CO2 Capture

A Potential for the Cement industry?

Preparing decisions for next steps

Executive Summary

Carbon capture and storage is perceived as a feasible technology

It is very probable that CCS post combustion can technically be available in the

cement industry within the next 6 to 8 years, the development of the oxy-fuel

technology will certainly take longer

ECRA members have to decide on ECRA CCS project phase III, which focuses on laboratory and small scales tests. It also aims to continue the work oxy-fuel technology.

ECRA members have to decide on a CCS post combustion test plant (pilot / demonstration). Some funding schemes require a decision to be taken already in 2009

CCS – todays view

Increasing pressure on global power sector to implement carbon capture in new installations

– EU27, NAM, China

– International Energy Agency (IEA)

– Green NGO’s

Demonstration projects in power sector starting or on steam

– USA several projects from recovery funds

– EU projects funded from recovery fundsprojects funded from auctioned emissions rights in EU ETS

General feeling that the technology for post combustion capture is available already

– Amine absorption or other processes

Other sectors will have to follow

– Cement industry on first row as sector with lowest potential to reduce emissions within existing processes

Carbon capture and storage is perceived as a feasible technology

Global CCS vision 2050

IEA: In 2050 50% of all cement plants in Europe, North America, Australia, East Asia are applying CCS, 20% in India, China

Pilot and demonstration projects in Europe

Test plants of various sizes have been initiated

CO2-Storage – examples of current and planned project

Carbon capture in cement industry

Research and Development

– ECRA, with support of major cement producers and WBCSD/CSI

– CIEC in California

Two possible routes

– Oxyfuel technology with direct storage for new plants

– Further research needed on reaction kinetics

– New type of installation and equipment needed

– Demonstration project(s) not possible before 2018/2020

– Post combustion capture for existing plants

– Demonstration project(s) possible in a few years

– Funding now available via recovery funds in EU and NAM

Current research results indicate a technical potential but at very high costs

The beginning debate about storage

Increasing protests on local level against onshore storage of CO2 in geological

formations

- Netherlands – Barendregt- Germany- Denmark

Offshore storage

- Greenpeace against Sleipner field (May 2009)

A cement plant will be a minor source of CO2 for storage,

- Storage facility for only a cement plant will not be feasible

- Cement industry should not involve itself in storage

• Storage is facility to be supplied by others: governments, oil company, etc.• Transport to storage facility to be outsourced if possible• Combination of exhaust gases with gases from other sectors

recommended

All industries will be challenged by the public concern about storage

Legal and Regulatory Framework in Europe

CO2 Capture: Council Directive (96/61/EC) concerning integrated pollution

prevention and control (IPPC Directive)

CO2 Transport: Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the

effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

CO2 Storage: Directive 2009/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council on the geological storage of carbon dioxide

Liability: Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and the Council on

environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of

environmental damage

Politically, CCS is seen as an measure to reduce CO2

Potential road map for CCS in the cement industry

Continue research and development

– develop post combustion capture (especially with amines) and prepare upscaling

of existing technology

– stimulate research on Oxyfuel technology in cooperation with equipment

suppliers

Prepare decisions for a test plant based on post combustion capture technology

Do not focus on transport and storage because

– storage is not a specific cement industry issue

– stakeholders concerns should be met separately in order not to undermine

potential capture demo-plant implementation

Ongoing research will be the decision base for a potential post-combustion capture demo-plant and parallel development of oxyfuel technology

A potential CCS Project – a multi stage project

Laboratory test

Pilot plant

Demonstration plant

A demonstration plant can only be based on experiences from a pilot as anintegral part of the whole process

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

planning

building

operating

pro: Cement industry is second sector in

focus

Technology to be applied is “identical”

to power sector (in the view of others)

