Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Week 4

What is Carbon Capture and Storage?
shaft mine

4. C02 Injection



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



• 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


Survey. – 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. 2006 4 . the CCS Directive (2009) Public Support for CCS – CCS process is achievable and available in larger scale from 2020.10/24/2016 European Union.

2006 5 . 3% NG Sweet Power 79% 1% 180 H2 Coal 76% (60% of total) Quad.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.539Mt Other Refineries 6% Cement 7% Steel 5% Petro.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. BTU Global CO2 PS Emissions 2007 Total = 13. Chem. International Energy Outlook.

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 6 .

2) 7 .1 MtCO2/yr or more account for about 54% of total world CO2 emissions (see Table 9.10/24/2016 CO2 is easiest to capture when both the concentration and absolute partial pressure are large All of the stationary CO2 sources worldwide of 0.

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 .physical (if high CO2 concentration) (Selexol is a common solvent) • Adsorption • Membrane • Liquefaction 8 .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.chemical (if low CO2 concentration) (MEA is a common solvent) . during the gasification of coal (IGCC pre-combustion in Table 9.

145–166) 9 . showing the T-P combinations needed to liquefy CO2 72.2 CO2 phase diagram.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 Temperature (K) Source: Holloway (2001.8 Pressure (atm) Energy is required Critical point Solid 5. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 26.8 304.11 Liquid Triple point Gas 216.

at which point O2 condenses as a liquid) IGCC • Involves converting the coal to CO2. and the CO2 is easily removed prior to combustion of the H2 • Conversely. CO and H2 can be fed to the turbine. CO. burned in air. burned in O2. 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 separated by condensing the water vapour that is produced from combustion of the H2 10 . CO and H2 can be fed to the turbine. and the CO2 removed after combustion using a chemical solvent • Finally.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.

technology (2005) (2006) Retrofitting existing PC powerplants 43-77% New PC powerplant. pre-combustion 14-25% 21-24% 5-9% Oxyfuel 8% New NGCC. PC=pulverized coal. MCM=mixed conducting membrane.10/24/2016 All methods of CO2 capture involve an energy penalty Table 9. NGCC=natural gas combined cycle. with CO 2 capture only.15: Energy penaltiescombined associatedcycle. IGCC=integrated gasification NGCC=natural gas combined cycle. Table 16.3: Energy penalties associated with CO2 capture only. Using Using Advanced Technology Process existing IPCC Damon et al. 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) Möllersten et al (2004) 11 . post combustion 24-40% 15-43% 9% oxyfuel 25-33% 9-12% New IGCC. MCM=mixed conducting membrane. IGCC=integrated gasification combined cycle.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. 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. PC=pulverized coal.

if 80% of the CO2 in the exhaust is captured but the efficiency of the powerplant drops from 40% to 35%.5% 31.6% 44. 1163–1176.2 x 1.1% (1. and the effective CO2 capture fraction is reduced • For example. so the effective capture fraction is only 77.3 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 8 6 4 2 0 PC PC PC NGCC NGCC NGCC IGCC IGCC MEA KS-1 Oxy MEA KS-1 Oxy Shell GE 34.229. more fuel is needed to produce the same amount of electricity.5% Souce: Davison (2007.7% 34.143 = 0.8% 35.00.229) 12 . • The CO2 emission is this 0.10/24/2016 Figure 9.4% 49.3% 35.143 times as much fuel is required.4% 47. http://www. then 40/35=1. Energy 32.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03605442) • Because of the efficiency penalty.

PC=pulverized coal.4: Effective fraction of CO2 captured. MCM=mixed conducting membrane. NGCC=natural gas combined cycle. actual costs today for NGCC and PC. pre-combustion 1500-2300 1450-2200 1450-2200 Oxyfuel 1420-1550 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) b Möllersten 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. pre-combustion Oxyfuel New NGCC. Costs are projected costs after some period of learning. post combustion 1900-2600 1700-1800 1520 oxyfuel 1850-2850 1800-2200 New IGCC. MCM=mixed conducting membrane. NGCC=natural gas combined cycle. PC=pulverized coal. Process Retrofitting existing PC powerplants New PC powerplant. 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% a Rhodes and Keith (2005) 13 . Using Using Advanced Technology existing IPCC Damen et al technology (2005) (2006) Reference powerplants (no C capture. IGCC=integrated gasification combined cycle. 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.5: Capital cost ($/kW) of powerplants equipped with technologies for capture of CO2. post combustion oxyfuel New IGCC.10/24/2016 Table 9. IGCC=integrated gasification combined cycle.

sciencedirect.4 Contribution of different costs to the cost of electricity with and without capture.7% 41.2% IGCC-ref IGCCcap PC-ref PC-cap €1395/kW €1881/kW €1151/kW €1976/kW 42.4% NGCCcap €998/kW 48. 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.10/24/2016 Figure 9. transport and sequestration of CO2 7 Sequestration O & M cost Cost (eurocents/kWh) 6 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. no 14. Energy 30. 2672-2689. 3 2 1 0 NGCCref €536/kW 55.6% 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 (2005.8% 35. http://www.com/science/journal/03605442) 14 .

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 . CO2. a technology that is still under development Gasification of biomass would occur in pure O2. The syngas would be used in a gas turbine to generate electricity. CO and H2) and a char residue that is combusted to provide heat for the gasification process. producing syngas (a mixture of CH4.10/24/2016 Capturing CO2 from biomass powerplants The most efficient method of producing electricity from biomass is through biomass integrated gasification combined cycle (BIGCC).

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 .

transport. 199) • If CCS is not commercial in 2020 renewables might provide better economic potential 17 .10/24/2016 Technique of CCS . storage Source: Dürr (2009: 5) • Costs depend on technology. investment and the assumption that CCS is applied commercially • Abatement costs need to be compared to renewables Source: IPCC (2005: 7.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. fuel price trends. emission caps (ETS).

30 Sum coal 12.10/24/2016 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.70 41 Wind Transport 0. €/tCO2 Renewables €/tCO2 Capture coal 11 55 Biomass 22-39 30-34 122 Capture gas 3. 2010: 236) Source: Dürr (2009: 7) Long term cost are seen to shrink to 30-48 €/t 18 .30 Sum gas 4.10 72.10 0.30 9 Monitoring 0.80 58.70 8 Geothermics Geological Storage 0.30 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. €/tCO2 Max.

NG sweetening)  Separation technologies     Solvents – aqueous amines and salts Membranes – polymeric Solid sorbents – Lime. activated carbon Cryogenic processes – Liquefaction/distillation 19 . zeolite.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.

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 40°C HX STRP 120°C ENERGY Recirculating (amine) solvent 20 .

org/images/Capture-Overview_sized.jpg 21 .ccsreg.10/24/2016 Carbon Capture Options Pre-Combustion The Technologies http://www.

but H2 has only been tested on an F Class rig • Air separation unit – high energy requirements • Few IGCC’s operating for power only 22 . chemicals production Weaknesses • Complex equipment with many individual processes • Unsuitable for retrofit onto existing conventional power plant • Highly complex systems limit operational flexibility (i.variations in reported gasifier availability) • H2 fuelled turbines in development.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.e.

gif?v=0 23 .. Alabama . ...10/24/2016 Post-Combustion Technology MHI Pilot Plant at Southern Company’s Plant Barry ...epcengineer...com/images/static/PlantBarryCCSMHI.. ... Part ESB Funded by . . .. http://www.. ....

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 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.

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 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 • Hasn’t 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 it’s 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.

UK Shipping Demonstration Projects • Leading EU projects •For isolated locations .10/24/2016 Transport Technology Demonstration Piping •Main transportation method Funding Sources EU – NER 300 ~€2.geographically •Existing CO2 shipping – scale up required •Challenging economics? 26 .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.

10/24/2016 Storage at Sleipner CO2 Storage Geological Storage of C02 What do we need? RESERVOIR porous./ 27 . 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 .g. ROCK sandstone .About \ 1 million tons/yr OS TATOI - F~rmation . ' NORTH SEA. .non• porous. claystone .oo o SEAL ROCK . \ .. e. e.g..

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 .

ETS not working – recession / fall in demand / free allowances. 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.10/24/2016 Conclusions Outlook • • • Capture Technology Exists Market for CCS created by either Fiscal Policy or Environmental Policy CO2 Price .e. the IEA blue map and other research shows CCS as part of the solution! One of the tools required to meet emissions targets 29 . 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. no coal w/o CCS.

10/24/2016 30 .

10/24/2016 31 .

iea. <http://www.de/pdf/ccs-inagendo-v10.2011). “Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation.wupperinst. 2009. <http://www. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).pdf> (01. 2008.2011).: Camebridge University Press.org/uploads/tx_wiprojekt/RECCSplus_final_report.energie-fakten. Environment and Energy (WIC). New York et. International Energy Agency (IEA).2011).05.pdf> (28. OECD/IEA. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 2010a.org/ccs/legal/regulatory_review_edition1.03. <http://www. Wuppertal Institut for Climate. 2011. Paris. 2010. 32 .03. “CO2 Capture and Storage”. “Energy Technology Perspectives”. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2010b. al.pdf> (29. 2005. International Energy Agency (IEA).pdf> (27. Paris.2011). “Comparison of Renewable Energy Technologies with Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)”.org/papers/2011/costperf_ccs_powergen. OECD/IEA.03.iea. International Energy Agency (IEA). “Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Chancen und Risiken der Kohlendioxidabscheidung und –speicherung“. “Carbon Capture and Storage: Legal and Regulatory Review”. < http://www.10/24/2016 References • • • • • • • Dürr. Dietmar.