+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing...

Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing...

Date post: 16-Apr-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 8 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
18
Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing economy-wide thermodynamic metrics Stuart Sweeney Smith 1 , Yuchi Sun 1 , Adelaide Calbry-Muzyka 2 , Chris Edwards 2 , Adam R. Brandt 1 1 Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University Contact: [email protected] 2015 GCEP Symposium, October 14 th 2015 Source: saskpowerccs.com Source: Sweeney Smith (2014)
Transcript
Page 1: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Systems analysis of CO2 capture technologies: Developing economy-wide thermodynamic metrics

StuartSweeneySmith1,YuchiSun1,AdelaideCalbry-Muzyka2,ChrisEdwards2,AdamR.Brandt11DepartmentofEnergyResourcesEngineering,StanfordUniversity

2DepartmentofMechanicalEngineering,StanfordUniversityContact:[email protected]

2015GCEPSymposium,October14th2015

Source: saskpowerccs.com Source: Sweeney Smith (2014)

Page 2: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Motivation

•  Applying CCS at scale would require economy-wide shifts in material and energy flows

•  Designs should minimize capital investment, material consumption, and energy penalties

•  Avoid unintended consequences (“backfire”) elsewhere in economy or biosphere

2

Properly assessing CCS technologies requires:

1. Understanding economy-wide environmental impacts

2. Comparing diverse environmental outcomes

Page 3: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Goal1:Aneconomy-wideperspecPve

3

Supply chains are actually deeply interconnected

“supply webs”

•  Life cycle assessment (LCA) models economy-wide environmental impacts

•  Tracks flows of natural resources into and pollutants out of each process

Coal mine

Coal transport

Power plant

Steel

Diesel fuel

Lubricants

Iron ore

Coal

Primary inputs Supply chainof interest

Secondary inputs

Higher order inputs

Page 4: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Goal2:Comparingdiverseenvironmentalimpacts

•  Howshouldwetradeoffdifferentenvironmentalimpacts?–  Differentmedia:watervs.air?–  DifferentPmescales:nowvs.future?–  Differenthealthorecosystemimpacts:acutevs.chronic?

•  Long-standingprobleminenvironmentalassessment–  Manyschemesproposed,consensuslacking

•  ExergyhasbeenproposedasaunifiedthermodynamicmeasureofpotenPalharmfromeffluents

4Sources: Szargut (1985); Crane et al. (1992); Ayres et al. (1996, 1998); Seager and Theis (2002); Simpson and Edwards (2011); Dincer and Rosen (2012)

Page 5: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Exergyis…•  …themaximumamountofworkthatcanbeextractedfroma

systemcontainingaresourcewhichisoutofequilibriumwithanenvironment

•  …ameasureofpotenPalforchangeastheresourceequilibrateswiththe(unchanging)environment

•  …the“useful”partofenergy

•  …variabledependingonnatureofdisequilibrium:

5

Kinetic Gravitational Thermomechanical Nuclear

Chemical Radiative

Source: Szargut (2005), Szargut (1988), Simpson and Edwards (2011) Hermann (2006)

Page 6: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Methods:Exergycontentofflows

6

24 CHAPTER 3. EXERGETIC LCA IMPLEMENTATION

at elevated pressures (e.g. natural gas from a production well). For the LCA of

CO2

absorption processes, the pressure-dependent physical exergy of the compressed

CO2

stream is computed separately and treated as a produced material by the MEA

absorption process. It is assumed not to reenter the ecosphere within the boundaries

of this analysis.

3.3.3 Temperature-dependent

Key rows

The temperature-dependent physical exergy for each key row i from process j is

calculated as:

b

phT,i,j

= c

p,i

✓T

i,j

� T

0

� T

0

ln

✓T

i,j

T

0

◆◆ MJ

mol

�, (3.14)

where bphT,i,j

⇥MJ

mol

⇤is the temperature-dependent physical exergy of substance i from

process j, cp,i

⇥MJ

mol K

⇤is the specific heat capacity of substance i at constant pressure,

T

i,j

[K] is the temperature of substance i, and T

0

[K] is the temperature of the reference

environment.

In this study c

p,i

is held constant for all processes j, regardless of temperature Ti,j

,

although in future implementations cp,i

could be computed dynamically as a function

of temperature. As T0

is specified for the all reference environments (T0,air

= T

0,soil

=

T

0,water

= T

0,raw

= 287.05 [K] [35] and T

i,j

is specified for all flows and processes in

Bkey

(see Table 5.4 in Appendix), the above calculation is relatively straightforward

in most cases.

In several cases rows which should be more accurately thought of as mass through-

puts (such as “water, turbine use” and “water, cooling”) are treated only as inputs

within ecoinvent. This contributes to the non-mass conserving nature of the ecoin-

vent v3 database. However these through-puts are assumed to intake mass at en-

vironmental temperature T

0

and then output that mass at an elevated temperature

T

i,j

[46, 47, 48], meaning for the purposes of physical exergy calculation they are

reclassified as outputs in the “water” category.

22 CHAPTER 3. EXERGETIC LCA IMPLEMENTATION

rows and 4 RoE rows.

One additional key input row is added to Bkey

, for the mass flow of produced water

during geothermal electricity generation. This flow is not included in the ecoinvent

database and, like the combustion gases, is manually added to Bkey

afterwards based

on calculations of water and steam production rates and typical geothermal power

plant e�ciencies in the literature [45]. Key processes for this row include only the 13

geothermal electricity production processes in B. The final reduced size of Bkey

is 16

key rows by 261 columns, with 4 RoE rows comprising the remainder of B.

Relevant physical data is collected for all key rows and columns, including temper-

ature of each flow from each process Ti,j

[K] and the specific heat at constant pressure

of each flow c

p,i

⇥MJ

mol K

⇤(see Table 5.4 in Appendix).

3.3.2 Pressure-dependent

The equation for pressure-dependent physical exergy of substance i from process j,

modified from Section 2.2 is:

b

php,i,j

= R T

0

ln

✓p

i,j

p

0

◆ MJ

mol

�, (3.12)

where b

php,i,j

⇥MJ

mol

⇤is the pressure-dependent physical exergy of substance i from

process j, R⇥

MJ

mol K

⇤is the universal gas constant, T

0

[K] is the temperature of the

environment, pi,j

[kPa] is the pressure of the substance, and p

0

[kPa] is the pressure

of the reference atmosphere.

In this study it is assumed that all waste and raw material flows leaving or entering

the technosphere do so at atmospheric pressure. Thus pi,j

= p

0

[kPa] in all cases, and

the pressure-dependent physical exergy for any substance i becomes:

b

php,i

= R T

0

ln

✓p

0

p

0

◆= 0

MJ

mol

�. (3.13)

This assumption is a reasonable one for waste flows, which are generally not released

to the environment at significantly higher than atmospheric pressure. However, it does

neglect the exergy associated with natural resources which may enter the technosphere

3.4. CHEMICAL EXERGY 31

Table 3.6: Assumed RoE values for chemical exergy.

Argon Avg. PCC Avg. NGCC Methane

N.S. chem. ex. [kJ mol�1] 11.690 a N/A N/A 831.640 a

Molar mass [g mol�1] 39.948 N/A N/A 16.040

b

ch,Air

[kJ kg�1] 293 559 616 51,847b

ch,Soil

[kJ kg�1] 293 17,104 16,534 51,847b

ch,Water

[kJ kg�1] 293 4,750 3,847 51,847b

ch,Res.

[kJ kg�1] 293 30,328 46,623 51,847

a - [14, 27]

formula and Gibbs free energy of formation. Three cases are run, representing a ‘best-

case’, ‘middle-case’, and ‘worst-case’ assumption for the chemical exergy intensity of

the RoE rows (see Table 3.6).

3.4.3 Di↵usive exergy loss

Key rows

The general equation for the calculation of di↵usive chemical exergy loss for a partic-

ular row in Gkey

, from Section 2.3 is:

b

mix,i

= R T

0

i

X

j

ln (yi,j

)

MJ

mol

�, (3.20)

where b

mix,i

⇥MJ

mol

⇤is the di↵usive chemical exergy loss, R

⇥MJ

mol K

⇤is the universal gas

constant, T0

[K] is the temperature of the reference environment, ↵i

is the activ-

ity coe�cient of substance i relative to an ideal substance, and y

i,j

hmol i, j

mol j

iis the

concentration of substance i in process j.

Concentration y

i,j

for resource input rows, in the case of ores, is taken from the

ecoinvent database, which specifies the mass percent of the target substance relative

to the total ore. Determining concentrations for output substances on the other

hand is more di�cult, as no data is contained within the ecoinvent database on

concentrations of waste flows. Instead, this study assumes a simplified ‘three-pipe’

28 CHAPTER 3. EXERGETIC LCA IMPLEMENTATION

3.4.2 Normal standard chemical exergy

Key rows

The general method for calculating normal standard chemical exergy of a substance

in the inventory matrix Gkey

given in Section 2.3 is:

b

0

NS,i

= �f

G

0

i

+X

el

n

el

b

0

chel

MJ

mol

�, (3.16)

where b

0

NS,i

⇥MJ

mol

⇤is the normal standard chemical exergy of substance i, �

f

G

0

i

⇥MJ

mol

is the Gibbs free energy of formation for substance i, nel

is the stoichiometric number

of moles of element el in substance i, and b

0

chel

⇥MJ

mol

⇤is the normal standard chemical

exergy of element el in substance i.

This method is used for the majority of key rows - those which have identifiable

chemical formulae and Gibbs values. However, not every row fits this model, and

several special calculation methods are employed to handle unconventional rows.

For organic fuels which typically do not have established, consistent chemical for-

mulae (as in the case of coal, liquid hydrocarbons, or biomass) the following equation

is used:

b

0

NS,i

= HHVi

r

i

MJ

kg

�, (3.17)

where HHVi

hMJ

kg

iis the higher heating value of the i

th fuel per unit mass, and r

i

is

the ratio of standard chemical exergy of the i

th fuel to its higher heating value, as

given in Table 3.5.

In several cases, special consideration is given to flows which are considered to

be withdrawn from the environment, passed through the human economy, and then

re-emitted without chemical alteration. These are termed ‘unaltered flows’ in this

study, and represent flows such as water taken from a stream and run through a

once-through cooling system, or water flowing through a hydroelectric damn. In

3.5. GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL EXERGY 33

a lack of information regarding mixing behaviors of the key rows. This assumption

has the e↵ect of over estimating the total di↵usive chemical exergy loss of a row,

particularly for ionic species in water, and solids, which behave far from ideally.

Rest of economy

Di↵usive chemical exergy loss for all RoE rows are computed using the general

Equation 3.20. However, all RoE rows are assumed to be output or input as pure

substances with a concentration y

i,j

= 1⇥mol

mol

⇤. Therefore the di↵usive exergy loss

b

mix,RoE

= R T

0

i

ln (1) = 0⇥MJ

mol

⇤for all RoE rows. This is a conservative assump-

tion.

3.5 Gravitational potential exergy

The equation for the calculation of the total gravitational potential exergy of an

inventory matrix G is:

B

pe

= g

X

i

X

j

m

i,j

(zi,j

� z

0

) = g

X

i

X

j

m

i,j

�z

i,j

[MJ] , (3.22)

where g

⇥km

s

2

⇤is the gravitational constant, m

i,j

[kg] is the mass of substance i in

process j, zi,j

[km] is the elevation at which the i

th substance from the j

th process is

emitted, and z

0

[km] is the reference elevation of the natural environment. For the

purposes of this study z

0

for all reference environments is chosen to be sea level, or 0

[km].

3.5.1 Reduction of matrix size

As with physical and chemical exergy, gravitational potential exergy exists only for

the rows of B which are in units of mass or volume. Thus, all volumetric flows are

converted to mass and all calculations are performed on the same 920 row Bmass

constructed in Section 3.3.

3.5. GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL EXERGY 33

a lack of information regarding mixing behaviors of the key rows. This assumption

has the e↵ect of over estimating the total di↵usive chemical exergy loss of a row,

particularly for ionic species in water, and solids, which behave far from ideally.

Rest of economy

Di↵usive chemical exergy loss for all RoE rows are computed using the general

Equation 3.20. However, all RoE rows are assumed to be output or input as pure

substances with a concentration y

i,j

= 1⇥mol

mol

⇤. Therefore the di↵usive exergy loss

b

mix,RoE

= R T

0

i

ln (1) = 0⇥MJ

mol

⇤for all RoE rows. This is a conservative assump-

tion.

3.5 Gravitational potential exergy

The equation for the calculation of the total gravitational potential exergy of an

inventory matrix G is:

B

pe

= g

X

i

X

j

m

i,j

(zi,j

� z

0

) = g

X

i

X

j

m

i,j

�z

i,j

[MJ] , (3.22)

where g

⇥km

s

2

⇤is the gravitational constant, m

i,j

[kg] is the mass of substance i in

process j, zi,j

[km] is the elevation at which the i

th substance from the j

th process is

emitted, and z

0

[km] is the reference elevation of the natural environment. For the

purposes of this study z

0

for all reference environments is chosen to be sea level, or 0

[km].

3.5.1 Reduction of matrix size

As with physical and chemical exergy, gravitational potential exergy exists only for

the rows of B which are in units of mass or volume. Thus, all volumetric flows are

converted to mass and all calculations are performed on the same 920 row Bmass

constructed in Section 3.3.

34 CHAPTER 3. EXERGETIC LCA IMPLEMENTATION

Elevation data for most rows and processes is absent in the ecoinvent database.

Therefore the output and input elevations zi,j

[km] for most substances in Bmass

are

assumed to be sea level, such that �z

i,j

= 0 [km] and b

pe,i

= 0hMJ

kg

i.

The one exception to this assumption is the row “Water, turbine use, unspecified

natural origin”, which represents water flow through hydroelectic dams. The ecoin-

vent database groups hydroelectric facilities into two process categories, “reservoir”

and “run-of-river”. These categories have reported elevation drops �z

i,j

= 0.05 [km]

and �z

i,j

= 0.01 [km], respectively. With this data it is possible to calculate the

potential exergy extracted from the flowing water. Therefore the matrix Bkey

con-

structed for the calculation of gravitational potential exergy consists of a single key

row, and a number of key processes equal to the number of hydroelectric generation

processes in B.

3.6 Kinetic exergy

The equation for calculating the kinetic exergy of a inventory matrix G is:

B

ke

=X

i

X

j

m

i,j

✓(v

i,j

� v

0

)2

2

◆=

X

i

X

j

m

i,j

✓�v

2

i,j

2

◆[MJ] , (3.23)

where Bke

[MJ] is the total kinetic exergy of the modeled system, mi,j

[kg] is the mass

of the i

th substance in the j

th process, vi,j

⇥km

s

⇤is the velocity of the i

th substance

in the j

th process, and v

0

⇥km

s

⇤is the velocity of the reference environment, which in

this study is assumed to be the stationary surface of the earth.

3.6.1 Reduction of matrix size

Kinetic exergy, like potential, chemical, and physical exergy, applies only to flows of

mass emitted to or drawn from the environment. In theory, Equation 3.23 applies to

every mass flow in G, as all flows are crossing a boundary between the technosphere

and the ecosphere, and thus by definition have some velocity v

i,j

> v

0

. However, in

34 CHAPTER 3. EXERGETIC LCA IMPLEMENTATION

Elevation data for most rows and processes is absent in the ecoinvent database.

Therefore the output and input elevations zi,j

[km] for most substances in Bmass

are

assumed to be sea level, such that �z

i,j

= 0 [km] and b

pe,i

= 0hMJ

kg

i.

The one exception to this assumption is the row “Water, turbine use, unspecified

natural origin”, which represents water flow through hydroelectic dams. The ecoin-

vent database groups hydroelectric facilities into two process categories, “reservoir”

and “run-of-river”. These categories have reported elevation drops �z

i,j

= 0.05 [km]

and �z

i,j

= 0.01 [km], respectively. With this data it is possible to calculate the

potential exergy extracted from the flowing water. Therefore the matrix Bkey

con-

structed for the calculation of gravitational potential exergy consists of a single key

row, and a number of key processes equal to the number of hydroelectric generation

processes in B.

3.6 Kinetic exergy

The equation for calculating the kinetic exergy of a inventory matrix G is:

B

ke

=X

i

X

j

m

i,j

✓(v

i,j

� v

0

)2

2

◆=

X

i

X

j

m

i,j

✓�v

2

i,j

2

◆[MJ] , (3.23)

where Bke

[MJ] is the total kinetic exergy of the modeled system, mi,j

[kg] is the mass

of the i

th substance in the j

th process, vi,j

⇥km

s

⇤is the velocity of the i

th substance

in the j

th process, and v

0

⇥km

s

⇤is the velocity of the reference environment, which in

this study is assumed to be the stationary surface of the earth.

3.6.1 Reduction of matrix size

Kinetic exergy, like potential, chemical, and physical exergy, applies only to flows of

mass emitted to or drawn from the environment. In theory, Equation 3.23 applies to

every mass flow in G, as all flows are crossing a boundary between the technosphere

and the ecosphere, and thus by definition have some velocity v

i,j

> v

0

. However, in

3.7. RADIATIVE EXERGY 39

3.7 Radiative exergy

The equation for calculating the radiative exergy in an inventory matrix G is:

B

rad

=X

i

X

j

e

i,j

A

i,j

t

i,j

1� 4

3

T

0

T

i,j

+1

3

✓T

0

T

i,j

◆4

![MJ] , (3.36)

where B

rad

[MJ] is the radiative exergy content of G, ei,j

⇥MJ

m

2s

⇤is the insolation

incident on the surface of the transformed land i from process j, Ai,j

[m2] is the area

of land transformed or occupied, ti,j

[s] is the duration of occupation, Ti,j

[K] is the

temperature of the emitting body, and T

0

[K] is the temperature of the reference

environment.

3.7.1 Reduction of matrix size

In this study radiative exergy calculations are applied strictly to changes in the

amount of solar radiation available to the environment. Specifically, changes in the

available solar radiation arise in conjunction with changes in land use. A process j

within the economy may transform or occupy a portion of the earth’s surface, shifting

the spatial boundary of the technosphere to encompass land formerly contained in

the ecosphere, or the converse. Alternatively a process may transform an area of

land already contained within the technosphere in such a way as to alter its radiative

properties. The ecoinvent database contains information of land transformations and

occupations associated with all relevent processes. For this analysis only land trans-

formation or occupation rows within B are considered for the calculation of radiative

exergy. After reduction, the matrix Bkey

contains 97 rows and 10,107 columns.

3.7.2 Solar exergy methods

Several methodologies have been developed in the scientific literature to calculate the

radiative exergy drawdown associated with changes in land use, as part of larger exer-

getic analyses of natural resources. These include cumulative exergy demand (CExD)

[19] and cumulative exergy extraction from the natural environment (CEENE) [18],

42 CHAPTER 3. EXERGETIC LCA IMPLEMENTATION

a) b)Before land transformation. After land transformation.

Techno

Eco

Techno

Eco

Eco

Techno

Techno

Techno

Chem. Ex.

Chem. Ex.

Rad. Ex. Rad. Ex.

Figure 3.11: Radiative exergy associated with land-use changes, cumulative exergyextraction from the natural environment method (CEENE).

3.8 Nuclear exergy

3.8.1 Reduction of matrix size

The intervention matrix B contains a number of radioactive substances emitted to

air, soil, and water. However the method for calculating nuclear exergy outlined

in Section 2.7 applies only to species used in electricity generating fission reactions.

Therefore the matrix B was reduced to include only those rows containing 235U,233U,

or 239Pu. After reduction, the matrix Bkey

contains 4 rows and 10,107 columns.

3.8.2 Calculation

The nuclear exergy of fission for a generic inventory matrix G is calculated as:

B

nuc

= 1.93x107X

i

m

i

M

i

[MJ] , (3.39)

Nat. res.

Wastes

Product T, p, ΔG, yi, z, v T, p, ΔG, yi, z, v

T, p, ΔG, yi, z, v

Process

A process takes in exergy in natural resources and other products, outputs exergy as

product and wastes

Other inputs T, p, ΔG, yi, z, v

Env. T0, p0, yi0, z0, v0

Page 7: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Methods:Developinganeconomy-wideexergymodel

7

•  Ecoinventlifecycleanalysisdataset(SwissETHsince1992)

•  Connectedsetof~10,000physicalprocesses–  1,700flowsofwastesand

resourcestoandfromenvironment

•  Exergy-relevantquanPPesarenotalwaysrecordedinthedataset–  Pre-analyzetoprioriPzeflows–  Showsthatonly100sofprocesses

andflowsmustbemodeled–  ExergyconversionmatrixX

Source: Sweeney-Smith and Brandt (2015), Sweeney-Smith (2014)

GRoENo mass

GKey

(D)

x = defaultX = 0

xij

Page 8: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Methods:analyzingabaselineCCSsystem

8

•  ModeltheNETLbaselineCCSsystem

•  Modelandsizeallreactorsandprocessunits,detailedmaterialsbill

•  UseNETLdatawherepossibleasthisisa“standard”plant

Source: Sun (2015), Sun and Brandt (2015)Source: Sun (2015)

13

form in the Ecoinvent database, namely pumps, compressors and blowers, we utilize the

equipment in the Ecoinvent database with modification. For those pieces of equipment that are

not included in Ecoinvent, we build them from the ground up. In general, we consider these

equipment pieces to be mostly made of steel for simplicity.

Figure 2-2 Process flow diagram of the carbon capture line from NETL baseline Case 10 (Black 2013, Exhibit 4-1)

The NETL baseline models carbon capture equipment with the proprietary Econamine FG

Plus process developed by Fluor (Black, 2013). The NETL baseline provides a basic schematic

of this amine absorption system, presented here as Figure 2-2, but does not disclose all the

details of the design. In our model, we arrange the amine absorption system in the manner shown

in Figure 2-3.

14

Figure 2-3 A top view denoting the amine absorption train used in exergy calculation

The flue gas, which comes as two streams from the desulfurization equipment, enters the

amine absorption system after first being cooled down in the direct contact cooler (DCC). The

flue gas enters the DCC at 58℃ and leaves at 38℃ (Black, 2013). After the DCC, it splits into

four trains and enter the absorbers, where it comes into contact with monoethanolamine (MEA)

solution. Flue gas stripped of CO2 is emitted into atmosphere, while rich solvent loaded with

CO2 leaves the absorbers and heads towards the strippers. Before entering the strippers, the

solvent stream is heated up by the waste heat of lean solvent through a solvent cross heat

exchanger.

The strippers use reboilers to intake hot steam from turbines and heat up the CO2 rich solvent.

A stripper is also attached to a condenser where the drop in temperature separate CO2 and the

Source: Black (2013) fig. 4-1

Page 9: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Exer

gy fl

ows

(TJ)

Exergyinputsandoutputsforthebaselinesystem

9

Coal

Nat. res.

Elec.Waste

Destr.

(PJ)

Page 10: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Exer

gy fl

ows

(TJ)

Exergyinputsandoutputsforthebaselinesystem

10

Coal

Nat. res.

Elec.Waste

Destr.

(PJ)

Page 11: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Exer

gy fl

ows

(TJ)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Exer

gy fl

ows

(TJ)

Exergyinputsandoutputsforthebaselinesystem

11

Coal Coal with CCS

Nat. res.

Elec.Waste

Destr.

At plant (HHV)

Econ-wide (Exergy)

Coal 37% 23%

w/ CCS 26% 17%(PJ)

Expend 50 units of natural

resource exergy for every unit

pollution reduced

Page 12: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Isthistherealstory?

•  Exergymeasuresdisequilibriumwithanunchangingreferenceenvironment

•  ApoormodelofCO2impacts–  CO2buildsupovercenturiesandchangesreferenceenvironment

–  ChangesenergybalanceofEarth’s(driven,non-equilibrium)climatesystem

–  Affectsecosystems(e.g.oceanacidificaPon)

•  ProposeaugmenPngwith5me-integratedexerge5cimpact(TEI)

12

Page 13: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Long-termenergyandexergyimpactsofCO2

13

A: without emission B: with emission

Zhang and Caldeira (2015): 4.5 x1010 J of total

warming per mole of CO2

~100,000 times heating value of C

Source: Zhang and Caldeira (2015), Feldman et al. (2015)

Conceptualized here as increase in thermal input to human and

biological systems from atmosphere, relative to baseline

Page 14: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

FirstesPmateof5me-integratedexerge5cimpact

14

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Exer

gy fl

ows

(TJ)

Page 15: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

FirstesPmateof5me-integratedexerge5cimpact

15

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Exer

gy fl

ows

(TJ)

Add thermal energy at ΔT = 1.5 K

Investing exergetic resources in capturing

CO2 reduces exergy flows to future human/

biosphere by ~600x

Page 16: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Doesthermodynamicqualityofenv.impactsmaier?

16

- - - - - - - ++++++

10 cloud-ground flashes/sec

Each flash dissipates ~1 GJ (10-100C, 10s-100s MV)

Power ~ 1010 W

Radiative forcing due to CO2 is 1.7 W/m2 (rel. to 1750)

Area of earth = 5.1 x1014 m2

Power ~ 1015 W

If same energetic forcing from CO2 manifested as charge buildup, natural rate of lightning would have to increase about 100,000x

A: Current lightning B: Current climate change

Page 17: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Ecosystemimpacts

•  UnclearhowtomeasureCO2impactonecosystemsusingthermodynamics

•  Chemicalexergyisapoorindicatorofbiologicalimpacts:–  Canolaoil:40.6MJ/kg–  Sodiumcyanide:13.7MJ/kg

•  Variousmethodshavebeenusedtounderstandthermodynamicsofbiology

•  Doesexergymeasurewhatwecareabout?

17

Source: Wiki

Source: Morowitz (1968), Jorgensen et al. (2004, 2006)

Page 18: Systems analysis of CO capture technologies: Developing ...gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/symposium2015/Presentations/Brandt_GCEP... · Systems analysis of CO 2 capture technologies: Developing

Conclusions•  HolisPcenvironmentalassessmentofnewenergy

technologiesispossible–  Cancoverallprocessesineconomyandmeasureimpactson

consistentbasis

•  TradiPonalexergyanalysisofCO2impactsmakesbenefitsofCCSlooksmall

•  Extendedimpactanalysismustincludelong-termchanges–  CO2polluPonimpactslikelydramaPcallyoutweighusefulwork

requiredtoabateCO2

–  Thermodynamicqualityofenvironmentalimpactsmaiers

•  NumerousapplicaPonsforsystems-scalethermodynamiccomparisonsofotherenergytech.

18


Recommended