fossil fuels and climate change mitigation with examples
TRANSCRIPT
Fossil Fuels and Climate
Change Mitigation with
Examples from Energy
Intensive Industries
Filip Johnsson
Stefanía Ósk Garðarsdóttir, Fredrik Normann,
Klas Andersson, Jan Kjärstad, Johan Rootzén
Chalmers University of Technology
Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Energy Technology
Sweden
CCS in Process Industries - State-of- the-Art and Future
Opportunities, Lisbon, Portugal, March 10-11, 2015
Fossil Fuel and Cement Emissions
Global fossil fuel and cement emissions: 9.7 ± 0.5 GtC in 2012, 58% over 1990
Projection for 2013 : 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC, 61% over 1990
With leap year adjustment: 2012 growth rate is 1.9% and 2013 is 2.4%
Source: Le Quéré et al 2013; CDIAC Data; Global Carbon Project 2013
Uncertainty is ±5% for
one standard deviation
(IPCC “likely” range)
Why CCS?
Coal, oil and gas
Carbon budget 2014-2050 for a 2C target1 155 GtC
1Restricting to 25% probability for warming >2C
Estimate based on Meinshausen M. (2009), Letters to Nature Vol 458, April 30,
2009 and Friedlingstein et al. (2014), Nature Geoscience, DOI:10.1038/NGEO2248
Coal, oil and gas
Carbon budget 2014-2050 for a 2C target1 155 GtC
760 GtC Fossil reserves
1Restricting to 25% probability for warming >2C
Estimate based on Meinshausen M. (2009), Letters to Nature Vol 458, April 30,
2009 and Friedlingstein et al. (2014), Nature Geoscience, DOI:10.1038/NGEO2248
Coal, oil and gas
Carbon budget 2014-2050 for a 2C target1
Fossil reserves + 30% of resource base
155 GtC
4600 GtC
760 GtC Fossil reserves
Estimate based on Meinshausen M. (2009), Letters to Nature Vol 458, April 30,
2009 and Friedlingstein et al. (2014), Nature Geoscience, DOI:10.1038/NGEO2248
1Restricting to 25% probability for warming >2C
Coal, oil and gas
Carbon budget 2014-2050 for a 2C target1
Fossil reserves + 30% of resource base
155 GtC
4600 GtC
760 GtC Fossil reserves
Estimate based on Meinshausen M. (2009), Letters to Nature Vol 458, April 30,
2009 and Friedlingstein et al. (2014), Nature Geoscience, DOI:10.1038/NGEO2248
1Restricting to 25% probability for warming >2C
328 GtC Remaining carbon budget for a 2C target
390 GtC Past emissions (since 1870)
The Fossil Fuel Curse • Countries rich in domestic fossil fuels:
– only moderate or no increase in primary energy from RES,
significant increases in primary energy consumption from
fossil fuels.
– The US is an exception (large fossil fuel resources – reduced
carbon intensity)
• The “fossil-fuel curse”:
– countries with large domestic fossil fuel resources cannot be
expected to allow these assets to remain unexploited
• Tremendous threat to climate change mitigation leaving
only two choices for fossil rich economies
– leave the fossil fuels in the ground or apply CCS
– stranded assets or ramp up an extensive CCS infrastructure Johnsson, F., Kjärstad , J. (2013) The geopolitics of renewable energy and abundance of fossil fuels, SDEWES, September 22-27, Dubrovnik, Croatia 2013
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
MtC
O2/y
ear
Cement
Iron and steel
Refineries
Industry - BAU
Industry - Cap
Existing BAT technologies sufficient to meet EU year 2020
targets, but not the 2050 targets – CCS is required
Key energy intensive industries EU27 Reduction potential with existing BAT technologies (i.e. without CCS) vs emission cap
Rootzén, J., Johnsson, F. (2013) Energy Policy 59, 443–458.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Reduced activity level in refineries
Biomass in iron and steel and
cement industries
Reduced fraction of clinker in
cement
BAT replacing existing process
technology
Without CCS Total potential -35% reduction in Year 2050 relative to Year 2010
MtC
O2/y
r Key energy intensive industries in the Nordic countries
Rootzén, J., Johnsson, F. (2015) Energy 80, 715-730
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Grid
Fuel shift?
2014-11-19 11 Kim Kärsrud
One month fuel consumption for SSABs blast furnaces
Timber storage at Byholma from the tree fell due to the ”Gudrun” storm
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
With CCS Total potential -85% reductions in Year 2050 relative Year 2010
MtC
O2/å
r Key energy intensive industries in the Nordic countries
CCS
Rootzén, J., Johnsson, F. (2015) Energy 80, 715-730
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
With CCS Total potential -85% reductions in Year 2050 relative Year 2010
Significant costs due to increased energy use
Large volumes of CO2 to handle
MtC
O2/å
r Key energy intensive industries in the Nordic countries
CCS
Rootzén, J., Johnsson, F. (2015) Energy 80, 715-730
Examples from selected process
industries
Four industrial cases
Oil refinery: Hydrogen production
Preem refinery (SE)
Pulp and paper: Recovery Boiler
SCA (SE)
Power plant: Nordjyllandsverket (DK)
Aluminum plant: Hydro (NO)
Biogenic emissions
CO2: 1% 20% 40%
Difference in concentration and amount of CO2
Capture rate and amount of CO2 captured
Gardarsdottir, S. O., Normann, F., Andersson, K., Johnsson, F. (2014) Energy Procedia 63, 6565–6575.
Cost calculations (NH3)
Cost calculations (NH3)
Jilvero et al.,. (2014) Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 31, 87–95
Scenario Recovery system Additional
product
Capture method Capture
technology
RB Recovery boiler n/a Post-combustion MEA
BLGCC Black liquor
gasification
Electricity Pre-combustion Selexol
BLGMF Black liquor
gasification
DME Pre-combustion Rectisol
Three cases for the development of a pulp mill
RB Recovery boiler
BLGCC Black liquor gasification – Electricity
BLGMF Black liquor gasification – Motor Fuel
Hedström, J (2014) MSc Thesis Chalmers
Utility [kJ/kg CO2 captured] RB BLGCC BLGMF
Steam 3760 0 0
Cooling water 4460 1130 370
Electricity 360 1110 220
Net reduction potential [ktCO2/year] 715 318 393
Specific CO2 capture cost [€/tCO2] 46.0 48.4 9.4
Note: 85% capture rate and a cooling water temperature of 10 degrees ºC.
Steam supplied to the capture processes is supplied by combustion of solid
wood fuel in a biomass boiler.
Three cases - Results
Hedström, J (2014) MSc Thesis Chalmers
Note: BECCS; What is stored should be credited in the
same way as for fossil capture (= income since no cost
for allowances without capture) (only small amounts of fossil fuels in the process)
Challenges
• Obviously several challenges such as public acceptance, legal
issues etc.
• Yet, there are also some other main challenges….
Long lead times in development Example: Oxyfuel combustion for CO2 capture
Research and development
Chalmers 100kW
research plant
Vattenfall 30MW
pilot plant
Jänschwalde 250 MW
demonstration plant
Commercial
plant
2010 2015 2020
Bastor 2: Specific cost for CO2 transportation
• Pipeline break-even volume and associated cost for the ten largest sources located along the
coast (red circles), Spine only, overall conclusion; Difficult to envision systems with
sufficient volumes so that pipeline becomes least costly transport option
Kjärstad, J.. Nilsson, P-A., (2014) CCS in the Baltic Sea region – Bastor 2, Elforsk Report 25333
Bastor 2: Potential pipeline system
Pipeline break volume: 4 Mtpa
(see slide 7)
Specific system cost ranging
from € 12.5 to € 19.0 per ton
depending on volume and
injectivity
Dalder
Kjärstad, J.. Nilsson, P-A., (2014) CCS in the Baltic Sea region – Bastor 2, Elforsk Report 25333
NORDICCS: Potential pipeline system
Note: Feeders &
Distribution NOT
included
Cost declines rapidly as
volume increases
Kjärstad, J. et al., (2013) Recommendations on CO2 transport solutions, NORDICCS report (D20)
Challenge
• Cost for CCS chain >> EU-ETS allowance prices efficient policy
measures or other driving force for reduced emissions must be
developed (e.g. procurement further down product value chain)
Look further down the value chain
- example cement industry
C1: a new state-of-the-art kiln system
C2: kiln system equipped for post-
combustion capture of CO2 using
chemical absorption with MEA
C3: kiln system adapted for full oxy-
combustion and CO2 capture
Rootzén, J., Johnsson, F. (2015) Work in-progress
In summary • The main argument for CCS: There is too much fossil fuels
(especially coal) in a climate change context – “a fossil fuel curse”
• Failure of CCS: global community must agree to almost immediately
to start phasing out the use of fossil fuels – highly unlikely!
• Success of CCS – fossil fuel-dependent economies will find it easier to comply with
stringent greenhouse GHG reduction targets
• CCS is required in order for several energy intensive process
industries to reach Year 2050 targets (BAT and fuel shift not
sufficient)
– Partial capture – concentration and amount of CO2 depend on process
– Biogenic emission sources offer carbon negatives (BECCS)
• Challenge to establish transportation and storage infrastructure
• Challenge Cost for CCS chain >> EU-ETS allowance prices
efficient policy measures or other driving force for reduced emissions
must be developed (e.g. procurement further down product value chain)
Extras
CO2 capture from industrial sources
Main assumptions: Lean solvent loading 0.25 molCO2/mol solvent, 90% capture rate, constant absorber residence time
Gardarsdottir, S. O., Normann, F., Andersson, K., Johnsson, F. (2015) Ind. Eng. Chem Res. 54, 681-690.
EU27+ Norway and Switzerland – two scenarios
CO2: 99% reduction to 2050 rel 1990 CO2: 93% reduction to 2050 rel 1990