project management plan work …repository.icse.utah.edu/dspace/bitstream/123456789/...project...

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Revision D

Clean and Secure Energy from Coal

April 6, 2012

WORK PERFORMED UNDER AGREEMENT

DE-NT0005015

SUBMITTED BY

Institute for Clean & Secure Energy University of Utah

380 INSCC, 155 South 1452 East Salt Lake City, UT 84112

PROF. PHILIP J. SMITH

Director, Institute for Clean & Secure Energy and Professor, Chemical Engineering University of Utah

380 INSCC, 155 South 1452 East 801 585 1233 (tel) 801 585 1346 (fax)

E-mail: [email protected]

SUBMITTED TO

U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory

David Lang, Project Manager

2

Table of Contents

REVISION HISTORY 3 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW 3 2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 5

Cost and Schedule Variance Analysis and Reporting Communications Plan and Reporting (Internal and External) Document Hierarchy/Control Financial Management

3. RISK MANAGEMENT 7 Technical Risks Equipment/Infrastructure Risks Personnel Risks Management Risks

4. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 9 5. WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE 12 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE 13 7. PROJECT MILESTONES 13 8. PROJECT DELIVERABLES 13 9. BUDGET SUMMARY AND COST PLAN 15 10.SUCCESS CRITERIA AND DECISION POINTS 15

Project Management Scientific and Engineering Knowledge Policy, Environmental, and Economic Knowledge Communication of Project Results

PHASE 2 VALIDATION HIERARCHIES A-1 PROJECT SCHEDULE B-1 PROJECT MILESTONES C-1 PROJECT DELIVERABLES D-1 COST PLAN E-1

3

REVISION HISTORY Revision D, April 6, 2012 The PMP is being revised in response to the peer-review comments from the FY11 Carbon Capture Peer Review on July 18 – 21, 2011. Specifically, the reviewers requested modifications to the project mile-stones and an expanded discussion of project risks. In addition, this revision updates the responsible in-dividual for the chemical looping task (CLC) task to Prof. JoAnn Lighty and updates the schedule.

Revision C, December 14, 2011 The PMP is being revised to correct two errors in the work breakdown structure, the mislabeling of two subtasks as 3.2 and the omission of subtask 3.6. This revision also updates the responsible individual for Subtask 4.4 in Figure 1a, Table 1a, and Appendix A from Prof. Ron Pugmire (retired) to Prof. Edward Eyring. Finally, this revision also includes updates to the project milestones in Appendix C. Revision B, May 27, 2011 The PMP is being revised to reflect Modification #005 of award DE-NT0005015, which was executed to renew the project as a result of FY10 Congressional direction and funding. In this modification, the SOPO was revised to reflect additional “Phase 3” effort and the corresponding budget was authorized. Phase 3 represents an extension of a range of tasks initiated in Phases 1 and 2 as well as a new Task 9 that seeks to form the basis for bridging the Phase 1 through Phase 3 university research on clean and secure energy from coal to industrial/commercial full-scale applications. Revision B updates the management plan with a focus on the Phase 3 effort. Revision A, November 25, 2009 The PMP is being revised to reflect Modification #001 of award DE-NT0005015. The original PMP re-flected the original award executed on September 10, 2008, for a project entitled “Clean and Secure Ener-gy from Coal, Oil Shale, and Oil Sands”. The original project included objectives in support of both NETL’s Strategic Center for Coal (SCC) and Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil (SCNGO). On September 14, 2009, Modification #001 was executed to renew the project for an additional Budget Period as a result of FY-09 Congressional Direction and funding. As part of this modification, the project was re-aligned to support only the SCC program moving forward. To document the work completed prior to the re-alignment (i.e., through September 30, 2009), the modified award was structured into two Phas-es. Phase 1 represents the performance period from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. Phase 2 represents the revised tasks in support of the SCC program for the performance period from October 1, 2009 through March 31, 2011. Revision “A” outlines a management plan for the Phase 2 effort. 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW

The University of Utah (the Recipient), via their Institute for Clean and Secure Energy (ICSE), shall pur-sue research to utilize the vast energy stored in our domestic coal resources and do so in a manner that will capture CO2 from combustion for stationary power generation. The research is organized around the

4

theme of validation and uncertainty quantification through tightly coupled simulation and experimental designs and through the integration of legal, environment, economics and policy issues. The results of the research will be embodied in the computer simulation tools which predict performance with quantified uncertainty; thus transferring the results of the research to practitioners to predict the effect of energy al-ternatives using these technologies for their specific future application. Overarching project objectives are focused in three research areas and include:

1. Clean Coal Utilization for Power Generation ‘Retrofit’ through

• Oxy-Coal Combustion – To ultimately produce predictive capability with quantified uncertainty bounds for pilot-scale, single-burner, oxy-coal operation. This research brings together multi-scale experimental measurements, advanced diagnostics and computer simulations. The efforts shall focus on ignition and coal-flame stability under oxy-coal conditions. This predictive tool will form the basis for application to full-scale, industrial burner operations.

• High-Pressure, Entrained-Flow Coal Gasification – To ultimately provide a simulation tool for industrial entrained-flow integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) gasifier with quantified uncertainty. This project’s target is to develop a prototype simulation tool, perform preliminary uncertainty quantification on a pilot-scale gasifier, and to begin to predict heat transfer by radia-tion and convection, coal conversion, soot formation and synthesis gas composition with quanti-fied uncertainty.

• Chemical Looping Combustion – To develop a new carbon-capture technology for coal through chemical-looping combustion and to transfer this technology to industry through a numerical simulation tool with quantified uncertainty bounds. The specific research target for this project is to quantitatively identify reaction mechanisms and rates, explore operating options with a labora-tory-scale bubbling bed reactor, develop process models and economics and demonstrate and val-idate simulation tools for a pilot-scale fluidized bed. This task will focus primarily on CuO/Cu2O.

2. Secure Fuel Production by in-situ substitute natural gas (SNG) production from deep coal seams –The primary objective of this research is to explore the potential for creating new in-situ technologies for production of substitute natural gas from deep coal deposits and to demonstrate this in a new laboratory-scale reactor. The systems concept for the SNG is to use this premium fuel produced from coal in natural-gas, combined cycle (NGCC) power generation or compressed and used as a transportation fuel (CNG). This underground coal pyrolysis (UCP) technology leaves large portions of the carbon from the coal in the ground. The research will focus on the de-velopment of simulation tools, the collection of process thermo-chemical parameters, and the de-velopment of CO2 absorption isotherms from the laboratory test facility.

3. Environmental, Legal, and Policy Issues - Given that that carbon capture and storage for coal utilization has yet to receive public acceptance, numerous environmental, legal and policy issues need to be addressed if these technologies are to be applied. The Recipient shall address the legal and policy issues associated with carbon management strategies in order to assess the appropriate role of these technologies in our evolving national energy portfolio.

5

2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Cost and Schedule Variance Analysis and Reporting

Accurate review, management and communication of project schedule and costs are critical to the success of the project. Section 9 displays the budget summary for the project, while Appendix E provides a cost plan. This plan reflects the completed Phase 1 (Budget Period 1), the mostly complete Phase 2 effort and project costs expected to be incurred along the 28-month Phase 3 effort. To facilitate the project’s finan-cial management, Ms. Schryver, Financial Manager for ICSE, will integrate information from the Univer-sity of Utah’s financial management system with pending and expected costs and credits recorded in ICSE’s records. She will be responsible for tracking and reviewing project costs, reporting to and working with investigators to assure they have a good understanding of their project’s financial position, and sup-porting the Executive Director (Philip J. Smith), the Task Leaders and Assistant Directors by developing cost projections and providing guidance regarding financial decisions. To facilitate the Project’s research management, the Program Assistant Directors (Ms. Kelly, PE, and Ms. Uchitel, Esq.) will update the Pro-ject Schedule (Section 6) on a quarterly basis by working closely with the Task Leads. They will ensure that the project remains on schedule as well as meets its reporting requirements and communication goals.

To ensure financial and research decision making, the Project Team will participate in regularly sched-uled meetings. Because most of the research will take place at the University of Utah, these regularly scheduled meetings are relatively convenient for the participants. Each of the major tasks will meet monthly to coordinate research progress and data integration and address any financial or administrative issues, such as the program’s cost and schedule status, plan upcoming activities, and reporting. In addi-tion, the Program Assistant Directors (Ms. Kelly, PE (Tasks 1-6, and 9) and Ms. Uchitel, Esq. (Tasks 1,2, and 8)), the Financial Manager (Ms. Schryver) and the Program Assistant Director for the Clean and Se-cure Energy from Domestic Oil Shale and Oil Sands Resources (SCNGO, Dr. Spinti) will meet quarterly with Dr. Smith to discuss more global programmatic and financial issues.

Communications Plan and Reporting (Internal and External)

The goal of this plan is to facilitate the Project Team’s communication of its research to the scientific and industrial communities, including DOE, and the public, as well as to serve as a state and local resource with an international reach on the topic of technical and policy issues associated with the use of coal. The University of Utah will build on its current communication successes, including: recent publications and presentations, the University of Utah’s Institutional Repository (USpace); and the program web sites. The communication plan is divided into the following four categories: internal communication, interactions with DOE, institutional repository, publications, and technology transfer.

Internal Communication. Each of the major tasks (3-6 and 9) is organized within a validation hierarchy with a goal of providing data suitable for model validation. Task 8 will provide complementary analysis of the policy framework for the tasks organized within the validation hierarchy. Appendix A contains the validation hierarchies. Note that only the boxes containing task numbers are part of the Project. Other boxes within the hierarchy indicate either future work or work being performed on complementary pro-jects, such as the SCNGO Project.

Each of the task groups will meet monthly to present research results, facilitate interdisciplinary work, and discuss technical issues, outreach opportunities, reporting requirements, financial status and schedule. Prior to this Task Meeting, the Program Assistant Director will work with the Task Lead and the Finan-cial Manager to set the agenda, identify financial and schedule administrative issues, outreach opportuni-ties, etc. All faculty involved in the Clean and Secure Energy Project (including all faculty involved in

6

the SCNGO Project) will meet annually. Ms. Wilson, the Project Coordinator, will assist with organizing larger meetings. The Institute’s webpage and institutional repository will house project results, internal meetings, upcoming technical meetings, and recent publications.

Interactions with DOE. The Clean & Secure Energy Project will continue to encourage close interaction with DOE though visits to DOE, a DOE Program Review, and faculty-DOE interaction. The Program Directors will continue to work with DOE to identify DOE research contacts in each of the Task Areas. This will facilitate the integration of Project research with NETL. Finally, in order to keep our DOE Pro-gram Managers informed about the project’s progress, the University of Utah will promptly provide its required quarterly reports, which will be coordinated by the two Program Assistant Directors and will be posted to the project website. The University of Utah will also submit for review the project results which will be published as conference abstracts, conference proceedings, or in journal articles.

Institutional Repository. Under the Clean & Secure Energy Project, ICSE researchers will submit their peer-reviewed publications and relevant research data to the University of Utah’s institutional repository, USpace.

Publications. One of the measures of success of this project will be the publication of project results in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. These publications (after DOE review) will be post-ed to the project website and housed in Uspace to facilitate their widespread dissemination. The commu-nication plan also builds on the strength of the faculty researchers and their presentation of project results at national and international meetings. The project faculty routinely present their research at conferences such as the Combustion Institute meetings, the American Chemical Society Annual Meeting, the Ameri-can Institute of Chemical Engineers annual and regional meetings, the Pittsburgh Coal Conference, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Conference, the American Flame Research Committee Conference, the Wallace Stegner Center Symposium, the Gordon Conference, the Society of Petroleum Engineers annual and regional meetings, and the Clearwater Coal Conference.

Technology Transfer. The Project Team will work toward improved technology transfer through student research experiences, External Advisory Board (EAB) interactions, and industrial and public outreach opportunities. Specifically, the Project Team plans to:

• Continue to host EAB meetings to obtain feedback on the Project research, technology transfer, and outreach efforts. The EAB shall meet formally on an annual basis with other informal oppor-tunities arranged throughout the year as needed. The EAB shall provide input on the selection of future ICSE tasks/projects and, together with DOE, provide a review of ongoing tasks/projects. Additionally the EAB shall provide input on transitioning current tasks/projects into continuing future research/collaboration efforts in anticipation of the cessation of current DOE funding for the Clean and Secure Energy from Coal Project.

• Pursue industrial and public outreach opportunities to promote an improved understanding of technical, practical, policy, economic, and social challenges associated with utilization of domes-tic coal resources. These opportunities include industrial involvement in Task 9, hosting technol-ogy transfer workshops for several areas with participants from industry, the EAB, the Depart-ment of Energy, other government agencies, and other interested parties. Activities may also in-clude visiting relevant industrial sites, publishing results in trade journals, and hosting public out-reach efforts, as requested by the EAB.

7

Document Hierarchy/Control

The USpace Repository will house publicly available project-sponsored documents, presentations, and potentially software and data related to the Project. The Repository has a text-based interface to allow browsing by keywords, title, author, and date. Information housed in the Repository can be made acces-sible to public viewing or can be password-protected for internal viewing. Document version control will be managed by the Program Assistant Directors and the faculty, who will provide editable versions of relevant documents within the Repository, in conjunction with the librarians at the Marriott Library, who will be responsible for copyright evaluation and will determine the level of access to those documents (internal release only or full release to the public).

Financial Management

Due to the complex nature of this research project, the Financial Manager, Ms. Schryver, will provide additional fiscal oversight for the management of project funds. She will assist faculty, staff and students with procurement, payroll and financially related problem resolution. In addition, she will oversee indi-vidual and program-wide accounting, prepare and distribute to project investigators and the management team timely financial summaries and projections, and prepare quarterly financial reports as required by DOE. She will support the Executive Director, Task Leads and Assistant Directors with financial plan-ning and execution of the project.

3. RISK MANAGEMENT

Managing the risks of this Project will be a challenge due to its interdisciplinary nature and the distribu-tion of the tasks at locations throughout the University of Utah campus. However, the Executive Direc-tor, Task Leads, Assistant Directors, and Financial Manager have extensive experience managing the risks of such complex projects. Most of the risks fall into one of the following four categories: technical, equipment/ infrastructure, personnel and management.

Technical Risks

The Project’s technical risks can be organized into the following three areas: data availability; submodel development, validation, and integration; and computational resources.

Data Availability. One of the major risks is that of data availability because many of the tasks and sub-tasks in this Project require data that must be obtained from industrial, government, and academic sources. If the quantity and quality of datasets that can be collected is limited, the accompanying analysis will not be as thorough or complete. For example, finding high-quality experimental data with quantified uncertainty measurements for the validation of simulations is often a challenge. We will minimize the risk by tightly coupling the work of the simulation and experimental tasks and utilizing the extensive col-laborations that program researchers have in their various fields of expertise.

Submodel Development, Verification, Validation, and Integration. To meet the Project objectives, the Project Team will use simulation and validation together to guide the design and optimization of technol-ogies (as summarized in the Validation Hierarchies, Appendix A). This approach, although it is essential for developing predictive models, entails risks that range from submodel development to the integration of models within large eddy simulations (LES). Failure of submodels and larger simulations to represent the complex physical and chemical processes associated with energy generation is a likely risk, at least initially. Another challenge is the integration of submodels developed by experimental researchers into the LES codes developed in the Simulation Subtasks (3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 9.1 and 9.2). Mitigation of these risks will require close collaboration between the experimental and simulation tasks and the development of a

8

dynamic validation hierarchy that will guide further experiments and model development. This iterative validation process will increase the likelihood of developing high-quality predictive simulations for the generation of energy and syngas resources from coal. Software reliability will be addressed using verifi-cation, version control, and regression testing to ensure software integrity as development progresses.

Computational Resources. Many of the simulation tasks will require extensive computing and storage resources to complete the verification and validation/uncertainty quantification analysis. ICSE is plan-ning to expand its existing 187 node server by 64 nodes in order to execute our simulations. In addition, the Project Team will seek computational allocations from NSF, DOE, and NETL as well as seeking Uni-versity support for additional disk storage resources. Many of the tasks will also involve the development of software.

Equipment/Infrastructure Risks

The University of Utah’s laboratory and analytical equipment that will be used in this Project is currently in good working order. The Project Team uses standard operating procedures and performs routine maintenance on all equipment. The vast majority of the experimental and analytical facilities are man-aged within ICSE by engineers and laboratory managers with many years of experience. These profes-sional staff members are responsible for maintaining equipment, training students, and ensuring laborato-ry safety. The project budget includes reasonable estimates for supplies required to maintain this equip-ment in proper working order. Catastrophic failure of experimental equipment is a small possibility, which will be mitigated by using standard operating procedures and routine maintenance.

Some of the proposed experimental work involves physical hazards including high temperatures, lasers, and laboratory chemicals. All personnel working in a laboratory at the University of Utah are required to attend general safety training. In addition, all personnel follow standard operating and safety procedures for each piece of equipment. The ICSE lab managers are responsible for training new personnel and stu-dents and ensuring that the proper safety procedures are followed.

