DIRECT AIR

CAPTURE/NEGATIVE EMISSIONS WORKSHOP

18 March 2014

London

www.ukccsrc.ac.uk

Agenda.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2Speaker Biographies.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2Abstracts.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4Ben Anthony - Direct Air Capture.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6Niall Mac Dowell - Power generation in the UK: Carbon source or Carbon sink?.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47Maria Chiara Ferrari - Capturing CO2 from air: Research at the University of Edinburgh.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87Tim Kruger - Greenhouse Gas Removal: Proposed Techniques to Remove GG from Ambient Air.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 114Alexandre Strapasson - Global Calculator Project.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 129

DIRECT AIR CAPTURE/NEGATIVE EMISSIONS WORKSHOP 10.00-15.30, 18 March 2014 Boardroom, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ

AGENDA Chaired by Nilay Shah, Imperial College London 09.30-10.00 Arrivals and registration 10.00-10.40 Ben Anthony, Cranfield University - Direct Capture of CO2 from the Air 10.40-11.20 Niall Mac Dowell, Imperial College London - Power generation in the UK: Carbon Source or Carbon Sink? 11.20-11.40 BREAK 11.40-12.20 Maria Chiara-Ferrari, University of Edinburgh - Capturing CO2 from the air: Research at the University of Edinburgh 12.20-13.40 LUNCH 13.40-14.20 Tim Kruger, University of Oxford - Greenhouse Gas Removal: Proposed Techniques to Remove Greenhouse Gases from Ambient Air 14.20-14.40 Alexandre Strapasson, Imperial College London – Global Calculator project 14.40-15.30 Discussion on research priorities in CDR/air capture, with tea and coffee

SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES Ben Anthony Dr. Edward J Anthony has more than 34 years' experience on a wide range of combustion and gasification projects at both a pilot plant and industrial level. His research interests focus on combustion, gasification and CO2 capture systems. He has also worked on EU demonstration projects on oxy-fuel combustion and calcium looping. He is the co-author of over 190 peer reviewed journal publications in these areas. More recently he has worked on air capture under a Carbon Management Canada contract and on the effects of impurities on CO2 storage under a contract with IEAGHG. He is currently a Reader in the School of Applied Science at Cranfield University. Tim Kruger Tim Kruger runs the Oxford Geoengineering Programme (OGP), at the University of Oxford, which is assessing proposed techniques to cool the climate by either removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reflecting a proportion of the sun's light back into space. The OGP aims to assess all geoengineering techniques technically, socially, environmentally and ethically to determine which, if any, of the proposed techniques could be employed to counter climate change with creating countervailing side-effects. Tim is a co-author of the Oxford Principles, a set of guidelines for the appropriate conduct of geoengineering research which have been

adopted as policy by the UK government. He was awarded a Greenius Award by the UK Cabinet Office for a process that dramatically reduces the amount of water required to grow crops in arid environments and has four patent applications pending on technologies that reduce the impact of carbon dioxide emissions. Maria Chiara Ferrari Dr Maria-Chiara Ferrari (MCF) is the Science & Innovation Award Lecturer in Carbon Capture with Membranes at the Institute for Materials and Processes at the University of Edinburgh (UoE) since January 2011. She is also a member of the Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage centre (SCCS) and a co-investigator in the UKCCSRC established in 2012 by the EPSRC. As part of the first UK MSc programme on Carbon Capture and Storage taught at UoE, she has developed the course “Gas Separation Using Membranes”. In 2010 she joined the University of Edinburgh working on the development of complete models for adsorption processes. Since joining the UoE, MCF worked on several research projects involving CO2 separation: she was a named researcher in the EPSRC cross-disciplinary project "Nanotubes for carbon capture" that investigated capturing CO2 from air and she is a Co-I in the EPSRC Adsorption Materials and Processes for Carbon Capture from Gas-Fired Power Plants - AMPGas (EP/I010939/1), and the EU OFFGAS (Offshore Gas Separation) project (FP7-PEOPLE-2011-IRSES-OFFGAS). Her research interests are in separation of CO2 with membranes, development of polymeric materials and mixed matrix membranes for gas separation, air capture and integration of hybrid membrane and adsorption processes. Niall Mac Dowell Dr Niall Mac Dowell is a lecturer in Energy and Environmental Technology and Policy in the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London and is a Chartered Engineer with the Institution of Chemical Engineers. His research interests are in the development and integration of multi-scale models in the context of decarbonised Energy Systems. He is a guest researcher at the MATerials and GASes Research Institute in Barcelona, Spain and has given invited lectures on his research in the US, UK, EU and the Middle East. He has travelled on behalf of the Foreign Office to travel to China and Korea to promote low carbon power generation and was part of the Imperial College Delegation to the UN FCC COP18 event in Doha, Qatar. He has been invited to provide written evidence to members of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. Alexandre Strapasson Alexandre Strapasson is Research Associate at Imperial College London working on energy and environmental sciences, and visiting Lecturer in biofuels at IFP School in Paris. Before moving to the UK, Alexandre worked for several years at the Brazilian Government as Head of the Department of Bioenergy at the Ministry of Agriculture (MAPA), and as UNDP Consultant for Energy and Climate Change affairs at the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). He is an Agricultural Engineer, and took a Masters in Energy from the University of São Paulo (USP), with additional studies in Economics and Management from IFP in Paris, and in Climate Change from the Overseas Environment Cooperation Center (OECC) in Tokyo. At Imperial College, Alexandre is currently leading a working group on Land use, Food Security, Bioenergy and Greenhouse Gas Removals as part of the Global Calculator Project, which is led by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

ABSTRACTS FOR PRESENTATIONS

Direct CO2 Capture from Air – Ben Anthony Direct capture of CO2 from directly from the atmosphere (Fig. 1). A major advantage of this technology is that it is independent of the source of CO2 emissions. Hence, it can be set up at locations where a pure stream of CO2 is needed such as in the case of enhanced oil recovery or where CO2 storage sites are easily available. Current proposed processes use NaOH or KOH for the capture stage, and one must then regenerate the alkali hydroxide for reuse, by precipitating the carbonate as CaCO3. This in turn must itself be regenerated to produce a pure stream of CO2 and CaO. One possible route to avoid the use of an alkali metal hydroxide is to use CaO or Ca(OH)2 directly for this capture stage. This presentation will deal with both the basic process as well as exploring whether ambient air is a developing technology, which is potentially capable of removing CO2 there are simpler and cheaper routes to achieve this goal such as using CaO or Ca(OH)2 directly.

Fig. 1 A Direct Air Capture Process

Power generation in the UK: Carbon Source or Carbon Sink? – Niall Mac Dowell There has been a growing interest in the development and use of renewable energy technologies. Among the renewable energy technologies, biomass-to-energy vectors are considered to be a promising option. The diversity of biomass sources offer the possibility of contributing to energy security via diversification of the energy mix. Bioenergy can be used for different purposes such as dispatchable electricity generation, high grade heat and production of liquid biofuels. Mandates and targets have been set around the globe to promote the use of renewable energy. When combined with CO2 capture and storage, the co-firing of biomass with fossil fuels leads to CO2 negative energy. This is important in the context of mitigating anthropogenic CO2 emissions, carbon offsetting and eventually reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Therefore, bioenergy is expected to play an important role as a part of the renewable energy mix to meet these long term renewables and emissions reductions targets. In this work, we present a spatially-explicit optimisation framework for a bioenergy supply chain network based on a "neighbourhood flow" approach. Linear models of co-fired coal-based power plants with amine-based CO2 capture have been derived from correlations of detailed simulations of the whole system using ASPEN plus. The model applicability is highlighted with a case study of bioelectricity generation in the UK. The bioelectricity demand is determined based on a combination UK renewables and carbon mitigation targets. Availabilities of different types of biomass in the UK are accounted for in the generation of bioelectricity. Similarly, land-use-change (LUC) emissions are also incorporated in the carbon balance. Biomass imports are not considered as a source of biomass supply. However, we augment the availability of indigenous biomass by utilising the biogenic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW).

Via a pareto front analysis, we investigate the compromises associated with minimising the total cost or total CO2 emissions of the whole energy system. Decision variables include: the material flows within the network, biomass supply and bioenergy production amounts in each region. Key model outputs include a spatially explicit selection of biomass processing facilities, power plants, power plant load factor as well as the extent of biomass co-firing and CO2 capture at a given power station Finally, we review economics and wider systems issues, e.g., global biomass supply. Capturing CO2 from the air: Research at the University of Edinburgh – Maria Chiara Ferrari Direct capture of CO2 from air can help mitigate the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 and achieve the target set by the UK government; reducing the net CO2 emission by 80% by 2050 requires the implementation of multiple measures including increasing the use of renewable and nuclear energy, and implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS) from industrial sources and power plants on a wide scale. The impact of these solutions on 50% of global emissions which come from small distributed sources and transport is not guaranteed. More importantly, none of these solutions address directly the reduction of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and as a result, should the climate change effect accelerate, little could be done to correct this trend. The development of air capture technology provides an option to offset the emission of distributed sources and possibly reverse the trend in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The separation of CO2 from air is technically feasible, but the large amount of energy required to concentrate CO2 from atmospheric levels prevents the successful deployment of this technology. It is therefore essential to develop improved capture processes with reduced costs and energy requirements. Adsorption processes can play a significant role. An alternative measure to achieve negative CO2 emission could be the implementation of carbon capture strategies on biomass plants, which are already considered carbon neutral. Adsorption processes can be successfully employed in this case. A preliminary study with a two stage Pressure/Vacuum Swing Adsorption (PVSA) process suggests that the energy penalty is lower than for a comparable amine process. Greenhouse Gas Removal: Proposed Techniques to Remove Greenhouse Gases from Ambient Air – Tim Kruger While CCS can act on point source emissions and help to reduce the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they cannot 'turn the clock back' if we were to overshoot a 'safe' level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) techniques have been proposed with the aim of extracting carbon dioxide from ambient air and safely sequestering it. This talk will focus on the range of proposed techniques and the challenges they face, with the aim of distilling the hope from the hype. Global Calculator project - Alexandre Strapasson Alexandre Strapasson will talk about the Global Calculator Project and its Greenhouse Gas Removal approach. The calculator will enable users to explore the options for reducing global emissions associated with land, food and energy systems in the period to 2050. The ultimate aim is to energise the debate on climate change and build momentum for action to reduce emissions ahead of the 2015 negotiations. The Global Calculator will have a user-friendly front-end aimed at global leaders in businesses, NGOs and governments. It will build on the success that a number of countries have had in developing their own country-level 2050 Calculators but it will extend the approach by illustrating the detrimental impacts of climate change associated with global-level choices. Greenhouse Gas Removals are also part of this project, which is based on a dynamic-system platform. The final version of the tool will be built by the end of 2014, but Alexandre will present the current situation of this project and share ideas on how to address negative emissions in the international debate.

Direct Air Capture E.J. Anthony Cranfield University

Global Warming “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind” [Savante Arrhenius, “Worlds in the Making” 1906]

Nonetheless there is a conviction that we need to have CCS ready within the next few decades if we are not to exceed 450 ppm CO2

There are still some modern adherents of the view that global warming will be good for parts of the world, plus endless armies of global warming contrarians

CCS as conceived today is not climate control and cannot prevent climate change, it can only prevent worse climate change! However, it is probably essential for technologies like Direct Air Capture Alternatives include mineralization, bio-CCS, biochar, or use!

Direct Air Capture

Direct CO2 Capture from Air

5

Forestry (CO2 Capture via Biomass) – BECS CO2 Capture (next presentation)

Gasification by Primary Feedstock

State of the Gasification Industry- the Updated Worldwide Gasification Database – C. Higman, Oct 16th, 2013

What if we don’t succeed or partially succeed with CCS?

Possible strategies might be to decarbonize thermal power, but leave transportation “privileged”, in which case we need a route to compensate for CO2 from vehicles, planes and other mobile carbon sources • Could this be air capture? Another question is, whether there is any history of attempting to influence the climate

Originator Technology Success

John Espy (the storm king) US 1849

Burning large tracts of forest to make rain

None

General Daniel Ruggles and Robert Dryenforth, 1891

Concussion Theory –make rain by creating large explosions in the atmosphere

None

Various (Recent used in China in 2007)

Seed clouds to make rain Moderate

John von Neumann 1950’s

Develop computer models of climate, with the ultimate goal of weather control!

None, but unintended consequences

USSR 1950’s Stalin’s great plan to transform the nature, e.g. dam the Bering Straits to melt arctic ice!

None, but some environmental disasters

Various Geo-engineering (seeding oceans with Fe, reflective mirrors in space, air capture)

Too soon to say

Here we present a new index of the year when the projected mean climate of a given location moves to a state continuously outside the bounds of historical variability under alternative greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Using 1860 to 2005 as the historical period, this index has a global mean of 2069 (±18 years s.d.) for near-surface air temperature under an emissions stabilization scenario and 2047 (±14 years s.d.) under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario. Unprecedented climates will occur earliest in the tropics and among low-income countries, highlighting the vulnerability of global biodiversity and the limited governmental capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change. Our findings shed light on the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions if climates potentially harmful to biodiversity and society are to be prevented. The Projected Timing of Climate Departure from Recent Variability C. Mora et al., 2013 - Nature 502, 183, 2013.

Are there scenarios under which Direct Air Capture might be essential?

Direct Air Capture

Pros • Air is ubiquitous • Air contains relatively

few contaminants • Could be used for

niche markets

Cons • Water and energy to

drive such schemes and CCS sites are not ubiquitous

• CO2 concentrations are 400 ppm, implying a high cost for CO2 removal

Who Pays for Direct Air Capture?

Air Capture is something done for the public good, unless there is a value for the CO2 Carbon Price? Carbon Use – (How much)? Unlike other forms of pollution (SO2, NOx, Heavy metals etc.), CO2 is truly global, and would require international agreements to pay for removing it from the atmosphere for the global good

American Physical Society, 2008-2011 Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals

Report Committee Robert Socolow (Princeton), Co-Chair Michael Desmond (BP), Co-Chair Roger Aines (LLNL)

Jason Blackstock (IIASA)

Olav Bolland (NTNU Trondheim, N)

Tina Kaarsberg (DOE)

Nate Lewis (Cal Tech)

Marco Mazzotti (ETH Zurich, CH)

Allen Pfeffer (Alstom) Karma Sawyer (UC Berkeley)

Jeffrey J. Siirola (Eastman)

Berend Smit (UC Berkeley)

Jennifer Wilcox (Stanford)

Green: We are here.

Earlier co-chairs: Bill Brinkman, then Arun Majumdar

400 PPM: Can Artificial Trees Help Pull CO2 from the Air? Klaus Lackner American Physical Society suggests such air capture might cost $600/tonne Scientific America, May 16th, 2013 * Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals: A Technology Assessment for APS Panel on Public Affairs, June 1st, 2011

Direct Air Capture

High Level Messages

“First things first: Virtually all large-scale industrial CO2 sources should be decarbonized before DAC is deployed. Not only is DAC much more expensive, but DAC requires low-C power to be carbon-negative.”

“I cannot persuade myself that DAC is a relevant climate change strategy for this half century.”

“It is obligatory, therefore, for experts (including those here today) not to create false hopes – in this case, not to allow our audiences to infer that humanity can “solve” climate change while being relaxed about fossil fuels.”

Robert Socolow speaking at Direct Air Capture Summit, University of Calgary, March 7th, 2012

Direct Air Capture

• If natural gas/hydraulic fracturing represent a bridge to the future, can capture from low CO2 sources represent a bridge for the development of air capture?

• Obvious examples include producing CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery, removing CO2 from natural gas etc.

Direct CO2 Capture from Air

7

Wet Scrubbing Process

Objective

Comparing Performance of Pelletized and Natural Limestone for CO2 Capture from Air in a Fixed Bed

• Effect of Particle Type, Particle Size, Gas Flow Rate and Relative Humidity on CO2 Capture (breakthrough time, breakthrough curve,…) and its global reaction rate

• Study Carbonation Decay in Series of Cycles

(Capture and regeneration) for: - Pellets - Limestone (Natural Cadomin) 2

Wet Scrubbing Process

8

Disadvantages • Energy consumption • Complexity of the process • Large water consumption • Use of Na or K will present problems in any

high temperature regeneration step

Direct CO2 Capture from Air

Dry Air Capture Systems

9

CO2 C

aptu

re

Rege

nera

tion

CO2 Free Stream

Inlet Air

Rich

CO

2 Fre

e St

ream

• Adsorption/Chemisorption process

• Regeneration needed • Degradation of sorbents

in cycles

CaO Sorbent Properties

10

Pellets(250-425 µm) Pellets(425-600 µm) Natural Limestone

(250-425 µm) Natural Limestone

(425-600 µm)

Bulk Density (g/cm3) 0.87 0.84 0.98 0.96 Surface Area (m2/g) 14.6085 12.0098 13.6017 11.5432

Components (wt%) Calcium Oxide (81%), Calcium Aluminate Cement (10%), Impurities (9%)

Calcium Oxide (90%), impurities (10%)

Particles are pre-hydrated for 3 h

Conditions

• Particle Size (a) 250-425 µm (b) 425-600 µm • Flow Rate (a) 0.5 Lit/min (25 °C and 1 barg) (b) 1 Lit/min (25 °C and 1 barg) • Bed Length 60 mm • Bed Diameter 7.48 mm • Relative Humidity (a) 55% (b) 70%

11

78.5

7 m

m

7.48 mm Sorbent

Glass bead

Paper Filter

Experimental Set Up

12

Compressor Bubbler

Fixed Bed

Data Acquisition

System

RH-Transmitter

CO2 Analyzer

Air

Necessity For Moisture I

13

H2O

Ca(OH)2

Ca(OH)2 ↔ Ca2+ (aq)+ 2OH- (aq)

CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 (aq)

H2CO3 ↔ HCO3- (aq)+ H+ (aq)

HCO3- (aq) ↔ CO3

2- (aq)+ H+ (aq)

Ca2+ (aq) + CO32- (aq) ↔ CaCO3 + H2O

Necessity For Moisture II

14

Ca2+ + CO32- ↔ CaCO3 + H2O

Ca(OH)2 Ca(OH)2

Ca(OH)2 CaCO3

Ca(OH)2

H2CO3

CO2

Necessity For Moisture III

15

CO2 (~400 ppm)

Relative Humidity ~ 0% No Reaction between CO2 and Ca(OH)2

Necessity For Moisture IV

16

CO2 (~400 ppm)

Water Blocks pores and CO2 cannot diffuse

Necessity For Moisture V

17

CO2 (~400 ppm)

Pores are covered by a water film CO2 reacts with Ca(OH)2

Necessity For Moisture VI

18

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

C/C0

Time (min)

Natural Cadomin-250-425µm-1LPM-RH~0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1000M

ASS%

Temperature (C)

RH~0

Hydration ~ 80% Carbonation ~ 10%

Necessity For Pre Hydration

19

Hydration ~ 27% Carbonation ~ 65%

Carbonation ~ 90%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mas

s (m

g)

Temperature (C)

Pellets-250-425µm-1L-Bottom

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mas

s (m

g)

Temperature (C)

Pellets-250-425µm-1L-Top

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

11.1

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

C/C

0

Time (min)

Pellets-250-425µm-1 Lit/min

Results I (Effect of flowrate & particle size)

20

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

C/C0

Time (min)

Breakthrough Curves (Pellets)

Pellets-250-425µm-0.5

Lit/min

Pellets-425-600µm-

0.5Lit/min Pellets-425-

600µm-1 Lit/min

Pellets-250-425µm-1 Lit/min

Results I (Effect of flowrate & particle size)

21

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

C/C0

Time (min)

Breakthrough Curves (Natural Cadomin)

Natural Cadomin-250-

425µm-0.5 Lit/min

Natural Cadomin-250-

425µm-1 Lit/min

Results II (effect of particle type)

22

Natural Cadomin-250-

425 µm-1 Lit/min

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

C/C0

Time (min)

Natural Cadomin vs. Pellets

Natural Cadomin-250-

425 µm-0.5 Lit/min

Pellets-250-425 µm-0.5

Lit/min

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

C/C0

Time (min)

Natural Cadomin vs. Pellets

Pellets-250-425 µm-1 Lit/min

Results III (carbonation of particles-TGA)

23

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mas

s%

Temperature (C)

Natural Cadomin-425-600µm-1LPM-bottom

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Mas

s%

Temperature (C)

Natural Cadomin-425-600µm-1LPM-top

Carbonation ~ 93%

Carbonation ~ 95%

Results III (carbonation of particles-Mass Balance vs. TGA)

Conversion (Mass Balance)

Conversion (TGA-average)

Difference %

Pellets 250-425 µm 0.5 lit/min 0.93 0.87 6.89%

Pellets 250-425 µm 1lit/min 0.80 0.87 8.05%

Pellets 425-600 µm 0.5 lit/min 0.85 0.88 3.41%

Natural Cadomin 250-425 µm 0.5

lit/min 0.90 0.92 2.17%

Natural Cadomin 250-425 µm 0.5

lit/min 0.80 0.89 10.11%

Natural Cadomin 425-600 µm 0.5

lit/min 0.86 0.90 4.44%

25

Results IV (Cycles)

26

Calcination (850 °C

75 minutes)

Carbonation (CO2 Capture) Hydration TGA BET

(Surface Area)

Number of Cycles: 9 (10 Calcinations)

Results IV (effect of cycles on surface area & carbonation conversion-Pellets)

27

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

m2/

g

No. Cycle

Surface Area

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%CO

2 Co

nver

sion

No.Cycle

Carbonation Conversion

Pellets-425-600 µm-1LPM

Future Experiments

• Carbonation decay in series of cycles for Natural Cadomin (BET, BJH, SEM, Conversion)

• Carbonation decay in series of cycles at realistic conditions (920 °C and pure CO2 stream)

• Study the effect of relative humidity on CO2 capture from air

• Fitting data with a solid-gas reaction model for quantitative comparison

28

Noncatalytic Solid Gas Reaction

29

Time

T1 T2 T3

2R 2R 2R

2rc

2rc

Reacted Layer Reacted Layer

Unreacted Core Unreacted Core

Noncatalytic Solid Gas Reaction

31

Unreacted Shrinking Core Model

t = τDP [1-3(1-X)2/3+2(1-X)]+ τMT[X]+ τR,CS[1-(1-X)1/3] X= 1- (rc/R)3

τDP = ( )( ) Diffusion through product layer τMT = ( )( ) External mass transfer from bulk to the surface τR,CS = ( )( ) Chemical reaction

Summary

• Existence of humidity is crucial for CO2 capture from air (air capture) at low temperature

• Pre-hydration will improve carbonation conversion along the bed

• Effect of chosen flow rates on global reaction rate is negligible

• Since smaller particles provide greater surface area, in similar conditions (temperature, flowrate) their breakthrough curves were sharper

• Due to high porosity, pellets have better global reaction rate 31

Conclusions

• Air Capture remains an interesting concept which should be pursued

• It cannot substitute and depends on CCS, which must remain the priority while large quantities of fossil fuels are used globally

• Like mineralization which remains a possible solution it requires dramatic improvements in cost

• The alternative to both is increasingly expensive mitigation steps, and/or geoengineering, which has profound implications for the global environment and human wellbeing

Acknowledgements

• Mr Mohammad Samari, who is currently carrying out his MASc on “CO2 Capture from Dilute Sources via lime based processes” under the joint supervision of Professor Arturo Macchi (University of Ottawa) and Dr. E.J. Anthony (Cranfield University)

• Professor Robert Socolow, Princeton University for some of the material used in this presentation

• Professor Vasilije Manovic (Cranfield University) for useful discussions

Power generation in the UK: Carbon Source or Carbon Sink?

Niall Mac Dowella,b

a. Centre for Process Systems Engineering b. Centre for Environmental Policy

Imperial College London nmac-dow@ic.ac.uk @Niallmacdowell

UKCCSRC Direct Air Capture/Negative Emissions Workshop Imperial College London

18th March 2014

Outline

• What is BECCS? • Why should we do BECCS? • How do we do BECCS? • Pitfalls of BECCS? • Outlook for BECCS

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Outline

• What is BECCS? – The TESBIC project

• Some key findings of TESBIC – BECCS Technologies

• Why should we do BECCS? • How do we do BECCS? • Pitfalls of BECCS? • Outlook on BECCS

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What is BECCS? • Using biomass (with/without co-firing of fossil fuels) in

conjunction with CCS leading to net negative emissions – Acronym first used by Fisher, B.S., et al. (2007) in B. Metz et al.

(Eds.), IPCC 4th Assessment Report • BECCS offers the potential to achieve long‐term reductions

in GHG emissions necessary to stabilise atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and could be applied to a wide range of biomass‐related technologies

• Compared to CCS, BECCS appears to have a much lower profile than CCS – BECCS has been observed to increase public acceptance of CCS – BECCS can add important flexibility to GHG mitigation toolbox

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What is BECCS?

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

The TESBIC project

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Some key findings of TESBIC

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Some key findings of TESBIC

1. Co-firing with CCS - Costly - Moderately

negative - Large scale only

2. Dedicated biomass with conventional CCS - Costly - Suitable for

small scale 3. Dedicated biomass

with advanced CCS - High efficiency - Suitable for

small scale N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

BECCS Technologies 1 Moderately negative, possibly nearer term

– Coal-biomass systems • Co-firing: post-combustion capture and oxy-combustion • Co-gasification

2 More negative, more development needed? – Gas-biomass combustion systems – Gas-biomass gasification systems – Gas-biomass looping combustion

3 Highly negative, near term or development needed – Dedicated biomass (combustion, gasification, looping)

4 Very highly negative, long term, development needed – Biomass combustion with CaO looping and ocean liming

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Technology 4: Biomass combustion with CaO looping and ocean liming

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Outline

• What is BECCS? • Why should we do BECCS?

– What is the role of BECCS in cutting CO2 emissions?

– What is the mitigation potential in the UK? • How do we do BECCS? • Potential BECCS pitfalls • Outlook on BECCS

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Why should we do BECCS? System State of Stored

Carbon Description Published Cost Estimates

Afforestation & Reforestation

Biomass and soil organic carbon

Restoring cleared forests and planting new forests on suitable land

$20-100/tCO2

Wetland Restoration

Biomass and soil organic carbon

Restoring damaged, carbon-dense wetlands such as peatlands and mangrove forests.

On the order of $10-100/tCO2 in some cases

Agricultural Soil Sequestration

Soil organic carbon

Adopting a range of practices on arable and grazing lands that enhance soil carbon levels, including reduced tillage and new cropping patterns.

$0-100/tCO2, and can be cost negative

BECCS Pressurised CO2 in geological storage

Capturing CO2 from biomass-fuelled power plants or industries and storing it in geological reservoirs.

$60-120/tCO2, but perhaps as little as $25/tCO2 in niches such as bioethanol production

Direct Air Capture (DAC)

Pressurised CO2 in geological storage

Capturing CO2 directly from the air using chemical sorbents and storing it in geological reservoirs.

Widely varying, from $30-1000/tCO2, depending on system and assumptions

Enhanced Silicate

Weathering

Dissolved bicarbonate and carbonate in groundwater or oceans

Spreading finely ground silicate mineral powder on land or ocean to accelerate natural reaction with atmospheric CO2

$20-130/tCO2 assuming complete reaction

Ocean Liming Dissolved bicarbonate and carbonate in oceans

Adding lime or other metal oxides / hydroxides to the ocean to convert dissolved CO2 to bicarbonate and drive drawdown from the atmosphere.

$70-160/tCO2

Adapted from Lomax, G. et al, Energy Policy, 2014, In Press N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Why should we do BECCS? • Potential to offer deep reductions in atmospheric CO2

concentrations – Current emission reduction technology may not be

adequate – Many future emission scenarios require negative emissions

• Appears practicable and relatively cost-effective – Cheaper than CCS on transport – Cheaper than DAC

• Could be applied to a wide range of technologies • Offers the potential for carbon-offsetting

– Address “hard to reach” areas

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

BECCS and Energy Systems Mitigation

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Growth in total power generation by region

• Increased electrification is a critical element of decarbonisation • Note OECD EU/US outpaced by China (2014 - 2030s) and India (2040 – 2050s)

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Summary of power generation mix scenarios (low fossil fuel prices)

• Total generation in LMS is 117 EJ and 147 EJ in LCS • Each of the LCS scenarios represents a world with an average carbon intensity of 94

gCO2/kWhr • BECCS plays an important role in all scenarios N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What is the CO2 mitigation potential of BECCS in the UK?

• UK’s negative emission potential in the range 21.3 – 82.4 MtCO2/yr • Indigenous biomass potentially small – import is necessary • AVOID / Workstream 2 / Deliverable 1 / Report 18 [ AV/WS2/D1/18 ]

Negative Emissions Curve (MtCO2/yr) for the UK ramp up of BECCS between 2020 to 2030 assuming linear increase in biomass production and full utilisation.

Negative Emissions (MtCO2/yr)

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

How much biomass is there?

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ener

gy c

rop

pote

ntia

l (EJ

)

Land area assumed for energy crops (Gha)

Bauen04

Beringer11

Cannell02

de Vries07

Field08

Fischer01

Hall93

Johansson93

Hoogwijk05

Hookwijk03

Lysen08

Moreira06

Sims06

Smeets07

WEA2000

WGBU09

Wolf03

5odt.ha-1

10odt.ha-1

15odt.ha-1

Globalarable area

Globalpasture area

Slade et al., EES, 2011 N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Economics v emissions

-100

-500

-1000

50 100 150 200

kgCO2/MWh

LCOE £/MWh

1

2

3

4

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Outline

• What is BECCS? • Why should we do BECCS? • How do we do BECCS?

– A UK case study using MINLP • Pitfalls of BECCS? • Outlook on BECCS

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Mac Dowell et al, Energy & Environ. Sci, 2010

Decarbonised electricity generation – a multi-scale problem

Mac Dowell et al., CACE., 2010 Mac Dowell et al., Int. J. GHG. Con., 2013 Mac Dowell et al., Int. J. GHG. Con., 2013

Mac Dowell et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2010 Mac Dowell et al., J. Phys. Chem. B, 2011 Rodriguez et al., Mol. Phys., 2012

Mac Dowell et al., CACE., 2011 Akgul et al., Int. J. GHG. Con., 2014

Mac Dowell et al., Int. J. GHG. Con., 2014

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

BECCS Network: Problem Statement

3,870MW

31

26 27 28 29 30

24 23 22 21

32 33 34

19 18 20 17

13 14 15

9 10 11

6 7 8

3 4 5

1 2

25

16

12

Co-firing plants

2,008MW

2,000 MWe

1,972MW

1,960MW

1,940MW 1,925MW 750MW

1,955MW

1,006MW

Given • Biomass availability and

cost • Fuel and CO2 cost • Energy demand

Determine • Which plants • % Co-firing • % CO2 capture

Meta process model y = yb + A(x – xb)

Input Samples

Outputs; Meta-Modelgeneration

u yMeta-model

Case studies (WP2),Public domain data/models

• 10 Power plants • Capacity = 19 GW • Demand = 9 GW

Akul et al., Int. J. GHG. Con., 2014 N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What is the whole-system objective function?

∑∑∈ ∈

=Pp Gg

pgp EICCRFTAC

∑∑∈ ∈

+Ri Gg

igig PUSCα

∑∑∑∈ ∈ ∈

+Ri Gg Pp

ipgiip DfUPC γα

∑∈

+Gg

gelecg PUGC .,α

∑∈

+Gg

gfossilgg mUFOC ,ϕα

∑∈

+Gg

ggelec CIPUCARC .,α

∑∑∈ ∈

+Ri Gg

igg PALDUTC*α

Total pellet production plant capital cost

Total biomass supply cost

Total pellet production cost

Total non-fuel power generation cost

Total fossil fuel cost

Total carbon cost

Total raw material transportation cost

Economic objective function

∑∈

=Gg

ggelec CIPTAE .,α

Environmental objective function

Total annual CO2 emissions

Akul et al., Int. J. GHG. Con., 2013 (Sub)

Biomass + SRF cost

Power plant cost

CO2 cost

Supply chain cost

Environmental cost

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What is the fuel composition? • This is important as the

fuel energy density and moisture content are key contributors to overall system cost, efficiency and carbon intensity

• The biogenic MSW is assumed to have the same composition as “standard” biomass

Parameter Bituminous coal

Biomass

GCV (MJ kg-1) 24.6 18.7

Moisture 12.0 7.0 C 59.6 43.5 H 3.8 4.5 N 1.5 0.2 O 5.5 42.6 S 1.8 0.01 Cl 0.2 0.01

• Coal: standard bituminous coal, UK BCURA coal bank

• Biomass fuel specification from Orchid Environmental N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What are the cost scenarios?

• We use coal and CO2 price projections from UK Department of Energy and Climate Change

• Notable for rather conservative coal prices and generally optimistic CO2 prices

• Is this realistic?

Low carbon price scenario

Central carbon price scenario

High carbon price scenario

CO2 (£/t) Coal (£/t)

CO2 (£/t) Coal (£/t)

CO2 (£/t) Coal (£/t)

2012 13 80 22 84 28 89 2020 14 52 25 71 31 98 2050 100 52 200 71 300 100

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What does the UK look like in 2020?

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

…and in 2050?

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What are the trade-offs in cost? (Low Carbon price)

Akul et al., Int. J. GHG. Con., 2014

Coal gen. only

Coal gen. + CCS

Co-firing of biomass pellets with coal+CCS

Co-firing of biomass and SRF pellets with coal+CCS

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What are the trade-offs in cost? (Central Carbon price)

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Is there a route to cost BECCS reduction?

• BECCS with co-firing and amine scrubbing is clearly a costly option – Recall TESBIC project!

• In particular, there is a non-monotonic relationship between the costs associated with “low carbon” and “carbon negative”

• One route to cost reduction: – an increase in biomass availability, either through

import or land use change: – Slade et al, Energy and Environmental Science, 2011

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What is the effect of increased biomass availability?

Akul et al., Int. J. GHG. Con., 2013 (Sub)

£82/MWh £73/MWh

-31MT CO2/yr

-27MT CO2/yr

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

What is the effect of increased biomass availability?

• Increased biomass availability can reduce BECCS costs

• Improved land yield? • Land use change:

– Must be aware of competition for arable land for food – CO2 emissions associated with land use change must be

accounted for – these can be difficult to quantify • Importing biomass is an important option

– Recall AVOID project

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

BECCS Network: Conclusions • Using existing generation assets, proven technology

and indigenous biomass, its possible to remove 27 – 31 MtCO2/yr from the atmosphere

• This is equivalent to 23 - 26% of the UK’s ground transport emissions in 2012 – https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/att

achment_data/file/193414/280313_ghg_national_statistics_release_2012_provisional.pdf

• The MINLP framework we have developed provides a useful platform with which to investigate the potential of other BECCS technologies – For example, BIGCC + CCS and so forth

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Outline

• What is BECCS? • Why should we do BECCS? • How do we do BECCS? • Pitfalls of BECCS?

– Carbon accounting? – Horsemeat in the supply chain?

• Outlook on BECCS

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Pitfalls of BECCS – Carbon accounting? • International climate reporting guidelines, as they currently

apply to industrialised countries (Annex I Parties), only make passing reference to CCS – Accounting guidelines relating to Kyoto Protocol make no mention

of it at all. – The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), does not currently

allow for CCS projects • Revised carbon reporting guidelines were developed by IPCC

in 2006 – Specifically refer to CCS and provide guidance to ensure that its

reported fairly in national GHG inventories – Make no distinction between CCS on fossil or biomass – They explicitly account for negative emissions

• Revised IPCC guidelines have not yet been adopted by Annex I parties, but are envisaged to become binding by 2015 – The UK will need to provide clear and unambiguous incentives for

negative emissions technology Data from: Working paper of the IEA: “Combining Bioenergy with CCS: Reporting and Accounting for Negative Emissions under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Pitfalls of BECCS - Horsemeat in the supply chain? • If biomass is produced from unsustainable sources

– Its use may contribute to environmental degradation in a number of different ways

• Carbon emissions • Land use change • Water depletion • Loss of biodiversity

– Its damaging effects may outweigh the benefits of negative CO2 emissions

• Current accounting for biomass-related impacts under the Kyoto Protocol may not be comprehensive – Annex I Parties are required to report such emissions under LULUCF

• LULUF: Land use, land-use change and forestry – Parties are able to opt into or out of accounting for certain LULUCF

activities • Raises the possibility of the GHG benefits of BECCS counting towards Kyoto

Protocol GHG commitments, but the dis-benefits of using unsustainable biomass in BECCS being ignored

Data from: Working paper of the IEA: “Combining Bioenergy with CCS: Reporting and Accounting for Negative Emissions under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Pitfalls of BECCS - Horsemeat in the supply chain? • Further risk: an Annex I Party establishing a

BECCS project that is fuelled by biomass from a developing country – Any assessment of biomass sustainability could

realistically not be made from GHG reporting – could lead to a situation where the Annex I Party

benefits from negative emissions against its Kyoto Protocol commitments, but even greater positive emissions go unreported in the country where the biomass was sourced

• The question of biomass sustainability in the context of the Kyoto Protocol should be urgently addressed

Data from: Working paper of the IEA: “Combining Bioenergy with CCS: Reporting and Accounting for Negative Emissions under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Outline

• What is BECCS? • Why should we do BECCS? • How do we do BECCS? • Pitfalls of BECCS? • Outlook on BECCS

N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

Outlook on BECCS • BECCS is a highly promising option for the near-term,

cost-effective removal of CO2 from the atmosphere – Significantly less costly than DAC

• BECCS is more costly than conventional CCS, but less costly than attempting decarbonisation of disperse sources, e.g., transport – Important carbon offsetting potential – Significant scope for disruptive technologies to make a

difference • Ocean liming?

• Some important regulatory gaps remain – Carbon accounting – Incentivising negative emissions from power stations (in the

UK) N. Mac Dowell, Imperial College 2014

University of Edinburgh , School of Engineering, Edinburgh SCCS – Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage Centre

Capturing CO2 from air: Research at the University of Edinburgh

Maria-Chiara Ferrari

UKCCSRC workshop 18th March 2014

m.ferrari@ed.ac.uk

www.eng.ed.ac.uk/carboncapture

What people who are developing it claim:

• It is technically feasible.

• It addresses the direct cause of climate change.

• It does not require high recovery – this reduces the energy requirement compared to CC from power plant. Can be as low as 25% recovery.

• It can tackle emissions from transport and other small sources (approx 50% of total emissions).

• It can be located near storage sites – eliminating transportation costs (approx 10% of total).

Direct air capture

Air Capture It is not difficult to produce air with very low CO2 content: Military tanks; Nuclear submarines; Space shuttle; Pre-treat (PTSA) of a cryogenic air separation unit

The difficult part is to concentrate the CO2

It is technically feasible, but: • Not cheap: likely to cost ten times more than “conventional” CC. • It needs 2 to 3 times more energy than “conventional” CC which should come from renewable sources. • In short to medium term can only develop at small scale. • It will need “conventional” CCS to provide the CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, but who will pay to store the CO2 produced? • Requires incentives and legislation.

Solar Air Capture CaO-CaCO3: Nikulshina et al. Chem. Eng. J. (2009) 146: 244.

Aqueous NaOH: Zeman AIChE J. (2008) 54: 1396 350 kJ/mole CO2 (down to 200 in the future) Baciocchi et al. Chemical Engineering and Processing (2006) 45:1047 530-750 kJ/mole CO2

Air capture: proposed flow sheets

GRT/Lackner’s Solid Adsorbent • Lackner Scientific American 01/06/2010. Washing Carbon Out of the Air.

1 ton CO2/day: 60 filters (2.5 m x 1 m x 0.4 m) with a wind of 1 m/s. With a single stage, CO2 is produced as a pure component at 5 kPa. The unit would capture 5 times the CO2 generated to produce the electricity to run the system.

Energy consumptions: 50 kJ/mol First prototype: 200$/ton CO2 Goal 30$/ton CO2 10 millions units to impact on world’s emissions: 5ppm less per year.

Ion–exchange resin Humidity swing: sorption in dry air and desorption in water vapour under vacuum.

IMechE, Geoengineering Report, 2009

“A North Sea location would be advantageous as renewable energy could power the trees and empty oil wells could be used to store captured CO2.”

GRT/Lackner’s Solid Adsorbent

Amine capture should be comparable to NaOH route (i.e. aqueous solutions) It uses approx 30-40% of the energy in coal to capture the CO2. Assuming 400 kJ/mole CO2 for a high rank coal: 120-160 kJ/mole CO2

Zenz House et al. Energy & Environmental Science (2009) 2: 193 Compression 1-100 bar: 9.6 kJ/mole CO2 from NIST webbook.

Air Capture vs CC from Power plants

Air CC Ratio (including compression in energy calculation)

Energy (kJ/mole CO2) and cost ($/tCO2) solvent based separation

200-750

50-5001

120-160

501

1.6 – 4.3

1 – 10

Energy (kJ/mole CO2) and cost ($/tCO2) adsorption separation

50

30-100

60-902

252

0.9 – 0.6

1.2 – 4

1 Values from Herzog MIT LFEE 2003-002 WP

2 Guessing 50% reduction in energy and costs compared to amines Compression = 20 kJ/mole CO2 assuming ≈ 50% efficiency.

For NaOH route full flowsheet is available but other routes are not fully defined.

VERY SIMPLE comparison based on: • No compression before the separation. • Same thermodynamic separation efficiency.

Air CC coal

y0 0.0004 0.12

Purity 0.95 0.95

Recovery Variable 0.9-0.99

y1 Variable > 0.0012

Comparison with CC from concentrated sources 25 °C and 1 bar

n0, y0

n1, y1

n2 = 1/X

y2 = XCO2 rich stream

Separation Process

Gas to ventn0, y0

n1, y1

n2 = 1/X

y2 = XCO2 rich stream

Separation Process

Gas to vent

Comparison with CC from concentrated sources HOW can something 1000 times larger cost less? Clearly even in a VERY optimistic scenario air capture will cost more than 10X conventional capture.

Brandani S., Carbon Dioxide Capture form Air: a Simple Analysis. Energy & Environment 2012, 23, 319-328

CO2 capture unit Energy supply One unit should capture the same amount of CO2 of 10 trees

Air capture: domestic system

Compression and concentration of CO2 with fixed beds

Air capture: domestic system

...... Capture

Compression Stages

Storage

EPSRC grant EP/I016686/1 - Nanotubes for Carbon Capture

Air capture domestic system

12

CO2 stored in the final vessel as a function of number of compression stages and compression ratio

Effect of the volume of the 1st compressor on the amount of CO2 captured

Air capture domestic system

13

Effect of the regeneration temperature on the amount of CO2 and CO2 purity in the storage vessel.

Effect of vacuum stages and number of compression stages on the amount of CO2 and CO2 purity in the storage vessel

Air capture domestic system

14

It is in principle possible to capture and concentrate the CO2 with the proposed system. Current research: Dr. Giulio Santori EU Marie Curie Career Integration Grant (Atmospheric Carbon CApture). Objectives: - Development of more sophisticated models - Development of a proof-of-concept experimental apparatus for demonstrating the feasibility of the solution. The concept can be scaled-up to use low grade waste heat.

Biomass electricity generation accounts for nearly 1.5% of the total worldwide production.

Biomass is considered to be a nearly carbon neutral fuel. Carbon capture applied to biomass would lead to negative emissions.

The introduction of bioCCS may reduce the cost by 40% in order to reach the 450 ppm CO2 concentration (14 Gt CO2 emitted in the energy sector in 2050).

Clearly, though, availability of biomass would become a potential issue unless vast areas of land are reassigned to energy crops.

Bio-CCS as an air capture option

Azar et al., Climatic Change (2006) 74: 47–79

A gasifier has the compositions that give a lower separation energy penalty.

Güssing CHP plant Güssing CHP plant: electrical capacity of approx. 1.8 MWe and generates approx. 4MWt to provide district heating. Biomass is processed in an indirect heating 2 zone FCIFB gasifier.

http://www.guessingrenewable.com/htcms/en/wer-was-wie-wo-wann/wie/thermische-vergasungficfb-reaktor.html

Electrical efficiency 18.4 % Thermal efficiency 44.3% Overall efficiency 62.7 %

Introduction of VPSA in biomass plant

Schuster G. et al.,. Biomass steam gasification –an extensive parametric modelling study. Bioresource Techno.2001; 77: 71-79.

A two step 2 bed VPSA unit has been designed and optimised to treat the effluent upstream the gas turbine (after WGSR system)

Feed temperature close to 60 °C and purge pressure ~0.2-0.3 bar

VPSA upstream gas turbine

Cysim - Dynamic Process Simulation

Process optimisation using Particle Swarm Optimisation

Non-isothermal, non-equilibrium dynamic process simulation.

Amines plant upstream gas turbine

Amines plant downstream gas turbine

Levelised Cost of Electricity- LCOE:

)1(

)1(

1

1

∑

∑

=

=

+

++++++

= n

tt

t

n

tt

storagetCCtCCttt

rE

rIMIFMI

LCOE

• It: capital costs (CAPEX), • Mt: operation and maintenance costs

(O&M) • Ft: fuel costs • Istorage: storage costs • r : discount rate (assumed 10 %). • CC suffix: contribution for carbon capture

• CAPEX includes equipment and installation costs. Equipment cost are function of design parameters (area or power)

• Maintenance cost are calculated as a yearly fraction of CAPEX and also utilities and salaries have been added

• Fuel cost is 0.016 Euros/kW (agreement with farmers) • Profit obtained by heat sale is considered a negative cost . 0.041£/kWh

was assumed

Economic comparison

DECC. UK Electricity Generation Costs Update. 2010. IEA. Biomass with CCS study. 2009 DECC. Renewable Heat Incentive. 2013.

82.44 97.52 99.91 107.30

The CHP plant with the VPSA unit presents the

highest overall efficiency (thermal + electrical)

And the lowest LCOE

18.4

44.3 35.5

14.7

20.8

15.5

31.0

13.6

Comparison

• Direct air capture is technically feasible but requires a large amount of energy for the concentration of the CO2.

• The integration of renewables into air capture scheme can ensure net capture of the process.

• It is in principle possible to capture and concentrate CO2 with a small domestic system based on adsorption and thermal swing.

• More research is required to develop more accurate models and build a test system.

Conclusions - 1

• The use of bioCCS may lead to negative emission power and heat generation.

• An optimised 2 stages 2 bed VPSA unit has been designed and optimised in order to recover 90% of the CO2 fed to the capture unit with at least 95% CO2 purity.

• Possible issue: biomass supply. In the longer term it will have to be sourced locally as it is likely that major international producers would not be able to supply enough worldwide.

• In the UK, large bio-CCS plants (i.e. plants of 100 MWe or more) would lose the advantages of small to medium CHPs in terms of overall energy efficiency.

Conclusions - 2

Acknowledgements

26

Prof. S. Brandani, Dr H. Ahn, Dr G. Santori and Mr G. Oreggioni. Carbon capture group at the University of Edinburgh www.eng.ed.ac.uk/carboncapture

• EP/F034520/1 - Carbon Capture from Power Plant and Atmosphere

• EP/I016686/1 - Nanotubes for Carbon Capture.

• EU Marie Curie Career Integration Grant Agreement No PCIG14-GA-2013-630863 (Atmospheric Carbon CApture)

In PSA processes gas mixtures are separated by cyclic adsorption and desorption steps driven by cyclic pressure swings. 4 basic steps: pressurisation, adsorption, blowdown and purge plus pressure equalisations are added in order to reduce the energy penalty.

Coal Post Combustion amines = 130-150 kJt/ mol of captured CO2 Coal Post combustion VPSA = between 70 and 90 kJt/ mol of captured CO2 Biomass Pre Combustion VPSA = approx. 50 kJt/mol of captured CO2 (CO2 capture unit recovery= 90% ; CO2 purity=95%)

VPSA cycle

Greenhouse Gas Removal: Proposed Techniques to Remove Greenhouse

Gases from Ambient Air Tim Kruger

Oxford Geoengineering Programme Oxford Martin School University of Oxford

18 March 2014

Climate Change

Ocean Acidification

What is geoengineering?

• The deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to address climate change

Some proposed geoengineering techniques

Prevention is better than a cure…

• “The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases” (“Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty” Royal Society, 2009)

… but if we can’t prevent it, we sure need a cure

Source: “How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming?” J A Lowe, C Huntingford, S R B Raper, C D Jones, S K Liddicoat and L K Gohar Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (2009) 014012

The scale of the challenge

Do we have a reverse gear?

“Global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak this decade, and get to zero net emissions by the second half of this century” Christiana Figueres (Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, 8 November 2013)) But as is made clear in the UNEP Emissions Gap Report (2012) “To achieve such negative emissions is simple in analytical models but in real life implies a need to apply new and often unproven technologies or technology combinations at significant scale”

Proposed GGR techniques

Implications of GGR for CCS

• Some (but not all) GGR techniques assume geological storage capacity potentially massively increased demand for storage sites

• GGR storage sites do not need to be proximately located to emissions from point sources

Alternative storage processes

• In situ carbonation of peridotite • Carbon stored in biomass • Carbon stored in biochar • Liquid CO2 stored on the ocean seabed • Dissolved Inorganic Carbon stored in the

oceans

Carbon-negative power Natural Gas Air Limestone

Pure CO2 Electricity Lime

Geologically sequestered Limestone

Absorbs CO2 from ambient air

Atmosphere Restoration Centre

Thank You

Global Calculator

Global Calculator Project: The Greenhouse Gas Removal Approach

________________________________________________________________

Alexandre Strapasson Centre for Environmental Policy

Imperial College London

Direct Air Capture / Negative Emissions Workshop, 18th Mar 2014

Global Calculator

To help make the case for tackling climate change by: • Showing detrimental impacts • Illustrating aspirational low emission pathways.

Ahead of the 2015 negotiations, we want to use the Global Calculator to make a compelling case on the need to take action

Target audience for tool are business leaders, NGOs and Governments.

Objective

Target audience

Introduction

Starting date: September 2013

First public release: July 2014

Final version: December 2014

Global Calculator

Principles behind the Global Calculator

Simple Transparent

User friendly Influential

Global Calculator

A complementary tool for the country calculators

UK Belgium China South Korea

South Africa Brazil Bangladesh

India Indonesia Taiwan

Algeria

Hungary Serbia and SEE

Japan

Mexico

Thailand

Vietnam Colombia

Russia Nigeria Philippines Ethiopia USA Poland France

… the Country Calculators illustrate solutions at the country level

The Global Calculator will make the case for tackling climate change…

In discussion:

Global Calculator

Main institutions involved in the project

Team leader

Lead modeller

Climate science

Transport

Land/Bio/ Food/GGR

Electricity and fossil

fuels

Visuals Buildings Materials

In collaboration with: • World Resources Institute • Utrecht University • Potsdam Institute, Germany • University of Reading • Met Office

Funding: Total: £ 1030 K £550K DECC ICF funds

£480K Climate-KIC.

• Rothamsted Research • University of Versailles, France • Tyndall Centre • University of Oxford

Global Calculator Driver tree for Land/Bio/Food/GGR

Global Calculator Preliminary version of the GGR approach

Technologies included in the GGR lever with max. potential by 2050:

• Biochar (3.3 GtCO2/yr)

• Direct Air Capture (10.0 GtCO2/yr)

• Enhanced Weathering – Terrestrial (3.7 GtCO2/yr)

• Enhanced Weathering – Oceanic (10.0 GtCO2/yr)

• Ocean Fertilisation (1.0 GtCO2/yr)

Technologies included elsewhere in the calculator:

• Afforestation / Reforestation

• Land Use Management / Soil Carbon

• BECCS

Global Calculator Draft version for discussions

Global Calculator

Thank you! For more information, see our web site: http://globalcalculator.org Contacts: Alexandre Strapasson

Research Associate Imperial College London Centre for Environmental Policy 14 Prince’s Gardens, London SW7 1NA alexandre.strapasson@imperial.ac.uk www.imperial.ac.uk/people/alexandre.strapasson