An Overview of CO Capture Technology for Fossil Fuel Power ... › sites › ... · CO2 Capture...

An Overview of An Overview of COCO22 Capture Technology for Capture Technology for

Fossil Fuel Power PlantsFossil Fuel Power Plants

Edward S. RubinDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy

Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Presentation to the

EPA Advanced Coal Technology Work GroupWashington, DCFebruary 8, 2007

E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon

Outline of TalkOutline of Talk

• Why the interest in CO2 capture and storage (CCS)?

• What is the current status of CO2 capture technology?

• What options are available for power plants?

• How effective are current capture systems?

• How does it affect other emissions?

• How much does it cost?

• What is the outlook for improved technology?

• What are the key needs to develop these technologies?


Why the Interest ?Why the Interest ?

• Coal and other fossil fuels will continue to be used extensively for many decades to come—no easy or fast alternatives on a large scale

• CO2 capture and storage (CCS) offers a way to use fossil fuels (especially coal) with little or no CO2 emissions—a potential bridging strategy

• Energy models indicate that including CCS in a portfolio of options significantly lowers the cost of achieving the deep long-term reductions needed to mitigate climate change


Can We Can We HaveHave Our Cake and Eat it Too?Our Cake and Eat it Too?

Can We Have Our Coal Can We Have Our Coal Without COWithout CO22??

CO2CO2CO2


Schematic of a CCS SystemSchematic of a CCS System

Energy Conversion

Process

Air orOxygen

Coal orNatural Gas

UsefulProducts

(Electricity, Fuels,Chemicals, Hydrogen)

CO2

CO2Capture &Compress

CO2Transport

CO2 Storage (Sequestration)

- Post-combustion- Pre-combustion- Oxyfuel combustion

- Pipeline- Tanker

- Depl. oil/gas fields- Deep saline reservoirs- Unmineable coal seams- Ocean- Mineralization


Status of Capture Technology Status of Capture Technology

• CO2 capture technologies are commercial and widely used in industrial processes, mainly in the petroleum and petrochemical industries (e.g., for ammonia production and processing of natural gas)

• CO2 capture also has been applied to several gas-fired and coal-fired boilers (to produce commodity CO2 for sale), but at scales that are small compared to a large modern power plant

• Integration of CO2 capture, transport and geologic sequestration has been demonstrated in several industrial applications, but not yet at an electric power plant


Current COCurrent CO22 Capture ProjectsCapture Projects

Source: IEA GHG, 2007

What options are available? What options are available?



Many Ways to Capture COMany Ways to Capture CO22

MEACausticOther

Chemical

SelexolRectisolOther

Physical

Absorption

AluminaZeoliteActivated C

Adsorber Beds

Pressure SwingTemperature SwingWashing

Regeneration Method

Adsorption Cryogenics

PolyphenyleneoxidePolydimethylsiloxane

Gas Separation

Polypropelene

Gas Absorption

Ceramic BasedSystems

Membranes Microbial/AlgalSystems

CO2 Separation and Capture

Choice of technology depends strongly on application


IPCC Special Report Examines IPCC Special Report Examines COCO22 Capture Technology in DetailCapture Technology in Detail

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Web Site (www.ipcc.ch) has:

- Summary for Policymakers

- Technical Summary

- Full Technical Report (also available from Cambridge University Press, 2005)


Leading Candidates for CCSLeading Candidates for CCS

• Fossil fuel power plantsIntegrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC)Pulverized coal combustion (PC)Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)

• Other large industrial sources of CO2 such as:Refineries, fuel processing, and petrochemical plantsHydrogen and ammonia production plantsPulp and paper plantsCement plants

– Focus of this talk is on power plants –


COCO22 Capture Options for Power PlantsCapture Options for Power Plants

Source: IPCC SRCCS, 2005

Reformer+CO2 Sep

Air Separation

CO2Separation

Coal Gas

Biomass

CO2Compression& Dehydration

Power & Heat

Power & Heat

Power & Heat

N2

N2 O2

O2

H2

N2O2

CO2

CO2

CO2

Air

Post combustion

Pre combustion

Oxyfuel

Air

Air

Coal Gas

Biomass

C l

Gasification

Gas, Oil

Coal Gas

Biomass

Air/O2Steam

Air/O2

Reformer+CO2 SepReformer+CO2 Sep

Air Separation

CO2Separation

CO2Separation

Coal Gas

Biomass

CO2Compression& Dehydration

Power & HeatPower & Heat

Power & HeatPower & Heat

Power & Heat

N2

N2 O2

O2

H2

N2O2

CO2

CO2

CO2

Air

Post combustion

Pre combustion

Oxyfuel

Air

Air

Coal Gas

Biomass

C l

GasificationGasification

Gas, Oil

Coal Gas

Biomass

Air/O2Steam

Air/O2

Coal


Pulverized CoalPulverized Coal--Fired Power Plant Fired Power Plant with Postwith Post--Combustion COCombustion CO22 CaptureCapture


