This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-675
entitled 'Coal Power Plants: Opportunities Exist for DOE to Provide
Better Information on the Maturity of Key Technologies to Reduce
Carbon Dioxide Emissions' which was released on July 16, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2010:
Coal Power Plants:
Opportunities Exist for DOE to Provide Better Information on the
Maturity of Key Technologies to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions:
GAO-10-675:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-675, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Coal power plants generate about half of the United States’
electricity and are expected to remain a key energy source. Coal power
plants also account for about one-third of the nation’s emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas that experts believe
contributes to climate change. Current regulatory efforts and proposed
legislation that seek to reduce CO2 emissions could affect coal power
plants. Two key technologies show potential for reducing CO2
emissions: (1) carbon capture and storage (CCS), which involves
capturing and storing CO2 in geologic formations, and (2) plant
efficiency improvements that allow plants to use less coal.
The Department of Energy (DOE) plays a key role in accelerating the
commercial availability of these technologies and devoted more than
$600 million to them in fiscal year 2009. Congress asked GAO to
examine (1) the maturity of these technologies; (2) their potential
for commercial use, and any challenges to their use; and (3) possible
implications of deploying these technologies. To conduct this work,
GAO reviewed reports and interviewed stakeholders with expertise in
coal technologies.
What GAO Found:
DOE does not systematically assess the maturity of key coal
technologies, but GAO found consensus among stakeholders that CCS is
less mature than efficiency technologies. Specifically, DOE does not
use a standard set of benchmarks or terms to describe the maturity of
technologies, limiting its ability to provide key information to
Congress, utilities, and other stakeholders. This lack of information
limits congressional oversight of DOE’s expenditures on these efforts,
and it hampers policymakers’ efforts to gauge the maturity of these
technologies as they consider climate change policies. In the absence
of this information from DOE, GAO interviewed stakeholders with
expertise in CCS or efficiency technologies to identify their views on
the maturity of these technologies. Stakeholders told GAO that while
components of CCS have been used commercially in other industries,
their application remains at a small scale in coal power plants, with
only one fully integrated CCS project operating at a coal plant.
Efficiency technologies, on the other hand, are in wider commercial
use.
Commercial deployment of CCS is possible within 10 to 15 years while
many efficiency technologies have been used and are available for use
now. Use of both technologies is, however, contingent on overcoming a
variety of economic, technical, and legal challenges. In particular,
with respect to CCS, stakeholders highlighted the large costs to
install and operate current CCS technologies, the fact that large
scale demonstration of CCS is needed in coal plants, and the lack of a
national carbon policy to reduce CO2 emissions or a legal framework to
govern liability for the permanent storage of large amounts of CO2.
With respect to efficiency improvements, stakeholders highlighted the
high cost to build or upgrade such coal plants, the fact that some
upgrades require highly technical materials, and plant operators’
concerns that changes to the existing fleet of coal power plants could
trigger additional regulatory requirements.
CCS technologies offer more potential to reduce CO2 emissions than
efficiency improvements alone, and both could raise electricity costs
and have other effects. According to reports and stakeholders, the
successful deployment of CCS technologies is critical to meeting the
ambitious emissions reductions that are currently being considered in
the United States while retaining coal as a fuel source. Most
stakeholders told GAO that CCS would increase electricity costs, and
some reports estimate that current CCS technologies would increase
electricity costs by about 30 to 80 percent at plants using these
technologies. DOE has also reported that CCS could increase water
consumption at power plants. Efficiency improvements offer more
potential for near term reductions in CO2 emissions, but they cannot
reduce CO2 emissions from a coal plant to the same extent as CCS.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOE develop a standard set of benchmarks to gauge
and report to Congress on the maturity of key technologies. In
commenting on a draft of this report, DOE concurred with our
recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-675] or key
components. For more information, contact Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-
3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Although DOE Does Not Systematically Assess the Maturity of Key Coal
Technologies, Consensus among Stakeholders Is That CCS Is Less Mature
Than Efficiency Technologies:
Commercial Deployment of Key Coal Technologies Is Possible, but
Contingent on Overcoming Economic, Technical, and Legal Challenges:
CCS Offers More Potential to Reduce CO2 Emissions than Efficiency
Improvements Alone; Both Could Have Cost and Other Effects:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides to Congressional Staff:
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Energy:
GAO Comments:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: NASA's Technology Readiness Levels:
Table 2: Scale Used to Gauge the Maturity of Coal Technologies:
Abbreviations:
ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
CCPI: Clean Coal Power Initiative:
CCS: carbon capture and storage:
CO: carbon monoxide:
CO2: carbon dioxide:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
EIA: Energy Information Administration:
EOR: enhanced oil recovery:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
EPRI: Electric Power Research Institute:
GHG: greenhouse gas:
IEA: International Energy Agency:
IGCC: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle:
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
MW: megawatt:
NAS: National Academy of Sciences:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NERC: North American Electric Reliability Corporation:
NSR: New Source Review:
RD&D: research, development, and demonstration:
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act:
TRL: Technology Readiness Level:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 16, 2010:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
United States Senate:
Coal power plants generate about half of the United States'
electricity and are expected to continue supplying a large portion of
the nation's electricity in the future. According to the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA),[Footnote 1]
coal will provide 44 percent of the electricity in 2035 in the United
States. The critical role that coal plays in supplying electricity is
due in part to the large coal reserves in the United States, which
some estimate will last about 240 years at current consumption levels,
and the relatively low cost of this energy supply. However, coal power
plants also currently account for about one-third of the nation's
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
Concerns over rising greenhouse gas emissions and their potential
effects on the climate have led some countries to adopt or consider
adopting policies to reduce these emissions. In the United States and
elsewhere, these concerns have also increased focus on developing and
using technologies to limit CO2 emissions from coal power plants while
allowing coal to remain a viable source of energy.
Two key technologies show potential for reducing CO2 emissions from
coal plants: carbon capture and storage (CCS) and efficiency
technologies. CCS technologies separate and capture CO2 from other
gases produced when combusting or gasifying coal, compress it, then
transport it to underground geologic formations such as saline
aquifers--porous rock filled with brine--where it is injected for long-
term storage. There are three approaches to capturing CO2--post-
combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-combustion. Post-combustion
capture involves capturing CO2 from the exhaust stream created when
coal is burned at pulverized coal plants, which make up nearly all
coal plants operating in the United States. Pre-combustion capture
involves capturing CO2 produced when gasifying coal at Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants, which are in limited use in
the electricity industry. Oxy-combustion capture involves capturing
CO2 from the exhaust stream created when coal is burned in an oxygen-
enriched environment at pulverized coal plants.
Efficiency technologies include more efficient designs for new coal
power plants--such as IGCC plants, as well as ultrasupercritical
plants--that operate at higher steam temperatures and pressures than
conventional plants.[Footnote 2] Efficiency upgrades can also be made
in existing coal plants, such as overhauling or replacing turbine fan
blades. Improving the efficiency of coal plants allows them to use
less coal per unit of electricity produced and achieve a corresponding
reduction in CO2 emissions. CCS technologies and efficiency
technologies can be used independently or in conjunction with one
another.
In the United States, regulatory efforts and proposed legislation that
seek to reduce CO2 emissions could affect coal power plants. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and plans to begin
regulating emissions from certain stationary sources, including coal
power plants, beginning in 2011. As part of this effort, EPA is
compiling technical and background information on potential control
technologies and measures, such as CCS, and developing policy guidance
to assist permitting agencies in determining the best available
control technology for greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the
American Clean Energy and Security Act passed the House of
Representatives on June 26, 2009, and would require an 83 percent
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2050.
[Footnote 3] Among other things, this proposed legislation would
create a cap and trade program, a market-based mechanism to establish
a price for emissions of greenhouse gases, and require additional
specific actions to reduce these emissions. For example, section 116
of the bill would require new coal power plants permitted before 2020
to reduce their CO2 emissions by half, 4 years after certain CCS
deployment criteria are met or by 2025, whichever comes first.
[Footnote 4]
DOE plays a key role in accelerating the commercial availability of
technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from coal power plants.
Specifically, DOE's Office of Fossil Energy oversees research on these
technologies through its coal research, development, and demonstration
(RD&D) program. This program carries out three primary activities: (1)
managing and performing energy-related research that reduce barriers
to the environmentally sound use of fossil fuels, (2) partnering with
industry to advance technologies toward commercialization, and (3)
supporting the development of information and policy options that
benefit the public. Such information could help EPA in its review of
available technologies to reduce CO2 from coal plants along with other
policymakers that are considering climate change policies. In the near
term, according to DOE's fiscal year 2011 budget submission, DOE hopes
to facilitate the development of CCS and efficiency technologies, with
longer term goals of improving these technologies so that coal can
remain part of the nation's fuel mix in generating electricity. In
fiscal year 2009, DOE's coal RD&D funding was at least $681 million,
and $3.4 billion was appropriated in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for fossil energy RD&D.[Footnote 5]
In this context, you asked us to review key technologies to reduce CO2
emissions from coal power plants. Specifically, we examined (1) the
maturity of technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from coal power
plants; (2) the potential for these technologies to be used
commercially in the future, and challenges, if any, to their use; and
(3) the possible implications of deploying these technologies. We
briefed your staffs on the results of our work on June 1, 2010 (see
app. I). This report summarizes and formally transmits the information
provided during that briefing. It incorporates technical and other
comments provided by agencies since the briefing.
To conduct this work, we reviewed key reports including those from
DOE's national laboratories, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
International Energy Agency (IEA), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), Global CCS Institute, the National Coal Council, and
academic reports. We conducted interviews with stakeholders such as
power plant operators, technology vendors, and federal officials from
EPA and DOE along with officials from the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC). We then selected a group of 19
stakeholders with expertise in CCS or efficiency technologies to
answer a standard set of questions. This group included those from
major utilities that are planning or implementing projects using key
coal technologies, technology vendors that are developing these
technologies, federal officials providing RD&D funding for these
technologies, and researchers from academia and industry that are
researching these technologies. We asked these stakeholders to
describe the maturity of these technologies using a nine point scale
we developed in conjunction with the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) based on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
(NASA) Technology Readiness Levels (TRL).[Footnote 6] TRLs are a tool
that is used by NASA and other agencies to rate the extent to which
technologies have been demonstrated to work as intended. We also
reviewed available data on the use of key coal technologies compiled
by IEA and the Global CCS Institute.