Without involvement, others will decide

what cement sector will have to do

cement industry must be able to

express itself based on facts from test

plant

CO2 abatement costs will be covered by

the prices for the certificate

Potential for a test plant in the cement industryA decision for a test plant in the cement industry is based on various pros and cons

contra: global CO2 emissions are dominated by

the power sector

scaling effects suggest to concentrate on

power plants and not cement plants

storage will not be accepted by the

public

capture will never be possible at viable

costs

a full scale demonstration plant will be

expected to continue operation even if

test results are not satisfying

Technical preference for a potential test plant

While oxy-fuel seems to require less energy, post combustion might be earlier available

Oxyfuel oxygen enrichment has been applied to

cement kilns

CO2 from the combustion process is concentrated and “easy” to isolate

Kiln - including cooler - needs to be completely redesigned

new technology; retrofit or modifying of existing plant unlikely

high energy consumption for oxygen production

Post combustion available end-of-the pipe technology

up-scaling still pending, but retrofit seems possible

minimal impact on existing clinker process

pure CO2 stream for compression and subsequent treatment

very high energy consumption for amine-stripper

Cost analysis based on three scenarios

Post combustion

OxyfuelPilot plant

Demonstration

plant

CO2 capture rate

[CO2/a]100.000 900.000 800.000

Investment costs

[M€]34 100 - 300 344*

Operating costs per

CO2 avoided [€/t]30 40 - 80 33

Comments

• Based on Brevik kiln

• Excess heat from cooler and

preheater used, no extra power

plant required

• Based on studies from GassTek,

Mahasenan and BCA/IEA

• Assuming full scale plant to

capture 100% of kiln’s CO2

• Assumes new kiln

• *Investment costs include kiln

including capture plant

Cost estimates still need to be refined but indicate avoidance costs between 30 and 80 €/tonne of CO2

all figures subject to uncertainties

Research Agenda – ECRA CCS Project

Study about Technical and Financial Aspects of CCS Projects, Concentrating on Oxyfuel and Post-Combustion Technology (summer 2007 – summer 2009)

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

Phase IV

Phase V

Literature Study (January - June 2007)

Laboratory-scale / small-scale research activities (autumn 2009 – summer 2011)

Pilot-scale research activities (time-frame: 2-3 years)

Demonstration plant (time-frame: 3-5 years)

ECRA started a CCS project in 2007 which has now reached the end of its second phase. It is now preparing a decision for the next steps

Next steps (1/2)

EU Funds:

– European Recovery Fund (EEPR) focuses on specific projects only, tenders from equipment suppliers need to be submitted until end of June. not applicable to cement

– Co-financing of CCS under ETS (NER 300) requires 500kt CO2 /a to be captured and must implement transport and storage. Deadline for proposal end of 2009. clarification needed, if pilot plant can be funded to start with; ECRA inquires

details at EU-Commission’s stakeholders meetings

- EU’s seventh framework programme (FP7) research might be funded, next call that could be suitable will be launched

only in summer 2009; ECRA keeps track of developments National funds, in this case from Norway:

– HeidelbergCement (Norcem) will contact Norwegian institutions (oil/energy ministry to tentatively explore funding possibilities.

Very high cost for CCS make funding imperative; irrespective of funding schemes final decision on test plant to be taken by the cement industry.

Next steps (2/2)

Without prejudice to the cement industry’s final decision some actions should be

taken now:

– Inquire funding potentials with in the EU and regionally i.e. Norway

action will be taken by ECRA and HeidelbergCement/Norcem

– Coordinate a possible funding scheme within the cement industry

since all funding schemes require at least some contribution from the industry, ECRA should explore potential contributions from its members.

action will be taken by Daniel Gauthier and the Technical Advisory Board

– Prepare a tender invitation for service providers of CCS technology in order to be updated on latest state of the art processes; key issues have to be investment requirement, energy demand and process/scrubber design

action will be taken by ECRA

Final decision to be taken by ECRA members on 5 October 2009

In autumn ECRA i.e. the cement industry has to finally decide about a CSS project; equipment suppliers should be invited to give technical input