Status and costs for CO2 capture in power generation

Kelly Thambimuthu,Chief Executive Officer,

Centre for Low Emission Technology,Queensland, Australia.

2nd Petrobras International Seminar on CO2 Capture & Geological Storage9-12 September 2008, Salvador, Brazil

kelly.thambimuthu@csiro.au

andJohn Davison,

IEA Greenhouse Gas Program,Cheltenham, UK.

Outline of presentation

• The challenge for CCS in power generation• The road from IPCC SRCCS 2005

• Options for capture in power generation• Status of CCS• Technology costs

• Recent studies on cost of power generation with CCS

• Technology deployment for cost reduction

Sources of global electricity production

Source: 2002/3

Total global production ~3500 GWe

NG24%

Oil12%

Nuclear10%

Hydro & Renewables

24% Coal31%

40% in 2007

Doubling in capacity by 2030

Emissions challenge (-50% of 2005) in 2050

Source: IEA ETP 2008

Average Annual Power Generation Capacity Additions in the 450 Stabilisation Case, 2013-2030

A large amount of capacity would need to be retired early, entailing substantial costs

22 CCS coal-fired plants (800 MW)

20 CCS gas-fired plants (500 MW)

30 nuclear reactors (1000 MW)

2 Three Gorges Dams

400 CHP plants (40 MW)

17 000 turbines (3 MW)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Other Renewables

Wind

Biomass and waste

Hydropower

Nuclear

Gas CCS

Coal CCS

GW

Source: IEA ETP 2008

Options for CO2 capture

EPRI 2007

Technology maturity of CCS

Research phase

Demonstration phase

Economically feasible under

specific conditions

Mature market

Ocean storage

Mineral carbonation

Industrial utilization

Enhanced Coal Bed Methane

Saline formations

Gas and oil fields

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Transport

Post-combustion

Pre-combustion

Oxyfuel combustion

Industrial separation

Derived from the IPCC SRCCS 2005

Technology maturity - capture in power plants

• Power generation with post combustion capture– SC/USC pulverised coal and NGCC power plants are reliable and proven– Scale up of solvent capture units/integration with power cycle is unproven.

• Power generation with pre-combustion capture– IGCC for coal (1 GWe) is near commercial and proving reliability, better

experience with 3 GWe of IGCC capacity on oil and petcoke. No experience to date with reforming/POX/ATR based natural gas power plants

– Solvent capture units for CO2 available at scale, integration and power block hydrogen utilisation issues

• Power generation with oxy-fuel combustion– No proven experience of operation of pulverised coal power plants in an

oxyfuel combustion mode – the issue is “confidence building”– Large scale air separation units for O2 production proven and reliable.– Some development issues with tail end CO2 purification– CO2 or hybrid turbines do not exist for oxy-fuel combined cycles

www.clet.net

IPCC SRCCS power plant performance and cost data

NGCC PC IGCCRep. value Rep. value Rep. value

Thermal efficiency

% LHV, without capture 56 43 42

% LHV with capture 48 33 35

Percentage point 8 10 7

reduction due to capture

Total capital requirement

$/kW without capture 568 1286 1326

$/kW with capture 998 2096 1825

% increase due to capture 76 63 37

Cost of electricity

$/MWh without capture 37 46 47

$/MWh with capture 54 73 62

% increase due to capture 46 57 33

$/MWh with CCS

% increase due to CCS

Non-ferrous metal prices

Prices/US$/tonne

Jan-2003 Jan-2008 Peak price Date of peak

Nickel 8000 28000 54000 June-2007

Copper 1700 6800 8800 May-2006

Aluminium 1350 2400 3250 May-2006

Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index

380

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CE

pla

nt c

ost i

ndex

Natural gas prices

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

US$

/GJ Europe

USJapan

Coal Prices

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

US$

/GJ Europe

USJapan

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

SupercriticalPC

GE RadiantQuench

GE TotalQuench

Shell

Tota

l Cap

ital R

equi

rem

ent,

$/kW

. EPRI

US DOEIEA - GHG

SupercriticalOxy-fuel

IPCC SRCCSwith capture

Power plant costs with & without capture

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Cos

t of E

lect

ricity

, $/M

Wh

.

IEA GHG

COE Includes $10/tonne for CO 2Transport and Storage

SupercriticalPC

GE RadiantQuench

GE TotalQuench

ShellSupercriticalOxy-fuel

US DOEEPRI

Cost of electricity with & without CCS

IPCC SRCCSwith capture

Sensitivity of electricity cost to the capital cost of power plants

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Capital cost, fraction of base case

Cos

t of e

lect

rict

y E

uro/

MW

h

No captureCaptureCost of capture

Sensitivity of electricity cost to coal price

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Coal price, Euro/GJ

Cos

t of e

lect

rict

y E

uro/

MW

h

No captureCaptureCost of capture

Path to improved coal-fired, IGCC with CCS

2020 onwards

IGCCcommercial

scaledemos

~38-44 %LHV

Now 2015 2015-20Increasing efficiency, lower emissions, lower costs

Early full scale IGCC with CO2 capture

~32-35 %LHV

Advanced IGCClow emission plantsvarious technologies

multi-products~42 - 44 %LHV

Beyond 2020;stationary fuel cells

(IGFC)50 – 58 %LHV?

NOx activities:reduce emissions

CO2 capture activities:physical scrubbing demo

CO2 capture activities:Gas separation & reactor

membranesNew Oxygen production

plants commercial

Dry cleaning options:Particulates, Sulphur,

Nitrogen, trace elements

Commercial non-CO2Capture IGCC plants

An example of technology improvements that can increase energy efficiency and reduce costs by at least 20- 30%

HydrogenTurbines

Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology

Time

Ant

icip

ated

Cos

t of F

ull-S

cale

App

licat

ion

CO2 Storage

CO2 Capture

IGCC Power Plants

Expected availability can increase with time and learning by doing

1st GenerationIGCC with CCS

Elements currently commercialin the petrochemicals sector

Example of new technology deployment, IGCC

……. In the time we have spent talking about CCS plants, the costs have decreased and then increased – we are now in need of real plants in order to reduce both CO2 emissions and costs…….

The message !

IEA GHG costs of IGCC plants with and without CCS

Without capture With capture Difference for capture

Performance

Coal feed, MW (LHV) 1800.8 1962.5

Electricity gross output, MW 891.9 875

Electricity net output, MW 762.3 655.8

Efficiency to electricity, % 42.3 33.4 -8.9 % points

Costs

Capital cost, M€ 1266 1560

Capital cost, €/kWe 1661 2379 +43%

Without CO2 transport & storage

Cost of electricity, €/MWh 52 72 +38%

Cost of CO2 avoided, €/tonne 31

With CO2 transport & storage

Cost of electricity, €/MWh 52 80 +54%

Cost of CO2 avoided, €/tonne 45

Eur – US $ at time of study $1.25

EPRI costs of plants with and without CCS

Supercritical PC IGCC

Post combustion

GE radiant quench

GE total quench

Shellgas quench

Conoco- Phillips full slurry quench

Total plant cost

Without capture, $/kW 1800 2350 2100 2400 2100

With capture, $/kW 3000 2950 2650 3500 2850

Increase for CO2 capture % 67 25 26 46 36

Cost of electricity

Without CCS, $/MWh 53 67 61 67 61

With CCS, $/MWh 93 92 86 105 91

Increase for CCS % 75 37 41 57 49

US DOE efficiency & costs of plants with & without CCS

Pulverised coal IGCC NGCC

Post combustion

Oxy- combustion

GE radiant quench

Shell Conoco- Phillips

Post combustion

Efficiency

Without capture, % LHV 41 41 39.6 42.6 40.7 56.3

With capture, % LHV 28.2 29.3 33.7 33.2 32.9 48.5

Decrease for capture % 12.8 11.7 5.9 9.4 7.8 7.8

Total plant cost

Without capture, $/kW 1563 1563 1813 1977 1733 554

With capture, $/kW 2857 2930 2390 2668 2431 1172

Increase for CO2 capture % 83 87 32 35 40 112

Cost of electricity

Without CCS, $/MWh 62.9 62.9 78 80.5 75.3 68.4

With CCS, $/MWh 114.4 113 102.9 110.4 105.7 97.4

Increase for CCS % 82 80 32 37 40 42