) 16.77 16.41 16.67 17.31 17.83 PRB Price ($/ST) 13.93 13.15 13.00 13.92 15.31 Bitum. Price ($/ST) 53.40 51.87 48.70 48.23 49.03

EIA forecasts significant growth in western coal production; declining eastern coal production Low rank western coal cost per Btu will stay at about half that of eastern coal
16

Program Overview
Program Benefits
U.S. Economic security keeping coal in the mix increases certainty of stable energy foundation Global greenhouse gas benefits

Programs Focus
Technologies applicable to: Gasification: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power production with 90% carbon capture Coal & Coal Biomass to Liquids (C&CBTL)(Fuels): Production of chemicals, fertilizers, hydrogen and/or liquid fuels Programs overlap:
Polygeneration Fuel flexible technologies that can apply to both
17

Gasification Systems Program

Key Technologies Feed Systems
Oxygen separation Expand fuel flexibility Increase efficiency Gasifier Optimization and Plant Supporting Systems Improve reliability Increase efficiency Syngas Supporting Systems Hydrogen and carbon dioxide separation Control multi-contaminants to extremely low levels

18

Key Gasification Systems R&D Areas

Hot Compressed Air Raw fuel gas

Oxygen

Syngas Supporting Systems

Control multi-contaminants
to extremely low levels
Separate CO2 from hydrogen

Feed Systems
Oxygen separation

Expand fuel flexibility Increase efficiency

Feedstock Clean fuel gas

Water Gas Shift

H2 rich stream

Gasifier Optimization & Plant Supporting Systems

Improve reliability Increase efficiency
19

CO2

Gasification Systems Program

Key 2nd Generation Technologies
Hot Compressed Air

Warm Gas Cleaning (TRL 4)

Oxygen Raw Fuel Gas in combination with

H2-CO2 Membrane (TRL 4)

2.6 % pt efficiency increase 12 % COE decrease

Oxygen Membrane (TRL 4)

7 % capital cost reduction 5 % COE reduction

Clean Fuel Gas Feedstock

Water Gas Shift

up to 0.8 % efficiency increase (preliminary) CO2

H2 Rich Stream

Coal Feed Pump (TRL 4)

1% COE reduction

Improvements in Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability

Syngas cooler availability Refractory durability Dynamic simulator

Temperature control

Slag model development

CFD gasifier modeling

20

Low Rank Coal Program Pathway

Why Its the Right Time Gasification industry interviews show interest in low rank coal
Most projects are cost shared with industry Industry use is objective of Gasification Program R&D

Low rank coals present unique challenges and opportunities for gasification and IGCC
High inherent moisture, high in alkali metals (Na, K, Ca) High oxygen content, high reactivity, low sulfur and Low Cost

NETL systems analysis has shown low rank coal gasification has the potential to be economically competitive
Altitude vs Shipping Limited gasifier types

About half of the world, and U.S., coal reserves are low rank a global market opportunity for advanced IGCC technology
21

Energy Outlook

22

U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources

U.S. Fossil Fuel Reserves
billion barrels of oil equivalent
1000 Anthracite 14 Lignite 78

U.S. Coal Resources

billion short tons

900

800

700 Subbituminous 325

Estimated Recoverable Reserves

19.2 258 483

Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines

Demonstrated Reserve Base Measured and Indicated, Specified Depths and Thicknesses Identified Resources Measured, Indicated, and Inferred

600

500

1,731
400

300 Natural Gas 390 Oil 220 Bituminous 473

200

Total Resources Identified and Undiscovered

100

3,968
0

23

Energy Demand 2009

95 QBtu / Year 83% Fossil Energy Coal 21% Oil 37% 5,425 mmt CO2 481 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy Coal 27% Oil 33% 28,844 mmt CO2
Sources: U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2012er: World data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011

Energy Demand 2035

108 QBtu / Year 77% Fossil Energy Coal 20% Oil 32% 8,806 mmt CO2 Gas 25%
Nuclear 9% Renewables 14%

Gas 25%
Nuclear 9% Renewables 8%

+ 14%

United States

726 QBtu / Year 80% Fossil Energy + 51% Coal 30% Oil 27% 43,320 mmt CO2
24

Gas 21%

Nuclear 6%

Gas 23%
Nuclear 6% Renewables 14%

World

Renewables 13%

U.S. Coal Resources

Low rank: lignite and sub-bituminous coal About 50% of the U.S. coal reserves Nearly 50% of U.S. coal production Lower sulfur Bituminous coal About 50% of the U.S. coal reserves Higher heating value Lower moisture and mineral content EIA forecasts significant growth in western coal production; declining eastern coal production Low rank western coal cost per Btu will stay at about half that of eastern coal
25

Oil and Gas Price Comparison

Example: $18.15/MMBtu

$4.71/MMBtu

Crude refiners' cost projected to be $13.44/MMBtu greater than Henry Hub spot price for natural gas in Jan. 2012.

26

Average World Oil Price Projections

250

Historical
200 2010 $/Barrel

Projection High Oil Price Case

150 100 50 0

Reference Case Low Oil Price Case

Source: EIA AEO 2012 (early release), Figure 5

27

Carbon Capture is a Global Issue

The European Union are anticipated to maintain level of CO2 release through 2035; 2020 for U.S. China and India CO2 emissions will substantially increase into 2035 By 2020, Chinas CO2 emissions will eclipse U.S. and the European Union, combined By 2015, China aims to cut CO2 emissions per unit economic growth by 16 percent of 2011 levels
Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2010, Current Policies Scenario

CO2 Emissions million metric tons

China

China + 3,873 Million Metric Tons from 2005-2016.

U.S.

European Union

India

28

Active DOE Cooperative Agreements

29

Gasification Systems Program Projects

SYNGAS PROCESSING SYSTEMS
Oxygen

FEED SYSTEMS
APCI Ion Transport Membrane PWR Dry Coal Feed Pump GE Posimetric Pump* scoping study EPRI CO2-Coal Slurry* scoping study

RTI Warm Gas Cleanup ORD Pd Sorbent APCI Sour PSA - scoping study TDA Integrated CO2 Removal & WGS* scoping study NCCC WGS Optimization Eltron H2/CO2 Membrane

Water Gas Shift CO2

H2 rich stream

GASIFIER OPTIMIZATION AND PLANT SUPPORTING SYSTEMS

VPI Temperature Sensor REI Syngas Cooler Fouling NCCC Transport Gasifier Optimization* ORD Low Rank Coal Optimization*
*Low-rank Coal Alternative Feedstocks

GTI Real-Time Flame Monitor Sensor GE Improve Availability and Reduce Costs ORD Improve Refractory ORD Conversion and Fouling
30 ORD: NETLs Office of Research and Development

National Carbon Capture Center at the Power Systems Development Facility

Southern Company Services Location: Wilsonville, AL Subcontractors
American Electric Power Arch Coal Electric Power Research Institute Luminant NRG Peabody Energy Rio Tinto

Development and commercial scale-up of modular industrial scale gasification-based processes and components

31

National Carbon Capture Center

Southern Company Services
Goal Accelerate path to cost-effective CO2 capture technology for all 3 major areas of CO2 Capture; post combustion, pre-combustion, oxy-combustion Technology Flexible testing facilities from bench to engineering-scale Project tasks Modifications underway to enhance and enlarge pre-combustion CO2 capture testing infrastructure to enable testing of membranes, sorbents and solvents

32

National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC)

Advanced Gasification and H2 Separation Results in 2012 Fuel flexibility, filter materials, sensor development
Two gasification tests using PRB coal totaling > 1250 hours thru Dec. 2012
Continued evaluating & improving new gasifier temperature control scheme Continued long-term evaluation of hot gas filter elements Conducted sensor development involving sapphire thermowell for gasifier service, coal-flow measurement device, vibration type level detector, and TDL Conducted oxygen-blown gasification testing with biomass co-feed Replaced gasifier standpipe (15 years)

Carbon capture
Modifications continue to enhance and enlarge pre-combustion CO2 capture testing infrastructure to enable testing of membranes, sorbents, and solvents (upgrade SCU to 1000 lb/hr and MTR CO2 membrane 10x). Evaluated:
Hydrogen and CO2 membranes from four developers CO2 capture with new solvents Water-gas shift catalyst performance CO2 capture sorbents

33

National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC)

