The Outlook for Lower-Cost Carbon Capture and Storage for Climate Change Mitigation

Transcription

1 The Outlook for Lower-Cost Carbon Capture and Storage for Climate Change Mitigation Edward S. Rubin Department of Engineering and Public Policy Department of Mechanical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Seminar to the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy Columbia University, New York, NY April 28, 2017 Outline of Talk Why the interest in CO 2 capture and storage (CCS)? What is the current status of CCS? What is the outlook for advanced lowercost technology? How can the prospects for advanced CCS technology be assessed more realistically? Schematic of a CCS System Leading Candidates for CCS Fossil Fuels or Biomass Air or Oxygen Power Plant or Industrial Process Useful Products (Electricity, Fuels, Chemicals, Hydrogen) CO 2 CO 2 Capture & Compress - Post-combustion - Pre-combustion - Oxy-combustion CO 2 Transport - Pipeline - Tanker CO 2 Storage (Sequestration) - Depleted oil/gas fields - Deep saline formations - Unmineable coal seams - Ocean - Mineralization - Reuse 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 has been on power plants, the dominant source of CO 2 1

2 Baseline Configuration for a Pulverized Coal (PC) Power Plant Post-Combustion Capture at a Coal- Fired Power Plant Steam Turbine Generator Steam Coal PC Boiler Air Electricity Air Pollution Control Systems (NO x, PM, SO 2 ) CO 2 Capture Mostly N 2 Amine Amine/CO 2 Amine/CO 2 Separation Flue gas to atmosphere Stack CO 2 CO 2 Compression CO 2 to storage Why the interest in CCS? Details of amine-based CO 2 capture system (capture efficiency typically ~90%) Flue Gas (to atmosphere) Absorber Flue Gas (from FGD) Blower Pump makeup Cooler Amine Storage Lean stream H-Ex Rich stream Flash CO 2 product (to compression) Cooler Regenerator Reboiler Waste Pump Reclaimer Motivation for CCS Without CCS Stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations to mitigate climate change will require very large reductions in global CO 2 emissions by mid-century and beyond Fossil fuels will continue to be used for many decades CCS is the ONLY way to get large CO 2 reductions from fossil fuels used at power plants and industrial facilities CCS also can help decarbonize the transportation sector via low-carbon electricity and hydrogen from fossil fuels Energy models show that without CCS, the cost of mitigating climate change will be much higher The cost of mitigating climate change would increase substantially, and Climate stabilization goals may not be achievable according to the most recent IPCC assessment Source: IPCC, AR5 WG III,

3 Status of CCS Technology Current CCS Projects CO 2 capture technologies are commercial and widely used in industrial processes; also several applications at gasfired and coal-fired power plants. CO 2 transport via pipelines is a mature technology. Geological storage of CO 2 is commercial on a limited basis, mainly for EOR; several projects in deep saline formations are operating at scales of ~1 Mt CO 2 /yr. Integration of CO 2 capture, transport and geological sequestration at scale has been demonstrated at several industrial facilities and coal-fired power plants. Source: GCCSI, 2017 Post-Combustion Capture at a Natural Gas Processing Plant Post-Combustion Capture at the Boundary Dam PC Plant BP Natural Gas Processing Plant (In Salah, Algeria) Source: IEAGHG, 2008 Source: SaskPower,

4 Post-Combustion Capture at the Petra Nova PC Plant Pre-Combustion Capture at the Kemper IGCC Plant Source: NRG, 2017 Source: Southern Co., 2017 Cost Estimates for New Power Plants Using Current Technology Incremental Cost of CCS relative to same plant type without CCS (based on 90% capture with geological storage) % Increase in levelized electricity generation cost ($/kwh) Supercritical Pulverized Coal Plant (SCPC) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant (IGCC) Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant (NGCC) ~ 60 80% ~ 30 50% ~ 30 45% What is the potential of advanced CCS technologies? Capture accounts for most (~80%) of total CCS cost EOR credits can reduce total cost significantly (Details in IJGGC paper, 2015) Higher costs for retrofits and firstof-a-kind plants 4

5 R&D Programs Seek to Develop Lower-Cost Capture Systems Two Principal Goals of Advanced Capture Technology Cost Reduction Benefit Post-combustion (existing, new PC) Pre-combustion (IGCC) Oxycombustion (new PC) CO 2 compression (all) Advanced physical solvents Advanced Amine chemical solvents solvents Physical Ammonia solvents CO 2 com- Cryogenic pression oxygen PBI membranes Solid sorbents Membrane systems ITMs Biomass cofiring Chemical looping OTM boiler Ionic liquids Biological processes Metal organic frameworks CAR process Enzymatic membranes Present 5+ years 10+ years 15+ years 20+ years Time to Commercialization Source: USDOE, 2010 Improvements in performance Lower energy penalty Higher capture efficiency Increased reliability Reduced life cycle impacts Reductions in cost Capital cost Cost of electricity Cost of CO 2 avoided Cost of CO 2 captured Most Goals Focus on Reducing Cost ; Recent R&D goals of the U.S. Department of Energy ; The specific form and magnitude of goals may change over time. Source: USDOE/NETL, 2012 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! 5

6 Advanced technology studies typically seek N th -of-a-kind (NOAK) costs Projected cost reductions from bottom-up analyses of advanced plant designs (1) A process flowsheet and performance metrics for all components are specified Capital cost items are estimated using a detailed bottom up cost calculation, assuming a mature technology Operating and maintenance costs assume reliable process operation at design conditions with specified prices for materials and consumables Plant financing assumptions may or may not include a risk premium for a new technology SCPC + Post-comb. SCPC + Oxy-comb. ~20% reduction* 20-30% reduction* * Relative to SCPC baseline, assuming that all component performance and cost goals are met Source: Gerdes et al, NETL, 2014 Projected cost reductions from bottom-up analyses of advanced plant designs (2) What do we learn from this type of analysis? IGCC + Pre-comb. ~30% reduction* Integr. Gasification Fuel Cell (IGFC) ~40% reduction* Potential cost reductions if R&D goals are met for each technology component and overall system Cost implications of various what if specifications of process performance and/or cost parameters R&D goals needed to achieve a desired cost for the overall system (or plant component) * Relative to SCPC baseline, assuming that all component performance and cost goals are met Source: Gerdes et al, NETL,

7 Example of a What If Analysis What we do not learn from bottom-up cost studies Impact of membrane properties required for competitive membrane based capture assuming mature technology and membrane cost of $50/m 2 Likelihood of achieving performance and/or cost goals Time or experience needed to achieve cost reductions of different magnitude Expected N th -of-a-kind cost of a full-scale system These factors weigh heavily in the selection and support of new or proposed technologies Bottom-up costing methods are not well-suited for estimating the future cost of technologies that are still far from commercialization Source: Roussanaly et al,, 2015 At Carnegie Mellon we ve developed two types of cost estimation models How might we do better? Detailed (bottom-up) engineering-economic models of power plant components and integrated plant designs Experience-based top-down models representing historical learning curves for selected power plant components and related energy technologies 7

8 IECM: A Tool for Analyzing Power Plant Design Options IECM Software Package A desktop/laptop computer simulation model developed for DOE/NETL 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) Free and publicly available at: Fuel Properties - Heating Value - Composition - Delivered Cost Plant Design - Conversion Process - Emission Controls - Solid Waste Mgmt - Chemical Inputs Cost Factors -O&M Costs - Capital Costs - Financial Factors Power Plant Models Graphical User Interface Plant and Fuel Databases Plant & Process Performance - Efficiency - Resource use Environmental Emissions - Air, water, land Plant & Process Costs - Capital -O&M -COE Technologies Currently in IECM (Version 9.5) IECM User Interface: Configure Plant CO2 Capture & Storage Systems* Post-Combustion Capture Conv. Amine; Adv. amines (FG+); Chilled ammonia; Membrane systems; Aux. NG steam or power gen. (optional) Oxy-Combustion Capture Flue gas recycle; ASU; Chemical processing units Pre-Combustion Capture Water gas shift + Selexol CO2 Compressor CO2 Transport Pipelines (6 U.S. regions); Other (user-specified) CO2 Storage Deep saline formation; Geol.Storage w/ EOR; Other (user-specified) Coal Combustion Plants Boiler/Turbine Systems Subcritical; Supercritical; Ultra-supercritical Furnace Firing Tangential; Wall; Cyclone Furnace NOx Control LNB; SNCR; SNCR+LNB; Gas reburn Flue Gas NOx Removal Hot-side SCR Mercury Removal Carbon/sorbent injection Particulate Removal Cold-side ESP; Fabric filter (Reverse air; Pulse jet) SO2 Removal Wet limestone (Conv.; F. oxidation; Additives); Wet lime; Lime spray dry Solids Management Ash pond; Landfill; Co-mixing; useful byproducts Cooling and Wastewater Systems Once-thru cooling; Wet cooling tower; Dry cooling; Chemical treatment; Mech. treatment Gasification Plants (IGCC) Air Separation Unit Cryogenic Slurry Preparation & Coal Pretreatment Gasification Slurry-fed gasifier (GE-Q); Dry-fed gasifier (Shell) Syngas Cooling and Particulate Removal Mercury Removal Activated carbon H2S Removal Selexol; Sulfinol Sulfur Recovery Claus plant; Beavon- Stretford unit IGCC and NGCC Plants Gas Turbine GE 7FA; GE 7FB Heat Recovery Steam Generator Steam Turbine Boiler Feedwater System Process Condensate Treatment Cooling Water System Once-through; Wet cooling tower; Dry cooling Aux. Equipment *Additional capture options include solid sorbent and calcium looping systems for post-combustion (PC or NGCC plants), a chemical looping system for IGCC, and an advanced oxy-combustion system 8

9 IECM User Interface: Configure Plant IECM User Interface: Set Parameters IECM User Interface: Get Results IECM User Interface: Get Results (Geological Storage) Two types of results illustrated here: - CCS system flow rates (below) - Summary of total plant costs (right) 9

10 IECM User Interface: Analysis Tools Some of the advanced CCS technologies recently modeled Polymer membranes MOFs & other solid sorbents Clean flue gas Purge gas Chilled ammonia Cooling Water Flue Gas To Stack DCC2 DCC1 Flue Gas Cooling Chilled Water Chilled Water CO 2 Absorption Ammonia Cleanup Makeup Steam CO 2 Stripping Flue Gas Solvent Water CO 2 Ammonia Return Steam CO 2 (to Comp.) Steam Clean flue gas Pressurization Feed Flue gas (from power plant FGD unit) Blower Heat recovery HRSG + steam turbine Electricity Adsorber Heat recovery Regenerator Vacuum pump Blowdown Purge CO 2-rich product (to compressor) CPU CO 2 to storage Ionic liquids Calcium looping Heat recovery Carbonator CO 2 +CaO CaCO 3 ( o C) CO 2-rich sorbent CO 2-lean sorbent Calciner CaCO 3 CaO + CO 2 ( o C) Recycled gases Flue gas from FGD unit Spent Makeup sorbent limestone Coal O 2 Air Air N 2 Separation Unit 11 Some of our recent papers Most New Capture Concepts Are Still Under Development Technology Readiness Levels Post-Combustion Capture 125 Technologies: Source: NASA, 2009 Source: Bhown, EPRI,

11 Technology Scale-Up Takes Time (and Money) Typical Trend of Cost Estimates for a New Technology Source: Bhown, EPRI, 2014 Anticipated Cost of Full-Sclae System Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology FOAK Stage of Technology Development and Deployment NOAK Adapted from EPRI TAG Typical Cost Trend for a New Technology Learning Curves Capture the Notion that Experience is Critical to Reducing Costs Cost per Unit of Capacity or Output Early cost estimates are typically optimistic Costs are not real until full-scale plants are built Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology FOAK To obtain N th -of-a-kind costs you have to build N plants! Cumulative Capacity or Experience NOAK Capital Costs ($/kw) in 1997$ One-factor learning (experience) curves are the most prevalent, of the form: C i = a x i b Capital cost reduced 1974 by ~50% 1972 (1000 MW, eff =80-90%) (over two decades) 1968 (200 MW, eff =87%) 1990 Cost reductions of ~12% per doubling of installed capacity Cumulative W orld Wet FGD Installed Capacity (GW) Source: Rubin, et al., 2007 Experience for FGD may serve as a model for CCS 11

12 A Suggested Approach to Estimating Future Costs A Suggested Approach Use bottom-up methods to estimate FOAK cost of an advanced technology based on its current state of development* Then use a top-down model based on learning curves to estimate future (NOAK) costs as a function of installed capacity (and other factors, if applicable) From this, estimate level of deployment needed to achieve an NOAK cost goal (e.g., an X% lower LCOE) This approach explicitly links cost reductions to commercial experience *as specified in current AACE/EPRI/NETL guidelines Total Cost ($/kw or $/MWh) FOAK C1 C2 Baseline plant cost This analysis reveals the deployment of a new technology needed to meet a given cost goal (C3), given its current level of development (or TRL) C3 Cost goal Cumulative Capacity (MW) Experience curve trajectory An Illustrative Example Key Barriers to CCS Deployment Policy Policy Policy Financing is assumed to change from high-risk to low-risk after 10 GW of cumulative capture system experience (approximately 20 installations) Without a policy requirement or strong incentive to reduce CO 2 emissions significantly there is no reason to deploy CCS widely 12

13 Strong Interactions Between Policy and Other Key Factors Policy options that can foster CCS and technology innovation Public concern about climate change Policy Actions Direct Gov t Funding of Knowledge Generation Technology Policy Options Direct or Indirect Support for Commercialization and Production Knowledge Diffusion and Learning Regulatory Policy Options Economy-wide, Sector-wide, or Technology- Specific Regs and Standards Public Acceptance Legal & Reg. Issues Technology & Cost These interactions depend strongly on local and national settings R&D contracts with private firms (fully funded or costshared) Intramural R&D in government laboratories R&D contracts with consortia or collaborations R&D tax credits Patents Production subsidies or tax credit for firms bringing new technologies to market Tax credits, rebates, or payments for purchasers/users of new technologies Gov t procurement of new or advanced technologies Demonstration projects Loan guarantees Monetary prizes Education and training Codification and diffusion of technical knowledge (e.g., via interpretation and validation of R&D results; screening; support for databases) Technical standards Technology/Industry extension program Publicity, persuasion and consumer information Emissions tax Cap-and-trade program Performance standards (for emission rates, efficiency, or other measures of performance) Fuels tax Portfolio standards Source: NRC, 2010 What is the Outlook for Lower-Cost CCS Technology? Sustained R&D is essential to achieve lower costs; but Learning from experience with full-scale projects is especially critical Strong policy drivers that create markets for CCS are needed to spur innovations that significantly reduce the cost of capture Future Climate Policy Thank You rubin@cmu.edu WATCH THIS SPACE FOR UPDATES ON PROGRESS 13