The majority of the tasks will involve electronic storage of data, and the loss of electronic data is a risk. This will be mitigated by backing up information on external hard drives and periodically backing data up to an external hard drive in an off-site location. Each task and subtask lead will be responsible for main-taining and backing up their data.

Personnel Risks

The worst-case personnel risk is that a key participant leaves the project. To minimize this risk, most pro-jects have two qualified investigators and/or research staff who will be fully informed about the project’s progress and who can contribute to the oversight of the project.

Management Risks

The Gantt chart in Appendix B illustrates how a number of tasks rely on each other. In order to success-fully integrate experimental results into simulations and to generate assessments, the Executive and Pro-gram Directors will work diligently to facilitate the integration of interdisciplinary work, using the valida-tion hierarchies as a guide. As a condition of participation, the Project Team members must be committed to the integration of their results with other disciplines. Project progress for each program task will be tracked by both the Executive Director and the Program Assistant Directors to ensure that each task meets its deliverables within the allocated schedule and budget.

9

Expanded Discussion of Project Risks for Oxy-coal and CLC Tasks

In response to the peer-review comments requesting an expanded discussion of project risks from the FY11 Carbon Capture Peer Review on July 18 – 21, 2011, the investigators have compiled a discussion for the oxy-coal (Task 3) and CLC (Task 5) tasks.

Oxy-coal project risks. This simulation subtask (Subtask 3.1) has been ongoing for several years, and the associated risks are low. The team currently has experienced manpower and has made arrangements for obtaining sufficient computational time. The LES code is well developed, and the risks of identifying a bug in this code are also low. The near-field aerodynamics subtask (Subtask 3.2) has also been ongoing for several years, and other than the potential for equipment breakdown, the risks associated with this sub-task are low. The students performing the experiments are experienced and follow standard operating procedures.

The greatest challenge associated with the oxy-coal task is the integration of experimental and simulation results (Subtasks 3.1 and 3.2). One of the long-term goals of Subtask 3.1 is to develop a simulation tool to quantitatively predict the performance and stability of oxy-coal burners and to perform verification, validation and uncertainty quantification of the numerical and modeling error associated with this simula-tion tool. To this end, validation studies are being performed with data from the University of Utah axial burner obtained under Subtask 3.2. The greatest risk associated with this task is not identifying the most sensitive parameters to include in the simulation and to measure. If these parameters are not identified, the challenge will be to identify these and include these in the simulations and to measure these experi-mentally.

As an example, the investigators in Subtasks 3.1 and 3.2 have focused on lift-off distance as the quantity of interest for both simulation prediction and experimental measurement. The predictions and measure-ments are currently providing inconsistent results. This is not unexpected, and the investigators are work-ing closely together to obtain historical information on wall temperature as well as to collect accurate temperature measurements throughout the reactor during upcoming testing campaigns. However, the resolution of this issue remains a risk. For example, wall temperature in the near-burner zone may be an important factor in the prediction of stand-off distance, and accurate measurement of wall temperature can be challenging.

Although the Subtask 3.3 has been successful at collecting high-quality particle size and velocity data at the laboratory scale, the success of the techniques developed under this task, particle image velocimetry (PIV) and particle shadow velocimetry (PSV), is uncertain in the environment of larger scale turbulent flames, such as the University of Utah oxy-fuel combustor (OFC). Challenges include the penetration of the light sources through the large flame, the limited focal length, and the ability to collect data in suffi-cient regions of the flame to provide relevant statistics for modeling. The investigators will be perform-ing analyses in the near future and will learn if any of these challenges will affect the measurements. They have considered various strategies to address the measurement and analysis challenges, including the use of a high-power LED light source with filters to minimize interference with wavelengths of inter-est, the use of pulsed laser with a diffuser to provide for great light intensity over a narrow wavelength range, and the use of back-lighting for PSV.

Subtask 3.4 has been ongoing and the risks are generally low with the exception of the SO3 measure-ments. This analysis requires careful titration, and the student who performed these analyses has left. The investigators are searching for a new individual to perform these analyses. The single particle oxy-CO2 combustion subtask (Subtask 3.5a) was initially delayed while a suitable stu-dent was identified. The experiments associated with this subtask are being performed in conjunction with Sandia National Laboratories. This subtask involves the generation of char samples to study carbon

10

burnout under oxy-combustion condition. The experiments yield a limited amount of char, and the final analysis step is destructive. Thus, if the burnout experiments are unsuccessful, there is no possibility to obtain additional sample. Therefore, the investigators intend to carefully plan and execute their carbon burnout tests. Several other oxy-coal subtasks are near completion, have met their milestones, and are in the final analy-sis phase. The risks associated with these subtasks (Subtask 3.5b and Subtask 3.6) are minimal.

CLC project risks. The greatest risk associated with the process-modeling subtask (Subtask 3.1) is ob-taining high-quality kinetic data to include in the model. To address this, the investigators have been working closely with Chalmers University, which is at the forefront of chemical looping with oxygen un-coupling (CLOU), have been attending national and international CLC meetings, and tracking recent CLC publications. The greatest risk associated with the LES subtask (Subtask 3.2) is the ability to develop the simulation code within the given time and budget constraints. The investigators have developed a func-tional Java code, but the interface between this code and STAR-CCM+ remains a challenge. To resolve this, the investigators have organized a visit with the STAR-CCM+ developers, and they will continue to work closely with the STAR-CCM+ developers.

The risks associated with the CLC kinetics subtask (Subtask 3.4) are minimal. The greatest risk associated with the lab-scale CLC subtask (Subtask 3.3) is the reactor breaking or complete agglomeration/sintering of the oxygen carrier in the reactor. However, construction of a new reactor is not terribly expensive, so even if the reactor became inoperable it would delay progress toward task completion but would not pro-hibit completion of this subtask.

4. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

The Project management strategy is to support the interdisciplinary nature of the research by encouraging communication between researchers of different disciplines, by facilitating the integration of results from the research tasks, and by providing administrative and management resources to aid in the execution of the research. The Project management structure corresponds to the structure of Phase 3 tasks, as illustrat-ed in Figure 1a. The organizational structure for Phase 2 is shown in Figure 1b for reference.

11

Figure 1a. Phase 3 Clean and Secure Energy from Coal Project organization overview.

Figure 1b. Phase 2 Clean and Secure Energy from Coal Project organization overview.

12

5. WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

Figure 2a presents the Phase 3 work breakdown structure, including a brief description of each task/subtask and the budget. Figure 2b shows the Phase 2 work breakdown structure. Table 1a and Table 1b show the responsible individuals for Phase 3 and 2, respectively.

Figure 2a. Phase 3 work breakdown structure.

!"#$"%& '()$*+ , -.+/* '()$*+! "#$%&'()*+,+-&.&,( /0!123/)))))))))))

0%1%$*&*1+ !145!1663))))))))))) 2 7&'8,$9$-:)7#+,;<&# 6/414/!)))))))))))=7+;>;)!?2@ ) ) !145!1663)))))))

,6A! BC:D'$+9)E$.FG;(H$,)I+#-&)JKK:)LH.G9+(H$,; !5/15/2)))))))))))6A2 M&+#DNH&9K)O&#$K:,+.H';)$<)BC:DE$+9)N9+.&; !P/132!)))))))))))

