status of post-combustion carbon capture technology

Brice FreemanProject Manager, Environmental Controls

3rd Annual Wyoming CO2 Conference Casper, WyomingJune 24, 2009

Status of Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Technology Development

2© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Outline

• Introduction to EPRI• CO2 Capture Approaches

– Absorption– Adsorption– Membrane– Mineralization– Biofixation

• Status of CO2 Capture Development


About EPRI

• Founded in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit center for public interest energy and environmental research.

• Objective, tax-exempt, collaborative electricity research organization.

• Participating companies provide over90% of North American electricity generated.

• Broad technology portfolio ranging from near-term solutions to long-term strategic research.


EPRI’s Role in the Technology Development to Commercialization Cycle

Technology Incubation and Validation

BasicResearch

andDevelopment

TechnologyCommercialization

CollaborativeTechnology

DevelopmentIntegrationApplication

National LaboratoriesUniversities

SuppliersVendors

EPRI


Global Climate Change Legislation


Technology EIA 2008 Reference Target

Efficiency Load Growth ~ +1.05%/yr Load Growth ~ +0.75%/yr

Renewables 55 GWe by 2030 100 GWe by 2030

Nuclear Generation 15 GWe by 2030 64 GWe by 2030

Advanced Coal Generation

No Heat Rate Improvement for Existing Plants

40% New Plant Efficiencyby 2020–2030

1-3% Heat Rate Improvement for 130GWe Existing Plants

46% New Plant Efficiency by 2020; 49% in 2030

CCS None Widely Deployed After 2020

PHEV None 10% of New Light-Duty Vehicle Sales by 2017; 33% by 2030

DER < 0.1% of Base Load in 2030 5% of Base Load in 2030

Achieving all targets is very aggressive, but potentially feasible.

*Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)

2008 Prism...Technical Potential for CO2 ReductionsU.S. Electric Sector

2030 Projected Annual CO2 Emissions (2008)(due to economic and population growth)

CO2 Annual Emissions (2008)


U.S. CO2 Emissions from Electricity Production in 2006

4,065 TWh Generated

Global Emissions in 2006

• 30 Gt CO2/year

U.S. Emissions in 2006

• 5.8 Gt CO2

• ~20% of global CO2

U.S. Electric Utility in 2006

• 2.4 Gt CO2

• 41% of U.S. CO2

• 33% of U.S. GHGs

TWh = Terawatt-hour = 1012 Watt-hour

Gt = Gigatonne = 109 tonne = 1015 kg


Understanding Future Generation Mixes


Outline





CO2 Capture in Coal Power Systems


Challenges for CO2 Capture – Scale & Energy

• High Energy:

– “Conventional” capture processes will impose about 30% parasitic load on power plants and increase the cost of electricity (COE) 60-80%.

• DOE goal is 35% increase in COE, including capture (dominates), compression, transportation, injection, storage, and measurement, monitoring, verification (MMV)

• Need be widely applicable


Scope & Approach

• Scope– Find, vet, and accelerate promising CO2 capture

technologies

• Approach – Understand concept at first-principles level– Focus on chemistry, process, energy penalty– Identify intrinsic and extrinsic barriers– Accelerate technologies with largest potential

impact within funding limits and other constraints

• Results– > 55 technologies assessed– 3 selected for support; more under discussion


EPRI Finding Many Processes Being Developed for Post-Combustion CO2 Capture

Carbon Capture Technology Groups

• Amines (many)

• Carbonates

• Ammonia

• Hydroxide

• Limestone

• Metal Organics

• Zeolites

• Carbonaceous

• Fibers

• Microporous

• Micro-algae

• Cyanobacteria

• Mineralization

• Cyro

Adsorption Membranes Biological OtherAbsorption

~ 30 processes found 2/07 (Report #1012796)> 50 processes now (Report #1016995)


Capture Technologies Investigated

Absorption Absorption (cont’d) Adsorption (cont’d)

3H Technologies – Self Concentrating Solvent RITE – COCS U. Akron - Metal Monoliths

Aker Clean Carbon – Just Catch Sargas University of Michigan – MOF

Akermin – Stabilized Enzyme Siemens UCSC – AWL

Alstom – Chilled Ammonia Process TNO – Coral IVCAP

Alstom and Toshiba – CO2 Wheel Toshiba Heavy Reflux PSA

Cansolv U. of Erlangen – Hyperbranched Polyamine U. Wyoming – Carbonaceous Adsorbent

CASTOR and CAESAR Solvents U. Notre Dame and Others – Ionic Liquids Membranes

CO2 Sciences – CO2 Recycle U. Texas at Austin – Piperazine promotion Carbozyme – Contained Liquid Membrane

CO2 Solution WOWEnergies – WOWClean Membrane Technology and Research (MTR)

D3 Technologies – DTM Solvent Adsorption NanoGLOWA

Fluor – Econamine FG+ ADA-ES – Adsorbent Screening Research Triangle Institute – Fluorinated Polymer

GE Global Research – Oligomeric Solvents Catalyte RITE – Molecular Gate

Georgia Tech – Reversible Ionic Liquids CO2CRC – Solid Adsorbent Univ of – Polyionic Liquid

Global Research Tech (GRT) – Artificial Trees InnoSepara – Adsorption Process Direct Mineralization and Biofixation

HTC Purenergy NETL – Polyethyleneimine Calera

IFP – Dual Phase Ohio State Universtiy – CaO Carbon Trap Technologies

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) – KS-1 RTI – Dry Sorbent CCS Materials

PowerSpan – ECO2 SRI Int’l – Carbon Sorbent Skyonic – Skymine

Procede Group – MDEA:MEA TDA Research – Solid Sorbent Many Algal Biological Fixation


Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Technologies

Capture Pathway

Technology Description Publicized Developers

Absorption •Scrub CO2 in absorber, strip in regenerator by heating

Alstom, Cansolv, Fluor, HTC, MHI, PowerSpan, etc..

Adsorption •Adsorb CO2 in contactor, desorb by reducing pressure or temperature

RTI, Univ. WY, ADA‐ES. Material synthesis at Notre Dame, UCLA)

Membrane •Separate CO2 w/molecular sieves or solution‐diffusion membranes

MTR, CORAL, RITE, Carbozyme

Mineraliza‐tion

•React CO2 with chemicals or minerals to form products or disposable solids

Skyonic, Calera, Carbon Sciences, U. Santa Cruz

Biological Fixation

•Flue gas scrubbing by micro‐algae. Biomass converted to fuel

Many dozens at lab scale


2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

% CO2 Captured

Para

satic

Loa

d as

% o

f Pla

nt O

utpu

t

10%11%12%13%14%15%16%17%18%19%20%

Minimum Energy for CO2 Capture

%CO2 in gas

If all capture energy comes from net power output, then the process independentthermodynamic minimum parasitic load for 40oC flue gas is ~3.5% to capture 90% CO2


Minimum Energy for CO2 Capture

• Need a thermodynamic minimum of about 3.5% of energy from power plant to capture 90% CO2

– Minimum energy is equivalent to 0.165 GJ/t CO2

– Does not include compression– Assumes all energy comes from net electrical output– 40 C flue gas– 20.7 t CO2 /day/MWe

• Expect 3-5x the minimum energy for a good process• Current processes are closer to 10-12x minimum energy


Outline





Fresh Water

PCBoiler SCR

SteamTurbine

ESP FGDCO2

Removale.g., MEA

CO2 to use or Sequestration

Flue Gasto Stack

Fly Ash Gypsum/Waste

Coal

Air

Output Penalty: Up to 30% Today

• CO2 capture needs• Ultra-low SO2, NO2, PM• Thermal energy for stripper• Considerable space

• Maximizing MW, efficiency requires optimal thermal integration

Pulverized Coal With CO2 Capture –Integration Issues


Capture by Absorption, Typical Process

Source: CansolvTypical amine-based regenerative absorption capture system

Solution Scrubbing

Most mature solutions are amines (e.g. MEA)

Chemist need to balance:

cost


Relative Comparison of Solvent Performance

4.2

3.5 3.53.2

2.82.5

0.8

0.160.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Reg

ener

atio

n H

eat (

GJ/

tonn

e C

O2)

Ranges of Regeneration Energy

Range of current solvents (near-term)

Future potential (long-term)


Trends in Solvent Development

• Increased concentration• Low temperature regeneration• Minimize degradation • SO2 tolerant • Investigate novel regen cycles – off

peak• Environmentally benign

New Class of Solvent: Ionic Liquids


Most Developed Technologies on Coal >1 MW(size, location)

• Amine– Fluor MEA (None)– MHI Amine (1 MW, Japan)– Aker Amine (None)– HTC Amine (None)– Cansolv Amine (None)– Emerging – Alstom/Dow, Siemens

• Ammonia– Alstom Chilled Ammonia (1.7 MW, USA)– Powerspan ECO2 (1 MW, USA)


Need Multiple:

Goals – Affordable, Energy Efficient, Accepted

2005 2010 2015 20202007 2010 2015 20252020

We Energies Chilled Ammonia PilotOther Pilots (Post-Combustion and Oxy-Combustion)

Pilots

Demonstration

Integration

Other Demonstrations

AEP MountaineerSouthern/SSEB Ph. III

UltraGen, others

Oxy-Combustion

IGCC + CCS Projects

Ion Transport Membrane O2 Scale-up

20 MW chilled ammoniascale-up with storage

25 MW advanced amine with storage

125-200 MW follow-ons? Partial integration, EOR &/or storage

1.7 MW

Capture Demos – Risk Management, CompetitionStorage Demos – Understanding thru Different Geologies


1.7 MW Chilled Ammonia CO2 Capture (Alstom)

• Located at We Energies Pleasant Prairie Power Plant (P4)

• 37 pilot project participants• Testing underway, completion late

summer

Courtesy of Alstom


PC with CCS – AEP ProjectOverview

Description• Alstom chilled ammonia

CO2 capture process– ~20 MWe “Product Validation Facility” (PVF) at AEP’s

Mountaineer station (~100,000 ton-CO2/yr)– Next development step after 1.7 MWe R&D pilot at We Energies’

Pleasant Prairie Power Plant

• Injection into two on-site wells (Rose Run Sandstone ~7800 ft and Copper Ridge B Zone ~8200 ft)

• 1–5 year injection program plus post-injection monitoring

PVF 2-23-09, Photo courtesy of AEP/Alstom. All rights reserved.


PC with CCS – Southern ProjectOverview

Description• MHI KS-1 process

– ~25 MWe demonstration facility at a Southern Company station (~150,000 ton-CO2/yr)

– Builds upon a 0.5 MWe R&D pilot in Japan• Injection program under SECARB DOE Regional

Carbon Sequestration Project—ongoing• 10-year program: 4 years of injection plus 4 years of

post-injection monitoring

Source: MHI


Outline





Adsorption

• Selectivity and capacity (isotherm) chiefly dictate performance.

• Based on isotherm, process can be designed for continuous CO2 separation based on vacuum swing, pressure swing, and/or temperature swing.

• Literature suggests that cost of adsorbents is 30-40% of CapEx

• Planned simulations of VSA, PSA, TSA to set targets– TSA (U. Wyoming collaboration)– PSA / VSA (internal modeling with

Comsol)

Selective binding of CO2 or other gases

onto a solid material.


Capture by Adsorption

• Near-term – two adsorbent families– Supported reactants

Chemisorption• Amines and Carbonates

– Non-reacting adsorbents Physisorption

• Zeolites and Activated Carbon

• Longer-term – highly engineered metal organic frameworks

• Potential adsorbent advantages– Higher CO2 capacity– Lower regeneration energy– Lower spent material disposal costs

• Challenges– Contactor design– Thermal management– Attrition

Isotherms

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

P/Po

wt%

CO 2

Tlow

Thigh

Capture Regen.

Working Capacity


Univ. of Wyoming Adsorption Development

• Uses carbonaceous materials to capture CO2. Use thermal cycling to regenerate.

• Materials show selectivity for CO2 over N2.

• Laboratory results show materials have little or no hysteresis and are not affected by moisture

• Project includes testing on flue gas


Outline





Capture by Membrane Separation

Source: MTR• Difference in partial pressure, selectivity and permeability determine performance

• Widely used in chemical industry

• For power plant, no modification to steam cycle

• Potentially water positive

• Not validated on flue gas


Membrane Technology and Research –Membrane Process

12% of plant output only for CO2 capture + 6% compressionSimultaneously “captures” water


Outline





Capture by Mineralization

• React CO2 in a “once-through” process with commodity chemicals, industrial wastes or abundant minerals

• CO2 is transformed into an inert product… avoids underground storage

• Markets for products, availability of reactants, or energy penalties will be limited to niche applications

Cementious aggregate

Sodium Bicarbonate


Challenges for CO2 Capture – Global Scale

Global top 100 chemicals production total ~ 0.5 Gt/yr; CO2 Emissions ~ 30 Gt/yrA + CO2 ACO2

Limited supplies of A & limited sales of ACO2Need to regenerate A or make A with CO2 constraints

* Source: American Chemistry Council

*


Challenges for CO2 Capture – Scale

• Chemicals used in once-through capture process (without regeneration) will quickly exhaust global supplies of that chemical

• Sale of chemicals resulting from CO2 capture will overwhelm global markets if process is widely adopted, i.e., zero price.

• Separating material must be regenerated or manufactured with net CO2 reduction


Outline





History of Algae Development

• Historic: macroalgae harvesting for food, dyes

• 1940 – wartime: oil production, food production

• 1950 – animal feed, seminal research on large scale production

• 1960 – wastewater treatment, fish farming

• 1970 – oils production, carbon mitigation• 1980 – Aquatic Species Program, strain

identification and categorization• 1990 – specialty nutraceuticals (e.g.

beta-carotene, Spirulina), NASA Mars mission

• 2000 – Algae renaissance

β-Carotene, $thousands/kg

Inca, Maya


Algae 2.0: Why Now?

2000’s – Algae 2.0• Market/Regulatory changes

– High oil prices / Reduce foreign oil imports– High biofuels demand, feedstocks are scarce and $$– Renewable Portfolio Standards– Carbon emission regulation (coming soon)– Very willing and open private equity markets

($175.9M in 2008)• Technology Improvements

– Advancements in microbiology and genetic design– New photobioreactor designs– Improved computer aided controls– Integration of multiple industries (electricity,

municipal wastewater, biofuels)• All of these motivate the need for low-cost, high-yield,

large-scale algae production• 2010 – ???

Photobioreactors

Open Pond raceway

1951 Arthur D. Little tests at Parson’s Lab @ MIT


Capture by Biofixation

• Rapidly forming new industry to supply biofuel feedstock

• Natural nexus with power plants (algae need CO2)

• Utility interest in the potential to remove CO2 via biofixation (photosynthesis), co-benefits

• Kinetics are fast compared to other biological options but slow vs. conventional capture

• Large land areas required:~45 acres/MWe

Valent’s High Density Vertical Bioreactor

Open ponds in Hawaii


Large Field of Developers

• A2BE Carbon Capture, LLC

• Algae Biofuels Inc.

• Algaedyne Corporation

• AlgaeLab

• AlgaeLink

• Algafuel

• Algenol

• Algosource

• Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation

• Aquatic Biofuels

• Aurorabiofuels

• Bioalgene

• Bionavitas

• BioProcess Algae LLC

• Biox Corporation

• Blue Marble Energy

• Bodega Algae

• Canadian Pacific Algae

• Canrex Biofuels Ltd.

• Carbon Capture Corporation

• Carbon2Algae

• Columbia Energy Partners

• Catchlight Energy, LLC

• Cellana

• Columbia Energy Partners

• Culturing Solutions, Inc.

• Cyanotech

• Diversified Energy

• Energy Derived

• Euglene Co., Ltd.

• General Atomics

• Genifuel

• GenoFocus

• Global Green Solutions, Inc.

• Green Crude Production

• GreenFire Energy

• Greenfuel

• GreenShift Corp.

• GreenWater Energy

• Hawaii Bio Energy

• Independence Bio Products

• Kai BioEnergy

• Kegotank BioFuels

• Kent Bioenergy

• Kent Biosciences

• Kent SeaTech

• Kuehnle AgroSystems, Inc.

• Kent SeaTech

• Kuehnle AgroSystems, Inc.

• Lane Algae Group

• Livefuels

• Mana Fuels

• Might Algae Biofuels

• OriginOil

• Pacific Sun Energy

• PetroAlgae

• PetroSun

• Phycosource

• Round River Technologies

• Sapphire Energy

• SarTec

• SeaAg, Inc.

• Seambiotic

• Solix

• Solray

• SunEco Energy, Inc.

• Sunflower Integrated Bioenergy, LLC

• Sunrise Ridge Algae

• Sunx Energy

• Sylvatex Biofuels

• Ternion Bio Industries

• Tomorrow Biofuels

• Valcent

• XL Renewables

• >75 known companies

• Majority are <2 years old

• Industry groups forming


Source: Solix


Unanswered Questions

• Open Pond or Photobioreactor?• Total Energy Balance?• Total Carbon Balance?• Realistic sizing, production and land use?• Best way to manifold, distribute and utilize

flue gas?• Integration with flue gas and water

systems?• Failure modes?• Strain selection?• Business models?• Others?


Examining All Benefits


Relative Sizing and Biofixation Potential

Big Brown Station1150 MWe (2x 575 MWe)8,926,254 tonnes CO2/yr24,455 tonnes CO2/day21.2 tonnes CO2 / MWe-day (average)

690m (0.43 miles)

480m

(0.3

0 m

iles)

Area =

Area = 33 hectares= 81.8 acres= 0.13 miles2

Assumptions:

• ~35 g biomass/m2-day (annual average)

• biomass is ~50% C by wt.

• 3.67 C:CO2 molar wt. ratio

• 80% land utilization

Biofixation of:

• 6,200 tonnes CO2/year

• 17 tonnes CO2/day

• ~0.1% total CO2produced


Capture by Biofixation:Utility Demonstrations Underway

Open Pond Demonstration at FirstEnergy’s Plant Berger


Outline





What We’ve Learned Thus Far…

• No breakthrough technologies discovered• Near-term solvents are 1/3 better than MEA• Once-through processes are challenging• Some generalizations can be made for each

class of capture technology• Additional processes emerging frequently in

literature/press• Cooling water use increases significantly with

capture and becoming more important• Need to better understand true pre-treatment

limits for transportation


Carbon Capture Technology Development Trends: Drive Down Energy Demand and Process Costs

• Designer solvents/sorbents, low Δh

• Catalyze solvents/sorbents reactions

• Lower regenerator loadings

• Optimized thermal integration– Minimize disruption to steam cycle– Explore uses of solar thermal

• Membranes for flue gas with low ΔP

• Assure environmental acceptability of solvent processes

• Minimize upstream clean-up requirements


State of Capture Development

Absorbent Adsorbent Membrane

Commercial Usage in CPI*

High Moderate Low/Niche

Operational Confidence

High High, but complex Low to moderate

Energy Penalty No Compression

<18% to 25% ~14% to 20% ~12%-15%

Source of Energy Penalty

Solvent Regen thermal

Sorbent Regen thermal/vac

Vacuum on permeate

Trends New chemistry, thermal integrat.

New chemistry, process config

New membrane, process config

*Chemical Process Industries


Carbon Capture Technology Development Trends

• Disconnect between chemistry, process, plant– Breakthroughs require collaboration between all 3


Technology Readiness Level (TRL)*

• Use to categorize and describe technologies under development

• Predict and better understand:• Relative risk• Time to market or a key

development stage• Cost to reach market or a key

development stage

• Caution – $s and time to move one step increase non-linearly with Level

Source: NASA


Capture Technologies – Histogram of Relative Maturity

• Majority of processes are absorption based• Most processes are still in the laboratory


Timescale for Capture Process Development

2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

TRL 1

TRL 2

TRL 3

TRL 4

TRL 5

TRL 6

TRL 7

TRL 8

TRL 9

Concept to Commercialization10-12 years on aggressive,

well-funded schedule


Unarticulated Limits on Some CO2Capture Concepts

• Second Law Violators– CO2 fuels needs energy source – more than get back– Sometimes do not account for overall total CO2 footprint

• Real Estate Moguls– Biological processes use solar energy for CO2 conversion, but need

45 miles2 for 500 MW plant– Solar energy likely better used to make electricity directly instead of

converting CO2 in non-biological processes

• Massive Material Mismatch (once-through capture)– Limited global supply of chemicals to capture CO2 or make saleable

products– Limited use of CO2 directly

• Gold mine ≠ CO2 solution– Successful economic propositions may not make dent in power CO2


Questions?

Brice [email protected]

650-855-1050


Key Technology Challenges

• Standardized communications

• Advanced, mobile metering

• Interoperability

• Distributed computing

• Large scale energy storage

• Grid management technologies

• Wide‐area monitoring

• Shortened construction times

• Integrated spent fuel management strategy

• Higher efficiency advanced coal plants

• High‐efficiency, cost‐effective CO2 capture

• Commercial, large‐scale CO2 storage

status of post-combustion carbon capture technology

Documents