CO 2 Capture A Potential for the Cement industry? Preparing decisions for next steps.
-
Upload
elsa-steers -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of CO 2 Capture A Potential for the Cement industry? Preparing decisions for next steps.
CO2 Capture
A Potential for the Cement industry?
Preparing decisions for next steps
Executive Summary
Carbon capture and storage is perceived as a feasible technology
It is very probable that CCS post combustion can technically be available in the
cement industry within the next 6 to 8 years, the development of the oxy-fuel
technology will certainly take longer
ECRA members have to decide on ECRA CCS project phase III, which focuses on laboratory and small scales tests. It also aims to continue the work oxy-fuel technology.
ECRA members have to decide on a CCS post combustion test plant (pilot / demonstration). Some funding schemes require a decision to be taken already in 2009
CCS – todays view
Increasing pressure on global power sector to implement carbon capture in new installations
– EU27, NAM, China
– International Energy Agency (IEA)
– Green NGO’s
Demonstration projects in power sector starting or on steam
– USA several projects from recovery funds
– EU projects funded from recovery fundsprojects funded from auctioned emissions rights in EU ETS
General feeling that the technology for post combustion capture is available already
– Amine absorption or other processes
Other sectors will have to follow
– Cement industry on first row as sector with lowest potential to reduce emissions within existing processes
Carbon capture and storage is perceived as a feasible technology
Global CCS vision 2050
IEA: In 2050 50% of all cement plants in Europe, North America, Australia, East Asia are applying CCS, 20% in India, China
Pilot and demonstration projects in Europe
Test plants of various sizes have been initiated
CO2-Storage – examples of current and planned project
Carbon capture in cement industry
Research and Development
– ECRA, with support of major cement producers and WBCSD/CSI
– CIEC in California
Two possible routes
– Oxyfuel technology with direct storage for new plants
– Further research needed on reaction kinetics
– New type of installation and equipment needed
– Demonstration project(s) not possible before 2018/2020
– Post combustion capture for existing plants
– Demonstration project(s) possible in a few years
– Funding now available via recovery funds in EU and NAM
Current research results indicate a technical potential but at very high costs
The beginning debate about storage
Increasing protests on local level against onshore storage of CO2 in geological
formations
- Netherlands – Barendregt- Germany- Denmark
Offshore storage
- Greenpeace against Sleipner field (May 2009)
A cement plant will be a minor source of CO2 for storage,
- Storage facility for only a cement plant will not be feasible
- Cement industry should not involve itself in storage
• Storage is facility to be supplied by others: governments, oil company, etc.• Transport to storage facility to be outsourced if possible• Combination of exhaust gases with gases from other sectors
recommended
All industries will be challenged by the public concern about storage
Legal and Regulatory Framework in Europe
CO2 Capture: Council Directive (96/61/EC) concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control (IPPC Directive)
CO2 Transport: Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
CO2 Storage: Directive 2009/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the geological storage of carbon dioxide
Liability: Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and the Council on
environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of
environmental damage
Politically, CCS is seen as an measure to reduce CO2
Potential road map for CCS in the cement industry
Continue research and development
– develop post combustion capture (especially with amines) and prepare upscaling
of existing technology
– stimulate research on Oxyfuel technology in cooperation with equipment
suppliers
Prepare decisions for a test plant based on post combustion capture technology
Do not focus on transport and storage because
– storage is not a specific cement industry issue
– stakeholders concerns should be met separately in order not to undermine
potential capture demo-plant implementation
Ongoing research will be the decision base for a potential post-combustion capture demo-plant and parallel development of oxyfuel technology
A potential CCS Project – a multi stage project
Laboratory test
Pilot plant
Demonstration plant
A demonstration plant can only be based on experiences from a pilot as anintegral part of the whole process
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