Schematic of Amine Capture SystemSchematic of Amine Capture System

Flue Gas In

Sorbent makeup

Absorber

Captured CO2

Regenerated Sorbent

CO2 CO2

Regeneratorη

Heat

Flue Gas Out

Amine Sorbent

Typical CO2 Removal Efficiency ≈ 90%

Examples of Post-CombustionCO2 Capture at Coal-Fired Plants

Warrior Run Power Plant(Cumberland, Maryland, USA)

(Sou

rce:

(IEA

GH

G)

Shady Point Power Plant(Panama, Oklahoma, USA)

(Sou

rce:

ABB

Lum

mus

)



Schematic of PC Plant w/ CCS(Post-combustion amine system)


Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant with Postwith Post--Combustion COCombustion CO22 CaptureCapture

Examples of Post-CombustionCO2 Capture at Gas-Fired Plants

Petronas Urea Plant Flue Gas(Keda, Malaysia)

(Sou

rce:

Mits

ubis

hi H

eavy

Indu

stri

es)


Bellingham Cogeneration Plant(Bellingham, Massachusetts, USA)

(Sou

rce:

Sue

z Ene

rgy

Gen

erat

ion)

)


Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Plant w/ PreCycle Plant w/ Pre--Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture

GE-quench O2-blown


WaterWater--Gas Shift Reactor Schematic Gas Shift Reactor Schematic

High Temp

ReactorSyngas

(CO + H2)

SteamLow Temp

ReactorShifted Syngas

(CO2 + H2)

CO + H2O CO2 + H2


Selexol COSelexol CO22 Capture SchematicCapture Schematic

SUMP

Shifted Syngas

Rich Solvent

Recycle Gas

CO2

PumpCoolerLean

Solvent

H2 Fuel Gas(to Power Block)

Absorber

COMP1

COMP3

COMP2

FLASH1 FLASH2 FLASH3

TURB1 TURB2

CO2 CO2

CO2 to Storage

Examples of Pre-CombustionCO2 Capture Systems

Coal Gasification to Produce SNG(Beulah, North Dakota, USA)

(Sou

rce:

Dak

ota

Gas

ifica

tion

Petcoke Gasification to Produce H2(Coffeyville, Kansas, USA)

(Sou

rce:

Che

vron

-Tex

aco)



Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant

Polk Power Station, Tampa, Florida(250 MW, no CO2 capture)

Source: TECO, 2004


Schematic of IGCC w/ CO2 Capture


Pulverized CoalPulverized Coal--Fired Power Plant Fired Power Plant with Oxyfuel Combustion Capturewith Oxyfuel Combustion Capture

CoalDistillation

water

CO2

Air

H2O

O2

SteamTurbine

Generator

Electricity

Steam

PC Boiler CO2compression

Air Separation

Unit

CO2 to recycle

to atmosphere

Air PollutionControls

(ESP, FGD)

CO2CO2CoalDistillation

water

CO2

Air

H2O

O2

SteamTurbine

Generator

Electricity

Steam


Air Separation

Unit

CO2 to recycle

to atmosphere


(ESP, FGD)

CO2CO2 to storage

to atmosphere

CoalDistillation

water

CO2

Air

H2O

O2

SteamTurbine

Generator

Electricity

Steam


Air Separation

Unit

CO2 to recycle

to atmosphere


(ESP, FGD)


water

CO2

Air

H2O

O2

SteamTurbine

Generator

Electricity

Steam


Air Separation

Unit

CO2 to recycle

to atmosphere


(ESP, FGD)

CO2CO2 to storageCoalDistillation

water

CO2

Air

H2O

O2

SteamTurbine

Generator

Electricity

Steam


Air Separation

Unit

CO2 to recycle

to atmosphere


(ESP, FGD)


water

CO2

Air

H2O

O2

SteamTurbine

Generator

Electricity

Steam


Air Separation

Unit

CO2 to recycle

to atmosphere


(ESP, FGD)

