* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Scientific American - CMC Research Institutes
Survey
Document related concepts
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Open energy system models wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Carbon capture and storage wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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