CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

Submitted By:

Debasish Deb

Entry No.2007JEN2820

4Th Semester, M.Tech, Energy and Environment Management, IIT Delhi

 CONTENTS

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................2
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................2
The CCS process .......................................................................................................................2
Risks and uncertainties of CCS ................................................................................................3
Why should CO2 be captured and stored?...............................................................................4
Methods of Co2 Capture...........................................................................................................4

Post-Combustion Capture Power Plants ......................................................................................4

Pre-Combustion Capture Power Plants .......................................................................................5

Oxy-Combustion Capture Power Plants.......................................................................................6

Current maturity of CCS system components .........................................................................7
Cost Analysis for CCS...............................................................................................................8

Cost of Capture ...........................................................................................................................8

Cost of Transport ........................................................................................................................9

Cost of Injection and Storage ....................................................................................................10

Minimum work required to sequester CO2 and energy Penalty Calculation .......................11

Carbon Capture cost comparison Study ....................................................................................22

Future Cost Prediction for Carbon Capture ................................................................................24

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................25
References: ..............................................................................................................................27

1
Objectives
The objectives of the study is to introduce various methods of Carbon Capture and Storage
system, cost analysis with reference to the energy penalty, present scenario of the CCS and Future
cost prediction.

Introduction
Human activity spills about 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere every
year, building up the levels of greenhouse gases that bring us ever closer to dangerous
interference with Earth's climate system. The world's forests take up about 2 or 3 billion tons of
that output annually, and the ocean absorbs 7 billion tons. Experts estimate that another
5 to 10 billion tons of this greenhouse gas—as much as 40% of human made CO2—could be
removed from the atmosphere and tucked safely away. Advancing the technologies needed to
capture and store CO2 is a sensible strategy. In addition to increasing renewable energy and
promoting energy efficiency and conservation, the strategy of advancing CO2 capture and storage
(CCS) can be easily understood by all Americans who acknowledge that even though fossil fuels
will be needed for a long time to come, the U.S. governtiient at sotne point rnust confront the
climate change problem by setting limits on CO2 emissions. Capturing and storing CO2 is a cost-
competitive and safe way to achieve large-scale reductions in etnissions. CCS technology
offers a unique opportunity to reconcile limits on CO2 emissions with society's fossil fuel-
dominated energy infrastructure. In order to continue using the United States' vast
domestic coal resources in a world where CO2 must be constrained, the country will need to rely
on technology that can seize CO2 generated from coal-fired power plants and store
it in geologic formations underground. However, the integration and scaling up of existing
technologies to capture, transport, and store CO2 emitted from a full-scale power plant have
not yet been demonstrated. The technical feasibility of integrating a complete CCS system with a
commercial-scale power plant is not in doubt, but it is necessary to build up experience by
advancing early deployment.

The CCS process

Large stationary sources of CO2, are good candidates for CCS. Power plants are the largest
emitters, generating 29% of CO2 emissions. The gas also can be captured from some large-scale
industrial processes that release lots of CO2 including the production of iron, steel, cement,
chemicals and pulp; oil refining; natural gas processing; and synthetic fuels production. Small
nonpoint sources of CO2, including emissions from vehicles, agriculture, and heating systems
in buildings, are not good candidates for CCS because there currently is no way to capture the
CO2 from these dispersed sources.
A complete CCS system relies on three technological components: capture, transport, and
storage. Technologies that are used commercially in other sectors are available for each of these
components. CO2 capture technology is already widely used in ammonia production and other
industrial manufacturing processes, as well as oil refining and gas processing. CO2 gas has been
transported through pipelines and injected underground for decades, most notably in west Texas,
where it is used to enhance oil recovery from wells in which production is declining. In addition,
some 3 to 4 million tons of CO2 per year is stored underground at several locations in other
countries. CO2 capture technologies can be divided into three categories: post-combustion or
"end-of-pipe" CO2 capture, relying on chemical or physical absorption of CO2; precombustion
CO2 capture technologies that separate CO2 from a syngas fuel (produced from coal, oil, or
natural gas) before the fuel is burned; and oxyfuel combustion, in which oxygen instead of air is
introduced during the combustion process to produce a relatively pure stream of CO2

2
emissions.Of these options, pre-combustion capture is currently the most efficient and therefore
the cheapest. In the case of coal-fired power plants, however, pre-combustion capture can be
applied only when coal gasification technology is employed, such as in integrated gasification
combined-cycle coal-fired power plants.
Once the CO2 is separated and captured, it must be compressed to reduce the volume of gas for
transportation to an appropriate storage location. Compressing gas uses a lot of energy, so this
part of the CCS system adds to the overall implementation costs. CO2 can be best transported by
pipeline or ship. Ships are cost-effective only if the CO2 must be moved more than 1,000 miles or
so. A network of CO2 pipelines is already being used in several areas of the United States for
enhanced oil recovery, so building and operating CO2 pipelines is unlikely to pose technical or
safety challenges. But regional siting limitations are possible.
Three alternative approaches to storing CO2 in a reservoir other than the atmosphere have been
proposed: geological storage, storage in the ocean, or aboveground land storage. Geologic storage
is currently the most promising approach. It involves direct injection of CO2 into underground
geologic formations, it including depleted oil and gas reservoirs, unminable coal seams, and deep
saline aquifers. Public opposition to the idea of injecting ,CO2 directly into the deep ocean has
prevented some research on this option,despite the ocean's natural capacity to store most of the
CO2 currently emitted into the atmosphere. The potential of aboveground land storage is limited
by the impermanence and short (decade-long) time-scale of carbon storage in biomass and the
slow reaction rates associated with the formation of carbonate minerals.The oil industry has
substantial commercial experience with CO2 injection to enhance oil production. That experience
provides support for exploiting the many opportunities for coupled enhanced oil recovery/CO2
storage.

