7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
1/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS Technology Status and Outlook
Howard Herzog
MIT
June 4, 2012
Research Experience in Carbon Sequestration (RECS)
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
2/48
Overview
CCS Milestones Technology Status Capture Primer CCS Costs CCS Demonstrations Going Forward
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
3/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS Milestones
1977 Marchetti paper (first paper on CCS) 1990 RITE (Research Institute for Innovative Technology for the
Earth) established in Japan
1991 First International Conference on Carbon Dioxide Removalheld in Amsterdam
1991 IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme established 1993 - DOE Research Needs Assessment on the Capture, Disposal,
and Utilization of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil-Fueled Power Plantpublished
1996 Sleipner Project (worlds first Mt scale CCS project) startsinjection
1998 GHGT-4 held in Switzerland 1998 - DOE Research Program on Carbon Sequestration started 2005 - IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage published 2008 GHGT-10 draws 1500 people to Washington, DC
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
4/48
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
5/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS not a single technology, but a collection of technologiesAll key components of a CCS system are in commercial use
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
6/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS Today
All major components of a carbon capture andsequestration system are commerciallyavailable today. Capture and compression Transport Injection Monitoring
However, there is no CCS industry eventhough the technological components of CCSare all in use somewhere in the economy, theydo not currently function together in the wayimagined as a pathway for reducing carbonemissions.
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
7/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
The Scale-up Challenge
From Megatonnes to Gigatonnes
We have yet to build a large-scale (>1MtCO2/yr) power plant CCS demonstration (2
currently under construction) In order to have a significant impact on
climate change, we need to operate at the
billion tonne (Gt) per year level
This implies that 100s of power plants willneed to capture and store their CO2
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
8/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Challenges for Scale-up
Costs Infrastructure
Subsurface Uncertainty Capacity Long-term Integrity
Regulatory Framework Long-term Liability Public Acceptance
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
9/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Capture Primer
Post-Combustion
Oxy-CombustionPre-Combustion
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
10/48
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
11/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Schematic of Amine Process for
CO2
Capture
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
12/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Source: ABB Lummus
Poteau, OK 200 tpd
CO2 Capture at a Power Plant
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
13/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Alternative approaches to
chemical absorption
Adsorption or membranes Structured and Responsive Materials Cryogenics/ phase separation Biomimetric approaches (e.g., carbonic
anhydrase)
Microalgae
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
14/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Oxy-Combustion Capture
Air SepUnit (ASU)
Air
Flue GasCleanup
CO2
Steam
Cycle
ElectricitySteam
Oxygen
BoilerCoal
Flue Gas
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
15/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe Plant
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
16/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Oxy-combustion 30 MWth Pilot Plant
ESP
CO2-Plant
SwitchgearBuilding
Air Separation
Unit
Boiler
FGD
FG-Condenser
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
17/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
IGCC Power Plant
Air SepUnit
(ASU)
Air
GasCleanup
CO/H2 CombinedCycle
Electricity
Flue Gas
Coal SyngasGasifier
Oxygen
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
18/48
IGCC Power Plant
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Rendering of the proposed IGCC power plant located at Duke Energys
Edwardsport Station in Knox County, Indiana
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/edwardsport-overview.asp
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
19/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
IGCC with Capture
CombinedCycle
Electricity
Flue Gas
CO2/H2Shift CO2
Capture
CO2
H2
GasCleanup
SyngasCoal
Air SepUnit
(ASU)
Air
Gasifier
Oxygen
CO/H2
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
20/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Comparison of
Capture Technology Pathways
Plusses Minuses
Post-
Combustion
Compatible with
existing infrastructure;retrofits; flexibility
Current methods have
high energy penalties
Oxy-
Combustion
Potentially less
expensive than post-
combustion; retrofits
Cost of oxygen; lack of
experience
Pre-Combustion
Projected lowestincremental cost for
capture
Slow progress of IGCC
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
21/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Technology Choice
It is premature to select one coal conversiontechnology as the preferred route for cost-
effective electricity generation combined
with CCS.
Variability in location, coal type, etc. Uncertainty in technological progress
MIT Coal Study Finding #6
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
22/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS Costs
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
23/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Sherwood PlotWhen it Comes to Costs, Concentration Matters
King et al., Separation and Purification: Critical Needs and Opportunities, National Research Council report, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC (1987).
CCS
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
24/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Classifying CO2 Sources
Category % CO2 (vol) Example
High Pressure variesGas Wells (e.g., Sleipner)
Synthesis Gas (e.g., IGCC)
High Purity 90-100%Ethanol Plants
Oxy-Combustion Exhaust
Dilute 10-20%Coal-Fired Power Plants
Cement Plants
Cracker Exhaust
Very Dilute 3-7%Natural Gas Boilers
Gas Turbines
Extremely Dilute 0.04 1%Ambient Air
Submarines/ Space Craft
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
25/48
Comparing Power Plant Exhaust
Gas Characteristics
Attribute Gas Coal Implications for Gas
CO2 Concentration 3-5% or ~7% ~12% Larger Absorber
Particulates No Yes Less FiltrationSO2 No Yes Less Clean-up
NOx Yes Yes
O2 (excess air) High Low-Moderate More Degradation and
Corrosion
Capacity Factor Low-Moderate High Higher Costs
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
26/48
Cost Metrics
$/ton captured Based ongross amount of CO2 captured Appropriate for selling CO2 as a commodity
$/ton avoided Based on netamount of CO2 captured Appropriate for valuing CO2 for mitigation purposes
(i.e., consistent with permit prices or carbon tax)
$/MWh $/tCO2 * CO2/MWh Appropriate in a utility setting
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
27/48
Bottom-Up Cost Estimate
IEA Report
Matthias Finkenrath/ IEA
Fuel type Coal NG
Capture routePost-
combustion
Pre-
combustion
Oxy-
combustion
Post-
combustion
Reference plant w/out capture PC IGCC (PC) PC NGCC
Net efficiency penalty (LHV, %-pts) 10.5 7.5 9.6 8.3
Overnight cost w/capture (USD/kW) 3808 3714 3959 1715
Relative overnight cost increase 75% 44% (71%) 74% 82%
LCOE w/capture (USD/MWh) 107 104 102 102
Relative LCOE increase 63% 39% (55%) 64% 33%
Cost of CO2 avoided (USD/tCO2) 58 43 (55) 52 80
Average cost estimates across studies (2010 USD, OECD countries)
Notes: Data cover only CO2 capture and compression but not transportation and storage. The accuracy of feasibility study capital cost estimates is on average 30%, hence for coal the variation inaverage overnight costs, LCOE and cost of CO2 avoided between capture routes is within the uncertainty of the study. Underlying oxy-combustion data include some cases with CO2 purities
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
28/48
CCS Cost Summary
Costs for dilute sources (including transportand storage)Nth plant starting at $70/tCO2 avoided First-of-a-kind - $100/tCO2 avoided or more
High purity or high pressure sources will beless
While carbon markets or mandates will be thelong-term driver that makes CCS commercial,they are generally insufficient today.
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
29/48
Is CCS Expensive?
CCS is expensive compared to todaysenergy technologies (70-100% increase in
production cost of electricity)
If we need to decarbonize our electricitysystem, most models show CCS will be a
cost-effective option
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
30/48
Top-Down Cost Estimate
IPCC Special Report on CCS
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
31/48
Is CCS Expensive?
Average cost of policies to make significantcuts in GHG emissions are affordable
Loss of a few percent GDP over decades However, there will be winners and losers
Creates major political problems
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
32/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Approaches to Lower Cost CO2
Capture
Strategy Positives Limitations
New/ImprovedSolvents High probability ofsuccess
Evolutionary
change, notrevolutionary
New Materials
(adsorbents,
membranes, etc.)
Many potentialideas
Low probability ofsuccess for any
given project
New Processes tomake capture easier
Potential forsignificant cost
reductions
Development willbe long, expensive
Biological Catalyst Phase-Changing Absorbents Metal-Organic Frameworks Electrochemically Mediated
Separation
Ionic Liquid Cryogenic Solvent-Membrane Hybrid
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
33/48
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
34/48
UCal Berkeley Press Release
May 27, 2012
Computer model pinpoints prime materials
for efficient carbon capture
Model vets millions of structures to find onesthat will improve efficiency of current
technology
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
35/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS Demonstration Projects
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
36/48
`
High-purityindustrial/
naturalsources Powergenera8on
EOR/EGR
storage
Deepsaline&depletedO&G
fieldstorage
1
2
9
11
4
25
Opera8ng/AdvancedDevelopment
Planned
Cancelled
4 9
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
37/48
Proposed US DemonstrationsPower plant + CCS with federal cost-sharing
Company LocationDOE Support
(million $)Size Technology Fate
FutureGen Meredosia, IL 1000200 MW
>1 MtCO2/yr
Oxy-
Combustion
Saline
Formation
Hydrogen
Energy
Kern County,
CA308
390 MW
2 MtCO2/yr
IGCC
Coal/PetCokeEOR
AEPNew Haven,
WV334
235 MW
1.5 Mt CO2/yr
PCC
Chilled NH3
Saline
Formation
NRG Energy Parish, TX 16760 MW
0.4 Mt CO2/yr
PCC
Fluor
EOR
Summit
Energy
Midland-
Odessa, TX350
400 MW
2.7 MtCO2/yrIGCC EOR
SouthernKemper
County, MS293
524 MW
3.4 MtCO2/yrIGCC
Transport ReactorEOR
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
38/48
Proposed US Industrial Demonstrations
(with government support)
Company LocationDOE Support
(million $)Size Source Fate
Leucadia
Energy
Lake Charles.
LA260 4.5 MtCO2/yr
New Methanol
PlantEOR
Air Products &
Chemicals
Port Arthur,
TX253 1 MtCO2/yr
Existing Steam
Methane
ReformersEOR
Archer Daniels
MidlandDacatur, IL 99 1 MtCO2/yr
Existing
Ethanol Plant
Saline
Formation
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
39/48
NER300
13 CCS Projects 11 are power projects, 2 are industrial projects Of the 11 power projects:
10 are coal-fired, 1 is gas-fired 6 are post-combustion capture, 3 are pre-combustion, and
2 are oxy-combustion
8 CCS projects expected to get funding Funding to come from selling 300 million ETS
permits low price has double whammy Less money generated for fund Less money saved by avoiding carbon emissions
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
40/48
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
41/48
SaskPower
Company Location Size Technology Fate
SaskPowerBoundary Dam
Power Station
110 MW
retrofit
Amines
CansolvEOR
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
42/48
Alberta CCS Projects
$2 billion committed
Alberta Carbon Trunk Line Enhance Energy 240 km pipeline with a 14 Mt/yr capacity
Quest CCS Project Shell 1.2 Mt/yr from steam methane reformer to saline reservoir
Swan Hills Synfuel 1.3 Mt/yr from Underground coal gasification for EOR
Pioneer Project (Cancelled) TransAlta Retrofit 450 MW coal plant (1/3 of flue gas) with post-
combustion for EOR
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
43/48
TCM - Norway
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
44/48
Potential Roles for EOR in CCS
Development
Can Do Help project economics (positive value on CO2) Build out infrastructure
Develop capacity along the supply chain Help shape regulatory environment (including
liability issue)
Cannot Do Avoid need for subsidies for capturing CO2 from
power plants (and many other industrial sources) Replace climate change as the primary driver for
CCS technology
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
45/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Going Forward
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
46/48
Going Forward
A New Reality
Past 20 years: significant year-to-year growth for CCS End 2008 - high expectations for continued rapid growth of CCS
Obama election Copenhagen expectations
The last 3 years - did not turn out as expected Worldwide financial crisis/recession Climate policy disarray at international level, retreat at many
national levels
Implications for CCS Short- to mid-term: Momentum slowed.
Flat R&D budgets Limited development of commercial markets Long-term: Need for CCS growing.
Global warming impacts may be more severe than previously thought Significant technological/economic challenges exist for CCS competitors like
nuclear and renewables
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
47/48
Going Forward
Implications of the New Reality
Markets will be slow to develop Public financing will be limited Important to use the delay incommercialization to improve technology and
knowledge, leading to reduced costs
Must replace quantity with qualityNeed for true international collaboration
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
7/31/2019 CCS Technology Status and Outlook
48/48
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Contact Information
Howard Herzog
Senior Research Engineer
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Energy Initiative
Room E19-370L
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617-253-0688
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site: sequestration.mit.edu