10/24/2016

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

Week 4

What is Carbon Capture and Storage?

shaft mine

4. C02 Injection

10/24/2016

Why must we reduce CO2 Emissions?

Why now?
Kyoto Protocol Dec 1997, reduce emissions over 2008-12
period by 5% (8%) on 1990 levels
Without CCS it will be 70% more expensive to decarbonise!

EU 20/20/20 targets 20% reduction in EU GHG

levels from 1990 levels, 20% renewables and 20%
increase in energy efficiency by 2020
Emissions Trading Scheme cap and trade system for CO2

10/24/2016

Definitions:
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) refers to the capture
and disposal of CO2 released from industrial processes
This has also been referred to as Carbon Sequestration,
but this term has also been applied to the removal of
CO2 from the atmosphere through the buildup of
biomass (above-ground vegetation) and/or soil carbon
CCS involving burial of captured CO2 in geological strata
(either on land or under the sea bed), shall be referred
to here as geological carbon sequestration, while
buildup of soil or plant C shall be referred to as
biological carbon sequestration

Regulations and policies

timing
Where does the authority lie for different aspects of CCS?
development towards more comprehensive CCS regulatory
framework around the world (Australia, EU, UK, USA,Korea &
South Africa..)
geological stability, potential hazards and sub-surface
property rights , criteria for site selection and use of a power
plant can be defined

10/24/2016

European Union, the CCS Directive

(2009)

Public Support for CCS

CCS process is achievable and available in larger scale

from 2020.
The directive defines guidelines for the geological storage
safety and environmental requirements for storage
guidelines for proper monitoring of the
installations and closed sites
the directive requires storage permits and exploration
permits under nation states sovereignty
operator has to report the results of the monitoring to the
competent authority at least once a year
MIT Carbon Sequestration
Initiative, Survey, 2006

10/24/2016

Why we need CCS

Why we need CCS

US Energy Profile

Energy Outlook

Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions

from Electricity in 2007
Total = 10,539Mt
Other

Refineries
6%

Cement
7%

Steel
5%

Petro.
Chem.
3%

NG Sweet
Power
79%

1%

180
H2

Coal
76% (60% of total)

Quad. BTU

Global CO2 PS Emissions 2007

Total = 13,375Mt

NG
14%

Fuel oil
9%

210

Oil

150

Coal

NG

120
90

Nuclear

60
30
0
1990

Renewables
2000

2010
Year

2020

2030

Source: EIA, International Energy Outlook, 2006

10/24/2016

Why we need CCS

Emissions Mitigation Potential
https://vimeo.com/10334287

CCS is viable only where there is a concentrated

stream of CO2 that would otherwise be
released to the atmosphere

Electric power plants

Oil refineries
Petrochemical plants
Blast furnaces (an old-fashioned technology)
Cement kilns
N fertilizer plants

Source: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Sequestration

10/24/2016

CO2 is easiest to capture when both the

concentration and absolute partial pressure are
large

All of the stationary CO2 sources worldwide of 0.1

MtCO2/yr or more account for about 54% of total world
CO2 emissions (see Table 9.2)

10/24/2016

Options for capture of CO2 from fossil fuel

powerplants:
From the flue gases after normal combustion of fuel in
air
From the flue gases after combustion of fuel in pure
oxygen (oxyfuel methods in Table 9.3)
Prior to combustion, during the gasification of coal
(IGCC pre-combustion in Table 9.3)
During the operation of fuel cells using fossil fuels

Processes for separating CO2 from other gases

(applicable to capture after combustion in air or
during gasification)
Absorption
- chemical (if low CO2 concentration)
(MEA is a common solvent)
- physical (if high CO2 concentration)
(Selexol is a common solvent)
Adsorption
Membrane
Liquefaction

10/24/2016

Chemical solvents require heat to drive off the CO2

(in concentrated form) and regenerate the solvent
Physical solvents require heat or a pressure drop for
regeneration
Adsorbants require heat or a pressure drop for
regeneration
Membrane systems require electrical energy to
maintain a high P on one side of the membrane
Liquefaction requires cooling the exhaust gas to as
low as ~ 220 K

