challenges? - thinkingpower.careference case with 5 additional years to 2030) coal ... • china...

Coal In the U.S.

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Office of Fossil Energy

Coal In the U.S.


Office of Fossil Energy

The Future of Coal in Ontario Conference

Kenneth E. Markel, Jr. Director of the Office of Major

Demonstrations 51007

2

Coal Use In The U.S.

• Why Coal?

• Challenges?

• Response?

• What is NETL?

2007 Overview, Brazil 42507

Coal Use In The U.S.

3

United States

World

Energy Demand Today

U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, years 2006 and 2030; world data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006, years 20

475 QBtu / Year 80% Fossil Energy

Fossil Energy Will Continue to Dominate


United States

World


United States

World

Coal 26% Coal 26%

Nuclear 5%

Nuclear 5%

Renewables 14%

Renewables 14%

Oil 33% Oil 33%

Gas 23% Gas 23%

U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2007, years 2006 and 2030; world data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2006, years 2004 and 2030


Oil 40% Oil 40%

Coal 26% Coal 26%

Gas 21% Gas 21% Nuclear

7% Nuclear 7%

Renewables 7%

Renewables 7%

Energy Demand 2030

Fossil Energy Will Continue to Dominate

131 QBtu / Y ear 86% Fossil Energy

United States

World

4

Coal use linked to economic growth

U.S. Coal Utilization Outlook

Coal 57.4%

Natural Gas 16.1% Nuclear 15.5% Renewables 9.0% Oil 1.8%

U.S. Electricity Generation

80

120

160

200

240

1970

Index: 1973 = 100

0

1

2

3

1970 1990 2010 2030 Year

Billion kW

h

49.6%


Upper figure: DOE EIA, AEO 2006, Figure 5 Lower figure: Energy & Electricity per DOE EIA, AER 2004

GDP per U.S. DOC, Bureau of Economic Analysis

Coal dominates electricity generation


Coal 57.4%

Natural Gas 16.1% Nuclear 15.5% Renewables 9.0% Oil 1.8%

Coalfired Generation

80

120

160

200

240

1970 1980 1990 2000 Year

Total Electricity Generation Total Energy Consumption

GDP CoalBased Electricity Generation

5

Coal use linked to economic growth


Coal

Natural gas Nuclear Renewables Oil

U.S. Electricity Generation

80

120

160

200

240

1970

Index: 1973 = 100

0

1

2

3

1970 1990 2010 2030 Year

Billion kW

h

Print 2007 Overview, Brazil 42507

Upper figure: DOE EIA, AEO 2006, Figure 5 Lower figure: Energy & Electricity per DOE EIA, AER 2004

GDP per U.S. DOC, Bureau of Economic Analysis

Coal dominates electricity generation


Coal

Natural gas Nuclear Renewables

Coalfired Generation

80

120

160

200

240

1970 1980 1990 2000 Year

Total Electricity Generation Total Energy Consumption

GDP CoalBased Electricity Generation

6

Energy = Quality of Life Poverty Reduces Global Security

Poverty

Eritrea

Congo

Peru

Mexico

UK

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

100 1,000

GDP pe

r Cap

ita

($ / pe

rson

/ yr)

Annual Energy Consumption per Capita (kgoe* / person / yr)


Energy = Quality of Life Poverty Reduces Global Security

World Resources Institute Database, accessed June 1, 2005 http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/

*kilograms of oil equivalent

Affluence

Bulgaria

South Africa

Bahrain

U.S.

Qatar

10,000 100,000

Annual Energy Consumption per Capita / person / yr)

7

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 0

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

174 Added GW Double the 87 GW in AEO’05 (Reference case with 5 additional years to 2030)

Coal Adds 154 GW New Capacity Plus 19 GW of CTL

MW Add

ition

s

1973 additions greater than total for last 16 years


2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Double the 87 GW in AEO’05 (Reference case with 5 additional years to 2030)

EIA, Annual Energy Review 2004, Annual Energy Outlook 2006

Coal Adds 154 GW New Capacity Plus 19 GW of CTL

AEO’06

1973 additions greater than total for last 16 years

8 2007 Overview, Brazil 42507 “Tracking New Power Plants. Coal’s Resurgence in Electric Power Generation” NETL, January 24, 2007, www.netl.doe.gov

