1. Carbon Capture and Sequestration Update APPA Energy & Clean Air Task Force April 26, 2010

2. Capture Technology Pre-combustion –Separate carbon from hydrogen in fuel (syngas); 35-40% pure CO 2 stream Oxy-fuel combustion –Separate O 2 from N 2 in combustion air, produce a pure stream of CO 2 and water Post-combustion –Separate 12-16% CO 2 from the flue gas stream

3. Carbon Capture Amine based (MMA) Chilled ammonia Carbonate/bicarbonate Solid phase? Membranes? CO 2 and other gases sorbent CO 2 CO 2 –sorbent complex Other gases + + + Recycled sorbent Thermal desorption

4. Technical Challenges Sheer volume – need to scale up by over an order of magnitude Parasitic energy – 15-30% increase in fuel requirements Transport and disposal issues

5. Notable Demonstrations Pleasant PrairieWe Energy1 MW MountaineerAEP20 MW 240 MW* Antelope ValleyBasin Electric200 MW* *planned

6. New Actor - Commercial Tenaska Trailblazer project (TX) 600 MW 85% capture, EOR Legally binding but not in air permit

7. Sequestration

8. The National Carbon Focus DOE has established 7 regional partnerships to address carbon sequestration. DOE research, to date, has focused on regional sequestration projects involving the deepest geological basins.

9. The National Carbon Focus Regional carbon sequestration will require an extensive pipeline system for CO2 collection, compression, and transmission.

10. Sequestration Potential Oil & Gas Reservoir Unmineable Coal Seams Deep Saline Aquifers

11. Missouri Demo Project Given the lack of traditional carbon traps in the state of Missouri, City Utilities began investigating alternative options for carbon sequestration. In 2005, City Utilities identified a formation beneath the Springfield area, the Lamotte Formation, which appeared to be a candidate for carbon sequestration. The Lamotte is a highly mineralized sandstone and is not a source of potable water. Very few wells penetrate the Lamotte. The Lamotte is separated from the potable Ozark Aquifer by the Derby-Doerun/Davis Confining Layer.

12. Project Challenges Reservoir storage volume – –Relatively shallow depth requires CO 2 injection as a gas rather than a supercritical fluid, requiring a larger initial storage volume. Interaction of CO 2 gas and groundwater – The physical and chemical interaction of the CO2 gas and groundwater (displacement, diffusion, rate of movement, etc.) must be characterized.

13. Project Challenges CO 2 Trapping Mechanisms –stratigraphic/structural, –groundwater dissolution into groundwater, and –mineral precipitation. These mechanisms may behave differently for gaseous CO 2 injection and must be properly characterized.

14. Project Partners/Supporters City Utilities of Springfield Missouri Department of Natural Resources Missouri State University Missouri University of Science & Technology (UMR) Ameren Aquila, Inc. Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. Empire District Electric Company Kansas City Power & Light U.S. EPA Region VII Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) Missouri Public Utility Alliance (MPUA) Missouri Energy Development Association (MEDA)