Coal Gasification Economics and Efficiency: A Comparison Study

By David Fenton November 20th, 2006

Contents
Purpose Conventional
Basis Results

IGCC
Basis Results

Comparisons Conclusions

Purpose
To compare conventional coal and IGCC power plants in the following aspects:
Plant efficiency Pollution amounts Capital cost Operating cost

Conventional Coal Basis

500 MW, supercritical steam power plant
Dry gas scrubbing for SOx Low NOx burners Baghouses for PM

Data for economics taken from TXU data for new Texas power plants

Conventional Plant Layout

Conventional Results: Efficiency

Net efficiency: 38%
Supercritical steam loop increases efficiency Ultra-supercritical technology could increase net efficiency to 45-50%

Conventional Results: Pollution

Pollutant CO2 Pre-Control (lb/hr) 1,300,000 Post-Control (lb/hr) 1,300,000

PM
SO2 NOx

3,750
8,600 1,840

37.5
960 920

Conventional Results: Costs

Expected capital cost: Expected operating costs:
Fuel: 213 tons / hr = $87.7 million / year O&M: $2.7 / MWh = $11.1 million / year Total: = $100 million / year

$550 million

$1100 / kW for supercritical plant

Data from TXU for current power plants

Expected parameters for new Texas power plants

IGCC Basis
500 MW net, coal-gasification High-pressure, high-temp Texaco gasifier
MDEA sulfur removal system to pure sulfur Includes air separations plant for oxygen gen. Does not include CO2 sequestration (costs)

Data and economics from Tampa Electric IGCC and Wabash River IGCC plants

IGCC Basis (cont.)

Texaco gasifier:
High-pressure
High throughput per reactor volume Reduces compression needed during combustion

High-temperature
Increases ratio of CO and H2 to CO2 and CH4 Higher efficiency at higher temperature Also allows syngas cooler to generate high pressure steam

IGCC Plant Layout

IGCC Results: Efficiency

Gross power generation is 50% efficient
Gasifier efficiency: 82.5%
Based on heat balance, literature was 80-85%

Power train efficiency: 60%

Matches efficiency of natural gas

Net generation is 40% efficient

After including ASU and auxiliary power 20% of generated electricity used within plant

IGCC Results: Pollution

Pollutant CO2 Post Control (lb/hr) 1,300,000

PM
SO2 NOx

20
100 350

IGCC Results: Costs

Expected capital cost: Expected operating costs:
Fuel: 208 tons / hr = $85.6 million / year O&M: 5.2% of cap = $36.3 million / year Total: = $122 million / year

$700 million

$1400 / kW for supercritical plant

Data from DOE for current power plants

Capital cost based on economy of scale and applying past experience

Comparisons
Parameter Conv. Efficiency 38% PM 37.5 lb/hr SOx* 960 lb/hr NOx 920 lb/hr Capital $550 M cost Oper. cost $100 M/yr *Using 1% sulfur coal IGCC 40% 20 lb/hr 100 lb/hr 350 lb/hr $700 M
$122 M/yr

% Change +5% -47% -90% -62% +27%

+22%

Conclusions
IGCC is successful in lowering chemical emissions (particularly SO2),
CO2 sequestration would lower emissions, although it could add capital cost

There is not a significant gain in overall thermodynamic efficiency compared to current coal technologies
Advantages of combined cycle offset by gasification and utilities requirements

Conclusions (cont.)
Capital and operating costs are significantly higher for IGCC power plants
Results from added complexity of process, as well as need for ASU and sulfur treatment units

Unless environmental factors are the driving force, IGCC does not provide an economical or fuel conservative alternative to conventional coal power plants
Environmental credits?