Updated Cost and Performance Estimates for Clean

Coal Technologies Including CO2 Capture–2006

1013355

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance
with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only
copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice
supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.
Updated Cost and Performance Estimates for Clean Coal
Technologies Including CO2 Capture–2006

1013355

Technical Update, March 2007

EPRI Project Managers

N. Holt
G. Booras

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Electric Power Research Institute

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
 CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
Electric Power Research Institute
3420 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1395
Principal Investigators
N. Holt
G. Booras

This document describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Updated Cost and Performance Estimates for Clean Coal Technologies including CO2 Capture–
2006. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2007. 1013355.

iii
 ABSTRACT
Construction and commodity costs were relatively stable for the period 2000-2003. However
there were also very few orders for new coal plants in that period when Natural Gas Combined
Cycle (NGCC) Plants were mostly the chosen technology selection. Since 2003 the value of the
US dollar has been reduced versus other currencies. The rapid increases in crude oil and natural
gas prices since early 2004 have also produced marked increases in several commodities and
thereby the cost of construction of power plants, refinery and chemical plants. These trends have
been further accentuated by the greatly increased worldwide demand for new construction of
power plants, refineries, chemical and industrial plants that have driven up costs. This worldwide
construction boom and the associated construction price increases have many causes including
some particular to North America:
• PC plants in China (105 GW added in 2006!!)
• New refineries worldwide
• Major expansion of tar sands oil production in Alberta (Alberta labor cost x productivity
factor now 3–4x U.S. Gulf Coast)
• In response to Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ~50 GW of U.S. PC plants are adding
FGD and SCR
• Repair/replacement/rebuild work of the extensive damage to industry, commerce, oil and
gas rigs, and refineries in the US Gulf coast area as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in 3rd quarter 2005
• Increase in all commodity prices driven by increased fuel prices and worldwide demand
• Ocean and other freight increases with increased fuel costs
Since much of the procurement of basic materials and equipment for power plants is conducted
on a worldwide market basis the combined effect of the dollar value and commodity price
increases has resulted in marked increases in capital cost estimates for coal fired plants over
those contained in previous EPRI reports on this subject.
Two commonly watched indices are the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) and
the Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index. The CEPCI has shown a 28% increase since June
2003 and 10% for the year September 2005-2006. However the capital costs reported for PC and
IGCC plants at the bridge of the years 2006-7 certainly far exceed those expected from these
indices. Capital costs for SCPC and IGCC plants as reported in PUC submissions are now in the
2400-3000 $/kW range. Unfortunately it has not been possible to determine what was included in
these reported costs. (i.e., are they in overnight $, or as spent dollars and what inclusions were
made for Owner’s costs and Allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC)?).
As recently as mid 2005 SCPC and IGCC plant TPC estimates based on Illinois #6 coal were
being reported publicly as 1400 and 1600 $/kW respectively. Updating these estimates by the
CEPCI to September 2006 and using the historically applied additions for Owner’s costs and
AFUDC the Total Capital Requirements (TCR) for SCPC and IGCC respectively would be

v
1770 $/kW and 2090 $/kW. These estimates are still markedly lower that the estimates reported
in the 2006 PUC submissions.
Since these IGCC estimates are for First-of-a Kind (FOAK) plants it may be that the contractors
are applying a larger than usual contingency to cover the wrap guarantees. It has also been
suggested that since the PC plants are so well known that their materials requirements need less
contingency than the IGCC plants. Without knowledge of the breakdown of the reported Capital
cost estimates it is impossible to sort out the FOAK costs versus the costs for the Nth plant.
However, in this report, a further 10% contingency has been added to some of the IGCC and
CCS capital cost estimates to illustrate this FOAK issue and how it may affect cost estimates for
newer technologies that do not have the comparable years of commercial experience of PC
plants.
It has been extremely difficult for EPRI to obtain new and credible capital cost estimates in
2006. All costs have been rapidly increasing and it is difficult to obtain credible estimates in such
a rapidly changing and high demand environment. All EPC firms are very busy and have
declined to do EPRI study work when they have so many specific client projects to pursue.
In an effort to better understand the rapidly escalating prices EPRI undertook studies with the
Washington Group International (WGI) and Worley Parsons in the 3rd quarter 2006 examining
the cost trends for a more detailed list of equipment types, piping, wiring, materials, steel,
concrete, labor etc. However applying the results of these more detailed costs to plant cost
estimates did not account for the reported price increases and were no better at prediction than
were the results obtained using the CEPCI.
There is a great diversity of opinion about whether these current commodity prices, and the
prices of oil and gas, are to become new higher baselines or whether they will revert to the levels
of 2000-3. Some information from member power companies (who are making major plant
equipment and materials purchases each day – in contrast to EPRI!!) suggest that they expect
prices to recede somewhat in 2007. The DOE EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2007 baseline
Business as Usual (BAU) is showing ~50$/bbl average crude oil to US refiners in 2025-2030 in
2006 $ and Henry Hub Natural Gas at 6.0-6.4$/MBtu. However both the 2006 and 2007 AEOs
forecast about 90 GW of new coal plants by 2025 with only 6 GW coal plant retirements.
There are now about 50 GW of new coal plants under various stages of development and most of
them are Sub-critical or modest temperature Supercritical PC plants. A few projects have pushed
the reheat steam temperature to 600°C (1112°F) when using low sulfur coal but with high sulfur
coals the PC plant designs are mostly no more than 565°C (1050°F).
There has been a sharp increase of interest in IGCC over the past year spurred by the AEP and
Duke announced projects for 600 MW IGCC plants and the passage of the Energy Policy Act in
August 2005. Accordingly the three IGCC teams offering wrap-around guarantees, led by GE
Energy, ConocoPhillips and Shell, have been extremely busy developing new projects and EPRI
was unable to contract for any new IGCC studies with these teams in 2005-6.
However EPRI staff has developed a methodology for updating PC and IGCC cost estimates
both without and with CO2 capture. EPRI was also able to conduct a study for CPS San Antonio
with Burns & MacDonnell that compared SCPC and Shell IGCC with and without capture based
on using PRB coal in a Texas location.

vi
Having stated all the above necessary qualifications with regard to the estimates in this report it
is nevertheless believed that on a comparative basis some valuable insights can be obtained.
• Because of the continued emphasis on reduction of emissions the PC plants in this 2006
report have been designed for 98% SO2 removal and with SCR. Without CO2 capture the
Cost of Electricity (COE) from Sub-critical, Supercritical and Ultra Supercritical plants is
very similar. Any carbon tax would clearly benefit the higher efficiency USC design.
• CFBC appears to have some small advantage over PC for some lower rank coals. CFBC
should also show some operating advantage for low variable quality and waste coals. It is
also finding application where petroleum coke is available at low cost.
• For bituminous coals the COE from PC plants without CO2 capture is lower than that
from IGCC plants by 10-20 % depending on the specific gasification technologies. At the
current state of gasification technology development the COE advantage for PC plants
over IGCC is even greater for the lower rank coals such as PRB and lignite.
• When CO2 capture is considered the COE for most IGCC technologies with bituminous
coals generally has an advantage over PC or CFBC plants, but the advantage differs
significantly between the various gasification technologies. The GE Energy Quench
IGCC design shows greatest advantage over PC but the current Shell IGCC design
appears slightly higher than the PC COE. The COE increase for capture and sequestration
was typically 50-60% for IGCC whereas for PC plants the COE increase was 80-90 %
(when using the current state -of-the-art post combustion amine scrubbing technology).
• For low rank coals, at the current state of gasification development, the COE with capture
for IGCC and PC was found to be similar in the CPS San Antonio study. Although the
cost of capture is much less for IGCC nevertheless this is offset by the initial cost
disadvantage of IGCC without capture when using low rank coals. Improvements in both
post combustion CO2 capture (e.g., better solvents) and in lower cost gasification (e.g.,
Shell Partial quench) may obviously change this perception.
• The additional costs and energy penalties in IGCC plants with capture are quite
dependent on the specific characteristics of the gas turbine and the pressure at which the
gasification is conducted. However it now appears that the new 7 FB gas turbines have
the same limitation with regard to air extraction when firing Hydrogen as was found with
the 7 FA. If the gas turbines could be modified to allow air extraction for IGCC plants
with capture this would significantly improve the capture economics by reducing the
auxiliary power penalty.
In view of the huge amount of attention currently being paid in major political and business
circles worldwide to the issue of Global Climate and the generally perceived need to curb CO2
emissions the estimated costs of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) from coal fired plants, as
included in this report, serve as a very important component in informing this debate.

vii
 ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS
ABB ASEA Brown Boveri
AEO Annual Energy Outlook
AEP American Electric Power
AFBC atmospheric fluidized bed combustion
AFUDC allowance for funds used during construction
AGR acid gas removal
ASU Air Separation Unit
Bara Bars absolute
BAU Business as usual
BFW boiler feed water
BOP balance of plant
Btu British thermal unit
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule
CC combined cycle
CCS CO2 Capture and Storage
CCT Clean Coal Technology
CFBC circulating fluidized bed combustion
CO2 carbon dioxide
COE cost of electricity
DCS distributed control system
DOE U. S. Department of Energy
DOE NETL Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act 2005
FBC fluidized-bed combustion/combustor

ix
FGD flue gas desulfurization
FW Foster Wheeler
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GI Gasification Island
GJ gigajoule
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HgA mercury absolute
HHV higher heating value
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
HP high pressure
HTHP high temperature/high pressure
IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
IP intermediate pressure
IPP independent power producer
kJ kilojoule
LHV lower heating value
LP low pressure
MBtu Million British thermal units
m3/h cubic meters per hour
MPa Mega pascals (1 MPa = 10 bar)
mt metric ton or tonne
NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory
NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle
Nm3 Normal cubic meters
N2O nitrous oxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSR New Source Review
OC Owner’s Costs

x
O&M operation and maintenance
PA FD fan primary-air forced-draft fan
PC pulverized coal
PCFB pressurized circulating fluidized bed
PFBC pressurized fluidized-bed combustion
PJFF Pulse-Jet Fabric Filter
ppmv parts per million by volume
psia pounds per square inch absolute
psig pounds per square inch gage
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SC Supercritical
SCR selective catalytic reduction
SNCR selective non-catalytic reduction
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
St short ton
TAG Technical Assessment Guide
TCR Total Capital Requirement
TCU temperature conditioning unit
tpd tons per day
TFC Total Field Cost
TPC Total Plant Cost
USC Ultra Supercritical
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

xi
 CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
Regulatory and Energy Policy Uncertainty...........................................................................1-1
Emissions Regulations for Existing Power Plants ..........................................................1-1
CO2 Related Legislative Proposals ................................................................................1-2
Energy Policy Act 2005 – (EPAct 2005).........................................................................1-3
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) ................................................................................1-4
FutureGen ......................................................................................................................1-4
New Coal Power Plants / CoalFleet Program ......................................................................1-5
Updated Economic Studies of Clean Coal Technologies.....................................................1-5

2 DESIGN AND ECONOMIC BASES .......................................................................................2-1

General Criteria....................................................................................................................2-1
Site-Related Conditions .................................................................................................2-1
Meteorological Data .......................................................................................................2-1
Technical Data ...............................................................................................................2-1
Environmental Conditions ..............................................................................................2-2
Cost Indices ...................................................................................................................2-3
U.S. Location Indices .....................................................................................................2-6
Plant Book Life and Levelization Factor.........................................................................2-8
Fuel Prices .....................................................................................................................2-9
Capacity Factor ..............................................................................................................2-9
Site-Specific Cost Data for Consumable Items (in 2006$) .............................................2-9

3 NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE (NGCC) PLANTS.......................................................3-1

Background ..........................................................................................................................3-1
Commercially Available Gas Turbines .................................................................................3-1
2006 Price Levels.................................................................................................................3-5
NGCC Cost of Electricity (COE) – Effects of Carbon Tax and CCS ....................................3-5

4 PULVERIZED COAL (PC) PLANTS ......................................................................................4-1

Background ..........................................................................................................................4-1
Effect of Steam Conditions on PC Plant Efficiency ..............................................................4-1
Current PC Plant Designs ....................................................................................................4-1
Comparison of U.S. and European Plant Performance (Heat Rate) Estimates ...................4-3
EPRI PC + FGD + SCR Plant Estimates .............................................................................4-6
2005 PC Estimates ........................................................................................................4-6
2006 PC Estimates ........................................................................................................4-6
PC Plants and CO2 Capture .................................................................................................4-9

5 ATMOSPHERIC FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION (AFBC) PLANTS...................................5-1

xiii
 Background ..........................................................................................................................5-1
History ..................................................................................................................................5-2
Vendors................................................................................................................................5-3
Large Power Plant Applications ...........................................................................................5-4
EPRI CFB Cost and Performance Estimates & Comparison to PC .....................................5-5

6 CO2 CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATIAN FROM COAL AND NATURAL GAS BASED
POWER PLANTS ......................................................................................................................6-1
Potential Responses to Anthropogenic CO2 Effects on Global Climate ...............................6-1
NGCC and CO2 Capture ......................................................................................................6-3
Pre- Combustion Removal of CO2 from NGCC Plants ...................................................6-3
Post- Combustion Removal of CO2 from NGCC Plant ...................................................6-3
SM
The Econamine FG Plus Technology..........................................................................6-3
PC Plants and CO2 Capture .................................................................................................6-6
Post Combustion Removal of CO2 from PC Plants ........................................................6-6
Potential Improvements to Post-Combustion Removal..................................................6-7
OxyFuel and Chemical Looping .....................................................................................6-7
IGCC with CO2 Capture..................................................................................................6-8
IGCC Shift Reaction Design Consideration for Capture ................................................6-8
IGCC AGR Design Options for Capture .......................................................................6-11
IGCC with Capture – Gas Turbine Considerations ......................................................6-12
Commercial Status of CO2 Capture from Coal Gasification Plants ..............................6-12
Potential Improvements for IGCC with CO2 Capture..........................................................6-13
Long Term RD&D Roadmaps for IGCC and PC with CO2 Capture ...................................6-14

7 ECONOMIC COMPARISONS OF NGCC, PC AND IGCC PLANT DESIGNS WITHOUT AND

WITH CO2 CAPTURE AND STORAGE ....................................................................................7-1
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................7-1
Construction Cost Increases 2004-6....................................................................................7-2
2006 IGCC Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................7-3
DOE NETL Draft Report 2006........................................................................................7-4
Wisconsin PUC IGCC Draft Report 2006.......................................................................7-6
EPA IGCC and PC Technology Assessments -July 2006..............................................7-7
Southern Company Evaluation of KBR IGCC ................................................................7-7
PUC Submissions and Press announcements for New Plants 2006 .............................7-8
EPRI FutureGen Studies................................................................................................7-9
EPRI 2006 Studies comparing PC and IGCC ....................................................................7-10
Further IGCC Design Options for Capture ...................................................................7-18

8 ADDING CO2 CAPTURE TO PC AND IGCC PLANTS NOT PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED FOR
CAPTURE – PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................8-1
Background ..........................................................................................................................8-1
IGCC Pre-Investment Options for later Addition of CO2 Capture .........................................8-1

xiv
 CPS Energy (San Antonio) Study of IGCC and PC .......................................................8-3
EPRI 2006 Estimates for Adding Capture to PC and IGCC plants designed initially without
Capture consideration ..........................................................................................................8-5
CCS Retrofit Market for Coal Plants – A Preliminary Assessment ....................................8-14

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................9-1
General ................................................................................................................................9-1
Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC).................................................................................9-2
Pulverized Coal (PC) Plants.................................................................................................9-2
Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion (AFBC) Plants ......................................................9-2
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plants ......................................................9-2

xv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Construction Cost Indices (Source Chemical Engineering Magazine
November 2006) ........................................................................................................................2-4
Figure 3-1 Natural Gas Combined cycle with and Without CO2 Capture at 80% Capacity
Factor.........................................................................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-2 Natural Gas Combined Cycle With and Without CO2 Captures at 40% Capacity
Factor.........................................................................................................................................3-9
Figure 4-1 Heat Rate Improvement from Steam Cycle with Ultra Supercritical Steam
Conditions (Single reheat) .........................................................................................................4-3
Figure 4-2 Heat Rate Improvement from Steam Cycle with Ultra Supercritical Steam
Conditions (Double reheat) .......................................................................................................4-3
Figure 4-3 PC Plant Heat Rates for Various Coals....................................................................4-9
Figure 5-1 Comparison of AFBC Net Plant Heat Rates .............................................................5-7
Figure 5-2 Comparison of PC and CFBC Heat Rates 500 MW .................................................5-8
SM
Figure 6-1 Typical Econamine FG Flowsheet ........................................................................6-4
Figure 6-2 Fluor’s Econamine (DGA) Plant in Uthamaniyah, Saudi Arabia has a large
diameter absorber (Photo courtesy of Fluor Daniel) ..................................................................6-5
Figure 6-3 Block Flow Diagram IGCC with CO2 Capture ...........................................................6-8
Figure 6-4 Typical Arrangement of a Three Bed Shift Unit ........................................................6-9
Figure 6-5 Typical IGCC AGR Process Arrangement for CO2 Capture ...................................6-11
Figure 7-1 Construction Cost Indices (Source Chemical Engineering Magazine
November 2006) ........................................................................................................................7-3
Figure 7-2 EPRI PC and IGCC TPC Estimates – 600 MW, Illinois #6 coal .............................7-14
Figure 7-3 EPRI PC and IGCC TCR Estimates – 600 MW, Illinois #6 coal .............................7-14
Figure 7-4 EPRI PC and IGCC 30 year LCOE Estimates – 600 MW, Illinois #6 coal..............7-15
Figure 7-5 EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC TPC Estimates – 600 MW, PRB coal ............................7-17
Figure 7-6 EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC TCR Estimates – 600 MW, PRB coal............................7-17
Figure 7-7 EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC 30 year LCOE Estimates – 600 MW, PRB coal ............7-18
Figure 8-1 CPS Study IGCC & SCPC w/ and w/o Capture (2006 EPRI study (1014510)
Texas location and municipal utility financing)...........................................................................8-5
Figure 8-2 PC & IGCC Net Power with and without Capture (Illinois #6 coal) ...........................8-9
Figure 8-3 PC & IGCC TCR with and without Capture – Illinois #6 ........................................8-10
Figure 8-4 PC & IGCC 30 year LCOE with and without Capture – Illinois #6 coal ..................8-11
Figure 8-5 PC & IGCC Net Plant Output MW with & without Capture – PRB coal ..................8-12
Figure 8-6 PC & IGCC TCR with & without Capture – PRB coal .............................................8-13
Figure 8-7 PC & IGCC 30 year LCOE with & without Capture – PRB coal..............................8-14

xvii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Projects Selected under DOE CCPI Second Round .................................................1-4
Table 2-1 Coal Characteristics..................................................................................................2-6
Table 2-2 Labor Rates for Construction ($/hr 2006) ..................................................................2-7
Table 2-3 Relative Labor Rates and Productivity.......................................................................2-8
Table 2-4 TAG Financial Parameters ........................................................................................2-8
Table 3-1 Heavy Frame Gas Turbine Characteristics – 60 Hz ..................................................3-2
Table 3-2 Heavy Frame Gas Turbine Characteristics – 50 Hz ..................................................3-3
Table 3-3 Uniform Nomenclature for Siemens Power Generation Products..............................3-4
Table 3-4 EPRI Estimates of Cost and Performance of NGCC's in September 2006$ .............3-7
Table 4-1 Change of HHV/LHV Ratio with Coal Type ...............................................................4-4
Table 4-2 Comparison of European and U.S Heat Rate Estimates for USC PC Plants ............4-5
Table 4-3 2005 EPRI PC + FGD + SCR Case Estimates ..........................................................4-6
Table 4-4 2006 PC Plants 30 year LCOE Estimates: Illinois #6 and PRB Coals, Kenosha,
Wisconsin...................................................................................................................................4-8
Table 5-1 Major International AFBC Boiler Vendors/Licensors and Their Technologies ...........5-4
Table 6-1 Effect of Gasification Technology on Shift Steam Requirements and Steam
Turbine MW .............................................................................................................................6-10
Table 7-1 DOE NETL Draft Report Fossil Power Plants May 2006 ...........................................7-5
Table 7-2 EPA Report July 2006 IGCC and USC PC Cost and Performance ...........................7-7
Table 7-3 Southern Company Evaluation of KBR IGCC Air & Oxygen blown, with and
without CO2 Capture ..................................................................................................................7-8
Table 7-4 IGCC & PC Capital Cost Estimates from Recent PUC Submissions.........................7-9
Table 7-5 Coal Plants Designed with and without Capture......................................................7-11
Table 7-6 Effect of FOAK Contingency on TPC and COE for Coal Plants Designed
with and without Capture .........................................................................................................7-12
Table 7-7 EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC COE Estimates – Illinois #6 Coal at 1.5$/MBtu HHV......7-13
Table 7-8 EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC COE Estimates – PRB Coal at 1.5$/MBtu HHV .............7-16
Table 8-1 Effect of Shift on Dry Syngas Flow for GE, COP and Shell Gasification ..................8-2
Table 8-2 CPS Energy Evaluation of Shell IGCC and SCPC. PRB coal. Texas.......................8-4
Table 8-3 EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC Capture Retrofit COE Estimates – Illinois #6 Coal
at 1.5$/MBtu HHV ......................................................................................................................8-7
Table 8-4 EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC Capture Retrofit COE Estimates – PRB Coal
at 1.5$/MBtu HHV ......................................................................................................................8-8

xix
1
INTRODUCTION
Regulatory and Energy Policy Uncertainty
Although there is great uncertainty about future emissions regulations for U.S. power plants most
observers expect further reductions in permitted emissions from coal-fired power plants are
likely to be enacted. Many states are also enacting their own regulations that can in some cases
be more stringent than the Federal regulations.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) was signed by President Bush in August 2005. It
contains many sections dealing with various aspects of coal based technology including some
potential incentives for advanced clean coal technologies. In December 2006 DOE announced
that eight projects had been selected from the first round of submissions.
At the time of writing there is a flurry of activity in political and major business circles mostly
advocating legislation to curb the emissions of CO2 particularly from the large point sources of
coal fired power plants. California has proposed that power sold in (supplied to) California
should have CO2 emissions < 1100 lbs/MWh (typical existing coal plants probably emit
~2000 lbs/MWh). Many other Western states and states in the North East are also planning or
have enacted CO2 legislation. Estimated costs for Capture and Storage (CCS) are important
information to inform this debate.

Emissions Regulations for Existing Power Plants

In February 2002, the U.S. Administration put forward the Clear Skies Initiative aimed at further
reductions in emissions of SO2, NOx and Mercury. It was envisaged that these reductions would
be achieved through a “Cap and Trade” program however the provisions of the proposed Clear
Skies Initiative have not yet been enacted.
The New Source Review (NSR) process pertains to establishing the rules under which
improvements to existing power plants may trigger the requirement to add pollution control
equipment such as Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) and NOx controls. The Administration
proposed a criteria that new pollution controls would not be required unless the proposed
improvements amount to >20% of the cost of a new plant. However, this was controversial and
several of the North Eastern states challenged this proposed criteria.
On March 10, 2005 EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) aimed at the reduction of
air pollution moving across state boundaries. CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and
NOx across 28 Eastern states and the District of Columbia. The SO2 cap is 3.6 million tons by
2010 and 2.5 million tons by 2015. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in
those states by over 70% and NOx emissions by 60% from 2003 levels. EPA estimates that this
will result in $85 to $100 billion in health benefits and nearly $2 Billion in visibility benefits per
year by 2015 and will substantially reduce premature mortality in that region. A closely related
action is the EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) that mandates reductions in the emissions of
Mercury from coal fired power plants. When fully implemented, these rules will reduce utility

1-1
emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a reduction of nearly 70 percent. The
CAMR establishes “standards of performance” limiting mercury emissions from new and
existing coal-fired power plants and creates a market-based cap-and-trade program that will
reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two distinct phases. The first phase cap is 38
tons and emissions will be reduced by taking advantage of “co-benefit” reductions – that is,
mercury reductions achieved by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
emissions under CAIR. In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired power plants will be subject
to a second cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons upon full implementation. New coal-
fired power plants (“new” means construction starting on or after January 30, 2004) will have to
meet stringent new source performance standards in addition to being subject to the caps.
The CAIR and the C are components of the Bush Administration’s plan to improve air quality.
Until a couple of years ago only ~100 GW of the ~300 GW of US coal plants had installed FGD
units. However in 2006 installations of FGD and SCR are planned at an additional 50 GW of
existing coal power plants, motivated perhaps particularly by the CAIR. The second phase in
2015 may well induce more FGD retrofits at remaining unscrubbed coal plants.

CO2 Related Legislative Proposals

The Administration also put forward a Global Change Initiative in February 2002. The goal is to
lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) from a currently estimated 183 metric tons per Million
$ of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2002 to 151 Metric tons per Million $ of GDP in 2012.
A system for the measurement and credit of CO2 emissions reductions and increased funding for
GHG activities was also proposed.
Additional bills that also address CO2 emissions (4P) have been introduced over the past two
years authored separately by the Senators Carper, Jeffords, McCain/Lieberman and
Domenici/Bingaman. The newly Congress elected in November 2006 has also spawned many
new proposals from both houses of Congress.
Individual states and regional association of states are also active in proposing and in some cases
enacting legislation aimed at reductions of CO2 emissions. In California recent legislation intends
to reduce the state’s emissions back to 2000 levels by 2025. California also requires that the
source of any power imported into the state should have no greater emissions than
1100 lbs/MWh of CO2. Typical existing coal plants in Western States supplying California
probably emit >2000 lbs/MWh while new Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Plants
probably emit 800-1000 lbs/MWh depending on capacity factor.
Elsewhere in the World those countries that were signatories of the Kyoto protocol have their
own regulations pertaining to CO2 emissions. In Europe there is a CO2 emissions trading market
and over the past year the trading range reduced about 20-30 Euros/metric ton (mt) of CO2 to
about half that value. This drop has generally been ascribed to the initial issuance of too many
credits to existing emitters. However the agreements within the Kyoto protocol only last until
2012 when they must be replaced. It is obviously a very open question about what might be
enacted post 2012 particularly if no broader agreement can be negotiated that includes the U.S,
China and India.
There is also a CO2 emissions trading market in the US on the Chicago exchange. Several large
organizations have signed up to participate in this trading program (AEP, Cinergy, DuPont, etc.).

1-2
However the CO2 emissions trading range in $/mt is only a fraction of the European trading
market.
Currently 16 U.S. states have enacted a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) however a National
RPS was not included in the final version of EPAct. The co-utilization of biomass in coal plants
could be useful in meeting RPS where it is required.

Energy Policy Act 2005 – (EPAct 2005)

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) contained many provisions that are of potential
assistance to advanced coal technology. These include:
• Funding of the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) at $200 Million $/year for the years
2006-2014. 70% to be allocated to Coal Gasification.
• Clean Air Coal Program – $3 billion in loans, cost sharing or co-op agreements for new
or upgraded power plants to improve air quality.
• Coal R&D Program – $1.095 billion over 3 years for DOE Clean Coal R&D program.
• Carbon Capture R&D Program – $75 Million over 3 years for C capture applicable to
existing coal plants.
• Incentives for Innovative Technologies – Loan guarantee program. Renewables, Coal
gasification, Hydrogen fuel cells, advanced nuclear. No cap on funds!
However it should be noted that all of these provisions listed above would need new
appropriations before being effective. With the requirements for recovery from the effects of
hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the necessary appropriations for Iraq, it is uncertain at this time
which of these provisions might be funded.
EPAct 2005 also included the following tax incentives that do not need additional appropriations
to be effective:
• Power Sector Investment Tax Credits – IGCC 20% credit capped at $800 Million. Other
Advanced coal 15% credit capped at $500 million.
• Industrial Gasification Investment Tax Credit – 20% credit capped at $350 Million.
Maximum of $650 million of credit-eligible investment allocable to a single project.
• Tax Credit for Collaborative Energy-Related R&D – Up to 20% for certain attributable
expenses. Repeal of limitation on Contract Research expenses for small business,
Universities and Federal Labs (substitute 100%).
An initial evaluation of the value of these tax incentives has been reported by Tom Wilson and
Charles Clark of EPRI. The Energy bill provides incentives of significant value but they may not
close the PC-IGCC gap depending on individual company situations, perceptions and
assumptions. Each company faces unique circumstances that need to be evaluated on their own
merits.
In December 2006 DOE announced the selection of 8 projects for assistance under the
Investment Tax Credit sections of EPAct. The following coal Power projects were selected:

1-3
 • Duke Energy 630 MW IGCC (GE) at Edwardsport, IN
• Tampa Electric 630 MW IGCC (GE) Polk County, FL
• Southern Co. 600 MW IGCC (KBR) Lignite, Kemper County, MS
• Carson Hydrogen Power LLC (BP/Edison Mission) 500 MW IGCC Pet Coke,
Carson, CA
• Duke Energy 2x800 MW SCPC at Cliffside, NC
• EoN US 600 MW SCPC Louisville Gas &Electric and Kentucky Utilities Co.,
Bedford, KY
• TX Energy, LLC (Eastman) Longview Gasification and Refueling Project,
Longview, TX
There were two other projects selected under the Industrial section that chose not to be publicly
identified.

Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)

The U.S.DOE plans a series of solicitations for new coal power plants and improvements to
existing power plants to be funded under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). Project
selections from the first round CCPI solicitation were announced in January 2003. A second
round CCPI solicitation issued in early 2004 obtained 13 proposals from which four proposals
were selected in late 2004 as shown in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1
Projects Selected under DOE CCPI Second Round

Participants Location Description DOE Total

$Millions $ Millions

Southern Co., Orlando Orlando, FL 280 MW Air Blown KBR IGCC. 235 557
Utilities PRB Coal.

Excelsior Energy Hoyt Lakes, MN 600 MW Oxygen Blown COP E-Gas 36 1180
IGCC

Peabody, Mustang Energy Milan, NM Airborne Multi-pollutant process on 19.7 79

300 MW PC

Pegasus, Texas Genco Jewett, TX Mercury Speciation and Control at 6.1 12.2
890 MW PC

FutureGen
In February 2003, DOE announced the FutureGen Initiative, “A Coal-fueled Prototype for a
Hydrogen/Carbon Sequestration Power Plant”. A 1 Billion $ Coal-based IGCC program is
proposed to provide 275 MW of power, 1 Million tons/year of CO2 for Sequestration in a
geologic formation and Hydrogen for fuel cells and later transportation. DOE envisages the
project as a “large scale engineering laboratory for testing new technologies”.

1-4
A Consortium of Coal Power and Coal Producer Companies (co-coordinated by Battelle) have
created the FutureGen Industrial Alliance (September 13, 2005 announcement). The currently
announced member companies are AEP, Southern, PP&L, EoN US, TXU, China Huaneng,
BHP Billiton, Kennecott (Rio Tinto), Consol, Foundation Coal, Peabody, Anglo American and
XStrata.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) on site selection was issued in March 2006 to the U.S states and
other entities. DOE will conduct a NEPA review on a few of the sites that will be selected from
the responses. The final site selection is envisaged in June 2007.
In the EPRI managed CoalFleet program a team of worldwide experts in various aspects of
gasification and IGCC technology has been formed to work with the participant organizations to
produce design and permitting guidelines and other information and advice. Several of the
CoalFleet experts’ team (including the authors of this report) are also participating in the
FutureGen Technical Experts Group (TEG) and are assisting in plant configuration and
technology evaluation studies for the FutureGen Industrial Alliance.

New Coal Power Plants / CoalFleet Program

At the prevailing crude oil and natural gas prices over the past two to three years there has been a
greatly increased interest in new coal fired power plants. There are now about 50 GWs of new
coal fired power plants in some stage of development in the US.
In November 2004 the Power Industry led CoalFleet program was initiated and is being managed
by EPRI. This is aimed at encouraging the deployment of advanced clean coal technologies
(IGCC, USC PC and SC CFBC) that are CO2 capture ready. This program is supported by major
coal power companies that represent the majority of coal fired generation in the U.S. Several
foreign power companies, both domestic and foreign technology and equipment suppliers are
also participating. At the request of the participant companies the initial emphasis was to be on
IGCC and the generation of user design guidelines, permitting guidelines, and a recommended
RD&D program. This is being followed by a similar program on USC PC and SC CFBC plants.
There is a great diversity of opinion about whether these current commodity prices, and the
prices of oil and gas, are to become new higher baselines or whether they will revert to the levels
of 2000-3. The 2005 version of DOE’s EIA Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) out to 2025, has a
reference case with more modest oil and gas prices (stated in constant 2005 $) of about
30$/barrel for oil and about $5.00/GJ ($5.27 /MBtu) for natural gas (as delivered to electric
utilities) in 2025. Whereas the 2006 and 2007 AEO Business as usual (BAU) reference case
forecasts for 2025 were much higher at ~50$/barrel crude oil but with only a modest increase in
natural gas delivered to utilities at 5.7$/GJ (6.0$/MBtu). However the 2005, 2006 and 2007
AEOs all forecast about 90 GW of new coal plants by 2025 with only 6 GW coal plant
retirements.

Updated Economic Studies of Clean Coal Technologies

Because of the likelihood that additional emission reductions will be required from Pulverized
Coal (PC) plants, both new and existing, the cost and performance impacts of progressive
increases in SO2, NOx and Mercury removal were estimated and reported in the previous report
1004482 December 2003. In this 2006 report that the PC plants without capture are designed for

1-5
98% SO2 removal by FGD and 80% removal of NOx via SCR. The additional cost penalty for
going to 99% SO2 removal and 90% NOx removal, at least for the Pittsburgh #8 and PRB coals
as evaluated in the 2003 report, only about 1$/MWh or less to the COE.
Some updated estimates of the added costs for CO2 capture from PC and Natural Gas Combined
Cycle (NGCC) plants are included in this report and the potential effect of a Carbon tax on the
Cost of electricity (COE) from various technologies has been assessed. Unfortunately due to the
greatly increased interest in IGCC the three IGCC teams led by GE Energy, ConocoPhillips and
Shell, have been extremely busy developing new projects and EPRI was unable to contract for
any new IGCC studies with them in 2006, and little new information on CO2 capture from IGCC
plants was published in 2006. New designs are needed because of several design changes and
particularly because new gas turbines such as the GE 7 FB and Siemens 5000F are now the basis
of the IGCC reference plants being offered by the three teams.
There was very little increase in the estimated capital cost of new coal fired plants over the 2000-
2003 period. However there were also very few orders for new coal plants in that period when
Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Plants were mostly the chosen selection. Since 2003 the
value of the US dollar has been reduced versus other currencies. The greatly increased price of
crude oil and natural gas since 2003 has also led to an increase in the price of basic commodities
such as steel and cement. The worldwide oil, gas and commodities prices have been driven
particularly by a huge demand for the rapidly expanding China market and also exacerbated by
accelerated demand in India and other Asian countries. Since much of the procurement of basic
materials and equipment for power plants is conducted on a worldwide market basis the
combined effect of the dollar value and commodity price increases has resulted in marked
increases in capital cost estimates for coal fired plants over those contained in the EPRI reports
on this subject 1004482, December 2003 that used mid 2003 $, 1009808, March 2005
(February 2004 $) and 1010222, March 2006 (2nd half 2005 $).
The newer Clean Coal Technologies (CCT) such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC) and Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) were developed to commercial size
over the past two decades and have demonstrated that they can meet extremely stringent air
emission standards and are able to achieve high plant efficiencies. However, PFBC does not now
appear to be actively pursued in the U.S and therefore will not be covered in this report. Over the
same period, the PC plants have also continued to improve in efficiency and to reduce air
emissions. In addition, Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion (AFBC) plants have continued
to be built and have been proven reliable in many applications. The main issues with regard to
the wider adoption of the IGCC technology are: (i) demonstration of high availabilities at least
equal to existing PC plants and (ii) capital cost reduction to compete with state-of-the-art PC and
AFBC plants and natural gas based combined cycles. As stated earlier the tax provisions of the
EPAct 2005 are specifically aimed at providing some assistance to the deployment of advanced
coal technologies, particularly, but not only, for IGCC.
A more comprehensive up to date account of the recent history and current status of the PC,
AFBC, and IGCC technologies is contained in a companion EPRI report 1012221, published
December 2006 “Operating Experience, Risk, and Market Assessment of Clean Coal
Technologies: 2006”.

1-6
2
DESIGN AND ECONOMIC BASES
This section describes the general and economic criteria that served as a common basis for all of
the studies performed. Additional criteria, which are relevant to each of the specific technologies,
are included in the pertinent subsequent sections of this report.

General Criteria
Within the limits posed by the individual technologies the same design criteria was used for all
the studies. The general study criteria are as follows:
• Systems are based on a 15.5°C (60°F) design ambient temperature.
• Units are considered base loaded.
• Equipment sizing and sparing is based on 80 percent availability.
• Equipment is designed for a 30-year plant life.
• Plants are considered grassroots facilities.
• Designs emphasize maximizing plant efficiency and reducing heat rate wherever prudent.

Site-Related Conditions
The site location chosen by EPRI is Kenosha, Wisconsin, a site typical of power generation
facilities located in Middle America and having access to water and rail transportation. The site
is assumed to be clear and level with no special problems; however, 100-foot pile foundations
are required.

Meteorological Data
Annual average ambient air conditions for material balances, thermal efficiencies, and equipment
sizing are:
• Dry bulb temperature 15.5°C (60°F)
• Atmospheric pressure 0.99 bar (14.4 psia)
• Maximum dry bulb temperature 35°C (95°F)
• Maximum wet bulb temperature 23.9°C (75°F)

Technical Data
Common technical data include:

2-1
 • Two bituminous coals are considered: Pittsburgh #8 and Illinois #6. The characteristics
and analyses of these coals are presented in Table 2-1.
• Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB) sub-bituminous coal is becoming very widely used
in the U.S. Its low mine-mouth cost enables it to be cost effectively transported long
distances (it is even being used in Georgia!). Texas Lignite and North Dakota lignites are
quite similar with regard to moisture, ash and sulfur contents but would only be
considered for use in mine-mouth plants. The characteristics and analyses of the
Wyoming PRB and Texas lignite are also presented in Table 2-1.
• Raw water is from Lake Michigan.
• Coal is delivered to the site by rail.
• The inactive coal storage pile is sized for 90 days storage, and the active storage pile is
sized for 7 days operation at full load.
• Limestone is delivered to the site by truck for systems less than 200 MW and by rail for
larger systems. The limestone consists of 94.1% CaCO3, 3.3% Mg CO3, 0.6% SiO2, and
2.0% H2O.
• Onsite emergency ash storage is sized for 90 days. Final disposal is off site.

Environmental Conditions
Environmental design requirements include standards for air, water, solid waste, and noise.
• Air Emissions (SO2, NOx and Mercury). Control of the emission of SO2 and NOx air
pollutants must meet the limitations set by the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), promulgated June 11, 1979. The plants have been designed to include the current
state-of-the-art Mercury control technologies.
– However in anticipation of future tighter standards, the base line PC plants are
designed with FGD for 98 percent sulfur removal for bituminous coals and 96% for
PRB sub-bituminous coal, and with low NOx burners and Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) units to reduce NOx emissions to 0.07 lb/MBtu fired. For the
bituminous coals and lignite no extra Mercury control steps are included since
Mercury is largely captured in the FGD. For the PRB sub-bituminous coal, carbon
injection and a baghouse are added for Mercury emissions control.
– Some additional assumptions for the PC plant designs include:
Coal Analysis – Mercury (Hg) and Chlorine (Cl) Content:
Pitts #8 – Hg = 20.9 μg/Nm (17 lb/trillion Btu) Cl = 1000 ppmw
3

PRB – Hg = 7.4 μg/Nm3 (6 lb/trillion Btu) Cl = 100 ppmw

Total Air to Boiler = 120% (20% excess air)
Over fire Air to Boiler = 20-30%

2-2
 Combustion NOx Emission (Downstream of Economizer):
Pitts #8 = 370 mg/Nm3 (0.30 lb/MBtu)
PRB = 220 mg/Nm3 (0.30 lb/MBtu)
– The AFBC plants include a combination of in-bed and post combustion dry FGD to
give 95% SO2 removal for PRB coal and 98% removal for Texas Lignite. Selective
non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) for NOx control is included in all CFB cases.
Since CFBC units are usually designed with a baghouse no additional Mercury
capture steps are included.
– The IGCC plants have been designed for well over 99% sulfur removal and with SCR
in the HRSG section so that the SO2 and NOx emissions from the gas turbine exhaust
are both less than 2 ppmv at 15% oxygen (equivalent to 0.006 lb/MBtu) in the gas
turbine flue gas. A bed of pre-sulfided activated carbon is used to remove >90% of
the Mercury from the syngas prior to sulfur removal and clean syngas being fed to the
gas turbine.
• Water Discharge. Wastewater discharged following treatment must comply with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Effluent Guidelines and Standards.
• Non-Hazardous Dry Solid Waste Disposal. The plant equipment and facilities are
designed so that AFBC ash (containing spent sorbent), FGD solids and sludge produced
from water treatment are disposed of off site in accordance with the non-hazardous waste
disposal guidelines of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Appropriate temporary onsite storage facilities are specified in accordance with the
guidelines.
• Hazardous Dry Solid Waste Disposal. The spent carbon used for Mercury removal is
considered a hazardous waste and accordingly provision is made for its disposal in
accordance with this classification.
• Noise Limitations. In-plant noise levels must not exceed 90 dBA for an 8-hour exposure.
Plant perimeter noise levels must not exceed 65 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during
the night.

Cost Indices
The main costs reported herein are September 2006 dollars. Construction and commodity costs
were relatively stable for the period 2000-2003. However the rapid increases in crude oil and
natural gas prices over the period from early 2004 through late 2005 also produced marked
increases in several commodities and thereby the cost of construction of power plants, refinery
and chemical plants. As described earlier in Chapter 1 the World wide construction boom for
new power plants (China added 105 GW in 2006!!) and refineries, the US addition of FGD and
SCR to ~50 GW of US coal plants and the replacement and repair demands in the wake of the
Katrina and Rita hurricanes have driven up construction costs at an unprecedented rate in the last
two years. Two commonly watched indices are the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
(CEPCI) and the Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index. The changes in these indices over
recent years is shown in Figure 2-1.

2-3
The CEPCI increased from 402 in mid 2003 to 468 February 2005. For mid 2000 to mid 2003
there was very little change at 394-402. The % increase from mid 2003 to mid 2005 was 16.5%
and a further 9.6% from mid 2005 to September 2006. Examination of the components of the
CEPCI shows that the major increase has been in equipment, steel, cement and other commodity
costs. The construction labor component has been quite flat over the past two years but has
recently begun to rise a little. However in certain regions (e.g., the Gulf Coast in the wake of
hurricane Katrina and in the booming Alberta tar sands area) the labor costs have risen more
dramatically. The Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index increased from 1130 1st Q 2004 to
1261 in 3rd Q 2005 and to 1333 in 3rdQ 2006.

Construction Cost Indices

(Source: Chemical Engineering Magazine, November 2006)

540 1,400

Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index

520 1,350
Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index

Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index

500 1,300

480 1,250

460 1,200

440 1,150

420 1,100

400 1,050

380 1,000

360 950
Jun-98 Jun-99 Jun-00 Jun-01 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Jun-06 Jun-07

Figure 2-1
Construction Cost Indices (Source Chemical Engineering Magazine November 2006)

However the capital costs reported for PC and IGCC plants at the bridge of the years 2006-7
certainly far exceed those expected from these indices. Capital costs for SCPC and IGCC plants
as reported in PUC submissions are now in the 2400-3000 $/kW range. Unfortunately it has not
been possible to determine what was included in these reported costs. (i.e., are they in
overnight $, or as spent dollars and what inclusions were made for Owner’s costs and Allowance
for funds used during construction (AFUDC)?).
As recently as mid 2005 SCPC and IGCC plant TPC estimates based on Illinois #6 coal were
being reported publicly as 1400 and 1600 $/kW respectively. Updating these estimates by the

2-4
CEPCI to September 2006 and using the historically applied additions for Owner’s costs and
AFUDC the Total Capital Requirements (TCR) for SCPC and IGCC respectively would be
1770 $/kW and 2090 $/kW. These estimates are still markedly lower that the estimates reported
in the 2006 PUC submissions.
Since these IGCC estimates are for First-of-a Kind (FOAK) plants it may be that the contractors
are applying a larger than usual contingency to cover the wrap guarantees. It has also been
suggested that since the PC plants are so well known that their materials requirements need less
contingency than the IGCC plants. Without knowledge of the breakdown of the reported Capital
cost estimates it is impossible to sort out the FOAK costs versus the costs for the Nth plant.
However, in this report, a further 10% contingency has been added to some of the IGCC and
CCS capital cost estimates to illustrate this FOAK issue and how it may affect cost estimates for
newer technologies that do not have the comparable years of commercial experience of PC
plants.
It has been extremely difficult for EPRI to obtain new and credible capital cost estimates in
2006. All costs have been rapidly increasing and it is difficult to obtain credible estimates in such
a rapidly changing and high demand environment. All EPC firms are very busy and have
declined to do EPRI study work when they have so many specific client projects to pursue.
In an effort to better understand the rapidly escalating prices EPRI undertook studies with the
Washington Group International (WGI) and Worley Parsons in the 3rd quarter 2006 examining
the cost trends for a more detailed list of equipment types, piping, wiring, materials, steel,
concrete, labor etc. However applying the results of these more detailed costs to plant cost
estimates did not account for the reported price increases and were no better at prediction than
were the results obtained using the CEPCI.
EPRI staff developed a methodology for updating PC and IGCC cost estimates both without and
with CO2 capture. EPRI was also able to get some limited updated estimates from a study for
CPS San Antonio with Burns & MacDonnell that compared SCPC and Shell IGCC with and
without capture based on using PRB coal in a Texas location. Even with all these adjustments the
estimates were still lower than the project estimate numbers reported to the PUCs. However it
appears that with an additional 10% contingency the estimates fall within the lower range of
those reported to the PUCs. Accordingly the data reported in the Tables and bar charts on IGCC
and CCS cases presented in this report reflect this additional 10% contingency.
While EPRI does not have access to the source of the estimates in the PUC submissions it seems
very plausible that in this rapidly escalating cost environment additional contingencies would be
added by the EPC companies particularly for those technologies that do not yet have precedent
years of commercial construction and operation (e.g., IGCC and CO2 capture technologies).
As a consequence the capital cost estimates for all technologies reported herein are much higher
than those reported in these previous annual reports over the past few years.

2-5
Table 2-1
Coal Characteristics

Pittsburgh Illinois Wyoming Texas

#8 #6 Lignite
Proximate Analysis
(Wt %) (As received)
Moisture 5.2 13.0 30.24 33.03
Ash 7.1 11.0 5.32 15.92
Fixed Carbon 51.0 41.0 33.05 23.89
Volatile Matter 36.7 35.0 31.39 27.17

Ultimate Analysis
Moisture 5.2 12.2 30.24 33.03
Carbon 73.8 61.0 48.18 35.04
Hydrogen 4.9 4.25 3.31 2.68
Nitrogen 1.4 1.25 0.70 0.77
Chlorine 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.09
Sulfur 2.13 3.28 0.37 1.16
Oxygen 5.4 6.95 11.87 11.31
Ash 7.1 11.0 5.32 15.92

Ash Mineral Analysis

SiO2 46.45 50.66 31.38 45.16
Al2O3 24.04 19.00 15.12 21.91
TiO2 1.19 0.83 1.11 1.63
Fe2O3 18.63 20.30 5.36 6.97
CaO 4.10 2.42 23.56 16.42
MgO 0.58 0.89 4.68 3.26
Na2O 0.97 0.67 1.48 0.78
K2O 1.36 2.54 0.31 0.80
P2O5 0.21 0.17 0.86 0.81
SO3 2.08 1.90 14.67 1.26
Undetermined 0.30 0.58 1.46 1.00

Ash Fusion Temperature

Reducing °C (°F)
Initial Deformation
Softening (H=W) 1216(2220) 1143(2090) 1188(2171) 1243(2270)

Heating Value
(As received)
Higher MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 30.84(13,260) 25.54(10,982) 19.40(8340) 14.00(6018)
Lower MJ/kg (Btu/lb) 29.76(12,797) 24.61(10,584) 17.94(7712) 12.60(5417)

U.S. Location Indices

EPRI’s latest information suggests that the material cost indices vary very little over the lower 48
states. However, labor rates do vary considerably by location. The general construction labor
rates by major region are illustrated below in Table 2-2. Construction labor rates represent
average “all-in” wage rates.

2-6
These rates are calculated by dividing the total labor cost for a project by the total craft hours
expended. The all-in rates are based on:
• A 300 MW PC power plant.
• Subcontracted wage rates.
• Union labor rates for 113 cities in the U.S.
• Fringes (vacation days, holidays, paid leave, health insurance, other employer benefits).
• Legalities (FICA, state and federal unemployment insurance, and workmen’s
compensation).
• Subcontractor indirects (temporary facilities, overhead and supervision, construction
equipment and small tools, and profit).
Exclusions include:
• Productivity differences between locations
• General Contractor’s costs (including General Contractor’s Liability insurance, CGL)
• Home office costs
• Permanent plant costs
However, caution is needed in the use of these factors since labor costs for cities within a region
can vary widely (even up to 100% in the West and Northeast). EPRI has compiled more detailed
labor rates in cities in the various regions and these have been used where appropriate.

Table 2-2
Labor Rates for Construction ($/hr 2006)

EPRI Region Base “All in”

Northeast (NE) 28 68

Southeast (SE) 19 41

East Central (C) 28 62

West Central (WC) 27 61

South Central (SC) 21 45

West (W) 26 61

Average 25 56

The effect of Productivity on Relative Total Labor Costs is shown in Table 2-3.

2-7
Table 2-3
Relative Labor Rates and Productivity

Location Pennsylvania Wisconsin Georgia Texas Wyoming

Relative Labor Rate 1.04 1.00 0.71 0.64 0.63
Relative 1.22 1.00 1.08 1.06 1.28
Productivity
Relative Total Labor 1.27 1.00 0.77 0.68 0.81
Cost

Plant Book Life and Levelization Factor

In this study, a 30-year book life is assumed for plant costs and a 30 year levelization factor
(carrying charge) is used that is a multiplier applied to the Total Plant Cost (TPC) to give a
capital charge in $/MWh. The factor takes into account owners costs (OC), Allowance for Funds
used during Construction (AFUDC), depreciation and return on investment. For coal plants, the
factor is 0.117. The factor to be used for any individual study will depend on the specifics of the
financing scheme, return on investment requirement, payback period, etc. The basis for the
factors used is shown in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4
TAG Financial Parameters

Current Dollars Constant Dollars

% of Total Cost,% Return,% Cost,% Return,%
Debt 45 9.0 4.05 5.83 2.62
Preferred Stock 10 8.5 0.85 5.34 0.53
Common Stock 45 12.0 5.40 8.74 3.93
Total Annual Return 100 10.30 7.09

Inflation Rate, % 3.0

Federal Tax, % 34.0
State Tax, % 4.15
Fed & State Tax, % 38.0

Discount Rates
After Tax 8.76 5.59
Before Tax 10.30 7.09

After Tax (Correct Method) 6.09

The widely used TAG type carrying charge factor of 0.117 is based on a typical construction
time of 3 years for the coal plants resulting in adding about 11-12 % in AFUDC to the TPC and
fairly modest Owners and start up costs for an additional 3-4% to give a Total Capital
Requirement (TCR) about 16% greater than the TPC. However, recent experience has shown

2-8
that higher costs are required nowadays in the permitting, project definition and project
development phases that must also be accounted for. Some companies may expense these costs
whereas others will seek to recover them from project revenues. Besides these additional front
end charges, higher finance charges than those implied in Table 2-3 will often be charged by
banks, particularly for newer technologies, such as IGCC, that do not have the power industry
operating history and historical precedent of the PC plants. Recent studies in which EPRI has
participated have shown a range of an additional 20% to 40% of TPC when different
organizations have evaluated the total capital requirement. This can make a huge difference in
the evaluated Cost-of-Electricity (COE). However in this report a TCR/TPC factor of 1.16 has
been used for the PC plants and 1.19 for the IGCC plants.

Fuel Prices
For the Kenosha, Wisconsin site, a delivered cost of 1.422 $/GJ HHV (1.5 $/MBtu) is used for
the Illinois #6 and Wyoming PRB coals.
Natural gas prices of 6 and 8 $/MBtu (5.7 and 7.6 $/GJ) have been assumed to illustrate the
competition of NGCC with coal plants.

Capacity Factor
A capacity factor (CF) of 80% is used throughout for the coal plants. If another CF is applicable,
the effect on COE can be readily calculated by adjusting the capital component of COE. For
example, if a 60% CF is applied then the capital charge component will be 80/60 or 1.33 times
greater than for an 80% CF. It is not very likely with the currently high natural gas costs that the
NGCC plants would be dispatched at this high 80% CF so NGCC cases are also reported for a
more typical CF of 40%.

Site-Specific Cost Data for Consumable Items (in 2006$)

Raw Water, $/liter ($/1000 gal) $137 ($0.52)
Lime Cost (Delivered), $/mt ($/ton) $102 ($93)
Limestone Cost (Delivered), $/mt ($/ton) $26 ($24)
Fly Ash/FGD Solids Disposal, $/mt ($/ton) $21 ($19)
Ammonia (Delivered), $/mt ($/ton) $388 ($352)
Urea (Delivered), $/mt ($/ton) $279 ($254)
Activated Carbon (Delivered), $/kg ($/lb) $1.14 ($0.52)

2-9
3
NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE (NGCC) PLANTS
Background
For most of the late 1990’s, natural gas was widely available in the U.S. at wellhead prices under
2$/GJ and city gate prices under 3$/GJ. This low price combined with the introduction of higher
firing temperature 1300°C (2372°F) heavy frame gas turbines in the 1990’s led to natural gas
fired combined cycles being the preferred choice for new power plants in the U.S. and also in
much of Europe up until 2003. Natural gas prices experienced a sharp increase to ~$9.50/GJ in
December 2000 but reverted to ~$2.5/GJ in October 2001. However, U.S. natural gas prices have
been consistently over 4.74 $/GJ (5.0$/MBtu) for the past three years. This sharp gas price rise
has resulted in much more serious consideration of clean coal technologies as a means of
diversification and fuel cost risk containment.

Commercially Available Gas Turbines

The salient characteristics of the major 60 Hz and 50 Hz gas turbines for central power
generation (as listed in Gas Turbine World 2007 Performance Specs) are shown respectively in
Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The gas turbines with IGCC experience are also noted in these tables.
The major large gas turbines used in the 60 Hz market are the General Electric (GE) 106 FA,
107 FA, and107 FB, Siemens 5000F and 6000G, Alstom KA 24-1 and Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries (MHI) M501F and M501G. General Electric has introduced their 107-H with a firing
temperature of ~ 1482°C (2700°F) and the first U.S. order for two of these units was announced
in February 2005 by GE and Calpine for a site in the Inland Empire in Southern California. The
GE 7 FB and 7 H turbines are only offered as combined cycle units, and not as simple cycles.
In the 50 Hz market, GE 106 FA, 109 FA, 109 FB and 109 H, Mitsubishi M701 F and M701 G,
Siemens 4000F and Alstom KA 26-1 are the major candidates. The first 109 H was
commissioned in Baglan Bay, Wales in 2003. The GE 9 FB and 9 H turbines are only offered as
combined cycle units, and not as simple cycle units. In late 2005 Siemens announced the
introduction of their 50 Hz gas turbine with the H designation. This will have a simple cycle
output 340+ MW and 540 + MW as a combined cycle. The machine will first be tested in simple
cycle mode at an EON AG site in Germany before its formal introduction to the broader market
is announced. This offering will have the designations SSC5-8000H and SCC5-8000H following
the new Siemens nomenclature shown in Table 3-3.
Siemens has recently adopted a new nomenclature for their Power Generation Products. The
relationship of the old names to the new names and an explanation of the new nomenclature are
shown in Table 3-3.

3-1
Table 3-1
Heavy Frame Gas Turbine Characteristics – 60 Hz

Model Simple Cycle Combined Combined Cycle Used in IGCC

MW Cycle MW Heat Rate kJ/kWh Plant/Location
(ISO (ISO (Btu/kWh)
Conditions) Conditions) LHV Basis
GE 106 B 42.1 64.3 7341(6960) El Dorado/KS.
GE 106 FA 77.1 118.7 6548(6208) Valero /DE
GE 107 EA 85.1 130.2 7173(6800) Cool Water 7 E
GE 107 FA 171.7 262.6 6424 (6090) Tampa/FL.
Wabash /IN.
GE 107 FB CC only 280.3 6276(5950)
GE 107 H CC only 400 6000 (5690)
Alstom KA 24-1 188.8 278.9 6306 (5978)
Siemens 1000F 67.7 100.8 6844 (6487)
Siemens 3000E 120.5 173 7130(6760) Dow
Plaquemine/U.S.
Siemens 5000F 198.3 293.3 6320 (5990)
Siemens 6000G 267.5 397.1 6121 (5803)
Mitsubishi M501 F 185.4 285.1 6303 (5976)
Mitsubishi M501G 267.5 398.9 6163(5843)

3-2
Table 3-2
Heavy Frame Gas Turbine Characteristics – 50 Hz

Model Simple Cycle Combined Combined Cycle Used in IGCC

MW Cycle MW heat rate Plant/Location
(ISO (ISO kJ/kWh
Conditions) Conditions) (Btu/kWh)
LHV Basis
GE 106 B 42.1 64.3 7341(6960) Shell/Pernis,
SVZ/Germany
GE 106 FA 77.1 118.4 6540(6199)
GE 109 E 126.1 193.2 6930(6570) Vresova/Czech
Republic,
SARAS/Italy
GE 109 FA 255.6 390.8 6350 (6020)
GE 109 FB CC only 412.9 6202 (5880)
GE 109 H CC only 480 6000 (5690)
Alstom KA 13E2 179.9 252.8 6813 (6458) Api Falconara/Italy
Alstom KA 26-1 288.3 424 6122 (5850)
Siemens 1000F 67.7 100.8 6844 (6487)
Siemens 2000E 168 251 6895 (6535) Buggenum/
Netherlands
Siemens 3000E 191 290 6368 (6036)
Siemens V 94.2K ~256 ISAB/Italy
Sannazzaro/Italy
Siemens V 94.3 ~200 ~335 Puertollano/Spain
Siemens 4000F 286.6 416 6182 (5859)
Mitsubishi M701 144.1 212.5 7000 (6635) DA to be used at
Nakoso, Japan
Mitsubishi M701F 278.3 416.4 6101 (5784) NPRC Negishi/Japan
Mitsubishi M701G 334 498 6070 (5755)

3-3
Table 3-3
Uniform Nomenclature for Siemens Power Generation Products

3-4
2006 Price Levels
In the previous 2005 report 1010222 the TPC of NGCC plants in the 500-550 MW net range was
reported as 460-500 $/kW. As noted earlier the CEPCI index has increased by ~10% since the
previous report and recent reported estimates for PC and IGCC plants indicate even more
substantial increases of 30-50 %.
However, as noted in the 2005 report the increase in natural gas prices led to many NGCC
project cancellations that resulted in many gas turbines and combined cycle components being
stored in warehouses. It appears that NGCC capital costs have probably not risen to the same
extent as PC and IGCC costs.

NGCC Cost of Electricity (COE) – Effects of Carbon Tax and CCS

Although no new in depth NGCC evaluations were conducted by EPRI in 2006 it is instructive to
examine the potential effect of capital cost increases on NGCC COE and the effect of carbon
taxes on the competition with coal plants and with CO2 capture and Storage (CCS).
In this section the effect of the following factors will be evaluated to illustrate points of strategic
importance in the coal versus natural gas selection and potential implication of aspects of CO2
legislation:
• Capital Cost increase
• Natural gas cost
• NGCC Capacity Factor (CF)
• CO2 emission costs (Carbon tax)
• CO2 Capture and Storage costs
The results of the evaluation of these factors are summarized in Table 3-4 for a natural gas cost
of 6$/MBtu. The results are shown graphically in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 for natural gas costs of
6 and 8 $/MBtu. In Chapter 7 of this report the 2006 cost and performance estimates for PC and
IGCC plants are evaluated in more detail, however with regard to the comparison with NGCC
plants the COE for coal plants with CO2 capture, transportation and storage have been estimated
to be in the range of 90-110 $/MWh at 80% CF and dependent on the selected coal and
technology. It is useful to keep this COE range in mind when considering the NGCC estimates
shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.
In the 2005 report the COE estimates were based on 20 year Levelized costs, however in this
2006 report the estimates are reported as 30 year Levelized costs to be consistent with other
evaluations being conducted within EPRI. However this change has a relatively small impact
since the capital cost component of NGCC COE is small compared to the fuel cost component.
For a 2 x 7FB NGCC the 2005 20 year LCOE was reported as 55.5 $/MWh at 80% CF and
6$/MBtu natural gas. A 30 year LCOE only decreases the COE to 53.9 $/MWh. Even if the TPC
in 2006 rose from the 2005 estimate of 476$/kW to 600$/kW the LCOE only increases to
56.1$/MWh at 80% CF.

3-5
The 30-year Levelized COE for natural gas fired combined cycle plants is shown in Table 3-4
using the technical and economic basis outlined in Chapter 2. It is often argued that since the
NGCC has larger incremental (dispatch) costs (i.e., O&M + Fuel) that it would not be dispatched
at the same high CF as the lower incremental cost coal plants. If the NGCC plant was dispatched
at intermediate daily load following duty a CF of 40% (or half that of the coal plants) may be
typical and if this was the case then with natural gas at 5.69$/GJ (6$/MBtu) the NGCC COE
rises to exceed that of the coal plants by a significant margin as shown in Table 3-4.
The following observations are made:
• The NGCC COE in 2006 without capture or CO2 tax is 56.1 $/MWh at 80% CF with
6$/MBtu. This is fairly similar to the COE estimates for PC plants with coal at
1.5$/MBtu and at similar conditions.
• If there was a CO2 emissions penalty of 25$/st the NGCC COE increases to 66.7 $/MWh
which is lower than the PC COE of 76.3 $/MWh (with the same CO2 penalty) shown in
Table 4-4.
• At the gas cost of 6$/MBtu it is still unlikely that NGCC would be dispatched at 80% CF.
The NGCC COE at 40% CF with the CO2 adder is 82.7 $/kWh is higher than the PC COE
of 76.3$/MWh.
• When CCS is added to NGCC the COE with 6$/MBtu at 80% CF is estimated at
78.7$/MWh and it is estimated that at this CF the crossover with NGCC and venting
occurs at a CO2 adder of ~55$/st (Figure 3-1).
• At 8$/MBtu NG the cross over of NGCC with CCS and NGCC with venting occurs at a
CO2 adder of ~63$/st (slightly higher than at 6$/MBtu NG).
• At the 40% CF and 6$/MBtu the cross over of NGCC with CCS and NGCC with venting
occurs at a CO2 adder of ~75$/st (Figure 3-2). At 8$/MBtu the crossover is ~85$/st of
CO2.
• At 6$/MBtu and 80% CF NGCC with CCS is lower COE than coal with CCS. At
8$/MBtu NGCC with CCS is comparable to coal with CCS.
• At 40% CF and 6$/MBtu the COE of NGCC with CCS is greater than coal plants with
CCS.
• At 40% CF and 6$/MBtu the COE of NGCC with venting is comparable to GE Q IGCC
with CCS at 25$/st CO2 and with PC with CCS at ~45$/st CO2.
These preliminary estimates illustrate the COE intersections of NGCC and coal plants under
various assumptions. They also illustrate under what NG price and CO2 tax conditions it may be
appropriate to consider CCS for NGCC.

3-6
Table 3-4
EPRI Estimates of Cost and Performance of NGCC's in September 2006$

COE for Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Plant

Technology/Estimate Year 2x 7 FB/ 2 x 7 FB/ 2 x 7 FB with
2005 2006 CCS / 2006
Net Output Design MW 542 550 467.5
Capacity Factor (CF) % 80/40 same same
Fuel Cost $/GJ ($/MBtu) HHV 5.69(6.0) same same
TPC $/kW 476 600 1027
Fixed O&M $/kW-year 5.0 6.3 10.8
Variable O&M mills/kWh 1.7 1.7 3.7

Net Heat Rate -Av Annual at 80% CF 7706 (7306) 7706 (7306) 9066(8595)
kJ/kWh (Btu/kWh ) HHV

Net Heat Rate- Av. Annual at 40% CF 8512 (8070) 7706 (7306) 10,015 (9495)
kJ/kWh (Btu/kWh) HHV
Capital $/MWh at CF 80%/40% 7.6/15.0 9.6/19.0 16.4/32.4
O&M $/MWh at CF 80%/40% 2.4/3.2 2.7/3.6 5.3/7.0
Fuel $/MWh with Natural Gas 43.8/48.4 43.8/48.4 51.6/57.0
5.69$/GJ(6.0$/M Btu)
COE w/o Capture or C tax $/MWh 53.8/66.6 56.1/71.0 73.3/96.4
CO2 emissions lb/MWh 849/936 849/936 100/110
(90% capture)
COE Adder for 25$/st CO2 10.6/11.7 10.6/11.7 1.25/1.4
CO2 to Storage st/MWh 0.45
CO2 Transportation & Storage(T&S) 4.1/4.5
$/MWh ($9.07/st or 10$/mt CO2)
Total COE $/MWh including C tax 64.4/78.3 66.7/82.7 78.65/102.3
and CO2 T&S

3-7
 Figure 3.1 Natural Gas Combined Cycle With and Without CO2 Capture
at 80% Capacity Factor

120
30-Yr Levelized COE, $/MWh (Constant

110

100

90
2006$) .

80

70
Gas @ $8/MMBtu w/CCS
60 Gas @ $8/MMBtu w/CO2 vent
50 Gas @ $6/MMBtu w/CCS
40 Gas @ $6/MMBtu w/CO2 vent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO2 Adder, $/ST

Figure 3-1
Natural Gas Combined cycle with and Without CO2 Capture at 80% Capacity Factor

3-8
 Figure 3.2 Natural Gas Combined Cycle With and Without CO2 Capture
at 40% Capacity Factor
140
30-Yr Levelized COE, $/MWh (Constant 2006$) .

130

120

110

100

90

80

Gas @ $8/MMBtu w/CCS

70
Gas @ $8/MMBtu w/CO2 vent
Gas @ $6/MMBtu w/CCS
60
Gas @ $6/MMBtu w/CO2 vent

50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO2 Adder, $/ST

Figure 3-2
Natural Gas Combined Cycle With and Without CO2 Captures at 40% Capacity Factor

3-9
4
PULVERIZED COAL (PC) PLANTS
Background
Since the early 1980’s, there have been very significant improvements in materials technology
for boilers and steam turbines and a much better understanding of the water chemistry. These
improvements have resulted in an increased number of new plants employing supercritical steam
cycles around the world. However, the selection of steam conditions is dependent on many site
specific factors including fuel type, fuel cost, emissions regulations, capital cost, load factor,
duty, local labor rates and perceived reliability and availability. Concerns regarding CO2
emissions are now driving more serious consideration of higher temperature supercritical steam
conditions by US power companies because of the higher efficiency and the accompanying
lower emissions.

Effect of Steam Conditions on PC Plant Efficiency

The heat rate benefits of higher temperatures and pressures, as well as double reheat, are shown
graphically in Figure 4-1 for single reheat cycles and Figure 4-2 for double reheat cycles. The
heat rate improvement possible with a double reheat cycle has to be evaluated against higher
capital costs attributable to greater equipment complexity in the boiler, piping systems and steam
turbine. This trade-off will be heavily dependent on local conditions and fuel costs. The source
of Figures 4-1 and 4-2 is a paper by K.M.Retzlaff & G.Schlottner (GE Power Systems)
presented at the PowerGen Conference Europe 1998.
Previous EPRI studies of the first and second-generation supercritical PC plants suggested that
after an initial learning period their availability was generally equal to or better than standard
Sub-critical plants. The steam conditions of most of these plants were 24 MPa/538°C/538°C
(3500 psig/1000°F/1000°F) for the single reheat units and 24 MPa/538°C/552°C/566°C (3500
psig/1000°F/1025°F/ 1050°F) for the double reheat units. The typical Sub-critical plants use
steam conditions of 16.5 MPa/538°C/538°C (2400 psig/1000°F/1000°F). At the same level of
steam turbine components in the IP and LP sections this translates to heat rates about 2.3% and
4.6% lower for these super-critical single reheat and double reheat respectively compared to the
Sub-critical base line heat rate.

Current PC Plant Designs

The newer high creep strength martensitic 9-12% steels, such as P91, P92 (NF616) and P122
(HCM12A), used for thick section boiler components and steam pipes, are the key new materials
that have driven the Supercritical technology to steam temperatures above 566°C (1050°F) into
what is generally now characterized as the Ultra Supercritical (USC) range at 593-600°C (1100-
1112°F). Several large PC plants with USC steam conditions in the size range of 400-1000 MW
have entered commercial service in Japan and Europe over the past 10 years. The steam
conditions for the Japanese plants have typically been 25 MPa/600°C/600°C (3600
psig/1112°F/1112°F) single reheat while the steam conditions of the plants in Denmark are 29

4-1
MPa/580°C/580°C/580°C (4200 psig/1076°F/1076°F/ 1076°F) double reheat. The design heat
rates for these plants are about 5% and 7% respectively lower than standard Sub–critical plants.
Reports on these plants have been very encouraging. The Japanese plants have capacity factors
of about 80%. It appears that these plants shut down once a year for major overhaul. This is not
the general practice in the US. The longer-term reliability of these plants in Japan and Europe is
of key importance to the future of this technology.
At the current time, the lead in the manufacture of the key materials for these plants is in Japan
and Europe. Research, development and demonstration programs are underway in these
countries aimed at materials capable of withstanding steam conditions up to 650°C and over the
next decade to 700°C. In 2001, a new program was also launched in the U.S. with support from
DOE, EPRI and the U.S. boiler manufacturers with the objective of developing materials up to
760°C. If successful, these developments would result in USC designs with heat rates 17-18%
lower than the standard Sub-critical designs.
Use of Sub-critical cycles for the limited number of coal plants that have been built in the U.S. in
the last 20 years has been mainly due to the relatively low fuel costs which eliminated the cost
justification for the perceived higher capital costs of the higher efficiency cycles. However, in
the international markets, where fuel cost is a higher fraction of the total COE, the higher
efficiency cycles offer advantages, which can result in a favorable COE comparison and provide
lower emissions compared to a sub-critical plant. The move to Supercritical is happening
worldwide, especially in Europe and Japan.
However the European and Japanese experience with these USC steam conditions has primarily
been with either low sulfur international merchant coals (from South Africa, Australia and
Colombia) or the German low sulfur lignites. In a US survey of power companies and suppliers
conducted by EPRI in 2005 the current opinion was that for low sulfur coals such as PRB that
Supercritical plants with reheat temperatures at 600°C (1112°F) could be selected. However for
the higher sulfur Mid-west and Appalachian coals the main and reheat steam temperatures
should not be above 565°C (1050°F). The main concern remains that of sulfidation and other
corrosion induced by sulfur and chlorine species in the boiler.
Since 1993, there have been continued advances in steam turbine design. Although the market
for new coal units in the U.S. and Europe markedly declined with the availability of low cost
natural gas and the latest high efficiency gas turbine combined cycle units in the late 1990’s, the
subsequent upsurge in natural gas prices has greatly renewed interest in coal plants for the U.S.
power industry. There continues to be a market interest for coal units in the some parts of Europe
Asia-Pacific region despite anxieties about the implications of the Kyoto accord and possible
post Kyoto CO2 related regulations. China has embarked on a huge expansion of PC coal plants
and most recently has ordered the first USC plants with the typical Japanese USC steam
conditions.

4-2
Figure 4-1
Heat Rate Improvement from Steam Cycle with Ultra Supercritical Steam Conditions (Single
reheat)

Figure 4-2
Heat Rate Improvement from Steam Cycle with Ultra Supercritical Steam Conditions
(Double reheat)

Comparison of U.S. and European Plant Performance (Heat Rate) Estimates

There are many differences between the U.S. and European practice for evaluating and
estimating the efficiency of coal fired power plants. The most obvious difference is that the U.S.
conventionally reports heat rates and efficiencies based on the Higher Heating Value (HHV)
whereas the European convention is to use Lower Heating Value (LHV). In addition fuel is
purchased on HHV basis in the US. However the LHV gives a truer measure of recoverable
energy.

4-3
The LHV calculation formula should include moisture in coal. A preferred formula is:
LHV = HHV – (91.1436 * H + 10.3181 * H2O + 0.3439 * O)
where H, H2O, and O are on an as-received basis.
There are also significant differences in the ratio of HHV to LHV by coal type. The ratio
decreases with coal rank as shown in Table 4-1. For the high moisture German and Australian
brown coals with 50-70% moisture the HHV and LHV efficiencies are dramatically different.

Table 4-1
Change of HHV/LHV Ratio with Coal Type

Coal Pittsburgh #8 Illinois #6 PRB Texas

Lignite
HHV kJ/kg 30837 25540 19396 13995
(Btu/lb) As Received (13260) (10982) (8340) (6018)

LHV kJ/kg 29761 24614 18073 12598

(Btu/lb) As Received (12797) (10584) (7712) (5417)

Ratio HHV/LHV 0.965 0.964 0.925 0.900

The colder climate in much of Europe and their traditionally higher fuel costs lead to differences
in design conditions and philosophy. In general, the European plants use lower sulfur higher ash
fusion temperature international merchant coals as compared to the U.S. wider usage of higher
sulfur coals such as Illinois #6 and Pittsburgh #8. A more recent development in the U.S. has
been the increased use of the low sulfur Powder River Basin coals.
Cooling water temperature and the achievable condenser vacuum has an important effect on heat
rate. Evaluations based on European plants, particularly Danish units, often use a condenser
pressure as low as 2.5 kPa-abs (0.74” HgA), whereas condenser pressure is more typically 5 kPa-
abs (1.5” HgA) in Japan and 6.75-8.5 kPa-abs (2-2.5” HgA) in the U.S. However, if the
condenser pressure were reduced from 6.75 kPa-abs to 5 kPa-abs, unit heat rate would improve
by about 1.3%. If it could be reduced to the Danish level of 2.5 kPa-abs, heat rate would improve
by 3.3% relative to a unit operating with a condenser pressure of 6.75 kPa-abs. The availability
of once-through cooling water also has a beneficial effect on heat rate by eliminating the
auxiliary power requirements for pumping cooling water to the towers. This can typically reduce
overall heat rate by about 0.6%.
Coal properties also affect heat rate. High moisture and high ash contents reduce boiler
efficiency. Concern over corrosion in the cold end of the air heater and downstream ductwork
sets a minimum on the permissible boiler outlet temperature when higher-sulfur coals are used,
and thereby reduces the achievable boiler efficiency. A 10°C (18°F) increase in air heater exit
temperature reduces heat rate by about 15 kJ/kWh, or approximately 0.2%. Danish supercritical
plants, for example, are usually designed for high-quality international merchant coals with low
sulfur content.

4-4
The European standards for calculation of boiler efficiency and turbine efficiency differ from
U.S. standards. The combined effects of once-through cooling water at low temperature, higher
boiler efficiency due to use of only high-quality coals, and the different efficiency calculation
methods largely account for the differences in attainable heat rates reported by U.S. and
European researchers for PC plants with the same steam conditions and reheat stages. Thus,
European analysts may report heat rates 8-10% lower (and net plant efficiencies about 4%
higher) for essentially comparable supercritical plants.
These Europe/U.S differences and their partial reconciliation are illustrated in Table 4-2 in
which the heat rates of two USC PC plants are compared. One of these was designed by EPRI
and a U.S engineering contractor and the other was designed by ELSAM of Denmark.

Table 4-2
Comparison of European and U.S Heat Rate Estimates for USC PC Plants

EPRI ELSAM
Net MW 702.6 377.5

Steam Conditions MPa/°C/°C/°C 310/593/593/593 280/580/580/580

psig/°F/°F/°F 500/1100/1100/1100 4120/1076/1076/1076

Heat Rate kJ/kWh LHV 8508 7577

Btu/kWh LHV/HHV 8066/8497 7183/7493

Efficiency % LHV/HHV 42.3/40.2 47.5/45.5

Coal Illinois #6, 4% Sulfur Merchant, 0.8% sulfur

Condenser Pressure mbar (in. Hg) 0.085 (2.5) 0.02 (0.62)

Boiler Efficiency % LHV/HHV 94/ 89.6 95.5/91.5

The effect of the main differences between the EPRI and ELSAM estimates in Table 4-2 can be
quantified and somewhat reconciled by the following:
o Effect of fuel type, sulfur, exit temperature (169 Btu/kWh).
o Treatment of losses (ASME vs. European standards) on boiler efficiency (80 Btu/kWh).
o Treatment of auxiliary power requirements (100 Btu/kWh).
o Effect of condenser backpressure on turbine efficiency (425 Btu/kWh)
o Effect of once-through cooling versus cooling towers (60 Btu/kWh)
o ASTM vs. European Standards on turbine efficiency (170 Btu/kWh)

4-5
EPRI PC + FGD + SCR Plant Estimates

2005 PC Estimates
The capital cost and performance of PC plants with FGD and SCR were estimated in the
previous 2005 report # 1010222 for several coals and locations as shown in the matrix
Table 4-3. The steam conditions of the Sub-critical (Sub) plants were 16.7 MPa/538°C/538°C
(2400psig/1000°F/1000°F), the supercritical (SC) plants 25MPa/565°C/565°C
(3600psig/1050°F/1050°F) and the Ultra supercritical (USC) plants 25 MPa/593°C/593°C
(3600psig/1100°F/1100°F). The TPC estimates include Engineering, General & Administration
(G&A) and Fee at 5.6% of the TFC and a Contingency at 10.3% of the TFC + Engineering,
G&A and Fee.

Table 4-3
2005 EPRI PC + FGD + SCR Case Estimates

Coal Pittsburg Illinois Wyoming Texas Wyoming

#8 #6 PRB Lignite PRB
Location Kenosha, Kenosha, Kenosha, Texas – Wyoming -
Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Mine Mouth Mine Mouth

500 MW Sub-critical X X
600 MW Sub-critical X X X X
600 MW Super–critical X X X X
600MW USC X X
800 MW Super- critical X
800 MW USC X X
Coal Cost $/GJ 1.896 1.422 1.422 0.711 0.948
($/MBtu) HHV basis (2.00) (1.50) (1.50) (0.75) (1.00)

2006 PC Estimates
There have been very substantial increases in commodities, materials, equipment and plant
construction costs in the past two years as reflected in the latest PC cost estimates shown in
Table 4-4. Estimates are shown for SCPC with Illinois #6 coal and SCPC and USC for PRB at
the standard Midwest Kenosha, WI location. Plants designed for Illinois #6 would also be able to
use Northern Appalachian coals such as Pittsburgh #8 and most power company coal buyers
would want to have the flexibility to buy from either Illinois or Appalachian basins.
Although the number of PC cases newly investigated in 2006 was fewer than in the 2005 report
it is nevertheless believed that most of the observations made on cost and performance still hold
true in the higher cost situation in 2006. Accordingly the following observations are made
regarding the economic estimates shown in Table 4-3 and the insights from the results included
in the 2005 report:

4-6
 o Increasing size from 600 to 800 MW decreases the COE by about 5.5-6% illustrating the
economies of scale.
o The COE for all three types of PC plants, sub critical, supercritical and USC, are very
similar for all coals. The higher efficiency of the SC and USC plants is offset by their
slightly higher capital cost.
o However when the dispatch costs (Fuel + Variable O&M) are considered the higher
efficiency of the SC and USC plants show an advantage of about 1$/MWh at these fuel
prices.
o At these coal costs the COE for the 2006 PC plants (52-53 $/MWh) are all slightly lower
than the COE for NGCC plants with natural gas at 6$/MBtu (56$/MWh) when evaluated
at the same 80% capacity factor (CF). At the prevailing natural gas costs of the past 2
years the NGCC plants have, on the average only been dispatched at about 30% CF. At
40% CF and 6$/MBtu natural gas the NGCC costs rise to 71$/kWh (See Table 3-5),
some 18 $/MWh over the PC costs with Illinois #6 coal in Table 4.4.
o If PRB and Illinois#6 coal can be delivered at the same $/MBtu the Levelized COE is
similar for both coals. However if dispatch costs are considered the Illinois #6 costs are
higher by 1.6-1.8 $/MWh (~10%) because of the higher variable cost (limestone and
solids disposal).
o The COE for the Wyoming PRB coal is slightly less than the two bituminous coals. The
PRB capital cost is slightly higher than for the Illinois #6 coal because of the need for a
larger boiler. The boiler efficiency for the high moisture PRB coal is also lower leading
to lower overall plant efficiency. However, in the final COE calculation the lower
limestone usage with the low sulfur PRB coal compensates for the higher capital and
lower efficiency.
In all cases the COE for the same size Sub-critical, SC and USC PC plants is essentially the
same. However, if emissions including CO2 are ever assessed an externality charge, or taxed in
any way, then the SC and USC units would be more favored since their emissions would be
lower than those from the Sub-critical units roughly in proportion to their heat rates or coal
usage. In this study, this reduction is typically estimated at 5% and 6.5% respectively. While
these savings are not insignificant, they are not huge.
New minemouth plants in e.g., Wyoming could possibly provide additional power to the large
and growing California economy. Even if the costs of transmission were to add 20% to the COE
the delivered COE from such Wyoming minemouth plants would probably be lower than the
COE from NGCC plants located in California with natural gas at 6$/MBtu and evaluated at the
same 80% CF. Obviously the advantage would be even greater if the NGCC plants have a lower
CF. Since power plants are usually dispatched on variable cost it would be likely that the PC
plants would be favored in the dispatch order. This could lead to a higher capacity factor for PC
plants than comparable sized NGCC plants. This aspect would therefore favor the COE from the
large PC mine mouth plants even more than the above comparison would suggest.
However recent legislation passed in California limits power imported into the state under long
term contracts to have no more than 1100 lbs/MWh of CO2 emissions. This effectively excludes
new coal power into California unless ~50% of the CO2 is captured and stored/sequestered.

4-7
Table 4-4
2006 PC Plants 30 year LCOE Estimates: Illinois #6 and PRB Coals, Kenosha, Wisconsin

Technology SC SC USC

Coal Ill #6 PRB PRB

Coal Price $/GJ 1.422 1.422 1.422

($/MBtu) HHV (1.50) (1.50) (1.50)
Plant Size MW 600 600 600
Capacity Factor % 80 80 80
TPC $/kW 1753 1800 1825
Fixed O&M $/kW-Year 49.1 50.4 51.1
Variable O&M $/MWh 3.5 1.6 1.6
Heat Rate kJ/kWh 9454 9638 9488
(Btu/kWh) HHV (8963) (9137) (8995)
Design Full Load

Capital $/MWh 29.27 30.05 30.47

O&M $/MWh 10.51 8.75 8.85
Fuel $/MWh 13.44 13.71 13.49
COE $/MWh 53.22 52.51 52.81
Dispatch Cost $/MWH 16.94 15.31 15.09
(Fuel + Variable O&M)

CO2 Emission kg/MWh 836 879 865

(lb/MWh) (1843) (1937) (1907)
COE Adder $/MWh for CO2 23.0 24.2 23.8
Emissions at 27.55$/metric
ton (25$/ton) of CO2

PRB coal has been delivered to plants in Texas for the past 20 years. A PRB based coal plant in
Texas also has markedly lower capital cost than a Texas lignite plant in Texas. Even with a
delivered PRB coal cost of $1.422/GJ ($1.50/MBtu) to Texas the COE for a Texas PRB plant
appears to be close to the COE for a Texas lignite plant with lignite at $0.711/GJ ($0.75/MBtu).
The choice will come down to a detailed analysis and projection for the relative delivered prices
of the PRB coal and lignite. TXU is planning a controversial large expansion of SCPC plants in
their Texas territory using both Texas lignite and PRB coals. City Public Service Company of
San Antonio selected PRB coal for their 750 MW Sub-critical PC plant even although it is
situated in the lignite belt area of Texas.
The heat rate estimates for various coals and steam conditions are presented as a comparative bar
chart in Figure 4-3.

4-8
 Heat Rate Comparison
10,500

10,000
Net Heat Rate, Btu/kWh (HHV)

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000
SC

SC
ub

ub

Y
C
C

C
ub

ub
-W

-W
0S
0S

0S

0S
0S

0S

0S
0S

0S
0U

0U

SC

SC
60

60
60

60

80
60
60
60

60
60

80
B
IL

TX

TX
PT

0U

0U
B
IL

TX
PT

B
PR
PR

PR

PR

60

80
B

B
PR

PR

Figure 4-3
PC Plant Heat Rates for Various Coals

PC Plants and CO2 Capture

The two main approaches to capture of CO2 from PC plants are a) post combustion removal from
the flue gas using a solvent and b) combustion of coal with oxygen (Oxyfuel) that produces a
concentrated stream of CO2.
The two main processes for post combustion removal are Fluor’s Econamine, which uses
MonoEthanolAmine (MEA) and MHI’s KS-1 which uses a hindered amine. The current
operating units produce 200-500 tons/day of CO2 from natural gas fired plants. A substantial
amount of LP steam is required for the regeneration of these solvents which markedly reduces
the plant output by 25-30%. Demonstration of these processes on coal plant flue gases at a larger
scale will be required before there can be large scale commercial use. Estimates of the cost of
CO2 removal from PC plants using these processes have been made are reported in Chapter 7.
Vattenfall is planning a 30 MWth Oxyfuel pilot near Schwarze Pumpe in Germany and similar
sized units planned in the US and Australia. SaskPower announced plans for a 300 MW unit in
Canada and are currently doing development and design work with Babcock & Wilcox and Air
Liquide. The auxiliary power needed to run the ASU is considerable and the overall plant
efficiency estimates have been similar to those for post combustion removal.

4-9
5
ATMOSPHERIC FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION
(AFBC) PLANTS
AFBC boiler technology is relatively new and it is only since the early 1990s, that it has become
established worldwide as a mature reliable technology option for the commercial generation of
electric power. A major impetus in the initial deployment of AFBC boiler technology was its
capability for in-situ SO2 capture, which eliminated the need for FGD. The AFBC combustion
temperatures of ~900°C (1652°F) are much lower than those that exist in PC boilers and
accordingly the boiler NOx emissions are lower than from PC plants even those equipped with
low NOx burners.
The leading AFBC technology is circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) combustion, which is most
frequently chosen for projects larger than about 75 MW (net). The largest CFB boilers currently
in operation are up to 300 MW (net equivalent) and larger units are planned. Bubbling fluidized-
bed (BFB) combustion is an option primarily for low-sulfur, low-ash fuels (e.g., biomass and
peat) at sizes below 50 MW, although several 60- to 120-MW (net) biomass-fired units have
been built in recent years. Hybrid fluidized-bed (HFB) combustion is a technology combining
certain features of these two basic technologies, and designs are available up to about 80 MW
(net).

Background
Within the last decade, CFB boiler technology has emerged as a viable and mature alternative to
pulverized coal (PC) boiler technology. The choice between the two depends on the site-specific
factors that affect performance and costs; namely, generating capacity, fuels, fuel flexibility, air
emissions limits, and solid waste/solid byproducts disposal/sale. Of course customer preference
is always a selection variable. The competitiveness of CFB technology tends to improve with a
requirement for fuel flexibility and an ample supply of a low-cost opportunity fuel (e.g., biomass
or petroleum coke) can strengthen the case for the CFB boiler option.
CFB plants have demonstrated high availability, heat rates comparable to PC boilers with flue
gas desulfurization (FGD), 91 to 95 percent in-situ SO2 capture, low- NOx emissions, fuel
flexibility, and the ability to burn high-ash and slagging/fouling fuels that would be problematic
in a PC boiler. CFB boilers produce air emissions comparable to those from PC boilers equipped
with low- NOx burners, SCR and FGD. Recent CFB boiler designs include dry FGD units to
remove additional SO2 at the back end and increase overall SO2 capture to over 98 percent.
AFBC technology is a very well established technology worldwide, there being approximately
625 units with steam capacities greater than 12.6 kg/sec (or 100,000 lb/hr). This total includes all
types of AFBC technologies producing power in utility, independent power producer (IPP)
applications, and cogeneration applications (including district heating). CFB boilers are the
predominant AFBC technology used, because of their superior operability and environmental
performance relative to BFB boilers. Currently, the largest CFB unit built is 320-MW (net) but

5-1
designs for units up to 600 MW have been developed by three of the major vendors. Some of
these designs include supercritical steam conditions.
Nevertheless, BFB technology continues to be used in low-sulfur fuel applications. BFB designs
may also be more appropriate as a low-cost retrofit for PC or stoker boilers. This may be a
particularly attractive option to solve the slagging/fouling problems associated with certain fuels.
The primary new BFB boiler application is for biomass-based projects, predominantly wood-
fired boilers in the pulp and paper industry, where units of up to 50 MW (net) are common.
Although a few 80- to 350-MW (gross) coal-fired BFB boilers were built in the 1980s and early
1990s, the largest recent BFB plant is a 117-MW peat-fired unit in Ireland. The largest
conversion of a PC boiler to a biomass-fired BFB is a 90-MW (gross) unit in Finland.

History
In the U.S., the Federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) created the
opportunity for IPP's to generate and sell electric power to the regulated utilities. This, plus the
perception of some regulators that CFB boilers were the Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), fostered a climate in which CFB boiler sales proliferated for about a decade—up to the
early 1990s. California and Pennsylvania in particular were hosts to relatively large IPP AFBC
markets during that era.
Since the late 1980s, numerous AFBC IPP's (with power sales contracts including incentives
based on availability), industrial co generators/self-generators, and utility-owned and operated
AFBC plants have consistently achieved availabilities and annual capacity factors in the 80 to 98
percent range.
While the primary early proving grounds for AFBC boilers were the U.S., Western Europe,
Japan, and South Korea, significant markets also emerged in China and Southeast Asia.
Hundreds of AFBC boilers, predominantly CFB designs, have been deployed in these regions to
meet strict SO2 and NOx emissions limits with sulfur-bearing fuels.
Prior to the beginning of deregulation in the late 1990s, the North American AFBC market was
dominated by IPP's. These were mainly units with a generating capacity of less than 110 MW.
Although there were only a small number of utility-owned plants they tended to be larger. The
largest are the 2 x 150-MW (net) CFB units of Texas-New Mexico Power Co., Nova Scotia
Power’s 165 MW (net) CFB unit, and TVA’s 142-MW (net) BFB unit. Now, several 220- to
265-MW (net) CFB units for both utility and IPP based projects are in various stages of
commercial operation, start-up, and construction in the U.S. Other comparable units are being
planned by several power generators.
Since 1995, several CFB boilers with unit capacities of 200 to 250 MW (gross) have been
constructed and successfully commissioned worldwide—demonstrating the viability and
scalability of the technology. About twelve 250- to 300-MW (gross) CFB boilers have been
commissioned worldwide in the years 2001-5. The largest CFB designed in the world to date,
320 MW (net equivalent), has been built in Sardinia and has started operations.
In 2003 Foster Wheeler bid on a proposed 450-MW (gross) CFB unit with Super-critical steam
conditions for a customer in Poland and after some hiatus closure of financing for this project
was announced in January 2006. The major vendors and Electricité de France (EdF) have also

5-2
conducted feasibility, engineering, and cost studies of supercritical CFB boiler designs up to
about 600 MW (gross)—concluding that they are feasible.
In addition, numerous units in the 125- to 180-MW (gross) size range have been commissioned
worldwide since the early 1990s. The fuels burned in these and the above CFB units cover the
wide range of solid fuels; wood, peat, lignite, sub-bituminous and bituminous coals, anthracite,
bituminous and anthracite coal wastes (gob and culm), petroleum coke, and tire-derived fuel
(TDF).
In the early 1990s, the U.S. AFBC market cooled down because most of the potential solids-
fueled PURPA projects had been developed and low natural gas prices and combined cycle plant
costs made new gas-based combined cycle projects more economical. Similar trends were noted
in Europe and Asia. Although the number of projects decreased, the size of units increased such
that worldwide AFBC generating capacity continued to rise steadily. In recent years there has
been an increase in the number of sales for CFB boilers greater than 75 MW, possibly reflecting
the increase in natural gas prices.

Vendors
By the late 1980s, a small number of CFB vendors and their various licensees had emerged
dominating the market. Since then, various acquisitions, mergers, and departures from the AFBC
business arena have reduced further the number of major international players to four. These
companies and the types of AFBC boilers they offer are listed in Table 5-1. While Lurgi has not
been actively marketing their CFB boiler technology in the U.S., it is available to any interested
potential customer.
The history of these vendors has involved various partnerships and acquisitions that influence the
commercial products they offer. In addition to their European and North American market
prominence, the vendors in Table 5-1 have licensees, affiliates or a direct presence in the Far
East, primarily in China, Japan, Korea, and India. Most of the Japanese licensees are themselves
also major suppliers of conventional boilers.
Hundreds of AFBC boilers have been deployed in the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan to meet
strict SO2 and NOx emission limits with sulfur-bearing fuels. These units are owned and operated
by independent power producers (IPPs), industrial cogenerators/self-generators, and traditional
regulated utilities. CFB boilers are the preferred technology and 150- to 300-MW units are now
proven and widely used, consistently achieving availabilities and annual capacity factors in the
85 to 95 percent range. There are only two large BFB boilers, TVA’s 160-MW unit and EPDC’s
350-MW unit at Takehara. Bubbling units continue to be built, but they are usually limited to
biomass applications at sizes less than 100 MW.

5-3
Table 5-1
Major International AFBC Boiler Vendors/Licensors and Their Technologies

Types of AFBC Largest

Technologies Offered AFBC Unit
Supplied
Vendor (Main CFB BFB HFB
Former AFBC Vendors Included To Date
centers)
ALSTOM Power ABB Combustion Engineering (U.S.) X X X 320 MW
(France, U.S., Germany) Gross Equiv.
Stein Industrie (France)
EVT Energie und Verfahrenstechnik
(Germany)
Foster Wheeler Ahlstrom Pyropower (Finland & U.S.) X X – 300 MW
(U.S. & Finland) (Gross)
Kvaerner Pulping Tampella Power (Finland & U.S.) X X – 258 MW
(U.S. & Finland) (Gross)
Gotaverken Energy Systems (Sweden)
Lurgi Energie und The Circofluid HFB technology X X X 250 MW
Entsorgung (Germany) developed by Deutsche Babcock (Gross)

A description of several of the various designs can be found in the “AFBC Guidebook”, EPRI
Report 1004493, December 2002. This report is an update of the “FBC Guidebook”, EPRI
Report TR 106903, December 1996.
Currently the largest operating CFBs are between 250 and 300 MW using sub-critical steam
conditions. However, in March 2003 the Lagisza Project was announced, a 460-MW
supercritical design to be built by Foster Wheeler in Poland. The closure of financing for the
Lagisza project was finally announced in January 2006. This is a significant advancement and
greatly improves the economy of scale for CFB technology. Both ALSTOM Power and Foster
Wheeler have prepared supercritical design for plants up to 600 MW by scaling up their current
large-scale operating units. By evolving the design from a known performance database, the
companies expect to limit risk associated with performance, operation, reliability, and
maintenance. Pilot plant studies have been carried out to understand scale-up issues associated
with certain plant components. The larger size with the higher steam conditions will improve the
competitiveness of CFB units relative to other power generation technologies.

Large Power Plant Applications

In principle, from a steam and power generation standpoint, AFBC boilers are interchangeable
with conventional boilers and can be utilized for the full range of utility applications, including
cycling operation. A comparative analysis completed by EPRI, concluded that AFBC units up to
300 MW with modern reheat sub critical steam conditions will meet the same cycling standards
that utilities expect of their PC boilers. Turndown to about 35 percent of full load is generally
achievable with AFBC boilers, and many IPP-owned units operate under dispatchable power
purchase contracts and varying degrees of cycling or load-following service.
CFB boilers in the 300- to 600-MW size range have not yet been built so their capability in
utility applications remains to be demonstrated. However, studies by major vendors and the

5-4
French utility company EdF have indicated that supercritical sliding-pressure designs are feasible
for CFB boilers in these larger sizes.
Operationally, there are both similarities and differences between AFBC boilers and
conventional boilers. Boiler operators are shown to understand readily the added complexities of
AFBC operation associated with fluid-bed dynamics, in-situ SO2 removal, and solids
recirculation. The vendors generally can arrange for operator training at a commercial
installation. Large power applications for which AFBC boilers are technically appropriate
include:
• New units (greenfield plants or at existing power stations).
• Repowering of old units (boiler replacement). All types of AFBC boiler have been used
for repowering.
• Retrofitting any type of boiler with a BFB bottom to increase fuel flexibility and/or
reduce slagging/fouling problems with an existing fuel.
The projected economic competitiveness of AFBC technology versus other power generation
options depends on numerous site-specific factors, including:
• Type, quality, and projected long-term supply and price of candidate fuels and limestone
• The nature of the project; i.e., new plant, repowered plant, BFB conversion
• The capacity—potential economies of scale
• Location-specific construction labor costs
• The service duty; i.e., baseload or load following
• Environmental considerations, especially air emissions and solid waste disposal related to
SO2 control
• Projected O&M costs, including solid byproduct potential and/or solid waste disposal,
and projected plant reliability and availability
• Projected future electricity availability and competitive prices from other sources

EPRI CFB Cost and Performance Estimates & Comparison to PC

No new CFBC plant cost estimates were undertaken by EPRI in 2006. Obviously all costs have
risen markedly in the past two years but from the point of view of competition between fuels and
between PC and CFBC plants it is believed that the insights from the results reported in the
AFBC sections of the March 2005 and March 2006 reports are still valid.
In an earlier report 1009808 March 2005 six CFB cases were evaluated at the standard Kenosha,
WI location, one case located in Wyoming, and one case located in Texas. The plants at the
Wisconsin location were based on the use of Pittsburgh #8, Illinois#6 and Wyoming PRB sub
bituminous coals, while the plant at the Wyoming location was based on the use of PRB coal,
and the plant at the Texas location was based on the use of Texas lignite. All of the plants were

5-5
based on CFBC technology. Based on these previous studies it appeared that for the Appalachian
and Illinois basin bituminous coals PC plants had an advantage over CFBC. PC plants have the
advantage of proven capability at larger scale and the limestone usage and solids disposal costs
are lower for PC than for CFBC. However this previous report also showed some advantage for
CFBC over PC for lower rank coals.
Therefore in the 2005 report the CFBC cases studied were minemouth plants for PRB in
Wyoming and Lignite in Texas of the following plant sizes:
• 1 x 250 MW
• 2 x 250 MW (each boiler has a separate steam turbine)
• 1 x 500 MW (single boiler and single steam turbine)
The steam conditions for all cases are Sub-critical at 16.7 MPa/538°C/538°C (2400 psig/1000°F/
1000°F).
The polishing dry scrubber option was included in the lignite cases to reduce SO2 emissions to
the same 98 percent removal levels that were achieved in the PC cases. A polishing scrubber is
not required in the PRB cases due to the low sulfur content of the coal and the higher calcium
content of the PRB ash.
The CFBC heat rate estimates for the various coals and plant sizes are presented graphically in
Figure 5-1. The PC and CFB heat rates are compared in Figure 5-2 for PRB and Texas lignite
plants at 500 MW scale with the same Sub-critical steam conditions.

