CO2 capture and geological storage - state of the art, ongoing projects EC FP6 EU GEOCAPACITY CO2 EAST and prospects for the Baltic region.

CO2 capture and geological storage - state of the art, ongoing projects EC FP6 EU GEOCAPACITY CO2 EAST and prospects for the Baltic region

INTRODUCTION CO2 capture and storage is a pioneer for Estonia research and applied area started by Institute of Geology, TUT in 2006 by two projects funded by 6th Framework Programme of European Comission 1) Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide ( ), 26 participants from 23 countries (EUGEOCAPACITY) 2) CO2 capture and storage networking extension to new member states ( ), 8 countries (CO2EAST)

Both projects were organised by ENeRG, the European Network for Research in Geo-energy, established in 1993 and represented by 24 countries

Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide ( ), Euroopas süsinikdioksiidi geoloogilise ladustamisvõime hindamine ( ) 1Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) – Co-ordinatorDenmark 2Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" (US)Bulgaria 3University of Zagreb - Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering (RGN)Croatia 4Czech Geological Survey (CGS)Czech Republic 5Institute of Geology at Tallinn University of Technology (IGTUT)Estonia 6Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Miniéres (BRGM)France 7Institute Francais du Petrole (IFP)France 8Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR)Germany 9Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME)Greece 10Eötvös Loránd Geophysical Institute of Hungary (ELGI)Hungary 11Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale (OGS)Italy 12Latvian Environment, Geology & Meteorology Agency (LEGMA)Latvia 13Institute of Geology & Geography (IGG)Lithuania 14Geological Survey of the Netherlands (TNO-NITG)Netherlands 15EcofysNetherlands 16Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute - Polish Academy of Sciences (MEERI)Poland 17Geophysical Exploration Company (PBG)Poland 18National Institute of Marine Geology and Geo-ecology (GeoEcoMar)Romania 19Dionýz Štúr State Geological Institute (SGUDS)Slovakia 20GEOINŽENIRING d.o.o. (GEO-INZ)Slovenia 21Instituto Geológico y Minero de Espana (IGME)Spain 22British Geological Survey (BGS)United Kíngdom 23EniTecnologie (Industry Partner)Italy 24Endesa Generación (Industry Partner)Spain 25Vattenfall AB (Industry Partner)Sweden/Poland 26Tsinghua University (TU)P.R. China

The objectives of the project
• To make an inventory and mapping of major CO2 emission point sources in 13 European countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain), and review of 4 neighbouring states: Albania, Macedonia (FYROM), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Luxemburg) as well as updates for 5 other countries (Germany, Denmark, UK, France, Greece) • conduct assessment of regional and local potential for geological storage of CO2 for each of the involved countries • carry out analyses of source-transport-sink scenarios and conduct economical evaluations of these scenarios • provide consistent and clear guidelines for assessment of geological capacity in Europe and elsewhere • further develop mapping and analysis methodologies (i.e. GIS and Decision Support System) • develop technical site selection criteria • initiate international collaborative activities with the P.R. China, a CSLF member, with a view to further and closer joint activities

CO2 capture and storage networking extension to new member states (1
CO2 capture and storage networking extension to new member states ( ) CO2 hoidlate võrgu laiendamine uutele liikmesriikidele No. Participant organisation name Country 1 Czech Geological Survey (CGS) Czech Republic 2 University of Zagreb - Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering (RGN) Croatia 3 Eötvös Loránd Geophysical Institute of Hungary (ELGI) Hungary 4 Dionýz Štúr State Geological Institute (SGUDS) Slovakia 5 Institute of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology (IGTUT) Estonia 6 Geophysical Exploration Company (PBG) Poland 7 National Institute for Marine Geology and Geoecology (GeoEcoMar) Romania 8 Statoil Norway

The detailed objectives of the project are:
Provide membership support to new CO2NET member organisations from EU new Member States and Associated Candidate Countries by covering their annual membership fees and travel costs to the CO2NET Annual Seminars and enable them active participation in networking activities Co-organise one of the CO2NET Annual Seminars and organise 2 regional workshops in new Member States and/or Associated Candidate Countries Disseminate knowledge and increase awareness of CO2 capture and storage technologies in new Member States and Associated Candidate Countries Establish links among CCS stakeholders in new Member States and Associated Candidate Countries and between them and their partners in other EU countries using the existing networks like CO2NET and ENeRG (European Network for Research in Geo-Energy) as well as links with the newly established Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants

Participants from Institute of Geogy, TUT
A. Shogenova (coordination, data presentation, publication and reporting) K. Shogenov J. Ivask (WEB-master) R.Vaher, A. Teedumäe (interpreters) A. Raukas – information dissemination in government and mass-media

CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture and Storage
Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS CO2 sources and capture Storage, risk assessment and monitoring Economics Legal aspects and public acceptance CO2NET is a Carbon Dioxide Knowledge Transfer Network, which was initially set up under the European Commission's FP5 Programme. The Network comprises more than 60 companies or organisations, covering 16 countries in the EU. CO2NET has among others the mission to promote the sharing and transfer of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) knowledge and expertise as a mitigating option to climate change and global warming. To increase the knowledge for students these CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture en Storage have been developed. The lectures aim at a target group of science or engineering MSc students. As CCS deals with so many aspects of science, one cannot have background knowledge in all parts. We therefore assume a solid knowledge on general physics and chemistry. No specific knowledge on geology, economics, law, or general energy studies is required. A MSc student geology should be able to follow the lecture on capture and a MSc chemistry student should be able to follow the storage part. The first part of the storage lecture will probably to superficial for an MSc student in geology, but not for a BSc student in geology. An MSc chemistry student has an advantage in the lecture on capture, but will face also many new applications of his/her chemistry knowledge. The length of the blocks vary from topic to topic, but range from 1 to 3 hours. The general didactical idea is to start each block with the necessary general scientific principles behind CCS and build up to more specific CCS cases. Most sheets have additional explanation in the notes part. The lectures have been created by the Utrecht Centre for Energy research for CO2NET and have been funded by the European Commission. The project team consisted of Sander van Egmond, Kay Daamen, Saskia Hagedoorn, Erik Lysen. We would like to thank all the CO2NET partners for their comments and contributions. We tried to give credits to all work we have incorporated in these lectures. If we omitted a source or used an incorrect source, please let us know. The lectures can be used freely for non-commercial use. If you have comments or suggestions please contact us at Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

Sustainable development
“a development that fulfills the needs of the present generation without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (“Our Common Future”, 1987) Dimensions of ‘sustainable development’ There are dozens of definitions of Sustainable development. The most common well known definition is the one from the The Brundtland-report (Our Common Future”, 1987) mentioned in the sheet. Nowadays it is generally accepted that that a sustainable society should have a balance between the dimensions people, planet and profit . People (Social dimension) Profit (Economic dimension) Planet (Ecological dimension)

“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Models of Earth's temperature since 1860 (source: IPCC, Working Group I, Summary for Policy Makers, figure SPM-2). There have always been strong variation sin temperature. Models with natural and anthropogenic disturbance give the best fit with on the observed data. The most important overviews on climate change are made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in It is open to all members of the UN and WMO. ( The conclusion of the IPCC is that “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” “A climate model can be used to simulate the temperature changes that occur from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The simulations represented by the band in (a) were done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. Those encompassed by the band in (b) were done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and an estimate of sulfate aerosols. And those encompassed by the band in (c) were done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings included. From (b), it can be seen that the inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the past century, but the best match with observations is obtained in (c) when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed. “[IPCC] source: IPCC, Working Group I

Rule of thumb Warming rate 1°C / century corresponds to:
± 20 cm sea level rise ± 100 km shift of climate zone / century ± 150 m upward shift alpine climate zone/century Besides the change in absolute temperature, the speed of changing is also very crucial, as ecosystems need time to adopt to new situations. Different ecosystems can adopt changes in different time periods. As the oceans are an enormous thermal buffer, it takes centuries before they become in balance with higher temperatures. The expansion of the ocean water due to temperature increase is one of the main causes of the rising of the sea level.