CO2CO2 to storage

to atmosphere


The Vattenfall30 MWth Oxy-CoalPilot Boiler withCO2 capture atSchwarze Pumpe(Germany), starting mid-2008

Pilot here

The Vattenfall30 MWth Oxy-CoalPilot Boiler withCO2 capture atSchwarze Pumpe(Germany), starting mid-2008

Source: Vattenfall, 2006


Summary of Capture StatusSummary of Capture Status

• Several existing applications of CO2 capture at scales small compared to a modern power plant, but

• Several new large-scale projects proposed in different countries to demonstrate pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxyfuel fuel combustion over the coming decade using a variety of fuels (coal, gas, liquids) in power plant and related industrial applications

How effective are current How effective are current COCO22 capture systems?capture systems?



Illustrative COIllustrative CO22 Emission Rates for Emission Rates for New Power Plants New Power Plants (kg CO(kg CO22/MWh)/MWh)

Typical emission reduction is 85-86%

based on CO2avoided

(for ~90% capture)

0100200300400500600700800900

NGCCIGCC

Without CCS

SCPC

With CCS

SCPC NGCCIGCC

CO

2 Em

itted

(kg

/MW

h)


Is There an Optimal Capture Efficiency?Is There an Optimal Capture Efficiency?

• Our studies show that the most cost-effective level of CO2 capture (minimum cost per ton of CO2 avoided) occurs at removal efficiencies of about 85%–90% for both PC and IGCC plants using current technology

• Optimal level varies slightly with plant size and other factors that affect the number of absorber and compressor trains required for CO2 capture and compression

What is the impact on What is the impact on other plant emissions ? other plant emissions ?



Importance of the CCSImportance of the CCS“Energy Penalty”“Energy Penalty”

• CCS energy requirements are defined here as the increase in fuel energy input per unit of net electrical output (relative to a similar plant without capture)

• This directly affects the plant-level resource requirements and emissions per MWh of:

Fuel and reagent useAir pollutant emissions Solid and liquid wastesUpstream (life cycle) impacts

• Additional energy/MWh for representative plants: PC = 31%; IGCC = 16%; NGCC = 17%


Case Study Increases in Case Study Increases in Fuel and Reagent ConsumptionFuel and Reagent Consumption

Increase in Ammonia Consumption

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

PC IGCC NGCC

kg ammonia / MWh

Increases in Coal and Natural Gas Consumption

0

20

40

60

80

100

PC IGCC NGCC

kg fuel / MWh

Increase in Limestone Consumption

0

2

4

6

8

10

PC IGCC NGCC

kg limestone / MWh

Source: Rubin, et.al, 2005


Case Study Increases inCase Study Increases inSolid Wastes & Plant ByproductsSolid Wastes & Plant Byproducts

Increases in Ash or Slag Residues

0

2

4

6

8

10

PC IGCC NGCC

kg ash or slag / MWh

Increases in Desulfurization System Residues

02468

101214

PC IGCC NGCC

kg DeSOx residues / kWh



Case Study Increases inCase Study Increases inAir Emission RatesAir Emission Rates

Increase in NOx Emission Rate

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

PC IGCC NGCC

kg NOx / MWh

Increase in SO2 Emission Rate

-0.30-0.25-0.20-0.15-0.10-0.050.000.050.10

PC IGCC NGCC

kg SO2 / MWh

IGCC

Increase in NH3 Emission Rates

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

PC IGCC NGCC

kg NH3 / MWh



Case Study Impacts of CCS on Plant Case Study Impacts of CCS on Plant Resource Use and Emission RatesResource Use and Emission Rates

PC IGCC NGCC Capture Plant Parameter Rate Increase Rate Increase Rate Increase

Resource Consumption (All values in kg/MWh) Fuel 390 93 364 50 156 23

Limestone 27.5 6.8 - - - - Ammonia 0.80 0.19 - - - -

CCS Reagents 2.76 2.76 0.005 0.005 0.80 0.80 Solid Wastes/ Byproduct

Ash/slag 28.1 6.7 34.2 4.7 - - FGD residues 49.6 12.2 - - - -

Sulfur - - 7.7 1.2 - - Spent CCS sorbent 4.05 4.05 0.005 0.005 0.94 0.94

Atmospheric Emissions CO2 107 –704 97 –720 43 –342 SOx

0.001 – 0.29 0.011 –0.13 - - NOx 0.77 0.18 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.02 NH3 0.23 0.22 - - 0.002 0.002

(Capture plant rate and increase over reference plant rate, kg/M(Capture plant rate and increase over reference plant rate, kg/MWh)Wh)


Reducing Environmental ImpactsReducing Environmental Impacts

• New or improved power generation and CO2capture technologies promise to reduce CCS impacts by:

Improving overall plant efficiencyReducing CCS energy requirementsIncreasing CO2 capture efficiencyMaximizing pollutant co-capture & disposal

More on this a little later

How much does CCS cost? How much does CCS cost?



