INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS, PERMITTING ISSUES AND

PARASITIC ENERGY LOSS FOR POWER PLANTS WITH CCS

By:Theresa Pugh

Director, Environmental ServicesAmerican Public Power Association

Presented to:EUEC Meeting

January 29, 2008Tucson, AZ

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

WHAT IS APPA?• 2,000 Municipal, State Utilities Which Are

Community Owned• Payment In Lieu Of Taxes Returned To

General City Revenue For Fire, Police, Library, Schools

• Money Must Be Spent Wisely: Low Risk Tolerance For Failure

• Results Must Satisfy Mayors, City Council And Utility General Managers

• Electric Rates Must Be Reasonable

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Why New Generation and CCS Matters to APPA:

• Population increase predicted 2010-2030• Need to keep up with generation needs to serve our population

and communities• Energy efficiency is an excellent start but won’t get us there given

population and increasing needs

• What to keep in context:• Total current CO2 injected at EOR sites = only 13 (coal) power plants of 500 MW each• EIA projects utility sector to emit 3 trillion tons/year

• Current UIC Chemical Injection Program = 34 million liters or 40 million metric tons or about 1/500th of a percent of the CO2 that some expect to be injected from future power plants

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

New Generation is Driven by Population

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

APPA: Perspective on CO2 Control

• APPA Supports Voluntary CO2-Mitigating Steps

• Signatory on the President’s Climate Vision Memorandum of Understanding to Reduce– GHG emissions intensity by 18% by 2018– Power sector GHG by 3-5% below ’02-’03 baseline

• APPA Tree PowerTM Program for aforestation– Provide shade, improve photosynthesis, reduce CO2

– Golden Tree Award: one tree per customer served

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Sequestration Unknowns:• Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage1 (Battelle)

– “…..CO2 injection can be considered an established technology….”

– “….large-scale deployment of CCS systems…….requires the continued development and field demonstration of more advanced drilling and CO2 injection schemes….”

• IPCC Report2 (2005)– “…there must be hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of large –

scale geologic storage projects…..”– thirteen key questions (page 204) discussed and addressed

1. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage, Global Energy Technology Strategy Program Phase 2, April, 2006.

2. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, Final Report, Cambridge University Press, 2005.

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Sequestration: What’s Involved?• Reference: 1 GW Generates 30,000 tons CO2/d• Inject as “Supercritical” Fluid (Acts Like Both a

Liquid and Gas)• To 1/2 Mile or Deeper to Minimize Volume• CO2 Once Injected is:

– less dense than encased fluids, and under pressure – Will migrate both laterally and up– Can diffuse, adsorb, mineralize, and solubilize– Can we predict the ultimate fate?

• 1 GW Plume: Spreads to 100 km2 (100 m Thick)

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Candidate CO2 ReservoirsReservoir Features Trapping Global/US

Capacity,GT

Deep Saline Formations

Sandstone, carbonate w/voids

Hyrodynamic, dissolution, mineralization

9,500/

3,630

Depleted natural gas

Similar to above

“ 700/35

Depleted oil Pores from extracted oil

“ 120/12

Deep unmineable coal seams

CH4 attached to coal

Chemisorption displacing CH4

140/30

Deep saline-filled basalt formations

Porous zones rich in Fe

Hyrodynamic, dissolution, mineralization

Unknown/240

Source: Batelle CCS Report, p. 17

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

New Coal Generation and CCS: Why APPA Approaches with Caution

• Do you really know the cost?• Existing coal plants emit approximately 27% of U.S. GHGs (EPA 2007)• For new plants, cost estimates on CCS do not consider increased consumption of

coal for gasification or combustion to compensate for parasitic energy for CCS- 12% drop in efficiency from 33% to 21% on top of IGCC parasitic loss

• This means power for compression and fans, pumps, capture system to cooling water

Additional Power Needs for CCS

Fans & pumps, 7%

Amine system Aux, 24%

CO2 compression, 53%

Other, 3%

Cooling system F&P, 13%

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Law of Unintended Consequences

• CCS and IGCC will cause power plants to use/gasify more coal than PC plants

• CO2 capture system (amine) requires twice the cooling water as PC plant

• APPA asks: Does the public understand the consequences of using more coal and more water to produce electricity?

• Is more water use realistic in all states?

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Location! Location! Location!Is not the same as

Geology! Geology! Geology!• Load and population drives location decisions for new

power plants- Access to water for cooling water- Access to rail lines for coal- Access to transmission lines

Land Use• NETL’s 2006 report suggests 1 acre of surface land for

each 100 MW of generating capacity• NETL projects capture and compression to require 60

acres for 500 MW or 12 times the first estimate• The subsurface land use may not be available due to

state laws or lack of law on right of way on subsurfaces

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Injected Material Mass of Material(mil. Metric tons/year)

CO2 emissions from power plants 2,400[1]

CO2 in Class II wells for oil recovery 43[2]

Class I hazardous waste 22[3]

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, total

2

[1] Electric Power Research Institute, Electricity Technologies in a Carbon-Constrained World.[2] Source: Advanced Resourced International, 2007,[3] U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 2005 Data, Dec. 2006, at 2-5, Exhibit 2-5.

For Engineers and the Left-Brained… Comparison of CCS Volumes to Current UIC Volumes:

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

…and for the rest of the sane world!

Comparison of CCS Volumes to Current UIC Volumes:

22 432

2400

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Class I Class II (EOR) Power Plants Regional Partnerships

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Projections from EIA:

2,400 Million Metric Tons in 2006

3,044 Million Metric Tons in 2030

(1.1% growth rate per year)

Total CO2 from Power Plants

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Seismic Risk

Seismic Risk and “geologic time” restrictions in UIC Class I derived from RCRA Guidance (EPA)

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Subsurface space required for only 40% of the Carbon Dioxide from a 300 MW power plant for one year:

2,750 Acres

Source: J. Gledhill, Policy Navigation for APPA

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Subsurface space required to sequester 40% of the Carbon Dioxide from approx. 9

500 MW Plants over their 40-year lifetime:

2,580 square miles

Roughly 1.5 times the size of Rhode Island

Roughly half the size of Connecticut

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Retrofit of Power Plants:What to do with Existing Fleet?

• Existing coal and gas fleet have no commercial available and demonstrated technology

• A retrofit unit with a pre-retrofit energy conversion efficiency of 33%, a loss of 12% means loss of >30% of output of power plant

• Replacement of parasitic power in utility sector means installation of over 100 GW of additional new capacity

• Replacement power and capture/compression systems mean huge energy capacity shortages

• Are we building additional capacity with coal to run CCS?

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Other Costs – Some Impossible to Calculate

• Cost to separate CO2 at new CCS power plants• Cost to transport CO2 offsite to other states• How much does it cost to pay for retrofit of

natural gas pipeline system for CO2 with booster compressors? Who pays?

• What is the environmental liability or remediation cost to a power plant that might trigger liability under CERCLA, RCRA, ESA, NRDA, and SDWA?– pH changes?– Water quality issues?– Plant losses or endangered plant species

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

New Commercial/Business Risks and Costs to Power Plants

• Is the power industry prepared to compensate oil and gas companies for lost hydrocarbon value for future EOR? What can this cost at $100 bbl? $6 Mcf? And what are those costs in 30 – 50 years?

• What constitutes “performance bond” for utility sector for non-EOR sites? Required by SDWA

• How much is post closure monitoring?

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

OK, Let’s Assume Carbon Separation Technology Works and is Cheap

• How much does electricity cost the consumer with carbon separation + CCS? 2x? More?

• What will costs of carbon dioxide control costs (CCS) do to dispatch costs to the entire utility sector?

• What do these costs do to costs in fully de-regulated markets? RTO markets?

• APPA asks: Do our customers really understand these increases? Do we?

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

Conclusion• APPA supports Future Gen and DOE Regional Partnership

Projects• APPA urges more research on geo-engineering in addition to

CCS – don’t put all eggs in CCS basket• Slow down the selection of technology – we need to know more• Consumer deserves to understand costs to monthly electric bills• Cities and consumers need to understand higher risk profile to

electric utility sector• Power plant locations are dictated by load, transmission lines,

and rail – not geology• Will Americans accept power plants that use up to 40% more

coal to support CCS?

T. Pugh, 2008 EUEC

ContactTheresa PughDirectorEnvironmental ServicesAmerican Public Power Association (APPA)1875 Connecticut Ave, NW Ste 1200Washington, DC 20009(202) 467-2943tpugh@appanet.org

http://www.appanet.org/files/HTM/ccs.html• Horinko legal liability overview• Carter technology review paper• Carter paper on parasitic energy impacts• UIC drinking water issues, power plants and CCS issues