details have been given on the development of a successful cleaning chemical for hydrocarbon...

7/27/2019 Details have been given on the development of a successful cleaning chemical for hydrocarbon transport pipeline

1/11

5 PiPelines international digest | august 2011

technical

Development of a common

CCS infrastructure in the UKBy James Watt, Technical Manager, CCS, AMEC, Darlington, UK

The future deployment of CCS transport infrastructure is likely to be via common carrier networks rather than multiplesinge point to point solutions. This article discusses some of the issues around development of common infrastructure.The results from a number of studies in the UK are presented, including Teesside, Humber, Scotland, and the Mersey andDee clusters, as well as considerations for the East, South West, and South East of the UK. Discussed are the commonissues to all developments, critical assumptions, development of cluster scenarios, screening of emitters, modelling andcosting of pipeline networks and compression, and some of the other challenges facing implementation in the UK. Inparticular, the results from a study on Teesside will be used to illustrate the issues and costs facing some emitters, the

impact and potential of shipping, the failure to develop CCS projects and realities facing network development.

UK common infrastructure studiesThere are a number o common inrastructure studies o global

signifcance as highlighted by the GCCSI [1]. 14 storage-only

projects were identifed and 17 associated with enhanced oil

recovery (EOR). Four o the storage-only common inrastructure

projects are in the UK, more than any other nation. The our

identifed are Thames [2], Humber [3], Scotland [4], and Teesside

[5], but urther common inrastructure studies have been

completed. All are at various levels o detail rom simple studies

to the most advanced in the Humber, which is at pre-ront-end

engineering and design (FEED) level. What they show is a high

potential or common inrastructure in the UK. These our regions

are joined by the Mersey and Dee basin which was frst studied

in 2006 [6], while other studies have consider the North West

[7], and Greater South East [8] (Thames estuary, south eastern

counties, London and southern counties) looking at the potential

o clusters. Overall, the geography and density o emitters i the

UK promotes the ormation o common inrastructure. The studies

conducted have also led to the resolution o key considerations

or uture developments:

Figure 1: Humber regional high level network options.
http://-/?-


2/11


technical

Who is included in the study emitters types, size,

industry sector, geography

Cluster defnitions geography, emission density,

policy driven

Scenario developments

Timelines or roll-out

Storage and capture issues and options need to be

considered

Flexibility requirements o network

Comparison methods or optimisation Consideration o anchor projects

Right sizing or uture development

Compression/pumping strategy and costs

Environmental and social impacts/considerations

Inuence o shipping.

Denition of potential common infrastructureThe most important considerations are or the development

o clusters are the selection or storage sites and the inclusion o

emitters. Location o potential storage sites and emitters dictates

the practical shape o pipeline systems. There are a number o

studies in this area varying in detail. Currently common are GISenabled source/sink matching and optimisation which match

sources to sinks under a timeline scenario [9]. These studies show

time based progression o potential inrastructure, generally on a

large scale. Other reports are more practical in defnition looking

at smaller areas or specifc onshore developments, these latter

studies consider the issues at more detail.

The areas that may be considered clusters vary, no clear

technical defnition is yet proposed. How defnition o a cluster

occurs can be looked at in a number o ways:

Committed anchor projects numerous projects with

CCS ambitions

Density o emissions Regional policy

Proximity o emitters

High potential o accessible storage volumes.

Groups or single projects that can act as a solid base or

scenario defnitions can also enable inrastructure clusters.

These anchor projects are generally frst movers with capture,

storage, or EOR ambitions. For example the desire to utilise the

Hewitt ormation [10] as a storage site with an operator willing to

support CCS development should enable and encourage emitters

with CCS plans to utilise that acility and locate accordingly, such

as in the East o England. Similarly the East Irish Sea [11] has

signifcant storage potential and could enable CCS on the UKs

east coast. The Longannet project in Scotland, Don Valley IGCCproject in Humber, and Progressive Energys Eston Grange project

in Teesside all provide the same ocus rom which scenarios can

be derived. The critical elements remain; where do you store and

which emitters will deploy capture in the uture.

Inuence of storage locationThe location and development o storage sites is potentially

the frst area that must be looked at when considering common

inrastructure studies. The storage sites availability provides two

key actors: how much can be stored, and where. Other actors

included the type o storage site, the timeline through which

it may be made available, and the potential re-use o existinginrastructure. The location and the development o storage over

time sets the shape o the inrastructure, whereas the volumes

over time defne part o the systems capacity and pressure

Food and

Drink

1%

Downstream

Gas

2%

Chemicals

5%

Cement

2%Ceramics

0% Services

0%

Offshore

48%

Other

0%Pulp & Paper

1% Refineries7%

Glass

1%

Power

33%

Figure 2: Emitter screening factors.