9

U.S. Fossil Fuel Reserves / Production Ratio

EIA, Advance Summary U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves, 2003 Annual Report, September 22, 2004

250 Year Supply at Current Demand Levels !

258

11.7

0

100

200

300

Anthracite & Bituminous

Sub Bituminous

& Lignite


U.S. Fossil Fuel Reserves / Production Ratio

Sources: BP Statistical Review, June 2004, for coal reserves data World Energy Council; EIA, Advance Summary U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves, 2003 Annual Report, September 22, 2004 for oil and gas reserves data

250 Year Supply at Current Demand Levels !

11.7 9.7

Coal

Oil

Natural Gas

10

DOE Strategic Plan

1.1 Energy Diversity – Increase our energy options and reduce dependence on oil, thereby reducing vulnerability to disruption and increasing the flexibility of the market to meet U.S. needs.

1.2 Environmental Impacts of Energy Improve the quality of the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts to land, water, and air from energy production and use.

1.3 Energy Infrastructure – Create a more flexible, more reliable, and higher capacity U.S. energy infrastructure

1.4 Energy Productivity – Costeffectively improve the energy efficiency of the U.S. economy.


DOE Strategic Plan

Increase our energy options and reduce dependence on oil, thereby reducing vulnerability to disruption and increasing the flexibility of the market

Environmental Impacts of Energy Improve the quality of the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts to land, water, and air from energy production and use.

Create a more flexible, more reliable, and higher capacity

effectively improve the energy efficiency of the U.S.

11

Recent Activities

• 2007 U.S.EU Summit Statement − Key Priorities: 1. Advanced commercial deployment of clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies including. . . advanced, clean, and near zero emissions coal technologies are critical in tackling global C02 emissions, importance in meeting current and future energy needs for developed and developing countries;

• U.S. Japan Joint Statement on Energy Security, Clean Development, and Climate Change − We are accelerating the development and deployment of these technologies by providing policy incentives to reduce the cost barriers to their full commercialization. We especially note the importance of advancing: energy efficiency and renewable energy, alternative and renewable fuels, hydrogen, emissions coal, nuclear energy, and fusion energy.


Recent Activities

EU Summit Statement April 30, 2007 Key Priorities: 1. Advanced commercial deployment of clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies including. . . advanced, clean, and near zero emissions coal technologies are critical in tackling global C02 emissions, given coal’s importance in meeting current and future energy needs for developed and developing countries;

Japan Joint Statement on Energy Security, Clean Development, and Climate Change – April 27, 2007

We are accelerating the development and deployment of these technologies by providing policy incentives to reduce the cost barriers to their full commercialization. We especially note the importance of advancing: energy efficiency and renewable energy, alternative and renewable fuels, hydrogen, nearzero

, nuclear energy, and fusion energy.

12

Difficult to Postulate Affordable, Secure Alternatives to Coal Nuclear

Cost, Permitting, Waste Disposal?

Biomass Cost, Gigantic, Infrastructure?


Difficult to Postulate Affordable, Secure Alternatives to Coal

Waste Disposal?

Infrastructure?

Wind / Solar Cost,

Land use, Intermittency?

Hydro / Geothermal

Availability of sites?

13

R&D Challenges for Coal Technology

• “Nearzero” emissions

• CO 2 management

• High efficiency

• Water use

• Byproduct utilization

• Flexible (feedstocks, products, siting)

• Cost competitive with other energy choices


R&D Challenges for Coal Technology

zero” emissions

management

product utilization

Flexible (feedstocks, products, siting)

Cost competitive with other energy

14

Index: 1970 = 1

Year

Coal Getting Cleaner While Demand Increases !

0

1

2

3

4

1970 1980 1990


Particulate Matter

Coal Use Electricity Generation

NO x SO 2

Year EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999 (March 2001) DOE, EIA Annual Energy Review

Projections for NO x and SO 2 : Clear Skies Initiative

Coal Getting Cleaner While Demand Increases !

