POWERGEN

Opinion: POWERGEN International is evolving with the industry

As Brad Buecker explains, the conference must evolve with the pace of the power industry.
Opinion: POWERGEN International is evolving with the industry
(Futurist Brian David Johnson speaks at POWERGEN International on January 23, 2024. Photo by Clarion Events.)

By Brad Buecker, Buecker & Associates, LLC

POWERGEN International (PGI) has been a beacon of information for over 35 years. Coal was king for the first two-thirds of PGI’s history, and at one point a satellite conference, Coal-Gen, even emerged. Obviously our industry has undergone dramatic changes, and the recently concluded “POWERGEN 2024: Destination 2050” offered many examples of this continuing evolution. 

But every year, this author hears some colleagues exclaim “This is not the POWERGEN that I once knew.” 

Being a former coal-fired power plant steam generation chemist and air pollution control specialist, I can sympathize with these feelings. But we all must face the reality of a rapidly changing industry, where decarbonization is a major driver, and meeting this goal requires many technologies and solutions. Kevin Clark, the content director of Power Engineering and POWERGEN International, emphasized these ideas during an informative conversation we had at the conference. 

This article highlights several of the most important topics from this year’s event. A foundational concept to remember in this discussion is the importance of continued grid stability as the country progresses towards decarbonization. The potential for blackouts and even partial grid collapse from prematurely implemented alternative energy systems could be catastrophic to our economy and personal well-being.

The King is (not quite) dead

Coal-fired power production is not completely dead, and in recent months we have seen some power companies extend deadlines for coal plant retirements due to issues regarding grid stability. In that vein, several tracks at PGI 2024 addressed carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a contentious issue often defined by one’s side of the political/environmental spectrum. The obvious major benefit of CCS is that the technology might allow some continued use of a plentiful fuel that has a large storage capacity.  Common for coal plants is a 30-day fuel inventory, which vastly exceeds current battery storage capabilities for renewable sources.

However, this benefit is counterbalanced by a number of potentially troublesome issues related to the leading CCS technology at present, CO2 removal via scrubbing with an amine solution. Some of the most important include:

  • The process adds a large and expensive chemical plant to any unit.
  • Parasitic power consumption may reach 30%.
  • The process consumes a significant amount of water and generates several wastewater streams.
  • Concerns continue to grow, some from the general public, about safety issues related to CO2 transport to injection sites. Pipeline projects have been halted per such concerns.

Another critical issue facing coal plants, retired or still operating, is storage and disposal of bottom ash and fly ash. Of great concern is leachate from these ponds contaminating groundwater and surface water. Much time, effort, and expense will be required to remediate ash storage ponds. The situation has not been helped by several high-profile ash pond failures that have occurred over the last two decades or so.    

Talk continues to swirl about carbon dioxide reduction from the combined-cycle power plants that have served as a bridge technology in the transition from coal to renewables. A requirement to install CO2 scrubbing technology, at least as it currently exists, on natural gas-fired power units would put those facilities in a huge economic bind.

Renewables: Not yet a straightforward path

Renewable energy, and most notably but certainly not limited to wind and solar, is a primary topic at PGI events. It is hard to argue the foundational concept of wind/solar renewable energy, free and inexhaustible fuel from the sun. However, many clouds still populate the horizon (pardon the pun).  Infrastructure issues can be very challenging. Many wind turbines or solar cells are required to generate the equivalent power of a large coal- or gas-fired plant. Individual wind farms can cover many acres and generate public resistance about their influence on the scenery. Replacement and disposal of aging materials are additional concerns.

A particular development, which was addressed at POWERGEN and also very recently in Reference 1, is the emergence of winter load vs. generating capacity conflicts. When coal was king, it, along with nuclear energy provided most of the electricity to the country. Plants produced steady power throughout the year, apart from periodic regional severe weather events. So, maximum generating capacity bumping up against load requirements was usually limited to summer operation. With wind and solar, nature has much more of a say regarding generating capacity. In northern locations with short winter days and sometimes frequent snowstorms, solar production may fall to near zero for extended periods. 

