"Implementing Clean Coal Technologies -
Need of Sustained Power Plant
Equipment Supply for a Secure Energy
the European Parliament
- Interim Report -
Deutsche Energie-Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH
in collaboration with
MVV Consultants and Engineers GmbH
Table of Content
1. Objectives and Targets .....................................................................3
2. Introduction and Background ............................................................4
2.1 Challenges to Sustainable Development................................................................ 4
2.2 Initiatives to meet the challenges of this decade .................................................... 5
3. State of the Art of available technologies ..........................................9
3.1 European market survey on available Clean Coal Technologies for high-efficiency
coal-fired power plants............................................................................................ 9
3.2 European market survey on technologies for emission reduction in coal-fired
power plants ......................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Comparative analysis of different available technologies (efficiency / emission /
specific cost...) ...................................................................................................... 25
3.4 Assessment of further development potentials of available technologies ............ 31
3.5 Directory of potential European key actors in the emerging market for CCT in the
power plant sector ................................................................................................ 34
3.6 Analysis of previous and on-going European RTD and demonstration projects in
the field of CCT..................................................................................................... 34
3.7 Comparison of CCT with alternative power generation options............................ 36
4. Socio-economic relevance of the CCT-project ................................39
4.1 Investigation and evaluation of adverse effects of threatening the sustained
equipment supply on security of energy supply.................................................... 39
4.2 Investigation and evaluation of adverse effects of threatening the sustained
equipment supply on industrial key components .................................................. 42
4.3 Identification and assessment of employment effects of a CCT reference and
following projects .................................................................................................. 42
5. Compatibility of CCT with European climate change policies .........44
5.1 Assessment of the CO2 reduction potential .......................................................... 45
5.2 Assessment of expected viability of the project under the regime of using flexibility
mechanisms (Joint implementation, Emission Trading) ....................................... 46
6. Compatibility of CCT with European RTD policies ..........................48
6.1 Assessment of the potential for the implementation of latest RTD-results into the
project ................................................................................................................... 49
6.2 Assessment of CCT as initial point for implementing CO2-capture and
sequestration in the future .................................................................................... 50
7. Viability of the CCT-project and Financing Sources ........................51
7.1 Outline of possible scenarios of implementing the CCT-project (sites,
schedules...). ........................................................................................................ 51
7.2 Assessment of costs for the scenarios ................................................................. 52
7.3 Realistic risk assessment of the scenarios ........................................................... 52
7.4 Available public funding (Regional Funds, environmental funds...) ...................... 53
8. Policy options and recommendations..............................................54
8.1 Overcoming barriers of implementation of CCT ................................................... 54
8.2 Policy options........................................................................................................ 54
8.3 Overall evaluation of findings from Tasks 1 to 5 and drawing of conclusions ...... 55
9. Sources ...........................................................................................56
10. Annexes ..........................................................................................56
10.1 ANNEX 1: Summary of demonstration projects of CCT in EU and non-EU
countries ............................................................................................................... 56
10.2 Annex 2: Technology matrix comparing available and future technologies with
regard to their major design criteria ...................................................................... 56
10.3 Annex 3: Detailed directory of key actors involved in the development and
implementation of CCT is presented .................................................................... 56
1. Objectives and Targets
The study is targeting the area of high efficient power plants based on Clean Coal
Technologies (CCT). The overall objective of the study is to initiate the deployment of a low
emission power plant with currently available CCT before 2010. This is based on the concept
that sustainable energy supply includes a sustained supply of power plant operators with
most advanced secure and viable plant technologies and components. Using the potential of
the current available technologies is providing the scene for making new technologies
applicable and viable.
In order to promote the above-mentioned overall objectives, the target of the study is to show
the potential of CCT and ways how to exploit it, by means of
• proving the strategic and socio-economic significance of a large-scale CCT project,
• proving that CCT fits into Europe's climate and RTD policies,
• proving the project's viability, and
• exploring financial resources for the CCT project
By hand of this study it is expected to provide substantial advance risk assessment for the
CCT project at a very early stage prior to project identification. For liberalised power
generators under harsh cost competitive condition, this is very important, as it is vital before
launching a full-scale demonstration project to have demand, availability and viability proved
in general and in advance for such a CCT project.
2. Introduction and Background
2.1 Challenges to Sustainable Development
2.1.1 Opportunities for High Efficiency Power Plant Technologies
Extensive coal reserves can be found in more than 100 countries in the world, coal is mined
in more than 50 countries. At current level, secured coal reserves are estimated to last for
over 200 years to come. This means that coal users can secure their energy supply in the
long run, and do so at competitive prices.
In the EU today, energy supply is very much dependent on oil and gas, energy resources
which mostly have to be imported from non-EU countries. The EU is therefore steering
towards a situation where it’s economic growth (and this can only be a sustainable growth) is
relying on fuel/energy supply by non-member countries and further away from self-
Efficiency of coal technology in the EU is on a high level even today – the lower European
efficiency level stands at 32%, new modern power plants can push this up to 45-48%, and an
efficiency level of 55% would be within the realms of the possible if only those involved would
act in concert, pushing research and development while there’s still time.
The USA will be investing incredible sums into just that over the next couple of years. So
while they have withdrawn from the responsibilities which come with signing the Kyoto
protocol, they might overtake the European industry in building the high efficiency plants we
will need to fulfil exactly these responsibilities. Thus, even if we turn away from oil and gas
and towards coal, we might still find the EU dependent on other countries, if we don’t invest
into the future of our power plant industries.
The European Commission has not only acknowledged the need to withdraw from a reliance
on fuels not widely available within the EU, but also the necessity of further development of
available technologies: "Coal's future depends largely on the development of techniques
which make it easier to use… and lessen its environmental impact in terms of pollutant
emissions through clean combustion technologies." (Green Paper "Towards a European
Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply", COM(2000)769).
It is all the more surprising that Clean Coal Technology plays a very minor part in the 6th
Framework Programme for Research. Investments into Clean Coal Technology Research,
for example 700°C power plants, are essential to the future of the EU regarding the security
of sustainable energy supply, climate control, and economic growth.
2.1.2 Global and EU Energy Trends
The worldwide demand for energy is increasing
During the first two decades of this century, the worldwide demand for energy is expected to
increase by about 50%. More than two thirds of this growth will probably happen in
developing countries. The global demand for electrical energy will increase even more.
The use of fossil energy is inevitable for meeting this demand
Today fossil energy accounts for about 60% of the electricity production. This rate will in-
crease due to the electricity need of particular threshold countries with large fossil energy
resources (e.g. China and India) (figure 1 – figure is still missing).
The EU is dependant on energy imports used in aging fossil-fired Power Plants
The EU today has to cover 50% of its energy consumption by means of imports. This de-
pendency rate is expected to increase to 70% by 2020/2030 (EC Green Paper).
Over 50% of the installed Power Plant (PP) capacity is fossil-fuel based of which two thirds
already today are older than 20 years.
In order to meet the increased global demand and avoid power shortages like those in Cali-
fornia, new investment in fossil PP is mandatory in the forthcoming two decades for replacing
aged and less efficient power plants and delivering an additional annual capacity of 10.000
2.1.3 The fuel - coal
The coals are classified by rank with peat and lignite being ‘low rank’ and anthracite ‘high
• Low rank coals, such as lignite and sub-bituminous coals, are characterized by high
moisture levels and a low carbon content, and hence a low energy content. They are
typically softer, friable materials with a dull, earthy appearance.
• Higher rank coals are typically harder and stronger and often have a black vitreous lustre.
Increasing rank is accompanied by a rise in the carbon and energy contents and de-
crease in the moisture content of the coal.
• Anthracite is at the top of the rank scale and has a correspondingly higher carbon and
energy content and a lower level of moisture.
Coal reserves are, by far, the largest of all the fossil fuels but this is not mirrored by its pre-
sent day use where oil is used to a much greater extent.
The world coal resources available for meeting our energy requirements today and in the
future are very extensive, compared in particular with mineral oil and natural gas. Viewed
against this background, the situation for coal supplies to meet future world energy demand
will present no problem in the coming centuries.
2.2 Initiatives to meet the challenges of this decade
The EU-Commission has rightly set the priority of decreasing import dependency in its Green
Paper “Towards a European Strategy for the security of energy supply.” It states in particular
means such as the increase of efficiency rates in energy production, the extended production
of renewable energies and safeguard recourse to domestic energy resources.
EPPSA has, in accordance with the Green Paper, started 2 initiatives for which strong sup-
port by the EU is crucial in order to solve the challenges raised by the global trends:
2.2.1 Promoting supply security by meeting the capacity gap
Looking at all aspects raised in the Green Paper increased energy production on the basis of
modern clean fossil technologies is mandatory to meet the challenges for a sustainable de-
Secure energy supply requires sustained power plant equipment in all fields of thermal en-
ergy production. However, at the horizon of 2010 the vintage structure of PP in the EU is
such that from 2010 onwards a substantial capacity gap will occur which will increase to a
magnitude of 300.000 MW by 2020 (figure 2.1).
At a cost of 800 - 900 €/kW of installed capacity, the closing of this gap will require an overall
investment of about 250 Bn € only in Europe. The total global market for clean coal PP is
estimated at more than 500 Bn €.
This could generate an employment increase, from today’s about 60.000 jobs in Europe by
about 10.000 jobs, most of them with high technical qualifications.
Furthermore, this gap in European energy supply can only be closed if about 1/3 of current
fossil fuel-based capacities will be replaced soon in order to avoid a California type crisis in
European energy supply already in 2010.
Renewable energies have an important role to play, however for various reasons their contri-
bution within the EU will remain at best on the level of about 10%.
The urgent investments into fossil PP are presently delayed by the recent decision on emis-
sion trading because of the existing uncertainty on future emission trading costs.
EPPSA agrees that emission trading should penalise old coal PP technologies and reward
high efficiency clean coal PP. Since a coal PP is a very long-term investment, the present
backlog of building new plants creates delays, which cannot be compensated rapidly later.
In order to promote supply security by clean fossil PP, the European Power Plant operation
and equipment manufacturing industry needs policy support by the EU for large-scale in-
vestment (Structural, Pre-Accession Funds).
Figure 2-1: Power plant capacities in the EU younger than 40 years
2.2.2 Promoting reduction of CO2 emissions by meeting the technology gap
Modern fossil PP provide potential to reduce CO2-emissions
Given the emission constraint and taking into account the importance of fossil energy
sources, as both indicated above, a substantial increase of the efficiency rate of fossil PP is
one of the most important tasks to be resolved.
Figure 2-2: Emission reduction with improved efficiency
The present average efficiency rate of coal PP worldwide is estimated at 30%. However, the
newest state of the art coal PP allows achieving efficiency rates of 47%. Modern Clean Coal
Technologies (CCT) PP with increased by that range efficiency can reduce CO2 emissions by
about 30%. Future power plants with net efficiency values of up to 55% aim at another 20-
30% CO2 reduction.
