Scholarly article on topic 'Carbon capture and utilization: Preliminary life cycle CO2, energy, and cost results of potential mineral carbonation'

Carbon capture and utilization: Preliminary life cycle CO2, energy, and cost results of potential mineral carbonation Academic research paper on "Chemical engineering"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Energy Procedia
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Life cycle assessment" / "CO2 mineralization" / Simulation / "Energy use" / "CO2 avoided"}

Abstract of research paper on Chemical engineering, author of scientific article — H.H. Khoo, J. Bu, R.L. Wong, S.Y. Kuan, P.N. Sharratt

Abstract Mineral carbonation has been identified as a potentially suitable means of CO2 sequestration in Singapore due to the nation’s lack of land for geological or deep ocean storage of CO2. In this article, the total energy, CO2 emissions and costs of mineral carbonation are investigated using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The life cycle investigation took into account energy and greenhouse gas emissions from mineral mining activities and shipment, the recovery of CO2 based on amine scrubbing technology and simulated scenarios of the net energy requirements for the carbonation process based on ‘ideal’ and worst case energy requirements. The CO2 avoided results from a total o f 4 scenarios were in the range of 106.9 kg to 175.9 kg per 1 MWh. The percentage sequestration effectiveness results are from 32.9% to 49.7%. The life cycle costing results are 105.6 USD/tonne CO2 avoided and 127.2 USD/tonne CO2 avoided for two of the most favorable scenarios. However, it is highlighted that various engineering challenges have to be overcome before the ‘ideal’ carbonation reaction conditions represented in the simulation model can be achieved. The results will most likely fluctuate somewhere between the ideal and worst case conditions. The main energy penalties and associated CO2 emissions come mostly from CO2 recovery, pre-treatment and mineralization process itself.

Academic research paper on topic "Carbon capture and utilization: Preliminary life cycle CO2, energy, and cost results of potential mineral carbonation"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com -

ScienceDirect Ener9y

Procedia

Energy Procedia 4 (2011)2494-2501 :

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

GHGT-10

Carbon capture and utilization: preliminary life cycle CO2, energy, and cost results of potential mineral carbonation

HH Khool*, J Bu, RL Wong, SY Kuan, PN Sharratt

Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences, 1 Pesek Road, Jurong Island, 627833 Singapore

Abstract

Mineral carbonation has been identified as a potentially suitable means of CO2 sequestration in Singapore due to the nation's lack of land for geological or deep ocean storage of CO2. In this article, the total energy, CO2 emissions and costs of mineral carbonation are investigated using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The life cycle investigation took into account energy and greenhouse gas emissions from mineral mining activities and shipment, the recovery of CO2 based on amine scrubbing technology and simulated scenarios of the net energy requirements for the carbonation process based on 'ideal' and worst case energy requirements. The CO2 avoided results from a total of 4 scenarios were in the range of 106.9 kg to 175.9 kg per 1 MWh. The percentage sequestration effectiveness results are from 32.9% to 49.7%. The life cycle costing results are 105.6 USD/tonne CO2 avoided and 127.2 USD/tonne CO2 avoided for two of the most favorable scenarios. However, it is highlighted that various engineering challenges have to be overcome before the 'ideal' carbonation reaction conditions represented in the simulation model can be achieved. The results will most likely fluctuate somewhere between the ideal and worst case conditions. The main energy penalties and associated CO2 emissions come mostly from CO2 recovery, pre-treatment and mineralization process itself.

© 2011 Published byElsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Life cycle assessment; CO2 mineralization; simulation; energy use; CO2 avoided

1. Introduction

International concerns over global warming have identified the urgent need for large-scale sequestration, reduction, or utilization of CO2. Any aims to effectively capture and store large volumes of CO2 should take into account the life cycle of energy use, and overall carbon footprint of the sequestration system itself [1-2]. In Singapore, mineral carbonation has been identified as the most suitable means of CO2 sequestration due to lack of land for geological storage and ocean territories [3-4]. Moreover, carbon sequestration via mineralization is also suggested as the safest and most stable way of locking away large amounts of CO2 [5]. Huge deposits of alkaline-

* Khoo Hsien Hui. Tel.: +65-6796-7341; fax: +65-6267-8835. E-mail address: khoo_hsien_hui@ices.a-star.edu.sg.

ELSEVIER

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.145

earth (Mg-based) silicate minerals of the peridotite and serpentinite families exist in countries around Singapore. Two of these sources were indentified to be scattered around Kalgoorlie mining areas in Western Australia (WA) and Tasmania, Australia.

2. Mineral carbonation

A simulation study of the energy requirements for carbonation using serpentine is presented here. Thermodynamic calculations were carried out using HSC Chemistry 6.0 [6] and corrected data for MgCO3 [7] to explore the possible sets of operating conditions, including the range of temperature and pressure for which the carbonation process can be feasible. The following reaction pathway was applied [8]:

1/3[3MgO-2SiO2-2H2O] - MgO + 2/3 SiO2 +2/3 H2O(g) (1)

MgO + H2O(g) - Mg(OH)2 (2)

Mg(OH)2 + CO2(g) - MgCO3 +H2O(g) (3)

The net resultant reaction is:

1/3 [3MgO-2SiO2-2H2O] + CO2(g) — MgCO3 + 2/3SiO2 + 2/3H2O (4)

The process flow diagram for the carbonation steps are shown in Figure 1. The overall process is exothermic and hence energy is released in the form of heat which is conveniently used to separate the solid products MgO and SiO2. This assumption can be made if negligible energy input is required for separation of serpentine into MgO, SiO2 and H2O. The stream data for the process is documented in Table 1. The results, displayed as Figure 2, are generated by the application of pinch analysis [9]. From the grand composite curve (Figure 2), the hot and cold utilities required are 1843 MW and 3320 MW respectively. The highest amount of energy required for the carbonation process is formulated according to the hot utility shown in the graph.

Serpentine -H

"600oC

MgO cool down

H2O(g) 170oC

MgO SiO2

170oC, 1 bar

Separate

MgO hydration @ 170oC Mg(OH)2 Mg(OH)2 carbonation @ 170oC MgCO3 MgCO3 MgCO3

170oC " 170oC cool down 45oC, 1 bar

Figure 1 Block flow diagram for carbonation

Table 1 Stream data for temperature interval analysis (based on 1 tonne CO2/s and AT = 10oC)

Stream TinCC) ToutCC) MCp (MW/K) Heat Load (MW)

C1 Preheat 25 600 2.8 1596

C2 Mg-Si -MgO 600 600.5 3630 1815

H1 MgO — Mg(OH)2 170 169.5 3609 -1805

H2 Mg(OH)2 — MgCO3 170 169.5 1727 -864

H3 MgCO3 cool down 170 45 2.0 -250

H4 MgO cool down 600 170 1.1 -467

H5 SiO2/H2O cool down 600 45 2.7 -1503

Figure 2 Grand composite curve

The energy required for the pretreatment of serpentine was estimate with the help of the thermodynamic data reported by King et al. [10] along with the effective heat capacities and temperature provided by Penner et al. [11]. According to the authors, the energy required for pretreatment was calculated by:

Q = CpAT (5)

Where Q = heat (cal/mol); CP = cal/Kmol @ temperature T1 (K); and AT = T1 -TO (298K).

From (5), the heat treatment of serpentine at 630°C (CP = 89.26 cal/K mol) requires 206 kWh/tonnne to heat the mineral, while dehydroxylation of the mineral requires another 87 kWh/tonne. The total for energy consumption for the heat treatment process is thus 293 kWh/tonne [11].

The uptake of CO2 by the minerals may be enhanced by taking advantage of the heat released by the exothermic carbonation reaction. Realistically, the conversion rates can be between 80-90% [4-5]. Based on the simulation results (Figures 1 and 2), the net energy requirement for mineral carbonation are as follows:

■ Ideal case, where it is assumed that the carbonation reaction generates enough heat energy to feed itself (energy input = energy output). The conversion of minerals to carbonate for an ideal case is taken to be 90%.

■ Worst case scenario, where virtually none of the heat energy can be recovered for use. Therefore the maximum net energy required is simulated to be 1850 MJ/tonne CO2 carbonated. The extent of reaction for this case is taken as 80%.

3. Life cycle assessment

The case study of the LCA covers mineral mining, crushing and packaging of mineral rocks, before shipment to Singapore. Next the CO2 recovery from a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant is taken into account, and finally, CO2 carbonation. The functional unit selected is 1 MWh generated from the NGCC power plant in Singapore. The goal of the LCA is to compare the life cycle CO2 (or carbon footprint), energy requirements and costs of mineral carbonization in Singapore for four scenarios, which are tabulated in Table 2. The life cycle system boundary, along with the input-output flow of energy and CO2, is illustrated in Figure 3. Within the LCA system, the following activities are considered to model the energy requirements and CO2 emissions:

■ Mining, crushing and packaging of minerals from Kalgoorlie mining area in Western Australia (WA) and Tasmania, Australia.

■ Shipment of mineral rocks to Singapore. The nearest ports from WA and Tasmania to Singapore are Fremantle and Melbourne. The shipment distances are 6991 and 3986 kilometers respectively.

■ The recovery of CO2 from the flue gas of an NGCC power plant based on amine scrubbing technology. The CO2 recovery rate is 90% with an energy penalty of 16%.

■ The simulated energy and extent of reaction for CO2 mineralization are based on the 'ideal' and 'worst' cases. In both cases, the ratio of serpentine to CO2 is considered to be 2:1.

The LCA scenarios are as follows:

1. Minerals purchased from WA and processed with 'ideal case' mineralization reaction

2. Minerals purchased from WA and processed with 'worst case' mineralization reaction

3. Minerals purchased from Tasmania and processed with 'ideal case' mineralization reaction

4. Minerals purchased from Tasmania and processed with 'worst case' mineralization reaction

Energy

CO2 A,

Carbonate product

Energy

NGCC power plant with CO2 capture

Western Aus / Tasmania

" ¡ Energy CO2

Figure 3 Life cycle stages

The energy requirements for mineral mining, crushing and packaging are extracted from EcoInvent [12] and Hangx and Spiers [13]. These total energy requirements are assumed to be similar to limestone rock mining. The associated CO2 emissions due to energy usage differ from place to place. The CO2 inventory is extracted from Hydro Tasmania [14] and CARMA [15]. The energy requirements of CO2 recovery from a power plant in Singapore is calculated based on amine scrubbing utilizing monoethanolamine or MEA. The energy penalty for an NGCC power plant is 16% with CO2 recovery rates of 90% [16]. Energy demands (electricity and heat) for amine scrubbing of CO2 from the power plant flue gas can be as high as 3570 MJ/tonne CO2 [17]. Carbon dioxide emissions from shipment are also taken from EcoInvent [18].

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Source of mineral

The total CO2 from mineral sourcing and transportation is shown in Figure 4. It is observed that shipment takes up the main portions of each graph, especially for cases 3 and 4. This is due to the large transport distance travelled for the delivery of minerals to Singapore. Comparatively, emissions from mining activities are less significant. However, it should be highlighted that only CO2 emissions were considered. A large amount of air pollution from mining activities is dust, which has a detrimental affect on human health [19]. This environmental and health concerns should be taken into consideration for further LCA studies.

Figure 4 CO2 from mineral mining and shipping

4.2. Life cycle CO2 and energy use

The LCA results for CO2 and energy use are displayed in Figure 5 and 6 respectively.

150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350 -400 -450

Total life cycle CO2 results

Mineral mining, Shipment NGCC power From energy Carbonation of TOTAL crushing, plant/CO2 use in CO2

packaging recovery Carbonation

Figure 5 Life cycle CO2 results

From Figure 5, the inverted peaks represent the amount of CO2 carbonated and prevented from entering the atmosphere. It is observed that the most preferred case is scenario 1, where the minerals are obtained from WA and the energy requirements for carbonation is ideally supplied by the heat generated from its own exothermic reaction. It is also highlighted that the main concerns of greenhouse gas emissions are actually from, principally, the CO2 recovery system and, next, the energy used for pre-treatment and carbonation. Compared to these two stages the emissions from mining and transportation are very much less significant. Scenario 4 turned out to be the least favorable option. The benefits are mostly reduced by the large amount of emissions arising mainly from CO2 recovery, pre-treatment and carbonation.

Total life cycle energy results

4500 -4000 -3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 -0 -

Mineral mining, Shipment CO2 recovery Carbonation crushing, (electricity and (including pre-

packaging heat) treatment)

Figure 6 Life cycle energy results.

While the CO2 emissions of Figure 5 are mostly influenced by the potential amount of CO2 carbonated, energy use (Figure 6) is dominated by the energy requirements of the CO2 recovery system. Before CO2 can be carbonated, there is an intermediate step of separating and recovering it from the power plant's flue gases. Highly intensive

energy demands are required for amine scrubbing of CO2, especially for the heat regeneration process. In this article, heat energy demands of 3570 MJ/tonne CO2 is used, but even higher energy demands of up to 4500 to 5700 MJ/tonne was reported by Harkin et al. [20] for the same CO2 removal technology.

Energy requirements for carbonation are process-dependent and it is influenced by a wide range of parameters including the energy required to separate MgO from serpentine, heat, pressure and other reaction kinetics [7-8, 1011]. The energy requirements for both pre-treatment and carbonation deserve further explorations and experiments to make the entire process feasible.

4.3. CO2 voidance and percentage sequestration effectiveness

The amount of CO2 avoided can be defined as:

CO2 avoided = NGCCCO2 - ! CCSCO2 (6)

Where NGCCCO2 = amount of CO2 emissions from NGCC power plant without any capture system

in place. This value is reported to be 380 kg/MWh. ! CCSCO2 = the accumulated CO2 emissions totalled from mineral mining, transportation,

CO2 recovery and carbonation.

From here, the percentage sequestration effectiveness is calculated as:

Amount of CO2 Carbonated - [! CCSCO2 ] x 100% (7)

Amount of CO2 Carbonated

The graphical illustration of the total CO2 avoided is displayed in Figure 7. The results are shown in table 2.

Figure 7 Amount of CO2 avoided

Table 2 Total CO2 avoided and percentage sequestration

Scenarios 1 2 3 4

CO2 Avoided (kg) 175.2 117.6 166.3 106.9

Percentage sequestration effectiveness 49.7% 35.5% 47.5% 32.9%

Based on the results, scenario 4 is omitted and the costs of scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are investigated.

4.4. Simplified life cycle costs

Life cycle costing is a method that can be used to take into account the cost components of materials and energy flows within an LCA system. A simplified life cycle costing (LCC) is carried out according to the following equation:

Life cycle cost = Ccapitai + Cm + Rco2 + CT+ CNG (8)

Where Ccapitai = capital cost of equipment, including maintenance CM = cost of minerals in USD/tonne

RCO2 = cost of CO2 recovery from flue gas (USD/tonne CO2)

CT = cost of transportation/shipment (USD/tonne-km)

CNg = cost of energy from natural gas for mineralization process (USD/MJ)

Data for transportation were estimated from shipping rates, distance between ports (and subsequently the duration of time at sea), and shipping rates from Lloyd's Shipping Economist [21]. As a conservative estimate, the cost of CO2 recovery and price of natural gas are taken from IPCC [15] and Johnson and Keith [22]. The costs of minerals were taken from U.S. geological survey [23]. The compiled costing data are shown in table 3.

Table 3 Life cycle cost data

Cost parameters

CM (USD/tonne) RCO2 (USD/tonne CO2) CT (USD/tonne-km) CNG (USD/MJ)

7 33.0 0.00018 0.003

Without considering Ccapitaj, the results for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are USD 88, 150 and 106 per tonne CO2 avoided respectively. IPCC reported that Ccapita may be estimated as 20% of the total (LCC) [24]. By incorporating this cost component, the LCC results are adjusted to be 105.6 USD/tonne CO2 avoided for scenario 1, 180 USD/tonne for 2, and 127.2 USD/tonne CO2 avoided for scenario 3. In comparison, a report from IEA [25] on energy technologies in year 2050 suggests carbon capture and storage projects are projected to cost less than 150 USD per tonne CO2 avoided. Hence, the cost results for all three scenarios fall within a reasonable range.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

Based on the 4 scenarios, the CO2 recovery of 90% from the NGCC flue gas resulted in a total of 175.2, 117.6, 166.3 and 106.9 kg CO2 avoided per 1 MWh delivered to consumers. The range of sequestration effectiveness is from 32.9% to 49.7%. Further analysis estimated the life cycle costing (LCC) results to be 105.6 USD/tonne CO2 avoided for scenario 1 and 127.2 USD/tonne CO2 avoided for scenario 3. From the overall results, scenarios 1 and 3 turn out to be the most favourable. However, in reality the 'ideal' conditions represented by scenarios 1 and 3 are not easily achievable. The results will most likely fluctuate somewhere between scenarios 1 and 2; or 2 and 3. Apart from simulation work focusing on thermodynamics, experimental studies should target at obtaining the optimal net energy generation in the range between these two scenarios.

The results indicate that main focus for the entire carbon capture and utilization system should primarily be on reducing the energy demands for CO2 removal technologies [17], as well as, optimizing the use of heat energy generated by the exothermic carbonation reaction. Currently, experimental studies focusing on dry carbonation of Si and Mg silicates have been rather slow and are hindered with various engineering limitations [7-9]. One of the main goals is to optimally utilize the amount of heat produced by the carbonation reaction, which in principal, can be recovered as a high enthalpy system [26]. Another technical challenge lies in the extraction of magnesium from the minerals without the use of chemicals or high energy demands [3-5].

Apart from CO2, LCA investigations of carbon capture and storage should also expand to include other kinds of pollution, including dusts, acidic gases, and solid wastes. Such studies are exemplified by Khoo and Tan [1-2] and Singh et al. [27]. The authors compared a wide range of environmental aspects from a myriad of options for CO2 recovery technologies, transportation, and storages. Apart from global warming impacts alone, the environmental concerns of acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity to air and water, and solid waste were taken into account.

6. References

[1] Khoo HH, Tan RBH. Life Cycle Investigation of CO2 Recovery and Sequestration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006; 40: 4016-24.

[2] Khoo HH, Tan RBH. Environmental Impact Evaluation o f Conventional Fossil Fuel Production (Oil and Natural Gas) and Enhanced Resource Recovery with Potential CO2 Sequestration. Energy Fuels 2006; 20: 1914-24.

[3] Wu JCS, Sheen JD, Chen SY, Fan YC. Feasibility of CO2 Fixation via Artificial Rock Weathering. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001; 40: 3902-05.

[4] Huijgen WJJ, Ruijg GJ, Comans RNJ, Witkamp GJ. Energy Consumption and Net CO2 Sequestration of Aqueous Mineral Carbonation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006; 45: 9184-94.

[5] Bearat H, McKelvy MJ, Chizmeshya AVG, Gormley D, Nunez R, Carpenter RW, Squires K, Wolf GH. Carbon Sequestration via Aqueous Olivine Mineral Carbonation: Role of Passivating Layer Formation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006; 40: 4802-08.

[6] HSC Chemistry, Outotec, Finland; 2009.

[7] Robie RA, Hemingway BS, Fisher JR. Thermodynamic properties of minerals and related substances at 298.15K and 1 bar pressure and at higher temperatures. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington; 1978.

[8] Zevenhoven R, Teir S, Eloneva S. Heat optimisation of a staged gas-solid mineral carbonation process for long-term CO2 storage. Energy 2008; 33: 362-70.

[9] Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA. Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, Chapter 13, Prentice Hall; 2003.

[10] King EG, Barany R, Weller WW, Pankratz L.B. Thermodynamic Properties of Forsterite and Serpentine. U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 6962; 1967.

[11] Penner L, O'Connor WK, Dahlin DC, Gerdemann S, Rush GE. Mineral Carbonation: Energy Costs of Pretreatment Options and Insights Gained from Flow Loop Reaction Studies. Albany Research Center, Office of Fossil Energy, US DOE; 2004

[12] EcoInvent. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: Limestone mining, crushing and packaging; 2009.

[13] Hangx SJT, Spiers CJ. Coastal spreading of olivine to control atmospheric CO2 concentrations: A critical analysis of viability. Int. J. Green. Gas Control 2009; 3: 757-67.

[14] Hydro Tasmania. Greenhouse Challenge Progress Report 2004/2005.

[15] CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action). Western Australia; 2007.

[16] IPCC. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage - IPCC Special Report. UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2005.

[17] Romeo LM, Bolea I, Escosa JM. Integration of power plant and amine scrubbing to reduce CO2 capture costs. Applied Thermal Engr. 2008; 28: 1039-46.

[18] EcoInvent. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: Ocean freight transport; 2009.

[19] Petavratz E, Kingman S, Lowndes I. Particulates from mining operations: A review of sources, effects and regulations. Minerals Engr. 2005; 18: 1183-99.

[20] Harkin T, Hoadley A, Hooper, B. Process integration analysis of a brown coal-fired power station with CO2 capture and storage and lignite drying. Energy Procedia 2009; 1: 3817-25.

[21] Lloyd's Shipping Economist; 2009.

[22] Johnson TL, Keith DW. Fossil electricity and CO2 sequestration: how natural gas prices, initial conditions and retrofits determine the cost of controlling CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 2004; 32: 367-82.

[23] USGS Mineral Yearbook. Minerals Information. U.S. Geological Survey; 2009.

[24] Mazzotti, M. Mineral Carbonation and Industrial Uses of Carbon Dioxide. Chapter 7. IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2005.

[25] IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, International Energy Agency; 2008.

[26] Badescu V, Cathart RB, Schuiling RD. Mineral Sequestration of CO2 and Recovery of the Heat of Reaction. Earth and Environmental Science, Springer, Netherlands; 2007.

[27] Singh B, Str0mman AH, Hertwich E. Life cycle assessment of natural gas combined cycle power plant with post-combustion carbon capture, transport and storage. Int J GHG Control 2010. In print.