5-6
 Heat Rate Comparison
10,800

10,600
Net Heat Rate, Btu/kWh (HHV)

10,400

10,200

10,000

9,800

9,600

9,400
PRB 1x250 PRB 2x250 PRB 1x500 TX 1x250 TX 2x250 TX 1x500

Figure 5-1
Comparison of AFBC Net Plant Heat Rates

5-7
 Comparison of PC and CFB Heat Rates
All Plants are 500 MW Net
10,400
Wyoming PRB Texas Lignite
10,300

10,200
Net Heat Rate, Btu/kWh (HHV)

10,100

10,000

9,900

9,800

9,700

9,600

9,500

9,400
PC-Sub CFB 1x500 PC-Sub CFB 1x500

Figure 5-2
Comparison of PC and CFBC Heat Rates 500 MW

For the Texas lignite, the heat rate for the PC plant is slightly better than the corresponding heat
rate for the CFB plant. The heat rates of CFB plants tend to be slightly higher than PC plants at
the same plant size and steam conditions because of higher excess air and higher auxiliary power
requirements. In general, FBC boilers burn coals with higher excess air (18-25% instead of 15-
20% for PC), which results in higher flue gas heat loss. The higher pressure drop across the
furnace requires more fan energy.
The cost impact of changing fuels from a bituminous coal to a sub bituminous or lignite is much
greater for a PC boiler than for a CFB. This is because PC furnace size must adjust to the fuel
ash characteristics. In particular, the furnace size must increase to reduce furnace exit gas
temperature as the ash softening temperature drops, in order to prevent slagging of the
convective pass. US sub bituminous fuels and lignites generally have basic ashes with low ash
softening temps, which require large PC furnaces. On the other hand, CFB furnace size is strictly
defined by gas velocity and so will increase for the sub bituminous and lignite fuels but only due
to the increase in fuel moisture, a much smaller increase than for the PC furnace.
The COE for 500 MW PC and CFB plants was almost identical for PRB coal. The slightly lower
capital for CFB is offset by a slightly higher heat rate and with this low sulfur coal the PC/CFB
difference in variable O&M is of lesser significance.

5-8
For Texas lignite there was a slightly higher COE for CFB. The PC and CFB capital costs were
similar but the CFB heat rate was slightly higher. However, the PC/CFB COE difference is
mainly a result of a higher CFB variable O&M charge resulting from greater use of limestone
and therefore having more solids needing disposal.

5-9
6
CO2 CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATIAN FROM COAL
AND NATURAL GAS BASED POWER PLANTS
Potential Responses to Anthropogenic CO2 Effects on Global Climate
The main options for response to the CO2 climate concern are:
• Conservation
• Renewables
• Nuclear
• Adaptation
• Switch from coal to natural gas
• CO2 capture and sequestration
Conservation in the U.S. and the rest of OECD should certainly be encouraged. However, the
other 5 billion of the World’s population also aspire to the living standards of OECD and that
will inevitably mean more energy demand on a worldwide basis.
Renewables should also be encouraged and supported, but their contribution is still going to be
small. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow when wanted. Biomass is
probably best considered as a partial feed to coal units since the capital cost of small biomass
plants is very high.
Nuclear is probably the ultimate solution for reduction of power plant CO2 emissions, however,
for it to be used to tackle the worldwide energy supply means wide proliferation. It will be
decades before the World gets to an arrangement of international treaties and cooperation where
nuclear can play to its full potential. In the U.S., many of the existing nuclear plants will be re-
licensed and a few new ones may be built but public opposition is quite widespread.
Adaptation has usually been the world population’s response to social and other changes. The
North American continent was relatively unpopulated 150 years ago. Climate change would
probably be gradual and some people will move and others adapt to changing circumstances.
Switching from coal to natural gas may be a partial response in some locations. However, it is
unlikely that natural gas supplies are going to be sufficient or low enough in cost to make any
substantial change in coal usage. Even under the very optimistic DOE Energy Information
Administration (EIA) forecast of 3 years ago with U.S. natural gas consumption rising to 30
TCF/year in 2020 at a price of 3.5-4$/MBtu in 2020 EIA still forecast a 25% increase in U.S.
coal usage.

6-1
Assuming that sequestration is viable and publicly acceptable; the added costs of CO2 capture
and sequestration/storage (CCS) are very substantial. Although there may be improvements and
reductions in capture costs the inevitable costs and energy penalties for CO2 compression,
pipelining and sequestration will always be a considerable addition to the COE.. Will society be
willing to pay these increased costs and will the public accept sequestration? The U.S. coal
power plants contribute ~33% of the U.S. CO2 emissions and ~8% of the Worldwide CO2
emissions. This represents ~2.1 billion metric tons/year of CO2 and it has been calculated that 1
billion metric tons/year (equivalent to 50% reduction) is a volume equivalent to ~ 25 million
barrels/day (U.S. oil usage is ~15 million barrels/day.). So, to undertake CO2 capture and
transportation at a level to make serious reductions in U.S. coal based CO2 emissions is a huge
undertaking. Conversely, of course, it can be argued that doing anything to make marked
reductions in U.S. coal based CO2 is going to be a huge undertaking.
The U.S. uses about a billion tons a year of coal and China is now using close to 2 billion
tons/year of coal and together they represent over 50% of the World coal usage. If there is a
major issue with regard to coal based CO2 emissions then it will have to be tackled by these two
countries. The U.S. and China are not under any current obligation to reduce carbon emissions.
But CO2 emissions related regulation could have a major effect on power plant technology and
fuel selection – particularly for coal technology and more particularly for existing coal plants.
There is a flurry of activity in political and major business circles mostly advocating legislation
to curb the emissions of CO2 particularly from the large point sources of coal fired power plants.
Additional bills that also address CO2 emissions (4P) have been introduced over the past two
years authored separately by the Senators Carper, Jeffords, McCain/Lieberman and
Domenici/Bingaman. The newly Congress elected in November 2006 has spawned many new
proposals on this subject.
Individual states and regional association of states are also active in proposing and in some cases
enacting legislation aimed at reductions of CO2 emissions. In California recent legislation intends
to reduce the state’s emissions back to 2000 levels by 2025. California also requires that the
source of any power imported into the state should have no greater emissions than 1100
lbs/MWh of CO2. Typical existing coal plants in Western States supplying California probably
emit >2000 lbs/MWh while new Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Plants probably emit
800-1000 lbs/MWh depending on capacity factor. Many other Western states and states in the
North East are also planning or have enacted CO2 legislation. Estimated costs for Capture and
Storage (CCS) are important information to inform this debate.
Elsewhere in the World those countries that were signatories of the Kyoto protocol have their
own regulations pertaining to CO2 emissions. In Europe there is a CO2 emissions trading market
and over the past year the trading range reduced about 20-30 Euros/metric ton (mt) of CO2 to
about half that value. This drop has generally been ascribed to the initial issuance of too many
credits to existing emitters. However the agreements within the Kyoto protocol only last until
2012 when they must be replaced. It is obviously a very open question about what might be
enacted post 2012 particularly if no broader agreement can be negotiated that includes the U.S,
China and India.

6-2
NGCC and CO2 Capture
The emission of CO2/MWh for NGCC is about only 45% of that from new coal fired power
plants. Nevertheless studies have been conducted on the effect of both pre-combustion and post
combustion removal of CO2 from NGCC plants. In the case of pre-combustion the natural gas is
reformed (steam or auto-thermal) to make a syngas which is shifted and from which the CO2 is
then removed so that the gas turbine fuel is essentially hydrogen. The thermal efficiency of
reforming is only about 75% so the efficiency and cost penalties are substantial. For post-
combustion removal of CO2 from the flue gas amine type solvents have mostly been studied.
However the low partial pressure of CO2 in the flue gas and the substantial steam requirement for
solvent regeneration also produce substantial efficiency and cost penalties

Pre- Combustion Removal of CO2 from NGCC Plants

Pre-combustion removal of CO2 from natural gas via steam methane refining has also been
studied by several groups including the IEA GHG R&D program. There is no clear consensus on
the merits of pre versus post combustion removal for NGCC. While it appears that post
combustion removal offers better performance improvement potential pre- combustion removal
via reforming, shift and CO2 removal is widely practiced commercially.
A potentially very important project based on this pre- combustion removal approach is being
developed by BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips and Scottish Energy at Peterhead just south of
Aberdeen, Scotland. Currently natural gas is supplied to NGCC plants at the site from the Mason
field in the North Sea. The project plans to use BP’s autothermal reforming process to reform the
natural gas then conduct the shift reaction and remove the CO2 by a traditional AGR process.
After compression the CO2 is to be sent back by pipeline to the Miller field for enhanced oil and
gas recovery. The fuel is then essentially Hydrogen. Although there are combined cycle plants at
the site it is believed that the BP led team is soliciting new combined cycle plants for this project.
This is a crucial time for the gas turbine manufacturers that can offer Hydrogen fired turbines in
any worldwide market. It will be particularly interesting to see what the major gas turbine
suppliers (GE, Siemens and perhaps MHI) would offer for the Peterhead project with Hydrogen
as the fuel in this 50 Hz market.

Post- Combustion Removal of CO2 from NGCC Plant

The two main processes for post combustion removal are Fluor’s Econamine, which uses
MonoEthanolAmine (MEA) and MHI’s KS-1 which uses a hindered amine. The current
operating units produce 200-500 tons/day of CO2 from natural gas fired plants. A substantial
amount of LP steam is required for the regeneration of these solvents which markedly reduces
the plant output by ~15% for NGCC plants and 25-30% for PC plants.

The Econamine FG PlusSM Technology

The Econamine FG PlusSM technology is an advanced version of Fluor's Econamine FGSM
technology, which has been used in 23 commercial plants for the recovery of carbon dioxide

6-3
from flue gas 1. Econamine FGSM technology uses monoethanolamine (MEA) as the basis of its
solvent. However, the solvent formulation is specially designed to recover CO2 from low
pressure, oxygen-containing streams, such as burner flue gas streams. Therefore, it is a post-
combustion CO2 capture system and is easy to retrofit to existing facilities. Most alkanolamine
systems cannot operate in a flue gas environment, because the amine will rapidly degrade in the
presence of oxygen. This is prevented in the Econamine FGSM solvent by the addition of a
proprietary inhibitor. The Econamine FGSM flowsheet is similar to a generic gas treating process,
which has been practiced for many years. A typical Econamine FGSM flowsheet is presented in
Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1
Typical Econamine FG SM Flowsheet

The largest plant built in Lubbock, Texas provided 1,000 mt/day (1,100 tons/day) of CO2 for
enhanced oil recovery. The remaining units ranged from 6 to 320 mt/day (6.6 to 350 tons/day).
The flue gas processed was mainly produced by combustion of natural gas but four units use flue
gas from natural gas steam reformers. None of the units process coal-derived flue gas. Fluor
Daniel considers plant capacities up to 8,000 mt/day (8,820 tons/day) feasible using a single
absorber 12.3 meters in diameter (40 feet) and stripper (see Figure 6-2). Still larger plants are
considered possible employing multiple absorbers sharing a common stripper.
Fluor Daniel has investigated improvements to its Econamine FGSM Technology and is offering it
commercially. In addition to a standard design they offer to integrate the CO2-recovery stage into
the process in a manner that minimizes energy consumption as Econamine FG PlusSM.

1
“Fluor’s Econamine FG PlusSM Technology, An Enhanced Amine-Based CO2 Capture Process”, Satish Reddy, et.
al., Presented at NETL Second Annual Conference on Carbon Sequestration, Alexandria, VA, May 5-8, 2003.

6-4
Econamine FG PlusSM has been estimated to cut the consumption by a third. The thermal
improvements are achieved by including the following features.

Figure 6-2
Fluor’s Econamine (DGA) Plant in Uthamaniyah, Saudi Arabia has a large diameter absorber
(Photo courtesy of Fluor Daniel)

Improved solvent: The primary solvent remains MEA but with a new formulation that has an
increased CO2 absorption rate. This decreases the required packing volume in the absorber,
allowing a smaller, less expensive absorber to be used. The improved solvent also has a higher
CO2 carrying capacity resulting in less solvent circulation and a corresponding reduction in
reboiler steam demand.
Absorber intercooling: This is used to limit the maximum temperature reached in the absorber.
For a two-stage absorber, semi-rich solvent is extracted from the bottom of the upper section,
cooled, and then returned to the top of the lower section. This increases the CO2 absorption rate,
allowing a smaller, less expensive absorber to be used. The CO2 loading in the rich solvent is
increased resulting in less solvent circulation and a corresponding reduction in reboiler steam
demand.
Split-flow configuration: For this configuration, CO2 regeneration is achieved by combining the
steam stripping with a flashing stage. One portion of the rich solvent passes to the stripper and as
the flow is reduced, steam demand is also reduced. The other portion of the rich solvent is heated
indirectly by the hot-lean solvent leaving the reboiler and regenerated in a flash drum. This
regeneration is achieved without any additional steam, the energy being provided by the heat
contained within the hot-lean solvent.
The semi-lean solvent leaving the flash drum contains more CO2 than the lean solvent and when
the two streams are combined, the solvent passing back to the absorber has a higher CO2 loading.

6-5
To achieve the same recovery the solvent circulation rate has to be increased, but the increase is
only marginal being offset by the two previous improvements.
Use of condensate flash steam: To decrease the partial pressure of CO2 in the gas stream leaving
the flash drum, and thereby increase regeneration, live steam is added. To avoid an increase in
steam consumption, this steam is extracted by flashing the reboiler condensate down to the flash
drum pressure. Increasing flash regeneration reduces the CO2 loading of the solvent returning to
the absorber, decreasing solvent circulation rate and in turn decreasing the reboiler steam
requirement.
Integrated steam generation: This approach seeks to optimize energy consumption by integrating
the CO2 absorption process with the process producing the CO2. This could include a variety of
site-specific measures such as more effective use of waste heat and adding energy to increase
heat quality in locations that resulted in a net reduction in overall energy consumption.
IEA noted several differences between the representations of MHI and Fluor. The steam and
power consumptions were lower with MHI. However Fluor showed the capital cost of the
capture unit about 20% lower than MHI’s for the NGCC case and about 45% lower than the
MHI estimate for the PC case. Although there are some differences in the plant designs it seemed
unlikely to the IEA that these would account for this magnitude of difference in costs. As would
be expected, MHI has taken exception to the Fluor cost estimates.
A significant part of the O&M costs of capture is the cost of chemicals. They account for 8-14%
of the total cost of capture in the Fluor plants and about 5% in the MHI plants. MHI claims a
lower cost because of lower solvent consumption even though the solvent is more expensive.
The overall conclusion of the IEA study was that the COE and avoided cost of CO2 was similar
for both MHI and Fluor technologies with both PC and NGCC plants.
No commercial scale plant is currently operating but the process is being offered commercially
by Fluor. There is a MHI plant using KS-1 which captures about 200 mt/d of CO2 from reformer
flue gas which has been in operation since 1999. Fluor and MHI’s existing capture units are all
natural gas fired plants.

PC Plants and CO2 Capture

The two main approaches to capture of CO2 from PC plants are a) post combustion removal from
the flue gas using a solvent and b) combustion of coal with oxygen (Oxyfuel) that produces a
concentrated stream of CO2.

Post Combustion Removal of CO2 from PC Plants

The Econamine FG+ SM process was investigated as part of the Canadian Clean Power Coalition
(CCPC) study in which it was retrofitted to a PC boiler fired on lignite and shown to reduce
energy consumption by a third from 4,070 kJ/kg to 2,760 kJ/kg of CO2 captured (1,750 Btu/lb to
1,180 Btu/lb). Estimates of the cost of CO2 removal from PC plants using these processes have
been made in separate studies by the IEA and DOE and were reported in the previous EPRI
report 1010222 in March 2006.

6-6
In the following Chapters 7&8 some updated cost estimates for PC plants using the Econamine
FG+ SM process are presented.
Demonstration of these post combustion capture technologies at large PC plants is needed before
they can be applied with an acceptable level of commercial risk

Potential Improvements to Post-Combustion Removal

Several other new candidate solvents that could improve the performance and reduce the steam
consumption and loss of power are being investigated in a multi sponsored project at the
University of Regina, Saskatchewan.
EPRI is doing some work using ammonium bicarbonate for CO2 absorption. It appears that
chilling of the flue gas would be required to reduce ammonia loss to acceptable levels, however
the ammonium bicarbonate could be regenerated at pressure thereby reduced the CO2
compression requirements. A 5 MW pilot facility for this process is being built at the WE
Energies Pleasant Prairie plant in Wisconsin and is due to commence testing in late 2007
Given the enormous importance of fossil fuel combustion (primarily NGCC and PC with some
CFBC) in the power industry, post combustion removal improvements are being very actively
investigated worldwide.

OxyFuel and Chemical Looping

Another approach that is gaining attention is to use oxygen in some form for combustion rather
than air and to produce thereby a concentrated stream of CO2 that after clean-up and drying can
be compressed and delivered by pipeline to sequestration.
The OxyFuel concept would use oxygen diluted with recycle CO2 in a PC boiler. The ASU
companies have team up with the boiler manufacturers to examine and develop this concept. The
only study that EPRI has participated in that evaluated OxyFuel was with the Canadian CPC.
The results of this study are included in Report # 1004880 and OxyFuel was estimated to be less
effective than either post combustion removal or IGCC. However this particular Oxyfuel concept
preserved the capability of operation of the boiler with air and this may have resulted in higher
costs and other performance compromises that may not be necessary in a new exclusively
oxygen blown design. Some further studies of OxyFuel are being conducted as part of the 2nd
round of Canadian CPC studies. The DOE has also initiated new Oxyfuel studies with the U.S
boiler manufacturers.
Vattenfall is planning a 30 MWth Oxyfuel pilot near Schwarze Pumpe in Germany and similar
sized units are being considered for the US and Australia. The auxiliary power needed to run the
ASU is also considerable and the overall plant efficiency estimates have been similar to those for
post combustion removal. However the Oxy fuel concept has been given a substantial boost from
the SaskPower announcement in late 2006 that they were planning a 300 MW (net) Oxyfuel
project and had selected a team of Babcock & Wilcox an Air Liquide to further pursue the
development and design of this project.
The concept of Chemical Looping delivers the oxygen to the fuel via a metal oxide, most usually
in a fluid bed. The reduced form of the oxide is then regeneratively oxidized in another fluid bed
with air. There are several different flow configurations being examined to deal with the issues
of contaminant removal e.g., sulfur, nitrogen, mercury. Variations on both fluid bed combustion

6-7
and gasification are being evaluated. The majority of this work is being conducted by Alstom in
Connecticut with DOE funding.

IGCC with CO2 Capture

When an IGCC is to be designed for CO2 capture a shift reactor is added to convert the CO in the
raw gas to Hydrogen. The shift reaction is: CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 . The CO2 is then removed
from the syngas most commonly by adding an additional absorption column to the Selexol AGR
process. The H2S rich stream usually is fed to a Claus plant and the CO2 is dried and compressed
for sequestration or perhaps use in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). A block flow diagram for
IGCC with CO2 capture is shown in Figure 6.3
Sulfur CO2 to use or sequestration

Gasification Sour Shift AGRU-

Coal C + H2O = CO CO+ H2O = H2S & CO2
Gas Cooling?
Prep + H2 CO2 + H2

O2 H2?
N2

Air Gas
Separation Turbine Air
Unit

BFW

Air HRSG BFW

Steam

Steam
Turbine

Figure 6-3
Block Flow Diagram IGCC with CO2 Capture

The pre-combustion removal as used for IGCC has the advantage of being conducted under
pressure prior to combustion where the volume of gas to be treated is less than 1% of that from a
PC plant flue gas. Removal by an absorption process is driven by the partial pressure of the gas
to be absorbed so again high pressure has that additional advantage.

IGCC Shift Reaction Design Consideration for Capture

The percentage of CO2 (carbon) captured is determined by the extent to which the shift reaction
is completed. A typical arrangement of the water gas shift reactors and their associated heat
exchangers is shown in Figure 6-4.

6-8
Figure 6-4
Typical Arrangement of a Three Bed Shift Unit

The shift reaction equilibrium (trim conversion) is favored by low temperature, but for bulk
conversion the kinetics are favored by high temperature. The reaction is exothermic (40 kJ/kg-
mol at ~400°F or 200°C) and inter-stage bed cooling is required to limit catalyst temperature and
generate HP steam. A H2O/CO molar ratio >3:1 is needed to insure adequate conversion of CO
and to avoid C formation.
There are three general levels of capture that can be designed for in IGCC plants.
• For slurry fed gasifiers the CO2 in the syngas can represent 20-25% of the coal’s carbon
that could be removed without using the Shift reaction by adding a second CO2
absorption/stripping section as shown in Figure 6-5. This relatively small amount of
capture is unlikely to generate much support from Federal or State Authorities with
regard to making any significant contribution to reduction of CO2 emissions. However it
could be of some value for production of CO2 for EOR or other use.
• All gasification technologies can use a sour High Temperature Shift followed by a two
absorption column AGR (Figure 6-5). The syngas may still be able to use standard
syngas GT combustors. This could result in 60 -80 % CO2 capture which would more
than satisfy California’s criteria of <1100 lbs CO2/MWh. The COE would be lower than
maximum capture option.
• If > 90% removal is required then both high and low temperature shift beds can be used.
However this would require GT combustors designed for Hydrogen. The COE would be
the highest of the three options

6-9
 • One additional variation would be to conduct the shift and CO2 removal on 50% of the
syngas (one train of a 600 MW plant) which should also enable the plant to meet the new
When considering the effects of adding the shift reaction for carbon capture and synthesis it is
instructive to look at the moisture content of the syngas from the various technologies. The
amount of moisture in the syngas varies markedly between the various gasification technologies
as shown in Table 6-1. The data used in this table are mostly taken from the 2006 DOE NETL
report.

Table 6-1
Effect of Gasification Technology on Shift Steam Requirements and Steam Turbine MW

Technology Pressure H2O/CO Relative HP Steam Steam Turbine MW

PSIG Ratio Flow to Shift Output

GE RQ 800 1.3 1.0 270

GE Total Quench 1000 >3.0 Zero 242

COP E-Gas Full Slurry 600 0.4 2.0 216

Quench

Shell Recycle Gas 600 0.1 2.8 202

Quench

In the GE design the Radiant cooler outlet temperature is 1200-1300°F and the water quench
puts considerable moisture in the syngas so that less steam has to be added from the steam cycle
to accomplish the shift reaction. In the case of a GE total Quench (Q) design the H2O/CO ratio is
~3/1 and the quench provides the steam needed to drive the shift reaction to equilibrium and
there is no need to rob the steam cycle.
In the COP E-Gas Full slurry quench flow sheet the syngas is directly contacted with water (to
remove chloride prior to COS hydrolysis) at a much lower temperature of about 400°F so less
moisture is added to the syngas and more steam has to be taken from the steam cycle. However if
a plant was to be specifically designed for CO2 capture COP would probably recommend
gasifiers designed similar to the Wabash gasifier with a lower proportion (<10%) of coal slurry
fed to the second stage and with additional moisture also added to the second stage. This latter
design would also produce less methane in the syngas and thereby increase the total capture.
Since the Shell process is dry coal fed there is less moisture in the raw syngas than with the
slurry fed GE and E-Gas processes, and the CO content is higher at ~60%. As with E-Gas Full
slurry quench design the syngas is directly contacted with water (to remove chloride prior to
COS hydrolysis) at a much lower temperature of ~ 400°F and therefore even more steam needs
to be added to accomplish the shift reaction. The extra steam demand for E-Gas and Shell has a
marked effect on the output of the steam turbine and the net plant output with capture.
For some additional discussion of the effects of technology selection on capture, and
recommendations for improvements to each of the major gasification technologies the reader is
referred to the report # 1012224 “Gasification Technology Status – December 2006”. The main
recommendations are:

6-10
 • GE larger size (1200-1800 ft3) HP Quench. New feed/design for low rank coals
• COP tall Cylinder design (possibly two diameters with truncated cone connection) for
higher pressure. Should also enable higher throughput for low rank coals
• Shell larger gasifier with water quench design. CO2 transport of coal feed for capture and
synthesis. Lower cost drying or new feeder for low rank coals
• Siemens needs to scale up to larger gasifiers

IGCC AGR Design Options for Capture

A generic process flow diagram for the acid gas removal section of an IGCC plant designed for
CO2 capture is shown in Figure 6-5. The first absorber/stripper section is for the removal of a
H2S rich stream that is usually sent to a Claus unit for recovery of elemental sulfur for sale. The
sulfur free gas is then sent to a second absorber for removal of the CO2 and the Hydrogen rich
syngas is sent to the gas turbine power block.

Clean H2-rich syngas

CO2

H2S Removal CO2 Removal

Figure 6-5
Typical IGCC AGR Process Arrangement for CO2 Capture

There are two major generic types of “Acid Gas” (i.e., CO2, H2S, COS) Removal (AGR) solvents
– chemical and physical.
Chemical absorbents (e.g., amines) react with the acid gases and require heat to reverse the
reactions and release the acid gases. These processes generally have lower capital for AGRU
than physical solvents, but use larger amounts of steam-heat for solvent regeneration.