Figure 9.2 CO2 phase diagram, showing the T-P combinations

needed to liquefy CO2
72.8

Pressure (atm)

Energy is required

Critical
point
Solid

5.11

Liquid

Triple
point
Gas

216.8

304.2

Temperature (K)
Source: Holloway (2001, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 26, 145166)

10/24/2016

Combustion in oxygen
The only gases produced are CO2 and water
vapour
Pure CO2 is produced by cooling the gas
enough to condense out the water vapour
(giving 96% CO2) followed by distillation if
desired
Energy is required to separate O2 from air in
liquid form (usually by cooling the air to 89 K, at
which point O2 condenses as a liquid)

IGCC
Involves converting the coal to CO2, CO, and H2 by
heating it in 95% oxygen
The CO can be reacted with steam to produce more
CO2 and H2
The resulting stream is almost completely CO2 and
H2, and the CO2 is easily removed prior to
combustion of the H2
Conversely, CO and H2 can be fed to the turbine,
burned in air, and the CO2 removed after combustion
using a chemical solvent
Finally, CO and H2 can be fed to the turbine, burned
in O2, and the CO2 separated by condensing the
water vapour that is produced from combustion of
the H2

10

10/24/2016

All methods of CO2 capture involve an

energy penalty

Table 9.3: Energy penalties associated with CO2 capture only. PC=pulverized coal,
IGCC=integrated
gasification
NGCC=natural
gas combined cycle,
Table 16.15: Energy
penaltiescombined
associatedcycle,
with CO
2 capture only. PC=pulverized coal,
MCM=mixed
conducting
membrane.
IGCC=integrated
gasification
combined cycle, NGCC=natural gas combined cycle,
MCM=mixed conducting membrane.
Using
Using Advanced Technology
Process
existing
IPCC
Damon et al.
technology
(2005)
(2006)
Retrofitting existing PC powerplants
43-77%
New PC powerplant, post combustion
24-40%
15-43%
9%
oxyfuel
25-33%
9-12%
New IGCC, pre-combustion
14-25%
21-24%
5-9%
Oxyfuel
8%
New NGCC, post-combustion
11-22%
16-25%
6%
Pre-combustion with membrane
5-6%
Oxyfuel MCM
2-8%
Fuel cell/turbine hybrid
13-44%
Biomass IGCC
36%a
Pulp & Paper mill using black liquor waste
19%b
H2 production from coal
2.2%

Capture after combustion in air requires either a

physical or chemical solvent that absorbs the CO2 but
which needs to be regenerated using heat, or uses
membranes but requires ~ 15% of the powerplant
output to create high pressures
Capture after combustion in oxygen is easy (only H2O
and CO2 are produced), but energy is required to
separate oxygen from air (cryogenically)
Capture during gasification of coal or during
operation of fuel cells entails a very small penalty (a
few % at most)

a
b

Rhodes and Keith (2005)

Mllersten et al (2004)

11

10/24/2016

Figure 9.3 Efficiency penalty associated

with the capture of CO2
12

Efficiency Penalty (%)

10

Oxygen plant
Water shift reaction
CO2 compression & purification
Power for CO2 capture
Steam for CO2 capture

0
PC
PC
PC
NGCC NGCC NGCC IGCC IGCC
MEA KS-1 Oxy MEA KS-1 Oxy Shell
GE
34.8% 35.3% 35.4% 47.4% 49.6% 44.7% 34.5% 31.5%
Souce: Davison (2007, Energy 32, 11631176, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03605442)

Because of the efficiency penalty, more fuel is

needed to produce the same amount of
electricity, and the effective CO2 capture fraction
is reduced
For example, if 80% of the CO2 in the exhaust is
captured but the efficiency of the powerplant
drops from 40% to 35%, then 40/35=1.143 times
as much fuel is required.
The CO2 emission is this 0.2 x 1.143 = 0.229, so
the effective capture fraction is only 77.1% (1.00.229)

12

10/24/2016

Table 9.4: Effective fraction of CO2 captured. PC=pulverized coal, IGCC=integrated

gasification combined cycle, NGCC=natural gas combined cycle, MCM=mixed
conducting membrane.
Process
Retrofitting existing PC powerplants
New PC powerplant, post combustion
oxyfuel
New IGCC, pre-combustion
Oxyfuel
New NGCC, post-combustion
Pre-combustion with membrane
Oxyfuel MCM
Fuel cell/turbine hybrid
Biomass IGCC
Pulp & Paper mill using black liquor waste
H2 production from coal
a

Rhodes and Keith (2005)

Mllersten et al (2004)

Using
existing
technology
63-94%
81-88%
81-91%

Using Advanced Technology

IPCC
Damen et al
(2005)
(2006)

88-99.5%
90-91%

83-88%
82-100%
86-92%

Table 9.5: Capital cost ($/kW) of powerplants equipped with technologies for
capture of CO2. PC=pulverized coal, IGCC=integrated gasification combined cycle,
NGCC=natural gas combined cycle, MCM=mixed conducting membrane. Costs are
projected costs after some period of learning.
Using
Using Advanced Technology
existing
IPCC
Damen et al
technology
(2005)
(2006)
Reference powerplants (no C capture, actual costs today for NGCC and PC, projected for IGCC)
NGCC
515-724
New PC
1200-1500
IGCC
1200-1600
Powerplants with C capture (all costs are projected)
Retrofitting existing PC powerplants
650-1950
New PC powerplant, post combustion
1900-2600
1700-1800
1520
oxyfuel
1850-2850
1800-2200
New IGCC, pre-combustion
1500-2300
1450-2200
1450-2200
Oxyfuel
1420-1550
New NGCC, post-combustion
900-1300
950-1225
700-1010
Pre-combustion with membrane
940
Oxyfuel MCM
820-1250
Fuel cell/turbine hybrid
1800
990-2060
a
Biomass IGCC
1980

Process

85%
90-100%
85-90%
100%
85-90%
100%
85-100%
80-100%
a
39%
88%b

98%

Rhodes and Keith (2005)

13

10/24/2016

Figure 9.4 Contribution of different costs to the cost of electricity with and
without capture, transport and sequestration of CO2
7
Sequestration
O & M cost

Cost (eurocents/kWh)

Fuel cost
Capital cost

5
4

Reality Check: A proposed 450-MW IGCC powerplant

with carbon capture in Saskatchewan was abandoned
after estimated costs ballooned from Cdn$3778/kW to
Cdn$8444/kW.
The US DOE FutureGen project (a 275-MW IGCC plant
that would co-produce electricity and hydrogen) was
cancelled after projected costs rose from $3250/kW to
$6500/kW.

3
2
1
0
NGCCref
536/kW
55.4%

NGCCcap
998/kW
48.2%

IGCC-ref

IGCCcap

PC-ref

PC-cap

1395/kW 1881/kW 1151/kW 1976/kW

42.7%
41.8%
35.6%
31.4%

State-of-the-art NGCC (60% efficiency) costs

$400-900/kW in mature markets
Wind turbines cost $1000-1500/kW

Source: Tzimas and Peteves (2005, Energy 30, no 14, 2672-2689,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03605442)

14

10/24/2016

Capturing CO2 from biomass powerplants

The most efficient method of producing electricity from
biomass is through biomass integrated gasification
combined cycle (BIGCC), a technology that is still under
development
Gasification of biomass would occur in pure O2,
producing syngas (a mixture of CH4, CO2, CO and H2)
and a char residue that is combusted to provide heat
for the gasification process.

The syngas would be used in a gas turbine to generate

electricity, with waste heat from the gas turbine used to
produce steam for use in a steam turbine to generate
further electricity (as in natural gas combined-cycle power
plants, NGCC)
NGCC state-of-the art powerplants have an efficiency of 5560%
BIGCC efficiency would be after 34% without capture of CO2
and only 25% with capture of CO2
The result is an effective CO2 capture fraction of only 39%
and an increase in the required biomass by 33%

15

10/24/2016

Technique of CCS - Capture

Technique of CCS - Transport

Pipeline
compressed

Ship
liquified

Importance between location of sources and

storage site
Experience with gas transport
No network in Europe so far

16

10/24/2016

Technique of CCS - Storage

Economics of CCS
Costs are usually expressed in costs of energy
production ($/MWh) or costs of avoided CO2 ($/t)
CCS costs occur in capture, transport, storage

Source: Drr (2009: 5)

Costs depend on technology, fuel price trends,

emission caps (ETS), investment and the assumption
that CCS is applied commercially
Abatement costs need to be compared to renewables

Source: IPCC (2005: 7, 199)

If CCS is not commercial in 2020 renewables might

provide better economic potential

17

10/24/2016

Comparison of CCS with renewables

Capture

PC=pulverized coal
IGCC=integrated gasification combined cycle
NGCC=natural gas combined cycle
LCOE=levelised costs of electricity

Source: IEA (2011: 38)

Component

Min. /tCO2

Max. /tCO2

Renewables

/tCO2

Capture coal

11

55

Biomass

22-39
30-34
122

Capture gas

3.70

41

Wind

Transport

0.70

Geothermics

Geological
Storage

0.30

Monitoring

0.10

0.30

Sum coal

12.10

72.30

Sum gas

4.80

58.30

Electricity generation costs for CCS are

estimated to 7-11ct/kWh in 2020 and
12 ct/kWh for the mix of renewables
(without PV 10ct/kWh)
(WIC, 2010: 236)

Source: Drr (2009: 7)

Long term cost are seen to shrink to 30-48 /t

18

10/24/2016

CCS Overview
Capture
Power plants
NG treatment
Oil refineries

800GW Coal / 1600GW NG

Transportation
1Gt CO2 / 1BSCFD
Pipelines
Ships

Sequestration
Geological formations (underground)
Ocean

What is the scale of this project?

Carbon Capture Options

Technologies Overview
Systems

Post-combustion
Pre-combustion
Oxy-fuel
Industrial processes (e.g. NG sweetening)

Separation technologies

Solvents aqueous amines and salts

Membranes polymeric
Solid sorbents Lime, zeolite, activated carbon
Cryogenic processes Liquefaction/distillation

19

10/24/2016

Carbon Capture Options

Absorption / Stripping

Post-Combustion

Technical Diagram

Clean gas

CO2

Clean gas

Flue gas

ABS

H
X

Recirculating
(amine) solvent

STRP

CO2

Flue gas
ABS
40C

HX

STRP
120C

ENERGY
Recirculating
(amine) solvent

20

10/24/2016

Carbon Capture Options

Pre-Combustion

The Technologies

http://www.ccsreg.org/images/Capture-Overview_sized.jpg

21

10/24/2016

Pre Combustion Capture

[also known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with CCS]

Strengths and Weaknesses of Pre

Combustion Capture
Strengths
Capturing CO2 from the CO2-H2
mixture is easier than from flue gas
post combustion
The capture technology (Selexol
and Rectisol processes) have been
used for decades in acid gas
stripping
Hydrogen can be used in other
applications or stored
Low rank feedstocks can be
transformed into a high value fuel
Potential for polygeneration
processes synthetic fuels
production, chemicals production

Weaknesses
Complex equipment with many
individual processes
Unsuitable for retrofit onto existing
conventional power plant
Highly complex systems limit
operational flexibility (i.e.variations
in reported gasifier availability)
H2 fuelled turbines in development,
but H2 has only been tested on an
F Class rig
Air separation unit high energy
requirements
Few IGCCs operating for power
only

22

10/24/2016

Post-Combustion Technology

MHI Pilot Plant at

Southern Companys
Plant Barry
,

. ...

Alabama
.... ....
Part
ESB Funded by

..... ...

..

http://www.epcengineer.com/images/static/PlantBarryCCSMHI.gif?v=0

23

10/24/2016

Strengths and Weaknesses of PostCombustion Technology

Strengths

Potential to retrofit
Suitable for coal and CCGT
conventional plant worldwide
Post combustion process
expected limited impact on plant
availability
Expected to be relatively flexible
High Purity CO2 produced
Process used in gas separation
industry for decades
Hundreds of potential new
processes & potential for process
improvement

Oxyfuel Technology

Weaknesses

Reduces thermal efficiency,

significant energy penalty
Significant additional space
required on plant site
Large inventory of chemicals on
site
Limited research on impact
of emissions from the plant
to air

24

10/24/2016

Strengths and Weaknesses of Oxyfuel Technology

Technology Maturity & Demonstration

Strengths
Process is relatively simple, less
equipment involved
Equipment similar to conventional
air fired plant
Operational flexibility expected to be
similar to conventional air fired plant
Potential to retrofit

Weaknesses
Hasnt been developed for use in
other industries
Least mature of the capture
technologies
Likely only to be used for power
generation
Air Separation Unit requires large
amount of energy
CO2 stream will contain more
impurities than other processes
In its current form only suitable for
boiler style plant

Technology Maturity
All technologies have been demonstrated at pilot scale ~20-30MW
Demonstration at ~400MW scale required to determine whether:

1. Technology is feasible for power generation flue gases at commercial

scale
2. Integration of the capture process with transport and storage is possible
3. Capital and operating cost estimates predicted are accurate

25

10/24/2016

Transport

Technology Demonstration

Piping
Main transportation method

Funding Sources

EU NER 300
~2.5bn
For CCS & RES

Considerable Experience
Some research areas to be addressed

UK
1bn (>1 project)

EU EEPR
1bn (6 projects)

Network planned for Humber area, UK

Shipping
Demonstration Projects
Leading EU projects

For isolated locations - geographically

Existing CO2 shipping scale up
required
Challenging economics?

26

10/24/2016

Storage at Sleipner

CO2 Storage
Geological

Storage

of C02
What do we need?
RESERVOIR
porous, e.g.

ROCK sandstone

,oo
o

SEAL ROCK - non

porous, e.g. claystone

.
\
..

How does it work?

C02 injected
into
porous reservoir rock
C02 held in place by
overlying
non-porous
seal rock

'

Utsira

The Sleipner C02-injection into the Utsira

Formation at 1000 Meters Below Sea Bottom
- About

1 million

tons/yr

OS

TATOI

F~rmation

.
.

'

NORTH

SEA,,/

27

10/24/2016

Cost of CCS
Table 10 Average cost and performance data by CO2 capture route (OECD only)

Cost of CCS

All graphs/data taken from IEA Costs and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power
Generation 2011

28

10/24/2016

Conclusions
Outlook

Capture Technology Exists

Market for CCS created by either Fiscal Policy or Environmental Policy
CO2 Price - ETS not working recession / fall in demand / free allowances.
UK Electricity Market Reform (EMR)
Carbon Floor price (17 rising to 70 by 2030)
CFD FiT (price incentivisation for low carbon electricity)
EPS (450g/kWhr at base load i.e. no coal w/o CCS, CCGT ok)
Introduction of Capacity Mechanism

CO2 can be stored safely

CO2 Storage Directive transposition

Slow progress in demonstration projects
Kyoto Protocol Renewal/Post 2020 targets
BUT, the IEA blue map and other research shows CCS as part of the solution!

One of the tools required to meet emissions targets

29

10/24/2016

30

10/24/2016

31

10/24/2016

References

Drr, Dietmar. 2009. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Chancen und Risiken der
Kohlendioxidabscheidung und speicherung. <http://www.energie-fakten.de/pdf/ccs-inagendo-v10.pdf>
(29.03.2011).
International Energy Agency (IEA). 2008. CO2 Capture and Storage. OECD/IEA, Paris.
International Energy Agency (IEA). 2010a. Energy Technology Perspectives. OECD/IEA, Paris.
International Energy Agency (IEA). 2010b. Carbon Capture and Storage: Legal and Regulatory Review.
<http://www.iea.org/ccs/legal/regulatory_review_edition1.pdf> (28.03.2011).
International Energy Agency (IEA). 2011. Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power
Generation. < http://www.iea.org/papers/2011/costperf_ccs_powergen.pdf> (01.05.2011).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage. New York et. al.: Camebridge University Press.
Wuppertal Institut for Climate, Environment and Energy (WIC). 2010. Comparison of Renewable Energy
Technologies with Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS).
<http://www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wiprojekt/RECCSplus_final_report.pdf> (27.03.2011).

32