This from Greenwire today ($ub req'd): "The DOE FutureGen program has announced that their "clean coal" plus carbon sequestration is checking in at $1.8 billion for a 275 MW plant, or $6500/kW."
OK, so it's at an early stage, but even if you cut that cost in half, it still doesn't pencil out. How long before we get over the illusion that coal is cheap?
Story below the fold. (Note that I have given them the benefit of the doubt that their description of the plant as a "275 watt" facility was a typographical error.)
The cost of a federal project aimed at demonstrating the viability of cleanly burning coal and sequestering carbon dioxide emissions has nearly doubled to $1.8 billion, the Energy Department said in a report released Friday.
Publication of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for FutureGen is scheduled to be announced in the Federal Register on Nov. 16, starting a 30-day public comment period after which the department is expected to give the go-ahead for each of the four sites examined -- Mattoon and Tuscola in Illinois, and Jewett and Odessa in Texas.
The FutureGen Alliance, an association of coal companies and electric utilities that have joined DOE to design and build the 275-watt power plant, will then make the final site selection, with an announcement expected in December.
The finalized EIS updates the project's price tag. In March 2004, DOE told Congress it would cost $950 million in 2004 dollars -- a cost to be shared between the department and the FutureGen Alliance, with government paying 74 percent and industry paying 26 percent. The final EIS updates the total bill to $1.757 billion in as-spent dollars, with additional adjustments expected as work unfolds.
When operational, the plant is projected to generate $300 million from electricity sales over an unspecified time period, which DOE says will yield a net cost of $1.456 billion.
The EIS, which incorporates comments from the public and stakeholders, follows publication of a draft assessment in May (Greenwire, May 25). A major conclusion of that study was that risks associated with malfunctions of surface equipment like pipeline ruptures and wellhead leaks outweigh those linked to possible leakage of buried carbon dioxide.
A set of comments on the draft submitted jointly by advocacy groups Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council urged DOE to prepare a supplemental analysis with additional information on the geologic formations at each site and the decisionmaking process for selecting a site for underground injection of CO2. In its response, DOE said a supplemental statement would not be issued at this time but could be appropriate if new information becomes available.
Lawmakers from Illinois who have supported the project welcomed the announcement that all four of the proposed sites remain under consideration.
"We remain optimistic that when all factors are objectively and impartially considered, Illinois will prevail," Republican Rep. Tim Johnson said in a statement.
Members of the FutureGen Alliance praised DOE for quickly finalization of its assessment. "The DOE issued the EIS in record time," said group CEO Michael Mudd in a statement. "We will continue to work together to move FutureGen forward at a fast pace to develop this much-needed, first-of-a-kind research and development program," he said.
DOE says that when it becomes operational, slated for 2012, FutureGen will be the cleanest fossil fuel-fired power plant in the world.
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
Comments
View as Flat
John former Marine Posted 2:34 am
13 Nov 2007
Permalink
rmcleod Posted 3:48 am
13 Nov 2007
Compared to solar, you could certainly get more nameplate capacity for less. Solar is still around 4500 $/kW. The drawback is the 20 % capacity factor compared to perhaps 75 % for coal. The benefit is no fuel costs, trivial maintenance, and no unaccounted liabilities.
This does seem to suggest that advocating coal with sequestration is a great way to improve the market penetration of renewable energy sources.
--
entropyproduction.blogspot.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:08 am
13 Nov 2007
$6500/KW : Future Gen New Projections (!!?!?!¿)
$4000/KW : Small Scale Hydropower
$3900/KW : Parabolic Trough Solar Thermal w/ 6 hour thermal storage
$3000/KW : Coal IGCC
$3000/KW : Geothermal - Binary Steam
$2750/KW : Geothermal - Dual Flash
$2500/KW : Biomass Combustion Boiler
$2400/KW : Nuclear
$2050/KW : Coal IGCC
$2145/KW : My Estimate on LuzII Solar Thermal
$1500/KW : In-Conduit Hydropower
$1900/KW : Utility Wind
SOURCE: For all the other listings
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:09 am
13 Nov 2007
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 7:49 am
13 Nov 2007
That said, even if they can strip 50% off the price (e.g., make it almost competitive with the current price of Clean Air Act-compliant, but without CO2 sequestering coal), it still doesn't pencil.
