netl studies on the economic feasibility of co2 capture ... library/research/energy analysis... ·...

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Kristin Gerdes

Office of Program Performance and Benefits

January 9, 2014

EPRI / NETL Energy Analysis Exchange Webinar

NETL Studies on the Economic Feasibility of CO2 Capture Retrofits for the U.S. Power Plant Fleet

• NETL – John Wimer

– Michael Matuszewski

– Charles Zelek

– Jose Benitez

– Robert Stevens

– James Black

• Booz-Allen – Vincent Chou

• Worley-Parsons

• OnLocation

Acknowledgments

2

NETL Carbon Capture Retrofit Analyses

3

Energy Velocity: Unit-Specific

Data

NETL CCRD

Carbon Capture Retrofit Database

PC, NGCC, Industrial

New SOA Post-Combustion

Capture System Quotes Systems Analysis of

Capture Retrofits for Reference Plants:


Analysis of Cost Metrics for

Existing Fleet

FE/NETL CO2 CTUS

NEMS

2nd Generation Post-Combustion Capture System

Cost/Perf

QGESS: Retrofit Cost Estimating Methodology


4

Ventyx Energy Velocity

Database: Unit-Specific Data

NETL CCRD







Cost of Capture Curves for

Existing Fleet

FE/NETL CO2 CTUS

NEMS


Cost/Perf


• For greenfield plant, COE impact is minor while cost of capture is slightly higher for new quote due to its higher efficiency

Baseline Retrofit Capture Technology Update

PC Plants Technology/Quote Vintage

Metric 2005 Amine 2012 Amine

Net Energy Penalty [kWhnet/lb CO2 Captured]

0.181 (+26%)

0.144

Reference Capital Cost [$/tpd CO2 Capt. @ full load]

$55,400 (-17%)

$66,400

Incremental Fixed O&M [$/tpd CO2 Capt. @ full load]

$1,828 (-5%)

$1,926

Incremental Variable O&M [$/tpd CO2 Capt. @ full load]

$2.59 (-50%)

$5.13

CO2 Capture Basis [tpd] 11,216 11,216

5

6

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

NGCC-2012 PC-2012 NGCC-2005 PC-2005

Ene

rgy

pe

na

lty

[kW

h/l

b c

aptu

red

CO

2]

Electrical Derate

Steam Turbine Derate

Net Derate Contributions

2005

69% 64% 61% 57%

PC: ~30% reduction in regeneration energy penalty

NGCC: ~15% reduction in regeneration energy penalty


7


Data

NETL CCRD








Existing Fleet

FE/NETL CO2 CTUS

NEMS


Cost/Perf


Reference Capture Plants: Cost of Electricity

DRAFT Results 8

57

90

46

80 81

146

45

124

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

No

n-C

aptu

re

90

% C

aptu

re

Exis

tin

g

90

% C

aptu

re

No

n-C

aptu

re

90

% C

aptu

re

Exis

tin

g

90

% C

aptu

re

Greenfield Retrofit Greenfield Retrofit

NGCC with NG @ $6.13/MMBtu PC

CO

E, 2

01

1$

/MW

h

T&S

Fuel

Var O&M

Fix O&M

Capital

• Cost Retrofitting with CCS economically incentivized via sale of CO2 if:

• When normalized by CO2 captured, the above becomes: – Cost of capture

– Minimum CO2 plant gate price for which CCS retrofits are incentivized

Cost of Capture for CCS Retrofits

Annual Revenues from Sale of

Captured CO2

Annualized Capital and Incremental O&M

Costs for Retrofit

Annual Revenues Foregone Due to Lost Generation (Derate)

≤ +

Reference Capture Plants: Cost of Capture

NG Price = $6.13/MMBtu Market Power Price = $60/MWh

10

80

89

61

72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Greenfield Retrofit Greenfield Retrofit

NGCC PC

Co

st o

f C

aptu

re, 2

01

1$

/to

nn

e C

O2

Energy PenaltyLost ProfitEnergy Penalty

O&M

Capital

DRAFT Results


11


Data

NETL CCRD





Reference Capture Plants:



Existing Fleet

FE/NETL CO2 CTUS

NEMS


Cost/Perf


• Carbon Capture Retrofit Database (CCRD)

– Existing pulverized coal fleet

– Existing NGCC fleet

– Industrial sources

• Ammonia

• Cement

• Ethanol

• Refinery hydrogen

• Natural gas processing

NETL CCRD

12

• Data on 1,355 individual PC units (324 GW) and 601 (216 GW) NGCC units – Key information: Unit ID, Nameplate Capacity, Heatrate,

CO2 Emissions, Capacity Factor, Base Plant O&M Costs

• Cost and performance parameters – Retrofit capital costs, incremental O&M costs and scaling

approach

– Derate (in kWh/lb CO2 captured)

– Can be modified to reflect impact of R&D

• Calculation of cost of capture, incremental COE, etc.

• Sensitivities to economic life, capacity factor, etc.

• Filter by plant size, age, etc.

