Systems Overview. Edward S. Rubin

Transcription

1 Systems Overview Edward S. Rubin Department of Engineering and Public Policy Department of Mechanical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Presentation to the GCEP Carbon Capture Workshop Stanford, California May 26, 2011

2 How to Reduce the Cost of Carbon Capture Edward S. Rubin Department of Engineering and Public Policy Department of Mechanical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Presentation to the GCEP Carbon Capture Workshop Stanford, California May 26, 2011

3 Outline of Talk Why cost is important Where we stand today Opportunities for lower-cost systems Challenges for lower-cost systems

4 Many Ways to Capture CO 2 CO2 Separation and Capture Absorption Adsorption Cryogenics Membranes Microbial/Algal Systems Chemical Adsorber Beds Gas Separation MEA Caustic Other Physical Alumina Zeolite Activated C Regeneration Method Polyphenyleneoxide Polydimethylsiloxane Gas Absorption Selexol Rectisol Other Pressure Swing Temperature Swing Washing Polypropelene Ceramic Based Systems Choice of technology depends strongly on application

5 To reduce atmospheric emissions it s the whole CCS system that matters Carbonbearing Fuels Air or Oxygen An Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) System Power Plant or Industrial Process CO 2 CO 2 Capture & Compress CO 2 Transport CO 2 Storage (Sequestration) Useful Products (Electricity, Fuels, Chemicals, Hydrogen) - Post-combustion - Pre-combustion - Oxyfuel combustion - Pipeline - Tanker - Depleted oil/gas fields - Deep saline formations - Unmineable coal seams - Ocean - Mineralization - Reuse

6 Post-Combustion Technology for Industrial CO 2 Capture BP Natural Gas Processing Plant (In Salah, Algeria) Source: IEA GHG, 2008

7 (Source: Flour Daniel) (Source: (IEA GHG) Examples of Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture at U.S. Power Plants Gas-fired Coal-fired Bellingham Cogeneration Plant (Bellingham, Massachusetts, USA) Warrior Run Power Plant (Cumberland, Maryland, USA)

8 Oxy-Combustion CO 2 Capture from a Coal-Fired Boiler Source: Vattenfall, MW t Pilot Plant (~10 MW e ) at Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe Station (Germany)

9 Pre-Combustion Capture at IGCC Plants Puertollano IGCC Plant (Spain) CO 2 capture pilot plants recently built at IGCC units in Europe Source: Elcano, 2007 Buggenhum IGCC Plant (The Netherlands) Source: Nuon, 2009

10 (Source: Chevron-Texaco) (Source: Dakota Gasification Examples of Pre-Combustion CO 2 Capture Systems Petcoke Gasification to Produce H 2 (Coffeyville, Kansas, USA) Coal Gasification to Produce SNG (Beulah, North Dakota, USA)

11 CO 2 from Energy Use is the Dominant Greenhouse Gas Driving Climate Change U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions weighted by 100-yr Global Warming Potential (GWP) 7.4% 6.5% 2.2% 7.9% 5.5% 2.0% Source: USEPA, % 83.9% CO2 CH4 N2O Others CO2 CH4 N2O Others

12 Leading Candidates for CCS Fossil fuel power plants Pulverized coal combustion (PC) Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) Other large industrial sources of CO 2 such as: Refineries, fuel processing, and petrochemical plants Hydrogen and ammonia production plants Pulp and paper plants Cement plants Main focus is on power plants, the dominant source of CO 2

13 Why cost is important

14 Multiple Options for Reducing CO 2 Emissions Reduce demands for energy services and other carbon-emitting activities Increase the efficiency of carbon-based energy technologies and systems Replace high-carbon energy (e.g., coal-powered electricity) with zero or low-carbon systems Capture and sequester CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels and biomass

