The Case for IGCC.ppt

The Case for IGCC Kay Pashos President, Duke Energy Indiana MARC 2006 Annual Meeting June 20, 2006 Backdrop In 2004, Cinergy/PSI (now Duke Energy Indiana) signed a letter of intent with GE Energy and Bechtel Corporation to study feasibility of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant Duke Energy Indiana is estimated to need 300-500 MW of additional base load capacity in 2010-2015 timeframe The 2005 State Utility Forecasting Group report projects electricity usage to grow by 2.22% annually IGCC’s “Perfect Storm” Need for base load Abundant coal reserves Continuation of stringent emission reduction standards Rising energy commodity prices Future carbon constraints Edwardsport – Preferred IGCC Site Existing 160 MW fossil steam plant (units circa 1940s-1950s) Near Edwardsport, IN Replace with 600 MW Class IGCC Plant Duke Energy Indiana and Vectren have petitioned IURC for study costs “Arriving” At Edwardsport One of 5 sites in Indiana and 1 in Kentucky included in site study GE/Bechtel analysis indicating its feasibility Enables use of high sulfur regional coals Geologically well-suited for possible carbon sequestration IGCC Process Diagram The Big Deal Currently, 160 MW Edwardsport runs about 30% of the time and emits (annually): Approximately 11,000 metric tons of SO2, NOx, and particulates The 600 MW class IGCC plant operating 100% of the time will emit: less than 2,900 tons of these pollutants More is Less! General Environmental Performance ComparisonNew Source Performance Standards (NSPS) vs. IGCC Additional Advantages of IGCC Less Water Used Less Solid Waste Generated Overall Higher Efficiency than a Conventional PC Plant with Currently Required Pollution Control Equipment Ability to Use Local Indiana and Midwestern Higher Sulfur coals Advantages of IGCC (cont’d) Potential to Control Hg at a Lower Cost than is Possible with Other Coal-Based Generation Technologies Potential to Tap into Future Poly-generation Capabilities – I