potential for co capture and storage in eu refineriesieaghg.org/docs/general_docs/lisbon...

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE FOR THE EUROPEAN REFINING INDUSTRY

Potential for CO2 Capture and Storage in EU Refineries

Alan ReidScience Executive, Concawe

IEAGHG & IETS Workshop on CCS in Process Industries

Lisbon, 10-11 March 2015

2

Reproduction permitted with due acknowledgement

Potential for CO2 Capture and Storage in EU RefineriesAlan Reid, Science Executive, Concawe

IEAGHG & IETS WorkshopLisbon, 10-11 March 2015

Content

1. What is Concawe?

2. Refining CO2 emissions compared to other sectors

3. Capture sources and technologies

4. Costs

5. Storage and transport

6. Conclusions

3




CONservation of Clean Air and Water In Europe

Concawe was established in 1963 to conduct research on environmental issues relevant to the European petroleum refining, distribution and marketing industry

Objectives: To acquire adequate scientific, economic, technical, and legal information on HSE issues To communicate the findings in order to improve understanding of these issues by the

industry, authorities, and consumers

Operating principles: Sound science Cost-effectiveness of options Transparency of results

Our research reports are available at www.concawe.org

http://www.concawe.org/

4




Membership of the Association

42 members, representing ~100% of European refining capacity Open to companies owning refining capacity in the EU

5




Content

1. What is Concawe?



4. Costs


6. Conclusions

6




Climate change

Climate change is a challenge for governments, industry and consumers alike

Cancun consensus: need to keep global temperature rise below 2°C

Different scenarios target deep CO2reductions: 80 % CO2 reduction by 2050 (a.o. IEA 450 scenario and blue map)

Regulators target large emission sectors

7




Refining is one of the large CO2 emission sectors

Power generation sector

Coal

Gas & fuel oil

Industry sector

Cement

Iron and steel

Refining

Petrochemicals

EU Refining CO2emissions could grow from 144 Mt/a in 2010 to 165 Mt/a in 2020

Source:

140 145 150 155 160 165

Base case - 2008

Demand 2010

FQD PAH 8%

ECA bunker 1.0% S

Demand 2010-2015

Inland Waterway GO 10 ppm S

Non-road Diesel 10 ppm S

ECA bunker 0.1% S

Demand 2015-2020

Non-ECA bunker 0.5% S

CO2 emissions from EU27+2 Refineries (Mt/a)

Demand-relatedQuality-related

Source: Concawe (report no. 1/13R)

EU refining CO2 emissionsEstimated growth 2008-2020

8




Content

1. What is Concawe?



4. Costs


6. Conclusions

9




CDU, 52.9%

Cat. Reformer, 20.3%

Alky/Isom, 3.0%

Hydrotreating, 5.4%

Sulphur recovery, 0.4%

Off sites, 18.0%

Hydroskimming refinery0.6 Mt/a CO2

CDU, 18.4%

VDU, 6.4%

FCC, 21.7%

Cat. Reformer, 9.8%

Alky/Isom, 5.5%

Hydrotreating, 5.3%

Sulphur recovery, 0.6%

Hydrogen, 20.6%

Off sites, 11.7%

Conversion refinery1.4 Mt/a CO2

Refineries have multiple CO2 sources

Refineries have multiple CO2 emission sources Fuel combustion to supply energy for refining processes Production of Hydrogen for internal use (hydrocracking and

hydrodesulphurisation)

Big differences in emissions between refinery types and locations Emissions (and no. of sources) increase with refinery complexity

Source: Concawe (report no. 7/11)

10




Refinery sources & capture technologies (1)

CO2 Capture from most refinery sources is technically feasible Though scale up and demonstration is needed

Different Capture technologies Post combustion Amine-based CO2 separation technologies are known to refineries Pre combustion Oxyfuel firing

Source: IPCC SRCCS (2005)

11




Refinery sources & capture technologies (2)

Various CO2 concentrations and pressures in refineries Cost trade-off between options: Maximisation of CO2 concentration of certain sources (e.g. oxyfuel) vs. simple

large scale capture at lower CO2 concentration Physical constraints for retrofits (e.g. plot space limitations) May drive technology choice May limit final capture rate Will add to costs


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Volume% CO2 in gas

Tota

l pre

ssur

e, b

ar

Working Regime for Physical Absorption

Working Regime for Mildly Alkaline Absorbents

Working Regime for Strong Alkaline Absorbents (e.g. Amines) Refinery Flue Gases

Refinery Hydrogen Plant/ POX units

12




Content

1. What is Concawe?



4. Costs


6. Conclusions

13




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ProcessFurnaces

Utilities HydrogenPlant

FCC CO2Capture

% o

f tot

al C

O2

emis

sion

s FCC Refinery

Hydrocracker Refinery

CO2 Capture needs extra energy ⇒ added cost

CO2 capture units need power for CO2 compression and heat for capture solvent regeneration

For refineries with balanced utilities power and heat need to be generated by additional utilities Of which the CO2 emissions (15% to

30% of total) also need to be capturedt CO2 captured > t CO2 avoided

Which has a “roll-up” effect Incremental CO2 from utilities

requires more energy to capture, which requires more energy production by utilities, etc…

Which increases the cost of capture


Compression for CO2 transport also requires additional energy

Irrespective of the technology selected, CCS will significantly increase the energy footprint of the refinery

14




CCS Costs for refineries

Cost of capture per ton CO2 avoided in refineries will be much higher than the 40-60 €/t quoted for coal power and considerably higher than current ETS market prices.

Why? Scale: Reduced economy of scale ( 0.5 to 2.0 Mt/a CO2 versus 5+ Mt/a CO2) Distributed & diverse sources: Requires ducting and fans to connect to

capture facility Range of concentrations: Requires more complex capture system Utilities: Additional CAPEX for dedicated utilities equipment Brownfield projects: Retrofits involve higher project complexity and costs Fuel costs: Higher OPEX for natural gas as capture plant marginal fuel

(instead of coal) Economic premises: Refineries operate in a more volatile, less predictable

market requiring higher discount rates and capital charges, making annualised investment costs higher

15




CCS Costs for refineries

Refinery specifics may result in large differences in capture costs between refineries Specifically between deep conversion (complex) and hydroskimming (simple)

refineries

Capture costs will add significantly to overall refinery CAPEX and OPEX The impact on margins needs to be clarified, along with how these costs can

be transferred

Significant cost uncertainties since the technology has not been built to similar scale in a refinery application.

Cost of transport and storage to be included (about 15-20% of total CCS cost)

A project is in progress to estimate the cost of retrofitting CO2 capture technologies in refineries Project participants are IEAEPL, Concawe and SINTEF Energy Research Completion expected in December 2016

16




Content

1. What is Concawe?



4. Costs


6. Conclusions

17




CO2 Storage

Source: The European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP)Legend: Red dots are refineries, blue and green bounded areas are potential offshore and onshore storage areas

Location of EU Refineries and Potential CO2 Storage Areas

Refinery CO2 sources need to be matched with CO2 Storage sites

Depleted Oil and Gas fields Known, limited volume

Deep Saline Aquifers Larger potential volume but

needs exploration

Onshore and Offshore Offshore at higher costs

Sharing of storage sites with different industries will yield scale advantage

18




CO2 Transport

CO2 needs to be transported to storage locations by pipelines (or ships) Shared transport networks between capture facilities, for scale advantage

Source: ARUP/DG-ENER Feasibility Study for Europe-wide CO2 Infrastructures, October 2010

19




Content

1. What is Concawe?



4. Costs


6. Conclusions

20




CCS is technically feasible to reduce refinery CO2 emissions But needs scale up and demonstration

Refinery retrofit CCS will be complex and expensive to implement Specifically when compared with CCS in new-build power plants

There are significant uncertainties with CCS cost estimates, since the technology has not been built to similar scale previously

Cost of CCS per ton CO2 avoided in refining will be significantly higher than the current ETS CO2 market prices and the 40-60 Euro per ton CO2 cost quoted for coal power

For refiners deep CO2 reduction (greater than 90%) may be physically impossible or impractical due to multiple source types and capture efficiency limits

Piggybacking on a larger CO2 transport network will be crucial Watch this space for results of the IEAGHG/Concawe/SINTEF project

to estimate the cost of retrofitting CO2 capture in refineries

Conclusions

21




For More Information

Picture: ExxonMobil

Our technical reports are available at no cost to all interested parties

Concawe Website:www.concawe.org

Thank you for your attention

Any questions?

http://www.concawe.org/

potential for co capture and storage in eu refineriesieaghg.org/docs/general_docs/lisbon...

Documents