1 White Paper Summary: CO, Capture, Reuse, and Storage Technologies for Mitigating Global Climate Change Howard Herzog, Elisabeth Drake, and Eric Adams Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology the world’s largest emitter of CO,, the United States needs to develop a balanced portfolio of responses that will allow it, to be an effective participant in evolv- ing international agreements to address climate change concerns. This “climate portfolio” needs to include activities on the varlous aspects of the climate change problem, including better understanding. thescienceand the potential impacts, de- veloping technological responses for ad- aptation and mitigation, and formulating policies that take into account the eco- nomic costs. The purpose of the White Paper Is to discuss an important oppor- ‘unity the United States should consider as part of its technological response, namely the capture and sequestration of CO, from large stationary sources. In the short term, the US. Depart- ment of Energy (DOE) is responding to climate change concerns by pursuing programs to promote energy efficiency. For example, DOE's Office of Fossil En- ergy (FE) has a program targeted at in- creasing the efficiency of fossil fuel-fired power plants. However, now that the United States and the international com- ‘munity are starting to look beyond the year 2000, additional mitigation tech- nologies may be required. FE can respond to thislonger-term outlook by investigat- ing the continued use of fossil fuels with technologies for CO, capture and seques- tration, A five-year program is recom- mended to investigate the feasibility of such technologies and to foster their de- ‘velopment where appropriate December 1697 ‘The White Paper discus * The motivation for developing CO, capture and sequestration technologies. * Provide some background infor- mation, looking at both the his- tory and economics of this mitigation option. * Major technological compo- nents, including capture technol- ogy, geological storage, ocean storage, and direct utilization. ‘© System integration and imple- mentation issues. ‘© Other CO, mitigation technolo- gles that FEmay want to consider Investigating as part of an inte~ grated program. ‘© Specific recommendations forre- search, Because of the potential adverse im- pacts from global climate change, the world community has adopted the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The urgency of their work was recently underscored when the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued their Second As- sessment Report that stated “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible hu- ‘man Influence on global climate.” U.S. Under Secretary of State Timothy Wirth, has stated that the United States wilh press for “an agreement that sets a real- istic, verifiable, and binding ‘medium-term emissions target” (Testi- mony before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Septem- ber 17, 1996) Fluor Daniel’ Bolingham, MA, CO, facilty i designed for350 tons/day of product CO, Tha stripper isin the foreground, As show inthe ‘holo, large absorber is located behind the stripper, and a squat feed cooler is located bohind the absorber. In viewing the spectrum of responses to global climate change, there are a ‘number of relatively low cost CO, miti- gation technologies, sometimes termed "east regrets.” They include improving, energy supply and end-use elficiency, switching from coal or oll to gas where possible, forestation, and inexpensivere- newable energy applications. The ma- jor drawback of this group of technologies is their limited impact. They may be sufficient to meet short-term goals, but there is a general belief that they will not be able to solve‘Table 1. Poet and Casto! \arous CO, Miigaion Opis forthe Uta Ses International Activities on 0, Mitigation Option Reduction Net Cast (19905) Climate Change Potential (nition (tome CO, tomes 0,) ave) December 21, 1990 The intergovernmental Negotiating 00, capture and sequestration technologies ‘Committee (INC) created by the United - Nations. Negotatons gr ona ciate igh tow teat. ioernaee at Het He June 1992 “The Framework Comentonon Giaie uewtrefinoe ol aco Seen Capurewthguogkalsurige = 90D att ‘Arrong ts provisions is goal to sab Cero x stocae a laegreonhouse gases th 1990 = ‘ls by he year 2000, March 21,1994 The FCCC comes into fore 90 days, ‘after its ratication by 50 counties, in- ccuding the United States. March 1995 ‘The first Conference of the Partios (COP-1)to the FCCC heldin Bon. The Climate Technology Initiative (CT) is the problem in the mid- and ‘The main challenge re- long term, garding CO, capture technol- In light of thelr limited re-__ogy is to reduce the overall duction potential, additional, cast (Table 1) by lowering but more costly mitigation both the energy and the capi- technologies must be consid- tal cost requirements, While Bebe pat beeen ered, specifically CO, capture costs and energy require- eee SORBET and sequestration, nuclear ments fr today’s capture pro- lenger term technologies to cape, power, and large-scale renew- cesses are high, the move or dspose of reenouse gases able energy production. All opportunities for significant and stengthen relevant basic and ap tturee ofthese mitigation tech- reductions exist because re- pled esearch” nologies havethe potentialto searchers have only recently | February 1996 CTI Task Foros? formed to accoleete suibstantally reduce CO,emis- started to address these needs, interatonalcolaboration for REDIN the sions at comparable costs, yet One strategy that Iooks ex fed of mecium- and long-term tech all three suffer impediments tremely promising is to com- nologies relating to greenhouse gas (eg, nuclearmustsolveissues bine CO, removal with capture and depose. of safety and public accep- advanced coal energy conver- | June 5, 1986 _Thelntergoverments!Panelon imate tance and renewable energy sion processes that have fea- Change (PCO) Second Assassment costs must decrease). Since at tures that will enable low Report siaes that “the balance of evi- least one of these options (if energy intensive capture. deroa suggests a iscemible human not all thrce) will be required The major options for CO, ‘nuance on gobal cimata” tostabilizeatmosphericlevels storageare underground orin | July 1896 (COP-2 