capture 3 post-combustion...
TRANSCRIPT
Capture 3 – Post-Combustion Capture
IEA GHG Summer School
Perth, Western Australia, December 6-12 2015
Martin Oettinger
1
Need for a retrofit option
Post-combustion capture (PCC)
Principles (of first generation PCC technologies)
PCC Advantages
Large PCC demonstration projects – examples
PCC Challenges/Issues
2nd and 3rd generation PCC technologies – definitions and examples
Technology Status – Technical and Commercial maturity
The challenge of timely scale-up for cost-effective PCC technology
Achieving PCC maturity – Technology Demonstration Pathways
Summary
Outline
2
The presenter would like to specifically thank Prof Dianne Wiley (University of NSW), Glencore and ACALET for access to resources and feedback
Need For A Retrofit Option471 GW of recently installed coal-fired generation capacity exists
3
Installed total coal‐fired power capacity in all countries and breakdown by age and capacity
Source: IEA – “CCS Retrofit – Analysis of the Globally Installed Coal-Fired Power Plant Fleet”, 2012
Need For A Retrofit Option1188 GW of conventional coal-fired generation in-construction or planned
(much of it HELE technology)
4
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
China India Indonesia Vietnam Turkey South Korea South Africa Philippines Pakistan Bangladesh
Top 10 Countries - GW Capacity of Coal-fired UnitsIn Construction and Planned
Total Top 10 = 1033 GWTotal Top 10 = 87% of Global In Construction and Planned
Global = 1188 GW
CON(GW)
PLN(GW)
Source: Platt’s UDI WEPP database 2014 & Glencore
Need For A Retrofit Option396 GW of conventional gas-fired generation in-construction or planned
5
Source: Platt’s UDI WEPP database 2014 & Glencore
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
USA India China Turkey Egypt England &Wales
Mexico Thailand Nigeria Indonesia
Top 10 Countries - GW Capacity of Combined Cycle Gas-fired UnitsIn Construction and Planned
Total Top 10 = 234 GWTotal Top 10 = 59% of Global In Construction and Planned
Global = 396 GW
CON(GW)
PLN(GW)
The recently installed conventional fossil fuel generation plant capacity is large
The planned and in construction conventional fossil fuel generation plant capacity is even larger
There is a need for carbon capture retrofit options to be applicable to this type of generation plant
Post-combustion carbon capture technology has the capability to provide a retrofit option to this type of generation plant
Need For A Retrofit Option
6
Where the flue gases exiting a combustion plant are treated using chemical or physical sorbents to selectively remove CO2 from the gas mixture
The sorbents are then regenerated, using for example steam, to produce a concentrated CO2 stream
Post-combustion CaptureAbsorption (First Generation) and Adsorption Processes
7
2 x 660MW Supercritical PF BoilerConventional Coal-fired – No Capture – 43% efficiency (HHV)
Source - Alstom8
Generic PF BoilerPCC – Target Stream for Treatment
Source – Climate and Fuel9
PCC – Focus of treatment on combustion gases exiting boiler
Post-combustion Capture from Power Generation Boiler
Chemical Absorption Process
Source - ZEP10
Post-combustion CO2 CaptureFirst Generation Technology – Chemical Absorption Process
11
The chemical absorption process using amine chemical solvent for separating CO2 from natural gas or flue gas was originally developed to be used by the gas processing industry or the food industry
Reaction Mechanism (CO2 and Amine)CO2 + 2RR’NH ⇔ RR’NH2+ + RR’NCOO -
CO2 + RR’NH + H2O ⇔ RR’NH2 + + HCO3-
CO2 + RR’NCOO- + 2H2O ⇔ RR’NH2 + + 2HCO3-
Upon heating the product, the bond between the absorbent and the CO2 can be broken, yielding a stream enriched in CO2 and a regenerated solvent ready to absorb more CO2
The heat for the regeneration of the solvent is normally provided by low pressure steam which can be drawn from the steam cycle of the power generation plant, but at an energy penalty (to power produced)
Post-combustion CaptureFirst Generation Technology – Chemical Absorption Process
12
The most commonly used solvent in the gas processing industry for scrubbing of CO2 is Monoethanol Amine (MEA)
MEA is a relatively low-cost solvent
MEA has a high energy penalty for solvent regeneration
MEA (without additives) has a high corrosion potential
MEA is used as the benchmark for comparison of solvents
A key performance measure for amine solvents is the regeneration energy requirement
MEA (primary amine; 30%wt aqueous solution) ~4 GJ/t CO2
State-of-the-art (proprietary amine solutions) ~2.5 GJ/t CO2
Post-combustion CaptureFirst Generation Technology – Chemical Absorption Process
13
Source: CSIRO, vendor data
Can be retrofitted to existing Pulverized Coal (PF) plants and Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plants allowing the continued operation of valuable resources
Can be configured to treat only part of the flue gas stream
In either new build or retrofit application it enables the continued deployment of the well established PF and CCGT technologies familiar to power industries worldwide
The continued development of improved materials for Ultra Supercritical (USC) PF plants and Gas Turbines will increase the efficiency and reduce the CO2 emissions of future PF and CCGT plants
Post-combustion Capture Advantages – General
14
The widespread R&D on improved sorbents and capture equipment should reduce the energy penalty of PCC capture
Near-commercial-scale demonstration of 1st Gen PCC is proceeding
The 110 MW / 1 MTPA CO2 Boundary Dam large scale integrated project (LSIP) of Saskatchewan Power with PCC using the Shell Cansolv process commenced operation in 2014
Larger-scale demonstration of 1st Gen PCC is under construction
The 250 MW / 1.4 MTPA CO2 Petra Nova large scale integrated project (LSIP) of NRG Power with PCC using the MHI KS-1 process commences operation in 2016
Post-combustion Capture Advantages – First Generation Technologies
15
Project type Commercial
Industry Power Generation
Project focus Capture, Transport, Storage
Project status Operational
Commencing date 2014 (operations)
Technical Details Post-combustion capture using Shell
Cansolv amine technology
Storage/Utilisation Enhanced Oil Recovery
Scale, CO2 tpa 1,000,000
Scale, MWeNet 110
Cost ($ 2013) CN$1.3B (CN$800M for CCS)
Partners Canadian Federal & Saskatchewan
Government, Shell, Cenovus
Source: GCCSI, MIT
LSIP with Post-combustion CC(U)SBoundary Dam, Estevan, Saskatchewan, Canada
16
LSIP with Post-combustion CC(U)SBoundary Dam, Estevan, Saskatchewan, Canada
17
• 1 million tpa supercritical CO2 transported
by 66km pipeline
• Storage location:
• Enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn
Oil Field
• Some CO2 is to be used at the
Aquistore project 2 km away from
power plant
CO2 StorageCO2 Capture
• Boundary Dam is using Shell Cansolv post-
combustion capture technology (SO2
capture then CO2 capture using amines)
• 139MWegross conventional pulverised coal
power plant
• 110MWeNet (at 90% capture)
• 29MWe (21%) auxiliary load
• 85% plant availability
• Estimated amount of CO2 captured is
1 million tonnes per year (90% capture)
Source: GCCSI, MIT
Project type Commercial
Industry Power Generation
Project focus Capture, Transport, Storage
Project status Under construction
Commencing date 2016 (operations)
Technical Details Post-combustion capture using MHI
KS-1 amine technology
Storage/Utilisation Enhanced Oil Recovery
Scale, CO2 tpa 1,400,000
Scale, MWeNet 240 (equivalent as slipstream)
Cost ($ 2013) US$1B
Partners US DoE, NRG, JX Nippon, MHI
Source: GCCSI, MIT
LSIP with Post-combustion CC(U)S Petra Nova, Thompsons, Texas, USA
18
LSIP with Post-combustion CC(U)S Petra Nova, Thompsons, Texas, USA
19
• 1.4 million tpa supercritical CO2 transported
by 132km pipeline
• Storage location:
• Enhanced oil recovery in the West
Ranch Oil Field, Jacksons County
CO2 StorageCO2 Capture
• Petra Nova is using MHI KS-1 post-
combustion capture technology
• 610MWegross conventional pulverised coal
power plant
• 240MWe (90% capture from slipstream)
• An external supply of heat and power for
CCS (no heat / power from host plant)
• Capture unit has own utilities supply
facility
• 85% plant availability
• Estimated amount of CO2 captured is
1.4 million tonnes per year (90% capture)Source: GCCSI, MIT
Capital Cost Reduction
Absorber equipment is key part of capital cost reduction challenge; improved absorbers and absorber internals technology are required for significant capital cost reduction outcomes
Solvents and solvent degradation products can be corrosive; materials of construction selection needs to be carefully targeted for capital cost reduction (but not at the expense of unacceptably high maintenance costs)
Scale-up
Some amine processes are commercially available only at relatively small scale and considerable re-engineering and scale-up is needed
Scaling up demonstration; development should go toward 5000 TPD CO2 captured
Absorber equipment is key part of scale-up challenge
Operating Cost Reduction (Parasitic Energy and Solvent)
The addition of capture with current amine technologies results in a loss of net power output of about 20-30% and a reduction of about 7-11 percentage points in efficiency; in the case of retrofit this would imply the need for replacement power to make up for the power loss
Many sorbents need very pure flue gas to minimize sorbent usage and cost; typically < 10 ppmvor as low as 1 ppmv of SO2 plus NOx is required depending on the particular sorbent (not Shell Cansolv first-stage solvent for SO2)
PCC Challenges – 1 First Generation Technology – Chemical Absorption Process
20
Environmental
Water use is increased significantly with the addition of PCC particularly for water cooled plants where the water consumption with capture is nearly doubled per net MWh
For air cooling the water consumption is also increased with capture by about 35% per net MWh
Some solvents suffer degradation over time with management of solvent quality and plant operation important to appropriately control emissions of solvents and solvent degradation products in treated flue gas
Plant Operation and Maintenance
Steam extraction for solvent regeneration reduces flow to low-pressure turbine with significant operational impact on its efficiency and turn down capability
Solvents and solvent degradation products can be corrosive; materials of construction selection needs to be carefully targeted for maintenance cost optimisation (but not at the expense of unacceptably high capital costs)
Capture Plant Physical Footprint
Plot space requirements are significant; the back-end at existing plants is often already crowded by other emission control equipment
Extra costs may be required to accommodate PCC at some more remote location
PCC Challenges – 2First Generation Technology – Chemical Absorption Process
21
With the addition of currently available carbon capture technology, the Levelised Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) produced is impacted in the following way: For coal-fired electricity, LCOE increases by 140%*
For gas-fired electricity, LCOE increases by 60%*
A key focus for post-combustion carbon capture technology development is to reduce the impact on LCOE of adding carbon capture
This provides the opportunity to consider improved and alternative PCC – Next Generation technology
Challenge – Cost of ElectricityLessons from First Generation Technology – Chemical Absorption Process
* Basis – Australian Energy Technology Assessment 2012 – BREE; carbon price effect removed
22
Currently available PCC technology at large scale (first generation technology) is based on chemical solvent absorption processes
This technology requires further development to overcome challenges including reducing the impact on LCOE of adding carbon capture
There are a range of other technology options that have been identified as alternatives to currently available solvent absorption PCC technology
These technologies are at various stages of development, and can be categorised into different technology generations
PCC Technology GenerationsDefinitions Needed for Current (First) and Next Generation Technologies
23
Second Generation Technologies
Technology components currently in research and development that: Will be validated and ready for demonstration in the 2020-2025
timeframe
Result in a captured cost of CO2 less than $40/tonne in the 2020-2025 timeframe
Third Generation Technologies
“Transformational” technologies include technology components in early development (including conceptual stages) that: Offer the potential for significant improvements in technology cost and
performance
Will be ready for scale-up in the 2016-2030 timeframe
Will be ready for demonstration in the 2030-2035 timeframe
Next Generation PCC TechnologiesDefinitions – Next Generation Technologies *
24 * Source: CSLF (2015) and US DoE (2015)
Post-combustion solvents Advanced conventional solvents Precipitating solvents Two liquid phase solvents Enzymes Ionic liquids
Post-combustion sorbents Calcium looping systems Other sorbent looping systems Vacuum pressure swing adsorption (VPSA) Temperature swing adsorption (TSA)
Post-combustion membranes and membrane-like processes Membranes (general) Polymeric membranes combined with low temperature separation Fuel cells
Useful sources describing 2nd and 3rd generation PCC technologies IEA GHG have produced interim report 2014/TR4 “Emerging CO2 capture technologies
and their cost reduction potential” US DoE NETL “Carbon Capture Program”
Next Generation PCC Technologies Examples of 2nd and 3rd Generation Technologies
25
An issue with PCC technology is that there are such a range of technologies and technology variants that have potential application for PCC: As improvements to first generation technologies Directly as second and third generation technologies
With so many technology options that potentially could be applied to PCC, there is a risk of dilution of effort IEA GHG interim report 2014/TR4 mentions 16 technological
approaches to improving post-combustion capture Too many choices and not enough money to drive the right PCC
technology to required maturity
..and then there is the time needed to drive the right PCC technology to required development maturity
Challenge – Time & PCC Technology VarietyEnhancements for or Alternatives to First Generation PCC
26
Technologies StatusTechnology Readiness Levels (TRL)
27
These steps are
individually very
expensive
Source: US DoE
Technology StatusCommercial Readiness Levels (CRL)
28
These steps are
individually very
expensive
Technology demonstration in the 2030-2035 timeframe will require technology to have developed sufficient technical and commercial maturity
In order to control development risk, there is a maximum realistic scale up (typically one order of magnitude) between successive demonstrations
There will likely be insufficient time available to take a standalone immature technology to technical and commercial maturity in the 2030-2035 timeframe To achieve CRL-2 by 2030-2035 technology has to be at
least at a TRL-6 level now
Challenge – Time To Achieve Required Technology Maturity, It Takes Time
29
Challenge – PCC Development TimeTime to Develop New Technologies
30
Actual example – MHI KS-1 1990 – bench scale 1991 – 2 TPD CO2 pilot 1999 – 160 TPD CO2
(nat gas flue gas) 2006 – 10 TPD CO2
(coal flue gas) 2011 – 500 TPD CO2
(coal flue gas) 2016 – 4700 TPD CO2
(coal flue gas)
10 years from TRL-6 to start of TRL-9 trial on coal flue gas
Source: MHI
Demonstration of technical and commercial readiness of PCC technologies in full chain (e.g. capture, transport and storage) is crucial to confirm maturity to stakeholders before wide-scale deployment can occur
Difficult to conceive of full-scale PCC projects able to be funded without inclusion of a sink for CO2 (saline storage or EOR); activities associated with CO2 sink often dominate overall schedule for project
Individual demonstration projects typically require approximately ten years from inception to operational proving, which includes approximately five elapsed years to undertake the works from FID to operation
Achieving PCC Technology MaturityTo Achieve Required Maturity, Need Large Scale Integrated Projects
31
To facilitate achievement of required PCC maturity, establishment of active Technology Demonstration Pathways (a coordinated succession of individual demonstration projects) could assist in the development process for PCC technologies to leverage their timely development Enhancements for first generation technologies need to have “fit” with one
or more first generation Technology Demonstration Pathways to have leverage for gaining funding and development opportunity
Second and third generation technologies either require their own Technology Demonstration Pathways or have “fit” with established first generation Technology Demonstration Pathways
Key challenges to allow achievement of technical and commercial maturity of cost-effective PCC technologies (using Technology Demonstration Pathways) are a combination of: Time to achieve scale up Significant capex reduction of the technology, and Parasitic load reduction (increased efficiency)
Achieving PCC Technology MaturityTo Achieve Required Maturity, Establish Active Technology Demonstration Pathways
32
Project status is defined by colour-coded icon, which reflects the project maturity
Technology Demonstration PathwaysProject Status Identification – Some Terminology
33
Large Scale
Smaller Scale
Construction is funded or project operational
FEED is funded
Concept under development
Required project to meet 2030-2035 timeline
• 1-Gen NAM Conventional coal power capture facility – funded
• Operational 2014; 1 MTPA CO2 capture (Nth American jurisdiction)
• 1-Gen NAM CCGT capture facility (gas)
• Operational 2019; use conventional coal lessons; lower cost
• 1-Gen NAM “next-of-kind” (coal)
• Operational ~2020; low capex absorber; larger scale; lower opex
• 1-Gen NAM “Chinese capture facility” (coal)
• Operational ~2025; Chinese (low cost) manufacturing; larger scale
• 1-Gen NAM “low cost capture facility” (coal)
• Operational ~2030; low cost manufacture; large scale; outcome
<50% capex of 1-Gen conventional coal capex ($/kW) in Nth
American jurisdiction
Technology Demonstration PathwaysExample - “1-Gen NAM” Amine Solvent PCC Technology Development
(with example development objectives)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
1-Gen NAM conventional coal
1-Gen NAM CCGT gas
1-Gen NAM "next of kind" coal
1-Gen NAM "Chinese facility" coal
1-Gen NAM "low cost capture"coal
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
1-Gen NAM conventional coal
1-Gen NAM CCGT gas
1-Gen NAM "next of kind" coal
1-Gen NAM "Chinese facility" coal
1-Gen NAM "low cost capture"coal
• 1-Gen China capture facility (coal) – funded
• Operational 2011; 0.12 MTPA CO2 capture
• 1-Gen China “next-of-kind” (coal)
• Operational ~2020; coal facility lessons; larger scale
• 1-Gen China “low cost capture facility” (coal)
• Operational ~2025; low cost manufacture; large scale (>1 MTPA)
• Potential for smaller scale demonstration outside China ~2025
• 1-Gen China “outside China facility” (coal)
• Operational ~2030; low cost manufacture; large scale
Technology Demonstration PathwaysExample - “1-Gen China” Amine Solvent PCC Technology Development
(with example development objectives)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
1-Gen China conventional coal
1-Gen China "next of kind" coal
1-Gen China "Chinese facility" coal
1-Gen China "low cost capture"coal
• 2/3-Gen “Pilot” capture facility (coal or gas)
• Operational 2016; 50 TPD CO2 capture
• 2/3-Gen “sub-commercial scale” facility (coal or gas)
• Operational ~2020; Pilot lessons; >1000 TPD scale (equiv 0.3 MTPA)
• 2/3-Gen ”commercial scale” facility (coal)
• Operational ~2025; sub-commercial lessons; ~1 MTPA
• 2/3-Gen “Chinese capture facility” (coal)
• Operational ~2030; Chinese (low cost) manufacturing; larger scale
• 2/3-Gen “low cost capture facility” (coal)
• Operational ~2035; low cost manufacture; large scale; outcome
<40% cost of Pilot capture ($/T CO2) in Pilot jurisdiction
Technology Demonstration PathwaysExample - “2/3-Gen” Adsorption PCC Technology Development
(with example development objectives)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
2/3-Gen Pilot
2/3-Gen "sub-commercial"
2/3-Gen "commercial" coal
2/3-Gen "Chinese facility" coal
2/3-Gen "low cost capture"coal
Retrofit options for the substantial fleet of recent and planned coal and gas fired generators are required PCC provides such an option
Current (first) generation PCC technology based on chemical (amine) absorption processes
Large-scale demonstration of 1st Gen PCC is in operation and under construction as integrated CC(U)S projects
A large number of different “next generation” PCC technologies are under some form of development With so many technology options (at least 16) that potentially could be applied to PCC,
there is a risk of dilution of effort
Technology Demonstration Pathways (a coordinated succession of individual demonstration projects) could assist in the development process for cost-effective PCC technologies to leverage their timely development
Key challenges to allow achievement of technical and commercial maturity of PCC technologies (using Technology Demonstration Pathways) are a combination of: Time to achieve scale up Significant capex reduction of the technology, and Parasitic load reduction (increased efficiency)
Summary
37
Questions welcomed
Thank You
38