Energy Challenges
The Future of
Coal-Based Power Generation
JAMES R. KATZER, CONSULTANT
C
oal is used to generate more
than half of the electricity pro-
duced in the U.S., and about
40% of the electricity produced glob-
ally (1). For China and India, the coal-
based fraction is much higher.
Global CO2 emissions from coal-
based power generation exceed 7 bil-
lion m.t./yr — about 41% of the total
energy-related CO2 emissions. The
U.S. and China emitted similar
amounts — roughly 2.5 billion m.t.
each in 2006 (2). Power plants are
some of the largest single-point
sources of CO2 emissions, with a typi-
cal 1,000-MWe coal-fired power plant
emitting more than 6 million m.t./yr.
Total CO2 emissions from some of the
larger (3,000–6,000 MWe) power
plants in several countries are given in
Table 1 (3, 4).
Coal is a critical fuel for power
generation. It remains the least expen-
sive of all the fossil fuels — at $1–$2
per million Btu, compared with
$6–12 per million Btu for natural gas
and oil. It is also very abundant, with
proven global reserves estimated to
be about 900 billion m.t. — the
equivalent of about 160 years’ supply
at current production rates (5). Today,
the three largest coal consumers —
China, the U.S., and India — have
about half of the world’s coal
Table 1. CO2 emissions from some
large coal-fired power plants (3, 4).
Plant CO2 Emissions,
Name Location million m.t./yr
Taichung Taiwan 37.5
Poryong South Korea 34.4
Tuoketuo China 29.5
Vindhyachal India 26.4
Hekinan Japan 26.3
Janschwalde Germany 24.9
Miller Alabama 18.7
Gibson Indiana 18.5
WA Parish Texas 18.3
Despite its image as a dirty fuel,
coal remains an economic choice for
baseload power generation —
and it can, in fact, have very low emissions.
reserves and limited reserves of other
fossil fuels; the U.S., with about 255
billon m.t. of recoverable coal, has
27% of the world total (1).
Worldwide, primary energy
demand is projected to grow by just
over 50% by 2030, with electricity
demand doubling. Coal-based power
will, by necessity, account for a large
portion of this growth, and will essen-
tially maintain its current share of the
electricity generation portfolio. Thus,
the use of advanced technology to
minimize the environmental footprint
of coal-based power generation must
be a major objective.
This article, which is based on the
work done for MIT’s “The Future of
Coal” study (6), focuses on the tech-
nologies that are available and under
development for generating electricity
from coal. It includes discussion of
their costs and environmental perfor-
mance related to criteria pollutants
(e.g., SO2, NOx, particulate matter),
and of their amenability to CO2 capture
and sequestration. In order to compare
technologies, a common set of design
criteria and operating conditions and
assumptions was selected:
• each plant is a greenfield unit
with a 500-MWe net generating
capacity
• it burns Illinois No. 6 high-sulfur
coal
• it has a capacity factor of 85%
• emissions are controlled to some-
what below today’s best demon-
strated performance
• cost estimates are based on de-
tailed designs for a plant on the U.S.
CEP
Gulf Coast, with 2000–2004 costs
indexed to 2007
• only commercially demonstrated
technologies are considered
• cost estimates are for the Nth plant
(where N is a single-digit number) for
those technologies that are still evolv-
ing, such as integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) and pulverized
coal combustion with CO2 capture
• the levelized cost of electricity
(COE) (i.e., the constant-dollar price
required over the life of the plant to
cover all operating expenses, payment
of debt, and accrued interest on initial
project expenses, plus the payment of
an acceptable return to investors) is
calculated using the EPRI-recom-
mended approach.
This analysis allows a rough cost
comparison among the technologies to
be made. Actual costs will depend on
the coal type, plant site and location,
dispatch strategy, and a myriad of other
design and operating decisions. (Fur-
ther details are available in Ref. 6.) The
point of this discussion is to compare
the technologies with and without CO2
capture. (The technologies and costs
for CO2 transport and geologic storage
are treated independently.)
Pulverized-coal power generation
Figure 1 shows the typical unit
operations that are used in an
advanced pulverized-coal (PC) com-
bustion plant without CO2 capture.
The system can be depicted as three
technology blocks: the boiler block,
the steam-cycle turbine block, and the
fluegas clean-up block. The design and
March 2008 www.aiche.org/cep S15
Energy Challenges

