Technologies and Costs of CO2 Sequestration

1
Technologies and Costs of CO2 Sequestration

• Jacek Podkanski, Dolf Gielen
• International Energy Agency
• Policy and Strategy of Sustainable Energy
  Development
• for Central and Eastern European Countries until
  2030
• Warsaw, Poland, 22-23 November 2005

2
Carbon Capture StorageResearch, Development,
Demonstration and Deployment

• US FutureGen
• EU Hypogen
• Canadian Clean Power Coalition
• Australia
• Germany COORETEC
• UK
• Norway
• France
• Italy
• Japan,

• Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
• International Energy Agency
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• World Energy Council
• Bilateral Agreements,

National Programs
International Collaboration

• Alstom ExxonMobil
• BP EniTecnologie SpA
• ChevronTexaco
• EPRI Shell International
• RWE AG Total
• Rio Tinto, Schlumberger,

Industry
3
Carbon Capture Storage at the International
Energy Agency

• IEA Working Party on Fossil Fuels
• IEA Greenhouse Gas RD Programme
• IEA Clean Coal Centre
• IEA Coal Industry Advisory Board
• Secretariat

4
Prospects for CO2 Capture and Storage

• What is CO2 capture storage?
• What are the costs?
• How does the cost-effectiveness of CCS compare to
  other emission reduction options?
• What will it take to bring CO2 capture and
  storage to market?

5
What is CO2 capture storage?

• Capturing CO2 from the gas streams emitted during
  electricity production, industrial processes or
  fuel processing
• Transporting the captured CO2 by pipeline or in
  tankers
• Storing CO2 underground in deep saline aquifers,
  depleted oil and gas reservoirs or unminable coal
  seams

6
Capture Technology Status

• CO2 capture is a proven technology
• It reduces emissions by 85-95
• But its energy efficiency can be further improved
  and cost must be reduced
• This requires integrated power plant and CO2
  capture designs
• Most of these advanced designs are not yet proven
  on a commercial scale
• Examples new chemical absorbents, oxyfueling,
  hydrogen combined cycles, IGCC, USCSC, chemical
  looping, fuel cells

7
Capture - Opportunities

• Fossil fueled power plants
• Biomass fueled power plants
• Certain industrial processes
• Synfuels production
• Natural gas processing

8
Storage Technology Status

• Aquifer storage demonstration
• CO2-EOR demonstration
• CO2-EGR pilot
• CO2-ECBM pilot

9
Storage - Capacity

• 1,000-10,000 Gt aquifer storage capacity
• 100-120 Gt depleted oil fields/EOR
• 700-800 Gt depleted gas fields/EGR
• 20 Gt ECBM
• Fixation mechanisms reduce risk
• Monitoring is feasible and cheap

10
Costs - overview

• Capture (incl. compression)
• Current 5 50 USD/tCO2 av.
• Future 5 - 30 USD/tCO2 av.
• Coal-fired power plants 10 25 USD/tCO2 av.
• Gas-fired power plants 25 30 USD/tCO2 av.
• Transportation 2 20 USD/tCO2 av.
• Injection 2 50 USD/tCO2 av.
• Revenues -55 0 USD/tCO2 av.
• Total -40 100 USD/tCO2 av.

11
Capture (electricity)- adds presently 2-3
UScents/kWh- long term 1-2 UScents/kWh
Fuel, technology Electric efficiency Capture costs /t CO2 capt Electricity costs Mils/kWh Additional electricity costs Mils/kWh
Likely technologies
Coal, steam cycle, CA (2010) 31 24 51.0 21.9
Coal, steam cycle, membranes CA (2020) 36 21 46.3 17.1
Coal, USC, membranes CA (2030) 42 17 49.0 17.5
Coal, IGCC, Selexol (2010) 38 20 52.3 14.9
Coal, IGCC, Selexol (2020) 40 11 41.0 8.0
Gas, CC, CA (2010) 47 29 36.8 10.7
Gas, CC, Selexol, OxF (2020) 51 25 34.8 9.6
Black liquor, IGCC (2020) 25 4 27.9 4.4
Biomass, IGCC (2025) 33 23 96.1 21.5
Speculative technologies
Coal, CFB, Chemical looping (2020) 39 14 38.2 14.7
Gas, CC, Chemical looping (2025) 56 33 34.5 9.3
Coal, IGCC SOFC (2035) 56 13 49.0 7.7
Gas, CC SOFC (2030) 66 28 39.2 8.6

12
Costs general comments

• CCS costs competitive with other CO2 abatement
  options
• Coal without CCS has no future in a
  CO2-constrained world
• Electricity from coal or gas-fired power plants
  with carbon capture and storage is still cheaper
  than most renewables (fuel price dependent)
• Efficiency first

13
How does the cost-effectiveness of CCS compare to
other emission reduction options?Scenario
analysis

• Scenarios produced using IEAs Energy Technology
  Perspectives (ETP) model
• Based on ETSAP-MARKAL
• Systems engineering/partial equilibrium model
• Global, 15-regions
• Detailed representation of technologies on both
  the demand and supply sides (1500 new techs)

14
Model

• Covers carbon capture and storage and competing
  emission mitigation options
• ETP BASE scenario calibrated with WEO Reference
  Scenario
• Detailed scenario analysis and sensitivity
  analysis to map cost-effective CCS potentials and
  uncertainties.

15
Global CO2 emissions
16
Emission stabilisationMarginal CO2 abatement cost
17
CO2 price
18
Capture at various CO2 prices
19
Share of CCS in total CO2 emissions mitigation
20
CO2 capture by process area
21
CO2 capture by technology
22
IGCC and steam cycles

• Steam cycles and IGCC are competing options for
  coal-based electricity generation with CO2
  capture and storage
• Without synfuel cogeneration in IGCC
  installations the CCS potential declines by 30

23
CO2 emissions from electricity generation
24
Electricity production mix
25
Electricity production by power plants fitted
with CCS, by region
26
Fuel market implicationsCCS impact on coal use
at 50/t CO2
CCS impact
2050 50/t CO2 results in 80 or 40 decline in
coal use, depending on availability of CCS
27
Overview of sensitivity analysis results
(influence on CO2 captured and stored in 2050)
CCS only in OECD countries -50 to -80
CO2 pricing delayed by 15 years -10
Different CO2 pricing (25 100 USD/t CO2, basis 50 USD) -50 to 30
Nuclear power allowed to grow -40
No IGCC for synfuel cogeneration -30
Cheaper renewables because of investment policies technology learning -50
Additional electricity savings (10 more) -15
GDP growth 2.2 to 3.2 (basis 2.8) -15 to 15
28
Challenges

• RDD gaps
• Public awareness and acceptance
• Legal and regulatory framework
• Long-term policy framework and
• incentives

29
RDD gaps

• More proof of storage needed
• CO2 capture demonstration needed
• 0.5-1 bln per demonstration plant
• Present spending 100 MUSD/yr
• A fivefold increase of RDD needed

30
Long-term policy framework andincentives

• In addition to the acceleration of RDD funding,
  countries should create a level-playing field for
  CCS alongside other climate change mitigation
  technologies. This includes ensuring that various
  climate change mitigation instruments, including
  market-oriented trading schemes, are adapted to
  include CCS.

31
Conclusions

• CCS can play a key role in addressing global
  warming
• mainly through coal plants in coal-rich regions
• but also some natural gas opportunities
• Carbon incentives are needed, but also
• Proven technology
• Acceptable storage

32
jacek.podkanski_at_iea.org
Thank you