Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Carbon Capture & Storage Energy &...
-
Upload
hailey-hunter -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Carbon Capture & Storage Energy &...
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Carbon Capture & StorageCarbon Capture & Storage
Energy & Climate Mini-WorkshopEnergy & Climate Mini-Workshop
Howard HerzogHoward Herzog
MITMIT
November 3, 2008November 3, 2008
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
The MIT Coal StudyThe MIT Coal Study
• Released March 14, 2007Released March 14, 2007 On web at mit.edu/coalOn web at mit.edu/coal
• We conclude that COWe conclude that CO22 capture and sequestration capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical (CCS) is the critical enabling technology that enabling technology that would reduce COwould reduce CO22 emissions significantly emissions significantly while also allowing coal while also allowing coal to meet the world’s to meet the world’s pressing energy needs.pressing energy needs.
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
MIT Coal Study MIT Coal Study Summary of Key TakeawaysSummary of Key Takeaways
• Technology readiness is critical – there are myriad Technology readiness is critical – there are myriad options to pursue.options to pursue.
• Don’t preclude options by anointing winners Don’t preclude options by anointing winners prematurely.prematurely.
• We need to drastically increase R&D to bring COWe need to drastically increase R&D to bring CO22 capture technologies to fruition. There is urgency capture technologies to fruition. There is urgency to move ahead now if we are to reach Gt scale by to move ahead now if we are to reach Gt scale by 2050. Large scale demonstration projects are key.2050. Large scale demonstration projects are key.
• No showstoppers, but moving from the Mt scale to No showstoppers, but moving from the Mt scale to the Gt scale is a major challenge.the Gt scale is a major challenge.
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Technological ReadinessTechnological Readiness
• All major components of a carbon capture All major components of a carbon capture and sequestration system are commercially and sequestration system are commercially available today.available today.
• However, integrated, large-scale CCS However, integrated, large-scale CCS systems are not “commercially available”systems are not “commercially available” One stop shoppingOne stop shopping Subsurface vendorsSubsurface vendors GuaranteesGuarantees
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Two biggest challenges for CCSTwo biggest challenges for CCS
• Reducing costs primarily associated with Reducing costs primarily associated with capturecapture
• Reducing uncertainties primarily associated Reducing uncertainties primarily associated with storage at scalewith storage at scale
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Source: ABB Lummus
CO2 Capture at a Power Plant
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Capture and CompressionCapture and CompressionCapital CostsCapital Costs
PowerPower
PlantPlant
CaptureCapture
TechnologyTechnologyCapital Capital
InvestmentInvestmentPower Power OutputOutput
$/kW$/kW
SCPCSCPCPost-Post-
CombustionCombustion+23%+23% -24%-24% +62%+62%
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
CCS, Power Plants, and CostsCCS, Power Plants, and Costs
• Costs have gone through the roof over the Costs have gone through the roof over the past few yearspast few years
• Market volatility makes costs estimation Market volatility makes costs estimation difficultdifficult
• Given new reality, expectation is for a cost Given new reality, expectation is for a cost correction, but to where?correction, but to where?
