Powerpoint Presentation: Perspectives on hydrogen from fossil … · 2019-12-12 · - Fossil fuels are going to play a major role for the next 50-100 years. •The extent of fossil

1

Perspectives onHydrogen from Fossil Fuels

for CO2 Mitigation

Tom KreutzPrinceton Environmental Institute

Princeton University

Presented at the Aspen Global Change Institute, Workshop:“Energy Options and Paths to Climate Stabilization”

July 6-11, 2003, Aspen, Colorado

2

• CMI Project Areas:- Carbon capture (Kreutz, Larson, Ogden, Socolow, Williams):

production, distribution, and utilization of electricity and H2from fossil fuels.

- Carbon storage (Celia): modeling CO2 storage in and leakagefrom saline aquifers; emphasis on risk assessment.

- Carbon science (Pacala, Sarmiento, GFDL): global climatemodeling of CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans, and land.

- Carbon policy (Bradford, Oppenheimer): Kyoto alternatives,stabilization targets, GH damage functions.

- Integration: economic implications of delayed action,knowledge about trajectories, optimal emission paths.

• Funding: 15.1$ from BP, 5 M$ from Ford

The Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI)at Princeton University, 2001-2010

3

• How H2 might fit into the problem of global carbonemissions.

• Some ongoing work at Princeton relating to H2

production and distribution.

Talk Outline

4

Point of Departure

• The greenhouse effect is real, and growing.- It’s a big problem, requiring large changes.

• We want to mitigate its effects, to stabilize CO2concentrations at some level, e.g. 550 ppmv, but- We don’t want to curtail economic growth.

• We seek to minimize the costs (economic, societal,etc.) of mitigation.- Advantages may result from large changes.

• We balance GH costs against mitigation costs.- Evolving process: science + policy/politics.

5

From: http://www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/primary.asp#

World Consumption of Primary Energy

Oil

Coal

Natural Gas

6

Fossil Fuels are…• plentiful:

• the primary cause of greenhouse warming.

• the largest source of primary energy (X% worldwide)

• likely to continue to be extremely important for manydecades until other, low carbon sources (renewables,nuclear energy) become more mature, widespread,and less expensive.

153004600Total

29003400Coal (70% C)

10600Clathrates

220250Unconventional natural gas

240Conventional natural gas (75% C)

1550440Unconventional oil

250Conventional oil (85 wt. % C)

AdditionalResourceBase

Global Fossil CarbonResources (Gt)

7

8

Growth Rate of Carbon Reservoirs

9

Use of Fossil Fuels in a Carbon-Constrained World

• Stabilization of CO2 concentrations (e.g. 550ppmv) will require huge reductions in CO2emissions over the next century.

• Thus, continued, large scale use of fossil fuelswill require carbon capture and storage (CCS).

• Large scale generation of carbon-free energycarriers, electricity and hydrogen, from fossilfuels is commonplace.

• CO2 separation/capture can be accomplishedwith proven, commercial technology.

• Very large scale CO2 storage is the big unknown.

10

Second Point of Departure

• In our work, and in this talk, we assume:- Widespread, large scale CO2 storage, e.g. in saline

aquifers, will be a viable - and not too expensive -undertaking.

- Fossil fuels are going to play a major role for the next50-100 years.

• The extent of fossil fuel use will depend on a hostof factors (discussed at this conference):- Actual CO2 storage costs,- Carbon taxes/policy,- Costs of competing low carbon energy sources,- Etc.

11

Options For CO2 Disposal

• Deep ocean disposal

• Disposal in geological media– Depleted oil and gas fields– Beds of unminable coal–– Deep saline aquifersDeep saline aquifers (at least 800 m down)

• Disposal as carbonate rocks

12

Global Capacity For CO2 StorageIn Deep Saline Aquifers

• If closed aquifers with structural traps needed: ~ 50 GtC

• If large, open aquifers w/good top seals also usable:– Estimate by IEA GHG R&D Programme: up to 2,700 GtC

– Estimate by Hendriks (Utrecht University): ~ 13,000 GtC

• For comparison:– Cumulative emissions, 1990-2100, from fossil fuel burning

[Business-As-Usual Global Energy Scenario (IS92a) of IPCC:1,500 GtC]

– Carbon content of remaining exploitable fossil fuels (excludingmethane hydrates) ~ 5,000 – 7,000 GtC

13

CO2 Disposal Experience

• Enhanced oil recovery: 74 projects worldwide injecting 30MMt CO2/y; 4% of US oil so produced—mostly using CO2 fromnatural reservoirs (> 3000 km of CO2 pipelines in US), butWeyburn (Canada) uses 1.5 MMt/y of CO2 piped 300 km fromNorth Dakota coal gasification plant

• Enhanced coal bed methane recovery: 1 commercialproject in San Juan Basin (US)

• Acid gas disposal: 31 acid gas (H2S + CO2) disposal projectsin Canada associated with recovery of sour NG

• Sleipner project in North Sea: 1 MMt/y of CO2 beingdisposed of since 1996 in aquifer under seabed

14

Current CO2 Emissions

• Centralized power generation is relatively easy todecarbonize.

• 2/3 – 3/4 of CO2 emissions from distributed sources:transportation and “other” (primarily industrial,commercial, and residential heating).

36.0 30.6

32.0

20.8

32.0

48.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

United States World

Other

Transportation

Electricity

1997

15

Projected CO2 Emissions

• Similar story under IPCC IS92a projections.

• These ratios obviously depend on competitionbetween sectors.

33.425.2

29.434.4

37.2 40.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

United States World

Other

Transportation

Electricity

IS92a2100

16

What to do about CO2 Emissions fromDistributed Consumption of Fossil Fuels?

• Switch to “low-carbon” electricity (from fossil fuels withCCS, nuclear, or renewables):- Difficulties with storage (transportation) and efficiency

(heating) will limit adoption. By how much?

• Switch to “low-carbon” hydrogen, from:- Centrally “decarbonized” fossil fuels with CCS,- Biomass (without - or with - CCS),- Nuclear, via advanced thermochemical cycles,- Electrolysis using low-carbon electricity.

• Efficiency losses vs. transportation costs• H+T require H2 distribution, T requires H2 onboard storage

• CO2 capture and storage from air.

17

Annual U.S. Carbon Emissions (2000)

• Power generation with CCS ~100-200 $/tonne C.

• Transportation sector via H2…1000 $/tonne C?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Electricity Transportation Industrial Commercial Residential

Tonn

es C

per

Yea

r (x1

06 )

Natural Gas

Petroleum

Coal

Source: U.S. EPA Inventory of Greenhouse Gases, Apr. 2002

18

Drivers for the H2 Economy

• H2 is abundant and can be utilized relatively andcleanly (via combustion, electrochemistry)

• Energy security

• Air pollution

• Climate change

• Common carbon-free energy carrier from:- renewables- fossil fuels- nuclear power

19

Difficulties with the H2 Economy

• Efficiency losses during production

• Cost:- distribution- storage (at both large and small scales)- safety

• Safety

20

“Low-Carbon” Electricity

• Electricity grid already exists.

• Competition between:- “Decarbonized” fossil-based, central station power

generation, via CO2 capture and storage (CCS),- Nuclear power- Renewable energy (wind, solar, biomass)

21

Economics of Base Case System Capital Cost (million $)

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

H2 from NG H2 from Coal

H2 refueling Sta

Local H2 Distribution

H2 pipeline 100 km

H2 Storage at CentralPlantCO2 Wells and InjectionSiteCO2 Pipeline 100 km

H2 Plant

02468

1012141618

H2 from NG H2 from Coal

H2 Refuel Sta O&M

H2 Refuel Sta Capital

Local H2 Distrib

H2 Pipeline 100 km

H2 Storage at H2 Plant

CO2 Wells and InjectionSiteCO2 Pipeline 100 km

Feedstock

H2 Plant

Delivered H2 Cost ($/GJ)

22

23

H2 DEMAND DENSITY (kg/d/km2):YEAR 1: 25% OF NEW Light Duty Vehicles = H2 FCVs

Blue shows good locations for refueling station

24

H2 DEMAND DENSITY (kg/d/km2):YEAR 5: 25% OF NEW LDVs = H2 fueled

25

H2 DEMAND DENSITY (kg/d/km2): YEAR 10: 25% OF NEW LDVs = H2 fueled

26

H2 DEMAND DENSITY (kg/d/km2): YEAR 15: 25% OF NEW LDVs = H2 fueled

27

Societal Lifecycle Costs ($/veh) for AlternativeFueled Vehicles, Including Externality Costs

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

Energy Supply SecurityGHGAir PollutionFuelVehicle BodyDrive Train

CurrentICEVs Adv.

