negative co2 emissions by bioenergy with carbon capture...

Negative CO2 emissions by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage - why and how?

24.10.2018 VTT – beyond the obvious 1

Toni Pikkarainen, VTT

OUTLINE

Climate change, global warming

• Consequences?

• Adaptation and mitigation?

BECSS - Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

• Chemical looping combustion (CLC)?

• Bio-CLC

• Nordic Energy Reasearch Flagship project: Negative CO2

Take-away


Global mean temperature: from the beginning


By Glen Fergus - Own work; data sources are cited below, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31736468

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31736468

Global mean temperature: history


• The Eemian = 130-115 tyears ago

─ 1-2ºC warmer than Holocene

─ CO2 ~280 ppm

─ Sea level +6…9 m

• Past few July global temperatures likely

surpassed the (long-term average) July

temperatures of the Eemian period

Global mean temperature: modern history


Global mean temperature: future

6

Observed global temperature change and modeled

responses to stylized anthropogenic emission and forcing pathways

Ref. IPPC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C

Globally -50 % CO2 emissions by 2030 (vs. 2010) and carbon neutral by 2055. Current nationally stated mitigation ambitions consistent with 3 °C global warming by 2100.

After the Paris agreement the target is “CO2 - negative” society

CO2 removal technologies such as

BECCS (Bio-Energy Carbon Capture

and Storage) are becoming essential

for achieving the 2°C target 1

CCS and bioenergy are the two most

valuable technologies for achieving

climate policy objectives – more

important than energy efficiency

improvements, nuclear, solar power

and wind power – motivated by their

combined ability to produce very

significant negative emissions via

BECCS 2

1. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014.2. Kriegler E., Weyant J., Blanford G., Krey V., Clarke L., Edmonds J., Fawcett A., Luderer G., Riahi K., Richels R., Rose S., Tavoni M., van Vuuren D, (2014), The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 study on

global technology and climate policy strategies, Climate Change 123, pp. 353-367.

Source: Anderson K., Peters G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 14 Oct 2016: Vol. 354, Issue 6309, pp. 182-183. DOI: 10.1126/science.aah4567


https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm

Remainingcarbon budget?

https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm

Consequences of global warming?

Impacts on natural and human systems from global warming

have already been observed

• Human activity has caused global warming of 1 °C on average already,

2-3 times that in the Arctic

The difference between 1.5 °C and 2 °C means several hundred

million people more suffering from water-stress, tropical diseases,

hunger, heatwaves and poverty.

If we let global warming continue from 1.5 °C to 2 °C, sea level

will rise 0.1 meters more - leading to 10 million more people

being experiencing flood hazard by 2050

• This temperature rise may also lead to the Antarctica and Greenland ice

sheets melting, causing a multi-meter sea level rise.



10

RFC1 Unique and threatened systems: ecological and human systems that have restricted geographic ranges constrained by climate related

conditions and have high endemism or other distinctive properties. Examples include coral reefs, the Arctic and its indigenous people, mountain glaciers,

and biodiversity hotspots.

RFC2 Extreme weather events: risks/impacts to human health, livelihoods, assets, and ecosystems from extreme weather events such as heat waves,

heavy rain, drought and associated wildfires, and coastal flooding.

RFC3 Distribution of impacts: risks/impacts that disproportionately affect particular groups due to uneven distribution of physical climate change

hazards, exposure or vulnerability.

RFC4 Global aggregate impacts: global monetary damage, global scale degradation and loss of ecosystems and biodiversity.

RFC5 Large-scale singular events: are relatively large, abrupt and sometimes irreversible changes in systems that are caused by global warming.

Examples include disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Source: IPCC (2018)


11https://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2016/06/06

Adaptation and mitigation?

Total annual average energy-related mitigation investment for the

period 2015 to 2050 in pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C is

estimated to be around 900 billion USD2015.

• This corresponds to total annual average energy supply investments of

1600…3800 billion USD2015 and total annual average energy demand

investments of 700…1000 billion USD2015 for the period 2015 to 2050

Average annual investment in low-carbon energy technologies

and energy efficiency are up scaled by roughly a factor of 5 by

2050 compared to 2015


Carbon dioxide removal? Rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy,

land, urban and infrastructure, and industrial

systems are required to stabilize the global

mean temperature rise well below 2°C from

the pre-industrial temperature level.

All pathways that limit global warming to

1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the

use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the

order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st

century.

13

Existing and potential CDR measures include afforestation and reforestation, land restoration and soil carbon sequestration, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), enhanced weathering and ocean alkalinisation.

ALL ARE NEEDED!

Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)?

In pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C, BECCS

deployment is projected to range from

• 0–1 GtCO2 per year in 2030

• 0–8 GtCO2 per year in 2050, and

• 0–16 GtCO2 per year in 2100.

The median commitment to BECCS in 2100 is about 12 billion

tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to more than 25% of current CO2

emissions.

Among CDR technologies, BECCS is unique in generating more

energy than is required to drive the CCS.


Chemical looping combustion (CLC)?And bio-CLC?



Combustion for heat and power

AirO2 , N2

FuelGas, coal, oil, biomass, …

Heat

Flue gasCO2 , H2O , N2

(+ "impurities")

Post-combustion capture

o Low CO2 concentration

o Hard to separate

Boiler


Combustion for heat and power

AirO2 , N2


Flue gasCO2 , H2O , N2

(+ "impurities")

Boiler

Oxyfuel combustion

o High CO2 concentration

o Easier to separate

Heat

18

Oxidizedmetal oxide

Reducedmetal oxide

Chemical Looping Combustion - CLC


AirO2 , N2

O2 depleted air

H2O

CO2

Flue gas CO2 , H2O

(+ "impurities")

Metal oxides (oxygen carriers) based on

Fe, Mn, Cu, Ni

containing materials:

o Natural ores (ilmenite, braunite)

o Synthetic materials

Heat

Carbon balance

24.10.2018 VTT – beyond the obvious 19Sustainable biomass

20

Bio-CLC based on fluidized bed technology

Circulating Fluidized Bed

Furnace

Cyclone

Loop-seal

Bed material: Inert sand

Source: Valmet

21


Circulating Fluidized Bed

Furnace

Cyclone

Loop-seal

Bed material: Inert sand



Bed material:

Metal oxides (oxygen carriers)

in form of small particles,

100 – 300 µm.

4-year (2015-2019) multi-partner project funded by Nordic Energy Research

The Negative CO2 Project

Backgroundand Targets


The Nordic Energy Situationo Nordic Energy Research is a funding agency associated

with the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Nordic

Council.

o The Nordic countries have ambitious individual targets for

reduction of CO2 emissions by 80-100% in 2050 (or

earlier).

o The Nordic utility sector has low and decreasing CO2

emissions (largely being hydro, wind and nuclear power).

o But emissions from heavy industries are very significant

(iron, steel, oil, natural gas, pulp, paper, chemicals,

cement).

o Emissions from transportation sector are also

comparably high (long distances).

o Energy consumption per capita is high (cold climate,

developed economies).

The Nordic Countries and Bio Energy

o Biomass constitutes ≈20% of the primary energy in the Nordic

countries (EU27 ≈7%).

o Sweden and Finland produces 6% of the world’s pulp and paper

products, while having 0.2% of the worlds population.

o Combined heat and power by combustion of woody biomass is very

common in Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

o The Nordic countries operate quite unique district heating networks,

often powered by local biomass fired plants.

o Diverse utility sector with a mixture of large (Vattenfall, Fortum, Eon

etc) and small private and public companies.

o The Nordic countries hosts design and manufacturing divisions of

important technology providers (Valmet, Sumitomo SHI FW, Andritz,

and others).

o There is capacity for further growth, with studies suggesting that

biomass could be the largest energy carrier in 2050.

The Nordic Countries and CCS

o Norway operates two large integrated Carbon Capture and

Storage (CCS) projects (Sleipner, Snøhvit).

o There are proven storage sites in the North Sea and possible

sites also in the Baltic sea.

o Norway is home to leading technology providers (Aker, Equinor

(former Statoil) and others)

o Capturing and storing CO2 from biomass combustion is

referred to as Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage

(BECCS). This would provide negative CO2 emissions.

o Nordic energy roadmaps nowadays include negative emissions

after 2030, to compensate for emissions in other sectors.

Project Pitch

With respect to BECCS in the Nordic countries:

o Needs negative CO2 emissions to reach their emission targets.

o Are world leading in the utilization of woody biomass.

o Are world leading in carbon capture and storage.

o Are home to leading bio energy technology providers.

o Have very large biomass resources per capita.

o Have well developed markets for biomass.

o Have a diverse range of potential end users.

o Should be able to afford investments in new technology.

o Seems like just the place for deployment of BECCS!

Project targets

We believe that Chemical-Looping Combustion of Biomass

(Bio-CLC) is the cheapest and most practical way to realize

BECCS.

Primary objectives:

o Take Bio-CLC to the next level of development, enabling up-scaling to at

least semi-commercial scale (10-100 MWth).

o Provide a realistic plan for how a demonstration plant can be funded, built

and operated in one of the Nordic countries.

Secondary objectives:

o Answer specific research questions and improve knowledge in areas

related to the different work package activities.

o Build a strong and dedicated research alliance, devoted to the development

and realization of Bio-CLC and BECCS in the Nordic countries.

CondenserOxygen

Polishing

Compression&

Gas cleaning

Fuel Reactor

(FR)

Air Reactor

(AR)

MexOy

MexOy-1

Biomass

Air(N2, O2)

(N2, O2)

Oxygen(O2)

CO2/H2O

Condensate(H2O, Cl, HCl)

Raw flue gas

Oxygen Depleted Air

Condensate(H2O,HNO3, H2SO4)

Carbon Dioxide(CO2)Ash

Heat

Research Questions

Experimental investigation of core concepts

Development of novel flue gas treatment system

Identification and evaluation of risks and opportunities

Design, upscaling, economy and implementation

Place in the Future Nordic energy system

CLC operation and experience

o CLC of solid fuels has previously been reported from several units

o Fuel input ranging from 0.5 kWth to 4 MWth

o More than 2700 hours of operation

o Coal has been the most common fuel

o Only a few studies on biomass operation, and at small scale

o The Negative CO2 project aims to

o significantly increase the scale of bio-CLC operations

o demonstrate the feasibility of this technology

o bring it closer to commercial full-scale application


Pilot Plant OperationThe project has access to unique pilot plant infrastructure.

20-100 kWth unit at VTT100 kWth unit at Chalmers 150 kWth unit at SINTEF

Pilot Plant Operation

o Demonstration in semi-commercial scale (4.5 tonsolids inventory, 2.4 MW fuel power) in Chalmersresearch boiler.

o Interconnected biomass gasification reactoremulates the fuel reactor, while the furnaceemulates the air reactor.

o Top-fed bubbling bed at <830°C. Not adapted forhigh fuel gas conversion.

o Allows demonstration of the whole redox cycle,large-scale logistics and interactions between oxygencarrier and biomass ash.

Pilot Plant OperationUnit Oxygen carrier Fuel (*) Fuel feed

(kWth)

Carbon capture

rate (%)

Oxygen demand

(%)

FR temperature

(°C)

Operation

with fuel (h)

VTT

50 kW

Ilmenite

(Titania AS)

wwp,

bwp9 – 22 83 – 96 29 – 41 840 – 863 16 h

VTT

50 kW

Mn ore

("Sibelco Braunite")

wwp,

bwp,

wc

22 – 60 72 – 96 11 – 31 838 – 897 23 h

Chalmers

100 kW

Mn ore

("Sibelco Calcined")

wwp,

bwp29 – 67 99 25 940 – 975 7 h

SINTEF

150 kW

Ilmenite

(Titania AS)bwp 140 94 – 97 23 – 28 960 – 980 10 h

Chalmers

Research Boiler

Mn ore

("Sibelco Calcined")wwp 2400 40 810 – 830 72 (500) h

(*) wwp – white wood pellet, bwp – black wood pellet, wc – wood char

Very recently, extremely good results (95 % fuel conversion) withbiomass and a mixture of synthetic and natural oxygen carriers)*

*Gogolev et al. 5th International Conference on Chemical Looping, 24-27 September 2018, Park City, Utah, USA

Ongoing work and future direction

o Flue gas cleaning for Bio-CLC. This includes oxygen

polishing (already implemented on Chalmers pilot unit)

and novel concept for capturing NOx and SOx in liquid

condensate during CO2 compression.

o Upscaling and implementation. Prospects for

providing funding to demonstration plant, mapping of

potential sites and determining how to minimize

economic risk of demonstration plant.

o Bio-CLC in the Nordic Energy System. Will be

modeled in Times, Balmorel and in a detailed city level

model of Helsinki with hourly time resolution and

detailed individual unit parameters.

10/24/2018 37

What is a reasonable cost?

The global CO2 emissions divided by the global GDP, gives the:

carbon dioxide intensity ≈ 0.5 kg CO2/€

If multiplied by a tax, or cost for avoiding emissions, you get the tax/cost as fraction of global GDP

Thus, if the tax is 2 €/kg you get

2 0.5 = 1 (i.e. the tax is 100% of the global economy, which is not possible!!!)

but if it is 0.02 €/kg the fraction is 1%

38

What is a reasonable cost?

[1] J. Rockström, O. Gaffney, J. Rogelj, et al. A roadmap for rapid

decarbonization. Science 2017; 355:1269-1271.

Example Cost to avoid CO2

emission, €/kg

Share of total

economy

CLC, estimated 0.02 1%

CCS, estimated 0.05 2.5%

CCS, real, today? 0.10 5%

Price needed, now1 0.05 2.5%

Price needed 20501 0.4 20%

Added cost relative to CFB1

Demonstration without CO2 capture can significantly reduce costs. 1) Verify concept, and potential advantages wrt. alkali and NOx

2) Add CO2 capture

Type of cost estimation,

€/tonne CO2

range, €/tonne

CO2

Efficiency

penalty, %

CO2 compression 10 10 3

Oxy-polishing 6.5 4-9 0.5

Boiler cost 1 0.1-2.3 -

Oxygen carrier 2 1.3-4 -

Steam and hot CO2 fluidization 0.8 0.8 0.8

Fuel grinding 0.2 0.2 0.1

Lower air ratio -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

Total 20 15.9-25.8 3.9

Type of cost estimation,

€/tonne CO2

range, €/tonne

CO2

Efficiency

penalty, %

CO2 compression 10 10 3

Oxy-polishing 6.5 4-9 0.5

Boiler cost 1 0.1-2.3 -

Oxygen carrier 2 1.3-4 -

Steam and hot CO2 fluidization 0.8 0.8 0.8

Fuel grinding 0.2 0.2 0.1

Lower air ratio -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

Total 3.5 1.9-6.8 0.4

1Lyngfelt, A., and Leckner, B., A 1000 MWth Boiler for Chemical-Looping Combustion of Solid Fuels - Discussion of Design and Costs, Applied Energy 157 (2015) 475-487

Take-away

To limit global warming well below 2ºC, the actions must start now

• If not, the consequences will be left to our children and grandchildren

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is needed by all existing and potential

measures

BECCS is (probably) the most efficient way of using biomass with

respect to climate

• not instead of other use of biomass – it can be combined with other

uses of biomass, i.e. recovering a waste stream

Bio-CLC has a superior potential for cost reduction of CCS with net-

negative CO2 emissions

• Incentives are needed for technology demonstration and

commercialization


Key messages


Thanks for listening!Questions, comments?

negative co2 emissions by bioenergy with carbon capture...

Documents