canadian clean power coalition: delivering results for over a decade presented to
DESCRIPTION
Canadian Clean Power Coalition: Delivering Results for Over a Decade Presented to Wood Pellet Association of Canada , 20 November 2013. An association of Canadian and U.S. coal and coal-fired electricity producers, government agencies and research organizations Industry participants include: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Canadian Clean Power Coalition:Delivering Results for Over a Decade
Presented to
Wood Pellet Association of Canada , 20 November 2013
Who Is the CCPC?• An association of Canadian and U.S. coal and coal-fired electricity
producers, government agencies and research organizations
• Industry participants include:– Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions
– Capital Power Corporation
– Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
– Nova Scotia Power Inc.
– Sherritt International Corporation
– SaskPower
– TransAlta Corporation
• Government Sponsors:– Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources
– Natural Resources Canada (CanmetENERGY)
Our Mandate
• The CCPC's mandate is to research technologies with the goal of developing and advancing commercially viable solutions that lower coal power plant emissions
• Our objective is to demonstrate that coal-fired electricity generation can effectively address environmental issues and move us forward to a cleaner energy future
New Coal GHG Regulations• New plants must have GHG emission intensity of .42 t
CO2/MWh compared to about .9 t CO2/MWh for new SCPC plants and 1.1 t CO2/MWh for old plants
• Plants greater than 47 to 50 years of age must meet the same intensity
• Plant by plant basis, no way to benefit from over complying at 90% capture
• No way to buy your way out, therefore no carbon market
• This requires about 60% CO2 capture – cost prohibitive now
• New technologies may bring costs down4
Alberta Plant Decommissioning
5
Will Biomass Be Used• In the short term as long as the carbon tax is $15/t – not
likely• Biomass could be used to life extend plants for a short
period of time without needing to install significant capital
• However, will have to compete with other kinds of CO2 capture technologies to life extend for say 20 years
6
Will Coal Life Extend with Biomass?• Coal plants will only operate for more than 50 years if:
NPVn(Power Rev – Opex – Tax) >
Life Extension Cost (Capex)
+ Cost of Other Emission Control Technology (Capex & Opex)
+ Cost of GHG Reduction Technology (Capex & Opex)
• Same equation for new coal plants except life extension cost becomes construction cost
7
Introduction• FP Innovations studied co-firing at three coal plant at 10,
20 and 70% firing rates• The costs for about a dozen kinds of fuel were estimated• The volume of existing fuels were estimated within 100
and 150 km of the plants• The proportion of farm area around the plants was
determined for plantation crops• Estimated costs for growing, harvesting, transporting,
processing, storing, drying, handling, conveying and combusting
8
Biomass Requirements
• Assumes 16 GJ/ODt high calorific value of biomass• 5% co-firing rate minimum biomass quantity to be
considered in the study
9
Power Plant Biomass Requirements (ODt/year)
Co-firing rate 5% 10% 20% 70%
Wabamun Lake, AB (300 MWe)80,000 150,000 300,000 1,040,000
Shand, SK (276 MWe)80,000 160,000 310,000 1,070,000
Trenton, NS (150 MWe) 40,000 80,000 150,000 520,000
Feedstocks
10
Biomass TypeAvailability/Potential in Study Area
Wabamun, AB Shand, SK Trenton, NSAgricultural Residues
Wheat, oat, and barley straw
Wheat and flax straw Not available
Woody BiomassWhole tree chips
Forest residual chipsNot available Whole tree chips
Wood PelletsIndustrial and premium
pelletsIndustrial and premium
pelletsPremium pellets
Short Rotation Energy Crops (SREC)
Reed Canary GrassMiscanthus
Jerusalem ArtichokeHemp
Willow coppiceHybrid Poplar coppice
Reed Canary GrassAltai Wildrye Grass
Smooth BromegrassIntermediate Wheat
GrassWillow coppice
Hybrid Poplar coppice
Reed Canary GrassMiscanthusSwitchgrass
Willow coppiceHybrid Poplar
coppice
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
MSW pellets or fluff Not available Not available
