trial lecture presentation_bita najmi

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Global Status of Carbon Capture

and Storage

Bita Najmi

Trondheim, 28 May 2015,

Department of Energy and Process Engineering

Trial lecture presentation

Norwegian University of Science and Technology 2

Outline

Motivation for CCS

Schematic of a CCS system

CCS technology and cost

Policy and regulations

Public acceptance

Summary


Motivation for CCS

Source: IEA, 2012c.

Note: numbers in brackets are shares in 2050. For example, 14% is the share of CCS in cumulative emission reductions through 2050, and 17% is the share of CCS in emission reductions in 2050, compared with 6DS.

CCS contribute of total emission reductions through 2050

Global increase in temperature limit: 2°C (=450 ppm CO2)

10

20

30

40

50

60 Where the world is heading now

2o15

2 °C scenario


Schematic of a CCS system

Fossil fuels or

biomass

Air or oxygen

Power plant or industrial processes

CO2 Capture

CO2 Transport

CO2 Storage

• Post-combustion • Pre-combustion • Oxy-combustion

• Pipeline • Ship

• Depleted oil/gas fileds • Deep saline

formations • Ocean • Mineralisation • Reuse

CO2

Useful products (electricity, chemicals,

hydrogen)


CO2 capture

CO₂ separation

CO₂ compression

& conditioning

N₂/O₂

CO₂

Shift H₂

CO₂

Power

plant

Air Air seperati

O₂ N₂

Air/O₂

Raw materials Product: Natural gas, ammonia, steel

CO₂

N₂/O₂ Power

plant

Gasification

Reforming

CO₂ separation

H₂

CO₂

CO/H₂

Air separation

Process +CO₂ Sep.

CO/H₂

Co

al,

Oil

, N

atu

ral

Gas

, B

iom

ass

Power

plant

Post-combustion

Pre-combustion

Oxy-combustion


Deep saline formations, deep enough and separated from any usable groundwater

CO2 storage

Storage is last step of CCS project, but it should be developed simultaneously with capture and transport from beginning (IEA 2014_CCS 2014)

Geological storage options (Courtesy CO2CRC)

Depleted oil & gas reservoirs

EOR

Saline formations


CO2 storage

o Deep saline formations: suffiient capacity for CO2 storage. However, uncertainities about their capacity range

o Depleted oil and gas reservoirs: limited capacity.

Annual global emissions on average: 37 GtCO2/yr, (corresponds to 10 GtC/yr)

largest underground

storage potential H. Herzog & D. Golomb, MIT, Contribution to Encyclopedia of Energy

*CCS share in reduction: 1.5-2 GtC/yr)


CCS Technology &

Cost

Interaction between CCS key factors

CCS Technology & Cost

Policy actions

Legal & regulation

issues

Public acceptance


CCS Technology and Cost


Capture system energy penalty

Power plant & capture system type

CCS energy penalty

Additional energy input (%) per net KWh output

Reduction in net KWh output (%) for a fixed energy input

Existing subcritical PC, post-combustion

capture

43 30%

New supercritical PC, post-combustion

capture

29 23%

New supercritical PC, oxy-combustion

capture

25 20%

New IGCC (bituminous), pre-

combustion capture

21 18%

New natural gas comb. Cyle, post-combustion

capture

16 14%

Sources: Metz, Special Report; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Future of Coal (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2007); Carnegie Mellon University, Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM), December 2009.

Post-combustion capture on a subcritical PC plant-most energy-intensive- requires more than twice additional energy per unit of electricity output as pre-combustion capture on a new IGCC plant

Although, fuel conversion steps of IGCC plant are more elaborate and costly than traditional coal combustion plants, applying CO2 capture to IGCC is much easier and cheaper

The lower the efficiency, the more fuel is needed to generate electricity relative to plant w/o CCS (higher energy penalty and cost of CCS).