To identify the potential for these technologies to be used
commercially in the future along with any associated challenges or
implications, we reviewed key reports on CCS and efficiency
technologies and examined goals set out by DOE, IEA, and electricity
industry groups for deploying these technologies. We also asked our 19
stakeholders with expertise in CCS or efficiency technologies for
their views on the potential challenges and implications of using
these technologies. Finally, we visited coal power plants and research
facilities in three states--Alabama, Maryland, and West Virginia--that
we selected because they contained projects involving advanced coal
technologies. Importantly, our discussion focuses on the technological
maturity of these technologies. TRLs describe the level of
demonstration achieved for particular technologies, but they do not
provide information on other factors that play a critical role in
decisions to deploy them, such as their cost, availability of
financing, and applicable regulations. Technological improvements
could help these technologies overcome some challenges or potential
negative implications. For example, novel approaches to CO2 capture
could help to lower the cost of using these technologies.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 through May 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more
detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
appendix II.
Although DOE Does Not Systematically Assess the Maturity of Key Coal
Technologies, Consensus among Stakeholders Is That CCS Is Less Mature
Than Efficiency Technologies:
DOE's Office of Fossil Energy oversees research on key coal
technologies, but DOE does not systematically assess the maturity of
those technologies. Using TRLs we developed for these technologies, we
found consensus among stakeholders that CCS is less mature than
efficiency technologies.
DOE Does Not Systematically Assess the Maturity of Key Coal
Technologies:
Although federal standards for internal control require agency
managers to compare actual program performance to planned or expected
results and analyze significant differences,[Footnote 7] we found that
DOE's Office of Fossil Energy does not systematically assess the
maturity of key coal technologies as they progress toward
commercialization. While DOE officials reported that individual
programs are aware of the maturity of technologies and DOE publishes
reports that assess the technical and economic feasibility of advanced
coal technologies, we found that the Office of Fossil Energy does not
use a standard set of benchmarks or terms to describe or report on the
maturity of technologies. In addition, DOE's goals for advancing these
technologies sometimes use terms that are not well defined. The lack
of such benchmarks or an assessment of the maturity of key coal
technologies and whether they are achieving planned or desired results
limits:
* DOE's ability to provide a clear picture of the maturity of these
technologies to policymakers, utilities officials, and others;
* congressional and other oversight of the hundreds of millions of
dollars DOE is spending on these technologies; and:
* policymakers' ability to assess the maturity of CCS and the
resources that might be needed to achieve commercial deployment.
Other agencies similarly charged with developing technologies, such as
NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD), use TRLs to characterize the
maturity of technologies.[Footnote 8] Table 1 shows a description of
TRLs used by NASA.
Table 1: NASA's Technology Readiness Levels:
TRL: 9;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Actual system "flight
proven" through successful mission operations under operational
mission conditions.
TRL: 8;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Actual system completed and
"flight qualified" through test and demonstration. Examples include
test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapons system to
see if it meets design specifications.
TRL: 7;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: System prototype
demonstration in realistic environment. Requires demonstration of
actual system prototype in a realistic environment, such as an
aircraft vehicle or space.
TRL: 6;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: System/subsystem model or
prototype demonstration in a relevant environment.
TRL: 5;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Component and/or breadboard
validation in a relevant environment, which could be lab or simulated
realistic environment.
TRL: 4;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Component and/or breadboard
validation in lab environment.
TRL: 3;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Proof of concept test in lab
environment.
TRL: 2;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Technology concept and/or
application formulated.
TRL: 1;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Basic principles observed
and reported.
Source: GAO analysis of NASA data.
[End of table]
DOE has acknowledged that TRLs can play a key role in assessing the
maturity of technologies during the contracting process. The agency
recently issued a Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, which lays
out three key steps to conducting technology readiness assessments
during the contracting process.[Footnote 9]
* Identify critical technology elements that are essential to the
successful operation of the facility.
* Assess maturity of these critical technologies using TRLs.
* Develop a technology maturity plan which identifies activities
required to bring technology to desired TRL level.
Although use of the Guide is not mandatory, DOE's Office of
Environmental Management uses the Guide as part of managing its
procurement activities--a result of a GAO recommendation--and its
Office of Nuclear Energy has begun using TRLs to measure and
communicate risks associated with using critical technologies in a
novel way.[Footnote 10] Furthermore, the National Nuclear Security
Administration has used TRLs recently as well.
Consensus among Key Stakeholders Is That CCS Is Less Mature than
Efficiency Technologies:
In the absence of an assessment from DOE, we asked stakeholders to
gauge the maturity of coal technologies using a scale we developed
based on TRLs. Table 2 shows the TRLs we developed for coal
technologies by adapting the NASA TRLs.
Table 2: Scale Used to Gauge the Maturity of Coal Technologies:
TRL: 9;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Commercial
operation in relevant environment (500 megawatt [MW] coal plant or
greater, or about 3 million tons of CO2 captured, transported, or
stored annually).
TRL: 8;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Demonstration
at more than 5 percent commercial scale (at least 125 MW coal plant,
or about 575,000 tons of CO2 captured, transported, or stored
annually).
TRL: 7;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Pilot plant at
more than about 5 percent commercial scale (at least 20 MW coal plant,
or 100,000 tons of CO2 captured, transported, or stored annually).
TRL: 6;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Process
development unit at between about 0.1 percent to 5 percent of
commercial scale (between 0.5 MW and 20 MW coal plant, or between
about 3,000 and 100,000 tons of CO2 captured, transported, or stored
annually).
TRL: 5;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Component
validation in relevant environment (coal plant).
TRL: 4;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Component
tests in lab.
TRL: 3;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Proof of
concept test.
TRL: 2;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Application
formulated (on paper).
TRL: 1;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Basic
principles observed.
[End of table]
Source: GAO framework analysis based on adaptation of TRLs to coal
power plants and conversations with EPRI officials.
Note: We described commercial scale coal plant as 500 MW that emits 3
million tons of CO2 annually. This is the size of a plant that has
been used as a reference plant in engineering studies. Actual
emissions from a coal plant can vary based on a variety of factors,
including how often a plant operates.
Using the scale we developed for coal technologies, the consensus
among key stakeholders we spoke with is that CCS is less mature than
efficiency technologies. While all of the components of CCS--CO2
capture, transportation, and storage--have been used commercially in
other industries, such as natural gas processing and oil production,
stakeholders generally reported that the application of these
technologies remains at small scale in coal plants. Using TRLs,
stakeholders generally reported that the largest demonstration of
carbon capture in a coal plant was at a pilot scale (TRL 7) or less.
Moreover, stakeholders identified only one integrated CCS system in a
coal power plant--the Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia--which aims
to capture and store more than 100,000 tons of CO2.[Footnote 11] This
project captures CO2 from a portion of the plant's exhaust--20 MW or
about 4 percent the size of a typical 500 MW coal plant. DOE has
announced funding for several integrated CCS projects in coal plants
at larger scales--60 to 450 MW. In contrast to CCS, stakeholders
generally told us that technologies that improve the efficiency of new
or existing plants have already been demonstrated commercially. For
example, a number of ultrasupercritical plants ranging from 600 to
more than 1,000 MW have been built or are under construction in Europe
and Asia, and there are five IGCC plants in operation around the
world, including two in the United States.[Footnote 12]
Commercial Deployment of Key Coal Technologies Is Possible, but
Contingent on Overcoming Economic, Technical, and Legal Challenges:
Commercial deployment of CCS within 10 to 15 years is possible
according to DOE and other stakeholders, but is contingent on
overcoming a variety of economic, technical, and legal challenges.
[Footnote 13] Many technologies to improve plant efficiency have been
used and are available for commercial use now, but still face
challenges.
Commercial Deployment of CCS Is Possible within 10 to 15 Years, but
Faces Major Challenges According to Reports and Stakeholders:
While DOE, electric industry groups, and other stakeholders have set
goals to commercially deploy CCS in coal plants in the next 10 to 15
years, they acknowledge that these goals present significant
challenges. In particular, they have highlighted the large costs to
install and operate current CCS technologies. In 2007, DOE estimated
the cost to install current CCS technologies was 85 percent higher for
plants with post-combustion capture and was 36 percent higher for pre-
combustion capture at IGCC plants, compared to comparable plants
without CCS.[Footnote 14] In addition, the large amount of energy that
current CCS technologies require to operate--known as parasitic load--
reduces the electricity plants can sell and raises operating costs.
Parasitic load is estimated to be between 21 percent and 32 percent of
plant output for post-combustion CO2 capture and between 15 percent
and 22 percent for pre-combustion CO2 capture. To help reduce
parasitic load of current technologies, DOE is supporting research on
more advanced capture processes, including post-combustion work on
membranes to capture CO2 that may lower the cost of the current method
of using chemical solvents.
In addition, key studies report that demonstration of large scale
integrated CCS systems is a technical challenge and is needed to
demonstrate the performance and potential costs of these systems. Some
stakeholders also reported that additional demonstration was needed to
lower perceived risk of technologies. For example, officials from one
large utility told us that demonstration projects were needed to build
experience with the technologies and to build vendor confidence so
that they could provide technology performance guarantees. Similarly,
officials from one state public utility commission reported that they
considered CCS immature and were unlikely to approve cost recovery for
such a project in the foreseeable future. Officials from two financial
firms reported that they considered the application of CCS
technologies at coal plants largely unproven and they would require
additional demonstration projects or technology cost and performance
guarantees from vendors or utilities to reduce the risk of financing
these types of projects.
Moreover, without a national carbon policy to reduce CO2 emissions
nearly all stakeholders said CCS would not be widely deployed. Without
a tax or a sufficiently restrictive limit on CO2 emissions, plant
operators lack an economic incentive to use CCS technologies. Reports
by IPCC, NAS, and the Global CCS Institute have all highlighted the
importance of a carbon policy to incentivize the use of CCS. In
addition, nearly all stakeholders cited as challenges the lack of a
regulatory framework to govern the permanent storage of large amounts
of CO2 in saline formations and legal uncertainty regarding long-term
liability for the storage of CO2. In 2008, EPA proposed a rule for
injection of CO2 for geologic sequestration under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA).[Footnote 15] EPA has stated that it lacks authority
to release CO2 injection well operators from liability for
endangerment of underground sources of drinking water until the
operator meets all the closure and post-closure requirements and EPA
approves site closure of the well. According to EPA, once site closure
is approved, well operators will only be liable under the SDWA if they
violate or fail to comply with EPA orders in situations where an
imminent and substantial endangerment to health is posed by a
contaminant that is in or likely to enter an underground source of
drinking water.[Footnote 16] EPA plans to finalize the geologic
sequestration rule in fall 2010. Neither the proposed rule nor the
final rule will address liability for unintended releases of stored
CO2 that have other harmful effects. However, potential storage site
operators are unlikely to assume these risks.
