Advertisement

Affordable CO2 negative emission through hydrogen from biomass, ocean liming, and CO2 storage

  • Stefano CaseriniEmail author
  • Beatriz Barreto
  • Caterina Lanfredi
  • Giovanni Cappello
  • Dennis Ross Morrey
  • Mario Grosso
Original Article

Abstract

A new process to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, by combining commercial industrial technologies with ocean liming and CO2 storage, is presented. The process aims to overcome the limiting factors of other negative emission technologies (cost and energy requirements, potential competition for land and freshwater) while simultaneously addressing the problem of ocean acidification. The overall proposed process is based on the following: (a) a gasifier where the biomass is converted to syngas; (b) a thermal steam reformer working at high temperature where the hydrocarbons and tar oils are converted to hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO); (c) a kiln to produce Ca(OH)2 (slaked lime) from limestone by using the enthalpy of the hot syngas; (d) the spreading, by means of vessels, of the slaked lime into the seawater to achieve ocean liming; (e) the delivery of syngas to a water gas shift reactor producing CO2 and H2 that are then separated; (f) the final storage of all CO2 produced in the process; (g) the use of H2, being the valuable by-product of the whole process, for decarbonized energy production as well as for ammonia synthesis, offsetting part of the production cost, thus generating “low-cost” negative emissions. The mass and energy balances show that the total atmospheric CO2 removed by the process is 2.6 ton per ton of biomass used. By adding an estimated 0.43 ton avoided—thanks to the use of produced H2—the overall CO2 benefit of the process increases to 3.0 ton per ton of biomass. A preliminary cost analysis resulted in an average levelized cost of 98 $ per ton of CO2 removed; when considering the revenues from the produced energy, the cost falls to 64 $/tCO2. The higher efficiency in carbon removal obtained allows to reduce the amount of biomass required by BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) to achieve negative emissions, and thanks to the valuable H2 produced it lowers the costs of CO2 removal from the atmosphere.

Keywords

Negative emissions Ocean alkalinization Carbon dioxide removal Gasification Calcination Carbon storage 

Notes

References

  1. Ali U, Font Palma C, Akram M, Agbonghae EO, Ingham DB, Pourkashanian M (2017) Comparative potential of natural gas, coal and biomass fired power plant with post - combustion CO2 capture and compression. Int J Greenh Gas Con 63:184–193Google Scholar
  2. Aminu MD, Nabavi SA, Rochelle CA, Manovic V (2017) A review of developments in carbon dioxide storage. Appl Energy 208:1389–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baláš M, Lisý M, Moskalik J, Skála Z (2015) Steam influence on biomass gasification process. Holist approach environ 6:127–132. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/236398. Accessed 10 December 2018
  4. Barret M (2015) Renewable synthetic fuels for transport, is ammonia also a friend? UCL Energy Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreto B, Caserini S, Dolci G, Grosso M (2018) CO2 submarine storage in glass containers: life cycle assessment and cost analysis of four case studies in the cement sector. International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions, May 22–24, 2018, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  6. Capone DG, Hutchins DA (2013) Microbial biogeochemistry of coastal upwelling regimes in a changing ocean. Nat Geosci 6:711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caserini S, Dolci G, Azzellino A, Lanfredi C, Rigamonti L, Barreto B, Grosso M (2017) Evaluation of a new technology for carbon dioxide submarine storage in glass capsules. Int J Greenh Gas Con 60:140–155Google Scholar
  8. Chou C, Chen F, Huang Y, Yang H (2013) Carbon dioxide capture and hydrogen purification from synthesis gas by pressure swing adsorption. Chem Eng Trans 32:1855–1860. www.aidic.it/cet/13/32/310.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  9. Clark PU, Shakun JD, Marcott SA, Mix AC, Eby M, Scott K, Anders L, Milne GA, Pfister PL, Santer BD, Scharag DP, Solomon S, Stocker TF, Strauss BH, Weaver AJ, Winkelman R, Archer D, Bard E, Goldner A, Lambeck K, Pierrehumbert RT, Plattner G (2016) Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change. Nat Clim Chang 6:360–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke L, Jiang K, Akimoto K, Babiker M, Blanford G, Fisher-Vanden K, Hourcade JC, Krey V, Kriegler E, Löschel A, McCollum D, Paltsev S, Rose S, Shukla PR, Tavoni M, van der Zwaan B, van Vuuren DP (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. In: Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. CO2APPS (2017) Patent PCT/IB2018/050336 19/1/2018 (patent pending)Google Scholar
  12. Costello MJ, Chaudhary C (2017) Marine biodiversity, biogeography, deep-sea gradients, and conservation. Current Biology, Volume 27, Issue 13Google Scholar
  13. Couto N, Rouboa A, Silva V, Monteiro E, Bouziane K (2013) Influence of the biomass gasification processes on the final composition of syngas. Energy Procedia 36:596–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cripps G, Widdicombe S, Spicer JI, Findlay HS (2013) Biological impacts of enhanced alkalinity in Carcinus maenas. Mar Pollut Bull 71:190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doney SC, Ruckelshaus M, Duffy JE, Barry JP, Chan F, English CA, Galindo HM, Grebmeier JM, Hollowed AB, Knowlton N, Polovina J, Rabalais NN, Sydeman WJ, Talley LD (2012) Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annu Rev Mar Sci 4:11–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dooley J (2013) Estimating the supply and demand for deep geologic CO2 storage capacity over the course of the 21st century: a meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Procedia 37:5141–5150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EASAC (2018) Negative emission technologies: what role in meeting Paris Agreement targets? European Academies’ Science Advisory Council policy report 35, February. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Negative_Carbon/EASAC_Report_on_Negative_Emission_Technologies.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  18. EC (2013) Recommendation 2013/179/EU of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. European Commission. Official Journal of the European Union L 124 - 4 May 2013.Google Scholar
  19. Encyclopedia Britannica (2018) Ocean current. www.britannica.com/science/ocean-current. Accessed 10 December 2018
  20. Fajardy M, Mac Dowell N (2017) Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions? Energy Environ Sci 10:1389–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feely RA, Sabine CL, Lee K, Berelson W, Kleypas J, Fabry VJ, Millero FJ (2004) Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science 305:362–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franco AC, Gruber N, Frölicher TL, Kropuenske Artman L (2018) Contrasting impact of future CO2 emissions scenarios on the extent of CaCO3 mineral undersaturation in the Humboldt current system. J Geophys Res OceansGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuss S, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, Garcia WO, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente JLV, Wilcox J, Dominguez MMZ, Minx JC (2018) Negative emissions – part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ Res Lett 13:063002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. García-Labiano F, Abad A, de Diego LF, Gayán P, Adánez J (2002) Calcination of calcium –based sorbents at pressure in a broad range of CO2 concentrations. Chem Eng Sci 57:2381–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garcia-Reyes M, Sydeman WJ, Schoeman DS, Rykaczewski RR, Black BA, Smit AJ, Bograd SJ (2015) Under pressure: climate change, upwelling, and eastern boundary upwelling ecosystems. Front Mar Sci 2:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. GCCSI (2017) The Global Status of CCS: 2017. Global Status of CCS. Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/www.globalccsinstitute.com/files/uploads/global-status/1-0_4529_CCS_Global_Status_Book_layout-WAW_spreads.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  27. Giuntoli J, Agostini A, Caserini S, Lugato E, Baxter D, Marelli L (2016) Climate change impacts of power generation from residual biomass. Biomass Bionergy 89:146–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. González MF, Ilyina T (2016) Impacts of artificial ocean alkalinization on the carbon cycle and climate in Earth systems simulations. Geophys Res Lett 43:6493–6502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haigh R, Ianson D, Holt CA, Neate HE, Edwards AM (2015) Effects of ocean acidification on temperate coastal marine ecosystems and fisheries in the Northeast Pacific. PLoS One 10(2):e0117533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanak DP, Jenkins BJ, Kruger T, Manovica V (2017) High-efficiency negative-carbon emission power generation from integrated solid-oxide fuel cell and calciner. Appl Energy 205:1189–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harvey LDD (2008) Mitigating the atmospheric CO2 increase and ocean acidification by adding limestone powder to upwelling regions. J Geophys Res 113:C04028Google Scholar
  32. Hauri C, Friedrich T, Timmermann A (2016) Abrupt onset and prolongation of aragonite undersaturation events in the Southern Ocean. Nat Clim Chang 6:172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hiltz J, Heilbig M, Haaf M, Daikeler A, Ströhle J, Epple B (2017) Long-term pilot testing of the carbonate looping process in 1 MWth scale. Fuel 210:892–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF (2010) The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems. Science 328:1523–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Honegger M, Reiner D (2018) The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design. 18:3, 306–321Google Scholar
  36. Hu Y, Watanabe M, Aida C, Horio M (2006) Capture of H2S by limestone under calcination conditions in a high-pressure fluidized-bed reactor. Chem Eng Sci 61(6):1854–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. IEA (2014) CCS 2014 What lies in store for the CCS? International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/publications/insights/insightpublications/Insight_CCS2014_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  38. IEA (2017) Energy and CO2 emissions in the OECD. International Energy Agency, Paris. https://www.iea.org/media/statistics/Energy_and_CO2_Emissions_in_the_OECD.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  39. IEAGHG (2008) A regional assessment of the potential for CO2 storage in the Indian subcontinent. International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme Report 2/2008. http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/95746/regional-assessment-potential-co2-storage-indian-subcontinent.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  40. IPCC (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 92-9169-1190-4. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  41. Kato E, Yamagata Y (2014) BECCS capability of dedicated bioenergy crops under a future land-use scenario targeting net negative carbon emissions. Earth’s Future 2:421–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keller DP, Feng EY, Oschilies A (2014) Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario. Nat Commun 5:3304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kemper J (2015) Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. Int J Greenh Gas Con 40:401–430Google Scholar
  44. Kheshgi HS (1995) Sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide by increasing ocean alkalinity. Energy 20:915–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Köhler P, Abrams JF, Völker C, Hauck J, Wolf-Gladrow DA (2013) Geoengineering impact of open ocean dissolution of olivine on atmospheric CO2, surface ocean pH and marine biology. Environ Res Lett 8:014009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lachkar Z (2014) Effects of upwelling increase on ocean acidification in the California and Canary Current systems: acidification in upwelling systems. Geophys Res Lett 41:90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Langer G, Baumann K, Kläs J, Riesbesell U, Thoms S, Young J (2006) Species-specific responses of calcifying algae to changing seawater carbonate chemistry. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 7:Q09006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laude A, Ricci O, Royer-Adnot J, Fabbri A (2011) CO2 capture and storage from a bioethanol plant: carbon and energy footprint and economic assessment. Int J Greenh Gas Con 5:1220–1231Google Scholar
  49. LRGL and UMAS (2017) Zero-emission vessels 2030. How do we get there? Lloyd’s Register Group Limited and University Maritime Advisory Services. https://www.lr.org/en/insights/articles/zev-report-article/. Accessed 10 December 2018
  50. Milne TA, Evans RJ, Abatzoglou N (1998) Biomass gasifier “tars”: their nature, formation, and conversion. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, Colorado. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/25357.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  51. Minx JC, Lamb WF, Callaghan MW, Fuss S, Hilaire J, Creutzig F, Amann T, Beringer T, Garcia WDO, Hartmann J, Khanna T, Lenzi D, Luderer G, Nemet GF, Rogelj J, Smith P, Vicente JLV, Wilcox J, Dominguez MDMZ (2018) Negative emissions-part 1 : research landscape and synthesis. Environ Res Lett 13:063001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. MTR (2017) CO2 removal from syngas. Membrane Technology & Research. www.mtrinc.com/co2_removal_from_syngas.html. Accessed 10 December 2018
  53. Muratori M, Calvin K, Wise M, Kyle P, Edmonds J (2016) Global economic consequences of deploying bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Environ Res Lett 11:95004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Muri H (2018) The role of large-scale BECCS in the pursuit of 1.5°C target: an Earth system model perspective. Environ Res Lett 13:044010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nagelkerken I, Connell SD (2015) Global alteration of ocean ecosystem functioning due to increasing human CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:13272–13277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nemet GF, Callaghan MW, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Hartmann J, Jérôme H, Lamb WF, Minx JC, Rogers S, Smith P (2018) Negative emissions – part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ Res Lett 13:063002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ossino F (2018) 2018 Bank loan market outlook. Newfleet Asset ManagementGoogle Scholar
  58. Plevin RJ, O’Hare M, Jones AD, Torn MS, Gibbs HK (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels’ indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ Sci Technol 44:8015–8021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rau G (2011) CO2 mitigation via capture and chemical conversion in seawater. Environ Sci Technol 45(3):1088–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reddy GK, Smirniotis PG (2015) Chapter 1 – introduction about WGS Reaction. Water Gas Shift Reaction, ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  61. Renforth P, Henderson G (2017) Assessing ocean alkalinity for carbon sequestration. Rev Geophys 55:636–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Renforth P, Jenkins BG, Kruger T (2013) Engineering challenges of ocean liming. Energy 60:442–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ridgwell A (2007) Interpreting transient carbonate compensation depth changes by marine sediment core modeling. Paleoceanography 22Google Scholar
  64. Roussanaly S, Jakobsen JP, Hognes EH, Brunsvold AL (2013) Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: part I—onshore pipeline and shipping between two onshore areas. Int J Greenh Gas Con 19:584–594Google Scholar
  65. Roussanaly S, Brunsvold A, Skontorp E (2014) Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: part II – offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site. Int J Greenh Gas Con 28:283–299Google Scholar
  66. Rubin ES (2013) A proposed methodology for CO2 capture and storage cost estimates. Int J Greenh Gas Con 17:488–503Google Scholar
  67. Schneider K, Silverman J, Woolsey E, Eriksson H, Byrne M, Caldeira K (2011) Potential influence of sea cucumbers on coral reef CaCO3 budget: a case study at One Tree Reef. J Geophys Res 116:G04032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sikarwar VS, Zhao M, Fennell PS, Shah N, Anthony EJ (2017) Progress in biofuel production from gasification. Prog Energy Combust Sci 61:189–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, Kato E, Jackson RB, Cowie A, Kriegler E, Van Vuuren DP, Rogelj J, Ciais P, Milne J, Canadell JG, McCollum D, Peters G, Andrew R, Krey V, Shrestha G, Friedlingstein P, Gassar T, Grübler A, Heidug WK, Jonas M, Jones CD, Kraxner F, Littleton E, Lowe J, Moreira JR, Nakicenovic N, Obersteiner M, Patwardhan A, Rogner M, Rubin E, Sharif A, Torvanger A, Yamagata Y, Edmonds J, Yongsung C (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stanmore BR, Gilot P (2005) Review – calcination and carbonation of limestone during thermal cycling for CO2 sequestration. Fuel Process Technol 86:1707–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stork M, Meinderstma W, Overgaag M, Neelis M (2014) A competitive and efficient lime industry. Technical Report Ecofys. https://www.eula.eu/documents/competitive-and-efficient-lime-industry-cornerstone-sustainable-europe-lime-roadmap-1. Accessed 10 December 2018
  72. Tokimatsu K, Yasuoka R, Nishio M (2017) Global zero emissions scenarios: the role of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage by forested land use. Appl Energy 185:1899–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. US-DOE/NETL (2010) Assessment of hydrogen production with CO2 capture volume 1: baseline state-of-the-art plants. DOE/NETL-2010/1434. http://www.canadiancleanpowercoalition.com/pdf/SMR9%20-%20H2_Prod_Vol1_2010.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  74. Vasilieou V (2018) Intermodal research and evaluation. Weekly market report n.12. https://www.investinthefuture.gr/files/data/blog/Intermodal%20Report%20Week%2012%202018.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2018
  75. Zamfirescu C, Dincer I (2009) Ammonia as a green fuel and hydrogen source for vehicular applications. Fuel Process Technol 90:729–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ZEP (Zero Emission Platform) (2011) The costs of CO2 capture, transport and storage- post-demonstration CCS in the EU. European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plant. www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/costs-co2-capture-transport-and-storage. Accessed 10 December 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politecnico di MilanoDipartimento di Ingegneria Civile ed AmbientaleMilanItaly
  2. 2.CO2AppsGalbiateItaly

Personalised recommendations