The UKCCSRC is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of the Research Councils UK

Energy Programme

CCS Perspectives and Competiveness Jon Gibbins Director, UK CCS Research Centre Professor of Power Plant Engineering and Carbon Capture University of Edinburgh www.ukccsrc.ac.uk jon@ukccsrc.ac.uk

Global CCS Symposium 2015 13th to 14th October Kimdaejung Convention Center, Gwangju, Korea)

About the UKCCSRC www.ukccsrc.ac.uk The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC) leads and coordinates a programme of underpinning research on all aspects of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in support of basic science and UK government efforts on energy and climate change.

The Centre brings together over 250 of the UK’s world-class CCS academics and provides a national focal point for CCS research and development.

Initial core funding for the UKCCSRC is provided by £10M from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as part of the RCUK Energy Programme. This is complemented by £3M in additional funding from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to help establish new open-access national pilot-scale facilities (www.pact.ac.uk). Partner institutions have contributed £2.5M.

The UKCCSRC welcomes experienced industry and overseas Associate members and links to all CCS stakeholders through its CCS Community Network. https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/membership/associate-membership https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/membership/ccs-community-network

IPCC Climate Change 2013 'The Physical Science Basis' http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Fraction of C stored must rise from zero to 100%

Myles R. Allen, David J. Frame & Charles F. Mason, The case for mandatory sequestration, Nature Geoscience

2, 813 - 814 (2009), doi:10.1038/ngeo709

500 600 700 800 900 1000 Emissions (billion tonnes of C)

Frac

tion

of fo

ssil

fuel

Em

issi

ons

capt

ured

and

stor

ed CO2 emissions are what matters

for the climate. The prime climate objective is not to end the use of fossil fuels. The prime objective is to stop CO2 emissions, with 100% CCS developed and deployed in time to cap cumulative emissions of carbon at a safe level.

CO2 EOR and other applications with partial overall capture should be seen as a stage in a path from zero CO2 capture to 100% CCS.

They can be a move in the right direction from where we are now – emitting 100% of fossil carbon to atmosphere.

The key factor is the extent to which technologies and/or projects can readily be adapted to get higher fractions of CO2 stored.

What do we need to achieve?

Nov 19, 2014 - UN Says Global Carbon Neutrality Should be Reached by Second Half of Century, Demonstrates Pathways to Stay Under 2°C Limit

IPCC WGII AR5 Summary for Policymakers - Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability If CCS is not available analysis shows average costs are more than twice as high for achieving mitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq in 2100 (consistent with a likely chance to keep warming below 2°C relative to pre-industrial level).

2050

http://www.eti.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CCS-Scenarios-Infographic1.png

March 2015

ETI UK system models suggest high costs for UK 2050 targets without CCS

The Climate Problem A. ~ 10 years? : Key players need to agree on the allocation of the

remaining space in the atmosphere to get over the commons problem (value is order 1 trillion tCO2 @ $100/tCO2 ~ 1 yr GWP or more).

B. 50-100 years? : The net rate of global emissions needs to go to zero in time to cap global cumulative emissions at an acceptable level.

To help get agreement A it is important to have a high confidence that we are able to deliver on achievement B within the limits of what is politically, economically and technically feasible.

By the end of the next ~ 10 years the CCS community needs to have: 1. Deployed 10’s of successful CCS projects on a range of large

stationary sources. 2. Demonstrated working Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology options

that prove the concept is available as a back-stop option – i.e. could be built in large numbers at an acceptable cost.

3. Be ready for the next 10 years, and the next, and ….

What does no CCS cost? In 2100: No CCS = 138% extra cost to achieve 2 degree scenario emissions (or it is impossible – most scenarios did not work)

In 2050 (and buildup through 2030): No CCS = 1-2% of UK GDP extra cost to achieve 80% cut in emissions

In 2025: No ‘routine’ CCS, including examples of Direct Air Capture = possibly no global agreement to share and to cap global cumulative emissions

1. Deployed 10’s of successful CCS projects on a range of large stationary sources.

Typical stages in power plant clean-up technologies: 1. ‘It’s science fiction!’ 2. ‘It’s impossibly expensive and complex!’ 3. ‘It’s a major investment but necessary.’ 4. ‘It’s obviously just a routine part of any power plant.’ CCS is now in early stage 3 and we are working hard to get it to stage 4 as quickly as possible.