Many Efficiency Technologies Have Been Used and Are Ready for
Commercial Use Now, but Also Face Challenges.
Several stakeholders told us that building ultrasupercritical or IGCC
plants may not be cost-effective for power plant owners in the United
States because low coal prices limit the incentive to build highly
efficient, but more costly, plants. Ultrasupercritical plants have
higher capital costs because they use advanced materials, which may
not justify expected fuel savings. To date, all of the more efficient
ultrasupercritical plants have been built outside the United States,
where coal prices are generally higher. Similarly, IGCC plants are
more expensive than traditional pulverized coal units. According to
some stakeholders, if low natural gas prices persist, utilities may
choose to build natural gas power plants to reduce CO2 emissions in
lieu of more efficient coal plants.
In addition, some higher efficiency plant designs also face technical
challenges in that they require more advanced materials than are
currently available. For example, "advanced" ultrasupercritical plants
require development of metal alloys to withstand steam temperatures
that could be 300 to 500 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today's
ultrasupercritical plants according to DOE.[Footnote 17] From a legal
perspective, most stakeholders reported that making efficiency
upgrades to the existing fleet of coal power plants was limited by the
prospect of triggering the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR)
requirements--additional requirements that may apply when a plant
makes a major modification, a physical or operational change that
would result in a significant net increase in emissions.
CCS Offers More Potential to Reduce CO2 Emissions than Efficiency
Improvements Alone; Both Could Have Cost and Other Effects:
CCS technologies offer more potential to reduce CO2 emissions than
efficiency improvements alone but could raise electricity costs,
increase demand for water, and could affect the ability of individual
plants to operate reliably. Technologies to improve plant efficiency
offer potential near-term reductions, but also raise some concerns.
CCS Could Help Meet Emissions Limits but Raises Key Concerns:
According to key reports and stakeholders, the successful deployment
of CCS technologies is critical to helping the United States meet
potential limits in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, CCS could
allow coal to remain part of the nation's diverse fuel mix. IEA
estimated that CCS technologies could meet 20 percent of reductions
needed to reduce global CO2 emissions by half by 2050.[Footnote 18]
This report also noted that the cost of meeting this goal would
increase if CCS was not deployed. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) researchers called CCS the "critical enabling
technology" to reduce CO2 emissions while allowing continued use of
coal in the future.[Footnote 19] In 2009, NAS reported that if CCS
technologies are not demonstrated commercially in the next decade, the
electricity sector could move more towards using natural gas to meet
emissions targets.[Footnote 20] Our past work has also found that
switching from coal to natural gas can lead to higher fuel costs and
increased exposure to the greater price volatility of natural gas.
[Footnote 21]
On the other hand, most stakeholders told us that CCS would increase
electricity prices, and key reports raise similar concerns. MIT
estimated that plants with post-combustion capture have 61 percent
higher cost of electricity, and IGCC plants with pre-combustion
capture have a 27 percent higher cost compared to plants without these
technologies.[Footnote 22] Similarly, DOE estimated that plants with
post-combustion capture have 83 percent higher cost of electricity,
while IGCC plants with pre-combustion capture having a 36 percent
higher cost.[Footnote 23] DOE has also raised concerns about CCS and
water consumption. Specifically, DOE estimated that post-combustion
capture technology could almost double water consumption at a coal
plant, while pre-combustion capture would increase water use by 73
percent.[Footnote 24] Some utility officials also said CCS could lead
to a decline in the ability of individual plants to operate reliably
because a power plant might need to shut down if any of the three
components (capture, transport, and storage) of CCS became
unavailable. In addition, more electricity sources would need to make
up for the higher parasitic load associated with CCS. The National
Coal Council has also reported temporary declines in reliability
during past deployments of new coal technologies.[Footnote 25]
Plant Efficiency Improvements Offer More Potential for Near-Term
Emissions Reductions but Also Raise Concerns:
Because they have been used commercially already, technologies that
improve plant efficiency offer the potential for near term reductions
in CO2 emissions. For example, DOE has estimated that efficiency
improvements to the existing coal fleet could reduce CO2 emissions by
100 million tons annually, or about a 5 to 10 percent reduction in
overall emissions from these plants. According to the National Coal
Council, increasing efficiency is the "only practical method for
mitigating CO2 emissions now" in coal plants.[Footnote 26]
However, there are limits in the amount of CO2 reductions that
efficiency technologies can achieve. An ultrasupercritical plant emits
about one-third less CO2 than an average plant in the United States.
By comparison, CCS offers the potential to capture 90 percent of a
plant's CO2 emissions. DOE officials and other stakeholders told us
that plant efficiency improvements alone cannot reduce the CO2
emissions from a coal plant to the same extent as CCS. However, plant
efficiency improvements can help to facilitate CCS because they reduce
the amount of CO2 that must be handled by the system. Finally,
stakeholders' views were mixed on the potential effect of efficiency
technologies on electricity costs, but they generally did not think
efficiency technologies would increase water demand or compromise
reliability.
Conclusions:
Addressing climate change while retaining the use of coal to generate
electricity will likely require the successful deployment of CCS and
efficiency technologies in coal power plants. CCS, in particular,
remains relatively immature compared to efficiency technologies, but
offers the potential to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants to a
greater extent. The current regulatory and legislative efforts to
reduce CO2 emissions at coal power plants include consideration of the
commercial availability of CCS. DOE plays a key role both in its
efforts to advance CCS and efficiency technologies toward
commercialization and in giving policymakers an accurate view of their
maturity. However, because the agency does not systematically assess
their development, DOE is unable to provide a clear picture of the
maturity of these technologies or the necessary resources that might
be required to move these technologies toward commercial
demonstration. This lack of information limits congressional oversight
of the hundreds of millions of dollars DOE is currently spending
annually on efforts to advance coal technologies, and it hampers
policymakers' efforts to gauge the maturity of these technologies as
they consider climate change policies.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To improve decision making and oversight for coal research efforts,
including how technological maturity is measured and reported, we are
making one recommendation to the Secretary of Energy. We recommend
that the Secretary of Energy direct the Office of Fossil Energy to
develop a standard set of benchmarks to gauge the maturity of key
technologies and report to Congress on the maturity of these
technologies. As part of this process, the Office of Fossil Energy
should consider consulting DOE's Technology Readiness Assessment Guide
to develop benchmarks and reporting requirements.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of our report to the Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator of EPA for review and comment. In addition, we provided
selected slides on reliability of electricity supply to NERC for
comment. We received written comments from DOE's Assistant Secretary
of the Office of Fossil Energy, which are reproduced in appendix III.
The Assistant Secretary concurred with our recommendation, stating
that DOE could improve its process for providing a clearer picture of
technology maturity and that it planned to conduct a formal TRL
assessment of coal technologies in the near future. The Assistant
Secretary also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated
as appropriate. In addition, EPA and NERC provided technical comments,
which we have incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate congressional committees, Secretary of Energy,
Administrator of EPA, and other interested parties. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Mark Gaffigan:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing Slides to Congressional Staff:
Technologies to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal Power Plants:
Briefing to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
June 1, 2010:
Introduction:
Coal Plays Key Role in U.S. Electricity Sector but Emits Large Amount
of Carbon Dioxide (CO2):
Coal power plants:
* provide about half of U.S. electricity (see figure 1);
* provide over 90% of electricity generated in some states;
* account for about one-third of all U.S. emissions of CO2.
CO2 is the most prevalent greenhouse gas (GHG):
* Concerns over rising GHG emissions and their potential effects on
climate have led some countries to adopt or consider adopting policies
to reduce these emissions.
Figure 1: U.S. Power Generation by Fuel Type, 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Coal: 48.2%;
Natural gas: 21.4%;
Nuclear: 19.6%;
Hydroelectric Conventional: 6.0%;
Other renewables: 3.1%;
Other: 1.7%.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form
EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report" January 21, 2010.
[End of figure]
Two Key Technologies Show Potential for Reducing CO2 Emissions from
Coal Plants:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of two key technologies for
reducing CO2 emissions from coal plants:
* CO2 is captured in one of three ways (see figures 2, 3, and 4):
- Post-combustion;
- Pre-combustion;
- Oxy-combustion.
* Captured CO2 is compressed and transported via pipelines to
underground geologic formations, where it is injected for long term
storage, also known as sequestration.
Integrated CCS projects involve all of these components: CO2 capture,
compression, transportation, and storage.
Figure 2: Post-combustion Capture:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The following are depicted on the illustration:
Post-combustion:
Coal; Air: into:
Boiler: Combustion.
Steam turbine: Electricity.
Flue gas (mostly nitrogen and oxygen):
CO2 capture: Nitrogen released.
CO2:
CO2 clean-up and compression.
Source: GAO analysis of IPCC and DOE data.
[End of figure]
Post-combustion captures CO2 produced when burning coal in air:
* Compatible with traditional pulverized coal plants, which make up
nearly all coal plants currently operating worldwide.
Figure 3: Pre-combustion Capture:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The following are depicted on the illustration:
Pre-combustion:
Coal:
Air: Air separation (Nitrogen released):
Oxygen and Coal: Gasification:
Syngas:
CO2 capture:
H2: Combustion turbine: produces Electricity
CO2: CO2 clean-up and compression.
Source: GAO analysis or IPCC and DOE data.
[End of figure]
Pre-combustion captures CO2 produced when gasifying coal:
* Compatible with Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
plants, which are in limited use in electricity industry;
* The gasification process transforms coal into a syngas, a mixture of
hydrogen and carbon monoxide (CO). The CO is then converted into CO2
and captured.