Current cost of CCS

1. Costs for new power plants 2. Retrofit costs for existing power plants 3. Costs for other industrial processes 4. Uncertain costs

Supercritical pulverized coal plant

(SCPC)

IGCC

Cost of CO2 avoided ($/tCO2) –relative to the same plant

w/o CCS

60 - 80 30 – 50*

Fuel: Bituminous coal

CO2 capture acounts for 80% of CCS cost

* 40–60 $/tCO2, when IGCC with CCS is compared with SCPC reference plant w/o CCS (SCPC w/o CCS is about 15– 20% cheaper than a similarly sized IGCC)

E.S. Rubin, et al, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 38 (2012)

Costs are drecreased when CO2 can be used for EOR


Current cost of CCS 1. Costs for new power plants

2. Retrofit costs for existing power plants

3. Costs for other industrial processes

4. Uncertain costs

Larger energy penalty than new plant, because of lower efficiency before

installing CO2 capture Retrofit costs are more expensive than new power plant costs


Current cost of CCS

1. Costs for new power plants



4. Uncertain costs

IEA; 2011. pp. 46

Incremental cost of CCS is lowest in cases where CO2 capture is part of normal process operation, not for environmental purposes

Cost of CCS is simply added cost of compression, transport and geological storage


Current cost of CCS 1. Costs for new power plants



4. Uncertain costs

Absence of full-scale plants (except Boundary Dam) Uncertainty of current costs and future cost development


CCS technology development levels

Conceptual design

Laboratory and bench scale

Pilot plant

Full-scale demonstration

Commercial scale

Laboratory and bench scale

Pilot plant

Full-scale demonstration

Commercial scale

Conceptual design


Status of commercial CCS projects

CO2 is also captured at several coal-fired & gas-fired power plants,

where a portion of flue gas stream is fitted with a CO2 capture

system.

First large scale CCS

o Not yet on power plants, but in other industrial processes (purifying gas streams) o Mainly amine-based systems

• Natural gas production • Amine absorption • Deep geological formation

Sleipner; In Salah; Snøhvit

Rubin et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 38 (2012)


In Salah – CO2 separation from natural gas

Unit includes CO2 capture, pipeline transport and sequestration in a depleted gas formation.

Amine-based CO2 capture, natural gas purification at BP’s In Salah plant in Algeria; Photo courtesy of IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme.


AES Shady Point Power Plant, Oklahoma, USA, coal-fired power plant (left) and Bellingham, Massachusetts, USA, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant (right); Amine-based post-combustion CO2 capture from a slip stream of plants flue gas. Photos courtesy of ABB Lummus, Fluor Daniels and Chevron.

Captured CO2 is sold to nearby food processing facilities (to make dry ice or carbonated beverages). However, these products soon release the CO2 to atmosphere no long-term sequestration.

Closed!


Commercial plants (pre-combustion)

Industrial applications to remove syngas containants (such as CO2, sulfure and nitrogen compounds)

Farmlands plant in Kansas, syngas produced by gasification of petcoke Dakota gasification plant in North Dakota

followed by a water-gas shift reactor, ~93% CO2 capture (~0.2 Mt CO2/yr ). synthetic natural gas from coal gasification, 3 Mt/yr

Selexol, CO2 to manufacture urea, remainder is vented to atmosphere. of CO2, Rectisol, CO2 previously to atmosphere, now

Separated H2 is used to manufacture ammonia. Since 2000 in operation EOR via pipeline to Canadian oil field (Weyburn)

Photos courtesy of UOP and IPCC.


Planned demonstration projects at power plants with post-combustion capture, IEAGHG, 2011

Canceled

Now operating! first full-scale CCS project, integrating post-combustion with coal-fired power generation! Storage type: EOR

Status of post-combustion-full scale demonstration

CCS installed on existing coal-fired plants (capture from portion of power plant flue gases,

pipeline transportation, storage: geological (often EOR to reduce project costs)

Cancelled: due to cost considerations

Demo projects are crucial to gain technology acceptance by electric utility companies and institutions that finance & regulate power plant construction and operation/gain experience to reduce costs

N/A: not available, TBD: to be determined.

