Carbon Sequestration Carbon Capture and Storage · CCS COAL COAL + CCS From Gibbins, J. et al....
Transcript of Carbon Sequestration Carbon Capture and Storage · CCS COAL COAL + CCS From Gibbins, J. et al....
Cambridge Energy ForumSustainable Energy Conference
1st December 2006Cavendish Laboratory
Cambridge
Carbon SequestrationCarbon Capture and Storage
Jon Gibbins & Hannah ChalmersEnergy Technology for Sustainable Development Group
Mechanical Engineering DepartmentImperial College London
UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortiumwww.ukccsc.co.uk
WHY?
CRITICAL ROLE FOR CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE? http://www.ipcc.ch/
CARBON IN
FOSSIL FUELS
CARBON THAT CAN BE EMITTED TO ATMOSPHERE
‘Unconventional oil’ includes oil sands and oil shales but not CTL. ‘Unconventional gas’includes coal bed methane, deep geopressured gas etc. but not gas from coal and a possible 12,000 GtC from gas hydrates. (www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/q1to9.pdf)
Caldeira et al, Nature 425, Sep. 2003
Ocean Acidification
Coal Oil Gas Uranium*
Australia/New Australia/New ZealandZealand
Sources: BP Statistical Review 2005; WEC Survey of Energy Resources 2001; Reasonably Assured Sources plus inferred resources to US$80/kg U 1/1/03 from OECD NEA & IAEA Uranium 2003; Resources, Production & Demand updated 2005; *energy equivalence of uranium assumed to be ~20,000 times that of coal
N o rth A m e ric a
C e n tra l/S o u th A m e ric a
O th e r A sia /P a c ific in c In d ia n S u b c o n tin e n t
M id d le E a st
A fric a
C h in a
E u ro p e (e xc l. R u ssia n F e d )
R u ssia n F e d e ra tio n
A u stra lia /N e w Z e a la n d
AfricaAfrica
World Energy Reserves 2004 (Mtoe)
EuropeEurope
Russian Russian FederationFederation
Middle EastMiddle EastChinaChina
Other Other Asia/PacificAsia/Pacific
North AmericaNorth America
South AmericaSouth America
Brendan Beck, World Coal Institute, Coal, 3M Sustainable Energy Engineering, Imperial College, 12 October 2006
HOW?
Carbon Storage Options
IPCC (2005)
270 GtC2700 GtC
185 GtC 245 GtC55 GtC<4 GtC
www.ipcc.ch
Sleipner, aquifer storage for 1Mt/yr CO2
www.statoil.com, 2002
www.statoil.com, 2002
www.statoil.com, 2002
Time lapse (4D) seismic trackingof injected CO2
After Jordal, K. et. al. (2004) Oxyfuel combustion for coal-fired power generation with CO2 capture – opportunities and challenges Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, www.ghgt7.ca
O2
CO2 dehydration, compression transport and
storage
CO2 separationPower & Heat
Air separation
Gasification + shift + CO2 separation
Air separation
Coal
Air
Power & Heat
Power & Heat
Flue gas
N2, O2, H2O
CO2
Air
Coal
Air
H2
N2, O2, H2O
CO2
Coal
O2Air N2
CO2 (with H2O)
Recycle
POST-COMBUSTION CAPTURE
PRE-COMBUSTION CAPTURE
OXYFUEL (O2/CO2 RECYCLE COMBUSTION) CAPTURE
Statoil/Shell 860 MW gas fired power plant, Tjeldbergodden, Norway
Up to 2.5 million tonnes CO2injected annually
DTI TSR008
GE, SLURRY FEED, REFRACTORY-LINED GASIFIER WITH QUENCH COOLING
Shell gasifier literature
SHELL, DRY FEED, MEMBRANE WALL GASIFIER WITH DRY SYNGAS COOLING
Pre-combustion capture (IEA GHG www.ieagreen.co.uk)
Extra steam(or water quench)
Jon Gibbins, Imperial College London, New Europe, New Energy. Oxford, 27 Sep 2006
Oxyfuel Capture Concept
Source: IEA GHG
0
20
40
60
80
100