Advanced Gasification and H2 Separation
Accomplishments through 2012 include:
30 major gasification test campaigns Over 18,100 hours of gasification operation Successful engineering scale demonstration of advanced power systems technologies, including hot gas filtration and high-pressure solids handling systems Developed gasifier suitable for low-rank fuels use; modified gasifier to improve carbon conversion and syngas heating value Extensive successful operation on a variety of coals including: lignite, subbituminous, and bituminous Identified suitable filter elements to achieve the long-term high collection efficiency required by commercial turbines (routinely operated filtration system with outlet solids concentrations in the syngas less than 0.1 ppmw) Identified failsafe devices that reliably seal off failed filter elements, thus enhancing reliability and protecting downstream components TRIGTM technology being used in CCPI demonstration, Kemper County, MS Supported DOEs SOFC development programs with fuel cell tests on syngas Conducted air- and oxygen- blown gasification testing with biomass/coal co-feed Demonstrated advanced syngas cleanup technologies such as mercury sorbents

34

Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF)

Project History - Accomplishments History - Established by DOE in early 90s To accelerate development of more efficient advanced coal-based power plant technologies Research centered around high-temperature, highpressure filtration Signed over 115 non-disclosure agreements (NDA)s with developers to support advancement of their technologies Air-blown Transport Gasifier commenced operation in 1999

35

Advanced Oxygen Production

Current Technology: Cryogenic oxygen ITM oxygen production uses ceramic membranes to selectively separate oxygen in air from nitrogen Benefits: 25% oxygen plant capital cost reduction; 2% decrease in IGCC COE Status: APCI completed lab scale and small pilot testing (5 TPD) 100 TPD test system & module manufacturing facility under construction (TRL 4) Current ARRA project will end with start-up of commercially-capable facility
[Link]

for module creation (TRL 7)

This technology may be used by other industries at smaller-scale, substantially reducing the risk and cost of initial IGCC deployment R&D focus has been on high pressure oxygen production for IGCC but Advanced Oxygen Production will also reduce costs in Oxyfuel applications

36

Ion Transport Membrane (ITM)

Development of ITM Oxygen Technology
1.0 TPD Stack

Progression to commercial size wafers

0.5 TPD Stack

[Link]

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 2010. All Rights Reserved

37

Ion Transport Membrane (ITM)

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APCI)
Ion Transport Membrane (ITM) Supported thin-film, ceramic planar devices Fast, solid state electrochemical transport of oxygen Pressure-driven; compact All the layers are composed of the same ceramic material

-TPD module (multiple membranes)

38

Membrane Air Separation Advantages

Cryo-ASU vs. ITM in IGCC
IGCC Efficiency
No CCS With CCS Cryo-ASU
BASE BASE

ITM with F-Class GT

ITM with G-Class GT

Improved Efficiency

0.8% 0.3%

2.9% 2.2%

Oxygen Plant Cost

No CCS With CCS

Cryo-ASU
BASE BASE

ITM with F-Class GT

ITM with G-Class GT

-24.9% -24.5%

-34.8% -36.3%

Better Economics

Levelized Cost of Electricity

No CCS With CCS

Cryo-ASU

ITM with F-Class GT

ITM with G-Class GT

BASE BASE

-1.6% -2.1%

-5.0% -4.9%

G-Class cases include full air-side integration of advanced gas turbine and oxygen plant
Source: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

39

High Pressure Solids Pump

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
Goal: Reliable and consistent dry feed for high pressure IGCC, leading to lower cost Technology: Bulk solids form multiple stable bridges between parallel moving walls to feed dry solids across 1,000+ psi pressure gradient Project tasks: Complete initial test series on nominal 600 tpd prototype pilot-scale dry solids pump and complete economic analysis Team Members: Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Albany Research Center, University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

40

High Pressure Solids Pump

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
Pump operation relies on ability of bulk solids to form multiple stable bridges or arch between parallel wall structure, bridges can support very large loads Increasing load is transferred to sidewalls, making the bridge more stable, further increasing load will ultimately fail the sidewall Extrusion or pumping occurs when sidewalls are moved mechanically and material is released by separating the walls

Tractive Normal Force Loads

Normal Normal Loads Loads

In lock-up there is no slip or relative motion between material and moving walls, device exhibits positive displacement with a volumetric displacement of unity

Coal Coal Plug Plug Gas Load + +Load Friction Friction

Shear Normal Load Loads

41

Benefits of Dry Feed System

General Electric Company
Goal: Evaluate and demonstrate the benefits of novel dry-feed technologies to effectively, reliably, and economically feed low-rank coal into commercial IGCC systems Technology: The advanced technologies analyses will be based around the Posimetric pump currently under development by GE Project tasks: Complete report on test data supporting the potential value of the advanced technologies Complete performance for Posimetric Feed System Complete performance and economic calculations for baseline plant. Team Members: General Electric Company

42

High Pressure Solid Feed Systems

Current Technology: Dry feed w/ lock hoppers or slurry feed Frictional forces between the dry feedstock particles form multiple stable bridges that act as pressure barriers Benefits: Reliable and consistent dry feed for high pressure IGCC leading to lower cost (1% reduction in COE) Potential to significantly improve the efficiency of gasification by enabling two new gasification configurations:
Slurry-fed gasifiers (such as the GE gasifier) on low rank coal Dry-fed gasifiers at high pressure currently these gasifiers (such as Shell) are limited to about 500 psi

Status: Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) 400-600 TPD prototype testing has begun Systems analysis using LRC and quench cooler with the GE Posimetric pump is ongoing Team Members: Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Albany Research Center, University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, Oakridge National Laboratory, General Electric Company
43

Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI)

Goal: Reduce the cost and improve the efficiency of IGCC with carbon capture Technology: High purity CO2 stream as the carrier fluid to feed low rank coal into the gasifier Project tasks: Complete plant-wide technical and economic analyses of low rank coals using both liquid CO2 and water slurry feeds Complete Technology Development Roadmap on the novel technology designed to reduce the cost of low rank coal gasification Team Members: Electric Power Research Institute, Dooher Institute of Physics and Energy, Worley Parsons Group, Inc., Columbia University

CO2 Slurry Feed

44

Development of Prototype Commercial Gasifier Sensor

Gas Technology Institute
Goal: Develop and demonstrate a reliable, practical, and cost effective prototype sensor capable of monitoring gasifier interior temperature and other operational conditions in real time Technology: Further development and demonstration of the Real Time Flame Monitoring of Gasifier Burner and Injectors sensor technology Project tasks: Complete design of the purging system, complete sensor soft Prepare and test sensor software package, confirm sensor accuracy is 30 F Design, build, and install sensor purging system Team Members: Gas Technology Institute, Wabash River, ConocoPhillips Company, North Carolina State University

45

Single Point Sapphire Temperature Sensor

Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Goal: Develop an accurate temperature measurement system capable of withstanding harsh conditions for use in commercial, full-scale gasification systems Technology: A broadband polarimetric differential interferometric temperature sensor with a single-crystal sapphire to make an optically-based measurement Project tasks: Recipient plan includes two additional test campaigns to demonstrate viability of the sensor as well as the packaging Team Members: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Eastman Chemical Company

46

Mitigation of Syngas Cooler Plugging & Fouling

Reaction Engineering International
Goal: Improve the availability of IGCC plants through improving the performance of the syngas cooler through reduced plugging and fouling Technology: Combination of laboratory scale experiments to evaluate deposit strength and computational fluid dynamic modeling to evaluate designs to mitigate fouling and plugging Project tasks: Perform deposit bond strength test using ash from gasifier Complete computational fluid dynamic modeling of strategies to mitigate syngas cooler plugging and fouling for 5 scenarios Team Members: Reaction Engineering International, University of Utah, Salt Lake City

47

IGCC Affordability and Availability

General Electric Company
Goal: Reduce the time to technological maturity and enable IGCC plants to reach higher values of availability in a shorter period of time at a lower installed cost Technology: Studies for identification and technical evaluation of concepts to reduce total installed cost and improve availability with broad applicability to the IGCCC industry including; integrated operations philosophy, modularization of gasification /IGCC plant, active fouling removal, improved slag handling Project tasks: Develop a conceptual design for improved slag handling Develop a conceptual design for an improved slip form structure Prepare two preliminary designs Team Members: General Electric Company

48

Near-Zero Emissions Syngas Cleaning

Current Technology: Rectisol or Selexol RTIs high-temperature syngas cleanup removes the most significant coal contaminants from syngas Benefits (in combination with hydrogen membranes): 2.6% pt increase in efficiency ; 12% decrease COE Status: Completed pilot-scale testing (0.3 MW scale) (TRL 4-5) ARRA test system (50 MW scale) construction underway (TRL 6-7) Mechanical completion and operational startup in FY14 Current project will end after system operation of ~5,000 hours (TRL 6) Chemical-grade trace contaminant levels are expected to exceed current and future EPA requirements, enabling IGCC to be the cleanest option for turning coal into power