23456#%/ 3Q31/63 6A6 OKR+,'&K)SH+-,$;(H';)<$#)BC:DE$+9)E$.FG;(H$, 0P1Q3Q)))))))))))))=7+;>)6@ 6AQ BC:D'$+9)E$.FG;(H$,)H,)EH#'G9+(H,-)N9GHKHT&K)U&K; 341!QP)))))))))))))

6A5 LH,-9&D"+#(H'9&)BC:DEB2)E$.FG;(H$, 5516P/)))))))))))))6A/ O;8)"+#(H(H$,H,-)*&'8+,H;.; !P416Q/)))))))))))) ) 3Q31/63)))))))))))

, QA! J,(#+H,&KDN9$V)W+;H<H&#)LH.G9+(H$,)+,K)*$K&9H,- 3P15PP)))))))))))))QA2 LGF-#HK)*HCH,-)+,K)X&+'(H$,)*$K&9H,- !661/20)))))))))))

7%8.9.6%+.#1 03P1/4P)))))))))))))) QA6 X+KH+(H$,)*$K&9H,- P41!34)))))))))))))=7+;>)Q@) QAQ E8+#)+,K)L$$()YH,&(H';)+,K)*&'8+,H;.; 2061!63)))))))))))

QA5 L9+-)N$#.+(H$,)+,K)L9+-DZ+99)[,(&#+'(H$,; D)))))))))))))))))))QA/ O'\GH;H(H$,)$<)]+9HK+(H$,)S+(+)H,)+,)J,(#+H,&KDN9$V)W+;H<H&# 60614PQ)))))))))))

03P1/4P)))))))))))

5A! "#$'&;;)*$K&9H,-)+,K)J'$,$.H'; !3!16!6))))))))))):;: /5/132P 5A2 IJLDS^*B*)LH.G9+(H$,)$<)+)"H9$(DL'+9&)N9GHKHT&K)U&K !/4145!)))))))))))=7+;>)5@) 5A6 I+F$#+($#:DL'+9&)EIE)L(GKH&; !/412Q4)))))))))))

5AQ EIE)YH,&(H'; !/51!2Q)))))))))))/5/132P)))))))))))

<:-- 60/12P6 _,K&#-#$G,K)E$+9)78&#.+9)7#&+(&.&,( 60/12P6=7+;>)/@)

0*"6("4,:#1+"#/ 3 *&#'G#:)E$,(#$9 D)))))))))))))))))))=7+;>)3@

=+"%+*$.*8,9#",:#%/ 64415!3 PA! X&-G9+($#:)"#$.$(H$,)$<)J.&#-&,()EEL)7&'8,$9$-: !Q41PQ!=7+;>)P@ PA2 J.&#-H,-)I&-+9)[;;G&;)<$#)EEL)7&'8,$9$-: !501/3/)))))))))))

64415!3

]`_^)$<)a&+()N9GC 0A! ]`_^)<$#)IJL)$<)8&+()<9GC)H,)O9;($.)$C:D'$+9)<H#&K)ULN P6Q1/0P=7+;>)0@ !1/631P04 0A2 IJL)?)]`_^)<$#)8&+()<9GC)H,)BNE !441036

0A6 [X)E+.&#+)SH+-,$;(H';)?)]`_^)H,)BNE 54214250AQ a&+(D<9GC)b#$<H9&;)$<)BNE)G;H,-)+KR+,'&K)B2)H,%&'(H$,);(#+(&-H&; 2441!0Q)))))))))))

!1/631P04

13

Figure 2b. Phase 2 work breakdown structure.

6. PROJECT SCHEDULE

See Appendix B for the Phase 3 and Phase 2 schedules.

7. PROJECT MILESTONES

See Appendix C for the Phase 3 and Phase 2 milestones.

8. PROJECT DELIVERABLES

See Appendix D for the Phase 3 and Phase 2 deliverables.

14

Table 1a. Phase 3 work breakdown structure, task title, schedule, and responsible individuals. Title Responsible Co Responsible Schedule (mo) 1.0 Project Management P. Smith K. Kelly, K. Uchitel 28 2.0 Technology Transfer P. Smith K. Kelly, K. Uchitel 28 3.0 Power generation: oxy-coal J. Wendt K. Kelly 25 3.1 Large-eddy simulations P. Smith J. Thornock 18 3.2 Near-field aerodynamics J. Wendt 12 3.3 Advanced diagnostics E. Eddings T. Ring 15 3.4 CFB studies E. Eddings 12 3.5 Single-particle studies E. Eddings J. Lighty 18 3.6: Ash partitioning J. Wendt J. Lighty 18 4.0 Power Generation: Gasification K. Whitty 28 4.1 LES P. Smith 17 4.2 Subgrid-scale models J. Sutherland 12 4.3 Radiation modeling P. Smith 17 4.4 Char & soot kinetics E. Eyring T. Fletcher 12 4.6 Gasifier data collection K. Whitty 15 5.0 Chemical Looping Combustion J. Lighty K. Kelly 18 5.1 Process modeling J. Lighty 18 5.2 LES-DQMOM P. Smith 17 5.3 Lab-scale studies K. Whitty 18 5.4 Kinetics E. Eyring 18 6.0 In situ coal thermal treatment P. Smith 18 7.0 Discontinued - 8.0 Strategies for Coal Utilization in the National Energy Portfolio L. Davies 30

8.1 Regulatory promotion L. Davies 22

8.2 Emerging legal issues A. Reitze 18

9.0 V/UQ of heat flux P. Smith E. Eddings 22

9.1 V/UQ for LES of heat flux in Alstom BSF P. Smith 22

9.2 – 9.4 LES and experimental studies of OFC* P. Smith E. Eddings 19 *These subtasks are interdependent and are presented together.

Table 1b. Phase 2 work breakdown structure, task title, schedule, and responsible individuals. Title Responsible Co Responsible Schedule (mo) 1.0 Project Management P. Smith K. Kelly, K. Uchitel 18 2.0 Technology Transfer P. Smith K. Kelly, K. Uchitel 18 3.0 Power generation: oxy-coal J. Wendt K. Kelly 18 3.1 Large-eddy simulations P. Smith J. Thornock 12 3.2 Near-field aerodynamics J. Wendt 12 3.3 Advanced diagnostics E. Eddings T. Ring 16 3.4 CFB studies E. Eddings 16 3.5 Single-particle studies E. Eddings J. Lighty 16 3.6: Ash partitioning J. Wendt J. Lighty 18 4.0 Power Generation: Gasification K. Whitty 18

15

4.1 LES P. Smith 12 4.2 Subgrid-scale models J. Sutherland 18 4.3 Radiation modeling P. Smith J. Spinti 12 4.4 Char & soot kinetics R. Pugmire T. Fletcher 12 4.5 Slag formation & interactions K. Whitty L. Baxter 12 4.6 Gasifier data collection K. Whitty 12 5.0 Chemical Looping Combustion A. Sarofim L. Kelly 18 5.1 Process modeling J. Lighty 12 5.2 LES-DQMOM P. Smith 12 5.3 Lab-scale studies K. Whitty 12 5.4 Kinetics E. Eyring 18 6.0 In situ coal thermal treatment P. Smith 18 6.1 Bench-scale studies E. Eddings 15 6.2 In-well heater design A. Sarofim 12 6.3 LES porous media P. Smith 12 6.5 Sequestration M. Deo 18 7 Mercury Control G. Silcox 9 8 Strategies for Coal Utilization in the National Energy Portfolio L. Davies A. Reitze 18

9. BUDGET SUMMARY AND COST PLAN The following table presents the updated project budget, and Appendix E provides the updated cost plan.

Phase 1 (BP1) Phase 2 (BP2) Gov't Cost Share Total Gov't Cost Share Total UofU $2,008,805 $505,631 $2,514,436 $3,097,981 $816,996 $3,914,977

BYU $13,740 $13,740 $170,000 $170,000 Totals $2,022,545 $505,631 $2,528,176 $3,267,981 $816,996 $4,084,977

80% 20%

80% 20%

Phase 3 (BP2) Project Total

Gov't Cost Share Total Gov't Cost Share Total UofU $4,495,200 $1,153,800 $5,649,000 $9,601,986 $2,476,427 $12,078,413

BYU $120,000 $120,000 $303,740 $0 $303,740 Totals $4,615,200 $1,153,800 $5,769,000 $9,905,726 $2,476,427 $12,382,153 80% 20% 80% 20%

10. SUCCESS CRITERIA AND DECISION POINTS

The Project Team is dedicated to the development of technologies for the clean and efficient utilization of the abundant coal resources. This is a grand challenge. The Project will contribute to DOE’s research portfolio, which will lead to improved energy security, reduced environmental impacts, and more efficient energy generation. The success criteria are categorized as follows: project management, scientific and engineering knowledge; policy integration and communication.

16

Project Management

The success criteria for the Project’s management will include:

• The development of EAB recommendations for research direction. This will guide the direction of future research and technology transfer.

• The training of graduate and undergraduate students. Although it would be unreasonable to ex-pect students to complete a PhD within the 28-month budget period, the Project will significantly contribute the training of 25 student researchers.

Scientific and Engineering Knowledge

The primary success criteria for this project include: • The collection of preliminary data for the validation of submodels and simulations of oxy-coal

combustion (Task 3 and Task 9), entrained-flow coal gasifiers (Tasks 4), chemical looping com-bustion (Task 5) and in-situ thermal treatment of coal (Task 6). Success will be measured by col-lecting/developing at least one preliminary dataset for each of the simulation subtasks in the oxy-coal and gasification research areas and identifying critical data gaps.