energy is needed to compress the CO2

Fluegas Train Boiler House Turbine Building Power Distribution Grid
to a sufficiently high pressure to con-
Fluegas Feed vert it to a supercritical fluid.
Cleaned Water
Fluegas For a supercritical generating
Ammonia unit, the overall efficiency is reduced
7 6
Lime 2 Main
Emulsion
1 Steam by about 9 percentage points, from
Electric
8 Power about 38% to 29%. To maintain con-
5 11
3 13 14 stant electrical output, a PC plant
10
4 equipped to capture 90% of the CO2
4
12 9 in the fluegas requires 32% more
Cooling coal than a plant without CO2 cap-
Air Ash 11 10 Circulating Tower
Gypsum Fly Ash
Coal Condensate Water
10
ture. Improvements can be expected,
Cooling but there are physicochemical and
1 Steam Generator 8 Steam Turbine Air thermodynamic limitations to how
2 DeNOx Unit 9 Condenser
3 Air Preheater 10 Pump large these improvements can be.
11 Feedwater Heater
4
5
Fan
Electrostatic Precipitator 12 Feedwater Tank Fresh Water The main disadvantage of CO2 cap-
6 Desulfurization Unit 13 Generator ture from air-blown PC plants is that
7 Stack 14 Transformer
the fluegas has a relatively low CO2
concentration (because of the large vol-
■ Figure 1. Shown here is the typical flowsheet for an advanced pulverized-coal (PC)
power-generation facility that relies on coal combustion. ume of nitrogen — 79 vol.% — that is
present in the combustion air, and thus,
operating conditions of the steam- we need to move to the highest-effi- the fluegas stream). This issue can be
cycle block largely determine the over- ciency generation that is economically addressed, at a cost, by combusting the
all generating efficiency of the system. justified to reduce CO2 emissions. coal in oxygen rather than air. For PC
For conventional PC combustion Coal combustion power genera- combustion, such an approach is
plants, the typical operating conditions tion with CO2 capture. Because it is known as oxy-fuel PC combustion.
of the steam-cycle block and the commercially proven for capturing Another approach is the production
resulting overall electrical generating CO2 emissions from gas streams in of power in an integrated gasification
efficiency (based on the higher heat- other applications, amine absorption combined cycle (IGCC) facility.
ing value, HHV) are: would be the logical technology Using this approach, the coal is gasi-
• subcritical steam cycle unit — choice for capturing CO2 from PC fied (rather than combusted) with oxy-
typical steam-cycle operation at combustion plants today. It would be gen and steam to produce a syngas
1,000°F and 2,500 psi, 33%–37% unit applied as a process unit at the end of stream consisting of hydrogen and
efficiency the fluegas train, as shown in Figure 2 carbon monoxide (with some impuri-
• supercritical steam cycle unit — for supercritical generation. However, ties), which can be burned in a tur-
typical steam-cycle operation to a relatively large amount of energy is bine. For CO2 capture, the CO can
1,050°F and 3,530 psi, 37%–42% unit needed to recover the CO2 from the be converted to CO2 and H2 via the
efficiency amine solution and thus regenerate the water-gas shift reaction. The CO2
• ultra-supercritical steam cycle solution to capture more CO2. Less is ultimately removed from the
unit — typical steam-cycle operation
to 1,110ºF–1,140°F and 4,650 psi, Lime Slurry
42%–45% unit efficiency. Stack Gas
Today’s existing U. S. coal fleet Feed Air
2,480 m.t./h Fuegas
2,770,000 kg/h
121°C, 1 atm
consists mainly of subcritical units Boiler/Superheater Clean-up
CO2 Capture and
with a limited number of supercritical 238 atm/566°C
Removal:
Particulates 99.9% Recovery
units, although interest in supercritical 3,500 psi/1,050°F NOx 90% 90% Removal
Coal Feed SOx 99+%
technology in the U.S. has recently 243 m.t./h Supercritical CO2
increased. Europe and Japan have High-Pressure 491 m.t./h
Steam CO2 Drying and 150 atm
built about a dozen ultra-supercritical Ash and Wet Solids
Compression
units during the last decade (7). Steam Turbine/ Low-Pressure Steam
Moving from subcritical to ultra- Generator

supercritical generation reduces coal Electric Power

consumption by more than 20% per
kWeh of electricity generated. And,
the higher the efficiency, the lower the
CO2 emissions per kWeh of electricity
generated. As a result, at a minimum,
500 MWe Net
■ Figure 2. Process flow schematic of a supercritical 500-MWe pulverized coal unit with
CO2 capture; amine absorption technology is a logical choice for capturing CO2 emissions
from the back end of the fluegas train, but it reduces generating efficiency by about
9 percentage points.