49

Warm Gas Cleanup RTI

Previous Testing at Eastman Chemical
RTI Warm Gas Cleanup Technologies Cleans multi-contaminants from coal-derived syngas while creating pure sulfur product High Temperature High Temperature Desulfurization Process > 99.9 % removal of both H2S and COS (to < 5 ppmv levels) > 3,000 hours of operation at 0.3 Mwe
Desulfurization Process

Direct Sulfur Recovery Process

Direct Sulfur Recovery Process > 99.8 % SO2 conversion to elemental sulfur 96 % ammonia removal 90 % mercury and arsenic removal Multi-contaminant
Control Test System

Pilot Plant Operation at Eastmans Gasification Facility, Kingsport, TN

50

Advanced CO2 Capture Technology for Low Rank Coal IGCC Systems
TDA Research, Inc
Goal: Demonstrate technical and economic potential for an integrated CO2 scrubber/ water gas shift catalyst Technology: Highly reactive sorbent in an integrated transport reactor system Project tasks: Test sorbents/catalysts to determine working capacity and plant efficiency Complete testing with protoype unit Complete techno-economic analysis Team Members: TDA Research, Inc., University of California at Irvine, Southern Company, ConocoPhillips

51

Hydrogen Membranes
Current Technology: Pressure Swing Adsorption Hydrogen transport membrane uses dense metal to separate H2 from shifted syngas leaving CO2 at high pressure produces ~100% hydrogen stream Benefits: in combination with RTI high-temperature syngas cleanup 2.6% pt increase in efficiency; 12% decrease COE Status: Eltron conducted lab scale and small pilot testing on coal derived syngas (1.5lb/day) WPI and Praxair selected for Phase II work (20 - 50 lb/day) to test prototype membrane with coal-derived syngas (TRL 4) Team Members: Eltron Research, Inc., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Praxair, Inc. Hydrogen membranes make chemical-grade hydrogen, useable in IGCC, chemical and liquids production and for polygeneration applications.
52

Hydrogen Transport Membrane (HTM)

Eltron Research, Inc.
Hydrogen Transport Membrane High CO2 retentate pressure Allows capture of high pressure CO2 High hydrogen recoveries >90% Essentially 100% pure hydrogen Low cost, long membrane life
Conceptual design of commercial membrane unit

Eltron Research & Development Tech Brief [Link]

53

Reliability, Availability & Maintenance Improvements

Current Technology: IGCC RAM is too low and too unpredictable (financing and profit risk); improving it is too costly GE is determining the feasibility of improving plant availability and reducing total installed cost in IGCC power plants. Benefits: 1% availability improvements = ~1% COE reduction ($1/tonne cost of capture reduction) Status: Techno economic studies ongoing: Integrated Operations Philosophy, Modularization of Plant, Fouling Removal System, Improved Blow Down System for Slag Handling (TRL 2) Current project will end with study results for plant design, construction and operations improvements. (TRL 4) Other Research: NETL ORD: refractory improvement, fundamental slag and ash behavior studies from inside the gasifier to syngas cooler fouling NCCC long-term refractory and candle filter durability tests
54

NETL Office of Research & Development

Gasification Projects
Refractory Improvement Develop improved performance refractory liners Model gasifier slag Manage slag viscosity and refractory wear, evaluate additives Conversion and Fouling: In slagging gasifiers using coal, petcoke or blends Improve the carbon conversion efficiency to syngas Reduce convective syngas cooler fouling Low-Rank Coal Optimization Pretreatment and kinetic co-feed experimental efforts Demonstrate the models the NCCC/TRIG under co-feed conditions Warm Syngas Cleanup Conduct both lab and pilot-scale R&D for cost efficient sorbents for trace contaminant capture Advanced Virtual Energy Simulation Training And Research (AVESTARTM) Center Establish the world-class center for addressing key operational and control challenges arising in IGCC plants with carbon capture
55

NETL In-House R&D (ORD-RUA)

56

NETL Office of Research & Development

Gasification Projects
Refractory Improvement Develop improved performance refractory liners that are carbon feedstock flexible (coal, western coal, petcoke) Model gasifier slag for refractory interactions, downstream phases and material interactions (syngas coolers) Manage slag viscosity and refractory wear, evaluate additives Conversion and Fouling In slagging gasifiers using coal, petcoke or mixtures of them to: Improve the carbon conversion efficiency to syngas Reduce convective syngas cooler fouling Collaborate with industry to ensure proper technology development and transfer
57

NETL Office of Research & Development

Gasification Projects
Low-Rank Coal Optimization Pretreatment and kinetic co-feed experimental efforts to support and validate the development of a hierarchy of device scale gasifier models with uncertainty quantification Demonstrate the models with UQ for the NCCC/TRIG under co-feed conditions and optimize co-feed performance Warm Syngas Cleanup Conduct both lab and pilot-scale R&D for cost efficient sorbents for trace contaminant capture of high efficiency coal gasification plant Advanced Virtual Energy Simulation Training and Research (AVESTARTM) Center Training Center: 3D virtual simulation of IGCC plant Establish the world-class center for addressing key operational and control challenges arising in IGCC plants with carbon capture
58

Refractory Improvement
NETL Office of Research and Development
Refractory Development for Mixed Feedstock Use Determine mechanisms of wear in NETL refractory materials under development. Determine refractory corrosion mechanisms in current generation commercial refractory liner materials exposed to coal slag, important for understanding how to overcome limitations in current refractory liner materials Slag Management (Current Emphasis) Determine critical information needed for slag management in gasifiers, which will be tracked in commercial gasifiers and predicted in models to increase gasifier RAM

59

Advanced Refractory For Gasifiers

Rotary Slag Test

New refractory chemistry Increases mechanical durability Reduces slag penetration

Conventional refractory after rotary slag testing

Phosphate modified high-chrome oxide refractory material

60

Advanced Refractories for Gasifiers

NETL Office of Research and Development

Current refractory goal is to refine/evaluate composition in commercial gasifiers

Cr+6 formation in high Cr2O3 refractories is thermodynamically predicted not to be an issue with current carbon feedstock Low oxygen partial pressure results in low Cr+6 formation Gasification environment has O2 partial pressure about 10-8

61

Conversion and Fouling

NETL Office of Research and Development
Modeling Evaluate and validate sub-models for particle-slag interaction, particle fragmentation, and mineral matter chemistry (sulfur release) and implement into CFD model Develop and evaluate reduced order model to predict mineral matter split between slag and fly ash for entrained-flow gasifier Convective Syngas Cooler Fouling Literature survey of deposition models Investigate gasifier ash deposits to determine problematic ash characteristics Kinetics Effect of pressure on pyrolysis kinetics Preliminary gasification kinetics at high pressure Slag Characterization Continue to characterize coal and petcoke blends, characterize ash and slag, begin studies of FeS and VOx behavior in slag

62

Control of Ash in IGCC

Regional University Alliance
Goal: Solutions to IGCC Ash Management Problems Unconverted carbon in gasification flyash Syngas cooler fouling Development of Models and Techniques to improve IGCC plant operations Adaption of Particle Population Model used for predicting CFB ash splits Inorganic transformations and char/slag interactions Particle trajectories and deposition modeling Gasification kinetics Coordinate and leverage R&D at NETL and three universities (PSU, CMU and WVU)
Fuel Oxygen Water

1 3 2

Syngas + Flyash

1. Particles contact and coalesce with slag 2. Particles do not contact slag 3. Particles contact but do not coalesce with slag

63

Low Rank Coal Optimization

NETL Office of Research and Development
Kinetics: Development of NETLs Carbonaceous Chemistry for Computational Modeling (C3M) software to bridge coal kinetics software (PCCL, CPD, etc) and available kinetic experiments with CFD software (MFIX, Fluent, Barracuda), other models Provide modelers and experimentalist with a virtual kinetic laboratory Fuel Pretreatment: Expand and further test the grinding laws developed in FY11 Correlate the NETL lab scale results with large scale grinding energies Multiphase Models: NETLs open source suite of multiphase solvers such as MFIX-DEM, MFIX continuum, MFIX-PIC and multiphase Reduced Order Models will be used to aid in the design and optimization of operating conditions and establishing performance trends in the NCCC/TRIG with uncertainty quantification

