Systems Overview - Global Climate and Energy Project Schwarze Pumpe Station (Germany) Source:...

Systems Overview

Edward S. RubinDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy

Department of Mechanical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Presentation to the

GCEP Carbon Capture Workshop

Stanford, California

May 26, 2011

How to Reduce the Cost

of Carbon Capture

Edward S. RubinDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy

Department of Mechanical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Presentation to the

GCEP Carbon Capture Workshop

Stanford, California

May 26, 2011

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

Outline of Talk

• Why cost is important

• Where we stand today

• Opportunities for lower-cost systems

• Challenges for lower-cost systems


Many Ways to Capture CO2

MEA

Caustic

Other

Chemical

Selexol

Rectisol

Other

Physical

Absorption

Alumina

Zeolite

Activated C

Adsorber Beds

Pressure Swing

Temperature Swing

Washing

Regeneration Method

Adsorption Cryogenics

Polyphenyleneoxide

Polydimethylsiloxane

Gas Separation

Polypropelene

Gas Absorption

Ceramic Based

Systems

Membranes Microbial/Algal

Systems

CO2 Separation and Capture

Choice of technology depends strongly on application


To reduce atmospheric emissions it’s the whole CCS system that matters

Power Plant

or IndustrialProcess

Air or

Oxygen

Carbon-bearing

Fuels

Useful

Products

(Electricity, Fuels,

Chemicals, Hydrogen)

CO2

CO2

Capture &

Compress

CO2

Transport

CO2 Storage

(Sequestration)

- Post-combustion

- Pre-combustion

- Oxyfuel combustion

- Pipeline

- Tanker

- Depleted oil/gas fields

- Deep saline formations

- Unmineable coal seams

- Ocean

- Mineralization

- Reuse

An Integrated Carbon Capture

and Storage (CCS) System


Post-Combustion Technology for Industrial CO2 Capture

BP Natural Gas Processing Plant(In Salah, Algeria)

Source: IEA GHG, 2008

Examples of Post-CombustionCO2 Capture at U.S. Power Plants


Warrior Run Power Plant(Cumberland, Maryland, USA)

(So

urc

e: (

IEA

GH

G)

Bellingham Cogeneration Plant(Bellingham, Massachusetts, USA)

(So

urc

e: F

lou

r D

an

iel)

Gas-fired Coal-fired

Source: Vattenfall, 2008

Oxy-Combustion CO2 Capture from a Coal-Fired Boiler


30 MWt Pilot Plant (~10 MWe) at

Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe Station (Germany)

Source: Elcano, 2007

Puertollano IGCC Plant (Spain)

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie MellonSource: Nuon, 2009

Buggenhum

IGCC Plant(The Netherlands)

Pre-Combustion Capture at IGCC Plants

CO2 capture

pilot plants

recently built

at IGCC units

in Europe

Coal Gasification to Produce SNG(Beulah, North Dakota, USA)

(So

urc

e: D

ako

ta G

asi

fica

tio

n

Petcoke Gasification to Produce H2

(Coffeyville, Kansas, USA)

(So

urc

e: C

hev

ron

-Tex

aco

)

Examples of Pre-CombustionCO2 Capture Systems



CO2 from Energy Use is the Dominant Greenhouse Gas Driving Climate Change

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissionsweighted by 100-yr Global Warming Potential (GWP)

Source: USEPA, 2007

7.4%6.5%

83.9%

2.2%

CO2 CH4 N2O Others

84.6%

7.9% 5.5% 2.0%

CO2 CH4 N2O Others


Leading Candidates for CCS

• Fossil fuel power plants

Pulverized coal combustion (PC)

Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)

Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC)

• Other large industrial sources of CO2 such as:

Refineries, fuel processing, and petrochemical plants

Hydrogen and ammonia production plants

Pulp and paper plants

Cement plants

– Main focus is on power plants, the dominant source of CO2 –

Why cost is important



Multiple Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions

• Reduce demands for energy services and other carbon-emitting activities

• Increase the efficiency of carbon-based energy technologies and systems

• Replace high-carbon energy (e.g., coal-powered electricity) with zero or low-carbon systems

