Status and Outlook for CO 2 Capture Systems Edward S. Rubin Department of Engineering and Public Policy Department of Mechanical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Presentation to Workshop on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage: Status, Issues, Needs Resources for the Future Washington, DC May 24, 2017
Outline of Talk Current status of CO 2 capture technology Potential for advanced lower-cost systems What s needed to achieve capture goals
Current status
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
Amine-Based CO 2 Capture at a Natural Gas Processing Plant BP Gas Processing Plant, In Salah, Algeria Source: IEAGHG, 2008
Flash Power Plant Option 1: Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture Coal Air Steam Turbine Generator Steam Electricity Air Pollution PC Boiler Control Systems (NO x, PM, SO 2 ) (same option for NGCC) CO 2 Capture Mostly N 2 Amine Amine/CO 2 Amine/CO 2 Separation CO 2 Flue gas to atmosphere Stack CO 2 Compression CO 2 to storage Details of amine-based CO 2 capture system (capture efficiency typically ~90%) Flue Gas (to atmosphere) Flue Gas (from FGD) Absorber Blower Pump makeup Cooler Rich stream Amine Storage Lean stream H-Ex CO 2 product (to compression) Cooler Regenerator Reboiler Waste Pump Reclaimer
Post-Combustion Capture at the Boundary Dam Power Plant ~120 MW 90% capture ~1 MtCO 2 /yr Source: SaskPower, 2014
Post-Combustion Capture at the Petra Nova Power Plant 240 MW 90% capture 1.4 MtCO 2 /yr Source: NRG, 2017
Power Plant Option 2: Oxy-Combustion CO 2 Capture To atmosphere Steam Turbine Generator Electricity Stack Coal Steam PC Boiler Air Pollution Control Systems ( NO x, PM, SO 2 ) CO 2 H 2 O Distillation System CO 2 CO 2 Compression CO 2 to storage O 2 Air Separation Unit CO 2 to recycle Air Water Details of CO 2 purification system (recovery efficiency typically ~90%)
Oxy-Combustion CO 2 Capture from a Coal-Fired Boiler Source: Vattenfall, 2008 30 MW t Pilot Plant (~10 MW e ) at Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe Station (Germany)
Power Plant Option 3: Pre-Combustion CO 2 Capture Air Air Separation Unit H 2 O Electricity Air Flue gas to atmosphere Coal H 2 O O 2 Gasifier Quench System Shift Reactor Sulfur Removal Sulfur Recovery H 2 H 2 CO 2 Capture CO 2 Combined Cycle Power Plant Selexol Selexol/CO 2 Selexol/CO CO 2 2 CO 2 Separation Compression Stack CO 2 to storage H 2 Fuel Gas (to Power Block) CO 2 to Storage Details of Selexol-based CO 2 capture system (capture efficiency typically ~90%) Shifted Syngas Lean Solvent Rich Solvent TURB1 Absorber COMP1 SUMP Recycle Gas TURB2 COMP3 COMP2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 FLASH1 FLASH2 FLASH3 Cooler Pump
Pre-Combustion CO 2 Capture at the Kemper IGCC Power Plant 582 MW 65% capture ~3 MtCO 2 /yr Source: Southern Co., 2017
(Source: Chevron-Texaco) (Source: Dakota Gasification Industrial Process Applications Petcoke Gasification to Produce H 2 (Coffeyville, Kansas, USA) Coal Gasification to Produce SNG (Beulah, North Dakota, USA)
Current CCS Projects Source: GCCSI, 2017
CCS Cost Estimates for New Power Plants Using Current Technology Incremental cost of CCS relative to same plant type w/o CCS (based on 90% capture with geological storage) Supercritical Pulverized Coal Plant, post-comb. (SCPC) Supercritical Pulverized Coal Plant, oxy-comb. (SCPC) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant (IGCC) Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant, post-comb. (NGCC) Increase in levelized electricity generation cost (2013$/MWh) ~ 30 70 ~ 35 75 ~ 25 50 ~ 20 50 Capture accounts for most (~80%) of total CCS cost (Details in IJGGC paper, 2015) EOR credits can reduce CCS cost significantly
Potential for advanced lower-cost capture systems
R&D Programs Seek to Develop Lower-Cost Capture Systems Post-combustion (existing, new PC) Cost Reduction Benefit Pre-combustion (IGCC) Oxycombustion (new PC) CO 2 compression (all) Advanced physical solvents Advanced Amine chemical solvents solvents Physical Ammonia solvents CO 2 com- Cryogenic pression oxygen PBI membranes Solid sorbents Membrane systems ITMs Biomass cofiring Ionic liquids Metal organic frameworks Enzymatic membranes Chemical looping OTM boiler Biological processes CAR process Present 5+ years 10+ years 15+ years 20+ years Time to Commercialization Source: USDOE, 2010
Two Principal Goals of Advanced Capture Technology Improvements in performance Lower energy penalty Higher capture efficiency Increased reliability Reduced life cycle impacts Reductions in cost Capital cost Cost of electricity Cost of CO 2 avoided Cost of CO 2 captured
Most Goals Focus on Reducing Cost ; Recent R&D goals of the U.S. Department of Energy ; The specific form and magnitude of goals may change over time. Source: USDOE/NETL, 2012
COE (2011$/MWh) COE (2011$/MWh) Projected cost reductions from bottom-up analyses of advanced plant designs (1) SCPC + Post-comb. SCPC + Oxy-comb. ~20% reduction* 20-30% reduction* * Relative to SCPC baseline, assuming that all component performance and cost goals are met Source: Gerdes et al, NETL, 2014
COE (2011$/MWh) COE (2011$/MWh) Projected cost reductions from bottom-up analyses of advanced plant designs (2) IGCC + Pre-comb. ~30% reduction* Integr. Gasification Fuel Cell (IGFC) ~40% reduction* * Relative to SCPC baseline, assuming that all component performance and cost goals are met Source: Gerdes et al, NETL, 2014
What we do not learn from bottom-up cost studies Likelihood of achieving performance and/or cost goals for technologies that are still at early stages of development Time or experience needed to achieve cost reductions of different magnitude
What it takes to achieve CCS cost reductions
A Model of Technological Change Invention Innovation (new or better product) Adoption (limited use of early designs) Diffusion (improvement & widespread use) R&D Learning By Doing Learning By Using
Source: Rubin, et al., 2007 Learning Curves reflect the notion that experience is critical to reducing costs Capital Costs ($/kw) in 1997$ 300 250 200 150 100 50 8 1982 1976 1980 7 1982 1980 6 1990 1976 1990 5 1995 4 1975 1975 Capital Cost cost reductions reduced of 3 1974 1974 ~12% by 1972 (1000 per ~50% MW, doubling eff =80-90%) of (200 MW, eff =87%) (over two decades) 2 1968 1968installed (200 MW, eff capacity =87%) 1972 (1000 MW, eff =80-90%) 1 O&M Costs (1997$/MWh) 1995 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cumulative World Wet FGD Installed Capacity (GW) 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Cumulative World Wet FGD Installed Capacity (GW) Data fitted to learning (experience) curves of the form: C i = a x i b Experience for FGD may serve as a model for CCS
Key Barriers to CCS Deployment Policy Policy Policy Without a policy requirement or strong economic incentive to reduce CO 2 emissions significantly there is no reason to deploy CCS widely
Policy options that can foster CCS and technology innovation Technology Policy Options Regulatory Policy Options Direct Gov t Funding of Knowledge Generation Direct or Indirect Support for Commercialization and Production Knowledge Diffusion and Learning Economy-wide, Sector-wide, or Technology- Specific Regs and Standards R&D contracts with private firms (fully funded or cost- shared) 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 Policy Drivers WATCH THIS SPACE FOR UPDATES ON PROGRESS
Thank You rubin@cmu.edu