Figure 4: Oxy-combustion Capture:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The following are depicted on the illustration:
Coal:
Air: Air separation (Nitrogen released):
Boiler: Combustion;
Steam turbine: produces Electricity;
Flue gas (mostly CO2): CO2 recycle to Boiler;
CO2 clean-up and compression.
Source: GAO analysis of IPCC and DOE data.
[End of figure]
Oxy-combustion captures CO2 produced when burning coal in oxygen-rich
environment:
* Compatible with traditional pulverized coal plants, which make up
nearly all coal plants currently operating worldwide
The other key technology for reducing CO2 emissions improves the
efficiency of coal plants (efficiency technologies) by allowing plants
to use less coal and therefore reduce their CO2 emissions
* Existing plants:
- Are about 32.5% efficient on average in the U.S. according to a
recent Department of Energy (DOE) analysis[Footnote 1];
- Can be upgraded to improve efficiencies by a few percentage points.
* New plants:
- Can use more efficient designs, such as ultrasupercritical[Footnote
2]—which operate at higher temperatures and greater steam pressures
than conventional plants—and IGCC plants;
- Can achieve efficiencies of 40-44%.
CCS and efficiency technologies can be used independently, or in
conjunction with one another
Regulatory Efforts and Proposed Legislation Seek to Reduce CO2
Emissions in U.S.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking steps to regulate
CO2 and other GHGs under the Clean Air Act including:
* developing policy guidance to assist permitting agencies in making
best available control technology determinations for GHGs that
consider the commercial availability of CCS.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, passed the
House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. Among other things, the
proposed legislation would:
* establish a GHG cap and trade program;
* require new coal power plants permitted before 2020 to reduce CO2
emissions by half, 4 years after specified CCS deployment criteria are
met or 2025, whichever comes first[Footnote 3].
Federal Investments in Coal Research, Development, and Demonstration
(RD&D) Aim to Reduce CO2 Emissions:
DOE's Office of Fossil Energy oversees coal RD&D:
* conducts research to accelerate the availability of key coal
technologies;
* partners with industry and others to move research toward
commercialization.
In FY09, DOE's coal RD&D funding was at least $681 million.
In addition, $3.4 billion was appropriated in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act for fossil energy RD&D.
Table: Information on Selected DOE Coal Programs:
Fossil Energy coal programs: Innovations for Existing Plants:
Technology focus: Develop cost-effective post-combustion and oxy-
combustion capture technologies.
Fossil Energy coal programs: Advanced IGCC;
Technology focus: Develop more efficient IGCC plants and integrate
these with pre-combustion capture technologies.
Fossil Energy coal programs: Carbon Sequestration;
Technology focus: Demonstrate storage of CO2 in geologic
formations.[A] Develop improved capture technologies.
Fossil Energy coal programs: Advanced Research;
Technology focus: Develop technologies to improve plant efficiency,
including development of metals for advanced ultrasupercritical plants.
Fossil Energy coal programs: Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI);
Technology focus: Provide money for commercial demonstration of coal
technologies, including CCS.
Source: GAO summary of DOE documents.
[A] Geologic formations being examined include saline aquifers, which
are composed of porous rock, filled with brine.
[End of table]
[End of Introduction section]
Objectives:
In this context, you asked us to review key technologies to reduce CO2
emissions from coal power plants.
Our objectives were to examine:
* the maturity of technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from coal power
plants;
* the potential for these technologies to be used commercially in the
future and challenges, if any, to their use;
* the possible implications of deploying these technologies.
[End of Objections section]
Scope and Methodology:
Reviewed key reports from:
* DOE's national laboratories;
* National Academy of Science (NAS);
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
* International Energy Agency (IEA);
* Global CCS Institute;
* National Coal Council;
* Academic reports.
Conducted scoping interviews with many stakeholders, such as power
plant operators, technology vendors, and federal officials.
From these scoping interviews, we selected 19 key stakeholders with
expertise in coal technologies and asked them a standard set of
questions. This group of stakeholders included those from:
* Major electric utilities that are planning or implementing projects
using key coal technologies;
* Technology vendors that are developing these technologies;
* Federal officials providing RD&D funding for these technologies;
* Researchers from academia and industry that are researching these
technologies.
Reviewed DOE budget documents and program goals for its RD&D program
and interviewed senior DOE staff on these.
Visited coal power plants and research facilities in three selected
states—AL, MD, and WV[Footnote 4].
We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 through May 2010,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of Scope and Methodology section]
Results in Brief:
DOE does not systematically assess the maturity of key coal
technologies, but we found consensus among stakeholders that CCS is
less mature than efficiency technologies.
Commercial deployment of these technologies is contingent on
overcoming economic, technical, and legal challenges.
CCS technologies offer more potential to reduce CO2 emissions than
efficiency improvements alone, and both could have cost and other
effects.
Objective 1: Maturity of Key Technologies: DOE Does Not Systematically
Assess their Maturity, but We Found Consensus that CCS Is Less Mature
than Efficiency Technologies:
DOE does not systematically assess the maturity of key coal
technologies, although tools for doing so are available:
* DOE does not systematically assess maturity of key coal technologies;
* Other agencies charged with developing technologies use Technology
Readiness Levels (TRL) to characterize technologies' maturity[Footnote
5];
* DOE acknowledges TRLs as key practice in contracting, and some DOE
offices use this tool for other technology programs.
We found consensus among stakeholders that CCS technologies are less
mature than efficiency technologies in coal plants:
* Key aspects of CCS for use in coal plants still under development;
* Efficiency technologies in commercial use.
Objective 1: Maturity of Key Technologies: DOE Does Not Systematically
Assess Maturity of Key Coal Technologies:
Federal standards for internal control require agency managers to
compare actual program performance to planned or expected results and
analyze significant differences.
DOE's Office of Fossil Energy does not systematically assess the
maturity of key coal technologies as they progress toward
commercialization.
* The agency does not use a standard set of benchmarks or terms to
describe the maturity of technologies;
* DOE's goals for advancing these technologies sometimes use terms
that are not well-defined;
* DOE officials reported that individual programs are aware of the
maturity of technologies, but we found the agency does not formally
report on the maturity of these Technologies as they progress to
commercial scale.
Lack of an assessment or benchmarks limits:
* DOE's ability to provide a clear picture of the maturity of these
technologies to policymakers, utility officials, and others;
* Congressional and other oversight of the hundreds of millions DOE is
spending on these technologies;
* Policymakers' ability to assess the maturity of CCS and the
resources that might be needed to achieve commercial deployment.
Objective 1: Maturity of Key Technologies: Other Agencies Charged with
Developing Technologies use TRLs to Characterize Technologies'
Maturity:
TRLs were developed by National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and the agency began using them in the mid 1990s
In 2002, Department of Defense (DOD) specified TRLs as preferred
method to conduct technology assessments of weapons programs
TRLs provide a standardized terminology to rank and describe maturity
of technologies on a scale of 1 to 9:
Table:
TRL: 9;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Actual system "flight
proven" through successful mission operations under operational
mission conditions.
TRL: 8;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Actual system completed and
"flight qualified" through test and demonstration. Examples include
developmental test and evaluation of the system in its intended
weapons system to see if it meets design specifications.
TRL: 7;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: System prototype
demonstration in realistic environment. Requires demonstration of
actual system prototype in a realistic environment, such as an
aircraft vehicle or space.
TRL: 6;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: System/subsystem model or
prototype demonstration in a relevant environment.
TRL: 5;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Component and/or breadboard
validation in a relevant Environment, which could be lab or simulated
realistic environment.
TRL: 4;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Component and/or breadboard
validation in lab environment.
TRL: 3;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Proof of concept in lab
environment.
TRL: 2;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Technology concept and/or
application formulated.
TRL: 1;
Summary of TRL descriptions used by NASA: Basic principles observed
and reported.
Source: GAO analysis of NASA data.
[End of table]
Objective 1: Maturity of Key Technologies: DOE Has Acknowledged TRLs
as Key Practice in Contracting, and Some DOE Offices are Using This
Tool:
DOE's Technology Readiness Assessment Guide lays out three key steps
in making a technology readiness assessment during the contracting
process[Footnote 6]:
* Identify critical technology elements that are essential to
successful operation of the facility;
* Assess maturity of these critical technologies using TRLs;
* Develop a technology maturity plan which identifies activities
required to bring technology to desired TRL level:
- Describes current state of technology;
- Describes schedule and budget to move technology to necessary
readiness level.
Use of the Guide is not mandatory.
DOE offices have begun to use the Guide or TRLs:
* Office of Environmental Management uses the Guide as part of
managing its procurement activities—a result of a GAO recommendation;
* Office of Nuclear Energy has begun using TRLs to measure and
communicate risks associated with using critical technologies in a
novel way;
* National Nuclear Security Administration has used TRLs recently as
well;
Objective 1: Maturity of Key Technologies: We Asked Stakeholders With
Expertise in Technologies to Gauge Maturity Using a Scale Based on
TRLs:
In the absence of a DOE assessment of maturity, we developed a scale
for coal technologies based on TRLs in consultation with the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI), which used a similar approach recently.
[Footnote 7]
GAO has used TRLs to gauge the maturity of technologies:
Table:
TRL: 9;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Commercial
operation in relevant environment (500 megawatt MW] coal plant or
greater, or about 3 million tons of CO2 captured, transported, or
stored annually)[A].
TRL: 8;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Demonstration
at more than 25% commercial scale (at least 25 MW coal plant, or about
575,000 tons of CO2 captured, transported, or stored annually).
TRL: 7;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Pilot scale at
more than about 5% commercial scale (at least 20 MW coal plant, or
100,000 tons of CO2 captured, transported, or stored annually).
TRL: 6;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Process
development unit at between about 0.1% to 5% of commercial scale
(between 0.5 MW and 20 MW coal plant, or between about 3,000 and
100,000 tons of CO2 captured, transported, or stored annually).
TRL: 5;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Component
validation in relevant environment (coal plant).
TRL: 4;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Component
tests in lab.
TRL: 3;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Proof of
concept test.
TRL: 2;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Application
formulated (on paper).
TRL: 1;
Description of TRLs we developed for coal technologies: Basic
principles observed.
[A] Actual CO2 emissions can vary based on several factors, including
how often a plant operates.