S16 www.aiche.org/cep March 2008 CEP

 Feed Air Nitrogen
Air
651,000 kg/h 490,000 kg/h
Separation
Unit
Oxygen (95%)
160,000 kg/h
Radiant Cooling/
Quench Gasifier Sulfur Removal
Coal Feed 41.8 atm/1,343°C
99.4% Removal
(Slurry or Dry) (615 psi/2,450°F)
185,000 kg/h
Bottom Slag
21,500 kg/h
■ Figure 3. Process flow schematic for a typical 500-MWe IGCC unit without CO2 capture;
the projected generating efficiency with a radiant-cooling gasifier is better than 38%.
syngas stream at high pressure, before
the syngas is combusted in the gas
turbine. IGCC is discussed in greater
detail later.
Oxy-fuel PC combustion
The more-advanced oxy-fuel com-
bustion technology helps to address the
issue of high CO2 capture and recovery
costs, but it does so at the expense of
requiring an air separation unit (which
would be needed to produce an onsite
oxygen source for enhanced combus-
tion) with its associated energy costs
(8). When coal is burned in essentially
pure oxygen, the resulting fluegas is
virtually pure CO2 and H2O after par-
ticulate and SO2 removal. The advan-
tage is gained through the ability to
directly compress this fluegas stream,
with drying, to produce supercritical
CO2 for sequestration.
This technology is in active pilot-
plant development and the early
stages of commercial demonstration,
with at least two 10–25-MWe com-
mercial demonstrations moving for-
ward. Because of the early state of
development, the performance and
cost estimates are not as firm as are
those for PC or IGCC systems. How-
ever, oxy-fuel PC combustion has the
potential to provide a lower COE, and
a lower cost per quantity of CO2
avoided, than the respective costs for
PC combustion with CO2 capture.
Integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC)
The other oxygen-enhanced option
is IGCC generation, shown without
CO2 capture in Figure 3. Typically,
Combustion Air
Combustion Turbine/ Heat-Recovery
Steam Generator/
Generator
Turbine/Generator
Electric Power
oxygen is used to combust sufficient
carbon in the gasifier at 500–1,000
psig to increase the temperature to
around 1,500°F. At this temperature,
water (steam) that is added to the coal
reacts with the remaining carbon, con-
verting it to a mixture of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen (syngas) with
a range of minor impurities. This syn-
gas stream is cleaned and then burned
in a turbine in a combined-cycle pow-
er block (i.e., a setup that combines
both a gas turbine and secondary
steam turbine), much like the natural
gas combined cycle (NGCC) units
that are in use today.
Because in an IGCC unit all the
gases are contained at high pressure,
high levels of particulate, sulfur and
mercury removal can be cost-effec-
tively achieved. Emissions levels from
an IGCC system should be similar to
those from an NGCC unit. Mineral
matter in the coal is removed as a
vitreous slag.
The gasification reactor is the
biggest variable in an IGCC system,
Feed Air
801,000 kg/h
Air
Separation
Unit
Oxygen (95%)
197,000 kg/h
Quench Gasifier
Coal Feed
41.8 atm/1,343°C
(615 psi/2,450°F)
(Slurry or Dry)
228,000 kg/h
Bottom Slag
29,900 kg/h
■ Figure 4. Application of commercial shift and CO2 removal technologies to an IGCC unit
make it a viable option for power generation in a carbon-constrained world.
in terms of type (water-slurry or dry
Stack Gas feed, operating pressure, etc.) and the
2,770,000 kg/h
121°C, 1 atm amount of heat removed from it. For
electricity generation without CO2
capture, radiant and convective cool-
ing sections follow directly behind the
gasification reactor. These capture
waste heat from the syngas stream to
produce high-pressure steam for addi-
tional power generation in the steam
Electric Power
500 MWe Net
turbine. In this configuration, the over-
all efficiency of the unit can approach
or somewhat exceed 40%.
IGCC with CO2 capture. To cap-
ture CO2 from an IGCC system, two
additional components are required —
a pair of water-gas-shift reactors, and
an additional absorption unit to scrub
CO2 out of the syngas stream (Figure
4). This is in addition to the absorption
unit required to scrub the H2S out of
the syngas that is present in all IGCC
systems. In the water-gas-shift reac-
tion, the carbon monoxide in the syn-
gas is reacted with steam to produce
CO2 and H2. Removal of the CO2
yields a relatively pure hydrogen
stream (which can then be burned
cleanly in the gas turbine).
Because the CO2 in the syngas
stream after the water-gas-shift reac-
tion is present at a relatively high con-
centration in a high-pressure stream,
the energy required to capture this
CO2 is less than that required to cap-
ture the comparably more-dilute CO2
that is present in typical PC-combus-
tion fluegas.
Today, IGCC without CO2 capture
has been demonstrated in several
large power-generating units in the
U.S., Europe and Japan. At a smaller
Nitrogen
604,000 kg/h
Stack Gas
3,140,000 kg/h
121°C, 1 atm
Combustion Air
2,890,000 kg/h
Cooling Sulfur Combustion Turbine/
CO2 Capture/
Knockout and Removal Heat-Recovery
Compression
Water-Gas 99.9+%
90% Removal
Steam Generator/
Shift Removal Turbine/Generators
Electric Power
Carbon Dioxide 500 MWe Net
456,000 kg/h, 150 atm
CEP March 2008 www.aiche.org/cep S17
Energy Challenges

