E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellonegon.cheme.cmu.edu/esi/docs/pdf/E.Rubin_CAPD-ESI... · Sulfur Recovery...
Transcript of E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellonegon.cheme.cmu.edu/esi/docs/pdf/E.Rubin_CAPD-ESI... · Sulfur Recovery...
The Outlook for Advanced The Outlook for Advanced Carbon Capture TechnologyCarbon Capture Technology
Edward S. RubinDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy
Department of Mechanical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Presentation to theCAPD Energy Systems Initiative Seminar
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
September 10, 2010
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Outline of TalkOutline of Talk
• Why the interest in carbon capture?• Status of current technology• Opportunities for advanced technology• Challenges for advanced carbon capture
Why the interest in Why the interest in carbon capture ?carbon capture ?
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie MellonSource: IPCC, 2001
Drivers of Global Drivers of Global Climate ChangeClimate Change
• Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising sharply due to GHG emissions from human activities
• The resulting heat- trapping effect leads to climate change on a global scale
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
The Climate Change Policy DriverThe Climate Change Policy Driver
• 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change called for “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Required change in global CO2, equiv emissions from 2000 to 2050
–85% to –50%Source: IPCC, 2007
Stabilization RequiresStabilization Requires Large Emission Reductions, SoonLarge Emission Reductions, Soon
Stabilizing climate change will require urgent action
Recent assessments indicate potentially serious impacts for more that a 2ºC rise in average global temperature
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
COCO22 from Energy Use is the from Energy Use is the Dominant Greenhouse GasDominant Greenhouse Gas
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissionsweighted by 100-yr Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Source: USEPA, 2007
7.4% 6.5%
83.9%
2.2%
CO2 CH4 N2O Others
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Sources of COSources of CO22 Emissions Emissions
Electricity + Vehicles emit ≈
75% of all CO2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation
(a) End-Use Energy Sectors
Perc
ent o
f U.S
. CO
2 Em
issi
ons
Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Electricity
20.1%17.1%
29.8%
33.0%
Source: Based on USDOE, 2008
U.S. CO2 Emissions
05
1015202530354045
(b) Electric Power Sector
Perc
ent o
f U.S
. CO
2 Em
issi
ons 39.8%
Fossil fuels = 40% of CO2
and
70% of U.S. electricity
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Motivation for Carbon Capture Motivation for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)and Storage (CCS)
• Fossil fuels will continue to be used for many decades —alternatives not able to substitute quickly
• CCS is the ONLY way to get large CO2 reductions from fossil fuel use—a potential bridging strategy
• CCS can also help decarbonize the transportation sector via low-carbon electricity and hydrogen from fossil fuels
• Energy-economic models show that without CCS, the cost of mitigating climate change will be much higher
Status of CCS technology Status of CCS technology
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Schematic of a CCS SystemSchematic of a CCS System
Power Plantor Industrial
Process
Air orOxygen
CarbonaceousFuels
UsefulProducts
(Electricity, Fuels,Chemicals, Hydrogen)
CO2
CO2Capture &Compress
CO2Transport
CO2 Storage (Sequestration)
- Post-combustion- Pre-combustion- Oxyfuel combustion
- Pipeline- Tanker