• Capture and sequester CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and biomass


Cost and Emission Reduction Reqm’t are the Key Determinants of Technology Deployment

Least-cost U.S.

energy mix in 2050

for a GHG policy

scenario of GHGs =

80% below 1990

levels

Results from five

energy-economic

models

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000

AD

AG

E

EPPA

MER

GE

Min

iCA

M

MR

N-N

EEM

EJ/yr

Oil w/o CCS Oil w/CCS Coal w/o CCS

Coal w/CCS Gas w/o CCS Gas w/CCS

Bioenergy w/o CCS Bioenergy w/CCS Nuclear

Non-Biomass Renewable Energy Reduction

80% GHG reduction by 2050

Sourc

e: E

MF

22,

2009

The cost of CCS



Many Factors Affect CCS Costs

• Choice of Power Plant and CCS Technology

• Process Design and Operating Variables

• Economic and Financial Parameters

• Choice of System Boundaries; e.g.,

One facility vs. multi-plant system (regional, national, global)

GHG gases considered (CO2 only vs. all GHGs)

Power plant only vs. partial or complete life cycle

• Time Frame of Interest

First-of-a-kind plant vs. nth plant

Current technology vs. future systems

Consideration of technological ―learning‖


Measures of CCS Cost

• Cost of CO2 avoided

• Cost of CO2 captured

• Capital cost

• Dispatch (variable) cost

• Increased cost of electricity (or other product)


Definition of Key Costs

($/MWh)ccs – ($/MWh)reference

(CO2/MWh)ref – (CO2/MWh)ccs

• Cost of CO2 Avoided ($/ton CO2 avoided)

=

• Cost of Electricity Generation ($/MWh)

(TCC)(FCF) + FOM

(CF)(8760)(MW)+ VOM + (HR)(FC)=

Many factors influence the cost of CCS


Ten Ways to Reduce CCS Cost (inspired by D. Letterman)

10. Assume high power plant efficiency

9. Assume high-quality fuel properties

8. Assume low fuel price

7. Assume EOR credits for CO2 storage

6. Omit certain capital costs

5. Report $/ton CO2 based on short tons

4. Assume long plant lifetime

3. Assume low interest rate (discount rate)

2. Assume high plant utilization (capacity factor)

1. Assume all of the above !

. . . and we have not yet considered the CCS technology!


Estimated Cost of New Power Plants with and without CCS

SCPC

IGCC

New

Coal

Plants

20

40

60

80

100

120

Co

st

of

Ele

ctr

icit

y (

$ /

MW

h)

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

CO2 Emission Rate (tonnes / MWh)

* 2007 costs for bituminous coals; gas price ≈ $4–7/GJ; 90% capture; aquifer storage

Current

Coal

Plants

PC

NGCC

Natural

Gas

Plants Plants

with

CCS

SCPC

IGCC

NG

CC


Incremental Cost of CCS for New Coal-Based Plants Using Current Technology

Incremental Cost of CCS relative to same plant type without CCS (based on bituminous coals)

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Plant

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant

% Increases in capital cost ($/kW)

and generation cost ($/kWh)~ 60–80% ~ 30–50%

Increase in levelized cost for 90% capture

• Capture accounts for most (~80%) of the total cost

• Retrofit of existing plants typically has a higher cost

• Added cost to consumers will be much smaller(reflecting the CCS capacity in the generation mix at any given time)


Typical Cost of CO2 Avoided(Relative to a SCPC reference plant w/o CCS)

Power Plant System

(relative to a SCPC plant without CCS)

New Supercritical Pulverized Coal

Plant

New Integrated Gasification

Combined Cycle Plant

CCS with deep saline aquifer storage

~ $70 /tCO2 ~ $50 /tCO2

CCS w/ enhanced oil recovery (EOR) storage

Cost reduced by ~ $20–30 /tCO2

Levelized cost in constant US$ per tonne CO2 avoided

Source: Based on IPCC, 2005; Rubin et al, 2007; DOE, 2007


Cost of CCS for New NGCC Plants (Current Technology)

