CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND BENEFICIAL REUSE Louis Fradette, Sylvain Lefebvre, Jonathan Carley October 14, 2016

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND BENEFICIAL REUSE Louis Fradette, Sylvain Lefebvre, Jonathan Carley October 14, 2016"

Monica Ross
5 years ago
Views:

2 Forward Looking Statements All statements in this presentation that are other than statements of historical facts are forward-looking statements which contain our current expectations about our future results. Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties. We have attempted to identify any forward-looking statements by using words such as anticipates, believes, could, expects, intends, may, should and other similar expressions. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in all of our forward-looking statements are reasonable, wecangivenoassurancethatsuchexpectationswillprovetobecorrect.anumberoffactorsmayaffectour future results and may cause those results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf. Such factors include our early stage of technology development; our need for capital to finance necessary research and product development; our ability to attract and retain key employees and strategic partners; our ability to achieve and maintain profitability; fluctuations in the trading price and volume of our stock; competition from other providers of similar products and services; and other unanticipated future events and conditions. For further information concerning risks and uncertainties that may affect our future results, please review the disclosures as may be contained from time to time in our filings with SEDAR. Other than as required by applicable securities laws, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any of our forward-looking statements, whether as a result of changed circumstances, new information, future events, or for any other reason occurring after the date of this presentation. This presentation does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction. 2

3 «State-of-the-art»: BoundaryDam SaskPower Admits to Problems at First Full-Scale Carbon Capture Project at Boundary Dam Plant - Power Magazine, Nov

Existing, Conventional Solutions High costs High operating costs due to steam-fed regeneration requirement $60-90/tonne of CO 2 for flue gas application (1,2) Operational and environmental problems

4 Existing, Conventional Solutions High costs High operating costs due to steam-fed regeneration requirement $60-90/tonne of CO 2 for flue gas application (1,2) Operational and environmental problems (5) Degradation and stability issues Extensive flue gas pre-treatment required Toxic aerosol emissions Solvent losses Generation of waste products 4 Sources: 1) Page 19 (~$70/tonne cost) 2) Page 6 3) Page 44 4) Page 10 5)

5 Life Cycle Analysis-MEA Running CO 2 capture with MEA (or any amine) is detrimental to the planet -1.6 kg of MEA consumed/ton of CO 2 captured Impact % Change vs no capture Global warming 74 Terrestrial acidification -13 Freshwater eutrophication 136 Marine eutrophication 43 Photochemical oxidant formation 27 Participate matter formation -7 Human toxicity 51 Terrestrial ecotoxicity 114 Fresh water ecotoxicity 205 Marine ecotoxicity 88 5 Singh, B., A. H. Strømman, et E. G. Hertwich. «Comparative life cycle environmental assessment of CCS technologies.» International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2011: pp

6 TypicalAmine Capture Process High-temperature stripping (>120ᵒC) requires use of high-grade steam 6

7 CO 2 Solutions Process An IndustrialLung LOW COST, NON- TOXIC CARBONATE SOLVENT STANDARD GAS TREATMENT EQUIPMENT LOW-GRADE HEAT FOR REGENERATION ENERGY 7

8 CO 2 Solutions Process An IndustrialLung NO AEROSOLS No waterwash No filter No reclaimer 8 No solvent makeup NO TOXIC WASTES

2015: EERC Pilot Testing Program Three full weeks of testing in December 2014 and January 2015 Packed column absorber and stripper Stripper operated under partial vacuum Heat source was hot

9 2015: EERC Pilot Testing Program Three full weeks of testing in December 2014 and January 2015 Packed column absorber and stripper Stripper operated under partial vacuum Heat source was hot water from domestic water heaters Steam never used Natural gas and coal flue gases Solvents: Neat K 2 CO 3 and Formulated Carbonate Proprietary CO 2 Solutions 1T1 enzyme Free and immobilized 9

2015: CO 2 Capture <$40/tonne was Realistic Pilot testing at EERC demonstrated: Efficient use of nil-value power plant heat in the 70-90 C range for solvent regeneration Electrical parasitic load of

10 2015: CO 2 Capture <$40/tonne was Realistic Pilot testing at EERC demonstrated: Efficient use of nil-value power plant heat in the C range for solvent regeneration Electrical parasitic load of 0.2 GJ/tonnefor reduced pressure Change of Paradigm Majority of the stripping heat from outside of the steam cycle in power plants First proof of feasibility Cost of capture incl. compression <$40/tonne 10

11 2015: Techno-Economics Results EERC Net power plant efficiency DOE Case 11 DOE Case 12 CO 2 Solutions

12 2015: Techno-Economics Results EERC (2) Comparison at 550 MW Net Power output Capture and compression to 2250 psi DOE Case 11 No Capture CO 2 Solutions Capture Gross Turbine Power, MW Cost of Electricity, $/MWh $ $ Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/MWh $ $ CO 2 Capture Cost, $/tonne - $ DOE 2025 goal is met at <40$ 12

13 2015: Techno-Economics Results EERC (3) Impact of low grade heat DOE Case 11 DOE Case 12 CO 2 Solutions Extra Fuel relative to Case % +9.7% CO 2 Generated(Mt/y) CO 2 Captured (Mt/y) CO 2 to atmosphere(mt/y) Low grade heat reuse leads to Significantly less CO 2 to capture and to sequester Smaller power plant Smaller capture unit $ 13

2015: Techno-Economics Results EERC (3) Impact of low grade heat DOE Case 11 DOE Case 12 CO 2 Solutions Extra Fuel relative to Case 11 - +38.2% +9.7% CO 2 Generated(Mt/y) 4.2 5.89 4.