Table 2. Performance and costs of coal-fired power-generation technologies. higher compression costs at
higher elevations due to the
Subcritical PC Supercritical PC Oxy-Fuel PC IGCC lower ambient pressure have
Without With Without With With Without With a larger impact on overall
Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture IGCC economics. Under
these conditions, potentially
Heat Rate, Btu/Weh 9,550 13,600 8,870 11,700 11,200 8,890 10,900 significant reductions in the
Efficiency (HHV) 34.3% 25.1% 38.5% 29.3% 30.6% 38.4% 31.2% CO2 capture/recovery cost
CO2 Emitted, g/kWeh 931 127 830 109 104 824 101
for PC combustion could
Total Plant Cost, make it economically com-
$/kWeh $1,580 $2,760 $1,650 $2,650 $2,350 $1,770 $2,340 petitive with IGCC with
CO2 capture in certain appli-
Cost of Electricity cations. In addition, the
Investment Charge, power industry still has lin-
¢/kWeh @15.1% 3.20 5.6 3.35 5.37 4.77 3.59 4.75 gering concerns about the
Fuel, ¢/kWeh operability and availability
@$1.50/MMBtu 1.49 2.04 1.33 1.75 1.67 1.33 1.64
of IGCC.
O&M, ¢/kWeh 0.75 1.60 0.75 1.60 1.45 0.90 1.05
COE, ¢/kWeeh 5.45 9.24 5.43 8.72 7.9 5.82 7.44 Thus, it is too early to
close the door on any of
Cost of CO2 Avoided — 47.1 — 45.7 34.0 — 22.3 these technologies.
vs. Same Technoogy
Without Capture Rehabilitating coal’s
‘dirty’ reputation
Basis: 500-MWeh plant, Illinios No. 6 coal, 85% capacity factor, COE at bus-bar, in 2007 dollars. Coal-based power gener-
ation has the reputation of
scale, gasification with integrated bers include the cost of CO2 capture being dirty, largely based on air emis-
water-gas shift and CO2 removal is and compression to convert it to a sions considerations. Table 3 com-
commercially practiced for hydrogen supercritical fluid, but they do not pares the commercially demonstrated
production. However, they have yet include the cost of CO2 transport and and projected emissions performance
to be integrated and demonstrated at injection (discussed later). of conventional PC combustion and
the scale of operation required for Its lower COE would appear to IGCC (7, 9).
power generation. make IGCC the technology of choice Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs)
for CO2 management in power gener- or baghouses are employed on all
Points of comparison ation. However, oxy-fuel combustion U.S. PC units, so typical particulate
Table 2 summarizes the operating has significant potential. Further- matter (PM) emissions are very low.
and cost parameters associated with more, the cost difference between Improved ESP or wet ESP designs can
conventional PC combustion, oxy-fuel IGCC and conventional PC combus- reduce PM emissions even further, but
coal combustion, and IGCC technolo- tion narrows when lower-rank coals at a cost. Today, fluegas desulfuriza-
gies. These figures are indicative of are used and/or when the plant is tion (FGD) is applied on only a little
the costs for a plant built on the U.S. sited at a higher elevation. Because more than a third of U.S. PC capacity,
Gulf Coast in 2007 dollars, and allow IGCC requires greater levels of com- so typical SOx emissions remains quite
for comparison among the competing pression than PC combustion, the high. The “best commercial” perfor-
power-generation options.
Without CO2 capture, conventional Table 3. Commercially demonstrated and projected
PC combustion has the lowest cost of emissions performance of PC and IGCC power generation.
electricity; the COE for IGCC is about
Particulates, SO2, NOx, Mercury,
10% higher. However, when CO2 cap- Technology Case lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu % removed
ture is considered, IGCC yields the
PC Plant Typical 0.02 0.22 0.11 —
lowest COE.
Best Commercial 0.015 0.04 0.03 90
The cost of CO2 capture and com- (99.5%) (99+%) (90+%)
pression for supercritical PC is about w/ CO2 Capture 0.01 0.0006 0.03 75–85
3.3¢/kWeh; for IGCC, it is about one- (99.5+%) (99.99%) (95+%)
half that, 1.6¢/kWeh. The cost of CO2 IGCC Plant
avoided is about $46/m.t. of CO2 for Best Commercial 0.001 0.015 0.01 95
conventional PC combustion, about (99.8%)
$34/m.t. for oxy-fuel combustion, and w/ CO2 Capture 0.001 0.005 0.01 95+
about $22/m.t. for IGCC. These num- (99.9%)

