Results: Searching for 'CO2 transport'

A timeline image covering 10 years of ETI research and development into Carbon Capture and Storage

ETI’s Head of Economic Strategy George Day presented “Achieving cost-effective CCS: the route forward” at the Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport Forum : Future prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK on 7th February 2017. This slideset unpacks the notion of ‘cost effective’ CCS, amd how to make it happen.

In summary, CCS can bring a long term benefit to the UK and potential investors. But to succeed it needs long term commitments from both the public and private sectors. Each side needs to take on the risks that it can safely manage.

Despite the challenges in deployment to date our view is clear that the option of CCS in a future UK energy system needs to be kept open. As we stand, it is about piecing together proven technologies and applying them to CCS deployment. Energy system planners should ensure that any new unabated gas plants are both sited and financed in line with any new UK CCS strategy, even if they are not fitted with CCS from day one.

But vital for the industry to progress is that it has to develop a first commercial CCS plant in the UK. Despite a number of false starts we remain convinced that the key to reducing the cost of CCS lies in delivering asmall number of large plants sequentially, not at this point through further innovation into technology-focused research and development activity. So to move forward, the UK has to build its first full scale commercial plant.

This is why the ETI is supporting a project to develop an option to build a gas fired electricity generation power station (potentially as big as 3GW) with full CCS operation – capture, transport and offshore storage - to demonstrate business models that are attractive to industry, government and investors.

Looking into the longer term, the combination of bioenergy with CCS should be a component of future UK CCS strategy and its deployment advanced. Its ability to deliver negative emissions whilst also producing energy in the form of electricity, heat and liquid & gaseous fuels make it economically attractive from a systems wide perspective. But like CCS itself, the next steps are to demonstrate its components in actual deployment.

So we believe this shows us a compelling argument for CCS in the UK, and reaffirms our analysis that CCS is the biggest single lever available to the UK to deliver on its carbon abatement target

This is the report that accompanies the “Brine Production Cost Benefit Analysis” tool. This report covers the cost benefit analysis of the brine aquifer management for CO₂ storage, and analyses any benefits of producing brine to manage pressure in aquifers used to store CO₂. The CBA tool kit report provides a brief description on background details of the excel model that has been produced. It contains a user manual for the tool in Appendix 8. It provides simple cost metrics for the storage of CO₂ from CO₂Stored and demonstrated how these costs can be affected by the extraction of brine to manage the store.

Key findings:

• Value of brine production: Lifetime T&S unit costs tend to increase with brine production for a given injection scenario (although some minor savings are observed for some of the units examined); however, more importantly, more injection scenarios with higher storage capacities become feasible with brine production.
• Cost effectiveness of brine production: Brine production allows significant increase in storage capacity at similar unit costs. In addition to achieving more CO₂ storage capacity with reasonable costs, a lower unit T&S cost is achieved with brine production at Firth of Forth and Tay.
• Optimal development/configuration plans: As CAPEX of clean water discharge infrastructure on platform is negligible, sub-sea brine production does not lead to significant savings in water treatment CAPEX. However, significant savings can be achieved in injection facility CAPEX (if high costs of installing platforms can be avoided with subsea brine production – e.g. if subsea facilities connected to a hub is the most cost-effective configuration for an injection scenario).

Next steps:

• Value and cost of brine production: Examination of potential impact of brine production on gas fields
• Optimal development/configuration plans: Examination of further brine production scenarios that will be provided by HWU (e.g. more optimised injection/brine production scenarios if necessary) and examining different infrastructure configurations with brine production (e.g. using a central water treatment facility, which can be connected to subsea facilities or oversea platforms via brine distribution pipelines
• Informing CO₂Stored database: Reviewing learnings from the initial analysis to consider how we could model other storage units in the CO₂Stored database

This £200,000 nine-month long project, studied the impact of removing brine from undersea stores that could, in future, be used to store captured carbon dioxide. It was carried out by Heriot-Watt University, a founder member of the Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS) research partnership, and Element Energy. T2 Petroleum Technology and Durham University also participated in the project. It built on earlier CCS research work and helped develop understanding of potential CO₂ stores, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs or saline aquifers, located beneath UK waters. It also helped to build confidence among future operators and investors for their operation. Reducing costs and minimising risks is crucial if CCS is to play a long-term role in decarbonising the UK’s future energy system

This project aims to assess the potential for brine production through dedicated wells in target CO₂ storage formations to increase CO₂ storage capacity and reduce the overall cost of storage - as well as any other potential benefits for CO₂ store operators associated with brine production

This report presents findings from the entire project, and references other project reports where appropriate.

This £200,000 nine-month long project, studied the impact of removing brine from undersea stores that could, in future, be used to store captured carbon dioxide. It was carried out by Heriot-Watt University, a founder member of the Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (SCCS) research partnership, and Element Energy. T2 Petroleum Technology and Durham University also participated in the project. It built on earlier CCS research work and helped develop understanding of potential CO₂ stores, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs or saline aquifers, located beneath UK waters. It also helped to build confidence among future operators and investors for their operation. Reducing costs and minimising risks is crucial if CCS is to play a long-term role in decarbonising the UK’s future energy system.

This report aims to address whether or not there is potential to significantly increase CO₂ storage capacity, and thereby reduce overall cost of storage, by producing brine through dedicated production wells from target storage formations. Brine production is proposed as a method to manage pressure in storage sites, as a corollary to water injection during hydrocarbon extraction. In the case of CO₂ storage, the production of water creates voidage to increase storage capacity and reduce the extent of pressure increase due to CO₂ injection, and hence reduce the risk of caprock failure, fault reactivation and induced seismicity; additionally, it reduces the energy available to drive fluids through legacy well paths and other potential seep features. Spatially the reduction in the extent of the pressure plume reduces the affected area which can reduce the area of potential drilling interference, the number of impacted legacy wells, and the area of investigation for monitoring where brine movement is a concern. In this report five systems are considered: the Forties Aquifer, the Bunter Aquifer, the depleted Hamilton gas field, a producing North Sea oil field, and a synthetic tilted aquifer. The well counts, the period and the rate of brine production are data that are supplied for economic analysis to determine whether or not the process is a viable means of increasing storage capacity and reducing overall costs

This report presents the results of an independent assessment (by University of Edinburgh, UoE) of the likely achievable separation performance from a rotary wheel adsorber using carbon monolith adsorbents. UoE selected what it considered the best available grade of carbon, measured adsorption isotherms for N₂ and CO₂ and modelled the performance of a rotary adsorber for two alternative cycles. The simulation results showed that 90% recovery and 97% purity could be achieved.

The ETI engaged Foster Wheeler to execute its CCS Benchmark Refresh Project. The main purpose of this further study work is to provide additional benchmarking and performance analysis of next generation carbon capture technologies for combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) building upon those evaluated and reported in previous phases of CCS study work that Foster Wheeler had executed with ETI. This Phase A Report includes:

• An assessment of materially significant changes from the previous CCGT benchmark, together with documentation of the assumptions used in development of the new benchmark;
• An assessment of appropriate EGR rates fulfilling the above criteria appropriate exhaust gas recycle (EGR) rates which could potentially be used in CCGTs with CCS;
• Presentation of the technical and economic performance and deliverables for each of the benchmark cases

This report describes development of a new benchmark for an alternative commercial CCGT model with an Independent Capture Plant (ICP), in order to examine the feasibility, cost, schedule and efficiency penalty for a “commercially distinct” post-combustion carbon capture plant. The report describes the results from a base case and two sensitivity cases:

• The base case consists of a CCGT plus ICP configured for 90% capture using an amine system but where the CCGT is unaffected by the capture plant. In this case the capture plant operates independently of the CCGT and is self-sufficient in steam and power;
• The first sensitivity case investigates the use of power import from the CCGT. The steam demand for the ICP is met with a package steam boiler;
• The second sensitivity case investigates the effect of importing both power and steam from the CCGT. This is considered to represent a retrofit scenario, where the ICP is built next to an existing CCGT.

This report documents the assumptions used and presents the technical and economic performance for the above cases, as compared with the Task 1 CCGT Benchmark cases both with and without capture (see Deliverable D2.1).

This report aims to extend the Energy Technology Institute’s (ETI) modelling analysis of the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in enabling the UK to meet its carbon budgets efficiently. ETI’s energy system modelling uses robust engineering analysis and cost evidence within its Energy System Modelling Environment (ESME). ESME analysis suggests that without CCS, the cost of reaching UK Climate Change targets will double from a minimum of around £30bn per year in 2050. Apart from its role in power generation, CCS enables flexible low carbon energy by capturing industrial emissions, through gasification applications and by delivering negative emissions in combination with bio-energy.

Enabling CCS to realise its potential and play this key role will require substantial investment in building the sector over the period to 2030. ESME scenarios suggest that acost-optimal 2050 energy system would require building a sector storing ca. 100 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2050. To reach this target requires that the CCS sector and associated infrastructure will need to be extensively developed by 2030, storing ca. 50 million tonnes of CO₂ with ~10 Gigawatts (GW) of power CCS and contribution from industrial sources. Delaying development of this capacity beyond 2030 would expose the UK to substantial cost and deployment risks in meeting carbon budgets.

If delays were to permanently stunt the growth of CCS in the UK the likely impact is a substantial increase in the economic burden of meeting carbon targets, arising from the need to deploy higher cost technologies to cut emissions, particularly in heat and transport. As suggested above, a complete failure to deploy CCS would imply close to a doubling of the cost of carbon abatement to the UK economy from circa 1% to 2% of GDP.

This submission is based on ETI analysis of projects we have commissioned and also on rigorous whole-system analysis informed by our public and private sector members and our portfolio of technology development and knowledge building projects.

In summary, the ETI maintains its strong belief that CCS can bring long term benefit to the UK and potential investors, and that with the correct design a first commercial gas power with CCS scheme can provide affordable, reliable low carbon power. This needs long term commitments from both public and private sectors – each side needs to take on the risks that it can manage, and early commitment by private sector investors will need similar commitments from the public sector though a genuine partnership approach.

To tackle the causes of climate change, the UK has committed to an 80% reduction in its greenhouse gas (GHG ) emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. Meeting these targets will require a massive transformation in the way energy is generated and used in the UK. Bioenergy technologies when combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) can deliver negative emissions (net removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere) whilst producing energy in the form of electricity, heat, gaseous and liquid fuels. Negative emissions provide important emissions ‘headroom’ as the UK transitions towards a low-carbon energy system, since the additional ‘breathing space’ afforded by negative emissions reduces the need for rapid emissions reductions in sectors such as heavy duty transport and aviation which are more difficult and expensive to decarbonise. Evidence from ESME, theETI’speer-reviewed energy system modelling environment, suggests that by the 2050s, BECCS could deliver c.-55 million tonnes of net negative emissions per annum (approximately half our emissions target in 2050), whilst meeting c.10% of the UK’s future energy demand. This would reduce the cost of meeting the UK’s 2050 GHG emissions target by up to 1% of GDP

The ETI’s analysis of the UK energy system points to the central importance of CCS in enabling the UK to meet its carbon targets efficiently. CCS could save tens of billions of pounds (up to circa 1% of GDP by 2050) from the annual cost of meeting UK Climate Change targets, compared with alternative approaches to reducing emissions which do not deploy this capability.

The ETI has carried out techno-economic and project investment level modelling of CCS at both process plant and energy system levels in order to build knowledge of the role and value of the technology and; to better understand the barriers facing the industry. Much of the work has been on risk and cost reduction in CO₂ transportation and storage, but has also covered the cost of capture, which is the largest single cost element in CCS operations and which, unlike transportation and storage infrastructure, often cannot easily be shared across multiple emissions sites

Apart from its role in power generation, CCS can capture industrial emissions at low cost; provide flexible low carbon energy for industry, transport and heat through gasification; and, in combination with bioenergy, deliver high value negative emissions.

These outcomes can be delivered by creating a supportive policy environment with early action on critical issues to bring forward timely investment.

Infographic outlining the value of Carbon Capture and Storage, and what factors are involved in preparing for transition to low carbon by 2030

1 page infographic about biomass combined with carbon capture and storage

1 page infographic about CO₂ storage for carbon sequestration

ETI’s Strategy Manager Dennis Gammer presented “Potential Role of Combined Cycle Gas Turbines with Carbon Capture & Storage” at an SCI Energy Event - Low Carbon Technologies for the UK Energy System - Tuesday 7th November 2017. This slide set covers:-

• Large Gas Turbines – prevalence and role in UK power
• Additional plant to add post combustion Carbon Capture and Storage
• Cost, scale and promoting industrial emissions capture
• Performance requirements as renewables increase - 2030
• Alternative oxy –fired and pre-combustion options

The ETI Executive approved a Stage Gate Zero paper for a potential project entitled “Early Facilitation for the Development of a New Large Thermal Power Station with CCS”, with the request that initial work should be carried out to further develop the idea. Following this the ETI has considered the ‘shape’ of a potential project further and identified some initial (confidential) work to provide further shaping. The proposed way forward in this paper represents the ETI’s preliminary thoughts, which may be modified following further inputs and discussions. The overall aim of the ETI project is to establish an investment proposal for a new, carbon abated GW scale thermal power station. Key drivers will be

1. the investability of the “power station project” and
2. the extent to which it will act as an exemplar for future power/CCS projects.

The Energy Technology Institute (ETI) is charged with promoting low carbon technologies – to develop them and ease their implementation. In this regard, the ETI commissioned Pöyry to develop a model and an accompanying report with the primary objective of understanding the risks involved in implementation of future Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects, and hence assessing their economic viability. The model, developed for the project and supplied to ETI, is designed in Excel with the functionality to adjust input parameters for the purpose of updating and improving model accuracy as the market evolves and new information on CCS projects becomes available.

URS was appointed by the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) in June 2014 (Consultancy Agreement ref. NHE/CS/URS) to undertake a desk-top selection and review study, to identify potential sites available for the development of a new low carbon thermal power plant that can benefit from the marginal cost of connection to a carbon sink. This scope of works constitutes work package WP1.1 of ETI’s “Incentivisation of Thermal Power with CCS” programme. This report presents the conclusions at Stage A of this study, in which URS has identified a list of possible locations for new power stations, and applied qualitative criteria to highlight the highest ranking sites for further discussion and review with ETI.

This project undertook a desk-top selection and review study, to identify potential sites available for the development of a new low carbon thermal power plant that might benefit from the marginal cost of connection to a carbon sink. Stage A of the study, presented in July 2014, identified a ‘long list’ of possible sites for new power stations, and applied qualitative criteria to highlight sixteen high ranking sites, confirming the potential variety of development locations in the target geographical area. The Stage A report included a commentary on each of the 16 sites, outlining the basis of the ranking scores for these sites and an overall site summary. The individual sites were not highly differentiated in the initial desk top review and are dominated by current or previous generating sites.  This Stage B report presents the outputs of the desktop study related to summary outlines for project development for clean fossil. The study has focused on four technology applications to illustrate potential development approaches at sample regional sites but stresses that these locations are representative of a wider number of similar sites. The study also identifies a number of regional power projects that are ‘indevelopment’ that may have merits for clean fossil deployment and through collaboration could reduce the time-scale for route to market of a part chain CCS project.