End of 2016


Status of post-combustion-Pilot plant

Pilot plant processes and projects post-combustion CO2 capture, (IEAGHG, 2011)

captured capacity

Amine-based capture processes

Ammonia-based capture processes

Calcium-based capture processes

Status: operating, or in design or construction stage, or have recently been completed.

Corresponding power plant

capacity

(0.1-25 MW)


Status of pre-combustion capture-Full-scale demo plants No full-scale demonstrations at power plants, but several in coal/petrochemical plants

Most activities based on coal, less on natural gas

Less interest for pre-combustion than post- and oxy- combustion in power generation

Absorption/Selexol is preferred technology

N/A: not available; MWg: megawatts gross generated. a This project is on hold pending future state funding. b Depends on outcome of the Carbon Storage Law. c Depends on performance of the Buggenum pilot plant

Announced demonstration of pre-combustion CO2 capture, Rubin et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 38 (2012)

2016

~2

EOR, selexol

EOR


Status of pre-combustion capture-Pilot plant projects

Examples of CO2 capture at operating IGCC facilities, a small-scale Nuon Buggenum project, Netherlands: main aim of this pilot plant was to gain operational experience which could

be used for future full demonstration of Magnum IGCC power plant ELCOGAS IGCC plant in Puertollano, Spain, captured its first tonne of CO2 in late 2010.

Now closed

Treating a slip stream of syngas


Schwarze pumpe power station

Pilot plant projects with oxy-combustion CO2 capture

Oxy-combustion projects

Planned demonstration projects

Proposed White Rose (UK)

Stopped!

Most activities based on coal! Tech. Is demonstrated! Next step: a large scale demo for some scale up issues!

MIT, http://sequestration.mit.edu; March 2011.

http://sequestration.mit.edu/

http://sequestration.mit.edu/


Large-scale CCS projects by industry and storage type (actual & expected operation dates)

Global CCS institute, global status of CCS 2014


Challenges for large-scale CCS deployment

• Uncertain costs

• Transportation infrastructure

• Storage capacity, subsurface uncertainty, leakage from storage reservoirs

• Lack of long term policy, national/international regulatory frameworks and economical measures

• Public acceptance


Policy, legal and regulation issues


Policy is critical if CCS is to play a role in future

• Enabling CCS as part of energy portfolio

• Making CCS a legal activity & clarifying responsibilities

• Ensuring safety and environmental viability of operations

• Providing economical mechanism for demonstration & deployment

• Contributing to public acceptance


Policies to make CCS happen

1. Cap-and-trade: Emission Trade Scheme (ETS), CO2 quota price

2. Carbon tax

3. Emission Performance Standard (EPS)

4. Feed-in Tariff

5. Investment cost coverage

6. CO2 purchase contract (EOR)


Emission Trade Scheme (ETS)

• Works according to a cap-and-trade:

Cap is set for total amount of GHGs that can be

emitted by sectors included by the system

Within the cap, companies buy (or receive for free)

emission allowances, they can trade if they have an

under or oversupply

• EU has been successful in establishing a cap-and-trade

system

• EU ETS has not lead to deployment of CCS, so far!