S18 www.aiche.org/cep March 2008 CEP

 Table 4. Incremental cost of emission controls emissions control used on global warming. For instance,
for an advanced PC power-generation plant. as the design basis for today, the total use of CO2 for EOR is
this analysis, which is 35–40 million m.t./yr, which could be
Capital Cost.* O&M, COE,** somewhat better than supplied by a few early CCS projects,
$/kWe ¢/kWeh ¢/kWeh today’s best demon- or by the CO2 emissions of just two of
Particulate Matter 50 0.18 0.28
strated commercial per- the largest coal-fired power plants in
NOx 32 0.11 0.17 formance, relative to no the U.S. (Table 1). Larger-volume,
SO2 190 0.22 0.60 emissions control. This long-term storage will likely need to
incremental cost is rely on deep saline aquifers. These
Incremental Cost about 1¢/kWeh, or geologic formations underlie large
vs. No Control 273 0.51 1.05*** about 20% of the portions of the U. S. (Figure 6), partic-
5.5¢/kWeh total COE ularly those areas with a large amount
* Incremental capital costs are for a new plant.
** Incremental COE impact for Illinois No. 6 coal with 99.3% PM (13–15). CO2 capture of coal-based power generation and
reduction, 99.4% SO2 reduction, and 90+% NOx reduction. and recovery will where additional capacity is expected
*** When this is added to the “no control” COE for supercritical
PC, the total COE is 5.5¢/kWeh
increase the COE some- to be added.
what more than this, The primary mode of CO2 transport
mance in Table 3 refers to emissions about 2¢/kWe-h, based on today’s for sequestration operations will be via
reductions that have been demonstrat- technology. Cost reductions can be pipelines. There are more than 2,500
ed at full commercial scale (7, 9, 10). expected when this technology km of CO2 pipeline in the U.S. today,
Further reductions are possible. When begins to be commercially practiced. with a capacity in excess of 40 million
CO2-capture technologies are imple- m.t./yr CO2. These pipelines were
mented, emissions levels are expected The lifecycle of carbon developed to support EOR operations,
to be lower (11). capture and sequestration primarily in west Texas and Wyoming,
The “best commercial” emissions The entire lifecycle of carbon and involve the transport of CO2 as a
performance levels for IGCC are one- capture and sequestration (CCS) is dense single phase at ambient tempera-
third to one-tenth those of a conven- illustrated in Figure 5. The discus- tures and supercritical pressures. To
tional PC combustion facility, and with sion that follows considers the last avoid corrosion and hydrate formation,
CO2 capture would be even lower. two boxes in the figure — pipeline water levels are typically kept below
In addition, IGCC produces a dense, transport and injection — and their 50 ppm. The pipeline technology is
vitreous slag that ties up most of the estimated impacts on COE. well-established.
toxic components so that they are not Although oil and gas reservoirs and However, rather than having long-
easily leachable (12), and IGCC uses enhanced oil recovery operations distance CO2 pipelines running across
about 30% less water than supercritical (EOR; in which CO2 is injected under the country, a typical CCS power
PC systems. Although this does not high pressure into aging oil and gas plant project might look something
address the entire lifecycle for coal, reservoirs, to stimulate production) are like the one shown in Figure 7 (16). A
coal use in the electricity-generation often discussed as potential locations good location would be one that has
step can, in fact, be much cleaner than for underground long-term CO2 stor- sufficient storage capacity accessible
it typically is with the use of additional age, these storage-sites-of-opportunity within about a 100-km radius. Loca-
advanced control technology. have limited long-term potential to tion is important, but once sited, the
Table 4 gives the estimated incre- sequester CO2 on the scale that will CO2 storage requirement for the life-
mental cost to achieve the level of be needed to have a major impact time of the power plant — which
would be on the order of a billion bar-
rels of liquid CO2 — should be within
Coal or Air or that area. Different portions of the
Natural Gas Oxygen reservoir would be utilized over the
life of the plant.
Pipeline transport costs are highly
Energy CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 Storage non-linear with respect to the amount
Conversion Capture Transport (Sequestration) of CO2 transported. These economies
Process
of scale help to bring down the overall
- Post-combustion - Pipeline - Depleted Oil/Gas Fields transportation costs for large CCS pro-
- Pre-combustion - Tanker - Saline Reservoirs jects. For example, for 6 million
Useful - Oxy-fuel Combustion - Unmineable Coal Seams
Products - Ocean m.t./yr of CO2, the estimated transport
(Electricity, Fuels, - Mineralization cost is about $1.00/m.t. per 100 km; at
Chemicals, Hydrogen)
30 million m.t./yr of CO2, the cost
■ Figure 5. Shown here is the range of options for the carbon capture and sequestration falls to about $0.25/m.t. per 100 km
steps following energy generation. (17). However, these are average

