Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two) (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix H Report of the Panel on DOE's Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Technology R&D Program
Appendix H Report of the Panel on DOE's Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Technology R&D Program
Pages 111-131
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 111... ...
A key goal of the DOE program is to consisted of experts with experience in coal-based electric develop IGCC systems capable of separating carbon dioxide power generation technologies and markets, combustion and (CO2) for subsequent sequestration.
|
From page 112... ...
Taken together, the baselines and • Capital cost, goals indicate that the DOE program is seeking improve • Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, ments of 5 to 10 percentage points in thermal efficiency (up • Cost of electricity (COE)
|
From page 113... ...
SOURCE: Gary Stiegel, DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory. TABLE H-4 Revolutionary or Long-Term Improvements Due to DOE Advanced Gasification Research Change in Cost and Performance of IGCC System Attributable to R&D Increase in Capital Cost O&M Reduction Availability Efficiency Reduction Reduction in COE Improvement Research Activity (%)
|
From page 114... ...
Progress in meetvarious outcomes. For example, if the DOE program were ing cost and performance goals is evaluated periodically both to achieve all its goals for capital cost reduction through the in-house, by DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory projects in warm gas cleanup, ITM air separation, the Stamet (NETL)
|
From page 115... ...
Production of oxygen of 95 percent or greater purity from • It might not be possible to disperse the pressurized coal air by current liquefaction technology requires about 10 within the delivery vessel for transport to the gasification percent of the gross power output of the plant and accounts reactor. for about 15 percent of an IGCC plant's capital cost.
|
From page 116... ...
expenses. The areas of need include direct based on phosphate additions that are being tested in two gasifier temperature measurement, in situ measurement of currently operating commercial IGCC plants.
|
From page 117... ...
The CO2-rich gas exiting the combustion reac- versely, a more restrained approach to regulating CO2 emistor is diluted primarily with water, which can be removed by sions, combined with high natural gas prices, would favor condensation, leaving an essentially pure CO2 stream, which the commercialization of IGCC plants, which benefit from can then be captured. efficient means of CO2 separation.
|
From page 118... ...
($/MWh) 46.5 46.6 46.0 49.9 47.3 56.5 NOTES: $/kW, dollars per kilowatt; $/MWh, dollars per megawatt-hour; Btu, British thermal unit; CF, capacity factor; CFB, circulating fluid ized bed; COE, cost of electricity; E-gas, E-Gas coal gasification process; HHV, higher heating value; IGCC, integrated gasification combined cycle; LHV, lower heating value; NGCC, natural gas combined cycle; and PC, pulverized coal.
|
From page 119... ...
these: The panel then estimated the probability of achieving the • The reduction in capital cost of IGCC plants that would specified levels of technical success, first assuming DOE's be realized by R&D. program is carried out and then assuming it is not.
|
From page 120... ...
Plant Availability Cost and Performance Ninety % 50% Very high success: $1040/kW; 48% eff Eighty -five % 25% 10% Eighty % 25% Ninety % 50% High success: Eighty-five % $1135/kW; 45% eff 25% 40% Eighty % 25% Yes Ninety % 65% Moderate success: $1265/kW; 42% eff Eighty -five % 20% 45% Eighty % 15% Ninety % Low success: 75% $1400/kW; 39% eff Eighty -five % 15% 5% Eighty % 10% Ninety % Very high success: 30% $1040/kW; 48% eff Eighty-five % 40% 0% Eighty % 30% Ninety % 30% High success: Eighty -five % $1135/kW; 45% eff 40% 10% Eighty % 30% No Ninety % 55% Moderate success: $1265/kW; 42% eff Eighty-five % 25% 40% Eighty % 20% Ninety % Low success: 65% $1400/kW; 39% eff Eighty -five % 20% 50% Eighty % 15% FIGURE H-1 Decision tree representing the panel's assessment of the likely technical outcomes of IGCC R&D. 2-1c.eps The panel estimated the economic benefits by focusing the net present value of the annual benefits stream assuming on the COE for IGCC plants relative to other options.
|
From page 121... ...
