CCS and CCUtheir Role in the Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from

Energy Intensive Industry

Stanley SantosIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Cheltenham, UK

Methanol Technology and Policy CongressFrankfurt, Germany

December 2015

© OECD/IEA 2013

2013 CCS Roadmap: Key Findings CCS is a critical component in a portfolio of low-carbon energy

technologies, contributing 14% of the cumulative emissions reductions between 2015 and 2050 compared with business as usual.

The individual component technologies are generally well understood. The largest challenge is the integration of component technologies into large-scale demonstration projects.

Incentive frameworks are urgently needed to deliver upwards of 30 operating CCS projects by 2020.

CCS is not only about electricity generation: 45% of captured CO2 comes from industrial applications between 2015 and 2050.

The largest deployment of CCS will need to occur in non-OECD countries, 70% by 2050. China alone accounts for 1/3 of the global total of captured CO2 between 2015 and 2050.

The urgency of CCS deployment is only increasing. This decade is critical in developing favourable conditions for long-term CCS deployment.

© OECD/IEA 2013

WEO2015 Special Report on Climate Change

113 Gt CO2 Abatement (Cumulative)

Rationale for CCS:Only large-scale mitigation option for many industriesUpdated from Tracking Clean energy Progress report 2013, industry-CCS annex (IEA)

IEAGHG’s CCS Activities in Process Industries• Iron and Steel Industry

• Techno-economic evaluation of CCS deployment in steel mill – completed 2013• Overview of the current state and future development of CO2 capture technologies in the Iron

Making Process – completed 2013• 1st Steel industry CCS workshop with VDEH and Swerea MEFOS in Germany in November

2011• 2nd Steel industry CCS workshop in Japan November 2013 – collaboration with World Steel

and IETS

• Cement Industry• Techno- economic assessment completed in 2008• Studies on barriers to implementation completed in 2013 (with GCCSI)

• Hydrogen Production for Industrial Applications• State of the art review completed• Techno-economic evaluation for SMR in Merchant Market Scenario now completed – Final

Report due Q1 of 2016• Techno-economic evaluation for SMR in Captive Market Scenario (Methanol, Ammonia/Urea &

Oil Refining) is underway.

• Oil Refining Industry• Techno-economic evaluation is now underway – due Q1 of 2017

• Pulp and Paper Industry• Techno-economic evaluation now underway – due Q3 of 2016

IS CO2 CAPTURE AND USE (CCU) -A PARTNER OR THREAT TO CCS?

Emergence of CCUCO2 as Raw Materials to Different Chemical Industries

• Emergence of utilization of CO2

could be a pros and cons to industrial CCS deployment.• Development of CCU could

provide early demonstration opportunities for novel CO2

capture technologies.• However, use of CO2 as raw

materials doesn’t necessarily reduce CO2 emissions (per se).

• Nonetheless, we should accept the reality that CCU will play a role in the future of industrial CO2

mitigation scenarios.

Figure from US DOE, ADEME and ENEA

Emergence of CCUCO2 Usage in various activities…

Conclusion (No. 1)• CO2 Capture and Use could be a beneficial to

CCS by providing an avenue to early demonstration of CO2 Capture technologies…

Conclusion (No. 2)• CO2 Capture and Use could be an alternative

option to address the cost of CO2 emissions (i.e. EU ETS)…

Blast Furnace (TGR BF)

Raw Top Gas• CO: 46-49%• CO2: 37-38%• H2: 8 - 9%• Balance: N2

Recycled Top Gas• CO: 73-75%• CO2: ~3%• H2: 14-15%• Balance: N2

CO2

removal

• CO2 Removal evaluated by ULCOS consists of:

• PSA, VPSA• VPSA or PSA + Cryogenic Separation• Chemical Absorption

• Concentration of CO2 depends on capture technology used

563 Nm3900oC

Raw Materials

BF Slag

CO2 Capture & Compression Plant

OBF Process Gas Fired Heaters

Hot Metal

Natural Gas

OBF Process Gas

OBF-PG to Steel Works

PCI Coal

Oxygen

OBF Top Gas

1000 kg1470oC

Carbon Dioxide

152 kg

235 kg

Flue Gas

Top Gas Cleaning

352 Nm3

BF Dust

BF Sludge

Air

15 kg

4 kg

253 Nm3

205 Nm341oC

332 Nm3 18 Nm3

938 Nm3

1385 Nm3

867 kg

171 Nm3

Coke 253 kgSinter 1096 kg (70%)Pellets 353 kg (22%)Lump 125 kg (8%)Limestone 6 kgQuartzite 3 kg

