View
224
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market Viability
February 23rd, 2011
*Note about slideshow: Each Participant must individually control the slideshow- please follow along with speakers by scrolling along at right. Speakers will indicate when time to move to next slide. Thank you.
1
Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market
Viability
US Department of Energy, Dr. Darren Mollot, Ph.D., Director, Office of Clean Energy Systems US Department of Energy, Mark Ackiewicz, Program Manager, Division of Carbon Capture and Storage Research Carbozyme, Dr. Michael C. Trachtenberg, Ph.D., CEO and CTO HTC PureEnergy, Jeff Allison, Senior VP
Meet the Panel:
2
Enzyme Facilitated
Carbon Dioxide Capture
Michael C. Trachtenberg, PhD
CEO, Carbozyme, Inc.
Carbon Capture and Storage:
Technology Innovation and Market Viability
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Objective: Capture CO2
• Operational Targets Variety of feed streams –
Air
Flue gas (natural gas, oil, coal, cement)
Natural gas
Synthesis gas
Maximum extraction fraction ≥90%
Highest exit concentration ~99% CO2; minimal water vapor (avoid pipeline corrosion)
Lowest energy and economic cost <20% parasitic load; <35% COE
Short process cycle
Robust, stable, simple system – who owns the CO2?
Stream Considerations
Stream
Producer
Feed
Stream
Separation
Process
Product /
Conditioning
End
Product
User
Application
System Engineering
Feed
Conditioning
Enhanced
APC
NOx
SOx
Particulates
Mercury
Heavy Metals
CO2 Enrichment
Air
Flue Gas
Natural Gas
Oil
Coal
Industrial Gases
Cement Off-gas
Natural Gas
Synthesis Gas
Acceptable levels of Water vapor
Oxygen
Hydrocarbons
Other
CO2 Capture Options
• Chemical Absorption Amines (1°, 2°), Ammonia, Hot
Carbonate
Alkali
Enzyme facilitated proprietary carrier –
Biomimetic Strategy
Electrochemistry
+/- Biomimetic Strategy
• Physical Absorption
• Reaction Solid ion exchange resins
Solid amines (aqueous film)
Solid bicarbonate (aqueous film)
• Adsorption Zeolites
MMOF
• Membrane Permeation
ABSORPTION DESORPTION
• Pressure Swing
• Temperature Swing
• pH Swing
• Humidity Swing
Cardiovascular System – Liquid pump
Respiratory System - Gas pump
Enzyme – in RBC & on lung capillary
BUT, the process has to be engineered for flue gas temperature
Biomimetic Approach
Reaction Chemistry: CA vs. Amine
Bicarbonate
Carbamate /
Bicarbonate
Absorption Elements
Reaction
Chemistry Enzyme
Thermophilic – Accept inlet feed temperature
Inexpensive – Large quantities needed
Readily available
Interfacial
Chemistry
/ Mass Transfer
Immobilization
Minimize amount of enzyme needed
Locate enzyme at gas-liquid interface -
High stability – Does not leach
Remove and replace capability –
Difference in lifetime of
membrane and enzyme
Mass Transfer
Apparatus
Membrane
modules
Highly structured –
High surface to volume –
Avoid dead zones, flooding
Decrease materials
Carbonic Anhydrase
-CA II -CA Cam
Raise the Operating Temperature
Maximal operating temperature 45°C >85°C (185°F)
Carbonic Anhydrases
H+
H2O
HCO3-
1. Whole cell lysate
2. Clarified cell lysate
3. Soluble contaminants
4. Pure fusion protein
5. Molecular weight marker
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0:00:00 0:00:17 0:00:35 0:00:52 0:01:09 0:01:26 0:01:44 0:02:01 0:02:18
Blank
Carbonic anhydrase
Carbonic anhydraseafter 24h at 65°C
EL-Purification process
High yield of enzyme
High degree of purification
Rapid, simple, cheap purification
Enzyme Expression, Purification, Stability
Stable Immobilization
Remove and Replace CA
Remove and replace capability allows for lifetime
differences between enzyme and surface
Demonstrated 5-times
Membrane Module Features
Hydrophobic / Microporous membrane
Keys to high efficiency mass transfer – High packing density
– Maximal interfacial contact
– No channeling
– No dead zones
– No foaming
Mass Transfer Option Hierarchy Structured Membranes
Membranes
Structured Packings
Random Packings
Trays
Contact efficiency improvement membranes = 10 X > Trays
Low pressure drop at
high density
• CZ - 2,000m2/m3
• Packing - 250m2/m3
Mavroudi M, Kaldis SP & Sakellaropoulos GP. 2003 Reduction of CO2 emission by a membrane contacting process, Fuel 82:2153-2159
Permeator Design 42.7% Wet Dry
Spacer material
Feed/retentate fibers
Permeate fibers
Fabrication support
11 m2 Permeator
Design Evolution
• Area required for absorption and desorption differed
• TSA/PSA is only needed for desorption
• In the Permeator heat and water vapor were lost to