No CCS Electricity +Fischer-
Tropsch withCCS
DME only(recycle) with
CCS
Electricity +DME withone-stage
CCS
Electricity +DME withtwo-stage
CCS
Coal toelectricity
with NGCCperformance
standard
Coal toelectricity+
full CCS
% o
f coa
l C e
mitt
ed to
atm
osph
ere
Estimated percentage of coal C going into the atmosphere for various coal utilization options
ALSO POSSIBLE FROM COAL-TO-LIQUIDSAND OTHER UNCONVENTIONAL FUELS
BUT NOT ALL CCS HAS EQUAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
Power plant efficiencies
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Coal nocapture(Fluor)
Coalcapture(Fluor)
CoalCapture
(MHI)
Gas nocapture(fluor)
Gascapture(Fluor)
Gascapture(MHI)
Efficiency, % (LHV)
IGCC from IEA GHG PH4/19International Network for CO2 Capture
J M Topper, Introduction to 7th Workshop, Vancouver, Sep 2004
9FA gas turbines (i.e. not H class)600/620 SC
Pulverised coal plant
Costs of Capture
IEA GHG (2006), CO2 capture as a factor in power station investment decisions, Report No. 2006/8, May 2006
Costs include compression to 110 bar but not storage and transport costs. These are very site-specific, but indicative aquifer storage costs of
$10/tonne CO2 would increase electricity costs for natural gas plants by about 0.4 c/kWh and for coal plants by about 0.8 c/kWh.
Natural gas plants Coal/solid fuel plants
CCS Uncertainty - Fuel and Carbon Prices Matter
• Discount rate of 10%• Investment lifetime of
25 years• 8000 hours operation
per year• Coal price, £1.4/GJ
(net)• CO2 delivery pressure
of 110 bar (and pipeline quality)
• Indicative cost of transport to offshore aquifer storage, £5.50 per tonne CO2 stored
2 3 4 5Gas price £/GJ
10
20
30
40
50
0
Car
bon
Pric
e (£
/tonn
e C
O2)
4 p/kWh
3 p/kWh
GAS
GAS +
CCS
COAL
COAL +
CCS
From Gibbins, J. et al. (2006) Interim Results from the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortium ProjectProc. 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Trondheim, Norway, 19th-23rd June 2006. www.ghgt8.no. Also quoted in Stern Review
WHEN?
POSSIBLE CCS TIMING IN KYOTO PHASES
2008-2012 Kyoto Phase 1• Some early deployment projects
2013-2017? Kyoto Phase 2• Greater emphasis on technology• More widespread CCS development & deployment• CCS standard on some plants (e.g. coal to liquids)?
2018? - 2022? Kyoto Phase 3• CCS becomes standard in Annex 1 countries?
2023? -? Kyoto Phase 4• CCS becomes standard in all countries?
New build? Retrofit?
IEA World Energy Outlook 2006
Reference case: ~ BAU
Alternative Policy Scenario:Reduced climate impact,
more efficiency, nuclear and renewables.
Beyond Alternative Policy Scenario:Achieve 2004 emissions in 2030,
some new policies and technologies.
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
WEO 2006 Beyond Alternative Policy Scenario (BAPS)
The goal adopted in this Case … is to ensure that global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2030 are no higher than the 2004 level of 26.1 Gt CO2.
The BAPS Case is not constrained by the criterion that only policies already under consideration by governments are adopted. Accordingly, this case assumes even faster and more widespread deployment of the most efficient and cleanest technologies, thanks to more aggressive policies and measures and the adoption of new technologies, beyond those which have already been applied commercially today.
CCS in the Beyond Alternative Policy Scenario (BAPS)Introduction of CO2 capture and storage in power generation: The introduction of CCS in the power sector would reduce emissions by 2 Gt CO2 in 2030. Approximately 3100 TWh of electricity would then be generated from coal and natural gas plants equipped with CCS. Some 70% of new coal-fired capacity and 35% of new gas-fired plants would be equipped with CCSover the projection period. CCS in coal plants would account formore than 80% of the captured emissions. Such a solution would be particularly productive in China and India. Potential policies to implement this strategy are diverse: funding for research and development, incentives for large-scale demonstration plants, loan guarantees for new plants, performance standards for emissions from new plants, international cooperation to facilitate the building of new plants in the developing world and the widerintroduction of financial penalties on carbon emissions (taxes or cap-and- trade arrangements).
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
WEO 2006
LONGER TERM POTENTIAL FOR BIOMASS WITH CCS?
Tyndall Centre'Decarbonising the UK’http://www.tyndall.ac.uk
Tyndall UK aviation emissions projections for 2050 ~ 30 MtCRCEP estimates for max UK biomass production by 2050 ~ 60 Mt Carbon content of biomass available for conversion ~ 24 MtCCarbon captured using biomass with CCS ~ 90%Energy recovered compared to use without CCS ~ 75%Oil price equivalent of $50/tonne CO2 $22/barrelTransport Atmosphere carries CO2 from plane to plant for free!
But need to supply biomass to CCS plants
ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS
CCS Implementation Proposals – UK
2016 PC (supercritical retrofit) + post-combustion (may be capture ready)
~500 MW(£800m)
CoalRWE, Tilbury, UK
2011IGCC + shift + precombustion?(may be capture ready)
450 MW(£1bn)
Coal(+petcoke?)
E.ON, Killingholme, Lincolnshire coast, UK
2010(for CHP)
IGCC+CCS addition to planned NGCC CHP plant
450 MW (or more, with retrofit)
Coal(+petcoke?)
Conoco-Phillips, Immingham, UK
2010IGCC + shift + precombustion~900 MWCoalPowerfuel/KuzbassrazrezugolHatfield Colliery, UK
2010Autothermal reformer + precombustion
475 MW, (>$600M)
Natural gasBP/SSE DF1, Peterhead/Miller, Scotland
2009IGCC + shift + precombustion800 MW (+ H2 to grid) ($1.5bn)
Coal (petcoke)
Progressive Energy/Centrica, Teeside, UK
Start Capture technologyPlant output/cost
FuelCompany/ Project Name
• Proposed full-scale (~300 MWe and above) CCS projects• Based on media reports, press releases and personal communication
so indicative only!
• Plus capture-ready plants at Ferrybridge (SSE) and Kingsnorth (E.On)
CCS Implementation Proposals – World (not UK)
2014IGCC + shift + precombustion450 MW(Є1bn)
CoalRWE, GermanyGermany
2013IGCC, may be partial capture only300-350MWCoal (sub.bit)Xcel Colorado, USA.
2012IGCC + shift + precombustion275 MWCoalFuturegen, USA
2012IGCC + shift + precombustion275 MWCoalStanwell, Queensland, Australia
2011PC oxyfuel300 MWLignite coalSaskPower, Saskatchewan,Canada
2011NGCC+ Post-combustion amine, CO2 for EOR (Draugen)
860 MWNatural gasStatoil/Shell, Tjeldbergodden, Norway
2011IGCC + shift + precombustion, CO2 for EOR
500 MW, ($1bn)
PetcokeBP DF2, Carson, USA
2010NGCC+ Post-combustion amine 100,000 tCO2/yr from 2010, 1.3Mt CO2 from 2014, CO2 for EOR (Gullfaks and others)
280 MWNatural gasStatoil/Dong, Mongstad, Norway
Start Capture technologyPlant output/cost
FuelCompany/ Project Name
• Proposed full-scale (~300 MWe and above) CCS projects• Based on media reports, press releases and personal communication
so indicative only!
