Future Fossil Fuel Usage &Carbon Capture TechnologiesDr Paul FennellDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Techno...
Summary(1)CCS is not a synonym for clean coal(2) There is an urgent need for accelerating full-scaledeployment(3)There are...
Questions...What is CCS?What are the barriers to capture?What are the barriers to storage?What are the overall barriers fo...
Why CCS?CCS, alongside increased renewable sources, energy efficiency , nuclearand lifestyle changes, is a critical to mit...
Space in the the atmosphere in shorter supplythan fossil fuels    Carbon in atmosphere invs. carbon in fossil resources   ...
“ What is    CCS? ”      &“ Why CCS is  not just asynonym forclean coal? ”
Technology optionspost-combustion                            power plant         air                    boiler,           ...
CO2 capture technology overviewPre-combustion   • partially oxidise the fuel to CO(2) and H2, separate them, and burn     ...
Post-combustion capture                                             ‘End of pipe technology’,                             ...
Post-combustion captureClosest to market technology:   Amine (MEA) Scrubbing
MEA scrubbing•   CO2 – rich gas is    exposed to MEA (15 –    30 wt. %) in a scrubbing    column, at around 55oC,    at a ...
Capturing the CO2 from thepower station has to reduceits efficiency, relative to anon- capture power station.Thus, there a...
MEA scrubbingAdvantages(i) Industrial experience – although much smaller scale(ii) Known costs (?)(iii) Post combustion me...
Post-combustion carbonate loopingE.g. Shimizu et al, 1999
Post-combustion carbonate loopingAdvantages(i) sorbent derived from cheap and abundant natural limestone(ii) relatively lo...
Re-use spent sorbent in cement plant                  kiln/cooler/                  grinder       raw meal                ...
Cement production using spent sorbent  3 kW spouted bed reactor                       CaO+SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3                ...
Technology readiness level                   1.7 MWth pilot taking slip                   stream from the Hunosa 50       ...
Technology optionspost-combustion                            power plant         air                    boiler,           ...
Pre-combustion captureIntegrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
Key chemical reactions                  Gasification  fuel + O2/H2O/CO2 → H2,CO2,CO,CH4 + char + tar                      ...
H2,        H2                                                CO2,       CH4                                               ...
Pre-combustion capture      Extra steam   (or water quench)                       Jon Gibbins, Imperial College London, Ne...
FutureGen – $ 1.5 billion US clean coal concept
www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/
FutureGen timeline
Oxyfuel
Oxyfuel
Oxy-fuelAdvantages(i) Technology suitable for retrofit (burners)(ii) Comparatively simpleDisadvantages/ technical challeng...
Schwartze Pumpe                  30 MWe test                  facility
Background                             Chemical Looping                                            •   Chemical Looping Co...
Chemical Looping Combustion                 Thousands of hours running                 98 % Fuel Conversion               ...
SCALE-UP & DEMONSTRATION   Chalmers University       100 kW th   2011Darmstadt 1 MW pilot plant(Courtesy TU Darmstadt)
Summary of Chemical and Carbonate LoopingBoth technologies have significant future potential for the future – and this isd...
Ionic liquids as solvents•   What is an Ionic liquid?•   Physical Properties•   Chemical Properties•   Industrial Applicat...
Ionic liquids• When you heat a salt it will melt (e.g., NaCl,  801°C)• The melt is composed of mobile ions (ionic  liquid)...
Many ion choices • Ionic liquids are salts that are liquid at or near   room temperatureCations1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium...
Properties of Ionic Liquids•   Involatility              • Synthetic•   High thermal stability      flexibility•   High po...
efficiency penalty reduction = cost reductionEg, post-combustion using amine- solvent imposes an efficiency penalty of 10–...
Developed by Nasa and adapted by the                                       UK Advanced Power Generation                   ...
Technology readiness levels (TRL)… author’s opinion       based on literature survey and publicly available data          ...
Barriers to Uptake?
Public acceptanceis the major barrier for the deployment         CCSCartoon fromNature NewsFeature, Vol. 454,August 2008
Efficiency lossesTechnology              Current state-of-the-art       Target efficiency /efficiency                     ...
http://www.bellona.org/ccs/ccs/Demonstration
CO2 sources                http://www.bellona.org/ccs/ccs/Demonstration
CCS projects: possible, speculative,                operationalDemonstration   http://www.bellona.org/ccs/ccs/
CCS projects: operational                http://www.bellona.org/ccs/ccs/Demonstration
CCS in UK    Project           Technology         Funding         Timing                                         Awarded  ...