2000 2010 2020

15

DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy Advanced (Coal) Power Systems Goals

• 2010: −4550% Efficiency (HHV) −99% SO 2 removal −NOx< 0.01 lb/MM Btu −90% Hg removal −$1,000/kW (2002 $)

• 2012: −90% CO 2 capture −<10% increase in COE with carbon sequestration

• 2015 −Multiproduct capability (e.g, power + H −60% efficiency (measured without carbon capture)


DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy Advanced (Coal) Power Systems Goals

50% Efficiency (HHV)

<10% increase in COE with

product capability (e.g, power + H 2 ) 60% efficiency (measured without carbon capture)

16

Strategic Center for Coal

• Clean Coal Power Initiative

Demonstration Program

• Integrated sequestration, hydrogen, and power research facility

FutureGen


All Programs Support Presidential Initiatives:

• Clear Skies • Climate Change • Energy Security


Integrated sequestration, Core R&D Program

17

Clean Coal Technology Program 19851993

Power Plant Improvement Initiative

Clean Coal Power Initiative

DOE’s Coal Demonstration Programs Implemented Through Competition

Industry / Government Partnership

Existing Power Plant Fleet

CCT

PPII


Clean Coal Technology 1993

Power Plant Improvement 2001

Clean Coal Power Initiative 20022012

DOE’s Coal Demonstration Programs Implemented Through Competition

Min 50% NonFed

Cost Share

Fleet of Tomorrow

PPII

CCPI

Repayment

18

• Five competitive solicitations, 1985 • All 33 projects completed • $1.3B DOE and $1.9B industry cost share

Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program


Power generation Environmental control Coal processing Industrial applications

Five competitive solicitations, 1985 1993 All 33 projects completed $1.3B DOE and $1.9B industry cost share

Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program

19

Advanced Pollution Controls • Installed on 75% of U.S. coal plants • 1/2 to 1/10 cost of older systems

CCT Program Success Stories

JEA CFBC

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) & Mercury Data •Quantified HAPS Levels •Basis for Mercury Regulations

$

time

Advanced Coal Power Systems • World’s largest combustion (CFBC)

• Two “super


LowNO x Burners

CCT Program Success Stories

Tampa IGCC

Wabash IGCC

FGD Scrubbers

Advanced Coal Power Systems World’s largest circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) power plant Two “superclean” coalbased IGCC

20

IGCC Technology in Early Commercialization U.S. CoalFueled Plants

• Wabash River − 1996 Powerplant of Year Award* − Achieved 95% availability

• Tampa Electric − 1997 Powerplant of Year Award* − First dispatch power generator

Nation’s first commercialscale IGCC plants, each achieving

> 95% sulfur removal > 90% NO X reduction


IGCC Technology in Early Commercialization Fueled Plants

1996 Powerplant of Year Award*

Powerplant of Year Award*

*Power Magazine

http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification/pubs/images/04540211.jpg

21

Clean Coal Power Initiative • 10 yr • 4 rounds of solicitations • Drivers

− Overall • Clear Skies Initiative • Reduced carbon intensity • Zero emissions technology target • Energy/economic security

− Round 1 (Broad) • Advanced coalbased power generation • Efficiency, environmental & economic improvements

− Round 2 (Prioritized) • Gasification • Hg control


Clean Coal Power Initiative

Zero emissions technology target

based power generation Efficiency, environmental & economic improvements

22

Demonstration Projects Locations and Cost Share

Southern Co. Services IGCC Southern Co. Services IGCC

Excelsior Energy IGCC $2,155M – Total $36M – DOE

Excelsior Energy IGCC $2,155M – Total $36M – DOE

Pegasus Technologies Adv. Sensor / Optimization

Hg / Multipollutant $15.5M – Total $6.1M – DOE

Pegasus Technologies Adv. Sensor / Optimization

Hg / Multipollutant $15.5M – Total $6.1M – DOE

NeuCo, Inc. Integrated Optimization Software

$19M – Total $8.5M – DOE

NeuCo, Inc. Integrated Optimization Software


Great River Energy Lignite Fuel Enhancement

$31.5M – Total $13.5M – DOE

Great River Energy Lignite Fuel Enhancement

$31.5M – Total $13.5M – DOE

Western Greenbrier Clean Coal CoProduction

$215M – Total $107.5M – DOE

Western Greenbrier Clean Coal CoProduction

$215M – Total $107.5M – DOE

CUB

FBC

FGC

Fuel

Gasification

Optimization

Awarded

In Negotiation


Demonstration Projects Locations and Cost Share

Southern Co. Services IGCCTransport Gasifier

$844M – Total $294M – DOE

Southern Co. Services IGCCTransport Gasifier


WMPI PTY., LLC Coalto Clean Fuels and Power


WMPI PTY., LLC Coalto Clean Fuels and Power


Western Greenbrier Production Total DOE

Western Greenbrier Production Total DOE

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. TOXECON MultiPollutant Control