CEP March 2008 www.aiche.org/cep S19

Energy Challenges

costs, and actual values can vary sig-

nificantly from project to project, due
to both physical (e.g., the terrain the
pipeline must traverse) and political
considerations. For a 1-GWe coal-fired
power plant, pipeline capacity of
about 6–7 million m.t./yr of CO2
would be needed, at a cost of about
$1.00/m.t. of CO2 per 100 km.
The major cost for injection and
storage is associated with drilling the
wells. Other significant costs include
site selection, permitting, characteriza-
tion and monitoring, as well as lines
and connectors required for injection.
In general, no additional pressurization
U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants (2000)
of the CO2 is required because of the
By Capacity (MW) high pressure in the pipeline and the
0 – 250 Oil and Gas Fields Total Coal-Fired Capacity ≈ 330 GW pressure gain due to the gravity head of
0 – 1,000 Saline Aquifers the CO2 in the well bore. Monitoring
1,001 – 4,000 Coalbeds
costs are expected to be small, on the
order of $0.1–$0.3/m.t. of CO2 (16).
■ Figure 6. Deep saline aquifers, oil and gas fields, and coal beds — which could be Costs for injecting the CO2 into
considered for deep geological storage of CO2 — are located across the U.S., and they geologic formations will vary depend-
coincide with existing coal-based power plants in the U.S. Source: (6). ing on the formation type and its prop-
erties. For example, costs increase as
reservoir depth increases and as reser-
voir injectivity (i.e., the rate at which
supercritical CO2 can be injected into
CO2 pipeline and injection wells
used during the subsequent
the geologic formation) decreases —
decades of full plant operations the lower the injectivity, the more
wells must be drilled for a given rate
of CO2 injection. Injection costs typi-
cally range from $0.5/m.t. to $8/m.t.
of CO2 (17). Although limited in
scale, combining storage with EOR
can help offset some of the capture
and storage costs. EOR credits, mea-
sured in terms of additional oil pro-
duced due to CO2 injection, of up to
$20/m.t. of CO2, may result.
Projected costs, on a levelized
per-kWeh basis, are summarized in
CO2 pipeline and injection wells Table 5. These numbers are on the high
used during the first decade of end of the current range of estimates.
Initial CO2 pipeline and injection full plant operations
well used during plant start-up
Transport and injection costs, which
and validation phase include the costs of constructing pipe-
lines and drilling the injection wells, as
well as the system operating costs, are
significant, but both are small and do
not represent potential economic show-
stoppers. In general, the largest costs
are for capture and compression.
Planning for a CCS-enabled power plant must include a robust CO2 storage plan for all For IGCC facilities, the projected
phases of the plantʼs operations over its entire half-century operational lifetime. cost of CCS would increase the bus-
■ Figure 7. The conceptual elements of a typical carbon capture and storage (CCS) bar cost (i.e., the cost at the power
project are shown here. Source: (16). plant gate) of electricity by about

S20 www.aiche.org/cep March 2008 CEP

 Table 5. Costs of CCS project
for PC and IGCC generation
with capture.
PC, IGCC,
CCS Step ¢/kWeh ¢/kWeh
Capture 2.7 1.21
Compression 0.6 0.4
Transport 0.19 0.18
Injection 0.68 0.64
Total 4.0 2.4
50%, from 5.8¢/kWeh to about
8.2¢/kWeh. This power would be
very-low-emissions (or “green”) elec-
tricity, with low CO2 emissions. Fur-
thermore, it is economically competi-
tive with electricity generated by
wind power and by new nuclear
power plants (1).
Comprehensive geological studies
suggest that there are no technical
show-stoppers for CO2 injection and
storage, with respect to its efficacy
and safety. However, a variety of
technical issues — such as the time
dependence of injectivity, flow behav-
ior of the injected CO2 volume in the
reservoir, rate of dissolution in the
saline water, rate of mineralization,
and extent and type of monitoring
required — must be resolved.
During 30 years of successful
injection experience, no critical issues
have arisen. For instance: the Sleipner
Project in Norway (18) has been
injecting 1 million m.t./yr of CO2 into
the Utsira Saline Formation since
1996 using a single well bore; Wey-
burn in Canada (19) has injected 0.85
million m.t./yr of CO2 into the Mid-
vale reservoir for EOR since 2000;
and In Salah (20) has been injecting
1 million m.t./yr of CO2 into the water
leg of the gas field.
None of these projects have en-
countered any problems, and to date
there has been no sign of CO2 leakage.
Key points
About half of U.S. coal reseves
are bituminous coal, and half are sub-
bituminous coal and lignite. With
lower-rank coals and higher plant
elevations, the gap between IGCC
and conventional PC combustion
with capture narrows. Cost improve-
ments for PC with capture could
make it economically competitive
with IGCC in certain applications,
and with oxy-fuel coal combustion,
as well. Thus, it is too early to pick
winners for coal-based power genera-
tion with CO2 capture.
Using today’s proven, advanced
control technologies, criteria pollu-
tant emissions from coal-based
power generation can be very low.
With CO2 capture, overall emissions
can be even lower, resulting in a
small environmental footprint. With
CO2 capture and sequestration, coal
can provide base-load electricity that
is cost-competitive with wind and
new nuclear facilities. Thus, coal
remains an economic choice for
base-load generation of very-low-
emissions electricity.
The path forward
The technologies for power gen-
eration with CO2 capture are all
commercially available today and
can be expected to improve in cost
and performance as they benefit from
more expansive operation at com-
mercial scale. Major R&D break-
throughs are not needed to allow for
their use today.
It is also technically feasible to
safely and effectively store large
quantities of CO2 in saline aquifers,
and the U.S. storage capacity appears
very large, although, as mentioned
earlier, some technical issues still need
to be resolved. A broad range of regu-
latory issues, including permitting
guidelines and procedures, liability
and ownership, monitoring and certifi-
cation, site closure, and remediation,
also require resolution. For CCS to be
available on a large scale, it is critical
to gain political and public confidence
in the safety and efficacy of long-term
geologic storage of CO2.
To resolve these issues and estab-
lish CCS as a viable technology for
managing CO2 emissions, it is neces-
sary to establish three to five large-
scale (1 million m.t./yr CO2) CCS
demonstration projects in the U.S.
These projects should use different-
generation technologies, focus on
different geologies, and operate for
CEP
several years to fully achieve the
learnings that such demonstrations
have to offer.
Effective demonstration of techni-
cal, economic and institutional fea-
tures of CCS at commercial scale with
coal combustion and gasification
plants will give policymakers and the
public confidence that a variety of
practical carbon-mitigation options
exist, shorten the deployment time,
and reduce the cost for CCS when a
comprehensive policy regarding car-
bon emissions is adopted. It will also
help to maintain opportunities for the
lowest-cost and most widely available
energy form to meet society’s energy
needs in an environmentally accept-
able manner. If completed expedi-
tiously, this program can provide the
U. S. with a variety of robust technical
options for addressing CO2 emissions
from power generation.
Furthermore, honing the required
technologies will involve the core of
chemical engineering, and will require
a significant amount of chemical engi-
neering talent and experience. In addi-
tion, the need to improve current tech-
nologies and develop new technologies
will require much innovation by chem-
ical engineers. Thus, the importance
and the scale of the energy issues dis-
cussed here certainly point to critical
challenges for the profession. CEP
Article continues with Literature Cited on next page
JAMES R. KATZER is an independent energy
consultant (P.O. Box 1346, Blue Hill, ME,
04614; jrksail@comcast.net). A member of
the National Academy of Engineering, he
serves on several National Research Council
panels that are studying resource needs and
commercial status of a range of energy tech-
nologies to meet U.S. energy needs. As a
visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology from 2004 to 2007, he
was the executive editor/director of the MIT
study entitled, “The Future of Coal in a
Carbon Constrained World” (6). Prior to that,
he was manager of strategic planning and
program analysis for ExxonMobil Research
and Engineering Co., and he held a succes-
sion of technical and management positions
in Mobil Oil Corp. Before joining Mobil, Katzer
was a professor on the chemical engineering
faculty at the Univ. of Delaware. He has
authored more than 80 publications in
technical journals, holds several patents, and
has co-authored and edited several books.
He received a BS from Iowa State Univ. and a
PhD in chemical engineering from MIT.
March 2008 www.aiche.org/cep S21
 Literature Cited
1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and
International Energy Administration, “World Energy Outlook
2006,” OECD/IEA, Paris (2006).
2. Energy Information Administration, “Emissions from Energy
Consumption for Electricity Production and Useful Thermal Output
at Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants,” in “Electric Power Annual,”
EIA, www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html (2007).
3. Tollefson, J., “Countries with Highest CO2-Emitting Power
Sectors,” Nature, 450, p. 1 (2007).
4. “Carbon Monitoring for Action,” www.carma.org.
5. BP, plc, “Statistical Review of World Energy 2006,” BP (2006).
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Coal:
Options in a Carbon-Constrained World,” MIT, Cambridge, MA,
http://web.mit.edu/coal/ (Mar. 2007).
7. PowerClean Thematic Network, “Fossil Fuel Power Generation
State-of-the-Art,” PowerClean Thematic Network of the European
Union Fifth Framework Energy R&D Programme, J. McMullan,
Chairman, Univ. of Ulster, Coleraine, U.K., pp. 9–10 (2004).
8. Dillon, D. J., et al., “Oxyfuel Combustion Processes for CO2
Capture from Advanced Supercritical PF and NGCC Power Plants,”
Proceedings of the 7th International Greenhouse Gas Technologies
Conference, Vancouver, BC (2004).
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System (CEMS) Data Base of 2005 Power Plant
Emissions Data,” U.S. EPA, Washington, DC (2005).
10. Thompson, J., “Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
— Environmental Performance,” presented at Platts IGCC
Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA (2005).
11. Holt, N., “Preliminary Economics of SCPC and IGCC with CO2
Capture and Storage,” presented at the Second International
Freiberg Conference on IGCC and XtL Technologies, Freiberg,
Germany (May 2007).
12. Electric Power Research Institute, “Long-Term Leaching Tests
with Coal Gasification Slag,” Report No. GS-6439, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA (1989).
13. Oskarsson, K., et al., “A Planner’s Guide for Selecting Clean-Coal
Technologies for Power Plants,” World Bank Technical Paper No.
387, World Bank, Washington, DC (1997).
14. Tavoulareas, E. S., and J. P. Charpentier, “Clean Coal
Technologies for Developing Countries,” World Bank Technical
Paper No. 286, World Bank, Washington, DC (1995).
15. Rutkowski, M. D., et al., “The Cost of Mercury Removal in an
IGCC Plant,” Final Report prepared by Parsons Infrastructure and
Technology Group for U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory (Sept. 2002).
16. Dooley, J. J., et al., “Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic
Storage,” A Technology Report from the Second Phase of the
Global Energy Technology Strategy Program, Battelle Memorial
Institute (Apr. 2006).
17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “IPCC Special
Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,”
http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-
final/IPCCSpecialReportonCarbondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm
(2005).
18. Arts, R., et al., “Monitoring of CO2 Injected at Sleipner using
Time-Lapse Seismic Data,” Energy, 29 (9–10), pp. 1383–1392
(2004).
19. Wilson, M., and M. Monea M., eds., “IEA GHG Weyburn CO2
Monitoring and Storage Project Summary Report 2000–2004,”
Proceedings of the 7th International Greenhouse Gas Technologies
Conference, Vancouver, BC (2004).
20. Riddiford, F., et al., “Monitoring Geological Storage: In Salah Gas
CO2 Storage Project,” Proceedings of the 7th International
Greenhouse Gas Technologies Conference, Vancouver, BC (2004).

DOE Restructures FutureGen to Emphasize Carbon Capture and Storage

he U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) recent-
T ly announced the restructuring of its
FutureGen project — with a new focus
on demonstrating cutting-edge carbon
capture and storage (CCS) technologies
at multiple commercial-scale integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
clean-coal power plants.
Under this new strategy, DOE will
support industry’s efforts to build IGCC
facilities by providing funding for CCS at
multiple plants that will be operational
by 2015. Building on research and
development advancements in IGCC and
CCS technologies achieved over the past
five years, this approach will allow the
demonstration of IGCC-CCS clean-coal
technology in a more cost-effective way,
to enable wider use and more-rapid
commercialization, according to DOE.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W.
Bodman remarks:“We are eager to
demonstrate CCS technology on
commercial plants that, when opera-
tional, will be the cleanest coal-fired
plants in the world. Each of these plants
will sequester at least one million metric
tons of carbon dioxide annually and
help meet our nation’s growing
energy demand.”
The plants that will be selected to
participate in the program would each
generate at least 300 MW of electricity.
(The exact number of plants will be
determined in the coming months,
based on industy input regarding the
costs and feasibility of building clean-
coal facilities.) Together, these plants
will capture and sequester at least twice
as much carbon dioxide annually as the
original FutureGen concept announced
in 2003.
FutureGen was conceived to create
one near-zero-emissions, 275-MW
power plant that would produce hydrogen
and electricity from coal on a smaller-
than-commercial scale and would serve
as a laboratory for technology develop-
ment. While hydrogen production is no
longer part of the the FutureGen project,
it remains an imporant component of
other DOE efforts.
Financial backing
President Bush’s propossed fiscal
year 2009 budget includes $648 million
for DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy. Of
that, $407 million would go to coal
research, including development of
more-efficient gasification and turbine
technologies, innovations for existing
coal power plants, and large-scale CCS
injection tests. The other $241 million
would fund the demonstration of cost-
effective CCS technologies for coal-fired
power plants, including $156 million for
the restructured FutureGen project and
$85 million for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative. This represents a $129-million
increase over FY2008, and is the largest
amount requested for DOE’s coal pro-
gram in more than 25 years.

S22 www.aiche.org/cep March 2008 CEP