Medium and long term Research and Development for the ... · Medium and long term Research and...

Medium and long term Research and Development for the Power industry

Philippe PaelinckDirector CO2 Business Development

London 15th March 2011

© ALSTOM 2009. All rights reserved. Information contained in this document is provided without liability for information purposes only and is subject to change without notice. No representation or warranty is given or to be implied as to the completeness of information or fitness for any particular purpose. Reproduction, use or disclosure to third parties, without express written authority, is strictly prohibited.

- Wednesday, 16 March 2011 - P 2

Power will bear most of the effort

2050 Reduction from 2007 levelPower - 76 %

Transport - 28 %Industry - 27 %Buildings - 40%TOTAL - 52%

POWER is to contribute by a factor 1,5 X to economy wide targets…

Source: IEA ETP 2010, page 89

POWER should get its fair share of research support


Meeting energy demand

Environmental footprint

Cost Reduction

• Nuclear: Small + 4th Gen + ITER

• Smart Grid – « cloud powering »

• Flexibility, power storage, transmission

• 1st Gen CCS Demo + 2nd Gen pilots

• Offshore Wind, Solar, Marine, GeoTh

• Water for Power - usage/production

• Biomass

• 700 °C Steam – materials

• Turbine blades – materials

• FGR, plant integration - process

Three pillars of power research

Objective: reliable and cost effective decarbonised power portfolio

R&D Priorities to 2050


Flexibility – Storage - Transmission

Problem: short to long term variability of renewable energy production

Generation flexibility• Efficiency / life time penalty• Low capacity factor

Wind curtailment• Low capacity factor• Against green targets

Baseload power

Transmissions• Additional investments• Capacity? Distance?• No shift in time

Energy storage• Additional investments• Storage capacity? Power?

Possible solutions:Wind energy

Wind energy

Wind energy

Demand

Variable power


Case scenarios Examples

• Analysis of different scenarios to investigate the benefits of storage and transmission lines depending on wind correlation factors of the selected countries

DK: Region 1

ES: Region 2

InterconnectionDE: Region 2

InterconnectionUK: Region 1

CASE #1

• High wind and load correlation

• Short transmission lines, low costs

CASE #2

• Low wind and load correlation

• Long transmission lines, high costs


Case scenarios Examples – CASE #1

DK

DE

• High wind and demand correlation• Energy storage is more effective than transmission in

integrating part of the wind energy otherwise curtailed

Time (hrs)

Time (hrs)

Region 2

Region 1

Pow

er (M

W)

Pow

er (M

W)

Net load Energy storage

Transmission

Flex Generation

Curtailments

Net load

Storage Transmission


Case scenarios Examples – CASE #2

UK

ES

• Low wind and demand correlation• Storage and interconnection have similar capability of

integrating part of wind energy otherwise curtailed

Energy storage

Transmission

Flex Generation

Curtailments

Net load

Time (hrs)

Time (hrs)

Region 2

Region 1

Pow

er (M

W)

Pow

er (M

W) Net load

Storage Transmission


Technology Breakthrough and Potential

Conventional (Li-ion,Ni-Cd,Pb)

• Static liquid or solid electrodes / anode materials

70 - 90%

CAES

Super Capacitors

Flow / Advanced(VRB, ZnBr,NaS)Sb/Mg “all liquid”

• Transportation• UPS• Power quality• Load leveling

Energy Storage Technology

Energy Storage Technology

OperatingPrinciple

OperatingPrinciple

System OutputSystem Output

Backup Time

Backup Time

Cycle Efficiency

Cycle Efficiency ApplicationsApplications

• Two electrolytes are separately stored 60 - 80% min-hours

• Off-peak electricity used to compress air

65 -75%

• High surface area electrode materials used to enhance capacitors to higher power/energy

95%

SMES• Stored by circulating

current in coil with no resistive losses

99% μs-seconds

hours

ms-seconds

100kW-

10 MW

100kW-

10 MW

10kW-

3 MW

10MW-

200 MW

< 1 MW

Li-ion: 95%min-hours

Increased recognition of need for storage

Pump Storage• Off-peak electricity

used to pump water to storage lake

100-

2000 MWdays 75 - 80%

Bat

terie

sP

o ten

tial

Mag

net ic

/ Ele

c tr i c

• Load leveling• Renewables storage

• Commodity storage• Peak shaving• Renewables storage

• Power quality

• Power quality

• Commodity storage• Peak shaving• Renewables storage


Maximum dam levelMaximum dam level Maximum dam levelMaximum dam level

Energy transferMinimum levelMinimum levelMinimum levelMinimum level

Upper reservoir

Lower reservoirUndergroundPower Plant

Turbining Mode(Power generation)

Pumping Mode(Power storage)

Ancillary services:- Frequency and Voltage Regulation- Reserve capacity (Spinning or still)- Synchronous condenser modes- Black start capability

Global cycle efficiency ~80 %

Pump storage: an efficient way of storing large quantity of energy



Flexibility – Storage - Transmission

PRIORITY NEEDS:

• UK & Pan-European, regional decarbonised power deployment: SWOT analysis and modelisation

• Decarbonisation: « true cost » assessment by grid/region

• Interconnection deployment plan

• Policy & Incentive for Hydro / PSP (capacity market ?)