14 2015: Techno-Economics Results EERC (3) Impact of low grade heat DOE Case 11 DOE Case 12 CO 2 Solutions Extra Fuel relative to Case % +9.7% CO 2 Generated(Mt/y) CO 2 Captured (Mt/y) CO 2 to atmosphere(mt/y) Low grade heat reuse leads to Significantly less CO 2 to capture and to sequester Smaller power plant Smaller capture unit Impacts 14

15 10 t/d Demonstration-Results 5 times lessenzyme thanthe design basis CO 2 producedisat 99.95%+ purity No solvent degradation observed No solvent makeup required No toxic waste products generated Solvent sent to the municipal sewer Operation with day shift operators only Stable process Mass and energy balances validated by 3 rd party (Tetratech Inc.) 15

16 10 t/d Demonstration-Results(2) Electricalconsumptionof main components extrapolated from pilot operation Consumption (GJ/t) Vacuum (0.3 to 2 bara) 0.24 Flue gas blower 0.05 Lean/Rich solvent pumps 0.06 Total 0.35 Reboiler heat(hot water): 3.2 to 3.6 GJ/tonne 16

17 CO 2 Capture <$40/tonne is Even More Realistic Base case Full-size OTSG unit (for in-situ oil production) Natural gas combustion 1250 tonnes CO 2 /day 116 M$ Capital investment Performance data validated by Tetratech Inc. Cost of capture (before compression) ($/tco 2 ) Fixed Costs 6.9 Variable costs 12.6 Total Capital Req. 8.5 Total

18 LCA Amines vs Carbonates Energy demand Solvent chemistry CO2 Solutions process No extra power required vs others => improvements in Energy-related impacts Chemistry similar to carbonates => retains excellent chemistry performance 18 Grant, T., C. Anderson, B. Hooper. «Comparative life cycle assessment of potassium carbonate and mono-ethanolamine solvents for CO2 captured from post combustion flue gases», International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014: V28, pp35 44.

Next: Commercial Progress Capture and Reuse 30 tpdproject, 7.4 M$: - 2.4 M$ fromsdtc - 3.

19 Next: Commercial Progress Capture and Reuse 30 tpdproject, 7.4 M$: M$ fromsdtc M$ from Technoclimat (granted) 300 tpd, 30 M$ - 15 M$ fromccemc (granted) <2014 Lab and Bench-Scale: 0.5tpd Pilot: 1tpd 2015 Demonstration: 10tpd tpd = metric tonnes CO 2 captured per day Commercial: tpd; $37M CAPEX in Canada

20 Next: Capture and CO 2 Reuse Processes Valorisation Carbone Québec Industry 3-30% CO 2 Capture 99%+ Renewable, Value- Added Products Partners CO 2 Conversion/Reuse 20 $15M from Government of Quebec for development and demonstration

21 Valorisation Carbone Québec GoQobjective Demonstrate feasibility of combining renewable power with CO 2 capture to reduce emissions and create value Montreal East retained location 70 conversion technologies identified Most advanced processes spotted Polymers Chemicals Food (proteins) Ranking of candidates LCA Cost of conversion Market size Potential for creating «mass cycles» 21 21

22 Robust Patent Portfolio BROAD PATENT PORTFOLIO FOR USE OF CARBONIC ANHYDRASE IN CANADA, U.S., EU, CHINA, AUSTRALIA AND OTHER MARKETS 46 ISSUED 37 PENDING* vs. 13 and 19 respectively in 2008 SOLVENTS Amines Carbonates Amino Acids Combinations INDUSTRIAL SECTORS Power Steam Drop-in Applications Areas of Carbonic Anhydrase CO 2 Capture Application PROCESSES Packed Tower Spray Scrubber Bubble Column Universal ENZYME UTILIZATION Soluble Particle-Based Analogs 22 *as at June 30, 2015

23 23 Summary Process performance confirmed Enzyme stable in process No toxic waste generation No aerosol issues No solvent degradation Solvent Can be eliminated in standard water treatment plant Can be converted into fertilizers when spent Capture costconfirmedat the 10 tpdscale <40$/tonne compressed to 2250 psi Commercialization on its way 30 tpdproject >100 tpdproject Carbon cycle project