the challenges to the deployment of ccs in the energy intensive

The Challenges to the Deployment of CCS in the Energy Intensive IndustriesCCS in the Energy Intensive Industries

(Part 1: General Overview)

Stanley SantosIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Cheltenham, UK

Instituto de Inginieria UNAM29th March 2012

Introduction

WHY WE NEED CO2 CAPTURE AND STORAGE IN THE

Introduction

AND STORAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

2

CCS in ETP-2010C t ib ti t E i i S iContribution to Emissions Savings

World Energy Use by Industrial Sector (Hi t i D t )(Historic Data)

Five most energy intensive sectors are the steel, cement, chemicals & oil refineries, pulp and paper, aluminium accounts for 77% of the total energy use from industryfrom industry

Direct CO2 Emissions from Industrial S (2007 d t )Sources (2007 data)• Steel, Cement and

Chemical Industries accounts for nearly 70% of the Direct CO2Emissions.

Th i i• These emissions are not only from combustion of fossil fuel related CO2emissions but also to include PROCESS RELATED CO2EMISSIONS

Remarks on the ETP-2010 FindingsRemarks on the ETP 2010 Findings• It could be concluded from the IEA Energy gy

Technology Perspective 2010 that CCS is an important part to the reduction of CO2 fromimportant part to the reduction of CO2 from the industrial sector.T h l i t b th l i• Technology is may not be the only main barrier to the deployment of CCS in the industrial sector.

• Market competitiveness and global nature of• Market competitiveness and global nature of some of these industries is an important i th t h ld b dd d

7

issues that should be addressed.

Outline of PresentationOutline of Presentation• Iron and Steel Sector

• Industry Overview• ULCOS Programme (European)• Course 50 Programme (Japanese)• Posco RIST (South Korea)

• Oil Refining Sector• Industry Overviewy• Results of CONCAWE Study

• Cement and Lime Industrial SectorCement and Lime Industrial Sector• Industry Overview• ECRA Programme

8

ECRA Programme• Concluding Remarks


(Part 2: Iron and Steel Sector)


Cheltenham, UK


1st Blast Furnace in Mexico (Picture Courtesy of AHMSA)

10

Overview to the Integrated Steel Mill

CHALLENGES OF DEPLOYING CCS IN AN INTEGRATED STEEL

Overview to the Integrated Steel Mill

CCS IN AN INTEGRATED STEEL MILL

11

An integrated steel mill is composed by numerous facilitiesFrom iron ore to steel products

4 Blast furnaces2 coking plant batts

coal

From iron ore to steel products

oressinter plant

5 BOF

3 ti li h t t i lli 3 cold strip rolling

2 continuous annealing

hot metal

crude steelscrap + additives

3 casting line + hot strip rollingor continuous casting line 3 pickling

3 cold strip rolling

3 batch annealingskin pass rolling

ZnslabZn

2 cold rollingfinishing shop1 heavy plate mill

3 hot stripfinishing shop

4 hot-dip coating line

3 coating lineslab

line

heavy plate hot strip coated / organic coated sheets

uncoated sheets

electrolytic coated sheets

ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe

Workshop CCS IEAGHG / VDEh8. - 9. NovemberProf. Dr. Gunnar Still12

AHMSA - Steel Works OverviewAHMSA Steel Works Overview Sinter Plant

Pellet Plant

Coke Plant

Sinter PlantCold Rolling Mill

Hot Metal Production ContinuousLiquid Steel

Production

Continuous Casting

Hot Rolling Mill

Product Line:Plate

Hot RolledCold Rolled

13

Tin PlatedChrome PlatedStructural SteelPower Plant Oxygen Plant Lime Kiln Reheating Furnace

First Challenge...First Challenge...

There are no steel mill in this orld hich• There are no steel mill in this world which are alike...• Steel are produced with different processes• Steel are produced with different type of finishedSteel are produced with different type of finished

or semi-finished products• Steel are produced with different grades• Steel are produced with different grades• ...

14

ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe – Main CO2-Emitters (schematically)

x% CO2-emissionsAbsolut Part /t CO2

(schematically)up to 20 mio t CO2 p.a.

CO2CO2CO2

30% 48%11%y%

Absolut Part /t-CO2

CO2-source% Carbon Input

2 Coke Plant Batt 4 Blast Furnaces6 Power PlantsCoke

2

0,1%74%Coal

CO2CO2

externalBF Top Gas

~2% ~9%74%4%

Carbon in liquid phase

Coal-injection

3 Hot Rolling, 3 Cold Rolling,div. Annealing

etc.2 BOF ShopsCoal

22

1%9%

liquid phase

etc.

<0-1%

1%9%

BOFgasCokeovengas

ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe

Workshop CCS IEAGHG / VDEh8. - 9. NovemberProf. Dr. Gunnar Still15

2nd and 3rd Challenges...2nd and 3rd Challenges...

• There are no steel mill hich are alike• There are no steel mill which are alike...• Emissions from the Integrated Steel Mills g

comes from multiple sources.• The source of CO2 may not be the emitter• The source of CO2 may not be the emitter

of the CO2.• Strongly dependent on how you define Boundary

Limit• In addition to the direct use of fossil fuels, the

emissions is also strongly dependent on the

17

g y pmanagement of the use of By-Product Gases

4th Challenge...BF Technology is already near theBF Technology is already near the Theoretical Limit of Efficiency

475 kg/t HM

18

Essential to CCS DeploymentEssential to CCS Deployment• Accounting of CO2 Emissions that could be g

comparable is an Essential Activity for Deployment of CO2 Capture Technology in the Iron and Steel p gySector.

• Accounting of CO2 Emissions should be based on aAccounting of CO2 Emissions should be based on a globally consistent methodology that will allow production normalised CO2 emission comparableproduction normalised CO2 emission comparable between regions that are not possible today.

• This should result to a better benchmarking• This should result to a better benchmarking –therefore providing a meaningful number for CO2

Avoidance Cost

19

Avoidance Cost.

ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe –M i CO E itt ( h ti ll )

x% CO2-emissionsAbsolut Part /t CO2

Main CO2-Emitters (schematically)up to 20 mio t CO2 p.a.

CO2CO2CO2

30% 48%11%y%

Absolut Part /t-CO2

CO2-source% Carbon Input

2 Coke Plant Batt 4 Blast Furnaces6 Power PlantsCoke

2

0,1%74%Coal

CO2CO2

externalBF Top Gas

~2% ~9%74%4%

Carbon in liquid phase

Coal-injection

3 Hot Rolling, 3 Cold Rolling,div. Annealing

etc.2 BOF ShopsCoal

22

1%9%

liquid phase

etc.

<0-1%

1%9%

BOFgasCokeovengas

20

Challenges & Opportunities of CCS in the Iron & Steel Industry, IEA-GHG, Düsseldorf, 8-9 November 2011

21

Steel, CO2 mitigation, CCS and ULCOSULCOS

UUltra-LLow COCO2 SSteelmaking

Jean-Pierre BIRAT, Jean Borlée, ArcelorMittal

Challenges & Opportunities of CCS in the Iron & Steel Industry

Düsseldorf 8-9 November 2011Challenges & Opportunities of CCS in the Iron & Steel Industry, IEA-GHG, Düsseldorf, 8-9 November

201122

Düsseldorf, 8-9 November 2011

The 4 process routes

Coal & sustainable biomass Natural gas Electricity

Revamped BF Greenfield Revamped DR Greenfield

ULCOS-BF HIsarna ULCORED ULCOWINULCOLYSIS

Pilot tests (1.5 t/h) Demonstration

Pilot plant (8 t/h) start-up 2010

Pilot plant (1 t/h) to be erected in 2013?

Laboratory

under way


23

Japanese “Course 50 Programme”

(1) Technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from blast furnace (2) Technologies for CO2 capture

・Chemical absorptionReduction of coke Chemical absorptioneduct o o co eIron ore

H2 amplificationCoke BFG

Sh ft f

・Physical adsorption

CO-rich gasCO2 storage t h l

Coke production technology for BF hydrogen reduction

High strength & high reactivity coke

Coking plant BF

Shaft furnaceRegeneration

Tower

Reboiler

technology COG reformer

H2

Absorption Tower

Iron ore pre-reduction

technology Coke substitution reducing agent production technology CO2 capture for BF hydrogen reduction

Reaction control technology Other project

Steam Cold air

Hot air Sensible heat recovery from slag (example) Waste heat recovery boiler

KalinaSlag

reducing agent production technology ptechnology

for BF hydrogen reduction Other project

COURSE50 ／ CO Ultimate Reduction in Steelmaking Process by Innovative Technology for