exhaust gas (retentate)
• Opportunity to optimize each construction and process
independently
• Module construction is easier, less complicated
• Modeling showed increased performance (confirmed by
experiment) - ~99% CO2 vs. 95% CO2
• Enables absorber only design applications
Absorber – Desorber Schematic
CO2-Rich
Feed
CO2-Lean
Retentate
Microporous
Membrane
Enzyme
Layer Lean
Carrier
Rich
Carrier
CO2-Rich
Permeate
Heat
Exchanger
Water
Vapor
PSA /
Enzyme
Layer
Microporous
Membrane
CO2
CO
2 ABSORBER DESORBER
TSA
System Performance
Towards Pre-Pilot
Stable
High Selectivity
5-Day Permeate Gas Composition
Absorber Performance
CO2 Absorber – 14% CO2
Summary Performance
Extraction fraction – 90%
Product gas – >98% CO2
Pressure drop - <10kPa
Parasitic load - <18%
Energy cost (with compression) 0.69GJ/t CO2
Flue gas
Temperature – Entry 50°C, Exit 65°C
CO2 concentration from air up to 30%
CO2 Extraction Module
Membrane area
• Absorber - 4269m2/t-d
• Desorber - 2744m2/t-d
Enzyme requirement
• Absorber/Desorber – 2.1kg/90d
• Exit pressure – 23kPa
• Gas concentration
• CO2 – 42.7%
• Water vapor – 57.2%
• O2 – 0.0036%
• N2 – 0.062%
• Ar – 0.0014%
• Exit temperature – 51°
~513 units needed for a 470MW coal burning power plant, 14% feed gas stream –
~12.2m x 2.5m x 2.7m.
16.5 tonnes of CO2/day
Questions?
Feed Side Acceptance Standard
Acceptance Standard inlet feed values allows
minimum of 90d CLM stability
The wet lime slurry scrubber, built at EERC, meets the Carbozyme Acceptance Standard
– EERC CEPS fired on SO2 spiked natural gas to low, moderate, and high levels - 860, 2600 & 3300 ppmv
– Pollution Control System on CEPS = SCR, Fabric Filter, Wet Scrubber 1, Polishing Scrubber (CaCO3 slurry)
Target - <7ppmv (20ppmw) - Required Performance Achieved
Lime slurry and ceramic Intalox saddle packing for the polishing
scrubber. Packed tower used due to small scale of the test unit.
Time
1
10
100
1000
10000
11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30
SO
2 p
pm
v
2600
860
3300
5.03 5.09 4.82
SO2 Out of Combustor
SO2 Out of Scrubber 1
SO2 Out of Polishing Scrubber
CZ SOx Acceptance Limit, 7 ppmv
62 56 53.5
SO2 measurement method detection limit, 4 ppmv
SOX Scrubbing
Competitive Landscape
Source: EPRI case 7A plus internal CZ data for CZ solution
Criteria Attributes Enzyme-based
Facilitation Ammonia Systems Amine Systems
Company Carbozyme Alstom,
PowerSpan
MHI,
HTC PureEnergy
Technology
Chemistry Enzyme-based
Facilitation
Chilled and Warm
Ammonia
Secondary &
Tertiary Amines
Mass Transfer Membrane Packed column Packed column
Platform Skids Tower Tower or Pre-built
Performance
Metrics
$ per Tonne of CO2
Capture
(OpEx + CapEx)
$15 - $25 $35 - $80 $40 - $60
Process Comparison
AMINES AMMONIA HOT
CARBONATE
CARBOZYME
CHEMISTRY Primary or
Secondary +
Tertiary
Amines
Ammonia Metal
Bicarbonate
Enzyme Catalyzed
Metal Bicarbonate
CHEMICAL
PROCESS
Homogenous
Reaction
Homogenous
Reaction
Homogenous
Reaction
Heterogeneous
Catalysis
MASS
TRANSFER
Packed
Column
Packed Column Packed Column Membrane
Contactor or
Packed Column
ABSORPTION 50°C
Low NOx; SOx
<10ppmv
<10°C
Low NOx; SOx
<10ppmv
50°C
Low NOx; SOx
<10ppmv
50°C
Low NOx; SOx
<10ppmv
DESORPTION Thermal Swing
– 120°C
Thermal Swing
– >100°C
Thermal Swing –
120°C
Vacuum Swing +
Thermal Swing –
65°C
PARASITIC
LOAD
25 – 40% ~30% >45% <20%
SCALABILITY No No No Yes
Chemical Absorption Approaches
Process Chemistry
HCO3-
Absorption
CO2
E-Zn*OH
E-Zn*HCO3
E-Zn*HOH
H*E-Zn*OH
H2O
B-
BH
Hydration
Dehydration
kcat
KM
Desorption
Convert CO2 to
bicarbonate
Convert bicarbonate
to CO2
Create OH- from H2O
Use Zn-OH to attack CO2
H+
H2O
HCO3-
CO2 Concentration Range
Flu
x (
mole
s C
O2/m
2-s
)
Desorber Performance
CO2 Desorber – 14% CO2
CO2 Desorption with and without Immobilized Enzyme
Carbon Capture and Storage Agrion Webinar
Feb , 2011
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
HTC & the International Test Centre for CO2 Capture located at University of Regina, Canada
ITC
PTRC HTC
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
ITC‟ s Research
Facilities
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 34
Technology Demonstration and Validation at the Pilot Plant Scale
Boundary Dam Demo
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
HTC Product Development Facilities
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
Founded in 1997 now commercializing opportunities in Carbon Capture, Carbon Management and Carbon Mitigation.