CCS on stationary sources gives a critical option for achieving zero emissions without stopping fossil fuel use for power and industry • Can expect 2nd generation projects to appear soon that are based on 1st

generation projects and that benefit from learning-by-doing ….

• But CCS started recently and there still only a small amount of activity

• So CCS needs to be developed to give tens of second and third generation projects to become a serious option that can help resolve future climate change negotiations

System-wide costs of energy rather than £/MWh becoming more prominent

The chart starts with an assumed 2030 mix of 10 GW nuclear, 28 GW wind and 5 GW gas-CCS resulting in a system close to 100 g/kWh. The technology tracks have the same shape but sometimes curve more sharply. Carbon price is set at £70/t. The earlier upward curve from CCS is due to the residual emissions assumed in the modelling.

August 2015, Energy Research Partnership Managing Flexibility Whilst Decarbonising the GB Electricity System

DECC & BIS – March 2015 - Industrial Decarbonisation and Energy Efficiency Roadmaps to 2050 – Iron & Steel https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-and-energy-efficiency-roadmaps-to-2050

DECC & BIS – March 2015 - Industrial Decarbonisation and Energy Efficiency Roadmaps to 2050 – Cement https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-and-energy-efficiency-roadmaps-to-2050

DECC & BIS – March 2015 - Industrial Decarbonisation and Energy Efficiency Roadmaps to 2050 – Chemicals https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-and-energy-efficiency-roadmaps-to-2050

Part 1, applied to CHP and Hydrogen generation plant (75% by 2050) Part 2, applied to FCC stack (50% by 2050)

DECC & BIS – March 2015 - Industrial Decarbonisation and Energy Efficiency Roadmaps to 2050 – Oil Refining https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-decarbonisation-and-energy-efficiency-roadmaps-to-2050

• Deployment of CCS capacity at scale (i.e. ~10 GW electricity) and infrastructure capable of capturing 40-50 MtCO2/year from power and industry by 2030 .

• Three scenarios varying cluster and storage locations • Storage ~ 100 MtCO2/year by 2050.

~ 40 MtCO2/year

~ 50 MtCO2/year

~ 50 MtCO2/year

Cost reductions • Economies of scale for T&S • EOR if it happens

Learning by doing for capture technology • Always some learning for gas • Coal most in EOR scenario • Limited across Balanced scenario… • but most opportunity for technology

transfer from overseas

But coordination probably needed to maximise learning by doing with a very limited number of projects, globally as well as in the UK.

ETI scenarios for 2030 have ~5GW natural gas CCS (+ coal + industry)

CCS Sector Development Scenarios in the UK, May 2015 http://www.eti.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015-04-30-ETI-CCS-sector-development-scenarios-Final-Report.pdf

Concentrated 2030 EOR 2030 Balanced 2030

Deployment of CCS capacity at scale (i.e. ~10 GW electricity) and infrastructure capable of capturing 40-50 MtCO2/year from power (as part of <100 kgCO2/MWh) and industry by 2030. Eventual storage target for 2050 scenarios (80% cut in UK emissions) ~ 100 MtCO2/year.

