Pre-convention of the Technical Chamber of Greece

on the ”Optimization of lignite exploration in the

electricity production”

Technologies for Carbon Capture and

Storage

Prof. Em. Kakaras and Dr. Ν. Koukouzas

Kozani, 11 May 2009

Centre for Research and Technology Hellas/Institute for Solid Fuels Technology and Applications
CERTH/ISFTA
 Table of Contents

1. Carbon dioxide capture options

2. CCS implementation and projects

3. CCS in the European energy market

4. Greek CO2 Capture PP

5. CCS in the Greek energy market

6. Carbon dioxide storage options

Carbon dioxide capture options (1)
 Carbon dioxide capture options (2)

Post-
Coal CO2 Capture
Combustion
NGCC
Capture

Pre- IGCC Flue gas

O2
Combustion production CO2 Capture Cleaning Storage
IRCC
Capture Compression
Transport

O2
Oxyfuel production Oxyfuel

Technology availability / Industrial Maturity Storage location selection

Environmental Commitments Security of storage
Strategic Planning Monitoring / Verification
 Carbon dioxide capture options (3)

CO2 scrubbing from flue gas using amine solution

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1,
Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture
Carbon dioxide capture options (4)

Oxyfuel combustion

Vattenfall
 Carbon dioxide capture options (5)

Production of a carbon free fuel

Air

Air
Air N2 Power
ASU island
Steam
O22

Raw
Raw gas
Gasifier Gas cooling/ Acid gas
dedusting removal
Coal
Sour
Sour gas
gas

Sulphur
recovery

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1,
Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture
Timeline for CO2 capture technologies
Timeline for CO2 capture technologies

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1,
Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture
Scenarios of CCS implementation

ΙΕΑ, CO2 Capture and Storage : A Key Carbon Abatement Option (2008)
CCS pilot, demo and commercial projects
 Research projects on the ZEPP

‰ CCS technologies in thermal PPs will contribute significantly in the

mitigation of the GHG effect since thermal PPs account for ca. 1/3 of
the total CO2 atmospheric emissions. This fact explains the intense
research activities aiming at the achievement of viable solutions in the
medium term.

‰ The following are a number of important EC CCS projects with Greek

partnership (CERTH – NTUA - PPC):
¾ ENCAP (Pre-combustion and oxyfuel technologies for solid fuels)

¾ CASTOR (Post-combustion CO2 capture)

¾ CACHET (Post-combustion CO2 capture for gaseous fuels)

¾ ISSC (Production of a carbon-free gaseous fuel from solid fuels

using CaO and pre-combustion CO2 capture)
¾ C2H (Production of a H2-rich from solid fuels using CaO)
CCS in the European energy market (1)
Reference Unit with pre- Unit with post-
Coal Οxyfuel
Unit combustion capture Combustion capture
Power output MW 556 737 460 470
Efficiency % 46 36 36 36
CO2 capture % - 92 85 91
EPC Capital cost Euro/kW 918 1577 1446 1447
Reference Unit with pre- Unit with post-
Lignite Οxyfuel
Unit combustion capture Combustion capture
Power output MW 920 717 731 760
Efficiency % 43 41 39 41
CO2 capture % - 85 85 90
EPC Capital cost Euro/kW 1065 1556 1683 1671
Reference Unit with pre- Unit with post-
Natural Gas Οxyfuel
Unit combustion capture Combustion capture
Power output MW 420 755 662 325
Efficiency % 58 41 47 48
CO2 capture % - 93 85 100
EPC Capital cost Euro/kW 410 763 742 1124
Financial and other Natural Hard coal Lignite
Boundary Conditions Gas plant plant
Economic life time years 25 25 25
Depreatiation years 25 25 25
Fuel price EUR/GJ (LHV) 5,8 2,3 1,1
Fuel price escalation % per year 1,5% 1,5% 1,5%
Operating hours per year hours per year 7500 7500 7500
Standard Emission factor t/MWh th 0,210 0,344 0,402
Common Inputs
O&M cost escalation 2%
Debt /Equitiy ratio % 50%
Loan interest rate % 6%
Interest during construction % 6%
Return on Equity % 12%
Tax rate % 35%
WACC 8%
Discount rate % 9,0%

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1,
Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture
 CCS in the European energy market (2)

Estimated electricity generation cost from large

coal, lignite and natural gas PPs in 2020, without
and with CO2 capture

Estimated CO2 capture cost from large coal, lignite

and natural gas PPs in 2020, without and with CO2
capture

European Technology Platform, Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP), Working Group 1,
Power Plant and Carbon Dioxide Capture
 CCS in the European energy market (3)

Electricity generation costs of large PPs with and without CO2 capture/with CO2 penalty in 2020

Electricity generation cost (Euros/MWh)

Electricity generation cost (Euros/MWh)

130 Coal Unit 80 Coal Unit

120 75
110 Coal Unit 70 Coal Unit
with CO2 with CO2
100 capture
65 capture
90 Lignite Unit
60 Lignite Unit
80 55
70 Lignite Unit
50
Lignite Unit
60 with CO2 45 with CO2
capture capture
50 40
Natural gas Natural gas
40 Unit 35 Unit

30 Natural gas 30 Natural gas

Unit Unit
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 with CO2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 with CO2
capture capture
% of emissions with 100 Euros/tn CO2 penalty % of emissions with 40 Euros/tn CO2 penalty

At the left of the point of intersection of the cost curves without and with CO2 capture,
investment in CCS technologies becomes economically viable
Break-even point where CCS
technologies become viable
(% emmissions)
CO2 pentalty (Euros/tn) Coal Lignite Natural gas
100 23.5 14.2 56.9
40 58.8 35.6 >100
 CO2 Capture Retrofit in Greek PP’s

¾ In order to demonstrate the potential of CO2 capture technologies for lignite

applications, the simulation of a “typical” new 330 MWel Greek PP was performed,
including the retrofit options of amine scrubbing and Oxyfuel fuel firing. The PP has
a supercritical boiler, a three pressure stage steam turbine and 8 regenerative feed
water preheaters.
Conventional OxyFuel
Amine
PP
Fuel Thermal Input MWth 830.0
Thermal Consumption
MWth - - 256.5
for Solvent Regeneration
ASU Consumption MW el - 58.1 -
CO2 Compression
MW el - 22.4 20.5
Consumption
Cooling Pumps
MW el - 1.5 0.7
Consumption
Power Consumption
from Amine Scrubbing MW el - - 8.7
Unit
Net Power Output MW el 293.7 211.0 200.5
Efficiency % 35.74 25.42 24.16
Green-field PP’s with CO2 capture
TEG

G23
G21

G22
G19 G20

I4 I3

Feedwater heating
Air leakage

LPH1 to LPH3
Wet ESP FGC G10
ESP Separation of non-
G18

G17

G16

G15
G13 G12 G11 G9 G8 G7 G5
condensables
I2 I1 G6 Air leakage
Feedwater heating

G14

A8
A7
LPH1 to LPH3

Ash

A10 A9 G4
S7
S1 S8
S9

A12
S5 S4

A11
N2 to molecular

S10
shieves

S20
I5

S3
S6

S2

I8

I7

I6
S21
S18

S19

S22

S23

S24

S25
G1
G2
I2 I4 I1 I3

S14

S11
G3
S17 S16 S15 S12

S13
F3

Oxygen Flow

Raw F1 F2 D15
lignite D11
ASU D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10
DCAC

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 D12 D1 D3

D14
A6 D2
F3

F3
D13
Dried Waste water
lignite Lignite Dryer

New 360 MWel Lignite PP with Oxyfuel combustion (typical Greek lignite)
 CCS in the Greek energy market (1)
z The electricity generation cost has been assessed for the following technologies:
¾ Conventional lignite PP
¾ Conventional lignite PP with CO2 capture with amine scrubbing
¾ Conventional lignite PP with CO2 capture with oxyfuel combustion
¾ State of the art super-critical lignite PP (CCT)
¾ Natural gas Combined Cycle (NGCC)
¾ Lignite Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
„ The general and case-specific assumptions for the calculations are the following:
¾ Discount factor: 8%, Inflation: 3%
¾ Lignite cost: 1.8 €/ GJ, Natural gas cost: 5.5 €/GJ
¾ Depreciation for Solid fuel units: 25 years, for NG and IGCC units: 15 years
¾ O&M costs: 3% of capital costs per annually, variable cost 0.01 €/kWh for a lignite
unit and 0.005 €/kWh for a natural gas unit.
¾ 7500 h of operation per year at full load
¾ CO2 market cost: 18 €/tn
Conv. Conventional Conventional State of the art NGCC. IGCC
lignite PP lignite PP with lignite oxyfuel PP super-critical
amine scrubbing lignite PP
Net power output MWel 294 201 211 300 380 766
Efficiency % 35.7 24.2 25.4 44.0 56.5 43.0
Capital cost €/kW 1100 1900 1570 1150 600 1370
Specific CO2 emissions kg/kWh 1.075 0.17 0.34 0.865 0.37 0.76
 CCS in the Greek energy market (2)

Electricity generation costs Electricity generation costs

9 10
8 9
CO2 risk (vs 8
7 NGCC)

€cent/ kWh
€cent/ kWh

7
6 CO2 risk (vs
Rick due to NG 6 (amine/oxyfuel)
5 price volatility 5
4
Variable cost 4 Risk due to
3
3 NG price
2
2
Fixed cost
1
1
Variable cost
0
0
Conventional PP State of the art Natural gas Amine Oxyfuel State of the NGCC IGCC
scrubbing art Super- Fixed cost
Supercritical PP Combined Cycle
critical PP

Electricity generation costs for current Electricity generation costs for future
technologies technologies

„ Fixed cost includes depreciation and O&M costs, variable cost includes fuel.
„ The units have been grouped in two categories: current technologies and
technologies that will be commercially available in the future. The difference
in specific emissions from the reference unit for each category multiplied by
the CO2 cost is an estimation of the price risk due to the emitted CO2.
 Carbon dioxide storage options (1)

Capture Transport Geological

Storage
 Carbon dioxide storage options (2)

Potential CO2 storage sites :

¾ Oceans

¾ Depleted oil and gas reservoirs

¾ Deep unmineable coal seams

¾ Deep saline aquifers.

¾ Mineralization of CO2.
Carbon dioxide storage options (3)
 Carbon dioxide storage options (4)

¾ Oceans

CO2 disposal methods in the oceans

 Carbon dioxide storage options (5)
¾ Depleted oil and gas reservoirs

Enhanced oil recovery with the

help of CO2
 Carbon dioxide storage options (6)

¾ Deep saline aquifers (>800m).

 Carbon dioxide storage options (7)

Examples of storage projects:

„ Sleipner, North Sea saline reservoir

„ In-Salah, Algeria gas reservoir

„ K12B, North Sea gas reservoir

„ Weyburn, Canada oil reservoir

„ Enhanced Coal Bed Methane projects

„ Alisson (New Mexico)

„ Recopol (Poland)
 Carbon dioxide storage options (8)

Locations of CO2 storage activities

 Carbon dioxide storage options (9)

Storage potential

The estimated range of the economic potential for CCS varies between 220-2200 Gt
CO2, which would mean that 15-55% of the world-wide mitigation effort by 2100
could be achieved through the implementation of CCS.

Gton CO2 20501 Gton CO22

Depleted oil fields 126-400 150-700
Depleted gas fields 800 500-1100
Enhanced oil recovery 61-65
Unminable coal seams >15 >73
Saline aquifers 400-10,000 320-10,000
1Source: (IEA GHG, 2001)
2Source: (Edmonds, 2000)
 Carbon dioxide storage options (10)

Advantages and disadvantages of the different types of storage

CO2 Capacity Advantages Disadvantages

(in Gt)
Hydrocarbon 930 Gt Trapping structures impermeable Generally far from CO2
reservoirs to non-reactive gases. Well known emission sites. Storage
structures. Economic potential capacities often limited.
through EOR.

Deep saline 400 – 10000 Widespread geographic Poorly characterized to

aquifers Gt distribution and vast storage date.
potential. Facilitates the search
for storage sites close to the
sources of CO2 emissions. Water
unfit for drinking.

Unmineable 40 Gt Near CO2 emission sites. Injection problems due

coal seams Economic potential through to the poor permeability
methane recovery. of coal. Limited storage
capacities.
IEA, GHG, 2004
Carbon dioxide storage options (11)

CO2 point sources in relation

with the sedimentary basins
with storage potential
(Koukouzas et al., 2009 – Int. J. of GHG)
Carbon dioxide storage options (12)

Prinos basin geological cross - section

Prinos basin stratigraphic column (Koukouzas et al., 2009 – Int. J. of GHG)

Carbon dioxide storage options (13)

Cap rock

CO2 potential storage site

Geological cross – section of Mesohellenic Trough

(Koukouzas et al., 2009 – Int. J. of GHG)
Carbon dioxide storage options (14)

CO2 storage capacity in saline aquifers -Greece

Aquifer Position Storage capacity (Mt CO2)

Prinos offshore 1343

W. Thessaloniki onshore 459

W. Thessaloniki onshore 145

sandstone

Alexandria onshore 34
Mesohellenic basin onshore 360
Total 2345

(GESTCO PROJECT)
 Carbon dioxide storage options (15)

Mineral carbonation: reaction of CO2 with metal oxide bearing

materials to form insoluble carbonates, with calcium and magnesium
being the most attractive metals.

The general reaction is:

MSiO3 + CO2 ↔ MCO3 + SiO2

M: divalent ion. Here, M corresponds

to Ca or Mg
 Carbon dioxide storage options (16)

In collaboration with
Los Alamos National
Laboratory
Dunite

Hartzburgite

Pyroxenite

Hartzburgite

Dunite