ald in Switzerland US, Uncer of greenhouse gases in the the ocean, Statoilis presently Secretary of Sate Timothy With sates mic-tolong term, itisprudent storing one million tonnes thatthe rite States wi press for an to examine all three. Com- per year of CO, from Norwe- “agreement that sets outa realist, ver- Dated with nuclearand renew. gian gas fields in an aquifer {ble and binding medium-term eris- able energy, the US. research beneath the North Sea. A sere ‘ effort to date with respect to larger aquifer storage project | November 1996 in Australia, ee technologies for CO, capture may soon be undertaken by and sequestration has been Exxon and Pertamminaat their minimal. Thus, the United —Natuna gas field in the South States should extend itsefforts China Sea. Besides aquifers, to understand CO, capture geologic storage options in- and sequestration technolo- clude active oil wells (in con- gies in order to better evalu. nection with enhanced oil ate their potential and to. recovery), coal beds, and de- reduce their associated costs pleted oil and gas wells. The and risks. issues that need clarification December wer [i] 23 WEEE EeeMoma include storage integrity and reservoir characterization, Ocean CO, disposal would reduce peak atmospheric CO; concentrationsand their rate of increase by accelerating the ongoing, but slow, natural processes by which most cur- rent CO, emissions enter the ocean in- directly, The capacity of the ocean to accept CO, Is almost unlimited, but ‘there are questions that still need to be addressed about its effectiveness (how long will the CO, remain sequestered) and about the environmental impacts associated with increased sea water acid- ity near the injection point. While there are diverse niche oppor- tunities for industrial utilization of power plant CO,, these uses are all small ‘compared to the total quantities of CO, ‘emitted by the power sector. Multiple ‘small uses can be an effective, but small, part of a mitigation strategy. Large-scale ‘chemical conversion of power plant CO, to fuels such as methanol requires so ‘much energy that it produces marginal mitigation benefit, ifany. Microalgae of- fer the potential for conversion of power plant CO, to biomass, but research is needed to achieve improvements in pro- ductivity that would reduce Iand re- quirements and costs. Storage as carbonate minerals is another possibil- ity, but materials handling and waste is- sues make practicality uncertain without further investigation. In the neater term, limited biomass energy farming, coupled with cofiring of farmed or waste biomass with fossil fuels is an attractive option. In the much longer term, re search on bioproduction of hydrogen or on artificial photosynthesis may provide new and significant pathways for mitigation. ‘To address the above challenges and opportunities, the authors propose an. Initial five-year research program into the capture and sequestration of CO; with the following strategic goals: encour age/accelerate near-term opportunities, as- sess compatibility with on-going advanced combustion and efficiency programs, assess longer-term feasibility, position the United 24 [Bl] december 1957 ee a States to become a technology leader, lever- ‘age on-going, international research, and stimulate private sector R&D. ‘Todate, the cumulative research dol- lars spent on CO, capture and seques- tration technologies in the United! States hhas been less than $10 million, limiting. the research effort to small theoretical or laboratory studies. To allow needed program development, we recommend a budget that averages $50 million per year for five years as detailed below: Fy98 $820 million Fy99 $40 million Fy00 {$60 million Fyot $70 million FYO2 $60 milion We envision leveraging this budget through collaboration with the private sector and through intemational col- laboration. Approximately half of the funding shoule go toward collaborative projects. Specific program components, ‘with thelr relative share of available funds indicated, are: ‘+ Promotion of near-term opportu- nities (15%) + Assessment and development of capture technology (25%). + Assessment and development of storage technology (35%), + system analysis (109%). + Generation and assessment of longer-term technologies (15% ‘Toput thisbudgetrequestin perspec- tive, we can make the following com- parisons: + The limited funding to date for CO, capture and sequestration has not allowed significant pro- gram development, making iti ficult to fairly assess the potential of these technologies compared to other longer-term CO, mitiga- tion options for which substan- tial sums of money have been spent (eg, switching to nuclear ‘or renewable energy sources) + The total US. energy expenditures are approximately $500 billion annually, while the existing capt- tal stock of the utility industry worldwide is estimated in excess of $2 tllion. It seems wise to in- vestigate whether CO, capture and sequestration technologies can allow fossil fuels to remain a cost-effective energy source, while concurrently contsibuting to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. + The proposed budget is modest in comparison to Japanese gov- emment expenditures on CO, capture and sequestration (by at least a factor of 2). * The United States now spends about $1.6billion annually inves- tigating various aspects ofthe cll- ‘mate change problem, Spending at that level indicates that global climate change is being taken se- riously. It seems prudent to spend at just 3% of that level to investi- sate the feasibility of one of the few possible longer-term mitiga- tion solutions. ACKNOWLEDGMENT ‘The White Paper was sponsored by the US. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. The work was performed at the MIT Energy Laboratory and di- rected by Howard Herzog. A full copy of the White Paper can be accessed from the MIT Energy Laboratory's Home Page at: http://web.mit.edu/ cenergylab/www. About the Authors | Howard Herzogis principal research ‘engineor atthe Enorgy Laboratory, Maseachusets instute of Technology. | Elsabeth Drakes associate drector at || the Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts || Insitute of Technoiogy. Stic Adams is senior research engineerin the Department of Gil and Environmental Engineering atthe Massachusetts Intute of Technology.