Today’s available Clean Coal Technologies create a potential for reduction of CO2 emissions
in the EU of about 200 million tons of CO2 per year.
Requirements for Coal Technologies
further increase of efficiency
• further development of materials
• for arising the live steam parameters
• further development of processes and components
• double reheat
• efficiency of turbine and steam generator
• minimising of station auxiliary power
• heat recovery
with simultaneous decrease of specific investment costs
R & D for processes, components and materials
2.2.3 Meeting the Technology Gap under Competitive Global Market Con-
The emission reduction potential must be utilised in large-scale power generation in order to
contribute to the climate change policies.
Investing in R&D to fill the still existing technology gap is particularly important for the Euro-
US government obviously got the message since they launched a 2 Bn $US R&D pro-
gramme in fossil energies. At present the European PP suppliers are worldwide technology
leaders. However, given the foreseeable worldwide demand for energy (see figure 1), it
seems very doubtful whether the European PP suppliers will be able to defend their position
or whether this market will be lost to non-EU producers (e.g. USA, Japan, China, Korea). If
nothing is undertaken soon, there is a real danger that the EU know-how will be lost and that
the EU industry will loose its present competitive advantage or in the worst case even dis-
Unfortunately, modern power plant technology is not explicitly supported in the 6th EU RTD
In order to promote reduction of CO2 emissions by increased average efficiency of fossil
power plants, The European power plant manufacturing industry requires policy support by
the European Union (e.g. RTD, Structural Funds and Environment Fund).
For meeting the technology gap under competitive global market conditions thermal power
generation, needs to be included in EU RTD programmes.
2.2.4 Market Barriers for CCT
Each of the heat and power technologies experiences some specific market barriers and
these are discussed in the individual technology modules. However, there are also some
more general barriers which apply to most of the heat and power technologies, as follows:
• Advanced power plant have high initial investment costs, and their development is also
expensive. Since the main markets for new power plant are in countries with developing
economies, and will remain so for many years, attention also needs to be focused on the
development of plant which are well suited for such markets.
• Actual or perceived risks associated with innovative technologies and their potential envi-
ronmental impacts may deter investors, and make it difficult to raise finance.
• Aspects of market operation, relevant regulations and lack of an appropriate infrastruc-
ture may restrict or prevent deployment in certain cases.
There is also competition between technologies within the heat and power sector, eg:
• Within the EU, the price of gas is low, and the cost of new natural-gas-fired plant is also
low. In the rapidly-changing EU electricity supply industry, new natural-gas plant have a
significant economic advantage over new solid-fuel-fired plant.
• There is increasing environmental concern within the EU to reduce both local and regio-
nal pollution and to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions, which is putting increasing pres-
sure on the operation of fossil-fuel-based plant. Because of their lower specific emissions
of most pollutants, and because of their low specific CO2 emissions, natural-gas-fired
plant also have strong environmental advantages over solid-fuel-based technologies.
• As a counter to these arguments for gas-fired plant, there is a need to maintain a diver-
sity of primary energy supply within the EU, and to take into consideration the longevity of
supply of competing fuels (world gas supplies are expected to reduce significantly and
costs increase well before there is any such impact on supplies of coal).
3. State of the Art of available technologies
3.1 European market survey on available Clean Coal Technologies for
high-efficiency coal-fired power plants
To date there are four major power plant concepts based on coal combustion which are ei-
ther commercially available and are further developed (higher efficiencies, emission control)
or in a advanced development phase with first demonstration projects under way.
3.1.1 PCF - conventional pulverised coal fired technology
First to mention is the conventional pulverised coal fired technology (PCF), which is, with the
exception of IFPS (indirectly fired power systems as e.g. HIPPS), based on a pure steam
cycle process. This is the predominant technology of the past 50 years and modern power
plant designs utilising supercritical steam conditions (about 580°C/280 bar) can reach net
efficiencies of 40-45% (up to 47% for sea water cooled power plants). Much R&D is concen-
trating on the further development of this technology in Europe, the US and Japan to in-
crease efficiencies up to 50% with the introduction of ultra supercritical steam (USC) technol-
These high temperature/ high pressure condi-
tions require the further development of creep
Pulverised Coal Fired
resistant materials for all components of the power plants
steam cycle. Most promising are Ni-based su- with advanced ultra supercritical
per alloys allowing steam conditions of up to steam
720°C and 350bar. Apart from developing the-
ses super alloys further small incremental • Available with ~45%
measures have to be taken to reach >45% effi- efficiency
ciency such as reduction of condenser pressure
• Future (~2015): 53%
below 40mbar etc.
• Steam conditions: 290-
In Europe, major power plant equipment manu- 350bar/600-700°C (USC-
factures (Alstom, Siemens ABB, Babcock, Lur- adv. USC)
gi, Krupp Uhde, etc ) as well as big power plant
operators (RWE, ...) are combining efforts in
• Low NOx/SO2 emissions with
EU-wide research and demonstration projects FGD/SCR (<200/<400
(e.g. the Emax initiative) to develop USC tech- mg/m³)
nology to be commercially available from 2020 • Size: 400-1000 MWe
on (first demo plant in 2016). In the US, another • Low investment costs
promising PCF based technology is the IFPS or (~€1000/kW)
HIPPS. Contrary to the standard PCF power • Mature (USC with η=45%)
plant the IFPS plant is based on a combined
cycle (Brayton gas turbine + Rankine steam turbine) process where air compressed to the
turbine inlet temperature is heated (via heat exchangers) in a PCF boiler to a temperature
approaching the gas turbine inlet temperature (1000-1300°C). Net efficiencies of 47% were
reported (topped HIPPS; cf.section 3.1.5) with the potential for >50% efficiency. The US DoE
(Dept. Of Energy ) together with FW (Foster Wheeler) is currently investing in HIPPS (see
Figure 3-1: Concept of conventional PCF power plant with flue gas desulphurisation
Power plant scale is limited to 400-1000 MWe. The investment costs of modern PCF is in the
range of US$1000-1200/kW with desulphurisation (DeSOx) and SCR (DeNOx) emission con-
trol (about 30% of total investment). An increase in investment costs due to the utilisation of
USC fit Ni-based materials of about 10% is estimated. Emission reduction of 90% for SOx
and 75% for NOx compared with PCF power plants without DeSOx/DeNOx equipment. Parti-
cle emission is also very low (below 100 mg/m³ flue gas)
The following table gives an overview of the technical parameters of important demonstration
or representative power plants (worldwide) utilising PCF technology. Displayed are net effici-
encies that depend on the internal consumption of the installed flue gas cleaning. It also has
to be mentioned that (hard) coal power plants can reach higher efficiencies as lignite plants
as lignite has lower heating values (higher moisture) reducing the boiler temperature .
Plant Capacity Steam state Start-up Efficiency (LHV1)
MW bar/°C/°C [%]
Esbjerg 3 (DK) 415 250/560/560 1992 45.3 (coal)
Staudinger Unit 5 (D) 500 250/540/560 1993 43 (coal)
Nordjylland 3 (DK) 410 290/582/580 1998 47 (coal)
Boxberg 900 250/544/562 2000 41.7 (lignite)
Schwarze Pumpe (D) 2x800 250/544/562 2000 40.6 (lignite)
Lippendorf (D) 2x920 268/554/583 2000 42.4 (lignite)
Waigaoqiao (China) 2x900 279/542/562 2002 42.7 (coal)
Niederaussem (K-Block) 1000 274.5/580/600 2002 > 43 (lignite)
Table 3-1: Representative supercritical steam PCF power plants
The following three clean coal technologies are basically based on a fluidised bed for com-
bustion/gasification of coal and mostly of the cc (combined gas/steam cycle) type (except
(AFBC). Major advantages are the high boiler efficiency with nearly complete combustion
and the integrated approach for emission control through air staging and sorbent injection in
Lower heating value: energy content of fuel/coal without the condensation of water vapour
3.1.2 FBC - Fluidised bed combustion
Fluidised bed combustion (FBC) also is based on the use of coal for fuel. Compared to PCF-
firing more course material could be used, and fuel co-combustion of other (solid) fuels inclu-
ding e.g. biomass or coal blending is possible. Finally, NOx level are lower (due to lower fir-
ing temperature <900 oC) and SOx emissions can be reduced by primary measures. Two
major types are discerned depending on the pressure in the FBC boiler.
AFBC - Atmospheric Circulated Fluidised
Atmospheric Circulated Fluidised
Bed Combustion Bed
The boiler of an atmospheric FBC (AFBC) power • Available with 40% efficiency
plant is operating at ambient pressure (atmosphe- • Future: ~44% efficiency
ric) either in a circulation (CFB) or a bubbling flui-
• Scale: 200-600 MW
dised bed (BFB). The AFBC type is widely in use
(about 300 units world wide) and fully developed • High fuel flexibility
and commercially available for a wide range of (biomass/waste/low rank
fuels such as low grade coal (high ash, high sul- coal)
phur), tar, waste, biomass, etc. Where „low cost“ • Low SO2/NOx emissions
solid/liquid fuels are available AFBC is an interes- (due to direct sorbent
ting alternative to PCF technology. This holds also injection / air staging)
true, if emission limits are requesting for an end-of- • Competitive costs with no
pipe flue gas cleaning for PCF boilers, as FBC
FGD/SCR units necessary
easily allow relatively simple primary measures
avoiding flue gas formation. Net efficiencies are in
the range of modern (non USC) conventional PCF • Mature (with =40%)
plants (38-40%). Power plants are of 200-300 MW
class are available, 500-600 MW are designed (e.g. from Lurgi) ready for commissioning.
Figure 3-2: 265 MWe AFBC power plant (JEA large-scale CFB combustion project, USA)
PFBC - Pressurised Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion
Compared to AFBC pressurised FBC (PFBC) is
relatively new on the market (first demo plants in Pressurised Circulating Fluidised
early 1990ies). This technology involves the in- Bed
crease of the pressure level in the boiler, the flue
gas cyclone and other components of the steam • Available with 42% efficiency
generating unit. Pressures are in the range of 10-
20 bar. These units are quite compact and for-
• Future: ~47% efficiency
merly could be purchased mainly from ABB Car- • Combined gas/steam cycle
bon as P200 (200MWth; 80MWel) or P800 (800 with pressurised boiler
MWth, 350MWel) units which can be combined to (~15bar)
reach higher power outputs. The whole ABB boi- • Scale: 80-350 MW
ler (and turbine) technology branch was mean- (P200/P800)
while sold to Alstom Power. Since then some 5 • High fuel flexibility
PFBC units were erected (4 P200 in Stockholm, (biomass/waste/low rank
Tidd/Ohio, Escatron (Spain) and Cottbus (D), and
most recently 1 P800 in Karita (Japan; built from
Japanese manufacturer using the Alstom license). • Low SO2/NOx emissions
(due to direct sorbent
PFBC plants are also differing from AFBC be- injection / air staging)
cause they employ a combined gas and steam
• Higher specific invest. costs
cycle (CC). Due to the elevated pressure level in
the boiler unit the hot flue gas is first directly fed
(after hot gas cleanup) into a gas turbine thus in- • Late demonstration stage
creasing overall efficiency to about 40, max. 42%.