Figure 3: Scotland: emitters by sector.
http://-/?-


3/11


technical

profles. The type o storage also causes issues regarding pressure

and ow: or example, a low-pressure reservoir on a common

network will require de-pressuring, while some stores may need

additional pressure. An optimum design approach needs to be

considered or uture plans, balanced against the risk o earlyinvestment in large systems.

A simple example is the decisions taken in the Humber studies.

Here the options or a common pipeline system drive the overall

shape. Early discussions on the potential storage options see the

Humber connect to the Southern North Sea targeting depleted

hydrocarbon felds (DHF) and potential deep saline ormations

(DSF). This was over the potential o the central North Sea

ormations or EOR. Picking a southern target orientates the

pipeline route south o Hull, while a northern target, central

North Sea, would drive a pipeline route north o Hull. This

changes the shape and inevitable operation o a network. The

purpose is to enable as many emitters as possible and, as shown

in Figure 1, orientation north and south has distinct dierences.The southern routeing is an optimal routeing where the network

alls to a single pipeline along a common route, minimising the

number o stranded assets. The northern route requires a major

river crossing to enable the acilities on the south bank o the

Humber, but essentially the network is much more branched,

connecting to a common pipeline just prior to going oshore.

The inuence o storage site location can be clearly seen.

Inuence of emittersEmitters are the other major driver; their size, type, deployment

timeline, and location all have inuenced inrastructure plans.

The optimum network considers all the emitters in a cluster, buthas to impose screening to ensure that the scenario is sound.

The inuence o size was frst explored in the study o the

Mersey and Dee basin [6] in North West UK. This study, providing

a modelling tool or common inrastructure, considers the

region as a test example. The inrastructure here considered

the use o high- and medium-pressure pipelines, with low-

pressure pipelines transporting CO2 gas in standard polyethylene

pipelines or low-ow, small, emitters. The cost o a networkvaries with the size o emitters and, as the emitters join an

optimised network, there is a marked increase in the marginal

network costs or emitters. This led to the introduction o tiers

0, 1, and 2, a coarse way o indicating the size o an emitter and

screening them.

The early study clearly showed marginal costs or small

emitters,


4/11


technical

The completion o the emitters profle or a cluster is a simple

survey o the current and uture emitters. Current emitter data

can be located rom government databases and rom various

international databases or generated rom generic emissions/

capacity metrics. Future emitters need to be considered so that

any common inrastructure is o the right size to accommodate

them. In addition there is the possibility that an installed

common inrastructure may attract CCS-enabled projects to a

region. Early studies considered only installed emitters, but later

studies have considered potential emitters to enable right sizing

to occur.Emitter type is considered as the frst screening mechanism.

The most common screening is emitters that are oshore:

whilst the technology exists to capture the CO2 emitted rom

gas processing or power generation oshore it is viewed as a

medium-, i not long-term, target. In Scotland, when considering

a single inrastructure model, 48 per cent o the emissions or that

region are rom oshore acilities (Figure 3). Other emitter types

may not be suitable or capture, although urther study o this

is required. For some emitters, particularly the smaller emitters,

an evaluation has to be made as to whether a acility can host a

capture plant or would be suitable to do so.

The most common screen applied in studies should be size.Size classifcation typically uses three tiers splitting emitters into

large, medium, and small. The classifcation is based on marginal

connection costs, typically on onshore pipeline costs. In the

recent Teesside study the small emitters marginal cost, in terms

o overnight CAPEX, was 73/tonne, medium emitters

22/tonne, and or the large emitters 8/tonne. The impact o

adding medium emitters reduces the overall costs slightly, and

urther adding the small emitters increases the cost. Similar

results were expressed in the Mersey and Dee. The inclusion o

small emitters


5/11


technical

all obstructions identifed. Guidance in the UK at least is explicit:

any CO2 pipeline is to be considered as conveying a dangerous

substance, and this ensures that the most stringent rules are

applied. Issues around the impact o CO2 pipeline dispersion

modelling and consequence analysis need to be resolved to

enable more-accurate routeing studies to be made. As guidance,

the minimum requirements o an appropriate standard such as BS

PD 8010:1 should be applied. The band o interest or a pipeline

then allows access to be assessed. Where a pipeline cannot gain

access to a site, alternatives should be considered; intermediatetransmission as a gas may be applicable or short distances

through crowded areas, or example. However some sites are not

accessible by pipeline due to the urban density, site congestion,

or environmental constraints. These sites can then be excluded

rom a cluster, or placed later into the deployment scenario.

The requirement or access to storage is undamental and, in

considering a common inrastructure, should have already been

considered. For individual sites, the actor inorms screening

capture technology or economic studies. In a recent assessment

o the potential or capture technology roll-out to gas-fred

generators, this element was used to screen remote sites, where

storage access is remote, beore consideration or inclusion intoa pipeline system. In the UK it is rare that an installation does

not have access, however expensive, but or acilities deep inland

with only oshore storage it becomes an economic determination

between the cost o pipeline and storage, simple release to

atmosphere, plant technology change, or closure.

The age o an emitter also inorms the design o common

inrastructure. The simple question is whether the plant is viable

to receive carbon capture or will be continuing long enough to

warrant it. One o the critical assumptions that have to be made

about uture projects also relates to existing emitters and their

end-o-service date. For the most part the consideration has to

be given that existing emitters will continue, i not as-installed

then replaced in the uture. There is a beneft rom re-plantingexisting sites and as such common inrastructure would enable

current and uture plant. But there will be scenarios where over

the lietime o a network plants will close. The reasoning is

complex economically and socially, but an assessment should

be made. The loss o a plant can have a considerable eect on an

inrastructure in term both CAPEX and OPEX.

Scenario developmentScreened emitters then orm the basis o the design o a

scenario or deployment. Whilst this may evolve during the

design o inrastructure, it is benefcial to defne a baseline at an

early stage. In addition, the baseline should include developmento storage sites. Development o clusters is highly dependent

on timing, both or emitters and storage. For storage, the timing

o availability drives the oshore development as well as the

Figure 7: Deployment to storage scenario.
http://-/?-


6/11


technical

Figure 8: Comparative cost for Tees Valley infrastructure options:

(a top) full-scale: note high marginal costs for 11c and 12;

(b bottom) expanded scale for network options.
http://-/?-


7/11


technical

expectations o use. Some depleted gas felds may not be

suitable or CCS or may be more suitable as commercial gas

storage sites. Oshore inrastructure age is also a consideration,

as is the lag time rom depleted hydrocarbon feld (DHF) closure

to uptake o CCS. Idle acilities incur ongoing costs when not

in production. Determination o storage availability thereore

shapes oshore common inrastructure in terms o location and

pipeline-operating parameters.

For example, consider three storage sites two DHFs andone deep saline ormation (DSF). I the frst store online is a

small DHF in 2015, typically used or a demonstration plant,

Figure 7. The frst pipeline will run to that feld. In 2020 a

nearby DHF storage site opens or CCS and urther along a

DSF opens in 2025. Enabling these rom the existing 2015

pipeline requires the installation to be expandable and the

initial pipeline to be right-sized, in order to accommodate

uture demand. Optimisation needs to be considered and also

reliability and risks to common inrastructure. Overall, more or

higher-capacity pipelines need to be installed to accommodate

2017 and 2025. By considering the whole scenario, the initial

investment may be higher but benefcial in the uture, This kind

o cost beneft, along with realistic costs o roll-out and oshoreoptions, is yet to be ully considered, particularly examining

the needs or oshore installations, compression and pumping,

and other common acilities.

For emitters timing, size, and type are the critical

scenario actors. When considering type this relates to entry

specifcation o the gas as well as the type actors used in

screening, and care has to be taken to ensure that new entrants

to common inrastructure do not push the content out o the

design conditions. To protect against this, the inrastructure

owner will need to tightly control entry specifcations. A typical

entry specifcation is commonly applied: one derived rom the

Dynamis [14] recommendations includes the ranges rom mostprocesses. There remain issues to address with the specifcation

predominantly the water content requirements still need to be

examined to avoid potential corrosion.

Costs to emitters are typically ignored during current

studies, but they do inuence deployment scenarios. The

ability o an emitter to enable CCS is dependent on cost, both

o the emission and the technology. For medium to small

emitters, or even non-power generation large emitters, capture

technology and high-pressure compression may at current

costs prove economically unviable. This consideration is policy

driven as policy is driving deployment rates, particularly the

demonstrator projects which are heavily publicly unded.

As experience at scale, or with lower-cost new technologies,

cost will decrease and deployment will accelerate. In reality,

medium and small emitters are usually shown to lag large-scale

emitters, a lag also dependent on emitter sector in terms o

deployment timescale.

Slow starts to common inrastructure with signifcant lead

times requires early periods where initial investment is not

being recovered at low utilisation o pipelines. The other eect

is that investments may become delayed or negated by policy,

deleting uture projects rom network scenarios.

Pipeline, compression and pumping

considerations and cost modelsThe costs associated with compression or pumping are

not easily derived, and there are a number o suggested

models (Table 1). Common compressor systems in natural gas

transmission are the natural correlation; however the ormat o

the compression stage is variable, Figure 4. Unlike natural gas,

change o phase is expected to be required rom gas to dense-

phase liquid and is not easily constructed. Direct correlation

with natural gas transmission compressors is not readily

possible as CO2 compressors require ancillary cooling systems

to achieve the phase change and inter-stage cooling is typically

required to improve eciency, Figure 5. The additional option

o pumps in series with the compression step also deviates romthe natural gas model, Figure 6, in which a compressor and

cooler arrangement can be used to produce medium pressures

and liquid carbon dioxide which can then be pumped.

Study Cost Metric/Formula Year

1

The Economics o CO2 Transport by Pipeline and

Storage in Saline Aquiers and Oil Reservoirs, DoE,

USA, 2004

C = 8.35P + 0.49

$8,346 per kW

P =Power, MW

2004

2

Techno-Economic Models or Carbon Dioxide

Compression, Transport, and Storage, McCollum et al,

University o Caliornia, 2005

2005

3

Cost and Perormance Baseline or

Fossil Energy Plants

DOE/NETL-2007/1281 Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and

Natural Gas to Electricity

Final Report (Original Issue Date, May 2007)Revision 1, August 2007

$24,860,000, 183 tonnes/hour, NGCC, 136$/kg/h

$46,363,000, 312 tonnes/hour, s/c CF, 148 $/kg/h

$49,059,000, 628 tonnes/hour, sub/c CF, 78 $/kg/h

2006

Table 1: Compressor/pump cost models.
http://-/?-


8/11


technical

O course some studies only consider the pipeline cost or thepressurisation to network pressure, and this ignores the initial

compression stage post capture. With limited experience in the

feld, and the demonstration projects at scale yet to come on line,

the actual costs are unknown. Analysis rom results o completed

scale engineering studies, with vendor cost inormation show a

marked dierential. The expectation is that rom Table 1, Equn

1 produces high estimates, whilst Equns 2 and 3 typically show

100 per cent low yields, against costs generated by vendors and

detailed engineering studies; or systems in the range 15 MMt/a

transported.

Critically it becomes important to defne where in any study

the compression stage lies. Whilst not currently addressed,

consideration needs to be given to the act that heat recoveryrom the coolers may be benefcial. In common inrastructure,

the exibility o the systems also becomes a major driver, and

again more work is needed to examine the issues o exibility

and utilisation. Pipeline costs themselves can be transposed rom

existing data; however, the costs associated with above-ground

installations, block valves, and metering remain to be confrmed.

Repeatedly, through dierent economic analyses, UK clusters

have indicated a 23 times cost saving or networks, although this

is higher in Scotland with its lower CO2 density/sq km in the study

area when compared to Humber and Tees.

Common infrastructure for the Tees ValleyThe recent study on Teesside considered scenarios where anetwork was created or transport in the region and into a single

common carrier pipeline in the North Sea. The overall scenario

was tested against other scenarios, three o which were the ailureo predicted projects to arrive. Figure 8 summarises the results

rom the 14 scenarios comparing the minimum cost in each

oshore deployment scenario to the others giving an indication

o the cost variances. The costs here are shown as indicative

overnight costs with no time weighting or economic assessment.

The striking scenarios are those that show the dierential

between single emitter to storage solutions (scenario 11). Large

emitters 11a, 11b, and 11d clearly show the 23 actor multiple

between these costs and those o a network. In scenario 11c

a medium-sized power plant the cost is signifcantly higher at

40115 times, depending on scenario (oshore pipeline distance)

so the beneft o a network is considerable.

Scenario 12 also shows the marginal connection cost ora remote emitter, and the cost o connecting to the existing

network. That this pipeline costs at 12 times that o a network

pipeline illustrates the additional actors that aect remote

assets, typical to cement, orestry-associated biomass, ceramics,

or potash processing plants. This marginal connection cost also

aects emitters spread over large geographic areas.

What is clear is the trend that greater volumes through the

system reduce the liecycle cost per tonne transported. The

Teesside study also considers the addition o a large remote

source (scenario 13) and the inuence o ship-based imports

(scenario 14) on cost. In the case o scenario 13, the remote emitter

contributed a urther 5 MMt/a to the oshore carrier pipeline,reducing the costs to the network. The additional volume

outweighs the cost o the additional pipeline and connection.

Similarly the addition o shipping to a network showed a

ComponentPost

CombustionIGCC Oxyfuel Weyburn Dynamis

CO2 >95% >95%

N2/Ar

0.01 0.030.06% 4.1%


9/11


technical

beneft, depending on how the cost o the associated terminal

was assigned. The volume imported reduces the cost, but could

also add valuable buer storage to a network. I the cost o the

terminal acility is shared by networked emitters, then the cost

per tonne marginally increases. For export the costs are

34 times higher, but these exclude oshore cost or unloading

and injection, and this thereore needs urther consideration.

Another element tested in this study was the loss o projects,

something not tested beore in other studies. Three test scenarios

were used based on the arrival o two uture projects a 1000MWCCGT north o the Tees and an 850 MW IGCC south o the

river. In addition the loss o a steelworks, one o the regions

largest emitters was also modelled. These three large projects,

particularly the current steelworks, represent anchor projects,

large-volume emitters that are signifcant percentages o the

regions emissions. The ailure to develop either new project

(scenarios 9 and 10) increases network costs by 6 per cent (north)

and 45 per cent (south). The loss o the existing steelworks, or

ailure to capture CO2, results in 20 per cent higher network costs.

The importance thereore o mapping uture projects, current

emitter plans, and technology roll-outs is important in optimising

and understanding common inrastructure.

Development of UK infrastructureThe development o CCS inrastructure in the UK is dicult to

predict. The major blocker is a clear view o how UK projects will

Figure 9. Example deployment of commoninfrastructure in the UK to 2050.
http://-/?-


10/11


technical

come to market. By 2015 the frst demonstration project will be

online, potentially closely ollowed by three or our more with

the aid o EPR, NER, and urther DECC unding. Post-2020, when

the technology may be considered mature, the roll-out becomes

driven by investment based on the avoided ETS or oor price cost

o carbon. The mechanism to drive CCS is currently not in place.

Large roll-out as predicted in the IEA roadmap [15] will require

the commercial incentive to develop CCS. This will require clear

regulation, higher carbon prices and a technology less expensive

and more developed than it is now.

Transport inrastructure has its part to play, and reductions

anywhere in the chain o technology are valuable. The rate at

which a technology matures and cost decreases due to experience

and optimisation cannot yet be determined or capture and

storage. For capture technology, several comparative studies

such as Rubin [16] and IEA [17] (2006/6) compare capture plant

to the evolution o ue-gas-desulphurisation (FGD) technology.

The learning rate or FGD o 1113 per cent or each doubling o

capacity may be applied, but or FGDs but this is only a trend.In reality, the cost o wet FGD remained constant or almost six

doublings o installed capacity. From initial deployment to the

downswing in costs rom maturing technology was over a decade;

this included signifcant increases in cost or early projects. In

terms o demonstration projects o 300 MW equivalent, this would

require 9.6 GW equivalent o deployed CCS beore signifcant cost

reductions occur.

With the deployment required to achieve major savings in

capture, savings or at least reductions in CAPEX can come

rom pipelines. Common inrastructure oers signifcant cost

reductions, but with an upront investment based on a frst-

mover project. To examine the most recent study in the Humber

[18] considered the economics o developing networks. The

study showed clearly that deployed projects in a region, even

in small networks oered major savings. Economic analysis

urther showed that investment in right-sizing pipelines to uture

capacity was benefcial, with a no-regrets period o 16 years.

Investment early thereore would deliver low-cost transport

solutions at the point that comparative learning rates indicate

capture technology will start to deliver at lower costs.

There are other drivers that can aect the deployment rates

and thereore the need to develop inrastructure. Political, social,

and energy issues will drive CCS to deployment. Socially the

climate change agenda is driving opinion and in turn this drives

policy. Critically the energy-security issue will drive the UK andother European countries to consider the need to deploy gas

and coal-fred generation should nuclear and renewable energy

deployment not meet the required capacity targets. I carbon-

reduction targets are to be met, then CCS will have to be deployed

as will new gas- and coal-fred generation.

Other actors that will play a part in the deployment rate

include the ability to gain fnance/unding or early projects,

storage identifcation/qualifcation, technology deployment rates,

and social issues such as planning. The critical issue is that o

storage identifcation and access: some studies, such as those

by Kjarstad [19], EU [8], and CO2 Europipe [20] identiy storage

capacity and provide high level indicative inrastructure routesand costs. But the proving o the geological inormation needs to

be progressed. In the short term, consideration needs to be given

to the oshore inrastructure requirements and the enabling o

existing inrastructure to be maintained and preserved until CCS

deployment can include it.

Social issues will aect inrastructure development in terms

o location and planning. Recent experience in both natural gas

and CCS projects has seen major plans deerred or cancelled. The

impact on permitting can be considerable. Simple assumptions

in scenarios can take a lower-risk approach when considering the

use o brown-feld sites to co-locate CCS aculties such as booster

stations or the onshore/oshore transition terminals.

In terms o development, scenarios can be built rom the

programme o unding and current projects. One scenario or

deployment is shown in Figure 9, showing potential network

shapes in line with the DECC-unded competitions and a swing

in power generation to CCS post-2025. In this scenario it can

clearly be seen by examining the project emitter deployment that

common inrastructure installed in early projects can be used to

enable uture expansion.

ConclusionsCommon inrastructure development is clearly justifed,

benefcial, and economic. The studies or UK regions, EU-wide

inrastructure, and other regional work clearly indicate broad

themes and generate common inuences. There is also a case or

common inrastructure planning or even single-emitter projects,

and it should be included at the demonstration phase. The

success o common inrastructure not only requires commitment

in terms o projects and fnance, but also a strong technical basis

in industry and academia, supportive policy and, ultimately, an

inormed and supportive populace.

Should common inrastructure be deployed, co-ordinated

planning, exchange o inormation between projects, and supporto initial pipeline design enabling uture volumes and right sizing

is not only desirable but warranted.

References1. GCCSI, 2011. The global status o CCS: 2010.

2. EON, 2009. Capturing carbon, tackling climate change: a

vision or a CCS cluster in the South East.

3. Yorkshire Forward, 2008. A carbon capture and storage

network or Yorkshire and Humber.

4. SCCS, 2009. Opportunities or CO2 storage around

Scotland: an integrated strategic research study.

5. AMEC / One North East, 2010. Engineering design and

capture technologies or carbon capture and storage in theTees Valley.

6. IEA GHG R&D Programme, 2007. Distributed collection o

CO2. Report 2007/12.

7. DECC, 2009. Technical analysis o carbon capture &

storage (CCS) transportation inrastructure.

8. EON, 2009. Capturing carbon, tackling climate change: a

vision or a CCS cluster in the South East.

9. CO2 Europipe, 2011. Development o a large-scale CO2

transport inrastructure in Europe: matching captured

volumes and storage availability. www.co2europipe.eu/,

2011-06-13.

10. S.Grewcock, 2008. CO2 storage: an oil industry perspective.Oil & Gas UK Breakast 11th December, Tullow Oil, www.

oilandgasuk.co.uk/downloadabledocs/372/Simon%20

Grewcock.pd
http://-/?-


11/11


technical

11. A.Baddeley, 2011. The East Irish Sea CCS cluster: a

conceptual design technical report. Eunomia Consulting

(www.eunomia.co.uk), Bristol.

12. IEA GHG R&D Programme, 2007. CO2 capture ready power

plants. Report (2007/2), UK.

13. DECC, 2009. Carbon capture readiness (CCR): a

guidance note or Section 36 Electricity Act 1989 consent

applications. UK HMG.

14. Dynamis, 2008. CO2 quality recommendations.Int. J. of

Greenhouse Gas Control,2, pp 478-484.

15. IEA, 2009. Technology roadmap: carbon capture and

storage. www.iea.org/papers/2009/CCS_Roadmap.pd

16. E.S.Rubin, 2007. Cost and perormance o ossil uel power

plants with CO2 capture and storage.Energy Policy, 35, pp

4444-4453.

17. IEA GHG R&D Programme, 2006. Estimating the uture

trends in the cost o CO2 capture technologies. Report

2006/6.

18. J.Watt et al., 2010. CO2 transport inrastructure or

Yorkshire and Humber: pre-FEED study report. AMEC, CO2

Sense.

19. J.Kjarstad, 2009. Ramp up o large scale CCS inrastructure

in Europe, GHGT-9.

20. F.Neele et al., 2010. Development o large scale CO2

transport inrastructure in Europe: matching captured

volumes and storage availability. CO2 Europipe Project.
http://-/?-

details have been given on the development of a successful cleaning chemical for hydrocarbon...

Documents