Cost MeasureNew NGCC

Cost Increase with CCS

% Increase in capital cost ($/kW) ~ 70–100%

% Increase in generation cost ($/kWh) ~ 30–45%

Cost of CO2 Avoided:

Relative to NGCC:

Relative to SCPC:

~$100 /tCO2

~$40 /tCO2

Increase in levelized cost for 90% capture


High capture energy requirements is a major factor in high CCS costs

Power Plant Type Added fuel input (%)

per net kWh output

Existing subcritical PC ~40%

New supercritical PC 25-30%

New coal gasification (IGCC) 15-20%

New natural gas (NGCC) ~15%

Reducing capture system energy requirements is key to reducing CCS cost


Breakdown of ―Energy Penalty‖ for CO2 Capture (SCPC and IGCC)

ComponentApprox. % of Total Reqm’t

Thermal Energy ~60%

CO2 Compression ~30%

Pumps, Fans, etc. ~10%

Opportunities for advanced

(lower-cost) capture systems


28 OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY

Better Capture Technologies Are Emerging

Time to Commercialization

Advanced physical solvents

Advanced chemical solvents

Ammonia

CO2 com-pression

Amine solvents

Physical solvents

Cryogenic oxygen

Chemical looping

OTM boiler

Biological processes

CAR process

Ionic liquids

Metal organic frameworks

Enzymatic membranes

Present

Co

st

Red

ucti

on

Ben

efi

t

5+ years 10+ years 15+ years 20+ years

PBI membranes

Solid sorbents

Membrane systems

ITMs

Biomass co-firing

Post-combustion (existing, new PC)

Pre-combustion (IGCC)

Oxycombustion (new PC)

CO2 compression (all)


Two Approaches to Estimating Future Technology Costs

• Method 1: Engineering-Economic Analysis

A ―bottom up‖ approach based on engineering

process models, informed by judgments regarding

potential improvements in key process parameters

• Method 2: Use of Historical Experience Curves

A ―top down‖ approach based on application of

mathematical ―learning curves‖ that quantify past

trends for analogous technologies or systems


Potential Cost Reductions Based on Engineering-Economic Analysis (1)

Source: DOE/NETL, 2006

19% -28%

reductions in

COE w/ CCS

31

28

19

12 10

5 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% In

crea

se

in

CO

E

A B C D E F G

Latest Analyses for IGCC

7.13(c/kWh)

7.01

(c/kWh)

6.14

(c/kWh)6.03

(c/kWh)

5.75

(c/kWh)

5.75

(c/kWh)

6.52(c/kWh)

SelexolSelexolAdvanced

Selexol

Advanced

Selexol

Advanced

Selexol w/co-

Sequestration

Advanced

Selexol w/co-

Sequestration

Advanced

Selexol w/ITM

& co-Sequestration

Advanced

Selexol w/ITM

& co-Sequestration

WGS Membrane

& Co-Sequestration

WGS Membrane

& Co-Sequestration

WGS Membrane

w/ITM & Co-

Sequestration

WGS Membrane

w/ITM & Co-

Sequestration

Chemical Looping

& Co-

Sequestration

Chemical Looping

& Co-

Sequestration

Pe

rcen

t In

cre

as

e in

CO

E

IGCC

70 69

5550 52

45

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% I

nc

re

as

e i

n C

OE

A B C D E F G

Cases

`

8.77

(c/kWh)8.72

(c/kWh)

8.00

(c/kWh)7.74

(c/kWh)7.48

(c/kWh)

7.84

(c/kWh)

Latest Analyses for PC Plants

Perc

en

t In

cre

as

e in

CO

E

SC w/Amine

Scrubbing

SC w/Amine

Scrubbing

SC w/Econamine

Scrubbing

SC w/Econamine

Scrubbing

SC w/Ammonia

CO2 Scrubbing

SC w/Ammonia

CO2 Scrubbing

SC w/Multipollutant

Ammonia Scrubbing

(Byproduct Credit)

SC w/Multipollutant

Ammonia Scrubbing

(Byproduct Credit)USC w/Amine

Scrubbing

USC w/Amine

Scrubbing USC w/Advanced

Amine Scrubbing

USC w/Advanced

Amine Scrubbing

6.30

(c/kWh)

RTI Regenerable

Sorbent

RTI Regenerable

Sorbent

PC

50

33

2621

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% In

crea

se

in

CO

E

A B C D

Cases

`

6.97

(c/kWh)

6.62

(c/kWh)

6.35

(c/kWh)

Latest Analyses for Oxy-Combustion

Perc

en

t In

cre

as

e in

CO

E Advanced

Subcritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU)

Advanced

Subcritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU)

Advanced

Supercritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU)

Advanced


(Cryogenic ASU)Advanced

Supercritical

Oxyfuel

(ITM O2)

Advanced

Supercritical

Oxyfuel

(ITM O2)

7.86

(c/kWh)

Current State


(Cryogenic ASU)

Current State


(Cryogenic ASU) Oxyfuel

D:/Ed Rubin Files/talks (ESR)/2007 talks/02-08 EPA/Scott Klara Capture Technology.ppt


Source: DOE/ NETL, 2010

Potential Cost Reductions Based on Engineering-Economic Analysis (2)

-5

15

35

55

75

95

115

135

155

175

IGCC Today

IGCC w/ CCS Today

IGCC w/ CCS with R&D

Supercritical PC Today

Supercritical PC w/ CCS …

Adv Combustion w/ CCS …

$/M

Wh

($

20

09

)

CCS

with

No

R&D

No

CCS

CCS

with

R&D

CCS

with

No

R&D

No

CCSCCS

with

R&D

Pulverized Coal TechnologiesIGCC Technologies

27% reduction31% reduction

7% below

no CCS

29% above

no CCS

-5

15

35

55

75

95

115

135

155

175

IGCC Today

IGCC w/ CCS Today





$/M

Wh

($

20

09

)

CCS

with

No

R&D

No

CCS

CCS

with

R&D

CCS

with

No

R&D

No

CCSCCS

with

R&D


27% reduction31% reduction-5

15

35

55

75

95

115

135

155

175

IGCC Today

IGCC w/ CCS Today





$/M

Wh

($

20

09

)

CCS

with

No

R&D

No

CCS

CCS

with

R&D

CCS

with

No

R&D

No

CCSCCS

with

R&D


27% reduction31% reduction

7% below

no CCS

29% above

no CCS

Top-down modeling studies also project significant cost reductions

by mid-century, given a policy driver for CCS deployment

Challenges for advanced

(lower-cost) capture systems


E.S. Rubin, Carnegie MellonSource: DOE/ NETL, 2009

Technical

Challenges and

Research Pathways

for Advanced

Capture Concepts


Most New Capture Concepts Are Far from Commercial Availability

Source: NASA, 2009

Technology

Readiness Levels

Source: EPRI, 2009

Post-Combustion Capture


Typical Cost Trend for a New Technology

Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature TechnologyResearchResearch Development Development DemonstrationDemonstration DeploymentDeployment Mature TechnologyMature Technology

Time or Cumulative Capacity

Ca

pit

al

Co

st

pe

r U

nit

of

Ca

pa

cit

y

Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature TechnologyResearchResearch Development Development DemonstrationDemonstration DeploymentDeployment Mature TechnologyMature Technology

Time or Cumulative Capacity

Ca

pit

al

Co

st

pe

r U

nit

of

Ca

pa

cit

y

Source: Based on EPRI, 2008


Most new concepts take decades to commercialize…many never make it

1965 1970 19801975 19901985 1995 20052000

1999: 10 MW

pilot planned

by DOE

1975: DOE

conducts test of

fluidized bed

system

1961:

Process

described by

Bureau of

Mines1973: Used in

commercial refinery

in Japan

1970: Results of

testing published.

1971: Test

conducted in

Netherlands

1967: Pilot-

Scale Testing

begins.