• Continued R&D on storage technologies National + EU FP7/8


Total LacqFrance - 30 MWth

Oxy - Gas

Vattenfall Schwarze PumpeGermany - 30 MWth

Oxy - Lignite

Vattenfall JänschwaldeGermany - 250 MWe

Oxy - Lignite

Dow Chemical Co. USA, West Virginia

Advanced Amines - Coal

AEP MountaineerUSA - 58 MWth

Chilled Ammonia - Coal

Coming

TCM MongstadNorway - 40 MWth

Chilled Ammonia - Gas

Operating

TransaltaCanada - >200 MWe


Alstom BSF WindsorUS - 15 MWthOxy - Coals

CET TurceniRomania – >250MWe

Chilled Ammonia - Lignite

Selected for receiving EEPR funding Selected by Alberta and Federal Canadian funding

Selected by US DOE to receive CCPI Round 3 funding

EDF – Le HavreFrance – 5 MWth

Adv. Amines - Coal

PGE BelchatowPoland – 260 MWe

Adv. Amines - Lignite

Pre-commercial Projects

AEP MountaineerUSA – 235MWe


1st and 2nd Generation CCS: Alstom status

RFCS EU - DarmstadGermany – 1 MWth

Chemical looping - Coal

DOE/Alstom WindsorUS – 3 MWth

Chemical looping - Coal

Drax - SelbyUK - 426 MWe

Oxy – Hard Coal

2nd GEN

2nd GEN

http://mariusostrowski.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/eu_flag.jpg




Mountaineer - Validation pilot - USA WV - AEP

• Designed to capture & store 100,000 tCO2/year (flue gas from coal)

• Captured CO2 will be sequestered into two wells on the plant property

• Commenced engineering and permitting Oct07

• First CO2 captured in Sept 09, injection started 1st of October 2009

• Alstom responsible for CAP island, AEP responsible for utilities to/from CAP island and CO2 storage (Battelle as contractor)

• AEP and Alstom working to develop commercial scale project (CSP) to capture 1.5 MTPY at Mountaineer facility

• Plant availability raised to 85/90% since early Jan 2011

• CO2 captured and injected near design values

1st Generation CCS:The Chilled Ammonia Process

Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant


Source: Drax

Main features• New 426MWe gross, oxy-fired

demonstration project • Located at Drax's site at Selby, North

Yorkshire, UK • Application lodged on 9th February, 2011

with the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for EU funding

1st Generation CCS:Large-Scale Oxy-Combustion Process

Existing Drax Power station, Selby



1st Generation CCS:Comparative Cost of decarbonised power

1st Generation CCS is competitive with other low carbon technologies

4,66,4 6,6 7,8 8,2 9,1

16,0 16,3

22,0 22,7

28,231,7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nuclea

r

CCPP CCS FGR 20

15Hyd

ro La

rge

Onshore

Wind

PC Hard

coal

CCS 2015

Hydro

Pump&Storag

eOffs

hore W

ind

Hydro

Mini

Solar C

SP - Tro

ughs + st

orage

Solar -

PV Crys

t - ce

ntraliz

edSola

r PV - T

hin Film

Solar p

V - Cris

t dec

entra

lized

CoE Cents€ per kWh CoE Europe – Low Carbon technologies ordered in 2010 – 2015 period

Source : Alstom analysis. CCS including T&S

Reference case

Source: Alstom, 800 MW ref plant, T&S included


2nd Generation CCS:The Chemical Looping Process (CLC)

A Promissing Breakthrough Technology

Principle• Solid oxygen carrier circulates between Air Reactor and Fuel Reactor: Carrier picks up O2 in the Air

Reactor, leaves N2 behind and burns the fuel in the Fuel Reactor• Typically, Oxygen Carriers can be metal oxide or limestone-based. Alstom is developing both types

Advantages• Avoids large costs and

parasitic power of ASU • Captures CO2 at

temperatures higher than the power cycle temperatures, eliminating thermodynamic penalty associated with CO2 capture

• Uses conventional material of construction and fabrication techniques

• Largely based on Alstom’s proven CFB technology


Dedicated building Darmstadt University

(Germany)