ICEVsHybridICEVs

Fuel Cell Vehicles

28

Societal Lifecycle Costs ($/veh) with Low,Medium, and High Externality Values

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000 Oil Supply InsecurityGHGAir PollutionFuelVehicle BodyDrive Train

Medium Externality Values

Low Externality Values

High Externality Values

Adv.ICEVs

Adv.ICEVs

Adv.ICEVs

ICE/HEVsICE/HEVs

ICE/HEVs

H2 FuelCell Veh

H2 FuelCell Veh

H2 FuelCell Veh

CurrentICEV

CurrentICEV

CurrentICEV

29

The Case for Hydrogen

1. Most of the century's fossil fuel carbon must be captured.

2. About half of fossil carbon, today, is distributed to smallusers – buildings, vehicles, small factories.

3. The costs of retrieval, once dispersed, will be prohibitive.

4. An all-electric economy is unlikely.

5. An electricity-plus-hydrogen economy is the most likelyalternative.

6. Hydrogen from fossil fuels is likely to be cheaper thanhydrogen from renewable or nuclear energy for a long time.

30

The Case for Coal

• Abundance of low quality feedstocks (coal, heavy oils, tar sands,etc.) relative to conventional oil and natural gas

• Low feedstock cost relative to natural gas

• China is dependent on coal; US expected to continue beinglarge coal user is near-zero emission option for coal feasible?

• Air pollution concerns likely to drive coal gasification for powergeneration—springboard for producing H2 from coal

• Sulfur, other criteria pollutants, toxics (e.g, Hg) pose majorchallenges in H2/electricity manufacture; gasification facilitateslow emissions

• Residual environmental, health, and safety issues of coal miningand other low-quality feedstocks

31

Why Focus on Coal and Gasification?

• Coal resources abundant globally.

• Coal prices low and not volatile.

• Much of global population (e.g., China, India) heavilycoal-dependent.

• Widespread use of coal is a GH disaster.

• Gasification is relatively efficient, and can be quiteclean, esp. with CCS.

• Gasification provides a route to H2, with its numerousadvantages:– Secure alternative to oil for transportation– near-zero emissions of air pollutants/GHGs

32

GASIFICATION ACTIVITY WORLDWIDE

61 GWth cum syngascapacity:

• By activity:– 24 GWth chemicals– 23 GWth power– 14 GWth synfuels

• By region:– 19 GWth W Europe– 18 GWth Asia/Australia– 10 GWth N America– 10 GWth Africa/ME– 3 GWth E Europe/FSU– 1 GWth Latin America

• By feedstock:– 27 GWth pet residuals– 27 GWth coal– 6 GWth NG– 1 GWth biomass

• New capacity added @ 3GWth/y

• Most power at refineriesvia “polygeneration”

• Coal power constrainedby NGCC competition

• Gasification technology for making chemicals in market by 1970

• Cool Water demonstration of coal IGCC power, 1984-1989

Source: SFA Pacific, Gasification—Worldwide Use andAcceptance, prepared for the US DOE, January 2000

• New syngas capacity being added @ 3 GWth/y• Most power at refineries via “polygeneration”• Coal power growth constrained by NGCC competition

33

Generic Process: Coal to H2, Electricity, and CO2

• All work presented here is based on O2-blown, entrained flow, coalgasification (e.g. Texaco, E-Gas gasifiers).

GHGT-6 generic process figure (9-25-02)

CO-richraw syngas

H2 product (60 bar)

N2

H2- andCO2-richsyngasQuench +

scrubber

Air Airseparation

unit

Coalslurry O2-blown

coalgasifier

95%O2

SupercriticalCO2 (150 bar)

Water-gas shift(WGS) reactors

CO + H2O <=> H2 + CO2

CO2drying andcompression

Hydrogencompression

Syngas cleanup,gas separation

Electricityproduction

Heat recovery,steam generation

H2-richsyngas

CO2

Electricpower

34

Process Modeling

• Heat and mass balances (around each systemcomponent) calculated using:

• Aspen Plus (commercial software), and• GS (“Gas-Steam”, Politecnico di Milano)

• Membrane reactor performance calculated via customFortran code

• Component capital cost estimates taken from theliterature, esp. Holt, et al. and EPRI reports on IGCC

• Benchmarking/calibration:• Economics of IGCC with carbon capture studied by numerous groups

• Used as a point of reference for performance and economics of our system

• Many capital-intensive components are common between IGCC electricityand H2 production systems (both conventional and membrane-based)

35

• Significant variation found in cost values, methodology, and depth of detail.

