Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market Viability ... Carbon Capture and Storage... · Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market Viability

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


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 Product Development Facilities


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


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”.


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


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


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


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


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


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 !!


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


Columns, Internals & Handling

Factory installed

internals followed

by factory QC

inspections Structured Packing


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


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


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


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 Engagement to Reduce Steam Consumption, Enhance CO2 Production and Validate scale up design

Plant Design Capacity 800 TPD, two trains


Absorption Columns, 14.5’(4.4m) x 119’(36.3m) H

Validation of Design Scale Up


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


Design Experience

Mongstad Norway

Purenergy CCS 1000 tpd


Design Experience

Kårstø Norway

Gulf


Dakota Gasification Company, Beulah, ND

Lignite to Energy – Electricity and Syngas


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/

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

http://www.energy.gov/recovery/index.htm

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/index.html

http://www.cslforum.org/

http://www.ieaghg.org/

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

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


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


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


Viability

Questions and Answers

97

Documents

Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market Viability ... Carbon Capture and Storage... · Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market Viability