u.s. epa’s clean air gasification activities robert j. wayland, ph.d. u.s. environmental...

U.S. EPA’s Clean Air U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Gasification ActivitiesGasification Activities

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air and RadiationOffice of Air and RadiationOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsOffice of Air Quality Planning and StandardsResearch Triangle Park, N.C.Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Presentation at the Gasification Technologies Council

Winter MeetingJanuary 26, 2006Tucson, Arizona

Environmental Technology Environmental Technology InitiativeInitiative Key leaders at the Agency understand that Key leaders at the Agency understand that

innovative technology has been and will innovative technology has been and will continue to be a key element in meeting our continue to be a key element in meeting our environmental needs in a economical, cost-environmental needs in a economical, cost-effective mannereffective manner

EPA Senior management challenged Agency EPA Senior management challenged Agency staff to figure out ways to facilitate and staff to figure out ways to facilitate and incentivize the development and deployment of incentivize the development and deployment of such technologiessuch technologies– Created the Environmental Technology Council (ETC)Created the Environmental Technology Council (ETC)

Solicited topics for consideration Agency-wideSolicited topics for consideration Agency-wide– 47 possible technologies and environmental problems 47 possible technologies and environmental problems

in need of technology solutions were identifiedin need of technology solutions were identified– 14 projects were selected as “priorities” for the 14 projects were selected as “priorities” for the

Agency, based on Agency-wide voting across all EPA Agency, based on Agency-wide voting across all EPA offices and Regions.offices and Regions.

Two Gasification Projects Two Gasification Projects SelectedSelected Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

(IGCC)(IGCC)– Generating electricity from the gasification of coal Generating electricity from the gasification of coal

and other fossil fuel byproductsand other fossil fuel byproducts– Office of Air and Radiation is lead office on Office of Air and Radiation is lead office on

development and deployment of IGCC technologydevelopment and deployment of IGCC technology

Waste-to-EnergyWaste-to-Energy– Utilization of biomass, petroleum residuals, Utilization of biomass, petroleum residuals,

petroleum coke, secondary materialspetroleum coke, secondary materials– Office of Research and Development in conjunction Office of Research and Development in conjunction

with the Office of Solid Waste are the leads on the with the Office of Solid Waste are the leads on the waste-to-energy effortwaste-to-energy effort

– OAR, ORD and OSWER are working together as a OAR, ORD and OSWER are working together as a cross-Agency team to promote these technologies cross-Agency team to promote these technologies for deploymentfor deployment

Coal – The Future of Coal – The Future of Electricity GenerationElectricity Generation

The world needs to make The world needs to make electricity from coal in an electricity from coal in an environmentally and economically environmentally and economically sustainable waysustainable way– IGCC has fundamental advantages IGCC has fundamental advantages

from both environmental and from both environmental and efficiency perspectives relative to efficiency perspectives relative to conventional coal-fired power conventional coal-fired power generation technologiesgeneration technologies

Inherently lower emissions of NOInherently lower emissions of NOXX, , SOSO22 and Hg and Hg

Requires less fresh water – special Requires less fresh water – special issue in the drier, water-limited issue in the drier, water-limited Western regions of the U.S.Western regions of the U.S.

Considerably more commercially Considerably more commercially useful byproducts (and thus, less useful byproducts (and thus, less waste materials)waste materials)

– High potential for reducing High potential for reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by allowing for carbon capture and by allowing for carbon capture and sequestration at costs significantly sequestration at costs significantly below conventional PC generation below conventional PC generation costscosts CINERGY’s Wabash River Facility

Gasification Offers Clean Gasification Offers Clean AlternativeAlternative

0.5

1

1.5

2

SCPC IGCC NGCC

NOx SO2 PM Hg

~80% 95%+

NOx SO2 PM Hg NOx SO2 PM Hg

~0 ~0 ~0

lb/MWh

Estimated New Plant Emissions Performance

Proposed Da SO2 limit

Proposed Da NOx limit

Proposed Da PM limit*

* - Taking comment on the adoption of PM-CEMS; other alternative is 0.015 lb/MMBtu limit

EPA’s Role in EPA’s Role in DeploymentDeployment

The Environmental Technology Initiative’s The Environmental Technology Initiative’s purpose is topurpose is to– Achieve improved, real-world environmental results Achieve improved, real-world environmental results

through the design, development and deployment of through the design, development and deployment of innovative technologiesinnovative technologies

IdentifyIdentify short- and long-term priority environmental short- and long-term priority environmental problems with attainable technological solutionsproblems with attainable technological solutions

