Principal Investigator Dr. Ted Chang Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

Transcription

1 Presented By Chris Anderson, MBA 2012 Eamonn Courtney, MBA 2012 Andrew Hamilton, MBA 2012 Neha Mehta, MS Chemical Engineering, 2011 Principal Investigator Dr. Ted Chang Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

2 Agenda Introduction: Why carbon capture? Technology overview: LBNL s innovation Market opportunity Enhanced economics through CO 2 sales Conclusion 2

3 Coal combustion produces more CO 2 than any other fuel source CO 2 emissions are forecasted to reach 40 Gt by 2035 Coal = 43% of CO 2 emissions CO2 Emissions (Gt) Global CO 2 Emissions by Fuel Source Gas Oil Coal Source: International Energy Outlook 2010, U.S. EIA and International Energy Agency. 3

4 Carbon capture is essential to stabilize climate change IEA study shows CCS is vital to achieve a 50% reduction CCS represents 19% of the lowest cost solution Carbon Mitigation Roadmap CCS 19% Renewables 17% Nuclear 6% Generation Efficiency 5% Gt CO 2 Fuel Switching 15% End-use Efficiency 38% Source: Energy Technology Perspectives, International Energy Agency,

5 Stationary sources are a compelling opportunity for post-combustion retrofits Coal-fired generation is the lowest hanging fruit Worldwide Stationary Sources emitting > 0.1 Mt CO2 annually Process CO 2 % of Gas % of WW Stream Mt CO 2 Emissions Mt CO 2 per Source CCS Prospect Coal 15% 7,984 33% 3.94 High Natural Gas 5% 1,511 6% 0.87 Medium Fuel Oil 5% 980 5% 0.88 Low Power subtotal 10,539 44% 2.13 Industrial 10-20% 2,788 12% 1.06 Medium Source: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, International Panel on Climate Change,

6 Coal is proven, prevalent and low-price 909 billion short tons of coal (worldwide) 313 GW or $1 trillion (1) of coal-fired power in the U.S. Levelized cost of coal-fired power is 18% less than average U.S. electricity price Source: Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, EIA, 2010; Statistical Review 2010, BP. (1) Assumes $3,000/kW coal power plant construction cost. 6

7 Agenda Introduction: Why carbon capture? Technology overview: LBNL s innovation Market opportunity Enhanced economics through CO 2 sales Conclusion 7

8 Three challenges with amine based processes CO 2 lean amine solvent Absorber (amine solution) Regenerator 120 o C CO 2 rich amine solvent Parasitic energy 500 MW plant produces only 350 MW Corrosion Amine solvent corrodes at high temperature Regeneration rates CO 2 Steam input Longer retention periods Source: Carbon Dioxide from Existing Coal Plants, DOE/NETL,

9 LBNL s technology has solutions to all these challenges Absorber (amine solution) K 2 CO 3 KHCO 3 slurry Solutions: Parasitic energy Low regeneration temperature Corrosion CO 2 Regenerator o C (inexpensive additive) Steam input No solvent in high temperature zone Regeneration rates Faster kinetics due to additive 9

10 LBNL s superior performance leads to lower costs 28% Parasitic Energy Loss 24% Chemical Costs** Cost of Solvent ($/lb Mol) LBNL s technology ~ % 17% 16% 12%* MHI-KS Cansolv (MDEA) 300 Regeneration Rates Regeneration (%)*** Econamine 20% LBNL s Technology* 55% *Lab scale results; **G.Rochelle, CO 2 capture by aqueous absorption/stripping configuration, Presented at MIT Carbon Sequestration Forum, 2006; ***Time 8 min 10

11 Agenda Introduction: Why Carbon Capture? Technology introduction: LBNL s innovation Market opportunity Enhanced economics through CO 2 sales Conclusion 11

12 US electric generation fleet is ideal for LBNL s technology US Installed Capacity 2007 US Generated Energy 2007 Coal 31% Other 69% Coal 49% Other 51% Coal = 313 GW Coal = 2,017 GWh Source: International Energy Outlook 2010, U.S. EIA. 12

13 The relevant US coal opportunity for CC Coal-fired power plants in the United States Age < 35 years 1,267 Locations 313 GW 428 Locations 149 GW Capacity > 300MW Pollution control equipment installed 222 Locations 131 GW 152 Locations 89 GW (28% of Total) Source: EIA database and IEA,

14 Progressive coal utilities have been investing in CCS despite its high costs Avoided cost estimates for CO 2 range from $60/ton-$110/ton Electric utilities have an incentive to explore CCS Large US Electric Utilities American Electric Power Duke Energy Southern Company TECO Energy Ameren Corp DTE Energy CMS Energy Installed Capacity (GW) 37,235 58,001 42,963 4,684 16,613 10,967 7,354 Coal Capacity (GW) 23,907 25,331 21,098 1,802 9,920 7,862 2,901 CCS Involvement x x x x x x x Source: Company SEC filings 14

15 CCS economics are improving with experience and with project size Improved costs from learning curve and economies of scale Wide-spread adoption more likely as costs decline Alstom / EPRI Post Combustion Study Size Cost Estimate Project Start Date (MW) $mm $/kw Phase 1 Pleasant Prairie $10 $5,882 Phase 2 Mountaineer $100 $5,000 Phase 3 Mountaineer $668 $2,843 Phase 3* Northeastern $600 $3,000 *Cancelled 15

16 LBNL s technology can mitigate the cost of CCS implementation CO 2 capture frequently cited as most expensive component CCS Project Costs Breakdown 2010 Estimate 100% 95% 90% Storage Transport 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% Capture Power Plant Source: Frost & Sullivan,

17 Agenda Introduction: Why carbon capture? Technology introduction: LBNL s innovation Market opportunity Enhanced economics through CO 2 sales Conclusion 17

18 Fragmented regulation requires creative solutions to improve economics March 12, 2011: Carbon price would need to be tripled to force change from coal-fired electricity Regulatory Policies of Major CO2 Emitters Region Overview Policy Type CO 2 $/ton United States Regional initiatives Cap-and-trade 3-5 Europe Multi-national policy Cap-and-trade China National plan N/A N/A Australia National policy Tax Cap/trade New Zealand National policy Cap-and-trade Source: CO2 Emissions Database, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. 18

19 We considered various industrial uses of CO 2 Price Sensitivity of Customer Low High Enhanced Oil Recovery Urea Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery Calcium Carbonate Polymers Algae Bubble size = Mt/year of CO2 used Liquid Fuels Enhanced Geothermal Systems Food & Bev. Concrete Curing Technology Deployment Timeframe 19

20 We considered various industrial uses of CO 2 Price Sensitivity of Customer Low High Enhanced Oil Recovery Urea Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery Calcium Carbonate Bubble size = Mt/year of CO2 used Liquid Fuels Technology Deployment Timeframe 20

21 and found that EOR is an attractive customer Volume EOR Urea Liquid fuels ECBM Calcium carbonate Compatibility Price Sensitivity of Customer Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Timeframe 21

22 Recommended partners for path ahead Progressive coal Government Commercial Demonstration Slipstream Test Techno Economic Analysis Progressive coal EOR operators Lab Engineering firms Government 22

23 Agenda Introduction: Why carbon capture? Technology introduction: LBNL s innovation Market opportunity Enhanced economics through CO 2 sales Conclusion 23

24 Conclusions Post-combustion chemical absorption technology is wellsuited for retrofitting coal plants LBNL s technology differs from competing technologies in ability to lower costs by utilizing waste heat Technology improvements and the learning curve will enable the economic adoption of carbon capture Industrial users of CO2 are a creative opportunity to bridge the economic and regulatory gap in the medium term 24

25 Acknowledgment Academic Institutes Industry Co-operation 25