Wisconsin Electric Power Co. TOXECON MultiPollutant Control


CONSOL/Greenidge MultiPollutant Control

$33.1M – Total $14.5M – DOE

CONSOL/Greenidge MultiPollutant Control

$33.1M – Total $14.5M – DOE

Total Part. Gov. $3,978M $3,372M $605M

100% 84% 16%

23

Tentative Priority Technologies Future CCPI Rounds

• Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle − Improved efficiency/lower capital cost − CO2 capture friendly

• CO2 Capture and Storage

• Emission control −Mercury −NO X

Round 2 Round 3 Round 4

$250M 2007 Overview, Brazil 42507

Tentative Priority Technologies Future CCPI Rounds

Technologies For Zero Carbon Emission Plants

Integrated Gasification Combined

Improved efficiency/lower capital cost

Technologies for Clear Skies

Compliance

Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Program Goals

24

One billion dollar, 10 world’s first coalbased, zero

electricity and hydrogen plant President Bush, February 27, 2003

• Broad U.S. participation − DOE contemplates implementation by consortium

• International collaboration

FutureGen: A Global Partnership Effort


One billion dollar, 10year project to create based, zeroemission

electricity and hydrogen plant President Bush, February 27, 2003

International collaboration

FutureGen: A Global Partnership Effort

25

CoalFired IGCC

Refinery

CO 2 Pipeline

Oil Pipeline

Hydrogen Pipeline

Enhanced O il Recovery

CoalFired IGCC

Refinery

CO 2 Pipeline

Oil Pipeline

Hydrogen Pipeline

Enhanced O il Recovery Geological Sequestration

CO

Refinery

FutureGen

•H 2 10lb/sec •Electricity 275 MW


Fired IGCC

Pipeline

Electricity

Hydrogen Pipeline

Geologic Sequestration

and / or

Fired IGCC

Pipeline

Electricity

Hydrogen Pipeline

Geologic Sequestration

and / or

Geological Sequestration

CO 2

FutureGen Concept

•Virtually no air pollutants •Capture & store CO2 10 6 tons/yr •Fullscale Integrated operations

26

FutureGen FutureGen Uses Cutting

• Can accommodate technology innovations with minimal modifications −Emerging from national or international R&D pipelines −Slipstream or fullscale tests −Over life of project

• Some emerging new technologies −Membranebased O 2 and H 2

−Highefficiency hydrogen turbines −Highthroughput gasifiers −Monitoring systems −Fuelcells FutureGen FutureGen

showcase of very best technology options for coal with near


Uses CuttingEdge Technologies

Can accommodate technology innovations with

Emerging from national or international R&D pipelines

Some emerging new technologies 2 separation

efficiency hydrogen turbines

FutureGen FutureGen will be a global showcase of very best technology options for coalbased systems with nearzero carbon emissions

27

FutureGen FutureGen Industrial Alliance, Inc. Signed Cooperative Agreement with DOE on Dec. 2, 2005

• American Electric Power • AngloAmerican • BHP Billiton • China Huaneng Group • CONSOL Energy • E.ON U.S.


Industrial Alliance, Inc. Signed Cooperative Agreement with DOE on Dec. 2, 2005

• Foundation Coal • Peabody Energy • PPL • Rio Tinto Energy America • Southern Company • Xstrata Coal

http://www.aep.com/default.asp

http://www.consolenergy.com/default.asp

http://www.peabodyenergy.com/index.html

28

FutureGen FutureGen Project Schedule

BP 0 BP 3 BP 2 BP 1

Dec. 2, 2005

Jan 31, 2007

January 2008

March 2009

November 2012

Siting, NEPA, and Permitting

Project Structuring

& Conceptual Design

Phase 2 Cooperative Agreement Negotiations

Preliminary Design

Final Design

Facilities Construction

Plant StartUp

& Shakedown

Limited Cooperative Agreement Awarded

Full Scope Cooperative Agreement Awarded

NEPA ROD September October 2007

Final Site Selection Long Lead Time Orders Sept.October 2007


Project Schedule

BP 4 BP 5

November 2012 November 2015

November 2017

Up

Shakedown

Initial Full Scale Plant Operations Full Scale Plant Operation Continues

Site Monitoring

29

FutureGen Project Supporting FutureGen is a Major Goal of the R&D Programs

• Industryled project with government oversight & international participation − Signed Cooperative Agreement with DOE on Dec. 2, 2005

− Project structuring to Jan. 2007 − Design to July 2009 − Construction to July 2012 − Operations to July 2016 − Site monitoring to July 2018

• Industry will choose project site & backbone technologies − Downselected to four potential sites


FutureGen Project Supporting FutureGen is a Major Goal of the R&D Programs

Tuscola

Mattoon

Illinois

Odessa Brazos

Texas

led project with government oversight & international participation

Signed Cooperative Agreement

Project structuring to Jan. 2007

Industry will choose project site & backbone

selected to four potential sites

http://www.aep.com/default.asp

http://www.consolenergy.com/default.asp

http://www.peabodyenergy.com/index.html

30

Core R&D Program

• Carbon Sequestration • Innovations for Existing Plants • Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

• Hydrogen & Syngas • Fuel Cells • Advanced Research • Advanced Turbines


Core R&D Program

Innovations for Existing Plants Advanced Integrated Gasification

31

Carbon Storage – Storage mechanisms vary by target class; generally multiple

processes which improve over time Physical trapping • • Impermeable cap rock Impermeable cap rock • • Either geometric or Either geometric or hydrodynamic stability hydrodynamic stability

Residual phase trapping Residual phase trapping • • Capillary forces Capillary forces immobilized fluids immobilized fluids • • Sensitive to pore geometry Sensitive to pore geometry (<25% pore vol.) (<25% pore vol.)

Solution/Mineral Trapping Solution/Mineral Trapping • • Slow kinetics Slow kinetics • • High permanence High permanence

Gas adsorption Gas adsorption • • For organic minerals only For organic minerals only

(coals, oil shales) (coals, oil shales) 2007 Overview, Brazil 42507

– How does it work? Storage mechanisms vary by target class; generally multiple

processes which improve over time

For organic minerals only For organic minerals only

1.0 MgCO 3

0.2 NaAlCO 3 (OH) 2

Source: S Benson, LBNL

32

DOE’s Carbon Sequestration Program

CORE R&D

Technology

Needs

Technology

Solutions

Sequestration Partnerships CO2 Capture

Lessons Learned

Carbon Storage

Monitoring, Mitigation, and Verification

NonCO2 Greenhouse Gas Control

Breakthrough Concepts


DOE’s Carbon Sequestration Program

Validation

Characterization

DEMONSTRATION AND DEPLOYMENT

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

Other Commercial Opportunities

• LargeScale Projects • International Showcase

Deployment

FutureGen

• Carbon Sequestration

• Power Generation plus Hydrogen Production

33

Benefits of the RCSP Initiative

• Better understanding of regional opportunities − Match sources and sinks − Define scenarios for implementation

• Test and refine geologic models

• Measure fate of CO 2 and compare technologies

• Best management practices to address site selection, well design, operations, monitoring, and closeout

• Engagement of regional stakeholders − Implement public outreach and education


Benefits of the RCSP Initiative

Better understanding of regional opportunities

Define scenarios for implementation

Test and refine geologic models

and compare technologies

Best management practices to address site selection, well design, operations, monitoring,

Engagement of regional stakeholders Implement public outreach and education

33

34

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

Characterization Phase − 24 months (20032005) − $16M DOE funds

Validation Phase − 4 years (2005 2009) − 7 Partnerships (41 states) − 25 Geologic field validation tests

− $112M DOE funds

Deployment Phase − 10 years (20082017)

• FY07 Initiated

− Several large injection tests in different geology


Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Representing:

• >340 Organizations • 41 States • 4 Canadian Provinces • 3 Indian Nations • 34% cost share

35

Validation Phase Field Tests • 25 Geologic Sequestration Injection Tests − 10 Saline Formation Tests − 9 EOR Tests − 5 ECBM Tests − 1 EGR Test

• 11 Terrestrial Sequestration Tests − Croplands − Rangelands − Wetlands − Forestlands

Injecting between 750


Validation Phase Field Tests

Injecting between 750 – 525,000 tons of CO 2

Validating Storage Options Throughout the U.S.

