Comparing life cycle assessments of biocatalysed potassium carbonate technology with amine-based capture and UNO MK3 technology

Transcription

1 Comparing life cycle assessments of biocatalysed potassium carbonate technology with amine-based capture and UNO MK3 technology March 20, 2018, CCUS conference, Nashville TN Richard Surprenant, CTO 1

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, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. A number of factors may affect our 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 CO 2 SOLUTIONS Canadian company, head office in Quebec City 25 employees, high tech (7 PhD s) Provider of a patented CO 2 capture technology based on the use of Carbonic Anhydrase (CA) 95 patents granted and pending Applications: CO 2 capture from post-combustion industrial flue gas streams produced by any fuel source CO 2 separation from natural gas CO 2 pure at 99.95% for CO 2 utilization applications or sequestration The process offers the lowest capture cost among existing technologies The commercially available process generates no toxic by-products Potential applications: Direct utilization of captured CO 2 for EOR or conversion into biofuels/biochemicals/materials/protein Sequestration of CO 2 for carbon mitigation Publicly traded on TSX-V (CST)

4 ENZYME-ENABLED CO 2 CAPTURE Carbonic Anhydrase (CA) enzyme Extreme conditions (P, T, Salinity) Directionally evolved for industrial conditions Catalyses CO 2 hydration reactions CCOO 2 + HH 2 OO CCCC HHHHOO 3 + HH + Enzyme is mass produced Process stable Active metallic site

5 CHEMICAL SYSTEM REACTIONS CCOO 2 (gas) Gas/Liquid interface Water CCOO 2 (aqueous) Catalyst Small amount Carbonic Anhydrase HHHHOO 3 + HH + Salt system No degradation No toxic byproducts KK 2 CCCC 3 + HHHHOO 3 + HH + 2 KHCO 3 Carbonate Bicarbonate

6 INDUSTRIAL LUNG USING THE ENZYME CARBONIC ANHYDRASE No waterwash NO AEROSOLS Exhaust gas CO2 No intercoolers Trimmer No filter Wash Conditionning L-R Heat Xger Flue gas Wash return Blower Absorber No steam required CAPEX and OPEX advantages / Reduced environmental footprint Stripper Reboiler Low temperature No reclaimer NO TOXIC WASTES

7 ROBUST PATENT PORTFOLIO BROAD PATENT PORTFOLIO FOR USE OF CARBONIC ANHYDRASE IN CANADA, U.S., EU, CHINA, AUSTRALIA AND OTHER MARKETS 61 ISSUED 34 PENDING 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

8 CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATED Operated a demo plant for 2,500 hours in 2016 CO 2 produced is at 99.95%+ purity No solution degradation observed No solution makeup required No toxic waste products generated Spent solution sent to the municipal sewer Operation with day shift operators only 3 rd party validation of plant performance and simulator benchmark (Tetra Tech Inc.)

9 COMMERCIAL PROGRESS- CAPTURE AND UTILIZATION 30 tpd project, Can$8.4 M - In procurement phase - Construction over summer To be commissioned in Q Up to 300 tpd, Can$30 M - In negotiation with industrial and financial partners <2014 Lab and Bench-Scale: 0.5 tpd Pilot: 1 tpd 2015 Demonstration: 10 tpd < 39$ < 28$ Commercial: tpd; $38M CAPEX in Canada

10 CURRENT CO 2 UTILIZATION PROJECT 30 TPD SCALE Startup in Q SERRES TOUNDRA Saint-Félicien, QC Capture of up to 30 tpd CO 2 from Resolute Forest Products (RFP) pulp mill lime kiln Utilize mill s low-grade / waste heat for process Reduce CO 2 output from mill / share carbon credits Supply CO 2 to neighboring Serres Toundra greenhouse complex Full CO 2 value chain enabled by CO 2 Solutions technology 10

11 VALORISATION CARBONE QUÉBEC PROJECT MORE ON THIS TOPIC IN THE AFTERNOON SESSION 11

12 COMPARING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF CO 2 CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES The issue Do all carbon capture technologies provide equal benefits to the environment? What are the comparative environmental footprints of different carbon capture technologies?

13 COMPARING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF CO 2 CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES The study s aim Analyzing and comparing the environmental profile of Enzyme-catalyzed carbonate system Chemically promoted carbonate system Amine-based systems Context The capture of CO 2 from the flue gas stream of a 550 MW coal fired power station in midwestern USA Objective Fulfillment Attributional cradleto-gate LCA comparing the three systems

14 TECHNOLOGY COMPARATORS Enzyme-enabled carbonate-based system CO 2 Solutions technology Amine-based systems Fluor Economine technology (DOE 2013) Cansolv technology (DOE 2015) Promoted carbonate-based system UNO MK3 technology (Grant et al. 2014)

15 STUDY PROCESS AND PARTNERS Literature research CSI/CIRAIG CIRAIG International Reference Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services Process modelling CSI Life cycle analysis CIRAIG Expert committee Deloitte Sustainability Amine technology expert Critical review Expert committee DOE consultant LCA experts ISO process Publishing CIRAIG Critical review is ongoing

16 STUDY BASIS Basis for comparing all technologies : Retrofit to an existing coal plant Functional unit : Separation of one tonne of CO 2 from the flue gas stream of a 550 MW coal-fired power station in the midwestern USA in 2017 Power plant without CO 2 capture unit A kwh electricity B tco 2 emitted Power plant with CO 2 capture unit + Electricity production on the market A-X kwh electricity 0.1 X B tco 2 emitted X kwh electricity X kwh elec from market Power plant with CO 2 capture unit A kwh electricity 0.1 X B tco 2 emitted Base case Study cases Loss of electricity production will affect the regional market in which the power plant is located and therefore the lost electricity is produced by an average electricity mix coming from this regional market.

17 MAIN TECHNOLOGY DIFFERENCES Amine technologies 2 UNO MK3 3 CSI Process input Amine(s), NaOH, activated carbon Glycine, Amberlite, KOH K 2 CO 3, Protein Required services from power plant Electricity, steam 5 (152 C 355 C) Electricity, steam 5 (152 C) Electricity, excess low-grade heat (hot water 85 C) Emissions to air 1 Amine, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Acetone, Ammonia, Methyl amine, None None Emissions to water 1 Same as above Degraded glycine promoter Degraded protein, K 2 CO 3 Emissions to land 4 Upgrading of flue gas contaminants References: 1 Thong Do et al., DOE 2013 and DOE Grant et al., 2014 Spent carbon, Degraded amine by-products, Heatstable salts Spent amberlite None None KNO 3, K 2 SO 4 KNO 3, K 2 SO 4 Notes: 4 Emissions to land are incinerated in both Amine and UNO MK3 cases 5 Steam used gets converted to an electrical parasitic load

18 TYPICAL AMINE CAPTURE PROCESS Exhaust gas Water wash tower Activated carbon CO 2 E-17 Water wash drum Trimmer Intercooler L -R Heat Xger Wash Conditionning Stripper NaOH CO 2 Flue gas Absorber Lean amine Storage tank Blower Reboiler Reclaimer Wastes Wash return All equipment in blue are not required with CO 2 Solutions technology

19 LIFE-CYCLE BOUNDARIES

20 MID AND ENDPOINT CATEGORIES (IMPACT METHOD)

21 ENDPOINT SUMMARY 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% CO 2 Solutions technology has a smaller impact on ALL endpoint categories 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Climate change Human health Ecosystem quality Resources CSI MEA UNO MK3

22 MIDPOINT INDICATORS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% CSI MEA UNO MK3 CO 2 Solutions technology has a smaller impact on ALL midpoint categories 10% 0%

23 SENSITIVITY: MIDWEST GRID MIX 200 Climate change indicator kg CO 2 eq / t CO 2 separated MEA UNO MK3 CSI Changing the grid mix has no impact on the ranking 0 MRO SERC SPP RFC Source: Wikipedia (2018)

24 SENSITIVITY: AMINE MAKE-UP AND EMISSIONS Sensitivity on MEA Make-up 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Climate change Human health Ecosystem quality Resources CSI MEA UNO MK3 MEA without make-up Zero make-up = Zero emissions (air, water, land) Putting Amine make-up at zero has no impact on the ranking

25 SENSITIVITY: ENERGY TO REBOILER FOR AMINE TECHNOLOGIES 120% Sensitivity on amine energy input Note: MEA energy excludes energy to reclaimer 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Climate change Human health Ecosystem quality Resources CSI 3.7 GJ/ton UNO MK3 2.2 GJ/ton Amine energy values; DOE (2013) 3.69 GJ/tCO 2 DOE (2015) 2.56 GJ/tCO 2 Sensitivity case 2.2 GJ/tCO 2 used as a 15% improvement over best amine technology Putting Amine energy at 85% of state of the art (2015) amine technology favours amine over UNO MK3, but CSI still has lowest impact

26 SENSITIVITY: REGION WITH LOWEST N.A. GRID MIX 120% Grid mix sensitivity 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% MEA UNO MK3 CSI MEA UNO MK3 CSI Initial study (elec MRO) Lowest grid mix (Quebec inter.) Climate change Human health Ecosystem quality Resources Using the lowest N.A. grid mix disadvantages UNO MK3 but CSI still has lowest impact

27 SENSITIVITY: ENERGY TO PRODUCE ENZYME Enzyme production energy variance 120% 100% 80% 60% Variance of energy for enzyme production has no impact on the ranking 40% 20% 0% Climate change Human health Ecosystem quality Resources CSI (19.23 kwh/kg enzyme) MEA UNO MK3 CSI (4kWh/kg enzyme) CSI (34 kwh/kg enzyme)

28 SENSITIVITY: QUANTITY OF ENZYME REQUIRED Enzyme quantity variance 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% Variance on the amount of enzyme necessary for the CO 2 Solutions process has no impact on the ranking 20% 0% Climate change Human health Ecosystem quality Resources CSI base case MEA UNO MK X Base 1.9 X Base

29 MAIN RESULTS OF THE STUDY The CO 2 Solutions system presents the lowest scores for ALL midpoint and endpoint indicators. CO 2 Solutions technology has significantly lower potential impacts than Amine and UNO MK3 technologies. Several sensitivity analyses were carried out, which do not affect the conclusion.

30 CONCLUSION Do all carbon capture technologies provide equal benefits to the environment? NO! What are the comparative environmental footprints of different carbon capture technologies? 3.7 GJ/tCO 2 = 1,00 A UNO MK3 = 0,74 A 2.2 GJ/tCO 2 = 0,66 A CO 2 Solutions = 0,47 A There is a significant Life-Cycle advantage to use a potassium carbonate biocatalysed system over amine-based or precipitating potassium carbonate systems.

31 Contact : Richard Surprenant CTO richard.surprenant@co2solutions.com 31

32 GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE Segment Energy input into devices in segment PJ Industrial Iron and Steel Chemical end petrochemical Non-ferrous metals (aluminium) Non-metallic minerals (glass, cement) PPI Power generation Thermal power stations Biomass power stations, waste incinerations - Renewable energy sources power stations Total per type

33 ESTIMATED AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL EXCESS HEAT ABOVE 85 C 1 PJ = J Reference: Forman et al., «Estimating the global waste heat potential»,