BOF

Electricity

Hot metal

Kalina cycle

Power generation Technology for utilization of unused waste heat


P 24

COURSE50 ／ CO2 Ultimate Reduction in Steelmaking Process by Innovative Technology for Cool Earth 50

Ideas/Projects for CO2 ReductionBFG

Iron-making: melting/reduction

91%

Hot Milling4%

Cold Milling 3%

Steel-making 1%

Power Plant

BFG

(1)

Research Scope

CO2Emissions

(2)

Coal Cokes

COCO2

Hydrocarbons

(3)

Coal Cokes

Iron OreSinter Process (2) CO

(1) CO2 Capture from BFG stream using aqueous ammonia(2) Waste heat recovery from molten slag and hot sinter

Research Activities of CO2 Project in RIST

(3) CO2 utilization

25

2nd Stage pilot plant

Operation of 2nd stage pilot plant (May. 2011~)Development of CO2 capture process for commercialization using aqueous ammonia in iron & steelmaking In

Utilizing the waste heats at low and mid-temperature waste heat as regeneration energyUtilizing the waste heats at low and mid temperature waste heat as regeneration energy

Ultimate goal: CO2 removal > 90%, CO2 purity > 95%, energy requirement < 2.0 GJ/ton-CO2

absorberabsorber Dimensions

stripper

absorber

stripper

: Absorber- D 1.4m, H 27m

: Stripper- D 0.9m, H 20.6m

33mconcentratorconcentrator

: Concentrator- D 0.5m, H 11.7m

Capacities1000 N 3 BFG/h: 1000 Nm3-BFG/hr

as 0.5 MW(CO2 conc: 20~25%)

17m 19m26

The Challenges to the Deployment of CCS in the Energy Intensive IndustriesS in the Energy Intensive Industries

(Part 3: Cement Industry Sector)

Stanley SantosyIEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Cheltenham, UK

Instituto de Inginieria UNAM

29th March 201229th March 2012

Cement ProductionCement ProductionFlue gas

Raw meal (limestone etc)

Mill and drierPreheaters (multiple stages)

Hot gas

PrecalcinerFuel

g

CaCO3 → CaO + CO2

FuelAdditives 900°C

Clinker

Rotary kilne.g. CaO + SiO2 →calcium silicates

Cement

Additives1350°C

900 C

32

ClinkerCementMill Cooler

Rotary KilnsRotary Kilns

33

Pre-CalcinersPre Calciners

34

Pre-combustion CapturePre combustion Capture

• Not a good option for cement plants• Not a good option for cement plants• Almost two thirds of the CO2 emissions

are from limestone calcination• Pre combustion capture would only• Pre-combustion capture would only

capture the fuel-derived CO2 • Not evaluated in IEA GHG’s study

35

Post-Combustion Capture at a C t Pl tCement Plant

Air

Fuel

C t SolventESP SCR

Air

CO2-reduced flue gasR

24% COCement

plant Solvent

scrubbingESP, SCR,

FGD flue gasRaw

mealCO2

CHP plant SteamCoalClinker

Solvent

CO toPower

pstripping

CO2 to storage

Power

CO2compression

36

Post Combustion Capture in Cement Kiln(Pi t C t f ECRA)(Picture Courtesy of ECRA)

37

Post-combustion CapturePost combustion Capture

• Advantages for cement plants• The cement plant itself is unaffected

o But more stringent flue gas cleaning may be neededo But more stringent flue gas cleaning may be needed• Retrofit to existing plants is possible

o Provided space is available and CO2 can beo Provided space is available and CO2 can be transported away from the site for storage

• Disadvantages• Disadvantages • A large quantity of low pressure steam is needed

38

for solvent stripping, requiring an on-site CHP plant

Oxy-Combustion at a Cement Pl tPlant

FlueFuel

R

FuelFlue gas

H tClinkerRaw

Mill Precalciner

Raw meal Preheater 1 Kiln

Hot gas

Air

Preheater 2

Air

P ifi ti /Oxygen

CO

Recycled flue gas

V t

Purification/ compression

Air separation

CO2Air

39

Vent gas IEA Greenhouse Gas study was based on oxy-combustion in just the pre-calciner

Oxyfuel Combustion Capture in Cement Kiln(Pi t C t f ECRA)(Picture Courtesy of ECRA)

40

Oxy-combustion CaptureOxy combustion Capture • Advantages for cement plantsg p

• Low oxygen consumptiono Compared to a coal fired boiler, 1/3 of the amount of O2 is needed per

tonne of CO2 capturedtonne of CO2 captured • Costs are expected to be relatively low

• DisadvantagesDisadvantages• Retrofit would be difficult • Oxy-firing the pre-calciner captures only about 60% of the CO2 • For full oxy-firing, air in-leakage in mills and the kiln would have to be

greatly reduced• Impacts of full oxy firing on kiln chemistry etc need investigating• Impacts of full oxy-firing on kiln chemistry etc need investigating• More R&D is needed

41

Costs of CO2 CaptureCosts of CO2 Capture • Costs estimated for a 1Mt/y cement plant in N-W Europe• Post combustion capture

• €107/t of CO2 emissions avoidedC ld b d d t €55/t b l ti t l t t t• Could be reduced to €55/t by locating a cement plant next to a power plant and using a low sulphur raw meal

• Alternative CO2 capture solvents could significantly reduce costsp g y

• Oxy-combustion• €40/t CO2 emissions avoided

• Cement plants would need to be close to other CO2 sources to minimise CO2 transport costs• CO2 captured is 0.5-1.0 Mt/y• Equivalent to about 100-200 MWe coal fired power plant

42

Costs – Developing Countries • Most cement production is in developing

countries• Almost 50% in China alone

• New cement plants are often larger in p gdeveloping countries and construction costs are lower

• Sensitivity case: 3Mt/y cement plant in Asia • Costs of CO2 abatement would be lower2• e.g. €23/t for oxy-combustion

43

ConclusionsConclusions • CO2 could be captured at cement plants• Post-combustion capture is the lowest risk option and

is well suited to retrofit but costs are relatively high• O b ti ld h i il t t CO• Oxy-combustion would have similar costs to CO2

capture at large power plants• Most cement production is in developing countries• Most cement production is in developing countries• Abatement costs would be lower in developing

countriescountries• Imports of cement from countries without CO2

abatement requirements is a concernabatement requirements is a concern

44


(Part 4: Oil Refining Sector)


Cheltenham, UK


AcknoledgementAcknoledgement

• This presentation is based on st d done• This presentation is based on study done by CONCAWE.

• Outline of Presentation• Outline of Presentation• Oil Refining Sector Overview• CO2 Point Sources from Oil Refineries• Capture Technology Overview – Post p gy

Combustion Capture (“End of Pipe Capture”)• Major Utilities Changes

47

Major Utilities Changes

Demand and Supply of Crude Oil(St i ht C t f CDU)(Straight Cut from CDU)

48Data from CONCAWE 2011

Quality RequirementsQuality Requirements

Data from CONCAWE 2011

49

Quality RequirementsQuality Requirements


50

Feedstock VariationFeedstock Variation

Data from Valero 2010

51

Complex Refineries Required t M t D d f th P d tto Meet Demand of the Product


Deployment of CCS in Oil R fi i S tRefining Sector...• Sho ld e pect to ha e similar challenges• Should expect to have similar challenges

like that of the integrated steel mill.• Oil Refinery has high level of integration more

complex than integrated steel millp g• Fuel/energy required by the complex refinery is

met by using the used of by-product gases ormet by using the used of by product gases or low quality liquid fuel, and balanced by using natural gas or other external fuel.natural gas or other external fuel.

• No oil refineries are alike...• Benchmarking is necessary

57

• Benchmarking is necessary...

Difference between Simple vs C l R fi iComplex Refineries


Identifying the Future Growth of CO2

E i i f th Oil R fi iEmissions of the Oil Refineries

59


Distribution of CO2 Emission Point S f C l R fi iSources of Complex Refineries


Incorporating Post-Combustion C t t R fi iCapture to Refineries• Much more complex than Power Generation IndustryMuch more complex than Power Generation Industry

61

Distribution of CO2 Emissions for R fi i ith CO C tRefineries with CO2 Capture


ChallengesChallenges

• Variation of Refiner Capacit and le el of• Variation of Refinery Capacity and level of Complexity should also lead to variation of overall CO2 emissions from oil refineries – i.e. In Europe it varies from p0.4 Mtpy to 5.5 Mtpy CO2.

• Diverse point sources of CO2• Diverse point sources of CO2

• Wide ranging percentage/concentration of CO2 from different sources

63

Additional Requirements for C t i CO f R fi iCapturing CO2 from Refineries• Same Techno-Economic Methodology

developed for the I&S study applies with p y ppoil refining sector

64


the challenges to the deployment of ccs in the energy intensive

Documents