1
Emerging Technologiesin Emerging Economies
with Emphasis on China & India
Emerging Technologiesin Emerging Economies
with Emphasis on China & India
Jarad DanielsOffice of Fossil Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
Jarad DanielsOffice of Fossil Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
2
Coal is expected to play a key role in growth of Emerging Economies
Coal is expected to play a key role in growth of Emerging Economies
Source: IEA, World Energy Outlook 2007, Reference scenario.
0
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
2005 2030 2005 2030
Mtoe
TEOther OECDEU27JapanUSOther DCIndiaChina
Power generation Other
Coa
l inp
ut
Global CO2 emissions from coal: 11 GtCO2 in 2005, 19 GtCO2 in 2030
3
Electricity Generation by Fuel Type in 2005 (%) China, India, and USA
Electricity Generation by Fuel Type in 2005 (%) China, India, and USA
Operational Capacity by Fuel Type (2005)
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
CHINA
USA
INDIA
Coal Gas Oil Hydro Nuclear Others / Renewables
Country Total Capacity (MW) Coal Capacity (MW)India 116,860 67,296USA 991,794 327,551
China 379,895 272,243Data Source: Platts UDI, 2005
4
Age of Existing Coal-Fired Units in 2005 (Number of Units) in India, China, and USA
Age of Existing Coal-Fired Units in 2005 (Number of Units) in India, China, and USA
552
406
133108
6372
111 10580
3820
116
223258
569
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0-10 Years Old(1996-2005)
11-20 Years Old(1986-1995)
21-30 Years Old(1976-1985)
31-40 Years Old(1966-1975)
41Years andOlder (1965)
Num
ber o
f Uni
ts
ChinaIndiaUS
552
406
133108
6372
111 10580
3820
116
223258
569
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0-10 Years Old(1996-2005)
11-20 Years Old(1986-1995)
21-30 Years Old(1976-1985)
31-40 Years Old(1966-1975)
41Years andOlder (1965)
Num
ber o
f Uni
ts
ChinaIndiaUS
Data Source: Platts UDI, 2005
5
Age of Existing Coal-Fired Capacity in 2005 (MW) in India, China, and USA
Age of Existing Coal-Fired Capacity in 2005 (MW) in India, China, and USA
132,862
82,554
17,015
5,956
105,780
112,795
77,287
2,3296,776
19,92217,126
1,852
25,245
4,937
26,631
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
0-10 Years Old(1996-2005)
11-20 Years Old(1986-1995)
21-30 Years Old(1976-1985)
31-40 Years Old(1966-1975)
41Years andOlder (1965)
Cap
acity
(MW
)
ChinaIndiaUS
132,862
82,554
17,015
5,956
105,780
112,795
77,287
2,3296,776
19,92217,126
1,852
25,245
4,937
26,631
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
0-10 Years Old(1996-2005)
11-20 Years Old(1986-1995)
21-30 Years Old(1976-1985)
31-40 Years Old(1966-1975)
41Years andOlder (1965)
Cap
acity
(MW
)
ChinaIndiaUS
Data Source: Platts UDI, 2005
6
Average Coal-Fired Power Plant EfficienciesChina, India, and USA
Average Coal-Fired Power Plant EfficienciesChina, India, and USA
CountryAverage
Efficiency (HHV) (%)
OECD 36
USA 33-34
China ~30-32
India ~25-34
China’s reported power efficiency is approaching OECD levels following rapid build up of new units over the last 5+ years
India is improving too but not as fast as China owing to slower build up and the number of poor performing SEB stations, which represent about 2/3 of India’s electricity generation
7
China is shifting rapidly to advanced coal technologies
China is shifting rapidly to advanced coal technologies
• Average efficiency of coal-fired generation: 33.2% LHV• Over 8,000 small, low-efficiency units <200 MW• First 350 MW subcritical unit commissioned in 1982, first
600 MW subcritical unit in 1989• Has been building mostly large (200-800 MW) subcritical
units• Focus shifted to add large supercritical and ultra-
supercritical units⎯3% of existing (30 units) and 9% of planned capacity
with goal of 50% of new capacity by 2020⎯Domestic units of 600 MW under demonstration and
imported 1,000-MW units under construction• Ultra-supercritical units
⎯4 x 1000-MW units recently commissioned
• Average efficiency of coal-fired generation: 33.2% LHV• Over 8,000 small, low-efficiency units <200 MW• First 350 MW subcritical unit commissioned in 1982, first
600 MW subcritical unit in 1989• Has been building mostly large (200-800 MW) subcritical
units• Focus shifted to add large supercritical and ultra-
supercritical units⎯3% of existing (30 units) and 9% of planned capacity
with goal of 50% of new capacity by 2020⎯Domestic units of 600 MW under demonstration and
imported 1,000-MW units under construction• Ultra-supercritical units
⎯4 x 1000-MW units recently commissioned
8
India is adopting advanced technologies more slowlyIndia is adopting advanced technologies more slowly
• Average efficiency of coal-fired generation: 27.6% LHV
• Poor quality coal (>40% ash) limits performance• Currently, 100% subcritical pulverized coal
⎯135 x 200-250 MW units since 1978 and 27 x 500 MW since 1984 commissioned by BHEL
• 1st supercritical plant (3 x 660 MW) under construction at Sipat using South Korean technology
• “Ultra-mega” projects planned using 800-MW supercritical units
• Average efficiency of coal-fired generation: 27.6% LHV
• Poor quality coal (>40% ash) limits performance• Currently, 100% subcritical pulverized coal
⎯135 x 200-250 MW units since 1978 and 27 x 500 MW since 1984 commissioned by BHEL
• 1st supercritical plant (3 x 660 MW) under construction at Sipat using South Korean technology
• “Ultra-mega” projects planned using 800-MW supercritical units
9
Environmental Regulations in China Focus on SO2 and NOx
Environmental Regulations in China Focus on SO2 and NOx
New SO2, NOx, and PM Emission Standards (1/1/04)
• SO2, NOx, and PM standards within World Bank guidelines
• SO2 standards, on par with OECD average, require use of low-sulfur coal and FGD controls⎯ Goal: FGD at 60% of thermal capacity by 2010⎯ Government focus on developing cost-effective FGD
systems
• NOx standards relatively modest compared to OECD⎯ Can be satisfied by Chinese low-NOx burners but have
begun importing SCNR and SCR systems
• PM emission standards require high-efficiency ESPs
10
China has installed SO2 scrubbers at an astounding rate since 2005
China has installed SO2 scrubbers at an astounding rate since 2005
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Capaci
ty (
GW
e)
US. coal power
China SO2 scrubber
China coal power
US. SO2 scrubber
2006 and 2007 in China: Power plant addition ≈ 100 GW/yrScrubber installation ≈ 100 GW/yr
Slide Source: Professor Socolow, Princeton University
11
Environmental Regulations in IndiaEnvironmental Regulations in India
India does not have SO2 or NOx stack emission standards for coal-fired power generation
India does have PM emission controls and ambient air standards
Government focus on improving overall coal conversion process:• Reduce ash content of coal
• Build larger, more efficient units
• Renovate and modernize existing capacity
• Build plants closer to mines
India does not have SO2 or NOx stack emission standards for coal-fired power generation
India does have PM emission controls and ambient air standards
Government focus on improving overall coal conversion process:• Reduce ash content of coal
• Build larger, more efficient units
• Renovate and modernize existing capacity
• Build plants closer to mines
12
Coal Technology Status in China and IndiaCoal Technology Status in China and IndiaTechnology China India
IGCCYantai IGCC project under consideration for past decade. Several power and polygenerationprojects being developed by major utilities.
$2.5-M DOE/USAID/NTPC feasibility study for 100-MW unit completed. Pursuing a demo project of about 100 MW by NTPC . BHEL developed domestic technology, tested at 6-MW scale.
Gasifiers37 on coal, 13 on petroleum and 1 on gas(25 Shell, 22 GE, 3 Sasol Lurgi, 1 GTI U-Gas)(35 Operating, 16 Planned)
6 operating on petroleum and petcoke(5 Shell, 1 GE)
CFBC Many domestically built 50-200-MW unitsTechnology acquired through licensing. Four domestically built 125-MW units, including 2 firing lignite. 250-MW unit under installation at Neyveli Lignite.
CTL/ Polygeneration
First phase of Shenhua’s direct liquefaction plant in Inner Mongolia to start operation in 2008, producing 1.08 million tons of liquid products (diesel, LPG, and naphtha). Total production of two phases is 5 million tons. Also, developing two indirect liquefaction plants with Sasol Polygeneration under study by others, including Hunnan International Technopolis Shenyang (HITS) using coal and waste/garbage and DatangPower (4 plants) using coal
Under study; on January 2007, Investment Commission said go forward, but not a near-term project
Supercritical Several dozen units commissioned
Original license from Combustion Engineering (USA, now Alstom); scaled up by BHEL. No units constructed yet, but first plant announced by BHEL and TNEB for 2 x 800 plant at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. First imported unit 1980-MW (3 x 660 MW) Sipat to be commissioned in 2008 by Doosan Babcock (Korea), which will burn 43% ash coal. Three other projects already awarded to IPPs through tariff-based competitive bidding. Many more supercritical units in pipeline.
Ultra Supercritical
First plant commissioned early 2008 (Huaneng’s 4 x 1000-MW Yuhuan Plant)
Initial tie-up with Babcock Borsig. Recently, licensed Alstom boiler technology and Siemens steam turbine technology up to 660 MW. BHEL plans to develop up to 800 MW. No units constructed yet.
13
Thermal Power Technology R&D PrioritiesThermal Power Technology R&D PrioritiesChina
• R&D and manufacture of >600-MW SC/USC p.c. units• Import state-of-the-art control technology for NOx and SO2• Introduce large-scale gasification and coal liquefaction• Polygeneration of Fuels & Power• Focus on Chinese manufacture to control costs by:
⎯ transfer foreign technologies to select equipment manufacturers via licenses and joint ventures
⎯ participating in international R&D projectsIndia
• Introduce large (660-MW) SC and USC plants• Promote utilization of IGCC and CFBC• Renovate and modernize old units • License foreign technology
China• R&D and manufacture of >600-MW SC/USC p.c. units• Import state-of-the-art control technology for NOx and SO2• Introduce large-scale gasification and coal liquefaction• Polygeneration of Fuels & Power• Focus on Chinese manufacture to control costs by:
⎯ transfer foreign technologies to select equipment manufacturers via licenses and joint ventures
⎯ participating in international R&D projectsIndia
• Introduce large (660-MW) SC and USC plants• Promote utilization of IGCC and CFBC• Renovate and modernize old units • License foreign technology
14
Institutional Capacity for Fossil Fuel RD&D and Technology Adoption Much Greater in China than India
Institutional Capacity for Fossil Fuel RD&D and Technology Adoption Much Greater in China than IndiaEntities Involved in Fossil Fuel
RD&D and Manufacture China India
Research Institutes Many (w/commercial companies) Few
Universities Many (w/commercial companies) Few
Conventional Technology Manufacturers Many Two
Advanced Technology Manufacturers Few One
Government Funding for R&D Significant Limited
Government Ministries Responsible for RD&D and Technology Adoption
Responsibilities divided (MOST supports R&D and
NRDC supports commercialization)
Responsibilities overlap (Ministries of Coal,
Mines, Power, Petroleum & Natural Gas, and Dept.