But the silver (soot soaked, but I swear, silver underneath) lining is that if we ever build something this foolish, it will increase local power prices so much that all the clean stuff GreyFlcn describes comes on line, competes against it and drives massive equity losses to the IGCC investors. Or, we could just start with the smart stuff.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:29 am
13 Nov 2007
We should note that this is a demo plant, and shouldn't presume that this is the permanent price, impossible to reduce with process advancement.
Perhaps, but all-things-being-equal thats true of all of those technologies.
So it's not much an argument to use ;D
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 8:32 am
13 Nov 2007
Permalink
KenG Posted 10:01 am
13 Nov 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:38 pm
13 Nov 2007
Sounds a bit high.
But then again, rmcleod was talking about silicon solar panels.
You're talking about solar thermal.
You're also talking about SEGS, which is relatively ancient solar thermal.
http://www.luz2.com/apage/12219.php
Permalink
KenG Posted 10:52 pm
13 Nov 2007
Things don't seem to have improved much for solar thermal. Here is proposed project in New Mexico that projects about 50% O&M costs.
http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_04.html
Permalink
rmcleod Posted 4:15 pm
14 Nov 2007
For the clean coal plant, 1 kW at 75 % capacity factor for a year is 31.5 GJ of energy. Coal is about 21 GJ/short ton, or at 30 % burning efficiency produces 6.4 GJ electricity/ton. Say $40/ton for bituminous stuff. That works out to about $200 per year per kW of electrical capacity, just in the cost of coal. Personal and maintenance are on top of that, let's say double.
Everyone knows that PV is front-loaded in the capital costs. It's just they work for 25 years, guaranteed. As long as the contacts don't corrode out, they should still be working in forty years.
Given the above numbers, over the cource of 25-years, PV is $22,500/kW delivered (capital divided by capacity factor $4500 / 0.2 [/kW]).
If we consider coal maintenance roughly double fuel, or $400/kW then over 25-years of operation that 'clean coal' plant will require ($6500 + $400/year*25year) / 0.75 [/kW] = $22,000/kW.
That's basically saying that only the cost of borrowing money is putting 'clean coal' ahead of PV, and we're not assigning coal any future liabilities.
If this is the 'future of coal', then coal has no future.
--
entropyproduction.blogspot.com
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:33 pm
14 Nov 2007
IGCC is 60% efficient.
world-nuclear.org/info/inf83.html
Overall thermal efficiency for oxygen-blown coal gasification, including carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, is about 73%. Using the hydrogen in a gas turbine for electricity generation is efficient, so the overall system has long-term potential to achieve an efficiency of up to 60%.
Permalink
rmcleod Posted 2:00 am
15 Nov 2007
You are mis-reading that particular section, and it's thermodynamically impossible anyway.
Look up in the heading "Storage & sequestration of CO2":
"Currently IGCC plants have a 45% thermal efficiency."
That 45 % figure is without the energy cost for sequestration, which, as the article discusses, is currently very high (and frankly not likely to decline as much as they would like). I have some grave doubts regarding some of the numbers that article throws around with regards to sequestration numbers, I would have to check the sources. I suspect they aren't based on real-world tests.
The 73 % figure you list is simply for the gasification of the pyrolyzed coal to carbon monoxide and hydrogen and then a pure hydrogen stream. It covers the liquid oxygen plant, etc., not the combustion of the hydrogen. By my reading it does not cover the pyrolysis (i.e. burning off the hydrogen in the coal to be left with coke) either.
They seem to be implying that the efficiency of burning hydrogen is 73 % / 60 % = 82%!!! I know of no thermal cycle that achieves 82 % efficiency. It's likely past Carnot cycle theoretical limits, or the Gibb's free energy formulation of the same for fuel cells.
--
entropyproduction.blogspot.com
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:41 am
15 Nov 2007
Thank you for catching my error.
73% ("overall thermal efficiency for oxygen-blown coal gasification, including carbon dioxide capture and sequestration") x 60% hydrogen-turbine combustion efficiency = 44% overall system efficiency.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:51 am
15 Nov 2007
$6500 * (30%/44%) = $4432/KW
Even if they could achieve that big efficiency gain, thats still too expensive to be even considered.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:06 am
15 Nov 2007
$6500 * (30%/44%)
Wherefrom did you get those figures? What are you trying to calculate?
Permalink