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061106/nym208.html?
TXU Corp. Outlines Vision to Displace Older Power Generation with Advanced TechnologiesMonday November 6, 8:30 am ETProgress on Texas Projects; Expansion of Plans Outside of Texas; Update of Financial Outlook; Board Declaration of Increased Dividend, Authorization of Share Repurchases- TXU's power generation strategy has progressed substantially, and now includes line of sight on the development of 16 to 23 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity, including new opportunities outside of Texas. -TXU has engineered its reference plant design to be the most advanced supercritical coal technology of any plant under construction in the U.S. today and to meet carbon capture and storage ready criteria.
See Imperial BCURA Project B70& new IEA GHG report coming soon
Barriers for Commercial Deployment
• Need to establish whole CCS value chain and appropriate criteria for comparing options
• No long term framework to establish an appropriate value for CO2 reductions
• Some technical issues, but mostly scale-up and integration of known technology for first plants
• Uncertainty over costs and risks – should be reduced if series of large scale demos occurs BUT these need to be funded
• Investors want to avoid making the wrong choice, also need to be robust to policy change
Legal and Regulatory Issues
• HMG has a regulatory task force which is reviewing current regulations, gaps and required changes– Offshore Licensing– Decommissioning and
long term liability– Licensing onshore installations– Licensing onshore storage
• Making progress with international conventions on the marine environment (London/OSPAR)
• CCS within EUETS and CDM?
Figure from IPCC (2005)
POLICYBACKGROUND
14. We will work to accelerate the development and commercialization of Carbon Capture and Storage technology by: (a) endorsing the objectives and activities of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), and encouraging the Forum to work with broader civil society and to address the barriers to the public acceptability of CCS technology; (b) inviting the IEA to work with the CSLF to hold a workshop on short-term opportunities for CCS in the fossil fuel sector, including from Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2 removal from natural gas production; (c) inviting the lEA to work with the CSLF to study definitions, costs, and scope for ‘capture ready’ plant and consider economic incentives; (d) collaborating with key developing countries to research options for geological CO2 storage; and (e) working with industry and with national and international research programmes and partnerships to explore the potential of CCS technologies, including with developing countries.
THE GLENEAGLES COMMUNIQUÉ
(E.ON, Mitsui Babcock, Imperial IEA GHG project)
CCS in Stern Review – Role of CCS
• “There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now.”
• “Carbon capture and storage is essential to maintain the role of coal in providing secure and reliable energy for many economies.”
• “[CCS] is a technology expected to deliver a significant portion of the emission reductions. The forecast growth in emissions from coal, especially in China and India, means CCS technology has particular importance.”
• “There is a strong case for greater international co-ordination of programmes to demonstrate carbon capture and storage technologies, and for international agreement on deployment.”
• “Building on these announcements, the enhanced co-ordination of national efforts could allow governments to allocate support to the demonstration of a range of different projects…”
• “One element that enhanced co-ordination could focus on is understanding the best way to make new plants “capture-ready”…”
CCS in Stern Review – What Next?
CONCLUSIONS • CCS offers unique solution for fossil carbon• Geological storage capacity probably comparable
to fossil C (but need to assess this resource)• Political support growing• Industry ready to go• But need to get funding and regulation established – lagging behind
• Make any new plants capture-ready (urgent - UK & US will help with India and China)
• Build some full-scale plants with capture for learning by doing
• Train some young people – key university role
Acknowledgements• The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from
the Research Councils’ TSEC programme for the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Consortium, to which they both belong, and to the DTI, BCURA, and IEA GHG for support for projects that have contributed to the background to this work. Discussions and advice from many colleagues on these projects is also much appreciated.
• The opinions and interpretations expressed in this paper are, however, entirely the responsibility of the authors.
Further Information• www.ukccsc.co.uk• [email protected]