The potential role of flexible CCS in deep decarbonization of the electricity sector

Jesse D. Jenkins Assistant Professor, Princeton University | Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering and the Andlinger Center for Energy and Environment“Flexible Carbon Capture Technologies for a Renewable-Heavy Grid,” ARPA-E Workshop| July 30, 2019

Images: NRG

2

Electricity: the Linchpin

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2020 2030 2040 2050

Natural gas Coal Oil & other fossil Existing zero CO2

Data source: Iyer et al. 2017, GGCAM USA Analysis of U.S. Electric Power Sector Transitions (performed for the United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; 2020 zero-carbon electricity supply from EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2019.

Tera

wat

t-h

ours

TWIN CHALLENGES: ZERO CARBON, DOUBLE DEMAND

+120%

+80%

+50%

2

Electrification Scenarios

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Low Mid High

3

Electricity: the Linchpin

Data source: Difference between projected electricity demand in Iyer et al. 2017 and 2020 zero-carbon electricity supply from EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2019. Assumes all 2020 generation can be sustained through 2050. Retirements of existing capacity would increase new zero-carbon generation needed.

Tera

wat

t-h

ours

THE RAPID SWITCH: NEW ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY NEEDED

+30 avg GW/yr

+23 avg GW/yr

+18 avg GW/yrTotal 2020 U.S. electricity generation

Electrification Scenarios

3

Clean energy additions

Electricity: the Linchpin

Data source: Historical per capita deployment rates from MIT 2018, The Future of Nuclear in a Carbon Constrained World, scaled to based on projected 2035 U.S. population of 364 million from U.S. Census Bureau.

Ave

rage

GW

ad

dit

ion

s p

er y

ear

HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS (SCALED TO U.S. POPULATION)

4

Sweden, Nuclear 1974-1983

U.S. Deep Decarb. - High

France, Nuclear 1979-1988U.S. Deep Decarb -

MidU.S., Natural Gas

2001-2010

U.S. Deep Decarb - Low

China, Coal 2005-2014

U.S., Nuclear 1981-1990

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

55

http://bit.ly/FirmLowCarbon

“Fast burst”

balancing resources

“Firm” low-carbon resources

“Fuel saving” variable

renewables

6“Flexible base” “Firm cyclers”

Long-duration

“Firm”

“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”

CO2 emissions limit (g/kWh)

Data source: Sepulveda, N., Jenkins, J.D., et al. (2018), “The role of firm low-carbon resources in deep decarbonization of electric power systems,” Joule 2(11).

“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”

Ave

rage c

ost of ele

ctr

icity (

$/M

Wh)

7

050100150200 050100150200

Wind, solar, battery costs

LowMid-rangeConservative

Northern System

“Firm”

“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”

CO2 emissions limit (g/kWh)

Data source: Sepulveda, N., Jenkins, J.D., et al. (2018), “The role of firm low-carbon resources in deep decarbonization of electric power systems,” Joule 2(11).

“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”

Ave

rage c

ost of ele

ctr

icity (

$/M

Wh)

8

Wind, solar, battery costs

LowMid-rangeConservative

Southern System

050100150200 050100150200

NATURAL GAS WITH CCS MAY PLAY SIGNIFICANT ROLE

No CCS, Costly Nuclear NGCC+PCC (90%), Mid Nuclear Allam Cycle (100%), Low Nuclear

9

Ener

gy s

har

e [%

]

NATURAL GAS WITH CCS IS OPERATED FLEXIBLY

No CCS, Costly Nuclear NGCC+PCC (90%), Mid Nuclear Allam Cycle (100%), Low Nuclear

10

Ener

gy s

har

e [%

]

Mid

-ran

ge V

RE

an

d st

ora

geV

ery

low

VR

E a

nd

sto

rage

AN EXAMPLE OF FLEXIBLE CCS IN A ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

11

17

4

0.2

38

14

34

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Natural gasw/CCS

Biogas CT Wind Solar Batterystorage

Peakdemand

Installed Capacity (GW)

Natural gas

w/CCS54%

Wind

0%

Solar

45%

Biogas CT

1%

Annual Generation (%)

Detailed case results for Northern system, very low cost scenario for all resources

ANNUAL GENERATION DURATION CURVE

Average Fleet-wide NG+CCS Capacity Factor: 66%

12Hours

0 8760

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

of

inst

alle

d c

apa

city

UNIT COMMITMENT DISTRIBUTION

13

Average Fleet-wide NG+CCS Commitment Factor: 80%

HOURLY DISPATCH DURING PEAK DEMAND WEEK (JULY)

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

t4950 t4962 t4974 t4986 t4998 t5010 t5022 t5034 t5046 t5058 t5070 t5082 t5094 t5106

GW

NG+CCS Biogas CT Wind Solar Battery Demand

AN EXAMPLE OF FLEXIBLE CCS IN A ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

15

2721

27

114

63

94

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Natural gasw/CCS

Biogas CT Wind Solar Batterystorage

Peakdemand

Installed Capacity (GW)

Natural gas

w/CCS21%

Wind

17%Solar

61%

Biogas CT

1%

Annual Generation (%)

Detailed case results for Southern system, very low cost scenario for all resources

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

of

inst

alle

d c

apa

city

ANNUAL GENERATION DURATION CURVE

Average Fleet-wide NG+CCS Capacity Factor: 46%

16Hours

0 8760

UNIT COMMITMENT DISTRIBUTION

Average Fleet-wide NG+CCS Commitment Factor: 46%

17

HOURLY DISPATCH DURING PEAK DEMAND WEEK (AUGUST)

18

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

t5598 t5610 t5622 t5634 t5646 t5658 t5670 t5682 t5694 t5706 t5718 t5730 t5742 t5754

GW

NG+CCS Biogas CT Wind Solar Battery Demand

SOME OPEN QUESTIONS

19

• What is the ideal “design space” for CCS from the electricity system perspective? What set of cost and performance characteristics are most attractive/make CCS most competitive?

• Capital and fixed O&M costs; Capture efficiency; Heat rate; Ramping rates;Minimum turndown / stable output; Cycling costs; Cycling time

• How does availability of other competing or complementary resources (e.g. nuclear, storage, flexible demand, wind vs. solar heavy systems) affect the ideal design space for CCS?

• How valuable is it to de-couple parasitic loads for the capture process to enhance flexibility (e.g. storing oxygen for oxyfuel combustion, storing saturated amines for later CO2 removal)

• Is it valuable to have a variable capture rate (with tradeoffs in heat rate)? – Is it worth achieving a lower turndown level by increasing capture rate at a greater efficiency penalty vs. cycling off the plant?

• Are there cost-effective/competitive opportunities for coupling thermal or electrical storage?

Jesse D. JenkinsAssistant Professor

Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering and Andlinger Center for Energy & Environment

Princeton University

Twitter: @JesseJenkins

Linkedin.com/in/jessedjenkins

Google scholar: http://bit.ly/ScholarJenkins