Overview IEAGHG
Activities and Capture Issues
John Gale
General Manager
EASAC Working Group on CCS
Cambridge , UK, 26th-27th October 2011
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme
• A collaborative research programme founded in 1991 as an IEA
Implementing Agreement fully financed by its members
• Aim: Provide members with definitive information on the role that
technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Scope: All greenhouse gases, all fossil fuels and comparative
assessments of technology options
Focus: On CCS in recent years
• Producing information that is:
 Objective, trustworthy, independent
 Policy relevant but NOT policy prescriptive
 Reviewed by external Expert Reviewers
 Subject to review of policy implications by Members
Membership
IEAGHG Activities
• Task 1: Evaluation of technology options
• Based on a standard methodology to allow direct
comparisons and are peer reviewed
• Task 2: Facilitating implementation
• Provision of “evidence based information”
• Task 3: Facilitating international cooperation
• Knowledge transfer from existing, laboratory, pilot and
commercial scale CCS projects globally
• Task 4:To disseminate the results as
widely as possible.
Capture portfolio
• Technical studies on key issues
• Post Combustion Conference series
• Learning's from pilot plants/ lab scale developments
• Oxyfuel Conference series
• Recent developments and learning's from pilot plants/
lab scale developments
• Solid Looping network
• Network of researchers on solid looping monitoring
development of technology
• Moves from lab to pilot scale
• What have we learnt from early commercial
CCS projects
IGCC?
• No specific activity
• Look at where we can add value?
• IEACCC monitors gasification
technology progress
• Cannot build pilot projects
• Efficiency improvements down to turbine
development
• Market for large H2 turbines?
• Next step integrated demonstration at
scale
Why solid looping?
• Proponents suggest reductions in:
• Cost – 20% compared to oxy and PCC
• 5-6% reduction in energy efficiency penalty
compared to first generation capture technology
• Two technology options
• Chemical looping – best suited for NGCC with
CCS
• Calcium looping – potentially suitable for coal
fired power plant
• Similar technology to CFB
Cross Cutting Issues (1)
• Costs
• Most recent cost data produced by EU ZEP
• Costs for post combustion capture with Coal fired
power plant is €70-90/MWh
• Costs for post combustion capture with Coal fired
power plant is €70-120/MWh
• Competitive with other low carbon technology
• On-Off shore wind, nuclear and solar
• IEA Report - “Projected Costs of Generating
Electricity – 2010
• http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS
_ID=2207
Cross cutting issues (2)
Water usage – developing issue
• Study aimed to look at increased water use for
CO2 capture on coal fired power plant
• Adding capture significantly increases water
use (PC, oxy and IGCC)
• By applying techniques such as air cooling can
reduce water usage to near zero
• But, energy penalty increases by 2-3% with
capture (1.9 to 2.3% without)
• COE increases by 12-13% (8-12% without)
Cross Cutting Issues (3)
Overall emissions reduction
• Some emissions increase due to increased fuel
use – environmental penalty
• Oxy-combustion eliminates most gaseous
emissions of other substances
• IGCC and NGCC already very clean
• All have options extra new liquid/solids wastes
to deal with
• Associated environmental issues to be addressed
Cross Cutting Issues (4)
Retrofitting and repowering
• Complex set of criteria to consider with a lot of site specific detail
required
• Costs of electricity from retrofitted CCS plants generally lower than
new build CCS
• New plants to be built capture ready to avoid high retrofit costs
• CCS retrofits to low efficiency plants with have higher generation costs
and will be less competitive than new build
• Post combustion capture and oxy fuel can be retrofitted to existing
steam cycles on coal and NG fired power plants
•
Electricity output penalties per tonne of CO2 captured are close to new build plant
with same capture technology
• A survey of plants globally suggests there is significant potential to
retrofit capture plants to existing power plants
Cross Cutting Issues (5)
• Flexibility
•
•
•
•
•
CCS flexibility requirements depend on external factors:
•
•
•
•
Variability of electricity demand
The overall GHG abatement requirement
The amount of wind and nuclear in the system
Developments in electricity system load management
In some countries CCS plants will be able to operate at
base load
• If there is a modest CO2 abatement requirement, little wind and
nuclear or high load management
In some countries most CCS plants will probably have to
operate flexibly
Little information in the public domain on CCS plant
flexibility
Including energy storage in some CCS processes can be
an effective way to reduce the need for flexible operation
Non-Integrated Plants with
Hydrogen Storage
Fuel
Gasification and
shift conversion
Gasification and
capture plant
- full load operation
CO2 capture and
compression
CO2 transport
and storage
Hydrogenrich gas
Power plant
- flexible operation
Underground
hydrogen storage
Combined cycle
power plant
Power
Capture in Cement Industry
• Technically feasible to introduce CCS technology into
cement plants
• PCC and oxyfuel options
• Costs
•
For PCC option
• €60 to €107/t CO2 avoided for stand alone plants
• Integration could potentially halve costs
• For oxyfuel option
• €23 to €30/t CO2 avoided
• Integration with an oxy power plant or IGCC plant could takes costs
as low as €6/t CO2 avoided
• May be commercial implications for CCS deployment
• 50% of current cement production in China
• No driver to implement CCS.
Capture in Steel Industry
• Technically feasible to introduce CCS technology into
cement plants
• PCC and oxy blast furnace options
• Costs
•
Highest costs option is PCC option
• Scale
•
•
•
•
•
Could be looking at 8 to 30Mt/CO2 to capture and store
Distributed capture/transmission network
• Centralised Versus decentralised capture plant (s)
Pipeline/ship transport networks?
Reservoir capacity availability?
Biggest injection project so far is Gorgon at 4Mt/y/CO2
•
Requires pressure relief, injection into overlying aquifers
New Areas of interest
• Direct Air capture – very expensive
• Costs as high as $t/CO2 avoided
• BioChar
• Niche option
• Further information of carbon decay times in soils
• BioCCS
• Has a significant potential, 10Gt/CO2
• Potential for negative emissions
• Sustainability of biomass/competition with food
production
• No financial incentives under ETS
• Might offset fossil fuel issues with stakeholders
Key technical issue for PCC
• Nitrosamines – a carcinogenic
degradation product
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Detectable levels of lighter components will probably be emitted to atmosphere
from amine based capture plants employing single water wash technology
Emissions to air of heavier degradation products will be at well below
detectable levels
Application of an additional acid wash is an effective way of eliminating
emissions of the lighter components.
The preferred choice of demister seems to be the Swirl Mist Eliminator (SME)
Emissions standards are not yet set for many of the substances which are
likely to be emitted
Stringent emissions standards and regulatory requirements to adopt best
available techniques can be expected particularly so if even the presence of
trace amounts of known carcinogens are confirmed.
More research into emissions and their measurement is required.
Some alternative solvents have lower emissions but may still need to apply
similar additional clean up steps
Technical Issues re IGGC
• All gasification/capture components developed
• Technical development is demonstration of
integrated CCS system at scale
• H2 turbine not yet demonstrated
• If used in cycle with H2 production and storage
• Issues re hydrogen storage to consider
Technical issues re Solid
Looping
• Scale up
•
Currently moving up to 1-2Mwth scale
• Demonstration of extended operating times
•
Currently 16 test rigs have logged up 4500 hours operation since
2003
• Addressing process emissions
• Characterisation of sorbents and oxygen carriers
• Physical degredation/materials & corrosion issues
• Cost estimates for commercial scale units
• Identifying first commercial opportunities
Technical issues Industry
• Technology development issues
•
•
10 -20 years to introduce new technology into industry sectors
Technical issues to resolve with oxy firing
• Pilot testing underway
• Scale up
•
•
Less of an issue for cement
Steel we could be looking at 8 to 30 Mt/CO2/y produced
• Multiple stacks, collection/distribution infrastructure required
• Largest CCS injection so far Gorgon, Australia 4 Mt/y
• Transmission
•
•
Cement industry tends to be sited inland close to demand
Steel facilities near sea shore/estuaries
• Large volumes of gas to be transported
• Large reservoirs to accept this volume of CO2
Thank You
Further details can be found at:
www.ieaghg.org
www.ghgt.info