CoordinateCoordinate efforts within EPA and other Federal agencies efforts within EPA and other Federal agencies to identify and implement such technological advancements to identify and implement such technological advancements and solutionand solution

CreateCreate partnerships with other Federal agencies, State partnerships with other Federal agencies, State governments, Tribal governments, non-profit groups and governments, Tribal governments, non-profit groups and industry to incentivize technology enhancements and industry to incentivize technology enhancements and deploymentdeployment

– Creation of joint EPA/DOE team to promote deployment of IGCCCreation of joint EPA/DOE team to promote deployment of IGCC

EPA/DOE Team EPA/DOE Team ActivitiesActivities

Objective is to facilitate a critical number of Objective is to facilitate a critical number of commercial plants to address both environmental commercial plants to address both environmental and operational concernsand operational concerns

EPA Air Permitting InitiativesEPA Air Permitting Initiatives-- Identification and quick resolution of novel air Identification and quick resolution of novel air

permitting issuespermitting issues-- Help in expediting the air permit processHelp in expediting the air permit process

DOE/EPA developing a model to assess the DOE/EPA developing a model to assess the economic viability of IGCC plants under different economic viability of IGCC plants under different conditionsconditions

EPA/DOE conducting a technical study to EPA/DOE conducting a technical study to establish the environmental footprint of the IGCC establish the environmental footprint of the IGCC technology relative to conventional PC plantstechnology relative to conventional PC plants

EPA Actions to Date – Progress EPA Actions to Date – Progress ReportReport

Regulatory IssuesRegulatory Issues– Current issue for IGCC facilities is New Source Review (NSR) and Current issue for IGCC facilities is New Source Review (NSR) and

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permittingPrevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting December 13, 2005 – Steve Page memoDecember 13, 2005 – Steve Page memo (IGCC and BACT) (IGCC and BACT)

– EPA’s interpretation of when IGCC should be considered in NSR and PSD EPA’s interpretation of when IGCC should be considered in NSR and PSD permittingpermitting

– In the case of pulverized coal boilers and similar conventional coal-fired In the case of pulverized coal boilers and similar conventional coal-fired technologies, IGCC should not be considered as control technology candidate technologies, IGCC should not be considered as control technology candidate under BACTunder BACT

– Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as BACT for IGCC unitsSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as BACT for IGCC units

Headquarters and Regional offices want to work with companies Headquarters and Regional offices want to work with companies interested in developing IGCC technology in the near futureinterested in developing IGCC technology in the near future

EPA is committed to working with State permitting authoritiesEPA is committed to working with State permitting authorities– States are the primary permitting authority under NSR/PSD – often States are the primary permitting authority under NSR/PSD – often

can be more stringent than Federal regulationscan be more stringent than Federal regulations– Agency is attempting to be “upfront” and let States know “where we Agency is attempting to be “upfront” and let States know “where we

stand” on IGCC permitting issuesstand” on IGCC permitting issues Anticipate this may help expedite and streamline the NSR & PSD Anticipate this may help expedite and streamline the NSR & PSD

permitting process considerablypermitting process considerably

Potential Regulatory Potential Regulatory HurdlesHurdles

Should Selective Catalytic Should Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) be required Reduction (SCR) be required as best achievable control as best achievable control technology (BACT) for IGCC?technology (BACT) for IGCC?– TECO’s Polk Power Station, TECO’s Polk Power Station,

Tampa, FloridaTampa, Florida Florida DEP ultimately decided in Florida DEP ultimately decided in

conjunction with Region IV that conjunction with Region IV that SCR was SCR was notnot required as BACT – a required as BACT – a position supported by position supported by HeadquartersHeadquarters

– BACT is a case-by-case BACT is a case-by-case determinationdetermination

““One Size Doesn’t Fit All”One Size Doesn’t Fit All”– Circumstances at a new plant may Circumstances at a new plant may

not be the same as what drove our not be the same as what drove our decision at Polk Power Stationdecision at Polk Power Station

Regardless, SCR as BACT is a Regardless, SCR as BACT is a decision that merits our attention decision that merits our attention and resolution sooner as opposed and resolution sooner as opposed to laterto later

SCR Technical SCR Technical IssuesIssues

Currently reviewing request from U.S. power Currently reviewing request from U.S. power company for guidance on SCR as BACTcompany for guidance on SCR as BACT

Issues under review:Issues under review:– SCR not demonstrated on plants utilizing coal-SCR not demonstrated on plants utilizing coal-

derived syngasderived syngas Lack of U.S. experienceLack of U.S. experience One plant operational in JapanOne plant operational in Japan

– SCR feasibility, high cost and risk issues vary SCR feasibility, high cost and risk issues vary between IGCC plants, PC plants and NGCC between IGCC plants, PC plants and NGCC facilitiesfacilities

– Ability to obtain meaningful performance Ability to obtain meaningful performance guarantees for SCR and/or HRSG systemsguarantees for SCR and/or HRSG systems

– SOSO22 BACT analysis and its impact on SCR costs BACT analysis and its impact on SCR costs and feasibilityand feasibility

MDEA, Rectisol or SelexolMDEA, Rectisol or Selexol

Potential Regulatory Potential Regulatory IncentivesIncentives

Final New Source Performance Final New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Subpart Standards (NSPS) for Subpart DaDa– IGCC Units constructed on/after IGCC Units constructed on/after

February 9, 2005 would be February 9, 2005 would be subject to the same emission subject to the same emission limits as a coal-fired boilerlimits as a coal-fired boiler

Given current IGCC technology, Given current IGCC technology, this should not pose any this should not pose any regulatory burden on new, regulatory burden on new, planned IGCC facilitiesplanned IGCC facilities

– Duct burners moved into KKKKDuct burners moved into KKKK Final Clean Air Mercury Rule Final Clean Air Mercury Rule

(CAMR)(CAMR) – Created separate source category Created separate source category

for IGCC unitsfor IGCC units Hg emission limit of 20 x 10Hg emission limit of 20 x 10-6-6

lb/MWhlb/MWh Comparable to a bituminous Comparable to a bituminous

PC-fired power generation PC-fired power generation systemsystem

Future Plans and NeedsFuture Plans and Needs To incentivize the commercial deployment of IGCC To incentivize the commercial deployment of IGCC

technology EPA needs to better understand the technology EPA needs to better understand the environmental footprintenvironmental footprint of these facilities relative to of these facilities relative to conventional power generation technologiesconventional power generation technologies– EPA/DOE Environmental Footprint StudyEPA/DOE Environmental Footprint Study

EPA is working on models to assess the EPA is working on models to assess the economic economic viabilityviability of IGCC plants under different conditions of IGCC plants under different conditions– Working closely with DOE on these economic and Working closely with DOE on these economic and

environmental effortsenvironmental efforts

One remaining barrier is the One remaining barrier is the cost of IGCC technologycost of IGCC technology– EPA is working in conjunction with DOE to evaluate various EPA is working in conjunction with DOE to evaluate various

proposals to address this economic barrierproposals to address this economic barrier– Energy Policy Act of 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

Exploring options and incentivesExploring options and incentives

Draft Results of EPA’s IGCC vs. PC Draft Results of EPA’s IGCC vs. PC StudyStudy Nexant, Incorporated contracted to perform Nexant, Incorporated contracted to perform

study in conjunction with EPA and DOE inputstudy in conjunction with EPA and DOE input– Solicited comment/input on draft report from Solicited comment/input on draft report from

numerous stakeholder groupsnumerous stakeholder groups

Final results targeted for discussion at the GTC Final results targeted for discussion at the GTC meeting in Tampa, Florida in March 2006meeting in Tampa, Florida in March 2006– Public release March 2006Public release March 2006

Aspects of the StudyAspects of the Study Thermal performance of IGCC and PC unitsThermal performance of IGCC and PC units Estimated air emissionsEstimated air emissions Water use requirements and solid waste outputWater use requirements and solid waste output COCO22 capture and sequestration potential capture and sequestration potential

Barriers to IGCC DeploymentBarriers to IGCC Deployment Concerns of higher costsConcerns of higher costs

– Nominally considered to be approximately 20%Nominally considered to be approximately 20% Concerns of novel environmental permit Concerns of novel environmental permit

issues delaying construction and increasing issues delaying construction and increasing costscosts– NSR and PSD issuesNSR and PSD issues– BACT analysesBACT analyses

Concerns of plant reliabilityConcerns of plant reliability– Need for dual-train gasifierNeed for dual-train gasifier– HRSG fouling downstream of the SCRHRSG fouling downstream of the SCR– Power block reliabilityPower block reliability

Cultural resistance to a facility with a large Cultural resistance to a facility with a large chemical plant componentchemical plant component– Chemical Engineers vs. Mechanical EngineersChemical Engineers vs. Mechanical Engineers

Technical Study ScopeTechnical Study Scope IGCC and PC plant comparisons provided, using IGCC and PC plant comparisons provided, using

bituminous/subbituminous coals and lignitebituminous/subbituminous coals and lignite

Plant size:Plant size: 500 MW500 MW

Plant configurations:Plant configurations:-- Oxygen-blown IGCC, 1,800 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° FOxygen-blown IGCC, 1,800 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F-- Subcritical PC, 2,400 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° FSubcritical PC, 2,400 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F-- Supercritical PC, 3,500 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° FSupercritical PC, 3,500 psig / 1,000° F / 1,000° F-- Ultra-supercritical PC, 4,500 psig / 1,100Ultra-supercritical PC, 4,500 psig / 1,100°° F / 1,100 F / 1,100°° F F

(double reheat)(double reheat)

Technical Study ScopeTechnical Study Scope,, ((Cont’dCont’d)) IGCC plant environmental controls:IGCC plant environmental controls:

-- NOx: Diluents (SCR evaluated)NOx: Diluents (SCR evaluated)

-- SOSO22: MDEA (Selexol evaluated): MDEA (Selexol evaluated)

-- Particulate: scrubberParticulate: scrubber

-- Mercury: carbon bed Mercury: carbon bed

PC plant environmental controls:PC plant environmental controls:-- NOx: SCR NOx: SCR

-- SOSO22: wet FGD for bituminous coal (BC) and lignite : wet FGD for bituminous coal (BC) and lignite (LIG) and spray dryer for subbituminous coal (SBC)(LIG) and spray dryer for subbituminous coal (SBC)

-- Particulate: ESP for BC and LIG, Baghouse for SBCParticulate: ESP for BC and LIG, Baghouse for SBC

-- Mercury: sorbent injection (activated carbon) for Mercury: sorbent injection (activated carbon) for SBCSBC

Thermal Performance Bituminous Thermal Performance Bituminous CoalCoal**

Plant Plant TypeType

IGCCIGCC PC Sub-PC Sub-Critical Critical

PC Super- PC Super- CriticalCritical

PC Ultra PC Ultra Super-Super-CriticalCritical

Net Net output, output, MWMW

500500 500500 500500 500500

Thermal Thermal Efficiency, Efficiency, % HHV% HHV

41.841.8 35.935.9 38.338.3 42.742.7

Heat Heat Rate, Rate, Btu/kWhBtu/kWh

8,1678,167 9,5009,500 8,9008,900 8,0008,000

* Preliminary/draft results.

Thermal Performance Subbituminous Thermal Performance Subbituminous CoalCoal**






500500 500500 500500 500500


40.040.0 34.834.8 37.937.9 42.142.1


8,5208,520 9,8009,800 9,0009,000 8,1008,100


Thermal Performance LigniteThermal Performance Lignite**






500500 500500 500500 500500


38.438.4 33.133.1 35.935.9 37.937.9


8,8978,897 10,30010,300 9,5009,500 9,0009,000


Air Emission ComparisonsAir Emission Comparisons**

PollutantPollutant IGCC ProjectIGCC Project PC ProjectPC Project PC ProjectPC Project

NOxNOx 0.070.07** 0.070.07 0.060.06

SOSO22 0.030.03 0.090.09 0.090.09

PM/PMPM/PM1010 0.0110.011 0.013/0.0120.013/0.012 0.0180.018

VOCVOC 0.0040.004 0.00270.0027 0.00360.0036

COCO 0.030.03 0.150.15 0.150.15

HgHg 0.50.5 0.660.66 1.71.7

Coal TypeCoal Type BituminousBituminous Bituminous/Bituminous/Sub-Sub-bituminousbituminous

Sub-Sub-bituminousbituminous

* Preliminary/draft results. All emissions in lb/MMBtu, except for Hg, which is in lb/TBtu. NOx for IGCC is based on 15 ppmvd at 15% O2.

Water Use and Solid Waste Water Use and Solid Waste ComparisonsComparisons****

ParameterParameter IGCC PlantIGCC Plant** PC PlantPC Plant**

Cooling Cooling water, gpmwater, gpm

99,50099,500 167,300167,300

Makeup Makeup water, gpmwater, gpm

141141 325325

Solid waste, Solid waste, tpdtpd

224224 616616

* Each plant is approximately 290 MW in size.** Preliminary/draft results.

COCO22 Capture and Sequestration Capture and Sequestration PotentialPotential**

ParameterParameter IGCC PlantIGCC Plant PC PlantPC Plant

COCO22 capture, % capture, % 9191 9090

Plant output Plant output derating, %derating, %

1414 2929

Heat rate Heat rate increase, %increase, %

16.516.5 4040

Capital cost Capital cost increase, %increase, %

4747 7373

COE increase, COE increase, %%

3838 6666


Main Study Areas Still Under Main Study Areas Still Under DevelopmentDevelopment Capabilities of air pollution control technologies used in Capabilities of air pollution control technologies used in

IGCC and PC plantsIGCC and PC plants

– Efficiency of sulfur removal processes (IGCC)Efficiency of sulfur removal processes (IGCC)

– Feasibility of SCR (IGCC)Feasibility of SCR (IGCC)

– Evolution of Hg removal technologies (PC)Evolution of Hg removal technologies (PC)

– Carbon capture efficiency (IGCC and PC)Carbon capture efficiency (IGCC and PC)

Comparison of mercury emission control capabilities Comparison of mercury emission control capabilities between IGCC and PC plantsbetween IGCC and PC plants

– Sorbent injection (PC)Sorbent injection (PC)

– Activated carbon beds (IGCC)Activated carbon beds (IGCC)

Comparison of water consumption and waste water and Comparison of water consumption and waste water and solid waste generation rates between IGCC and PC solid waste generation rates between IGCC and PC plantsplants

Potential of COPotential of CO22 capture within PC plants capture within PC plants

Cost Comparisons Bituminous Coal Cost Comparisons Bituminous Coal ApplicationsApplications

CostsCosts IGCCIGCC Subcritical Subcritical PCPC

SupercriticSupercritical PCal PC

Ultra Ultra SupercriticSupercritic

al PCal PC

Total Total Capital Capital RequiremenRequirement, $/kWt, $/kW

1,6701,670 1,3471,347 1,4311,431 1,5291,529

Operating Operating Cost, Cost, $1,000s$1,000s

27,31027,310 27,70027,700 29,00029,000 30,40030,400

1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may be

different due to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account for possible increases for items such as performance guarantees, warranties and availability.

3. Operating costs include fixed and variable O&M costs.

Cost Comparisons Subbituminous Cost Comparisons Subbituminous Coal ApplicationsCoal Applications

CostsCosts IGCCIGCC Subcritical Subcritical PCPC


Ultra Ultra SupercriticSupercritic

al PCal PC


1,9101,910 1,3871,387 1,4731,473 1,5751,575


29,70029,700 28,30028,300 29,60029,600 31,10031,100

1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may

be different due to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account for possible increases for items such as performance guarantees, warranties and availability.


Cost Comparisons Lignite Cost Comparisons Lignite ApplicationsApplicationsCostsCosts IGCCIGCC Subcritical Subcritical

PCPCSupercriticSupercritic

al PCal PCUltra Ultra



2,3502,350 1,4241,424 1,5111,511 1,6171,617


34,00034,000 29,64029,640 30,94030,940 32,44032,440

1. All costs are in 2004 dollars.2. Costs are based on published data. The actual costs may be

different due to site specific factors. IGCC costs do not account for possible increases for items such as performance guarantees, warranties and availability.


ConclusionsConclusions EPA has undertaken several initiatives to facilitate and EPA has undertaken several initiatives to facilitate and

incentivize IGCC technologyincentivize IGCC technology– Environmental Study (release: March 2006)Environmental Study (release: March 2006)– December 13, 2005 Steve Page Memo – IGCC and BACTDecember 13, 2005 Steve Page Memo – IGCC and BACT– Future guidance on SCR as BACT for IGCC facilitiesFuture guidance on SCR as BACT for IGCC facilities

Preliminary IGCC vs. PC Study Results:Preliminary IGCC vs. PC Study Results:– IGCC thermal performance significantly better than IGCC thermal performance significantly better than

current PC technologiescurrent PC technologies– Overall better environmental performance for IGCCOverall better environmental performance for IGCC– IGCC has potential advantage in capturing and IGCC has potential advantage in capturing and

sequestrating COsequestrating CO22 at lower costs at lower costs

EPA is not trying to pick a technology winner, but EPA is not trying to pick a technology winner, but trying to ensure that IGCC has a chance to prove itself trying to ensure that IGCC has a chance to prove itself commerciallycommercially

For more information contact:

Dr. Robert J. WaylandOffice of Air Quality Planning & StandardsResearch Triangle Park, NC(919) [email protected]

u.s. epa’s clean air gasification activities robert j. wayland, ph.d. u.s. environmental...

Documents