Technology update: Where do we stand with CCS technologies?

Prof. Kelly Thambimuthu

Chair, IEAGHG Executive Committee CERT Seminar

“Carbon Capture and Storage - Regaining Momentum” Sydney, Australia

20-21 February 2012

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme • A collaborative research programme founded in 1991 as an IEA

Implementing Agreement fully financed by its members

• Aim: Provide members with definitive information on the role that technology can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Scope: All greenhouse gases, all fossil fuels and comparative assessments

of technology options Focus: On CCS in recent years

• Producing information that is: Objective, trustworthy, independent Policy relevant but NOT policy prescriptive Reviewed by external Expert Reviewers Subject to review of policy implications by Members

Membership

IEAGHG Activities • Task 1: Evaluation of technology options

• Based on a standard methodology to allow direct comparisons and are peer reviewed

• Task 2: Facilitating implementation • Provision of “evidence based information”

• Task 3: Facilitating international co- operation

• Knowledge transfer from existing, laboratory, pilot and commercial scale CCS projects globally

• Task 4:To disseminate the results as widely as possible.

CCS Status 2012 (Power Sector)

Power Generation

Technology developed at

scale for Coal, gas and biomass

Capture Transport Storage

Technology development by

vendors underway

Technology developed at

scale for some industry sectors

Demonstration at scale in power sector needed

Numerous technology

developers/vendors

CO2 pipeline network

demonstrated in North America

Ship transport technically

feasible

Numerous CO2 injection projects

successfully injecting up to 1Mt/y

CO2

Knowledge base on subsurface

issues/modelling/ monitoring growing

Why have some projects failed? • Regulatory uncertainty – still the case in some

jurisdictions • EC CCS Directive Approved in 2009

o Only one country to date has implemented EC Directive into National Law

UK

o Germany will only regulate for demonstration plants

• USA o USAEPA adapted existing UIC programme for CO2 injection in 2011

New Class VI wells programme http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm

o Operators trying to circumvent process for CO2-EOR operations which use Class II well programme

Why have some projects failed? • Economic/Investor uncertainty • No stable price for Carbon under EU ETS

o Need $50/t but current price under €10/t

• In contrast price for CO2 for EOR stimulating take up in USA/Canada

• Economic woes in many countries affecting viability of projects

• Global market economics mean it more cost effective for operators to invest in more dynamic markets

o Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Indonesia etc.,

UK FEED Summary • Capture plant designs – in relative terms was easy • Pipelines • A lot of issues with routing and design but these

could be overcome

• Storage reservoirs • Even in a mature oil and gas basin like North Sea

the storage reservoir can throw up issues and create significant uncertainty

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/ccs/demo_prog/feed/feed.aspx

Storage Resource study by IEAGHG&GCCSI • The storage resource issue is a primary issue that

needs to be resolved • To ensure CCS projects go ahead we need:

• More up front investment on stage resource assessment • Longer project lead times

• Only if Governments recognise this issue can we make significant progress on CCS deployment globally.

http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-storage-resources-gap-analysis-policy-makers

DSF European project cost

10

Probability density total

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81

Total cost distribution for onshore bankability for an intensely explored area

Mean cost Cost of failure

M€

The distributions includes estimated failure costs of data acquisition, wells…

Moving forward

• Don’t despair!! - demonstrations will happen • Need to learn from FEED activities • Extrapolate costs to nth generation plants

• Need to continue R&D,D on capture • Development of lower cost 2nd/3rd generation

capture technologies • Be ready to demonstrate asap.

• Need more CO2 injections projects • Develop learning/knowledge base.

Avoiding a carbon “lock in”

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

2009 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

TWh Coal-fired CHP plants

Coal plants fitted with CCS

Ultra-supercritical and IGCC plants

Supercritical plants

Subcritical plants

Source: IEA, WEO 2011

NEED TO RETROIT THESE

PLANTS WITH CCS

NEED TO UPGRADE or

REPLACE PLANT

CCS Retrofit IEAGHG study conclusions

• Retrofitting CCS is worth examining as an alternative to closure and replacement with new plants with CCS • Capture costs are normally higher for retrofits, but • Costs of electricity from retrofitted plants may be lower than for new

plants with CCS, due to lower capital costs for the power plant

• Retrofits to lower efficiency plants will have higher costs but there is no definitive minimum efficiency for retrofits

• There is a wide range of technical options for integrating capture with existing power plants • Whether the site power output has to be maintained is important

• New plants should be built “Capture ready” • Global potential for CCS retrofit needs to be assessed by

looking at individual plants

Transport • One to one pipeline systems can be implemented now • Should not allow ourselves to be distracted by one to one

issues. • Need to develop more extensive transport infrastructure

• Ultimately need to get to a network as big as that for natural gas

• First step is to develop hub systems o Collie Hub, Australia o Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, Canada o LeHavre, France o Rotterdam, Netherlands o Humber and Yorkshire, UK

Summary of CCS technology status • Power generation technology developed • Capture technology ready to be demonstrated

at commercial scale in power sector • One to one pipeline systems ready for

deployments • Hub systems need to be developed • Storage reservoir credibility needs to be

defined in many applications and to allow widespread deployment

What needs to done now? • Need to demonstrate technology • Work to remove key barriers

• Need to develop hub systems as next step in transport system development

• Need to begin development of transport system infrastructure for widescale deployment • Who will finance • Could take at least 10 years to develop routes, overcome

planning and public opposition

• Need to establish geological storage potential at basin level offshore now (see notes) • Significant investment needed NOW • Delay could derail technology deployment indefinately

Industrial application of CCS

• One industry sector has lead the development of CCS • Oil and gas sector • Helped create a substantial knowledge base on storage

• Other sectors have demonstrated capture at appropriate scale • Fertiliser industry

• Now have a demonstration project in USA in biofuels sector • Decateur, Illinois, USA

Industry Application of CCS (to date)

1996

Sleipner 1Mt/y CO2

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Weyburn 2.5 Mt/y CO2

Snohvit 0.7Mt/y CO2

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

In-Salah 1.2 Mt/y CO2

160km sub sea pipeline 350km overland

pipeline

Gorgon 3Mt/y CO2

Other Industries • IEA CCS Road map calls for significant CCS

deployment in industry • Industries like steel & cement manufacturing

very conservative • Working in a global trading market with heavy

competition • Very concerned about their industries

competitiveness • Would move industry out of regulated regions to

maintain their market share

Capture technology development • In cement and iron and steel sector oxyfuel

technologies look most cost effective option • Oxy blast furnace trialled at pilot scale • Demonstration project planned at Florange,

France. • Industry looking at min. 10 year operational cycle

to build confidence in new technology

• Cement industry • Oxy firing of rotary kiln at lab/pilot scale

Moving foward • Will see further application of CCS in oil and gas sector • Need to focus on high purity sources

• Fertiliser plant/CTL and GTL plants

• Need for CO2 for EOR will have a role • Refineries

• As far as the heavy manufacturing industry is concerned: • Already made significant strides in reducing emissions

through energy efficiency improvements • Industry will follow with CCS BUT at its own pace • Remember

o Over 50% of global cement manufacture in China

o Some 55% of global steel product made in China.

Some thoughts on Public Opinion • Public opinion not always in favour with CCS • Same for other Low Carbon Technologies

• Local Issues prevail over global • Aesthetic – NIMBY • What’s in it for me?

• For CCS we need to avoid being tarnished by public backlash from other industries • Shale gas production

GHGT-11 • Call for papers now open • http://www.ghgt.info/index.php/

Content-GHGT11/ghgt-11-submit-paper.html

• Deadline for abstract submission: 10th Feb 2012

GHGT-11 18th – 22nd November 2012

Kyoto, Japan. www.ghgt.info

Thank you