6-11
Physical absorbents (i.e., Selexol, Rectisol) dissolve acid gases and are favored by higher
pressure. The absorbed acid gases are released from the solvent when pressure is decreased and
less steam-heat is required for solvent regeneration than with the chemical solvents.
The Rectisol process uses chilled methanol. I has the highest capital cost, but provides the most
complete removal.
Space requirements for shift, CO2 removal, drying, and compression are similar for all solvent
options—1.5 to 2 acres.
Typically all the solvents can accomplish >90% CO2 removal, but the overall % capture depends
on the amount of water-gas shift conducted.

IGCC with Capture – Gas Turbine Considerations

For the IGCC application the gas turbine is fired essentially with Hydrogen diluted with Nitrogen
from the Air Separation Unit (ASU) for NOx control. Currently GE believes that heat transfer to
the blades increases with moisture content so that in order to maintain their Long Term Service
Agreement (LTSA) for the syngas and hydrogen applications they derate the firing temperature
(reduces efficiency and output).
IGCC plants designed without consideration for capture generally supply 30-40% of the ASU air
requirements by extraction of air from the gas turbine compressor. This reduces the size of the
ASU main air compressor (MAC) and the auxiliary power demand and results in a higher
efficiency and some capital cost advantage over an IGCC scheme where all the air for the ASU
is supplied from the MAC. However GE believes that for the IGCC plant design with capture
they can no longer extract air from the gas turbine compressor when firing Hydrogen rich syngas
in the 7 FB gas turbine. Since there is no air available to the ASU from the GT compressor the
main air compressor (MAC) must be sized to provide all the air to the ASU. This is a major
contributor to the additional cost of capture. Although there is added capital for the shift, CO2
removal and compression the major increase in COE and TPC $/kW results from the additional
auxiliary power requirement for capture. It is not yet clear whether the Siemens turbines will
have the same limitation. The additional cost of capture in IGCC plants would be considerably
reduced if gas turbines were available for hydrogen firing that could allow air extraction across
the range of ambient temperatures.

Commercial Status of CO2 Capture from Coal Gasification Plants

Coal Gasification incorporating the Shift reaction on sour syngas and subsequent CO2 removal
by absorption/stripping is widely practiced commercially for the production of Hydrogen,
(particularly for Ammonia manufacture in China) at a scale equivalent to that required in a two
train 600 MW IGCC plant. (600 MW of coal is ~12,000 mt/day of CO2 emissions).
Although CO2 capture is not currently in use at any of the coal based IGCC plants it is used
commercially in three US coal gasification plants in the non power sector. The pet coke
gasification plant (GE) in Coffeyville, KS makes hydrogen for ammonia synthesis and some of
the CO2 is used to make urea. The Eastman coal gasification plant (GE) in Kingsport, TN is used
to make Methanol and other chemicals. Some of the syngas is shifted and CO2 removed to adjust
the CO/H2 ratio to that needed for the Methanol synthesis.

6-12
However the most important plant from the CCS perspective is the Dakota Gasification plant in
Beulah, ND that makes SNG via the gasification of Lignite using the Lurgi dry ash process.
Some of the syngas is shifted and CO2 removed to adjust the CO/H2 ratio to that needed for the
Methane (SNG) synthesis. The recovered CO2 (5000 st/d) is compressed to supercritical
conditions and transported about 300 km to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada for
EOR.
In February 2006 BP and Edison Mission announced plans for a 500 MW IGCC with shift and
CO2 removal at the Carson refinery near Los Angeles. The combined cycle would be essentially
fired with hydrogen and the CO2 is planned to be used for EOR in nearby oil fields. BP and
Edison Mission said they intend to seek tax incentive support for the project as envisaged under
EPAct 2005.

Potential Improvements for IGCC with CO2 Capture

Several potential improvements to the basic cost and performance of IGCC have been described
earlier in this Chapter 6.
The use of a desaturator, as suggested by Jacobs, could markedly improve the performance of
any IGCC system but would be most effective with Quench designs. At the moment GE is the
only one of the three major gasification venders to offer a Quench design. However Shell is
considering the use of a partial Quench design for CO2 capture, and this is being evaluated in the
2nd round of Canadian CPC studies. New E-Gas gasifier design configurations and higher
operating pressures and also the Siemens (former FutureEnergy) technology are also to be
evaluated in this study.
A new single stage entrained gasifier has been put forward by Boeing Rocketdyne that would
potentially greatly improve IGCC with capture. The essential features are:
• High pressure ~1000 psig (69 barg). Single stage entrained flow gasifier. Advantageous
for CO2 capture, liquid synthesis and Hydrogen
• Dry coal feed. Fuel flexibility. Coal pump particularly important for low rank coals.
Replaces lock hoppers. Reduces required residence time for high carbon conversion
• Cooled refractory liner (membrane wall). Avoids costly periodic refractory replacement.
Improved availability.
• Partial water quench to temperature for gas filter. Lowest cost provision of moisture for
the shift reaction.
• Hot or warm gas filter for slag/ash removal. Eliminates high maintenance carbon
scrubber.
• Continuous slag removal. Replace lock hoppers.
A great deal of interest by DOE, GE, Eastman and others has been sparked by this concept. Plans
for its further development are actively being pursued but at the time of writing have not yet
been finalized. If developed this could be a candidate for testing as some scale on the
DOE/Industry FutureGen project.

6-13
An analysis of the GE Quench and E-Gas IGCC designs with and without capture (reported in
#1004537 December 2003) can provide insight into the plant sections that have the greatest
potential for cost and performance improvement with capture.
For the GE Quench IGCC the additional capital cost was about 100 Million $ or about 16% and
the reduction is power output is 60 MW or ~12%. The major increases in auxiliary power usage
with capture are in the ASU (18 MW), gas cleanup (10 MW) and CO2 compression (24 MW).
The E-Gas IGCC shows a similar pattern although the additional capital cost was about 140
Million $ (~21%) and the reduction in power output is 83 MW or 16%. The major increases in
auxiliary power usage are in the ASU (20 MW), Gas cleanup (12MW) and CO2 compression
(27MW). While there is a significant capital cost increase the loss of power output is the major
contributor to the COE.
The increase in auxiliary power for the ASU arises because the GE 7 FA has some limitations on
the air extraction when firing hydrogen. In the base IGCC designs the ASU typically gets ~30%
of the air from the gas turbine compressor. If this cannot be supplied then additional air
compression must be added. Additional nitrogen is also required to control NOx when firing
hydrogen. Potentially a redesigned gas turbine could avoid this extraction limitation. The use of
SCR in the HRSG could also reduce the nitrogen requirement for combustion NOx control.
The gas cleanup area shows additional power usage with capture since with the 3 column Selexol
process there is a recycle compressor to achieve the separation of H2S from CO2. Co-disposal of
H2S and CO2 has also been suggested and would result in some cost savings; however there may
be problems in obtaining the necessary permit in some locations.
Both gas cleanup and CO2 compression areas would benefit greatly if a membrane process could
be developed that would result in the CO2 and Hydrogen both being available at pressure. This
would reduce the auxiliary power requirement for compression. The DOE has several research
projects investigating these possibilities for potential insertion in the IGCC flowsheet.

Long Term RD&D Roadmaps for IGCC and PC with CO2 Capture
As part of the work conducted under the CoalFleet initiative (launched November 2004) a data
base was compiled of worldwide RD&D projects and topics aimed at improved performance and
lower capital costs of both gasification and combustion based power plants with CO2 capture.
From this data base long-term RD&D roadmaps were created focusing on decreasing the cost of
coal power plants with CO2 capture.
The IGCC Roadmap (See EPRI report # 1013219 IGCC RD&D Augmentation Plan. January
2007) identifies a series of steps that would result in a plant with CO2 capture that is more
efficient and has lower capital cost than today’s IGCC without CO2 capture. A series of tables
have been drawn up for the major technologies showing how this could potentially be achieved.
A major contributor to further improvements center on the power cycle with larger more efficient
gas turbines providing efficiency improvements and economies of scale. More economic oxygen
separation techniques can also provide gains in efficiency and cost reduction.

6-14
The Combustion Roadmap also has as its target a series of improvements that would lead to a
plant with CO2 capture that is more efficient than today’s SCPC without CO2 capture. The long-
term roadmap for advanced combustion will focus on developing higher efficiency steam cycles
(better materials, new boilers & steam turbines, complete plant designs), decreasing the post-
combustion CO2 capture cost & efficiency penalty (better solvents and optimal integration of
CO2 capture with steam cycle and improved absorber/stripper designs) and advancing Oxy-firing
via demonstration plants including more economic oxygen separation techniques.

6-15
7
ECONOMIC COMPARISONS OF NGCC, PC AND IGCC
PLANT DESIGNS WITHOUT AND WITH CO2 CAPTURE
AND STORAGE
Introduction
In response to concerns over the possible effects of fossil fuel based CO2 emissions on global
climate several studies have been conducted over the past 15 years on the costs of CO2 capture
from various power plant technologies. Most studies concluded that the costs of pre-combustion
CO2 capture from syngas in an IGCC plant was much lower than post combustion removal from
Pulverized Coal (PC) or Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants. While this is probably
true for bituminous coals, the costs of CO2 removal do vary significantly between the various
coal gasification technologies and the advantage in capture costs over PC plants will depend very
much on the gasification technology selected. Moreover new studies on post combustion
removal from PC plants with new solvents show significant improvement that may further close
the gap. For CO2 capture, there is a distinct advantage for gasification operation at high-pressure
55-69 barg (800-1000 psig). Most studies focused on the use of bituminous coals but some have
included sub-bituminous coal and lignite. Indications are that at the current state of gasification
technology for low rank coals the Cost of Electricity (COE) for IGCC with CO2 capture is
similar to the COE from PC plants with CO2 capture for sub bituminous coals and maybe greater
for lignite.
When the effect of a potential carbon tax on a variety of existing and new fossil fuel power
plants is evaluated it is generally concluded that because of the economic advantage of their
sunken investment most existing PC plants would probably just pay the tax. Even if FGD, SCR
and Mercury controls were required to be added with an estimated additional capital cost of
$500/kW the breakeven tax with new IGCC with capture and sequestration (for bituminous
coals) is probably > 250$/mt of Carbon (68$/mt CO2).
This raises the broader question of just what incentives can current PC plant owners be offered to
reduce CO2 emissions?
There are many significant issues concerning CO2 capture and sequestration. The major issue is
whether geologic or oceanic sequestration of CO2 is permanently effective. Even if sequestration
is proven successful in multiple regions the sheer scale of effort in making even a 50% reduction
in CO2 emissions ( 1 billion mt/year) from U.S. coal power plants is enormous.
The costs of CO2 capture and sequestration from new IGCC plants adds 35-50% to the COE and
with new PC plants the added COE costs can be 70-80%. Is society prepared to pay for these
additional costs?

7-1
Construction Cost Increases 2004-6
Construction and commodity costs were relatively stable for the period 2000-2003. However the
rapid increases in crude oil and natural gas prices over the period from early 2004 through late
2005 also produced marked increases in several commodities and thereby the cost of
construction of power plants, refinery and chemical plants. These trends have been further
accentuated by the greatly increased worldwide demand for new construction of power plants,
refineries, chemical and industrial plants that have driven up costs. This worldwide construction
boom and the associated construction price increases have many causes including some
particular to North America:
• Massive addition of PC plants in China
• Many new refineries worldwide
• Major expansion of tar sands oil production in Alberta (Alberta labor cost x productivity
factor now 3–4x U.S. Gulf Coast)
• In response to Clean Air Interstate Rule(CAIR) ~50 GW of U.S. PC plants are adding
FGD and SCR
• Repair/replacement/rebuild work of the extensive damage to industry, commerce, oil and
gas rigs, and refineries in the US Gulf coast area as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita
• Increase in all commodity prices driven by increased fuel prices and worldwide demand
• Ocean and other freight increases with increased fuel costs
Two commonly watched indices are the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) and
the Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index. The changes in these indices over recent years are
shown in Figure 8.1. The CEPCI increased from 402 in mid 2003 to 468 Feb ’05. For mid 2000
to mid 2003 there was very little change at 394-402. From February to October 2005 the index
was also relatively flat. Examination of the components of the CEPCI show that the construction
labor component had been quite flat until October 2005 and that the increase was due to
equipment, steel, cement and other commodity cost increases. The Marshall & Swift Equipment
Cost Index increased from 1130 1st Q 2004 to 1241 in 1st Q 2005 and was1258 in 2ndQ 2005.
However from October 2005 the effect of hurricanes Katrina and Hugo was to produce acute
shortages of equipment, commodities and skilled labor. The overall result of which continue to
be felt as illustrated by the renewed upturn in these key indices from that date onwards.
As a consequence the capital cost estimates for all technologies are markedly higher than those
reported in the previous annual reports. There are some compensating factors such as the use of
larger more efficient gas turbines for the IGCC reference plants and the qualification of Asian
manufacturers for some key equipment that should directionally reduce costs. These
improvements, however, were more than offset by the lower value of the US $ and the rise in
ocean freight rates. The overwhelming effect is a marked increase in capital costs driven by the
worldwide demand for new construction and the greatly improved economies of the Asian
economies that have produced a billion or more new consumers of commercial goods and
services over the past two decades.

7-2
 Construction Cost Indices
(Source: Chemical Engineering Magazine, November 2006)

540 1,400

Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index

520 1,350
Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index

Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index

500 1,300

480 1,250

460 1,200

440 1,150

420 1,100

400 1,050

380 1,000

360 950
Jun-98 Jun-99 Jun-00 Jun-01 Jun-02 Jun-03 Jun-04 Jun-05 Jun-06 Jun-07

Figure 7-1
Construction Cost Indices (Source Chemical Engineering Magazine November 2006)

2006 IGCC Cost Estimates

It has been extremely difficult to obtain new and credible capital cost estimates in 2006. All costs
have been rapidly increasing and it is difficult to obtain credible estimates in such a rapidly
changing and high demand environment. All EPC firms are very busy and have declined to do
EPRI study work when they have so many specific client projects to pursue.
There have, however, been a number of studies completed in 2006 comparing IGCC, PC and
NGCC technologies with and without CO2 capture. The following studies are reviewed in this
section of Chapter 7:
• DOE NETL Report – May 2006 Draft
• PSC Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) IGCC Draft Report
• EPA IGCC and PC (July 2006)
• PUC submissions and press announcements for proposed new plants
• EPRI estimates for FutureGen Industrial Alliance evaluating multiple possible plant
configurations all with CO2 capture
• EPRI estimates of PC and IGCC plants without and with CO2 capture

7-3
The range of estimates (for a given technology, plant size, coal, and location) available from the
listed sources is quite wide. There is also some considerable uncertainty of what is represented in
the capital cost estimates in PUC submissions and press announcements. There are also some
uncertainties regarding 7 FB and 5000F gas turbine performance, particularly for hydrogen firing
on IGCC plants with CO2 capture.
The results of some of these studies are herein presented and discussed.

DOE NETL Draft Report 2006

In May 2006 Worley Parsons completed a draft report for DOE NETL entitled “Cost &
Performance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants”. A number of external reviewers,
including EPRI staff were invited to comment on the draft report and a revised version is being
produced. In the meantime the results from the draft report have been presented by DOE NETL
staff in several public forums including the 2006 Gasification Technologies Conference.
IGCC, PC and NGCC designs were evaluated a) without capture and b) with Capture. The coal
used was Illinois #6 coal priced at $1.34/MBtu HHV basis. Natural Gas was priced at
7.46$/MBtu HHV.
Three IGCC technologies were evaluated - GE Radiant Quench, COP E-Gas Full Slurry Quench,
Shell Gas Recycle Quench. All designs were based on 2 x GE 7 FB GTs. The plants designed
with capture have additional coal gasification etc to fully load the GTs when firing Hydrogen.
The GE Radiant Quench used the Selexol process in both non-capture and capture designs. The
COP case without capture used MDEA while Selexol was used in the capture case. The Shell
case without capture used the Sulfinol process but again Selexol was used in the capture case.
The IGCC designs without capture all extracted some air from the gas turbine compressor for the
ASU but all the cases with capture have all the ASU air supplied from the main air compressor.
Since no gas turbines were added for the capture cases there is a lower net output with capture.
In most of the presentations NETL showed results for IGCC as an average of the three
technologies.
Both PC sub critical (2400psig /1050°F/1050°F) and Supercritical (3500psig/1100°F/1100°F) PC
plant designs were evaluated. In contrast to the IGCC cases the PC designs with post combustion
amine (Fluor Econamine) scrubbing capture are much larger so that net output is same as the PC
designs without capture. This does give some advantage of scale to the PC designs however the
net MW of all coal cases with capture end up in the 500-560 MW range.
The NGCC cases without capture and with post combustion amine (Fluor Econamine) scrubbing
were also based on 2 x GE 7 FB GTs.
The location was Green-field, Mid West, 0 ft. elevation, and design ambient temperature, dry
bulb 59F, design ambient relative humidity 60%. The TPC estimates were reported in January
2006 $. The draft results of this study are shown in Table 7-1.

7-4
Table 7-1
DOE NETL Draft Report Fossil Power Plants May 2006

Technology IGCC PC NGCC

GE R+Q COP E-Gas Shell Gas Q Subcritical Supercritical 2 x 7 FB

FSQ

Case # 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14

Gross MW 768.9 741.1 734.0 680.2 735.6 666.8 596.6 690.2 593.5 672.4 572.9 522.5

Net MW 643.5 563.4 612.0 514.7 620.2 500.5 550.0 549.7 550.2 549.9 558.8 479.2

Net Heat 8832 10,463 8870 10,895 8466 11,156 9389 14,276 8857 12,662 6737 7857
Rate
Btu/kWh
HHV

TPC $/kW 1557 1950 1417 1861 1593 2252 1323 2358 1355 2368 507 884

TCR $/kW 1730 2166 1576 2068 1770 2500 1474 2626 1508 2635 568 988

LCOE 56.9 70.5 51.5 66.3 56.1 77.2 51.8 89.6 51.6 86.8 64.7 84.9
$/MWh

% increase in 23.4 28.4 37.6 73.0 68.2 31.2

COE with
capture

CO2 1738 118 1768 250 1687 152 1911 291 1802 258 799 93
Emissions
lb/MWh

Cost of CO2 19.5 22.7 32.0 54.5 53.1 67.9

Avoided
$/ton

It should be noted that the estimates in Table 7-1 include the cost of capture and CO2 drying and
compression at the plant boundary (Battery limits) but do not include any costs for CO2
transportation, monitoring and storage. The EPRI 2006 estimates reported later in this Chapter
do include a cost of 10$/mt of CO2 for transportation, storage and monitoring.
As will be seen later on in this Chapter the cost estimates of all technologies are today much
higher than the estimates in this table. For both IGCC and PC plants of this size the TPC
estimates are now in the vicinity of 2000-2500 $/kW in Mid 2006 $. The work in this report is
the most comprehensive of the new public domain documents published in 2006. While the
estimates are certainly too low the percentage differentials between technologies shown in Table
7-1 are probably mostly valid.

7-5
The one exception may be that the percentage added costs for PC post combustion capture are on
the high side, representing ~ 68 % increase in LCOE. They are higher than those shown in the
IEA report PH 4-33 as reported in last year’s EPRI’s Gasification Update # 1010460. EPRI has
investigated the differences in these evaluations and the current estimate the is that the COE
increase is somewhere between the values in the two reports - IEA too low and these DOE
NETL numbers too high – with 60 % being more representative of the COE increase.
In general the main conclusions to be drawn from this DOE NETL study are consistent with the
findings from other previous studies on bituminous coals conducted by EPRI and DOE, namely:
• For IGCC plants without capture COP E-Gas is lower capital cost than GE RQ or Shell.
This is attributable to the lower height of the structure (no slag lock hoppers), the side by
side arrangement of gasifier and syngas cooler and the lower cost fire-tube syngas cooler
• GE RQ and Shell IGCC without capture are similar in cost. Their water syngas coolers
are about four times the weight of the COP fire tube coolers
• For IGCC with capture GE RQ has lower added COE than COP E-Gas or Shell. This can
be attributed to the higher pressure 800 psig of the GE gasifier versus 600 psig for E-Gas
and Shell, and to the higher moisture of the syngas after the quench with GE than with
the other technologies. The Shell syngas has an additional disadvantage of higher CO
content which requires more steam for conducting the shift reaction. See Table 8- ?.
• When the plants are designed with capture the COE of the IGCC plants is significantly
lower than the COE of PC plants with post combustion capture.
• When evaluated at the same CF the COE for NGCC without capture is about the same as
the coal plants when natural gas is ~6 $/MBtu. However at that high dispatch cost it is
unlikely that the NGCC would be dispatched at that high 80% CF.
In addition to incorporation of some of the reviewer’s comments the study results are to be
updated and it can be anticipated that the finally published cost numbers will all be increased
from those reported above in Table 7-1.

Wisconsin PUC IGCC Draft Report 2006

In April 2006 the Wisconsin PUC published a draft report on IGCC. In this report IGCC was
treated generically, not as a specifically identified technology. The COE comparison of nominal
600 MW plants showed ~15% higher COE for IGCC than SCPC. The IGCC COE was
~$5/MWh higher with eastern bituminous coal and ~$7/MWh higher with western coal. This
differential is similar to that shown in several other studies.
The “Capital Cost” with eastern coal was reported as $1628/kW for SCPC and $1872/kW for
IGCC. It’s not clear whether this is meant to be TPC or TCR. The effect of lower capital and
higher availability for the IGCC COE were also estimated.
For CO2 capture increases for IGCC were quoted only as +35% capital (presumably stated as
$/kW) and +20% HR, and for SCPC +60% capital (presumably stated as $/kW) and +30% HR.
This COE comparison showed the IGCC COE to be ~$10/MWh less than the SCPC COE.

7-6
Although this report is lacking in details the results are consistent with other previous reports
comparing IGCC and PC with and without capture for bituminous coals.

EPA IGCC and PC Technology Assessments -July 2006

In this study conducted by Nexant for EPA IGCC and USC PC technologies were evaluated for
three coals – a bituminous coal similar to Illinois #6, PRB, and lignite. Slurry-fed IGCC was
used for the Illinois #6 and PRB; and dry coal feed IGCC for the lignite. The plant size was set
arbitrarily at 500 MW net. This size does not represent the net output of the current IGCC
offerings which are usually 600-630 MW net. Most other studies are based on the real gas
turbines, typically GE 7 FBs or Siemens 5000 F’s, as contained in the current commercial
offerings. The main comparative figures from the EPA report are shown in Table 7-2. The cost
estimates in the EPA report were stated as 4th quarter 2004 $. In Table 7-2 the original estimates
are shown from the EPA report but they are also shown as updated to July 2006 $ using the
CEPCI index.

Table 7-2
EPA Report July 2006 IGCC and USC PC Cost and Performance

Coal Illinois #6 PRB Lignite

Technology IGCC USC PC IGCC USC PC IGCC Dry USC PC

Slurry Slurry feed

Heat Rate Btu/kWh 8167 8000 8520 8146 8707 9065

HHV

TPC $/kW net 1430/1573 1355/1490 1630/1793 1395/1535 2000/2200 1432/1575

4th Q 2004$/ Sept 2006 $

TCR 4/kW net 1670/1837 1529/1682 1910/2101 1575/1732 2350/2585 1617/1770

4th Q 2004 $/Sept 2006 $

The heat rates for IGCC and USC look ambitiously low and are lower than other 2006 estimates.
When the TPC and TCR estimates are adjusted to September 2006 $ (CEPCI factor 1.10), they
still appear lower than most current estimates (particularly for the lignite PC).
No estimates on CO2 capture were included in the report. However the Executive Summary
states that IGCC is more effective for CCS than PC with post-combustion capture. Section 5 of
the EPA report discusses CCS and cites DOE, EPRI, IEA, and Canadian CPC reports from
2000–03. It should be noted that in the 2003 Canadian CPC report for lignite PC with CCS was
evaluated to have a lower COE than IGCC with CCS.

Southern Company Evaluation of KBR IGCC

The Southern Company presented an evaluation of the KBR Transport gasification technology at
the Pittsburgh Coal Conference in 2005. They evaluated IGCC cases for air and oxygen
gasification both with and without CO2 capture based on PRB coal. The capture cases were not
optimized and the cost and performance can probably be improved. The results of this study are

7-7
presented in Table 8-3. The original estimates were presented in January 2003$ for a South East
location. The original as reported $/kW are presented in Table 7-3 together with updated costs
reflecting September 2006$ as corrected by the CEPCI index (factor 1.283) and for the wage
rates and labor productivity for a Mid West location.

Table 7-3
Southern Company Evaluation of KBR IGCC Air & Oxygen blown, with and without CO2 Capture

Case # Description #3. Air no capture #4. Oxygen no capture

Net MW 596 540

Steam Turbine MW Gross 288 241

Auxiliary Power MW 87 95

COE $/MWh 40 44.8

% increase of COE with capture

TPC $/kW as reported January 2003$ South East 1282 1507

TPC adjusted to September 2006 $ and to Mid West location 1760 2063

In this preliminary evaluation the oxygen cases are very much more costly and less efficient than
the air blown cases. The additional cost of capture is very high for both air and oxygen cases (70-
90%) but was particularly onerous for the oxygen case. The steam requirement estimated for the
KBR gasifier with oxygen considerably reduces the steam turbine and net power output. Further
testing at the PSDF and additional optimization of the cycle will probably reduce the additional
capture costs from those reported in the paper at the 2005 Pittsburgh Coal Conference.
It should also be commented that, as mentioned previously, just using the CEPCI index does not
appear to be sufficient to bring the estimates up to the level of costs in the PUC submissions
reported in Table 7-4.