• The continued improvement of simulation tools for oxy-coal combustion (Task 3 and Task 9) en-trained-flow coal gasifiers (Task 4). Success will be measured by a simulation tool that produces data for validation against the preliminary datasets identified above. The development of more fundamental scientific data, taking advantage of advanced analyses, which will improve scientific understanding and support longer-term solutions to energy challenges. These include the devel-opment of PIV for application to coal flames (Subtask 3.3), char and soot kinetics (Task 4.4), and the development and enhancement of CLC studies (Task 5). Success will be measured by two criteria: the publication/presentation of results in scientific journals/conferences and the ability of these tasks to provide high-quality experimental data for model validation.

• The application of the V/UQ approach to an industrial application (Task 9).

Policy, Environmental, and Economic Knowledge

Numerous regulatory and policy issues are relevant to future domestic coal development and utilization. The success criteria for this portion of the project will include the release of a report evaluating climate change legislation and identifying regulatory gaps therein, and assessing the impacts of that legislative and regulatory framework (including gaps) on the future utilization of domestic coal resources (Task 8). Success will be measured by positive reviews from DOE and other external reviewers.

Communication of Project Results

The Project Team is committed to the successful communication of Project Results. Success will be measured using four criteria: • The publication of Project results in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and legal jour-

nals. The target is at least eight publications. • The successful DOE review and publication of the Topical Reports. • Hosting at least one technology transfer workshop that focuses on a project subtask. • The utility of the USpace Repository as measured by visits to the site by outside visitors and internal

researchers.

Full-Scale Oxy-Coal 'Retrofit'(Burners & Fluidized Beds)

obj: performance, stability exp: all oxy-coal burners & beds

sim: LES (ARCHES)

CanMet

exp: CanMetsim: ARCHES

(later)

Turbulent Mixing & Reaction

exp: literaturemodel: ODT/PCA

CompleteSystem Case

Pilot-scaleCases

Scale-bridging Models

Particle-scaleModels

UofU Axial Burner

3.2 exp: UofU (Wendt) 3.3 diagnostics: PIV (Eddings/Ring)3.1 sim: ARCHES (Smith/Thornock/Wu)

Radiation Models in

oxy-enviro.

exp: literaturemodel: RMCRT

3.6 Ash Partitioning in

oxy-environments exp: UofU & collabsmodel: ash model

(Wendt/Lighty)

Flow in Reacting Porous Media

exp: literaturemodel: DQMom-LES

3.4 UofU Fluidized Bed

exp: UofU sim: ARCHES (later)

(Eddings)

3.5 Single-Particle Oxy-CO2 combustion

exp: single particlemodel: particle model - fluid bed (Eddings/Sarofim) - p.c. (Lighty/Shaddix)

A-1

Full-Scale Entrained Gasifier (IGCC)obj: performance (fuel-flexability, soot, injector-

life, refractory-life, ht. exch. fouling ...) exp: all entrained-flow gasifiers

sim: LES (ARCHES)

C4.1 LES Gasifier

exp: lit.- BYUsim: ARCHES

(Thornock)

CanMet

exp: CanMetsim: ARCHES

(later)

C4.2 Turbulent Mixing & Reaction

exp: literaturemodel: ODT/PCA

(Sutherland)

CompleteSystem Case

Pilot-scaleCases



C4.6 UofU Pilot Gasifier

exp: UofUsim: ARCHES (later)

(Whitty)

C4.4 HP Char & Soot Kinetics

exp: PFFB, NMR, GCMSmodel: char & soot chem.

(Fletcher & Eyring)

C4.3 Radiation

Models

exp: literaturemodel: RMCRT

(Smith)

C4.5 Char - Slag - Wall Interactions

exp: UofU & collabs (BYU, Albany)model: slag & wall

(Whitty, Baxter)

A-2

Chemical Looping Combustion

obj: performance exp: industrial CLC reactorssim: LES (ARCHES-DQMom)

C5.3 Lab CLC Reactors

exp: lit.-NETL, UofU (Whitty)sim: ARCHES-DQMom (later)

CompleteSystem Case

Pilot-scaleCases

Scale-bridgingCases


UofU Fluidized Bed

exp: UofUsim: ARCHES

C5.4 CLC Chemical Kinetics

exp: lit.-NETL, UofU TGA model: chemical kinetics

(Eyring)

Flow in Reacting Porous Media

exp: literaturemodel: DQMom-LES

C5.2 LES-DQMom Non-Reacting Fluid Beds

exp: literature - NETL CLCsim: ARCHES DQMom

(Smith)

Macro-Model

C5.1 Process Model & Economics

exp: literaturesim: Aspen

(Lighty)

A-3

6. Pilot UCTT Demoobj: yield, compositionexpt: Drunkards Washsim: ARCHES/CCM+/

UofURTM

Modified In-Situ Thermal

exp: EcoShale capsulesim: ARCHES/CCM+

6.1 Bench-Scale RF

exp: bench RFsim: ARCHS/CCM+UofURTM

(Eddings/Deo)

Radio Frequency

Heating

exp: Harrismodel: Harris

6.3 LES in Reacting Porous

Media

exp: literaturemodel: DQmom

(Smith)

Geo Thermal Properties

exp: model:

(geology)

CompleteSystem Case

BenchmarkCases


Pore-scaleModels

Gasification

exp: lit.- BYUsim: ARCHES

6.2 In-Well Heating Alternatives

exp: (later)model: available tools

(Smith)

HP Char & Soot Kinetics

exp: PFFB, NMR, GCMSmodel: char & soot chem.

(Fletcher & Pugmire)

6.4 CO2

Sequestration

exp: labmodel: CO2 rxn/trans

(Deo)

A-4

Environmental, Legal, Economic and Policy Framework & Assessment

UF: In-Situ Thermal Land Issues

(Keiter)

C8. CCS Regulatory Gap Assessment &

Retrofit vs. New Construction

(Reitze / Davies)

UF: In-Situ Thermal Water Issues

(Keiter/Ruple)

UF: Economic & Policy Assessment

(Spinti)

UF: Policy Assessment of

Canadian Oil Sands

(Keiter/Uichitel)

A-5

ID Task Name

1 1.0 Project Management2 Project management plan3 Briefings & quarterly reports4 2.0 Technology Transfer5 Outreach meeting6 Advisory board meeting 20117 Summary of recommendations from 2011 EAB meeting8 Advisory board meeting 20129 Summary of recommendations from 2012 EAB meeting

10 3.0 Power generation: oxy-coal11 3.1 LES of oxycoal combustion12 3.1a Define uncertanties for OFC conditions13 3.1b Identify dominant mechanisms for flame stability14 3.2 Near-field aerodynamics15 3.2a Demonstration of O2 injection16 3.3 Advanced diagnostics17 3.3a Advanced diagnostics: PIV and temperature analysis18 3.4 OxyCFB19 3.4a Complete data collection and analysis on sorbent capture of SO220 3.5 Oxy single particle combustion21 3.5a: Sandia experiments22 3.5b: Single particle: intial dataset on sorbent capture23 3.6 Ash partitioning24 3.6a: Completion of OFC ash partitioning tests for a single recycle condition25 3.6b: Complete second round of experimental studies and model refinements26 3.6c: Complete OFC ash partitioning tests for high inlet O2 conditions27 4.0 Power Generation: Gasification28 4.1 Gasifier LES simulation29 4.1a Iinitial data collaboration30 4.2 Subgridscale models31 4.2a Demonstrate particle transport 32 4.3 Radiation modeling33 4.3a Preliminary RMCT model34 4.3b Optimize code & implementation of coal particles35 4.4 Char & soot kinetics36 4.4a Chemical structure analysis of soots 37 4.6 Gasifier data collection38 4.6a Characterization of gasifier at 15 atm39 5.0 Chemical Looping Combustion40 5.1 Process modeling

Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 410 2011 2012 2013

Milestone Task

Phase 3 Project Schedule and Milestones

Page 1

B-1

ID Task Name

41 5.1a Carrier kinetic rate expressions from TGA data42 5.1b Complete preliminary economic analysis of CLOU vs. CLC43 5.2 HPC simulation44 5.2a Define cold-flow CLC simulation and data45 5.2b Optimization & UQ study for particle residence46 5.3 Lab-scale studies47 5.3a Comparison of 3 copper oxide carriers48 5.3b Complete attrition testing for 3 copper oxide-based carriers49 5.4 Kinetics50 5.4a Investigations of supporting materials51 5.4b Develop supported material for testing in Subtask 5.352 6.0 In situ coal thermal treatment53 6a Preliminary dataset including thermo-chemical parameters54 6b Preliminary dataset of CO2 adsorption isotherms55 6c Demonstrate simulation tools & preliminary V/UQ56 8 Strategies for Coal Utilization in the National Energy Portfolio57 8.1 Regulatory promotion58 8.1a Data gathering59 8.2 Emerging legal issues60 8.2a Data gathering61 9.0 V/UQ for LES of heat flux in Alstom BSF62 9.1 LES Alstom63 9.1a LES Alstom: simulation matrix64 9.1a LES Alstom: summarize lessons learned65 9.2 - 9.4 - LES & experimental OFC studies66 9.2 - 9.4a Temperature measurements67 9.2 - 9.4b heat-flux profiles68 9.2 - 9.4c V/UQ simulations & analysis

Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 410 2011 2012 2013

Milestone Task


Page 2

B-2

ID Task Name

1 1.0 Project Management

2 Project management plan

3 Briefings & quarterly reports

4 2.0 Technology Transfer

5 Advisory board meeting

6 Summary of recommendations

7 Tech transfer workshop(s)

8 Student internships

9 3.0 Power generation: oxy-coal

10 3.1a LES: identify response surface for OFC validation

11 3.1b LES: Parametric validation and sensitivity study

12 3.2a Near-field aerodynamics: flame stability

13 3.2b Near-field aerodynamics: OFC modifications for PIV

14 3.3a Advanced diagnostics: benchtop oxycoal tests

15 3.3b Advanced diagnostics: OFC data collection

16 3.3c Advanced diagnostics: uncertainty analysis

17 3.4a CFB: pilot-scale data collection

18 3.4b CFB: uncertainty analysis

19 3.5a: Single-particle dataset

20 3.5b: Preliminary single-particle model development

21 3.6a: Ash partitioning: drop-tube tests

22 3.6b: Ash partitioning: studies of minimizing flue gas

23 4.0 Power Generation: Gasification

24 4.1a LES: simplified entrained-flow gasifier

25 4.1b LES: Initial V/UQ design

26 4.1c LES: preliminary V/UQ assessment

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May2010

Task


B-3

ID Task Name

27 4.2a Subgridscale models: model interface with ARCHES

28 4.2b Subgrid scale models: PCA-based reductions

29 4.3a Radiation modeling: identify data

30 4.3b Radiation modeling: gasification conditions

31 4.4a Char & soot kinetics: coal pyrolysis at different pressures

32 4.4b Char & soot kinetics: CO2 gasification of coal

33 4.4c Char & soot kinetics: tar/soot surrogate studies

34 4.5a Slag formation & interactions: char-slag transition studies

35 4.5b Slag formation & interactions: model development

36 4.5c Slag formation & interactions: workshop

37 4.6a Gasifier data collection: syngas composition

38 4.6b Gasifier data collection: full-scale slurry feed system

39 4.6c: Gasifier data collection: system balance

40 5.0 Chemical Looping Combustion

41 5.1a Process modeling: material & energy balance

42 5.1b Process modeling: Integration with ASPEN

43 5.1c Process modeling: integration with 5.3 and 5.4

44 5.2a LES-DQMOM: formulation for ARCHES

45 5.2b LES-DQMOM: data collection for validation

46 5.3a Lab-scale studies: basic characterization of one Fe-based carrier

47 5.3b Lab-scale studies: analysis of kinetic parameters

48 5.3c Lab-scale studies: basic characterization of Cu-based carrier

49 5.4a Kinetics: determination of kinetic parameters

50 5.4b Kinetics: simulated CLC experiments

51 5.4c: Kinetics: compilation of results

52 6.0 In situ coal thermal treatment


Task


B-4

ID Task Name

53 6.1a Bench-scale: reactor design

54 6.1b Bench-scale: TGA analyses

55 6.1c Bench-scale: reactor construction

56 6.2a In-well heater: design matrix

57 6.2b In-well heater: complete design matrix analyses

58 6.3a: LES porous media: algorithm formulation

59 6.3b: LES porous media: algorithm implementation

60 6.4a Sequestration: experimental design

61 6.4b Sequestration: experiments

62 6.4c Sequestration: model comparisons and UQ

63 7 Mercury Control

64 7.1 Experimental studies

65 8 Strategies for Coal Utilization in the National Energy Portfolio

66 8.1 Data gathering

67 8.2 Data integration


Task


B-5

Appendix C. Phase 3 project milestone plan/status. Bold items indicate key milestones.

ID Milestone Description Phase 3 Completion DateRev. Phase 3 Completion

DatePhase 3 Actual Completion

Date* Verification Method1.0 Project Management

Phase 3 project management plan Jun-‐11 Jun-‐11 Submission to DOE Phase 3 briefings & quarterly reports Aug-‐13 Submission to DOE

2.0 Technology Transfer Outreach meeting Sep-‐11 Sep-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report Meeting of Advisory Board Nov-‐11 Nov-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report Summary of recommendations Feb-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report Meeting of Advisory Board Nov-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report Summary of recommendations Feb-‐13 Discuss in quarterly report

3.0 Power Generation: "Retrofit" Oxy-‐coal3.1 Oxycoal LES

Define uncertainies in scenario parameters, model parameters, numerical outputs & experimental outputs for V/UQ of OFC conditions of Subtask 3.2 Dec-‐11 Dec-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report Identify the dominant mechanisms for oxy-‐coal injection and flame stability. Aug-‐12 Dec-‐11 Discuss in topical report

3.2 Near-‐field aerodynamics of oxy-‐coal flames Proof of concept OFC demonstration of coaxial segregated/directed oxygen injection Aug-‐11 Aug-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report

3.3 Advanced Diagnostics for Oxy-‐Coal Combustion Analysis of OFC dataset including simultaneous velocity fields (PIV) and temperature maps (visible emission). Apr-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

3.4 Oxy-‐Coal Combustion in Circulating Fluidized Beds *Deleted milestone* Initial dataset on sorbent capture under oxy-‐coal conditions in CFB Nov-‐11 Aug-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

Complete data collection and analysis on sorbent capture of SO2 under oxy-‐coal conditions in CFB Dec-‐12

3.5 Single-‐Particle Oxy-‐CO2 combustion Initial Sandia experiments Sep-‐11 Sep-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report Initial dataset on sorbent capture in the single-‐particle fluidized-‐bed reactor Aug-‐11 Aug-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report

3.6 Ash partitioning mechanisms for oxy-‐coal combustion Completion of OFC ash partitioning tests for a single recycle condition Apr-‐11 Apr-‐11 Complete second round of experimental studies and model refinements Sep-‐11 Jan-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report Complete OFC ash partitioning tests for high inlet O2 conditions Dec-‐12

4.0 Power Generation “Retrofit”: Gasification4.1 Large Eddy Simulations (LES) of UU Entrained Flow Gasifier

Initial data collaboration with (at the least) a linear surrogate model, assuming 3 to 4 parameters for the CANMET gasifier. Jun-‐12 Discuss in topical report

4.2 Sub-‐Grid Scale Models Demonstrate particle transport in a nonreacting system including 2-‐way coupling in momentum equations & particle-‐eddy interactions Apr-‐11 Apr-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report

4.3 Radiation Modeling Proof-‐of-‐concept implimentation RMCRT model into the ARCHES code under benchmark conditions and demonstrate accuracy and scalability. Mar-‐12 Dec-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report Optimization of code and implementation of entrained coal particles. Sep-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

4.4 Char and Soot Kinetics and Mechanisms Chemical structure analysis of coal soots from pressurized pyrolysis experiments Dec-‐11 Dec-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report

4.5 Slag Formation and Slag-‐Wall Interactions

4.6 Acquisition of Validation Data in an Entrained-‐Flow Gasifier Characterization of gasifier at 15 atm pressure Dec-‐11 Jun-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

C-1

ID Milestone Description Phase 3 Completion DateRev. Phase 3 Completion

DatePhase 3 Actual Completion

Date* Verification Method5.0 Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC)

5.1 Process Modeling and Economics Develop carrier kinetic rate expressions from TGA data and custom models for CLOU Jul-‐11 Nov-‐11 Dec-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report Complete preliminary economic analysis of CLOU vs. CLC Aug-‐12 *Deleted milestone* Begin engineering analysis and custom modules for CLC Dec-‐11 Feb-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

5.2 HPC simulation of a CLC Definition of cold-‐flow CLC and associated data with prior uncertainty Feb-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report HPC simulations for optimizing particle residence time with UQ Sep-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

5.3 Laboratory-‐Scale CLC Studies Comparison of three copper oxide-‐based carriers with different loadings and/or substrates Nov-‐11 Jun-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report Complete attrition testing for three copper oxide-‐based carriers Oct-‐12

5.4 CLC Kinetics Exploratory investigations of different supporting materials Oct-‐11 Oct-‐11 Dec-‐11 Discuss in quarterly report Develop supported material for testing in Subtask 5.3 Jul-‐12

