Perspectives on

Hydrogen from Fossil Fuels

for CO2 Mitigation

Tom Kreutz
Princeton Environmental Institute
Princeton University

Presented at the Aspen Global Change Institute, Workshop:

“Energy Options and Paths to Climate Stabilization”
July 6-11, 2003, Aspen, Colorado

1
 The Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI)
at Princeton University, 2001-2010
• CMI Project Areas:
- Carbon capture (Kreutz, Larson, Ogden, Socolow, Williams):
production, distribution, and utilization of electricity and H2
from fossil fuels.
- Carbon storage (Celia): modeling CO2 storage in and leakage
from saline aquifers; emphasis on risk assessment.
- Carbon science (Pacala, Sarmiento, GFDL): global climate
modeling of CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans, and land.
- Carbon policy (Bradford, Oppenheimer): Kyoto alternatives,
stabilization targets, GH damage functions.
- Integration: economic implications of delayed action,
knowledge about trajectories, optimal emission paths.

• Funding: 15.1$ from BP, 5 M$ from Ford

2
 Talk Outline

• How H2 might fit into the problem of global carbon

emissions.
• Some ongoing work at Princeton relating to H2
production and distribution.

3
 Point of Departure

• The greenhouse effect is real, and growing.

- It’s a big problem, requiring large changes.

• We want to mitigate its effects, to stabilize CO2

concentrations at some level, e.g. 550 ppmv, but
- We don’t want to curtail economic growth.

• We seek to minimize the costs (economic, societal,

etc.) of mitigation.
- Advantages may result from large changes.

• We balance GH costs against mitigation costs.

- Evolving process: science + policy/politics.

4
 World Consumption of Primary Energy

Coal

Natural Gas

Oil

From: http://www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/primary.asp#
5
 Fossil Fuels are…
• plentiful: Global Fossil Carbon Resource Additional
Resources (Gt) Base

Conventional oil (85 wt. % C) 250

Unconventional oil 440 1550
Conventional natural gas (75% C) 240
Unconventional natural gas 250 220
Clathrates 10600
Coal (70% C) 3400 2900
Total 4600 15300

• the primary cause of greenhouse warming.

• the largest source of primary energy (X% worldwide)

• likely to continue to be extremely important for many

decades until other, low carbon sources (renewables,
nuclear energy) become more mature, widespread,
and less expensive.
6
7
Growth Rate of Carbon Reservoirs

8
 Use of Fossil Fuels in a Carbon-
Constrained World
• Stabilization of CO2 concentrations (e.g. 550
ppmv) will require huge reductions in CO2
emissions over the next century.
• Thus, continued, large scale use of fossil fuels
will require carbon capture and storage (CCS).
• Large scale generation of carbon-free energy
carriers, electricity and hydrogen, from fossil
fuels is commonplace.
• CO2 separation/capture can be accomplished
with proven, commercial technology.
• Very large scale CO2 storage is the big unknown.
9
 Second Point of Departure

• In our work, and in this talk, we assume:

- Widespread, large scale CO2 storage, e.g. in saline
aquifers, will be a viable - and not too expensive -
undertaking.
- Fossil fuels are going to play a major role for the next
50-100 years.

• The extent of fossil fuel use will depend on a host

of factors (discussed at this conference):
- Actual CO2 storage costs,
- Carbon taxes/policy,
- Costs of competing low carbon energy sources,
- Etc.
10
 Options For CO2 Disposal

• Deep ocean disposal

• Disposal in geological media

– Depleted oil and gas fields
– Beds of unminable coal
– Deep saline aquifers (at least 800 m down)

• Disposal as carbonate rocks

11
 Global Capacity For CO2 Storage
In Deep Saline Aquifers

• If closed aquifers with structural traps needed: ~ 50 GtC

• If large, open aquifers w/good top seals also usable:
– Estimate by IEA GHG R&D Programme: up to 2,700 GtC
– Estimate by Hendriks (Utrecht University): ~ 13,000 GtC

• For comparison:
– Cumulative emissions, 1990-2100, from fossil fuel burning
[Business-As-Usual Global Energy Scenario (IS92a) of IPCC:
1,500 GtC]
– Carbon content of remaining exploitable fossil fuels (excluding
methane hydrates) ~ 5,000 – 7,000 GtC
12
 CO2 Disposal Experience

• Enhanced oil recovery: 74 projects worldwide injecting 30

MMt CO2/y; 4% of US oil so produced—mostly using CO2 from
natural reservoirs (> 3000 km of CO2 pipelines in US), but
Weyburn (Canada) uses 1.5 MMt/y of CO2 piped 300 km from
North Dakota coal gasification plant

• Enhanced coal bed methane recovery: 1 commercial

project in San Juan Basin (US)

• Acid gas disposal: 31 acid gas (H2S + CO2) disposal projects

in Canada associated with recovery of sour NG

• Sleipner project in North Sea: 1 MMt/y of CO2 being

disposed of since 1996 in aquifer under seabed

13
 Current CO2 Emissions
100% 1997

32.0
80%
48.6

60%
Other
32.0
Transportation
40% 20.8
Electricity

20% 36.0
30.6

0%
United States World

• Centralized power generation is relatively easy to

decarbonize.
• 2/3 – 3/4 of CO2 emissions from distributed sources:
transportation and “other” (primarily industrial,
commercial, and residential heating). 14
 Projected CO2 Emissions
100% IS92a
2100

80% 37.2 40.4

60%
Other
29.4 Transportation
34.4
40% Electricity

20%
33.4
25.2

0%
United States World

• Similar story under IPCC IS92a projections.

• These ratios obviously depend on competition
between sectors.
15
 What to do about CO2 Emissions from
Distributed Consumption of Fossil Fuels?
• Switch to “low-carbon” electricity (from fossil fuels with
CCS, nuclear, or renewables):
- Difficulties with storage (transportation) and efficiency
(heating) will limit adoption. By how much?
• Switch to “low-carbon” hydrogen, from:
- Centrally “decarbonized” fossil fuels with CCS,
- Biomass (without - or with - CCS),
- Nuclear, via advanced thermochemical cycles,
- Electrolysis using low-carbon electricity.
• Efficiency losses vs. transportation costs
• H+T require H2 distribution, T requires H2 onboard storage
• CO2 capture and storage from air.
16
 Annual U.S. Carbon Emissions (2000)
700

Tonnes C per Year (x10 ) 600

6

500
Natural Gas
400 Petroleum

300 Coal

200

100

0
Electricity Transportation Industrial Commercial Residential

Source: U.S. EPA Inventory of Greenhouse Gases, Apr. 2002

• Power generation with CCS ~100-200 $/tonne CO2.

• Transportation sector via H2…1000 $/tonne CO2?

17
 Drivers for the H2 Economy

• H2 is abundant and can be utilized relatively and

cleanly (via combustion, electrochemistry)
• Energy security
• Air pollution
• Climate change
• Common carbon-free energy carrier from:
- renewables
- fossil fuels
- nuclear power

18
Difficulties with the H2 Economy

• Efficiency losses during production

• Cost:
- distribution
- storage (at both large and small scales)
- safety
• Safety

19
 “Low-Carbon” Electricity
• Electricity grid already exists.
• Competition between:
- “Decarbonized” fossil-based, central station power
generation, via CO2 capture and storage (CCS),
- Nuclear power
- Renewable energy (wind, solar, biomass)

20
Economics of Base Case System
Capital Cost (million $)
1800
H2 refueling Sta
1600
1400 Local H2 Distribution
1200 H2 pipeline 100 km
1000
H2 Storage at Central
800 Plant
600 CO2 Wells and Injection
Site
400
CO2 Pipeline 100 km
200
0 H2 Plant

H2 from NG H2 from Coal

Delivered H2 Cost ($/GJ) H2 Refuel Sta O&M

18
16 H2 Refuel Sta Capital

14 Local H2 Distrib
12
H2 Pipeline 100 km
10
H2 Storage at H2 Plant
8
6 CO2 Wells and Injection
Site
4 CO2 Pipeline 100 km
2
Feedstock
0
H2 from NG H2 from Coal H2 Plant
21
22
H2 DEMAND DENSITY (kg/d/km2): YEAR 1:
25% OF NEW Light Duty Vehicles = H2 FCVs
Blue shows good locations for refueling station