PUC Submissions and Press announcements for New Plants 2006

There have been a number of submissions to various Puck’s for new IGCC and PC plants that
include estimates for the required capital investment. It is not clear what is included in these
estimates. They may include financing costs and it seems that each company has its own
definition of what is included in the category of Owner’s costs. However the numbers quoted are
probably most similar to what EPRI defines as Total Capital Requirement (TCR). Some of the
recent announcements and the cost estimates are shown in Table 7-4.
It can be seen that the capital costs reported are significantly higher than those in the reports
from DOE NETL, Wisconsin PUC, and EPA even when adjusted with the CEPCI to more
current $. The large PC plants for AEP and Duke will have some significant economies of scale
but nevertheless these estimates are much higher than would generally have been estimated for
such plants.

7-8
Some more recent estimates have been made by EPRI for IGCC plants and a recently published
report of a study conducted by Burns & MacDonnell for City Public Service of San Antonio has
some updated estimates for Shell IGCC and USC PC based on PRB coal. The cost estimates in
these more recent studies are closer to those from recent submissions in Table 7-4.

Table 7-4
IGCC & PC Capital Cost Estimates from Recent PUC Submissions

Owner Plant Name Net Technology/Coal Reported Reported

/location MW Capital $ Capital $/kW
Million

AEP Hempstead, AR 600 USC PC/PRB 1680 2800

SWEPCO

AEP Sooner, OK 950 USC PC/PRB 1800 1895

PSO/OGE

AEP Meigs County, OH 630 GE RQ IGCC/ Bituminous Was 1300 Now? ?

Duke Edwardsport, IN 630 GE RQ IGCC/ Bituminous 1600 -2100 2540-3333

Energy

Duke Cliffside, NC 2x USC PC/ Bituminous 3000 + X00 1875 + ?

Energy 800

NRG Huntley, NY 620 Shell IGCC/ Bituminous, 1466 2365

Montvale, CT Indian Pet Coke and PRB
river, DE

Otter Big Stone, SD 620 USC PC/PRB 1500 2414

Tail/GRE

EPRI FutureGen Studies

Several of the CoalFleet IGCC Experts team (Todd, Higman, Holt, Booras, Phillips, Wheeldon)
are also participating in the FutureGen Technical Experts Group (TEG) and have attended many
of the presentations made by the various potential technology suppliers. Battelle has been
retained by the FutureGen Alliance for the general project management. The Alliance and
Battelle asked the EPRI members of the TEG to complete an estimated cost and performance
evaluation of 13 possible configurations for the FutureGen project designed for a range of coals
covering Northern Appalachian, Illinois and PRB coals. Since a primary purpose of the
FutureGen project is to demonstrate CCS including the sequestration of 1-2 million tons/year, all
of the design configurations included 90% capture of the coal‘s carbon as CO2.
Worley Parsons has conducted a further design and cost estimate for 3 configurations selected by
the Alliance using the same 3 coals. These selected configurations include two single train
configurations – slurry feed water quench and dry coal feed water quench. The third
configuration selected was a Multiple Stream Hybrid – 100% train of Full Slurry Quench (FSQ)
with a 30% train with the KBR gasifier with ITM ASU. The final actual designs will be
established by competitive bids in 2007.

7-9
The approach used by the EPRI staff in estimating the capital cost of the 13 configurations was:
• To use the knowledge base of previous studies (2002–04) and adjust the labor rates and
productivity to a standard Midwest location
• Scale up plant size to reflect the 7 FB and 5000F fuel requirements and improved
performance
• Bring all estimates up to January 2006$ using the CEPCI

EPRI 2006 Studies comparing PC and IGCC

Using the same methodology employed for the FutureGen cases, EPRI separately developed
cases both with and without capture for commercial size two-train IGCC plants at ~620 MW net
and PC plants at the standard Kenosha, WI location. This methodology will inevitably show the
same kind of percentage differential cost between technologies as in the 2002–04 studies.
However, in absence of new studies with the input of the technology licensors, this was the only
viable approach available. In general the more recent study results from DOE NETL have
confirmed that the cost differentials between IGCC technologies with and without capture are
still similar to those found in the previous studies.
Updated estimates were made for four IGCC technologies with and without capture. The four
technologies evaluated were GE Radiant Quench (RQ), GE Total Quench (Q), COP E-Gas, and
Shell Gas Recycle Quench. The designs were without spare gasifiers and were based on Illinois
#6 coal (but could also handle Northern Appalachian Pittsburgh seam coal). All designs were
based on 2 x GE 7 FB GTs. The plants designed with capture have additional coal gasification
etc to fully load the GTs when firing Hydrogen. The GE Radiant Quench has the Selexol process
in both non-capture and capture designs. The COP case without capture used MDEA while
Selexol was used in the capture case. The Shell case without capture used the Sulfinol process
but again Selexol was used in the capture case. The IGCC designs without capture all extracted
some air from the gas turbine compressor for the ASU but all the cases with capture have all the
ASU air supplied from the main air compressor. Since no gas turbines were added for the capture
cases there is a lower net output with capture. IGCC designs using PRB sub bituminous coal
were also evaluated with the Shell Gas Recycle Quench and E-Gas technologies. GE does not
currently offer its gasification technology for PRB coal or lignite.
It must be emphasized that these designs for capture are grass roots designs and do not reflect the
costs for adding capture to a plant not previously designed for capture. This latter topic, adding
capture to a plant not initially designed for capture will be discussed later in Chapter 8
PC costs with and without capture were also estimated for the Illinois #6 and PRB coals. For
Illinois #6 coal the Supercritical steam conditions evaluated were 3600 psi/1050°F/1050°F.
A survey conducted by EPRI in 2005 indicated that with the high sulfur and chloride content of
Illinois basin coals higher steam temperatures were inadvisable. For the PRB coals both
supercritical (SCPC) and Ultra supercritical steam conditions (3600 psi/1100°F/1100°F) were
evaluated.
When comparing capital cost estimates it is important to know what is included and, more
importantly, what is not included! Unfortunately it is not known what is included in the Capital
cost estimates submitted to the PUCs. However it is believed that they are probably similar to the

7-10
EPRI Total Capital Requirement (TCR). The EPRI Total Capital Requirement is 16 to 19%
higher than Total Plant Cost. Typical EPRI Owner’s Costs add about 5-7% to TPC and AFUDC
adds another 11-12% to TPC. The adder for “other” Owner’s Costs varies widely and depends on
the owner and site-specific requirements but can easily add another 10 to 15% to TPC.
Given the data base and methodology, together with the rapidly escalating construction costs the
error band on these estimates is wide. Total Plant Costs (TPC) include Total Field costs,
Engineering and Contingency and historically these have been estimated for Nth of a kind plants.
The calculated cost and performance estimates for the various coal technologies both with and
without capture are shown in Table 7-5.

Table 7-5
Coal Plants Designed with and without Capture

Technology Without CO2 Capture Designed for CO2 Capture

TPC Net HR #CO2/MWh TPC Net HR #CO2/MWh
M$ MW Btu/kWh M$ MW Btu/kWh
GE RQ Ill #6 1254 630 8832 1738 1371 552 10,463 118
GE Q Ill#6 1033 600 9600 1889 1146 523 11,300 128
E-Gas Ill#6 1078 612 8870 1796 1250 515 10,895 250
E-Gas PRB 1133 620 9090 1916 1316 515 11,340 270
Shell Ill#6 1259 620 8466 1714 1485 500 11,156 152
Shell PRB 1280 620 8614 1814 1525 500 11,351 163
CPS Shell PRB 1319 599/ 9090/ 1914/
43F/73F 553 9220 1942
SCPC Ill#6 1056 600 8963 1843 1465 550 12,300 253
SC PC PRB 1080 600 9137 1937 1502 550 12,714 270
USC PRB 1095 600 8995 1907 1522 550 12,428 263

Since the heating value of the syngas is reduced by the shift reaction the IGCC cases with
capture have higher coal feed rates than those without capture so that the 7 FB gas turbines are
fully loaded. The lower net output with capture reflects the extra auxiliary power required by the
main air compressor, the CO2 compression and the Selexol recycle gas compressor.
In the case of the PC plants with capture the PC plant is much larger (~800 MW gross) than the
PC plant without capture (~650 MW gross). This size was chosen so that the net outputs of the
PC plants with capture are similar to the net outputs of IGCC plants with capture. This gives
some advantage of the economies of scale to PC. The alternative would be to present the costs of
capture for the same ~650 MW Gross PC plant, however this would result in a PC plant with
capture of only ~ 430 MW net output.
Previous reports have usually focused on the TPC estimates. However in this report both TPC
and TCR estimates are shown in the Tables and Figures since it is believed that the TCR is closer
to what is reported to PUCs in proposed coal plant project submissions.
• For PC plants EPRI has used a TCR/TPC multiplier of 1.16 and estimates are shown as -
5% to +10%.
• For IGCC plants EPRI has used a TCR/TPC multiplier of 1.19 and estimates are shown
as -5% to +20%.

7-11
 • Most previous studies (including the DOE NETL report) reported cost of capture at the
battery limits (BL). In this report we have added 10$/mt for Transportation, Monitoring
and Storage. The reported costs are therefore for CCS.
First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) costs have not typically been included in the estimates in previous EPRI
reports. However in view of the current State-of –the Art and rapidly escalating costs an
additional 10% contingency has been added to the IGCC and Capture designs over and above the
historically used 10% for PC and 13.5% for IGCC. The effect of this additional 10% contingency
for FOAK on the capital and COE estimates is shown in Table 7-6.
EPRI recognizes that the use of these additional contingencies, multipliers and ranges for IGCC
and Capture is debatable. It is anticipated that they should be reduced as the technologies mature

Table 7-6
Effect of FOAK Contingency on TPC and COE for Coal Plants Designed with and without Capture

Technology Without CO2 Capture Designed for CO2 Capture

TPC COE TPC M$ COE TPC COE TPCM$ COE
M$ $/MWh FOAK $/MWh M$ Nth $/MWh FOAK $/MWh
Nth Nth FOAK Nth FOAK
GE RQ Ill #6 1254 58.7 1379 63.6 1371 81.2 1508 87.4
GE Q Ill#6 1033 53.8 1136 58.1 1146 76.7 1261 82.1
E-Gas Ill#6 1078 53.6 1186 58.0 1250 80.4 1375 86.5
E-Gas PRB 1133 55.5 1246 60.0 1316 84.7 1448 91.0
Shell Ill#6 1259 58.2 1385 63.1 1485 92.4 1634 99.6
Shell PRB 1280 59.2 1408 64.2 1525 94.9 1678 102.4

SCPC Ill#6 1056 53.2 1465 86.7 1602 92.8

SC PC PRB 1080 52.5 1502 87.6 1652 93.8
USC PRB 1095 52.8 1522 87.6 1674 93.9

For coal plants without capture the SCPC COE with Illinois #6 coal is lower than GE RQ or
Shell IGCC by ~ 10% and with the additional FOAK 10% contingency the PC marginal
advantage is ~20%. Without the FOAK contingency the IGCC COE estimates for GE Q and E-
Gas are close to SCPC but with the added contingency they are ~10% more than the SCPC. For
PRB coal the SCPC COE is lower than the E-Gas IGCC by ~6% and ~ 13% for Shell IGCC, and
with additional FOAK contingency these marginal advantages become ~14 and 22%
respectively.
The trends in differential costs for capture are similar to those in the DOE NETL 2006 Draft
report and to previous DOE, IEA and EPRI studies. The GE water Quench is the least cost way
of adding the moisture to syngas for the shift reaction. Higher pressure e.g., 800-1000 psig
decreases the cost of CO2 removal and compression through use of a physical absorption system
(e.g., Selexol) where solvent recovery is largely achieved through depressurization and without
large steam (energy) penalty. Some CO2 can be recovered at pressure reducing the needed MW
for compression. GE can offer high pressure designs and both Q and RQ provide substantial
amounts of moisture for shift. The COP E-Gas, Shell, Siemens and KBR gasifiers are at lower
pressure (< 600 psig) and the water wash contact with the syngas is at lower temperature
producing lower moisture in the syngas. The additional costs for capture from an IGCC are

7-12
highest for dry coal fed gasifiers such as Shell since the syngas has a high CO content (>60%)
and requires a lot of steam for the shift. (See discussion in Chapter 6). This is further illustrated
in Table 7.5 which shows that the loss of net power output with capture is greater for Shell (120
MW) than E-Gas (97 MW) and is least for the GE cases (78 MW).
The TPC, TCR and 30 year Levelized COE estimates for Illinois #6 coal are presented in
Figures 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 as range bands (PC -5 +10%, IGCC and CCS as -5 + 20%) of the base
cost estimates listed in Table 7-7.

Table 7-7
EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC COE Estimates – Illinois #6 Coal at 1.5$/MBtu HHV

Technology SCPC SCPC GERQ GERQ GEQ GEQ Shell Shell E- EGas
w w Cap w w Gas w
Cap Cap Cap Cap

Net MW 600 550 630 552 600 523 620 500 612 515

Total Plant Cost TPC 1763 2930 2190 2732 1894 2410 2234 3267 1938 2670
$/kW

Total Capital 2034 3399 2606 3251 2254 2868 2658 3888 2306 3177
Requirement TCR $/kW

Fixed O&M $/kW yr 49.1 82.0 83.2 103.8 72.0 91.6 78.2 114.3 73.6 101.5

Variable O&M $/MWh 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Heat Rate Btu/kWh 8963 12,300 8832 10463 9600 11300 8466 11156 8870 10895
HHV
COE Capital $/MWh 29.27 48.92 37.5 46.79 32.44 41.28 38.26 55.95 33.18 45.73
COE O&M $/MWh 10.51 15.2 12.87 15.81 11.27 14.07 12.16 17.32 11.51 15.48
COE Fuel $/MWh 13.44 18.45 13.25 15.69 14.4 16.95 12.7 16.73 13.31 16.34
Total 30 year Levelized 53.22 82.56 63.62 78.3 58.1 72.3 63.11 90.0 58.0 77.55
COE $/MWh
CO2 Emitted lbs/MWh 1843 277 1789 128 1944 138 1714 159 1796 255
COE Adder for Capture 29.34 14.68 14.20 26.89 19.55
$/MWh

CO2 Captured lb/MWh 2253 2002 2162 2112 1962

COE Adder for CO2 10.22 9.08 9.81 9.58 8.90
Transportation &
Storage $/MWh
Total COE with CCS 53.22 92.78 63.62 87.38 58.1 82.11 63.11 99.58 58.0 86.45
$/MWh
Cost of CO2 Avoided 50.52 28.61 26.58 46.89 36.92
(inc T&S) $/st CO2 (55.7) (31.54) (29.3) (51.7) (40.7)
($/mt)

7-13
 EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Capital Cost Estimates
With and Without CO2 Capture (Illinois #6 Coal, New Plants)
4,500

4,000
.
Total Plant Cost, $/kW (2006$)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500
Supercritical GE GE Total Shell Gas E-Gas FSQ
PC Radiant Quench Quench
1,000 Quench
No With No With No With No With No With
Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture

Figure 7-2
EPRI PC and IGCC TPC Estimates – 600 MW, Illinois #6 coal

EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Capital Cost Estimates

With and Without CO2 Capture (Illinois #6 Coal, New Plants)
5,000
.

4,500
Total Capital Requirement, $/kW (2006$)

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000
Supercritical GE GE Total Shell Gas E-Gas FSQ
PC Radiant Quench Quench
1,500 Quench
No With No With No With No With No With
Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture

Figure 7-3
EPRI PC and IGCC TCR Estimates – 600 MW, Illinois #6 coal

7-14
 EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Capital Cost Estimates
With and Without CO2 Capture (Illinois #6 Coal, New Plants)
120
.
30-Yr levelized COE, $/MWh (Constant 2006$)

110

100

90

80

70

60

50 GE Total Shell Gas

Supercritical GE Radiant E-Gas FSQ
PC Quench Quench Quench
40
No With No With No With No With No With
Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture

Figure 7-4
EPRI PC and IGCC 30 year LCOE Estimates – 600 MW, Illinois #6 coal

The TPC, TCR and 30 year Levelized COE estimates for PRB sub bituminous coal are presented
in Figures 7-5, 7-6, and 7-7 as range bands (PC -5 +10%, IGCC and CCS as -5 + 20%) of the
base cost estimates listed in Table 7-8. Without capture the COE of the IGCC cases is higher
than for the PC cases. However, even with the extra FOAK adder the COE band for the IGCC
cases with capture overlaps the PC bands with capture and in the case of COP E-Gas appears
quite competitive with the PC cases. As noted earlier in this section the additional costs of
capture with the current Shell Gas Recycle Quench configuration are much higher than for the
other gasification technologies. Shell has recently issued a patent for a Partial Water Quench
configuration that should markedly lower the cost of the gasification section.

7-15
Table 7-8
EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC COE Estimates – PRB Coal at 1.5$/MBtu HHV

Technology SCPC SCPC PC PC Shell Shell E-Gas E-Gas

w Cap USC USC w Cap w Cap
w Cap

Net MW 600 550 600 550 620 500 620 515

Total Plant Cost TPC $/kW 1800 3004 1825 3044 2271 3355 2010 2811

Total Capital Requirement 2088 3485 2117 3531 2702 3992 2392 3345
TCR $/kW
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 50.4 84.1 51.1 85.2 79.5 117.4 76.4 106.8
Variable O&M $/MWh 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Heat Rate Btu/kWh HHV 9137 12714 8995 12428 8614 11351 9090 11340

30 year Constant $ LCOE

Capital $/MWh 30.05 50.15 30.47 50.82 38.89 57.46 34.43 48.14
O&M $/MWh 8.75 13.56 8.85 13.72 12.34 17.76 11.90 16.24
Fuel $/MWh 13.71 19.07 13.49 18.64 12.92 17.03 13.64 17.01
Total LCOE $/MWh 52.51 82.79 52.81 83.18 64.16 92.24 59.96 81.39
CO2 Emitted lbs/MWh 1937 273 1907 267 1814 168 1915 276
COE Adder for CO2 Capture 30.28 30.37 28.09 21.43
$/MWh

CO2 Captured lb/MWh 2422 2368 2235 2124

COE Adder for 10.99 10.74 10.14 9.64
Transportation & Storage

Total COE with CCS 52.51 93.77 52.81 93.92 64.16 102.38 59.96 91.03
$/MWh
Cost of CO2 Avoided (inc 49.61 50.14 46.44 37.92
T&S) $/st ($/mt)

7-16
 EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Capital Cost Estimates
With and Without CO2 Capture (PRB Coal, New Plants)
4,500

4,000
.
Total Plant Cost, $/kW (2006$)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500
Supercritical PC Ultra-supercritical PC Shell Gas Quench E-Gas FSQ

1,000
No Capture With No Capture With No Capture With No Capture With
Capture Capture Capture Capture

Figure 7-5
EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC TPC Estimates – 600 MW, PRB coal

EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Capital Cost Estimates

With and Without CO2 Capture (PRB, New Plants)
5,000
.

4,500
Total Capital Requirement, $/kW (2006$)

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000
Supercritical PC Ultra-supercritical PC Shell Gas Quench E-Gas FSQ
1,500
No Capture With No Capture With No Capture With No Capture With
Capture Capture Capture Capture

Figure 7-6
EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC TCR Estimates – 600 MW, PRB coal

7-17
 EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Capital Cost Estimates
With and Without CO2 Capture (PRB Coal, New Plants)
120
.
30-Yr levelized COE, $/MWh (Constant 2006$)

110

100

90

80

70

60

50
Supercritical PC Ultra-supercritical PC Shell Gas Quench E-Gas FSQ
40
No Capture With No Capture With No Capture With No Capture With
Capture Capture Capture Capture

Figure 7-7
EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC 30 year LCOE Estimates – 600 MW, PRB coal

Further IGCC Design Options for Capture

There are three general levels of capture that can be designed for in IGCC plants.
• For slurry fed gasifiers the CO2 in the syngas can represent 20-25% of the coal’s carbon
that could be removed without using the Shift reaction by adding a second CO2
absorption/stripping section as shown in Figure 6-5. This relatively small amount of
capture is unlikely to generate much support from Federal or State Authorities with
regard to making any significant contribution to reduction of CO2 emissions. However it
could be of some value for production of CO2 for EOR or other use.
• All gasification technologies can use a sour High Temperature Shift followed by a two
absorption column AGR (Figure 6-5). The syngas may still be able to use standard
syngas GT combustors. This could result in 60 -80 % CO2 capture which would more
than satisfy California’s criteria of <1100 lbs CO2/MWh. The COE would be lower than
maximum capture option.
• If > 90% removal is required then both high and low temperature shift beds can be used.
However this would require GT combustors designed for Hydrogen. The COE would be
the highest of the three options.
• One additional variation would be to conduct the shift and CO2 removal on 50% of the
syngas (one train of a 600 MW plant) which should also enable the plant to meet the new
California criteria of <1100 lbs CO2/MWh.

7-18
8
ADDING CO2 CAPTURE TO PC AND IGCC PLANTS
NOT PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED FOR CAPTURE –
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
Background
Although there seems to be an increased perception that CO2 regulations will be enacted there is
uncertainty, particularly in the US, about the timing and extent of any required reductions. It is
therefore appropriate to consider the addition of capture to PC and IGCC plants that were
designed initially without capture or with various degrees of pre-investment. Depending on the
owner’s perception of the extent and timing of potential regulation various degrees of pre-
investment may be appropriate to optimize the plant output and performance over time.

IGCC Pre-Investment Options for later Addition of CO2 Capture

Most of the IGCC designs for capture evaluated in previous studies have incorporated capture in
the initial designs. Several pre-investment options can be considered for later addition of capture:
• Standard Provisions. Leave space for additional equipment and tie-ins, BOP, and site
access at later date. There is a net power capacity, efficiency and cost penalty upon
conversion to capture.
• Moderate Provisions. Additional ASU, Gasification and gas clean-up is needed to fully
load the GTs when Shift is added. If this over-sizing is included in the initial IGCC
investment the capacity can be used in the pre-capture phase for supplemental firing or
co-production. This version of “capture ready” would then permit full GT output with
Hydrogen (at ISO conditions) when capture is added. The cost and efficiency penalties
are mitigated. However when shift is added considerable AGR modifications will be
required (See Table 8-1).
• Extensive Provisions. In this option the pre-investment design is with conversion-shift
reactors, oversized components, an AGR absorber sized for shifted syngas but no CO2
absorber and compressor. There should be no need for a major shutdown to complete the
conversion to CO2 capture.
When the shift reaction is added to a design the dry gas flow to the AGR is increased markedly.
This is illustrated in Table 8-1 which shows the relative increase in dry gas flow when the shift
reaction is added to the flow sheets of the GE, COP E-Gas and Shell technologies. Each of the
analyses is shown as a molar flow of 100 moles and the effect of the shift reaction on total flow
of dry gas is shown to increase the flow of dry gas by 44%, 46% and 60% for GE, COP E-Gas
and Shell respectively.

8-1
Table 8-1
Effect of Shift on Dry Syngas Flow for GE, COP and Shell Gasification

Gasifier GE no GE with COP no COP with Shell no Shell with

Shift Shift Shift Shift Shift Shift

Pressure Psig 500-1000 500-1000 600 600 60 600

H2 37 81 30 76 28 88

CO 47 3 49 3 64 4

CH4 <o.1 <0.1 6 6 <0.1 <0.1

CO2 14 58 12 58 2 62

N2 + A 2 2 3 3 6 6

Total flow 100 144 100 146 10 160

Moles

The addition of Sour Shift increases gas flow to the AGR particularly for the dry coal fed
gasifiers with high CO content. It is unlikely that the AGR as originally designed would be able
to take the extra flow unless there was pre-investment over-sizing. It would probably be
necessary to add a parallel absorber or to replace the entire AGR plant (with a new two column
absorption system) if capture is to be added to an existing IGCC designed without capture.
Alternatively the original AGR (focused in its design on H2S Removal) could be retained and a
Sweet shift added after the AGR with a simpler bulk CO2 removal AGR (ADIP, MDEA, Selexol)
added after shift. This would minimize intrusion into existing plant. This trade off of Sour versus
Sweet Shift needs to be examined and may differ among the gasification technologies. Sweet
Shift may incur additional efficiency and output penalties. With water quench gasifiers Sour
Shift would most probably be selected.
A preliminary assessment of the pre- investment options and technology choices for IGCC has
led to the following interim conclusions:
• IGCC with “Standard Provisions” (e.g., plot space) is not very CCS-ready
• IGCC with some “Moderate Provisions” is much more CCS-ready, and the incremental
capital may be justified
• Considerations of AGRU/SRU selections for CCS suggest that Selexol is more CCS-
ready than MDEA, particularly with Moderate Provisions
• “Sour shift” is more CCS-ready than “sweet shift”
• Quench with sour shift is CCS-ready. Syngas cooler designs with either sour or sweet
shift are less ready for CCS. There is a considerable thermodynamic penalty for syngas
reheat and HP steam injection with sweet CO shift and non-quench gasifiers.
• The H2S content of the produced CO2 can affect cost and technology selection.

8-2
CPS Energy (San Antonio) Study of IGCC and PC
CPS Energy (San Antonio) is constructing a 750 MW supercritical PC plant fired with PRB coal.
The plant is known as Spruce 2, southeast of San Antonio. The plant was opposed by some
environmental groups because of the projected greenhouse gas and mercury emissions. As part
of a settlement with the environmental groups, CPS Energy agreed to enhance its energy
conservation and renewable energy programs and to pay increased attention to CO2 emissions
from future coal plants. CPS Energy also committed to fund a study of IGCC with combinations
of fuels such as PRB and pet coke. Under the terms of the settlement, the IGCC study will be
made available to the public. CPS Energy selected Burns & McDonnell to perform the study,
with assistance from EPRI. The study is available on EPRI’s public web site. The report number
is 1014510.
The study basis was an evaluation of Shell IGCC and SCPC plants 550 MW plants at a Texas
coastal location. The coal was PRB at a delivered cost of $1.65/MBtu HHV. An IGCC case
using a 50/50 by weight blend of PRB and Pet coke was also evaluated using a delivered cost of
pet coke of $1.12/MBtu.. The Shell IGCC included Selexol as the AGR and 2 x GE 7 FB gas
turbines. The SCPC was 3500 psi/1050F/1050F.
This study was one of the first that has evaluated the addition of capture to IGCC and SCPC
plants that were designed without significant pre-investment. Most previous studies of IGCC and
PC plants had evaluated designs with capture included from the beginning.
The IGCC retrofit for 90% CO2 recovery included replacement of COS/HCN hydrolysis reactor
with 2 stages of sour shift reaction, additions to syngas cooling train for the shift reactors,
additions to the Selexol AGR to recover CO2 as a separate by-product, upgrade of the
demineralizer water treatment and storage system for 450,000 lb/hr IP steam for water-gas shift
reaction, HRSG LP superheater modifications and addition of CO2 drying and compression to
2000psig.
The SCPC retrofit for 90% CO2 recovery included addition of Fluor’s Econamine FG Plus
(EFG+) process (MEA based chemical solvent), wet FGD upgrades to reduce SO2 to 7 ppm
(98%) to reduce formation of heat stable salts in the MEA solvent, addition of a new cooling
tower and circulating water system for Econamine FG+ cooling and the addition of CO2 drying
and compression to 2000psig.
The CO2 capture capital costs are based on retrofit of the existing IGCC or PC facilities as
provided in the base case alternatives. The $/kW values reflect total installed cost (including
original costs provided in the base case) divided by net plant output with CO2 capture.
The results of this study are summarized in Table 8-2.

8-3
Table 8-2
CPS Energy Evaluation of Shell IGCC and SCPC. PRB coal. Texas

Case Shell IGCC Shell IGCC SCPC Shell IGCC 100% SCPC 100%
Description 100% PRB 50/50 PRB/Pet 100% PRB with PRB with
Coke PRB Capture Capture

Gross MW 710 711 615 630 521

Auxiliary Load 157 158 65 217 132

MW

Net MW 553 553 550 413 390

Heat Rate 9220 9070 9150 12,800 12,911

Btu/kWh HHV

Availability Factor 85 85 90
%

TPC $/kW 2390 2330 1950 3630 3440

TCR $/kW 2670 2580 2190 4040 3840

20 year LCOE 45.0 40.9 39.2 65.4 62.0

$/MWh 2006$

The capital costs are in mid 2006$ and are very higher than had been expected for the Texas Gulf
coast location. The continued rise in equipment, commodity and labor costs are most evident in
these estimates. The Shell IGCC for PRB has a COE ~ 15% greater than the SCPC COE with
PRB coal. However when using a PRB/pet coke blend the IGCC COE is reduced by 9%. The
IGCC COE with capture is increased by 45% over that without capture. The SCPC COE with
capture is 58% greater than the COE without capture. However overall the IGCC COE with
capture is slightly greater by ~5.5% than the SCPC COE with capture.
The studies were conducted without the involvement of the technology licensors (Shell) or the
GT supplier (GE). They all said they were too busy with actual projects to participate in an EPRI
study – particularly one in which the results were going to be made public (under the terms of the
EPRI agreement with CPS and the agreement CPS had with their environmental intervener
groups). EPRI used in-house models for process performance and Burns & MacDonnell did the
cost estimation. Given the limited input from vendors and the accuracy obtainable in preliminary
studies of this kind (particularly at this time of rapid escalation of construction costs), the general
conclusion from this study is that the Shell IGCC and SCPC designs with capture for PRB sub-
bituminous coal are very close in COE. This is illustrated in Figure 8.1 in which the study
results in Table 8-2 are shown with appropriate range bands emphasizing the extent of overlap in
the case estimates. This result is consistent with the previous study conducted by the Canadian
CPC as reported in EPRI Report 1004880 March 2004.

8-4
 70

60 Range of
Levelized Cost of Electricity ($/MWhr)

uncertainty
50

40
D e lta fo r C a p tu re
W ith o u t C O 2 C a p tu r e
30

20

10

0
IG C C + P R B IG C C + P e t c o k e & P R B SCPC +PRB

Figure 8-1
CPS Study IGCC & SCPC w/ and w/o Capture
(2006 EPRI study (1014510) Texas location and municipal utility financing)

There are several likely improvements in both the Shell process for capture (partial water
quench) and using a more optimized Selexol design. From the results presented in Chapter 7
COP E-Gas would probably be lower cost than the Shell Recycle Gas Quench used in the CPS
study. Similarly improvements to post combustion capture from PC plants can be anticipated in
the future and when successfully scaled up.
The IGCC Selexol design with capture and the SCPC Econamine process would both benefit
from some further optimization and this additional work is planned.
CPS Energy is a municipal utility that has access to low cost financing so that the COEs in Table
8-2 are lower than those presented elsewhere in this report. Investor-owned utilities (IOU) have
higher financing costs. EPRI has recalculated the CPS results for 30-year LCOE for IOU
financing and included $10/tonne for transportation and sequestration. IOU financing costs lead
to higher COE (~33-37% or 102-106$/MWh with CCS) than those in Table 8-2. Higher COEs
also mean higher avoided Cost of CO2 (~30% or 54-61$/mt).

EPRI 2006 Estimates for Adding Capture to PC and IGCC plants designed initially
without Capture consideration
The PC and IGCC cases with capture reported in Chapter 7 were all initially designed for capture
from the start. In this Chapter 8 the cost and performance implications of adding capture to
plants not initially designed for capture are evaluated.

8-5
For PC plants the cost and performance effects of adding capture to the SCPC and USC cases
reported in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 have been evaluated. The SCPC retrofit for 90% CO2
recovery includes addition of Fluor’s Econamine FG Plus (EFG+) process (MEA based chemical
solvent), wet FGD upgrades to reduce the flue gas SO2 to 7 ppm (to reduce formation of heat
stable salts in the MEA solvent), addition of a new cooling tower and circulating water system
for Econamine FG+ cooling and the addition of CO2 drying and compression to 2000psig. Steam
must be extracted from the IP/LP cross over for regeneration of the Econamine solvent and
modifications made to the LP steam turbine to accommodate the markedly reduced steam flow.
For the IGCC plants the cost and performance effects of adding capture to the four IGCC cases
designed without capture (GE Radiant Quench (RQ), GE Total Quench (Q), COP E-Gas, and
Shell Gas Recycle Quench) reported in Chapter 7 have been evaluated.
The IGCC designs were without spare gasifiers and were based on 2 x GE 7 FB GTs. For the
designs without capture ~30-40% of the air supply for the ASU was extracted from the gas
turbine compressor. Since GE has stated that no air can be extracted when firing Hydrogen
another air compressor needs to be added to fully supply the ASU when capture is added The
IGCC retrofit for 90% CO2 recovery includes replacement of COS/HCN hydrolysis reactor with
2 stages of sour shift reaction, additions to syngas cooling train for the shift reactors, additions to
or replacements of the AGR to recover CO2 as a separate by-product, upgrade of the
demineralizer water treatment and storage system, IP steam for water-gas shift reaction, HRSG
LP superheater modifications and addition of CO2 drying and compression to 2000psig.
The GE Radiant Quench IGCC without capture can use either MDEA (no SCR) or Selexol (if
SCR is needed). When adding capture to a plant designed originally with MDEA the MDEA
must be replaced with a new 2 section Selexol for separate H2S and CO2 removal. If the original
design used Selexol for H2S removal then either a new parallel absorber column will need to be
added to accommodate the additional flow of syngas (as shown in Table 8-1) from the shift
reactors or a completely new absorber designed for the full flow must be added. In all cases a
new Selexol CO2 absorber/stripper system must be added.
The COP case without capture used MDEA so the MDEA must be replaced with a new 2 section
Selexol for separate H2S and CO2 removal.
The Shell case without capture used the Sulfinol process so the MDEA must be replaced with a
new 2 section Selexol for separate H2S and CO2 removal.
Since no extra ASU or gasification capacity was included in the original design there is a lower
net power output with capture because some chemical energy is lost in the shift reaction so that
the gas turbine cannot be fully loaded when the capture capability is added.
Cost and performance estimates for the PC and IGCC cases with capture retrofit for Illinois #6
coal are shown in Table 8-3 and for PRB sub bituminous coal in Table 8-4.

8-6
Table 8-3
EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC Capture Retrofit COE Estimates – Illinois #6 Coal at 1.5$/MBtu HHV

Technology SCPC SCPC GERQ GERQ GEQ GEQ Shell Shell E- EGas
wCap wCap wCap wCap Gas wCap
Retro Retro Retro Retro Retro

Net MW 600 431 630 520 600 505 620 460 612 482

Total Plant Cost TPC 1056/ 1343/ 1359/ 1567/ 1136/ 1324/ 1385/ 1586/ 1186/ 1356/
Million$/$/kW 1763 3107 2190 3014 1894 2622 2234 3448 1938 2813

Total Capital 2034 3604 2606 3587 2254 3121 2658 4103 2306 3347
Requirement TCR
$/kW
Fixed O&M $/kW 49.1 87.0 83.2 114.5 72.0 99.7 78.2 120.7 73.6 106.9
yr
Variable O&M 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
$/MWh
Heat Rate Btu/kWh 8963 12480 8832 10700 9600 11400 8466 11410 8870 11260
HHV
COE Capital $/MWh 29.27 51.87 37.5 51.62 32.44 44.91 38.26 59.05 33.18 48.18
COE O&M $/MWh 10.51 15.9 12.87 17.34 11.27 15.22 12.16 18.22 11.51 16.25
COE Fuel $/MWh 13.44 18.72 13.25 16.05 14.4 17.1 12.7 17.12 13.31 16.89
Total 30 year 53.22 86.49 63.62 85.02 58.1 77.23 63.11 94.38 58.0 81.32
Levelized COE
$/MWh
CO2 Emitted 1843 281 1789 218 1944 232 1714 232 1796 264
lbs/MWh
COE Adder for 33.27 21.4 19.13 31.27 23.32
Capture $/MWh

CO2 Captured 2286 1960 2088 2090 2028

lb/MWh
COE Adder for CO2 10.37 8.89 9.47 9.48 9.20
Transportation &
Storage $/MWh
Total COE with CCS 53.22 96.86 63.62 93.91 58.1 86.7 63.11 103.86 58.0 90.52
$/MWh
Cost of CO2 Avoided 55.87 38.57 33.4 55.0 42.44
(inc T&S) $/st CO2 (61.6) (42.5) (36.8) (60.6) (46.8)
($/mt)

8-7
Table 8-4
EPRI 2006 PC and IGCC Capture Retrofit COE Estimates – PRB Coal at 1.5$/MBtu HHV

Technology SCPC SCPC PC PC Shell Shell E-Gas E-Gas

w Cap USC USC w Cap w Cap
Retro w Cap Retro Retro
Retro

Net MW 600 425 600 428 620 460 620 481

Total Plant Cost Million $/ 1080/ 1374/ 1095/ 1386/ 1408/ 1628/ 1246/ 1426/
TPC $/kW 1800 3233 1825 3238 2271 3539 2010 2965
Total Capital Requirement 2088 3750 2117 3756 2702 4212 2392 3529
TCR $/kW
Fixed O&M $/kW-yr 50.4 90.5 51.1 90.7 79.5 123.9 76.4 112.7
Variable O&M $/MWh 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Heat Rate Btu/kWh HHV 9137 12900 8995 12610 8614 11610 9090 11720

30 year Constant $ LCOE

Capital $/MWh 30.05 53.97 30.47 54.06 38.89 60.61 34.43 50.79
O&M $/MWh 8.75 14.48 8.85 14.50 12.34 18.68 11.90 17.08
Fuel $/MWh 13.71 19.35 13.49 18.92 12.92 17.42 13.64 17.58
Total LCOE $/MWh 52.51 87.8 52.81 87.48 64.16 96.71 59.96 85.45
CO2 Emitted lbs/MWh 1937 277 1907 271 1814 246 1915 285
COE Adder for CO2 Capture 35.29 34.66 32.55 25.48
$/MWh

CO2 Captured lb/MWh 2458 2402 2212 2196

COE Adder for 11.15 10.9 10.03 9.96
Transportation & Storage

Total COE with CCS 52.51 98,95 52.81 98.37 64.16 106.74 59.96 95.4
$/MWh
Cost of CO2 Avoided (inc 55.96 55.71 54.29 43.51
T&S) $/st ($/mt) (61.7) (61.4) (59.8) (48.0)

In the COE calculations for capture retrofit the entire TPC covering both the base plant and the
retrofit cost is treated as though the 30 years applied to all the capital. A more detailed analysis
could treat the initial base plant and its operation for some initial years with the capture
retrofitted after the initial period. This treatment would lead to a lower 30 year LCOE than the
estimates shown in Tables 8-3 and 8-4. The longer the initial plant can run without capture the
lower will become the 30 year LCOE.

8-8
It is instructive to compare the plant outputs for the base plants without capture with those for
capture retrofit and those designed initially for capture as shown in Figure 8-2 (Illinois #6 coal)
and Figure 8-5 (PRB coal).
For the SCPC cases there is a marked drop in net power when capture is retrofitted from 600 to
425-431 MW or ~ 28-30%. However when the plant is designed for capture a much larger boiler
is used than for a plant without capture so that the net power output is better maintained. In these
studies the SCPC plant with capture has a boiler of ~ 800 MW nominal gross output which
reduces to ~550 MW net output.
For the IGCC cases the drop in net output with capture is less than with SCPC however the loss
of output varies markedly among the various gasification technologies for the reasons previously
described. The loss of net power output with capture is greater for Shell (120 MW) than E-Gas
(97 MW) and is least for the GE cases (78 MW). When capture is added to an IGCC plant not
designed initially for capture there is a further loss in net output (20-40 MW dependent on the
technology) since the ASU and Gasification section are not sized to provide full fuel loading to
the gas turbine.

EPRI PC and IGCC Net Power Output

With and Without CO2 Capture (Illinois #6 Coal)
800
No Capture
Retrofit Capture
700
New Capture

600
.
Net Power Output, MWe

500

400

300

200

100

0
Supercritical GE Radiant GE Total Shell Gas E-Gas FSQ
PC Quench Quench Quench

Figure 8-2
PC & IGCC Net Power with and without Capture (Illinois #6 coal)

The TCR and 30 year LCOE estimates for the base plants without capture are compared with
those for capture retrofit and those designed initially for capture as shown in Figures 8-3 & 8-4
(Illinois #6 coal) and Figure 8-6 & 8-7 (PRB coal). As would be expected the LCOEs of plants
with capture retrofitted are higher than the LCOEs of those designed for capture initially.

8-9
However, as previously mentioned this would not be the case if an extensive period of operation
without capture preceded the retrofit of capture.

EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Capital Cost Estimates

With and Without CO2 Capture (Illinois #6 Coal)
5,000
No Capture
Retrofit Capture
.

New Capture
4,500
Total Capital Requirement, $/kW (2006$)

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500
Supercritical GE Radiant GE Total Shell Gas E-Gas FSQ
PC Quench Quench Quench

Figure 8-3
PC & IGCC TCR with and without Capture – Illinois #6

8-10
 EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Cost of Electricity
With and Without CO2 Capture (Illinois #6 Coal)
130
.

No Capture COE Includes $10/tonne for CO2 Transportation and Sequestration

Retrofit Capture
120
30-Yr levelized COE, $/MWh (Constant 2006$)

New Capture

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40
Supercritical GE Radiant GE Total Shell Gas E-Gas FSQ
PC Quench Quench Quench

Figure 8-4
PC & IGCC 30 year LCOE with and without Capture – Illinois #6 coal

8-11
 EPRI PC and IGCC Net Power Output
With and Without CO2 Capture (PRB Coal)
800
No Capture
Retrofit Capture
700 New Capture

600
.
Net Power Output, MWe

500

400

300

200

100

0
Supercritical PC Ultrasupercritical Shell Gas E-Gas FSQ
PC Quench

Figure 8-5
PC & IGCC Net Plant Output MW with & without Capture – PRB coal

8-12
 EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Capital Cost Estimates
With and Without CO2 Capture (PRB Coal)
5,500
No Capture
.

Retrofit Capture
5,000 New Capture
Total Capital Requirement, $/kW (2006$)

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500
Supercritical PC Ultrasupercritical Shell Gas E-Gas FSQ
PC Quench

Figure 8-6
PC & IGCC TCR with & without Capture – PRB coal

8-13
 EPRI 600 MW (net) PC and IGCC Cost of Electricity
With and Without CO2 Capture (PRB Coal)
130
COE Includes $10/tonne for CO2 Transportation and Sequestration
.

No Capture
Retrofit Capture
120
30-Yr levelized COE, $/MWh (Constant 2006$)

New Capture

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40
Supercritical PC Ultrasupercritical Shell Gas E-Gas FSQ
PC Quench

Figure 8-7
PC & IGCC 30 year LCOE with & without Capture – PRB coal

CCS Retrofit Market for Coal Plants – A Preliminary Assessment

The U.S. 2005 CO2 emissions amount to ~ 6 billion st/y. The power sector contributes ~39% of
these emissions and the coal plants alone represent ~33%. There is currently ~310 GW of
installed coal plant capacity. In the DOE EIA Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2007 the Business
as Usual (BAU) forecast for 2025 today’s existing coal plants will represent ~63% of U.S. power
sector CO2 emissions and ~74% of all U.S. coal power plant CO2 emissions.
Because the existing power plants are mostly over 30 years old their capital costs have been paid
off and this, plus the low dispatch costs with coal as the fuel, makes these plants extremely
valuable. In view of the likely continuation of operation of the coal plants consideration needs to
be given as to which of today’s units are the most likely candidates to adopt CCS under a
regulatory environment?
One rational approach would be to consider existing boilers >300 MW and <35 years old. These
plants represent 184 GW of installed capacity. If 90% CO2 capture was applied to these units, this
would provide a ~50% reduction in coal power CO2 emissions. However what is the cost of
adding capture to these existing plants and the cost and source of replacement power?
A very preliminary estimate of these costs is shown below mainly just to illustrate the order of
magnitude of the costs the power industry and the public would incur if such a major program of
emissions reduction was enacted.

8-14
• EPRI estimate = $343Million TCR for MEA retrofit to 600 MW PC.
• Many existing coal plants have severe site and access constraints. Discussions with some
EPRI member companies suggest that an average retrofit factor of 1.35 would be
appropriate
• Assume 2011 In Service Date (ISD) with 5 yrs of cost escalation @ 5% to give an
additional ISD factor of 1.276
• As a grossly simplifying assumptions treat the184 GW as being all comprised of 600
MW units or a total of 307 units
• Total Fleet Retrofit Cost = 307 x 343 x 106x 1.35 x 1.276 = $181 billion
• Power reduction from 600 MW unit = 175 MW
• Replacement power needed 175 x 306 units = 53.7 GW
• EPRI estimate for new SCPC with capture TCR = $1.9 billion in 2006 $ for 550 MW net
or $3,455/kW
• Cost of replacement power (Assume 2011 ISD) = 53.7 x 3455 x 106 x 1.276 = $237
billion
• Must also consider the additional costs for CO2 transportation and storage of ~ 1
billion mtpy , which at 10$/mt, would be 10 Billion $/year for a period of say 30-50
years

8-15
9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following sources have provided background material for this report.

General
EPRI Report TR-1004482 “Updated Cost and Performance Estimates for Clean Coal
Technologies including CO2 Capture -2003” Interim Report, December 2003.
EPRI Report TR-1009808 “Updated Cost and Performance Estimates for Clean Coal
Technologies including CO2 Capture -2004” Interim Report, March 2005.
EPRI Report TR-101022 “Updated Cost and Performance Estimates for Clean Coal
Technologies including CO2 Capture -2005” Interim Report, March 2006
EPRI Report 1000316 “Evaluation of Innovative Fossil Fuel Power Plants Incorporating CO2
Removal” December 2000. Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group. Cosponsored with
U.S.DOE.
EPRI Report 1004483 “Updated Cost and Performance Estimates for Fossil Fuel Power Plants
with CO2 Removal” Interim Report, December 2002. Parsons Infrastructure & Technology
Group. Cosponsored with U.S.DOE
EPRI Report 1010455 “Technical Status, Operating Experience and Risk Assessment of Clean
Coal Technologies – 2005” Technical Progress Report, December 2005
EPRI Report 1012221 “Technical Status, Operating Experience and Risk Assessment of Clean
Coal Technologies – 2006” Technical Progress Report, December 2006.
EPRI Report 1004880 “Evaluation of Advanced Coal Technologies with CO2 Capture”
(Canadian CPC Phase 1 Studies of Coal Technologies with CO2 Capture). March 2004
“Cost & Performance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants” Worley Parsons for DOE
NETL. IGCC, PC and NGCC designs were evaluated a) without capture and b) with capture.
Draft report May 2006. A revised version is being produced. In the meantime the results from the
draft report have been presented by DOE NETL staff in several public forums including the 2006
Gasification Technologies Conference.
“Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle - Draft Report” Department of Natural Resources,
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. Docket 9300 GF136. June 2006
Final Report “Environmental Footprints and Costs of Coal-based Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal Technologies” EPA-43-/R-06/006. July 2006. Prepared by
Nexant Inc as a Subcontractor to the Cadmus Group Inc

9-1
Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC)
Gas Turbine World 2007 Performance Specs. 24th Edition. December 2006

Pulverized Coal (PC) Plants

K.M.Retzlaff & G.Schlottner (GE Power Systems) “Steam Turbines for Super-critical plants”
PowerGen Conference Europe 1998.
Technical Assessment GuideTM - Power Generation and Storage Technology Options, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2004, 1004874
EPRI PCCost Program (Internal use only)
Various Reports from Parsons Power Group for U.S.DOE:

Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion (AFBC) Plants

EPRI Report TR-1004493 “Atmospheric Fluidized-Bed Combustion Guidebook- 2002 Update”
Interim Report December 2002

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plants

Papers from the 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Gasification Technologies Conferences (held
in October of each year) are available on the web at www.gasification.org
EPRI Report 1010460 “Gasification Technology Status- December 2005”. December 2005.
EPRI Report 1012224 “Gasification Technology Status- December 2006”. December 2006
EPRI Report 1004537 “Phased Construction of IGCC Plants for CO2 Capture – Effect of Pre-
Investment“. Parsons Infra structure and Technology Group. December 2003
EPRI Report 1008400 “IGCC Design and RAM Analysis for Near Zero Emissions”. December
2004.
EPRI Report 1010461 (Evaluation of Alternative IGCC Plant Designs for High Availability and
Near Zero Emissions” December 2005
EPRI Report 1008403 “Evaluation of IGCC Phased Construction with CO2 Removal”. Jacobs
Consultancy. December 2004
DOE NETL gasification system studies available on the web at:
<www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/gasification>.

9-2
Export Control Restrictions
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is
granted with the specific understanding and
requirement that responsibility for ensuring full
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export
laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and
your company. This includes an obligation to ensure
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is
not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is
permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign
export laws and regulations. In the event you are
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you
acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with
your company’s legal counsel to determine whether
this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make
available on a case-by-case basis an informal
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification
for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it
is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You
and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use
of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in
violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
with major locations in Palo Alto, California;
Charlotte, North Carolina; and Knoxville,
Tennessee, was established in 1973 as an
independent, nonprofit center for public interest
energy and environmental research. EPRI brings
together members, participants, the Institute's
scientists and engineers, and other leading
experts to work collaboratively on solutions to the
challenges of electric power. These solutions
span nearly every area of electricity generation,
delivery, and use, including health, safety, and
environment. EPRI's members represent over
90% of the electricity generated in the United
States. International participation represents
nearly 15% of EPRI's total research,
development, and demonstration program.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING
THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1013355

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com