[End of table]
Objective 1: Maturity of CCS Technologies: Components of CCS Widely
Used in Other Industries, and a Few Integrated CCS Projects Are
Operating:
CO2 capture widely used in natural gas and chemical industries:
* CO2 captured while refining natural gas;
* CO2 captured when gasifying coal to make chemical products such as
fertilizer, hydrogen, and synthetic natural gas.
CO2 transported and injected for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) for over
35 years:
* CO2 injected underground to help increase amount of oil recovered;
* EOR operations in the U.S. inject about 50 million tons of CO2
annually, about half of which remains stored underground, according to
oil industry officials;
* EOR highlighted as a beneficial reuse of captured CO2.
There are a few integrated CCS projects in these industries:
* Sleipner and Snohvit (located in North Sea) and In Salah (located in
Algeria) are natural gas processing facilities:
- All capture about 1 million tons of CO2 annually and store it in
saline aquifers;
* Great Plains Synfuels Plant, located in North Dakota:
- Captures over 3 million tons of CO2 and transports about 2 million
tons of CO2 annually to the Weyburn oil field in Canada for EOR use.
Objective 1: Maturity of CCS Technologies: Stakeholders Reported CO2
Capture at Coal Plants Is at Small Scale:
Post-combustion capture:
* Stakeholders generally reported largest demonstration is at pilot
scale (TRL 7) using our scale;
* Largest project taking place is at Mountaineer Plant in WV, which
aims to capture over 100,000 tons of CO2, according to DOE and EPRI.
Pre-combustion capture:
* Stakeholders offered a range of views on maturity from formulations
on paper (TRL 2) to commercial (TRL 9):
- Some stakeholders said technology is commercial in other industries
similar to IGCC plants, such as the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, which
captures 3 million tons of CO2;
- Other stakeholders said that pre-combustion capture had not been
demonstrated in an IGCC plant and that capturing a large proportion of
CO2 at an IGCC plant required further demonstration of a class of
turbines suitable for use with hydrogen fuels.
Oxy-combustion capture:
* Stakeholders about evenly split between ranking maturity as pilot
scale (TRL 7) or process development unit (TRL 6);
* Largest project taking place is at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany, which
is a 10 MW scale and aims to capture about 75,000 tons of CO2 annually
according to DOE and EPRI.
Stakeholder views on maturity are generally consistent with a 2009
report by the Global CCS Institute that used TRLs.[Footnote 8]
Objective 1: Maturity of CCS Technologies: Only One Integrated CCS
Project Operating in a Coal Plant, but DOE Has Announced Funding for
Additional Projects:
The only integrated CCS project in a coal power plant is the
Mountaineer Plant in WV according to stakeholders:[Footnote 9]
* CO2 is captured from slipstream of plant's total exhaust with goal
of capturing, transporting, and storing over 100,000 tons annually;
* Equal to about 20 MW capacity (1.5% of total plant output).
DOE has announced funding for five integrated CCS projects in coal
plants through the CCPI (see table below).
Table:
Project name: NRG;
DOE award: $154 million;
Project goals: Construct 60 MW demonstration facility using post-
combustion capture technology, with captured CO2 to be used for EOR.
Project name: Mountaineer;
DOE award: $334 million;
Project goals: Capture 90% of CO2 from 235 MW flue gas slipstream on
1300 MW plant using post-combustion capture technology. 1.65 million
tons of CO2 captured annually will be stored in nearby saline aquifer.
Project name: Texas Clean Energy Project;
DOE award: $350 million;
Project goals: Build 400 MW IGCC plant and capture 90% of CO2 using
pre-combustion capture technology. Over 2.9 million tons of CO2
captured annually will be used for EOR.
Project name: Antelope Valley;
DOE award: $100 million;
Project goals: Capture 90% of CO2 from 120 MW flue gas slipstream at
existing 450 MW plant. One million tons of CO2 will be captured
annually and could be used for EOR or stored in saline aquifers.
Project name: Hydrogen Energy;
DOE award: $308 million;
Project goals: Build advanced IGCC plant that is 250 MW and capture 2
million tons of CO2 annually to be used for EOR.
Source: GAO summary of CCPI funding announcements.
Note: Additional integrated CCS projects are planned around the world,
but not yet operating.
[End of table]
Objective 1: Maturity of CCS Technologies: CO2 Compression and
Transport Commercially Demonstrated;
Nearly all stakeholders reported CO2 compression and transport
demonstrated commercially (TRL 9).
CO2 is commonly compressed as part of transporting CO2.
There are more than 3,900 miles of pipelines used to transport CO2 in
the U.S.
* These pipelines are primarily used to transport CO2 for FOR projects
in certain areas of the U.S.
* Some of these pipelines have the capacity to transport between 2-10
million tons of CO2 annually.
Objective 1: Maturity of CCS Technologies: CO2 Storage in Oil
Reservoirs Considered More Mature than Storage in Saline Aquifers:
CO2 widely injected into oil formations to enhance recovery resulting
in some storage:
* Stakeholders generally considered technology commercially
demonstrated (TRL 9);
* About 50 million tons of CO2 injected annually to stimulate
additional recovery of oil from wells, and about half remains stored
in the formation initially.[Footnote 10].
CO2 storage in saline aquifers still being demonstrated:
* Stakeholders about evenly split between describing maturity at
commercial (TRL 9) or demonstration scale (TRL 8);
* Two industrial projects (Sleipner and In Salah) have been injecting
over 1 million tons of CO2 annually into saline formations;
* DOE's Sequestration Program has 7 projects that aim to store over
1,000,000 tons of CO2 in the future, and the majority of these
projects are to begin injecting into saline aquifers in 2011 or later.
Objective 1: Maturity of Key Technologies: Efficiency Improvements
Have Been Deployed Commercially at New and Existing Plants:
Efficiency technologies deployed at new plants:
* Most stakeholders considered ultrasupercritical and IGCC plants
commercially demonstrated (TRL 9);
* A few stakeholders considered IGCC plants less mature than
ultrasupercritical;
* A number of ultrasupercritical plants ranging from 600 to over 1,000
MW have been built or are under construction in Europe and Asia, with
one under construction in U.S.[Footnote 11];
* Five IGCC plants are operating globally, including two in the U.S.
with another under construction[Footnote 12].
Efficiency technologies deployed at existing plants:
* Stakeholders told us efficiency upgrades had been deployed at
commercial scale (TRL 9);
* About 10% of U.S. coal plants undertook large efficiency
improvements between 1998 and 2008 according to DOE analysis.{footnote
13]
Objective 2: Challenges to Use of Key Technologies: Commercial
Deployment Possible, but Contingent on Overcoming Economic, Technical,
and Legal Challenges:
Commercial deployment of CCS possible within 10-15 years, but faces
major challenges according to reports and stakeholders:
* Current CCS technologies are costly to install and operate;
* Demonstration of large scale integrated CCS systems needed to assure
stakeholders;
* U.S. lacks national carbon policy or legal framework to govern CO2
storage.
Many efficiency technologies have been used and are available for
commercial use, but still face challenges:
* High efficiency coal plants may not be cost-effective;
* Some higher efficiency plant designs not fully demonstrated and
require advanced materials;
* Improvements made to existing plants may trigger additional
regulatory requirements.
Objective 2: Challenges to Use of Key Technologies: Several Groups
Expect CCS Deployment in 10-15 Years:
Table:
Stakeholder group: DOE;
Goals for commercial deployment of CCS: Widespread, affordable
deployment of CCS should begin in 8-10 years.
Stakeholder group: National Coal Council;
Goals for commercial deployment of CCS: By 2020, deployment of CCS in
5 to 7 gigawatts worth of power plants as part of a "pioneer phase of
deployment.
Stakeholder group: IEA;
Goals for commercial deployment of CCS: Commercial deployment of CCS
should begin by 2025
Stakeholder group: Coal Utilization Research Council, an industry
group, and EPRI;
Goals for commercial deployment of CCS: Identifies family of
technologies to reduce emissions from coal plants, including CCS and
efficiency technologies by 2025.
Source: GAO summary of relevant reports.
[End of table]
Objective 2: Challenges to Use of CCS Technologies: Economic: Current
CCS Technologies are Costly to Install and Operate:
Current CCS technologies are costly to install:
* In 2007 DOE estimated initial capital investment costs could be:
- 85% higher for plants with post-combustion capture and;
- 36% higher for pre-combustion capture at IGCC plants, compared to
comparable plants without CCS[Footnote 14];
* Electric utilities not likely to adopt costly technologies without
assured cost recovery.
Current CCS technologies require significant energy to operate,
reducing the electricity plants can sell and raising operating costs:
* Parasitic loads—-energy used onsite-—for current CCS technologies
are estimated to be:
- between about 21% and 32% of plant output for post-combustion;
- between 15% and 22% of plant output for pre-combustion;[Footnote 15]
* DOE devoting R&D money to develop novel CO2 capture technologies to
lower the parasitic road, but these remain at smaller scale:
- DOE is funding post-combustion work on membranes, sorbents, and
solvents in the hope of lowering the current cost of CO2 capture;
- Research is also being conducted on using captured CO2 to grow
algae, a potential liquid transportation fuel.
Objective 2: Challenges to Use of CCS Technologies: Technical:
Demonstration of Large Scale Integrated CCS Systems Needed to Assure
Stakeholders:
Key studies report that demonstration of large scale integrated CCS
systems is needed to:
* Demonstrate the performance and potential costs of these systems;
* Gain experience in designing and building systems to help drive down
the costs of these technologies.
Some stakeholders also reported that additional demonstration needed
to lower perceived risk of technologies:
* Officials from one large electric utility told us that demonstration
projects were needed to build experience with the technologies and to
build vendor confidence so that they could provide technology
performance guarantees;
* Officials from one state public utility commission reported that
they considered CCS immature and were unlikely to approve cost
recovery for a plant with CCS in the foreseeable future;
* Officials from two financial firms reported that they considered the
application of CCS technologies at coal plants largely unproven and
they would require additional demonstration projects and performance
guarantees from technology vendors to help reduce the risk of
financing these projects.
Objective 2: Challenges to Use of CCS Technologies: Legal: U.S. Lacks
National Carbon Policy or Legal or Regulatory Framework to Govern CO2
Storage:
Without national carbon policy, nearly all stakeholders said CCS would
not be widely deployed:
* Without a tax or A sufficiently restrictive limit on CO2 emissions,
plant operators lack economic incentive to reduce emissions;
* Reports by IPCC, NAS, and Global CCS Institute have all highlighted
the importance of a carbon policy to incentivize the use CCS;
* Such a policy driver could help to accelerate the development of CCS.