Same place present Alpine glacier in 1900
Example of climate change: due to the higher temperatures glacier become smaller and/or disappear. Same place present

International agreements
preventing "dangerous" human interference with the climate system. (UNFCCC, 1992) First step Kyoto: binding targets for industrialised world. (EU -8%, VS -7%, Japan -6% in compared to 1990) There is no clear definition what "dangerous" human interference with the climate system is, and how this should be translated into a maximum amount of CO2-emissions. However there seems to arise a consensus that the CO2 concentration should be limited to values between 450 and 550 ppm, to keep the absolute temperature increase and the speed of the increasing temperature in safe limits. Kyoto can be seen as a first step: the target are too low the reach this, and developing countries like China and India do not have (binding) targets. Kyoto has not been ratified by the US Australia and is thus not binding for the these countries. The protocol went into force 90 days after the date when more than 55 Parties to the Convention, which accounted in total for at least 55 % of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 from that group, ratified the protocol. This happened at February 16, [source

Origin of anthropogenic CO2 emissions
6,3 Gt C /an (ou 23 Gt CO2 /an) 1,6 Gt C /an Land use (deforestation, ...) Energy (fossil fuels) 1,6 Gt C / year 6,3 Gt C / year (or 23 Gt CO2 / year) Energy is the main issue World annual emissions: 8 Gt C / year, or 30 Gt CO2 / year Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

CO2 fluxes between Earth and atmosphere
(in billion tons of carbon per year) Carbon’s natural cycle plays an essential part in the greenhouse effect. This cycle, if undisturbed by human activity, allows a balanced carbon budget to be maintained on the planet, since the volume of CO2 released into the atmosphere is equal to that taken up by vegetation, soils and the ocean through photosynthesis or dissolution. This has enabled the Earth to keep a balanced carbon budget over the centuries, despite volcanic eruptions and deforestation. But with the advent of the industrial era, these natural cycles have been disturbed by those human activities that extract carbon from the subsurface in the form of hydrocarbons or coal and release it into the atmosphere after combustion. 3.5 billion tons of surplus carbon! Global CO2 emissions linked to man’s activities amount to 30 billion tons (Gt) per year, corresponding to 8.1 Gt of carbon: 6.5 Gt (or 80%) are derived from burning fossil fuels, while 1.6 Gt (or 20%) are the result of deforestation and agricultural practices. These man-induced emissions are only partially absorbed by CO2 sinks: 2.5 Gt by the oceans and 2 Gt by vegetation and soils. And so, each year, 3.5 Gt of carbon end up accumulating in the atmosphere and upsetting the climate. An uneasy balance. The biosphere and the oceans are capable at present of absorbing half the surplus CO2 produced by human activity. But the CO2 sinks – such as forests, soils and oceans – would appear to have their limits. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a saturation phenomenon may exist. Coupled with an increase in temperature, this could result in a sudden and massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere and thereby amplify the phenomenon instead of partially controlling it.

Options that can meet demands
Energy conservation, energy efficiency Renewable sources Wind Solar Biomass Tidal/wave Geothermal (New) fossil fuels with CCS Nuclear In the next sheets we will pass the several options. The ‘traditional’ coal, gas and oil is skipped as this is already explained in the former sheets

Why CO2 Capture and Storage?
Third option for CO2 emission reduction. Enables continued use of fossil fuel resources Potential for large CO2 storage/disposal capacity. Technology is available. Costs CCS are significant, but can be reduced. Environmental impact can be limited; further research required.

Conclusion CCS is the third choice

Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS CO2 sources and capture Storage, risk assessment and monitoring Economics Legal aspects and public acceptance CO2NET is a Carbon Dioxide Knowledge Transfer Network, which was initially set up under the European Commission's FP5 Programme. The Network comprises more than 60 companies or organisations, covering 16 countries in the EU. CO2NET has among others the mission to promote the sharing and transfer of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) knowledge and expertise as a mitigating option to climate change and global warming. To increase the knowledge for students these CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture en Storage have been developed. The lectures aim at a target group of science or engineering MSc students. As CCS deals with so many aspects of science, one cannot have background knowledge in all parts. We therefore assume a solid knowledge on general physics and chemistry. No specific knowledge on geology, economics, law, or general energy studies is required. A MSc student geology should be able to follow the lecture on capture and a MSc chemistry student should be able to follow the storage part. The first part of the storage lecture will probably to superficial for an MSc student in geology, but not for a BSc student in geology. An MSc chemistry student has an advantage in the lecture on capture, but will face also many new applications of his/her chemistry knowledge. The length of the blocks vary from topic to topic, but range from 1 to 3 hours. The general didactical idea is to start each block with the necessary general scientific principles behind CCS and build up to more specific CCS cases. Most sheets have additional explanation in the notes part. The lectures have been created by the Utrecht Centre for Energy research for CO2NET and have been funded by the European Commission. The project team consisted of Sander van Egmond, Kay Daamen, Saskia Hagedoorn, Erik Lysen. We would like to thank all the CO2NET partners for their comments and contributions. We tried to give credits to all work we have incorporated in these lectures. If we omitted a source or used an incorrect source, please let us know. The lectures can be used freely for non-commercial use. If you have comments or suggestions please contact us at Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

Contents lecture 2: CO2 sources and capture
CO2 capture/decarbonisation routes Separation principles CO2 capture technologies in power cycles + consequences on the power cycle Comparison of different CO2 capture technologies CO2 transport Before elaborating on separation principles, it is necessary to get an overview of the main CO2 capture/decarbonisation routes in order to understand process conditions (composition of gas streams, pressure, temperature) at which CO2 separation occurs. After the chemical and physical principles of different separation technologies have been considered, the integration of different capture technologies in power cycles is discussed, followed by the consequences on the power cycle (in terms of efficiency, emissions and costs). Finally, CO2 transport is briefly discussed (infrastructure requirements, costs, CO2 flow conditions)

CO2 emissions industry and power
This figure shows the distribution of stationary CO2 emission sources by industry sector. Total emissions of industry and power sector were in Gt/y. Total: Gt/y in 2000. Source: IEA GHG 2002a

CO2 emissions by region This figure shows the distribution of stationary CO2 emission sources per region. North America is the region with the largest number of stationary CO2 sources (37%) followed by OECD Europe (14%) and China (10%). Total emissions of industry and power sector world wide were in Gt/y. Source: IEA GHG 2002a

CO2 source distribution
This picture shows the distribution of CO2 sources. Black dots represent pure CO2 sources. (PEACS, UCE 2002) Source: IEA GHG 2002b

CO2 sources and capture CO2 capture targets: large, stationary plants.
Power production Large sources, representing large share total emissions Industrial processes Large sources, some emitting pure CO2 Synthetic fuel production (Fischer-Trops gasoline/diesel, Dimethyl ether (DME), methanol, ethanol) Target sources in future? CO2 capture is envisioned at large, stationary sources, where capture costs can be reduced by economies of scale. In this lecture, we will focus on CO2 capture in power production, as power plants are large CO2 sources and represent a large share of total CO2 emissions. CO2 is/can be captured in many industrial processes. In ammonia/hydrogen production, natural gas is converted into CO and H2, after which CO is reacted with steam (shift reaction) producing CO2 and H2. CO2 is captured and H2 is used for other purposes (e.g. desulphurisation in refineries) or reacted with N2 into NH3. In certain hydrogen plants and all ammonia production plants, pure CO2 is vented, which can easily be captured. In iron/steel production by reducing iron ore with coke in a blast furnace, CO2 can be recovered from the blast furnace gas (containing CO, CO2 and N2). CO2 can possibly also be captured from the basic oxygen plant, where the carbon content in pig iron is further reduced to produce carbon steel by oxidising with oxygen , resulting in a gas stream containing CO, CO2 and N2. In cement production, limestone (CaCO3) is heated and degrades into CaO and CO2. CO2 can also be captured from industrial boilers and heaters. Synthetic fuel (synfuel) is a collective noun for nonpetroleum derived liquid vehicle fuels produced from natural gas, coal or biomass. These fuels might play a significant role in the future and are potentially good target sources for CO2 capture. In the syngas route, primary energy is converted into syngas, a mixture of CO and H2. CO is partly reacted with steam, producing CO2 and H2. In order to get the right CO:H2 ratio for fuel synthesis, CO2 can be captured from the gas stream. Also ethanol plants, in which sugars are fermented into ethanol, can be equipped with CO2 capture units.

Power plants Pulverised coal plants (PC)
Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) Boilers fuelled with natural gas, oil, biomass and lignite Future: fuel cells Power can be generated by conventional steam cycles or more advanced combined cycle, which is a combination of a gas turbine and a steam turbine. In the former, a wide variety of fuels (coal, natural gas, oil, biomass and lignite) is combusted in a boiler and with the heat, steam is generated, which is expanded in a turbine. We will consider pulverised coal-fired boilers, which represent a large share in electricity production and emissions. A combined cycle can be fuelled with natural gas or with gas produced by gasification of solid feedstocks such as coal (IGCC). Very limited commercial experience exists with IGCC, only 4 plants are in commercial operation so far. In the future, also fuel cells might play a more important role in power generation, principally on distributed level.

CO2 capture routes: summary
Post-combustion capture: separation CO2-N2 Pre-combustion capture: separation CO2-H2 Oxyfuel combustion: separation O2-N2 Post-comb. (flue gas) Pre-comb. (shifted syngas) Oxyfuel comb. (exhaust) p (bar) ~1 bar 10-80 [CO2] (%) 3-15% 20-40% 75-95%

Separation principles
Absorption: fluid dissolves or permeates into a liquid or solid. Adsorption: attachment of fluid to a surface (solid or liquid). Cryogenic (low-temperature distillation): separation based on the difference in boiling points Membranes: separation which makes use of difference physical/chemical interaction with membrane (molecular weight, solubility) CO2 can be separated from other components on the basis of difference in physical and chemical features such as molecular weight, boiling point, solubility and reactivity.

Absorption versus adsorption Chemical versus physical
Adsorption: attachment to surface Absorption: dissolution/permeation into matrix Physical: Van der Waals forces Chemical: Ionic, metallic, covalent bonds. Note that also hybrid absorbents are available, which combine the attributes of physical and chemical absorption

Physical adsorption Van der Waals forces
Can be performed at high temperature Adsorbents: zeolites, activated carbon and alumina Regeneration (cyclic process): Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA) Electrical Swing Adsorption (ESA) Hybrids (PTSA) Most of the adsorptive techniques rely upon physical adsorption, in which gas molecules are attached to the solid surface via relatively weak Van der Waals forces. Adsorption processes can be classified by material or regeneration method. Zeolites, minerals that have a porous structure, are interesting adsorbents due to the large surface area. In PSA, desorption of adsorbed component is achieved by decreasing pressure. In TSA, the adsorbate is released by heating and in ESA by means of an electric current passing through the adsorbent. PSA is commercially applied in hydrogen production plants to separate hydrogen from contaminants such as CO, CO2 and H2O.

Chemical adsorption Covalent bonds
Adsorbents: metal oxides, hydrotalcites Example: carbonation (>600°C) - calcination (1000°C) reaction CaO + CO2  CaCO3 Regeneration (cyclic process): Pressure Swing Adsorption Temperature Swing Adsorption Recently, there is also interest in chemical adsorption processes to capture CO2 such as the CO2 carbonation-calcination loop. Carbonation is the reaction between CaO and CO2. In principle, this loop can be applied to separate CO2 in both post-combustion and pre-combustion systems. The disadvantage of this option that relatively large amounts of sorbents are required due to a decay in sorption activity, generating a new waste stream. Hydrotalcites are anionic clays

Cryogenic separation: principles (1)
Distillation at low temperatures. Applied to separate CO2 from natural gas or O2 from N2 and Ar in air. substance Boiling point Triple point (°C, bar) CO2 NA (sublimation) -57, 5.18 CH4 -162 -183, 0.12 O2 -183 -219, N2 -196 -210, 0.125 Ar -186 -199, 0.69 Cryogenic separation is applied to separate CO2 from natural gas streams and to separate air into oxygen and nitrogen. CO2 can be physically separated from other gases by condensing it into a liquid at low temperature. The liquid CO2 is ready for pipeline transport to the storage site. Also CO2 can be separated by solidification (pressures below triple point). In cryogenic air separation, air is cooled deeply. A pressure 8-10 times atmospheric pressure is required for this process. These conditions are achieved via compression and heat exchange; cold products (oxygen and nitrogen) exiting the distillation column are used to cool air entering it. Nitrogen is more volatile than oxygen and comes off as the distillate product. A cryogenic air separation plant is expensive and large. Therefore, it only becomes economically feasible to separate air this way when a large amount is needed.

Membrane absorption Facilitated transport membranes is a hybrid of absorption and membrane technology. It relies on the formation of complexes or reversible chemical reactions of components present in a gas stream with compounds present in the membrane. These complexes or reaction products are then transported through the membrane. The essential element in a membrane absorber is a porous, water repellent, polymeric membrane. The gas phase remains separated from the liquid absorbent as a result of the hydrophobicity of the membrane. The use of a membrane absorber leads to a number of advantages: Gas and liquid flow are independent resulting in avoidance of problems encountered in packed/tray columns such as flooding, foaming, channelling and entrainment; No need to have a wash section after the absorber to recover absorption liquid which is carried over More compact equipment (offshore!) due to the high contact area to volume ration Smaller pressure drop Source: Feron, TNO-MEP

Combining capture routes and technologies: CO2 capture matrix
This matrix integrates capture methods (row 1), principles of separation (column 1) and technologies (in cells). It illustrates which capture technologies can be applied in which capture routes. The applicability of each capture technology depends on the conditions of the gas that contain the CO2 (composition, temperature and pressure) and the degree of required CO2 removal. Source: Feron, TNO-MEP

