Closing the Carbon Cycle for Sustainability

A Key Strategy for Energy Security, Economic Developmentand Climate Protection

Peter Eisenberger Columbia University & Global Thermostati-SUP2014 Brussels, Belgium September 1, 2014

Global Thermostat - CONFIDENTIAL 2

Table of Contents

• Closing the Carbon Cycle• Energy from Atmospheric CO2• Global Thermostat CO2 CaptureTechnology

THE CHALLENGES WE FACE • MEETING BASIC NEEDS+ OF 9 BILLION PEOPLE

– ENERGY SECURITY• LOCALLY PRODUCED GLOBALLY AVAILABLE• 5-10X SUPPLY• SUSTAINABLE

– ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • OVERCOME DEVELOPED/DEVELOPING COUNTRY DIVIDE• ELIMINATE POVERTY

– CLIMATE CHANGE PROTECTION• AVOID RAPID INCREASE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION • FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATION

SolutionCLOSE THE CARBON CYCLE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CAPTURE CO2 FROM AIR AND USE IT AS FEEDSTOCK TO PROVIDE ENERGY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TO SEQUESTER CARBON

OBSERVATIONS• CARBON CYCLE NOT CLOSED

– EARTH SEQUESTERING CO2- ABOUT 1%– CHANGES SIGN WITH TIME

• ESSENTIAL TO HAVE LONG TERM STABILITY

• HUMAN CONTRIBUTION– ONLY 3% OF CO2 FLUX – UNIDIRECTIONAL

• RAPID INCREASE IN CONCENTRATION/NO LONG TERM STABILITY

• PHOTOSYNTHESIS 1-3 % EFFICIENT SOLAR ENERGY – FITNESS - RESILIENCE NOT EFFICIENCY

• HUMAN DESIGNED SOLAR– MORE EFFICIENT AND MORE RESILIENT – COST IS THE ISSUE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

Current Approaches to Manage Our Carbon

“Wedges” approach a good start…– Sensible, diversified strategy based on existing pathways– Portfolio of renewable energy and efficiency technologies– Includes carbon capture and sequestration from flue gas– Potential to keep CO2 near 500ppm

(still over 2x pre-indust. Level in short time)

But may not be enough to avoid climate change…– Depends on continued net natural absorption rate– Does not address 2000’s already elevated emissions – Underestimates projected growth rate by factor of two– No solution past 2055 –not sustainable

Climate will change destructively on its own– Earth history has many climate disasters– New York City under a 1 mile high ice sheet

A safe, effective, and affordable solution to climate change is still urgently needed

Emissions Scenarios…

Future Atmospheric Concentrations…

What Carbon Negative Can Achieve…

The Cost of Atmospheric CO2…

New Insight in 2013 IPCC Report Takes Much Longer for Increased Concentration to Disapate due to natural

processeso From under 100 years to a significant portion lasting for 1000’s of years

CO2 Problem is different than SOX acid rain problem o Cures via natural processes in tens of years

Carbon Negative more important than from 2006 analysis o IPCC Identified Negative Carbon is needed to address climate change threat o More needed than in 2006 analysis o Delay in implementation increases time above 450ppm and increases cost to get back to 450 ppm

2013 IPCC Results

• The incremental parts per million (ppm) increase in the atmosphere CO2 based on the emissions of CO2 in A1B, five scenarios are presented, the base case with no removal and four cases with removal starting in 2010, 2020, and 2030 with two different rates of recovery to 450ppm

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095380

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

CO2 Concentration without removal

CO2 Concentration with removal starting 2030 490ppm after peak

CO2 Concentration with removal starting 2030 500ppm after peak

CO2 Concentration with removal starting 2010

CO2 Concentration with removal starting 2020

Year

ppm

of C

O2

in A

tmos

pher

e

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 20950.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00GtC/yr Capacity Growth 2010 Start

GtC/y Capacity Growth 2020 Start

GtC/y Capacity Growth 2030 Start 490ppm after peak

GtC/yr Capacity Growth 2030 Start 500ppm after peak

Year

GtC/

yr R

emov

al C

apac

ity

GtC Removal Capacity/Year for four cases where the start years of capacity of 1 Million Tonnes removal are 2010, 2020, 2030 and the concentration level in the atmosphere after the peak is reduced to 450ppm at two different rates for the 'A1B.‘ emissions scenarios

The Need for Going Carbon Negative…

Avoided Carbon and being Carbon Neutral is not enough

– Neutralizing new and existing emissions does not prevent atmospheric concentration of CO2 from further increasing

– It doesn’t solve the climate risk problem (reducing atmospheric concentrations below 500 ppm)

Carbon-Negative Required– To reduce atmospheric

concentrations faster than the natural absorption rate

– To achieve a safe level of CO2 concentration

Air Capture Can Make Going Carbon Negative Possible

Pacala and Socolow, Science, Vol 305, 8/13/2004, Pg 969. Note: 7 Wedges refers to the seven stabilization wedges, created by Wigley, Richels & Edmonds, necessary to achieve an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of 500 ppm by 2125.

Business as usual

7 Wedges (aggressive renewable energy use, efficiency, point-source sequestration)

Negative Carbon Technology (such as Global Thermostat) with aggressive renewable energy

WE CAN CLOSE THE CARBON CYCLE

• A BI-DIRECTIONAL CARBON BASED ENERGY PROCESS – ENERGY SOURCE

• INPUT CO2 FROM THE AIR AND HYDROGEN FROM WATER • PRODUCED USING RENEWABLE ENERGY • RELEASING CO2 AND WATER WHEN COMBUSTED

• TWO HYDROGEN PROCESSES(+CO2 FROM AIR)– BIOMEMETIC/ ALGAE – INDUSTRIAL/ ELECTROLYSIS/CHEMICAL

Renewable 95: Closing the Carbon Cycle

DROP IN TECHNOLOGY

CO2 Capture&

Hydrogen Conversion

Water Vapor and CO2

95Octane

CONVERTING CO2 FROM AIR & HYDROGEN FROM WATER

TO95 OCTANE GASOLINE

GT Project with Algae Partners

Desalination

CO2

Wastewater

Algae Production Dewatering Fuel

Production

Fuels,Electricity &

Biochar

TreatedWastewater

Drinking Water

•Produces carbon negative transportation fuels (diesel, jet, etc)•Treats municipal wastewater and produces drinking water•Sequesters carbon in biochar fertilizers

GT is developing a fully-integrated biorefinery through a partnership with Algae Systems

This unique combination of technologies provides critical municipal services while producing energy in an embodiment that is

As Green As It Gets

Solar Energy

CO2 FROM AIR ELECTROLYSIS :HYDROGEN FROM WATER

The Production of Methanol Carbon Recycling International-Iceland

• CO2+3H2 TO CH3OH +H20– The above reaction is exothermic, DH298=-49.47 kJ/mol– This reaction is faster than conventional methanol

processes that use synthesis gas (CO + H2)

• Extracts heat 50% faster than with water-based geothermal

• Does not require pumps or pumping• Can generate power with conventional

technology (e.g., turbines)• Can store energy

– Ideal for energy storage (e.g., less than 2-minute response time)

– No separate storage technology required

• Provides grid management capability– Baseload, firming or peaking power– “Firms up” wind or solar power

• Produces carbon-negative power

MAKE GEOTHERMAL ELECTRICITY FROM CO2 FROM AIR

Geothermal Electricity + CO2

Collaboration with Green Fire Energy– Uses CO2 instead of water– 20-50% of circulating CO2 sequestered

Using CO2 captured by Global Thermostat– Location flexibility of air capture – Economic advantage of locating near use– Increased geothermal locations accessible

Produces Carbon Negative Electricity

ENERGY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS

• POWERED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY– ESSENTIALLY UNLIMITED SOURCE S

• LOCALLY PRODUCED GLOBALLY– ENERGY SECURITY FOR ALL

• DROP IN TECHNOLOGY – MINIMIZES INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS

• ENERGY EFFCIENT AND RESILIENT – “COST” IS THE ISSUE

“COST” OF ENERGY • “COST” = PRIVATE COST+ EXTERNAL COST=SOCIAL COST

– PRIVATE COST=WHAT YOU PAY AT THE PUMP OR FOR ELECTRICITY

– EXTERNAL COST ARE THOSE NOT REFLECTED IN MARKET • SUBSIDIES • HEALTH LIABILITIES • ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES/CLIMATE CHANGE • ENERGY/ OIL-RELATED DEFENSE EXPENDITURE • NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT

• “COST”FOR CLOSING THE CARBON CYCLE=SOCIAL COST – NEEDS TO BE FULL LIFE CYCLE COSTS– NEEDS TO ACOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES – NEEDS TO BE FROM A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE – NEEDS TO BE EQUITABLE DISRIBUTED

THE SOCIAL COST IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE PRIVATE COSTS

• MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research “The true social cost is almost three times theamount that appears on our utility bills.”

• International Centre for Technology Assessment. ” Such external costs push the true price of

gasoline as high as $15.14 a gallon”

COST OF CARBON NEGATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGY

• WHAT WE PAY FOR GASOLINE at the PUMP TODAY IS ABOUT 30% OF THE TRUE ECONOMIC COST • COST OF CO2 FROM THE AIR/GALLON(10KG)

– .01X COST/TONNE ( UNCOMPRESSED) • $1.00. FOR $100/TONNE CO2• $.50 FOR $50/TONNE

• COST OF HYDROGEN BY ELECTROLYSIS/GALLON(1KG)– CE/KWHR X50KWHR/KG +CAPEX

• $4.00 FOR 7CTS/KWHR• $1.50 FOR 2CTS/KWHR

• CONVERSION TO FUEL AND DELIVERY VIA EXISITING PROCESSES– $1.50 /GALLON

• TOTAL COST TODAY!!– $3.50 – $6.50/GALLON

• HYDROGEN AND FUEL VIA ALGAE-CAN BE LOWER COST– SUN SEPARATES HYDROGEN AND COMBINES IT WITH CO2 TO PRODUCE HYDROCARBONS– MONETIZE CLEAN WATER AND BIOCHAR

• ELECTROYLSIS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AT 2CTS KWHR OF ENERGY WITH TODAYS SYSTEM– STRANDED ELECTRICITY TODAY– NO NEED FOR NEW INFRASTRUCTURE-LOW BARRIER TO ENTRY

A SOLUTION EXISTS TODAY

• WE KNOW HOW TO GET HYDROGEN FROM WATER • WE KNOW HOW TO GET CO2 FROM THE AIR• WE HAVE AN ACCEPTABLE SOLAR OR GEOTHERMAL EFFCIENCY• THE CLOSING THE CARBON CYCLE “COST”

– “COST” =COST OF TECHNOLGY – AVOIDED EXTERNAL COSTS OF TODAYS APPOACH + NEW EXTERNAL COSTS

– NEW EXTERNAL COSTS VERY LOW• NO POLLUTION –FUEL IS CLEAN• NO COSTS FROM POOR DISTRIBUTION OF INPUTS• NO COSTS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

• CAN COST $6.50/GAL AND STILL BE ECONOMIC– $3.00/GAL REBATE TO CONSUMERS TO REFLECT REDUCED SOCIAL COSTS– LESS “COST” THEN FOSSIL ENERGY “SOCIAL COSTS” OF 10.00/GAL

26

CLOSING THE CARBON CYCLE FOR ENERGY, ECONOMIC, AND CLIMATE SUSTAINABILITY

“GT CARBON SPONGE”

Pipes to algae, etc.

Patented Carbon Sponge: porous block coated with proprietary amine sorbents

Ambient air and/or flue gas goes through and binds to sorbent

Carbon Sponge lowers into sealed chamber

Low temperature process heat releases pure CO2 gas for collection

And the cycle restarts…

How GT Technology Works

27

Technology Operation

Adsorption Phase

Regeneration Phase

Ambient air OR Air-flue gas blend

Monolith Contactors + Sorbent “Cartridge”GT Module

Step 1 Air Input

• GT uses Corning monolith contactors similar to those in your cars tailpipe

• Contactors provide high surface contact areas at low pressure drop

• Enables movement of large volumes of air with effective contact of CO2 at low cost

• 40 minute cycle

28

Technology Operation

29

Step 2 CO2 Capture

Adsorption Phase

Regeneration Phase

Monolith Contactors + Sorbent “Cartridge”GT Module

• GT sorbents proven highly effective by Georgia Tech - confirmed by SRI, BASF, and NETL

• BASF process to deposit immobilized amines in pores of the contactor walls at high loading