Successful CO2 Management: technology licensor, OEM supplier, and project developer of world leading carbon technologies.
HTC’s Technology Centre is commercially aligned with Doosan, University of Regina’s International Test Centre for CO2 Capture, and International Risk Assessment Centre.
CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery technical expertise and close proximity to Weyburn EOR field.
Commercial Offices in Calgary and Regina Canada, Vermont USA, Sydney Australia.
COMPANY OVERVIEW
POSITIONED TO PROVIDE GLOBAL CCS
SOLUTIONS
36
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
TECHNOLOGY GREEN 15™ AWARD
37
Deloitte recognizes top 15 Canadian
companies with major breakthroughs
in “green technology”.
Outstanding contributions towards
technology solutions with significant
and global environmental impact.
Technology demonstrates a compelling
return on investment.
“HTC positions Canada as a global
leader in development of
commercially-viable green technology”.
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
CO2 CAPTURE CO2 EOR CO2 STORAGE
1.Technology Licensor 1.Oil Field Analysis/ 1. Geological Profiling
Simulation
2. OEM Supplier 2. Oil Field Economics/ 2. Risk Assessment
project validation
3. Engineering Services 3. CO2 Compression 3. CO2 Inventory Validation
& Injection
4. Carbon Credit
Monitization/Arbitrage
CORE BUSINESS CAPABILITIES
5 38
BUSINESS Partners EPC – Doosan Power Systems
OEM Supply – Modular Systems - Internal
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 40
DOOSAN HIGH PERFORMING
ORGANISATION
Global Doosan Organisation is active in Manufacture, Engineering, Construction of Power Plant,
Industrial Plant, Engines, Infrastructure, Process and Equipment
“#4 World’s Best Company” Business Week, Sept 2009
“A commitment to innovation, diversified portfolios, aggressive
expansion, strong leadership, and a clear vision for the future”
“#1 For Machinery & Construction”
Boston Consulting Group, Oct 2009
“Top Value Creation Companies over past 5 years”
Doosan recognised as major high-performing global organisation through 2009
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 41
WORLDWIDE DOOSAN OPERATIONS
Doosan Babcock, headquartered in UK, along with Doosan Heavy, headquartered in South Korea,
have worldwide operational and sales coverage to meet our Clients requirements
Doosan Babcock Operation Doosan Heavy Industry Operation
Doosan Babcock Corporate HQ: Crawley, UK New Build: Crawley, UK EU Ops Centre: Renfrew, UK
Doosan Babcock R&D Centre: Renfrew, UK Carbon Capture COE: Renfrew, UK Aftermarket Service Centres: UK, Germany & Poland
HTC Purenergy
Doosan Heavy Corporate HQ: Seoul, South Korea Manuf: Changwon, South Korea Manuf: Vina, Vietnam
HTC Purenergy [Doosan 15% Shareholder & Exclusive Technology Licensee] Carbon Capture R&D Centre
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
DOOSAN HEAVY INDUSTRIES:
CHANGWON PLANT
⊙ Seoul
◎
Changwon
Total Area : 4,425,570 ㎡ Floor Space : 554,988 ㎡
One of the largest energy infrastructure manufacturing facility in the world.
Manufacturing of Integrated boilers and CCS systems.
42
HTC Proprietary Technology and Product Development Approach
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
Process captures flue gas CO2 from Carbon Emissions
6. lean solution
returned
to absorber
reboiler to heat solvent
5. CO2 released from
solvent solution in
packed stripping
column
2. CO2 absorbed
from flue gas into
liquid solvent in
packed absorption
column 4. solvent
pre-heating
3. solvent solution with CO2
CO2-rich solution
solvent
cooling
by water
captured CO2 purified gas (O2 / N2 / H2O)
steam
1. flue gas
(e.g. coal plant)
(CO2 / O2 / N2 / H2O)
120 0 C 60 0 C
MIXED AMINE CAPTURE PROCESS
44
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
How has HTC reduced CO2 capture costs?
Designer Performance Solvents (RS)
Column Packing & Internals
Process Flow / Design Optimization (TKO)
Heat Integration
Reduction in Steam
Reduced Emissions
Optimized Front End Eng. & Design (HTC FEED Engine)
Optimization of Modular Design and Construction
9
NO ONE MAGIC BULLET !!
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 46
Regina Solvent (RSTM), Formulated Solvent
Enhanced rate of absorption/kinetics of reaction
Superior capture capacity, solubility of CO2 in solvent
Improved mass transfer coefficient as a function of operating conditions, packing, solvents
Corrosion and fouling resistant
Minimize degradation via O2, SOx, NOx
Minimal solvent loss
Low regeneration energy
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
Columns, Internals & Handling
Factory installed
internals followed
by factory QC
inspections Structured Packing
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 48
Regina Packing (RPTM)
Maximize mass transfer
Minimize pressure drop
Maximize liquid/gas interfacial area (high wetting surface)
Enhance uniform liquid distribution (channeling)
Minimize flooding and backmixing
Minimize liquid wall flow – low energy (steam) consumption for solvent regeneration
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 49
OPTIMIZED MODULAR DESIGN HTC Purenergy CCSTM CO2 Capture System
Technically proven and commercially ready
Reduce cost of CO2 capture
Pre-engineered modular design
Compatible for retrofit and greenfield installation
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
Steam Consumption
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
Case
1
Case
2
Case
3
Case
4
Case
5
Case
6
Case
7
Case
8
kg
ste
am
/kg
CO
2
Pilot Plant Modeling
Other Solvent
Technologies
Advances In CO2 Capture Technology
By University of Regina (ITC) & HTC
Competitive
Technologies
HTC Technology
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 51
New Technology Development
• Liquid Membrane Absorber Unit
• Natural Gas Flue Gas Recycling
• High capacity framework materials (MOFFs)
• New Solvents – mixed amines, Engineered
molecules
• New Solvent Reclaimer Systems
• Improved Process Design
Capture Plant Scale-Up Experience
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 53
HTC Engagement to Reduce Steam Consumption, Enhance CO2 Production and Validate scale up design
Plant Design Capacity 800 TPD, two trains
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 54
Absorption Columns, 14.5’(4.4m) x 119’(36.3m) H
Validation of Design Scale Up
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 55
150 TPD (Coal-fired)
Original Plant Start-Up: 1999
Proven Commercial Process Using MEA Solvent
Food & Beverage Grade CO2
Classic Amine Capture Process – Client seeking to upgrade
HTC to explore and propose opportunities in cost savings and production capacity
CO2 EFFICIENCY UPGRADE & DESIGN VALIDATION
Project Experience
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 57
Design Experience
Mongstad Norway
Purenergy CCS 1000 tpd
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential Page 58
Design Experience
Kårstø Norway
Gulf
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
Dakota Gasification Company, Beulah, ND
Lignite to Energy – Electricity and Syngas
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Utilizing CO2 for EOR will double proven recoverable oil.
Department of Energy (“DOE”) estimates: 6,000
industrial plants emitting 3.8 billion tonnes of CO2/yr
that could supply 12,000 EOR sites representing 43
billion bbls oil (at current proven on shore
recoverable reserves).
U.S. CO2 MARKET
60
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential 61
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
Matching emitters and
EOR opportunities
Injecting CO2 into a
producing oil field
Increases amount of crude
oil produced
Significant opportunity in
Canada and certain
regions of U.S.
Provides support to the
government’s need to
regulate emissions
HTC Purenergy Inc. Proprietary Information - Confidential 62
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
Weyburn EOR Field Regina
Estevan
Bismarck
C A N A D A
U S A
SASKATCHEWAN
NORTH DAKOTA
MANITOBA
C A N A D A
U S A
Weyburn
Beulah
U.S. DOE CCS Investment
Dr. Darren Mollot
Director, Office of Clean Energy Systems
Mark Ackiewicz
Program Manager, Division of CCS Research
Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market Viability
Webinar
February 23, 2011
Outline
• Challenges to CCS Deployment
• DOE CCS Investment
– Core Program
– American Recovery and Re-Investment Act (ARRA)
• Other
– International Activities
– Regulations
64
65
Carbon Management Technology Options
Improve Efficiency
Sequester Carbon
Renewables
Nuclear
Fuel Switching
Demand Side
Supply Side
Capture & Store
Enhance Natural Sinks
Reduce Carbon Intensity
All options needed to:
Affordably meet energy demand
Address environmental objectives
Pathways for Reducing GHGs – CO2
66
Geologic Storage Is Already Under Way
• Statoil injects 1x106 tons per year at Sleipner
• BP to inject 0.8x106 tons per year at In Salah
• EnCana EOR project with CO2 storage in the Weyburn field
Key Challenges to CCS
• Sufficient Storage Capacity
• Permanence
• Cost of CCS
• Infrastructure
President’s Interagency Task Force (ITF) on
CCS: Report Findings
• There are no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional, or other
barriers that prevent CCS from playing a role in reducing GHG emissions.
• Widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only when driven by
a policy designed to reduce GHG emissions.
• Existing Federal programs are being used to deploy 5-10 large-scale projects
by 2016. However, early CCS projects face challenges, including cost and
performance of current generation technology.
• Federal agencies can use existing authorities and programs to begin
addressing barriers for these (and other) early CCS projects while ensuring
protection of public health and the environment.
• RD&D can enable commercial deployment of CCS by finding ways to reduce
project uncertainty and improve technology cost and performance.
68
ITF Report Findings
• Projects can proceed under existing laws, however, regulations
need to be developed and/or finalized and regulators need training
and tools.
• Increased coordination with all stakeholders (both Federal and
State) will enhance government‟s ability to assist these projects.
• Open-ended Federal indemnification should not be used to address
long-term CO2 storage liability. However, long-term liability and
stewardship are important issues which require further evaluation.
• Public engagement and outreach is extremely important for CCS.
• International collaboration complements domestic efforts on CCS
and facilitates global deployment.
69
Government’s Coal RD&D Investment Strategy
Commercial Readiness
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Core Coal and
Power Systems R&D
DOE – FE – NETL
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
Tax Credits
Loan Guarantees
DOE – LGO – IRS
TECHNOLOGIES &
BEST PRACTICES
< 10% increase COE with CCS
(pre-combustion)
< 35% increase COE with CCS
(post- and oxy-combustion)
< $400/kW fuel cell systems
(2002 $)
> 50% plant efficiency, up to 60%
with fuel cells
> 90% CO2 capture
> 99% CO2 storage permanence
+/- 30% storage capacity
resolution
Goals Programs Approaches
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION
Clean Coal Power Initiative
FutureGen
Industrial CCS Program
DOE – FE – NETL
Carbon Capture and Storage R&D Budget
71
Fiscal Year
$ m
illio
n
• ARRA and CCPI funding supports CCS demonstration projects
• Additional efforts support improved efficiency
• Crosscutting research supports modeling and simulation efforts associated with CCS
• Significant industry cost share
FY2012 Percentage Breakout
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus) Funding Summary
Program/Project Activity ($ in thousands)
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) - Round 3 800,000
Fossil Energy R&D (FutureGen) 1,000,000
CCS from Industrial Sources 1,520,000
Site Characterization 50,000
Regional Sequestration Training and Research 20,000
Fossil Energy Program Direction 10,000
Total 3,400,000
CCS R&D Mission & Approach Critically Linked to Climate & Security Goals
• Develop plant designs & components optimized for CCS
• Reduce capture costs
• <10% increase in COE (pre-combustion)
• <35% increase in COE (post- and oxy-combustion)
• Validate storage capacity
• Validate storage permanence
• Create private/public partnerships
• Promote infrastructure development
• Put “first of kind” field projects in place
• Develop tools, protocols & best practices
Develop Technologies and Best Practices That
Facilitates Wide Scale Deployment of Fossil Fuel
Energy Systems Integrated With CCS by 2020
73
Benefits
Global Collaborations
Benefits
Core R&D
Benefits
Infrastructure
Carbon Capture
Geologic Storage
Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)
Simulation and Risk Assessment
CO2 Use/Reuse
Technology Solutions
Characterization
Validation
Development
ARRA: Development of Technology Transfer Centers
Lessons Learned
Technology Solutions
Lessons Learned
North America Energy Working Group
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
International Demonstration Projects
Canada (Weyburn, Zama, Ft. Nelson)
Norway (Sleipner and Snovhit) Germany (CO2Sink)
Australia (Otway) Africa (In-Salah)
Asia (Ordos Basin)
• Reduced cost of CCS
• Tool development for risk assessment and mitigation
• Accuracy/monitoring quantified
• CO2 capacity validation
• Indirect CO2 storage
• Human capital
• Stakeholder networking
• Regulatory policy development
• Visualization knowledge center
• Best practices development
• Public outreach and education
• Knowledge building
• Project development
• Collaborative international
knowledge
• Capacity/model validation
• CCS commercial deployment
CARBON SEQUESTRATION PROGRAM with ARRA Projects
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships
Demonstration and Commercialization Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Other Large-Scale Projects
ARRA: University Projects ARRA: Site Characterization
BIG SKY
WESTCARB
SWP
PCOR
MGSC
SECARB
MRCSP
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Developing the Infrastructure for Wide Scale Deployment
Seven Regional Partnerships
400+ distinct organizations, 43 states, 4 Canadian Provinces
• Engage regional, state, and local governments
• Determine regional sequestration benefits
• Baseline region for sources and sinks
• Establish monitoring and verification protocols
• Address regulatory, environmental, and outreach issues
• Validate sequestration technology and infrastructure
Development Phase (2008-2018+)
9 large scale injections (over 1 million tons each)
Commercial scale understanding
Regulatory, liability, ownership
issues
Validation Phase (2005-2011)
20 injection tests in saline formations, depleted oil, unmineable coal seams, and basalt
Characterization Phase (2003-2005)
Search of potential storage locations and CO2 sources
Found potential for 100‟s of years of storage
Partnership Geologic Province Type
Big Sky Moxa Arch-
Nugget Sandstone Saline
MGSC Illinois Basin-
Mt. Simon Sandstone Saline
MRCSP Michigan Basin-
St. Peter Sandstone Saline
PCOR
Powder River Basin-
Bell Creek Field Oil Bearing
Horn River Basin- Carbonates Saline
SECARB
Gulf Coast – Cranfield Field-
Tuscaloosa Formation Saline
Gulf Coast – Paluxy Formation
SWP Regional Jurassic & Older
Formations Saline
WESTCARB Central Valley Saline
Injection Ongoing
Injection Scheduled 2011/2015
1
2
3
4
7
8
6
9
5
RCSP Phase III: Development Phase Large-Scale Geologic Tests
Note: Some locations presented on map may
differ from final injection location
8
7
3
1
2
4
6
5
9
Injection
Well Drilled
Injection
Started
Core Sampling
Taken
Fiscal Year
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Stage 1. Site selection and characterization;
Permitting and NEPA compliance;
Well completion and testing;
Infrastructure development.
Stage 2. CO2 procurement and transportation;
Injection operations; Monitoring activities.
Stage 3. Site closure; Post-injection monitoring; Project assessment.
RCSP Development Phase – 10+ years (FY 2008-2018+)
Scale up is required to provide
insight into several operational
and technical issues that differ
from formation to formation
RCSP Development Phase Scaling Up Towards Commercialization
Key Regional Partnership Outputs
• Best Practices Manuals
– Six developed, one
remaining
– Will be updated once Phase
III completed (2016/17)
– Regulatory issues
addressed within various
manuals
• Carbon Sequestration Atlas
– Projects 100s of years
storage potential
– Overview of DOE CCS
Program
– Based on NATCARB
database
National Risk Assessment Program (NRAP) and
Carbon Capture and Storage Initiative (CCSI)
• NRAP
– integrate scientific insight from across the sequestration
research community
– ensure development of the science base necessary for
appropriate risk assessment (including strategic monitoring) to
support large-scale underground carbon storage projects.
– NETL-led effort includes researchers from LANL, LBNL, LLNL,
and PNNL.
• CCSI
– Identify promising concepts and designs
– Develop optimal designs
– Quantify technical risk in scale-up
– Accelerate learning during development and deployment
79
Addressing Risk and Speeding Development
80
Major Demos and ARRA Activities
• Major Demos
– funded through Program and ARRA: CCPI and
ICCS activities
– FutureGen 2.0 to perform large-scale
oxycombustion test
• Other ARRA activities
– Site Characterization & Promising Geologic
Formations for CO2 Storage
– Training: Regional Sequestration Technology
Transfer Centers and University Research Grants
Excelsior Energy
IGCC
$36M - DOE
$2,156M - Total
So. Co. Services
IGCC-Transport Gasifier
$294M - DOE
$2,690M - Total
Hydrogen Energy California
IGCC with EOR
$408M - DOE
$2,840M - Total
Basin Electric
Post Combustion
with CO2 Capture
$100M - DOE
CCPI Round II
AEP Mountaineer
Post Combustion
with CO2 Capture
$334M - DOE
$668M - Total
NRG Energy
Post Combustion
with CO2 Capture
$167M – DOE
$334M - Total
Summit Texas Clean Energy
IGCC with EOR
$450M - DOE
$1,727M - Total
FutureGen 2.0
Oxy-combustion
with CO2 capture
$1,048M – DOE
$1,290M - Total
CCPI Round III
FutureGen
ICCS (Area I)
Archer Daniels Midland
CO2 capture from Ethanol
$101M - DOE
$208M - Total
Leucadia
CO2 capture from
Methanol
$260M - DOE
$436M - Total
Air Products
CO2 capture from Steam
Methane Reformers
$253M - DOE
$431M - Total
Major Demos in the Office of Fossil Energy
Site Characterization Projects
Terralog Technologies USA Inc.; Wilmington Graben;
Offshore Los Angeles; Saline, Oil, & Gas
University of Wyoming; Rock Springs Uplift / Moxa Arch; SW
Wyoming; Saline
North American Power Group, Ltd; Powder River
Basin; NE Wyoming; Saline and Oil
University of Kansas Center for Research Inc.; Ozark Plateau; SW Kansas; Saline
and Oil
University of Utah; Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Pennsylvanian Sandstone; Colorado and Utah; Saline
University of Illinois; Cambro-Ordovician Strata;
IL, IN, KY, MI; Saline
University of Alabama; Black Warrior Basin; NW Alabama;
Saline
University of South Carolina Research Foundation; South
Georgia Rift Basin; South Carolina; Saline
University of Texas at Austin; Gulf of Mexico Miocene; Offshore Texas; Saline
Sandia Technologies, LLC; Triassic Newark
Basin; NY and NJ; Saline
Participant
Formation
Location
Sequestration Type
Site Characterization &
Promising Geologic
Formations for CO2 Storage
10 Awards
12/08/09
82
83
2009 ARRA CCS
Training Center Selections
Participant Location
Environmental Outreach and Stewardship Alliance Seattle, WA
Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Champaign, IL
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Socorro, NM
University of Wyoming Laramie, WY
University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX
Southern States Energy Board Norcross, GA
Petroleum Technology Transfer Center Tulsa, OK
Regional Sequestration
Technical Training 7 Selections Announced
8/27/09
Examples of International Collaboration
• North American Energy Working Group
• IEA GHG Programme and IEA Clean Coal Centre
• Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
• China
– Protocol Agreement on Fossil Energy
– US-China Clean Energy Research Center
84
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
• 24 countries plus European Commission
– Represents 59% of world population and 77% of CO2
emissions and economic activity
• Accomplishments
– 10 Completed Projects, 22 Active Projects
– CSLF Technology Roadmap, Capacity Building, Financing,
Communications and Public Outreach 85
“The Carbon
Sequestration
Leadership Forum
represents a crucial
opportunity to bring
world energy leaders
together to advance
this technology sooner
rather than later.”
The CSLF Mission is to
facilitate the development
and deployment of CCS
technologies via
collaborative efforts that
address key technical,
economic and
environmental obstacles.
CCS Regulations
• UIC Program Class VI Permits
– Final rule signed 11/20/2010
– States have 270 days from final ruling to develop primacy application
– Requirements for site characterization, well construction and operation,
monitoring, etc.
• Mandatory GHG Rule
– Subpart RR: Requirements for GS participants (e.g., Class VI; Class II‟s
that „opt in‟)
– Subpart UU: Limited requirements for non-GS participants (i.e., those
injecting CO2 for non-GS activities) & all facilities that get a R&D
exemption to report basic information
– Facilities must comply with requirements in calendar year 2011 – report
by March 31, 2012
• EPA “Tailoring Rule”
– PSD and Title V
– Began implementation on January 2, 2011
– BACT guidance: CCS considered but not likely an option due to
economics
86
Summary
• Barriers to geologic storage of CO2 exist, but can be addressed
• DOE has taken leadership role in helping address the key issues of:
– Storage capacity and permanence
– Capture cost
– Infrastructure development
• Major demonstrations will help validate and provide confidence
• GHG emissions are global issue requiring global solutions –
international partnerships are important
• Regulatory framework emerging but uncertainty remains
87
More Info…
88
Organization Website
DOE Office of Fossil Energy Carbon
Capture and Storage Websites
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/index.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/index.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/index.html
DOE ARRA http://www.energy.gov/recovery/index.htm
National Energy Technology Laboratory
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/index.html
Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Forum
http://www.cslforum.org/
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme
http://www.ieaghg.org/
EPA Sequestration-Related and CO2
Emissions Regulatory Websites
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html
NATCARB database http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/natcarb/
Back-up slides
89
1. Scale-up
• Current PC capture ~200 tons/day
• 550 MWe plant produces 13,000 tons/day
2. Energy Demand
• 20% to 30% i in power output
3. Current Cost (for a 550 MWe plant)
• Increase capital and operating cost results in increased Cost of Electricity (COE) by 80%
4. Regulatory/legislative framework
• Class VI well permits
• Uncertainty regarding control of CO2 emissions
Deployment Barriers for CO2 Capture on
New and Existing Coal Plants Today
PC Boiler
(With SCR)Sulfur
Removal
Particulate
Removal
Ash
Coal
7,760 TPD
STEAM
CYCLE
CO2 Capture
Process*
ID Fan
Air
CO2
2,215 psia680 MWgross
550 MWnet
CO2
Comp.
Flue Gas
CO2 To Storage
16,600 TPD
Low Pressure Steam
Optional Bypass
(<90% Capture)
Fossil Energy CO2 Capture Options
Source: Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants study, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity; NETL, May 2007.
PC Boiler
(No SCR)
Steam
Bag
Filter
Wet
Limestone
FGD
CO2 to
Storage
Ash
ID Fans
~550 MWe
Coal
Limestone
Slurry
Gypsum
Cryogenic
ASU
Flue Gas Recycle
CO2
Purification
2% Air
Leakage
Coal
Gasifier
500-1,000 Psi
1,800-2,500oF
Water Gas
Shift
Cryogenic
ASU
Syngas
Cooler
Steam
2-Stage
Selexol
Sulfur
Recovery
Sulfur
CO2
Comp.
CO2 to Storage
CO2
Steam
Reheat
Fuel Gas
Syngas
Cooler/
Quench
Syngas
Cleanup
~100oF
Water
Combustion
Turbine(s)HRSG
Steam
Turbine
200 – 300 MW
Power Block
2 X 232 MW
Flue Gas
Pulverized Coal (PC) Post-combustion
PC Oxy-combustion
Gasification (IGCC) Pre-combustion
Post-Combustion Capture
Technologies
• Mixed matrix/ionic liquid
• Spiral wound
• Hollow fiber
• Membrane/solvent hybrid
• Cryogenic separation
Membrane R&D Focus
• Cost reduction and scale-up
• PM contamination
• Power plant integration (recycle)
• PCO2 driving force Increased power
consumption
Technologies
• Ionic liquids
• Potassium carbonate/enzymes
• Phase change solvents
• Novel high capacity oligomers
• Bicarbonates/additives
• Molecular simulations
• Enzymes
Technologies
• Metal organic frameworks
• Supported amines (silica, clay)
• Metal zeolites
• Carbon-based
• Alumina
• Sorbent systems development
Solvent R&D Focus
• High CO2 working capacity
• Low regeneration energy
• Fast kinetics
• Thermally and chemically stable
• Non-corrosive, environmentally safe
Sorbent R&D Focus
• High CO2 working capacity
• Dry scrubbing
• Fast reaction kinetics
• Durability: thermal, chemical,
mechanical
• Gas/solid systems: low P drop, heat
management
Oxy-combustion Capture
Oxycombustion R&D Focus • New oxyfuel boilers
• Advanced materials and
burners
• Corrosion
• Retrofit existing air boilers
• Air leakage, heat transfer,
corrosion
• Low-cost oxygen
• CO2 purification
• Co-capture (CO2 + Sox, Nox,
O2)
Technologies • Oxy-burner design
• Advanced boiler materials
• Chemical looping
• Integrated flue gas
purification
• Gas recycle evaluation
• Oxygen production via air
separation membranes
94
Solvents R&D Focus
• Increase CO2 loading capacity
• Reduce regeneration energy
• Improve reaction kinetics
• Decrease solvent corrosivity
• Reduce solvent volatility and degradation
• Lower capital and operating cost
Sorbents R&D Focus
• Increase CO2 loading capacity
• Reduce regeneration energy
• Improve reaction kinetics
• Increase durability
• Improve heat management
• Lower capital and operating cost
• Optimize process design
Pre-Combustion Capture
Membranes R&D Focus
• Increase permeability
• Increase CO2/H2 selectivity
• Increase durability (chemical, thermal,
physical)
• Optimize membrane process design and
integration within the IGCC power cycle
• Lower capital cost
Technologies
• Metallic membranes
• Polymeric
• Ceramic
• Ceramic-metallic composite
(cermets)
• WGS-membrane reactors
• Gas-liquid contactor/membrane
Technologies
• Activated carbon
• Metal oxides
• Sorbent-enhanced WGS
Technologies
• Ammonium carbonate
• Ionic liquids
Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market
Viability
Capturing Carbon: Cost and Technical Challenges • What is the viability of gasification methods: pre-combustion, oxyfuel capture technologies, and
post-combustion, including post-combustion supercritical? What has the investment been in each?
• How can we effectively tailor capture methods to specific industry sources (coal-fired power plants, natural gas production, cement kilns, iron reductions?
• How does the technology choice differ for power plant retrofits vs. new build (greenfield)? • Analyzing the cost-benefit: What are the energy penalties and added costs to the power plant?
How can these be reduced?T • How do we reduce the volume of waste material generated from capture? Storing Carbon: Cost and Technical Challenges • How does the cost-per-ton of sequestration change depending on the type of storage (oil and
gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams, deep saline reservoirs, and deep ocean)? What strategies can be implemented to reduce cost?
• Infrastructural challenges: What is the pipeline capacity needed and how should we organize pipeline networks? What are the avenues for developing sound infrastructure- for compressors, injection wells, monitoring wells, and etc?
• How do we measure and reduce risk? What is the role of liabilities insurance and permitting? • What are the environmental and societal concerns associated with long-term sequestration? • What is the potential of Enhanced Oil Recovery?
95
Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market
Viability
CCS Investment and Projects • What has been the investment (public, private) in CCS technology? What type and degree of
investment is needed? • What must the price of carbon be for CCS to be viable? How effective are routes to incentivize
CCS via carbon emissions trading? • What are the regulatory barriers for the capture, transport, and storage of CCS? • How can we works towards a policy and incentives framework that will establish a viable CCS
market? • What companies are already beyond the pilot stage and running? What are the economic
returns? What alternative technologies/approaches are underway for the use and re-use of carbon? What peripheral industries can potentially benefit (fuels, fertilizers, products)?
96
Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market
Viability
Questions and Answers
97
Recommended