6.0 In-‐situ Coal Thermal Treatment Preliminary dataset including thermo-‐chemical parameters from the lab-‐scale test facility Jun-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report Preliminary dataset of CO2 absorption isotherms Jun-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report Demonstrate simulation tools & preliminary V/UQ Sep-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

7.0 Mercury control

8.0 Strategies for Coal Utilization in the National Energy Portfolio 8.1 Regulatory Promotion of Emergent CCS Technology

Data gathering May-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

8.2 Emerging Legal Issues for CCS Technology Data gathering Oct-‐11 Jun-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report

9.0 V/UQ for LES of heat flux in tangentially fired oxy-coal Alstom boiler simulation facility 9.1 LES simulation and V/UQ for heat flux in Alstom oxy-‐coal-‐fired BSF

Establish a simulation matrix for the BSF to explore uncertainty space from among the most sensitive of the uncertainty parameters. Dec-‐11 Mar-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report Summarize the lessons learned from the BSF simulations that would apply to Alstom's design of a 350 Mwe oxy-‐coal demonstration Jul-‐13 Discuss in topical report

9.2 -‐ 9.4* LES simulation and V/UQ for for heat flux in UofU OFC IR camera diagnostics & V/UQ for temperature measurements in OFC Jul-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report Heat flux profiles of UofU OFC using advanced strategies for O2 injection Dec-‐12 Discuss in quarterly report Complete V/UQ simulations and analysis for temperature and heat flux in the OFC Jun-‐13 Discuss in quarterly report

* The milestones for subtasks 9.2 -‐ 9.4 are grouped beause of their interdependence.Shaded cells are deleted milestones.Blue text indicates new milestones added in response to the July 2011 DOE peer-‐review comments.

C-2

Appendix C. Phase 2 project milestone plan/status. ID Title/Description Planned

Completion Actual

Completion Verification Method

1.0 Project Management Project management plan Oct-09 Nov-09 Submission to DOE Briefings & quarterly reports Mar-11 Submission to DOE

2.0 Technology Transfer Meeting of Advisory Board Jun-10 Apr-10 Discuss in quarterly report Summary of recommendations Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Completion of student research experiences Mar-11 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Tech transfer workshop(s) Mar-11 Mar-11 Discuss in final report

3.0 Power Generation: "Retrofit" Oxy-coal 3.1 Oxycoal LES

Identify response surface parameter space for validation of OFC conditions Mar-10 Jun-10 Discuss in quarterly report Compete first parametric validation and sensitivity study Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report

3.2 Near-field aerodynamics of oxy-coal flames Experimental studies of flame stability Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report OFC modifications for PIV studies Jun-10 Sep-10 Topical report

3.3 Advanced Diagnostics for Oxy-Coal Combustion PIV dataset in bench-top oxy-coal burner Jan-10 Jan-10 Discuss in quarterly report PIV dataset in 100 KW oxy-fuel combustor Nov-10 Nov-10 Discuss in quarterly report Uncertainty analysis of 100 KW PIV dataset Jan-11 May-11 Topical report 3.4 Oxy-Coal Combustion in Circulating Fluidized Beds

Pilot-scale oxycoal CFB dataset for 1 coal Sep-10 Dec-10 Discuss in quarterly report Uncertainty analysis for pilot-scale oxycoal dataset Jan-11 Mar-11 Topical report

3.5 Single-Particle Oxy-CO2 combustion Single-particle fluidized bed oxycoal dataset on carbon, nitrogen and sulfur Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Preliminary single particle model for oxycoal fluidized bed conditions Jan-11 Mar-11 Topical report

3.6 Ash partitioning mechanisms for oxy-coal combustion Preliminary drop-tube ash vaporization tests Jun-10 Jun-10 Provide data to Task 3.1 Preliminary OFC ash partitioning studies on the effect of recycled flue gas Jun-10 Jun-10 Provide data to Task 3.1

C-3

Appendix C. Phase 2 project milestone plan/status (continued). 4.0 Power Generation “Retrofit”: Gasification

4.1 Large Eddy Simulations (LES) of UU Entrained Flow Gasifier Demonstration LES calculation of a simplified entrained-flow gasifier Jun-10 Jun-10 Discuss in quarterly report Initial V/UQ design based on data from literature Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Preliminary V/UQ assessment Mar-11 Topical report 4.2 Sub-Grid Scale Models

Design, implement and verify new reaction model interface in ARCHES Sep-10 Jun-10 Discuss in quarterly report PCA-based reductions of ODT data Mar-11 Sep-10 Topical report

4.3 Radiation Modeling Identify data for validation Mar-10 Jun-10 Discuss in quarterly report Implementation of improved model for radiation under gasification conditions Sep-10 Sep-10 Topical report 4.4 Char and Soot Kinetics and Mechanisms Pyrolysis of coals at different pressures Sep-10 Apr-10 Discuss in quarterly report CO2 gasification of coal char at high T in PFFB Sep-10 Apr-10 Discuss in quarterly report Tar/soot surrogate studies at elevated pressure Sep-10 Sep-10 Topical report 4.5 Slag Formation and Slag-Wall Interactions Complete char-slag transition studies for 2 additional coals Jun-10 Apr-10 Discuss in quarterly report Models for inclusion in complete simulation Sep-10 Apr-10 Discuss in quarterly report

Workshop with Albany research center on slag-wall interactions Sep-10 Topical report 4.6 Acquisition of Validation Data in an Entrained-Flow Gasifier Measurement of syngas composition and temperature at low pressure Mar-10 Mar-10 Discuss in quarterly report Construction of full-scale coal slurry feed system Jun-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report System balance for operation at 200 psi Sep-10 Sep-10 Topical report

C-4

Appendix C. Phase 2 project milestone plan/status (continued). 5.0 Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC)

5.1 Process Modeling and Economics Material and energy balance Mar-10 Mar-10 Discuss in quarterly report Integration with ASPEN Mar-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Integration of results from subtasks 5.3 and 5.4 Sep-10 Dec-10 Discuss in quarterly report 5.2 LES-DQMOM simulation of a CFB

Fluidized-bed DQMOM formulation for ARCHES Mar-10 Dec-10 Discuss in quarterly report

Data collection, parameter identification, parameter range identification for validation and UQ Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report

5.3 Laboratory-Scale CLC Studies Basic characterization of one iron-based carrier Mar-10 Mar-10 Discuss in quarterly report Analysis of kinetic parameters for iron-based carrier Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Basic characterization of copper-based carrier Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report 5.4 CLC Kinetics Determination of kinetic parameters Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Simulated CLC experiments Dec-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Compilation of results Mar-11 Mar-11 Discuss in quarterly report

6.0 In-situ coal thermal treatment 6.1 Bench-scale thermal treatment

Design of bench-scale reactor Apr-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report

TGA analyses of coal samples – Effort was refocused away from this milestone toward a larger bench-scale reactor. Sep-10 NA Discuss in quarterly report

Complete construction of bench-scale reactor Jan-11 Topical report 6.2 In-well heater designs Identification of preliminary design matrix for thermal treatment options Mar-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Complete design matrix analysis Sep-10 Dec-10 Topical report 6.3 LES in reacting porous media

Formulation of algorithm for extending ARCHES to porous media applications –This milestone was modified to include other HPC tools. Jan-10 Dec-10 Discuss in quarterly report

Implementation of algorithm Sep-10 Sep-10 Topical report

C-5

Appendix C. Phase 2 project milestone plan/status (continued). 6.4 CO2 sequestration chemistry

Experimental design Dec-09 Dec-09 Discuss in quarterly report Sequestration experiments with gas mixtures in aquifer environments Sep-10 Sep-10 Discuss in quarterly report Model comparisons and uncertainty determination Mar-11 Mar-11 Topical report

7.0 Mercury control Complete experimental studies Dec-09 Dec-09 Discuss in quarterly report

8.0 Strategies for Coal Utilization in the National Energy Portfolio Data Gathering Sep-10 Feb-10 Discuss in quarterly report Topical report on climate change legislation Mar-11 Topical report

C-6

Appendix D. Phase 3 project deliverable plan/status.