• Dramatically reduces heat required compared to liquid based CCS

Ambient air OR

Air-flue gas blend

Technology Operation

30

105C Steam

Step 3 Regeneration

CO2 Collection

Adsorption Phase

Regeneration Phase

Monolith Contactors + Sorbent “Cartridge”GT Module

• CO2-rich sorbent is heated with low-temperature process heat (90-105C) steam

• CO2 is collected and sorbent is regenerated

• CO2 can be stored or used in multiple commercial applications

• 4 - 10 minute cycle

Technology Operation

l 31

Step 3 Regeneration

Evaporated water

Adsorption Phase

Regeneration Phase

Monolith Contactors + Sorbent “Cartridge”

GT Module

Step 4 Heat Recovery Regeneration

• Hot monolith with CO2 removed is connected to neighboring cold CO2 full monolith module

• Condensed water evaporates cooling hot monolith deposits on cold monolith heating it

• Reduces heat required by a factor of two

• Cooled monolith raised to capture position

• Partially heated monolith is exposed to steam

CO2 Adsorption Breakthrough CurvesEffect of loading & production validation

Monolith Durability Test• Stability Run – 400, 30

minute adsorptions followed by four minutes of CO2 removal by steam stripping

• Equation in the upper right fits the CO2 working capacity data: CO2 removed each cycle-x is the number of the run

• The small and positive coefficient means the results are essentially unchanged, e.g., stable performance

y = 0.0001x + 26.457

R2 = 0.0002

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Cycle #

CO

2 C

aptu

red

(g

/cyc

le)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

pp

m C

O2

in A

ir, T

emp

erat

ure

(K

)

CO2 Captured

CO2 in Air

Temperature

34

Technology Partners

34

Partner Activity Relationship Terms

SRI International Pilot plant operation and R&D; lab testing Contract R&D

BASF Sorbent development/supply; lab testing Strategic Supplier

Corning Monolith development/supply Strategic Supplier

Linde Carburetor Pilot/EPC Contractor EPC Contractor

Georgia Tech Sorbent R&D; contactor testing Contract R&D

Virgin Atlantic Renewable jet fuel Commercialization partner, customer

Carmagen Engineering

System design, engineering, optimization Contract consulting

Summit Power Project engineering Project development fee

Third Party Reports

Detailed Third party reports completed by:

• Den Norsk Veritas (Global risk and technology assessment firm)

• Leading world supplier of industrial gases and engineering services

Reports validate technology and potential aggressive cost curve advancements.

Third-party reports confirm technology and cost trajectoryUnder $50/tonne -ECONOMIC VIABILE

Carbon dioxide concentration decreasing

The Global Thermostat

ENERGY

CO2 CAPTURE

Atmosphere 800

CLIMATE STABILITY-CHAOS CONTROL

• CLIMATE IS A COMPLEX SYSTEM– LORENZ BUTTERFLY EFFECT-CHAOTIC DYNAMICS – NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT LONG TERM CLIMATE– SMALL CHANGE CAN PRODUCE BIG IMPACT– CAN USE EFFECT IN REVERSE TO PROVIDE CONTOL– CHAOS CONTROL DEMONSTRATED

• CONTROL CARBON CYCLE –CONTROL CO2 CONCENTRATION – LIMIT FUTURE CLIMATE EXTREMES– TURN A THREAT INTO AN OPPORTUNITYCAN PROVIDE GLOBAL CLIMATE CONTROL FOR LESS ENERGY THAN NEEDED TO CONTROL CLIMATE IN OUR BUILDNGS

A Sustainable Solution

ENERGY SECURITY FOR ALL̶� CO2 FROM AIR AND HYDROGEN FROM WATER̶� PRODUCTION AND CONVERSION TO FUEL POWERED BY RENEWABLES ̶� INPUTS MORE EQUABLY DISTRIBUTED-

CLIMATE STABILIZATION ̶� ADVOID GOING ABOVE “TIPPING POINT ̶� LONG TERM CAN VARY STORAGE AND RECYCLE TO STABILIZE CO2

GREEN ENERGY FUND STIMULATES ECONOMIC GROWTH̶� STIMULATES TRANSITION TO CLOSING THE CARBON CYCLE̶� MONETIZE THE CO2 SO IT IS A VALUABLE AND NOT A POLLUTANT

Close the carbon cycle –Capture of CO2 from air to make the energy we need and to stabilize the climate