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Cost IndicesCost Indices
90100110120130140150160170180190
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Ind
ex
(2
00
0=
10
0)
IHS/CERA Power Capital CostIndex (excluding nuclear)
Chemical Engineering PlantCost Index
PPI Steel Mill Products
Consumer Price Index
Average US FOB Coal PriceIndex (EIA Data)
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Cost of Capture/CompressionCost of Capture/Compression
UnitsUnits Reference PlantReference Plant Capture PlantCapture Plant
Total Plant CostTotal Plant Cost $/kW$/kW 19101910 30803080
CO2 EmittedCO2 Emitted kg/kWhkg/kWh 0.830.83 0.110.11
HHV EfficiencyHHV Efficiency %% 38.538.5 29.329.3
Cost of ElectricityCost of Electricity $/MWh$/MWh 62.662.6 100.3100.3
CO2 Avoided CostCO2 Avoided Cost $/tonne$/tonne 5252
Notes:Notes:
2007 $2007 $
Nth plantNth plant
Based on supercritical pulverized coalBased on supercritical pulverized coal
Does not include transport/storageDoes not include transport/storage
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
5 10 15 201000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Gas Price ($/MMBtu)
Coa
l w/C
CS
Cap
ex (
$/kW
)
$0/tonneCO2$50/tonneCO2$100/tonneCO2
Carbon Tax
Coal w/CCS: IGCC w/ pre-combustion CCS @ HR=10942 Btu/kWh, Illinois#6 Coal @ $1.79/MMBtu, 90% Capture, 80% CF, 0.109 kg/kWh emissions rate; Gas: CCGT @ $950/kW, HR=7000 Btu/kWh, 65% CF, 0.368 kg/kWh emissions rate
Projected Capex
$3000-4000/kW
2007 Avg. Delivered
Price $7.37/MMBtu
Breakeven Capex for Coal w/CCS versus CCGT
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Challenges for CommercializationChallenges for Commercialization
• CostsCosts
• InfrastructureInfrastructure
• Regulatory FrameworkRegulatory Framework
• Long-term LiabilityLong-term Liability
• Subsurface UncertaintySubsurface Uncertainty CapacityCapacity Long-term IntegrityLong-term Integrity
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Moving forwardMoving forward
• New capture technologiesNew capture technologies
• Large-scale demosLarge-scale demos
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Capture Technology PathwaysCapture Technology Pathways
PlussesPlusses MinusesMinuses
Post-Post-CombustionCombustion
Compatible with Compatible with existing infrastructure; existing infrastructure; retrofits; flexibilityretrofits; flexibility
Current methods have Current methods have high energy penaltieshigh energy penalties
Oxy-Oxy-CombustionCombustion
Potentially less Potentially less expensive than post-expensive than post-combustion; retrofitscombustion; retrofits
Cost of oxygen; lack of Cost of oxygen; lack of experienceexperience
Pre-Pre-CombustionCombustion
Projected lowest Projected lowest incremental cost for incremental cost for capturecapture
Slow progress of IGCCSlow progress of IGCC
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
COCO22 Storage Storage
• Current evidence indicates that it is scientifically feasible to store large quantities of CO2 in saline aquifers
• In order to: Address outstanding technical issues that need to be resolved to
confirm CCS as a major mitigation option Establish public confidence that large scale sequestration is
practical and safe
it is urgent to undertake a number of large scale (on the order of 1 Mt/yr injection) experimental projects in reservoirs that are instrumented, monitored, and analyzed to verify the practical reliability and implementation of sequestration. None of the current sequestration projects worldwide meets all of these criteria
MIT Coal Study – Finding #5MIT Coal Study – Finding #5
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Cancellations of Major Cancellations of Major Demonstration ProjectsDemonstration Projects
• May 2007 – BP Petershead (Scotland)May 2007 – BP Petershead (Scotland)
• June 2007 – Shell/Statoil Draugen June 2007 – Shell/Statoil Draugen (Norway)(Norway)
• Sept 2007 – Saskpower (Canada)Sept 2007 – Saskpower (Canada)
• Jan 2008 – FutureGen (US)Jan 2008 – FutureGen (US)
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Critical QuestionCritical Question
• Is it reasonable to expect to build 100s of Is it reasonable to expect to build 100s of coal-fired power plants with CCS by 2050 coal-fired power plants with CCS by 2050 when we are having so much trouble when we are having so much trouble building just one today?building just one today?
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Emissions Performance StandardsEmissions Performance Standards
• California standard is 1100 lbs COCalifornia standard is 1100 lbs CO22 / MWh / MWh• CostsCosts
Similar to full capture in $/tonSimilar to full capture in $/ton Total cost is less (i.e., less tons captured)Total cost is less (i.e., less tons captured)
• For both post- and pre-combustion, less changes required For both post- and pre-combustion, less changes required in power plantin power plant
• Overall environmental performance similar to natural gas Overall environmental performance similar to natural gas • Allows early implementation and can be a good source of Allows early implementation and can be a good source of
COCO22 for storage demonstrations for storage demonstrations• Will be competitive at higher natural gas pricesWill be competitive at higher natural gas prices
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for
Energy and the Environment
Contact InformationContact Information
Howard HerzogHoward Herzog
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Energy InitiativeEnergy Initiative
Room E40-447Room E40-447
Cambridge, MA 02139Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617-253-0688Phone: 617-253-0688
E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]
Web Site: sequestration.mit.eduWeb Site: sequestration.mit.edu