CCS in the UK (more hopeful) – second competition      Project            Technology           Funding        Timing  Pete...
IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008CCS is as big as renewables in 2050 – actually very soon.How do we get comparable s...
Global deployment of CCS , IEA CCS roadmap                                              100 by                            ...
E.ONRobin IronsDoosan-BabcockGnanam SekkappanImperialMathieu Lucquiaud,Hannah ChalmersJon GibbinsIEA GHGJohn Davison
CO2 capture-ready plants•    The aim of building new power plants that are capture ready isto reduce the risk of stranded ...
Bio- energy with CCS (BECCS)Potential to achieve net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, or –ve emissions                 ...
ConclusionsCCS is a new technology, but one which is currently being    demonstrated at increasingly large scaleStorage is...
CO2 capture From the Air•   It is possible to capture CO2 direct from the air•   It is possible for me to generate electri...
CO2 Re-utilisation                   USA ONLY                                                           GLOBAL   Source   ...
CO2 + 3 H2 = CH3OH + H2O•   Production of liquid fuels from “excess” or “free” renewable energy•   Is there such a thing?•...
Mineralisation• Securely locks away CO2 by reaction with rocks such as serpentine to  produce carbonate rocks• 3 – 6 times...
Conclusions• There are more efficient CO2 capture technologies than those  currently planned for deployment.• Some of thes...
AcknowledgementsAll those who who have been part of the Fennell group at Imperial:Dr Nick Florin, Dr. Nigel Paterson, Dr. ...
Acknowledgements•The research leading to these results hasreceived funding from:•Engineering and Physical Sciences Researc...
Basic Information    http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/publications    Advanced Information    An overview of CO2 c...
For Further Information:•   Blamey, J., Anthony, E. J., Wang, J., Fennell, P. S.; The calcium looping cycle for    large-s...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

06 fennell ukccs_young_researchers

1,103 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,103
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

06 fennell ukccs_young_researchers

  1. 1. Future Fossil Fuel Usage &Carbon Capture TechnologiesDr Paul FennellDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology, ICL
  2. 2. Summary(1)CCS is not a synonym for clean coal(2) There is an urgent need for accelerating full-scaledeployment(3)There are major non-technical barriers(4)There is a need to reduce the cost of capture(5) New technologies must use basic engineering / lifecycle analysis todemonstrate feasibility. This should be done before public moneyis spent.
  3. 3. Questions...What is CCS?What are the barriers to capture?What are the barriers to storage?What are the overall barriers for the technology?
  4. 4. Why CCS?CCS, alongside increased renewable sources, energy efficiency , nuclearand lifestyle changes, is a critical to mitigate against climate changeToday all major economiesare underpinned by theuse of fossil fuelsFigure: CO2 emissions fromthe combustion of fossil fuels,excluding use in cementindustryBoden T, Marland G Andres RJ. CarbonDioxide Information Analysis CentreOak Ridge National Laboratory, OakRidge, Tennessee
  5. 5. Space in the the atmosphere in shorter supplythan fossil fuels Carbon in atmosphere invs. carbon in fossil resources Space in atmosphere isis shorter supply than fossil fuels ‘Unconventional oil’ includes oil sands and oil shales. Unconventional gas’ includes coal bed methane, deep geopressured gas etc. but not a possible 12,000 GtC from gas hydrates. CARBON IN CARBON THAT CAN BE EMITTED TO FOSSIL ATMOSPHERE FUELS 1990-2100 Basic data from IPCC 3rd assessment report
  6. 6. “ What is CCS? ” &“ Why CCS is not just asynonym forclean coal? ”
  7. 7. Technology optionspost-combustion power plant air boiler, electricity, heat fluidised coal, gas and/or bed, N2 flue CO2 biomass industrial capture CO2 furnace gaspre-combustion gas or oil air, O2 CO2 high-pressure/ reformer CO2 electricity, high-purity CO CO2 CH4 gasifier CH4 heat and/ CO2 for CH4 shift capture H2 coal and/or H2 or H2 transportation H2 reactor biomass CO2 & storage steamoxy-fuel N2 power plant boiler, air fluidised electricity, heat air O2 separation bed, CO2 unit industrial coal, gas and/or furnace biomass
  8. 8. CO2 capture technology overviewPre-combustion • partially oxidise the fuel to CO(2) and H2, separate them, and burn the H2 in a (modified) gas turbine or fuel cell. – Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle – Chemical Looping Combustion – ZECA processPost-combustion • Burn the fuel as usual in a (more-or-less) unmodified power plant. • Add on a separate separation unit to remove CO2. – Solvent Scrubbing – Calcium looping – Chemical Looping Combustion (alternate schemes)Oxyfuel • Burn the fuel in a mixure of pure O2 and recycled flue gas (to moderate the temperature)
  9. 9. Post-combustion capture ‘End of pipe technology’, can be retrofitted Heat input for regeneration of solvent accounts for decrease in process /cost efficiency http://www.bellona.org/imagearchives/
  10. 10. Post-combustion captureClosest to market technology: Amine (MEA) Scrubbing
  11. 11. MEA scrubbing• CO2 – rich gas is exposed to MEA (15 – 30 wt. %) in a scrubbing column, at around 55oC, at a pressure of 1 bar.• The loading of CO2 at the exit of the column is around 0.4 mol CO2 / mol MEA.• The CO2 is then removed from the MEA by boiling (at a pressure of ~ 2 bar and a temperature of ~120oC). Loading = 0.15 .
  12. 12. Capturing the CO2 from thepower station has to reduceits efficiency, relative to anon- capture power station.Thus, there are two costsfor CO2. The cost for CO2captured (CC), and the costfor CO2 avoided (CA).The costs are related by thefractional efficiency penalty(EP).CC = CA (1 – EP)Thus, the capture cost isalways lower than the costfor avoidance.
  13. 13. MEA scrubbingAdvantages(i) Industrial experience – although much smaller scale(ii) Known costs (?)(iii) Post combustion method requires minimal changes tothe power station and suitable for retrofit (applicable toother post-combustion methods)Disadvantages/technical challenges(i) Corrosion of equipment in the presence of O2 and other impurities(ii) High solvent degradation rates due to reaction with oxygenated impurities(iii) High energy requirements(iv) Potential emissions of solvent to the environment(v) Very large equipment required due to the huge volumes of flue gas
  14. 14. Post-combustion carbonate loopingE.g. Shimizu et al, 1999
  15. 15. Post-combustion carbonate loopingAdvantages(i) sorbent derived from cheap and abundant natural limestone(ii) relatively low efficiency penalty(iii) synergy with cement production(iv) technology proven on medium scale plantDisadvantages(i) deactivation, particularly in the presence of sulphur,(can be reactivated, but increases plant complexity)strategies exist to reduce deactivation(ii) produces hot CO2 – wastes energy unless the system ispressurized(iii) particle attrition EU CaOling project – first of a kind demonstration (2 MW).
  16. 16. Re-use spent sorbent in cement plant kiln/cooler/ grinder raw meal cement
  17. 17. Cement production using spent sorbent 3 kW spouted bed reactor CaO+SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3 ground, mixed and fired at 1450 °C•This work used ‘pure’ oxides instead of typical raw materials (e.g. sand/clay) toallows any change in the concentration of trace elements in the sorbent to bemeasuredDean et al. Energy and Environmental Science , 2011
  18. 18. Technology readiness level 1.7 MWth pilot taking slip stream from the Hunosa 50 MWe CFB coal power plant,"La Pereda“, Spain
  19. 19. Technology optionspost-combustion power plant air boiler, electricity, heat fluidised coal, gas and/or bed, N2 flue CO2 biomass industrial capture CO2 furnace gaspre-combustion gas or oil air, O2 CO2 high-pressure/ reformer CO2 electricity, high-purity CO CO2 CH4 gasifier CH4 heat and/ CO2 for CH4 shift capture H2 coal and/or H2 or H2 transportation H2 reactor biomass CO2 & storage steamoxy-fuel N2 power plant boiler, air fluidised electricity, heat air O2 separation bed, CO2 unit industrial coal, gas and/or furnace biomass
  20. 20. Pre-combustion captureIntegrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
  21. 21. Key chemical reactions Gasification fuel + O2/H2O/CO2 → H2,CO2,CO,CH4 + char + tar Shift CO + H2O ↔ CO2 + H2 Exothermic, conducted over a Ni catalyst (poisoned by sulphur), pressure independent Reforming CH4 + 2 H2O ↔ CO + 3 H2 Endothermic, pressure sensitive, i.e. higher pressure enhances methanation These reactions lead to a H2-rich fuel gas, CO2can be separated from this gas mixture
  22. 22. H2, H2 CO2, CH4 CH4, CO CO CCS Emissions equivalent to natural gasIncreasing cost and decreasing CO2 gasifier fired power station CO2 H2, H2, H2, CO2, CO2, CH4 CH4, CH4 CO gasifier Shift CCS H2 rich fuel gas “Clean” H2 stream CO + H2O → CO2 +H2 CO2 for FC H2, H2, H2, CO2, H2 CO, CO2 CH4, CO2 CO gasifier Reform Shift CCS CH4 + 2 H2O → CO2 +4 H2 CO2 CO + H2O → CO2 +H2
  23. 23. Pre-combustion capture Extra steam (or water quench) Jon Gibbins, Imperial College London, New Europe, New Energy. Oxford, 27 Sep 2006; IEA GHG www.ieagreen.co.uk
  24. 24. FutureGen – $ 1.5 billion US clean coal concept
  25. 25. www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/
  26. 26. FutureGen timeline
  27. 27. Oxyfuel
  28. 28. Oxyfuel
  29. 29. Oxy-fuelAdvantages(i) Technology suitable for retrofit (burners)(ii) Comparatively simpleDisadvantages/ technical challenges(i) Leaks (air inwards reduce purity)(ii) Pure O2 (pneumatic conveying difficult)(iii) Burner redesign (high CO2 makes flame properties different)(iv) Safety concerns(v) CO2 purity (?)(vi) O2 produced using air liquefaction is energy intensive andextremely costly
  30. 30. Schwartze Pumpe 30 MWe test facility
  31. 31. Background Chemical Looping • Chemical Looping Combustion – Richter and Knoche (1983), Ishida et al (1987) (CO, H2) • Thermal efficiency (Power stations) N2, Unreacted O2 CO2, H2O • Advantages: (H2) • Efficient and low cost fuel combustion MeO • Facilitates CO2 Separation (H2O (l)↓) • Fuel Reactor (Mainly Endothermic) Air Qo Fuel • (2n+m)MeO + CnH2m ⇒ (2n+m)Me + mH2O +Heat reactor reactor nCO2 (Complete oxidation) (Re- (Reformer) Generator) Me • (n)MeO + CnH2m ⇒ (n)Me + ((½)m)H2 + nCO (Partial oxidation) Air Fossil Fuel • Air Reactor (Exothermic) (H2O) (H2O) • Me + ½O2 ⇔MeO (Me + H2O ⇔ MeO + H2)
  32. 32. Chemical Looping Combustion Thousands of hours running 98 % Fuel Conversion 99.7 % CO2 capture Low attrition Controllable, and Scalable Photograph courtesy of A. Lyngfelt, Chalmers U.
  33. 33. SCALE-UP & DEMONSTRATION Chalmers University 100 kW th 2011Darmstadt 1 MW pilot plant(Courtesy TU Darmstadt)
  34. 34. Summary of Chemical and Carbonate LoopingBoth technologies have significant future potential for the future – and this isdemonstrated by both technical feasibility, systems and economic analysis•Both technologies are moving to scale (1 – 2 MWth)•Both carbonate looping and chemical looping are could be built soon, and would havesignificantly higher efficiencies than standard post-combustion CO2 capture.•Further research is necessary to continue improvements in attrition rates, reactivities,oxygen capacity and to investigate sulphur resistance, NOx production, etc.
  35. 35. Ionic liquids as solvents• What is an Ionic liquid?• Physical Properties• Chemical Properties• Industrial Applications• Current Research• Challenges and Opportunities
  36. 36. Ionic liquids• When you heat a salt it will melt (e.g., NaCl, 801°C)• The melt is composed of mobile ions (ionic liquid) 
  37. 37. Many ion choices • Ionic liquids are salts that are liquid at or near room temperatureCations1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium Tributylmethylphosponium N,N-Butylmethylpyrrolidinium[C4C1im] [P4441] [C4C1py] Anions Triflate Dicyanamide Methylsulfate Dimethylphosphate Acetate
  38. 38. Properties of Ionic Liquids• Involatility • Synthetic• High thermal stability flexibility• High polarity • Easily sourced• High density • Very high• High conductivity viscosity• Large liquid range • Difficult recovery• Chemically inert • Expensive?• Variable hydrophilicity • Toxic?
  39. 39. efficiency penalty reduction = cost reductionEg, post-combustion using amine- solvent imposes an efficiency penalty of 10–12 points45 - 12 = 33 %, equivalent to 25 % reduction in power output for amine PC captureamine-solvents ~ 25 % > solid sorbents ~ 17 % > chemical looping ~ 8 %
  40. 40. Developed by Nasa and adapted by the UK Advanced Power Generation Technology Forum Technology readiness levels (TRL)TRLs Status Applied and strategic research 1 Basic principles observed and reported 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept 4 Technology / part of technology validation in a laboratory environment Technology validation 5 Technology / part of technology validation in a working environment 6 Technology model or prototype demonstration in a working environment System validation 7 Full-scale technology demonstration in working environment 8 Technology completed and ready for deployment through test and demonstration 9 Technology deployed
  41. 41. Technology readiness levels (TRL)… author’s opinion based on literature survey and publicly available data Technology TRLs Post combustion capture with MEA 6 IGCC with physical solvents (e.g. Rectisol process) 6 Oxy-combustion 5 Post-combustion carbonate looping 4–5 Chemical looping combustion 4 Sorbent enhanced reforming 3–4 Post-combustion with algae 3–4Post-combustion capture with “second generation” sorbents, e.g.: 2–3 supported amines, ionic liquids Membranes for CO2 capture 2–3 ZECA 1–2
  42. 42. Barriers to Uptake?
  43. 43. Public acceptanceis the major barrier for the deployment CCSCartoon fromNature NewsFeature, Vol. 454,August 2008
  44. 44. Efficiency lossesTechnology Current state-of-the-art Target efficiency /efficiency efficiency / efficiency loss loss for 2020Steam Cycle Efficiency (LCV) ~ 45 % ~ 50 – 55 %CCS-post combustion ~12 % points ~8 % pointsCCS-oxy fuel ~10 % points ~8 % pointsCCS – pre combustion ~7 - 9 % point ~5 -6 % pointCCS gas – post com ~ 8 % points ~7 % pointsCCS gas - oxyfuel ~11 % points ~8 % points Now Currently would produce around 25% less electricity for the same amount of coal burned 20 years 14 – 16 % less electricity than equivalent without CCS 40 years Penalty eliminated (intrinsic separation processes)
  45. 45. http://www.bellona.org/ccs/ccs/Demonstration
  46. 46. CO2 sources http://www.bellona.org/ccs/ccs/Demonstration
  47. 47. CCS projects: possible, speculative, operationalDemonstration http://www.bellona.org/ccs/ccs/
  48. 48. CCS projects: operational http://www.bellona.org/ccs/ccs/Demonstration
  49. 49. CCS in UK Project Technology Funding Timing Awarded No new Longannet 300 MWe FEED Planned for coal(Scottish Power) Post-combustion contracts, 2014 without capture, transport CCS CCS and storage competition Awarded 4 full- 300-400 MWe FEED Investment scale, full Kingsnorth Post-combustion contracts, decision to be chain (E.On) capture, transport CCS reviewed in demos and storage competition 2016
  50. 50. CCS in the UK (more hopeful) – second competition Project Technology Funding Timing Peterhead (SSE 386 MWe and Shell) Drax / Alstom 426 MWe Oxyfuel Killingholme 430 MWe C.Gen Precombustion 900 MWe 180M (EUR) Don Valley Planned for IGCC capture, EC funding (Stainforth) 2015 transport and storage EEPR 300 MWe Post Mired in Hunterston (Ayr) Combustion planning Tees Valley (progressive 800 MWe IGCC energy)
  51. 51. IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008CCS is as big as renewables in 2050 – actually very soon.How do we get comparable support and activity now?Fossil fuel is important for grid stability and is the only way to absolutelyprevent future emissions from fossil fuels (lock them underground as CO2!).Makes power cheaper by increasing flexibility of generation.
  52. 52. Global deployment of CCS , IEA CCS roadmap 100 by 2020 & 3400 by 2050 A lot of work to do! IEA, technology Roadmap, CCS, 2010
  53. 53. E.ONRobin IronsDoosan-BabcockGnanam SekkappanImperialMathieu Lucquiaud,Hannah ChalmersJon GibbinsIEA GHGJohn Davison
  54. 54. CO2 capture-ready plants• The aim of building new power plants that are capture ready isto reduce the risk of stranded assets and ‘carbon lock-in’• Developers of capture ready plants should take responsibilityfor ensuring that all known factors in their control that would preventinstallation and operation of CO2 capture have been identified andeliminated• Key issues include: space for capture equipment, access togeological storage• Guidance on space requirements: DECC (Florin and Fennell)IEA GHG Report 2007/4, May 2007.http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2007/CO2_capture_ready_plants.pdf
  55. 55. Bio- energy with CCS (BECCS)Potential to achieve net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, or –ve emissions E.g. biomass burned in power plant (other examples in the pulpCO2 and paper industry,removed CO2 captured and ethanol plants, CHPfrom the stored in plants which emit ofatmosphere geological the order of 100 000in trees and formation tonnes pa )crops Is scaleable. Costings are done / being done. biomass-fired in a power station
  56. 56. ConclusionsCCS is a new technology, but one which is currently being demonstrated at increasingly large scaleStorage is safePlants in the UK must now be built capture-readyUK Government + Climate change committee are supportive of the technolgyLarge number of different technologies proposed (and I’ve just presented the major ones). No clear winners yet.Efficiency Penalties being reduced.Only technology for certain applications (for example, cement).
  57. 57. CO2 capture From the Air• It is possible to capture CO2 direct from the air• It is possible for me to generate electricity with a hand crank• Is it a good idea?• Is it scalable?• Should we ask people other than the purveyors of the technology to do independent analysis?• How likely is it that a technology which now costs $250,000 per unit will cost $25,000 with economies of scale?• Heath and Safety, efficiency, LCA?• Is it easier to take water from a river or to condense it out from the air?• Claims of efficiency often rely on minimal stripping of air – 1 ppm removed...
  58. 58. CO2 Re-utilisation USA ONLY GLOBAL Source Annual CO2 Percentage of Total Process Global Annual Typical source Lifetime of production (MtCO2) Emissions CO2 Usage of CO2 used storagePower 2530 84.0%Refineries 154 5.1% Urea 65-146Mt^ Industrial 6 MonthsIron & Steel 82 2.7% Methanol 6-8Mt Industrial 6 MonthsGas 77 2.6% Inorganic Carbonates 3-45Mt # ? DecadesProcessing Organic Carbonates 0.2Mt ? DecadesCement 62 2.1%Ethylene 61 2.0% Polyurethanes 10Mt ? DecadesEthanol 31 1.0% Technological 10Mt ? Days to YearsAmmonia 7.8 0.3% Food and drink 8Mt ? Days to YearsHydrogen 6.8 0.2% TOTAL 102 – 227MtEthylene 1.2 0.0% Notes:Oxide ^, # The demand for CO2 in Urea and Inorganic Carbonate production isTOTAL 3013 100% particularly uncertain. Various sources have quoted figures with orders of Global ~ 10 x USA emissions magnitude differences.Sources outweigh sinks by several orders of magnitude (more than a factor of 100).The storage of CO2 is frequently short term.The huge volume of CO2 produced means that any by-product of CO2 at the scalerequired to make a difference in climate terms will immediately saturate the market.The use of CO2 as a novel feedstock is a good idea if it is justified by the economics –but will not have significant climate benefit, particularly if the storage is short term.
  59. 59. CO2 + 3 H2 = CH3OH + H2O• Production of liquid fuels from “excess” or “free” renewable energy• Is there such a thing?• There is always an opportunity cost – always something else which can be done.• Is this an efficient way to store the electricity? Methanol Production and Use Electric Vehicle Efficiency Efficiency H2 from water 50% Pumped hydro 70% H2 + CO2 80% Battery charging1 90% Use of fuel in ICE 30% Electric Vehicle 90% Overall 12% Overall 57% Efficiency Battery1 90% Electric Vehicle 90% Overall 81% What is the capacity factor for equipment relying on “free” renewable energy? Won’t the power systems engineers be trying to minimise this? 1Stevens, J.W. And Corey, G.P. A study of lead-acid battery efficiency near top-of- charge and the impact on PV systems design. Photovoltaic specialists conference, 1996. 13 – 17 May 1996, Washington DC, USA.
  60. 60. Mineralisation• Securely locks away CO2 by reaction with rocks such as serpentine to produce carbonate rocks• 3 – 6 times more rock required to be mined than the coal from which it is capturing the CO2 (basic mass balance)• Needs to be ground to <100 microns before reaction – electricity use very significant1• Reaction slow – approximate sizing for 500MWe equivalent = 4000 tonnes of stone reacting at any moment, with 16,000 tonnes of acid, for a perfect reactor.• 100 tonne railway carriage of acid / stone sludge every 8 minutes.• Scale-up? Contact with CO2? Disposal? LCA (mining CO2 emissions?).• What else could we do with the resources deployed for this mining?• Not a viable technology for power stations but does have niche applications in waste / residue treatment. 1Strubing, MSc, Imperial College, 2007.
  61. 61. Conclusions• There are more efficient CO2 capture technologies than those currently planned for deployment.• Some of these may be easier to scale than solvent scrubbing towers.• Future processes must at least demonstrate order-of-magnitude feasibility before funding• Once kinetics are available, rough flowsheeting and LCA is critical, together with consideration of Capex and utilisation factors.• Some processes can be discarded at this stage.• Chemical Engineering is not about making interesting but economically unviable processes.• There is always an opportunity cost, and this should be considered.
  62. 62. AcknowledgementsAll those who who have been part of the Fennell group at Imperial:Dr Nick Florin, Dr. Nigel Paterson, Dr. Belen Gonzalez, John Blamey, Dr Mohamadal-jeboori, Dr Fatima Nyako, Dr. Yatika Somrang, Michaela Nguyen, Charlie Dean,Kelvin Okpoko, Zhang Zili, Zhou Xin, Tong Danlu, Fola LabiyiAll our collaborators elsewhere: Prof. Ben Anthony, Dr. Yinghai Wu, Dr. Vasilije Manovic, Dr. Dennis Lu and Robert Simmons of CanmetENERGY Prof. Carlos Abanades of INCAR-CSICDrs Dennis and Scott at CambridgeThanks to John Dennis at Cambridge for his slides on Chemical loopingJason Hallet, Imperial College dept of Chemistry, for slides on ionicliquidsAndres Sanchez at Endesa for slides regarding Caoling
  63. 63. Acknowledgements•The research leading to these results hasreceived funding from:•Engineering and Physical Sciences ResearchCouncil (EPSRC), UK•Grantham Institute for Climate Change, IC–European Communitys Seventh Framework Programme(FP7/2007-2013)under GA 241302-CaOling Project
  64. 64. Basic Information http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/publications Advanced Information An overview of CO2 capture technologies Niall MacDowell, Nick Florin, Antoine Buchard, Jason Hallett, Amparo Galindo, George Jackson, Claire S. Adjiman, Charlotte K. Williams, Nilay Shah and Paul Fennell * Energy Environ. Sci., 2010, 3, 1645-1669 DOI: 10.1039/C004106H, ReviewDr Paul Fennell (p.fennell@imperial.ac.uk)Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology, ICL
  65. 65. For Further Information:• Blamey, J., Anthony, E. J., Wang, J., Fennell, P. S.; The calcium looping cycle for large-scale CO2 capture; Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010 36, 260-279• Blamey, J., Paterson, N. P. M., Dugwell, D. R., Fennell, P. S.; Mechanism of Particle Breakage during Reactivation of CaO-Based Sorbents for CO2 Capture; Energy & Fuels 2010, 24, 4605-4616• Blamey, J., Lu, D. Y., Fennell, P. S., Anthony, E. J.; Reactivation of CaO-Based Sorbents for CO2 Capture: Mechanism for the Carbonation of Ca(OH)2; Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2011, 50, 10329-10334• Gonzalez, B., Blamey, J., McBride-Wright, M., Carter, N., Dugwell, D., Fennell, P., Abanades, C.; Calcium Looping for CO2 Capture: Sorbent Enhancement Through Doping; Energy Procedia, 2011, 4, 402-409• Fennell, P. S., Al-Jeboori, M.; CaO-based Sorbent Enhancement through Doping; UK Priority Patent Application number 1114105.8, filed on August 16, 2011 in the name of Imperial Innovations Ltd• Donat, F., Florin, N. H., Anthony, E. J., Fennell, P. S.; The influence of high- temperature steam on the reactivity of CaO sorbent for CO2 capture; Environmental Science and Technology (submitted)

×