Status of US CCS projects and data available

NETL Modeling of CCS
ETSAP Workshop session: ‘CCS IN ENERGY SCENARIOS’
July 11, 2017
Presented by Chris Nichols, Energy Markets Analysis Team, Systems Engineering and Analysis

2
• Introduction of the Systems Engineering and Analysis (SEA)
Directorate at NETL and how we integrate engineering analysis
to market modeling
• Discussion of data available and translation into model inputs
• Review some relevant model run results
• Conclusions and on-going work
Overview

3
NETL Enduring Core Competencies
Computational
Engineering
High Performance
Computing
Data Analytics
Materials Engineering
& Manufacturing
Structural & Functional
Design, Synthesis &
Performance
Geological &
Environmental Systems
Air, Water & Geology
Understanding &
Mitigation
Energy
Conversion
Engineering
Component & Device
Design & Validation
Systems
Engineering & Analysis
Process &
System
Optimization,
Validation & Economics
Effective Resource Development
~
Efficient Energy Conversion
~
Environmental Sustainability

4
Energy Systems Analysis
Systems Engineering & Analysis (SEA)
Teams and Scope
Process Systems
Engineering Research
Energy Process Analysis
Energy Markets Analysis
Energy Economy Modeling and Impact Assessment
• Enhanced fossil energy representation
• Multi-model scenario/policy analysis
• Infrastructure, energy-water
Resource Availability and Cost
Modeling
• CO2 storage (saline and EOR)
• Fossil fuel extraction
• Rare earth elements
• General subsurface technology
evaluation and support
Grid modeling and analysis
Environmental Life Cycle Analysis
Energy Process Design, Analysis, and Cost
Estimation
• Plant-level modeling, performance assessment
• Cost estimation for
plant-level systems
• General plant-level
technology evaluation
and support
• Economic impact assessment
• General regulatory, market and
financial expertise
• Process synthesis, design,
optimization, intensification
• Steady state and dynamic process
model development
• Uncertainty quantification
• Advanced process control
Design, optimization, and modeling
framework to be expanded to all
SEA “systems”

5
Assessing Program Portfolio Impacts:
Coal Program Example
Baseline Data &
Model
Development
Set R&D Goals and
Evaluate Progress
Project deployment
of Technologies
Estimate Potential
Benefits of RD&D
NETL Cost and
Performance Baseline
for Fossil Energy Plants
NETL CO2 Capture, Transport, Storage
and Utilization - National Energy
Modeling System (CTUS-NEMS)
• Detailed, transparent account of
plant information
• Key resource for government,
academia and industry
• Adopted by EIA; used in AEO’s
2014/15/16
• Facilitates and encourages EPSA
interactions
NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model
(onshore and offshore)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 10 20 30 40
Mcf/STB
Years
CO2 Utilization Factor
ver 1 ver 2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40
Fraction
Years
CO2 Retention Factor
ver 1 ver 2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
0 10 20 30 40MSTB
Years
Annual Oil Production
ver 1 ver 2
Borehole
bottom
locations
mapped
by play
name
NETL CO2 Prophet Model
Net
Pay
Gross
Pay
Oil Bearing Formation
Gas Cap
Aquifer/ ROZ
Oil Zone

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No RD&D RD&D No RD&D RD&D
Gigawatts
NG Retrofits
New Gas CCS
Coal Retrofits
New Coal CCS
Assessing Program Portfolio Impacts:
Baseline Data &
Model
Development
Set and
Evaluate
Progress to
R&D Goals
Project Deployment of
Technologies
Estimate Potential Benefits
of CCRP RD&D
Estimate Potential
Benefits of RD&D
New CCS Capacity and Associated Captured CO2
2025 2040
No Captured
CO2
New NG
CCS
New NG
CCS
Coal
Retrofits
New Coal
CCS
57 MM
tonnes/year
CO2 Captured
114 MM
tonnes/year
CO2 Captured
291 MM
tonnes/year
CO2 Captured
NG Retrofits
New NG
CCS
Coal
Retrofits
U.S. Benefits of the Program, Cumulative through 2040
Benefit Area Metric
Economic Growth Total Electricity Expenditure Savings
Employment
Income
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Environmental
Sustainability
CO2 Captured at Coal and Gas CCS Facilities
Energy Security Additional Domestic Oil Production via EOR
$

7
• With state-of-the-art technology,
adding 90% CO2 capture and storage
(CCS) significantly increases the cost
of electricity (COE)
• 45-65% for NGCC
• ~75% for pulverized coal (PC)
• Lower capture rates for PC plants
decrease the COE penalty, but result
in a higher cost of capture
• e.g., $87/tonne versus $58/tonne
for 35% and 90% capture,
respectively
• Due in part to diseconomies of
scale
• RD&D is needed to reduce the costs of
advanced coal power with CCS
NETL Cost and Performance Baseline
Summary Results
1 T&S = transport (100 km) and storage in a Midwest saline formation
2 +30%/-15% uncertainty range; different finance structure utilized for non-capture and capture plants
3 Fully-loaded design rates; does not account for start-up, shutdown, performance degradation between maintenance, part-load operation, etc.
4 Excludes CO2 T&S; relative to non-capture NGCC and non-capture supercritical PC design for NGCC and PC capture designs, respectively
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
COE,$/MWh(2011$)
CO₂ T&S
Fuel
Variable
Fixed
Capital
$143
$127
$99
$82
$87
$58
$101
$70
$43
$71$6.13
MMBTU
$4
MMBTU
$8
MMBTU
1
2
Plant Type NGCC Supercritical PC Plant
Capture Rate 0% 90% 0% 16% 35% 90%
CO2 Emissions3 (lb/MWh-gross) 773 82 1,618 1,400 1,100 183
Efficiency (HHV) 51.5% 45.7% 40.7% 39.2% 37.4% 32.5%
Cost of Capture4 ($/tonne) $71 $124 $87 $58
Source: NETL

8
Fossil Energy – Coal Research Program Goals
Driving Down the Cost of Electricity of Coal Power with CCS
0% Reduction
20% Reduction
30% Reduction
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
State-of-the-Art 2025 Demo 2030 Demo
Goals are for greenfield plants. Costs include compression to 2,215 psia, but exclude CO2 transport and storage costs.
Cost of Electricity Reduction Targets
Transformational
Technology
IGCC or
Supercritical PC
2nd-Generation
Technology
COERelativetoToday’s
CoalwithCapture(%)

9
Driving Down the Cost of Electricity of Coal Power with CCS
AdvancedIntegrated
GasificationFuelCell
Advanced
Oxy-Combustion
AdvancedIGCC
Post-Combustion
Capture
70
90
110
130
150
170
BaselineAmine
Adv.Capture
AUSCSteam
Adv.CO2
Compression
Conventional
Financing
COE (2011$/MWh)
Sorbent
Membrane
70
90
110
130
150
170
Baseline
Adv.Hydrogen
Turbine
ITM
WarmGas
Cleanup
H2Membrane
85%Availability
Conventional
Financing
COE (2011$/MWh)
70
90
110
130
150
170
ReferenceIGFC
←Degradation
←Overpotential
85%Availability
Enhanced…
←SOFCCost
→InverterEff.
CatalyticGasifier
COE (2011$/MWh)
70
90
110
130
150
170
Base
Base+Adv.Recycle
Base+Adv.Compr.
Base+Adv.Cryo…
Base+AUSCSteam
Base+OxyBoiler
Base+O2Memb.
2ndGen
Transformational
COE (2011$/MWh)
“Current and Future Power Generation Technologies: Pathways to Reducing the Cost of Carbon Capture for Coal-fueled Power Plants” (October 2014)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214026058.

10
• The AEO2016 Reference case
includes a 30% capture coal
CCS technology.
• The Starting Point case uses
AEO2017 assumptions for a 90%
capture technology but
modified to reflect the absence
of Federal R&D.
• The first on-line year is assumed to
be 2025 and the learning rate is half
the rate in the AEO2017
• The Program Goal case
assumes success of the CCS R&D
program goals that lead to lower
capital costs, an early start year,
as well as greater efficiency.
Coal with CCS Capital Costs

11
CoalCCSPowerPlantCapitalCost
y = 45159x-0.282
R² = 0.9749
LR=18%
y = 163428x-0.426
R² = 0.9942
LR=26%
y = 33660x-0.271
R² = 0.9934
LR=17%
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
2005USMilliondollars/Gigawatts
PJ
R3.1.3.0+ EOR, PG, 45Q,
H2O
R3.1.6.0+ PG
R3.1.6.0+ EOR, PG, 45Q,
H2O
Integration of learning
curves with the program
goal assumptions.
Learning rates for CCS
coal power plants in the
scenarios with strong
CO2 constraints are 17%-
26% and are consistent
with literature review
Cumulative Coal CCS Electricity Production
Integrating “learning by doing” with CCS cost goals

12
CCS Retrofits of Existing Plants in U.S.
• Options for an existing plant in a
carbon mitigation scenario
1. Business as usual + pay CO2
emissions penalties
2. Retrofit for CCS with potential
to sell CO2
3. Retire and replace with new
capacity
• CO2 revenue required to incentivize
#2 over #1 in the absence of a CO2
tax evaluated • Rapid deployment of 2nd Generation capture technology needed
to impact current coal fleet
• Transformational capture technology has a role in NGCC CCS
retrofits, international coal CCS retrofits
30-year economic life, 75% capacity factor, $75/MWh
power price (NEMS 2030 est); nth-of-a-kind cost and
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CumulativeCoalRetrofitsIncentivized
[GWpre-retrofit]
Minimum Plant Gate CO2 Revenue Required to Incentivize CCS
[$/tonne]
State-of-the-Art
2nd Generation
2nd Gen technology reduces coal CO2
capture cost by ~25%

13
• Using EPA 9R database with MARKAL, we modeled a variety of CO2
control regimes based on EMF 32 scenarios with and without DOE R&D
goals susccess:
• Rated based CPP
• Mass based CPP with high NG price
• $25/mt CO2 tax with 5% escalation rate
• 80% economy-wide CO2 reduction by 2050
• Meaningful deployments of CCS do not appear in most non-R&D cases,
while R&D success does drive large scale deployments
Overview of relevant model results

14
Deployment (G W) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
New NGC C with C C S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NGC C C C S retrofits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New coal with ccs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C oal C C S retrofits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Biomass with C C S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• Sources: MARKAL NETL
Power Sector Technological Changes
Electricity Generation Mix: CPP Rate Based with CO2 Trading without
and with CCS RD&D Goals Scenarios
Deployment (G W) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

15
Electricity Generation Mix: CPP Mass Based with high
natural gas prices, without and with CCS RD&D Goals
Scenarios
Deployment (GW) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
New NGCC with CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NGCC CCS retrofits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New coal with ccs 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.1
Coal CCS retrofits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Biomass with CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deployment (GW) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
New NGCC with CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NGCC CCS retrofits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coal CCS retrofits 0 0 3 3 3 0 0
Biomass with CCS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16
Electricity Generation Mix: CO2 Taxes at $25/tCO2 and 5% with and
without CCS RD&D Goals Scenarios
Deployment (G W) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Deployment (G W) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
New NGC C with C C S 0 0 0 17 34 39 39

17
Electricity Generation Mix: 80% CO2 Reduction by 2050 and 80% CO2
Reduction by 2050 with CCS RD&D Goals Scenarios
Deployment (G W) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Biomass with C C S 0 27 62 74 75 75 75
Deployment (G W) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
New NGC C with C C S 0 0 0 11 11 45 45
New coal with ccs 0 0 0 0 14 142 280

18
• Currently investigating cases of CCS deployment without a CO2
price
• EOR integration and tax credits
• Examining issues related to existing and new coal units:
• Heat rate improvements for existing units
• Impact of cycling operations
• Economic growth assumptions
• Integration of water usage and consumption
Continuing work

19
• CO2 capture, transport and
storage are represented in
several sectors: oil & gas,
electricity, liquid fuels, and
the CTUS module allowing
for a complete and
integrated assessment
CCUS
Translating theCO2 CTUS-NEMS Model
Structure into MARKAL/TIMES
OGSM: Oil and Gas Supply Module
LFMM: Liquid Fuels Market Module
EMM: Electricity Market Module
CTUS: Carbon, Transport, Utilization
and Storage Module
•CompetingPricesfor
CO2 BySource
•Available CO2 By Source
•Demandfor CO2 ByEOR
OGSM
•PotentialRevenue
StreamfromEOR
•CO2Suppliedby Gen
Unitstoeach OGSM
Region
•Price of CO2 From Gen
Units to eachOGSM
Region
•Pipeline Infrastructure
toSupportCO2 Flows
•Cost of transport from
source tosinks (EOR
and/orSaline Storage)
•Cost of Saline Storage
CTUSEMM
•Potential Revenue
StreamfromEOR
•CO2 Suppliedby CTL to
eachOGSMRegion
•Price of CO2 FromCTL to
eachOGSMRegion
LFMM
Costof transport
Costof Storage
Costof transport
Costof Storage
Competitive
MarketforCO2
Competitive
MarketforCO2
CO2 capturedforEORand/or StorageP and Q CO2 forEOR
IndustrialCO2 Capture
-by individual site
aggregatedinto
quantity and price
bins for each OGSM
region

20
• NETL developed inputs currently used in both CTUS-NEMS and EIA NEMS
• Saline Storage Cost: NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model
• CO2 Pipeline Transport Cost: NETL CO2 Transport Cost Model
• Other Industrial Sources of CO2 for EOR: NETL Carbon Capture Retrofit Database (CCRD)
• NETL developed inputs currently used in only CTUS-NEMS
• Existing Coal and NGCC Plant CCS Retrofit Cost and Performance: NETL Carbon Capture Retrofit Database (CCRD)
• NETL inputs currently being incorporated into only CTUS-NEMS
• Offshore Storage: NETL Offshore Saline Storage Cost Model
• EOR Type Curves: NETL PROPHET Model
• Revised EOR Site Cost: NETL Onshore EOR Cost Model
• EOR Offshore Site Cost: NETL Offshore EOR Cost Model
• Residual Oil Zone Resources: NETL ROZ Resource Assessments
• Default EIA data used elsewhere
Data Sources
Data Used in FE/NETL CO2 CTUS-NEMS

Solutions for Today | Options for Tomorrow
I have seen the future and it is
very much like the present, only
longer.
--Kehlog Albran
For more information…
Chris Nichols
christopher.nichols@netl.doe.gov
304 285-4172

22
Cost of Capturing CO2 from Industrial Sources
Cost Breakdown
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
Ethanol Ammonia Natural Gas
Processing
Ethylene
Oxide
Coal-to-
Liquids
Gas-to-
Liquids
Refinery
Hydrogen
Steel/Iron Cement
First-year"Breakeven"RequiredCO2SellingPrice
(Constant2011USD) Purchased Natural Gas
Purchased Power
Consumables
Variable O&M
Fixed O&M
CAPEX
High Purity CO2 Low Purity CO2

Status of US CCS projects and data available

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Status of US CCS projects and data available

Similaire à Status of US CCS projects and data available (20)

Plus de IEA-ETSAP

Plus de IEA-ETSAP (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Status of US CCS projects and data available