23
H2 DEMAND DENSITY (kg/d/km2):
YEAR 5: 25% OF NEW LDVs = H2 fueled

24
H2 DEMAND DENSITY (kg/d/km2):
YEAR 10: 25% OF NEW LDVs = H2 fueled

25
H2 DEMAND DENSITY (kg/d/km2):
YEAR 15: 25% OF NEW LDVs = H2 fueled

26
Societal Lifecycle Costs ($/veh) for Alternative
Fueled Vehicles, Including Externality Costs
16000
Current
14000
ICEVs Adv. Hybrid Fuel Cell Vehicles
ICEVs ICEVs Energy Supply Security
12000
GHG
10000 Air Pollution
8000 Fuel
6000 Vehicle Body
Drive Train
4000
2000
0

27
 Societal Lifecycle Costs ($/veh) with Low,
Medium, and High Externality Values
25000 Oil Supply Insecurity High Externality Values
GHG Current
ICEV
Air Pollution
Fuel
Vehicle Body Medium Externality Values
20000
Drive Train
H2 Fuel
ICE/HEVs Cell Veh
Low Externality Values
Adv.
Current
ICEVs
ICEV
15000
Current Adv. ICE/HEVs
ICEV ICE/HEVs H2 Fuel ICEVs H2 Fuel
Adv.
Cell Veh Cell Veh
ICEVs
10000

5000

28
 The Case for Hydrogen

1. Most of the century's fossil fuel carbon must be captured.

2. About half of fossil carbon, today, is distributed to small
users – buildings, vehicles, small factories.
3. The costs of retrieval, once dispersed, will be prohibitive.
4. An all-electric economy is unlikely.
5. An electricity-plus-hydrogen economy is the most likely
alternative.
6. Hydrogen from fossil fuels is likely to be cheaper than
hydrogen from renewable or nuclear energy for a long time.

29
 The Case for Coal

• Abundance of low quality feedstocks (coal, heavy oils, tar

sands, etc.) relative to conventional oil and natural gas

• Low feedstock cost relative to natural gas

• China is dependent on coal; US expected to continue being

large coal user Î is near-zero emission option for coal feasible?

• Air pollution concerns likely to drive coal gasification for power

generation—springboard for producing H2 from coal

• Sulfur, other criteria pollutants, toxics (e.g, Hg) pose major

challenges in H2/electricity manufacture; gasification facilitates
low emissions

• Residual environmental, health, and safety issues of coal mining

and other low-quality feedstocks

30
 Why Focus on Coal and Gasification?
• Coal resources abundant globally.
• Coal prices low and not volatile.
• Much of global population (e.g., China, India) heavily
coal-dependent.
• Widespread use of coal is a GH disaster.
• Gasification is relatively efficient, and can be quite
clean, esp. with CCS.
• Gasification provides a route to H2, with its numerous
advantages:
– Secure alternative to oil for transportation
– near-zero emissions of air pollutants/GHGs

31
 GASIFICATION ACTIVITY WORLDWIDE
• Gasification technology for making chemicals in market by 1970
• Cool Water demonstration of coal IGCC power, 1984-1989

61 GWth cum syngas

capacity:
• By activity:
– 24 GWth chemicals
– 23 GWth power
– 14 GWth synfuels
• By region:
– 19 GWth W Europe
– 18 GWth Asia/Australia
– 10 GWth N America
– 10 GWth Africa/ME
– 3 GWth E Europe/FSU
– 1 GWth Latin America
Source: SFA Pacific, Gasification—Worldwide Use and
• By feedstock:
Acceptance, prepared for the US DOE, January 2000
– 27 GWth pet residuals
– 27 GWth coal • New syngas capacity being added @ 3 GWth/y
– 6 GWth NG • Most power at refineries via “polygeneration”
– 1 GWth biomass • Coal power growth constrained by NGCC competition
32
 Generic Process: Coal to H2, Electricity, and CO2

H2- and
CO2-rich
Water-gas shift syngas
Quench + Syngas cleanup, CO2
(WGS) reactors
scrubber gas separation
CO + H2O <=> H2 + CO2

CO2
CO-rich
drying and
raw syngas H2-rich compression
syngas
Coal Supercritical
slurry O2-blown CO2 (150 bar)
coal
gasifier Heat recovery,
steam generation

95% Hydrogen
O2 compression
Electricity
production H2 product
(60 bar)
Air Air
separation
Electric
unit
power
N2

GHGT-6 generic process figure (9-25-02)

• All work presented here is based on O2-blown, entrained flow, coal

gasification (e.g. Texaco, E-Gas gasifiers).
33
 Process Modeling
• Heat and mass balances (around each system
component) calculated using:
• Aspen Plus (commercial software), and
• GS (“Gas-Steam”, Politecnico di Milano)

• Membrane reactor performance calculated via custom

Fortran code

• Component capital cost estimates taken from the

literature, esp. Holt, et al. and EPRI reports on IGCC

• Benchmarking/calibration:
• Economics of IGCC with carbon capture studied by numerous groups
• Used as a point of reference for performance and economics of our system
• Many capital-intensive components are common between IGCC electricity
and H2 production systems (both conventional and membrane-based)
34
 Estimates of Overnight Component Capital Costs
1 2

Solids handling 1 1

ASU 1 0

Simbeck
O2 compression 9

Holt
Gasifier & quench 8

Doctor
WGS reactor 7

Chiesa
Membrane reactor 6

Hendriks
Raffinate turbine 5

Pruden
FGD 4

3,000-6,000 $/m
2 EPRI

H2 compression 3

Scale (HHV):
HRSG, steam turb. 2

1.5 GW th
CO2 compression 1

coal,
0

0 50 100 150 200

Capital Cost (MM$)

• Significant variation found in cost values, methodology, and depth of detail.

• Our cost model is a self-consistent set of values from the literature.
• Cost database is evolving; less reliable values removed; range is narrowing.
• Uncertainty shown above leads to an uncertainty of ±10-15% in H2 cost.
35
 Economic Assumptions
Coal price (year 2020 EIA est.) 1.2 $/GJ (HHV)
Capacity factor 80%
Capital charge rate 15% per yr
Balance of plant (BOP) costs 23% of gasifier island (GI) capital
Engineering fees (EF) 15% of (GI+BOP)
Process/project contingency 15% of (GI+BOP+EF)
Interest during construction (IDC) 16.0% of overnight capital**
O&M costs 4% of overnight capital per year
CO2 sequestration cost 5 $/mt CO2 (~0.5 $/GJ H2 HHV)
U.S. dollars valued in year 2002
Plant scale 1 GWth H2

* Assuming a 10% real interest rate

36
 Example of Disaggregated Cost of H2 Production system
(membrane system...change to conventional)...drop slide?

Capital Charge Rate=15%

7 CO2 Sequestration (5 $/mt CO2)

CO2 drying & compression

6
Hydrogen Cost ($/GJ, HHV)
H2 compressor

5 Raffinate turbine

Membrane reactor
4
H.T. WGS reactor

Gasifier and quench

3
O2 separation & compression
2 Coal preparation & handling

Construction Interest (4 yr)

1
O&M (4% per year)
0 Coal (0.93 $/GJ, HHV)

Electricity credit (5.54 ¢/kWh)

-1
Fig. D3
Net cost: 6.6 $/GJ

• 70 bar gasifier, 85% HRF, uncooled raffinate turbine, scale: 1 GWth H2 (HHV)

37
 Coal IGCC Electricity with CO2 Capture
High temp. Low temp. Regeneration, Solvent
WGS WGS Claus, SCOT regeneration
reactor reactor
H2- and Lean/rich Lean/rich
CO2-rich solvent solvent
syngas CO2 drying +
compression
H2S CO2
Quench +
physical physical
scrubber
absorption absorption Supercritical
CO2 to storage
CO2-lean
CO-rich exhaust H2-rich
raw syngas gases Saturated syngas
steam

Coal Syngas
slurry O2-blown
expander
coal Heat recovery
gasifier steam generator

Turbine
95% exhaust
O2
Steam
turbine

Air Air
separation
unit Gas turbine
Air
N2 for (NOx control)

GHGT-6 conv. electricity, CO2 seq. (9-25-02)

