An Overview of CO Capture Technologies What are the ... · Workshop on Capture and Sequestration of...

An Overview of COAn Overview of CO 22 Capture TechnologiesCapture TechnologiesWhat are the Challenges Ahead?What are the Challenges Ahead?

•http://www.ieagreen.org.uk

by:

Stanley SantosIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Presented at:

Workshop on Capture and Sequestration of CO 2 (CCS)10th July 2008

Mexico City

•*Corresponding Author’s Email: stanley.santos@ieaghg .org

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline• IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme• Briefly summarise international policy

developments and regulatory developments• Overview of CO2 capture technologies for power

http://www.ieagreen.org.uk

• Overview of CO2 capture technologies for power generationo Post-Combustion Captureo Oxy-Combustion Captureo Pre-Combustion Capture

• What challenges, issues and future development in the three leading CO2 capture technologies.

Brief Introduction toBrief Introduction to


IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme(IEAGHG)(IEAGHG)

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme• A collaborative research programme founded in 1991

• Aim is to:Provide members with definitive information on the role that technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emis sions.

• Funding approximately 2.5 million $/year.


• Funding approximately 2.5 million $/year.

• Activities:- Studies (>100), international research networks , facilitating and focussing R&D and demonstration activities

• Producing information that is:o Objective, trustworthy, independent

o Policy relevant but NOT policy prescriptive

o Reviewed by external Expert Reviewers

o Subject to review of policy implications by Members

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeOur Relation to the International Energy AgencyOur Relation to the International Energy Agency

IEA GHG is one of 40 organisations having

an implementing agreement with IEA


Technology and Market InformationTechnology and Market InformationTechnical AssessmentsImplementation Support

� Methodology for CCS projects under CDM

� Guidelines for CCS site characterisation

� CCS Project Financing

� Improved solvent scrubbing processes for CO 2 capture

� Capture of CO 2 from medium scale installations

� Improved Oxygen production processes


� CCS Project Financing� Regional capacity for CO 2 storage

in India

processes� Collection of CO 2 from

distributed sources� CO2 Capture in the cement

industry� Co-production of hydrogen

and electricity� Remediation of leakage from

geological storage� Fuel Cells for CHP� CO2 Pipeline transmission

costs

Regulatory Support� Risk assessment and regulatory

needs� Environmental impact assessment for

CCS� Capture-ready power plant� Monitoring Selection Tool

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D ProgrammeIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme• Provide a forum for Governments and Industry to

cooperate

• Collaborate with other international bodieso International Energy Agency & G8


o International Energy Agency & G8

o CSLF and APEC

GHGT-916th – 19th November 2008

Washington D.C.http://mit.edu/ghgt9

Development of CCSDevelopment of CCS


Development of CCSDevelopment of CCS(Brief summary of International Policy Development)(Brief summary of International Policy Development)

International Policy DevelopmentsInternational Policy Developments• International acceptance of CCS was seen as a major

barrier to CCS deployment 2/3 years ago o Situation has changed significantly in previous year

o Main International Environmental Treaty is the Kyoto ProtocolCCS accepted as a mitigation option in 2007


� CCS accepted as a mitigation option in 2007

o Remaining Barrier: Acceptance of CCS to be included in CDM� Awaiting decision under COP/MOP4 meeting in Poland (Dec. 2008)

• Key International Marine Treaties (i.e. London Convention / OSPAR) adopted amendments to allow CCS in sub sea geological structureso Established guidelines for risk assessment and management

for CO2 storage in sub sea geological structures

Role of CCS in climate change mitigation?Role of CCS in climate change mitigation?

• IPCC Special Report (2005) – CCS contributing 15-55% of CO2 mitigation to 2100

• IEA Technology Perspectives (2006) – CCS 20-28% of mitigation to 2050. Second only to energy efficiency.

• Stern Report (2006) – CCS ~10% mitigation by 2025, ~20% by 2050.


• Stern Report (2006) – CCS ~10% mitigation by 2025, ~20% by 2050. Marginal mitigation costs without CCS increase by ~60%.

• EC/Shell (2007) - 7 yrs delay CCS = 90GT CO2 to 2050 = 3 yrs global emissions = 10ppm

• World Energy Outlook 2007. “CCS is one of the most promising routes for mitigating emissions in the longer term and could reconcile continued coal burning with the need to cut emissions in the longer term”.