15 Source: EMF22, ADAGE EPPA MERGE MiniCAM MRN-NEEM EJ/yr Cost and Emission Reduction Reqm t are the Key Determinants of Technology Deployment Least-cost U.S. energy mix in 2050 for a GHG policy scenario of GHGs = 80% below 1990 levels % GHG reduction by 2050 Results from five energy-economic models 20 0 Oil w/o CCS Oil w/ccs Coal w/o CCS Coal w/ccs Gas w/o CCS Gas w/ccs Bioenergy w/o CCS Bioenergy w/ccs Nuclear Non-Biomass Renewable Energy Reduction

16 The cost of CCS

17 Many Factors Affect CCS Costs Choice of Power Plant and CCS Technology Process Design and Operating Variables Economic and Financial Parameters Choice of System Boundaries; e.g., One facility vs. multi-plant system (regional, national, global) GHG gases considered (CO 2 only vs. all GHGs) Power plant only vs. partial or complete life cycle Time Frame of Interest First-of-a-kind plant vs. n th plant Current technology vs. future systems Consideration of technological learning

18 Measures of CCS Cost Cost of CO 2 avoided Cost of CO 2 captured Capital cost Dispatch (variable) cost Increased cost of electricity (or other product)

19 Definition of Key Costs Cost of CO 2 Avoided ($/ton CO 2 avoided) = ($/MWh) ccs ($/MWh) reference (CO 2 /MWh) ref (CO 2 /MWh) ccs Cost of Electricity Generation ($/MWh) = (TCC)(FCF) + FOM (CF)(8760)(MW) + VOM + (HR)(FC) Many factors influence the cost of CCS

20 Ten Ways to Reduce CCS Cost (inspired by D. Letterman) 10. Assume high power plant efficiency 9. Assume high-quality fuel properties 8. Assume low fuel price 7. Assume EOR credits for CO 2 storage 6. Omit certain capital costs 5. Report $/ton CO 2 based on short tons 4. Assume long plant lifetime 3. Assume low interest rate (discount rate) 2. Assume high plant utilization (capacity factor) 1. Assume all of the above!... and we have not yet considered the CCS technology!

21 Cost of Electricity ($ / MWh) NGCC Estimated Cost of New Power Plants with and without CCS SCPC Plants with CCS Natural Gas Plants New Coal Plants IGCC Current Coal Plants IGCC NGCC SCPC PC 20 0 * 2007 costs for bituminous coals; gas price $4 7/GJ; 90% capture; aquifer storage CO 2 Emission Rate (tonnes / MWh)

22 Incremental Cost of CCS for New Coal- Based Plants Using Current Technology Increase in levelized cost for 90% capture Incremental Cost of CCS relative to same plant type without CCS (based on bituminous coals) Supercritical Pulverized Coal Plant Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant % Increases in capital cost ($/kw) and generation cost ($/kwh) ~ 60 80% ~ 30 50% Capture accounts for most (~80%) of the total cost Retrofit of existing plants typically has a higher cost Added cost to consumers will be much smaller (reflecting the CCS capacity in the generation mix at any given time)

23 Typical Cost of CO 2 Avoided (Relative to a SCPC reference plant w/o CCS) Levelized cost in constant US$ per tonne CO 2 avoided Power Plant System (relative to a SCPC plant without CCS) New Supercritical Pulverized Coal Plant New Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant CCS with deep saline aquifer storage CCS w/ enhanced oil recovery (EOR) storage ~ $70 /tco 2 ~ $50 /tco 2 Cost reduced by ~ $20 30 /tco 2 Source: Based on IPCC, 2005; Rubin et al, 2007; DOE, 2007

24 Cost of CCS for New NGCC Plants (Current Technology) Increase in levelized cost for 90% capture Cost Measure New NGCC Cost Increase with CCS % Increase in capital cost ($/kw) ~ % % Increase in generation cost ($/kwh) ~ 30 45% Cost of CO 2 Avoided: Relative to NGCC: Relative to SCPC: ~$100 /tco 2 ~$40 /tco 2

25 High capture energy requirements is a major factor in high CCS costs Power Plant Type Added fuel input (%) per net kwh output Existing subcritical PC ~40% New supercritical PC 25-30% New coal gasification (IGCC) 15-20% New natural gas (NGCC) ~15% Reducing capture system energy requirements is key to reducing CCS cost

26 Breakdown of Energy Penalty for CO 2 Capture (SCPC and IGCC) Component Approx. % of Total Reqm t Thermal Energy ~60% CO 2 Compression ~30% Pumps, Fans, etc. ~10%

27 Opportunities for advanced (lower-cost) capture systems

28 Cost Reduction Benefit Better Capture Technologies Are Emerging Post-combustion (existing, new PC) Pre-combustion (IGCC) Oxycombustion (new PC) Chemical looping CO 2 compression (all) Amine solvents Physical solvents Cryogenic oxygen Advanced physical solvents Advanced chemical solvents Ammonia CO 2 compression PBI membranes Solid sorbents Membrane systems ITMs Biomass cofiring Ionic liquids Metal organic frameworks Enzymatic membranes OTM boiler Biological processes CAR process Present 5+ years 10+ years 15+ years 20+ years Time to Commercialization 28 OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY

29 Two Approaches to Estimating Future Technology Costs Method 1: Engineering-Economic Analysis A bottom up approach based on engineering process models, informed by judgments regarding potential improvements in key process parameters Method 2: Use of Historical Experience Curves A top down approach based on application of mathematical learning curves that quantify past trends for analogous technologies or systems

30 Percent % Increase in COE Percent % Increase in COE Percent % Increase Increase in in COE COE Potential Cost Reductions Based on Engineering-Economic Analysis (1) Latest Analyses for PC Plants Latest Analyses for IGCC (c/kwh) SC w/amine Scrubbing SC w/ammonia CO 2 Scrubbing 8.72 (c/kwh) SC w/econamine Scrubbing 8.00 (c/kwh) (c/kwh) ` SC w/multipollutant Ammonia Scrubbing (Byproduct Credit) (c/kwh) A B C D E F G 52 USC w/amine Scrubbing USC w/advanced Amine Scrubbing 7.48 (c/kwh) Latest Cases Analyses for Oxy-Combustion 45 PC RTI Regenerable Sorbent 6.30 (c/kwh) (c/kwh) 31 Selexol 7.01 (c/kwh) 28 Advanced Selexol 6.52 (c/kwh) 19 Advanced Selexol w/co- Sequestration Advanced Selexol w/itm & co-sequestration 6.14 (c/kwh) 6.03 (c/kwh) WGS Membrane & Co-Sequestration WGS Membrane Chemical Looping w/itm & Co- & Co- Sequestration Sequestration 5.75 (c/kwh) IGCC 5 5 A B C D E F G 5.75 (c/kwh) (c/kwh) 50 Current State Supercritical Oxyfuel (Cryogenic ASU) Advanced Subcritical Oxyfuel (Cryogenic ASU) 6.97 (c/kwh) 33 ` Advanced Supercritical Oxyfuel (Cryogenic ASU) 6.62 (c/kwh) 26 Oxyfuel 6.35 (c/kwh) Advanced Supercritical Oxyfuel (ITM O 2 ) 21 19% -28% reductions in COE w/ CCS 0 A B C D Cases Source: DOE/NETL, 2006

31 $/MWh ($2009) Potential Cost Reductions Based on Engineering-Economic Analysis (2) IGCC Technologies Pulverized Coal Technologies % below no CCS 29% above no CCS No CCS CCS with No R&D CCS with R&D No CCS CCS with No R&D CCS with R&D -5 IGCC Today 31% reduction IGCC w/ CCS Today IGCC w/ CCS with R&D Supercritical PC Today Supercritical PC w/ CCS Adv Combustion w/ CCS 27% reduction Source: DOE/ NETL, 2010 Top-down modeling studies also project significant cost reductions by mid-century, given a policy driver for CCS deployment

32 Challenges for advanced (lower-cost) capture systems

33 Technical Challenges and Research Pathways for Advanced Capture Concepts Source: DOE/ NETL, 2009

34 Most New Capture Concepts Are Far from Commercial Availability Technology Readiness Levels Post-Combustion Capture Source: NASA, 2009 Source: EPRI, 2009

35 Capital Cost per Unit of Capacity Typical Cost Trend for a New Technology Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology Time or Cumulative Capacity Source: Based on EPRI, 2008

36 Most new concepts take decades to commercialize many never make it Copper Oxide Process Development timelines for three novel processes for combined SO 2 NO x capture 1967: Pilot- Scale Testing begins. 1971: Test conducted in Netherlands 1975: DOE conducts test of fluidized bed system 1984: Continued pilot testing with 500 lb/hr feed 1983: Rockwell contracted to improve system 1999: 10 MW pilot planned by DOE 1996: DOE continues lifecycle testing 2006: Most recent paper published Electron Beam Process 1970: Ebara Corporation begins lab scale testing. 1998: Process used in plant in Chengdu, China 2005: Process used in plant in Hangzhou, China 2002: Process used in plant in Beijing, China : Process described by Bureau of Mines 1970: Results of testing published. 1973: Used in commercial refinery in Japan 1979: Pilot-scale testing conducted in Florida 1992: DOE contracts design and modeling for 500MW plant NOXSO Process 1985: DOE conducts lifecycle testing. 1996: Construction of full scale test begins 2002: Paper published at NETL symposium 2000: Noxso process cited in ACS paper, Last NOXSO patent awarded : Ebara begins pilotscale testing 1985: Pilots initiated in U.S. and Germany 1999: Process used at plant in Poland 2008: Paper on process presented at WEC forum in Romania 1979: Development of process begins : Pilotscale tests carried out in Kentucky 1991: Noxso Corporation receives DOE contract 1993: Pilot-scale testing complete 1997: Noxso Corporation declares bankruptcy 1998: Noxso Corporation liquidated. Project terminated.

37 Accelerating Innovation in Carbon Capture Requires Substantial and sustained support for R&D Closer coupling and interaction between R&D performers and technology developers /users Better methods to identify promising options, evaluate new processes /concepts, and reduce number and size of pilot and demonstration projects (e.g., via improved simulation methods)

38 The DOE Multi-Lab Initiative to Accelerate New Capture Systems Source: DOE/ NETL, 2011

39 IECM: A Tool for Analyzing Power Plant Design Options A desktop/laptop computer model developed for DOE/NETL Free and publicly available at: Provides systematic estimates of performance, emissions, costs and uncertainties for preliminary design of: PC, IGCC and NGCC plants All flue/fuel gas treatment systems CO 2 capture and storage options (pre- and post-combustion, oxycombustion; transport, storage)

40 Sample IECM Screen Shots

41 A Probabilistic Cost Analysis FG+ (Deterministic Case) Ammonia System (high conc. case)

42 Work in Progress at CMU Performance and Cost Models of Advanced CO 2 Capture Systems: Advanced liquid solvents (Peter Versteeg) Solid sorbent systems (Justin Glier) Membrane capture systems (Haibo Zhai) Advanced oxy-combustion (Kyle Borgert) Chemical looping combustion (Hari Mantripragada) International Cost Module Software Development & Dist. (Hana Gerbelova) (Karen Kietzke)

43 In Summary Reducing the cost of carbon capture can enable CCS to play a more prominent role in reducing GHG emissions linked to global climate change There are major challenges but also significant potential to achieve sizeable cost reductions with advanced technologies The pace and direction of technology innovations will depend strongly on sustained support for R&D, and on climate policy drivers that create markets for CCS systems Let the games begin!

44 Thank You