After the release of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on DOE’s FutureGen project, many articles have been written focusing mainly on the role of politics on this project. It is not my intension (in this note) to comment on the politics of the story, but rather to put forward some observations and recommendations on the substance of the R&D program covering coal-based power generation technologies.
For those who have not followed closely, the FutureGen Program was to be the cornerstone of the US Government to ensure sustainable use of coal for power generation through near-zero emission technology. In January of 2008, and after a demonstration site (Mattoon, IL) had been selected competitively, The Bush Administration decided to terminate its financial support to the project. The Stimulous Bill of the Obama Adminstration attempts to reverse this decision and allocates some funding for its implementation. Yet, its future seems uncertain.
First of all, it is unfortunate that funding for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) was combined in the FutureGen project. Maybe lack of additional funding forced the Bush Administration to shift money allocated for IGCC to cover CCS. The end result was that badly needed funding for IGCC disappeared overnight!
Each of these options (IGCC and CCS) has its own issues and deserves to be allocated its own funding; so, DOE should have a separate budget for IGCC and CCS.
IGCC is a strategic option which has been demonstrated commercially in power generation and non-power applications, but (presently) it is not competitive against conventional options (mainly pulverized coal power plants). While it is expected that IGCC costs will decline over time, substantial investments would be needed (of the order of $billions) to achieve these cost reductions. This needs to be done while IGCC has efficiency similar to conventional power plants (high steam condition, ultra-supercritical) giving it no competitive advantage. IGCC is a potentially attractive option because it promises to achieve higher efficiencies in the future and is more suitable and cost-effective if CCS is required. For this reason, it deserves to be supported until more information is available about its future costs and the fate of CCS.
US Govenment support should focus on the key issue which is the cost-effectiveness of IGCC.
It should work with industry to assess how IGCC costs could be reduced (part of it will be going through the “learning curve” every technology goes through and part through potential design simplifications and technological improvements) and implement projects to achieve these cost reductions.
CCS is facing a long list of issues (technological, regulatory, institutional, financial and legal) which need to be addressed. US DOE has outlined a comprehensive program and (in my view) the main concern is whether adequate funding will be allocated soon enough to address these issues. One observation though which I would like to offer has to do with the 90% CO2 capture requirement. 90% capture seems to have been chosen as the “God-sent” number and there is no much debate about it.
It is well-documented that the cost of CCS is not proportional to the percentage CO2 capture; in fact it increases exponentially somewhere in the 60-85% range. Therefore, it is essential to assess the cost-effectiveness of CCS throughout the 50-100% CO2 capture range to determine the optimum capture. 90% capture may be a rational long-term target, but another level may be appropriate at least for an interim period of 10-to-30 years.
While focusing on IGCC and CCS, the US Governemnt should not lose sight that power plant efficiency of the conventional technology (supercritical and ultra-supercritical pulverized coal) could and should be improved, too. The US, which developed this technology in the 1950s and 1960s, has lsot the leadership position to Germany and Japan in the 1980s, and recently to China.
Research on materials which can withstand high temperatures and pressures is an urgent priority.