Risks and uncertainties of CCS

The dominant safety concern about CCS is potential leaks,both slow and rapid. Gradual and
dispersed leaks will have very different effects than episodic and isolated ones. The most
frightening scenario would be a large, sudden, catastrophic leak. This kind of leak could be
caused by a well blowout or pipeline rupture. A sudden leak also could result from a slow leak if
the CO2 is temporarily confined in the near surface environment and then abruptly released.
CO2 is benign and nontoxic at low concentrations. But at high concentrations it can cause
asphyxiation, primarily by displacing oxygen. The most noteworthy natural example
of a catastrophic CO2 release was in the deep tropical Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986. Lake
water that was gradually saturated with CO2 from volcanic vents suddenly turned over and
released a huge amount of the gas; the CO2 cloud killed 1,700 people in a nearby village. An
event like this can occur only in deep tropical lakes with irregular turnover, but it is conceivable
that leaking CO2 could infiltrate caverns at shallow depths and then suddenly be vented
to the atmosphere. CO2 is denser than air, so when released it tends to accumulate in shallow
depressions. This increases the risk in confined spaces close to the ground, such as
buildings and tents, more than it does in open terrain, where CO2 will diffuse quickly into the air.
Before any CO2 storage project will be allowed to begin, Before any CO2 storage project will be
allowed to begin, it will have to be demonstrated to regulators that the likelihood of rapid leakage
is negligible and that any gradual leakage will be extremely slow. Also, monitoring and
verification procedures will be able to detect potential leaks.In addition to undermining the
purpose of a storage project,CO2 leakage from an underground reservoir into the atmosphere
could have local effects: ground and water displacement,groundwater contamination, and
biological interactions.Monitoring technology that can measure CO2 concentrations
in and around a storage location to verify effective containment of the gas has demonstrated that
leakage back to the atmosphere has not been a problem in current CO2 storage projects.

3
Why should CO2 be captured and stored?
Approximately one third of all CO2 emissions due to human activity come from fossil fuels used
for generating electricity, with each power plant capable of emitting several million tonnes of
CO2 annually. A variety of other industrial processes also emit large amounts of CO2 from each
plant, for example oil refineries, cement works, and iron and steel production. These emissions
could be reduced substantially, without major changes to the basic process, by capturing and
storing the CO2. Other sources of emissions, such as transport and domestic buildings, cannot be
tackled in the same way because of the large number of small sources of CO2.

Methods of Co2 Capture

CO2 can be captured by a variety of methods which are classified as post-combustion, pre-
combustion and oxy-combustion. Post-combustion capture uses a solvent to capture CO2 from
the flue gas of power plants. In pre-combustion capture the fuel is reacted with air or oxygen
and then with steam to produce a mixture of CO2 and H2. The CO2 is removed and the hydrogen
is used as the fuel. Oxy-combustion is when oxygen is used for combustion instead of air,
which results in a flue gas that consists mainly of CO2 and is potentially suitable for storage
The three different types of capture process for CO2 are described in this chapter.

Fig. Principal CO2 Capture Option

Post-Combustion Capture Power Plants

Post-combustion capture normally uses a solvent to capture CO2 from the flue gas of power
plants. The solvent is then regenerated. The solvents for CO2 capture can be physical, chemical
or intermediate but chemical solvents, known as amines, are most likely to be used for post-
combustion capture. This is because chemical solvents are less dependent on partial pressure than
physical solvents are, and the partial pressure of CO2 in the flue gas is low, typically 4-1 4% by
volume. However, chemical solvents require more energy (as steam) to regenerate, that is, to
break the relatively strong chemical link between CO2 and the solvent. It is likely that amines

4
will be used for the first generation of CO2 post-combustion capture, because of the advanced
state of development of amine absorption. However, the presence of oxygen can be a problem
for flue gas amine scrubbing, as it can cause degradation of some solvents and corrosion of
equipment. Inhibitors can be included in the solvent to counteract the activity of oxygen. At
present the process of scrubbing CO2 with amines does not operate on the scale of power plants,
but increasing the technology to this size is not considered to be a major problem.
The flue gas must contain very low levels of oxides of nitrogen and sulphur (NO2 and SOJ
before it is scrubbed of CO2. This is because NO2 and SOX react with the amine to form stable,
non-regenerable salts, and so cause a steady loss of the amine. The preferred SOX specification
is usually set at between 1 and 10 ppm(v). This means that post-combustion CO2 capture on coal
fired power plants requires upstream de-NOx and flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) facilities.
The limits for NOX can usually be met by the use of low NOX burners with selective catalytic
reduction (SCR), and the SOX limit can be achieved by some FGD technologies.
IEA GHG has assessed two proprietory processes for the post-combustion capture of CO2, one
based on MEA and the other based on a hindered amine solvent. The hindered amine process
loses less energy mainly because the solvent consumes less heat for regeneration than MEA
solvents. The data presented in this report are for the hindered amine process.Post-combustion
CO2 capture processes can be considered a current technology, although some demonstration of
these technologies at large coal-fired power plants is necessary.

Pre-Combustion Capture Power Plants

Pre-combustion capture can be used for gas turbine combined cycles. In this process, a fuel is
reacted with air or oxygen to produce a fuel that contains CO and H2. This is then reacted with
steam in a shift reactor to produce a mixture of CO2 and H2. The CO2 is separated and the H2 is
used as the fuel in a gas turbine combined cycle, which is the most efficient thermal cycle for
power generation, currently. Pre-combustion capture can be used in natural gas or coal based
plants. When the primary fuel is coal, and the key process is the gasification of the coal, it is
known as an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). Gasification is the partial
oxidation of coal, or any fossil fuel to a gas, often known as syngas, which has H2 and CO as
its main components. Gasification can act as a bridge between coal and gas turbines, with the
target of high energy efficiency and minimum emissions to the environment. However, at
present, none of the existing coal-fired IGCC plants includes shift conversion with CO2 capture.
IEA GHG has assessed plants based on two types of gasifier: A slurry feed gasifier, in which the
gas product is cooled by quenching with water; and A dry feed gasifier, in which the gas
product is cooled in a heat recovery boiler. In the slurry feed IGCC plant without CO2 capture,
the coal is ground and slurried with water and then pumped to the gasifier vessels where it reacts
with oxygen. The products from gasification are quenched with water, the saturated gas is cooled,
and condensed water and minor impurities are removed. The sulphur compounds are removed
from the gas by passing it through a reactor and feeding it to a Selexol acid gas removal (AGR)
plant. Selexol is a physical solvent. The clean fuel gas is fed to the gas turbine combined cycle
plant. However, in the case of the IGCC with CO2 capture, the gas from the gasifier is fed to a
CO2-shift converter prior to cooling and the Selexol unit removes CO2 as well as sulphur
compounds. The Selexol is regenerated to produce separate CO2 and sulphur compound streams.
The CO2 stream is compressed and dried for transport by pipeline. The removal rate of CO2 is
over 90%, which means that an overall CO2 capture rate of 85% can be achieved.
In the dry feed gasifier plant without capture of CO2, the coal is dried, ground and then fed to
the gasifier vessels. The gasifier product gas is quenched, cooled and is then fed to a dry
particulate removal unit. Some of the gas is recycled as quench gas and the remainder is
scrubbed with water, reheated, the COS is removed and it is fed to an MDEA solvent acid

