1. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. 1. 1. Emissions and concentrations of greenhouse gases 3 1. 1. 2. Impact of increasing greenhouse gases concentration 4 1. 2. Options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 5 1. 2. 1. Carbon dioxide removal 8 1. 3. Scope of the thesis 10 1. 4. Outline of the thesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. 4. 1. General evaluation method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. 4. 2. Some notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 II. Simulation and optimization of carbon dioxide recovery from the flue gases of a coal-fired power plant using amines 14 Abstract 19 2. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. 2. The chemical absorption process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. 2. 1. General process description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. 2. 2. Types of absorbent 23 2. 2. 3. Effects of flue gas contaminants 24 2. 3. Simulation of the scrubber in ASPEN PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2. 3. 1. ASPEN PLUS for flow sheet simulation 26 2. 3. 2. Simulation of the performance for the base-case design . . 26 the scrubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2. 3. 3. Optimization of 2. 3. 4. Design and results 32 2. 3. 5. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2. 4. Integration of the scrubber in the power plant 35 2. 4. 1. Power loss caused by steam extraction 36 2. 4. 2. Power saved by avoiding preheating boiler feed water . . . 38 2. 4. 3. Power consumption by the carbon dioxide scrubber . . . . . 38 2. 4. 4. Power consumption for carbon dioxide compression . . . . . 38 2. 4. 5. Calculation of plant efficiency losses " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2. 5.

Nationally-recognised studies and our contacts with a diverse group of industry representatives, non-governmental organisations, and academic researchers show that key barriers to CCS deployment include (1) underdeveloped and costly CO2 capture technology and (2) regulatory and legal uncertainties over CO2 capture, injection, and storage. Among the key technological barriers are a lack of experience in capturing significant amounts of CO2 from power plants and the significant cost of capturing CO2, particularly from existing coal-fired power plants, which are the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States. Compounding these technological issues are regulatory and legal uncertainties, including uncertainty regarding liability for CO2 leakage and ownership of CO2 once injected. According to the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and other knowledgeable authorities, another barrier is the absence of a national strategy to control CO2 emissions (emissions trading plan, CO2 emissions tax, or other mandatory control of CO2 emissions), without which the electric utility industry has little incentive to capture and store its CO2 emissions. Moreover, according to key agency officials, the absence of a national strategy has also deterred their agencies from addressing other important practical issues, such as resolving how stored CO2 would be treated in a future CO2 emissions trading plan.

The signals are everywhere that our planet is experiencing significant climate change. It is clear that we need to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from our atmosphere if we want to avoid greatly increased risk of damage from climate change. Aggressively pursuing a program of emissions abatement or mitigation will show results over a timescale of many decades. How do we actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make a bigger difference more quickly? As one of a two-book report, this volume of Climate Intervention discusses CDR, the carbon dioxide removal of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere and sequestration of it in perpetuity. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration introduces possible CDR approaches and then discusses them in depth. Land management practices, such as low-till agriculture, reforestation and afforestation, ocean iron fertilization, and land-and-ocean-based accelerated weathering, could amplify the rates of processes that are already occurring as part of the natural carbon cycle. Other CDR approaches, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration, direct air capture and sequestration, and traditional carbon capture and sequestration, seek to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and dispose of it by pumping it underground at high pressure. This book looks at the pros and cons of these options and estimates possible rates of removal and total amounts that might be removed via these methods. With whatever portfolio of technologies the transition is achieved, eliminating the carbon dioxide emissions from the global energy and transportation systems will pose an enormous technical, economic, and social challenge that will likely take decades of concerted effort to achieve. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration will help to better understand the potential cost and performance of CDR strategies to inform debate and decision making as we work to stabilize and reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

On March 27, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule that would limit emissions to no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour of production from new fossil-fuel power plants with a capacity of 25 megawatts or larger. EPA proposed the rule under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. According to EPA, new natural gas fired combined-cycle power plants should be able to meet the proposed standards without additional cost. However, new coal-fired plants would only be able to meet the standards by installing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. The proposed rule has sparked increased scrutiny of the future of CCS as a viable technology for reducing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. The proposed rule also places a new focus on whether the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) CCS research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program will achieve its vision of developing an advanced CCS technology portfolio ready by 2020 for large-scale CCS deployment. Congress has appropriated nearly $6 billion since FY2008 for CCS RD&D at DOE's Office of Fossil Energy: approximately $2.3 billion from annual appropriations and $3.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or Recovery Act). The large and rapid influx of funding for industrial-scale CCS projects from the Recovery Act may accelerate development and deployment of CCS in the United States. However, the future deployment of CCS may take a different course if the major components of the DOE program follow a path similar to DOE's flagship CCS demonstration project, FutureGen, which has experienced delays and multiple changes of scope and design since its inception in 2003. A question for Congress is whether FutureGen represents a unique case of a first mover in a complex, expensive, and technically challenging endeavor, or whether it indicates the likely path for all large CCS demonstration projects once they move past the planning stage. Since enactment of the Recovery Act, DOE has shifted its RD&D emphasis to the demonstration phase of carbon capture technology. The shift appears to heed recommendations from many experts who called for large, industrial-scale carbon capture demonstration projects (e.g., 1 million tons of CO2 captured per year). Funding from the Recovery Act for large-scale demonstration projects was 40% of the total amount of DOE funding for all CCS RD&D from FY2008 through FY2012. To date, there are no commercial ventures in the United States that capture, transport, and inject industrial-scale quantities of CO2 solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration. However, CCS RD&D in 2012 is just now embarking on commercial-scale demonstration projects for CO2 capture, injection, and storage. The success of these projects will likely bear heavily on the future outlook for widespread deployment of CCS technologies as a strategy for preventing large quantities of CO2 from reaching the atmosphere while U.S. power plants continue to burn fossil fuels, mainly coal. Given the pending EPA rule, congressional interest in the future of coal as a domestic energy source appears directly linked to the future of CCS. In the short term, congressional support for building new coal-fired power plants could be expressed through legislative action to modify or block the proposed EPA rule. Alternatively, congressional oversight of the CCS RD&D program could help inform decisions about the level of support for the program and help Congress gauge whether it is on track to meet its goals.

To achieve goals for climate and economic growth, "negative emissions technologies" (NETs) that remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the air will need to play a significant role in mitigating climate change. Unlike carbon capture and storage technologies that remove carbon dioxide emissions directly from large point sources such as coal power plants, NETs remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or enhance natural carbon sinks. Storing the carbon dioxide from NETs has the same impact on the atmosphere and climate as simultaneously preventing an equal amount of carbon dioxide from being emitted. Recent analyses found that deploying NETs may be less expensive and less disruptive than reducing some emissions, such as a substantial portion of agricultural and land-use emissions and some transportation emissions. In 2015, the National Academies published Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration, which described and initially assessed NETs and sequestration technologies. This report acknowledged the relative paucity of research on NETs and recommended development of a research agenda that covers all aspects of NETs from fundamental science to full-scale deployment. To address this need, Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda assesses the benefits, risks, and "sustainable scale potential" for NETs and sequestration. This report also defines the essential components of a research and development program, including its estimated costs and potential impact.

Coal-Fired Generation is a concise, up-to-date and readable guide providing an introduction to this traditional power generation technology. It includes detailed descriptions of coal fired generation systems, demystifies the coal fired technology functions in practice as well as exploring the economic and environmental risk factors. Engineers, managers, policymakers and those involved in planning and delivering energy resources will find this reference a valuable guide, to help establish a reliable power supply address social and economic objectives. - Focuses on the evolution of the traditional coal-fired generation - Evaluates the economic and environmental viability of the system with concise diagrams and accessible explanations

Rapidly increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emerging evidence of global warming and the threat of uncontrollable climate feedback mechan:i,sms are now triggering international action to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. In 1989 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations Environment Pro gramme and the World Meteorological Organization, started preparations for an international convention on climate. This convention is to be followed by protocols (agreements) on the reduction of the emissions of greenhouse gases and other measures and implementation mechanisms to preserve the global climate. After the CFC's, CO is the next in line, as the sources 2 and abatement measures for CH and N 0 are as yet insuffi 4 2 ciently understood. However, the abatement of CO . is a far 2 reaching issue. It will require major changes wi thin the most important sectors of the economy: energy (production and use) and agriculture (deforestations and land use pat terns). Given this situation it is not so surprising that national governments are hesitant to take action. One reason is the remaining uncertainty regarding the rat,e and the extent of climate change. However, further analysis will show that the uncertainties will be outweighed by the increasing risks when measures to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases are delayed.