| Focus on USA


a 405 MWe coal-fired power plant near Gillette, Wyoming (pictured p34).


TDA’s carbon capture system uses a low-cost, physical adsorbent to remove carbon dioxide via a combination vacuum and concentration swing adsorption process. The proposed carbon capture system is to be integrated with the power plant flue gas exhaust to remove more than 90% of the plant’s overall carbon emissions, capturing 158 000 metric tons of CO2


each year.


The carbon capture pilot, at the Integrated Test Center, is ideally placed in close proximity to a storage site in the carbon capture hub being developed through the DOE-funded Wyoming CarbonSAFE project.


Only a short pipeline is required to transport the captured CO2


to permanent storage and


Wyoming CarbonSAFE is currently undertaking a FEED study for this pipeline.


The goal of the pilot project is to inform safe and responsible commercial deployment of TDA’s sorbent-based technology, which could be scaled up for use at coal plants around the world. This project builds on previous DOE carbon capture research and development focused on the TDA sorbent, funded through DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. The Dry Fork pilot will engage with the local community and labour unions, through listening sessions, town hall meetings, and open houses to ensure the local community benefits from the construction and operation of the pilot project and local input is incorporated. The project expects to create a total of 40-60 construction jobs and 20-25 operations jobs. The project team has committed to hiring four interns from underrepresented communities during each project phase, prioritising tribal members and students from Minority Serving Institutions.


The US Department of Energy notes that selection for award negotiations is not a commitment by it to issue an award or provide funding. Before funding is issued, DOE and the applicants will undergo a negotiation process, and DOE say it may cancel negotiations and rescind the selection for any reason during that time. Lead applicants also may change during the award negotiations process. If awarded, OCED will evaluate these projects through a phased approach to project management that includes “go/no-go” decision points between each project phase where DOE reviews and evaluates the key elements of the project, including community benefit commitments, and assesses how well they are being implemented.


OCED manages the Carbon Capture Large- Scale Pilot Projects Program and is charged with accelerating deployment of carbon capture technologies by piloting these transformational technologies at scale and catalysing private sector investment through public-private cost share agreements. OCED plans to issue an additional funding opportunity in the future. Previously, in December 2023, OCED announced up to $890 million in potential funding for three carbon capture and storage projects in California, North Dakota, and Texas, respectively — having the potential to curb carbon dioxide emissions from three power plants by preventing roughly 7.75 million metric tons of CO2


emissions from being released into the atmosphere each year.


As with the projects announced in February, funding applicants were required to submit Community Benefits Plans, designed to help ensure meaningful community and labour engagement in carbon management technologies “while addressing environmental burdens in partnership with communities to ensure an equitable and just energy transition.” The three projects announced in December, which have been selected for award negotiation, plan to demonstrate “three novel solvents at commercial-scale” combined with “carbon transport and storage in different geological settings.” The projects are as follows:


Baytown carbon capture and storage project, Baytown, Texas The Baytown project plans to capture CO2


New EPA rules favour CCS


Coal-fired power plants currently produce about 935 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year in the United States. Coal remains the USA’s largest domestically produced source of energy, with about 200 GW of coal fired installed capacity still in operation, accounting for 18% of US power generation, despite a number of plant closures in recent years. New rules proposed by EPA to limit


from


two of the three gas turbines at the Baytown Energy Center, an 896 MWe natural gas fuelled combined cycle cogeneration plant (pictured below, left). The carbon dioxide will be transported using new and existing pipelines and sequestered in storage sites on the Gulf Coast. The project is evaluating the use of greywater cooling to minimise freshwater consumption by reusing wastewater. Calpine leads this project and has partnerships with Minority-Serving Institutions to support equitable job access and workforce development. Calpine plans to develop a Community Benefits Agreement and will include third party monitoring and validation of its Community Benefits Plan to support accountability and transparency. The Baytown Energy Center is located near other significant CO2


Houston Ship Channel area and is proximate to multiple developing CO2


storage resources along


the Texas Gulf Coast. Moving forward with the project is expected to foster momentum and infrastructure for broader carbon reductions in the region. The Baytown facility’s customer and site host, Covestro, voiced its support for the project. “This is a critical step towards decarbonising Calpine’s facility, which is located on our Covestro Baytown site,” said Demetri Zervoudis, Covestro head of operations for North America and Baytown site general manager.


Baytown Energy Center (photo: Calpine)


Project Tundra, Center, North Dakota Project Tundra is a planned carbon capture facility to be developed adjacent to the Milton R. Young station, a coal-fired power plant


carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants could boost the use of carbon capture and storage. EPA has justified the rules in part by pointing to several currently available technologies, including CCS, that it believes have met the necessary criteria for EPA to impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Those criteria include having been “adequately demonstrated” to be the “best system of emission reduction.” In addition, the “costs of [the emission] controls must be reasonable.” EPA was expected to finalise the rules for existing coal-fired power plants and new gas-fired plants by April 2024, with rules governing existing gas-fired plants to follow. If EPA’s proposed rules remain largely intact after the rulemaking process and withstand likely legal scrutiny (and a change of government), the use of carbon capture and storage could increase substantially. Alternatively, some older power plants that would otherwise be candidates for CCS, especially plants fired by coal, might be shut down instead or might avoid adding emission-control technologies by being slated for early retirement, as the proposed rules allow. (sources: CBO/USDOE)


near Center, North Dakota (pictured p34). The captured CO2


will be permanently stored in saline


geologic formations beneath and surrounding the power plant.


sources in the heavy industrial


Project Tundra is led by the project sponsors of Dakota Carbon Center East Project LLC, which includes Minnkota Power Cooperative and TC Energy, and was formed to facilitate investment in and development of Project Tundra. Planning has already begun for the Community Benefits Agreements and other related agreements with impacted communities. Other related workplace and environmental concerns are being addressed, which support rural quality of life issues while also allowing for responsible project development. Project sponsors have engaged organised labour to discuss the prospect of negotiating a Project Labor Agreement and are committed to the continued engagement of stakeholders throughout the development process. Minnkota Power Cooperative, as a project sponsor and host-site, currently partners through existing Collective Bargaining


www.modernpowersystems.com | March 2024 | 35


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47