After many years in the wilderness, the prospects for deployment of IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) as a clean coal technology seem to be steadily improving. A degree of caution is necessary of course, because people have been saying this for years. Indeed, the first ever issue of Modern Power Systems, back in January 1981, contained a few articles extolling the virtues of coal-fuelled IGCC, including these comments from Floyd Culler, then EPRI president: “Systems for using coal…in the future will be more efficient and have far less effect on the environment. Coal gasification and combined cycles…appear to be optimum.” And we have been regularly carrying articles expressing similar sentiments ever since.
Nevertheless, there are still only four plants currently operating in the world that can be truly classed as coal-fuelled IGCC. See Table 1, below:
In other words, all the IGCC community has to show for its efforts to date is a meagre handful of coal-fuelled plants with a total installed capacity of just over 1000 MWe – equivalent to about one average-sized nuclear power plant. In contrast, recent years have seen wind installed capacity go from essentially zero to around 30 GW worldwide, and it is growing fast.
However, a few recent developments, notably in the United States, really do suggest a sea change may be underway this time in the coal-fuelled IGCC sector.
On the R&D side, as reported in last month’s issue, the second round of the Bush Administration’s Clean Coal Initiative yielded a healthy crop of gasification proposals.
Now, from the all important utility sector, we have the announcement from no less than American Electric Power – the USA’s biggest power generator – that it plans to adopt IGCC technology as part of its efforts to keep “coal in the money” as “a low-cost, low emissions energy source.”
According to a press release issued on 31 August, American Electric Power “has committed to accelerating IGCC deployment by building one, or more, commercial-scale, baseload IGCC plants (up to 1000 megawatts) as soon as 2010.” And it seems to be planning to do this on a commercial basis, not as a government funded demonstration project, which is ambitious considering that a fourfold scale up over previous plants is envisaged.
Some of the thought processes which have led American Electric Power to make this commitment to IGCC can be gleaned from a recent report produced in response to shareholder concerns by three independent AEP directors. The report evaluates how well the company, whose plants are predominantly coal fired, is placed to deal with the uncertainties posed by tightening emissions regulations anticipated in the future (An assessment of AEP’s actions to mitigate the economic impacts of emissions policies, also published on 31 August).
IGCC is of particular interest to AEP, says the report, because of the company’s access to abundant and affordable high rank coals. IGCC is also “well-positioned for integration of carbon capture and sequestration technologies.”
“While technology risks, performance uncertainties, and capital costs remain formidable at this early stage in IGCC’s development,” the report notes, “AEP also recognizes sizable operational, policy, and economic benefits that this technology potentially could deliver as the next generation of power generation assets. Weighing these costs and benefits, the company has committed to emerging as a leader and first-mover in advancing IGCC into the mainstream of power generation.”
An annex of the report provides a useful comparison of IGCC with competing generating technologies, “the good, the bad and the ugly” of IGCC, as it puts it.
Among the bad is the lack of a learning curve because of the small population of plants and the relatively high capital cost (although according to the report EPRI studies are indicating that IGCC costs are approaching those of conventional technologies, with estimated EPC costs of around $1300/kW, which seems low and is “yet to be tested in the marketplace with real contracts”).
Then there’s the ugly, which at least up until recently, has been “the business deal”, with “no equipment suppliers, only technology licensers” while “virtually all of the technology and performance risk is on the plant owner.” However, with GE’s purchase of Chevron Texaco’s gasification interests now complete, the balance of risk can be shifted and the business side of IGCC now looks potentially a good deal more attractive. This has paved the way for AEP’s strengthened commitment to IGCC, and may enable others to follow.
Nuclear rescue?
Speaking of sea changes for once beleaguered technologies, nuclear power also seems to be enjoying a run of reasonably positive developments. In the UK, the measures taken by the UK government to rescue nuclear generator British Energy have been approved by the EC, while on 14 September the lead story in The Times had the following headline “Britain must go nuclear, energy chief tells ministers.”
More significantly the Chinese seem to be in the process of changing their policy on nuclear energy. The present five-year plan, covering the years 2001-2005, called for “moderate development” of nuclear power, but the Chinese are now talking about adding around 30 GW of nuclear capacity by 2020 (to the existing 8.5 GW currently operating or under construction).
One potential beneficiary is BNFL/Westinghouse , which, as reported in this month’s news, has just received final design approval from the NRC for its AP1000 pressurised water reactor. The AP1000, like the Framatome/Siemens EPR now under construction in Finland, is classed as “Third Generation” technology and the Chinese have specifically expressed interest in such technology for future nuclear reactor projects.
Letter to the editor
Record retrofit
Your report in Modern Power Systems, July 2004, concerning the modernisation of the Mehrum power station referred to a steam turbine upgrade and suggested that the HP turbine cylinder efficiency of 93.6% is a world record for a retrofitted HP machine.
You may be interested to know that the GEC 660 MW machines at British Energy’s Hartlepool Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR) power station in the UK were retrofitted in a similar manner in 1997. The HP cylinder efficiency was measured at 94.0% after three months running, slightly higher on initial tests. I reported these results at the Fourth International Charles Parsons Turbine Conference, held in Newcastle, November 1997.
David Robbins
(formerly British Energy)
Tablestable 1