64

Warm Syngas Cleanup

NETL Office of Research and Development
Elevated temperatures result in higher IGCC thermal efficiency Palladium-based sorbents are currently among the most promising candidates for high-temperature capture of mercury, arsenic, selenium, phosphorus and the other trace elements Progress: 2007 - License agreement between the NETL and sorbent manufacturer Johnson Matthey 2008 - Warm Syngas Cleanup received the R&D 100 award 2009 to 2013 - Over 99% removal of mercury, arsenic, and selenium from syngas slipstreams at 550oF over several weeks testing at the National Carbon Capture Center Present - Identifying an optimum form of the palladium sorbent (loading, support, alloy)

65

Advanced Virtual Energy Simulation Training And Research (AVESTAR) Center

Features

NETL Office of Research and Development

R&D, Training, and Education for the Operation and Control of Advanced Energy Systems with CO2 Capture and Storage Real-time Dynamic Simulators with Operator Training System (OTS) Capabilities 3D Virtual Immersive Training Systems (ITS) Benefits OTS for normal and faulted operations, plant start-up, shutdown, and load following/shedding ITS for added dimension of plant realism OTS/ITS for training both control room and plant field operators, promoting teamwork Work force development in IGCC plant and CO2 capture operations Advanced R&D in process dynamics, model predictive control, sensors, RT optimization, 3D virtual plants, and more

For more information on AVESTAR and IGCC training courses, please send email to AVESTAR@[Link]

66

DOE Supported Gasification Demonstration Projects

67

DOE Supported IGCC Demonstration Projects

Clean Coal Power Initiative, Industrial Capture & Storage
Southern Company, CCPI-2 Kemper County IGCC-Transport Gasifier w/Carbon Capture ~$2.67B Total; $270M DOE EOR 3 M TPY 2014 start

HECA, CCPI-3 Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$4B Total, $408M DOE EOR 3M TPY 2018 start

Summit TX Clean Energy, CCPI-3 Commercial Demo of Advanced IGCC w/ Full Carbon Capture ~$1.7B Total, $450M DOE EOR 3M TPY 2018 start
68

CCPI Pre-combustion Capture and Storage Approaches

Plant Type
Power Pre-combustion HECA (IGCC-Polygen) Southern-Kemper Co. (IGCC) Summit Texas (IGCC-Polygen)
*Rate in million metric tons per year

Sequestration
Saline EOR Rate*

Feedstock

Industrial

X X X

X X

2.55 3.0 2.2

NM Sub-bituminous Coal/Petcoke Blend MS Lignite WY Sub-bituminous Coal

69

CCPI Gasification Projects

CCPI Round 2 3b 3a Project Southern: Kemper Summit: TCEP HECA CO2 Capture Technology Selexol Rectisol Rectisol Storage Reservoir EOR EOR EOR CO2 Seq. MM TPY 3.0 2.7 3.0 Seq. Start 2014 2017 2019

70

Southern Company Services, Inc. CCPI-2

Kemper County, MS 582 MWe (net); 58 MWe duct firing; 2 TRIGTM

Advanced IGCC with CO2 Capture

Plant Site Plant Site

gasifiers, 2 Siemens combustion turbines, 1 Toshiba steam turbine Fuel: Mississippi lignite ~67-69% CO2 capture (Selexol process); 3,000,000 tons CO2/year EOR; Denbury Onshore LLC, Treetop Midstream Services LLC Total DOE Project: $2.01 billion; DOE Share: $270 million (13%) Status Total estimated plant cost: ~ $3 billion
Plant construction >50% complete CO2 off-take agreements signed Lignite mine under development Subsystems (water treatment, cooling towers, etc.) to begin pre-commissioning Combustion turbine startup: Jul 2013 Gasifier heat-up: Dec 2013
71

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: May 2014

Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC CCPI-3

Penwell, Ector County, TX 200 MW (net), 0.7 MMT/yr Urea; greenfield IGCC

Advanced IGCC-Polygen

with Siemens gasification & power Block SFG-500 gasifiers (2 x 50%) High H2 SGCC6-5000F combined cycle (1 x 1) Fuel: PRB sub bituminous coal 90% CO2 capture ~2,700,000 tons CO2/year 2.2 MM tonnes EOR; 0.5 MM to Urea production 2-stage Water Gas Shift, Linde Rectisol AGR EOR: Permian Basin Oilfields Total DOE Project: $1.727 billion; DOE Share: $450 million (26%) Total Plant Cost ~$2.6 billion

Key Dates
Project Awarded: Jan 2010 Air Permit; Dec 2010 NEPA Record of Decision: Sep 2011 Financial Close: Jun 2013 Construction: 3rd Q2013 Operation: Nov 2017

Status
Urea contract: Jan 2011 CO2 contract(s): Nov 2011 Power off-take contract: Dec 2011 Chexim signed for debt financing MOU: Sep 2012 Sinopec signed EPC agreement: Dec 2012
72

Hydrogen Energy California CCPI-3

Kern County, CA Up to 300 MWe (net) with load following; greenfield IGCC, 1.0 MMT/yr Urea/UAN MHI oxygen-blown gasifier (1 x 100%) MHI G-class air cooled combustion turbine (1) Fuel: Sub-bituminous coal/petcoke 90% CO2 capture 3,020,000 tonnes CO2/year 2.57 MM tonnes EOR; 0.45 MM Urea production 2-stage Water Gas Shift, Linde Rectisol AGR EOR: Elk Hills oilfield Use of brackish water for power production; ZLD Total DOE Project: $4 billion; DOE: $408 million (10%) Total Plant Cost: ~$5 billion
Key Dates
Project Awarded: Sep 2009 New Owner, SCS Energy: Sep 2011 Financial Close: Dec 2013 Start of Construction: Sep 2014 Start of Operation: Apr 2019

Advanced IGCC-Polygen

IGCC Poly-generation with Integrated Carbon Capture & Sequestration

Status
NEPA public scoping meeting: Jul 2012 Power/Fertilizer/CO2/EPC discussions in progress Draft PSA/EIS: Mar/Apr 2013 FEED completion: Jun 2013
73

Systems Analysis Gasification Systems Program

74

NETLs Program Analysis Support

On-going and Planned Gasification Studies
Low Rank Coal: Parallel screening studies for Gasification FY11 awards Cost and Performance Baseline for TRIG PRB and ND Lignite Air Blown IGCC Texas Lignite Air and Oxygen Blown IGCC Co-feeding of biomass to meet 90% equivalent CCS IGCC with CCS Pathway Study: Low Rank Coal Co-production assessments Altitude versus shipping sensitivity analysis IGCC availability studies: Identifying gaps for conventional technologies Setting targets for advanced technologies General advanced technology assessments: IGCC with CCS Pathway: Bituminous Coal, Updates DOE IGCC portfolio + PWR compact gasifier assessment Pressure sensitivity analysis Updated WGCU assessment - learnings from TECO design
75

Technical Approach
1. Extensive Process Simulation (ASPEN) All major chemical processes and equipment are simulated Detailed mass and energy balances Performance calculations (auxiliary power, gross/net power output)
2. Cost Estimation Inputs from process simulation (Flow Rates/Gas Composition/Pressure/Temp.) Sources for cost estimation In-house data Vendor sources where available Follow DOE Analysis Guidelines

76

Systems Analysis Bituminous Baseline Study

Full presentation available at:
[Link]

77

Study Matrix
Plant Type ST Cond. (psig/F/F) 1800/1050/1050 (non-CO2 capture cases) IGCC 1800/1000/1000 (CO2 capture cases) 2400/1050/1050 PC 3500/1100/1100 NGCC 2400/1050/1050
GEE GE Energy CoP Conoco Phillips

GT

Gasifier/ Boiler GEE

Acid Gas Removal/ CO2 Separation / Sulfur Recovery Selexol / - / Claus Selexol / Selexol / Claus MDEA / - / Claus Selexol / Selexol / Claus Sulfinol-M / - / Claus Selexol / Selexol / Claus Wet FGD / - / Gypsum Wet FGD / Econamine / Gypsum Wet FGD / - / Gypsum Wet FGD / Econamine / Gypsum - / Econamine / -

CO2 Cap

90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

F Class

CoP E-Gas Shell Subcritical Supercritical

F Class

HRSG

78

IGCC Performance Results

GE Energy
CO2 Capture Gross Power (MW) Auxiliary Power (MW) Base Plant Load Air Separation Unit Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture CO2 Compression Total Aux. Power (MW) Net Power (MW) Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) Efficiency (HHV) Energy Penalty1
1CO

