Technology for avoiding CO2 emissions

Paul Freund, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, United Kingdom Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of around 60% may be needed in order to stabilise atmospheric concentrations at a level which avoids dangerous changes in climate. This implies that deep reductions in emissions will be needed from major energy using plant and these measures will need to be widely applicable. Technologies for reducing CO2 emissions from energy systems fall into 3 categories: reducing energy use, e.g. by improving efficiency replacing high-carbon fuels by low-carbon fuels or no-carbon fuels sequestering the CO2 arising from fossil fuel combustion

Improving energy efficiency is cost-effective in many places today. It is expected this could achieve emission reductions of at least 20% but, on its own, this will be insufficient to avoid damaging climate change. Switching from high carbon fuels, such as coal, to low carbon fuels, such as gas, can reduce emissions by 50% but application will depend on the availability of gas supplies. Deeper reductions could be achieved by switching to renewable sources of energy, or to nuclear power. Renewable sources can deliver low cost energy in the right circumstances but the extent of their application will be limited by factors such as availability of land and public acceptability. Application of nuclear power is also likely to be restricted by such considerations. As fossil fuels supply nearly 90% of the worlds primary energy, a rapid switch away from them could be disruptive to the worlds economy. In the past few years it has been recognised that CO2 sequestration could substantially reduce emissions from fossil fuels. One form of sequestration is the enhancement of natural sinks for carbon, such as by afforestation. However, such measures will be limited in their global capacity. Another form of sequestration, capture and storage of CO2, potentially, has wide applicability. It could be used in power generation, oil refining and other major energy using industries, as well as in the manufacture of hydrogen, if that becomes accepted as a transport fuel. An overview will be presented of the cost and potential of CO2 capture and storage.

Introduction
In this paper, the potential problem of climate change will be described and methods of tackling the cause, increased emissions of greenhouse gases, will be discussed. Some of the technologies available for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are already well known but the technique of capture and storage of CO2 is relatively new and so most of the paper is devoted to exploring this option in more detail. The paper is based on the work of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme which is an international collaboration supported by 16 countries, the European Commission and a number of major energy industrial companies.

Climate Change
Increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the Earths atmosphere are enhancing the natural greenhouse gas effect, leading to changes in the climate1. The direct consequences of climate change are expected to be seen in rising temperatures (especially in high latitudes), changes in precipitation, rising sea-levels as well as more frequent extreme weather events. As a result, there are likely to be changes in agriculture, increased flooding of low-lying areas and, possibly, reductions in biodiversity. The impacts of climate change on human welfare are likely to be more severe in developing countries than in the richer nations as the latter have more resources available for adaptation.

The principal source of anthropogenic CO2 is combustion of fossil fuels - global emissions to the atmosphere from this source are currently 24 Gt/y of CO2. Human-induced land use changes and deforestation are also helping to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere1. In a business-as-usual scenario2, emissions of CO2 are expected to increase to about 70 Gt/y by 2100. As a result, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which was 280 ppm in pre-industrial times and is 370 ppm today, is expected to reach 550 ppm by 2100 and continue increasing beyond then. It should be noted that, even in this business as usual scenario, substantial use is assumed of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The exact size of the change in climate and its likely impacts are still very uncertain. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that limits will have to be placed on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change addresses this issue. Through the Kyoto Protocol, agreed in December 1997, developed countries agreed to reduce their emissions of a basket of 6 greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels over the period 2008-2012. However, on its own, this will not avoid a continuing increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, so greater reductions in emissions will be needed in future. This will require action by all countries. To limit the CO2 concentration to 550 ppm, it is thought that global CO2 emissions in 2100 would need to be reduced by more than 60% compared to the business as usual scenario3. The level of CO2 emissions can be understood to depend on the size of: the human population, the level of global wealth, the energy intensity of the global economy, the emissions arising from production and use of energy. The first 3 of these factors reflect human aspirations for improving standards of living and quality of life. This places the challenge on technology (the key element of the 4th factor) to meet these aspirations whilst minimising greenhouse gas emissions.

Technological Options for reducing CO2 emissions

A wide variety of technological options could be used to reduce CO2 emissions. They fall into 3 main categories: Reduce energy consumption, for example by increasing the efficiency of energy conversion and utilisation. Replace high-carbon fuels by low-carbon fuels, for example natural gas instead of coal, or by using energy sources which, on balance, emit little or no CO2, such as renewable energy or nuclear energy. Sequester the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

Each of these techniques will have a role to play in tackling CO2 emissions. The extent to which each technique is used will depend on many factors including costs, potential capacity, the extent to which emissions must be reduced, environmental impacts and social factors. Reducing energy consumption by improving efficiency is cost-effective in many places today and will deliver useful reductions. It seems likely that widespread improvements in energy efficiency could reduce emissions by at least 20% - an important contribution but, by itself, unlikely to be sufficient. Switching from high carbon to low carbon fuels can be cost-effective today where suitable supplies of gas are available. Typically, emission reduction of about 50% could be achieved. This would make a useful contribution where it can be done but is unlikely, by itself, to be sufficient to make long-term deep reductions in global emissions. Deep reductions in emissions could be achieved by widespread switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy or nuclear power. The extent to which nuclear power could be applied and the speed at which its use might be increased will be determined by politics and public opinion more than technical and economic questions. For this reason, nuclear power will not be discussed further here. There is a wide variety of renewable supplies, depending on location. Many of them could make

significant contributions to electricity supply. However, many of the truly renewable sources (e.g. solar, wind) depend on having access to sufficient areas of land, which will determine their ultimate potential. Within the past 10 years it has been recognised that achieving deep reductions in emissions does not necessarily require moving away from use of fossil fuels. This is important because fossil fuels supply 4 about 90% of the worlds primary energy mix . This can be achieved by sequestering the CO2 arising from fossil fuel combustion. This means locking up the CO2 so that it does not contribute to rising atmospheric concentrations. There are 2 types of sequestration in one, natural sinks for CO2 would be enhanced to take up carbon from the atmosphere. Examples of natural sinks which might be used for this purpose include forests, soils and the deep ocean. These could make a significant contribution in the short term but their capacity is limited and the carbon stored in them is not always secure. For example, carbon stored in forests could be re-emitted to the atmosphere as a result of forest fires. The other method of sequestration is to capture the CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels and store it, away from the atmosphere, for a very long time. This option is examined in more detail below. It would be capable of making deep reductions in emissions from central power plant and other major sources.

Capture and storage of CO2 Capture of CO2

Capturing CO2 is best done at large, point sources of CO2, such as power plant. The following discussion makes use of examples based on electricity generation but other sectors, such as oil refining, iron and steel manufacture or hydrogen production could also use this approach. A variety of techniques can be used to capture CO2 from power station flue gases: Scrubbing the flue gas with a re-usable chemical solvent, such as an amine, or a physical solvent. This is established technology for removing CO2 from gas streams. Adsorb CO2 using a solid adsorbent the adsorbent would be regenerated after use. Separate CO2 using a semi-permeable membrane, a technology now being adapted for use with CO2. Cryogenically remove CO2 an established technology, best suited to gas streams having high concentrations of CO2.

Figure 1 illustrates a gas turbine combined cycle incorporating post-combustion capture of CO2 using a re-usable solvent. A similar approach could be used with pulverised coal fired power plant, in a manner analogous to flue gas desulphurisation (FGD). After capturing the CO2, the amine from the scrubber is heated by steam to release high purity CO2 so that the solvent can be reused. The CO2 is then pressurised, ready for transport to the storage site. This would be the capture technique most likely to be used today because it is well established in other applications5. However, the low concentration of CO2 in power station flue gas means that a large volume of gas has to be handled, which results in large equipment sizes and high capital costs. A further implication of the low CO2 concentration is that powerful solvents are needed; the regeneration of these solvents requires large amounts of energy. If the CO2 concentration and pressure could be increased, the capture equipment would be smaller and there would be lower energy penalties for regeneration of the solvent. This can be achieved by an alternative approach, termed pre-combustion capture. In this case, the fuel is reacted with oxygen and/or steam to form a synthesis gas, consisting of mainly CO and H2. The CO is then reacted with steam in a catalytic shift converter to give CO2 and more H2. The CO2 is separated before combustion and the hydrogen is used as fuel in a gas turbine combined cycle. The process is, in principle, the same for coal, oil or natural gas although more stages of gas purification may be required with coal or oil.

Figure 1

Schematic diagram of a gas turbine combined cycle incorporating postcombustion capture of CO2.

Although pre-combustion capture would involve a more radical change to power station design, most of the technology is already well proven in ammonia production and other industrial processes. One of the novel aspects is that the fuel gas feed to the gas turbine is essentially hydrogen. It is expected that it will be possible to burn hydrogen in some existing gas turbine designs with little modification but this is not yet fully demonstrated technology. Another approach may be to increase the concentration of CO2 in the flue gas, for example by using purified oxygen instead of air for combustion. It would be necessary to recycle some CO2-rich flue gas to the combustor to moderate the flame temperature but only simple CO2 purification would be required. The disadvantage of this approach is that production of oxygen is expensive, both in terms of capital cost and energy consumption.

Transmission of CO2
Transport of the CO2 from the point of capture to the storage site can be done using high pressure pipelines, or by ship. Again this is technology which is already in use, with over 3000km of CO2 pipeline in operation in the USA today. Compression accounts for about a quarter of the overall energy consumption and cost of the process.

Storage of CO2
Natural reservoirs are potentially good candidates for storage of anthropogenic CO2. For example, depleted oil and gas fields would have capacity sufficient to handle many decades of emissions. Such fields have a number of attractive features as CO2 stores: Exploration costs would be small The reservoirs are proven traps for fluids, having held liquids and gases for millions of years Their geology has been thoroughly explored There may be opportunity to re-use some equipment to transport and inject the CO2.

In most oil fields, only a portion of the original oil in place is recovered using standard extraction methods. CO2 injected into suitable, depleted oil reservoirs can extract more oil - typically 10-15% more - a technique already established for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Much of the injected CO2 remains underground at the end of oil production. Sale of the additional oil produced could, in certain

circumstances, more than offset the cost of CO2 injection. About 43 Mt/y of CO2 is already used in 65 EOR projects in the USA6. Although most of this CO2 is extracted from natural reservoirs, some of it has been captured from natural gas plant and ammonia production. Depleted natural gas fields are also feasible sites for CO2 storage. Underground storage in natural reservoirs has been used by the natural gas industry for many decades. Some depleted gas fields could be adapted easily for storage of CO2. There are some issues of ownership and licence which need to be settled in order to make use of oil and gas reservoirs for CO2 storage but these are not expected to be major barriers. Another type of underground reservoir potentially suitable for CO2 storage is a deep saline-water-filled stratum (aquifer). Injected CO2 would displace water in the aquifer and partially dissolve. In some formations, CO2 would slowly react with minerals to form carbonates, which would lock up the CO2 essentially permanently. Suitable aquifers should have a cap rock of low permeability to minimise CO2 leakage. Also, there should be little/no prospect of them being used as a source of water. Injection of CO2 into deep saline reservoirs would use techniques similar to those for disused oil and gas fields. Unminable coal beds could also be used to store CO2, which would be adsorbed onto the coal, locking it up permanently provided the coal is never mined. In such a process, the CO2 preferentially displaces coal bed methane. Coal can adsorb about twice as much CO2 by volume as methane7. This is referred to as CO2-enhanced coal bed methane production. The oceans already contain large quantities of CO2, around 50 times as much as the atmosphere, mostly in the form of bicarbonate. There is a large and rapid natural interchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the surface layers of the oceans but interchange between the surface layers and the deep ocean is much slower so, if CO2 were injected into the deep ocean, it would take a long time to return to the atmosphere. Computer models predict that about half of the CO2 injected at depths of 8 . about 1500m would still be retained in the ocean after 500 years, depending on location . For injection at 3000m or more, about 80% of the CO2 would still be retained after 500 years. If CO2 were injected close to the sea bed at more than 3000m, it would remain as a lake of liquid CO2 or CO2 hydrate for even longer periods (CO2 hydrate is an ice-like substance consisting of CO2 and water). A major uncertainty about ocean storage is the environmental impact. For seabed storage, the environmental impacts due to increased CO2 concentrations will be severe but will be concentrated on a very small part of the seabed. For dispersion at mid-depth (about 1500m), the environmental impacts will be much less severe but will be spread over a large area of ocean. Other possible ways of storing CO2 have been identified. These include: Storing CO2 as a solid (dry ice) in a thermally insulated repository. Injecting CO2 into natural methane hydrates, where it would form CO2 hydrate and release methane, which could be captured for use. Reacting CO2 with naturally occurring minerals, such as magnesium silicate, to produce carbonates that could be stored permanently. However, the mass of mineral that would need to be quarried and stored would be several times the mass of CO2. Rejecting solid carbon from the process instead of capturing it as CO2.

None of these are economically competitive with the use of natural reservoirs to store CO2 but some have the attraction of storing the CO2 in a permanently different form9.

Cost and efficiency

The costs of each of the 3 stages (i.e. capture, transmission and storage) are presented separately below. The costs and efficiency of available technology for capturing CO2 are given in Table I for natural gas fired combined cycle (NGCC) power generation; data for coal fired power plant can be found in reference 10. The costs are based on a new 500 MWe plant operating at base load, 10% discount rate, gas cost of $2/GJ (these are the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programmes standard assessment criteria). Typical uncertainty in these costs is +/- 25%. The cost of compressing the captured CO2 to a pressure of 110 bar, suitable for transmission to storage, is included. Use of CO2 capture reduces emissions of CO2 by about 80-85%. The cost of CO2 capture is expressed in terms of the cost per tonne of CO2 emission avoided relative to the reference plant (no capture case).

Table I Process

Costs and efficiency of CO2 capture, natural gas fired plant (gas cost $2/GJ) Efficiency (% LHV) 56 47 48 Specific Investment ($/kWe) 410 790 910 Cost of electricity (c/kWh) 2.2 3.2 3.4 CO2 emission (g/kWh) 370 61 65 Cost of CO2 avoided ($/tCO2) Reference plant 32 39

NGCC without CO2 capture NGCC, post combustion capture NGCC, pre combustion capture

Use of CO2 capture in a new gas fired power plant is expected to increase the cost of electricity generation by about 50%. The cost to consumers would rise proportionally less, as a large proportion of the cost of electricity, particularly to domestic consumers, is the cost of distribution and sales. The cost of avoiding CO2 emissions in a gas fired power station is $32-39 /t CO2 (for the capture part of the process). As with most new technologies, the cost of CO2 capture is expected to decrease when applied on a large scale, through the normal process of technical improvement. The cost of pipeline transport is estimated to be about $1-3/t CO2 for transmitting large quantities of CO2 over 100km distance. The cost of storing compressed CO2 in natural reservoirs is small compared to the cost of capture and compression given in Table 1. For example, Figure 2 shows the potential of depleted oil fields worldwide to store CO2. Figure 2 is an abatement cost curve which shows how much capacity would be available at what cost. Use of oil fields such as these would generate some compensating revenue through enhanced oil recovery, which is included in the assessment of costs in the figure. A similar picture applies to depleted gas fields; however, although the capacity is greater, there is no compensating income generated. Cost of storage (US$/tCO2) $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 0 -$20 -$40 0 60 80 20 40 Cumulative CO2 storage capacity (Gt) 100 120

Figure 2

Cost curve for storage of CO2 in depleted oil fields (global capacity).

The abatement cost curve for unminable coal measures is steeper than Figure 2 but, as with oil fields, some coal fields should be capable of generating offsetting income from sale of products enhanced by CO2 injection in this case coal bed methane.

Assuming a transport distance of 300km, the overall cost of capture, transmission and storage would be about $40/t CO2-avoided for gas fired power plant. Where income can be generated (e.g. by EOR), this will partially offset this cost. Estimates of the potential global capacity for CO2 storage are shown in Table 2 at cost of storage less than $20/tCO2; there is additional capacity available at higher cost. Comparing these numbers with the current annual emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels, of about 24 Gt/y, indicates there is sufficient capacity available to make substantial reduction in emissions. Table 2 Estimates of global capacity for storage of CO2 in natural reservoirs (at storage cost < $20/t CO2) Reservoir type Below ground Storage option Depleted oil fields Depleted gas fields Deep saline reservoirs Unminable coal measures Deep ocean Global capacity Gt CO2 125 700 400 - 10000 ~30 <4800

Ocean

The estimates for deep saline reservoirs were made in the early 1990s. More recent estimates suggest that, in Europe alone, storage capacity in geological reservoirs could be as much as 800 Gt CO2 (most of this is in deep saline reservoirs). Further research is required to assess the potential storage capacity of deep saline reservoirs. The storage capacity of the oceans depends how large a change in pH is environmentally acceptable. Dispersal of about 4800 Gt of CO2 would decrease the pH of the oceans by about 0.3.

Practical experience of capture and storage

Although it has only recently been recognised that this technology could be used to make deep reductions in emissions, there are already a number of large-scale projects in planning or operation using this approach. For example, over 3 million tonnes of CO2 has been stored to date in a deep saline reservoir under the Norwegian sector of the North Sea in a project which began in 1996. The CO2 is separated from the natural gas produced from the Sleipner West field. This is the first largescale, purposeful storage of CO2 for reasons of protecting the climate. The project is being monitored and modelled as part of an international project established by Statoil with the IEA Greenhouse Gas 11 R&D Programme . This work should help to resolve many of the uncertainties about CO2 injection into water-filled strata. A pilot CO2-enhanced coal bed methane project, the Allison Unit in New Mexico, USA, has been operating since 1995. Although not set up for purposes of sequestration (the CO2 comes from a natural source), this project also demonstrates the potential for this technique. A field test of enhanced coal bed methane production using CO2 and nitrogen mixtures is being carried out in Canada by the Alberta Research Council. Such a combined approach may improve the prospects for recovering methane and storing CO2. Another storage project, this one based on use of CO2 for EOR, started operation in Canada in 2000. CO2 captured in a large coal gasification project in North Dakota, USA, is being transported by pipeline and injected into the Weyburn field in Saskatchewan. Initially 5 000 tonnes per day of CO2 will be injected12. An international research project, organised through the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, aims to determine how effective this CO2 storage will be over the long term.

Discussion
In order to meet the worlds aspirations for increased standards of living and economic growth, whilst at the same time protecting the climate, it will be necessary to deploy widely technologies capable of

making deep reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. As well as use of renewable sources of energy and nuclear energy, it is now recognised that capture and storage of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a role to play. Use of this technique will enable the world to continue to use fossil fuels whilst making deep reductions in global CO2 emissions. The cost of avoiding emissions by capture and storage of CO2 is expected to be around $40/t CO2-avoided (gas fired power plant). This is comparable with the cost of other techniques for making deep reductions in emissions, such as wind power or biomass for power, and has the advantage that relatively large capacity is available at more or less similar cost. The technology of capture and storage makes use of techniques developed for other purposes thus the time to deployment is likely to be less than for other new energy technologies, since there is less uncertainty about the technology. Nevertheless, wider application will lead to improvements, especially reductions in the cost of capture. There is scope to bring down the cost of capture by new and improved techniques and current research programmes are aimed at this goal. Storage of CO2 in natural reservoirs can build on oil industry sub-surface experience, especially enhanced oil recovery. It will be necessary to establish the safety and reliability of geological storage in order to gain public acceptance and win regulatory approval this will be aided by the increasing numbers of demonstration projects now taking place and planned. Incorporation of CO2 storage into national carbon trading regimes will be important as a means of remunerating these projects. Techniques for monitoring and verification will benefit from further development and application.

Conclusions
There is no single technique which will solve the problem of climate change. Capture and storage of CO2 is one of the ways in which the world can obtain energy services without compromising its other aspirations such as continued economic development. Development and demonstration of this technology will build confidence and accelerate wider application through cost reduction.

References
1 2 Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A., (eds.), Climate Change 2001 The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, UK, 2001 (ISBN 0 521 80767 0) Edmonds, J.A., Freund, P., and Dooley, J.J., The role of carbon management technologies in addressing atmospheric stabilization of greenhouse gases, in: proc 5th Intl. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Collingwood, Australia, CSIRO Publishing, 2001, 46-51. (ISBN 0 643 06672 1) Houghton, J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Callendar, B.A., Kattenberg, A., and Maskell, K. (eds.), Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996. IEA World Energy Outlook 2000, Paris, OECD/IEA, 2000 Audus, H., Leading options for the capture of CO2 at power stations, in: proc 5th Intl. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Collingwood, Australia, CSIRO Publishing, 2001, 91-96. (ISBN 0 643 06672 1) Stevens, S.H. and Gale, J.J., Geologic CO2 sequestration, Oil and Gas Journal, May 15 2000, 40-44. Byrer, C.W., Guthrie, H.D., Coal Deposits: potential geological sink for sequestering carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, in: proc. 4th Intl. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Oxford, U.K., Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, 181-187. (ISBN 008 043018 X) Orr, J., Aumont, O., Maier-Reimer, E., Ocean CO2 sequestration efficiency from 3-D ocean model comparison, in: proc 5th Intl. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Collingwood, Australia, CSIRO Publishing, 2001, 469-474. (ISBN 0 643 06672 1) Freund, P., Progress in understanding the potential role of CO2 storage, in proc. 5th Intl. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Collingwood, Australia, CSIRO Publishing, 2001, 272277. (ISBN 0 643 06672 1) IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Putting Carbon Back in the Ground, Cheltenham, U.K., 2001 (ISBN 1 898373 28 0)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

Arts, R., Brevik, I., Eiken, O., Solie, R., Causs, E., van der Meer, B., Geophysical Methods for monitoring marine aquifer CO2 storage Sleipner experiences, in: proc. 5th Intl. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Collingwood, Australia, CSIRO Publishing, 2001, 366371. (ISBN 0 643 06672 1) Wilson, M., Moberg, R., Stewart, B., Thambimuthu, K., CO2 sequestration in oil reservoirs a th monitoring and research opportunity, in: proc. 5 Intl. Conf. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Collingwood, Australia, CSIRO Publishing, 2001, 243-247. (ISBN 0 643 06672 1)