Figure 3-3: Design of 137 MWe PCFB power plant (McIntosh Unit 4A, USA)
Alstom Power (formerly ABB Carbon), Babcock-Wilcox, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and
Hitachi all have the capacity to design and manufacture 100 MW-level PFBC power plants.
At least Alstom has nevertheless stopped to produce P200 or P800 boilers, giving only
license agreements as with the available PFBC design efficiencies much higher than 40%
are hardly reachable. Major research effort has to go to the development of the hot flue gas
clean-up unit and a partial gasification (beside combustion). Then future efficiency is estima-
ted to reach 47%
The following table gives an overview of the technical parameters of important demonstration
or representative power plants (worldwide) utilising PFBC.
Plant Capacity Steam state Start-up Efficiency (HHV)
Wartan (S) 135(225) 137bar/530°C 1990 33.5
Escatron (E) 75 94bar/513°C 1990 36.4
Tidd (USA) 70 90bar/496°C 1990 35
Warkamatsu (JP) 70 103bar/593°C/593°C 1993 37.5
Cottbus (D) 65(90) 142bar/537°C/537°C 1999 42
Karita (JP) 350 241bar/565°C/593°C 1999 42
Table 3-2: Commercial scale PFBC power plants:
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is Integrated Gasification Combined
like PFBC a combined cycle based on coal gasifi-
cation and combustion of the syngas in a gas Cycle
turbine. The exhaust gases from the gas turbine
are than fed into the steam cycle. Unlike PFBC • Available with 45% efficiency
where the hot flue gas (no syngas) is hot • Future: 52% efficiency
cleaned, the temperature of the IGCC syngas is • Combined gas/steam cycle
lowered (~400°C) in the syngas clean-up unit • Scale: 100-400 MW
before fed into the gas turbine, thus lowering the
potential efficiency. The overall net efficiency is • High fuel flexibility
about 42-45% to date. It is expected to rise to 50- (biomass/waste/low rank
52% in the future. coal/oil residues)
• Low SO2/NOx emissions (due
Like FBC the major advantage is the possibility to
to direct sorbent injection / air
use low cost fuels and also have competitive net
efficiencies compared to PCF and AFBC. Emis- staging)
sion control either is integrated into the boiler or • High specific invest. costs
connected with the syngas cleaning with very low (+25-50%)
NOx/SOx emissions possible. The investment • Early commercial stage
costs of about 1500-2000US$/kW to date are
predicted to drop to levels as low as 1100US$/
kW. With low cost fuels available, the IGCC could become quite competitive to other com-
mercially available clean coal technologies. The direct removal of sulphur compounds from
the syngas results in the effective recovery of elemental sulphur, yielding a saleable raw
Figure 3-4: Concept of IGCC power plant
Also IGCC technology is somewhat commercially available it is also under continuing devel-
opment. Two major IGCC demonstration projects in the EU were the Buggenum (Nuon En-
ergy in the Netherlands) and the Puertollano (Elcogas in Spain) IGCC projects. To date there
are about 24 IGCC power plants either under construction or planned to be built. IGCC is al-
so implemented for the gasification of oil refinery residues (e.g. Sulcis IGCC power plant of
Enel, Italy). In the US there are currently three major IGCC demonstration plants already in
The following table gives an overview of the technical parameters of important demonstration
or representative power plants (worldwide) utilising IGCC technology.
Plant Capacity Gasifier Type Start-up Efficiency (HHV)
Cool Water (USA) 96 entrained-flow 1984 31.2
Plaquemine (USA) 160 2-entrained-flow 1987 36
Buggenum (NL) 253 entrained-flow 1994 41.3
Wabash River (USA) 262 2-entrained-flow 1995 39.2
Polk County (USA) 250 entrained-flow 1996 40
Pinon Pine (USA) 99 fluidized-bed 1997 38
Puertollano (E) 300 entrained-flow 1997 42.5
Litinov (Czech) 350 fixed-bed 1997
Table 3-3: Commercial scale coal-fired IGCC power plants:
Pressurised pulverised coal combustion
(PPCC) like PFBC employs a combined cycle Pressurised Pulverised Coal
with both a pressurised boiler unit and a gas Combustion
turbine for the direct utilisation of the flue gas.
PPCC operates at about the same pressure • Future (>2010): ~55% efficiency
levels of about 15 bar but the furnace tem-
• Combined gas/steam cycle
perature is significantly higher than for PFBC
with 1600-1750°C instead of 800-900°C. This • Similar to PCFB but with gas
allows for quite high gas turbine inlet tempera- temperatures of 1100-1400°C
tures ranging from 1000-1300°C which is com- • Low SO2/NOx emissions (due to
parable to conventional natural gas fired gas direct sorbent injection / air
turbine systems. Consequently higher efficien- staging)
cies of ~55% should be possible. • Unknown but probably higher
As a result of the high temperature level the costs
coal ash is in a liquid state covering the furnace • R&D for hot flue gas clean-up
walls and flowing to the bottom of the boiler needed
where it can be removed. To prevent liquid ash • Early pilot stage (1MW)
from entering the gas turbine and causing dam-
age through erosion of the turbine blades, the
flue gas has to be hot cleaned in liquid slag removers and alkali removers. Whereas hot flue
gas clean up with conventional filter technology is possible at temperatures of 800-900°C (as
proofed for PFBC) this is not easily the case at 1400°C. Consequently major research efforts
are currently under way for the development of the hot flue gas clean up.
PPCC technology is at the moment in a development phase with small pilot plants/PPCC
boilers/flue gas clean-up systems being operated at research centres mostly in Germany
(e.g. University of Aachen;1 MW pilot plant in Dorsten, Germany). No detailed data on effi-
ciency and emissions apart from estimations are available yet.
3.1.5 Other, advanced, coal fired power generation technologies
All the above mentioned developments of clean coal technologies for power generation are
more or less commercially available or under intense development with promising demon-
stration projects under way. These are technologies –with the exception of IGFC with no
demo project currently under way in the EU- being further developed in EU countries with
European companies and research institutions being involved. Because the following con-
cepts and CC (combined cycle) technologies are either in an very early development stage it
is not clear if they will ever be implemented (MHD, CO2 sequestration) and/or are specifically
developed in non EU-countries (HIPPS, coal diesel; cf. next chapters).
IGFC - Integrated gasification fuel cell technology
Another interesting utilisation if the IGCC process is the integrated gasification fuel cell tech-
nology (IGFC). This clean coal technology is quite young and in an early development stage.
Today there are two major projects in the US and in Japan. IGFC is comparable to IGCC for
production of syngas and the utilisation of a gas and steam cycle process. Additionally a fuel
cell unit is integrated with currently in the lower MW capacity range. Molten carbonate fuel
cells (MCFC) operating at about 600°C or solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) for temperatures at
900-1000°C are available for this purpose. The other major difference compared to IGCC is
the need for a very effective syngas clean up system for which major research efforts are
now under way. Net efficiencies of up to 60% for a mature IGFC combined cycle are thought
possible with net efficiencies >50% at the moment for the two pilot scale power plants. Also
the fuel cell itself needs improvements e.g. regarding the maximum lifetime.
Figure 3-5: 540 MWe IGCC with oxygen blown gasifier and 2 MW MC fuel cell (Kentucky
Pioneer power plant)
For both technologies (IGCC and IGFC) air blown and oxygen blown gasifiers are developed.
The installation of an additional air separation unit with an increase in investment costs al-
lows further increases in overall power plant net efficiency (from 54% up to 59% for IGFC).
To date no qualified expectations for overall system costs of IGFC are possible.
Whereas IGFC is at the moment not commercially available (maximum capacity of demo FC:
~2MW) it is estimated that first demonstration power plants with capacities in the utility range
(300 MW fuel cell + 300 MW gas and steam) will be implemented around 2020.
The two only projects currently underway are the US funded Kentucky Pioneer IGCC Dem-
onstration Project and the EAGLE project in Wakamautsu, Japan. These are mainly IGCC
related projects with the additional testing of MC fuel cells. No European research efforts are
made at the moment in this direction.
HIPPS (IFPS) - Indirectly fired power sys- High Performance Power Systems
High performance power systems (HIPPS) are • Available with 45% efficiency
indirectly fired power systems (IFPS) which use • Future: 53% efficiency
an indirectly fired gas turbine combined cycle, • Indirectly fired with heating of
where heat is provided to the gas turbine by
air up to 1400°C for
high- temperature heat exchangers. In an indi-
rectly fired cycle, the products of coal combus-
combined gas/steam cycle
tion do not contact the gas turbine. In a first • Scale: 250-450MW
step compressed air (~16bar) is heated via heat • Costs: 1450US$/kW
exchangers up to temperatures of 1100°C (η~50%)
(~1400°C are ultimately envisaged) and fed into • Further R&D for materials
the gas turbine. This first step can also be and heat exchanger needed
topped (additional combustion of natural gas to • Demonstration stage in the
further increase GT inlet temperature) to in-
US (2 pps)
crease overall efficiency. The gas turbine exhaust gases are than put into the steam cycle
(HRSG/ HP gas turbine/ LP das turbine/ condenser).
To date there are two slightly different HIPPS technologies in development and demonstra-
tion stage. The UTRC and the FW-type HIPPS differ in the boiler design with the FW (Foster
Wheeler)-design using a pyroliser to produce a syngas being cool cleaned and burned in the
gas turbine. The residue char is then burned in an additional boiler unit to heat the air for the
gas turbine. The UTRC employs the “common” IFPS approach illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 3-6: HIPPS schematic (UTRC-type)
The main advantage of the IFPS technology is the possibility to have a combined cycle at
initial GT temperatures of 1000-1100°C resulting in high efficiencies of >50% (at 1400°C)
without the need for sophisticated hot flue gas clean up technology which is not fully avail-
able yet. To date efficiencies of 45% have been reported. So most components of a IFPS
power plant are already available (to date R&D efforts are directed towards the high tem-
perature heat exchangers).
MHD - Magnetohydrodynamic power generation
Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) power genera-
tion is a combined cycle power generation MagnetoHydroDynamo Power
technology in which the electric generator is Systems
static non-rotating equipment. In the MHD con-
cept, an ionised fluid flows through a static • Future: >50% efficiency (?)
magnetic field, resulting in a direct current elec- • Combined cycle (MHD
tric flow perpendicular to the magnetic field. channel + steam turbine)
Therefore hot ionised gas from combusting coal • Unconventional technology
is taken as the fluid conductor and is mixed with
(no gas turbine, instead use
Potassium Carbonate (seed) to increase con-
ductivity. After flowing through the field, hot of MHD effect)
gases are used to generate steam and turn a • High cost barrier due to high
turbine. As heat is transferred, seed is recap- tem-perature super
tured for recycling. The major technological conducting technology
drawback is the need to use expensive super • Very early R&D stage (pro-
conducting magnets, which must be cooled to gram discontinued in the US)
269 degrees Celsius. The temperature of the
hot air is about 2500°C. Efficiency for a combined cycle is estimated to be >50%.