1979: Pilot-scale

testing conducted in

Florida

1984:

Continued pilot

testing with 500

lb/hr feed

1992: DOE

contracts

design and

modeling for

500MW plant

1996: DOE

continues

lifecycle

testing

2002: Paper

published at

NETL

symposium

2006: Most

recent paper

published

1983: Rockwell

contracted to

improve system

Copper Oxide Process

1965 1970 19801975 19901985 1995 20052000

1999:

Process used

at plant in

Poland

1985: Pilots

initiated in U.S.

and Germany1977: Ebara

begins pilot-

scale testing

1998: Process

used in plant

in Chengdu,

China

1970: Ebara

Corporation

begins lab scale

testing.

2005: Process

used in plant in

Hangzhou,

China

2008: Paper on process

presented at WEC forum in

Romania

2002: Process

used in plant in

Beijing, China

Electron Beam Process

1965 1970 19801975 19901985 1995 20052000

1991: Noxso

Corporation

receives DOE

contract

1982: Pilot-

scale tests

carried out in

Kentucky

1985: DOE

conducts

lifecycle testing.

1979:

Development of

process begins

1998: Noxso

Corporation

liquidated. Project

terminated.

1996:

Construction of

full scale test

begins

2000: Noxso

process cited in ACS

paper, Last NOXSO

patent awarded

1997: Noxso

Corporation

declares bankruptcy

1993: Pilot-scale

testing complete

NOXSO Process

Development timelines for

three novel processes for

combined SO2–NOx capture


Accelerating Innovation in Carbon Capture Requires

• Substantial and sustained support for R&D

• Closer coupling and interaction between R&D performers and technology developers /users

• Better methods to identify promising options, evaluate new processes /concepts, and reduce number and size of pilot and demonstration projects (e.g., via improved simulation methods)


The DOE Multi-Lab Initiative to Accelerate New Capture Systems

Source: DOE/ NETL, 2011


IECM: A Tool for Analyzing Power Plant Design Options

• A desktop/laptop computer model developed for DOE/NETL

• Free and publicly available at: www.iecm-online.com

• Provides systematic estimates of

performance, emissions, costs and

uncertainties for preliminary design of:

PC, IGCC and NGCC plants

All flue/fuel gas treatment systems

CO2 capture and storage options (pre- and post-combustion, oxy-combustion; transport, storage)


Sample IECM Screen Shots


A Probabilistic Cost Analysis

(Deterministic Case)

FG+

(Deterministic Case)

FG+

Ammonia System(high conc. case)


• Performance and Cost Models of Advanced CO2 Capture Systems:

– Advanced liquid solvents (Peter Versteeg)

– Solid sorbent systems (Justin Glier)

– Membrane capture systems (Haibo Zhai)

– Advanced oxy-combustion (Kyle Borgert)

– Chemical looping combustion (Hari Mantripragada)

• International Cost Module (Hana Gerbelova)

• Software Development & Dist. (Karen Kietzke)

• Performance and Cost Models of Advanced CO2 Capture Systems:

– Advanced liquid solvents (Peter Versteeg)

– Solid sorbent systems (Justin Glier)

– Membrane capture systems (Haibo Zhai)

– Advanced oxy-combustion (Kyle Borgert)

– Chemical looping combustion (Hari Mantripragada)

• International Cost Module (Hana Gerbelova)

• Software Development & Dist. (Karen Kietzke)

Work in Progress at CMU


In Summary

• Reducing the cost of carbon capture can enable CCS to play a more prominent role in reducing GHG emissions linked to global climate change

• There are major challenges—but also significant potential—to achieve sizeable cost reductions with advanced technologies

• The pace and direction of technology innovations will depend strongly on sustained support for R&D, and on climate policy drivers that create markets for CCS systems

• Let the games begin!


Thank You

[email protected]

Systems Overview - Global Climate and Energy Project Schwarze Pumpe Station (Germany) Source:...

Documents

Transcript of Systems Overview - Global Climate and Energy Project Schwarze Pumpe Station (Germany) Source:...