.7 based on the costs and efficiency assumptions in the AEO The decision trees created by the panel specify a range of 2005 reference case, and the estimated COE for a "DOE possible technical outcomes of IGCC research in terms of success" case, assuming the IGCC research meets the goals future capital costs, plant efficiencies, and plant availabili set out by DOE over time. Note that the panel estimated it ties, as described previously.
|
From page 122... ...
panel's assessment of market risks, IGCC technologies will • A case wherein the IGCC program is assumed to meet compete with both NGCC plants and other advanced coal the technical goals established by DOE (e.g., $1,000/kW technologies. capital costs and 50 percent efficiency in 2014, increasing to Based on a review of DOE's FY04 benefits analysis 60 percent efficiency by 2024)
|
From page 123... ...
The expected value of DOE's IGCC research pro- is 30 million tons (discounted at 3 percent) over the full gram in this scenario is $6.4 billion, the difference between 20-year life of all plants built between 2006 and 2025 in the AEO Reference Case scenario and 34 million tons in the High Oil and Gas Prices scenario.
|
From page 124... ...
1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 Expected value without DOE program = .4 $2.2 billion Cumulative probability .3 .2 With DOE Expected value with DOE program = $8.6 billion Without DOE .1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 NPV in $ billion FIGURE H-4 Cumulative distribution on the net present value of IGCC research under the AEO Reference Case scenario, assuming IGCC replaces PC.
|
From page 125... ...
• 40 percent chance of achieving η = 45 percent and an tion of the benefits of DOE's IGCC R&D program. Benefits are calculated as described in Chapter 3 for two scenarios: nth plant capital cost of $1,135/kW with the DOE program the AEO Reference Case and the High Oil and Gas Prices and 10 percent without it.
|
From page 126... ...
Economic Benefits Economic benefits depend on the next-best alternative technology, which depends in part on the results of other DOE R&D programs.b If IGCC displaces PC, If IGCC displaces PC, $6.4 billion at 3% $7 billion at 3% $2.4 billion at 7% $2.7 billion at 7% If IGCC displaces NGCC, If IGCC displaces NGCC, $7.8 billion at 3% $47 billion at 3% $3 billion at 7% $18 billion at 7% Environmental Environmental impacts depend on the next-best alternative technology, which depends Benefits on the results of other DOE R&D programs. Expected Program Benefits If IGCC displaces PC, If IGCC displaces PC, carbon emissions carbon emissions decrease by 30 million t decrease by 34 million t If IGCC displaces NGCC, If IGCC displaces NGCC, carbon emissions decrease by 36 million tc carbon emissions increase by 90 million t Security Benefits If IGCC plants are built instead of NGCC plants, there are security benefits related to the decrease in consumption of natural gas.
|
From page 127... ...
Speeding up the research where he has worked since 2004. From 1980 until 2004, on topics that improve IGCC plant availability -- such as he was employed at Air Products and Chemicals, most durable refractory, dry coal feed, instrumentation and diag- recently as an Air Products fellow.
|
From page 128... ...
Cohen was an clean coal technology demonstration projects, including as economist associate at the Rand Corporation, a research as- project manager for the 70-MW Tidd pressurized, fluidizedsociate for economics with the Brookings Institution, a senior bed combustion (PFBC) demonstration plant, the first such economist at the California Institute of Technology's Envi- power plant in North America, built with the cooperation of ronmental Quality Laboratory, and an assistant professor of the DOE and the Ohio Coal Development Office.
|
From page 129... ...
by the NEMS model, although it departs formally from the DOE goal. The panel's adjustment of the NEMS estimates of newly 10Julianne Klara, Senior Analyst, Office of Fossil Energy, DOE, "NEMS installed capacity relied on changing the capital cost estibased benefits of FE gasification R&D," Presentation to the panel.
|
From page 130... ...
Under at a minimum a consideration of the two polar possibilities -- the High Oil and Gas Prices scenario, it displaces NGCC in presence or absence of the remaining DOE program. As the the later years.
|
From page 131... ...
the High Oil and Gas Prices scenario and the Reference Case, In general, whereby in 2025 the IGCC share is as follows: Proposed share of IGCC = Reference Case share + Proposed IGCC share in 2025 = Reference Case share (High Oil and Gas Prices share – Reference Case + (High Oil and Gas Prices share – Reference Case share)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.