E-Gas
NO 738 YES 704 NO 737

Shell
YES 673

NO 748

YES 734

25 98 3 126 622 8,756 39.0 -

26 115 19 31 191 543 10,458 32.6 6.4

24 86 3 113 625 8,585 39.7 -

28 111 20 31 190 514 10,998 31.0 8.7

22 85 1 108 629 8,099 42.1 -

25 103 19 30 177 497 10,924 31.2 10.9

2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture

79

PC and NGCC Performance Results

Subcritical
CO2 Capture Gross Power (MW) NO 583 YES 673

Supercritical
NO 580 YES 663 NO 565

NGCC
YES 511

Base Plant Load Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture CO2 Compression Total Aux. Power (MW) Net Power (MW) Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) Efficiency (HHV) Energy Penalty1
1CO

28 5 33 550 9,277 36.8 -

45 29 49 123 550 13,046 26.2 10.6

25 5 30 550 8,687 39.3 -

41 27 45 113 550 12,002 28.4 10.9

10 0 10 555 6,798 50.2 -

12 10 15 37 474 7,968 42.8 7.4

2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture

80

IGCC Economic Results

GE Energy CO2 Capture Plant Cost ($/kWe)1 Base Plant Air Separation Unit Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture CO2 Compression Total Plant Cost ($/kWe) 1,426 312 249 1,987 1,708 429 503 71 2,711 1,423 281 209 1,913 1,804 437 500 76 2,817 1,719 285 213 2,217 2,164 421 521 75 3,181 NO YES NO E-Gas YES NO Shell YES

Capital COE ($/MWh) Fixed COE ($/MWh) Variable COE ($/MWh) Fuel COE ($/MWh) CO2 TS&M COE ($/MWh) Total COE2 ($/MWh) CO2 Avoided B v A ($/ton) CO2 Avoided B v SCPC ($/ton)
1Total 280%

43.4 11.3 7.3 14.3 0.0 76.3 -

59.1 14.8 9.3 17.1 5.2 105.6 54 82

41.7 11.1 7.2 14.0 0.0 74.0 -

61.5 15.5 9.8 18.0 5.5 110.3 68 91

48.2 12.1 7.8 13.3 0.0 81.3 -

69.2 16.7 9.9 17.9 5.6 119.4 77 108

Plant Capital Cost (Includes contingencies and engineering fees but not owners costs) Capacity Factor, 17.73% Capital Charge Factor, Coal cost $1.64/106Btu

81

Plant Cost Comparison

6,000

TASC Owner's Cost

5,000
4,451 4,115 3,952 3,466 3,097 4,070 3,570

Process Contingency Project Contingency Home Office Expense Bare Erected Cost

4,000

3,801 3,334

3,904 3,610

TOC or TASC, $/kW

3,000
2,447

2,789 2,351

2,680

2,716 2,264 1,996 2,024 1,614 2,296

2,000

1,497

1,000

718

771

0
TOC TASC GEE TOC TASC TOC TASC CoP TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC

GEE w/ CO2 Capture

CoP w/ CO2 Capture

Shell

Shell w/ CO2 Capture

Subcritical PC Subcritical PC w/ Supercritical PC Supercritical PC CO2 Capture w/ CO2 Capture

NGCC

NGCC w/ CO2 Capture

82

Cost of Electricity Comparison

CO2 TS&M Costs
160

Fuel Costs Variable Costs

140

Fixed Costs
119.5 105.7 110.4
5.6 18.0 9.8 15.5 7.8 12.1 5.7 17.9 9.9 16.7

120

Capital Costs
109.7
5.9 21.3 9.2

106.6
5.7 19.6 8.7

FY COE, mills/kWh

100

5.3 17.1

80

76.3
14.3

81.3
13.3

85.9
3.2

9.3 14.8

74.0
14.0 7.2 11.1

60

59.4
15.2 5.1

13.1

58.9
14.2 5.0 8.0

13.0

58.9
52.2

7.3 11.3

40 59.1 20 43.4 41.7 61.5 48.2 69.2

7.8 60.2 31.2

44.5 59.6 2.6 5.7 1.3 3.0 10.1 22.3

31.7

0 GEE GEE w/CO2 Capture CoP CoP w/ CO2 Capture Shell Shell w/ CO2 Capture Subcritical Subcritical SupercriticalSupercritical PC PC w/ CO2 PC PC w/ CO2 Capture Capture

NGCC

NGCC w/ CO2 Capture

Coal cost $1.64/106Btu, Gas cost $6.55/106Btu

83

CO2 Avoided Costs

100 90 80 73 70 75 68 61 54 50 43 40 30 20 10 0 36 69 69

Avoided Cost (Analogous Technology w/o Capture Reference) Avoided Cost (SC PC w/o Capture Reference)
86 84

First Year CO2 Avoided Cost, $/tonne

66

60

GEE

CoP

Shell

Subcritical PC

Supercritical PC

NGCC

84

Systems Analysis Bituminous IGCC Pathway Study

85

IGCC Advanced Technology Assessments

Coal Feed Gasifier and Syngas Cooling O2 Air Oxygen Production N2 Air Raw Syngas Gas Cleanup and Shift CO2 Separation H2 Fuel Hydrogen Turbine CO2 CO2 Compression CO2 Transport, Storage and Monitoring

Hot Flue Gas

Steam Bottoming Cycle

Flue Gas To Stack

Technology Advancements Coal Feed System Oxygen Production Gas Cleanup Turbine CO2 Separation Capacity Factor Slurry Feed Cryogenic Air Separation Selexol Adv F Turbine Selexol 80% Adv H2 Turbine 85% Coal Feed Pump Ion Transport Membrane Warm Gas Cleanup Next Gen Adv Turbine H2 Membrane 90%

86

Advanced IGCC Systems

Driving Down the Cost
Efficiency (% HHV)
50
IGCC with Carbon Capture

Total Overnight Capital ($/kW)

3800 3600
IGCC with Carbon Capture

First-Year COE ($/MWh)

120 110 100 90 80
IGCC without Capture IGCC with Carbon Capture

45

3400 3200

40

35

IGCC without Capture Supercritical PC without capture

3000 2800 2600 2400

IGCC without Capture Supercritical PC without capture
Warm Gas Cleanup Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art Hydrogen Membrane Coal Pump 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Conventional Financing

70 60 50 40
Current State-of-the-Art

30

2200 2000

Supercritical PC without capture

25
Warm Gas Cleanup Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art Hydrogen Membrane Coal Pump 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Conventional Financing

1800

Warm Gas Cleanup

Ion Transport Membrane

Hydrogen Membrane

Coal Pump

85% Availability

Adv. H2 Turbine

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

87

CO2 transport, storage and monitoring cost

Conventional Financing

Advanced IGCC Systems

Driving Down the Cost
70 60 50 40

Cost of CO2 Avoided ($/tonne)

IGCC with Carbon Capture

60 50 40 30

Cost of CO2 Removed ($/tonne)

IGCC with Carbon Capture

CO2 emissions value to incentivize CCS drops from $65 to $10 per tonne with successful R&D
Measured by cost of CO2 avoided with CO2 TS&M

30 20 10 0

20

Relative to: Supercritical PC without capture

Hydrogen Membrane Warm Gas Cleanup Coal Pump 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Ion Transport Membrane Conventional Financing Current State-of-the-Art

10 0

Relative to Supercritical PC without capture

Hydrogen Membrane Warm Gas Cleanup Coal Pump 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art Conventional Financing

CO2 power plant gate sales price for CO2-EOR to incentivize CCUS drops from $50 to $5 per tonne with successful R&D
Measured by cost of CO2 removed excluding CO2 TS&M

CO2 transport, storage and monitoring cost

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

TS&M: Transportation, storage, and monitoring

88

Lowest Cost Power Generation Options

MIDWEST (sea level): Todays NGCC versus Todays Coal (Bituminous)
USC PC was not included in this comparative analysis of bituminous coal options. COE parity between SCPC without CCS and IGCC with CCS

14

12

Natural Gas Price, $/MMBtu

10

Supercritical PC without CCS has lowest COE

IGCC with CCS has lowest COE

NGCC without CCS has lowest COE

NGCC with CCS has lowest COE

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CO2 Emissions Price, $/tonne

Assumes capacity factor = availability (i.e. all plants including NGCC are base load). Assumes bituminous coal at delivered price of $1.64/MMBtu

89

Lowest Cost Power Generation Options

MIDWEST (sea level): Todays NGCC versus 2nd Generation Coal (Bituminous)
14

12

Natural Gas Price, $/MMBtu

10

2nd Gen PC without CCS has lowest COE

2nd Gen IGCC with CCS has lowest COE

Given a first-year CO2 emission price between $0 and $60/tonne, and using 2nd-Gen technology:
CCS becomes economically viable
COE parity Coal with CCS is between preferred at first-year CO2 NGCC with CCS prices of $15/tonne or higher and 2nd Gen IGCC with CCS

