Overview IEAGHG Activities and Capture Issues

1. Overview IEAGHGActivities and Capture Issues John Gale General Manager EASAC Working Group on CCS Cambridge , UK, 26th-27th October 2011

2. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme • A collaborative research programme founded in 1991 as an IEA Implementing Agreement fully financed by its members • Aim: Provide members with definitive information on the role that technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Scope:All greenhouse gases, all fossil fuels and comparative assessments of technology options Focus: On CCS in recent years • Producing information that is: • Objective, trustworthy, independent • Policy relevant but NOT policy prescriptive • Reviewed by external Expert Reviewers • Subject to review of policy implications by Members

3. Membership

4. IEAGHG Activities • Task 1: Evaluation of technology options • Based on a standard methodology to allow direct comparisons and are peer reviewed • Task 2: Facilitating implementation • Provision of “evidence based information” • Task 3: Facilitating international co- operation • Knowledge transfer from existing, laboratory, pilot and commercial scale CCS projects globally • Task 4:To disseminate the results as widely as possible.

5. Capture portfolio • Technical studies on key issues • Post Combustion Conference series • Learning's from pilot plants/ lab scale developments • Oxyfuel Conference series • Recent developments and learning's from pilot plants/ lab scale developments • Solid Looping network • Network of researchers on solid looping monitoring development of technology • Moves from lab to pilot scale • What have we learnt from early commercial CCS projects

6. IGCC? • No specific activity • Look at where we can add value? • IEACCC monitors gasification technology progress • Cannot build pilot projects • Efficiency improvements down to turbine development • Market for large H2 turbines? • Next step integrated demonstration at scale

7. Why solid looping? • Proponents suggest reductions in: • Cost – 20% compared to oxy and PCC • 5-6% reduction in energy efficiency penalty compared to first generation capture technology • Two technology options • Chemical looping – best suited for NGCC with CCS • Calcium looping – potentially suitable for coal fired power plant • Similar technology to CFB

8. Cross Cutting Issues (1) • Costs • Most recent cost data produced by EU ZEP • Costs for post combustion capture with Coal fired power plant is €70-90/MWh • Costs for post combustion capture with Coal fired power plant is €70-120/MWh • Competitive with other low carbon technology • On-Off shore wind, nuclear and solar • IEA Report - “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity – 2010 • http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2207

9. Cross cutting issues (2) Water usage – developing issue • Study aimed to look at increased water use for CO2 capture on coal fired power plant • Adding capture significantly increases water use (PC, oxy and IGCC) • By applying techniques such as air cooling can reduce water usage to near zero • But, energy penalty increases by 2-3% with capture (1.9 to 2.3% without) • COE increases by 12-13% (8-12% without)

10. Cross Cutting Issues (3) Overall emissions reduction • Some emissions increase due to increased fuel use – environmental penalty • Oxy-combustion eliminates most gaseous emissions of other substances • IGCC and NGCC already very clean • All have options extra new liquid/solids wastes to deal with • Associated environmental issues to be addressed

11. Cross Cutting Issues (4) Retrofitting and repowering • Complex set of criteria to consider with a lot of site specific detail required • Costs of electricity from retrofitted CCS plants generally lower than new build CCS • New plants to be built capture ready to avoid high retrofit costs • CCS retrofits to low efficiency plants with have higher generation costs and will be less competitive than new build • Post combustion capture and oxy fuel can be retrofitted to existing steam cycles on coal and NG fired power plants • Electricity output penalties per tonne of CO2 captured are close to new build plant with same capture technology • A survey of plants globally suggests there is significant potential to retrofit capture plants to existing power plants

12. Cross Cutting Issues (5) • Flexibility • CCS flexibility requirements depend on external factors: • Variability of electricity demand • The overall GHG abatement requirement • The amount of wind and nuclear in the system • Developments in electricity system load management • In some countries CCS plants will be able to operate at base load • If there is a modest CO2 abatement requirement, little wind and nuclear or high load management • In some countries most CCS plants will probably have to operate flexibly • Little information in the public domain on CCS plant flexibility • Including energy storage in some CCS processes can be an effective way to reduce the need for flexible operation

13. Non-Integrated Plants with Hydrogen Storage Fuel Gasification and shift conversion CO2 transport and storage CO2 capture and compression Gasification and capture plant - full load operation Hydrogen-rich gas Power plant - flexible operation Underground hydrogen storage Power Combined cycle power plant

14. Capture in Cement Industry • Technically feasible to introduce CCS technology into cement plants • PCC and oxyfuel options • Costs • For PCC option • €60 to €107/t CO2 avoided for stand alone plants • Integration could potentially halve costs • For oxyfuel option • €23 to €30/t CO2 avoided • Integration with an oxy power plant or IGCC plant could takes costs as low as €6/t CO2 avoided • May be commercial implications for CCS deployment • 50% of current cement production in China • No driver to implement CCS.

15. Capture in Steel Industry • Technically feasible to introduce CCS technology into cement plants • PCC and oxy blast furnace options • Costs • Highest costs option is PCC option • Scale • Could be looking at 8 to 30Mt/CO2 to capture and store • Distributed capture/transmission network • Centralised Versus decentralised capture plant (s) • Pipeline/ship transport networks? • Reservoir capacity availability? • Biggest injection project so far is Gorgon at 4Mt/y/CO2 • Requires pressure relief, injection into overlying aquifers

16. New Areas of interest • Direct Air capture – very expensive • Costs as high as $t/CO2 avoided • BioChar • Niche option • Further information of carbon decay times in soils • BioCCS • Has a significant potential, 10Gt/CO2 • Potential for negative emissions • Sustainability of biomass/competition with food production • No financial incentives under ETS • Might offset fossil fuel issues with stakeholders

17. Key technical issue for PCC • Nitrosamines – a carcinogenic degradation product • Detectable levels of lighter components will probably be emitted to atmosphere from amine based capture plants employing single water wash technology • Emissions to air of heavier degradation products will be at well below detectable levels • Application of an additional acid wash is an effective way of eliminating emissions of the lighter components. • The preferred choice of demister seems to be the Swirl Mist Eliminator (SME) • Emissions standards are not yet set for many of the substances which are likely to be emitted • Stringent emissions standards and regulatory requirements to adopt best available techniques can be expected particularly so if even the presence of trace amounts of known carcinogens are confirmed. • More research into emissions and their measurement is required. • Some alternative solvents have lower emissions but may still need to apply similar additional clean up steps

18. Technical Issues re IGGC • All gasification/capture components developed • Technical development is demonstration of integrated CCS system at scale • H2 turbine not yet demonstrated • If used in cycle with H2 production and storage • Issues re hydrogen storage to consider

19. Technical issues re Solid Looping • Scale up • Currently moving up to 1-2Mwth scale • Demonstration of extended operating times • Currently 16 test rigs have logged up 4500 hours operation since 2003 • Addressing process emissions • Characterisation of sorbents and oxygen carriers • Physical degredation/materials & corrosion issues • Cost estimates for commercial scale units • Identifying first commercial opportunities

20. Technical issues Industry • Technology development issues • 10 -20 years to introduce new technology into industry sectors • Technical issues to resolve with oxy firing • Pilot testing underway • Scale up • Less of an issue for cement • Steel we could be looking at 8 to 30 Mt/CO2/y produced • Multiple stacks, collection/distribution infrastructure required • Largest CCS injection so far Gorgon, Australia 4 Mt/y • Transmission • Cement industry tends to be sited inland close to demand • Steel facilities near sea shore/estuaries • Large volumes of gas to be transported • Large reservoirs to accept this volume of CO2

21. Thank You Further details can be found at: www.ieaghg.org www.ghgt.info