DAC. Peter Eisenberger National Academy Webinar Oct

Transcription

1 DAC Peter Eisenberger National Academy Webinar Oct

2 Main Points DAC can be low cost Privately funded efforts have made a lot of progress since APS APS flaw - Sherwood does not apply (Klaus ) Low pressure drop contactor Very different processes from APS report GT example ( Can provide more details if requested) DACU(S) has great economic potential (Details in written submission) CO2 is useful and is ALSO a good feedstock for carbon DAC carbon is cost competitive with fossil carbon Low on learning curve/ mass production capability/jobs (Klaus) Avoids transportation costs /Provides supply control Public funding of DAC R&D needed Role in CDR High priority- a publically funded commercial demo to verify costs R&D on DAC and uses of the CO2 (Details in written submission)

3 GT Pilot Plant at SRI - Operational & Tested in October 2010 Carbon Engineering and Climeworks also have had large scale pilot plants DAC works cost is the issue 5

4 2017 -Global Thermostat Commercial Modules Containerized Version to be installed in 2018 Containerized GT-DAC 3x 40 ISO process containers 4,000 tonnes CO2 / year Full-scale GT-DAC 18m tall, 50m long, 6m wide 50,000 tonnes CO2 / year Larger installations are comprised of multiple modules 4

5 Pathway to Low Cost DAC Low Capex High throughput Low Opex efficient use of low grade steam Ambient Air GT Module Adsorption Monolith Contactors + Sorbent Cartridge Regeneration Step 1: Air Input GT uses monolith contactors like those in a tailpipe catalytic converter Contactors provide high surface contact areas at low pressure drop Enables movement of large air volumes with effective contact of CO 2 at low cost Sherwood does not apply ` Ambient Air GT Module Adsorption Monolith Contactors + Sorbent Cartridge Regeneration Step 2: Carbon Capture GT sorbents proven highly effective by Georgia Tech - confirmed by SRI, BASF, Corning, and DN Veritas Process to deposit immobilized amines in pores of the contactor walls at high loading by Corning, Haldor Topsoe, Applied Catalysts GT Module Adsorption Monolith Contactors + Sorbent Cartridge 95 Steam Regeneration CO 2 Collection Step 3: Regeneration CO 2 -rich sorbent is heated by condensing low-temperature process heat 95 C steam CO 2 is collected and sorbent is regenerated (thermal and sweep gas cycle) 98.5 % + pure CO 2 can be stored or used in multiple commercial applications 16 minute cycle per panel for DAC Step 4: Heat Transfer GT Module Adsorption Monolith Contactors + Sorbent Cartridge Regeneration Evacuated steam from hot box to neighboring box/module Neighboring module has completed Step 2, and enters its regeneration box That box is evacuated, and connected to the hot box from which CO 2 was just removed Water evaporates from hot monoliths (cooling them) and condenses on cool monoliths, warming them This sharing provides 50% of the heat for the cool monoliths 5

6 Differences from APS Study -Enabling Low Cost DAC Contactor Efficiency Honeycomb monoliths have very high {Surface Area} / {Pressure Drop} / {$} Channels parallel to the direction of flow minimize pressure drop, maximizing contact area, diffusion of CO2 onto active material orthogonal to flow High throughput (5m/sec), low pressure drop, pascals low capital cost/tonne Sherwood rule not followed(klaus) first steps costs of contacting and capturing comparable to downstream costs of regeneration /distribution and use Klaus / wind / passive approach Regeneration Efficiency & Heat Recovery By using steam as sweep gas in addition to heat transfer fluid, the temperature of regeneration is significantly reduced Evolved CO2 is rapidly swept away from the surface, depressing the effective P CO2 experienced by the desorbing media Sensible heat is recycled by coupling two regeneration boxes in opposite phase 50% reduction in sensible heat requirement by preheating a full canister by evaporatively cooling an empty canister Uses 4 gigajoules/tonne of low temperature 95 c heat- available at very low cost R&D WILL PRODUCE OTHER NOVEL PROCESSES AND COST REDUCTIONS 6

7 Technology Partners-Based Upon Commercial Use Partner Activity Relationship Terms SRI International Pilot plant operation and R&D; lab testing Contract R&D BASF Sorbent development/supply; lab testing Strategic Supplier Haldor Topsoe, Corning Monolith development/supply Joint development, Strategic Supplier Linde Carburetor Pilot/EPC Contractor EPC Contractor Georgia Tech Sorbent R&D; contactor testing Contract R&D Streamline Automation System design, engineering, fabrication Contract EPC Carmagen Engineering System design, engineering, optimization Contract consulting G.A. West Mass fabrication, EPC contractor Manufacturing Applied Catalysts Contactor, sorbent development/supply Joint development, Strategic Supplier 7

8 Third Party Reports, Visits Operation Visits, Operations Corning, BASF, SABIC, Reliance, Linde, Praxair, NRG, 10 s of others Detailed Third party reports completed by: Det Norske Veritas (Global risk and technology assessment firm) Linde (Leading world supplier of industrial gases and engineering services) NRG / Sargent and Lundy (Owner / EPC of 1.6MMta Petra Nova CO2 capture plant) Reports validate technology and cost curve advancements to <$50/MT for GT DAC GT DAC CO2 Technology has been validated Third-party reports confirm technology and cost trajectory 8

9 General Characteristics for 40 GT per year DAC CDR Capacity Mass production possible (Klaus) offers lower costs Energy Use run by renewable energy preferred Energy efficiency achieved by cogeneration Land Use less than 1% the footprint needed for solar to meet our energy needs No environmental or operational constraints (Klaus) At full capacity by 2050 $50 per tonne x 40 GT = 2 trillion less than 1% GGDP IN 2050 BUT IT IS NOT ONLY A COST IT WILL CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS 9

10 CCS Plan till Paris CO 2 from concentrated sources- Avoided Carbon Capture from power plants, cement, steel, refineries, etc. Permanent & safe disposal

11 DACU(S) Renewable Energy and Materials Economy DAC CO 2 extraction from air CO 2 Uses Carbon Negative Materials CO 2 Uses Carbon Neutral Fuels

12 Monetization of DAC Negative CO2 1. Enhanced Oil Recovery (remote places not accessible by a pipeline) + 2. Industrial Gases (refrigeration for developing world) = 3. Gas to liquids + 4. Gas to methanol + 5. Synthetic fuel (CO2 + H2) = 6. Re-mineralization of desalinated water 7. Algae Fuels( biochar) - 8. Algae Fertilizer (replaces energy intensive ammonia process) - 9. CO2 enrichment agricultural and horticultural applications Geothermal electricity 11. Chemicals/Plastics Carbon Fibers, Carbon Nanotubes, Graphene Composites - KEY Carbon LCA with respect to atmosphere: + increase (avoided carbon) = no change (avoided carbon) - Carbon negative

13 DAC Carbon Competitive with Fossil Carbon CO2 Economically Viable at $50/tonne-high value of CO2 Currently CO2 in developing world sold for over $1000 /tonne Adds less than 50 cts to a gallon of gasoline hydrogen is the challenge One tonne of CO2 yields over $1000 dollars of plastic One tonne of CO2 yields close to $10,000 of carbon fiber One tonne of CO2 emitted from natural gas produces only $160 of electricity Energy to separate Carbon from Oxygen Less than needed per structure to separate iron and aluminum Comparable to energy to produce carbon from hydrocarbons Generic Advantages Low transportation costs Supply control Predictable Costs ( eg natural gas and oil volatile )

14 Conclusions Private efforts demonstrated low cost potential Great Potential for wealth and job creation One is at the beginning of the DAC learning curve Only limited largely privately funded efforts DAC potential not understood though since Paris more interest Absence of public efforts High priority Publically funded commercial demo to show low cost R&D program Sorbents Contactors Novel processes Uses of CO2