- Depleted oil/gas fields- Deep saline formations- Unmineable coal seams- Ocean- Mineralization- Reuse
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Leading Candidates for CCSLeading Candidates for CCS
• Fossil fuel power plants
Pulverized coal combustion (PC)
Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
• Other large industrial sources of CO2 such as:
Refineries, fuel processing, and petrochemical plants
Hydrogen and ammonia production plants
Pulp and paper plants
Cement plants
–
Main focus is on power plants, the dominant source of CO2 –
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
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
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
COCO22 Capture Options for Power Plants: Capture Options for Power Plants: PostPost--Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture
Coal
Air
Steam
Steam Turbine
Generator
Electricity
Air PollutionControl Systems (NOx, PM, SO2)
CO2 Capture PC Boiler MostlyN2 S
tack
Flue gasto atmosphere
Amine/CO2AmineCO2 tostorageAmine/CO2
SeparationCO2
Compression
CO2
Coal
Air
Steam
Steam Turbine
Generator
Electricity
Air PollutionControl Systems (NOx, PM, SO2)
CO2 Capture PC Boiler MostlyN2 S
tack
Flue gasto atmosphere
Amine/CO2AmineCO2 tostorageAmine/CO2
SeparationCO2
Compression
CO2
Also for NGCC plants
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
COCO22 Capture Options for Power Plants: Capture Options for Power Plants: OxyOxy--Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture
Coal
Steam
Steam Turbine
Generator
Electricity
Air PollutionControl Systems ( NOx, PM, SO2)
Distillation System
PC Boiler
CO2 tostorageCO2
Compression
CO2
Air
O2
Air Separation
Unit
CO2 to recycle
Sta
ck
To atmosphere
H2OCO2
Water
Coal
Steam
Steam Turbine
Generator
Electricity
Air PollutionControl Systems ( NOx, PM, SO2)
Distillation System
PC Boiler
CO2 tostorageCO2
Compression
CO2CO2 tostorageCO2
Compression
CO2
AirAir
O2
Air Separation
Unit
CO2 to recycleO2
Air Separation
Unit
CO2 to recycle
Sta
ck
To atmosphere
Sta
ck
To atmosphere
H2OCO2
H2OCO2
Water
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
COCO22 Capture Options for Power Plants: Capture Options for Power Plants: PrePre--Combustion CaptureCombustion Capture
Electricity
ShiftReactor
SulfurRemoval
CombinedCycle Power
Plant
O2
Air
CO2
H2Quench System
H2
H2O Air
SulfurRecovery
GasifierCoal
H2O
Air Separation
Unit
CO2 Capture
Selexol/CO2SelexolCO2 tostorageSelexol/CO2
SeparationCO2
CompressionCO2
Stac
k
Flue gasto atmosphereElectricityElectricity
ShiftReactor
SulfurRemoval
CombinedCycle Power
Plant
O2
Air
CO2
H2Quench System
H2
H2O Air
SulfurRecovery
GasifierCoal
H2O
Air Separation
Unit
CO2 Capture
Selexol/CO2SelexolCO2 tostorageSelexol/CO2
SeparationCO2
CompressionCO2
ShiftReactor
SulfurRemoval
CombinedCycle Power
Plant
O2
Air
CO2
H2Quench System
H2
H2O Air
SulfurRecovery
GasifierCoal
H2O
Air Separation
Unit
CO2 Capture
Selexol/CO2SelexolCO2 tostorageSelexol/CO2
SeparationCO2
CompressionCO2
Stac
k
Flue gasto atmosphere
Stac
kSt
ack
Flue gasto atmosphere
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Status of CCS Technology Status of CCS Technology
• Pre- and post-combustion CO2 capture technologies are commercial and widely used in industrial processes; also at several gas-fired and coal-fired power plants, at small scale; CO2 capture efficiencies are typically 85-90%. Oxyfuel capture is still under development.
• CO2 transport via pipelines is a mature technology.
• Geological storage of CO2 is commercial on a limited basis, mainly for EOR; several projects in deep saline formations are operating at scales of ~1 Mt CO2 /yr.
• Large-scale integration of CO2 capture, transport and geological sequestration has been demonstrated at several industrial sites (outside the U.S.) — but not yet at an electric power plant at full-scale.