Fuel reactor -Reducer

Air Reactor - Oxidizer

Chemical looping – 1 MWth MeOx Prototype - Coal• Main objectives:

– Design and operation of a Chemical Looping Combustion (CLC) 1 MWth prototype with coal

– Assessment of technical, environmental and economical potential of CLC power plants

• 48 months program:– Design of main components finalized in July 2009– Hot Commissioning started in October 2010– First tests with coal scheduled for 1Q 2011

• Total budget: 6.5 M€ - RFCS Funding : 2.27 M€• Partners: TU Darmstadt, Chalmers, CSIC, SINTEF, Air

Liquide, Vattenfall, Alstom

2nd Generation CCS:ECLAIR – CLC Prototype - Darmstadt

Just

Inaugurated

TECHN SCHEIUN VERS TÄTI IDARMSTADT



1st and 2nd Generation CCS

PRIORITY NEEDS

1. Address Funding and Regulatory gap for planned 1st

Generation 250 MW Demonstrations

2. Increased focus on CCS on Gas

3. CCS Deployment plan and Business model post-2015

4. Adequate funding for EU/MS Lighthouse programme for 5MW+ / 2nd Generation CCS : (chemical looping, membranes, CO2 storage, new solvents, flue gas recirculation,…)

5. Continued Longer term R&D, National + EU FP7/8


Biomass - negative CO2 - biofuels

Example of Alstom activity:• DRAX- UK’s largest coal fired plant – 4GW• 1.5 million tons/year biomass co-firing at 10%

heat input• 400 MWe of green power• 2 million tons/year CO2 reduction• Commissioned July 2010

Potential of the biomass co-firing

• Up to 20 % CO2 avoided

• Retrofitable to existing coal plants

• Flexibility – low incremental cost

• Biomass combusted in highly efficient boilers

Combined with CCS, The Road to negative CO2 plant!


Note: Does not take into account biomass transport and indirect CO2 emissions (agriculture…)Source: Derived from Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences

“Carbon debt”

2’1’

Combining smart land management for biomass supply and CCS lead to carbon negativity

• Burning biomass emits CO2 but CCS reduce the created CO2 debt

• This debt is more rapidly reimbursed by growing biomass

• CO2 neutrality is reached earlier

• “Previous” neutrality point correspond now to carbon negativity

4’

Actual carbon footprint of biomass usage CO2 emission debt with CCS

Illustrative net CO2 emissions from burning biomassCO2 emissions(tonne)

Time (years)

“Carbon dividend” 1’

2’

3’3’

4’


Actual carbon footprint of biomass usage The effect of land-use change

Better use biomass from land already under management to avoid too large carbon debt

• Felling old forest release large amount of CO2 that has been stored for decades/centuries.

• Replacing them with “energy”crops reduce this debt but very slowly

• Net effect varies by biomass type and regions

− Cutting Latin America tropical forest generates a 800tCO2/ha debt while its usage for producing sugar cane for ethanol only generate a carbon dividend of 15tCO2/ha/y, hence a 50y payback needed

• Net effect on already used lands is positive (carbon debt reimbursed in few years)

Illustrative net CO2 emissions from burning biomass

Note: SRC: Short rotation coppiceLA: Latin AmericaSRF: Short Rotation Forestry

Source: European Commission, JRS/CONCAWE/EUCAR, Vattenfall


Algae Biofuel and CO2 MitigationOil Content and Land use claims

• High lipid (or oil) content • High growth rate

Crop Oil Content L/ha/yr Land area, M ha

% of US Crop land*

Corn 172 1540 846Soybean 446 594 326Canola 1190 223 122Jatropha 1892 140 77Coconut 2689 99 54Oil Palm 5950 45 24Microalgae(30% oil ) 58700 4.5 2.5Microalgae(70% oil ) 136900 2.0 1.1* Meeting 50% of US transport fuel needs

Sea water based algae farms deserves further study


Biomass - negative CO2 - biofuels

PRIORITY NEEDS

1. Include Bio-CCS in large-scale demo projects

2. Study biomass end-uses, land-use, footprint and cost

3. Promote biofuel / CO2 from power utilisation pilots

4. Support dedicated biochemistry R&D programmes



Conclusions

• Power has formidable challenges but equally formidable technology potential

• Medium and Long term R&D must be incentivised and increased

• Detailed regional roadmaps must be elaborated for EU deployment

• R&D and policies to promote a diversified energy mix


Today we provide the cleanest air solutions− for new plants− for the installed base

Medium and long term Research and Development for the ... · Medium and long term Research and...

Documents

Transcript of Medium and long term Research and Development for the ... · Medium and long term Research and...