• Our cost model is a self-consistent set of values from the literature.

• Cost database is evolving; less reliable values removed; range is narrowing.

• Uncertainty shown above leads to an uncertainty of ±10-15% in H2 cost.

Component Capital Cost Estimates

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

0 50 100 150 200

Capital Cost (MM$)

SimbeckHoltDoctorChiesaHendriksPrudenEPRI3,000-6,000 $/m2

Solids handlingASUO2 compressionGasifier & quenchWGS reactorMembrane reactorRaffinate turbineFGDH2 compressionHRSG, steam turb.CO2 compression

Fig. Mb

Scale (HHV):1.5 GWth

coal,1 GWth H2

(Including installation, 23% BOP, 15% engineering, and 15% process/project contingencies; exclusive of IDC)

Estimates of Overnight Component Capital Costs

36

16.0% of overnight capital**Interest during construction (IDC)

15% of (GI+BOP+EF)Process/project contingency

23% of gasifier island (GI) capitalBalance of plant (BOP) costs

15% of (GI+BOP)Engineering fees (EF)

1 GWth H2Plant scale

2002U.S. dollars valued in year

5 $/mt CO2 (~0.5 $/GJ H2 HHV)CO2 sequestration cost

4% of overnight capital per yearO&M costs

15% per yrCapital charge rate

80%Capacity factor

1.2 $/GJ (HHV)Coal price (year 2020 EIA est.)

* Assuming a 10% real interest rate

Economic Assumptions

37

Coal IGCC Electricity with CO2 Capture

• Plant scale: 362 MWe, efficiency: 34.9% (HHV), cost: 6.5 ¢/kWh (no carbontax) vs. 4.8 ¢/kWh venting, 6.7 ¢/kWh (at 96 $/tonne C). (70 bar gasifierwith quench cooling)

GHGT-6 conv. electricity, CO2 seq. (9-25-02)

Saturatedsteam

CO-richraw syngas

N2 for (NOx control)

H2- andCO2-richsyngas

Heat recoverysteam generator

CO2-leanexhaust

gases

Quench +scrubber

Air Airseparation

unit

Coalslurry O2-blown

coalgasifier

95%O2

Steamturbine

Gas turbineAir

Turbineexhaust

SupercriticalCO2 to storage

CO2 drying +compression

High temp.WGS

reactor

Low temp.WGS

reactorLean/richsolvent

CO2physical

absorption

Solventregeneration

Lean/richsolvent

H2Sphysical

absorption

Regeneration,Claus, SCOT

H2-richsyngas

Syngasexpander

38

H2 Production: Add H2 Purification/Separation

• Replace syngas expander with PSA and purge gas compressor.

GHGT-6 conv. electricity, CO2 seq. (9-25-02-a)

Saturatedsteam

CO-richraw syngas




CO2-leanexhaust

gases

Quench +scrubber

Air Airseparation

unit

Coalslurry O2-blown

coalgasifier

95%O2

Steamturbine

Gas turbineAir

Turbineexhaust



High temp.WGS

reactor

Low temp.WGS


CO2physical

absorption

Solventregeneration

Lean/richsolvent

H2Sphysical

absorption


H2-richsyngas

Syngasexpander

39

Conventional H2 Production with CO2 Capture

• 1285 MWth H2 (HHV) + 39 MW electricity, efficiency ηHHV=68.4%, 7.4 $/GJHHV (no carbon tax). [70 bar gasifier with quench cooling]

GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, CO2 seq. (9-25-02)

Saturatedsteam

CO-richraw syngas

High purityH2 product




CO2-leanexhaust

gases

Quench +scrubber

Air Airseparation

unit

Coalslurry O2-blown

coalgasifier

95%O2

Steamturbine

Gas turbineAir

Pressureswing

adsorption

Purgegas

Turbineexhaust


High temp.WGS

reactor

Low temp.WGS


CO2physical

absorption

Solventregeneration

Lean/richsolvent

H2Sphysical

absorption



40

Capture (and Co-store) H2S with CO2

• Remove the traditional acid gas recovery (AGR) unit.

GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, CO2 seq. (9-25-02-a)

Saturatedsteam

CO-richraw syngas





CO2-leanexhaust

gases

Quench +scrubber

Air Airseparation

unit

Coalslurry O2-blown

coalgasifier

95%O2

Steamturbine

Gas turbineAir

Pressureswing

adsorption

Purgegas

Turbineexhaust


High temp.WGS

reactor

Low temp.WGS


CO2physical

absorption

Solventregeneration

Lean/richsolvent

H2Sphysical

absorption



41

Conventional H2 Production with CO2/H2S Capture

• Resulting system is simpler and cheaper.

GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, co-seq. (9-25-02).FH10

Saturatedsteam

CO-richraw syngas



H2- andCO2-rich

syngas


CO2-leanexhaust

gases

High temp.WGS

reactor

Quench +scrubber

Air Airseparation

unit

Coalslurry O2-blown

coalgasifier

Low temp.WGS

reactor

CO2/H2Sphysical

absorption

Solventregeneration

Lean/richsolvent

95%O2

Steamturbine

Gas turbineAir

Pressureswing

adsorption

Purgegas

Turbineexhaust

CO2 + H2Sto storage

CO2/H2Sdrying andcompression

42

Conventional H2 with Co-Sequestration of CO2and Sulfur-bearing Species

• CO2 capture and sequestration lowers efficiency by ~3% and increases H2 costby ~ 1.5 $/GJ.

(Cost of CO2 pipeline transport and disposal used here is 0.4-0.6 $/GJ.)• Co-sequestration has potential to lower H2 cost by 0.25-0.75 $/GJ, depending on

sulfur content of coal.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Conv. tech. base case

H2 C

ost (

$/G

J H

HV)

CO2 venting Pure CO2 sequestration Co-sequestration

Includes $5/t CO2 = ~0.5 $/GJ HHV sequestration cost

43

Produce “Fuel Grade” H2 with CO2/H2S Capture

• Remove the PSA and gas turbine; smaller steam cycle.

GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, co-seq. (9-25-02-a).FH10

Saturatedsteam

CO-richraw syngas



H2- andCO2-rich

syngas


CO2-leanexhaust

gases

High temp.WGS

reactor

Quench +scrubber

Air Airseparation

unit

Coalslurry O2-blown

coalgasifier

Low temp.WGS

reactor

CO2/H2Sphysical

absorption

Solventregeneration

Lean/richsolvent

95%O2

Steamturbine

Gas turbineAir

Pressureswing

adsorption

Purgegas

CO2 + H2Sto storage


44

“Fuel Grade” (~93% pure) H2 with CO2/H2S Capture

• Simpler, less expensive plant. No novel technology needed.

GHGT-6 Fuel grade H2, co-seq. (9-25-02)

Saturatedsteam

CO-richraw syngas Low purity

H2 product(~93% pure)

N2

H2- andCO2-rich

syngas


CO2-leanexhaust

gases

High temp.WGS

reactor

Quench +scrubber

Air Airseparation

unit

Coalslurry O2-blown

coalgasifier

Low temp.WGS

reactor

CO2/H2Sphysical

absorption

Solventregeneration

Lean/richsolvent

95%O2

Steamturbine

CO2 + H2Sto storage


45

Production of “Fuel Grade” H2

• Reduced H2 purity yields a significant cost savings: 1.0-1.4 $/GJ.

• Fuel grade H2 will be more competitive with gas and oil in the heating sector,and might be adequate for transportation (H2 ICEVs; barrier to PEM FCEVs?)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Conv. tech. base case Fuel grade H2

H2 C

ost (

$/G

J H

HV)

CO2 venting Pure CO2 sequestration Co-sequestration

Includes $5/t CO2 = ~0.5 $/GJ HHV sequestration cost

46

• Incremental cost for CO2 capture is less for hydrogen than electricity becausemuch of the equipment is already needed for a H2 plant.

Breakdown of Incremental Capital Cost for CO2 Capture

37%

36%

24%

3%

WGS reactors, heat exchangers

Selexol CO 2

absorption, and stripping

CO 2 drying, compression

Other

Coal IGCC(1326 → 1737 $/kW e )

100%

CO 2 drying, compression

H 2 from Coal(706 → 742 $/kW th H 2 HHV)

47

• Carbon tax needed to induce CO2 storage is extremely high.

• NGCC with CO2 capture is not considered further.

Economics of NGCC with Carbon Storage

3

4

5

6

7

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

Ele

ctric

ity C

ost (

¢/kW

h)

"Crossover point"for CO2 storage(292 $/tonne Cat 3.0 $/GJ NG)

NGCC withCO2 capture

NGCC withCO2 venting

48

• Tax needed to induce CO2 storage in coal IGCC is much lower than NGCC.

• But, how does coal IGCC+CO2 storage compete with NGCC+CO2 venting...

Economics of Coal IGCC with Carbon Storage

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Ele

ctric

ity C

ost (

¢/kW

h)

CO2 storage crossover:(94 $/tonne C)

Coal IGCC withCO2 storage

Coal IGCC withCO2 venting

49

• In addition to the carbon tax, the NG price must exceed ~6 $/GJ for coalIGCC+CO2 storage (...for any electricity+CO2 storage) to be economical!

The “Breakeven NG Price” to Induce CO2 Storage

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Ele

ctric

ity C

ost (

¢/kW

h)

CO2 storage crossover:(94 $/tonne C,6.2 $/GJ NG)




50

• Co-storage reduces both the crossover carbon tax and breakeven NG pricesomewhat, but the barrier to carbon storage remains quite high.

The Economics of H2S-CO2 Co-Storage

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Ele

ctric

ity C

ost (

¢/kW

h)

Co-storage crossover:(72 $/tonne C,5.8 $/GJ NG)



Coal IGCC withH2S-CO2 co-storage

51

• Without CO2 storage, coal IGCC competes with NGCC at NG~4.5 $/GJ; thebreakeven NG price rises with carbon tax due to coal’s high C content.

• Above the crossover tax, CO2 storage plants out-compete CO2 venting plants.

Breakeven NG Prices vs. Carbon Tax

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Brea

keve

n N

G P

rice

($/G

J H

HV)

Coal IGCC withH2S-CO2 co-storage



52

• Both the carbon tax and breakeven NG price needed to induce coal H2 withCO2 storage are much lower than those for electric power.

• Industrial H2 from coal might be the earliest CO2 storage opportunity.

Economics of H2 from Coal with Carbon Storage

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

Hyd

roge

n C

ost (

$/G

J, H

HV)

CO2 storage crossover (39 $/tonne C,4.1 $/GJ NG,

4.6 ¢/kWh NGCC)

H2 from coal withCO2 storage

H2 from coal withCO2 venting

H2 from NG withCO2 venting

H2 from NG withCO2 storage

53

• H2S-CO2 co-storage further reduces both the crossover carbon tax andbreakeven NG price.

Economics of H2 from Coal with H2S-CO2 Co-Storage

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

Hyd

roge

n C

ost (

$/G

J, H

HV)

Co-storage crossover (19 $/tonne C,3.8 $/GJ NG,

4.2 ¢/kWh NGCC)

H2 from NG withCO2 storage

H2 from NG withCO2 venting

H2 from coal withCO2 venting

H2 from coal withH2S-CO2 co-storage

54

• Breakeven NG prices for coal H2 mirror those for IGCC (but are lower).

Breakeven NG Prices vs. Carbon Tax

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


Brea

keve

n N

G P

rice

($/G

J H

HV)

CO2 venting

CO2 storage

H2S-CO2 co-storage

Coal IGCC:

CO2 venting

CO2 storage

H2S-CO2 co-storage

H 2 from Coal:

55

Conclusions• If CCS is viable, fossil fuels will probably be used for the

production of low-carbon electricity and some H2. The cost ofavoided CO2 emissions is ~100 $/tonne C (200 $/tonne C withrespect to old plants).

• The imposition of a simple carbon tax will NOT induce IGCCelectricity with CCS at ~100 $/tonne C; a gas price of ~6 $/GJHHV is also required. Coal may disappear without a “feebate”scheme or portfolio standard to induce IGCC CCS.

• Low-carbon H2 may be an early opportunity for CCS, in caseswhere H2 distribution costs are small.

• H2 will be available at IGCC plants with CCS, reasonably neardemand centers. The penetration of H2 into heating andtransportation will depend on carbon taxes, public policy, andcompetition from other low carbon energy carriers.

56

What is (and is Not) Needed?• Long term CO2 storage in saline aquifers needs to be validated

with many, well instrumented demonstration projects in a variety ofgeologic formations. A need for regulatory and legal frameworks,and standards for well placement, injection, and monitoring.

• The safety (or lack thereof) of H2 vehicles need to demonstratedby long term studies of H2 ICEV and FCEV fleets.

• FutureGen appears to be a good vehicle for testing anddemonstrating the H2 economy in its full extent.

Documents

Powerpoint Presentation: Perspectives on hydrogen from fossil … · 2019-12-12 · - Fossil fuels are going to play a major role for the next 50-100 years. •The extent of fossil