INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS AND COGENERATION Fred L Jones Cogen

  • Slides: 37
Download presentation
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS AND COGENERATION Fred L. Jones Cogen Designs, Inc.

INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS AND COGENERATION Fred L. Jones Cogen Designs, Inc.

Loss of an Old Reliable US Says It Won’t Back New International Coal-fired Power

Loss of an Old Reliable US Says It Won’t Back New International Coal-fired Power Plants By Michael D. Shear, NY Times (10/29/2013) WASHINGTON - In an aggressive move to impose President Obama’s environmental policies overseas, the Treasury Department on Tuesday largely declared an end to United States support for new coal-fired power plants around the world. The decision means that Mr. Obama’s administration will no longer contribute to coal projects financed by the World Bank and other international development banks. That sense of paternalism toward much of the developing world is almost certain to provoke anger in countries where stable, consistent power is fleeting and where coal can provide a cheap solution. The administration, in all corners and in all areas, is trying to act consistently to undermine the use of coal.

A Fond Farewell

A Fond Farewell

New EPA Rules for Waste z “…some CISWI owners and operators are likely to

New EPA Rules for Waste z “…some CISWI owners and operators are likely to determine that alternatives to waste incineration are viable, such as sending the waste to a landfill. Sources operating incinerators may find it cost -effective to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit altogether. ” z “The EPA expects that many existing CISWI owners and operators may find that alternate disposal operations are preferable to complying with the standards. ” z “The EPA is not aware of any construction of new units since 2000. The revised CISWI rule is more stringent, so we expect this trend to continue. ” z “We do not anticipate that any new energy recovery or wasteburning kiln units will be constructed. ” z “We believe it likely that the incinerators may elect to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and send the waste to the landfill. ” Source: 40 CFR 60 Part 241, Federal Register 76, No. 247, Dec. 23, 2011

GHG Burden from Biomass Disposal Basis: 1 million bone-dry tons in 2000 Source: Morris,

GHG Burden from Biomass Disposal Basis: 1 million bone-dry tons in 2000 Source: Morris, G, “Biomass Energy Production in California: The Case for a Biomass Policy Initiative, ” NREL Report No. NREL/SR-570 -28805, Nov. 2000

CO 2 Emissions At Point of Generation

CO 2 Emissions At Point of Generation

Ideology vs Environment Judges Question EPA Authority to Defer Greenhouse Gas Permitting for Biomass

Ideology vs Environment Judges Question EPA Authority to Defer Greenhouse Gas Permitting for Biomass Tuesday, April 9, 2013 from Energy and Climate Report WASHINGTON, D. C. --Federal appeals court judges during oral argument April 8 pressed the Environmental Protection Agency to explain where in the Clean Air Act it is given the authority to temporarily exempt large industrial sources burning biomass and some landfills from greenhouse gas permitting requirements (Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, D. C. Cir. , No. 11 -1101, oral argument 4/8/13). Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit warned EPA against “carve-outs that aren't seemingly in the text. Now EPA doesn't like the policy and is saying it can create an ad hoc exemption. ” A coalition of environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Clean Air Task Force, challenged the exemption rule as unlawful and unwarranted.

EPA Blocking LNG? EPA May Be Trying to Slow LNG Export Drive 08/12/2014 |

EPA Blocking LNG? EPA May Be Trying to Slow LNG Export Drive 08/12/2014 | Thomas Overton, Assoc. Editor, “Power Magazine” With three recent requests to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has signaled it may seek to slow the recent drive to export liquefied natural gas (LNG). Three times this year, the Texas regional office of the EPA has asked FERC to consider wider impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions that may result from LNG development and increased natural gas demand. The EPA also raised concerns of environmental justice, suggesting that the three projects might have disproportionate impacts on minority communities and complaining that FERC appeared to ignore previous comments the EPA made on the subject. There are currently 26 LNG export applications awaiting DOE and FERC approval for export to countries without free-trade agreements with the U. S. , according to DOE data.

A Refinery Case Study Location: West Virginia/Ohio Border Utility: First. Energy/Monongahela Power News Release

A Refinery Case Study Location: West Virginia/Ohio Border Utility: First. Energy/Monongahela Power News Release - February 11, 2012 “Ohio-based First. Energy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations … The high cost to implement MATS and other environmental rules is the reason these Mon Power plants are being retired. ” “Monongahela power has a generation capacity deficit of 938 MW this year, and projects this to increase to 1, 400 MW by 2026. Meanwhile, First. Energy has also announced the closing of two other coal plants in the area due to the costs of complying with the new environmental regulations. ”

Customer Location Refinery Marcellus Shale Gas Basin Appalachian Coal Basin Low Sulfur Coal High

Customer Location Refinery Marcellus Shale Gas Basin Appalachian Coal Basin Low Sulfur Coal High Sulfur Coal

Electric Power Refinery Turnaround

Electric Power Refinery Turnaround

Steam & Power Demands

Steam & Power Demands

Boiler Efficiency

Boiler Efficiency

Site Conditions

Site Conditions

Solar Centaur 50 Turbine

Solar Centaur 50 Turbine

Cost of Power

Cost of Power

System Performance

System Performance

Economic Performance T 60 x 2: $2. 4 MM/yr Savings 6. 3 year Payback

Economic Performance T 60 x 2: $2. 4 MM/yr Savings 6. 3 year Payback

Customer Case Study 2 Location -- Michigan U. P. Application -- Manufacturing U. P.