Todays NGCC without CCS has lowest COE

Coal is preferred over natural gas at gas NGCC prices above $7/MMBtu (instead of $11/MMBtu) with CCS

has lowest COE

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2nd-Gen technology for natural gas could market100 space 110 70 increase 80 CCS90

CO2 Emissions Price, $/tonne

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Assumes capacity factor = availability (i.e. all plants including NGCC are base load). Assumes coal price of $1.64/MMBtu

90

Systems Analysis Low Rank Coal Baseline Study: IGCC Cases

Full presentation available at: [Link]

91

IGCC Cases: Technical Design Basis

Southern Company TRIG Gasifier Coal Type Location/Elevation Coal Drying Oxidant AGR for CO2 capture plants Gas Turbine Steam Cycle (psig/F/F) Carbon Capture Availability 83% 80% Transport PRB Montana/3400 ft Indirectly heated fluidized bed NA Oxygen ConocoPhillips EGas Slurry; entrained

Fuel Gas

O2 Dry Coal

HP Steam

Slag

Shell SCGP

Siemens (GSP/Noell)

Dry-fed entrained PRB & ND Lignite PRB: Montana/3400 ft Lignite: ND/1900 ft WTA process

2-Stage Selexol Advanced F-class (Nitrogen dilution and air integration maximized) 1800/1050/1050 (non-CO2 capture cases) 1800/1000/1000 (CO2 capture cases) 90%

92

IGCC Efficiency: Bituminous Coal Comparison

50%

Montana Site: Powder River Basin Coal 3,400 ft Elevation

42% 40% 37% 38% 32% 32% 42%

North Dakota Site: ND Lignite Coal 1,900 ft Elevation

40%

Efficiency % (HHV)

38% 32%

30%

30%

31%

30%

20%

10%

Midwest Site: Bituminous Coal 0 ft Elevation

Siemens

Siemens

Siemens

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

93

Siemens

0%

Shell

Shell

Shell

TRIG

TRIG

Shell

CoP

CoP

IGCC Plant Cost: Bituminous Coal Comparison

6000

Montana Site: Powder River Basin Coal 3,400 ft Elevation

North Dakota Site: ND Lignite Coal 1,900 ft Elevation

5000

Total Overnight Cost ($/kW)

4000 3,691 3000 2,728 2000 2,771 3,056 3,185 3,851

4,253

4,318

4,378

4,430

3,094

3,239

1000

Midwest Site: Bituminous Coal 0 ft Elevation

Siemens

Siemens

Siemens

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

94

Siemens

Shell

Shell

Shell

TRIG

TRIG

Shell

CoP

CoP

Conventional IGCC: COE

150

Montana Site: Powder River Basin Coal 3,400 ft Elevation

120 112 105 122

North Dakota Site: ND Lignite Coal 1,900 ft Elevation

122

125

124

Cost of Electricity ($/MWh)

100 79 83 87 83 87

75

75

50 CO2 TS&M Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M Capital

25

Siemens

Siemens

Siemens

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

95

Siemens

Shell

Shell

TRIG

TRIG

Shell

Shell

CoP

CoP

IGCC COE: Bituminous Coal Comparison

150

Montana Site: Powder River Basin Coal 3,400 ft Elevation

120 122

North Dakota Site: ND Lignite Coal 1,900 ft Elevation

122 124

125

Cost of Electricity ($/MWh)

112 100 87 105 87

75 75 50

79

83

83

25

Midwest Site: Bituminous Coal 0 ft Elevation

Siemens

Siemens

Siemens

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

96

Siemens

Shell

Shell

Shell

TRIG

TRIG

Shell

CoP

CoP

IGCC COE: Comparison to PC Plants

150

Montana Site: Powder River Basin Coal 3,400 ft Elevation

120 122

North Dakota Site: ND Lignite Coal 1,900 ft Elevation

122 124

125

Cost of Electricity ($/MWh)

112 100 87 105 87

75 75 50

79

83

83

25

Low Rank Coal PC Combustion

Siemens

Siemens

Siemens

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

No Carbon Capture

With Carbon Capture

97

Siemens

Shell

Shell

Shell

TRIG

TRIG

Shell

CoP

CoP

Conventional IGCC: CO2 Capture Cost

100

Montana Site: Powder River Basin Coal 3,400 ft Elevation

82 70 73 85

Relative to New Supercritical PC without capture

74

North Dakota Site: ND Lignite Coal 1,900 ft Elevation

77

80

CO2 Value ($/tonne)

60

60 48 50

59

60

58

40

20

Siemens

Siemens

Siemens

CO2 Emissions Value to Incentivize CCS

CO2 Sales Price to Incentivize CCUS

CO2 Emissions CO2 Sales Price Value to to Incentivize Incentivize CCS CCUS

CCUS = Carbon capture, utilization and storage

98

Siemens

Shell

Shell

Shell

TRIG

TRIG

Shell

CoP

CoP

Lowest Cost Power Generation Options

Western (3400 ft): Todays NGCC versus Todays Coal (PRB)
14 12

Natural Gas Price, $/MMBtu

10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10

Supercritical PC without CCS has lowest COE

IGCC with CCS has lowest COE

NGCC without CCS has lowest COE

NGCC with CCS has lowest COE

20

30 40 50 60 70 80 CO2 Emissions Value, $/tonne

90

100

110

Assumes capacity factor = availability (i.e. all plants including NGCC are base load).
99

Key Findings & Next Steps

Transport gasifier provides low cost IGCC power Slurry-fed gasification still competitive for high-moisture PRB coal Western location/low rank coal gasification COE on par with midwest/bituminous coal gasification IGCC with carbon capture COE essentially equivalent to PC PRB All coal systems, with and without carbon capture, face challenges competing in todays U.S. market No carbon policy Current natural gas prices Opportunities for IGCC State-of-the-Art: Co-production, CO2 utilization via enhanced oil recovery 2nd Gen: R&D and demonstration for advanced technologies

100

Systems Analysis Low Rank Coal IGCC Pathway Study

101

Systems Analyses for Advanced IGCC

Objectives: Evaluate improved performance and cost resulting from DOE-funded R&D Identify enabling technologies within the portfolio Show relative contribution of different R&D efforts Identify/highlight gaps for low rank coal R&D pathway Approach: Begin with established cost and performance of conventional IGCC CoP E-Gas selected as reference plant Substitute conventional technologies with advanced technologies in a cumulative fashion assuming successful R&D Evaluate cost and performance in a manner consistent with baseline studies
102
102

Advanced Technology Progression

Coal Feed Raw Gasifier Syngas and Syngas Cooling O2 Air Oxygen Production N2 Air Gas Cleanup and Shift CO2 Separation H2 Fuel Hydrogen Turbine CO2 CO2 Compression CO2 Transport, Storage and Monitoring

Hot Flue Gas

Steam Bottoming Cycle

Flue Gas To Stack

Technology Progression Gas Cleanup CO2 Separation Gas Turbine Oxygen Production Availability Physical Solvent Physical Solvent Advanced F-Class Cryogenic Air Separation 80% 85% Warm Gas Cleanup (WGCU) H2 Membrane Advanced Hydrogen Turbine Ion Transport Membrane (ITM) 90%

103

Advanced IGCC Systems PRB Coal

Driving Down the Cost
Efficiency (% HHV)
45
IGCC with Carbon Capture

Total Overnight Capital ($/kW)

4000 3800 3600
IGCC with Carbon Capture

First-Year COE ($/MWh)

120 110 100 90 80
IGCC without Capture IGCC with Carbon Capture

40

35

Supercritical PC without capture IGCC without Capture

3400 3200 3000 2800

IGCC without Capture

70 60

30

2600 2400 2200

Supercritical PC without capture

Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Conventional Financing

50 40
Current State-of-the-Art

Supercritical PC without capture

25
Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Conventional Financing

2000

Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane

Ion Transport Membrane

85% Availability

Adv. H2 Turbine

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

104

CO2 transport, storage and monitoring cost

Conventional Financing

Advanced IGCC Systems PRB Coal

Driving Down the Cost
70 60 50 40

Cost of CO2 Avoided ($/tonne)

IGCC with Carbon Capture

60 50 40 30

Cost of CO2 Removed ($/tonne)

IGCC with Carbon Capture

CO2 emissions value to incentivize CCS drops from $70/tonne to $25/tonne with successful R&D
Measured by cost of CO2 avoided with CO2 TS&M