planning
building
operating
pro: Cement industry is second sector in
focus
Technology to be applied is “identical”
to power sector (in the view of others)
Without involvement, others will decide
what cement sector will have to do
cement industry must be able to
express itself based on facts from test
plant
CO2 abatement costs will be covered by
the prices for the certificate
Potential for a test plant in the cement industryA decision for a test plant in the cement industry is based on various pros and cons
contra: global CO2 emissions are dominated by
the power sector
scaling effects suggest to concentrate on
power plants and not cement plants
storage will not be accepted by the
public
capture will never be possible at viable
costs
a full scale demonstration plant will be
expected to continue operation even if
test results are not satisfying
Technical preference for a potential test plant
While oxy-fuel seems to require less energy, post combustion might be earlier available
Oxyfuel oxygen enrichment has been applied to
cement kilns
CO2 from the combustion process is concentrated and “easy” to isolate
Kiln - including cooler - needs to be completely redesigned
new technology; retrofit or modifying of existing plant unlikely
high energy consumption for oxygen production
Post combustion available end-of-the pipe technology
up-scaling still pending, but retrofit seems possible
minimal impact on existing clinker process
pure CO2 stream for compression and subsequent treatment
very high energy consumption for amine-stripper
Cost analysis based on three scenarios
Post combustion
OxyfuelPilot plant
Demonstration
plant
CO2 capture rate
[CO2/a]100.000 900.000 800.000
Investment costs
[M€]34 100 - 300 344*
Operating costs per
CO2 avoided [€/t]30 40 - 80 33
Comments
• Based on Brevik kiln
• Excess heat from cooler and
preheater used, no extra power
plant required
• Based on studies from GassTek,
Mahasenan and BCA/IEA
• Assuming full scale plant to
capture 100% of kiln’s CO2
• Assumes new kiln
• *Investment costs include kiln
including capture plant
Cost estimates still need to be refined but indicate avoidance costs between 30 and 80 €/tonne of CO2
all figures subject to uncertainties
Research Agenda – ECRA CCS Project
Study about Technical and Financial Aspects of CCS Projects, Concentrating on Oxyfuel and Post-Combustion Technology (summer 2007 – summer 2009)
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
Literature Study (January - June 2007)
Laboratory-scale / small-scale research activities (autumn 2009 – summer 2011)
Pilot-scale research activities (time-frame: 2-3 years)
Demonstration plant (time-frame: 3-5 years)
ECRA started a CCS project in 2007 which has now reached the end of its second phase. It is now preparing a decision for the next steps
Next steps (1/2)
EU Funds:
– European Recovery Fund (EEPR) focuses on specific projects only, tenders from equipment suppliers need to be submitted until end of June. not applicable to cement
– Co-financing of CCS under ETS (NER 300) requires 500kt CO2 /a to be captured and must implement transport and storage. Deadline for proposal end of 2009. clarification needed, if pilot plant can be funded to start with; ECRA inquires
details at EU-Commission’s stakeholders meetings
- EU’s seventh framework programme (FP7) research might be funded, next call that could be suitable will be launched
only in summer 2009; ECRA keeps track of developments National funds, in this case from Norway:
– HeidelbergCement (Norcem) will contact Norwegian institutions (oil/energy ministry to tentatively explore funding possibilities.
Very high cost for CCS make funding imperative; irrespective of funding schemes final decision on test plant to be taken by the cement industry.
Next steps (2/2)
Without prejudice to the cement industry’s final decision some actions should be
taken now:
– Inquire funding potentials with in the EU and regionally i.e. Norway
action will be taken by ECRA and HeidelbergCement/Norcem
– Coordinate a possible funding scheme within the cement industry
since all funding schemes require at least some contribution from the industry, ECRA should explore potential contributions from its members.
action will be taken by Daniel Gauthier and the Technical Advisory Board
– Prepare a tender invitation for service providers of CCS technology in order to be updated on latest state of the art processes; key issues have to be investment requirement, energy demand and process/scrubber design
action will be taken by ECRA
Final decision to be taken by ECRA members on 5 October 2009
In autumn ECRA i.e. the cement industry has to finally decide about a CSS project; equipment suppliers should be invited to give technical input