of S&T)
India Note: NTPC has broke ground on “national” Energy Technology Centreand BHEL has announced 300 crore ($75M) CCT R&D Centre
15
2010: • 45-50% Efficiency (HHV)• 99% SO2 removal• NOx < 0.01 lb/MM Btu• 90% Hg removal
2012:• 90% CO2 capture• <10% increase in cost of electricity (COE) with carbon
sequestration2015• Multi-product capability (e.g., power + H2)• 60% efficiency (measured without carbon capture)
2010: • 45-50% Efficiency (HHV)• 99% SO2 removal• NOx < 0.01 lb/MM Btu• 90% Hg removal
2012:• 90% CO2 capture• <10% increase in cost of electricity (COE) with carbon
sequestration2015• Multi-product capability (e.g., power + H2)• 60% efficiency (measured without carbon capture)
DOE’s Office of Fossil EnergyAdvanced (Coal) Power Systems Goals
DOE’s Office of Fossil EnergyAdvanced (Coal) Power Systems Goals
16
2007 World Gasification Survey Highlights2007 World Gasification Survey Highlights
What is:• 3 Sasol plants in South Africa account for over 30%
of world gasification production• China has 35 operating gasification plants (11 new
since 2004) with total syngas output of about 18% of worldwide production
What is Planned:• 16 new plants planned for China - 7 in start up –
growing to almost 25% of worldwide production• In terms of product, Fischer Tropsch liquids will
have largest share of planned growth, most of which is from single gas-to-liquids project in Qatar – 15% of worldwide production
What is:• 3 Sasol plants in South Africa account for over 30%
of world gasification production• China has 35 operating gasification plants (11 new
since 2004) with total syngas output of about 18% of worldwide production
What is Planned:• 16 new plants planned for China - 7 in start up –
growing to almost 25% of worldwide production• In terms of product, Fischer Tropsch liquids will
have largest share of planned growth, most of which is from single gas-to-liquids project in Qatar – 15% of worldwide production
17
Existing and Potential CTL ProjectsExisting and Potential CTL Projects
Reference: from Headwaters Inc. J.N. Ward Senate Briefing 1/19/07
18
CTL Baseline Plant EconomicsBare Erected Cost
CTL Baseline Plant EconomicsBare Erected Cost
CTL Plant Size
Coal Feed Rate
Total Plant Costs
Costs per Bbl day
Small –10,000 bbl /day
4,000 t/d $800 M $80,000
Large –50,000 bbl/day
25,000 t/d $3,650 M $73,000
Required Selling Price (RSP) range between $41-$60 per bbl - dependant on coal type, region, and plant size (65/45 debt/equity financing)
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2007/07040-Coal_to_Liquids_Study.html
19
GasifiersGasifiersKBR
TransportConocoPhillips
E-GasShellSCGP
Siemens(GSP/Noell)
Slag
Fuel Gas
HP Steam
Dry Coal
O2
GE Energy(Chevron-Texaco)
20
Criteria Pollutants for All CasesCriteria Pollutants for All Cases
0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.12
GE GEw/CO2
CoP CoPw/CO2
Shell Shellw/CO2
PC-sub PC-subw/CO2
PC-SC PC-SCw/CO2
NGCC NGCCw/CO2
Emis
sion
s (lb
/MM
Btu
)
SO2NOxPM
Source: DOE/NETL Report: “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants”, May 2007
21
Comparison of Water Consumptionfor Various Fossil Plants
Comparison of Water Consumptionfor Various Fossil Plants
Note: Cooling water requirements are estimated for generic Eastern US siteSource: NETL “Power Plant Water Usage and Loss Study” revised May 2007
26106
301
433
2577
341
443
2978
345
452
34105
372
511
087
283
370
9107
598
714
895
536
639
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
E-Gas Shell GE R-C GEQuench
NGCC PC Sub PCSuper
Cooling Tower LossesFlue Gas LossesProcess Losses
Gallons per/MWh
22
CO2 Emissions for All CasesCO2 Emissions for All Cases
1,459
154
1,452
189
1,409
149
1,780
225
1,681
209
783
86
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
CO
2 em
issi
ons,
lb/M
Wh
GEE GEE w/CCS
CoP CoP w/CCS
Shell Shell w/CCS
PC-Sub PC-Sub w/ CCS
PC-SC PC-SC w/ CCS
NGCC NGCC w/ CCS
CO2 Emissions Normalized By Gross Output
Source: DOE/NETL Report: “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants”, May 2007
23
Total Plant Cost ComparisonTotal Plant Cost Comparison
Total Plant Capital Cost includes contingencies and engineering fees
1841
2496
1549
2895
1575
2870
554
1172
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Avg IGCC Avg IGCCw/ CO2Capture
PC-Sub PC-Sub w/CO2
Capture
PC-Super PC-Superw/ CO2Capture
NGCC NGCC w/CO2
Capture
$/kW
($20
07)
Source: DOE/NETL Report: “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants”, May 2007
24
Cost of Electricity ComparisonCost of Electricity Comparison
January 2007 Dollars, Coal cost $1.80/106Btu. Gas cost $6.75/106Btu
7.79
10.63
6.40
11.88
6.33
11.48
6.84
9.74
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Avg IGCC Avg IGCCw/ CO2Capture
PC-Sub PC-Sub w/CO2
Capture
PC-Super PC-Superw/ CO2Capture
NGCC NGCC w/CO2
Capture
cent
s /kW
h ($
2007
)
Source: DOE/NETL Report: “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants”, May 2007
25
39.5
32.1
36.8
24.9
39.1
27.2
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Avg IGCC Avg IGCC w/CO2 Capture
PC-Sub PC-Sub w/CO2 Capture
PC-Super PC-Super w/CO2 Capture
Capturing CO2 with Today’s TechnologySignificantly Reduces Plant Efficiency
Capturing CO2 with Today’s TechnologySignificantly Reduces Plant EfficiencyEf
ficie
n cy
to e
l ect
r ici t y
, net
(HH
V )
Source: DOE/NETL Report: “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants”, May 2007
-19%-32% -30%
Gasification Pulverized Coal Combustion
26
7.79
10.63
6.40
11.88
6.33
11.48
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Avg IGCC Avg IGCC w/CO2 Capture
PC-Sub PC-Sub w/CO2 Capture
PC-Super PC-Super w/CO2 Capture
Capturing CO2 with Today’s Technology is Expensive
Cost of Electricity Comparison
Capturing CO2 with Today’s Technology is Expensive
Cost of Electricity Comparison
January 2007 Dollars, Coal cost $1.80/106 Btu
cen t
s /kW
h ($
2007
)
+36% +86% +81%
Gasification Pulverized Coal Combustion
Source: DOE/NETL Report: “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants”, May 2007
27
Benchmark: $30/tCO2Benchmark: $30/tCO2
Form of Energy Equivalent to $30/tCO2 (≈ $100/tC)
Natural gas $1.60/1000 scf
Crude oil $13/barrel
Coal $70/U.S. ton
Gasoline 25¢/gallon (ethanol subsidy: 50¢/gallon)
Electricity from coal 2.4¢/kWh (wind and nuclear subsidies: 1.8 ¢/kWh)
Electricity from natural gas 1.1¢/kWh
Carbon emission charges in the neighborhood of $30/tCO2 can enable scale-up of most of technologies, if supplemented with sectoral policy to facilitate transition.
$30/tCO2 is the current European Trading System price for 2008 emissions.At this price, current global emissions (30 GtCO2/yr) cost $900 billion/yr, 2% of GWP.
Slide Source: Professor Socolow, Princeton University
28
For Additional InformationFor Additional Information
U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Fossil Energy
www.fe.doe.gov
Jarad [email protected]
Top Related