1 / 20

G. FLAMENT, Th SCHLEGEL May 17 th , 2006

G. FLAMENT, Th SCHLEGEL May 17 th , 2006. 11 th ILA Congress Potential reduction of CO 2 emissions & associated abatement costs in the European Lime industry. Content of the presentation. Introduction Reduction through process changes (case studies) Reduction through fuel switch

amir-hart
Télécharger la présentation

G. FLAMENT, Th SCHLEGEL May 17 th , 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. G. FLAMENT, Th SCHLEGELMay 17th, 2006 11th ILA Congress Potential reduction of CO2 emissions & associated abatement costs in the European Lime industry

  2. Content of the presentation • Introduction • Reduction through process changes (case studies) • Reduction through fuel switch • Reduction through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) • Conclusion

  3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE IPCC Working Group III – Mitigation Report WG3 – AR4 WMO UNEP Introduction KEY STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE LIME SECTOR : • « Emission reductions are possible by use of more efficient kilns and through improved management of existing kilns, using similar techniques as the cement industry (e.g. precalciners, improved burners, high efficient cooling systems) Emission reductions (5  10% of total emissions) are possible by energy efficiency measures at payback periods of 3 years or less » • « Switching to low fossil carbon fuels can further reduce CO2 emissions » • « Reduce the consumption of lime in various processes » • LHOIST CHALLENGES SERIOUSLY THESE STATEMENTS

  4. Costs of CO2 reduction through process changes Case study nr. 1: adding a preheater to an existing 500 tlime/day long RK Technical parameters: • Fuel consumption down : from 7.5 GJ/tlime to 5.7 GJ/tlime • Electricity consumption up : + 10 kWh/tlime • Maintenance cost up : + 0.50 €/tlime Energy costs : • Fuel : 2.5  4.0 €/GJ • Electricity : 0.055 €/kWh Financial parameters : • Depreciation time for CAPEX : 10 years • Discount rate : 9% • Inflation rate : 2% • Taxation rate on profits : 25  40%

  5. Equilibrium costs of CO2 reduction through major process changes: add a preheater to an existing long RK DPB = 3 years if CO2 at  100 €/t DPB = 3 years if CO2 at  80 €/t

  6. Costs of CO2 reduction through process changes Case study nr. 2: replacement of an existing 500 tlime/day long RK (Ø stone feed : 230 mm) by a new fine lime PFR kiln (Ø stone feed : 2090 mm) with the same capacity Technical parameters: • Fuel consumption down : from 7.5 GJ/tlime to 3.7 GJ/tlime • Electricity consumption up : + 15 kWh/tlime • Maintenance cost down : - 1.0 €/tlime • Stone feed : in principle cost increase as the fraction (220 mm) is not burnt into into lime, but, for the present calculation, cost increase = 0 Energy costs : • Identical to those used in the previous case study Financial parameters : • Identical to those used in the previous case study

  7. Equilibrium costs of CO2 reduction through major process changes: replace a long RK by a PFR kiln DPB = 3 years if CO2 at  40 €/t DPB = 3 years if CO2 at  60 €/t

  8. Summary – equilibrium costs of CO2 reduction through process changes (at payback time of 3 years)

  9. Potential to reduce CO2 - Process changes Percentage of lime produced in various types of kilns : Rotary kilns  94% Rotary kilns  25%

  10. EU(25) – Potential to reduce CO2 – Process changes • EXTREME ASSUMPTION : stop all rotary kilns • Switch the soft and medium burnt lime production to PFR kilns and maintain the production of hard burnt / sintered products in mix feed shaft kilns • THEORETICAL POTENTIAL OF CO2 REDUCTION WITHIN EU(25): 7% of the actual emissions(i.e.  2.2 Mt/year) providing thefuel distribution inthe PFR kilns would remain the same as today • LIMITS : • Massive investments and increased operating costs for a limited improvement  only justified if kCO2 >> 50 €/t • Very high costs relative to product price • High consumption rate of natural resources since small fraction (f < 20 mm) cannot be burnt into lime

  11. Cost of CO2 reduction through fuel switch • ANY INCREASE OF THE SPREAD (NATURAL GAS TO SOLID FUEL PRICES) LEADS TO AN INCREASE OF THE CO2 ABATEMENT COSTS