Technical and Cost Info
11
Power Plant Parameters
Plant Capacity (MW) 300
Capacity factor (%) 90%
Base Heat rate (GJ/MWh) 10.0
GHG Intensity (tCO2/MWh) 1.0
Cost of Coal ($/GJ) 1.0
Power Price ($/MWh) 90
Coal Calorific Value (GJ/tonne) 19
Coal replaced (tonnes/year)
10% Co-firing rate 124,484
20% Co-firing rate 248,968
70% Co-firing rate 871,389
Derate factor (% of biomass capacity)
10% Co-firing rate 0%
20% Co-firing rate 0%
70% Co-firing rate 3%
Biomass Processing Parameters
Capital Cost Pellets ($/kW) 260
Capital Cost Dry Biomass ($/kW) 1,000
Capital Cost Wet Biomass ($/kW) 1,100
Capital Recovery Factor 0.146
Operational Costs (% of Capital cost) 2%
GHG Intensity – Hammer milling (kgCO2/MWh) 15
GHG Intensity – Drying (kgCO2/MWh) 8
Portion of biomass used at drier (%) 18%
Cost of energy – Hammer milling ($/ODt) 2
Cost of energy – Drying ($/ODt) 1
Carbon Credit Revenue ($/tCO2) 15
Biomass Availability & Costs
12
Feedstock Type
Biomass Available (ODt)
Co-firing Rate Supported (%) Point of
Origin Cost
($/ODt)
Transportation costs ($/ODt)
Power plant gate costs
($/ODt)
100 km Radius
150 km Radius
100 km Radius
150 km Radius
100 km Radius
150 km Radius
100 km Radius
150 km Radius
Barley Straw 5,776 6,636 0.4% 0.4% 39 16 19 55 58Wheat Straw 135,331 368,687 10.0% 27.3% 38 16 19 54 57Flax Straw 293 670 0.0% 0.1% 36 16 19 52 55Oat Straw 22,895 39,642 1.8% 3.2% 50 16 19 66 69Whole Tree Chips Woodlots 216,526 686,291 18.1% 57.5% 64-70 23 29 87 99Whole Tree Chips unused AAC 110,542 887,206 9.3% 74.3% 25 23 29 87 99Forest residuals FMU 76,655 751,821 6.4% 62.9% 25 31 40 56 65Forest residuals over AAC 6,591 60,415 0.6% 5.1% 25 31 40 56 65Wood Pellets BC 1,810,000 >100% 125 25-30 150-155Wood Pellets AB 140,000 10.0% 110-125 15-30 125-145MSW RDF with Edmonton 800,000 61%
NA 44-62MSW RDF without Enerkem 700,000 49%MSW RDF w/out Edmonton 194,000 13%Miscanthus
See area requirement table
64 16 19 80 84Reed Canary Grass 114 16 19 130 134Jerusalem artichoke 53 16 19 69 72Hemp 51 16 19 67 71Willow coppice 65 20 25 85 90Poplar coppice 65 20 25 85 90
Plantation Area Required
13
SHORT ROTATION
ENERGY CROP (SREC)
Area (ha) required for each energy crop to sustain the co-
firing rates (%)
Percent (%) of area required to sustain the co-firing rates ( CR %)
100 km Radius 150 km Radius
CR 10% CR 20% CR 70% CR 10% CR 20% CR 70% CR 10% CR 20%CR
70%
Miscanthus 11,762 23,525 82,337 2.0% 4.0% 14.1% 0.6% 1.2% 4.0%Reed Canary Grass
29,381 58,763 205,670 5.0% 10.1% 35.3% 1.4% 2.9% 10.1%
Jerusalem artichoke
8,299 16,598 58,093 1.4% 2.8% 10.0% 0.4% 0.8% 2.8%
Hemp 12,854 25,709 89,980 2.2% 4.4% 15.4% 0.6% 1.3% 4.4%Willow coppice 12,854 25,709 89,980 2.2% 4.4% 15.4% 0.6% 1.3% 4.4%Poplar coppice 12,204 24,409 85,430 2.1% 4.2% 14.6% 0.6% 1.2% 4.2%
Biomass Cost ($ODT) - 70%
14
Avoided Cost – 10/20%
15
NOTE: if the LCA value of 2.98 tCO2e/tonne of MSW pellets was utilized, the Avoided CO2 cost low value would have decreased from $18.0/tCO2 to $12.6/tCO2,
Avoided Cost – 70%
16
Increase in Power Cost – 10%
17
NOTE: if the LCA value of 2.98 tCO2e/tonne of MSW pellets was utilized, the Increase in power cost low value would have decreased from $0.2/MWh to -$0.4/MWh (a decrease in power cost)
Increase in Power Cost – 20%
18
Increase in Power cost – 70%
19
Increase in Power Cost for Biomass and Nat Gas Co-Firing
20
(5)
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Incr
ease
in P
ower
Cos
t ($/
MW
h)
% Biomass Firing
Increase in Power Cost
$8/GJ
$6/GJ
$4/GJ
$2/GJ
$1/GJ
Biomass
Gas = $4/GJ
Avoided Cost – Biomass/ Nat Gas
21
(10)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Avoi
ded
Cost
($/t
)
% Biomass Firing
Avoided Cost
$8/GJ
$6/GJ
$4/GJ
$2/GJ
$1/GJ
Biomass
Gas = $4/GJ
Co-firing Conclusions• Co-firing CO2 avoided costs may range from $20 to $100/t
• Won’t be adopted at $15/t carbon tax• This may be lower than carbon capture costs• Plants with short economic lives may benefits from co-firing
rather than carbon capture• Co-firing will increase marginal costs – Dispatch issues• It may not be possible to co-fire enough biomass to meet
new GHG requirements - Reduces amount of capture• Co-firing can reduce sulphur emissions• Largest cost is for biomass feedstock – need to refine costs