Technologies For Carbon Capture And Storage Tee 11.05.09

Pre-convention of the Technical Chamber of Greece on the ”Optimization of lignite exploration in the electricity production”

Technologies for Carbon Capture and Storage

Prof. Em. Kakaras and Dr. Ν. Koukouzas Kozani, 11 May 2009 Centre for Research and Technology Hellas/Institute for Solid Fuels Technology and Applications CERTH/ISFTA

Table of Contents 1. Carbon dioxide capture options 2. CCS implementation and projects 3. CCS in the European energy market 4. Greek CO2 Capture PP 5. CCS in the Greek energy market 6. Carbon dioxide storage options

Carbon dioxide capture options (1)

Carbon dioxide capture options (2) PostCoal NGCC

Combustion Capture

Pre-

O2 Combustion production

Capture

Oxyfuel

O2 production

IGCC CO2 Capture

IRCC

CO2 Capture

Flue gas Cleaning Compression Transport

Storage

Oxyfuel

Technology availability / Industrial Maturity Environmental Commitments Strategic Planning

Storage location selection Security of storage Monitoring / Verification

Carbon dioxide capture options (3) CO2 scrubbing from flue gas using amine solution

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1, Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture

Carbon dioxide capture options (4) Oxyfuel combustion

Vattenfall

Carbon dioxide capture options (5) Production of a carbon free fuel Air Air Air

Steam

O22

Gasifier Coal

Power island

N2

ASU

Gas cooling/ dedusting

Raw Raw gas

Acid gas removal Sour Sour gas gas

Sulphur recovery

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1, Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture

Timeline for CO2 capture technologies Timeline for CO2 capture technologies

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1, Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture

Scenarios of CCS implementation

ΙΕΑ, CO2 Capture and Storage : A Key Carbon Abatement Option (2008)

CCS pilot, demo and commercial projects

Research projects on the ZEPP ‰

CCS technologies in thermal PPs will contribute significantly in the mitigation of the GHG effect since thermal PPs account for ca. 1/3 of the total CO2 atmospheric emissions. This fact explains the intense research activities aiming at the achievement of viable solutions in the medium term.

‰

The following are a number of important EC CCS projects with Greek partnership (CERTH – NTUA - PPC): ¾ ENCAP (Pre-combustion and oxyfuel technologies for solid fuels) ¾ CASTOR (Post-combustion CO2 capture) ¾ CACHET (Post-combustion CO2 capture for gaseous fuels) ¾ ISSC (Production of a carbon-free gaseous fuel from solid fuels using CaO and pre-combustion CO2 capture) ¾ C2H (Production of a H2-rich from solid fuels using CaO)

CCS in the European energy market (1) Coal Power output Efficiency CO2 capture EPC Capital cost

MW % % Euro/kW

Lignite Power output Efficiency CO2 capture EPC Capital cost

MW % % Euro/kW

Natural Gas Power output Efficiency CO2 capture EPC Capital cost

MW % % Euro/kW

Reference Unit 556 46 918 Reference Unit 920 43 1065 Reference Unit 420 58 410

Financial and other Boundary Conditions Economic life time Depreatiation Fuel price Fuel price escalation Operating hours per year Standard Emission factor Common Inputs O&M cost escalation Debt /Equitiy ratio Loan interest rate Interest during construction Return on Equity Tax rate WACC Discount rate

years years EUR/GJ (LHV) % per year hours per year t/MWh th

% % % % % %

Unit with preUnit with postΟxyfuel combustion capture Combustion capture 737 460 470 36 36 36 92 85 91 1577 1446 1447 Unit with preUnit with postΟxyfuel combustion capture Combustion capture 717 731 760 41 39 41 85 85 90 1556 1683 1671 Unit with preUnit with postΟxyfuel combustion capture Combustion capture 755 662 325 41 47 48 93 85 100 763 742 1124 Natural Gas 25 25 5,8 1,5% 7500 0,210

Hard coal plant 25 25 2,3 1,5% 7500 0,344

Lignite plant 25 25 1,1 1,5% 7500 0,402

2% 50% 6% 6% 12% 35% 8% 9,0%

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1, Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture

CCS in the European energy market (2) Estimated electricity generation cost from large coal, lignite and natural gas PPs in 2020, without and with CO2 capture

Estimated CO2 capture cost from large coal, lignite and natural gas PPs in 2020, without and with CO2 capture

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1, Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture

CCS in the European energy market (3) 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Coal Unit

Coal Unit with CO2 capture Lignite Unit

Lignite Unit with CO2 capture Natural gas Unit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of emissions with 100 Euros/tn CO2 penalty

Natural gas Unit with CO2 capture

Electricity generation cost (Euros/MWh)

Electricity generation cost (Euros/MWh)

Electricity generation costs of large PPs with and without CO2 capture/with CO2 penalty in 2020 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30

Coal Unit

Coal Unit with CO2 capture Lignite Unit

Lignite Unit with CO2 capture Natural gas Unit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Natural gas Unit with CO2 capture

% of emissions with 40 Euros/tn CO2 penalty

At the left of the point of intersection of the cost curves without and with CO2 capture, investment in CCS technologies becomes economically viable

CO2 pentalty (Euros/tn) 100 40

Break-even point where CCS technologies become viable (% emmissions) Coal Lignite Natural gas 23.5 14.2 56.9 58.8 35.6 >100

CO2 Capture Retrofit in Greek PP’s ¾

In order to demonstrate the potential of CO2 capture technologies for lignite applications, the simulation of a “typical” new 330 MWel Greek PP was performed, including the retrofit options of amine scrubbing and Oxyfuel fuel firing. The PP has a supercritical boiler, a three pressure stage steam turbine and 8 regenerative feed water preheaters. Conventional PP Fuel Thermal Input Thermal Consumption for Solvent Regeneration ASU Consumption CO2 Compression Consumption Cooling Pumps Consumption Power Consumption from Amine Scrubbing Unit Net Power Output Efficiency

OxyFuel

Amine

830.0

MWth MWth

-

-

256.5

MW el

-

58.1

-

MW el

-

22.4

20.5

MW el

-

1.5

0.7

MW el

-

-

8.7

MW el %

293.7 35.74

211.0 25.42

200.5 24.16

Green-field PP’s with CO2 capture I4

G10

ESP

G11

G12

G9

G8

G7

G5

Air leakage

G6

I1

Separation of noncondensables

A8

G14

I3 Feedwater heating LPH1 to LPH3

G15

G16

G17

Air leakage

FGC

G13

A7

I2

Feedwater heating LPH1 to LPH3

G18

Wet ESP

G23

G20

G22

G21

TEG

G19

Ash A10

G4

A9

S7 S8

A11

S5

S9

S4

S14 S17

S16

S25

I1 I3

I2 I4

S15

S11

G3

S24

S22

S23

S21 S19

S18

G1

G2

S2

I7

I5

I8

S3

S20

S10

S6

I6

N2 to molecular shieves

A12

S1

S12 S13

F3

Oxygen Flow Raw F1 lignite

A3

A4

D15 D11 D4

A5

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

D10 D3

D1

D12 A6

D2

F3

F3

A2

DCAC

A1

F2

D14

ASU

D13

Dried lignite

Lignite Dryer

New 360 MWel Lignite PP with Oxyfuel combustion (typical Greek lignite)

Waste water

CCS in the Greek energy market (1) z

„

The electricity generation cost has been assessed for the following technologies: ¾ Conventional lignite PP ¾ Conventional lignite PP with CO2 capture with amine scrubbing ¾ Conventional lignite PP with CO2 capture with oxyfuel combustion ¾ State of the art super-critical lignite PP (CCT) ¾ Natural gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) ¾ Lignite Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) The general and case-specific assumptions for the calculations are the following: ¾ Discount factor: 8%, Inflation: 3% ¾ Lignite cost: 1.8 €/ GJ, Natural gas cost: 5.5 €/GJ ¾ Depreciation for Solid fuel units: 25 years, for NG and IGCC units: 15 years ¾ O&M costs: 3% of capital costs per annually, variable cost 0.01 €/kWh for a lignite unit and 0.005 €/kWh for a natural gas unit. ¾ 7500 h of operation per year at full load ¾ CO2 market cost: 18 €/tn Conv. lignite PP Net power output Efficiency Capital cost Specific CO2 emissions

MWel % €/kW kg/kWh

294 35.7 1100 1.075

Conventional Conventional State of the art lignite PP with lignite oxyfuel PP super-critical amine scrubbing lignite PP 201 211 300 24.2 25.4 44.0 1900 1570 1150 0.17 0.34 0.865

NGCC.

IGCC

380 56.5 600 0.37

766 43.0 1370 0.76

CCS in the Greek energy market (2) Electricity generation costs

Electricity generation costs 10

€cent/ kWh

8 7 6 5 4 3

CO2 risk (vs NGCC) Rick due to NG price volatility Variable cost

8 7

CO2 risk (vs (amine/oxyfuel)

6 5

Risk due to NG price

4 3

2 1

9

€cent/ kWh

9

Fixed cost

2

Variable cost

1

0

0

Conventional PP State of the art Natural gas Supercritical PP Combined Cycle

Amine Oxyfuel State of the NGCC IGCC scrubbing art Supercritical PP

Fixed cost

Electricity generation costs for current Electricity generation costs for future technologies technologies „ „

Fixed cost includes depreciation and O&M costs, variable cost includes fuel. The units have been grouped in two categories: current technologies and technologies that will be commercially available in the future. The difference in specific emissions from the reference unit for each category multiplied by the CO2 cost is an estimation of the price risk due to the emitted CO2.

Carbon dioxide storage options (1) Capture

Transport

Geological Storage

Carbon dioxide storage options (2) Potential CO2 storage sites : ¾ Oceans ¾ Depleted oil and gas reservoirs ¾ Deep unmineable coal seams ¾ Deep saline aquifers. ¾ Mineralization of CO2.

Carbon dioxide storage options (3)

Carbon dioxide storage options (4) ¾ Oceans

CO2 disposal methods in the oceans

Carbon dioxide storage options (5) ¾ Depleted oil and gas reservoirs

Enhanced oil recovery with the help of CO2

Carbon dioxide storage options (6) ¾ Deep saline aquifers (>800m).

Carbon dioxide storage options (7) Examples of storage projects: „

Sleipner, North Sea

„

In-Salah, Algeria

„

K12B, North Sea

gas reservoir

„

Weyburn, Canada

oil reservoir

„

saline reservoir gas reservoir

Enhanced Coal Bed Methane projects „ Alisson (New Mexico) „ Recopol (Poland)

Carbon dioxide storage options (8) Locations of CO2 storage activities

Carbon dioxide storage options (9) Storage potential The estimated range of the economic potential for CCS varies between 220-2200 Gt CO2, which would mean that 15-55% of the world-wide mitigation effort by 2100 could be achieved through the implementation of CCS.

Gton CO2 20501

Gton CO22

Depleted oil fields

126-400

150-700

Depleted gas fields

800

500-1100

Enhanced oil recovery

61-65

Unminable coal seams

>15

>73

400-10,000

320-10,000

Saline aquifers 1Source:

(IEA GHG, 2001) 2Source: (Edmonds, 2000)

Carbon dioxide storage options (10) Advantages and disadvantages of the different types of storage CO2 Capacity (in Gt)

Advantages

Disadvantages

Hydrocarbon reservoirs

930 Gt

Generally far from CO2 Trapping structures impermeable to non-reactive gases. Well known emission sites. Storage structures. Economic potential capacities often limited. through EOR.

Deep saline aquifers

400 – 10000 Gt

Widespread geographic distribution and vast storage potential. Facilitates the search for storage sites close to the sources of CO2 emissions. Water unfit for drinking.

Poorly characterized to date.

Unmineable coal seams

40 Gt

Near CO2 emission sites. Economic potential through methane recovery.

Injection problems due to the poor permeability of coal. Limited storage capacities. IEA, GHG, 2004

Carbon dioxide storage options (11)

CO2 point sources in relation with the sedimentary basins with storage potential (Koukouzas et al., 2009 – Int. J. of GHG)

Carbon dioxide storage options (12) Prinos basin geological cross - section

Prinos basin stratigraphic column

(Koukouzas et al., 2009 – Int. J. of GHG)

Carbon dioxide storage options (13)

Cap rock

CO2 potential storage site

Geological cross – section of Mesohellenic Trough (Koukouzas et al., 2009 – Int. J. of GHG)

Carbon dioxide storage options (14) CO2 storage capacity in saline aquifers -Greece Aquifer

Position

Storage capacity (Mt CO2)

Prinos

offshore

1343

W. Thessaloniki

onshore

459

W. Thessaloniki sandstone

onshore

145

Alexandria

onshore

34

Mesohellenic basin

onshore

360

Total

2345

(GESTCO PROJECT)

Carbon dioxide storage options (15) Mineral carbonation: reaction of CO2 with metal oxide bearing materials to form insoluble carbonates, with calcium and magnesium being the most attractive metals.

The general reaction is:

MSiO3 + CO2 ↔ MCO3 + SiO2 M: divalent ion. Here, M corresponds to Ca or Mg

Carbon dioxide storage options (16) In collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory Dunite Hartzburgite

Pyroxenite

Hartzburgite

Dunite