Increasing Coal-Fired Generation Through

2010: Challenges and Opportunities

Chair: Mr. Steven F. Leer

Vice Chair: Mr. Wes M. Taylor

Study Work Group Co-Chairs:

Ms. Georgia Nelson & Mr. Richard Eimer

The National Coal Council

May 2002

THE NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL

Steven F. Leer, Chairman

Robert A. Beck, Executive Director

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Spencer Abraham, U.S. Secretary of Energy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface...... 1

Executive Summary...... 4

Section 2:

Technologies Available for Increasing Coal-Fired Generation by 2010...... 7

Section 3:

Transitioning to an Advanced Coal Generation Future...... 22

References...... 25

Appendix A: Description of the National Coal Council...... 26

Appendix B: The National Coal Council Membership Roster...... 27

Appendix C: The National Coal Council Coal Policy Committee Roster...... 39

Appendix D: The National Coal Council Coal-Fired Generation Study Work Group Roster...... 41

Appendix E: Correspondence Between the U.S. Department of Energy and National Coal Council.42

Appendix F: Correspondence From Industry Experts...... 43

Appendix G: Acknowledgements...... 59

PREFACE

The National Coal Council is a private, nonprofit advisory body, chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The mission of the Council is purely advisory: to provide guidance and recommendations as requested by the United States Secretary of Energy on general policy matters relating to coal. The Council is forbidden by law from engaging in lobbying or other such activities. The National Coal Council receives no funds or financial assistance from the Federal Government. It relies solely on the voluntary contributions of members to support its activities.

The members of the National Coal Council are appointed by the Secretary of Energy for their knowledge, expertise and stature in their respective fields of endeavor. They reflect a wide geographic area of the United States (representing more than 30 states) and a broad spectrum of diverse interests from business, industry and other groups, such as:

  • Large and small coal producers;
  • Coal users such as electric utilities and industrial users;
  • Rail, waterways, and trucking industries as well as port authorities;
  • Academia;
  • Research organizations;
  • Industrial equipment manufacturers;
  • State government, including governors, lieutenant governors, legislators, and public utility commissioners;
  • Consumer groups, including special women’s organizations;
  • Consultants from scientific, technical, general business, and financial specialty areas;
  • Attorneys;
  • State and regional special interest groups; and
  • Native American tribes.

The National Coal Council provides advice to the Secretary of Energy in the form of reports on subjects requested by the Secretary and at no cost to the Federal Government.

Executive Summary

Purpose

By letter dated September 21, 2001, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham requested that the National Coal Council conduct a study to determine what “advanced technologies” might be available for the generation of electricity from coal in the next five to seven years. He requested that the Council “quantify additional power that could be produced over this time frame at lower cost and with lower emissions” than the current commercial offerings.

The Council accepted the Secretary’s request and formed a study group of experts to conduct the work and draft a report. This study group extended the time frame of the investigation of available technologies out to the year 2010. Also, the group decided to include some discussion of environmental regulations and their effect on the implementation and deployment of these technologies. This environmental regulatory discussion is intertwined with the discussion of the various technologies.

The full text of the Secretary’s letter of request can be found in Appendix E of this report. The list of participants of this study group can be found in Appendix D of this report.

Findings

The study group found the following:

  • Various data sources that track generation capacity differ on the amount of coal-fired generation that is being planned, sited or permitted. However, in the past 24 months, these various sources indicate that between 22,000 MW and 65,000 MW of new coal-fired capacity has been announced. It is uncertain how much of this capacity will be built. The specific amount of additional capacity is dependent on site-specific, market-driven economic factors (natural gas price/availability, demand, siting and permitting costs, access to transmission, cost of capital, etc.).
  • Coal-based power is strategically critical to the U.S. because it is a low-cost, domestic resource – providing economic stability and energy security to the overall economy. Today over 50% of the country’s electricity is provided by coal and no energy source is currently available that can provide a significant alternative to this vast energy source. The continued use of coal, in a clean and environmentally acceptable manner, supports the stated national energy strategy of maintaining fuel diversity to secure economic and security objectives.
  • Development and deployment of advanced technologies (ultra supercritical steam power plants, integrated gasification combined cycle power plants, gasification/combustion hybrids, etc.) requires incentives and/or special government support to accelerate their development and deployment during the next 10 years.
  • Coal-based generators are subject to multiple, sometimes conflicting emissions regulations. New or revised emissions standards with varying implementation timetables add considerable uncertainty in coal-fired power plant investment by generation companies.
  • Mercury control is the subject of considerable research and development and demonstration initiatives today and lessons learned should be factored into regulatory policies.
  • Injection of powdered activated carbon (PAC) represents the most mature retrofit technology for reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers. Full-scale testing at two plants has demonstrated that PAC injection may be capable of reducing mercury by 50-70% on units with electrostatic precipitators (90% of the existing fleet of coal-fired boilers) and up to 90% for units with fabric filters (10% of the existing fleet). These reductions vary depending on fuel type and plant configuration. To further mature this technology to a commercial stage, additional short-term field tests and long-term demonstrations must be conducted at a number of plants representing a range of plant designs, operating characteristics and fuel types.
  • Effective application of a combination of technologies can control emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) up to 90%. Deployment of these technologies has achieved significant national reductions. To continue this downward trend, advanced economically feasible control technologies must be further developed.
  • Technologies for controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) are relatively mature and commercially proven. Control of SO2 emissions as high as 99% has been achieved at some plants, with 90-95% routine. Opportunities exist for further developments to reduce the cost of retrofit controls and to enhance the use of by-products.
  • The topic of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration is now seeing a significant acceleration in research and development and innovative ideas. Continued support for research, development and demonstration is needed to develop a portfolio of potential solutions. In a May, 2000 report by the Council entitled “Research and Development Needs for the Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide as Part of a Carbon Management Strategy” specific recommendations regarding sequestration were provided. DOE is currently implementing most of these recommendations. The best near-term option is to deploy plants with greater efficiency and (in parallel) aggressively continue research and development to develop future solutions. This dual-track approach to carbon management is embodied in the Bush Administration’s recently announced Global Climate Change Initiative and is the correct approach to the issue.
  • Strategies like the Administration’s recently announced Clear Skies Initiative which promote the combination of flexible, market-based mechanisms (such as emissions trading and banking) with reasonable reduction targets and time schedules, will facilitate the addition of the maximum amount of new coal-fired generation capacity mentioned above.

Recommendations

The National Coal Council recommends that the Secretary of Energy:

  • Establish a program to facilitate the development of technologies for the use of coal along two pathways: combustion and gasification.
  • On the combustion pathway, development of advanced technologies for ultra supercritical boilers and controlling emissions of NOx and mercury should be accelerated and expedited.
  • On the gasification pathway, technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), CO2 separation, etc., should be given increased support and funding.
  • Promote and support the need for a broad portfolio of technology development to allow maximum fuel flexibility in the energy production sector of the country’s economy.
  • This development would include continued improvement of current technologies, development of the next generation of combustion technologies, and accelerated development of technologies required for coal gasification.
  • National energy security would be enhanced through this portfolio approach because coal is domestic, economic and in abundant supply.
  • Work together with the other appropriate agencies of the Federal government to establish a well-crafted, streamlined approach to emissions control from coal-fired electricity generation plants, within the structure of the Clean Air Act, which will improve regulatory stability over the next decade and facilitate increased investment in these types of generating plants. This approach should include, but not be limited to, the following:
  • Simplify the multiple and sometime-conflicting regulations currently in place.
  • Improve the diagnostic tools, such as air quality models, to better reflect actual operating conditions, meteorological and atmospheric conditions, and to eliminate overlapping conservativism inherent in these tools.
  • Stress the importance of the use of market-based mechanisms, such as emissions trading, banking and averaging, as ways to reduce regulatory compliance costs.
  • In addition to supporting and conducting research and development programs, establish incentives and/or government support to accelerate the development of advanced generation designs (and the materials needed to operate them) and to bring them to commercial viability.
  • Support the application (by tax incentives or other means) of advanced mature coal utilization technologies that enhance the efficiency of electricity generation plants.

Appendix E

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF ENERGY AND NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL

Appendix F

Correspondence From Industry Experts

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:21:50 -0400

From: Alex Green <>

Organization: University of Florida

X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win98; I)

MIME-Version: 1.0

To:

Subject: Re: Action Draft of the NCC Report

References: <>

Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------9E09FB5A873614F429ADBAEF"

X-Scanned-By: NERDC Open Systems Group (

------9E09FB5A873614F429ADBAEF

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Bob:

After reading the Draft NCC report I believe my write up of "A green

alliance between coal and biomass " would be a useful supplement". I

can send in an MS Word copy of my original 12 page version that included

considerable detailed technical reasons for the green alliance. You

should already have a link to it. Alternatively I am herewith

attaching a 5 page text plus a one page MS word copy of two figures

and a key table. The condensation, I believe gives the essence of why

this alliance would foster Secretary Abraham's objectives in requesting

this study.

Please let me know if there are any problems relative to inclusion

of this condensed report. The server in our building is down and I am

trying to manage from my home computer without the help of my Generation

Y grad students.

Sincerely

Alex

A green alliance between coal and biomass

Alex E. S. Green, ICAAS-CCTL

University of Florida, Gainesville FL. 32611-2050 (5-13)

Abstract: In considering sensible energy-environmental policy (SEEP) responses to current national problems we observe that biomass is the renewable with the greatest near term potential. Accordingly, we conclude that there are urgent national needs: A) to develop omnivorous systems to convert solid fuels to liquid and gaseous fuels that can be used for efficient vehicles, combustion turbines, or fuel cells and B) to form a green alliance between coal and biomass to pursue ecofriendly co-utilization of coal with biomass and other opportunity fuels. An alliance would enable coal companies, the power industries, agriculture, other renewable energy advocates, and governmental agencies to combine expertise and assets to develop more quickly and at lower cost ecofriendly energy resources and technologies.

  1. Energy-Environmental Problems

ICAAS, is an interdisciplinary environmental center formed in 1970, to the reduce anthropogenic emissions associated with energy sources. The Clean Combustion Technology Laboratory (CCTL) is an energy center formed in 1980 to search for ecofriendly alternatives to oil. These centers conducted a study directed toward reducing Florida utilities' use of oil while minimizing the environmental impact of increased coal use. This study led to our 1980 book Coalbook Coal Burning Issues [1] .] and our 1981 book An Alternative to Oil, Burning Coal with Natural Gas [2]. The latter began my search for ecofriendly ways to co-utilize domestic fuels [3-5].

Figure 1 shows a diagram of annual national energy consumption at the millennium extrapolated from Energy Information Agency documents. The USA consumed 95 quads and with the 5 exported quads the total in round numbers was 100 quads. We would very soon exhaust our domestic oil at present consumption rates if we relied entirely on it for transportation. Our natural gas would follow later but how much later depends upon who makes the estmateestimate. Our coal reserves will last two or three centuries. Nuclear and renewables are smaller energy sources at this time. Renewables have the greatest public appeal since they appear to have minimal envronmentalenvironmental impact. Biomass is the renewable with the greatest near term prospect for alleviating some of our national energy and environmentaland environmental problems.

2. Biomass and Other Opportunity Fuels

A. Potential Sources

Table 1 lists variouslists various types of biomassbiomass and other opportunity fuels that should be considered in the United States. Energy crops (No.1) and agriculturlagricultural residues (No.2) probably haveprobably have the largest potential for biomass to energy while potentially providing agricultural benefits. Because biomass is more oxygenated than coal it is moreis more easily converted to liquids and gases. These forms of biomass have been considered since the 1973 oil crises but interest seems to increase or wainne depending upon theupon the price of oil set by the OPEC cartel or upon socio-political factors. Forestry residue and forest understory (No.3) are usually handled by "controlled burning" that leads to high levels of soot pollution and sometimes disastrous losses of property (remember Los Alamos!). Nos. 4-8 are mainly sent to landfills usually leading to adverse environmental impacts larger than the impacts of using the waste for energy with ecofriendly technologies. The wood energy in No. 9 is substantial but the technology used must capture the toxics. The same energy opportunities and potential environmental problems exist for Nos. 10-12 but mitigating environmental impacts would probably represent the greater public service. In the Everglade restoration effort No. 13 melaluca, an invasive woody exotic, would be a big cost item if treated only as a re-mediation problem. However, if treated as an opportunity fuel its disposal could proceed at a much faster pace and with some cost recovery. The energy opportunities in 12in Nos. 14 and 15 are very substantial and conversion to liquid fuels would be the most useful.. Category 16, coal fines, is an opportunity fuel that could provide useful energy if blended with natural gas, good coal or dry wastedry waste wood, if available nearby.

TABLE 1: Biomass and other Opportunity Fuels

  1. Energy crops on underutilized or marginal lands.
  2. Agricultural residues with no-till agriculture
  3. Forestry residues and forest understory.
  4. Infested trees: pine beetles, citrus canker, oak spores
  5. Cellulosic components of municipal solid waste.
  6. Urban yard waste,
  7. Construction and deconstruction debris.
  8. Food processing waste.
  9. CCA and other treated wood.
  10. Biosolids (sewage sludge).
  11. Phytoremediators of toxic sites.
  12. Algae from water remediation.
  13. Invasive species
  14. Used Tires.
  15. Waste plastics.
  16. Coal Fines.

B. Difficulties in Converting Biomass to Energy

Biomass to energy facilitiesenergy facilities have not done well in the USA, apart from special places where substantial waste wood is available or where substantial government subsidies are involved. Some of the problems are listed in Table 2. Problems 1-6 are mostly self explanataryself-explanatory. On No.7, biomass seems to have lost out to solar cells and windmills in the affection of the environmental community, perhaps because some of the most productive energy crops are “exotics” such as kudsuas kudsu that are assumed to be uncontrollable. After 15 years on the NCC theNCC the author can certify that biomass hasbiomass hasnot capturednot captured the affection of the coalthe coal industry. This is probably out of concern for loss of market share, a concern that is not warranted. The annual sustainable production for energy of biomass (higlyoxygenated coal) in the USA isUSA is much smaller than the economic annual production of biomass coalified (de-oxygenated) naturally over the past 300 million years. Problem 9 is related to USA's low energy cost strategy which is the main problem of biomass (see Conclusion).

Table 2: Problems with Biomass Utilization

  1. Biomass is hard to feed or mechanically process.
  2. Low density limits economic transport distances
  3. Seasonal availability presents problems off-season
  4. The high moisture content of plant matter
  5. Herbaceous forms have higher alkali metal content that fosters ash melting (slagging/fouling)
  6. Difficult to exploit economy of scale
  7. Has not gained the affection of environmentalists
  8. Has not gained the affection of the coal industry
  9. Does not compete with coal or natural gas in the USA
  1. Technical Aspects

A. Ultimate and Proximate Analysis

Table 3 shows major categories of coals and some properties that have measured by the coal industry for over a century. Also shown are the properties of wood. The ultimate and proximate analyses numbers listed are corrected to apply for dry, ash, nitrogen, and sulfur free feedstock (DASNF) i.e. pure carbon, hydrogen, oxygenand oxygen (CHO) materials . Figure 4 shows2 is a plot of [H], the wt% of hydrogen (solid diamonds with values read on the left scale) vs [O], the wt % of oxygen, for 185 representative DANSF CHO materials taken from ultimate analysis data available in the technical literature [6-9]. The bottom scales give conventional rankconventional coal ranks, some potential names for the biomass region and some names that might foster more friendly discussions. This [H] vs [O] coalification plot shows that apart from the anthracite region all natural DANSF feedstock have hydrogen wt% that are close to 6%. Also shown on Fig. 2 by the open squares (read on right scale) are the data for [C] vs[O]. The near constancy of [H] and the smooth decline of [C] with increasing [O] provide strong reasons for treating peat and biomass simply as lower rank coals.