Transcript PPT - CarbonCapture.US

What Kind of Electric Power Plant
Do We Want for Glades County?
(Global Warming & Sea Level Rise Issues)
John Capece, Ph.D.
Agricultural Engineer
December 21, 2006
www.CarbonCapture.US
Presentation Objective – USC or IGCC Coal Power
Florida Power & Light (FPL) plans to build a coal-fired power
plant for completion by 2012 in Glades County, Florida between
Hwy 78 and Hwy 27, a few miles northwest of Moore Haven. This
power plant will have an expected operating life through 2050.
This would be the first U.S. ultra-supercritical pulverized
coal (USC-PC) combustion system. It is a cleaner, more
efficient process than older pulverized coal technologies.
Presentation Objective - I.G.C.C.
To facilitate carbon dioxide capture and sequestration
in the coming decades, many people are advocating
using an even more advanced coal technology – IGCC
(Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle).
This presentation explains the rationale for IGCC,
while recognizing that an even better long-term
solution to the power needs of our society is the
promotion of renewable, distributed energy systems
(solar, tide, wind, conservation, etc.).
Presentation Outline
• Why a Coal-fired Power Plant?
• Greenhouse Effect & Sea Level Rise
• Types of Coal-fired Power Plants
• Carbon Sequestration
• Carbon Tax
• Glades County Actions
Electric Power Sources in Florida
• Why use Coal?
– To balance sources.
– Natural gas is risky
because of hurricanes.
– Large domestic coal
supply. (some imported)
– No military risk to secure
fuel supplies.
– Efficient rail transport from
Appalachian Mountains.
• Problems with Coal
– Mining impacts in
Appalachia
– Mercury & other emissions
– Carbon Dioxide emissions
CO2 and Temperature Historical Trends
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Trend
CO2 and Temperature Historical Trends
We have increased CO2 concentrations beyond any levels ever
experienced by modern man.
Absent other offsetting factors, temperatures will continue to rise,
following from CO2 increases.
You will see CO2 pass the 400 ppm level in the next 10 years
The Relationship between CO2 and Temperature
Global Warming asserts
that temperature is now
following from CO2.
However, during the past
20,000 years, CO2 followed
from temperature,
This would match a climate model
in which the climate process was
being driven by changes in
incident solar radiation and
changes in the earth’s reflectance.
Probable explanations of CO2
following temperature are outgassing from warming oceans,
CO2 from warming soils, etc.
This demonstrates a feedback
loop between temperature and
CO2/methane that should cause
even greater concern today as a
magnifier of the current trend.
The Relationship between CO2 and Temperature
Possible causal factors for past glacial & warming cycles:
(short term cycles – within the past 700,000 years)
(long term cycles – millions of years)
• solar radiation intensity cycles
• ocean circulation disruptions
• albedo (Earth’s reflectance) feedback from snow & ice
• volcanic activity (release of gases)
• continental plate movements (tectonics)
Planetary & Solar System Cycles
SHORT-MEDIUM TERM
• 11 year sunspot cycle
• 88 year Gleissberg cycle
• 206 year cycle of solar variability
LONGER TERM
• 26,000 year cycle of the 'wobble' with precession of the equinoxes
• 40,000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5 deg change in the Earth's axial tilt
• 100,000 year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth's elliptical orbit
• 220,000,000 year cycle (and smaller sub-cycles) due to rotation of the
Solar System about the galactic center which takes the Earth up and down
through the galactic plane; interstellar dust levels and incident cosmic ray flux changes
as a result
• Slowing of the Earth's rotation
CO2 and Temperature Historical Trends
180 = historic
low
(ice age)
280 = historic
high
(1000–1800 AD)
380 = current
480 = coming
soon
(2030 AD ???)
Emissions Reduction to Stabilize Atmospheric CO2
Operating period of new FPL Power Plant
Most CO2 Dissolves into the Oceans…eventually
CO2 Acidifies the Ocean & Changes its Life Forms
We built South Florida during the past 150 years.
Will we have to move it during the next 150 years?
20 ft
6 ft
Possible Global Equilibrium Conditions
Ice Age Florida at 180 ppm CO2
Modern Florida at 280 ppm CO2
Future Florida from 450 ppm CO2 ?
Future Florida from 650 ppm CO2 ?
(Can we avoid this future?)
Gulf Stream
and the
Ocean Heat
Conveyor
Keeps Northern
Europe Warm
Possible Effects of Gulfstream Disruption on Ocean Levels
3 ft
Static effect
Possible
10 ft
Dynamic
Effect
On Florida
Coastline
Water
Levels
The Major Global Re-insurance Companies See it Coming
(Lloyds, Swiss Re, Zurich Re, Munich Re, etc.)
Swiss Re: “In a carbon constrained imminent future, greenhouse gas
emissions will become financial liabilities on many companies’
balance sheets.”
The Swiss Re report projected a likely worldwide doubling of losses
from weather related causes within ten years to $150 billion dollars US
annually. (It is and will continue to affect insurance rates in Florida.)
The Climate Change Performance Index, introduced by Germanwatch
and Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe), compares the
climate protection efforts of 56 industrialized and rapidly
industrializing countries, that together make up more than 90% of
global carbon dioxide emissions. Sweden is the leader, and the
USA ranks among the bottom five.
Relative Risks
Hundred-million
Ten-million
Hundred-thousand
Ten-thousand
Climate change is perhaps the most serious risk faced by our society.
History demonstrates that some risks are underestimated by an order of magnitude:
Tsunami (ex:Indonesia), Floods (ex:Bangladesh), and Earthquakes (ex:China).
Are we building our population and quality of life
by unsustainably consuming our foundation assets?
6.6 billion people
We can follow and
survive in an extreme
consumption model only
if we constantly seek
and find new resources
and aggressively
develop and use new
technologies.
Stable communities
Stable agriculture
Stable eco-systems
Stable, optimal climate
But it does come at a
cost in the form of loss
of heritage (ecosystems,
species, landscapes,
cultural diversity, etc.)
Carbon Dioxide from Electric Energy Production
• FPL emits 20% less CO2 than the industry average. This partially
reflects the fact that other U.S. regions & companies use more coal,
while FPL uses more natural gas.
Soot & Global Dimming
• Particulate Matter & Other Emissions (including coal soot)
– Estimated to have reduced Global Warming by half, so far.
– Reduced incident solar radiation by 5 – 10% worldwide.
• Is “clean” coal actually “better” coal…from a global warming perspective?
– High CO2 emissions.
– No more soot emissions to offset the CO2 effect.
Pulverized Coal vs. Coal Gasification
• Pulverized Coal – Ultra Super Critical
– Burn coal dust to heat water and make steam.
– Use steam to drive a turbine.
– Steam turbine generates electricity.
• Gasification – IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle)
– Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle.
– Cook coal to make coal gas.
– Burn coal gas in a turbine to make electricity (like a
jet engine).
– Use the hot coal gas combustion exhaust to heat water
and make steam.
– Use steam to drive turbine.
– Steam turbine generates additional electricity.
The most advanced pulverized coal plant (Ultra Super-Critical) is more efficient.
USC has 44% Efficiency
Ultra-Supercritical Pulverized Coal Efficiency
Type of Coal
Combustion
Coal to
Electricity
Efficiency
Subcritical
35%
Supercritical
37%
Advanced
Supercritical
42%
UltraSupercritical
44%
Ultra-Supercritical enhanced efficiency
over older Pulverized Coal technologies
Sub-critical
Supercritical
Advanced
Supercritical
26%
19%
5%
Cellulosic ethanol created through gasification of waste materials or
from sustainably-grown pasture grasses have the potential to both
address our energy needs and create habitats able to support
biodiversity and wildlife functions.
Pulverized Coal vs. Coal Gasification
• Gasification – IGCC
– Provides easier opportunity to capture CO2.
– Cheaper than pulverized coal if CO2 capture is required.
• Pulverized Coal – USC (without CO2 Capture)
– Plants are cheaper to build.
– Plant operations are simpler, cheaper, and more reliable.
– Plants are smaller and require less land.
The Carbon Cycle
Many New IGCC Power Plants are Planned
If so many other companies can justify and plan to
build IGCC power plants, why can’t/won’t FPL?
German Chancellor Merkel takes a
look at a model of the world's first
CO2-free coal plant
• 35% efficiency (vs. 45%)
• Sequestration costs $30-$50 / ton
• completion by 2015
• commercially viable by 2020
• Intended for export
California and Wyoming Sign
Partnership on IGCC Projects
An IGCC plant with carbon
sequestration, as called for by the
MOU, would result in no greenhouse
gas emissions. The MOU also calls
on the federal government to
provide financial support for the
development of IGCC plants.
HR-5049 (in 109th Congress)
a CARBON TAX will be imposed to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
How much will the tax be? ($16/ton, phased)
$0.50 per gallon of gasoline = $200 per tonne C
The amount of a C-tax affects coal & natural gas.
The tax has little or no effect on nuclear, solar, wind
and other renewable energy sources.
Passage of carbon
tax framework
legislation is likely
in the next (110th)
Congress.
Then new chairs of
the environment &
energy committees
sent President Bush
a letter immediately
after the election.
Effects of Carbon Taxes to Achieve CO2 Reduction
Other Nations Take Action on Carbon Dioxide
U.K. Government Official Policy Statements
“Climate change is the greatest market failure the
world has ever seen.”
“The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have
a profound effect on the climate change that happens in the
second half of this century and in the next.”
“Extensive carbon capture and storage will be necessary to allow
the continued use of fossil fuels without damage to the
atmosphere.”
“If we take no action to control emissions, each tonne of CO2 that
we emit now is causing damage worth at least $85.”
“Action on climate change will create significant business
opportunities, as new markets are created in the low-carbon
energy technologies and other low-carbon goods and services.”
Glades County
Economic Development Council
• EDC was asked to endorse the FPL coal project.
• I requested amendments to the resolution:
– Make the power plant CARBON CAPTURE READY
(IGCC or modified Ultra Supercritical design)
– Fund a non-profit organization to inform the public
about coal-fired power plants and carbon capture.
• EDC voted against my amendments.
• EDC voted for the FPL project endorsement.
(see http://www.fpl.com/environment/plant/gpp_support.shtml)
Glades County Economic Development Council
• Motion to Amend by John Capece, Second by Patty Register
• Voting For Amendment
– John Capece, Southern DataStream, Inc.
• Voting Against Amendment
– Cheryl Eby, Rawls Real Estate
– Kevin Thomas, CHL Holdings, Inc.
• Abstained From Vote
-
Mark Morton, Lykes Brothers, Inc.
– Russell Echols, Glades County
– Bill Redmon, The Glades
– Patty Register, Gatorama
– Rhoda Planty, Joyner Development
– John Ahern, City of Moore Haven
– David Danenhauer, Mickey's Bait & Tackle
– Tommy Perry, Johnson-Prewitt Associates, Inc.
– Danielle Toms, Glades Electric Co-Op
• Note: the FPL
engineer responded,
“yes,” when asked if the
new FPL USC-PC power
plant would be
economically viable in a
high ($200/ton) carbon
tax environment.
Glades County Economic Development Council
• Motion to Endorse FPL Power Park Project, on Oct. 9, 2006
• Voting Against the Motion
– Patty Register, Gatorama
• Voting For the Motion
– Russell Echols, Glades County
– Kevin Thomas, CHL Holdings, Inc.
– Bill Redmon, The Glades
– Rhoda Planty, Joyner Development
• Abstained From Vote
- Mark Morton, Lykes Brothers, Inc.
- John Capece, Southern DataStream
• FPL Presentation by
– John Ahern, City of Moore Haven
– David Danenhauer, Mickey's Bait & Tackle
– Tommy Perry, Johnson-Prewitt Associates, Inc.
– Danielle Toms, Glades Electric Co-Op
– Cheryl Eby-Gutjahr, Rawls Real Estate
- Grover Whiddon
- Rachel Scott
- David Hicks
www.CarbonCapture.US
Why not an
IGCC project
in Glades?