Você está na página 1de 36

SUPPLIES OF COAL

UNITED STATES
- 3 TRILLION TONS (50% IN WYOMING,
MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA)
WESTERN COAL
- 60% LOW SULFUR (0.7%S)
- AT STRIP MINING DEPTH
- >1000 MILES FROM DEMAND CENTERS
- $5- $15/TON

U.S. COAL RESERVES


RECOVERABLE
- 10% U.S.G.S
- 50% DOE
UNRECOVERABLE
- TECHNOLOGICALLY
- ECONOMICALLY
- (EXTRACTION, RECLAMATION COSTS)

AVAILABLE COAL ENERGY


3 TRILLION TONS X 50% RECOVERABLE X 2000 LB/TON
X 10,000 BTU/LB = 3 X 1019 BTU
- 1980 U.S. CONSUMPTION = 80X1015 BTU (TOTAL)
- 375 YEAR SUPPLY
AT PRESENT COAL CONSUMPTION RATES (20 X 1015
BTU/YEAR)
- 1500 YEAR SUPPLY

COAL RANK
1. ANTHRACITE

-14,000 BTU/LB

2. BITUMINOUS

-12,000 BTU/LB

3. SUB-BITUMINOUS

-9,000 BTU/LB

4. LIGNITE (30% WATER) - 7,000 BTU/LB

TABLE 4
Representative Composition of Western Lignite
(As Received)
Proximate Analysis
Fixed carbon 27.2%
Ash
11.7%
Water
25.4%
Volatiles
34.5%
Sulfur
1.2%
Heating value 7500 Btu/lb

Ultimate analysis
Carbon
44.9 %
Hydrogen 3.4%
Oxygen
13.2%
Nitrogen
0.2%
Sulfur
1.2%
Ash
11.7%
Water
25.4%

FINANCIAL DILEMMA
SYNTHETIC FUEL COST (2008)
- $7.50-15.00/MM BTU
INVESTMENT
- 75 X 1012 BTU/YEAR PLANT, 25 YEAR LIFE
- $4-6 BILLION
? COST OF OTHER ENERGY SOURCES ?? (O.P.E.C)
- NEED A FLOOR ON THE PRICE OF ENERGY
OVER A LONG TIME FRAME

EXTRACTION
TRANSPORTATION
PREPARATION
CONVERSION

- GASIFICATION
- LIQUEFACTION
- COMBUSTION

POLLUTION CONTROL

- PARTICULATES
- SO2
- H2S
- NOX

EXTRACTION
1. STRIP MINING

0-200 feet

2. SHAFT MINING

200-5000 feet

3. IN SITU GASIFICATION
(2)USED AS EARLY AS 1819 IN TEXAS
(1) USED SINCE 1954 (ROCKDALE)
STRIP MINING

- CONTOUR STRIPPING
- AREA STRIPPING

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
1. STRIP MINING OF TEXAS LIGNITE
AREA STRIPPING
OVERBURDEN NOT HIGH SULFUR
RECLAMATION COST CT= 0.055 CA/T
(SUFFICIENT RAINFALL) NEGLIGIBLE IN MOST
CASES
CT, COST PER TON IN CENTS
T, COAL SEAM THICKNESS IN FEET
CA, RECLAMATION COST IN DOLLAR PER ACRE ($200
IN TEXAS)

COAL PIPELINES
COAL (200 MESH)/ WATER SLURRY
LARGE INVESTMENT COST
CURRENT OPERATION BLACK MESA, ARIZONA
(1750 MW) 270 MILES
PLANNED OPERATION HINDERED BY EMINENT
DOMAIN, WATER SUPPLY PROBLEMS
NOT FEASIBLE FOR LIGNITE

FOUR UTILIZATION ISSUES


1. LOCATION
2. MODE OF EXTRACTION
3. SULFUR REMOVAL
4. FINAL PRODUCT

SOLUTIONS TO THE SULFUR PROBLEM IN POWER


GENERATION
1. LOW SULFUR COAL
2. MECHANICAL TREATMENT (BENEFICIATION)
3. COAL GASIFICATION/LIQUEFACTION
4. DOLOMITE INJECTION/FLUIDIZED BED
5. FLUE GAS SCRUBBERS
1, 2, 3 PRE-COMBUSTION

FLUE GAS SCRUBBERS


LIMESTONE SCRUBBING AT LOW TEMPERATURE
DESIGNED FOR 90% REMOVAL
COMMERCIALLY PROVEN, COST = $200/KW (vs.
$1000/KW for ENTIRE POWER PLANT)
HAS DISPOSABLE BYPRODUCT (e.g., CAS04)
6-8 % LOSS IN THERMAL EFFICIENCY

DOLOMITE INJECTION
REMOVAL OF SO2 SIMULTANEOUS WITH COMBUSTION
CACO3 SERVES AS A SCAVENGER FOR SO2 (PRODUCES
CASO4 THROWAWAY PRODUCT)
REQUIRES LOW TEMPERATURE 1600 F
HANDLES HIGH ASH COALS
LOWER EMISSIONS OF NOX, TRACE METALS
ATTRACTIVE FOR SMALLER POWER PLANTS (LESS
THAN 100 MW)

COAL GASIFICATION/LIQUEFACTION
VERY EXPENSIVE
GASIFICATION ONLY REASONABLE WHEN PLANT IS
INTEGRATED
COAL LIQUIDS ATTRACTIVE FOR TRANSPORTATION
COMMERCIAL SCALE OPERATIONS (e.g., S.AFRICA)
H2S/CO2 REMOVAL ARE PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES
H2S + O2 = H2O + SO2
H2S + SO2 = S + H2O

SELECTION OF A GASIFIER
1. TYPE OF BED
2. OPERATING PRESSURE
3. SLAGGING, NON-SLAGGING
LURGI (FIXED BED, HIGH P, NON-SLAGGING)
KOPPERS-TOTZEK (ENTRAINED BED, LOW P,
SLAGGING)
WELLMAN-GALUSHA (FIXED, LOW P, NON-SLAGGING)
WINKLER (FLUIDIZED, LOW P, NON-SLAGGING)

Kellog Brown and


Root (KBR)

IGCC PROCESS

IGCC Plants in the US

The Tampa Electric IGCC Project


Mulberry, Florida, 1996
Using: GE Energy Gasification
Output: 250 MWe

The Wabash River IGCC Project


West Terre Haute, Indiana, 1995
Using: The ConocoPhillips E-Gas
Gasification process
Output: 262 MWe

PREDICTIONS(MADE IN 1990) ?
1. COAL COMBUSTION WILL CONTINUE AS THE
DOMINANT MODE OF COAL UTILIZATION DURING THE
REST OF THIS CENTURY.
2. SYNTHETIC FUELS WILL BECOME POPULAR AGAIN
IN THE FUTURE (HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF)
PERHAPS 10 YEARS FROM NOW, THE U.S.A WILL
HAVE ANOTHER ENERGY CRISIS.
3. PREDICTIONS FOR 2010?