David Sandalow, Julio Friedmann,
Colin McCormick, Sean McCoy,Roger Aines and Joshuah Stolaroff
O

December 11, 2019
Madrid, Spain
DRAFT FOR COMMENTCO2 emissions from industrial heat production are 5 Gt/year -~10% of global CO2 emissions
More than cars + planes combined
Direct & indirectindustrial emissions

Gigatons CO2e15Waste
Non-CO2

Process
10Electricpower forindustry

5Heat0

Car & planeemissions
Aviation

Cars/LDVCAIT (2017); IEA (2017, 2019)2

Key industries

Iron and SteelCementChemicals

3Several characteristics of heavy industries limit options• Long-lived capital assets: Hard to replace and modify• Small margins: small cost changes can dramatically affect competitiveness• Global markets: international competitiveness is important• High capacity factors: often 80-90% operational schedules required• Geographic constraints: often far from some renewable resources

4

ICEF Industrial Heat Decarbonization Roadmap
Table of Contents
1)
2)

3)

4)
5)
6)

Introduction
Technology Options• Hydrogen• Electrification• Biomass/biofuels• CCUS
Case Studies• Cement• Steel• Chemicals & refining
Policy Options
Innovation agenda and roadmapFindings and Recommendations
5

ICEF INDUSTRIAL HEAT DECARBONIZATION ROADMAP –KEY MESSAGES• Important, challenging problem, with much morework needed• H2, biomass, electrification and CCUS offer
potential solutions.
• We need better options – RD&D essential• Many policy options available

DRAFT FOR COMMENT• Government procurement is particularly powerfultool.
6

Technology Options

Observations about low-C industrial heat
Lack of scholarship and data
• Very few papers on industrial heat production• Data are scarce and disaggregated• Lots of hypothetical new processes, very little on
existing facility modification

Few options:• Nuclear heat unsuitable (temperature)• Solar thermal – limited availability

Complexity of industrial heat production is daunting
8

High temperature requirements (300-1800°C)
limit decarbonization options

Friedmann et al.,20199Hydrogen: versatile & could be cost effective
Burns at 2100° C in air and made today at industrial scale
C footprint: Grey, blue & green• Gas reformation with noCCS (higher than gas heat)• Gas reformation with CCS(50-90% C reductions)• Water + zero-C electricity(near-zero C reduction)

Costs:
Blue seems reasonable,
Green seems expensive

SMR (no CCS)

SMR + CCS
(89% capture)

Wind power

Solar PV power

Hydropower(existing)Friedmann et al., 201910

Hydrogen: additional challenges
Although used today in steel (DRI) and chemicals, challenges remain
Technical• Burns invisible (sensors, controls,safety)• Embrittlement & corrosion

Other:• Infrastructure (pipelines, transmission)• Can’t work in solid fuel applications
without major engineering

Likely applications in chemicals, some steel & cement
11Biomass/biofuels: Versatile & could be cost effective
Hot enough (biomethane & biodiesel) and in solid, liquid, gas forms
C footprint: Extremely complicated• Enormous variations (e.g., waste,feedstock, dedicated crops, conversionmethod)• Controversial accounting• Concerns about carbon leakage

Costs:• Enormous variations• Generally expensive• All need development & policy support
12

Biomass & biofuels: additional challenges
Scale-up and sustainability are important potential barriers
Technical• Scale-up: esp. for biogas and liquids,availability and flux limits are real
• Energy density & mass handling for solids

Other:• Concerns about impact/competition with food• Sustainability (biodiversity, water, fertilizer)• Geographic limits

Vaxtkraft biogas production plant (waste-to-gas)

Likely applications in steel & cement, some chemicals
13

Electrification: Benefits and challenges
Enormous amounts of new zero-C generation needed: (2x-5x or more)
C footprint = the footprint of power supply• Grid power provides little advantage• Zero-C power is commonly low capacity factor• Almost all new generation must be built and must be firmCosts:• Generally very expensive• Costs are dropping• Unclear when zero-C power is cheap enough to be a strong
option14Electrification: Additional challenges
Here, the innovation agenda is most compellingTechnical• Heat deposition (resistance, dielectric)• Novel reactors (beyond steam)• Overpotential reduction

Other:• Infrastructure limits (local and regional)• System generation (scale of zero-Cgeneration for industry would beenormous)
15

Electrification: Benefits and challenges
Enormous amounts of new zero-C generation needed: (2x-5x or more)
C footprint = the footprint of power supply• Grid power provides little advantage• Zero-C power is commonly low capacity factor• Almost all new generation must be built and must be firm

Costs:• Generally very expensive• Costs are dropping• Unclear when zero-C power is cheap enough to be a strong
option16

CCUS –applicable to almost all industrial processes
C footprint· Can capture heat and process emissions· Geological storage permanently locks away CO2;
utilization options more complex· Reductions offset by upstream fuel emissions
Costs· Expensive, but less than H2 or electricity in current
processes· Opportunities to reduce cost through integration
with industrial processes· Integration can lead to increased complexity

17

CCUS –
applicable to almost all industrial processes
Technical· Post-combustion capture can be applied in to mostindustries· Other capture options may be a better fit for specificindustrial processes (e.g., calcium looping in Cement)· Challenges due to distributed nature of emissions inchemicals and refining
Other· Geological constraints may limit local storage· Need to develop transport and storage infrastructure

18Industries

Cement industry: 6% of global CO2 emissions
Heat for cement : ~2% of global CO2 emissions
Requires 1450° C and continuous operations
Current heat applications• Preheating and calcining• Rotary kiln

Current heat sources: mostly solid fuel• Coal & petcoke• Waste (tires to biowastes)• Some natural gas

20

Cement industry: 6% of global CO2 emissions
Heat for cement : ~2% of global CO2 emissions
Requires 1450° C and continuous operations
Best options (cost & footprint)• CCS on whole system• Biomass mix

Other decarbonization options:• Clinker substitution• Efficiency• Alternative binders• Novel processes (e.g., Ca-L, electricaldecomposition)

21

Iron & Steel: 5% of global CO2 emissions
Heat for Iron and Steel: ~2.5% of global CO2 emissions
Requires 1200° C and continuous operation
Current heat applications• Blast furnace; Basic oxygen furnace• Lime kiln, coking, sinter plant• Hydrogen production (DRI only)

Current heat sources: mostly solid fuel• Coke (mostly from coal)• Recycled process gas, some natural gas
22

Iron & Steel: 5% of global CO2 emissions
Heat for Iron and Steel: ~2.5% of global CO2 emissions
Requires 1200° C and continuous operation
Best options (cost & footprint)• CCS on whole system• ”Biocoke”• Some hydrogen (Nippon Steel)

Other decarbonization options:• Efficiency• Modified coking• Adopting EAF (w/ DRI & zero-C H2)• Novel processes (e.g., upgraded smelting, electrical reduction of ore)23

Chemicals: 3% of global CO2 emissions
Heat for chemicals: ~1.5% of global CO2 emissions
Wide range of processes, uses, footprints, options
Current heat applications• Burners, boilers, furnaces• Bespoke reactors• Highly distributed across facilities

Current heat sources: mostly gaseous fuel• Natural gas (some H2)• LPGs, some other petroleum fuels• Coal or coal-syngas (developingcountries)

24

Ammonia: non-C bearing chemical
850° C for hydrogen production, 500° C for synthesis
Current heat applications• SMR• Synthesis reactor• Distillation columns• Other small furnaces/boilers/burners

Current heat sources: mostly solid fuel• Almost 100% natural gas or syngas

25

Methanol: C-bearing chemical
300° C for synthesis
Current heat applications• SMR or gasifier• Methanol synthesis• Distillation columns• Other small furnaces/boilers/burners