Summary: Post-combustion capture
Chemical absorption is currently most feasible technology Technology is commercially available, although on a smaller scale than envisioned for power plants with CO2 capture (>500 MWe) Energy penalty and additional costs are high with current solvents. R&D focus on process integration and solvent improvement. CO2 capture between 80-90% Power cycle itself is not strongly affected (heat integration, CO2 recycling) Retrofit possibility

Summary: Pre-combustion capture
Chemical/physical absorption is currently most feasible technology Experience in chemical industry (refineries, ammonia) Energy penalty and additional costs physical absorption are lower in comparison to chemical absorption CO2 capture between 80-90% Need to develop turbines using hydrogen (rich) fuel No retrofit possibility Advanced concepts to decrease energy penalty/costs: sorption enhanced WGS/reforming membrane WGS/reforming

Oxyfuel combustion: Chemical looping combustion
This figure illustrates the principle of chemical looping combustion (CLC) in a fluidised bed system. CLC is based on fuel combustion by means of two separate reactors in order to separate nitrogen from the combustion products. In the fuel reactor, fuel is oxidised by an oxygen carrier, generally a metal oxide such as iron/nickel oxide. The reduced metal oxide is then returned to the oxidation reactor, where it is oxidised. The oxidation of the metal is highly exothermic and provides high temperature exhaust air (mainly nitrogen) for power generation. Additionally, the metal oxide supplies heat to the endothermic reduction reaction.

Summary: Oxyfuel combustion (1)
Cryogenic air separation is currently most feasible technology Experience in steel, aluminum and glass industry Energy penalty and additional costs are comparable to post-combustion capture Allows for 100% CO2 capture NOx formation can be reduced FGD in PC plants might be omitted provided that SO2 can be transported and co-stored with CO2

Summary: Oxyfuel combustion (2)
Boilers require adaptations (retrofit possible). R&D issues: combustion behaviour, heat transfer, fouling, slagging and corrosion. Application in NGCC: new turbines need to be developed with CO2 as working fluid (no retrofit) R&D focus on development of new oxygen separation technologies. Advanced concepts to decrease energy penalty/costs: AZEP (separate combustion deploying oxygen membranes) Chemical looping combustion (separate combustion deploying oxygen carriers).

Contents CO2 sources CO2 capture/decarbonisation routes
Separation principles CO2 capture technologies in power cycles + consequences on the power cycle Comparison of different CO2 capture technologies CO2 transport

CO2 transport Pipelines are most feasible for large-scale CO2 transport Transport conditions: high-pressure ( bar) to guarantee CO2 is in dense phase Alternative: Tankers (similar to LNG/LPG) Transport conditions: liquid (14 to 17 bar, -25 to -30°C) Advantage: flexibility, avoidance of large investments Disadvantage: high costs for liquefaction and need for buffer storage. This makes ships more attractive for larger distances. For large-scale CO2 transport, pipelines are generally considered to be most suitable. CO2 pipelines are generally operated at high pressure to guarantee high densities for optimal pipeline utilisation. In order to avoid phase transition (from liquid to gas), pressures should be kept well above the supercritical pressure (74 bar). Ship transport is an interesting alternative when the storage reservoir is located offshore, as it avoids large investments of pipeline construction and it offers flexibility in CO2 purchasing and delivering. Especially for enhanced oil recovery applications with a limited lifetime and a changing demand in time, ships might be preferable. The disadvantage is the high cost for liquefaction and buffer storage, which makes ships less interesting for short transport distances.

Pipeline versus ship transport
The turning point of transporting 6.2 Mt CO2/yr is about 700 km offshore; beyond that point ship transport becomes economically more attractive than transport by pipeline. Onshore the the turning point lies lower: at 700 km. Source: IEA GHG, 2004

Pipeline optimisation
Small diameter: large pressure drop, increasing booster station costs (capital + electricity) Large diameter: large pipeline investments Optimum: minimise annual costs (sum of pipeline and booster station capital and O&M costs plus electricity costs for pumping). Offshore: pipelines diameters and pressures are generally higher as booster stations are expensive

CO2 quality specifications
USA: > 95 mol% CO2 Water content should be reduced to very low concentrations due to formation of carbonic acid causing corrosion Concentration of H2S, O2 must be reduced to ppm level N2 is allowed up to a few % CO2 captured always contain traces of water and micro-pollutants, which need to be removed prior to transport.

CO2 transport costs This figure shows that transport costs (per ton CO2) decrease significantly when increasing the quantity, which favours large trunk lines to which smaller lines are connected once a large-scale CCS is evolving. Transport of small quantities of CO2 (distributed units) becomes prohibitively large at large distances. A 500 MWe PC/NGCC plant with CO2 capture emit approximately 3.5 and 1.5 Mt/yr. In comparison to capture costs, which are between 10 and 60 euro/t CO2, transport costs are relatively modest for such large scale plants. Source: Damen, UU

Risks pipeline transport
Major risk: pipeline rupture. CO2 leakage can be reduced by decreasing distance between safety valves. CO2 is not explosive or inflammable like natural gas In contrast to natural gas, which is dispersed quickly into the air, CO2 is denser than air and might accumulate in depressions or cellars High concentrations CO2 might have negative impacts on humans (asphyxiation) and ecosystems. Above concentrations of 25-30%, CO2 is lethal. The major risk associated with pipeline transport is a pipeline failure, which can be either a (pin)hole or rupture, resulting in CO2 release. A pipeline failure can be caused by external interferences, hot tapping by utility workers, corrosion, construction defects and ground movement.

Safety record pipelines
Industrial experience in USA: 3100 km CO2 pipelines (for enhanced oil recovery) with capacity of 45 Mt/yr Accident record for CO2 pipelines in the USA shows 10 accidents between 1990 and 2001 without any injuries or fatalities. This corresponds to incidents per km*year Incident frequency of pipelines transmitting natural gas and hazardous liquids in this period is and , respectively, with 94 fatalities and 466 injuries Conclusion: CO2 transport is relatively safe.

Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS CO2 sources and capture Storage, risk assessment and monitoring Economics Legal aspects and public acceptance CO2NET is a Carbon Dioxide Knowledge Transfer Network, which was initially set up under the European Commission's FP5 Programme. The Network comprises more than 60 companies or organisations, covering 16 countries in the EU. CO2NET has among others the mission to promote the sharing and transfer of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) knowledge and expertise as a mitigating option to climate change and global warming. To increase the knowledge for students these CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture en Storage have been developed. The lectures aim at a target group of science or engineering MSc students. As CCS deals with so many aspects of science, one cannot have background knowledge in all parts. We therefore assume a solid knowledge on general physics and chemistry. No specific knowledge on geology, economics, law, or general energy studies is required. A MSc student geology should be able to follow the lecture on capture and a MSc chemistry student should be able to follow the storage part. The first part of the storage lecture will probably to superficial for an MSc student in geology, but not for a BSc student in geology. An MSc chemistry student has an advantage in the lecture on capture, but will face also many new applications of his/her chemistry knowledge. The length of the blocks vary from topic to topic, but range from 1 to 3 hours. The general didactical idea is to start each block with the necessary general scientific principles behind CCS and build up to more specific CCS cases. Most sheets have additional explanation in the notes part. The lectures have been created by the Utrecht Centre for Energy research for CO2NET and have been funded by the European Commission. The project team consisted of Sander van Egmond, Kay Daamen, Saskia Hagedoorn, Erik Lysen. We would like to thank all the CO2NET partners for their comments and contributions We tried to give credits to all work we have incorporated in these lectures. If we omitted a source or used an incorrect source, please let us know. The lectures can be used freely for non-commercial use. If you have comments or suggestions please contact us at Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

Examples of storage projects
2. Storage: examples Examples of storage projects Sleipner, North Sea (saline reservoir) In-Salah, Algeria (gas reservoir) K12B, North Sea (gas reservoir) Weyburn, Canada (oil reservoir) Enhanced Coal Bed Methane projects Alisson (New Mexico) Recopol (Poland)

Geological storage for CO2
After this lecture one should be able to understand this graph, and the basic geology behind it.