Lack of a regulatory framework for storing CO2 and uncertainty
regarding liability for stored CO2 are also challenges:
* Nearly all stakeholders reported these as large or very large
challenges to storing CO2;
* EPA to issue a final rule for infection of CO2 for geologic
sequestration in fall 2010 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):
- EPA lacks authority to release well operators from liability for
endangerment of underground sources of drinking water until the
operator meets all of the closure and post-closure requirements and
EPA approves site closure;
- Once site closure is approved, operators are only liable under the
SDWA for violating or failing to comply with EPA orders in situations
that pose an imminent and substantial endangerment;
- Potential storage site operators are unlikely to assume this risk;
* EPA's rule will not address who is liable for unintended releases of
stored CO2 that have other harmful effects;
* Determining ownership of subsurface pore space presents additional
challenge.
Objective 2: Challenges to Use of Efficiency Technologies: Economic:
High Efficiency Coal Plants May Not Be Cost-Effective:
Low prices for coal and other fuels in the U.S. may limit the
incentive to build more efficient, but costly, plants:
* Ultrasupercritical plants have.higher capital costs because they use
advanced materials, which may not justify expected fuel savings;
* IGCC plants are more expensive than pulverized coal units, and there
are few in operation globally;
* If low natural gas prices persist, utilities may choose to build
natural gas power plants to reduce CO2 emissions in lieu of efficient
coal plants.
Incentives complicate construction of more efficient plants in
regulated states:
* Building new, more efficient coal plants faces hurdles:
- State utility commission approval required to build new plants;
- Demonstrating merits of more efficient plants may be difficult;
* Fuel clauses may limit utility interest in fuel savings:
- Some utilities can "pass through" coal price increases to customers
using fuel adjustment clauses.
To date, all of the more efficient ultrasupercritical plants have been
built outside the U.S., where coal prices are generally higher.
A tax or limit on CO2 emissions could increase the price of coal and
help to incentivize the adoption of efficiency technologies.
Objective 2: Challenges to Use of Efficiency Technologies Technical:
Some Higher Efficiency Plant Designs Not Fully Demonstrated and
Require Advanced Materials:
Some advanced power plant designs require materials that can withstand
more extreme conditions than those found in current plants.
"Advanced" ultrasupercritical plants require development of metal
alloys to withstand steam temperatures that could be 300 to 500
degrees Fahrenheit higher than today's ultrasupercritical plants.
[Footnote 16]
Advanced IGCC plants require development of certain components,
including more efficient ways to generate oxygen and improved
gasifiers that can gasify coal at higher pressures.
Objective 2: Challenges to Use of Efficiency Technologies Regulatory:
Improvements May Subject Existing Plants to Additional Regulations:
Most stakeholders said the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR)
requirements limit efficiency improvements at existing plants:
* NSR is triggered when a company constructs new facilities or makes a
major modification—a physical or operational change that would result
in a significant net increase in emissions;
* Under NSR, permitting authorities establish emissions limits for the
facility and ensure the appropriate pollution controls will be used.
Several stakeholders said that utilities could improve their plants'
efficiency but were reluctant to do so because they feared this would
trigger NSR which could require the installation of costly pollution
controls.
Objective 3: Implications of Using Key Technologies: CCS Offers More
Potential to Reduce CO2 Emissions than Efficiency Improvements Alone,
and Both Could Have Cost and Other Effects:
CCS has positive and negative implications:
* A key advantage is that CCS could help meet GHG limits and allow
coal to remain part of the nation's fuel mix;
* The use of CCS raises some key concerns:
- Electricity costs and demand for water could increase;[Footnote l7]
- Could affect ability of individual plants to operate reliably.
Technologies to improve the efficiency of coal plants have positive
and negative implications:
* A key advantage is that plant efficiency improvements offer more
potential for near term emissions reductions;
* The use of efficiency technologies raises some concerns:
- Unlikely to meet ambitious cuts in CO2 by themselves;
- Stakeholders had mixed views on other potential effects, such as
cost.
Objective 3: Implications of Using CCS: CCS Could Help Meet GHG Limits
and Allow Coal to Remain Part of Fuel Mix:
Key reports have highlighted the key role that CCS could have in
meeting potential limits on GIG emissions:
* EPRI — Estimated that CCS could help meet 1?8% of reductions needed
to reduce emissions in electricity sector by 41% by 2030;[Footnote 18]
* IEA — Estimated that CCS could meet 20% of reductions needed to
reduce global CO2 emissions by halt by 2050:[Footnote 19]
- Both studies note that cost of meeting these limits would increase
if CCS not deployed.
CCS could allow coal to remain part of fuel mix according to
stakeholders and reports:
* Majority of stakeholders said CCS would allow coal to remain part of
fuel mix for generating electricity;
* Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers called CCS
the "critical enabling technology" to reduce CO2 emissions while
allowing continued use of coal in the future;[Footnote 20]
* NAS stated if CCS does not develop, electricity sector could move
more towards using natural gas to meet emissions targets;[Footnote 21]
* GAO's past work found that switching from coal to natural gas could
lead to higher fuel costs, and increased exposure tO the greater price
volatility of natural gas.[Footnote 22]
Objective 3: Implications of Using CCS: CCS Could Increase Electricity
Costs and Water Demand:
Most stakeholders told us that CCS would likely increase electricity
costs In addition, key reports have estimated potential cost increases:
* MIT estimated that plants with post-combustion capture have 61%
higher cost of electricity and IGCC plants with pre-combustion capture
have a 27% higher cost;[Footnote 23]
* DOE estimated that plants with post-combustion capture have 83%
higher cost of electricity, while IGCC plants with pre-combustion
capture have a 36% higher cost;[Footnote 24]
DOE has raised concerns about water consumption associated with CCS:
* DOE estimated that post-combustion capture technology could almost
double water consumption at a coal plant, while pre-combustion capture
could increase water use by 73%;
* DOE officials said that continued development of CCS and cooling
technologies could significantly reduce water use for CCS.
Objective 3: Implications of Using CCS: CCS Could Compromise
Reliability:
Some utility officials said CCS could lead to decline in reliability
of individual plants:
* A power plant might need to shut down if any of the three components
(capture, transportation, storage) of CCS became unavailable;
* Such unplanned shutdowns could impact reliability of electric supply.
Other sources of electricity would need to make up for the parasitic
load associated with CCS
National Coal Council reported temporary declines in reliability
during past deployments of new coal technologies.[Footnote 25]
Objective 3: Implications of Using Efficiency Technologies: Plant
Efficiency Improvements Offer Potential for Near Term Emissions
Reductions but Raise Some Concerns:
Plant efficiency improvements offer potential for near term emissions
reductions:
* Making efficiency upgrades to existing fleet can happen much sooner
than building new, more efficient plants;
* DOE estimates that efficiency improvements could reduce CO2
emissions by 100 million tons annually, about an overall 5-10%
reduction in fleet emissions;
* According to National Coal Council, increasing efficiency is "only
practical method for mitigating CO2 emissions now" in coal plants.
[Footnote 26]
Plant efficiency improvements alone cannot reduce CO2 emissions from a
coal plant to the same extent as CCS according to DOE and others:
* Ultrasupercritical coal plant with 44% efficiency will emit about a
one-third less CO2 than an average U.S. plant;
* Upgrades made to existing plants can improve efficiency by a few
percentage points, resulting in a decline in CO2 emissions from the
plant by about 5-10%;
* CCS offers potential to capture 90% of a plant's CO2 emissions;
* Efficiency improvements the can however, facilitate CCS because they
help reduce the amount of CO2 to be handled by CCS system.
Stakeholders had mixed views on other potential effects:
* Stakeholders' views were mixed on potential effect on electricity
costs;
* Stakeholders generally did not think efficiency technologies would
increase water demand or compromise reliability.
[End of section]
Concluding Observations:
Addressing climate change while retaining the use of coal power plants
will likely require the successful deployment of new technologies:
* CCS, in particular, remains relatively immature compared to
efficiency technologies;
* Some of the discussions surrounding regulatory efforts and proposed
climate change legislation have focused on the commercial availability
of CCS technologies;
* DOE plays a key role in helping to accelerate commercial
availability of CCS technologies and is spending hundreds of millions
of dollars annually for this effort;
* Standards for internal controls require agency managers to compare
actual program performance to planned or expected results and analyze
significant differences;
* DOE is not systematically. assessing the maturity or progress of CCS
or other advanced coal technologies toward commercialization;
* As a result, DOE cannot provide:
- A clear picture of the maturity of technologies, and resources
needed to achieve commercial demonstration;
- Critical information for policymakers as they consider climate
change policies.
[End of section]
Potential Next Steps for DOE:
Develop a standard set of benchmarks to gauge the maturity of key coal
technologies and report to Congress on the maturity of these
technologies.
Consider using its Technology Readiness Assessment Guide to develop
benchmarks and reporting requirements for coal technologies.
[End of section]
Briefing Slides Footnotes:
[1] This analysis also found that the top 10% of the U.S. coal fleet
had an average efficiency of 37.6%. See DOE, Improving the Efficiency
of Coal-Fired Power Plants for Near Term Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reductions (April 16, 2010).
[2] For the purposes of this report, we have defined
ultrasupercritical to mean steam temperatures of about 1,100 degrees
Fahrenheit.
[3] EPA must determine whether certain CCS deployment criteria are
met, including whether commercial power plants and other stationary
sources have captured and sequestered at least 12 million tons of CO2
annually to trigger the emission reduction requirement before 2025.
[4] We selected this nonprobability sample of states because they
contained projects involving advanced coal technologies.
[5] TRLs are used to gauge technology maturity and use a 9 point scale
to rate the extent to which technologies have been demonstrated to
work as intended.
[6] DOE, Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, DOE G413.3-4,
(Washington D.C., Oct. 12, 2009).
[7] EPRI is an independent nonprofit company funded by electricity
producers that conducts research and development in the electricity
sector. EPRI's work was part of the following report: Global CCS
Institute, Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture
and Storage: Synthesis Report (Canberra, Australia, 2009).
[8] Global CCS Institute, Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of
Carbon Capture and Storage: Synthesis Report.
[9] While gasifying coal to make synthetic natural gas, the Great
Plains Synfuels plant captures and transports CO2 for EOR use.
However, this plant does not produce electricity.
[10] According to oil industry officials, the other half of the CO2 is
captured during the process of recovering oil to be injected again for
EOR. They also reported that the intention of EOR is to recover
additional oil, not to store CO2, but this is an unintended
consequence of injecting the CO2. The Global CCS Institute has
reported that experiences with EOR have yielded experience with
transporting and injecting CO2, but have yielded little information on
CO2 storage and long-term monitoring of the stored CO2.
[11] This ultrasupercritical plant is known as the John W. Turk, Jr.
Plant. This 600 MW plant is being built in Arkansas and is scheduled
to be completed in 2012.
[12] This IGCC plant is known as the Edwardsport plant. This 630 MW
plant is being built in Indiana and is scheduled to be completed in
2012.
[13] DOE, Improving Efficiency of Coal-Fired Power Plants for Near
Term Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions (Feb. 25, 2010).
[14] DOE, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants—
Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Final Report
(2007).
[15] MIT. The Future of Coal (Cambridge, Mass. 2007). DOE. Cost and
Performance Baseline for Fossil Enerav Plants—Volume 1.
[16] Today's ultrasupercritical plants have steam temperatures of
about 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. DOE has a goal to develop materials to
withstand steam temperatures of 1,400 to 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit.
[17] Water is needed to generate electricity and process fuels to
generate electricity. Due to the parasitic load associated with
current CCS technologies, more electricity must be produced to supply
the same amount of electricity to consumers, leading to additional
water consumption. See GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Improvements to
Federal Water Use Data Would Increase Understanding of Trends in Power
Plant Water Use, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-23]
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2009).
[18] EPRI, PRISM/MERGE Analysis (Palo Alto, California, 2009).
[19] IEA, Technology Roadmap: Carbon capture and storage (Paris,
France, 2009.)
[20] MIT, The Future of Coal.
[21] NAS, America's Energy Future (Washington, D.C., 2009).
[22] GAO, Economic and Other Implications of Switching from Coal to
Natural Gas at the Capital Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating
Units Nationwide, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-601R]
(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008).
[23] MIT, The Future of Coal.
[24] DOE. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Enerav Plants—
Volume 1.
[25] National Coal Council, Low-Carbon Coat Meeting U.S. Energy,
Employment and CO2 Emission Goals with 21st Century Technologies
(Washington, D.C., December 2009).
[26] National Coal Council Issue Paper, Higher Efficiency Power
Generation Reduces Emissions (2009).
[End of Appendix I]
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
To conduct this work, we reviewed key reports including those from the
Department of Energy's (DOE) national laboratories, the National
Academy of Sciences, International Energy Agency (IEA),
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global CCS Institute, the
National Coal Council, and academic reports.
To identify stakeholders' views on these technologies, we conducted
initial scoping interviews with power plant operators, technology
vendors, and federal officials from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and DOE. Following this initial round of interviews, we
selected a group of 19 stakeholders with expertise in carbon capture
and storage (CCS) or technologies to improve coal plant efficiency and
asked them a set of standard questions. This group of stakeholders
included representatives from major utilities that are planning or
implementing projects that use these technologies, technology vendors
that are developing these technologies, federal officials that are
providing research, development, and demonstration funding for these
technologies, and researchers from academia or industry that are
actively researching these technologies.
During these interviews, we asked stakeholders to describe the
maturity of technologies in terms of a scale we developed, based on
Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). TRLs are a tool developed by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and used by various
federal agencies to rate the extent to which technologies have been
demonstrated to work as intended using a scale of 1 to 9. In
developing TRLs for coal technologies, we consulted with the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI), which had recently used a similar
approach to examine the maturity of coal technologies.[Footnote 27]
Specifically, EPRI developed specific benchmarks to describe TRLs in
the context of a commercial scale coal power plant. For example, they
defined TRL 8 as demonstration at more than 25 percent the size of a
commercial scale plant. We applied these benchmarks to a commercial
scale power plant, which we defined as 500 megawatts (MW) and emitting
about 3 millions tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually. We based this
definition on some of the key reports we reviewed, which used 500 MW
as a standard power plant, and stated that such a plant would emit
about 3 million tons of CO2. Actual CO2 emissions from a power plant
can vary based on a variety of factors, including the amount of time
that a power plant is operated. We also reviewed available data on the
use of key coal technologies compiled by IEA and the Global CCS
Institute.
To identify the potential for these technologies to be used
commercially in the future along with any associated challenges or
implications, we reviewed key reports on CCS and efficiency
technologies. We also examined reports developed by DOE, IEA, and
electricity industry groups, which lay out goals for the deployment of
advanced coal technologies to reduce CO2 emissions. We also used our
interviews with stakeholders with expertise on these technologies to
seek their views on the potential challenges to the commercial
deployment of these technologies and implications that could be
associated with their use.
Finally, we conducted site visits to coal power plants and research
facilities in three states--Alabama, Maryland, and West Virginia. We
selected this nonprobability sample of states because they contained
projects involving advanced coal technologies. During these visits, we
interviewed utilities and technology vendors about the goals for these
projects along with any challenges they were encountering.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at
the end of this appendix. Page numbers in draft report may differ from
those in this report.
Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
June 4, 2010:
Mr. Mark E. Gaffigan:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment Team:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW, Mail 2T23A:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Gaffigan:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Coal Power Plants: Opportunities
Exist for DOE to Provide Better Information on the Maturity of Key
Technologies to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions" (GAO-10-675) Enclosed
pleased find the U S Department of Energy's comments on the draft
report.
If you have any questions or comments please contact Dr. Darren Mollot
of my staff at (301) 903-2700.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James J. Markowsky:
Assistant Secretary:
Office of Fossil Energy:
Enclosure:
DOE Comments on Draft GAO Report:
[End of letter]
Department of Energy Comments on GAO "Coal Power Plants: Opportunities
Exist for DOE to Provide Better Information on the Maturity of Kev
Technologies to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions (GA0-10-675) (GAO
Draft Report):
This responds to your request for comments by the Department of Energy
on the above referenced GAO Draft Report.
Our main response is that we agree with GAO's statement that DOE plays
a "key role" in working to advance carbon capture and storage (CCS)
and efficiency technologies toward commercialization and in helping
policy makers have an accurate view of their maturity (pages 3, 14,
53). However, we take some exception with GAO's assessment that DOE is
unable to provide a clear picture of the maturity of these
technologies or quantify the necessary resources that might be
required to move these technologies toward commercial demonstration
(this assertion can be found in several places within the report
including pages 6, 14, 30, 53). [See comment 1]
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) acknowledged that it could improve
upon its current process of providing a clearer picture of technology
maturity. FE, working with several national labs, conducts a great
deal of research, development, and demonstration activities on CCS and
other carbon reduction technologies. These efforts are reported,
analyzed, reviewed, and studied, the outcomes from which frequent and
continued assessments are made regarding the current status of CCS
technologies including their commercial readiness. Included in many of
these assessments are specific development timelines that can be used
to ascertain how long development will take, and how much development
will likely cost These activities also feed into the development of
CCS Roadmaps (e.g. Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program
Plan [hyperlink,
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/project%2Oportf
olio/2007/2007Roadmap.pdf]) for the specific development of core CO2
reduction technologies. These activities and others collectively paint
a very accurate picture of the current status of CCS technologies, and
provide an excellent gauge on what resources would need to be
committed in order to achieve deployment of CCS by the 2020 timeframe.
[See comment 1]
Furthermore, GAO made the following recommendation beginning on page
14 (also repeated on pages 6-8, and the lower left hand corner of the
front cover):
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct the Office of Fossil
Energy to develop a standard set of benchmarks to gauge the maturity
of key technologies and report to Congress on the maturity of these
technologies. As part of this process, the Office of Fossil Energy
should consider consulting DOE's Technology Readiness Assessment Guide
to develop benchmarks and reporting requirements."
Consistent with our continued efforts to supply policy makers with
clear information in a form more amenable for them to gauge the
maturity of CCS technologies, we concur with this recommendation. The
Office of Fossil Energy will commit to develop a Corrective Action
Plan, and will, at regular intervals, report to Congress on the status
of its actions toward instituting GAO's recommendation.
Specific clarifying comments on the GAO report are as follows:
1. On page 28, the report states:
"DOE does not systematically assess the maturity of key coal
technologies, but we found consensus among stakeholders that CCS is
less mature than efficiency technologies."
Although DOE has not assessed the maturity of coal technologies using
technology readiness levels (TRLs), we are very aware of the maturity
of all the technologies in the portfolio. We plan to do a formal TRL
assessment in the neat future.
It would also he important to clarify the precise meaning of the term,
"efficiency technologies" in this context. There is a considerable
difference between improving coal plant efficiencies as opposed to
more efficient light bulbs. [See comment 2]
Furthermore, this is an overly broad statement. For example, one could
argue that post-combustion CO2 capture via amine scrubbing, plus
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) for CO2 storage, is much more mature than
1400°F ultrasupercritical "efficiency" technology. [See comment 2]
2. In response to the comments on page 30, we would like to point out
that we are currently in compliance with the policy stated in bullet
point #1:
"Federal standards for internal control require agency managers to
compare actual program performance to planned or expected results and
analyze significant differences."
The way this particular set of points is organized gives the
appearance that DOE may not be fulfilling this Federal standard
However, variances are routinely calculated and analyzed in accordance
with these standards. [See comment 3]
3. On page 35, the report states that there is:
"Only One Integrated CCS Project Operating in a Coal Plant" and goes
on to state, "The only integrated CCS project in a coal plant is the
Mountaineer Plant in WV according to stakeholders."
There is a second integrated CCS project operating in a coal plant. It
is the Great Plains Gasification plant. In this project, the CO2 is
captured and piped to Canada for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) where it
is permanently stored. [See comment 4]
4. Page 39 discusses several issues related to efficiency technologies
being deployed at new plants:
"Most stakeholders considered ultrasupercritical and IGCC plants
commercially demonstrated (TEL 9)."
and:
"A few stakeholders considered IGCC plants less mature than
ultrasupercritical."
With respect to both statements, it is necessary to define the
Ultrasupercritical (USC) temperatures being discussed here. The
Ultrasupercritical term has been used for plants ranging from 1112°F
to 1400°F In addition, the Tampa and Wabash IGCCs are operating
commercially today as are other IGCC plants outside the US at TRL=9.
[See comment 5]
5. The information presented on page 40 is potentially misleading as
it attempts to compare the commercial deployability of CCS versus
efficiency technologies. Efficiency improvements may give a few
percentage points of improvement resulting in perhaps 10% reduction in
CO2 emissions, whereas commercial deployment of CCS could result in
90% or greater CO2 reductions. Also, CCS should be deployable by 2020.
Moreover, CCS can be considered to be essentially deployable today
with IGCC plus EOR, albeit with additional integration risks and
financial incentive to do so. In summary, while the information on
page 40 is accurate from a certain point of view, the perspective
infers that the two approaches can be easily compared whereas the
scope and benefits of the two approaches are very different. [See
comment 6]
6. Page 48 summarizes the positive and negative implications of using
CCS versus efficiency technologies. With respect to the advantages of
using plant efficiency improvements, the following statement is made:
"A key advantage is that plant efficiency improvements offer more
potential for near term emissions reductions."
While this statement may be technically true, it is important to note
that there is far less potential to achieve the deep CO2 reductions
that will be needed to meet our nation's climate-related goals solely
using efficiency technologies. It is important to have that in mind
when making these kinds of general statements. [See comment 6]
7. On page 50, the report states:
"DOE has raised concerns about CCS water consumption"
"DOE estimated that post combustion capture technology could almost
double water consumption at a coal plant, while pre-combustion capture
would increase water use by 37%."
While this is true, it should also be mentioned that the continued
development of advanced CCS and cooling technologies could
significantly reduce water use for CCS. [See comment 7]
8. While the information presented on page 22 is factually correct
concerning existing coal plants, it is important to note that in 2008,
the U.S coal-fired power plant (CFPP) fleet had a generation-weighted
average efficiency of 32.5% while the top ten percent of the fleet had
an efficiency of 37 6%, five percentage points higher [hyperlink,
(http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-
analyses/pubs/ImpCFPPGHGRdctns_0410.pdf]. Furthermore, "Ultra-
supercritical steam parameters of 4350 psi and 1112°F (300 bar
and 600°C) are in operation today with generating efficiencies of 40%
(1111V) There are several years of experience with these plants in
Europe and Japan, with excellent availability, and plans have been
announced for several USC PC plants in the United States" [hyperlink,
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/000000000001016877.pdf] [see pages
3-5]. [See comment 8]
Future plants could go much higher in efficiency using USC with 1400°F
steam temps or IGCC with solid oxide fuel cells 9. With respect to the
assertion on page 46 that advanced ultrasupercritical plants requiring
metal alloys that withstand 27% higher steam temperatures, we
recommend that absolute temperatures are used. A percent increase in
temperature value is only meaningful if you use absolute temperatures
(Rankine or Kelvin) To advance from 1116°F to 1300°F using absolute
temperatures would be a 12% increase in temperature and going further
to 1400°F would be an 18% increase. Under the circumstances, it might
be better to, just say "a temperature increase of 300°F to 400°F."
[See comment 8]
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Energy's letter
dated June 4, 2010.
GAO Comments:
1. We acknowledge that DOE publishes reports that assess the technical
and economic feasibility of some advanced coal technologies and
revised our report accordingly. While some of these reports provide
valuable information, we found that the agency does not systematically
review these technologies, have a standard set of benchmarks to
describe the maturity of technologies as they progress to
commercialization, or prepare a formal report on a regular basis to
assess their maturity or the resources needed to advance technologies
toward commercialization. We are encouraged that DOE acknowledges that
improvements can be made to the information it provides to
policymakers and concurs with our recommendation that the agency
develop a standard set of benchmarks and report on the maturity of
these technologies to Congress. Finally, the agency notes that it
plans to do a formal assessment using TRLs of coal technologies in the
near future in line with our recommendation.
2. Our draft report defines efficiency technologies as referring to
new power plant designs such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
and ultrasupercritical along with efficiency upgrades made to existing
coal power plants. The statement in our draft report that CCS is less
mature than efficiency technologies in coal power plants is based on
stakeholder views of coal technologies using our TRL scale. Our draft
report notes that certain aspects of CCS have been used commercially
in other industries such as natural gas processing or enhanced oil
recovery. In addition, the draft report indicates that one of the
challenges to using advanced ultrasupercritical plants is the lack of
metal alloys to withstand increased steam temperatures.
3. We are not suggesting that DOE is not complying with this standard.
This standard outlines the broad duties federal agencies have in
managing their programs. Our finding discussed in our comment one
above identifies that DOE could do more to improve its efforts to
address this standard.
4. We have revised our draft report to indicate that there is only one
integrated CCS project in a coal power plant. DOE states that the
Great Plains Synfuels plant is an integrated CCS project. We agree
that this plant is capturing and transporting CO2 to be used as part
of enhanced oil recovery in Canada's Weyburn oil field. However, this
plant gasifies coal in order to make synthetic natural gas; it is not
a coal power plant that produces electricity, which is the focus of
our report.
5. Our report defines ultrasupercritical plants as having steam
temperatures of about 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit.
6. We agree with DOE that there is a difference in the ability for CCS
and efficiency technologies to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions
from coal power plants. Specifically, our report states that the use
of efficiency technologies by themselves are "unlikely to meet
ambitious cuts in CO2." In addition, we state that efficiency
technologies cannot reduce CO2 emissions from the same extent as CCS.
For example, we state that an ultrasupercritical plant emits about one-
third less CO2 than an average coal power plant in the United States,
while CCS offers the potential to capture 90 percent of a plant's CO2
emissions.
7. We revised our draft report to note that advancements in CCS and
cooling technologies could help to reduce water use for CCS. In
addition, it is important to note that our report states that pre-
combustion capture could increase water use by 73 percent, not 37
percent as DOE's comment indicates.
8. We have made these technical changes to our draft report. It is
important to note that we state that advanced materials are needed to
withstand temperature increases of 300 to 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This
is because today's ultrasupercritical plants have steam temperatures
of about 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit, while DOE has set goals to develop
materials to withstand steam temperatures of 1,400 to 1,600 degrees
Fahrenheit.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mark Gaffigan, (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact names above, key contributors to this
report included Jon Ludwigson (Assistant Director), Chloe Brown, Scott
Heacock, Alison O'Neill, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Jarrod West.
Important assistance was also provided by Chuck Bausell, Nirmal
Chaudhary, Cindy Gilbert, Madhav Panwar, and Jeanette Soares.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] EIA is the statistical and analytical agency within DOE that
collects, analyzes, and disseminates independent and impartial energy
information.
[2] For the purposes of this report, we have defined
ultrasupercritical to mean steam temperatures of about 1,100 degrees
Fahrenheit.
[3] H.R. 2454, § 311, 111th Cong. (2009).
[4] EPA must determine whether certain CCS deployment criteria are
met, including whether commercial power plants and other stationary
sources have captured and stored at least 12 million tons of CO2
annually, to trigger the emission reduction requirement before 2025.
[5] Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009). One of the stated purposes of the ARRA
is to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.
[6] EPRI is an independent nonprofit company funded by electricity
producers that conducts research and development in the electricity
sector. EPRI's work contributed to the following report: Global CCS
Institute, Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture
and Storage: Synthesis Report (Canberra, Australia, 2009).
[7] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[8] TRLs were developed by NASA and the agency began using them in the
mid-1990s. In 2002, DOD specified TRLs as the preferred method to
conduct technology assessments for weapons programs.
[9] DOE, Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, DOE G413.3-4
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 12, 2009).
[10] GAO, Department of Energy: Major Construction Projects Need a
Consistent Approach for Assessing Technology Readiness to Help Avoid
Cost Increases and Delays, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-336] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27,
2007).
[11] While gasifying coal to make synthetic natural gas, the Great
Plains Synfuels plant captures and transports CO2 for EOR use.
However, this plant does not produce electricity.
[12] There is an ultrasupercritical plant under construction in the
United States known as the John W. Turk, Jr. plant. This 600 MW plant
is being built in Arkansas and is scheduled to be completed in 2012.
In addition, there is also a 630 MW IGCC plant under construction in
Indiana, known as the Edwardsport plant. This plant is scheduled to be
completed in 2012.
[13] Our past work has also highlighted some of the challenges to
deploying CCS. See GAO, Climate Change: Federal Actions Will Greatly
Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation
Option, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1080]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2008).
[14] DOE, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants-
Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Final Report
(2007).
[15] Under the Underground Injection Control program, EPA regulates
underground injections of various substances into injection wells.
Currently, CO2 injection wells can be permitted as Class I (injections
of hazardous wastes, industrial nonhazardous wastes, municipal
wastewater) or Class V wells (injections not included in other
classes, including wells used in experimental technologies such as
pilot CO2 storage). EPA's rule will establish a Class VI well for
injection of CO2 for geologic sequestration.
[16] 42 U.S.C. § 300i.
[17] Today's ultrasupercritical plants have steam temperatures of
about 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. DOE has a goal to develop materials to
withstand steam temperatures of 1,400 to 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit.
[18] IEA, Technology Roadmap: Carbon capture and storage (Paris,
France, 2009).
[19] MIT, The Future of Coal (Cambridge, Mass., 2007).
[20] NAS, America's Energy Future (Washington, D.C., 2009).
[21] GAO, Economic and Other Implications of Switching from Coal to
Natural Gas at the Capitol Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating
Units Nationwide, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-601R]
(Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2006).
[22] MIT, The Future of Coal.
[23] DOE, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants-
Volume 1.
[24] DOE, Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants-
Volume 1. DOE officials also said that continued development of CCS
and cooling technologies could significantly reduce water use for CCS.
[25] National Coal Council, Low-Carbon Coal: Meeting U.S. Energy,
Employment and CO2 Emission Goals with 21st Century Technologies
(Washington, D.C., December 2009).
[26] National Coal Council Issue Paper, Higher Efficiency Power
Generation Reduces Emissions (2009).
[27] EPRI is an independent nonprofit company funded by electricity
producers that conducts research and development in the electricity
sector. EPRI's work was part of the following report: Global CCS
Institute, Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture
and Storage: Synthesis Report (Canberra, Australia, 2009).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: