CCS Technology Status and Outlook

7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook

1/48

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

CCS Technology Status and Outlook

Howard Herzog

MIT

June 4, 2012

Research Experience in Carbon Sequestration (RECS)


2/48

Overview

CCS Milestones Technology Status Capture Primer CCS Costs CCS Demonstrations Going Forward



3/48


CCS Milestones

1977 Marchetti paper (first paper on CCS) 1990 RITE (Research Institute for Innovative Technology for the

Earth) established in Japan

1991 First International Conference on Carbon Dioxide Removalheld in Amsterdam

1991 IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme established 1993 - DOE Research Needs Assessment on the Capture, Disposal,

and Utilization of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil-Fueled Power Plantpublished

1996 Sleipner Project (worlds first Mt scale CCS project) startsinjection

1998 GHGT-4 held in Switzerland 1998 - DOE Research Program on Carbon Sequestration started 2005 - IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage published 2008 GHGT-10 draws 1500 people to Washington, DC


4/48


5/48


CCS not a single technology, but a collection of technologiesAll key components of a CCS system are in commercial use


6/48


CCS Today

All major components of a carbon capture andsequestration system are commerciallyavailable today. Capture and compression Transport Injection Monitoring

However, there is no CCS industry eventhough the technological components of CCSare all in use somewhere in the economy, theydo not currently function together in the wayimagined as a pathway for reducing carbonemissions.


7/48


The Scale-up Challenge

From Megatonnes to Gigatonnes

We have yet to build a large-scale (>1MtCO2/yr) power plant CCS demonstration (2

currently under construction) In order to have a significant impact on

climate change, we need to operate at the

billion tonne (Gt) per year level

This implies that 100s of power plants willneed to capture and store their CO2


8/48


Challenges for Scale-up

Costs Infrastructure

Subsurface Uncertainty Capacity Long-term Integrity

Regulatory Framework Long-term Liability Public Acceptance


9/48


Capture Primer

Post-Combustion

Oxy-CombustionPre-Combustion


10/48


11/48


Schematic of Amine Process for

CO2

Capture


12/48


Source: ABB Lummus

Poteau, OK 200 tpd

CO2 Capture at a Power Plant


13/48


Alternative approaches to

chemical absorption

Adsorption or membranes Structured and Responsive Materials Cryogenics/ phase separation Biomimetric approaches (e.g., carbonic

anhydrase)

Microalgae


14/48


Oxy-Combustion Capture

Air SepUnit (ASU)

Air

Flue GasCleanup

CO2

Steam

Cycle

ElectricitySteam

Oxygen

BoilerCoal

Flue Gas


15/48


Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe Plant


16/48


Oxy-combustion 30 MWth Pilot Plant

ESP

CO2-Plant

SwitchgearBuilding

Air Separation

Unit

Boiler

FGD

FG-Condenser


17/48


IGCC Power Plant

Air SepUnit

(ASU)

Air

GasCleanup

CO/H2 CombinedCycle

Electricity

Flue Gas

Coal SyngasGasifier

Oxygen


18/48

IGCC Power Plant


Rendering of the proposed IGCC power plant located at Duke Energys

Edwardsport Station in Knox County, Indiana

http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/edwardsport-overview.asp


19/48


IGCC with Capture

CombinedCycle

Electricity

Flue Gas

CO2/H2Shift CO2

Capture

CO2

H2

GasCleanup

SyngasCoal

Air SepUnit

(ASU)

Air

Gasifier

Oxygen

CO/H2


20/48


Comparison of

Capture Technology Pathways

Plusses Minuses

Post-

Combustion

Compatible with

existing infrastructure;retrofits; flexibility

Current methods have

high energy penalties

Oxy-

Combustion

Potentially less

expensive than post-

combustion; retrofits

Cost of oxygen; lack of

experience

Pre-Combustion

Projected lowestincremental cost for

capture

Slow progress of IGCC


21/48


Technology Choice

It is premature to select one coal conversiontechnology as the preferred route for cost-

effective electricity generation combined

with CCS.

Variability in location, coal type, etc. Uncertainty in technological progress

MIT Coal Study Finding #6


22/48


CCS Costs


23/48


Sherwood PlotWhen it Comes to Costs, Concentration Matters

King et al., Separation and Purification: Critical Needs and Opportunities, National Research Council report, National Academy Press,

Washington, DC (1987).

