Q&A: NETL’S ANTHONY CUGINI AND SEAN PLASYNSKI ON CCS R&D

04/27/12

The following interview with Anthony Cugini, director of the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, and Sean Plasynski, deputy director of the Strategic Center for Coal at NETL, was conducted byGHG MonitorReporter Tamar Hallerman.

The National Energy Technology Laboratory has a special position within the Department of Energy given that it is DOE’s only federally-operated national lab.  What do you think are the advantages of being in that position?

CUGINI: As a government-operated and government-owned laboratory, I think the big advantage is that we’re non-conflicted and very objective. My supervisor is a federal person and I’m a federal employee, so I really don’t have any conflicted sense of obligation or relationship to any contractor or anything of that nature. I don’t want to suggest that other lab directors are conflicted, but it just gives me a sense of comfort to know that I can be fairly objective and open in my relationship with headquarters and anyone else in that way.

Also, I feel that because we’re federally operated, our objective at NETL is extremely well-aligned with the Administration’s objectives. We very much pride ourselves as working for the goals and missions of the Administration, and I think that all flows from being a government-operated and government-owned laboratory.

The Obama Administration’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2013 looks to cut funding to the DOE’s Fossil Energy R&D program. The Administration requested $420 million for the program, nearly a 25 percent cut from last year’s enacted level. Given the smaller operating and R&D budget NETL may face, how are you trying to do more with less and what are your funding priorities going to be in the coming year?

CUGINI:Our priorities remain straightforward. We’re still looking at meeting program objectives. Obviously, whenever there are less funds, one has to think about what the priorities are in order to ensure that you focus on them. Carbon capture and storage will continue to be a priority. Looking for opportunities in utilization and how that could push the ball forward in deploying CCUS will be a key motivator for the program as well. Our program is a fairly strong one. We have a lot of existing work that is ongoing, and with the level of funding that we’re due to receive, we’re pretty confident that we will move the ball forward and still be looking at hitting our priority targets.

Will the proposed budget cuts force NETL to rely more on industry to help support new technologies being developed at the lab?

CUGINI:  Our program has always been working with and leveraging industry. We’ve always had a fairly robust cost-share component with industry as part of our program portfolio. The number has always varied anywhere above 30 percent, so we’ve always had industrial involvement in our program, and I think it’s one of the things we pride ourselves in. We look at this private sector investment as a barometer of the continued relevance of our work and of the belief industry has in its ability to eventually recover these costs in the marketplace by producing lower-cost, higher efficiency technology solutions.

If you look at the benefits of the Fossil Energy program, we’ve been really upfront in getting technology deployed. If you look at the overall program, the real benefits in advanced technologies being deployed rapidly have had a lot to do with our interaction with industry. The budget cuts are not going to have any impact on that aspect and it’s very likely that we’ll continue our relationship with industry in the future.

Dr. Cugini, you’ve been up at the helm of NETL for just over two years now, and in that time we’ve seen a paradigm shift of sorts within the CCS world. A climate bill that looked like it had legs died in the Senate in 2010, and more recently Chuck McConnell’s confirmation as Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy has brought a renewed focus on CO2 utilization to the field. How have those changes shifted your priorities and focus at NETL, if at all?

CUGINI:Despite all the changes, some of the key problems we face remain structurally very similar. For example, finding new and innovative approaches to carbon capture and reducing and enhancing the security of CO2 storage. These are problems that structurally are unchanged.  I think what Chuck has brought to the table is a really fresh “business case” view on how we can move these technologies forward by recovering the incremental costs associated with capture and storage, how we can get these technologies deployed and how we can leverage existing assets and targets to really move these technologies forward. You’re right, around the edges things have changed regarding how structurally or tactically these things might move forward. But strategically I think the problems in the sector are still there. 