Regulatory DevelopmentsRegulatory DevelopmentsCountry/Region Action

Europe EC Draft Directive on CCS developed – focuses on regulatory development for storage component. Other areas (transport, capture) covered by existing regulations

USA IOGCC drafted guidelines for CO2 storage in geological formations where states have primacy


formations where states have primacyUSEPA drafting overarching state guidance for CO2

storage CO2-EOR already covered by existing state and federal lawsUSDOT regulations cover transport of CO2

Canada New GHG emissions legislation being drafted will include a CCS provisionProvinces already regulate CO2 transport, CO2-EOR and acid gas disposal

Australia Federal Government to redraft oil and gas legislation to accommodate CCSState of Victoria has a consultation document for CCS

General Overview of COGeneral Overview of CO 22 CaptureCapture


General Overview of COGeneral Overview of CO 22 CaptureCapture

CarbonReduction

Increased Efficiency

Zero EmissionsTrajectory

Key issue will be value of CO2

Current View on CCS and Efficiency IncreaseCurrent View on CCS and Efficiency Increase

http://www.ieagreen.org.uk 14

•Time

Increased EfficiencyTrajectory

Near-term Mid-term Long-term

CCS will need the most efficient plant

PostPost --Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture


PostPost --Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture

PostPost--Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture

Air N2, O2, H2O to atmosphere

CapturePower generation


Fuel Boiler or gas turbine

Solvent scrubbing

(FGD/SCR)

•PowerCO2 to storageSteam

turbine

Steam

CO2compression

Chemical Absorption ProcessChemical Absorption Process


PostPost--Combustion COCombustion CO 22 CaptureCapture(Typical Operating Parameters)(Typical Operating Parameters)

• For MEA (with 30% solution) operation:

o Absorber: CO2 removal(40-60oC)


o Regenerator (Stripper): CO2 release & solvent regeneration(100-120 oC)

o Efficiency: Up to 95+% CO 2 removal from flue gas

o CO2 product: 99+% CO2

(capability to achieve food grade CO2)

o Energy requirements: Sourced from the steam from turbine

PostPost--Combustion COCombustion CO 22 CaptureCapture(Bellingham, MA, USA)(Bellingham, MA, USA)

• 350 TPD Liquid CO2 Plant using Econamine FG SM* (proprietary MEA based solvent)

• CO is captured from the


• CO2 is captured from the flue gas of a gas turbine (a cogen facility) having 14% O2 in the flue gas.

• Operated by the Suez Energy Generation

COCO22 Based Solvent ScrubbingBased Solvent Scrubbing• Use of Amine scrubbing to capture CO2 is the most mature among the 3

mostly considered capture technology options for the power generation.• Amine based solvent is currently the commonly used for CO2 capture

o widely used in food processing (ie. carbonated drinks) and chemical industries (ie. Urea plant)Many large scale storage demonstration (> 1 MT/yr of scale) – mostly in oil


o Many large scale storage demonstration (> 1 MT/yr of scale) – mostly in oil and gas fields applications (For example in Sleipner, Salah and Snohvit)

• Current R&D Focuso Improvement to current solvento Development on column design and packingo Development for scaling up (from < 1000 TPD to ~5000 TPD per unit)o Development of new type of solventso Development is also on-going for application to coal fired power plant

•<Experience and R&D Facilities>MHI’s Evolution Development of Flue Gas CO 2 Recovery Plant

•00 •01

•Coal Fired•Flue Gas

•Application

•09•08•07•06•05•04•03•02•99•98•97•96•95•94•93•92•91•90

•Evolution

•1 Ton/Day•Pilot Test Completed

•Long Term Demo. Plant

•3000 Tonnes /Day •6000 Tonnes/Day

•Large Scale Demonstration•Plant Design Ready

•1 Ton/Day Pilot Plant

•Test Starts

•Long Term Demo. Plant

•22

•Commercial•Plant

•Enlargement

•3000 Tonnes /Day•Design Completed •Design Completes

•Nanko Pilot Plant (2 Tonnes/day)

•Malaysia Kedah (200 Tonnes/day )

•R&D for Process Improvement

•Japan, Chemical Company •(330 Tonnes/day)

