© Amec Foster Wheeler 2016. - IOM3 CCS_James Wa… · Context - EU27 –Reduction by Technology...


Cleveland Institute of EngineersCarbon Capture and Storage

02 02 2016


3

► Overall drive is emission reduction

► Climate change driven

► Targets set globally for impact on mean temperature

► UK

► Commitment to 80% reduction by 2050

► All sectors impacted

► “Industry”

► 2013 – 87MtCO2e

► Has been declining since 1970

► Partly due to economics

► Needs to decarbonise as part of wider efforts

CCS and Emission Reduction


Context - EU27 – Reduction by Technology Type

For the 2°C – 4°C

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

EU27 Technology Type

European Union-Power generation efficiency and fuel switching-2DS-4DS

European Union-Nuclear-2DS-4DS

European Union-End-use fuel switching-2DS-4DS

European Union-End-use fuel and electricity efficiency-2DS-4DS

European Union-Renewables-2DS-4DS

European Union-Carbon capture and storage-2DS-4DS


5

► What options do we have

► Highly dependent on the

industrial sector

► But there are issues

► Sustainability

► Environmental

► Business

► Survivability

► Competition

► Economic disadvantages

► Decreased investment

► Ability to modify

► Stranded assets

► Locked in CO2 production

How do we achieve that?

► High level options

► Electricfication

► Fuel switching

► Feed stock switching

► Abatement

► New technology

► Energy saving

► Efficiency

► Integration

► Material efficiency


What is CCS?

It is not a single technology strand

► Carbon – technology that aims to decarbonise, prevent Carbon

based emissions from entering the atmosphere

► Capture – abatement or prevention technology step

► condition – treatment of captured carbon dioxide streams fro

transport and storage

► transport – via pipeline or ship (or other!)

► Storage – storage of captured Carbon Dioxide in a physical store

► Depleted hydrocarbon formations

► Deep saline formations

► re-use – re-use of the Carbon Dioxide for other purposes

► MMV – measuring, monitoring and verification

6 © Amec Foster Wheeler 2015.© Amec Foster Wheeler 2016.

Capture routes – a simplified picture

FEEDSTOCK

TREATMENT

CHEMICAL

PROCESS

PROCESS

EMISSIONS

CHEMICAL

PROCESS

PROCESS

EMISSIONS

CO2FEEDSTOCK

POWER AND

HEATCAPTURE

GASIFICATION

SHIFT, GAS

CLEANUP &

SEPARATION

POWER AND

HEATCO2 CONDITIONING,

DEHYDRATION AND

COMPRESSION

AIR

SEPARATION

POWER AND

HEATGAS CLEANUP

CO2

CO2

CO2

SYNGAS

AIR

STEAM

AIR

FUEL

AIR/OXYGEN

FUEL

FUEL

EMISSIONS

POTENTIAL FUEL STOCKS

FEEDSTOCK

POTENTIAL

FEEDSTOCK

10.635


Why is it important for Industry

► UK Carbon Dioxide Emission targets – 80% reduction by 2050

► UK “industry” emitted – 87MtCO2e in 2013

8

Energy Supply , 180.76

Business, 75.45

Transport, 115.69

Public, 9.49

Residential, 74.68

Agriculture, 4.93

Industrial Process ,

12.22 Land Use Change, -6.01Waste Management, 0.25

2013 UK Emissions, MtCO2e


ICCS and Teesside

9 © Amec Foster Wheeler 2016.

► Technical, technical options and cost information

► Looks at capture options on 4 sites

► Growhow

► Lotte

► SSI

► BOC HMU

► Transport Infrastructure

► 5 million tonnes per annum

► 15 million tonnes per annum

► Storage

► Offshore – Goldeneye (part of Peterhead CCS Project)

► Offshore – Endurance store, 5/42 (part of White Rose CCS Project)

► Non-technical

► Business case

► Economics

10

Teesside CollectiveIndustrial CCS Study


► Define the drivers/issues for each emitter

► Workshop the solutions

► Emitters constraints and drivers

► Business

► Site

► Process

► Screening criteria

► Options

► Options assessments

► High level look at possible options

► Screening

► Deeper look at selected options

► Basic engineering and costing of selected option or options

11

How did we do that?Industrial CCS Study


12

► SSI was the most complicated

case

► Number of

► Emission points

► Flows paths

► Energy pathways

► Issues with plant

► Distributed

► Old

► But typical of its generation of I &

S works.

SSI example


13

SSI Example

► Concept 1 –

Post

combustion

on new power

plant

► Concept 2 –

Pre-

combustion,

non-shifted

► Concept 3 –

Pre-

combustion

Shifted

Blue Sky Workshop Detailed Evaluation Down Selection


Option 1 DevelopmentSelected for costing

14

Attribute Outcome

Captured CO2 1.6 million te pa

209 te/hr (100barg)

Electrical Load 34 MWe

Heat demand 211 MWth

Reference Plant Boundary Dam

Attributes / issues End of Pipe Solution

Heat demand

Flue gas consistency

Areas for work during

FEED

Heat Integration with

wider site


Challenges

►Diverse point source in a steel works

► Compatible technology

►For SSI

► Addressing some of the more “problematic” streams/processes

► Cost

► Retrofit – can the work be done on plant that is significantly old?

► Space & distance in site

►Different challenges

► All sites are different

► What do you do for major existing plant?

► Reluctant to modify

► What can we do to reduce carbon input?

► What technology is coming forward (ULCOS, DRI)

► Need to address more challenging emissions


16

► Growhow – minimum issues

► Already produces pipeline quality Carbon Dioxide

► Required only compression

► BOC

► Minimum issues

► Some technology options to consider

► Lotte

► Smallest emitter

► Typical retrofit issues

► Some concern of heat requirements, but achievable

► Package units available at this size from US

Other Sites

ReformerCCP

Core

Plant

PS

A

CCP Utilities


Lotte

► PET plant

► PET is the basic material of plastic drink bottles

► Recently doubled capacity

► Carbon Dioxide is produced from heaters in the process

► Considered 13 options

► 5 moved to screening

► Amine plant selected

► Recovers 90%

► Issues

► Integration

► Impact of selection of an advanced amine – is other flue treatment required?

► Is it flexible enough

► Other learning

► non technical drivers key

► Clients have strong sustainability goals leading to other economic considerations

New

Plant

Existing

Plant

CCS


Transport

“Blue” Route

5MM tpa, 4 Sites“Big Blue”

15MM tpa,


Network - offshore

►Two options

► Shell Goldeneye (DHF) / Captain DSF

► NG 5/42 DSF (Deep Saline

Formation)

►Common shore landing

►No real issues

► Except that of the cost

►Assumed one or both would

succeed in the DECC competition

► Funding was withdrawn November

2015

► Both projects suspended

The economics?

►Difficult to assess the impact, but…

► Add £85 million to GVA/year

► Support an additional 350 jobs

► Ensuring industry remains in the UK

► 2,400 jobs in the 4 emitters

► 3,500 in their supply chain

► Contribute £290 million GVA directly

► £400 million in their supply chain

► That’s for just the 4 plants

►For 15 million tonnes/year

► 1,100 jobs

► Add £450 million GVA/year

►But the CAPEX costs are large

► £5.4 billion, £95/tonne over 20 years

► Individual costs vary from £16 to £302/tonne


Business Case Output

© Pale Blue Dot Ltd 2015

Teesside ICCS is technically & economically viable:

Scenario discounted capex cost ranges £0.8-£2.1bn

Over 20 years the entire ICCS Chain for the Reference

Scenario requires undiscounted financial support of £5.4bn

(£1.5bn PV7) equating to £95/T for 56.5mT CO2 stored. (13%

IRR. 7% Discount Rate)

Capture 47%, Gathering 3%, Offshore 50%

Trebling the infrastructure only requires an additional 8% of

support (£104m)

Financial Support

(£/T over 20 years)

Excluding Return Undiscounted PV7

Ammonia 25.5 8.4

Steel 30.5 10.1

Hydrogen 34.8 12.4

PET 116.7 42.8

Including Return Undiscounted PV7

Ammonia 37.4 10.5

Steel 45.3 12.7

Hydrogen 61.6 17.5

PET 214.9 61.6


Commercial Support Mechanism

23

Image Source:

Societe Generale

Three options for a Funding Mechanism

reviewed:

a Storage Mechanism Payment

a CO2 CfD Emitter Mechanism

a hybrid

© Pale Blue Dot Ltd 2015


► Retrofit options are varied

► Some are far easier than others

► Some processes may need to be completely rebuilt

► Others are simple to apply CCS to

► Support is needed

► Current technology is expensive

► Other studies emerging globally

► Repeated outcomes

► Same issues

► Outcomes of the industrial CCS work

► Positive outlook

► Deployable technology

► Cheaper in a cluster

24

Can we deploy industrial CCS?

Government

support is

still needed

Industry is

keen, sees the

future

problems they

face – CCS is

critical

Other things

can be done


25

► On 25th November HMG cancelled the current CCS program

► Withdrew a “ring-fenced” £1billion in HMG support

► No notice was given to the two projects

► Peterhead and White Rose are now cancelled

► These were the stores for Teesside

► The previous competition was cancelled in 2010

► 2012 second competition launched

► 2014 FEED studies

► 2016 Decision date

► 2019 Deployment

► Impacts

► Increased cost of emission reduction

► Pressure on other sectors

► Damage to sector confidence

What next?


James Watt

Process Engineering Manager

Amec Foster Wheeler

Lingfield Point

Darlington, DL1 1RW

Untied Kingdom

t: +441325 744652, e: [email protected]


© Amec Foster Wheeler 2016. - IOM3 CCS_James Wa… · Context - EU27 –Reduction by Technology...

Documents

Transcript of © Amec Foster Wheeler 2016. - IOM3 CCS_James Wa… · Context - EU27 –Reduction by Technology...