30 20 10 0

20

Relative to: Supercritical PC without capture

Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art Conventional Financing

10 0

Relative to Supercritical PC without capture

Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art Conventional Financing

CO2 power plant gate sales price for CO2-EOR to incentivize CCUS drops from $50/tonne to $25/tonne with successful R&D
Measured by cost of CO2 removed excluding CO2 TS&M

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

105

CO2 transport, storage and monitoring cost

Advanced IGCC Systems

Driving Down the Cost
Efficiency (% HHV)
50
IGCC with Carbon Capture PRB Coal/Western Site Bituminous Coal/Midwest Site

Total Overnight Capital ($/kW)

4200 4000 3800 3600 3400
IGCC with Carbon Capture PRB Coal/Western Site Bituminous Coal/Midwest Site

First-Year COE ($/MWh)

120 110 100 90 80 70 60
Supercritical PC without capture (PRB Coal)
Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Conventional Financing

45

IGCC with Carbon Capture PRB Coal/Western Site Bituminous Coal/Midwest Site

40
Supercritical PC without capture

3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000

35

30

25
Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Conventional Financing

Supercritical PC without capture (PRB Coal)

Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Conventional Financing

50 40

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

106

CO2 transport, storage and monitoring cost

Advanced IGCC Systems

Driving Down the Cost
70 60 50 40

Cost of CO2 Avoided ($/tonne)

IGCC with Carbon Capture PRB Coal/Western Site Bituminous Coal/Midwest Site

60 50 40 30

Cost of CO2 Removed ($/tonne)

IGCC with Carbon Capture PRB Coal/Western Site Bituminous Coal/Midwest Site

CO2 emissions value to incentivize CCS drops from $70/tonne to $10-25/tonne with successful R&D
Measured by cost of CO2 avoided with CO2 TS&M

30 20 10 0

20

Relative to: Supercritical PC without capture

Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art Conventional Financing

10 0

Relative to Supercritical PC without capture

Warm Gas Cleanup + H2 Membrane 85% Availability Adv. H2 Turbine Ion Transport Membrane Current State-of-the-Art Conventional Financing

CO2 power plant gate sales price for CO2-EOR to incentivize CCUS drops from $50/tonne to $10-25/tonne with successful R&D
Measured by cost of CO2 removed excluding CO2 TS&M

PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

107

CO2 transport, storage and monitoring cost

Lowest Cost Power Generation Options

Western (3400 ft): Todays NGCC versus Todays Coal (PRB)
14 12

Natural Gas Price, $/MMBtu

10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10

Supercritical PC without capture has lowest COE

IGCC with capture has lowest COE

NGCC without capture has lowest COE

NGCC with capture has lowest COE

20

30 40 50 60 70 80 CO2 Emissions Value, $/tonne

90

100

110

Assumes capacity factor = availability (i.e. all plants including NGCC are base load) 108

Lowest Cost Power Generation Options

Western (3400 ft): Todays NGCC versus 2nd Gen IGCC (PRB)
14

12

Natural Gas Price, $/MMBtu

10

Todays PC without capture has lowest COE

2nd Gen IGCC with carbon capture has lowest COE

Todays NGCC without capture has lowest COE

Todays NGCC with capture has lowest COE

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CO2 Emissions Price, $/tonne

Assumes capacity factor = availability (i.e. all plants including NGCC are base load). 109

Findings of Study and Gaps

Current DOE portfolio provides 5 points efficiency gain, 30% reduction in COE relative to todays IGCC with CCS High pressure gasification may be needed to enable advanced technologies in current R&D portfolio Managing WGCU pressure drop, hydrogen membrane driving force, meeting fuel gas pressure needs for advanced hydrogen turbine Evaluation of alternatives to slurry-fed gasification for 2nd Gen IGCC recommended

110

Conventional IGCC Compared to PC and NGCC

111

Fundamental Comparison of IGCC with Advanced PC-Fired Plant

Operating Principles Fuel Oxidant Temperature Pressure Sulfur Control Nitrogen Control Combustion Ash Control Trace Elements Wastes/By-products Efficiency (HHV) IGCC Partial Oxidation Oxygen 3000 F 415-1000 psia Concentrate Gas Not Needed Low Vol. Slag Slag Capture Several Markets 39-42% PC Full Oxidation Air 3200 F Atmospheric Dilute Gas Pre/Post Fly/Bottom Ash ESP/Stack Limited Markets 37-40%

112

Comparison of Air Emission Controls: PC vs. IGCC

Sulfur PC
Post Combustion

NOx
Low-NOx burners and SCR Syngas saturation and N2 diluent for GT and SCR

PM
ESP or baghouse

Mercury
Inject activated carbon

FGD system

IGCC
Pre Combustion

Chemical and/or physical solvents

Wet scrubber, high temperature cyclone, barrier filter

Pre-sulfided activated carbon bed

Steve Jenkins 2009 GTC Workshop [Link]

113

Effect of Coal Quality on PC and IGCC Plant Heat Rates and Capital Costs

Source: EPRI (Booras and Holt), Pulverized Coal and IGCC Plant Cost and Performance Estimates, GTC Conference, October 2004

114

Conventional Coal Plant

(Illustration only)
Net Coal to Power 40 MW / 100 MW =
15 MW lost to stack Steam Line

40% Efficiency 40 MW electricity generated

Turbine Generator

100 MW fuel input coal

Boiler River or Reservoir

Condenser 45 MW lost to cooling water

Source: EPRI

115

Natural Gas Combined Cycle

(Illustration only)
Net Natural Gas to Power (19 +38) MW / 100 MW =
22 MW lost to stack

57% Efficiency 100 MW fuel input natural gas

19 MW electricity generated
Steam Steam

38 MW electricity generated

Steam Turbine & Generator 21 MW lost to condenser

Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Gas Turbine & Generator

116

Coal-Based IGCC Power Plant

Gasification Island
Converts coal to synthesis gas Cleans & conditions synthesis gas

Natural gas is replaced by coal-based fuel gas Synthesis gas

Steam

Steam

Steam Turbine & Generator

Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Gas Turbine & Generator

117

Coal-Based IGCC Power Plant

100 MW fuel input coal

Net Coal to Power (30+21-10) MW / 100 MW = 41% Efficiency

10 MW electricity to ASU

21 MW electricity generated

Slag By-product

Steam

Synthesis gas

18 MW lost to stack
Steam Steam

30 MW electricity generated

Steam Turbine & Generator

26 MW lost to condenser

Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Gas Turbine & Generator

118

Gasification-Based Energy Conversion Systems

RESOURCES GASIFIERS OXYGEN-BLOWN
Entrained Flow GE Energy, E-Gas, Shell, Prenflo, Noell, Huaneng CERI, OMB Fluidized Bed HT Winkler, U-Gas Moving Bed British Gas Lurgi (BGL) Lurgi (Dry Ash) Transport Reactor KBR

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL Particulate Removal and Recycle

Filtration, Water Scrubbing Chloride and Alkali Removal Water Scrubbing Acid Gas Removal Amine Processes Rectisol, Selexol COS Hydrolysis Sulfur Recovery Claus Process SCOT Process Sulfuric Acid Plant Water Treatment Process Water, BFW Tail Gas Treating Turbine NOx Control Nitrogen/Steam Dilution SCR Syngas Mercury Capture Syngas CO2 Capture

ENERGY CONVERSION

PRODUCTS

Air/Oxygen Coal Biomass Petroleum Coke Heavy Oil Refinery Wastes MSW Orimulsion Other Wastes

Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Steam Turbine Boiler Syngas Conversion to Fuels & Chemicals Catalytic Conversion Shift Conversion Fischer-Tropsch Fuel Cell H2 Turbine

Steam Electric Power Liquid Fuels Chemicals Methanol SNG Hydrogen Ammonia/ Fertilizers Slag Sulfur/ Sulfuric Acid

AIR-BLOWN
Fluidized Bed HT Winkler, GTI UGas, KRW Sprouting Bed British Coal, Foster Wheeler Entrained Flow Mitsubishi Transport Reactor KBR

119

Commercial IGCC Plants

120

Commercial IGCC Plants in the U.S.