•India, Fertilizer Company •(450 Tonnes/day x 2)•Abu Dhabi, Fertilizer Company

•(400 Tonnes/day)•330 Tonnes/day Plant

•3000 Tonnes /Day Plant•Large Scale Test Plant

•FGD•Experience

•Start of Development

•Malaysia kedah Plant

PostPost--combustion capture: KEY ISSUEScombustion capture: KEY ISSUES• Solvent life

○ Requires very low SOx (< 10 ppm) and NO2 (< 20 ppm)○ Solvent could be very expensive – target: lower solvent losses

• Corrosion


•23

• Corrosion○ Stainless steel v carbon steel○ Inhibitors can contain V, Sn, Sb (antimony)

• Energy consumption○ Regeneration of solvent

• Environmental impacts○ Some degradation products known and regulated; others are not.

Future Direction of ResearchFuture Direction of Research• Cost and Process Optimisation of the current MEA based Technologies

○ Design of the Absorption column

○ Reduction of Energy consumption of the regenerative column

• Improvement of Current solventsImproving kinetics


○ Improving kinetics

○ Improving additives to reduce degradation

• Development of new solvents○ For Examples: Chilled Ammonia process, Cansolv solvent, KS2, etc...

• Environmental Impact Assessment○ Impact assessment due solvent degradation

○ Fugitive emissions (especially NH3 as one of the by-product of degradation)

•24

R&DR&D EffortEffort inin EuropeEurope• Castor Post-Combustion Pilot

Plant Project○ Installed at the Esbjerg Power

Station

• Pilot Capacity: 1000 kg CO2 per


•25

• Pilot Capacity: 1000 kg CO per hour (25 TPD)

• 5000 Nm3/h flue gas (coal combustion)

• Now in operation○ started in March 2006○ CASTOR programme is now

complete. Work will be continued in CEASAR Project

•Nordjyllandsværket

•Vedsted On-shore Structure•Transport by pipeline

•Vattenfall’s CCS demo project at Nordjyllandsværket

•© Vattenfall AB

On February 6, 2008 On February 6, 2008 VattenfallVattenfallNordic Thermal Power Nordic Thermal Power Generation announced the Generation announced the intention to develop a fullintention to develop a full--scale scale Carbon Capture & Storage Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) demonstration project(CCS) demonstration project

•IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme 11th MEETING of the INTERNATIONAL POST-COMBUSTION C O2 CAPTURE NETWORK20th-21st May, 2008, Vienna, Austria

• Development in new novel solvento CANSOLV Process

o Alstom Chilled Ammonia Process

Powerspan ECO Ammonia process

Other DevelopmentsOther Developments


o Powerspan ECO2 Ammonia process

• Other Large Scale Demonstration Projecto UK BERR Competition (currently 4 consortium

shortlisted)

o Germany - Vattenfall’s Janschwalde Project

Oxy Fuel Combustion with COOxy Fuel Combustion with CO 22


CaptureCapture

OxyOxy--Coal Combustion with COCoal Combustion with CO 22 CaptureCapture

Air separation

Air

Oxygen VentRecycled flue gas


Fuel Boiler Purification/ compression

Cooling (+FGD)

Power

Oxygen

CO2

Steam turbine

Steam

HP HEATER

MILL STACK (START

UP)

ID FAN DEAERATOR

COAL

HP

IP

ADVANCED SUPERCRITICAL BOILER

Convective Section of the boiler• heat transfer profile• ash deposition and fouling issue

• Burner design issue• Ignition• flame stability• devolatilisation & char burnout

•30

HP PUMP

LP HEATER

ESP

DEAERATOR

LP

CONDENSOR

COLD FD FAN

LP PUMP

AIR IN

FGD

• Radiant Section of the Boiler• heat transfer profile• slagging issue• fireside corrosion issue

Prior to any retrofit of carbon capture technology, it is essential to repower the plant in order to achieve the highest possible efficiency

HP HEATER

MILL

3

STACK (START

UP)

ESP

ID FAN DEAERATOR

COAL

NITROGEN

AIR

ASU

ADVANCED SUPERCRITICAL BOILER

HP

IP

LP

SECONDARY RECYCLE

PRIMARY RECYCLE

OXYGEN

4

2

•31

HP PUMP

LP HEATER

1 - IP STEAM BLEED 2 - HEAT FROM ASU ADIABATIC MAC 3 - CO2 COMPRESSOR STAGE HEAT 4 – FLUE GAS FEEDWATER HEATING

4

GAS DRIER

AIR INTAKE

START UP

FD / RECYCLE

FAN

GAS

/

GAS

LP

CONDENSOR

COLD PA FAN

LP PUMP

GAS COOLER & WATER REMOVAL

CO2 PRODUCT FOR COMPRESSION

1 2 3 4

3 4

CO2 PURIFICATION

INERTS 3

Gas / Gas

Heater

OxyOxy--Combustion TechnologyCombustion Technology

• Use of oxygen instead of air in a boiler – “Oxy-Combustion” is the least mature among the 3 mostly considered capture technology options for the power generation.


•32

the power generation.

• 3 key development issues○ Boiler and burner development

○ Air Separation Unit – “Cost and capacity of oxygen production”

○ CO2 processing – “Removal of impurities”

ANL ANL -- EERC StudyEERC StudyWorld’s 1World’s 1 stst OxyOxy--Coal Pilot Scale StudyCoal Pilot Scale Study

Tower Furnace (~ 3MWTower Furnace (~ 3MW thth ))


•33

Coal Flame Photos:Coal Flame Photos:Air Fired vs OxyAir Fired vs Oxy--FiredFired

(Courtesy of IHI)(Courtesy of IHI)

Air modeAir modeAir modeAir mode（（（（OOOO ：：：：21%21%21%21%））））


•34

•Air modeAir modeAir modeAir mode（（（（OOOO2222：：：：21%21%21%21%））））

•Oxy modeOxy modeOxy modeOxy mode（（（（OOOO2222：：：：21%21%21%21%）））） •Oxy modeOxy modeOxy modeOxy mode（（（（OOOO2222：：：：30%30%30%30%））））

•Recycle Ratio = 0.58(~ 0.61 include the CO 2 to transport coal)

•O2-RFG flame with recycle ratio = 0.58

•Recycle Ratio = 0.76

•O2-RFG flame with recycle ratio = 0.76

•Courtesy of IFRF

11stst Large Scale OxyLarge Scale Oxy--Coal Combustion ExperienceCoal Combustion Experience(International Combustion Ltd.)(International Combustion Ltd.)


•36

� 35 MWth Low NOx burner

� Although it was not able to achieve the desirable CO2 composition – the first combustion trial gained significant experience in burner start up

OxyOxy--Combustion TechnologyCombustion Technology


What are the Enabling Studies in the near future that will provide a big step forward for Oxy-Coal Combustion…

VattenfallVattenfall SchwarzeSchwarze PumpePumpe Pilot ProjectPilot Project

2009 2010 20112005 2006 2007 2008

Pre- and Order planning

Permission planning

Execution planning

•Time Table for Implementation of Oxy-Fuel Project


•38

Commissioning

Erection

Operation

•Courtesy of Vattenfall

SchwarzeSchwarze PumpePumpe OxyOxy--Combustion Pilot PlantCombustion Pilot Plant


•39

Courtesy of Vattenfall AB

What it looks like today…What it looks like today…


•40

Callide A Project: Callide A Project: JapaneseJapanese--Australian CollaborationAustralian Collaboration

Nth Denison Trough


•41

Callide-A Power Station Capacity: 4 x 30 MWe Commissioned: 1965 – 1969 Refurbished: 1997/98 Steam Parameters: 4.1 MPa, 460oC Steam Flowrate: 123 t/h steam

Figure 2: Location of Callide -A Project. A Planned retrofit to a coal fired powe r plant with an oxy -combustion boiler

DoosanDoosan Babcock Burner Test (2008/09)Babcock Burner Test (2008/09)


•42

40 MWth

OxyOxy--Combustion: KEY ISSUESCombustion: KEY ISSUES• Air Ingress

○ Estimated that every 1% of air ingress should be equivalent to about 4% reduction of the CO2 concentration in the flue gas.

○ Several failures have been noted from previous experiences of not reaching the desired concentration of CO2 due to air ingress.