The main advantage apart from high efficiencies would be the relatively simple design with
no need for a expensive gas turbine and a hot gas clean up to protect it. Even as the super
conducting technology which is an important prerequisite is in a mature stage, MHD power
generation is (even when further R&D efforts are invested) many years away.
Figure 3-7: Basic concept of the MHD channel for direct power generation
The research on the field of magnetohydrodynamic power generation was initially part of the
US MHD program but was eventually discontinued. Only for the low-NOx burner develop-
ment part of the MHD program further research did continue.
The clean coal diesel demonstration project in
Fairbanks Alaska, USA is a demonstration of an
18-cylinder, heavy duty diesel engine (6.4-MWe)
• Available with 41%
modified to operate on Alaskan sub bituminous
coal which is mixed with water to form a slurry • Future: 48% efficiency
which can be directly injected into the diesel • Diesel engine for direct
combustion chambers. Power generation in gen- pulverised coal injection (coal
eral is expected to be in the 5- to 20-MWe range. slurry with ~30% water)
This MW scale would be best suited for decen- • Suitable for small scale CHP
tralised CHP generation. (~10MW)
The demonstration plant is expected to achieve • Low NOx and SO2 with
41% efficiency, and future plant designs are ex- FGD/SCR
pected to reach 48% efficiency and to have very • Demonstration stage in the US
low NOx and SO2 emissions due to FGD and
SCR emission control measures. The testing and
operation phase began in 2002. The project was
heavily funded by the USDOE. The US Alaska coal diesel project is so far the only one in the
world. The world market for small scale CHP plants (~10MW) and onsite/ mobile power gen-
eration is estimated to be several 100 GW (>100.000 engines).
Figure 3-8: Basic design of 6 MW coal powered diesel engine with emission control
3.2 European market survey on technologies for emission reduction in
coal-fired power plants
This chapter gives an overview on emission reduction technologies, which are state-of-the-
art for advanced coal fired power plants.
Flue gas cleaning systems are usually designed to remove a single pollutant species. These
systems are becoming increasingly installed / retrofitted in the EU as legislation governing
emissions from existing plant is tightened. Uncontrolled NOx emissions from coal fired plant
may be caused by fuel bound nitrogen or by thermal formation from nitrogen in the air. Fuel
bound nitrogen can contribute up to 80% of uncontrolled NOx emissions. A small proportion
(less than 5% in coal-fired boilers) of NOx (so-called prompt-NOx) results from interaction of
hydrocarbon fragments with atmospheric nitrogen at the flame front.
NOx emissions can be reduced by combustion modifications as follows:
• Low excess air operation: Reducing the excess combustion air will reduce NOx emis-
sions with little or no equipment modifications. This may also increase boiler efficiency.
Unburnt carbon in ash and CO emissions tend to increase. If fly ash is used as a cement
additive, there is an upper limit of about 7% for carbon in ash. Reported NOx emission
reductions of 15-20% have been achieved by reduction of excess air. The reported costs
arising from this modification have been low (mainly associated with lower combustion
• Two-stage combustion (or over-fire air): This is a method of boiler modification where the
burners are adjusted for a stochiometric air-fuel ratio and secondary air (15-25% of total
air) is injected above the top burners. It can reduce by up to 35% at low cost (as low as
$10 per kWe of unit capacity). However, there may be increased water-wall corrosion and
increased slagging with this modification.
Low-NOx burners: These are the most common method of reducing emissions from existing
boilers (sometimes used in conjunction with over-fire air as described above). Low-NOx
burners operate by air staging where a fuel-rich mixture forms the core of the flame, while
secondary air is added at the edges of the flame to complete combustion. The reducing
atmosphere in the flame core prevents NOx formation from fuel-bound nitrogen and the
staged combustion yields low flame temperature which reduces formation of thermal NOx.
Emissions can be reduced by up to 60% with low-NOx burners, although this varies de-
pending on combustion temperature and boiler type. On retrofitting a low-NOx unit, 305 MWe
wall-fired dry-bottom coal fired boilers, emissions were reduced by about 45%. Investment
costs for retrofitting low-NOx burners would be approximately $50 per kWe including fitting of
a new burner management system. Low-NOx burners tend to increase carbon in ash. Low
NOx burners together with the air supply modifications stated could reduce NOx to below the
limits for lignite-fired boilers combustion (with temperatures of ≤ 1100 °C).
Figure 3-9: Low NOX Burner
Fuel reburn (fuel staging): It is possible to reduce NOx by injecting natural gas, atomised oil
or pulverised coal above the main burners. This creates a reducing zone which can reduce
up to 70% of NOx to nitrogen. Air is injected above the reburn zone to complete combustion
at low temperature (to prevent re-formation of thermal NOx). Reburn fuel would supply 15-
20% of total heat input. Natural gas is the most common fuel which is applied to reburning;
although other fuels have been demonstrated it is more difficult to accomplish. Reburn tech-
nology has most often been applied to wet-bottom and cyclone furnaces which are more dif-
ficult than-NOx burners, although ESB has participated in trials of gas reburning on a coal-
fired boiler in Scotland which had been retrofitted earlier with low-NOx burners. The results of
these trials have been promising. Capital cost of retrofitting gas reburning would be similar to
installation of low-NOx burners.
However, the cost of arranging gas supplies to a coal-fired plant and the additional cost of
gas fuel (compared with coal) can make this a relatively high cost method of reducing NOx
Flue gas recirculation: Recirculation of 20-30% of flue gases to burners has been applied to
emission reduction in oil and gas fired boilers, giving NOx reductions of 30-50%. Recircula-
tion works by reducing flame temperature and oxygen concentration. However, results with
coal boilers have been disappointing with reported emission reductions being as low as 5%.
The proposed reason for the reduced performance of flue gas recirculation on coal-fired boil-
ers is that it is ineffective in preventing NOx formation from fuel-bound nitrogen. Combustion
modifications can reduce NOx emissions from coal-fired boilers by up to about 50% at a total
cost (capital and operating cost) of less than $500 per tonne reduction (including capital
costs of about 10% of investment cost per year to cover both capital repayment and return
Figure 3-10: Pulverised coal boiler typical flue gas treatment
For further NOx reduction it would be necessary to remove the pollutant by chemical reduc-
tion using ammonia or urea. Two forms of chemical reduction are in commercial operation as
follows (always used in conjunction with combustion modifications as described):
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR): SNCR reduces NOx concentrations in flue gas
by the direct reaction with an amine-based chemical (most commonly urea or ammonia -
aqueous or gaseous) to form nitrogen and water. The reaction pathway is dependent on free
radical chemistry and is complex and operates over a relatively narrow temperature range.
The optimum temperature for both ammonia and urea SNCR is close to 1000°C. There is an
effective window of approximately 100°C either side of this optimum where NOx reductions
are obtained. Consequently boiler and process control requirements are high if optimum re-
moval efficiency is to be achieved. SNCR is a proven technology on gas and oil-fired fur-
naces, but it is still not proven on large coal-fired plant (450 MWth or above). On smaller coal-
fired plant, European experience suggests NOx reductions of around 40-60% are feasible
with SNCR. Capital costs can be significant with a wide range of levels reported (10-50
$/kWe) with operating costs ranging from around 1.0 cents/kWh for urea systems down to 0.6
cents/kWh for ammonia systems. This is a relatively simple technology. Reagent e.g. ammo-
nia is sprayed into boiler after the high temperature burning area by lances or nozzles. While
not as effective as the full SCR it can be used as a low cost alternative especially in conjunc-
tion with low NOx burners. Reduction of 30% is typical. However the difficulties in operation
can be problematic: control of NH3 quantity, temperature affect on lances, correct tempera-
ture compliance. The relative poor control of injection can result in high consumption of re-
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR): -> to be added / completed
3.2.1 Reduction of SOx emissions
There are a number of generic flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) processes and these will be
considered in turn. Emphasis will be placed on the wet limestone/gypsum process and dry
sorbent injection process (in furnace sorbent injection) as these are considered the most ap-
propriate for pulverised coal fired plant in the study area.
Reduction of SO2 emissions can be achieved by fuel switching, coal cleaning and repower-
ing, as described above. However, if these solutions are not practical to implement, emission
reduction must be achieved by flue gas desulphurisation (FGD).
FGD processes can be classified as:
• sorbent injection type where lime, limestone or other sorbent is injected into the flue
gases in the boiler to capture SO2 resulting from combustion of sulphur in the fuel; wet
type scrubbers where a limestone-water liquid is sprayed into the flue gases after the
precipitator to capture SO2. This is by far the most common method of FGD and ac-
counts for over 80% of total world installed FGD capacity. A variation of wet FGD (the
Chiyoda process) involves bubbling the flue gases through a limestone-water liquid;
• spray dry scrubbers where a lime-water slurry is sprayed into the flue gases after the pre-
cipitator to capture SO2;
• dry scrubbers where the flue gas after the precipitator is used to fluidise a bed of lime;
• regenerable and combined SO2/NO2 removal systems which have been demonstrated
technically, but which have not proved economically competitive to date.
Figure 3-11: CaO spray absorption process for SO2 scrubbing
The leading characteristics for retrofitting these systems to coal-fired boilers are as follows:
Sorbent injection systems: Sorbent (usually lime or limestone) can be injected into the fur-
nace or into the backpass of the boiler. Sorbent could be mixed with the fuel going to the
burners and this would have some effect in reducing SO2 emissions. However, the high
flame temperature can sinter lime sorbent particles, rendering them less chemically active.
Furthermore, calcium sulphate which may be formed is unstable at temperatures above
roughly 1315°C. Injection of sorbent into the furnace is therefore best done at a location
where the temperature is below 1315°C, but as close as possible to this temperature so that
the particles of sorbent have the longest possible time in contact with the flue gases.
A typical sorbent injection system is the American LIMB system, where hydrated lime is con-
veyed pneumatically to injection points installed in the upper furnace. The lime is propelled
into the furnace by booster air. The hydrated lime is calcined to CaO which then captures
SO2 to form calcium sulphite and then calcium sulphate. In general, only about half the in-
jected sorbent reacts with SO2. The dust loading on the precipitators will be increased by
sorbent injection and it may be necessary to upgrade or replace this equipment. The ash
characteristics will be changed by the presence of calcium sulphite, calcium sulphate, cal-
cium carbonate and unreacted lime and this may make ash unsuitable as a cement additive.
Reported SO2 emission reductions of between 50% and 70% have been achieved with the
LIMB system. The cost per kWe of LIMB process retrofitting is relatively low (less than
US$100 per kWe). However, the cost of hydrated lime is high compared with the cost of lime-
stone and this increases the operating cost and cost per tonne SO2 removed (typically about
US$1,000 per tonne).
There is particular interest in the sorbent injection systems of FGD in the Buryat Republic.
These may be appropriate where the required level of sulphur removal which is not high.