NETL CCRD PC and NGCC

13

14

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000

Po

we

r P

en

alty

[% o

f ori

gin

al o

utp

ut]

Pre-Retrofit Heat Rate [BTU/kWh HHV]

Net Output Penalties of CCS Retrofits

PC-2005 Amine

PC-2012 Amine

PC-Sorbent Based

PC-Membrane Based

Ideal Power Penalty

Net Derate Projections*

*As evaluated on baseline existing plant. Does not include balance of plant improvements

Includes: •Regeneration Energy •Capture Electrical •Compression Electrical •Off-design ST Operation

Thermodynamic Advancements

0.181 kWh/lb

0.144 kWh/lb

0.143 kWh/lb

0.113 kWh/lb

0.048 kWh/lb

• Retrofitting with CCS economically incentivized via sale of CO2 if:

– When normalized by CO2 captured, the above becomes the cost of capture or the

minimum CO2 plant gate price for which CCS retrofits are incentivized

• NETL Carbon Capture Retrofits Database (CCRD) provides retrofit assessments for entire fleet

Incentivizing CCS Retrofits with EOR Revenues

Annual Revenues

from Sale of Captured CO2

Annualized Capital and Incremental O&M

Costs for Retrofit

Annual Revenues Foregone Due to Lost Generation (Derate)

≤ +

Ventyx Energy Velocity: Unit-specific data

NETL CCRD PC, NGCC,

Industrial Sources

Scales retrofit costs and calculates

derates and lost revenues for units in

entire fleet

NETL Retrofit Studies: Incremental cost and

derate of retrofits for example plants

$ per Mwh

kWh lost per lb CO2

$ per lb CO2

Output, CO2 emissions,

heat rate, etc.

AEO/NEMS: Projected electricity price

(to estimate lost revenues)

CO2 Supply Curves:

Minimum CO2 plant gate price for which

CCS retrofits are incentivized for each

unit in the fleet

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve R

etro

fits

In

cen

tivi

zed

(G

W p

re-r

etro

fit)

Minimum Plant Gate CO2 EOR Revenue Required to Incentivize CCS ($/tonne)

15


16


Data

NETL CCRD








Existing Fleet

FE/NETL CO2 CTUS

NEMS


Cost/Perf


1. Estimate cost and performance for state-of-the-art retrofit for baseline existing plant

2. Identify system that meets 2nd Generation goal of $40/tonne for baseline greenfield plant – Conceptual, 550MW greenfield installation

– Includes benefits of A-USC Steam cycle

3. Apply same 2nd Generation capture technology to baseline existing plant – Retain existing limitations such as fixed steam

cycle, non-capture heat rate, etc. and exclude advanced technologies that could improve the base plant (e.g., AUSC materials)

4. Extrapolate SOA and 2nd Gen performance and cost to existing power plant fleet

5. Assess market competitiveness for entire fleet – incentivizing CCS with CO2 sales

Analysis of CCS Retrofits of Existing PC Fleet

New CCS

Existing CCS

17

18

2030 Oil Prices May Support EOR CO2 Prices that are Equal to or Above CO2 Capture Costs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

CO

2 E

OR

Pri

ce a

t P

ow

er

Pla

nt

Gat

e ($

/to

nn

e)

WTI ($/bbl) From 2008 to mid-2011, the average annual new contract price for CO2 ($/MSCF) at the Denver City, Texas “hub”, varied between 1.8% and 2.5% of the average annual WTI Crude oil price ($/bbl) in the corresponding years. Expressed in $/tonne, this is 34% to 47% (at standard conditions of 60 ⁰F and 14.7 psia). (The non-averaged contract prices ($/MSCF) varied between 1.4 and 3.3% of the oil price between 2008 and mid-2011.) Source: Chaparral Energy “US CO2 & CO2 EOR Developments” Panel Discussion at CO2 Carbon Management Workshop December 06, 2011. Estimated 100 km pipeline transport cost of $3.65/tonne is subtracted to convert the historical “hub” price to an estimated power plant gate price.

Probable CO2 Prices

Unlikely CO2 Prices

$138/bbl*

$61

$42

*NEMS Projection

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Retr

ofi

ts I

nc

en

tiviz

ed

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


State-of-the-Art

UnlikelyCO2 Prices

abovehistorical range

PossibleCO2 Prices

withinhistorical range

ProbableCO2 Prices

belowhistorical range-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Retr

ofi

ts I

nc

en

tiviz

ed

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


State-of-the-Art

2nd Generation

UnlikelyCO2 Prices

abovehistorical range

PossibleCO2 Prices

withinhistorical range

ProbableCO2 Prices

belowhistorical range

Minimum Plant Gate CO2 EOR Revenue to Incentivize CCS – Year 2030

*NEMS Projections. Capital costs reflect ~15% premium due to increase in oil prices.

• Same CF pre- and post-retrofit

• 30-yr economic life

• $75/MWh* power price

• $138/bbl oil*

2nd Generation technology provides ~24% decrease in top decile CO2 price

32.4GW (top decile)

19

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)

Marginal Costs w/CO2 Revenue [$/MWh]

Pre-Retrofit

Post-Retrofit - no EOR Revenue

Post Retrofit w/CO2 Revenue ($10/tonne)


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


Pre-Retrofit




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


Pre-Retrofit




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


Pre-Retrofit




$10/tonne CO2

Incremental Marginal Cost Trends Retrofitting SOA CO2 Capture

Retrofit: Increased O&M, lost power revenue

$30/tonne CO2

Reasonable CO2 revenue supports higher dispatch

But to what level?

20

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

In

ce

nti

viz

ed

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


Existing CF

Increase to 75% CF

Increase to 85% CF

UnlikelyCO2 Prices

above

historical range

PossibleCO2 Prices

within

historical range

ProbableCO2 Prices

below

historical range-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

In

ce

nti

viz

ed

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


Existing CF

Increase to 75% CF

Increase to 85% CF

UnlikelyCO2 Prices

above

historical range

PossibleCO2 Prices

within

historical range

ProbableCO2 Prices

below

historical range

Effect of Dispatch - 2030 Capacity Factor Parameter Sensitivity

*NEMS Projections. Capital costs reflect ~15% premium due to increase in oil prices.

State of the Art

• 30-yr life • $75/MWh*

power price • $138/bbl oil* State

of the Art

2nd

Gen

~24% decrease in top decile CO2 price

2nd Generation

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

In

ce

nti

viz

ed

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


Existing CF

Increase to 75% CF

Increase to 85% CF

UnlikelyCO2 Prices

above

historical range

PossibleCO2 Prices

within

historical range

ProbableCO2 Prices

below

historical range

Note shift from EOR revenues @ $100/bbl

32.4GW (top decile)

21

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

In

ce

nti

viz

ed

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


30yr

20yr

10yr

UnlikelyCO2 Prices

above

historical range

PossibleCO2 Prices

within

historical range

ProbableCO2 Prices

below

historical range-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Re

tro

fits

In

ce

nti

viz

ed

(G

W p

re-r

etr

ofi

t)


30yr

20yr

10yr

UnlikelyCO2 Prices

above

historical range

PossibleCO2 Prices

within

historical range

ProbableCO2 Prices

below

historical range

Effect of Economic Life - 2030

State of the Art

• 85% CF • $75/MWh

power price • $138/bbl oil

State of the Art

~27% decrease in top decile CO2 price

2nd Generation

2nd Gen

32.4GW (top decile)

Short-term (10yr) investment viewpoints reduce viability by ~90%!

22

• Even with EOR revenues, SOA technology unlikely to promote significant retrofits

• 2nd gen improvements reduce cost of capture by ~25% and significantly increase potential of deployment

– CO2 contract price relationship to price of WTI crude

• EOR market while limited in size, is an excellent transition step for proving out carbon capture and reducing risk for future installations

• Still need help for “slam dunk” EOR scenario

– Need CO2 capture R&D success!

– Dispatch is essential – and likely achievable

– Regulatory drivers encouraging CO2 capture should also support a long-term (30yr) investment viewpoint

Conclusions

Compared cost of CO2 retrofits to minimum CO2 price in EOR market

23

24

Limitations and Next Steps

• Limitations of analysis

– Uncertainty in crude oil and CO2 price projections

– Plant locations relative to EOR opportunities

– Capability of EOR sites to take entire stream

• Next Steps

– FE/NETL CTUS model integrates with NEMS

– Links CO2 sources and sinks

– Detailed transport and storage/EOR cost models

– Evaluate combinations of CO2 emissions price and CO2 revenues


25


Data

NETL CCRD








Existing Fleet

FE/NETL CO2 CTUS

NEMS


Cost/Perf


NETL Post Combustion Capture Retrofit Cost

Update

Reference Plant Cost Metrics

Ventyx Energy Velocity Database

Plant listPlant design & operating data

CCS Retrofit Cost Metrics

Cost Scaling Factors

NGCC Cost

Model

Financial Factors

NETL CCRD PC and NGCC

26

Capture

Cost

Model

NETL CCRD Industrial Sources

27

NETL Industrial Source CCS Cost

Study

Reference Plant Cost Metrics

EPA GHG Database

Plant listAnnual CO2 emissions

CCS Retrofit Cost Metrics

Cost Scaling Factors

Industrial Sector Cost

Model

Financial Factors


28


Data

NETL CCRD








Existing Fleet

NETL CTUS NEMS


Cost/Perf


• Capture equipment costs scaled from greenfield study costs • Add equipment specific to retrofit:

– Eg. Steam turbine modifications and letdown turbine

• Add retrofit difficulty factors to capital cost equipment subaccounts – Equipment and material scope adjustments

• Accounts for minor differences in equipment specifications, layout, duct routing, and items where additional complexity is likely to be encountered

• Range from 1.00 to 1.25 within each subaccount

– Labor productivity adjustments • Productivity losses associated with working on an existing operating

plant site in potentially highly congested areas, and with modifications and tie in to existing equipment and/or systems

• Range from 1.00 to 1.30 within each subaccount

– Typical impact of retrofit difficulty factor on total plant cost is +10%

Posted on NETL QGESS page: http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/quality_guidelines.html


29

http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/quality_guidelines.html





netl studies on the economic feasibility of co2 capture ... library/research/energy analysis... ·...

Documents