36

Deployment Phase Scaling Up Towards Commercialization

• FY 20082017 (10 years)

• Several Large Volume Sequestration tests in North America

• Injection rates up to 1,000,000 tons per year for several years

• Scale up is required to provide insight into several operational and technical issues in different formations


Deployment Phase Scaling Up Towards Commercialization

Sequestration tests in North

1,000,000 tons per year for

provide insight into several operational and technical issues in different formations

Years 13

Site selection and characterization; Permitting and NEPA compliance; Well completion and testing; Infrastructure development Years 47

CO 2 procurement and transportation; Injection operations;

Monitoring activities

Years 810

Site closure; Post injection monitoring; Project assessment

Phase III Timeline

37

Baseline Drilling

Summary of RCSP Phase II Field Activities

Partnership Geologic Field Test

Big Sky MSU Basalt and Mafic Rock Field Validation Test

MRCSP Battelle

Appalachian Basin Geologic Test

Cincinnati Arch Geologic Test

Michigan Basin Geologic Test

MGSC ISGS

Saline Formation Tests

Enhanced Oil Recovery Tests (Huff 'n Puff)

Enhanced Coalbed Methane Tests

PCOR EERC

Lignite in North Dakota Field Validation Test

Zama Field Validation Test

Beaver Lodge EOR Field Test

SECARB SSEB

Gulf Coast Stacked Storage Project

Black Warrior Basin Coal Test

Central Appalachian Basin Coal Test

Saline Reservoir Field Test: Mississippi Test Site

SWPCS UNMIMT

Paradox Basin, Utah: Aneth EOR/ Deep Saline Tests

Permian Basin, Texas: SACROCClaytonville EOR

San Juan Basin, New Mexico: ECBM Test

WESTCARB CEC

Rosetta Resources Stacked Gas/Saline Project

Northern Arizona Saline Formation CO2 Pilot


rilling Injection MMV

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009

Q 1

Q 2

Q 3

Q 4

Q 1

Q 2

Q 3

Q 4

Q 1

Q 2

Q 3

Q 4

Q 1

Q 2

Q 3

Q 4

Paradox Basin, Utah: Aneth EOR/ Deep Saline Tests

38

Technical Working Groups • Geologic and Infrastructure • Capture and Transportation • GIS and Database • Public Outreach • Regulatory Working Group • Economics and Markets • MMV Working Group


Technical Working Groups • Benefits

− Developing standards for capacity − Sharing information on project implementation

− Developing common messages

39

National Carbon Sequestration Database

• Integrate data across Partnerships

• National perspective of sequestration potential − Identifies CO 2 sources − Identifies sequestration opportunities − Incorporates data from 15 servers

• Outreach tool − Website gets 400+ unique visitors / month

www.natcarb.org 2007 Overview, Brazil 42507

National Carbon Sequestration Database

Integrate data across Partnerships

Identifies sequestration opportunities Incorporates data from 15 servers

site gets 400+ unique visitors / month

www.natcarb.org

40

National Atlas Highlights CO 2 Sources Documented in NatCarb

CO 2 Emission (Million Tons)

Number of Facilities

CO 2 Sources 3,809 4365

U.S. ~ 6 GT CO 2 /yr all sources 2007 Overview, Brazil 42507

National Atlas Highlights

North American CO 2 Storage Potential (Giga Tonnes)

Sink Type Low High

Saline 969 3,223

Unmineable Coal Seams 70 97

Oil and Gas Fields 82 83

41

Federal Support Advanced Coal Technology

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

FY08* FY07 FY06 FY05 *Proposed

RD&D Budget


Federal Support Advanced Coal Technology

FY04

Tax Credits •$1.65 B Total

•$1.3 B Power •$350 M Syn Gas

•$1.0 B Allocated • 15% / 20%

Loan Guarentee

• Up to 80%

• 30 Years

42

National Energy Technology Laboratory Mission

Implement research, development, and demonstration programs to resolve the

environmental, supply, and reliability constraints of producing and using fossil resources


National Energy Technology Laboratory Mission

Implement research, development, and demonstration programs to resolve the

environmental, supply, and reliability constraints of producing and using fossil resources

43

NETL Mission Areas


Strategic Center for Natural Gas

and Oil


NETL Mission Areas

Strategic Center for Natural Gas

and Oil

Project Management

Center

44


Albany, OR 0 100 200

Other

B.S

M.S.

