Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):

A Technology at a Crossroads

University of Chicago
November 18, 2015
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Outline

CCS Basics
The Crossroads
Technology Status
Demonstration Status
Negative Emissions
Outlook

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

CCS Basics

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

What is CCS?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) is a process

consisting of separation of CO2 from industrial and energy-related
sources, transport to a storage location, and long-term isolation
from the atmosphere.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

CCS
Sources and Sinks
Large Stationary Point Sources
Power Coal, Biomass, Natural Gas
Industrial
High Purity - Gas Processing, Ammonia, Ethanol, Hydrogen
(Refineries)
Other Cement, Steel, Refineries

Sinks
Geologic Formations
Proven - Depleted Oil & Gas Reservoirs, Deep Saline Formations
Speculative Unmineable Coal Seams, Basalts

Utilization
Proven EOR, Commercial Markets
Speculative Building materials, Chemicals, Fuels

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Role of CCS in a Mitigation

Portfolio
Portfolio of CO2 Emissions Reductions for 2DS through 2050

IEA CCS Roadmap, 2013; consistent with World Energy Outlook 450 Scenario through 2035
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

FAQs
Is CCS feasible?
Yes, all major components of a carbon capture
and sequestration system are commercially
available today.

Why is CCS use limited today?

It is almost always cheaper to emit to the
atmosphere than sequester. Therefore,
opportunities are limited to niche areas until
carbon policies are put in place.

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

The Crossroads

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

The Crossroads
CCS Technology Development has made
great strides in the past 25 years
The technology is ready for commercial
scale demonstration and deployment
However, the necessary markets have not
developed due to lack of strong climate
policy

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

GHGT Participant Numbers

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Inherent Strengths of CCS

It produces dispatchable power, as opposed
to intermittent power from wind and solar.
It is the only mitigation technology that can
rescue potentially hundreds of trillions of
dollars of stranded fossil assets.
It provides the major pathway to negative
emissions when combined with biomassfired power plants.
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

FOSSIL FUEL ASSETS

AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Carbon Budget
Oil
Natural Gas

Coal
Global emissions [Gt CO2]

16000

14000
12000
Stranded
Assets

10000
8000
6000
4000

2000
0
Recoverable
Carbon Stocks
2014 (IPCC)

Recoverable
Reserves 2013
(BP)

2C budget (2013- 3C budget (20132100)

2100)

Technology Status

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Post-Combustion Capture
Stack Gas

Flue Gas

Gas
Clean-up

CO2
Capture

Air
Coal

Boiler

Steam

Steam Cycle

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Electricity

CO2

CO2 Capture at a Power Plant

Source: ABB Lummus

Poteau, OK 200 tpd

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

Geologic Storage Status

Commercial Analogues
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) since 1972
Acid Gas Injection since 1989
Natural Gas Storage since 1915

Commercial Operations: 5 projects at megaton/yr scale

Subsurface Uncertainty
Capacity
Long-term Integrity
Induced Siesmicity

Other Issues
Regulatory Framework
Long-term Liability
Public Acceptance
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Costs
Carbon Price needed to incentivize CCS
with geologic storage is $50-100/tCO2
Results in an increase in cost of electricity from
40-90%
Additional incentives required to overcome
first-of-a-kind costs

Cannot compete with business-as-usual.

Must compete with large-scale renewables
and nuclear
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Demonstration Status

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Major Demonstration Projects

Phase 1 Pioneer Projects (little/no govt
money)
Natural Gas Processing (4) Sleipner (Statoil),
In Salah (BP), Snovit (Statoil), Gorgon
(Chevron)
Synfuels - Weyborn (Dakota Gasification),
EOR driven

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Sleipner (North Sea, Norway)

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Major Demonstration Projects

Phase 2 CCS RD&D Programs
Power Plants
Operating Boundary Dam (Canada)
Under Constuction Kemper (US), Petra Nova (US)
Planning TCEP (US), White Rose (UK), Peterhead
(UK)

Industrial Facilities
Operating - Air Products (US, Methane Reformer), ADM
(US, Ethanol), Quest (Canada, Methane Reformer)
Under Construction Alberta Trunk Line (Canada,
pipeline between refinery and fertilizer plants to EOR)
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Major Demonstration Projects

Role of EOR
Phase 2 CCS RD&D Programs
Power Plants
Operating Boundary Dam (Canada)
Under Constuction Kemper (US), Petra Nova (US)
Planning TCEP (US), White Rose (UK), Peterhead
(UK)

Industrial Facilities
Operating - Air Products (US, Methane Reformer), ADM
(US, Ethanol), Quest (Canada, Methane Reformer)
Under Construction Alberta Trunk Line (Canada,
pipeline between refinery and fertilizer plants to EOR)
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Boundary Dam
Worldss first CCS Power Plant

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Paying for CCS Projects

Market Pull

Carbon markets (regulatory driver)

Electricity markets
EOR
Others (e.g., polygeneration)

Technology Push

Subsidies
Tax credits (investment, production)
Loan guarantees
Mandates (portfolio standards)
Others (e.g., Feed-in tariffs, contracts-for-differences)

Other Drivers
Regulatory
Business
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Boundary Dam Economics

Regulatory Driver
40-year old coal plants must be retrofitted with
CCS or close down

Electricity markets
If retrofit CCS is low-cost option (Had to be
competitive with new NGCC)

By-product sales (EOR, fly ash, H2SO4)

Government cost-sharing ($240 million)
Business Driver Utility-owned lignite
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

BOUNDARY DAM
140

120

2
100

80
60
40

CCS Capital Costs

Non-CCS Capital Costs
Fuel Costs
O&M Costs
Subsidies and Revenues
Net Costs
Null

20
0
BD Initial Federal
CO2
BD Final Base Load
CoE
Subsidy Revenues
CoE
NGCC

Source: Adapted from SaskPower

27

Levelized Cost of Electricity [$/MWh]

160

4 Reasons BD can compete with

NGCC:
1. Federal Subsidy
2. EOR (sulfuric acid and fly ash)
3. Low lignite costs compared to NG
4. Lower capital costs due to retrofit

Negative Emissions:
BECCS and DAC

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Intervention Strategies

Intervention Strategies

Atmospheric
GHG
Concentrations

CO2
Removal

Global
Temperature

Human Activity

Earth Systems

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

IPCC Working Group 3

Summary for Policy Makers
April, 2014
CCS mentioned 39 times
Key points:
CCS reduces costs of meeting key stabilization
targets (i.e., 450 and 550 ppm)
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

BECCS Ampere Study

450 ppm case

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

BECCS
Without CCS, there will be no BECCS
Issues with storage are identical
Cost of BECCS > CCS
Biomass more expensive than coal
Biomass-fired power plants more expensive than coalfired power plants due to lower conversion efficiencies

At high enough carbon price, BECCS<CCS

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Impact of Carbon Price on

BECCS

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Direct Air Capture (DAC):

Concentration Matters
Concentration is a critical variable
Concentration in air approximately 300 times
more dilute than coal-fired flue gas 12%
(120,000 ppm) vs. 400 ppm
Key challenges this poses for air capture:
Have to handle 300 times more air
Mass transfer driving force is reduced by a factor of
300

Any air capture process will perform significantly

better and more cheaply on a feed stream at 12%
CO2 vs. a feed stream at 400 ppm CO2
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Sherwood Plot

King et al., Separation and Purification: Critical Needs and Opportunities, National Research Council report, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC (1987).
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

What is Correct Scale Factor?

How does cost vary with concentration?
Sherwood Plot suggests a linear variation
Cost of air capture = 300 * cost of CCS

Physics suggests a logarithmic (based on ideal work)

Cost of air capture = 4 * cost of CCS

Reconciling the 2 approaches

Real work = ideal work x efficiency
It can be shown from empirical data that the efficiency is a strong function
of concentration
Result is closer to a linear variation

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

House Plot

Copyright Kurt Zenz House, draft for submission (in press) .

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Outlook

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Moving CCS Forward

Need for CCS becomes more important as
climate policy becomes more stringent
It appears climate policy will NOT reach
levels needed to incentivize large-scale CCS
deployment before 2030
Therefore, technology policy is required for
CCS to keep moving forward

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Incentivizing CCS in Near-Term

US
Clean Power Plan
30% investment tax credit (proposed)
$50/ton CO2 stored tax credit (proposed)

UK

Billion pound competition (2 projects)

Contract for differences

Norway
Direct subsidy for up to three demonstration projects:
cement, ammonia, waste-to-energy

EU
ETS
Resurrect the NER program????
Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative

Closing Thoughts
Strong Climate Policy (carbon price of at least
$50/tCO2).

CCS has to be competitive with the other largescale, low-carbon supply technologies, specifically
renewables and nuclear.
Study after study has shown all of these low-carbon
technologies are needed.
Issue: Will policymakers create a level-playing field?

Weak Climate Policy (situation for at least

next decade).
CCS requires technology push to move forward.
Issue: Where will political support for CCS come from?
Is CCS an orphan technology?
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: hjherzog@mit.edu
Web Site: sequestration.mit.edu

Howard Herzog / MIT Energy Initiative