Examples of geological storage of Carbon dioxide

ZERO EMISSION CONCEPT (by N.P. Chistensen, GEUS, Denmark)

Reservoir and seals In general a reservoir consist of:
1. Geology: reservoirs In general a reservoir consist of: Porous and permeable rocks that can contain (a mixture of) gas and liquid Rocks with pores of typically 5-30% of volume of the rock (with diameters of nm-mm) A sealing by a non permeable rock layer Typical Reservoir size is km^3 An aquifer is a body of permeable rock for example unconsolidated gravel or sand, that is capable of storing and transmitting significant amounts of liquid Map of porosity distribution at cm-scale (right) and corresponding sandstone thin section (left)

Naturally occurring reservoirs
1. Geology: reservoirs Fresh water aquifer Saline aquifer Oil reservoir Natural gas reservoir CO2 reservoir A fresh water aquifer can be used for drinking water, while a saline aquifer contains a high percentage of dissolved solids. The earth crust contains a vast majority of carbon, held in fossil fuels, limestones and dolomites, of which oil is a liquid hydrocarbon formed by the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Natural gas is a gaseous hydrocarbon (CH4, C2H6, C3H8 and C4H10) trapped in pore spaces in rocks (with or without oil). Coal is a carbon-rich mineral deposit formed from the burial of the remains of fossil plants. It should be pointed out here, that CO2 reservoirs also occur naturally.

Natural CO2 occurrences in France
Natural CO2 fields Exploited carbogaseous waters (mineral water, spa) The Montmiral natural CO2 field has been exploited since 1990 for industrial uses. Drilling of the Montmiral 2 well (V.Mo.2; Fig. 2), completed in December 1961, revealed the presence of gas reservoirs with 97-99% CO2 at a depth of between 2402 and 2480 m in the fractured base of the Hettangian and the Rhaetian, and in the Triassic. The Triassic sandstone forms the main gas reservoir that is currently exploited. The reservoir is sealed between 1840 and 2337 m by Domerian to Callovian clay and marl. The CO2 in Montmiral has mainly a mantle origin and accumulated in the reservoir around 40 million years ago in the early Tertiary era.

Properties of geo-fluids
1. Geology: CO2 transport properties All rocks in the crust contain fluids (water, oil, natural gas, CO2) Transport of fluids depends on: Density Viscosity Solvability Miscibility When CO2 is injected into geological formations transport will take place, which depends on certain properties of fluids already present in these formations and of the CO2 that is injected. The most important parameters (density, viscosity, solvability and miscibility) influencing transport will be described. After that the relation of these mechanisms with CO2 storage will be explained. Buoyancy and density: In case there is a difference in density between two substances, either gas or liquid, the substance with the lowest density will rise upwards. Viscosity: The internal resistance of a substance to flow when a stress is applied Solvability: The ability of a substance to go into solution Miscibility: The ability of different fluids (gases and liquids) to mix (a miscible fluid are those that mix in any proportion)

Desired fluid properties for CO2 storage
1. Geology: CO2 transport properties Desired fluid properties for CO2 storage High density High viscosity High solvability High miscibility So: low temperature and high pressure To store CO2 it is necessary to have a highly dense, viscous, solvable and miscible injection fluid. The first is to prevent it from escaping upwards since a dense fluid tense to descend. The efficiency of CO2 storage in geological media, defined as the amount of CO2 stored per unit volume increases with increasing CO2 density. A high viscosity of the injection fluid makes injection more difficult, but on the other hand it prevents CO2 to escape from the reservoir. Both solvability and miscibility also have to be high because when CO2 is coupled with the in situ fluid already present in a reservoir rapid escape from the reservoir is prevented again. On the other hand enhanced recovery from oil and gas fields can only occur when there is no solvability and miscibility. The actual trapping mechanisms are described in the next slides.

Immobilization and trapping options: Physical
Physical blocking by structural traps (anticlines, unconformities or faults) stratigraphic traps (change in type of rock layer) Hydrodynamic trapping by extremely slow migration rates of reservoir brine Residual gas trapping by capillary forces in pore spaces Negative buoyancy in case CO2 is denser than its host rock Physical blocking by structural and stratigraphic traps occurs only when CO2 is less dense than reservoir fluid, so that fluid migrates upwards. Anticline is an arch shaped fold in a rocks, closing upwards. Unconformity trap is a trap formed by a sealing formation, that has been created by the folding, uplift and erosion of porous strata, followed by the deposition of later beds that can act as a seal. These physical structures are shown in the next slide.

Immobilization and trapping options: Chemical
1. Geology: trapping mechanisms Immobilization and trapping options: Chemical Adsorption onto coal or organic-rich shales: permanently reduced mobility Mineralization into carbonate mineral phases: permanently reduced mobility Solubility trapping: CO2 dissolved in formation waters forming one single phase: greatly reduced mobility Adsorption is the attachment of an ion, molecule or compound to the (oppositely) charged surface of a particle.

Site selection criteria
1. Geology: site selection Site selection criteria High storage capacity High porosity Large reservoir Efficient injectivity High permeability Safe and secure storage Low geoth. gradient & high pressure Adequate sealing Geological & hydrodynamic stability Low costs Good accessibility, infrastructure Source close to storage reservoir Basins formed in mid-continent locations, or near the edge of stable continental plates, are excellent targets for long-term CO2 storage because of their geological stability and structure. Such basins are found within most continents and around the Atlantic, Arctic, and Indian Oceans Storage safety is related to the geothermal gradient because it increases with increasing density (as buoyancy, which drives upward migration, is stronger for a lighter fluid). At basins with low temperature gradients the CO2 attains a higher density at shallower depths (700 to 1,000 m) than in “warm” sedimentary basins (1,000 to 1,500)m. After IPCC special report on CCS

Advantages and disadvantages of storage sites
1. Geology: site selection Advantages and disadvantages of storage sites The table shows advantages and disadvantages of different types of storage and their storage capacity in Gtonnes. IEA, GHG, 2004

2. Storage Examples Storage in coal seams: ECBM
Potential storage capacity Ocean storage

Locations of CO2 storage activities
2. Storage: examples Locations of CO2 storage activities Source: IPCC

Simplified diagram of the Sleipner CO2 storage project
2. Storage: examples Source: IPCC

Characteristics Sleipner
2. Storage: examples CO2 injection since 1996 (first commercial project) Storage of CO2 in (shallower) saline aquifer together with production of natural gas Aquifer consists of unconsolidated sandstone and thin (horizontal) shale layers that spreads CO2 laterally Seal consists of an extensive and thick shale layer ~1Mt CO2 removed from gas plant annually Estimate of total stored CO2 over entire lifetime: 20 MtCO2 Source: IPCC/IPIECA

Location of In Salah CO2 storage project
2. Storage: examples

In Salah CO2 storage project
2. Storage: examples In Salah CO2 storage project First large scale CO2 storage in a gas reservoir 1 Mt CO2 stored into the Krechba (sandstone) reservoir annually starting in April 2004 CO2 injected into water filled parts of gas reservoir (1.5 km) Seal consists of thick layer of mudstones (shales) 4 production and 3 injection wells Use of long-reach horizontal wells Produced natural gas contains up to 10% CO2 Estimate of total stored CO2 over entire lifetime: 17 Mt CO2 Source: IPCC

Cross section In Salah gas reservoir
2. Storage: examples Cross section In Salah gas reservoir Source: IPCC

Offshore location K12-B project
2. Storage: examples Source: TNO/CATO

Characteristics K12-B storage project
2. Storage: examples Nearly empty gas reservoir at 4 km depth Reservoir rocks: Aeolian and fluvial sediments, with relatively low permeability Tests for enhanced gas recovery: high miscibility of gas and CO2 results in mixing instead of a migrating front Annual injection of 20 ktonne of CO2 to be up-scaled to 480 ktonne CO2/yr Aeolian and fluvial sediments are sediments deposited by wind and water respectively. Source: TNO

Weyburn storage project, Canada
2. Storage: examples Weyburn storage project, Canada Sedimentary Williston Basin of Mississippian carbonate oil reservoir Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) CO2 source is a coal gasification company, producing 95% pure CO2 CO2 injection since 2000 Estimate of total stored CO2 over entire lifetime: 20 Mt CO2 Seal consists of anhydrite and shale Source: IPCC

2. Storage: examples Location of storage site and gasification plant and scheme for EOR through CO2 storage Source: IPIECA Source: IPCC

2. Storage: ECBM Storage in coal seams

CO2 storage in Coal 2. Storage: ECBM Coal contains micro-pores (r = 0.4 – 1 nm) suitable for adsorption of gases, such as CO2 (r = ca. 0.3 nm) Higher affinity to adsorb CO2 than CH4 One methane molecule can be replaced by at least two molecules of CO2: Enhanced Coal Bed Methane recovery (ECBM) of up to 95% extra gas recovery Ratio CO2/CH4 depends on the maturity and type of coal Coal plastization and swelling can occur due to the presence of CO2 and this reduces permeability Sources: Siemens Tudelft and IPCC

Influencing factors on coal adsorption
2. Storage: ECBM Coal rank Peat  lignite  bituminous coal  anthracite Pore structure and size Moist content (rank dependent) Coal composition Presence of different macerals and minerals Moisture content Water molecules block adsorption sites of pore system pH change Temperature decreasing adsorption rates with increasing T Source: Siemens TUDelft The coal rank is dependent on the stage of coalification. This process is initiated after the deposition and burial of the remains of fossil plants and the physical and chemical changes that take place due to the increase in temperature and pressure. Each rank marks a reduction in the percentage of volatiles and moisture and an increase in the percentage of carbon. Maceral is an elementary and microscopic constituent of coal. Source: Allaby and Allaby, 1999

Problems related to CO2 injection
2. Storage: ECBM Problems related to CO2 injection Swelling CO2 acts as a solvent that destroys bonds of the coal macro molecules  relaxation of the coal structure Under constrained reservoir conditions swelling causes a reduction of porosity and permeability (see figure) Source Siemens Tudelft Harpalani & Schaufnagel 1990

Example: Recopol European ECBM project
2. Storage: ECBM EU co-funded research & demonstration project Silesian Coal Basin of Poland CO2 is pumped in coal seam at a depth of ~1km Simultaneous production of methane Injection and production started in 2004 Stimulation required because coal seam permeability reduces in time, presumably due to swelling from contact with the CO2

Location of Recopol ECBM project
2. Storage: ECBM Location of Recopol ECBM project

Potential storage capacity
2. Storage: potential capacity Reservoir type Lower estimate of storage capacity (GtCO2) Upper estimate of storage capacity (GtCO2) Oil and gas fields 675a 900a Unminable coal seams (ECBM) 3 - 15 200 Deep saline formations 1,000 Uncertain, but possibly 104 The table shows that deep saline formations provide an immense storage capacity, followed by (depleted) oil and gas fields. Compared to the worldwide CO2 emissions there is sufficient capacity to store all emitted CO2. a These numbers would increase by 25% if “undiscovered” oil and gas fields were included in this assessment. Compare worldwide CO2 emissions: 25 GtCO2/yr Source: IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage.

Ocean storage principles
2. Storage: ocean Ocean storage is injection of CO2 into the deep ocean water. At a dept of 2700 CO2 has a negative buoyancy. Depth (m) phase density <500 gas Less than water liquid >2700 Crystalline hydrate Higher than water

Physical properties of CO2 in water
2. Storage: ocean Physical properties of CO2 in water Depth (m) phase density <500 gas Less than water liquid >2700 Crystalline hydrate Higher than water To store CO2 for a very long time a high density is required. Those places suitable for very deep storage are still around 75% as can be seen from the former slide.

Risks associated with CO2 storage in geological reservoirs
3. Risks and monitoring Risks associated with CO2 storage in geological reservoirs CO2 and/or CH4 leakage from the reservoir to the atmosphere Micro-seismicity due to pressure and stress changes in the reservoir, causing small earth quakes and faults Ground movement, subsidence or uplift due to pressure changes in the reservoir Displacement of brine from an open reservoir to other formations, possibly containing fresh water Source: Damen et al It is important to determine what the risks are when storing CO2 underground.

CO2 and CH4 leakage 3. Risks and monitoring Depends on thickness of overlying formations and trapping mechanisms and occurs when: Inability of cap rock to prevent upward migration, due to: too high permeability (possibility for diffusion of CO2) dissolving of cap rock by reaction with CO2 cap rock failure (fracturing and faulting due to over pressuring of the reservoir) Escape through (old) wells through: Improper plugging Diffusion through cement or steel casing Dissolving of CO2 in fluid that flows laterally Source: Damen et al

Local and global effect of CO2 leakage
3. Risks and monitoring Local and global effect of CO2 leakage Local: Health effects at elevated CO2 concentration (accumulation of CO2 can occur in confined areas) Local: Decrease of pH of soils and water, causing: Calcium dissolution Increase in hardness of the water Release of trace metals Global: leakage reduces the CO2 mitigation option, effect depends on stabilization of greenhouse gas concentration Stabilization targets Extend and timing of CO2 storage (simulation models) Source: Damen et al

Purpose of monitoring 3. Risks and monitoring To ensure public health and safety of local environment To verify the amount of CO2 storage To track migration of stored CO2 (simulation models) To confirm reliability of trapping mechanisms To provide early warning of storage failure

Examples of monitoring techniques
3. Risks and monitoring Examples of monitoring techniques Monitoring group Monitoring technologies Compartment Engineering Pressure, temperature, well tests Wells Geophysical Seismics (3D), micro seismicity, gravimetry, electro-magnetic, self-potential, physical well logging Reservoir and back -ground system, wells Geochemical Production water & gas analysis, tracers, overburden fluids, direct measurements Reservoir and surface system Geodetic Geodetic, tilt measurements, satellite interferometry, airborne sensing Surface system Biological Microbial, vegetation changes Surface and background system Measurements are repeated in time or applied continuously Source: Wildenborg, TNO

Conclusions There is a high worldwide storage capacity potential
Different types of reservoirs occur naturally CO2 will be stored for a very long time (10000 yr) There is a possibility for enhanced recovery of fuel from certain reservoirs High pressure and low temperature are preferable for effective CO2 storage Several storage projects have already started Leakage and other risk should be monitored carefully

Climate Change, Sustainability and CCS CO2 sources and capture Storage, risk assessment and monitoring Economics Legal aspects and public acceptance CO2NET is a Carbon Dioxide Knowledge Transfer Network, which was initially set up under the European Commission's FP5 Programme. The Network comprises more than 60 companies or organisations, covering 16 countries in the EU. CO2NET has among others the mission to promote the sharing and transfer of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) knowledge and expertise as a mitigating option to climate change and global warming. To increase the knowledge for students these CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture en Storage have been developed. The lectures aim at a target group of science or engineering MSc students. As CCS deals with so many aspects of science, one cannot have background knowledge in all parts. We therefore assume a solid knowledge on general physics and chemistry. No specific knowledge on geology, economics, law, or general energy studies is required. A MSc student geology should be able to follow the lecture on capture and a MSc chemistry student should be able to follow the storage part. The first part of the storage lecture will probably to superficial for an MSc student in geology, but not for a BSc student in geology. An MSc chemistry student has an advantage in the lecture on capture, but will face also many new applications of his/her chemistry knowledge. The length of the blocks vary from topic to topic, but range from 1 to 3 hours. The general didactical idea is to start each block with the necessary general scientific principles behind CCS and build up to more specific CCS cases. Most sheets have additional explanation in the notes part. The lectures have been created by the Utrecht Centre for Energy research for CO2NET and have been funded by the European Commission. The project team consisted of Sander van Egmond, Kay Daamen, Saskia Hagedoorn, Erik Lysen. We would like to thank all the CO2NET partners for their comments. We tried to give credits to all work we have incorporated in these lectures. If we omitted a source or used an incorrect source, please let us know. The lectures can be used freely for non-commercial use. If you have comments or suggestions please contact us at Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

Performance new power plants (current technology)
Cost of CCS Performance new power plants (current technology) New NGCC New PC New IGCC Cap. Costs, no capt. (US$/kW) ~ 570 ~ 1290 ~ 1330 Cap. Costs, with capt. (US$/kW) ~ 1000 ~ 2100 ~ 1830 Plant efficiency, with capt. 47-50 % 30-35 % 31-40 % COE, no capt. (US$/kWh) COE, with capt. (US$/kWh) Increase COE 37-69 % 42-66 % 20-55 % Cost of net CO2 capt. (US$/tCO2) 37-74 29-51 13-37 *) Gas prices: US$/GJ; Coal prices: US$/GJ Source: IPCC SR-CCS, 2005

Total production costs of electricity
Cost of CCS Total production costs of electricity Power plant system Natural Gas Combined Cycle (US$/kWh) Pulverized Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Without capture (reference plant) With capture and geological storage With capture and EOR *) Gas prices: US$/GJ; Coal prices: US$/GJ Source: IPCC SR-CCS, 2005

CO2 transportation costs
Cost of CCS CO2 transportation costs Transportation costs: 1-8 US$ / tCO2 / 250 km (per 250 km, onshore and offshore) Source: IPCC, SR-CCS, 2005

Cost CO2 storage CCS system components: Cost range
Cost of CCS Cost CO2 storage CCS system components: Cost range (US$/tCO2 avoided) - Geological storage Geological storage: monitoring and verification - Ocean Storage 5 - 30 - Mineral carbonization Source: IPCC, SR-CCS, 2005

Cost of electricity (€ct/kWh)
Cost of CCS Cost of electricity (€ct/kWh) This figure shows the cost of electricity (CEO) including CO2 transport and storage, compared to the cost of generation electricity with Powder Coal (PC) and Natural gas (NGCC) versus PC/NGCC without capture, for different type of technologies. The COE that can be achieved on the short term is between 4.4 for NGCC up to 6 for IGCC/PC. The average market price of electricity lays in the range of 3 €cent/kWh. On the longer term, the COE can be reduced significantly, especially for coal. CES cycle fed with syngas has promising prospects, but only 1 source is available. It is the question whether high pressure/temperature turbines which such high performance can be achieved, so we should be careful in drawing premature conclusions NGCC post and oxy are competitive, capital costs NGCC-SOFC still too high. (damen) Kay Damen, Utrecht University

CO2 benefits for EOR In Texas CO2 is commercially bought for Enhanced Oil Recovery. The price paid for the CO2 is in this case depended on the price of oil: 11.7 US$/tCO2 (at 18 US$ per barrel of oil) 16.3 US$/tCO2 (at 25 US$ per barrel of oil) 32.7 US$/tCO2 (at 50 US$ per barrel of oil) The costs of onshore CO2-flooding EOR projects in North America are well documented (Klins, 1984; Jarrell et al., 2002). Carbon dioxide EOR projects are business ventures to increase oil recovery. Although CO2 is injected and stored, this is not the primary driver, and EOR projects are not optimized for CO2 storage. The commercial basis of conventional CO2-EOR operations is that the revenues from incremental oil compensate for the additional costs incurred (including purchase of CO2) and provide a return on the investment. The costs differ from project to project. The capital investment components are compressors, separation equipment and H2S removal, well drilling, and well conversions and completions. New wells are not required for some projects. Operating costs are the CO2 purchase price, fuel costs, and field operating costs. In Texas, the cost of CO2 purchase was 55–75% of the total cost for a number of EOR fields (averaging 68% of total costs) and is a major investment uncertainty for EOR. Tax and fiscal incentives, government regulations, and oil and gas prices are the other main investment uncertainties (e.g., Jarrell et al., 2002). The CO2 price is usually indexed to oil prices, with an indicative price of 11.7 US$/tCO2 (0.62 US$/Mscf) at a West Texas Intermediate oil price of 18 US$ per barrel, 16.3 US$/tCO2 at 25 US$ per barrel of oil and 32.7 US$/tCO2 at 50 US$ per barrel of oil (Jarrell et al., 2002). The CO2 purchase price indicates the scale of benefit for EOR to offset CO2 storage costs. Taken from IPCC

Conclusion economics of CCS
The cost of CCS depends strongly on the source, location and technology (from slightly negative up to 100 €/ton) In some cases CCS only needs few or no incentives CCS can play significant role when CO2 prices become 25–30 US$/tCO2 (IPCC) Capture (and capital) cost are in general the biggest The costs can be reduced in the future