Many Factors Affect Reported Many Factors Affect Reported Costs of COCosts of CO22 Capture & StorageCapture & Storage

• Choice of CCS Technology• Process Design and Operating Variables• Economic and Financial Parameters• Choice of System Boundaries; e.g.,

One facility vs. multi-plant system (regional, national, global)GHG gases considered (CO2 only vs. all GHGs)Power plant only vs. partial or complete life cycle

• Time Frame of InterestCurrent technology vs. future (improved) systemsConsideration of technological “learning”


Different Measures of CostDifferent Measures of Cost

($/MWh)ccs – ($/MWh)reference

(CO2/MWh)ref – (CO2/MWh)ccs

• Cost of CO2 Avoided ($/ton CO2 avoided)

=

• Cost of CO2 Abated ($/ton CO2 reduced)($ NPV)ccs – ($ NPV)reference

(CO2)ref – (CO2)ccs=

• Cost of Electricity ($/MWh)(TCC)(FCF) + FOM

(CF)(8760)(MW) + VOM + (HR)(FC)=


Ten Ways to Reduce the Estimated Cost Ten Ways to Reduce the Estimated Cost of COof CO22 AbatementAbatement

10. Assume high power plant efficiency 9. Assume high-quality fuel properties8. Assume low fuel costs7. Assume EOR credits for CO2 storage6. Omit certain capital costs5. Report $/ton CO2 based on short tons4. Assume long plant lifetime3. Assume low interest rate (discount rate)2. Assume high plant utilization (capacity factor)1. Assume all of the above !

. . . and we have not yet considered the CCS technology!


Important RemindersImportant Reminders

• No one has yet built and operated a CO2capture and sequestration system at a large-scale (e.g., 500 MW) power plant

• Hence, all the costs we’re about to see are projections based on other applications; the “true” costs are not yet known

• In the last few years plant construction costs have escalated considerably (~30% from 2002 to 2006); current (2007) costs are thus higher than those reported in recent studies


Estimated Cost and Emissions of Estimated Cost and Emissions of Power Plants with and without CCSPower Plants with and without CCS**

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Cos

t of E

lect

ricity

($ /

MW

h)

CO2 Emission Rate (tonnes / MWh)

SCPC

IGCC

New Coal

Plants

* 2002 costs for bituminous coals; gas price ≈ $3–6/GJ; 90% capture; aquifer storage

Current Coal

Plants

PCNGCC

Natural Gas

Plants PlantswithCCS

SCPC

IGCC

NG

CC


Representative CCS Costs for New Representative CCS Costs for New Power Plants Using Current TechnologyPower Plants Using Current Technology

Incremental Cost of CCS Relative to Similar Plant

without CCS

Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Plant

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant

Increase in plant capital cost for capture & compression ~76% ~63% ~37%

Increase in levelized COE (capture & compression only) ~46% ~57% ~33%

Added cost of CCS with aquifer storage ($/MWh) 10–30 20–50 10–30

Added cost of CCS with EOR storage ($/MWh) 10–20 10–30 0–10

Source: IPCC, 2005

Variability is due mainly to differences in site-specific factors. Added cost to consumers will depend on extent of CCS plants

in the overall power generation mix over time


Cost of COCost of CO22 Avoided ($/tCOAvoided ($/tCO22) ) (Based on Current Technology)(Based on Current Technology)

Cost of CO2 Avoided Relative to Similar Plant

without CCS

Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant

SupercriticalPulverized Coal Plant

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant

Capture & compress only 35–75 30–50 15–35

+ Saline aquifer storage 40–90 30–70 15–55

+ EOR storage (credits) 20–70 10–45 (-5)–30

Levelized cost in 2002 US$ per tonne CO2 avoided

Source: IPCC, 2005

Different mixes of plants with and without CCS will have other avoidance costs; site-specific context is very important


Effects of Coal Quality on Cost of Effects of Coal Quality on Cost of Electricity for PC and IGCC w/CCS Electricity for PC and IGCC w/CCS