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)
Examples of Pre-Combustion CO2 Capture Systems
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Source: Elcano, 2007
Puertollano IGCC Plant (Spain)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon Source: Nuon, 2009
Buggenhum IGCC Plant
(The Netherlands)
Pre-Combustion Capture at IGCC Plants
Pilot plants under construction at two IGCC plants (startup expected in late 2010)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Post-Combustion Technology for Industrial CO2 Capture
BP Natural Gas Processing Plant(In Salah, Algeria)
Source: IEA GHG, 2008
Examples of Post-Combustion CO2 Capture at U.S. Power Plants
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Warrior Run Power Plant(Cumberland, Maryland, USA)
(Sou
rce:
(IEA
GH
G)
Bellingham Cogeneration Plant(Bellingham, Massachusetts, USA)
(Sou
rce:
Flo
ur D
anie
l)
Gas-fired Coal-fired
Source: Vattenfall, 2008
Oxy-Combustion CO2 Capture from a Coal-Fired Boiler
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
30 MWt Pilot Plant (~10 MWe) at Vattenfall Schwarze Pumpe Station
(Germany)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Source: NRDCSource: USDOE/Battelle
~ 3600 miles of pipeline~50 MtCO2 /yr transported
CO2 Pipelines in the United States
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
LargeLarge--Scale CCS ProjectsScale CCS Projects Now OperatingNow Operating
Project Operator Geological Reservoir
Injection Start Date
Injection Rate
(MtCO2 /yr )Sleipner(Norway)
StatoilHydro SalineFormation 1996 1.0
Weyburn(Canada)
EnCana Oil Field(EOR) 2000 1.2*
In Salah(Algeria)
Sonatrach, BP, StatoilHydro
Depleted Gas Field 2004 1.2
Snohvit(Norway)
StatoilHydro SalineFormation 2008 0.7
* Average rate over 15 year contract. Recent expansion to ~3 Mt/yr for Weyburn + Midale field..
Sleipner Project (Norway)
Source: Statoil
Geological Storage of Captured CO2 in a Deep Saline Formation
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Snohvit LNG Project (Norway)
Geological Storage of Captured CO2 in a Deep Saline Formation
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Source: www.Snohvit, 2009
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Source: BP
Geological Storage of Captured CO2 in a Depleted Gas Formation
G a s
W a t e r
4 G a s P r o d u c t i o n
W e l l s
3 C O 2I n j e c t i o n
W e l l s
P r o c e s s i n g F a c i l i t i e s
R e m o v a l
T h e C O 2 S t o r a g e S c h e m e a t K r e c h b a
G a s
W a t e r
4 G a s P r o d u c t i o n
W e l l s
3 C O 2I n j e c t i o n
W e l l s
P r o c e s s i n g F a c i l i t i e s
R e m o v a l
T h e C O 2 S t o r a g e S c h e m e a t K r e c h b a
G a s
W a t e r
4 G a s P r o d u c t i o n
W e l l s
3 C O 2I n j e c t i o n
W e l l s
P r o c e s s i n g F a c i l i t i e s
R e m o v a l
G a s
W a t e r
4 G a s P r o d u c t i o n
W e l l s
3 C O 2I n j e c t i o n
W e l l s
P r o c e s s i n g F a c i l i t i e s
R e m o v a l
G a s
W a t e r
4 G a s P r o d u c t i o n
W e l l s
3 C O 2I n j e c t i o n
W e l l s
P r o c e s s i n g F a c i l i t i e s
R e m o v a l
T h e C O 2 S t o r a g e S c h e m e a t K r e c h b a
Krechba
Teg
Reg
Garet elBefinat Hassi MoumeneIn Salah
Gour Mahmoud
Proposed ISG PipelineREB
Hassi BirRekaiz
Hassi Messaoud
Hassi R’Mel
Tiguentourine (BP)
02151093
Algiers
Tangiers
Lisbon
Cordoba
Cartagena
M O R O C C O
A L G E R I A
S P A I N
L I B Y A
MAURITANIA M A L I
SkikdaTunis
N I G E R
In Salah Project
Krechba
Teg
Reg
Garet elBefinat Hassi MoumeneIn Salah
Gour Mahmoud
Proposed ISG PipelineREB
Hassi BirRekaiz
Hassi Messaoud
Hassi R’Mel
Tiguentourine (BP)
02151093
Algiers
Tangiers
Lisbon
Cordoba
Cartagena
M O R O C C O
A L G E R I A
S P A I N
L I B Y A
MAURITANIA M A L I
SkikdaTunis
N I G E R
In Salah Project
In Salah /Krechba (Algeria)
Geological Formations in North America
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Deep Saline FormationsOil & Gas Fields
Source: NETL, 2009
Dakota Coal Gasification Plant, NDRegina
Bismarck
North Dakota
Saskatchewan CanadaUSA
WeyburnWeyburn
COCO22
Regina
Bismarck
North Dakota
Saskatchewan CanadaUSA
WeyburnWeyburn
COCO22Sources: IEAGHG; NRDC; USDOE
Weyburn Field, Canada
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Geological Storage of Captured CO2 with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
CCS at a Coal-Fired Power Plant with Storage in a Deep Saline Formation
(Pilot plant scale)
Source: AEP, 2009
20 MW capture unit at AEP’s Mountaineer
Power Plant (West Virginia)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Still MissingStill Missing• Full-scale power plant demo #1• Full-scale power plant demo #2• Full-scale power plant demo #3• Full-scale power plant demo #4• Full-scale power plant demo #5• Full-scale power plant demo #6• Full-scale power plant demo #7• Full-scale power plant demo #8• Full-scale power plant demo #9• Full-scale power plant demo #10
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon32
FullFull--Scale Demonstration Projects Scale Demonstration Projects Are Urgently Needed to . . . Are Urgently Needed to . . .
• Establish the reliability, safety and true cost of CCS in full-scale power plant applications
• Help resolve legal and regulatory issues regarding geological sequestration
• Help address issues of public acceptance• Begin reducing future costs via learning-by-doing
Financing large-scale projects has been a major hurdle
-
Cost per project ≈
$1 billion
(install/operate CCS, 400 MW, 5 yrs)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon33
Many projects are planned or underway at various scales
•
Map shows operating
plus proposed or planned
projects in the U.S. and Canada. They encompass power plants, industrial sources and research projects spanning a large range of scale.
Source: DOE, 2009
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon34
Substantial CCS Activity Globally
Source: DOE, 2009
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Roadmaps for CCS DeploymentRoadmaps for CCS Deployment
Commercialization expected by 2020
EPRI Roadmap
DOE Roadmap
20102008 20162012 2020 2024
Capture Technology Laboratory-Bench-Pilot Scale R&D
Capture Technology Full-Scale Demos
CCS Commercialization
Capture Technology Large-Scale Field Testing
Carbon Sequestration Phase II -- Validation
Carbon Sequestration Phase III -- Deployment
20102008 20162012 2020 2024
Capture Technology Laboratory-Bench-Pilot Scale R&D
Capture Technology Full-Scale Demos
CCS Commercialization
Capture Technology Large-Scale Field Testing
Carbon Sequestration Phase II -- Validation
Carbon Sequestration Phase III -- Deployment
Capture Technology Laboratory-Bench-Pilot Scale R&D
Capture Technology Full-Scale Demos
CCS Commercialization
Capture Technology Large-Scale Field Testing
Carbon Sequestration Phase II -- Validation
Carbon Sequestration Phase III -- Deployment
The cost of CCSThe cost of CCS
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
Many Factors Affect CCS CostsMany Factors Affect CCS Costs• Choice of Power Plant and 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 Interest
First-of-a-kind plant vs. nth
plant
Current technology vs. future systems
Consideration of technological “learning”
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon38
Common Measures of CostCommon Measures of Cost
($/MWh)ccs – ($/MWh)reference
(CO2 /MWh)ref – (CO2 /MWh)ccs
• Cost of CO2 Avoided ($/ton CO2 avoided)
=
• Cost of Electricity (COE) ($/MWh)(TCC)(FCF) + FOM
(CF)(8760)(MW) + VOM + (HR)(FC)=
Also: -
Cost of CO2 Captured ($/ton CO2 captured)-
Cost of CO2 Reduced/Abated ($/ton CO2 abated)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon39
Ten Ways to Reduce Estimated Cost Ten Ways to Reduce Estimated Cost (inspired by D. Letterman)(inspired by D. Letterman)
10. Assume high power plant efficiency 9. Assume high-quality fuel properties8. Assume low fuel cost7. Assume EOR credits for CO2 storage6. Omit certain capital costs5. Report $/ton CO2 based on short tons4. Assume long plant lifetime3. Assume low interest rate (discount rate)2. Assume high plant utilization (capacity factor)1. Assume all of the above !
. . . and we have not yet considered the CCS technology!