Current heat sources: mostly solid fuel• Almost 100% natural gas or syngas

26

Chemicals: 3% of global CO2 emissions
Heat for chemicals: ~1.5% of global CO2 emissions
Wide range of processes, uses, footprints, options
Best options (cost & footprint)• Hydrogen (first blue H2 then green H2)• Biogas, biomethane• Partial electrification (esp. for steam)

Other decarbonization options:• Efficiency (large opportunity)

Grangemouth ethylene plant, Scotland• Novel processes (e.g., electrolytic
chemical production; CO2 upcycling)27

Next Steps

Innovation issues: moving forward
Analysis of options and trade-offs• Power to gas and renewable CH4• Electrification methods and benefits

New approaches:• Zero-carbon industrial gas• Industrial heat storage• Better electrification technology

29

Innovation issues: cross-cutting approaches
Hybrid and time-phased options• Combined CCS, efficiency, andnew fuels• Partial hydrogen and biomass
substitution• Partial electrification (esp. steam)

System approaches:• Global delivery of decarbonizedfuel (hydrogen and biomass)• Air capture to compensate
remaining industrial emissions
30

Policy support is essential.
1. Government support for R&D
2. Government procurement
3. Fiscal subsidies
4. Mandates

5. Infrastructure development
6. Carbon prices/carbon tariffs
7. Industry associations
8. Clean Energy Ministerial

31

EXPLORE KEY
NEWPATHWAYS

Novel H2 production
Renewable Gas
Electrification

Near-term(1-3 years)

SYSTEM INTEGRATIONWITH MORE MATURE
OPTIONSANALYSISPOLICY DESIGN &IMPLMENTATION

Explore & delineate
key limits to current
systems

Medium-term(2-8 years)

Operation at scale(8-20 years)

Demonstrate 1-2
integrated systems
at 100 MW scale

Demonstrateintegration of eachnew pathway into
an existing facility

Demonstrate 2-4
promising systems
at GJ/hr scale

Develop novel
designs for highproduction capacity& throughput

Bring early initialdesigns to scale assmall pilots

Long-term(4-15 years)

Design and field 1-2
production pilots(GJ/minute)

Create novel designs
to use heat options
in existing reactors

Validate designs &control systems inexisting assets

Develop tools (incl.
modeling andsimulation) foranalysis

Technoeconomic
analysis of low-C
heat options

Create procurement
standards andmandates

Begin procurement:
create infrastructure& industrial policy

Integrate andimplement new lowC heat systems &gather learnings

Consider additionaland new policy
options based on
analysisFuture work: complex field requires more scholarship
Systems analysis: Many ways to improve insight• Improved data assessment & synthesis• System design parameters• Optimization• Trade-offs
Deeper technoeconomic analysis: We’ve only started• Biofuels and electrification as key targets• Improved CCUS integration• Focus on cement and steel as hardest sectors• Focus on existing facility modification or enhancement

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

Policy design: Complexity demands careful design & implementation• Potential impacts & benefits to jobs, trade• Novel mechanisms (e.g., co2 utilities, sectoral international partnerships• Pilots policy programs and assessment
33

ICEF INDUSTRIAL HEAT DECARBONIZATION ROADMAP –KEY MESSAGES• Important, challenging problem, with much morework needed• H2, biomass, electrification and CCUS offer
potential solutions.
• We need better options – RD&D essential• Many policy options available

DRAFT FOR COMMENT• Government procurement is particularly powerfultool.
34

35This roadmap was prepared to facilitate dialogue at the Sixth Innovation for
Cool Earth Forum (Tokyo October 2019), for final release at COP-25 (Santiago,Chile - December 2019). We are deeply grateful to the Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry (METI) and New Energy and Industrial TechnologyDevelopment Organization (NEDO), Japan, for launching and supporting theICEF Innovation Roadmap Project of which this is a part.
Roger Aines and Joshuah Stolaroff contributed to the technical evaluations inthis document. The policy recommendations were prepared by othercontributors.

36