Ph.D.

Fairbanks, AK

1,200 employees ½ Federal ½ Contractor

Fundamental Science >>> Commercial Demos

Scientists Engineers Technical

Administrative Professional

Other 0



Pittsburgh, PA

Morgantown, WV

Tulsa, OK

300 400

DOE’s Fossil Energy National Laboratory

0 50 100 150 200 250

45

1918 Petroleum Research Begins In

Bartlesville, OK

1910 Coal

Research Center Opens in

Pittsburgh, PA 1948

Pittsburgh Facility

Grows with Synthetic

Fuel Interest

1946 Synthesis

Gas Research Begins in

Morgantown, WV 1975

Centers Begin Managing Contracted Research

1954 Station Opens at Current

Morgantown Site

Department Names Energy Technology

NETL History



1996 Birth of the Federal Energy

Technology Center (FETC)

1977 New

Department Names Energy Technology Centers

1999 FETC

Becomes National

Laboratory

1998 Bartlesville Facility Closes

2001 Arctic Energy Office Opens

2000 NPTO Joins

NETL

NETL History

2006 Materials Research Albany

Research Center

46

1918 Petroleum Research Begins In

Bartlesville, OK

1910 Coal

Research Center Opens in

Pittsburgh, PA 1948

Pittsburgh Facility

Grows with Synthetic

Fuel Interest

1946 Synthesis

Gas Research Begins in

Morgantown, WV 1975


1954 Station Opens at Current

Morgantown Site

Department Names Energy Technology

NETL History

Print 2007 Overview, Brazil 42507


1996 Birth of the Federal Energy

Technology Center (FETC)

1977 New

Department Names Energy Technology Centers

1999 FETC

Becomes National

Laboratory

1998 Bartlesville Facility Closes

2001 Arctic Energy Office Opens

2000 NPTO Joins

NETL

NETL History

2006 Materials Research Albany

Research Center

47

Accomplishing NETL Mission

• Extramural RD&D >1,800+ activities 45 states 40 countries

>$9 billion total $5 billion cost share

>Geological & Environmental Science

>Energy System Dynamics >Material Science >Computational & Basic Science

Research and Policy Guidance

> Systems analysis > Life cycle analysis > Benefits quantification

> Forecasts and trend analysis > Technology implications

> Assessment of natural resource requirements



•Onsite research Geological & Environmental Science Energy System Dynamics Material Science Computational & Basic Science


Forecasts and trend analysis Technologyregulatory implications Assessment of natural resource requirements

48


• Extramural RD&D




•Onsite research


49


• Extramural RD&D >1,800+ activities 45 states 40 countries

>$9 billion total $5 billion cost share

>Geological & Environmental Science

>Energy System Dynamics >Material Science >Computational & Basic Science


> Systems analysis > Life cycle analysis > Benefits quantification

> Forecasts and trend analysis > Technology implications

> Assessment of natural resource requirements



•Onsite research Geological & Environmental Science Energy System Dynamics Material Science Computational & Basic Science

Research and Policy Guidance Forecasts and trend analysis Technologyregulatory implications Assessment of natural resource requirements

50 2007 Overview, Brazil 42507

51

Advanced Energy Technologies Can Resolve the Environmental, Supply, and Reliability

Constraints of Producing and Using Fossil Fuels


Advanced Energy Technologies Can Resolve the Environmental, Supply, and Reliability

Constraints of Producing and Using Fossil Fuels

52

Visit Our Websites

Fossil Energy website: www.fe.doe.gov


NETL website: www.netl.doe.gov

Visit Our Websites

challenges? - thinkingpower.careference case with 5 additional years to 2030) coal ... • china...

Documents