CCS Sector Development Scenarios in the UK, May 2015 http://www.eti.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015-04-30-ETI-CCS-sector-development-scenarios-Final-Report.pdf

ETI scenarios for 2030 have ~5GW natural gas CCS (+ coal + industry)

Timelines for capture and storage development in the Concentrated scenario

http://www.shell.co.uk/gbr/environment-society/environment-tpkg/peterhead-ccs-project.html https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/north-east/peterhead/534697/milestone-plans-for-revolutionary-peterhead-energy-project-revealed/

Peterhead CCS Project Shell UK Limited and SSE Post-combustion capture on one of three existing GT units Approximately 400MW equivalent capacity and 1MtCO2/yr

http://www.shell.co.uk/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/peterhead-ccs-project.html

• New standalone power plant at the existing Drax Power Station site near Selby, • State-of-the-art coal-fired power plant with the potential to co-fire biomass. • 426MWe (gross) oxyfuel power and carbon capture and storage • 90% of all CO2 emissions captured • Capturing approximately 2 million tonnes of CO2 per year • Anchor project for Yorkshire CO2 transportation and storage network http://www.whiteroseccs.co.uk

Klaus Lackner, Gordon Research Conference 2015

2. Demonstrated working Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology options that prove the concept is available as a back-stop option – i.e. could be built in large numbers at an acceptable cost.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

Direct Air Capture can capture CO2 for storage to offset fossil fuel emissions or for synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels

using non-fossil energy sources

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prelim_2009_2010_estimates.html

CCS for large stationary sources

Significant fraction of fossil fuel use requires air capture

Air Capture

For example, see S. A. Amelkin, A. M. Tsirlin, J. M. Burzler, S. Schubert, K. H. Hoffmann, Minimal Work for Separation Processes of Binary Mixtures, Open Sys. & Information Dyn. 10: 335-349, 2003.

T=25ºC

Direct air capture requires only about twice the theoretical energy input of conventional CO2 capture from power plants

25

Air - 400ppm CO2 10-90% capture

Power plant CO2 concentrations ~ 4% natural gas ~14% coal

90%+ capture

The theoretical work to separate a binary mixture into two components at the same temperature and pressure

is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration

Example 1: Carbon Engineering air capture process

KOH

K2CO3

CaCO3

CaO Ca(OH)2

http://carbonengineering.com/

Squamish demo plant site construction

Running 2015, ~500 tCO2/yr scale

Design for 'slab' air contactor

100,000tCO2/yr scale

NATURAL GAS - 2.8 MWh/tCO2 from air

Based on a cyclic adsorption / desorption process on a novel filter material (“sorbent”). Scalable in multiples of 300 tCO2/yr, in shipping container sized units. Energy demand per ton of CO2 :

1.5 – 2.0 MWh heat at 100 °C 0.2 – 0.3 MWh electricity

Example 2: Climeworks air capture process

Climeworks CO2 Kollektor Design for Climeworks CO2 Capture Plant

http://www.climeworks.com

GT uses custom equipment and proprietary (dry) amine-based chemical “sorbents” bonded to porous honeycomb ceramic “monoliths” that together act as carbon sponges, efficiently adsorbing CO2 directly from the atmosphere, from smokestacks, or from a combination of both. The captured CO2 is stripped off and collected using low-temperature steam (85-100° C)

Example 3: Global Thermostat air capture process http://globalthermostat.com

Example 4: Center for Negative Carbon Emissions

1000 tCO2/yr demo plant

http://engineering.asu.edu/cnce/

A moisture swing sorbent cycle for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from air. The sorbent, an anionic exchange resin, absorbs CO2 when it is dry, and releases it again when exposed to moisture.

Direct Air Capture Overview • Examples of working DAC technologies now being developed • Initial independent* cost estimate ~ $600/tCO2 – it seems likely that

this will be improved significantly with experience. • High marginal costs of abatement have been paid via Feed in Tariffs etc.

for renewables, with the expectation of reducing costs as a result of experience.

• But even $600/tCO2 would add ~ $1.50 per litre of gasoline (i.e. less than doubling pump price in Europe).

• And for any stationary source operating at low load factors (e.g. natural gas plant filling in for wind) the point source CCS cost per tonne of CO2 has to be a LOT lower to beat a DAC unit that is operating all the time.

• DAC technologies can be developed and proven relatively cheaply as individual units that are then mass-produced to reduce costs for deployment.

• VERY important for countries to commit within ~ 10 years to finite future emission budgets and hence, eventually, to net zero emissions - demonstration of viable DAC options as a back-stop could be a deal-maker.

* http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf