Transcript No Slide Title

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):
Current Status and Outlook
Carbon Management Canada
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
February 9, 2015
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
MIT CCS Program Milestones
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
First research project in 1989
Authored DOE Research Needs Assessment (1993)
Organized and hosted ICDDR-3 (1996)
Helped launch DOE R&D Program
 Authored DOE White Paper (1997)
 Organized and hosted stakeholders workshop for DOE/FETC (June
1998)
 Participated in DOE CCS Roadmap (1999)
Authored Scientific American article (Feb 2000)
Carbon Sequestration Initiative formed (July 2000)
Coordinating Lead Author of IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and
Storage (Sept 2005)
Member Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum Technical Group (June
2003-September 2007)
MIT Coal Study (March, 2007)
Organized GHGT-9 in Washington, DC (Nov 2008)
Awarded the 2010 Greenman Award by the IEAGHG “in recognition of
contributions made to the development of greenhouse gas control
technologies”.
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
MIT Carbon Sequestration Initiative
• Launched July 1, 2000
• Six charter members
• Currently 12 members
• Key Activities
 Research
 Annual Forum
• Alstom Power
• American Petroleum
Institute
• Chevron Corporation
• ConocoPhillips
• Duke Energy
• Entergy
• EPRI
• ExxonMobil
• Shell
• Southern Company
• Suncor
• Vattenfall
 Outreach
Howard Herzog / MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
CCS: The View from 2008
• By 2020, there will be about 20 large-scale
CCS demonstrations worldwide
• CCS commercial projects will be feasible
by 2020 and we will see 100s of
commercial CCS projects built by 2050
• R&D will develop new generations of CCS
technologies and CCS costs will drop
significantly
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
IEA CCS roadmap (2009)
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
The View from 2015
• Large-scale CCS demonstrations are extremely
difficult to build and we are seeing many
cancellations worldwide. There is only one
operational large-scale CCS demonstration at a
power plant (two more are under construction).
• CCS will not be commercial by 2020 – the cost
will be higher than the market can bear
• New generation technologies are still in the
lab. Cost reductions will be primarily from
removing first mover costs.
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
What Happened
• Primary Reason
 Weak or non-existent climate policy
• Contributing factors
 Weak economic growth, budget deficits
 Low natural gas prices (in North America)
 Escalating capital costs
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Major Demonstration Projects
My View of History
• Phase 1 – Pioneer Projects
 Sleipner, In Salah, Weyborn, Snovit, Schwarze Pumpe,
Labarge
• Phase 2 – CCS RD&D Programs
 US – Kemper, Petra Nova (formerly NRG Parish), Air
Products, ADM, TCEP
 Canada – Boundary Dam, Quest, Alberta Trunk Line
 Norway – Mongstad
 UK – White Rose, Peterhead
• Phase 3 - ???
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Major Demonstration Projects
Recent Headlines
• Positive Headlines
 Boundary Dam goes on-line
 Petra Nova starts construction
• Negative Headlines
 Number of projects on GCCSI list drops from
65 to 55 (15% drop)
 FutureGen Cancelled
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS Projects
In the Pipeline (from GCCSI)
• Execute (9)
 US – Kemper, ADM, Petra Nova
 Canada – Quest, Alberta Trunk (2)
 Other – Gorgon, Abu Dhabi, EOR (Saudi Arabia)
• Define (13)
 US – TCEP, HECA, Medicine Bow, Sargas
 UK – White Rose, Peterhead, Don Valley
 Other – ROAD (Netherlands), Spectra (Canada),
China (4)
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Technology Status
• Post-combustion capture is most advanced
commercially
 Many improvements over past 15 years (e.g., solvent
technology)
• Pre-combustion, once thought the future, is
struggling
 High capital costs, complexity
• Oxy-combustion, the least studied approach, is
slowly moving forward
 Chemical Looping and Ionic Transport Membranes
could revolutionize this approach
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Costs
• Carbon Price needed to incentive CCS with
geologic storage is $70-100/tCO2
 Additional incentives required to overcome
first-of-a-kind costs
 Results in an increase in cost of electricity from
70-100%
• Obviously, cannot compete with businessas-usual. Must compete with large-scale
renewables and nuclear
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Approaches to Lower Cost CO2
Capture
Strategy
New/Improved
Solvents
New Materials
(adsorbents,
membranes, etc.)
New Processes to
make capture easier
• Biological Catalyst
Positives
Limitations
• Phase-Changing Absorbents
• Metal-Organic
Frameworks
Evolutionary
High probability of
change, not
•
Electrochemically
Mediated
success
Separationrevolutionary
Low probability of
•
Ionic
Liquid
Many potential
success for any
•
Cryogenic
ideas
given project
• Solvent-Membrane Hybrid
Potential for
significant cost
reductions
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Development will
be long, expensive
Paying for CCS Projects
• Markets




Carbon markets
Electricity markets
EOR
Others (e.g., polygeneration)
• Incentives (e.g., Government cost-sharing, Tax
credits)
 Encourage early action (before markets develop)
 Help defray first-mover costs
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and
CCS
• In US, CCUS means CCS + EOR
 Attempts to leverage EOR market to help CCS
move forward
 Already critical for existing demonstrations
 By itself, EOR will not drive CCS
Howard Herzog
CCUS - Rough Costs
• Value of CCS for EOR ~$20/ton (perhaps
up to $30/ton)
• Cost of producing CO2 from a power plant
(not avoided cost) >$50/ton
• Some CO2 sources are much lower costs,
like gas processing, ammonia production,
ethanol plants – these have better chance of
being economical today
Howard Herzog
Potential Roles for EOR in CCS
Development
• Can Do




Help project economics (positive value on CO2)
Build out infrastructure
Develop capacity along the supply chain
Help shape regulatory environment (including liability
issue)
• Cannot Do
 Avoid need for subsidies for capturing CO2 from coalfired power plants (and many other industrial sources)
» Will new gas turbines (e.g., Net Power) be competitive????
 Replace climate change as the primary driver for CCS
technology
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
IPCC Working Group 3
Summary for Policy Makers
• April, 2014
• CCS mentioned 35 times
• Key points:
 CCS reduces costs of meeting key stabilization
targets
 Strong call by IPCC for negative emissions by
BECCS (bio-CCS)
 Without CCS, certain targets cannot be met
(due in part to CCS role in negative emissions)
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
IPCC: Estimates of global mitigation cost increases
due to limited availability of CCS
•p.18 IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers
CCS and Climate Policy
• Of all the major mitigation options, only
CCS has climate change mitigation as it’s
sole reason for being developed.
• As goes climate policy, so goes CCS
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS Low Lights
• Germany
 “The past five years have shown CCS to be a failure," said
Christian von Hirschhausen, DIW's [German Institute for
Economic Research] research director for industrial
economics. From: http://www.dw.de/carbon-capturetechnology-loses-out-in-germany/a-16999567
• Vattenfall
 May 6, 2014 - Vattenfall has eliminated its CCS research
department in a cost cutting measure. They said that CCS
technology has proven to be complex and expensive,
especially in Europe where very low carbon prices have
dramatically decreased profitability.
• Australia
 New government eliminates carbon tax
 Call for “direct action”
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
CCS Bright Lights
• UK
• Norway
• Alberta/Saskatchewan (Canada)
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Political Situation in the US
today and in the future
• Political gridlock on climate change
legislation
• States enacting climate policy in lieu of
federal government
• Fossil projects in US becoming targets if
they have a large carbon footprint
• Major administration thrust is through the
EPA under the Clean Air Act
Howard Herzog
Fossil Projects Under Attack
•
•
•
•
Keystone pipeline
Coal export terminals on US West Coast
Hydraulic Fracturing
LNG export terminals
Howard Herzog
Final Thoughts
• In order to meet the stated goal of
significant cuts (50%-80%) in greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050
 CCS is not a silver bullet
 However, it may be a keystone technology
• For CCS (or any mitigation technology) to
be relevant, it will need to operate at the Gt
scale
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative
Contact Information
Howard Herzog
Senior Research Engineer
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Energy Initiative
Room E19-370L
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: 617-253-0688
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site: sequestration.mit.edu
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative