Results: Searching for 'CO2 capture '

• What we do
• The areas we work in
• The outcomes
• Commercially available products
• Who we have worked with

• Energy System Analysis –the importance of CCS
• UK Power System –the value of CCS
• CCS in the UK –some recent history and development of the ETI’s current programme
• Addressing the credibility of the cost base: the ETI’s Thermal Power with CCS - Generic Business Case Project
• Conclusions and next steps

• NET Power technology has the potential to be a gamechanger.
• Modelling analysis confirms that NET Power’s supercritical CO₂ power cycle has the potential to deliver carbon capture at efficiencies higher than conventional amine solutions.
• Some unpublished innovations which NET Power are protecting as trade secrets are needed to make the technology as cost efficient as an unabated CCGT, which is still improving rapidly.
• The technology is immature and has multiple development hurdles to overcome and therefore it is likely to take several years before it is commercially available at scale. It is therefore likely to be best suited for deployment once other elements of CCS have been de-risked (i.e. transport and storage) rather than in a First of a Kind full scale development.

• The UK can implement an affordable (approximately 1% of GDP) 35-year transition to a low carbon energy system by developing, commercialising and integrating known – but currently underdeveloped solutions
• There is enormous potential and value in CCS and bioenergy in delivering alow carbon future
• The ability (or failure) to deploy these two technologies will have a huge impact on the cost of achieving the UK climate change targets and the national architecture of low carbon systems and future infrastructure requirements
• To avoidwasting investment, crucial decisions must be made about the design of the future UK energy system, driven by choices on infrastructure
• The next decade is critical in preparing for transition
• Preparation will require major investments in developing and proving key technology options by the mid 2020s
• Preparation creates options, demonstrates leadershipand provides scope for economic advantage in a global market place
• Planned UK spend is probably sufficient, if it is targeted to develop genuine deployment readiness of the most strategically valuable options on the pathway to 2050
• Significant policy intervention will be required to support key technologies with characteristics that make a pure market approach difficult (e.g. CCS, bioenergy, nuclear, offshore wind, heat networks

This UKERC TPA working paper has been prepared to support the Committee on Climate Change’s advice to the UK government on the implications of the Paris Agreement on its long-term emissions reduction targets. In their recent reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have highlighted that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR), defined as any anthropogenic activity that results in the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, is critical to meeting the Paris Agreement target.

This review addresses two technological CDR solutions that have been demonstrated: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). The overarching questions which this review addresses, for both BECCS and DACCS, are:

1. What is the potential contribution that these technologies could make to CO2 removal and potentially CO2 emissions reductions to achieve net zero emissions in the UK?
2. What are the current and projected costs, globally and in the UK, of these technologies and how plausible are projected cost reductions (including evidence for the benefits to be derived from economies of scale/technology learning)?

This evidence is a joint submission by the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources (ISR) and UKERC. These two institutions have worked together closely in the past, including on a report commissioned by the Global CCS Institute, on The role of CCS in meeting climate policy targets.

We are submitting evidence because we believe CCUS is likely to have a critical role as part of an overall decarbonisation strategy for the UK – and, perhaps more importantly, for the world. We are keen to take part in the debate as to how this can be achieved;

Executive summary

• Current modelling evidence suggests that meeting carbon reduction targets will be at best significantly more expensive, and at worst impossible, without CCUS.
   
• This is primarily due to its offer of emissions reductions in industrial sectors, and of negative emissions with biomass, rather than as a power sector technology per se.
   
• Attempting to pre-define a cost-reduction trajectory for CCUS in advance is difficult and uncertain.
   
• Rather, the government should establish a maximum subsidy level at which it would be prepared to contribute to funding CCUS, and commit to fund projects should they reach this level or go below it.
   
• It should then introduce competitive mechanisms to assist discovery of the lowest cost, similar to the Contract for Difference (CfD) auctions.
   
• It also needs to support the whole innovation chain, coordinating diverse actors across industry and power sectors, CO2 transmission and storage; supporting research, development and demonstration efforts of shared benefit; taking over whole chain risk; identifying synergies between industrial sectors.
   
• Although CCUS currently appears to be critical to industry decarbonisation, there are other potential options which may compete with or indeed complement CCUS in the longer term. A bottom-up, granular approach to decarbonisation challenges and opportunities within specific UK industry clusters will yield greater long-term benefits than a single-technology focus on CCUS alone.

The latest independent report to the UK government on carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) was published in July this year. The CCUS Cost Challenge Task Force (CCTF) reported under the heading “Delivering Clean Growth”. 

There have also been new pronouncements on CCS in the Committee on Climate Change’s annual update to Parliament and in the National Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Assessment.

Like everyone else who works in and around CCS in the UK, Ian Temperton, who is also an Advisory Board Member of UKERC, spends vastly more time writing reports and sitting on committees than he does actually trying to capture, transport and store CO₂.

From the perspective of someone who sat on the CCTF and the previous Parliamentary Advisory Group (PAG) on CCS which reported in 2016, he takes a critical look at what these various bodies have said this year and puts them in the context of the many previous reports on the subject.

CCS, a citizen of nowhere?

While CCS needs to be deployed at very large scale for many pathways that restrict global warming to acceptable levels, including those for the UK, progress to date has been negligible.

The UK government seems to have a new enthusiasm for CCS but it is hard to extract a clear strategy from the recent interventions.

The very premise on which the government bases its current approach to CCS looks very much like it wishes to “have its cake and eat it”. The accompanying desire not to look like it is “picking winners” means that recent reports don’t make a particularly compelling case for CCS at all, at least in the medium term.

This challenges the very nature of whole energy systems thinking. CCS, with its potential applications across the energy sector in electricity, heat, transport and heavy industry (not to mention negative emissions) should be, and indeed is, easy to make the whole of system case for. However, being a citizen of the whole energy system makes CCS a citizen of nowhere, and we are no clearer to plotting an efficient route for deployment through the many potential applications of this technology.

The need for a public Delivery Body

The business model for CCS leaves many unanswered questions. What role does regulation have? Should it be publicly or privately financed? How can “full-chain” CCS be delivered? How can we leverage competition (a word which can hardly be spoken in the CCS debate)? How do we create the right incentives for heavy industry? Can we learn from other large infrastructure projects like London’s Super Sewer? And how does CCS fit in an energy system increasingly dominated by low marginal cost sources of supply like renewables?

The paper finds little to suggest that CCS policy in the UK has become any clearer. 

Given the need to develop quickly under such high levels of policy uncertainty, and given that the public sector always has, and always will, fund the majority of the costs of developing CCS, the paper argues for the formation of a public Delivery Body. It also suggests that time is short to make the case and develop the plan for such a body ahead of next year’s UK Government Spending Review.

If we are to harness the new government enthusiasm while addressing the same old uncertainties in CCS policy then there is an inevitable and critical role for a Delivery Body.

The aim of the research is to assess the technical, economic, financial and social uncertainties facing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, and to analyse the potential role they could play in the UK power sector between now and 2030. CCS technologies are often highlighted as a crucial component of future low carbon energy systems in the UK and internationally. However, it is unclear when these technologies will be technically proven at full scale, and whether their costs will be competitive with other low carbon options.

• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could be a key technology to tackle climate change
• However, there are many economic, political, financial and technological uncertainties that hamper its development and deployment
• Comprehensive government policy support is needed to reduce these uncertainties sufficiently to enable further progress
• It is not necessary to resolve all uncertainties in order to make CCS financeable in the UK
• The UK CCS commercialisation programme needs to make rapid progress, with firm commitments to build several demonstration projects as soon as possible

This working paper is an output from a project funded by UKERC (the UK Energy Research Centre) that aims to identify and explore some of the key uncertainties that might have a 5 UK Energy Research Centre material impact on if and when large-scale CCS is deployed in the UK. In particular, this paper proposes a number of plausible pathways for CCS progress (or lack of progress) until 2030 and identifies key branching points where a particular trajectory for CCS development may be determined as different pathways diverge from each other. The effectiveness of different criteria to determine which pathway CCS development is following can then be assessed (see the Methodology section for a more detailed explanation of the approach).

Overall, the project aims to make useful contributions to efforts to determine how both the viability and maturity of CCS technology can be assessed more generally. In this context, viability refers to several factors that are outlined in more detail in later sections of this paper, such as whether independent assessments suggest that CCS technology is performing well enough to compete with other options for mitigating the risk of dangerous climate change. Although maturity is related to similar concepts it is more concerned with how far progressed CCS technology appears to be along a continuum of development, rather than the more yes/no assessment that might be expected if only viability is considered. It is, for instance, possible to envisage that a technology be mature in terms of its development but nevertheless not viable unless a set of economic, policy and regulatory conditions are met.

This paper is an output from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) Research Fund project Carbon Capture and Storage: Realising the potential? (UKERC 2011). The project, led by the University of Sussex is undertaking an inter-disciplinary assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) viability from now to 2030 involving a partnership from the Universities of Sussex, Edinburgh and Imperial College London (Markusson et al. 2011). The overall aims and objectives include helping policy makers understand the conditions for successful commercialisation of CCS and to contributing methodologies to inform policy decisions on whether CCS is proven.This paper is an output from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) Research Fund project Carbon Capture and Storage: Realising the potential? (UKERC 2011). The project, led by the University of Sussex is undertaking an inter-disciplinary assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) viability from now to 2030 involving a partnership from the Universities of Sussex, Edinburgh and Imperial College London (Markusson et al. 2011). The overall aims and objectives include helping policy makers understand the conditions for successful commercialisation of CCS and to contributing methodologies to inform policy decisions on whether CCS is proven.

This meeting follows on from the UK Energy Research Centre annual assembly and brings speakers from leading national positions, who can provide perspectives on success, failure, and future pathways. Will the UK be a leader in climate stabilisation? Or is that moment about to pass?

The focus is on CCS ( carbon capture and storage). This is suite of technologies to capture CO2 at power stations and other concentrated sources, liquefy and transport the CO2, and inject into rock pores deep below ground. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a special report on CCS in 2005, where a worldwide analysis showed that CCS could halve the increase of CO2 emissions by 2100 especially in coal using countries. The UK has claim to a world-class opportunity for CCS, utilising reservoirs deep beneath the North Sea. Will technology, industry, and Government enable thisopportuni

This working paper analyses the environmental sustainability of four electricity production systems that include carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS):

• Pulverised coal (PC)
• Pulverised coal with oxyfuel combustion (PCOC)
• Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC), and
• Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)

The analysis is based largely on a review of relevant Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs). Thus it considers the environmental sustainability of the entire electricity generation chain from fuel extraction through electricity generation and CO2capture to CO2 storage.

• The UK has massive CO₂ storage potential; it also has tremendous gas infrastructure (assets and people) to support CCS
• The storage sites closely relate to existing gas industry and power generation locations
• Gas power plant is cheap and quick to build compared to its competition; CCS (on gas) is competitive
• Mid 2020’s sees a need for significant new generation –the market should value reliable, despatchable power
• Gas companies may be sufficiently motivated to develop new long term customers that they may take new risks –storage, capture and transport are all existing gas company competencies
• Gas CCGT with CCS provides both capacity and green electrons – it avoids having to subsidise an OSW plant for green electrons and an OCGT for reserve
• High OSW penetration could be increasingly costly –having CCS as an option will be valuable

• Strategic Planning. Decisions are required on issues such as siting of power stations, selection of station/capture type, network layout, use of storage assets etc. In all cases a view needs to be taken on what the ‘ultimate’ system might look like and how it would develop. OEMs need to understand such issues for strategic marketing/product development purposes.
• System ‘Front End’ Design. This will inform decisions on more detailed aspects of design such as pipeline sizing & routing, initial specifications for compression requirements, front end design of power plant.
• System Detailed Design. This will inform design and selection of the components of the network (eg power stations, pipes, compressor stations, storage sites), and understanding of how they are best interconnected.
• System Operation and Maintenance. It is critical to understand how the system will operate once built, both under steady state conditions and dynamically as a result of load following, planned and unplanned outages of assets etc. Operators within the system need to understand how the CCS system will impact on the key objective of ‘keeping the lights on’ and how the constraints imposed by the electrical system will impact the CCS chain’s operability.

• 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 aim of the workshop was to strengthen UK/Italian collaboration as a basis for submitting joint projects under the EU’s 7th Framework Programme, and in general to further international cooperation on carbon capture and storage. Three specific work areas were identified:

a) Coal gasification and hydrogen production

b) Coal combustion with carbon dioxide capture

c) Geological storage

• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be a critical CO2 reduction technology for the UK. CCS is now commencing the early pre-commercial demonstration stages worldwide, with the objective of widespread commercial deployment by 2020 - 2025.
• Capture ready design is a very important set of practical actions during the design and building of new power plant, which can be utilised at a later date, to enable the avoidance of locked-in high carbon emissions in future.
• BERR has already given Section 36 planning consent to Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants including a condition that they are capture ready, but without a clear definition of this condition.
• The Kingsnorth plant is currently awaiting a decision on capture ready requirements for coal-fired power plants in the UK. This has become a focus for objectors.
• A wideand encompassing specification of capture ready is needed, to ensure feasible conversion to CCS, when it is required by regulation and/or economically justified.
• It is very unlikely that a CCS plant will operate in the UK until additional costs are covered by appropriate financial support.
• Many estimates exist of the support needed to avoid losses on demonstration plant, typically stated to be a total of 70-100 per ton CO2. Several approaches are suggested here to regulate or incentivise CCS.

The Chancellor has stated (writing in the Independent 21 April 2006) that “The environmental challenge must be moved to the centre of policy”. The UK has domestic targets for CO2 reduction of 20% by 2010, and 60% by 2050. In contrast to these aspirations, CO2 emissions have fallen by 15%, but are now increasing (DEFRA 2006). Private car fuel costs, with CO2 emissions, have barely changed since 1985 (85p then to 95p/litre now), and air travel is rising.

If the UK is serious about reducing CO2 emissions in the short or medium term, then it is clear that existing policies are either not working or are too slow to act.

Electricity generation comprises about one third of UK CO2 emissions, and so must be seriously considered as a target for large scale emission reductions. The benefits of this are large single-site reductions, compared to wind generation or to efficiency savings. To illustrate the size of this opportunity for CO2 emissions reduction the BP-Peterhead proposition, for 350MW low carbon electricity with CCS, can be calculated to avoid as much CO2 as all wind generation active in the UK during 2005

The question could be framed as: “Is now a good enough time to deploy one or several full-scale pilots in the UK?” A full analysis, published 2006, is contained in the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Report 578i, and the Government reply 1036.

1. The transition to net-zero will affect the whole economy. Investment and policy decisions by all government departmentmes need to be compatible with this transition.
2. Policies to support renewable electricity generation should be more ambitious, building on deployment and cost reduction successes. Action is also needed to ensure electricity market rules are fit for a fully decarbonised power sector.
3. Decisions by the energy regulator, Ofgem, should also be compatible with net-zero. This includes enabling investment in local electricity networks to facilitate heat and transport decarbonisation, and ensuring more active use of existing networks.
4. Local energy systems could play a significant role in achieving net-zero, particularly in the integration of electricity, heat and transport. More resources and greater powers for Local Authorities will help to ensure the potential for local action is realised.
5. A clear plan is required for upgrading the UK housing stock. A heat and energy efficiency White Paper must include policies for widespread deployment of low carbon heat (including demonstrating hydrogen at scale) and for prioritising low income households.
6. Whilst the decarbonisation of industry is receiving more attention, policy initiatives are not joined up. Funding for specific projects and industrial clusters should be complemented by market creation policies, including for carbon capture and storage.
7. Our analysis shows that achieving net-zero requires the phase out of fossil-fuelled vehicles to be brought forward to 2030. Immediate action is also required to counter the rapid increase in sales of larger cars (including SUVs).
8. Plans to meet net-zero should maximise environmental co-benefits. Potential negative impacts on ecosystems should be assessed and mitigated.
9. Continuing uncertainty about the UK’s changing relationship with the European Union has already affected decarbonisation plans. Whatever the outcome, close co-operation with the EU is likely to make it easier to achieve net-zero.
10. The transition to net-zero should not compromise energy security. In light of the events on August 9th, responsibilities for ensuring system resilience need to be clarified and applied in a more rigorous way.

This review takes stock of UK energy policy ahead of the Autumn Statement, Industrial Strategy and new Emissions Reduction Plan. Its main recommendations are:

1. An integrated, evidence based approach to the new Industrial Strategy and Emissions Reductions Plan. The Industrial Strategy should set out clear priorities and the mechanisms for realising benefits for the UK
2. A new White Paper on Heat and Energy Efficiency
3. A Gas by Design approach to the future of gas that is compatible with carbon budgets and targets
4. A new approach to CCS commercialisation and deployment, in response to the Oxburgh report
5. An extension of the Levy Control Framework beyond 2020, and plans for auctions that include most large-scale electricity technologies and demand reduction in a single auction
6. Reform of the Capacity Mechanism so it gives equal

• Modelling gravity effects with a sufficiently fine grid where needed is important. The solubility of CO₂ in brine and the effect of capillary pressure should normally be included in dynamic models, but the effect of diffusion is not likely to be significant. The effectof hysteresis on relative permeabilities will be required to model residual trapping as it may be an important trapping mechanism after injection has ceased for poorly confined structures.
• It was concluded that the bulk of the dynamic modelling could be performed isothermally with sufficient accuracy using the industry stand ard finite difference ‘black-oil’ simulator ECLIPSE100™, and appropriate PVT data input, which was defined. This solution has the advantage of speed over the ECLIPSE300™/CO₂STORE module compositional combination. It was proposed that a streamline simulator, such as 3DSL™, be considered for simulation of fine scale models of Exemplar open aquifer units as this would enable greater detail to be modelled due to faster run speeds. Streamline simulation is particularly effective where modelling displacement is more important than pressure changes, as for open aquifers.
• It was also proposed that a single simulator, GEM™, be used for well injectivity and associated thermal and geomechanical sensitivity calculations.
• It was recommended that the most comprehensive set of consistent CO₂/brine relative permeability and capillary pressure data available from a Canadian dataset be used for the modelling.

• No faulting was visible on the seismic over the closure
• The storage capacity was estimated to be large enough to store a sizable amount of CO₂
• The area included three additional closures  that could be used to study the impact of CO₂ injection on adjacent storage units
• Data coverage was good over the chosen area

• The storage capacity may be controlled by either the pressure (when the pressure increases above the maximum limit, the rate must be reduced), or the migration rate (if a high injection rate is maintained, CO₂ will reach the spill point more rapidly).
• The pore volume utilisation and total capacity are quite sensitive to the assumed value for the fracture pressure gradient. A change in this gradient may switch the storage control from pressure-controlled to rate-controlled.
• The storage capacity for an open model may be less than that for a closed system, if heterogeneity encourages a low pore volume utilisation.
• It is import to monitor the pressure at the crest of a dome. Even when the injection rate is pressure controlled at the depth of the well completions, the pressure may rise above a safe limit in the crest.
• It may be possible to increase storage capacity by controlling the injection rate. A lower rate will allow CO₂ more time to rise buoyantly and to dissolve in brine, before reaching the spill point.

• Appendix 1: Guidance: Likelihood of Occurrence –Definitions
• Appendix 2: Participant Reports

• Logging on;
• Primary menus;
• Retrieving database information on storage units; and
• Map (Geographic Information System).

• The lack of appraisal of CO₂ storage sites is considered a key hurdle to progressing CCS in the UK.
• This project will screen, select and progress appraisal of 5 CO₂ stores applying international best practice.
• Screening will use CO₂Stored and public domain sources.
• Selection and Appraisal will use the PGS Megamerge seismic data plus seismic and well data from CDA, augmented as necessary.

• Significant overall theoretical mid-case capacity of 1.6GT;
• Good geological diversity: 1 Permian, 2 Triassic, 1 Paleogene and 1 Lower Cretaceous age sites;
• Good diversity of site type: 2 depleted gas fields and 3 aquifers – 1 with structural closure and 2 more open; 
• Understanding of all sites can be materially progressed through the project; 
• Portfolio provides strategic build-out options from Phase 1 CCS projects.

• Significant overall capacity target of 6.8GT, 
• Strong balance between saline formations and depleted hydrocarbon fields with good geographic diversity,
• Strong compliance with IEAGHG screening guidelines and the Project BoD qualifications,
• Proximal sites to 5/42 and Goldeneye,
• Strong technical diversity of sites,
• Deselection of sites with high risk high confidence containment issues.

• The UKCS is endowed with a rich and diverse national offshore CO₂ storage resource, key components of which can be brought into service readiness without extensive appraisal programmes thanks to decades of petroleum exploration and development activity.
• The portfolio of 5 sites selected is geographically and technically diverse, and presents options for clean energy and industrial development around the UK.
• Only 2 of the 5 sites require any further appraisal drilling before an investment decision.
• This study, alongside the detailed knowledge transfer products from the Hewett, Goldeneye and Endurance FEED studies characterise one of the most comprehensive and mature CO₂ storage potential propositions available within the public domain. This will provide confidence for carbon capture projects and alsoact as a catalyst for future storage development projects.
• This project could not have been completed within the timeframe required without the platform of the CO₂Stored database.
• In general, most oil & gas infrastructure is likely to be unsuitable for use as CO₂ storage infrastructure. There are however important exceptions which can serve to reduce initial CAPEX requirements. Infrastructure re-use should focus upon pipelines which retain high pressure ratings.
• Access to detailed well by well production and pressure records coupled with detailed well abandonment records are key requirements for any detailed storage site assessment.

