howard herzog / mit energy initiative carbon capture and storage (ccs): current status and outlook...

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):Current Status and Outlook

Carbon Management Canada

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

February 9, 2015

Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment

MIT CCS Program Milestones

• First research project in 1989• Authored DOE Research Needs Assessment (1993)• Organized and hosted ICDDR-3 (1996)• Helped launch DOE R&D Program

Authored DOE White Paper (1997) Organized and hosted stakeholders workshop for DOE/FETC (June

1998) Participated in DOE CCS Roadmap (1999)

• Authored Scientific American article (Feb 2000)• Carbon Sequestration Initiative formed (July 2000)• Coordinating Lead Author of IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and

Storage (Sept 2005)• Member Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Technical Group (June

2003-September 2007)• MIT Coal Study (March, 2007)• Organized GHGT-9 in Washington, DC (Nov 2008)• Awarded the 2010 Greenman Award by the IEAGHG “in recognition of

contributions made to the development of greenhouse gas control technologies”.

Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment

MIT Carbon Sequestration Initiative

• Alstom Power• American Petroleum

Institute• Chevron Corporation• ConocoPhillips• Duke Energy• Entergy• EPRI• ExxonMobil• Shell• Southern Company• Suncor• Vattenfall

• Launched July 1, 2000

• Six charter members

• Currently 12 members

• Key Activities Research

Annual Forum

Outreach

CCS: The View from 2008

• By 2020, there will be about 20 large-scale CCS demonstrations worldwide

• CCS commercial projects will be feasible by 2020 and we will see 100s of commercial CCS projects built by 2050

• R&D will develop new generations of CCS technologies and CCS costs will drop significantly


IEA CCS roadmap (2009)


The View from 2015

• Large-scale CCS demonstrations are extremely difficult to build and we are seeing many cancellations worldwide. There is only one operational large-scale CCS demonstration at a power plant (two more are under construction).

• CCS will not be commercial by 2020 – the cost will be higher than the market can bear

• New generation technologies are still in the lab. Cost reductions will be primarily from removing first mover costs.


What Happened

• Primary Reason Weak or non-existent climate policy

• Contributing factors Weak economic growth, budget deficits Low natural gas prices (in North America) Escalating capital costs


Major Demonstration ProjectsMy View of History

• Phase 1 – Pioneer Projects Sleipner, In Salah, Weyborn, Snovit, Schwarze Pumpe,

Labarge

• Phase 2 – CCS RD&D Programs US – Kemper, Petra Nova (formerly NRG Parish), Air

Products, ADM, TCEP Canada – Boundary Dam, Quest, Alberta Trunk Line Norway – Mongstad UK – White Rose, Peterhead

• Phase 3 - ???


Major Demonstration ProjectsRecent Headlines

• Positive Headlines Boundary Dam goes on-line Petra Nova starts construction

• Negative Headlines Number of projects on GCCSI list drops from

65 to 55 (15% drop) FutureGen Cancelled


CCS ProjectsIn the Pipeline (from GCCSI)

• Execute (9) US – Kemper, ADM, Petra Nova Canada – Quest, Alberta Trunk (2) Other – Gorgon, Abu Dhabi, EOR (Saudi Arabia)

• Define (13) US – TCEP, HECA, Medicine Bow, Sargas UK – White Rose, Peterhead, Don Valley Other – ROAD (Netherlands), Spectra (Canada),

China (4)


Technology Status

• Post-combustion capture is most advanced commercially Many improvements over past 15 years (e.g., solvent

technology)

• Pre-combustion, once thought the future, is struggling High capital costs, complexity

• Oxy-combustion, the least studied approach, is slowly moving forward Chemical Looping and Ionic Transport Membranes could

revolutionize this approach


Costs

• Carbon Price needed to incentive CCS with geologic storage is $70-100/tCO2 Additional incentives required to overcome first-

of-a-kind costs Results in an increase in cost of electricity from

70-100%

• Obviously, cannot compete with business-as-usual. Must compete with large-scale renewables and nuclear



Approaches to Lower Cost CO2 Capture

Strategy Positives Limitations

New/Improved Solvents

High probability of success

Evolutionary change, not

revolutionary

New Materials(adsorbents, membranes, etc.)

Many potential ideas

Low probability of success for any given project

New Processes to make capture easier

Potential for significant cost

reductions

Development will be long, expensive

• Biological Catalyst• Phase-Changing

Absorbents • Metal-Organic

Frameworks • Electrochemically

Mediated Separation • Ionic Liquid • Cryogenic• Solvent-Membrane

Hybrid

Paying for CCS Projects

• Markets Carbon markets Electricity markets EOR Others (e.g., polygeneration)

• Incentives (e.g., Government cost-sharing, Tax credits) Encourage early action (before markets develop) Help defray first-mover costs


Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and CCS

• In US, CCUS means CCS + EOR Attempts to leverage EOR market to help CCS

move forward Already critical for existing demonstrations By itself, EOR will not drive CCS

Howard Herzog

CCUS - Rough Costs

• Value of CCS for EOR ~$20/ton (perhaps up to $30/ton)

• Cost of producing CO2 from a power plant (not avoided cost) >$50/ton

• Some CO2 sources are much lower costs, like gas processing, ammonia production, ethanol plants – these have better chance of being economical today

Howard Herzog

Potential Roles for EOR in CCS Development

• Can Do Help project economics (positive value on CO2)

Build out infrastructure Develop capacity along the supply chain Help shape regulatory environment (including liability issue)

• Cannot Do Avoid need for subsidies for capturing CO2 from coal-fired

power plants (and many other industrial sources)» Will new gas turbines (e.g., Net Power) be competitive????

Replace climate change as the primary driver for CCS technology


IPCC Working Group 3Summary for Policy Makers

• April, 2014• CCS mentioned 35 times• Key points:

CCS reduces costs of meeting key stabilization targets

Strong call by IPCC for negative emissions by BECCS (bio-CCS)

Without CCS, certain targets cannot be met (due in part to CCS role in negative emissions)


IPCC: Estimates of global mitigation cost increases due to limited availability of CCS

• p.18 IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers

CCS and Climate Policy

• Of all the major mitigation options, only CCS has climate change mitigation as it’s sole reason for being developed.

• As goes climate policy, so goes CCS


CCS Low Lights

• Germany “The past five years have shown CCS to be a failure," said

Christian von Hirschhausen, DIW's [German Institute for Economic Research] research director for industrial economics. From: http://www.dw.de/carbon-capture-technology-loses-out-in-germany/a-16999567

• Vattenfall May 6, 2014 - Vattenfall has eliminated its CCS research

department in a cost cutting measure. They said that CCS technology has proven to be complex and expensive, especially in Europe where very low carbon prices have dramatically decreased profitability.

• Australia New government eliminates carbon tax Call for “direct action”


http://www.dw.de/carbon-capture-technology-loses-out-in-germany/a-16999567



CCS Bright Lights

• UK• Norway• Alberta/Saskatchewan (Canada)


Political Situation in the UStoday and in the future

• Political gridlock on climate change legislation

• States enacting climate policy in lieu of federal government

• Fossil projects in US becoming targets if they have a large carbon footprint

• Major administration thrust is through the EPA under the Clean Air Act

Howard Herzog

Fossil Projects Under Attack

• Keystone pipeline• Coal export terminals on US West Coast• Hydraulic Fracturing• LNG export terminals

Howard Herzog


Final Thoughts

• In order to meet the stated goal of significant cuts (50%-80%) in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 CCS is not a silver bullet However, it may be a keystone technology

• For CCS (or any mitigation technology) to be relevant, it will need to operate at the Gt scale


Contact Information

Howard Herzog

Senior Research Engineer

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Energy Initiative

Room E19-370L

Cambridge, MA 02139

Phone: 617-253-0688

E-mail: [email protected]

Web Site: sequestration.mit.edu

howard herzog / mit energy initiative carbon capture and storage (ccs): current status and outlook...

Documents

storage ccs

ccs costs

doe ccs roadmap

iea ccs roadmap

s of commercial ccs

howard herzog mit laboratory

mit coal study

research project