U.S. DOE CCS Investment
Dr. Darren Mollot
Director, Office of Clean Energy Systems
Mark Ackiewicz
Program Manager, Division of CCS Research
Carbon Capture and Storage: Technology Innovation and Market Viability
Webinar
February 23, 2011
Outline
• Challenges to CCS Deployment
• DOE CCS Investment
– Core Program
– American Recovery and Re-Investment Act (ARRA)
• Other
– International Activities
– Regulations
2
3
Carbon Management Technology Options
Improve Efficiency
Sequester Carbon
Renewables
Nuclear
Fuel Switching
Demand Side
Supply Side
Capture & Store
Enhance Natural Sinks
Reduce Carbon Intensity
All options needed to:
Affordably meet energy demand
Address environmental objectives
Pathways for Reducing GHGs – CO2
4
Geologic Storage Is Already Under Way
• Statoil injects 1x106 tons per year at Sleipner
• BP to inject 0.8x106 tons per year at In Salah
• EnCana EOR project with CO2 storage in the Weyburn field
Key Challenges to CCS
• Sufficient Storage Capacity
• Permanence
• Cost of CCS
• Infrastructure
President’s Interagency Task Force (ITF) on
CCS: Report Findings
• There are no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional, or other
barriers that prevent CCS from playing a role in reducing GHG emissions.
• Widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only when driven by
a policy designed to reduce GHG emissions.
• Existing Federal programs are being used to deploy 5-10 large-scale projects
by 2016. However, early CCS projects face challenges, including cost and
performance of current generation technology.
• Federal agencies can use existing authorities and programs to begin
addressing barriers for these (and other) early CCS projects while ensuring
protection of public health and the environment.
• RD&D can enable commercial deployment of CCS by finding ways to reduce
project uncertainty and improve technology cost and performance.
6
ITF Report Findings
• Projects can proceed under existing laws, however, regulations
need to be developed and/or finalized and regulators need training
and tools.
• Increased coordination with all stakeholders (both Federal and
State) will enhance government‟s ability to assist these projects.
• Open-ended Federal indemnification should not be used to address
long-term CO2 storage liability. However, long-term liability and
stewardship are important issues which require further evaluation.
• Public engagement and outreach is extremely important for CCS.
• International collaboration complements domestic efforts on CCS
and facilitates global deployment.
7
Government’s Coal RD&D Investment Strategy
Commercial Readiness
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Core Coal and
Power Systems R&D
DOE – FE – NETL
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
Tax Credits
Loan Guarantees
DOE – LGO – IRS
TECHNOLOGIES &
BEST PRACTICES
< 10% increase COE with CCS
(pre-combustion)
< 35% increase COE with CCS
(post- and oxy-combustion)
< $400/kW fuel cell systems
(2002 $)
> 50% plant efficiency, up to 60%
with fuel cells
> 90% CO2 capture
> 99% CO2 storage permanence
+/- 30% storage capacity
resolution
Goals Programs Approaches
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION
Clean Coal Power Initiative
FutureGen
Industrial CCS Program
DOE – FE – NETL
Carbon Capture and Storage R&D Budget
9
Fiscal Year
$ m
illio
n
• ARRA and CCPI funding supports CCS demonstration projects
• Additional efforts support improved efficiency
• Crosscutting research supports modeling and simulation efforts associated with CCS
• Significant industry cost share
FY2012 Percentage Breakout
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus) Funding Summary
Program/Project Activity ($ in thousands)
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) - Round 3 800,000
Fossil Energy R&D (FutureGen) 1,000,000
CCS from Industrial Sources 1,520,000
Site Characterization 50,000
Regional Sequestration Training and Research 20,000
Fossil Energy Program Direction 10,000
Total 3,400,000
CCS R&D Mission & Approach Critically Linked to Climate & Security Goals
• Develop plant designs & components optimized for CCS
• Reduce capture costs
• <10% increase in COE (pre-combustion)
• <35% increase in COE (post- and oxy-combustion)
• Validate storage capacity
• Validate storage permanence
• Create private/public partnerships
• Promote infrastructure development
• Put “first of kind” field projects in place
• Develop tools, protocols & best practices
Develop Technologies and Best Practices That
Facilitates Wide Scale Deployment of Fossil Fuel
Energy Systems Integrated With CCS by 2020
11
Benefits
Global Collaborations
Benefits
Core R&D
Benefits
Infrastructure
Carbon Capture
Geologic Storage
Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)
Simulation and Risk Assessment
CO2 Use/Reuse
Technology Solutions
Characterization
Validation
Development
ARRA: Development of Technology Transfer Centers
Lessons Learned
Technology Solutions
Lessons Learned
North America Energy Working Group
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
International Demonstration Projects
Canada (Weyburn, Zama, Ft. Nelson)
Norway (Sleipner and Snovhit) Germany (CO2Sink)
Australia (Otway) Africa (In-Salah)
Asia (Ordos Basin)
• Reduced cost of CCS
• Tool development for risk assessment and mitigation
• Accuracy/monitoring quantified
• CO2 capacity validation
• Indirect CO2 storage
• Human capital
• Stakeholder networking
• Regulatory policy development
• Visualization knowledge center
• Best practices development
• Public outreach and education
• Knowledge building
• Project development
• Collaborative international
knowledge
• Capacity/model validation
• CCS commercial deployment
CARBON SEQUESTRATION PROGRAM with ARRA Projects
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships
Demonstration and Commercialization Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Other Large-Scale Projects
ARRA: University Projects ARRA: Site Characterization
BIG SKY
WESTCARB
SWP
PCOR
MGSC
SECARB
MRCSP
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Developing the Infrastructure for Wide Scale Deployment
Seven Regional Partnerships
400+ distinct organizations, 43 states, 4 Canadian Provinces
• Engage regional, state, and local governments
• Determine regional sequestration benefits
• Baseline region for sources and sinks
• Establish monitoring and verification protocols
• Address regulatory, environmental, and outreach issues
• Validate sequestration technology and infrastructure
Development Phase (2008-2018+)
9 large scale injections (over 1 million tons each)
Commercial scale understanding
Regulatory, liability, ownership
issues
Validation Phase (2005-2011)
20 injection tests in saline formations, depleted oil, unmineable coal seams, and basalt
Characterization Phase (2003-2005)
Search of potential storage locations and CO2 sources
Found potential for 100‟s of years of storage
Partnership Geologic Province Type
Big Sky Moxa Arch-
Nugget Sandstone Saline
MGSC Illinois Basin-
Mt. Simon Sandstone Saline
MRCSP Michigan Basin-
St. Peter Sandstone Saline
PCOR
Powder River Basin-
Bell Creek Field Oil Bearing
Horn River Basin- Carbonates Saline
SECARB
Gulf Coast – Cranfield Field-
Tuscaloosa Formation Saline
Gulf Coast – Paluxy Formation
SWP Regional Jurassic & Older
Formations Saline
WESTCARB Central Valley Saline
Injection Ongoing
Injection Scheduled 2011/2015
1
2
3
4
7
8
6
9
5
RCSP Phase III: Development Phase Large-Scale Geologic Tests
Note: Some locations presented on map may
differ from final injection location
8
7
3
1
2
4
6
5
9
Injection
Well Drilled
Injection
Started
Core Sampling
Taken
Fiscal Year
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Stage 1. Site selection and characterization;
Permitting and NEPA compliance;
Well completion and testing;
Infrastructure development.
Stage 2. CO2 procurement and transportation;
Injection operations; Monitoring activities.
Stage 3. Site closure; Post-injection monitoring; Project assessment.
RCSP Development Phase – 10+ years (FY 2008-2018+)
Scale up is required to provide
insight into several operational
and technical issues that differ
from formation to formation
RCSP Development Phase Scaling Up Towards Commercialization
Key Regional Partnership Outputs
• Best Practices Manuals
– Six developed, one
remaining
– Will be updated once Phase
III completed (2016/17)
– Regulatory issues
addressed within various
manuals
• Carbon Sequestration Atlas
– Projects 100s of years
storage potential
– Overview of DOE CCS
Program
– Based on NATCARB
database
National Risk Assessment Program (NRAP) and
Carbon Capture and Storage Initiative (CCSI)
• NRAP
– integrate scientific insight from across the sequestration
research community
– ensure development of the science base necessary for
appropriate risk assessment (including strategic monitoring) to
support large-scale underground carbon storage projects.
– NETL-led effort includes researchers from LANL, LBNL, LLNL,
and PNNL.
• CCSI
– Identify promising concepts and designs
– Develop optimal designs
– Quantify technical risk in scale-up
– Accelerate learning during development and deployment
17
Addressing Risk and Speeding Development
18
Major Demos and ARRA Activities
• Major Demos
– funded through Program and ARRA: CCPI and
ICCS activities
– FutureGen 2.0 to perform large-scale
oxycombustion test
• Other ARRA activities
– Site Characterization & Promising Geologic
Formations for CO2 Storage
– Training: Regional Sequestration Technology
Transfer Centers and University Research Grants
Excelsior Energy
IGCC
$36M - DOE
$2,156M - Total
So. Co. Services
IGCC-Transport Gasifier
$294M - DOE
$2,690M - Total
Hydrogen Energy California
IGCC with EOR
$408M - DOE
$2,840M - Total
Basin Electric
Post Combustion
with CO2 Capture
$100M - DOE
CCPI Round II
AEP Mountaineer
Post Combustion
with CO2 Capture
$334M - DOE
$668M - Total
NRG Energy
Post Combustion
with CO2 Capture
$167M – DOE
$334M - Total
Summit Texas Clean Energy
IGCC with EOR
$450M - DOE
$1,727M - Total
FutureGen 2.0
Oxy-combustion
with CO2 capture
$1,048M – DOE
$1,290M - Total
CCPI Round III
FutureGen
ICCS (Area I)
Archer Daniels Midland
CO2 capture from Ethanol
$101M - DOE
$208M - Total
Leucadia
CO2 capture from
Methanol
$260M - DOE
$436M - Total
Air Products
CO2 capture from Steam
Methane Reformers
$253M - DOE
$431M - Total
Major Demos in the Office of Fossil Energy
Site Characterization Projects
Terralog Technologies USA Inc.; Wilmington Graben;
Offshore Los Angeles; Saline, Oil, & Gas
University of Wyoming; Rock Springs Uplift / Moxa Arch; SW
Wyoming; Saline
North American Power Group, Ltd; Powder River
Basin; NE Wyoming; Saline and Oil
University of Kansas Center for Research Inc.; Ozark Plateau; SW Kansas; Saline
and Oil
University of Utah; Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Pennsylvanian Sandstone; Colorado and Utah; Saline
University of Illinois; Cambro-Ordovician Strata;
IL, IN, KY, MI; Saline
University of Alabama; Black Warrior Basin; NW Alabama;
Saline
University of South Carolina Research Foundation; South
Georgia Rift Basin; South Carolina; Saline
University of Texas at Austin; Gulf of Mexico Miocene; Offshore Texas; Saline
Sandia Technologies, LLC; Triassic Newark
Basin; NY and NJ; Saline
Participant
Formation
Location
Sequestration Type
Site Characterization &
Promising Geologic
Formations for CO2 Storage
10 Awards
12/08/09
20
21
2009 ARRA CCS
Training Center Selections
Participant Location
Environmental Outreach and Stewardship Alliance Seattle, WA
Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Champaign, IL
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Socorro, NM
University of Wyoming Laramie, WY
University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX
Southern States Energy Board Norcross, GA
Petroleum Technology Transfer Center Tulsa, OK
Regional Sequestration
Technical Training 7 Selections Announced
8/27/09
Examples of International Collaboration
• North American Energy Working Group
• IEA GHG Programme and IEA Clean Coal Centre
• Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
• China
– Protocol Agreement on Fossil Energy
– US-China Clean Energy Research Center
22
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
• 24 countries plus European Commission
– Represents 59% of world population and 77% of CO2
emissions and economic activity
• Accomplishments
– 10 Completed Projects, 22 Active Projects
– CSLF Technology Roadmap, Capacity Building, Financing,
Communications and Public Outreach 23
“The Carbon
Sequestration
Leadership Forum
represents a crucial
opportunity to bring
world energy leaders
together to advance
this technology sooner
rather than later.”
The CSLF Mission is to
facilitate the development
and deployment of CCS
technologies via
collaborative efforts that
address key technical,
economic and
environmental obstacles.
CCS Regulations
• UIC Program Class VI Permits
– Final rule signed 11/20/2010
– States have 270 days from final ruling to develop primacy application
– Requirements for site characterization, well construction and operation,
monitoring, etc.
• Mandatory GHG Rule
– Subpart RR: Requirements for GS participants (e.g., Class VI; Class II‟s
that „opt in‟)
– Subpart UU: Limited requirements for non-GS participants (i.e., those
injecting CO2 for non-GS activities) & all facilities that get a R&D
exemption to report basic information
– Facilities must comply with requirements in calendar year 2011 – report
by March 31, 2012
• EPA “Tailoring Rule”
– PSD and Title V
– Began implementation on January 2, 2011
– BACT guidance: CCS considered but not likely an option due to
economics
24
Summary
• Barriers to geologic storage of CO2 exist, but can be addressed
• DOE has taken leadership role in helping address the key issues of:
– Storage capacity and permanence
– Capture cost
– Infrastructure development
• Major demonstrations will help validate and provide confidence
• GHG emissions are global issue requiring global solutions –
international partnerships are important
• Regulatory framework emerging but uncertainty remains
25
More Info…
26
Organization Website
DOE Office of Fossil Energy Carbon
Capture and Storage Websites
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/index.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/index.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/index.html
DOE ARRA http://www.energy.gov/recovery/index.htm
National Energy Technology Laboratory
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/index.html
Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Forum
http://www.cslforum.org/
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme
http://www.ieaghg.org/
EPA Sequestration-Related and CO2
Emissions Regulatory Websites
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html
NATCARB database http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/natcarb/
Back-up slides
27
1. Scale-up
• Current PC capture ~200 tons/day
• 550 MWe plant produces 13,000 tons/day
2. Energy Demand
• 20% to 30% i in power output
3. Current Cost (for a 550 MWe plant)
• Increase capital and operating cost results in increased Cost of Electricity (COE) by 80%
4. Regulatory/legislative framework
• Class VI well permits
• Uncertainty regarding control of CO2 emissions
Deployment Barriers for CO2 Capture on
New and Existing Coal Plants Today
PC Boiler
(With SCR)Sulfur
Removal
Particulate
Removal
Ash
Coal
7,760 TPD
STEAM
CYCLE
CO2 Capture
Process*
ID Fan
Air
CO2
2,215 psia680 MWgross
550 MWnet
CO2
Comp.
Flue Gas
CO2 To Storage
16,600 TPD
Low Pressure Steam
Optional Bypass
(<90% Capture)
Fossil Energy CO2 Capture Options
Source: Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants study, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity; NETL, May 2007.
PC Boiler
(No SCR)
Steam
Bag
Filter
Wet
Limestone
FGD
CO2 to
Storage
Ash
ID Fans
~550 MWe
Coal
Limestone
Slurry
Gypsum
Cryogenic
ASU
Flue Gas Recycle
CO2
Purification
2% Air
Leakage
Coal
Gasifier
500-1,000 Psi
1,800-2,500oF
Water Gas
Shift
Cryogenic
ASU
Syngas
Cooler
Steam
2-Stage
Selexol
Sulfur
Recovery
Sulfur
CO2
Comp.
CO2 to Storage
CO2
Steam
Reheat
Fuel Gas
Syngas
Cooler/
Quench
Syngas
Cleanup
~100oF
Water
Combustion
Turbine(s)HRSG
Steam
Turbine
200 – 300 MW
Power Block
2 X 232 MW
Flue Gas
Pulverized Coal (PC) Post-combustion
PC Oxy-combustion
Gasification (IGCC) Pre-combustion
Post-Combustion Capture
Technologies
• Mixed matrix/ionic liquid
• Spiral wound
• Hollow fiber
• Membrane/solvent hybrid
• Cryogenic separation
Membrane R&D Focus
• Cost reduction and scale-up
• PM contamination
• Power plant integration (recycle)
• PCO2 driving force Increased power
consumption
Technologies
• Ionic liquids
• Potassium carbonate/enzymes
• Phase change solvents
• Novel high capacity oligomers
• Bicarbonates/additives
• Molecular simulations
• Enzymes
Technologies
• Metal organic frameworks
• Supported amines (silica, clay)
• Metal zeolites
• Carbon-based
• Alumina
• Sorbent systems development
Solvent R&D Focus
• High CO2 working capacity
• Low regeneration energy
• Fast kinetics
• Thermally and chemically stable
• Non-corrosive, environmentally safe
Sorbent R&D Focus
• High CO2 working capacity
• Dry scrubbing
• Fast reaction kinetics
• Durability: thermal, chemical,
mechanical
• Gas/solid systems: low P drop, heat
management
Oxy-combustion Capture
Oxycombustion R&D Focus • New oxyfuel boilers
• Advanced materials and
burners
• Corrosion
• Retrofit existing air boilers
• Air leakage, heat transfer,
corrosion
• Low-cost oxygen
• CO2 purification
• Co-capture (CO2 + Sox, Nox,
O2)
Technologies • Oxy-burner design
• Advanced boiler materials
• Chemical looping
• Integrated flue gas
purification
• Gas recycle evaluation
• Oxygen production via air
separation membranes
32
Solvents R&D Focus
• Increase CO2 loading capacity
• Reduce regeneration energy
• Improve reaction kinetics
• Decrease solvent corrosivity
• Reduce solvent volatility and degradation
• Lower capital and operating cost
Sorbents R&D Focus
• Increase CO2 loading capacity
• Reduce regeneration energy
• Improve reaction kinetics
• Increase durability
• Improve heat management
• Lower capital and operating cost
• Optimize process design
Pre-Combustion Capture
Membranes R&D Focus
• Increase permeability
• Increase CO2/H2 selectivity
• Increase durability (chemical, thermal,
physical)
• Optimize membrane process design and
integration within the IGCC power cycle
• Lower capital cost
Technologies
• Metallic membranes
• Polymeric
• Ceramic
• Ceramic-metallic composite
(cermets)
• WGS-membrane reactors
• Gas-liquid contactor/membrane
Technologies
• Activated carbon
• Metal oxides
• Sorbent-enhanced WGS
Technologies
• Ammonium carbonate
• Ionic liquids