• Commercial – create the environment to re-engage industry, build the business case for CCS and CO₂ storage in the UK and bring forward CO₂ storage developers from the marketplace. Momentum should be maintained on further development of the UK storage resource towards FID.
• Research and Development – this work has demonstrated that there is ample cost-effective storage available to meet UK needs using current technology. However, it also illustrates the opportunities to maximise use of UK pore space and reduce costs further. Ongoing R&D should focus on and deliver practical measures which will deliver within the next 5 to 10 years in the areas of:-
  • Operational efficiency – reducing the ongoing cost of CO₂ storage operations.
  • Storage efficiency – optimising the amount of safely stored CO₂ that can be held for each square kilometre of any storage site.
  • Industry and public confidence – further develop stakeholder confidence in the technologies used to plan, operate and monitor safe CO₂ storage sites.

• The lack of appraisal of CO₂ storage sites is considered a key hurdle to progressing CCS in the UK.
• This UKStore project will screen, select and progress appraisal of 5 CO₂ stores, applying international best practice.
• The methodology involves screening over 500 aquifer and depleted hydrocarbon fields to select the most suitable 20, and then assessing the suitability of these to select 5.
• The 5 selected sites will be appraised to materially progress understanding and reduce risk.

1. Identify through more detailed work an appropriate site to initiate CO₂ injection within the Forties 5 unit such that the potential of Open Aquifer systems can be developed and matured.
2. To reconsider those previously eliminated large oil fields of the Central and Northern North Sea which have significant EOR potential as a fall back location, in the unlikely event that a suitable Forties 5 injection site cannot be identified.

• Storage in the Ormskirk Sandstone in the faulted horst block known as Hamilton (UKCS block 110/13) in the East Irish Sea.
• 3 well development of Hamilton from an unmanned platform supplied with CO₂ from Point of Ayr via a 16” 26km pipeline.
• Final investment decision in 2022 and first injection in 2026.
• Capital investment of £114 million (PV10, 2015), equating to £0.9 for each tonne stored.
• The store can contain the 125Mt from the assumed CO₂ supply profile of 5Mt/y for 25 years.
• Subsurface uncertainty is limited, but a complex transition needs to be engineered between early gas phase injection and later liquid phase injection.

• Storage in the Captain Sandstone aquifer in UKCS quadrants 13 and 14 in the Central North Sea.
• 3 well, single stage development of Captain X Site from an unmanned platform, supplied with CO₂ from St. Fergus via an existing 78km 16” pipeline.
• Ambitious programme to Final Investment Decision in 2018 and first injection in 2022.
• Capital investment of £152 million (PV10, 2015), equating to £2.5 for each tonne stored.
• The store can contain 60Mt from the 20 year CO₂ supply profile at 3Mt/y.
• There is good subsurface data but further seismic investigation is required to understand plume development and shape the development plan.

• Storage of CO₂ in the Permian Leman Sandstone in the faulted horst block known as Viking A (UKCS block 49/12) in the Southern North Sea.
• Three well development of Viking A from a new unmanned platform supplied with CO₂ from Barmston via a 20” 185 km pipeline.
• Final investment decision in 2027 and first injection in 2031.
• The site stores 130Mt of CO₂, 5Mt/y for 26 years.
• Capital investment of £150 million (PV10, 2015), equating to £1.2 for each tonne stored.
• Capacity uncertainty is low, but can be reduced further through access to operator data (well rates and pressures)
• Heating is required to achieve the target injection rate in the initial very low reservoir pressure conditions

• A Build-out Portfolio has been fitted to the ETI 2015 CO₂ Emissions Scenarios work in terms of timing, geography and quantity. 
• The Build-out Portfolio comprises eight storage sites with a diverse range of geographic and geological characteristics.
• The Build-out Portfolio can meet the CO₂ supply scenario of 50Mt/y and by 2070, could have stored approximately 1645Mt of CO₂.
• Levelised cost of offshore transportation and storage ranges between £9 - £32/t.
• Transportation and storage costs for the whole Build-out Portfolio contribute £6.9/MWh to the levelised cost of gas fuelled electricity generation.
• There are many options to expand the storage capacity in each region of the UKCS.

• The objective of the project is to provide insights into four specific areas highlighted as having potential to reduce costs and or risk for CCS. This report and associated appendices summarises the results of that work and provides some additional options for future developers of CO₂ storage sites to consider.
• Four pieces of work have been completed which address key issues identified during the SSAP work.
• Options to develop depleted gas fields without heating are identified and assessed.
• SSAP costing methodology is validated with the CCS Commercialisation Programme outputs.
• Minimum Viable Development options have been identified for each site.
• Motivations for storage clusters are defined and used to outline potential cluster developments in UK waters.

• Background
• Literature Review
• Project Aims
• gCCS
• Model Development
• Model Outputs
• Shell Secondment
• QUEST
• The Quest Pipeline
• Modelling the pipeline
• Validation
• Conclusion
• ETI Projects

• In recent years Government funding has supported the initial appraisal of several offshore CO₂ storage options in the Southern and Central North Sea and East Irish Seas. Appraisal work completed to date is encouraging, and completion of this alone would present a sizeable, diverse and low cost CO₂ storage offering
• There is more than enough potential storage capacity to meet the UK’s needs for CO₂ storage to 2050 and well beyond, even in high Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment scenarios
• Based on the appraisal work to date, there are no technical barriers to the storage of CO₂ in offshore stores that would limit the CCS industry developing at scale in the UK
• Large-scale stores (capable of storing over 3MT/a) are essential for low cost CO₂ storage, but some UK stores could allow an investment to “start small and build” to de-risk elements of the project, and then grow fast subsequently with low regret
• The contribution CCS can make to decarbonising the industrial sector is considerable, including a few opportunities with low capture costs (ammonia, H₂, biofuels).However, due to their scale, the unit costs of transport and storage from most industrial projects will be high, and these will not catalyse new CCS infrastructure. Conversely, when this infrastructure has been provided, industry can join storage networks at acceptable costs
• In spite of the demise of local coal-fired power stations, the Humber estuary (and to a lesser extent Tees and Thames) will still have a very large existing emission base, good sites for large new low carbon power stations and industry, and access to large, low cost, offshore storage sites.

This roadmap addresses a technology which decarbonises emissions from large point sources, with a focus upon electricity supply: Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). CCS reduces CO2 emissions through the 'chemical capture' of CO2 at central electricity plant (powered by coal or gas) with subsequent transport of CO2 to a geological storage site. The technology is endorsed by the IPCC and UK government as a key mitigation option (IPCC, 2007; POST, 2005). UK support for CCS was announced in the 2007 Budget through 'a competition to develop the UK's first fullscale demonstration of carbon capture and storage' (HM Treasury, 2007), which will operate from November 2007. There are currently more than nine proposals in the UK for full-scale CCS power plant proposing diverse capture options and storage sites.

• combining two trains of CCGT into one capture unit,
• reducing the assumed reboiler duty on the stripper,
• reducing the specification of the amine thermal recovery unit and
• reducing compression requirements.

• Approach to risk – for investability, a lower risk approach was taken.
• Approach to public safety – this affected CO₂ pipeline routings for example.
• Scale (upto 2-3 GWe), to be comparable with nuclear scales of operation. This impacted, for example, CO₂ store selection decisions while some sites were unable to host the largest scales of operation tested by the project.
• Ability to gain consents such as planning permission.
• Public acceptance – this impacted, for example, site locations near areas of high population in particular since the plant size is extremely large; and CO2 pipeline routing choices.

• The opportunity size is 62.5 MW which is enough heat for 2,000 to 4,000 houses.
• Consideration should be given to the application of a CCUS scheme to provide heat to district heating networks.
• The CCGT + CCC onshore plants are likely to be located away from areas of high domestic or business occupation because of the hazards from Natural Gas, CO₂, and HV Electricity. A leak of CO₂ from the compressor coolers could lead to CO₂ in the DHN circulation: this could pose a hazard to domestic users if this leaks into their homes.

• Define the process scheme for the project.
• Provide sufficient input to location selection (plant footprint, inflow connections, out flow connections, utility connections), modelling (plant basis), and estimating (scope definition, contracting basis).
• Provide a convincing basis to a range of stakeholders.

This document is a joint response from the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Community Network (UKCCSC) and the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) to the Select Committee inquiry on EPS. The UKCCSC is a collective of over 200 engineering, technological, natural, environmental, social and economic academic members, whose biannual meetings and other knowledge sharing events and activities are funded by a grant from the Research Councils UK Energy Programme. The UKERC carries out world-class research into sustainable future energy systems and is also funded by a grant from the Research Councils UK Energy Programme. The text has been discussed and drafted by a self-selected group of UKCCSC and UKERC academics and researchers, each contributing according to their own particular interests and expertise, and also submitted to the whole membership for further comments. The final version was then circulated for members to sign up to if they wished; it should be noted that signatories below are signing as individuals.

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in carbon capture and storage research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

Increased CO2 emissions from economic activity are leading to climate warming and acidification of the upper ocean. Mitigating these effects raise unprecedented challenges in engineering the habitability of our planet. The potential advantages of CCS for the UK are outlined. Future sources of oil, coal, and especially the vulnerability of gas, are discussed. The benefits of deep geological CCS in EOR, depleted gasfields, and aquifers are outlined. Particular highlights are placed on problems of CO2 retention in the deep subsurface for required timescales. Government issues of: Value, Ownership, Monitoring, and Regulation or Licensing are critical inhibitors to any large–scale development of CCS. Opportunities for some middle–scale CCS onshore on the UK are outlined.

Global aspirations for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are high. According to the International Energy Agency’s BLUE map scenario, achieving a 50% global greenhouse gas reduction by 2050 requires CCS-fitted plant to account for 17% of total electricity generation (IEA, 2009) 1. Yet, despite its central role in future energy scenarios, CCS is still yet to be demonstrated at utility scale. This means that CCS cost estimates are not informed by practical experience of building commercial-scale plant.

With high aspirations present and utility-scale empirical data absent, CCS technologies provide an interesting case study for analysing cost estimation methodologies. As such, this Working Paper examines global trends in current and future projections of CCS costs in the power sector, aiming to:

• Examine key trends in contemporary and forecast CCS cost estimates;
• Understand the drivers underlying these key trends; and
• Identify implications for CCS cost estimation methodologies.

A systematic literature review was conducted as a basis for analysing CCS cost estimates, with approximately fifty relevant academic articles and grey literature reports being identified (as detailed in the Appendix). The focus for analysis was estimates of levelised and capex costs for CCS. It is recognised that the decision to analyse these cost metrics – instead of CO2 avoidance costs – has implications for the relative attractiveness of coal CCS and gas CCS technologies. However, these metrics bring the benefit of enabling the comparison of CCS with other power sector technologies analysed in this Working Paper series (UKERC, 2011).

The paper begins by considering trends in current cost estimates for CCS (Section 2), and then progresses to examining future projections (Section 3). Following this, implications for CCS cost estimation methodologies are identified (Section 4).

There is global consensus that carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS) will be essential to successfully tackling climate change and meeting the ambitions of the Paris Agreement.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) recently consulted on the potential business models for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS). This was seeking to understand how a core set of CCUS specific risks, which have been presented as an intractable problem for previous projects may be mitigated through the development of business models.

UKERC provided a response to the recent BEIS consultation on CCUS

• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be a critical CO2 reduction technology for the UK. CCS is now commencing the early pre-commercial demonstration stages worldwide, with the objective of widespread commercial deployment by 2020 - 2025.
• It is very unlikely that a CCS plant will operate in the UK until additional costs are covered by appropriate financial support.
• Many estimates exist of the support needed to avoid losses on demonstration plant, typically stated to be a total of 70-100 per ton CO2. Several approaches are suggested here to regulate or incentivise CCS.
• At the nascent stage of CCS development and deployment, there is a role for Government to provide public education so as to enable citizens directly affected by CCS to understand and make decision about the technology.
• Lessons learned in UK and EU CCS demonstration projects should be shared globally.
• A wide and encompassing specification of capture ready is needed, to ensure feasible conversion to CCS, when it is required by regulation and/or economically justified.
• Capture ready design is a very important set of practical actions during the design and building of new power plant or other combustion plant, which can be utilised to ensure that CCS retrofit is possible and, hence, avoid locked-in high carbon emissions from fossil fuel use in future.
• BERR has already given Section 36 planning consent to Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants including a condition that they are capture ready, but without a clear definition of this condition.
• There is potential for strategic planning of the transport and storage system to provide significant benefits.