CCS


24/48


Classifying CO2 Sources

Category % CO2 (vol) Example

High Pressure variesGas Wells (e.g., Sleipner)

Synthesis Gas (e.g., IGCC)

High Purity 90-100%Ethanol Plants

Oxy-Combustion Exhaust

Dilute 10-20%Coal-Fired Power Plants

Cement Plants

Cracker Exhaust

Very Dilute 3-7%Natural Gas Boilers

Gas Turbines

Extremely Dilute 0.04 1%Ambient Air

Submarines/ Space Craft


25/48

Comparing Power Plant Exhaust

Gas Characteristics

Attribute Gas Coal Implications for Gas

CO2 Concentration 3-5% or ~7% ~12% Larger Absorber

Particulates No Yes Less FiltrationSO2 No Yes Less Clean-up

NOx Yes Yes

O2 (excess air) High Low-Moderate More Degradation and

Corrosion

Capacity Factor Low-Moderate High Higher Costs



26/48

Cost Metrics

$/ton captured Based ongross amount of CO2 captured Appropriate for selling CO2 as a commodity

$/ton avoided Based on netamount of CO2 captured Appropriate for valuing CO2 for mitigation purposes

(i.e., consistent with permit prices or carbon tax)

$/MWh $/tCO2 * CO2/MWh Appropriate in a utility setting



27/48

Bottom-Up Cost Estimate

IEA Report

Matthias Finkenrath/ IEA

Fuel type Coal NG

Capture routePost-

combustion

Pre-

combustion

Oxy-

combustion

Post-

combustion

Reference plant w/out capture PC IGCC (PC) PC NGCC

Net efficiency penalty (LHV, %-pts) 10.5 7.5 9.6 8.3

Overnight cost w/capture (USD/kW) 3808 3714 3959 1715

Relative overnight cost increase 75% 44% (71%) 74% 82%

LCOE w/capture (USD/MWh) 107 104 102 102

Relative LCOE increase 63% 39% (55%) 64% 33%

Cost of CO2 avoided (USD/tCO2) 58 43 (55) 52 80

Average cost estimates across studies (2010 USD, OECD countries)

Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. The accuracy of feasibility study capital cost estimates is on average 30%, hence for coal the variation inaverage overnight costs, LCOE and cost of CO2 avoided between capture routes is within the uncertainty of the study. Underlying oxy-combustion data include some cases with CO2 purities


28/48

CCS Cost Summary

Costs for dilute sources (including transportand storage)Nth plant starting at $70/tCO2 avoided First-of-a-kind - $100/tCO2 avoided or more

High purity or high pressure sources will beless

While carbon markets or mandates will be thelong-term driver that makes CCS commercial,they are generally insufficient today.



29/48

Is CCS Expensive?

CCS is expensive compared to todaysenergy technologies (70-100% increase in

production cost of electricity)

If we need to decarbonize our electricitysystem, most models show CCS will be a

cost-effective option



30/48

Top-Down Cost Estimate

IPCC Special Report on CCS



31/48

Is CCS Expensive?

Average cost of policies to make significantcuts in GHG emissions are affordable

Loss of a few percent GDP over decades However, there will be winners and losers

Creates major political problems



32/48


Approaches to Lower Cost CO2

Capture

Strategy Positives Limitations

New/ImprovedSolvents High probability ofsuccess

Evolutionary

change, notrevolutionary

New Materials

(adsorbents,

membranes, etc.)

Many potentialideas

Low probability ofsuccess for any

given project

New Processes tomake capture easier

Potential forsignificant cost

reductions

Development willbe long, expensive

Biological Catalyst Phase-Changing Absorbents Metal-Organic Frameworks Electrochemically Mediated

Separation

Ionic Liquid Cryogenic Solvent-Membrane Hybrid


33/48


34/48

UCal Berkeley Press Release

May 27, 2012

Computer model pinpoints prime materials

for efficient carbon capture

Model vets millions of structures to find onesthat will improve efficiency of current

technology



35/48


CCS Demonstration Projects


36/48

`

High-purityindustrial/

naturalsources Powergenera8on

EOR/EGR

storage

Deepsaline&depletedO&G

fieldstorage

1

2

9

11

4

25

Opera8ng/AdvancedDevelopment

Planned

Cancelled

4 9


37/48

Proposed US DemonstrationsPower plant + CCS with federal cost-sharing

Company LocationDOE Support

(million $)Size Technology Fate

FutureGen Meredosia, IL 1000200 MW

>1 MtCO2/yr

Oxy-

Combustion

Saline

Formation

Hydrogen

Energy

Kern County,

CA308

390 MW

2 MtCO2/yr

IGCC

Coal/PetCokeEOR

AEPNew Haven,

WV334

235 MW

1.5 Mt CO2/yr

PCC

Chilled NH3

Saline

Formation

NRG Energy Parish, TX 16760 MW

0.4 Mt CO2/yr

PCC

Fluor

EOR

Summit

Energy

Midland-

Odessa, TX350

400 MW

2.7 MtCO2/yrIGCC EOR

SouthernKemper

County, MS293

524 MW

3.4 MtCO2/yrIGCC

Transport ReactorEOR



38/48

Proposed US Industrial Demonstrations

(with government support)

Company LocationDOE Support

(million $)Size Source Fate

Leucadia

Energy

Lake Charles.

LA260 4.5 MtCO2/yr

New Methanol

PlantEOR

Air Products &

Chemicals

Port Arthur,

TX253 1 MtCO2/yr

Existing Steam

Methane

ReformersEOR

Archer Daniels

MidlandDacatur, IL 99 1 MtCO2/yr

Existing

Ethanol Plant

Saline

Formation



39/48

NER300

13 CCS Projects 11 are power projects, 2 are industrial projects Of the 11 power projects:

10 are coal-fired, 1 is gas-fired 6 are post-combustion capture, 3 are pre-combustion, and

2 are oxy-combustion

8 CCS projects expected to get funding Funding to come from selling 300 million ETS

permits low price has double whammy Less money generated for fund Less money saved by avoiding carbon emissions



40/48


41/48

SaskPower

Company Location Size Technology Fate

SaskPowerBoundary Dam

Power Station

110 MW

retrofit

Amines

CansolvEOR



42/48

Alberta CCS Projects

$2 billion committed

Alberta Carbon Trunk Line Enhance Energy 240 km pipeline with a 14 Mt/yr capacity

Quest CCS Project Shell 1.2 Mt/yr from steam methane reformer to saline reservoir

Swan Hills Synfuel 1.3 Mt/yr from Underground coal gasification for EOR

Pioneer Project (Cancelled) TransAlta Retrofit 450 MW coal plant (1/3 of flue gas) with post-

combustion for EOR



43/48

TCM - Norway



44/48

Potential Roles for EOR in CCS

Development

Can Do Help project economics (positive value on CO2) Build out infrastructure

Develop capacity along the supply chain Help shape regulatory environment (including

liability issue)

Cannot Do Avoid need for subsidies for capturing CO2 from

power plants (and many other industrial sources) Replace climate change as the primary driver for

CCS technology



45/48


Going Forward


46/48

Going Forward

A New Reality

Past 20 years: significant year-to-year growth for CCS End 2008 - high expectations for continued rapid growth of CCS

Obama election Copenhagen expectations

The last 3 years - did not turn out as expected Worldwide financial crisis/recession Climate policy disarray at international level, retreat at many

national levels

Implications for CCS Short- to mid-term: Momentum slowed.

Flat R&D budgets Limited development of commercial markets Long-term: Need for CCS growing.

Global warming impacts may be more severe than previously thought Significant technological/economic challenges exist for CCS competitors like

nuclear and renewables



47/48

Going Forward

Implications of the New Reality

Markets will be slow to develop Public financing will be limited Important to use the delay incommercialization to improve technology and

knowledge, leading to reduced costs

Must replace quantity with qualityNeed for true international collaboration



48/48


Contact Information

Howard Herzog

Senior Research Engineer

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Energy Initiative

Room E19-370L

Cambridge, MA 02139

Phone: 617-253-0688

E-mail: [email protected]

Web Site: sequestration.mit.edu

CCS Technology Status and Outlook

Documents

Transcript of CCS Technology Status and Outlook