Carbon tax

• Penalizes carbon emissions • Can be done at either regional, national or international level • Already introduced in some countries (Norway, Australia, Canada and US) • Result of carbon tax ,will vary depending on tax level In Alberta, a low carbon tax has been part of total policy framework

Carbon tax on petroleum production in Norway, Sleipner Project So far have been too low to provide major shifts in emissions and

technology implementation such as CCS

Meanwhile, a carbon tax at low level will not give sufficient incentive to carry out CCS, but for example covering operation cost


Emission Performance Standard (EPS)

• Sets a restriction of maximum allowed emissions per

plant or region

• Introduced in California (2006) and Canada (2012)

• Effective in stopping new investments in conventional

coal power plants in California, but no CCS projects

have been realized

• In use for other pollution control (SO2 , NOx)


Feed-in Tariff (FIT)

• Price-driven policy instrument where public authorities decide price compensation per technology

• With a long-term contract that pays producers a fixed (additional) price

• Used in several countries for supporting renewable electricity, paid by electricity consumers, Germany

• For deployment of renewables in Europe, national feed-in tariffs have been crucial


Investment cost coverage

• Governmental funding: most common instrument so far,

including covering certain shares of project, investment, loan guarantees

• Mainly in US and Canada

• An instrument for promoting establishment of CCS in an early learning phase

• Unfeasible and expensive to continue with large-scale public funding of a large number of projects


CO2 purchase contract

• Sale of captured CO2 provides revenue that can offset the

costs of CCS

• EOR is an example of that: encourages CCS deployment

• CCS for EOR mostly used in Canada, US


Policy objectives should evolve over time

• Short to mid term focus on learning and access to capital

• Long term focus shifts towards emissions cuts

• Different objectives – different policy tools

A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage, IEA 2012


Long term CCS policy architecture

• R&D & experience

gained from demo projects will lower costs, while rising carbon prices will boost revenues.

Examples of incentive policies today

Current carbon prices are well

below CCS costs

Long-term policy architecture can enhance credibility & effectiveness

Source: A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage, IEA 2013


Public acceptance


Public perceptions

o Point of CCS in few rich countries, while other booming economies are increasing their emissions more than reductions realistically achieved by CCS?

o CO2 stored in ground remain there or will leak out into atmosphere after few years?

o Climate change is already happennig, too late and unable to do enough CCS to avoid major climate change!

o Who is responsible in long term for CO2 stored in ground?

o CCS is a methodology for rich countries to continue their unsustainable way of life with an excesive use of energy!

o CCS requires additional energy to be used and will deplete fossil energy resources faster, resulting in less time to develop new energy sources!

o Would like a warmer climate because it is very cold most of the year where I live!

o CCS requires large amount of chemicals to be used, which will create a problem of handling toxic wastes!

o We should rather spend our money and engineering resources on renewable, non-fossil energy sources and technologies!

o In many countries challenge is to provide enough electricity, car, gasoline to people. We cannot start with CCS before we have developed our society to something closer in what they have in Europe and North America!


Public perception

o Underground storage of gases is something we know well, as of today, large-scale storage of natural gas!

o Experience with CO2 capture exists, so many plants in chemical industry!

o Experience with CO2 storage exists, many examples in oil industry!

o When storing CO2 using our best knowledge, possible leakage rate of CO2 back to atmosphere is very low, we can hardly measure it!

o Rich countries should start CCS now. To demonstrate the world this can actually be done!

o To cope with challenge of man-made climate change, and because of its magnitude, there is no choice between CCS, renewable energy, nuclear, energy conservation, we have to do them all!

o To reduce GHG emissions significatlly, CCS is only realistic alternative to a substantial reduction in use of fossil energy sources!

o We have knowledge, methodologies and resources to do large scale CCS, what are we waiting for?

o Large-scale CCS will cost less than our military spending!


Summary • Several years of R&D have led to develop more energy efficient and cost-effective

CCS processes • Post-combustion (amine) technologies are dominant • One big challenge facing CCS now and in doing large demostration projects is

getting financing in place.

• With no climate policy, international regulatory and economical framework, being in place, it is difficult to deploy CCS in large scales.

• CCS will always be more expensive than just emitting CO2, But, CCS is very

competitive against other low carbon technologies • Large-scale CCS has yet a long way to come down along the learnnig curve • Public acceptance & political support are challenging


Thank you for your attention

trial lecture presentation_bita najmi

Documents