5
removal plant. The clean fuel gas is fed to the gas turbine combined cycle plant. The
configuration of the plant with CO2 capture is the same except that the COS removal process is
replaced by a two-stage shift converter and H2S and CO2 are separated in a Selexol AGR unit

Oxy-Combustion Capture Power Plants

Oxy-combustion is the term for when a fossil fuel is combusted with nearly pure oxygen and
recycled flue gas or CO2 and water/steam to produce a flue gas consisting essentially of CO2 and
water. It may have potential as part of a system for capturing and storing CO2 as the nitrogen
concentration in the flue gas is much lower than when air is used for firing. So the CO2 can be
stored with less downstream processing.
The PF oxy-combustion plant uses the same steam conditions as the other post-combustion
capture plant. A large amount of oxygen is required for combustion, which is obtained from an air
separation unit.The flue gas from oxy-combustion is compressed and chilled to separate out
nitrogen, oxygen and other impurities. The resulting CO2 concentration is typically 95mol% or
more.
The ED NOX emission limits can be met with just the firing system of the boiler with staged
combustion and low temperature at the furnace exit. The NOX and SOX will be converted to acid
and condensed from the CO2 stream, so SCR and FGD units may not be needed.
Oxy-combustion is at a relatively early stage of development but integrated pilot plants are being
built and plans to build commercial power plants are also at an advanced stage.
The principle aim of this comparison is to evaluate the effect of CO2 capture on different power
plant technologies. To this end, the plant performances, investment and production costs and
environmental impact were examined.

6
Current maturity of CCS system components
indicates the highest level of maturity for each component. There are also less mature
technologies for most components.

under
Research Demonstration Economically specific Mature
a b c d
CCS component CCS technology phase phase feasible conditions market
Post-combustion X
Pre-combustion X
Oxyfuel
combustion X
Industrial
separation
(natural gas
processing,
ammonia
Capture production) X
Pipeline X
Transportation Shipping X
Enhanced Oil
e
Recovery (EOR) X
Gas or oil fields X
Saline formations X
Enhanced Coal
Bed Methane
f
Geological storage recovery (ECBM) X
Direct injection
(dissolution type) X
Direct injection
Ocean storage (lake type) X
Natural silicate
minerals X
Mineral carbonation Waste materials X
Industrial uses of
CO2 X

a Research phase means that the basic science is understood, but the technology is currently in the stage of
conceptual design or testing at the laboratory or bench scale, and has not been demonstrated in a pilot plant.
b Demonstration phase means that the technology has been built and operated at the scale of a pilot plant, but
further development is required before the technology is required before the technology is ready for the
design and construction of a full-scale system.
c Economically feasible under specific conditions means that the technology is well understood and used in
selected commercial applications, for instance if there is a favourable tax regime or a niche market, or
processing on in the order of 0.1 MtCO2 yr-1, with few (less than 5) replications of the technology.
d Mature market means that the technology is now in operation with multiple replications of the technology
worldwide.
e CO2 injection for EOR is a mature market technology, but when used for CO2 storage, it is only
economically feasible under specific conditions.
f ECBM is the use of CO2 to enhance the recovery of the methane present in unminable coal beds through the
preferential adsorption of CO2 on coal.Unminable coal beds are unlikely to ever be mined, because they are
too deep or too thin. If subsequently mined, the stored CO2 would be released.

7
Cost Analysis for CCS
Cost of Capture
Technologies to separate and compress CO2 from power plant flue gases exist and are
commercially available. However, they have not been optimized for capture of CO2 from a power
plant for the purpose of storage. The primary difference in capturing CO2 for commercial
markets versus capturing CO2 for storage is the role of energy. In the former case, energy is a
commodity, and all we care about is its price. In the latter case, using energy generates more CO2
emissions,which is precisely what we want to avoid. An energy penalty can be calculated as (x-
y)/x, where x is the output in kilowatts of a reference power plant without capture and y is the
output in kilowatts of the same plant with capture. The calculation requires that the same fuel
input be used in both cases. For example, if the power plant output is reduced by 20%

Graphical representation of avoided CO2.The avoided emissions are simply the difference of the
actual emissions per kilowatt-hour of the two plants. Note that due to the energy penalty,the
emissions avoided are always less than the captured CO2,because of the capture process
(y=0.8x), the process is said to have an energy penalty of 20%. We can account for the energy
penalty by calculating costs on a CO2 avoided basis. As shown in the above figure due to the
extra energy required to capture CO2, the amount of CO2 emissions avoided is always less than
the amount of CO2 captured. Therefore, capturing CO2 for purposes of storage requires more
emphasis on reducing energy inputs than is the case in traditional commercial processes.

The penalties for capturing CO2 would be similar for pre-combustion decarbonisation and
post-combustion CO2 capture. The cost of electricity is increased by at least 1.5 US cents/kWh
and the process efficiency is reduced by about 10 to 15 percentage points. The cost of avoiding
CO2 emissions is $30-50/tonne for capturing CO2.To this, must be added the cost of transmission
and storing of CO2 (which is relatively small).

8
FIG: The cost of electricity (COE) with capture for various types of power plants. NGCC, Natural gas
combinedcycle; IGCC, integrated coal gasification combined cycle; PC,pulverized coal. The triangles
represent a reference plant with nocapture. The cost of electricity for CO2 capture plants is based on a
survey of the literature and is shown as a mean and a range of1 standard deviation.

Based on the results of major economic studies available in the literature adjusted to a common
economic basis, the above figure summarizes the present cost of electricity (COE) from three
types of CO2 capture power plants: integrated gasification combined cycle( IGCC), pulverized
coal-fired single cycle (PC), and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC). The mean and range (71
standard deviation) are shown for each capture plant, along with a typical COE for a no-capture
plant. This results in an increase in the cost of electricity of 1–2cents/kWh for an NGCC plant, 1–
3cents/kWh for an IGCC plant, and 2–4cents/kWh for a PC plant.

The energy penalties for each of these processes have also been estimated. The energy penalty for
an NGCC plant is about 16%, whereas for a PC plant it is 28%. Each of these plants uses the
amine solventprocess The energy penalty for a PC plant is greater than for an NGCC plant
because coal has a larger carbon content compared to gas. The major energy losses are associated
with energy required to blow the flue gas through the amine absorption column, the heat required
to strip off the CO2 and regenerate the amine, and the energy required to compress the CO2. The
energy penalty for an IGCC plant is 14%, actually less than for a PC plant despite its use of coal.
This is because the high CO2 partial pressure in the IGCC stream allows the use of an energy-
efficient physical absorption process instead of the chemical absorption process. However, some
of these gains are offset by the energy loss associated with converting the coal into CO2 plus H2.

Cost of Transport
Costs can vary greatly because pipeline costs depend on terrain, population density,etc.
Economies of scale are realized when dealing with over 10 million metric tons per year
(equivalent to about 1500MWof coal-fired power). This cost is about $0.50/t/100 km, compared
to truck transport of $6/t/100 km.

9
Cost of Injection and Storage
Thetypical base case costs for CO2 storage (transport+injection) without oil or gas by-product
credit is in the range of $3–5.50/tCO2 ($11–20/t C). The overall cost range can be characterized as
$2–15/ tCO2 ($7–55/t C). With a by-product credit for the gas or oil, the credit will offset the
storage costs in many instances. For example, in the base EOR case, one can afford to pay
$12.21/tCO2 and still break even (i.e., the costs equal the by-product credit).

FIG : Total annual cost (capital and operation and maintenance) for CO2 transport via pipeline as a function of CO2 mass flow rate.

FIGURE : Range of costs for various carbon storage technologies on a greenhouse gas-avoided basis. EOR, Enhanced oil
recovery; ECBMR, enhanced coal bed methane recovery.

10
Minimum work required to sequester CO2 and energy
Penalty Calculation
CCS for existing plants involves separating the CO2 from the plant’s flue gas, compressing the
CO2 for pipeline transport, and injecting the CO2 into a geologic formation where it is intended
to remain for millennia.
For the calculation of this ideal limit, the work to store CO2 is described in three steps

(1) The work required to separate the CO2 from the mixture of gases in power-plant flue gas;

(2) the work to compress the CO2 for transport and injection at hydrostatic pressure (pipeline
pressure is typically _14 MPa and hydrostatic pressure in reservoirs is roughly 1 MPa per 100
meters of depth);

(3) the work required to emplace the CO2 at depth, displacing denser groundwater upward.

Each step is required to overcome particular physical barriers: separation overcomes entropy;
compression to pipeline and hydrostatic pressure overcomes pressure; and emplacing beneath the
groundwater overcomes gravity and surface tension.

The analysis follows carbon through the process of oxidation to CO2 in a power plant to storage
in a geologic formation. As such, 6 different chemical and physical states has been defined during
this process:
State 0: Reduced carbon in the plant’s combustor
State 1: Dilute CO2 mixed with N2 and H2O in the flue gas
State 2: Concentrated N2 stream at low pressure that has been separated from the flue gas
State 3: Concentrated CO2 stream at low absolute pressure exiting the separation process
State 4: Concentrated CO2 stream compressed for injection at the surface
State 5: Concentrated CO2 stream emplaced beneath the pore water in the geologic formation

The process of sequestering CO2 requires the input of work to transfer the system from state 1 to
states 2 and 3, from state 3 to state 4, and from state 4 to state 5. We have labeled the work
required for these three transitions: Wa, Wb, and Wc.

11
12
Wa (from state 1 to states 2 and 3)

Considering Flue gas emitted from typical coal-burning power plants contain ~78% N2 from the
atmosphere, ~15% CO2 from the oxidation of the carbon in the hydrocarbon, and~7% water from
both the oxidation of hydrogen in the coal and the vaporization of water that was adsorbed on the
coal. RemovingH2Ofrom the flue gas is—in principle—thermodynamically favorable because
H2O condenses at surface conditions indicating the enthalpy change of separation is not zero.
Also a well developed technology for post-combustion separation of CO2 from flue gas is the
temperature-swing system with the solvent monothenolamine (MEA) is taken for the study.

In the thermodynamic limit, the minimum work to separate the flue gas into one concentrated
CO2 stream and one concentrated N2 stream is the difference in the thermodynamic availability
before and after separation. For an isothermal and isobaric process, the work equals the change in
free energy before and after separation:

-----------------(1)

where G is the Gibbs free energy.

For the separation, we employ the ideal gas assumption as the pressure is near atmospheric and
N2 and CO2 do not chemically interact. The mole fraction of N2 and CO2 in the fully mixed state is
XN1 and XC1. After the separation, the mole fraction in state 2(low CO2) are XN2 and XC2, and the
mole fractions for state 3 (high CO2) are XN3 and XC3. The partial molar Gibbs energy for each gas
in an ideal mixture is given by:

13
 --------------(2)
where Pi is the partial pressure of the ith gas and P is the total pressure. Thus, the total free energy
of an ideal gas mixture is:

------------------------------(3)
If we assume that none of the states are completely pure (i.e., Xij > 0 for all i and j), then the
previous equation will determine the free energy of each state. The minimum work to change a
system’s state is given by the change in free energy between those states:

--------------------(4)
To calculate the minimum work required to transfer the system from state 1 into the distinct states
2 and 3, we calculate
the free energy of each state:

--------------------(5)
So, the minimum required work is:

------------(6)

And the work per mole of CO2 in the flue gas is:

----------------------(7)

The number of parameters can be reduced by substituting the definition of the mole
fraction into eqn (6), and the minimum work required to isothermally separate an ideal
gas mixture into two ideal gas mixtures of different concentrations (Wa) is given by:

--------------(8)

where n is the number of moles of either N2 or CO2, subscripted N or C, in either the

original mixture, the concentrated CO2 stream, or the concentrated N2 stream,
subscripted 1, 2, and 3 respectively.

14
For typical values, Wa equals _9 kJ/(mol CO2).

Wb (from state 3 to state 4)

Compress the concentrated stream at the surface. To inject the concentrated CO2 stream into a
geologic formation, it must be compressed such that at the bottom of the well, its pressure equals
the reservoir pore-pressure:

------------------------(9)
P4 is the pressure at the top of the well, where subscript 4 indicates the state of concentrated and
compressed CO2 at the
surface. P5 is the pore-pressure at the bottom of the well, which is assumed to initially equal the
product of the density of water (ρ ), the gravitational constant (g), and the depth of injection (Ld).
W

The integral in the second term accounts for gravitational compression and thermal expansion of
the concentrated CO2 stream within the borehole.
The minimum work required to compress the concentrated CO2 stream from state 3 to state 4 (Wb)
is given by the reversible isothermal compression:

---------------------(10)

where vi is the molar volume of the concentrated CO2 stream, P3 and T3 are the conditions at which
the plant supplies the highly concentrated stream, P4 and T4 are the post compression conditions,
and Pa is the atmospheric pressure, which assists in the compression.

For typical values, Wb equals ~13 kJ/(mol CO2).

Wc (from state 4 to state 5)

Push the compressed CO2 into the formation. Once the CO2 atthe surface is compressed to the
pressure at the bottom of the borehole (P4), it must be pushed out of the compressor and into the
well, which causes CO2 at the well screen to flow into the formation and vertically displace the
ground-water. In the limit of zero friction, pushing the CO2 into the formation requires work to
vertically displace the groundwater (Wc1) and work to create the interfacial surface between the
CO2 and the pore water (Wc2). The work required to vertically displace the ground water is equal
to the volume of ground water displaced times the wellhead pressure:

------------(11)

In the limiting case of zero viscous drag, the minimum value of Wc1 occurs when P4 equals the
hydrostatic pressure of the ground water at the well-head.

15
For typical values, Wc1 equals _1~2 kJ/(mol CO2).

In addition, work is required to create the interfacial surface between the CO2 and the pore-water
because, on the injection time-scale, the CO2 acts primarily as an immiscible phase. The interfacial
surface tension between supercritical CO2 and water at the relevant conditions is ~0.02 J/m2,22 and
the work required to increase the surface area goes as the interfacial surface tension (γ) and the
change in surface area of the interface:

Wc2 is the work required to overcome the capillary force; where ∆V is the total swept out pore
volume, and ∆Pcap is the capillary pressure:

--------(12)

R1 and R2 are the radii of curvature of the surface, and for a typical sand-reservoir, the pore sizes
are on the order of
10-4to10-5m. The molar volume of CO2 at reservoir conditions is~10-4m3. Therefore, the capillary
pressure is on the order of 2000 Pa, and Wc2 is on the order of 0.2 J/(mol CO2). Since Wc1,on the
other hand, is on the order of _103 J/(mol CO2), thenWc2 can be safely ignored.
The total compression work is the sum of Wb and Wc, where Wc is the sum of Wc1 and Wc2. By the
reverse integration by parts:

------------- (14)

Wbc is minimized under isothermal conditions, but regardless of the final temperature, the
minimum work input required to achieve this lower bound injection pressure equals the change in
thermodynamic availability of the concentrated CO2 stream during compression:

-----------------------(15)

where h and s are the molar enthalpies and entropies, respectively.The subscripts, 3 and 4 indicate
the surface conditions before and after compression, and T0 is the ground state temperature.
Integration of eqn (14) from P3 to P4 will always equal the state change of the thermodynamic
availability (eqn (15)).

16
A different approach to ascertain the work required to emplace the CO2 below the pore water is to
calculate the change
in gravitational potential energy between state 4 and state 5. The total turbine shaft work is then
the sum of Wb and the change in gravitational potential energy:

-----------------(16)

where mC and mN are the molar masses of CO2 and N2 respectively, ρ are densities of H2O, CO2,
i

and N2 in state 5, and ∆U is the change gravitational potential energy of the system from state 4 to
state 5.
Eqn (14), (15), and (16) all yield the same value for Wbc, the minimum possible work. It should
be noted that this lower limit depends on the depth of injection, but it is independent of the
reservoir geometry and area. That is to say that creating sufficient pore-space for a given volume
of CO2 in a reservoir with smaller area requires greater vertical displacement of less pore-water
while emplacing the CO2 into a reservoir with larger area requires less vertical displacement of
more pore water. The displaced volume and the required work are the same in both cases.
Friction. The energetic calculations are now extended to include friction associated with transport
and storage. As the
CO2 is transported from the injection zone to the storage site, viscous drag within the pipeline
decreases the fluid pressure. The pressure drop in a pipeline is given by:

-------------------(17)
where ρ is the fluid density, L is pipeline length, V is the fluid velocity, D is the pipeline
diameter, and β is the friction factor, which depend on the Reynolds number of the flow and inner
roughness of the pipeline. For typical values (i.e., ρ= 900 kg/m3, D = 0.5 m, V = 2 m/s) β~ 10-2
and ∆P ~50L (kg/(m2s2)).Therefore, a typical pressure drop is ~0.5 bars per km or 25 bars per 50
km. Eqn (14) indicates that—in the thermodynamic limit—the work required to re-compress the
CO2 from 90 bars to 115 is _0.4 kJ/(mol) per 50 km. Friction is encountered again when CO2 is
injected into the
formation and work is required to compress the pore-fluid and expand the pore-space. That work
dissipates into friction, which is manifest in elevated injection pressure requiring additional
compression work (Wb and Wc). The frictional loss is larger for high rates of flow – so the
compression work is greater for faster injection. But, storage within the reservoir reduces work by
slowing down flow. Induced fracturing, however, limits reservoir pressures to the
formation’s least compressive stress.27 The fracture threshold is predominately determined by the
least compressive stress. If the vertical stress, which is often near lithostatic pressure, is the
weakest stress, then horizontal fractures will form and accommodate the injected CO2. It is more
likely, however, that one of the horizontal stresses is the weakest indicating that vertical fractures
are most likely.In any case, the pressure and the required work are bounded
by pressure-induced fracturing. Prior to having reached fracture pressure, however, additional
compression work is required to maintain the constant flow of CO2 into the formation. Over the
lifetime of the injection, the reservoir pressures can increase from the hydrostatic pressure of the
formation to the fracture pressure, which is _1.4–2.0 times the hydrostatic pressure.

The additional compression work required (i.e., the increase in Wb) to accommodate the increased
reservoir pressure is small compared with the initial compression as the CO2 pressure–volume
curve flattens out significantly above 100 bars. On the other hand, the additional work required

17
to emplace the CO2 beneath the pore-water by pushing the fluid into the reservoir (i.e., the
increase in Wc) is on the same order as the initial work Wc. That is because eqn (11) is linear in
pressure, and the fracture pressure is about twice the initial hydrostatic pressure.Specifically, Wb
changes from~12 kJ/(mol CO2) initially to 13 kJ/(mol CO2) once fracture pressure is reached,
while Wc changes from 1 kJ/mol to~2 kJ/mol. Thus, the friction related work increases Wbc
by~15%.
The minimum total work required to separate, compress, transport, and store a unit of CO2
produced from a power
plant is:

---------------------(18)
Wtot=9+13+2=24 kJ/(mol CO2)

Performing workWa,Wb, andWc, requires primary energy Ea,Eb, and Ec. Calculating ES—the sum
of Ea, Eb, and Ec—requires determining the theoretical limit for each conversion of primary
energy to work. Subsequently, we extend our calculations to consider reasonable upper bounds on
efficiencies, and hence reasonable lower bounds for the energy penalty.

Wa
Ea = -------------------------(19)
η η
sideal s 2 nd

η sideal
= ideal heat to work conversion efficiency for separation

η s 2 nd
= 2ndlaw efficiency of the actual separation process

The lowest temperature (Ta ~310 K) of an MEA system is the temperature of the absorber unit
that binds lean MEA to CO2,while the highest temperature (TS ~390 K) is the temperature of the
of the stripper unit that desorbs the rich MEA

η = 1 − T s -----------------------(20)
sideal
T a

-------------------(21)

Esep= primary energy required for separation,

Ew=The available waste heat

18
 -------------------------(22)
Carnot efficiency of the power plant:

-----------------------(23)

where TL is the minimum temperature of the working fluid (i.e., the condenser), TH is maximum
temperature of the working fluid (i.e., modern-ultra-critical steam cycles run at _1000 K4), EL is
the minimum quantity of heat transferred to the environment, and EH is the primary energy
content of the fuel, which for a high rank coal is _400 kJ/(mol CO2).
The actual power plant efficiency (ηpp) is given by:

-------------------(24)
where E0Lis the actual quantity of heat dumped to the environment,which is equal to EL plus the
total waste heat produced by irreversible processes (or inefficiencies) within the plant (E’w).
Thus,

-------------------(25)

----------------------------(26)

If a linear temperature distribution between TL and TH was assumed. Such a waste–heat

distribution
yields:

-----------------------------(27)
ηw=The fraction of available waste heat

------------------(28)

or,

19
 ----------------(29)

Only a fraction of the available waste heat, however, will actually be harnessed.

------------------------------(30)
η w2 nd
=2nd-law efficiency (i.e., the fraction of maximum possible) of the waste heat recovery,

-------------(31)
Eb and Ec

--------------------------(32)

-----(33)

For non-temperature-swing separation systems—such as membranes or pressure-swing

absorption systems—waste heat is not useful because the separation work is a parasitic load on
the power-plant turbine. As such, ES is:

---------------------------(34)

------------------------(35)
ƒ1=The energy penalty
If the quantity of fuel is fixed, then the energy penalty is manifest in the reduction of the plant’s
power output. The new
power output per unit fuel is:

----------------(36)

20
 --------------------(37)

and -----------(38)

----(39)
ƒ1 and ƒ2 are written in terms of the stripper temperature (TS) (i.e., the temperature at which the
solvent releases CO2), the absorber temperature (Ta), the temperature of the environment (TL), the
maximum temperature of the power plant’s working fluid (TH), and the fraction of available waste
heat that is actually harnessed for the separation process (hw). The energy penalty for an ideal
capture and storage process with a temperature-swing separation system follows from eqn (38) by
setting ηs2nd =ηw= η = 1.
com

For a pressure-swing separation process with perfect compression and perfect separation, the
ideal primary energy requirement for the total installed base would be ~75 kJ/(mol CO2),
which implies an ƒ1 of ~19% and an ƒ2 of 23% (assuming EH ~400 kJ/(mol CO2)).

For a temperature-swing separation process,the minimum primary energy requirement

corresponds to the case when sufficient waste heat is harnessed for complete separation.
In such an ideal case, the minimum energy requirement would be ~45 kJ/(mol CO2), implying an
ƒ1 of ~11% and an ƒ2 of _13%.

21
Carbon Capture cost comparison Study
Pulverized Coal
Ultra-
Ultra- Supercritical Supercritical
Subcritical Supercritical Supercritical Oxyfuel Oxyfuel
CO2 Capture No Yes No MEA No MEAb No Oxyfuel No Oxyfuel
Base Plant 1,302 1,689 1,335 1,724 1,437 1,845 1,335 1,893c 1,437 1,937c
Capital Cost ($/kWe)

Flue Gas
Cleanup 246 323 228 300 204 273 228 318 204 292
CO2 Capture - 792 - 749 - 673 - -
CO2
Compression - 89 - 84 - 76 - 210 - 197
Total Plant
1
Cost ($/kWe) 1,549 2,895 1,563 2,857 1,641 2,867 1,563 2,930 1,641 2,898
COE
Capital Charges2
(¢/kWh) 3.41 6.81 3.44 6.71 3.86 6.74 3.44 6.89 3.86 6.81
Operating Costs
(¢/kWh) 2.99 4.64 2.85 4.33 2.6 3.86 2.85 4.01 2.6 3.56
d2
CO2 TS&M (¢/kWh) - 0.47 - 0.4 - 0.38 - 0.4 - 0.36
3
Total (¢/kWh) 6.4 11.88 6.29 11.44 6.46 10.98 6.29 11.3 6.46 10.73
a
Increase in COE (%) - 85 - 82 - 75 - 80 - 71
a
$/ton CO2 avoided - 75 - 68 - 61 - 57 - 50

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

GE Energy E-Gas Shell
CO2 Capture No Yes No Yes No Yes
Base Plant 1,323 1,566 1,272 1,592 1,522 1,817
Air Separation Unit 287 342 264 329 256 336
Capital Cost
($/kWe)

Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 203 414 197 441 199 445

CO2 Compression - 68 - 69 - 70

Total Plant Cost1 ($/kWe) 1,813 2,390 1,733 2,431 1,977 2,668
COE
Capital Charges2 (¢/kWh) 4.53 5.97 4.33 6.07 4.94 6.66
Operating Costs (¢/kWh) 3.27 3.93 3.2 4.09 3.11 3.97
CO2 TS&Md2 (¢/kWh) - 0 - 0 - 0.41
3
Total (¢/kWh) 7.8 10.29 7.53 10.57 8.05 11.04
a
Increase in COE (%) - 32 - 40 - 37
a
$/ton CO2 avoided - 35 - 45 - 46

The following are the steam cycle design conditions (design pressure [bar] / main steam [ºC] / temperature
[ºC]) for the five pulverized coal (PC) power plant types: Subcritical 165.5/565.55/565.55; Supercritical
241.3/593.3/593.3; Ultra-Supercritical 275.8/732.2/760; Supercritical Oxyfuel 241.3/599/621; and Ultra-
SupercriticalOxyfuel275.8/732.2/760.
a With respect to its non-capture case
b MEA (monothanolamine)
c Base plant capital includes cryogenic ASU
d TS&M (transportation, storage and monitoring)
1 Total Plant Capital Cost (includes contingencies and engineering fees)
2 50-mile pipeline, saline formation storage 4,500 ft below the surface, monitored for 100 years

22
3 January 2007 Dollars, Capacity Factor 85%, Capital Charge Factor 16.4% (no capture), 17.5% (capture),
Coal cost $1.80/106Btu

The table above presents a compendium of results from these DOE-funded studies. Highlights from the
studies include the following:

• Coal-based plants using today’s technology are capable of producing electricity at relatively high
efficiencies of about 39 percent higher heating value (HHV), without capture, on bituminous coal, and at
the same time meet or exceed current environmental requirements for criteria pollutants.
• Capital cost (total plant cost) for the non-capture plants are as follows: NGCC $554/kW; PC $1,562/kW;
and IGCC 1,841/kW (average). With capture, capital costs are: NGCC $1,172/kW; PC $2,883/kW
(average); and IGCC $2,496/kW (average).
• At fuel costs of $1.80/ton of coal and $6.75 MMBtu of natural gas, the 20-year levelized COE for the
non-capture plants are: 64/mills kWh (average) for PC, 68/mills kWh (average) for NGCC, and 78/mills
kWh (average) for IGCC.
• When today’s technology for carbon capture and sequestration is integrated into these new power plants,
the resultant 20-year levelized COE including the cost of CO2 transport, storage, and monitoring is: 97/mills
kWh (average) for NGCC, 106/mills kWh (average) for IGCC, and 117/mills kWh (average) for PC. The
cost of transporting CO2 a 50-mile distance for storage in a geologic formation with over 30 years of
monitoring is estimated to add about 4/mills kWh. This represents only about 10 percent of the total carbon
capture and sequestration costs.
• A sensitivity study on natural gas price reveals that the COE for IGCC is equal to that of NGCC at
$7.73/MMBtu, and for PC, the COE is equivalent to NGCC at a gas price of $8.87/MMBtu. In terms of
capacity factor, when the NGCC drops below 60 percent, such as in a peaking application, the resulting
COE is higher than that of an IGCC operating at baseload (80 percent capacity factor).

23
Future Cost Prediction for Carbon Capture
Cycle IGCC IGCC PC PC NGCC NGCC
Data Description 2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012
Input
Capital Cost $/kW 1401 1145 1150 1095 542 525
O&M mills/kWh 7.9 6.1 7.4 6.1 2.5 2.4
Heat Rate (LHV) Btu/kWh 8081 7137 8277 8042 6201 5677
Incremental Capital
Cost $/(kg/h) 305 275 529 476 921 829

Incremental O&M mills/kg 2.65 2.39 5.56 5 5.2 4.68

Energy Requirements kWh/kg 0.194 0.135 0.317 0.196 0.354 0.297
Basis
Yearly Operating
Hours hrs/yr 6570 6570 6570 6570 6570 6570
Capital Charge Rate %/yr 15 15 15 15 15 15
Fuel Cost (LHV) $/MMBtu 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 2.93 2.93
Capture Efficiency % 90 90 90 90 90 90
Reference Plant
CO2 Emitted kg/kWh 0.752 0.664 0.789 0.766 0.368 0.337
coe: CAPITAL mills/kWh 32 26.1 26.3 25 12.4 12
coe: FUEL mills/kWh 10 8.8 10.3 10 18.2 16.6
coe: O&M mills/kWh 7.9 6.1 7.4 6.1 2.5 2.4
Cost of Electricity ¢/kWh 4.99 4.1 4.39 4.1 3.3 3.1
Thermal Efficiency
(LHV) % 42.2 47.8 41.2 42.4 55 60.1
Capture Plant
Relative Power Output % 85.4 91 75 85 87 90
Heat Rate (LHV) Btu/kWh 9462 7843 11037 9461 7131 6308
Capital Cost $/kW 1909 1459 2090 1718 1013 894
CO2 Emitted kg/kWh 0.088 0.073 0.105 0.09 0.042 0.037
coe: CAPITAL mills/kWh 43.6 33.3 47.7 39.2 23.1 20.4
coe: FUEL mills/kWh 11.7 9.7 13.7 11.7 20.9 18.5
coe: O&M mills/kWh 11.6 8.4 15.7 11.6 5.1 4.4
Cost of Electricity ¢/kWh 6.69 5.14 7.71 6.26 4.91 4.33
Thermal Efficiency
(LHV) % 36.1 43.5 30.9 36.1 47.8 54.1
Comparison
Incremental coe ¢/kWh 1.7 1.04 3.32 2.16 1.61 1.23
Energy Penalty % 14.6 9 25 15 13 10
Mitigation Cost
Capture vs.Ref.$/tonne
of CO2 avoided 26 18 49 32 49 41

mills=0.1cents
coe=cost of electricity

24
Conclusion
CO2 from fossil fuel could be utilized as a raw material in the chemical industry for producing
commercial products that are inert and long-lived, such as vulcanized rubber, polyurethane foam,
and polycarbonates. Only a limited amount of CO2 can be stored in such a fashion. Estimates of
the world’s commercial sales for CO2 are less than 0.1 GtC equivalent, compared to annual
emissions of close to 7GtC equivalent. It has been suggested that CO2 could be recycled into a
fuel. This would create a market on the same scale as the CO2 emissions. However, to recycle
CO2 to a fuel would require a carbon-free energy source. If such a source existed, experience
suggests that it would be more efficient and cost-effective to use that source directly to displace
fossil fuels rather than to recycle CO2.

Although the US government is supporting some CCS R&D has initiated planning of one large-
scale CCS demonstration project, none of the current efforts and provide the incentives necessary
for the private sector to begin deployment.Economics will largely determine whether CCS can
compete with carbon-mitigating energy ahernatives. Despite the extensive commercial experience
with technological components in other applications, minimal experience in integrating capture,
transport, and storage into one system so far means that current cost projections are quite
uncertain.
For power plants using modern coal gasification combined cycle technology or a natural gas
combined cycle, the costs of capturing, transporting, and storing carbon dioxide are
estimated at about $20 to S25 per metric ton of CO2 For plants using traditional pulverized coal
steam technology, these costs could double.

CO2 capture technology is itself energy-intensive and requires a substantial share of the
electricity generated. Accounting for the corresponding power plant efficiency reduction (up to
30%} by expressing costs in dollars per ton of CO2 avoided, the costs of CCS in power plants
range from $25 to $70 per ton of CO2 avoided. These figures imply an additional l or 2 cents per
kilowatt hour (kWh) for new coal gasification power plants, which have a baseline cost of about 4
cents per kWh. Currently, these cost estimates are dominated by the cost of capture (including
compression). If transport distances are less than a few hundred miles, the cost of capture
constitutes about 80% of the total costs. The broad range of current cost estimates for CCS
systems results from a high degree of variability in site-specific considerations. Among these are
the particular power plant technologies, transportation distance, and storage site characteristics.
For all power plant alternatives and components, costs are expected to decline as new
technologies are developed and as more knowledge is gained from demonstration projects and
early deployment efforts.

India's position with regard to Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) is very clear. India didn’t make
any commitment at this stage regarding deployment of Carbon Storage technologies. India
however advocates very strongly the Carbon Capture & Sequestration. Some of the demo pilot
projects include a Pilot project on Geological CO2 sequestration in basalt rock formation. The
question of adoption of CCS will depend on this technology being cost effective. Further DST's
National Program on Carbon Sequestration (NPCS) under which various demonstration projects
based on MEA Solvent and Catalytic converter plant like that of Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki
Vishwavidyalaya and several Biochemical approach based units are being installed in the
country. National Program on Carbon Sequestration Research was initiated so as to compete with
other countries in this emerging and strategic area from perspective of pure/applied research and
its industrial applications in the important sectors of economy such as Power (especially power
generation), Coal Mining & Utilization , Carbon Capture & Storage Technologies etc.

25
Economic models of the general economy (i.e., a general equilibrium model) can be used to
estimate the market carbon price required for adaptation of CCS technologies in the electric
power industry.Carbon prices must be established through government policy, such as a tax or a
cap-and-trade system. Assuming the costs and technology level outlined in the preceding section,
carbon prices must reach $100/tC in order for CCS technologies to start being adopted by the
power industry on a significant scale (45% market penetration). As the carbon price increases,
CCS technologies will be adapted more quickly and achieve larger market penetration. CCS
technologies can be adopted at carbon prices much less than $100/t C. These targets of
opportunity will either have very inexpensive capture costs (from nonpower sources such as
natural gas processing and ammonia production) or will be able to claim a byproduct credit (e.g.,
EOR). All the commercial-scale CO2 storage projects either in operation (Sleipner, Weyburn) or
planned (Snovit by Statoil in the North Sea and In Salah by BP in Algeria) can be classified as
targets of opportunity. Finally, new technologies can reduce the costs associated with CCS.

26
References:
1. “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants” August 2007 Presentation
2. “Pulverized Coal Oxycombustion Power Plants” November 2007 Presentation.
3. International Coal Congress & Expo 2006,11-13 December,2006,New delhi
4. Boiler operation Engineering,P Chattopadhyay
5. Modern power station Practice,vol 2,central electricity generating board
6. Carbon Capture and its Storage,Simon Shackley and Clair Gough.
7. www.sequestration.mit.edu
8. www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in
9. www.eiagreen.org.uk
10. ”Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technology”Annual Review of the
Environment and Resources 29(2004):109-142
11. Capturing Green House Gases”, Scientific American 282(2000):2.

27