Active and Under Construction
(excluding DOE supported demonstration projects) Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project 262 MWe coal/petcoke (1995 - present) Tampa Electric Polk Power Station 250 MWe coal/petcoke (1996 - present) Duke Energys Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Station 618 MWe coal (2013 start up)

121

Wabash River IGCC

SG Solutions West Terre Haute, Indiana
Plant startup July 1995 E-Gas gasifier ConocoPhillips 2,500 tons/day coal or petcoke Bituminous coal 1995 thru August 2000 Petcoke 2000 thru Present DOE CCT Round IV Repowering project Power generation Combustion turbine: Steam turbine: Internal load: Net output:

192 MWe 105 MWe -35 MWe 262 MWe

122

Wabash River IGCC Plant Aerial Photo

Coal Preparation Gasifier Structure Steam Turbine Combustion Turbine

Sulfuric Acid Recovery

ASU

Admin Bldg & Control Room

123

Polk Power Station Unit 1

Tampa Electric Co. Mulberry, FL
GE Gasifier Oxygen blown Slurry fed Entrained flow Refractory lined Feedstock 2,200 tons/day Coal and petcoke blend CT is GE 7F Single train configuration
One gasifier supplying one CT MDEA and COS hydrolysis

Acid gas removal via DOE Clean Coal Technology Program

Plant startup July 1996

Polk Power Station, Unit

Power generation
Combustion turbine: Steam turbine: Internal load: Other auxiliaries: Net output
124

192 MWe 123 MWe - 55 MWe - 10 MWe 250 MWe

Courtesy: Tampa Electric Co.

Polk Power Station Aerial Photo

Gasifier Structure Coal Silos Slurry Preparation

ASU

Sulfuric Acid Plant

Combustion Turbine

Admin Bldg & Control Room

Steam Turbine

125

Edwardsport 618 MW IGCC Project

Duke Energy
2 x GE Gasifier 2 x GE 7 FB combustion turbines 232 MWe each GE steam turbine 320 MWe 1.5 million tons of coal per year
Gasifier being installed at Duke Energys Edwardsport Station

Total project cost: $ 3.5 billion $133.5 million Federal investment tax credit award $460 million in local, state and federal tax incentives Commercial Operations Mid-2013
Image courtesy of Duke Energy Indiana 126

ELCOGAS
Puertollano, Spain
PRENFLO gasifier Pressurized entrained flow gasifier now offered by Uhde Oxygen blown 2,600 tons/day coal and petcoke Commercial operation began in 1996 with natural gas
IGCC Plant Puertollano, Spain

In 1998 began operating on 50/50 petcoke / local Spanish coal (~ 40% ash) Siemens V94.3 gas turbine Independent power project without a power purchase agreement (PPA)
Power generation Combustion turbine Steam turbine Internal load Net output
127

182.3 MWe 135.4 MWe - 35.0 MWe 282.7 MWe

Source: Integrated gasification combined cycle technology: IGCC Its actual application in Spain: ELCOGAS, Puertollanl Manuel Trevio Coca Image Source: [Link]/shared/enter_img2_r1_c1.jpg

ELCOGAS Plant Aerial Photo

Coal Preparation Plant Gasifier Structure Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Fuel Yard

ASU

Gas Turbine

Sulfur Removal & Recovery

General Offices
128

Steam Turbine

Vresova IGCC Power Plant

Vesov, Czech Republic
1970 Town Gas Production 1996 Converted to IGCC 26 Lurgi Gasifiers Entrained flow Dry coal feed - Lignite 1 Siemens SFG-200 Entrained Added 2007 Oxygen blown Full quench Feedstock: Phenols, tars, petrol, etc. created during gasification 2 GE Combustion turbines FRAME 9 E (9171 E) ABB ES Steam turbine
[Link]

Vesov IGCC Plant, Czech Republic

Power generation Combustion turbine: 309 MWe Steam turbine: 114 MWe Internal load: - 25 MWe Net output: 398 MWe
129

Nuon IGCC Plant

Buggenum, The Netherlands
Shell Gasification Offered jointly with Krupp Uhde Gas turbine: Siemens V94.2 2,000 tons/day feedstock Bituminous coal Biomass Plant startup 1993 Power generation Combustion turbine: 155 MWe Steam turbine: 128 MWe Internal load: - 30 MWe Net output: 253 MWe
[Link]

Buggenum IGCC Plant

Only large-scale biomass installation in operation today

130

Nuon Plant Aerial Photo

Coal Preparation Plant Gasifier Structure

Gas & Steam Turbine

ASU

Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Courtesy: Nuon

Note: Sulfur Removal & Recovery (out of view)

131

Clean Coal Power R&D IGCC Demonstration Plant

Nakoso, Japan
Mitsubishi Gasifier 250 MWe Air-blown Entrained flow Dry coal feed 1,700 tons/day coal Suited to wide range of coals Water wall structure Gas clean-up MDEA chemical absorption Plant startup September 2007

Clean Coal Power R&D Joint project of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Several EPC companies
132

Clean Coal Power R&D IGCC Demonstration Plant

Aerial Photo
Heat Recovery Steam Generator Gasifier

Gas & Steam Turbine

Gas Clean-up

Photo: BLOOMBERG NEWS

133

IGCC Availability History

IGCC design goal

Excludes impact of operation on back-up fuel

Source: Dr. Jeff Phillips Sr. Program Manager, Advanced Coal, EPRI [Link]

134

IGCC Plants in the U.S.

No Longer Operating
Southern California Edisons Cool Water Coal Gasification Plant 100 MWe coal (1984-1988) Dow Chemical's Louisiana Gasification Technology Inc (LGTI) Project 160 MWe coal (1987-1995) Valero Delaware City Refinerys Delaware Clean Energy Cogeneration Project 160 MWe (& steam) petcoke (2002 2009)

135

IGCC Technology in Early Commercialization

Nations 1st Commercial-scale IGCC plants Each achieving: > 97% sulfur removal > 90% NOx reduction
Wabash River ConocoPhillips Gasifier 1996 Power plant of the Year Award* Achieved 77% availability ** Tampa Electric General Electric Gasifier 1997 Power plant of the Year Award* First dispatch power generator Achieved 90% availability **

*Power Magazine

** Gasification Power Block

136

Edwardsport 630 MW IGCC Project

Duke Energy
2 x GE Gasifier 2 x GE 7 FB combustion turbines
232 MWe each

GE steam turbine
320 MWe

1.5 million tons of coal per year Operational mid 2013 - in startup Total project cost:
$3.5 billion $133.5 million Federal investment tax credit award $460 million in local, state and federal tax incentives
Gasifier being installed at Duke Energys Edwardsport Station

Image courtesy of Duke Energy Indiana

137

Coal/Petcoke-Based U.S. IGCC Plants

Operational Performance
Cool Water California Net Power Output MWe Efficiency, % (HHV basis) Gasification Technology Feedstock Gas Turbine Firing Temp, F (C) on natural gas* Steam dilution to combustion turbine GE Bituminous GE 107E 100 LGTI Louisiana 160 37.5 E-Gas Low sulfur subbituminous 2 x Siemens SGT6-3000E 2350 (1287) Steam dilution to combustion turbine Wabash River Indiana 262 40.2 E-Gas Petcoke GE 7FA Tampa Electric Florida 250 37.5 GE Coal and petcoke blend GE 107FA GE Petcoke 2 x GE 7FA Valero Delaware 240

2350 (1287)

2350 (1287) Nitrogen and steam dilution to combustion turbine

NOX Control

Nitrogen and Steam dilution to steam dilution to combustion combustion turbine turbine

* Syngas firing is usually 100-200F lower

138

Worldwide Gasification Database (as of 2010)

139

Worldwide Gasification Capacity & Planned Growth

Cumulative by Year

Based on: 2010 Worldwide Gasification Database [Link]

140

Worldwide Gasification Capacity & Planned Growth

by Feedstock

Based on: 2010 Worldwide Gasification Database [Link]

141

Worldwide Gasification Capacity & Planned Growth

by Product

Based on: 2010 Worldwide Gasification Database [Link]

142

Worldwide Gasification Capacity & Planned Growth

by Region

Based on: 2010 Worldwide Gasification Database [Link]

143

Worldwide Gasification Capacity & Planned Growth

by Technology

Based on: 2010 Worldwide Gasification Database [Link]

144

Closing

145

 the Benefits
GASIFICATION Stable, affordable, high-efficiency energy supply with a minimal environmental impact Feedstock Flexibility/Product Flexibility Flexible applications for new power generation, as well as for repowering older coal-fired plants BIG PICTURE Energy Security -- Maintain coal as a significant component in the U.S. energy mix A Cleaner Environment (reduced emissions of pollutants) The most economical technology for CO2 capture Ultra-clean Liquids from Coal -- Early Source of Hydrogen

146

Visit NETL Gasification Website

[Link]/[Link] Google the term Gasifipedia