Reducing CO2 Production
In Melbourne by 2019
By: Amira Haruwarta
Ridmi Rathnasooriya
Hugo Ng
Ec o
Engineering
Engineering Objective
To reduce Melbourne’s CO2
production in 2009 by 50% in
2019 through using:
• CO2 sequestration/ capture
• Alternative solar powered energy
To find a viable solution, with
readily available technology
(or technology that will be
available in the near future)
To find a cost-effective,
efficient, safe and sustainable
solution
Engineering Concept Map
Engineering Melb 2009 CO2 production
CO2 emissions in Australia 2007 per capita:
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) – 19 metric
tonnes
CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre)
– 18 metric tonnes
International Energy Agency – 18.75 metric tonnes
• Average: 18.58 metric tonnes/capita
• Estimated total (population at 3.8 million) – 7.1 x 107 metric tonnes
Analyst Maplecroft estimated in Australia 2009 -
20.5 metric tonnes CO2 per capita
Estimated total (assuming population at 3.8 million) -
7.8 x 107 metric tonnes
Aim to reduce CO2 emitted per year by 3.9 x 107 metric
tonnes by 2019
Engineering Melb 2009 CO2 production
Melbourne’s industrial base is
expected to grow by 3% each
year
• 36% of all CO2 emissions
globally attributed to
manufacturing industry
• 24% to transportation
• 40% for household use and
appliances (Mandil, 2007)
Fuel combustion accounted for 81.5% of Australia's total CO2
emissions (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007)
Engineering Projected CO2 in 2019
Assuming carbon emissions may increase by 2%
yearly
• By 2019, yearly emissions per capita may be:
20.5 * (1.02)10 = 25 tonnes
• Hence total CO2 emissions in Melbourne (assuming
population grows to 4.7 million) = 1.8 x 108 metric tonnes
Assume that industrial base growth = increase in CO2
emissions
Assume that fuel-burning may still be predominant
source of energy if no change is made (i.e.: still at
80%)
Carbon Sequestration
Engineering Overview
For our scheme, we will focus on:
• Artificial trees
• Post-combustion capture
• Geological storage
The reason for this choice:
• artificial trees and post-combustion would tackle capturing CO2
both non-stationary and stationary sources
holistic approach
• “Geosequestration is thought to be the most promising due to higher
confidence in the longevity of storage; large capacity of potential storage
sites; and generally greater understanding of the mechanisms of storage.”
(Parliamentary Library, 2010)
Solar Powered Energy
Engineering Overview
Electricity that is generated
through harnessing and
collecting energy (in the form
of radiation) from the sun.
Must consider alternative
energy since 80% of carbon
dioxide emission released
during fuel burning
We will consider technology
including:
• Parabolic Trough
• Solar Power Tower
Engineering Artificial/ Synthetic Trees
Developed by Klaus Lakner, Columbia
University
Acts as ‘tree’ by absorbing CO2 from
atmosphere on ‘leaves’ (sorbent material/
carbon scrubber) (Institution of Mechanical
Engineering, 2009)
When porous material becomes
saturated, can either be removed through:
• Washing with water
in a vacuum chamber,
compressed into liquid
Stored (eg: underground)
• Reacting CO2 with hydrogen to create liquid
hydrocarbons (Kunzig, 2009)
Engineering Artificial/ Synthetic Trees
Advantages Costs
Useful for: About $20,000 to
- non-stationary sources – responsible for 50% of global CO2 produce one
levels (eg: cars) artificial tree
- small scale production of CO2 (eg: in house, small industrial (manufacturing
plants) accounts for 20%
of total cost)
Flexibility to be built anywhere (eg: on freeways, close to
storage facilities, ‘artificial forests’ )
Main cost:
Captures 10x more CO2 than real trees recovery of
filtering material –
Has the potential to remove 90,000 tonnes of CO2 in a year long-term price
may drop to
$30/tonne of CO2
Emissions involved with running each tree is less then 5% of
captured CO2 in its functional lifetime
Engineering Post Combustion Capture
Captures CO2 emitted from
industrial and energy-related
sources before it enters the
atmosphere.
Pre-cools the flue gas
(combustion exhaust gas
produced at power plants)
Captures the CO2 using water-
based solvent (eg: Amines,
Carbonates)
Strip the CO2 from the solvent
in low-temperature
Compress and liquefy the
stripped CO2 for piping to a
storage site.
Engineering Post Combustion Capture
Advantages Costs
Capable of removing up to 90% of CO2 capture retrofit cost for a hypothetical
emitted CO2 from production plant 600 MW PC plant, including compression,
Can retrofit to existing plants and can transportation for 3.32 million metric tons
be applied to new coal-fired plants per year of CO2 estimated by EPRI (Electric
Power Research Institute):
Has high operational flexibility(partial
- Capital cost for adding CO2 capture
retrofit)
and compression equipment = $540
Meets the market conditions (Can be million (in third quarter 2007 dollars),
turned off during periods of high or $66 million per year if financed
power prices and deliver maximum - CO2 transportation, measurement, and
power to the market) monitoring for 20 years at $10/metric
Renewable technologies (low-cost ton (levelized value) = $33 million per
solar thermal collectors) year
Engineering Geological Storage
Liquefied CO2 can be
sequestrated in suitable
geological sites (injected
underground)
Stored CO2 can be
retained for up to
million years
Victoria, April 2008 – Otway
Project (Parliamentary
Library, 2010)
• Pumped 4,500 tonnes
CO2/month into old gas
reservoir(2km
underground)
• Demonstrates
feasibility in Australia
Engineering Geological Storage
Consideration must be given:
• Capacity of basin
• Whether the underground
location has a ‘sealing caprock’
• Tectonic activity (Metz, et al,
2005)
Since Victoria is a stable geological
location (eg: does not experience
many earthquakes, there may be
many ideal areas)
Capital cost – range from US $13-1300 million (representative of sites from small CO2
source with appropriate geosequestration site nearby to large CO2 source that are
>1000km from site) (Allinson, et al, 2003)
Concentrated Solar Thermal
Engineering (CST) – Parabolic Trough
CST systems use lenses or mirrors and
sometimes tracking devices to focus sunlight
onto a spot. The concentrated light is then
used to heat up a heat transfer fluid for
conventional power plant.
