Transcript Post-Combustion CO2 Capture

CO2 Capture
A Potential for the Cement industry?
Preparing decisions for next steps
Executive Summary
 Carbon capture and storage is perceived as a feasible technology
 It is very probable that CCS post combustion can technically be available in the
cement industry within the next 6 to 8 years, the development of the oxy-fuel
technology will certainly take longer
 ECRA members have to decide on ECRA CCS project phase III, which focuses on
laboratory and small scales tests. It also aims to continue the work oxy-fuel
technology.
 ECRA members have to decide on a CCS post combustion test plant (pilot /
demonstration). Some funding schemes require a decision to be taken already in
2009
CCS – todays view
Carbon capture and storage is perceived as a feasible technology
 Increasing pressure on global power sector to implement carbon capture in new
installations
–
EU27, NAM, China
–
International Energy Agency (IEA)
–
Green NGO’s
 Demonstration projects in power sector starting or on steam
–
USA
several projects from recovery funds
–
EU
projects funded from recovery funds
projects funded from auctioned emissions rights in EU ETS
 General feeling that the technology for post combustion capture is available already
–
Amine absorption or other processes
 Other sectors will have to follow
–
Cement industry on first row as sector with lowest potential to reduce emissions
within existing processes
Global CCS vision 2050
IEA: In 2050 50% of all cement plants in Europe, North America, Australia,
East Asia are applying CCS, 20% in India, China
Pilot and demonstration projects in Europe
Test plants of various sizes have been initiated
CO2-Storage – examples of current and planned project
Carbon capture in cement industry
Current research results indicate a technical potential but at very high costs
 Research and Development
–
ECRA, with support of major cement producers and WBCSD/CSI
–
CIEC in California
 Two possible routes
–
–
Oxyfuel technology with direct storage for new plants
–
Further research needed on reaction kinetics
–
New type of installation and equipment needed
–
Demonstration project(s) not possible before 2018/2020
Post combustion capture for existing plants
–
Demonstration project(s) possible in a few years
–
Funding now available via recovery funds in EU and NAM
The beginning debate about storage
All industries will be challenged by the public concern about storage
 Increasing protests on local level against onshore storage of CO2 in geological
formations
-
Netherlands – Barendregt
Germany
Denmark
 Offshore storage
-
Greenpeace against Sleipner field (May 2009)
 A cement plant will be a minor source of CO2 for storage,
-
Storage facility for only a cement plant will not be feasible
-
Cement industry should not involve itself in storage
•
•
•
Storage is facility to be supplied by others: governments, oil company, etc.
Transport to storage facility to be outsourced if possible
Combination of exhaust gases with gases from other sectors
recommended
Legal and Regulatory Framework in Europe
Politically, CCS is seen as an measure to reduce CO2
 CO2 Capture: Council Directive (96/61/EC) concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control (IPPC Directive)
 CO2 Transport: Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
 CO2 Storage: Directive 2009/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the geological storage of carbon dioxide
 Liability: Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and the Council on
environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of
environmental damage
Potential road map for CCS in the cement industry
Ongoing research will be the decision base for a potential post-combustion
capture demo-plant and parallel development of oxyfuel technology
 Continue research and development
–
develop post combustion capture (especially with amines) and prepare upscaling
of existing technology
–
stimulate research on Oxyfuel technology in cooperation with equipment
suppliers
 Prepare decisions for a test plant based on post combustion capture technology
 Do not focus on transport and storage because
–
storage is not a specific cement industry issue
–
stakeholders concerns should be met separately in order not to undermine
potential capture demo-plant implementation
A potential CCS Project – a multi stage project
A demonstration plant can only be based on experiences from a pilot as an
integral part of the whole process
planning
Laboratory
test
building
operating
Pilot
plant
Demonstration
plant
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Potential for a test plant in the cement industry
A decision for a test plant in the cement industry is based on various pros
and cons
pro:
contra:
 Cement industry is second sector in
focus
 global CO2 emissions are dominated by
the power sector
 Technology to be applied is “identical”
to power sector (in the view of others)
 scaling effects suggest to concentrate on
power plants and not cement plants
 Without involvement, others will decide
what cement sector will have to do
 storage will not be accepted by the
public
 cement industry must be able to
express itself based on facts from test
plant
 capture will never be possible at viable
costs
 CO2 abatement costs will be covered by
the prices for the certificate
 a full scale demonstration plant will be
expected to continue operation even if
test results are not satisfying
Technical preference for a potential test plant
While oxy-fuel seems to require less energy, post combustion might be
earlier available
Oxyfuel
Post combustion
 oxygen enrichment has been applied to
cement kilns
 available end-of-the pipe technology
 CO2 from the combustion process is
concentrated and “easy” to isolate
 Kiln - including cooler - needs to be
completely redesigned
 new technology; retrofit or modifying of
existing plant unlikely
 high energy consumption for oxygen
production
 up-scaling still pending, but retrofit seems
possible
 minimal impact on existing clinker
process
 pure CO2 stream for compression and
subsequent treatment
 very high energy consumption for aminestripper
Cost analysis based on three scenarios
Cost estimates still need to be refined but indicate avoidance costs
between 30 and 80 €/tonne of CO2
Post combustion
Oxyfuel
Pilot plant
Demonstration
plant
CO2 capture rate
[CO2/a]
100.000
900.000
800.000
Investment costs
[M€]
34
100 - 300
344*
Operating costs per
CO2 avoided [€/t]
30
40 - 80
33
Comments
• Based on Brevik kiln
• Excess heat from cooler and
preheater used, no extra power
plant required
• Based on studies from GassTek,
Mahasenan and BCA/IEA
• Assuming full scale plant to
• Assumes new kiln
• *Investment costs include kiln
including capture plant
capture 100% of kiln’s CO2
all figures subject to uncertainties
Research Agenda – ECRA CCS Project
ECRA started a CCS project in 2007 which has now reached the end of its
second phase. It is now preparing a decision for the next steps
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Literature Study (January - June 2007)
Study about Technical and Financial Aspects of CCS
Projects, Concentrating on Oxyfuel and Post-Combustion
Technology (summer 2007 – summer 2009)
Laboratory-scale / small-scale
research activities (autumn 2009 –
summer 2011)
Phase IV
Pilot-scale research activities (time-frame: 2-3 years)
Phase V
Demonstration plant (time-frame: 3-5 years)


Next steps (1/2)
Very high cost for CCS make funding imperative; irrespective of funding
schemes final decision on test plant to be taken by the cement industry.
 EU Funds:
– European Recovery Fund (EEPR) focuses on specific projects only, tenders from
equipment suppliers need to be submitted until end of June.
 not applicable to cement
– Co-financing of CCS under ETS (NER 300) requires 500kt CO2 /a to be captured
and must implement transport and storage. Deadline for proposal end of 2009.
 clarification needed, if pilot plant can be funded to start with; ECRA inquires
details at EU-Commission’s stakeholders meetings
- EU’s seventh framework programme (FP7)
 research might be funded, next call that could be suitable will be launched
only in summer 2009; ECRA keeps track of developments
 National funds, in this case from Norway:
– HeidelbergCement (Norcem) will contact Norwegian institutions (oil/energy
ministry to tentatively explore funding possibilities.
Next steps (2/2)
In autumn ECRA i.e. the cement industry has to finally decide about a CSS
project; equipment suppliers should be invited to give technical input
 Without prejudice to the cement industry’s final decision some actions should be
taken now:
–
Inquire funding potentials with in the EU and regionally i.e. Norway
 action will be taken by ECRA and HeidelbergCement/Norcem
–
Coordinate a possible funding scheme within the cement industry
 since all funding schemes require at least some contribution from the
industry, ECRA should explore potential contributions from its members.
 action will be taken by Daniel Gauthier and the Technical Advisory Board
–
Prepare a tender invitation for service providers of CCS technology in order to be
updated on latest state of the art processes; key issues have to be investment
requirement, energy demand and process/scrubber design
 action will be taken by ECRA
 Final decision to be taken by ECRA members on 5 October 2009