  12. Potential to reduce CO2 - fuel switch Average CO2 emission factor of the national fuel mix [kg CO2/GJ] :  98  75  60

  13. EU(25) – Potential to reduce CO2 – Fuel switch • EXTREME ASSUMPTION : replace solid and liquid fuels by natural gas (except for mix feed NSK) • THEORETICAL POTENTIAL OF CO2 REDUCTION WITHIN EU(25): 7% of the actual emissions(i.e.  2.0 Mt/year)

  14. Potential to reduce CO2 - fuel switch • LIMITS : • Very high costs (> 80 €/tCO2 at actual natural gas prices) relative to current lime prices (with an increasing trend due to the increasing price of gas), • Supply of natural gas is not available everywhere (lime plants are often located in remote areas), • Change in product quality (hard burnt lime), • Limited availability of biomass, and • Strong demand from other sectors for biomass with prices considerably influenced by public tax incentives (e.g. electricity production),

  15. Use of biomass in lime kilns Stand alone biomass fired Old coal fired POWER Advanced Super Critical Pulverised fuel Modern cement kilns Long RK Preh. RK LIME Single Shaft kilns PFR kiln 40% 60% 80% 100% 20% Energy efficiency of various processes • Using biomass in shaft kilns to produce lime is a least twice as efficient than using the same biomass for generating power • Lobbying on EU and national level should be done to enhance the use of biomass in the most efficient processes and improve the less efficient processes rather than « wasting » the biomass

  16. Typical marginal abatement cost curve (combination of fuel switches and process changes) Fuel switch At 2006 gas prices Process changes At 2003 gas prices The position of the asymptote varies from one company to another depending on the energy mix and the population of kilns Energy savings

  17. CO2 Air CO2 separation Lime kiln Fuel Flue gas Reduction through stripping / sequestration PRINCIPLE : Strip the CO2 from the flue gas of the lime kilns (CCO2 = 15  30%), compress it (at 110 bars), transport it and inject it in depleted oil or gas reservoirs, coal beds, … SELECTED TECHNOLOGY FOR THE SEPARATION : Post-combustion Thermal energy :  4 GJ/tCO2 Power :  180 kWh/tCO2 CO2 avoided CO2 removed

  18. Reduction through stripping / sequestration • COSTS : • Separation : ~ 50 € / tCO2 removed or ~ 100 € / tCO2 avoided • Transportation (in pipelines) : 0.5  2 €/tCO2/100 km • Sequestration : 3 5 €/tCO2 (based on actual publications) • LIMITS : • High thermal and electrical energy requirements • Ecobalance questionable • Emerging techniques • Infrastructure for transportation / storage does not exist nowadays in Europe • Irrealistic costs relative to current lime prices

  19. Conclusion • THE LIME INDUSTRY IN EUROPE HAS A VERY LIMITED ABILITY TO REDUCE ITS CO2 EMISSIONS (max. : 7  10%)EVEN AT HIGH COSTS (never less than 30 €/tCO2 and up to 100 €/tCO2) as : • the process is already largely optimised, • the fuel switch is largely influenced by factors that are independant from the lime industry • A MORE RADICAL REDUCTION OF CO2 EMISSIONS WOULD ONLY BE POSSIBLE THROUGH STRIPPING / SEQUESTRATION, WHICH IS NOT A PROVEN TECHNIQUE NOWADAYS AND LEADS TO COSTS, THAT ARE ABOVE 100 €/tCO2 AND ARE UNREALISTIC RELATIVE TO THE PRICE OF LIME • TODAY THE CO2 DIMENSION WITH ALL ITS UNCERTAINTIES IS FULLY INCLUDED INTO NORMAL BUSINESS DECISION BUT INVESTMENT DECISIONS PURELY DRIVEN BY CO2 REDUCTION ARE NOT ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIABLE

  20. Appendix • Marginal cost of CO2 emission abatement : ratio between the estimated costs of a project aiming at reducing CO2 and the estimated CO2 emission reductions • Equilibrium carbon price : CO2 price for which it would be equivalent to buy CO2 on the allowances market or to take internal measures to reduce CO2 emissions with a defined pay-back time

More Related