ID Title/DescriptionPlanned

Completion Date*Rev. Phase 3

Completion Date

Actual Completion

Date1.0 Project Management

Project Management Plan Jun-‐11 Briefings and Reports Aug-‐13

2.0 Technology transfer and outreach At a minimum, 8 papers related to clean coal utilization for power generation Aug-‐13

3.0 Oxy-‐Coal An improved high-‐performance simulation tool for simulating a pilot-‐scale oxy-‐coal combustor. Jun-‐12 Oxy-‐coal topical report Dec-‐12 Mar-‐13

4.0 Gasification V&V/UQ study of the CANMET gasifier with quantified uncertainty. Jul-‐12 Gasification topical report Oct-‐12 Dec-‐12

5.0 Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC) Kinetics A process model for comparison of different oxygen carriers and the CLC versus CLOU processes Sep-‐12 Topical report on CLC Sep-‐12 Dec-‐12

6.0 Underground Coal Thermal Treatment Topical report on UCTT Dec-‐12

8.0 Strategies for coal utilization in the national energy portfolio Topical report on emerging CCS technology Jun-‐12 Topical report on regulatory promotion of CCS technology Dec-‐12

9.0 V/UQ for LES of heat flux in tangentially fired oxy-coal Alstom boiler simulation facility V/UQ assessment of BSF Jun-13 Topical report Aug-13

D-1

Appendix D. Phase 2 project deliverable plan/status.

ID Title/Description Planned

Completion Actual

Completion 1.0 Project Management

Project Management Plan Nov-09 Nov-09 Briefings and Reports Mar-11

2.0 Technology Transfer and Outreach Summary of advisory board recommendations Oct-10 Oct-10 Report/presentations on student research experience Mar-11 Sep-10

3.0 Oxy-Coal LES oxycoal simulation tool and validation/UQ demonstration with ARCHES Mar-11 Preliminary validation data for the oxy-coal combustor Mar-11

Topical report on oxyfuel research discussing PIV data, near-flame aerodynamics, ash partitioning studies, CFB data and a qualitative comparison of LES results and validation data Mar-11

4.0 Gasification Preliminary validation data from entrained-flow gasifier Mar-11 Prototype LES tool for entrained-flow gasifier Mar-11

Topical report on gasification research including preliminary nozzle validation, UQ demonstration, validation data, and submodels for swelling soot formation, and char-CO2 gasification. Mar-11

5.0 Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC) Kinetics Topical report on CLC and preparation of publications Mar-11

6.0 Underground Coal Thermal Treatment

Topical report on TGA studies, in-well heater design analysis, preliminary simulation studies, and sequestration chemistry Mar-11

7.0 Mercury Control Topical report Jun-10 Oct-11

8.0 Strategies for Coal Utilization in the National Energy Portfolio

Topical report on state and regional control of CCS* Mar-11 Jan-11 Topical report on federal control of CCS* Mar-11 Mar-11 Topical report on industry perspective* Mar-11 Submission of publication Mar-11 Apr-11

*The originally planned policy topical report was divided into three topical reports.

D-2

Q1 Total Q2 Total Q3 Total Q4 TotalBaseline Cost PlanFederal Share 415,658 415,658 415,658 831,316 619,934 1,451,250 571,291 2,022,541Non-Federal Share 103,322 103,322 103,322 206,644 154,984 361,628 144,007 505,635Total Planned 518,980 518,980 518,980 1,037,960 774,918 1,812,878 715,298 2,528,176Actual Incurred CostFederal Share 311,433 311,433 434,008 745,441 703,910 1,449,351 839,302 2,288,653Non-Federal Share 27,194 27,194 154,851 182,045 243,213 425,258 146,905 572,163Total Incurred Costs 338,627 338,627 588,859 927,486 947,123 1,874,609 986,207 2,860,816VarianceFederal Share 104,225 104,225 -18,350 85,875 -83,976 1,899 -268,011 -266,112Non-Federal Share 76,128 76,128 -51,529 24,599 -88,229 -63,630 -2,898 -66,528Total Variance 180,353 180,353 -69,879 110,474 -172,205 -61,731 -270,909 -332,640

Q5 Total Q6 Total Q7 Total Q8 Total Q9 Total Q10 TotalBaseline Cost PlanFederal Share 617,000 2,639,541 617,000 3,256,541 617,001 3,873,542 617,005 4,490,547 411,334 4,901,881 388,645 5,290,526Non-Federal Share 154,250 659,885 154,250 814,135 154,250 968,385 154,250 1,122,635 102,832 1,225,467 97,160 1,322,627Total Planned 771,250 3,299,426 771,250 4,070,676 771,251 4,841,927 771,255 5,613,182 514,166 6,127,348 485,805 6,613,153Actual Incurred CostFederal Share 485,132 2,773,785 474,758 3,248,543 738,959 3,987,502 547,950 4,535,452 553,781 5,089,233 201,293 5,290,526Non-Federal Share 28,730 600,893 205,794 806,687 233,267 1,039,954 165,402 1,205,356 66,627 1,271,983 -166,282 1,105,701Total Incurred Costs 513,862 3,374,678 680,552 4,055,230 972,226 5,027,456 713,352 5,740,808 620,408 6,361,216 35,011 6,396,227VarianceFederal Share 131,868 -134,244 142,242 7,998 -121,958 -113,960 69,055 -44,905 -142,447 -187,352 187,352 0Non-Federal Share 125,520 58,992 -51,544 7,448 -79,017 -71,569 -11,152 -82,721 36,205 -46,516 263,442 216,926Total Variance 257,388 -75,252 90,698 15,446 -200,975 -185,529 57,903 -127,626 -106,242 -233,868 450,794 216,926

Q11 Total Q12 Total Q13 Total Q14 TotalBaseline Cost PlanFederal Share 960,000 6,250,526 1,363,542 7,614,068 459,531 8,073,599 223,021 8,296,620Non-Federal Share 240,000 1,562,627 340,886 1,903,513 275,038 2,178,551 32,000 2,210,551Total Planned 1,200,000 7,813,153 1,704,428 9,517,581 734,569 10,252,150 255,021 10,507,171Actual Incurred CostFederal Share 795,917 6,086,443 564,465 6,650,908 234,689 6,885,597 6,885,597Non-Federal Share 399,495 1,505,196 269,698 1,774,894 134,177 1,909,071 1,909,071Total Incurred Costs 1,195,412 7,591,639 834,163 8,425,802 368,866 8,794,668 0 8,794,668VarianceFederal Share 164,083 164,083 799,077 963,160 224,842 1,188,002 223,021 1,411,023Non-Federal Share -159,495 57,431 71,188 128,619 140,861 269,480 32,000 301,480Total Variance 4,588 221,514 870,265 1,091,779 365,703 1,457,482 255,021 1,712,503

Q15 Total Q16 Total Q17 Total Q18 Total Q19 Total Q20 TotalBaseline Cost PlanFederal Share 301,546 8,598,166 301,546 8,899,712 301,546 9,201,258 301,546 9,502,804 292,822 9,795,626 110,100 9,905,726Non-Federal Share 42,000 2,252,551 42,000 2,294,551 42,000 2,336,551 34,010 2,370,561 32,000 2,402,561 73,866 2,476,427Total Planned 343,546 10,850,717 343,546 11,194,263 343,546 11,537,809 335,556 11,873,365 324,822 12,198,187 183,966 12,382,153Actual Incurred CostFederal Share 0 0 0 0 0 0Non-Federal Share 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Incurred Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VarianceFederal Share 301,546 8,598,166 301,546 8,899,712 301,546 9,201,258 301,546 9,502,804 292,822 9,795,626 110,100 9,905,726Non-Federal Share 42,000 2,252,551 42,000 2,294,551 42,000 2,336,551 34,010 2,370,561 32,000 2,402,561 73,866 2,476,427Total Variance 343,546 10,850,717 343,546 11,194,263 343,546 11,537,809 335,556 11,873,365 324,822 12,198,187 183,966 12,382,153

Baseline Reporting Quarter

BP3 - Yr. 2Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18

4/1/12 - 6/30/12 7/1/12 - 9/30/12 10/1/12 - 12/31/12 1/1/13 - 3/31/13Q19 Q20

BP3 - Yr. 3

4/1/13 - 6/30/13

Q14

7/1/13 - 8/31/13

10/1/10 - 12/31/10

BP2 - Yr. 1 BP2 - Yr. 2Q5 Q6 Q9 Q10

1/1/11 - 3/31/1110/1/09 - 12/31/09

COST PLAN/STATUS


BP1Q1 Q2 Q3

1/1/12 - 3/31/124/1/11 - 6/30/11

Q47/1/08 - 12/31/08 1/1/09 - 3/31/09 4/1/09 - 6/30/09 7/1/09 - 9/30/09

4/1/10 - 6/30/10

7/1/11 - 9/30/11

7/1/10 - 9/30/10Q7 Q8

1/1/10 - 3/31/10


BP3 - Yr. 1Q11 Q12 Q13


10/1/11 - 12/31/11

E-1

project management plan work …repository.icse.utah.edu/dspace/bitstream/123456789/...project...

Documents