(2005 $/MWh; dashed lines based on constant $/GJ for all coals)(2005 $/MWh; dashed lines based on constant $/GJ for all coals)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Pittsburgh #8 Illinois #6 Wyoming PRB ND Lignite

Coal Type

Cos

t of E

lect

rici

ty ($

/MW

h)

IGCC-CCS PC-CCS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Coal Type

Cos

t of E

lect

rici

ty ($

/MW

h)

IGCC-CCS PC-CCS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Coal Type

Cos

t of E

lect

rici

ty ($

/MW

h)

IGCC-CCS PC-CCS

All plants ~500 MW(net); 75% CF; Aquifer storage;IGCC based on GE quench; PC=supercritical

Detailed Detailed results and results and breakdown breakdown of costs for of costs for

different different systems are systems are available in available in published published papers and papers and

reports reports

$/kW $/MWh $/MWhNGCC Plant1 916 100 38.5 100 59.1 100 GTCC (power block) 660 72 2.2 6 17.1 29 CO2 capture (amine system) 218 24 2.4 6 7.3 12 CO2 compression 38 4 0.2 0 1.0 2 Fuel cost 0 0 33.6 87 33.6 57

PC Plant2 1,962 100 29.3 100 73.4 100 PC Boiler/turbine-generator area 1,282 65 5.7 19 34.5 47 AP controls (SCR, ESP, FGD) 241 12 4.1 14 9.5 13 CO2 capture (amine system) 353 18 7.2 25 15.2 21 CO2 compression 86 4 0.4 1 2.3 3 Fuel cost 0 0 11.9 41 11.9 16

IGCC Plant3 1,831 100 21.3 100 62.6 100 Air separation unit 323 18 1.7 8 8.9 14 Gasifier area 494 27 3.7 17 14.8 24 Sulfur removal/recovery 110 6 0.6 3 3.1 5 CO2 capture (WGS/Selexol) 246 13 1.6 7 7.1 11 CO2 compression 42 2 0.3 1 1.2 2 GTCC (power block) 616 34 2.0 9 15.8 25 Fuel cost 0 0 11.6 54 11.6 19

Oxyfuel Plant4 2,417 100 24.4 100 78.9 100 Air separation unit 779 32 3.1 13 20.6 26 PC boiler/turbine generator area 1,280 53 5.6 23 34.4 44 AP controls (ESP, FGD) 132 5 2.7 11 5.7 7 CO2 distillation 160 7 1.4 6 5.0 6 CO2 compression 66 3 0.5 2 1.9 2 Fuel cost 0 0 11.2 46 11.2 14

Plant Type & TechnologyTotal COE6,7

Total Plant Costs ($2002)

% Total % TotalTotal O&M Cost5

% TotalCapital Cost

Notes: 1. NGCC plant = 432 MW (net); 517 MW (gross); two 7FA gas turbines; gas price = 4.0 $/GJ; 2. PC plant = 500 MW (net); 719 MW (gross); supercritical boiler; Pittsburgh #8 coal; price = 1.0 $/GJ; 3. IGCC plant = 490 MW (net); 594 MW (gross); 3 GE gasifiers + two 7FA gas turbines; Pgh #8 coal; price = 1.0 $/GJ; 4. Oxyfuel plant = 500 MW (net); 709 MW (gross); supercritical boiler; Pittsburgh #8 coal; price = 1.0 $/GJ; 5. Based on levelized capacity factor of 75% for all plants.; 6. COE is the levelized cost of electricity ; 7. Based on fixed charge factor of 0.148 for all plants; 8. The cost of reference plants with similar net output and no CO2 capture are: NGCC = $563/kW, $43.3/MWh; PC= $1229/kW, $44.9/MWh; IGCC = $1327/kW, $46.8/MWh.

What is the outlook for improved What is the outlook for improved capture technology? capture technology?