• Plant scale: 362 MWe, efficiency: 34.9% (HHV), cost: 6.5 ¢/kWh (no carbon
tax) vs. 4.8 ¢/kWh venting, 6.7 ¢/kWh (at 96 $/tonne C). (70 bar gasifier
with quench cooling) 38
 H2 Production: Add H2 Purification/Separation
High temp. Low temp. Regeneration, Solvent
WGS WGS Claus, SCOT regeneration
reactor reactor
H2- and Lean/rich Lean/rich
CO2-rich solvent solvent
syngas CO2 drying +
compression
H2S CO2
Quench +
physical physical
scrubber
absorption absorption Supercritical
CO2 to storage
CO2-lean
CO-rich exhaust H2-rich
raw syngas gases Saturated syngas
steam

Coal Syngas
slurry O2-blown
expander
coal Heat recovery
gasifier steam generator

Turbine
95% exhaust
O2
Steam
turbine

Air Air
separation
unit Gas turbine
Air
N2 for (NOx control)

GHGT-6 conv. electricity, CO2 seq. (9-25-02-a)

• Replace syngas expander with PSA and purge gas compressor.

39
 Conventional H2 Production with CO2 Capture
High temp. Low temp. Regeneration, Solvent
WGS WGS Claus, SCOT regeneration
reactor reactor
H2- and Lean/rich Lean/rich
CO2-rich solvent solvent
syngas CO2 drying +
compression
H2S CO2
Quench +
physical physical
scrubber
absorption absorption Supercritical
CO2 to storage
CO2-lean
CO-rich exhaust High purity
raw syngas gases Saturated Pressure H2 product
steam swing
adsorption
Coal
slurry O2-blown Purge
coal Heat recovery gas
gasifier steam generator

Turbine
95% exhaust
O2
Steam
turbine

Air Air
separation
unit Gas turbine
Air
N2 for (NOx control)

GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, CO2 seq. (9-25-02)

• 1285 MWth H2 (HHV) + 39 MW electricity, efficiency ηHHV=68.4%, 7.4 $/GJ

HHV (no carbon tax). [70 bar gasifier with quench cooling]
40
 Capture (and Co-store) H2S with CO2
High temp. Low temp. Regeneration, Solvent
WGS WGS Claus, SCOT regeneration
reactor reactor
H2- and Lean/rich Lean/rich
CO2-rich solvent solvent
syngas CO2 drying +
compression
H2S CO2
Quench +
physical physical
scrubber
absorption absorption Supercritical
CO2 to storage
CO2-lean
CO-rich exhaust High purity
raw syngas gases Saturated Pressure H2 product
steam swing
adsorption
Coal
slurry O2-blown Purge
coal Heat recovery gas
gasifier steam generator

Turbine
95% exhaust
O2
Steam
turbine

Air Air
separation
unit Gas turbine
Air
N2 for (NOx control)

GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, CO2 seq. (9-25-02-a)

• Remove the traditional acid gas recovery (AGR) unit.

41
Conventional H2 Production with CO2/H2S Capture
Solvent
regeneration

H2- and Lean/rich

solvent CO2/H2S
CO2-rich drying and
syngas CO2/H2S compression
Quench + High temp. Low temp.
WGS WGS physical
scrubber
reactor reactor absorption CO2 + H2S
to storage
CO-rich High purity
raw syngas CO2-lean Pressure H2 product
exhaust swing
gases adsorption
Coal Saturated
slurry O2-blown steam Purge
coal gas
gasifier
Heat recovery
steam generator
95%
Turbine
O2
exhaust

Steam
Air Air turbine
separation
unit Gas turbine
Air
N2 for (NOx control)

GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, co-seq. (9-25-02).FH10

• Resulting system is simpler and cheaper.

42
 Conventional H2 with Co-Sequestration of CO2
and Sulfur-bearing Species
CO2 venting Pure CO2 sequestration Co-sequestration

8
7
H2 Cost ($/GJ HHV)

6
5

2
1

0
Conv. tech. base case
Includes $5/t CO2 = ~0.5 $/GJ HHV sequestration cost

• CO2 capture and sequestration lowers efficiency by ~3% and increases H2 cost
by ~ 1.5 $/GJ.
(Cost of CO2 pipeline transport and disposal used here is 0.4-0.6 $/GJ.)
• Co-sequestration has potential to lower H2 cost by 0.25-0.75 $/GJ, depending on
sulfur content of coal.
43
 Produce “Fuel Grade” H2 with CO2/H2S Capture
Solvent
regeneration

H2- and Lean/rich

solvent CO2/H2S
CO2-rich drying and
syngas CO2/H2S compression
Quench + High temp. Low temp.
WGS WGS physical
scrubber
reactor reactor absorption CO2 + H2S
to storage
CO-rich High purity
raw syngas CO2-lean Pressure H2 product
exhaust swing
gases adsorption
Coal Saturated
slurry O2-blown steam Purge
coal gas
gasifier
Heat recovery
steam generator
95%
O2

Steam
Air Air turbine
separation
unit Gas turbine
Air
N2 for (NOx control)

GHGT-6 conv. hydrogen, co-seq. (9-25-02-a).FH10

• Remove the PSA and gas turbine; smaller steam cycle.

44
“Fuel Grade” (~93% pure) H2 with CO2/H2S Capture
Solvent
regeneration

H2- and Lean/rich

solvent CO2/H2S
CO2-rich drying and
syngas CO2/H2S compression
Quench + High temp. Low temp.
WGS WGS physical
scrubber
reactor reactor absorption CO2 + H2S
to storage
CO-rich
raw syngas CO2-lean Low purity
exhaust H2 product
gases (~93% pure)
Coal Saturated
slurry O2-blown steam
coal
gasifier
Heat recovery
steam generator
95%
O2

Steam
Air Air turbine
separation
unit

N2

GHGT-6 Fuel grade H2, co-seq. (9-25-02)

• Simpler, less expensive plant. No novel technology needed.

45
 Production of “Fuel Grade” H2
CO2 venting Pure CO2 sequestration Co-sequestration

7
H2 Cost ($/GJ HHV)

6
5

0
Conv. tech. base case Fuel grade H2
Includes $5/t CO2 = ~0.5 $/GJ HHV sequestration cost

• Reduced H2 purity yields a significant cost savings: 1.0-1.4 $/GJ.

• Fuel grade H2 will be more competitive with gas and oil in the heating sector,
and might be adequate for transportation (H2 ICEVs; barrier to PEM FCEVs?)
46
Breakdown of Incremental Capital Cost for CO2 Capture

Coal IGCC H 2 from Coal

(1326 → 1737 $/kW e ) (706 → 742 $/kW th H 2 HHV)
Other
3%

24%
37%
CO 2 drying, WGS
compression reactors, heat
exchangers
CO 2 drying,
Selexol CO 2 compression
absorption,
and stripping

36% 100%

• Incremental cost for CO2 capture is less for hydrogen than electricity because
much of the equipment is already needed for a H2 plant.
47
 Economics of NGCC with Carbon Storage
7

Electricity Cost (¢/kWh)

NGCC with
6
CO2 capture

"Crossover point"
for CO2 storage
5
(292 $/tonne C
at 3.0 $/GJ NG)
NGCC with
CO2 venting

3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

• Carbon tax needed to induce CO2 storage is extremely high.

• NGCC with CO2 capture is not considered further.
48
 Economics of Coal IGCC with Carbon Storage
7.0

Electricity Cost (¢/kWh)

6.5
Coal IGCC with
CO2 storage

6.0
CO2 storage crossover:
(94 $/tonne C)
5.5

5.0 Coal IGCC with

CO2 venting

4.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

• Tax needed to induce CO2 storage in coal IGCC is much lower than NGCC.
• But, how does coal IGCC+CO2 storage compete with NGCC+CO2 venting...
49
 The “Breakeven NG Price” to Induce CO2 Storage
7.0

6.5
Electricity Cost (¢/kWh)
Coal IGCC with
CO2 storage

6.0
NGCC with CO2 storage crossover:
CO2 venting (94 $/tonne C,
5.5 6.2 $/GJ NG)

5.0 Coal IGCC with

CO2 venting

4.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

• In addition to the carbon tax, the NG price must exceed ~6 $/GJ for coal
IGCC+CO2 storage (...for any electricity+CO2 storage) to be economical!
50
 The Economics of H2S-CO2 Co-Storage
7.0