Customer Case Study 2 Location -- Michigan U. P. Application -- Manufacturing U. P. Power Plant’s Fate Will Cost Whole Region Millions By Keith Matheny, Detroit Free Press, October 19, 2014 A nearly 60 -year-old, coal-fired power plant near Marquette could cause a big spike in all Upper Peninsula electric customers’ bills. Our big customers are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars more per month. And with U. S. EPA rules on the levels of toxins being released by the plant set to stiffen, the costs will likely continue to rise. “This is the biggest crisis that the U. P. faces right now, ” said state Rep. Scott Dianda, D-Calumet.

Existing Generation System 5 MW Steam Turbine Installed: 1929

Existing Generation System 5 MW Steam Turbine Installed: 1929

Steam Data

Steam Data

Steam Turbine Performance

Steam Turbine Performance

Solar Taurus 60 Turbine

Solar Taurus 60 Turbine

Power Profiles

Power Profiles

Cost of Power

Cost of Power

Savings/Payback T 60: $2. 7 MM/yr Savings 3. 7 year Payback

Savings/Payback T 60: $2. 7 MM/yr Savings 3. 7 year Payback

Emissions Lb/MMBtu NOx* CO* SO 2 PM* CO 2 *AP-42 Coal Stoker 0. 41

Emissions Lb/MMBtu NOx* CO* SO 2 PM* CO 2 *AP-42 Coal Stoker 0. 41 0. 18 1. 33 0. 04 202 Tons/year Coal Stoker NOx 278 CO 126 SO 2 909 PM 27 CO 2 138, 138 Gas Turbine 0. 089 0. 109 0. 003 0. 007 114. 6 HRSG 0. 100 0. 080 0. 003 0. 010 114. 6 Taurus 60 System 44 45 1. 6 3. 8 53, 602

Case Study 3 Location: Michigan Customer: Municipal Utility Summer Peak: 70 MW Steam Customers:

Case Study 3 Location: Michigan Customer: Municipal Utility Summer Peak: 70 MW Steam Customers: 2 Hospital Chemical Plant

Existing System

Existing System

Options 3. 7 MW Backpressure Steam Turbine 21 MW Titan 250 Gas Turbine HRSG

Options 3. 7 MW Backpressure Steam Turbine 21 MW Titan 250 Gas Turbine HRSG 42 MW GE LM 6000 PF Gas Turbine

Option #1 - BP Turbine 3. 7 MW Total Capacity $2. 6 Million ($700/k.

Option #1 - BP Turbine 3. 7 MW Total Capacity $2. 6 Million ($700/k. W)

Option #2 - 32 MW GT/CC 32 MW Total Capacity 7, 967 Btu/k. Wh

Option #2 - 32 MW GT/CC 32 MW Total Capacity 7, 967 Btu/k. Wh $20. 3 Million ($631/k. W) 5. 1¢/k. Wh

Option #3 - 178 MW GT/CC 178 MW Total Capacity 7, 161 Btu/k. Wh

Option #3 - 178 MW GT/CC 178 MW Total Capacity 7, 161 Btu/k. Wh $95 Million ($532/k. W) 4. 7¢/k. Wh

CO 2 Emissions At Point of Generation

CO 2 Emissions At Point of Generation

Greenhouse Gas Emissions USEPA CO 2 Cap 1, 000 lb/MWh

Greenhouse Gas Emissions USEPA CO 2 Cap 1, 000 lb/MWh

Summary z Changes in Environmental Regulations will have a major impact on the cost

Summary z Changes in Environmental Regulations will have a major impact on the cost and reliability of our utility system. z These changes may promote more self-reliance in industrial power situations. z These future regulations can be either a benefit or an obstacle to cogeneration development, depending on how they are interpreted and enforced.

Postscript Existing Steam Cycle Power Engineering April 2015 LM 6000 GT/HRSG Hunlock Power Station

Postscript Existing Steam Cycle Power Engineering April 2015 LM 6000 GT/HRSG Hunlock Power Station 44 MW Coal, built 1958 New Capacity 125 MW 95+% Reduction in 1° Pollutants Meets EPA 1, 000 lb CO 2/MWh