Compounding the problem are the not uncommon wind droughts that can cover a wide region.  Wind/solar generating capacity has been known to drop to a very small fraction of nameplate. The kicker is that present battery storage capacity is limited to just a few hours. So, it is very difficult at present to store enough energy to cover load when nature says, “I am taking over.” Obviously, improved battery technology will help alleviate these problems, but how quickly will long-term battery storage arrive? An interesting aspect in this regard are research efforts into more abundant materials than lithium for future battery systems.

A nuclear renaissance?

For years the term “nuclear renaissance” has been tossed around. Nuclear power produces no CO2 emissions, but public perception of nuclear energy still in large measure remains negative per the enormously high-profile accidents of yesteryear in the U.S., Russia, and Japan. Furthermore, large nuclear plants continue to be enormously expensive. 

Many in the industry are banking on small modular reactor (SMR) technology as the path forward. An argument I hear regularly about the viability of small reactors is that the “U.S. Navy has been using them for years in many of their ships, so the technology is established.” That answer may sound somewhat simplistic, but one argument for continued development of SMR technology is the potential for design standardization to help keep costs low, relatively speaking. Power experts are also looking at small reactors for microgrid applications, where a unit would provide the energy for a local area or perhaps a concentrated group of heavy industries. Managers at refineries, petrochemical plants, steel mills, etc., continue to explore opportunities for replacing some steam-fed heat exchangers with electrical energy. 

Of course, an issue that will remain at the forefront of new nuclear development is spent fuel disposal.  Some argue that breeder reactor technology to convert spent material to new fuel is proven. This discussion will definitely continue, including at future PGI events.

Is hydrogen part of the answer?

Much is being made about projects to produce “green” hydrogen; the generation of H2 by electrolysis of water with either renewable or nuclear as the energy source. The hydrogen could then serve in multiple applications, including fuel for transportation and as a blended fuel or perhaps even the primary fuel for combined cycle power units. Already in design are combustion turbines to burn blended fuel or even straight hydrogen. 

Some significant speed bumps exist along this path. One is the presence of adequate water supplies for the hydrogen feedstock. I have seen some maps that show potential production facilities in interior portions of the country where water is scarce. This concept seems unrealistic. An alternative is to place production facilities along the coasts with their inexhaustible supply of seawater. However, electrolyzers require high-purity feed water, which would in turn require considerable effort to purify seawater.

Hydrogen distribution also presents challenges. Hydrogen pipeline technology is well established at industries along the “chemical coast” of Texas and Louisiana, but for new energy applications, hydrogen might have to be moved much longer distances. One concept is establishment of “hydrogen hubs” for gathering and distribution of the gas. Of course, hydrogen is extremely combustible, so safety considerations must take top priority. Another concept is to convert the produced nitrogen to ammonia and then transport that product to final locations. Anhydrous ammonia is combustible, but burning it directly produces nitrogen oxides (NOx), which for years power plants have been removing from flue gas via selective and non-selective catalytic reduction. This is yet another hurdle to consider.

Conclusion

As was mentioned in the introduction, POWERGEN is not the same conference it was in halcyon days of fossil fuel-fired power generation. But this must be expected. The power industry has changed dramatically in the last ten to twenty years, and this change will continue. The conference must keep pace with the industry. Perhaps within a few years we might start seeing papers on fusion-based power production. “Never say never” is a key phrase when it comes to technology advancements, a concept that POWERGEN management well understands.

References

  1. K. Kohlrus, “Transition to renewables increases winter reliability risk”; Power Engineering, January 31, 2024.
  2. S. Russell, P.E., and E. Eisenbarth, “Carbon Capture Water Requirements and Wastewater Treatment”; from the proceedings of the 2023 International Water Conference, November 12-16, 2023, San Antonio, Texas.

About the Contributor: Brad Buecker is president of Buecker & Associates, LLC, consulting and technical writing/marketing. Most recently he served as Senior Technical Publicist with ChemTreat, Inc. He has over four decades of experience in or supporting the power and industrial water treatment industries, much of it in steam generation chemistry, water treatment, air quality control, and results engineering positions with City Water, Light & Power (Springfield, Illinois) and Kansas City Power & Light Company’s (now Evergy) La Cygne, Kansas station. Buecker has a B.S. in chemistry from Iowa State University with additional course work in fluid mechanics, energy and materials balances, and advanced inorganic chemistry. He has authored or co-authored over 250 articles for various technical trade magazines, and has written three books on power plant chemistry and air pollution control. He may be reached at beakertoo@aol.com.