PLASYNSKI:I agree. Based on what Anthony said, we’re still looking at  technologies trying to reduce the cost of CO2 capture and reduce the parasitic energy load. Regarding the new paradigm shift, as you called it, the way we approach it tactically has stayed the same.

On the topic of CCUS, there has been a renewed emphasis on CO2 utilization coming out of the Department. Which types of CO2 reuse is NETL looking to further develop in the near future? Where are the bright spots at this point?

CUGINI:I certainly think the most important near-term type of utilization is likely to be enhanced oil recovery, because it provides a very real target and a very real opportunity for the large-scale utilization of CO2. It also provides in some ways a very clear marker of the cost target for utilization.

But there are also other opportunities. If you look at some of the large-scale DOE demonstration projects, we’re making other kinds of products from CO2. There’s always the opportunity of looking at water-gas shifts and enhancing hydrogen production, as well as converting CO2.  Now the energetics of those are unfavorable, but there are also niche opportunities. So I would say we’re kind of exploring more of an all-of-the-above strategy. When we think of utilization, any opportunity that really can be part of the portfolio of utilizing CO2 is something we would target or invest in.

Looking at the capture end of the equation, over the last several years there has been a push to further develop post-combustion capture technologies as a necessary investment for retrofitting the existing coal fleet, particularly if the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward on emissions performance standards for existing units as it has promised. Is that technology still being emphasized at NETL?

PLASYNSKI:  Yes, it definitely is a big emphasis within our program. It’s very important because we do have a large existing coal fleet that will remain in operation. We have work ongoing in developing solvents, sorbents and membranes in trying to define the key capture technologies that will help reduce the parasitic energy requirements of capture and keeping the increased cost of electricity to a minimum.

One of our major projects is with the National Carbon Capture Center. With that Center, we can take technologies that have advanced from the bench and lab scales and  test them under a range of operating conditions using a real flue gas from a pulverized coal plant to see how they will perform.

At this point, has NETL identified any post-combustion capture technologies that it has found to be particularly promising?

CUGINI: There are a lot of really cool technologies starting with metal-organic frameworks, ionic liquids and new process technologies like chemical looping and others. So I think we have a fairly deep portfolio of real innovative technologies that have a chance to move the ball forward. Some of them are in the earlier stages, so there is a little technology optimism. But I think a lot of that optimism is warranted when you see some of the behavior and results we are getting.

Looking at DOE’s large-scale demonstration projects that are still in operation, currently there is only one post-combustion project left—NRG Energy’s W.A. Parish project in Texas. Is it a concern to either of you that there aren’t more post-combustion capture technologies being tested on that large of a scale?

PLASYNSKI: Ideally we would love to have additional projects ongoing, but we will be learning from all the demonstration projects regardless if they are using pre- or post- or oxy-combustion capture technologies. They are integrated demonstrations that will increase our understanding and knowledge base that will be useful for any follow-on demonstration projects.

Some of the more established post-combustion capture technologies on the market are advanced amines, but in recent years several studies from the Norwegian government have linked the emissions from amine capture technologies to environmental and public health concerns. Norway’s Statoil, the oil company in charge of operating the country’s CCS demonstration project at Mongstad, said last year that it would be putting off making an investment decision on the technology until more research on the topic has been conducted. Is that an issue that has been on NETL’s radar? Has the Lab done any work on the topic?

PLASYNSKI:  We are aware of the reports and concerns of the potential issues of amine degradation to nitrosamines when using amine based capture for CO2. Our portfolio is targeting many advanced CO2 capture technologies that go beyond amine based solvents.

CUGINI:  If you look at our portfolio of capture technologies, we have matured beyond just a single type of material. So amines are just one part of the solution, but there are a number of materials that we’re looking at that probably would not to have those kinds of impacts if they are indeed true. Our portfolio is really broad, and we do look at all the implications of any material we use. So it’s not as if we’re going to deploy something that hasn’t been considered and carefully viewed, but it’s just one aspect of the full breadth of the capture program.