Although investment costs can be low for these systems, the relatively high cost per tonne
SO2 of removed by them should be noted. The increased burden on dust control equipment
through sorbent injection
Another alternative for the de-sulphurisation of flue gases can be applied in fluidised bed
boilers. Here, together with the coal, limestone is put into the boiler and the SOx is actually
removed within the boiler system.
->FGD to be further detailed
3.2.2 Reduction of dust emissions
Electrostatic precipitation remains the technology of choice for dust control from large coal-
fired plants using normal coal. For plants which use coal with very high resistance ash and/or
where very low emission limits must be met (less than about 30 mg/Nm3) fabric filters (bag-
houses) may give lower overall costs. Some forms of sorbent injection FGD systems operate
best with fabric filter dust control (see above).
Figure 3-12: Sorbent injection flow sheet
There are increasing concerns about the health effects of emissions of very small particles
and with emissions of trace elements from coal fired plants. If limits are put on emissions of
dust of less than 10 microns or less than 2.5 microns or limits on specific trace elements, as
advocated by some environmentalists, retrofitting of fabric filters may be required. It should
be noted that wet FGD is a very effective secondary dust removal system, particularly for
small particles and volatile trace elements.
There have been advances in electrostatic precipitator design (ESP) and operation in recent
years. Rigid plate electrodes have almost completely replaced weighted wire systems in new
plants. Better control of power using solid state power electronics can greatly reduce ESP
power consumption without reducing performance.
Where upgraded dust control performance is required, this can sometimes by achieved by
conditioning the flue gas before the ESP by adding ammonia or sulphur trioxide. This may be
necessary if selection of lower sulphur fuels or reduction of sulphur removal by sorbent injec-
tion has caused the ESP performance to reduce.
Where upgrading of the ESP is needed it is often more economic to replace the existing ESP
rather than refurbish the existing plant. The investment cost of large ESP plant is in the re-
gion of US$ 60 per kWe at Western cost levels, but when improved performance, reduced
operating and maintenance cost and reduced power consumption are taken into account,
this may be lower in life cycle cost than refurbishment of existing equipment.
Fabric filters are of the reverse air or pulse jet type. Neither require direct power use as does
the ESP, but the increased draft loss through them causes fan power increases which are
higher than the power used by an ESP (in the case of the pulse-jet type there is an additional
power usage for the pulse-jet cleaning compressor). The space requirements for bag-houses
are similar to those of a large ESP, but greater than that of some small ESPs. Retrofitting of
a baghouse in place of an ESP should not be a problem, although fans may also have to be
replaced because of the higher draft loss through the fabric filter. The investment cost of a
pulse-jet bag-house is lower than that of an ESP; the cost of a reverse-air type bag-house is
similar or higher to that of an ESP. Operating and maintenance cost of fabric filters is higher
than an ESP because of the filter elements.
3.2.3 Primary emission reduction at FBC boilers
Both FBC designs have integrated emission control measures such as direct SOx sorbent
injection (limestone/dolomite) for DeSOx and staged air coal combustion for very low NOx
emissions (lower than PCF with emission control). No special equipment contrary to PCF is
needed reducing costs for AFBC to about the same level as modern PCF with DeNOx/DeSOx
(US$1000-1300/kW). A PFBC power plant does cost about US$1350-1900/kW depending on
the size and design. Because at the moment this technology is in an early commercially
availably stage prices are expected to drop below this range of investment costs to levels of
approx. 10% below that of conventional PCF (due to the compactness of PCFB).
3.3 Comparative analysis of different available technologies (efficiency /
emission / specific cost...)
Texts to be completed later!
3.3.1 Comparison of efficiency of CCT
In the past, European industry succeeded in achieving a leading position world-wide
in the construction of highly efficient power plants with simultaneously high environ-
mental standards. The coal plant efficiency increased by almost 10 percentage points
through the transition to the next power plant generation, i.e. from appr. 34 ... 36% in
case of 300 MW units in the eighties to 45...47% for 500/800 MW units nowadays.
The next level for power plant efficiency is targeted at 50% by the projects AD 700
Figure 3-13: CCT Main development during the last 20 Years
A technology matrix comparing available and future technologies with regard to their major design criteria is presented in Annex 2.
Fuel/coal Techno- Environ- Market- Avail-abil- Operational Moment of Develop- Efficiency Costs Demand
usability logy lead- mental able by- ity down flexibility profitability/ ment status potential (for demo for pub-
characteri ership in friendly- products time half load/full competi- project) lic fund-
stics/rank the EU? ness load tiveness ing
xxx=any xxx=yes good xxx=good xxx=short xxx>55% xxx=low
xx=most xx=partially xx=yes xx=good xx=medium xx=medium d xx=50-55% xx=medium
Clean Coal xxx=very
Technology x=limited X=no good x=no x=medium x=poor x=long term x=early x=45-50% x=high Mio €
PCF/USC x xxx xx xx xxx xx xx x (xxx for xx xxx
PFBC xx xx xxx X xxx xx xx xxx x xx
IGCC xxx xx xxx xx[JS1] xx x xx xx xx xx
IGFC xxx x xxx x - x x x xxx x
PPCC x xxx xx xx - xx x x xxx x
Table 3-4: Brief evaluation of CCT characteristics
Figure 3-14: Efficiency Evolution
Table 3-5: Comparison of technologies
Capacity Range Efficiency NCV Availability Perspectives
BAT Base Efficiency
USC 300 - 1,000 46 highest 50 - 55
CFB 50 - 300 40 high 45
PFBC < 400 42 medium 45
IGCC < 350 45 medium 52
Table 3-6: Technical Parameters of best available technology (BAT) in CCT
Efficiencies of different thermal power generation concepts and the theoretical maximum
efficiency for an ideal Carnot process.
Figure 3-15: Net efficincy of power generation depending on upper temperature limite
(carnot process and different coal & gas technologies)
Figure 3-16: Trend for increased efficiency
3.3.2 Comparison of emission characteristics
Texts to be completed later!
NOX, 6 % O2 SO2, 6 % O2 CO, 6 % O2 Dust, 6 % O2
BAT 3 3 3
mg/m mg/m mg/m mg/m3
USC < 200 < 400 10 - 250 < 50
CFB 100 - 400 200 - 400 10 - 250 < 50
PFBC 100 - 400 200 - 400 10 - 250 < 50
IGCC < 200 < 50 < 50 < 20
Table 3-7: Emission Parameters of advanced CCT (BAT)
Figure 3-17: Fuel consumption in g of coal equivalents per kWh
The thermal use of coal (carbon) is inevitably linked to emissions of CO2 and other pollutants.
1 kg of carbon produces 3.7 kg of CO2 ( equivalent to 0.4 kg of CO2 per kWhth) . The reduction
in CO2, if modern plants we re to be used worldwide would be 50 % less than today’s and
with the use of advanced clean coal technologies, SO2, NOX, and dust can be reduced to
extremely low level s.
Adoption of CO2 reduction technologies to coal plants
• CO2-Reduction out of flue gases as “posttreatment process” possible for all PC fired boil-
ers. Combustion not really affected.
High loss in efficiency.
• CO2-Reduction as “pretreatment process” affects combustion.
Process development ongoing.
High loss in efficiency.
• CO2 Storage processes under investigation.
Geological, deep sea, biological, carbonate.
The reduction of CO2 can be realistically achieved in the short term only by the renewal
of the existing coal-fired power stations
1/3 reduction of the present-day emission values
3.4 Assessment of further development potentials of available
Figure 3-18: CC Technology trends
Table 3-8: Possibilities and status of various advanced technologies
To be completed later!
Features Short-term Mid-term Long-term
(2-5 years) (5-10 years) (10-20 yr.)
3.4.1 Priority lists for the further development for clean coal technologies
with regard to the major design criteria
Recommendations for further R&D on CCT as proposed by the FORUM group2
The industry FORUM identified a gap between RTD and demonstration in the technology development process. This task
"The Technology Brokerage Working Group", had the main objective to establish a STRONG LINK between RTD
INSTITUTIONS and INDUSTRY, in order to assist both communities to formulate appropriate and efficient RTD and
demonstration proposals for both advanced and improved existing technologies. This group is constituted by 30 members of the
most qualified experts from the most entities involved in CCT: Universities, Research Centres, Manufactures, Utilities, Services,
and Official Organisms, of all EU countries.
Figure 3-19: Recommendations for further R&D on CCT
3.5 Directory of potential European key actors in the emerging market for
CCT in the power plant sector
A detailed directory of key actors involved in the development and implementation of CCT is
presented in Annex 3 of this report.
The Role of EPPSA
Coping with, both the problems of capacity gap and climatic constraints, in the global energy
markets will require competitive EU PP manufacturers, able to support the transition towards
new energy technologies.
26 leading manufacturers of PP technologies from 12 countries in the EU and the Candidate
countries have constituted EPPSA (www.eppsa.org).
The member companies presently employ 50.000 people and their annual turnover amounts
to 50 Bn €. They generate employment of a considerable additional volume in a large num-
ber of mainly small and medium-sized enterprises.
The member companies act successfully within a highly competitive market in order to se-
cure energy supply in an emission constraint environment. They combine Europe's leading
expertise in all fields of thermal energy production. Based on clean fossil fuel technologies
for power generation the member companies are growing steadily in fields like the use of
renewable energies, the use of biomass, clean waste incineration, and co-generation.
Low to zero emission technologies is EPPSA’s major medium term objective.
EPPSA is a young association, but accumulating the European expertise in modern energy
supply for the global markets. EPPSA understands its role as mediator between the PP in-
dustry, operators R&D initiatives and political decision makers/ institutions.
3.6 Analysis of previous and on-going European RTD and demonstration
projects in the field of CCT
Summary of demonstration projects of CCT in EU and non-EU countries is presented in An-
Figure 3-20: Development of net power plant efficiency in Germany
To be completed later!
• Outlook on the handling of CCT-related issues within the Sixth Framework Programme
The EC started the R&D-project AD700. The target of the project is to develop a highly effi-
cient (η ~ 50%) coal-fired power plant with live steam temperatures up to 700°C. A demon-
stration plant in 2013 shall give proof of the ability of reliable operation. As mentioned before
the power industry is under pressure to have new, efficient power capacities before 2010.
Therefore VGB Power Tech, the association of the power industry, started the project “E-
max”. The target of E-max is to plan, to build and to operate a modern demonstration plant
with a consortium before 2010. The consortium consists of manufacturers and operators,
which are invited to participate in E-max. The risks and the chances of new technologies are
distributed on several shoulders. The experiences from the new technology will be shared by
Figure 3-21: Innovative elements of the EU supported project THERMIE R&D)
The UK Cleaner Coal Technology Programme is a subsite of the UK Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) website (www.dti.gov.uk). It can be found under the subsection of Energy
Technologies in the Energy section of DTI website. The central theme of The UK Cleaner
Coal Technology Programme is to maintain strong support for research and development,
and to make financial contribution in partnership with UK industry and other funding agen-
cies. This website is an important part of the UK Cleaner Coal Technology Programme.
3.7 Comparison of CCT with alternative power generation options
Fossil-fired power plants are very reliable in power generation. Especially coal-fired power
plants with capacities up to 1.000 MW per unit offer a high potential to reduce the predicted
shortage of power. Simultaneous they can produce power competitively, if they are not dis-
criminated by overdrawn environmental requirements. Highly efficient coal fired power plants
of the newest generation will obtain the required acceptance.
Combined Cycle Power Plants dominate the market for new power generation plants. The
combined cycle technology features the highest efficiency. In comparison to other fossil
based power generation the CCGT can be built at lower costs, in a far shorter time, is factory
fabricated and has a much smaller footprint. However at the moment the gas price is too high
and too volatile for making a decision for a new CCGT plant. Another key aspect is that a
large part of the gas is supplied from outside the European Union, mainly from Russia and
Northern Algeria. There may arise a dependence in fuel supply for those economies, whose
power generation is based on imported gas.
It is estimated that utilisation of gas will be more effective in small CHP-plants for distributed
power and heat generation. In those plants future technologies like fuel cells and Stirling
engines can be implemented.
Nuclear power plants cover one third of the German power demand (and e.g. some > 80%
in France). They save theoretical 160 million metric tons CO2 each year. Furthermore they
prolong the limited scope of the fossil primary energies. Due to their low generating costs
they affect the market to low power prices.
Some states in Europe have a memorandum to get out of the peaceful utilisation of nuclear
power. A decision to build new nuclear power plants will depend on a broad public and politi-
cal acceptance for this high efficient technology. A shift of acceptance is not recognisable
Renewable energies shall have their share in the energy mix. They have to provide their
part for the sustainable energy supply on a long-term basis. The EC has proclaimed the tar-
get to double the share of the renewables form 6% in 1997 to 12% in 2010. Special efforts
are placed in the energy sector. The target is not easy to achieve. The capacity of hydroe-
lectric power plants is probably exhausted. The expansion of renewable energies can only be
achieved by biomass, wind and solar energy.
Beside the use of biomass wind energy is favoured in Europe. In some states, for instance in
Germany, the wind energy comes to its natural limits. The next step for wind energy is to go
off-shore. But here new risks are arising like grounding, corrosion and expensive mainte-
The biggest problem, however is of financial nature.
Figure 3-22: Cost of Electricity (CoE) by Technology
Figure 3-23: Potential, Requirements and Alternatives
4. Socio-economic relevance of the CCT-project
4.1 Investigation and evaluation of adverse effects of threatening the sus-
tained equipment supply on security of energy supply
The Commsission's own projections (Green Paper on Security of Energy Supply (COM
(2000) 769)), reflect the importance of fossil fuel-based power generation for a secure energy
supply and a sustainable development:
a) At present, over 50% of electricity generation and about 80% of energy demand is cov-
ered by fossil fuel sources.
b) Around 300 GWe of capacity will be installed over the next 20 years to replace power
stations that have reached the end of their lives, in addition to the 200-300 GWe that will
be necessary to meet increased demand. As the trends do not yet indicate any major
technological breakthrough, this capacity demand will have to be supplied with already
available but further optimised technologies.
c) Reduced nuclear electricity production will cause economic tensions and threaten supply
unless fossil-fuelled power generation covers this lack of energy supply at least in short
and mid term. This necessity especially emerges in the EU-accession countries. Subse-
quently, the Green Paper emphasises the option to develop techniques which make fossil
fuel-based technologies easier to use and reduce their environmental impact in terms of
pollutant emissions through clean combustion technologies.
4.1.1 The technology path towards security of energy supply
The following issues needs to be stressed with respect to the discussed technology op-
1. A more efficient, less pollutant energy supply basing on diversified energy sources is
a main strategic option leading towards a reduced dependence in energy supply and re-
duced CO2-emission. Successful European demonstration projects of advanced tech-
nologies will contribute to these targets in Europe and promote the worldwide dissemina-
tion of environmental sound technologies.
2. Fossil fuel-based power generation remains the backbone of a secure energy supply
and plays a stabilising role in a changing fuel mix environment over the next decades:
Until a major technological breakthrough makes fossil-fuelled technologies abundant for a
secure energy supply their adaptation to the growing environmental challenges is inevita-
- The capacity demand of 600 GW in Europe within next 20 years can mainly be sup-
plied only by already available, proved technologies.
- With nuclear capacity expected to be reduced by about 110 GWe after 2010 only fos-
sil-fuelled power generation can cover the lack of base-load energy supply in short
and mid term. This especially emerges in the EU-Accession Countries.
3. Clean Coal Technologies with secure fuel availability from diversified sources, relative
fuel price stability and long-time life-cycles remain crucial for a balanced fuel mix allowing
a secure energy supply.
- Available, modern technologies of 43% net efficiency reduce CO2 emissions by about
30% against older coal fired plants of 30% net efficiency.
- The replacement of old plants with modern coal-fired power plants in Europe could
lead to annual CO2-reductions up to 3.000 t/MW or 200 Mio. t.
- More advanced combustion technologies combined with the use of advanced materi-
als can potentially reduce CO2-emissions of these modern technologies by further
4. Renewable energy sources must be increasingly used under the growing environmental
challenges within an energy mix that secures energy supply.
5. Biomass and co-firing power generation basing on widespread resources and flexible
technologies contribute to the target of doubling both the energy consumption from re-
newables and the CHP-share in EU-power generation by 2010. The repowering of CHP-
units – especially in the EU-accession countries - should, therefore, play a more impor-
4.1.2 The policy path towards security of energy supply
Green Paper as a chance to focus on the security of energy supply as crucial pre-requisite
for sustainable development in the growing EU and worldwide.
Therefore, the following issues are stressed with respect to the discussed policy options:
1. The concept of sustainable development implies an equal consideration of economic,
social and ecological aspects. Sustainable (i.e. secure) energy supply bases on func-
tioning energy markets.
2. Companies supplying advanced, environmentally sound technologies must be rewarded
in the markets and improve their position in global competition. Environmental bench-
marking and flexible market instruments (e.g. emission trading) in harmonised market
structures could stimulate that competition for a sustainable energy supply.
3. The liberalisation of the energy sector tempts plant operators to overwhelm prices to the
technology suppliers below their break even. Therefore, raised energy taxes should
feed project aid for deployment and disemination of secure and environmentally friendly
technologies. The omission of cleaner fossil technologies in EU-research and aid
strategies threatens the use of their environmental potential and the competitiveness
of European industry.
4. State aid in energy sector does not disturb but strengthens the energy market if it:
• fosters all advanced technologies for energy supply with higher efficiency and less
polluting effects than those on the market - without omission of cleaner fossil fuel
• is allocated according to the capacity and environmental potential of each energy
• considers the complete process of technology deployment - including the prototype /
component validitation and the large scale demonstration of plant systems;
• secures an international funding parity;
• is designed project-driven, degressive and time-limited - any funding of energy
sources or technologies mainly basing on target obligations without a determined
"break even" goes against the long-term success of the "promoted" technology in a
competitive energy market;
• is effectively co-ordinated between the energy, environmental and research policies
on EU level (e.g. with the Framework Programme for Research).
5. European power plant suppliers deploying successful references of advanced
technologies that reduce the current CO2 emissions will contribute to the European cli-
mate obligations, strengthen the position of European industry in global competition and
promote the worldwide disemination of environmental sound technologies.
4.1.3 Need of new power plants
Owing to the actual surplus-capacity in Europe it could be assumed that there is no necessity
for new plant capacity. But the blackouts in the west of the USA and the actual political
events have sensitised us for the topic “uninterrupted service of power”. The question,
whether blackouts can happen in Europe, is discussed more frequently.
The age structure of the European power plants shows that the economic life time of the fos-
sil and nuclear power plants is limited to 40 years. After 40 years the plants will be put out of
operation. It is assumed, that with progress in liberalisation and market openings the over
capacities in power generation will be reduced very fast.
A lot of uneconomical plants have already been shut down. Further shutdowns are planned.
By the end of 2010 those power plants, which were erected in the sixties and seventies, must
be replaced by new ones. In order to replace older plants by new capacities an amount of
200.000 MW must be commissioned as of 2010.
Figure 4-1: Age structure of the European power plants
Further additional power plants are needed to satisfy the increasing power demand. The ad-
ditional demand up to 2020 is forecasted between 100.000 MW to 200.000 MW (the EC-
green book forecasted an additional demand of 200.000 MW).
The power production industry is confronted with a huge capital financing program. Disre-
garding the forecasted increase in power demand the substitute of the old power plants will
require a capital expenditure of approx. 150 Billion Euro. If the power increase is added a
capacity up to 400.000 MW must be built in Europe by 2020. That corresponds to an invest-
ment of several hundred Billion Euro. There can be no discussion about the matter whether
to meet the exact capacity growth and replacement respectively. The decisive message is
that the installation of new power plants is indispensable to ensure a durable electricity sup-
ply of the next decades.
The decisions of investment are of fundamental significance. They affect the structure of
power generation for the next 30 to 50 years. They require careful considerations and accu-
rate preparations. Taking into account that engineering and licensing will need a long period
of time the renewal process has to start within a short time.
Nevertheless power generators will only invest in new power plants, if there exists reliable
and fair political conditions and if the whole sale power prices will rise again.
Requirements for investments into new CCT power plants
Operators, the driving force in CCT application, define the following four important require-
ments for new plant:
1. The profitability and competitiveness is the first and most important requirement for
the power plant technique. The economics of a new power plant is influenced by the
erection and operating costs and mainly by the fuel prices. Deregulation in Europe trig-
gered a drop in power prices. In Germany the prices declined appr. 40% relative to the
prices in 1999. Although the price for electricity has slightly increased again the transfer
of the raising fuel costs to the customer is scarcely enforceable. Generation costs have to
be reduced. This includes the shut down of power plant capacities. The three largest po-
wer producers e.g. in Germany have announced shut downs of approx. 12.000 MW. This
program is underway. Cost reduction is the only chance for getting a basis with the exis-
ting power plants for a positive profit.
2. Second requirement: The operation of the power plants must be environmentally accept-
able and must save resources as much as possible. Policy and the public expect in-
creasing efficiency for the limitation of CO2-emissions and for the economical handling
with the resources.
3. Closely linked with that is the third requirement. We know that a new power plant can
only be built and operated, if there exists a wide public and political acceptance. Particu-
larly the future of coal depends on the progress in meeting environmental requirements
i.e. reducing CO2-emissions and saving resources.
4. The fourth requirement for modern power plants is a high flexibility in operation. Due to
an increasing trading volume the power market gets more and more dynamic and prices
get more volatile. Power plants have to be flexible to respond to the market volatility.
It is important for operators to act in a partnership with manufacturers and politicians for get-
ting the optimum between those requirements and competing targets.
Tasks to be completed:
• Survey on the need for sustained equipment supply for clean coal technologies (quantita-
tive and qualitative).