Steam2.0 GJ

DRR: 11%FT: 2140oCTGT: 170oCHM Si: 0.5%HM C:4.7%

OBF Screen Undersize21 kg

Nitrogen5 Nm3

Nitrogen5 Nm3

Results from IEAGHG StudyCase 3: OBF with MDEA/Pz CO2 Capture

An Example – How CCU is mutually compatible to the Steel IndustryComposition of the Different Off-Gases from an Integrated Steel Mill

Wet Basis (%vol.)

Blast Furnace Gas (BFG)

Basic Oxygen Furnace Gas

(BOFG)

H2 3.63 2.64CO 22.10 56.92CO2 22.34 14.44N2 48.77 13.83

H2O 3.15 12.16

LHV (MJ/Nm3) -wet

3.21 7.47

Wet Basis (%vol.)

Coke Oven Gas(COG)

CH4 23.04H2 59.53CO 3.84CO2 0.96N2 5.76O2 0.19H2O 3.98Other HC 2.69

LHV (MJ/Nm3) - wet 17.33

An Example – How CCU is mutually compatible to the Steel IndustryComposition of the Different Off-Gases from an Integrated Steel Mill

Wet Basis (%vol.)

Coke Oven Gas(COG)

CH4 23.04H2 59.53CO 3.84CO2 0.96N2 5.76O2 0.19H2O 3.98Other HC 2.69

LHV (MJ/Nm3) - wet 17.33

Use of breakthrough technologies such as Top Gas Recycle Blast Furnace (TGR-BF) could also open up options for production of chemicals – and can be more economically favourable than CCS deployment.

Wet Basis (%vol.)

Blast Furnace Gas (BFG)

Basic Oxygen Furnace Gas

(BOFG)

Raw Off-Gas from TGR-BF

to CO2 Capture Plant

Off-Gas of TGR-BF (CO2 lean)from CO2 Capture

Plant Recycled to BF

H2 3.63 2.64 8.56 12.64CO 22.10 56.92 45.69 67.46CO2 22.34 14.44 33.89 3.00N2 48.77 13.83 10.07 14.86

H2O 3.15 12.16 1.79 2.04

LHV (MJ/Nm3) -wet

3.21 7.47 6.69 9.87

Conclusion (No. 3)• We should realise that CCU could play an

important role for the energy intensive industries especially if CO2 storage is not accessible…

• However – there is catch to this process!• Does CCU really contribute to the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions from these industries?o Substitution? or Fossil Fuel Displacement?o Temporary Storage?o LCA analysis is needed.

CCS & CCU – CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO THE

METHANOL INDUSTRY

Figure adapted from P. Styring (CO2Chem), MethanexTraditional Market (60%)• Acetic Acid• Formaldehyde• Silicone• Methyl Methacrylate

Emergence of CCUCO2 as Raw Materials to Different Chemical Industries

Emerging Market (40%)• MTO (MTBE & Olefins)• Marine Fuel• DME• Fuel Blending• Biodiesel

MeOH to Ethylene or Propylene

Use of CO2 to produce MeOH could be the early market mover for CCU

Methanol as Fuel

Key Message:Use of CO2 to produce MeOH for fuel – could not reduce CO2 per se.

This could be a potential form of “Technical Carbon Leakage”

In Europe – Due to SECA regulation – potential new market for Methanol or DME in the Marine Fuel Business

Overview of IEAGHG Study:

5000 MTPD Methanol (Grade AA) Production (without CO2 Capture) – New Build Case

0.3553 t CO2/t MeOH

Overview of IEAGHG Study:

5000 MTPD Methanol (Grade AA) Production (with CO2 Capture) – New Build Case

0.0353 t CO2/t MeOH

0.3178 t CO2/t MeOH

Overview of IEAGHG Study:

5000 MTPD Methanol (Grade AA) Production (without & with CO2 Capture) – Performance of the Plant

Methanol Plant Performance DataBase Case with CO2 Capture

INLET STREAMSNatural Gas Feedstock t/h 119.098 119.098Natural Gas Fuel t/h 17.119 17.119

OUTLET STREAMSMethanol Product to BL TPD 5,000 5,000

t/h 208.36 208.36POWER BALANCE

Methanol Plant Power Consumption MWe 11.15 20.30Steam and BFW Consumption MWe 2.92 2.92Utilities + BoP Consumption MWe 4.4 6.25CO2 capture plant MWe - 1.66CO2 Compressor MWe - 5.2Power Import from the Grid MWe 18.47 36.32

SPECIFIC DIRECT EMISSIONSSpecific CO2 Emission t/t MeOH 0.3533 0.0353Equivalent CO2 in MeOH Product % 79.30% 79.30%Captured CO2 % NA 18.40%Overall CO2 Capture Rate % 79.30% 97.70%

SPECIFIC INDIRECT EMISSIONSSpecific CO2 Emission (Coal Based) t/t MeOH 0.0661 0.1300Specific CO2 Emission (NGCC Based) t/t MeOH 0.0308 0.0606

SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (TOTAL)Specific CO2 Emission t/t MeOH 0.3841 - 0.4194 0.0959 - 0.1653% CO2 Avoided % - 60.6 – 71.1%

Options for Captured CO2

• Full CCS option

• Partial CCS and CCU (CO2 is for own use)• For 5000 MTPD MeOH plant - up to 1000 MTPD

of CO2 could be used as additional feedstock to increase the production of methanol

• Rest are transported and stored

• Sell the CO2 to other users

Challenges to CO2 Recycle• Excess CO2 could be recycled back to the

Reformer or to the Synthesis Loop.• But there are limitations:

• Syngas composition will be more carbon rich. As a consequence, MW of the syngas increases therefore reducing the circulation flow rate.

• There is an optimum amount of CO2 could be added. More than that would reduce Carbon Efficiency of the Synloop. (Need to balance with the Recycle Ratio).

o Limitation due to the H2 availability within the Recycle Loop

Example – Use of CO2 in MeOH Plant Addition of Purge Converter

Methanol Synthesis Reactor

Crude Methanol Separator

Flash Drum

Make Up Gas (MUG)

Crude Methanolto Distillation Unit

Purge Gas

Flash Gas to Burner

Rec

ycle

d G

as

HP SteamMP Steam

BFW

LP Steam

Syngas Compressor

CWS

CWR

Crude Cooler

Recycled Water from Purge Scrubber Bottom

CO2

Purge Converter

Crude Methanol Separator

CWS

CWR

CWS

CWR

Example – Use of CO2 in MeOH Plant Addition of Parallel Converter

Methanol Synthesis Reactor

Crude Methanol Separator

Flash Drum

Make Up Gas (MUG)

Crude Methanolto Distillation Unit

Purge Gas

Flash Gas to Burner

Rec

ycle

d G

as

HP SteamMP Steam

BFW

LP Steam

Syngas Compressor

CWS

CWR

Crude Cooler

Recycled Water from Purge Scrubber Bottom

CO2

Parallel Converter

Impact of CO2 Addition to the Operation of the Plant(Figure Courtesy of GBH Enterprise)

0 200 400 600

0.50

1.00

0.00

2.00

2.50

1.50

3.00R

ecycle Ratio

Rel

ativ

e P

rodu

ctio

n R

ate

1.04

1.08

1.00

1.16

1.20

1.12

1.24

CO2 Addition Rate (kmol/h)

Concluding Remarks

• Use of CO2 as raw materials is emerging due to current policy and regulatory framework.

• Recognising the Pros and Cons of CCU to CCS is important.• In the short term, CCU has positive economic

effect to any early CCS demonstration projects which could help accelerate CCS deployment –even it involves “temporary” storage.

Concluding Remarks• We need to understand on how to quantify the

reduction potential of CO2 usage in the overall scheme of GHG reduction.• LCA is an important tool – We need transparent (unbiased)

data to fully understand CCU’s potential.• Market driver should be recognised.• Fill in various gaps – technical, economics (including

market), policy, regulatory development

• In the long term – CCU with potential to reduce CO2 Emissions should be the main focus.

• CCU presents a challenge as well as opportunities to the Methanol Industry.

Thank You, Any Questions?Contact me at: stanley.santos@ieaghg.org