Mechanism
Engineering Parabolic Trough
Diagram of the Parabolic Trough Electricity Plant Andasol 1 in Spain
Engineering Parabolic Trough
Information Advantages
Carbon Dioxide Reduction: 1.7 million Australia has a lot of sunshine
tons/GW/year
Low carbon dioxide emission
Land Requirement: 3.7 ha/MW (1900 tonnes/ MW)
Water Usage: 21900 L/MW/year
Lessens dependence on fossil
Largest Plant Size: 320 MW fuels, thus provides a hedge
Thermal Storage hour: 10 hours against fossil fuel price
fluctuation
Annual Solar to Electricity Efficiency: 13.2%
Carbon Dioxide reduced by the largest plant per
year = 1.7x103 x 320 = 544000 tonnes
Land used = 3.7 x 320 = 1184 ha Disadvantages
Potential cost: US$ 441 millions per one plant Requires huge amount of land
Depends on weather
Concentrated Solar Thermal
Engineering (CST) – Solar Power Tower
Solar power towers consist of a large field of sun-tracking
mirrors, called heliostats,
Focus solar energy on a receiver atop a centrally located
tower.
Enormous amount of energy, coming out of the sun rays,
concentrated at one point (the tower in the middle)
Produces temperatures of approx. 550°C to 1500°C.
Gained thermal energy can be used for heating water or
molten salt, which saves the energy for later use.
Heated water gets to steam, which is used to move the turbine-
generator. This way thermal energy is converted into
electricity.
Engineering Solar Power Tower
Information
CO2 reduction:
12000tons/MW/year
Land Requirement:
1300 ha/MW/year
Water usage: 2.4
Litre/MW
Largest Power Tower:
200 MW
Annual Solar to
Electricity Efficiency:
17.0%
Cost: 5.04millions/MW
Engineering Conclusion
Though using state-of-art technology, the reduction of 3.9 x
107 metric tonnes per year in Melbourne by the end of 2019
may be achievable
Believe the most successful strategy is by using a combination
of:
• Geological storage
• Post-combustion capture
• Artificial trees
• Solar power tower
• Parabolic trough
Engineering Notes
1. Allinson, W.G., Nguyen, D.N. and Bradshaw, J. , (2003) The 8. Institution of Mechanical Engineering, (2009). Geo-Engineering – Giving
economics of geological storage of CO2 in Australia. APPEA Us Time To Act? [online] Retrieved on 24th August 2010 from:
Journal, 43 (1), pp623-636. [Link]
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2010). 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 565AA17CB703/0/[Link] (pg 8)
2009–10 [online]. Retrieved on 24th August 2010 from: 9. Kunzig, R., (2009). The Big Idea – Scrubbing the Skies. [online] Retrieved
on 24th August 2010 from: [Link]
[Link]
idea/13/carbon-capture
3052009%E2%80%9310 10. Stangeland, A., (2007). CO2 Capture Factsheet [online]. Retrieved on 25th
3. Australian Coal Association, (2010). Carbon Capture and Storage August 2010 from: ttp://[Link]/factsheets/1191913555.13
[online]. Retrieved on 25th August 2010 from: 11. Metz, B. et al, (2005). Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage [online].
[Link] Cambridge University press, England. Also available online:
4. Bentley, M., (2003). BBC News – Synthetic tees could purify air [Link]
[online]. Retrieved on 24th August 2010 from: 12. Maplecroft, (2009). Australia overtakes USA as top polluter, reveals
[Link] Maplecroft CO₂ Emissions from Energy Index [online]. Retrieved on 27 h
5. Cooperative research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, (May August 2010 from:
2007). CO2 Futures – Issue 04, May 2007 [online]. Retrieved on 25th [Link]
August 2010 from: lluter_09.html
[Link] 13. CSIRO, (2007). Post Combustion Capture (PCC) [online]. Retrieved on 29 h
df August 2010 from: [Link]
6. Mandil, C., (2007). Boosting efficiency can cut industry’s carbon 14. Source: IPCC,
dioxide emissions [online]. Retrieved on 24th August 2010 from: Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, [image]
[Link] Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
7. Parliamentary Library, (2010). Carbon Sequestration [online]. Change [B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos and
Retrieved on 245h August 2010 from: L. Meyer (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
[Link] Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2005, Figure TS7, p. 32.
ion/[Link] 15. Department of Primary Industries, (2010). Geological Carbon
Storage Exploration Tender [online]. Retrieved on 30th August 2010
from: [Link]
development/carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs/geological-carbon-
storage-exploration-tender