○ This is a big challenge especially retrofitting a power plant.• Boiler and Burner Development


•43

• Boiler and Burner Development○ We need to build our confidence in running an oxy-fired burner/boiler

especially at the same scale of our current PC boiler.○ Various technical issues elucidated - these include heat transfer aspect, ash

and slagging, equipment scaling up, etc…○ Largest burner test as of today operated with oxy-firing mode for coal was

done by International Combustion during the 1990’s - what have we learned from this test?

• Cost and capacity of producing your oxygen• CO2 purity will be a very sensitive issue to this technology - this would

have significant impact to economics of the plant

OxyOxy--Combustion: KEY ISSUESCombustion: KEY ISSUES

• SO3 issue is a big missing link!

• ANL study (1985) have indicated that SO3


•44

indicated that SO3

formation is 3 to 4 times greater as compared to conventional air – firing mode

• We need to know more about this potential operational issue.

•From Chemical Engineering Progress (Vol. 70)

•Universität Stuttgart

80

100

120

140

SO3 measured,ppm

OXYFUEL

•Measured SO 3 concentrations for Lausitz coalat AIR and OXYFUEL combustion conditions

SO2

measured

SO3

measured

ppm ppm

0

20

40

60

80

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

SO2 at measurment position, ppm

AIR

AIR 733 8 (6 – 11)*

OXYFUEL 1758 85 (36 – 121)*

•* ... min. / max. value measured

Large Scale Pilot and Demo Projects

PROJECT Location MWt Start up

Boiler Type Main Fuel CO2 Train

B & W USA 30 2007 Pilot PC Bit, Sub B., Lig.

Jupiter USA 20 2007 Industr. No FGR NG, Coal

Oxy-coal UK UK 40 2008 Pilot PC

Vattenfall Germany 30 2008 Pilot PC Lignite (Bit.) With CCS

Total, Lacq France 30 2009 Industrial Nat gas With CCS

Pearl Plant USA 66 2009 22 MWe PC Bit Side stream

Callide Australia 90 2010 30 MWe PC Bit. With CCS

Ciuden - PC Spain 20 2010 Pilot PC Anthra.(Pet ck) ?

Ciuden - CFB Spain 30 2010 Pilot CFB Anthra.(Pet ck) ?

Jamestown USA 150 2013 50 MWe CFB Bit. With CCS

Vattenfall Germany? ~1000 2015 ~250 MWe? Lignite (Bit.) ?

Youngdong Korea ~400 2016? ~100 MWe PC? ? ?

11.7 10.0

30.0

10.013.3

22.0

10.010.0

50.0

250.0

100.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

MW

eOxy-Fuel Combustion Boiler Projects

•(Conversion @ 1 MWe = 3 MWt = 10 MMBtu/hr)

•International Comb

•Vattenfall

•Vattenfall

•Callide A

•Oxy-coal UK

•Pearl Plant

•Utility•Boilers

•Jamestown

•Youngdong

•B&W

•Demo Projects

1.0

0.2

0.5

1.0

11.7

0.1

0.4

4.0

0.2

0.3

6.7

0.2

1.0

10.010.010.06.710.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

MW

e

•ANL/EERC

•ANL/BHP

•JSIM/NEDO(oil)

•IHI

•IFRF

•B&W/AL

•CANMET

•TOTAL(NG)•Jupiter

•CIUDEN

•ENEL

•PowerGen

•IVD-Stuttgart

•RWE-NPOWER

•Industrial•Furnaces

•Test•Furnaces

•CIUDEN

•B&W

PrePre--Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture


(Considering only Coal Power Plant)(Considering only Coal Power Plant)

PrePre--Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture

Coal Gasification Acid gas Shift

•CO2CO2compression

•Sulphur

H2S

CO+H2O→H2+CO2

IGCC with CO2 capture

Sulphur


Gasification Acid gas removal

Shift conversion

Air separation

•Combined cycle

Air

Fuel gas (mainly H2)

Nitrogen Power

Oxygen

Air Air

Sulphur recovery

IGCC without CaptureIGCC without Capture

• 5 coal-based IGCC demonstration plant in the USA, Europe and Japan

• IGCC is not at present the preferred technology for new


• IGCC is not at present the preferred technology for new coal-fired power plants

• Main commercial interest in IGCC is for use of petroleum residues

• Several plants built and planned at refineries

• IGCC has some intrinsic economic advantage over PC plant when CCS is added

IGCC IGCC –– Currently in OperationCurrently in Operation

•Nuon – Buggenum250 MWel

250MWe Air Blown IGCC (Fukushima, Japan)250MWe Air Blown IGCC (Fukushima, Japan)


COCO22 Capture in IGCCCapture in IGCC• Advantages of IGCC for CO2 capture

o High CO2 concentration and high overall pressure� Lower energy consumption for CO2 separation� Compact equipment

o Proven CO2 separation technology can be used


o Proven CO2 separation technology can be usedo Possibility of co-production of hydrogen

• Disadvantageso IGCC is unfamiliar technology for power generatorso Existing coal fired plants have low availabilityo IGCC without CO2 capture has generally higher costs than

pulverised coal combustion

IGCCIGCC

• IGCC with pre-combustion capture has been the fundamental building blocks in various programme for co-generation of electricity and hydrogen


and hydrogen

• Some exampleso USA: FutureGen (old) Programme

o Europe: HYPOGEN Programme

o Japan: EAGLE Project

o China: GreenGen Project

PrePre--Combustion Capture: Key BarrierCombustion Capture: Key Barrier• Will reliability hinders the

deployment of IGCC?

• Record for IGCC’s availability has been poor but improving.


has been poor but improving.

• Complexity of the plant could be a turn off to prospective investors or power generation company

• Cost is another issue

•Source: EPRI

PrePre--Combustion Capture: Combustion Capture: Key Development AreaKey Development Area

• Development in Gasifier Technology

• Development in Shift Reactor○ Choice of Sour vs Sweet Shift Reaction


○ Choice of Sour vs Sweet Shift Reaction

• Development in Separation of CO2 using Physical Absorption technology

• Development in the Gas Turbine technology○ Development of gas turbine firing H2 rich fuel using the current

DLN technology

What are the current trend of development in What are the current trend of development in IGCC Based Technology…IGCC Based Technology…

• New fleet taking advantage of 10+ years of operation in the U.S. and Europeo Materials of construction


o Spare equipment

o Gasifier refractory / membrane wall

o Burner design

• Range of suppliers to choose from, for a wide variety of coals and other feedstocks

• EPC alliances can provide important guarantees

58

GE Bechtel Reference PlantGE Bechtel Reference Plant


Concluding RemarksConcluding Remarks


Concluding RemarksConcluding Remarks

40

50

60

Power Generation Efficiency Power Generation Efficiency Efficiency, % LHV


0

10

20

30

Post-comb

IGCCslurry

IGCC dry Oxyfuel Post-comb

Oxyfuel

Without capture With capture

61

•Source: IEA GHG studies

Coal Natural gas

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Capital CostCapital CostUS $/kW


0

200

400

600

800

1000

PostFluor

PostMHI

IGCCslurry

IGCCdry

Oxyfuel PostFluor

PostMHI

Oxyfuel

Without capture With capture •Source: IEA GHG studies

Coal Natural gas

•Based on 1 US $/Euro

Cost of Capture and StorageCost of Capture and Storage

6

8

10

PF-CCS

IGCC-CCS

NGCC-CCS

•Electricity cost, US c/kWh


0

2

4

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fuel cost, $/GJ (LHV)

NGCC-CCS

PF

IGCC

NGCC

•Basis: 10% DCF, 25 year life, 85% load factor, $8/t CO2 stored

Summary• CCS is one of the important measures that will make a significant

impact on reducing CO2 emissions

• CCS implementation is picking up pace internationallyo Several activities have been initiated worldwide in the development

of CO2 Capture for Power Generation industry.


of CO2 Capture for Power Generation industry.

• There are two set of horse race among the three leading CO2

capture options for newly build and retrofit power plant. o There is no clear winner at the moment!

• We need large scale demonstration of the carbon capture technology to build the confidence necessary for a rapid deployment.

• We also need to build our technical capacity base and encourage students to see CCS as their future career path

Thank YouThank YouAny Questions?Any Questions?

General – http://www.ieagreen.org.uk


CCS – http://www.co2captureandstorage.info

GHGT-9 – http://www.mit.edu/ghgt9

Email – [email protected]

An Overview of CO Capture Technologies What are the ... · Workshop on Capture and Sequestration of...

Documents

Transcript of An Overview of CO Capture Technologies What are the ... · Workshop on Capture and Sequestration of...