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon40
Estimated Cost of New Power Plants Estimated Cost of New Power Plants with and without CCSwith and without CCS
SCPC
IGCC
New Coal
Plants
20
40
60
80
100
120
Cos
t of E
lect
ricity
($ /
MW
h)
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
CO2 Emission Rate (tonnes / MWh)
* 2007 costs for bituminous coals; gas price ≈
$4–7/GJ; 90% capture; aquifer storage
Current Coal
Plants
PCNGCC
Natural Gas
Plants PlantswithCCS
SCPC
IGCC
NG
CC
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon41
Incremental Cost of CCS for New Incremental Cost of CCS for New Power Plants Using Current TechnologyPower Plants Using Current Technology
Incremental Cost of CCS relative relative to same plant typeto same plant type without CCS
based on bituminous coals
Supercritical Pulverized Coal Plant
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant
Increases in capital cost ($/kW) and generation cost ($/kWh) ~ 60–80% ~ 30–50%
The added cost to consumers due to CCS will be much smaller, reflecting the number and type of CCS plants in the generation mix at any given time.
Increase in levelized cost for 90% capture
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon42
Typical Cost of COTypical Cost of CO22 AvoidedAvoided (Relative to a new (Relative to a new SCPC reference plantSCPC reference plant; bituminous coals); bituminous coals)
Power Plant System (relative to a SCPC relative to a SCPC plant without CCS)plant without CCS)
New Supercritical Pulverized Coal
Plant
New Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle Plant
Deep aquifer storage ~ $70 /tCO2±$15/t
~ $50 /tCO2±$10/t
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) storage Cost reduced by ~ $20–30 /tCO2
• Costs to retrofit existing plants could be much higher • Capture accounts for most (~80%) of the total cost
Levelized cost in US$ per tonne COLevelized cost in US$ per tonne CO22 avoidedavoided
Source: Based on IPCC, 2005; Rubin et al, 2007; DOE, 2007
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon43
High capture energy requirements High capture energy requirements is a major factor in high CCS costs is a major factor in high CCS costs
Power Plant Type Added fuel input (%) per net kWh output
Existing subcritical PC ~40%
New supercritical PC 25-30%
New coal gasification (IGCC) 15-20%
New natural gas (NGCC) ~15%
Changes in plant efficiency due to CCS energy requirements also affect plant-level pollutant emission rates (per MWh). A site-specific context is needed to evaluate the net impacts.
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon44
Breakdown of Breakdown of ““Energy PenaltyEnergy Penalty”” for COfor CO22 Capture (SCPC and IGCC)Capture (SCPC and IGCC)
Component Approx. % of Total Reqm’t
Thermal Energy ~60%
CO2 Compression ~30%
Pumps, Fans, etc. ~10%
What is the potential for lowerWhat is the potential for lower-- cost capture technology? cost capture technology?
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon
46 OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY
Better Capture Technologies Are Emerging
Time to Commercialization
Advanced physical solventsAdvanced chemical solventsAmmoniaCO2 com- pression
Amine solventsPhysical solventsCryogenic oxygen
Chemical loopingOTM boilerBiological processesCAR process
Ionic liquidsMetal organic frameworksEnzymatic membranes
Present
Cos
t Red
uctio
n B
enef
it
5+ years 10+ years 15+ years 20+ years
PBI membranes Solid sorbentsMembrane systemsITMsBiomass co- firing
Post-combustion (existing, new PC)
Pre-combustion (IGCC)
Oxycombustion (new PC)
CO2 compression (all)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon Source: DOE/ NETL, 2009
Technical Challenges and
Research Pathways for Advanced
Capture Concepts
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon48
Two Approaches to Estimating Two Approaches to Estimating Potential Cost SavingsPotential Cost Savings
• Method 1: Engineering-Economic Analysis
A “bottom up” approach based on engineering process models (informed by judgments regarding potential improvement in key parameters)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon49
Potential Cost Reductions Based on Potential Cost Reductions Based on EngineeringEngineering--Economic AnalysisEconomic Analysis
Source: DOE/NETL, 2006
19% -28% reductions in COE w/ CCS
3128
19
12 10
5 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
A B C D E F G
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
IGCCIGCC70 69
5550 52
45
22
01020304050607080
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)
y
Perc
ent I
ncre
ase
in C
OE
SC w/AmineScrubbingSC w/AmineScrubbing
SC w/EconamineScrubbingSC w/EconamineScrubbing
SC w/AmmoniaCO2 ScrubbingSC w/AmmoniaCO2 Scrubbing
SC w/MultipollutantAmmonia 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
PCPC
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)
y y
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) OxyfuelOxyfuel
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon50
Source: DOE/ NETL, 2010
Potential Cost Reductions Based on Potential Cost Reductions Based on EngineeringEngineering--Economic AnalysisEconomic Analysis
-5
15
35
55
75
95
115
135
155
175
IGCC Today
IGCC w/ CCS Today
IGCC w/ CCS with R&D
Supercritical PC Today
Supercritical PC w/ CCS …
Adv Combustion w/ CCS …
$/M
Wh
($20
09)
CCSwith
NoR&D
NoCCS
CCSwith R&D
CCSwith
NoR&D
NoCCS
CCSwith R&D
Pulverized Coal TechnologiesIGCC Technologies
27% COE reduction31% COE reduction
7% below no CCS
29% above no CCS
Source: DOE/NETL, 2008
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon51
Analyzing Options for Power PlantsAnalyzing Options for Power Plants (IECM: The (IECM: The IIntegrated ntegrated EEnvironmental nvironmental CControl ontrol MModel)odel)
• A desktop/laptop computer model developed for DOE/NETL; free and publicly available at: www.iecm-online.com
• Provides systematic estimates of performance, emissions, costs and uncertainties for preliminary design of:
PC, IGCC and NGCC plants
All flue/fuel gas treatment systems
CO2 capture and storage options (pre- and post-combustion, oxy- combustion; transport, storage)
Major updates in late 2009 & 2010
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon52
Current IECM DevelopmentsCurrent IECM Developments
• Performance and Cost Models of Advanced CO2Capture Systems:
Advanced liquid solvents (Peter Versteeg)
Solid sorbent systems (Justin Glier)
Membrane capture systems (Haibo Zhai)
Advanced oxy-combustion (Kyle Borgert)
Chemical looping combustion (Hari Mantripragada)
• International cost adjustment module (Hana Gerbelova)
• Other model enhancements (Karen Kietzke)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon53
Two Approaches to Estimating Two Approaches to Estimating Future Technology CostsFuture Technology Costs
• Method 2: Use of Historical Experience Curves
A “top down” approach based on applications of mathematical “learning curves” or “experience curves” that reflect historical trends for analogous technologies or systems
20000
10000
5000
1000
10010 100 1000 10000 100000
1982
1987
1963
1980
Windmills (USA)
RD&D Commercialization
USAJapan
Cumulative MW installed
19811983
500
Photovoltaics
Gas turbines (USA)
US(
1990
)$/k
W 19951992
200
2000
Source: IIASA, 1996
20000
10000
5000
1000
10010 100 1000 10000 100000
1982
1987
1963
1980
Windmills (USA)
RD&D Commercialization
USAJapan
Cumulative MW installed
19811983
500
Photovoltaics
Gas turbines (USA)
US(
1990
)$/k
W 19951992
200
2000
20000
10000
5000
1000
10010 100 1000 10000 100000
1982
1987
1963
1980
Windmills (USA)
RD&D Commercialization
USAJapan
Cumulative MW installed
19811983
500
Photovoltaics
Gas turbines (USA)
US(
1990
)$/k
W 19951992
200
2000
Source: IIASA, 1996
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon54
Empirical Empirical ““Learning CurvesLearning Curves””
• Cost trends modeled as a log-linear relationship between unit cost and cumulative production or capacity: y = ax –b
• Case studies used to estimate learning rates for power plant components:
Flue gas desulfurization systems (FGD)
Selective catalytic reduction systems (SCR)
Gas turbine combined cycle system (GTCC)
Pulverized coal-fired boilers (PC)
Liquefied natural gas plants (LNG)
Oxygen production plants (ASU)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon55
Potential Cost Reductions Based on Potential Cost Reductions Based on Learning Curve AnalysisLearning Curve Analysis**
(after 100 GW of cumulative CCS capacity worldwide)(after 100 GW of cumulative CCS capacity worldwide)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Perc
ent R
educ
tion
in C
OE
NGCC PC IGCC Oxyfuel
% REDUCTION•
Upper bound of projected cost reduction are similar to estimates from DOE’s “bottom-up” analyses
* Plant-level learning curves developed from component- level analyses for each system
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon56
Results for two policy scenarios, 2001Results for two policy scenarios, 2001––20502050
Power Plant System
Reduction in Cost of Electricity
($/MWh)
Reduction in Mitigation Cost ($/tCO2 avoided)
NGCC –
CC 12% –
40% 13% –
60%
IGCC –
CC 22% –
52% 19% –
58%
PC –
CC 14% –
44% 19% –
62%Source: van den Broek,et
al., 2009
Projected Cost Reductions, 2001Projected Cost Reductions, 2001––20502050(Based on Learning Curves + Global Energy Model)(Based on Learning Curves + Global Energy Model)
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon57
Most New Capture Concepts Are Most New Capture Concepts Are Far from Commercial Availability Far from Commercial Availability
Source: NASA, 2009
Technology Readiness Levels
Source: EPRI, 2009
Post-Combustion Capture
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon58
Most new concepts take decades to Most new concepts take decades to commercializecommercialize……many never make itmany never make it
1965 1970 19801975 19901985 1995 20052000
1999: 10 MW pilot planned by DOE
1975: DOE conducts test of fluidized bed system
1961:Process described by Bureau of Mines
1973: Used in commercial refinery in Japan
1970: Results of testing published.
1971: Test conducted in Netherlands
1967: Pilot-Scale Testing begins.
1979: Pilot-scale testing conducted in Florida
1984: Continued pilot testing with 500 lb/hr feed
1992: DOE contracts design and modeling for 500MW plant
1996: DOE continues lifecycle testing
2002: Paper published at NETL symposium
2006: Most recent paper published
1983: Rockwell contracted to improve system
Copper Oxide Process
1965 1970 19801975 19901985 1995 20052000
1999: Process used at plant in Poland
1985: Pilots initiated in U.S. and Germany
1977: Ebara begins pilot-scale testing
1998: Process used in plant in Chengdu, China
1970: Ebara Corporation begins lab scale testing.
2005: Process used in plant in Hangzhou, China
2008: Paper on process presented at WEC forum in Romania
2002: Process used in plant in Beijing, China
Electron Beam Process
1965 1970 19801975 19901985 1995 20052000
1991: NoxsoCorporation receives DOE contract
1982: Pilot-scale tests carried out in Kentucky
1985: DOE conducts lifecycle testing.
1979: Development of process begins
1998: NoxsoCorporation liquidated. Project terminated.
1996: Construction of full scale test begins
2000: Noxsoprocess cited in ACS paper, Last NOXSO patent awarded
1997: NoxsoCorporation declares bankruptcy
1993: Pilot-scale testing complete
NOXSO Process
Development timelines for three novel processes for
combined SO2 –NOx
capture
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon59
The Process of Technological ChangeThe Process of Technological Change
InventionAdoption
(limited use ofearly designs)
Diffusion(improvement & widespread use)
Innovation (new or better
product)
LearningBy Doing
LearningBy Using
R&D
Challenge:Challenge: Accelerate the Pace of InnovationAccelerate the Pace of Innovation
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon60
Accelerating Innovation RequiresAccelerating Innovation Requires
• Closer coupling and interaction between R&D performers and technology developers /users
• Better methods to identify promising options, evaluate new processes /concepts, and reduce number and size of pilot and demonstration projects (e.g., via improved simulation methods)
• New models for organizing the research enterprise
• Substantial and sustained support for R&D
• Government policies that create and foster markets for CCS technologies
E.S. Rubin, Carnegie Mellon61
ConclusionsConclusions
• While the challenges are significant, so too are the opportunities to reduce the cost of carbon capture via:
New or improved CO2 capture technologies
Improved plant efficiency and utilization
• In turn, this can greatly reduce the costs (and thus increase the likelihood) of avoiding the most serious impacts of climate change
• So— an exciting time to be working on this problem!