DOUERSOI 94

Vol 1 of 2

A Research Needs Assessment for

The Capture, Utilization and

Disposal of Carbon Dioxide from
Fossil FuellFired Power Plants

Volume I
Executive Summary

Final Report
July 1993

Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Research
Office of Program Analysis
and
Office of Fossil Energy
Office of Coal Technology
Washington, DC 20585
Under Contract No. DE-FG02-92ER30194.AOOO

b
.s
 DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored

by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the
United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any
of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied,
or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information,
apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that
its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference
herein t o any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government or
any agency thereof.
 DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible

in electronic image products. Images are
produced from the best available original
document.
 FOREWORD

The investigations presented in this report are restricted to the evaluation

and prioritization of research needs for the direct capture of CO, from fossil
power plants and for its subsequent long-term sequestration or use. Alternate
methods of atmospheric CO,reduction such as fuel-switching, generation
efficiency improvement, demand-side management, conservation, or atmospheric
capture remote from the plant are not within the scope of this grant.

This study finds that direct capture and disposal (if large-scale disposal is
demonstrated to be feasible) would likely increase the cost of electricity by about
a factor of 2 or more for the case of retrofit of current coal-fired power plants
and by 50% or more for the case of successful development of advanced, high
efficiency power plants (such as integrated gasification combined-cycle or fuel
cells) that are specifically configured to integrate CO, capture.

To place the research needs recommendations of this report into a context

that provides a more global prioritization of research needs, it is necessary to go
beyond the scope of this study and evaluate how the direct CO, capture and
disposal method compares in effectiveness and cost with alternative methods of
reducing atmospheric C 0 2 loading from electric power generation.

Fuel-switching, advanced power cycle efficiency improvements and

demand-side management are currently being implemented or are planned to be
implemented. These activities are expected to have little impact on the cost of
electricity when phased in as part of long-term utility planning. CO, reduction
would come as a side benefit so that the marginal cost for atmospheric CO,
reduction is very modest and in some cases near zero.

Fuel switching to natural gas can reduce power plant CO, emissions per
kWh, by 40 to 50% relative to coal with currently lower costs for electricity; fuel
switching to nuclear energy, if permissible, reduces power plant emissions to
essentially zero although electricity costs will be higher than for switching to gas;
and fuel switching to solar, geothermal, or biomass also effectively reduces net
CO, emissions to zero but electricity costs are currently higher and potential
deployment is limited.

Advanced fossil energy fuel cycles, if they meet their planning goals for
cost and efficiency, can reduce CO, emissions per kwh, by 30 to 40% with no
added cost per kWh,.

i
 The potential for demand-side management is uncertain, perhaps leading
to a reduction in energy use (and in CO, emissions) of about 10-25% where the
marginal demand side costs to the utility are limited to be less than or equal to
marginal supply costs for new power plants. Cost per kwh, will increase slightly
for all customers but are designed to be offset for those who specifically benefit
from the demand reduction incentives.

These energy-cost and CO, reduction-effectiveness considerations send a

clear message that research priorities should first focus on the low cost
alternatives -- as is indeed the current situation, although not necessarily out of
concern for CO, emissions. The total percentage reduction of CO, emissions by
these alternatives will be limited, however, unless complete fuel switching to
nuclear or renewable sources becomes possible.

If a requirement for full or near-full cessation of CO, emission from power

plants is envisioned, attention to the research tasks described in this report is
warranted. Exploration of the feasibility of the different capture and disposal
concepts described herein can be considered as insurance against the limitations
to the total systemwide effectiveness of CO, removal by the other alternatives, or
as a means to provide an improved capability to respond to an imposed
requirement for a high level of atmospheric CO, reduction.

..
11
 ABSTRACT

This study, conducted by a research team directed by staff at the Energy

Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Department of
Energy sponsorship, identifies and assesses system approaches in order to
prioritize research needs for the capture and non-atmospheric sequestering of a
significant portion of the carbon dioxide (CO,) emitted from fossil fuel-fired
electric power plants (U.S. power plants presently produce about 7% of the
world's CO, emissions). The study considers capture technologies applicable
either to existing plants or to those that optimistically might be demonstrated on a
commercial scale over the next twenty years. This study specifically excludes CO,
emissions reduction techniques solely related to efficiency improvements, fuel
switching, increased conservation, or remote techniques for capture of CO, from
the atmosphere. These options are being addressed separately through other
programs. Specific conclusions are as follows:

To implement CO, capture and sequestration on a national scale will

decrease power plant net efficiencies and significantly increase the cost of
electricity. To make responsible societal decisions, accurate and consistent
economic and environmental analysis of all alternatives for atmospheric CO,
mitigation are required.

Commercial CO, capture technology, though expensive and energy intensive,

exists today.

The most promising approach to more economical CO, capture is to develop

power plant systems that facilitate efficient CO, capture.

While CO, disposal in depleted oil and gas reservoirs is feasible today, the
ability to dispose of large quantities of CO, is highly uncertain because of
both technical and institutional issues. Disposal into the deep ocean or
confined aquifers offers the potential for large quantity disposal, but there
are technical, safety?liability, and environmental issues to resolve. Therefore,
the highest priority research should focus on establishing the feasibility of
large scale disposal options.

Land or ocean disposal will require research to better understand

environmental impacts. Even with such information, the public may be
reluctant to accept some disposal options.

While transportation of compressed, liquid CO, has been demonstrated,

important issues involving cost, safety?and institutional barriers to large scale
deployment remain.

...
1ll
 Individual options for using captured power plant CO, in an alternate fuel, as
an industrial feedstock, or as an agricultural growth enhancer are not
promising for sequestration of si&icant amounts of CO,.

The research needs that have high priority in establishing the technical,
environmental, and economic feasibility of large-scale capture and disposal of CO,
from electric power plants are:

Survey and assess the capacity, cost, and location of potential depleted gas
and oil wells that are suitable CO, repositories (with the cooperation of the
oil and gas industry).

Conduct research on the feasibility of ocean disposal, with objectives of

determining the cost, residence time, and environmental effects for
different methods of CO, injection. For promising methods, define the
technology required to facilitate the introduction of CO, into the ocean
and identify the most suitable locations for disposal.

Perform an in-depth survey of knowledge concerning the feasibility of using

deep, confined aquifers for disposal and, if feasible, identify potential
disposal locations (with the cooperation of the oil and gas industry).

Evaluate, on a common basis, system and design alternatives for

integration of CO, capture systems with emerging and advanced
technologies for power generation.

Prepare a conceptual design, an analysis of barrier issues, and a

preliminary cost estimate for pipeline networks necessary to transport a
significant portion of the CO, to potentially feasible disposal locations.

These first tasks are necessary to establish the feasibility and cost of the CO,
capture and disposal option and to allow comparison of this alternative with other
mitigation options. The report outlines further research needs that should be
pursued after feasibility is determined to facilitate capture and disposal with the
least penalties for environmental impact, energy usage and cost. Many research
opportunites not recommended within the context of the scope of this report may
still be worthy of other support for a variety of reasons.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

PREFACE ................................................... ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................... x

1. SCOPEOF STUDY ........................................ 1

2. BACKGROUND .......................................... 2

3. APPROACH ............................................. 5
3.1 Program Organization ................................... 5
3.2 Program Tasks and Events ............................... 6

4. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH NEEDS FINDINGS .................8

4.1 Ocean Disposal ....................................... 10
4.2 Land Disposal ........................................ 19
4.3 Utilization ........................................... 24
4.4 Capture/Modified Combustion Systems ..................... 26
4.5 Advanced Concepts .................................... 33

5. PROJECTED COSTS OF CO, CAPTURE AND DISPOSAL ......... 35

6. CONCLUSIONS ......................................... 38

7. REFERENCES .......................................... 41

APPENDIX A WORLDWIDE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES ............... 44

A1 Japan .............................................. 44
A2 TheNetherlands ..................................... 46
A 3 Norway ............................................ 47
A 4 Other Research Programs ............................... 48
A5 References .......................................... 49

.
APPENDIX B EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................... 51
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF PEER REVIEW PROCESS .............. 54

APPENDIX D. NOMENCLATURE AND UNITS ...................... 60

V
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 2

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 scope of study
1.2 Background
1.3 Approach
1.4 References

2. OCEAN DISPOSAL
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Ocean Characteristics
2.3 CO, Characteristics in the Ocean
2.4 CO, Hydrates
2.5 COz Release into the Deep Ocean
2.6 C0,Transpox-t
2.7 Biological Impact
2.8 Legal/Institutional Constraints
2.9 Conclusions and Primary Research Needs
2.10 References

3. TERRESTRIAL DISPOSAL
3.1 Introduction and Background
3.2 Storage in Active and Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs
3.3 Storage in Confined Aquifers and Other Non-Petroleum Bearing
Structures
3.4 Storage in Salt and Rock Cavities
3.5 Evaluation of Land Disposal Options with Attributes
3.6 Prioritized Summary of Land Disposal Research Needs
3.7 References

4. UTILIZATION
4.1 Introduction and Background
4.2 Industrial Utilization of CO,
4.3 Chemical Conversion of CO, to Fuel
4.4 Biological Utilization of CO,
4.5 Summary of Utilization Options
4.6 References

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 2 (con't)

5. C02 CAPTURE FROM CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL F'UELFIRED

POWER PLANTS
5.1 Introduction and Background
5.2 Chemical Stripping Methods
5.3 Cryogenic Methods
5.4 Membrane Systems
5.5 Physical Adsorption Systems
5.6 Physical Absorption Systems
5.7 Water Absorption Systems
5.8 Prioritized Summary of Research Needs
5.9 References

6. C02 CAPTURE FROM ADVANCED COMBUSTION/GASIFICATION

BASED POWER PLANTS
6.1 Introduction and Background
6.2 Oxygen Production Methods
6.3 Combustion of Fossil Fuels Using 0, to Facilitate C02 Recovery
6.4 CO, Recovery from the Effluent of Guture Gasification Power Plant
Designs
6.5 Prioritized Summary of Research Needs
6.6 References

7. ADVANCED CONCEPTS
7.1 Introduction and Background
7.2 Mineral Production
7.3 Floating Offshore Power Plants with Deep Ocean CO, Disposal
7.4 Precombustion Treatment of Coal
7.5 Artifical Photosynthesis
7.6 Conclusions
7.7 References

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 2 (con%)

APPENDIX A. AMSTERDAM WORKSHOP SUMMARY

A1 Background
A2 Overview and Broader Context
A3 Research Needs Identification
A4 Research Needs Prioritzation Criteria
A5 Other Comments

APPENDIX B. ARGONNE WORKSHOP SUMMARY

B. 1 Overview
B.2 Review of Topical Areas
B.3 Review of Critical Issues
B.4 Summary of Topical Breakout Sessions

APPENDIX C. MAJOR POWER PLANT C02 SOURCES

APPENDIX D. MAJOR C02 USERS

APPENDIX E. BIBLIOGRAPHY

viii
 PREFACE

This report is organized in two volumes. This first volume serves as an

executive summary of the entire project and results; the second volume contains
more detailed information on each of the topical areas.

Volume 1 describes the objectives and scope of the project (Chapter 1), the
background (Chapter 2), the approach (Chapter 3), an overview of findings
(Chapter 4) and co5ts (Chapter S), and conclusions and recommendations
(Chapter 6). For each major grouping of topics, a summary of the key issues and
the priority research needs are described. References for Volume 1 are included
in Chapter 7. Volume 1 has four appendices: Appendix A, Worldwide Research
Activities; Appendix B, Definition of Evaluation Indices for Research
Prioritization; Appendix C, Summary of Peer Review Process; and Appendix D,
Nomenclature and Units.

Volume 2 contains an introductory section and then presents six, separate

chapters that report on each of the main topical areas: ocean disposal, land
disposal, utilization, capture technology, combustion technology, and advanced
topics. Each of the six chapters was prepared by the topical team leaders, who
are identified as authors at the beginning of each report. Summaries of the
Amsterdam Workshop and the Argonne Workshop are presented in Appendices
A and B, respectively. Three additional appendices cover: Sources of CO,
(Appendix C), CO, Users (Appendix D), and the Bibliography (Appendix E).
The Bibliography is organized by topical subject areas.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was initiated and supported by the U.S.Department of Energy

under Grant Number DE-FG02-92ER30194.AOOO. The information included in
this report is based on the collaboration of a large number of participants,
including project team members from MIT and Argonne National Laboratory and
selected consultants. Major contributors include:

From MIT:
Jefferson Tester, Professor of Chemical Engineering and
Director, Energy Laboratory; Principal Investigator
Howard Henog, Energy Laboratory; Program Manager
Elisabeth M. Drake, Energy Laboratory; Steering Group
John Edmond, Professor of Marine Chemistry
Thomas Lee, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science; Steering Group
Adel Sarofim, Professor of Chemical Engineering
David White, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science; Chair, Steering Group

From Argonne National Laboratory:

Alan Wolsky, Associate Director for Technology Evaluations,
Energy Systems Division; Steering Group
Edward Daniels, Manager, Process Evaluation Section, Energy
Systems Division
Bassam Jody, Environmental/Energy Systems Engineer, Energy
Systems Division

From Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute:

John Dacey, Associate Scientist

Other Steering Group Members:

Dwain Spencer, Senior Vice President, Electric Power Research
Institute
John Landis, Senior Vice President and Director, Stone and
Webster Corp.

Other Contributors:
Edward Lipinsky, Battelle Memorial Institute
John Benemann, Consultant, Vero Beach, FL
Daniel Golomb, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of
Massachusetts at Lowell

X
Other MIT participants: Professors Carl Peterson (drilling and rock mechanics),
Nafi Toksoz and Roger Turpening (geotechnical reservoir engineering), Mike
Cleary (rock fracturing and reservoir engineering), John Mer (combustion), Herb
Einstein (rock mechanics) and Eric Adam (hydrological modeling).

In particular, we also wish to thank Robert Rosenthal of the U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Office of the Science and
Technology Advisor, the Technical Monitor for this project, for his guidance and
assistance. We also appreciated inputs provided by others affiliated with DOE:

Ofice of Energy Research: Walter Warnick, David Koegel,

and George Jordy

Office of Fossil Energy: Robert Kane, Douglas Carter, Michael Perlsweig,

and Chuck Garrett

Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center: Perry Bergman and

Charles Drummond

We also interviewed and visited a number of experts with interests relating

to this project. They included:

Brookhaven National Laboratory: Meyer Steinberg

Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Rod Judkins, Bill Rodgers, Mike Farrell,
G r e g Marland, Charles Scott, Tsung-hung Pen&
and Bill Fulkerson

Electric Power Research Institute: George Booras, Mike Gluckman,

Jack Kaslow and Richard Richels

-
ECN Netherlands Energy Research Foundation: And& Oudhuis,
Hank van Veen

-
EEC Commission of the European Communities: Paul Sens

IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme: A.R. Jack, Harry Audus,

and Ian Webster

Colorado School of Mines: Dendy Sloan, Professor of Chemical

Engineering

We appreciated an opportunity to visit the North American Chemical

Company’s Argus Plant in Trona, California, to observe an operational CO,
capture process.

xi
 In particular, we appreciated the efforts of Kornelis Blok and Wim
Turkenburg of the University of Utrecht in the NetherIands. They are the
principal organizers of the First International Confwence on Carbon Dioxid?
Removal, held in Amsterdam 4-6 March 1992. The content of that conference
fortuitously overlapped the scope of this study and we appreciated the opportunity
to conduct our first project Workshop at the end of their meeting.

Special thanks are due to our colleagues who actively participated in the
Amsterdam Workshop and the later workshop held at Argonne National
Laboratory. The participants contributed much effort and provided valuable and
varied expertise. They are listed in Appendices A and B of Volume 2. We also
wish to thank the Peer Reviewers who are listed in Appendix C of this volume.

We were assisted in much of the literature search and information

gathering efforts by an energetic group of undergraduate students under MIT's
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program: Jennifer Chan, Angela Hsieh,
Sohan Lall, Kirk Noda and John Paulsea

Anne Carbone worked long and hard on the production of this report,
doing typing, editing, integration and harmonization of sections. Her efforts are
much appreciated by the authors. Alice Colby and M a q Elliff also provided
assistance on some of the sections.

xii
 CHAPTER 1

SCOPE OF STUDY

The Energy Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with

the Technology Evaluation Group of the Argome National Laboratory as a
subcontractor, was awarded a Special Research Grant No. DE-FW-
92ER30194AOOO in December 1991 to identi@, assess, and prioritize research
needs for the capture and non-atmospheric sequestering of a significant portion of
the carbon dioxide (Cod emitted fromfossil fuel-fired electric power plants. The
scope of the study was limited to capture technologies applicable either to existing
plants or to those that optimistically might be demonstrated on a commercial
scale over the next twenty years. U.S.electric power plants are stationary,
concentrated sources of CO, that produce about 7% of the world's CO, emissions.
The scope of this study specifically excludes CO, emissions reduction techniques
solely related to efficiency improvements, fuel switching, increased conservation,
or remote techniques for capture of CO, from the atmosphere. These options are
being addressed separately through other programs.

Figure 1 shows a number of different options for reduction of CO,

emissions into the atmosphere; this study addresses only the one option shown as
"flue gas clean-up". A general overview of other mitigation options for global
warming is given by Rubin et aL (1992). The results of this study pertain to only
one of many mitigation options available. The research needs identified in this
report need to be integrated into a broader spectrum of decision alternatives in
any general planning for CO, mitigation priorities.

Figure 1. Spectrum of options for atmospheric CO, reduction.

The shaded boxes are outside the scope of this study.

I
 CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND

At present, the US. electrical utilities produce about 7% of the world's

CO, emissions from energy use. Avoidance of CO,emissions through physical
capture of CO, from fossil fuel power plants has been considered as a potential
option since Marchetti (1977) first proposed this idea linked with disposal of the
captured CO, in the deep ocean. Since then, many investigators have published
studies examining a variety of options for 0, capture from power plants and its
subsequent disposal or use.

The distribution of carbon on the planet sets a framework. Dunsmore

(1992) presents general information about the distribution of the approximately
75 x lofi tomes of carbon on earth:

I
C a r b O n a ~ e ~rocks
u ~ (e.g. CaCO,) 6o,ooo,000 79.95% P ' d C
Sedimentary carbon (graphite & kerogen) l5,ooO,ooO 19.99% carbon
Recoverable fossil fuels 4,000 0.0053% (99.94%)

Dead surficial carbon (humus & peat) 3,000 0 . w o biospheric

Oceanic bicarbonates & carbonates 42@0 0.056% carbon
Atmospheric COz 720 0.00095% (0.06%)
All life 560 O.W074%

The carbon slowly cycles between the geosphere and the biosphere over time by
means of natural biogeochemical processes, including vulcanism, erosion, and
organisms producing carbonaceous and organic matter. Human use of fossil fuels
is an additional mechanism by which geologic carbon is introduced to the
atmosphere. Rubin et al. (1992) cites worldwide anthropogenic CO, emissions in
1990 that include:
Gt of COJyear Gt C/year
commercial energy 18.8 5.1
deforestation 2.6 0.7
other 0.4 0.1

(')1 Gt = 109 tomes; 1 tonne = lo00 kg

2
The U.S. is responsible for 22% of the worldwide anthropogenic emissions, or
4.8 Gt CO, per year. Over one-third of the U.S. emissions, or about 1.7 Gt CO,
per year, are generated from electrical power plants.

In an overview assessment of alternative processes for capturing CO, from

existing coal-fired power plants, Herzog et al. (1991) concluded that capture is
currently technically feasible, but that the most efficient available technology will
reduce energy efficiency of utility steam plants by about 30% and will increase the
price of electricity by SO%, even before disposal costs are added. These results
are consistent with a recent EPRI study on CO, capture and disposal (Booras and
Smelser, 1991). Emerging and future electricity generation technologies have the
potential to significantly lessen these increases.

Once the CO, is captured, it needs to be sequestered in some way that

avoids prompt release to the atmosphere. There are several possibilities for non-
atmospheric sequestration of geological carbon released by fossil fuel energy use.
One land-based option is to return the CO, to the geosphere by storage in
depleted gas and oil wells. This option is technologically feasible now, but issues
remain regarding cost and available capacity. Other potential land-based options
are to inject CO, into deep, confined aquifers or into mined subterranean
structures. The aquifer option., although of large potential capacity, raises safety,
liability, and environmental concerns that may impact implementation, while
mined structures have very high costs.

The ocean contains about 60 times as much carbon as the atmosphere (and
more than 10 times as much carbon as in all recoverable fossil fuels) and thus
appears to be a potential repository of ample capacity. Deep ocean disposal of
CO, will reduce peak atmospheric CO, concentrations. However, since the deep
ocean is known to recirculate on a time scale of the order of a thousand years,
eventually the atmosphere and the ocean will reach a new equilibrium
independent of whether the CO, is released in the atmosphere or in the ocean.
The very long-term atmospheric CO, levels may be reduced if the CO, can be
removed from the Ocean circulation into longer-lived bicarbonate or solid forms.
Several ocean disposal schemes have been proposed that have the potential for
deposition of solids on the ocean bottom (e.g. hydrate formation or dry ice
disposal). However, fundamental questions remain regarding the relations
between depths and conditions of CO, injection and the duration of sequestrakion.

Another sequestration option is to find recycle opportunities for power

plant CO, as a feedstock for industrial products or processes or as a component of
alternate fuels. When captured CO, is used in this way, the rate of introduction
of geologic carbon into the biosphere is decreased. The total industrial utilization
of CO,today in the U.S.is about 2% of the CO, generated from power plants,
with about 80% of the usage in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. Much

3
of the CO, use, as in EOR and the food industry, results in rapid return to the
atmosphere. While niches may be found for some utilization, it is unlikely that
industrial use can sequester more than a minor fraction of the emitted CO, from
power plants. Use in fuels is feasible, but external energy inputs required to
synthesize the fuels can be used to serve energy markets directly, without
incurring additional losses.

In order to develop satisfactory means of CO, capture and use or disposal,

many technological challenges remain. Already there are substantial research
projects underway in a number of countries worldwide. Japan, the Netherlands,
the U.K., Norway and others have begun research on CO, capture, use and
disposal and present opportunities for international collaboration. Appendix A
presents a swnmary of worldwide research activities in these areas.

4
 CHAPTER 3

APPROACH

3.1 Program Organization

The project was managed by a core group of MIT Energy Laboratory

faculty and s@ with additional expertise provided by specialists at Argonne
National Laboratory, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and several other
expert consultants. Jefferson Tester, Director of the Energy Laboratory and
Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT was the Principal Investigator and
Howard H e m g of the Energy Laboratory was the Program Manager. Robert
Rosenthal of the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, Office of the
Science and Technology Advisor, provided technical guidance and oversight.

A Steering Group for the project, led by David White (Professor of

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MI"), included Thomas Lee
(Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MI"),
Elisabeth Drake (Associate Director of the MIT Energy Laboratory), Alan
Wolsky (Associate Division Director for Technology Evaluation, Energy Systems
Division, Argonne National Laboratory), Dwain Spencer (Senior Vice President,
Electric Power Research Institute), and John Landis (Senior Vice President and
Director, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation). The Steering Group met
four times during the course of the project, received copies of project documents
for comment, and were invited to participate in two project workshops.

Six major topical program areas were identified and responsible

investigators were selected for each of the topics:

Ocean Disposal (Daniel Goiomb, University of Lowell)

Terrestrial Disposal (Jefferson Tester, MIT)

Utilization (Howard Hemg, MIT and John Benemann, Consultant)

Capture from Flue Gas (Alan Wolsky, Argonne)

Advanced Combustion/Gasification Processes

(Alan Wolsky, Argonne and Adel Sarofim, MIT)

Advanced Concepts (David White and Elisabeth Drake, MIT)

5
3.2 Program Tasks and Events

For each of the topical areas, specialized team participants followed a

similar approach and schedule. The initial phase of the study involved a major
information gathering effort, including literature surveys, topical discussion
meetings, telephone interviews with experts, and site Visits. As a result of these
efforts, an extensive bibliography was developed and is included as Appendix E to
Volume 2 of this report.

After this initial phase, several members of the program team attended and
participated in the First Intematzod Conference on Carbon Dioxide Removal, held
in Amsterdam during March 1992. Following the Conference, which was attended
by about 265 participants from 23 countries, 45 of these experts were invited to
attend a Project Workshop. The objectives of this Workshop were:

To generate a preliminary list of research needs for the capture,

utilization, and disposal of CO, from fossil fuel-fired power plants, and

To establish research needs prioritization criteria.

The results of the Amsterdam Project Workshop provided a good understanding

of the research being conducted and planned worldwide on these issues, and 38
questionnaires returned by Workshop participants provided a wide range of
research ideas and suggested names of other researchers for follow-up discussions.
A summary of the workshop, including participants and major conclusions, is
presented in Appendix A of Volume 2.

At the Amsterdam Workshop, criteria that are important in evaluating and

prioritizing technological alternatives for CO,capture and sequestration were
presented and discussed. The following evaluation indices were agreed to be
important in prioritizing research needs:

Residence Time for Sequestration

Theoretical CO, Storage Capacity
Energy Penalty
Cost ($) Per Tonne of CO, Avoided
Developmental Feasibility
Environmental Impacts
Potential Barriers
Byproduct Credits

Appendix B of Volume 1 presents detailed definitions and quantitative measures

for each of the above indices.

6
 Since the scope of the Amsterdam conference closely paralleled the scope
of this project, papers presented at that conference provided a good basis for
information on current and planned research worldwide. The Proceedings of the
conference have been published by Blok et a2. (1992). Following the Amsterdam
Workshop, each topical group completed their information gathering process,
developed specific research and development needs, and evaluated each need
based upon the above list of criteria. In presenting cost estimates, available
published information was used with some modifications to put the estimates on a
consistent basis. Sources are referenced. For new or developing technologies,
development costs were not considered. It is assumed that if a new technology is
used commercially in the future, it will have to have costs competitive with
existing alternatives. Thus, this report focuses only on the incremental costs of
CO, capture. Cost and other considerations influencing the selection of research
needs were documented in a preliminary topical report by each group.

A second Project Workshop was held in early June 1992 at the Argonne
National Laboratory. Thirty-five experts with diverse backgrounds and interests
participated in the Workshop which had two key objectives. The first objective
was to review and comment upon the research needs as documented in the draft
chapters of the topical reports that make up Volume 2 of this report; the second,
to build a consensus on the research priorities both within and across topical
areas. Appendix B of Volume 2 contains a summary of this Workshop.

The Argonne Workshop focused the ideas and priorities expressed in the
preliminary draft report and also served as the first major component of an
extensive peer review process. After the Workshop, a final draft report was
prepared and distributed for peer review. Forty reviewers were chosen from
Workshop participants and other experts identified by the project team and by
DOE. Twenty-three reviewers submitted detailed comments. A summary of the
peer review process is presented in Appendix C of Volume 1.

7
 CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH NEEDS FINDINGS

This chapter gives an overview of the major issues and findings identified
during the project, and presents and describes the basis for selecting the highest
priority research needs in each of the relevant topical areas. As stated previously,
the scope of this research needs assessment study is confined to methods for
capturing and using or disposing of CO, from fossil fuel-fired power plants and to
technology that optimistically might be demonstrated on a commercial scale over
the next twenty years. Further, this scope includes only one of a set of potential
mitigation options for controlling atmospheric CO, concentration levels. The
research needs identified must be evaluated as part of the broader spectrum of
alternatives in any general planning for mitigation priorities. Figure 2 depicts the
general categories of technologies evaluated within the scope of this study. An
important element of all use or disposal options is the transportation of the C 0 2
to the disposal site or the alternative of siting power plants closer to disposal sites.

Volume 2 of this report contains more detailed information that serves as

background for this summary discussion. Each of the topical chapters in
Volume 2 was written by a group of specialists with appropriate expertise in the
science and technology needed for the particular assessments, and is also based on
extensive literature survey work, discussions with other experts, and focussed
discussions from two workshops. The relevant Volume 2 chapters are:

Chapter 2. Ocean Disposal (Dan Golomb of the University of

Massachusetts at Lowell, with contributions from John Dacey,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and John Edmond and
Howard Henog, MIT)

Chapter 3. Land Disposal (Jefferson Tester and Jennifer Chan, MIT)

Chapter 4. Utilization (Howard Hemg, MIT, with contributions from

Edward Lipinsky, Battelle and John Benemann, Independent
Consultant)

Chapter 5. Evaluation of Existing Technologies for the Capture of CO,

from Fossil Fuel-Fired Systems (Alan Wolsky, Edward
Daniels and Bassam Jody, Argonne National Laboratory)

Chapter 6. C02 Capture from Combustion/Gasification Based Power

Generation Technologies (Alan Wolsky, Edward Daniels, and
Bassam Jody, Argonne National Laboratory)

8
 FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLAN1

C 0 2 CAPTURE

RECYCLE, USE OCEAN DISPOSAL

LAND DISPOSAL

Figure 2. Major system options for direct power plant CO, emissions reduction.

9
 Chapter 7. Advanced Concepts (David White and Elisabeth Drake, MIT)

The major findings and priority research needs identified in each of these chapters
are summarized in the following sections.

4.1 Ocean Disposal

The deep ocean contains about 38,000 Gt of carbon in the form of

bicarbonates and carbonates. This is about ten times the total carbon stored in
all recoverable fossil fuels (about 4000 Gt), and over fifty times the 750 Gt total
carbon in atmospheric COP(') Therefore, from a general perspective, the ocean
should be able to accept CO, wastes from fossil fuel combustion with much less
disturbance than the atmosphere (adding the amount of CO,required to double
atmospheric concentrations to the ocean increases the ocean's carbon level by less
than 2%).

The top 100-200 m of the ocean are well-mixed and saturated in CO, with
respect to atmospheric CO,concentrations. If CO, were injected in this region, it
would quickly be released to the atmosphere. For approximately lo00 m below
the well-mixed surface layer, an increasing density profile exists due to decreasing
temperatures (the so-called thermocline), making the unsaturated waters stably
stratified. Below the thermocline (the deep ocean), the waters are nearly of
constant density and very little vertical mixing takes place. The concentration of
CO, in the deep ocean is approximately 0.1 kg/m3, which is 2-3 orders of
magnitude below its solubility limit. The oceans, even at great depth, have some
circulation with a typical time scale for deep waters to return to the surface on
the order of 10oO years.

The atmosphere and ocean surface continually exchange carbon dioxide, as

does the well-mixed surface layer with the rest of the ocean. However, the rate at
which this entire system comes to equilibrium with respect to CO, concentrations
is slow compared to the rate of anthropogenic CO, generation. In the long-term
(i.e. on the order of lo00 years), the atmospherelocean system will come to the
same equilibrium regardless of whether the C02is initially emitted to the
atmosphere or to the ocean. This is shown conceptually in Figure 3. This figure
is for illustrative purposes only and is based on the assumption that CO, is
generated from fossil fuel combustion for the next 250 years and then suddenly

('>The carbon content of the atmosphere and ocean cited here are based on
widely-accepted information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC, 1990) and are slightly different from the estimates cited earlier
(Dunsmore, 1992).
10
stops. Different assumptions of the CO, generation rate forcing function will
change the shape of the curves in Figure 3. An alternate model showing similar
results is presented in Volume 2.

A part of the anthropogenic CO, emissions from power plants could be

captured and sequestered in the ocean. The dashed lines B1, B2, and B3 in
Figure 3 illustrate the effect of CO, sequestration in the ocean. The important
message is that while the final outcome, in thousands of years, is independent of
whether the release is into the atmosphere or the ocean, the transient situation is
quite different. The peak of atmospheric CO, concentration, expected to occur in
the next couple of centuries could be significantly reduced if CO, were released
into the ocean rather than into the atmosphere. The magnitude of "peak shaving"
is dependent on the fraction of anthropogenic CO, released into the ocean, and
on the release depth.

Figure 3 is based on box models of the ocean which assume that ocean
circulations will remain as they are now, independent of atmospheric transients.
However, a warming trend may alter oceanic circulation. Realistic models that
couple the whole-ocean circulations with atmospheric forcing are not yet
available. Further results from ongoing oceanographic research are needed to
better understand the effects of injection of CO, in the ocean.

The long-term equilibrium level can be changed by the reaction of CO,

with carbonates to form bicarbonates, as shown in the equation below. Because
the ionic charges must remain balanced, the bicarbonate ion becomes a stable
species and will not release CO, back to the atmosphere.

CaCO, + CO, + H,O = Ca++ + 2HCO;

This case is shown by the dotted line C in Figure 3. In theory, the increase in
long-term atmospheric CO, levels can be cut up to half (Wilson, 1992 and Nihous
et d , 1992a) compared to the case where no dissolution of carbonates is assumed
(line C vs. line B3). Carbonates from sea creatures sink to the bottom gradually.
However, the total concentration of solid carbonates in the sea water column is
small. In order to dissolve a significant amount of CaCO, a necessary condition
is that the CO, must be in contact with the ocean bottom, where most of the
CaCO, is located from years of deposition. Large deposits are known to exist on
the ocean floor in both the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, so these areas may be
suitable for bicarbonate formation. Alternatively, if CO, can be deposited on the
ocean bottom as a solid, either as dry ice or as hydrates, it also can be removed
from the active oceanic circulation, which would increase the sequestration time
period. There are sigmficant uncertainties about both the accessibility of CaC03
within the ocean sediments and the long-term stability of solid forms of CO,.

11
 c
.-0
c

' * . . . * * . . . .

I I
i 000 2000
Time ( y r s )

Figure 3. An illustration of the effect of ocean disposal on atmospheric C 0 2

concentrations. Based on burning fossil fuel at a constant rate for
250 years and then stopping. The exact shape of the curves depends
on the fossil fuel forcing function chosen. Line A is the base case for
all emissions to the atmosphere. Lines B1, B2, B3 show the effect of
ocean disposal with increasing CO, residence times, respectively.
Line C shows the potential effect of carbonate chemistry (or solid
deposition on the ocean floor) on Line B3. Based on Wilson (1992).

CO, can be released into the deep ocean as a gas, solid or liquid. From a
processing and transportation standpoint, the most efficient mode of disposal is
the liquid form. This means that, at the power plant, after separation from other
combustion gases, the CO,has to be compressed, dehydrated and liquefied. The
liquid CO, can be transported to the disposal site in pipes, barges or tankers. For
release locations relatively close to shore, the most economic mode of
transportation is by underwater pipeline. Pipes can be laid from coastal power
plants or coastal transfer stations to the appropriate release depth. For traversing
larger ocean distances, it is more economical to transport the CO, in barges or
tankers. The barges or tankers can bring the CO, to a discharge platform, where
the liquid C o t might be transported to the deep ocean in a vertical or slanted
pipe extending from the platform. Based on a Dutch study (Hendriks et d ,
1992), Blok (1993) concluded that pipeline trartsport was preferred for traversing
ocean distances of 400 km or less, while Nihous et al. (1992b) estimated pipelines
are cost-effective only for ocean distances of 50 km or less.

12
 Since much of the discharge may occur in international waters, there may
be legal and political barriers to the Ocean disposal. These aspects warrant early
exploration. Also, assurance must be developed that such releases entail
acceptably low risk to the environment or public safety.

Many potential environmental impacts of ocean sequestration of CO, can

be identified, although the capacity of the ocean for carbonate is so large that any
effects are likely to be localized. Impacts need to be defined and assessed for
each of the different disposal options. For example, the disposal of CO, from a
point source, such as the diffuser at the end of a pipeline, could cause localized
effects on aquatic life. The turbulent, oxygen deficient plume around the injection
point may impact mesopelagic organisms present there. As CO, dissolves in
seawater, carbonic acid is formed, decreasing the pH, which may be detrimental
to living organisms, and may contribute to the dissolution of calcitic material, both
dead and that in coats and shells of living organisms. If solid CO, hydrate
particles are formed they may sink to the Ocean bottom. During sedimentation,
the hydrates may interfere with the feeding habits of swimming animals; upon
accumulation on the Ocean floor, the hydrate mounds may bury benthic organisms.

Very Deep Ocean Iyi?ciionat Deprhs Greater than 3 m m Figure 4

presents a phase diagram for C02-H,O binary system. Three-phase monovariant
equilibrium lines are shown. At ocean depths below the surface layer and above
500 m, released liquid CO, would initially form a gas before being dissolved into
the seawater. At depths greater than 500 m, the released CO,would be a slightly
buoyant dissolving liquid, or form a hydrate; below 3000 m depths, the C02 liquid
would be heavier than the surrounding water and would sink to the bottom as it
dissolves and/or forms hydrates. Because of these facts, some of the early
methods for disposing of CO, in the ocean suggested a CO, pipeline for injection
below 3000 m (Baes et d.1980). This would ensure that the injected CO, would
not rise and possibly return quickly to the atmosphere. However, present subsea
pipeline technology is limited to depths of around 600 to 650 n Using advanced
technology and developing robotic installation and maintenance techniques may
extend pipeline injection options to depths of up to lo00 m, (or perhaps even
1500 m). Therefore, given current technology or technology likely to be
developed in our timeframe of interest, the concept of pipeline discharge at
depths of 3000 m or more appears infeasible. However, discharge at that depth
through a vertical pipe mounted on a floating platform (based on technology
developed for experimental deep Ocean drilling) may be possible.

13
 Temperature (C)

Figure 4. Phase diagram for the COJHtO binary system with temperature-
pressure projection of the three-phase monovariant equilibrium lines
shown. For every 10 m of ocean depth, the pressure rise is about
1 bar (e.g. the total hydrostatic pressure at 500 m is about 50 bar).
Typical ocean temperatures range from ambient at the surface to
about 10°C at 500 m to 24OC below 2000 m.

14
 U w Releclse at &phs o f ~ l s 0 m 0 It has been shown in recent
studies (Liro et aL, 1992) that positively buoyant plumes of either liquid or
gaseous CO, discharged from a pipe through a diffuser (termed unconfined
release) can be dissolved in the seawater with a plume height rise of less than
100 m. This means that the CO, can be injected at any depth below about 300 m
without rising almost immediately to the surface. The estimated residence time
for a 500 m injection depth is 50-100 years, increasing to several hundred years at
a 10o0 m injection depth. A key research need is to quantify the trade-offs
associated with increasing injection depths - longer residence times, but greater
costs. Figure 5 indicates the 10oO m ocean depth contour off the U.S. coastline.

W F - At pressures and temperatures corresponding to ocean

-
depths greater than about 500 m, CO,and water can form hydrates solids that
are denser than seawater by about 5%. Hydrate formation may yield long
residence times without the large costs of deep injection depths. However, the
kinetics of hydrate formation and their subsequent dissolution in seawater are
poorly known at present. Key research needs include understanding hydrate
formation and dissolution kinetics and designing a release system that is conducive
to hydrate formation.

L k ~ ~ ~ P h u n e F o s m a a Another
a on. method (Haugen and Drange, 1992) that
combines relatively shallow injection with long residence time is to form a dense
sinking plume of C0,-enriched seawater. Seawater that is saturated with CO, is
slightly denser (about 1%)than unsaturated seawater and will also tend to sink.
Therefore, it has been proposed to form these dense plumes at shallow depths
(200-400 m) and let them flow along the sloping Ocean floor to deeper
depths. However, sinking dense plumes will entrain surrounding seawater and
eventually approach neutral buoyancy. Since the initial density difference
between the dense plume and the ambient seawater is small, a key research need
is to determine how far the plume will sink based on key system parameters (e.g.
slope of Ocean floor, initial plume density, etc.). Since dense plumes cannot form
in unconfined releases, research needs include identifying methods of dense plume
formation.

Ice Injection Solid CO, (dry ice) is denser than seawater by about
50%, so blocks can be put into the ocean at the surface and allowed to sink to the
bottom. Unfortunately, untreated blocks of dry ice will tend to melt (or
sublimate) and dissolve as they sink through the water column. Only large blocks
with high volume to surface area may survive long enough to deposit some
residue on the ocean floor. Also, the energy requirements for forming dry ice are
about twice that for liquefaction (required for the other schemes outlined above)
and the costs in handling solids are generally greater than those associated with
liquids. However, this method may prove to be the only way to get at least a

15
Figure 5: Distribution of gas reservoirs in the U.S.and 10oO m ocean depth contour. Based on information
supplied by the Potential Gas Agency, Colorada School of Mines, Golden, CO.
fraction of the CO, to great depths. Research may increase the percentage of the
dry ice that can be sequestered at great depths and decrease the associated costs.

Table 1 compares the positive and negative attributes of the five ocean
disposal methods outlined above. Based on this analyses, the methods are
prioritized as follows:

1. Hydrate Formation
2. Dense Plume Formation
3. Unconfined Release
4. Dry Ice Injection
5. Very Deep Ocean Injection

Table 1
Comparison of Ocean Disposal Options

Options Relative Relative Feasibility

cost Residence
Time
Hydrate Formation LOW VeryLOng Unknown
Dense Plume Formation LOW L-Qng unknown
Unconfined Release LOW Moderate Hi€$

' Dry Ice Injection

Very Deep Ocean Injection
High
Very High
Long
Long
unknown
UnkIlOwn

17
 The next step is to ascertain the technical feasibility of the most promising
ocean disposal methods, namely hydrate formation and dense plume formation.
For hydrates, key research needs are:

Theoretical analysis and laboratory experimental data on the kinetics of

hydrate formation and dissolution. Some of this work is currently
underway in Japan (see Appendix A).

A survey of sites off the coasts of the US, with properties conducive to a
successful implementation of the method, accessible by pipeline, or in the
open ocean, accessible by barges and tankers.

Development and design of injection methods/confinement structures to

induce hydrate formation in situ.

For dense plumes, key research needs are:

Theoretical analysis of dense plume dynamics with small-scale laboratory

or in-ocean experiments to c o n f i i the theoretical studies. The key
question is how far will the plume sink as a function of key system
parameters, such as the slope of the ocean floor and the initial plume
density.

A survey of sites off the coasts of the US, with properties conducive to a
successful implementation of the method, accessible by pipeline, or in the
open ocean, accessible by barges and tankers.

Development and design of injection methods/confinement structures to

induce dense plume formation in sim.

As the above feasibility issues are addressed, system studies need to be

done to determine the economics of the various Ocean disposal methods. For all
feasible options listed in Table 1, the system studies should include:
Determination of potential disposal sites for the U.S.

Identification of legal or political barriers to Ocean disposal.

Assessment of costs and barriers for transportation options between power

plants and disposal sites.

18
 Estimation of the residence times of the sequestered CO, and the effect
on short-term and long-term atmospheric CO, levels.
Economic evaluation of each option coupled to one or more capture
technologies to determine the cost in $ per tonne CO, avoided and the
relative price of electricity with capture and disposal compared to the no
capture case.

The final stage of research would require field testing of the prime
candidate or candidates determined by the feasibility and system studies outlined
above. This stage of the research will be much more costly than the earlier
studies, so it is important to resolve as many issues as possible in the previous
stages. Key research in this phase includes:
Construction of an experimental CO, disposal facility in the deep ocean to
field test best option or options of CO, disposal.

Study the impact on aquatic organisms of the released CO, (e.g. the
impact of the turbulent release plume, acidification, and/or hydrate
formation and sedimentation on the ocean floor), with a monitoring period
to extend at least 3 years.

4.2 Land Disposal

An alternative to sequestering CO, in the deep ocean is the long-term

storage or sequestering of CO, in underground repositories. Options include
storage in active or depleted oil and gas reservoirs, in deep, confined aquifers, and
in mined salt or rock cavities. The main issues are the volume available for
storage, the long term integrity of the storage, and the costs associated with CO,
transport to the disposal site and the disposal operation itself. Storage integrity is
important not only to prevent the unintended return of CO, to the atmosphere,
but also for concerns about public safety and the potential liability should there
be a catastrophic release. CO, gas is heavier than air and, if a large release were
to occur, it could displace air at the surface and cause asphyxiation.

Figure 5 shows the geographical distribution of gas reservoirs in the

continental U.S. Since many potential underground disposal sites in the U.S. are
distant from hi& population areas, a new CO, pipeline network will be needed to
connect power plants with suitable disposal sites. The costs and impacts of such a
pipeline network need to be considered as part of the disposal option.

19
 in d e p M oil and gm mewoh This appears to be the most
promising land disposal option. Because these reservoirs have already
demonstrated their ability to contain pressurized fluids for long periods of time,
their storage integrity for CO, is likely to be good. At the present rate of gas
usage, a volume that ideally could accommodate about 50% of the power plant
CO, production rate is being depleted continuously. Further, taking into account
our past oil and gas usage, these reservoirs have an additional CO, storage
potential of about 35 Gt. However, such reservoirs would require that old wells
be reopened and completely redrilled to gain access. The actual amount of their
original capacity that can be utilized effectively for CO, sequestering is uncertain
given that changes to the reservoir may have occurred due to water/brine
intrusion or geostructural alterations. The oil and gas industry has a great deal of
experience in the management and characteristics of such reservoir systems, but,
based on our discussions with some representatives, private industry would be
concerned about long term liability issues. In the Netherlands, a major project
presently is being developed to capture power plant CO, for disposal into a large
depleted gas field. Research needs include: information gathering with the direct
cooperation of oil and gas industry companies to identify specific storage locations
and capacities, system studies associated with pipelining CO, from power plants to
potential disposal locations, and some supporting research relating to reopening
old wells and the behavior of reinjected CO,. Some field testing to prove storage
integrity as well as refinements of economic estimates to lower uncertainties will
be needed.

Stonsge in &e oil ami gas resavoirs CO, from natural reservoirs is
presently used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in active oil wells. However,
these natural sources presently provide CO, at about one-third the costs of those
projected for CO, capture from power plants. In any event, the amount of CO,
that can be utilized for EOR is small compared to total CO, emissions.
Reinjection in active gas fields is not an attractive option because it will mix with
and dilute the natural gas and will return to the atmosphere when the natural gas
is used. While the basic technology exists for EOR, some additional research is
required on necessary modifications to EOR operations to achieve the not always
compatible goals of oil recovery and CO, storage.

Storqe in deep, w@kdaqrrifers CO, might be stored in deep, confined

saline aquifers that are well below those that communicate with surface waters or
that are used for drinking water supply. Here, the definition of "aquifers" is
expanded to include any deep formation, with sufficient permeability and porosity,
that is water-saturated. Injection of CO, into such aquifers would displace water
to provide CO, storage volume. There are many uncertainties about the
feasibility of this option. The aquifer should be located under a relatively

20
impermeable geologic structural cap to isolate it, but should also have good
permeability under the cap. The volumetric sweep efficiency behavior of CO, in
such an aquifer is important in determining the displacement behavior, as effects
of gravity segregation and "fingering" may limit the amount of volumetric storage
capacity. Energy companies have proprietary information that may help clarify
these technological concerns and may provide more accurate information on the
location of deep, confined aquifers in the US. Issues of liability will have to be
resolved before necessary industry cooperation is available. Estimates of potential
storage capacity for CO, in deep, confined aquifers range over several orders of
magnitude, with the upper estimates indicating very large storage potential.
Research needs consist of establishing the technical and economic feasibility of
storing CO,in deep, confined aquifers, including a survey of industry information
on the location and nature of such aquifers throughout the U.S., and supporting
research on the behavior of C 0 2 and displaced water in aquifer environments --
leakage, water and CO, migration and solubility effects, and the potential for
catastrophic release causing asphyxiation.

Stomge in mined salr domes or rock c u v m Costs associated with creating

storage volume are a major concern. Unless a major breakthrough in mining
costs occurs, the excavated rock cavern option is too expensive to be practical.
Salt domes can be excavated at more reasonable cost by solution mining.
However, in both cases, very large amounts of rock or brine would have to be
excavated, handled, and utilized or disposed of in an environmentally acceptable
manner. For these reasons, no priority research needs are identified.

Table 2 presents a summary of the major attributes of the land disposal

options in order of ranking. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are the best land
disposal option and have potential capacity to accommodate a significant fraction
of the power plant CO, generated in the U.S. While such fields are distributed
fairly broadly throughout the U.S.,there still would be need for an extensive new
pipeline network to carry CO, from power generating locations to the disposal
sites. Deep, confined saline aquifers might provide significant additional storage
capacity, but little is known at present about their behavior and holding capacity
for CO,. Further, environmental and safety issues will require resolution before
this option could be implemented. Salt and rock cavities require excavation and
involve costs that are significantly higher than the options discussed above.

There are several barriers that will constrain the development of land
disposal options. These include restrictions of technical and economic
information on oil and gas reservoirs due to industry proprietary data regulations,
anti-trust bans that restrict energy companies from sharing such data, and possible
concerns over the environmental, safety, and liability risks of long-term starage of
CO, (especially in aquifers or oil/gas reservoirs near populated areas).

21
 Table 2
Comparison of Land Disposal Options

Method Relative Feasibility

Integrity
Depleted Oil/Gas Moderate Good
Fields
Deep, Con€ined
Aquifers
Active Oil Wells
Mined Caverns/Salt
Domes
1 unknown unknown unknown

The NexfSteps

The next step is to bring together experts from industry, universities, and
government agencies, (particularly the USGS, USDOE, and BOM) in an
organized manner to facilitate the collection and evaluation of data for
quantitatively characterizing US-based CO, reservoir locations and capacities in
oil, gas, and saline aquifer systems. The significant amount of information that
has been collected on related areas of technology such as enhanced oil recovery
using CO, miscible flooding, natural gas storage in salt domes, rock cavities, and
aquifers, and compressed air energy storage in similar underground systems needs
to be carefully re-examined in the context of CO, disposal objectives. Emphasis
should be placed on reducing technical and economic uncertainties. The objective
here is to develop a land disposal R&D program that avoids repetition and builds
on the existing knowledge base.
Once an information base has been established, the next steps for research
into the gas and oil well option are:
. Perform a quantitative assessment of storage volume capacity at depleted
gas and oil field sites in the U.S. The study should be national in scope
and include strong input from the American Petroleum Institute (AH),the
American Gas Association (AGA), and the National Petroleum Council
(NPC).
Perform assessments of the storage integrity characteristics of depleted
fields and their suitability for re-opening to inject CO,. Determine how to
best "finish currently producing wells for future CO, storage.

22
 Establish a methodology for assessing the long term integrity and
ecological impacts of storage, as well as safety risks for underground
reservoir types.

Evaluate field data from existing gas storage applications to formulate

plans and carry out possible new tests to demonstrate required
characteristics needed for long-term storage in depleted reservoirs.

Conduct of a comprehensive systems study that considers power plant

designs, capacities, and locations in the U.S. and evaluates land disposal
options (technical feasibility and economics) based on specific plant
characteristics relative to the location and capacity of each disposal option.
Important issues involving the use of depleted oil and gas reservoirs are
related to volume availability over time and to scheduling production to
meet CO, storage needs.

Test modifications in EOR operations to maximize CO, sequestration as

well as oil recovery.

Because so little is known about the effects of introducing CO, into deep,
confined aquifers, considerable supporting research will be required to establish
the feasibility. Such research will include:

Develop a multi-component thermal simulation model to study pressure-

volume-temperature behavior within various reservoir types.

Conduct experimental and theoretical studies directed at improved

understanding of CO, /liquid displacement in porous media to help
stabilize the interface under adverse mobility and gravity conditions.

Characterize more quantitatively various types of geological reservoirs and

study in the field to establish CO, retention behavior as a function of time.

Study the effect of geochemical composition changes and temperature on

underground CO, storage (formation cooling and swelling, clay
dehydration, CO, absorption, etc.).

Laboratory evaluation of geochemical effects of CO, on host rock

integrity/strength, permeability and porosity, particularly as it relates to
rates of rock dissolution and mineral precipitation.

Experimental and theoretical studies of C0,-water pore scale effects

important to displacement, including the diffusion coefficient of CO, in
H,O, salinity effects, interfacial surface tension, etc.

23
 Study long term behavior of displaced water and CO, in aquifer
environments: leakage, water and CO, migration and solubility effects,
and catastrophic failure risk should be examined.

If the aquifer storage options appears feasible, future research needs will be:

A comprehensive survey of industrial and government data on the location

and nature of deep, confined aquifers throughout the U.S. that meet the
feasibility criteria.

An economic analysis of capital and operating costs for sequestering CO,

in deep, confined saline aquifers to refine estimated total cost ranges for
the U.S.

A field demonstration project.

4.3 Utilization

Currently, the U.S. industrial use of CO,is approximately 0.04 Gt per year,
equivalent to about 2% of the CO, produced by U.S. power plants. Therefore,
for utilization to be a significant sink of power plant CO, new uses need to be
identified. In terms of potential applications or products, just about any carbon-
bearing chemical can be considered -- from polymers and plastics to substitute
fuels like methanol or minerals like soda ash. However, implementing the
recycling of CO, has some serious drawbacks. CO, is in a fully oxidized energy
state after combustion energy has been utilized. To reduce CO, to carbon
requires about 80% of the energy that is generated from burning a typical coal.
Also, many of the potential uses for recycled CO, will tie up the CO, for only a
short period of time before releasing it to the atmosphere.

Enhmrced oil Recovery. Over 80% of the current use of CO, is in oil and
gas operations, primarily enhanced oil recovery (EOR). This use is supplied by
inexpensive (=$lO/tonne delivered) natural sources from CO, gas wells. Since the
research needs associated with EOR have much more in common with the land
disposal options than the utilization options listed below, they have been discussed
in Section 4.2.

Plastics Less than a dozen 1OO0 MW, power plants generate a weight of
CO, equal to the entire U.S. production of plastics. If plastic or chemical
manufacturers wanted to use CO, as a feedstock, pure and inexpensive sources of

24
CO, are available now. Therefore, recycling into plastics or other products offers
only a small potential market relative to CO, power plant production.

Chemid w m d n t o w Any fuel produced by synthesis from CO,

would reduce the need for virgin fossil fuels, thereby reducing the rate of
conversion of geologic CO, to atmospheric CO,. Most fuel synthesis schemes
involve reaction of CO, with H,, which must be generated with some energy
expenditure. To avoid production of CO, in the H, generation process, a non-
fossil energy source, like solar or nuclear power, is required. However, the
primary energy needed to produce the H, by electrolysis and convert the CO,will
be about six times the energy in the synthesized fuel. Considering this high
energy penalty, it appears preferable to use the non-fossil electricity to displace
fossil fuel from power plants, and avoid the CO, emissions directly.

produdion of bwmuwficeL Biological species utilize sunlight to convert

CO, and water photosynthetically, in the presence of nutrients, to biomass. The
biomass would then be used as an alternative to virgin fossil fuels. Of all the
types of biomass evaluated for direct flue gas utilization, microalgae appear to
offer the best performance. They can currently achieve a solar energy conversion
efficiency of about 3-5%, generally higher than other forms of biomass. The
theoretical efficiency limit is about 10%. In a typical scheme, power plant flue
gas would be distributed to shallow ponds for microalgae growth. Microalgae
would be harvested essentially continuously and converted to methane and
substitutes for diesel fuel ("biodiesel"). For a 500 MW, power plant, the algal
pond area required would be around 5,OOO hectares (20 square miles or 50 square
kilometers) of relatively flat land adjacent to the plant. Algae both capture and
convert the CO,,but because of diurnal and seasonal cycles only about one-third
of the total flue gas CO, is actually converted to biomass. Such facilities also
require warm climates and water, which further limit the extent of potential use.
For the U.S.,microalgae biomass growth could only be used in practice to capture
a few percent of the total U.S. power plant CO,production. Finally, if an equal
area were dedicated to solar panels to use the sunlight otherwise used for algal
photosynthesis, much higher conversion efficiencies are available with fewer
constraints.

Table 3 compares the pluses and minuses of the utilization options

discussed above. The column titled Relative Energy Efficiency refers to the fact
that these utilization options are energy intensive and rates how efficiently the
energy inputs are used compared to appropriate alternative uses. In general,
inefficient energy use translates into high costs.

25
 Tabie 3
Comparison of CO, Utilization Options

Options Relative Relative Residence

Capacity Energy Tilne
Efficiencv
Plastics Production VerySmall Lower Moderate
Conversion to fuel Large Much Long
Lower
Production of Biomass Fuel Small Lower Long

While some CO, niche utilization may be part of a larger picture, none of
the utilization options reviewed offers a major solution to the sequestering of
power plant CO,. Therefore, research funds for the capture and sequester of
power plant CO, will yield better results if they are targeted elsewhere.

4.4 Capture/Modified Combustion Systems

The options for capturing CO, from fossil fuel-fired power plants have
been evaluated for this study within the context of technologies that optimistically
might be demonstrated on a commercial scale for the electric power industry over
the next twenty years. Considering the long operating life of power plants, many
of the plants now in operation will still be in use twenty years hence. If CO, is to
be captured from existing plant designs, retrofit capture technologies are of
interest. However, as older plants are replaced with new, more efficient plants,
opportunities may exist for s i m c a n t improvements through integration of
evolving CO, capture technologies with advanced power generation cycles to
minimize associated inefficiencies and costs.

For purposes of this study, we are assuming that new power generation
technology will be used only after it has been developed to be cost competitive
with existing technologies. Thus we focus only on the incremental energy
penalties and costs associated with the CO, capture.

Supporting information for this summary is contained in Chapter 5 (CO,

Capture from Conventional Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants) and Chapter 6 (CO,
Capture from Advanced Combustion/Gasification Based Power Plants) of Volume 2.

26
 Rebvjit of Exkthg F& Fuel F a Power PIants Conventional,
predominantly coal-fired, power plants produce flue gas streams with a CO,
concentration around 15%. The remainder of the flue gas is nitrogen (about
75%), some excess oxygen (a few percent depending on the combustion
conditions), water (about 6-lo%), and trace impurities. Today, stack gases are
treated to remove some of the undesirable trace impurities (e.g. particulates, SO,
and NO,) to meet environmental standards. Water can be removed, if necessary.
The major challenge in CO, removal is its separation from nitrogen.

One approach to the separation is to "scrub" the CQ, from the stack gases.
A variety of physical and chemical separation processes are candidates for this
application. The chemical solvent monoethanolamine (MEA) has been used for
removal of lower concentrations of CO, from other gas streams and appears to be
the only currently available system for retrofit purposes. For a typical coal-fired
plant, MEA capture of CO, is likely to involve an energy penalty of about 35%
(assuming the steam required is cogenerated) and will approximately double the
cost of electricity (Booras and Smelser, 1991). For natural gas-fired plants, some
studies suggest an energy penalty of about 10% may be attainable (Suda et d,
1992). The MEA plant would require about the same land area as the original
power plant, which may be a barrier in retrofitting some plants. In general, if the
power plant is fueled with coal, the flue gas will have to be scrubbed to remove
the bulk of the SO, from the flue gas before it reaches the MEA solution. There
are several CO, capture plants in operation today which provide CO, for
industrial use. All these plants use MEA technology.

An alternative approach is to remove nitrogen from air prior to the

combustion process. In a retrofit, a cryogenic air separation plant, occupying
relatively little land, would be installed next to the power plant to produce a fairly
pure oxygen (0,)stream for combustion. The flue gas would then contain CO,
and water, with some nitrogen among the trace components. To maintain thermal
conditions in the combustion zone and prevent overheating of the furnace liner
materials, some of the flue gas could be recycled. This technique has been
evaluated in a small industrial stoker-fired boiler at Black Hills Power and Light
Company, Rapid City, South Dakota (Kumar et d , 1987 and Sparrow et al., 1988)
and an especially-assembled 10 million Btu/hr facility in Irvine, California owned
by Energy and Environmental Research Corp. (Abele et d,1987). Most power
boilers are operated at slight negative pressure and do not limit air inleakage.
Thus, some sealing and conversion to pressurized operation would be required.
Coal handling and insertion would require modifications, and particulate control
would require reevaluation. Trace impurities would end up in the CQ, effluent
stream and might be suitable for disposition with the COP Since mandated SO,
and NO, emission controls already add 10-25% to the cost of producing electricity

27
and consume up to 7% of the plant’s electricity output (NAPAP, 1990), this could
be counted as a credit toward the C02 control costs. The transportation and
disposal system would have to be tolerant of these acid gases. This technique has
energy penalties of about 30% and would increase electricity cost by about 80%
without the acid gas removal credit and assuming no problems from air inleakage.

Several other methods have been proposed to capture CO, from flue gas,
including cryogenic fractionation, membrane separation, and molecular sieves. As
shown in Table 4, the energy penalty of these processes are higher, and the net
CO, reduction is lower, so they are not likely to be competitive with either the
amine scrubbing or the flue gas recycling technologies. A major reason is that all
these technologies require energy-intensive flue gas compression. More details on
these processes are given in Chapter 5, Volume 2.

The cost projections reported in Volume 2 (including CO, compression

and drying, but excluding disposal) show MEA scrubbing costing $61 per tonne of
CO,avoided and oxygen with flue gas recycle costing $53 per tonne of CO,
avoided. The latter number is very sensitive to the energy requirements for 0,
production. In this report, a value of 250 kWhJtonne 0, is used. While these
numbers show that the flue gas recycling plant can potentially be more
economical and energy-efficient, only MEA scrubbing has been proved
commercially feasible at the present time.

Research that would be needed to develop retrofit technologies includes:

system studies to refine the tradeoffk between the MEA and air separation/flue
gas recycling options, supporting research to improve MEA absorption systems for
this application (or to find a better absorbent), and further demonstration projects
to assess the practicality of converting present power plants to 0, combustion with
flue gas recycling, with particular emphasis on the effect of recycle on the fate of
NO, SO, and trace contaminants.

CO,GqtureM Emerging P o w Gt~umtwn

* Tachndogies New
conventional power plants that will be built over the next decade will have higher
energy efficiencies and will allow provision for heat and work integration of any
associated capture technology. Many of these plants will involve improvements on
the power generation side, for example, use of supercritical steam. For such
plants, the combustion process is basically the same and the same capture
technologies as used in the retrofit case are suitable. A new plant could be
designed to prevent air inleakage if combustion in 0, with flue gas recycle is used.
For MEA, some modest cost savings would be achieved for a new plant versus a
retrofit because the turbine could be designed orginally to provide extraction
steam.

28
 Table 4
Comparison of Cot Capture Technologies for Existing Coal-Fired Plants

Process Energy Nominal CO, Net Reduction

Penalty'') Recovery of CO,
(96) Emissions
(% of Base
Case)(,)
Base Case -- 0 0 0
No CO,
Removal
Air Separation 30 100 100
FG Recycling"
Amine 35 90 84.6
Scrubbing with
Cogenerated
Steamb ~

Molecular 80 90 50
Sieves'
Cryogenic 75 90 60
Fractionationa
Membrane 63 80 46
Separationa

Sources:

"Herzog et aL (1991)
bBooras and Smelser (1991)
'Fulkerson et aL (1990)

(''100% x (a-b)/a, where a = net power plant output with no CO, controls
and b = net power plant output with CO, controls. Includes CO, compression to
about 130 atm for the CO, capture plant.
(2)100%x [l - c(1-d)], where c is the ratio of fossil fuel burned in the capture
case to the no capture base case for equivalent net power outputs (calculated as
1/(1 - e), where e is the energy penalty expressed as a fraction) and d is the
nominal recovery expressed as a fraction.
29
 Integrated gasification - combined cycle (IGCC) power plants are being
evaluated and designed at the present time. IGCC plants first involve a
gasification step, in which fuel is partially reacted with 0, under pressure to
produce a synthesis gas (mainly CO and H,). Next, for CO, capture, after
removal of impurities that might foul the catalyst, the synthesis gas is reacted with
steam in a shift reactor to produce CO, and H,. The CO, and H, are then
separated. The hydrogen can be burned with air to extract further C0,-free
energy. The CO, stream is available for use or disposal. Since CO, is removed at
high pressure in an IGCC plant (as opposed to atmospheric pressure in most
existing plants), the energy penalty compared to MEA scrubbing, can be greatly
reduced by using a physical absorbent like Selexol. Projected energy penalties
from IGCC plants of 13% (Hendriks et al., 1991) and 20% (Booras and Smelser,
1991) have been reported.

An oxygen-based IGCC power plant with CO, capture by Selexol is now in

the planning stages in the Netherlands. The cost projection reported in Volume 2
(including CO, compression and drying, but excluding disposal) is $23 per tonne
of CO, avoided for an IGCC process.

There are several opportunities for improvements in the efficiency of the

gasification plant. These include: possible reduction in the cost of separation of
CO,through use of physical separation processes (e.g. membranes) that can take
advantage of the high pressures present in a gasifier; incorporation of a CO,
turbine to combust in 0, and recycled flue gas; reduction in the cost of oxygen
production through the integration of a temperature swing cycle with a high
temperature gasification cycle; and utilization of the gasified and cleaned fuel
stream in new advanced cycles as they come to maturity.

Research needs include: development of improved high-temperature

membranes for H,/CO, separation; system and design studies to identify
technologies and integrated configurations that minimize the energy and cost
requirements for CO, recovery from new power plants; and supporting research
on materials for impurity-resistant catalysts.

&dTechn0lbgie.s Power technologies are evolving so that within

two decades power plants may be introduced that can use the hydrogen rich fuel
gas from the gasifier/shift-reactor/CO,-separator in fuel cells, MHD, or other
advanced cycles. These technologies are likely to yield higher energy efficiencies
and further reduce the penalties associated with CO, capture.

Integration of some 0, separation techniques could potentially reduce the

energy requirement of the separation process. For example, integration of a
temperature swing chemical cycle for 0, separation with a high temperature fuel
cell or gasification process could result in significant reduction in the overall

30
energy penalty of the separation process. It is possible to conceive new power
cycles and systems and to modify existing ones to accommodate CO, recovery.
For example, it may be possible to take advantage of the internal separation
capability of the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell to keep the N, away from the CO,
containing stream.

While research on these advanced technologies per se is not considered

here, the related CO, capture research need for advanced technologies is to
conduct system and design studies that focus on the best ways to integrate CO,
capture into these new power technologies with the least cost and energy
requirements.

A first step in prioritizing research needs is to decide whether or not there

will be a need to retrofit CO, capture technology on existing power plants. The
argument for developing retrofit technology is that many existing plants will
remain in the generation grid for several decades into the future. Given the long
life of power stations, the difficulties of obtaining greenfield sites, the cost of
associated infrastructure -- power transmission lines, rail delivery facilities,
natural gas pipelines, etc. -- it seem that a large proportion of any technical
facilities aimed at CO, mitigation would have to be in some way integrated into
the existing power generation infrastructure and would not be 100% based on
greenfield installations.

The arguments against pursuing retrofit options include: the higher

energy penalties and cost penalties for retrofit compared to repowering with new
technologies integrating capture, and the limited land area available at many
power plants for installing a capture plant that, in the case of MEA,is
approximately as large as the original power plant itself. Because retrofits will
require 30-35% additional energy for CO, capture, extra energy capacity will have
to be provided if electricity demand remains constant. If this capacity must be
provided by new plants and if these capture CO, with less cost and energy
penalty, restricting CO, capture to new plants may be the most sensible approach.

If retrofits are needed, the key research needs are:

9
Comparative studies for different types of existing power plant designs
between amine scrubbing and the air separation/flue gas recirculation options.
9
Exploration of the potential for improved energy efficiency through
better absorption technology.

31
 Survey of specific power plant sites to assess suitability for retrofit and
to develop better estimates of cost, efficiency and land availability.

For new plants based on conventional combustion processes, the key

research needs are:

System studies of the amine and 5ue gas recirculation retrofit

technologies applied to new designs where heat integration and
prevention of air inleakage can be incorporated fully into the basic
design. Also, for CO, recycle plants, determine the effect of co-
capturing the SO, and NO, on pipeline and disposal operations.

For natural gas-€ired power plants, determine the feasibility of

increasing the energy efficiency of CO, capture by using high
concentration (50 wt% or more) MEA solutions, and compare this
high concentration MEA process with CO, removal from reformed
natural gas (a H2/C02mixture) prior to combustion.

For new power plants based on IGCC technology, key research needs are:

System and design studies of IGCC systems with CO, capture,

including:
- alternatives for H, separation technologies (physical absorption,
membranes, etc.)
- opportunities for heat and work integration
- possibility of CO,/H,S co-capture and the effect on pipeline and
disposal operations

Supporting research on high temperature separation membranes.

Supporting research on improved impurity-resistant shift catalysts.

For advanced technologies based on utilization of the €3, from a

gasifier/shift reactor/CO, separator, the key research need is:

Systems studies on the integration of capture with new power

technologies, such as particular types of fuel cells or other advanced
cycles.

32
 For all these technologies, an additional research need is associated with
CO, transportation requirements:
Survey of specific power plant sites and associated disposal pipelining
requirements.

Analysis of pipeline barrier issues.

4.5 Advanced Concepts

Although this research needs assessment study is focused on CO, capture

and sequestration technologies that might be implemented within a twenty year
time horizon, some longer range concepts were considered.

iutrercll- One possibility is to react the CO, with hydroxides

(e.g., calcium hydroxide formed by dissolving limestone) or natural brines to form
solid carbonates that can be stored. While theoretically feasible, these options
involve huge materials handling problems as well as major environmental
problems associated with large requirements for acidic waste disposal.

O@hum Power Plan& with Dired Ocerm DiqmuL If deep ocean disposal
becomes a favored option for CO,sequestration, it might be possible to construct
a floating offshore power plant over an ocean disposal site to avoid CO,
pipelining. However, power lines will be required to transport electricity ashore
and fuel will have to be shipped to the power plant. Floating power plants
designed to withstand severe storms and other extreme events are likely to be
more costly than CO, pipelining for ocean disposal.

Precombustion TreahnsrtofcoaL Another option is to treat a fossil fuel

prior to its combustion into a hydrogen-rich fraction that can be burned with little
emission of CO, and %carbon-rich fraction that can be sequestered. An example
is the HYDROCARE3 process (Grohse and Steinberg, 1987). In this process,
coal is hydrogenated to form methane and carbon monoxide, with the carbon
monoxide further reacted with hydrogen to form methanol. The methanol can be
used to lower some CO, emissions by replacing gasoline in the transportation
sector. The methane can be thermally decomposed to form carbon black (for
sequestering) and hydrogen.

While this concept appears attractive, only about 20% of the energy in a
typical coal is associated with the hydrogen content, so there is not enough non-

33
carbon energy available to make this a viable process. There are variations on
this concept that involve co-firing methane and biomass to produce methanol and
carbon black, but serious questions still remain on the practical feasibility of this
process and the process appears infeasible for coal. Therefore, no research needs
are indicated within the scope of this study.

Mficial Photosynfhesk Natural conversion of C02to carbohydrates by

plants utilizes solar energy at energy conversion efficiencies of about 1-3% with a
maximum potential of about 10% for microalgae. Photovoltaics convert solar
energy to electricity with efficiencies of 10-15%, with potential for 25% or more.
However, researchers are exploring the possibility of developing catalysts that
might have even higher solar energy conversion efficiencies. This research is very
basic and long term; no research needs are identified within the scope of this
project.

The N& Steps

Because of feasibility issues or the very long range nature of the advanced
concepts considered, no priority research needs were identified within the scope
of this project.

34
 CHAPTER 5

PROJECTED COSTS OF CO, CAPTURE AND DISPOSAL

Table 5 presents projected costs of various CO, capture and disposal

methods. Since many of these technologies are not commercial, a high degree of
uncertainty is associated with these costs. These costs should be viewed as the
probable range to be expected based on research outlined in this report.

Except for the gas turbine combined cycle (GTCC) power plant, the costs
in Table 5 are based on the analysis presented in Volume 2. The capture costs
include CO,compression and dehydration. The disposal costs include
transportation. Disposal costs were given as a range, with the lower end based on
disposal in depleted gas wells. For the upper end, a nominal value was chosen,
but there is no real upper limit to disposal costs.

In Table 5, the case involving CO, recycle technology will have essentially
no CO, emissions. All the other cases will have CO, emission levels equivalent to
about 10.15% at a typical pulverized coal-fired (PC) power plant. These CO,
emission levels reflect the following three factors, which may vary for each of the
cases described in Table 5:

Carbon content of the fuel

Efficiency of power cycle

Efficiency of the capture process

The GTCC plant with MEA capture, the PC plant with MEA capture, and the PC
plant with CO, recycle all have similar costs in $/tonne CO, captured, indicating
similar capture process efficiencies. However, the GTCC plant has the smallest
effect on electricity cost due primarily to the reduced carbon content of the fuel.
The two cases based on emerging technology (Le. IGCC and fuel cells) have both
relatively low CO, avoidance costs and electricity price increases due to relatively
high efficiencypower cycles and CO, capture processes.

Figure 6 plots $/tonne CO, avoided for the five capture scenarios, each
assuming assuming three levels of disposd costs: zero, moderate ($15/tonne CO,
captured), and high ($50/tonne CO, captured). For reference, the level of a
carbon tax currently in force in Norway is also shown ($50/tonne CO,).

35
 Table 5
Projected Costs of CO, Capture and Disposal

Capture cost of Increase in

Technology Capture(') cost of
($/tonne CO, Electri~ity'~)
captured)

Gas Turbine MEA 0.36 33 1.4 0.6 - 2.2 40 - 70%

Combined
oc1e(5)
Pulverized MEA 0.79 37 4.8 1.9 - 6.5 -
130 230%
CoaP ~

Pulverized CO, Recycle 0.93 35 4.9 2.0 - 6.7 140 - 230%

Coal(')
Integrated Shift/ 0.76 18 1.7 1.5 - 4.9 60 - 130%
Coal Selexol
Gasification
Combined

Coal Shift/ 0.49 21 1.1 0.8 - 2.7 40% - 80%

Gasification/ Membrane
Fuel Cellso
(')Includes costs for compression (to over 100 bars) and dehydration.
(')Includes transportation costs.
(3)Basedon nominal range of $15-50/tonne CO, disposed.
(''Base electricity cost of 5u/kW4 assumed for all cases.
"Based on Bolland and Saetber (1992).
("Based on analysis in Chapter 5, Volume 2.
(')Based on analysis in Chapter 6, Volume 2.
E

37
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS

Specific conclusions are as follows:

1. To implement CO, uzptwe and sequedmtron

’ onamiiod&wiadaaeose
p O W p h t P & ? t ~ d ~ ~ t h i ? ~ O f ~
To makempwuibksocietcllde&iom, cuxwafe and ~ e c o n o m i c d
-m*Ofaaalfemaav es fov almt.WpM CO,minig.lrtiolt are
reQuired All capture and sequestration options consume additional energy,
thus lowering a power plant’s fuel to electricity efficiency. This creates
more CO, per unit of net electricity to capture and sequester. The cost
estimates and energy penalties for CO, capture and sequestration are
relatively high (see Tables 4 and 5). For coal-fired power plants, known
retrofit technologies, together with disposal, would more than double or
triple the cost of electricity. Advanced power cycles promise to provide
CO, capture that, together with disposal, would increase the cost of
electricity by 50-100%. However, CO, capture and disposal is just one of
many options that can reduce atmospheric CO, levels (see Figure 1) and
that must be evaluated on a common basis. While other mitigation options,
including conservation and fuel switching, are likely to be pursued first,
research on the capture and sequestration option could be advisable should
major mitigation of CO, emissions become necessary.

2. commercral * CO,capture tec€uww though

, expensbe and energy
adsts totiby. CO, capture plants are in operation today using MEA
scrubbing to produce CO, for industrial utilization. Research still needs to
be done on advanced capture methods for new types of power plants (e.g.
IGCC), but the basic technology is well understood. The development time
required would be relatively short (3-5years), and commercial companies
would undertake the task if a commercial incentive were present.

3. The mostpmmisbgqpmach fo more economical c0,capture is to develop

p o w e r plmtt systems that f m a t e efficient CO, caphrre. Retrofitting existing
coal-fired power plants will result in large energy penalties and large
investments. The best retrofit technology commercially available today has
an energy penalty of 35%. New integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) power plants have higher base efficiencies than existing coal-fired
power plants and can have energy penalties of 20% or less. Advanced
power cycles (e.g., combined cycle fuel cells) promise to have still higher
base efficiencies as well as lower penalties for CO, capture. Higher base
efficiencies require less C 0 2 to be captured per kwh, produced. Finally,

38
 new plants can potentially be sited taking into account the methods of
disposal. Based on new plants like IGCC becoming competitive with
today's pulverized coal-fired power plants, research priorities should favor
capture methods to be used in conjunction with these new plants. This
does not preclude research on methods for retrofitting of existing plants.

4. while co,/lispasalin& p M d a n d g a s m is f&k tiduy, the

ability to dispase of lmge qumrtities of COZ is highly wK'Rlf4m - becmcseofbdh
tachnicalandinrfiftctionalissuer. D i p s a l i n t o t h e & e p o c e a n o r ~
aqu$i offersthepotedal fwliarge qumrtiiy dipma&but there m fechnicalj
*e,mw, and- irsuestoresdve. l h ? E f ~ t h e ~
p h i t y rtzsazh shouldfoacs OIL e l i s ! @ the feadsty of @$? scale
dispaud options No viable large-scale CO, disposal option is ready today.
Storage of CO, in depleted gas wells is fairly straightforward, but the
storage capacity and locations of disposal sites relative to generation sites
requires definition using industry-supplied data. It is unlikely that a major
fraction of power plant-generated CO, can be disposed of efficiently in this
manner. The more ubiquitous options - disposal in deep, confined aquifers
or disposal in the deep ocean -- have many unknowns and will require
significant research over a fairly long time-frame (10-20 years). Disposal in
the deep ocean offers large potential capacity and residence times in the
range of a hundred to a thousand years for disposal depths of 500 m and
below. Deposition on the deep ocean floor would further increase
residence times. However, injection at depths below about lo00 m would
stretch present technology and much research is needed to develop a
workable system for ocean disposal. This weak link (e.g. feasibility of large-
scale CO, disposal) requires the highest priority for research funds.

5. Landwocemr~willrsquiretobelte.rundersrcmd
-impacts Evenwithsuchinji~thepublicmaybe
relirdmrt to accept s u m dispasal oprionr Environmental impacts for
disposal in depleted oil or gas reservoirs should be minimal, since the CO,
will be replacing pressurized hydrocarbon gases or liquids that originated in
the same place that will be used for disposal. While it seems that either
deep Ocean or deep, confined aquifer disposal should be environmentally
acceptable, much research will be needed to c o n f i i this fact. For
example, local effects near injection sites in the Ocean raises questions
about the ecological impact of Ocean disposal. For land disposal, concerns
about the possibility of a large accidental release of CO, must be
addressed.

39
6. while tmqpt&o n o f w m liquid C0,hm been d&omtmtei&
impOrtmrt hinvolvingcmt, sajkty, liability, and institutional baniers to
ling scale dephyment remain Transportation issues inherent in the CO,
capture and sequestration option have been identified, but have not been
considered in detail. Each 500 MW, coal-fired power plant would require a
pipe of about a 20-inch diameter to transport the compressed, liquid CO, to
a disposal site. While individual CO, pipelines for EOR use are
operational and their costs are known, there are right-of-way and other
significant barriers to developing a major new CO, pipeline network.
Because CO, is heavier than air and an asphyxiant in high concentrations,
transport safety concerns in populated areas must be addressed.

7. Indivimcal optionrfolIcsingcaptwedpwerplmtt C0,h an &emate fuel, 4s

anuldusmd * f ~ ~ ~ a r a n ~ g r o w f h e n h m r c e r m e n d
pmisiqg forsequatr&n of si@jhnt rmtounfs of CO, These either have
too limited an applicability or require too much energy to be considered as
viable options for reducing atmospheric CO, levels. Industrial or biological
utilization can optimistically handle in the neighborhood of 5% of the 1.7
Gt of CO,produced annually from U.S. power plants. Converting CO, to a
fuel by chemical means would require a significant energy source that could
be used several fold more efficiently by directly serving power plant end-
markets. Converting CO, to a fuel using solar energy input to microalgae
ponds could also be done much more efficiently for the same land area
using solar panels (without major constraints on land location/availability,
water availability and climatic conditions). For these reasons, research
investment in specialized utilization areas is not recommended as part of a
program to develop large scale sequestration options. However, such
research might well be valuable for reasons outside the scope of this
project.

40
 CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

Abele, A.R., G.S. Kindt, W.D. Clark, R. Payne and S.L. Chen, An Experimental
'I

Program to Test the Feasibility of Obtaining Normal Performance from

Combustors Using Oxygen and Recycled Gas instead of Air,"ANL Report
ANL-CNSV-TM-204, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL (1987).

Baes, C.F. Jr., S.E.Beall, and D.W. Lee, 'The Collection, Disposal, and Storage of
Carbon Dioxide," Interactions of Energy and Climate (W. Bach, J. Pankrath, and
J. Williams, E&.), pp. 495-519, D. Reidel Publishing Co. (1980).

I Blok, K., University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, personal communication (1993).

Blok, K., W.C. Turkenburg, C.A. Hendriks arid M.Steinberg, "Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Carbon Dioxide Removal," Energy Conversion
and Management, 33(5-8) (1992).
I Bolland, 0. and S. Saether, "New Concepts for Natural Gas Fired Power Plants
which Simplify the Recovery of Carbon Dioxide," Energy Conversion mrd
~
Management, 33(5-8), pp. 467-475 (1992).

Booras, G.S. and S.C.Smelser, "AnEngineering and Economic Evaluation of CO,

Removal from Fossil-Fuel-Fired Power Plants," Energy, 16(11/ 12), pp. 1295-1305
(1991).

I Dunsmore, H.E., "AGeological Perspective on Global Warming and the

Possibility of Carbon Dioxide Removal as Calcium Carbonate Mineral," Energy
Conversion and Management, 33(5-8), pp. 565-572 (1992).

Fulkerson, W., R.R. Judkins, and M.K.Sanghvi, "Energy from Fossil Fuels,"
Scientific American, 263(3), pp. 128-135 (1990).

Grohse, E.W. and M. Steinberg, "Economical Clean Carbon and Gaseous Fuels
from Coal and other Carbonaceous Raw Materials," BNL 40485, Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Upton, NY (1987).

Haugen, P.M. and H. Drange, "Sequestration of CO, in the Deep Ocean by

Shallow Injection," Nature 357, pp. 318-320 (1992).

41
Hendriks, C., K. Blok, and W.C. Turkenburg, 'Technology and Cost of Recovering
and Storing Carbon Dioxide from an Integrated-Gasifier, Combined-Cycle Plant,"
Energy, 16(11/12), pp. 1277-1293 (1991).

Hendriks, C., J. Farla and K. Blok, "Verwijdering en Opslag van CO, bij
Elektriciteitsopwekng," (in Dutch), study prepared for the Dutch Electricity
Generation Board (1992).

Herzog, H., D. Golomb, and S. Zemba, "Feasibility, Modeling, and Economics of

Sequestering Power Plant CO, Emissions in the Deep Ocean," Environmental
Progress, 10(1), pp. 64-74 (1991).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change -- The IPCC

Scien@c Assessment, edited by Houghton, J.T., G.T. Jenkins, and J J. Ephraums,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1990).

Kumar, R., T. Fuller, R. Kocourek, G. Teats, J. Young, K. Myles and A. Wolsky,

"Tests to Produce and Recover Carbon Dioxide by Burning Coal in Oxygen and
Recycling Flue Gas," ANL Report ANGCNSV-61, Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, IL (1987).

Liro, C.R., E.E. Adams, and H. Herzog, "Modeling the Release of CO, in the
Deep Ocean," Energy Conversion and Management, 33(5-8), pp. 667-674 (1992).

Marchetti, C., "On Geoengineering and the CO, Problem," Climatic Change, 1,
pp. 59-68, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht-Holland (1977).

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), Technorogies and

Other Measures for Controlling Emissions: Performmce, Costs and Applicability,
Report 25, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1990).

Nihous, G.C., Y. Mori, S. M. Masutani, LA. Vega and C.M. Kinoshita, "Projected
Impact of Deep Ocean Carbon Dioxide Discharge on Atmospheric CO,
Concentrations," Proceedings of the 27th Iiztersociety Energy Conversion Energy
Conference, San Diego August (1992a).

Nihous, G.C., Y. Mori, S.M. Masutani, LA.Vega, and C.M. Kinoshita, "A
Strategy to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Hydrcarbon-Fueled Power
Plants by Pre-Combustion Reforming and Deep Ocean Discharge of CO,," in
Proceedings of the 9th World Hydrogen E n e w Conference held in Paris, France,
June 22-25 (1992b).

42
.
Rubin, E.S.,R.N. Cooper, R.A. Frosch, T.H. Lee, G. Marland, AH. Rosenfeld
and D.D. Stine, "Realistic Mitigation Options for Global Warming," Science, 257,
pp. 148 ff. (1992).

Sparrow, F.T., A.M. Wolsky, G.F. Berry, C. Brooks, T.B. Cobb, E.P. Lynch, DJ.
Jankowski, and E.W. Walbridge, "Carbon Dioxide from Flue Gases for Enhanced
Oil Recovery," ANL Report ANGCNSV-65, Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne IL (1988).

Suda, T., M. Fujii, K. Yoshida, M. Iijima, T. Seto and S. Matsuoka, "Development

of Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Recovery Technology," Energy Conversion and
Management, 33(5-8), pp. 317-324 (19%).

Wilson, T.R.S., 'The Deep Ocean Disposal of Carbon Dioxide," Energy Conversion
and Management, 33(5-8), pp. 627-633 (1992).

43
 APPENDIX A

WORLDWIDE RESEARCH ACFMTIES

There is significant research on CO, fixation and utilization currently

underway in Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, the U.K, Germany, Canada,and
elsewhere. In forming a U.S.research program, it is important to be aware of this
research and learn from their results. In some cases, joint programs could be
appropriate. In this section, some of the worldwide research activities are
documented.

111 Japan

The acknowledged leader in research on CO,fixation and utilization is

Japan. However, it is very important to put this research in perspective in
relation to the broader field of global change research. On the surface, it appears
that the Japanese spend 3-4 times as much money as the U.S. on global change
research ($955 million in FY91 for the U.S. versus $3,480 million for Japan at
130 Y per dollar). However the Japanese include items Like nuclear energy and
acid rain research under their global change umbrella. When compared on an
equal basis, the U.S. actually spends slightly more than Japan on global change
research (Takahashi, 1991). The major difference between Japan and the U.S. is
in their emphasis - the U.S. emphasizes global change science, while Japan funds
more engineering research directed at mitigation. In the field of global change
engineering, (Le., technical countermeasures including renewable energy,
conservation, COz fixation and utilization, etc.), Japan’s research budget is about
$600 million versus $300 million for the U.S.

Focusing in on the topic of this assessment, CO, fixation and utilization,

Japan’s research budgets for the latest fiscal year was about $22 million compared
to less than $1million for the U.S. The Japanese research program into CO,
fixation and utilization is very comprehensive. There are research projects in all
areas of the problem including CO, capturelcycle modification, ocean disposal,
land disposal, and utilization. The areas in which the Japanese program is at the
forefront are ocean disposal and utilization. Ocean disposal is important to Japan
because of their close proximity to the deep Ocean and lack of land disposal
options.

44
 The focus of Japan's research in CO, fixation and utilization is RITE
(Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth). Established in July
1990 and subsidized by MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry),
RITE is an international center for research and communication. Over the next
decade, RITE plans to spend $123 million on CO, fixation by microalgae and $77
million on catalytic hydrogeneration of COB which includes research on selectively
permeable membranes for CO, capture (Myers, 1992).

MITI also funds research through a system of ~ t i o n alaboratories

i
administered by the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology (AIST). Last
year, AIST supported about $1.6 million of research in the following areas
(Shindo et aL, 1992):

CO,fixation by artificial photosynthesis

CO, fixation by algae
CO, fixation by coral reefs
CO, sequestering in the deep ocean
CO, recovery technology
CO,monitoring technology
Biodegradable chemicals
Decomposition of methane

The government also sponsored $0.4 million of university research last year.

In addition to government programs, the private sector, including electric

power companies, gas companies, and heavy industries (e.g., Mitsubishi, Hitachi,
MI), has significant research programs for CO, fixation and utilization. As an
example, below the research being funded by "EPCO (Tokyo Electric Power
Company), the world's largest private electric power company, is described.
TEPCO has created a Global Environment Department in their Engineering
Research Center and a CO, Removal Technology Laboratory at their Yokosuka
Thermal Power Station. Their research focuses on the following 6 areas:

Chemical absorption (MEA)

Physical adsorption (zeolites)
CO, hydrate formation
CO, dissolution and dispersion in the deep ocean
CO,membrane separation
Biotechnological fixation of CO, (microalgae)

Additional research is being conducted at the Central Research Institute of

the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI). They are focussing on the development of
new clean power generation technologies, as well as on CO, capture from power
plants and Ocean disposal.

45
 In the proceedings of the First International conference on Carbon
Dioxide Removal, 18 papers from Japan were published. Their topical areas
provides some additional insights on Japan's research interests:

2 general
6 utilization (4 chemical, 2 biological)
4 ocean disposal (2 on clathrates, 2 on dissolution/dispersion)
3 recovery (2 on MEA, one on O2combustion)
2 land disposal (EOR, aquifers/gas web)
1 HYDROCARB process

A.2 The Netherlands

The Netherlands have taken a leadership role in research on CO, capture

and sequestration. Even though their research programs are much more modest
than those of the Japanese, both in terms of expenditures and scope, their efforts
have been highly visible. One key research group is headed by Prof. Wim
Turkenburg and Dr. Kornelis Blok in the Department of Science, Technology, and
Society at the University of Utrecht. It was this group that organized the First
International Conference on Carbon Dioxide Removal in Amsterdam on March 4-6,
1992. Other Dutch organizations involved in this field include ECN (Netherlands
Energy Research Foundation), TNO Institute of Environmental and Energy
Technology, Novem (the Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment),
KEUA (an engineering research company representing the electric power
industry), Shell Oil, and several engineering companies (KTI,Mannesmann, and
Comprimo).

The Netherlands research activities fall into the following five areas (Blok,
1992):

CO,recovery techniques based on coal gasification

Chemical absorption and other recovery techniques
CO, recovery outside the power industry
Storage of CO, in depleted gas wells or aquifers
Environmental effects

Excluded from the Dutch efforts are CO, utilization, EOR research, and ocean
disposal. The level of effort has been about $2-3 million spread over the last
three years.

46
 In terms of CO, recovery, studies have included.

IGCC plants with water-gas shift and a Selexol capture process

IGCC plants with 0,combustion
Chemical absorption techniques (e.g., MEA) for both new and retrofit
plants
Gas absorption membranes
The conclusion of their studies is that the IGCC plant using the shift/Selexol
route is the most promising and is ready for pilot and demonstration work. This
approach yields the smallest efficiency drop in power generation of all the
methods studied, from 43 to 36%, based on the low heating value. (Note that
while the U.S.generally uses high heating values to calculate power plant
efficiencies, most of the rest of the world use the low heating values). The
recommendation for the next step is to have a demonstration plant operational by
the year 2000.

For CO, storage, the Dutch have focused on depleted gas wells and
aquifers, since both are readily available in the Netherlands. Outside the power
industry, they identified refineries, the fertilizer industry and possibly the steel
industry as good opportunities for CO, capture. Finally, while further risk
assessment is required, they have identified no new environmental problems
associated with their capture and disposal options.

A3 Norway

Norway is in a very unique situation regarding CO, controls because it

currently has a carbon tax of about $50/ton CO, with some export industries
exempted for competitive reasons. This means that research into CO, capture
and sequestration may yield some immediate economic benefits. Norway’s
policies reflect the philosophy of their prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland
(Brundtland, 1989). She chaired the World Commission on Environment and
Development which issued the landmark report Our Common Future in 1987.

Much of the research on CO, capture and disposal in Noway is

coordinated by Statoil, the national oil company. Key elements of their research
program include (Kaarstad, 1992):

Research on improved solvents for chemical scrubbing processes

Research on oxygen/natural gas fired turbine power plants
Research on depositing CO, on the sea floor as CO, clathrates
Research in shallow water injection of CO, and forming a dense
plume which would sink
b Research into EOR

47
The present level of research funding for such projects in Norway is about $1.4
million per year.

A very interesting project has been proposed to inject about a million tons
per year of CO, into an off-shore aquifer (the Utsira formation). This aquifer is
about lo00 m below the Sleipner Vest platform and about 250 m thick. The
source of the CO, is the extract of the C0,-rich natural gas produced from the
Sleipner Vest field.

A4 Other Research Programs

British Coal has established a global warming R&D programme, which

includes implementing "least regrets" measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the short term and investigation of fallback options, such as C02
removal and disposal, for the longer term (Topper et d,1992). As with research
in the Netherlands, a series of screening studies concluded that IGCC systems
were the most promising for CO, capture. The system picked for more detailed
work is an IGCC system with a shift reactor and membrane separation of H, from
CO,. An experimental program is planned to develop the appropriate
membranes. British Coal ais0 concluded the most promising disposal option for
the UK is storage in depleted oil and gas fields.

A cooperative international program was initiated on November 20, 1992

under the aegis of the International Energy Agency (EA). British Coal were the
proposers of this project and are currently the operating agent. The current
sponsors are Australia, Canada, the Commission of the European Communities
(CEC), Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the U.S. The initial agreement (Task I)
covers a three-year period. The four key activities of Task I are (Jack et d,
1992):

Technical feasibility and performance studies

Economic impact studies
Information collation and transfer
Recommend collaborative R&D projects

The IEA Greenhouse G k R&D Programme is sponsoring a Carbon Dioxide

Disposal Symposium on March 29-31, 1993 at W o r d University.

48
4. Acronyms used in Vol. I:

EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery

Gt - Gigatonne (lo9 tomes)

-
GTCC Gas Turbine Combined Cycle

IGCC - Integrated coal Gasification Combined Cycle

MEA - MonoEthanolAmine

MHD - Magneto HydroDynamics

-
Ncm Normal cubic meter (at 1 am and VC)

PC - Pulverized Coal

tonne - metric ton (loo0 kg)

61
 Additional tasks m a y be formed as part of the Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme. A working party met September 16-18, 1992, to produce a formal
proposal for an ocean disposal task. Other possible tasks currently under
discussion involve CO,utilization and CH, emission controls.

A one-day workshop sponsored by the Alberta Office of Coal Research

and Technology (AOCRT) was held in May 1991 to discuss C02capture and
control. The meeting drew together members of an informal C02R&D network
(CORDNET), which was established during 1990. They also identified the
highest priorities for Canadian R&D on CO, capture and disposal as (Lesa,
1992):

Identify disposal sites such as aquifers

Demonstrate capture technologies including OJCO, combustion
Explore new uses for CO,

Several projects are currently underway in Canada and are described in detail by
Legg (1992).

A.5 References

Blok, IC, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, presentation to the project

workshop at ANL on June 9-10 (1992).

Brundtland, G.H., "How to Secure our Common Future," Scient@ American,

261(3), p. 190 (1989).

Jack, A.R., H. Audus, and P.W.F.Riemer, "The E A Greenhouse Gas R&D

Programme," Energy Conversion and Management, 3x549, pp. 813-818 (1992).

Kaarstad, O., "Emission-Free Fossil Energy From Norway," Energy Conversion and
Management, 33(5-81, pp. 781-786 (1992).

Leg, J.F., "Overview of Carbon Dioxide Removal and Disposal in Canada,"

Energv Conversion and Management, 33(5-8), pp. 787-794 (1992).

Myers, F.S., "Japan Bids for Global Leadership in Clean Industry," Science, 256,
pp. 1144-1145 (1992).

49
 -

Shindo, Y.,T.Hakuta and H. Miyama, 'The Present Status of Carbon Dioxide

Removal in Japan,"Energy Conversion and Munagement, 33(5-8), pp. 773-779

Takahashi, M., "Global Change Research Program Survey - Comparing U.S. to

Japanese Government Budget," internal MIT memo drafted December 13 (1991).

Topper, J.M., CJ. Bower, I.R. Summerfield and I.S.C.Hughes, T h e British Coal
Global Warming R&D Programme,''Energv Conversion cutd Management, 33(5-8),
pp. 803-811 (1992).

50
 APPENDIX B

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Residence Time for Sequestration: The expected residence time (or half
life) in years. About 100 years is considered the minimum useful time to allow
the effects of global change to be better understood, to allow major transitions in
energy sources, and to allow some observations of global adaption to higher CO,
levels. Much longer sequestration times are desirable.

Theoretical CO, Storage Capacity: The estimated holding capacity in

gigatonnes (Gt or 109 metric tonnes). U.S.power plants currently produce about
1.7 Gt of CO, per year.

Energy Penalty: Capture and sequestration processes require energy,

which is assumed to be generated from the power plant. The energy penalty can
be calculated by comparing the net power plant output with CO,
capture/sequestration (b) versus the net output with no CO, controls (a).
Assuming identical fuel input in both cases, the difference is the energy penalty,
which can be expressed as a percentage of the net power plant output for the no
CO, controls case (100% x (a-b)/a).

Cost ($) Per Tonne of CO, Avoided: This is an important quantity which
allows comparison of very different types of mitigation options. Because of the
energy penalty associated with CO, capture/sequestration, more CO, is generated
per kWhe than in the no CO, control case. Therefore, reporting only the cost per
tonne of CO, captured (as is done quite often in the literature) can be very
misleading. Figure B.l shows the ratio of the cost per tonne of CO, avoided to
the cost per tonne of CO, captured as a function of the ener penalty and the
capture process efficiency (i.e. the fraction of CO, captured)F For example, in
Chapter 5 of Volume 2,we consider MEA scrubbing of CO,, which captures 90%
of the CO, (0, = 0.9) while having a 35% energy penalty (EP = 0.35). To
produce the same amount of power, the plant will consume 1.54 (A= 1/( 1-EP))
times as much coal and, therefore, generate 1.54 times as much CO,. When 90%
of the CO, is captured (q&=0.9 x 1.54 = 1.38), the amount released will be 0.15
(Ax (l-qJ), representing 0.85 (1.0- 0.15)units of CO, avoided. Therefore the
ratio of captured CO, to avoided CO, is 1.62 (1.38/0.85)and the price of
capturing a tonne of CO,must be multiplied by 1.62 to get the price for avoiding

(')Calculated by the following formula: q,+4/[l-A(l-qc)],where qCis the

nominal CO, recovery rate, A = l/(l-EP),and EP is the energy penalty. Both qc
and EP are expressed as fractions.
51
a tonne of CO, (see point o on Figure B.l). From Figure B.l, it is evident that
higher energy penalties and lower capture efficiencies have a major effect on cost
of CO, avoided. For example, if the energy penalty were 60% and the capture
efficiency only 80%, the cost of avoiding CO,would be about four times the cost
of capture (see point o on Figure B.l).
Developmental Feasibility (0 to 5 scale): The range is from 0 for
untested concepts to 5 for existing technology. The following guidelines are used
in this report to define levels of demonstrated feasibility:

5 - Commercially available
4 - Demonstration plant
3 - Pilot plant
2 - Laboratory tests
1 - Detailed feasibility studies
0 - Untested concepts

Environmental Impacts (0 to 3 scale): A measure of the known and

uncertain environmental and safety impacts. The range is from 0, for major
environmental or safety impacts, to 3 for minimal impacts.

Potential Barriers (0 to 3 scale): A measure of technological,

institutional, financial or other barriers to the implementation of the technology.
The range is from 0 for significant barriers to 3 for no barriers.

Byproduct Credits (0 to 3 scale): A measure of benefits associated with

the technology. The range is from 0 for no credits to 3 for major other benefits.

52
 Capture vs. Avoidance
,
I
I

----- I
I
I
I

90% Capture Efficiency I

#
I
100% Capture
..........Efficiency I
I
I
I
I
I
I
#

Figure B.l, Cost ratio (tonne of CO, avoided per tonne of CO, captured) as a
function of the energy penalty for different capture process
efficiencies.

53
 APPENDIX C

PEER REVIEW

The final draft report was distributed to 40 experts (in addition to the
primary authors) for peer review. Twenty-three sets of comments were received.
Reviewers were asked to indicate which sections of the report they reviewed. A
copy of the letter sent to peer reviewers and the list of reviewers who submitted
comments are included at the end of this appendix.

Most of the comments received were in the nature of minor corrections,

additions, or improvements and were incorporated into the text. Some of the
comments suggested that a major reorganization of the Volume 1 Summary
Report, would result in a clearer presentation of the important findings of the
study. This reorganization was done, although the major findings remain basically
unchanged from those that were distributed in the Peer Review draft.

A few of the comments were not incorporated as revisions because they

were extraneous, misinterpretations, or covered by other changes. The major
comments that were not incorporated in the report involve the following issues:

T;he scope of the report is too W e d A number of reviewers felt that the
scope was too narrow -- only looking at the electric power sector, not
including transportation fuels, focusing primarily on coal-fired power plants,
looking at a twenty-year time horizon, and not considering conservation
and fuel switching alternatives. [We have stated in the text that the scope
was set by DOE because this report is intended to be only one of many
inputs that should be used within the context of the whole spectrum of
mitigation options available for CO, abatement. The time horizon was
interpreted very liberally to include all technologies that might
optimistically be demonstrated on a commercial scale over the next twenty
years.]

U-
n options should not be e x c ~ f i o m p r i o r i f research
y needr because
they have mallcapaciry for CO, ~(sczge. The argument is that a number of
small uses could add up to a significant total capacity. [We disagree. We
concluded that a total optimistic utilization rate would be less than 5% of
power plant emissions.] Also, if CO, is used, it develops a value, whereas
disposal always involves energy and cost penalties. [We agree that niche
utilization options are desirable. In setting research priorities where

54
 ckJy~o+f~-techndogy~plants~~-
k d n o t b e ~ n e w p h t s b d t m ~ ~ ~ y e a m t o m a k e a
~ ~ ~ m p w e r p l t p r t C 0 2 c m i r d [Wehighlightthisasa
anr
policy option and have identified research needs for both retrofit and new
technologies. Considering the larger energy penalties, land requirements,
and costs associated with retrofit, there are incentives to favor new power
generation technologies with the potential to significantly reduce CO,
capture penalties.]

l3immS-b- ' j i d i s a v i a b l c ~ ~ i f
CO,cmt be fnmrportad to f d k bcatkms f m- tadhtkm
F e , even if biovnars comemim of& energy is lasr eftrcient than
phtm&iq it palnab& is dteape~ [We see only a limited potential for
biomass utilization of CO, in the U.S.and believe the present cost
estimates are too speculative to draw any conclusions.]

co, -
fo l m n s p t h ficel could be attnactnte 4facherTp-d
Jzyhgen wene avtrilable. frhe energy penalties associated with this
alternative are very high. Cheap hydrogen requires a cheap source of
electricity or thermal energy; we argue that such an energy source is better
used to replace fossil fuel in power generating plants than to generate
hydrogen to make transportation fuels from COS. Electricity can become a
transportation fuel with the advent of electric cars.]

One of our consultants disagreed with our conclusions concerning biological

utilization of CO,. H
is comments are expressed in the next page.

55
 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
BIOLOGICAL CO, UTILIZATION R&D
by John R. Benemann, Consultant

This report concludes that none of the CO, utilization options reviewed, of which biological
systems using microalgae appeared to be the most promising, offers a "major" solution to U.S.power
plant flue gas CO, mitigation, and that R&D funds would be better spent if "targeted elsewhere". I
disagree, and recommend that biological CO, utilization be included in the flue gas CO,
sequestration R&D programs.

The ground for the negative recommendation made in this report are, fundamentally, two-
fold 1.Biological systems have only limited potential (a few percent) in sequestering CO, from U.S.
power plant flue gases; and 2. Alternative solar energy systems (such as photovoltaics) are more
efficient than biological systems, and are less limited by land and water resource requirements, while
producing electricity directly. Both arguments are correct. However, other factors must also be
considered in such an evaluation, most specifically, the relative economics of such processes. Indeed,
I believe it is likely that the biological systems may be the most economical of the flue gas CO,
sequestration technologies considered in this report. And, photovoltaics may or may not turn out to
be cost competitive with biological or other flue gas CO, capture processes.

Economics, like overall mitigation potential or relative efficiency, should be only one of the
factors considered in such an evaluation of CO, mitigation technologies; environmental impacts, by-
products, state-of-the-art,and likelihood of developing a practical process, are others. I believe that
the present effort did not address all these issues in sufficient detail, and thus can not be considered
a definitive analysis. For example, biological systems would be net producers of liquid fuels, rather
than consumers of large amounts of parasitic energy - a major potential advantage. If fossil fuel
prices increase, CO, mitigation costs decrease, to zero at approximately twice current fossil fuels
prices, if currently projected economics are correct.

If in the future we need to mitigate the greenhouse effect, we must start developing a large
number of options and technologies. Many of these, such as those using terrestrial plants (trees,
herbaceous crops) will be of much lower cost than those within the scope of this report, and could,
in aggregate, offset or avoid a large fraction of total CO, outputs. It is implausible that any single
technology or approach would solve but a relatively small fraction of the overall problem. Thus,
marginal economics would be a more deciding factor than theoretical mitigation potential. If the
economic analysis presented in Table 4.1 of Volume 2 is achievable, biological flue gas CO,
mitigation systems may be among the lowest cost sequestration technologies considered therein, and
would be implemented before the more expensive alternatives.

Microalgae systems, using pure CO, at a site remote from the power plant, may even be
cost competitive with other CO, disposal options (such as ocean disposal). This was not addressed
in this report, which only analyzed flue gas CO, utilization by microalgae. Such an option may
significantly increase the overall resource base, and thus potential of this technology, the major basis
for the negative recommendation made by this report. We need to develop many CO, mitigation
technologies, each with its own attributes, from which the eventually successful processes will be
selected.

56
 Building: E40-455
Telephone: (617) 253-3402
Fax: (617) 253-8013
~

Energy Laboratory October 9,1992

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307

To: Peer Reviewers

From: Jefferson Tester

Re: Instructions for Reviewing tbe Draft Report A Research Needs Assessmeat for the
Capture, Utilization and Disposal of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel-Fired Plants

Thank you for agreeing to peer review our project report. A draft copy is enclosed We request
that you do not reproduce, quote, or cite this draft. An official copy of tbe final report will be sent
to you once it is accepted by our sponsors, the U.S.Department of Energy.

Because of the length of the report, we realize that a detailed review of the entire contents may not
be feasible for most reviewers. Therefore, we will particularly appreciate your review of the main
chapters of Volume 1 (Chapters 1-6) and any other chapters relevant to your area of expertise or
interest. Of course, you should feel free to review any additional parts of the report.

To help aid processing the reviews, we request that you w1 out the enclosed peer review cover sheet.
To review the draft, either make comments directly on the draft in red (and return draft to us) or
summarize your comments in a memo (please give specific page references, where appropriate).
You are also welcome to do a combination of the above.

Your reviews will be held in confidence, with only myselE, Howard H e w and Elisabeth Drake at
the MIT Energy Laboratory and Robert Rosenthal at the U.S. Department of Energy ha- direct
access to your specific comments. However, we would like to acknowledge your general contribution
as a peer reviewer (please check the appropriate box on the peer review cover sheet).

Where appropriate, your suggestions will be incorporated into the text. If there is no consensus on a
major point, we plan to acknowledge the differences in the peer review summary (Appendix C,
Volume 1).

Please mail or fax your reviews no later than Monday, November 23 to:

Howard Herzog
MIT Energy Lab
Room E40-489
1Amherst Street
Cambridge,MA 02U9
(FAX: 617-253-8013)
Once again, thank you for your help.

57
 Peer Review Cover Sheet

Name of Reviewer

Summary Report (Vol. 1, Ch. 1-6)

Amsterdam Workshop S v (Vol. 1, App. A)

Argonne Workshop Summary (Vol. 1, App. B)

Ocean Disposal (Vol. 2, Ch. 2)

Terrestrial Disposal (Vol. 2, Ch. 3)

Utilization (Vol. 2, Ch. 4)

CO, Capture/Conventional (Vol. 2, Ch. 5 )

CO, Capture/Advanced Cycles (Vsl. 2, Ch.6)

Advanced Concepts (Vol. 2, Ch. 7)

CO, Sources (Vol. 2, App. A)

CO, Users (Vol. 2, App. B)

Biological Utilization (Vol. 2, App. C)

Bibliography (Vol. 2, App. D)

Can we acknowledge you in the report as a peer reviewer? Yes No-

Please attached your comments and/or a marked up copy of the draft report and
send by November 23 to:

Howard Herzog
MI" Energy Lab
Room E40-489
1 Amherst Street
Cambridge, MA 02139

58
 Reviewers Who Submitted Comments

Roger Bailey Richard Johnson Bruce St. John

AOSTRA USDOE INTECH
Calgary, Alberta Morgantown, WV Potomac, MD

John Benemam Olav Kaarstad main Spencer

Consultant statoil EPRI
Vero Beach, FL Trondheim, Norway Palo Alto, CA

Perry Bergman Haroon Kheshgi Brad Spooner

USDOE Exxon Research & New England Power
Pittsburgh Engineering Service Co.
Annandale, NJ Westborough, MA
Jonne Berning
EPRI Edward Lipinsky Meyer Steinberg
San Ramon, CA Battelle Brookhaven National
Columbus, OH Laboratory
Kornelis Blok upton, NY
Univ. of Utrecht Gregg Marland
The Netherlands Oak Ridge National Ian Webster
Laboratory IEA
Douglas Carter Oak Ridge, TN Cheltenham, England
USDOE
Washington, DC Alden Meyer Edward Winter
Union of Concerned Burns & Roe Serivce
John Dacey Scientists Corp.
Woods Hole Washington, DC Pittsburgh, PA
Oceanographic Inst.
Woods Hole, MA Michael Perlsweig
USDOE
Baldur Eliasson Washington, Dc
ABB
Switzerland Adel Sarofim
M.I.T. Chemical
Robert Hangebrauck Engineering
USEPA Cambridge, MA
Res. Triangle Park, NC

59
 APPENDIX D

NOMENCLATURE AND UNITS

1. For coal-fired power plants, the following basis was used:

60 wt% of coal is C b 3 , with the rest being moisture, ash, S, 0, and N

Coal heating value of 24 GJ/Tonne (m 10,300 Btu/lb)

Fuel to electricity (overall) efficiency = 335% (with no CO, capture)

This yields the following results for a coal-ilred power plant with no CO,
capture:

2.1 tonne CO, generated/tonne coal

88 kg CO, generated/GJ (thermal)

0.93 kg C02 generated/kWh, produced

2. The United States annual production of CO,in 1990:

4.8 Gt from all sources

1.7 Gt from power plants

3. Conversion factors for CO,

1 Gt = 109 tomes

1 tonne = 10oO kg = 2204.6 lb.

1 Ncm of CO, = 1.96 kg

1 kmol of CO, = 44.01 kg

60
4. Acronyms used in Vol. I:

EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery

Gt - Gigatonne (lo9 tomes)

GTCC - Gas Turbine Combined Cycle

IGCC - Integrated coal Gasification Combined Cycle

MEA - MonoEthanolAmine

MHD - Magneto HydroDynamics

Ncm - Normal cubic meter (at 1 atm and 0"C)

PC - Pulverized Coal

tQnne - metric ton (lo00 kg)

61