Electricity Cost (¢/kWh)

6.5

6.0 Coal IGCC with

H2S-CO2 co-storage

NGCC with Co-storage crossover:

5.5
CO2 venting (72 $/tonne C,
5.8 $/GJ NG)

5.0
Coal IGCC with
CO2 venting

4.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

• Co-storage reduces both the crossover carbon tax and breakeven NG price
somewhat, but the barrier to carbon storage remains quite high.
51
 Breakeven NG Prices vs. Carbon Tax
6.5

Breakeven NG Price ($/GJ HHV)

6.0 Coal IGCC with
CO2 storage

Coal IGCC with

5.5
H2S-CO2 co-storage

5.0
Coal IGCC with
CO2 venting

4.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

• Without CO2 storage, coal IGCC competes with NGCC at NG~4.5 $/GJ; the
breakeven NG price rises with carbon tax due to coal’s high C content.
• Above the crossover tax, CO2 storage plants out-compete CO2 venting plants.
52
 Economics of H2 from Coal with Carbon Storage
9.0

H2 from NG with
Hydrogen Cost ($/GJ, HHV)
8.5
CO2 storage
H2 from NG with
CO2 venting
8.0

H2 from coal with

7.5 CO2 storage

CO2 storage crossover

7.0 (39 $/tonne C,
4.1 $/GJ NG,
4.6 ¢/kWh NGCC)
H2 from coal with
6.5
CO2 venting

6.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

• Both the carbon tax and breakeven NG price needed to induce coal H2 with
CO2 storage are much lower than those for electric power.
• Industrial H2 from coal might be the earliest CO2 storage opportunity.
53
 Economics of H2 from Coal with H2S-CO2 Co-Storage
9.0
H2 from coal with
CO2 venting
Hydrogen Cost ($/GJ, HHV) 8.5
H2 from NG with
CO2 storage
8.0
H2 from NG with
CO2 venting
7.5

H2 from coal with

7.0 H2S-CO2 co-storage

Co-storage crossover
6.5 (19 $/tonne C,
3.8 $/GJ NG,
4.2 ¢/kWh NGCC)
6.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

• H2S-CO2 co-storage further reduces both the crossover carbon tax and
breakeven NG price.
54
 Breakeven NG Prices vs. Carbon Tax
6.5
CO2 storage

Breakeven NG Price ($/GJ HHV) 6.0

Coal IGCC:
5.5

5.0 H2S-CO2 co-storage

CO2 venting

4.5
H 2 from Coal:
4.0
CO2 storage
3.5
CO2 venting H2S-CO2 co-storage
3.0

2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Carbon Tax ($/tonne C)

• Breakeven NG prices for coal H2 mirror those for IGCC (but are lower).

55
 Conclusions
• If CCS is viable, fossil fuels will probably be used for the
production of low-carbon electricity and some H2. The cost of
avoided CO2 emissions is ~100 $/tonne C (200 $/tonne C with
respect to old plants).
• The imposition of a simple carbon tax will NOT induce IGCC
electricity with CCS at ~100 $/tonne C; a gas price of ~6 $/GJ
HHV is also required. Coal may disappear without a “feebate”
scheme or portfolio standard to induce IGCC CCS.
• Low-carbon H2 may be an early opportunity for CCS, in cases
where H2 distribution costs are small.
• H2 will be available at IGCC plants with CCS, reasonably near
demand centers. The penetration of H2 into heating and
transportation will depend on carbon taxes, public policy, and
competition from other low carbon energy carriers.

56
 What is (and is Not) Needed?
• Long term CO2 storage in saline aquifers needs to be validated
with many, well instrumented demonstration projects in a variety of
geologic formations. A need for regulatory and legal frameworks,
and standards for well placement, injection, and monitoring.
• The safety (or lack thereof) of H2 vehicles need to demonstrated
by long term studies of H2 ICEV and FCEV fleets.
• FutureGen appears to be a good vehicle for testing and
demonstrating the H2 economy in its full extent.

57