Climate Change, sustainability and CCS CO2 sources and capture Storage, risk assessment and monitoring Economics Legal aspects and public acceptance CO2NET is a Carbon Dioxide Knowledge Transfer Network, which was initially set up under the European Commission's FP5 Programme. The Network comprises more than 60 companies or organisations, covering 16 countries in the EU. CO2NET has among others the mission to promote the sharing and transfer of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) knowledge and expertise as a mitigating option to climate change and global warming. To increase the knowledge for students these CO2NET Lectures on Carbon Capture en Storage have been developed. The lectures aim at a target group of science or engineering MSc students. As CCS deals with so many aspects of science, one cannot have background knowledge in all parts. We therefore assume a solid knowledge on general physics and chemistry. No specific knowledge on geology, economics, law, or general energy studies is required. A MSc student geology should be able to follow the lecture on capture and a MSc chemistry student should be able to follow the storage part. The first part of the storage lecture will probably to superficial for an MSc student in geology, but not for a BSc student in geology. An MSc chemistry student has an advantage in the lecture on capture, but will face also many new applications of his/her chemistry knowledge. The length of the blocks vary from topic to topic, but range from 1 to 3 hours. The general didactical idea is to start each block with the necessary general scientific principles behind CCS and build up to more specific CCS cases. Most sheets have additional explanation in the notes part. The lectures have been created by the Utrecht Centre for Energy research for CO2NET and have been funded by the European Commission. The project team consisted of Sander van Egmond, Kay Daamen, Saskia Hagedoorn, Erik Lysen. We would like to thank all the CO2NET partners for their comments and contributions . We tried to give credits to all work we have incorporated in these lectures. If we omitted a source or used an incorrect source, please let us know. The lectures can be used freely for non-commercial use. If you have comments or suggestions please contact us at Prepared by Utrecht Centre for Energy research

International treaties on waste
Protection of the seas: London convention (1972) London protocol (1996) OSPAR (1992) Habitat protection Convention on biological diversity (1992) Habitat directive These treaties are considered to be the most relevant for CCS All these treaties are made before the idea of CO2 storage as a climate mitigation came up. It is therefore not clear how CO2 storage falls under these treaties. The following sheets are therefore interpretations from involved experts of the treaties. Note also that summarising complex juridical matter leaves out the nuances. The most important thing to remember is that all these treaties were made to protect the environment (and humans) and are considered to be an important achievement. Some fear therefore that a too creative interpretation of the treaties, in order to suit it for CCS, may give a unwilling precedent to other situations of (chemical and nuclear) waste dumping. As the pollution of the sea can have consequences for all coastal states, the international marine treaties were the first international environmental treaties. We come back to the marine treaties later as they are the most important voor CCS. “The the Biodiversity Convention of 1992 requires parties to adopt national strategies, plans and programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The aim of this is to establish protected areas to conserve and protect ecosystems, habitats, and threatened species. The Convention recognises the traditional sovereign rights of states to exploit their own resources and their responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause damage beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Even if there is an impact by CO2 storageon biodiversity this does not necessarily mean that the Convention will prohibit CO2 storage from taking place. The Convention states that “contracting parties,as far as possible and as appropriate, shall take into account the environmental consequences of its programmes and shall initiate action to prevent or minimize conditions that present animminent or grave danger or damage to biological diversity” art 14(1). The use of the words “as far as possible and as appropriate” weakens the legal status of the Convention. It seems likely that CO2 storage could still take place as long as there is not a significant impact on habitats and the Government has taken into account these environmental consequences and proposed some form of mitigation measures. “ (source Tyndall centre)

Conclusion CO2 storage & law
In deep sea: Not allowed (unless via land-based pipe) Under seabed possibilities but also restrictions (storage method, origin of CO2 and contamination CO2) Legal issues still under debate Under land Depends on national law, but probably allowed For a smooth large scale implementation of CCS adoptions of the treaties have to be made. Although there are possibilities for CO2 storage under the seabed, the international treaties need probably to be adopted in order to make it easy and transparent. This will also avoid discussions with NGOs and public, where one has to explain that CO2 storage breaks international environmental treaties, but it saves our planet.

Liability Liability questions not solved yet:
Who does own the stored CO2? Who pays for the monitoring? Who is responsible for long term leakages …. Long term CO2 storage deals with extreme long periods. Besides technical issues whether CO2 remains stored or not, the society will probably change drastically in the storage period and hence priorities of the society as well. In terms of very long term liability it is therefore the question who can take that responsibility. Shell for example is already a dinosaur, under the company's, as it was founded in Our concept of States exists perhaps for a few millennia. “A number of novel issues arise with CO2 geological storage. In addition to long-term in situ risk liability, which may become a public liability after project decommissioning, global risks associated with leakage of CO2 to the atmosphere may need to be considered. Current injection practices do not require any long-term monitoring or verification regime. The cost of monitoring and verification regimes and risk of leakage will be important in managing liability. There are also considerations about the longevity of institutions and transferability of institutional knowledge. If long-term liability for CO2 geological storage is transformed into a public liability, can ongoing monitoring and verification be assured, and who will pay for these actions? How will information on storage locations be tracked and disseminated to other parties interested in using the subsurface? What are the time frames for storage? Is it realistic (or necessary) to put monitoring or information systems in place for hundreds of years? Any discussion of long-term CO2 geological storage also involves intergenerational liability, and thus justification of such activities involves an ethical dimension. Some aspects of storage security, such as leakage up abandoned wells, may be realized only over a long time frame, thus posing a risk to future generations. Assumptions on cost, discounting, and the rate of technological progress can all lead to dramatically different interpretations of liability and its importance, and need to be closely examined. “(IPCC)

Conclusion lecture To maintain public support:
Fair and open communication (international) Legal frame work needs adaptations Proper monitoring and risk management CCS as a third option The cost of CCS should be paid by the emitter on longer term

CO2 emissions from Trade Union members, 2005 (tons/%)
B A L T I C S T A T E S Sector Estonia Latvia Lithuania tons % Energy 92 76,60 68,2 Oil refineries - - - 28,2 Steel/Iron 369830 9,05 Cement 780241 6,1 420866 10,29 54681 0,8 Glass 32476 0,3 74290 1,82 74835 1,1 Ceramic 100045 85470 2,09 31645 0,5 Plants Paper 51115 0,4 6294 0,15 Total (veryfied) 76 100,5 49,1 Allocation

CO2 sources >100 000 tons in the Baltic States

CO2 sources >100 000 tons by Trade union members in Estonia

Prospects for the Baltic States

Properties of Cambrian reservoir in the Baltic states (GEOBALTICA project, S.Šliaupa) drinking water (salinity >1g/l, depth <500 m) 2 - table mineral water (salinity 1-10g/l); blue dot indicates water-work exploiting bottled mineral water (1.8-2 g/l) 3 - storage facilities, e.g. gas (porosity 20-30%, depth ~1 km, thickness ~100 m); 4 - geothermal water (temperature >40°C) and balneological water (salinity >100g/l, Br>600mg/l); 5 - geothermal anomaly (temperature >75°C, porosity ~5%, water salinity >170g/l, Br > 600 mg/l) 6 - oil prospects; 7 - ongoing oil exploitation

GEOBALTICA project data

Next event of CO2EAST project
Carbon Capture and Storage – Response to Climate Change Regional Workshop for CE and EE Countries27-28 February 2007 in Zagreb, Croatia Organised by: University of Zagreb Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering Pierottijeva 6, HR Zagreb, Croatia Workshop web-site: (after 20 Dec. 2006)

CO2 capture and geological storage - state of the art, ongoing projects EC FP6 EU GEOCAPACITY CO2 EAST and prospects for the Baltic region.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CO2 capture and geological storage - state of the art, ongoing projects EC FP6 EU GEOCAPACITY CO2 EAST and prospects for the Baltic region."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

CO2 capture and geological storage - state of the art, ongoing projects EC FP6 EU GEOCAPACITY CO2 EAST and prospects for the Baltic region.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CO2 capture and geological storage - state of the art, ongoing projects EC FP6 EU GEOCAPACITY CO2 EAST and prospects for the Baltic region."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback