Re: [geo] Re: The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs

[Greg Rau]

In fairness, the "Bad News" author's response to the preceding post follows. 
Regardless, there was plenty of bad news about CCS before this report to very 
seriously question the widely held concept that CCS is going to single handedly 
decarbonize fossil energy and, more recently, the atmosphere (via BECCS) 
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b00839 .  Rather than continue to 
double down and lock in the future of the planet to the very expensive and 
risky notion of making supercritical CO2 and putting it in the ground, it is 
time to reopen/broaden the search for solutions, especially those that do not 
require energy intensive recycling of exotic, costly, and hazardous reagents 
and do not produce and riskily store concentrated CO2, e.g. Skyonic, AWL, 
mineral carbonation, biochar, etc. Name me another gaseous pollutant that is 
mitigated by concentrating it in molecular form and storing somewhere. Why then 
are we assuming that this is the "winning" idea for CO2?Greg Rau
Sarang SupekarPostdoctoral Fellow in Mechanical Engineering ,University of 
MichiganIn reply to Mathieu LucquiaudDear Mathieu,Thank you for your comment on 
the article. You are right about how assumptions regarding steam sourcing and 
energy penalty values need to be dealt with accurately since they affect costs 
significantly. However, we would like to point out some factual inaccuracies in 
your comments, and clarify our position on a few other points that we think 
have been misinterpreted in your statements.Firstly, we do not claim anywhere 
that the 1991 study is flawed. In fact, that study by Booras and Smelser 
published in the journal Energy is very clear in reporting its findings that 
were based on keeping the fuel input to the power plant unchanged after the 
addition of the capture unit. This 1991 study emphasizes the importance of the 
“replacement power” source (to make up for the power lost in the capture plant) 
in determining the overall CO2 reduction and efficiency of carbon capture 
technology. It is the incorrect interpretation of their results in studies that 
followed (as recently as 2011) that we point out in our work. Our ES&T paper 
provides a detailed trace of major CCS studies obtaining their energy penalty 
values from this 1991 pilot study.Our second point of clarification has to do 
with steam sourcing. Our analysis actually considers that 40% of the total 
steam demand of the capture unit is met by bleeding the low-pressure stage 
steam turbine in the power plant. The remaining demand is met by a dedicated 
boiler for the capture unit, such as the one you mentioned. We also consider 
utilization of waste heat recovered from the inter-stage coolers of the 
multi-stage CO2 compressor. Even under these optimistic scenarios, we find that 
the energy penalty is significantly higher than reported values. Which brings 
us to our final point and perhaps the most critical finding of our work - the 
recursive energy feedback loop.We maintain after studying your critique that 
the recursive loop, which we found as having received no formal attention after 
a comprehensive review of the literature, is largely responsible for the higher 
fuel costs. Extracting steam from turbines or CHP boilers will inevitably lead 
to loss in useful electric or heat output. This loss is significant if the fuel 
input is kept constant, as seen in the 1991 pilot study. To make up for this 
loss of steam and consequently revenue, power plants will burn additional fuel. 
This premise of equivalent useful electricity generation is also inherent in 
several analyses (that we list in our paper) comparing the economics of a 
CCS-equipped power plant with an equivalent non-CCS power plant (or even 
renewables for that matter).The issue that our work sheds light on is that 
every unit of energy used to capture CO2 will create more CO2, requiring more 
energy and generating more CO2. This creates an infinite geometric series, 
which at current values of capture energy requirements (~4 - 6 MJth including 
compression energy) is convergent.This phenomenon is based purely on physics 
(and not assumptions), and the mathematics of this system is described in 
detail in our ES&T paper. The common ratio of the geometric series is dependent 
on the carbon content of the fuel, which is why the feedback effect will be 
more pronounced in coal CCS plants than natural gas CCS plants. 
   
   -




On Dec 8, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:


Poster's note : I've been asked by a list member to post the quoted comment, 
which he spotted on the original article. It seems this study is proving highly 
controversial. 
“The latest bad news for this article is”……that it, and the associated study in 
Env Sci Tech, are both predicated on wrong assumptions and lacks the necessary 
rigour to further any authoritative claims.(It is actually surprising that the 
article in Environmental Science Technology actually passed any competent peer 
rev

[geo] Re: The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : I've been asked by a list member to post the quoted
comment, which he spotted on the original article. It seems this study is
proving highly controversial.

“The latest bad news for this article is”……that it, and the associated
study in Env Sci Tech, are both predicated on wrong assumptions and lacks
the necessary rigour to further any authoritative claims.(It is actually
surprising that the article in Environmental Science Technology actually
passed any competent peer review, in my opinion)

First, the authors seem to create confusion, (perhaps voluntarily to
further their claim), between an increase in costs associated with energy
penalty and the reduced availability at Boundary Dam 3, due to mechanical
issues and what could be consider normal teething issues for a first of a
kind project.

Then, their analysis on a so-called “added energy translat[ing] directly
into costs” is contradicted by hundreds of sound engineering studies.

These studies on the thermodynamic integration of post combustion capture
technologies include several authoritative studies funded by the US
Department of Energy, the International Agency, and many others in the
academic community.

Contrarily to what is claimed here, steam for carbon capture is unlikely to
be extracted directly from a coal plant boiler. It is actually important to
get this right since Cost of Electricity are highly sensitive to the
assumption about energy penalties!

Real projects, such as Boundary Dam, and the many Front End Engineering
Design studies carried out in the last decade, show that it is considerably
more effective to extract low pressure steam from the steam cycle; that is
steam generated at high pressure in the boiler, which generates valuable
mechanical work before it is extracted at low pressure for carbon capture.

If steam extraction from the steam turbines is not possible, then it makes
economic sense to use a gas turbine CHP plant to provide heat and
electricity to the capture plant, and get valuable mechanical work as
possible from any fuel used! A basic principle applied in the power
generation industry for hundreds of year.

The concept was, for example, proposed in the FEED study of the Longannet
CCS retrofit project in Scotland (1), or is being implemented in large
scale CCS project due to start operation in Texas in 2016, at Unit 8, W.A.
Parish plant (2)

If one finds a mistake in an early study from 1990, is it ethical to put in
disrepute everything else that has been carried out since? I think not

(1)
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121217150422/http:/decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/ccs/ukccscomm_prog/feed/scottish_power/scottish_power.aspx
)

(2) (
http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/2010/news-section/news-items/usa-commercial-start-eyed-for-late-2016-on-texas-carbon-capture-project
).
On 7 Dec 2015 23:38, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> Poster's note : It's likely similar errors have crept into the economic
> arguments for BECCS
>
>
> https://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440
>
> The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs
>
> December 3, 2015 11.06am GMT
>
>  Sarang Supekar and Steve Skerlos
>
> Coal powered much of the industrial revolution and continues to fuel
> economic growth in developing nations, including China and India.
>
> The dark side of coal, however, is that it generates large quantities of
> the heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2), that lead
> to climate change. This CO2 pollution is in addition to other emissions
> from coal burning that lead tothousands of premature deaths per day around
> the world.
>
> It was once thought that the CO2 emissions from coal power stations could
> be controlled by burying CO2 underground economically. However, our recent
> analysis published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology shows
> that the concept of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will be
> significantly more expensive than previously thought because previous
> studies miscalculated the energy required. As such, it’s unlikely to
> provide an economically viable solution to CO2 pollution from coal-based
> power generators.
>
> Coal and global carbon budget
>
> As countries think about possible ways to cut their greenhouse gas
> emissions at the UN Climate Summit in Paris, developing a strategy to curb
> emissions from coal will be essential to taking meaningful action on
> climate change.
>
> Globally, the use of coal for heat and electricity accounted for over 14
> billion metric tonnes (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2014 according to
> the International Energy Agency. This comprises about one-third of the
> world’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> Coal being unloaded from a cargo train in India. China and India
> collectively have more than 175 gigatons of coal reserves.nicksarebi/flickr
>
> Atmospheric concentration of CO2 today is about 400 parts per mi

[geo] Re: The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs

[David Lewis]

Mike Morris, the CEO of American Electric Power, in an interview recorded 
by Public Radio International Living on Earth 
which 
aired July 22, 2011, said his company was then operating its $100 million 
Mountaineer pilot plant fitted with CCS in West Virginia which proved that 
American Electric Power could build a full scale coal fired plant with CCS 
that had what he called a "parasitic impact" of 10 to 15%, meaning, in his 
words, "if that power plant makes the energy at five cents it might make it 
at seven cents with this [ CCS ] technology".  

He said his company didn't proceed with building the full scale plant 
because his regulator would not let him recover the two cent per kw/hr 
penalty that CCS imposed.  

He said what was holding CCS back in the US was a politics not technology.  
"we are a regulated utility.  And we are not allowed to simply invest money 
on behalf of our customers and recover those costs from them under the 
regulatory contract".  Unless a political jurisdiction sets a carbon price 
and the regulator allows them to recover costs as they reduce their 
emissions.  As things looked to him in 2011, electricity generated using 
his company's proven CCS process, even as it added two cents a kw/hr to its 
cost, would be "clearly cheaper than nuclear, clearly cheaper than sun and 
wind".  The only thing comparable in cost in his mind was the then still a 
bit iffy shale gas.  

Little did he know that some researchers would discover in 2015 that what 
his company had built in 2011 was impossible. 

Its too bad all this bad news is rolling in about CCS.

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-8, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> Poster's note : It's likely similar errors have crept into the economic 
> arguments for BECCS 
>
>
> https://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440
>
> The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.