Two Approaches to Estimating Two Approaches to Estimating Future Technology CostsFuture Technology Costs

• Method 1: Engineering-Economic Analysis

A “bottom up” approach based on engineering process models, informed by judgments regarding potential improvements in key process parameters


Latest Projections by DOE/NETLLatest Projections by DOE/NETL

3128

19

12 10

5 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A B C D E F G

Latest Analyses for IGCC

7.13(c/kWh)

7.01(c/kWh)

6.14(c/kWh) 6.03

(c/kWh)

5.75(c/kWh)

5.75(c/kWh)

6.52(c/kWh)

SelexolSelexolAdvanced

SelexolAdvanced

Selexol

AdvancedSelexol w/co-Sequestration

AdvancedSelexol w/co-Sequestration

AdvancedSelexol w/ITM

& co-Sequestration

AdvancedSelexol w/ITM

& co-Sequestration

WGS Membrane& Co-Sequestration

WGS Membrane& Co-Sequestration

WGS Membrane w/ITM & Co-

Sequestration

WGS Membrane w/ITM & Co-

Sequestration

Chemical Looping& Co-

Sequestration

Chemical Looping& Co-

Sequestration

Perc

ent I

ncre

ase

in C

OE

01020304050607080

70 69

5550 52

45

22

A B C D E F G

`

8.77(c/kWh)

8.72(c/kWh)

8.00(c/kWh)

7.74(c/kWh)

7.48(c/kWh)

7.84(c/kWh)

Latest Analyses for PC Plants

Perc

ent I

ncre

ase

in C

OE

SC w/AmineScrubbingSC w/AmineScrubbing

SC w/AmmoniaCO2 ScrubbingSC w/AmmoniaCO2 Scrubbing

SC w/EconamineScrubbingSC w/EconamineScrubbing SC w/Multipollutant

Ammonia Scrubbing(Byproduct Credit)

SC w/MultipollutantAmmonia Scrubbing(Byproduct Credit)

USC w/AmineScrubbingUSC w/AmineScrubbing USC w/Advanced

Amine ScrubbingUSC w/AdvancedAmine Scrubbing

6.30 (c/kWh)

RTI RegenerableSorbentRTI RegenerableSorbent

50

3326

21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

A B C D

`

6.97(c/kWh)

6.62(c/kWh)

6.35(c/kWh)

Latest Analyses for Oxy-Combustion

Perc

ent I

ncre

ase

in C

OE Advanced

Subcritical Oxyfuel(Cryogenic ASU)

AdvancedSubcritical Oxyfuel(Cryogenic ASU)

AdvancedSupercritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU)

AdvancedSupercritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU)Advanced

Supercritical Oxyfuel(ITM O2)

Advanced Supercritical

Oxyfuel(ITM O2)

7.86(c/kWh)

Current StateSupercritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU)

Current StateSupercritical Oxyfuel

(Cryogenic ASU)

Source: DOE Office of Fossil Energy, 2006


Two Approaches to Estimating Two Approaches to Estimating Future Technology CostsFuture Technology Costs

• Method 2: Use of Historical Experience Curves

A “top down” approach based on applications of mathematical “learning curves” or “experience curves” that reflect historical trends for analogous technologies or systems


Estimated Learning Rate for CCS PlantsEstimated Learning Rate for CCS Plants(Based on 100 GW of cumulative CCS capacity for each system)(Based on 100 GW of cumulative CCS capacity for each system)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pow

er P

lant

Lea

rnin

g R

ate

(%)

NGCC PC IGCC Oxyfuel

COST OF ELECTRICITY

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perc

ent R

educ

tion

in C

OE

NGCC PC IGCC Oxyfuel

% REDUCTION

Source: IEA GHG, 2006

What are the key needs to What are the key needs to develop improved technology? develop improved technology?



Key NeedsKey Needs

• Deployment, deployment, deployment !

• Sustained (and increased) R&D support

• Resolution of current legal and institutional uncertainties surrounding geological sequestration

Regulatory requirements (esp.for deep injection)Liabilities (near-term and long-term)Financing and insurance requirementsEmissions allowance & trading rules for CCS projects


Concluding CommentsConcluding Comments

• Absent a climate policy with sufficiently stringent limits on CO2 emissions, there is little or no incentive to develop and deploy CO2 capture and storage technologies

• Market-based policies aimed broadly at reducing CO2emissions (e.g., cap-and-trade) are not likely to stimulate CCS until carbon price exceeds roughly $100/tC ($27/tCO2)

• Policies aimed specifically at fossil fueled plants (e.g., performance and/or portfolio standards) can accelerate CCS deployment and innovation, especially in conjunction with incentives for early actors

• Analysis of options is underway by a number of parties; the ACT Work Group can contribute significantly to this effort

Thank YouThank You

[email protected]@cmu.edu


An Overview of CO Capture Technology for Fossil Fuel Power ... › sites › ... · CO2 Capture...

Documents

Transcript of An Overview of CO Capture Technology for Fossil Fuel Power ... › sites › ... · CO2 Capture...