• Description of potential consequences of bottle-necks in equipment supply with regard to
security of power supply.
4.2 Investigation and evaluation of adverse effects of threatening the sus-
tained equipment supply on industrial key components
Refer to section introduction issues on Capacity gap, Technology gap
Tasks to be completed:
• Survey on the importance of sustained equipment supply for stability and growth of rele-
vant European industries.
• Clear illustration of industrial risks resulting from threatening sustained equipment supply
4.3 Identification and assessment of employment effects of a CCT refer-
ence and following projects
To be completed later!
• Analysis of employment effects of the current supply of equipment for coal-fired power
plants at the EU level (direct, indirect employment effects)
• Calculation of the direct and indirect employment effects of a large-scale CCT
• Estimation of employment potentials occurring from following projects activating the ex-
pected growth potential of European CCT industries (direct, indirect employment effects).
• Survey on potential positive employment effects of a CCT reference and following pro-
• Illustration of potential negative employment effects, which might occur from threatening
sustained equipment supply.
5. Compatibility of CCT with European climate change poli-
The global emission trends should be evaluated against the objectives of the Kyoto protocol
as well as the implementation rules decided subsequently: According to them CO2 – emis-
sions will have to be reduced by 2008/12 with rate of 8% (for the EU) as a first step, to be
Figure 5-1: Global CO2 emissions
Despite the Kyoto objectives the CO2 emissions in the OECD-countries have increased
within the last decade by almost 10%. This increase is expected to continue until 2020.
It is this perspective which does require a new approach to electric power production.
Table 5-1: Greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalents and Kyoto Protocol targets for
5.1 Assessment of the CO2 reduction potential
The CO2 problem cannot be solved simply by 'end of the pipe technologies' as in the case of
NOx, SO2 and dust.
With a mean efficiency of 32 % for coal-fired power stations world-wide, equivalent to 1,100 g
of CO2/kWh, at the present time, with 14,800 TWh/a of coal-based electricity, each year 6.2
billion metric tons of CO2 are emitted.
This corresponds to approx. 30 % of the anthropogenous CO2 production of ~ 21 billion met-
ric tons per annum.
CO2 separation from flue gas is possible. Sequestration under pressure is markedly less ex-
pensive than at standard temperature and pressure.
High costs with present-day status of development of sequestration technology.
Rule of thumb:
• Conventional coal-fired power station ~ doubling of the generation price.
• IGCC approx. 50 % increase in the generation price.
Costs of CO2 reduction in comparison with alternatives
In the case of power station renewal (ή = 47 % instead of ή = 32 %), with investment costs of
€ 850/kW and 15-year depreciation, approximately € 40/t of CO2 per annum is obtained.
Given the coal saving, and with improved personnel and maintenance costs the amount is
reduced to € 20/t of CO2 per annum.
For comparison: wind-based electricity from electricity costs according to the Renewable
Energy Act Germany is approx. € 75/t of CO2 per annum.
Tripling (up to fivefold increase) of the present power genera-
Costs: about 50 - 125 Euro/t CO2 reduction
Limited to about 1 % power generation
Costs: about 125 Euro/t CO2 reduction
Power plant pool (coal)
Constant share in power generation
Costs: < 20 Euro/t CO2 reduction
To be completed!
Quantitative and qualitative outlook on the impacts of flexibility mechanisms for various CCT
5.2 Assessment of expected viability of the project under the regime of
using flexibility mechanisms (Joint implementation, Emission Trad-
The EC favours a market approach with tradable certificates. For this the EC has made a
guideline. Emissions trading could be an obstacle for the erection of new plants and the op-
eration of old plants. Emissions trading causes additional cost burdens resulting from expen-
diture on buying CO2 certificates. Furthermore the EC-guidelines have to consider the meas-
ures, which were agreed in the Kyoto-protocol, especially the CDM (clean development
mechanism) and JI (joint implementation). Additionally to that the guideline should be exe-
cuted for all emission groups and climate relevant gases.
Anyway the safe and sustainable electricity generation will be mainly based on conventional
power plants, i.e. gas fired CCGT and coal fired power plants. For this types of plants the
only chance for minimizing CO2 emissions is to increase the efficiency.
The comparison between a coal fired plant with an electrical efficiency of approx. 38% and a
modern supercritical power plant with 47% efficiency – which could be built immediately - is
that the specific CO2-emissions per kWh decreased by about 21%. (That means the specific
CO2 emissions go down from 0,930 kg/kWh to 0,732 kg/kWh). This corresponds to a CO2
saving of 400.000 ton per year for a 500 MW power plant with 5000 full load operating hours
Support to Kyoto process by suggesting a realistic CDM-definition
European stakeholders are supporting the emission reduction aims of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change – especially reaching them by way of flexible,
practice orientated mechanisms. The specific interest relates to the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), which can – theoretically – become relevant to business practice since
the year 2000 already, Nevertheless, the introduction of CDM into practice was further de-
layed with decisions adjourned by the COP 6 in Den Haag in November 2000.
CDM is one useful instrument to provide additional financial sources for ecologically sound
plant projects in developing countries which would otherwise have no base for financing,
utilising following line of argumentation:
Only realistic CDM-projects will be socially sound and will make the mechanism in general
CDM-projects will therefore have to contribute to national energy sectors in developing
countries with a well-balanced, resource-oriented energy mix. Thus, energy can be provided
to all public and private energy customers in that country at affordable prices; existing mod-
ern technology will be available to those stable national energy sectors.
The limitation of CDM to specific gas-fired technologies and small-scale combined heat and
power projects is counter-productive to those aims.
Coal technologies will remain relevant in the long term for security of supply reasons. Ad-
vanced coal technologies with an efficiency above average can contribute in the short term to
a significant improvement of the worldwide emission situation. Therefore, advanced coal
technologies have to be integrated into CDM.
Subsequently, other technologies that use sustainable biomass including peat and waste as
energy sources and improve the current emission situation should be considered under
Tasks to be completed later!
Quantitative and qualitative outlook on the impacts of flexibility mechanisms for various CCT
6. Compatibility of CCT with European RTD policies
Identified gaps in the European RTD policy
The complete omission of fossil fuel-power based technologies in FP6 endangers the target
of the proposed promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources (COM(2000)279 fi-
nal): To reach the indicated 12,5% of power generation from renewable energy sources
(without large hydro) means a quadrupling of the share within some more than one decade.
Even with reaching this ambitious goal the remaining 87%-share is covered by conventional
energy sources, whose emission levels should also be reduced.
Efficient research funding must recognise the realistic capacity potential of each energy
Fossil fuel-power generation has the potential to contribute to an ecological sound energy
Retrofit activities in the European coal-fired power plants with an installed capacity of 180
GWe could increase the plants' average efficiency from currently above 30% to 47% (as
state of the art). This would result in an CO2-emission reduction of about 20 to 30%.
The utilisation of this retrofit potential needs further especially adapted optimisation of the
applied technologies. This is outstandingly valid for the EU-accession countries.
In brown-coal-fired units just being under construction the reduction of CO2-emissions
amounts to 27 % related to the last erected 600 MW unit. The energetically favourable
brown-coal drying recently on trial will lead to a further reduction of the CO2-emissions by
about 11 %. Hard coal power plants with an efficiency of 55% and a fuel consumption and
CO2-emission reduced by extra 15% are developed at present.
The ambitious target to increase considerably the share of CHP's in electricity generation by
the year 2010 requires that environmental friendly and cost effective modernisation of the
generation units play a more important role. The development of an ecological sound solid
fuel mix (co-firing methods) can be a driver for the rehabilitation of old CHP plants - espe-
cially in the EU-accession countries.
Therefore, research on and application of the best available technologies need strong fund-
Regardless of the official title "Research, Technological Development and Demonstration",
the FP6 draft does not consider the extremely important demonstration option. Besides
proving the technical feasibility, a demonstration of commercialisation is necessary, to avoid
that politically desirable technologies will need to be subsidised in the long term or excluded
from the liberalised market. Technologies meant for the years after 2010 have to be devel-
oped, tested and demonstrated now.
In order to stay globally competitive Europe needs to stay on a research track in fossil-fuel
based power generation. Therefore, the EU power plant supplying industry invests a consid-
erable amount of its own resources in R&D. Nonetheless, support is required from both the
EU and member states.
• European Commission's DG Research recognised this by agreeing with the US Secre-
tary of Energy scientific co-operation in the fields of non-nuclear energy research. Euro-
pean industry is expected to participate in the advanced US research on fossil fuel-based
technologies and CO2-emmision. This might become an efficient kick off for further re-
search by European companies if it is embedded in a corresponding research framework
• The planned US$ 2 bn. funding over the next 10 years just for clean coal technology-re-
search in the USA (US NEPD-Report, May 2001) shows the challenges to the European
• The radical change of a central research priority area will be an extra burden to partici-
pants of successfully established projects. This should be avoided.
To maintain fossil fuel-based technologies for power generation within EU FP is possible. A
well-balanced allocation of budgets between all operational priority actions in FP would guar-
antee the necessary budget to the Priority Thematic Area "Sustainable development and
Subsequently to these considerations
To maintain fossil fuel-based technologies within the priorities of FP as one part of a technol-
ogy mix for a secure and sustainable energy supply will be crucial for the growing EU to meet
its environmental and economic challenges in the next decades.
6.1 Assessment of the potential for the implementation of latest RTD-
results into the project
USC PC Plant presently most feasible
Mature product design
• Mainly material changes
• Potential high efficiency (> 50%)
• High availability
• Reasonable investment costs
• Operation possible in 2010
Highest potential CO2 reduction as coal technol-
ogy with CFB, in mix with CCs, nuclear and Re-
Figure 6-1: Ultra super critical
To be completed later!
Priority list of RTD results which are to be brought to practical implementation in the short-,
mid- and long-term in order to make the best possible use of the results from European RTD.
Assessment for each of the outlined scenarios of technical improvement / optimisa-
tion scenarios on the basis of RTD results available for application in the short-, mid-
6.2 Assessment of CCT as initial point for implementing CO2-capture and
sequestration in the future
CO2 sequestration measure which are not explicitly linked to a specific coal combustion tech-
nology are another method to be considered GHG emission reduction in the sector of power
generation. Whereas efficiency increases are direct measures which reduce fossil fuel
consumption and therefore prevent CO2 production in the first place, CO2 sequestration can
be seen as an „end of pipe“ technology potentially allowing the design of a CO2-free power
plant in the future. As with every major downstream emission reduction measure, efficiency
losses are inevitable. As requirements this technology has to:
• be effective and cost-competitive,
• provide stable, long term storage, and
• be environmentally benign.
The process would consist of two major steps. In the first step, the CO2 has to be captured
from the exhaust gases produced in the combustion or gasification process. This could hap-
pen through chemical/physical adsorption, low-temperature distillation, gas separation mem-
branes or mineralisation. This is the most cost intensive step. For storage the captured CO2,
when being in a gaseous state with near 100% purity, could be pumped into the deep sea
where it would liquefy under high pressures/low temperatures. In a solid state as a carbon-
ate, the CO2 could also be stored underground in exhausted coal mines.
The US DOE, which is currently reviewing its energy policies regarding CO2 sequestration,
estimates that costs are in the range of $100 to $300/ton of carbon emissions avoided. The
goal would be to reduce the cost of carbon sequestration to US$10 or less per net ton of car-
bon emissions avoided by 2015. The development of the CO2 sequestration technology is
seen as a very high-risk, long-term R&D effort. As a consequence it will surely not be under-
taken by the industry alone.
Other sources estimate the costs for commercially available CO2 sequestration –depending
on the form of gas separation techniques- to be in the range of 30-50 US$/t CO2. The relative
efficiency loss is estimated to be in the region of 5-15% absolute e.g. reducing a 50% cct
power plant to 35-45% efficiency. Also the cost of power generation would increase about
0,015-0,03€/kWh. In contrast to this, CO2 emission reduction solely through efficiency in-
crease is much cheaper with about 15-25 €/t CO2 (based on the investment cost for a mod-
ern one substituting an inefficient older one).
Critical discussion on CO2 Sequestration techniques
The separation and sequestration of CO2 seems counter-productive for reducing CO2 emis-
sions, which can be illustrated by the following examples.
Example 1: Depending on the CO2-separation technique the efficiency of a coal fired power
plant would decrease approx. 6 to 10 %-points in comparison to a new, high efficient power
plant. For instance the efficiency of a lignite fired power plant would return from 43% to 33%.
In parallel the consumption of resources would rise from approx. 15 to 30%. This can not be
the purpose of a sustainable energy supply.
Example 2: The costs for CO2-separation are estimated to be 25 to 50 € per ton CO2. Addi-
tional to this, costs of around 6 to 12 € per ton for transportation and disposal must also be
considered. In total the power generation costs will increase within a range of 4 to 8 €ct per
kWh. Power customers and the economy must endure these additional costs. This is a huge
effort. For example the German economy, with a 50% share of coal, would have additional
annual costs of 10 to 20 Bln. €.
Example 3: The measures of CO2 separation would discriminate coal in comparison to the
volatile natural gas. This may have consequences for a safe energy supply.
Example 4: The final and safe disposal of CO2 is not solved yet. Until now there exist no
realistic options what to do with the separated CO2. Therefore it makes no sense to separate
CO2 , when the disposal is not clear.
For these reasons CO2 separation and sequestration are not the right way for environmental
protection and resource savings. More effective will be the support of all efforts, which help to
increase efficiency and combine the targets of economy and ecology.
7. Viability of the CCT-project and Financing Sources
7.1 Outline of possible scenarios of implementing the CCT-project (sites,
Selection criteria for demo site and technology (USC/PFBC...) candidates
Selection criteria Sub criteria
Power plant infrastructure • Existing power plant infrastructure (greenfield/developed with roads,
tracks, ports/ transformer station)
• Sea-/river-/lake water cooled
Country status • EU
Energy market • Liberalized[JS2]
Labour market • Qualified work force available[JS3]
• Competitive wages
Regional energy demand • Growing
projection • Stagnant
Co-generation of heat • Demand for onsite housing/industry heat
• Heat distribution infra-structure available
National/regional funding • Governmental/provincial cct program in place
Acceptance • Public
Operation/involvement of • Selection of suitable national power utility
power utility • International consortia (new utility
National Power plant • Age
structure • Efficiency
• Replacement potential with new cc technologies
Coal availability • Suitable coal type locally available[JS4]
• Good availability of imported coal
• Low transportation costs (ship/train)
Support R&D “infrastruc- • Research institutes/Universities/R&D of manufacturers/utilities (locally)
• Subsidiaries of involved companies
Coal characteristics (rank) • Ash/Sulfurcontent
• Water content (lignite)
• Volatile matter
• Coal type (bitoumus/sub bitoumus/ lignite)
• Co-combustion of waste/biomass/ oil residue
Most advanced know-how • Yes
in the EU? • No
Environmental considera- • SO2
tions • NOx
• Particulate matter
• CO2 sequestration ready
• Ash/slag disposal
Efficiency • Now (at half load/ full load)
• Future potential (with/without increased R&D efforts)
Marketable by-products • High quality gypsum from FGD
(for local market) • Ash/slag e.g. for road construction
• Need for costly disposing
Availability/maturity of cc • Choice for the technology:
technology • Most mature
• Most promising in the near/medium future
Scale of public funding • Mill. Euro
Operational flexibility • Base load
• Peak load
• Fuel flexibility
• Down time
Profitability • Now
/competitiveness • Future (with/without R&D/demo funding)
To be completed later!
• Survey on and clear ranking of potential sites for implementation of the CCT reference
7.2 Assessment of costs for the scenarios
To be completed later!
Comparative cost analysis
7.3 Realistic risk assessment of the scenarios
To be completed later
• Detailed risk assessment of each of the assessed scenarios.
• Risk-based priority list of potential scenarios.
CCT Critical limits
scenario Coal price Sales Sales price ...
7.4 Available public funding (Regional Funds, environmental funds...)
To be completed later!
Assessment of the potential for public funding for each of the assessed scenarios
The Cleaner Coal Research and Development Programme/ UK
The DTI plans to spend £12 million on cleaner coal technology over the next three years. If
the gearing of 4: 1 achieved during the last Coal R&D Programme is maintained in the new
programme, Government input would prime total UK-based R&D activity valued at well in
excess of £60 million in those three years alone. with more during the second three-year pe-
riod of programme operation.
'To provide a catalyst for UK industry to develop cleaner coal technologies and obtain an
appropriate share of the growing world market for the technologies'.
In December 1998 the Council of the European Union approved a multiannual programme of
technological actions promoting the clean and efficient use of solid fuels (1998 to 2002) re-
ferred to as CARNOT.
CARNOT shall promote the use of clean and efficient technologies in industrial plants
using solid fuels. The aim is to limit emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions, from such
use and to encourage the uptake of advanced clean solid fuel technologies in order to
achieve improved Best Available Technologies (BAT) at affordable cost. Additionally, the
priority objectives of the Energy Framework Programme are to be taken into account,
which aim at a balanced pursuit of energy policies, namely: security of supply, competitive-
ness and protection of environment.
CARNOT’s objective is the environmentally sound use of solid fuels, from washery plants
for upgrading coal, to handling, storage and transport facilities, burning and/or conversion
plants, including waste disposal;
The term "solid fuels" covers hard coal, lignite, peat, orimulsion, oil shale and the heavy frac-
tion of petroleum products. When mixed with solid fuels, biomass and refuse-derived fuel can
also be considered.
8. Policy options and recommendations
8.1 Overcoming barriers of implementation of CCT
When a technology becomes economically competitive it may not penetrate its market due to
the effects of a range of commercial and institutional factors. Since these factors delay mar-
ket penetration they are commonly referred to as market barriers. The barriers which are
considered most relevant to the heat and power sector technologies are:
Information - Availability of sufficient reliable information to inform decision makers on tech-
Risk - Actual or perceived risk associated with the technology its deployment which may
Environment - Actual or perceived environmental impacts of a technology which may restrict
its deployment; this would included existing and planned regulations.
Financial- Access to finance to support the deployment of the technology.
Market Character - Some aspects of market operation may bar the deployment of a tech-
Regulation - Regulations which restrict or prevent the deployment of a technology
Infra Structure - The lack of appropriate infra-structure may bar or restrict the deployment of
Most of the technologies discussed in this module will be affected by more than barrier at the
present time. The main combined effect of these barriers is to penalise the less developed
technologies and to impede their introduction into service. In general terms, pulverised fuel
technologies, which are well proven and which are being developed in a progressive manner,
face much lower levels of impedance than pressurised pulverised fuel technology, pressur-
ised fluidised bed technology and fuel cells, all of which are commercially unproven.
8.2 Policy options
Based on the experience from the EESD initiative within the 5th framework programme, the
results of the ENERGIE programme and in light of the important role of clean coal technolo-
gies CCT for security of supply and environmental protection:
• A strong incentive for such EP own-initiative on CCT for power plants is given by the fact
that synergies will be created between a technology offensive in clean coal power plant
technologies, climate policies, and RTD activities aiming at CO2 capture and sequestra-
• Furthermore, the concept of an EP own-initiative on CCT power plant technologies is
driven by the fact that CCT power plants are complex high-tech products, which integrate
diverse engineering disciplines and a broad spectrum of components supplied by main-
and subcontractors (mainly SME).
• An additional driving force towards the intended EP own-initiative is the fact that securing
and increasing the competitiveness of European power plant industries requires continu-
ous improvement of their engineering, innovativeness, and efficiency.
Against this background, the EP own-initiative shall aim to promote the refinement of refine-
ment of CO2 reduced power plants on CCT base in order to
fill the expected gap the security of power supply,
hold the competitive advantage of engineering expertise that is established within
Europe and, thus
strengthen the potential for industry-backed RTD.
8.3 Overall evaluation of findings from Tasks 1 to 5 and drawing of con-
To be completed later
It is important for operators to act in a partnership with manufacturers and politicians for get-
ting the optimum between those requirements and competing targets. For instance an over-
valuation of the environmental compatibility to the disadvantage of competitive capital costs
would have the consequence, that no new power plant will be built. Therefore the progress in
environmental compatibility must be affordable. Nobody will invest in new power plants, if
they are not able to earn money with them.
The power production industry wants to erect power plants with the highest obtainable effi-
ciency. Except for our economic interest a new conventional power plant is measured by the
general public against this efficiency. So there is a need for high tech power plants.
But all mentioned measures for enhancing the efficiency are linked with high capital expen-
diture. As I mentioned before the efficiency and the environmental compatibility are only two
items in the total focus of power generators. All technical improvements will only have a
chance for successful implementation, if they pass the economic criteria. Therefore the in-
crease of efficiency must be linked with a decrease in capital costs.
It is a serious problem that the power production industry is suffering from. Though nobody
wants to use the technology and take all risks alone. The consequences might be that
Europe will in the long-term loose the leading competence in modern power plants. Research
and development will migrate.
• After the year 2010 there will be a huge demand of new power plant capacity in Europe.
• The main requirement of the power plant operators is:
• Profitability and high competitiveness. This target must be compatible with the environ-
ment. Furthermore the power plants must be acceptable and flexible in operation.
• By today’s view new and highly efficient coal fired power plants meet these requirements
best. They offer the greatest potential for closing the forecast shortage of energy supply.
• The development of power plant technology should be done in a consortium of
manufacturers, operators and research institutes. Due to the technical and economic
risks public subsidies are necessary.
A preventive climate protection and sustainable rationing of scare resources will be obtained
by innovative and competitive power plants.
To be completed later
10.1 ANNEX 1: Summary of demonstration projects of CCT in EU and non-
10.2 Annex 2: Technology matrix comparing available and future
technologies with regard to their major design criteria
10.3 Annex 3: Detailed directory of key actors involved in the development
and implementation of CCT is presented