Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Carbon Capture & Storage Energy &...

Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for

Energy and the Environment

Carbon Capture & StorageCarbon Capture & Storage

Energy & Climate Mini-WorkshopEnergy & Climate Mini-Workshop

Howard HerzogHoward Herzog

MITMIT

November 3, 2008November 3, 2008



The MIT Coal StudyThe MIT Coal Study

• Released March 14, 2007Released March 14, 2007 On web at mit.edu/coalOn web at mit.edu/coal

• We conclude that COWe conclude that CO22 capture and sequestration capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical (CCS) is the critical enabling technology that enabling technology that would reduce COwould reduce CO22 emissions significantly emissions significantly while also allowing coal while also allowing coal to meet the world’s to meet the world’s pressing energy needs.pressing energy needs.



MIT Coal Study MIT Coal Study Summary of Key TakeawaysSummary of Key Takeaways

• Technology readiness is critical – there are myriad Technology readiness is critical – there are myriad options to pursue.options to pursue.

• Don’t preclude options by anointing winners Don’t preclude options by anointing winners prematurely.prematurely.

• We need to drastically increase R&D to bring COWe need to drastically increase R&D to bring CO22 capture technologies to fruition. There is urgency capture technologies to fruition. There is urgency to move ahead now if we are to reach Gt scale by to move ahead now if we are to reach Gt scale by 2050. Large scale demonstration projects are key.2050. Large scale demonstration projects are key.

• No showstoppers, but moving from the Mt scale to No showstoppers, but moving from the Mt scale to the Gt scale is a major challenge.the Gt scale is a major challenge.



Technological ReadinessTechnological Readiness

• All major components of a carbon capture All major components of a carbon capture and sequestration system are commercially and sequestration system are commercially available today.available today.

• However, integrated, large-scale CCS However, integrated, large-scale CCS systems are not “commercially available”systems are not “commercially available” One stop shoppingOne stop shopping Subsurface vendorsSubsurface vendors GuaranteesGuarantees



Two biggest challenges for CCSTwo biggest challenges for CCS

• Reducing costs primarily associated with Reducing costs primarily associated with capturecapture

• Reducing uncertainties primarily associated Reducing uncertainties primarily associated with storage at scalewith storage at scale



Source: ABB Lummus

CO2 Capture at a Power Plant



Capture and CompressionCapture and CompressionCapital CostsCapital Costs

PowerPower

PlantPlant

CaptureCapture

TechnologyTechnologyCapital Capital

InvestmentInvestmentPower Power OutputOutput

$/kW$/kW

SCPCSCPCPost-Post-

CombustionCombustion+23%+23% -24%-24% +62%+62%



CCS, Power Plants, and CostsCCS, Power Plants, and Costs

• Costs have gone through the roof over the Costs have gone through the roof over the past few yearspast few years

• Market volatility makes costs estimation Market volatility makes costs estimation difficultdifficult

• Given new reality, expectation is for a cost Given new reality, expectation is for a cost correction, but to where?correction, but to where?



Cost IndicesCost Indices

90100110120130140150160170180190

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ind

ex

(2

00

0=

10

0)

IHS/CERA Power Capital CostIndex (excluding nuclear)

Chemical Engineering PlantCost Index

PPI Steel Mill Products

Consumer Price Index

Average US FOB Coal PriceIndex (EIA Data)



Cost of Capture/CompressionCost of Capture/Compression

UnitsUnits Reference PlantReference Plant Capture PlantCapture Plant

Total Plant CostTotal Plant Cost $/kW$/kW 19101910 30803080

CO2 EmittedCO2 Emitted kg/kWhkg/kWh 0.830.83 0.110.11

HHV EfficiencyHHV Efficiency %% 38.538.5 29.329.3

Cost of ElectricityCost of Electricity $/MWh$/MWh 62.662.6 100.3100.3

CO2 Avoided CostCO2 Avoided Cost $/tonne$/tonne 5252

Notes:Notes:

2007 $2007 $

Nth plantNth plant

Based on supercritical pulverized coalBased on supercritical pulverized coal

Does not include transport/storageDoes not include transport/storage



5 10 15 201000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Gas Price ($/MMBtu)

Coa

l w/C

CS

Cap

ex (

$/kW

)

$0/tonneCO2$50/tonneCO2$100/tonneCO2

Carbon Tax

Coal w/CCS: IGCC w/ pre-combustion CCS @ HR=10942 Btu/kWh, Illinois#6 Coal @ $1.79/MMBtu, 90% Capture, 80% CF, 0.109 kg/kWh emissions rate; Gas: CCGT @ $950/kW, HR=7000 Btu/kWh, 65% CF, 0.368 kg/kWh emissions rate

Projected Capex

$3000-4000/kW

2007 Avg. Delivered

Price $7.37/MMBtu

Breakeven Capex for Coal w/CCS versus CCGT



Challenges for CommercializationChallenges for Commercialization

• CostsCosts

• InfrastructureInfrastructure

• Regulatory FrameworkRegulatory Framework

• Long-term LiabilityLong-term Liability

• Subsurface UncertaintySubsurface Uncertainty CapacityCapacity Long-term IntegrityLong-term Integrity



Moving forwardMoving forward

• New capture technologiesNew capture technologies

• Large-scale demosLarge-scale demos



Capture Technology PathwaysCapture Technology Pathways

PlussesPlusses MinusesMinuses

Post-Post-CombustionCombustion

Compatible with Compatible with existing infrastructure; existing infrastructure; retrofits; flexibilityretrofits; flexibility

Current methods have Current methods have high energy penaltieshigh energy penalties

Oxy-Oxy-CombustionCombustion

Potentially less Potentially less expensive than post-expensive than post-combustion; retrofitscombustion; retrofits

Cost of oxygen; lack of Cost of oxygen; lack of experienceexperience

Pre-Pre-CombustionCombustion

Projected lowest Projected lowest incremental cost for incremental cost for capturecapture

Slow progress of IGCCSlow progress of IGCC



COCO22 Storage Storage

• Current evidence indicates that it is scientifically feasible to store large quantities of CO2 in saline aquifers

• In order to: Address outstanding technical issues that need to be resolved to

confirm CCS as a major mitigation option Establish public confidence that large scale sequestration is

practical and safe

it is urgent to undertake a number of large scale (on the order of 1 Mt/yr injection) experimental projects in reservoirs that are instrumented, monitored, and analyzed to verify the practical reliability and implementation of sequestration. None of the current sequestration projects worldwide meets all of these criteria

MIT Coal Study – Finding #5MIT Coal Study – Finding #5



Cancellations of Major Cancellations of Major Demonstration ProjectsDemonstration Projects

• May 2007 – BP Petershead (Scotland)May 2007 – BP Petershead (Scotland)

• June 2007 – Shell/Statoil Draugen June 2007 – Shell/Statoil Draugen (Norway)(Norway)

• Sept 2007 – Saskpower (Canada)Sept 2007 – Saskpower (Canada)

• Jan 2008 – FutureGen (US)Jan 2008 – FutureGen (US)



Critical QuestionCritical Question

• Is it reasonable to expect to build 100s of Is it reasonable to expect to build 100s of coal-fired power plants with CCS by 2050 coal-fired power plants with CCS by 2050 when we are having so much trouble when we are having so much trouble building just one today?building just one today?



Emissions Performance StandardsEmissions Performance Standards

• California standard is 1100 lbs COCalifornia standard is 1100 lbs CO22 / MWh / MWh• CostsCosts

Similar to full capture in $/tonSimilar to full capture in $/ton Total cost is less (i.e., less tons captured)Total cost is less (i.e., less tons captured)

• For both post- and pre-combustion, less changes required For both post- and pre-combustion, less changes required in power plantin power plant

• Overall environmental performance similar to natural gas Overall environmental performance similar to natural gas • Allows early implementation and can be a good source of Allows early implementation and can be a good source of

COCO22 for storage demonstrations for storage demonstrations• Will be competitive at higher natural gas pricesWill be competitive at higher natural gas prices



Contact InformationContact Information

Howard HerzogHoward Herzog

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Energy InitiativeEnergy Initiative

Room E40-447Room E40-447

Cambridge, MA 02139Cambridge, MA 02139

Phone: 617-253-0688Phone: 617-253-0688

E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Web Site: sequestration.mit.eduWeb Site: sequestration.mit.edu

Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Carbon Capture & Storage Energy &...

Documents

Transcript of Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment Carbon Capture & Storage Energy &...